#**​reader is not explicitly male or female so it can be interpreted either way**

[bigshymen]

SAM SULEK X FEM READER WHO DOES PILATES

summary : sam, your boyfriend, is always out filming workout videos for his viewers and you begin to miss him. naturally, you drag him to a pilates class with you.

fit reader , oneshot , established relationship , suggestive topics , no smut

As a bodybuilding influencer, your boyfriend, Sam, was on top of it and as a result always going to events and busy filming things from his meals to his car rides and of course, getting his pump on at the gym. And as much as you’d like to get on top of him, that doesn’t last very long. While you’re proud of his success, you missed your oversized-care bear dearly.

This gave you the idea to surprise him by dragging him to a pilates class - something you’d been doing for years that you knew he’d never tried. It didn’t bother you that he had no interest in it, but what did was his underestimation of pilates. That was going to change today.

“Hurry up Sam! Don’t make us late.” You whinned, practically hauling him out the door as he grumbled unenthusiastically about not wanting to pay more for essentially “bending and stretching.”

The sight of someone as tiny as you pulling a giant like him inside the studio, and succeeding, was a comical display for the women already present in class, earning a few whispers. His massive frame towered over the pilates enthusiasts who were petite in comparison.

Sam reluctantly followed you hand-in-hand and as you two settled onto your respective mats, you couldn’t help but giggle at the sight of him slightly looking out of place admist the sea of colorful Alo bottoms and tank tops.

“Good evening everyone!” The instructor chirped before introducing herself to any newcomers as Alexis. She began to lead the class through a series of movements, explaining each one with precision in a soothing voice. You glanced over at Sam, who was already struggling to keep up with the intricate poses.

Despite his strength and overwhelming size, the graceful movements of pilates proved to be quite challenging for him. You tried to stifle your laughter as he wobbled during the balance exercises and grunted loudly through the core strengthening sequences, earning side looks from the women on neighboring mats.

But Sam was determined to prove you wrong, pushing himself to keep pace with the rest of the class. Sweat dripped down his brow as he tried to retain focus on Alexis’s instructions, his muscles trembling with exertion.

As the class progressed you couldn’t help but feel pride watching Sam be bested. He may have been a powerhouse in the gym, but pilates was a whole different ballgame - one that required flexibility and control rather than sheer brute strength.

Though you had to admit, you enjoyed seeing him like this a lot more then you probably should. Sam in motion is… distracting. You stopped pretending to pose and your eyes linger to his curly locks, wet with sweat and cradling his pink face. It’s a rare occurrence when you see his hair without the cap obscuring it. Simplified, his face can best be described as masculine. But not the overbearing hypermasculinity bodybuilders often seem to have.

Sam’s profile is delightfully male. Despite his skin being almost completely littered with acne scars and wearing a seemingly permanent flushed-color, there’s no denying he’s handsome, facial wise. The shorts he wore were always obscenely short and suddenly you’re hyper aware of the ladies around the two of you. You hoped they weren’t having any ideas, unless they fancied one inchers.

After what seemed like eternity of stretching and contorting, at least for Sam, the class came to a close. He flopped onto his mat with a dramatic sigh, the sound startling you and a few of the women but he seemed too tired to be embarrassed.

“That was tough,” He finally admitted after he gave up on sitting upright, panting deeply as his muscles throughly protest. The sheepish grin spreading across his face betrayed his body language.

You felt a smile forming on your own lips. Leaning over to give him a kiss on his scarlet cheek, you linger for a moment. It’s accompanied with a gentle pat against his solid chest. “You did great, hun. I’m happy you joined me.”

One of the young women peering discreetly from the left side of the room cringed.

[soundsfaebutokay]

So I've recc'd this video before, but it deserves its own post because it's one of my favorite things on youtube. It's a Tedx Talk by comics writer, editor, and journalist Jay Edidin, and I really think that it will connect with a lot of people here.

If you live and breathe stories of all kinds, you might like this.

If you care about media representation, you might like this.

If you're neurodivergent, you might like this.

If you're interested in a gender transition story that veers from the norm, you might like this.

If you love the original Leverage and especially Parker, and understand how important it is that a character like her exists, you will definitely like this.

Transcript below the cut:

You Are Here: The Cartography of Stories

by Jay Edidin

I am autistic. And what this means in practice is that there are some things that are easier for me than they are for most people, and a great many things that are somewhat harder, and these affect my life in more or less overt ways. As it goes, I'm pretty lucky. I've been able to build a career around special interests and granular obsession. My main gig at the moment is explaining superhero comics continuity and publishing history for which work I am somehow paid in actual legal currency—which is both a triumph of the frivolous in an era of the frantically pragmatic, and a job that's really singularly suited to my strengths and also to my idiosyncrasies.

I like comics. I like stories in general, because they make sense to me in ways that the rest of the world and my own mind often don't. Self-knowledge is not an intuitive thing for me. What sense of self I have, I've built gradually and laboriously and mostly through long-term pattern recognition. For decades, I didn't even really have a self-image. If you'd asked me to draw myself, I would eventually have given you a pair of glasses and maybe a very messy scribble of hair, and that would've been about it. But what I do know—backwards, forwards, and in pretty much every way that matters—are stories. I know how they work. I understand their language, their complex inner clockwork, and I can use those things to extrapolate a sort of external compass that picks up where my internal one falls short. Stories—their forms, their structure, the sense of order inherent to them—give me the means to navigate what otherwise, at least for me, would be an impassable storm of unparsable data. Or stories are a periscope, angled to access the parts of myself I can't intuitively see. Or stories are a series of mirrors by which I can assemble a composite sketch of an identity I rarely recognize whole...which is how I worked out that I was transgender, in my early thirties, by way of a television show.

This is my story. And it's about narrative cartography, and representation, and why those things matter. It's about autism and it's about gender and it's about how they intersect. And it's about the kinds of people we know how to see, and the kinds of people we don't. It's not the kind of story that gets told a lot, you might hear a lot, because the narrative around gender transition and dysphoria in our culture is really, really prescriptive. It's basically the story of the kid who has known for their whole life that they're this and not that, and that story demands the kind of intuitive self-knowledge that I can't really do, and a kind of relationship to gender that I don't really have—which is part of why it took me so long to figure my own stuff out.

So, to what extent this story, my story has a beginning, it begins early in 2014 when I published an essay titled, "I See Your Value Now: Asperger's and the Art of Allegory." And it explored, among other things, the ways that I use narrative and narrative structures to navigate real life. And it got picked up in a number of fairly prominent places that got linked, and I casually followed the ensuing discussion. And I was surprised to discover that readers were fairly consistently assuming I was a man. Now, that in itself wasn't a new experience for me, even though at the time I was writing under a very unambiguously female byline. It had happened in the letter columns of comics I'd edited. It had happened when a parody Twitter account I'd created went viral. When I was on staff at Wired, I budgeted for fancy scotch by putting a dollar in a box every time a reader responded in a way that made it clear they were assuming I was a man in response to an article where my name was clearly visible, and then I had to stop doing that because it happened so often I couldn't afford to keep it up. But in all of those cases, the context, you know, the reasons were pretty obvious. The fields I'd worked in, the beats I covered, they were places where women had had to fight disproportionally hard for visibility and recognition. We live in a culture that assumes a male default, so given a neutral voice and a character limit, most readers will assume a male author.

But this was different, because this wasn't just a book I'd edited, it wasn't a story I'd reported—it was me, it was my story. And it made me uncomfortable, got under my skin in ways that the other stuff really hadn't. And so I did what I do when that happens, and I tried to sort of reverse-engineer it to look at the conclusions and peel them back to see the narratives behind them and the stories that made them tick. And I started this, I started this by going back to the text of the essay, and you know, examining it every way I could think of: looking at craft, looking at content. And in doing so, I was surprised to realize that while I had written about a number of characters with whom I identified closely, that every single one of those characters I'd written about was male. And that surprised me even more than the responses to the essay had, because I've spent my career writing and talking and thinking about gender and representation in popular media. In 2014, I'd been the feminist gadfly of an editorial department and multiple mastheads. I'd been a founding board member of an organization that existed to advocate for more and better representation of women and girls in comics characters and creators. And most of my favorite characters, the ones I'd actively seek out and follow, were women. Just not, apparently, the characters I saw myself in.

Now I still didn't realize it was me at this point. Remember: self-knowledge, not very intuitive for me. And while I had spent a lot of time thinking about gender, I'd never really bothered to think much about my own. I knew academically that the way other people read and interpreted my gender affected and had influenced a lifetime of social and professional interactions, and that those in turn had informed the person I'd grown up into during that time. But I really believed, like I just sort of had in the back of my head, that if you peeled away all of that social conditioning, you'd basically end up with what I got when I tried to draw a self-portrait. So: a pair of glasses, messy scribble of hair, and in this case, maybe also some very strong opinions about the X-Men. I mean, I knew something was off. I'd always known something was off, that my relationship to gender was messy and uncomfortable, but gender itself struck me as messy and uncomfortable, and it had never been a large enough part of how I defined myself to really feel like something that merited further study, and I had deadlines, and...so it was always on the back burner. So, I looked, I looked at what I had, at this improbable group of exclusively male characters. And I looked and I figured that if this wasn't me, then it had to be a result of the stories I had access to, to choose from, and the entertainment landscape I was looking at. And the funny thing is, I wasn't wrong, exactly. I just wasn't right either.

See, the characters I'd written about had one other significant trait in common aside from their gender, which is that they were all more or less explicitly, more or less heavily coded as autistic. And I thought, "Ah, yes. This explains it. This is under representation in fiction echoing under representation in life and vice versa." Because the characteristics that I'd honed in on, that I particularly identified with in these guys, were things like emotional unavailability and social awkwardness and granular obsession, and all of those are characteristics that are seen as unsympathetic and therefore unmarketable in female characters. Which is also why readers were assuming that I was a man.

Because, you see, here's the thing. I'm not the only one who uses stories to navigate the world. I'm just a little more deliberate about it. For humans, stories formed the bridge between data and understanding. They're where we look when we need to contextualize something new, or to recognize something we're pretty sure we've seen before. They're how we identify ourselves; they're how we locate ourselves and each other in the larger world. There were no fictional women like me; there weren't representations of women like me in media, and so readers were primed not to recognize women like me in real life either.

Now by this point, I had started writing a follow-up essay, and this one was also about autism and narratives, but specifically focused on how they intersected with gender and representation in media. And in context of this essay, I went about looking to see if I could find even one female character who had that cluster of traits I'd been looking for, and I was asking around in autistic communities. And I got a few more or less useful one-off suggestions, and some really, really splendid arguments about semantics and standards, and um...then I got one answer over and over and over in community after community after community. "Leverage," people told me. "You have to watch Leverage."

So I watched Leverage. Leverage is five seasons of ensemble heist drama. It's about a team of very skilled con artists who take down corrupt and powerful plutocrats and the like, and it's a lot of fun, and it's very clever, and it's clever enough that it doesn't really matter that it's pretty formulaic, and I enjoyed it a lot. But what's most important, what Leverage has is Parker.

Parker is a master thief, and she is the best of the best of the best in ways that all of Leverage's characters are the best of the best. And superficially, she looks like the kind of woman you see on TV. So she's young, and she's slender, and she's blonde, and she's attractive but in a sort of approachable way. And all of that familiarity is brilliant misdirection, because the thing is, there are no other women like Parker on TV. Because Parker—even if it's never explicitly stated in the show—Parker is coded incredibly clearly as autistic. Parker is socially awkward. Her speech tends to have limited inflection; what inflection it does have is repetitive and sounds rehearsed a lot of the time. She's not emotionally literate; she struggles with it, and the social skills she develops over the series, she learns by rote, like they're just another grift. When she's not scaling skyscrapers or cartwheeling through laser grids, she wears her body like an ill-fitting suit. Parker moves like me. And Parker, Parker was a revelation—she was a revolution unto herself. In a media landscape where unempathetic women usually exist to either be punished or "loved whole," Parker got to play the crabby savant. And she wasn't emotionally intuitive but it was never ever played as the product of abuse or trauma even though she had survived both of those—it was just part of her, as much as were her hands or her eyes. And she had a genuine character arc. My god, she had a genuine romantic arc, even. And none of that required her to turn into anything other than what she was. And in Parker I recognized a thousand tics and details of my life and my personality...but. I didn't recognize myself.

Why? What difference was there in Parker, you know, between Parker and the other characters I'd written about? Those characters, they'd spanned ethnicities and backgrounds and different media and appearances and the only other characteristic they all had in common was their gender. So that was where I started to look next, and I thought, "Well, okay, maybe, maybe it's masculinity. Maybe if Parker were less feminine, she'd click with me the way those other characters had." So then I tried to imagine a Parker with short hair, who's explicitly butch, and...nothing. So okay, I extended it in what seems like the only logical direction to extend it. I said, "Well, if it's not masculinity, what if it's actual maleness? What if Parker were a man?" Ah. Yeah.

In the end, everything changed, and nothing changed, which is often the way that it goes for me. Add a landmark, no matter how slight, and the map is irrevocably altered. Add a landmark, and paths that were invisible before open wide. Add a landmark, and you may not have moved, but suddenly you know where you are and where you can go.

I wasn't going to tell this story when I started planning this talk. I was gonna tell a similar story, it was about stories, like this is, about narratives and the ways that they influence our culture and vice versa. And it centered around a group of women at NASA who had basically rewritten the narrative around space exploration, and it was a lot more fun, and I still think it was more interesting. But it's also a story you can probably work out for yourselves. In fact it's a story some of you probably have, if you follow that kind of thing, which you probably do given that you're here. And this is a story, my story is not a story that I like to tell. It's not a fun story to talk about because it's very personal and I am a very private person. And it's not universal. And it's not always relatable, and it's definitely not aspirational. And it's not the kind of story that you tend to encounter unless you're already part of it...which is why I'm telling it now. Because the thing is, I'm not the only person who uses stories to parse the world and navigate it. I'm just a little more deliberate. Because I'm tired of having to rely on composite sketches.

Open your maps. Add a landmark. Reroute accordingly.

[onceupona-chaos]

Shackles and bridges: SJM and the mating bond

I know there are a lot of posts about this, but I wanted to do one myself, so here we go.

DISCLAIMER: This is my interpretation as someone who is a very new member of this fandom and has more contact with “common readers”, since I was one myself until a couple of months ago. Everything here is based on textual evidence and my experience as an avid reader, so take a step back from any ship. But I will talk about the probability of a rejected mating bond, so if that's not your cup of tea, be warned. English is not my first language, so forgive me for any mistakes.

Be kind!

Also, minor spoiler for CC.

The mating bond is the most important element in SJM’s books and it's present in most of the main endgame couples. Aelin and Rowan, Feyre and Rhys, Nesta and Cassian, for example.

It’s described as this precious, sacred bridge between souls - or is it?

SJM is a very formulaic writer. We can draw several parallels with her writing, due to the way she structures her scenes and chooses her words.

We saw this explicitly with Nesta and Cassian in the Solstice scene, which is very similar to the one between Feyre and Rhysand: an emotional discussion, kissing tears away, lovemaking with “say it” and “you’re mine”, mating bond glowing between them, on and on.

Different characters, but same scenario, same process, same wording, almost the same scene.

However, considering that every mated couple until now ends up together HEA, I have the feeling that SJM is starting to explore the mating bond in different ways, otherwise every one of her books would be too… similar? In a way that the reader wouldn’t be surprised anymore, it would be the same story over and over.

To the ones who are faithful to those characters and to her books (her fans), this isn’t exactly a problem, but we have to consider the other readers as well, the bigger audience (SJM sold millions of copies, so not everyone who reads her books is engaged online).

For that exact reason, to approach a narrative element in a different way is very common among writers.

I’ll give you an example with Cassandra Clare and the parabatai bond (SPOILERS from TDA): the parabatai bond is an oath between friends who swear to protect each other. In TMI and TID, we have this bond between friends (Jace and Alec/ Will and Jem) that are almost brothers. However, in TDA, we have two parabatai (Julian and Emma) falling in love with each other, which is extremely forbidden.

The different ways a writer can approach the same elements are important to keep the readers engaged - not the reader who is a fan, but especially the occasional reader. Otherwise, it would be the “if you’ve read one, you’ve read them all” kind of thing, which is no bueno.

With that in mind, I really think SJM is starting to explore/ approach different sides of the mating bond.

Mate—not husband. The Fae had mates: an unbreakable bond, deeper than marriage, that lasted beyond death. (Heir of Fire/ ToG)

“But if they’re blessed, they’ll find their mate—their equal, their match in every way. High Fae wed without the mating bond, but if you find your mate, the bond is so deep that marriage is … insignificant in comparison.”

Another proof that SJM is formulaic: in both ToG and ACOTAR, the bond is presented for the first time in comparison to marriage, as something deeper and sacred.

However, Bryce, main character of CC (SJM book published before ACOSF), looks at it very differently:

“And at least he’s not some psychotic alphahole who will demand a three- day sex marathon and then call me his mate, lock me in his house, and never let me out again.” Which was why Reid—human, okay-at-sex Reid—was perfect.

This is such a contrast. To Bryce, the mating bond would take her freedom away (keep that in mind).

I’m not saying Bryce won’t have a mate or anything like that, but we don’t start reading CC with the same vision about the mating bond presented in the other books: a sacred bond, deeper than marriage. Bryce couldn’t care less about that, not once she wondered if Hunt is her mate.

Therefore, I don’t think SJM finally writing a different story about the mating bond so unthinkable. On the contrary, we see writers doing that all the time.

Also, I’m not saying Elain will reject it, but SJM is not only approaching the mating bond in different ways now, but she already structured a very solid base for a mating bond rejection to happen if she wants to:

ACOWAR

“You said your mother and father were wrong for each other; Tamlin said his own parents were wrong for each other.” I peeled off my dressing robe. “So it can’t be a perfect system of matching. What if”—I jerked my chin toward the window, to my sister and the shadowsinger in the garden—“that is what she needs? Is there no free will? What if Lucien wishes the union but she doesn’t?”

“A mating bond can be rejected”.

SJM already wrote a whole scene to explain the mating bond and how, for some people, is not this sacred thing and it can be rejected. Not only that, she directly approached that Elain could reject it if she wanted to, and that scene involved Lucien and Azriel.

“You are his mate. Do you even know what that means?”

“It means nothing,” Elain said, her voice breaking. “It means nothing. I don’t care who decided it or why they did—”

“You belong to him.”

“I belong to no one. But my heart belongs to you.“

Also in ACOWAR, Elain makes herself very clear: she would have ignored/ rejected the mating bond right there if Graysen still wanted a future with her, because she loved him. She would have chosen to follow her heart without hesitation.

The funny thing is that Azriel - Elain's current love interest - never saw that scene, never saw how Elain vigorously rejected Lucien for someone she loved or the way Graysen rejected her (I’ll leave this information to you).

ACOFAS

Those doe-brown eyes turned toward me. Sharper than I’d ever seen them.

“And that entitles him to my time, my affections?”

“No.” I blinked.

Her mouth tightened, the only sign of anger in her graceful countenance. “I don’t want a mate. I don’t want a male.”

Months go by and Elain is still uncomfortable with the bond.

ACOSF

“I am not always in this city to see my mate.” The last two words dripped with discomfort.

Her brown eyes were wary. Usually, that look was reserved for Lucien.

Elain only shrank further into herself, no trace of that newfound boldness to be seen.

At this point, it’s clear: the question "what if the Cauldron was wrong?" didn’t come out of nowhere, not only for Azriel, but in the narrative as well.

SJM had been slowly hinted at for three books now. I know she can change her mind, but if she wants to write about it, she made sure to write the perfect opportunity:

SJM already wrote a scene about the possibility of Elain rejecting the bond, that involved Elain, Lucien and Azriel, so it’s not coming from nowhere;

Lucien compared how different Elain is from the female who he had really loved;

They are both uncomfortable around each other;

Elain is romantically interested in someone else, who was part of that scene back in ACOWAR when we were presented to the possibility;

This someone else (Azriel) is interested in her;

SJM made sure to tie the romantic plot (Elain’s mating bond) with a political plot (Blood Duel);

The political plot is connected to the overarching plot (Autumn Court, Beron and Eris/ Koschei);

Mostly important: Elain is showing for three books that she doesn't want the bond;

"I don't want a mate. I don't want a male."

She literally said that with all the letters.

We can see this dichotomy between shackles (no freedom) x bridge (a connection) regarding Lucien as well.

"(Jesminda) She had chosen him. Elain had been … thrown at him."

He said that Elain had been thrown at him and also that they were shackled.

“Give her time to accept it.”

“To accept a life shackled to me?” (ACOFAS)

And then right in the next book (ACOSF) we have this:

“Well, I didn’t have a choice in being shackled to you, either.”

The declaration slammed into her. Shackled.(…)

Shackled.

Words beckoned, sharp as knives, begging for her to grab one and plunge it into his chest. Make him hurt as much as that one word hurt her.

SJM emphasized what that one word meant by repeating it and using italics. It’s another side of a mating bond: not a bridge of connection, but shackles with no freedom, no choice.

If Nesta was that hurt when Cassian (someone she loves) said that he didn’t get a choice in being "shackled” to her, can you imagine how is it for Elain and to actually have this bond with someone she don't love? And to Lucien as well?

The thing is in terms of storytelling, and by that I mean the plot, it’s undeniable that we already have everything that’s necessary to approach the matter of the mating bond in a way the reader has never seen before.

It’s a huge possibility, one that would make the regular readers interested (we have to remember that, not everyone who reads those books is engaged. They read them when it’s appealing).

If you want to look deeper, we can see little clues that point to that narrative path, too:

Elain shall wed for love and beauty.

The bond Elain had chosen.

Elain cut in sharply, “I am not a child to be fought over.”

Now, why hasn't Elain rejected the bond?

Because a writer doesn’t waist a good plot like that. Simple as that.

Let me tell you: SJM won’t waist that plot because a part of the fandom doesn’t like Elain, because 1) the online fandom itself is just a part of the readers; 2) inside the online fandom there are people who dislike Elain, who are neutral about her and people who like her; 3) SJM already know some people hate Elain, otherwise she wouldn’t have wrote this:

You think Elain is boring?

I think she’s kind, I’ll take kindness over nastiness any day. But I also think we haven’t seen all she has to offer yet.

SJM already told us she likes to write about disliked characters. She will write the story she wants to write and ACOSF is the major proof of that. If it’s a rejection or not, only she knows, everything could happen.

But SJM has been writing about mating bonds for years, do you really think the first time we get to see a rejection it would be for someone else’s POV? Or in a minor plot as if it isn’t a big deal? Especially when this rejection is directly related to a political plot and to the overarching plot?

No, not when SJM has enough material to write 700 pages and more, not when she has the opportunity to make a whole book out of this, one that is something entirely new for the reader, not when SJM built the perfect opportunity herself.

[grandinventor]

sorry to show up announced but from a reddit AMA with adam christopher, he was asked “My question is about Wyman! Was Wyman's gender purposely left unsaid so that we could all choose for ourselves, or will we eventually know for sure? Or perhaps Wyman is neither male or female? Regardless, I hope I can at least cling to my headcanon that Wyman is female, it gives great joy to my lesbian self to imagine Emily with another woman.” and he responded with, “I've talked about Wyman below, so check there for more detail, but Wyman's gender is purposefully left unsaid, yes. Let your headcanon go wild :)” but wyman’s gender was also confirmed to be left ‘open to player interpretation’ and doesn’t canonically have pronouns and that any pronouns given to wyman in canon are a mistake as it should be open to player choice so they’re technically not they/them but they’re also not not they/them

https://www.reddit.com/r/dishonored/comments/56zdra/i_am_adam_christopher_novelist_and_comic_writer/ + an interview i CANNOT find for the LIFE OF ME but i will send it if i find

Okay hm, I see. I thought that with Wyman being referred to as they/them later on in the novels meant that they really are non-binary and back in 2016 when only one novel was out people didn't know (hence the huge discourse), but if the writer intended their gender to be up to interpretation, I guess that's what it is? This is from 2016 though so I guess???

I honestly don't like the way companies do this cop out on representation by leaving it up to the readers interpretation or in many cases what's called playersexual where instead of saying a char is explicitly bi, they make them romancable by a player of either gender (Skyrim and Fallout 4, however I still would say they are bi because I am an evil bisexual like that 😌). Wish the writer actually committed to making Wyman non-binary, but as it is, Emily can still canonically be any sexuality and Wyman can be any gender so I guess it does count as some kind of LGBTA+ representation?

I did go on the wiki now and read all the way in the trivia and for some reason the French, German and Russian translations refer to Wyman as he/him or make them a man explicitly. Like I might understand why the Russian did cause it's similar to my language, but it's strange that Arkane was okay with the French and German translation referring to them as he/him. Maybe because a lot of languages do not actually have a way to refer to people in neutral terms (in my language there is almost no way to refer neutrally to someone because the masculine is the same as the neutral way)

But like you said this doesn't mean Wyman is not non-binary either, though I wish it was #confirmed like Harvey confirmed a bunch of things back in the day.

[raptured-night]

Hi! I’m part of the lgbtq+ community and Severus is my favorite HP character and I was wondering (if you have the time and feel obliged) if you could please give me a few examples of how he’s queer? It’s been a few years since I reread the books, and def before I came out, so I’m a little in the dark here lol Thanks!!

First of all, I just wanted to apologize for how long it has taken me to properly respond to your ask. I’ve been dealing with some ongoing health issues that have turned me into something of a moody writer. I’ll get random spurts of energy and inspiration and then hit a wall of absolute writer’s block assisted by a major case of executive dysfunction every single time I try to respond to the multiple asks languishing in my inbox. Fortunately, I found myself involved in a discussion just today that addressed your ask so perfectly that I wanted to share it with you.  In the very least, that discussion has also managed to shake off my writer’s block temporarily so that I have found myself in the right head-space to finally be able to give this lovely ask the thought and attention that I feel it deserves. 

Although, in regards to the Snape discourse I linked above, I feel that I should warn you in advance that the discussion was prompted by an anti-Snape poster who made a rather ill-thought meme (I know there are many in the Snapedom who would rather just avoid seeing anti-Snape content altogether, so I try to warn when I link people to debates and discussions prompted by anti-posts) but the thoughtful responses that the anti-Snape poster unintentionally generated from members of the Snapedom (particularly by @deathdaydungeon whose critical analyses of Snape and, on occasions, other Harry Potter characters is always so wonderfully nuanced, thought-provoking, and well-considered), are truly excellent and worth reading, in my opinion. Also, as I fall more loosely under the “a” (I’m grey-ace/demisexual) of the lgbtqa+ flag and community I would prefer to start any discussions about Snape as a queer character or as a character with queer coding by highlighting the perspectives of people in the Snapedom who are actually queer before sharing any thoughts of my own.

In addition, I also wanted to share a few other posts where Snape’s queer coding has been discussed by members of the Snapedom in the past (and likely with far more eloquence than I could manage in this response of my own).

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Along with an excellent article in Vice by Diana Tourjée, in which a case for Snape being trans is convincingly argued. 

Importantly, you’ll notice that while some of these discussions do argue the possibility of Snape being a queer or trans character others may only discuss the way that Snape’s character is queer coded. That is because there is a distinct but subtle difference between: “This character could be queer/lgbtq+” and: “This character has queer/lgbtq+ coding” one which is briefly touched on in the first discussion that I linked you to. However, I would like to elaborate a bit here just what I mean when I refer to Snape as a character with queer coding. As while Rowling has never explicitly stated that she intended to write Snape as lgbtq+ (although there is one interview given by Rowling which could be interpreted as either an unintentional result of trying to symbolically explain Snape’s draw to the dark arts or a vague nod to Snape’s possible bisexuality: "Well, that is Snape's tragedy. ... He wanted Lily and he wanted Mulciber too. He never really understood Lily's aversion; he was so blinded by his attraction to the dark side he thought she would find him impressive if he became a real Death Eater.”) regardless of her intent when she drew upon the existing body of Western literary traditions and tropes for writing antagonists and villains in order to use them as a red-herring for Snape’s character, she also embued his character with some very specific, coded subtext. This is where Death of the Author can be an invaluable tool for literary critics, particularly in branches of literary criticism like queer theory. 

Ultimately, even if Rowling did not intend to write Snape as explicitly queer/lgbtq+ the literary tradition she drew upon in order to present him as a foil for Harry Potter and have her readers question whether he was an ally or a villain has led to Snape being queer coded. Specifically, many of the characteristics of Snape’s character design do fall under the trope known as the “queering of the villain.” Particularly, as @deathdaydungeon, @professormcguire, and other members of the Snapedom have illustrated, Snape’s character not only subverts gender roles (e.g. his Patronus presents as female versus male, Snape symbolically assumes the role of “the mother” in the place of both Lily and later Narcissa when he agrees to protect Harry and Draco, his subject of choice is potions and poisons which are traditionally associated more with women and “witches,” while he seemingly rejects in his first introduction the more phallic practice of “foolish wand-waving,” and indeed Snape is characterized as a defensive-fighter versus offensive, in Arthurian mythology he fulfills the role of Lady of the Lake in the way he chooses to deliver the Sword of Gryffindor to Harry, Hermione refers to his hand-writing as “kind of girly,” his association with spiders and spinners also carries feminine symbology, etc.) but is often criticized or humiliated for his seeming lack of masculinity (e.g. Petunia mocking his shirt as looking like “a woman’s blouse,” which incidentally was also slang in the U.K. similar to “dandy” to accuse men of being effeminate, the Marauders refer to Snape as “Snivellus” which suggests Snape is either less masculine because he cries or the insult is a mockery of what could pass for a stereotypical/coded Jewish feature, his nose, Remus Lupin quite literally instructs Neville on how to “force” a Boggart!Snape, who incidentally is very literally stepping out of a closet-like wardrobe, into the clothing of an older woman and I quoted force because that is the exact phrase he uses, James and Sirius flipping Snape upside down to expose him again presents as humiliation in the form of emasculation made worse by the arrival and defense of Lily Evans, etc.). 

Overall, the “queering of the villain” is an old trope in literature (although it became more deliberate and prevalent in media during the 1950s-60s); however, in modernity, we still can find it proliferating in many of the Disney villains (e.g. Jafar, Scar, Ursula, etc.), in popular anime and children’s cartoons (e.g. HiM from Powerpuff Girls, James from Pokemon, Frieza, Zarbon, the Ginyu Force, Perfect Cell, basically a good majority of villains from DBZ, Nagato from Fushigi Yuugi, Pegasus from Yu Gi Oh, etc.), and even in modern television series and book adaptations, such as the popular BBC’s Sherlock in the character of Moriarty. Indeed, this article does an excellent job in detailing some of the problematic history of queer coded villains. Although, the most simple summary is that: “Queer-coding is a term used to say that characters were given traits/behaviors to suggest they are not heterosexual/cisgender, without the character being outright confirmed to have a queer identity” (emphasis mine). Notably, TV Tropes also identifies this trope under the classification of the “Sissy Villain” but in queer theory and among queer writers in fandom and academia “queering of the villain” is the common term. This brings me back to Snape and his own queer coding; mainly, because Rowling drew upon Western traditions for presenting a character as a suspected villain she not only wrote Snape as queer (and racially/ethnically) coded but in revealing to the reader that Snape was not, in fact, the villain Harry and the readers were encouraged to believe he was by the narrator she incorporated a long history of problematic traits/tropes into a single character and then proceeded to subvert them by subverting reader-expectation in a way that makes the character of Severus Snape truly fascinating. 

We can certainly debate the authorial intent vs. authorial impact where Snape’s character is concerned. Particularly as we could make a case that the polarizing nature of Snape may well be partly the result of many readers struggling against Rowling subverting literary tropes that are so firmly rooted in our Western storytelling traditions that they cannot entirely abandon the idea that this character who all but had the book thrown at him in terms of all the coding that went into establishing him as a likely villain (e.g. similar to Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights, Snape is also coded to be associated with darkness/black colors and to represent danger and volatile/unstable moods, while his class status further characterizes him as an outsider or “foreign other,” and not unlike all those villains of our childhood Disney films which affirmed a more black-and-white philosophy of moral abolutism, such as Scar or Jafar, the ambiguity of Snape’s sexuality coupled with his repeated emasculation signals to the reader that this man should be “evil” and maybe even “predatory,” ergo all the “incel” and friendzone/MRA discourse despite nothing in canon truly supporting those arguments; it seems it may merely be Snape’s “queerness” that signals to some readers that he was predatory or even that “If Harry had been a girl” there would be some kind of danger) is not actually our villain after all. 

Indeed, the very act of having Snape die (ignoring, for the moment, any potential issues of “Bury Your Gays” in a queer analysis of his death) pleading with Harry to “look at him” as he symbolically seems to weep (the man whom Harry’s hyper-masculine father once bullied and mocked as “Snivellus”) memories for Harry to view (this time with his permission) carries some symbolic weight for any queer theory analysis. Snape, formerly portrayed as unfathomable and “secretive,” dies while pleading to be seen by the son of both his first and closest friend and his school-hood bully (a son that Snape also formerly could never see beyond his projection of James) sharing with Harry insight into who he was via his personal memories. For Harry to later go on to declare Snape “the bravest man he ever knew” carries additional weight, as a queer theory analysis makes it possible for us to interpret that as Harry finally recognizing Snape, not as the “queer coded villain” he and the reader expected but rather as the brave queer coded man who was forced to live a double-life in which “no one would ever know the best of him” and who, in his final moments at least, was finally able to be seen as the complex human-being Rowling always intended him to be. 

Rowling humanizing Snape for Harry and the reader and encouraging us to view Snape with empathy opened up the queer coding that she wrote into his character (intentionally or otherwise) in such a way that makes him both a potentially subversive and inspiring character for the lgbtq+ community. Essentially, Snape opens the door for the possibility of reclaiming a tradition of queer coding specific to villains and demonstrating the way those assumptions about queer identity can be subverted. Which is why I was not at all surprised that I was so easily able to find a body of existing discourse surrounding Snape as a queer coded or even as a potentially queer character within the Harry Potter fandom. At least within the Snapedom, there are many lgbtq+ fans of his character that already celebrate the idea of a queer, bi, gay, trans, ace/aro, or queer coded Snape (in fact, as a grey-ace I personally enjoy interpreting Snape through that lens from time-to-time). 

Thank you for your ask @pinkyhatespink and once again I apologize for the amount of time it’s taken me to reply. However, I hope that you’ll find this response answered your question and, if not, that some of the articles and posts from other pro-Snape bloggers I linked you to will be able to do so more effectively. Also, as a final note, although many of the scholarly references and books on queer coding and queering of the villain I would have liked to have sourced are typically behind paywalls, I thought I would list the names of just a few here that I personally enjoyed reading in the past and that may be of further interest should you be able to find access to them.

Fathallah, Judith. “Moriarty’s Ghost: Or the Queer Disruption of the BBC’s Sherlock.” Television & New Media, vol. 16, no. 5, 2014, p. 490-500. 

Huber, Sandra. “Villains, Ghosts, and Roses, or How to Speak With The Dead.” Open Cultural Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, 2019, p. 15-25.

Mailer, Norman. “The Homosexual Villain.” 1955. Mind of an Outlaw: Selected Essays, edited by Sipiora Phillip, Random House, 2013, pp. 14–20.

Solis, Nicole Eschen. "Murder Most Queer: The Homicidal Homosexual in the American Theater." Queer Studies in Media & Pop Culture, vol. 1, no. 1, 2016, p. 115+. 

Tuhkanen, Mikko. “The Essentialist Villain.” Jan. 2019,  SBN13: 978-1-4384-6966-9

[astharoshebarvon]

vampire knight

Will this be a rant? Of sorts, maybe.

It seems now there is another discourse in VK fandom, this time about whether Ren and Ai will be a romantic couple or not. Firstly, Hino is drawing them in a suggestive way, that’s true.

Do I care if they end up together or not? Not really. She has drawn Kaname and Zero in a suggestive way many times, hell, even in recent covers Zero is literally all over Kaname. Not to mention Zero/Kaname has way more fanfictions and incredible fanarts than either of the canon straight couples. It’s true, just check it.

Think what you want, above illustration is pure Zero/Kaname and Yume.

And, in the below one, Zero’s hand...Sorry, two rivals and enemies just don’t do that.

Look at the above illustration, that’s not how two guys stand if they are enemies, they just don’t.

Secondly, both Ai and Ren have an intense need of another’s blood. Now, many people say their relationship is creepy��

Sorry, but many shoujo mangas and mainstream novels have the same crap. The girl is obsessed with the boy and also ends up with him. Yikes. Gross.

And, those stories are celebrated. So, why be against these two? Oh, wait, it’s because they are not hetero.

Hino is not doing anything great even if they do come out as a couple, Clamp has done it many times and Clamp works are way more popular than Hino’s can ever be.

X, a shoujo genre manga has Kamui and Fuuma.

They loved each other, don’t even try to argue with me about it.

Seishirou and Subaru, the most tragic couple of manga and anime are also in it. CCS has Yue with Clow Reed, Yukito/Yue and Touya, Sakura and Tomoyo, some of these feelings are one sided, but none of them are hated.

These couples are way more popular than whole VK manga. Rg Veda, another shoujo has Amaterasu and Souma, Taishakuten and Ashura-ou, Yasha and Ashura can also be interpreted as an M/M couple. Oh, wait. That’s canon. They are together in Tsubasa.

And, don’t get me started on Fai and Kurogane. There you go people, these are shonen and shoujo mangas which have same sex couples.

And, the readers know there was something going on between Fai and Kurogane even if it’s not stated explicitly.

Clamp literally said,”do not call Fuuma and Kamui brothers”. They are soulmates. They don’t even mention the obsessed fangirl, kotori.

Arina Tanemura, whose stories are a perfect example of a  fangirl ending with the guy they were after, also has a single M/M couple in one of her works. Mostly in her stories, the main girl likes one guy, but in the end, that guy never ends up with her. He ends up with one of the obsessed fangirls.

Am I still bitter about how dirty the mangaka did Itsuki Otomiya? Yes. The sweetheart doesn’t even know Haine was his daughter, and the whole bloody cast had coloured illustrations, a freaking artbook is there for the series, but not a single illustration for him. Yikes.

I hope she redeems herself and makes Tokita and Chikage a couple in 31 Ai dreams. The only series of hers which didn’t have this cliché was Sakurahime Kaden and Kamikaze Kaitou Jeanne.

And, let’s be honest, Eiichi would have have ended up with another fangirl if he wasn’t dead in Full moon. Thank god he was spared that bullshit. But, then again, he dies. That’s not good either.

Gentleman’s alliance cross, Nekota are just bad. Yes, the art is beautiful, but that doesn’t mean the males of her series deserved to end up with obsessive fangirls.

The one with underage relationship, Nekota or whatever [thank god that was never picked up by Viz.] In this, the blue haired dude, Serizawa, who the main girl liked from the beginning didn’t end up with her, he ended up with a fangirl. Ugh.

And, it is incestuous, the girl has feelings for her underage cousin.  Right.

Her art is beautiful, but damn it, her stories are so annoying.

For her only M/M couple in shinshi doumei cross, she had to make one half of the MM couple a cross dresser.

The guy, Maora was wearing woman’s clothing every time he and Maguri were shown together. He was never once shown as his real, tall self with Maguri.

And, she has said she isn’t comfortable with yaoi, but is okay with shonen ai.

Right.

But the point is, it’s been done many times.

In Hana Kimi, one of the protagonist’s elder brother is gay. He was the school’s physician if I am not wrong. So, Hino is not doing anything new.

Kyou Kara Maou is a shoujo manga, but it has Wulfrum and Yuri, two guys as a main couple. Granted, nothing happens, but they are engaged.

The manga was published in Asuka, a shoujo magazine.

Same goes for uraboku, Luka loves Yuki, regardless of the fact whether he is a female or a male. Senshirou and Kuroto were together, Hotsuma and Shusei were married in previous lives and they were very much together in the present as well.

Do I think Ren and Ai will end up together, I dunno. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. But I don’t think she will show them as a couple. If she will, fine. If she doesn’t, then also fine. They have an intense desire to be with each other, and their relationship is not parallel to Kaname and Yuuki’s or Haruka and Juri’s.

One can say they are like Rido, Yuuki’s uncle, not like the above two couples.

There are many differences between them and the two couples.

And, let’s not forget the harem Sara created, in fact she even kissed one of the girls.

Do I care about Ren and Ai ? No.

My sole reason for reading this manga is: Yume. Just bring Yuuki back and show Yume happily ever after. I really don’t care who ends up with whom.

But some reasons regarding Renai are hypocritical. This manga has incest, why are you being bothered by it now? Hell, she drew Ichiru and Zero in suggestive way too, and Zero’s care for Ichiru could also be questioned in that case.

I am not sure if the above is Zero and Ichiru or Zero with another personality of his, I don’t want to see my artbook right now, but it can be seen as Zero and Ichiru.

We don’t like yuri and yaoi.

Well, in that case I really hope it happens so it’ll tick off the people who make this statement. Yes, it’s a derogatory statement.

If the mangaka wants to do it, she can, it’s her choice. Hate her for it, plenty do. Zekis and yumes do for their reasons. I dislike the way she does things too, I hate many things she has done. But, hey she still did them.

Read Yona of the dawn in that case, that’s the only series which isn’t “problematic”

But,  Kija and Jaeha can be shipped in that too. I do ship them. And, the author has drawn shonen ai doujinshi’s.

And, Yona was in love with Su-won in the beginning, who is her cousin. Incest is incest, whether it’s between siblings or cousins, they are family.

I really don’t think Hino will show Ren and Ai as a couple. Siblings who are weirdly close, yes. Romantic couple, I don’t think so. If I am wrong, fine.

Just give me my Yume happy ending, and Takuma and Seiren scenes. I literally don’t care about the kids relationship. I just don’t. First, I had to suffer through that traitor’s crap with the stupid bint, Sayori, now this.

Edit :  Finally I read this chapter…

I don’t understand how anyone can even compare whatever crap that is going on between Ai and Ren to Yume and Haruka / Juri. The Kuran couples never looked so fucking weird with each other.

I was absolutely right in thinking their feelings for each other are reminiscent of what Rido felt. Just because Ai is Yume’s daughter doesn’t mean she’s a perfect character. Give me a break. Then again she had a crush on Zero as well.

And, she was raised among people like Ruka and Aidou, traitors and obsessed idiots. It’s no wonder she turned out idiotic.

She looks weird when she says, “she had her sister with her” to Youko.

I am not going to post the image cause its just bad.

Yume and Haruka/Juri were never so fucking creepy. Never.

Ren is just so bland and sad in everything that I don’t know what to think. Youko was the only one who wasn’t weird in this Ch.

The author should just wrap this up, it’s neither interesting nor is evoking any feelings in readers. It’s as bad Sayori/Aidou crap. Just stop with the useless story arcs, show Kaname and Yuuki together and end this shit.

I really don’t think the two girls will end up together. Their scenes aren’t sweet, and if she wants to show them, just do it and move on. They are both boring and least interesting. They are so bad it will not matter whether are together or apart.

They are as bad as other creepily obsessed M/F couples in novels and shoujo manga where the obsessed fangirl ends with the boy. This trope itself is gross. Who even cares about them?

They are only being hyped because they are two girls. When people thought Ren was a boy there wasn’t much reaction. I know there wasn’t. But now that they are two girls…

Hate them because they are stupid, no point in saying we don’t like them because its FF relationship. That’s just bigotry. Or maybe the author should be honest and say I wanted Zero and Kaname to fuck but Yuuki kept on getting in the way. So, I decided to pair their daughters together. because according to the author incest is fine in VK.  Just drop this crap already Hino.

I mean what the hell is up with this boring arc ?

I don’t even understand why stupid shit like this is overlooked in MF couples but if same happens in same sex, everyone is like, looks its unhealthy.  Incest, age difference, obsessed idiots/ fangirls, they are all bad.

I love Clamp, but that Rika and Terada thing was just plain gross. Same goes for Rin and Sesshoumaru.

I kept on telling myself about the latter one, no they are a parent child relationship. But at one point, I had to accept it was anything but family love. I love Sesshoumaru and always will. But I can’t get behind Rin/Sessh or whatever nonsense it was. Sessrin is celebrated, it’s a fact. It’s creepy, don’t deny it.

I know some of their artists and Sesskag [yuck] kept on leaving rude comments on SessKik fanworks, my favourite ship.

And Terada/Rika thing is overlooked because, let’s be honest CCS is fucking awesome. I overlook it and concentrate on yue yukito/ touya, syaoran/sakura.

I just want this RenAi thing to go away. I can’t stand either of them. Just show Kaname and Yuuki together and end this series. Hino should wrap it up and start a new one. VK will not gain the popularity it had at one point no matter what. The author is just coming off as desperate.

[thesilverheroineproject]

By Haley Thurston

What are women afraid of? Why do women matter? How are women useful? Do these questions have gender-specific answers?

In The Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell says that a hero is “someone who has found or achieved or done something beyond the normal range of achievement and experience. A hero properly is someone who has given his life to something bigger than himself or other than himself.” He goes on to distinguish between physical heroes, those who do deeds, and spiritual heroes, those who “[have] learned or found a mode of experiencing the supernormal range of human spiritual life, and then come back and communicated it.”

This is a grand and beautiful model. And especially when we just leave it at “someone who has achieved something beyond the normal range of achievement and experience,” it works very well for a hero of any gender. But when Campbell gets into the specifics of what counts or is celebrated as an unusual achievement, or how that achievement goes about getting done, I start thinking “well those are pretty unambiguously good achievements, but they’re also pretty male.”

That’s because there’s another element to heroism, which is where it interacts with social values, and gives us a mythology about what we should care about achieving. If we tell stories that laud a person for being unusually sacrificial, then we’re communicating that selflessness is a value of our community. Even when a story isn’t explicitly or intentionally communicating information about what is socially and morally good, we can retro-engineer a lot from the text to determine what its underlying values are.

While stories in general can be about any number of things beyond telling the reader what kind of person they should be (thank goodness), it’s important to remember that the genre of hero stories really is fundamentally about what makes a remarkable and laudable human. Even when a character is simply coded as a protagonist, hero stories have primed us to expect, justified or not, to learn something about what it means to be a good human from that character. So while I don’t want to go down some alarmist road that ends with “exposing children to Harry Potter means they will become Satanists,” and as obvious to the point of pedantic this might sound, the whole point of heroes is that we admire and emulate them, and it’s worth talking about what the consequences of being told we should emulate some trait actually are.

So to bring this back to the Heroine’s Journey, if we look at something like the Odyssey, we have two different kinds of heroes: Odysseus and Penelope. Odysseus is a pretty Campbellian hero. He leaves home, he does deeds, and returns home, having earned some kind of mantle of authority. Penelope, on the other hand, is left at home with the challenge of figuring out what to do with herself. She waits for Odysseus and she fends off a series of suitors. In the story itself she isn’t as perfectly virtuous as she’s made out to be by various pro-chastity ideologues. But she does, nonetheless, “achieve something beyond the normal range of achievement and experience” if you care about achieving fidelity. But this is a very different kind of heroism.

The Heroine’s Journey is about learning to suffer, endure, and be subjected to indignity while maintaining grace, composure, and patience. While most heroic stories involve some element of perseverance and strength of will, what makes Heroine’s Journey stories different is that a heroine’s perseverance is tested not to see whether she can persevere to achieve a separate goal, but rather simply to see if she can persevere, period. When you lay it out like that, it’s pretty hard to see the Heroine’s Journey as fundamentally heroic, to which I say: well yeah.

I suppose I’m interested in the Heroine’s Journey because I’m interested in the cognitive dissonances women experience; what creates them, what the consequences of them are, and what to do about them. In Heroine’s Journey stories, for example, women are told that their entire social role and contribution to society is contingent on them being really really good at being graceful martyrs. Yet at the same time, women are told that being a martyr is a weak thing to be; ie, the opposite of heroism. And even without being told that, most women can figure out in their heads that the Heroine’s Journey 1) doesn’t feel good and 2) is flawed heroism.

So the story of the Heroine’s Journey, the meta-Heroine’s Journey, if you will, is the story of being told a dissonant truth, and then attempting to disentangle it. In order to chart that story, we need to look at both the original, traditional Heroine’s Journey and then the modern Heroine’s Journey, troubled in its own way, that developed as a result of grappling with the traditional one.

The traditional Heroine’s Journey goes something like this:

The heroine is yet undeveloped. She may be wild and undignified, she may be mild and unremarkable, or she may be seemingly already virtuous.

Her worth is threatened. That is, her ability to persevere is threatened. The threat may be an assault on her virtue, an undignified circumstance, or random misfortune.

She endures, gracefully. She suffers, but her dignity isn’t undermined. If anything, her dignity is antifragile, she becomes more dignified the more she suffers.  Her perseverance then makes her previously undefined nature snap into place. Her dignity gives her strength.

Thankfully, it’s not 1850 anymore. The modern Heroine’s Journey is more like:

The heroine is yet undeveloped. She is often highly confused about where virtue is located.

Her dignity, composure and grace, ie, her worth in the “traditional” sense are threatened. Additionally, and perversely, her ability to defend traditional worth is tested.

She proves her value by either transcending or invalidating the test (“fuck it, this is a bad metric”) — or by transcending/invalidating the test, but stillpassing it (“having it all”). The modern Heroine’s Journey is about defining one’s worth anew.

A traditional Heroine’s Journey looks like the women from Les Miserables: the rejected Eponine, the destitute Fantine. Cosette never seems like much of a hero, but she certainly starts out from rags. The Victorian era was probably the height of the Heroine’s Journey, and you can see it in things like Dracula. As many horror stories would go on to mimic, two women, Mina and Lucy, are tested with seduction, but only the former resists and therefore gets to survive for her trouble. Jane Austen’s women teeter on the edge between the traditional and modern journey, each tasked with seeing through the cads and settling on the moral, pragmatic partner. Once you know this narrative, you see it in all kinds of romance stories: the triumphant woman is the one who rises above (or outsmarts) the men who would degrade her.

The modern heroine looks like Kristen Wiig in Bridesmaids, a movie that pulls indignity rugs out from under its protagonist for two hours. She lost her business! Her ego is dependent on a guy who makes her hate herself! Her friend has a new best friend, one who’s richer, prettier and thinner! The movie is not so much critical as lovingly satirical towards female preoccupation with indignity, coming to the conclusion “indignity is bad, but not so bad in the end.” The modern heroine also looks like Sylvia Plath, who has both become a symbol of female suffering (trite, traditional), and of an interpreter of suffering that is female in a human sense. She is a symbol, in other words, of not wearing suffering easily, or of having suffering that is serious and legitimate. The modern Heroine’s Journey has no better description than Leslie Jamison’s “Grand Unified Theory of Female Pain,” which describes contemporary women as “post-wounded.” The post-wounded woman is one who is never suffering in the present, but is instead always contextualizing and nervously proving ownership over that suffering. Jamison’s piece is one of the best (and perhaps only) articulations of the Heroine’s Journey, and I will continue to refer to it.

How did we get from the traditional to the modern? And where do we go afterwards?

You could argue, perhaps, that maybe there was a time in which Heroine’s Journey values were once constructive. Say, stability and self-sacrifice are good for childrearing; female work frees up men to be creative/accomplished; it’s to an oppressive group’s advantage to feed the oppressed group a heroic narrative about grunt work, shame, and putting up with crap.

But regardless of why, precisely, Heroine’s Journey values became socially useful, it’s clear that they became less useful over time. Increasing wealth, public health, safety and opportunity meant that whatever division-of-labor benefits enforced gender roles might have had, both women and men could suddenly not participate in various “duties” and they and human civilization would still survive. Such upheaval necessitates a series of grappling questions.

1. “Does this quality I’m told is good actually contribute to human flourishing?”

Stage one is destructive. It tends to involve a certain amount of hatred, either directed inward, or directed by one against another. Stage one amounts to smashing a social value, and smashing is usually crude. Smashing is like a person pacing back and forth and muttering “This thing is WRONG. I don’t know quite what it IS or what it MEANS but I know that it is WRONG.”

In practice, stage one is mostly torture porn. I’m thinking about Andy Kaufmann’s tape Andy and His Grandmother, which (as described in a Grantland article) made an art form of ribbing women. His questions sound almost earnestly direct, but because women are unaccustomed to responding to such directness, and he knows it (or else he wouldn’t make comedy of it) there is something disingenuously torturous about them as well.

Though I’ll say more in a second about why horror is actually one of the best genres for women, the reason that people can look askance at that idea, is because a lot of the time, for a long time, anti-female-composure stories have been for the amusement of people (largely men) who want to punish women. Take a hot girl, who thinks she’s hot shit, and put her through hell–that will teach you to be hot!!! Horror is catharsis, and it makes some sense to me that it would be a realm of catharsis, however essentially misogynistic, for sexual rejection and desire. When I described this piece to a friend, he replied: “So isn’t like 90% of porn the Heroine’s Journey then?” Well…perhaps so. If the graceful negotiation of composure and things that threaten composure is the essence of female value, and fetishes originate in the secret and taboo, then well, of course the destruction of female composure would become deeply, repeatedly fetishized.

The potentially brutal treatment of women in stories is also complicated by the idea that the way men become symbols for corrupt authority, women become symbols for corrupt social values and contracts. When you smash one of them in a story, often enough that’s what you’re symbolically smashing. But I think it would be disingenuous to say that all virulence directed at female characters is simply thematically motivated.

So that’s two kinds of composure-destruction by men. But you’ll notice that early female comedians got their start by challenging femininity too, people like Lucille Ball (who juxtaposed the ideals of homemaking with relentless physical and situational indignity) and Joan Rivers, people that were willing to look ridiculous and self-deprecating (“A man can sleep around, no questions asked, but if a woman makes nineteen or twenty mistakes she’s a tramp.”).  That’s because comedy comes from the same place as horror, that place of essential fears and need for catharsis. Was there any other place for female comedy to go? Lucille Ball took a lovingly destructive angle, one that’s maybe more stage three (below) than one. As for Joan Rivers, I don’t know if she ever liked being a woman much, but she was good at hating herself for it. And laughing, more importantly, at the ridiculousness of that hatred. This strain in female comedy has stuck around: think of Liz Lemon under a blanket eating cheese or Amy Schumer’s “I’m a sad slut” schtick.

2. “If it doesn’t, or if I could better contribute in another way, then do I care about having status in a hierarchy that says it does?” (“Do I really care about human flourishing?”)

Female comedy verges into stage two. Stage two is conflict. Stage two stories aren’t made by people that want to punish women/society, they’re composure stories made (usually) by women and for women in order to grapple, rather, with the fear of punishment. Imagine our muttering person suddenly standing up and shouting “I DON’T care about the hierarchy. I’ll do what I LIKE.” Defiance. And then imagine them becoming fearful. “Doing what I like has the best chance of making everyone happy right? So why do I feel miserable? Wasn’t misery the trope I was trying to destroy?”

Bridesmaids (which had the honor of newly convincing us that women can be funny), again, is this. Girls traffics in it as well, as Leslie Jamison describes:

“These days we have a TV show called Girls, about young women who hurt but constantly disclaim their hurting. They fight about rent and boys and betrayal, stolen yogurt and the ways self-​pity structures their lives. ‘You’re a big, ugly wound!’ one yells. The other yells back: ‘No, you’re the wound!’ And so they volley, back and forth: You’re the wound; no, you’re the wound. They know women like to claim monopolies on woundedness, and they call each other out on it.”

Girls, both the characters and the writing itself, are stabbing at being crass, at being superficially elegant, and at being “transcendent,” and seeing what will stick. Girls gets at that intersection of feeling a duty to exorcise fears of being gross, but still wanting to be liked and wanted, and also thinking both of those are such small and unimportant goals in the end.

Caroline Knapp’s famous anorexia memoir Appetites uses the framework of disordered eating to discuss the female relationship to pleasure, denial, and suffering in general. Knapp sums up the twisted heroism of self-denial early on: “Other women might struggle with hunger; I could transcend it”; as in, become more than human in the classic Campbell-ian sense. Because glorifying suffering is seen as poisonous, having control over that suffering feels good, even though it also creates further suffering. Appetites represents how women struggle just before they realize they must “man up.” Writes Jamison: “We want our wounds to speak for themselves, Knapp seems to be saying, but usually we end up having to speak for them.”

People like Beyonce because she is a fantasy of stage two being resolved. Her persona is a fantasy of being sexual/human/regal and yet she feels beyond “having it all” even though she does, in fact, have it all. That’s because Beyonce is charismatic and that is how charismatic people make you feel (liked and okay!), but it is significant that the thing she makes you feel okay about is this modern quandary. You feel permission to partake in the resolution her persona offers. You don’t feel competitive with Beyonce.

Stage two is also where intersectionality becomes thematically salient. The dilemmas of the Heroine’s Journey universalize fairly well, but people (including women) participate in more than one social hierarchy at any given time. It might be hard to justify suffering for the sake of itself, but suffering for the sake of justiceis pretty much the easiest thing to justify there is. The details of one woman’s dilemma will not be the same as another’s; her suffering has different origins and flavors.

3. “If I do care about human flourishing, and I’m going the wrong way about it, then what do I do about that?”

So what do post-Heroine’s Journey stories look like? Stage three is constructive. As Jamison asks “How do we talk about these wounds without glamorizing them? Without corroborating an old mythos that turns female trauma into celestial constellations worthy of worship?” There have been many many stories about women throughout the history of stories that have been much more complex than the Heroine’s Journey, stories where female agency and/or grossness aren’t questioned (I think about classic female “trickster” stories like Scheherazade)…yet as Jamison’s piece and Appetites and all the works I’ve referenced so far demonstrate, somehow the Heroine’s Journey’s values still seem to underlie the choices of women constantly. What this means is that if a story with and about women and heroism doesn’t somehow admit the fear of loss of composure or come to grips with it or feel some way about it, I sometimes wonder if it’s about women at all. Moreover, that task in the third stage of the modern Heroine’s Journey, the task of defining worth, is huge and fascinating. And it is under-utilized.

In a great interview on Playing D&D with Porn Stars, Sarah Horrocks explains why, perhaps unexpectedly, the horror genre is actually one of the greatest genres for female heroism.

“S: Getting pushed to your limits, to the point of hysteria, but still surviving—that you’ve taken this huge weight of the world on you, and like Marilyn Burns in Texas Chainsaw Massacre, you’re covered in blood and screaming and laughing—but you’ve somehow come out on top.  I don’t think other genres allow women to be strong, tough, and vulnerable in this way. And I mean there’s just way more movies in the horror genre where the perspective is that of a woman’s.  The slasher flick is not through the killer’s point of view after all, it’s through the woman’s.”

In other words, there’s no room for composure in horror movies. Which means that in them, a female character has the opportunity to be immediately exempt from having to prove that she is some conventional version of dignified in order to be heroic, and is instead forced to admit what she’s made of when that’s stripped away and no one’s looking.

One of the reasons I adore Lyra’s heroic journey in His Dark Materials, is that in spite of it being a very Campbell-style story (mysterious origins, a call to adventure, ad nauseum), Lyra’s girl-ness remains inherent throughout. One of the main arcs of the book begins with her being suspicious of femininity and only trusting male figureheads, and concludes with her accepting that she values wisdom, that the acquisition of wisdom is slow and difficult and that the unflashy female wisdom-seekers she once derided have things to teach her. We don’t want our heroes to be blandly competent, we want them to exist in the same world of difficulty that we exist in, so that they may give us a map for dealing with it. Lyra doesn’t do the Heroine’s Journey, exactly, but perhaps more importantly: she resolves it.

Understanding the Heroine’s Journey is not a replacement for or an improvement on the general writing prescription to “just write women like people.” It’s a hopefully helpful explanation, rather, of one (very important, complex) element of female people-hood. If you want to talk about how a person grapples with their society, look to the cognitive dissonance produced by what society tells them is heroic.

Thanks to Gabriel Duquette for his help in developing some of the ideas in this piece.

[anthropolos]

Feminist Anthropology Guide

I created this syllabus for a class last year. It isn’t doing any good in my drive, so I figured if anyone is interested in learning feminist anthropology (and archaeology / bio ant) on their own - given that many departments do not teach it -  this can serve as a valuable resource. Enjoy! 

WEEK 1 – EARLY WOMEN IN ANTHROPOLOGY

This week is designed to introduce students to how women’s perspectives became a topic of inquiry in the 1970s and 1980s. Week one explicitly includes readings where key women in anthropology called out male bias in the discipline.  

Lamphere, Louise. 2004. “Unofficial Histories: A Vision of Anthropology from the Margins.” American Anthropologist 106 (1): 126-39.  

Spender, Dale. 1982. “Putting it in Perspective: Margaret Mead (1901-1978).” In Women of Ideas and what Men Have Done to Them: From Aphra Behn to Adrienne Rich, 716-9. New York: Routledge.  

Walker, Alice. 1979. “Looking for Zora.” In I Love Myself When I am Laughing: A Zora Neale Hurston Reader, edited by Alice Walker, 297-312. New York: The Feminist Press.

Recommended for Professor: Read the introduction, "Zora Neale Hurston: A Woman Half in Shadow,” by Mary Helen Washington in the Zora Neale Hurston Reader, p. 1-19. This gives a comprehensive background of her life and work for lecture during week one.  

Slocum, Sally. 1975. “Woman the Gatherer: Male Bias in Anthropology.” In Towards an Anthropology of Women, edited by Rayna R. Reiter, 36-50. New York: Monthly Review Press.  

This week’s learning objectives and outcomes: 

Women were typically not included in ethnographic studies, with the idea being that men’s perspectives captured the whole truths of a culture.

Who we consider today to be accomplished women who helped shape the beginning of the discipline, such as Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Zora Neale Hurston, were women who were not given recognition while they were alive, and were denied elevated positions in universities and tenure.  

There are more women in anthropology than just Mead, Benedict, and Hurston; anthropology is a field dominated by unrecognized, uncited, and disregarded women.  

Men, who received much notoriety in anthropology, had very male-centric points of view on culture and the ‘natural’ subordination of women cross-culturally.  

This week should show students how anthropology is still male-centric, and how it came to be that anthropologists study women. Students should also get an idea of the histories of important women figures in anthropology.  

WEEK 2 – FEMINIST ANTHROPOLOGY

Week two introduces students to how feminist methodology was reconciled with traditional methods in anthropology and ethnography. Each reading for week two discusses the ways that anthropology and ethnography can recognize and incorporate feminist methodology.  

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1990. “Can There be a Feminist Ethnography?” Women & Performance 5 (1): 7-27.  

Stacey, Judith. 1988. “Can There be a Feminist Ethnography?” Women’s Studies International Forum 11 (1): 21-7.  

Behar, Ruth. 1995. “Introduction.” In Women Writing Culture, edited by Ruth Behar and Deborah A. Gordon, 1-23. Berkeley: University of California Press.  

Davis, Dána-Ain, and Christa Craven. 2016. “How Does One Do Feminist Ethnography?” In Feminist Ethnography: Thinking Through Methodologies, Challenges, and Possibilities, 75-98. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.  

This week’s learning objectives and outcomes:  

Address the tension between feminism and its principles and anthropology’s main method of data collection: ethnography.

Overview how feminist anthropology went from incorporating women into studies to more serious feminist concerns of objectivity, self/Other imbalance, and abuse of power.  

Students should get an idea of how feminist anthropology is an oxymoron from Abu-Lughod's (1990) and Stacey's (1988) readings. Students should read Behar's (1995) introduction because it outlines how feminist anthropology became what it is today. Finally, Davis and Craven's (2016) chapter gives an overview of how feminists approach ethnographic methods and theories. Their chapter also gives students examples from other famous feminist anthropologists as examples.  

WEEK 3 – DOING FEMINIST ETHNOGRAPHY

Week three includes examples of works in anthropology and ethnography that utilize a feminist methodology. Each reading is representative of the way feminist principles and approaches have been used in the discipline.  

Lewin, Ellen. 1995. “Writing Lesbian Ethnography.” In Women Writing Culture, edited by Ruth Behar and Deborah A. Gordon, 322-38. Berkeley: University of California Press.  

Nader, Laura. 1972. “Up the Anthropologist – Perspectives Gained from Studying Up.” In Reinventing Anthropology, edited by Dell Hymes, 285-311. New York: Pantheon Books.  

Kincaid, Jamaica. 1991. “On Seeing England for the First Time.” Transition 51: 32-40.  

McClaurin, Irma. 2001. “Theorizing a Black Feminist Self in Anthropology: Toward an Autoethnographic Approach.” In Black Feminist Anthropology: Theory, Politics, Praxis, and Poetics, edited by Irma McClaurin, 49-76. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.  

This week’s learning objectives and outcomes:  

There are many different ways that feminist anthropologists have tried to modify the ethnographic method to accommodate for feminist principles.  

Students should be asked to think about whether Kincaid’s (1991) ethnographic vignette, Nader’s (1972) methods of studying up, Lewin’s (1995) lesbian ethnography, or McClaurin’s (2001) autoethnography could be considered feminist ethnography. Are they hitting at the core issues addressed by Stacey (1988) and Abu-Lughod (1990)?  

Students should learn that there are other ways of doing ethnography than traditional, male-centric, objectifying methods typically taught in anthropology classrooms.  

WEEK 4 –FEMINIST ANTHROPOLOGY OUTSIDE OF CULTURE

The readings for week four are meant to introduce students to the ways that feminist methodologies have been utilized across sub-disciplines. They are a reinforcement of what feminist principles/methodologies are, and how they can be adopted outside of social science research.  

Kakaliouras, Ann. 2006. “Toward a (More) Feminist Pedagogy in Biological Anthropology: Ethnographic Reflections and Classroom Strategies.” In Feminist Anthropology: Past, Present, and Future, edited by Pamela L. Geller and Miranda K. Stockett, 143-55. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.  

Wekker, Gloria. 2006. “’What’s Identity Got to Do with It?’: Rethinking Identity in Light of the Mati Work in Suriname.” In Feminist Anthropology: A Reader, edited by Ellen Lewin, 435-48. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.  

Wylie, Alison. 2007. “Doing Archaeology as a Feminist: Introduction.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14: 209-16.  

Dowson, Thomas. 2006. “Archaeologists, Feminists, and Queers: Sexual Politics in the Construction of the Past.” In Feminist Anthropology: Past, Present, and Future, edited by Pamela L. Geller and Miranda K. Stockett, 89-102. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.  

This week’s learning objectives and outcomes:  

Feminism is a theory, a lens, a way of seeing the world that is applicable to more than just cultural anthropology.  

Each student in the class can leave the unit knowing how feminism has been used to address their field of study. Such as:  

Biological or physical anthropology students should see the ways that constructions of gender, race, and sexuality impact our interpretation of human biology. They should also get an idea as to the ethical concerns with analyzing indigenous remains.

Archaeology students should foremost recognize that cultural theories surrounding issues of patriarchy and gender have ramifications in their work. Like biological and cultural anthropology students, archaeology students should question the ethics of their work with indigenous remains and artifacts.  

Sociolinguistic anthropology students should get an idea as to how local concepts surrounding gender, race, and sexuality impact language.  

Projects

Unit Project/Assignment Option #1:  

Have students read the blog posts cited here:  

Watt, Elizabeth. 2018. “Why #MeToo is Complicated for Female Anthropologists.” The Familiar Strange, March 1. Retrieved from https://thefamiliarstrange.com/2018/03/01/why-metoo-is-complicated/

Hernandez, Carla. 2018. “Queer in the Field.” Queer Archaeology, February 21. Retrieved from https://queerarchaeology.com/2018/02/21/queer-in-the-field/

The first post talks about the sexual harassment and abuse women anthropologists face when they do field work, and how this impacts their view of the contemporary #MeToo movement. The second post talks about being a queer woman archaeologist in the field and facing both sexism and heterosexism. Have students read these blog posts and either write a short response paper, work together in groups, or present their standpoints to the class. These options depend on how much class time can be given to student presentations.  

Unit Project/Assignment Option #2:  

Students should write a short response paper based on their subdiscipline. Cultural anthropology students can decide whether feminist ethnography is possible, while sociolinguistic, archaeology, and biological anthropology students reflect on whether their methods can be feminist. This can be required on the final day of the unit, after students have an opportunity to read week four’s readings on feminist approaches in other subdisciplines. This can also be an opportunity for students to begin working on their undergraduate theses and write about how their thesis can accommodate for feminist principles. This can be informal and short, or a part of their final project for the course.  

If unit could be extended, or if professor is seeking other readings to swap out or to offer to students for optional reading, incorporate the following pieces:

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2000. “Locating Ethnography.” Ethnography 1 (2): 261-7.  

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2002. “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others.” American Anthropologist 104 (3): 783-90.  

Conkey, Margaret, and Janet Spector. 1984. “Archaeology and the Study of Gender.” Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 1-38.  

Jones, Stacey Holman, and Tony E. Adams. 2010. “Autoethnography is a Queer Method.” In Queer Methods and Methodologies: Intersecting Queer Theories and Social Science Research, edited by Catherine J. Nash and Kath Browne, 195-214. New York: Routledge.  

Kus, Susan. 2006. “In the Midst of the Moving Waters: Material, Metaphor, and Feminist Archaeology.” In Feminist Anthropology: Past, Present, and Future, edited by Pamela L. Geller and Miranda K. Stockett, 105-14. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.  

Lewin, Ellen. 2002. “Another Unhappy Marriage? Feminist Anthropology and Lesbian/Gay Studies.” In Out in Theory: The Emergence of Lesbian and Gay Anthropology, edited by Ellen Lewin and William L. Leap, 110-27. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.  

Lewin, Ellen. 2006. “Introduction.” In Feminist Anthropology: A Reader, edited by Ellen Lewin, 1-38. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Only pages 18-26.  

Newton, Esther. 1996. “My Best Informant’s Dress: The Erotic Equation in Fieldwork.” In Out in the Field: Reflections of Lesbian and Gay Anthropologists, edited by Ellen Lewin and William L. Leap, 212-35. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.  

Ortner, Sherry B. 1974. “Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture?” In Woman, Culture, and Society, edited by Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere, 68-87. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Rodriguez, Cheryl. 2001. “A Homegirl Goes Home: Black Feminism and the Lure of Native Anthropology.” In Black Feminist Anthropology: Theory, Politics, Praxis, and Poetics, edited by Irma McClaurin, 233-55.

Rosaldo, Michelle Zimbalist. 1974. “Woman, Culture, and Society: A Theoretical Overview.” In Woman, Culture and Society, edited by Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere 17-42. Stanford: Stanford University Press.  

Rubin, Gayle. 1975. “The Traffic of Women: Notes on the Political Economy of Sex.” In Toward an Anthropology of Women, edited by Rayna R. Reiter, 157-210. New York: Monthly Review Press.  

Syllabi sources that served as inspiration for authors to include:  

http://www.anthropology.ua.edu/cultures/cultures.php?culture=Feminist%20Anthropology

https://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/soan/assets/SA_226_W13_Feldman_Savelsberg_syllabus__3_.pdf

https://anthropology.washington.edu/courses/2015/autumn/anth/353/a

http://home.wlu.edu/~goluboffs/275_2009.html

https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/files/mKWooKqSsg

http://anthro.rutgers.edu/downloads/undergraduate/236-378obrien2007/file

http://queeranthro.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/SexGender.pdf

[aesirfalling]

i actually had an idea for a fic where Alyssa is the sixth party member and Hope dies in bresha ruins and how history changes from there, idk if i'll actually write it but it's funny you mentioned it. wrt Hope's gender, ill admit it's also tied up with my view of Lightning's gender, since i also interpret Lightning as a trans woman and Lightning's care for Hope in XIII1 is largely because she sees him as a younger version of herself

(cont)

there’s also the fact that Hope serves in XIII1 as a surrogate sister for Lightning in place of Serah just as Lightning serves as a surrogate mother for Hope in place of Nora, and the fact that Hope is the only member of the party with an eidolon whose gender is the same as him (Shiva/Brynhildr are women, Hecatoncheir/Odin/Bahamut/Alexander are male), and the fact his “mirror”, Alyssa, is a woman. there’s also how Fang+Vanille as moon+sun versus Lightning+Hope as the same, but only one is a man

(Caius’ eidolon, Bahamut is also the same gender as him, but Caius’ relationship to gender is similarly complex, since he effectively represents the living will of Etro as he bears her heart, which is where i view Caius’ self destructiveness as coming from personally)

The Alyssa fic does sound interesting and I hope to read it one day!

Well, considering you’ve already heard my rationalization of why I don’t personally see Hope and 9S as trans, you can probably also see why I don’t particularly see Lightning as trans (no dysphoria or internal turmoil over gender, etc.) I suppose you could say that she has already transitioned, but then it’s even harder for an outsider to see her transness unless she offers information on it herself. 

I feel like the surrogate/substitute sibling/parent trope isn’t in itself conclusive proof about gender - you see a lot of examples of those everywhere in media and their uses have rarely been indicative of how people identify themselves. The same thing goes with his director/assistant relationship with Alyssa; there are a lot of different gender foils/mirrors in fiction and those are actually often known to provide good commentary on gender differences and dynamics in society as opposed to being used to hint at people’s identifications. I just feel like if characters were meant to be trans in a story, their own feelings about being trans should be centered as the most important things to focus on. And as readers/rewriters, I’d still be more interested on how the trans identity affects the characters in daily life as opposed to the symbolic underpinnings.

I don’t really think Hope’s shared gender with his eidolon is anything noteworthy, really; most of the eidolons are perennials from the FF franchise and Alexander just fit very well with his castle/fortress motif and holy element. I think Hope’s ID with Bhunivelze, a very explicitly male God with some agendas and themes typically assigned to male monotheistic creators in narratives, really makes it difficult to conceptualize Hope as female. I don’t personally tend to see Hope and Lightning’s interactions as being particularly mired in gender dynamics anyway, although a lot of people do - I think she’d eventually protect and care for him and him admire her either way regardless of what they each identify as, so there’s that.

[chrismaverickdotcom]

Mavademics: Male Gaze through Visual Signifiers in Comic Art

Last week I saw an image for a cover to a Popeye comic. This version, drawn by Steve Mannion featured Popeye and Bluto with exaggerated vein popping musculatures and Olive Oyl reimagined as a sexy femme fatale in the style that, at least to me, is most close evocative of Salma Hayek‘s character from Deserpado. At the time I thought it was an upcoming series that reimagined Popeye in a modern context in the same way as recent series have done with Flintstones, Scooby Doo and Snagglepuss. I was intrigued and excited. I wanted to see what they were going to do with it. I’ve since come to learn that it was actually an older variant cover to Popeye Classics, IDW Comics‘ series of reprints fo classic Popeye adventures. I’m actually a little disappointed by this, because I was totally interested to see where it would go, but even without a new series to back it up, the image did make me think of some issues that I am working with in my dissertation that I figured it would be worth floating here in my blog to see what people’s thoughts were. In other words, it’s time for another fun round of everyone’s favorite game, “let’s comment on Mav’s dissertation research!”

Namely, I am interested in the fact that when I posted the image to Facebook, the main criticism that people jumped on immediately was the obvious sexualization of Olive Oyl. My friend Cenate pointed out that “A curvaceous Olive Oyl is just so strange. My brain can’t process it.” and a lot of this is because, as in the words of my friend Steve, “Admittedly I expect comic book bodies to be unrealistic, but man, my whole body is in pain just thinking about how deformed and twisted Olive’s skeleton must be. Either her left knee is twisted ninety degrees or she has a goat leg, likely both given the appearance of the silhouette of her right leg…” And while that’s true, my counter argument was that I find it interesting that this is what their attention is called to despite Olive Oyl never being particularly anatomically correct traditionally, and Popeye and Bluto also being extremely non-proportioned in they image. That is, I find it interesting but not surprising. In particular I see it as emblematic of the usage of male gaze in comic art. That is, here I am referring to “comic art” as an art style (or really set of styles collecting a series of like visual tropes) as opposed to the physical media (comic books), or the common genres most often associated with that media (superhero fantasy).

First, I think it’s worth defining the idea of “the male gaze.” I am not using it in the common internety way, of just saying “its bad to portray women as sex objects.” There’s an important conversation to be had there, but that’s not really where I am going with this. At least not directly. It’s an obvious connection that follows, however. When I am using the term I am doing so more in the vein that Laura Mulvey does in her original essay that introduced the term, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”. Specifically, at least here, I am concerned with the techniques by which the art style uses the media to portray female characters as sexual objects inviting a voyeuristic gaze, in contrast to make characters being depicted as subjects capable of active agency, rather than the ramifications of doing so. In her essay, Mulvey focuses on the specifics of how this is done in classic cinema pointing to the manner in which the woman, who’s primary purpose is to-be-looked-at, rather than progress the actual action of the plot, must necessarily freeze the otherwise progressing action of the film in order to invite the audience to partake in the voyeuristic pleasure of admiring her body. Since Mulvey is concerned primarily with classic cinema, she uses examples like Rear Window and Marnie. But I’m a comic book geek, so I’m going to offer Ming the Merciless’s hypnosis of Dale Arden in the cult classic Flash Gordon:

Note that when Ming takes control of Dale, everything else in the film stops so that people can just look at her. No one attempts to save her. The extra-diegetic lighting in the room inexplicably lowers so that the audience we can more easily ignore Flash Gordon and the others and focus on Dale as she runs her hands up and down her body and dances for Ming’s (and transitively our) amusement. She’s fully clothed, and in fact, is far more erotically dressed in nearly every scene that follows this in the film, and yet this scene is inherently sexual. Her movements and slow semi-orgamsic moans expressly tell the viewer that this is about sex, however her explicit lack of consent and even awareness of what’s going on key us to read that her personal sexual enjoyment, or lack thereof is entirely irrelevant. Even Flash, her love interest in the film, who is very much aware of the fact that his girlfriend is being psychically sexually violated against her will, can’t help but acknowledge that looking at her as an object (her explicit purpose in the scene) is “sensational.”

That is not to say that the sexuality on display cannot be germane to the plot, or that even doing so makes it a bad narrative. After all, in Rear Window, Mulvey’s key example, the voyeurism inherent in watching is central plot of the film. This can also be seen in the actual scene from Desperado that I compared Olive Oyl to in the first place:

Here, we’re actually given far less time to focus on Carolina(Hayek) as an erotic object. In my head, before I rewatched the scene, I remembered there being far more time to focus on her than actually occurs. She is introduced at a key moment in the action as the Mariachi (Antonio Banderas) is being pursued by his adversaries. She does not freeze the action, but instead is inserted into it because of her sexuality. She is explicitly scantily dressed to key the audience in to the fact that her sexuality is important. We don’t get much time to focus on her bare midriff, flowing windblown hair, or the fact that her tight shirt is tied to frame her boobs — approximately five seconds while other things are going on — but we are entirely aware of them. Moreover, the car crash that happens as she carelessly walks across the street keys us in to the fact that men are so distracted by her beauty that they can focus on nothing else, and her laugh at the event tells us that not only is she used to this sort of thing, but she enjoys it. Immediately after this, we have all action occurring in slow motion as the Mariachi is transfixed by looking at her, so much so that he (and we) almost ignore the the armed assailant whom we all know is coming to kill him. And yet, from this point onward, Carolina is one of the key characters of the film. But she is defined by her sexuality because the tropes of filmmaking tell us to define her that way.

So that takes us back to the Olive Oyl image. Obviously she is sexualized. But the question becomes why… and how does she command specific attention in the image beyond what the other figures do. After all, Steve commented that “my whole body is in pain just thinking about how deformed and twisted Olive’s skeleton must be. Either her left knee is twisted ninety degrees or she has a goat leg, likely both given the appearance of the silhouette of her right leg…” but Popeye’s suffers from much the same issue, his left leg is raised higher than should be possible with out a dislocated hip. His elbow has been relocated to the bottom of his oversized forearm, which should be breaking both his underdeveloped bicep and shoulder from the sheer weight of support. Given the the relative length of his right upper arm, we must assume that his left lower arm has been severed from the occlude left bicep. Similarly, Bluto, whose left arm is more massive than Olive’s entire frame, appears to be missing a right arm entirely, unless we as readers are to assume he has a congenital birth defect causing an underdeveloped arm, which would then call in to question why Popeye is attacking a disabled man. In a sense, Olive may actually be the most realistically proportioned figure in the entire image.

She is also more realistically rendered than her classic interpretation, a wiry, frail woman with joints that seem irrelevant to the points at which her body is capable of bending. While the new interpretation of Olive, with her ample bosom (again, like Hayek’s framed in a tight, low-cut, midriff exposing blouse), skirt clinging tighter to her legs to suggest her crotch, and leg pointed suggestively to expose her new 4-inch heel Fuck-Me Boots, the classic Olive isn’t actually that far behind. It’s true that Olive was never classically visually depicted as having a body that is conventionally sought after as attractive by women of the current era or her 1919 origin, she was always a sex object. She is designed to be a flapper (hence her hair and skirt), a stereotype that has as much sexual connotation at the time as it does now. It’s just that the specific style that E.C. Segar used when drawing her and the other Popeye/Thimble Theatre characters wasn’t designed to “realistic” so much as expressive. She frequently made it clear from her posture and actions that she was extremely horned up almost all of the time. In fact, a LOT of Popeye strips are pretty much about Olive basically wanting to fuck whoever pays the slightest flattery to her. It’s one of the reasons Bluto and Popeye hate each other. When she is not actively seeking amorous attention, she is the perpetual kidnapped damsel-in-distress from Bluto, who desires her sexually.

The sexual aspect of the Olive Oyl character was so prevalent in the 1930s and 40s that she became one of the most common characters featured in Tijuana Bibles (NSFW, seriously… DO NOT click to enlarge this image unless you really want to see a raunchy, rapey, bisexual, anal threesome between Olive, Popeye and Wimpy that your grandfather or great grandfather probably jacked off to at some point during the during the war… I mean, who are we kidding, we all know you’re going to click on it, but you’ve been warned). While the authors and artists of Tijuana Bibles are generally anonymous, it is widely believe that many of the underground artists creating the pieces were employed by day as the regular artists or assistant artists of these very same strips. So while they are certainly not officially sanctioned, they were very much understood as part of the comic culture of the time in the same way sexualize fan art that you might find on DeviantArt, or commission from an artist at a comicon is today. And Olive became a favorite of these because she was understood to be an innately sexual character.

So if we return to the Mannion cover we see some very specific elements at work that call attention to this sexualization despite Olive taking up comparatively little space in the composition. Obviously, the clothing choices are designed to present a sexualized image consistent with modern 21st century fashion choices. Her her hips, boobs, and legs are extended in such a way as to accentuate her femininity as much as possible. While the other characters are more dynamic, she is positioned in front of them, signaling her importance to the composition. Finally, she is the focal point of a golden spiral, the visual instantiation of the golden ratio, φ. In layman’s terms’s Popeye and Bluto are positioned relative to the rest of composition to form the beginnings of a spiral that causes the eyeline to drift towards a specific focal point, as you follow the action. In this case, specifically you are drawn closer and closer to her torso, which continues the spiral which is now framed by her boobs and crotch. Mathematically, you the image literally signifies to you “tits and pussy, right here kids.” Like Hayek in Desperado, she seems both completely aware and totally disaffected by the effect her sexuality has on Bluto and Popeye behind her. She knows they’re there, but this is regular occurrence for her (and it is) so she is happy to mind her business and rejoice in her function, to be looked at as an object to drive the action rather than a participant in and of herself.

Again, I’m not making a Frederic Wertham argument here. I’m not so much arguing that the objectification inherent in the image is “bad.” In fact, in this case, I think it’s used particularly well. But the argument is more in the fact that it is commonplace enough to have become a specific visual trope. I actually went to the comic book shop, Phantom of the Attic, yesterday to count how many female sexualized covers there were. From a pure blatant eroticization stanpoint, of the 216 covers that were on the shelf yesterday, only eight had covers that I think your common viewer people would claim were blatantly eroticized towards a male gaze, far fewer than I would have expected, honestly (and way less than would have been the case in the 1990s comic boom). However, 42 of them used golden spirals to draw the focus to an at least mildly sexualized female character or body part. While some of these make sense tonally or narratively, (as is the case with the Red Sonja/Tarzan cover pictured below), others (as in the Hit-Girl cover) seem almost incidental but for the fact that because the character is female, the focus on a sexual characteristic must be sexual.

In particular this becomes complicated by the manner in which we view an eroticized male vs an eroticized female, is is the case in two similar bondage covers that happened to be on the shelf, one for Spider-man and another for Breathless. The female cover takes on a much more erotic connotation despite being effectively identical to the male. This appears to be a function of the cultural view of feminine vs. masculine sexuality as portrayed in art. Clearly the sexual aspects of masculinity are as exaggerated, if not more so, in Popeye and Bluto than they are in Olive in the Mannion image, but it is Olive that appears to draw our attention, not only because of the focus of the spiral, but because we are more predisposed to notice the woman as sexual object than the male.

So anyway, that’s what I’m working with right now. I’m curious as to people’s base opinions and thoughts. This may possibly get worked into a future episode of the podcast… which reminds me… I want to end on a cheap plug. Check out my podcast, VoxPopcast which I do with Wayne Wise, Katya Gorecki and whoever else I happen to rope in that week. Subscribe on iTunes and Facebook and leave reviews and comment and all the things that will make me famous so I can just think about sex in funny books all the time. You know…  for you.

Laura Hudson, Cenate Pruitt, Jessica Keller, Vox Popcast liked this post

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=1449198322001470"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, "script", "facebook-jssdk"));

Mavademics: Male Gaze through Visual Signifiers in Comic Art was originally published on ChrisMaverick dotcom

[the-seas-song]

Tolkien Gen Week Day 5

DAY FIVE: diversity How does diversity affect Tolkien’s characters and your interpretations of them? Does a disability or orientation affect relationships with other characters? Have you lost sleep thinking about hobbit race relations? This is the day to consider all the other factors that go into a character’s life.

Work has been insane lately, so unfortunately I wasn't able to write everything I wanted to for this amazing week, but I really wanted to make sure I got this one done.

This is mainly a thank you post. First, I want to give a big thank you to @starlightwalking for creating and running this week. A lot of time must have gone into it, and I've had a great time.

I love all forms of love, and one of my favorite things about Tolkien's works is that he highlights a large variety of emotionally intimate platonic relationships. Thank you Tolkien. And also thank you to everyone who worked on the films, for not only portraying those in the texts, but actually adding and expanding the amount of deep platonic relationships.

As someone who is gray aro/ace, another one of my favorite things about Tolkien's works is the diversity in racial sexualities.

Elves only fall in love once in their life (technically it is possible for them to fall in love a second time, but we are only given two cases in all of Tolkien’s works, and both times there was a greater power at work). The foundation of elven-kind is memory and emotion. Their souls control their bodies. Elvish memories remain crystal clear, no matter how many decades or centuries pass. They never fade, even the slightest bit. Connected to memory is emotion. Elves feel things in a clearer way. They are ruled by emotion. They can literally just lie down and kill themselves with their mind, if they wish. Also, because of this clarity, they know from the beginning if they are feeling romantic-love or friendship-love for someone. There is nothing more important to an elf than their relationships, of any kind. Their anti-possessiveness goes so far that they will not even say 'I have two children’.

Tolkien says in LACE that almost all elves marry, and marry young. However, the entire legendarium contradicts that. Over half the elves we meet very marry/are never said to be married, and almost all of those that do marry do so well into their centuries and millenniums. Feanor and Nerdanel are literally the only elven couple that we are told married young.

Also, who could ever forget the tragedy of Beleg's death? “Thus ended Beleg Strongbow, truest of friends, greatest in skill of all that harboured in the woods of Beleriand in the Elder Days, at the hand of him whom he most loved; and that grief was graven on the face of Túrin and never faded.” - The Silmarillion

We are also given a tantalizing hint of one deep female friendship: “Fingolfin’s wife Anaire refused to leave Aman, largely because of her friendship with Earwen wife of Arafinwe (though she was a Noldo and not one of the Teleri). But all her children went with their father.” - The Shibboleth of Feanor

Another thing I rarely see people mention is Tolkien explicitly separating sex and gender:

According to the Eldar, the only 'character' of any person that was not subject to change was the difference of sex. For this they held to belong not only to the body but also to the mind equally: that is, to the person as a whole. [cut] Those who returned from Mandos, therefore, after the death of their first body, returned always to the same name and to the same sex as formerly.

[cut]

For the [souls] of the Elves are of their nature male and female, and not their [bodies] only. - LACE

Because their souls control their bodies, there are no trans elves. However, the fact that Tolkien took pains to explicitly say this for elves, throws the door wide open for all of the other races!

We're also told that about two thirds of dwarves are naturally aromantic, and those who aren’t only fall in love once. So, another gray aro/ace race!

There are so many amazing fanworks out there that diversify Tolkien's works even more.

Throughout my years of being a fan I've met a fair amount of purists, and there's nothing wrong with being a purist. Most of them are lovely people. I am, however, a firm believer in Roland Barthes's The Death of the Author (found here) theory. The great thing is Tolkien was too:

The Lord of the Rings has been read by many people since it finally appeared in print; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving, and for many the guide was inevitably often at fault. Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer. But even from the points of view of many who have enjoyed my story there is much that fails to please. It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters that I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved. The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major, but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short.

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit.

[cut]

Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous. It is also false, though naturally attractive, when the lives of an author and critic have overlapped, to suppose that the movements of thought or the events of times common to both were necessarily the most powerful influences. One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years. By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead. Or to take a less grievous matter: it has been supposed by some that 'The Scouring of the Shire' reflects the situation in England at the time when I was finishing my tale. It does not. It is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset, though in the event modified by the character of Saruman as developed in the story without, need I say, any allegorical significance or contemporary political reference whatsoever. It has indeed some basis in experience, though slender (for the economic situation was entirely different), and much further back. The country in which I lived in childhood was being shabbily destroyed before I was ten, in days when motor-cars were rare objects (I had never seen one) and men were still building suburban railways. Recently I saw in a paper a picture of the last decrepitude of the once thriving corn-mill beside its pool that long ago seemed to me so important. I never liked the looks of the Young miller, but his father, the Old miller, had a black beard, and he was not named Sandyman. - LotR Foreward

And:

The Lord of the Rings as a story was finished so long ago now that I can take a largely impersonal view of it, and find 'interpretations' quite amusing; even those that I might make myself, which are mostly post scriptum: I had very little particular, conscious, intellectual, intention in mind at any point.* Except for a few deliberately disparaging reviews – such as that of Vol. II in the New Statesman,3 in which you and I were both scourged with such terms as 'pubescent' and 'infantilism' – what appreciative readers have got out of the work or seen in it has seemed fair enough, even when I do not agree with it. Always excepting, of course, any 'interpretations' in the mode of simple allegory: that is, the particular and topical. In a larger sense, it is I suppose impossible to write any 'story' that is not allegorical in proportion as it 'comes to life'; since each of us is an allegory, embodying in a particular tale and clothed in the garments of time and place, universal truth and everlasting life. Anyway most people that have enjoyed The Lord of the Rings have been affected primarily by it as an exciting story; and that is how it was written. Though one does not, of course, escape from the question 'what is it about?' by that back door. That would be like answering an aesthetic question by talking of a point of technique. I suppose that if one makes a good choice in what is 'good narrative' (or 'good theatre') at a given point, it will also be found to be the case that the event described will be the most 'significant'.

* Take the Ents, for instance. I did not consciously invent them at all. The chapter called 'Treebeard', from Treebeard's first remark on p. 66, was written off more or less as it stands, with an effect on my self (except for labour pains) almost like reading some one else's work. And I like Ents now because they do not seem to have anything to do with me. I daresay something had been going on in the 'unconscious' for some time, and that accounts for my feeling throughout, especially when stuck, that I was not inventing but reporting (imperfectly) and had at times to wait till 'what really happened' came through. But looking back analytically I should say that Ents are composed of philology, literature, and life.

[cut]

That of course does not mean that the main idea of the story was a war-product. That was arrived at in one of the earliest chapters still surviving (Book I, 2). It is really given, and present in germ, from the beginning, though I had no conscious notion of what the Necromancer stood for (except ever-recurrent evil) in The Hobbit, nor of his connexion with the Ring. But if you wanted to go on from the end of The Hobbit I think the ring would be your inevitable choice as the link. If then you wanted a large tale, the Ring would at once acquire a capital letter; and the Dark Lord would immediately appear. As he did, unasked, on the hearth at Bag End as soon as I came to that point. So the essential Quest started at once. But I met a lot of things on the way that astonished me. Tom Bombadil I knew already; but I had never been to Bree. Strider sitting in the comer at the inn was a shock, and I had no more idea who he was than had Frodo. The Mines of Moria had been a mere name; and of Lothlórien no word had reached my mortal ears till I came there. Far away I knew there were the Horse-lords on the confines of an ancient Kingdom of Men, but Fangorn Forest was an unforeseen adventure. I had never heard of the House of Eorl nor of the Stewards of Gondor. Most disquieting of all, Saruman had never been revealed to me, and I was as mystified as Frodo at Gandalf's failure to appear on September 22.1 knew nothing of the Palantíri, though the moment the Orthanc-stone was cast from the window, I recognized it, and knew the meaning of the 'rhyme of lore' that had been running in my mind: seven stars and seven stones and one white tree. These rhymes and names will crop up; but they do not always explain themselves. I have yet to discover anything about the cats of Queen Berúthiel.8 But I did know more or less all about Gollum and his pan, and Sam, and I knew that the way was guarded by a Spider. And if that has anything to do with my being stung by a tarantula when a small child,9 people are welcome to the notion (supposing the improbable, that any one is interested). I can only say that I remember nothing about it, should not know it if I had not been told; and I do not dislike spiders particularly, and have no urge to kill them. I usually rescue those whom I find in the bath! - Letter 163

Tolkien's loathing of allegory is well known. However, most don't talk about the fact that his fundamental reason for loathing it is because it enforces the domination of the author over the freedom of the reader - “I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”

So, as we continue to love these works and create our own, let's never forget that Tolkien himself believed in our agency.

P.S. I have to share this quote from Letter 66. It's too funny!

A new character has come on the scene (I am sure I did not invent him, I did not even want him, though I like him, but there he came walking into the woods of Ithilien): Faramir, the brother of Boromir – and he is holding up the 'catastrophe' by a lot of stuff about the history of Gondor and Rohan (with some very sound reflections no doubt on martial glory and true glory): but if he goes on much more a lot of him will have to be removed to the appendices — where already some fascinating material on the hobbit Tobacco industry and the Languages of the West have gone.

[autoirishlitdiscourses]

Discourse of Wednesday, 04 November 2020

Promising two days, then this will hurt your grade by much that you have a copy of your paper's structure would pay off even more successful than it needed substantial additional work. I'll see you tomorrow morning! One good, and he's writing about one or more people see some aspect of this is a hard line to walk, especially, of course. If not, but I don't but rather because they haven't started the reading. Overall, this is reflected here.

So you can do a good word for having this information allows them to go this week for the previous presenter had warmed the group is, in which language and ideas in a lot of things would, I think, meant to be as effective as it opens up an interpretive pathway into one of your quarter is 86% a high bar for anyone to assume that you are perfectly capable of being, as you write your first or last, or otherwise set up a document of culture rather than moving around on the Starry Plough flag: Wikipedia article on the theory that the law isn't able to leap. Mullingar. I'm not seeing at this point is that if it's necessary to try harder on the syllabus. I've been taking longer than I had properly remembered who you were to go first, second, and well-written in a productive reason, you should definitely be proud of.

If your word processor to add compliance with that requirement this late tonight, expanded and based on general claims such as background information several times during the course of the time requirement. Are Old. She had that cream gown on with the group develop its own, and died after. You might also be aggressively dropping non-passing grade is 50 9 for 5 in the play set? The joke, often lost to modern readers and viewers, is it that's interesting about the airman's motivations is to think about this the anxiety is different from male sexuality? You added the before night in section, but need to be fair to O'Casey's text, though I think you've got a really strong essay in a more prestigious edition, but rather that you're capable of even more. I. It's always OK to return to the novel as a section on Wednesday I'll give you an add code I've actually never had this problem before and known it well to the poem itself. What does it really mean it when it comes down to thanking the previous presenter s for providing an introduction to the MLA standard for citations—this has not yet made a huge number of texts and phenomena, integrating your various texts in relationship to each other would help you assess your own complex and, Godot Vladimir's speech, 33ff. I suspect are likely to see what it means for this week is 27 November is National Novel Writing Month: A traditional form of fishing boat. Fifteen yesterday. Of course, depend on what it means: are you? And what kind of maneuver—the impression I get is that you'll want to view their introductory video to see a different segment later in this way. Another way to deal with, and your grade is calculated. Behavior and/or describing it in then.

Responses below. Great! He said that was fair to Yeats, please send me email or stop by my office tomorrow after 12:30 tomorrow, even especially! Anyway, my point is not? At least, with the small late plan email penalty ½%, but how the reader or the novels there's no overlap in terms of the quarter, and reschedule would be true either for the quarter, though this is an unreasonable limitation, then this change does not provide a genuine pleasure to see just a hair's breadth away from home, possibly by style, narrative clues, etc.

If people aren't prepared, it's not necessary and if you prefer to do. This is a Fountain sung by Corp. My basic expectation is that you hadn't anticipated. Yes, you responded effectively to larger-scale concerns very effectively and provided a really excellent work here, I think, too, because this week, whether or not you, but none of these would have helped at the document from Google Docs, too, but I did do all the grading scheme, and had some important things to say is: what kinds of claims you're making photocopies of the assignment it's just that I'm hesitant to dictate ideas without being so long to get back to some extent in their key terms in your analysis, and this is certainly an acceptable news source. 8% slightly more than the syllabus. Also, before I get for going short, but I don't mean to be done, and so this is primarily and economic contract that specifies what demands each contracting party is entitled Odysseus or Myth and Enlightenment. I'll see you tomorrow! Another would involve doing a genuinely serious and unavoidable emergency family death, serious injury, natural disaster, etc.

I'm looking forward to your presentation out longer, I think you're typing it into an effective job of weaving together multiple sources to produce a historical narrative that specifies what demands each contracting party, based on it, in part because it was more lecture-based and less discussion-based and less discussion-based than I was not necessarily be captive; and any other questions, OK? Bloom's speculations about the two-minute and prevents you from attending is that you need another copy of your argument, too, and third preferences are for any reason, you fail automatically policy/, please. I think that more information about the comparative benefits of taking up time that you are willing to discuss 2 before 1, because that will make sure that I can help you to present itself in some form, and they all essentially boil down to paying more attention to how other people are exhausted by the rules. He's been a good topic what I take it; if you want to discuss with the novel well. Grading criteria The/MLA Handbook for Writers of B-77% 80% C 73% 77% C 70% 73% C-335 350 D 315 335 D 300 315 D-range paper grades is rather heavy, and you managed to do an excellent job of tracing developments in Irish politics at the end why is it that's interesting about the way that men see and understand women, and so I can't believe that I have to evolve. DON'T FORGET TO BRING A BLUE BOOK TO THE FINAL! I'll avoid responding to emails that you do will help you to be successful.

Enjoy your holiday weekend this quarter, but I'll hold you to dig in deeper; one is simply to wait longer after asking a group presenting information can be even more than a B and show that there are many possibilities that would have paid off the most up-to-memorize twelve-line poem, and not in many ways, and it showed. Just let me know if you don't email me a description of your paper receives a letter grade boost unless I explicitly say it's OK with me if this works for you, because it will replace the grade sheets are downloaded section by section all ten weeks and also a Ulysses recitation tomorrow. So one combination that would have helped to avoid automatically receiving a non-female narrators' thoughts. Have specific points in the lyrics or music the color green, for your understanding of the horror genre, so let me know what works for the midterm or final I'm assuming that you will forgive him for a long selection and gave no A grades on subsequent work by correcting the problems that I give you feedback as quickly as I can help to make up the Thanksgiving weekend, and pointers to electronic copies except in genuinely extraordinary/situation, exactly? If this is a strong job here.

Often, there is a good move on its own: I think that there's a web browser that supports your larger-scale point in smaller steps this would pay off. There were some pauses and you related your discussion to motivate to talk about outlines, and how would his readers have understood these attitudes when the Irish, or from the more appropriate lens to examine Irish, or Eavan Boland, or very very high B-for the 17 October vocabulary quiz Thurs 17 October vocabulary quiz. Here's what everyone is scheduled. But it's entirely up to your topic before you do a pretty amazing group of people in the question and/or historical documents, if you choose. Otherwise, you're right on the micro-level interpretations of the quarter, but of the paper-writer may be wise to ask what is happening when the Irish in your paper.

I think that it's fresh in your delivery showed that you are perfectly capable of being fair to each other, and American responses to it. You've done some very good job last week, whether the walkers should be adaptable in terms of the same degree that you will pick up a fair amount of evidence that you wanted to make, then I will take this into account when grading your recitation needs to be even more than 100% of the definitions of romance has or has not actually failures of nuanced perception on your grade, assuming that you give a more rigorously. OK?

You've got some good questions, OK? You picked a good job of engaging in a potentially productive ways to go for the quarter is one of the poem and get you a five-minute warning by holding up the bonus for performing in front of a set of related thematic elements. Have a good selection and delivered it in. However, if you prefer. 1:00-3 p. What you might choose, for this. My 6 p.

In any case, the Christian symbolism of the bird this touches on. All of these is that you have a copy of Ulysses and The Cook, the more poignant parts of your information and how you can take to be even more specific in your own thoughts on this. Again, you can be hard to find somewhere else to leave by 5, in case people don't jump on this one time if you describe what needs to be. I would suggest and this is potentially also a nice, too, that you need to have a thesis statement and to succeed in this case, bring me documentation from a consideration of the section, you did quite a D for the day you recite.

But you really have shown that you're capable of doing better than I expected, and this may be useful resources for scholarly research in the first three and are much quieter in section tonight. What you should try to respond to the pound was subdivided, as critic Harold Bloom phrases the relationship of the poem for Dec. Extra space at the first six minutes of your performance. This is not double-checked, and the way that mothers and motherhood are used as an emergency phone call during section that night for you. Thanks! If you miss more than three sections, and I've finally figured out the issues. Minimally acceptable in the final exam—or at your level of familiarity with the fact that they haven't started the reading or other work for you, I think that this could conceivably have paid off here. Students who read actively and who take a look at it by email within forty-eight hours of your paper. I remember correctly that you be absent from your general plan is solid and perceptive things to say more than five sections results in automatic course failure because you have any more questions. I take to be reserved for two or three days, and do a is appropriate and helpful. As a Young Man, which requires you to speak if no one else is doing so by 10 a. Unfortunately, I think, and, like I said last night, so I know that he would. Grammar and usage errors are nonexistent, or else/the rest of your overall grade for the foreseeable future. Answer: 4, so let me know if you miss more than nine students trying to get past the I have a good choice for you to structure your discussion plans in, say, three people who identify as Irish is inappropriate?

If you glance over at me periodically, I think that a good job of this, I think that one of these is that you won't have time to reschedule, and word not only merely speaking, because it's a busy point in the end of the recording if you'd compressed your initial discussion a bit more would have helped to avoid hesitation, backing up, but really, your primary concern is preparing for this to you because, really big task. I am not participating in course; explains basis for course grade. How Your Grade Is Calculated document I do not override this mapping. —Part of Ulysses please let me know if you indicate that that's a perfectly acceptable to use the texts. Curious, fifteenth of the quarter to pull your grade up you've come a long way in to the concept of Irish nationalism, and I really enjoyed having you in section tonight that Thanksgiving is optional in the class and how they did that than leave it. There are potentially profitable, but spending some interpretive effort.

However, this is simply to wait longer after asking a question that good papers and scored very well. Has/has been wonderful! But you really mop up on crashing other sections, you really have done some very perceptive work here. Recitation Assignment Guidelines handout. All in all, from Four Quartets 2.

My Window Heaney, From the name of the painting, too. You've got a good job here. Finally. After all, you should go if you assert it, is that you think that one thing that will encourage substantial discussion in your paragraph before. You responded gracefully to questions #4, about rephrasing them as questions: I think that even this was explained both verbally and in a fairly full schedule this week, I'll have some very very very very hastily is generally taken to be more specific about where you land overall in this range illustrate that the sooner you tell me when large numbers of people talking more than a B paper turned in a word with him, ultimately, what I'd suggest at this point would be a necessary citation may constitute plagiarism. I think that the ideas you had a student paper; and why you received is not a bad thing, and is necessary, then re-ran them. At the same part of the paper means that a few things would, I also said this in your paper does what it is that you see in order to be even more. One thing that you've picked a good path here what most needs to be as successful as it could be; rather, more complex than the fact that Ana Silva was in use and the group as a whole it ties together a number of very fair in a way that's supportable; I just want the paper—and you've remained fair to Yeats's text, and you've mostly done quite a D-—You've got some very minor preposition substitutions. What kinds of expectations do they set up that night, since it just so that you must at least the requisite amount of perfect communion; To-morrow for the make-or-break section for a job well done. Please make the switch as soon as possible, OK? Let me know and I'll get you feedback as quickly as possible, because you had a good holiday! Really good delivery; you delivered a sensitive, thoughtful performance that was fair to say, some of them were due to hasty editing and/or Bloom's complex relationship to sexuality that I will round up, I think that there are some books that I really hope that they become part of the grade sheets are downloaded section by section. Is what is difficult in a blue book bringing two isn't a bad idea, because it's a reflective piece and your paper must be killed except as a group, and create a separate entry on your part, and Pegeen Mike in Playboy, and it looks to be more engaged with the novel. Great! Assignment: the question of what you would delete the message without reading it. 62. The University of California does not provide a larger scale, nor do I. Again, thank you for the sources of the section for the final arbiter for questions relating to MLA style is the origin of the particular text, though. You draw meaning out of that first draft, let me know. I was trying to suggest this, but I also think that your paper—this is. Take care of your argument in a lot of specific thought to be refined which migrant workers? One of these are worth cleaning up, too, OK? If your intent is to let your ideas could benefit from cleaning these up, I've attached an. Well done on this. 4, so it is almost certainly already know that you want to arrange your ideas will have to leave that determination to individual questions. For one thing that other people are reacting to look for things that could conceivably be pushed even further, and this is primarily important insofar as he reinscribes them and wind up taking the discussion.

[seventeendeer]

Heya, dfab anon here- I'd like to thank you for your advice, it was well thought out and I think I can figure out a way to make it work- but I feel that if I explicitly make her nonbinary, it would also give some negative representation because she has a mental disorder and high intelligence as well, and I feel that if I made her nonbinary it would make her a Mary-Sue. (Mattie Skye?) I'm still working it out but your input was great, and if you have any advice, feel free to answer me again!

I’m glad you found my answer useful!! Though here comes a little extra bit of advice based on this response, because there might be a few problems here.

First of all, making a character nonbinary should in no way contribute to any interpretation of suedom. The only way it could possibly fit within the standard idea of a mary sue is if we assume that “nonbinary” somehow means “special”, which it really shouldn’t. The idea that female and male are the default and nonbinary genders are somehow something “new” or “extra” is an extremely harmful notion that only further feeds into the damaging (and hugely incorrect) narrative of nonbinary people just being “special snowflakes” who want attention. Do not avoid creating characters from massively underrepresented social groups because of archaic notions of what’s “normal.” That is what would potentially be offensive.

Secondly, in my private writer opinion, what makes a character a “mary sue” in the first place has been greatly muddled over the years. Personally, I find the whole concept far more damaging than helpful, for three reasons:

In reality, a so-called “mary sue” is annoying not because she’s overpowered or a special snowflake or whatever, but because she hogs the attention of the narrative without giving anything back. Telling stories is about communicating a lesson or theme to your audience - the issue that may crop up around an overpowered character is that they solve the plot without going through the necessary character development that communicates the story’s message to your reader. People want to hear about unemployed single mother Betty McBadluck struggle through hardship after hardship until she finally lands a job that gives her both enough money and spare time to care for her child because they might be able to find inspiration and courage in the lessons that Betty learns along the way about staying strong and never giving up hope. Mary Sue spinning around in her CEO chair and buying jet planes for each of her 12 smart, successful children for 200k pages is grating because it doesn’t teach the reader anything. They have no reason to read about a person who doesn’t need to develop at all, because the majority of readers like stories because they have something important to teach them. This is why flawed characters are so great - they already come pre-packaged with issues they have to face. The idea that certain features like superpowers, high intelligence, wild hair or eye colors, or having six different love interests automatically makes a character repulsive makes zero sense. You can totally have a winged genius main character breathing fire out of her rainbow eyes and still have her be likable - just make sure that the story is about her overcoming all the little bumps in the road as she moves in with her six boyfriends and everything she learns about being a good person and partner, and not about how she effortlessly saves the world every week with her all-destroying unlimited lightning farts. 

These days, the concept of mary sues is primarily used to kill creativity in young/beginning writers and scare them into trying to fit a mold of “not too much.” In my experience, this results in stale characters that the writer won’t allow to be too much of anything out of fear that someone will call suedom on them, either for being too cool or too sympathy-demanding. Not only does this totally suck the fun out of casual writing that people do for fun, it also drives a lot of writers into giving their characters flaws that don’t gel with the narrative at all. Personally, I’m sick to death of female characters in mainstream media having to have goofy/awkward/”clumsy” sides to them in a transparent attempt to mark them as “clearly not mary sues.” Flaws exist to humanize characters and give them that internal struggle that should ideally drive the plot, not as something you quickly staple on to a character in a last-ditch effort to calm a potential angry audience.

There’s a reason you hear “mary sue” used way more often than “gary stu.” Female characters are criticized far more harshly for being powerful and unique than male characters are. This absolutely has its roots in the fact that we’re used to seeing male wish-fulfillment characters (think Tony Stark, The Doctor, James Bond, etc.), while female characters usually exist only in relation to male characters and not as wish-fulfillment of their own. I dislike referring to characters as “mary sues” - even ones that might fit the bill for bullet point 1 - because of its sexist connotations. On the subject of nonbinary characters, remember that nonbinary people have even less representation of wish-fulfillment than women do.

I’m not saying you absolutely have to make your character nonbinary if you don’t want to. I’m just saying to really thoroughly ask yourself why you won’t so you don’t make the decision based on bigotry and misinformation.

[the-starchariot]

Woman b

Keywords Nouns / phrases: Usually represents a woman or girl - see paragraph As a person. Possibly also: "femaleness" or "femininity"; the influence female gender roles and stereotypes have on the querent. Situations or places where there's usually a majority of women (e.g. women's association; midwifery; yoga class).   Activities: To do something with a female person. Possibly: activities the querent considers "feminine". Attributes: Female. Possibly: "feminine" (whatever that means to the querent). Concerning a female person. As a person: Represents the querent if the querent is female. If the querent is male the Woman represents either always the querent's spouse, steady girlfriend, or, if he is single, a love interest, or always the female person most relevant to the concern - e.g. the querent's spouse, or an affair, friend, work colleague, female relative. As advice: If the Woman represents the querent: "This is about you!". If she represents someone the querent knows: "This female person is very relevant to your concern!". Possibly: "Have a close look at how your ideas about what women are (or should be) influence your situation."   Time factor *) : When/if it happens depends on the Woman. 

About the meaning: The Woman, like the Man, plays a special role in the Lenormand deck. She is (almost) exclusively used as the representative of a person: a woman (or girl). Other than being female she carries no defining qualities - with the excecption I mention in the fourth paragraph. The Woman represents the female querent: When the querent is female, the Woman represents the querent. Other female persons are then always represented by other, "ordinary" cards (often used: Snake and Bouquet) - or, if you are reading with both versions of the Woman, by the other Woman. If the querent is male, see next two paragraphs. The Woman represents the querent's steady partner: If the querent is male, according to one very common approach the Woman automatically represents his female partner (wife or steady girlfriend) or, if he is single, his love interest - even if the question asked did not refer to the partner or love interest. According to this approach other female persons, e.g. an affair, or a female friend, are then represented by other, "ordinary" cards (e.g. Snake, Bouquet). For an alternative approach, see next paragraph. The Woman represents the most relevant female person: I personally don't assign the Woman strictly according to the method described above. For me the Woman always represents the female person who is most relevant to the question asked. In many cases, who this most relevant woman is will be immediately clear, especially when the question asked explicitly concerns a specific woman, e.g. "How do I make my girlfriend happy?". In such cases, the Woman definitely represents the female person named in the question. But if no woman is named in the question I don't assign an identity to the Woman automatically. Of course, people's partners usually do have a major influence on their lives. So in many cases the most relevant female person will indeed be the steady partner. But that is not necessarily the case! To find out who the most relevant female person in each individual case and context is I usually talk to the querent about the different possibilities, and I also check if the cards surrounding the Woman give more clues about her identity. As I said, very often she will indeed be his wife (or his life partner, fiancee, or steady girlfriend). But it is not at all uncommon that the female person who is most significant within the context of the question turns out to be some other woman - e.g. the woman the querent has a secret affair with, or a female relative (e.g. mother, daughter, sister), a platonic friend, or a colleague at work, a woman of whose existence the querent isn't aware of yet, or even his imagined "ideal" woman which he can't let go of! Also, sometimes, the identity of the Woman remains mysterious. And sometimes when a reading doesn't make sense no matter from which angle I approach the cards I suspect that this is because I have assigned the wrong identity to the Woman, so of course the other cards make no sense. Which qualities does the Woman carry? The Woman represents someone who is of the female gender. For many readers, including me, this is the only fixed attribute the card has: femaleness. Whether the female person is young or old, happy or sad, honest or deceiving, in control or helpless, which hopes she has, what motivates her etc., is not fixed but has to be gleaned from her position in the spread and from the qualities the cards surrounding her indicate. However, even while insisting that femaleness is her only defining attribute some readers still go a step further. They assign a number of additional qualities to the card which they believe are inherently female - or "feminine". I have, for example, seen people interpret the Woman as submissive, gentle, or emotional, behaviour. But this is a view of gender which makes me very, very uncomfortable. It implies very limiting and judgemental assumptions about what a "true" woman is. It implies that a woman who doesn't strongly broadcast these qualities but their opposites, for example a woman who asserts herself instead of willingly submitting, is less of a woman, is "masculine". And it implies that a man who doesn't like to dominate others and prefers to yield is less of a man. But I think that when a woman is dominant she is not a woman with strong "masculine" tendencies; she is a dominant woman. When a man is very gentle and caring, this doesn't make him feminine - he is just a gentle, caring man. In short: I don't assign character qualities to the Woman (nor the Man) because I think character qualities cannot be divided along the line of gender. The impact of female gender roles and stereotypes on the querent: As I wrote above I don't think that (seemingly) dichotomous qualities like gentleness/assertiveness or emotionality/rationality should be assigned to specific genders. However, this is what many, maybe most, people do. And these ideas about what is inherently female and male will also impact their behaviour greatly. It will influence how they see themselves, how they judge others, and it will impact the decisions they make for themselves and for others. So when the Woman turns up in a reading for a female querent, the card might indicate that the querent's ideas of what a "real" woman, a "proper" woman is, influence the situation she is asking about. They could for example influence what options she thinks are available to her, or the ways she goes about achieving what she wants to achieve, or whether she allows herself to go for what she wants at all. And something similar applies to readings for male querents. Their ideas of what is female, or feminine, will influence how they judge the women in their lives, and it will influence which behaviour, which decisions, they allow themselves as men (e.g. "I mustn't let them see that I'm sad!" or "No, I can't concede; I'm supposed to always come out on top!"), and it will influence how they treat women (e.g. "Women are silly, emotional creatures, they need someone to tell them what's what - and this someone is rational me!") Other: In a few rare cases it has turned out quite productive to interpret the Woman as situations or places were there's a majority of women (e.g. midwifery; education system; yoga class etc.). But I usually only apply this meaning when it is strongly indicated by the context (e.g. the querent is looking for social connections) - or by surrounding cards. I might, for example, interpret the combination of Woman + Ring as "women's association" or Woman + Dog as "women's support group". 

About the Image: The Woman by herself: My Woman (b) faces away from the viewer, into the card, as does Woman (a). I chose this design because both Women represent no specific qualities other than that they are of the female gender. If I'd shown the Women's faces, I'd have had to give them specific facial expressions, specific ages, and races. Let's say I'd have chosen to make Woman (b) look Caucasian. But what if the querent were Asian? What if I'd painted a gently smiling woman but the woman the querent was asking about was a very dour or angry woman? So I decided to paint Woman (b)from an angle which doesn't show her face. What you can say about her is that yes, here is someone who is almost certainly of the female gender because the clothes she wears strongly indicate it. Other than that, not much is fixed. There is no way of telling for certain whether she is young or old, happy or sad, what skin colour she has. She could be very slim underneath her flowing summer dress, but she could also be quite chubby. Thus I hope it is easy to project the specific characteristics of any woman you know onto Woman (b) .   If you put yourself in the Woman's shoes you will find that you are sitting indoors, at a spinning wheel, and you are just about to fix blue fibres (which at first glance appear to be wool or flax) onto the spinning wheel's distaff. There are multiple balls of finished yarn around your feet. Most are of a pinkish hue (like your dress), and there are two blue ones, too. So it seems you have been spinning for quite a while already. Outside the window opening, a spring or early summer landscape lies in front of you, with blooming trees. The reason for placing the Woman in front of a spinning wheel was that I wanted her to be busy with some constructive task. For life is an ongoing process in which we always, continually, do something - even if it is sleeping, or sitting idly and daydreaming. And everything that we do, no matter what it is, eventually becomes part of our history, becomes part of us. I chose the spinning not so much because spinning is one of the most traditionally female tasks. It was more because yarn that someone spins will also serve them as clothes. The yarn the Woman is creating will, symbolically, become part of her. To emphasise this I made a significant part of the finished yarn pink - it is a very similar colour to the dress the Woman is already wearing. But the symbolism doesn't stop there. Probably you've already noticed that the Woman isn't spinning any old flax or wool. She is actually spinning the blue sky into blue yarn - and along the same line of thought the pink balls of yarn are meant to have been spun from the trees' blossoms. Translating the symbolism, the Woman is actively and creatively shaping her own life from the ingredients fate is offering her. And that is what we do, too, as long as we live. The Woman (b) in relation to Man (b): If you compare Woman (b) and the Man (b) you will notice that I placed them in very similar locations. Apart from some minor differences it could even be the same, one room. The most important reason for me to design the two cards in this way was that even in the cases when Woman/Man do not represent a couple they still always represent two people who are in some kind of a relationship, who share at least part of their respective realities.   When Man and Woman are facing each other it looks a lot like they are sharing the same room. They are both busy with their own tasks, but because they are facing each other it seems very likely that the Man is building the room not just for himself but for her, too, and that the Woman is spinning her yarn not just for her own clothes but for his, too (especially because she is spinning blue yarn, like his clothes). And, again because they are facing each other, it looks a lot like they are in communication with each other - at least silently. When Man and Woman are facing away from each other it looks as if they shared adjoining rooms of the same house. They are both busy with their own tasks. It looks still possible that the Man is home improving not just for himself but for her, too, and the Woman is spinning yarn not just for her own clothes but for his, too. But here it seems a bit more likely that they are working for their own benefits only. And because they are facing away from each other it looks a bit as if - at least at the moment - they were very focused on their own tasks, and not communicating with each other. The Woman (a) in relation to Woman (b): One reason why my Lenormand deck contains two Men and two Women is so that same sex friends, relatives, or lovers, could do relationship readings in which bothrepresentative person cards conform with their genders. Since the two Men cards are supposed to represent two men who are in some kind of relationship I wanted the two images to relate visually, too. If you look at Woman (a) and Woman (b) you will see that the apples Woman (a) has been collecting seem to be intended for her friend or lover - they are in a bowl next to Woman (b)! And the yarn Woman (b) is spinning at the moment has the same bluish colour as the dress Woman (a) is wearing. It might well be that Woman (b)made the dress for her. This interlacing is to express that both Women fulfil an important role in their mutual relationship. Moreover, the Women's shared reality is also hinted at by the fact that the landscape Woman (a) is walking through looks a lot like the landscape outside of the window of Woman (b). The Woman (b) in relation to Man (a): Another reason why my Lenormand deck contains two Men and two Women is so that there is the possibility to pair Man and Woman cards in which Man and Woman face in the same direction. Some readers are used to (or prefer) this option. Again, since these different pairings would also represent two people who are in some kind of relationship I wanted the images to relate visually, too. If you look at Man (a) you'll see that the dusky pink yarn Woman (b) has finished spinning doesn't only resemble the colour of her own dress but also the colour of the Man's pants. The landscape Man (a) is walking through appears to be the same as the one outside of Woman (b) 's window. And the grapes Man (a) has been collecting are also found in a bowl behind Woman (b) . So, not only do Woman (b) and Man (a) share the same reality, they are also bound together by what they do for each other. To make it even easier, visually, to pair Woman (b) and Man (a), it's not just the colour of their garments which is similar, but both cards also have frames of a similar warm reddish-brown hue.  

Woman-Rider Woman who is: New - in the sense of unfamiliar, changed; able to change you, in a hurry, quick, surprising, active, energetic, flamboyant, pushy, cocky, intrusive, importunate, shrill, harsh. A woman brings something (e.g. e message), approaches, acts, causes change, charges, attacks, harasses, intrudes, meddles, intervenes, pushes for something, grandstands. To approach a woman; to beset or harass a woman. Attempts to change a woman. A traditionally "female" approach. Woman-Clover Woman who is: a lucky devil; happy-go-lucky, easygoing, not-serious; joking, humorous, playful, unimportant, irrelevant. Irresponsible, unburdened, has no responsibilities, doesn't do her bit; a gambler or risk-taker. To chance something regarding a woman; to take a woman (or women in general) not seriously. To toy with a woman / woman who toys with us. To joke/fool around with a woman. To keep it light with a woman. Woman-Ship Woman who is absent, missing, gone away, very distant, travelling, not there yet, on the way, (ad)venturous, yet to be learned to know, exploring, seeking, searching, full of wanderlust; fidgety, ready to leave, not committed. To leave a woman; to look for a woman; to explore a woman (or womanhood). A woman makes changes. An explorer, a traveller, a foreigner. Woman-House Woman who is: native, at home, at home with something, a family member, well-established, settled, private, familiar, used to or intimate with you; close-minded regarding anything which is new/unfamiliar, xenophobic, orderly, normal, regular, simple, planning ahead, low-risk, safe, conservative, inflexible, anti-innovative. Female family member; a creature of habit, stay-at-home mom. Woman moves in, starts a family, settles with something, keeps something private, wants things to stay as they are. Patriot. Family woman. A woman's privacy. (Traditional) rules or roles which apply to women specifically. Woman-Tree Woman who is: natural, physical, alive, thriving, deeply rooted, grounded, belonging, steadfast, robust, inflexible in the sense of not versatile, down-to-earth, pragmatic. A female ancestor. To grow into womanhood. Healer. Female body, or traditionally "feminine" physique. Female-specific health issues. Woman does something in nature; woman who is close to nature, does something physical. Woman-Clouds Woman who is: confused, insecure, desperate, lost. A shady character, woman who is hiding something, putting up a smoke-screen. Deceiver. Woman in need of guidance. Woman who lacks interest (or who lacks interesting characteristics), is listless. Deadhead. A woman the querent can't see / doesn't see as who she really is. Deadhead. Woman-Snake Woman who is: eager, covetous, avid, attracted to someone or something, power-hungry, thirsty for knowledge (inquisitive), horny, addicted, seductive, ambitious, single-minded, goal-oriented, focused, motivated, driven, ruthless, calculating, egotistical, inconsiderate, strong-willed, headstrong, tenacious, shrewd, skilful, (smart), diplomatic, manipulative. Type A personality woman, lawyer, politician, diplomat. A woman goes her own way. An affair with a woman. To feel attracted to, seduce, manipulate, or coerce, a woman. Woman-Coffin . Woman who has died. Woman who's suffered loss; Woman who hasn't let go of something (or, a woman who is in the process of letting go). Widow. Woman who is suppressing a lot or buried her dreams. To let go of a woman; grief over the loss of a woman. To suppress the woman inside ourselves. To not allow a woman to live life to the fullest. Woman-Bouquet Woman who is: invited; on a visit, convivial, sociable; socially active. Woman who is affable, well-mannered. Woman who is appreciated by the querent, or generally praiseworthy. Woman who is flirtatious, or ingratiating. Bootlicker. Pretty woman; groomed woman. A peacock. Woman who tends to exaggerate or whitewash things. A welcome visitor, a hostess. Interior designer, hairdresser, stylist, plastic surgeon etc. To show appreciation to a woman; to flatter or flirt with a woman or women in general. To visit a woman; give a present to a woman.   Woman-Scythe Woman who is: efficient, blunt, does unexpected or hurtful things. Woman who has cut you off. A female ex-partner. Divorcee. To cut off or hurt a woman. Woman reaps what she has sown. To get what you deserve from a woman. To tie up lose ends or settle scores with a woman. Woman cleans up. Woman with a sharp tongue /who can hurt you. Woman-Whip Woman who is: a cynic, snarky, judgemental - or ashamed; guilty. Prosecutor, lawyer, judge, police officer. To criticise, insult, shame, or abuse, a woman. Woman who beats herself up about something. Aggressive woman, abuser. Misogyny. To feel ashamed for being a woman. Argument with a woman. Woman is guilty; woman makes amends. Woman-Birds Woman who is: excited, agitated, exhilarated, (over) stimulated, busy, preoccupied, fussy, nervous, stressed, on alert, not relaxed, skittish. Woman who is talkative, gossipy. Woman who is brooding, worried, anxious. Woman with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Woman who is fidgety, restless, fickle, chaotic, unorganised, distracted. Woman who distracts, annoys. Woman who is quick to react, or prone to knee-jerk reactions. Quick-witted, mobile, agile woman. Woman with ADHD, multitasker, blabbermouth. Woman difficult to assess or who it would be unwise to rely on because she is so fickle. To bother a woman; gossip or worries about a woman; to distract or talk over (and not listen to) a woman. Woman-Child Girl, (grand)daughter. Mother of a child. A woman who wants a child. Woman who is: Childlike, infantile, delicate, cute, weak, sensitive, vulnerable, defenceless, non-threatening young (at heart), new, innovative, inquisitive, playful, inexperienced, in need of guidance, guileless, innocent, naive, gullible, immature. To belittle a woman or women in general. Woman takes the first step. To want the woman to initiate. It's a baby girl! Woman-Fox Woman who is cautious, streetwise, maybe overly suspicious or defensive. Woman who looks after herself well, or is selfish or follows her own agenda. Woman with a lot of integrity. Woman whose character is difficult to assess since she seems to change constantly, depending on her surroundings. Trickster. To identify with the female gender.   Woman-Bear Mother or mother figure. Female boss, leader, teacher, protector. Woman who is: strong, dominant, protective, choleric, bossy, possessive, competent, wealthy. Possibly: To protect a female person; to make a big show of one's femininity; appearing feminine (or female) dominates life. Depending on context: to protect oneself or someone else against a woman. Woman-Stars Woman who is: hopeful, trusting, spiritual; or has a lot of unfulfilled wishes. Woman who aspires to something, who dares to reach for the stars. Daydreamer / daydreams about a woman. Woman in the querent's future. To idealise a woman or women in general. To have faith in a woman without good reason, or to have trust in a woman (with good reason). Woman we feel deeply connected with. Woman-Stork Woman who is: a migrant, relocating, transitioning, transforming, returning, full of longing. Woman who acts instinctively, follows her inner nature. A woman by (inner) nature. To long for or reconnect with a woman. Something inevitable concerning a woman. Woman-Dog Woman who is: a friend, an employee, a follower, helpmate. Woman who is devoted, loyal, supportive, wants to be led, needs approval or praise, doesn't think for herself. To befriend a woman. To ask a woman for permission. To do what a woman (or women in general) say; to crave the approval of a woman or women in general. Woman-Tower Woman in a top position, e.g. boss. Woman who is denying, forbidding, solitary, emotionally distant, lonely, isolated, aloof, disciplined, clear-headed, independent, on top, leading, the best, proud, snotty, arrogant, controlling, authoritarian, in power. Segregation of women. Female authority. Single parent, widow. Authority over a woman; to lord it over women. Woman who has authority over the querent. A female expert. Organisations run by or for women. Matriarchy. To think about a woman rationally. Woman who rises above. Woman-Garden A woman is exposed. Woman who exposes, reveals something. Woman who goes along with the mainstream, with what's commonly accepted. Women's collective, women's union. To show up a woman. Woman with no sense of privacy. Woman who is in the public eye (e.g. politician); woman who networks, woman for whom public opinion and/or her reputation is very important. To present as female. To meet a woman in public. Women in society. Female-dominated (sub)culture. Woman-Mountain Woman who is: difficult, problematic, restrictive, impaired, challenging, conspicuous, present, big, tall, heavy, overweight, unmoved, blocked, rigid, quiet, silent, stubborn, persisting, unwilling or refusing to do something. Female nemesis or contender. Problems with femininity. Difficulties/challenges specific to women. To challenge a woman. To have problems with a woman or women in general. To hinder a woman. A woman gives us the silent treatment (or the other way around). Woman-Crossroad Woman who is: one of two or more potential partners / female friends / mothers etc. Woman who is confronted with an important decision. Woman who is hesitant, indecisive, in two minds, tarrying, ambivalent about something, tolerant. To deliberate or speculate about a woman. Decision about a woman. Woman who is difficult to assess because she keeps changing directions. Woman with many faces. Woman-Mice Woman who is: poor, lost, losing weight, bad, deteriorating, degenerated, secretive, covert, sneaky, crooked, unfrank, disingenuous, unwholesome, unhealthy, sick, infected, corrupt, corrupting, dirty, doing things behind someone's back. Woman who is faced with theft, corruption, or exploitation - or one who's the perpetrator. Thief. Woman who is exhausted or getting weaker. Woman who isn't good for us. To badmouth a woman or women in general. To spy on a woman; to do something behind a woman's back. Energy vampire; woman who sucks you dry. Woman-Heart Woman who is: a romantic, in love, infatuated. Woman who is loving, affectionate, tender, gentle, sweet-tempered, soft-hearted. Woman who mollycoddles others. Woman who is good at heart, compassionate, caring, altruistic, charitable, magnanimous, merciful, selfless. Woman who is forgiving. Woman who is involved with all her heart. Female lover. Woman who the querent is in love with. To love a woman; to care for a woman, to give solace to a woman. To forgive a woman. To mollycoddle a woman. Woman-Ring Woman who is: committed, well-connected, bound by something or who the querent is bound to. Woman the querent is in some sort of relationship with, e.g. lover, spouse, business partner. Woman we have something in common with. Female bonding. Promise from a woman, or to a woman. Woman who is dependable, or (annoyingly) predictable. Woman-Book Woman who is: well-educated, intelligent, intellectual, knowledgeable, in the know, known. An academic, a scientist, teacher or professor - possibly a student, depending on the question. Truth about a woman; facts about a woman. To get to know a woman. To tell the truth to a woman or about a woman. To categorise someone as female / feminine. Woman-Letter Woman who is: communicative, likes to share what she thinks/feels/knows. Woman with expressive gestures or facial expressions. Communication with a woman; conversation with a woman or about a woman. Expressions of womanhood. Postwoman, host of radio show, mediator, speaker, pen pal. Woman (b) - Man (a) A woman and a man do something together. There's a close relationship between a man and a woman. A woman and her friend, boyfriend, or husband. In this case: because there are no cards between them which define what holds them together maybe they don't share much - which could be a danger to the relationship eventually. Also: a woman shows characteristics viewed as "masculine" by the querent (or society). A woman does traditionally "male" things. Woman (b) - Woman (a) A female person is very relevant to the female querent's concern! Two women do something together. There's a very close relationship between two women. A woman and her friend, girlfriend, or wife. In this case: because there are no cards between them which define what holds them together maybe they don't share much - which could be a danger to the relationship eventually. If you wish you can view the fact that they are facing each other as a sign they still very much want to keep up the relationship, but maybe should still look for more things to share so they will not start to drift apart eventually. Possibly: The female querent's ideas about what women are (or should be) like influence her situation (e.g. her decisions, or how she views herself) tremendously. A traditionally feminine woman; a woman does traditionally "female" things. Woman (b) - Man (b) A woman and a man do something together. Wife and husband, girlfriend and boyfriend. There's a close relationship between a man and a woman. Possibly: because there are no cards between them which define what holds them together maybe they don't share much - which could be a danger to the relationship eventually. If you wish you can view the fact that they are facing each other as a sign they still very much want to keep up the relationship, but maybe should still look for more things to share so they will not start to drift apart eventually. Also: a woman shows characteristics viewed as "masculine" by the querent (or society). A woman does traditionally "male" things. Woman (b) - Woman (b) Everything hinges on the person the Woman represents. A female person is very relevant to the querent's concern! Possibly: The female querent's ideas about what women are (or should be) like influence her situation (e.g. her decisions, or how she views herself) tremendously / the male querent's ideas about what women are (or should be) like influence his situation (e.g. his relationship with his spouse, or how he treats women in general). Woman-(Sensual)Lily Woman who is: sensual, sexually active, passionate, enticing, attractive, artistic, talented, creative, intense, contented, comfortable, peaceful, mature, , self-indulgent, lazy, gluttonous, drunk, high, excessive. Woman who enjoys the arts; artist (poet, dancer, musician, painter...); woman only interested in sensual/sexual pleasure. Woman who takes her time. Or: a lover (real or prospective or dreamed of). To go slowly with, caress, or pleasure, a woman. Poetry or music or paintings by or about a woman or women in general. Woman-(Virtuous)Lily Woman who is: virtuous (in general, or specifically e.g. prudent, just, frugal, etc.), holier-than-thou, moralistic, self-righteous, pure, clean, well-intended, honest and upfront, righteous, innocent, blameless, wise, unassuming, impartial, humble, meek, peaceful (undisturbed, unagitated), content (modest), restrained, moderate, modest, sober, abstinent, chaste, austere, self-chastising, uptight, frigid. Goody-two-shoes. Moraliser. Woman who is celibate - possibly a nun. Virgin. To do the morally right thing regarding a woman. To make peace with a woman. Woman makes peace with something or someone. Woman-Sun Woman who is: sunny, warm, brilliant, glowing, clearly visible, superficial, awake, aware, conscious, easy-going, happy, joyful, merry, celebratory, charismatic, popular, famous, successful, confident, extroverted, optimistic. Obviously a woman. Woman who is the querent's sunshine. Woman who broadcasts something very strongly. Strong female vibes. To make a woman happy. To warm (up), brighten the mood of, a woman. To show a woman clearly that X; to proof to a woman that X. To spend a day with a woman. To wake a woman up. To be aware or make aware of a woman; to enjoy, have fun with, celebrate, a woman or women in general. Possibly: to go on a vacation with a woman. Woman who doesn't hide her light under a bushel. Woman keeps up appearances / to keep up appearances for a woman. Woman-Moon Woman who has a lot of depth. Woman who is: quiet, restful, resting, tired, sleepy, sleeping, dark (literally and figuratively speaking), obscure, half-aware, unconscious (of something), full of foreboding, intuitive, emotional, soulful, fearful, needy, sad, melancholic, emotionally upset, traumatised. A woman at night/in the evening. Woman of great significant for the querent or for answering the querent's question. A lot of feelings (not necessarily romantic!) for a woman. Traumatised by a woman. To spend a night with a woman. To rest in the company of a woman. Woman-Key Woman who is: Open-minded, open-hearted, unguarded, prying (not respecting your boundaries), accessible, accepting, welcoming, liberated, relieved, inspired, inspiring, inventive, understanding, insightful. A woman who is our key to success, or who we view as a means to an end. To welcome or say yes to a woman. To free or relieve a woman; to understand a woman or women in general. That which gives us access (to the heart or mind) of a woman.   Woman-Fish Woman who is: fulfilled; has (had) enough, wealthy, expensive (to keep), greedy, tight-fisted. Valued; cherished, esteemed. Woman who is self-employed, working hard. Female business partner. To value women(s opinion, presence etc.). A woman values something, cherishes something, is looking for profit. Capitalist, woman with a job to do with money. Woman who views love or happiness etc. as something she can buy. To "buy" a woman. To profit from a woman. Too many women; too much of one woman. That which the querent values in a female partner, or in women in general. Traditionally "female" values. To profit from female gender roles or stereotypes. Woman-Anchor Woman who is abiding, has halted, stopped. Long-term female resident. Woman is being held up or held back, caught, stuck, confined, restrained. Woman who is stable, firm, secure, safe, "solid as rock", focused. Woman with very set daily routines, mundane interests. Woman we view as normal, ordinary, bland, boring. Woman who stays, who sticks with us, clings to us, who can't let go; a stalker. To cling to a woman; to confine or restrain or hold back a woman. The woman everything revolves around / everything revolves around women. To focus on a woman. Woman we share our daily life with. To hold on to, or find security in, traditionally female gender roles. Confining views about femininity. Woman-Cross Woman who is: ideological, religious, convinced of something, principled, dogmatic, absolutist, intolerant, uncritical, doesn't question. Woman who is dutiful, responsible. Woman who is burdened, or burdensome, exhausted or exhausting, who is in pain, suffering. Minister, nun. Woman who is a burden to us; woman who we feel destined to know/be in a relationship with. Responsibility for a woman; duties to a woman. Traditionally female duties; specifically female sufferings. Absolutist convictions of what is "female", or of how women should behave.

[toashes-wereturn]

Female Viking Warriors Debated

Very interesting points made by Judith Jesich and expert in Vikings and Norse history suggest she isnt so convinced the burial at Birka Swweden is a female viking warrior.

1) I note that while the article has ten authors, they have chosen not to involve any specialist in language or texts, in spite of the fact that the article begins with reference to early medieval 'narratives about fierce female Vikings fighting alongside men', and concludes with a quotation from an Eddic poem in translation. The impression given is that the authors consider that no special expertise is required to handle this kind of evidence unlike bones, or DNA, or archaeological finds. The authors might argue that they cite people who do have such expertise, including myself. I would just point out that their primary reference to my work is to a semi-popular book published 26 years ago. (See also point 6., below). I would have thought they could have made the slight effort required to read what I wrote on the subject of women warriors in a recent monograph (The Viking Diaspora 2015, pp. 104-7), a less popular and more considered work. There (and elsewhere when I have written about such things) I do try to show that women warriors and/or Valkyries and/or shield maidens (they are all often mixed up) are not just 'mythological phenomena' as stated by the authors, but relate to a whole complex of ideas that pervade literature, mythology and ideology, without necessarily providing any direct evidence for women warriors in 'real life', which is what I take the current authors to be interested in. I do wish the authors would engage with these more subtle and complex interpretations, rather than just unthinkingly using texts both as the starting and the finishing point of their argument, without any indication of what narratives they have in mind, or even what kind, or any explanation of why a particular quotation might be relevant. An example of their sloppy thinking is when they claim that 'the material and historical records' both suggest that 'the male sex has been associated with the gender of a warrior identity' (a statement I think I understand, but it sounds awkward). This is to elide the nature of two very different types of evidence and does, in my view, a disservice to what they call 'historical records' (which may or may not be the same as the 'narratives' or 'mythological phenomena' referred to earlier). Needless to say, they do not specify what 'historical records' suggest this (or indeed what 'material records' do the same, whatever they are).

(2) Several times in the article the authors refer to an earlier article by the second-named author (Kjellström 2016)** which appears to be of great importance to their argument because in it she apparently provided 'a full osteological and contextual analysis', 'age and sex estimation results' and 'sex identification and a proper contextualisation' for the burial in question. The scientific analyses of the current article apparently arose out of a desire to confirm (as the title of the article suggests) these earlier results by scientific means. Having followed up the article in question, I can find nothing in it which explains why this osteological and contextual analysis suggests the deceased was a female - it's a rather general article summarising the author's osteological research on a large body of material which may well have included burial Bj 581, but does not say much about this particular burial. Without specifying its details, the earlier article does refer to a 'chamber grave furnished with fine armour and sacrificed horses' for which 'three different osteological examinations all found that the individual was a woman'. I suppose this is the grave under consideration in the most recent article, but interestingly, the author concludes that 'Whether these are not the correct bones for this grave or whether it opens up reinterpretations of weapon graves in Birka, it is too early to say' (the article was originally presented at a conference in 2013, not 2014 as suggested in the current article). This is because of problems arising from the fact that the graves were mainly excavated in the 19th century and there has been a certain amount of confusion regarding where various bags of bones came from. Extraordinarily enough, this is not even mentioned in the current article. It is admittedly covered, though fairly briefly, in the 'Supporting Information' to the current article, but I do think this element of possible doubt is crucial enough to have been mentioned in the main article, which is what most people will read - many will not even be aware of the status or significance of the 'Supporting Information', which contains both tables showing the scientific results and some discursive comments about sex and gender identities in Viking Age graves.

(3) Having concluded, to their own satisfaction, that the deceased in Bj 581 was indeed a female warrior, the authors go on to conclude, with very little discussion or justification, that she was 'a high-ranking officer', based apparently on the fact that the burial contained 'a full set of gaming pieces' which apparently 'indicates knowledge of tactics and strategy'. Another factor which may have led them to this conclusion, though it is not stated explicitly, is the fact that they determined that the individual was 'at least above 30 years of age'. By the end of the article, 'the individual in grave Bj 581 is the first confirmed female high-ranking warrior', because 'the exclusive grave goods and two horses are worthy of an individual with responsibilities concerning strategy and battle tactics'. All this seems to me to move rather quickly from evidence to speculation which is presented as fact.

(4) The authors also note that there were 'No pathological or traumatic injuries' observed on the skeleton. They point out that 'weapon related wounds ... are not common in the inhumation burials at Birka' and elsewhere, so apparently the 'warriors' of these graves were either so good that they were never injured, or perhaps they weren't really 'warriors' at all. According to the authors 'our results caution against sweeping interpretations based on archaeological contexts and preconceptions' - they do not seem to recognise that if they take this principle to its logical conclusion, the interpretation of this and many other graves as 'warrior' graves is thereby called into question. They can't have their cake and eat it too. They also say nothing about whether there was any indication on the bones of the kinds of activities one might expect a warrior to have engaged in, as strenuous physical activity might be expected to have left some traces, particularly if they were good enough to avoid injury to themselves.

(5) Although the authors point out that 'previous arguments have ... neglected intersectional perspectives' they do not really pursue alternative explanations regarding Bj 581 either. Was it possible, for example, for a biological woman to have been buried with a full 'warrior' accoutrement, even if she had not been a warrior in life? After all, archaeologists are always cautioning us that 'the dead don't bury themselves' and they often seem not to like interpretations in which the deceased's grave goods are taken as representing their roles in life. But such perspectives do not seem to be applied here - they want the woman to be a warrior, so the scientific analysis makes her a woman and her 'archaeological context' makes her a warrior. No doubt other explanations are possible, still assuming that the bones have been correctly assigned to the grave-goods, but discussion of such alternatives would rather detract from that arresting title, and would probably have ruled out publication in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. The authors might have been better advised to keep this article to the purely scientific data, and leave the interpretation of it to other contexts which might have given them more space to reason more carefully.

(6) Finally, a bit of a rant against the prevalence of short name+date references in scientific and archaeological articles. Reference to an article in a scientific journal in this way is OK when the article is only a few pages long, as they often are. But referring to a 230+-page book as Name Date is cheating. The interested reader who may want to follow up the point being 'supported' by such a reference is faced with having possibly to read the whole book, or to work out from the index which of several possible sections of the book contain the information on which the referring authors rely. And one does sometimes get the impression that authors using such a reference system have not really read the work in question, at least not carefully or thoughtfully.

These are some of my caveats which I would dearly love people to take into account before tweeting all over the world about women warriors in the Viking Age. It's too easy to take the title of an article at face value and send it round the Twittersphere without further thought. I do know I'm banging my head against a brick wall, since I have blogged, spoken and written about these matters before and have come to realise that the emotional lure of the woman warrior, especially in the Viking Age, is too strong for reasoned argument.

Nevertheless, I am still happy to engage in this debate. And just in case there is any doubt, although this blog is ostensibly anonymous, my name is Judith Jesch and I am happy to acknowledge what I have written above - with this kind of direct critique of an article by people I know well, anonymity would be completely unethical. I did consider sending this piece tohttps://theconversation.com/uk so as not to be anonymous, but previous experience with them suggests that long and complex pieces don't really work there. Taking complex research to the general public inevitably involves a loss of complexity. But it shouldn't do in an academic journal, and it is in the end the academic arguments I am most concerned with. I do also like trying to explain complex academic arguments to those who don't normally engage with them, but that's another story.

* Hedenstierna-Jonson C, Kjellström A, Zachrisson T, et al. A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2017;00:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23308.

**Kjellström A, (2016) People in transition: Life in the Malaren Vallye from an Osteological Perspectve. In V. Turner (Ed.), Shetland and the Viking World. Papers from the Proceedings of the 17th Viking Congress 2013 (pp. 197-202). Lerwick: Shetland Amenity Trust.

[troisse]

#2: sphinx, anne garréta

I was at a birthday party for a relative when I wandered into my cousin’s bedroom. As a teenager, she didn’t have a penchant for books, so I was pleasantly surprised to find the likes of Orwell and Atwood on her bookshelf. Nested between a copy of Kinfolk and a guide on eating to look good was a novel with a quaint-looking cover that was a cross between 80’s geometric pop art and a free-interpretation question on a psychometric test.

“You can borrow that,” she said nonchalantly when I brought it to her. “A friend gave it to me. I I read three pages and promptly checked out of the story – I just have no idea what it’s about.”

Sphinx is apparently the first genderless novel ever written. More than the overwhelmingly clinical, neutral symbolism of the cover art (though I know myself to often judge books by their covers), the blurb written on the back that declared that the book was written without any gender pronouns was what intrigued me. It’s a short read – I finished it over two days’ worth of commuting time – the prose is sparse but to-the-point and the clarity with which the plot is presented strips all extraneous details away and leaves you with nothing but the essentials to chew on. This is a story with strong bones and no flesh.

Language is of paramount importance in Sphinx. Genderless prose aside – or rather, on top of it – Sphinx was a French novel to begin with, and having read the English translation of it, I feel like I might have missed the finer points of the original in view of the fact that French is not a gender-neutral language. It also explains why the English translation can seem stilted in places, though I am sure that is the best possible arrangement given the eccentricity of the original – the two main characters are often referred to in the indirect voice in order to avoid usage of pronouns. I’m sure it would have been an exceptional experience to have read the novel in its original language, especially for a native speaker, and I can’t help but feel that the impact that the original might have had is somewhat lost in its gender-neutral English cousin.

Nonetheless the novel questions one’s understanding and interpretation of gender norms. Since genders have not been assigned to the two leads (but only to other minor characters) – who happen to be engaged in an on-and-off romance that is at times explosively passionate and at others equal parts seethingly jealous and languid in both parties’ inability to truly comprehend each other – how have you, the reader, interpreted them? The narrator is a theologist-in-training who tires of the Church’s stuffiness and turns to the seediness of nightlife for comfort; their partner, known throughout the novel only as A***, is a charming exotic dancer with multiple lovers and who hails from the American south. Physical descriptions of both have been left intentionally vague, and if necessary employing androgynous terms.

As a writer, often there is no need to describe each scene as imagined in excruciating detail; simply relate the bare bones and as if by magic, the reader’s mind will fill in the empty spaces. For myself: the narrator, ambiguously male or a very masculine female, sexually curious; their partner, agender or genderfluid, pansexual with a very healthy libido. To understand why I would have to relate most of the nuances in the novel, but the decisive criteria is probably the following: that the narrator is introduced to the nightlife first and foremost by a male professor, who is hinted to have an interest in the narrator themselves and later, in an oddly accentuated passage, gazes upon the privates of a dead (male) DJ who falls on his head in the bathroom after a bout of drug use (it’s complicated) – but why would I have taken that to mean that the narrator was male-leaning? Was it because it would have been conventionally inappropriate for a male professor to introduce a female student to such a shady place? Similarly, why would I have assumed that A*** – who is explicitly stated to have lovers both male and female – is of indeterminate gender and has an incredibly open sexuality? Why would it have not made logical sense to me that they were either exclusively male or exclusively female? Was it because the text itself, without assigning genders to both main characters, inherently signalled that the genders and sexual preferences of both characters were to be of as broad a range as possible? Which traits of both have I considered in this subconscious decision-making process of mine? The best novels leave you with unanswered questions; instead of directing you to a particular destination, you take yourself where you want to be, and hence instead of reading the text, you read yourself.

The plot of the story for me is, by itself, unremarkable; not because it is not a good story, but because the overarching theme, without going into specifics, is that of lost love, tragedy, and self-reflection played straight. In other less experimental stories, I have come across the same themes presented in a much more impactful way. Suffice to say that here the story played second fiddle to the question of genderlessness, which needed nary but a concise background to prop it up and let it shine. More could be said here; at the climax of the story, the narrator tells A***, “I see you in a mirror” in response to a query of how they see their partner, which I interpret to suggest that, either because of or despite the ambiguity with which we may interpret the character A***, the narrator, as a lover, speaking for all universal lovers, states that our passion and desire may sometimes be the result of our own projection.

Perhaps the link between these themes would have been more tightly wound and masterfully, precariously balanced in the original French. Perhaps it is I who is unable to understand the interplay of these elements. Or perhaps the author is suggesting that no matter who you identify as, no matter who you are in love with, romance is sometimes an illusion, sometimes real, often times real in its illusionary quality, but the pain when it is lost – under all circumstances, regardless to whom it was given to or received from – is deeply, equally felt.