#this is almost definitely inaccurate but i'm attached to the name now

[megamindsupremacy]

So, way back when I was a wee little cringe nerd (tentatively affectionate), I was absolutely bonkers obsessed with Percy Jackson. I also had basically zero access to the internet and only an extremely vague idea of what fanfiction was, and I definitely wasn't immersed in the fanfiction culture of the time. So that meant whenever I had Thoughts and Ideas, I was writing those fuckers straight into my class notebooks for all the world but especially my teachers to see. That being said, I just remembered my very first ever fanfiction idea, of which I wrote three pages of looseleaf in my seventh-grade social studies class with my best friend in between assignments. Which I will now elaborate on as an Adult because honestly, what else do I have a semi-popular Tumblr blog for?

The basic idea is that, in the Son of Neptune, instead of heading straight for Camp Jupiter, Percy very vaguely remembers that the mysterious Annabeth lives very close by. He skids down the hill next to the Caldecott Tunnel, but instead of crashing into the highway, he lands in the back of a pickup and is carried away by a very panicked+annoyed driver who wants the kid in the back of his truck out.

(Please imagine Frank and Hazel, standing guard, watching some random kid go screaming down the side of a hill on a serving platter while pursued by gorgons, land in a pickup, and, still screaming, swordfight said gorgons. Who get whacked out of the air and run over by a school bus. Can you fucking imagine)

(Please also imagine Juno, waiting invisibly next to the road, also watching Percy go screaming by in a truck. She had been waiting there to give Percy her mysterious "choose safety or your memories" spiel but now he's fucking gone)

The pickup driver pulls over to the side of the road near the bay and tells Percy to get the fuck out of the back of his car. Percy, seeing the gorgons in hot pursuit in the distance, makes the logical move and jumps straight into the bay. He lets instincts and muscle memory guide him to the edge of one of those fancy neighborhoods that border the edge of the water. He continues following muscle memory and instincts and ends up at Annabeth's house, and he knocks on the door.

Fredrick, opening the door: Percy Jackson??

Percy: ...who are you

Fredrick: you exploded my car four years ago! my daughter has been looking for you for months. ANNABETH COME DOWNSTAIRS I FOUND YOUR BOYFRIEND

Percy: HUH WHAT

Annabeth gives him a flying tackle hug and Percy is 60% confused, 40% relieved because finally this is someone he remembers. Annabeth starts talking about how they need to get Percy to CHB stat, everyone is so worried about him, they knew Jason had had amnesia but it had been so long they weren't sure if Percy was still alive, etc etc,

Percy is nodding along in confusion and pretending he knows wtf she's talking about.

Juno appears in the Chase house. She's mad as hell that a) percy isn't already in Camp Jupiter and b) he's with Annabeth (derogatory). She teleports Percy straight into CJ but Annabeth manages to hang onto him and come with.

They land on the near side of the Little Tiber, where Frank and Hazel are reporting on the weird screaming demigod in a pickup that had gone by twenty minutes ago. Juno realizes she accidentally brought Annabeth along and is Very Unhappy about this.

"Romans, I bring to you the Son of Neptune-" ("I'm the son of a planet?" Percy muttered). "For months he has been slumbering [etc]. Instruct him in your ways, induct him into your legion. As for the daughter of Minerva…” The Romans gasped, staring at Annabeth. Juno curled her lip, shooting an icy look at the girl. Annabeth snarled wordlessly in response. “She is extraneous. Do with her what you will.”

Juno disappeared

More will be added in the reblog

[makeste]

Hi! Just wanted to say I love your metas and reactions ❤️❤️ Also I wanted to drop this tweet here (I'm afraid Tumblr will eat this ask if I include the whole link bc it happened to me a few times already, so I'm only leaving the most important part of the link): trkano_ status 1360988525374492680

Also because I'm paranoid I switched slashes to spaces so it for sure doesn't get eaten :')

So, I wanted to ask - do you think Caleb's translation could, like, become confusing to the actual plot/characters later on? I mean, Hori definitely shows his story to be different than Caleb tries to present it to the readers as and I'm curious if it could cause a disonance of sorts in a "why do you act this way now when you said this and that earlier???" way. Like, apparently in the volume release Shouto says to Endeavor (Idr which scene it was sorry) "You're a rotten number one. You were just in the right place at the right time - that's all." instead of the previous (correct afaik) which was (*drumrolls*) "I'm here to use you for my own reasons.", which also openly contradicts what Shouto said after the battle with the High-end, that while Enji is terrible father, Endeavor is quite inspiring hero. With how misleading the translation of chapter 301 is, I'm curious if it'll get better (someone will tell Caleb to be more profesional maybe) or worse. Until now it was more of nuances but the clarification tweet I linked surprised me a lot. So yeah, I'd like to hear your thoughts on it if you feel like sharing :)

hello! first of all, thank you! I'll go ahead and post the direct link here: link. (tumblr absolutely does delete asks with links for spam reasons though so I get the paranoia, lol.)

I think this thread makes some good points regarding Rei’s tone in particular, and they were things I was noticing too when I read Viz’s translation yesterday. however, I don’t want to start piling on Caleb, because he’s already dealt with a ton of undue harassment over this sort of thing to the point where he had to lock his twitter, and that sort of thing really bothers me. my personal rule of fandom is that real people always take priority over fictional characters in a story. period. there’s absolutely no justification for sending personal attacks to real live people simply because of their opinions on fictional characters. fictional characters don’t have feelings. they can’t be hurt. but the people receiving death threats from overzealous fans on the internet absolutely can be. so yeah, I think a lot of people absolutely have their priorities way out of line in that regard, and so for me it’s almost not worth getting into this debate at all because it’s already escalated way too far.

and then the other thing is that Caleb has frequently inferred that he doesn’t have editorial control over the final translations that get approved, and that there’s an entire team of editors who have the ability to make changes to his work, sometimes without notifying him. moreover, because he works with these people and in some cases works for these people, he can’t exactly call them out on twitter unless he wants to risk his job. in particular, he all but confirmed that the “you’re a rotten number one...” translation was one of these cases. not only that, but he didn’t even know about the change until it started making the rounds on the internet and he started getting harassed about it. so yeah, that’s pretty shitty. I can only imagine what it’s like to have someone change your work without telling you and then publish it with your name still attached to it, and to only find out because people start spamming you with death threats on your personal fan twitter. like, geez.

so regarding the translation nuances in this latest chapter, I don’t really know! Caleb seems to be aware of the latest discourse but hasn’t addressed it, again hinting that he’s not really free to do so:

does that prove that these translations aren’t his? nope. is it possible that some of the other editors -- perhaps ones who are less familiar with the characters and more concerned with punching up the dialogue, and who don’t care if the localization is completely accurate -- changed some of his wording around? absolutely. is it something we can do anything about either way? probably not, unfortunately.

I guess to sum my feelings up, this is why I like to read multiple translations myself, and I’m glad that this fandom has so many knowledgeable people who are able to provide those. unfortunately, not everyone is going to bother reading different translations of the same thing each week, and so if one of the translations happens to be off (which goes both ways incidentally, because there are people who only read the leaks and not the official version), those people might wind up with a slightly inaccurate view of some parts of the story. which sucks, but is also not the end of the world. and honestly, given how blown out of proportion this weekly “look what Caleb did now” witch hunt has gotten (and I’m not calling you out in particular here, anon, but more referring to the discourse on twitter which has really spun out of control), more than ever my current instinct is to just to read all the translations I can, pick the ones that seem right/make the most sense to me, and shrug the rest of it off.

[qqueenofhades]

You're going to think I'm such a weirdo because you're my go-to person for whether particular British monarchs were gay, but I have another question along those lines. Was Queen Anne in a lesbian relationship with Sarah Churchill? And if not, was she gay? I read one book that explained she wasn't "because she hadn't heard of it." Needless to say, I didn't finish it.

Ahaha. We’ve all gotta be known for something, right?

Short answers to both your questions: No and no, but also in both cases sorta, and which reflects a really fascinating entry point into a discussion of the female side of seventeenth/eighteenth-century LGBT culture. (Seriously, guys, the eighteenth century was HELLA GAY. I’ve written about the male side of it, but there is just as much or more to look at from the female. It’s also why you should continue to laugh at Certain Unnamed Persons telling you gay people did not exist before the 1960s.)

Anyway, so, Anne. As girls, both she and her sister Mary (the future Queen Mary II) had a passionate attachment to an older woman, Frances Apsley, and wrote letters to her that reflect this romantic imagining. (p.1648-49). The thirteen-year-old Mary addressed the twenty-two-year-old Frances as “my dearest dear husband” and called herself “your faithful wife, loyal to your bed […] how I dote on you, oh I am in raptures of sweet amaze, when I think of you I am in ecstasy.” In fact, when Anne began her own correspondence with Frances, Mary was jealous of her/seemed to have viewed her sister as a romantic rival for Frances’ affections. In their letters, Anne cast herself and Frances as star-crossed lovers from the play Mithridates, and there was an atmosphere of unabashed hedonism and sexual liberty at the Restoration court of Charles II. The girls were mostly kept away from this, but there were plenty of plays, novels, etc that centered around themes of female same-sex desire. Eighteenth-century English literature (see p. 261-62) had all kinds of exploration of it, and indeed reflects a vernacular for LGBT relationships arguably more detailed than what we have today (if by nature pejorative): “sodomite” and “molly” were the terms for the active and passive partner in a male homosexual relationship, and “sapphic” and “tommy” were the equivalents for a female homosexual relationship. (But of course, I forgot, we didn’t have LGBT people before the 1960s.) 

What Valerie Traub calls “the renaissance of lesbianism in early modern England” wasn’t just a literary phenomenon either. The habit of women sharing beds at all level of society, from working class to noblewomen, and the usually all-female social circle of young women offered a convenient environment for practical explorations of the kind of passionate desire seen above. At least one contemporary commentator had no problem with it (see p. 54) and viewed it in pragmatic terms:

Calling himself “neither their censor nor their husband,” Brantôme maintains that “unmarried girls and widows may be excused for liking such frivolous and vain pleasures and preferring to give themselves to each other thus and so get rid of their heat than to resort to men and be put in the family way and dishonored by them, or to have to get rid of their fruit.” As for the homoerotic exploits of married women: “the men are not cuckolded by it.”

In other words, female same-sex activity might not be optimal, but it’s essentially harmless, preferable to unwanted pregnancies, illicit abortions, or the spoiling of marriage prospects. And since everyone knows (according to bountiful eighteenth-century medical wisdom) that women are “hot” and need to relieve their humors with sex, lesbianism (though it wasn’t yet called that) was fine as an option. This of course was not the only view on it, but it does absolutely make it the case that yes, Anne (and other women of her class and era) would have heard of it. (Seriously, do these Str8 Historians just… assume that nobody ever mentioned same-sex relations/desire/literature, because gay people are “so modern” or… what? I’m baffled. On that note, Emma Donoghue’s “Passions Between Women: British Lesbian Culture 1668-1801″ is also a recommended read.)

Anyway, back to Anne and Mary themselves. It’s highly unlikely that their ardor toward Frances Apsley ever went beyond letters, and Mary did not have another relationship with a woman of the same intensity; after a very rocky start to her 1677 marriage to William of Orange, she fell quickly in love with him and devoted herself to him. However, Anne continued to have the same sort of passionate attachments to women, including that to Sarah Jennings, later Lady Churchill, the Duchess of Marlborough. Sarah is a fascinating historical lady for many reasons, and through her relationship with Anne over several decades, was able to exert considerable influence and prestige. She was a strong-willed, well educated, politically ambitious, and formidable woman, and I think the assessment of her relationship with Anne in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (login needed for full text) is essentially correct:

Anne wasemotionally vulnerable and always depended very much upon her near circle offriends; Sarah wasthe closest of these. Anne wasromantically, but platonically, in love with Sarah, who, for her part, understood very well theimmense value of her relationship with the princess. So close did Anne feel to Sarah that from about 1691 she insisted thatthe aliases Mrs Morley and Mrs Freeman be used between them, to overcomeany undue feeling of formality when in private. Although Sarah eventually found the princess’sattentions irritating in their childlike ardour, she responded with genuineaffection, but not with love. She later wrote that she had little in commonwith Anne; she usedher periods of exclusion from the court to widen her reading, including Shakespeare, Dryden, Milton, Montaigne, and Seneca, whereas Anne remained stubbornly non-intellectual. Nonethe less, their political interdependence and genuine affection kept theirpersonal relationship alive.

I would say in my view this is about right. Anne was definitely in love with her, while Sarah liked her, but saw the overall value in being attached to the princess (later queen). They fell out over differing political opinions (Sarah was a Whig, Anne was a Tory) and both had devoted relationships with their husbands. Sarah’s was John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, the statesman, political player, and hero of the War of Spanish Succession, and Anne’s was Prince George of Denmark. Sarah and Churchill had seven children, while Anne had at least seventeen pregnancies by George, but only one living son (William, Duke of Gloucester, who died at the age of eleven).

George has generally gotten a bad rap as a total unambitious dullard, and there has been some attempt to portray Anne and Sarah as lovers while Anne was unavoidably saddled with George and only kept having sex with him in hopes of a Stuart heir, which I think is both inaccurate and unfair to George. He had almost no political ambition at all and was absolutely happy to let his wife rule and be queen and to support her decisions, which was the reverse of Anne’s sister Mary and her husband William (Anne’s immediate predecessors). William refused to let Mary be crowned as sole queen, even though Mary and Anne were both daughters of James II and the hereditary right was Mary’s (for her part, Mary refused to countenance rulership without William and never wanted it much, but accepted it in the name of the Protestant cause/saving England from Catholic monarchy under her father). So by the time of Anne’s reign (1702-1714) it was still not at all negotiated how exactly a new (female) constitutional monarch, post-1689 and Bill of Rights, would rule by herself, but Anne did pretty much that. She didn’t have constitutional strife, she took England from the chaos and civil/religious wars/Commonwealth/etc of the seventeenth to its emergence as a major world power in the eighteenth, and George was a-okay with all of this. He declared that “I am her Majesty’s subject, I will do naught but what she commands me,” and they adored each other. George’s death in 1708 absolutely devastated Anne and was one of the reasons that snapped her fraught relationship with Sarah, as one observer wrote:

[George’s death] has flung the Queen into an unspeakable grief.She never left him till he was dead, but continued kissing him the very momenthis breath went out of his body, and ‘twas with a great deal of difficulty my Lady Marlborough prevailedupon her to leave him.

Sarah and Anne’s relationship had been steadily deteriorating over political differences, Sarah’s domineering personality, and Anne’s affection for a new female favorite, Abigail Masham. Indeed, Anne’s Whig opponents (and Sarah herself) fanned rumors that Anne and Abigail’s relationship was that of lovers, including by scandalous poetry (see pp. 157-8):

Whenas Queen Anne of great RenownGreat Britain’s Sceptre sway’dBesides the Church, she dearly lov’dA Dirty Chamber-Maid….

As Traub points out, Sarah’s accusations are more likely motivated by jealousy at losing her position as favorite to Abigail, and Anne herself never forgave Sarah for insinuating lesbianism (as in the physical act of it, rather than romantic feelings) in their relationship. Again as Traub comments: “It was the result of a transformation in discourse, whereas intimate female friends, including matronly monarchs with seventeen pregnancies behind them, could be interpreted as purveyors of sexual vice.” In other words, the accusations flung at Elizabeth I, the woman ruling alone in the late 16th-early 17th century, had been that she had inappropriate male lovers; now the charges against Anne, a century later, were of inappropriate female lovers, and reflected, as discussed above, the emergence of this entire construction and visibility of same-sex female desire. Accusations or intimations of homosexuality were nothing new to the Stuarts; both William and Mary (especially William) had been painted as having inappropriately intimate same-gender relationships, and William’s Jacobite enemies had likewise gotten considerable mileage out of pamphlets portraying him as a “sodomite.” (Which, again, they had political reasons to do, so there is that, but it’s fascinating, if unfortunate, that this had now become the preferred currency of political slander, as that was not necessarily the case before).

Overall, Anne certainly had strong emotional relationships to women for her entire life, and in some cases, those relationships were accused of being explicitly sexual (reflecting a culture that was, as noted, really hella gay for both women and men, and this gayness was both accepted and reviled in turn) but for the benefit of her enemies (Sarah’s unflattering depiction of Anne was basically accepted as fact until the late 20th century). So in one sense, Anne and Sarah were in a long relationship that ended badly, and Anne was absolutely biromantic. Sex (or the lack of it) is not the only defining marker of a relationship, but if we mean a lesbian relationship in the modern sense of the word (where they are both romantic and sexual partners) then no. Anne and George were known for being devoted and faithful to each other (as noted, not at all the norm in the Stuart court) and Anne’s seventeen pregnancies make it clear they had sex throughout their marriage. Anne herself took the accusation of physical lesbianism with Abigail Masham as an unforgivable slight on Sarah’s part; i.e. the feelings or the rhetoric were acceptable to her, but the action was not. We have no reason to think she was being a hypocrite about this, or willfully concealing/ignoring it. Because, surprise! People’s attitudes and identities toward sexuality are complicated and shifting and partial and evolving, and conditioned by class, time, place, religion, society, etc.

Anyway, since this is another novel: we could definitely classify Anne as queer in the modern definition (having romantic feelings/romantic-if chaste-involvements with women, but lovingly and faithfully married to her husband who was her sexual partner), but probably not actively and certainly not exclusively lesbian. She was traditional in her views and devoted to the Protestant church (and to George), so yes. I would classify her as biromantic with a preference for/sexual activity with men, but whose long relationships with women were both politically and personally influential and absolutely deserve attention within the context of eighteenth-century LGBT history and literature.