#which frames being a monster as a disability

[literary-illuminati]

2025 Book Review #10 – meat4meat (ed. Gray Levesque)

This is I think the first book I have ever read before it was published – as of posting the crowdfunding campaign is still ongoing! - so it’s a fun novelty to be able to say that I received an early copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. The book itself is also – well okay no, ‘fun’ is probably not actually the correct word, but it’s a body horror collection that succeeded at making me physically queasy at several points so it’s an unqualified artistic success in at least one dimension.

meat4meat is a short story horror anthology – specifically body horror, extra specifically body horror as written by trans and disabled authors (to quote the marketing copy, ‘by those who know it best’) – properly speaking it is an illustrated anthology, but that art wasn’t ready for inclusion in the copy I read, so I’ll stick to talking about the writing. Within the very vague remit the book sets out for itself, there’s no real unifying theme or much of a throughline between the eighteen stories included. They’re all very much short stories – I don’t think any were over twenty pages? - and flipping between them is a study in serial whiplash. Writing style, subject matter, thematic concerns and perspectives, even just conceptions of what ‘body horror’ means all vary drastically from story to story.

To be clear, I consider this a huge positive – it’s an anthology that really lives up to the potential of the medium, and makes an honest effort of capturing the diversity of perspective that’s pretty clearly part of the artistic project here. It also just keeps the reading experience from ever dragging or getting monotonous – if I do not vibe with one author (as is inevitable with these things), there’s a dozen and change others with entirely different takes on the subject. Even if it is somewhat grating to have one story use different paragraph breaks and spacing from the next.

I’m on record as often being pretty annoyed with how ‘horror’ as a genre label is used in books these days – which is to say how often it ends up being life-affirming tales of togetherness and found family but cast from the universal monsters catalogue – so for the sake of consistency I should really praise meat for really living up to the genre label. Even the stories happily framed from the perspective of something monstrously inhuman and happy about it are more than fucked up enough to still be compelling reading.

I’m also very much on record as thinkingthat horror is far better suited to short stories than novels; the extra length of which seems to bring a pressure towards explaining things and giving neat, validating endings on the one hand and on dragging out the tension past what the reveal can sustain on the other. This book’s an excellent case study of that – most of the stories are bare handfuls of scenes, hitting a particular beat or bit of imagery with as much force as they can; very nearly all of them can be summed up as ‘something really fucked up happens to someone’. Triumphantly happy and reassuring endings are thin on the ground, extended denouncements nonexistent. If anything, there are a couple stories that probably could have used a bit more space to breathe – ending up feeling more like imagery without the connective tissue or context to really make it land – but that’s just the natural tradeoff of the format forcing focus and writing economy.

Speaking of imagery – the book advertises itself as a body horror anthology, and it is not lying. There are several stories I would really recommend skipping if you have a weak stomach (which is, in this context, high praise). There’s also several stories that do take a more symbolic or oblique tack when discussing the ruin and gore they make of the human body (a couple of them are some of my favourites in the whole book), but I’d be lying if I didn’t say that the most memorable by far are the gleefully, explicitly vulgar and carnal ones. Here meant in the most literal sense of being fixated on the mess and meat of your body, the way parts of you can swell and suppurate and rot and burst before your eyes (though there are one or two that leave you acutely aware the only difference between horror and niche erotica is framing and perspective).

The anthology is themed around trans and disabled authors, and it’s really very interesting how different stories lean into that. Some are very literally and directly about e.g. the misery and desperate hope of looking for a doctor who can help you until you’re willing to look past every red flag from one who says they will, others are far more symbolic or metaphorical (or else simply aren’t stories I would have though to view through that lens if they were in any other book). There is little (though not no) body horror in the sense of shocking and gory violence or something directly inflicted upon you by an obvious outside force. Instead it’s the horror of the body being usurped or broken from within, horrifying parasitism, some invisible injury or lack making it impossible to do what is expected of you, or a terrifying transformation that’s only dimly understood as it’s lived through that predominate. There are, unsurprisingly, quite a few stories that are in one way or another about the horror of pregnancy, of some disease or failing leaving you so disgusting as to be exiled from conventional society, or both.

While there isn’t much of a unifying subject or throughline between all the stories in the book, the organization and ordering of them actually does a very good job highlighting similarities between specific pairs or small sets of them. One story that is in some sense about or preoccupied with pregnancy or disfigurement or parasitism or romantic connection will be followed by another with an entirely different setting, plot and subject matter which is still very interested in the same theme. It works very well to give the book a sense of cohesion and structure, and makes some of the stories feel like much more than the sum of their parts.

This is definitely a book for a very specific audience – the kind who will read a first story that starts with strange pupating growths breaking across the narrators chest being described in careful and loving detail, and happily power through as it mostly just escalates from there. But for that audience, I absolutely recommend giving this a try.

In which case, the crowdfunding campaign is still active until March 11th – you can back it here.

[mademoiselle-cookie]

It was at this moment that she decided to assassinate Ambrosius.

She could have continued to protest Ballister's words, she could have tried to make an excuse or even sent Ambrosius back to his post. But no. She gives up extremely quickly and almost jumps straight to murder.

Is it only me who’s shocked that it’s happening so quickly?

She who does all this in the name of Gloreth has absolutely no problem killing her (as far as we know) only descendant. Which means if he dies, Gloreth's lineage is over.

Ambrosius is a Goldenloin, a noble, a knight, the very example of a knight! He's exactly what she's trying to "protect." And she kills him with her own hands. (If that's not a metaphor, I don't know what is)

But concretely, there are several reasons for this sudden choice:

She has no good excuse at her disposal, either because she had overestimated her influence on Ambrosius, or underestimated his trust in Ballister;

She realized that Ambrosius is too attached to Ballister, which means that not only will he try not to hurt him and will not accept him being killed or treated unfairly, but also that the first chance he gets, he'll take Ballister's side and not hers;

As Ballister's (only) friend, he is one of the only obstacles in making him out to be a heartless assassin;

If someone as important and influential as him were to get in her way, she will have great difficulty doing what she wants and may even risk losing her position and power;

She knows she will never be able to convince him of the "merits" of her quest;

She has a great alibi: Ballister.

This last point is very important. She can get rid of a nuisance as she wishes with complete impunity. No one is there and Ballister has already managed to sneak into the Institute without anyone noticing before then (it's not like anyone is going to accuse her instead of the 'Queen's Killer'). So she also has a golden opportunity to silence any doubt about Ballister's guilt. I mean, others could be like Ambrosius and question her again, and Ballister managed to obtain evidence that she had killed the Queen while he didn't know before that it was her, so someone else provided them to him, so the idea of him being innocent can spread. By accusing him of killing the most popular knight in the Kingdom, she ensures that no one questions his position as a monster and criminal.

It's the Institute, where knights are trained to defend the Kingdom, there's no chance that the Director didn't have access to another weapon than Ballister's. But she chose to use his sword.

But Ballister's sword was destroyed, no one will wonder about the appearance of a second?

No one asks questions about a man who decides to assassinate for no reason the person who allowed him to rise from his social condition, in public, surrounded by knights, right next to an armed man, and visibly without any plan to escape?

The more I think about it, the less sense this supposed assassination makes. It only worked because of media manipulation and because Ballister was the culprit. If the roles had been reversed with Ambrosius - in the event that they had exchanged swords (and the Director didn't notice the exchange and/or couldn't disable the attack) - it certainly wouldn't have gone that far because:

Ambrosius is loved by all and known for being trustworthy/kind/insert knightly quality. Ballister is a commoner, who, even after several years of working hard and being miles better than others, is not seen as trustworthy. People will be much more likely to make excuses for Ambrosius than for Ballister.

The Director has no interest in using the media to blame him. On the contrary, she will try to defend him and claim that he was framed.

Ballister had no excuse for having a deadly laser sword, he has no one to blame for him. Ambrosius yes. There's Ballister. Not only because it is the untrustworthy newcomer dirty commoner that his fellow knights despise, but above all it is HIS sword that was trapped. The Director and the population will accuse him of framing Ambrosius.

People will WANT him to be the culprit instead of their lovely and respected knight. They don't want the literal descendant of their hero to be an awful person who did something this horrible. They don't want the representation of the Institute, of their society to be shaken. (I'm a pro jedi fan. I know that when people want to defend their blorbos, they can go veeeeeery far, including putting responsabilities on other people, even complete innocents or victims)

In fact, this situation will be even more credible than the original one. Why he didn't plan his escape? Bc he didn't need to. Why he did that? Obviously to take revenge on better people in better situation than him, and on society itself, by targetting the Queen, leader of the Kingdom, and a Goldenloin, who's also the Kingdom's most prestigious knight and the descendant of the founder of the Institute.

[blradley]

A powerpoint introduction to Liesmyth!

(I swear the next one will actually be in Comic Sans... shout out to @incandescent-creativity for popularizing this medium!)

Anyway...

Do you wanna read a dark, Norse-inspired Adult Fantasy?

Do you wanna read about queer gods causing mayhem?

(literally every single character is queer lmaooooo)

Do you wanna support a queer, multiply disabled author?

Look no further than Liesmyth! We're out on subs at the moment - so, pretty-please reblog this powerpoint if you like the concept! Let's prove to all those prospective publishers that there's an audience for my book!

Image IDs:

All eleven images are power point slides.

Image 1: Title card reading 'Liesmyth: or, how Sigyn ruined everything, by B. L. Radley'. The words are displayed over a person in (...vaguely) Viking-era garb, against a green background. Only a slice of their torso is visible.

Image 2: A picture of an ash tree against a green, cool, mountainous scene. In a yellow text box, words read: Welcome to a world inspired by Norse mythology, where witches can climb through the cosmos using the boughs of an ancient ash tree, and any magic is possible, so long as it is cast with a suitable sacrifice. Yes, it’s basically a Viking Isekai. Shoot me. Then, a quote in italics: I know an ash tree named Yggdrasil, Nine realms cradled in its loamy arms… Prophecy of the Voluspa, verse 19

Image 3: Meet the characters! An image shows a white woman in Viking-era dress, leaning against a fence, looking pensieve. She is introduced as Sigyn Narisdottir. Her quote is: “It’s a God-eat-God world out there…” Below this, there is a description of Sigyn, reading: Just a nice, normal Christian woman from a nice, normal Christian village. (Totally not a gay witch, haha no, why would you suggest such a thing.) After her father is killed by his own God, Þórr, Sigyn has only one chance to free his trapped ghost from eternal torment. She must confront Þórr and slay him in combat. But how can a mortal defeat a God? Traits are bullet pointed at the bottom of the page. Hers are: Ruthless, ambitious, cunning, and desperate.

Image 4: The next character description is of Loki. His quote is “Monsters lost their menace when they huddled crying in the corner. And when you might use them for your own ends.” His image shows a clean-shaven half-naked man sat against a scandinavian-esque backdrop of rugged rocks and dried grass. He is white, with curly red hair, and is looking curiously off to one side. His description reads: The savior of the Gods, or their bane? A framed innocent, or a prophesized murderer? A victim, or a monster? Loki is a man of juxtaposed polarities, not least of which being that he isn’t a man at all. At least, not when it doesn’t suit him. Sigyn knows he’s dangerous. But in the viper nest of Ásgarð’s royal court, he might be her only ally… or her downfall. His traits are: Sly, wily, and 'not to be trusted'.

Image 5: The two characters introduced on this slide are Freyja and Thor. Freyja's image is of an Arab woman staring directly at the camera, expression serene, curly hair falling around her face. Her quote is: “Goddess of beauty. Goddess of desire. All who saw Freyja fell a little in love—but though silken longing stirred in my belly, I wrung it dead, reminding myself that Freyja was a goddess of bloodshed, too.” Her description reads: Queen of the Vanir, Freyja is an ancient and powerful goddess who takes Sigyn as her indentured servant. Her traits are: Proud, cold, and vicious. On the opposite side of the page, Thor's image shows a white, bearded man in an iron helmet glaring into the camera, viking sigils scrawled across his face in charcoal. He is shadowy and menacing. His quote is: “I saw a rainbow flash over a church. I saw a broken sky. I saw the end of everything.” His description is: Eldest prince of the Æsir. Murderer of Sigyn’s father, and countless more beside. The living embodiment of berserker rage, he is the strongest god around – and next to inherit Ásgarð’s throne. Unless Sigyn can stop him. His traits are: Violent, mighty, and 'a storm made flesh'

Image 6: introduces Angrboda and Baldr. Angrboda's image shows a white woman with blonde braids, wearing chain mail and warpaint (black streaks over her face), with a huge axe over one shoulder. Her quote is: “ ‘Sigyn, meet Angrboða: witch of the Ironwoods, god of a lost nation, relic of an elder age, master of magics that not even my darling brother dares dabble in, cosmopolitan worldwalker, mother and father of my children, and—if I might say so—a practitioner of truly superlative strap-game.’ ” Baldr's image is of Assad Zaman, looking wistfully, beautifully, into the camera. His quote is: “Out strode the most beautiful man in all the Nine Worlds. His gentle smile, his topaz eyes, his black curls, the fawn velvet of his cheeks… Oh, warmth radiated from him. I looked at him and felt, for the first time in oh-so-very-long, safe.”

Image 7: introduces Saga and Menglod. Saga's image shows a Black woman in darkness, with facial tattoos and a nose ring. She raises her eyes to the camera, pulling back a dark hood, her expression difficult to read. Her quote is: “In another version of this tale, I stayed with Sága. We travelled to Ljósálfheim every winter—one for every six of Vanaheim’s years—and raised foundlings as our own (for ever were the elvish freer with their loves than those of my world). But in this tale, we reached Freyja’s palace, and I had a dream.” Her description is: Prophet, witch, worldwalker. The woman Sigyn left behind. Menglod's image shows a Black woman smiling slightly, slyly, as she looks back over her shoulder, her natural hair framing her face. Her quote is: “If I tended the hearth in Freyja’s chamber, I left ash on her floors. If I swept the ash, I left streaks invisible to any eyes but Menglǫð’s. If I breathed, I did so far too loudly and regularly, and if I were a considerate soul, I would stop.” Her description is: Freyja’s attendant, and Sigyn’s main rival for her favor.

Image 8: So, like, wtf happens? Set against a background of dramatic red-on-black fire is a description of the book's plot, as follows: Crumbling kingdoms. Hungering Gods. One woman who will end the worlds. Loki, Norse god of fire and mischief, will be tortured until the end of time. And he shall deserve every minute. At least, that’s how the story goes. Behind every great man is a great woman, and behind every genderfluid trickster-god is a spouse who darns his socks, plots his victories and keeps his secrets, as well as her own. After a thousand years of agony, Loki looks to the woman who kneels by his side – his jailer, his torturer, his wife – and asks for a different story. Hers.

Image 9: a continuation of the plot from the previous slide, this time with a cool blue lake as the background, with a viking-style ship floating atop its surface. The image feels less calming, more unnerving in its stillness and the lack of human life. The description reads as follows: Down with the gods. So swore Sigyn, a young mortal woman, after watching her father die at godly hands. One millennium later, she has joined the same pantheon she once despised. Now, as Ragnarǫk approaches – the end of all Nine Worlds – Sigyn narrates the tale of the Norse Gods’ fall, and her own.

Image 10: Themes. A picture of two crossed axes accompanies a list of themes, which are: 1) Revenge. What is a life worth? And what would you give up, to avenge the life of someone you love? 2) Corruption. Can you ever fix a broken system from the inside? Or will it, inevitably, consume you? and 3) Divinity. What does it mean, to become a god? What might you lose along the way?

Image 11: A picture of Loki as a woman, with red hair, dressed in a Viking-style dress and sat on the edge of a Scandinavian dock, accompanies text that reads: This book is for you if you like... Queer-led, queer-written fantasy, with main wlw and nonbinary characters! Court drama and political intrigue, mixed with a sizzling dash of mythology! A prophecy that cannot be averted; a tragedy that cannot be outrun…

[girlonthemoon81]

Hi. I came on here after watching Sinners and came upon your post, which I do agree with despite enjoying the film. It does sour my opinion on the movie though :(

Anyway, one of your tags was that you wonder if horror can exist without misogyny. Could you go into that a bit more?

Hi! Thank you so much for your ask. Trust, you are not the only one that feels this way. I enjoyed the concept of the movie so much but just could not get over the violent ways the women were written within the film framework. So to challenge the question, "Can horror exist without misogyny?" I quite frankly would need a dissertation and access to all of the horror genre content and feminist content there is in the world. This is something that I would love to dissect in the future, but for now I will slim this question down. Here’s how I’ve been thinking about it, especially through Sinners (2025) and vampire horror in general. Vampire tropes, lore, and concepts have long, deep roots in controlling "deviant" women's sexuality. The woman vampire is often a metaphor for the "sexually liberated" or "disobedient" woman. Sinners (2025) reinforces this: Mary, the only woman turned vampire, becomes an overly sexualized, uncontrollable figure. In Sinners (2025), Mary’s transformation into a vampire happens off-screen, which strips her of narrative agency. We don’t see her “become” a vampire; we only see the aftermath, which is eroticized and destructive. Even the scene where she spoke with the white vampires was somewhat eroticized, which I found even weirder. She turns Smoke into a vampire while they are having sexual intercourse. That transformation is framed as a direct result of her sexual pleasure, reinforcing the idea that female desire is corrupting and contagious. This also implies that the man is always the innocent one. The man, no matter what he does or thinks, is always the one who is acted upon instead of acting on when it comes to women and their sexuality. Mary doesn’t get a backstory or interior world. Her "death" is only a plot-moving device. It emotionally advances Smoke’s arc and returns control to him. This mirrors a long horror tradition where women are punished for wanting: wanting sex, wanting love, or wanting power. And when they get any of those things, they’re killed or humiliated.

Now, to broaden the scope, horror as a genre is historically obsessed with monstrosity. Often, that monstrosity is just disability, being a woman, or simply not being white. Vampires have anti-Semitic roots (e.g. blood libel, fears of disease and seduction) and over time have evolved into colonial fears of "foreign invaders" and racialized sexuality. Frankenstein’s monster is seen as hideous because he’s disabled, unnatural, and "wrong". He is not something that "should" exist. He is not human, not because he was formed in a lab, but because he is visibly disabled, "deformed", and emotionally complex. Many horror monsters are built on this ableist logic that physical difference equals evil (we can also go into the halo effect in how conventionally attractive people (often times able-bodied) are inherently conceived as "good", trustworthy, and safe).

Horror frames men as the innocent victims of their own violence. (The Shining is a perfect example. Jack’s rage is never truly interrogated; it’s just “madness” or cabin fever, not misogyny.) In Sinners (2025), Stack and Sammy are always given emotional context and complexity. The women, Mary, Pearline, and Annie, exist to move their arcs forward and are punished for wanting love, sex, or autonomy. Women in horror genres often can easily fit into any misogynistic trope. Killed to motivate male leads: Women in Refrigerators (I have never seen the movie, but by the way my friend explains Nosferatu (2024) to me, I believe this movie would be a perfect example of the women in refrigerators trope). Used as emotional/moral symbols (virgin vs. whore (think Jennifer's Body). Flattened into misogynistic archetypes (the Final Girl, the witch, the vampire, the siren). In the context of Sinners (2025) Pearline is the sexual deviant, immoral married woman desiring Sammy. Annie is spiritual and maternal. Her pain is never centered or cared about. Mary is reduced to a siren-like object of desire, blame, and humiliation.

So, to answer my question, can horror exist without misogyny? Unfortunately, no :(. The whole point of horror movies is to explore human fear. Most horror is structured around patriarchal fears: fear of women’s bodies, of unruly sexuality, and of emotional vulnerability. But! That doesn’t mean horror can’t challenge misogyny. Films like The Substance (2024) (I have not seen this yet, but from what I have heard, it sounds awesome) have tried to rework these concepts. I want to hypothesize this and see all points of view because this is a very nuanced conversation.

[dailycharacteroption]

Book Review: Pathfinder AP #2 Rise of the Runelords: The Skinsaw Murders

And now it’s time to continue our look into Pathfinder’s very first AP, the Rise of the Runelords!

While the first volume is perhaps better known because, on average, more people have played it (let’s face it, for every successful campaign run from start to finish, there are 10 false starts), that isn’t to say that this book wasn’t influential.

Indeed, while the first book was a fairly standard series of dungeon crawls with the framing device of a vengeful corrupted aasimar and the seeds of the mysteries of the greater campaign, the sequel instead focuses on a freeform mystery investigation that ends with a handful of dungeons and even more brewing plot notes.

Moreover, the campaign introduces something that would become a staple of the Pathfinder system: haunts. This modification of the trap rules with alternate mystical means of disabling them provided a way to do spooky ghost stuff in your adventures that doesn’t require a creature that you can fight back against, bringing elements of horror one usually doesn’t see into the ttrpg space.

So let’s get right into it, shall we?

The story of the second book leans pretty heavily into focusing on minor characters from the first book. The party is called into investigate a murder as part of a string of killings that have been happening recently, particularly involving a vivacious young woman that might have got one of the heroes stuck in a sticky situation in the last book. What follows from there is a series of investigations and red herrings, with such set dressing as a local asylum and an eerie farm field where the serial killer’s victim’s have been infected with ghoul fever and left to succumb to their wounds and undeath, playing up the horror of what is being done to them.

Eventually, the trail leads them to the estate of the killer, none other than the reanimated body of another minor character from the first book, a young noble the party saved during the original defense of Sandpoint. In the estate, the party is subjected to all manner of horrible haunts as they seek him out, but they find an unlikely ally in the form of his wife, who has risen as a revenant to exact vengeance against him. However, the story doesn’t end with his death, for his own monstrous killing spree was part of the machinations of a dark cult, which the party faces in their lair, only to find that the true leader is a monster hiding out in an abandoned clock tower, her own plots being in the service of the big bad and the plot of the AP as a whole.

There’s lots of good art in this part of the AP, not just of individual actors and monsters, but also of scenes in the story, such as a ghoul “scarecrow” breaking free of it’s bindings and pouncing on the heroes. I do have to take points away from it for how different the “Skinsaw Man” art differs from the scene art of him being discovered by the poor girl which kicks off the whole adventure when the resulting double murder is discovered and investigated.

Starting off the adventure with a murder mystery is a fun way to break up the action from what we saw in the previous adventure, though of course it takes a bit of GM initiative to keep track of what leads the party has pursued and what they’ve learned. Also, the fact that the serial killer character has suggestions on how their notes to the party are colored by their previous interactions with the party is nice. Later on, the haunts also are a fun way to play up horror and the like.

On the other hand, the adventure’s plot feels like it runs a little long here. You chase down the undead murderer and destroy him, only to find that he was a puppet of the local murder cult, so you go to deal with them, only to find that they in turn were manipulated by an outside figure, whose lair barely has 3 encounters to it before you finally bring down the lamia matriarch and end the adventure. Also, the storyline revolves a lot around uncharitable pop-culture depictions of obsession and insanity, which folks may not jive with. Again, early Pathfinder was leaning pretty hard into hard, darker themes.

Overall this adventure dips happily into the themes of horror that occasionally crop up in this AP. (and frankly a lot of early Pathfinder Adventure Paths, though this is understandable. The bad guys are going to do horrible, horrifying things.) In any case, that will do for today, but tomorrow, we’ll be dipping into a book that treads over much more familiar territory.

[tinycactusfromarizona]

How does your depiction of Bella and Alice differ from canon Bella and Alice? This can range form their personality to their fashion style. Info-dump as much as you want! I would love to hear your thoughts on this cause your art is wonderful and I will read your fics! I promise you that!

Okay so like i've wanted someone to ask me this forever!! so the fic Overcast is my canon Bellice, my partner wrote it for me so that's definitely somewhere to go to if you're curious. but i also have my own headcanons to add towards them. so bella is not super different, but definitely a lot more masc leaning. sure she keeps her long hair but in her style. im drawing a lot of inspiration from ellie from the last of us in her style (thats another one of my hyperfixations) personally wise, at first she's very meek and shy. but it's probably because she's new to Forks. she's really come into her own. and calmed down. once she's comfortable in her relationship with Alice she's definitely a lot more charismatic. she still loves to read, she goes through books ravenously. but also she joins Jacob and Rosalie with mechanics. she loves being able to put things together and make them work. And it's a way her and Rosalie get closer. they end up having a really great relationship. and that also goes for her and Emmett. they're probably the closest outside of her and Alice. they're basically long lost siblings. and they get into all kinda shit when they're together. They terrorize Edward it's hilarious honestly.

With Alice, She’s fairly the same in the roots. Much less problematic than how she is in canon. She doesn’t want to dress up Bella like a doll, sure she’ll have an influence on her fashion. But she wont dress her up. She respects her and loves her. I’ve made her kinda self indulgent to my tastes. I made her goth since it’s a style of fashion that i love so much. And personally i think it suits her incredibly well. At first i wanted some E-girl influence but as I got more into developing it I’ve started drawing some influence from trad goth. It makes sense since Alice lived through the inception of the goth subculture. She probably went to goth clubs and danced the night away back then. And honestly i think thats beautiful. I think she probably was attracted to all types of alternative subcultures. Being a little strange herself, she felt a kinship with outcasts. Not only that but also being queer and despite Jasper not being so into the idea of queer culture. (Straight white confederate soldier man, smh smeyer what were u thinking) She like all vampires can’t use modern smart phones due to modern touchscreens use bio electricity to work, since our vampires are undead and don’t produce bio electricity. So they’re stuck with either using styluses or dumb phones. Which I think is hilarious. Due to Alice’s being subjected to electric shock therapy she still has memory loss and on top of that she has developed a reading disability. I think she’ll want to look into her human life and look for her sister Cynthia. But I haven’t thought that far ahead of what goes on with their story. Her relationship with Jasper was inherently abusive, due to him abusing his gift of emotional influence on her to trick her to think they were mates. (Go read overcast if you want more of that storyline) So as expected they don’t last much longer after Bella comes into her life. I think it’s sweet that they end up saving each other in their stories. Alice helps Bella come into her own and gain her confidence, Bella helps Alice escape the abuse she wasn’t even aware she was being subjected to.

In my own personal head canon, vampires can change forms. Depending on anger and bloodlust. They become much more monstrous. Gaining a mouth full of sharp teeth, jaws unhinging, claws forming and body frame distorting into a much more animalistic or demonic body. I want them to become so scary. Not just the pretty marble statues that Smeyer depicts. Vampires are monsters and i want them to look the part when they let their humanity go. I have a few drawings of Alice showing her monstrous side, but not going that far into it. Vampires are one of my hyperfixations so i go pretty in depth on twilight vampires in my head. A big part of why i like them is the creatures they are, the politics of covens and the Voltori. I just think they’re just so interesting. Not only that me and my partner dive into werewolves and the difference between werewolves and shapeshifters in our twilight universe. (It’s all in overcast and full moon so please go read those fics if you want more of that)

I have drawn some personal pieces for them (mostly nsfw) but tumblr is not nice to those kinda drawings so they stay in my personal collection. Unless like y’all want me to start up a Patreon or something idk.

I want to draw more for them but like I’m a bit burnt out at the moment, I’m focusing on stuff I’m hyperfixating on right now. But I’ll come back to twilight, it’s my great love and bellice is my otp so don’t worry, I’ll be back soon. This is everything I can think of at the moment but like if you want me to elaborate on like specifics I’d be happy to talk about more. I love twilight and i love to talk about it. I really appreciate you asking me about my personal headcannons and the bellice i draw, so thank you!!

[smytherines]

Extremely specific neurodivergent curtwen headcanons that crack me like an egg:

ADHD Agent Mega is practically fan canon at this point, but I feel like we focus on him being bored & fidgeting more than other ADHD issues. Like I imagine so much of his macho guy bluster is 1. from being gay in a homophobic society, but also 2. From Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria. I dunno, something about the way he gets so flustered and defensive when people criticize him (which happens constantly)?

I've been thinking about maybe Curt being dyslexic? Like maybe he doesn't read briefings because they're already difficult to focus on, but also they're literally difficult to read? He mixes up information no matter how hard he tries. He's learned to stop trying and pretend he's just too cool for that nerd shit, but whenever someone gives him a hard time for screwing up he takes it really really personally? He has big emotional outbursts, which is especially tough as a closeted gay man in the 1950s-1960s

I have a lot of headcanon about autistic Owen Carvour, but it's kinda weird because he's canonically the villain of SAF, and that tends to stray uncomfortably into "he was always a monster" OR "the fall made him into a monster." So with autistic Owen headcanon it veers too close to saying that being autistic made him a monster (yikes, no) or that becoming disabled (no way in hell he doesn't have chronic pain issues after all that) made him a monster (also yikes, no).

So for me, the way that I frame it is like... okay so Owen is literally masking in the show, but I think about what that says about him that one of the major details we know about him is that he is very good at pretending to be other people. I'm a heavily masked autist myself, so this really resonates with me. With autistic men there are some very specific stereotypes like math, bad at social interaction, etc. But I think Owen would have a profile more stereotypically attributed to women: being hyper aware of everything around him, using "movie talk" or just remembering interactions with others and having a script. I don't know how to explain it exactly, but it's like you enter a situation and you can more or less suss out what people are expecting from you in that situation, so you just flip through your mental rolodex of phrases and deliveries and ways to stand and hold your face that align with their expectations of you. You become adept at blending in.

I would fully believe that Owen reads every briefing multiple times and has charts and diagrams, and maybe before the fall part of why he does that is that he knows Curt is a talented agent but just struggles with that part of the job, and Owen feels protective of him. Like he gets that Curt is impulsive and feels the need to be a counterweight to that. It feels like Curt blocks out information and takes in stimuli, and Owen blocks out stimuli but takes in as much info as humanly possible.

Then there's all the villain shit obviously. This is extreme headcanon territory, but one part of being autistic is what they call the "autistic sense of justice." That absolutely does not mean that autistic people have some preternatural ability to be eternally on the right side of history, we all have our individual identities and experiences coloring what we consider "justice," but just on a personal level being autistic and becoming disabled radicalized me. It led to me becoming anti-capitalist & anti-imperialist. It drastically changed my perception of right and wrong because I had to interrogate my own understanding of power, the way the concept of "crime" is created (like you get jail time for shoplifting, but your boss doesn't get punished at all for stealing money out of your paycheck).

I've already done ridiculous long posts about the political stuff, but I do think that an autistic person, especially one who has gone through a massive trauma, might come through it with a new understanding that the US/UK governments are actually pretty awful, that ignorant brutes shouldn't be in charge of politics and information.

I dunno I probably have more but I've already dumped too much here

[drinkthestars]

spoilers for nimona (2023)

just watched the new nimona movie and it was fantastic! great children's movie, excellent animation and clean plot progression. but it's missing something: the subversive morality that i first experienced when reading nimona as a kid.

in the actual comic, nimona killed people. she was morally gray- she took that step into murder and atrocity. in the movie, she's a punk kid who likes to make (admittedly pretty scary) faces and joke around about death, but it doesn't seem like she's actually gotten around to the real murder part.

and you know what? i get it.

this movie isn't meant to be the book, and that's fine. it's a wholesome misunderstood hero story for kids and a non-controversial way to have positive queer representation without compromising the themes with characters that aren't 100% good and sweet and lovely. it's great for a mainstream audience.

here's the thing: it would've been so much more INTERESTING if nimona WAS the killer. i was expecting it as a plot twist the whole movie- nimona impersonating the director (who was, tbh, not a very interesting twist villain, especially with her lack of forshadowing and her very easy and quick admit to her crimes- you'd think such a high-ranking individual would know better than to confess her sins and then murder the direct descent of gloreth in her office)

nimona has been trying and trying to convince ballister to reform the system the whole movie, saying that he SHOULD be mad, the INSTITUTE is what's in the wrong, not JUST the director. they can't run away- they have to fight back! that would've been such good foreshadowing for her having orchestrated the whole thing, with her being clearly shown to be able to shift into other people.

i'm almost convinced that the writers initially planned for that as the plot progression and then edited it to make it more family-friendly.

so in an ideal world, here's what i think should've happened:

nimona actually does frame the director for the murder- but as revenge for experimenting on and torturing her, as in the book. ballister is pardoned by the public and by ambrosius, but then the director shows the video footage of nimona shapeshifting into her, and the consequent sword-swapping. in a nutshell, nimona uses ballister to kill the queen and tries to manipulate him to help the world change, for a place where she isn't tortured needlessly just for being different.

ballister, betrayed, fights with nimona (insert key weakness that she has told only him here) and she is captured. the director informs him of the experiments on nimona (while dismissing her as a heartless monster) and he is horrified. the director reveals her new plan to get rid of (non-existent) potential monsters in the city like nimona (witch-hunting, reference to eugenics, you get it). ballister and ambrosius free nimona, and they work together to stop the enby-murder laser or whatever, nimona sacrificing herself in the process (or does she...). the ending remains the same from there.

the unfortunate issue with queer media at the moment is that people need it to be pure- a depiction of a morally gray queer character right now might throw the whole theme into question. after all, if queer people aren't perfect, than they're dead. which is interesting, because that's kind of the theme of nimona, in a sense. a narrative about people who are different, and for that reason alone are unforgivable monsters.

queer and disabled folk (see attorney woo, a show i love, for a similar problem) aren't allowed to be flawed in media. if they're not paragons of humanity or supergeniuses, they can't be accepted. nd stevenson was one of the first authors i ever saw really subvert that in widely known media meant for teens.

real life people aren't going to be as forgiving as the movies make it look. i liked the old nimona because she reflected that- she was not a sinless matyr in the end- she gave into her rage and despair and let it warp her. did that make her a monster? no- it made her human. queer media is trying its best, but in the end the issue is the very inhumanity of perfection.

[radioshackraider]

So, changes to Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The School plot is condensed. Percy is kicked out almost immediately after the school trip incident, instead of a downward spiral of poor behaviour, partially caused by his gaslighting by Chiron and Grover. Grover also now plays a more active role in his leaving Yancy by being honest that Percy admitted to wanting to take action against Nancy's bullying of the pair. Grover isn't played as disabled here, likely because if he was, Rick would have wanted to have cast a disabled actor for the character and that may have caused some significant difficulties, given the physical nature of Grover's role. A minor detail to be sure, but Mythomagic, a fiction card/miniatures game is introduced as part of the world in the very first episode. It's not too important, but it does help flesh the world out a bit more and is appreciated. Smelly Gabe (Percy's stepfather) is frankly less of an asshole, so far. He's a full on parasite still, but he doesn't come off as a complete piece of shit instantly. His dynamic with Sally Jackson seems to be less abusive so far. Speaking of, Sally takes less of Gabe's shit here. In part be cause he gives less of it, and in part because what little he gives, she gives back. All in all, she's much more proactive here, even attempting to tell Percy about his father and his nature as a demigod. Percy keeps Riptide after the fight with Mrs. Dodds. Instead of immediately returning it to Chiron, he ends up keeping it and using it against the Minotaur, even though he still ends up kill it with it's own horn. Mr. D is more playful and less surly. Comes across as more of a prankster than a alcoholic in withdrawal. Still an ass, but a more likable one. Which is important for a recurring character who isn't a full on antagonist. The introduction of Glory as an almost magical quality. It feels like it's filling a similar role to the aura demigods have that attract monsters to them, both growing as the demigod does in power. It gives Percy some amount of reason to participate in things when he should be grieving his mother. Annabeth spends less time with Percy before his quest. They basically don't interact with one another until the Bathroom scene. Instead Percy spends more time with Luke, which given the sped up nature of the show, is important to establish the friendship between the two. Percy isn't attacked by a Hellhound at camp. This was an important factor in the decision to send Percy on his quest originally, as it was thought he may be safer outside the camp than in. It also gave Chiron and others reason to suspect Hades as the Lightning Thief. And the biggest change, as I've mentioned a little so far, is that the time frame has sped up drastically, to be more in-line with Rick's more recent books. Percy gets kicked out of school faster, He spends less time at camp unclaimed, he spends much less time training, and he gets a single week for his quest. A quest that he originally had at least a month to complete. Which is a major change given that a significant amount of his time on the quest was spent in the Lotus Hotel and Casino. Which we know is still a part of this show's plot.

And now for some fun speculation on other changes I think may occur. The incident with Procrustes won't be featured. It's pretty horrifying and brutal segment that isn't overly important to the story. Feels like an easy skip to me. Hermes will give the escape pearls to Percy at the Lotus Hotel instead of the Nereid after the Echidna Encounter. Pure speculation here, but I can't see why he'd be involved in the plot of this at all unless he was acting in his role as the messenger of the gods and delivering something to the questers. The subplot of Percy's rampage of terror across the US will likely be dropped. The main fallout being the complete breakdown of the relationship between Gabe, Percy and Sally can still happen without the prolonged media meltdown simply by Gabe going full Abuser over his car getting totalled. This is a pretty dark plot line for a kids show. I could see it getting cut in favour of a more amicable separation of Gabe and Sally. But Rick also doesn't like to shy away from these more complex topics, and it might be good for a kid's show to touch on them.

[aquaburst3]

I came across a popular Twisted Wonderland blogger responding to an ask where an anon asked for their thoughts on the opinion on how some fans believe that both the characters and other real-life fans are being too harsh toward Malleus, especially in regard to the racism he’s faced and the colonization of his homeland. This even includes Idia referring to him as shit like "the ruler of evil" and Silver needing to disfiguring him by cutting off his horns in order to defeat him. The main point of the ask seemed to suggest that Malleus is being unfairly ostracized, framed as an outcast while everyone else despises him. I’d like to share my own take on the matter.

People should be held accountable for their actions, regardless of their backgrounds. Take Musk, for example. He’s autistic, but that doesn’t excuse his behaviour. He’s still a harmful individual, especially to people in the U.S. The same logic applies to Malleus. Yes, he’s been through a lot, but those are explanations, not excuses.

Yes, Malleus is having a mental health crisis, but what are the other characters supposed to do about it? They can’t exactly sit him down for therapy. Of course, they’re going to battle him like they do with any other antagonist. That's probably the only way they are able to get out of this mess.

That said, I do agree with the original anon to some extent. Having Idia call Malleus “the ruler of evil,” “enemy of all mankind,” and even a “monster” feels unnecessarily harsh. Yes, Idia is angry at Malleus and wants to stop him. Also, yes, Malleus is doing wrong, even if he has good intentions. But that doesn’t give Idia the right to be speciesist toward him. (I’d call it “racist,” but since dragons aren’t real, I don’t think that term technically applies here.) Regardless of how evil someone’s actions are, it’s never acceptable to be bigoted toward them. For example, even if Caitlyn Jenner is an awful person, that doesn’t make it okay to misgender her. The same applies here. I also find the idea of cutting off Malleus’ horns pretty tasteless, which I’ll explain in a moment.

I’m not really surprised by the way Malleus is being treated, but there are two main reasons for this that I want to address.

One goes back to my response to an anon ask yesterday. Yana relies too much on the original source material and uses it as a crutch, even when it makes no sense for her own universe or characters. This includes adding pointless references that actively harm her own characters.

The "Ruler of All Evil" and the horn things are obvious references to both Sleeping Beauty and Maleficent.

The former is a line that used to describe Maleficent, both by the other characters and by herself. That makes sense. That's a title that she gave herself. The background of the fae in the fae is completely different. The human kingdom had a war with them, intending to colonize them. Calling them that has different implications and doesn't work.

Cutting off Malleus' horn thing is a reference to Maleficent getting her wings sliced off, but still being able to live. It doesn't make a lot of sense or work symbolically. For those of you who haven't watched that movie, King Philip, Aurora's father, was childhood friends with Maleficent. However, the dying king declares that whoever is able to kill Maleficent will become king. Wanting to become king, he drugs Maleficent and slices off her wings to present them to the ill king. He's declared king. Angelina Jolie, the actress who plays Maleficent, straight up said that this is a metaphor for rape. (x) Honestly, that's my read on the text as well. Swapping wings for horns, feels disconnected from her own story’s context and symbolically tasteless, considering the serious subtext of the original.

Permanently disfiguring Malleus and disabling him by cutting off his horns is a cruel and unusual punishment, especially since characters like Rollo and Fellow were able to get away with everything. Why is Malleus the one why suddenly gets consequences for his actions and not the people who did far worse? The original subtext of the similar situation in Maleficent makes it a thousand times worse.

His weakness should've been iron. That's a common and well known weakness of the fae. Hell, it was even included in the fucking Maleficent movie that she is referencing. A lot of the people on my Discord server agree with me on that one.

(As a funny side note, I was telling this to one of my online friends. When I heard that is his canon weakness, the part of my brain that is wrecked from years of watching South Park and the Helluvaverse, thought it was the equivalent to having his weakness being cutting off his other horn, if you get what I mean. Again, just make his weakness iron like a normal person, Yana!)

Yana added these aspects in anyway, despite them not fitting the story that she wants to tell. There inclusion makes the story she's trying to tell weaker.

The second issue is Yana’s consistent inability to tackle sensitive topics with the nuance they deserve. This includes one character exploiting another's vulnerable trait from a serious systemic issue—such as an eating disorder, race, or class—by mocking or belittling them, showing a lack of empathy or respect for their struggles. The biggest example, at least in this game, is how Azul's eating disorder is treated.

For those of you who don't know, Azul is heavily implied to have an eating disorder. Azul is paranoid about gaining weight, reverting back to being fat like he was as a child. He constantly fuses about his weight, wanting to be as skinny as possible. He has numerous voice lines where he skips meals, and tightens his belt to look skinnier. It's so bad that the twins, who knows him the longest, are genuinely concerned about him not eating enough.

Is this ever addressed? Nope. If anything, the characters mock him for this.

There is a scene in Book 3 where everyone gathers around and mock Azul for being fat as a kid, despite knowing that he has an eating disorder. That scene infuriated me. If I was Yuu, I would've slapped Leona in the face for that. I'm still surprised that scene wasn't taken out of the ENG release it's that much in poor taste, especially since that could be super triggering to people with those in real life.

Yes, I know the characters are based on villains and them not being the kindest people is to be expected. There is a huge difference between doing morally questionable acts like The Dregs and just being a dick. That was certainly the latter. Like I said before, someone being a dick is not a greenlight for people to be a bigot.

What Idia did in the game is just another instance of that sort of thing. Idia knows about what happened to Malleus' people, but he is still speciesist anyway, because in Yana's mind "the characters are bad lol".

Sadly, I'm not surprised about how Malleus is being treated now. But, I'm disappointed regardless. Another reason why this arc is terrible, along with the fact that it's far too drawn out and filled with pointless filler.

[bookclub4m]

Episode 195 - Pop(ular) Culture Non-Fiction

This episode we’re discussing the topic of non-fiction Pop Culture books! We talk about cult classics, the Disney channel, the futch scale, and being Eldritch Millennials. 

You can download the podcast directly, find it on Libsyn, or get it through Apple Podcasts or your favourite podcast delivery system.

In this episode

Anna Ferri | Meghan Whyte | Matthew Murray | Jam Edwards

Join our Discord Server!

Things We Read (or tried to…)

Street Unicorns: Extravagant Fashion Photography from NYC Streets and Beyond by Robbie Quinn

Poisoned Chalice: The Extremely Long and Incredibly Complex Story of Marvelman by Pádraig Ó Méalóid

Part 0: Introduction

I Am the Law: How Judge Dredd Predicted Our Future by Michael Molcher

And Don't F&%k It Up: An Oral History of RuPaul's Drag Race by María Elena Fernández

The 2000s Made Me Gay: Essays on Pop Culture by Grace Perry

Note: Anna didn’t have the Disney Channel because she lived in the woods in Alaska. It also did not exist in Canada until 2015.

The Spectacular Failure of the Star Wars Hotel by Jenny Nicholson

That's So '90s!: A Pop-Cultural Guide to the Raddest Decade by Jo Stewart and Lisa Gillard

The Bizarre World of Fake Video Games by Super Eyepatch Wolf

Junk Film: Why Bad Movies Matter by Katharine Coldiron

Other Media We Mentioned

Attack of the New B Movies: Essays on SYFY Original Films edited by Justin Wigard and Mitch Ploskonka

Introducing Postmodernism: A Graphic Guide by Chris Garratt and  Richard Appignanesi

FRUiTS by Shoichi Aoki

Wikipedia

Miracleman: The Silver Age by Neil Gaiman and Mark Buckingham

RuPaul's Drag Race (Wikipedia)

The Pit Stop S16 E01

Glee (TV series) (Wikipedia)

Euphoria (American TV series) (Wikipedia)

Abbott Elementary (Wikipedia)

The Simpsons is Good Again by Super Eyepatch Wolf

Taskmaster: Series 17, Episode 1

Plan 9 from Outer Space (Wikipedia)

Every Frame a Painting

Links, Articles, and Things

Follow our Twitch channel!

Jam and Matthew will be streaming Monster Prom 2: Monster Camp on Saturday, June 8th at 3pm PT/6pm ET. 

Jam made an image to promote it.

Jam’s Top Ten Video Essays About Media They Haven’t Experienced

Mood board (Wikipedia)

Blockbuster (Wikipedia)

Walkman (Wikipedia)

Milk caps/Pogs (Wikipedia)

Tamagotchi (Wikipedia)

Webring (Wikipedia)

Which Pokémon are the most goth?

20 Pop Culture Non-Fiction Books by BIPOC Authors

Every month Book Club for Masochists: A Readers’ Advisory Podcasts chooses a genre at random and we read and discuss books from that genre. We also put together book lists for each episode/genre that feature works by BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, & People of Colour) authors. All of the lists can be found here.

A Little Devil in America: Notes in Praise of Black Performance by Hanif Abdurraqib

Indigenous Celebrity: Entanglements with Fame edited by Jennifer Adese & Robert Alexander Innes

The Male Gazed: On Hunks, Heartthrobs, and What Pop Culture Taught Me About (Desiring) Men by Manuel Betancourt

Carefree Black Girls: A Celebration of Black Women in Popular Culture by Zeba Blay

The Pretty One: On Life, Pop Culture, Disability, and Other Reasons to Fall in Love With Me by Keah Brown

She Memes Well by Quinta Brunson

Can't Stop Won't Stop: A Hip-Hop History by Jeff Chang & Dave Cook

Producing Sovereignty: The Rise of Indigenous Media in Canada by Karrmen Crey

Wannabe: Reckonings with the Pop Culture That Shapes Me by Aisha Harris

Leslie F*cking Jones by Leslie Jones

K-Drama School: A Pop Culture Inquiry into Why We Love Korean Television by Grace Jung

Superfan: How Pop Culture Broke My Heart by Jen Sookfong Lee

Indiginerds: Tales from Modern Indigenous Life edited by Alina Pete

Nerd: Adventures in Fandom from This Universe to the Multiverse by Maya Phillips

The Dead Don't Need Reminding: In Search of Fugitives, Mississippi, and Black TV Nerd Shit by Julian Randall

Not Your China Doll: The Wild and Shimmering Life of Anna May Wong by Katie Gee Salisbury

First Things First: Hip-Hop Ladies Who Changed the Game by Nadirah Simmons

Shine Bright: A Very Personal History of Black Women in Pop by Danyel Smith

Making a Scene by Constance Wu

Rise: A Pop History of Asian America from the Nineties to Now by Jeff Yang, Phil Yu, & Philip Wang

Give us feedback!

Fill out the form to ask for a recommendation or suggest a genre or title for us to read!

Check out our Tumblr, follow us on Instagram, join our Facebook Group or Discord Server, or send us an email!

Join us again on Tuesday, June 18th when it’s time once again for One Book One Podcast as we each pitch a book we think we should read and you (the listeners) get to vote!

Then on Tuesday, July 2nd we’ll be discussing the genre of Law/Legal Non-Fiction!

[saint-starflicker]

Overview and Criteria for Gothic Fiction

Gothic as a genre of fiction novel emerged in the late 18th century and early 19th century. Modern scholars frame these works as part of a Romanticist pushback against the Enlightenment era of calculated, scientific rationalism. In English literature, these may also have been artistic expressions of the collective anxieties of British people regarding the French Revolution. The term hearkens back to the destruction of the Roman Empire in the 5th century CE at the effect of Gothic peoples, an event that marks the beginning of the medieval era. As early as the year 1530 CE, Giorgio Vasari criticized medieval architecture as gothic, that is "monstrous", "barbarous", and "disordered" contrasted against the elegant and progressive neoclassical architecture reconstructions. In the late 20th century, a subculture of post-punk horror rockers began to be described as Gothic as well. This subcultural goth variation characterized itself by an aesthetic of counter-cultural macabre and "enjoyable fear".

Notable early works of what would become the gothic literary "canon" are listed as follows: The Castle of Otranto by Horace Walpole (1764), The Castles of Athlin and Dunbayne by Ann Radcliffe (1789), The Castle of Wolfenbach by Eliza Parsons (1793), and The Mysteries of Udolpho by Ann Radcliffe (1794). Udolpho is the name of a castle. Early gothic literature was intertwined with an admiration for gothic architecture, sorry to Vasari Giorgio who hated that sort of thing so much but is an outlier and should not be counted.

One example of French gothic literature in this vein is Notre-Dame de Paris by Victor Hugo, published in 1831 although the story is set in 1482 and it was about a gothic cathedral rather than a gothic castle. Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen is an affectionate parody of the gothic literature genre and a staunch defense of the gothic novels' artistic merits. It was completed in 1803 but not published until 1818 after the author's death.

In Northanger Abbey, a character recommends to her friend a list of books in this genre, all the titles of which were publications contemporary to the time the author was writing about them: The Italian by Ann Radcliffe, Clermont by Regina Maria Roche, The Mysterious Warning by Eliza Parsons, Necromancer of the Black Forest by Lawrence Flammenberg, The Midnight Bell by Francis Lathorn, Orphan of the Rhine by Eleanor Sleath, and Horrid Mysteries by Carl Grosse.

The appeal of these stories was less the architecture itself and more the emotions evoked by being haunted by the past, threatened by unknown histories, frightened by misunderstood monsters, and in awe of wilderness and nature. All of this would be set at or relative to a location: a gothic building. Heroines in gothic stories would commonly be abducted from convents that they sought refuge in, or confined to convents or other locations against their will when they try to exercise their freedoms. Other common tropes became the journey of a gothic heroine in an unfamiliar country, and the horrors of being made to rely on guardians who make impositions against her wishes or best interests. In other cases, the gothic horror mixed with gothic infatuation would be shown by an invasion of sorts by a foreigner in the heroine's home country, person of color, or the occupation of a disabled person. These works frequently lend themselves to queer readings.

The common and notable qualities of what works came to be considered gothic literature between the 1819 publication of The Vampyre by John William Polidori and the 1896 publication of The Werewolf by Clemence Housman, naturally expanded and evolved with the inclusion of more works within this genre. Even now in the 21st century the continued recognizability of the gothic applies to new additions to the genre. The criteria for what qualifies a gothic story follows:

Ill-Reputed Work. The story is accused of being degrading to high culture, bad for society, immoral, populist or counter-cultural. At the very least, it's considered bad art and ugly.

Haunted by the Past. This can be found in a work framed accordingly in the cultural context that inspired the authors, such as early 19th century English literature of this genre as a response to the French Revolution. Works emblematic of the Southern Gothic in the United States could be framed in the context of the anxieties surrounding the Civil War. More often, however, it is personal history that haunts a gothic character.

Architecture. This is not necessarily mere mention of a building, or even a lush description of literally gothic architecture. This is more a sense of location. While it stands to reason that confined locations are buildings, the narrative function of architecture can be served by themes of isolation and confinement. Social consensus that is impossible to navigate or escape is a gothic sentiment. This is, of course, more clearly qualified if the architecture is literally a building.

Wilderness. This is not necessarily natural environments, but rather situations that are unpredictable and overwhelming. Storms can be similarly admired, those "dark and stormy night"s. The anxiety invoked by nautical horror emerges from the contrast between a human being made to feel small and out of control when situated on the open ocean and all its depths and mysteries. The gothic simplicity of fairy tales relies on the inhospitable and chaotic woods full of bandits, wolves, and maybe even witches. Logically, a city should be more architecture than wilderness, but if the narrative purpose is chaotic unpredictable vastness horror rather than confinement horror then the city can become a gothic wilderness. This is, of course, more clearly qualified if the wilderness is literally the weather.

Big Mood Energy. This is what I call a collection of emotions evoked by the design of gothic literature. The sense of vulnerability in the face of grandeur, or overwhelming emotion, is known as Sublime. The betrayal of that which is supposed to be familiar is known as the Uncanny. A disruption or disrespect of identity, order, or security is known as the Abject. Gothic literature often evokes disgust and discomfort with ambiguity, or showcases melodramatic sentimentality, or includes heavyhanded symbolism. Gothic literature explores boundaries and deconstructs the rules that keep readers comfortable.

Optionally, Supernatural. As a response to Enlightenment-era science and rationalism, the supernatural found new importance in gothic literature, symbolically and in the evocative emotions it wrought.

The growing edge of genre gothic I think can be found in genre overlap with picaresque stories, detective mysteries, works of libertine sensationalism, science fiction, fairy tales, and dark academia. Quaint tropes are subverted or transformed, and new ones can emerge in the symbolic conversation that works of fiction can strike up with one another. I hope the above criteria remains a useful guide.

Sources:

Peake, Jak. “Representing the Gothic.” 30 April 2013, University of Essex. Lecture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B51o-1KTJhw

Nixon, Lauren. “Exploring the Gothic in Contemporary Culture and Criticism.” 4 August 2017, University of Sheffield. Lecture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZP4g0eZmo8

"Why Are Goths? History of the Gothic 18th Century to Now". Wright, Carrie. 17 December 2022. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrIK6pBj4f8

"8 Aspects of Gothic Books". Teed, Tristan. 19 June 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NULLOYGiSDI

Burke, Edmund. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. London, Vernor & Hood, etc., 1798. Originally published in 1756.

Freud, Sigmund. The Uncanny, Penguin Books, New York, 2003. Originally published in 1919.

Kristeva, Julia. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, translated by Leon Roudiez, Columbia University Press, New York, NY, 2010. Originally published in 1984.

Commentary and reading list under Read More.

Commentary

I owe to Tristan Teed the idea of framing emergent gothic literature as countercultural to Enlightenment rationalism and science, and this pushback symbolized by wilderness; Dr. Jak Peake for contextualizing gothic literature as an artistic response to civic unrest in general, and highlighting the fear of seductive immigrants in Bram Stroker's Dracula more specifically; Carrie Wright for the feminist readings of the literary references in Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey, and Dr. Lauren Nixon framing the term gothic as originally meaning bad art—the lattermost aspect I personally consider integral to the genre as it must remain a constant interrogation of what artistic expression we as a society consider "bad art" and why. Both Wright and Teed inspired the aspects list applied to an otherwise categorization-defiant genre that gothic literature is. Critical Race Theory readings and Queer Theory readings of works considered part of gothic literature canon, I would say are informed by the works themselves being very suggestive of these readings. Sheridan Le Fanu's 1872 Carmilla influenced Rachel Klein's 2002 The Moth Diaries that blurred the lines between the homosocial and the homoerotic at a girl's boarding school. Florian Tacorian (not listed in these citations, but go watch his videos) highlighted Romani presence in adaptations of Victor Hugo's Notre-Dame de Paris, as well as Emily Brontë's 1847 novel Wuthering Heights. The work of another Brontë sister, Charlotte Brontë, is more often mentioned as though closer to the core canon gothic literature, and the eponymous Jane Eyre contends with a Creole woman confined to the attic of her new home (this was written in 1847, the race issue was made explicit in Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys published in 1966 that was a retelling of Jane Eyre.)

Notes on the works of gothic literature mentioned: As of this writing, I have read Northanger Abbey, The Vampyre, Carmilla, Dracula, and only half of Notre-Dame de Paris. I have only watched a movie adaptation of The Moth Diaries. (Update as of the 8th of October 2023: I finished reading The Moth Diaries by Rachel Klein. This whole essay was posted on the 1st of October 2023.) (Update as of December 2023: I finished reading Jane Eyre.) Despite taking the internet handle Poe, American gothic literature is pretty much completely alien to me. I might have read a handful of other works that might be arguably gothic, but have not mentioned them here so I would not count them in a list of works that are mentioned in this essay and that I have personally read. The initial list was a semi-facetious argument for the presence of gothic architecture in gothic literature based on the titles alone. Note also my focus on gothic literature from the British Isles, with a mention of only two titles from Germany (Der Genius by Carl Grosse, translated into the English The Horrid Mysteries by Peter Will; and Der Geisterbanner: Eine Wundergeschichte aus mündlichen und schriftlichen Traditionen by Karl Friedrich Kahlert under the pen name Lawrence Flammenberg, translated into the English Necromancer of the Black Forest by Peter Teuthold that was first published in 1794) and only one from France (Notre-Dame de Paris 1482 by Victor Hugo). This is not to say that there was little to no Romanticist movement in Germany or France in the 18th and 19th centuries compared to Britain. Friedrich Maximilian Klinger's stageplay Sturm und Drang premiered in 1777 and lent its name to a proto-Romantic artistic era that was supremely Sublime and Big Mood Energy. The earliest French gothic novel I could find via a cursory search engine search was Jacques Cazotte's Le Diable Amoureux, 1772, and I deliberately selected Notre-Dame de Paris for mention instead to demonstrate the continued theme of architecture and variety in architecture: churches as well as castles, and to affirm the representation of disability in gothic literature because Quasimodo (a character in the book) is deaf and according to John Green had contacted spinal tuburculosis that left the character hunchbacked. I have not read any of Le Diable Amoureux, let alone the half that gave me the temerity to list Notre-Dame de Paris among these gothic works.

This sparseness is due to my own interest in the emergence of English-language gothic literature focused on Britain between the years 1789 and 1830, in keeping with Ian Mortimer's definition of the Regency era in Britain. That, and the information from the sources I have cited, are what I based the criteria that I offer for what makes a novel genre-compliant to gothic. The narrative psychology and historicist analyses of The Castle of Otranto as an outlier published earlier than the timeframe I confine myself to, is for another essay perhaps written by somebody else. Similarly, my argument for the lineage of picaresque heroes from Paul Clifford to The Scarlet Pimpernel, Don Diego "Zorro" de la Vega, and ultimately the angst-filled cinematic version of Bruce Wayne as overlapping the picaresque with the gothic is a blog post for another time. I have read some works by the Maquis Donatien Alphonse François de Sade and I utterly and unutterably abhor all of it, will the spectre of his abysmal depravity ever cease to haunt me—but I think I can make an argument for his works being gothic even as he argued for himself that they were not; I have no plans of doing so.

My main intention in writing this overview and criteria is to lay the groundwork for examining the overlap between Gothic as a genre and Dark Academia as a genre, which I aim to evaluate in future essays by using this criteria.

List of Works Mentioned Above

The Castle of Otranto by Horace Walpole (1764)

Le Diable Amoureux by Jacques Cazotte (1772)

The Castles of Athlin and Dunbayne by Ann Radcliffe (1789)

The Castle of Wolfenbach by Eliza Parsons (1793)

The Mysteries of Udolpho by Ann Radcliffe (1794)

Necromancer of the Black Forest by Lawrence Flammenberg (translated by Peter Teuthold, 1794)

The Horrid Mysteries by Carl Grosse (translated by Peter Will, 1796)

The Italian by Ann Radcliffe (1796)

The Mysterious Warning by Eliza Parsons (1796)

Clermont by Regina Maria Roche (1798)

The Midnight Bell by Francis Lathorn (1798)

Orphan of the Rhine by Eleanor Sleath (1798)

Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen (1818)

The Vampyre by John William Polidori (1819)

Paul Clifford by Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1830)

Notre-Dame de Paris 1482 by Victor Hugo (1831)

Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë (1847)

Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë (1847)

Carmilla by Sheridan Le Fanu (1872)

Dracula by Bram Stroker (1897)

The Werewolf by Clemence Housman (1896)

The Scarlet Pimpernel by Emma Orczy (1905)

Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys (1966)

The Moth Diaries by Rachel Klein (2002)

[checkoutmybookshelf]

Nickleheads, Knights, and Harry's Half-Vampire Ex-Girlfriend

We were introduced to Michael Carptenter as a Knight of the Cross back in Grave Peril, but this is where we really get a good sense of the Knights as an organization within the Catholic Church, and it's where we learn about who they're there to...save, strictly speaking, if possible, but let's be real. They kill Denarians to try to keep cursed silver bits off the streets. This is going to be relevant literally for the rest of the series as far as anyone knows. Oh and also, somebody stole the Shroud of Turin and Harry's half-vampire ex-girlfriend is in town. Let's talk Death Masks.

Spoilers abound below the break, so head's up if you're on your first Dresden read through and don't want MASSIVE THINGS SPOILED.

Also, Content Warning for sex, blood, and violence. Take care of you first and we will catch you on the flip side if you choose to skip over this one!

You cannot say that the worldbuilding in the Dresden Files is anything but thorough, and apparently that also includes shitty daytime TV personalities, because Harry opens this book by basically having a low-key anxiety attack while trying not to take out every single piece of technology in a television studio during a "debate" between himself, Mort Lindquist, and Paolo Ortega. It's literally the opening to a bad joke: A medium, a vampire, and a wizard walk into a TV studio to discuss whether paranormal creatures and beings are real.

Unfortunately, our vamp also takes the time to challenge the Wizard to a duel, which the White Court is all too happy to accept as a way out of the war that Harry started. To complicate matters further, the Shroud of Turin has been stolen and the Knights of the Cross, Denarians, and Susan are in town, so Harry isn't having a terribly good week. And then he also has to stop Nicodemus from beginning a plague.

Honestly, so many things about this book ANNOY me. Listicles were, at one time, popular on the interwebz, so let's go old school here with the irksome stuff.

Kinky Vampire Sex As a Lifesaving Measure. All right. I get that vampires being sex coded isn't new; from early works like the Vampyre to iconic classics like Carmilla and Dracula to modern reimaginings like Interview with a Vampire and Twilight, vampires have been sex coded. I think what irritates me about this example is the framing. Like, we can't just have "my girlfriend is half vampire and we have kinky, mind-blowing vampire sex," no. We have to have "My control is slipping and I will literally murder you if you don't...*checks notes*...tie me up like a hog for slaughter and sex the evil vampiric tendencies out of me." Like...IT'S A FLESHY BUNDLE OF NERVES, NOT A MAGIC WAND. CAN WE PLEASE NOT FRAME THIS AS "HARRY DRESDEN'S MAGICAL ANTI-VAMPIRE PENIS"????? And just to clarify: I'm not out here to kink shame anyone. My objection is to the hypermasculinity and toxic masculinity of the framing of this sex scene. We can still have kinky vampire sex, but maybe let's have it be enthusiastic and fun rather than "If we don't bang right now, one or both of us is going to die." There is an element of coercion there than I don't love, especially not when the author then also frames it as "my dick literally saved my girlfriend's life." If you want kinky monster sex, the just have kinky monster sex. Don't make it weird.

Heroic Sacrifice Is Fine Because I Had Terminal Cancer Anyway. Hello Ableism, My Old Friend. The trope that a chronically ill, terminally ill, or disabled character dies to save an able-bodied character is inherently ableist, full stop. It straight out SAYS that the able-bodied life we have saved is more valuable than the disabled life we lost. And not only does Butcher have Shiro pull this, we get a back-dated letter at the end from Shiro to Harry going, "Hey, I knew I was dying and I hope that makes you feel better about me being horribly tortured to death on your behalf. Dressing up what is essentially a "bury your disabled" trope in a heroic sacrifice does not make it less ableist and shitty. (For those of you who want more on disability tropes and why they're ableist, I have written a literal book on it, and also please see this TV Tropes page.) I don't have a lot to actually SAY about this one, other than endlessly screaming into the void about the blatant ableism throughout this series and wondering why the HELL I was surprised when Butcher disabled and fridged Murphy. Please join me in screaming, there will be throat coat tea afterwards.

Medical Science Failed? Let's Try Religion. I get that Marcone is as guilty as it is possible for a sociopath to be over not being able to fix a little girl's coma--and we're just going to skim over the ableism and objectification inherent in her being a literal plot point; she could be a broken lamp and this plot point still works--but my dude...SERIOUSLY??? You are Gentleman Johnny Marcone. You have the resources to get the best doctors in the world in the room, and when that doesn't work, you have the resources to get the best scientists on the problem. You even have the resources to get the best magical healers in the room if you want to. But no. You rolled religion and went for the freaking Shroud of Turin. Which would make sense for Nicodemus or any of the Denarians, but for the mobster who business-ified the mob? I suppose this does set up Marcone's slide to the Denarians later in the series, but his WHOLE THING is being the calculated businessman. I don't love this. I also don't love the history of miracle cures in religion being used to moralize illness and disability, but frankly this little piece of scene is too small to really dive into for that.

So yeah, this book is weird about sex, it's ableist, and it's weird about moralizing illness and disability. And that is so obnoxious because we don't HAVE to be weird about this stuff. Plenty of other books manage to address these topics without getting cishet white boy weird about it.

This is also the book where Harry is half tricked, half coerced into taking up Lasciel's coin, and that's a whole thing for the next several books too.

Was there stuff I liked about this book? I mean, objectively yes. Ivy--The Archive--is never not tragically delightful on the page, and the vampire duel at Wrigley Field is damn fun. I also really LIKE Sanya and Shiro on the page, they're great characters with surprising depth for secondary characters.

I will also admit to a deep love for the Denarians. As villains, they're powerful, unhinged, scary, and delightful, and the Nicklehead books are, in general, some of my favorites of the series. Skin Game and Small Favor in particular are my top two in the series.

Overall, however, Death Masks isn't one of my favorite Dresden books, and it really leans into ableist tropes that drive me up the flippin' wall.

[spider-xan]

Obviously, the basis of the Lizard origin story is not great bc it's a tired premise where a disabled character wants to 'fix' himself, though in fairness, unlike most iterations of that plot where the disabled character becomes able bodied and that is framed as a happy ending, the 'fix' is not a good thing and he ultimately chooses to remain disabled at the end of the story instead of prioritizing being abled above all and it's not framed as a tragedy that he makes that choice (in fact, that's the happy ending, no 'fix' required), and once again, I'm going to reiterate that I don't think portrayals of disability that are not good vibes only are inherently ableist and should be banned bc that's limiting the full spectrum of disabled experiences - but at least in the 616 comics, we have context for why Curt struggles with being an amputee even though his life is actually phenomenally perfect otherwise, as he acquired his disability through traumatic means (shaking my head to show I disagree that the US military is the real victim of US imperialism and invasions) and that he lost his original surgeon career that was a core part of his identity, and loss and grief over being unable to do something previously important due to acquired disability is absolutely not an uncommon experience for many disabled people, so you can at least try to contextualize him trying to cope with that loss in a way that isn't especially healthy for him and ends in disaster while losing sight of what he already has and stands to lose - and in the end, he would rather be disabled and himself than able bodied, but with the body and mind of a monster who hurts people and can't be with his loved ones bc being able bodied is not the most important thing to him in the end.

Meanwhile, in the TASM film, we have zero idea why he's so hung up on it after over a decade at the very least beyond a really creepy fascist obsession with eugenics and disability as a weakness of humanity that must be eradicated, which is beyond medical advancements to help people (cellular regeneration is not inherently ableist and can have life saving potential) and is bizarrely framed as a morally upstanding position to take on disability we're supposed to agree with (and Peter, as the hero and moral heart, does agree with him on this, which is ???!!), so the entire character ends up feeling like an able bodied person's caricature of a sad and pitiful disabled person who has no personality or life beyond being sad about being disabled and wanting to 'fix' himself bc nothing is more important than being abled and God forbid a disabled person can live a meaningful life, and then when he does 'fix' himself, he'd addicted to being able bodied, even though that requires becoming a monster who harms people, but it's totally worth it to not be disabled, which seems to be getting into villainising disability, and just, oof, I'm not sorry, but there is just so much ableism in this film and it's frustrating it's rarely discussed and criticized.

[rocinantescoffeestop]

[pjo series thoughts - spoilers ep. 1]

• Bobofit? just makes me think of Boba Fett and now I'm picturing Nancy fanart as a star wars clone XD

• Eddie the Super is a bro in this adaptation. I agree with what I've heard some other folks saying around these fandom parts, I like this change from Eddie being one of the poker buddies to being at odds with Gabe, too.

• Sally Jackson listening to 'logical' by Olivia Rodrigo. Sally Jackson being an Olivia fan!!!!

• Gabe and Sally's relationship here... it's not good sure, but in this adaptation, I can see sort of how they could have started, maybe at first it not being about 'protecting Percy', as they sort of have a banter here that doesn't just seem like a watered-down/kid-friendly version of a dysfunctional marriage but also like the remnants of some sort of clicking. Of course, I want to believe that Gabe is still an awful human being, and yeah, the show portrays that he's a slum, a verbal dick towards everyone in his life, has abusive habits like checking Sally's phone without permission, so I still don't like him here. But, there's a difference between series!Gabe and book!Gabe in which book!Gabe was just painted as cut and dry, black and white awful, like the worlds slimiest, grimiest old fool. Maybe it's the act of seeing it instead of reading about it since in the book we ARE the narrator – a twelve-year-old boy with a limited worldview and seeing things more as cut-dry/black-white – and here we're more on the outside looking in, so we can approach the world with a more objective viewpoint, and see details not as 'good' or 'bad' but as just details. Just something like 'life just be like that sometimes' kind of way.

• 'Like a puzzle with have the wrong pieces' hit home for me. Also, describing Percy's attention slips through the mist as 'daydreaming' is such a good way to relate ADHD to his demigodness. I like how the series described Percy's mind and disabilities better so far than the books.

• 'Something that felt real to you that no one else can see?' The way Sally delivers this line... UGH so good at being very subtle in suggesting that she can relate to Percy personally here, hinting at her ability to see through the mist as well despite being 100% mortal. Or maybe that's just me knowing things revealed later in the series and subplanting that onto the now.

• It's hard explaining greek gods being real to your son. LOL undercut perfectly with Walker's comedy ("like– like Jesus?"). Also, Walker's acting? 10/10

• putting Percy and Grover at odds in the series just like in the books but each do it differently – in the books, Percy ditches Grover bc he's acting weird and it's stressing Percy out. In the series, Grover is the one that does the dirty deed and makes sure Percy gets expelled from Yancy. Either case, they both put tension in the relationship (to be repaired later in the narrative). So, before you say anything bad about the differences between book and series, think about the emotional part of it. The series speaks to the HEART of the scene, of the story, even if it's not a word-for-word retelling with visuals.

• "He is brutal, he is relentless, he–" "He is still wearing underpants." Classic Percy comedy akdjfhgklsjdfg I'm in love

• Sally setting Grover up for his emotional journey on the quest by making him swear to protect Percy against all monsters/threats that come his way.

• Oh god, it's even more heartwrenching the second time watching Percy watch his mom "die" – the silence that encompasses the moment, all sounds drowning away, the rain so crystal clear on his face, and his eyes... god. so good.

• I love the last scene. The campers' voices coming out of the blackness, the blackness fading into a hazy purple sunset as Percy's vision come to. Annabeth's voice saying "he must be the one,' as she so wants him to be the one that will bring her along on a quest. just the way the framing lands at the end, with the subtle movement of camper silhouettes shifting away and Chiron front and centre, welcoming Percy (and thus the audience) into the world (into the series). Such a good introduction. So, so good.

[fantastic-mr-corvid]

Dina and Cherrys relationship is often so funny bc not only are they co-workers but Dina needs Cherry to do a fair few things she cant bc of her disability, but they also break up every month, which leads to many scenarios where Cherry will quickly and efficiently do what Dina cant, and then once its over she will go back to being a petty bitch about their recent split, giving everyone else in the office whiplash.

When asked Cherry says something like "oh i'm a monster but im not that much of a monster" as if she didnt steal a kids chemistry set to use parts of it to build the bomb that killed his father to frame him for murder just last week while laughing at the irony the whole time. She is more than happy to frame a child for murder but she draws the line at letting personal feelings get in the way of assisting disabled people where there isnt enough accessibility<3