#especially when it’s like not tied to any specific behaviour or relationship or expectation | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ashesandhackles · 4 years ago

Text

The Hogwarts Express scene in Prince's Tale: A Sirius and Snape analysis

I really, really enjoy Sirius and Snape as characters and their respective narrative functions in story. But what gets me most about them is how much Rowling hints about their backgrounds and so much of it makes sense with regard to who they are as adults. So I am going to be breaking down a very small scene from Prince Tale and getting into long winded hypothesis about their respective childhoods.

So, let's start with Snape. The scene begins with Snape rushing to find Lily, already in his Hogwarts clothes. Harry notes he must have been eager to get out of his clothes - ones that look like he borrowed from his mother, as Petunia spitefully pointed out. This has always been a very interesting detail to me - first off, it indicates how poor Snape's family is. Second, this indicates his tiny rebellion from his father - he refuses to wear clothes of the abusive man, and prefers his mother's. I admit, I am partial to the reading that Snape refuses to associate with his father in tiny ways, rather than Tobias refusing to hand his son clothes.

(I have seen readings which say that it is also a sign of neglect - perhaps his parents bought clothes that simply don't fit him, but I am more inclined to think it's a hand me down, simply because Harry identifies so strongly with it. Because Harry knows what it is like to wear a hand me down that don't quite fit, that are too big for you, or the ones that make you look ridiculous.)

Lily and Petunia's relationship is fraught with Petunia's jealousy. And young Lily is upset over it when Snape meets her. "I am not talking to you. Tuney hates me" she tells him. "Because we saw the letter from Dumbledore". Young Lily shows signs of being extremely emotionally reactive and this scene is one of them. It's easier for her to deal with Petunia's rejection of her by telling Snape she doesn't want to talk to him. It's a childish displacement of her hurt over her sister's rejection. (I am genuinely baffled by interpretations that Lily and Hermione are similar. Hermione is very cognitive person, Lily, as we have been shown repeatedly in memories, is not).

Snape, however, with his bad history with Petunia and his inability/ poor social skills to understand why this matters to her, goes: "So what?"

Lily, who throws him a look of deep dislike, says "So she's my sister". This seed is important because this is what develops into "he doesn't get me" feeling she later displays in her teenage scenes with him. Interestingly, most of Lily's personal relationships have deeply interwined love and dislike - Petunia (whose rejection bothers her but she cheerfully informs Sirius that Harry nearly broke a vase her sister sent - which means there is resentment on her end too), James - who she was attracted to even before 7th year but also disliked at one point, and Snape - again, a contentious friendship filled with love and distance.

"She's only a -" we dont get to hear what Snape intended to say. And given his own acrimony with Petunia, it could be anything. However, I read it as "She's only a Muggle" because it ties into his feelings about his father. Snape, who is proud of being half a Prince, emphasizing his magical lineage from his mother's side, his refuge in a violent, neglectful home. (Barty Crouch Jr and Snape with their disappointing fathers - I imagine Voldemort is supremely attractive leader to people with broken homes like this)

Snape, by all accounts, shows a disorganised attachment style. His caregiver, his mother - and perhaps the only parent he seems to have regard for, is too preoccupied by her own abuse to be there for her son - we see this in glimpses Harry sees in OOTP: " woman cowering" where a man shouts at her, and a young, neglected Snape cries in the corner. Children born in homes like this have trouble regulating their emotions, simultaneously displaying tendencies to aggressively lash out or show disassociative symptoms. Both of which Snape displays. Statistically, this is also seen more in low income households where economic instability and resulting domestic instability creates an unsafe environment for the kids to safely form ideas of their identity, or express emotions in healthy ways, modelling instead out of behaviour seen at home.

Then, Snape reminds her that they are going to Hogwarts. He is already in his Hogwarts clothes - now, Snape gets to be the impressive figure. The one who told her about magic, who theorised about how Muggles get letters from magical people, the one who told her about Dementors and Azkaban. He has already left behind the Spinner's End version of him, he wants to bigger than that, and is keen to be in place of magical learning and to join Slytherin. Essentially, he shows signs of unstable identity, insecurity - all prime for grooming into a cult.

And here comes along James Potter, who looks around at the mention of Slytherin. James's comment uses Snape's line and directs it to Sirius instead and it becomes a conversation between them, as a way to bond more with a fellow "rowdy boy" Sirius. Effectively ignoring the other two.

Sirius as we see here, "does not smile" when James talks about Slytherin. He essentially says something that can be construed as a way to nip that conversation in bud: "My whole family has been in. Slytherin". This suggests to me that there is some loyalty to his family there and his disillusionment with them isn't entirely fixed yet. After all, Sirius's intense loyalty to his friends, more specifically James, did not come out of thin air. It is reasonable to suggest that he felt some loyalty to his family at some point and the intensity with which he regards his friends is a reaction to burned off and being a "displaced person without a family" as Rowling put it.

Interestingly, while his reaction to his mother and Bellatrix are obviously sore spots, his response to Regulus is comparatively quite soft. ("Stupid, idiot" - something he calls James later on in the same book, OOTP). I imagine Sirius has quite complicated feelings about his brother and he is capable of nuance (when the person isn't Snape, where his dislike seems to be borne of an intense projection): "The world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters". As someone who is grown up among them, Sirius would understand that.

His framing of Regulus's need to please his parents also further highlights what exactly is the source of disillusionment. He calls Regulus "soft enough to believe them" - which means he is crediting his own intelligence to see through his parents bigoted world view. Clearly, bigotry is not something the Blacks explained in a way that Sirius, eldest of their male line and their heir, bought it. It also probably didn't help the Blacks case that Grimmauld Place is in a Muggle neighborhood and that their eldest son is a bit of a wild boy with interest in pushing boundaries. His intellectual disconnect leads to the righteous rage he later feels but it began there. (Boy, it must suck to discover that everything you have been taught to value in the world and in yourself as the heir is essentially rubbish). Since his differences with his family began with seeds of intellectual disconnect rather than on intense empathy with downtrodden, it makes him, as a pureblooded privileged boy, unable to truly understand Lupin's fears regarding his lycanthropy. Hence, the Werewolf prank (I am not getting to the Snape bit, just the Lupin bit). To James' credit, he does understand what that means for Lupin and saves all three of them from different set of consequences.

Anyway, back to the scene. James, who has made an ass of himself in front of his new friend, who he was getting along with fine until now, then goes "Blimey, I thought you seemed alright". (Btw, I find James wildly large ego kind of hilarious here, especially in light of Snape's comment about him to Sirius in OOTP: "You will know he is so arrogant that criticism simply bounces off him"). Sirius, who I believe has been raised like "royalty" as Blacks would, has good enough social skills to defuse a situation. He grins and says: "Maybe I will break the tradition".

This line is an indication of Sirius's desire for independence, an identity seperate from his family. The use of the word "tradition" is interesting. It sounds like Sirius is expected to behave in a certain way, the heir of Black family whose parents thought being a Black "made you practically royal". Adult Sirius is contemptuous of this, or their "valuable contribution to Ministry" which means they just gave gold - it tells me that any and all conditions put on him by his family were to fulfill tradition that is either worthless or holds no meaning in his eyes. The root of the emotional abuse Sirius suffers from his family is this - realising his parents love for him is conditional on him being a certain way. (In fact, you can read Regulus desire to emphasise his connection to the family as a reaction to what he sees with Sirius - Sirius does not behave, Mum and Dad don't love him). As a child with unconscious knowledge of lack of love, Sirius then acts out, they react, rinse and repeat "until he has had enough". Sirius chafes against boundaries well into adulthood and doesn't react well to people enforcing it on him, even if it is out of love for him. Cue the fire scene with Harry where he behaves as if Harry is rejecting him instead of protecting him.

Sirius asks James about where he wants to go, and Snape, who is incensed about James being insulting about a House he put stock in, which he made part of new identity (so that he is no longer that Snape boy from Spinner's End) and was in general trying to be impressive about in front of Lily, "makes a disparaging noise" once James talks of Gryffindor. Snape's response to James' : "Got a problem with that?" is interesting. He says: "If you'd rather be brawny, rather than brainy-"

This is an important value for Snape. He knows he is clever and values it. He spends his spare time inventing hexes, making great shortcuts to Potions. He has genuine thirst for learning and he hones it. In SWM, we see that he has written far more longer answers than anyone else, he is poring over his paper after exams. He even mocks Hermione's lack of inventive answers: "Answer copied word to word from the textbook, but correct in essentials". He values originality. It may be me stretching this, but I am partial to the reading: this is his way of rejecting his father once again, who is implied to be a violent man. (in other words, someone who is hypermasculine - "brawny". In fact, Snape's rejection of hypermasculinity is a huge post on it's own - Potions (brewing, cauldrons - coded as feminine arts), the doe Patronus, his proficiency in Occlumency and Legliemency (intuitive mind arts, again seen archetypically feminine) etc).

"Where are you hoping to go, seeing as you are neither?" - Sirius is quick with emotionally cutting insults. Snape hasn't even finished his sentence, but Sirius is already on his case. Which suggests growing up in a household with sharp tongues. It's a fair assumption, given Mrs Black's half mad portrait. It also tallies with Sirius's talking about his mother: "My mother didn't have a heart Kreacher, she kept herself alive out of pure spite" . The wounds are fresh enough on this. (Another interesting way Snape and Sirius act as inverse mirrors - Snape rejects his father, Sirius rejects his mother. Sirius acts as proxy for James for Harry while Snape takes on Lily's role of protecting him). However, you know who else is spiteful? Sirius.

While James is the physical bully (the tripping Snape, doing most of the bullying in SWM), Sirius attacks emotionally. ( Sample the one about Snape's appearance - "I was watching him, his nose was touching the parchment, there will be great grease marks all over it, they won't be able to read a word" or even the carelessly vicious- "Put that away, before Wormtail wets himself in excitement"). Curiously, with all that talk of how his mother being spiteful, it's her room he spends time in when he is depressed. (Again, in inverse mirror way, we can talk of how Snape looks for a father figure in Dumbledore - craves his validation and is proud of Dumbledore's trust in him). We could argue it's also because Buckbeak is there, and perhaps it's the largest room in the house, but it's very telling that's where Sirius spends time when he is "in a fit of sullens". Sirius's sense of abandonment from his family, makes him look for family connections with friends - a trait he shares with Harry. Interestingly, the first time he glimpses Harry in Privet Drive, Harry is also running away from home - just like he did. Anyway, I could go on.

757 notes · View notes

wataeichis · 3 years ago

Text

eichi and autism : by an autistic eichiP

autism is majorly separated into a few different symptom categories: socialization, thought and behaviour, and sensory difficulties, as well as some other things - I’ll be going over how I think some of these relate to Eichi, as well as reflecting on parts and how they relate to my experience as an autistic individual. However, it can be difficult to quote stories with them being removed from the wiki, so please bear with me here.

(Prepare for this to make no sense to anyone else, as it was not exactly written in a formal/essay format, nor has it been properly edited at all. this is basically just one long rant)

To start off with socialization: on the wiki, Eichi is described as “clumsy with basic social concepts like friendship, and he is long-winded and dramatic from having socialized mainly with movies and books.” While this can largely be accounted for due to his extended stay in a hospital as a child and away from other kids, I think it’s important to note that a lot of autistic children learn socialization through mimicking media. It can be a habit that kids use to first get a grasp on how you're “supposed” to act, but usually is something people grow out of, which Eichi has not. He still seems to rely on dramatic media he grew up with as a 19 year old in the !! era, as well as being awkward or blunt at times when trying to be “normal.”

It’s difficult for Eichi to understand and get along with other people. Initially, we see this during the war with Tsumugi. He doesn’t realize that Tsumugi truly wanted a friendship with him, and instead assumes he was just there for the money. As well as later on, he doesn’t seem to understand that Wataru wants to truly be his friend, something that could usually be accounted for as simple insecurity, if not for how unusual it seems. The two of them are consistently referred to as being very attached, and have many moments where they detail their closeness for one another, yet Eichi still seems to insist they’re not that close. To me, this feels like another instance similarly to Tsumugi, where he doesn’t realize that they're actually friends..

With socialization comes communication. Though most sources I see say those with autism can have difficulties with speech, myself included at times, I also know from experience that the majority of the oddities in my speech flagged during my own autism assessment was formal speech patterns. This is something I think is interesting to reference since Eichi is rather articulate and formal - however, this isn’t as relevant as it’s also kind of expected from being someone from such a high-class family.

A final aspect I’d like to mention regarding socialization is his line about how he’s never been in love. During my assessment, I was asked if I’d ever been in love, if I knew what love was supposed to feel like, if I knew what people in love were supposed to even do - all of which I’d answered no to. In a largely allistic society it can be difficult to understand what love is supposed to be like, especially when you're surrounded by media that portrays the feeling in a magical sense. Autistic people can often have little to none attraction, or they simply experience it in a different sense to other people. For myself, it feels difficult to label myself as apart of the aroace spectrum, as my lack of attraction feels so tied in with my autistic identity. We don’t know the specifics, but I relate a lot to this line of Eichi’s as he seems to struggle with this attraction, and how connected he is with media surely doesn’t help with how if he does experience love, its different than how the media portrays it.

Going off of that, it seems like part of Eichi’s relationship with media is very connected. He couldn’t think of any other way to accomplish his goal for Yumenosaki without being dramatic and hurting people along the way, which I think fits in with not understanding other people. Despite this, he always does display a greater understanding of media such as plays by often referencing media or understanding others’ references - in a lot of autistic people’s experiences, media is easier to understand than real people.

His thoughts and behaviour are evidently influenced more by media than his own instincts, part of this is easily referenceable on the wiki in his trivia section:

“Eichi has the ability to mimic anything nearly perfectly if he's observed it closely enough, including circus stunts and dance moves. Conversely, Eichi has also remarked that he struggles with being creative.” This statement, along with how earlier it was referenced that he has a habit of being dramatic, it seems a lot of his life has been spent mimicking media or things he comes across, which I referenced being an autistic trait as many autistic people tend to copy things they see to figure out how to act. “Being creative” is a large pointer towards autism for me, as being a top idol you’d assume he’d have more creativity, yet he struggles in a large aspect of it that is mostly a large pointer towards autistic children who struggle to play creatively, and even during my assessment as a 17 year old I had to try and display creative factors, which I generally lacked in.

My reference of “media” here for Eichi can also just be idols in general, such as other things he sees around Yumenosaki and not just idols on TV. After the Tanabata Festival, most easily referenced with the scene in the anime when he is sitting with Wataru, Eichi is displaying this mimicking once more with how he immediately is amazed with Shu’s performance, mimicking the shape of his hands and the sound of the music.

Carrying off of media and onto interests, I’ve seen a few different people have different explanations for what they think could be Eichi’s special interest, two of which I will review.

I’ve seen a theory for tea being his special interest, in the different types of tea and such and that's why he started the tea club. While I do agree this is definitely an interest of his, I think his special interest is more likely the point below

Idols! Eichi loves idols, he always has, and he strives to be a popular idol despite knowing how his physical condition doesn’t quite agree with that. He started the war out of his love for idols, wishing to protect the idol industry by protecting Yumenosaki, a school which is a very influential power in the idol industry, but had been tainted throughout his first year spent in the hospital. After graduation, he didn’t just go on to be an idol, he went on to create a space for idols - Ensemble Square - and his own agency, wanting to spend every hour of his day surrounded by idols. In my experience, allistic people don’t tend to be this intense about their interests, but I could be wrong since… I don’t know what it's like to be allistic! It’s common for autistic people to only stick to their interests, things they enjoy and things that bring them comfort, and it seems very obvious to me that this is something Eichi is doing with idols.

(A little note on interests: autistic people have a habit of info-dumping or monologuing about things they enjoy… which we all should know by now Eichi has a habit of doing.)

Another thing I see in Eichi is a tendency to stick to routine. While he does love Wataru’s surprises, he seems most comfortable sticking to routines in his day-to-day life. “Eichi day”, a day for members of fine to take off and do things, seems to be a planned day, as opposed to impulse plans. While he could easily go and do things with them on a random free afternoon, having a planned day off in advance, he sticks to the comfort of the routine.

Rigid thinking is something easily seen if you look into his actions during the war. Despite admiring the oddballs as idols, he appointed them as the “bad” part of the idol industry and what had lead to the declining quality of Yumenosaki, and saw the student council as the “good” that needed to exist to return the school to it’s prior state. Regardless of how each side has both good and bad factors, as well as any middle ground positions he failed to consider, it’s very obvious he was thinking in a very black and white manner, as both good and bad and nothing as grey, leading him to do what he did during the war.

With autistic people, having a flat/expressionless face is rather common. This is such a small feature, but it’s something I’ve always noticed having Eichi in my office and would like to bring up. In comparison to other characters, Eichi’s office chibi doesn’t appear to be as happy as others do, such as Rei.

In anime, it can be difficult to find characters who seem to display any sensory issues related to autism, regardless of how autistic-coded they may seem otherwise. However, one thing comes to mind with Eichi. In the anime, when he’s sat beside Yuzuru and watching the Ryuseitai performance, he’s rocking back and forth. This could be a subconscious action, something he doesn’t realize he’s doing as he’s distracted but may usually try and repress, but I always found this scene delightful for that. It’s a common stim for me, and regardless of why Eichi is doing it, it's always lovely to see.

Disclaimer: this is not a complete list, nor is it definitive. I personally see a lot of my own symptoms in Eichi and wanted to share what I’ve been seeing as some food for thought for other people. Don’t come for me if you interpreted any of this as something else or think I’m wrong I’m not here for criticism thanks this is purely self indulgent

#ant talks #enstars #ensemble stars #eichi tenshouin #tenshouin eichi #autism #im not accepting criticism hes autistic to me and i know him best

53 notes · View notes

adviceformefromme · 3 years ago

Note

I have a big problem with messaging. I often get so stressed after sending a text (especially with a message that’s important to our relationship or important to me) that I can’t function or be present until the person replies. This problem is magnified if they just “seen” me. It’s only a problem with my ex girlfriend and some close friends. I know it just happens with them but I don’t think it’s got anything to do with them at all and wish that it didn’t happen with them. I think our relationships would be better if it didn’t. I know people have lives and I don’t want to expect them to reply straight away or even reply at all. People have their own stuff going on and that’s great. Yet, I just can’t function when I send a message and really can’t if it gets “seened.” I feel incredibly toxic to myself. It kind of feels like it’s tied to my self worth, that my worth is dependent upon them replying. Any tips?

This a great question, and something I have personally overcome in the past. But I promise you it’s something you can totally overcome with time, effort, and dedication. If you’re committed to your healing and stepping out of this energy you can overcome anything. Practical steps for overcoming text/whatsapp/ left on read anxiety: 1. Stop chasing people. If you're chasing an ex, a guy, a friend, a job. The recipient can feel that energy, even if the message is playing it cool, even if you take your time to respond, people can literally feel whats going on on a subconscious level. Chasing, seeking, needing is a repelling energy. It’s important to get your energy right so you’re not expecting anything in return when you communicate. Focus on raising your vibration so you’re not sending out the wrong frequency when you send a message. This could look like going for a run, to a yoga class, dancing it out. Journalling, doing what you need to do to get your energy right. If you don’t know how to raise your vibration that is the first thing you need to figure out. Communicating from anything less than a good place will only lead to anxiety and neediness. 2. Start seeing those triggering moments of anxiety and panic when you don’t get a reply as blessing. Make the hurt and pain you feel about you. Not about the person who is ignoring you. You are literally being shown where you need to heal. Next time you get triggered, write down what emotions are coming up for you. Rejection, abandonment, insecure, unsafe etc. Once you notice your emotions, you can use these for your healing work later on. You can reverse these emotions daily by using affirmations to write a new story. “I am safe, I am loved, I am cherished, I am wanted, I love me, I am enough”. If you can get some prayer beads you can use these to help run through the affirmations which will start to re-programme your subconscious mind. 3. Start journaling with your inner child. There is a wounded little you inside that is feeling unsafe and unwanted. You have to learn to re-parent your inner child. Whatever happened to you in your past is unhealed and that’s why you're feeling so triggered. Use a journal or your phone to open dialogue with your inner child, it sounds crazy, but in those moments of deep pain and hurt this works like magic. Your inner child wants to be seen, it wants to know they are safe, protected. Ask questions like “how are you feeling, what do you need from me, how can i support you” you will get the answers. Your inner child will respond. Close the dialogue by telling your inner child you love them and are here for them. This was the first book I read on inner child and it really helped me alot. 4. Start showing yourself love. What would your life look like if you really loved you? If you truly loved your body, would you eat the food you do? If you loved and respected your time, would you spend your day how you do? If you really loved your life would you be living it how you live? You can write a new story, make this next chapter of your life truly special. Get clear on how you sabotage your life on a daily basis, and start injecting things you love and showing yourself love and your life will change. The universe will respond to your energy. This might seem disconnected to your whatsapp pain but its all connected. When you feel good and love yourself, you send out a different energy, you move out of the old energy and into a new space. You respond differently, you feel different. 5. Seek therapy, I know this isn’t possible for everyone as it can be expensive, but if you can get therapy I recommend it. A therapist can work through your past traumas and help you heal (specifically cognitive behavioural therapy). Other healing options, energy healers (reiki), meditation, guided mediations on youtube, reading, journaling, finding a mentor. I hope this helps, DM me if you need more support. 💕

#anxietyrelief #self healing #dailynotes levelup growth success lawofattraction

114 notes · View notes

this-is-quite-homoerotic · 4 years ago

Note

Yo! What did you think of the Expectant audio? I think it's the only TW audio that I listened to and thought mmm, that could've been so much more :( I get that it needed to have action and adventure but it kinda felt really obvious that the writer wasn't comfortable with Barrowman's dream. I think I expected better after how good so many audios like Broken have been :(

I’ll forgo spoilers in the first part for those who haven’t listened to the audio but might be interested in seeing a review, but there’ll be spoilers under the cut!

Anon, I agree with you! It definitely could have been so much better. I actually like the concept of the audio a lot, but the execution was... not to my taste, let’s say. To be fair, it really is a matter of taste, I personally didn’t like the humour, it did not mesh well with my sensibilities, though I also think it felt... outdated? I’m talking specifically about the sense of humour here.

The kind of jokes they made felt like something I might have found funny in the early 2000s when I didn’t know any better, before I examined some of the tropes/messages/expectations I’d absorbed from society and media (more about this under the cut because spoilers). The thing that bothered me the most about it was that it felt to me like the humour in it had not caught up to 2020 sensibilities, and Expectant is, first and foremost, a comedy piece. So if the humour’s failing then that’s a big problem.

Your mileage may vary, though, humour is a matter of taste after all. Interestingly, I actually think John Barrowman enjoyed the script and had fun getting to act it out? This is just the impression I got (certainly, he might have played it a bit differently if he didn’t), and I think this might be a generational thing as well as a matter of taste and sense of humour.

Spoilers below

As I said, I actually love the general concept of the audio: Jack, grieving and at a loss for what to do in the face of losing half his team, offers to carry an old alien friend’s child for them when political scheming means the unborn child might be in danger, in the hopes of ensuring the child’s safety, political stability for several planets, and (it is implied) as a symbol of hope that there’s good things in the universe too, not just loss and devastation.

There are obvious obstacles to Jack carrying a pregnancy while still being an active Torchwood agent, which is an interesting and fun thing that’s explored from the first scene: Jack has got used to being immortal and doing his job might well get him killed. Normally this isn’t a problem but if he dies while pregnant the baby can die too. But Torchwood is understaffed and still adapting to being a three-person team, so Jack has agreed to carrying the baby only if he can keep on working.

An interesting premise, vaguely tied in with a big moment from the show and the emotional fallout which wasn’t explored much in the show itself (Tosh and Owen’s deaths and how they affected Jack), some stakes from the get-go, plus a new original alien character (Jonty). So far, so good.

There are two main things that got in the way of me enjoying the audio: 1) how Jack was depicted as being hysterical during the pregnancy (and this being played for laughs), and 2) the indirect fatshaming (literally why, this was so unnecessary).

In the first case, they decided to write Jack as so emotionally unbalanced by the hormonal changes of the pregnancy that he had severe mood swings, with him breaking down crying supposedly triggered by insignificant things (like when he cries over a cupcake? Or something similar, I can’t be bothered to check). Jack having a meltdown would not be a bad thing to explore in an audio, except it felt to me as though they were using it as a joke? Like a “ha ha look how messed up he is by being pregnant, he’s so hormonal and out of control, isn’t that hilarious? Isn’t it so funny that this character is breaking down like a hormonal woman? Isn’t his pain just the funniest thing you’ve heard? :))))” (Sidenote but I also felt like John Barrowman overacted in these scenes, it didn’t sound like he was crying, it sounded like he was play-acting crying, and that didn’t help.)

The second thing was the whole fat camp-style spa subplot. While trying to get Jack to safety, Jonty takes Jack, who is heavily pregnant and showing, to a ““health spa”“ (read: weight-loss place) where Jack is put under a strict unhealthily-restrictive diet (especially given that he’s pregnant??), controlled by the overbearing spa lady (she literally takes food off his hands and watches him like a hawk to make sure he doesn’t “”overeat””), repeatedly fat-shamed, and this is all presented as a funny gag, presumably because he’s not really fat, he’s just pregnant! But people don’t know because he’s male/male-presenting, so all the micro-aggressions and abuse he’s subjected to are funny, right? Jack not being allowed to eat despite being hungry and heavily-pregnant is totally something to laugh at, surely (/s).

Disclaimer: this is not actually portrayed as though the fat-shaming is righteous and just behaviour, it’s sort of implied that the “”health-nuts”“ running the place were obsessive and weird, but that doesn’t change the fact that the whole subplot could have been something else entirely? Like, they obviously thought this was funny. Also, I won’t get into specifics but I am personally sensitive to these issues, so I can definitely see how some people might not be turned off by this at all; as I said, your mileage may vary and this is my own take on it.

So, these are my main issues with the audio. I don’t think the writer was uncomfortable with the concept as you say, Anon; I’d actually argue the opposite. It’s just that their take on it and their sense of humour were maybe not very in-tune with modern sensibilities (or with mine, at least) and the story suffered for it.

They took a look at the idea (a male/male-presenting character being pregnant) and came up with the worst tired comedy tropes for it: mood swings (and the resulting distress) played up for laughs, an emphasis on how big the character got being made fun of/criticised with an incomprehensible fatshaming subplot, they even threw in a reference that Jack’s previous pregnancy (mentioned in his first line in ep 1 of Torchwood) was a student prank (because men being pregnant is funny, I guess). Okay, that last one is a bit unfair, I just didn’t like it. They could have made Jack’s first pregnancy something meaningful (him carrying a friend’s child as a surrogate out of love for that friend, him carrying his own child born out of a relationship, etc.) but instead they made it into a cheap one-liner joke, and yeah it does fit into the tone of the audio, but that’s the problem: I did not like the overall tone of it.

There were some scenes with Ianto that were nice, and a couple of Owen and Tosh mentions that I enjoyed, and it’s interesting that you mention the action and adventure in your ask because I actually didn’t mind those aspects at all? The action was fine with me, it was the non-action parts mostly that bothered me (the emotional tone and sense of humour like I said).

This is probably more thoughts that you wanted but I was quite disappointed with this one (and I was so looking forward to canon mpreg), so I thought I’d take the opportunity to explain why. I do acknowledge that it was a matter of my own sense of humour and sensibilities not meshing well with the writer’s (I just checked and to my shock the writer is a woman; I would have put money on them being a cis man).

This one missed the mark with me. Badly.

#Torchwood #Expectant (Torchwood)#Big Finish releases #meta #asks #my ramblings

40 notes · View notes

cinaja · 4 years ago

Text

Before the Wall part 42

Masterlist

----

Two months after Miryam and Drakon decided to attempt a relationship, they are sitting are sitting in Miryam’s drawing room together with Andromache and Zeku. Miryam and Drakon share a seat on the couch while Zeku and Andromache each took one of the armchairs. Between them, papers lie strewn out over a table. They are preparing for the meeting tomorrow, coordinating their opinions and making sure that they all agree on what to do any say.

The four of them are the usual group for meetings like this. Miryam is obviously there, although not in her function as de-facto leader of the Alliance, but as leader of their fraction. (Officially, there are no fractions in the Alliance, but in reality, they very much exist. Miryam’s is the biggest, consisting of all the humans – at least since she put her quarrel with Nakia aside – as well as those Fae who actually care about equality.) Andromache is there for the humans (not technically their leader, but while Scythia under Nakia is in charge of the military, Andromache spearheads politics) and Zeku for the Fae (not their leader at all, but closest to Miryam). Drakon isn’t there to represent anyone, but he wrote the proposal they are discussing, which means he has been invited to these meetings lately.

What they are discussing today is the sixth draft of Drakon’s original proposal, and somehow, he doubts that it will be the last one. They keep quarrelling over territory lines and new power positions, discussing the same points over and over again. By now, they have at least agreed that each of the Loyalist territories will be forced to yield part of their territory proportionally to the human population, allowing the humans to form independent territories. Other points remain less secure.

“Why are there no reparations specified in that contract?” Zeku asks.

“There are,” Drakon says, “Section three. Each freed slave is allowed to take as much they can carry from their owner’s household. And there will be trials for atrocities the enemies committed.”

Miryam shifts through her copy of the proposal. She is leaning against Drakon, he has an arm around her shoulders. In the beginning, they were hesitant about how much affection they could show in public, with only Andromache, Mor, Sinna and Nephelle knowing the truth, but by now, they are nearly certain that no one notices anything strange about their behaviour. (“What did you expect?” Nephelle asked, laughing, when he mentioned it to her. “You two were close enough already that the difference is near-impossible to notice.”)

“Yes, sure.” Zeku picks up a grape from the plate. “But what about reparations paid to the winner? It is common for the defeated party to somehow compensate the other side for the costs of war.”

Drakon sighs. He knew this would come, knew the Fae especially would likely disagree. “There hasn’t been a war of a comparable scale in millennia,” he says. “The entire Continent is in ruin. If we force the Loyalist countries to pay for this, we’ll bankrupt them for centuries.”

Neither Miryam nor Andromache look particularly disturbed at the thought. Andromache shrugs. “So what? Much as I appreciate your generosity, I don’t particularly care if the Loyalists have economic problems after this.”

“You will if you consider the long-term consequences,” Drakon says. He sincerely hopes he doesn’t sound like he’s defending the Loyalists. “I’m not saying this out of sympathy for the ither side, but because I don’t want us to get dragged into another war in a few decades or centuries.”

Zeku frowns at him. “Aren’t you exaggerating a little there? This has been common practice for millennia.”

“And every time the victor when too far, another war was the consequence . Take Akele and Merin,” he says, referring to two territories on the western Continent that have been locked in war for just over a thousand years. It all started when Akele defeated Merin in war and bled the country dry for compensation.

He looks around at the others. “The Loyalists’ economy is built around slavery – without it, it will struggle. If we add huge debts to that, it will collapse entirely.” He looks to Andromache and Miryam, who don’t seem upset at all. “I realize that this may not feel like a bad thing – even I would like to see them pay, and I have far less cause than you do. But any satisfaction this might bring won’t last, because if we do this, we’ll never have true peace. We will need constant military presence in the former Loyalist countries, we will have to keep them down for eternity. Because the moment we relax our guard, they will strike back.”

Miryam and Andromache exchange another look. Now, they do seem concerned. Zeku presses his lips together and looks down at his fingers.

“That won’t be easily sold to the Fae,” he warns.

“Or the humans,” Andromache adds.

Miryam frowns. “Are you sure about this?” She asks.

Drakon considers for a moment, then nods. “We can’t push the Loyalists completely to the ground,” he says. “If we abolish slavery and then let them all fall into poverty, they will always wish to go back to the times before this war. There will be no moving on.”

“It isn’t just the economy, though,” Andromache says. “It’s not like they enslave us out of necessity – “ Drakon flinches and she shakes her head. “Don’t look at me like that, I know that wasn’t what you were saying. But still. The problem is that they think us lesser. And that won’t change if we allow them to keep their economy.”

Yes, Drakon knows this. But finding a way to end bigotry that has been festering in Fae society for millennia seems nearly impossible. He’s just over thirty years old, and he’s expected to solve a millennia-old problem? All he can do is identify the biggest possible pitfalls and try to find solutions, but he has no way of knowing if those will actually work. It’s not ideal, but he doesn’t know another way to approach this than to work step by step.

“Humans will have their own countries,” he says. “If we manage to establish that as the status quo, it will be a solid first step. Then we work on establishing trade between the human and Fae countries. Trading partners rarely attack each other – it isn’t good for the economy. And trade always brings countries and people closer together.”

Many of the Loyalists, of course, wouldn’t be pleased by the idea of trading with the humans. But that’s another thing they agreed upon – the Loyalist countries would be put under Alliance administration for the time being. Rulers would need to be replaced with ones more open to the new course, and the Alliance would maintain a presence until things had stabilized.

Miryam flips through the pages of Drakon’s proposal. “There’s also the section about adding a clause to Continental law that allows full legal protection to all humans,” she says. “We’d just need to find a way to get that law put into action, but otherwise, it should help.”

Zeku nods. He has opened his copy and is studying the lines, frowning. Drakon pours himself a glass of water and takes a sip. These discussions are nerve-wracking. It’s entirely different from having to work out a text for university and then discussing it with the other students. Then, it was only about a grade, maybe his father’s approval. Now, it’s the entire continent at stake. Miryam takes his hand and squeezes, smiling at her.

“I know this isn’t entirely the subject,” Zeku says without looking up from the paper, “But would it be possible to include lesser faeries in that law?”

Drakon bites back a curse. Of course, how could he forget about that? When he was still in university, most of the essays he wrote were about the situation faeries face, especially in countries like Montesere. But now, his focus was entirely on the humans – enough that he forgot about the second group of people who aren’t treated as equal on the Continent.

“Don’t they have legal protection already?” Andromache asks.

Zeku shakes his head. “Not in general Continental law. It’s up to their countries to decide which rights they have, but outside of that, the situation is unclear.”

Andromache frowns. “But aren’t you and Drakon…” She pauses. “Can I say ‘lesser faeries’? It sounds disrespectful.”

“I believe that’s the point,” Zeku says drily. His blue skin darkens considerably. “But if you’d like to avoid that, you can simply say ‘faeries’.”

Andromache nods. “Okay. So, you’re both faeries, not High Fae. You’re still royalty.”

“We’re similar enough in power and looks that they don’t mind us as much,” Zeku says. Drakon nods in confirmation.

Privilege on the Continent has always been largely tied to power. Humans don’t have any, High Fae have the most. Most faeries lie somewhere in between, powerful in their own rights, but with abilities that are largely tied to the land and far more specific than those of the High Fae. Both Drakon’s and Zeku’s people have strong elemental powers, though – more High Fae-like – and most people simply pretend they are High Fae.

“I’ll include something,” Drakon says.

He can’t believe he didn’t think of it himself. He knows about the issues faeries face all over the Continent as well as Zeku does. Both Sangravah and Erithia have laws that grant faeries equal rights and, consequently, far larger faerie populations than most other countries.

“We can include that?” He asks, turning to Miryam and Andromache. “Right?”

“Sure,” Andromache says. “Wouldn’t do for us to win this war and abolish slavery only for these asshole High Fae to turn around and enslave a different species.”

Miryam looks down at the proposal and smiles. “If we get this to work,” she says, “we’re truly going to change the world.”

----

Mor runs a hand through her hair. She spent most of the day sitting in her tent in Andromache’s camp, looking through a book her uncle’s servants dug up from somewhere inside the Hewn City. Ever since the High Lord mentioned the possible uses of her gift to her, she tried to find out as much as possible about it.

Unfortunately, most of the texts regarding the Morrigan powers belong to the private collection of Mor’s family, meaning her father, and ancient contracts forbid even the High Lord from accessing those and the last Morrigan died over a century before Mor was born, and as far as mor knows, he didn’t have any special abilities either.

Truth is deadly, Mor reads, Truth is freedom. Truth can break and mend and bind. The author, Mor has decided, has an unfortunate flair for being dramatic and overly poetic instead of helpful. Pages upon pages and not a single solid explanation of what Mor’s powers do, much less how they are used.

“Stupid book,” Mor mutters and closes it.

“I don’t understand why you’re so fascinated by this,” Andromache says. She’s lying on her stomach on Mor’s bed, papers strewn out over the pillow before her.

“Wouldn’t you be fascinated if you found out you might be in possession of powers like these?”

Andromache purses her lips and shrugs. “No.”

“No?” Mor echoes. “Not even a little bit?”

“No.” Andromache picks up a letter and starts methodically ripping it apart. “Humans don’t have powers, and I, for my part, am perfectly content with it.”

Mor frowns. She heard this philosophy from quite a few humans already, but she never quite believed it. It always seemed more like the kind of thing people would say to console themselves over the fact that they don’t have any magic.

“Besides,” Andromache continues, “I have yet to meet a person who was overly powerful and happy with it. Discounting complete assholes like Artax, obviously.”

“Rhys isn’t unhappy,” Mor says, “And Miryam isn’t either.”

Andromache makes a noise that might be interpreted as agreement, but she remains silent. She turns her attention to the next letter and starts ripping it apart as well.

“And now you want to be like Miryam?” She asks. She still sounds sceptical, not at al like she’s pleased with Mor’s plans.

Mor shrugs. She obviously doesn’t want to be exactly like Miryam. But she genuinely cannot see what is so wrong with wanting to be similar, especially when it comes to power. Who wouldn’t want that? Miryam is untouchable. Everyone likes and respects her. She can walk into the Night Court and simply get a girl like Mor out of there without any consequences. That is what power gets you. If Mor had power, she would not only be safe, but also able to help others.

But maybe Andromache truly doesn’t see it. She’s a queen, after all. She never was as powerless as Mor.

“I simply don’t understand this,” Andromache pushes when Mor remains silent. At least she doesn’t say ´I don’t understand you`. “I’ve never known you to care about power.”

Mor crosses her arms. Somehow, Andromache makes her feel like she’s done something wrong when she really hasn’t. “Maybe I just want to know what I’m capable of.”

Andromache swings her legs over the edge of the bed and gets up. “Then do that,” she says. “Just make sure you don’t end up finding more than you wanted to. Or playing directly into what your uncle wants.” She walks over to Mor and kisses her briefly before making for the exit. “I need to deal with a few problems,” she says. “Good luck with your researches.”

“Thanks,” Mor mutters, looking after her as she walks out of the tent.

She presses her lips together. They didn’t argue, not exactly, but she still feels like Andromache is somehow upset with her. Mor doesn’t want her to be upset, but at the same time, she doesn’t see what she was doing wrong. When Miryam was looking into her powers, no one told her not to. Why is it different for Mor?

Scowling, she looks down at the book. This certainly isn’t going to help her. She had considered asking Miryam for advice, but after Andromache’s reaction, she doesn’t feel confident in that strategy anymore. This leaves her to figure out how to handle her powers on her own.

No books and no help to be had. That means all that’s left is trial-and-error.

----

“What are you so annoyed about?” Yanis asks as they walk together through the camp.

“I’m not annoyed,” Andromache mutters, even though she technically is.

“Sure you are,” Yanis says. “I’m your best friend – you think I don’t notice?”

Andromache smiles and swats at his arm. Unfortunately, Yanis really does know her well enough that he’s impossible to lie to. They’ve been friends since their childhood, both children of advisors to the last queen, who later picked Andromache to be her successor. Yanis joined the royal guard, which means that now, a few years down the line, he is one of her guards.

“I had an…” Not an argument, not quite. “A disagreement with Mor.”

She doesn’t even know why she is this angry with Mor. Maybe it’s because she keeps thinking of how much Miryam struggles with her powers and can’t fathom the sheer stupidity of anyone wanting that for themselves.

Or maybe it’s because Mor’s entire approach to the situation is so distinctly Fae, wanting power for power’s sake, only to further their own standing. If she at least said that she was trying to get more powerful so that she could help them win this war, Andromache might have accepted it, but Mor just seemed to want power, and maybe Andromache is simply too human to understand that.

“Oh.” Yanis makes a face. “Do you want to talk about it?”

Andromache quietly shakes her head. She usually tells Yanis everything that’s going on in her life. He even knows about her relationship with Mor, by virtue of being the one who is currently pretending to be her lover to cover for them. But this is not her secret alone, and she doesn’t even know if Mor is comfortable with other people hearing about it.

“So, do you want to do anything to take your mind off the matter?” Yanis asks. “We could go sparring.”

“I’d love to, but I need to visit Jurian.”

Ever since Jurian stopped talking to Miryam, Andromache made a point to visit him at least once a week. Miryam makes sure his camp keeps running smoothly, and Andromache does her best to keep Jurian company. These days, she seems to be the only one whose company he can stomach. It isn’t always easy with him, but there’s no way Andromache is going to abandon him entirely. (And really, who of them can claim to be easy to be around these days?)

“I’ll winnow us,” Yanis says.

Yanis is exactly one eighth Fae. Physically, there’s no hint of his ancestors except for ears that are perhaps a bit more pointed than normal, and except for the ability to winnow, he has inherited none of their magical powers. The ability to winnow comes in very handy, though. Now, he winnows both of them to the outskirts of Jurian’s camp.

“I’ll go talk to Xeni,” he says when they arrive, naming one of Jurian’s higher-ranking captains.

“Meet you back here in an hour?” Andromache asks and waves at one of soldiers whom she knows briefly from another visit.

Yanis nods and they both set off. Jurian isn’t in his tent, which Andromache takes as a good sign. The days when Jurian is sitting alone in his tent, staring at his maps or drinking, are usually the worst. When he’s out in his camp and doing things, it generally means that he’s having a good day. (Occasionally, it also means that he’s having a terrible day and everyone else is about to as well.)

She finds Jurian sitting at a table with his soldiers, which is definitely a good sign. He looks tired, bloodshot eyes sunken deep into his face, but he’s talking. When he sees Andromache, he smiles, which is a rare sight these days, and waves her over. One of his soldiers quickly moves aside to make place for her on the bench.

“How’s it going?” Jurian asks. He even sounds somewhat cheerful.

Andromache smiles back. “Can’t complain.”

One of the soldiers passes her a mug of ale and Andromache takes it, thanking him. She isn’t overly fond of ale, but she still takes a sip, wincing at the bitter taste.

“And you?” Andromache asks. “Things look pleasantly calm here.”

“Oh, but they aren’t,” Jurian says. He sounds satisfied with himself. “We only got back here a few hours ago. We spent the past two days chasing after Amarantha’s army. We finally caught on to them earlier today and managed quite the ambush. Four hundred of her soldiers dead, can you imagine?”

“That’s great,” Andromache says, but her smile soon fades.

She does her best to remember the assignments for the individual armies, but she can’t quite drag up the memory. Miryam always knows the exact orders for each commander by heart, but Andromache has been less involved in the matter lately. Still, she is sure that Jurian’s army had gotten orders that don’t align with running after Amarantha. (As a matter of fact, Jurian’s orders rarely ever give him free reign to do as he pleases when it comes to Amarantha anymore. Andromache never asked, but she strongly suspects that Miryam is behind it.)

“Hold on,” she says slowly. Now, she does remember what orders Jurian had. “Weren’t you meant to keep watch on Vallahan’s army? To make sure they don’t move east.”

Jurian’s slight frown confirms her suspicions. “We’ve been keeping an eye out for them for days,” he says, shrugging. “They haven’t moved.”

Andromache stares at him for a moment. She is about to yell at him, to tell him what he was thinking, going against orders like that, but then, she remembers the soldiers sitting around them. Jurian is their commander and a councilmember, they hold the same rank – she can’t lecture him in front of his soldiers like he’s a wilful child.

“Of course,” Andromache says with a forced smile. “Congratulations on your victory, that’s great news.” She takes another sip of her ale. “And you’re right about Vallahan’s army, too. I’m sure you sent scouts out to check on them, we’d know by now if they had moved.”

Jurian nods hastily, but from the frantic look in his eyes, he hasn’t heard back from his scouts yet. Andromache tries hard to conceal her ire. She knows Jurian is struggling and that his revenge against Amarantha is all that keeps him going these days. Being angry with him for that always seemed unfair, but it is very hard not to when he keeps putting his private revenge before the war effort.

They sit together for another couple of minutes, chatting idly with the soldiers. Their conversation gets interrupted by a panting man who stops next to Jurian and whispers something into his ear. His eyes widen.

“What is it?” Andromache asks. Now, she can’t quite keep the edge out of her voice.

“Vallahan’s army has been spotted,” Jurian says. “They…” He clears his throat. “They slipped past our defences and are now moving east. Towards your camp.”

Andromache stares at him for a moment, then jumps to her feet. She doesn’t even bother to yell at Jurian who is still staring at her wide-eyed before she rushes out of the camp.

----

Mor stares out at the army stretching out before her, panting. There is blood splattered all over her golden armour, blood in her hair, on her hands. A sword cut through a slit in the armour on her arm, but she barely feels the sting of the wound. She takes a swig out of a waterskin. Only a moment of pause, then she will need to head back into the fray where Andromache is still fighting.

They are losing. Reinforcements won’t be here for another few hours, and by then, Mor isn’t sure how many of them will be left. They need a miracle. Or a very, very powerful magic-wielder, but none of the ones they have on their side turned up yet.

It was said that she could see the truth about anything in this world, that she could make the proudest Fae beg for mercy in the blink of an eye, and destroy entire armies. The power to destroy an army would come in handy now. If only Mor knew how.

Truth. How does one wield truth in battle?

One attempt, that’s all Mor will spare before she returns to the battle. She closes her eyes and tries to feel the power inside her. She already used it, at least fractions of it, but there must be more and now, Mor goes looking for the core.

She is just about to give up when she finally finds it. The power feels strangely cold and a shiver runs through Mor’s body. The power slips her grasp, though. It keeps slipping away from her, remaining just outside of her reach.

“Come on,” Mor hisses through clenched teeth.

This power is hers. Hers. It doesn’t get to refuse her, certainly not in a moment like this. There are people relying on her. She reaches out, stretches her mind to the point where it strains. A cold spreads from her fingers and all over her body. It feels like she is drenched in cold water. Her power feels like ice, cold and unforgiving. Is scares Mor as it shoots through her, but there is still an army for her to contend with.

Mor grips her power tightly. It is there, filling her entirely, but she doesn’t know what to do with it. She never learned to use it against anyone, has no idea how to weaponize a power that seems entirely harmless.

Out, she orders, attack them. Her power trembles inside her body for a moment longer. Then, miraculously, it goes shooting towards the enemy soldiers. Mor can feel it, rushing out of her and towards the enemy army. Then, her vision turns grey. A crack echoes through her mind. She feels herself falling, falling and falling. She should have hit the ground by now, but still, she falls. Then, the voice starts speaking.

Morrigan, it whispers. No, it isn’t one voice but several, speaking all at once. Morrigan, you call for truth and you will receive it.

Mor tries to struggle, to fight her way out of the darkness she is caught in, but her power keeps a tight grip on her. This is all wrong. It was meant to attack the enemy, not her.

But you so love to lie to yourself, the voices continue. You lie when you tell yourself that your cousin is different from your uncle. You lie when you tell yourself that this little family you made for yourself is so close that nothing could tear it apart.

“No,” Mor whispers. Her head is throbbing and her heart beats far too quickly. “No, stop.”

Before her eyes, images rise. She sees Rhys, standing in his army’s camp, whip in hand. A soldier is bound to the flock below him and Rhys’s face is frozen in clod rage as he swings the whip. He’ll be no better than his father, the voice whispers.

And Azriel… His face appears before her eyes, always impassive. Deep down, you know he won’t be willing to move on. And if he ever finds out the truth… You know how he’ll react. He wants you, will always want you. You’re the symbol for the acceptance he always wanted, and he’ll never accept that he can’t have you.

Azriel’s face vanishes from before her and she is standing in a room with Andromache. They are kissing, embracing each other, but they aren’t alone. Shadows lurk in the corner, shadows like the ones that report to Azriel. Her skin crawls like there are thousands of ants running over her body. She’s being watched, always watched.

When he finds out, the voices continue, your secret will come out. He’ll tell Azriel and Rhysand, and eventually, everyone will know.

She’s standing opposite Azriel in a room. He is yelling and even though she doesn’t hear the words, she knows what he is saying. There are people standing around them, watching. Keir is there. Eris. Her uncle.

“Stop,” Mor sobs, “Please!”

But it doesn’t stop. And you lie to yourself when you tell yourself that you and Andromache will be together forever. She won’t want to be with you forever, not when your opinions differ so much. Eventually, she will realize that you are no less privileged than the other Fae. That you may care for humans and all the things she values, but not nearly as deeply as she does. She will realize that deep down, you don’t understand, and she will leave.

“This isn’t what it’s like, I’m not like that!”

But you are, the voice says. You joined the war as a way to get out of the Night Court. You genuinely think that many of the humans have it easier than you do. You like to split your world into good and bad, and everyone who isn’t actively horrible is bad, everyone else is good.

“No!” Mor screams. She tears at her hair, struggles against her power’s invisible hold on her.

I am truth, the power whispers, You cannot escape me.

Mor screams without words. She wants this to stop, wants the voice to go away. She claws at her head, but something stops her hands.

And just like this, it is all gone. Mor’s power snaps back into her. It quivers in her for a moment, then dissolves into nothing. Pain flares through her head.

“Mor!” Someone is shaking her. “Morrigan, look at me.”

Mor blinks. Slowly, the world comes into focus around her. Andromache’s face appears before her, blurry at first, then more clearly.

“Hey,” Mor mutters. She tries to push herself upright, but Andromache gently presses her back into the grass.

“Stay still,” Miryam says. She is kneeling next to Mor, still dressed in her council clothes, a long silk dress with silver embroidery that seems far too thin for the brisk night air. She must have raced here straight from a meeting if she didn’t even bother to change clothes. The air around her seems to shimmer, alight with power. “Are you in pain?”

Mor wants to say yes, but then, she realizes that she actually isn’t. She has a headache, but beyond that, she can detect no physical pain. Her mind is reeling and her chest feels painfully tight, but that hardly counts.

“No,” she says. “I’m…” She chokes on the word fine.

Words keep echoing through her mind, far too loudly, drowning out any thoughts. Her chest feels far too tight, she can barely breathe. Over her, Miryam and Andromache exchange a worried look. The air around Miryam glows with power. Mor doesn’t understand why her power is out, what is going on around them. Are they still fighting?

“The battle…” She stammers.

“We won,” Andromache says. She gently pushes a strand of hair out of Mor’s face, but her face is tense.

“Did you lose control over your powers?” Miryam asks. She glances over her shoulder, then returns her attention to Mor.

She shakes her head. “No, I…” She breaks off. Her tongue feels strangely heavy. “I meant to do this.” She doesn’t even know what this is. But now, she finally understands why her power feels so strange. “It’s fine,” she says to Miryam. “You can give it back.”

“Are you sure?” Miryam asks. “Control can be difficult, especially when you are already exhausted.”

“It’s fine,” Mor repeats. She doesn’t know how to explain to Miryam that she has no trouble at all with controlling her power. She never had. Truth seems to be pleasant in that regard, if in no other.

Still, Miryam only releases her grip on Mor’s power slowly. Bit by bit, it slithers back into Mor’s body. Controlling it is easy enough, though.

“See?” She says once all of her power is back in her body. “All fine.” If that isn’t the biggest lie she ever told.

Neither Miryam nor Andromache seem convinced and when Mor tries to sit up again, Miryam grabs her arm.

“Rest,” she says in a tone Mor likes to call her healer voice. It’s somehow both gentle and firm. “No matter how much control you might have over your power, using that much of it is still a strain and you should give your body time.”

Hearing that from Miryam, who only considers resting when she passes out from pain, is somewhat ridiculous. But getting her to change her mind would require a discussion and now that her head is beginning to clear again, Mor realizes that even though the battle might be over, both Andromache and Miryam likely have duties to deal with.

“Okay,” Mor says. “I’ll just lie down. You two can go, I��ll be fine.”

“Are you sure?” Andromache asks, but she’s already looking over her shoulder at the battlefield. She must have lost many soldiers today. Mor can already see the shadows on her face.

“Yes, just go.”

“I’ll bring her back to the camp and return to help you,” Miryam says.

Andromache nods and is off before Mor truly has time to process what is happening. Miryam looks over her shoulder.

“Don’t you dare get a stretcher,” Mor warns softly. “I can walk.”

Miryam sighs. “Alright.”

She holds out a hand to pull her to her feet. Mor sways a little and has to grip Miryam’s arm to stay upright, but otherwise, she manages just fine. Miryam pulls her arm around her shoulders and helps her walk back to the camp. In Mor’s tent, Miryam deposits her on the bed. Mor half-expected her to rush off back towards the battlefield immediately, but she sits down next to her.

“What happened out there?” Mor asks softly.

Miryam arches an eyebrow at her. “That’s what I was about to ask you.” When Mor remains silent, she says, “I only arrived at the very end. But Andromache says that the enemy soldiers suddenly fell to the ground, all at once. She thought they were dead at first, but then, some of them started screaming and clawing at their heads. Some allegedly died on the spot, although that may be a rumour. Andromache’s army had an easy game after that. Your power was all over the place, and you were on the ground as well. As soon as the enemy soldiers were taken care off, I turned your power off since you didn’t seem to be able to do it yourself.”

Mor nods. She doesn’t know if she could have pulled her own power back, how much control she had actually left. She doubts she would have been able to fight her way out of her own mind for long enough to call the power back, though.

“Do you know what you did?” Miryam asks softly.

“I showed them truth,” Mor says. Only now that she says it does she realize that’s exactly what she did. “The truths they hide from, the ones that scare them. The ones they hate.”

“And in return, you had to see your own truths,” Miryam says. Mor nods and Miryam walks over to put a hand on her arm. “That was a very brave thing to do,” she says. “Everyone has truths they’d rather not face; doing so anyways takes a lot of strength.”

Mor doesn’t feel brave or strong, though. She feels terrible. Like a pretender. I didn’t know this would happen, she thinks. If I had known, I’m not sure if I would have done what I did. And that isn’t bravery. It’s quite the opposite. She didn’t face anything. She just ran from it, and she can’t get herself to stop running.

“I need to go help Andromache,” Miryam says, rising. “But if you have any trouble with your powers, if you need help with anything, pleas tell me. We’ll figure something out.”

Mor nods and watches Miryam walk out of the tent. After that, she lies on her hard bed, staring up at the ceiling. She doesn’t know how much time passes. Her mind is empty, save for the voices that keep ringing in her ears. The pain she feels has nothing to do with physical wounds, but she feels it nonetheless. It’s nearly driving her insane.

Outside of the tent, the sun has already vanished behind the horizon when Mor gets up. She doesn’t know if she’s supposed to be running around, but she can’t take the confines of her tent anymore. She needs some fresh air. Carefully, she pushes the entrance to her tent open and slips out.

“Aren’t you on bedrest?” Yanis asks. Apparently, he’s been waiting outside of her tent.

“Consider me well-rested,” Mor says. “I’m going for a walk.”

Yanis doesn’t stop her as she walks past him and into the camp. All around her, soldiers stop their work to stare at her, whisper with each other. The Morrigan, they call her, voices hushed in awe. It seems the entire camp already knows about what she did.

Mor doesn’t want any of it. Her head is still pounding, the words she heard while she used her power echo through her mind. She can’t shake that voice. Is it now permanently etched into her mind? Will she be forced to hear those words over and over again for eternity?

She can’t stand the whispers. The noise of the camp hurts her ears, the lights of the pyres burn in her eyes. The only person whose company she cares for right now is Andromache, but she is a queen whose first duty will always be to her people, and she cannot abandon them in the aftermath of battle. Besides, she might not be all that interested in Mor either way. Just like the other Fae, a voice whispers in her mind. And so Mor is alone when she sneaks out of the camp, away from the eyes and the whispers, and sits down on a small stone.

“Hey,” Andromache says softly and sits down next to Mor.

She never knew truth could be so cruel. It’s the cruellest gift of all.

Mor gives her a tired smile. “Let me guess,” she says, “Yanis told you where I went.” When Andromache simply gives her an apologetic smile, she shakes her head. “You don’t need to worry about me,” she says, “I know you have duties to fulfil with your army.”

“Miryam is filling in for me, so I’ve got time,” Andromache says. “How are you feeling?”

“It didn’t hurt me,” Mor says. Which is not entirely true, but physically, she is fine.

Andromache puts an arm around her shoulders and pulls her close. “When I saw you lying on the ground there, I thought you might die,” she whispers. “I was so scared.”

Mor buries her face in Andromache’s shoulder. For all the horror she experienced today, it’s good that there was at least one person who genuinely cared about what happened to her. It is prove that she isn’t entirely alone. Maybe she can talk to Andromache about what she saw.

“It’s truth,” she says, “My power. And it’s…” She shakes her head. “It showed me things, told me things…” Her fingers tremble. The words repeat over and over in her head, but she can’t bring herself to say them out loud. “It was terrible.

How stupid was she to ever want this? If she thinks about how she spent her day pouring over a book, desperately trying to unlock her powers. What she would have given to be able to turn back time now. She should have listened to Andromache.

“You don’t have to use it,” Andromache says softly. “If you have been able to keep it locked away until now, you won’t ever need to use it again. No one would blame you.”

In a way, this is absolution. They are still at war and Mor’s gift might prove to be invaluable. But what Andromache offers is a free pass for not using it. She won’t be a coward. No one will be able to blame her. It will be fine.

“I won’t ever use it again,” she whispers. “Not in a million years.”

----

Miryam draws a few odd looks as she walks through Drakon’s camp. Her clothes are splattered in blood and mud, she only barely managed to get the dirt off her face and hands. She spent the past few hours alternating between organizing the post-battle work and helping the healers out.

Well over three hundred soldiers dead. The enemy lost their entire army, but their own losses are still high, the highest out of any battle this month. Miryam gives it an hour at most until the council starts demanding answers. Two hours until they find out what happened. Then, they’ll surely summon Miryam, demand an explanation for what Jurian did. As if she knows.

She stops one of Drakon’s soldiers, a woman she knows briefly from past visits. “Where’s Drakon?” She asks.

“I believe his Highness is in his tent, my Lady,” the soldier replies and hurries on.

Miryam sets off towards Drakon’s tent. She expects him to be stuck in some kind of meeting, but he is alone when Miryam enters, sitting at his desk. He’s drumming a quick rhythm on his leg and flinches when Miryam enters. She immediately knows that something is wrong and wants to ask, but Drakon beats her to it.

“What happened?” He asks, looking at her ruined clothes.

Miryam gives the briefest possible explanation. “Jurian went against orders to chase after Amarantha, which means that a few thousand Vallahan soldiers slipped past our defences. Andromache’s army lost a several hundred soldiers and the only reason it wasn’t more is that Mor used some very strange truth magic I’d never seen before to disable most of their soldiers.”

Drakon seems startled. “Is she okay?” He asks.

Miryam shrugs. “Physically, yes,” she says. Mentally, Miryam isn’t so sure. Mor wasn’t in pain, didn’t seem hurt, but Miryam has never seen her this distraught.

Miryam is far from an expert on Higher Arts – she only barely managed not to let hers kill her – but she knows that they are generally weird. Difficult to master and near-impossible to understand. In her private interpretation, they also tend to come with a price to match the gift, although she is sure most Fae would disagree.

“And you?” Miryam asks. Drakon still seems far too tense. “Is everything alright?”

Drakon shakes his head, shrugging lightly at the same time. He’s still drumming around on his leg, tapping his foot on top of it. Miryam walks over to him and puts an arm around his shoulders.

“What is it?” She asks softly.

Drakon picks up a letter from the table and passes it to Miryam, fingers shaking slightly. Thick paper, a seal pressed into red wax. A sun with a crown hovering over it. Ravenia’s seal.

----

Thanks @croissantcitysucks for helping with this chapter! And in general for being the best person to talk to about writing ❤

#miryam #jurian #drakon #andromache #before the wall

15 notes · View notes

aspoonofsugar · 5 years ago

Note

Hewwo! I read Chapter 83 of Bungou Stray dogs, and I have no words. I'm rather surprised by the identity of the mastermind and I wonder what's going to happen now. So I was wondering, with the reveal of the mastermind, what's your opinion on chapter 83? :)). Thank you and stay safe!

Hello anon!

I am very happy about the reveal! It actually makes the whole arc and especially the last couple of chapters even more enjoyable!

As a matter of fact, even if I liked the latest chapters, it seemed to me as if the arc was becoming a little bit too fragmented. By this I mean that the arc had been mostly driven by the conflict not only with the Decay of Angels, but also with the Hunting Dogs. However, the latest twists seemed to suggest the dogs would have become allies of the ADA. Even if I am not against it per se, I would have liked for it to happen after the conflict between the two organizations had been settled in a meaningful way. In particular, I want the arc to make full use of the Hunting Dogs thematically. I have discussed here some ideas about this group:

In short, the HD are imperfect humans just like everybody else and they have found a reason of living in their organization just like the members of the ADA and of the mafia did.

This is also why they are so easily manipulated. It is because in order to truly think about “right” and “wrong” in a constructive way, they should let go of the labels they use to read the world. However, they can’t because if they did they could very well lose themselves.

In the end the HD are foils of the detectives just like the mafiosi, but they are so in a different way.

The mafiosi are who the detectives could become if they were to completely lose themselves in their most violent and darkest parts, while the HD are who the detectives could become if they were to embrace simplicistic ideals over people. This is also why this arc has been particularly hard on Kunikida since among the members of the ADA he is the one who risks to do so the most.

In short, having the HD simply work with the ADA after all the time they spent after the protagonists and after they have almost killed them would have been a little cheap. To be more specific, it would not have led to any growth in the HD whose modus operandi (follow the rules and Fukichi’s orders) would not have been challenged at all. Thanks to Fukichi being the mastermind, instead, all the themes introduced since the beginning of the arc are strengthened and all the characters can be challenged.

-Fukuzawa will be forced to face his old friend. What is more, this whole ordeal marks another step in Ranpo’s growth. As a matter of fact, as I have written here, the arc starts with Ranpo disagreeing with Fukuzawa. Facts proved him right. What is more, in chapter 80:

I think that Ranpo’s behaviour in chapter 80 might tie to what is satetd above. On one hand, in the past, Fukuzawa used to be the one protecting and saving Ranpo. On the other hand we have seen Ranpo trying to save Fukuzawa at all costs in Cannibalism. However, in that arc, Ranpo ultimaley fails. What is more, his wish to save Fukuzawa in that situation puts the whole Yokohama in danger adn goes against what Fukuzawa himself wants.

However, in chapter 80 we see Ranpo successfully saving Fukuzawa and the other ADA’s members. He does so by taking action by himself with the help of a connection he himself made (Poe). At the beginning of the arc, he showed to have a better grasping of the situation when compared to Fukuzawa and in chapter 80 he manages to save his father-figure on his own. To me, it seems that Ranpo might have already reached a point where he does not need Fukusawa’s guidance anymore. However, he still chooses to depend on him, as seen when he asks for Fukuzawa’s order as if Ranpo himself doesn’t perfectly know what is better to do.

Despite all of this, once Ranpo takes Fukuzawa back, he immediately goes back to completely rely on him and on his judgement. If Ranpo had immediately used his analytical skills to deduce who Kamui is, he would have avoided finding himself in the current pinch. However, Ranpo preferred to follow Fukuzawa’s orders and to trust the person Fukuzawa trusted. This dependence led to the current situation.

-The Hunting Dogs will have to face their shortcomings. As I have written in the meta linked above:

The HD are proud because they see themselves as heroes of justice. They are not stray dogs, but dogs selected and adopted by a master (aka the governement) and this makes them better than others. At least, this is probably what they force themselves to believe.

The ironic thing is of course that all of them are portrayed with attributes society would consider problematic.

Teruko is sadistic and violent, while Jouno enjoys psychologically torturing people. Finally Tachihara is in the HD simply because he wants to find a place to belong.

All in all, among the four subordinates, Tecchou is the one who probably genuinely believes in justice, but his idea is simplicistic and naive as it was explained in point one.

The Hunting Dogs are basically Stray Dogs who are made feel “special” by the government. They work for the government and for Fukichi who is the greatest hero of the world, so they are heroes as well, right? They wil soon have to face that their leader is not only the leader of a bunch of policemen, but also the leader of a terrorist group.

It will be especially interesting to see how Teruko and Tecchou will react. As a matter of fact both have shown to genuinely believe in “justice” even if they are cruel in their pursue of it. That said, there might be a difference between the two of them and the current twist might make it more obvious. As a matter of fact, among the dogs, Teruko is the one who believes in Fukichi the most. She is fond of him and is never shown to dislike anything about him (differently from the others who are annoyed by Fukichi’s behaviours). So I think that it will be especially challenging for her to face the truth. Tecchou is instead the person who, among the dogs, seems to me to embody justice the most, so I wonder how he will react when he discovers he has been helping terrorists all along.

When it comes to Jouno, he is the one who has always fitted the least among the HD to the point that I wonder if he knows about his boss’s real identity or not. Whatever the case his reaction is bound to be interesting.

Finally there is Tachihara who has already started to move past his role as a HD thanks to his experiences in the mafia:

Tachihara being able to break the book’s spell because of his ties with the members of the mafia is symbolic of how he has managed to develop more empathy for criminals because of his relationships with some of them. Tachihara is different from the other HD who do not see criminals as people because he got to personally know and to grow closer to some of them.

-This leads us to the fact that I expect the mafia to get involved pretty soon. After all, Tanizaki and Kenji are still under the mafia’s protection and the mafia is the shadow of the detective agency:

All in all, BSD is a story which deals with the concept of jungian shadow a lot. The abilities of the characters are nothing, but repressed parts of them and the the same can be said of the mafia as a group. This is why Dazai and Atsushi are both escaping from what the mafia represents for them. For Dazai the mafia is proof of his criminal past, while for Atsushi it is a reminder of who he could have become. The strong link between these two organizations is why they are often fighting, but also why they are so strong when they unite. It is because the ADA can’t let its shadow take over (so it can’t let itself be destroyed by the mafia and must criticize their violent methods), but at the same time the agency can’t ignore the mafia or that the people in there are similar to them under many aspects. Because of this, now that an alliance with the HD seems more difficult to realize, I wonder if we will soon see the mafia or not. In particular, it has been a while since we have seen Akutagawa, so I wonder if he will once again team up with Atsushi towards the end of the arc.

Finally, this reveal makes Fukichi himself much more interesting as a character. In a sense, it is as if he embodies the dychotomy explored in this arc between justice and terrorism, laws and anarchy. Apparently, the two enemy organizations represent these two opposite concepts. The HD are justice and enforcers of the law, while the DoA are terrorists who want to destroy all laws and to rewrite the world. However, the reveal shows that the leader of both organizations is the same person. So Fukichi comes to embody both concepts. He embodies “justice”, but also the that feeling that justice is deep down unfair. Hence why it is necessary to act outside of it. In a sense, it is as if Fukichi, as a person, is prisoner between two roles. On one hand there is the legendary general (Fukichi’s persona aka the image he projects of himself and what others see about him). On the other hand there is Kamui (Fukichi’s shadow aka his hidden desires to act outside the law and in an unheroic way). However, the person “Fukichi Ochi” is kind of lost between these two big characters:

Fukuzawa mentions how Fukichi was jealous because he had found his path in life before Fukichi himself. This means that his career as a soldier is not something which gives happiness to Fukichi. He probably feels that he lacks something and his current actions are very likely an attempt to fill this sense of void. At the same time, I would not be surprised if he has targeted the Agency because of the envy he feels for Fukuzawa who has become happy.

In conclusion, the fact that “Kamui” means God reminds me of this:

If the world is chaos and unjust, then I will become the God who fixes it. I wonder if Fukichi’s line of thought is similar to Fyodor’s. If that is the case, then it will become obvious why the symbol of justice has also become a terrorist. It would not just be a contradiction, but a natural evolution of an ideal which twists itself in its pursue of righteousness. After all, when ideals forget about people, they often become rigid ideologies and end up embodying what they were fighting. I wonder if something similar happened with Fukichi as well.

Thank you for the ask!

#bsd #bsd 83 #bsd meta #fukichi ochi #ochi fukichi #asksfullofsugar #anonymous

56 notes · View notes

unillustratedadventures · 4 years ago

Text

Disordered Mood: Major Depression (according to DSM-5)

Depression

Depression is the state in which one’s mood is predominantly characterised by either negative feelings (typically sadness-related feelings such as sadness, grief, loneliness, feelings of low self-esteem, feelings of hopelessness, etc., but potentially including feelings of irritation or anger), anhedonia (an incapacity to anticipate and experience pleasure and positive feelings), or both.

Somewhat confusingly, DSM-5 sometimes appears to use the specific phrase ‘depressed mood’ in a narrower sense. In the definition (i.e. diagnostic criteria) of major depressive episodes, the first possible symptom is described in terms of depressed mood and pertains mainly to negative (predominantly sadness-related) feelings, whereas the second possible symptom is described in terms of lacking interest or pleasure, thereby mainly capturing the anhedonic component of depression. In this way, the DSM appears to make a distinction between depressed mood (as mood that is dominated by negative feelings) and anhedonia, even though its use of ‘depression’ per se tends to include both. (One caveat is that the description of the depressed mood symptom does parenthetically include feelings of emptiness, which is potentially associated with anhedonia.) Later in this post, I try to avoid the potential for confusion by forgoing the use of ‘depressed mood’ when describing the first possible symptom of major depression, and instead describing it in terms of persisting negative mood.

Another caveat about the term ‘depression’: NEO-PI-R (the most well-supported and widely-used measure of personality, which falls within the five factor model) uses ‘depression’ to label a facet of its trait domain neuroticism, and this personality facet differs in two important ways from depression as it is more typically construed. First, NEO-PI-R depression measures a relatively stable trait (i.e. a component of personality), whereas depression-as-typically-construed is a comparatively brief state, as mentioned above. Second, although NEO-PI-R depression does pertain to moods that are predominantly characterised by sadness and related feelings, it excludes anhedonia. (In NEO-PI-R, anhedonia is associated with low extraversion rather than high neuroticism). Overall, to measure high in NEO-PI-R depression might be summarised as having a personality that disposes one towards moods that are predominantly characterised by sadness and related feelings. (If one accepts DSM-5’s usage of the phrase ‘depressed mood’, then ‘depressivity of mood’ would be a clearer, albeit clunkier, label for NEO-PI-R depression.) Relatedly, a personality that broadly disposed one towards depression of all kinds—i.e. towards both anhedonia and moods dominated by sadness and related feelings—would tend to measure relatively high in the NEO-PI-R facet depression and also relatively low in certain NEO-PI-R facets of extraversion (especially the facet positive emotions).

Henceforth, I shall only use ‘depression’ in the broader sense (including both negative feelings and anhedonia), while ignoring the term’s trait-level application within NEO-PI-R.

Depression is not clinically significant in and of itself, and it is normal to experience occasional instances, especially in response to personally significant loss. Depression that is clinically significant is termed ‘major depression’. In DSM-5 (2013; p. 125–6 ), the American Psychiatric Association characterises major depression as follows.

Major Depression

Major depression is the state of depression that meets certain additional criteria. Meeting these criteria moves an instance of depression away from the range of normal adaptive experience, and towards maladaptivity and clinical significance.

Major depressive episodes are conceptually involved in some diagnosable mental disorders, notably including major depressive disorder and bipolar II. (While major depressive episodes are common in bipolar I, they are not necessary for a diagnosis of bipolar I.)

One is in a state of major depression, or is having a major depressive episode, just in case:

Of conditions (1)–(9) listed below, there are five or more conditions—including (1) persisting negative mood, (2) loss of interest or pleasure, or both—that:

have been present throughout a continuous period lasting for at least two weeks.

constitute a change from previous functioning.

during this period, cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or another medical condition.

(1) Persisting negative mood: For most of the day, (nearly) every day, one’s mood is predominantly characterised by negative feelings, as might be evident to others through subjective report (e.g. reports of feeling sad, empty, or hopeless), by observable demeanour or behaviours (e.g. appearing tearful), or, more rarely (and especially in children and adolescents) by signs of an irritable mood (anger, frustration, hostility, aggression, etc.).

(2) Loss of interest or pleasure: (Nearly) every day, one has ‘markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities of the day (as might be evident to others through subjective report or behavioural observation).

(3) Appetite disturbance: One has a decrease or increase in appetite that is present (nearly) every day, or one’s weight changes by more than 5% within a single month (in the absence of deliberate regimes such as dieting, muscle building, etc). In children, this might manifest as a failure to reach an expected weight gain (as opposed to a change in previous weight).

(4) Sleep disturbance: (Nearly) every day, one has either insomnia (sleeping too little) or hypersomnia (sleeping too much).

(5) Psychomotor disturbance: (Nearly) every day, one has ‘psychomotor agitation or retardation’ (i.e. psychologically caused excess or restriction of motor activity, which is not directly goal-related) that would be observable by others (i.e. not merely subjective feelings as of restlessness or sluggishness).

(6) Fatigue: (Nearly) every day, one experiences fatigue or loss of energy.

(7) Negative self-appraisal: (Nearly) every day, one has either feelings of worthlessness or excessive/inappropriate guilt (possibly rising to the level of delusions), which extend beyond self-reproach or guilt about being sick or about having depressive symptoms.

(8) Cognitive-executive disturbance: (Nearly) every day, one has a diminished ability to think or concentrate and/or marked indecisiveness (as might be evident to others through subjective report or behavioural observation).

(9) Suicidal ideation: One either has recurrent thoughts about one’s own death (which are not associated with a recurrent fear of dying), has recurrent suicidal ideation without any specific plan, has made a suicide attempt, or has a specific plan for committing suicide.

Major Depression vs Grief and Feelings of Loss

Responses to a significant loss often include ‘feelings of intense sadness, rumination about the loss, insomnia, poor appetite, and weight loss’, and therefore might resemble a major depressive episode. Even if such symptoms are understandable, or are considered appropriate to the loss, they will nevertheless qualify as a full-fledged major depressive episode if they meet the above criteria. Clinically, the decision to make a diagnosis in such a case requires careful judgment based on the individual’s history and cultural norms for the expression of distress in the context of such a loss.

In distinguishing major depression specifically from grief (i.e. from feelings that are associated with the loss of a person or an important interpersonal relationship), it is useful to consider the following points:

It is possible for the pain of grief to coincide with occasional positive emotions or humour ‘that are uncharacteristic of the pervasive unhappiness and misery’ that characterises major depression.

‘In grief the predominant [affects are] feelings of emptiness and loss’, while in major depression it is persistent sadness-related feelings and/or the inability to anticipate happiness or pleasure.

‘The dysphoria in grief is likely to decrease in intensity over days to weeks and occurs in waves (the so-called pangs of grief). These waves tend to be associated with thoughts or reminders of [the person who has been lost].’ In contrast, the depressed mood in a major depressive episode ‘is more persistent’ and is not tied to any ‘specific thoughts or preoccupations’.

‘The thought content associated with grief generally features a preoccupation with thoughts and memories of [the person who has been lost], rather than the self-critical or pessimistic ruminations’ that tend to be seen in major depression.

‘In grief, self-esteem is generally preserved, whereas in major depression, feelings of worthlessness and self-loathing are common. [When] self-derogatory ideation is present in grief’, it typically involves perceived failings in relation to the person who has been lost, or in relation to losing that person.

When a bereaved individual thinks about death or dying, ‘such thoughts are generally focused on the deceased person.’ If they involve thoughts about one’s own death, then such thoughts typically concern “joining” the deceased person in death. As they relate to major depression, thoughts about death or dying are typically focused on ending one’s own life because one feels worthless, undeserving of life, or unable to cope with the pain of depression.

19 notes · View notes

rattusrattus3 · 5 years ago

Text

an essay i wrote for class that im posting to link to it later

Ingrown: Compulsory Feminine Hairlessness, Perpetuation of the Gender Binary, and Patriarchal Control of the Feminine-Coded Body

This essay discusses gendered perceptions of body hair, the feminine hairlessness norm as perpetuating the gender binary, and the expectation of feminine hairlessness as a form of patriarchal control over feminine-coded people. ‘Feminine-coded’ is the term I am using to describe people which are normatively placed in the category of ‘woman’, which has no singular definition (Bettcher, 403).

The topic of feminine body hair is often shunned, classified as too trivial to discuss, yet, the pervasiveness of ‘mundane’ feminine hair removal suggests cultural significance. Socially mandated maintenance rituals that concern the feminine-coded body can be inspected as a microcosm reflecting a larger patriarchal system; patriarchy being the sociopolitical system that privileges masculinity over femininity. While I acknowledge there are many forms of appearance modification normatively expected of feminine-coded bodies, (such as dieting, makeup, hair styling, nail care, and skincare (Bartky, 99) and varying degrees of expectations defined by specific cultural norms and individual history, I wish to focus on feminine-coded body hair removal norms of the West (which I refer to as “the hairlessness norm” (Toerien and Wilkinson, 333)) and their implications.

Carol Hanisch’s 1969 memo, now referred to as “The Personal is Political” illuminated how problems that afflict women are commonly disregarded as “personal issues”, ignoring the fact that feminine-coded people experience patriarchal violence because of the system they are located in (Hanisch, 1969). From personal experience, the way my facial and body hair has been policed (by peers, employers, teachers, family, romantic partners, and strangers) has led me to develop trichotillomania (or “trich”, an obsessive hair pulling disorder). Exploring trich has led me to discover that the shame, guilt, and disgust I feel at my own body (hair) is socially produced through patriarchal systems. I can’t be the only one, and through this essay I wish to explore how the cultural production of feminine hairlessness enforces forms of violence and control to feminine-coded bodies. I wish to echo Hanisch’s sentiment that personal problems are political problems (Hanisch, 1969), the norm of feminine hairlessness is one of the many “mundane” ways patriarchal economic and social system exert control over feminine bodies and seek to define them as “unacceptable if unaltered” (Toerien and Wilkinson, 333).

I would like to define a few terms for this paper, ‘body hair’ will refer to facial and body hair that is normatively deemed inappropriate on feminine-coded bodies, including ‘ungroomed’ brows and unibrows, moustaches, beard/chin/cheek hair, breast, belly, and back hair, ‘ungroomed’ pubic hair, leg, toe, foot, hand, knuckle and other (non-scalp or eyelash) hair.

The ‘gender binary’ is a system in Western culture wherein individuals are expected to participate in socially produced gendered behaviour, where gender is classified as two distinct, opposite forms of masculinity and femininity. Upon birth (sometimes before), individuals are classified as either boys or girls according to their external genitalia (Bettcher, 393). During childhood, individuals learn through socialization and education what it means to “do” (perform) gender as a boy or a girl (Bettcher, 393). The gender binary system fits into Foucault’s notion of “discipline” and exists within a patriarchal power relationship, as feminine-coded bodies are expected to be altered in ways masculine-coded bodies are not. “Discipline” describes the way types of power are exercised: they are systems enforced to define and order populations, increasing the docility and utility of individuals to control them (Foucault, 136-137). Control of individuals is achieved partially through normative definitions of the body (highly subjective, but defined as “objective” by medical, governmental, popular, or social forces of their time) and what is appropriate for the body (Foucault, 140-141). Performing gender is expected in mainstream Western society, but the effort and cost for producing an ‘appropriate body’ for feminine-coded people is socially policed and informed by patriarchal institutions. For feminine-coded people, smooth, hairless, (preferably white and young) skin is expected, (especially on the face), and (in mainstream contexts,) those who ‘fail’ to meet this norm are often mocked, shamed and policed into conformity. For trans women, and feminine-coded people with darkly pigmented hair, the expectations of hairlessness are often enforced more violently and aggressively.

Hair growth patterns on different individuals vary substantially depending on factors such as age, genes and ‘race’, and the balance of testosterone and estrogen, both of which are present in most human bodies and are hormonal factors in hair growth (Toerien and Wilkinson, 335). Despite this, there is a widespread assumption that ‘men’ are ‘naturally’ hairier than ‘women’ (Toerien and Wilkinson, 335). This perspective is simplistic, binary, and discounts many relevant factors to hair growth distribution patterns. Feminine-coded people have an “equivalent potential for hair growth to men...women have hair follicles for moustache, beard, and body hair” (335 Toerien and Wilkinson), yet, popular assumptions expect the feminine body to be depilated to be viewed as “appropriately feminine”. The myth of ‘men’ as ‘naturally hairier’ is perpetuated by cultural assumptions of binary gender norms, how femininity is presented (in media and culture), and by medical definitions of what ‘counts’ as ‘normally’ or ‘abnormally’ hairy. Several scales to ‘rate’ hair growth have been proposed, but there exists no firm biological boundary to establish between the “normally” and “abnormally” hairy woman (Toerien and Wilkinson, 336). Frustratingly, within mainstream Western culture, virtually any hair on the feminine body outside the lashes, brows and scalp is considered ‘excess’, and the psychological and social consequences for feminine-coded people with ‘excess’ body hair can be profound, including depression, anxiety, stress, shame, and isolation. A study by Kitzinger & Willmott (2002) found that female-identifying participants with excessive body hair characterized their hair negatively, describing it as “‘upsetting’, ‘distressing’, ‘embarrassing’, ‘unsightly’, ‘dirty’ and ‘distasteful’” (para. 2).

Invoking a feminist curioisty (Enloe), one must ask, that if all genders may grow body hair (excluding individuals with autoimmune disorders such as alopecia), why is it that feminine hairiness is considered abnormal? The cultural context is significant. Feminine hairiness has historically been associated with negative assumptions about innapropriate conduct: masculine attitudes/aggression, deviant, repressed or queer sexuality, uncleanliness, mental illness, and witchcraft (Toerien and Wilkinson, 338). Masculine hairiness has been historically associated with virility, strength, and maturity (Toerien and Wilkinson, 337). The removal of feminine body hair is not a new or purely Western phenomena, (Toerien and Wilkinson, 333), but the current Western norm for large surfaces of hair to be removed is relatively recent, the act of removing hair from underarms and legs was “not widely practiced by most U.S. women until 1915”, when the first “womens razor” was marketed by Gillette (the “Milady Decolletée”), and as restrictions on feminine-coded bodies as needing to be completely covered were diminishing. (Toerien and Wilkinson, 333). Still, however, during the 1800’s in the West, any visible hair on feminine-coded faces was pathologized and defined as needing treatment (Toerien and Wilkinson, 333). Feminine hairlessness can be perceived as a binary-enforcing social demarcation tool to differentiate between ‘women’ and ‘men’ (Toerien and Wilkinson, 335).

Feminine hairlessness has been theorized to to suggest a child-like status afforded to feminine-coded people, unlike the adult status afforded to masculine-coded people. This relates to historical and cultural patriarchal patterns of viewing the “feminine” as lacking, incomplete, and passive (Toerien and Wilkinson 338). The term “baby smooth” often applied to freshly depilated feminine skin could be evidence of the childlike/feminine association.

For many people, body hair begins developing during puberty. During this time, individuals are often exposed to new expectations as to how to appropriately performing gender. For many feminine-coded individuals, this involves pressure from peers, parents, partners, teachers, and media, to remove hair from the face, legs, underarms, stomach, and/or pubic area. In many cases, pubescent feminine-coded people will be reliant on a caregiver for permission to depilate the body, adding a sense of lack of control or shame for many who do not have the resources or permission to depilate their bodies.

Feminine body hair is conceived of as unsanitary and often treated with the same disgust of other body products (like blood, odor and sweat) in a way that male-coded body hair is not (Toerien and Wilkinson, 338). This is perpetuated by standards of what is considered ‘good grooming’ for feminine-coded people (Toerien and Wilkinson, 338), where body hair is associated with dirtiness, and a lack of body hair with ‘cleanliness’. The association of feminine body hair with ‘dirtiness’ is tied up with racism, where more visible, pigmented hair is conceptualized as ‘dirtier’ than blond hair (Toerien and Wilkinson, 339). The “dirtiness” of feminine body hair is linked to its socially produced shamefulness, where unwanted hair is both embarrasing to develop and to remove; most cis women in hetrosexual relationships are expected to hide their depilitory “tools of transformation” (Bartky, 104) from men, to maintain the illusion of natural hairlessness. Feminine coded people who spend money to professionally remove body hair are often ridiculed for their “self indulgence” and “vanity”; this perception fails to critically examine the context within which choices to grow or remove body hair are made (Gill, 75). Adherence to “prevailing standards of bodily acceptability is a known factor in economic mobility” (Toerien and Wilkinson, 338), yet resources are required to maintain the ‘norms of bodily acceptability’, which for poor feminine-coded people, (and anyone who does not wish to depilate constantly), may be inaccessible, contributing to their exclusion from mainstream social, and professional environments.

The media plays a significant role in constructing and defining what ‘counts’ as appropriate femininity. Feminine-coded people who have hairy bodies or faces are generally absent in popular media, or used for comedic, insulting, or tokenizing purposes. The vast majority of commercials and advertisements for depilation products don’t show body hair (the first one to show body hair in 100 years came out in 2018); already-hairless legs are lathered and ‘shaved’ in commercials: perpetuating the myth that hair is unnatural, unsanitary and too taboo to even witness. The advertisement industry exploits feelings of inadequacy, shame, embarrassment, and a desire to fit in and appear ‘sexy’, ‘feminine’, and ‘confident’ in order to sell shaving creams, balms, after shaves, hair bleaches, hot and cold wax, depilatory creams, tweezers, buffing tools, electrolysis and laser treatments. The necessity for feminine bodies to absorb a ‘specialized knowledge’ in order to appropriately construct their hairless bodies is time and resource consuming (Bartkey, 99). Feminine coded people are expected to learn how to prevent and treat ingrown hairs, razor burn, how to not cut oneself shaving, burn oneself waxing, or otherwise injure oneself in an attempt to depilate. They must learn how and how often to depilate, and the proper exfoliation and after care treatments to ensure smooth and ‘properly’ hairless skin. The feminine body is transformed into a “docile body”, a body which is highly modified, policed, disciplined, and practiced, it is constantly surveilled in a panoptical sense of constant self surveillance (Bartky, 95). Everyone it seems, yet no one in particular, is enforcing the hairlessness norm; there are no public sanctions against body hair, but propagandistic norms that defines feminine hairlessness as ‘the way things are’ contribute to an invasion of the feminine-coded body by patriarchal ideologies (Bartky, 107).

The normative expectation for feminine-coded bodies to be hairless, and the disciplining by media and social systems which reward feminine-coded people who adhere to normative beauty standards, punish or mock those who don’t, and frame hairlessness as a natural, easily achievable, enjoyable, and fundamentally feminine, function to produce a disciplined, feminized, subject who devotes capital and time to a patriarchal system. The mainstream norm for feminine hairlessness is beneficial to corporate interests of keeping feminine-coded people ashamed of their bodies, burdened with expectations to alter their body, and incentives to purchase products to maintain a constant facade of natural hairlessness. It serves patriarchal interests of upholding a gender binary and maintaining norms of the feminine as passive, decorative, ‘not fully adult’, and in constant need of modification (Toerien and Wilkinson, 339).

Bibliography:

Bartky, Sandra Lee. “Foucault, Femininity and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power’ -

Chapter 5” Feminism & Foucault: Reflections on Resistance, edited by Irene Diamond and Lee Quinby, Northeastern University Press, 1988.

Bettcher, Talia Mae. “Trapped in the Wrong Theory: Re-Thinking Trans Oppression and

Resistance.” Signs, vol. 39, no. 2, 2014, pp. 383–406

Enloe, Cynthia. The Curious Feminist. University of California Press, 2004. Open WorldCat,

http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=223994.

Foucault, Michel. “The Subject and Power.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 8, no. 4, 1982, pp. 777–95.

JSTOR.

Gill, Rosalind C. “Critical Respect: The Difficulties and Dilemmas of Agency and ‘Choice’ for

Feminism: A Reply to Duits and van Zoonen.” European Journal of Women’s Studies, vol. 14, no. 1, Feb. 2007, pp. 69–80. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1177/1350506807072318.

Hanisch, Carol. “The Personal Is Political: The Original Feminist Theory Paper at the Author’s

Web Site.” Carol Hanisch, 2009, http://www.carolhanisch.org/CHwritings/PIP.html.

Kitzinger, Celia, and Jo Willmott. “‘The Thief of Womanhood’: Women's Experience of

Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome.” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 54, no. 3, 2002, pp. 349–61.

Toerien, Merran, and Sue Wilkinson. “Gender and Body Hair: Constructing the Feminine

#mine #personal #rabbit rambles

62 notes · View notes

rotten-zucchinis · 5 years ago

Text

On “Monogamy”

The other day, in the midst of some anti-monogamy critique (that was described to a baby anarchist as “pushing the envelope”), someone asked me what I meant by “monogamy”. I ended up spelling it out in a lot of detail.

TLDR:

Monogamy is the framework that constructs people-as-property (with all its implications) as well as the structuring of society around "couples".

The one-and-only one aspect of romantic/sexual relationships most commonly labelled "monogamy" is the most superficial manifestation of that "institution".

Polyamorous or otherwise “non-monogamous” practices that continue to treat people-as-property (just with slightly different access rules) and which centre "couples" are participating in / enacting Monogamy's institutions just like nominally "monogamous" relationships/practices do.

Monogamy is inherently coercive but alternatives aren't necessarily less coercive.

What is monogamy?

Monogamy is set of institutions, practices and social structures centred around:

privileging sets of dyadic romantic/sexual relationships

that are placed atop a hierarchy of value (and presumed intimacy) as the “One Important Relationship” people normatively should have

and invoking various restrictions, obligations and entitlements governing partners' behaviour toward each other and others in the goal of protecting that “One Important Relationship” from various “threats” (typically posed by “less important” relationships)

Monogamy frames relationship-mates and their social/emotional resources as the “property” of the other partner, wherein they might “owe” each other or “be entitled to” from each other certain levels of emotional support / attention / resources, etc. This includes the construction of people's bodies as the legitimate “property” of their relationship counterpart, wherein they might “owe” (or be “entitled to”) sexual access to their counterpart's body. (Those kinds of obligations and entitlements make genuine consent impossible, even before conversations about how desires are constructed and by what social pressures, expectations and regulatory “punishments” etc.)

Restricting the behaviour of relationship-mates toward other people ensures that their “resources” will not be “ciphoned away” from their “legitimate owner” (i.e., their partner). Under this system, relationship-mates are limited to having all romantic, sexual and intimacy needs strictly from each other (setting people up to be overly-dependent on each other for the fulfilment of basic social needs), and conversely, they are held responsible for meeting these needs for their relationship-mates.

(This is extremely isolating and creates a situation of artificial scarcity of intimacy, while also preventing people from seeking intimacy through other avenues, including through friendships, while directly devaluing non-romantic forms of intimacy. There are some exceptions made for non-romantic intimacy which functions to support exclusive couples and help people survive the normative emotional poverty of coupledom, especially hetero-coupledom— for example, the trope of sisters or “girl friends” providing each other the emotional support that their husbands don't provide and which renders their marriages tolerable or even “happy”.)

“Cheating” is therefore a matter of either:

a relationship-mate sharing access to their own body and emotional resources with someone other than their stated partner (which “cheats” the partner in question out of being able to fully access those “resources” that “belong” to them)

a relationship-mate sharing in someone else's emotional resources or access to that person's body (in ways that might meet certain desires or needs and therefore undermine the isolation-caused dependence involved in the first partnership, thereby potentially “disincentivising” that one relationship-mate to remain as committed to the first partner(ship) in an imbalanced way compared with their partner whose dependence upon that relationship remains unchanged)

This translates in practice to a 1-on-1 relationship structure that is not only exclusive of other people but more importantly where rules and restrictions are in place to keep things in that 1-on-1 setup. And in this respect, society—in all aspects, from state institutions and sanctions to community norms— is structured around monogamous partnerships as the only form of “legitimate” intimate/important relationships for adults, around which all “legitimate” adults are supposed to structure their lives (i.e., excluding people who are left out of adult personhood, for example, for reasons of disability and ableism).

Monogamy ascribes value to persons based on their “desirability” and/or ability to “attract and/or keep” a monogamous partner. Monogamy is deeply connected with constructions of the nuclear family and, in that, intimately tied in with capitalism through providing the basis for nuclear family consumer units. And monogamy is systemically used as a tool to uphold and enforce amatonormativity and compulsory sexuality, and the ways these systems are used to enact and justify racist and colonial agendas as well as rape culture. Monogamy is often also used as a tool to uphold the institution of heterosexuality as well as homonormativity.

Additionally, monogamy as a structure is nominally limited to focusing on romantic and/or sexual relationships since these are the only ones viewed as “significant” enough to pose substantive “threats”. By extension, “overly close” friendship (especially between people of different genders in a hetero context) are constructed as “unhealthy” or “destructive” because of their capacity to edge into romantic or sexual territory and ultimately pose a threat.

What is coercive and destructive about monogamy isn't that it involves two people having one and only one significant romantic/sexual relationship in their life: it's how individuals are framed as each others' property, and how individuals enact structures and practices of restrictions, obligations and entitlements in order to preserve/protect/immortalise that relationship set-up.

Various approaches to “non-monogamy” (especially in forms of polyamory) reject the superficial manifestation of monogamy, namely its 1-on-1 exclusivity, while typically simultaneously avoiding any rejection of the things that make “Monogamy” coercive. Typically, “non-monogamy” merely changes the terms under which relationship-mates can behave while still remaining each other’s “property”— the terms under which they can “owe” or be “entitled to” emotional support/attention/resources or sexual access to their bodies, etc. In other words, non-monogamy typically eschews only the superficial manifestation of Monogamy’s deep framework which approaches people and their bodies and emotional energy/attention/resources, etc. as “legitimate property” of other people.

For example, under hierarchical non-monogamy, primary relationship-mates still belong to each other, but there are specific rules to govern the sharing of access to their resources and bodies— when, how, under what circumstances this access is “allowed”, as well as what relationship-mates are “allowed” to tell or withhold from their primary relationship-mates about these encounters. Often there are even specific rules governing whether/how relationship-mates can weigh-in on or limit (i.e., have “veto power” over) each other's interactions with other people. (This is all with the goal of protecting the primary relationship from any potential threats and preserving its “primary status”.)

[A real-life example was discussed in the context that prompted this conversation about a poly group having to enforce a rule against one (poly-inclined) partner in a monogamous relationship bringing their (monogamy-inclined) partner to a poly group in the for the purpose of having folks at the poly group work together to coerce the monogamous partner into “changing the rules” of the heretofore monogamous relationship. To be clear, that does not in any way challenge the framing of the partners as property of the other. Instead, it's using coercive tactics to try to “change the rules of access” governing people-as-property while explicitly accepting the framing of “people-as-property”. Not only is that a problem from an individual-level coercion perspective (which is reason enough to avoid this behaviour!), but it's also non-sensical because it reinforces the very formulation that monogamy is based on in the first place!]

Non-hierarchical polyamory is explicitly based on rejecting the formulation of relationship-mates as each others' property (though it doesn't necessarily work that way in practice); however, it does typically accept and even actively welcomes the social structures that centre and privilege romantic/sexual relationships. It approaches monogamous structures with a reformist approach to them, aimed at broadening them just enough to allow for more than one set of romantic/sexual partnerships or romantic/sexual partnerships involving more than 2 people. It is assimilationist by its very nature. It doesn't aim for more radical changes, nor does it aim to abolish monogamous structures.

My objection to Monogamy

With that understanding that “monogamy” is fundamentally about so much other than two people who are romantically/sexually involved with each other and only each other— with the understanding that the exclusivity that is the typical hallmark of “monogamy” is simply a supericial manifestation of much deeper structures of people as property which limit their behaviour according to per-determined mutual obligations and entitlements...

My problem with monogamy isn't about the situation of someone having one and only one partner of a certain type. And I would not describe a relationship as “monogamous” where people happen to be romantically/sexually (or otherwise intimately) involved with each other and only each other and where they are simultaneously actively resisting the partner-as-property construction and all its implications (including the imposition of obligations and entitlements). But I also don't know how likely that is to actually happen, especially in a social context shaped by the institution of monogamy.

Also, to be clear, I'm not against people intentionally and voluntarily taking up commitments generally (as I've discussed before [text])— it's just that I would not frame “commitments” in this context as a “contract”. (i.e., A contract is a type of static, often-coercive agreement that exist under capitalism and other economic systems too with the goal of ensuring one party certain resources/services/access to things etc., typically in exchange for other resources/services/access to things by another party, etc. by limiting what people do in the future and promising to invoke some violent intervention– typically from the state— to enforce the terms of the contract if necessary). I'd want to see commitments framed as forms of communication— about communicating where people are at in relationships, etc. And I am extremely critical of ways that people might take up banners of “non-monogamy” or “relationship anarchy” to justify people with more power avoiding various types of commitments while rendering invisible a lot of taken-for-granted work that people with less power are still expected to do (as I've discussed before [text]).

I am wary of the way people fall back onto liberal “to each their own” / “you do you” / “individual choice!” / “all choices are equally valid” default position when it comes to monogamy and critiques of monogamy. But even I have some difficulty navigating that in practice. While Monogamy is inherently coercive, alternatives to little-m monogamy— especially the ones that still rely on the institution of Mongamy's framing of person-as-property— are not necessarily any less coercive. And I recognise that resisting the institution of Monogamy and its framing of persons is very difficult to do. Not everyone can or wants to do that, and trying to force people into it will almost certainly incur more harm for them. But I also want to acknowledge that just by doing what people are doing “apolitically”, they are reinforcing the current system and that has harmful consequences for other people too.

For example, within a social context centred on and structured around couples, it's not possible to be part of a “couple” and interact socially as “a couple” or as “part of a couple”, and to enjoy the social access that goes along with that at the expense of the systematic devaluation of friendships and other forms of intimacy— to even accept a “plus 1” invitation without commentary— without contributing to the normalisation of the couple form. And while, strictly speaking, I do believe it would be theoretically possible for two people to be engaged in some sort of romantic relationship (whether or not it's also sexual in nature) with each other (and even only with each other) without that in any way being a “couple”... That's overwhelmingly not what people are doing when they're doing romantic relationships, especially when there are explicitly restrictions in placed on the relationship to keep it “exclusive”.

Having said that, it's not always easy to tell by looking at a relationship from the outside whether those things are happening. Certainly people do need to be doing work to unpack whether they “want” to connect romantically/sexually (or otherwise intimately) with only each other because there aren't other potential connections available to them at the moment that would benefit their lives, or because they're actively shutting down any of those possibilities before they develop due to having internalised ways of behaving from existence in a monogamy-centred society and immersion within all Monogamy's institutions that construct & shape desires, etc. And I think people often behave and react along these lines without necessarily intending to. So the idea of a romantic/sexual (or otherwise intimate) relationship that is between two (and only two) people (who aren't connecting in those ways with other people)— especially if they are taking any steps to make sure things stay that way... they're going to need to be working very hard to be actively resisting Monogamous structures (and if they're not, it's almost certainly Monogamy).

But also as a caveat, that doesn't mean that straying from the superficial manifestation of monogamy by engaging in multiple romantic/sexual relationships is participating any less in monogamy's framework of treating people as property and entailing certain predetermined obligations and entitlements. People can and often do enact Monogamy's destructive foundations when they're involved in (or open to or seeking) multiple romantic/sexual relationships-- and the harm is often compounded in those situations for the simple reason that there are more people involved to hurt and get hurt.

What I'm going for isn't non-monogamy: it's anti-monogamy— a complete rejection of Monogamy's framing and foundations with respect to all things, including the limitation of focus to romantic and sexual relationships, and including the framing of persons-as-property.

What does that look like in practice?

Once the “couple” is completely de-centred and society is reorganised around other things to close the gap it leaves, friendships (no longer being actively devalued) will rise to fill a more primary role in people's lives. People will acknowledge and engage in intimacy within friendships that is rarely afforded the opportunity to be acknowledged or to thrive under the current system. With more intimacy from friendship and more substantive community connections (community is a big piece of this picture for me), people won't be so isolated and basically deprived of emotional connection. (I don't agree with the necessarily socially-busy post-revolution utopia that a lot of folks seem to assume is the goal or outcome of anti-monogamy— and I think it's straight-up ableist— but I do still think community and friendship will be part of that picture.)

Under those circumstances, I think many fewer people would choose to pursue romantic relationships at all (or even specifically strictly sexual relationships, because sexual intimacy wouldn't be partitioned off into the domain of romantic relationships or special “friends-with-benefits” relationships). I think some people will still do those relationships. And some people might still do very important relationships that are romantic (and sexual). And some people might even engage in only one (at a time?) and with someone else who is also only involved in that one (at that time?). And without the artificial scarcity of intimacy that the institution of Monogamy enforces, people likely won't be so dependent on these relationships, and won't be pulled to navigate artificially-created-scarcity by treating each other as property. And more importantly, without the entire system set up to push people in that direction and deny them basic intimacy and social needs from other avenues... that will be far less “overdetermined”. And within that context, a 1-on-1 romantic (possibly sexual) relationship where participants don't have other 1-on-1 romantic (possibly sexual) relationships wouldn't be “monogamy”.

The rejection of monogamy I’m talking about doesn't really "make sense" within a context that's still centred on "couples" (whether or not individuals are expected to be participating in 1 or more of them) unless people are willing to start building alternatives from the ground up as they go (which isn't for everyone). I do think there is harm in participating in monogamous practices beyond the harm that comes to the individuals directly relating to each other-- on the level of how normalising harmful structures contributes to the harm those structures can ultimately effect. But there are different kinds of harm and different degrees of contributing to them. For example, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism but that doesn't mean we can, for instance, either stop eating or start growing all our own food without causing harm in other ways. (And while monogamy doesn't enact harm on quite the same scale except insofar as it is deployed as tools of capitalism, white supremacy and so many other powerfully harmful systems--which is still a big deal!), there is no ethical relating under Monogamy. That doesn't mean we can't build alternatives-- we can, even if the best we might be able to do (for now) are the metaphorical equivalent of temporary autonomous zones. I think those alternatives are worth building. But it can't be limited to individual choices. And individual choices aren't magically "apolitical" when they're about personal relationships.

#relationship anarchy #monogamy #anti-monogamy #non-monogamy #ra #solo poly #relationships #violent institutions #amatonormativity #compulsory sexuality #my ramblings #long post #no idea how people tag stuff these days #but this is kind of tedious anyway #this is post 666 on this blog by complete happenstance

44 notes · View notes

ais-n · 5 years ago

Note

2| and where is the trauma? both hsin and boyd were severely sexually abused. and emilio's illness is always treated as a joke. look Ais, your series has done me so much good between the bad it did. i found i'm gay lmao and i'm grateful for that. i'm grateful that you wrote this ok. but there are things that were offensive, and maybe it was unconscious, since i doubt you wanted to be racist or write a mlm relationship but more like hetero. i wish i could just enjoy the books but my heart breaks

3| idk what the one who questioned that could possibly mean between all the things but thats what i mean. i appreciate you a lot. i hope this didn’t make you feel worse or whatever. but some people really did end up hurt badly after reading icos and im one of them. with all respect, and hope that i didnt disturb you much, farewell.

++++++++++++

Aha I just realized I can put both 2nd and 3rd asks in one! Which is good because, again, the gay comment makes me laugh out loud XD As I said in the other post, thank you again for reaching out, for explaining your concerns, and for the courage you no doubt had to bring forth in order to do so.

I’m getting right into the answers in this one although I will probably ask more questions for clarification on some of the points, as I did on the first one, to make sure I’m not misunderstanding or misinterpreting anything.

More below the cut! :)

EMILIO’S ILLNESS

I’m really sorry but I wasn’t sure what you meant by that. Which illness? How is it treated as a joke? Could you clarify?

TRAUMA

So this I thought was super interesting that you felt there was no representation of trauma in ICoS, or I assume you also mean its aftereffects. That’s actually one of the few points I feel pretty confident saying the series does portray a lot of, both in some cases the experience of it and in other cases the repercussions.

One of the reasons both of them are so severely dysfunctional individually and together is because of trauma.

I don’t want to muddy up this post with a huge tangent but someone had asked a few years ago about the result of the Aleixo mission on Boyd, if he was diagnosed with anything, and so on. If you’re interested, I wrote a long ass reply about the psychological effect of sex trafficking on survivors/victims and talked about some of the things you see Boyd do that are a bit reflective of that. More info at https://aisness.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/boyd-aleixo-psychology/

I think there probably would be more information on all this by now, or at least I certainly hope there would be, but at the time of writing Fade that was the sort of research that was available.

Although, full disclosure, I don’t tend to write characters looking up the DSM symptoms for this or that; I write what feels right for them psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and oftentimes later look it up and realize they would have likely been diagnosed with this or that thing or they could be displaying traits of this or that.

At any rate, with Boyd, his trauma started early on, and pretty much everything about him is a reflection of that in some form. I don’t see trauma as specific to sexual assault; it’s most certainly a result of that but also of many other things. Boyd dealt with a lot of neglect and/or emotional abuse as a child, he was bullied by his peers, and generally speaking it was difficult for him to feel like he belonged anywhere. He was very often judged by others, often negatively, for things completely outside of his control, like his parents, their jobs, his home, the amount of money his family had, his looks, etc.

If you look at the Mayo Clinic’s list of child abuse, Boyd falls pretty well under emotional abuse and a bit under neglect, and you can especially see the toll that had on his personality by reading the signs and symptoms of emotional abuse in particular:

Loss of self-confidence or self-esteem

Social withdrawal or a loss of interest or enthusiasm

Depression

Avoidance of certain situations, such as refusing to go to school or ride the bus

Desperately seeks affection

And general symptoms:

Withdrawal from friends or usual activities

Depression, anxiety or unusual fears, or a sudden loss of self-confidence

An apparent lack of supervision

Self-harm or attempts at suicide

If you look at Complex PTSD, and in particular Developmental Trauma Disorder (DTD) you can see a lot of Hsin:

Attachment – “problems with relationship boundaries, lack of trust, social isolation, difficulty perceiving and responding to others’ emotional states”

Behavioural control – “problems with impulse control, aggression, pathological self-soothing, and sleep problems”

Dissociation – “amnesia, depersonalization, discrete states of consciousness with discrete memories, affect, and functioning, and impaired memory for state-based events”

I wouldn’t say Hsin dissociates quite that extensively but I feel like he does display some dissociative tendencies at times.

Boyd has some too, like

Self-concept – “fragmented and disconnected autobiographical narrative, disturbed body image, low self-esteem, excessive shame, and negative internal working models of self”.

I think in some ways you could argue they both display aspects of:

Affect or emotional regulation – “poor affect regulation, difficulty identifying and expressing emotions and internal states, and difficulties communicating needs, wants, and wishes”

When Boyd was little, he often wondered why other people were treated better than him - why, when he was getting perfect grades, he was going above and beyond whenever possible, when he was trying to be “a good boy” all the time, when he went out of his way to stay quiet and not bother anyone – why, despite all his attempts, other people were celebrate yet he was reviled, even if the people being celebrated were awful people doing awful things. He used to study other people relentlessly, trying to understand what it was about them that made them acceptable and what it was about him that made him not.

That’s why, despite being such an introvert, he’s good at blending in and going undercover; it’s why he can adjust to new situations and, in a way, act - because he always had to monitor and adjust himself his whole life just to feel seen and loved. His dad loved him on his own so it wasn’t as bad as it could have been, but with the trauma that came from the loss of his dad, and what happened with Lou, plus everything afterward, it really messed everything up.

Boyd was not a victim of childhood sexual abuse, but more of emotional abuse. Well, I guess, I should say for the most part he wasn’t.

Hsin was definitely a victim of childhood sexual abuse and probably physical abuse (that bit I can’t recall for sure). He was raped even as a small child, and that led into different aspects of his life. One reason, for example, he would go berserk and was seen by the Agency as unreliable in cases of him seeing sexual assault was because he saw, in some way, himself in those victims. It was probably his way of protecting people when he hadn’t been protected, himself.

I can’t speak too much on Hsin’s specific mental health status or repercussions because I didn’t write him so I’m not fully in his mind, but I do know that sort of berserker aspect is part of what came from his sexual abuse and physical abuse and just generally how he grew up. If I recall correctly, a lot of that led into why he was so unstable and dangerous when Emilio first found him; why it took so long to get Hsin to find a way to deal with the violence and aggression and anger in him, in addition to everything else that would have happened regardless of that childhood trauma. Why, too, it was such a huge deal when Boyd was able to earn Hsin’s trust, because he had learned in his life to trust almost no one.

You can see some of the way they both display aspects of C-PTSD as adults as well in the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_post-traumatic_stress_disorder#Adults

I should be clear: I am NOT a psychiatrist or psychologist so I’m not suggesting that they would be specifically diagnosed with any of these disorders were they to get official diagnoses. However, the reason I bring it up is to show that a lot of the series reflects the way their coping mechanisms lead them to interact within themselves and with the outside world, all of which is often directly or indirectly tied to trauma.

Why is Boyd so terrified of anyone seeing him without his shirt in the beginning? Trauma. Why is he depressed? Trauma. Why is he suicidal? Trauma. Why does he go out of his way to avoid a certain block? Trauma. I would have to look at specific symptoms of different things but I would guess that you could also tie back some of his instability and his sometimes inconsistent reactions to trauma as well. Sometimes he does things or says things that may seem a bit reckless, or cold, or some other unexpected thing at that time - and a lot of times it’s probably in part related to how he learned to cope with things and what his levels of defensiveness are or his fears are at that moment. But he also has a complete inability to see the good in himself for a long time which also ties back, I would think, to some of the things he experienced growing up/previously.

Boyd is an incredibly unreliable narrator. He spends most of his narration thinking about how awful he is, how he should just die, how he isn’t doing a good enough job, and so forth. Yet, that fails to show the impact of some of his choices and decisions. Boyd was pretty much the first person to treat Hsin like a normal human being, to not see him as a surrogate of anything or anyone, to not have any ulterior motives or expectations of him (no matter how well-intentioned), and to truly gain his trust as a result. Yet, Boyd didn’t really see it that way. He didn’t see how important it was for Hsin that he ended up in his life; he didn’t get why Hsin was exasperated the times Boyd said he (Boyd) should just die, that there was no value to his life. He didn’t believe he could be loved so he couldn’t see it was even a possibility at first. Therefore, he spends a lot of his narration over the series belittling himself and downplaying any of his own achievements while simultaneously rewarding or acknowledging what others around him are doing. Not every moment of his narration, of course, but his default state of self is to think he sucks and others are probably better.

Conversely, Hsin is a confident narrator. He often doesn’t doubt himself, doesn’t care what other people think, and is very sure of himself in a lot of aspects like his physical prowess which, itself, is already above and beyond nearly everyone else. Yet he also learned not to trust or rely on anyone else in his life, so he’s incredibly suspicious of others because that’s how he had to learn to be. So, especially in the beginning of the series, in his narration he tends to be very factual about his own achievements and not shy away from acknowledging the things that are powerful about him (even if he doesn’t always see it as anything that special), while simultaneously seeking out anything untrustworthy, unreliable, incompetent, or unworthy about those around him. His narration tends to point out the flaws of those around him because he learned that if he doesn’t protect himself, he’s vulnerable, and when he’s vulnerable he gets hurt.

The result of that is, if you read their narrations straight as if it’s all perfectly reliable, Boyd seems even more unreliable and Hsin seems even more perfect than they actually are, because their default states of being overlap in a manner which magnifies the flaws in Boyd and the merits in Hsin.

Both of them learned to be how they were because of how they were raised, what they went through, and more. Same as how they react to various things throughout the series.

I can’t more specifically comment on anything without knowing what in particular you were thinking of when commenting in the ask about trauma and sexual abuse. But I think generally speaking, they already start the series having learned coping mechanisms that work for them based on trauma they already individually experienced. Those coping mechanisms end up oftentimes being challenged and at times destroyed or reworked throughout the course of the series. That is what leads to a lot of their ups and downs as individuals and as a couple; why their story isn’t a straight arc going up but instead derails a lot. And why they both spend the entirety of the series coming to terms with who they are both internally and externally, and what that means for their relationship, and how they can find a way to grow as a person and a significant other. They both ultimately have to work on trust; Boyd has to learn to trust himself, Hsin has to learn to trust others, and they have to learn to trust each other.

The way people deal with trauma is not the same for everyone. Sexual abuse doesn’t result in the same reaction for all people. I’m not sure if maybe one of the things you were thinking is maybe about sexual abuse during the series itself? I already linked something that goes more in depth on Fade so I won’t touch on that book, and I really can’t speak for Hsin because he isn’t my character so I don’t want to misrepresent his thought process as hidden behind narration or actions at different points.

The only other thing I can think of that maybe you’re thinking about is Boyd’s valentine status, and how he doesn’t seem to have overtly strong reactions to anything until Fade. If that’s one aspect of what you were thinking about, part of that is just how Boyd deals with things. He tends to avoid things that are difficult for him or he has difficulty focusing on, and oftentimes shuts down emotionally.

I think honestly he probably dissociated to some extent during a lot of things; kind of separated his body from his mind and felt like whatever happened, happened. For a lot of the time that he was a valentine early on, he had such little love for himself that regardless of how upsetting anything was, how little he wanted to do certain things, he felt on some level like he deserved it. Some things were probably a subconscious form of self-punishment for being born, for being who he is, for surviving when Lou didn’t, for surviving when his dad didn’t, for never being enough for his mother, for just plain existing. Then as time went on he grew to rely on Hsin and find strength in him. It’s also not like every mission he had was a valentine one, or even that every valentine has to end in anything physical.

That’s why he was able to find ways of dealing with things in some form, even if he didn’t like it or was uncomfortable at times, until the Aleixo mission. He thought he knew how to handle things; he thought he had found apt coping mechanisms. But that mission tore that all apart and nearly destroyed him. His coping mechanisms didn’t work the way they had and now he had to find a new way to survive, and from there came a lot of his instability and more that you see in Fade and as I mention in that blog post.

But in short, I feel like the majority of the series ends up touching, indirectly or directly, on some form of trauma as experienced currently or in the past by one or more of the main characters, and their resulting actions then drive the plot. That is one thing we were very specific about doing: having the plot adjust to the characters rather than force the characters to adjust to the plot. That’s why Afterimage exists, actually; the original plan was sort of like 3/4 of Evenfall and then kind of jumping into aspects of Fade. But we realized at the end of Evenfall that certain things would occur which would then lead to Afterimage and Afterimage then led into aspects of Interludes, which then led into aspects of right before Fade, which then affected a huge part of Fade itself, which then informed 1/27. We didn’t set out to write a series specifically about trauma, it’s just sort of one of those things that happens if you take two characters who have been treated so cruelly or poorly for so much of their lives, and put them together as any sort of team - but especially a team that becomes a couple, and a couple that becomes all but married.

+ +

Regarding the other stuff, I haven’t had a chance yet to check if you answered my question about the hetero relationship comment, so I can’t comment on that until I know more of what you mean. But I would say that generally speaking, I don’t know that I believe it’s necessarily fair to label anything as strictly “hetero” vs “m/m” vs anything else for a relationship. That brings with it a lot of assumptions of what it means to be not only gay or LGBTQIA+, but also straight. It seems to suggest there is only a single way or a very strict set of ways for a cis male and a cis female to be together both in a relationship and to have sex, and I guess I don’t feel like that’s necessarily reflective of reality. People are very complex and so are their relationships, as well as their sex lives.

I’m not sure how specifically the series ended up hurting you but I’m very sorry you felt hurt by anything. That’s a terrible feeling to have to experience. I hope that in whatever way, however it may work best for you, you have the time and space to reflect and recover and rejuvenate. You, like everyone, deserve it.

And honestly, if that means you have to leave the series completely in your past, never to think about it again, if that’s what’s healthiest for you, I truly wish you are able to do so. Stories are there to connect with other people, to share our thoughts and sometimes help us work our way through our own while reading. No story is worth your mental health being put in question. If it is truly upsetting to you to think about the series, it is absolutely not worth your energy. You are more important than a story will ever be. Everyone is. And I say that despite how much I love and rely on stories to get me through life.

If part of your duress is you like aspects of the writing style but the series itself and its contents upset you, you could try reading some other stuff. I have some things I wrote solo that you can find on my AO3 if you want. But also you can find other writers entirely. Depending on what you’re looking for in a story, and the sort of topics you’ve learned work well for you or don’t work well for you, you should be able to find a ton of great series out there and great authors out there who will leave you with the happier aspects of your reaction to ICoS without anything more detrimental like it sounds happened for you with ICoS.

Regardless, I truly wish you the very best. As I said in the other one, please stay healthy and safe! And, if you’re in a place to manage it, stay happy as well :)

Brightest of blessings to you and yours, my friend!

#ask ais #icos #in the company of shadows #Anonymous

11 notes · View notes

star-anise · 6 years ago

Note

do you have any sources on the claims you made? im always willing to change my stance if you have legitimate backing for it haha

So first, I’m sorry for blowing up at you the way that I did. I’m not proud that I reacted in such a kneejerk, aggressive fashion. Thank you for being open to hearing what I have to say. I’m sorry for mistaking you for a TERF, and I’m sorry my response has caused other people to direct their own hostility towards you.

So, here’s the thing. “You can’t call bi women femmes” is pretty intrinsically a radfem thing to say, and I am deeply opposed to letting radfems tell me what to do. I’m trying to write this during a weekend packed with childcare and work. I’ll try to hit all the high notes.

The one thing I am having trouble finding is the longass post I talked about in my reply, that was a history of butch/femme relationships in lesbian bars, which had frequent biphobic asides and talked about “the lesbophobic myth of the bi-rejecting lesbian”; the friend who reblogged it without reading it thoroughly has deleted it, and I can’t find it on any of the tags she remembers looking at around that time. If anyone can find it, I’ll put up a link.

As far as possible, I’m linking to really widely accessible sources, because you shouldn’t intrinsically trust a random post on Tumblr as secret privileged knowledge. People have talked about this at length in reputable publications that your local library either has, or can get through interlibrary loan; you can look up any of the people here, read their work, and decide for yourself. This is a narrative of perspectives, and while I obviously have a perspective, many people disagree with me. At the end of the day, the only reason I need for calling bi women femmes is that You Are Not The Boss Of Me. There is no centralized authority on LGBT+ word usage, nor do I think there should be. Hopefully this post will give you a better sense of what the arguments are, and how to evaluate peoples’ claims in the future.

I looked up “butch” and “femme” with my library’s subscription to the Oxford English Dictionary because that’s where you find the most evidence of etymology and early use, and found:

“Femme” is the French word for “woman”. It’s been a loanword in English for about 200 years, and in the late 19th century in America it was just a slangy word for “women”, as in, “There were lots of femmes there for the boys to dance with”

“Butch” has been used in American English to mean a tough, masculine man since the late 19th century; in the 1930s and 1940s it came to apply to a short masculine haircut, and shortly thereafter, a woman who wore such a haircut. It’s still used as a nickname for masculine cis guys–my godfather’s name is Martin, but his family calls him Butch. By the 1960s in Britain, “butch” was slang for the penetrating partner of a pair of gay men.

Butch/femme as a dichotomy for women arose specifically in the American lesbian bar scene around, enh, about the 1940s, to enh, about the 1960s. Closet-keys has a pretty extensive butch/femme history reader. This scene was predominantly working-class women, and many spaces in it were predominantly for women of colour. This was a time when “lesbian” literally meant anyone who identified as a woman, and who was sexually or romantically interested in other women. A lot of the women in these spaces were closeted in the rest of their lives, and outside of their safe spaces, they had to dress normatively, were financially dependent on husbands, etc. Both modern lesbians, and modern bisexual women, can see themselves represented in this historical period.

These spaces cross-pollinated heavily with ball culture and drag culture, and were largely about working-class POC creating spaces where they could explore different gender expressions, gender as a construct and a performance, and engage in a variety of relationships. Butch/femme was a binary, but it worked as well as most binaries to do with sex and gender do, which is to say, it broke down a lot, despite the best efforts of people to enforce it. It became used by people of many different genders and orientations whose common denominator was the need for safety and discretion. “Butch” and “femme” were words with meanings, not owners.

Lesbianism as distinct from bisexuality comes from the second wave of feminism, which began in, enh, the 1960s, until about, enh, maybe the 1980s, maybe never by the way Tumblr is going. “Radical” feminism means not just that this is a new and more exciting form of feminism compared to the early 20th century suffrage movement; as one self-identified radfem professor of mine liked to tell us every single lecture, it shares an etymology with the word “root”, meaning that sex discrimination is at the root of all oppression.

Radical feminism blossomed among college-educated women, which also meant, predominantly white, middle- or upper-class women whose first sexual encounters with women happened at elite all-girls schools or universities. Most of these women broke open the field of “women’s studies” and the leading lights of radical feminism often achieved careers as prominent scholars and tenured professors.

Radical feminism established itself as counter to “The Patriarchy”, and one of the things many early radfems believed was, all men were the enemy. All men perpetuated patriarchy and were damaging to women. So the logical decision was for women to withdraw from men in all manner and circumstances–financially, legally, politically, socially, and sexually. “Political lesbianism” wasn’t united by its sexual desire for women; many of its members were asexual, or heterosexual women who decided to live celibate lives. This was because associating with men in any form was essentially aiding and abetting the enemy.

Look, I’ll just literally quote Wikipedia quoting an influential early lesbian separatist/radical feminist commune: “The Furies recommended that Lesbian Separatists relate “only (with) women who cut their ties to male privilege” and suggest that “as long as women still benefit from heterosexuality, receive its privileges and security, they will at some point have to betray their sisters, especially Lesbian sisters who do not receive those benefits”“

This cross-pollinated with the average experience of WLW undergraduates, who were attending school at a time when women weren’t expected to have academic careers; college for women was primarily seen as a place to meet eligible men to eventually marry. So there were definitely women who had relationships with other women, but then, partly due to the pressure of economic reality and heteronormativity, married men. This led to the phrase LUG, or “lesbian until graduation”, which is the kind of thing that still got flung at me in the 00s as an openly bisexual undergrad. Calling someone a LUG was basically an invitation to fight.

The assumption was that women who marry men when they’re 22, or women who don’t stay in the feminist academic sphere, end up betraying their ideals and failing to have solidarity with their sisters. Which seriously erases the many contributions of bi, het, and ace women to feminism and queer liberation. For one, I want to point to Brenda Howard, the bisexual woman who worked to turn Pride from the spontaneous riots in 1969 to the nationwide organized protests and parades that began in 1970 and continue to this day. She spent the majority of her life to a male partner, but that didn’t diminish her contribution to the LGBT+ community.

Lesbian separatists, and radical feminists, hated Butch/Femme terminology. They felt it was a replication of unnecessarily heteronormative ideals. Butch/femme existed in an LGBT+ context, where gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people understood themselves to have more in common with each other than with, say, cis feminists who just hated men more than they loved women.

The other main stream of feminist thought at the time was Liberal Feminism, which was like, “What if we can change society without totally rejecting men?” and had prominent figures like Gloria Steinem, who ran Ms magazine. Even today, you’ll hear radfems railing against “libfems” and I’m like, my good women, liberal feminism got replaced thirty years ago. Please update your internal schema of “the enemy”

Lesbian separatism was… plagued by infighting. To maintain a “woman-only” space, they had to kick out trans women (thus, TERFs), women who slept with men (thus, biphobia), women who enjoyed kinky sex or pornography or engaged in sex work (thus, SWERFS) and they really struggled to raise their male children in a way that was… um… anti-oppressive. (I’m biased; I know people who were raised in lesbian separatist communes and did not have great childhoods.) At the same time, they had other members they very much wanted to keep, even though their behaviour deviated from the expected program, so you ended up with spectacles like Andrea Dworkin self-identifying as a lesbian despite being deeply in love with and married to a self-identified gay man for twenty years, despite beng famous for the theory that no woman could ever have consensual sex with a man, because all she could ever do was acquiesce to her own rape.

There’s a reason radical feminism stopped being a major part of the public discourse, and also a reason why it survives today: While its proponents became increasingly obsolete, they were respected scholars and tenured university professors. This meant people like Camille Paglia and Mary Daly, despite their transphobia and racism, were considered important people to read and guaranteed jobs educating young people who had probably just moved into a space where they could meet other LGBT people for the very first time. So a lot of modern LGBT people (including me) were educated by radical feminist professors or assigned radical feminist books to read in class.

The person I want to point to as a great exemplar is Alison Bechdel, a white woman who discovered she was a lesbian in college, was educated in the second-wave feminist tradition, but also identified as a butch and made art about the butch/femme dichotomy’s persistence and fluidity. You can see part of that tension in her comic; she knows the official lesbian establishment frowns on butch/femme divisions, but it’s relevant to her lived experience.

What actually replaced radical feminism was not liberal feminism, but intersectional feminism and the “Third Wave”. Black radical feminists, like Audre Lorde, bell hooks, and Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, pointed out that many white radical feminists were ignoring race as a possible cause of oppression, and failing to notice how their experiences differed from Black womens’. Which led to a proliferation of feminists talking about other oppressions they faced: Disabled feminists, Latina feminists, queer feminists, working-class feminists. It became clear that even if you eliminated the gender binary from society, there was still a lot of bad shit that you had to unlearn–and also, a lot of oppression that still happened in lesbian separatist spaces.

I’ve talked before about how working in women-only second-wave spaces really destroyed my faith in them and reinforced my belief in intersectional feminism

Meanwhile, back in the broader queer community, “queer” stuck as a label because how people identified was really fluid. Part of it is that you learn by experience, and sometimes the only way to know if something works for you is to try it out, and part of it is that, as society changed, a lot more people became able to take on new identities without as much fear. So for example, you have people like Pat Califia, who identified as a lesbian in the 70s and 80s, found far more in common with gay leather daddies than sex-negative lesbians, and these days identifies as a bisexual trans man.

Another reason radical feminists hate the word “queer”, by the way, is queer theory, which wants to go beyond the concept of men oppressing women, or straights oppressing gays, but to question this entire system we’ve built, of sex, and gender, and orientation. It talks about “queering” things to mean “to deviate from heteronormativity” more than “to be homosexual”. A man who is married to a woman, who stays at home and raises their children while she works, is viewed as “queer” inasmuch as he deviates from heteronormativity, and is discriminated against for it.

So, I love queer theory, but I will agree that it can be infuriating to hear somebody say that as a single (cis het) man he is “queer” in the same way being a trans lesbian of colour is “queer”, and get very upset and precious about being told they’re not actually the same thing. I think that actually, “queer as a slur” originated as the kind of thing you want to scream when listening to too much academic bloviating, like, “This is a slur! Don’t reclaim it if it didn’t originally apply to you! It’s like poor white people trying to call themselves the n-word!” so you should make sure you are speaking about a group actually discriminated against before calling them “queer”. On the other hand, queer theory is where the theory of “toxic masculinity” came from and we realized that we don’t have to eliminate all men from the universe to reduce gender violence; if we actually pay attention to the pressures that make men so shitty, we can reduce or reverse-engineer them and encourage them to be better, less sexist, men.

But since radfems and queer theorists are basically mortal enemies in academia, radical feminists quite welcomed the “queer as a slur” phenomenon as a way to silence and exclude people they wanted silenced and excluded, because frankly until that came along they’ve been losing the culture wars.

This is kind of bad news for lesbians who just want to float off to a happy land of only loving women and not getting sexually harrassed by men. As it turns out, you can’t just turn on your lesbianism and opt out of living in society. Society will follow you wherever you go. If you want to end men saying gross things to lesbians, you can’t just defend lesbianism as meaning “don’t hit on me”; you have to end men saying gross things to all women, including bi and other queer women. And if you do want a lesbian-only space, you either have to accept that you will have to exclude and discriminate against some people, including members of your community whose identities or partners change in the future, or accept that the cost of not being a TERF and a biphobe is putting up with people in your space whose desires don’t always resemble yours.

Good god, this got extensive and I’ve been writing for two hours.

So here’s the other thing.

My girlfriend is a femme bi woman. She’s married to a man.

She’s also married to two women.

And dating a man.

And dating me (a woman).

When you throw monogamy out the window, it becomes EVEN MORE obvious that “being married to a man” does not exclude a woman from participation in the queer community as a queer woman, a woman whose presentation is relevant in WLW contexts. Like, this woman is in more relationships with women at the moment than some lesbians on this site have been in for their entire lives.

You can start out with really clear-cut ideas about “THIS is what my life is gonna be like” but then your best friend’s sexual orientation changes, or your lover starts to transition, and things in real life are so much messier than they look when you’re planning your future. It’s easy to be cruel, exclusionary, or dismissive to people you don’t know; it’s a lot harder when it’s people you have real relationships with.

And my married-to-a-man girlfriend? Uses “butch” and “femme” for reasons very relevant to her queerness and often fairly unique to femme bi women, like, “I was out with my husband and looking pretty femme, so I guess they didn’t clock me as a queer” or “I was the least butch person there, so they didn’t expect me to be the only one who uses power tools.” Being a femme bi woman is a lot about invisibility, which is worth talking about as a queer experience instead of being assumed to exclude us from the queer community.

#cherryhearrts #staranise original #answered asks #ranting in bisexual #lgbt discourse #terf shit #exclusionist shit #radfem shit #apologies to my girlfriend for not including carole queen in this post #she just didn't fit baby

1K notes · View notes

just-mbti-things · 6 years ago

Note

I'm the INTP anon who thinks that she might be a INFP. Also I feel that I craive intimacy a little to much (even though I have literally no idea how to deal with interactions in genaral and only have 2 stable and consistent relationships in my life). Also I'm a borderliner, and would bring this up with my therapist but she never mentioned MBTI before I droped out of therapy, and maybe (probably) mental illness affects alot on my analysis in genaral?

Hello Anon,

You would definitely be correct in saying that mental illness affects MBTI typing. I’m not sure if you read the section of the FAQ that addresses it, but it doesn’t go into much detail so I’ll elaborate on it a bit more and also address your specific situation. I mentioned this in the FAQ, but I’ll restate it just in case: none of us here at Just MBTI Things are trained or professional psychologists. That being said, we want to be cautious around the subject of mental illness as we do not have the proper qualifications to discuss it as though we know what we are talking about.

Small update: I am aware that there is a distinction between mental illness and personality disorders, however, I’ll just be reffering to both as I would think that they both would have similar impacts on a person’s cognitive functions, although personality disorders may make it even harder to type a person than mental illnesses.

Now, before we get into this, you’re going to want to have a good understanding of the cognitive functions. I’m not sure if you have already heard of them or not, so just in case I’ll put a link to our FAQ on it here.

If you think you’re an INTP but your BPD is what is causing you to think you might be an INFP, then there are two things I would like to say:

Your MBTI type should be separate from mental illness

Having strong emotions doesn’t make you an F type

What I mean by that first point is that there are certain behaviours associated with each MBTI type, and these should be kept separate from the behaviours that come from mental illness. It’s also important to note that MBTI is based on thought process, and anything outside of that, such as personality/how someone acts based on their MBTI type is stereotypical and very subjective.

When you say you are “a borderliner” I’m assuming you are talking about borderline personality disorder (BPD). You also mentioned that you crave intimacy a little too much, which is certainly a characteristic of BPD; however it is important to note that people of all types can crave personal/intimate relationships. Humans are social creatures after all. T types in general, but especially INTPs have been stereotyped as cold and detached, or incapable of feeling; but obviously this isn’t completely true. It’s actually been speculated that INTPs have a desire to be needed, as a result of their inferior Fe. Just because INTPs don’t really have a good grasp on their own feelings, doesn’t mean they don’t have any. It just means they don’t always know how to deal with emotions properly, and this can sometimes lead to unhealthy kinds of behaviour. The point I’m trying to make is that craving intimacy does not make you a feeling type, regardless of whether or not this craving stems from mental illness or from something else.

Now, if you’re stuck between being an INTP and an INFP, here’s where the functions are very important. I did mention in our FAQ that mental illness can make it more difficult to figure out someone’s cognitive functions, but we’re going to try nevertheless. On a surface level, INTP and INFP differ by one letter, T or F. However when you look at the cognitive functions, you will realize how different they really are. INTP and INFP share the same auxiliary and tertiary functions, Ne and Si, but the dominant and inferior functions are often the easiest to identify, so we will focus on those. INTP’s dominant function is Ti, which is a judging function that compares information to an internal system based in logical consistency. INFP’s dominant function is Fi, which is also a judging function, but it classifies information based on how it makes you feel.

Now, as I said, none of us here are trained or professional psychologists, however I think it’s safe to say that mental illness can sometimes affect one’s ability to think logically. I can’t speak on behalf of people with BPD, but I’ll use anxiety as an example. I think most people have experienced getting extremely anxious about something and abandoning all rationality, even when there wasn’t even a good reason to be worried in the first place. When it comes to Ti, I would think that mental illness can affect your ability to accurately use logic, but you can still be using Ti nonetheless. As I said, Ti uses an internal system to figure out wether or not something is logical. Now imagine that this system is somehow flawed; perhaps there’s an inconsistency or it’s not completely grounded in reality, you just thought that it was. This is a potential effect that mental illness might have on someone’s use of their cognitive functions. Fi, on the other hand doesn’t use this system of logical consistency. An effect of mental illness on Fi would probably be more like causing you to to feel extreme emotions towards something you may not usually react to as such. This is just my speculation though, I cannot confirm this. I would also like to clarify that this doesn’t mean that F types are incapable of logic. F types and T types both have equal ability to be smart. However, T types will value logic over feeling, and vice versa for F types. At the end of the day, it’s a question of which one do you prefer and are the most comfortable with.

Looking at the inferior functions is also a good way to identify which type you are. I mentioned earlier that INTP has Fe inferior. Now, Fe is about being attuned to other people’s feelings, which can also include catering to them. Since it is INTP’s inferior function, that really just means that they are not very good at this, and it often makes them very uncomfortable. Having Fe as an inferior function has quite the opposite effect, as INTPs are often detached from other people emotionally. This isn’t to say that INTP’s can’t/don’t form emotional bonds with others, but they are likely to only do so with people they are very close with, as opposed to a casual acquaintance. Nevertheless, INTP’s can come across as socially awkward, as they might not have a good sense of how the people around them are feeling, and so they may say things that are out of place, or inappropriate for the situation. You did mention that you don’t know how to deal with interactions, which fits with inferior Fe, but it is important to note that people of all types can be socially awkward, and so it would not be accurate to use this as evidence pertaining to your MBTI type.

INFP’s inferior function is Te, which is all about hard facts, data, efficiency and practicality. This can mean that an INFP’s organizational skills and their ability to make quick decisions are fairly weak. As I said earlier, having a function as your inferior can have quite the opposite effect. This means that INFPs prefer to take a long time to think about decisions before they make them, and probably feel very uncomfortable when they are not given the time they need. They might not have a very good judgement of what is practical, and don’t always think to look at the evidence that supports the idea that what they are doing isn’t necessarily the best idea. For example, an INFP might think that they have enough time to study for a test in 4 days, despite the fact that last time they tried to do this, they ran out of time. To be fair, INTPs can also have terrible organizational skills, but it becomes a question of which one of these do you think affects you the most.

In conclusion, mental illness does make typing someone more difficult. Since I don’t know you personally, that makes it even more difficult, but I hope that you can use these descriptions of the cognitive functions and try to see which one you think you can personally identify with more. I think it might help to try and take a step back and look at how you deal with regular things in your everyday life, and use how you think in those situations to determine your cognitive functions. If there’s anything else we can do to help, don’t be afraid to ask!

-INTP admin

(The length of our responses just keeps getting longer and longer. Sorry to all the people who come here expecting a short paragraph.)

#mbti #mbti types #intp #infp #cognitive functions #Ti #Te #Fi #Fe #mental health #borderline personality disorder #ask

24 notes · View notes

5014js · 4 years ago

Text

Etgar Keret’s short stories

Hole in a wall

To me, the story is about one’s self perception, and coming to terms with longheld lies of a false self-image. The angel could be a metaphor for a part of Udi’s psyche that he himself really wanted to believe in.

I did enjoy reading Keret’s story a lot. Not knowing what to expect, his writing managed to surprise me and did awaken an emotional reaction. I like the bluntness and curtness of Keret’s style that he seems to keep, while at the same time being very illustrative, both when it comes to his characters and sceneries. His descriptions definitely made me imagine some specific, atmospheric scenes.

At the same time, while reading I immidiately recalled Phillip K. Dick’s short strories (especially “Roog”) I enjoyed very much a while ago. I will definitely be revisiting them to look for some more, possiibly science fiction based, inspiration for my character design.

Breaking the pig

It’s a story told through an interesting first person perspective of a child. This can truly be seen in the very animative descriptions of non-living objects, and could be quite a lot of help while, as an animator, considering on how to bring an object to life. All of the pigs movements are very specifically tied to its emotions and states, build up the character and an emotional connection with no words, just movement. Personally, I believe Keret does it here very effectivelly. (i cried at the end lol)

Good man

Character animation wise, this story is probably the least imaginative out of the three so far. It does, however, have some inspiring elements, such as the final description of a passenger on a plane. On the other hand, it is an intriguing study on moral ambiguity and justice, and touches upon subjects such as noticing the bad in oneself and struggling to admit it as well as relating to people who have done terrible things.

Keret sublty builds up perticular character’s stances and moral believes through examples of their behaviour. I think it’s a great example of good story telling, as it leaves up to the audience to deduce their stances and motivations, instead of just feeding readers plain and definite facts.

The bus driver who wanted to be god

An engaging philosophical metaphor about the human boundaries, fears, wants, and relationship with the absolute. Keret touches upon the subject of two archetypes of god present in many cultures - the one that is rigorous, adamant, and provides everyone with just exactly what they deserve - and the other: merciful, humane, caring. The motivations and changes in character’s emotional and mental processes are presented in a very descriptive, yet simple and straight-forward way.

Good intentions

Another surprising moral dillemma: the theme of having no choice and control over one’s destiny and the source of actual happiness. The story poses a question: does being a good person actually make an individual feel fullfilled? Or is it only freedom that can provide that? Character development wise, I appriciate how such a short text could paint a clear and coherent image of the protagonists’ backgrounds and intentions. Even though their motives are complicated, as a reader I could understand their points of view.

A souvenir from Hell

Once again, Keret questions the traditional division between the good and the bad. His story does not provide any moral guidance, it seems as if all of the values are just equal, present and necessary in the world. The evil is being seen by the protagonist as a fascinating, yet mundane part of reality.

Additionaly, I found the scenery of this story very creative and smart, potentially driving a lot of storytelling ideas.

0 notes

bibliopolisblog · 4 years ago

Text

Glendy Vanderah (‘Where the Forest Meets the Stars’) and Luka Pejić, translator for the Croatian edition — Q&A

Glendy Vanderah is the author of the bestselling novel Where the Forest Meets the Stars—the story of Ursa, a peculiar girl who claims to have come to Earth from the stars to witness five miracles amongst humans so she can “graduate” on her own planet. Where the Forest Meets the Stars is a brilliant, heart-warming, poignant novel in which tragedy collides with triumph, intolerance with love, the mundane with the magical, factual with fantastic. It is a stardust-woven story that lures the reader in, grabs them, and drives them to the last page, where they realise how much they’ve fallen in love with the story and its characters.

Glendy’s debut novel is also my translational debut: Stilus, the publishing house, kindly offered me the job of translating from English to Croatian. It’s been a year since—and even if I never translate anything again, I will remember this magical adventure with starry eyes and nostalgia, with love. Of all possible books, I will not regret being given the honour of translating this masterpiece.

“I’m touched,” I wrote to her when I received the answers. “I didn’t expect this to be so… heart-to-heart, because rarely does an author open up like this. The readers will have to feel the connection with you and your characters once they’ve read the novel and all this, like I do—now even more.”

“Yes, I’m honest about my background in interviews”, she replied. “Where the Forest Meets the Stars was closely tied to the emotions and memories of my childhood. If I hid that I’ve struggled with adversity as a child and depression as an adult, how would that help my readers see a better future?

Croatian edition of ‘Where the Forest Meets the Stars’ by Glendy Vanderah (Stilus, Zagreb, 2019)

Ms Vanderah: firstly, I must say that I’m thrilled to be speaking with you, and I’m immensely grateful to you for agreeing to answer a few questions for your Croatian readers.

Thank you for that great introduction, Luka, and for providing this opportunity to talk to my Croatian readers.

I’ll start with the simplest—probably the first from everyone: What inspired you to write Where the Forest Meets the Stars? How did the idea come to you? Was it cunning, so to speak, approaching you little by little, or was it a surprise, overwhelming you all at once?

The story came to me in parts. I had been writing fantasy for a few years (first for ‘fun,’ then trying to get published) when I decided to try contemporary fiction. I’d have to say the setting came first. I’d always wanted to write a book set in an isolated research house I lived in for a few years while I was working on avian research projects. The real house was similar to its description in the book. It was in the woods, next to a creek, and at the end of a rural road. There was even an old graveyard next to the house. The main idea for the book came to me after I saw director Guillermo del Toro’s fantasy Pan’s Labyrinth. I felt affinity with the idea of a child using fantasy to escape the violence and evils of war. As a child growing up in an unstable home, I used the nature of my wild-grown backyard to escape the traumatic events that were happening in my family—it was almost like a fantasy world for me. When I felt those deep connections, the book started to burst out of me!

Did you know what the novel would be like when the idea was still in the embryonic stage, or did it change as you wrote? What did it look like at its conception? What was at its centre? What came first—themes, and the shadow of the story that would soon be written, or the characters that would inhabit it?

I never know precisely what my story will be like at the end. I don’t use detailed outlines. When I get a story idea, I first create characters and their motivations, then I imagine what event would stimulate my plot. At first, I only rough out the storyline, though I generally know the ending. As I write, the plot usually changes—sometimes dramatically. And as the characters become real in my mind, they develop personality traits and backstories that are often a surprise even to me! For example, some of Gabe’s background surprised me as I wrote. For me, this story started out very much about how children deal with adversity, but it became so much more as the story progressed. The duality in Ursa’s alien/human self-perception mirrors Jo’s before/after cancer identities, as well as Gabe’s pre/post discoveries about his father. Those themes evolved as the story progressed.

What can you tell your Croatian readers about Ursa's genesis? Is our genius little alien girl based on or inspired by a real person? Someone you know? Or did she just pop in your head the way she is written?

Ursa is certainly an outgrowth of how I remember my own difficult childhood. I decided her self-perception as an alien in a human body was an interesting way to show how children often feel when they experience trauma or abuse: the isolation, the sensation that they are standing apart from a ‘normal’ human world they can’t join. Some of my readers see Ursa as an actual alien, some see her alienation as a metaphor.

Many ideas for Ursa’s traits came from my three children. For example, one of my sons read words backward from a young age as a way of dealing with an excess of mental energy. Children are a lot more aware of what’s going on than many adults realize. I know this will sound biased, but I never ceased to be amazed by the brilliance I saw in my kids at young ages! Ursa is an amalgamation of all children I’ve ever known, including myself.

Which authors have influenced you as a writer? Which works have impacted Where the Forest Meets the Stars? Also, I can’t help but ask… William Shakespeare is Ursa’s favourite writer. Is there any special reason it's him? Which Shakespearean play is your favourite and why?

Since a child, I’ve read eclectically—fantasy and sci-fi, contemporary fiction, scientific nonfiction—and I can’t really say one or a few authors strongly influence my writing. In fact, I don’t want them to!

As for Shakespeare, I think his writing is brilliant, especially for his time. I like to put references to his plays in my stories because his plots often hinge on strange or unlikely quirks of fate, and I’m intrigued by that: how one decision, or a few seconds of good or bad luck (an accident, a crime, a meeting) can change a person’s whole life. Putting Shakespeare’s plays in the story resonated with me because Forest pivots on this theme of fate, on how much control we have over it, and whether we have the strength to overcome tough fates once they’ve been dealt to us.

Shakespeare’s verse is gorgeous, but I think reading the plays doesn’t bring out the magic like seeing them performed. Two favourite performances: a magical production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream I saw many years ago, and a recent showing of Twelfth Night at a tiny playhouse where the audience essentially became part of the play.

In your novel, mental illness plays as important a role as physical. Do you have advice for people—especially youths—who are struggling with depression and anxiety, or mental illness in general? Furthermore, regarding Jo—who beat breast cancer—do you have advice for women, young and old?

Depression occurs on a spectrum from mild to severe. I certainly know what severe depression looks like—my alcoholic mother had it. Mine was less severe, probably more ‘situational’ than ‘clinical.’ Though I wrote Gabe’s depression to be like my own experiences, I received criticism from some readers who felt his illness wasn’t written ‘realistically.’ I think it’s sad some people think all depression is severe and unbeatable. I wanted the story to show another side. Depression, especially milder forms, can improve. Finding joy in biology, nature, and writing, and stability in a loving relationship with my husband, helped me overcome more than I ever dreamed possible when I was child. Perhaps there is no ‘perfect’ happy ending, but there is plenty of hope and potential for healing. That’s the message I want to give readers.

Like most of us, I’ve seen too many family members, friends, and acquaintances succumb to breast cancer. I’ve seen many beat it, too. I don’t have specific advice, other than preventive measures, because every case is different, as are the very personal decisions women make after diagnosis.

Your novel also addresses other serious issues, such as domestic- and child abuse. Do you have a message for the people struggling with such difficulties?

Every circumstance will be different. I believe the troubles of my childhood made me a stronger person, but I know that can’t be the case for everyone. One loving, stable person—a relative, a friend, a teacher, a neighbour—can make a huge difference in a troubled child’s life. Find those good people and trust them. Feeling less isolated is important. If you don’t have anyone you can trust, you must trust yourself. Love yourself. Don’t take on guilt that isn’t yours. Don’t turn to destructive behaviours that will only make your life more miserable (I did that for a few years). You can get through the bad days, and recover, and have a fulfilling life. Don’t ever give up hope. Ursa embodied this idea, that even an eight-year-old, through sheer force of will, can change her future for the better.

(spoiler alert) Now, for those who have read the novel only! Can you tell us what happens with Ursa, Jo and Gabe after the ending? We are desperate for more!

I don’t see the continuation as immediate happiness and sunshine. I think Ursa, Gabe, and Jo still have challenges ahead. But the strength they’ve found in their love for each other will be important for conquering those problems. I’ve been asked if I imagine Jo and Gabe’s wedding in the future. My answer is, yes—and who doesn’t?

How long did it take to write this seemingly simple yet rather complex novel?

I’m not sure how long because the writing was often interrupted. I have written books in less than 7 weeks, but this one took much longer because I had many issues going on. My dad was dying of advanced Parkinson’s disease and needed lots of care. His partner had dementia. Also, I shattered my arm in an accident and couldn’t write for a long while.

Which, say, five books would you recommend to fans of your work? Some compare Where the Forest Meets the Stars with The Snow Child by Eowyn Ivey—would that be among your recommendations? As a guess, did it perhaps influence your writing?

As I’ve said, del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth—a screenplay, not a book—had a big influence. I read The Snow Child by Eowyn Ivey after I wrote Forest—because of the blurb by author Christopher Meades on the front cover of my book. I see the connections between the two stories, but I think they are quite different, too. I read The Language of Flowers by Vanessa Diffenbaugh shortly after my book was published, and I feel that book has more similarities than Ivey’s. The Secret Life of Bees by Sue Monk Kidd is possibly a book people would enjoy if they liked this story. Many readers compare my book to Delia Owen’s Where the Crawdads Sing, so that would be another story I can recommend. I’ll also mention All the Light We Cannot See by Anthony Doerr, a story about two youths who battle adversity during World War II.

You are a bird biologist, like Jo. When did you know you wanted to become a writer?

I loved writing poems and stories as a child. My fifth grade teacher once told the class, “Someday you will all read a novel written by Glendy.” That was an inspiring moment for me. Yet my love for nature and animals had a stronger pull, and I chose to study ecology instead of English in college. After I received an undergraduate degree, while I worked as a biologist, I took some writing and literature classes. But I went on to get my Master’s degree in biology. Then I met my husband, also an ornithologist, and we had three kids. I was too busy to do much science during that time. Once the kids were in school, rather than go back to science (I felt I’d been away from research for too long), I began writing. I was honestly surprised that I could write fiction when I first started!

Another big question: Can we expect a film adaptation in the near future? Please say “yes”! Ursa’s fans, including me, would be overjoyed!

The book has had some attention from a Hollywood representative, but so far no word of a movie. We’ll all have to send out some good quarks to make it happen!

What can you tell us about your next novel? Is it in a similar vein to your debut, or should we expect something entirely different? Are you still writing it, or have you finished?

It’s finished, and it has similar themes. It’s coming out in the spring of 2021.

I believe most readers of Where the Forest Meets the Stars thought it to be science fiction throughout; is that something we can expect in the next book? Does it have a title? If so, can you share it with us? (We promise not to tell. 😉)

Where the Forest Meets the Stars has been variously described by readers as contemporary fiction, literary fiction, domestic fiction, science fiction, and magical realism. I think it’s fascinating that the story ‘shape-shifts’ to different genres! My publisher lists the book’s genre as contemporary fiction, and my next book, The Light Through the Leaves is the same genre.

Phew, so many questions… but that's on you for writing such a beautiful novel!

Finally, would you like to say something to your Croatian fans?

A message for my Croatian readers: I hope you enjoy Where the Forest Meets the Stars. I’m certain it must have been expertly translated from the original English, because the translator, Luka Pejić, has written these thought-provoking questions and a beautiful, perceptive review of the book. Thank you, Luka, for all the hard work you have put into bringing this story to Croatian readers.

It’s been a dream come true to see my first published novel translated into twenty-one languages. I’m thrilled that the people of Croatia will have the opportunity to read Where the Forest Meets the Stars. What more could an author want than to know her stories might touch the hearts of many people around the world? I hope to bring a translation of my next novel to you soon! Happy reading!

Source: www.bibliopolis.home.blog/2020/09/14/glendy-vanderah-interview/

0 notes