#from a narrative pov

[reasoncourt]

Like think about it the clues are everywhere… when shiv gets on top of tom any time they have sex it’s because she has to take charge… Tom’s dick is good but he is clueless with it she has to *gets shot by my enemies*

*dives in front of you to sacrifice myself* *whispers "megan's right" in my dying breath*

[dryya-doesnt]

Good morning to Nicole Van Ronsenburg and her only….

Dante fumbled her BAD just saying….

[butch--dean]

the fates already fucked me sideways / swinging by my neck from the family tree

Dean & Mary Winchester / Family Tree Intro - Ethel Cain

in association with @amvs4palestine for @daalcuntynatural | youtube link

[flashhwing]

i love the kirkwall squad because they all have such protagonist energy. any of them could be the main character. except for varric but he did that on purpose. any of the rest of them could be the main character

[brainrot-jikan]

im not the biggest alhaitham/kaveh shipper (because im a rare pair ho) but it seems to me that in alhaitham/kaveh getting-together fics tend to be... unequal.

the beautiful thing about alhaitham and kaveh is that they're both equally right and equally wrong and equally dicks about it. but the writers for alhaitham/kaveh much more frequently seem to give alhaitham the burden change (the burden of the character flaw) instead of kaveh.

in any good character arc, the main character has a fatal flaw or misconception, and by the end of that arc they have addressed that flaw in some definitive way. scrooge was a scrooge and learned that being that way was detrimental; merlin from finding nemo was overprotective to a fault and had to learn that he couldn't (and shouldn't) control everything and to let go; the wolf from little red riding hood learns that you should stop while you're ahead.

stories centering around romance tend to lean heavily on character arcs, which makes sense. and since romance generally requires two individuals to be vulnerable and open and emotional with each other, it makes double sense that alhaitham/kaveh authors zoom straight into alhaitham's lack of emotional vulnerability.

this bothers me.

in society, individuals are expected to experience and present emotions in a specific way. if someone dies, you cry. if someone smiles at you, you smile back. if you're at a party, you're supposed to be having fun. if you don't do these things, you're seen as impolite at best and a inhuman freak at worst. when these behaviors are frequent it's often viewed as emotional immaturity, or a lack of ability to feel at all. the inability or lack of willingness to conform to societies emotional expectations of you is seen as a flaw and a reason for exclusion.

alhaitham is canonically disliked and avoided for being the way he is. he prefers it this way, but that doesn't mean the people perpetuating this avoidance are in the right. they are the societal pressure to conform that alhaitham blows off. alhaitham could be the way he is for a lot of reasons: avoidant attachment style, trauma, following someone else's example (eg. his grandmother), or just his base personality. it doesn't MATTER. he is the way he is. kaveh having to accept that should be part of the story.

putting the burden of the fatal flaw on alhaitham, making the way alhaitham treats kaveh and the people around him the problem, feels invalidating. it implies heavily that alhaitham's way of interfacing with the world, alhaitham's very SELF, is incorrect. my suggestion is to flip a larger portion of that burden onto kaveh. kaveh 👏 character 👏 arcs 👏

some examples/recommendations:

- make kaveh project his insecurities onto other people but especially onto alhaitham; he's overly reliant on other people for his own self worth, and he perceives alhaitham's lack of positive feedback as a direct reflection of how alhaitham feels about him. but learns along the way that alhaitham doesn't hate him, kaveh's actual struggle is with hating himself and being unable to his own self as worthy of love. maybe throw in how you are responsible for your own recovery, other people can help but you can't rely on them to carry you through self actualization.

- or, kaveh tries to make alhaitham behave more like a "normal" person, to be more pleasant and emotive and forthcoming, and then realizes he's in the wrong for trying to make alhaitham into something he's not, possibly for all the wrong reasons (not because he likes alhaitham better like that, but bc society says that's healthier and a better/more conforming way to be)

- or you could go ahead make alhaitham's issues the main problem but they're too complicated to overcome in a short period of time, so kaveh has to accept alhaitham is doing his best in his own way and not push for unrealistic and unhealthy changes. he could alter his own behavior to give alhaitham space and time and a safe place to land.

that got sappy so it's past time for me to dip out. go forth and ship things; but maybe consider letting alhaitham be a rude stone-faced bastard if he wants to be.

[isbergillustration]

Awakenings

[silverwhittlingknife]

"the fault, dear Brutus -" (Julius Caesar)

Quotes from A Critical History of English Literature by David Daiches. Panels from Death in the Family, Under the Red Hood, Lost Days, and Batman and Robin.

[shovson]

@hypersoft-fest week 3: detective stories

IT TAKES TWO

After an impromptu race briefing in Shov's hotel room, Jenson and Bono are woken up by a loud banging on the hotel door in the dead of night.  They open the door and discover an equally anxious Rubens and Riki that meet them with odd and worrying news.  Almost the entire paddock is missing. Engineers. Drivers. Team principals. Team heads. Car designers. Gone. With only twelve hours until the race begins and the press catches on, the surviving pairs must investigate the whereabouts of every missing person in order to ensure they're found safe and alive.  With Jenson and Rubens leading the charge, Riki and Bono hope to help push their drivers in the right direction before time runs out. Every second counts. As the four dig deeper into the mystery, they uncover a web of crimes and corruption behind the motorsport they exist in and begin to answer the question: in Formula One, who really wins?

[prolibytherium]

I never touched it but I feel like i only ever hear positive things said about song of achilles.. in (rough strokes at least) what makes it dogshit to you?

Okay it's been a while since I actually read it so some of this might not be spot on accurate. Sorry if at any point I say 'the book never does xyz' and it actually does once or twice but I think my underlying criticisms are accurate

-Patroclus is made into like this soft gentle tender quivering little yaoi boy. In the source text, he's shown as compassionate and moved by the suffering of his own men (and apparently having some medical skill, tending to the wounded in the camp), but very much invested n combat and very, very good at it (pages worth of descriptions of the guys he's killing left and right). In this, the arguably more complex character from this 8th century BC text is flattened into Being A Healer, he doesn't want to go to war he just wants to help people, he only goes because Achilles has to but he doesn't want to fight he's a HEALER he's a gentle lover NOT A FIGHTER who just wants to help he just wants to help everyone around him he HEALS while Achilles is a doomed warrior who is so good at fighting and KILLING its a DICHOTOMY GUYS!!!LIKE THE BEAUTIFUL SUN AND MOON DOOMED LOVERS SO SAD patocluse HEALER . (I Think he's specifically characterized as being BAD at fighting but might be misremembering)

-I don't remember much about Achilles' characterization I think it just makes him less of a jackass while not adding anything of interest and levels out into being mad boring.

-Not getting into the literal millenias old debate whether the mythological characters Achilles and Patroclus were being characterized as some type of lover by the original oral sources of the Iliad or its Homeric writers. We will never know. We don't even know what (if any) culturally accepted conventions of male homosexuality existed in bronze age Greece (we know much more about their descendants). But there are some interesting elements of their characterization in this direction, with how unconventional their relationship is WITHIN the text itself- Patroclus is described as cooking for Achilles and his guests (very specifically a woman/wife's job), Achilles chides Patroclus like a father, but there's also scene where Achilles' mourning of him directly echoes a passage of Hector's wife mourning her husband, Patroclus is explicitly stated to Achilles' elder, and is overall treated as his equal or near-equal, closest confidant and most beloved friend (to the point that pederastic classical Greeks would debate over who was erastes (older authority figure lover) and who was eromenos (adolescent 'beloved')- many took it as a given that this text depicted their present-day cultural norms of homosexual behavior but it existed so Outside of these norms that it had to be debated who was who). Their relationship is non-standard both within the text and to the descendants of the civilization that wrote them.

Basically what I'm saying is this book had opportunities to like, explore the unconventionality of the relationship (being presented here as explicitly lovers), explore the dynamics of why Patroclus wants to do 'women's work' (besides being a tenderhearted softboy), the weird dynamics where they take on paternal roles to each other but also roles of wives, how they feel about being this way, and just kind of Doesn't. Which I guess isn't an intrinsic fault (because it omits much of what I just talked about to begin with). it's just like.... Lame. This book takes jsut abandons everything interesting about the source text in favor of flattening it into bland Doomed Yaoi.

-The conflict that sets off the core story of the Iliad is Achilles and Agamemnon fighting over Briseis, an enslaved Trojan woman taken by Achilles as a war-trophy, Achilles spends most of the story moping because he was dishonored by his 'trophy' being taken. Achilles and Patroclus and everyone else are raping their captives, all the women in the story are either captured Trojans (or in the case of the free women within the walls of Troy, soon to be enslaved, and are slave owners themselves). Slavery as an institution and extreme patriarchal conventions are innate to the text and reflective of the context in which it was developed. You cannot avoid it.

But obviously you can't have your soft yaoi boys doing this, so the author has them capturing women to Protect Them from the other men. Their slaves are UNDER THEIR PROTECTION and VERY SAFE (and they might even Like And Befriend Them but I might be misremembering that. Briseis does though). Our heroes have apparently absorbed none of the ideals of the culture they exist in and the author seems to think "they're gay and aren't sexually attracted to their captives" would translate to them being outright benevolent (also as if wartime sexual violence is just about attraction and not part of a wider spectrum of violent acts to dehumanize and brutalize an accepted 'enemy')

In the source text, Briseis mourns Patroclus as being the kindest to her of her captors, who tried to get her a slightly better outcome by getting her married to Achilles (which probably would be the Least Bad of all possible outcomes for a woman in that situation, becoming a legal wife instead of a slave), and wonders what will happen to her now that he's gone. This is a really really sad, horrible, and compelling dynamic which could be fleshed out in very interesting ways but is instead is tossed entirely aside in favor of them being Besties. Like brother and sister.

All of the above pisses me off so much. If you don't want to engage in the icky parts of ancient/bronze age Greece then don't write a retelling of a story taking place in bronze age Greece. I'm not gonna get mad at children's adaptations of Greek myths or silly fun stories loosely based on them for omitting the rape and slavery but it is SO fundamental to the Iliad. If you're not willing to handle it, either fully omit it or better yet set your Iliad inspired yaoi in an invented swords-and-sandals setting where you can have all your heartbreaking tragic doomed lovers plot beats and not have to clumsily write around the women they're brutalizing.

-The author didn't seem to know what to do with Thetis and she made her just like, Achilles bitch mother who spends most of the story trying to separate our Yaoi Boys (iirc her disguising Achilles as a girl and hiding him on Scyros is made to be more about getting him away from Patroclus than trying to save her son from his prophesied doom in the Trojan War) until she sees how much they loooove each other and I think helps Patroclus' spirit get to the afterlife or something in the end?

-This is more of a personal taste gripe but it has that writing style I loathe where the prose feels less like a story and more like an attempt to string together Deep Beautiful Hard Hitting Poetic Lines that will look great as excerpts on booktok (might predate booktok but same vibe). It's all very Pretty and Haunting and Deep but feels devoid of real substance.

I really like The Iliad and The Odyssey in of themselves. They're fascinating historical texts that give a window into how 8th century BC Greeks told their stories, saw their world, interpreted their ancestors, etc. And genuinely I think these texts have 'good' characters, there's a lot of complexity and humanity to it.

WRT the Iliad- all of the main Achaeans are pretty fascinating, the one singular part where Briseis Gets To Talk and laments her situation is great, Achilles fantasizing that all of the Trojans AND the Achaeans die so he and Patroclus alone can have the glory of conquering Troy (wild), Achilles asking to embrace Patroclus' shade and reaching out for him but it's immaterial (and the shade being sucked back underground with a 'squeak' (the squeak kinda gets me it's disturbing and sad)), Hecuba talking about wanting to tear out Achilles' liver and eat it in a (taboo, exceptioally pointed) expression of rage and grief for his mutilation of her son's corpse, just one tiny line where the enslaved women performing ritual wailing for their dead captors are described as using it as an outlet to 'grieve for their own troubles' is heartrending, etc. A lot of grappling with anger and grief and the inevitability of death, a lot of groundwork laid for characters that could be very interesting when expanded upon in the framework of a conventional novel.

And Song Of Achilles really doesn't do much with all that. I know a lot of my gripes here are kind of just "It's different from the Iliad", I would have thought of it as mostly mediocre and forgettable rather than infuriating if it wasn't a retelling (and I DEFINITELY have strong biases here). But I think the ways in which it is different are less just a product of a retelling (of course there's going to be omissions and differences) and more a complete and utter disinterest in vast majority of its own subject matter, to the book's detriment. I think a retelling has a point when it EXPANDS on the source, or provides a NEW ANGLE to the source. This book doesn't Really do either, it just shaves off the complexity of its source material, renders the characters into a really boring archetype of a gay relationship, and gives very little else. Its content boils down to a middling tragic romance that has been inserted into the hollowed out defleshed skeleton of the Iliad.

Bottom line: I definitely would not be as mad about it if I wasn't familiar with the source material but I think it's fair to expect a retelling to Engage with/expand on its source, and I also think it's weak purely on its own merits. This book was set up to disappoint Me specifically.

[doodlebloo]

The term "rewired my brain" gets thrown around a lot but the DSMP truly did change the way I think about characters media and narrative forever and in a drastic way like I had never really delved so deep into analysis of a character and what they represent as well as them as a person just for fun before, and I had never heard so many deep complex interpretations of the same character/event all of which had their own merit.

And also with the DSMP so much of the characterization was extremely subtle and so you had to be taking note of every little detail to get it all and that made me much more inclined to focus on ALL parts of a character not just the most obvious ones.

Idk tl;Dr the DSMP permanently altered the way I think about fandom for the better

[shadystranger]

I never took dean's extremely antagonistic attitude towards sam drinking blood as compared to anything else really seriously. While in first seasons they were still new to weird and their reactions might have been not as desanitized as later seasons it was always kinda clear he was illogical about this. The immoralness of demon blood was a pretense at most. An excuse dean could latch onto to clad his deep-seated personal unadulterated hatred to sam seeking someone else. And also his insecurity that his place- his entire purpose is easily being replaced/filled by ruby and taken right from under his nose and he's so driven up the wall he acts unreasonably and borderline psychotic like locking sam up and emotionally manipulating him to prevent it, when that doesn't work he resorts to violence. He was rationalizing his ugly feelings of hostile defensiveness and jealousy as some kind of a higher moral endeavor, but it was painfully obvious that was not the case. Dean literally at some point implies he agrees that sam is doing good and he's willing to accept him back but ruby is a deal breaker he unintentionally makes a visible distinction between it being a corruption/-humanitydescend issue and a more gripe that demon blood is rooted in dependence on demons and/or the constant need for supply; leaving sam not entirely dependent on dean alone. (Combine this with dean's emphasis on them finally being together and for nothing to come between them in s2&1)

Sam killed demons, he could exorcise people without killing them, he could kill Lilith and prevent the apocalypse (what they believed at the time) all objectively good acts. But dean blatantly did not care. Because his issue was never in the moralness of it or ''becoming less human'' hell this guy covered up for sam in an instant when he killed a hunter without thought. He threatened anyone to not lay a finger on sam when he thought sam was 100% going to turn into a monster and start killing them all (rather wanted to stay with him). Come demon blood and he suddenly is narratively very expected to kill sam out of moral obligation? Nahh it's a very fucked up psychotic break from a possessive driven mad who used up all his cards and is not willing to hand down what he finally owed to someone else so he's going to make sure no one else can have what he doesn’t. Dean stringed bobby along with him thinking they were both doing a savior mission for sam's ultimate sake and the world's when they were both on very different pages. Heck bobby is not the only one dean had fooled it was the audience and the narrative too. Insanely ironic

[baronvontribble]

did y'all know that the credits song to BG3 is a waltz

[odessastone]

sighing and kicking my legs thinking about them again

[twelvemartha]

the doctor's dynamic with his companions is like the beating hearts of the show, yet for some reason the doctor is so tightlipped about his feelings for martha in particular. it's maddening. sure, the narrative will give us tiny moments of the doctor showing his appreciation of her and acknowledging her presence. martha jones i like you. martha jones you're a star. but what does he think about her? how does he view her? what is her significance to him?

we learn a lot about what martha thinks the doctor thinks about her. he's not seeing me he's just remembering. sometimes i think he likes me but sometimes i just think he needs someone. he doesn't even look at me but i don't care. it's never outright confirmed, but so many signs point to this being the case. the doctor is constantly putting up walls between the two of them, which martha tries so hard to break through. and there are times where it seems like she manages to, where the two of them have genuine moments of connection! only for the next episode to come along and destroy that progress, as if it never happened, and the doctor goes back to being distant and overlooking her.

this wouldn't be as big a deal as it is if there was some sort of comeuppance or catharsis at the end of s3. but in the final speech martha gives to the doctor before she goes, the focus is put on her unrequited love. again. the issue, rtd wants us to believe, is that the doctor doesn't reciprocate martha's romantic feelings for him. but that's not it. the real issue is that the doctor doesn't even treat martha as a proper person, a companion in her own right, a friend who he cherishes and wants to travel with because she's martha jones. instead, he acts as if she's just someone to keep around because he gets lonely on his own.

and so instead of the doctor rightly being called out for his callous treatment of martha, we just have the show brush this under the rug and act like the matter is resolved come s4. because at the end of the day, neither martha nor her relationship to the doctor matter. they never did to the show or its writers. they were just a vehicle to tell the true story, which has nothing to do with martha at all. (this is absolutely rooted in misogynoir btw.)

[existencebringsonlypain]

I may have posted about this before, but I don't understand the whole proshipper/anti debate. As far as I understand, I'm on the side of proshippers (i think fiction is fiction and doesn't have to reflect reality. because it's fiction.), but what I don't get is why there's such a clear defined binary, and why there's such animosity between the two. It's just a difference in opinion, like any other, isn't it? I understand that either group can "take it too far" (though i dont really get how proshippers could be TOO okay with problematic ships). but i really think either viewpoint is fine to a degree, they both have logic behind them, and it's just a matter of preference, isn't it?

[aroaessidhe]

2024 reads / storygraph

The Gods Below

high fantasy, start of a series

a world in ruins after a divine war, which ended with one god taking over and slowly spreading magical Restoration - rejuvenating the land, but transforming any any humans who survive

follows two sisters who are separated when the Restoration sweeps through their home: one who becomes a sinkhole miner, collecting precious gems, who becomes part of a resistance when she discovers she can channel the magic from them

and her younger sister who becomes changed, and is rescued by a woman who trains her into a devoted godkiller, hunting down all other remaining gods

as well as an inventor traveling deep into the earth with his best friend, in hopes of finding the gods’ realm to find a cure for her sickness, and his cousin, searching for a way to restore her family’s ruined reputation

and a god far in the past, at the beginning of the war

bi, aro, m/f & f/f