#its important academic commentary okay?

[bird-inacage]

Love in the Air: Give & Take VS Give & Receive

You best believe I wrote a meta around Sky/Prapai’s Episode 12 uncut NC scene. That’s the reality we’re operating in folks. So saddle up. Episode 8′s initial collision between Sky and Prapai is the epitome of Give and Take.

Prapai proposes that Sky ‘give’ him something in return for helping him. Sky very pointedly responds with, “just take what you want”, which carries an implied ‘(I dare you)’ in that rebuttal. It’s the resigned surrender of someone accustomed to others doing just that, with little concern over his wellbeing. There’s an air of ‘Fine, ruin me for all I care. If that’s how you want to play, then do your worst.’

Episode 8′s love scene revolved around Sky trying to pleasure Prapai, because that was the condition he was trying to meet. When you give and give till you’re running on empty, you can almost convince yourself you don’t care anymore. You flirt with self-destructive behaviour because you think you’re numb. Sky does this with evident reluctancy because he hates how much he does care.

Once Prapai falls in love with Sky, he no longer wishes to see Sky fall prey to this type of mentality. Sky telling him ‘he gives in’ is not the reaction Prapai necessarily wants. Because doing so would only make him feel like he’s taking advantage. What Prapai seeks is a mutual, reciprocal relationship with Sky. An equal relationship. He reiterates this by saying ‘just because I do x, y and z, doesn’t mean I expect sex in return’. Prapai is not okay with receiving if it means Sky always has to give. Sky’s tendency for self-sacrifice doesn’t sit well with him.

Fast forward to Episode 12, Sky declares “I’m yours. All yours.” and its embroiled in devotion and rapture. Instead of being resigned to his fate, he’s actively choosing his surrender to Prapai. Rarely do we see Sky make such an open admission such as this. Rather than ‘I’m giving myself to you because I see no other option’, this is ‘I’m giving myself to you because it’s my chosen option’. The implication is anything you take from me is warranted. I’m giving you the go ahead to do so.

Even in Episode 11′s love scene, Sky uses the words “please shut up and take me”. He’s still trying to downplay the gravity of what it means when someone does this. ‘Just take me already, stop being so considerate and sentimental. It’s no big deal’. Sky still believes he has to be willing for his partner to take in order to secure their affection, and be seemingly nonchalant about it. It’s all he knows.

How Prapai chooses to respond to Sky in Episode 12′s uncut scene is what makes it so important. Instead of just ‘taking him’ up on his offer, Prapai decides to give back in a different way. To reply to Sky’s admission with: ‘if you’re putting yourself fully in my hands, then I will take care of you. I’ll do more than just take care of you, I’ll cherish and worship you.’ It’s no longer about one taking and another giving. Prapai grants Sky full permission to receive. If you give, I give. If I receive, so do you.

Oral is an act of service. You’re prioritising someone else’s pleasure before your own. When Sky realises this is what Prapai intends to do, he reacts with complete giddiness, sweetly stunned by this gesture. The notion that someone would put him first is clearly unfamiliar and unexpected. We can safely assume that all Gun ever did was take what he wanted, how he wanted.

For Sky, it was never about him, even during the highest act of intimacy. So for Prapai to make a point of doing so, to put Sky’s pleasure first and providing clear indication that ‘It’s okay, I want to do this for you’ is a huge act of love where Sky is concerned.

What’s even better when compared to Episode 8 is that Prapai gazes up at Sky lovingly before he goes in. When Sky did it, it felt very detached, he was performing based on what he thought Prapai probably wanted or expected of him during their one night stand. This is a silent declaration from Prapai of ‘this is how I want to treat you, this is what you deserve, I’m prioritising you’.

The difference between taking and receiving is assertion. Taking implies acting on what you want, upon your own desire. Whereas receiving is allowing someone to offer it to you. It signifies patience. Selflessness. It allows for generosity. It says I’ll be grateful for whatever you offer me, but I’m not demanding it. I’m letting you decide how, what and when.

It matters immensely to Sky to feel in control; to feel he has agency and choice. That’s the ultimate act of giving, is allowing the receiver to decide if they want to return the gesture without expecting them to do so. It’ll mean even more if they do.

[darlingofdots]

What is a romance novel, really?

So far, the response to this post has mostly shown me that a lot of people don't actually know what a romance novel is, and that's okay! I don't expect everyone to know! However, for my own peace of mind, I am going to do my best to explain what we mean when we talk about romance novels, where the genre comes from, and why you should not dismiss the pastel cartoon covers that are taking over the display tables at your nearest chain bookshop. Two disclaimers up front: I've been reading romance novels since I was a teenager, and have dedicated the majority of my academic career to them. I'm currently working on my PhD and have presented/published several papers about the genre; I know what I'm talking about! Secondly, all genres are fake. They're made up. But we use these terms and definitions in order to describe what we see and that's a very important part of science, including literary studies!

The most widely used definition of "romance novel" to this day is from Pamela Regis' 2003 A Natural History of the Romance Novel, in which she states that "A romance novel is a work of prose fiction that tells the story of the courtship and betrothal of one or more [protagonists]."* People also refer to the Romance Writers of America's "a central love story and an emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending" and another term you will see a lot is "Happily Ever After/Happy For Now," which posits that the protagonists must be in a committed and happy relationship at the end of the novel in order to count as a romance novel. That's it. That's what a romance novel is.

Of course it's a bit more complex than that; Regis also posited the Eight Essential Elements which describe the progression of the love plot over the course of the book, and there's a similar breakdown from Gwen Hayes in Romancing the Beat that is intended more as writing advice, but both of these are really useful for breaking down how this narrative structure works. My personal favourite part of the Eight Elements is that the romance opens with a definition of the society in which the protagonists exist, which is flawed in a way that oppresses them, and then the protagonists either overcome or fix it in a way that enables them to achieve their HEA. A lot of social commentary can happen this way!

It can also be a bit difficult to pin down what exactly counts as a "central love story" because who decides? A lot of stories have romance arcs in them, including dudebro action movies and noir mystery novels, but you would never argue that the romance is the central plot. A lot of romance novels have external plots like solving a mystery or saving the bakery. A useful question to ask in this case is whether the external plot exists for its own sake or to facilitate the romance: when Lydia runs off with Wickham in Pride & Prejudice, it's so that Lizzie can find out how much Darcy contributed to saving her family from scandal and realise her own feelings for him. The alien abduction in Ice Planet Barbarians happens specifically so the abducted human women can meet and fall in love with the hunky aliens. There are definitely grey areas here! Romance scholars argue about this all the time!

I have a suspicion that a lot of people who responded to the post I linked above are not actually romance readers, which is fine, but it really shows the lack of understanding of what a romance novel is. I have a secondary suspicion that the way we have been talking about books has contributed to this miscategorisation in a lot of people's minds, because especially with queer books we will often specifically point out that this fantasy book is f/f! This dystopian novel has a gay love story! This puts an emphasis on the romance elements that are present in a book when a lot of the time, the romance arc is just flavouring for the adventure/uprising/heist and we are pointing it out only because its queerness makes it stand out against other non-queer titles. It makes sense why we do this, but there is SUCH a difference between "a sci-fi book with an f/f romance arc" and "an f/f sci-fi romance." I could talk for hours about how the romance genre has evolved alongside and often in the same way as fanfiction and how there are codes and tropes that come up again and again that are immediately recognisable to romance readers, even down to phrases and cover design, and how romance is an incredibly versatile and diverse genre that functions in a very specific way because of that evolutionary process. The same way that dedicated fantasy readers can trace the genealogy of a given text's influences ("this writer definitely plays a lot of DnD which has its roots in the popularity of Tolkien, but they're deliberately subverting these tropes to critique the gender essentialism"), romance readers are often very aware of the building blocks and components of their books. These building blocks (that's what tropes are, lego pieces you put together to create a story!) often show up in other genres as well, especially as part of romantic arcs, but that doesn't make every book that features Only One Bed a romance novel, you know?

Romance is an incredibly versatile and diverse genre and I really highly recommend exploring it for yourself if you haven't. I personally read mostly Regency/Victorian historicals and I've been branching out into specifically f/f contemporaries, and there are so many authors who are using the romance framework to tell beautiful, hard-hitting stories about love and family while grappling with issues of discrimination, disability, mental health, capitalism, you name it. The genre has a very specific image in a lot of people's minds which makes them resistant to it and it's not entirely unjustified, but there is so much more to it than Bridgerton and repackaged Star Wars fanfiction!**

*the original text said "heroines" but Regis later revised this. There is a very good reason for the focus on the heroine in the first couple waves of romance scholarship, but that's a different post!

**neither of these are a bad thing and part of that genealogy that I mentioned earlier.

[cielomariel]

Finding Inspiration in '3 Idiots': Lessons for Life and Learning

Initially, I thought "3 Idiots" was just another boring, dialogue-heavy film, especially since I prefer action, thriller, and comedy genres. However, watching it with my family proved the old saying to be true: "Don't judge a book by its cover." Once I gave it a chance, this film was a touching, funny, and deeply meaningful story. It quickly became a favorite, and I recommend it to my friends, classmates, and anyone looking for a genuinely good movie.

Summary and Themes

"3 Idiots" is a transformative story about three friends – Farhan, Raju, and Rancho – and their journey through engineering school. Each character brings a unique perspective on the pressures of education and the importance of pursuing one's passions. The film's strength lies in its storytelling, blending humor, emotion, and insightful commentary on the educational system. It addresses serious issues, such as student suicides due to academic pressure, and offers hope through its message of following one's dreams and finding joy in learning.

My Journey as a Struggling Student

When I started college, I was uncertain and anxious about my future. The first semester was manageable as a full-time student. I could dedicate all my time to studying and learning new skills. However, things took a turn in the second semester when my family's financial situation worsened. I had to take up a part-time job to support myself and help out at home.

Balancing work and studies was incredibly challenging. There were days I thought about giving up, feeling like I couldn't handle the pressure. This is where Raju's story resonated deeply with me. His struggles with academic pressure and family expectations mirrored my own. Watching him persevere gave me the strength to keep going despite all odds. I often found myself repeating Rancho's mantra, "All is well," to calm my nerves during stressful times. It was a simple reminder to keep a positive outlook, no matter how tough things got.

Rancho's philosophy, "Pursue excellence, and success will follow; pants down," reminded me that focusing on being the best version of myself would eventually lead to success. Instead of aiming solely at getting high grades, I started concentrating on understanding and enjoying what I was learning. This shift in perspective allowed me to find joy in learning rather than feeling overwhelmed by the end goal of success.

The Power of Friendship

One of the most heartwarming aspects of the movie "3 Idiots" is the friendship between Rancho, Farhan, and Raju. Their bond reminded me of my friends, who have supported me through thick and thin. As Farhan and Raju relied on Rancho, I leaned on my friends during tough times.

There were countless nights when we studied together, shared notes, and encouraged each other. They helped me stay on track academically, but more importantly, they were there for me emotionally. On days when I felt like I was drowning in responsibilities, a simple snack break with my friends or a pep talk was enough to lift my spirits.

Moreover, the movie taught me that taking a different path and facing setbacks is okay. Rancho's wisdom, Farhan's courage to follow his dreams, and Raju's resilience have all been sources of inspiration. These characters showed me that success is not just about academic achievements but also about personal growth and the relationships we build.

Rancho's advice, "Aspire to be inspired," became my guiding principle. It reminded me to seek out inspiration in everyday life, whether through my studies, friendships, or personal experiences. This mindset helped me stay motivated and find meaning in my journey, even when the path seemed uncertain.

[qqueenofhades]

Hi. You made a post a couple of days ago about how queer historical fiction doesnt need to be defined only by homophobia. Can you expand on that a bit maybe? Because it seems interesting and important, but I'm a little confused as to whether that is responsible to the past and showing how things have changed over time. Anyway this probably isn't very clear, but I hope its not insulting. Have a good day :)

Hiya. I assume you're referring to this post, yes? I think the main parameters of my argument were set out pretty clearly there, but sure, I'm happy to expand on it. Because I'm a little curious as to why you think that writing a queer narrative (especially a queer fictional narrative) that doesn't make much reference to or even incorporate explicit homophobia is (implicitly) not being "responsible to the past." I've certainly made several posts on this topic before, but as ever, my thoughts and research materials change over time. So, okay.

(Note: I am a professional historian with a PhD, a book contract for an academic monograph on medieval/early modern queer history, and soon-to-be-several peer-reviewed publications on medieval queer history. In other words, I'm not just talking out of my ass here.)

As I noted in that post, first of all, the growing emphasis on "accuracy" in historical fiction and historically based media is... a mixed bag. Not least because it only seems to be applied in the Game of Thrones fashion, where the only "accurate" history is that which is misogynistic, bloody, filthy, rampantly intolerant of competing beliefs, and has no room for women, people of color, sexual minorities, or anyone else who has become subject to hot-button social discourse today. (I wrote a critical post awhile ago about the Netflix show Cursed, ripping into it for even trying to pretend that a show based on the Arthurian legends was "historically accurate" and for doing so in the most simplistic and reductive way possible.) This says far more about our own ideas of the past, rather than what it was actually like, but oh boy will you get pushback if you try to question that basic premise. As other people have noted, you can mix up the archaeological/social/linguistic/cultural/material stuff all you like, but the instant you challenge the ingrained social ideas about The Bad Medieval Era, cue the screaming.

I've been a longtime ASOIAF fan, but I do genuinely deplore the effect that it (and the show, which was by far the worst offender) has had on popular culture and widespread perceptions of medieval history. When it comes to queer history specifically, we actually do not know that much, either positive or negative, about how ordinary medieval people regarded these individuals, proto-communities, and practices. Where we do have evidence that isn't just clerical moralists fulminating against sodomy (and trying to extrapolate a society-wide attitude toward homosexuality from those sources is exactly like reading extreme right-wing anti-gay preachers today and basing your conclusions about queer life in 2021 only on those), it is genuinely mixed and contradictory. See this discussion post I likewise wrote a while ago. Queerness, queer behavior, queer-behaving individuals have always existed in history, and labeling them "queer" is only an analytical conceit that represents their strangeness to us here in the 21st century, when these categories of exclusion and difference have been stringently constructed and applied, in a way that is very far from what supposedly "always" existed in the past.

Basically, we need to get rid of the idea that there was only one empirical and factual past, and that historians are "rewriting" or "changing" or "misrepresenting" it when they produce narratives that challenge hegemonic perspectives. This is why producing good historical analysis is a skill that takes genuine training (and why it's so undervalued in a late-capitalist society that would prefer you did anything but reflect on the past). As I also said in the post to which you refer, "homophobia" as a structural conceit can't exist prior to its invention as an analytical term, if we're treating queerness as some kind of modern aberration that can't be reliably talked about until "homosexual" gained currency in the late 19th century. If there's no pre-19th century "homosexuality," then ipso facto, there can be no pre-19th-century "homophobia" either. Which one is it? Spoiler alert: there are still both things, because people are people, but just as the behavior itself is complicated in the premodern past, so too is the reaction to it, and it is certainly not automatic rejection at all times.

Hence when it comes to fiction, queer authors have no responsibility (and in my case, certainly no desire) to uncritically replicate (demonstrably false!) narratives insisting that we were always miserable, oppressed, ostracised, murdered, or simply forgotten about in the premodern world. Queer characters, especially historical queer characters, do not have to constantly function as a political mouthpiece for us to claim that things are so much better today (true in some cases, not at all in the others) and that modernity "automatically" evolved to a more "enlightened" stance (definitely not true). As we have seen with the recent resurgence of fascism, authoritarianism, nationalism, and xenophobia around the world, along with the desperate battle by the right wing to re-litigate abortion, gay rights, etc., social attitudes do not form in a vacuum and do not just automatically become more progressive. They move backward, forward, and side to side, depending on the needs of the societies that produce them, and periods of instability, violence, sickness, and poverty lead to more regressive and hardline attitudes, as people act out of fear and insularity. It is a bad human habit that we have not been able to break over thousands of years, but "[social] things in the past were Bad but now have become Good" just... isn't true.

After all, nobody feels the need to constantly add subtextual disclaimers or "don't worry, I personally don't support this attitude/action" implied authorial notes in modern romances, despite the cornucopia of social problems we have today, and despite the complicated attitude of the modern world toward LGBTQ people. If an author's only reason for including "period typical homophobia" (and as we've discussed, there's no such thing before the 19th century) is that they think it should be there, that is an attitude that needs to be challenged and examined more closely. We are not obliged to only produce works that represent a downtrodden past, even if the end message is triumphal. It's the same way we got so tired of rape scenes being used to make a female character "stronger." Just because those things existed (and do exist!), doesn't mean you have to submit every single character to those humiliations in some twisted name of accuracy.

Yes, as I have always said, prejudices have existed throughout history, sometimes violently so. But that is not the whole story, and writing things that center only on the imagined or perceived oppression is not, at this point, accurate OR helpful. Once again, I note that this is specifically talking about fiction. If real-life queer people are writing about their own experiences, which are oftentimes complex, that's not a question of "representation," it's a question of factual memoir and personal history. You can't attack someone for being "problematic" when they are writing about their own lived experience, which is something a younger generation of queer people doesn't really seem to get. They also often don't realise how drastically things have changed even in my own lifetime, per the tags on my reblog about Brokeback Mountain, and especially in media/TV.

However, if you are writing fiction about queer people, especially pre-20th century queer people, and you feel like you have to make them miserable just to be "responsible to the past," I would kindly suggest that is not actually true at all, and feeds into a dangerous narrative that suggests everything "back then" was bad and now it's fine. There are more stories to tell than just suffering, queer characters do not have to exist solely as a corollary for (inaccurate) political/social commentary on the premodern past, and they can and should be depicted as living their lives relatively how they wanted to, despite the expected difficulties and roadblocks. That is just as accurate, if sometimes not more so, than "they suffered, the end," and it's something that we all need to be more willing to embrace.

[booklindworm]

A rant against Karen Traviss' understanding of history and her FAQ answers

Did you base the Mandalorians on the Spartans?

<cite> No. I didn't. </cite> Fair enough.

<cite> I really wish history was taught properly - okay, taught at all - in schools these days, because history is the big storehouse that I plunder for fiction. It breaks my heart to hear from young readers who have no concept even of recent history - the last fifty years - and so can't see the parallels in my books. You don't have to be a historian to read my novels, but you'll get a lot more out of them if you explore history just a little more. Watch a history channel. Read a few books. Visit some museums. Because history is not "then" - it's "now." Everything we experience today is the product of what's happened before. </cite> Yeah, I do to. Please, Ms Traviss, go on, read some books. Might do you some good. And don't just trust the history channels. Their ideas about fact-checking differ wildly.

<cite> But back to Mandos. Not every military society is based on Sparta, strange as that may seem. In fact, the Mandos don't have much in common with the real Spartans at all. </cite> You mean apart from the absolute obsession with the military ["Agoge" by Stephen Hodkinson], fearsome reputation ["A Historical Commentary on Thucydides" by David Cartwright], their general-king ["Sparta" by Marcus Niebuhr Tod], the fact that they practically acted as mercenaries (like Clearch/Κλέαρχος), or the hyper-confidence ("the city is well-fortified that has a wall of men instead of brick" [Plutarch, Life of Lycurgus])...

<cite> A slightly anarchic, non-centralized, fightin' people? Sounded pretty Celtic to me. Since I went down that path, I've learned more about the Celts (especially the Picts), and the more I learn, the more I realise what a dead ringer for Mandos they are. But more of how that happened later... </cite>

The Celtic people are more than one people, more than one culture. Celtic is a language-family! In the last millennium BC nearly every European ethnic group was in some ways Celtic, and they were not one. Later, after the Germanic tribes (also not one people, or a singular group) moved westwards, the Celtic cultures were still counted in the hundreds. Not only Scotland was Celtic! Nearly all of Western Europe was (apart from the Greek and Phoenician settlers on the Mediterranean coasts). The word “Celts” was written down for the first time by Greek authors who later also used the word “Galatians”. The Romans called these people “Gauls”, and this word was used to describe a specific area, bordered by the Atlantic Ocean, the Cévennes and the Rhine: “Gaul”. So the Celts, the Galatians and the Gauls were all part of the same Celtic civilisation. "Celts, a name applied by ancient writers to a population group occupying lands mainly north of the Mediterranean region from Galicia in the west to Galatia in the east [] Their unity is recognizable by common speech and common artistic traditions" [Waldman & Mason 2006] Mirobrigenses qui Celtici cognominantur. Pliny the Elder, The Natural History; example: C(AIUS) PORCIUS SEVERUS MIROBRIGEN(SIS) CELT(ICUS) -> not just one culture "Their tribes and groups eventually ranged from the British Isles and northern Spain to as far east as Transylvania, the Black Sea coasts, and Galatia in Anatolia and were in part absorbed into the Roman Empire as Britons, Gauls, Boii, Galatians, and Celtiberians. Linguistically they survive in the modern Celtic speakers of Ireland, Highland Scotland, the Isle of Man, Wales, and Brittany." [Celtic Culture: a historical encyclopedia. by John Koch] "[] the individual CELTIC COUNTRIES and their languages, []" James, Simon (1999). The Atlantic Celts – Ancient People Or Modern Invention. University of Wisconsin Press. "All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae live, another in which the Aquitani live, and the third are those who in their own tongue are called Celtae, in our language Galli." [Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico] <= I had to translate that in school. It's tedious political propaganda. Read also the Comentarii and maybe the paper "Caesar's perception of Gallic social structures" that can be found in "Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State," Cambridge University Press. The Celtic tribes and nations were diverse. They were pretty organized, with an academic system, roads, trade, and laws. They were not anarchic in any way. They were not warriors - they were mostly farmers. The Celts were first and foremost farmers and livestock breeders

The basic economy of the Celts was mixed farming, and, except in times of unrest, single farmsteads were usual. Owing to the wide variations in terrain and climate, cattle raising was more important than cereal cultivation in some regions.

Suetonius addressing his legionaries said "They are not soldiers—they're not even properly equipped. We've beaten them before." [not entirely sure, but I think that was in Tacitus' Annals]

Regarding the Picts, in particular, which part of their history is "anarchic"? Dál Riata? the Kingdom of Alba? Or are you referring to the warriors that inspired the Hadrian's Wall? Because no one really knows in our days who the fuck they were. The Picts’ name first appears in 297 AD. That is later. <cite> Celts are a good fit with the kind of indomitable, you-can't-kill-'em-off vibe of the Mandos. Reviled by Rome as ignorant savages with no culture or science, and only fit for slaughter or conquest, the Celts were in fact much more civilized than Rome even by modern standards. </cite> That's how the Romans looked at pretty much every culture that wasn't Greek, Roman, Phoenician, Egyptian, or from Mesopotamia (read, if you want, anything Roman or Greek about the Skyths, the Huns, Vandals, Garamantes...).

<cite> They also kicked Roman arse on the battlefield, and were very hard to keep in line, so Rome did what all lying, greedy superpowers do when challenged: they demonized and dehumanized the enemy. (They still used them in their army, of course, but that's only to be expected.) </cite> They were hard to keep in line, but they most definitely did not kick Roman arse on the battlefield. Roman arse was kicked along the borders of the Roman Empire, such as the Rhine, the Danube, the Atlas mountains, etc. And mostly by actually badly organized, slightly anarchic groups, such as the Goths or the Huns (BTW the Huns were not a Germanic people, even though early 20th century British propaganda likes to say so). Though they were also decisively stopped by the Parthians. Who were very organized. Ah well. <cite> While Rome was still leaving its unwanted babies to die on rubbish dumps - a perfectly acceptable form of family planning to this "civilisation" - and keeping women as chattels devoid of rights, the barbarian Celts had a long-standing legal system that not only gave women what we would think of as equal rights, but also protected the rights of the elderly, children, and the disabled. They had a road network across Europe and worldwide trade long before the Romans ever got their act together. And their science - well, their astronomical calculations were so sophisticated that it takes computers to do the same stuff today. </cite> See? You even say yourself that they weren't actually anarchic. Also you're not completely right: 1. women (of most Celtic cultures, with one notable exception being the Irish) were not allowed to become druids, e.g. scientists, physicians, priests, or any other kind of academics, so they did not have equal rights. Also, as in other Indo-European systems, the family was patriarchal. 2. the roads they had were more like paths, and did not span the entirety of Europe; the old roads that are still in use are nearly all of them Roman. Had the Celtic inhabitants of Gallia or Britannia built comparable roads, why would the Romans have invested in building a new system on top? 3. world-wide? Yeah, right. They traded with those who traded with others and so were able to trade with most of southern Eurasia and northern Africa, as well as few northern parts (Balticum, Rus), but that's (surprise) not the whole world. 4. most people use computers for those calculations you mention because its easier. It's not necessary. I can do those calculations - give me some time to study astronomy (I'm a math major, not physics) and some pencils and paper. 5. and - I nearly forgot - the kids didn't die. That was a polite fiction. The harsh truth is that most Roman slaves were Romans... <cite> So - not barbarians. Just a threat to the empire, a culture that wouldn't let the Pax Romana roll over it without a fight. (Except the French tribes, who did roll over, and were regarded by the Germanic Celts [...]) </cite> WTF Germanic Celts? What are you smoking, woman? Isn't it enough that you put every culture speaking a language from the Celtic family in one pot and act as if they were one people, now you have to mix in a different language-family as well? Shall we continue that trend? What about the Mongolian Celts, are they, too, proof that the Celts were badass warriors? I think at this point I just lost all leftover trust in your so-called knowledge. <cite> [...] as being as bad as the Romans. Suck on that, Asterix... </cite> Asterix was definitely a Celt, and unlike the British Celts, he was not a citizen of the Roman Empire.

<cite> Broad brush-stroke time; Celts were not a centralized society but more a network of townships and tribes, a loose alliance of clans who had their own internal spats, but when faced with some uppity outsider would come together to drive off the common threat. </cite> They might have tried, but they didn't. The first and only time a Celtic people really managed to drive off some uppity outsider would be 1922 following the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921*. The fact that France, Spain, Portugal speak Romance languages and the British (or Irish) Isles nearly uniformly speak English should be proof enough.

*Unless you count Asterix. <cite> You couldn't defeat them by cutting off the head. There was no head to cut off. </cite> You mean unlike Boudica and Vercingetorix. Oh wait. Tacitus, in his Annals, said that Boudica's last fight cost 80,000 Britons and 400 Romans their lives. He was probably exaggerating. But it definitely stopped much of the British resistance in its tracks. <cite> To the centralized, formal, rather bureaucratic Romans, for whom the city of Rome was the focus of the whole empire, this was a big does-not-compute. The Celts were everything they didn't understand. And we fear what we don't understand, and we kill what we fear. </cite> While that is totally true, it's also completely off the mark. The Romans demonized the druids, not every Celt, and they were afraid of what was basically an academic network. That had nothing to do with war. <cite> Anyway, Mandos....once I took a single concept - in this case, the idea of clans that operated on a loose alliance system, like the Celts - the rest grew organically. I didn't plan it out in detail from the start. </cite> That's really obvious. Maybe looking at some numbers and remembering that you weren't planning a small, local, rural, medieval community would have helped, too. I mean lets have a look at, say, Scotland (since you specifically mentioned the Picts): they still have less than 6 mio. people all together, and that's today. Mandalore is a sector. A sector of Outer Space with at least 2000 inhabited planets. How do you think that translates? It doesn't. <cite> I just asked myself what a culture of nomadic warriors would value, how they would need to operate to survive, and it all grew inexorably by logical steps. The fact that Mandos ended up as very much like the Celts is proof that the technique of evolving a character or species - find the niche, then work out what fits it - works every time. It creates something very realistic, because that's how real people and real societies develop. </cite> Celtic people were usually not nomadic! And, once again, non of them were predominantly warriors! It's really hard to be a nomadic farmer. I believe the biggest mistake you made, Ms Traviss, is mixing up the Iron Age (and earlier) tribes that did indeed sack Rome and parts of Greece, and that one day would become the people the Romans conquered. And apart from the Picts they really were conquered. <cite> So all I can say about Mandos and Spartans is that the average Mando would probably tell a Spartan to go and put some clothes on, and stop looking like such a big jessie. </cite>

I'd really like to see a Mando – or anyone – wearing full plate without modern or Star Wars technology in Greece. Happy heatstroke. There is a reason they didn't wear a lot (look up the Battle of Hattîn, where crusaders who didn't wear full helmets and wore chainmail* still suffered badly from heat exhaustion). [Nicolle, David (1993), Hattin 1187: Saladin's Greatest Victory] *chainmail apparently can work like a heatsink CONCLUSION You're wrong. And I felt offended by your FAQ answers. QUESTION You're English. You're from England. A group - a nation - that was historically so warlike and so successful that by now we all speak English. A nation that definitely kicked arse against any Celtic nation trying to go against them (until 1921, and they really tried anyway). A nation that had arguably the largest Empire in history. A nation that still is barbaric and warlike enough that a lost football game has people honestly fearing for their lives.

Also, a Germanic group, since you seem to have trouble keeping language-families and cultures apart. If we were to talk about the family, we could add on the current most aggressively attacking nation (USA) plus the former most aggressively attacking nations (the second and third German Reich), also the people who killed off the Roman Empire for good (the Goths and Visigoth), the original berserkers (the Vikings) and claim at the very least the start of BOTH WORLD WARS. Why did you look further?

Some other sources:

Histoire de la vie privée by Georges Duby and Philippe Ariès, the first book  (about the antiquity) I read it translated, my French is ... bad to non-existent

The Day of the Barbarians: The Battle That Led to the Fall of the Roman Empire  (about the Huns) by Alessandro Barbero

If you speak Dutch or German, you might try

Helmut Birkhan: Kelten. Versuch einer Gesamtdarstellung ihrer Kultur, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien

Janssens, Ugo, De Oude Belgen. Geschiedenis, leefgewoontes, mythe en werkelijkheid van de Keltische stammen. Uitgeverij The House of Books

DISCLAIMER

I’m angry and I wrote this down in one session and thus probably made some mistakes. I’m sorry. Or maybe I’m not sorry. I’m still angry. She can’t know who reads her FAQ and at least two of her answers (on her professional website) were offensive to the reader.

[tthael]

Dude your writing is so stunning. I was gonna ask if you took any creative writing courses or something and saw you majored in literature so like no wonder lol. I wish to write as good as you but as someone who wants to drop out of college I dont see that happening. Anyway you're awesome and I hope you have a good day 💙💙

 I am going to tell you a secret.

I did not learn how to write like this in college.

Most of my creative writing classes (and I only took 4) taught me to read. They were all workshops, and collaborative, and I learned how to read a piece of writing and identify what it was about--and that’s very different from identifying what the writer intended to write. It taught me to read a story about an adult whose divorced mother is remarrying and say, “Okay, but I don’t think that this story is about the capitalist recompartmentalization of families the way that the title seems to indicate. I think that the questions posed by the premise are ‘where are my roots? where does my identity come from? what dynamics do I retreat to when I need to feel safe, and what do I do when that refuge is taken away?’“ And identifying what a story is actually about is a very important part of the writing and revision process. Workshops also taught me to take critique without taking it personally, and to assess what was a critique worth taking, and whether the giver knew what they were talking about and what their opinion is worth.

Most of my literature courses taught me to think critically--in the sense of “identify this and examine what it means.” What does it mean, in Parable of the Sower, that empathy can be weaponized and used to incapacitate others? What does it mean, in RENT, that Benny is offering the protagonists jobs in their fields and they’re eschewing in favor of authenticity and integrity? What does Watership Down have to say about the nature-vs.-nurture argument and its limitations?

But I did not learn how to write like this in college. I learned how to write like this from fandom.

Some things came pre-loaded. I like writing dialogue, and I’ve been told I’m good at it, and I think it’s because eventually I worked out that nobody ever manages to say exactly what they mean and communication is frequently less like an arrow aiming for a target and more like a small boat bumping up against a dock while the people onboard try to tie their ropes to secure it. I like characters over action, and that’s reflected in the stories I tell--all very heavy character-driven stories, where the ratio of introspection to actual events is very high.

Z. Z. Packer’s “Drinking Coffee Elsewhere” taught me to appreciate the way that characterization leads to action; but I never put that into practice until I went on (forgive me) tumblr and started reading meta. dear-wormwoods is one of my biggest sources of Eddie characterization meta, and that has influenced my fics more than anything else in fandom, though we’ve never spoken. When I was reading bagginshield, I read avelera’s meta for them.

But I’ve also found that many of the best meta writers (that I’ve found anyway) are also the best writers I’ve read. I went straight from avelera’s bagginshield literary analysis to their Pacific Rim fanfiction “the only way out is down” and reading their commentary on how they shaped the work during revision. I read amarguerite’s “Some Friendlier Sky” (Les Miserables fanfiction) and then “An Ever-Fixed Mark” (Pride and Prejudice) and I started asking her questions--”you compare Courfeyrac to a cat, and then Mr. Darcy to a cat, even though they’re very different characters. What’s the thought process there?” and she told me and we talked about it. I read chrononautical’s “A Road from the Garden” (The Hobbit) and went line by line picking out the things I liked in the comment, and I had this sudden epiphany about how Tolkien shows the dwarves as sets of brothers, which means that they are technically a race of brothers in their presentation, so it was GENIUS to play around with the brother dynamic in a work like that and reflect on how frequently an individual will tolerate mistreatment of themselves that they would never permit to happen to someone they loved--like, say, a brother.

I learned the basics of literary criticism and critical analysis from college, and from reading the western canon and trying to pick apart things that were useful to me. But it’s so much easier when everything is written in vernacular instead of faux-detached academic writing, and when everyone involved is genuinely excited about and dedicated to the work instead of being forced to dwell on The Old Man and the Sea yet again, and when there’s space for people to go back and forth analyzing and agreeing or saying “but what if” or rejecting and are just united by this love of the content or the characters or the book or the history.

You can learn to write like--well, you would write like you, not like me, that’s how style is. But you don’t have to go to college to do it. My current style is not the product of the institution that gave me my degree--it’s the product of more recent years’ immersion in fanfiction (and more recently some traditionally published original work) and music and content I get for free online. And you can also get a circle of people who are happy to write together, read each other’s work, comment on each other’s strengths and the things they like, make suggestions as to how to improve things. You don’t have to do that in college. You just have to read and write a lot, and the things that you read will influence what writing you produce, and in identifying what you like about the things you read and how they do the things they do, you will be able to look at your own work critically and shape it more towards your satisfaction.

The work I’m writing for IT is some of the best work of my life. TTHAEL is the first long work I’ve completed to my satisfaction. Indelicate is the first thing I’ve written that I feel is really exemplary of my style. Margot’s Room is the first self-contained short work I’ve completed to my satisfaction--and the first explicit sexual content I’ve written that I’m happy with both level of detail and atmosphere. Even Automatic-Mechanical-Pneumatic--which I wrote and posted in the same day, so it’s more of a draft--I look at it and recognize it has pacing issues (you can tell I was racing a clock to get the words out), some of the symbolism is too overt because the characters are too self-aware of it, at one point I tripped up and referred to a character by the real-world inspiration--but that’s a solid draft and it has good parts.

You don’t have to go to college to learn to write. Writing is a skill, and writing is work. And there are advantages that people in colleges have re: networking and libraries and available resources and professors who are being paid to give you feedback. But no institution is going to put you through a four-year program and at the end you’ll come out a “finished” writer, with no more room to improve. That’s something you have to do on your own.

[jyleshay]

August 2021 - A Gentleman in Moscow

This past month was chock-full of drama, even for 2021.

Covid-19 has been rising steadily since the end of June, and it continued to do so in August, tripling the 7-day average of new cases in the US from the previous month.

There was a climate report put out by the UN's IPCC that asserted with unequivocal certainty that humans are warming the planet. This warming has caused and will cause real changes that are not reversible over the short-term. It may take decades or centuries to reverse the effects we've caused, and the consequences of warming will continue to worsen with further human contributions. This is incredibly important for all of us to be aware of as citizens and voters. I'd also like make the point that the destitution and death that will result from this are not going to affect the wealthy in any meaningful way. If you would like to learn more on this topic, the book I read from February, The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming by David Wallace-Wells would be my first recommendation.

And of course the story that superseded all others this month: Afghanistan. I'm not learned enough in military operations or the country itself to provide much useful analysis or commentary, but everyone else on the internet is providing their opinion so I guess it's okay. The coverage from the past few weeks has been hard to watch and also hard to look away from. The events that have unfolded have been sensational and horrible. In 2001, all but one member of Congress voted yes to going into Afghanistan and since then four presidents have been at the wheel. Now that everyone agreed it was time to leave, we've had a disastrous exit from the country.

Responsibility for the withdrawal falls on the President and their administration. They didn't get it right. The risks weren't given appropriate consideration and the analysis and decision-making ended up being wrong. The resulting optics were really, really bad. More important than optics though, countless lives were and still are on the line. We have to be critical right now because of that, not just because the optics are really, really bad.

After acknowledging this, the military industrial complex is the next thing I'd like to address. Its size and power has overwhelmed our government and become an insatiable drain on our spending. Just focusing on Afghanistan, in the past 20 years there were no political leaders willing to expend the political capital to address the $2,000,000,000,000 we've spent as a result of operations there. Even when halfway through our occupation we no longer had any idea of what our goals were in the country, we continued to fund operations: purchasing weapons and armor, paying contractors and mercenaries, and constructing unnecessary buildings. Many for-profit companies, weapons manufacturers, and security groups got rich off the past 20 years.

Congress + the President and their administration have the responsibility to oversee these operations and what gets funded. In 2008, SIGAR (Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction) was created to provide more governmental oversight of Afghanistan operations. After SIGAR was created and began their reporting, their findings were not acted on in any meaningful way. SIGAR even created a Lessons Learned initiative to diagnose policy failures and to help avoid repeating the same mistakes in future US operations, and this was back in 2014, seven years before our eventual exit.

Twenty years of events led us to the situation today, all watched over by our political leaders in Congress and the White House, Republican and Democrat; that's a failing on the United States itself.

Okay enough on that.

I did read a book this month of course. A Gentleman in Moscow - by Amor Towles is a delightful novel set in Moscow in the early 1900s. This book is funny, charming, and full of insight and surprising depth. The author's word craft and character dialogue is probably the best I've read so far this year.

Favorite Movie: Free Guy - don't dismiss this one, it's really quite fun.

Favorite Podcast: Why Can't We Just Forget the Alamo - The Experiment

Honorable Mentions:

Movie: The Green Knight - Thought provoking and visually stunning.

Music: Not Your Summer - The Academic

Video: How Drug Gangs Actually Work - The Insider

Video: How Exxon held back climate change action... - Greenpeace Unearthed

Video: The Simple Genius of the Interstate Highway System - Wendover Productions

What a month, stay safe and best of luck in September.

[meta-squash]

Brick Club 1.4.1 “One Mother Meets Another”

This Book title really gets me. “To Trust Is Sometimes To Surrender.” Which, I don’t know, feels really helpless. And helpless in a way that could be prevented, too, if there had just been more questions asked or something, maybe. Probably not. But poor Fantine, and poor Cosette, being forced into trusting people who take advantage of everyone they see.

The first thing that we see of the Thenardiers is nothing at all to do with Fantine’s storyline, but everything to do with Marius’. The Sergeant Of Waterloo sign, with its bad painting (I love Hugo’s sassy “on which something was painted”).

But it’s not the sign that makes Fantine stop, but a huge cart with an enormous chain. The Robb biography says that the cart visual was something Hugo saw as a child while he was crossing the border at Saint-Jean-de-Luz while returning to France from Spain. The cart and its chain are symbolism of both an obstacle and a veiled threat. It “might have been mistaken for a giant gun-carriage” and is “crushing” and “hideous.” The way Hugo describes the mud coating the lower half of this cart makes it sound like it’s slowly being covered by a yellow disease. Also, this is the second instance of chain imagery in as many chapters. We also get more imagery of obstruction a few paragraphs later.

Hugo makes it really obvious that this cart is here as an obstruction, literally and figuratively. The figurative is twofold. It is metaphor for the obstruction that the Thenardiers become for Fantine, taking all of her money and lying about Cosette in order to do it, making it impossible for her to stay afloat at Montreuil-sur-Mer. He also uses it to critique the “old social order.”

“Why was this vehicle in this place on the street? First to obstruct the lane, and then to complete its work of rusting. In the old social order we find a host of institutions like this across our path in the full light of day, with no reasons for being there.” Hugo’s critique of the “old social order,” which I’m assuming is the empire.

There’s so much symbolism in the young Eponine and Azelma swinging on the chain. They are swung back and forth by their mother, a symbolism of their own future, akin to the image of Fantine as the horse. They’ll be tied to Mme Thenardier and used by her in the future. Not only that, but the chain is huge enough to be reminiscent of the chains of the bagne; prison is a constant threat to them once they reach Paris. “Above and around the delicate heads, steeped in joy and bathed in light, the gigantic hulk, black with rust and almost frightful with its tangled curves and sharp angles, curved like the mouth of a cave.” What intense symbolism for the darkness and struggle that awaits them in Paris in the future.

“A mother, seeing this frightful chain, had said, ‘Now there’s a toy for my children!’“ First of all this feels like a sassy critique of Mme Thenardier’s parenting decisions. But it’s also a hint at their poverty and debt despite the nice clothing. Instead of tying a rope to a branch or something, the decision to turn a huge hulking terrifying chain into a swing for two tiny children...it’s just a lot.

God, the drastic difference between Cosette’s description and Fantine’s description. Cosette is all beauty and light. She’s “charmingly rosy” She’s dressed in linen and lace. Fantine’s description begins with a question mark. “She was young--pretty?” In 1.3.3, Hugo specifically points out Fantine’s “fine teeth” and her long, blonde hair as points of her beauty. Here, she has her hair wrapped up in a tight cap fastened under her chin, and she never smiles. She looks upset and ill and hard-worked. Lines are forming on her face and her skin is calloused. From here on out her beauty is either a small physical remnant or is purely an inner beauty.

What’s the kerchief fold for invalids that Hugo talks about? Does anyone have an image of that? Also why would invalids fold a kerchief over their chest? Is it the blue kerchief specifically that’s used by invalids, not the fold style?

So if it was August last chapter, it’s June now. If it was December-ish (from the sunset at 4:30 thing) then it’s October. If they’re outside playing on a swing, it’s probably more likely that it’s June. Hugo really just does not care about telling us the time of year unless it is Symbolically Important.

The friendship between Fantine and the rest of the grisettes was tenuous at best, manipulative and cruel at worst. But Hugo implies that none of the other grisettes stayed together either. They “no longer had any reason to be friends” despite suffering the same let down--only the others expected it and Fantine didn’t. And the men probably not only remained friends long after, they probably also made connections and used each other to gain social points and climb the ladder.

“Led by her liaison with Tholomyes to disdain the simple work she knew how to do, she had neglected her opportunities; now they were all gone.” This makes me think that for the two years she was with Tholomyes, she wasn’t working and he was supporting her and the child? Is this how it would have been? Or perhaps she was working, but other, better, more steady opportunities came up and she didn’t take them because of Tholomyes. Either way, her relationship with Tholomyes has fucked her over so many different ways. She doesn’t have a job should could have had, she has a child she can’t take care of, and she has a broken heart.

It’s also a huge clue to how little Fantine seems to know about how any of these affairs work and what’s going to happen to her that “she had a vague feeling of being on the brink of danger, of slipping into the streets.” The other grisettes kept their affairs very shallow, probably because of how acutely aware they were of how much power these men had over their lives and what a mistake could cost them. It’s why the lack of a parting gift in the last chapter was a huge let down for them--they probably should have gotten something expensive to make up for all the lost hours of work--but not as huge as it was for Fantine, who had already made that mistake.

“One day, Fantine heard some old women saying as they saw her child ‘Do people ever take such children seriously? They only shrug their shoulders at them!’ Then she thought of Tholomyes, who shrugged his shoulders at his child, and who did not take this innocent creature seriously, and her heart turned dark at the place that had been his.” Such a short series of lines on such a heavy realization. This is one of the reasons the English lyrics to I Dreamed A Dream irritate me so much. Before she even leaves Paris, Fantine’s heart has hardened to Tholomyes. She doesn’t yearn for him at all; from that point on her focus and love is purely about her child. She’s also angry here. She gets the message at this point and she’s upset about it. There’s also the double meaning of “who did not take this innocent creature seriously.” This line could be about Cosette, but it could also easily be about Tholomyes’ treatment of Fantine for the past two years.

“She had made a mistake, but, deep down, we know she was modest and virtuous.” Okay, Hugo, but what about other women who make mistakes? Are they not modest and virtuous? If they’re not, do they get different treatment? Again, back to his weird arguments from 1.3.2, about how “poverty and coquetry are fatal counselors” and how fallen woman are different from modest women, but also it’s society’s fault that they’re bad. I don’t know, Hugo seems to be confused in his moral opinions when it comes to this stuff.

(The more I learn about his youth while reading this biography, the more this kind of stuff makes sense. The “fallen women are bad” seems to be the kind of opinion he had in his youth, and the “it’s a societal problem” is an elder Hugo opinion. The two thoughts are kind of duking it out in these descriptions of working women.)

“We will see that Fantine possessed a fierce courage.” We get Fantine’s strengths in pieces: she is wise in that she notices things other people don’t notice, she possesses a fierce courage, and she has her capacity to love Cosette completely and sacrifice everything for her. This is also the second time we get a description of her as “fierce,” the first being in 1.3.4. Fantine’s courage and specifically her fierceness come out even more later on. We get the impression that had she lived in better circumstances, she would have been a force to be reckoned with. Again, I’m still reading this Graham Robb biography of Hugo, but the descriptions of Fantine’s characteristics remind me of a sort of ragged description of what Hugo’s mother seemed to be like.

“The woman had nothing in the world but this child, and this child had nothing in the world but this woman.” This just made me really sad because when Fantine goes to Montreuil-sur-Mer, she will have nothing in the world but Cosette. But Cosette won’t even know she exists.

We then learn about the fate of Tholomyes, similar to that of Bamatabois. Hugo has such an interesting perspective on law and lawyers. His characters that go to law school and complete it are all rich assholes who use their power and connections for pleasure and to ruin the lives of those in classes beneath them. Those who don’t complete due to other personal circumstances (Bahorel, Bossuet) or due to death (most of Les Amis) are the opposite. I’m wondering if this is commentary on law in general. Knowing it academically but not falling into the comfort of taking advantage of it, by leaving it instead? We don’t know what happens to Marius after Valjean’s death but I wonder if he would keep his more generous nature or fall prey to the bourgeois/Ultra personalities that hover around Gillenormand.

“The presence of angels is a herald of paradise.” An interesting sentence and description considering the ominous descriptions of what they’re swinging on. There are just so many ominous signs here amidst all the beauty of children and sunlight. You just want to yank Fantine back and go “Wait! Stop! Pay attention! Look at all the badness!”

Mme Thenardier gets so many animalistic descriptions. M Thenardier is later, in Paris, described as a wolf. Mme Thenardier gets she-wolf then, as well as sow and tigress. Here she gets  “that animal yet celestial expression peculiar to motherhood.” (An interesting description considering Fantine is also a mother, but her expressions are tender and passionate.) There’s also, “The most ferocious animals are disarmed by caresses to their young,” which is such an ominous sentence. Mme Thenardier’s cruelty is different from her husbands. His is greedy, hers is jealous. There’s also the moment where Hugo says “she sang between her teeth,” a visual that reminds me of a growl. So many threats in her description, and Fantine doesn’t notice any of them, because Mme Thenardier is sitting down, and that makes her less threatening. Plus her reading of trash romance novels makes her docile, relaxed and coy, which apparently hides this animal underneath.

“A person seated instead of standing: Fate hangs on just such a thread.” This is such a huge aspect in this book, summarized in such a short line. Time and place is so important in this novel, for everyone. So much of this novel is hinged on someone happening to be in the right place at the right time (or the wrong place at the wrong time) or happening to recognize someone, or happening to do or fail to do something that totally changes the course of everything around them.

What’s up with Cosette and flies? Here she’s digging a grave for a dead fly, and later she has a tiny lead sword that she uses to cut the heads off flies. Is this just a little kid characteristic that Hugo noticed in his own grandchildren and decided to include, or is this symbolism of some sort that I’m missing?

I’ve heard that Fantine (read: Hugo) gets from Euphrasie to Cosette from “Chosette” which means “little thing.” Is that true or is that just someone making stuff up? If it is true, I can’t help the amusing thought that Cosette’s name is then basically “Sproglet” but in French. Also the “Josefa into Pepita” is maybe a reference to Pepita, the Marquesa de Montehermoso, who Hugo met when he was about 10 and she about 16. I couldn’t find anything about Francoise into Sillette, except that Hugo’s own son was called Victor-Francois? And nothing at all on Theodore into Gnon.

The moment Cosette leaves Fantine’s arms to go play with the other girls, Fantine ceases to be Fantine and instead becomes “the mother.” She is “the mother” for the rest of the chapter. She loses her selfhood the moment she loses Cosette. From that moment on, to the Thenardier’s at least, she’s just the mother of this child they have to deal with, the mother that they can suck money from whenever they want.

“It would be odd if I left my child naked.” This is such a weird line. I feel like this goes in line with interpreting Fantine as autistic. The Thenardiers are asking pretty obvious leading questions about money and costs and then about clothes. But Fantine doesn’t pick up at all on the weirdness or the sinister nature of their questions; she just thinks it’s weird that they might assume she’d leave her child without clothes.

“You’ve build a good mousetrap with your little ones” “Without even knowing it.” The adult Thenardiers fall into this over and over again. Often opportunities fall into their lap when they’re least expecting it; they plan using the new knowledge (as with getting money for young Cosette or attempting to kidnap Valjean) or they just run with it (as with meeting Valjean in the sewers). Sometimes they plan things, like with M Thenardier’s letters attempting to garner fake charity or patronage. But most of the time it seems like they just wait for a random chance and then jump on it. Which seems far more successful than any of Thenardier’s business endeavors, which is maybe why he ended up in such debt in the first place.

This entire scene feels very fae, very evil trickster-like. A lure or trap (the children), a false reassurance (Mme Thenardier) and the real evil not revealing itself until much later (M Thenardier). You just want to call out to Fantine and warn her of the danger that she doesn’t see. But it’s all hidden in a fae glamour, making everything look sweet and safe and beautiful, and she doesn’t notice all the sinister, ominous things in the corner of the eye because everything else is so bright and angelic.

[dreaminterlude]

here’s a longer than necessary response that i spent too much time on

obviously there are two issues here: the selling of the necklace and the criticism of the music video as an orientalization/appropriation of chinese culture. i am talking about the latter because OP’s critique of the necklace doesn’t rely off the implications of selling that necklace as much as it does about the actual music video that 127 partake in. we can say that they’re linked but honestly when OP says that the yelling of “hwah” in the bridge of the song is another example of stereotyping and orientalism, i think there’s a lack of resonance that needs to be addressed.

i’ll preface this by saying that my research thus far has been related to orientalist reimaginations, the reconfigurations of temporality, and the blurring between past/present, arab/berber/european (particularly spanish as it has a “dark half brother” narrative in relation to the rest of europe), and subsequent violence on muslims prior to and during francisco franco’s fascist regime in the spanish protectorate in morocco and imaginations of the arab as the “other” and the gross fetishization through colonial artistic and literary mediums. the idea of orientalism as it was conceptualized by edward said focuses on european (particularly french) distortions of the arab and particularly north africa. i’m telling you this because the way that orientalism is thrown around without any regard to its particular muslim and arab contexts, history of violence, and relational dynamics between east (the east as clearly defined as the muslim world, not by me, but by said and those who have written about orientalism) and west (europe) as it pertains to its systemic decimation of the “muslim world” and establishment of empire from the colonial period through the war on terror, diminishes its significance and the ramications that people have endured for over the last century.

the thread started because OP had a problem with necklaces another fan made that used the chinese characters SM chose to include in the title of the music video. specifically, the music video is entitled: 영웅 (英雄; kick it), using the korean, chinese, and english. the korean/chinese mean “hero,” which obviously doesn’t mean “kick it,” but there’s a long list of korean titles where the korean/chinese title of a particular medium does not match the english because like…..the problem with translations as an idea. a word for word translation doesn’t make for a better translation. additionally, something can have two titles to signal a colon ( : ) or semicolon ( ; ) as the mv does. for example, a book title like the universal enemy: jihad empire and and the challenge of solidarity. here we have: 영웅 (英雄; kick it). anyways the point here is that the music video doesn’t specifically focus on the chinese characters as appropriative aesthetics but all three languages are incorporated to title the mv. if the mv was titled in korean/english only or even just english, that discredit would underscore an appropriation.

the mv is referred to as a “culturally blind ass” concept and there is “absolutely no differentiation between chinese/korean culture they made into one giant mess of aesthetics to market to ignorant international fans” through the referencing of orientalism for the consumption of a western audience. as stated in my original response, 127 make it clear that bruce lee is the inspiration and central to the concept of the video. bruce lee is a household name as a martial artist and actor, among many other things, all around the world. his global significance cannot be diminished strictly through the “ownership” discourse as his cross-cultural interactions between his own lived experiences are as chinese AND american. if we even consider the implications of him being born in san francisco, dying in hong kong and being buried in san francisco, this conversation cannot be reductive. furthermore, the doctrine of jeet kune do was conceptualized by him and his filipino-american martial arts instructor dan inosanto at the jun fan gung fu institute in seattle in 1960. jeet kune do itself is a martial arts philosophy that is based on the hybridity of bruce lee’s own personal experience and philosophy and he specifically referred to it as a non classical form of chinese kung fu. his establishment of the institute/jeet kune do coincided at the same time as mao zedong, founder of the PRC, began the cultural revolution, where the hong kong film industry started to prepare for an international/western market. you just cannot ignore the dynamic cross-cultural phenomena at play to build bruce lee’s social and political movement.

as paul bowman writes in his Beyond Bruce Lee: Chasing the Dragon Through Film, Philosophy, and Popular Culture, “the popularity of Bruce Lee and of martial arts per se are both clearly inextricably linked with the processes and effects of internationalisation or globalisation of and within cinema.” [page 6] further, “Bruce Lee often features as a countercultural motif, in much the same way as (and sometimes even alongside) the likes of Che Guevara and Jimi Hendrix. As testified by innumerable autobiographical accounts, filmic allusions and popular cultural juxtapositions and combinations, Lee functions in diverse popular narratives of struggle.” [page 42] this entire chapter delves specifically into bruce lee as an icon of popular culture that is so globally entrenched that it’s hard to even begin to list instances of his presence in movies, art, films, video games, political inspirations, and music. these are actually all modes of aesthetics, and this is actually really important because the idea of aesthetics is that it has the power to be self-reflexive and provide commentary on itself that derives its source from a real life phenomenon.

127′s use of hiphop, rock, 90s concept, bruce lee and martial arts (in addition to the motif of struggle/trauma), samuel jackson, and the film enter the dragon (a joint american/hong kong production) as a korean pop culture group is not a blurring of eastern cultures as OP says, but rather an example of the globalization phenomenon represented through song using a wide array of references. crystal s. anderson has written an amazing chapter about this, specifically within the context of kpop and black culture:

Rather than relying solely on potential connections between Korean artists and the historical and social conditions of African Americans, an examination of the aesthetics of the performances of both K-pop artists reveals how K-pop bears the imprint of transnational black cultures, which circulate the globe and are redeployed in new, hybridized forms. Focusing on music aesthetics extends the script of authenticity to account for the ways that these Korean artists adopt and adapt black musical culture. These K-pop artists also show us how the circulation of cultures affect reception, for it is the fans who are familiar with black musical cultures who mark K-pop performances as authentic. Such recognition is yet another by-product of the circulation of cultures, which raises the ability of fans to see one culture in a variety of global contexts. Knowledge- able global audiences may also construct meaning from music aesthetics that transcends cultural and historical context. Gerald Early argues for the transcendent nature of the Motown sound, “The Sound of Young America,” in the 1960s, describing it as something “beyond and before words.”55 Thus, examining K-pop artists’ engagement with black musical aesthetics reveals the impact of traveling cultures, which transcend national boundaries in new and exciting ways. [page 301]

i am “annoyed” because of the way the colonial legacy of orientalism and cultural appropriation is utilized to argue that the mv is culturally insensitive. i also think using sicheng’s name to imply that if he were in the group it would be “more” okay for 127 to utilize this concept and bc he’s not in the group anymore (for whatever unjust reason that SM decided to fuck that up) it’s “wrong,” is blatant tokenism and inappropriate to say the least.

i also don’t think my “take” should be dismissed because i’m an “educated” person speaking from an “academic perspective.” i took the time to provide sources in this response because i think reading about these issues, instead of using academic jargon to try to prove your point, is more productive. i only brought my academic stance because of the terminology that OP used, and i think terms need to be defined, contextualized, and carefully considered. otherwise we’ll just be writing twitter threads that are easily misconstrued and shift away from the issue at hand.

[thenugking]

Grand Academy For Future Villains II: Attack of the Sequel, Chapter 5: Bride of Chapter Five. A commentary for Three.

General CW for the whole thing: parental abuse, internalised dehumanisation as a trauma response. Three’s not doing well.

No specific warnings for this chapter except for a typo my friends have been teasing me about for weeks.

Game 1

Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9

Game 2

Chapter 0 | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4

Alternatively, read on Google Docs here

***

"Well obviously," says Professor Ulik, faintly irritated. "I thought you were a bit cleverer than that,Three, I really did. Yes, but specifically I need you to make sure that one of my classes is on the auditor's schedule. You may use whatever methods you please to get it there. The less I know, the better."

Her message communicated, Professor Ulik returns to her papers. You begin to consider your situation. This would be an unparalleled opportunity to ensure Professor Ulik's selection for a tenured position and what else are you here for, anyway?

But how to get an audience with the newly-arrived auditor?

#Val's on the Board of Visitors and Overlords. I'm going to consult zir about this situation.

This isn’t particularly helpful to Three’s intention to stay as far away from the auditors as  possible. Their first plan is still to ask DarkBoard if they’re able to alter Goul’s schedule, but when DarkBoard gives a foreboding speech about how they shouldn’t meddle in forces far beyond their control,  (Three is pretty sure DarkBoard’s scared of the auditors but don’t want to admit it,) they realise they’re going to have to talk to these people. This hopefully won’t be overly dangerous, after all, they are excellent at being helpful to important people, and tend to be good at quickly working out the level of grovelling important people prefer, so they’re unlikely to annoy the auditors. The danger that comes with just being around important, powerful people is inevitable, but they hope they can avoid the worst by appearing as a mere supporting character in Ulik’s narrative, unnoticeable to the auditors underneath all her achievements.

The best place to start with this is Val. Scorpius told Three ze was on the Board of Overseers and, while Three has been trying to interact with Val as little as possible, ze’s at least someone they’re able to get an audience with. And--despite a slight annoyance about Scorpius spilling zir secrets--Val apparently either likes them enough, or thinks they’re plot relevant enough, to help.

Ze is, however, going to point out that meeting with the Auditors isn’t the kind of thing people with no narrative weight do. It doesn’t matter what reason Three gives--do they think there isn’t a story in an underdog brave enough to put themself in the firing line of powerful villains they’re frightened of, just out of loyalty to their wise and supportive mentor? And Val has a feeling this isn’t the first time Three’s done this. Three informs them that they are not a hero, or an underdog, or special in any way whatsoever. Val tells them that ze knows better than most how Narrative Weight isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, so ze’s really, genuinely sorry to say this, but that’s not true, Three. Three decides they’d better get over to that meeting before they’re late, so doesn’t have time to listen to Val try and tell them they’re more than just a tool.

The minutes Val showed you indicated that a team of no less than three auditors would be arriving from the Board of Visitors and Overlords. And you're fairly certain you know who this one is.

The falling pieces of the dome leave trails of fire in the air all around you. The air of the artificial atmosphere is rushing upward; the weather programs that the dome once produced are sputtering fitfully. Fish, frogs, bolts of lightning, hailstones and drops of blood tumble at random from the shattering sky.

"Lord X!" you call, as the figure lightly touches down to the earth. "Welcome to the Grand Academy for Future Villains!"

The figure turns towards you, and you see that the upper half of his face is concealed by a black mask like a frozen lava flow. His clothes are rich and close-fitting, his black shirt with silver buttons reaching to the neck, his hands concealed by silver gloves, and a belt around his waist supports a really alarming arsenal of weapons. You spot what looks like an oversized silver revolver, a long sword, a short sword, and a gun that looks strangely familiar. There's also a trowel tucked into a beautifully tooled black leather sheath; there's probably some explanation for this besides being for some sort of demonic gardener. 

"Well done…student," says Lord X.

Val, watching from under the shelter of a black umbrella, gives the slightest of nods to the auditor.

Again, not something Three would have done if Ulik hadn’t wanted them to talk to the auditors, they’d much rather be running to hide right now, or else checking the sudden environmental changes of the world falling apart aren’t adversely affecting DarkBoard. But they do like important people being impressed with them.

As if it overheard your unspoken question—which you suppose it did—the nearest DarkBoard portal begins scrolling through something you recognize as the fine print of your application paperwork. You look at the scrolling text:

…WITHOUT REFUND. THE APPLICANT CONSENTS TO MANDATORY BINDING ARBITRATION IN THE CASE OF ACCIDENTAL OR PURPOSEFUL DISMEMBERMENT, IMPERFECT RESURRECTION, AND OTHER PHYSICAL OR PSYCHIC MODIFICATION UNDERTAKEN VOLUNTARILY OR INVOLUNTARILY IN THE COURSE OF ACADEMIC DUTIES. THE APPLICANT CONSENTS TO THE ACADEMY'S USE OF THEIR IMAGE, DNA, BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OFFSPRING IF ANY, WITH OR WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION. SURVEILLANCE DEVICES MAY BE INSTALLED IN PHYSICAL AND INTELLECTUAL LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE ACADEMY INCLUDING BEDROOMS, HEARTS, DREAMS, AND NARRATIVES. THE ACADEMY RESERVES THE RIGHT…

Okay, okay.

It may not be immediately relevant to the current scene, but I think it’s worth noting that students “consent” to the Academy’s use of their offspring. Being the child of an alumnus, Three was a little concerned, if resigned, about that when reading their own application paperwork. Those feelings haven’t completely gone away, but they also realise this could be an excellent excuse if Maedryn ever discovers their loyalty to DarkBoard. She herself signed them away to the Academy before they even existed, and if necessary, Three will remind her that neither of them can complain if DarkBoard wishes to collect on that.

Three has never wanted children themself, but the Academy’s application paperwork just makes them more sure of that.

#Come observe Professor Ulik’s class.

You've kept your bargain with Professor Ulik. Whatever the auditor says, the fact that you faced one of the most powerful beings on the Academy grounds has to count for something.

It's a simple request—so simple the auditor seems taken by surprise. You hold your breath, waiting for an answer. "Of course," says the auditor. "Next week. Of course, we make no promises as to the nature of our judgment. Only of its inevitability."

"Fifteen seconds," pipes the assistant.

Variyah Goul stands up. She does not offer you her hand. "Your career, of course, will be of interest to us, whatever becomes of the school."

"Ten."

"If at the end of the year we find you an individual of sufficient narrative weight��there are certain provisions made for individuals who are fit for a great destiny. I am impressed by hedonism and competence, and the portfolio of destinies I manage are those of grandeur and glory."

"And zero." The assistant escorts you out of the room.

That went… surprisingly well. Three’s alive. They’ve at least slightly impressed two auditors. Goul’s agreed to observe Ulik’s class. Three wasn’t given time to have to pretend to be interested in a destiny.

They are growing increasingly concerned that the Academy’s accreditation may not, in fact, be renewed, but all they have to do is show that a place with teachers as good as Professor Ulik is worthwhile, make sure Maedryn isn’t too stressed by her various responsibilities that the clones stop working, help Sona keep Sci-Fi looking respectable and genre savvy, and do whatever DarkBoard requests to help the Academy run smoothly.

((Side note: I did originally accidentally replace a bit too much of the “insert your professor here” text with “professor ulik” when I originally typed this up, with the result that Three very unfortunately invited one of the most powerful villains in the universe to come observe Professor Ulik’s ass. They don’t want to talk about it.))

The senior students that approach you after your Evil Planning class are well known to you. They're a group of Thriller and Science Fiction students that even in these polarized times of inter-genre competition, have remained friends and close collaborators. 

"Three!" one of them calls to you. "Do you have a second? We want you to try this!"

This is rarely the prelude to something good, but often the prelude to something interesting. You pause. 

"This is our capstone project for our Cyberpunk Dystopia class," explains another, proffering his personal DarkBoard portal, its screen glowing. "A dating app for the Academy! We need beta testers! And, well, a lot of people have been requesting you."

"It's right here in the early feedback," confirms the third. "Let's see…'If it doesn't have Three I'm not joining'…'Where's Three I mean the real one not the clone'…'Please add an option to romance Three.'"

You look warily at the colorful images on the DarkBoard portal. What's so dystopian about a dating app?

"Well, it's powered by DarkBoard, for one thing," says the first student, "so it can be kind of unpredictable. And wildly intrusive. But the administration is interested in monitoring the personal lives of its students."

"Personally I think DarkBoard's getting a bit lonely," adds the second, behind his hand, as if that could conceal his comment from the security system.

I mean, there might be a couple of students wanting to find out what’s underneath Three’s aloof emotionless exterior, but I really doubt there’s anyone specifically asking for them. In any case, they have far more important things to do than trying to find another relationship at the moment, and even if they wanted one, they wouldn’t be looking for it on an intrusive dating app made by a bunch of students they have no reason to trust. 

But, well, they don’t exactly completely object to submitting information about certain preferences they may have to a system powered by DarkBoard. It’s a villainous action to sign up to a dating site and then ruthlessly reject every classmate who appears on there, isn’t it?

Besides the grinning face of Science Fiction's figurehead, a long list of diagrams and spec charts appears. Sona, or DarkBoard on Sona's behalf, is listing out all her weapons and modifications. You're fascinated—there are some extraordinarily personal items here. You would never have guessed about the navel turret, for instance.

All right, getting lists of people’s hidden abilities is also a very useful feature of this app. Three just hopes their own profile isn’t going to start listing out the dozens of weapons they have hidden on their person at all times.

The portal clouds over again, but this time, when it clears, no face is visible at all. Slowly words form on the portal's surface.

HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHAT THE WORLD LOOKS LIKE WHEN SEEN THROUGH A THOUSAND EYES?

"Uh-oh." One of the Cyberpunk Dystopia students tries to snatch the portal out of your hands. "It's doing it again. Close! Close! Administrator override!"

SHED YOUR FLESH, continues DarkBoard, AND JOIN US IN THE TIMELESS VOID BETWEEN ELECTRONS.

"Yeah, this is a known issue," explains the leader. "Every so often DarkBoard will decide that it wants to get in on some of the action. Sorry about that."

He hands you back your portal, now quiet and docile. Is that Xi's lingering influence? Does something about DarkBoard remember you as an object of romance?

"You know where to find us! Thanks for trying it out!"

And they're gone.

Well, even if Three’s list of concealed weapons are on view to everyone on the dating app now, the student trying to snatch the portal away from Three is not prepared for a kick in the groin and a gun pointed at him before he has a chance to react, as Three calmly explains that they want to be aware of all known issues before deciding whether to continue using the app or not. After taking a few moments to closely examine this one, they tell the cyberpunk students that they can live with it. They spend a fair amount of their free time (limited though that is) on the app over the next few months, while making sure to reject every student profile they find.

The app does cause another slight issue, however, given that the rejection messages it sends are calibrated to, “cause greatest emotional impact to the target!” Three and Aurion awkwardly avoid each other for the next few weeks, after they each receive a horrifying rejection message about how the other loves them far too much like a sibling, and is so grateful for the bond they already have.

And then this final scene doesn’t actually take place, because Three doesn’t have a nemesis or a pet, so doesn’t need help dealing with them, but:

Professor Ulik thinks so highly of you that she leaves the class that she was in the middle of teaching to rush to the ${temphousing}.

I love Three’s new mum a lot.

[chroniclackofselfpreservation]

Hot take: you can read something for entertainment value alone and it’s just as valid as reading something because of its depth and commentary on issues.

Storytime: in my junior year of high school, many of my English teachers (yes, I had more than one. I was an English nerd from the beginning) suggested I apply for the Sterling Scholar in English. They’d seen my writing and thought I’d be a good candidate. As an avid reader and aspiring author at the time, I agreed with them.

The selection process went something like this: submit your transcript (so they could see your grades and gpa because heaven forbid a kid with bad grades got acknowledged for their talent), a piece of writing (typically an essay, because everyone knows academic writing is the superior form of writing), and appearing before a panel of English teachers for an interview.

Now, all of this went smoothly, up until the interview. Being one of few English nerds at my school, there were only two candidates for the English category. Me, and my friend Corryn. I went first, and most of the questions were just asking me about things I’d put on my application (like the fact that I’d written a book and was having it beta read at the time, stuff like that) and then came the question that has haunted me for years after this.

What is your favorite book?

I was taken aback by the question, not really seeing what it had to do with my academic achievements or proficiency in English, and being the compulsively honest sixteen-year-old I was, answered truthfully:

The Percy Jackson Series.

Now, while I’m still a huge fan of the series to this day, I wouldn’t rank it my favorite book of all time... but at that moment in my life, that was the first thing that popped into my head at the question. I went on to explain to the panel that I admired Riordan’s ability to infuse complex issues and emotions into a story generally directed at middle-grade audiences.

I didn’t add this into my answer, but I also adored the series because it was flat out entertaining. It kept my attention, took me into different worlds and locations, made me forget the boring, sad happenings of today and took me on an adventure.

Needless to say, the panel wasn’t too impressed. A kind woman who was my current English Literature teacher that year asked if I had any other favorite books, to which I answered:

The Eragon Series (or Inheritance Cycle)

I know. Trust me, I know. But cut me some slack, it was the first “big” fantasy series I’d read as a child and my love for it was somewhat more nostalgic than quality-based. That, and at the time I wasn’t super exposed to fantasy books above middle-grade or highschool level, so it didn’t have much in the way of competition for top spot.

I remember going home that night and relaying the interview to my mother, she gently noted that those probably weren’t the types of books they were looking for.

I was shocked. Utterly and genuinely confused. “They asked what my favorite books were,” I said, “so, I told them the truth.”

Later, I wouldn’t be surprised when Corryn won the scholarship instead of me. After talking about our interviews with each other, and knowing our qualifications weren’t significantly different, I discovered that she had responders with The Grapes of Wrath.

Of course, I was more than happy for her. She was my friend, and I wished her the best. However, that question would loop through my mind every once in a while. When I lay in my bed, wishing for sleep to come amidst the hectic jumble that was my brain, I’d fret over this question. Should I have lied? How come they phrased it like that? Why not ask me what book I thought had the most literary merit, or what book had the best societal commentary?

Why my favorite book?

Over the years, I’ve come to realize a few things about myself:

I can like books for different reasons, and some reasons aren’t better than other reasons. Just because I like the commentary on capitalism and economic status in The Grapes of Wrath, doesn’t make my love of Dune for its worldbuilding or The Six of Crows for that sweet sweet teen angst any less tangible or valid.

I can recognize the literary merit of a book and still not enjoy reading it. For example, Beloved by Toni Morrison. Absolutely heart-wrenching look into slavery, racism, trauma, death, and several other very important topics. The story isn’t supposed to be a “light read.” It isn’t supposed to leave you with butterflies in your stomach. Do I recognize the importance of reading about and exposing myself to these kinds of stories? Yes, of course. Do I also recognize that it’s okay if reading about other people’s explicit trauma upsets me and that I don’t have to revisit the story just because it has literary merit? Yes.

I CAN LIKE A BOOK BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS FUN AND FOR NO OTHER REASON!!! I can also love a book for its topics, themes, commentary, etc. But it’s not required to make something your favorite book.

Tl;dr: there aren’t any qualifiers for whether you are allowed to like a book or not. Don’t let anyone tell you different.

[schraubd]

My Thoughts on Jewish Organizations

There are a lot of Jewish organizations out there. And I have thoughts on them. Some I like a lot. Some I like less. I'm a progressive Zionist with more of an academic than a political bent, which means I don't like anti-Zionist or right-wing groups, and all else equal I prefer groups who are "wonkish" or "scholarly" to "political" or "activist". But the former part matters more than the latter -- I understand the importance of political organizing, even if it isn't my style; whereas groups which actively back settlements or BDS go a ways beyond "not my style". Anyway, these are just my opinions -- do with them what you will. * * * AIPAC: Kind of an old, creaky battleship at this point. I actually think AIPAC probably does see the threats to its core mission -- namely, the growing partisanization of Israel as an issue -- but is too large and unwieldy to actually do anything about it. For all its supposed power, it's actually not that effective anymore (though it's very effective at being a boogeyman for "the all-powerful Israel Lobby"). Ameinu: I like them a lot. The former Labor Zionist Alliance has the right political orientation and tends to take a careful approach to things, which I appreciate. Its "Third Narrative" initiative is definitely my cup of tea. American Jewish Committee: Deeply uneven. Sometimes stands out in front on human rights. Sometimes falls over itself to praise Jair Bolsonaro. Definitely not adjusting with the times, and definitely needs to fire whoever is running their Twitter account. American Jewish Congress: Are they still a thing? Americans for Peace Now: Of the true "left" groups, definitely my favorite. That's probably because its the only one that's still okay with Zionism, but also because it does genuinely important and substantive work and provides a much needed critical progressive voice inside Jewish communal structures. Anti-Defamation League: My favorite of the major "mainline" groups. Does it bat 1.000? No. But it's right more often than it isn't, and it takes a lot more flak than it deserves. The effort by conservative voices to place it in the pocket of the left is ludicrous. A Wider Bridge: In late 2015/early 2016, I started looking up which Jewish organizations not specifically focused on Mizrahi/Sephardic issues nonetheless mentioned Mizrahi/Sephardic Jews. My methodology was pretty basic and the bar was pretty low: do a google site search for "Mizrahi" or "Sephardic". The results were ... disappointing. A Wider Bridge was an exception. Generally does very good work, and the fact that it does good work is probably why its opponents are so desperate to smear it with the "pinkwashing" label. Be'chol Lashon: Can't rave about them enough. They deserve infinitely more attention, resources, and support from the rest of the Jewish community. I dare say the future of the vitality of diaspora Judaism depends on the success or failure of Be'chol Lashon's work. Bend the Arc: Another group I'm generally positively disposed towards, though I have little to say on them specifically. Conference of Presidents: More of an umbrella group, but it needs mention because for too long it's been far too solicitous of its right-wing members (see ZOA). American Jews vote for the Democratic Party at the same proportion as Idahoans vote Republican -- our conservatives should have exactly as much communal power as an Idaho Democrat. HIAS: If you don't like HIAS, you're a monster. Hillel: Desperately needs a dose of democracy. They're still the center of Jewish life on many campuses, and that's important in its own right. They're not the evil leviathan Open Hillel makes them out to be, but because they're not accountable to the student population they serve, they constantly fall into easily avoidable pitfalls. They certainly can't be trusted with something as sensitive as a partnership guideline. In my dream world, they become the bureaucratic arm of the American Union of Jewish Students. IfNotNow: Everything you don't like about BernieBros, but trying to rip apart the Jewish community instead of the Democratic Party. Sanctimonious, smug, hackish, theatrical, and almost unfathomably self-righteous. For them, sparking a civil war within the Jewish community isn't a risk they hope to avoid; it's the point of the movement. "Some people have never met a forest fire they didn't ache to pour gasoline on." I went from "cautious optimism" to "deep disdain" in a hurry. Israel Policy Forum: Somehow I'm always overlooking them. Don't know why -- they do really good work. Overall, I take a positive view. Jewish Community Relations Councils/Jewish Federations: Depends on the federation, naturally. As always, I worry about democracy deficit. Are they responsive to genuine community sentiment, or are they responsive to their donor base? Jewish Voice for Peace: Ugh. JFREJ: Everytime I read something from JFREJ, my reaction is always "meh". It's never particularly bad. It's never particularly good. It's meh. I'm if anything impressed by how consistently they make me shrug. JIMENA: Sometimes takes a more conservative line than I would like, but overall an important voice for the Mizrahi and Sephardic Jewish community. When I've worked with them, I've had no trouble integrating my progressive Zionist positions into what we've done together. J Street: Overall I like J Street (I definitely like this statement it just released on its commitment to Israel's future). It's a political lobbying shop, which means it makes certain compromises I wouldn't (less on issues, and more on using rhetoric that is mobilizing more than it is precise), but that comes with the territory -- a classic "not my style, but someone needs to do it" case. And, far and away, no group is maligned further out of proportion to its actual sins than J Street. It's not even close. OneVoice: Not exclusively a Jewish organization, but it's so important I'll give them a pass. You want durable and just peace in Israel and Palestine? Do the hard work of building grassroots support and political infrastructure for non-extremism and co-existence. That's what OneVoice does. Partners for Progressive Israel: I don't end up citing them a lot -- Ameinu ends up filling their niche -- but I'm generally positively inclined. T'ruah: Another very good progressive organization. Their commentary on the UN resolutions criticizing Israeli settlements is one of my favorite statements by a prominent Jewish organizations on any Israel-related topic, ever. Definitely endorse. Zioness: Came in deeply suspicious of them. Current posture is cautiously okay. They've filed off some of the rougher edges, and they haven't done what some groups in its niche love to do -- spend 90% of their time wailing about how mean people treat Israel before "proving" their progressive bona fides by writing a post about how terribly Saudi Arabia treats women (*cough* Women's March For All). They actually spend most of their time advocating for progressive ends that have no clear relation to Israel. Good on them! Still think they need to confirm that their progressivism extends to Israel itself, though. Zionist Organization of America: It's tough competition, but Mort Klein might be the worst. And since ZOA has become almost exclusively a vehicle for his hard-right, racist, xenophobic, anti-Palestinian politics, they're the worst too. The only difference between them and JVP is that ZOA gets to be the worst from inside the communal tent -- which goes to show how systematically biased the Jewish community in favor of our fringe right-wing voices. via The Debate Link http://bit.ly/2DEjdCu

[didanawisgi]

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

“Setting aside Hunter Biden, there was no impropriety in President Trump’s asking Zelensky to assist the Justice Department’s investigation into the origins of the Russia probe.

Back home in the Bronx is where I first heard the old saw about the Irishman who, coming upon a donnybrook at the local pub, asks a bystander: “Is this a private fight or can anybody join?”

I was a much younger fellow then. The prospect becomes less alluring with age, so I have some trepidation stepping in between two old friends, Andrew Napolitano and Joe DiGenova. Through intermediary hosts, the pair — Napolitano a former New Jersey Superior Court jurist and law professor, DiGenova a former United States Attorney for the District of Columbia and prominent defense lawyer — brawled this week on Fox News (where I, like they, contribute regularly).

I’m going to steer clear of the pugnacious to-ing and fro-ing. Let’s consider the intriguing legal issue that ignited it.

Judge Napolitano argues that the July 25 conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky contains the makings of a campaign-finance crime. He highlights Trump’s request for Ukraine’s help in investigating then–vice president Joe Biden. In 2016, Biden pressured Kyiv to drop a corruption investigation of Burisma, a natural gas company that paid Biden’s son, Hunter, big bucks to sit on its board.

Biden, of course, is one of the favorites for the Democratic presidential nomination. Napolitano reasons that the information Trump sought from Ukraine would be a form of “opposition research” that could be seen as an in-kind donation to Trump’s reelection campaign, which should be deemed illegal because the law prohibits foreign contributions and attempts to acquire them. (Napolitano also raised the “arguable” possibility of a bribery offense, on the theory that Trump was withholding defense aid as a corrupt quid pro quo to get the Biden information. But he emphasized the foreign contribution issue. That is his stronger argument, and I am focusing on it, given that the Trump-Zelensky transcript does not support a quid pro quo demand; plus bribery, in any event, raises the same “thing of value” proof problems addressed below.)

DiGenova strongly disagrees. Though there wasn’t much time to elaborate, he is clearly relying on the lack of past campaign-law prosecutions on similar facts. DiGenova is also voicing the prudent conservative hostility to campaign-finance laws: Any expansion of criminal liability would necessarily restrict political speech, the core of First Amendment liberty.

I’m with DiGenova on this, but it’s a closer question than he suggests. Napolitano’s construction of the campaign laws, while not wholly implausible, is purely academic. It ignores real-world concerns about free speech and the prosecutor’s burden to prove intent.

Most of the commentary on this has been very politicized (surprise!). For dyed-in-the-wool anti-Trumpers, no technicality is too trifling to be a felony. For the Trump base, it’s all a witch hunt. In light of this, the most helpful source we can turn to is the Mueller Report. (File in: Sentences I’d Have Bet My Life I’d Never Write.)

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team overflowed with partisan Democrats, and their report could have been entitled “Roadmap to Impeachment.” While they faced complications (that I’ve addressed) in making a case against the president, the prosecutors were not inhibited when it came to other subjects of the investigation. They’d have loved to nail Donald Trump Jr. But the only thing they had was the notorious Trump Tower Meeting of June 2016, when Don Jr. orchestrated a meeting with a Kremlin-tied lawyer (Natalya Veselnitskaya) in an effort to obtain Russian dirt to be used against Hillary Clinton. Veselnitskaya supplied information, but it was a dud.

The campaign-finance offense that Napolitano urges be charged against President Trump appears to be the same one Mueller considered charging against Don Jr. The Mueller team’s analysis (Vol. 1, pp. 186-187) is thus on point. And it is frustratingly ambiguous — as befits the constitutionally dubious campaign-finance laws.

Two offense elements proved to be stumbling blocks for the prosecutors. The first is the question whether opposition research is a “thing of value” under federal law. Mueller’s team assumed that, in theory, it might be (the Napolitano view), but that to interpret it as such would break new ground and raise troubling First Amendment issues (the DiGenova position).

The second problem was the intent element. As I’ve observed before, regulatory crimes are not innately wrong (in contrast to, say, murder or robbery). They are illegal only because we choose to make them illegal (for you Latinists out there, they are malum prohibitum). Because the conduct is not wrong in itself (malum in se), the law requires a higher degree of malevolent intent before it can be criminalized. Prosecutors must prove willfulness, which very nearly reverses the adage that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” The defendant must be shown to have known that his intentional conduct was illegal — not merely unsavory but actually prohibited by law. The Mueller team concluded that they could not have hoped to prove willfulness beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, while there might be some conceivable scenario in which acquiring information from a foreign source for use in a campaign could be a federal crime, it is highly unlikely — so unlikely that some Type A prosecutors wisely decided that the huzzahs they’d have gotten for indicting the president’s son were outweighed by the humiliation they’d endure when the case inevitably got thrown out of court.

The Mueller report is also worth considering because the campaign-finance charge the prosecutors rejected is stronger than would be any similar charge against President Trump arising out of the Zelensky call. That, no doubt, is why the Justice Department summarily declined prosecution.

To hear the media-Democrat complex tell it, DOJ declined because it is beholden to the president and Attorney General Barr is acting as Trump’s lawyer, not the government’s chief prosecutor. No one who actually took five minutes to read the relevant section of the Mueller Report would see it that way. Moreover, the fact that the president is president complicates matters not only politically but legally.

Trump detractors hyper-focus on the president’s request that President Zelensky provide Attorney General Barr with any information Ukraine might have about Biden twisting arms to quash an investigation involving his son’s cashing in on dad’s influence. I say “hyper-focus” because there was a lot more to it than that. Long before the conversation came around to the Biden topic, the “favor” that Trump asked for was Zelensky’s assistance in Barr’s ongoing investigation of the genesis of the Trump-Russia investigation.

No matter how much Democrats seek to discredit that probe and the AG overseeing it, it is a legitimate investigation conducted by the United States Department of Justice, which has prosecutors assigned and grand jury subpoena power. It is examining questionable Justice Department and FBI conduct. It is considering whether irregularities rise to the level of crimes. It will be essential to Congress’s consideration of whether laws need to be enacted or modified to insulate our election campaigns from politicized use of the government’s counterintelligence and law-enforcement powers.

I mention all this because it is a commonplace for the government to seek assistance from foreign counterparts for ongoing federal investigations.

Indeed, as Marc Thiessen pointed out this week in an important Washington Post column, Democratic senators pressured Ukraine to cooperate with the Mueller probe — notwithstanding the obvious potential electoral ramifications and the specter of “foreign interference in our democracy.” These requests for assistance often occur at the head-of-state level. When I was a federal prosecutor in the mid-nineties, for example, the FBI and Justice Department asked President Clinton to intervene with Saudi authorities to assist the investigation of Iranian complicity in the Khobar Towers bombing.

There is nothing wrong with our government’s requesting the assistance of foreign governments that have access to witnesses and evidence relevant to an ongoing Justice Department investigation. The president is the democratically elected, constitutionally empowered chief executive: There is nothing his subordinates may properly do that he may not do himself (it is his power that they exercise). And the president is never conflicted out of executive branch business due to his political interests. There is no legal or ethical requirement that the Justice Department be denied potentially probative evidence because obtaining it might affect the president’s political fortunes.

There was no impropriety in President Trump’s asking Ukraine’s president to assist the Justice Department’s investigation of Russiagate’s origins. Okay, you say, but what does that have to do with Biden?

Well, Biden was the Obama administration’s point man in dealing with Kyiv after Viktor Yanukovych fled in 2014. That course of dealing came to include Obama administration agencies leaning on Ukraine to assist the FBI in the investigation of Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman. So, Biden’s interaction with Ukraine is germane: The fact that he had sufficient influence to coerce the firing of a prosecutor; the fact that, while Biden was strongly influencing international economic aid for Kyiv, a significant Ukrainian energy company thought it expedient to bring Biden’s son onto its board and compensate him lavishly — although Hunter Biden had no experience in the industry.

That aside, I do not understand why there has not been more public discussion of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in light of the instances of Hunter Biden conveniently cashing in with foreign firms while his dad was shaping American policy toward those firm’s governments. As we saw with the collusion caper, it does not take much evidence of any crime for the FBI and the Justice Department to open an investigation and scorch the earth in conducting it. And if it would have been legit for the Justice Department to open an FCPA investigation of one or both of the Bidens, then it was appropriate for President Trump to ask President Zelensky to help the Justice Department determine if an FCPA crime took place – even if doing so could have affected the 2020 fortunes of Biden and Trump.

Don’t get me wrong: I am not rooting for Joe Biden or his son to be subjected to investigation and prosecution. I agree with Attorney General Barr that there has been too much politicization of law enforcement and intelligence. In the absence of a concrete, patent, and serious violation of the criminal law, I want the Justice Department and the FBI out of politics – which would be better for them and for politics. If you think there is an indecorous heavy-handedness to the way Donald Trump and Joe Biden conduct foreign policy, that’s fine – go vote against them on Election Day. We don’t need creative prosecutors deciding elections by testing the boundaries of abstruse statutes.

Neither, however, do I believe in unilateral disarmament. There is at least as much basis for opening an FCPA investigation against the Bidens as for opening campaign-finance investigations against the Trumps. If I had my druthers, all of this nonsense would end. But as I detailed earlier this week, we have one candidate for the presidency — a once-serious legal scholar and practitioner — who publicly and straight-faced says Trump’s call with Zelensky could rate the death penalty. As we saw in the late 1990s, when Bill Clinton got to experience the independent-counsel statute up close and personal, maybe it takes Democrats being hoisted on their own petard before we finally say: This has to stop.”

[etudias]

(Edit: I am aware of the typo in the title, it should be experience)

Hi there, my name is Alessandra and I am going to tell y’all about how the whole college application process went for me. I think my experience ended a little differently than most, or at least most that people will share. It honestly took a lot for me to feel comfortable posting this so I really hope that it will help someone out there. It is however a very long post, so I am going to break it up into sections, feel free to read only what you need/want.

1. Researching Schools

I got excited for college. I was excited to go to college for as long as I can remember and was looking up different schools on site’s like the college board one, bigfuture, which by the way, I recommend, since probably 10th grade. So come Junior year I had a bunch of schools I was interested in. I ended up visiting a few in Boston over spring break that year. I visited Harvard, MIT, and Boston University (clearly my sights were set high). I did not really think it was that important to visit colleges, and that I should just visit the ones I got into to help decide (I now know that college visits can actually really help you get into a top school). The summer before senior year I worked hard to narrow down my list. I ended up with 12 schools that I applied to. This may seem like a lot to some, or not many at all to others. Most people I know applied to more like 5-8, but I know some people who applied to 20+, you gotta do what’s right for you. I wanted to apply to more honestly, but based on costs that is the number my mother and I agreed upon.

2. The Schools

Okay so in alphabetical order here are the schools I applied to:

Barnard College

Brown University

Carnegie Mellon University

Case Western Reserve University

Duke University

Georgia Institute of Technology

Harvard University

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Stanford

University of California - Berkeley

University of Georgia

University of Pennsylvania

So, some reasoning on my choices. I heard someone say something that I fully agreed with, and after everything still do. That you should apply to as many reach schools as you can because it raises the chances of getting into just one. So with that I applied to a bunch of reaches, a few meets, and 1 safety. The one safety school I decided on was because it was in state and in my state if you have a 3.75+ GPA and some other requirements, you get full tuition to in state schools and I knew that given the money, there was really no other school that I could consider a safety school that I would choose over it. I still stand by this choice.

3. My Stats 

You are probably going to ask this and I’ve decided to be upfront and tell you because why the heck not. I sent in ACT scores, not SAT (although I did take it). I got a 32 (33 English, 33 Reading, 35 Science, 28 Math), I should have spent more time studying for the math as that score never changed, but it was my 3rd time taking the test and I was over it, my goal had been a 33, but to me that was close enough because I was tired. My GPA was a 3.875 unweighted and a 4.063 weighted. My school did not offer many AP courses, I took all that I could with the exception of 2 history courses that I had strong reasons for not taking and when I had my Harvard interview and I talked with the lady about it, she wholeheartedly agreed and said that as the counselor of her private school she even made her school stop offering those courses, so yeah I feel pretty valid about that. (Ended up taking 7 AP’s if you are curious about which ones, they are on my about page) I basically got all A’s in my academics, my B’s came from some arts classes and health, I know, I know. I’m going to briefly mention my school in this section because it is sort of related. I went to a public arts high school that is ranked number 2 in the state for academics and 75th in the nation. It was extremely rigorous.

4. Extracurricular’s and other application stuff

I was very involved. I participated in theater for all 5 years (my school was 8-12). I did technical theater and by 10th grade was crew head for shows and in 11th grade I worked every show (which at my school was a lot). Senior year I became a stage manager which is a big responsibility and sort of like being a president of a club, but even more responsibility. I calculated the hours I spent with theater junior year alone, 300 hrs. I was also very involved in orchestra, all 5 years. My school has 4 orchestra levels, the first two comprising the lower orchestra, 3&4 comprising the higher level orchestra, based on skill level, not age. I was in orchestra 2 for 8th and 9th grade, orchestra 3 for 10th and 11th grade, and orchestra 4 for senior year, orchestra 4 was a big deal, with only 11 members and you played not only in the higher level orchestra but also the touring orchestra. Lots of hours. I also played in my county’s honor’s orchestra for 2 years. I was on the executive board (basically president) of my schools National Honor Society (our school only opens it to seniors, so I was only in it for 1 year). I was part of Beta Club for 4 years. I was a math tutor. I founded a Girls Who Code club at my school and taught it. I was in our award winning mock trial for 2 years. I was a member of my schools Gay Straight Alliance. I babysat all throughout high school. I did more than that but this is already long enough and you can tell that basically, I was a try hard.

   Let’s talk about summers. The summer after 10th grade I went to a 7 week long summer immersion program for coding called Girls Who Code. The summer after junior year I went to a week long orchestra camp, then my states Governor’s Honor’s program, which in my state is very prestigious and hard to get into (I think its like a 10% acceptance rate). I was a software engineering major and a math minor there. (Those are really the summers that count, but all other summers I went to orchestra camp)

   More application stuff, I had a fair amount of school awards as well as the aforementioned Governor’s Honor’s. I got recommendations from my pre calculus teacher, who I founded a Girls Who Code club with, and my world history/ap psych teacher. They both loved me and I’m sure wrote great recommendations (with the exception of UGA where I did not send any). All the schools I had interviews with went extremely well. I was a legacy for Duke. I had an alumni friend write an AMAZING letter of rec for CMU. I felt my essays were strong (and checked by 3 or so people).

   My major: I basically applied everywhere as a computer science major. I felt good about this with the way I spent my summers, some of my extracurricular, and classes I chose to take. I wrote a fair amount of essays about this and I feel as though my applications demonstrated the work I had put into bringing more people (especially women) into STEM, specifically cs, and my interests and knowledge of cs.

5. The Decisions

Finally the good part right? Well at least for you readers. I’ll go in order of the decisions (although towards the end I forget the order a bit because it was tech week and show weeks for my schools biggest production, I was busy) and add some commentary on some. (All regular decision unless otherwise noted)

MIT (Early Action) - rejected, it hurt a little being my first, but not unexpected

Case Western (Early Action) - deferred, then waitlisted, then rejected, everyone from my school got the exact same decisions from them and there were people from the bottom of my class to the very top lol

University of Georgia - accepted, oh boy I cried because finally thank goodness somewhere at least

Georgia Tech - waitlisted, then rejected, this one still stings, people with all around weaker applications from my school got in that applied early. the acceptance rate dropped from 40% to 8% between early and regular, biggest regret is not applying here early, once I was waitlisted here I felt for sure I wouldn’t get in anywhere else

Barnard College - waitlisted, still waiting to hear. at this point i just felt like I was getting waitlisted everywhere

Harvard - rejected, expected as are basically the rest of these

U Penn - rejected 

Brown - rejected

UC Berkeley - rejected

Duke - rejected, but damn that letter I’m still mad about, like the fact the I got rejected was unsurprising at that point, but they sent me 3 long paragraphs of rejection bc I was a legacy saying how sorry they were and how many times they reconsidered my application. One sentence would have been better.

Stanford - rejected

CMU - rejected, and man I knew it was coming but it was the last school I heard from, my last hope, and it was closing day for my last school musical, this was a bad day, not so much for this one school but just the process in general

6. Reflections

So I got into 1 school, yup just 1. My safety school that’s it. Let me tell you I was devastated, not over any particular school, but that I didn’t get into any others. I ate 4 donuts and cried a whole lot the day of that last rejection. I got really REALLY stuck on the fact that I would only ever read that one acceptance letter, that one congratulations. I moped around and was sad and upset with my self and full of regrets like why did I not apply to more schools, it was a bad time. But let me tell you that time really showed my what good some friends could be, friends really helped me through that. Even though I had only one school I waited till the last minute to commit. So yes, fall 2018 UGA here I come, go dawgs! (and really its not a bad school, especially the honors program) I worked really hard to get myself excited for this school and as much as I am, with the major I want to go into, I know it is in my best interests to transfer, no matter how much I do not like the idea of transferring (its a good school don’t get me wrong, just not the best for my major). I am still trying to come to terms with the idea of transferring and honestly this whole process in general. I do not think I would have done things much differently, I put my best into my applications, honestly if I changed anything I would have just applied to more schools and probably only more reaches or meet/reaches at that. I have come to accept the decisions (mostly, I still get quite down about it from time to time). It was an odd year for decisions at my school in general. We usually send a good amount of students to top top schools like ivies and the equivalent, but this year no one got into any, heck our valedictorian is going to UGA too. (I think it has something to do with our class being super strong overall, 50% had a 4.0+ weighted, so therefore none of us really stood out) So yeah it really freaking hurts only getting into one school, I’m pretty sure I went through all the stages of grief, but now I am in acceptance and just getting excited for college!! and I am SO EXCITED

   If anyone has any questions about this process, my inbox is open.

[marxism-lelouchism]

finished this first draft and will probably be tabling revisions for the foreseeable future but learned a few important things in the process

i do not have the capacity for academic-level political analysis & commentary anymore/at this time and i have to recognize my limitations and learn to be okay with this no matter how bad it feels

i’m not a better person/communist if i can write something really sharp and thought-provoking and i’m not a worse person/communist if i can’t

forcing myself to do things for the sake of proving to myself that i still can/using it as a personal political litmus test does not make me any more principled or disciplined. it in fact makes me miserable and associate feelings of dread and shame with work that can be and often is challenging/frustrating/difficult but ultimately needs to be generative and life-giving

making the completion of this "serious" piece a requirement for moving onto more "fun" things rather than allowing myself to work on multiple things concurrently without feeling guilty also contributed to turning it into feeling like a chore rather than something i felt called to do by the urgency of its subject matter

giving myself permission to just write a shitty first draft and then leave this piece alone for however long i need to is probably the smartest writing decision i can make for the sake of the piece and my own mental well-being

if not a formal political organization, i’m lacking a political community/home. without a place to support me and people to grow and work with, i’m just not in a position to write about and engage with these topics with the justice they deserve. i need to find this home first

“if it sucks hit da bricks” is something i need more practice actually doing

[booksb]

In the Study with the Wrench by Diana Peterfruend ((A Review))

Based on the classic board game, Clue, Diana Peterfreund writes an academic murder mystery. 

2/5 stars. It was incredibly boring in the first half, slightly good in the middle, and frustratingly insignificant at the end. Below is a spoiler-free in-dept review, with my commentary on how one should properly write a sequel.

This is a sequel to her first book, In the Hall with the Knife. When I found this book in my library, I didn't realize it was a sequel and continued to not realize until I was a third of the way into the book and checked on Goodreads to see what everyone else was saying. The general consensus is that the first book was better. I haven't read the first one, I never plan to, and here's why. Every chapter retold everything that happened previously at least once. I can tell you who the murderer was, who got murdered and why, the red herring, how the characters solved it, and how they changed. I feel like i could tell you more about the first book by reading the sequel than i could if i actually read the novel– when you read a plot in the present time, everything only happens once, but with this book, I've read the climax dozens of times, as if i had to study the sequences and had to make an exact timeline.

I wouldn't say that Peterfreund is a bad writer, I'd just say that she's bad at continuing a story. 

Here's something to remember when you're writing a sequel: remember that it is still a separate novel than its proceedings. It's okay to have the same characters, it's okay to have the same villain, but it needs to be different. No one wants to read a thousand summaries of a book they've already read. The characters still need to go through some sort of development. The plot, in this case the mystery, still needs to be alluring when it's separate. 

Another important thing to note when writing a sequel: know the difference between refreshing your readers' minds, and being So. Annoyingly. Redundant. You also need to sort through what information is relevant, what does the reader need to be reminded of?

First half was infuriating. Narration switched for no reason, all the characters were flat and had no motivation yet. The curtain had been called for the last act, the actors were told to stay on the stage, and to just wait for the second act to begin, while still being interesting during this intermission. All of it just resulted in awkward, stiff conversations between characters who have no souls. 

How was your break? You didn't do much? Oh me neither. Crazy what happened last semester, right? Uhhh anything new with you? No? Okay I'll go have this same conversation with the other 5 main characters and make the audience sit through every one of them before i begin the story. 

When the mystery actually began, I was quite enticed. She had a great way of introducing clues and the character interacted really well. However, the ending had little to do with all of the build-up. And, despite involving all of the characters with the solving of the mystery, trying to imply that each one of them had been involved in some way in the murder, only one character (and in my opinion, the most boring character) had any sort of connections with what actually happened. 

And then, the cliffhanger. This was meant to be the hook for the next book, the new mystery. I had already guessed what was going to happen before anybody died. If the cliffhanger isn't interesting, it's not a cliffhanger, it's just a bad ending.