#lit meta

[degenderates]

And so what if the author has a sexual fetish for the torment nexus? One can have a sexual fetish for the torment nexus while also warning against the creation of the torment nexus. We are dichotomous beings, humans

[literallyjusttoa]

"A Jester can mock, and the King cannot fight

For the gift of free thought is the jester's one right."

A sweet golden prince who lived up in the sky,

Listened to his families' terrible fights,

The ceiling would rumble, the tile would shake,

The throne room was fragile, and soon it would break.

He'd attempt to speak, but it never went right,

His father would rage, and he'd lose every fight,

As decades passed by, it soon became clear,

The King saw his son as a monster to fear.

The Prince quickly followed every command,

Only to be trapped by his father's cruel hand,

Years of destruction with no end in sight,

This war would not end with a large act of might.

And so the Prince stopped fighting fire with fire,

And instead he pulled out his golden stringed lyre,

Since he had no respect, he would leave the King's cage,

And swap out the throne room for a shining stage.

He taunted with wit and he giggled with guile,

And even his sorrow he shared with a smile,

His father's gaze lessened, his temper was tame,

As his once "Golden Prince" treated life like a game.

The centuries passed and the mirth never ceased,

The sun never set on the first son of Greece,

He danced for his siblings and bit down his pain,

Since each peal of laughter meant there'd be less rain.

There's only one role for which there are no rules,

So who is the jester, and who is the fool?

[malinaa]

idk if it's been talked about before but suzanne collins never misses a BEAT when it came to names, specifically coriolanus snow and dr volumnia gaul. just from their first names alone you can already guess what type of role might play between them (well... if you've read shakespeare's coriolanus that is. i do recommend it btw).

a lot of bits were taken from shakespeare's play for tbosas like the motif with scars / wounds / the body as being a microcosm of the nation, the common people fighting up against the government, coriolanus' hatred of the common people wanting to be "equal" to him, the rebel arc etc etc but i'm soooo so so interested in the fact that dr gaul was named volumnia and coriolanus is coriolanus because in the play, coriolanus' mother's name is volumnia!

volumnia is arguably the only female character in the play that has any depth (i am so sorry virgilia). his mother shapes her son into the warrior he is. she reminds him at every turn that he is nothing more than a weapon to be wielded. in fact, she's the one who gets her son to come back from his "revolt" against rome which ultimately lead to his demise. this parallels tbosas in the same way because dr gaul took coriolanus and molded him into the villain you would see in thg trilogy. she brought him back from d12 and then brought about the end of his humanity (a death, so to speak��at the end of the book he said something similar to this to try to save himself from lucy gray's suspicions but he was right because he did kill a part of himself to be where he is)! coriolanus snow's mother is present but off-page. her ghost haunts him, comforts him, but the 'mother' figure is the ever-present, all-knowing dr gaul.

UGH! like with just their names you could map out where they end up at the end of the story and that's literally insane. like the caliber of writing is literally next to none fr

[le-trash-prince]

I will say, Kidnap is turning out to be as pulpy as I was initially hoping it would be.

It's fast-paced in a way that BL rarely is—our hero finds himself in a new predicament every week, struggling to balance his situational needs with his moral code. He's fighting off loan sharks, his brother has health issues, he's struggling with a kidnapping that he's not emotionally committed to, he's falling for his target, he's getting involved with the mafia, and soon enough, the police will be on his tail.

It may not be as heavily sexual as some pulp can be, but Kidnap bears markers of erotic and romantic pulp stories—it's tinged with situational bondage, we have a sadistic villain, and its romance is built on a contrast of high danger and emotional tenderness. As a romantic lead, Min is both strong and vulnerable, while Q plays a "damsel in distress" who is smart, snarky, and more capable than he seems.

Because I'm not fluent in Thai, I'm not comfortable speaking to the wittiness or snappiness of the dialogue, but the show is funny, and the comedy brings a levity that such a fast-paced story needs. Not all shows dealing with heavy topics like loan sharks or mafia need a lighthearted or silly aspect, and often this can be out of place, but when you are moving as quickly as Kidnap, those heavier elements can feel like a constant barrage.

I won't declare that the show was for-sure going for a pulp feeling, but it certainly bears the markers of a lot of pulp literature. Pulp weeklies (which, incidentally, made a lot of their money off of advertisements x), needed stories that would keep their readers coming back week after week. How will Min get out of this predicament now?

Overall, I hope that people can take Kidnap as it is without judging it for failing to achieve something that it's not trying to accomplish. Pulp may not be for everyone, and that's fine. It's certainly not high-brow literature, it was made to be accessible to the masses, but many great writers got their start in pulp, and the pulp era had a lasting impact on modern storytelling. Personally, I tend to really love things with strong pulp influences, so I am being well fed by Kidnap. Maybe that will change in the future, but so far I have enjoyed each episode more than the last.

[championashley]

Something that I keep coming back to regarding dead boy detectives, and how it differs from so many queer shows regarding coming out and realizing you're queer.

It's not just shown, it is EXPERIENCED.

We aren't just shown an Edwardian teen having a sexual awakening, we are put right in the middle of that storm. they throw those images right in our faces and make us hear the Cat King's sexy voice in our ears.

We aren't just shown that same teen dreamily looking at the object of his desires. we are put into a POV shot, softening the background noises and making Jayden Revri look as drop-dead gorgeous as possible for one moment.

I just finished my first class in film school, and one of the things talked about frequently was perspective. How the audience views the story, and how that viewpoint can color our experience of it. Whether we root for a character or against them.

The show takes an experience that may seem to people as 'other', as too different or alien to straight audiences, and puts said audience in the middle of it. They are frequently placed in the perspective of a gay Edwardian teen discovering who he is and in doing so, place their faith in the audience that they will understand.

Dead Boy Detectives uses the language of cinema to make its audience identify with a queer character on a primal level. That is something I never thought possible. and yet, when you think about it, it is so simple.

[lookmomitsmytmblr]

OKAY so I am re-listening to "Death and The Queen" again and I am having Thoughts™.

I can't find any info about when this drama takes place continuity-wise, but my personal placement would be after "Planet of The Ood" (4x3) and before "The Sontaran Stratagem" (4x4) because 4x4-4x6 take place directly following each other with Donna stating at the end of 4x6 that she plans to travel with the Doctor forever. Donna's determination to continue traveling w him is in keeping with the conclusion of Death and The Queen, where she comes to the decision that the Doctor IS her "happily ever after," as it were. Placing the drama after "Fires of Pompeii" and "Planet of The Ood" also makes sense with Donna's desire in the audio drama to have a break from "the extraordinary" of traveling with the Doctor (specifically, horrific death and destruction,) which adds understandable context to her seemingly being so willing to leave the Doctor after searching for him for so long.

 (Don't talk to me about the ending of Forest of The Dead. It's unlikely Donna would have left the Doctor even if she found Lee. Donna's desire to confirm whether Lee was real could be easily contextualized by her wanting to know how much of her experiences inside CAL were a fabrication, and what the supposed "perfect husband" persona would have said about her if it was drawn from her own mind. Also it was written by Moffatt so it shouldn't count anyway.)

ANyway, what I actually wanted to talk about. Notably, considerable emphasis is placed on Donna enjoying her role as Queen and especially caring for her subjects and having power to help people. A greater amount of text is dedicated to her talking about how as Queen she can care for her subjects than her love for Rudolph, even before the reveal that he is human(?) trash. Her attachment to the role of Queen that marrying Rudolph will grant her is established to be largely based upon her passion for helping people rather than luxuries associated with rank, especially in view of the montage of how royal life on Gorotainia is not as glamorous as she hoped but is still enthralled by being Queen. Later in the story, when danger has appeared, her main role in the story is sacrificing and taking the lead to protect her subjects.

Notably, when things start going downhill and Rudolph starts talking to her about the difficult choices that he must make as royalty she comments that Rudolph is “just like HIM” (the Doctor) and that she went with Rudolph to escape these darker aspects of her travels with the Doctor, specifically the hard choices that go with the role the Doctor plays in the universe (while she doesn’t connect these concepts directly, these two statements are placed very close to one another textually.)

Only when her relationship with Rudolph and role as Queen seems like it will involve some of the same dark choices that her travels with Doctor did does Donna decide she doesn’t want to be involved anymore, which is quickly reversed when she finds out she needs to become Queen in order to protect her people. (I love Donna. In case you can’t tell.)

The narrative has established that a large part of Donna’s attachment to her relationship with Rudolph is potential authority to help and guide people, and that her main interest in pursuing a life with Rudolph rather than her travels with the Doctor was her perception that her role as Queen of Gorotainia would not involve the same death and destruction she has seen with the Doctor. Perfectly understandable after experiencing something like Pompeii.

Donna’s compassion and empathy have been essential components of her character since her introduction, with her wanting to protect the Doctor despite being irritated with him and feeling sorrow for the children of a Rancoss that wanted her to be eaten in “The Runaway Bride”, her taking the time to mention Stacy in “Partners In Crime,” and literally everything in “Fires of Pompeii” and “Planet of The Ood’. Donna has always taken the time and the energy to think of others and work to protect them, even this early in her run. In view of how deeply she feels the pain of others, it is understandable that she would find the idea of a world where she could help others from a position of power without all of the death and chaos and destruction appealing, and her outrage at Rudolph for once again putting her in a position where she has to witness (and potentially be responsible for) terrible things happening to innocent people is believable. He proves that being a Gorotainian royal is like being the Last of The Time Lords. On a smaller scale, sure, but still. 

So the text (and Donna) have set up the idea of Rudolph being similar to the Doctor in role, so what is the difference? Rudolph doesn’t much care about people. He is willing to sacrifice his own people quite coldly.

The Doctor does care about people. How good of a person he is, or how good of a job he does caring for people is up for debate, but he cares.

Which all leads me to this quote from “Beautiful Chaos,” that I cannot believe is cannon and real and published.

Why does Donna love the Doctor?

"I wish you could see what I see. We've been to places, to worlds, to futures and pasts you could only dream about. I think half of them I dreamed up because they can't be real. But they are. And everywhere we go, we make a difference. We put things right, we make people happier. That's what the Doctor is all about. He finds a way for the universe to make sense. And I love him for it.”

Donna Noble wants to make a difference. No matter where she goes, she cannot escape the death and pain and suffering and chaos and nonsense that is the universe, and she can’t help but want to help. And right there beside her, the Doctor is working to put things right too. And she loves him for it.

We have this entire drama dedicated to Donna wanting to make a difference, while also escaping the darkness of the universe, and she learns she can’t. There are no happily ever afters.

Except with the Doctor.

I have so many feelings guys.

[yuri-puppies]

ok now that my joke post about how kabru looks like an evil advisor but is actually just a guy helping out his friend by providing an accessibility need has over 10k notes, are we ready to talk about orientalism and the evil vizier trope and how the whole meta joke of kabru as a character is that he triggers all of these red flags associated with brown antagonists but he's actually a really upstanding guy? and how that panel is a continuation of that joke?

[definitely-not-an-alb]

Tombs of Atuan is such an insane novel (yassss gurl lead that thirsty old man to the spring hidden in your secret holy cave :3) and I mean this 100% seriously: it's only good because it's a Jungian nightmare (complimentary). The fundamental problem of writing a novel containing some kind of untouchable magic secret at its heart is that story demands the secret be revealed at some point, but revealing the secret immediately makes it loose whatever lustre it possessed. Le Guin introduces a secret beyond the secret that remains by necessity of the target audience textually unspoken throughout. It is so omnipresent the actual magical mystery becomes irrelevant to maintaining the narrative tension and is so tantalizing the reduction of the actual - I forgot what type of jewellery needs stealing, proving my point - magic McGuffin to, well, a McGuffin, is barely noticeable. Despite the metaphor being so present in the text the plot never stops making sense, and between it and the unspeakableness of the subject in the readers' and writer's mind both, the latter half takes on this lucid dreamscape-like movement. It's the narrative equivalent of tasting that one perfect bite of a deliciously umami morsel. One could say it lingers on the tongue like - (I am forcible removed from speaking further at the children's book conference)

[drakaripykiros130ac]

I just want to take this moment to applaud the confirmation that we still have rational people in the Asoiaf fandom.

The last shit show episode was marked down as the worst ever.

A big round of applause to common sense!

👏

[mactiir]

I know the average reading comprehension on this site is zero but I'm different. I'm applying wildly inappropriate analysis lenses to popcorn media. I'm doing a queer theory reading of Horus Heresy novels. Now I'm doing feminist analysis of Warhammer 40k canon. Now I'm applying Marxist analysis to The Outsiders. Time for a historical analysis of The Locked Tomb. A post-colonial reading of the entirety of Doctor Who. A psychological anlaysis of Twilight. On the horseshoe scale of reading comprehension I'm at "so much reading comprehension that it loops back around to not understanding books at all actually". You can't stop me. I'm literary analysis Georg

[neo--queen--serenity]

I can’t believe I only just now noticed this.

But when Francis is using his ability, which is named after the irl Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby, he glows GREEN.

The GREEN LIGHT was a central narrative tool used throughout The Great Gatsby novel. It was a huge deal to Gatsby, and was a consistent metaphor for his love for his romance interest, Daisy.

Fitzgerald, whose character in BSD is meant to directly mimic Gatsby, has a wife and child he would commit atrocities for. He believes what Gatsby believes: that only through money and power can he can live happily with the people he loves.

He embodies the Green Light and everything it stands for when he activates his ability, and that’s so fucking cool to me.

[o-wild-west-wind]

y’all out here saying Izzy’s death made no narrative sense because it’s a comedy show clearly haven’t seen the Shakespeare post…I’m sorry I really am but death immunity only applies to the romantic leads the genre has not changed babes

(I don’t mean this to be patronizing, but genuinely: critically analyzing and engaging with art is a skill, and an important one. it’s a tool that will help you in the real world, for real current events. use this as practice not to take everything at face value. sad art does not equal bad art!)

[strawberrytalia]

the batfandom has a really weird way of viewing poverty and wealth.

like between the way they depict jason, the treatment towards willis, how they write steph, a LOT of microaggressions towards cass and duke (also racism), an erasure of dick’s background in favor of calling him ‘spoiled’ (very untrue btw), the pedestal they place tim on, the obsession with galas and fame tied to wealth, and this tendency to gloss over damian’s trauma and abuse just because he was “raised to be an heir” it’s uh…interesting

[malinaa]

the fact that basically in every everthorne scene, peeta is a ghost that fills the spaces between katniss and gale even before katniss knew peeta. their first scene in the book gale has the baker’s bread!!! and every moment after the games, she cannot think of gale without the thought of peeta in the back of her head. every everthorne interaction really just cements the way their relationship will never prosper. they would just burn and burn and burn until there’s nothing left but ashes

[icemankazansky]

@pscentral event 13: tropes

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

Errors, “Errors,” and Animorphs

So in a different post I ranted about how a tiny non-distracting unfixable difference between two shirts is not an error in Jurassic Park.  IMHO, a continuity gap is only an error if:

It draws attention to itself and distracts the audience

It could’ve been fixed pretty easily in-story

It makes character, plot, or setting nonsensical

Animorphs has continuity gaps of its own.  And I have opinions about what we readers do and do not count as “error.”  First, an example that’s clearly an error:

I wondered if Tobias had heard my thought. I concentrated. Tobias, can     you hear me?

«Yeah,» he said, «I hear you.»

“Did you hear my thoughts before that?” I asked.

«No, I don’t think it works that way.  You have to think at me for me to     hear.»

—#1: The Invasion

Tobias briefly hearing Jake thought-speak in #1 breaks the rules of the setting; several other books (#2, #23, #31, #33, #46) clearly state that it’s impossible to thought-speak if one is human and not in morph.  It’s an easy fix; the re-releases and audiobooks delete this moment, and the graphic novel makes Tobias unable to hear Jake.  It distracts the audience; I’ve gotten 5 or 6 separate asks over the years of people going “I was rereading #1, and the weirdest thing...” It’s an error.  I can’t say what happened behind the scenes — K.A. Applegate toyed with a thread that was later dropped, or decided to introduce a limitation for plot fuel at a later time.  But it’s an error.

Second, an example that I don’t think counts as an error:

I returned to my life, feeling strange and out of place. That night Jake came over. We went outside.

"I tried morphing the Tyrannosaurus," he said. "Nothing. Didn't work."

"You could ask Ax. He may know why."

Jake laughed. "Yeah, but even if he explains it, I still won't understand it."

—MM2: In the Time of the Dinosaurs [Cassie’s narration]

The kids not being able to morph dinosaurs outside of the Cretaceous Era makes a lot of sense in context.  The whole book series would fundamentally change if they could use T. rex — that would become heavily a favored morph for many of them.  It kicks off all kinds of plot questions that demand answers: Where do the controllers think the “andalite bandits” got dino DNA? What anti-dinosaur measures would they be forced to adopt? Would the Animorphs’ whole strategy change around having those morphs? How would Rachel feel about everyone but Tobias suddenly having a much stronger morph than her? Would they even bother with contemporary animal morphs afterward?

If the kids are morphing dinosaurs all the time after ~#18, then the series loses a lot of its uniqueness.  Applegate has said that most of the inspiration for the series was about trying to help kids understand what it would really be like to be inside an animal mind, with as many animals as possible.  That’s part of why so many of the plots hinge on giving the Animorphs an excuse to learn a new morph (e.g. #4, #17, #27, #47, #52) so that we can experience the coolness right along with them.  That’s why the war is explicitly about fighting for Earth, nonhumans and all (#7, #23, #53).  If it’s not a menagerie of six different critters — including one immigrant from space — rolling up to battle, then it’s not Animorphs. No, it makes no dang sense that sario rip morphs stop working once the rip gets unripped.  But the series acknowledges it, and it allows us both to have a unique animal-based story (dinosaurs! Heckin dinosaurs!) without ruining its own premise.

Third, one that I find fascinating because it’s kind of right on the margin:

"What I don't get is why I have to be a girl wolf," Marco grumbled.

"We had one male and one female," Cassie explained for the tenth time. "If two of us morphed into the male, we'd have two males. Two male wolves might decide they had to fight for dominance."

"I could control it," Marco said.

"Marco, you and Jake already fight for dominance, and you're just ordinary guys," Rachel pointed out.

—#3: The Encounter

Later, Tobias’s narration uses the word “alpha” to describe Jake’s morphed behavior — howling and peeing to mark territory, challenging another wolf pack to protect his own.

There is scientific consensus right now, as of the 2020s, that the term “alpha” is an inaccurate descriptor of pack-lead behavior, and that dominance fights between adult males are almost nonexistent.  That although wolves usually run in a phalanx-like shape with one middle-aged male and female at the point, this isn’t the result of dominance fights but rather an effort to have the physically strongest wolves absorb blows from rogue prey animals or rival predators.  That the dominance fights observed in captive wolves in the 1970s were the result of an ecology error, putting wolves from rival packs into single enclosures.  Fox (1972, 1973) gave a reasonably accurate description of how wolves behave if you put a bunch of adult strangers in a zoo together: the young adult males fight, the winner of that fight wins first access to food, and the mate of the winner gets the most resources for her puppies.

However, time rolls forward, and advances like hidden cameras (and the resurgence of wild wolf populations) allow us to watch wolves without needing to capture them first.  Mech (1999) follows some such wolves around, and quickly realizes that dominance and submission aren’t nearly as important among wolves who chose to make a pack.  Stahler et al. (2002) figure out a better way to introduce stranger wolves in captivity, and get full cooperation among young adult males.  Nowadays drones and radio collars get 1000s of times the wolf data Fox had to work with, and reveal intense cooperation with little more than play-fighting among puppies.

The Encounter comes out 1997.  Mech publishes the first big takedown of the alpha concept 1999.

Did an error occur anywhere in this process?

No, in that Applegate presumably doesn’t own a Time Matrix and published a book based on the scientific consensus at the time about how wolf social dynamics worked.

Yes, in that the error is pretty distracting — I get drawn up short by it every time I reread #3, and I know others have too.

No, in that the error was corrected in the graphic novel adaptation.

Yes, in that the error is still present in the audiobook, and Michael Crouch delivers the moment about Jake being backed into a dominance fight with all of Tobias’s exasperated humor.

No, in that the error allows for some character moments, both silly (Jake peeing on trees) and sweet (Jake being ready to take on an entire rival pack alone, over a rabbit he doesn’t want).

Yes, in that the error takes away from one of the series’ most fundamental purposes, to educate kids about animals.

Anyway, books are great, science is imperfect, and I think the more we all engage with amateur criticism the more we’re all going to learn about what counts as an error in fiction writing with inspiration in scientific reality.