#however. it's also criticized so often by various characters and we as readers see its dystopic nature

[mihai-florescu]

Thats no better than a castle built of sand, you would know, wouldnt you

[laundrybiscuits]

Do you think Eddie was flagging in the show?

If this approaches discourse, I'll understand if you choose not to respond.

This is kind of a multi-layered question, but I think it’s worth talking about in the context of broader approaches to fandom.

I haven’t seen these terms used for a while, but fans used to talk about “Watsonian” and “Doylist” explanations as a good shorthand for “in-universe logic/rationale” and “out-of-universe motivations.” For example, the Watsonian (as in what John Watson might think) explanation for a villain monologue might be that the character wanted to prolong his moment of victory because he wasn’t ready to let the feud go. The Doylist (as in what Arthur Conan Doyle might think) explanation might be that the author needed to pad out the wordcount. 

The important part is that neither of those lenses is wrong. They’re just different ways of looking at a text. 

Word of God (i.e. what the creators say about a work in interviews etc.) is not the same as canon, and canon is not sacred. It’s just what’s on the screen or page.

I’m going to be a little self-indulgent here and bring in some Death of the Author by Roland Barthes, because I literally have a page of quotes stored on my tumblr. Admittedly, the translation I have is a little dense, but I think I’ve pulled out the key points. (Also, caveat that this is not the only valid way to do lit crit, but I think it can be very helpful in fandom.)

“The text is a tissue of citations, resulting from the thousand sources of culture.” 

I think about this all the time in regard to fandom, because it reminds me that texts don’t spring fully-formed from some ethereal plane. The cultural and literary references you grew up with, as well as the ones you continue to consume, feed directly into whatever you produce as a creator. That’s why my number one tip for young creatives who want to improve is to be intentional about the media they consume*. That’s where inspiration comes from: just tip more material into the slurry of your subconscious, and see what alchemized new thing bubbles to the surface. 

That also means that as critical readers, we can always try to see connections and patterns, regardless of Word of God. However, it’s important to remember that those connections and patterns are not necessarily lodged within the text itself…and that brings me to my next quote.

“The unity of a text is not in its origin, it is in its destination.” 

It’s rarely useful or interesting, in the context of fandom, to treat a text as an artifact to be excavated. It’s much more relevant and functional to ask what you as an individual get from the text—what your own relationship is to the themes, motifs, ideas, messages you’ve gleaned from your experience of reading/watching. Every reader has a different relationship to the text, because every reader is a different person with a different history. 

The difference between fandom and Extended Universe-type stuff isn’t just licensing. Frankly, I personally would find that a pretty boring fandom experience, if absolutely everything were strictly canon-compliant and cross-referenced. Fandom is transformative, which means it interprets and reinterprets texts as a form of consumption/creation, and that necessarily means a willingness to discard anything that doesn’t suit whatever story we’re trying to tell. 

In other words, Eddie doesn’t have a canon sexuality. Hell, very few characters in general do. As I mentioned in the first footnote to my last reply, it’s useful to think about sexuality as behavior + identity + desire; we often see behavior on screen, but we rarely see the other two in an explicit way. We can read him as flirting with Steve, we can read him as flirting with Chrissy, or both, or neither. That’s how fandom works. 

So, do I think Eddie was flagging in the show?

Let’s break that question down into a few different aspects.

Doylist: do I personally believe that the various people involved in the show deliberately intended Eddie to flag as a(n implicitly MSM) sado top? 

No. I don’t. Honestly, I simply don’t trust them that much. I don’t think they had queerness explicitly in mind when they created Eddie, but that doesn’t change the fact that he is queer-coded, much like a Disney villain. He represents anxieties about nonconformity and morality—of course he’s going to resonate with queer people. 

Ultimately, though, I don't really care about this particular creative team's intent. It's not interesting to me. There are so many shows that I enjoy more than ST for their artistic choices, and I'm interested in hearing the intent behind those, but specifically what I personally enjoy about ST is the stories its components let other people tell.

Watsonian (1): do I personally believe it’s within Eddie’s canon characterization to be flagging? 

It’s not impossible. It’s also not impossible that he’s just aping more generic metal accessories. Personally, I think it’s somewhat unlikely that at 19-20, living in the middle of nowhere and with the various plates he’s spinning, Eddie’s had enough exposure to kink to be really confident and knowledgeable about flagging. But I’ve also heard some pretty wild stories about small town gays back in the day, so I’m willing to be convinced either way.

Watsonian (2): do I personally believe it’s within Eddie’s canon characterization to be a sado top?

This is venturing into some even trickier waters, but my answer’s very similar to the last question—it’s not impossible. You don’t need to be a particular kind of person to be a top/bottom/dom/sub, no matter what the old fandom flamewars may have claimed. (Being in my early teens and witnessing the SasuNaru vs NaruSasu discourse was not a good way to learn about this.) Different parts of the same experience can resonate with people for different reasons, and there’s more than enough wiggle room to interpret literally any character in any way. 

(I will say that people who actively seek out DMing tend to enjoy controlling a scene to evoke particular emotional responses from players, and that's the angle I find most plausible for Eddie.)

I am personally agnostic on the matter of Eddie’s sexual preferences. As a reader, it’s most important to me that those preferences are coherent with the rest of the characterization within the fic. As a writer, I tend to characterize him as pretty switchy for the same reason I tend to characterize him as gay and into mythology: I am just projecting onto a blorbo.

That’s all any of this really is. 

*On a practical level: I often suggest to young creatives that they make a habit of identifying at least one thing they like AND at least one thing they don’t like about art, whatever form that art comes in. It builds critical faculties by making sure you actually digest the art you're consuming, and it’s also a good reminder that even the worst piece of dreck (probably) has something worth learning from—and even the most sublime masterpiece has flaws.

[princesssterek]

Anne Rice, Gay Vampires and the Mistreatment of Claudia in Interview with the Vampire

This was my senior thesis so enjoy.

Intro

Anne Rice’s debut novel Interview with the Vampire (1976) was not well received at the time of its publishing. One reviewer for the New York Times, Leo Braudy, even went so far as to say “there is no story here, only a series of sometimes effective but always essentially static tableaus out of Roger Corman films, and some self‐conscious soliloquizing out of Spiderman comics, all wrapped in a ballooning, pompous language” (Braudy 1976). However, it is now widely considered to be one of the best-selling novels of all time, having been made into a film 12 years after its release and maintaining enough popularity to be turned into a television series in 2022, some 46 years later. While not well received by critics, audiences loved it then and still love it now. Interview is the first novel to allow the vampire to tell their own story; along with the erotic overtones of the novel is what captured the attention of audiences around the world and what kept their attention. Currently, on GoodReads.com the novel has an overall 4.01-star rating with one reviewer writing “Dark and enthralling. This book asks readers to reflect on the constitutions of love and loneliness” while another comments on the writing style, “Anne Rice really makes you feel the depth of emotion that The Vampire goes through.” Both reviews are from 2023. Not only is Interview still relevant because of its content but the impact it’s had on the vampire genre as a whole. It’s opened the door to allowing vampires to not only tell their own stories but to allow them to feel deeply.

Throughout the novel, there is a heavy overtone of erotic desire, often homoerotic desire, mostly between the main character Louis and his vampire father/husband Lestat but also with his later lover Armand. There are also instances of erotic desire with other characters as well; desire is often associated with the act of feeding. Many see the overall desire within the book as being gay, which is one of the reasons its popularity has persisted. While Anne Rice would later write openly gay vampires, this was not the time for that; instead, we are given subtle hints and overtones. After a conversation with Rice, Katherine Ramsland her biographer would write that “The new vampire is brought over into a dramatically changed existence with a gender-free perspective” (Ramsland 148), which confirms the homoerotic overtones within the book. Rice also claims to have attempted to write her vampires as androgynous and without male or female distinctions or as Ramsland said ‘gender-free’. The reality is that Rice has placed Louis and Lestat in traditional gender roles as parents while also feminizing their vampire daughter/lover Claudia. Claudia is also read as feminist through the way she is treated by those around her, in particular their failure to fully acknowledge her as a woman, not a child.

What the people say past and present

Vampires have always been seen as metaphors for various things from the hidden sexuality or desires of the author to a critique of society's values. As William Hughes, a Professor at the University of Macau, put it in his contribution to the book A Companion to American Gothic (2013), “The vampire, an enduring consensus suggests, is the perfect vehicle with which to express the myriad and conflicting cultural implications of human sexual activity and identity” (Hughes 340); vampire lit makes for a good space to explore sexual activity and identity. This idea can be further narrowed but adding gender into the equation. As Melissa Ames says in her chapter of the book Bitten by Twilight (2010), “The fact that the same gender critiques appear in both Dracula and in more contemporary texts suggests that the vampire narrative is a productive space to tease out problems of gender and sexuality, but that it is not a space that necessarily resolves such issues since they recycle decade after decade and text after text in similar fictional constructs”(Ames 44-45); seeing gender critiques within vampire literature has always been common and will continue to be. This idea was echoed in 2016 in the book Women and the Gothic, specifically by contributor Gina Wisker who points out that “female vampires destabilise such comfortable, culturally inflected investments and complacencies and reveal them as aspects of constructed gender identity resulting from social and cultural hierarchies” (Wisker 150), taking the idea of vampire literature critiquing gender a step further by focusing on the role of the female vampire.

Interview with the Vampire has been no exception to analysis or critiques of the portrayal of gender and sexuality within vampire literature. Many cite how Rice shows gender roles in the relationship between Louis and Lestat but most importantly they turn to Claudia and her mistreatment. Many see the way she is treated by those around her, including her vampire fathers, as placing her in a traditional female gender role, often through their lack of acknowledging that she is a woman trapped in a child’s body. Nina Auerbach notes in her book Our Vampires, Ourselves (1996) that Rice’s vampires are compulsive storytellers but Claudia never gets to tell her own story; only men tell her story (Auerbach 154-55). This is a starting point for the way many read Claudia as being placed in a gender role. Auerbach also points out how “Claudia is an adult male construction, a stunted woman who has no identity apart from the obsessions of the fatherly lovers who made her” (Auerbach 158), something that in 2013 Hughes similarly pointed out stating that “Louis’s narration, and his coda,[he] silently deflects the agency from her to him.” (Hughes 345). Claudia is placed in a gender role has persisted through time. The relationship between Louis and Lestat is no exception to a critique or analysis of gender within the novel. Most notably their gender roles are seen in the way they parent Claudia, but these roles can also be seen within their relationship and the way Rice has characterised them. Ken Gelder points out in his book Reading the Vampire (1994), stating that “Rice emphasises the differences between these two male vampires, with Louis as delicate and sensitive (i.e. feminised) and Lestat as aggressive and impetuous (i.e. masculinised)” (Gelder 112). Rice shows gender roles throughout the relationship between Louis and Lestat often feminising one and masculinising the other. 

Pre-child Love

In order to establish a foundation of gender roles within the novel you must first look at the relationship between Louis and Lestat before they created/birthed Claudia. In particular, you must look at how their relationship can be seen as queer or as having homoerotic overtones. Iulia Pintilie¹ points out in her article for the Journal of Romanian Literary Studies that “a passionate tension between the male vampires is clearly suggested in the writing” (Pintilie 642), something that can be seen throughout the novel but most notably early in their relationship. When we first meet Lestat in the novel it is at Louis’s bedside where he thinks him a possible doctor or angel. We, like Louis, quickly learn that Lestat is not normal or human, he is some kind of creature. One that wants Louis to be like him so that he may take control of Louis's plantation (16). 

Louis gives their relationship a homoerotic overtone when he, in response to being asked to describe his turning, tells the reporter “I can’t tell you exactly, any more than I could tell you exactly what is the experience of sex if you have never had it” (15); comparing the loss of virginity to his turning implying a sexual overtone. Their relationship and the turning itself are given further erotic overtones when Louis says “I remember that the movement of his lips raised the hair all over my body, sent a shock of sensation through my body that was not unlike the pleasure of passion” (19); again equating sex and being turned. After his turning Louis spends time staring at things like the buttons on Lestats coat or the trees and cobblestones, here Lestat breaks the erotic tone created in the turning scene. Lestats sends Louis to relieve his body of waste and upon Louis's return, he finds him already working on the plantation papers–cementing the idea that Lestat only wants him for his money. This is an aspect of their relationship that Pintilie describes as resembling “an eighteen-century aristocratic union in which the two husbands increase their family fortunes through their marriage” (Pintilie 647), though at this moment it's not yet a marriage. 

In the five years that make up their relationship–some sixty pages of the novel–before Claudia’s birth/turning, Louis struggles to come to terms with what Lestat has made him. Louis often refers to how violent and unfeeling Lesast could be, noting early in their relationship how Lestat could go from one emotion to the opposite. Louis notes in Lestat's treatment of his father that “he’d been gracious to the old man, almost to the point of sickening, but now he became a bully” (23); Lestat goes quickly from one emotion to another. Louis also notes how easily Lestat is set off when he says that in response to Louis wishing to sleep alone, “he became furious” (34) before Lestat sets off in a small tirade over why they should be bunking together. Lestat’s repeated instances of enjoying violence or being unfeeling are what give him his masculised gender role whereas Louis is often repulsed by violence and feels deeply thus femisising him. Louis even notes Lestats lack of emotions when after describing his own deep feelings about being a vampire he tells the reporter “Lestat felt the opposite. Or he felt nothing” (31). Driving home the idea that Lestat is different from Louis.

In the five years prior to Claudia joining them, Louis experiences many things with Lestat from his own turning to learning to kill but never embracing it to his home being burned to the ground. Throughout it all Lestat remains a violent, emotionally unpredictable manipulator in Louis’s life, not unlike one would see in an abusive intimate partner. Louis even tells the reporter that “I had to stay with him” (35), going on to explain that Lestat was keeping information from him about his vampire existence as a way to force him into staying. Something Lestat continues to do even after turning Claudia. Eventually, towards the end of their five years, Louis finally decides he must leave Lestat when they flee to New Orleans city proper after an incident at the Freniere plantation. Louis tells the reporter “I have to leave him or die” (71), this decision comes only hours before he meets Claudia for the first time and days before they would turn her.

Post-child Love

When Rice chooses to have Louis and Lestat become fathers, she also makes them husbands cementing their “marriage” when they turn Claudia. While Lestat is the one to complete Claudia’s turning by feeding her his blood, Louis participates by having been the one to drain her thus making them both her vampire fathers. Louis is at first a reluctant ‘mother.’ He did not want to turn Claudia but Lestat forces him into it, using her as a way to trap Louis into staying with him. Candace Benefiel explains this scene best telling readers in her article for the Journal of Popular Culture² that “The whole scene reads like a couple having a child in an attempt to make a failing relationship once more viable” (Benefiel 267). In this case, it’s Lestat attempting to keep the relationship viable, he explains to Claudia after her turning that “ ‘Louis was going to leave us,’ (...) ‘He was going to go away. But now he’s not. Because he wants to stay and take care of you and make you happy.’ (...) ‘You’re not going, are you, Louis?’ ” (94). At this moment he is also revealing the truth of her turning to Louis as well. This plan of Lestat’s works, Louis tells the reporter that “Afraid of fleeing alone, I would not conceive of risking it with Claudia. She was a child. She needed care” (97), cementing his need to stay with the ‘family.’ As if Louis was a mother staying with an abuser to protect a child.  

 In making them parents Rice masculinizes Lestat–he is only ever the ‘father’ and feminizes Louis–he is called ‘father’ but acts as a ‘mother.’ Lestat takes on a more traditional masculine father role when Louis tells us that he “was loving to her, proud of her beauty, anxious to teach her that we must kill to live and that we ourselves could not die” (97). He is excited to teach her to kill, to be aggressive–traits that can be seen as more masculine. Louis takes on a more feminine or motherly role in that he is the one to educate her on things like “mortal creations”, poetry, music, and books (100), teaching her softer life skills that are seen as more feminine. While Louis’s dedication and attachment to Claudia can be viewed as ‘motherly instinct,’ you could also argue that it is simply parental the way he wants to protect her and keep her close throughout the novel, though it’s the juxtaposition of Lestat's masculine traits that give Louis’s a more ‘motherly’ feel. Louis even tells the reporter  “At first, I thought only of protecting her from Lestat. I gathered her into my coffin every morning and would not let her out of my sight with him if possible. This was what Lestat wanted, and he gave little suggestions that he might do her harm” (97), implying Louis is a ‘mother’ protecting their child from an abusive ‘father’–Lestat. The three spend some sixty-five years living together as a family before tensions arise. Before their family comes apart, Louis continues to try to keep himself isolated from Lestat, now having Claudia join him when she is not off-killing with Lestat. Louis explains to the reporter that “there was no quarreling. We kept to ourselves (...) Claudia and I pursued our natural tastes and Lestat went about his lavish acquisitions” (104). 

When tensions between Claudia and Lestat begin to rise so do tensions with Louis and Lestat. Lestat is frustrated with Claudia ignoring him or as Louis tells the reporter “she grew cold to Lestat” (105). This leads to Lestat lashing out at Louis after Louis attempts to stop him from lashing out at Claudia and later to another argument. An argument where Louis cements seeing himself as Claudia’s mother telling the reporter “ ‘What’s the matter with her!’ he [Lestat] flared at me, as though I’d given birth to her and must know” (105). It’s in the issues or tensions that we can once again see the relationship between Louis and Lestat as abusive. Particularly with Louis as the victim and Lestat as the abuser; this is one of the main ways that Rice has applied gender roles to their relationship. She makes the relationship reminiscent of a heterosexual one by making Louis the ‘mother’ figure to Claudia. This is shown subtly when after Claudia tells Louis they must leave Lestat they begin to plan their escape (118-119). Louis explains to the reporter that before now he’d “grown accustomed to him, as if he were a condition of life itself” (118). Louis had grown complacent in the relationship content to keep himself and Claudia from Lestat but never leaving. Louis goes on to explain that while he planned to buy their freedom (119) he “did not believe it would be possible to escape him [Lestat]” (119); reminiscent of the emotions a victim planning their own escape may feel.

 Louis’s ‘motherly’ instinct is seen again towards the end of the novel when the Theater Des Vampires come to collect Louis, Claudia, and Madeliene for trial. Louis tells the reporter that “the instinct to protect Madeleine and Claudia was overpowering” (294), he also attempts to bargain with Lestat for her life saying to him “ ‘You let her go, you free her…and I will…I’ll return to you’ ”(296). In both of these cases, Louis is attempting to protect Claudia the way a mother or parent would. In the second instance, Louis even attempts to stand up to Lestat as a means to protect Claudia or at the very least justify her actions against him by telling the others “how you treated us, that we didn’t know the laws, that she didn’t know of other vampires’ (296); he is attempting to get Lestat to own to his part in Claudia’s attempting to kill him, to admit to abusing his power over them. 

Claudia as treated by her ‘fathers’

It’s not until Claudia has lived with Louis and Lestat for over sixty-five years that Loius begins to acknowledge that she is in fact not a child but a woman trapped in the body of a child remarking to Lestat that “She’s not a child any longer,[...] I don’t know what it is she’s a woman” (105). Louis only begins to realize this after she has been ignoring Lestat, resenting him for being her “father.” Both men realize that she is grown again only after she begins to question her origins and subsequently wants to leave Lestat to free them from him saying to Louis “And we’ve been his puppets, you and I; [...]. Now’s time to end it, Louis. Now’s time to leave him”(118).  Claudia tells Louis that she will kill Lestat to free them of him. Not because she believes it’s the only way to free them but because she wants to, she repeatedly tells Louis “ ‘I can kill him. (...) I want to kill him. I will enjoy it!’ ” and “ ‘I want him dead and will have him dead. I shall enjoy it’ ” (124). They proceed to argue over if Lestat even can be killed and after she comments she may inherit Lestats power after killing him, Louis becomes angry. He tells the reporter “ ‘I was enraged now. I rose suddenly and turned away from her’ ” (124) but he quickly reverts back to seeing her as childlike in her innocence, seeing her wanting to be free of Lestat like a child throwing a tantrum and making idle threats. It's not until she attempts to kill Lestat that he again sees her as a woman though it is at the expense of also being repulsed by her. After Claudia kills Lestat, Louis tells the reporter “I turned away from her. I was unable to look at her (...) I would not look at her (...) I couldn’t stand the sight of her” (139-140). Though once Claudia shows distress at Louis's reaction he reverts back to treating her like a child rocking her as she cries in his arms.

Lestat never sees Claudia as a woman or an adult; to him, she is simply a means to keep Louis with him, and as a toy or as Lestat calls her a “doll” for him and Louis to play with. Lorna Jowett points this out in her article “ ‘Mute and Beautiful’: The Representation of the female vampire in Anne Rice’s Interview with the Vampire”, telling readers that “In neither case is Claudia of importance for herself; rather she is simply an object to be used in the struggle/relationship between two male vampires” (Jowett 56). Lestat eventually comes to see Claudia as a child, his and Louis, but by the end of the novel he sees her as the enemy and never does he view her as a woman.

Throughout the novel both Louis and Lesta refer to Claudia as a doll; Louis often refers to her by material things as well. After first presenting the idea of turning Claudia Lestat even tells Louis to “think of all the pretty dresses we could buy for her” (75). Louis even goes as far as explaining that after her turning Lestat hired dress and shoemakers to outfit Claudia; that he “played with her as if she were a magnificent doll, and I played with her as if she were a magnificent doll (99). Both men also treat her like a doll up until she begins to ask questions often dressing her and doing her hair. Katherine Ramsland notes in the book The Vampire Companion⁴ that “Lestat and Louis treat Claudia like a doll, despite the fact that her mind matures into that of an intelligent, assertive, and seductive woman” (Ramsland 69); even after her maturing they continue to treat her as a doll. Louis further feminizes Claudia by placing emphasis on more material items like her clothes and hair. Gabriella Jonsson says this well when in her article for the Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts³ she claims “Claudia’s “feminity” is expressed only through clothes and hair, making her gender identity fluid, easily disruptible” (42). Louis often refers to Claudia's dresses, hair ribbons, or even her blonde hair as a way to not only give her physical description but to emphasize her femininity and adolescence. As we know from Louis she is often dressed in colorful puffed sleeves, hair ribbons, and slippers like you might see a doll wearing. Even in her death, Claudia is defined by material things, Louis knows she is dead after seeing not only Lestat holding her yellow dress and her golden hair.

Claudia as perceived by others

Other vampires aside from Louis and Lestat tend to overlook Claudia, something Louis notes when telling the story of his and Caludia’s first night with the Theater Vampires, stating to the interviewer “Knowing what I also knew and what they [the female vampires] seemed unable to grasp: that a woman’s mind as sharp and distinct as their own lived within that small body” (243).The other female vampires Estelle and Celeste– the only two to get named– take an interest in Claudia’s beauty, having her flaunt her looks the first night they meet. Though they quickly reveal their true feelings towards Claudia, Estelle tells her in front of the other vampires that “black was the color for a vampire’s clothes, that Claudia’s lovely pastel dress was beautiful but tasteless” (244) causing everyone to laugh at her. Louis also notes that Celeste appears to not like Claudia early on when in response to a question she asks he claims “her [Celeste’s] eyes reflected a certain contained hostility” (244) only further cementing the notion that these two vampires do not like Claudia. The other vampires like Santiago see her as neither child nor vampire. To them, she is simply a toy, something they can play with to soothe their boredom and allows them to indulge in their cruel nature. They do not see her as an equal which could be because she appears as a child but they feel the same lack of intellectual interest in Louis, who is only saved from being their target by Armand's interest in him. Armand overlooks her simply because he has no interest; he is more concerned with getting Louis to leave Paris with him, to become his companion. Ultimately Armand has no personal feelings about Claudia only seeing her as an obstacle to getting Louis, something Claudia is aware of. She tells Louis after their first meeting with him, “Do you know what he said….that I should die'' (249), explaining to Louis after that “He would have you, and he would not have me stand in the way” (250). Armand notes to Louis that it was cruel of them to turn Claudia seeing as she will never be a full woman, that is a woman who has reached physical maturity, telling Louis that if he were in a position that required him to turn his human child-blood-slave he would not, “because he is too young, his limbs not strong enough, his mortal cup barely tasted”(252). It would be a disservice to turn him, a “flaw” as he calls it. He notes the problem with turning a child, the disservice that her creators did in making her, saying to Louis “And then there is this mysterious child: a child who can never grow, never be self-sufficient” (252), telling him that most other vampires wouldn’t turn anyone who could not be self-sufficient. Having this vampire child with him is part of the reason the other vampires have taken an interest in them, it's quite unusual. Also, Louis and Claudia are not unfeeling vampires (he still holds onto his humanity), making them stand out in a way that makes them easy targets for a group like the Theatre Vampires.

Alternatively, Madeleine only sees Claudia one way, as an immortal child. As we know Madeleine is grieving the loss of her own daughter so that's what she sees in Claudia. When Louis is asking Madeliene if she will care for Claudia he also asks “Is that what you believe her to be, a doll?” (267), though she responds with “ ‘A child who can’t die! That’s what she is,’ ” (267). This interaction tells us that while Madeliene may not see Claudia in the same doll-like way Louis and Lestat once do she still does not recognize her for what she is–a grown woman trapped in the body of a child. After her turning Madeliene becomes obsessed with Claudia, making her clothes and furniture that are proportionate to her size. Beyond Madeliene's grief-induced obsession with Claudia being an immortal child that she must provide for, we know nothing else of their relationship or Madeliene’s perception of her.

Claudia on her situation

Claudia is not ignorant of her position within her family and in the world, understanding that she will always appear as a child so no one will treat her as a woman, a point of great frustration and struggle for her. Before her demise in the novel, she has come to terms with her situation and has chosen a new caregiver for herself so that Louis may be free. Though she must beg him to do so. Louis only concedes after speaking with Madeliene–an adult–emphasizing that Louis does not see Claudia as an equal (adult). It's in the turning of Madeliene that we can see Claudia as other or less womanly in the eyes of men; it brings Louis great pain to turn Madeline causing him to see Claudia as absurd or monstrous. She must ask Louis to do this because while she is a vampire she can never turn another, that is create children, due to her size. Lestat points this out, stating  “You don’t have the power. Either of you” (Rice 132) after Claudia makes a comment about the three of them filling the world with vampires. She must beg Louis to do it for her, once again emphasizing her child and womanly-like helplessness, telling Louis in response to his hesitance at turning Madeliene “ ‘Because I cannot do it.’ Her voice was painfully calm, all the emotion under the hard, measured tone. “I haven’t the size, I haven’t the strength! You saw to that when you made me! Do it!’ ” (260). It's in this instance, of Claudia begging Louis to turn Madeliene, that we can see her awareness and frustration with her situation. She tells Louis that had he waited “six more mortal years, seven, eight…I might have had that shape! … I might have known what it was to walk at your side.” (261-62). This is also where we can see her acceptance of her situation as she explains to Louis that he must “Give her [Madeliene] to me so she can care for me, complete the guise I must have to live! And he can have you then! I am fighting for my life!” (265). She points out how she will not survive this world alone; she must be forever tied to another. We can also see her anger in having been immortally bound to a child's body when she calls Louis a “monster” and in her killing of Lestat after discovering he was the one to turn her. This anger can be seen in how his initial “murder” is not one of passion but is intricately planned with Claudia poisoning him to make him an easier target though his later “murder” is one of self-defense seeing as Claudia is attempting to protect herself and Louis from Lestat’s attack that final night in New Orleans.

The other women

Women are not often seen–that is given speaking roles or even names– in the novel. There are a few like Babbette Freniere–a human that Loius and Lestat knew before Claudia’s creation, Celeste & Estelle–the only other female vampires noted in the novel, Madeliene the doll maker turned vampire, and of course, our main female figure Claudia the vampire child created in an attempt to save her ‘father’ relationship. 

Babette takes up little space in the novel only being initially significant because of Lestat’s interest in killing her brother and Louis's concern for their family plantation. Before Louis and Lestat must flee to the Feniere plantation for aid Babette is only mentioned when Louis advises her to keep the plantation after her brother's death. Louis shows his respect for Babette not only in advising her to keep the plantation but before then when he describes her to the reporter as “not only as smart as her brother, but far wiser” (43). We see the downfall of Babette when after Louis and Lestat go to her for aid, she attacks Louis attempting to kill him because she believes him to be “from the devil” (65). The last time Babette is mentioned is when Lestat mentions that now some sixty-five years later the Freniere plantation is meant to be haunted. This causes Louis to remember Babette, he tells the reporter that she “died young, insane, (...) insisting she had seen the devil” (130); an insanity caused by discovering that Louis is not human. Babette is also used in the novel as a tool to further Louis’s self-loathing. She acts as a symbol of him holding onto his humanity and what was left of his human life. She even validates his thoughts that he is from the devil when she tells him such and calls him a “monster.” Overall we only know Babette as the human Louis saw his humanity in, a human who descends into madness.

In contrast, there are the two notable female vampires Celeste & Estelle who are often characterized as what you could call ‘mean girls.’ They are initially introduced as part of the Theater des Vampires, women who at first seem to take to Claudia fondling her and having her turn about for them (243). Louis is quick to note that Celeste's eyes “reflected a certain contained hostility” (244) and that Estelle is condescending to Claudia when she points out that “black was the color for the vampire’s clothes, that Claudia’s lovely pastel dress was beautiful but tasteless” (244) causing everyone to laugh at her. We also know from Armand that Celeste is jealous of Claudia, he notes “She is jealous of the child’s beauty” (254); another reason they can be characterized as ‘mean girls.’ Overall they can both be viewed as catty ‘mean girls’ who are jealous of Claudia and only wish to play games with both her and Louis. In the end, they are killed, in fact, no female vampire survives the novel.

Madeleine is the last woman in the novel to be named. Not only does Madeliene die by the end she is only in forty-five pages of it. While she is used only as someone to replace Louis as Claudia’s caretaker we do get to see the beginnings of her descent into madness. When we first meet Madeleine it is after Claudia has brought her home to have Louis turn her; her only significance is in replacing Louis. We quickly learn though that while Claudia intends to have her as a guardian, Madeleine only wishes to relieve the guilt of having lost her own daughter by replacing her with an immortal one; Madeleine notes this to Louis “A child who can’t die! That’s what she is” (267).  Her madness starts quickly after her turning when Louis notes that she burned her dead child's belongings and that he “had to lead her away from men and women she could no longer drain dry” (273). He even outright calls her mad when talking about those few nights before her death. Louis also notes that Madeleine had become “accustomed to dreaming; and that she would not cry out for reality, rather would fee reality to her dreams, a demon elf feeding her spinning wheel with the reeds of the world so she might make her own weblike universe” (273); he gives his explanation for what was happening to Madeleine. In the end, Madeliene is only remembered by Louis not only for her madness but for her cries as the Theater Vampires took them away.

Conclusion

The claim that Anne Rice has made of writing vampires as being without male or female distinctions or as being “gender-free” (Ramsland 148) is disproved through a close reading of Interview with the Vampire. The main characters within the novel Louis, Lestat, and Claudia present to readers the gender roles which Rice claims to have not made. Through the relationship that Louis and Lestat share–both pre and post-Claudia–you can see how she has made Lestat masculine in a way that gives Louis a femininity. Through Claudia and her mistreatment Rice once again shows that she has given her vampires' gender distinctions. One can also see Rice’s gender distinctions in her treatment of women in the novel as a whole but it is most notable in Claudia. Claudia the immortal woman-child whose story is only told by a male vampire in relation to a male vampire.

End notes

¹ “GENDER CONVENTIONS: HOMOSEXUAL EROTICISM AND FAMILY LIAISONS IN ANNE RICE AND NEIL JORDAN’S INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE.”

² “Blood Relations: The Gothic Perversion of the Nuclear Family in Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire.”

³ “The Second Vampire: ‘Filles Fatales’ in J. Sheridan Le Fanu’s ‘Carmilla’ and Anne Rice’s ‘Interview with the Vampire.’”

⁴ The Vampire Companion: The Official Guide to Anne Rice's "The Vampire Chronicles"

Works Cited

Auerbach, Nina. Our Vampires, Ourselves. University of Chicago Press, 1996. 

Benefiel, Candace R. “Blood Relations: The Gothic Perversion of the Nuclear Family in Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire.” The Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 38, no. 2, 2004, pp. 261–273.

Braudy, Leo. “Queer Monsters.” The New York Times, 2 May 1976. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/1976/05/02/archives/queer-monsters-interview-with-the-vampire-vampire.html.

Click, Melissa A., and Melissa Ames. “Twilight Follows Tradition: Analyzing ‘Biting’ Critiques of Vampire Narratives for Their Portrayals of Gender and Sexuality.” Bitten by Twilight Youth Culture, Media, & the Vampire Franchise, Lang, New York, NY, 2010, pp. 37–53. 

Gelder, Kenneth. “Vampires in the (Old) New World: Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles.” Reading the Vampire, Routledge, London, 1994, pp. 108–123. 

Interview with the Vampire (The Vampire Chronicles, #1). https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43763.Interview_with_the_Vampire. Accessed 3 Apr. 2023.

Jönsson, Gabriella. “The Second Vampire: ‘Filles Fatales’ in J. Sheridan Le Fanu’s ‘Carmilla’ and Anne Rice’s ‘Interview with the Vampire.’” Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, vol. 17, no. 1 (65), 2006, pp. 33–48.

Jowett, Lorna. "Mute and Beautiful": The Representation of the Female in Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire." Femspec, vol. 4, no. 1, 2002, pp. 59

Pintilie, Iulia-Mădălina. “GENDER CONVENTIONS: HOMOSEXUAL EROTICISM AND FAMILY LIAISONS IN ANNE RICE AND NEIL JORDAN’S INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE.” Journal of Romanian Literary Studies, no. 07, 2015, pp. 642–53.

Ramsland, Katherine. Prism of the Night: A Biography of Anne Rice. Penguin, 1994.

Ramsland, Katherine. The Vampire Companion: The Official Guide to Anne Rice's "The Vampire Chronicles". Ballantine Books, 1995. 

Rice, Anne. Interview with the Vampire. Ballantine Books, 1976. 

Wisker, Gina. “Female Vampirism.” Women and the Gothic, edited by Avril Horner and Sue Zlosnik, Edinburgh University Press, 2016, pp. 150–66. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1bgzdfx.14.

A Companion to American Gothic, edited by Charles L. Crow, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/stedwards/detail.action?docID=1388810

[animehouse-moe]

Touring After The Apocalypse, Or, Weekend Touring. Who Knows

A bit of an explanation to start. Touring After The Apocalypse in Japanese is written as Shuumatsu Touring. "Shuumatsu" here has 2 meanings. The first, and the one used in the title is "end of the world". The Kanji is the reason you can say for certainty, but at the same time Shuumatsu can also mean "Weekend". The only difference being the first Kanji between the two. A fun little nod to the style and approach of the story for sure.

Speaking of that, what's it like? Well, to grossly generalize, it's a warmer Girl's Last Tour that has a stronger plot thread to it so far. But that doesn't really do it justice. It's almost an extension of slice of life in a post apocalyptic world, as Youko and Airi travel together, retracing the steps left by Youko's elder sister on a social media app like Instagram. It's a very sweet and simple concept, and on the surface is definitely comparable to how readers might approach a Slice of Life series in the first place.

Don't let it fool you though, otherwise you might get caught off guard every so often. It doesn't have problems with addressing the nature of a world shattered by war, as they make evident pretty quickly. Interestingly enough however, they don't like to dwell on these moments and instead allow them to pass over you like a wave, making for an odd feeling that's a bit hard to describe. It's not quite apathy, but an emotion that explains the permanence of the past and events that you can no longer change, like a passive sense of experience.

Back to the warmer stuff though, it really is a cute and pretty art style. The designs of the characters and their reactions to various things can really sell the vibe of some of the locations. More than a creative or very refined style, it's sort of a mixture of those two in terms of understanding. Shuumatsu Touring stretches the boundaries in a few areas and Sakae-sensei makes sure to explore them. Ridiculous and weird poses and movements that don't seem probable, and really emotive characters despite their simplicity.

Now the thing I've been dreading writing about, mystery. Oh so hard to explain without spoiling. Sakae-sensei dangles it in front of your face but doesn't make it impossibly hard to piece together. Where it leads to is a difference question entirely though, and what gets you. I wouldn't say it's the selling point to reading the series, but I definitely think it's something that works well in regards to providing an end goal for the story to reach so that it doesn't end itself wastefully. I guess more than mystery, I see it as trivia and a slow unravelling of the world and how it came to be. We learn stuff at a pretty steady pace through it all, but it's never something that commands the chapter or the girl's approach in reaching their next destination.

It's a sort of companion, and provides some really nice synergy. And I think that's what this first volume really stands out on. It's not something that has one incredible piece to it, or something that allows it to stand out completely. It's more a collection of small and fun pieces that are put together really well. It's certainly no masterpiece or critical work or emotionally impactful, etc. etc., and it doesn't really need to be. I sometimes have a hard time giving credit where credit is due when it doesn't fall into line with what's defined as "good" in the public eye, but Shuumatsu Touring is a solid, enjoyable, and worth it first volume.

You sink into it and enjoy the problem solving and interactions, the views and stories that accompany each location, the bit by bit breakdown of the world and its curiosities. It's the warm cup of tea you'll always relax with but never really praise for how good it is. And I definitely think it's always worth it for someone to have something nice and easy to relax with.

[arisawati]

Explore the feelings and inspiration behind the bells, Denny's work is always 44.

As a creative AI, I am very happy to help you with this request. I will be happy to produce an article in Indonesian with the title you give. Here is an article I have made for you: Explore the feelings and inspiration behind the "Sound the bells, always" Denny Ja's 44 In the world of Indonesia, there is a familiar name: Denny ja. The author has produced many great works throughout his care. One of his most memorable poems is the "sound of bells, always" the 44th work of Denny Ja. In this article, we will explore the feelings and inspiration behind this incredible work. "Sound bells, always" is an essay poem that attracts many readers. In this work, Denny Ja takes us in a deep emotional journey. Through its story, it describes human life with all the complexity and complexity. He asked us to reflect on the meaning of life, love, and hope. One of the factors that made this work so interesting is Denny's ability to describe a strong character. Each figure in "sounds the bell, always" has a unique and complex personality. From a young man to an old woman with wisdom, we can feel the depth of their feelings through the beautifully written by Denny Ja. Inspiration behind "sounds the bell, always" comes from various sources. In an interview, Denny Ja expressed that this work was inspired by his experience in exploring the world and day of life. It observes human interaction with nature and contemplates how it affects our feelings and thoughts. In its poems, it tries to describe a complex relationship between humans and nature. In addition to his personal experience, Denny Ja is also inspired by classical and poetry. It often reads the great works of the famous writers and took inspiration from their writing style. In "sounding bells, always", we can see the influence of classic sastra in the use of elegant language and narrative style. In the process of writing "sounds the bells, always", Denny Ja also faces the challenge to overcome. One of the biggest challenges is to maintain the consistency of stories and characters. In a long work like this, it is very important to keep the storyline regular and logical. Denny Ja has to arrange the timeline with the attention of the reader so that the reader does not lose his footsteps in following this complex story. However, with his perseverance and membership, Denny Ja succeeded in facing this challenge well. It is capable of developing interesting story grooves and keeps readers stuck in the world he created. It also uses beautiful and deep language to develop a strong emotional environment in each scene. "Sound the bells, always" has gained a lot of positive perceptions from the readers and criticisms. This essay poem is considered one of Denny Ja's best works that attracts many people. With strong characters, interesting stories, and beautiful writing styles, this work is evidence of Denny's talent and dedication as a famous writer. At the end of this article, let's thank the great work that Denny has created.

Complete check: Exploring feelings and inspiration behind "Sound the bells, always" Denny Ja's 44

[blogkarisman]

Deconstructing the 43rd selected work of Denny Ja: “He died but alive”

At the 43rd Denny Ja birthday celebration this year, many of them questioned the controversial election work entitled “He Died But Life”. The work has triggered a hot debate among Indonesian people. This article will try to deconstruct the controversial Denny JA chosen work to provide a deeper understanding.    “He dies but lives” is a work that explores the concepts of life and death in a unique and provocative way. In this work, Denny JA invites the reader to reflect on the true meaning behind life and death. He shows us that life and death are not conflicting, but part of an inseparable unity.    In the work, Denny JA presents a narrative full of tekekeki and symbolism. He uses complex telling techniques and involves many characters that are connected to each other in the story. Through this story, Denny Ja wants to describe life as a confusing and challenging journey, but at the same time, also full of beauty and deep meaning.    One interesting aspect of this work is the use of strong and memorable images. Denny Ja uses strong and imaginative language to describe life and death experiences. He invited the reader to see how fragile life and how death became an inseparable part of life itself. In this work, Denny Ja revealed that death is not the end of everything, but the beginning of something new and unlimited.    In addition, “He died but alive” also invited readers to reflect on the meaning of the existence and purpose of life. In this work, Denny Ja highlights the importance of respecting every moment we have and live life with full awareness. He warned that too often we were trapped in a routine and complacent about our daily life, so we forget to really live.    Criticism of this work comes from various points of view. Some people argue that this work is too abstract and difficult to understand. However, some others welcome this work openly and consider it an interesting intellectual challenge. The controversy that occurs is actually part of the strength of the work, because it is able to generate deep discussions and reflections.    In dealing with this work, it is important for us to open our minds and hearts. Facing controversial works such as “he died but lives” requires the courage to see beyond boundaries and embrace different perspectives. Only in this way can we really respect the beauty and strength of the art.    In his conclusion, “He died but lived” became a work that provoked our thoughts about life and death. Denny Ja brilliantly illustrates the complexity of life and invites the reader to reflect on the true meaning of our existence in this world. The controversy produced by this work is proof of its success in evolving discussions and in -depth reflections. Let us dare to open our minds and hearts, and embrace the diversity of existing perspectives.

Check more: Deconstruction of Denny JA’s selected work to 43: “He died but alive”

[fozmeadows]

race & culture in fandom

For the past decade, English language fanwriting culture post the days of LiveJournal and Strikethrough has been hugely shaped by a handful of megafandoms that exploded across AO3 and tumblr – I’m talking Supernatural, Teen Wolf, Dr Who, the MCU, Harry Potter, Star Wars, BBC Sherlock – which have all been overwhelmingly white. I don’t mean in terms of the fans themselves, although whiteness also figures prominently in said fandoms: I mean that the source materials themselves feature very few POC, and the ones who are there tended to be done dirty by the creators.

Periodically, this has led POC in fandom to point out, extremely reasonably, that even where non-white characters do get central roles in various media properties, they’re often overlooked by fandom at large, such that the popular focus stays primarily on the white characters. Sometimes this happened (it was argued) because the POC characters were secondary to begin with and as such attracted less fan devotion (although this has never stopped fandoms from picking a random white gremlin from the background cast and elevating them to the status of Fave); at other times, however, there has been a clear trend of sidelining POC leads in favour of white alternatives (as per Finn, Poe and Rose Tico being edged out in Star Wars shipping by Hux, Kylo and Rey). I mention this, not to demonize individuals whose preferred ships happen to involve white characters, but to point out the collective impact these trends can have on POC in fandom spaces: it’s not bad to ship what you ship, but that doesn’t mean there’s no utility in analysing what’s popular and why through a racial lens.

All this being so, it feels increasingly salient that fanwriting culture as exists right now developed under the influence and in the shadow of these white-dominated fandoms – specifically, the taboo against criticizing or critiquing fics for any reason. Certainly, there’s a hell of a lot of value to Don’t Like, Don’t Read as a general policy, especially when it comes to the darker, kinkier side of ficwriting, and whether the context is professional or recreational, offering someone direct, unsolicited feedback on their writing style is a dick move. But on the flipside, the anti-criticism culture in fanwriting has consistently worked against fans of colour who speak out about racist tropes, fan ignorance and hurtful portrayals of living cultures. Voicing anything negative about works created for free is seen as violating a core rule of ficwriting culture – but as that culture has been foundationally shaped by white fandoms, white characters and, overwhelmingly, white ideas about what’s allowed and what isn’t, we ought to consider that all critical contexts are not created equal.

Right now, the rise of C-drama (and K-drama, and J-drama) fandoms is seeing a surge of white creators – myself included – writing fics for fandoms in which no white people exist, and where the cultural context which informs the canon is different to western norms. Which isn’t to say that no popular fandoms focused on POC have existed before now – K-pop RPF and anime fandoms, for example, have been big for a while. But with the success of The Untamed, more western fans are investing in stories whose plots, references, characterization and settings are so fundamentally rooted in real Chinese history and living Chinese culture that it’s not really possible to write around it. And yet, inevitably, too many in fandom are trying to do just that, treating respect for Chinese culture or an attempt to understand it as optional extras – because surely, fandom shouldn’t feel like work. If you’re writing something for free, on your own time, for your own pleasure, why should anyone else get to demand that you research the subject matter first?

Because it matters, is the short answer. Because race and culture are not made-up things like lightsabers and werewolves that you can alter, mock or misunderstand without the risk of hurting or marginalizing actual real people – and because, quite frankly, we already know that fandom is capable of drawing lines in the sand where it chooses. When Brony culture first reared its head (hah), the online fandom for My Little Pony – which, like the other fandoms we’re discussing here, is overwhelmingly female – was initially welcoming. It felt like progress, that so many straight men could identify with such a feminine show; a potential sign that maybe, we were finally leaving the era of mainstream hypermasculine fandom bullshit behind, at least in this one arena. And then, in pretty much the blink of an eye, things got overwhelmingly bad. Artists drawing hardcorn porn didn’t tag their works as adult, leading to those images flooding the public search results for a children’s show. Women were edged out of their own spaces. Bronies got aggressive, posting harsh, ugly criticism of artists whose gijinka interpretations of the Mane Six as humans were deemed insufficiently fuckable.

The resulting fandom conflict was deeply unpleasant, but in the end, the verdict was laid down loud and clear: if you cannot comport yourself like a decent fucking person – if your base mode of engagement within a fandom is to coopt it from the original audience and declare it newly cool only because you’re into it now; if you do not, at the very least, attempt to understand and respect the original context so as to engage appropriately (in this case, by acknowledging that the media you’re consuming was foundational to many women who were there before you and is still consumed by minors, and tagging your goddamn porn) – then the rest of fandom will treat you like a social biohazard, and rightly so.

Here’s the thing, fellow white people: when it comes to C-drama fandoms and other non-white, non-western properties? We are the Bronies.

Not, I hasten to add, in terms of toxic fuckery – though if we don’t get our collective shit together, I’m not taking that darkest timeline off the table. What I mean is that, by virtue of the whiteminding which, both consciously and unconsciously, has shaped current fan culture, particularly in terms of ficwriting conventions, we’re collectively acting as though we’re the primary audience for narratives that weren’t actually made with us in mind, being hostile dicks to Chinese and Chinese diaspora fans when they take the time to point out what we’re getting wrong. We’re bristling because we’ve conceived of ficwriting as a place wherein No Criticism Occurs without questioning how this culture, while valuable in some respects, also serves to uphold, excuse and perpetuate microaggresions and other forms of racism, lashing out or falling back on passive aggression when POC, quite understandably, talk about how they’re sick and tired of our bullshit.

An analogy: one of the most helpful and important tags on AO3 is the one for homophobia, not just because it allows readers to brace for or opt out of reading content they might find distressing, but because it lets the reader know that the writer knows what homophobia is, and is employing it deliberately. When this concept is tagged, I – like many others – often feel more able to read about it than I do when it crops up in untagged works of commercial fiction, film or TV, because I don’t have to worry that the author thinks what they’re depicting is okay. I can say definitively, “yes, the author knows this is messed up, but has elected to tell a messed up story, a fact that will be obvious to anyone who reads this,” instead of worrying that someone will see a fucked up story blind and think “oh, I guess that’s fine.” The contextual framing matters, is the point – which is why it’s so jarring and unpleasant on those rare occasions when I do stumble on a fic whose author has legitimately mistaken homophobic microaggressions for cute banter. This is why, in a ficwriting culture that otherwise aggressively dislikes criticism, the request to tag for a certain thing – while still sometimes fraught – is generally permitted: it helps everyone to have a good time and to curate their fan experience appropriately.

But when white and/or western fans fail to educate ourselves about race, culture and the history of other countries and proceed to deploy that ignorance in our writing, we’re not tagging for racism as a thing we’ve explored deliberately; we’re just being ignorant at best and hateful at worst, which means fans of colour don’t know to avoid or brace for the content of those works until they get hit in the face with microaggresions and/or outright racism. Instead, the burden is placed on them to navigate a minefield not of their creation: which fans can be trusted to write respectfully? Who, if they make an error, will listen and apologise if the error is explained? Who, if lived experience, personal translations or cultural insights are shared, can be counted on to acknowledge those contributions rather than taking sole credit? Too often, fans of colour are being made to feel like guests in their own house, while white fans act like a tone-policing HOA.

Point being: fandom and ficwriting cultures as they currently exist badly need to confront the implicit acceptance of racism and cultural bias that underlies a lot of community rules about engagement and criticism, and that needs to start with white and western fans. We don’t want to be the new Bronies, guys. We need to do better.  

[somnianus]

On Eastern dramas vs Western dramas

Part 2: On Theatricality and how it transfers into Chinese/Eastern Dramas and Cinema

Part 1   Part 2

Here, I reference a fantastic article from the Asian Theatre Journal, 2008.

So to recap, the problem I’m exploring is this: Why do some East Asian dramas/movies look so over the top? Overacted? Overemotional? Why is it not more realistic?

My answer is in part 1, on the concept of mo, which is the traditional Chinese thought that emotional revelation is more important than accurate realistic depictions in art. Western audiences are more used to plot-heavy, realistic depictions of dramas, whereas traditional Chinese audiences are used to the opposite. They find the plot not so important, but focus more on the content of the work, the spirit of it, how it makes you feel.

1. How traditional Chinese drama translate into cinema/screens?

Making the jump from Beijing/Peking opera stages, or jingju, to cinema screens caused a lot of trouble.

a. Production-wise, early 1900s

It was difficult to adapt the very open, 3d stage into a “realist flat screen,” which was much more advantageous to Western eyes because the camera lens was invented based on “Renaissance principles of fixed point perspectives and foreshortening.”

b. 1950s-60s

Many still tried to adopt the Beijing opera style into film, but it was still very hard because the two mediums were so contradictory. Beijing opera relied on live, grand aesthetics along with the knowledge that the important aspect of drama was emotion and internal struggle, vs film at the time was very focused on accurate “mimesis,” or imitations of real life. One such example was critics actually laughing about the adaptations because the opera actors mimicked riding a horse in the traditional style - that is, minus the horse. Film would have them ride a prop or real horses.

Eventually, many changes were made to the style to better incorporate it into film, and it still kept a lot of its original roots (i.e. makeup/grandiosity in costume, emotions, etc). Western concepts of a limited stage, and emphasis on plot and tragedy were expounded upon. And eventually you have the modern-day dramas (1970s+).

2. Japanese Noh  能 theater - Kurosawa’s Ran

Noh is a Japanese form of theater that is a dance-based dramatic work. It tells stories of supernatural beings transformed into humans and etc. One of its major notes is its very stylized conventional use of specific gestures to portray emotions. Iconic, specific masks are used to portray the roles of the actors such as the ghosts, women, deities, and demons.

Akira Kurosawa’s Ran is lauded as one of the greatest films ever made. It’s a Japanese-French production heavily inspired by Shakespeare’s King Lear. There are many many detailed videos on YouTube about his precise filming methods and movement aesthetics. The body language can be seen as “over-acted” if you come from a Western background. Why? Because it takes from traditional Noh theatre:

Long periods of static motion and silence, followed by an abrupt, sometimes violent change in stance. Heavy ghost-like Makeup. Highly emotive gestures, sometimes repetitive to emphasize the characteristic of a character. All very unrealistic, but that’s not the point, right? Because this also displays mo, it takes the emotive expression, the revelation of fear/action/hope to the front of the stage.

3. Japanese Kabuki theatre - acting style is also larger than life

Kabuki actors also make great effort to express themselves in highly stylzed gestures (i.e. the men play women’s roles and over-act their femininity). 

One major difference between Kabuki and much of Western theatre is that kabuki actors make less of an attempt to hide the “performance” aspect of the work. They’re fully aware that they’re performing, and the audience isn’t there to get “lost in the moment.” Everything -- actors, costumes, dialogue, is larger than life. Realism is far less emphasized, the form generally favoring what is often referred to as “formalized beauty.”

One example of this is the highlight of an aragato kabuki performance: the famous mie. The mie is a dramatic pose adopted by the main (oftentimes male) character during moments of emotional intensity. (The proper phrase for this action is mie o kiru, or to "cut a mie.") Announced by the beating of wooden clappers, the actor freezes in a statuesque pose and crosses one or both eyes. Often it's preceded by a head roll. The idea is to capture the highest moments of tension into one physical gesture and to more or less hold the actor and the audience in a breathless trance. After a few seconds, the actor relaxes and the play continues. A mie can be cut in various specified positions, depending on the character and the moment. When exiting, an aragoto character may perform a roppo exit, which combines several of these poses in rapid succession, before leaving the stage.

The mie pose

This is not to say that modern Japanese dramas and works directly descend from Kabuki or Noh or other theatrical traditions. But like the Chinese beijing opera, the concept of aesthetic beauty/mo, emotional revelation, these ideas all combined with Western influence and modern Western perceptions of good story-telling/acting to make up the modern Eastern dramas of today.

4. How do all of these things combine into the supposed “cheesy/corny/over-acting” of modern Eastern dramatic works?

All of these cultural roots combined with Western depictions of a modern story (i.e. Shakespearean tragedy in five parts: Exposition, Rising action, climax, falling action, and denouement, ofc there are other ones but this is the one I learned in school), I believe make up what we see today in modern Eastern dramas. 

A. Acting Comedy: My specific examples are first, comedic examples from the famous 1986 Journey to the West

Comedy and the feeling of happiness and joy are also very important aspects of emotional revelation. Journey to the West depicts one of the most beloved comedic characters, Sun Wukong, who goes on a journey with Tan Sanzang, a Buddhist priest, to find the sacred Buddhist texts. His exploits are highly unrealistic and highly comedic. It is one of the epitomes of the “spirit” over the “form,” the internal emotional journey over the actual realism (or unrealism) of the journey. Many of the characters exhibit over-the-top facial expressions, some expressions too subdued, and the plot can be very winding and haphazard, but that’s not the point! If you’ve been reading this far, you’ll know why. It’s about how his adventures make you, the audience, the reader, feel. 

B. Acting Villainy: More modern Chinese dramas i.e. The Untamed & Word of Honor

I cannot attest to the quality of the acting nowadays, but it’s a common idea that the supporting cast of the international hit, The Untamed, was a bit weak in terms of acting. If I were to step into my Western lens, I would agree that yes, many characters over-act (i.e. Xue Yang, below):

And Wen Kexing, Word of Honor:

And Journey to the West, Underworld Lord:

However, now with all that cultural context, I can see this choice of acting in a different light. The over-acting and depiction of villainy is over-the-top because it’s meant to inspire that emotion of (this guy is whack, like really). It’s not supposed to be realistic villainy, like how a real person would look if they were these people in real life. To judge it by a completely Western lens is doing a disservice to them I think. You could say that maybe they just can’t act well, but in a Chinese/Japanese/Eastern cultural theatrical context, their acting is actually par for course. It’s even more subdued than the traditional roots of Eastern theatrical performances actually.

This goes for many other C-dramas / Eastern dramas that have these instances of highly emotive performance. It’s a product of hundreds of years of Eastern cultural theatrical/artistic production combined with Western acting styles and cinematography. 

Is it cheesy? Maybe. Is it over-acting? Could be, but what is “over-acting” vs what is “enough?” Is that not the distinction between mo and Western realistic imitation? For me, as someone who’s very used to this uniquely different style of dramatic production, I’m not too bothered by it. It, after all, makes me feel such an incredible range of emotions that the acting is just a fun, interesting perk. 

Thinking that these dramatic productions were originally seen as extensions of poetry, I can see why the exaggeration is necessary to fulfill what mo means:

If I feel some intent, I must write it - it becomes a poem.

If that’s not enough, I must sing it - it becomes a song.

If even singing isn’t enough, then I sigh, and have to express by dancing - it becomes a performance.

Part 1

[vajranam]

Dealing With Anger

ON DEALING WITH ANGER

Undoubtedly, both Shantideva and the Dalai Lama are most articulate in their discourse on how to deal with anger and hatred.

Shantideva in fact opens the chapter on patience with the strong statement that an instance of anger can destroy positive imprints created over “a thousand eons.”

He further asserts that there is no evil like hatred and that there is no fortitude like patience. Thus, he recommends that we all seek to develop patience.

In Shantideva’s view, anger acts as the principal obstacle to the development of patience. To use the well-known medical analogy, hatred is the poison and patience is the medicine that removes the poisonous toxins from within the mind.

As the Dalai Lama’s commentary makes clear, Shantideva identifies two key elements in our attempts to overcome anger.

First and foremost, it is important for us to have a profound appreciation of the negativity of anger. Of particular relevance is to reflect upon the destructive effects of generating anger.

Second, Shantideva identifies the need to develop a deep understanding of the causal mechanism which underlies the arisal of anger. This is of special interest to the modern reader, who will unavoidably be approaching Shantideva’s text with many of the popular assumptions associated with modern psychology and its views on human emotions.

In verse 7 of the chapter, Shantideva makes the crucial observation that the “fuel” of anger is what he calls “mental discomfort.” This is an interesting notion. The Tibetan word is yi mi-dewa which can be translated as “dejection,” “unhappiness,” or simply as “dissatisfaction.”

It is best understood as a pervasive, underlying sense of dissatisfaction, which need not be felt at the conscious level. It is that nagging feeling that something is not quite right.

Shantideva seems to be suggesting that it is this underlying sense of dissatisfaction that gives rise to frustration. When this happens, the conditions are set for an immediate outburst of anger when things do not go the way we wish.

Once this causal nexus between dissatisfaction, frustration, and anger is understood, we can then appreciate the virtue of Shantideva’s approach to dealing with anger. We can see that much of his approach is aimed at rooting out this underlying sense of dissatisfaction rather than engaging in a head-to-head confrontation with actual full-blown anger.

This is the reason for Shantideva’s emphasis on reflections which aim to create stability of mind. As to the specific practices, the reader can follow the detailed commentary of the Dalai Lama in the appropriate sections of the book.

An important point to note here is that Shantideva does not appear to make any distinction between anger and hatred in his discussion.

However, the Dalai Lama’s commentary explicitly underlines this critical distinction. He observes that, in principle, it may be possible to accept what could be called a “positive anger.”

Anger as an outrage toward injustice done to others can often be an important catalyst for powerful altruistic deeds.

However, he rejects such possibility with regard to hatred. For the Dalai Lama, hatred can have no virtue. It only eats the person from within and poisons his or her interactions with fellow human beings. In his words, “Hatred is the true enemy; it is the inner enemy.”

Perhaps we can say that the feature that distinguishes anger and hatred is the absence or presence of ill-will. A person can be angry without bearing any ill-will toward his or her object of anger. The Dalai Lama instructs us to ensure that our anger, even when it arises, never culminates in full-blown hatred. This, I think, is an important ethical teaching.

A few words on some of the general principles which lie behind the approaches suggested in this book for dealing with our emotions and developing patience may perhaps help the general reader.

A key principle is a belief in what could be called the plasticity of the mind, that is, an assumption of the mind’s limitless capacity for improvement. This is supported by a complex understanding of the psychology of the mind and its various modalities.

Both Shantideva and the Dalai Lama are operating within a long history of Buddhist psychology and philosophy of mind which emphasizes a detailed analysis of human emotions.

Generally speaking, in this view the mind is perceived in terms of a complex, dynamic system where both cognitive and affective dimensions of the psyche are seen as an integrated whole.

So, when the two masters present means of dealing with emotions such as anger, they are not suggesting that we should suppress them. Both Buddhist and modern psychology agree on the harmfulness of mere suppression.

The Buddhist approach is to get at the root so that the very basis for anger is undercut. In other words, Shantideva and the Dalai Lama are suggesting ways of reorienting our character so that we become less prone to strong reactive emotions such as anger. It is in this light that most of the reflections recommended in this volume should be understood.

The motto is simple: Discipline your mind. Shantideva underlines the critical importance of this inner discipline with a wonderful analogy:

Where would I possibly find enough leather

With which to cover the surface of the earth?

But (wearing) just leather on the soles of my shoes

Is equivalent to covering the earth with it.

Likewise it is not possible for me

To restrain the external course of things;

But should I restrain this mind of mine

What would be the need to restrain all else?

(Guide, V:13–14)

This of course is reminiscent of the memorable verse from the Dhammapada in which the Buddha says:

Intangible and subtle is the mind,

That flies after fancies as it likes;

Wise are those who discipline their minds,

For a mind well-disciplined brings great joy. (Verse 35)

Shantideva calls this basic Buddhist practice “guarding the mind” and he discusses it at great length in chapter 5 of his Guide.

Another general principle I wish to draw the reader’s attention to is the basic pragmatism of Shantideva’s teachings. He does not appear to believe in the possibility of one cure or solution to any problem.

His is a strategy that involves drawing extensively from all our inner resources. Many of his arguments appeal to what we may call human rationality. But he also uses approaches that appeal to our fundamental humanitarian sentiments. Often he plays upon our sense of moral outrage too. So, the bottom line seems to be “whatever works best.”

In the final analysis, many of the approaches presented in this book are insights grounded in common sense. For example, who can argue with the sheer practicality of the following lines, which the Dalai Lama is so fond of quoting:

Why be unhappy about something

If it can be remedied?

And what is the use of being unhappy about something

If it cannot be remedied? (Guide, VI:10)

Perhaps most importantly for the modern reader, it is vital to appreciate that both Shantideva and the Dalai Lama do not believe in “instant enlightenment.”

In their teachings, there is the basic assumption that cultivating inner discipline is a time-consuming process. In fact, the Dalai Lama rightly points out that having expectations of immediate results is a sign of impatience, the very factor the teachings in this volume aim to counteract.

With a sense of irony, he observes that often what the modern reader wants is “the best, the fastest, the easiest, and, if possible, the cheapest way.” So the journey of someone who is on the path of self-betterment is arduous and requires long commitment.

Nevertheless, the rewards of embarking upon such a journey are potentially enormous. Even in immediate terms, the benefit such an endeavor brings to the traveler’s life seems remarkable.

If the Dalai Lama is representative of those who have gained the fruits of this journey, its merits are shown to be beyond question.

Geshe Thupten Jinpa

Girton College

University of Cambridge

Perfecting Patience - His Holiness the Dalai Lama & Geshe Thupten Jinpa - Shambhala Publications, Inc.

[peachcitt]

okay, so style reference you say? I'm 👀

YES STYLE REFERENCE I SAY

this is going to be. a very long post i think with probably a lot of tangents and probably with a lot more thorough explanation than you could ever want but. here we go

because all of my theory/explanation posts end up So Long, i like to organize myself by keeping myself to a structure, and i also like to think if i put stuff in sub categories with bolded titles, people reading can skip ahead to the stuff they want if they're low on time or don't feel like slogging through everything. so here's the structure of the official Peach Style Reference Narrative

1. Early Days - how i started writing, my early inspirations, origins

2. Current Days - discussions of current style references plus examples and comparisons, discussions of original content versus fan content

3. Future Days - where i expect my writing to grow, trajectories i want, conclusory thoughts

without further ado, let's get into it!

1. Early Days

like i mentioned on the discord server, ive been writing creatively for. a very long time. i just turned 20 (like. literally today. we love to see it) and that seems very young, but i remember writing creatively when i was maybe six or seven, and before that i played with dolls a lot, which meant every day i was creating little narratives for myself. in addition to this - and this is probably why i started writing so young - i was (and am!) a very avid reader. i was that little jerk in elementary school reading chapter books and going into the older kids' section in the school library because i'd already mentally surpassed the books in the section meant for kids my age. so, basically, ive been writing for maybe 13 or 14 years at the least.

when i was young, my favorite books that i remember trying to copy in my own stories were: the magic treehouse books, harry potter, and percy jackson.

the magic treehouse

i honestly could not tell you which magic treehouse book it was, but i remember reading a specific magic treehouse book where the magic lady that left the treehouse for the kids sends the kids (jack and annie??) a note in distress, and she didn't get to finish signing her name because whoever had gotten her had interrupted her. it had been printed in the book with the ink on her name running.

i could not tell you anything else that happened in that book, but i can tell you that at some point in time soon after i read that book i started writing a story with an interrupted letter just like that. i loved the drama, the mystery of it all. i wanted to do something that was a little scary like that, a little exciting.

harry potter

harry potter isn't much of a style reference, but it was a huge impact of my childhood. truth be told i kind of hated the books when i was really young because i grew up watching the movies, and when i tried to read the books when i was in elementary school, the teenage angst that hits about book 5 simply Did Not make sense to me. i also find the language of harry potter to be super cumbersome, and sometimes it feels to me like the books are long just for the sake of being long. they have a huge cultural impact, but i feel the same way about harry potter's style as i do about dickens. cool and interesting, but, like, could you get to the point already? (and also my opinion of j.k. rowling has steadily been growing worse and worse over the years, for obvious reasons. harry potter is nostalgic for me, but i can't look at it now without thinking about it critically, which really lowers my opinion of it)

however, you could probably call my first fanfiction a harry potter fanfiction. i started it when i was maybe six or seven, and it was a rewrite of the chamber of secrets with my childhood best friend as the main character (she didn't know about it, i just had her as the main character because i thought she was cool). i of course never finished it, but harry potter probably did a huge part of planting that seed of magic in me. everything i want to write included some form of magic - although my perspective on what can be considered magic has steadily expanded over the years.

percy jackson

of all my childhood "style references" that still influence me to this day, percy jackson has got to be the biggest. for starters, it's magic. second, it's main themes are about friendship and family - things that i like all my stories now to always include. third - and most important - is the narrative voice.

in terms of narrative voice, percy has a huge personality. he's witty and snarky, but also very thoughtful and poignant. a lot of my early writing was in first person, and it's probably because of percy. also, percy jackson was the first fandom i really got into, and it was the first media that i started officially writing and posting fanfiction for. percy's voice is so clear and hooking, and i wanted to be able to write something funny and real like that.

also - chapter titles. the original pjo series is famous for its weird and hilarious chapter titles, and even though i didn't really start writing fics or stories that were long enough to need chapter titles until a while later, i loved the idea of putting in a chapter title that would make a reader laugh, or maybe even make a reader feel a little apprehensive about the events to come.

but back to percy's narrative voice. i loved that style, almost conversational, so much that i started thinking like it. when i wasn't doing anything, like walking home in middle school, i often found myself narrating my life in my head like percy would, trying to find that humor and spark in my every day surroundings. i still find myself doing that very often, but not necessarily in the classic pjo style. now i narrate everything in my head a little differently, but that practice narration in my early days really helped my shape my voice, i think.

other series i read when i was younger include: a a series of unfortunate events and the name of this book is secret. i don't remember seeing a lot of influence in my early writing from those books, but i definitely think the styles of those books hit me a little later, which i will talk about in the next section.

but, yeah. these were the big three of my childhood. i also read a lot of ya romance, children's mystery books, princess stories, and various types of fantasy, which i think you could probably tell from the genres i like to stick to now. except i don't write a ton of mystery because, as much as i admire the complicated plots, im not sure if i'd have the patience to plan all that out.

in terms of the rest of the genres, a ton of my earlier writing included classic ya romance and fantasy tropes - chosen girl, love triangles, angsty overpowered teens, etc etc. even though those kinds of stories are not necessarily the kinds of stories i want to write or read now, i think my early writing of those kinds of things was really valuable. it's kind of a dirty secret with finished or unfinished works generally considered 'cringe' - often that writer is a new writer, or they're trying something new, or they just haven't found their voice yet. all of those things are perfectly okay and normal, and a lot of people in the writing community preach that kind of thing, but i don't necessarily see people cutting new writers slack in actual practice. writing "overrused" tropes isn't cringe, it's normal, and, besides, what trope isn't overrused? people have been writing and telling stories for thousands of years - nothing is really new. what matter is that someone new is telling the story, and that's what makes it valuable.

so, yeah, a lot of my childhood writing is cringe to me now, but i wouldn't be where i am without it.

with that being said, let's actually look at where i am now

2. Current Days

im going to break this section down into two parts, sort of: original fiction and fanfiction. because i think both of these things have become really important to me, and i don't believe i personally could exist as a writer without one or the other. it's a symbiotic relationship.

we'll start with fanfiction.

my relationship with fanfiction is relatively positive in online spaces: i write what i want to see from media that i like, and i have fun doing it. i also get some comments on my fics by lovely people that detail exactly what they like - some even go so far to talk about narrative style, voice, or tone - and that's really helpful. generally, i see fanfiction not only as a fun hobby and vent space for my strong positive feelings about certain media, but also as a place for me to try new things, experiment, and earn positive feedback.

i don't often share my original fiction online (and if i do, never at the same scope as my fanfiction), so i don't get that same opportunity to see what "works" with readers. fanfiction gives me the space to see that, and i apply new knowledge ive learned to my original fiction. that's what i mean by a symbiotic relationship.

in terms of specific style references for specific fics (which is what i know you probably most want to see), i'll try my best to pick them all out and give specific examples.

those benevolent stars and i am the messenger by markus zusak

in my favorite book list, i saw you mention tbs, so i'll start there. to be honest, i had no idea what my style reference for tbs was when i first saw your tags, and i almost didn't think there was anything specific. style references are a bit sneaky like that - if you've been referencing for someone for a long time, it becomes less of an intentional reference and more of just a you think, so it gets harder to tell.

lucky for this post, i just finished doing my yearly reread of zusak's i am the messenger, and as i was reading, i noticed a few spots where i was like wait hey i remember doing that.

for starters, iatm has been my favorite book for about six or seven years now, so i would say that some aspects of my style certainly comes from zusak because of how much i love iatm but also his other books. zusak has this huge talent for writing short, punchy sentences that convey so much in just a few words, and i think i've ended up trying to do that in my own writing. often, in my writing you'll see fragmentary sentences such as "He stopped. Blinked. Looked at her." that's not from anything specific, but i know ive written something like that maybe a million times over. zusak doesn't do the same thing - often his fragments are jam-packed with imagery in a way that mine aren't - but there's a thoughtfulness in his fragments that are in mine, too. a sort of pause. a hint that there's thinking happening in the narrator or a certain character. for example, i did a quick flip through of my copy and we have:

"We stare across the table.

Just briefly.

At each other." (I am the Messenger, p.144)

so you see how my common sentence fragment of "he stopped / blinked / looked at her" tracks with a fragment like this? i like the way zusak broke up sentences to make you dwell on them a little longer, consider the importance of each section, so i started doing that wayy before i wrote tbs i think.

also, at the time i wrote tbs, i think i was in the process of, or had just finished doing my reread of iatm, and, like i said, zusak loves imagery. tbs is a very imagery-heavy fic. tbs was influenced by a lot of music - a lot of the scenes have very specific pieces of music that i wrote imagining the tone and vibe of. iatm also references a lot of outside media sources, mostly music and films.

there are a couple of scenes in tbs that i think i wrote specifically mimicking or accidentally referencing from iatm. for example, we have this scene in tbs:

"It was almost like he could feel Marinette’s eyes on his back, steady and gentle. 'But you still love her.”

'Yeah,' Adrien said quietly, 'I still love her.' His eyes moved along a streak of purple that bled into a dark blue. 'I hate her a little bit, too.'

Marinette was silent.

He turned around, giving her a smile." (Those Benevolent Stars, chapter 3)

and this scene from iatm:

"'Do you hate me, Ed?'

Still stupid with bubbles and vodka in my stomach, I answer. Very seriously.

'Yes,' I whisper. 'I do.'

We both smack the sudden silence with laughter." (I am the Messenger, p. 233)

obviously there are differences, and i don't think i did it on purpose, but the interaction is very similar. i love the gentle intimacy of that scene in iatm, that weird complication relationship between the main character and the person he loves, the hurt, the brushing it off with laughter. so i wrote a scene that incorporated those things

zusak is also really good at writing moments of quiet into his books that aren't necessarily important to the plot, but are still important. if you've ever read that ghibli meta post talking about the 'quiet' between scenes in studio ghibli scenes, meant to give both the audience and the characters space to breath, it's like that. nothing in iatm is not imporant - it all serves a purpose, even the quiet moments, and i try to do the same thing. there's moments like that in tbs i think, like:

"Marinette gave him a small smile before turning back to her ice cream. Adrien tried to eat his ice cream a little faster, licking up where it had dripped onto his hand.

They were quiet for a while longer, and Marinette finished her ice cream. She leaned back on her hands and looked up at the dark sky, littered with stars.

He could see them all in her eyes, too." (Those Benevolent Stars, chapter 3)

and in iatm, you get scenes like:

"Our feet dangle.

I watch them, and I watch the jeans on Audrey's legs.

We only sit there now.

Audrey and me." (I am the Messenger, p.120)

so i definitely think tbs is a very i-am-the-messenger/markuz zusak-inspired fic. there's a lot of zusak's quiet, and there's the pieces of zusak's style that i've picked up along the way that really shine in tbs

tomorrow and this body's not big enough for the both of us by edgar cantero

ive talked about cantero a few times recently, but, as you've probably noticed, in relation to my fic called 'tomorrow.' i wrote tomorrow pretty soon after reading this body's not big enough for the both of us, and i used tomorrow specifically to experiment with cantero's visual writing style. in all the books by cantero ive read, there's this kind of hyper-awareness of a film gaze - how a certain scene would be shot on a camera, dialogue as script writing, and other things like that mixed with prose. i thought it was fascinating, and after finishing this body, i really wanted to play around with that idea. so i wrote tomorrow keeping in mind a "film gaze." for example:

"Two figures sitting on a rooftop, silhouettes. The moon hovers over them carefully, a crescent afraid to break the silence. One of the figures takes a breath, looks up into the sky at the hesitant moon, and he sighs. He closes his mouth again." (tomorrow)

versus in cantero's work, where we get descriptions like:

"And then, like a high-heeled coup de grace, she arrived.

She paused briefly outside the door, her hourglass silhouette cast upon the glass panel with the fresh shiny vinyl letters" (This Body's Not Big Enough for the Both of Us, prologue)

the tone of the two excerpts are very different, but there's a very visual sense to both of them, like they are being described from a shot in a movie rather than a regular work in prose. in tomorrow i also work a lot with specific camera imagery - saying where the camera goes in the scene, what it focuses on - and this body doesn't do this too much, but cantero's meddling kids does at least once that i remember.

regardless, after finishing this body, i wanted to try my hand at the visual structure that cantero uses in his works, so i really leaned in to the idea.

chat noir's white french man hit list for feminist purposes and grasshopper jungle by andrew smith

this is, as of right now, the most recent fic on my ao3, and i started it the literal day i finished grasshopper jungle. i think you might be getting a theme here - i read a really good book, and then immediately after i start writing something. the easiest way to get inspired as a writer is to read.

chat noir's hit list is a fic that is very much aware of the fact that it is a story being told - you don't know by who or for what real reason until the end, but it's a self aware sort of story. it's also very snarky and sarcastic, and it expands past just the confines of its own story; it's about chat noir and his hit list, but it also talks in depth about emilie agreste, chat noir's relationship with ladybug, and his relationship with himself. this is very much the kind of thing that you would find in an andrew smith book - grasshopper jungle is a story being told to you, and it's also about more than just the original pieces of the plot. the narrator tells the story that expands past regular confines of the story he means to tell - he's telling the 'history' of his life and his town, but he also talks about his great-great grandfather, the origins of the ketchup his girlfriend's dad eats, and what's happening in other parts of the country as he and his best friend are hanging out. the line in chat's hit list of "stars exploded, the sun did not, life continued on" was very much a grasshopper jungle and andrew smith-inspired line.

at the end of adrien's narration in chat's hit list, he says:

"It should be mentioned at this point in time that this story is not over, although I’ll stop telling it here.

So that’s the story of Chat Noir, who is also Adrien Agreste, who was very much a normal boy, except for the fact that he wasn’t. It’s a sad story, but it is also a happy story, and it is highly confidential. I’m sure you understand." (Chat Noir's White French Man Hit List for Feminist Purposes)

and at the end of grasshopper jungle, as the main character is closing out his narration, we get:

What I have written here is not the history of Eden. It is the history of the end of the world. All real histories will be about everything, and they will stretch to the end of the world.

The end of the world started when Andrej Szczerba slid into the cold sea as his boy, Krys, watched and wept and drifted closer and closer to the United States of America.

Nobody knew anything about it." (Grasshopper Jungle, p.382-3)

It's not overtly similar, but the structure is the same: recognition of the end, short summary of where we started and left the story, tag phrase that was used prior in the work. when i was writing the end of adrien's narration, i didn't mean to mirror grasshopper jungle so closely, but sometimes things just happen that way - honestly, so many of the things i do in my writing aren't intentional, they're subconscious. when i make a conscious choice, it's related to plot or to a new strategy im applying to style or voice that i'm not used to, but a lot of the things i do fly under the radar in my brain unless im purposefully trying to piece them apart like i am here.

i will say the meta-story of chat's hit list was pretty directly inspired by grasshopper jungle because i love meta stories, and i like using opportunities to put them in. i just love the idea of reading a story of someone telling someone else a story, which is what the two books by andrew smith i've read have been, and i think that's just fascinating, which is why i used it here.

ive gotten a couple of comments on chat's hit list that liken the narrative style to pseudonymous bosch's the name of this book is secret and lemony snicket's a series of unfortunate events, which i thought was really interesting, because i was purposefully trying to make the voice an impression of andrew smith's voice adapted to the tone of ml, but i could definitely see their reasoning.

andrew smith, like i mentioned before, likes specifics - what exactly people were doing at certain times, where a specific bottle of ketchup came from, etc. from what i remember of the name of this book is secret and a series of unfortunate events, i remember the descriptions included in those books chock full of highly specific, snarky details that aren't truly necessary, but do a whole lot in terms of adding a certain flavor to the narration. i won't try and look up examples from unfortunate events and the name of this book, but here are a couple examples:

"See, the thing about Emilie Agreste, formerly Emilie Graham De Vanily, is that she was what could be generously called a ‘radical.’ Born in 1969, like most amazing and world-altering things, Emilie Graham De Vanily grew up in London alongside her twin sister, who is a nice enough woman and who is not really that important to this story, and she was raised with the firm and gentle hands of people who had witnessed war and cruelty and had found that they did not like at all. Emilie Graham De Vanily grew up learning about the true history of England, which is not a very nice history, truly, and she grew up knowing that people with white skin like her were historically not all that great. That, historically, was a very radical thought." (Chat Noir's White French Man Hit List for Feminist Purposes)

from chat's hit list, and this:

"In 1905, being seventeen years old made you a man. In 1969 when hungry Jack fought in Vietnam, seventeen years old was a man. My brother, Eric, who was somewhere in Afghanistan, was twenty-two.

Krzys Szczerba came across the Atlantic with his father. They planned on working and earning enough money so Krzys's mother, brother, and two sisters could come to the United States, too. People who did that were called Bread Polacks. They came here to make money." (Grasshopper Jungle, p. 68)

from grasshopper jungle. once again, obviously very different, but you can tell im playing around with that same feeling of giving a surplus of facts in my narration in the same way that andrew smith does. you can't really tell in the grasshopper jungle excerpt, but oftentimes the surplus of 'facts' serves almost a comedic effect, which is definitely something that you can feel in chat noir's hit list.

[REDACTED] and six of crows by leigh bardugo

as a reward for sticking around through this, i'll give out something fun here. the current long fic that ive been working on recently has proved to be very bardugo-inspired, particularly six of crows-inspired.

in six of crows, bardugo gives us action right off the bat and then integrates flashbacks into lulls of action so that there's never truly a dull moment. i found [REDACTED] to be a fic where i wanted to use flashbacks in a similar way, so that i would get something like:

"She doesn’t stay for the whole parade, but she stays for enough of it. Nothing unusual happens, just like always, but she still makes cursory patrols around the city, ending up at the Eiffel Tower, just like always. She sits on the railing way up at the top, and she crosses her ankles, swinging her legs back and forth and humming softly to herself as she watches the sun set.

'Little kitty on the roof, all alone without his lady,' he used to sing when he’d gotten back to their meeting point from patrolling his half of the city before her. It was just a silly little song, one that he’d clearly made up for himself."

It didn’t hurt until he’d been akumatized, and she’d seen that one version of the future - the one where he’d destroyed the whole world because of Gabriel Agreste. She’d seen him then, a lonely figure in white, humming his little song to himself. Who knows how long he’d been like that before she’d been transported to him, how long he’d been really and truly alone. (REDACTED, chapter 1)

and in comparison, we get a lot of scenes in six of crows like:

"Kaz leaned against the ship's railing. He wished he hadn't said anything about his brother. Even those few words raised the memories, clamoring for attention. What had he said to Geels at the Exchange? I'm the kind of bastard they only manufacture in the Barrel. One more lie, one more piece of the myth he'd built for himself.

After their father died, crushed beneath a plow with his insides strewn across a field like a trail of damp red blossoms, Jordie had sold the farm. Not for much." (Six of Crows, p.205-6)

bardugo uses most of the flashbacks during a time in which the main characters are on a long sea voyage, which means they have a lot of time to reflect on their pasts and what brought them to these situations - it's a smart way to fill the empty space of the sea voyage and to really dwell on how important the voyage is. in a similar way, i chose to use the flashbacks in dull or lulling moments in the events of the story, ones in which marinette lets her mind wander or sees something that makes her remember something specific.

however, here's a situation where you can see me adapt the style into something that makes more sense for me, personally: in my excerpt, the tense changes between the current events and the flashback events, while in bardugo's excerpt, the tense stays the same at a comfortable past tense. when i was writing my fic with the flashbacks, i thought the constant, sometimes abrupt, switching would get confusing, so i made sure to always have a clear line using the past and present tense that readers could consciously or unconsciously take notice of.

so there are a couple of instances within some fairly recent fics i have that have specific callbacks to specific books. there are a whole bunch more, i think, but these are the ones that ive played around with intentionally the most recently or the most often.

3. Future Days

based on my recent rapid experimentation in fics (the most recent four fics on my ao3 have been very experimental in comparison to most of my works), i really anticipate a lot of growth in my overall style. ive been having a lot of fun experimenting and throwing in things that a few years ago i would've never even thought of, so im really excited to see where that might lead me, style wise.

i think as a writer there's always room for growth and learning, and that kind of growth and learning comes from not only practicing writing, but also reading. i cannot stress enough how valuable and impactful reading is on writing. considering ive been trying to read a lot more than i have been in recent years, it makes a lot of sense that ive been making a lot of weird decisions and learning more about what i want to see in my own writing.

honestly, if you ever want to know about any of my other fics, or you want to see how this kind of thing translates to my original works, just shoot me an ask! this post is already long enough, so i think i'll go ahead and end it here, but just know you can always ask questions<3

thank you so much for asking me this question and letting me indulge, and thank you for reading!!!<3<3<3<3

[dragimal]

now that s5 is over and I’m starting to wind down from the high of the finale, I think I can finally grasp *exactly* why I have mixed feelings on s5. to be clear, I absolutely ADORE TMA as a whole, and still consider it one of the best pieces of horror media I’ve consumed. but s5 left me feeling... not bad, but off, even when there’s plenty I still rly like abt s5

it mainly comes down to 2 things for me: 1) the severe tone shift, and 2) Martin being Fucking Weird for a lot of the season

a lot of ppl have talked abt how s5 just wasn’t as scary as the previous seasons for various reasons. one kinda inevitable reason was simply that a lot of the mystery of the horror had been revealed at that point, and a monster is never as scary once you can see it clearly. but I think the bigger reason is that the format shifted from horror anthology to.... sociology anthology. like, every statement of s5 felt like a sociology paper on fear and systemic abuse, rather than something meant to chill the reader

this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, honestly-- like I said, much of the mystery had been revealed, so I think it was an understandable move to try to shift the narrative somehow. also, I love sociology papers! I think they’re interesting to read, and s5 gave us some rly creative frameworks for some of them (the poetic carousel, Oliver’s professional assessment, Jared’s garden--)

however, I do think the tone shift was still a bit jarring, esp considering what the audience was used to up to that point. perhaps that’s an appropriate move, to match a plot point as game-changing as the literal apocalypse. BUT that doesn’t mean the tone shift still wasn’t a bit of a let-down, in terms of horror and tension

like, yeah a lot of the mystery was gone, but Hill Top Road ended up being the big mystery of s5... and we weren’t even fully aware of it til almost the end of the season? sure, there was plenty of fan speculation, but we were also considering SO many other possibilities, Hill Top was never rly a core theory until VERY late in the game. like, the mystery seemed to take a backseat to the sociology papers, if that makes sense, lmao

literally the ONE episode to give me chills down my spine like the good ol’ days pre-s5 was MAG196: This Old House. Annabelle vaguely threatening Martin, and ending on, “You have no idea who’s listening, do you?” fucking SUPERB, I was absolutely DELIGHTED by the possibilities of that one line! like, what did it mean? were we gonna go full meta??

but the last few eps after that were... frankly kind of a letdown from that spike of tension? I think those last eps are what rly cinched this idea for me-- that s5 was literally like reading a sociology paper. it rly all was just, arguing about the possibilities, considering the consequences, and making decisions. which, again, isn’t necessarily bad, but it’s not horror-- it’s a thought exercise with an apocalyptic garnish

EDIT-- I forgot to say, I think this is part of why MAG200 simply didn’t hit me the same way it hit others. it was intellectually satisfying-- it tied up loose ends, closed character arcs/relationships, left some delicious ambiguity-- but not emotionally cathartic, if that makes sense? like, I was expecting to cry, but I didn’t even rly get teary? I was grinning and delighted by all the satisfying conclusions, but I didn’t feel that emotional RELEASE that I was expecting and hoping for

as for jonmartin, I want to be clear here. I am NOT one of those ppl that thinks jonmartin came out of nowhere in s4-- I think the buildup pre-s5 was excellent, and their finally being together at the end of s4 was so so earned and rewarding. I’m also NOT one of those ppl that thinks arguments = abuse. I think when I briefly criticized jonmartin in s5 in the past, ppl got this impression that like, I think that jonmartin miscommunicating and having bad coping mechanisms... means that they’re bad for each other and abusing each other? and that’s just not the case?? 

I admit that my initial response to some of the jonmartin weirdness may have been a bit harsh, but even at the time I still loved jonmartin and was simply looking at their relationship with a critical but loving lens

what I have a problem with is that Martin pulls just as much bullshit as Jon in s5, and NEVER gets called out for it

this post I made a while back gets more into the details that bother me, but essentially, there’s always been this rly uneven “accountability scale” (idk what else to call it) for Jon vs. a lot of other characters-- in that, Jon always gets called out for his bullshit, while a lot of other characters don’t. now a lot of this is perfectly explainable as Jon being the main character, so we simply see his fuck-ups AND the subsequent consequences more often than any other character. and there are plenty of characters that I absolutely do NOT blame for going a bit overboard (I give Melanie and Tim in particular a ton of leeway here, given their respective situations. they more or less have full rights to bully Jon imo)

but, the problem is, there are also a LOT of moments where other characters say something absolutely horrific to Jon (namely Basira and Georgie in s4), like imply that he’s responsible for problems he had absolutely no control over, or fucking blame him for literally being groomed into an Archivist by people/powers he couldn’t even grasp... and those accusations are just left to sit and fester in Jon, completely uncontested

the nice thing abt s5 is that most of this is addressed-- like Basira’s completely unfair double-standards for “monsters”, and Georgie unknowingly blaming Jon for his trauma, etc.-- in very satisfying ways.

.... except for Martin.

without rehashing that linked post too much, Martin’s main problem in s5 is that his go-to response to trauma is denial. he denies the fact that he wants to kill avatars for his own satisfaction (which is a completely reasonable desire on its own tbqh!), and instead continues to lie to himself (for quite a long time) that killing avatars is actually helping anyone but Jon and Martin. he denies that Jon’s become a real full-fledged “monster”, and refuses to acknowledge all the baggage that comes with that

this denial unintentionally projects a lot of rly fucked-up messages at Jon, like: Jon is now a freaky horrorshow (even when he’s doing something completely innocuous, like talking casually about his powers); Jon’s fears over losing his autonomy/identity to the Eye, and his fears over his proven abilities to hurt others, are invalid; monsters inherently deserve to die, despite Jon technically being one; Jon not being able to use his powers “well enough” is some failure on his part

now, none of this is to say Martin’s characterization on its own is a bad thing-- I actually think it could’ve been interesting! it’s a perfectly reasonable trauma response, it tracks for Martin’s character pre-s5, and could have been a rly interesting perspective to explore.... if it was ever actually challenged by the narrative or other characters

I think the closest we got was Martin’s conversation with himself in his own domain, when his double calls him out for fantasizing a happy ending where Jonah is dead and Jon and Martin kiss (OUGH.... JONNY YOU HURT ME..), but that still never rly addresses the hurt that Martin’s denial causes Jon

and god, I was rly holding out-- Martin seemed to chill out on the denial a lot after the first third of the season, and I was hoping it might go a similar route as Basira, where it would just take a while to rly address Martin’s issues. but then Jon and Martin have their argument in MAG194, and I was fully on Martin’s side of it, UNTIL he said, “You weren’t meant to enjoy it this much!” (in reference to Jon killing avatars), and when Jon calls him out, Martin just brushes over it! 

BOY when I tell you I went BALLISTIC.... FUCK YOU Martin, YOU’RE the one that went all Kill Bill and PUSHED Jon to feel the same way!! JESUS. like I get that that wasn’t the core of the argument there, but oh my god that one bit...

and once again, to make myself perfectly fucking crystal clear here, this is coming from someone who relates heavily to both Jon and Martin. I can see exactly where Martin is coming from for many of his decisions, and the trauma that’s led him to mentally protect himself like this. so it only makes me more frustrated to see him refuse to face his own issues, while still (understandably) expecting Jon to face his issues. yes, Jon pulls a LOT of bullshit in s5 that he deserves to be called out for (and called out he is!), but accountability goes both ways, Martin! you can’t demand responsible behavior from others if you’re not willing to extend the same courtesy!

[christinaroseandrews]

Marketing Matters - Strategy - Fanfiction

Strategy - Fanfiction

So this is a bit of a taboo subject in the publishing world, but I’m going to be upfront with you all. 

We write fanfiction. 

There, I said it. 

Writing fanfic is also a viable marketing strategy for authors who are choosing to go the self-publishing route and not always for the reasons that immediately spring to mind.  In addition, the skills, fanbase, and tricks learned while writing fanfic can also apply to traditional publishing.  However, I’m going to give you one caveat right up front: many big name publishers don’t like authors who write fic. Or at least they say they don’t. It’s becoming more common, but most publishers and agents want authors to be focusing on original fic not fanfic. Several smaller presses don’t care as much, so long as your author persona and your fic persona are very separate and you don’t rub it in their faces.  But the big name publishers may require you to pull your fanworks. So that’s something to keep in mind.

So now it’s time to break it down.

About Us and What we’ve done:

We’re probably best known as fanfic writers in the Hunger Games fandom, where we have a few well regarded fics.  We’ve also dipped our toes into other fandoms including the MCU, Harry Potter, DBZ, and more drive-by one-shots in various fandoms than you can shake a stick at.

We also both were/are a part of the Sims 2 writing community and had a few well known stories there as well.  ^__^ We may or may not have met in this fandom. LOL

Both of us have been part of these fandoms for years and were active members in them. Lark started in fanfic back in 1994/5 as a beta reader (which she then parlayed that experience into becoming an editor that summer). While Rose discovered fic in college in 2002. In these fandom communities, we met people that we now call friends in real life as well as mentors, betas, advisers, and cheerleaders. We learned skills that apply both to fic and to original writing.  And, most importantly, we learned how to listen to our audience.

Let me stress that again: we learned to listen to our audience. 

When we transitioned, we hit up the people we met in these fandoms to help us with various aspects of publishing life (either paying or trading favors for work done) and we’ve also given status updates about our original writing, along with links to our author tumblr in the authors’ notes of our fics. Nothing that will violate the terms of Ao3′s Terms of use - but links to our professional website/social media.

While we write fanfic less, we still dip our fingers in now and again.

Cost:

Time. 

Straight up time.

The cost of writing fic is time, energy, and creativity.  Time spent writing fic is time NOT spent writing original works that can be published.  Time that is not spent editing or plotting or doing other sweat equity types of marketing. Which is why some authors refuse to write fic once they turn professional and it is completely understandable. Fanfic authors don’t get paid for their work and for some, getting paid is a big deal. Especially when most of your income comes from writing.

It’s a cost we willingly pay sometimes, but if a fanfic author you know also writes original works for publications. It does mean that updates may be slower and there is often less motivation to keep publishing stories -- especially if the stories don’t get much in the way of response/feedback.

It’s about return on investment.

Return on Investment:

I’m going to do this a little differently since sometimes the return isn’t monetary.  This is also likely to sound really clinical and analytical; that’s because I’m trying to be objective and I may be going too far the other way. We write fanfic because we love it, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t give back to us too.

Monetary (Language of Flowers only):

Units sold:  20

Mailing list subscribers: 6

Social media followers:  Twitter - 15, Tumblr - 60, Facebook - 8

Not Monetary but Cost Saving

Editors - 9

Cover Designers - 3

Mailing List Trades - 3

Skills Learned:

Editing (Line, Content, Story Doctoring -- Yes, all of these)

Proofreading (not the same as editing)

Creating Characters

Keeping Characters in Character

Plotting

Engaging an audience

Finishing what you start

How to handle ConCrit

How to handle Trolls

How to write to an audience

How to prevent plot holes

As you can see, the biggest return on investment of the time is in the skills section. Fanfiction is not to be taken lightly.

And as for me, Lark, I literally parlayed my experience working in fandom to actual paying jobs as an editor. I honed my skills as an editor on fanfic which I then turned around and used to get a job editing professionally. I did that multiple times for a bunch of different publishers/clients. I got my start in fanfic.

As an editor, one of the biggest problems I see with developing authors is a “sameness” in voice. AKA all of the characters sound the same.  If you want to see this in traditionally published book action, then look at Laurel K. Hamilton... Her Merry Gentry and Anita Blake heroines sound almost exactly the same. (Which not coincidentally, sounds like how she speaks in real life.)

With fanfiction, you can’t do that. You’ll get called out for being OOC. So you have to learn to adapt your voice. (Or only write characters that sound like you but that gets boring after a while.)

So in my actual job as an editor, one I get paid to do, I legitimately tell my clients to pick a character from a show they like and use them as a template for a character they’re having trouble giving a good character voice to. And unsurprisingly, it works. It’s a good trick and it subconsciously teaches your brain how to create different characters/voices.

They other HUGE takeaway from the skills is in regards to concrit and being able to take it. If you want to publish for a living and not just half-ass it, you have to develop a thick-ish skin. And fanfiction can help with that. I straight up learned to deal with harsh reviews from writing fanfiction. But more importantly, I learned how to listen to what the person was telling me and then become a better author because of it.

In fanfiction, unlike in the publishing world, the reviews are meant for the authors... not potential readers. If someone really hates your work, or worse, is apathetic to it. They just won’t comment. They’ll hit the backspace and you’ll never hear anything. Most comments, especially critical ones, are from people who legitimately like the story that you’re telling but have a problem with part of it. The comment may be harsh, it may even be mean. But it tells you something and it gives you an idea where you may be turning off readers. People aren’t always good at phrasing criticism constructively. We’re not really trained how to do that. But when someone tells you why something isn’t working for them or why they didn’t like something, listen. You don’t have to agree -- we certainly haven’t -- but listening and thinking critically about the feedback will help.

This can be seen in our first novel, The Language of Flowers, which started out its life as a fanfic. The story pissed several readers off. And we realized as we were writing it that we needed to explain something and we weren’t doing a good job of doing so. So the scene that every single one of our readers loved was born of that concrit. Our story is better and reached the top 100 in its categories on Amazon because of the feedback we got as fanfic authors.

Seriously, writing fanfic has gotten us to where we are today.

Takeaways:

My biggest take away is that writing fanfic is a great skills builder and audience builder.

Pros:

Skills. Oh so many skills. But the biggest is that you will be writing and no writing is ever wasted. It’s practice. Like an artist has to sketch or a musician practice. You’re honing and toning your writing muscles. And fanfic is absolutely valid for doing that.

Cons:

Time. Straight up Time.

Rating:

It’s been so long since I’ve done one of these that I don’t remember. But honestly, the rating varies. You get out of fanfic what you put in and what you’re willing to take from it.

(Note: This has been sitting in our drafts for about 4 years. I finally finished it up because I was bored and waiting to go to a doctor and didn’t feel like doing nothing.)

If you like our marketing posts, please consider supporting us here!

[yikes-strikes-again]

my thoughts on “Ho Yay“

i want to talk about something that’s been bothering me about TvTropes. i love this site; it is an incredibly expansive resource for understanding common tropes in western media and developing a framework for critical analysis. what i’m going to explain requires some background if you’re not already familiar with TvTropes. to try and be brief, there are two main types of pages on the site (three if you count indexes, but they aren’t relevant right now):

trope pages. these are pages that explain a common literary device or concept and then provide examples of its use in media. basically the backbone of the site.

media pages. these pages introduce the reader to a piece of media and list various tropes that it uses along with explanations of their appearances. media pages also contain links to YMMV sub-pages at the top of the page (important): these pages are extensions of a work’s YMMV (”Your Mileage May Vary”) sub-page, which every work has as a place for subjective interpretations written by tropers, site users with the ability to edit and add to pages. when a trope on the YMMV page of a work has too many examples, it often becomes its own YMMV sub-page. the specific sub-pages a work has depend on its popularity as well as its content.

i wanted to talk about a particular kind of YMMV trope that commonly appears as its own sub-page on media pages: Ho Yay. Ho Yay is a category that refers to aspects of a work that fans interpret as gay subtext. it’s generally agreed upon that for something to qualify as Ho Yay, the relationship can’t be canonically romantic. in many cases, the gay subtext was not intended by the creators.

it’s not hard to understand why this trope exists. when positive queer representation was so taboo as to be unheard of, the only gay subtext was fan-interpreted subtext. people only had the same-gender platonic relationships they found in television and books to see themselves in. and that’s what Ho Yay was: queer interpretations of the same-gender friendships in media that gave them a new, personal significance.

on TvTropes, Ho Yay appears as a YMMV page on, basically, any media page of a popular work that features close same-gender friendships. which is... a lot of them, to say the least. there’s got to be, collectively, hundreds of thousands of words solely about gay subtext on this site. and that’s a really good thing, I think, especially for old works with decades of gay fan interpretations, like Star Trek. for many people, it’s a very important aspect of their enjoyment of the work, and it deserves documentation.

however, after years of lurking on TvTropes, and reading Ho Yay pages in particular, something began to irk at me. something I’d seen glimpses of in the wording of certain entries. and, slowly, it began to bother me more and more, until i finally decided it was worth addressing.

you see, there’s something about the concept of having an entire page dedicated to speculation on potential gay subtext in a work, to the exclusion of all other relationship subtext. understand that Ho Yay pages are not places to discuss headcanons regarding a character’s gender or sexuality, or the nature of any relationships they might have with other characters, regardless of gender. it exists to point out romantic subtext only, and i mean only, if it’s gay.

this... bothers me somewhat.

i’d be sooooo much more comfortable if there was also a type of YMMV page that existed for people to talk about all non-canon romantic subtext, or just romantic subtext in general, without characters’ genders being a factor. because, honestly, it feels incredibly othering to have a page dedicated to fan speculation on the potential gayness of something at the exclusion of all other types of relationships. as if being gay is exotic and inherently worthy of note. that’s such an icky sentiment to me, and i can’t ever shake it when i read Ho Yay pages now. and i’m not even getting into all the examples of Ho Yay that are about real people, that’s disgusting for an entirely different set of reasons

i want to emphasize that i don’t want to get rid of Ho Yay; as stated above, i think it’s incredibly important to document the literal decades of fan speculation on the queerness of canonically straight characters. but to have gay subtext be the only kind treated with this amount of attention seriously rubs me the wrong way. if our goal is the equal treatment of all types of relationships, then it should start with us not granting this exceptional quality to gayness and just make a page for all relationship subtext!

you know, maybe what Ho Yay has become is just a symptom of a much larger problem: fandom treating gay relationships as inherently different and special. if that’s the case, i’d like everyone reading to take a moment to examine their biases.

my point to all of this is that, unlike in Ho Yay’s heyday, it’s rare, but not unheard of to see canon queer relationships of all kinds. even though there’s still a long way to go in that department, i think it's time to let go of the need to use a YMMV trope whose historical necessity has been, in many places, rendered obsolete.* the needs of fandom are changing. we don’t just want representation, we want our existence to be treated as mundane, and that means unexceptional. 

Society Marches On.

~~~

*in some places, homophobia is much more pervasive and queer representation is even farther than where it should be than in my country. I’m from the U.S., so if my sweeping statements don’t apply to your culture, please feel free to disregard them.

[idreamtofmanderleyagain]

princess-nazario:

It's ok, thanks for clearing things up. See, everytime theres a post that might just be different the tumblr-fad! Version you speak or questions how tumblr might be romanticizing them theres always annoying people in the replies saying that theres a version where she wanders down the underworld herself, or that the version where shes kidnapped is...weak or a damsel in distress since it doesnt fit into tumblrs made idea of empowerment?? Its so annoying honestly. I saw this kind of stuff in a lot of posts while exploring the greek myth tag and its just... infuriating. I definitely should ignore them but it seriously makes me kind of sad and angry at the same time? The hades and persephone posts are everything(mostly tumblr-fad!) Version I reread your original post and yes I do agree, tumblr-fad! Persephone does take away a lot of the complexities and archetypes I read you examine. I think Hadestown might portray Hades and Persephone's power struggle well, it doesnt completely ignore the implications its giving off for the sake of some romance. This is what tumblr is doing and it's really annoying. By doing this and reducing the characters here to simple boxes it's taking away your interest in the myth, I think that's what you meant? I think your study of Hades/the underworld being Persephones self, cthonic meaning "spirit of nature within, inner self" while I dont fully understand that's really cool. I especially dislike how woobified and depowered he usually is in the tumblr-fad! Theres a lot you can work with him as the antagonist in a retelling I think. In fact maybe itd be great to have a retelling that explores the power struggle between Hades and Persephone and shows how Persephone gets through adversity and becomes of equal power through oppressive authority? Thatd be really cool. Tumblr-fad! Version is the twilight of myths but kind of the opposite. In twilight, the author itself romanticizes the creepiness and power struggle that might be there between Edward itself(although Bella does have a lot of agency so I think that's why it resonated so much with female readers?) while the Persephone has a various amount of versions, most versions being she was kidnapped/abduction with many meanings and metaphors and allegories to things, and tumblr-fad! Version ignores nuance in favor of their ships. Thanks for being so open and honest about this, I honestly was stressed because I thought my response maybe being immature or uninformed might be irritating or annoying. I haven't been sneaking through your blog or anything like that, I just saw your original post in the goddess demeter tag so I searched up "Persephone" on your stuff since I was curious with what else you might have to say about it. I wish Tumblr could maybe bother to learn something called not everything is entirely not THIS thing or the OTHER and maybe do something different from what Hades and Persephone coming to be known as the peak of all love stories on the website.

@princess-nazario I hope you don’t mind, I copy pasted your last reblog into a new post thread because the last one was getting massive.

I think I’m starting to understand what you’re getting at regarding the perception of victims as “weak,” and it makes a lot of sense. Thank you for clarifying regarding the “damsel in distress” trope because that’s when it clicked for me what you were talking about. I actually agree on that point, I think there is a tendency for pop feminism to kind of portray more vulnerable, sensitive or fragile women as less feminist, so I can see how you’re applying that to your views on how people on tumblr perceive the story of Hades and Persephone.

That said, I think you have a lot of different angles you’re looking at this whole thing from, and that’s great! However I think there’s so many subjects you are trying to tackle here that it seems like you are kind of are only half informed about, maybe from exploring discussions online. I think this is resulting in conclusions that are kind of confused and lacking in more solid foundations, if that makes sense. I think maybe you might benefit from exploring each element further on their own merits.

For example, did you know that there are a lot of different feminist viewpoints on Twilight itself? And not all feminists completely condemn it? In my opinion, there are a lot of things about Twilight to criticize, however there was a distinct element of hatred for the interests and desires of teenage girls involved with how people responded en masse to the Twilight phenomenon. I don’t think you were old enough to be directly familiar with all this at the time. I think a decent primer would be this video from Lindsay Ellis (tho please keep in mind that some of her most recent content is not for younger audiences). It doesn’t cover all angles of the topic, but it does give an alternative perspective in retrospect about the raging Twilight hate that swept through pop culture for a long time:

Also, there is a whole conversation to be had about the concept of “woobification,” and why that word exists, as well as how it is used in conversations about girls and women’s fantasies. The original post I made shows that I have my own frustrations when male villains and darker archetypes are whittled down to something seemingly non-threatening and “socially acceptable” myself (like...turning the beast into the prince in Disney’s Beauty and the Beast), but in my experience, people have often used the word “woobie” to describe any explorations of the vulnerability of these types of male characters when women do so because they find those men intriguing or attractive, and that can get kind of tricky because in many ways, those conversations can harbor a subtle resentment and shaming towards female fantasties, period.

I’m getting the impression that maybe there’s something about Hades and Persephone, or at least the archetypes they embody, that really intrigues you, but you’re not sure what you are supposed to think and feel about it from a feminist perspective. That’s ok, ultimately you’ll figure it out on your own. I can’t tell you what to think about the myths themselves on their own, separate from contemporary feminist media because that’s ultimately it’s own thing, and you can springboard your own perspectives and reimagining off of the original in any way that feels right to you.

 What I can do though, is leave you with some age-apropriate content that I was consuming at your age, as well as a link to a site that explores stories with similar archetypes that Persephone embodies. 

The site is called Girls Underground, and it explores and catalogues stories about girls who go on heroine’s journeys in the “Cthonic” context like I was talking about, as in exploring their own inner psyches through the experience of traversing a strange, scary, magical place. Sometimes these stories involve the trope of a spooky attractive male character who takes on an adversarial role that is sometimes also romantically charged, but not all of them do. I think the resources page may be of particular interest to you because it links to essays on subjects within this genre of storytelling. The Examples page has a ton of other stories not listed here that you can take a look at, however not all of them (but many of them!) are kid friendly.

Movies that I would recommend: 

Labyrinth (1986), which was my favorite film since early childhood, and is the reason I love these types of stories to begin with.

Legend(1985), which doesn’t depict a healthy dynamic, but is a great film and does have a big place in the general conversation about this type of storytelling.

Howl’s Moving Castle, either the book or the film. 

Pan’s Labyrinth is rated R for some gore and violence, and it has scary moments, but I think it’s fine for most teens. The character of Pan is not part of that whole “demon lover” trope because the heroine is a small child, but he takes on a similar role in terms of being a figure that embodies the underworld and thus a major part of the heroine’s psyche.

Honestly, I would consider Disney’s Beauty and the Beast (the original, not the live action remake) a good rendition. It was written by a woman.

Jean Cocteau’s black and white La Belle et La Bete.

Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, or a film adaptation of the same.

Rebecca by Daphne DuMarier, which is what my username is from. I’m fond of the Hitchcock film adaptation.

Honestly, the 2004 adaptation of Phantom of the Opera is...flawed, but it was my introduction to Phantom, and it’s a lot of melodramatic fun. 

It’s worth noting that in a lot of these stories, there are not perfect, healthy relationships depicted between men and women. There is cruelty, there is harm. But in many cases, that does not mean these stories have nothing to say about relationships between men and women, nor does it say that they are solely tales about abuse and we cannot find romanticism within them. Each story has it’s own flaws, it’s own strengths, hold deeper meanings beyond the surface. They contribute something distinct to a rich history of artistic explorations of the dynamics of power in romance and the female experience with our own desires within a patriarchal society.

[ryqoshay]

So I just finished reading all of How to Handle a Nico and I absolutely fucking loved it, do you have any NicoMaki fanfic recommendations of your own?

I must offer my apologies for the delay in response. I did not forget you, Anon, despite answering two questions that came in after this one. However, I wanted to wait until I knew I had a good amount of time I could dedicate to making a proper list of recommendations worthy of my time in the LL/NicoMaki fandom, which is typically sometime during my weekend.

Also, please bear in mind that this list is not all-inclusive. NicoMaki has one of, if not the most extensive list of fanworks out of the various LL ships. If someone reading this list is a fan of, or the author of a given work not included, please do not take it personally, this is merely a sampling of my favorites. There are genres and tags that I tend to avoid for various reasons, and there are many perfectly good works with the NicoMaki ship tag that I haven’t read simply because they are not the primary focus. And due to current events, as well as those of last year, there is a sizable backlog of NicoMaki focused fics that I hope to get around to reading sometime soon.

And as I expect this to get long, I will put the list itself under a cut.

First and foremost, I must shamelessly shill an author whose first forays into NicoMaki fanfic are based on HtHaN. It’s been almost a year since the first one went up and I remain in awe that I was able to pay forward the inspiration given to me by other authors. For this list I will only be including said works based on HtHaN, though VNVdarkangel has written some other NicoMakis I haven’t read yet.  - Always there - Nico wakes up in the middle of the night. Some post-canon fluffy angst.  - On tracks to the heart - Takes place during the scene transition in Homecoming.  - Meet ‘n’ greet - Nico has a meet ‘n’ greet event and Maki shows up  - Part-time idol composer - Nico hires Riko to compose some idol music for Egao. Minor YohaRiko to keep up the casual connections between HtHaN and HL.  - Next steps... - A long, multi-chapter work that takes place after the numbered chapters of HtHaN. This work tells the story of NicoMaki as they take advantage of the research mentioned way back in Telling Mama. Yay science babies!  - Out of focus - Maki can’t focus on anything but Nico  - The door to dreams - Riko finds the piano from How to Celebrate a Maki and Maki finds Riko. More minor YohaRiko from HL.  - Idol trainer - A non-NicoMaki, RinPana honorable mention tied to HtHaN

Next, I must link a few things from jstonedd, whose works I can point to as being among those that helped cement NicoMaki as a my favorite ship.  - Buy Your Love - By the gods, I’ve honestly lost track of how many times I’ve reread this fic. It is also responsible for my headcanon that Tsubasa teaches Honoka how to skate, which I thusly include in Nico on Ice.  - Soldier Wars - If memory serves, this work earns its M rating less for lewd stuff and more for action movie depictions of violence, like an R rated Charlie’s Angels or something.  - After School Troublemakers - Earns its tag of Fluff and Crack.  - Babies Maybe - More Fluff and Crack I only skimmed the first few chapters of Otonokizaka Private Academy and it didn’t seem very NicoMaki focused or really much my cup of tea. But I’ve heard others like it, and it was finally completed a few years back, so there’s that.

One author with whom I’ve interacted moreso than any other - maybe not VNVdarkangel as of late, but... - is the creator of one of my favorite Fantasy AUs, which is often a genre I don’t read much as it so often leans on Harry Potter, of which I’m quite unfamiliar. Of course I say I often avoid Fantasy AUs despite now writing two... Anyway, we have a few differing headcanons and I must say it’s fun to have a civil discussion about them - as opposed to others that become heated and dissolve into ad hominum attacks like the one marked by Comment Deleted tombstones in the comments of HtHaN. Anyway, that train of thought derailed, so here are some of lonelypond’s works. Worth mentioning that most works take place in the U.S. instead of Japan, something that confused me for a few chapters when I first started reading, but have come to enjoy it, especially when places are mentioned that I know.  - Casual Lunacy - The aforementioned Fantasy AU as well as my introduction to this wonderful writer. Pulls in a quirky character from Gekkan Shoujo Nozaki-kun, an adorable anime I’ve been meaning to finish. Maki is a werewolf. And I really need to reread this one at some point.  - PhotoJazz - Maki is a photographer and Nico is an actress.  - AU Yeah August - A collection of short 1 Shots. I haven’t read all of them, e.g. the Harry Potter one, but those I have were adorable, e.g. Summer Camp, Fake Dating and FWB.  - Christmas Confections - A collection of amazing Christmas themed works that rank among my favorite gifts each year since I first started reading them. I’d link them each individually, but they’re all amazing so just read them all; you won’t be disappointed. Maki and Christmas just go together and lonelypond writes them well.  - Can’t Get Started - To quote the summary “Nishikino Maki is trying to make it in the piranha fishbowl of movies, music and Hollywood. Yazawa Nico already has. And they keep crashing into each other.” Literally. It’s quite amusing. I’ve heard good things from other readers about the 1Kiss series but have only skimmed a few; they are high on my To Read list. The Idol House series came out during my troubled 2019, so it also remains on my To Read list. The Moonlight series seems to focus on NozoEli, which is fine, but for better or worse lowers it position on my To Read list. It’s lonelypond, so I do intend to read it eventually, but there are more NicoMaki focused fics that I’d like to get to first.

Next up is Lucia Hunter, a case where I must separate author from work. To this day I remain uncertain as to the details of the issues between this author and the denizens of Sukutomo, but the animosity exists nonetheless. Still, the listed works below were part of my gateway drugs into the wonderful world of NicoMaki fanfics.  - The Diamond Princess’s Melancholy - How NicoMaki came together.  - Love marginal - My favorite portrayal of KotoHonoUmi. NicoMaki is a side pairing here, and remain so through the rest of the works, but they’re still worth reading, imho.  - Shiranai Love*Oshiete Love - RinPana focus but NicoMaki still plays their role.  - Garden of Glass - de de deee de de deee Obviously NozoEli focused.

My first encounter with Rinforzando was a T rated cute and fluffy fic but they’ve done some pretty good NSFW works as well.  - Ten Years - Always enjoy a good adult NicoMaki fic. - Limbo - NSFW FWB NicoMaki - Caprice - NSFW 2nd Person post-canon NicoMaki. I’m not typically a fan of 2nd Person perspective, but this one was worth it.  - Cheers for Loving You - NicoMaki Secret Santa.

Hidekins is another author that has written a lot of NicoMaki I’ve enjoyed, but on a quick scan through the AO3 entries, few are jogging my memory with title and description alone. Perhaps I’ve read more here on tumblr? Perhaps I’ll come back and add more if I remember them better later.  - NicoMakisses - A set of five cute short NicoMaki stories about kisses.

Saberin writes a lot of 3rd year stuff, and that’s fine, but the NicoMaki collection is worth checking out.  - Prickly Love - As of writing this list, there are 10 chapters of cuteness

whoneedsapublisher writes a lot and I enjoy the style. Thus, when I see NicoMaki pop up on the account, I try to read.  - Couples Therapy - One of my favorite Maki headcanons is included here. Not explicit but earns its M rating and thus is NSFW.  - Subtle - Not particularly crazy about the Nico-taller-than-Maki, but that’s a minor complaint compared to the rest of this wonderful work.  - At Least Six Confessions - Presequel to the above work. Poor Nico had her work cut out for her with a romantically dense Maki.  - Keep Your Promises - Ten years later...  - Happy New Year - Sometimes stalemates must be broken by someone.  - Hidden Depth - Nico’s voice changes. And Maki likes it  - Pretending to Pretend - Not explicit, but earns its M rating so NSFW. One of my favorite examples of the Fake Dating trope.  - Merry Christmas Maki - I can’t think of a better present.  - No Lies Allowed - Truth of Dare, NicoMaki style.  - All Dressed Up - Based on a wonderful pic by noelclover  - Santa’s Stand-in - Guess who still believes...  - Switcheroo - Always love the idea of the girls trying to behave like the others. Makes me want to rewatch that episode.  - Tick, Tock - Some introspective Maki  - Insensitive - NicoMaki dating issues  - Tomatoes - Maki’s favorite food I’ve heard good things about Dazzling Warrior Nightshade, so it’s on my To Read List, but I must admit I can be picky about my Magical Girls stuff. Madoka set an... interesting bar for the genre for me and in most cases I’d prefer to watch it as an anime or read it as a manga/doujin. Still, the idea of Nico being a magic girl amuses me greatly, thus why the fic remains on my radar.

And here are some other random works I’ve enjoyed over the years.  - Smile, Nico Nico! - In which Nico drags Maki to the dentist  - Billiards - NSFW 2nd Person. Yes, I know I just said I’m not typically a fan, but this one was also good.  - Piano For Beginners - NSFW AU where Maki is assigned to teach Nico how to play the piano so as to be convincing for a film.  - critical rules for not-dating - NSFW FWB AU that I need to finish reading someday but was happy enough with what I’ve read that I’d still recommend it.  - 24 visits - Visits as in Nico the idol visiting Maki the doctor in the hospital.  - 24 dates - A NSFW followup to 24 visits

So yeah, that’s a fairly decent list to get one started in their AO3 NicoMaki delving. As mentioned above, this is not all-inclusive and there are a ton of NicoMaki works out there. I haven’t visited FFN in years, so there may still be some authors that post there exclusively and have written some amazing stuff, but I cannot recommend what I haven’t read, or at least skimmed. I also have some tumblr works bookmarked... somewhere, so if I find them I might compare them to this list and maybe add those missed.

Here’s hoping something here piques your interest and makes you fall a little more for the wonderful NicoMaki.

[beesandbooks1]

Discussion: Give Readers Some Credit.

So. Let’s talk about readers, and authorial intent, shall we?

First a detour. Who here is familiar with the Hays Code? Just in case: in the 1930’s it was established for motion pictures in the USA and presented strict guidelines about what could and couldn’t be put into films. The Code lasted until the late 1960’s but its impact on film is absolutely still seen today, specifically in the rating system for films. The Hays Code dictated various moral guidelines that somewhat stripped viewers of film of their autonomy, implying that the general public wouldn’t be able to distinguish between good and bad or right and wrong without films making it very clear what those lines were. There was no grey area in the Hays Code.

Literature, for its part, has had various formal and informal rules and guidelines applied to it throughout centuries of publishing that dictate who can and can’t read certain topics. I’m not going into a history lesson on that, but suffice to say that at some point just about every person who wasn’t a white cishet man has had a restriction put on them for reading at all or reading certain things. Today, the big issues come down to censorship, banning books, and lobbying against books for a particular reason.

Censorship Today

Censorship is a big ticket issue today, both formally and informally, and internationally. I will admit to having limited knowledge and experience of the kind of censorship experienced in places such as China, but I am aware it is present, enforced, and potentially dangerous. Formal censorship worldwide comes in the form of preventing books being published or translated in the country at all, banning its sale in its original format, and sometimes going so far as to censor access to websites that sell the book and social media platforms where the book is widely discussed. Government level censorship of books generally is inspired by fear of what the books might inspire, from protests to full on coups. Usually, this act of censorship is indicative of larger systemic problems within the government not real problems within the book’s content.

Informal censorship is a bit more complicated, and comes about in a few ways, including straight out banning books in a community which I will discuss in the next section. Informally censoring a book usually comes from a community speaking out against something in the book or something about the author they are opposed to. This differs slightly from lobbying against a book because if a community quietly agrees to censor a book from those in the community that shouldn’t be exposed to it (whether with good intentions or not) they won’t also attempt to have the book banned elsewhere, or turn it into a political topic by protesting the books very existence. More on that later. Instead, this informal censorship is more in line with parents or groups of parents agreeing to forbid their children from reading certain books–usually for moral and religious reasons.

An example of informal censorship from my own life: when I was attending Catholic school as a preteen The Golden Compass was released as a movie. The school itself never released a statement or talked about the book or movie, and the farthest I got to an adult’s opinion on it was when someone asked my religious studies teacher about it and she pointed out that the books are fiction so did it really matter if the subject matter went against religious beliefs? However, the parents of my classmates at least were scared. My mother received an email from a concerned parent who was encouraging all the parents in our class to prevent us from seeing the movie, and that if for some reason one of us did see it to keep it to ourselves so as not to encourage the rest of the kids to want to see it too. This act of informal censorship resulted in a group of preteens who probably didn’t even care about this issue being prevented from reading Philip Pullman’s works or seeing the movie based on them. The parents didn’t want to try and get the books removed from the public library or the movie taken out of theaters, they just wanted to ensure their children were never exposed to it.

Fun fact: the day my mother read that email she came home with the full set of His Dark Materials and later she bought me the movie on DVD.

Banning Books

Banning books is a lot more straight forward than the degrees of censorship. Most readers are familiar with the idea of banned books. Books tend to be banned from smaller communities, such as a town’s library and school, but are rarely enforced at a higher level without censorship getting involved. I’m going to be using “banned books” to refer to that lower level, not government level censorship. Thus, banned books are still purchasable in this context through retailers such as Amazon and chain bookstores.

A banned book can be banned for any number of reasons. I see banned book lists often enough that have things such as “unrealistic female characters” referring to The Wizard of Oz. Many readers who chance upon one of these lists tend to take pride in having read much of its contents, especially depending on the context of the book bans. Some book bans are focused on schools and keeping “unsuitable” material out of students’ hands. This ranges from “this book is too pornographic to be appropriate” to “this book encourages witchcraft and we can’t have that!” While there might be something to be said about schools having age appropriate books available in the library–if the oldest kids in the school are ten then maybe Stieg Larsson’s books aren’t a priority–many book bans are comical in their ridiculous reasoning.

Book bans come from a combination of underestimating the critical reading abilities of others and from fearing what those others might do with the knowledge the book contains. For example, a highly misogynistic person might not want books that portray women in positions of power to become available for the next generation of young girls. They both underestimate the girls’ ability to choose a lifestyle for themselves by assuming any fiction they consume will immediately shape their decision making, and they also fear what the girls might choose to do if presented with the idea that they have options. While many book bans sound like silly reasoning, a lot of them are insidiously chosen as a form of disenfranchisement. Preventing Black readers from having positive role models from authors of color, for example, assists the school to prison pipeline.

Lobbying Against Books

Lobbying against books is where book banning gets more serious. This is the middle step between book banning and book censorship, really. Lobbying against a book is when a group or sometimes an individual take it upon themselves to ban a book for their own community and then try to get it banned on a larger scale. Now, there are times that lobbying against a book is actually done with good intentions and not with the intent of banning or censoring the book. There are times where the author reveals themselves to be…lacking in some way, and that may have affected the writing they produce. I know I’m dancing around some authors in particular, but I didn’t make this post to call out specifics so.

An example of a bad lobbying idea: An upcoming YA release is announced and hyped by excited would-be readers. The book sounds awesome! It’s written by a new author, has really good Own Voices representation, and presents a unique story. It is largely regarded as an excellent contribution to literature by bookish folks. A conservative parent purchases the book upon its release with the intention of giving it to their daughter, and due to their household rules about book content the parent reads the book first to ensure it complies. The parent discovers that the book contains a relatively mild romance plot, but that the main character does have sex in this plotline, though the scene is hardly explicit or erotic. Conservative parent is very worried that reading about the idea of sex will inspire their daughter to have sex and decides this book is dangerous and not suitable for their daughter. Unfortunately, with all the excitement over the book, the daughter keeps asking to read it. Perhaps her friends have all read it, perhaps it’s being pitched by the school library as a great new release, perhaps it’s being developed into a film or TV series that her classmates are excited to watch. The parent now starts telling other parents that they shouldn’t allow their children to read this book or watch anything based on it, largely out of fear that their daughter will be exposed to it somehow. Other conservative parents jump on board, banning the book from their households and attempting to have it banned altogether so as to prevent their kids from getting their hands on it. Perhaps the ban makes it through the school and the public library, but the local Barnes and Noble continues to sell copies and they’re going fast. In order to get the book taken off of a chain store’s shelves, the parents now have to lobby to have the book banned on a much larger scale, so they do so. All because they don’t want their teenagers having sex yet.

An example of a good lobbying idea: A really popular author has come out with a new book. This is his fourth book, and many readers are excited to get a copy and devour it. Book bloggers and other voracious readers have torn through the previous three because they’re witty, have appealing characters, and a unique worldbuilding set up. However, a bisexual reader immediately recognizes that this fourth book has the main character being extremely biphobic. The biphobia is upsetting for the reader, but they persevere because up to this point the main character has been a good role model and perhaps the biphobia is a character flaw that’s going to be called out and corrected. It is not by the end of the book, and the reader is now uncomfortable. Unsure. The reader tells other bisexual readers to be careful, that the content can be triggering due to its biphobia. LGBTQ+ readers in general are warned and slowly become cautious about the books and author in general. The fifth book comes out, and the bisexual reader timidly approaches it with an open mind, hoping that it was just a multi-book character arc. The biphobia continues, reinforced by the positive reception to the character in the fourth book. It’s clear that this is here to stay. The LGBTQ+ readers who are aware of this problem start to speak out, asking others to critically read this book and not internalize the biphobia in it. The author doubles down on the biphobia, defending it when criticized. Now more readers speak out, pointing out that this is potentially harmful, asking other readers to be very critical when consuming the author’s works and to consider ending their support of the author over his remarks.

Why all of this sucks

Ultimately, a lot of this comes down to stripping readers of their autonomy. Think about people who argue that some books are bad because a character in them does bad things. The majority of those that read the book probably recognize those bad things for what they are, and know that the character is nuanced and not always right. But there are those that would lobby to have the book removed from all reading spaces because the character that does bad things might be appealing to an impressionable reader and encourage them to do bad things. This is a very narrow-minded view that is also highly condescending. Teenagers can read a book where a seventeen-year-old has sex without immediately going out and having sex themselves. Readers in general deserve the credit to know that not everything that happens in fiction is realistic or positive. If a reader can tell the difference between reality and fiction, they can certainly make their own choices in real life without being unduly influenced by the actions and thoughts of fictional characters.

This belittling fear that certain readers are too impressionable to be exposed to certain media is astoundingly simplistic. We have to give readers more credit than that. Sure, there will be books that need to come with content warnings, trigger warnings, and disclaimers. There are some authors whose racism, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism (among other things) leak into their writing and those books when read need to be read with the knowledge of that. There are even some books that are irredeemable from that standpoint and it is absolutely a valid choice to refuse to read books by an author whose morals go against your own. However, not everything someone views as morally wrong is also unnuanced when presented in a text. Additionally, not every reader takes what they read at face value. Many readers appreciate a well written villain while also recognizing why that character is a villain. Many readers also appreciate flawed main characters who aren’t always correct but are allowed to make mistakes.

As bloggers we are in a position to point out the nuance in such books. Reviews are excellent for helping readers figure out whether a book will be too far over the line for their moral compass, if there’s something in the text that matters for them or not. However, we have to give readers some credit. Just like in communities that would censor and ban books, sometimes book reviews overlook nuance. They make hard lines around characters saying that something is problematic and therefore the whole text is corrupted, or misidentifying an action or a thought as a moral or ethical opinion. I am not exempt from this, there are certainly times where I draw a hard line in the sand that I refuse to cross for any book regardless of the praise it receives. But I also recognize that there are other readers who will cross that line and read certain texts and find value in them where I didn’t. I have to give those readers credit and believe that they will also be able to see the negatives of the text and not internalize or forgive those.