#flawed literature

[nochd]

I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.

---J. R. R. Tolkien, 1938, telling a Nazi publisher to fuck off

I mean yes, absolutely you should acknowledge the flaws. But I think you also need to acknowledge the cultural context, and which direction the work was pulling on the culture in that context.

Which is not the same as shrugging off historic racism, sexism, homophobia etc. as "of its time". You still should critique to see whether the work was advocating more racism or less racism, more sexism or less sexism, etc. The difference is when you ask "More racism than what? More sexism than what?", your baseline should be the level of prejudice of the ambient culture in which the work was created, not the level of prejudice present today.

As for the Dwarves, when he came to write The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien went out of his way to show Gimli experiencing unwarranted prejudice on the basis of his race, then demonstrating that he has no greed in his heart at all, but a deep appreciation for natural beauty.

You can enjoy something that has flaws, but you need to acknowledge the flaws

Me: Tolkien's Middle Earth works, especially the Hobbit, are very antisemitic.

Tolkien Fans: No they're not! What basis do you even have to make such a claim?

Me: Dwarves are a displaced group of people whose language was based on Hebrew & are described as being greedy, secretive, & with big noses/ears.

Tolkien Fans: That doesn't mean he intentionally based them on Jewish people though!

Tolkien: The dwarves of course are quite obviously, wouldn’t you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic, obviously, constructed to be Semitic.

[usefulquotes7]

Just be yourself. Let people see the real imperfect, flawed, quirky, weird, beautiful and magical person you are. Unknown

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Character Flaws

Nobody is perfect.

By depicting characters who mirror that sentiment, it’s easier for us to understand and connect to them.

Flaws don’t just add character depth though, they can also drive the entire story.

They can create personal arcs that raise the tension of the main conflict.

Flaws make the character’s success (if it comes) that much more rewarding.

But when we’re developing our own characters, how do we build flaws into them? There’s no one-size-fits-all answer to this question, but we can pull some tips from some examples.

A lack of flaws: Characters like Superman who don’t have a lot of character flaws need other kinds of things to create compelling stories. Superman was intended as a symbol of hope. The fact he fights people or lifts heavy things is rarely ever interesting these days, but the way he handles problems and fights for the downtrodden still resonates with people.

Flaws & plot work together: A character flaw should have some meaning to the plot. Haymitch’s (from The Hunger Games) drinking isn’t particularly interesting until you learn about his history and realize that it’s a coping mechanism. Irving’s (from A Strange Loop) get-rich-quick schemes create the conflict in the story. And Hinata’s (from Haikyū!!) flaws are something that he’s constantly working to overcome to reach his goals.

Proceed with caution: Finally, character flaws are an important part of creating well-rounded and believable characters, but if you treat sensitive topics too lightly—or misunderstand them—you risk upsetting part of your audience.

While you might have the best of intentions, if you’re dealing with serious issues that real people deal with, it would be a good idea to do some research or get a sensitivity reader. Or both.

Source ��� Writing Notes & References ⚜ "Well-Rounded" Character Worksheet

[can-of-w0rmz]

THOSE Frankenstein fans when both Victor and the Creature have positive and negative qualities, and the story is a tragedy where both characters involved are flawed and it’s not a morality battle between who’s the innocent one and who’s the Bad Guy™️ (and then get pissed at anyone likes one of those characters and labels them as problematic like we’re in the fucking 2020 Danganronpa fandom):

Just while we’re at it, Frankenstein is not a weak whiny bitch and the Creature doesn’t have no moral compass and didn’t emerge from the operating table murderous

Frankenstein IS vastly immature and incapable of communicating his emotions and considering the consequences of his actions bar a few instances and the Creature is basically an incel serial killer

Now shut the fuck up with the “who’s the victim, Victor or the Creature?” bullshit arguments and agree they’re both pathetic morally flawed babygirls and collectively up the fan content for our best girl who deserved so much better Elizabeth Lavenza my beloved wife

[lizzyaka]

Btw quoting the fatal flaw line (im not typing the whole thing out), "i am nothing in my soul if not obsessive", anything from that one class (beauty is terror yadda yadda) or any corny ass line like those completely invalidates anything you have to say about the book in my eyes cause im just gonna assume u didnt understand shit and are just trying to be like the characters. The same can be said about people who say the book or certain parts were sad or profound like if you stop romantizing it youll realize how purposely shallow and absurd it actually is. Ive seen many people say its a modern greek tragedy which is sooo funny bc the book is entirely satirical😭

Tsh fandom is exactly like the patrick bateman fanboys but dark academia

[utilitycaster]

Wizards and paladins are my favorite classes because of the built in story elements that clearly shape the characters, but also because, on some level, if a character isn't, to quote Jonas Spahr, "arrogant, prideful, and sanctimonious" what is even the point.

[escapismsworld]

"(I have qualities that make me very miserable. . . that few very few people in the world can at all understand. I don't pride myself on these peculiarities, I strive to conceal and suppress them as much as I can. But they burst out sometimes and then those who see the explosion despise me and I hate myself for days afterwards)... I can write no more of this trash yet it is too true."

Charlotte Brontë - Selected Letters

3. To Ellen Nussey, ? October 1836

The Letters 1832-9

[chrysanthemumandthesword]

I'm going a little nuts. I've just read the Odyssey (they only had me read the Iliad in high school, so I'm correcting that oversight, lol). I've looked at multiple different translations because the library/Guttenberg Project are free so comparing/contrasting is easy and fun! I've also listened to EPIC. And like... it's an adaptation with an obvious set of themes drawn from the original they want to explore over others more predominately present, so there will be differences. It's also a modern interpretation? So like... it's not going to 100% adhere to ancient Greek values? Like a modern audience is going to have some qualms about baby murder, so if you want to adapt it that's going to have to be addressed (if you don't take the coward's way out and just shove every war crime on Neoptolemus - or go the full historian route and fully write from an ancient Greek perspective which may alienate new readers but could also be dope? It's subjective).

Like, we all should know an adaptation (especially a modern one) is never a substitute for reading the original work. But adaptations can also bring new or expanded perspectives on the original work, expand on or address themes from the work in a new way, as well as inspire people to read the original. And honestly? A popular adaptation should motivate people to read/watch the original - this is exactly what kicked my ass in gear to read the Odyssey!

I'd also say don't hero-worship the original. Especially if you haven't read it in a while and have a knee-jerk negative reaction to any new adaptation. The original works should still be read but let people have fun! Don't criticize, just say if you want more content/context read the original! I would, for example, never criticize someone for loving Muppets Treasure Island or Treasure Planet even though they don't stick one to one on the original Treasure Island story - even though it was my favorite book growing up. I think they both are made with a love of the source material, but are changed for the medium + the specific themes they want to address.

I don't know. If an adaption makes a story (especially and old one) more accessible it should usually be celebrated and met with encouragement to look deeper into the source material instead of acting superior - especially if you haven't read the source material in a while either. Let people have fun and encourage them to explore! Don't shame them for liking an adaptation, especially when it's made to expand the reach of a wonderful work to a younger, wider audience.

[hopelessvalentines]

“your too full of life to be someone’s maybe.”

“How quickly we forget our values in the rush.”

[gayraltofrivia]

i know i'm years late to the party but are you telling me that kids today genuinely think odysseus is a misogynistic creep? when nearly every instance of odysseus being with a woman on his travels was basically straight-up coercion or because he was ordered to do so by a god? when his wife was so in love with him that she waited for him for two decades? when he broke down in tears upon hearing her voice again?

[quotelr]

Accept yourself: flaws, quirks, talents, secret thoughts, all of it, and experience true liberation.

Amy Leigh Mercree

[cosmicwar]

[usefulquotes7]

I don’t know a perfect person. I only know flawed people who are still worth loving. Unknown

[howifeltabouthim]

All boys need a father's love, and they'll do anything to get it, and Arthur had tried being good, and it hadn't worked, so that left only greatness. Perfection.

Lev Grossman, from The Bright Sword

[rapha-reads]

To those of you wondering (aka no one), I finished both The Vampire Armand and Merrick and I have a lot of thoughts and feels. I'm skipping Blood and Gold for now to go directly to Blackwood Farm (I'll read B&G later), but first I'm going to read something else, just to take a break.

TVA thoughts: man, Armand is messed up. And extremely compelling. But so messed up. As always, the theme of faith crisis, which seriously reaches new heights with these bitchy vampires, is not something I can fully immerse myself in, but it was fascinating to see his numerous metamorphosis. I liked how he bridges Western and Eastern Christianisme, especially through art. Now I'm thinking that if Rolin Jones makes him originally Muslim in the show, that could expand even more the conversation on how faith, and especially Abrahamic faith, has been in conversation for thousands of years and could be such a rich, diverse and spiritual, intellectual and artistic theme. I can already imagine some fascinating discussions comparing (not in a superior way but in a complementary way) coming from Muslim faith to Roman Catholic faith, the way book!Armand talks about the richness of his life in Kiev Rus despite the poverty and ascetism, and the richness of his life in Venecia despite the luxury and abundance.

As for Benamin and Sybille... I don't have much thoughts about them. Sybille is one of those female characters AR seemingly favors, not so much human as a nymph or a dryad, "perfectly splendid". And Benji is a caricature of an Arab child. Nuance? 401 not found.

Merrick thoughts: David for the love if everything, shut. The. Fuck. Up. Holy moly. I like David, I do, but damn the entire recollection of his history with Merrick was looooooong. I'm here to see Louis haunted by Claudia and haunting Lestat's coma, not how hard you're pining for the kid you practically raised! Also. ALSO. You're just going to leave that whole thing with the Olmec or possibly another more ancient Mesoamerican civilisation without ever giving us more? That was the most interesting part of it all! The vodoo history, the connection between Louisiana and Caribbean vodoo and old Native South-American religions! More about this, less about Merrick's perfect breasts, I am begging you. (It is at this point that the reader of this post realises OP is 100% definitely ace and more interested in books and witchcraft than breasts and whether a 70yo man can still get it up - also, hey, Anne Rice's vampires are practically asexual and their lust and pleasure is mostly derivated from blood, with some notable exceptions like Armand and Marius, and a love relationship between two vampires is then based on romantic love and blood sharing, so can I hear a hell yeah for some ace representation or are we still conflating eroticism with sex)

Another thing I kept thinking about throughout the book is how Louis is perceived by his fellow vampires. Since basically the second book, since we've lost his own POV, everybody who's ever said anything about him (so Lestat, Armand and David) have insisted on two points: how very weak and meek Louis is, and also how irresistible, beautiful and charming. Granted, I've known Louis first through his portrayal on the show (hi Jacob you're so fiiiiiiine), and then through his own narration in the first book, but I've never had the impression that he was weak. Beautiful and seductive, yes. Weak? I see a human man going through tragedies and still enduring, going through vampiric transformation and then suffering for decades the loss of his humanity, struggling with reconciliating both sides of himself, but mostly I see a vampire who rebuilt himself after losing everything without sacrificing his sense of self. I see Louis as very strong actually (up to the point where resilience breaks, because resilience cannot be sustained on a long term, but that's another debate). He knows who he is, and don't you know how hard that is? He doesn't cling to faith or pride. He knows he's doomed, he knows he's monstrous, he knows there's nothing he can do to change that, and instead of railing against his fate, he goes on about his undead life. He gets his books and he reads them, he surrounds himself with literature and what little comforts he thinks in his shattered self-esteem he deserves (his ragged sweaters and soft trousers); let's not lie to ourselves tho, Louis doesn't like himself, or more exactly he doesn't care about his corporeal body - what matters to him is his mind, and once again, this author is extremely ace and also very aro and very nonbinary, so Louis to me is very much ace and agender coded, though really not aro, because his love for Lestat (and sometimes his fondness, shall we say, for Armand) is the only thing that can rouse him up from his literary slumber.

...

Oh, man, I have a lot to say about Louis, for how little he appears in the books so far. Still have BF, BC and the PL trilogy to devour. So I guess you can say, for as much as Lestat is occupying my entire brain, very much like him, my favorite is Louis? Yeah, that tracks. Melancholy, quiet, dark-haired green-eyed monster with more humanity than humans, preferring his solitude and the company of books to anyone else, hopelessly and helplessly devoted to one person, expert in brooding and grieving, literature specialist, not very attached to his physical self. Yeah. I'm not surprised.

[divine0]

Just Monika.