#or it's serious as gospel

[o-uncle-newt]

I read Possession by AS Byatt after people told me "if you liked Gaudy Night you'll like this" and WELL.

Warning- spoilers for both books abound below!

So it sounded great- as a lapsed academic (though not in the field of literature by any means) there's a part of me that loves reading about academia because it's full of such obsessive people, and this book seemed to be exactly that and so I was excited.

Then I read it, and on the one hand, my first thought was "all these people are dull as heck, the only sane modern-day one is Val, and at the end of the day the historical stuff is just two people having an affair, who cares." My second thought was "there's just enough stuff here that makes me think that maybe the author knows that all of this is stupid, like the fact that Val is obviously one of the few sane ones here." But the ending made me doubt even that. Essentially, and I say this even as that lapsed academic, the author could not convince me to care about the important things at stake here, and as a result couldn't get me to care about the people who only seemed to care about those things.

I didn't care about Ash and LaMotte- they came across as two people high on their own supply who had a tawdry affair. (And each of them is the less interesting person, as a person, than their official partner!) As a result of not caring about them, I couldn't POSSIBLY care about Roland, Maud, and the rest of their crew, because their only functions were to be possessed by, and weirdly possessive of, these two entirely unworthy individuals, whose in-universe historical and literary significance Byatt couldn't convince me of, and to use that possession as a mirror for their own very lame romance. Beyond that they're utterly uninteresting, and there isn't even meant to BE much beyond that so it's not that surprising.

Anyway, I didn't like this book much, but it still made me think a lot. And there's a way in which a certain kind of person might say "well if it made you think then that's surely a sign of some positive quality" and... maybe? I don't know. I didn't hate all of it, and some parts were interesting, and I do have a whole separate list of things about the book that bug me including a breakdown of some of the book's (perceived by me) themes that I particularly disliked lol. Perhaps I'll post it another time. So I guess you can say it spurred me to thought, but loads of things that I don't like do that, and the only positive thing that that draws from me is that they're not downright dull.

The thing is, after finishing the book I was immediately struck by that "if you like Gaudy Night..." element, because it has a situation that felt weirdly similar (if for totally different reasons)- a young scholar stealing a letter from a library/archive. The circumstances are different- in Gaudy Night, the scholar does it to hide its existence so as not to contradict his thesis, and in Possession, the scholar does it so as to explore the document further, though still secretly- but there are still some interesting parallels vis a vis class. Possession goes into the class thing more than Gaudy Night does, but neither book goes much into it- the scholar is lower-class and someone who has scraped their way to their position, and is encumbered by a female partner of lower social and academic standing, and in the end they are juxtaposed against scholars who come from an elevated class and who have more money and opportunity. In Gaudy Night, Arthur Robinson is judged by the likes of Lord Peter Wimsey and a college full of women who don't have to do anything but think, teach, write, and grade papers; in Possession, Roland has to convince a bunch of academics of standing and resources to take a chance on him (and while this is more about money than class, he's the main one who's like "maybe it's good if Lady Bailey gets her wheelchair"). Byatt elides over this at the end by having him magically become in demand and on his way to achieving his academic goals, but I think in both books, the class element really could have taken on more significance in the text.

(I'd add as well that Byatt pits the upper-class and moneyed Maud, who of course is doing things for "the right reasons," vs the evil American businessman who clearly... doesn't care about Ash enough? Despite how much he clearly and obviously cares about Ash? The book was way more interesting when he seemed like a valid rival to the British team, who only thought that they deserved the letters more because of their obsession, rather than how it turned out at the end where the American dude is an actual cartoon villain. What made him genuinely less worthy besides having money without class, and of course having the bad taste to be American? What makes one scholar's possession more justified? Sayers was never this unsubtle.)

So that made me think more about Possession vs Gaudy Night, and the thing is, there are actual living people in Gaudy Night! Say what you will about the unworldliness of the academics at Shrewsbury, but you get a very keen view of their personalities by the end, even as they are (by necessity given the rules of their world) subsumed by academia, or subsume themselves in it. And the people who do fall in love are REALLY in love, and you understand why...

And somehow a book from 1935 feels far more interrogative of the possession (or lack thereof) found in love and romance, and just about the place of women in academia and relationships overall, than one from the late 80s. In Gaudy Night, Harriet accepts Peter once she has determined that despite their power differential (brought on by class, money, history, and to a degree gender) he will not threaten her personhood, because he has proven himself to her. In Possession, Maud accepts Roland because she has the power (money, class, position, even height) and so Roland actually cannot threaten her- and yet still that final scene is about her being taken by him, basically to prove some kind of a point. In contrast, in Busman's Honeymoon, the euphemistic sex scenes are about Peter trying to please Harriet.

When I say it's to prove a point, I'm paraphrasing Byatt, incidentally- who said: "And in the case of Maud I had made it very inhibiting. She was a woman inhibited both by beauty (which actually isn't very good for very beautiful women because they feel it isn't really them people love) and she was also inhibited by Feminism, because she had all sorts of theories that perhaps she would be a more noble kind of woman if she was a lesbian. And so she was a bit stuck. And Roland was timid because I am naturally good at timid men. It's the kind of men I happen to like. He's a timid thinking man, so of course it took him the whole book." I mean... yikes, but also that explains a lot. Maud can only bring herself to be with a man who is weak/effeminate (?) enough to justify whatever weird psyche Byatt has imagined up for her, but still she needs to get over her inhibitions and under him because... reasons. I don't know.

(Height is also interesting here as a point of contrast- Byatt makes Maud taller than Roland to make a point about how on the one hand she retains the power but on the other hand there is now even more of her that has to surrender. Peter and Harriet are the same medium height and wear the same size gown.)

I think the thing that most stuns me is how regressive Possession feels when it comes to gender politics on relationships than Gaudy Night does. I'd need a whole other post to talk about this, but the theme of Possession seems to me to be "relationships that produce things (whether art or children) are worth more than ones that don't." Roland is better with Maud than with Val because Val is a second rate scholar who drags him down (while supporting him financially) and Ash is better with LaMotte than with Ellen because LaMotte didn't only inspire his writing (Ellen's contributions are described only in the negative "didn't impede"), she gave him the child that Ellen refused to. Incidentally, in both cases it's the man pursuing a relationship that will give HIM something... But, to paraphrase Peter in Busman's Honeymoon, one wouldn't want to regard relationships in that agricultural light. Gaudy Night is about how two people can produce great things without each other but choose to be with each other for their own, and each other's, happiness. They aren't each less apart, and as I noted in a prior post, they don't need to solve cases together or conjoin their work in order for their relationship to be worth something. It is worth it for them to be together because it encourages some kind of inner balance within them and between them, as people. They enjoy collaborating but that is by no means the basis of their love (and, incidentally, I think that a lot of, if not most, detective series romances fail this basic test of "would they have fallen in love if they were accountants who met on a dating app." Peter and Harriet definitely would have- would, say, Albert Campion and Amanda Fitton have? I do NOT think so).

And here's the thing- another reason why Byatt's quote above is so off-putting is that it makes it clear that not only in the text but on a meta level, the purpose of the relationships is to prove a Point. I found Roland and Maud to have zero chemistry, and honestly I was expecting them to get together 3/4 of the way through and split up at the end when it turned out they had nothing in common- it seemed like that kind of book. I was kind of stunned when they only got together at the end in an "it's meant to be" way because nothing about it seemed meant to be. They were stuck together by that one thing and they each apparently needed the relationship for some kind of self-actualization or historical rhyming or other. (Whatever I say about Ash and LaMotte... at least they seemed to like each other!)

Peter and Harriet... they get together because they love each other. Do they change over the course of Gaudy Night, and over the course of the other books they share together? Of course they do. But if it makes sense, I'll put it this way- Harriet doesn't accept Peter's proposal as proof that she got over her hangups, Harriet gets over her hangups so that she can accept Peter's proposal. Her hangups only matter because they were keeping her from this particular kind of happiness- she was a fully actualized person even with them. She is a person who does things for human reasons so that she can build a mutually happy life with the person she loves, not a little plot mannequin being moved around in order to tell the author's desired Message. People can say what they want about Gaudy Night and its flaws, but despite the intricacies of its construction, nobody can call the characters' actions and motivations anything but brutally human.

Whether within their universes or on a meta level, the books have SUCH different things to say about the value and nature of love, the place of and purpose of sex, the place of art and intellectual accomplishment in relationships, all of the above in the context of femininity… and I can't help but feel that each time, Gaudy Night wins the contest. It's possible I'm missing something major about Possession, and maybe sometime I'll post the rest of my notes about the things I disliked and people can tell me what I'm wrong about- but if nothing else it made me appreciate Gaudy Night even more, so for that I'm grateful.

[shaunashipman]

'there's nothing inherently romantic/sexual about buck and eddie's relationship, it's fanon interpretation and the actor's natural chemistry' i mean you could say the same about 'invisible string theory' and everyone pretending buck/tommy is deeper/more well developed/better written than it actually is.

yeah. the invisible string theory is fanon. we know it's fanon. if you ask any bucktommy shipper about it, 99.99% will say it's it is just us seeing connections that weren't intended. nobody--NOBODY--thinks tommy was being written in s2 to be a future love interest for buck. nobody thinks tommy was actually being written to be gay in s2, outside of a maybe non-zero chance that a writer or lou just kind of had it in the back of their mind

as for bucktommy not being well developed: it's been four eps that he's been back, three eps that he and buck have been involved. again, we are aware that a lot of our ideas are fanon, that's why we usually refer to them as headcanons. are you aware of the difference between fanon and canon?

[espighty]

Vector please disconnect from the aux cord. Vector you are KILLING HIM.

It’s been a while since I’ve drawn sonic but I’m coming back swinging because I figured out a way to draw Vector in my style. Nothing can scare me anymore. I have seen hell. By the way, he has no headphones on because driving with headphones is Illegal. The Chaotix can’t afford a traffic ticket.

[queenlucythevaliant]

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, emphasis mine

[soviet-space-ace]

What people think Model UN is like: serious socially conscious students working diligently to achieve world peace.

What Model UN is actually like: “Breaking news! The Gospel Of Bread has taken over much of Europe and has assassinated several world leaders!”

[primrosebitch]

I wish I could believe in like anything supernatural or like witchcraft or the greek gods because it's so interesting and fascinating and cool but my brain is very like scientific(?) in that without real evidence i can't believe anything like that, evidence as in i personally see or experience it not like hard evidence that like scientifically proves it exists, i just need to see it for myself.

I was also raised catholic and idk if i ever believed in god, like it's hard to remember how i felt about god when i was in elementary school because of how long it's been but from what i can remember i think i kinda just went along with it and didn't really think to hard about if god exists but i also remember that i never really believed that praying would do anything and i never really took being religious or god too seriously so i think that although i never really thought about it back then i didn't really ever truly believe in god

[wisdomfish]

To reject the historicity of the Gospels ‘a priori’ because they contain miracles violates logical and historical standards of reasoning. Since the Gospels are well established historically, the miracel stories they convey deserve serious historical consideration.

Samples, Kenneth Richard. ‘Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions.; p. 102

[bunnihearted]

Just asked a fucking question and you went on your fucking rants. You are the one who is too sensitive here. Even calling someone different from you a fucking normie. It's fucking tumblr, everyone deserves to be here stupid.

yeah i do like going on my rants. i am over sensitive yes. stating the obvious. but it seems like i struck a nerve too? ofc tumblr is a public space. which is my point. im not actively or directly "attacking" ppl for saying things, i only act in defensive. hmm i just dont know. did i over react? yeah. but i wanted to bc i like ranting. i actually dont know what to say. i was doing bad, i vent on my blog to rant, then someone just injected themselves in a way i interpreted as hostile, then i got upset bc i am sensitive and i interpreted that as oh well i am not even allowed to say whatever i want on my own blog and omg ppl always get so upset w me and im never fkn allowed to say anything anywhere. so that just pushed my button. im irritable. im angry. im emotional. i cant control my emotions. but. it wasnt me who initiated that entire "interaction" or whatever that was. i was just venting on my own blog. if u send me smth that sounds hostile im allowed to react the way i do to it ._.

[softjaegerhours]

sometimes i come across those corny ass “feminine coach” podcasters on my fyp and i think there’s no way anyone actually takes them seriously

and then i come downstairs and see my mom watching the same exact video and nodding along to everything they say 😐😐😐

[honeysweetcorvidart]

dipshits du jour are a) snuggly and b) a drawing that would get me arrested in the nation of auvin. luckily this is a modern au and he can’t stop me

[declanscunt]

the road is longer than it is hard with no one to guide you and no one to hold no best foot forward to sway the odds and just a voice inside you and a stone to throw could you be someone else if someone else is what i need but i shouldn’t ask that of you when you’re old you’ll understand but we’re hurting now so what are we to do til then cradling pictures of you… it was a highway to nowhere and we rode it cold car with no gas and we chose it soft bodies playing in the street… our kids will grow up with half as much trying to build something out of dust finding out too late what they need….. you’ve tasted love and it tasted sweet you drank the blood and bit the meat you hold it you hold it you let it go… you close your eyes and count to three you say the word and come to me and baby i know…….. drive the pathway through the pines and the moors of mystery welcome conflict and let crisis come and shake the ground beneath and the family secret hiding in the farmhouse down the street rushes open door on your front porch and shadows me… taken and entirely i embrace the bonny beast over hills and highlands we rode hard the passing peaks danger like the virgin wife beside me she would sleep cherry was her dad’s truck that she crashed at seventeen… i kneel before what temper broke the branches on the beach and those thrilling highs and southern nights are always out of reach… i learned a lesson i need to pray hard final hours take care of me god take care of me god…… you’ve tasted love and it tasted sweet you drank the blood and bit the meat you hold it you hold it you let it go….. you close your eyes and count to three you say the word and come to me and baby i know……. (the road is longer than it is hard) love overwhelms me (with no one to guide you) it’s all that i want and it’s all that we have (no best foot forward to sway the odds) but is it enough (just a voice inside you) to make it worth it in the end……. don’t sink in me with your dog teeth don’t sink in me with your dog teeth don’t sink in me with your dog teeth don’t sink in me don’t sink in me with your dog teeth…….. you’ve tasted love and it tasted sweet you drank the blood and bit the meat you hold it you hold it but you’ll never know… you close your eyes and cry to me don’t sink in me with your dog teeth we’re better off if you let go…….. if it was harder then it will be better now for i am here and changed i couldn’t tell you how and there before the grace of god go i… laughing to myself… forgetting what about.

[77ngiez-archive]

byt i think that theyve wised up to my tactics like, i ran away from them on these dope ass electric scooters (sadly discontinued now) or just literally running away. for years. cause unlike the baptists they will not take "i'm not interested" for an answer ant least not quickly

but now they're cahsing me on hoverboards. htye just upped the game

kinda genius of them ngl. maybe i should reach out to president nelson and get him to provide hoverboards for all missionaries

[werewolf4vampire]

love it when doctors prescribe you a medication that has potentially fatal side effects and/or some sort of black box warning and just. don't warn you about it at all

[bingobongobonko]

i broke the first rule of intrusive thoughts, being that you dont question why its happening. uuuuuuuuuuuuuugh

[coffin-bird]

I feel like the average person who sees me irl would not know that I paint Warhammer minis (slowly working on some Sororitas), play 40k games (Darktide and Rogue Trader), have 3 ½ 40k OCs (the half is an old oc being transported into the 40k universe), and am gonna be starting a Dark Heresy ttrpg soon with 3 of my friends as that old oc. I just feel like I'm not the typical type of individual laypeople think of when they think of fans of Warhammer lol!

[anauwhere]

I just remembered that as a child I low key shipped jesus and lazarus sister yk the one who washes his feet...And also a bit with lazarus ...is this blasphemy ? Is is bad bc not everything must be romantic?