#and therefore cannot be literary

[taradactyls]

#it's the misogyny

@nipuni the tag passed peer review

I've said this before but Why do people position "themes and analysis" and "shipping" as mutually exclusive opposites. maybe I find two characters thematically interesting and want them to analytically fuck about it.

[teenagefeeling]

it's been kind of tough to strike a balance between being interested in both feminism and girly girl pop culture shit this year. the pinkwashing and commercial feminism are just reaching such a fever pitch that we're swinging back around into a new, more exhausting form of misogyny where women's appearances, attitudes, and actions are turned into political statements and strict gender roles become standards by which to measure someone's dedication to femininity. it's almost becoming like more feminine = more feminist

[tamamita]

In literary and art criticism there are two criteria, the political and the artistic... There is the political criterion and there is the artistic criterion; what is the relationship between the two? Politics cannot be equated with art, nor can a general world outlook be equated with a method of artistic creation and criticism. We deny not only that there is an abstract and absolutely unchangeable political criterion, but also that there is an abstract and absolutely unchangeable artistic criterion; each class in every class society has its own political and artistic criteria. But all classes in all class societies invariably put the political criterion first and the artistic criterion second. The bourgeoisie always shuts out proletarian literature and art, however great their artistic merit. The proletariat must similarly distinguish among the literary and art works of past ages and determine its attitude towards them only after examining their attitude to the people and whether or not they had any progressive significance historically. Some works which politically are downright reactionary may have a certain artistic quality. The more reactionary their content and the higher their artistic quality, the more poisonous they are to the people, and the more necessary it is to reject them. A common characteristic of the literature and art of all exploiting classes in their period of decline is the contradiction between their reactionary political content and their artistic form. What we demand is the unity of politics and art, the unity of content and form, the unity of revolutionary political content and the highest possible perfection of artistic form. Works of art which lack artistic quality have no force, however progressive they are politically. Therefore, we oppose both the tendency to produce works of art with a wrong political viewpoint and the tendency towards the "poster and slogan style" which is correct in political viewpoint but lacking in artistic power. On questions of literature and art we must carry on a struggle on two fronts.

"Talks at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art" (May 1932), Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. IV.

[Image source]

[the-crooked-library]

Blurred Lines: Agency and Victimhood in Gothic Horror

Seeing as Robert Eggers' Nosferatu has just breached a cool $135M at the worldwide box office, it might be as good a time to talk about this as any. I believe I echo the sentiments of most diehard fans of gothic horror when I say this: while we are glad to see this masterpiece meet with well-deserved success, these numbers also mean that a significant proportion of its audience has been previously unfamiliar with the hallmarks of our beloved genre; and the resulting disconnect between the viewers and the source material has been the driving force behind the great majority of the online discourse that surrounds it.

The tools and conventions of the gothic, as a genre, are essential to Nosferatu's primary narrative arc. Its central character, Ellen Hutter, cannot be discussed outside of her literary context. Textually, she balances between heroine and damsel in distress - blurred, in many ways, from mainstream understanding.

That is done entirely on purpose. There are numerous reasons for it; I could go into heavy detail about it; and I will - under the cut, of course.

The main thing I must make absolutely clear (before delving any deeper) is that the gothic genre is fundamentally non-literal. It deals heavily in metaphor, allegory, allusion, obfuscation - and, indeed, the blurred lines that have recently caused so much controversy online. This is by design. It is not a flaw of storytelling or interpretation. The gothic affronts the rigid, black-and-white, mainstream forms of morality because that is what it has always been designed to do; and the newer installments like Nosferatu do the same, being built upon those traditional foundations.

The historical background is therefore essential to the understanding of a gothic narrative. In this, the film does provide the viewer with a relatively easy starting point; its period setting amplifies its connection to its predecessors, as well as the societal pressures and systemic violence that it aims to challenge. It allows the audience to perceive the story through a historical lens that comes pre-installed, as a sort of short-cut to the genre's original social context.

The context, in this case, consists of misogyny, queerphobia, xenophobia, and ableism - which, while rampant even in the modern day, were that much more blatant in 1830s German Confederation, where/when the story largely takes place. Every human character, regardless of who they are, is influenced by these oppressive aspects of their society; and Ellen Hutter is hopelessly entrapped within all four.

Her social situation, as we are given to understand, is precarious. Though she was originally born into wealth, she married down to escape her abusive father. She is an eccentric - her "wild" inclinations (such as having a sense of dignity or loving the outdoors as a child) are enough to cause almost vitriolic disapproval; but on top of that, she was born with a psychic gift, which manifests in a way that is not dissimilar from a mental (and sometimes physical) disability. She and her husband are also English immigrants, and thus perpetual outsiders in Wisborg (this is also one of the reasons Thomas is so anxious to prove himself at Knock's firm, and so keen to emulate Harding in all things); and, finally, she implied to experience queer attraction - which, though non-explicit, repressed, and never truly indulged, still affects her and the way she is continuously treated throughout the film.

Overall, Ellen's existence is perceived, at best, as an inconvenience - and at worst, a scandal. With that, she fits seamlessly into her story's genre.

The "immoral," the forbidden, the taboo is a cornerstone of all gothic fiction. It exists in the doubt between light and dark, harm and desire, love and abuse. It is the domain of sympathetic villains (e.g. Heathcliff, Wuthering Heights), of imperfect victims (Bertha Mason, Jane Eyre), of heroes who are deeply flawed, who cause their own tragedies, and often fail to save anyone at all (Victor Frankenstein, Frankenstein). Within the gothic genre, there are no absolutes; and its contradicting balance of dichotomies provides a reference point - or, more accurately, a cultural triangulation - for exploring the same complexities that a binary puritanical mindset strives to eradicate. These include sexual desire, female autonomy, physical and mental disabilities, classism; in short, anything that gets people wincing.

The popular discussion of these topics is frequently cruel, often avoidant, and rarely straightforward or productive. As stated above, it makes people uncomfortable. It's not pleasant. However, for Ellen (and many people in the real world), it is, quite literally, impossible to avoid. It defines every aspect of her daily life.

What this means for her and for the story is that within a narrative that refuses to gloss over the imperfections of her surrounding society, her victimhood is not thrust upon her by a shadowy figure, emerging from the night. Instead, she is a victim - of an ongoing and systemic, rather than individual, abuse.

This aspect of Ellen's characterization lies at the core of her behaviour throughout the film. She is an unstable chimera of Brontë's Jane Eyre and Bertha Mason - in the sense that her actions are informed, in great part, by her acute awareness of her own disenfranchisement. She alternates between anguished raving and phlegmatic practicality, used to her pain but unable to entirely ignore it; and, the same way that Jane sees all the rage she feels (but cannot afford to express) manifested in Bertha, Ellen finds her counterpart in Orlok.

This is where the ambiguity begins.

Even though Orlok is most certainly a gothic villain, his relationship with Ellen cannot be interpreted as strictly adversarial. Naturally, it would be easy to ascribe their dynamic to grooming and PTSD; however, as previously mentioned, a gothic narrative is never surface-level - and the film itself never furnishes any information that would definitively limit it to that.

Firstly, to get the primary discourse point out of the way - yes, when Ellen and Orlok first meet within the ether, she is indeed young; and later, she is said to have been a child. However, at the time, the term "teenager"did not yet exist; Ellen's younger self is not portrayed by a child actress; and later, in 1838, she is referred to as a child multiple times - despite being an adult, married woman. Overall, within the film, the term is more often used to describe innocence and inexperience, rather than age; and her initial age is never specified. Granted, a multi-century age gap is not exactly "healthy" anyway - but this is a vampire story. It is per the course; and it complicates their relationship beyond a simple victim vs abuser narrative.

Secondly - and perhaps, most importantly - the overall impact of Orlok's coercion tactics falls flat in comparison to Ellen's human-world alternatives. Yes, he argues and threatens; but her social circumstances have never allowed her agency in the first place. Her father abuses, isolates, and threatens to institutionalize her; Thomas dismisses her concerns as "childish fantasies"; Harding and Sievers tie her down and drug her; Harding again kicks her out of the house. Her marriage, her friendships, are therefore all transactional; they grant her an escape from her father's house, relative financial stability, social support - on the condition that she represses her true self, pretends to be normal, doesn't threaten anyone's masculinity or heterosexuality, and acts like she's happy to be a deferring, obedient, settled wife. Being a daughter of a landed gentleman, she would never have been given a working woman's education, and evidently has no income of her own; and so, she has no options except to upkeep her end of the bargain - which means that her continued survival within mainstream society relies on constant background coercion.

Compared to this mundane, socially acceptable horror of her existence, the vampire actually offers her more autonomy than she is ever otherwise accorded. The terms of his covenant never threaten Ellen's own well-being; so on one hand, she has benevolence - and on the other, the dignity of choice.

This contrast lies at the heart of her dilemma. Ellen is torn between what she believes she should be and what she knows - and Orlok knows - she is.

One is "correct," moral, Good; the other is "wrong," sinful, Evil. However, at the same time, the first is manufactured; it is artificially designed, and must be continuously enforced. The second is primal. Natural. In accordance with gothic tradition, the appeal of Orlok is that he is forbidden, yet instinctive. By design, he is a reflection of everything that Ellen is forced to repress on a daily basis. That includes her rage, her ostracism, her abnormalities; but also, her desperate need to be respected, understood, and desired. He is both grotesque and alluring, both a lord and a beast, both cruel and reverent.

"He is my melancholy!.." cries Ellen.

"I am Heathcliff!" whispers Cathy.

Still, while Cathy and Heathcliff are primarily divided by class and racism, Orlok and Ellen are separated by moral considerations. In the explicit sense, Ellen cannot choose the Evil that Orlok represents. Within the surface narrative, she is obligated by her society, her morals, and the story to choose Good - in this case, by nobly sacrificing her individual expendable life to save her husband and a city full of people. Her primary storyline, like everything else, has already been decided for her.

For the Trekkies among us, this is Ellen's own Kobayashi Maru. A no-win scenario. As such, within the context of character analysis, her destination does not matter as much as the little things she does along the way; and it is no accident that, as the film progresses, the subtler, seemingly insignificant choices she makes within that framework just happen to bring her closer - and closer - to Orlok.

All of them are just innocuous enough to almost pass. She places a lock of perfumed hair in a locket that she gives to Thomas - and upon his arrival to the Carpathians, the same locket is immediately claimed by Orlok, who recognizes the scent of lilacs. Before making her sacrifice, she puts on her wedding dress and finds a bouquet of the same flowers - which is the sort of effort she didn't have to perform, especially given that he cannot resist her blood regardless. When Orlok arrives, she chooses to undress them both, and leads him to the bed, even though her previous sex scene with Thomas was entirely clothed; and in the morning, she pulls him close and holds him through the sunrise - even though he was already dying, and would not be able to escape. There was no need for her to touch his rotting flesh at that point, much less caress it.

There can be a "moral" explanation for all these actions; but the lack of direct obligation involved in them becomes increasingly blatant over the course of the story, and the doubt festers.

This sort of lingering ambiguity is precisely where gothic horror thrives - and intersects, scandalously, with romance. Gothic horror, much like bodice-ripper novels, noir thrillers, or "dark romance," builds much of its romantic intensity on the dichotomy of shame and desire. Imagine it, if you will, as a loom; warp and weft. It may even be described as literary BDSM - a continuous, mutually-agreed-upon act of roleplay between the author and their audience, and sometimes the characters themselves (though that depends). The point is to create an outlet for female, queer, or disabled sexualities, all of which are still heavily medicalized and restricted, derided, or denied entirely; and within these often intersecting genres, the violent or coercive intensity of the dominant lead (be it a vampire, a mafia don, or simply a more experienced lesbian) provides their repressed, seemingly passive counterpart an excuse to act upon their demonized erotic urges.

Between the page and the mind, everything that normally complicates a romantic or sexual encounter in the real world (subliminal hints, aggression, repressed and involuntary responses) becomes set dressing - serving to place a particular scene or dynamic within its fictional universe. The resulting Watsonian uncertainty is, naturally, part of the appeal. It is what allows the viewer/reader/listener a sincere emotional and sensual immersion; and for Ellen and Orlok, it provides an appropriately dramatic pretext for a night of tender vampire sex.

The discourse around their joining is painfully similar to the same that drifts around online every winter - in regards to the classic holiday hit, Baby it's Cold Outside. The song, written during an era in which extramarital sexuality was heavily restricted, follows a couple brainstorming excuses for the lady to stay the night; this intention was explicitly stated by both members of the original duet; but that hasn't stopped thousands of people from interpreting it as a "rape anthem." It is unsurprising, then, that an element of horror (guilt, shame, repression, coercion) muddles the water even further.

It's oddly apt, considering that the film premiered on Christmas Day.

Granted, I am not denying that there is an abusive aspect to Ellen and Orlok's connection, romantic or otherwise. However, to reduce Ellen to merely his "victim" is extremely inaccurate to her actual portrayal - because, within the framework of the film, her interactions with Orlok are the few in which she is actually able to exercise some form of agency. She never defers to him, their wedding-death hinges on her free will, as coerced as it may appear; and, in a fascinating subversion of a popular vampire trope, she is the one who summons him.

In gothic media, "Come to me!.." is invariably spoken by a vampire (or a vampire derivative like Erik, Leroux's titular Phantom of the Opera); their counterpart follows helplessly, without question; and giving these lines to Ellen is a dramatic deviation from tradition that fundamentally alters the underlying context of their power balance. By maintaining this call-and-response dynamic throughout the story, Eggers asserts that Ellen isn't helpless; and neither is she "in over her head." She is intelligent, powerful, and she has a tangible influence over Orlok, who is her only equal - which is why, ultimately, she is the one deciding where that relationship is headed.

That is not to say that any alternative readings of the film are entirely incorrect. As I have stated above, the abusive/toxic narrative is definitely present, and even essential, in gothic media. On the Doylist level, it is the equivalent of a whip, or a solid pair of cuffs - essentially, a divestment of responsibility; though, to continue the metaphor, not everyone shares the same kink - and those who do might not all enjoy it the same way, so there's definitely significant variation. What I am trying to say, however, is that each story does come with a central conflict; and Ellen Hutter's victimization - much like Jane Eyre's, like Thomasin's (The Witch, 2015) - is systemic.

She is ostracized, disrespected - infantilized if her oppressors are feeling benevolent, demonized when they are inconvenienced - and still expected to always prioritize her husband/friends/community by default, regardless of how she is treated by them. Her surrounding society, morality, religion, culture all insist upon the same; and this is why, despite knowing that she has done nothing wrong by following her nature, she carries an enormous amount of guilt in regards to those "unacceptable" aspects of herself. It is also the same reason why Orlok - the sensual, cruel, utterly devoted monster - is the answer to her lonely call; and the reason why everyone around her is so eager to see her as his victim, rather than a victim of anything they may have perpetrated themselves. Ellen's is a rich complexity, fed upon centuries' worth of gothic tradition, and she cannot be forced into a flat, genre-inappropriate simplification.

Like The Witch, like NBC Hannibal, like Interview With the Vampire before it - Nosferatu (2024) is a story of self-indulgence being so unfamiliar that it feels like a sin; or, like dying.

I, for one, would not deny her that.

[keijisovkevich]

Response to @hollownest-whore 's tags, here is the art.

In my opinion, PV are rather cold and indifferent to other beetles. Vessel just weren't taught empathy and maintaining social connections at all. In part, the decency of behavior is supported by the stigma of being without mind and will.

If someone came into contact with PV too closely or defiantly, they used force. Because Pure have experience of equal interaction only in combat - the one thing that was allowed. And also because they know their patterns of behavior and want to scare others away before unconsciously submitting.

In addition, the suppression of thoughts has a really terrible effect on the psyche. Again, since the only thing allowed to practice was to inflict pain, the Pure Vessel's mindset was completely focused on this one thing that was allowed. Violence and harming is their unhealthy way of expressing themself and their feelings.

PV can't admit feelings. Therefore, all the emotions that them cannot suppress, vessel unconsciously turns into dreams of cruelty, both internal and external.

(at least it worked with the author's psyche, why not? Tested, not invented)

So, still answering the question.

The Pure Vessel is indifferently cruel, and without inhibitions that squeeze the neck, can be aggressive.

Easier to describe it in a literary way rather than a structured way.

"It covets to revel in the penetrating subtlety of hearing. To know all those natural motifs that do not reach the palace, to press the prey to the ground and savor… screaming and crying, threats and pleas, to hear someone else's voice break, wheeze, fade." © Shall not covet

Actually, the illustration is inspired by these words from my fanfic

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Literary Character

In a literary work, characters are the persons who are given certain moral, intellectual, and emotional qualities by the author.

Two Major Types of Characters

Static. The static character is one who is "flat" and two-dimensional. Such a character is usually recognized by one or two simple traits. The hallmark of a static character is that he or she will not change in spite of experience or conflict. This type of character remains unchanged by events and experiences. An example of a static character is Mistress Quickly in Henry IV.

Dynamic. The dynamic character is one who is "round" and three-dimensional. His or her personality, motives, and attitudes are complex. Such a character cannot be summed up by one or two traits. The hallmark of a dynamic character is change. This type of character will be changed and influenced by events and experiences. An example of a dynamic character is Pip in Great Expectations.

Criteria for Analyzing Character

The reader can use the criteria below in order to analyze, interpret, and draw conclusions about a character.

Appearance. Appearance generally falls into two categories: external and physical. External appearance consists of extrinsic qualities, such as clothing, jewelry, tattoos, or hairstyle. Through these external factors, you may determine a character’s taste, social status, occupation, or personality. Physical appearance, on the other hand, consists of intrinsic qualities, such as height, weight, facial expression, or tone of voice. These physical factors can suggest different personality traits. For example, a muscular physique might suggest strength; a skinny physique might suggest weakness. Be careful, however, not to judge a character on appearance alone. Appearance and reality are not always the same.

Behavior and Actions. In literature, all behavior and actions help define character. Nothing a character does is arbitrary or incidental. Small nuances of behavior need to be interpreted, as well as major decisive actions. Therefore, when trying to define what a character is like, consider what that character does. Do his or her actions reveal courage, ignorance, cunning, or generosity? For your analysis to be complete, consider involuntary behavior, such as nervous twitching, fast talking, or profuse sweating.

Biography. Often in short stories or novels, biographical information about a character will be revealed: place of birth, era of childhood, type of education, early careers, successes, failures, even the identity and occupation of the character’s parents. Such information can be used to sharpen the picture of a character, or to give added credibility to traits and values that have been identified.

Dialogue. Closely scrutinize what characters say and how they say it, for dialogue is significant. A character’s speech reveals traits and values in 2 principal ways:

Direct Expression. The correlation is patently clear between what the character says and who the character is. Nothing is hidden; nothing is subtly suggested. Direct expression requires little or no interpretation by the reader. What the character says provides immediate insight. For example, in Paradise Lost, the fallen angel Moloch states how he would like to deal with the angels left in heaven, “My sentence is for open war.” Moloch’s hostile nature is revealed directly.

Indirect Expression. The correlation is implied between what the character says and who the character is. The meaning of words may be hidden or suggested. Thus, the reader must determine the unstated meaning of a character’s words. For example, at a ball in Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Darcy is asked if he’ll join in the dancing. He replies, “All savages dance.” At its face value, the statement could be a harmless observation about dancing. Instead, it reveals Mr. Darcy as a haughty man whose sense of superiority makes him disdainful of his company.

Emotions. When interpreting a character, you will be trying to get below the surface of that character to see deeper meanings. To do so, take into account a character’s temperament. Temperament may manifest itself in some general traits, such as whether a character is introverted or extroverted, optimistic or pessimistic, sensitive or indifferent. Or, temperament may reveal itself in specific emotional states, such as anger, melancholy, anxiety, compassion, or happiness.

Thoughts. If an author uses “direct expression” to reveal a character's thoughts and values, you need only to note what these thoughts and values are, explaining why they are significant. However, a character’s thoughts are rarely revealed directly. Therefore, you will need to interpret, infer, and draw conclusions about a character's thoughts. To do so, gather evidence from the above criteria. These criteria can all come together to form a composite sketch of a character, revealing his or her true opinions and beliefs.

What other characters say and think. The statements and thoughts of one character regarding another can be a valid source of information. However, this information can be double-edged. While you may learn about a character based on the statements and thoughts of another, you will have to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of those statements and thoughts. A reliable character will usually be perceptive and a good judge of character; an unreliable character will be flawed in some way that inhibits his or her judgment.

How To Write about Character

When writing about character, you may use the following 3-step process. Keep in mind that this is a general approach.

Establish major character traits. Pin down the character’s traits. Because the main characters in a work will have depth and complexity, you should be able to distinguish at least three prominent traits. These traits may be closely related, but they must be distinctly different.

Support major character traits with examples. The traits you establish in step 1 will be based on general impressions. In step 2, however, you must support these traits with concrete examples. For example, if you assert that “vindictiveness” is a trait, you must substantiate vindictiveness with examples from the literary work.

Explain how and why your examples substantiate a particular trait. Step 3 is the most important (and most difficult) stage of your paper. You must go beyond merely linking examples with traits; you must elaborate your views of a character’s traits with explanation. Your explanation must tell how and why your examples reveal a particular trait, whether the trait is moral, intellectual, or emotional.

Note: Other non-human entities can perform in the role of “characters.” For example, animals, nature (rivers, mountains, oceans, etc.), and man-made creations (cities, machines, houses, etc.) can function as characters.

If these writing notes help with your poem/story, do tag me. Or send me a link. I'd love to read them!

Writing Notes & References

[thematicparallel]

there's something about seth dickinson's prose style in baru that just grabs me. i don't think you can even call it literary-leaning, because it's very economical. their estimation of baru & the world around her are always so direct. like the narration's gaze does not flinch and therefore you, as a reader, cannot. they also trust their readers & leaves so much to wade through in the subtext & then makes call backs to specific details in later chapters in later books, which i appreciate. it's such an insane series to use for my writing vocal training lol i can only hope to write my own stories just as sharply

[writers-potion]

Vampires, Werewolves, Zombies

They are human, but not quite. Although these entities are deeply embedded in the human psyche, they have not single definite form.

Here are some notes about these paranormal creatures of 'The Universal Unconscious', and ideas about how to tweak them.

Vampires

First stories about vampires as we know them appeared in the 18th C and developed in the early 19th C.

In 1819, a young English doctor wrote The Vampyre, featuring the character Lord Ruthven. An aristocratic fiend, immortal, seductive, and dangerous, he soon became popular.

It inspired Bram Stoker's novel Dracula. Count Dracula then became the archetype from whom most literary vampires evolved.

Sparkling vs. Traditional

Broadly, vampire would fall into 2 types:

Sparkling ones where vampires are more or less benevolent/heroic, less of a monster but a tormented human.

Traditional vampires who are creepy and dangerous.

It doesn't matter which of these you write!

Vampire Tropes

is 'undead' in a state between living and dead

drinks human blood

has an adverse or strange reaction to sunlight

sleeps in a coffin

needs to sleep on native soil, therefore carries some soil with him

remarkably handsome

seductive

pale

low body temperature

has two long retractable fangs

averse to garlic and silver

cannot bear the sight of a crucifix

suffers pain or injury when touched by holy water

cannot enter a home without being invited

can hypnotize humans

can impose his will on humans

not reflect in mirros

can fly

may be a loner or part of a hierarchical society

drains human's life force to replenish its own

immortal (almost)

superhuman strength

can be killed with a wooden stake through the heart

vampires are former humans, "turned" by a bite

when bitten by a vampire, a human weakens, dies, or becomes a vampire.

Werewolves

While wolves are the most common were-humans, humans turning into other animals are also popular.

Werewolf Tropes

normally lives as human, but turn into a wolf with certain triggers

the full moon is a common trigger

superhuman strength

possessive

loyal

dangerous

jealous

organized in hierarchical packs

may be able to change shape at will

lives an ordinary human life and keeps the turning a secret

can be killed with a silver bullet

a bite from a werewolf infects, and the bitten person becomes a werewolf.

immortal

Zombies

Through flesh-hungry undead have been a feature of ancient stories like the epic of Gilgamesh, the zombie as we know it today is rather modern, stemming from George A. Romero's 1968 film Night of the Living Dead.

The word "zombie" stems from the Haiti Vodun tradition, but was not applied widely to flesh-eating undead corpses until the second half of the 20th century.

Zombie Tropes

reanimated corposes

infected as a virus (often in a worldwide pandemic)

mindless, cannot be reasoned with

hunger for human flesh

appetite for brains

craving for salt

relentless, purpose-driven

retains some physical features and personality traits of the person they used to be

sickening smell of rotting flesh

body slowly rots, with parts dropping off

move in hordes

keeps living in this undead state despite injuries that cannot be survived.

besiege human dwellings.

─── ･ ｡ﾟ☆: *.☽ .* . ───

💎If you like my blog, buy me a coffee☕ and find me on instagram! 

💎Before you ask, check out my masterpost part 1 and part 2 

💎For early access to my content,  become a Writing Wizard 

[rockingbytheseaside]

✦ Moonlit Tides

Tw: slightly suggestive themes hinted at the end. Otherwise, SFW. Idk what this is, just an artistic literary piece of a fanfic w/ Neuvi

“The Chief Justice of Fontaine must exercise impartiality, thus he cannot form intimate relationships with the people of Teyvat.”  

… Is what Neuvillette told you, as you sat ashore during a still night. Although his words were directed at your curiosity, it felt more like he was speaking to himself, recalling his duties as a judge. After all, remaining objective and unbiased is the single most crucial concept that sets the Chief Justice apart from the common folk. 

At least, for the 500 years that he’s been the Iudex of Fontaine.

Yet something about the tone of what he said pulled a melancholic string. His eyes remained on the still waters of Liffey Region, the peaceful silence between you and him sublime. Yet you stood there, beside him, and in a completely relaxed manner, you said: 

“...But I’m not from Teyvat.” 

A simple answer, really. However, the silence followed was not so subdued, as Neuvillette turned to stare at you with widened eyes. Of course, you’re not from this world, you hail from beyond the stars; a simple glance at your star-shaped pupils reflects the truth of this statement.

So why was Neuvillette pondering the possibility only now? He knew that about you, that’s why he recruited your aid in Fontaine, that’s why he let you close as a confidant, that’s why he often poured his troubles to you behind closed doors during late nights. You knew the taste of the Hydro Dragon’s tears. 

But the Chief Justice sought more. On paper, his impartiality means nothing when it comes to you - he cannot judge you, and you cannot be placed on the same scales as the people of Teyvat. Thus the Hydro Sovereign took it upon himself to place you on the scales of his heart. 

At first, It began discreetly. Neuvillette would often invite you for late-night walks by the beach. Away from the courthouse’s commotion, the two of you would stroll and chat away past Marcotte station, letting the salty breeze serenade your minds. Even more so often, The Iudex hand would clasp yours to keep you closer. 

“Take a step with me into the water.” - he would later ask one day.

He knew of your resonance with hydro, therefore diving into Fontaine’s sea must be harmless for you. He would extend his plam and wait for you to bask your feet into shore. Although you initially gave him a hesitant look, he beckoned you closer. “Only to relish the water’s coolness. We don’t have to dip any lower past our knees.” - he would reassure. And so you two would often dip your toes in water during the warm nights, letting his gentle grasp lead you further from shore. It became a routine, and surprisingly, not a single drop of rain would pour from Fontaine’s clouds. Instead, the two of you would be greeted with a clear, starry sky; and Neuvillette worshiped the way your gaze shone when you observed the stars above. The endless cosmos paralleled your star-shaped pupils.      

But days standing ashore wasn’t enough for his draconic instincts, which led Neuvillette to invite you underwater. To stand on the open surface didn’t satiate him, any human could eavesdrop on your tête-à-tête by night. Thus, you would often follow him to the depths of Fontaine's seas, surrounded by lush seaweed and blooming Romaritime flowers. He would hold you close in his protective embrace, leading you to the sandbed of the depth where many Lumitoile starfish are scattered. Like the stars in the sky, you would be in awe at them, too. 

Many nights, he would spend with you leisurely exploring the profundity of the seas, talking about the many curiosities one would find in the deep. He would gift you with small chunks of raw pearls, or compel you to enjoy finding seashells. Of course, that wasn’t the only reason he would swim with you here. The underwater provided ample privacy… and ample noise reduction. 

Words didn’t need to be spoken anymore. His lips would seek your own, knowing you’d provide relief to the turbulence in his heart. Only you knew the taste of the Hydro Dragon’s tears, after all. Neuvillette’s body and intuition screamed for him to keep courting you, albeit not in the same sense as mortals do. That’s why he invited you to many peaceful walks by the water, that’s why he valued your company when sea gazing or star gazing at night, and that’s why he slowly warmed you up to his numerous gifts and trinkets, consisting of luminescent pearls and ancient seashells. Because his leviathan side was unintentionally pursuing you. 

In the depth of the ocean, where minimal sea light pierced through and no human dared to venture, the hydro dragon sovereign would love you, relishing your muffled whimpers and shivers. His keen sense of smell picks up your scent and savors it until your pheromones and cries are mixed with his heat. Body and soul entangled on the soft seabed, and Neuvillette’s sharp teeth desiring your skin. At least, for these tender moments in the depth of the world, he could forget he was the impartial Chief Justice.

Ultimately, you’re not from Teyvat, and only you were a witness to his biased side - a passionate and delicate dragon, whose sharp eyes always lingered on yours and sought you. Like the ocean tides pulled by the moon's unreachable allure.       

Yes, the title is inspired by Fontaine's OST "Moonlit Tides". As always, any art in my writing is my own artwork. thank you for reading so far.

[maxdibert]

JKR wasn't seen as a misogynistic person from the beginning, but today we know she's a terf. So I think the point that some people are trying to make is that "we should have known" she was misogynistic because she gave Snape a redemption arc.

So it goes like this: some people hate Snape. They claim he's an evil incel who just changed sides because he wanted to fuck Lily. And JKR gave him a redemption anyway. Therefore, if they believe Snape is a misogynistic character who got redeemed by the narrative, then it should be "obvious" that JKR was misogynistic too.

Okay but no??? I mean that line of reasoning just doesn’t hold up and honestly, it says more about the people making the argument than it does about Snape or Rowling.

You’re telling me that because Rowling eventually gave Severus a redemption arc, that should’ve been the first red flag that she was a misogynist? Really? Not the total lack of racial diversity? Not the way she treats fat characters? Not how she infantilizes or vilifies every woman who doesn’t fit into the “acceptable” mold of femininity? Not the guy who gets sexually assaulted by a love potion and it’s played off as comic relief? No, apparently the real smoking gun is… Snape being a complex character. LMAO

That’s ridiculous. And let’s be clear: this whole “Snape is an incel” thing is a post-2010 Tumblr invention that retroactively imposes modern internet archetypes on a character that doesn’t even fit the mold. People love to paint him as this entitled creep who wanted to “fuck Lily” and threw a tantrum when she rejected him, but that’s just not what the text says. Severus never hated Lily for not loving him. He hated James. He hated the world that pushed him into the margins and rewarded people like James for being charming and cruel. He was a product of his context, his trauma, and his choices—ñ but he wasn’t some fedora-wearing Reddit dude angry because a girl said no. That’s projection.

And even if you did think Snape was a misogynist—which, again, that’s not canon—that still doesn’t make his redemption a sign of Rowling’s own misogyny. Literature is full of morally grey characters who do terrible things and still get redemption arcs. Nobody says Tolkien was pro-industrial sabotage because he redeemed Gollum. Nobody calls George Lucas a war criminal for giving Darth Vader a deathbed moment of grace. That’s what fiction does. It complicates things.

What people actually mean when they say this is: “I didn’t like this character, so the author must be morally bankrupt for not agreeing with me.” And that’s not literary criticism, that’s moral projection masquerading as analysis.

Also, and I cannot stress this enough: Rowling didn’t exactly go out of her way to make Snape look good. He’s described in relentlessly negative terms. Harry spends the entire series highlighting how disgusting, greasy, petty, and cruel he is. The narrative only throws him a bone after he dies, and even then it’s half-hearted. He’s not honored. He’s not remembered with affection. He’s used. His story serves as a twist and a moral lesson, and then he’s dropped.

So no, giving Severus a redemption arc isn’t what exposed Rowling as a TERF. You didn’t need to squint that hard. Misogyny was baked into the text in much clearer ways if you were actually looking for it. But turning Snape into the symbol of that misogyny? That’s just lazy discourse and basically being a stupid average hater.

[retrowitchy]

Thoughts on snowbaird?

okay so: tldr --- > complicated but also not really

i view their relationship as like narratively necessary and crucial to the arcs of both characters and the overall hunger games story. obviously coriolanus' lost connection with and betrayal of lucy gray dictates the way the story goes and has sort of a ripple effect through the timeline as well. so in that way i can appreciate their relationship and the tragedy of it being the inciting point for a lot of coriolanus' decisions throughout the series and ultimately resulting in his downfall. there's a poetic justice there, a haunting love story that wasn't fated to be, that was destined to be the end of him in a literary circle sort of way.

if we're talking like...fandom terms, though. do i ship them? nah.

coriolanus doesn't really view lucy gray as an autonomous, free-living free-breathing person of her own. he's in constant awe of her, putting her on this pedestal of being something more than human (which is delicious narratively because it makes us feel as the audience that lucy gray really is a mystery, a fleeting moment, a song that disappears) and viewing her as a force that can save him, can help him escape from his misery. in a lot of ways they are textbook male manipulator and manic pixie dream girl (from coriolanus' own point of view). he has turned her into this dreamy angel when really she is just a 16 year old girl doing what she knows how to do to survive and live the best she can. and at the same time he also views her as an object, something he owns, something that he possesses. coriolanus is constantly thinking in terms of loss and gain, and how he can claim and gain as much as possible. claiming lucy gray, her being his, is a huge deal for him, a win. he's conquered the unconquerable. the girl who has charmed thousands, who has left trails of tears behind her, who has eluded the jaws of death is his. he views lucy gray as a win, as a prize. he's so caught up in his pride that he has barely any room to view her as a human person.

to be fair it has been a minute since i've reread tbosas, but the way i've always viewed it is that lucy gray will do what she wants and cannot ultimately be controlled and therefore had all the real power in the relationship, despite coryo having a much more literal power over her. the fact that her disappearing caused him to completely lose his mind just kind of solidifies that for me. snow might land on top, but a bird flying free doesn't really have to worry about that.

i also have some pending thoughts that i need to chew on a little more before i form any decisive opinions about how billy taupe's betrayal might have incited snowbaird in some ways. i kinda think lucy gray might have played up the flirting, the charm, the connection between her and coriolanus for the cameras and the audience, knowing billy taupe would be watching. i'm not saying their whole relationship was a sham- more that she started being extra friendly to coryo to get on billy taupe's nerves, which then led to coriolanus catching feelings and eventually lucy gray feeling something of her own back towards him. good for her, use him, abuse him, lose him! this is also interesting because a games-centric relationship played up for the cameras spiraling into something real? i wonder where we've seen that before. and we all know suzanne loves her parallels.

long story short i think the truth of snowbaird is that they were never meant to last. i don't think there's any possible timeline in which they could. because coriolanus needs to lock her down and lucy gray needs to be free.

[jacobwren]

“Whether we are convinced by the metaphors selected by Freud and Lacan, a general effect of these psychoanalytic accounts, celebrated by literary critics perhaps more than clinicians, is to foreground the ways in which behaviour associated with a time when we could not survive on our own determines whom we love as adults and how. Indeed, it is the famous mechanism of repetition you’ve surely heard about: the treatment you receive at the hands of a caregiver becomes the action you associate with someone who loves you. Thus, in this account, do parents win for their children their future partners. If a parent physically abuses their child, that child will seek a lover who will do the same, even if that child is able to recognize that physical abuse is, in the abstract and rationally speaking, harmful and in no way loving. Because a child is compelled to understand an abusive parent’s behaviour as loving, because to survive a child must view a caregiver as loving. Contemporary psychoanalytic approaches, even if circumspect about Freud and Lacan, often privilege a sort of practical suspicion designed to help the patient explore self-defeating narratives adopted as a protective veil during childhood. To undergo treatment, then, is a bit like stopping where one is on the path of life and turning to face something that one has for so long kept at one’s back. It’s the thing you think is going to kill you. That thing. That unspeakable thing. The one thing that lacks contingency and seems fated and is therefore “yours.” In a way, you’re not wrong. In the past, it could have killed you, when you were small and vulnerable, but it cannot harm you anymore. What is harmful is that you run from it – and that you run, uncannily, toward it, as in a waking dream. What is harmful is that when you find another person you believe figures this thing for you, you fall deeply in love with them. And the whole world falls away.” ― Lucy Ives, An Image of My Name Enters America

[talesfromtheenchantedforest]

sry but I really appreciate your insight into the relationship between galehaut and lancelot. would you mind sharing more about them

I think Lancelot and Galehaut’s relationship is perpetually fascinating - always happy to talk about it! This got so long, enjoy!

I think it’s impossible to talk about Lancelot as a character without talking about courtly love. Unlike practically any Arthurian character, we know exactly how and when he entered the Arthurian mythos: in the late 12th century, Countess Marie of Troyes commissioned Chrétien de Troyes to write a new romance: Lancelot, Knight of the Cart.

[Chrétien] tells us plainly that the countess furnished him with both the subject matter (matière) and the manner of treatment (sens) and that he is simply trying to carry out her desire and intention. His statement is phrased as a compliment, but it is not difficult to see beneath the surface a note of apology for writing on a theme theme with which he was not wholly in sympathy. The poem is an elaborate illustration of the doctrine of courtly love as it was introduced into northern France by Eleanor and Marie. Here for the first time in Chrétien’s works we find the glorification of the love of one man for another man’s wife, a situation which Fenis, in Cligès, had declared to be intolerable. Chrétien clearly found the theme distasteful and left the poem unfinished; the conclusion is by Godefroy de Laigny. — John Jay Parry, in the introduction to his translation of The Art of Courtly Love

Lancelot enters the Arthurian literary tradition as, first and foremost, an exemplar of the ideal of courtly love. Courtly love, as it was popularized in northern France and England by Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughter Countess Marie, is pure (purer, indeed, than a married relationship, which is built on obligation, not Love), and brings out the best qualities of the knight who is in love, driving him to the heights of chivalry and heroic deeds. The knight, furthermore, enthusiastically sacrifices his safety, his, body, and his honor, for his lady, in an extreme display of self-abnegation. Knight of the Cart is Marie of Troyes’ treatise on courtly love, using Lancelot to embody these principles. Lancelot is the best knight because his love for Guenevere drives him to the height of great deeds. And Lancelot can only rescue Guenevere because he is willing to sacrifice his very honor for her by riding in a cart for condemned criminals (an event which may sound trivial, but the stakes were high: “whoever was convicted of any crime was placed upon a cart and dragged through the streets, and he lost henceforth all his legal rights, and was never afterward heard, honored, or welcomed in any court” [Lancelot, Knight of the Cart, trans. W. W. Comfort]).

Lancelot does not leave these characteristics behind when he enters the Lancelot-Grail cycle (early 12th century). And in fact, the Lady of the Lake who raises him and gives him training in arms and explicit tutelage in what it means to be a knight, encourages him to find a lover: “you should give your heart to a love that will turn you not into an idle knight but a finer one, for a heart that becomes idle through love loses its daring and therefore cannot attain high things. But he who always strives to better himself and dares to be challenged can attain all high things.” [Lancelot Part I, Ch 28] And of course, he is besotted by the queen Guenevere immediately, so everything appears to be bang on track.

Except! In the middle of Lancelot exerting himself to be worthy of Guenevere, Galehaut appears, seeking to add Arthur’s kingdom to his expansive repertoire, and is succeeding handily. The failure of his conquest comes not from military defeat, but from voluntary self-abnegation at least as profound as riding in a cart for condemned criminals. As immediately and thoughtlessly as Lancelot devotes himself to Guenevere, so profoundly does Galehaut fall for the brave young knight fighting against his own army. He is delighted by the opportunity to sacrifice his own interests for Lancelot’s, exemplified below in Lancelot asking for a favor in exchange for staying on as Galehaut’s companion (Lancelot Part II, Chapter 52):

Lancelot: “My lord, I ask you that as soon as you overcome King Arthur, and his forces are totally unable to recover, as soon as I summon you, you are to ask him for mercy and put yourself entirely in his power” When Galehaut heard this, he was aghast and became very pensive. And the two kings said to him, “My lord, what are you thinking about? There is nothing to be gained from reflection now: you have gone so far that there is no turning back.” “What?” he exclaimed. “Do you suppose I have any regrets? If all the world were mine, I wouldn’t hesitate to give it to him. I was thinking of the splendid thing he said, for never did any man say anything finer. My lord,” he said, “may God never bring me shame, but I beg you not to deprive me of your company, since I would do more to have you with me than any other.”

Galehaut goes on to cheerfully watch his castles and ambition be symbolically destroyed and humble himself to serve in Arthur’s court as a knight (To Arthur: “I prefer to be poor and happy instead of rich and miserable. Retain me with him [Lancelot], if ever I did anything that pleased you; you must do this for me and for him, for I must tell you that all the love I bear you comes to you because of him.” — Lancelot Part II, Chapter 71). Lancelot’s feelings for Galehaut (as, I will add, Guenevere’s feelings for Lancelot) are less explosive — but they are certainly reciprocal. He spends three years with Galehaut in Sorelois, which is longer than he spends anywhere in the entire Prose Lancelot. He weeps, sure that he is not worthy of Galehaut’s love. When he is wounded and scared after his captivity with Morgan le Fay, it is Galehaut he runs to (if, tragically, too late to avert Galehaut’s death of sorrow). When his own world has fallen apart and he is on the brink of death, all he wants is to be buried with Galehaut. Their relationship is courtly, in that Lancelot is now the object of Galehaut’s self-sacrificing devotion. There is the argument to be made (which Galehaut’s advisers certainly make) that the relationship is in fact not an ideal courtly relationship because it is causing Galehaut material harm, rather than making him a better knight — a position that Galehaut clearly disagrees with. He has all the material gain he needs in his beloved: “Galehaut saw wisdom and gain where others saw loss and folly, and no one would have dared make bold to love good knights so much as he” (Lancelot Part III, Chapter 72).

Galehaut’s relationship with Lancelot is set clearly in parallel with Lancelot’s relationship with Guenevere. The text is detailed and complicated in what all of these relationships entail, so I will just try to draw out a few of the things I think illustrate the ways Galehaut and Guenevere’s parallel roles underscore how non-normative Galehaut’s love for Lancelot is. The most explicit tension between Galehaut and Guenevere is given to us symbolically, as a prophecy (In Lancelot Part III, Chapter 75):

Merlin tells us that from the Islands of Jedares, from the home of the Fairy Lady, a wondrous dragon will break forth and go flying left and right over all countries, and wherever he appears everyone will tremble before him. The dragon will fly on to the Adventerous Kingdom, and there he will have grown large and massive and have thirty heads of gold, each finer and more splendid than his original head [this is Galehaut]. Merlin said that there he would be so large that the whole land would darken under the shadow of his body and his wings. He would reach the Adventurous Kingdom after having conquered almost everything, but the wondrous leopard [Lancelot] would stop him and push him back and put him at the mercy of those he had just been so close to defeating. Afterwards, the two would love each other to the point of considering themselves a single thing, each unable to live without the other; but the golden-headed serpent [Guenevere] would come draw the leopard away and take him from his companion and besot his mind. Merlin says this is how the great dragon will die.

This tension simmers under the surface of the first meeting of Galehaut and Guenevere and Lancelot and the Lady Malehaut. Ostensibly Galehaut is bringing Lancelot to meet Guenevere and formalize their extramarital affair; it also formalizes and takes seriously the relationship between Galehaut and Lancelot:

“My lady,” said Galehaut, “he could do you no wrong, but I’ve merely done what you ordered me to do. Now you must hear a request from me, for I told you yesterday that you could soon do more for me than I for you.” “Speak confidently,’ [the queen] said, “for there’s nothing you could request that I wouldn’t do.” “Then you have accepted, my lady,” he said, “to grant me his companionship.” “Indeed,” she replied, ”if you didn’t have that, then you would have profited little by the great sacrifice you made for him” Then she took the knight by the right hand and said, “Galehaut, I give you this knight forever more, except for what I have previously had of him. And you,” she said to the knight, “give your solemn word on this.”

One thing I want to emphasize is how expansive these relationships are, for as long as they coexist. Lancelot does not have to chose between Guenevere and Galehaut, prophecies notwithstanding, because Galehaut will always accommodate them. Guenevere, as someone Lancelot loves, is someone Galehaut cares for. When Guenevere is under attack during the False Guenevere episode, Galehaut is the one she turns to, and Galehaut in turn musters all his resources to make sure she is safe and taken care of. They both love the same man, and they both know it, and nevertheless chose to care for each other as well.

Lancelot is a paragon of courtly love — as the knight in his relationship with Guenevere, and, I would argue, taking the role of the lady, or object of love, in his relationship with Galehaut. What courtly love offers him is the opportunity to fulfill his highest calling — being the greatest knight that ever was. And it is this highest calling, ultimately, that takes him away from Galehaut in the end, not Galehaut losing a straightforward rivalry with Guenevere. Galehaut invites Guenevere to Sorelois, where the three of them live together for the two years during the False Guenevere episode, and when Arthur and Guenevere reconcile, Galehaut follows Lancelot to Arthur’s court rather than allow them to be separated. What takes Lancelot away, rather, is his commitment to the chivalric ideal of adventuring and warfare, which is not something Galehaut can protect him from. And, indeed, this is the thing that first attracted Galehaut to him. He knows practically from the start that he will die for his love, and he decides that the love is more than worth the price.

I’ll just end by drawing on Eli’s (of @queerasfact) beautiful summation of his discussion of Achilles and Patroclus’ relationship in the Iliad: “The Iliad is fundamentally at its core a story of intense love between two men and denying queer readings of this as viable fundamentally guts the experience of reading the text and interacting with mythology at all.” (Queer as Fact, Achilles and Patroclus). The relationship between Lancelot and Galehaut drives the action in parts II and III of the Lancelot-Grail, inviting us into a way of loving that both fits within an established literary convention, and opens a window onto a field of possibilities that are even richer. We leave the Lancelot-Grail cycle with two men sharing a tomb, inscribed:

Here lies the body of Galehaut, the Lord of the Distant Isles, and with him rests Lancelot of the Lake, who, with the exception of his son Galahad, was the best knight who ever entered the kingdom of Logres.

[lilu787788]

Recently, screenrant posted an article about characters in literature who fit the term Daddy, and of course Shadow Daddy won, because there can only be one, and although the author of the article wrote that Darkling is a villain, which I completely disagree with, the whole thing is written positively, so overall I am pleased. However, of course there had to be someone who traditionally sat in the outraged bench and let their imagination run wild. This comment at the top is a perfect example of how much false puritanism and a parochial approach to fiction can obscure the understanding of complex characters and literary themes. What immediately caught my eye was the attempt to impose one, "correct" interpretation of the character of Aleksander - with full conviction in his own right and without a shadow of a reflection on the depth of his psychology, which is not only simplified, but also dangerously authoritarian. I was also horrified by the way the commentator tries to shame others for seeing Aleksander as something more than just a "villain". Reducing this character to the role of a mere “manipulator” and " pimp teenager” (which in itself is an absurd simplification and shows the high level of this person) ignores not only his tragic dimension, but also the fact that people have the right to interpret fiction in a variety of ways – especially when the character has been written as morally ambiguous. This tone of commentary - evaluative, exclusive, almost accusatory is not a form of constructive criticism. It is a form of intimidation, and there is no point in kidding yourself here. Using such language is a way to make others feel guilty or ashamed for seeing something different, feeling something different, interpreting history in their own way. It is an attempt to force people to abandon their emotions and sensitivity under pressure, to adapt to the only “correct” interpretation that this commentator is trying to impose. And yet it is precisely this diversity of perspectives that makes literature so rich. The paradox of this situation cannot be ignored: others are accused of “romanticizing” violence, while at the same time using linguistic violence – aggression, contempt, condemnation towards people who simply want to talk about difficult emotions and relationships contained in the story. Such an attitude is not an expression of a lack of morality. It is an expression of humanity. Therefore, suggesting that understanding or sympathy for this character is a moral transgression is no longer a conversation about books. It is an attempt to control and silence people who feel differently. Everyone has the right to their own reception of art. And taking away this right is not caring about literature – it is intellectual violence.

I will add at the end a comment from my friend that for some reason was deleted, but fortunately she conveyed her opinion very beautifully.

[skythesnake]

Having thoughts about Moash and the flack he gets, not as a person, but as a character.

Spoilers ahead for the whole stormlight archive.

To start, I hate him deeply for his person. I think he deserves eternal exile on Braize for what he's done. I fully align with the Fuck Moash mentality. That said, I genuinely like him as a character and for the role he plays in the story. I'm not a professional at literary analysis, but I do really like to deconstruct stories in the context of how it fits together. I apologize if I get terminology wrog and I would welcome a discussion, I'm curious to see rebuttals and agreements to my points.

Moash is a villanous foil to Kaladin's heroism. I’ve seen comments on the fact that he, the only one who seems to *keep* pushing on social change is the villain. I think that's almost completely incorrect, and it also ignores the ideology that Moash pushes. First, he isn’t the only one pushing for societal change. Kaladin may stop hating ALL lighteyes, but he, as a darkeyed man, gains some of the highest respect - which alone changes the dynamic at least a little. And he doesn't conform to the current ideals, which sets a precedent and an example to everyone else. Jasnah is also noted to be changing policy regarding slaves, and Dalinar wrote a whole damned book. This is slightly different from darkeyes vs. lighteyes, but the point of that power struggle is that discrimination based on an arbitrary fact - no matter how "good" your reason - is bad. Progress is progress. I want to make it clear that I'm in no way saying that it can't or shouldn't move faster. I'm not implying that people don't need to wake up and check their own prejudice. But I *am* saying that when you grow up a certain way, spend your whole life that way, it's hard to change, even if it'sjust because it'shard to admit when you've done and said some icky stuff, as Brandon Sanderson himself knows.

I also dislike the idea that Moash isn't the villain for having this ideology. Because, yes, to a certain extent, it's correct - wanting equality is important and good. But, the thing that I don't see acknowledged is that Moash doesn't want equality, he wants revenge, which means the conversation is entirely different. Would he be happier if there was equality? absolutely. But as he shows, time and time again, is that all he really wants is to make other suffer like he has. And I think it's important to acknowledge why.

Something that is conveniently forgotten by most people (including me, at times) is that extremism is Bad. You see this in the book with Kaladin's mentality of destroying himself to protect others, you see it in Shallan ignoring all her problems, and you see it, most glaringly, in the Skybreakers, specifically Nale's version. Moash /began/ with a deep desire to do what was right, to bring about justice and equality to those around him. But as he grew more bitter, that narrative twisted and turned into revenge. It turned into an equally bad idea that is VERY common in real life, "They have harmed Us and therefore They are bad and We are good." Which is the very thing that Kaladin has to overcome!

Another issue I see is that Moash isn't very nuanced. He's called flat, and boring, with only ome goal. I disagree for a few reasons. From an in-universe perspective, he is that way /intentionally/. At the end of his arc, when he's Vyre he is purposefully shoving progress aside. The reason he's so morally flat is because he actively chose to be. He answers every question with one answer and you can see that because when Odium's protection goes away, he has a crisis! He has a meltdown that results in him blocking it out in the same way. He cannot handle the idea that he might be wrong anymore and so after his magical protect is gone, he puts up mortal ones, which are in some ways, even tougher to break. But aside from that, he isn't flat in the beginning! He starts as a very human character, trying to get justice and ending up in the wrong situation. He laughs and chats with his friends, he develops a genuine connection to Kaladin and the flattening of his morality is completely intentional on his part.

From a writer's perspective, moash can't really be redeemed - which I see some discourse on - because he is a direct foil to Kaladin. He's a mirror villain, two very, very similar people who started at nearly the same place and grew in opposing directions because of how they reacted. Moash is a good antagonist to Kaladin because they are so similar. The only difference between them is that Kaladin looked at their broken world and decided he was going to fix things by helping them grow in a better direction, knowing that would take a long time, while Moash looked at their broken world and decided he needed to fix things by burning the whole thing down and starting over, because anything less would be too slow for him

I just got frustrated with seeing people dunk on how Moash was written without examining why he was like that, both in-universe and out. Yes, there are issues, like every piece of art, but I thought the way he developed alongside Kaladin was actually quite cool, and while I wasn't pleased with how things ended (I had to close the book and take a break when Teft died) I was satisfied with it, because it felt natural for things to come to that conclusion based on the paths they were both on.

[three--rings]

So for obvious reasons I have been thinking about IWTV a lot recently, and thinking about the books a lot. I was OBSESSED with The Vampire Chronicles when I was in middle school, into early high school.

But something that I think may not really be clear to people reading them now, or to people who only know the show, is that there's a reason the books got away with being so incredibly queer and being Bestsellers in the 70s, 80s and 90s: there was no sex.

If you're unaware, in the books, Anne Rice's vampires cannot have sex. They are impotent, sex in the human way is just not a drive they have anymore. Instead physical connection is all about sharing blood. (For the record I think the show is right to have changed this. It's not worried about censorship on that front and having sex as part of the relationships makes them way easier to communicate to the audience.)

So while the books are very homoerotic, homoromantic, and at times quite suggestive, they never have on page sexual activity, they never label relationships with explicit romantic terms like lover or husband, characters never declare their sexuality. (In early books at least.)

What this meant is that The Vampire Chronicles existed in this Plausible Deniability space where anyone who had read them realized they were gay, but they weren't LABELED AS SUCH and therefore mainstream audiences didn't know that was part of it.

So me and my friends could be 11 or 12 carrying these books around our Catholic school and didn't get anything said about it. One of my English teachers had read the first one, and we talked about it, and her only complaint was that it wasn't philosophical enough for her. But she was cool.

So, I KNEW Louis and Lestat were in love. I knew Lestat had male and female lovers. And it affected me PROFOUNDLY because it was the first depiction of queerness as anything but a joke I ever encountered.

But it wasn't "gay fiction." If it was the target of right wing criticism it was about being satanic, not queer.

I was thinking of the 4th book in the series, which I read when it was first released, in 1992. In it, (spoilers) Lestat becomes human again. And he turns to his human openly gay friend David and says "omg I'm human. Let's HAVE SEX!"

Reading that and the fucking THIRD EYE that opened for me is BURNED into my memory. I remember how scandalous that was, because it was ON THE PAGE. Here was a book with men talking about having sex with each other. And I was reading it! And it was just casual and nonchalant. (Unfortunately they don't actually do it, to my young disappointment.) Despite all the queerness that i'd experienced (and recognized) already in the series, THAT was shocking.

You can't know what that was LIKE to a kid in 1992, before the internet was anything more than bulletin boards, before fanfiction online was really a thing. And these weren't niche novels, things only people in liberal literary circles read. They were massive, massive bestsellers.

IDK, you know. I have given Anne Rice a LOT of shit in my time, and she's deserved a lot of it. But she also performed some miracles of representation that affected a lot of people. IDK if I even have a point. Just. I was remembering what it felt like. To encounter a gay character in fiction for the first time, talk about gay sex for the first time.

I don't think it's an accident that me and my friend who shared this obsession both ended up being bi. We passed the books back and forth and pointed out the really juicy sections and other people were never quite as into these books as we were even when we made them read them.