#not the books or the author and certainly not about the discourse

[countless-potr]

I have 2 brothers and 2 sisters, it was a full house. Wasn't easy to get all of us spending quality time together. There's a couple moments that really stick out in my brain though. Trying to watch the Grinch while the volume was out on the living room tv and eventually using the power of our combined puppy dog eyes to convince our mom to let us watch it on the working tv in her room all piled up in the bed with her.

Climbing the tree in the back yard we weren't supposed to climb while our mom and dad screamed at each other in the house. All of us got up there. 5 kids one tree, I'd always try and climb the highest. There was a little valley behind our house. Maybe more like a storm drain then anything. And we'd just stare out into it and talk. My big brother would always talk about how he was going to get away from here and one day he'd come back for us all. (He did get away but he never came back. I didn't expect him to. He was never any kind of a hero.) Just up in a tree for an hour daydreaming out loud about going somewhere where there where no spankings, screaming parents, or bugs, and taking care of ourselves.

A much happier memory though was Mom reading to us. All of us at once, ages 15 to 5. I don't imagine it was easy to find a good book for that but one day she borrowed a book from my brother from his school library and it was perfect. Fantasy, adventure, pretty simple for the younger kids, not to simple for the older ones, and it started with a boy just like me. Wearing dirty hand me down clothes, being locked away, scared, hungry, miserable, and escaping into a good and magical place. I think we all wanted to escape like that even Mom. My uncle came and took us all to see the first movie in theaters before Mom finished the first book for us. That was so special. We never got to go out like that.

I think it was less then a year later that someone called social services. It wasn't the first time but it was going to be the last. All the dreams of getting away don't really prepare you for what's on the other side. You don't get to keep all the people you love and there wasn't new better parents waiting. Just a series of guardians who would care for me for about a year before deciding they "weren't a good fit" and sending me on my way. The world changed around me constantly, I figured out how to cope, how to mask, how to recenter myself with the shows loved and the books I reread over and over. You don't get to keep a lot of stuff with you. Finding out you're moving the week before or even the day of meant a lot of shoving things in trash bags and misplaced possessions. But every school has a library, you map it out and you're set.

I kept up with every new book in that series my mom would read. They'd take so long to come to the school libraries but I'd wait, happy and excited for more. They got darker and it felt like they were growing up with me. The 3rd was my favorite, I didn't like the 5th but the last book was the first time I remember being truly disappointed with the series. I was in highschool and probably to old to not notice the series' flaws. But at the time I kinda felt like an outsider to the love the rest of my family still had for it.

Growing up I still saw my siblings and parents on the weekends and we all stayed attached to these books, talking with my mom about the newest one, and getting excited when my little brother finally caught up with the me so we could debate theories. But then the last one came out and I was alone disliking it. What a weird emotion that was. To feel lonely because of a bad book.

I am gender fluid, my gender depends on the hour, sometimes it's this thing, or that thing, or many things, or nothing. I took a long time to figure it out but while I thought I was cis and heterosexual (also not that) I was learning all I could about the queer community on tumblr. Not the best place to do that. But I was in a group home at the time and then I was unbelievably broke. It's hard to go out like that. While there I kept seeing stories of one of my favorite childhood authors giving all her money to charities, supporting women's rights and the LGBT community. She made a beloved kids character gay! That seemed very cool to me. Didn't matter that it wasn't in the book. The only gay characters I had ever seen in fiction were in fanfiction.

I'm almost 30 now. Things have changed. I'm living with my parents, isn't that weird. Dad's gotten old, Moms losing her hearing, we're all still poor. I haven't forgiven them but I still love them and there's no point being angry now. The world's gone to shit. I'm sure you've noticed the constant bad news, like remember that author I told you about? The one that seemed amazing and open minded about the LGBT community? Yeah, turns out she's a monster. A paranoid powerful woman trying to use her money and influence to destroy the people she's scared of. And she's scared of me. A rat poor living with their parents 29 year old, how pathetic is she. I know compassion can be hard when you're scared but there is never a good reason to be cruel. I hope she deletes her socials, retired to the country and spends the rest of her days sitting on her porch alone saying hateful things to the air where no one can hear her and no one cares.

She's trying to take something from me. Something far more horrible then a few mediocre kids books, but I think I'm going to keep this one little thing. Just this one, the first one. I got rid of the rest. I've had this for over 20 years and its mine now. It's a memory. A little dream. Like a painting in a childhood bedroom. You didn't ever need or want to know the political views of the artist and it doesn't really matter if it's good or not it's just yours.

Trans Lives Matter

[wickedlittleoz]

an artist i follow got an ask about whether it was alright to use their art as covers for fanfic bookbinding and i'm. sorry i must have missed this discourse but since when are people outright printing out other people's work and binding them into books? do you contact and get author's permission (sure as fuck hope so)? and how do we writers feel about that, because i certainly feel very uncomfortable with that idea. i mean not to spoil the artistic expression of bookbinding because it's beautiful work that i most certainly could not do, but. you can access them stories any time you want on the websites where they were originally posted. why print them? again i mean i get the pleasure of holding & reading physical books, i much prefer that too, but like. get some books i guess? sorry i come from a place of honesty and tbh surprise and confusion about this whole thing. someone tell me how we're feeling about this. someone explain to me why it's being done. i just wanna understand

[olderthannetfic]

Hi I'm sorry for the incoming rant but I'm so frustrated and I need somewhere safe to yell. This is insanely long so I 100% understand if no one wants to read all this.

It’s so fucking ironic that people are trying to make publishing more friendly towards queers/women/POC/disabled people/etc. but at the same time they’re turning publishing into a fucking minefield of discourse.

I'm an autistic, bisexual woman with multiple mental illnesses and a learning disability and I'm absolutely terrified to publish anything.

Everyone keeps going “We love books by minorities! Hashtag own voices! We love to support minorities and their stories! Even if you’re not a minority, we love to see authors making characters that are! :)”

But they certainly don't act like it.

They see people like Amélie Wen Zhao or Tess Sharpe or Isabel Fall get harassed relentlessly and they go, “Well if people dogpile someone over something it was obviously because that person did something Bad And Wrong™ so if you’re a Good Person™ the twitter masses won’t have to punish you :)” except in reality that’s not at all what happens.

If your experience is not generic enough to fit every single person in a group, you’re obviously writing an unrealistic stereotype! How dare you write about your personal experiences as a mixed race Indian if not everyone can relate to it? What about the Indians who grew up in India!? You’re erasing their experiences!

You have to out yourself to prove that you’re one of the Correct People™ who’s allowed to write that experience. Oh, you’re writing a trans character? Please describe your gender, in detail, so we can know whether or not you’re Allowed or if you’re an Outsider who we need to punish. Oh, you can’t come out, because you might be killed or disowned? Well, no #OwnVoices clout for you, we don’t want your book.

Your character needs to be a Good Minority™. They cannot be angry or violent or rude. If they are, you’re clearly saying that all of those minorities are angry and violent and rude and not just that one character.

There are four additional rules you absolutely must follow at all times to prevent harassment, and all of them contradict each other:

If you’re not [minority], you need to have [minority] in your stories, because they exist and it’s bad if all your characters are [not minority].

If you’re not [minority], you cannot have [minority] in your stories, because you’re not [minority] and clearly, you’ll never be able to understand how [minority] thinks and acts because you’re not them.

If you’re not [minority] you can still have them in your stories, but they can’t experience any discrimination at all, or talk about their culture or experiences with being [minority] because that’s not your story to tell and you’re profiting off of their trauma. No, you’re not allowed to do this even if you hire ten sensitivity readers that confirm these experiences are realistic and correct.

If you’re not [minority] you can still have them in your stories, but you need to show their experience with discrimination, and have them talk about their culture or experiences with being [minority] because if you don’t, then you’re basically just taking [non minority] and pretending they’re [minority].

Also, there’s an additional surprise bonus rule: Sometimes people will just want to destroy you for no reason, so watch out!

They’ll take things from your story, remove them from their context and then present them as the most horrific, problematic thing possible in order to create a hate mob.

Sometimes, though, they don’t even know what they’re talking about. People who are not part of a minority group (or not the one relevant) will see something, go, “Omg? Problematic?” and post it on Twitter so they can say, “Um guys wtf is this shit? Are you fr? Can we talk about this?”

And the worst and most horrifying part, people will blame YOU for the harassment campaign!

I’ve literally seen people say, “Well if someone calls you out on Twitter you should admit you did something wrong, apologize, and tell them you’ll do better :)” as if that’s not the most insane, victim blamey shit.

Like, I cannot fathom seeing a marginalized author get torn apart by a mob, get sent horrific death threats, and have their career and life ruined, only to say, “Okay but they must have done something Problematic. Have they tried publicly flagellating themselves to appease the people who are threatening to break into their house and kill them?”

People just sweep it under the rug and pretend that it’s not a big deal, and say, “Twitter’s not real, it doesn’t matter!” as if thousands of people harassing you and sending you threats isn’t massively damaging to someone’s mental health. Like, this is the kind of shit people kill themselves over, and it's apparently no big deal because "Twitter's not real"? What?

Writing is supposed to be fucking fun! Showing your beloved story and characters and work to the world is supposed to be enjoyable!

But instead of writing my story and just enjoying the process and adoring my characters, I’m sitting here, absolutely terrified, trying to make sure I give people the least amount of ammunition to destroy my life as possible.

One of the main characters in my story is vaguely based on me. I love her with all my heart, I think about her all the time, I want people to love her just as much as I do.

But instead of having fun writing about her, I’m waking up in the middle of the night, heart pounding, thinking to myself, what if she’s too problematic?

Will people get upset with her saying the word “cunt” or bathing naked with men (and thus having her tatas out) and accuse me of being sexist or catering to the male gaze or not being a Good Amazing Feminist™? Will people call her a pick me?

Will people get upset with her being bisexual, but ending up in a “straight” relationship with the male character? They have a five year age gap, is that too much? Will people think he’s a predator or abusive? Is their relationship toxic?

Will people think he’s a creep for flirting with her and getting into her personal space and telling sexual jokes, even though that’s how I want someone to flirt with me?

What if people think she’s not autistic enough? Will people get mad that she’s ~glorifying violence~ for not becoming a pacifist and admitting that violence is bad and yucky at the end of the story?

I need to make sure she spends ten paragraphs explaining exactly why she works as an assassin. I need to sit cross-legged and whip my head around like Dr. Strange in that Avenger’s movie so I can imagine Every Possible Discourse Outcome™ and make sure she debunks everything people could call problematic.

I need to change that. I need to remove that. I need to make her sanitized and good enough so that I'll be safe.

And then repeat this thought process, with every other minority character in my story (and there are a lot).

--

Things are bad, but if you stay off of book twitter and do not write YA, you're a lot less likely to face this level of drama. There are always exceptions though, like Fall.

[librarycards]

Hello, do you have any books on children's rights and patriarchy to recommend? 🥺

this is very much a category in-progress; children's rights discourse has advanced a great deal in the last few years (and will almost certainly continue to)! here are a few texts I recommend [with the caveat that these generally address children's rights but have other foci]:

Jules Gill-Peterson, Histories of the Transgender Child (also, Jules's substack!!)

Eric Stanley, Atmospheres of Violence: Structuring Antagonism and the Trans/Queer Ungovernable

Stanley & Smith, eds., Captive Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison Industrial Complex [in both, Stanley / Stanley & Smith track the process by which youth, particularly queer/trans youth of color, are rendered unpersons)

Kathryn Joyce, The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption [discussion of adoption –– in many cases, explicit child trafficking serving christofascist ends –– is inextricable from children's rights and is far too often ignored]

I have learned perhaps the most about children's rights and youth liberation from queer/trans disabled & Madppl. Remi Yergeau's Authoring Autism as well as Eli Clare's Exile & Pride have been pivotal here. Samuel R Delany's Heavenly Breakfast also has an incredible set of passages on youth liberation, harm reduction, and substance use.

Finding blogs like (now-inactive) We Are Like Your Child have been transformative, as have Mel Baggs's (z"l) body of work, which I discuss in more depth here. One final shout is to Parenting Decolonized, who call attention to the entanglement between racial capitalism, ableist cisheteropatriarchal white supremacy, and the oppression of children, incl. its reproduction via the nuclear family form.

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

Is there anything good (positive achievement) about the Valyrian/ghiscarian empires? I feel GRRM didn't bother giving them nuanced and interesting history beside mass slavery, rape and genocide, esp the ghiscarians they are mash up of the all the racist oriental tropes you can think of

Hi anon, this is a really good question. I think you can look at it two ways.

On the one hand, if we're analyzing the books from a literary perspective, GRRM's portrayal of the entire continent of Essos is pretty Orientalist and doesn't hold up that well. And we can blame this to some extent on GRRM being a white boomer who clearly did not think all that deeply about the stereotypes he was playing into when he created his "exotic" eastern continent. 90s fantasy was rife with this stuff (even my beloved Robin Hobb is not completely immune-- I'm looking at you, Chalcedeans), and at the time Orientalism was, much like critical race theory or decolonization, a grad school level concept, unless you ran in activist circles. You didn't have Tumblr and Twitter and TikTok and Youtube generating Discourse, you had to actively seek out different perspectives. And ex-hippie liberal white boomers often assumed that they already had the right perspectives, that they knew what traps to avoid, and so you'd get 90s SFF authors thinking they were very cleverly subverting these tropes by going, "I know, I'll have an intensely misogynistic culture of desert dwelling nomads who have harems and slaves but I'll make them white." It was pretty bleak. Luckily for all of us, fantasy has come a long way since then.

And yeah, once you see the Orientalism in ASOIAF, you can't unsee it. Lys is basically the fantasy version of the "pleasure planet" trope, the Dothraki are a stereotype of the Mongol armies without any of the many positive contributions the Molgols made, Qarth is like the Coleridge poem come to life with people riding camels with jeweled saddles and wearing tiger skins, with its women baring one breast and it's sophisticated assassin's guild, and Mereen has its pyramids. The entire continent is brimming with spices and jewels and pleasure houses and people saying "Your Magnificence." It is also a place of blood magic and dragons and Red Gods and shadowlands. It is everything exciting and "exotic," juxtaposed against what appears to most readers to be very mundane--septas and pseudocatholicism and maesters in the citadel. So yeah, it's an Orientalist's fantasy world, and the point of all this is not necessarily to cast it as evil per se, but to cast it as "Other" (and to be clear, Orientalism is harmful and GRRM deserves the criticism he gets for leaning into stereotypes). Valyria and the Valyrians are certainly included in that-- they are explicitly Other as foreign born ruling family in Westeros, and they are treated that way both in-world and by the narrative.

The question then becomes, although GRRM's depictions of Essos lean heavily and inelegantly into Orientalist tropes, why did he create these worlds the way he did? Why is Valyria an "Other" and what significance does it have to the story? And I think that some of this is GRRM's shorthand for something magical that is lost and forgotten and fading away, just like Valyria itself is in the memories of the Targaryen family. It is the Xanadu of Coleridge's Kubla Khan, not just the East viewed from the West, but the past viewed from the present, a nostalgic yearning for a place that only ever existed in the imagination. When the narrative does visit these places in person, rather than telling us about them secondhand, they become ugly and brutal, the jeweled facade hiding a rot underneath. In ASOIAF we have Dany ripping that facade off of Meereen and Yunkai, but she idealizes her own Targaryen heritage, and that is not insignificant, and as readers, we are invited to idealize it right along with her, in spite of plenty of hints that perhaps we should not (like the aforementioned slavery). We even hear Astapori and Yunkish slavers speaking to Dany echo sentiments about the even older Ghiscari empire, also lost, "Ours is the blood of ancient Ghis, whose empire was old when Valyria was yet a squalling child." Old Ghis and the Valyrians who conquered them are both long gone at this point, and yet their descendants are clinging to the legacies of cultures that would be wholly foreign to both of them. Because if Valyria is Xanadu, the Old Valyrians and Old Ghiscari are also Ozymandias, the mighty who have fallen, their once grand civilizations nothing but forgotten ruins. The Targaryens don't yet realize that they are that "half-sunk shattered visage," that they are yearning for something that is gone and never returning, something they never really knew in the first place.

Westeros is not immune to this either. I think it's a consistent theme that GRRM plays with is the ways which the past is glorified and distorted and romanticized. Even in a meta-sense, his entire medieval world is, in many ways, a half-remembered medieval fantasy, the medieval world as imagined by people who read Ivanhoe, rather than a medieval world as actually was. And GRRM simultaneously presents this romanticized world alongside the brutality of the past (and to drive that point home, George's medieval world is much more brutal than the real medieval world was), and so he asks us, just like Dany must ask herself at some point, is the past really all that romantic? Or are we simply yearning for something unnamable and Other? And if we yearn for that, why?

On the other hand, from an in-world perspective, if you are Westerosi, are there any redeeming qualities to Valyrian culture? And I think we can answer that question by asking ourselves, is there anything salvageable from the past, even if the past was terrible? Even if what we perceive of Old Valyria wavers between a horrific empire based on conquest and slavery, and an idealized homeland full of magical dragonriders, depending on who is doing the telling, if we accept it as a fully fleshed out world, then I think we can remember no cultures are monoliths. Old Valyria had art, architecture, fashion, music, literature, and I like to imagine that there were good freeholders, perhaps even Valyrian versions of the Roman Stoics and the Cynics, who raised moral objections to slavery. Certainly the Valyrian "freeholder" government itself, a kind of proto-democracy, similar to that of Athens, was innovative for its particular time and place, even if it was not as democratic as our modern democracies are, and that model of government is replicated throughout Essos, where strict hereditary monarchy seems to be relatively uncommon. Valyria also had a great deal of religious freedom, which persists throughout Essos as well. And as with any empire, it's important to keep in mind that the ruling class made up only a small percentage of actual Valyria, and we know there were Valyrians who were not dragonlords but just normal people, going about their lives who had nothing to do with the atrocities committed, and those people were telling stories, creating art, writing songs, and producing culture too. So I think, tying back into how GRRM uses Valyria and Essos in his narrative, we do not have to discard the past entirely, nor do in-world Targaryens, but it's the romanticization that's the problem, and I think that's something that both in-world characters and readers are cautioned against.

[jesncin]

Hi I love you guys' work. I know I already sent in an ask before, but I'm also a queer Indonesian creator who loves animated stories and musicals. And plans to make her own animated indie musical show on YouTube. Which is queer and based on space. And the main character is plus sized, queer, and has a non binary love interest. I wanted to ask since Indonesia is still really homophobic, how do you deal with being a queer Indonesian creator making queer content while your country is extremely homophobic. Because I often feel scared to do so because of what the government might think. Sorry for randomly asking this btw

Hello there! That sounds like a very ambitious project! Best of luck to you, I'm all for more queer space adventures.

So I'm sure to a lot of queer Indonesians looking at the work I'm doing, they're thinking "how the heck are jesncin doing all that and being so loud about it" haha. At least so far (who knows what the future holds now that my book is out) I've managed to create queer Indonesian art online for years (including smaller published work) and had very little homophobic pushback. Which I know I'm very lucky with- I've lost a lot of peers to bigoted locals and hate campaigns. It's a mix of strategies and contingencies I keep to foster as safe a space as I can.

It's a common practice among queer Indonesian activists to speak predominantly in english, something I already do because of my language barrier. Most locals don't bother interacting with an account speaking in english- weaponizing their language barrier haha. I stuck to western spaces early on, but because I drew a lot of blatantly queer Indonesian art- queer Indonesians (diaspora or otherwise) naturally flocked to my stuff. The audience filters itself. I don't interact with local discourse at all. I also stayed away from visibility events (on twidder like #artIDN or #ArtistsofIndonesia or even #tetapbangga for Malaysians) until I felt comfortable with the community I fostered to join in. It's common especially for queer tags to be monitored by bigots looking for people to pick on. Speaking of which, block and don't interact with them. Don't give into the temptation of replying to bigots because it just gives them more ammo. Their goal is to exhaust you so you lock your account and "can't spread your agenda" or whatever.

I purposefully wanted to publish my stories through an American publisher for a lot of reasons, but it certainly helps that Lunar Boy can be out and proud out there where it can't get to be in Indonesia. I notice queer authors here tend to publish either online or internationally with an independent publisher too. Still- you'd be surprised how much the local queer community is enthusiastically ready to support you. Because of the state of Indonesia as it is, everything is handled more "under the radar" for the sake of safety. My personal biggest fear is starting another moral panic incident- but the many queer Indonesian communities I've been in have their own strict rules and precautions to keep members safe. They're worried about that too, but they want to help you succeed! Once my book released, the Indonesian queer community had my back and even helped me with some author events and exclusive meetups. At least for me, it was instrumental to be connected to the local community.

That's where I am for now. I created Lunar Boy while being closeted the entire time. I've erased my queer publications from my resume when applying to author events locally. There's always some kind of assimilation that happens in the process. I'll always be scared of pushback or sparking another moral panic incident. But that's the risk this kind of representation is, isn't it? I had no one else to look up to. No other queer Indonesian graphic novelist making explicitly queer Indonesian stories. It was an isolating experience making this book. But now that I'm here, the next person who comes along won't be alone. And seeing the people who've connected to Lunar Boy, especially other queer Indonesians from all around the world, makes it so worth it.

[drdemonprince]

Probably goes without saying but I feel like your latest insta post on invoking ableism to promote hyper-individualism (which is so on the money while remaining succinct, kudos) is a clear illustration of what can happen when someone experiences oppression along only one axis. I'm sure there are exceptions but the kind of discourse you describe feels like such a phenomenon among white, middle-class disabled people, specifically.

The truth is, anyone can leverage a focus on individual identity and personal success in order to dilute a broader fight for collective liberation.

This phenomenon is sometimes called "white feminism," yes, and I certainly think white, middle-class people have a vested interested in promoting it more than anybody else. but it's something that, particularly in the social media age (which converts every conversation into a matter of personal branding), a person of any constellation of identities can leverage a narrative of personal oppression to make themselves wealthy and trusted as an authority figure.

I am reminded of the countless people who enriched themselves by self-marketing as a racial equity scholar on Instagram circa 2020...including many people who had absolutely zero expertise in the subject. Or the people who, because they were sexual assault survivors, began marketing themselves as equipped to run accountability sessions for accused people, or to run consent seminars, again when they had no relevant experience on the topic or any connection to existing organizations or movements working to address such issues. they were just using their personal positionality for their own gain. (And lots of Autistic people do this now with neurodiversity seminars etc).

This book goes into it so, so well

and relatedly:

(Koa is very clear in her book that many women of color are also white feminists -- under capitalism, a lot of people are interested in advancing their own careers rather than fighting for economic justice and structural improvements for oppressed groups. and as the behavior of many trans mascs and enbies show, you dont need to be a woman to be a white feminist either).

So, to respond to your comment, I think ultimately the problem is one of people lacking class consciousness or any kind of firm understanding of how power is built and change is created, according to leftist theories. It's also a phenomenon of some people, particularly ones who already have a little economic power, wanting to enrich themselves further rather than taking any steps toward justice, which would probably cause them to lose money. It's not a phenomenon of which identities a person inhabits. However, it is certainly true that privileged groups have even less incentive to ever learn about these things or care about them!

[peachesofteal]

Dune posting (and semi spoilers):

I’ve seen a lot of discourse and I got into it tonight with a friend about Dune being a white savior narrative and I totally get it. The way it looks, and the story the movie has told so far, it’s pretty much impossible to not perceive it that way.

Additionally, it’s a disservice to say the books are not influenced by Islamic culture. I’ve read some arguments that say the genetic engineering is not a presence in Islam so it can’t possibly be (ridiculous, it’s a weird reach for me because it’s more of a sci-fi theme than anything. Theme in books is not one size fits all) but that not does take away from the VERY strong themes that blatantly expose the influence of Islam in the story. You’d have to be blind to not realize the author utilized Islamic teachings and history in this series/story.

However, the books are complex. The entirety of the story, while in the beginning may not, it does paint a white savior, Paul (in my opinion) is an anti-hero (mostly, a lot of people use jihad as a word to describe Paul’s actions, but I don’t like using that word considering how it’s perceived in my country) and is certainly not a savior. He has a downfall and it’s very “hero worship gone wrong”.

I am worried that the movies won’t tell the story the way it is written (and the way I interpret it) because Paul does become an enemy. A universal dictator. The theme of “thinking for yourself” needs to become present in order for movie viewers to understand the story. At the end of the day, the book series is a warning about relying on religious and governmental overreach.

Regardless I find the Bene Gesserit very fascinating even though they’re the cogs of the machine. I love the idea of women manipulating and shaping the world (I’m not saying it’s good, okay? It’s not. But I am very intrigued by their possibilities and effectiveness) and I really enjoyed Chapterhouse: Dune for these reasons.

[susandsnell]

For the character ask game 4; 8; 21 for Daniel Molloy and 10; 20 for Madeleine Eparvier? If that's too many, just pick which ones you're most interested in obviously :)

Hi anon! Finally sitting down to do these. Thank you for your patience with this, and double thank you for being the first person to ask me things about that old man and that spectacular queen. Let's go! I'll put it under the cut because boy I'm about to get long-winded -- I blame you for giving me so much to work with!

CHARACTER ASK GAME!!! 💫

Daniel Molloy

4. If you could put this character in any other media, be it a book, a movie, anything, what would you put them in?

You do not want to know the crossovers I've envisioned for this old man. Because of his meta role as the narrator, the messenger, and the archivist of the story, he fits surprisingly well into so many other pieces of media with the premise "what if he was the one investigating/interviewing the survivor". There are many other vampires I'd like him to interview (especially the ones from Tanz Der Vampire), and I'd love to see how a younger Daniel would fare in Fright Night (we all know how The Lost Boys would end for him..). But mostly, final girl that he is, I think he'd rock it in other horror media; the thing that has plagued him and enthralled him all his life. The thing he has begged for and run from. I wonder if The Ring's Rachel Keller was a former student or colleague of his, and if she'd enlist his help with respect to breaking the story on cursed video tapes. I want to see him in a Se7en or Longlegs type of neonoir slasher, sticking his nose where it doesn't belong, and yet coming through when it counts. I think that I would want to personally beat him to death myself for the things he'd say to Dani Ardor (Dan to Dan communication), but he's actually proven himself to be solid at deprogramming someone subjected to intense gaslighting (and very good at ruining relationships, including those that aren't his own!), and if he can keep the insanely misogynistic comments to a minimum for more than five minutes, he might've been able to get her away from the Harga by talking sense.

And finally, in what must make me the greatest parody of myself fathomable, yes, I think Daniel Molloy should investigate and probably write the retrospective on the Black Prom of Stephen King's Carrie. I've frequently joked that for all the addiction trouble, marital and familial trouble, and insanely out of pocket offensive comments, he's a Stephen King author avatar guesting at Manderley or perhaps Wuthering Heights.

But all seriousness, you have Sue Snell, who wrote her own autobiography of the horrific and targic events for which she wound up both scapegoated and disbelieved. Given his nose for the supernatural/preternatural, Daniel would follow where that thread leads and maybe help her find some peace in the process. The two certainly have a lot in common; both did fucking horrible things as a teenager for which they later faced an insanely disproportionate retribution, both have curly hair (usually in Sue's case), both are heavily coded to be repressing queerness leading them to unfulfilling heteronormative relationships/plans for unhappy family life, both take the role of the archivist and messenger to shape the horrors they lived into a narrative - their narrative - before the world will make of it what it will. Both fell in love with their monster(s). Both are fucking SURVIVORS.

(I kind of want to write this now...)

8. What’s something the fandom does when it comes to this character that you despise?

Honestly, I don't want to rehash bad discourse from twitter, so I'll just say exaggerating his very apparent flaws to thoughtlessly trigger people in the interest of winning a morality contest in this of all franchises. On the flipside of that, reducing him to his ship with Armand -- I've been very vocal regarding how much I despise the Armand Is Alice theory, and so long as it persists I'll continue. Not because of this or that headcanon, but it's phenomenally misogynistic to erase women we haven't even seen onscreen yet for slash because eewwww no girls allowed. Like what in the circa 2007 misogynistic yaoi livejournal, TJLC ass theory are we doing here. But also because it would be terrible writing. The emotional impact of old Maniel as a character concept is that he's lived a full life, accomplished incredible things, and had relationships that were meaningful and that he also destroyed. He has these things because of Louis' rescue of him and Louis' words, and when they see each other again in 2022, the tangible impact of his great deed are written in every line on Daniel's face. I don't mind 'the Chase happened' truthers at all, but my God, you undercut everything when you suggest that it's Oops, All Armand, meaning Daniel never had a life fully lived and failings and triumphs he carries with him. You also ironically make DM less interesting by making him the only person in Daniel's life of any significance. Just. Take the character as we got him, my god.

21. If you’re a fic writer and have written for this character, what’s your favorite thing to do when you’re writing for this character? What’s something you don’t like?

I have a whole Thing about how I'm a strident feminist who somehow hitched her wagon to this geriatric misogynist, but it is a part of his very distinctive voice, so I do like to dig deep with "what's the thing a man could say that would piss me off the most", and then I run it through the canon content (since his character voice is very particular and distinct), plus some meta works with Eric Bogosian, to see if it fits, sprinkle in some Freak Shit, and bada bing bada boom, we've got our favourite asshole. It's weirdly cathartic in a way? Exorcising demons of shitty men I've dealt with or known of I guess lmao. I would say in sappier moods I like looking for the gentleness and the silver lining underneath the ten layers of Having No Limits, and when I hit on what's tender but still plausible, aka my favourite Daniel moments? No better feeling.

The flipside of this, being what I don't like, is that keeping that voice up is hard and it is a challenge to stay as sharp and ten steps ahead as he is. Need to brush up on some Columbo, I think...

Madeleine Éparvier

10. Could you be best friends with this character?

My heart would really, really, really love to say yes, but my gut and my brain say a definitive no. For one thing, while they make it very, very clear she's not a Collaborator or antisemitic in the slightest, the way her wartime affair came about and her later actions betrays an amorality in those circumstances that I probably wouldn't be able to look past, outsiders though we both may be. I'm also one for obsessive morality-related thoughts in general, so I don't think this would jell especially well with her survivalist mentality. I'm also fluent in French but it's not my first language, so that would likely get on her nerves. And while we'd share an interest in fashion and I'd commend her for her tastes in both clothes and women, I feel like she'd see me as a bootlicker for my legal education lolol.

And most importantly - Madeleine is incredibly mean. It's hot, it's funny, it's sexy, but I am profoundly oversensitive, and she would absolutely make me cry several times lmao. I don't really know if there's any character on this show I'd be able to get along with because everyone is so delightfully awful and also, you know, murderous. But that's why it's fun!

20. Which other character is the ideal best friend for this character, the amount of screentime they share doesn’t matter?

Well, Claudia is her companion and soulmate, so that's the easy answer; they complete each other in a way that no one ever quite has. Two outcasts, two people brutally mistreated in societies to which they were supposed to belong, two women carrying pain and humour and brutality and softness, and growing flowers over the corpses they leave in their wake. She is the X at the end of Claudia's long journey, the reason she doesn't leap in the fire who did not think twice about burning at her side; she is the only one who reads Claudia's diaries with permission. Claudia is her window to the wider world, her rescuer twice-over, and the only person who meets her where she is, in strangeness and violence and joy, in sucking the marrow from the bones you leave behind you.

So...'best friend' is probably a very light way of putting it lolol.

But also? I genuinely think she'd get along with Daniel. Two unapologetic amoral assholes who defiantly faced their past trauma to sacrifice themselves for the one they loved. And they both bully Armand, too!

Thank you so much for this! Apologies again for the length.

[transmutationisms]

feel free to ignore because i know you get one million asks per day but if you have the chance i would welcome any + all thoughts on lolita 👀

no please im dying to talk about lolita

so, i feel like i have to start with the critique of psychiatry, specifically psychoanalysis, that runs through the entire book. humbert tells us that he revels in making himself obscure to psychiatrists by lying to them; the extent of the actual deceit is ofc unclear because he's an unreliable narrator, but certainly it's true that psychoanalysis fails to 'fix' humbert or to save dolores, most obviously when the beardsley teachers believe she's psychosexually underdeveloped and approach humbert to discuss it. humbert delights in pointing out that the patterns the analyst seeks in human behaviour and desires simply fail, again and again, to correct or prevent his preying on children; also, obviously, psychiatry operates within / continuous to the institution of the family, and so is often categorically incapable of preventing or even perceiving violence that occurs as a result of a familial relationship, as in humbert's use of the father role to enable his rape of dolores.

and like, sure, humbert has plenty of self-interested reason to disdain psychoanalysis, as a science that positions itself as potentially aiming to prevent his sexual abuse. but the reasons he generally gives for his criticism are clustered around the idea that psychoanalysis seeks patterns where there are none to be found, and makes meaning out of nothing (eg, "the scholastic rigamarole and standardised symbols of the psychoanalytic racket"). of course, in truth humbert himself seeks patterns and order constantly, from his emphasis on his european morals and the contrast to the unruly america (particularly the western states), to his supposed talent in seeing the stratagems of chess laid out neatly on the board in contrast to gaston perceiving "all ooze and squidcloud," to his use of tennis as a kind of disciplinary measure with dolores, aimed at making the "symmetry" of the court bring out the "harmonies latent in her." and, nabokov goes out of his way to tell us that humbert also retains belief in those two other viennese sciences of pattern-seeking par excellence: phrenology (historically more inclusive a science than how we think of it today, and very much growing from and encompassing physiognomy, to which humbert makes at least one explicit reference and on which he implicitly relies constantly throughout the book) and mesmerism (encountered in this time period as the 'hypnotism' humbert speaks highly of numerous times, along with the fact that at the very end of the book he tells us that one pseudonym he considered using was "mesmer mesmer", a reference to franz mesmer).

this got me thinking about what nabokov was trying to convey by giving us this very clear picture of humbert as someone who, though hostile to psychoanalysis in particular, is generally not only amenable to this type of pattern-seeking and narrativising but often actually dependent on it. and then i thought, well, it's not really about order or patterns in themselves at all. what's at stake for humbert, and for us as readers, is the power relations underlying various discourses of social order, and the pattern of control thus enabled. humbert's problem with psychoanalysis is that it positions itself, however ineffectually, as trying to create subjects who are sexually 'developed' and 'healthy', which he encounters as being directly oppositional to his own interest in preying on girls, and his attempts to make dolores into lolita, whom he wants to be cultured and mannered rather than unruly—but the sense of rule and order needs to come from himself, not from the abstract and distant authority that the analyst speaks on behalf of. so, the critique of psychoanalysis is twofold. 1) analysts fail to see the danger of humbert or the rape of dolores even when it's occurring almost in front of them; but, 2) even if they were to perceive these things, what the analyst can offer is really just an alternate version of the same sort of disciplinary ordering that humbert tries to subject dolores to, only with the definition of order or normality or health coming from a whole social matrix rather than from one man. analogously, humbert can wield the threat of child protective services against dolores, because although it would remove her from his control, she would be at the mercy of a different source of violence, namely the state. in this way, of course, humbert's abuse and rape of dolores is not actually oppositional to but metonymic of these broader structures of violence, control, and coercion, which fits also with the way we can read his use of the father role as pointing to the violence inherent to the patriarchal family structure and specifically the father-daughter relationship.

this sort of interrogation of the relationship between institutional violence and coercion and humbert's rape of dolores is pushed even further, i think, when we consider psychiatry as a subset of medical practice, and medicine's role in the book. most obviously, there is humbert's use of psychotropic drugs in his attempt to rape dolores the first time; drugging her is something he previously fantasised about and practiced by administering sleeping pills to charlotte. but the book is also littered with medical intervention that humbert perceives as akin to, or symbolic of, sexual violation. when humbert visits quilty's dentist uncle, for example, he says that the uncle perceived his mouth as "a splendid cave full of priceless treasures", but that humbert "denied him access". his arrest he describes as "surrendering like a patient". describing the moments of "paradise" he experienced sometimes after raping dolores, he compares her to "a little patient still in the confusion of a drug after a major operation". this obviously recalls humbert's own willingness to drug dolores in order to rape her; however, it also suggests that there is a very real way in which medical intervention—frequently coercive, invasive, authoritarian, &c—is itself already a site of bodily violation and violence. once again, the institution or the social ordering of a relationship—doctor–patient, father–daughter—is an obfuscatory device. the relation creates and enables violence, then defines it out of existence. in 'lolita', humbert's ultimate use of this process is through the re-naming of dolores and his continuous efforts to force her to become the 'nymphet', a figure that replaces 'child' and re-defines her as seductive, otherworldly, &c.

i think this is also something nabokov plays with in humbert's and dolores's travels westward. humbert sees america generally as coarser, less well-mannered, and more unruly than the continent. thus, he perceives their travels as taking them outside the bounds of the social limitations and norms that could prevent or frown upon his rape of dolores: the school, the neighbours, and so forth. but this is clearly at odds with both his continued reliance on the father–daughter relationship in order to abuse dolores, and the fact that westward expansion never simply meant encountering a 'wilderness', but overruling whatever did exist before and installing the very social forms and institutions that, in the novel, enable humbert's rape and abuse of dolores: the state, the family, and so forth. in other words, humbert perceives his movement west as escaping some strictures of modern sexual mores and interference; in his mind, then, the 'conquering' of land is continuous with the sexual abuse of a girl. what nabokov points out is that, although humbert is not in fact 'escaping' into a wilder world, he is in some ways correct to perceive this broader project of expansion west as enabling rape, situated in the context of the broader violence of such expansion. for nabokov this can all be contextualised, i think, as part of the overarching centuries-long post-enlightenment discourses of ordering, controlling, and disciplining nature (which itself is often spoken of in the feminine), where humbert embraces and extolls such acts of discipline and control so long as he is their director, and opposes them only insofar as he perceives them as challenging his own authority—as in the case of his fear and disdain of psychoanalysis.

also: since you are the person who introduced me to tlt–lolita readings, i'm not sure if you've written about this, but it did seem to me like the narrative use of swordfighting in 'gideon the ninth' is expanding on how nabokov uses tennis in 'lolita'. i'm thinking of tennis as a measure by which humbert tries to discipline dolores, hence the emphasis on symmetry and, eg, his pride at having apparently taught her the "continental method" of retrieving a tennis ball with her racket/foot: again, trying to instill refined and ordered european manners over what he sees as her unruly american nature. in comparison, for gideon, refining her swordfighting and learning new techniques is essentially training her body to be first a soldier in the cohort, then a cavalier destined for the 'cannibalistic' death of harrow's lyctorhood. so, the way that humbert is trying to destroy dolores and replace her with lolita, gideon is being trained to become a weapon and a tool of empire (also re-named), with muir again suggesting that these forms of violence are continuous, can represent one another in a narrative, and exist in a causal relation where imperial expansion creates sexual violence. i also suspect there's a close read to be done here comparing the passages that describe dolores's movements on the tennis court to the ones in gtn focussing on gideon's and the other cavaliers' exact fighting techniques; i'm not sure what a person would find exactly lol, but i suspect there's something interesting there.

[amageish]

So, James Somerton's brought his Wiccan and Hulkling video back online and I feel a need to just yell into the void for a moment about it.

In that video, Somerton says a lot of really dumb things and exaggerations to make the Young Avengers MLM power couple of Wiccan/Hulkling and the gay X-Men Iceman seem more important to comic history then they are. They are incredibly important, of course - Iceman especially is, to my knowledge, the only Lee/Kirby character to be textually out - but their writers were not fighting tooth and nail as Somerton claims they were - and they certainly weren't acting on spite against a homophobic Marvel who would never let queers into their flagship franchise. They were stories, pitched and approved like any other...

Hell, Bendis had already written a queer woman in the form of Ultimate Spider-Woman a fair amount of time before Iceman came out... Somerton's commentary makes no sense - it's well-delivered and no shade to anyone who was fooled by it, but (like a lot of comic book discourse online TBH) it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

That said, I think it's important to remember that Marvel Corporate does still need to approve queer coming-outs. There are actual times where characters were intended to have come out as queer, but ended up as subtext in the final draft or had their arcs abandoned entirely. Hell, in the Marvel Pride special last year, Marvel writer Tini Howard alluded to the challenges that can come from writing queer stories while not knowing if they can be officially queer - mentioning how she's been "writing Rachel and Betsy falling in love before [she] knew [she] could."

So like. If you see something queer happening in a Marvel comic and it remains confined to subtext, then please do not immediately jump to "Well, Somerton lied about corporate resistance to Wiccan/Hulkling, so therefore this writer totally had a choice to do a queer story and just chose not to"... Not everyone has the sway of Bendis! Not every queer coming-out is approved. They often take time.

Queercoding is also, for better and for worse, often the route to queer canon in a collaborative medium like comics. There's a lot of queercoding and queer implications from the Jim Shooter era (where queer stuff was actually firmly prohibited at Marvel) that are only now becoming canon. Northstar, Marvel's first openly-gay superhero, was coded for years before it was hard canon. Chris Claremont, one of the main architects of the X-Men as we know them today, wrote plenty of stuff that was subtextually gay that Marvel is still playing catch-up with to this day - ex/ Mystique and Destiny only became Nightcrawler's biological parents, as was his original vision, last year and we still haven't had Kate Pryde do anything more textually Sapphic then kiss a tattoo artist one time...

Being frustrated is cool - I am also often frustrated with Disney and Marvel, as my blog can attest - but please do direct your frustration at the corporation and don't jump to being mean to authors/artists... as I'm pretty sure they're often just as disappointed as we are!

[zedecksiew]

BLOGGIES 2023 THEORY WINNERS

A week of voting has passed, and the results of the final round are in. We have our winners for the BLOGGIES 2023 Theory category.

And now: winner announcements, medals, acceptance texts!

(I asked the winners to say a few words about their winning work---where they were at when they wrote the posts; whether they have additional insights; how they feel about winning.)

+++

BRONZE BLOGGIE FOR THEORY POST:

🥉 being a problem - playable orcs at the limits of humanity 🥉

from A Most Majestic Fly Whisk

Ènziramire:

Wrote this while putting my nieces to sleep (exhausted by the Pete the Cat incident mentioned in the post) and they helped me pick the Marshall painting so it's only fitting that I name Ms. Amaya and Ms. Malia as my co-authors. Race / orcs talk will probably be bad forever, or at least as long as the hobby is structured this way, but a benefit of The Discourse's remarkable ability to trivialize and misinterpret is that it illustrates the flaws of liberal incorporationism in a manner seldom achieved by other critical traditions. I'd like to thank Sylvia Wynter and white guilt for this bronze medal.

+++

SILVER BLOGGIE FOR THEORY POST:

🥈 Critical GLOG: Base Resolution Mechanics 🥈

from Goblin Punch

Arnold K:

I see no reason why tabletop RPG systems shouldn't be as customizable as the characters; the hobby would very much be enriched if they were.

Certainly there is interest--DMs are continually generating their own small hacks, but only the most adventurous are writing their own systems. The largest obstacle is a lack of familiarity with system design. People may know what they are trading when they sacrifice Dex in favor of Con, but the pains and joys of trading d20 resolution for a highest-in-a-dice-pool are still clouded.

If I have been able to empower even one person to design their own system--the last push that they needed--then the blog post has been a success.

Thank you everyone who voted for me. You guys fucking rock.

+++

(In lieu of a medal, Gold winners will get a linocut print; here's the plate inspired by Marcia's post: a dragon intertwined in / strangled by a banyan's branches and roots.)

GOLD BLOGGIE FOR THEORY POST:

🥇 OSR Rules Families 🥇

from Traverse Fantasy

Marcia B:

Zedeck asked me to say a couple words about this post, so I figured I'd say that (although I'm not sure how many people voted one way or another) I haven't been satisfied with its reception in general. It's been read as a neutral feat of statistics, a basis for taxonomic discourse, or a celebration of the OSR.

As the author I'm obviously dead, but as a fellow reader I'd like to suggest an alternative interpretation: there is so much collective effort spent on making books of rules that are ultimately formal and predictable permutations of each other. Only a few of the books originated rules that would then be incorporated into many of the other books.

Maybe it's that game designers aren't that creative; maybe it's that authors prefer to write systems over adventures; maybe it's that hobbyists feel pressured to systematize and christen their house rules. You can argue for one or more of these angles, each one representing a lens through which to criticize and re-envision the hobby. Whichever lens you prefer, though, I think they are all preferable to seeing no problem at all.

That being said, I am glad that for some people it helped them find a ruleset that works for them, or to just know what's out there. I hope this spurs us to find new ways to (literally, i.e., mathematically) break the norm.

+++

Congratulations everybody!

(Special thanks to Martin / Sharkbomb for his assistance tidying up the medal graphics; I dunno how to photograph art properly ...)

[instruth]

Hi,

Good morning from Singapore.

I am pleased to announce the publication on Kindle Store, Amazon, my first book on poetry, entitled, Poetry By Experience - by J. P. LEE.

J. P. Lee, a Colombo Scholar and a Singaporean Dentist, the author and publisher of fourteen other books, including two novels, and one book on humor (under a different pen name, Manny Larfs), now takes you on another astounding journey of self-discovery in the wonderful world of poetry.

�WHAT IS POETRY?

“Poetry is a language of the soul,

an expression of inner truth,

relayed to and expressed by the mind,

out of a lived experience,

with a vivid imagination.”

- J. P. Lee

ABOUT THIS BOOK

What’s new about this book?

It’s a recipe one can cook

Beside any lake or brook

Catch a fish with a hook

To the sane, eccentric or kook

At any blind corner or nook

It’s take, taken and took

Learned, greenhorn or rook

Honest man, never a crook

Compliant, never a snook

Read, do not just look

Welcome to my sacred book.

These twelve verses may still be unclear, but they do give you an idea what this book is about. I certainly think so. For this is a rather unusual book.

It is a story, related and specially written in a poetic format, describing my journey on a road to the discovery of my love for poetry.

Readers will soon notice and realize that the past is often written in the present tense. This is intentional because love, in the domain of poetry, is very much alive and living in the here and now, precisely as it has been experienced in the past.

In certain sections, timely discourse and appropriate essays are deliberately written with a poetic flare to illustrate that poetry is part and parcel of our lives whether we are aware of it or not.

In this book, there is a wide variety of poems – Contemporary Poems, Haiku, Senryu, Tanka, Haibun, Humor, Teaser, Limerick … and lots of beautiful and colorful pictures - numbered and located at the end of the book for timely reference, under Glossary Of Photos and Pictures which, unless otherwise stated, are taken by the author.

Enjoy.

Do feel free to comment and share.

Thank you.

Cheers and Blessing.

J. P. Lee

——————————————————————

[veliseraptor]

Hello ! I've read a lot of the posts you shared or wrote about horror, especially in reaction to "pearl-clutching" discourse against the whole genre.

It was very though provoking (thanks!) but I was wondering if/how you draw the distinction between that and, well, honest and "legitimate" bad review / negative analysis of some individual stories who happen to be horror ?

Oh, for sure. Of course there's legitimate criticisms to be made about individual horror works, or even about horror as a genre on the whole. I'm never going to claim that there isn't. While I do feel like there's a place for the "let people have fun" school of thought around media criticism, I don't think it should be a blanket smothering of all criticism - mostly, as with so many things, it is worth considering your time, place, and audience. For your own sake as well, I find.

I do think that sometimes the language of "criticizing" or "being critical" has become a handy mask for people to say whatever they want in some of the same (though less pernicious) way that people use "I'm just asking questions" to shut down discussion of misinformation and conspiracy theories. Again, #notallcriticism, much of it is good and beneficial and keeps things fresh (and me thinking), even the criticism I ultimately might end up disagreeing with. And at the same time, I do see the tendency popping up sometimes to use the idea of "legitimate criticism" as a way to shield a person from disagreement (the somewhat infamous "think critically about x" translating to "and you'll agree with me" comes to mind.)

As far as the how, well, it's certainly a little your mileage may vary - what I might read as an unfair review of a book I liked, for instance, someone else might read as a well-deserved ripping to shreds of a mediocre work, and it's certainly possible for neither of us to be "right" about which it is. Some of this - maybe even a lot of it - is a matter of perspective.

I guess I would think of two things that shape my perception of how someone is talking about a work or a genre, in general and in particular with horror:

1. Is the writer familiar with the genre? Do they have at least a passing familiarity with the conventions, tropes, and other narrative tics that tend to crop up? If not, are the criticisms they are making marked by that lack of knowledge (ime some of the discourse about the A Song of Ice and Fire falls victim to this, sometimes). I'm not saying that criticism is invalid coming from someone without genre knowledge, but I am saying that I'm more inclined to be skeptical of criticism that comes from someone who clearly dislikes the specific genre they're discussing, because it sometimes feels like a willful lack of curiosity and unwillingness to engage with a text/genre on its own terms.

> Addendum to this: is the writer familiar with the genre as it stands recently? Horror now looks rather different than horror fifty years ago, just for instance.

2. Is the argument or point they're making actually coherent? Is the analysis solid and grounded in at least some kind of evidence or source? (Is the author using screenshots of tweets in lieu of actually writing about the phenomenon they're discussing?) I can't always but I'd say I can usually at least recognize, even if I disagree, when someone is actually taking what they're engaging with seriously and when they're not (in terms of the work put in to convince me what they're saying is true, relevant, and important), and if they're not taking it seriously then why should I?

And one more, I guess, which feels obvious but sometimes on the internet isn't, because people love to have opinions (I get it! so do I!):

3. Has the writer actually read (or watched/played/whatever) what they're talking about? This ties in a little with point one but is slightly divergent, because someone can to an extent be familiar with a genre without having read it. But someone talking authoritatively about the problems with something they haven't actually had direct contact with, based purely on a set of cultural osmosis and related assumptions, is frustratingly common, and people will assume that they know what they're talking about from that alone and are qualified to make a sweeping judgment from that position. And I'm just not going to take criticism made from that perspective very seriously.

That's how I'd draw my lines, anyway. I don't claim to be an authority, certainly; I'm a gal on the internet with a big mouth and a lot of opinions. I think the important things here though are a. I certainly don't think that there's no such thing as legitimate criticism (in the negative sense) of horror works or horror as a genre, and b. I have particular standards for how I judge that criticism based on content and context.

I guess it's also worth noting, with this particular example, that the other question is "how much does this feel like it aligns with the present moral panic around dark or disturbing content in fiction?" and if the answer is "a lot" then I'm significantly more likely to dismiss it.

[sidhebeingbrand]

Time to Be Normal about Mandos on Main again

I really only have a main these days

TIME TO BE NORMAL ABOUT MANDOS ON MAIN AGAIN

This time it's about the presumption of loss built into their culture as defined by Karen Traviss and possibly hinted at in the new Didney canon

Blanket disclaimer that I am Aware of the Problematic Aspects of the Republic Commando Books. Like, I read the first trilogy, i saw them, I was there, Frodo.

But without those books and this author, we don't get Aayhan. Which is… it's neat.

hOkAY so in the RC books and KT's surrounding writing there are a few concepts that really Make mandos for me? Like as differentiated from any Noble Warrior People #253. 'A strong warrior code' is great and all but the specificity of the Mandalorian wordlview is…

I just like them, okay, I think they're neat.

SO ONE THING: is that Mandalorians used to worship gods. They don't anymore, but the concepts of them remain-- the god who represented the worst things in the universe, the one who would 'kill' your spirit, was Arasuum. A god of sloth and stagnation. The word arasuum still means 'stagnation' in Mando'a the same way that 'jovial' still means a good time bro even though the worship of Jupiter has strongly fallen off.

There was a trickster god, too, more neutral, and the Best god, the one mandalorians strove to emulate, was Kad Ha'rangir. Literally translates to 'the blade that makes ash?' A destroyer god, and a god of creation. The ideas are linked in the Mandalorian language-- creation comes from destruction, is only POSSIBLE with destruction. The greatest evil is everything staying the same. The greatest good is making new, and that comes with the end of things that are old.

(It is probably a heretical view that one needs a balance between the two-- Mandalorian stability and tradition are old. The language lives and gains new words and new ways to use those words but it has stayed more comprehensible than, say, Basic, which seems to have undergone massive levels of change within Yoda's lifetime. Is that not the hand of Arasuum? I bet the religious arguments about that ended up with the opposing philosophers in traction and that was the Really Polite Discourse)

What remains in the culture now that the gods are gone is this-- that the universe is not a battle between Good and Evil, Kind and Cruel, but Stagnation and Creation.

(ANd I watch The Mandalorian which is not bound to the concepts in the RC, I know that, but I also see: Bo Katan sits on her throne, staring at nothing, defeated, in the hands of Arasuum Bo Katan rises to the moment, throws off her stagnation, becomes Active, becomes Mandalorian once more.)

But anyway ANOTHER THING is that KT writes the Mandalorians as spiritually nomads, no matter how stable their current living situation. The only TRUE home a Mandalorian is guaranteed is within the Manda after death. A Mandalorian is not bound to a planet. A Mandalorian is Mandalorian because they have a mandalorian soul. And to have a Mandalorian soul is to know that at any time half the galaxy is pissed off at you, and you're pissed off at the other half.

There is a cultural expectation-- somewhat lost in later days by Mandalorians who live on Mandalore, but certainly firmly embedded in the minds of the remnant Ha'at'ade, the last of the true Mandalorians, who lost their civil war and saw power and structure ripped away from them.

In fact, their culture overlaps strongly with the Jedi here: they know loss is inevitable, and has to be accepted. That's one of the REALLY HARD lessons of the Jedi, too!

The difference, and likely one of the reasons* that Jedis and Mandos have Historically Not Gotten Along, is their reaction to that principle. Mandalorians don't limit their attachment to the things they know they may lose. Oh, no, they go full bore the other way-- they pour their time and souls into the things they love, and they defend them bitterly, and when they lose them if there is a tangible culprit for that loss they will pour their rage and grief upon that culprit--

(*There are a lot of reasons to be fair)

But then when the vengeance is done, the thing is over. What's lost is lost. Rebuild if you can. Salvage if you can. But you shouldn't be trying to re-enact the past! (TOR. Looking at YOU TOR) You are building the future. You are adapting, because that is how a culture is immortal. The Mandalorian word for immortal, going back to god words, is dar'asuum, and that 'asuum' is-- yeah-- straight from arasuum. No Longer Stagnant: an exulted state where you rise above your inherent inertia.

You can't avoid building because what you build will be destroyed-- you're robbing the future. You're robbing your soul.

Mandos know that everything lovely ends in time, to make room for the new; if it didn't, it would be the most poison fruit. If you can't let go, Arasuum's sleepy fingers twine around your heart, make you slow, complacent. You fight for what you love because you are a warrior, and the Taung's ashes burn inside your blood, but when it is gone it is gone.

Even a home.

(Din Djarin says: You'll have to move the covert. Paz Vizsla says: This is the way)

And you rebuild it from the ash, if it's practical to do so. You break down the old forge and remake it into the new one. You take the shards of glass that were people and homes and infrastructure and the very ground of your planet and you make new things. But you don't rebuild the same. What a fool's errand. What a stagnant thing.

SO THESE THINGS are encapsulated in one of the signature Mando Cultural Experiences, which is Aayhan.

Aayhan is that moment of perfect fulfillment-- of happiness, of peace -- in which you feel the ghosts of those who are not there to see it with you. In which what you have lost tangles with what you have gained. In which you Remember as you Feel. Joy laced with pain to make the joy more piquant.

It's just such-- of course. Of course they have a word for that, of course they IDENTIFY that because what do could you possibly have, if you have lost nothing? Loss is part of life, it is essential, it is what keeps the galaxy turning and the stars burning until they too end. The rage keeps your heart pumping. The threat of it keeps you sharp. The grief throws your joy in brighter relief. Without the danger and the reality of knowing Everything Ends you are a stagnant shell.

Loss is assumed, in their language, in their culture, in the stories they tell and the sensations they seek. And it's when this comes out-- this shape of a culture that is NOT like the one we live in, that is not common in the Galaxy they exist in, which is just-- Mando-- I don't know, it just gets to me. I feel things.

(And Paz Vizsla demands to know why his people should fight on behalf of who have taken from them, due to whom they have lost so much, and it is a rhetorical question: he will answer it himself in the next breath: "Because we are Mandalorians!" )

[songofthesibyl]

I think there is a misconception when speaking of mental illness in regards to Tamlin and Nesta, that is reflective of the discourse in mental health in general. When there is compassion for their struggles, it is received in one of two ways—that it is at the expense of those they hurt because of it, whether the character intended that hurt or not; and that the characters are victims of an affliction and can’t be blamed for anything they do.

In other words, it is a way to play the victim and to not have to take responsibility. The thing to remember is that having a disorder/disability/disease etc. does not make someone a good or bad person: it does not strip them of the consequences of their actions. But it does go towards explaining why they behave and act as they do. SJM from episode 447 of the Smart Bitches Trashy Books podcast:

“…it’s not that I sat down and I was like, I want to write a book about mental health. It’s just, Nesta was that character who, she had gone through stuff, and she wasn’t a perfect person, and I have zero interest in writing about sweet little perfect people and their problems…”

“I mean, and there are some characters in this book [ACOSF] that, I don’t want to spoil things, but, like, you can kind of tell, like, how I’m setting them up for future books? But I just think I’m so curious all the time about, like, why—like, even if someone’s an asshole, like, why? Like what makes them tick? [Note that she said this specifically about Tamlin in an interview I posted earlier.] Like, even before I went into therapy I wanted to know, like, why are these characters like that? Like, you know, what’s their secret backstory that led them to act this way? And, you know, sometimes it’s, you know, they’re just an asshole, but then sometimes they actually do have, like, you know, reasons why. And Nesta, in this book, I didn’t want to excuse her past behavior, and I deliberately…wrote her in the previous books in such a way where, like, I kind of…knew…what she had gone through, but I, like, I didn’t want to make her this, like, nice sweet sister. Like, that wasn’t interesting to me. There wasn’t conflict, and, you know, it didn’t drive the plot anywhere. But I, I wanted Nesta to be able to own up to her mistakes in the past, but also start reflecting on where, where some of that destructive behavior comes—like, self-destructive and then also, like, hurtful towards other people. Where does that…where does that come from? And I, I didn’t sit down, like, intentionally thinking like, you know, I can mess with people’s minds and make them love Nesta! It was just, she’s the kind of character that I’m drawn to, where she acts a certain way—like she, it’s like the tip of the iceberg.”

So people who are drawn to Nesta, and even Tamlin, are recognizing these things. Like the author, they might identify—to an extent, of course—with their mental health struggles. SJM, in this same interview, about Nesta:

“It seems like, you know, Nesta’s mental health journey has resonated with a lot of people, and that means the world to me, ‘cause I—so even though I began writing this years ago, I wound up deciding that I was just kind of like [going to] go back to page one and rewrite nearly everything, and a big part of that decision was that during those years that the story kind of sat in my mind, I went through, like, my own mental health journey and struggle…”

In the real world, if someone hurts you, mistreats you, you aren’t really going to care all that much why—I certainly didn’t when I was in those situations. But with fiction, you can explore these ideas, and spend time with these characters the way the author did and does. And identify, or again simply feel compassion, with certain aspects of their journey, as is described above. I’ve seen people identify Nesta and Tamlin’s destructive tendencies, both outward and inward, their depressive tendencies, but be confused why they don’t just act, when they know the right thing to do, and often even want to do it. In the real world, I’ve heard many times—I get depressed, but I don’t let it get to me; if you’re depressed/anxious/etc just stop being that way. The point is that these people struggle with just turning it off—it’s not an excuse, but an honest assessment of their mental state. People with mental health disorders are often difficult to deal with and be around. They can be self-focused, they can be hurtful. Not always—but they can be. It’s understandable that if someone was around someone like that they wouldn’t particularly care about their struggles. But for those that are, or have been in the midst of a mental health disorder, they can understand the difficulty in getting out of that headspace and doing the work to heal, to be able to cope. That journey, whether in the middle of it (Nesta) or the start of it (Tamlin, if SJM isn’t going the route of “he’s just an asshole,” which is still up in the air at this point)—is what is identified with. Even if they haven’t hurt someone—having unhealthy coping mechanisms, screwing up their lives and feeling like it’s hopeless it will ever get better—people identity with these things as well. It’s very personal, of course. But it isn’t about being innocent, and it isn’t about being justified in being hurtful.