#who needs to write academic papers when you can post on tumblr

[heteromerous-rhyming]

i'm unleashing my inner academic i'm so sorry all.

in "Pacific-Asian Immigrant and Refugee Women Who Kill Their Batterers: Telling Stories that Illustrate the Significance of Specificity" julia tolmie writes: the true significance of this evidence for the purpose of the accused's self-defence case is properly understood only when it is explicitly understood in light of her unique positioning.

this is an article written in 1997 and it details two trials - muy ky chhay, an immigrant woman from cambodia, and jai fong zhou, an immigrant woman from china. (if you're interested at all please give it a read, it's available for download if you search up the title) they were both put on trial for the murder or attempted murder of their husbands, their abusers. the article is compelling on a number of levels but one of the parts of this article that pierced me through was tolmie's centering of these women and their narratives and their testimonies. you can see throughout this article tolmie's commitment to foregrounding the stories of these women, you can see that she's done what she can to research and understand, to show them as individuals first. (i will never be sane about this, do you understand)

that is to say: riordan was much more radical twenty years ago.

i will not be comparing the cases of these women to sally jackson's fictional situation. that would diminish them, the reality of their cases.

but what i do want to do is use tolmie's methodology. i want to show the significance of specificity in sally jackson's case. tolmie organizes her article into sections, and i wanted to take a few of them to look at sally jackson. so. without further ado:

1. the accused's credibility

sally jackson has no family, no one to vouch for her. it is clear throughout the lightning thief that she's isolated - and this is in contrast to gabe, who is surrounded by his poker friends constantly. she got her diploma late because she couldn't finish high school due to needing to take care of her uncle with cancer, who then died leaving her with nothing. she was young when she had percy, and never married the man who fathered him.

in the eyes of this world, sally jackson would be often overlooked, dismissed, disdained. she wanted to be a novelist, she had passion and ambition, but these were beaten down by the world. she barely got her high school degree, there's no chance that she, a single mother, gets a high paying job, so she's working at a candy shop. a job that whether or not she enjoys was not what she'd worked towards. audre lorde speaks about the difficulty of working women to write novels in "age, race, class, and sex" because of the material demands of that process. sally jackson cannot write a novel - she's working a job that cannot possibly pay her enough for her and percy to survive in new york and she's a single mother caring for a child that the schools will often describe as "a troubled kid."

not only that - sally jackson finds it difficult to make friends, because percy is not a normal child. he's a demigod. those first few years, though we don't know much about them, must have been terrifying. she's in contact with camp, chiron probably advises her to give up her son so they can stop attracting monsters, but she refuses. she calls this choice selfish. but it is so increasingly clear that percy is one of the only bright and joyful parts left in her life, that percy is who she lives for.

she chose percy. chose to raise him, chose to protect him, chose to keep him close.

2. evidence of the deceased's violence

gabe ugliano (the name is on the nose and i'm living for it) is the manager of the electronics mega-mart in queens (i have no clue what this company is but ok) he clearly has more money than sally, and i would venture to assume that the lease for the apartment is also in his name (though i also assume that sally is paying for a good amount of that apartment). that is to say, gabe has significantly more power and "respectability" in the eyes of society than sally. he's probably the reason that they're financially afloat. despite all of this, despite the fact that gabe has a clearly expensive car, he does not ever offer to cover sally's financial situation. she's still working a likely minimum wage job even though it is probably that gabe could support all three of them with his.

it is evident, from percy's first interaction with him in the books, that gabe is financially controlling and greedy. he's not stupid (at least in this regard); he works out (with an ease that implies habit) exactly how much money percy likely has. and then he takes it. it is likely that gabe also does this to sally. it is likely that he knows exactly how much money sally makes and regularly attempts to control how much she can save (think: the money for montauk came out of sally's "clothes budget"). he restricts her movement ("my mom and I hadn’t been to montauk the last two summers, because gabe said there wasn’t enough money.")

when sally returns from the underworld, gabe forces her to work to make up for the month's salary she "lost."

this is also when percy realizes that gabe hits his mother. canonically, gabe physically abuses sally. can we assume that maybe sally has been taking hits for percy? perhaps. it is clear that percy didn't realize that gabe was physically violent towards his mother, so i assume that gabe never hit percy. we don't know the extent of his physical violence. we don't need to; regardless sally jackson is in a situation where that threat of physical violence is constantly hanging over her head.

3. the accused's options in dealing with the deceased's violence

sally stays with gabe because of a myriad of reasons, most relating to what i have described above in section 2 but also, crucially, because of the protection he offers percy due to his smell.

sally isn't weak-willed. she isn't irrational. she might plead with percy to not antagonize gabe, but that's survival instinct. she understands pretty clearly her situation.

she knows how difficult it is for a single mother to survive on her own with a child. she knows how impossible it would be to do so with a child of the big three, without combat skills, without the disguise of humanness. perhaps she's resigned herself to the fact that there is no other way. perhaps she thinks that this is punishment for keeping percy close.

she cannot divorce him; he'd oppose that, and he has the financial means to hire a lawyer. and after divorce, where would she go? without the means to support herself and percy, without a support network, what options does she have?

she cannot leave, cannot call the police. she still needs to take care of percy, she still needs a place to stay.

and yet, despite all of this, at the end of the book sally makes the choice to kill gabe. she takes back agency into her own hands, and despite the financial uncertainty, despite all of the reasons that she couldn't leave, she takes her life into her own hands. not only that, but his death leads to her financial liberation.

perhaps this was due to percy finally ending up at camp, finally having that concrete safety net to fall back on. perhaps this was because gabe threatened to call the police on percy, perhaps this was because gabe fueled the terrorist accusations, perhaps any number of things.

all this to say. somehow, riordan, a white cis man, twenty years ago, managed to capture in sally jackson something real. he managed to show the structural inequities that she faced, her lack of options, and gabe's abuse in a book meant for children. in a book meant for twelve-year-olds.

and this was without explicitly showing any physical violence from gabe.

sally jackson's story is engaging because we understand somehow, despite the majority of us condemning murder, why she killed her abuser. we understand that this isn't just a toxic relationship, that this isn't a situation that sally can just leave, that both real and fantastical forces combined compel her to stay, and we cheer for her.

i want to end this unfortunately long post with a quote from tolmie, from the article i started off with:

"It has been suggested that women rarely succeed in arguing self-defense because legal doctrines and notions of what is "reasonable" do not encompass the realities of women's lives."

what better way than to break this doctrine of "reasonability" through the lens of a fantasy world.

[lyralit]

4.1.24 - the importance of learning new things

As much as I think academic & work focus is incredibly important going into the new year, one of my other goals is to practice doing more: to learn all of the things I want to do, in addition to work, in addition to writing. I want to know how to do thousands of little things, and I think the longer we wait, the less likely we are to do them.

Picking up a new hobby doesn't have to be buying a dozen textbooks and spending hundreds of dollars on lessons because you might have the slightest interest: it can be from whatever you have here, now, and you'll never learn if you don't get started.

Some of the things I've been getting into (as I've mentioned before) are baking & crocheting. it just feels so cozy and nice & I love the idea of comfort.

here is a list of things I want to / you should try that's new!

learning a new language. fifteen minutes a day, I kid you not. I'm learning latin on duolingo and I don't ever think about it, but when I do it (25 day streak 💪🏻), I'm starting to notice my improvements

consuming good media. and that's not scrolling for half an hour on tumblr. it's books—deep ones and silly ones and ones about romance and dragons and apocalypses. it's movies! I watched keira knightley's pride and prejudice twice in the last few months, and also three men and a baby which is something I never thought I would watch, but it was quite funny I think. and I learn from it: I cannot write humour or romance for the life of me, so it's basically studying to write (is the self-gaslighting too evident?)

learning to crochet. I made a silly little headband today, after scrolling through pinterest and desperately wanting one. I started crocheting in december to give as gifts (I completed none of my wips, much like when I write) and used the tools I had around me: an old rainbow loom hook and whatever string I could find. now I'm proud to say I can read somewhat fluently crochet acronyms.

baking. I keep saying this. I know. but when I tell you a two years ago I was exploding cupcakes in the oven and last month I made bakery-style cookies...I made bread! a loaf of bread! (in a bread machine, but it's so good and I instantly made another. there is one in the bread machine right now). honestly it just made me feel that much better about improvement, and trying new things, and that is the mindset I want for the new year.

learning to code. in all honesty, I never thought I was a compsci - engineer kind of person. then this year, out of sudden (masterminded) urges, I joined a bunch of tech and robotics initiatives, and maybe it's the sense of community (I can rejoice in finding another nerdy group) but now I am happily chauffeuring myself to these meetings 4h a week. I'm looking into pursuing more into the fields of eng and science. and I'm learning some code from one of the friends I've made!

starting a blog. ...I know most of the people who linger around my blog stay for the writing content (the last posts have turned this writerblr into a digital diary, and I'm only half sorry for that). but since I've joined tumblr (almost three years ago now!) I've got to meet so many wonderful people (including you!) and want to try so many things.

and I get it. it's overwhelming. so here are some starting goals that maybe I'll try also.

start doing art. -> make a card for someone as a gift.

learn a new sport & start exercising. (I'm trying out track & field in the spring, so stay tuned to figure out how that goes) -> see if someone will come play ball with you. do 1 or 2 youtube workout videos a week.

film videos of your daily life. it doesn't need to be for posting! -> edit together clips you've taken for a last year recape.

start a scrapbook. -> print out photos and dig up construction paper. decorate a page.

make a poetry journal. -> go on pinterest to read poetry! pin styles you like and set fifteen minutes to writing.

make a regular journal! -> write once a day. just try: goals for the day in the morning, or a recap at night.

try your hand at gardening. -> research plants that grow well in your region. see if any of the seeds you may have at home are useful. water your lawn. buy a plant and try to keep it alive (set reminders, leave it in front of your sink)

learn to make candles. -> watch a youtube tutorial. see if you can play around with candles you already have.

play chess. -> see if someone will play chess with you. no? chess.com is right there. go make an account. go find a stranger.

learn to play an instrument off youtube. -> maybe you have a piano sitting around, or a guitar you've never touched. you don't even need to master it. pick a song you like and google that. no instrument? maybe there's a way to play drums with home items.

go for a run. -> once a week. a set time. just shoes and the outdoors. too cold? go to a gym and use a treadmill. maybe that's not possible? skip rope.

start / join a book club. -> just you, or some close friends, or people online. a book a month. talk about it.

** on that note, would anyone like to join a tumblr book club? slide into my asks and maybe we can get a blog list!

thank you for reading again <3 until next time.

k.

[dresshistorynerd]

kinda random question but how do you go about researching? I’ve wanted to get deeper into fashion history than just watching youtube videos, but I don’t really know where to start.

ps. thanks for making such detailed posts. they’re really interesting to read.

Thank you! I'm really glad you've found my posts interesting!

This is great since I've kinda answered this in replies couple of times, but not properly. I very much understand the struggle. Dress history is a relatively new academic field and there's not that much reliable sources available and so so much unreliable sources everywhere. Internet of course has this problem but so does a lot of books too.

I thought this would be a short one and yet, here we are again.

Disclaimer: I'm writing this from a western fashion history perspective, since that's what I know best, but especially reading up on academic research and doing primary source research applies to non-western cultures too, though often it's harder to find sources for non-western fashion.

Getting started

Imo the best place to getting started is to read a book that gives a general timeline of fashion through history. I'm not sure if that's just how my brain works, but it helped me a lot of when going deeper into one period or another to understand the broader context and what roughly came before and what after. However these books are inherently difficult to make well, because there's so much nuance and variation in every period of dress history and if you're writing about the whole timeline through thousands of years and keeping it book length, there will need to be a lot of simplification to the point of inaccuracy. There's many popular fashion history timeline books with illustrations made for the book, but I would avoid those since non-contemporary illustrations often give a distorted image of the fashion, especially when it's about earlier periods in history. I've seen some really inaccurate illustrations depicting Middle Ages and Renaissance especially.

Costume and fashion: a concise history by James Laver - I'd recommend this as the starting point. James Laver was a art historian, an important pioneer of fashion history and curator of Victoria and Albert Museum, which has one of the most extensive costume collections now. The book is therefore based on serious academic study, but being a pioneer means you'll be outdated, when the field is more established, which is partly the case with this book. There's some outdated parts, but the images are primary sources and it does give good historical background. It should be taken as a starting point, not as the end point.

A History of Fashion by J. Anderson Black and Madge Garland - This is another similar book. It's more recent, but it also suffers from some outdated parts. The writers are not academics, but it has more primary source pictures which does help (at least me) understand visually what's being said.

Books

In a given subject I'm researching I usually start with seeing if I can find a reliable book on it or related to it, if I haven't already read much on it. Often what I want to research goes deeper into details than what a book usually does, so it will work as a starting point. As said it can be hard to find these books that are actually reliable, but here's couple of reading lists to help with it.

Here's a reading list by a retired professor of dress history from Helsinki University. It's very extensive and has a wide variety of books and papers listed. There's a bit of leaning towards Finnish sources, but most are in English and about more international western fashion.

Here's a reading list by @clove-pinks, who is excellent and writes a lot about the Romantic period, especially men's fashion here on Tumblr. These are all books that can be read free on Internet Archive, which makes the list even better.

Internet sources

There's a lot of bad sources floating around in the internet, but also some excellent gems. As dress history is such a new field, there's a lot of unexplored spots and lacking research still, but some troopers in the internet have done some great legwork in going through primary sources and gathering them together. These can be excellent especially when trying to research a specific garment, since often these blog posts are by historical costumers, who are detailing their background research in reconstructing a specific garment. It's not always easy to find them, since they might not come up in the first page of the google search, but I often find them through pinterest, where the blogs are linked into the primary source images and images of the reconstructed garments. Though be sure to look with blogs like that with critical eye. The best sign that it's reliable is when each image is given a source.

There's some more general sources too that need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Fashion History Timeline - This is a page with entries to the whole timeline of fashion as well as entries of specific garments. It's very well sourced and has usually pretty good image sources too. I will say though that it often gives a pretty limited description of the period focusing on some specifics, without giving a good overall picture, especially in the Medieval sections. The medieval sections are honestly pretty useless. It's at it's best in 19th century imo (I haven't checked out the entries to 20th century since I rarely research vintage styles, but I'd assume they are pretty good too). But since it has great sourcing it is usually informative. It just shouldn't be relied upon to give full picture of a period.

Wikipedia, History of Western fashion - In some ways this is the opposite of Fashion History Timeline. Wikipedia has articles on each period. The sourcing on these articles is often quite lacking and the information shouldn't be taken at face value. Especially the terms for the garments are often used in these articles in very questionable ways. However what these articles have is pretty good primary source image collections, and what is nice is that in Medieval, Renaissance and Early Modern periods they are often divided into regions, and they often have images of working class clothing, which are for some periods really hard to find. These articles often don't either give a full picture of the period, but in someways the basic picture of the period is easier to grasp from these than from Fashion History Timeline. I use these mostly for the primary source images, and the texts of them should be taken with a bucket of salt.

Academic papers

Going deeper into something will inevitably require reading up on some academic papers. I'm lucky since I get access to a lot of academic publications through my uni, but JSTOR (my beloved) gives free access to 100 papers per month (you'll just have to make an account). Through google scholar you can search for papers on a given subject, or if you don't have access to other publications, you can just use JSTOR's search engine.

Primary sources

If some MVP hasn't already combed through primary sources to gather them on a give subject, you can do that too. It's not necessarily an easy task though. There's thankfully a perfect guide for that.

A Handbook of Costume by Janet Arnold - Janet Arnold was a legendary dress historian, who really defined the modern field. This book details the process of researching dress history and how to analyze primary sources. And it's free on Internet Archives.

I'll give some basics here though.

Extant garment

Most of us who are not academic historians don't have physical access to extant garment, but many museums have nowadays excellent digital archives of their costume collections. Here's a list of the most well known ones. MET and V&A has sometimes great descriptions of the clothing and their history, but not for every item.

MET Costume Institute

Kyoto Costume Institute

LACMA

V&A Costume Collection

Palais Galliera

Extant garments are of course the ideal sources to study, since they are the actual garments and not just representations or descriptions of them. Sometimes the collections even have pictures of the insides of the garments, giving invaluable information about their construction. However, extant garments have limitations for research, since there's a strong survivorship bias. Firstly, they heavily lean on later periods as textiles deteriorate relatively quickly. You won't find extant garments from Middle Ages, at most fragments of them. Secondly, they are mostly clothing of the upper classes. Lower classes used their clothing till they broke down, and even then often salvaged any fabric that could be salvaged for new clothing and other textiles. Upper classes didn't necessarily have to do that, so what survives is usually very expensive formal clothing that people would wear rarely and rather preserve than salvage the fabric from it.

Photography

Since camera was popularized in early Victorian era, you don't get photos before that. Photography is a great source from the times it was available, since yes it's still only representation of the clothing, but there's less artistic interpretation than in paintings and illustrations, though importantly, there still is artistic interpretation. As long as there has been photography, there has been photoediting. They of course used it for creepypasta purposes by editing them holding their own heads and editing ghosts into backgrounds, but also editing their waists smaller. Basically the exact same way photos are still edited. So no, this is not really how small the waist got in Edwardian era, since this is edited.

Another obvious limitation for early photography is that it didn't have colors, so popular colors of a given time period and given styles have to be found through other means. A great thing about photography though was that compared to painting, it was relatively cheap, and therefore a lot of lower class people were able to photograph themselves. We even get people outside in everyday situations not posing.

Photography can be found with search engines like google and pinterest, though they should be always sourced then. You sometimes come across very Victorian looking photos that are actually just modern photos that are well edited. And also it's important to date the photos, which might not be easily with photos just randomly floating in the internet. Libraries and museums sometimes have good digital collections of old photos. For example:

Digital collections of New York Public Library (NYPL) - It has a wide variety of collections including photography, fashion plates and other illustrations. I haven't found a great way to search through the collections, but the best way I've come up with is to search images within the Clothing & Dress topic, put some limiting filters, then click some right looking image and then go to the collection it was from. I bet there's an easier way but I haven't figured it out.

Paintings

A great thing about paintings and statues is that they date basically through whole history of organized civilizations. Paintings are more delicate so even with murals in antiquity, you'll get more surviving status from that time period. But because of the strong artistic interpretation inherent to these art forms, there's some tricky parts to them as sources for historical fashions.

You'll find a lot of paintings by just searching for fashion or paintings of a given period in google and pinterest, but it's sometimes tricky to source them to figure out where and when they were painted. Therefore I often check from Wikipedia a list of artists from a given time and place, and search their paintings from digital archives of museums. It also helps when you choose artists who were specialised in specific type of paintings. What kind of paintings depends on what you're researching and the time period.

Portraits are of course great sources. They depict the actual clothing an actual person wore and if the person was historically important enough you can find out who they were and gain a lot of context for the clothing. However, they are usually all rich people, though not always. Another thing to keep in mind is that sometimes portraits portray the subject in a costume. This became a pretty big trend among nobles in 18th century. They had costume parties and would have their portrait painted with their costume, but also there were trends of costume that were not even worn for parties, but only for having a portrait. Sometimes the painting would be painted like a scene and not like traditional portrait. Van Dyke costume (first picture below) in first half of 18th century paintings is one such example. It referred to mid 17th century fashion that was seen as timeless at the time. Peasant costume (second picture below) is another example of a popular costume for nobles to wear in portraits. Costume balls continued to 19th century, but after the popularization of camera they were mainly photographed. People would continue to dress up in costumes for portraits, but it wasn't as big of a trend as in 18th century.

Genre paintings were a genre of paintings that became popular first in 16th century Low Countries and then In Netherlands/Belgium area during the Dutch Golden Age (from late 16th century and thorough Baroque) and during Baroque's popularity all over Europe. Genre paintings depict normal everyday life of peasants, working class people and the bourgeois. During Baroque they often had elements of idealization, symbolism and even sexualization of the subjects, so they should be taken with a grain of salt, but they do usually depict accurately the clothes the people wore. Rococo era had a lot of these types of everyday scenes about the upper class. During the Romantic era peasants were heavily romanticized in genre paintings, but there was also a lot of genre paintings of bourgeois thorough 19th century that was wasn't as strongly romanticized. These scenes were sometimes also depicted in portrait form. Realism brought another interest into the genre and Realistic genre paintings often focused on the working class. They did the opposite of romanticism though and often exaggerated their subjects to look more wretched.

History paintings depict events and scenes that were for the time historical too. They became very popular in 19th century, when Historism was the dominant in arts, but they have existed long before. There's even some from late Medieval period, and in those earlier history paintings, the historical figures are usually depicted in contemporary clothing and there's no attempt at recreating historical styles. In later periods, especially during 19th century Historism they very much tried to recreate historical styles. This is why it's important to always source paintings. I've too often seen Victorian paintings used as images for Medieval fashions.

Religious paintings have sometimes a bit of the same issue. They were very popular during Medieval and Renaissance eras, and usually the biblical figures would be depicted in contemporary fashions, though not always, sometimes in vaguely "biblical garbs". Religious paintings also have the issue of often being highly symbolic, so sometimes the characters in them are not dressed for the situation, or a character that in the biblical canon very poor is depicted in upper class contemporary fashions.

Illuminated manuscripts

Medieval manuscripts with illustrations are invaluable sources for Medieval fashions. They are usually commissioned by royalty and detail historical narratives, so they mostly depict royalty and nobility, but some illustrated scenes depict commoners too. You often find images of the illustrations floating around in pinterest but they can be hard to source when the source is not linked (which is quite often). The illustrations can be spotted by the quite consistent style (though sometimes they are not from illuminated manuscripts but some other rarer illustrations like playing cards).

A lot of illuminated manuscripts have been digitized and British and French libraries have quite extensive online collections of them which are linked below. The manuscrips in those are mostly English and French of course but there's manuscrips from other places in Europe too, I've seen quite a lot of the German speaking area especially.

The Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) The British Library

Fashion plates

Fashion plates became a thing in 1780s, so they are not useful for periods before that. They are basically illustrations that show the latest trends and they were published in fashion magazines. They don't reflect the way everyone dressed, since as they did show the latest high fashion and the people who would be wearing that were mostly young rich fashionable people. However, fashion at the time had a little different meaning than today as it was linked to dress code, and to be respectable you needed to follow fashion. So everyone, even working class people, would follow the new trends to an extent. This is especially true when we get to Victorian era, when mass industrial mass production and the emerging middle class made clothing cheaper and more available to more people. They wouldn't maybe follow every new trend or with every detail and with as much extravaganza or with the most expensive fashionable materials.

While the fashion plates didn't necessarily depict specific existing clothing, they were based on existing clothing and they were often used as guides for dressmakers. Kinda like you might go to a hairdresser with a picture of a famous person's hair or hairdressers sometimes use pictures of famous person's hair to show what they might do. And the people who might not afford something as extravagant as shown in a fashion plate, might still show it as a guide and get a simpler version of it made for them. People of the middle and lower classes especially would also use them as guides to sew themselves fashionable clothing.

Fashion plates are quite easily found on the internet, but as with other things, if you don't go straight to some organized archive, it might be really hard to date them accurately. Many bigger museums and libraries have fashion plates in their online archives, for example NYPL which I mentioned earlier.

MET Fashion Plate Collection - This is a pretty extensive collection.

Regional costume illustrations

When genre paintings became popular, artists didn't necessarily have the change to go and see what peasants wore in the places they were setting their genre paintings in, but because the whole point of them was to depict authentic real life, there was a need for illustrations of regional dress around Europe. And some artists would travel and create costume collections for resource to other artists. These are really invaluable to us today, though they should always be taken with a grain of salt, because sometimes the artists who created these drew dresses for places they never had even been in. For example some of these collections include non-European dress and they should all be probably disregarded as fantasy costumes basically. You can usually assume that the closer the region which dress they depict is to their own place of origin, the more accurate and based on reality it is. It's also good to try and google the artist and see if you can find information of where they actually traveled, because sometimes we know that pretty well.

These collections can also be found in the digitized archives of big museums and libraries, again there's some in NYPL collections.

British Museum's collections by Hippolyte Lacomte from 19th century

A collection from late 16th century on BnF archives

Honorable mentions

There's many other primary sources in different periods that can be helpful, but the ones I've mentioned are the major ones and easiest to access, when you're not doing academic research with institutional resources. I thought I might mention couple of other sources that have become handy to me as examples.

Magazine and news paper ads became wide spread in the Victorian era and from that onward is a great source. They advertise specifically ready-made clothing, so clothing that was much more available to a regular person and therefore can be really helpful to understand what a regular person might wear. I don't know a great source for them though. Many libraries have digitized old papers and magazines so going through fashion magazines is perhaps the best bet, but it's definitely a lot of combing though. Some people have though gathered ads in blogs.

Satiric comics can be surprisingly helpful for researching sort of alternative styles and seeing what trends garnered backlash. For example I've long been obsessed with Aestheticism and the other counter-cultural movements related to it, and there's quite a lot of women's Aesthetic extant garments, photos and paintings available, but very little of men's Aesthetic fashion. But then I found that Punch Magazine (conservative satire magazine) loved mocking the Aesthetes and therefore drew a lot of comics with men in Aesthetic fashion. Caution should be taken though since satiric illustrations do often exaggerate for comedic effect. For example the idea that 1770s ladies made ships out of their massive hair comes from a satiric illustration mocking the large and elaborate hair of the time.

Runaway ads of slaves and indentured servants are bleak, but can be helpful source for the clothing of poor people during 18th century. This is specific to US, but because of the colonialism poor people there would often wear at least similar clothing as those in Europe, especially Britain and France, which had the most colonial presence in that region. The clothes were described in great detail in these ads for identification purposes. These runaway ads can be also found in news papers of the era, many of which are digitized in archives of bigger US libraries, but it's definitely even more combing through. Though again some people have done some of that work already and documented it in blogs.

[agirlandherquill]

through the puddles of ink

since it's a new academic year, a new chapter of my life and i thought, since i've been on tumblr for around eight months now that it's about time i properly introduced myself - this would shock the person i was when i first started this blog, but as it's grown so have i, and i think university has indefinitely helped my confidence - so, without further ado, here goes i'll start this properly by explaining the title of this post - through the puddle of ink

ink is important because obviously it is the basis of literature, the foundation of stories and fitting to my blog name, you dip the quill in the ink to write, to forge an adventure that tests the imagination and takes a reader to wonderful places and puddles because let's face it, ink is messy, ink is chaotic, just like me, my characters, and my writing and because through the looking glass is a very iconic title i also watched that movie in the cinema years ago, i took inspiration, and here we are now - this post is a reflection of me, the beautiful nightmares and writing gremlins that co-exist within my brain and a way for me to get to better know my mutuals, anyone and everybody on writeblr!

here comes the scary part - only for me, and my semi-awkward self - introducing myself, i've never been very good at this stuff so bear with me - and have mercy on my nervous soul,

for the longest time i've loved the sort of self-imposed anonymity of this blog, and don't get me wrong i still do adore my blog name but I thought it was about time I properly introduced myself, so, let me just shuffle some papers in the library of my mind, find the right phrasing for this and... (cue angry hitting of the keyboard) hello! my name is Erin and i'm a writer, a lover of chaos, and a semi-functioning tempest somehow existing within society - i love and ramble about lots of different things - books, shows, songs, you name it, i can waffle and sometimes i can waffle well (that is how i am now going to describe my writing, because it feels like it fits so well)

phew, i got that out, that tiny paragraph was a lot of effort (and i've beaten writers block more often than i can count)

this little post might not seem like much, but to me it's a lot, and i'm happy to have made it this far, and i'm so looking forward to continuing to grow alongside this blog and writeblr (i love you all, no seriously)

and now onto some very much needed rambling about my works, because there's a lot the lovely folk of writeblr are yet to know (and it will come, in time, but here's what i can say for now)

Ruin's Reprisal - we all know the tale of this, my oldest, most functioning (cough, using that term loosely) work - well, where to start? well, i'm on the final stage of proofreading, and once that's all done i'm hoping (let's be honest, dreaming,) to have the final draft complete and out in the great wide world come christmas/new year (that is a courageous goal, even for me, but who knows, maybe i can pull it off, just maybe)

A Deal Of Daggers - it's almost time for nanowrimo, which marks two years since the idea for this first came to me, and i cannot wait to spend autumn working on it (not that i am participating in nano properly this year, what with student-life obligations, but i'm going to write what i can) and i've been steadily chipping away with a few chapters already

those are my two main works, and probably the only works i've been focusing on over the last couple of months - and i've fallen completely and wholeheartedly in love with them all over again, as i do, every single time i open the files on scrivener

as far as my tired but over-eager to write brain can think this should be it for everything i wanted to include in this post until the next post (which won't be long, i can guarantee it),

~ Erin, A Girl and Her Quill, or whatever this hellscape would like to call me :)

~ ~ ~

now for the tag list! (i forgot to add it when i posted, oops!)

(p.s if you'd like to be included/notified too, interact with this post :))

@humbly-a-doppelganger @imawholeassmood @frostedlemonwriter @yrndrgn @abditorywriting

@riveriafalll @lead-to-code @casualsuitturtle @floweryprosegarden @joeys-piano

@catwingsathena @godsmostfuckedupgoblin @nothoughtsjustmhaandotherthings @anaisbebe

@drchenquill @leahnardo-da-veggie @tiredpapergirl @pastelpinkhobbies

[ladamedusoif]

Paper: A Visiting First Anniversary Update

Paper is the traditional gift for a first anniversary. What could be more fitting for a pair of academics still trying to figure out their future? 

A year ago, I posted the first chapter of my first foray into fanfiction and my first attempt at writing fiction since I was a teenager. Visiting took a lot of courage to write, let alone to post; but the sheer pleasure in drafting and planning Ben and Lydia’s story made me feel I should share it. 

There are still three chapters of the story to come, and I know I’ve been slow and not a very good or engaged writer.

Life has been complicated lately, and for various reasons it has just been easier not to be on here as much (if at all - and if it was noticed!) But I had to mark their anniversary, somehow. So, a year in, and with the story still unfinished, here are some reflections - and, if you read to the end, a (slightly smutty) sneak peek for chapter 13…

I launched the two dorks into a fic world dominated by DBFs and age gaps and all sorts of other tropes that Visiting just wasn’t, never would be. The tropes have shifted somewhat but their story still doesn’t speak to any of the big ones. That’s Ben and Lyd, though. They never were ones for following trends.

At times I’ve felt strongly that this wasn’t a story anyone really wanted, that it was my fault for writing it badly. Some chapters felt both vital and nigh impossible to write, as I second-guessed myself and the readership and wondered what I was doing wrong, exactly. And then sometimes a chapter I’d poured everything into just… went unseen, it seemed.

And then I would receive the most beautiful comments and responses to the story, as readers find it and connect on some level with Lydia, Ben, and their little world. In my sort-of Tumblr hiatus I know these comments have built up and I need to respond properly to each and every one. But know that I am eternally grateful, incredibly touched, and that many of them have made me cry. The same goes for the people who recommended the story on fic lists, who sent wonderfully kind anons about the work, who have made me want to keep going with it.  

There is a bittersweetness to the anniversary of starting Visiting. There are people on here who were such vocal, enthusiastic cheerleaders of the story both in public and in DMs who just fell away after a chapter or two. (I still wonder if they have been keeping up.) There are people on here who I was so close with, who knew the motivations for the story and its inner workings, who chose, out of the blue, to act as if it - and I - no longer existed. Such is life. Such is the nature of online friendship. But it’s particularly strange when someone has been there for the drafting and writing and then…isn’t. 

But such instances are in the minority. The readership for Visiting might be small, but it’s brought me into touch with some incredible, wonderful, generous people who have become firm friends. There is no greater feeling than knowing that your little story about two middle-aged academics finding themselves falling for each other when they least expected it is liked - heck, loved, even, by even one or two other people. (Tell your friends! More readers welcome! But you guys are the best ones.)

A final, more general observation about this story and why it exists. We have often seen statements on here about how dark!fic is “healing”, a way for people to work through experiences and issues in their own lives. I would argue that softer fic is healing, too - that healing doesn’t have to be sought or validated through creative explorations of brutality, violence, coercion and pain. It can be, of course - but it’s just as valid to seek it in stories that are softer, kinder, warmer, even. Lydia’s conviction that she is permanently broken, that she is fundamentally unlovable, could not be undone with anything other than love and safety. And the story does seem to have reached some people in that way, and for that I’m really delighted and proud. 

And I’m really touched and grateful to all of you who have stuck with the story, have got in touch to comment, to ask if there’s more, to talk about how much you love it. You have no idea how much it means, truly. There is more coming: three chapters more, in fact, if I can just get my brain together. But, as a thank you and an anniversary gift, here’s a little bit from the next chapter:

You rest your head on his shoulder and bring your arms around his waist, hugging him close to you under the blankets as you enjoy the symphony of nocturnal sounds in the back yard. 

He chuckles as you hold him tight. “You must know by now I’m not going anywhere, Lyddie.”

“Don’t laugh when I say this, but - sometimes I feel like I need to hold you extra close, just to be sure you’re real.” 

He tilts his head and smiles at you. “That I’m real?”

“That you’re real. That all of it is real, Ben. I’m not used to things… working out, I guess. All my life I was left lonely or things fell apart, and - I still have to remind myself that yes, this is real, I’m not dreaming.” You sip your champagne thoughtfully as he kisses the top of your head, broad hands caressing your body.

“It’s real, love.” He kisses you again, gently squeezing your hip. “Even if I sometimes wonder how I got so lucky.”

You push away the blankets and wrap your arms around his neck as you begin to make out, his hand snaking up under the skirt of your floral-print summer dress and pressing greedily into the flesh of your thigh. 

He breaks away to kiss and suck on your neck, pausing to whisper in your ear: “Does this feel real enough, baby?”

You give a little cry of pleasure before breaking into fits of giggles, grinning as you feel Ben’s smile against your skin. “I guess it’s pretty real, Ben, as these things go…”

“As these things go?!” He pulls back, leaving a parting kiss on your collarbone, before spreading out the blankets a little on the wooden decking. “Lie back, Lyd, and I’ll give you real.”

And now, if you don’t mind, I will enjoy a celebratory ice-cold Corona, and raise it to my idiots-in-love who are still waiting for their happy ending.

[sideprince]

I wrote a reply to this post but OP has deleted it and even though I should probably leave well enough alone, it got to me that I could have sworn I saw this post months ago and then realized it was actually from yesterday. This is a long reply so I'm putting it under a cut, but after I went to OP's blog and saw a post from them complaining how mean everyone was to them on this post, I replied to say I'm sorry if they got any anon hate I don't know about but otherwise none of the comments on this post were mean or hateful, they just disagreed with OP. I pointed out that this is partly because they cited non-canon events as canon, and OP immediately blocked me (this may be why I can't reblog the post even from another user, though that's not how tumblr usually works so who knows). I can't help but feel that OP's post was made in bad faith, as a result, and I've seen enough people on this hellsite who are more interested in protecting their egos than admit when they could have been approached something more thoughtfully, so I'm diving in. If you're going to say a character "is very interesting to study" while doing the exact opposite, then you'd better have the critical analysis skills and textual evidence to back it up.

I think OP has some misconceptions that are frustratingly common, and seem to stem from people not having read the books, or not read them for a long time, and conflating the movies with canon. While I mostly agree with the replies above, I want to take this opportunity to cite the text to refute some of OP's points. I often forget details from the text, but I choose to either look them up before asserting unconfirmed points as fact (Potter Search is a great tool, or you can just do a ctrl+F search if you have the books digitally), or else I usually state clearly that I'm not sure if I remember something correctly and don't have the spoons to look it up.

I saw OP say in the comments in response to someone arguing their points:

"that's your interpretation, I have mine, I think both can coexist within the material we are given."

It doesn't sit right with me that so many people think that referring to their subjective memory of what the text meant to them is the same as actually citing it and offering an explanation. OP's interpretation can't exist within the material given, because some of it doesn't exist in the material at all, and you can't interpret what isn't there. OP is essentially claiming to have done critical analysis, and although no one is required to always critique a text analytically on a tumblr post, I find it upsetting when people claim to do so while failing to cite a single source to support their argument. To me it sounds like someone trying to pass off a creative writing essay as an academic research paper, and in an age of rampant propaganda and knee-jerk reblogs that eschew critical thinking, I feel an almost compulsive need to go through OP's reply and argue it with the textual evidence they conveniently avoided, if for no other reason than to show why it's important to discern between loosely formed opinions and informed ones.

I also want to explain why I don't accept the films as canon, because while I do think that canon can exist across several mediums (such as with Good Omens, in which at least one of the writers of the text is directly involved in writing the TV series), I don't think that applies to Harry Potter because the original author was only marginally involved in the films, in only a consultant role, and had little input on the writing. The HP films are an interpretation as written from the perspective of Steve Kloves, except for OoTP, which was written by Michael Goldenberg. I've gone into it on other posts, but suffice to say these interpretations did not prioritize story and character development and were often influenced by pressure from the studio to prioritize marketing opportunities over storytelling. Important elements like foreshadowing and themes were not carried over from the text to the screen. These changes affected the storytelling significantly and left out crucial elements. This, combined with the films having been written with little to no involvement from the original author, is why I feel the films can't be taken as canon. This doesn't mean they can't be enjoyed by any means, just that they scenes that appear in the films but not in the text, or are presented differently on screen than in the text, are not a reasonable basis for character analysis.

And now, on to OP's ask:

"I think he is a very good representation of a man who felt insecure in his manhood; his male ego was permanently wounded by James' bullying and he decided to make it everyone else's problem by being the most insufferable teacher at Hogwarts."

The first thing we have to establish is that the books are told from Harry's perspective, so we have to take narrative bias into account. Calling Snape "the most insufferable teacher at Hogwarts" is a subjective statement and I can only assume it's based in Harry's biased perspective as narrator, given that he and Snape have a bad relationship from the outset. I have a brief analysis here about how Snape dislikes Harry because in their first class together he interprets Harry's ignorance of the course material as a lack of curiosity and appreciation for his gifts as a wizard, while also recognizing something of his own experiences with childhood poverty and abuse in Harry. Harry, being ignorant of these factors, just feels singled out for hate by a strict teacher, and their relationship deteriorates throughout the rest of the series, until the end of the final book.

To pull back from the narrative bias, let's look at some of the other teachers are Hogwarts:

McGonagall:

“Miss Granger, you foolish girl, how could you think of tackling a mountain troll on your own?”  Hermione hung her head. Harry was speechless. Hermione was the last person to do anything against the rules, and here she was, pretending she had, to get them out of trouble. It was as if Snape had started handing out sweets. “Miss Granger, five points will be taken from Gryffindor for this,” said Professor McGonagall. “I’m very disappointed in you. If you’re not hurt at all, you’d better get off to Gryffindor Tower. Students are finishing the feast in their Houses.”

Philosopher's Stone, Ch. 10.

“I’m disgusted,” said Professor McGonagall. “Four students out of bed in one night! I’ve never heard of such a thing before! You, Miss Granger, I thought you had more sense. As for you, Mr. Potter, I thought Gryffindor meant more to you than this. All three of you will receive detentions — yes, you too, Mr. Longbottom, nothing gives you the right to walk around school at night, especially these days, it’s very dangerous — and fifty points will be taken from Gryffindor.” “Fifty?” Harry gasped — they would lose the lead, the lead he’d won in the last Quidditch match.  “Fifty points each,” said Professor McGonagall, breathing heavily through her long, pointed nose.

Philosopher's Stone, Ch. 15

In just the first book we see McGonagall punish Hermione for successfully defending herself against a troll and take house points, then sends her back to her common room without getting medical attention, as if a ten year old can be responsible for assessing how badly they're hurt. A few chapters later McGonagall takes several hundred points from students in her own house (more than we see any other teacher do at one time throughout the series), and assigns the students detention on top of it. As we later see in the same chapter, the detentions aren't even served with her directly, but instead the children - again, ten years old - are sent into the Forbidden Forest at night with only Hagrid to protect them, to hunt down whatever creature is vicious and cunning enough to kill unicorns.

Although it's said that Snape favors the students in his own house, he doesn't seem to be the only one:

“Potter's been sent a broomstick, Professor,” said Malfoy quickly.  “Yes, yes, that’s right,” said Professor Flitwick, beaming at Harry. “Professor McGonagall told me all about the special circumstances, Potter. And what model is it?”  “A Nimbus Two Thousand, sir,” said Harry, fighting not to laugh at the look of horror on Malfoy’s face. “And it’s really thanks to Malfoy here that I’ve got it,” he added. 

Philosopher's Stone, Ch. 10

Not only did McGonagall make an exception to school practices and allow Harry on his house Quidditch team despite being a first year, she used either school funds or her own (unclear) to purchase a first-rate broom for him. We know the school has brooms, as first years are not allowed their own and they are provided for flying lessons, and because “Harry had heard Fred and George Weasley complain about the school brooms” (PS ch. 9). And yet, McGonagall ensures Harry has his own broom, and an expensive one, new enough to be the show model in a shop window in Diagon Alley a few months earlier:

“Several boys of about Harry’s age had their noses pressed against a window with broomsticks in it. ‘Look,’ Harry heard one of them say, ‘the new Nimbus Two Thousand - fastest ever -”

-Philosopher's Stone, Ch. 5

If we're discussing which teachers are Hogwarts are the most "insufferable" then we also have to talk about Hagrid, who might mean well and be affectionate, but is also irresponsible and dangerous.

In Philosopher's Stone, Hagrid:

Punishes Dudley, a child, for his parents' offenses, the final straw being his father insulting Dumbledore (Ch. 4). While Hagrid acknowledges that he shouldn't have lost his temper, he also admits that his intention had been to turn Dudley fully into a pig.

Hatches a dragon in his cabin (Ch. 14), tries to raise it illegally and against the animal's need of care, and Harry, Ron, and Hermione (again, ten year olds) have to fix the situation and get Ron's brother to find some friends to take the dragon away safely and prevent Hagrid losing his job (Ch. 14). In the process Hagrid endangers himself as well as the children, and it's because of this that McGonagall gives them detention and deducts hundreds of house points. Hagrid not only allows the children to endanger themselves for his sake, but to be punished and subsequently ostracized by their peers also for his sake.

The reason he even has a dragon is, as we find out in Ch. 16, because he was foolish enough to accept it from a faceless stranger in exchange for unwittingly divulging the secret to getting past the three headed dog guarding the Philosopher's Stone (and the stranger later turns out to be Quirrel/Voldemort).

In Prisoner of Azkaban, Hagrid:

Starts his first lesson with a volatile creature (Ch. 6) and, although Malfoy acted irresponsibly, Hagrid was nevertheless the teacher and responsible for providing course material consistent with the experience level and maturity of his students' age.

Gets drunk and has to be taken care of by Harry, Ron, and Hermione (again, children) (Ch. 6)

Skipping ahead to Order of the Phoenix ch. 30, we find out Hagrid

Compromised his return from the mission Dumbledore sent him on by bringing a giant back to England.

Brought said giant into the school grounds and left him in the Forbidden Forest.

Asks Harry and Hermione (still children) to look after him if Hagrid is sacked.

Although Hagrid means well, his actions are consistently thoughtless and irresponsible, requiring those around him - often Harry, Ron, and Hermione - to fix the damage he causes. Although I think it remains subjective which teacher at Hogwarts is the "most insufferable" I think Hagrid is a strong enough candidate to qualify OP's interpretation of Snape holding that title as extremely contestable. Of course, since the books are presented through the lens of Harry's narrative bias, and he's fond of Hagrid, respects McGonagall, and dislikes Snape, an uncritical reading could lead one to OP's conclusions. However, a more objective analysis of the text shows that many teachers at Hogwarts are strict, punitive, biased, and wreak havoc on students in ways that make the Snape's actions look fairly tame, or at least the norm. And this is excluding an analysis of various DADA professors like Lockhart and Crouch/Moody, who were insufferable in their own rights (Lockhart was smarmy and dishonest to the point it risked students' lives; Crouch/Moodly transfigured a child into a ferret and humiliated him with torture as a disciplinary measure and deliberately triggered Neville's trauma in class).

OP continues their reply to say:

Add to this that he is a halfblood and only his mother was around, iirc?

They don't recall correctly. Snape, whose father was a muggle and whose mother was a witch, was indeed a half-blood (as is evidenced by him being revealed to be the Half-Blood Prince - I assume I don't need to cite a source as this is a pretty well-known fact and the literal title of an entire HP book, but should you need a reference it's in Ch. 28 of HBP). Both his parents were around in his childhood:

Snape staggered - his wand flew upwards, away from Harry - and suddenly Harry’s mind was teeming with memories that were not his: a hook-nosed man was shouting at a cowering woman, while a small dark-haired boy cried in a corner …

-Order of the Phoenix, Ch. 26

‘How are things at your house?’ Lily asked. A little crease appeared between his eyes. ‘Fine,’ he said. ‘They’re not arguing any more?’ ‘Oh, yes, they’re arguing,’ said Snape. He picked up a fistful of leaves and began tearing them apart, apparently unaware of what he was doing. ‘But it won’t be that long and I’ll be gone.’ ‘Doesn’t your dad like magic?’ ‘He doesn’t like anything, much,’ said Snape.

-Deathly Hallows, Ch. 33

We know that Snape's father was around because he's mentioned both in Snape's memories in OoTP that Harry accidentally invades during an Occlumency lesson, and when we see in Snape's memories that he gives Harry as he dies. Lily asks about his home life by referring to both his parents, implying that his dad is a consistent presence at home. We also know from JK Rowling that Snape's father "didn't hold back when it came to the whip" but this is supplementary and not mentioned in canon, so I don't expect anyone to refer to it when analyzing the text, I'm just adding it as bonus material.

Continuing on with OP's reply:

Snape, Voldemort and Harry all act like foils of each other in that sense, but whereas Voldemort fixated on his blood status as the main reason for his insecurities, Snape fixated on Lily.

So much to unpack here. Firstly, all of this should be backed up by examples from the text, as they are subjective readings that have significant bearing on character analysis.

Snape, Harry, and Voldemort don't act like foils of each other. For one thing, a character doesn't act like a foil, a character either is or isn't one. That being said, I don't know OP's background and there could be a language barrier because English isn't everyone's first language, I'm just being pedantic. Even with that in mind, the statement remains incorrect. A foil is a literary device - a character who contrasts with another character, often with the protagonist. It is not a choice a character makes or an action they take.

In Philosopher's Stone Snape is set up as a foil to Harry in order to misdirect the reader from suspecting the real villain, Quirrel/Voldemort. Snape is presented as secretive, sneaky, and nefarious, contrasting Harry's role as a protagonist who is outspoken, honest, and brave. As the series progresses, Snape, along with Voldemort, are eventually shown to have more parallels than contrasts with Harry. Snape and Voldemort were born into muggle poverty, and although Harry was raised in a middle class home by the Dursleys, they thrust poverty and neglect onto him in a way that parallels his childhood of neglect and want with that of Snape and Voldemort. Snape's father was abusive, as was Harry's guardian, Vernon Dursley. Harry, Voldemort, and Snape all had traumatic experiences growing up in muggle environments. If anything, Snape and Voldemort might be foils to Harry in that they both harbored resentment for their muggle fathers in ways that signified the separation between the wizarding and muggle world, while Harry's experiences with the Dursleys didn't color his image of muggles in a comparable way.

The contrast between Harry, Snape, and Voldemort is in the way each of them deals with their trauma. As Dumbledore says:

"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."

-Chamber of Secrets, Ch. 18

This becomes one of the overarching themes of the HP series, Harry, Snape, and Voldemort are all examples of how their choices took them to such different places in life from their comparable childhoods.

At school Voldemort was a handsome boy with talent, intelligence, and the recommendations of his teachers, but he chose to pursue power instead of success:

“He reached the seventh year of his schooling with, as you might have expected, top grades in every examination he had taken. All around him, his classmates were deciding which jobs they were to pursue once they had left Hogwarts. Nearly everybody expected spectacular things from Tom Riddle, prefect, Head Boy, winner of the Special Award for Services to the School. I know that several teachers, Professor Slughorn amongst them, suggested that he join the Ministry of Magic, offered to set up appointments, put him in touch with useful contacts. He refused all offers. The next thing the staff knew, Voldemort was working at Borgin and Burkes.”

Half-Blood Prince, Ch. 20

Snape chose to become a Death Eater for reasons we can only assume. We know he was in Slytherin during an era when Voldemort was in power and many of his allies had children in Slytherin house. At least two of Snape's dorm-mates, Mulciber and Avery, are canonically acknowledged to have become Death Eaters (both are present at the Ministry when Harry and his friends fight the Death Eaters in the Department of Mysteries in OoTP Ch. 35). It's unclear whether Snape chose to become a Death Eater out of admiration for them or out of peer pressure, or perhaps a lack of other options, while at school:

'… thought we were supposed to be friends?’ Snape was saying. ‘Best friends?’ ‘We are, Sev, but I don’t like some of the people you’re hanging around with! I’m sorry, but I detest Avery and Mulciber! Mulciber! What do you see in him, Sev? He’s creepy! D’you know what he tried to do to Mary Macdonald the other day?’ Lily had reached a pillar and leaned against it, looking up into the thin, sallow face. ‘That was nothing,’ said Snape. ‘It was a laugh, that’s all -‘ ‘It was Dark Magic, and if you think that’s funny -‘ ‘What about the stuff Potter and his mates get up to?’ demanded Snape. His colour rose again as he said it, unable, it seemed, to hold in his resentment.

-Deathly Hallows, Ch. 33

It's unclear what Snape thinks of Avery and Mulciber, as his reply to Lily is downplaying but doesn't defend their actions. We see Snape's indecisiveness later in the argument he has with Lily after he calls her a Mudblood:

'It’s too late. I’ve made excuses for you for years. None of my friends can understand why I even talk to you. You and your precious little Death Eater friends - you see, you don’t even deny it! You don’t even deny that’s what you’re all aiming to be! You can’t wait to join You-Know-Who, can you?’ He opened his mouth, but closed it without speaking. ‘I can’t pretend any more. You’ve chosen your way, I’ve chosen mine.’ ‘No - listen, I didn’t mean -‘ ‘- to call me Mudblood? But you call everyone of my birth Mudblood, Severus. Why should I be any different?'

-Deathly Hallows, Ch. 33

Although Snape does ultimately choose to become a Death Eater, we see in his reply to Lily about both Avery and Mulciber and later her assumption that they all want to become Death Eaters that Snape doesn't argue for or against her accusations, but instead is evasive and unsure of himself. He opens his mouth to speak when she accuses him of wanting to become a Death Eater, but then closes it again without saying anything - he can neither argue against her point, nor state clearly, let alone with any kind of conviction, that this is indeed his ambition. It can be argued that it's the passivity of his choice that lands him with a Dark Mark on his arm, and it's the active choice he makes to risk his life in order to defect from Voldemort's ranks and turn spy that defines his character and without which Harry could not have defeated Voldemort.

Harry, as the protagonist, is also significantly defined by the theme of choice:

'But, sir,’ said Harry, making valiant efforts not to sound argumentative, ‘it all comes to the same thing, doesn’t it? I’ve got to try and kill him, or -‘ ‘Got to?’ said Dumbledore. ‘Of course you’ve got to! But not because of the prophecy! Because you, yourself, will never rest until you’ve tried! We both know it! Imagine, please, just for a moment, that you had never heard that prophecy! How would you feel about Voldemort now? Think!’ Harry watched Dumbledore striding up and down in front of him, and thought. He thought of his mother, his father and Sirius. He thought of Cedric Diggory. He thought of all the terrible deeds he knew Lord Voldemort had done. A flame seemed to leap inside his chest, searing his throat. ‘I’d want him finished,’ said Harry quietly. ‘And I’d want to do it.’ ‘Of course you would!’ cried Dumbledore. ‘You see, the prophecy does not mean you have to do anything! But the prophecy caused Lord Voldemort to mark you as his equal … in other words, you are free to choose your way, quite free to turn your back on the prophecy! But Voldemort continues to set store by the prophecy. He will continue to hunt you … which makes it certain, really, that -' ‘That one of us is going to end up killing the other,’ said Harry. ‘Yes.'

-Half-Blood Prince, Ch. 33

There's a clear point made by the author through Dumbledore as her proxy here, that choice is what matters, not fate. It's Harry's choices that make him the person he is and lead him to eventually defeat Voldemort. While Snape, Voldemort, and Harry all can be contrasted through the lens of their choices, this does not make them foils, as it is the the theme of choice and how it is exemplified by each character that makes them unique, but their experiences and many of their character traits (boldness, bravery, a personal sense of conviction) that make them parallels of one another. Each of them occupies their own place on the spectrum between the light and dark that the series establishes, Voldemort at the dark end, Harry at the light, and Snape in the grey area between them.

OP goes on to say:

His character is all about male entitlement, he was obsessed with her at Hogwarts and then showed to have no boundaries as he went into her house to cradle her dead body in front of her traumatized kid.

There's a lot to unpack here, and it's particularly challenging because you can't provide textual evidence for something that didn't happen in the text. After the above scene from Ch. 33 of DH in which Lily ends her friendship with Snape, we never see them interact again:

'No - listen, I didn’t mean -‘ ‘- to call me Mudblood? But you call everyone of my birth Mudblood, Severus. Why should I be any different?’ He struggled on the verge of speech, but with a contemptuous look she turned and climbed back through the portrait hole … The corridor dissolved, and the scene took a little longer to reform: Harry seemed to fly through shifting shapes and colours until his surroundings solidified again and he stood on a hilltop, forlorn and cold in the darkness, the wind whistling through the branches of a few leafless trees. The adult Snape was panting, turning on the spot, his wand gripped tightly in his hand, waiting for something or for someone …'

-Deathly Hallows, Ch. 33

The scene in the corridor in front of Gryffindor Tower between a fifth year Snape and Lily leads directly into the scene where Snape begs Dumbledore to protect the Potters (which I wrote an analysis of a few months ago but is too long a subject to derail this post for). We see no more interactions between Snape and Lily, and therefore there is no canonical support for the idea that Snape behaved obsessively or failed to respect her boundaries.

There's also no mention of Snape going to Godric's Hollow at all after her death. Snape holding Lily's dead body is only shown in the film version of Deathly Hallows, and as mentioned, the films are not canon. That moment doesn't exist in the text and can't be considered in an analysis of Snape's character. The scene on the hilltop leads directly into the scene of Snape crying in Dumbledore's office:

The hilltop faded, and Harry stood in Dumbledore’s office, and something was making a terrible sound, like a wounded animal. Snape was slumped forwards in a chair and Dumbledore was standing over him, looking grim. After a moment or two, Snape raised his face, and he looked like a man who had lived a hundred years of misery since leaving the wild hilltop. ‘I thought … you were going … to keep her … safe …’ ‘She and James put their faith in the wrong person,’ said Dumbledore. ‘Rather like you, Severus. Weren’t you hoping that Lord Voldemort would spare her?’ Snape’s breathing was shallow.

-Deathly Hallows, Ch. 33

This is the only depiction of Snape immediately following the Potters' deaths. The scene of him cradling Lily's dead body was Steve Kloves' invention and has no basis in canon. If anything, Snape's actions in canon can be interpreted to show that he respected the boundaries Lily set, and that even when her life was at risk he chose to go to Dumbledore - who he thought might kill him on sight - rather than talk to her directly after she ended their friendship. In addition, in all the information the text gives about the night Voldemort fell in Godric's Hollow and Hagrid collected Harry to take him to Privet Drive, there's no mention of Snape whatsoever.

There isn't much in the text to support the interpretation that Snape exemplified male entitlement either. So far we've seen him being as strict, if not milder, than other teachers at the school, his favoritism is also comparable to that of other teachers - implying it's more of a norm than an example of entitlement - and there are no canonical examples to support the argument that he was obsessed with Lily or violated her boundaries. Snape struggles to argue with Lily when she accuses and berates him, and the usual markers of patriarchal entitlement - silencing women, gaslighting, dismissing women's opinions, talking over them - are all nowhere to be found in any of their interactions. The only time we see him lash out at Lily is when he calls her Mudblood (OoTP Ch. 28) which, while inexcusable, he does under traumatic duress, and is not indicative of his usual interactions with her, as exemplified by the fact that she ends their friendship over it. As cited before:

'No - listen, I didn’t mean -‘ ‘- to call me Mudblood? But you call everyone of my birth Mudblood, Severus. Why should I be any different?’

There's a clear implication that Snape has never called her this before. An argument can also be made that it speaks volumes of Lily's own biases, or perhaps her own affection for Snape (who, not long before this, was still her best friend), that she excused this behavior from him when it was directed at others, and only took issue with it when it was directed at herself. That, combined with Lily's own acknowledgment that they were "best friends" shows that Snape's relationship with her was a balanced, consensual one even when it became strained, up until their friendship ended.

Continuing with OP's points:

He only saw Lily as a trophy to be possessed, which you can see from the way he hated Harry, because Harry reminded him Lily wasn't his and that Lily had sex with another man.

There's no support for this in the text anywhere and is pure conjecture. I can appreciate it being OP's headcanon, but it's certainly not a result of studying the text and relying on it to form opinions, but rather seems to be OP projecting pre-conceived notions onto Snape as a character and trying to find justification for it. I've written a whole post extrapolating Snape's first class with Harry, but the tl;dr is that Snape, who grew up in muggle poverty and knew Aunt Petunia enough to guess that Harry didn't fare well in her care when he showed up at school bearing signs of neglect, likely expected Harry to have the same hunger for learning that he himself did at Harry's age. Instead, Harry couldn't answer a single one of his questions and showed no curiosity or enthusiasm towards being a wizard as far as Snape could tell.

Nevertheless, even though Snape did seem to dislike Harry, hate is an awful strong word given that it is revealed at the end of Deathly Hallows that Snape has risked his own life to protect him. This isn't particularly surprising when you consider that this goal was established as early as Philosopher's Stone, when Snape protected him, which Harry initially interpreted as Snape trying to kill him:

Harry couldn’t take it in. This couldn’t be true, it couldn’t. ‘But Snape tried to kill me!’ ‘No, no, no. I tried to kill you. Your friend Miss Granger accidentally knocked me over as she rushed to set fire to Snape at that Quidditch match. She broke my eye contact with you. Another few seconds and I’d have got you off that broom. I’d have managed it before then if Snape hadn’t been muttering a counter-curse, trying to save you.’ ‘Snape was trying to save me?’ ‘Of course,’ said Quirrell coolly. -Philosopher's Stone, Ch. 17

Again, the story is told through the lens of Harry's bias, but that doesn't mean his opinions of Snape reflect Snape's character. As another example, there's an implication in OoTP that Snape, having seen some of the Dursleys' abuse of Harry through his memories during Occlumency lessons, passed this information on in an effort to protect Harry, and that this is the reason why several Order members (Arthur Weasley and Moody in particular) show up at King's Cross at the end of the schoolyear and threaten the Dursleys to stop mistreating him. There seems to be no other explanation in the text for why these adults are suddenly aware of the abuse Harry experiences, except that Snape, who was abused as a child himself, and who is an Order member himself, is the only adult in the series who we see witness Harry's mistreatement firsthand. At no point in the narrative do we see Harry complain about the Dursleys to the adults he trusts or ask them for help, merely to spend his holidays away from them without explanation.

While Snape did indeed dislike Harry and often compared him to his father, his dislike for James had much more significant roots in bullying and trauma than in his concern for Lily's relationship with him. It's established in canon that James Potter and Sirius Black dislike Snape from the outset (as in the scene on the Hogwarts Express in DH Ch. 33). In their fifth year, Sirius - annoyed that Snape is so curious about where Lupin goes each month - tricks Snape into following the tunnel under the Whomping Willow to the Shrieking Shack, as Lupin tells Harry:

'Professor Snape was at school with us. ... Sirius here played a trick on him which nearly killed him, a trick which involved me -‘ Black made a derisive noise. ‘It served him right,’ he sneered. ‘Sneaking around, trying to find out what we were up to … hoping he could get us expelled …' 'Severus was very interested in where I went every month,’ Lupin told Harry, Ron and Hermione. ‘We were in the same year, you know, and we - er - didn’t like each other very much. He especially disliked James. Jealous, I think, of James’s talent on the Quidditch pitch … anyway, Snape had seen me crossing the grounds with Madam Pomfrey one evening as she led me towards the Whomping Willow to transform. Sirius thought it would be - er - amusing, to tell Snape all he had to do was prod the knot on the tree-trunk with a long stick, and he’d be able to get in after me. Well, of course, Snape tried it - if he’d got as far as this house, he’d have met a fully grown werewolf - but your father, who’d heard what Sirius had done, went after Snape and pulled him back, at great risk to his life … Snape glimpsed me, though, at the end of the tunnel. He was forbidden to tell anybody by Dumbledore, but from that time on he knew what I was …'

-Prisoner of Azkaban, Ch. 18

From this we can deduce that Sirius intended for Snape to die, or at least get severely injured, and that even as a grown adult Sirius doesn't regret trying to mete out this punishment to him as retaliation for curiosity. We can also deduce that Lupin was unaware of Sirius' intention and did not consent to be used as a weapon. For his part, Snape never did reveal that Lupin was a werewolf while at school, or even during that school year, until after Lupin ran amok on Hogwarts grounds, endangering others' lives, including Harry's.

There are other meta posts that go into Lupin's insecurities and vulnerabilities, but in short, he was grateful just to be allowed into the school as a student, let alone to have friends, and was in no position to challenge James and Sirius. Even as a prefect he didn't curb their behavior, as we see when he allows James to bully Snape later that year after their O.W.L.s:

'Leave him alone,’ Lily repeated. She was looking at James with every sign of great dislike. ‘What’s he done to you?’ ‘Well,’ said James, appearing to deliberate the point, ‘it’s more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean …’ Many of the surrounding students laughed, Sirius and Wormtail included, but Lupin, still apparently intent on his book, didn’t, and nor did Lily. ‘You think you’re funny,’ she said coldly. ‘But you’re just an arrogant, bullying toerag, Potter. Leave him alone.’ ‘I will if you go out with me, Evans,’ said James quickly. ‘Go on … go out with me and I’ll never lay a wand on old Snivelly again.'

-Order of the Phoenix, Ch. 28

James acknowledges that he has no real reason to bully Snape and uses violence as a bargaining chip to coerce Lily into going out with him (James' behavior reflects much more entitlement than Snape's, in my opinion). He also chokes Snape with a bar of soap and then assaults him by dangling him upside down and removing his trousers (threatening to remove his underwear but we don't see it happen).

Lily herself refers to James as arrogant, and it's this trait, along with the trauma from James' bullying of him, that Snape perceives in Harry. He doesn't resent Harry for looking like his father because it reminds him that Lily had sex with another man, he resents him for it because of all the trauma James inflicted on him. The conflict-laden relationship between Snape and the Marauders is a significant driver of the story through several of the books and OP seems subjective to the point of being problematic in ignoring it completely and instead focusing Snape's dislike of Harry onto an invented idea of sexual jealousy that doesn't exist in the text.

It's never stated whether Snape had romantic feelings for Lily, or vice versa, only that they were friends. The closest we see to a hint of this is when “The intensity of his [Snape's] gaze made her [Lily] blush," or when “The moment she [Lily] had insulted James Potter, his [Snape's] whole body had relaxed, and as they walked away there was a new spring in Snape’s step …”

Lily's blush could be interpreted as implying she was attracted to him, or conversely that she didn't and felt awkward thinking he might be attracted to her. Similarly, Snape's relief at her insulting James can be interpreted as indicative of his attraction to her, or of him simply being worried about a friend hanging out with people he perceived as dangerous and was relieved to learn she wasn't putting herself in the way of danger by becoming friends with them. Although JK Rowling has said that her intention was for Snape's affections towards Lily to be romantic, and that she may have returned his affection had he not chosen the path he did, this is - like the note about Snape's father whipping him - extratextual and more of an interesting fact than a bit of canon to be extrapolated from the text.

Finally, OP says:

His interest in the Death Eaters was only secondary to his obsession with Lily and I think Lily rejecting him pushed him toward joining the Death Eaters, because, once again, his male ego was bruised and he needed to replace it with something else.

We've already seen that Snape's interest in joining the Death Eaters was a big part of Lily's reason for ending their friendship. Therefore, logically, Lily's decision didn't push him towards becoming a Death Eater, but rather isolated him from having any support system outside of the DEs. She didn't reject him, because rejection is the refusal or dismissal of another person's advances or proposal. They were friends, meaning they had a mutually consensual platonic relationship. Lily therefore didn't reject Snape, she ended their friendship and, as already stated, nothing in canon implies he didn't respect her boundaries.

As we have also seen in canon, Snape was bullied at school and had, at best, a neglectful and dysfunctional home environment in his childhood. In addition, he shared a dorm with students actively interested in becoming Death Eaters, and his one social lifeline away from them was cut off when he called Lily a Mudblood. What OP interprets as Snape's male ego being bruised is actually a much more complex set of social and emotional factors being described throughout the series to eventually reveal the profile of a character - young Snape - who was a vulnerable youth primed for radicalization by a violent faction of zealots. Although the enforcement and upholding of patriarchal norms is often a huge element of these kinds of social movements, that didn't seem to be the driving force for Snape based on everything we learn about his character. Instead, what we see is a boy who comes from abuse, lives in abuse at school, who loses all the support systems that might give him an alternative to the fascist cult he's being radicalized into which - if it's like most hate groups - would have been more than welcome to both take him in and help him cut his ties to anyone else in his life he might escape from them to.

It also goes against the argument that Snape was sexually obsessed with Lily that he continued to risk his life in order to protect her son an defeat her murderer for almost two decades after her death. He knew it would neither bring her back from the dead nor bring about forgiveness, and it goes without saying that sex was no longer an option. Framing Snape's motivation as obsession dismisses the realities of the complex and meaningful relationship we form as people, and the lasting, transformative influence we can have on each other, which is what Snape and Lily's story illustrates.

Finally, OP concludes with:

He remained mysterious up till the end and his back-and-forth with treason was very compelling to read about. So I hate him (as a "person") but he is such a good character narrative-wise and he is very interesting to study

OP openly admits to hating Snape, ie. having a bias against him, while stating he is "interesting to study" - except no part of their answer has shown that they've actually done so. Their arguments are unsupported in several ways, one being that they don't offer any evidence, and the other being that none can be found in the source text. What's ironic is that OP seems to resent Snape's subjective bias against Harry (and misinterpret his reasons for it in baseless ways) while also showing the exact same kind of bias against Snape themselves. You don't have to like a character by any means, but claiming that the kind of unfounded, superficial, and unsupported opinions that OP stated in their response have a basis in any kind of study of his character is ludicrous and an insult to the intelligence of anyone reading it.

[teaveetamer]

It really sucks that you're getting harassed, but u should look back at the harassment you never really stopped to support and the harassment you avoid talking about too. Everyone sucks here, you're incapable of decrying the harassment coming from your "side" because you care more about blorbo discourse... Do you actually stand up against harassment if you don't say anything when it's from your "side" or at least people who enjoy your blorbo? If you only do so when coming from fans of the character you don't like?

I sincerely hope the harassment you receive stop, to be clear you absolutely do not deserve the shit you're dealing with, nobody does. But I hope you'll genuine look at yourself and the people surrounding you too.

Anon, I'm going to take this in the best possible faith, but holy shit this is so fucking terminally online. Like, you are aware that I'm an adult? I'm slaving away at an unpaid internship, I'm in graduate school, and I've got 20k words worth of academic papers to write and exams to study for. I'm spending time with my dying grandpa and I'm finding new and inventive ways to give a semi-feral cat heart medicine without getting my thumb bitten off. I'm not "intentionally ignoring" things going on, I'm just not an omniscent god who can keep track of 472 million Tumblr users at every given moment of the day and also have a job and a life. So if you've got beef and you think I'm not properly calling someone out then I'm going to need you to send me a link. I get maybe and hour of Tumblr time a day, and I don't actually follow 3H discourse because, shocker, I don't actually find getting into the exact same tired fights we were getting into 5 years ago all that fun or enjoyable. Isn't it wild though? It's been half a decade since 3H launch and I've spent like half of that with people stalking me and sending me death threats for no fucking reason!

Anyway, I could not give two tenths of a fuck whether or not you like my blorbo. I'm primarily concerned by the people sending death threats, actively defending genocidal rhetoric, stalking people, making false pedophilia accusations, et-fucking-cetera. I've done literally everything in my power to try and come to an understanding with the people inflicting the harassment and they're stiiiiiiill just doing it, years later, cuz I guess they don't have anything better to do. The only remotely comparable thing I've witnessed from "my side" in recent days, which frankly doesn't even come close to the level of vitriol and harassment of death threats, was that one of my mutuals called the genocidal freak (who intentionally tried to trigger me in the past) a mean name. And I only found out about that because a friend of mine saw it and talked to me about it. And wow look at that, if you actually go to the post you can literally see me telling that mutual to knock it off! And I spoke to them privately about it too! Which is something, frankly, I think I had every reason to not do given the way that person being insulted has treated me (And the lack of apology I've received from them for that). So like, not sure which kidney you want me to sacrifice to prove that I'm not actually cool with people stalking others and sending death threats.

[puckpocketed]

hi!! I was wondering where or how you do you research for players and teams, and just hockey in general? do you have any favorite blogs or other resources? thank you~

okay picking thru web rot for the sharks primer has prepared me for this one lmao here's the quick answer because i really need to eat some pie and go to bed. Hockey is my all-consuming interest at the moment and I haven't watched actual television or films; or read anything non-academic that isn't about hockey in.... 9 months? If it seems like I am taking in a LOT of information in a short amount of time it's because I am. I listen to hockey things at 2-5x speed depending on if its a video on youtube (locked to 2x), a podcast (3.5x is my ideal speed), or my screenreader (5x) and often take notes, save articles as pdfs to go back to, and transcribe things for fun (only recently am putting my transcriptions as addendums to gifs... very rewarding <3). When not studying for my actual degree, I am reading about hockey or listening to something hockey related or watching hockey or writing about hockey or learning how to play hockey. i am so serious. please don't assume that this is normal, optimal, or even something I would wish upon other people. I am in Love with her in thee most wretched and irrevocable way. She's my hobby in the sense that shes my sun and im building my wax wings and looking directly at her light and thanking her for blinding me. amen.

more seriously, if I'm going down a player rabbit hole I will try many of these things - though not necessarily all of them, and not in this order (and i'm sure i've forgotten one or two things I usually try... lordy):

I go to spotify/apple podcasts and throw in player names just to see what comes up and listen to basically everything.

if they are on an NHL team, there are likely MULTIPLE podcasts dedicated to that team. trawl through their podcast archives, especially post-game podcasts where discussion is happening about their performance. sometimes there are even interviews <3

i do the same with youtube if I can...!

throw their name into reddit, tumblr, twitter and scroll. endlessly. just trawl through everything that I can possibly get my hands on. The more obscure the player the easier this is, because there really aren't that many things to find out about them and not many people are talking about them at all. <- this is how I make contact with people who are the only person that knows about this one (1) guy and then we hold fins forever. <3

find out who the teams beat reporters are. if youre looking into prospects, even juniors teams have people covering them. the writing might not be the highest quality but you WILL eventually find fun details if you go digging.

check: elite prospects articles, the hockey writers articles, find out the player's home town and see if their local paper has anything on them (basically, check any and all databases that use a tagging system or have a functional search engine)

helpful things to tack onto the end of google/youtube/database searches: "media availability" "post-game" "interview" "feature" "profile" "scouting report" "draft" "debut" "review" "highlight" "tournament"

if they're a player from a non-english speaking country it's worth throwing their non-romanized name into google to see what you can get. google translate the website // chatgpt translation are two options - not ideal and not to be trusted 100% over actual translation done by a fluent human speaker.

Instagram stories are the bane of my existence because they're so ephemeral

tiktok is a parallel universe to me. I do not have the app. any browsing I do on it is solely via googling "[team name] tiktok official" and clicking around on my desktop PC. I've only ever done this for M.Chrona's gf (who is much more famous than him) but if you're really doing down the rabbit hole of player research, some of their WAGs will post about them. <- as always, be respectful/not weird.

facebook for older stuff... genuinely makes my skin crawl so I avoid it and its a last resort LMAO but yeah teams used to post on facebook and everything!!! <- again. dont be weird and stalk peoples families or friends asjklakjl

"[player/team name] gettyimages [day/month/year]" <- substitute getty images for: flickr, hockeyshots, dreamstime, alamy

Substack is good for general hockey stuff if you can stomach the dreaded idea of subscribing via email or getting the app <3 I like: Jack Han (hockey tactics newsletter), Sean Shapiro (shap shots), Adam Gretz (adam's sports stuff), Thibaud Chatel <- for the analytics nerds, Alex MacLean <- his Scouting The Scouts series is what got me into substack in the first place, Greg Revak (hockey IQ newsletter) <- this is the one that's got me on development stuff atm SUPER rec because there's gifs and charts and many many hyperlinks included for citations <3

i should do a book rec at some point but uhhhh its getting late and im hungry <3 thank you for asking + reading if you got this far, I hope it was a helpful peek into my process?

[brotherskaramasobbing]

Always there is this compulsion to write. To desperately try to keep up with the stream of consciousness, half drowning half sucking the last bit of meat off the bone, always sure the next word will be the point of ecstasy. I really really really love to chase it. And I love when I find writers who chase infinitely better than I do, sprinting after goals far from mine, closer to it, intertwining, polyphonic.

Hence my lifetime love for studying literature. I haven’t got the drive to write my own longform fiction, but there is no better feeling to me than to find part of my identity reflected in the most perfectly constructed prose or poems, or prose poems. And literature is not confined by any terms. It runs along and drips over the edges of anything you can think of. Thick dopamine from experimental writers.

And yet there is always this fear? Deep and pervasive and frustrating and achey and weepy. I have always been a fearful person, but recently it has been worse than I thought it could get. I dropped out of uni in October, after starting my dream course, because I couldn’t take the social interaction. It got to the point I couldn’t leave the room to eat meals, or I would tremble and baby tears would form around the edges of my eyes, and so I gave up. I admitted I probably needed help, and I packed up my things and went home.

I miss studying literature so much it hurts. I miss the seminar discussions where we would heatedly debate whether Charles Bovary was a good man, the ethics of Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s abolitionism, the delicate but piercing form of Virginia Woolf’s ‘Mrs Dalloway’. I still consider myself a student of literature, as I plan to return to education next academic year hopefully with better people skills and more resilience, and reading literature and literary criticism has been my only sustenance while I have been confined to my hometown. I won’t deny the pain runs deep, though. I miss big research essays and I miss having institutional access to whatever papers I wanted.

So I am turning to Tumblr as an outlet. To learn how to write for myself again, albeit with the cushion of anonymity. I have been on the periphery of the site for a while, but I’m committing now to posting something.

I don’t know what this will change in me. Probably little at first. But this is another way to cling onto the joys of literature, and I am grateful for it. I’m ready to open my heart to something new now.

[phatburd]

violence!: 4, 14, 22

4. what was the last straw that made you finally block that annoying person?

If we’re talking about my most recent block, it was on Reddit where the dude tried to argue gender essentialism at me. Basically, he asserted that my call to write women like people was bullshit and that women should be written like women (weak and helpless). Yeah, I did not and do not have the emotional bandwidth to deal with that shit.

Even better though, when other people in the thread brought up Ellen Ripley as an example of where a role was originally written for a man but Sigourney Weaver was cast instead. The dude then stated he had never watched any of the Alien movies, but he read the Wikipedia article on Ripley and assumed she must be a boring and poorly written character because she was a woman.

Yeah, dude … delete your fucking account. All of your accounts, everywhere.

Tumblr blocks? Yeah, it was the Nth blog that posted the TOG van speech verbatim and declared JoeNicky to be the most perfect thing ever. Went into the blog, found their AO3, blocked that, then blocked their Tumblr. Because clearly this person and I have nothing to say to each other, and I’m tired and I get petty when I’m tired.

14. that one thing you see in fics all the time

Making the bottom in an m/m ship extremely feminized, sometimes straight up infantilized. This isn’t to say there aren’t feminine gay dudes in RL, because there are. I’m talking about fan works.

I don’t know if it’s out of ignorance, sexism, misogyny, or just boring-ass heteronormativity, this idea that someone has to be the “girl” in a same-sex pairing. And every time I see it, I’m reminded of this little cartoon:

I don’t really get top/bottom discourse and especially the need to assign specific personality traits to the top or the bottom. It was something I set out to not do in my m/m Bessimu fics. I wanted to write them as equals, and I think I succeeded.

(FWIW, I see Bessimu as both being switches, because that’s more fun. I also find it hot to write Bessières as a power bottom dom and Murat as the submissive service top, and it’s not what one would expect when judging them by their public personas.)

22. your favorite part of canon that everyone else ignores

From The Old Guard? Those three and a half thousand years that Andy spent alone as the only immortal on the planet (as far as anyone knows).

I’ve been wanting to explore that period and, yes, it’s fucking intimidating. Historical documentation is more miss than hit once you start going back to certain points in human history.

Three and a half thousand years is a really fucking long time. What did Andy do, where did she go? What did she see? There’s a lot of potential to mine there, and maybe I’ll do it someday.

For the Napoleonics? Joseph Fouché is a fucking amoral bastard, but I think people forget he tried to save Marshal Ney. Ney, being Ney, was either politically naive, stubborn, and/or he just wanted to fucking die already when he refused Fouché’s offer of fake papers and an passport to sneak out of France in the aftermath of Napoleon’s second abdication.

(I’ve also read that Laurent de Gouvion St. Cyr was the one who offered the passport and papers, so take the above with the proverbial grain of salt. St. Cyr did vote for exile in the final trial, which lends weight to that too.)

I also have a shitload of question marks around Bessières’ final years and the way it gets treated by academics, but that may be better off in a post of its own.

For Star Trek ... no one ever really talks about what kind of influence Sisko might have had on the Bajorans other than just being the Emissary/Space Jesus. Like, did baseball become a national sport and baseball leagues spring up all over the planet? Is there ticky-tacky Emissary merchandise one can purchase, like humans have in real life of the Pope?

(Sisko did show up on a pack of Bajoran tarot cards in Lower Decks, and I squealed over that, ngl.)

Thanks for asking! 😘

[greaseonmymouth]

I do not intend to write an entire dissertation in this tumblr post, but I am dropping a bunch of links and sources for further reading about monsterfucking and monsters and I really feel like I need to contextualise some of this reading material instead of just dumping it all on you. This is the piss on the poor website and very few of you are going to go and read all of these sources, because frankly, most of them are academic and this isn’t university. (if I were to teach a course on monsterfucking, however…)

tumblr has 10 links per post limit, so at the bottom there is a link to the googledoc with this exact same text AND ALL THE LINKS. yes you do have to scroll to the bottom sorry not sorry.

For starters, everything that follows is wholly my own opinion. I’m going to be making statements here, and I will be basing those statements on informed research and experience, and also just, you know, my opinion. These statements are subjective to me and everyone can feel free to disagree. I can’t be arsed softening every statement with ‘in my experience’ etc. because I am tired and I want to go to bed. Fewer words will make that happen faster. Though I do cite direct quotes, this isn’t an academic paper, don’t treat it as such.

There are two strands of monsterfucking: cishet female gaze monsterfucking and queer monsterfucking. 

The article I linked in my original post and criticised above falls into the first camp. My issue with the article is not that it is a cishet perspective on monsterfucking, my issue with it is that the author, Emily Gould, completely ignores any queer facets (and indeed, origins, as in the case of omegaverse) of monsterfucking and that she wrote this sentence: “It seems, also, like the romance genre as a whole is being pushed by monster romance to make things in human-human books as freaky as possible.” seemingly without pausing to consider that harem, reverse harem, and moresome erotica and romance fiction have existed for decades. The fact that these are now being called ‘Why Choose?’ stories doesn’t change that, and is, I would argue, merely a symptom of marketing. (The fact that this bookriot article treats it as new, is frankly also disappointing: https://bookriot.com/what-is-a-why-choose-romance/ .) Romantasy isn’t new either, the term is. This term is far more marketable than the more longwinded ‘high stakes fantasy romance’. I would also argue that as soon as the term took off, the genre evolved and that it is now a legitimate subgenre of its own within the wider fantasy romance umbrella. Perhaps ‘Why Choose?’ romance/erotica fiction has as well, I’m not nearly as familiar with it. The way traditional publishing is going, particularly since TikTok really took off, punchy buzzwords that are hashtaggeable, shareable, nay, spreadable, are what sells books these days, so the book industry, with financial stakes in everything bookrelated, absolutely encourage this. 

And yet, Emily Gould didn’t stop to consider why in omegaverse ‘slick’ is a thing? Vaginas famously do get wet and slippery when aroused, so male omegas (for a given definition of male, considering omegaverse’s gender and sex defying worldbuilding) who do not have vaginas, instead have anuses that produce ‘slick’. I’m tempted to wonder how on earth the cishets function in the real world if they can’t make up their own shit. Am I shocked and surprised that they took omegaverse and ironed out all the queer wrinkles until it turned into a kinky version of cishet alphahole erotica, reinforcing the exact same patriarchal structures that omegaverse broke to begin with? No. but here we are.

It’s established academically speaking, and I’d say generally speaking - this isn’t niche anymore, monsters and queers are mainstream now - that monsters in literature are representations of the Other. The monster is intricately tied with race, gender, sexuality, religious, and other marginalised identities. Queer people are Other. We are monsters. I don’t mean this in a bad way - I very much subscribe to the Hopeful Monster (McCormack, 2015) ideology in this regard, which is to say in simple terms that monstrous difference is a positive thing that drives change and progress. So, not to fall victim to the xkcd 2501 (https://xkcd.com/2501/) effect, here we go.

Monsters for beginners:

Monster Theory: Reading Culture 1996., edited by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen. University of Minnesota Press:. 

The Ashgate Research Companion to Monsters and the Monstrous 2013., edited by Asa Simon Mittman, Peter J. Dendle Routledge.

(Examples) Monster as Other - look, in other languages too:

Izaola, Amaia and Imanol Zubero. 2015. "La Cuestión Del Otro: Forasteros, Extranjeros, Extraños y Monstruos [Otherness: Outsiders, Foreigners, Strangers and Monsters]." Revista De Sociologia 100 (1): 105-129.

Kearney, Richard. 2003. Strangers, Gods, and Monsters: Interpreting Otherness Psychology Press.

Khabibulina, Liliya F. 2017. "МОНСТР КАК ДРУГОЙ (ДРУГАЯ) В СОВРЕМЕННОЙ АНГЛОЯЗЫЧНОЙ ЛИТЕРАТУРЕ [Monster as the Other in Modern Literature in English]." Вестник Пермского университета. Российская и зарубежная филология 9 (2).

Now to the (monster)fucking point!

At a very basic level of an embodied monster in fiction (i.e. a werewolf, zombie, vampyre, minotaur, tentacle monster, blue alien, etc.), the embodied monster communicates something about the culture it belongs to (Mittman 2013, 7) and is, for marginalised groups and cultures, empowering as a means to understand and describe the processes which abject, reject, and exclude them (ibid., 8). What does that mean in simple English? 

Well, when you write a romance novel about a woman taking a job at a minotaur milking facility and falling in love and lust with a client, then the story represents something. People have actually written papers about Morning Glory Milking Farm, here’s one:

Vivanco, Laura. 2024. “Feeling Judged: Reflections on Pornography and Romance from a Minotaur Milking Farm.” Journal of Popular Romance Studies 13.

Vivanco discusses the world-building in the novel and how it makes subtle feminist points about patriarchal society structures and the dominance of the penis. She also makes the point that this novel is “designed to appeal to readers’ desires while not provoking their fears”, by which she means that the monster here represents a comforting Other. The minotaur isn’t a human man, so the power difference of the real world is erased and replaced with a fantasy power difference. Minotaurs don’t really exist, in the same way a big hulking man with a big dick does, no matter how gentle he may be - so a female reader can give into that fantasy without being triggered. Gould’s article also gives this as the very reason for why monsterfucking narratives are so appealing.

A multitude of pop articles about monsterfucking follow the same train of thought, consider all of these hosted on bookriot, all by different writers:

Monstrous Affections: Exploring Romance and Monsters Lyndsie Manusos, Oct 23, 2019

If your only mention of queer monster romances is to bring in Chuck Tingle specifically as a joke, then, uh, I don’t have much respect for your history of sexy monsters actually.

A Brief History of Sexy Monsters Julia Rittenberg, Oct 4, 2021

This one actually treats monster romance novels as a joke:

Quiz: Which Monster Romance Should You Read this Halloween? Alison Doherty, Oct 10, 2023

Despite listing only het novels, Jessica gets my respect for this:

“There is just so much to love about these monster romance stories, but in the end, it comes down to this: if the protagonist doesn’t have to go through a makeover or extreme change to be loved just as they are, then neither should their monster love interest. Their transformations can be extensive on the inside if they need to become better people, but they don’t have to change a thing about their appearance. In fact, it’s their monstrous appearance that makes them who they are.”

Where To Get Started With Monster Romance Jessica Pryde, Oct 31, 2023

I suppose Alison is trying to keep an open mind in this one:

The Strangest Romance Novels Alison Doherty, Apr 15, 2024

To go on about Morning Glory Milking Farm for a bit more before getting into queer monsterfucking: Vivanco quotes Sananja Basker in her paper, who makes the point that Morning Glory Milking Farm presents a deeply fetishistic view of interracial, rather interspecies, relationships between white women and black men. Basker makes the connection that monsters in these contexts, while representing a racial Other, do so relying on racist steretypes. Or in other words, find-replace ‘minotaur’ with ‘black man’ and there is no perceptible change. 

This very brief chapter in a book about tumblr (yes I am referencing this chapter ONLY so I can make you all aware this book exists), mentions these points in discussing the type of posts tumblr users were making about The Shape of Water (2017). One observation made clear that tumblr users were making a distinction between the cishet female gaze and the queer gaze: “Commentary often articulated that despite the primary relationship being between a woman and a “man,” del Toro’s film was exciting because it was about a woman and a monster and thus deviated from the typical heterosexual romance film.”

Another observation highlighted the queer audience’s* viewpoints of the monster as reparative to the stereotype of the monster as a black man stand-in: “One example (...) directly broached issues of race and racism in The Shape of Water, as previous movie “monsters” often functioned as alarmist stand-ins for the sexuality of Black men. Del Toro, however, as a Mexican immigrant, was also seen by Tumblr users as adopting the monster-as- man-of-color metaphor to achieve a strikingly different end.”

*let’s be real here, tumblr is the queer website, I’m not even going to bother digging up a source for this.

Hoch, Indira Neill. 2020. Reblogs, Monsters, and Erotic Amphibians: The Process of Critical Analysis on Tumblr,  69-74 (6 pages) a tumblr book: platform and cultures, University of Michigan Press

I’m not saying that cishet monsterfucking is all bad, and that queer monsterfucking is all good, but I have to admit that I have yet to read a cishet monsterfucking romance novel that doesn’t leave me with a bad aftertaste - no matter how solidly written and how good it was otherwise. I’ve liked the ones I’ve read, they’re not bad novels! But let me give you another example instead of continuing to harp on about minotaurs: The current trend of witch romance novels that read a bit ‘harry potter but for grown ups’, many of which are set in the USA but relying on European magic systems and lineages with no thought given to native Americans who were, well, already there. There’s something deeply disturbing to me about writing a fantasy escapist romance with white heterosexual heroines where the world-building supports diversity only through monsters (few black and no indigenous people present) and upholds what I can only describe as white supremacist values - even if unintentionally. Sarah Hawley’s Glimmer Falls books fall under both monsterfucking and witch romance umbrellas as in these the love interests are demons, and other creatures exist, and like Morning Glory Milking Farm there are even political subplots - book two has a democratic rebellion on the demon plane by marginalised demon hybrids against a tyrannical demon oligarchy! But uh, there are very few non-white characters in these books, and the eurocentric magic system gave me heebie jeebies. The only difference between C. M. Nascosta and Sarah Hawley is that Nascosta selfpublished and Hawley is published by Berkley in the US and Gollancz in the UK.

Where’s that tumblr post chain about HP Lovecraft and fears and bipoc writers when you need it. You know the one. Pretend I haven’t lost the link for a minute and make the connection yourself please.

ETA several hours later: found it: https://schafpudel.tumblr.com/post/702663840742195200/hi-would-you-ever-consider-doing-that-spirited

I’ll spell it out: HP Lovecraft stories represent fears (and racism) but yet can resonate and give meaning to experiences by the very same people Lovecraft feared and hated. The connection I want you to make is that these cishet white monsterfucking books can play into existing power structures and -isms, and yet can resonate and give meaning to experiences by marginalised people. Queer monsterfucking however? Bypasses the -isms. (can they still be racist? Absolutely - I’m writing this post with a queer focus. I can’t possibly cover all viewpoints.)

Actually, while we’re here, lets segue into queer monsterfucking with another tumblr source, which I will quote here in its entirety just in case it disappears tomorrow.

Tumblr user largishcat, March 3, 2020:

i genuinely don’t get cishet monsterfuckers. for context, in the wake of shape of water i participated in this loving-the-monstrous type discussion event slash publishing party wherein i debuted a short story about a woman who “befriends” a cave monster—but that isnt the point. the point is i had to hear straight women talk for hours about how the appeal of monsters is some kind of weird “taming the beast” fantasy—loving a monster until it loves you back, sounding like every bad beauty and the beast take ever.

And there’s my queer ass being like literally none of you get it. this isn’t about power, this is about love and alienation and acceptance. you dumbasses, I’m the monster. this isn’t a metaphor for your shitty boyfriend, this is a metaphor for my own alienation from a society that tells me a the way i am and the way I love are grotesque. this is a fantasy of love free of judgement, separate from societal standards that I’ll never live up to anyway. that ghoul doesn’t care if I’m fat, they think it’s hot that I eat well. that immortal fae creature doesn’t care if the gender on my birth certificate matches the one I use now, they barely have a concept of gender in the first place. that tentacle monster doesn’t care if I shave, they don’t have eyes

monsterfucking is queer culture, everyone else go home

#monsterfucking #queer stuff https://www.tumblr.com/largishcat/611599551785271296/i-genuinely-dont-get-cishet-monsterfuckers-for

With me so far? Have some pop posts about Venom (my beloved):

Venom is an LGBTQA Icon by Anthony Gramuglia

10 Reasons Venom Is Becoming An LGBTQA Cult Film by Anthony Gramuglia

Anthony mate, I hope you have discovered there is a multitude of Venom/Eddie fics on ao3 where they fuck nasty. I think you’d enjoy them.

Very disappointed that this article is now gone and wayback machine didn’t manage to save it, please shed a tear with me: https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/yes-venom-is-a-sex-symbol-and-heres-why

How about…..

The Inevitable "Why People Think King Shark Is Hot" Thinkpiece  by Kayleigh Donaldson (Aug. 3, 2021) ?

I don’t know why Kayleigh thinks sharks are difficult to sexualise. She’s clearly never met a single furry in her life. People fucking love drawing antropomorphised sharks with two penises (anatomically accurate to sharks) dicking down other people. (And that’s not even getting into Sidon/Link from Breath of the Wild. Guillermo del Toro himself, monsterfucker extraordinaire, retweeted sidlink fanart in the bygone days of twitter once upon a time.)

I feel I’ve been a bit unfair to bookriot, because they have also published this piece:

The Claws That Catch Feelings: 12 Queer Monster Romances Isabelle Popp, Jun 23, 2022

“Queer monster romances are often between a human and a monster, where by the end the human has embraced the so-called monstrosity within themselves. That monstrosity may in truth be individuality, or the ability to prioritize oneself, one’s own values, and one’s own desires over what the wider world is offering. That kind of character growth facilitates the human’s ability to love and be loved in return, and it gets me every single time.” (Popp, 2022)

Look, it’s getting late, and I’m starting to feel like I’m telling banalities - have we not as a website been participating in the Dracula Daily bookclub for two years running, and making all sorts of queer readings about it - we know this. We know the monster is queer. Water is wet. Here’s a bunch more academic articles and pop pieces on the topic of monsters and queerness and whatnot, maybe I’ll have something smart to say once I’ve finished compiling them.

Teratophilia: Transmedial Representations of Hybrid Sexualities (call for papers - the link leads to academia.edu collection related to the teratophilia conference + the initial call for papers)

"Hybrid, "abnormal", in short monstrous desires and relationships abound everywhere. How to interpret these various valorizations of monstrous sexual configurations, in all the semantic richness and ambiguity of this term, and which include non-human, inhuman, "almost human" entities (Hoquet, 2021)? What do they say about our relationship to the body, to sexuality, to the norm?"

I’m dropping this one purely because it’s a good example of the intersectionality of monster studies and because it provides an example of the positive forces of the monster:

Cosimi, Seth. 2017. ““I’m a Motherfuckin’ Monster!”: Play, Perversity, and Performance of Nicki Minaj”. Feminist Formations, Vol. 29,  2. 47-68 (22 pages)

Elliott, Jaquelin. 2016. “Becoming The Monster: Queer Monstrosity and the Reclamation of the Werewolf in Slash Fandom” Reventant Journal 2.

Ferati, Melissa. 2021. “History and Homoeroticism: Taking a Look at Queer Coding in Horror Media”. Cooper Point Journal (online)

Jones, Stacy Holman & Harris, Anne. 2016. “Monsters, desire and the creative queer body.” Continuum, 30:5, 518-530,

Martins, David Klein. “The Gothic Tradition and the Origins of Queer Monstrosity” Atmostfear Entertainment accessed 28 june 2024

McCormack, Donna. 2015. "Hopeful Monsters: A Queer Hope of Evolutionary Difference." Somatechnics 5 (2): 154-173.

Preciado, Paul B. 2020. Can the Monster Speak? Fitzcarraldo Editions. Translated from French by Frank Wynne.

This one is for the murrricans who can’t go five minutes without injecting themselves and their specific culture into the conversation. I didn’t forget you (how could I). An entire book about queer villains in American media: 

Schildcrout, Jordan. 2014. Murder Most Queer: The Homicidal Homosexual in the American Theater. University of Michigan Press

Sellberg, Karin. 2015.  “Queer (Mis)Representations of Early Modern Sexual Monsters” 11: 375-407.. Sex, Knowledge, and Receptions of the Past, Oxford University Press

That was a big maybe and I’m just going to go ahead and go to bed. Happy reading.

tumblr has a 10 links per post limits, so here is one link directly to the googledoc with this exact same text in it AND ALL THE SOURCE LINKS.

ETA: 8th july 2024 (also added to the gdoc link above):

Clark, Lucian. Monsters Of Our Own: Monster Symbolism in the Trans Community Genderterror, August 29, 2016

I saw this shared around on Threads (why do I go there, I hate it) and commented on as 'this article is so good' and 'must read' including by a few people whose opinion I normally respect, and seeing as monsterfucking and monster everything is like a special little interest for me, I of course instantly clicked through to read it

and I have to say

what the everloving heterosexual fuck is this

two fat paragraphs about omegaverse that don't even mention its origins - I mean - I just - gaze upon this phrase, and despair:

During estrous, Omegas’ vaginas ooze with “slick,” responding to the Alpha’s intoxicating pheromonal perfume.

IT'S CALLED "SLICK" BECAUSE IT'S FROM SELF-LUBRICATING ANUSES. THE REASON THE OMEGAS NEED SELF-LUBRICATING ANUSES TO BEGIN WITH IS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE VAGINAS.

I. have been rendered figuratively speechless. the straights don't know what slick is. the. i. how. how did we end up like this

their dicks swell at the base, creating a “knot,” which lodges them inextricably in the Omega’s slick-soaked (I am so sorry) vagina.

"(I am so sorry)" girl you're writing an article about monster smut and then you have the gall to be embarrassed by the this tame ass (or should i say vagina?) heterosexual omegaverse?

okay, okay. deep breaths. we've only just got started. we started by covering Morning Glory Milking Farm, a minotaur/human erotic romance novel, which well - I've read it, and it's not a bad book by any means, it was actually very very good, a solid story with a great cast and perfectly paced and satisfying romance and loads of sex - is very straight. it's just a minotaur. it's a big guy with a big dick. it's your standard gentle giant/normal sized girl romance. it's not very freaky, but you know, I don't blame the average reader for coming into this thinking this is some out there stuff. gotta start somewhere, right? we didn't all come up through draco/the giant squid crackfic in 2005, you know? and now we've covered Sarah J Maas and we're entering omegaverse territory, this is getting knottier now, right, freakier? this article is going somewhere, right?

you can imagine the intrigue, enemies-to-lovers, and other story lines involved as each captured female eventually finds the member of the barbarian tribe who is destined to worship and fuck the living daylights out of her for the rest of their lives. Oh, and their dicks have a sensitive spur on top designed for clitoral stimulation. It’s just as blue and velvety as the rest of their big alien bodies.

okay so the minotaurs aliens are blue now, i guess.

It seems, also, like the romance genre as a whole is being pushed by monster romance to make things in human-human books as freaky as possible.

ohh?? are we finally getting a proper freak on now??

This genre, “why choose?” or “MMF” (or sometimes even MMMF or MMFM), and also known as “reverse harem,” always features a heroine who is showered with sexual attention by men who are also sexually involved with each other.

having a thousand yard stare moment over here

this author seriously thinks that all these heterofied monster romance tropes are paving the way for the real freaky stuff that is, checks notes, "two hockey players fucking each other while the heroine calls the shots"

this author is positing that human queer erotica/romance are freakier than monster erotica/romance. like. she said that. with her whole chest. black on white.

on one hand a monster, an inhuman being, and on the other, a queer person, a human being. and apparently the real freak is not the minotaur or the blue alien. it is the queer human.

is this satire? it has to be, right?

because if it's not satire, this article is an entire case study in itself on the monstering* of queer people. stunning.

*academic term

[586ondisability]

Collective writing and authorship

(Or: Why tumblr is a nightmare for academic citation, but actually pretty great)

Academic writing puts a heavy emphasis on authorship and ownership of ideas. It enforces citation structures that prioritize hierarchies within multi-authored works, publishing bodies, and strict adherence to guidelines - often at the cost of actual clarity.

The first time I tried to cite a tumblr post for a paper, it took me nearly an hour to find a template for how to structure the citation, because APA does not value non-academic sources, especially ones as informal as social media blog posts.

Tumblr’s format complicates authorship and collective writing. Most people access posts through a second, third, or 20th party, rather than from the original poster, via reblogging. Many posts, particularly ones intended to be informational, have contributions from multiple blogs. Sometimes, the bulk of the content is only tangentially related to the original post or comes from responses in the notes. People will often put commentary or expand on ideas in the tags – if someone who follows them sees those tags and thinks they are particularly relevant or add to the post, they may copy-paste or screenshot them and add them with a link to the person who’s tags they were. This is affectionately referred to as ‘passing peer review’ and often is accompanied by a comment along the lines of “this was too good to leave in the tags” (1, 2). This kind of interactive contribution is characteristic of tumblr and is commonly accepted practice across communities.

Collective writing is a cornerstone of tumblr. Posts are conversations, collections of information and perspectives. I think this is one of the key consistencies amongst disabled writers and thinkers, whether it’s online or academia – we are drawn to collective work(3). Our lives often require us to seek support and assistance from each other and our communities to meet our needs – if we survive collectively, why would we create in isolation?

Tumblr also offers anonymity – this may seem counter to building community, but it isn’t. Disability is often messy and complicated, and many aspects of our lives are not acceptable by ‘public’ standards. Anonymity allows some of us a place to express openly without fear of judgement or consequence – particularly for those in situations where expressing their frustration or thoughts could be actively dangerous and lose them the care they rely on for survival. This also complicates crediting work, as often the only way to attribute work is to a username (which is also the URL for the blog) that can be changed at any time, with almost no way to ensure someone looking for post can connect the old and new name. This is both a challenge and a feature even on tumblr, as it allows people to regain some degree of anonymity after going ‘viral’ or just change with their interests, but is a pain when trying to keep track of people you follow.

All of these factors making citing tumblr in an academic format challenging at best, and a nightmare at worst. Yet it’s generally clear to people within the ‘tumblr ecosystem’ who is responsible for any particular contribution, which illustrates the limitations of the strict structures of academic citation.

By nature, tumblr doesn’t have a particular format for citing or sourcing material. Media literacy and the importance of sharing and checking sources varies dramatically by community and user – as is to be expected for a social media site with a varied userbase. Generally speaking though, people sharing information on tumblr prioritize clarity and convenience when including sources, because while there is a significant number of academics using the site, most users have not been taught how to interpret an APA, Chicago, or MLA citation, and they are wildly inaccessible to many people with disabilities. Instead, people include links – sometimes alone, with brief summaries, or just titles and names of authors (4). Other times people use simplified footnote citations (as I have), which keeps the body of the text clear and is familiar enough that most people can understand them. The information included is only what someone might need to find a source – the priority is on making the content easily accessible to the audience.

1: https://www.tumblr.com/theinnermeyoullneverknow/757506025382445056/im-sorry-laughconfetti-this-is-too-good-to-hide?source=share

2: https://www.tumblr.com/2-the-moon-and-2-saturn/729982055601045504/my-favorite-thing-in-the-genre-of-tumblr?source=share

3: Learning Disability Justice through Critical Participatory Action Research (Laura J. Wernickin in Crip Authorship, 2023) https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/89491

4: https://www.tumblr.com/reasonsforhope/770202625015693312/indigenous-resistance-has-cut-us-and-canadas?source=share

[wajjs]

What the difference between anti illectism and just not getting it (and/or with autism). Just need some clarification

"Just not getting it" and autism have nothing to do with anti-intellectualism (I'm assuming you are asking about this), though they may be used as scapegoats to defend anti-intellectualism.

Let's look at a broad definition from Wikipedia*:

Anti-intellectualism is hostility to and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism, commonly expressed as deprecation of education and philosophy and the dismissal of art, literature, and science as impractical, politically motivated, and even contemptible human pursuits.

Now, the way anti-intellectualism shows up here on Tumblr is sometimes more subtle. It's in the form of funny posts repeating the base idea of not needing to interpret the text (using the term in a loose way, including written & visual content), that one shouldn't have to interpret the text. Other examples:

That the hidden meaning/the metaphors/the structural devices don't matter and using any of these things means the author is a bad author.

That good stories are the ones without conflict.

That good stories only depict morally good things and present no challenge to the reader.

Saying that all academia is bad, without nuance (not subtle)

Insisting that anyone can and does know more about specific topics than someone who spent years, decades, of their lives studying it, researching it, writing peer-reviewed papers on the topic at hand (not subtle, dangerous irl)

I'm sure there are more examples of this attitude around Tumblr, but these are the ones I can think of right now.

Academia and intellectualism have their place in our world and our societies. Are they elitist? They still are, yes, but this is changing, even more so in places that aren't the United States. Where I'm from, anyone can get into academia, into college, it's free. It has been free for decades. (And before anyone assumes, I'm not from Europe. I'm from a so-called ""third world"" country.)

Is it sexist? Not queer friendly? Depending on what's your academic focus, the answer to these things may vary. But things are still changing. Things are getting better.

So what's the purpose of denouncing anything intellectual as bad and useless? Or of making it sound like being in favor of it means you're ableist and therefore morally reprehensible?

There's a learning curve when it comes to academics. Area specific language is something that's hard to learn, specially if you don't have a good teacher, but sooner or later you learn it.

Someone who just doesn't get it is someone who simply needs more time, or a different approach. Using autism as an excuse to say that all academia is bad and inaccessible is actually the questionable thing here. (This doesn't mean some autistic people don't struggle with academia/can't join academia. I mean that using autism as a blank/generalized gotcha! is bad).

I can't talk much about the impact this has online, though I can theorize part of it may be related to the rise in the "anti shipping", "everything must be conflict free", mentality.

But I can tell you that in real life, anti-intellectualism is dangerous. It's a weapon used by right/far right movements to control political dissent. It's a weapon used to mark who is an enemy, making it okay to punish them.

It's obvious that anti-intellectualism mostly goes after the social sciences. There's historical precedent in my country of using it in a punitive way during our last military dictatorship. Anyone who was an academic was a communist (didn't matter if they actually were either of these things), so academics were public enemies that had to be kidnapped, tortured, murdered, hidden away, identity erased.

Anti-intellectualism is also the reason many social sciences are relegated to the sidelines with minimal budgeting, or why their colleges shut down, why they are looked down on as less desirable, less marketable, less useful.

Saying that anyone knows as much, if not more, than an academic person is a speech that has been used for decades to delegitimize their voices and their knowledge.

A lot of the sentiment online behind repeating these ideas used by right/far right movements comes from the fact that, maybe, the people repeating them were never taught these things in a way that was suitable. Maybe they really just don't get it. But the sentiment is as if they're saying that because they don't get it, then the whole thing is wrong and useless.

"If I don't get it and the so called smart people get it, that would make me dumb", which is a line of thought that obviously generates rejection. Yet it's not true. And still instead of working on it, instead of deconstructing it, the attitude is of acceptance: well, if I'm dumb and I don't get it, then those who do are in the wrong for getting it.

It's kind of like that, I think.

----

*Wikipedia is always a good place to start when researching things/looking for sources. It shouldn't be your only source in an academic setting, but it definitely can be a source or just a point of reference you can jump off of. Wikipedia in English also tends to be a lot more trustworthy than in other languages.

[damnesdelamer]

Recommended reading for leftists

Introduction and disclaimer:

I believe, in leftist praxis (especially online), the sharing of resources, including information, must be foremost. I have often been asked for reading recommendations by comrades; and while I am by no means an expert in leftist theory, I am a lifelong Marxist, and painfully overeducated. This list is far from comprehensive, and each author is worth exploring beyond the individual texts I suggest here. Further, none of these need to be read in full to derive benefit; read what selections from each interest you, and the more you read the better. Many of these texts cannot truly be called leftist either, but I believe all can equip us to confront capitalist hegemony and our place within it. And if one comrade derives the smallest value or insight herefrom, we will all be better for it. After all... La raison tonne en son cratère. Alone we are naught, together may we be all. Solidarity forever.

***

(I have split these into categories for ease of navigation, but there is plenty of overlap. Links included where available.)

Classics of socialist theory

~

Capital (vol.1) by Karl Marx Marx’s critique of political economy forms the single most significant and vital source for understanding capitalism, both in our present and throughout history. Do not let its breadth daunt you; in general I feel it’s better to read a little theory than none, but nowhere is this truer than with regards to Capital. Better to read 20 pages of Capital than 150 pages of most other leftist literature. This is not a book you need to ‘finish’ in order to benefit from, but rather (like all of Marx’s work) the backbone of theory which you will return to throughout your life. Read a chapter, leave it, read on, read again. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf

The Prison Notebooks by Antonio Gramsci In our current epoch of global neoliberal capitalism, Gramsci’s explanation of hegemony is more valuable than much of the economic or outright revolutionary analyses of many otherwise vital theory. Particularly following the coup attempt and election in America, as well as Brexit and abusive government responses to Covid, but the state violence around the world and the advent of fascism reasserts Gramsci as being as pertinent and prophetic now as amidst the first rise of fascism. https://abahlali.org/files/gramsci.pdf

Imperialism: The Highest Stage Of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin Like Marx, for many Lenin’s work is the backbone of socialist theory, particularly in pragmatic terms. In much of his writing Lenin focuses on the practical processes of revolutionary transition from capitalism to communism via socialism and proletarian leadership (sometimes divisively among leftists). Imperialism is perhaps most valuable today for addressing the need for internationalist proletarian support and solidarity in the face of global capitalist hegemony, arguably stronger today than in Lenin’s lifetime. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/imperialism.pdf

Socialism: Utopian And Scientific by Friedrich Engels Marx’s partner offers a substantial insight into the material reality of socialism in the post-industrial age, offering further practical guidance and theory to Marx and Engels’ already robust body of work. This highlights the empirical rigour of classical Marxist theory, intended as a popular text accessible to proletarian readers, in order to condense and to some extent explain the density of Capital. Perhaps even more valuable now than at the time it was first published. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm

In Defense Of Marxism by Leon Trotsky It has been over a decade since I have read any Trotsky, but this seems like a very good source to get to grips with both classical Marxist thought and to confront contemporary detractors. In many ways, Trotsky can be seen as an uncorrupt symbol of the Leninist dream, and in others his exile might illustrate the dangers of Leninism (Stalinism) when corrupt, so who better to defend the virtues of the system many see as his demise? https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/dom.pdf

The Conquest Of Bread by Pyotr Kropotkin Krapotkin forms the classical backbone of anarchist theory, and emerges from similar material conditions as Marxism. In many ways, ‘the Bread book’ forms a dual attack (on capitalism and authoritarianism of the state) and defence (of the basic rights and needs of every human), the text can be seen as foundational to defining anarchism both in overlap and starkly in contrast with Marxist communism. This is a seminal and eminent text on self-determination, and like Marx, will benefit the reader regardless of orthodox alignment. https://libcom.org/files/Peter%20Kropotkin%20-%20The%20Conquest%20of%20Bread_0.pdf

Leftism of the 20th Century and beyond

~

Freedom Is A Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, And The Foundations Of A Movement by Angela Davis This is something of a placeholder for Davis, as everything she has ever put to paper is profoundly valuable to international(ist) struggles against capitalism and it’s highest stage. Indeed, the emphasis on the relationship between American and Israeli racialised state violence highlights the struggles Davis has continually engaged since the late 1960s, that of a united front against imperialist oppression, white supremacists, patriarchal capitalist exploitation, and the carceral state. https://www.docdroid.net/rfDRFWv/freedom-is-a-constant-struggle-pdf#page=6

Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic Of Late Capitalism by Frederic Jameson A frequent criticism of Marxism is the false claim that it is decreasingly relevant. Here, Jameson presents a compelling update of Marxist theory which addresses the hegemonic nature of mass media in the postmodern epoch (how befitting a tumblr post listing leftist literature). Despite being published in the early ‘90s, this analysis of late capitalism becomes all the more pertinent in the age of social media and ‘influencers’ etc., and illustrates just how immortal a science ours really is. https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2016/SOC757/um/61816962/Jameson_The_cultural_logic.pdf

The Ecology Of Freedom: The Emergence And Dissolution Of Hierarchy by Murray Bookchin I have not read this in depth, and take issue with some of Bookchin’s ideas, but this seems like a very good jumping off point to engage with ecosocialism or red-green theory. Regardless of any schism between Marxist and anarchist thought, the importance of uniting together to stem the unsustainable growth of industrialised capitalism cannot be denied. Climate change is unquestionably a threat faced by us all, but which will disproportionately impact the most disenfranchised on the planet. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-the-ecology-of-freedom.pdf

Why Marx Was Right by Terry Eagleton I’ve only read excerpts of this; I know Eagleton better for his extensive work on Marxist literary criticism, postmodernity, and postcolonial literature, so I’m including this work of his as a means of introducing and engaging directly with Marxism itself, rather than the synthesis of diverse fields of analysis. But Eagleton generally does a very good job of parsing often incredibly dense concepts in an accessible way, so I trust him to explain something so obvious and self-evident as why Marx was right. https://filosoficabiblioteca.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/EAGLETON-Terry-Why-Marx-Was-Right.pdf

By Any Means Necessary by Malcolm X Malcolm X is one of the pre-eminent voices of the revolutionary black power movement, and among the greatest contributors to black/American leftist thought. This is a collection of his speeches and writings, in which he eloquently and charismaticly conveys both his righteous outrage and optimism for the future. Malcolm X’s explicitly Marxist and decolonial rhetoric is often downplayed since his assassination, but even the title and slogan is borrowed from Frantz Fanon.

Feminism and gender theory

~

Sister Outsider: Essays And Speeches by Audre Lorde The primary thrust of this collection is the inclusion of ‘The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master’s House’, probably Lorde‘s most well known work, but all the contents are eminently worthwhile. Lorde addresses race, capitalist oppression, solidarity, sexuality and gender, in a rigourously rhetorical yet practical way that calls us to empower one another in the face of oppression. Lorde’s poetry is also great. http://images.xhbtr.com/v2/pdfs/1082/Sister_Outsider_Essays_and_Speeches_by_Audre_Lorde.pdf

Feminism Is For Everybody by bell hooks A seminal addition to Third Wave Feminist theory, emphasising the reality that the aim of feminism is to confront and dismantle patriarchal systems which oppress - you guessed it - everybody. This book approaches feminism through the lens of race and capitalism, feeding into the discourse on intersectionality which many of us now take as a central element of 21st Century feminism. https://excoradfeminisms.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bell_hooks-feminism_is_for_everybody.pdf

Gender Trouble: Feminism And The Subversion Of Identity by Judith Butler Butler and her work form probably the single most significant (especially white) contribution to Third Wave Feminism, as well as queer theory. This may be a somewhat dense, academic work, but the primary hurdle is in deconstructing our existing perceptions of gender and identity, which we are certainly better equipped to do today specifically thanks to Butler. Vitally important stuff for dismantling hegemonic patriarchy. https://selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/butler-gender_trouble.pdf

Trans Liberation: Beyond Pink Or Blue by Leslie Feinberg Feinberg is perhaps the foundational voice in trans theory, best known for Stone Butch Blues, but this text seems like a good point to view hir push into mainstream acceptance where ze previously aligned hirself and trans groups more with gay and lesbian subcultures. A central element here is the accessibility and deconstruction of hegemonic gender and expression, but what this really expresses is a call for solidarity and support among marginalised classes, in a fight for our mutual visibility and survival, in the greatest of Marxist feminist traditions.

The Haraway Reader by Donna Haraway Haraway is perhaps better known as a post-humanist than a Marxist feminist, but in all honesty, I am not sure these can be disentangled so easily. My highest recommendation is the essay ‘A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century‘, but it is in many ways concerned more with aesthetics and media criticism than anything practical, and Haraway’s engagement with technology has only become more significant, with the proliferation of smartphones and wifi, to understanding our bodies and ourselves as instruments of resistance. https://monoskop.org/images/5/56/Haraway_Donna_The_Haraway_Reader_2003.pdf

Postcolonialism

~

The Wretched Of The Earth by Frantz Fanon Perhaps my highest recommendation, this will give you better insight into late stage (postcolonial) capitalism than perhaps anything else. Fanon was a psychologist, and his analyses help us parse the internal workings of both the capitalist and racialised minds. I don’t see this work recommended nearly enough, largely because Fanon’s Black Skin, White Masks is a better source for race theory, but The Wretched Of The Earth is the best choice for understanding revolutionary, anti-capitalist, and decolonial ideas. http://abahlali.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Frantz-Fanon-The-Wretched-of-the-Earth-1965.pdf

Orientalism by Edward Said This is probably the best introduction to postcolonial theory, particularly because it focuses on colonial/imperialist abuses in media and art. Said’s later work Culture And Imperialism may actually be a better source for strictly leftist analysis, but this is the groundwork for understanding the field, and will help readers confront and interpret everything from Western military interventionism to racist motifs in Disney films. https://www.eaford.org/site/assets/files/1631/said_edward1977_orientalism.pdf

Decolonisation Is Not A Metaphor by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang In direct response to Fanon’s call to decolonise (the mind), Tuck and Yang present a compelling assertion that the abstraction of decolonisation paves the way for settler claims of innocence rather than practical rapatriation of land and rights. The relatively short article centres and problematises ongoing complicity in the agenda of settler-colonial hegemony and the material conditions of indigenous groups in the postcolonial epoch. Important stuff for anti-imperialist work and solidarity. https://clas.osu.edu/sites/clas.osu.edu/files/Tuck%20and%20Yang%202012%20Decolonization%20is%20not%20a%20metaphor.pdf

The Coloniser And The Colonised by Albert Memmi Often read in tandem with Fanon, as both are concerned with trauma, violence, and dehumanisation. But further, Memmi addresses both the harm inflicted on the colonised body and the colonisers’ own culture and mind, while also exploring the impetus of practical resistance and dismantling imperialist control structures. This is also of great import to confronting detractors, offering the concrete precedent of Algerian decolonisation. https://cominsitu.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/albert-memmi-the-colonizer-and-the-colonized-1.pdf

Can The Subaltern Speak? by Gayatri Spivak This relatively short (though dense) essay will ideally help us to confront the real struggles of many of the most disenfranchised people on earth, removing us from questions of bourgeois wage-slavery and focusing on the right to education and freedom from sexual assault, not to mention the legacy of colonial genocide. http://abahlali.org/files/Can_the_subaltern_speak.pdf 

Wider cultural studies

~

No Logo by Naomi Klein I have some qualms with Klein, but she nevertheless makes important points regarding the systemic nature of neoliberal global capitalism and hegemony. No Logo addresses consumerism at a macro scale, emphasising the importance of what may be seen as internationalist solidarity and support and calling out corporate scapegoating on consumer markets. I understand that This Changes Everything is perhaps even better for addressing the unreasonable expectations of indefinite and unsustainable growth under capitalist systems, but I haven’t read it and therefore cannot recommend; regardless, this is a good starting point. https://archive.org/stream/fp_Naomi_Klein-No_Logo/Naomi_Klein-No_Logo_djvu.txt

The Black Atlantic: Modernity And Double Consciousness by Paul Gilroy This is an important source for understanding the development of diasporic (particularly black) identities in the wake of the Middle Passage between African and America, but more generally as well. This work can be related to parallel phenomena of racialised violence, genocide, and forced migration more widely, but it is especially useful for engaging with the legacy of slavery, the cultural development of blackness, and forms of everyday resistance. https://dl1.cuni.cz/pluginfile.php/756417/mod_resource/content/1/Gilroy%20Black%20Atlantic.pdf

Imagined Communities: Reflections On The Origin And Spread Of Nationalism by Benedict Anderson This text is important in understanding the nature of both high colonialism and fascism, perhaps now more than ever. Anderson examines the political manipulation and agenda of cultural production, that is the propagandised, artificial act of nation building. This analyses the development of nation states as the norm of political unity in historiographical terms, as symptomatic of old school European imperialism. Today we may see this reflected in Brexit or MAGA, but lebensraum and zionism are just as evident in the analysis. https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2016/SOC757/um/6181696/Benedict_Anderson_Imagined_Communities.pdf

Discipline And Punish: The Birth Of The Prison by Michel Foucault Honestly, I am not sure if this should be on this list; I would certainly not call it leftist. That said, it is a very important source to inform our perceptions of the nature of institutional power and abuse. It is also unquestionable that many of the pre-eminent left-leaning scholars of the past fifty years have been heavily influenced, willing or not, by Foucault and his post-structuralist ilk. A worthwhile read, especially for queer readers, but take with a liberal (zing!) helping of salt. https://monoskop.org/images/4/43/Foucault_Michel_Discipline_and_Punish_The_Birth_of_the_Prison_1977_1995.pdf

Trouble In Paradise: From The End Of History To The End Of Capitalism by Slavoj Žižek Probably just don’t read this, it amounts to self-torture. Okay but seriously, I wanted to include Žižek (perhaps against my better judgement), but he is probably best seen as a lesson in recognising theorists as fallible, requiring our criticism rather than being followed blindly. I like Žižek, but take him as a kind of clown provocateur who may lead us to explore interesting ideas. He makes good points, but he also... Doesn’t... Watch a couple youtube videos and decide if you can stomach him before diving in.

Additional highly recommended authors (with whom I am not familiar enough to give meaningful descriptions or specific recommended texts) (let me know if you find anything of significant value from among these, as I am likely unaware!):

Theodor Adorno (of the Frankfurt School, which also included Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and Walter Benjamin, all of whom I’d likewise recommend but with whom I have only passing familiarity) was a sociologist and musicologist whose aesthetic analyses are incredibly rich and insightful, and heavily influential on 20th Century Marxist theory.

Sara Ahmed is a significant voice in Third Wave Feminist criticism, engaging with queer theory, postcoloniality, intersectionality, and identity politics, of particular interest to international praxis.

Mikhail Bakhtin was a critic and scholar whose theories on semiotics, language, and literature heavily guided the development of structuralist thought as well as later Marxist philosophy.

Mikhail Bakunin is perhaps the closest thing to anarchist orthodoxy. Consistently involved with revolutionary action, he is known as a staunch critic of Marxist rhetoric, and a seminal influence on anti-authoritarian movements.

Silvia Federici is a Marxist feminist who has contributed significant work regarding women’s unpaid labour and the capitalist subversion of the commons in historiographical contexts.

Mark Fisher was a leftist critic whose writing on music, film, and pop culture was intimately engaged with postmodernity, structuralist thought, and most importantly Marxist aesthetics.

Che Guevara was a major contributor to revolutionary efforts internationally, most notably and successfully in Cuba. His writing is robustly pragmatic as well as eloquent, and offers practical insight to leftist action.

Hồ Chí Minh was a revolutionary communist leader of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and a significant contributor to revolutionary communist theory and anti-imperialist practice.

C.L.R. James is a significant voice in 20th Century (especially black) Marxist theory, engaging with and criticising Trotskyist principles and the role of ethnic minorities in revolutionary and democratic political movements.

Joel Kovel was a researcher known as the founder of ecosocialism. His work spans a wide array of subjects, but generally tends to return to deconstructing capitalism in its highest stage.

György Lukács was a critic who contributed heavily to the Western Marxism of the Frankfurt School and engaged with aesthetics and traditions of Marx’s philosophical ideology in contrast with Soviet policy of the time.

Rosa Luxemburg was a revolutionary socialist organiser, publisher, and economist, directly engaged in practical leftist activity internationally for a significant part of the early 20th Century.

Mao Zedong was a revolutionary communist, founder and Chairman of the People’s Republic of China, and a prolific contributor to Marxism-Leninism(-Maoism), which he adapted to the material conditions outside the Western imperial core.

Huey P. Newton was the co-founder of the Black Panther Party and a vital force in the spread and accessibility of communist thought and practical internationalism, not to mention black revolutionary tactics.

Léopold Sédar Senghor was a poet-turned-politician who served as Senegal’s first president and established the basis for African socialism. Also central to postcolonial theory, and a leader of the Négritude movement.

***

I hope this list may be useful. (I would also be interested to see the recommendations of others!) Happy reading, comrades. We have nothing to lose but our chains.

[oddmerit]

i love when tumblr posts get incorporated into academic research. i love it when The Crazy Gay Trans SJW website gets the respect it deserves and people recognize that, hey, maybe random weirdos online who seemed like they were going "too far" were right about stuff. i was looking up "stimmyabby" on google because she was someone who blogged a lot about autism and madness and nocompliance in therapy that i looked up to in my early tumblr years and i had seen someone else from that time period float across my dash, and i found her post about "respect" cited in a paper called "Who May Be Competent? Mothering Young Children of Color with Disabilities and the Politics of Care" (2022, Beneke, Collins & Powell), where a mom describes finding the post and how it relates to how her child was treated in school:

[transcript in alt text and reproduced below the cut:]

Mothers also interrogated what “respect” and “care” mean in early childhood. For example, Lua shared a Tumblr post by Autistic teen blogger @stimmyabby (Figure 1).

She explained:

[Schools say] that to kids all the time. That if you want what you want, you have to listen to exactly what I say and exactly the way I say it. So... kids learn that “might makes right,” and they take that out into the world, and the world will validate that over and over and over again in the worst ways... we need to show kids respect so that they’ll learn respect. But we are also using different words for what respect means... my child being a non-verbal Black child, him as a person and his age aren’t seen the way that other kids’ ages and humanity are seen. [end quote]

Applying the Tumblr post to the context of schools, Lua reflected on how early educational systems define respect as individual assimilation to adult expectations, and critically questioned dominant definitions of respect that dehumanized her non-speaking Black child. To resist these dehumanizing processes, several Mothers we spoke with (including Lua) mothered for respect and care by home-schooling their children. Collectively, Mothers questioned how school expectations surrounding “respectful behavior” narrowly construct competence, perpetuating ableism and racism. Moreover, Mothers conveyed that schooled notion of respect becomes a kind of curriculum that all children learn, teaching children their worth in relation to others.

Mothers in our study connected these dehumanizing schooling practices to criminalization. When Nissa joined us, she referenced a news article about a Black kindergartener with a disability who was arrested based on perceived behavioral incompetence. Nissa shared, “Knowing the fact that a kid as young as six years old can be arrested, that doesn’t exempt my daughter at all. So it’s just like, okay," [the text is cut off]

Below the writing in the paper is "Figure 1", a screenshot of a tumblr post by stimmyabby. It reads as follows:

Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes they use “respect” to mean “treating someone like an authority”

and sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say “if you won’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “if you won’t treat me like an authority I won’t treat you like a person”

and they think they’re being fair but they aren’t, and it’s not okay.

[end id]

[youzicha]

Authoritative sources

A while ago I was reading a book that began by dividing our sources of knowledge into (1) direct observation, (2) deductive reasoning, and (3) trusted authority. The point being that 3 is the most important by far: our eyes and brains keep the system honest, but the vast majority of things we know came from some source we trust.

The book is 25 years old, however, and since it was published I feel google and the WWW have caused a qualitative shift in what kind of sources we rely on. For example:

¶ Mark Dominus comments that nowadays you can simply sit down with your laptop to find out what a given law says and when it was enacted, which would have been “unthinkable” 30 years ago.

¶ Or, the other day I was doing some research for a tumblr post and thought, “I wonder how accurate bombers were in the Korean War”—typing a couple of keywords into google almost immediately finds a digitalized copy of an article in an Air Force journal from 1954 with the answer (500 feet CEP). Again, 30 years ago finding this kind of source would be extremely difficult. You could order the article itself by inter-library loan (which takes weeks instead of minutes), but it would be nearly impossible to know which article to ask for. Maybe you could phone a research librarian at the Air University and ask them to look around for you.

¶ Or, someone on tumblr claimed that a single container ship has a comparable effect on the climate as all the cars in the U.S. (This is a garbled version of a claim about sulphur emissions, not CO₂, and was the source of some breathless newspaper headlines.) In the old days, these kind of mass media soundbites was all we had, but now it's easy to access detailed numbers about exactly how many tonnes of CO₂ cars and shipping generates.

¶ Or, a book from 1997 casually claims that the Allies in the second world war deliberately avoided bombing factories owned by Ford. If you only have the book on paper there's not much you can do about that—but as soon as someone posted the quote on tumblr, another tumblr user reblogged it with a link to a blog post written by a historian in 2012 who debunks the claim, and the blog post is supported by a bunch of primary sources from the archives. This kind of instant contextualization seems impossible with print media.

¶ Or consider this post, which I think is my favorite of all the stuff I've written on tumblr. Mark Ames writes on Facebook that Aum Shinrikyo wrote a song celebrating their sarin attack. (Spoiler: they didn't.) Ames is a cohost of the Radio War Nerd podcast, so we'd hope he is an authority on warlike, nerdy trivia. The song is mentioned in a scholarly book about Aum, so this trivia is supported the authority of academic research. And it's reported in the Senate report on Aum, written by the greatest experts the U.S. government could muster. It's a really solid case! And yet, you can type in a couple of keywords, and in a hundred milliseconds Google will give you a link to a debunking blogpost by the guy who actually wrote the song.

All of these are still a kind of argument from authority, but it's a very different kind of authority. In the past we got our facts from a single newspaper, or a single encyclopedia, or a single textbook still on the shelf from our university days. (Even reading a second newspaper needed a trip to the shop or the library.) Now we have this really vast selection of primary sources, scientific papers, and first-hand accounts, all of which can be accessed in seconds. To me this feels like a qualitative change on the same order as the printing press or the Wycliffe bible.