#paratext: the breaking

[semperintrepida]

Process Talk: Final Edits

It may come as a surprise that I don't actually delight in making my readers wait several days between updates. As I've mentioned before, I use that time to work on "final edits" for upcoming chapters.

But what is a final edit? Allow me to show you my secrets.

At this point, the entire text of "The Breaking" has already had two to three edit passes. An "edit pass" involves refining the text at a certain level of detail. The first edit passes are at a high level, improving aspects like narrative structure, plot, and themes. Subsequent edit passes focus on improving characterization, dialogue, description, etc. at the scene, paragraph, and, eventually, the sentence level.

For the final edit, I'm primarily working on sentences, inspecting every word and punctuation mark. The first thing I do is throw the latest version of the book onto my tablet and give it a read:

This is where I make every word count. If I can swap five words ("shaped roughly like a crescent") for one-ish word ("crescent-shaped") I'm going to take it. A shrinking wordcount is a good thing!

Why do I read the book on my tablet? Because on my tablet, it looks closer a real published book (fancy!) and I like handwriting my notes. By now, I've looked at this story thousands of times in a text editor, so having the words appear in a different font and justified word spacing gives me a fresh perspective.

Once I've annotated the whole chapter, I return to my text editor and start fixing all the things I've marked, deleting or substituting words, reworking lines marked in brackets. I don't usually need to make any big changes, but it does happen on occasion, like when I decided to reorder some scenes in chapter 26.

When I'm done with my annotated changes, it's time to pull out the fine-tooth comb. The "comb" is a python script that searches for words and phrases in a text and highlights them:

Words like "before," "after," "even," and "always," are considered weak by traditional editing standards. (I've linked some good explanations why.) I'm also looking for filter phrases like "I hear," "I think," and "I know," as well as the words and phrases that are my writer tics: "crush," "a bit," "merely" to name a few. I like certain turns of phrase far too much!

Why did I write a fucking python script to highlight this stuff? Because my eyes literally skip over them when I read my own work. I couldn't find a tool that highlighted these words in a way I liked or trusted, so I had to write one myself. (If you'd like a copy of the code, hit me up via DM and I'll send you a link.)

Anyway, I go through the highlights and improve what can be improved (it's about 50/50 for each highlight—sometimes I leave things be!)

The last step is to read the chapter out loud, listening to the rhythm of the text as well as looking for typos.

And then I'm done!

This process has worked well for me, but I'm not sharing this because I think it's the only way to fly. Perhaps my writer friends will glean something of interest from it. At any rate, I hope this gives y'all an idea of why it takes me so damn long to write. 😅

[randomthefox]

https://www.tumblr.com/randomthefox/768599945857089536/httpswwwtumblrcomrandomthefox768227033026363

Okay, I see what you’re saying, but Amy still felt very dull in Frontiers to me.

I mean, she’s stuck on an entire island ALONE WITH SONIC, and you’re telling me she WON’T get all giddy or say something romantically cheesy?

Also, as I brought up before, he arc about her deciding to go out on her own to “share love with the world” is completely redundant, as SHE ALREADY DOES THAT! Literally, Amy’s whole thing since her inception has been exactly that! From inspiring Gamma to leave Eggman and strike out on his own, to helping a lost Flicky reunite with his family, to convincing the cold-hearted Shadow that humanity is worth saving… Is that NOT her sharing her love with the world??

And like I also said, the sudden hyper-fixation on Amy’s fortune cards feels stupid, unnecessary and extremely forced. It’s bad writing if you take away the item a character is iconic for (in this case, Amy’s hammer) and replace with it with something they’re not for the sake of funny references to a past game’s manual.

>I mean, she’s stuck on an entire island ALONE WITH SONIC, and you’re telling me she WON’T get all giddy or say something romantically cheesy?

I dunno man, read the room lol. They ended up on the island after a plane crash, and she was trapped in some kind of nightmare prison (actually what's funny is while Knuckles and Tails mention getting visions, Amy doesn't. Like I said, she just doesn't have any baggage like they do haha), and she spends the whole game in a state of ghostly half existence.

And she phases right through Sonic, in this state.

These islands aren't exactly a romantic dream couples retreat for them, given the circumstances. Seems natural that she'd be a little bit more focused. Even if that focus gets distracted by the whole little thing with the Koco's, because Amy is kind of a ditz =P

The point of the final scene with Amy isn't the "I want to share that love with the world" part. You're focusing on the wrong thing. The point of that scene was Amy saying she was willing to be apart from Sonic. That's also what Tails' final scene is about too. They both want to split off and go their own way and define themselves as individuals separate from Sonic for a little while. That's why when Sonic responds he speaks of their eventual reunion, and not about her desire to "share that love with the world."

It doesn't have any meat to it, compared to Knuckles and Tails. Because Amy just doesn't have any problems like they do. So her final cutscene is just being all like "well that was kind of depressing =/ I think I'm just gonna Go for a while, once this is over." Her being kind of bummed out about being swept up in trying to reunite those Koco only to watch them get genocided in a Kingdom Hearts flashback and deciding she wants to take a break and find herself for a while seems like a pretty fair conclusion to her chapter (such as it is) to me.

I think making out her fortune cards like they're a whole part of her personality, when before they were practically an informed attribute that only existed in paratext, is a little annoying sure. But I don't see how they're a "hyper fixation." They're only brought up once in the vanilla game, when Sonic alludes to them while saying the equivalent of "I'll be back in two shakes of a lambs tail." And they're no more prominent or significant in the FInal Horizons DLC than Tails with his INFINITE WRENCHES are. She interacts with them for a single cutscene, they're used for a useless melee attack (the DLC characters are not meant to be used for ANY kind of combat), and she rides them like a Yu-Gi-Oh 5D's bike for her final movement upgrade. That's it. And she still has the hammer, an upgrade lets her smash it on the ground making a heart shaped cyloop.

What's funny is Amy even complains that she can't use her hammer because of Cyberspace =P

Nothing's been replaced. And the "writing" didn't have anything to do with the GAMEPLAY decision to have her fling cards around as a melee attack instead of the hammer. They developed her as a playable character and decided on her movelist first, THEN the story was written.

[edutainer2022]

I know headcanons are a tricky territory. But sometimes when I see the "Scott can't be so broken and overworked or GDF wouldn't deal with him, he's charming and easygoing" I wonder if anyone has ever met the A-type personality in a high octane stressful (leadership) position? Yep, we're charming, capable and easygoing when interfacing with higher-up authority or leading by example. We're usually the heart of any group and a naturally appointed leader. We're the ones everyone considers "strong" and "dealing with it so admirably". That makes us no less stressed, overwhelmed, overworked or anxious (because of SO MUCH spotlight on us being capable and functional). Add grief and guilt, and fear into the mix. And you get Scott. Ask me how I know? Because loosing Dad made me one of the most efficient scholars in the field and propelled administrative career so early I'm still 20 years younger than anyone around. Doesn't mean it didn't make me want to die a little every day since. Because living through a f*cking WAR, in an actual warzone with bombs, has earned me sooooo many accolades on efficient leadership and admirable fortitude. Because I have people depending on me being that. Doesn't mean I'm not freaking out or not breaking down when nobody's watching. You've all met my "Tumblr" persona. Trust me, I'm a lot less engaging on my own. Doesn't mean I haven't resigned to my life being a function of meritorious performance. I can't afford not to. That's IMMEDIATELY what I zoned in on with Scott's character. The first thing we see him do is casually willing to sacrifice himself for a city. That's also the second, third and forth thing we see him do. Because that's how Dad died, we learn. The conversation in the tent doesn't RESOLVE much, if one actually follows Scott's reactions all the way through, just lampshades some things and adds perspective. And it takes some really willful gloss-over reading comprehension to say Scott is quite okay AFTER Dad's signal is found. All the way through to Jeff actually catching him falling.

I completely get not following popular headcanons and fanon. Trust me, there's A LOT of what's merrily considered "established fanon" in TAG that I don't agree with and that doesn't make sense to me in terms of what the text indicates about characters. But the Scott thing is something that gets me to flare up, precisely because the show went to great lengths to demonstrate through text and paratext his (many!) issues behind the "decisive team leader" persona. To the point the early TAG release and supplementary materials made sure to specify Scott has a propensity to "agonize over past mistakes".

Sorry for a harsher tone. I just needed to get it out.

[volturialice]

Hi G! I was wondering do you happen to know the official literary term for this? I’m wondering if it’s a kind of bonus content (the term you used in ep 0 of 3B1P escapes me — such as the opening epithet or tiny sketches, author commentary, a dictionary for fictional terms etc).

I’m reading a manga that occasionally has little author’s notes in the margins, usually between scenes, sometimes in the middle of scenes. If these are deliberately published by the author, would this be “marginalia”? Or just called an author’s note? Or a footnote? Something else?

I want to make compilation posts for all of them but idk what exactly to call these little notes. They’re very cute and funny. Some examples: “They kissed three times.” “She is the office’s reigning arm wrestling champion.” “Off to a men’s clothing store, I guess.” “I’m eating a sakura mochi today. A pink rice cake wrapped in a cherry blossom leaf.” 🤭

I appreciate any insight and I love the podcast!!

hmmm. the term I used in episode 0 is "paratext!" what you're describing could fall under the vague umbrella of paratext, but it sounds to me like they're actually worked into the main text. I think if I were making a compilation I would call those "authorial intrusions" or authorial asides! author's notes would also be fine. I'm not sure there's a precise term for the "part author's diary, part background trivia" kind you're describing (which sound totally adorable, btw) because they seem all but exclusive to manga. the footnotes in something like Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell or the Emily Wilde books probably come the closest, but even those aren't written in direct address/breaking the fourth wall. plus to me the term "footnote" equals very specific formatting. manga leaves much more creative freedom when it comes to where to put stuff! (and we love her for it.)

so glad you like the ole podcast, thank youuuu 🫶🫶

[an-aura-about-you]

let's keep going with Handbook for Mortals!

Chapter 12 part 2:

when we last left our hero, Scheherazade just got embarrassed as hell because she had no defense for Sofia's legitimate questions and also Sofia is banging Zade's dad. what a queen. I wish I could high five and/or kiss her. easily the best part of the book. maybe I should write Lani Sarem a fan letter about how much I love Sofia.

-we pick up after the show with Zade and Mac taking a walk in the park well after midnight. but since this is Vegas, that's not unusual and there are a lot of people around.

-a guy asks them if they'd like him to do a card trick, and Mac says Zade isn't allowed to do magic? I have no idea where that's coming from. saying that would imply he knows about Zade's magic, but he doesn't. we also know that, if she's not allowed to do magic, she is already breaking that just by participating in the show.

-we once again hear about Zade's showblacks fetish and also she's on this pseudo-date with Mac while in full show makeup. she changed into her street clothes, but seriously? stage makeup on a date? I mean, I guess there are stranger things in Las Vegas, but still.

-ooooooooof Zade says her maternal grandparents were literal... well. she uses the g-slur. between the use of that word and Zade and her mother being porcelain white, I sincerely doubt that anyone in their family is actually Roma. I'm pretty sure Zade is just using the term the way Skye Turner did to describe Sarem. Zade's family, to borrow a phrase I use for a different character I write fanfic about, are people who look like a new age shop threw up on them.

also I haven't forgotten that Zade's family have been landowners in Tennessee since the 1700s AND the family home is comparable to Tara. (I wonder if they use the plantation to grow weed now.)

this feels like it should be a tally for the bigoted language but also a tally for the bigger bigotry at play with Zade/Sarem using the g-slur for themselves.

-ahhh, and here it is: the narration confirms that Zade thinks talking about Spellman being her father would be trouble. WHY didn't we know this before??? also, THIS is confirmation that Zade has known who her father is. everything about the way this is phrased indicates that she has known since the start of the book that Spellman is her father. so why don't the readers, who have been along for the ride of Zade's thoughts this entire time, know this? because it would ruin the twist, of course. but unlike The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, this serves no purpose. or at least, it serves no purpose for Zade because concealing this information only makes things worse for everyone, herself included.

-also I wonder how many other pieces of media I can negatively compare this to. so far, from what I remember, I've compared it to Rebecca, Gone with the Wind, The Disaster Artist, Sunset Boulevard, Legally Blonde, High Noon Over Camelot, Ella Enchanted, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, and to a lesser extent the 1001 Nights and the Book of Esther to drag Scheherazade about not living up to her name.

-we've also reached page 231 in this book and now, for the first time, Zade is mentioning that she's been wearing a family necklace this whole time. you couldn't find a way to fit that into your description infodump back in Chapter 0?

also, the picture of Zade on the cover shows her wearing the necklace, but the problem with that is it's essentially paratext. covers can and do change, though I doubt this book is ever getting reprinted, but it is on a dust jacket covering a white book bearing the triple moon symbol. dust jackets can get removed or lost. I actually don't know if paperback versions of this book exist, but if they did, they're even flimsier. also, in the unlikely event that this book ever did get a second edition, they would probably have to use different cover art since the one on the dust jacket is plagiarized.

-she also claims the necklace is very important, but if it's so important, why are we only just now hearing about it over halfway through the book?????

-after Zade starts getting evasive about her parents, which I don't even understand because she COULD just say, "I don't like to talk about my parents," and then move on to safer territory, Mac starts tickling her and that segment ends with him straddling her in public and giving her a kiss. dang, guess what they say about Las Vegas is true.

-we then skip ahead to Zade and Jackson running into each other while she's on her way to lunch. after crashing into each other, Jackson puts Zade in a kabedon.

and I'm just gonna use the first gif I found for that because it's hilarious

-unfortunately Jackson is interrupted from making his move by a little girl who's a fan of Zade's and wants a picture with her.

-ok, I'm baffled about why Zade is the performer this little girl has picked out. the girl's mom says the girl won't stop talking about Zade after seeing her last night, but the only trick we know Zade has in the show is her high dive trick. that doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would capture a little girl so much, to the point that there was nothing else about the show that was more interesting.

and this is not knocking high dive acts. that shit IS impressive! it takes a level of courage and skill I know I'm surely lacking. but I would think a little girl might be more interested in something like, say, Sofia's Dance Illusion that's no longer in the show. (will I ever stop talking about Sofia? probably not, but can you honestly say I'm wrong about this? what do you think is going to capture a little girl's imagination more, an impressive high dive act or a beautiful magic dancer?)

idk maybe the kid wants to be a daredevil. mom better keep an eye on her or this might happen

-and of course the little girl has to say she wants to be just like Zade when she grows up. I am currently channeling Strong Bad's energy from this moment:

(actually I would love to see SB talk about how this is the crappiest Vegas show he's ever been to. I think he'd say something like there's too much boring acrobatic and magic crap, or acromagic crap, and bands that should be confined to AM radio only and stop fouling up our precious FM stations. also where are the showgirls?)

-Zade tells us she likes using quotes and sayings so that she can feel like she can always comment on something without sounding dumb. so when are you gonna stop sounding dumb? (ok that one was low-hanging fruit, but it's not my fault that Sarem is bending the branch down towards me.)

-you know those jokes they'd sometimes make in SpongeBob Squarepants where Sandy would rattle off some ridiculous list of things like it was a Texas saying? Zade is doing the unfunny version of that talking about how Jackson has charm flowing out of him like sweat.

and the chapter pretty much ends there with Zade moving on so she can go to lunch. that scene was there to reinforce the two things we know: Zade is amazing and Jackson is hot.

I mean I guess it's good that this chapter sort of gave us moments with both love interests, but all of this feels like some kind of salad of a chapter. it was all about Zade's relationships, but the most unifying part of it was the first part with her talking to Zeb and Sofia and getting on slightly better terms with both of them.

also this is how I'm picturing Sofia now for anyone who wants to see:

hey if Sarem is gonna put the term Magi Girl in her book, I figure it's not that much of a stretch to visualize Sofia as Tira Misu from Sorcerer Hunters.

[armed-aphrodite]

i actually do think that Death of the Author as a concept has done some harm to reading comprehension/literary analysis. there is good that it’s done – there is no One Right Way to read a book, no one truthful meaning, and the author doesn’t own the interpretation/meaning of their work. but being freed from the One Right Way, a lot of people have taken this to mean, “this book means whatever it means to me.” that just isn’t the case; there is no One Right Way to interpret a book/show/game, w/e, but there are Definitely wrong ways

for a famous example, take Fight Club (the movie, I haven’t read the book). we could watch the movie and interpret it to say, “wow, tyler durden is So Cool, that’s such a good movie about sticking it to the man, breaking free of society’s emasculating chains, and the frailty of the Snowflake Generation.” there are lots of people who Do have that interpretation. but to have that interpretation, they have to Ignore the fact that durden does the same things that he accuses consumerist culture of doing (e.g. to them you’re a faceless, nameless member of the hoard. and durden has these guys shave their heads and lose their names, literally). you have to ignore the film pitching the ending as a tragedy, or that durden is framed as the villain by the end, &c.

i’m not trying to say “listen to the author” – the author is indeed dead! (well, if we want them to be. if I like what they have to say they can live. Joanne gets the guillotine of course) but the interpretations we have of a work need to be grounded in the text to a large degree (some paratext is often necessary depending on the type of lens you're using, yeah, and works are often responding to other works or a cultural moment). once the author writes the text, they’re gone, evaporated, but the text itself is still there to be grappled with. the text is what is making you think/feel/react

the point of a language-game (not to get stupidly philosophical on the hellsite) is not that, “all language is contextual so it means whatever each listener thinks it means.” the point is that words matter in context. if you see, “Boner!” written in speech bubble of a superhero a 1930s comic book, it likely means something very different than if said by a horny werewolf in a 2010s smut fanfic. we don’t Decide what it means, we Decipher meaning. and some meanings are going to be Better than others

[adirectorprepares]

I agree that different mediums encourage (or, to use Robin Bernstein's framing, "script") different kinds of interactions with a text--and I think there's lots of interesting ideas to draw out of audiobooks as "sanctioned" interpretations or performances of a text, compared to, say, an oral tradition where stories are told aloud but there are many different versions and interpretations rather than a single authoritative one. (This is especially interesting in the context of production pressures that may mean an audiobook narrator isn't familiar with the minute details of a text--although I read an interesting article about how audiobook producers try and match not just a narrator's voice but their mind and interpretive practice to a text that they're reading. Tumblr gets weird with links for me, but I'll put it in a separate reblog.)

One thing that sometimes causes a sticking point in these discussions, I think, is the assumption that the written version of a text is neutral or unmarked, while the audiobook is marked, a version with an "extra" layer of interpretation. Even people who say they're not layering a value judgment onto the question of written vs audio version will often assume that audiobook readers are engaging with almost a non-canonical version of the text, an interpretation by an actor rather than "the original". (And then this can develop into value judgments and snobbery--with the further assumption that the original is *better*, a purer way of engaging with the text, a method that requires more "effort" and is therefore more beneficial, etc.) (To be clear, I'm not implying that you're doing this, OP! Just thinking about a pattern I've seen in some of these discussions.)

I think one of the more interesting questions that the rising prominence of audiobooks can raise is whether we can and should consider the written text to be the original, the neutral or unmarked method of engaging with a story. Because the reader of a written text is not encountering the platonic form of that story in a vacuum either; they're not having a "pure" encounter between self and text divorced from any external influence. Written text absolutely has features that script how a reader should interact with it--the cover; the font (eg how big it is, how "fancy" it is); the physical presentation of the book (eg whether it's paperback or hardback; whether it has, like, spayed edges or deckle edges); paragraph breaks and the way the text is set out on the page (eg whether there are lots of single lines set off by themselves); punctuation.

I don't really have fully developed thoughts on this, but I think it goes to a shifting understanding in literary studies of a text not being a single, authoritative, settled channel of communication, but the centre of a network of different interpretive practices and forms of engagement. Different mediums rising and falling in prominence is part of a whole suite of ideas about a book's paratexts and their effects on interpretation, about the way genre is cued, about how dominant readings become accepted and other readings become marginalised, about different groups of readers contesting the use of a text.

so. i understand where the sentiment "listening to an audiobook is the same thing as reading the book" is coming from - i mean, yes, the bottom line is you are taking in the same words in what is possibly a more accessible (or maybe just more enjoyable) format for you! and i'm 100% in agreement that "book snobs" who say "no you didn't really read it" if you listened to the audiobook are full of shit. ofc you should engage with stories in whatever way works for you, there is no moral or intellectual superiority to reading words off a page vs. listening to them

but it also is different? an audiobook is a performance. choices a narrator makes about line readings can drastically influence the meaning of the lines. even just different voices, accents, etc. - there are creative choices being made by the person delivering the words to you, and that affects your experience of the story in a different way than if you were making those choices in your own head. it might even change the way you visualize what's going on!

this isn't a bad thing it's just An Actual Thing & i think it's worth talking about. it rubs me the wrong way when people act like accommodations (and for many people audiobooks are an accommodation) always result in a completely identical experience, or even that they should, & if you suggest that people accessing media in different ways are having different experiences it's somehow ableist

anyway on rare occasions i really enjoy audiobooks but mostly they are much less accessible to me than words on a page (i need to be able to reread, flip back and forth, go at my own pace) & i also just really strongly prefer to encounter a text on my own before hearing someone else's performance of it, if possible! again i don't think it's "better" to read a physical book i just think it is a Distinct form of experiencing a story & acting like the two things are entirely the same is sort of doing a disservice to both

[semperintrepida]

Wrote 1400 words this week and finished two brand-new scenes. Currently on scene 13 of 58 in the outline. Once #13 is done, there's a long string of already-written scenes coming up that need to be made consistent with the story timeline. I'm a lot faster editing than I am at writing fresh prose, so hopefully things will move at an improved pace for the next little while.

Part 3 covers two years of chronological time, but the majority of the action happens in the second of those years. I've talked before about using the seasons instead of years as a marker for time in stories set in Ancient Greece, and a key part of a narrative edit is making sure each scene fits correctly into the story's timeline. (This is mostly me reading scenes and asking myself, "Are we still in harvest season? Aren't we supposed to be in late autumn here instead of winter? Didn't [character A] say [future event] was going to happen next spring, but now she just said it'll happen in autumn?" etc.)

I've also got a small bit of additional paratext to post as soon as I finish it.

[houlebubo]

One day I'll probably do a 40-minute video essay on this topic, but the internet's misinterpretation of "Death of the Author" is just a real shame.

I frequently see the concept brought up in relation to a certain terf author. People attempt to 'separate the work and the author', but that is frankly not how it is intended to be used.

"Death of the Author" is supposed to be a tool for literary analysis. That's all it is. It is not a theory by itself, nor a political stance or a way to judge morality.

It is a tool to encourage readers to interpret the content of a text authentically, but you should use it critically, and be aware of why, how and when it is relevant. It is not an excuse to ignore context or paratext, as both of those should also be considered in a proper analysis.

The tool was developed during a time when the discourse was more favourable towards an author's intention rather than a reader's interpretation. People used intention to dismiss other readers' analysis of texts, using diary entries or letters by dead authors to counter less mainstream takes of canon texts. It was a period where the 'goal' of literary analysis was to uncover a text's true meaning. The original essay was a short controversial counterargument but the conversations it sparked over the following decades have led to the scale tipping more in favour of interpretation. It has also led to a 180 of the original problem.

Killing the author has the potential of empowering readers and encouraging deeper. Maybe even uncovering biases the author wasn't even aware of! However, (mostly outside of academic circles but not always) people are misusing the concept and use it to dismiss context and racist dog-whistles as well as discourage readings that rely more on subtext.

In simple terms we have gone from a mentality saying "AHA, I have evidence and it said you are wrong" to "AHA, it doesn't matter and therefore you are wrong". Neither is constructive in a conversation about art.

If you use the death of the author effectively while acknowledging intention and context you actually add a lot of nuance to your analysis, and doing so can demonstrate your analytical abilities. You will be able to distinguish what the text is saying plainly, what is said between the lines, and if the narrative effectively handles what it originally claimed. It is an effective 1-2 punch. Let me give you an ultra-short example:

On the surface level, '50 Shades of Grey' tells you that it is a sexy BDSM story. Throughout interviews and promotional material, E. L. James frames her story as a female-empowering book. But by critically examining how the books handle themes of consent, privacy, agency etc. we can argue that the narrative doesn't live up to proper BDSM conduct and that the protagonist is not empowered, and is instead displaying an unhealthy relationship. If we take the analysis further we could make an argument about what this says about society at large. Does it normalise boundary-breaking behaviour? Could it make someone romanticise stalking? The thesis statement is all up to you. (disclaimer I have not actually read these books, don't come for me, this is an example)

Here is what we just did: I presented a surface reading of a text. I presented the most likely intention of the author. I then argued for my interpretation by looking at literary themes and context. I used the conflict between Jame's intention, and my interpretation to illustrate a conflict. 1-2 punch. I am not killing James, I consider her opinion and intention to strengthen my argument, but I don't let her word of god determine or dismiss my reading. In just 3 simple sentences I use a variety of resources from my toolbox.

When people weaponise the author's intention it can look like this:

"Well, E. L. James said it is a female power fantasy, you're just reading too much into it" <- dismissing context and subtext by using 'word of god'. Weighing intention above interpretation.

"Does it really matter that E. L. James didn't research BDSM before publishing, can't it just be a sexy book?" <- dismissing context, subtext as well as author intention and accountability. Weighing their own interpretation and subtly killing the author

Simply exclaiming "I believe in death of the author" (which I have heard in Lit classes) means nothing. It's nothing. Except that you want to ignore context and only indulge in the parts of the text that you find enjoyable.

In the plainest way I can put it, the death of the author is supposed to make you say: "the author probably meant A, but the text and the context is saying B, therefore I conclude C". Don't just repeat what the author says. Don't just ignore context. And allow the feelings the text invokes in you to be there and let them be something you reflect on. The details you pick up on will be completely unique to you, the meaning you get will be just your own. You can do all of these things at once, I promise it doesn't have to be one or the other.

There has to be a balance. Intention matters. Interpretation matter. Watch out and pay attention. Are you only claiming the author is dead or alive when it serves your own narrative?

When you want to ignore an author ask why

When you don't want to read a book because you don't condone the actions of the author ask why

Examine how you dismiss arguments and how you further conversations.

[elfwreck]

Chestnut_pod at dreamwidth has a great post about the issues and some proposed solutions (or rather, some proposed approaches to solutions), most of which are tied into "the OTW's infrastructure needs a serious overhaul." The post includes this:

If I were to break this down, I would posit that there are in fact three big problems that get talked about most often: 1) Volunteers experience racism in the course of their volunteer work for the OTW. 2) There is user-to-user racist harassment that takes place via AO3's tools, including fanfic metadata/paratext, bookmarks, user profiles, comments, etc. 3) There are fanworks with racist content on the AO3 that users find unpleasant to encounter. Breaking it down like this makes it easier to see that solutions that address (1) are unlikely to address (2), and so on. Moderation-based fixes that will help with (3) might actually make (1) worse, while the most stringent protections for (1) might make (3) impossible to deal with.

Most of the complaints about racism-at-AO3 are not "I found a fic that's offensive and supports racist ideology." We're all familiar with the back button, and now there's blocking and muting; those cover a lot of that.

They don't cover "horrifically racist tags." They don't cover "fic titles with racist slurs." They don't cover "usernames with racist slurs." They don't cover "targeted campaigns against people of color, resulting in multiple harassing comments by anons or throwaway accounts." They don't cover "you get an email that says you have a gift fic titled [username] is a fat stupid whore from an anon author who deletes it before it can be reported." (Which is why accepting gifts is now opt-in.)

The fix for these things should not be "user just gives up on having any comments on their fics, and also just gets used to seeing themselves insulted in tags and fic titles." Should not be "people" of color give up on volunteering because white people on staff refuse to believe there's racism inside the org in the internal communications."

If it happened once or twice, sure. Get a thicker skin; some people on the internet are going to say not-nice things. Shrug. But that's not what's going on.

When it's an ongoing pattern over years, when it's consistent enough that the targets can discuss it with strangers who have faced the same problems, when there's so much of it that it's impossible to separate the complaints of "there is actual harassment going on here" from "this fic shows Nazis as heroes" - the OTW needs to do something about it.

Exactly what that "something" Is, is hard to figure out. There's a lot of options. That's part of why a diversity consultant is important - to help find solutions that work within OTW's mission goals and also support fans of color.

Why do people seem to think ao3 is racist though? Like what content are people talking about when they say that? Like it’s more of a fandom problem if people are consistently mischaracterising characters of colour through racist stereotyping? But maybe it is a site problem if there’s like deliberately hateful content being put up (with use of derogatory slurs and caricatures) but I’ve only ever come across the former? And like, as a POC myself who likes reading stories that deal with race - I don’t get it? What do they want the site to do? They can’t ban race as a topic? That just hurts us?

--

Well, I'm hardly a neutral bystander, but most of the content that gets pointed to in the ongoing debates is stuff I think they're reaching hard on. There are a few outliers that are people incorporating real life tragedy into their fics in ways that are tasteless (though we can't necessarily tell the motivation or the author's demographic). There are even rarer outliers that seem to be some edgelord trying to upset people with racism being the latest in their great palette of edgelordiness. Those people are annoying, but they're best dealt with via muting and blocking.

It's certainly not everyone, but a good chunk of people taking issue with AO3 are pretty clearly interested in banning Bad Content. Racism is one of the few topics that will fluster many AO3 supporters and make them back down where "It's pedo!!!!!" or "Rape fantasies BAD!!!" would not. One can't help becoming pretty cynical after seeing so much of this.

[taiey]

Did you know that everyone in the Archives canonically works all week round?

“Canonically” is a strong word because I am confident Jonny just didn’t check well enough and didn’t mean any of these implications, but, uh: all the live statements except Michael’s have dates, usually in the text and always in the attached statement number paratext. And these dates are... mostly weekdays.

“Everyone” is also a strong word, but like, I don’t just mean John. You start with ep 22 being a Saturday, 12 March 2016, you can go “well Martin wasn’t exactly working, and John being in and recording 021 could just be him being a workaholic!” And ep 26 is another Saturday, 2 April 2016, with Sasha talking to John and Tim getting her a cup of coffee, but that could be because they’ve come in to support Sasha! I spent a while thinking the normal workday she describes was the same day that she gives the statement but actually that was April Fools’. Just ignore what odd phrasing “You can take a few days off to recover” is if that means “you can have the weekend off like you normally do”...

But then you have ep 28, Sunday the 17th of April, 2016. Melanie’s first statement. And Melanie tells us in 086 that “the first time I came to give a statement, there was a young woman working here named Sasha”. I kept thinking 'what if she just said when-I-first-came-to-the-Institute?’ but no, it’s explicitly the statement giving. On the Sunday.

Then we skip along through Tuesday, Fridays, Monday, until we hit 047, 2nd October 2016, Helen Richardson’s statement where John calls Not!Sasha in to ask her about Michael. Fun fact I noticed this one before 028 and spent a while trying to concoct theories about how Not!Sasha has no need to leave work and John doesn’t find this suspicious any more than her face, but. No. Ms Long-Lunch-Breaks-To-See-”My-Boyfriend” is just working genuinely normal ArchiveHours.

065 is 7th January 2017, Saturday, and Tim comes in to ask where John put something. There is a click off and on so technically John could have been describing how Tessa got him access to Gertrude’s laptop two days after she did that, but. like. Eh.

073 is a Saturday; it’s just John and Basira and in theory John could be coming in specially to talk with Basira about how the raid went. 081&082 are on Saturday 18 February, but obviously no one in those is going to a normal day at work. By the time you hit season 4, it’s like, ok 128 is a Saturday but Basira and John live in the archives now, so... so’s 132? John and Daisy arguably aren’t even on the planet Earth. 118′s a Sunday and 143′s a Saturday? They wouldn’t be trying to stop rituals 9-5 M-F regardless.

So the last point of interest in this post is the part of episode 100 where Basira takes a statement from Robin-with-the-dog, on May 20th 2017, which is a Saturday. All of three weeks after she got conscripted/kidnapped/recruited/etc, they really don’t ease-in.

If you’re thinking “maybe they take different days off?” or “maybe the TMA universe has days of the week offset from ours?” then I refer you to my spreadsheet. All the day labels in brackets are canonical; we got all the days. + indicates episodes definitely on the same day. Episode dates without days of the week are placed by guessing.

In conclusion, I leave you with these quotes from 078, 16th February 2017, a Thursday:

ARCHIVIST  you should take the rest of the day off. Tomorrow as well. [...] TIM   Great. See you Monday.

😐😑

[adamsvanrhijn]

ooooh 17, 19 if you want, 32, 38

17. Past or present tense? Why?

both!!! that post going around right now about this makes me :-( because i use both in about equal frequency (though!!! i don't know that for certain... i should make a chart) and people are dissing present tense a lot lol. but! i like them both, and they both tell stories.

i think they each give different vibes and there are some nuances worth considering to craft something of quality in each. converting tenses (which i have to do fairly often because i do write in both and i don't write in a linear way at all, so if passage x is in present and passage y is in past one of them has to Win and the other gets rewritten) and ending up with quality prose is more complex than just changing the verb tenses.

but i like both and use both! sometimes within the same work (in diff chapters/sections obvs, not in the same piece of prose) to express something in particular? but generally it's arbitrary and it's just how the words fall out of my head.

19. Share a snippet from a wip without giving any context for it.

"It's become inconvenient," Oscar specified.

"Has it?"

"And with you blocks away," sharing an address with several mutual acquaintances of theirs (bachelors congregated; Oscar had been careful to deviate from the trend), in an area... well, not more trafficked. But crowds were amenable when one wanted to blend in, and the crowds at Madison Square were more active and more varied than those in John's quarter, where all had impeccable background and pedigree—and all knew them both on sight, saw them both everywhere.

He hadn't known New York. He couldn't be blamed for his decision, and, in Oscar's favor, he'd said before that he should make a different one if he could start again.

But he disliked change once he had settled: the other side of the coin, and the one that would not serve Oscar well in this endeavor.

32. Do you have a word/expression that you always use in your writing?

lmfao god yeah unfortunately. there are very many. i am trying to break some of these habits with tga fanfic as i am writing new points of view? but some of it is just ~*~*My Style~*~.

major offenders:

"breathe[s/d]" as a dialogue tag verb

i feel that my adverbs are repetitive in general but especially "lightly". my prose is very beige and i tend to over-rely on Telling with adverbs in general imo.

lexical trends characters have in canon tend to show up more frequently in my fic than they do in the actual source material, especially when it's ways of expressing contradiction (e.g. thomas barrow downton abbey "but even so")

38. "This never happened" fix-it fics or "this happened but" fix-it fics?

so i don't really write Fix It Fic so much as i write canon divergent aus where things go differently and sometimes result in what i think is a good outcome for the characters that they may not necessarily have been afforded in canon — i am a Canon First Word Of God Second Paratext Third Everything Else Last person, and i like to explore other stories and what if scenarios, but i'm very much a "love letter to the media" fic writer, not an "i can do it better" fic writer.

but in any case, i try to err on the side of "this happened but" because i think it's easier to keep characterization stable and recognizable that way, as well as, when things don't happen at all, trying to ensure there is an analogue event or plotline that allows for similar character development. sometimes i like to take said character development past canon to a place that feels more desirable to me, but that isn't intended necessarily to be a Fix, because i have so many stories going on in my head and i don't even really have headcanons that are 100% stable across my own work, let alone scenarios in mind that feel Better or more certain to me than canon itself does.

[erintoknow]

oh boy where to start

okay first i oughta say i got off the halo train after bungie left the franchise with microsoft. 343 industries has taken a very different approach with the games and paratexts like books and tie-in media then bungie did and i can't speak to any of that. maybe they completely changed everything!!! i don't wanna assume anything so apologies if any of this is stuff you already know

so if we want like, official bungie lore status on rampancy in halo, we don't have a lot to work with - bungie operated under the principle that you only ever needed the games themselves to understand what was going on and the halo story was never really about the AIs themselves. we do get a distinction between two types of AI - there are 'dumb' AI which are pretty much more advanced versions of the machine learning algorithms we have now. super specialized and effective in a very narrow field, hopeless outside of that function.

and there are 'smart' AI; smart AI are capable of growing and developing new functions and competencies on the fly and are effectively people but in a computer - in fact that's exactly what they are, smart AIs are made exclusively through a process in the lore called 'cognitive impression modeling' which effectively taking a freshly dead donor brain and scanning it into a computer to form the basis of a new AI.

smart AI in turn have an effective lifespan of 7 years (it's bungie of course it's 7), towards the end of their lifespan they become so complex their behavior turns erratic and they begin to think themselves to death, becoming unresponsive to outside stimuli (remember the memes about 'what if you used 100% of your brain?' that's effectively what happens to them). and that's essentially what rampancy is in halo, erratic behavior counter to programming as the AI breaks down and then effective death.

there's a subtextual implication / fan theory that Halo AIs could just be dying for want of processing power before reaching the kind of rampancy stages that Marathon describes but i don't know how supported that is by the text

rampancy as a term technically doesn't even really exist as anything but an easter egg line in the games, if i remember right? - most of what gets explicitly established first shows up in the original halo tie-in novel by Eric Nyland, Fall of Reach, which was a Microsoft mandated tie-in using some lore documents Bungie was forced to hand over and written in... what was it? a matter of weeks? Even so, Fall of Reach does a lot of fucking work to establish the greater universe the games were set in and Bungie kind of rolled with it more or less (the book did get a big re-release/re-write when Bungie made halo:reach which completely contradicted the events of the book because Bungie effectively doesn't consider anything not directly touched by them as canon)

(Another fun fact about Cortana, she's not just a smart AI she's an experimental one, made using a cloned brain of her creator who was still alive - Cortana is the only AI in the fiction to have ever actually talked or co-existed with the original person she was made from, created explicitly to aid a team of Spartan super soliders on a suicide mission to force a truce with the aliens attempting to wipe out humanity)

the other prominent smart AI (maybe? it was made by aliens so we don't really know) in the fiction is 343 guilty spark, a monitor ai meant to oversee a giant ancient space installation. alone. for tens of thousands of years. there's a lot of speculation as to if 343 is rampant - as an alien AI it's clearly not subject to humanity's 7 years rule but it's behavior is more then a little erratic and ultimately turns on the player in a conflict of it's core programming. We don't really get anything of Spark's like, internal thought processes though so it's hard to say

in Halo:Reach there's a bunch of easter egg data pads you can collect that are a series of conversations by what looks to be a secret collective of smart AIs attempting surreptitiously to guide humanity from behind the scenes but i don't know if anything ever comes of that in the post-Bungie canon

if you really want a proper AI-focused story in pre-343 Industries halo you really only have two options:

Halo:ODST features the dumb AI Virgil. Virgil is the superintendent AI managing the entire city of New Mombossa, he doesn't have his own voice but instead communicates to the player using signs lights and canned voice clips to direct the player around the city to points of interest and alerting them of hostile encounters ahead of time. There is a side-story in ODST you collect in audio files following a young woman named Sadie. Sadie is the daughter of one of the engineers who worked on Virgil. Said engineer put a subroutine into Virgil to watch over his daughter and the audio files document as Virgil helps Sadie escape the city during the alien invasion. ODST concludes with a damaged Virgil being merged with a alien lifeform called an Engineer who defects from the alien invasion to help the humans. What becomes of them after? no idea! What does it mean for a dumb AI to merge with a living creature? no idea!

The other big AI-focused story is 42entertainment's I Love Bees/Haunted Apiary ARG that was commissioned to promote the upcoming release of Halo 2 of the summer of 2004. It's uh, principally responsible for why I ever cared about Halo to begin with so I guess it did the job there.

I Love Bees' principle AI is Melissa, a near end-of-life smart AI stationed on a spy ship which accidentally activates an an alien artifact which splits her apart in time and space. One half, Durga, ends up going rogue on earth, while the other ends up on a personal beekeeper's website circa 2004 and loses its shit trying to run on vastly underpowered hardware, splitting into three sub-AI, The Operator, blindly running Melissa's original programming, the SPDR, a repair program, and The Sleeping Princess a child-like AI with memories of the original donor-brain.

I won't dump the entire complicated story here, there's websites for that - smart AI in halo seem to be a lot more tightly bound by built-in programming restraints then the ones in Marathon, being almost exclusively military software, at least the ones we get to see are. I Love Bees' Melissa/Durga/Operator/SPDR/Sleeping Princess system-dealio are, while not the only plot in the story, is probably the closest to how Marathon puts AI center stage, taking a very identity focused track, reconciling with where smart AI come from in the setting with a touch of what does it mean for this AI to exist outside of it's original programmed purpose which is similar to Marathon's rampancy I guess? but it takes a different track to it then say Durandal's self-aggrandizement.

I need someone to talk to me about what rampancy is like in halo… like I know in paper its the same stages as it is in marathon, but like.. on the representation of it… like. Metaphors and the comparisons it draws bc im curious and maybe a little bit worried about how it differs

[luminescent-chorus]

FANVIDS MASTERLIST

Sam and Dean

Urban legends The infamous Winchesters : a dark tale

Cornerstone 15 years of ‘there ain’t no me if there ain’t no you’

It’s always been you and me Soulmates : a retrospective

Motel rooms If Heaven was still about driving down memory lane

When is a monster not a monster ? ‘Start by pulling him out of the fire…’

Parentification ‘I had to be more than a brother’

When tomorrow starts without me Last words to a loved one (15x20)

Chlorine Sam’s blood tale in season 4, his strained relationship with Dean

I will follow you Dean being unable to live without Sam

.

Sam/Dean

Siren ‘This could be perfection A venom drippin’ in your mouth’

Subtext, paratext, intertext ‘You know they are brothers, right ?’

Wincest and The Almighty Is a sin divine when it comes from God ?

And I still love him Sam reminiscing their story after Dean’s death

Unhealthy Obsession A love you can’t escape

We should be lovers instead (wip)

.

Subtitles by Richard Siken

De mon âme à ton âme (wip) Sam and Dean’s lethal love

Little Beast Season 1 aka mutual pining

Wishbone All Hell Break Loose

.

Homages to wincest fics

About them Descriptions of Sam and Dean’s bond

Missing Sam Dean as Odysseus, longing to reach his Ithaca : Sam

.

Shipcest

Sibling complex (multifandom)

.

Darkchesters

Birds in the storm Listen to demons hiding inside

Ask me if I give a fuck Tearing the world apart

.

American Horror Family

Mad House The Winchesters Freak Show

Home is where it hurts From haunting to domestic violence

Your child, your repetition John, Mary, Dean and Sam’s : the parallels between their deaths and rebirths

.

Show me a hero and I’ll write you a tragedy

Sam I’ve got a secret under my skin

Children and dark magic (multifandom)

.

Dean/John

No fairy tale The one where every member of the family is denied a happy end

Dear Father I hate you for all the sacrifices you made for me/ I love you for always driving me insane

.

Fatherhood

Complicated relationship Oh daddy

We’ll fend for ourselves Letter to an absent father

Oh,,,darlin’ ‘What have I done ? Now I do my talking with a gun’

A hero just like daddy Worship and inferiority complex

Natural born sinner (wip : Sam & John)

.

John’s journal

Sam and Dean’s childhood… as told by their father. His words explain how the events of yesterday shaped their present.

#1 : A Special Kid

#2 : Killer Instinct

#3 : Keywords

#4 : Carry On

#5 : 1983

.

Motherhood

Black wedding (wip : Sam & Mary)

Mothering from the other side Being haunted by and letting go of the ghost of a parent

What I’ve lost Mary, her lost Heaven and children

.

Hunting life

‘Cause you’re a natural A beating heart of stone

I Like It Heavy The rush

Tired of this job, this life (wip) The hardships

.

Faith

Horror show (wip)

Do you believe in angels ? (wip)

Heaven is just a fairytale to put you to bed (wip)

Can’t play God without being acquainted with the devil (wip)

.

Content warning

Not yours to touch Dean and sexual violence

Walking on the street (wip)

.

— OTHER FANDOMS —

The boys

Gods among men Homelander - Soldier Boy

[degenerate-perturbation]

why are they all paratexts?

Because they're all stories about the breaking and healing of reality itself that make heavy use of pareidolia as a narrative device. This is not a coincidence because nothing is ever a coincidence, it all adds up to 19, it's all circumstantial simultaneity. Self-reference as both a medium and a message.

Also Vriska is there

[curioussubjects]

I know I’m late to the party, but I had a couple cents to throw into the canon discourse from the weekend. There are two definitions of “canon” that are used in fannish discourse, but one of them is exclusive to fandom shipping spaces:

Canon (1) = literary, biblical. In the case of SPN, canon means the parts that make up the text. This is the definition that has overlap with literary analysis. And the definition that delineates our dataset in most cases -- exceptions in studies of paratexts, for example.

Canon (2) = as in ship. That is, canon meaning if a ship has become an established relationship (couple), usually in the endgame. And this usage was born out of, you guessed it, shipping wars. This is not about representation. This definition also has no place in discussions about what is or isn’t textual.  It’s a cudgel. Bragging rights, that’s it. 

When we’re talking about destiel the facts are these:

Destiel is a canonical part of Supernatural. It simply is. This is indisputable: there is an intentional romance being written, which we can understand by the use of tropes, genre convention, and audio-visual language. 

There may be room to argue the specificities of their relationship and if they have ever been a couple. I say may because the text isn’t complete yet and there may be evidence to point one way or the other. As it stands, I think the text is being very pointed about where Dean and Cas are in terms of relationship status not only because we had a literal divorce arc that read like a break up. This reading is a simple matter of argument: claim - reasons for claim - evidence - reasons for evidence. And some arguments are stronger than others.

So the question isn’t “is Destiel a romance?” or “are Dean and Cas in love?” because the answer is yes on both counts, this is bog standard. And it’s bog standard because the evidence is overwhelming to the point arguing against it says more about the person arguing than what the text is doing. 

The question y’all actually seem to be asking is “are Dean and Cas a couple?” Or “will they be a couple?” 

But how can you tell?!?!? Tropes, conventions, plot devices, parallels, etc etc. Just because someone can’t understand what the text is saying doesn’t mean the text isn’t saying it. A person’s failure to read doesn’t automatically mean the text itself failed in transmitting a message. 

Are Dean and Cas a couple? You tell me. What is the evidence? What is the evidence against it? A kiss in this scenario is one piece of evidence. One part of the puzzle and, imo, not even a big part. 

I’d argue the answer on destiel being canon is a hearty yes on all accounts. And I also think arguing otherwise would be quite difficult. 

Am I clowning for smooches? Am I clowning for more overt displays of affection? Yeah, you bet, but not because that would be the thing that made destiel part of the SPN text or canon in the fannish sense. I’m clowning because I’d love to see that on my screen for vary many reasons. However, I think it’s a disservice to the gorgeous story we have already to dismiss it out of hand or calling it queerbaiting just because we didn’t get this thing or that thing.