#litcrit

[oliviawaite]

“The upfront fun of a con artist is the way they manipulate the social fabric. Prohibitive rules and unspoken undercurrents become navigational channels into locked spaces: Martin Bishop holding a cake and balloons so the guard has to open the security gate for him, Sophie Devereaux playing both a wealthy duchess and a nerdy art restorer to gain access to a locked gallery. It’s a game, a puzzle, a magic trick, and like all those things we automatically root for it to work.

But we also root for the con artist to get caught — not by the law, but by the social threads they so clearly understand. We want them to come to trust the partner they’re forced to work with, we want them to fall for the mark, to leave half the cash on the steps of the orphanage and get the real villain, the heartless villain, hauled away in cuffs. We’re always looking for the moment they start to see the con as a means of making people happy, rather than extracting wealth.”

[jadagul]

Vague spoilers for Wind and Truth below the cut.

Man, I overestimated how much this book was "the end of the arc" and underestimated how much it was "the midpoint of the series".

[necarion]

I really like Brandon Sanderson's Cosmere books. But there are two parts to the ending of Rhythm of War that I hate. There are parts of his books I am not thrilled with (including a lot of Rhythm) and even one (Dawnshard) that I think was generally lousy. But there's only one bit that's provoked such a strong negative emotion at a character's choice and subsequent consequences, from a Watsonian perspective. That, combined with Rhythm being generally plodding, has put me off a fandom I was obsessed with for a while.

[saintmachina]

I am endeavoring to get off Twitter for good and read actual articles and longform pieces, like, you know, literary criticism and cultural commentary and provocative personal essays and deep-dive reflections, but I am embarrassed to admit I don't actually know where to find them.

In magazines and websites, yes, sure, but every time I find an article from Vulture ("Against Women's Writing") or the NYT ("New York's Hottest Club Is The Catholic Church" and the critical articles that cropped up around it) I'm interested reading, it's behind a paywall, which is fine, I can subscribe to a few that I like, but not all of them obviously.

So the question is: where are you people getting your articles from? Where magazines do you subscribe to? And even better if they are smaller lesser known niche journals, I'm desperate to broaden my horizons and re-train my brain to go deep.

[violsva]

So I just rewatched the end of Daughters of the Crown (episode 14 of Neverafter, this one) because I was thinking it was a bit rushed (at least compared to how long the very femslashy part of my brain wanted it to be), and what's going on is that Brennan was clearly planning on ending the episode during the hug. But Siobhan stopped him. And if he had ended on the hug then the entire mood of that ending would have been different (and it definitely would have seemed longer and more meaningful).

And I think Siobhan was absolutely right to keep things going and end it where she did, if that's where Rosamund is at that point, because it wouldn't work well to begin the next episode with that conversation - it would very much step on the mood. And this way she didn't let that mood build up to the point where it would be misleading.

I haven't actually watched the next episode yet, so all I know is the preview, but it very much looks like that's what's going on, anyway. So it's interesting seeing the two narrative options there so clearly, and the choice between them. Because with Brennan's ending the perceived sympathies going into the next episode would be very different, either for the party/narrative as a whole or for just Rosamund. And with this ending we know exactly which side they're on, and that there's not going to be any intra-party conflict over this.

[sneezypeasy]

Watsonian vs Doylist Analyses - A Couple Points of Clarification

I just want to clear up a couple of misunderstandings I may have unintentionally contributed to in my previous references on the subject:

1. There can be multiple explanations (multiple Watsonian explanations, multiple Doylist explanations, multiple of each etc) of a given scene or character portrayal or plot point, and people can accept more than one explanation at the same time. It's just uncommon for people to accept or present multiple explanations at once because that's kind of how people people.

2. Doylist takes aren't inherently "better" than Watsonian takes, and vice versa. People use both to engage with the text in different ways and for different purposes. Watsonian logic is fun for roleplay or immersing yourself into the story, and I imagine a lot of fanfic writers often start from a prompt like "I wonder what would happen next if I took x character and then put them in y scenario". Doylist logic is fun if you like examining the text from a more "meta" standpoint, trying to see what purpose various narrative choices serve (or undermine). Neither angle is intrinsically a more valid way to engage with fiction, and you might enjoy doing one thing one day and another thing the next - with different texts or even with the same text.

In litcrit, because I like to pick my brain on the subject of "what would have made for the best story here", I tend to be more interested in analyzing theme, character arcs, setup and payoff etc, which are Doylist interpretations. Some people focus a lot on authorial intent, which is also a Doylist perspective (just a different one). Some people like to try to get into the heads of the characters they're analyzing and discuss ideas like "what choice would make the most sense for x character given who they are as a person". That's a Watsonian take. There are contextual and individual reasons why some explanations may resonate with you more than others some of the time or even most of the time, but they're really apples and oranges. Which one you prefer will likely vary depending on the type of question being posed and what scope seems to be the most appropriate for it - and people are always going to have different opinions about that too... because that's how people people.

Of course, the opinions I personally care enough about to splash all over the internet are going to be opinions I hold with very strong convictions, which is why I can come off quite aggressive about them, but they're still just opinions and there's no such thing as "one true explanation", whether that's Watsonian or Doylist. If I make a Doylist argument and I dismiss someone else's rebuttal on the basis of it being Watsonian, that's not because Watsonian takes are intrinsically weaker, it's just because you generally can't use a Watsonian take to rebut a Doylist one or vice versa. You need to engage with someone's point in order to counter it, and you can't generally do that when you completely change the scope of the question, which is what tends to happen when a Watsonian perspective and a Doylist perspective comes into conflict.

(Of course, you can argue that a Doylist scope is situationally stronger than a Watsonian one or vice versa, but that's a different argument and usually context-dependent lol - point is just because a Doylist answer might fit one particular prompt much better this time, doesn't mean all Doylist answers will always trump all Watsonian answers in every single context all of the time, and that's not even accounting for the fact that you're never going to reach unanimous agreement about these sorts of things anyway.)

I hope that clears things up 😊

[bitternanami]

[fervent, harried, gripping your shoulders] characters

[robtopus]

Still one of the best and most lucid works of Shakespeare criticism.

@transsexualcoriolanus it even has one on Coriolanus!

[jadagul]

I'm torn between citing Practical Guide to Evil, which loves this one:

“You could at least pretend you’re not spying on me,” I reproached. “We came by that information coincidentally, I assure you,” Cordelia politely lied.

and the greatest dialogue tag ever, from Wheel of Time:

"I won't shout at you," Nynaeve shouted.

I know everyone says it’s best to just stick to “said” as a dialogue tag bc it disappears and that’s true and I mostly do but I want to take a moment for my all-time favorite dialogue tag, “lied.” Absolutely nothing hits like “‘I’m here to help,’ he lied.” NOTHING.

[jadagul]

So there's this idea I've seen circulating periodically of "don't tag your hate", that fandom tags are for being positive about the fandom and if you're going to say negative things about a work you shouldn't tag it and harsh the vibe of the fans.

And this is, like, utterly baffling to me. If I'm a fan of something I want to see critical analysis! And some of that will say good things and some will say bad things. Unmitigated positivity mostly just pisses me off for being shallow.

Like, the first thing I ever really did with the internet was join a Wheel of Time fan community. But I also spent time looking for negative comments about the books. (I just didn't find any that made sense! The two critiques were "it's too long", which like fair enough but I was a bored speedreader in high school; and "all the female characters are indistinguishable", which may be one of the most incorrect claims about a work of literature that I've read.)

If I post meta about a work of literature, I'd kinda like people to argue with me! That's fun and engaging. (As long as the things they're saying aren't stupid, obviously, but stupid responses are annoying regardless of whether they're positive or negative.) And when I search for commentary, I'd like both positive and negative commentary.

I kind of suspect that I just don't do "fandom" in the sense that people who are part of fandom think and talk about it.

Of course, the weirdest one is that in the early days of this blog, I did a lot of criticism of effective altruism, and I got asked not to tag it "effective altruism" because that tag was for positive stuff about EA. Which is why my tag for effective altruism discussion is still "ea cw".

[necarion]

In A Practical Guide to Evil, one of the most lore-significant revelations is saved for the penultimate chapter and final chapters. It's the answer to something fans had been speculating on for years. And it's saved to the end for a point where it no longer actually matters, not really.

And that's perfect. Because this character has been doing things for a very long time, things that are harmful and evil, and this character needs to be stopped. Why they are doing these things? It's nice to know, but really, fundamentally not important to the story. Meaningful? Yes. It helps us contextualize everything from before. But not important.

Throughout, ErraticErrata remains extremely focused on delivering impact through the characters and their needs and goals. Plot and revelations happen for the characters, first and foremost. Because that is ultimately who we fare about.

[stephenminiotis]

Rough Drafts: The Submissive State: Conflict Theory (Miniotis)

The Submissive State: A Theory of Conflict and Control

Introduction

Throughout history, power dynamics have shaped human societies, from tribal hierarchies to modern nation-states. Traditional political theories often frame these dynamics in terms of competition, self-interest, and mutual cooperation. However, an overlooked yet fundamental structure exists within these relationships: submission and dominance. Borrowing from the kink community’s concepts of "topping" and "bottoming," I propose The Submissive State as a framework to understand how states, organizations, and individuals willingly assume positions of submission within broader power structures.

The Nature of Submission and Dominance

In the realm of BDSM, the "top" assumes control, leading the interaction, while the "bottom" submits, yielding power in an exchange built on consent and trust. These roles mirror real-world governance and international relations, where one entity assumes control, while another submits, often willingly, for the sake of security, stability, or economic benefits.

Submission, in this sense, is not a weakness but an active choice that enables structure. Just as a submissive partner in a relationship derives pleasure or fulfillment from yielding control, a submissive state finds security, protection, or economic prosperity in yielding to a dominant power. This can be seen in vassal states, protectorates, and even modern geopolitical alliances where smaller nations accept military oversight or economic dependency in exchange for stability.

Conflict as a Mechanism for Power Exchange

Conflict, whether violent or diplomatic, serves as a means of negotiating roles within this hierarchy. A state does not submit arbitrarily; it does so after recognizing the futility of resistance or the benefits of subordination. Similarly, the dominant state (or power) assumes its role not simply through force, but because submission is offered, consciously or otherwise.

The Cold War exemplifies this dynamic. The United States and the Soviet Union played the role of competing "tops," while many smaller nations were forced into submission—either willingly, through economic dependency, or unwillingly, through military intervention. Even today, the relationship between the U.S. and its allies can be seen as a structured form of topping and bottoming, where smaller nations align themselves under U.S. military or economic influence in exchange for protection and support.

The Stability of the Submissive State

A submissive state does not exist in perpetual servitude; rather, its submission is contingent on the competency of its "top." A poorly managed dominant power risks rebellion, just as an inadequate dominant partner in a relationship risks losing their submissive's trust. The submissive state, therefore, retains agency—it can withdraw submission, seek a new dominant power, or attempt to switch roles.

History is rife with examples of this transition. Former colonies that once submitted to imperial rule later rebelled, seeking autonomy. Nations under economic influence sometimes shift their allegiances to stronger or more favorable partners. Submission, therefore, is fluid, and dominance is never absolute.

Conclusion

The Submissive State offers a lens through which we can analyze power dynamics beyond mere conflict or cooperation. Submission is not solely about coercion but about structured relationships that allow for stability and prosperity. Just as in kink dynamics, the act of submitting can be a choice that brings security, while the act of topping requires responsibility and control. Understanding political and social structures through this framework allows us to see that dominance and submission are not merely roles imposed by force, but often chosen, negotiated, and even desired.

Shared with permission. Stephen Miniotis. 31 Jan 2025.

"Rough drafts become letters. stay tuned!"

[wakabawednesday]

everything is subjective but i so rarely find that “Oh.” or “Oh. Oh.” have any practical storytelling use. they have only ever served to break the rhythm of the story. i’m pulled away from my position as observer of experiences, sensations, actions, relegated to the barest inner dialogue alone to piece together the initial reaction. Oh tells me nothing. Seconds pass and I don’t get to watch them play out. Offensively, I have been barred from the story to which I thought I was invited. I have never seen this used with any sense of intentionality. I’m sure it could be. Instead, it often reads like the writer didn’t even think of doing it any other way. It reads lazy.

—

This scene from Matilda is a nice example of describing someone being taken by surprise.

Miss Honey has a series of escalating “oh” moments during this interaction on the first day of class, and her escalating excitement is touched on in a few ways. We feel the nervous and excited tension along with the children while she polishes her glasses, as we don’t get insight into what she’s thinking in that moment. The way she is talking is as though her thoughts are racing. Shortly after there’s a description of her physical feeling, and mention of her thoughts (described with words like “flitting!”). we don’t get any of her inner dialogue directly. then is a rather fast-paced and dialogue heavy interaction; the action here is to support the building pace of the scene. Then the limerick, where for a few moments we are pulled entirely away from observing the world as we process the poem. The tension of the scene has reached its peak. We are drawn into Matilda’s POV as we wait nervously for Miss Honey’s reaction… and it is beautiful. Both her reaction and the paragraph itself read like a flowing unfurling in the sunlight, a slow, warm, radiant stretch that releases the tension of the preceding moments. It is a moment of deep connection and touching kindness to anchor the scene; Matilda has made Miss Honey smile a genuine smile. Miss Honey sees in Matilda a child of not only magnificent intellect but startling sensitivity and gentleness.

—

Miss Honey stared at her. Then she picked up a pencil and quickly worked out the sum on a piece of paper. "What did you say it was?" she said, looking up.

"Two hundred and sixty-six,' Matilda said.

Miss Honey put down her pencil and removed her spectacles and began to polish the lenses with a piece of tissue. The class remained quiet, watching her and waiting for what was coming next. Matilda was still standing up beside her desk. […]

Miss Honey was feeling quite quivery. There was no doubt in her mind that she had met a truly extraordinary mathematical brain, and words like child-genius and prodigy went flitting through her head. She knew that these sorts of wonders do pop up in the world from time to time, but only once or twice in a hundred years. […]

'I know,' Matilda said. “I've tried quite a few times but mine are never any good.'

‘You have, have you?" Miss Honey said, more startled than ever. “Well, Matilda, I would very much like to hear one of these limericks you say you have written. Could you try to remember one for us?'

‘Well,' Matilda said, hesitating, ‘I’ve atually been trying to make up one about you, Miss Honey, while we've been sitting here.'

‘About me!' Miss Honey cried. Well, we've certainly got to hear that one, haven't we?'

‘I don't think I want to say it, Miss Honey.'

'Please tell it,' Miss Honey said. I promise I won't mind.'

‘I think you will, Miss Honey, because I have to use your first name to make things rhyme and that's why I don't want to say it.'

‘How do you know my first name?' Miss Honey asked.

‘I heard another teacher calling you by it just before we came in,' Matilda said. 'She called you Jenny.'

‘I insist upon hearing this limerick,' Miss Honey said, smiling one of her rare smiles. 'Stand up and recite it.’

Reluctantly Matilda stood up and very slowly, very nervously, she recited her limerick:

'The thing we all ask about Jenny Is, "Surely there cannot be many Young girls in the place With so lovely a face?" The answer to that is, "Not any!"’

The whole of Miss Honey's pale and pleasant face blushed a brilliant scarlet. Then once again she smiled. It was a much broader one this time, a smile of pure pleasure.

[jadagul]

I've been reading an old copy of The Phantom Tollbooth to my girlfriend, and tonight we finished it. And just for fun I read some of the ads for other books at the end, and I found what may be the greatest book blurb in history.

A Dark Horn Blowing Dahlov Ipcar Far out across the sands stretching silver-white into the darkening bay, the cow was calling. That mourning, that sadness; it filled my whole soul with its sorrow. But there were words crying in the sound, and it was not the cow that spoke those words, but a small man with a horn standing by a long, black boat there at the edge of the tide. The cow's lowing became the dark horn blowing, and then it was too late ­— if ever I could have turned back I could no longer. 'Here is a remarkable piece of fantasy; haunting title, magical opening chapter — I can promise you the rest won't disappoint.' Naomi Lewis

Everything about that is amazing. The author's name is spectacular. And whoever wrote that blurb has literary pretensions far in excess of their wordsmithing capabilities.

I tried to read it out loud, broke twice, gave it to my girlfriend, who then broke at how hard I was laughing. There were words crying in the sound, and it was not the cow that spoke those words.

[necarion]

Book review: Twelfth Knight (2024) is a modern day retelling of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, featuring characters playing MMOs and going to conventions.

It also seeks to answer the question: "What if Twelfth Night, but less gay?"

I was optimistic about this story, but I think I'm done with it about halfway in. I jest about the gayness (although there is thus far only guilt and anxiety about the deception, nothing actually funny from it), but the core problem is that the protagonist is just mean. The story tries to justify it by "she's a girl in geek fandom and everyone is mean and belittling to her, can you blame her for being angry?" But then she's just as mean to guys who aren't meeting her standards for proper geekdom.

Part of her (and the author's, I think) anger issues are that the world tells women to be more agreeable, to smile more, to go with the flow more. And that everyone telling her that she's an asshole.

But she is. Somehow, the protagonist of an adaptation of a Shakespearean comedy is more offputting than Kvothe.

[stephenminiotis]

The Body Politic (Sample Letter to a Prof)

THE BODY POLITIC

By artist ("comrade"?) Stephen Miniotis

THE ARTIST

"We're all artists: else, none of us ever were." — Stephen Miniotis

Art is not the privilege of the few, nor the domain of the trained—it is the birthright of every human being. The very act of creation, from the moment a child scrawls symbols in the dirt to the grandest of masterworks, is a fundamental part of human expression. If art belonged only to the celebrated, to the anointed few, then no one would have ever been an artist to begin with. For art to exist at all, it must be universal.

Yet, before an artist enters the public eye—before their work is consumed, appraised, or understood—they exist in what could be called a pre-social contract state. Inspired by Thomas Hobbes, this is a condition of nature, a realm of pure artistic solitude. In this space, art has no intrinsic value beyond the artist’s own satisfaction. It is free from commerce, critique, and cultural expectation. In this moment, the artist creates for no one but themselves, their work existing in a vacuum, unseen and untouched by the greater world.

But this is not a sustainable state. Art, by its nature, craves an audience. The artist, like all individuals, seeks to leave a mark upon the world. And so, they step forward from obscurity, presenting their work to the public, unknowingly entering into an unspoken contract with society—one that will judge, elevate, and, ultimately, oppose them.

APOTHEOSIS

The artist does not simply emerge into the public sphere; they collide with it. To create is to invite opposition. The world is full of art, much of it unnoticed, derivative, or mundane. But when an artist dares to be different—when they break from convention, challenge expectations, or redefine a form—they become the subject of scrutiny. Opposition, then, is not a failure but a catalyst. It is the force that separates the remarkable from the ordinary.

This opposition gives rise to an artist’s Apotheosis, the moment where they transcend the common pastiche of their peers and become something more. Their art, once devoid of value, is suddenly priceless. They achieve recognition, fame, even veneration. They become icons, their work immortalized in culture.

But this glory is fleeting. The Apotheosis of an artist is merely the climax of a cycle. As new opposition arises, as tastes shift and styles evolve, the once-revered creator is cast down. Their art, once vital, becomes relic—respected, perhaps, but no longer at the forefront of the cultural conversation. They return to the shadows, back to the drudges of obscurity, once again in the pre-social contract state from which they emerged. The cycle begins anew.

OPPOSITION THEORY

If an artist is to rise, they must first be opposed. But even at the height of their Apotheosis, they are not free from conflict. Opposition is a constant. Whether they are loved, hated, misunderstood, or imitated, the artist is always subject to the gaze of others.

Opposition Theory posits that all art is opposed. No work is created in a vacuum, and none escapes scrutiny. Whether through rejection, critique, or imitation, every piece of art is engaged with, dissected, and challenged. The greater the work, the greater the opposition.

Even when art has no clear meaning, society seeks to decipher it. Symbols are projected upon it, messages are unearthed, and interpretations are imposed. The artist, then, is never truly in control of their own work. Once released into the world, art takes on a life of its own, existing independently of its creator.

To be an artist, then, is to be opposed. It is a social condition as much as a creative one. The artist exists in a state of perpetual friction with the world around them. But this is not a tragedy—it is a necessity. Without opposition, there can be no transformation. Without resistance, there can be no Apotheosis.

THREE FACTIONS: On Neutrality

Beyond the realm of art, humanity itself is divided into factions: The Good, The Evil, and The Neutral. These are not mere moral categories, but existential states, ones that shape both individual identity and the role of the artist.

Goodness is a state of selflessness. When we are young, we are idealists. We create art for the joy of it, for the love of expression, without thought of personal gain. This is the purest form of creativity, yet it is also the most fragile. The world does not reward selflessness indefinitely.

Evil, then, is the reaction. In order to survive, in order to prosper, an artist must embrace selfishness. They must profit, compete, and dominate. They must navigate the systems of power that govern the artistic world—patrons, markets, critics, and collectors. In this state, art becomes transactional. It serves a purpose beyond itself. It is no longer simply created; it is sold.

But there is a third path. To transcend both selflessness and selfishness, to move beyond Good and Evil, is to embrace Neutrality. This is the artist’s final evolution. To be Neutral is to create without dependence on external validation, yet without rejecting engagement with the world. It is to understand the necessity of both purity and profit, to accept the cycles of opposition and apotheosis without being bound by them.

The Neutral artist is neither slave to the market nor martyr to idealism. They create because they must, yet they do not seek nor reject the consequences of their creation. They are beyond fame, beyond obscurity, beyond opposition itself. In this state, they are truly free.

---

(...) What are your thoughts? I suppose a reaction to "no reaction" or "opposition always" is absolutely necessary.

Or i'm just trolling. Sometimes even I can't tell.

Sort of reminds me of what we learned in your class about American Lit, professor! Thank you for the inspiration!