#the story / narration I mean

[blackkatdraws2]

mwah [Blank Scripts AU]

[corsairspade]

every time i interact with the silmarillion i get weirdly excited about the fact that the authorial intent is that it's a translation of historical accounts. it's a tertiary source! none of it is first hand. it makes it so much more interesting. was the legendarium a mannish tradition? what parts of these were written by pengolodh? by rumil? what loremaster has recorded this? would there be bias in the accounting? can i trust what i'm reading, from this viewpoint, this many years after it would have been written?

what has been mythologised, what has been sanitised, what is third-hand written on rumour? it's such an interesting thing to consider.

[mushroompoisoning]

au where the stanely parable narrator and the slay the princess narrator have swapped places, and are very confused but still trying very hard to adapt to their new situation

[island-in-the-shadows]

Truly, my sympathies to people watching IWTV and are getting tired/bored of different perspectives. I'm not bored or even remotely tired.

Interviews by their very nature are perspective based. The story has this specific framing. As did the first book. They added to it with Armand now being an active participant and Daniel being more seasoned at interviewing. I understand how Armand's very edited and hyperbolic take on events that Book Lestat describes in The Vampire Lestat rubs people the wrong way. I do think that one could argue the way Lestat writes his own autobiography is the objective truth (note Armand in his book does not contradict Lestat). However, sorry to say, there is never an objective truth. The truth is always subjective.

I was raised by a whole family of lawyers and if I learned anything is that you can spin things in any way, but an objective truth will never exist. Not in crime, not in person to person storytelling, not in fictional storytelling. Hell, viewers seeing the SAME show CANNOT come to a consensus. Why? Because we all put our thoughts, experiences, and feelings to it. That's all perspective.

We see Louis give Armand a kiss in bed. Some think aw domestic and cute. Some think Louis is deliberately withholding and rewarding Armand for good behaviour. Some saw the act they put on in E2 as some version of truth and domesticity and some think it's only an act. Some think Dreamstat is actual Lestat out there somewhere and some think it's Louis' conscience.

Yes, the narrative will confirm one thought or another on some things but not all of them. They're deliberately left up to interpretation. Something btw, Lestat urges the reader to do in TVL when he does not go into details about his time with Louis and Claudia. And part of that has to do with perspective.

We could have a straightforward narrative with no corrections and no perspectives. But would that be as interesting as seeing how minds that far exceed our own twist and bend and interpret events? Would it be as interesting as seeing a vampire who tells himself a story so that he can carry on living despite being miserable? Would it be as interesting as this vampire who tells himself a story get pushback on what he's saying by someone who notices errors and inconsistencies? Would it be an interview at all? Or would it be, as Daniel put it in the very first episode, "a fever dream told to an idiot."

If you want a straightforward non-challenging version of the story, the 1994 movie exists. It's not perfect and a lot of details are missing, but there's only one, unchallenged perspective to it. And even then...how many people didn't (want to) see the queerness in it?

TL;DR I get being frustrated or tired or bored by the way the show is trying to tell the story, but at least it's doing something a little different and not word for word.

[prolibytherium]

I never touched it but I feel like i only ever hear positive things said about song of achilles.. in (rough strokes at least) what makes it dogshit to you?

Okay it's been a while since I actually read it so some of this might not be spot on accurate. Sorry if at any point I say 'the book never does xyz' and it actually does once or twice but I think my underlying criticisms are accurate

-Patroclus is made into like this soft gentle tender quivering little yaoi boy. In the source text, he's shown as compassionate and moved by the suffering of his own men (and apparently having some medical skill, tending to the wounded in the camp), but very much invested n combat and very, very good at it (pages worth of descriptions of the guys he's killing left and right). In this, the arguably more complex character from this 8th century BC text is flattened into Being A Healer, he doesn't want to go to war he just wants to help people, he only goes because Achilles has to but he doesn't want to fight he's a HEALER he's a gentle lover NOT A FIGHTER who just wants to help he just wants to help everyone around him he HEALS while Achilles is a doomed warrior who is so good at fighting and KILLING its a DICHOTOMY GUYS!!!LIKE THE BEAUTIFUL SUN AND MOON DOOMED LOVERS SO SAD patocluse HEALER . (I Think he's specifically characterized as being BAD at fighting but might be misremembering)

-I don't remember much about Achilles' characterization I think it just makes him less of a jackass while not adding anything of interest and levels out into being mad boring.

-Not getting into the literal millenias old debate whether the mythological characters Achilles and Patroclus were being characterized as some type of lover by the original oral sources of the Iliad or its Homeric writers. We will never know. We don't even know what (if any) culturally accepted conventions of male homosexuality existed in bronze age Greece (we know much more about their descendants). But there are some interesting elements of their characterization in this direction, with how unconventional their relationship is WITHIN the text itself- Patroclus is described as cooking for Achilles and his guests (very specifically a woman/wife's job), Achilles chides Patroclus like a father, but there's also scene where Achilles' mourning of him directly echoes a passage of Hector's wife mourning her husband, Patroclus is explicitly stated to Achilles' elder, and is overall treated as his equal or near-equal, closest confidant and most beloved friend (to the point that pederastic classical Greeks would debate over who was erastes (older authority figure lover) and who was eromenos (adolescent 'beloved')- many took it as a given that this text depicted their present-day cultural norms of homosexual behavior but it existed so Outside of these norms that it had to be debated who was who). Their relationship is non-standard both within the text and to the descendants of the civilization that wrote them.

Basically what I'm saying is this book had opportunities to like, explore the unconventionality of the relationship (being presented here as explicitly lovers), explore the dynamics of why Patroclus wants to do 'women's work' (besides being a tenderhearted softboy), the weird dynamics where they take on paternal roles to each other but also roles of wives, how they feel about being this way, and just kind of Doesn't. Which I guess isn't an intrinsic fault (because it omits much of what I just talked about to begin with). it's just like.... Lame. This book takes jsut abandons everything interesting about the source text in favor of flattening it into bland Doomed Yaoi.

-The conflict that sets off the core story of the Iliad is Achilles and Agamemnon fighting over Briseis, an enslaved Trojan woman taken by Achilles as a war-trophy, Achilles spends most of the story moping because he was dishonored by his 'trophy' being taken. Achilles and Patroclus and everyone else are raping their captives, all the women in the story are either captured Trojans (or in the case of the free women within the walls of Troy, soon to be enslaved, and are slave owners themselves). Slavery as an institution and extreme patriarchal conventions are innate to the text and reflective of the context in which it was developed. You cannot avoid it.

But obviously you can't have your soft yaoi boys doing this, so the author has them capturing women to Protect Them from the other men. Their slaves are UNDER THEIR PROTECTION and VERY SAFE (and they might even Like And Befriend Them but I might be misremembering that. Briseis does though). Our heroes have apparently absorbed none of the ideals of the culture they exist in and the author seems to think "they're gay and aren't sexually attracted to their captives" would translate to them being outright benevolent (also as if wartime sexual violence is just about attraction and not part of a wider spectrum of violent acts to dehumanize and brutalize an accepted 'enemy')

In the source text, Briseis mourns Patroclus as being the kindest to her of her captors, who tried to get her a slightly better outcome by getting her married to Achilles (which probably would be the Least Bad of all possible outcomes for a woman in that situation, becoming a legal wife instead of a slave), and wonders what will happen to her now that he's gone. This is a really really sad, horrible, and compelling dynamic which could be fleshed out in very interesting ways but is instead is tossed entirely aside in favor of them being Besties. Like brother and sister.

All of the above pisses me off so much. If you don't want to engage in the icky parts of ancient/bronze age Greece then don't write a retelling of a story taking place in bronze age Greece. I'm not gonna get mad at children's adaptations of Greek myths or silly fun stories loosely based on them for omitting the rape and slavery but it is SO fundamental to the Iliad. If you're not willing to handle it, either fully omit it or better yet set your Iliad inspired yaoi in an invented swords-and-sandals setting where you can have all your heartbreaking tragic doomed lovers plot beats and not have to clumsily write around the women they're brutalizing.

-The author didn't seem to know what to do with Thetis and she made her just like, Achilles bitch mother who spends most of the story trying to separate our Yaoi Boys (iirc her disguising Achilles as a girl and hiding him on Scyros is made to be more about getting him away from Patroclus than trying to save her son from his prophesied doom in the Trojan War) until she sees how much they loooove each other and I think helps Patroclus' spirit get to the afterlife or something in the end?

-This is more of a personal taste gripe but it has that writing style I loathe where the prose feels less like a story and more like an attempt to string together Deep Beautiful Hard Hitting Poetic Lines that will look great as excerpts on booktok (might predate booktok but same vibe). It's all very Pretty and Haunting and Deep but feels devoid of real substance.

I really like The Iliad and The Odyssey in of themselves. They're fascinating historical texts that give a window into how 8th century BC Greeks told their stories, saw their world, interpreted their ancestors, etc. And genuinely I think these texts have 'good' characters, there's a lot of complexity and humanity to it.

WRT the Iliad- all of the main Achaeans are pretty fascinating, the one singular part where Briseis Gets To Talk and laments her situation is great, Achilles fantasizing that all of the Trojans AND the Achaeans die so he and Patroclus alone can have the glory of conquering Troy (wild), Achilles asking to embrace Patroclus' shade and reaching out for him but it's immaterial (and the shade being sucked back underground with a 'squeak' (the squeak kinda gets me it's disturbing and sad)), Hecuba talking about wanting to tear out Achilles' liver and eat it in a (taboo, exceptioally pointed) expression of rage and grief for his mutilation of her son's corpse, just one tiny line where the enslaved women performing ritual wailing for their dead captors are described as using it as an outlet to 'grieve for their own troubles' is heartrending, etc. A lot of grappling with anger and grief and the inevitability of death, a lot of groundwork laid for characters that could be very interesting when expanded upon in the framework of a conventional novel.

And Song Of Achilles really doesn't do much with all that. I know a lot of my gripes here are kind of just "It's different from the Iliad", I would have thought of it as mostly mediocre and forgettable rather than infuriating if it wasn't a retelling (and I DEFINITELY have strong biases here). But I think the ways in which it is different are less just a product of a retelling (of course there's going to be omissions and differences) and more a complete and utter disinterest in vast majority of its own subject matter, to the book's detriment. I think a retelling has a point when it EXPANDS on the source, or provides a NEW ANGLE to the source. This book doesn't Really do either, it just shaves off the complexity of its source material, renders the characters into a really boring archetype of a gay relationship, and gives very little else. Its content boils down to a middling tragic romance that has been inserted into the hollowed out defleshed skeleton of the Iliad.

Bottom line: I definitely would not be as mad about it if I wasn't familiar with the source material but I think it's fair to expect a retelling to Engage with/expand on its source, and I also think it's weak purely on its own merits. This book was set up to disappoint Me specifically.

[pasdetrois]

still very much of the opinion that more people would appreciate pavel if they were able to look past the narrator's bias. the question of the narrator’s exact identity, ephemeral and shifting as it is, warrants consideration here as well.

[byfulcrums]

The sun and moon symbolism was used so well in LMK

I love how it wasn't used as a way to tell us about their personalities but instead as a way to reflect their beliefs, their places in the world and how their relationship with it can vary

When you think about sun and moon characters, the first things that comes to mind are "extrovert and introvert", "loud and quiet", "optimistic and realistic (or straight up pessimist)", etc. You think of two labels that are used, to put it simply, as a way to tell us that oh, this character is bright and nice and this other character is quiet and follows them anywhere. And depending on what you think about Shadowpeach, this might suit them! But if we're talking about canon, then it's just... not them

Macaque isn't a shy, timid guy who while he's smart and clever, he doesn't stand up for himself. SWK isn't a happy and cheerful but also dumb guy who tends to be the one to defend Mac when he doesn't do it himself

Here, the sun and moon symbolism is used to explain the nature of their relationship, not their personalities. It's used to give us a simple explanation of why they're that way without showing us a 20 minute backstory scene to make us understand what the fuck happened (though that wouldn't be unwelcome)

The sun shines brightly and gives us its warmth, but in the end, he'll always be alone; no one can get close to her without burning. The moon's brightness comes only from the sun, and she's most noticed when it's night, while the shadows cover the earth

The moon needs the sun to shine, but the sun wouldn't change at all if he wasn't there; Macaque needs SWK to be there for his character to be important. but Sun Wukong's story would have remained almost the same if Macaque had never been his friend. If you want a story where they never knew each other, just read JTTW!

However, while the sun doesn't need the moon at all in real life, these two characters are supposed to be actual people, not a rock and a ball of gas in space. Macaque can be his own person without Sun Wukong being there, and Wukong is strong enough to not need someone fighting by his side but still wants it anyway

They're not soulmates, at least not in the way the wind and the sea are. Sun Wukong's love for Liu'er Mihou isn't a thing destiny wrote. It's not heaven's, not space's, not faith's: it's his. And his love for Macaque is what makes him need him by his side

[silverskye13]

Trying to analyze the tropes in my own fics to see if I think they're successful as component pieces and getting so confused I give myself psychic damage send help

[hellofastudysession]

the thing about stanley is that he knows he can never be hurt by the narrator in a way that matters and that is exactly why he gets hurt in the end. the thing about stanley that no one gets is that he always has the upper hand over the narrator. there is a reason he stays and its not because hes trapped. until he is. because he wants to be. the thing about stanley is that making him either a completely full-fledged literal office worker or a nothing-at-all blank slate player character ruins the best part about him, which is that, if you reach the end, he chose to be here

[metalandmagi]

lol I know this is old news in the Captive Prince fandom, but reading 1 star reviews of Captive Prince is so funny because it's so clear that most people giving it a low rating don't understand it at all. Obviously the ones who weren't into it because of the trigger warnings are totally fine, but so many people are just like, "THIS GLAMORIZES ABUSE AND SLAVERY! THE CHARACTERS DO QUESTIONABLE THINGS, SO THEREFORE IT IS TERRIBLE!"

Like bro did you even read it at all 😂 Do you know what the word "glamorizing" means? This is basically Fight Club and Dune all over again!

And then the best part is switching to Princes Gambit and it's all 5 stars and the most glowing reviews you'll ever read. The dichotomy is so fucking funny!!!!

[blackkatdraws2]

The Main Character.

[Blank Scripts AU]

[familyofpaladins]

I know everyone (including myself) is like really excited about the special and the idea of the Monkey Crew going back into the scroll to help Monkey King escape and getting to see more of the JttW story...

but I don't think that's going to happen (at least not right away)

Because before they can go about freeing Monkey King, they're gonna have to repair the slate first

And do you y'all remember what Azure said about the scroll?

"- a fragment of the Scroll of Memory-"

"-stolen from the Underworld"

....

In the season 2 special we got a Demon (Red Son) getting the crew into the Celestial Realm

And so I think in the season 4 special, a Celestial Being...

is going to get them into the Underworld

to repair the slate

[megumi-fm]

.

[lotussokka]

the idea that jc is the main character of mdzs is so nonsensical its almost laughable to me honestly. he couldve been /a/ main character if mxtx had focused the narration around both wwx and him. it wouldve changed the story to be the tale of two brothers instead of being primarily a love story but all the components of the existing story couldve remained intact as one half of a two sided story. however even then he wouldve been one of two main characters. ive thought quite a bit about it over the years since i read mdzs and i cannot think of any way to tell the events of the story with jc as Thee Main Character™. the main plot is driven by solving a mystery that jc had a passing knowledge of, at best, so even if mxtx had focused the pov entirely around jc the way she did wwx, it would be debatable if he was actually the main protagonist or if he functioned as an outsider pov to the main events. i mean that wouldve been an incredibly interesting choice and i wouldve had sooooo many Thoughts about how he’s barely the protagonist in his own story, but thats not the choice mxtx made

[yaburnaee]

people conveniently like to leave out the bit where nesta tried to go after feyre in acotar when they talk about her not doing anything for the family. the fandom discourse is sooooo funny.

[manguopudding]

finished tress of the emerald sea a few days ago!! i really do love sanderson’s world building, and the seas and their spore dropping moons were top tier even compared to the rest of his bonkers planets. i really hope he does more on this world in the future...