#Avoiding contradictions in prose

[owilder]

The most important element of show don't tell is not show don't tell itself. It's what you show has to back up what you tell.

[apiswitchcraft]

understanding norse runes: a historical and modern perspective pt. 1

This is going to be a three part series, each one covering a different aett of the Elder Futhark runes. We will not be covering the "reversed" or "murk stave" interpretations, because that is largely up to the reader to discern depending on orientation and arrangement when pulled. I'll make another post about the act of drawing runes for divination, but that isn't what this is. What this is is each rune's respective Anglo-Saxan, Norwegian, and Icelandic word poems (when available), the summarized interpretation, and associated deities.

For part two click here, part 3 here.

ᚠ fehu

ANGLO-SAXON:

"Wealth be by all very much welcomed:

Each man shall deal it out freely,

If he will from the Lord get approval"

NORWEGIAN:

"Wealth causes trouble among relatives

The wolf is raised in the forest"

ICELANDIC:

"Wealth is trouble among relatives

and fire of the sea

and path of the serpent"

INTERPRETATION: With the literal meaning being "cattle," this rune can also be wealth or gold. Also more literally, "fehu" is the source of the power of Frigg and Freyja, who are seeresses. Freyja, too, is most often associated with the golden necklace Brisingamen, whereas Freyr is associated with fertility and harvest (which leads to monetary gain). A rune of creation or creativity, this could represent anything from the creation from life or art, to money or social status. Especially when surrounded by runes of caution, however, this stave encourages us not to abuse our power, our money, our knowledge, etc. To avoid conflict (as arises in the Norwegian and Icelandic poems), it must be shared generously and used with wisdom. Often seen as representing raw, untamed power, there is a certain level of risk or effort that must go in to obtaining the metaphorical pot of gold. Regardless, the person is encouraged to take risks, to enter the unknown if available, and be prepared to "tame the wild," so to speak. As the first rune in the Elder Futhark, this rune is more than just "wealth" or "fertility," it's the process, the exchange of energy, that leads to the creation of these aspects. Therefore, in a reading, one might see this as more than just the end goal, but a reminder for seek balance when between prosperity and richness of life when building our future.

KEY WORDS: abundance, wealth, new beginnings, creation, success

ASSOCIATIONS: Freyr (who may be the "Lord" referred to in the Anglo-Saxan poem), Freyja, and possibly Frigg (especially when you consider that Frigg and Freyja are commonly conflated with one another)

ᚢ uruz

ANGLO-SAXON:

"Aurochs is fearless and greatly horned,

A very fierce beast, it fights with its horns,

A famous roamer of the moor, it is a very courageous animal."

NORWEGIAN:

"Slag comes from poor iron

Often the reindeer runs over the hard-frozen snow."

ICELANDIC:

"Drizzle is weeping of the clouds

and destructions of the hay-harvest

and abhorrence of the herdsman."

INTERPRETATION: With the literal meaning of "Aurochs" (or wild cow), "drizzle," or "slag," the uruz rune seems to have some contradiction when it comes to ancient interpretations. However, taking the Norse creation myth as written in the Prose Edda, we can start to make connections. In the Younger Edda, before Midgard was made, Muspelheim and Niflheim already existed. And when the rivers of Niflheim travelled far enough, it's "yeasty venom" hardened like slag, and condensed into a drizzle of rain which cooled into rime. Later, when the giant Ymir and the cow Audhumla thaw out of the frost at the edge of Muspelheim, Audhumla licks away that rime to reveal the first god. Thus we come to the modern interpretation, which is primordial power and manifestation. If fehu is the opportunity to create, uruz is the act of that creation happening. If fehu is cattle, then uruz is those cattle turned to fierce oxen to protect their land. It is the act of going back, or turning inward. Thus, this tells us that we may need to do some introspection, to find the will to go on within ourselves. Empty the page and let it fill again, burn away weakness and leave behind only pure vitality, pure drive. Also, it can be the twin power of shaping and nourishment knowledge, health, or luck.

KEY WORDS: growth, transformation, endurance,

ASSOCIATIONS: Audhumla

ᚦ thurisaz

ANGLO-SAXON:

"Thorn is most sharp, for every thane

who grasps it, it is harmful, exceeding cruel

To every man who rests among them."

NORWEGIAN:

"Thurs causes illness in women:

few rejoice at bad luck."

ICELANDIC:

"Thurs is the torment of women,

and the dweller in the rocks(/cliffs),

and the man(/husband) of Vardh-runa."

INTERPRETATION: The rune of Thor, this rune's literal meaning is in its name as "thurs"--meaning a primordial being, especially a Jotun. In the cases of the above rune poems, thurs represents a more imminent threat, like a disease causing entity. In modernity though, this rune represents action, potency, raw power, and physical strength, of which Thor embodies well. Also representing chaos (and sometimes even conflict) this rune can be one invoked for magic, especially chthonic or dark magic. Furthermore, this rune is one that links the power of the physical and spiritual realms, as Thor often does himself. In this vein, thurisaz can advise a diviner to seek balance in the regions where chaos reigns, whether that be a relationship, job, or otherwise. Be careful, though, and do not wander aimlessly into the dark, this rune forbodes not only a force of protection, but a force of destruction as well. Someone who is unskilled or undereducated may need to wisen up before making use of this rune in a practical manner, like a spell or sigil. It may also be considered a rune that represents sexual potency or pure eroticism, especially as it is a symbol of masculine potency.

KEY WORDS: strength, courage, eroticism, chaos, magic

ASSOCIATIONS: Thor, the Jotnar

ᚨ ansuz

ANGLO-SAXON:

"Mouth is the chieftain of all speech

mainstay of wisdom, comfort to wise ones

for every noble earl hope and happiness."

NORWEGIAN:

"River mouth is the way of most journeys:

but a scabbard of swords."

ICELANDIC:

"Ase is the olden-father (Odin),

Asgard's chieftain,

and the leader of Valholl (Valhalla)."

INTERPRETATION: The ansuz rune has two literal interpretations seen above: god and mouth. To connect these two you just have to look at the Icelandic rune poem that references Odin: chief of the aesir and creator of language. In this way, ansuz is often seen as representing Odin, but also his many aspects: language, poetry, wisdom, occult mastery, magic. As master of the runes, Odin represents everything the staves do: life, death, and the in-between. Understanding and intellectualism built on the mysteries of these aspects is not only encouraged but embodied by the ansuz rune. It tells us to try to emulate Odin in our everyday way, forcing ourselves into a cycle of forever change (as uncomfortable as it may be) and constant learning. To be clear, in a reading this may not always be some sort of calling from Odin, but a call from his domains. Of course, seek the path that works best for you, but there could be something calling you to use the powers of persuasion, your talent in poetry/song, etc.

KEY WORDS: communication, language, mental power, a message

ASSOCIATIONS: Odin, the Aesir

ᚱ raidho

ANGLO-SAXON:

"Riding is in the hall for a warrior

soft, more strenuous when astride

A great stallion pounding the long mile paths."

NORWEGIAN:

"Riding is said to be worst for horses;

Regin forged the best sword."

ICELANDIC:

"Riding is the joy of the rider

and a speedy journey,

and the labor of the horse."

INTERPRETATION: Raidho, or "ride"/"riding" is a rune of action and change. Less chaotic than ansuz, raidho emulates the soothing rhythm of a car (chariot/horse if we're being historically accurate) ride, the logician in a nation's leadership, the institutions of our schooling. However, it also calls for plans to be made, a path to be carved before it is walked. In this way, it can also mean the just, moral, or ethical path is being suggested to the reader. Feeling the call to use baneful magic? Perhaps delay it in favor of something more productive for yourself. Or don't, it's up to you. In some ways, this rune also represents the sun, as in its travel across the sky, and the potential and vitality it promises. Either way, action is necessary, and the righteous path is the one to follow.

KEY WORDS: order, structure, journey, ethics/morals, progress

ASSOCIATIONS: Sleipnir

ᚲ kenaz

ANGLO-SAXON:

"Torch to the living familiar aflame,

Is blinding and brilliant, it burns most often

Where royal folk within are resting."

NORWEGIAN:

"Sore is fatal to children:

Death makes a corpse pale."

ICELANDIC:

"Sore is the bale of children

And a scourge,

And the house of rotten flesh."

INTERPRETATION: Kenaz, again, has two different meanings in the runic poems: torch and sore (like a blister). This time, though, the difference seems to be for purely etymological reasons, and has little to do with a story. The only slight association I've seen pointed out is that both of these things are warm? Either way, fire is the primary meaning. From from we can discern deeper meanings, like energy and divine inspiration. Fire brings light and clarity, but can also burn and destroy. Perhaps you seek to know the future, but you are only willing to accept it if it's positive. Allow it to burn, to warm you to the deepest depths of your bones, to inspire you to create, like the fire of a forge. Let it fill you with vitality and stamina (especially sexually). Let it purify you as it purifies the dead on a pyre. It may also work to protect you, as a campfire does for the lonesome traveler. If left untended, however, it can cause death, suffering, a malady that will only worsen as it continues to be untended.

KEY WORDS: Knowledge, sexuality, creativity, clarity

ASSOCIATIONS: Freyja

ᚷ gebo

ANGLO-SAXON:

"Giving, to all men, brings credit and honor

help and worthiness--and to every outcast

is the estate and substance, that have naught else."

INTERPRETATION: As the letter "G" does not exist in Younger Futhark, we only have to deal with one potential meaning of gebo: "gift." Specifically, the balanced art of giving and receiving. Not only should one receive gifts gracefully, but reciprocate generously to friends, family, ancestors, and the gods. And that doesn't just mean physical gifts: but an exchange of energy, of time. Gifts are not simply bribes or meaningless gestures, but sacrifices and an exchange of loyalty. In a religious context, this does not just imply the act of constant sacrifice with no return from the gods. In Norse culture, the relationship between god and man went both ways. At Ragnarok, heroes would fight for the gods, as in life they would give up their time/energy/resources in offering. In exchange the gods would fight alongside us, and give gifts in return. Because of the sexual/romantic associations with reciprocity, gebo is commonly associated with the Freyr, Freyja, and Frigg. Furthermore, because of Odin's self-sacrifice to receive knowledge and wisdom, it is strongly associated with him as well.

KEY WORDS: gift, exchange, reciprocity, generosity, sacrifice

ASSOCIATIONS: Freyja, Freyr, Frigg, Odin

ᚹ wunjo

ANGLO-SAXON:

"Joy is for one who knows little of woe,

pains and sorrows, and to him who has

power and bliss and buildings good enough."

INTERPRETATION: Similar to gebo, since "W" does not appear in the Younger Futhark, wunjo is only given the one meaning: "joy." Now, where to start with this rune. Yes, simply, wunjo means happiness. But how do you define happiness? Is it social fulfillment: familial, platonic, romantic, sexual? Is it the simple things: reading a good book, seeing beautiful scenery, or drawing a picture? Is it ecstasy or is it purely innocent pleasures? What makes your life a blissful one, what do you desire? Or, simply, is it the ability to cope with pain? Does joy exist where suffering is absent? Or, like a good love story, does it have to hurt a little to be true? In some ways, this rune can simply be thought of as a balance between good and bad, our inner and outer selves. Truly knowing oneself, and knowing others; healing from trauma or emotional pain; an end to conflict. With divination, it would be best to look at the surrounding runes in order to interpret where this "joy" could be stemming from. Or, even more, it should be used to comment on other runes. If you pull isa but there is a wunjo next to it, you can assume that the meaning of isa to be more positive.

KEY WORDS: joy, harmony, success, celebration, security

ASSOCIATIONS: none, all gods have their joyous sides

SOURCES:

"Taking Up the Runes" by Diana L. Paxson

Labyrinthos

and two unnamed books bc i found out after buying them that the authors are bigots

[daughterofheartshaven]

Doctor Who - an explanation and resolution of the UNIT Dating Controversy

This is in a series of Doctor Who expanded universe reconciliations. If you see a contradiction in the Doctor Who expanded universe, you can drop me an ask and I will come up with an explanation for it.

Ask by @silvermaple6

First, some context. The 1968 story The Web of Fear introduced the character of Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart, and he would be a prominent recurring character in the show from that point on until 1975's Terror of the Zygons. The Brigadier was the leader of the British Division of UNIT, a military & scientific organization that was designed to protect Earth from unconventional threats. The UNIT Dating Controversy is Doctor Who's most notorious continuity error: there are two conflicting accounts as to when the stories that featured Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart leading UNIT UK took place. Either they took place roughly at the same time as the episodes came out (so the late 60s and early 70s) or during the 80s.

So with that explained, I have two separate explanations as to how to resolve this problem. One of these explanations is designed to work only within the confines of the tv show and does not necessarily line up with the expanded universe, if you're inclined for a tv-purist answer, and the second one is more aligned with my usual "everything is canon at once" stance towards Doctor Who.

With that all out of the way, let's dive into it!

The usual ground rules apply here. Anything seen on tv, happened. I can recontextualize as much as I want but it still has to fit with everything we see onscreen. I also have to use all of an EU source if I use it. No picking and choosing bits.

A quick list of stories I will be referencing:

Tv:

The Abominable Snowmen: A second Doctor tv story that sets up The Web of Fear

The Web of Fear: A second Doctor tv story that introduces the Brigadier (but before he gained that rank)

The Invasion: A second Doctor tv story that features the Brigadier

The Time Warrior: The Third Doctor tv story that introduced Sarah Jane Smith and also features the Brigadier

The Pyramids of Mars: A Fourth Doctor tv story with Sarah Jane Smith as the companion

Mawdryn Undead: A Fifth Doctor tv story that features the Brigadier

The Day of the Doctor: An Eleventh Doctor tv story that makes an in-universe reference to the dating controversy

Flux: A Thirteenth Doctor tv story that briefly features the Brigadier (again, before he gained that rank)

Expanded Universe:

Interference: A BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures book featuring the Eighth Doctor and Sarah Jane Smith (and a few others, but those tow are the only important ones for the narrative today

The Enfolded Time: A short story in the Lethbridge-Stewart series (a prose series published by Candy Jar Books that stars Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart and other creations and IPs from the writing pair of Mervyn Haisman and Henry Lincoln)

The Split Infinitive: A Seventh Doctor audio drama published by Big Finish as a part of The Legacy of Time - an audio box set celebrating 20 years of Big Finish making Doctor Who audio stories.

An in-depth explanation of the discrepancy

The Brigadier and UNIT were primarily onscreen in the Third Doctor era, which ran from 1970-1974. The behind-the-scenes intentions from that era were that these stories took place "like ten years in the future" (which includes some really hilarious 70s guesses as to what the 80s would be like) but there also were never any direct references to this - with script editor Terrace Dicks deliberately avoiding giving dates in an attempt to avoid this exact sort of continuity error. Because of this, the only stories to make this intention of being set in the 80s explicit were in a couple Second Doctor stories and a Fourth Doctor story.

To elaborate, the 1968 story The Web of Fear features a character named Edward Travers. Travers had previously appeared in the story The Abominable Snowmen, which was definitively stated as taking place in 1935. In The Web of Fear, Travers references the events of The Abominable Snowmen being "over 40 years ago", putting The Web of Fear in 1975 or later. As mentioned above, this was the first appearance of Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart, then a Colonel in the regular army. The character would next appear, having been promoted to the rank of Brigadier, in The Invasion. In The Invasion, Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart tells the Second Doctor it has been four years since he has seen the Doctor last, putting The Invasion at 1979 at the earliest. The Invasion is also notable for being the first story to feature UNIT, with it is implied that UNIT was founded in response to the events of The Web of Fear. Lethbridge-Stewart's involvement in UNIT explicitly as a result of his actions during The Web of Fear, which will become vaguely important in a bit

The Fourth Doctor story I mentioned above is the 1975 story The Pyramids of Mars. While it does not feature the Brigadier or other UNIT staff, it does feature Sarah Jane Smith, who had been established in her introductory story, The Time Warrior, as being from the same time as the Brigadier and UNIT. In The Pyramids of Mars, Sarah Jane references being from 1980, a claim which is corroborated by the Doctor briefly taking her to the version of 1980 where the villain of the episode, Sutekh was not stopped by them, leading to a desolate wasteland.

So by current evidence, all five years of Unit stories released between The Invasion and The Pyramids of Mars took place between 1979 and 1980. This strains credulity a little bit but is still vaguely plausible. It's the next story that breaks this completely.

After his departure from the show in 1975, Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart returns in the Fifth Doctor 1983 story Mawydrn Undead. Here it is a major plot point that the Brigadier retired from UNIT and the military in 1976, and we see him adopting a new career of a maths teacher by 1977.

So this is where it all breaks. Going by the established dates, the Brigadier retired from UNIT before he ever joined it.

The only other tv story to add to this at all is, weirdly, 2021's Flux. This story's fifth episode has a scene that shows UNIT UK being operational by 1967, with its current leader, General Farquhar, mentioning a Corporal Lethbridge-Stewart being a on staff. In theory, this should take place between The Web of Fear and The Invasion, since Lethbridge Stewart is not a Brigadier yet but has joined UNIT. This would place both The Web of Fear and The Invasion as taking place in the 60s.

This does leave out the problem that Lethbridge-Stewart was a Colonel in The Web of Fear and not a Corporal (if you don't know military ranks, a Colonel is much higher up the chain of command then a Corporal), but given that General Farquhar is repeatedly shown to be somewhat unintelligent (his main role in Flux is to get manipulated then killed by one of Flux's minor villains), I'm comfortable saying that General Farquhar misspoke when he called his new Colonel a Corporal.

NuWho stories such as The Day of the Doctor have begun playing with this concept a little bit. For example, in The Day of the Doctor, Kate Stewart, the current leader of UNIT UK mentions the events of Terror of the Zygons happening in the 70s or 80s, "depending on the dating protocol."

The Tv-only explanation

So if you just want to make the tv show to be self-consistent without bringing the EU into it...

Then I can say that Travers made the very reasonable mistake of saying "forty years" when he actually meant "thirty years." I dunno about you, but I do stuff like that all the time when I'm talking and the plot moved on fast enough that the characters didn't come back to it.

As for Sarah Jane and 1980, that's a bit weirder. But you could say that Sarah Jane was at that point from 1985 or 1986 and rounded up because she liked having a nice round number to say where she was from. This does not feel like a normal thing to do, but Sarah Jane Smith is not a normal person. And the Doctor took her to an alternate 1980 because why not it was as good a date as any for him to make his point.

So there! Now all the UNIT stories can take place in the late 60s and 70s making the dates given in Mawydrn Undead and Flux work. But if you want to have a little more fun and see the explanation that is what I consider "canon," then I invite you to keep reading.

The Expanded Universe explanation

If you thought the tv version of this was a mess, the EU is so much worse. I really do not want to go through each and every book, comic, and audio that gives a date for the time the Brigadier was in charge of UNIT - if you want to explore the full list of contradictory dates, Tardis wiki has an excellent overview here. For the record, most of the EU tends to agree with Mawdryn Undead over anything else, but even those stories that put the Brigadier leading UNIT UK era in the early 70s often disagree with each other.

Luckily for me, I can just bypass all of that altogether.

So I mentioned above that the UNIT Dating Controversy is the most notorious continuity error in all of Doctor Who, and so uh my job here is actually a lot easier because of that. My Whoniverse essays are usually trying to reconcile the EU, but the Unit Dating Controversy is a problem that exists completely in the tv show. The different parts of the EU are somewhat disinclined to pay attention to each other, and the tv show doesn't care about contradicting the EU (which, for the record, is 100% a good thing. I think trying to stay in-line with established lore would be super limiting to the series and also deprive me of getting to write these essays!), a lot more people care about the tv show being consistent with itself.

Which is why the EU has not one but two ready-made solutions handed to me on a platter.

So the first one gets seeded in the book Interference. In it, Sarah Jane Smith says she can't remember if she worked with UNIT in the 70s or 80s, and the Doctor responds by saying that, "Temporal slippage… My fault, I'm afraid. I think it's currently the 1970s, but —", at which point he is interrupted.

This is followed up with the short story The Enfolded Time, which claims that the 70s and 80s were basically scrunched into a single decade by the Doctor visiting them so much. The story states that the disturbances were settled by 1990, and has the Brigadier working with UNIT to establish a new dating protocols - the same ones Kate would later be using.

Meanwhile, the audio story The Split Infinitive (set in both the 60s and 70s) features, at the end of the story, a "temporal shockwave" that the Seventh Doctor notes would affect nearby time travelers. The Brigadier's situation of retiring in the 70s after working in the 80s is explicitly mentioned as one side effect of the temporal shockwave.

I think both explanations are true. The temporal shockwave damaged the timezone around the 70s enough to weaken spacetime, so the Doctor entering and exiting the time vortex from UNIT UK's headquarters as frequently as he did caused the temporal slippage around the Brigadier and UNIT UK.

That's it for this one! If you have any comments or replies, I would love to hear them! And if you have any questions about discontinuity in the Doctor Who Expanded Universe that you would like me to tackle, send me a note or an ask!

[highabovethecloudssomewhere]

Bi-Yearly Book Catalogue (2024)

Every book I’ve read the past six months and what I thought, told as briefly as I can manage.

One Star Books:

Loveless by Alice Oseman

I understand that this book was helpful for a lot of people. It was the opposite of helpful for me.

The Midnight Library by Matt Haig

My gripes with this can be whittled down into: this writer does not understand depression but really, really wants to cure it. Also, if you do decide to give this book a try, please mind the subject material. It really, really isn’t for everyone.

Two Star Books:

N/A

Three Star Books:

A Man Called Ove by Fredrik Backman

A simple book about an old man learning to want to live again. Where ‘The Midnight Library’ failed for me, this one succeeded. If you plan to read this one, be mindful of the content warnings. It also isn’t for everyone.

Lily and the Octopus by Steven Rowely

It’s about a dog who has cancer. I think that says it all. There were parts of this book I really liked and parts I really didn’t like. It lost me halfway through and I stopped caring about the stakes, which is really upsetting when the stakes are a dog. But the good parts are really, really good. Just be mindful of the premise going into it.

In the Lives of Puppets by TJ Klune

I liked the character work, loved the world building and on a technical level the writing was well-done. My gripes have to do with the story’s internal contradictions and how the only character traits I can think of for the main character are “asexual” and “inventor,” neither of which are explored properly (emphasis on asexual here). I didn’t like that despite being 21, the main character was narratively treated like a child, often involving his sexuality. I had to google how old he was multiple times because I couldn’t believe he wasn’t in his mid-teens given how he reacted to the story and how the story treated him. Loved the writing on a technical level, though, and I do plan to read more from this author.

Four Star Books:

Legends and Lattes by Travis Baldree

A COFFEE shop AU? In MY high fantasy? If you like DnD, low-stakes high-fantasy and fun character work, give this one a read. It’s very cozy.

A Psalm for the Wild-Built by Becky Chambers

It’s a book about a nonbinary tea monk and a robot who lives in the mountains. Slow-paced with good vibes and great world building. I read it in an evening and came away from it feeling warm.

The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller

Achilles and Patroclus’ relationship breaks my heart again. This was incredibly well-written and appropriately devastating. I just wanted them to be happy.

Countdown to Countdown by Kong Xiao Tong (graphic novel)

I bought a physical copy of this because I’ve always loved the artist’s work and wanted to support, and I enjoyed it a LOT. Beautiful art, fantastic characters. I know not everyone can avoid a physical copy, but the webcomic is available to read for free online and I highly recommend giving it a try.

Our Dining Table by Ori Mita (manga)

Learning to enjoy mealtime with loved ones again after childhood trauma? Y’all. It’s a single-volume manga and it’s well worth your time.

Five Star Books:

Beartown by Fredrik Backman

This was the most devastating book I’ve ever read. If you are interested in reading it: find a list of content warnings first. I went in blind. It is hauntingly real and the author handled the material so, so well. I can’t recommend this book without that caveat. But it’s one of the best-written books I’ve read.

The Saturday Night Ghost Club by Craig Davidson

This book is about a man looking back on his life as a boy - the friends he made and the misadventurous ghost-hunts his uncle dragged them into. It’s just the right amount of campy with fun characters and a brilliant use of prose. If you’re a less experienced reader and want a book that is easily digestible while also being extraordinarily well-written, I’d recommend this book in a heartbeat, and it’s every bit as entertaining for more advanced readers.

What you are looking for is in the library by Aoyama Michiko

Five stories about five people, all in different stages of life, and their unique experiences with the same librarian and the same library. Individually, each character in each story has their unsatisfying lives changed in an unexpectedly simple way, thanks to the library. There’s nothing wild about this book, but it is wildly impactful. The library is for everyone!

Tress of the Emerald Sea by Brandon Sanderson

Heroine travels the treacherous seas to save the man she loves. It’s a book about perspectives and joy and making unlikely friends, breaking curses through clever means and never, ever giving up. It has all the whimsy of a classic fairytale, yet not once could I predict how it was going to end. It’s fast-paced and hard to put down. The world is intriguing and the characters are wonderful.

This Is How You Lose the Time War by Amal El-Mohtar and Max Gladstone

This book is utterly mind-bending and I loved it. Two time-travelers chase each other through reality on opposing sides of the Time War and gradually fall in love. It’s great. The biggest complaint I see leveled at this book comes from less experienced readers who struggle to follow the narrative - and I do agree, if you’re just getting into reading for fun this might be a book to save for later. But don’t let me stop you. I loved this book.

Conclusion:

Reading is great. Libraries are your friend. I always love book recommendations and I’m on GoodReads as BeyondTheClouds777, predictably. If any of y’all take a stab at these books (or have taken stabs in the past), I’d love to hear your thoughts! I’m back in my bookworm era and thriving.

[max-imumbooks]

The Deep, by Rivers Solomon

This novella, inspired by the song of the same name, introduces a race of merfolk descended from pregnant slaves thrown overboard while crossing the Atlantic. Yetu is her people's memory-keeper, the one person who holds their cultural history so that no one else is burdened by the painful memories of how their people began. It's an examination of shared generational trauma, and the damage it can cause when ignored or repressed.

Though the premise was strong enough to draw me in immediately, I found the execution of the story to be a bit of a slog. The narrative repeats and dwells on themes and certain developments too long in some places (yet sometimes contradicts itself in the process), which I would have rather seen the word count applied elsewhere, or else cut entirely. It could have easily been a short story rather than a novella, and might have been better for it. As it is, it does a disservice to the reader to have to receive the same information over and over.

At times, I found the characterization of the main protagonist to be flat, but as she is presented to be neurodivergent, I concede that the flatness may be deliberate. Yetu is especially sensitive to the electrical signals her people use to communicate, leading to her often avoiding the company of others, and is prone to disassociation. She is also inherently queer, being unconstrained by the social taboos of surface culture. Even so, the queer content is minimal, not impactful enough to be a draw in and of itself.

That said, I fully acknowledge that as a white reader, this story was not necessarily written for me, and that my enjoyment is limited by my own experiences. For all I know, the prose may emulate the style of black/African storytelling or song. I would be curious to know the thoughts of a reader more familiar with those styles and traditions.

Overall, I wouldn't discourage others from reading this-- I just personally didn't enjoy the writing. This might be one of those stories where readers should read if it interests them, and form their own opinions on it.

For myself, I will not be re-reading it, but while I'm not currently rushing to reading the author's other stories, I wouldn't be averse to giving them another shot if I come across something that interests me.

Rating: 2 stars

[salahontime]

In Islam, writing poetry and prose is permissible provided the content aligns with Islamic teachings and maintains respect for the divine and the intention is to please Allah. However, it's essential to avoid content that contradicts Shariah, contains exaggeration, or attributes divine qualities to others

The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) said,

"Poetry is like speech; good poetry is like good speech, and bad poetry is like bad speech"

(Sahih al-Bukhari).

Poetry that praises Allah, encourages good deeds, or reflects on His creation is praiseworthy, as seen in the poetry of the Prophet’s companion Hassan ibn Thabit.

However, poetry that contains lies, obscenities, or promotes sin is forbidden (Quran 26:224-227).

Scholars like Ibn Baz رحمة الله and Assim al-Hakeem emphasize that poetry must align with Islamic values and not distract from worship. Thus, writing for Allah with sincerity and halal content is not only allowed but can be a form of worship.

And Allah knows the best.

[fremedon]

Jumping on this as an editor and former freshman comp instructor--

The vast majority of beginner writing advice consists of specific rubrics for avoiding particular common errors and pitfalls, generalized to the point of uselessness.

I see this all the time in my professional work--for instance, with prose that goes through all sorts of contortions to avoid the passive voice because people have been taught that Passives Are Bad.

That rule is meant to address phrases like "Mistakes were made," that suppress agency. But the (good) advice "Make sure your sentence structure shows who did what to whom, unless you are deliberately hiding that information" has been sanded down to Never Use Passives, with no context.

So much writing advice for fiction is the same thing. "Start with lots of sensory details" is good advice for the writer who doesn't establish where the story takes place (and isn't trying to deliberately obscure it). "Show don't tell" is excellent advice for the writer whose characters' actions don't illuminate their character, or contradict what we've been told of it, or for the writer whose climactic moments consistently happen offstage.

Following all of this guidance at the same time, as though these are universal rules, results in formulaic and bland storytelling--and while there is some market for that, the publishing industry didn't set out to generate more of it. There's no conspiracy.

There really is no universal advice--but beginning writers desperately want there to be, and will grasp onto any piece of advice and make it into a rule. And they're supported in this by a vast array of bad teachers who don't know how to teach nuance (but are often happy to peddle books, workshops, and mentorships to desperate newbie writers).

A lot of the writing advice I received or read online as a child and teenager ended up really hindering my writing because it made me so worried that I wasn't "doing things right" that I couldn't really write anything. I'd keep stopping to edit to make it more like how people said it should be or getting frustrated trying to write in a way I didn't enjoy

Sensory writing is for sure one of those and it's probably the advice I care least about at this point. I get the intent of the whole "including all the senses" idea but that's not how i move through the world, it's not how I think and so it's not how I write

To me, if a character takes notice of how a place smells or sounds, that's because that smell or sound is disruptive, out of the ordinary and relevant to the mental state of the character. Ie it makes sense to describe all the sounds that's stressing someone out on a busy street

I understand that the point of doing sensory descriptions even outside that context is to better immerse the reader in the story and the places within it, but I just.... don't care about that stuff lol. I rarely find it interesting as a reader and i don't like writing it. If that means I'm doing things "wrong" so be it. But if I don't care about it I'm sure I'm not alone in that lol

Anyway it's probably ultimately just one of those pieces of advice that get over generalised, like eg "show don't tell". And imo it's also one of those things that are aimed at producing a kind of fiction that suits certain contemporary tastes and standards rather than actually being any sort of universal

There is of course also something to be said for knowing the rules so you're able to break them, but idk that all the writing I might have done as a teen if I'd worried less about all the advice floating around wouldn't have made up for that

[rustbeltjessie]

Acker’s reliance on reworked autobiography...is a bright red line of tension throughout her work. While she warned readers to avoid her personal life, she herself used its details, with urgent frequency and for different effects, to pattern her fiction. She also simultaneously used that fiction to explore how identity is manufactured, distorted, and effaced. She was drawn to, and her writing deeply marked by, critical theory in which biography is considered little more than a Victorian relic, in which the author is dead. All of these contradictions arise in her description of her first “real” book, a collection of autobiographical prose poems titled Politics: “Autobiography is supposed to be the ‘truthful’ account of one’s life. I quickly realized that the more truthful I try to be in language, the more I lie. One immediately comes up to language and learns either to be defeated or to let language fuck one, to fuck with language. To lie down. This is what I call ‘fiction.’”

—Jason McBride, from Eat Your Mind: The Radical Life and Work of Kathy Acker (Simon & Schuster, 2022)

[grandhotelabyss]

ok but as per last anon what ARE your hot takes of the aesthetic judgment variety

I don't have that many, at least as far as anything "classic" goes. The test of time is real test, so if something's lasted I try to understand why, and I usually succeed. Still, I have my tastes, as anyone does, so here are some "strong opinions":

—While I buy Frye's argument in The Anatomy of Criticism that satire is literature's first line of defense against philosophical, religious, and political encroachment on its autonomy, I still think it's a low art form always tempting the writer toward arrogant cheap shots. Accordingly, I don't much care for Voltaire, for Twain, for Vonnegut; I don't like a lot of dystopian fiction for the same reason and dis-esteem Brave New World and The Handmaid's Tale in particular as the worst offenders. The exceptions prove the rule: Swift is a genius because you can tell he includes himself in his satire; Never Let Me Go is the greatest dystopian novel because it's really about our own everyday lives here and now, wherever here and now happen to be.

—Now I will violate my own rule in the last post about avoiding stageist and stadial cultural historiography (sometimes I contradict myself just to see if anyone is paying attention): novels written before people figured out how to write novels without just blathering on in episodic prose aren't very pleasurable to read as a whole, despite the brilliance of their parts, and this includes figures I otherwise allow to be writers of genius, whether Cervantes or Defoe or Fielding or Richardson or Scott.

—I'm missing whatever gene allows people to take pleasure in the whole nonsense wing of the avant-garde, your Gertrude Steins, your John Ashberys, many of your Dada and Surrealist and L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poets, the Anne Carson books I don't enjoy (as opposed to the ones I do), and the like. Poetry should be beautiful and symbolic, novels beautiful and dramatic. "Alas a doubt in case of more go to say what it is cress. What is it. Mean. Potato. Loaves." Get out of here with this shit, lady. Literature is the eye with which the universe beholds itself and knows itself divine, not whatever that is supposed to be.

—In homage to the master of Strong Opinions himself, modern literature's veritable chessmaster, I will say that Bloom's judgment on Updike is every bit as true of Nabokov: "a minor writer with a major style."

—This kind of game always revolves around negative contrarian judgments, but on the positive side, and in defiance of what I'm sure some see as my elitism: popular, middlebrow, and/or genre novels that have stood the aforementioned test of time are almost always actually good, whether we're talking about Uncle Tom's Cabin or Dracula or The Grapes of Wrath or Dune or The Godfather or The World According to Garp or The Secret History. (One exception for me: Tolkien. The three movies—perhaps the three longest movies ever made—and a couple of pages of that put me off for life.) The gay aesthete wing of the new right over on Twitter has been making an apologia for Ayn Rand recently, to much controversy across the political spectrum, but I can believe it. I never read Rand for two reasons: one, I heard she was bad, and two, given my own libertarian streak, I was worried I would decide she wasn't.

I'll avoid comment on my contemporaries. I have plenty of hot takes there, limited only by my tendency not to finish reading what I don't like and my belief that you can't really judge a book you haven't finished, but I can't be trusted to evaluate direct rivals can I?

[lmanburg-letter-service]

Helloooo! Could I get a letter for Quackity from (revived) Wilbur Soot, somewhat formal and almost like. An underlying tone of romantic/more fancy language, if that makes sense? Just generally apologising for the events of HO16/The Burger Van and wishing him well! I would do one myself but I'm rather busy at the moment. Thank you if you do this!

Salutations, Quackity

I won't avoid the purpose of this letter. I know I am not welcome in Las Nevadas, even if those were not the words used. Writing this is futile. My penmanship and prose cannot craft what I wish to share, and an apology seems hollow. You will likely disregard this, I know you have better things to be doing, but if you could hear me out it would mean everything. I already contradict myself. I am so deeply sorry. I was trying so hard to be something, anything, in your world; high in that spire, I knew I was nothing. I deluded myself that I could be more. I needed someone else. After being dead and cold for years, I yearned to mean something to someone. To you, most of all. Tommy is near me, but we are not what we were. I don't have to be something I no longer am, with you. I convinced myself of it. Now, I doubt if it was true. It doesn't scare me as much as I thought. Perhaps I should be something new. What am I, now, to you? Through sneers and rolling of your eyes, I found a spark that might reignite what I longed to be. I didn't mean for history to be so repetitious. For those caught in crossfire, I owe an apology still. I am the kindling, the spark and the flames. Perhaps it is best I stay as dust and ash. For me, for the future, and to those who I can... no longer reach. I apologize. I can be a star, perhaps? They exist in a vacuum of life and death, sharing light for eons after they have burnt away. So, perhaps this is goodbye. Or, if you wish, it can be something else. You've made something beautiful here.

Yours always, Wilbur Soot

[alianoralacanta]

Section 4: Introduction to driver PR approach and Carlos Sainz's PR approach (Bonus Red Bull)

The Drivers' PR Approaches

OP is correct to identify Carlos Sainz and Charles Leclerc has having quite different PR approaches. However, I would not say either is more PR-orientated than the other. Both of them are strongly PR-orientated, else they would simply not have got into Ferrari in the first place. This is the #1 reason Max Verstappen will never be a Ferrari driver - he'd never handle those multiple, conflicting demands listed above. (Parenthetically, Red Bull has the simplest PR structure of any team. I like to call it "Red Bull ordered PR". This is because unlike all the other lists, there is an order prioritising the few requirements - the item higher on the below list is always the acceptable way to resolve any PR conflict): - ^don't say anything bad about the Red Bull drink - be fast - bring in results by whatever method seems to make sense - compete with verve and boldness - ^don't say anything that contradicts whatever the locus of power says The team pride elements are 2/5 (40%) - slightly more than most teams but considerably less than Ferrari. However, because there are only 2 items and one of them is at the bottom of the list, it's relatively easy for a Red Bull driver to avoid situations where the Red Bull team's pride is affronted. Avoiding 7 equally-weighted points is far trickier. One can certainly understand why teams might have looked at Ferrari's PR situation and thought "nope, let's use something simpler". Again, any improvements on this model are welcomed.) Carlos Sainz PR approach I will start by describing Carlos' PR approach, as it is simpler to do. He spent a lot of time with British F1 teams before going to Ferrari, one of which was Toro Rosso (Red Bull's junior team). He seems to have taken the following PR principles to heart: - be fast - say as little as possible - bring in results by whatever method seems to make sense - ^managing expectations - ^don't say anything bad about the (strikeout) Red Bull drink (/end strikeout) sponsors - ^don't say anything that contradicts whatever the locus of power says - strategic candour to use open feedback to help his team shed light on itself We can see that Carlos' approach naturally covers 1 of the 7 points of pride Ferrari has, as well as partial coverage of a second. He hasn't quite absorbed some of the finer points of the conventional PR system, but he has enough strengths in PR to be able to deploy a "talk on the track, except when offended by someone else's actions" approach to mitigate that. The main part that makes Carlos make less PR-savvy than Charles, is that it features none of the "Ferrari myth PR" elements. This should not surprise anyone. How would a driver who has made his reputation at several British teams, and once harboured dreams of being lead driver at Red Bull of all teams, get occasion to take the Ferrari myth's requirements to heart? Most teams prefer prose to poetry in PR statements. Red Bull would point and laugh at a driver that managed expectations. It would consider that driver to be making excuses!

Hi Alianora! I am curious to know your thoughts on Ferrari and PR. Particularly how they do damage control. 2022 comes to mind, and this year's triple header as well.

Maybe it's because I don't keep up with other team statements as much but Ferrari seem to be less... transparent?? with their struggles as a team. Binotto in 2022 comes to mind when he would pin the blame on his drivers and say that nothing needs to change.

Also Charles in particular plays the PR game more than Carlos. I mean, this year in China, Charles said the two of them had talked and everything was fine, but then when asked, Carlos said the complete opposite and that they hadn't actually sorted it out. Oops.

I remember specifically Charles saying the team was "extremely united, no division" in 2022 but then multiple statements of his in 2023 under Vasseur imply otherwise.

Ferrari seem to be more willing to throw their drivers under the bus when shit hits the fan and it's more clear that the team messed up big time. Vasseur will have no problem defending Charles in weekends where Ferrari aren't a complete disaster, but in situations like the triple header, he's willing to shift the focus on the drivers.

Is it a Ferrari pride sort of thing?

Ferrari and PR

Firstly, apologies for the long delay in replying. This is my 3rd attempt at finding a coherent frame for my thoughts on the subject. I hope this works. If it does not, please request clarification, reframing or simply to have another attempt.

Also, fair warning: long essay. This essay is 6060 words long, excluding headings. As such, it will be divided into multiple “read more” sections. Tumblr only allows this by posting the essay multiple times, with a fresh addition each time. Please wait for the “Essay complete. Hope this helps” before reblogging. Firstly, PR is not a monolith. Humanity is not a monolith with one unified opinion of what everything is and how everything works. They agree and disagree on what is appealing in a statement made to them on a given subject. Thus, PR can and often is tailored to particular audiences. Furthermore, different groups that produce PR value different things. Section 1: What does Ferrari value? (Ferrari myth PR)

Ferrari has been stricter about PR than any other team. Part of this originated with Enzo Ferrari himself, for he was careful to ensure that nothing was said that undermined Ferrari's political position or offended his sense of what the speaker's job should be (driver or engineer). It has to be said that this didn't put the boundaries in the same place as any modern team's PR approach. While complaining about the team or car being slow was considered just as wrong then as now, a driver saying they'd been cautious because the race was long would also be considered bad. Enzo considered it his job to worry about the car, and the driver's job to press the car as hard as possible. (An engineer who suggested putting less emphasis on the engine in favour of the chassis would fare no better). On the other hand, skipping a sponsor event to go kart would probably meet with his approval. (Whether he would have regarded Max's sim racing as similar enough to treat likewise is unknown, since race driving software wasn't very sophisticated in the 1980s). Later in Enzo Ferrari's career, there began to be more emphasis on Ferrari the myth. Niki Lauda was not particularly appreciated while he was at Ferrari because his approach was so different from Enzo's ideal, but Niki became far more appreciated after that because Enzo realised what he'd done had, in fact, resulted in Ferrari's myth strengthening. (The title did no harm either). Gilles Villeneuve encapsulated what it meant to augment the Ferrari myth. The intervening decades ended up condensing the traits that became part of "Ferrari myth PR": - humble and modest - fast - respectful of opponents - downplaying team psuedopolitics - eloquent and concise when needed - competing with style, verve and boldness - able and willing to do the impossible - believing in the team even when it does not believe in itself - remember one represents a dream - remember that, whatever one's nationality, one represents the honour of the tifosi The price for defying PR in the Enzo Ferrari era was variable and fickle, due to the perennial psuedopolitics behind the scenes. (The situation under Fred Vasseur would have been considered relatively calm back then. Some parts of the Mattia Binotto era, not so much).

[emileesaurus]

🛒🤡 🤩

What are some common things you incorporate in your fics? Themes, feels, scenes, imagery, etc.

Answered!

Although, also, I do feel like I write way too many scenes where characters are just lying around in bed or on a sofa or whatever and talking about/around their feelings. I'm working on it!

What's a line, scene, or exchange you've written that made you laugh?

Ooohhh man I'm pretty insecure about my ability to write comedic moments! Comedy is a lot more subjective than drama, I think, and I always worry that a line I think is funny is actually coming across as MCU quippy or something 💀

But because I'm trying to get better at praising my own stuff: I think the scene in chapter four of Tinderbox where they're teasing each other about Lestat's hypothetical boat/ship/skiff is pretty cute. Objects of Devotion has a bit with Lestat arguing in favor of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer's sainthood just to ruffle his Catholic boyfriend's feathers, which is at least funny to me. A Private Exhibition has some banter I'm pleased with, maybe especially the part where Louis quotes Lestat's own book back to him because he specifically remembered the passage about his dick.

Who is your favorite character to write?

Louis de Pointe du Lac, my dear vampire blorbo. It's kind of funny, because I started off writing Lestat for RP reasons, but I think if you spend enough time in his head you fall in love with Louis by proxy a little. (Writing Tinderbox was originally sort of an experiment in examining Lestat's character from Louis's point of view; I never expected it would become as popular as it has!)

I find it fairly easy to get into his head -- possibly because I'm something of an avoidant introvert myself, so it's not such an unfamiliar perspective, at least in that one specific sense. And it lends itself well to the kind of overwrought purple prose that's so fun for me to write. :') But at this point -- I've published over 70k words of VC fic in the last three years, omg -- he definitely feels like "my" version when I'm writing him, by which I mean while I try my best not to contradict canon, there's some support scaffolding that I probably made up rather than extrapolated, and I'm sure it conflicts with some people's personal reads on him. I'm just glad when folks enjoy it!

[gatheringbones]

Bones, how do I stop myself from hating everything I write? The main thing getting in the way is that I can’t tell what I like about my own work after I’ve written it, and it only feels worthwhile if I leave a long enough gap that I can hardly remember it was mine.

what use does hating your writing serve?

does it make you feel calmer? does it make you feel like you’ve gotten ahead of any criticism that might be coming your way, so you can’t be surprised by it? have you been exposed to a great deal of unfair criticism in the past? do you feel an immediate calming sense of satisfaction that someone could never point out a flaw that you haven’t seen first and already torn yourself to shreds for? does hating your writing— really and truly hating it— make you feel safe, like you’ll never make the unforgivable and humiliating mistake of thinking it’s okay, all right even, or even like it’s a first try by someone just learning how to get around their internal critic and get words down on the page?

do you have responses to your own hatred? does the depth and quality and specificity of your hatred ever strike you as unfair or mean? If a friend of yours was learning how to write, and they made all sorts of mistakes but learned through those mistakes what made them feel excited and enthusiastic or bored and un-engaged and how to spot the difference, would you want someone on the sidelines talking to them the way you talk to you?

What sorts of expectations are you setting with your writing? Do you find that the goal of absolute perfection just gets in your way, or even distracts you? Do you find that the goal of perfection is just a way to avoid writing and how nervous and criticized it makes you feel, since you clearly can’t be perfect and all you have to do is say something breathtakingly mean to yourself and you’re off the hook?

Have you ever had an idea, then tweaked an element or two to make what you wanted to do with it clearer or more compelling? Are you comfortable with letting an idea be a little off-kilter and not fully realized until some time has passed and you realize exactly what you want to do with it? Does an idea have to arrive fully formed and capable of defending itself from every angle from the moment of its inception? Why? Why does that seem fair, or even fun?

Have you tried writing in fragments? incomplete sentences and bullet points that allow you all the run on sentences and contradicting descriptions you want? Have you tried intentionally writing in a way that isn’t perfect, isn’t even proper prose, just to get away from the expectation that it should be?

[singing-not-sleeping-beauty]

as a writer who’s main focus is narrative prose, but has dabbled in screenwriting and film, I find the way movie franchises & tv series are being handled to be incredibly frustrating

If you are an author trying to publish a story with a multi-book arch then you need to convince publishers that you have a plan, that you are publishing this story over the course of several novels for a reason, and not because you want to get more money out of it

But film & tv do not operate under those same rules, filmmakers often going into a franchise without a clear ending, and it shows, it shows in forgotten character archs, and inconsistent writing, and hollywood doesn’t seem to notice, or care about, the problem

Viewers want a consistent story with a satisfying conclusion, which means the creators need to have a plan, and if there are multiple writers, those people need to communicate to avoid contradiction and unnecessary tone shifts

[warrioreowynofrohan]

The Leithian Reread - Canto VI (Beren in Nargothrond)

While The Leithian-related plot of this canto focuses on Beren in Nargothrond, almost the first half of it is a brief summary of the Silmarillion from Return of the Noldor through to the Dagor Bragollach. Which I love, since those events for the most part aren’t coverered in Tolkien’s other poetic works, and I prefer the poetry structure of the Leithian to Tolkien’s other (non-rhyming, more Rohirric-sounding) pieces of epic poetry.

This is a good place to note, for readers who are new to the poetic Leithian, that some names are different from the Silm (Tolkien started a revised version with Silm-consistent names, but he didn’t get very far with it). The Noldor are referred to as the Gnomes - a rough transliteration of their elvish name into a human language, drawing from the Greek for ‘knowledge’. Tolkien later rejected this on the basis that the word was already too associated with entirely different mental images, but given how transformative his use of ‘elves’ was (typical fantasy elves are now almost all inspired by his ideas of tall, beautiful, long-lived immortals), we might have completely different concepts of ‘gnome’ now if he’s gone ahead with it. 

The second big diiference is that Finrod is referred to exclusively as Felagund - his Dwarven honorific - whereas his father Finarfin is referred to as Finrod. Tolkien had a lot of difficulty with Finarfin’s name and it went through a pile of different iterations. There are also other minor differences, like Finwë being referred to as Finn.

Returning to the poem - it’s hard to pick a favourite part of the summary section; I love so much of it. This is the closest I’m ever going to get to the Noldolantë (Tolkien wrote a couple pages of another poem focusing on the Return of the Noldor, but I don’t like it as much).

The mists were mantled round the towers

of the Elves’ white city by the sea.

There countless torches fitfully

did start and twinkle, as the Gnomes

were gathered to their fading homes

and thronged the wide and winding stair

that led to the wide echoing square.

There Fëanor mourned his jewels divine,

the Silmarils he made. Like wine

his wild and potent words them fill;

a great host hearkens deathly still.

But all he said both wild and wise

half truth and half the fruit of lies

that Morgoth sowed in Valinor

in other songs and other lore

recorded is.

There’s such a wonderful sense of place and of mood in those lines; the Return of the Noldor has always been one of the most compelling parts of the Silmarillion for me. In the same way that Elves have a different sense of time than Men, Valar must have a different sense of it than Elves; they’re acting, but within their own sense of time, and for the Noldor, in the wake of the Darkening, the desire to do something rather than wait around for the Valar (who are looking more deeply fallible than they ever have before) to fix things must be extremely powerful. And Fëanor’s presence and words and fury, brought into that environment, is like fire to oil. To be active and purposeful in the face of disaster, rather than passive and directionless - that’s a powerful force. The poem also acknowledges that Fëanor’s not entirely wrong (“half truth and half the fruit of lies”), however deeply distorted his ideas about both the Valar and the Secondborn are. As I’ve said before, I think that Eru intended for the Elves to be in Middle-earth, not Valinor; the entire Leithian is centred around the value and importance of an elf-human relationship that continues to affect the history of Arda down through the Third Age (and, in its symbolic meaning, even further).

There’s also a line about the Oath: Who calls these names in witness may not break his oath, though earth and heaven shake. The texts on the Oath are somewhat contradictory on its breakability, though they are united on its importance and severity (it is decidedly not just words, or something that can be casually laid aside). The Silmarillion says “so sworn, good or evil, an oath may not be broken, and it shall pursue oathkeeper and oathbreaker to the world’s end”. But that contradicts itself - it it can’t be broken, then there can’t be oathbreakers. Maedhros and Maglor’s final conversation at the end of the Silm is more illuminating to me: it’s not a matter of the Oath being physically or psychologically impossible to break (if it was, how did they go the 400 years of the Siege of Angband without actively attacking Morgoth?), but of fearing the fate they have called down upon themselves (the Everlasting Darkness) if they do break it. (Plus a lot of sunk cost fallacy, by that point.) Which is considerably less sympathetic: murdering innocent people in order to avoid the consequences of your own bad decision is, ultimately, the choice that innocents should bear the cost of your own choices, which is ultimately a form of cowardice. (Not to mention the inherently contradictory nature of saying “I’m going to do evil so that I won’t be damned,” which Maglor eventually realizes.)

(More of my thoughts on the Oath here.)

This is also one of the few texts we have that actually states the Oath (or rather, part of it; the invocations are not included) rather that describing it. I think all the ones we have are in Tolkien’s poetry; there’s no prose version.

The Kinslaying is not mentioned in this Canto; that’s saved for the Duel of Felagund and Sauron in the next one. But this canto does include possibly the only poetic rendition we get of Fingon rescuing Maedhros from Thangorodrim:

Fingon daring alone went forth

and sought for Maidros where he hung;

in torment terrible he swung,

his wrist in band of forgéd steel,

from a sheer precipice where reel

the dizzy senses staring down

from Thangorodrim’s stony crown.

The song of Fingon Elves yet sing,

captain of armies, Gnomish king...

They sing how Maidros free he set,

and stayed the feud that slumbered yet

between the children proud of Finn.

After describing the Siege of Angband and the Long Peace, the narrative moves on to the Dagor Bragollach, and specifically Barahir’s rescue of Felagund. (And in this account, as in the Silm, Orodreth is Felagund’s brother, not his nephew.) From there, it returns to the main story and Beren’s arrival in Nargothrond. It could not be more different than his reception in Menegroth:

When the ring [of Barahir] was seen

they bowed before him, though his plight

was poor and beggarly...

Fair were the words of Narog’s king

to Beren, and his wandering

and all his feuds and bitter wars

recounted soon.

Regarding Felagund’s fulfillment of his Oath to Barahir, and the betrayal by Celegorm and Curufin, and the abandonment by the Elves of Nargothrond, I’ve already written a fair bit in my (much earlier) posts on Finrod & Nargothrond and Celegorm & Curufin. I’ll add a few additional points here.

First, I do not think it was irresponsible of Felagund to leave Nargothrond to go with Beren. If his presence as king of Nargothrond was important (and I think it was; basically all of Nargothrond’s decisions after he leaves are bad, and he’s been the peacemaker and diplomat between different elven and human groups throughout the Silmarillion up to this point) that is all the more reason why Nargothrond is indebted to Barahir and his descendents, since Felagund would already be dead if not for Barahir’s actions.

Secondly - and I’m getting this from Philosopher at Large’s Leithian Script, which emphasizes it very heavily - Felagund, as liege-lord to the Bëorings, has certain obligations to them even outside of his oath, including providing military assistance in times of need. Usual chains of communication have been cut since the Bragollach, so Felagund’s only just now finding out that the Bëorings have, aside from Beren, been basically exterminated; and that Barahir and later Beren spent years fighting a very long-odds guerrilla war without ever asking or recieving assistance, while Nargothrond was safe and largely inactive. This is going to strongly enhance Felagund’s (legitimate) sense of indebtedness to Barahir’s kin.

Thirdly, Celegorm is often treated as something of a meathead (because he acts like one; all his decisions are terrible in both moral and practical terms), but this sequence makes it clear that both he and Curufin inherited their father’s rhetorical abilities; his speech is specifically compared to Fëanor’s speech in Tirion (Many wild and potent words he spoke, and as before in Tûn awoke his father’s voice their hearts to fire, so now dark fear and brooding ire he cast on them...) But ironically, the direction of Curufin’s speech is opposite to Fëanor’s - while Fëanor’s was about rallying the Noldor to fight Morgoth, Curufin’s is about discouraging them from fighting Morgoth, by frightening them, and he does it so effectively that it’s unlikely Nargothrond would have showed up at the Nirnaeth Arnoediad even without the additional motivation of being furious at the brothers. And continuing on that theme, the brothers are setting themselves against the first real attempt anyone has ever made to regain the Silmarils from Morgoth. A mission that resulted in Beren and Lúthien having one Silmaril, and the Fëanorians having the other two, would obviously be better in terms of their goals than all three remaining in Morgoth’s posession, but they don’t appear to even consider it. This is part of a long thread throughout the Silmarillion - every action taken directly in service to the Oath aids Morgoth and harms the Eldar.

The people of Nargothrond, by the way, really do not come off well here - they’re rejecting their king for someone who has just threatened violence against them all (Celegorm’s speech is basically threatening them with another Kinslaying here and now).

And as a final point - what Celegorm and Curufin do here is one of the worst crimes imaginable within their society. The sacredness of the relationship between guests and hosts (and they are guests in Nargothrond, having fled there from the Bragollach) is a major theme in a lot of pre-modern societies. People familiar with A Song of Ice and Fire will remember its importance there; for a more historical source, Dante places ‘traitors to guests and hosts’ in the ninth circle of hell in the Divine Comedy and goes beyond that to state that people who betray their guests or hosts go directly to hell even before they die, while their body becomes inhabited by a demon for the rest of their life. From this betrayal, to the usurpation of Nargothrond, to the attempted rape of Lúthien, to the attempted murder of Lúthien, to Celegorm’s servants leaving Eluréd and Elurín - young children - to die of exposure, everything we see from the brothers from this point on is them committing crimes that are literally unthinkable to elves. Which is to say that the Eldar might have found Dante’s explanation pretty credible.

[johnmanciniwrites]

Bring the Beat Back

Uses of Dialogue, Part 2

“Always get to the dialogue as soon as possible. Nothing puts the reader off more than a big slab of prose at the start.”

                                                                                  -- P.G. Wodehouse

In yesterday’s post I wrote about talking, talked about dialogue, blogged about beats--not the generation or literary movement--the values exchanged between characters, the particles at the heart of the story nucleus. 

Beats are the pulses within a scene, the verbal and nonverbal exchanges, the ping-pong of conversation, the en-garde and assault--the surprise left hook followed by the uppercut. Keep your eye on the bouncing ball. Like any good game of whiff-whaff, this spirited back and forth has dramatic consequences. For every action there is a reaction—a tension that creates conflict. The unexpected friction—resistance between desire and outcome—is what makes scenes pulse. 

A character takes a reasonable step toward a goal. And encounters an obstacle: They reach for the door, but the door doesn’t open; they call for help, but the line is dead; they offer up a rose and get slapped in the face.

Elliot is hungover and could use a drink. He’s been sober for fifteen months, sparring with his wife for fifteen pages. Now it’s morning. He’s standing out in the cold with a loaded gun, and he sees her watching him from the house. The effect, he thinks, is striking.

From “Helping” by Robert Stone:

           Elliot began to hope for forgiveness. He leaned the shotgun on his forearm and raised his left hand and waved to her. Show a hand, he thought. Please just show a hand.

He was cold, but it had got light. He wanted no more than the gesture. It seemed to him that he could build another day on it. Another day was all you needed. He raised his hand higher and waited.

A reversal of power often happens unexpectedly, sometimes with just a look. Even in silence an exchange of energy can take place. A so-called “pregnant pause” is in fact a reaction. It is “pregnant” because the silence it creates is charged with expectations. The baby of drama lives in this gap. The baby is named Progressive Complications.

Dialogue should move from positive (+) to negative (-) value or vice-versa. The emotional “value” depends on the character’s objective in the scene. In other words, either the exchange goes well for them or it doesn’t. Try and try again.

Think of music that builds to a crescendo. Beats tend to get more intense as the story develops. In other words, the conflict becomes greater, and the stakes increase with each exchange. Unlike, say, disco, writers try to avoid hitting the same emotional beat over and over.

“What ho!“ I said. "What ho!” said Motty. “What ho! What ho!” “What ho! What ho! What ho!” After that it seemed rather difficult to go on with the conversation.

― P.G. Wodehouse, My Man Jeeves

Indeed. Dialogue should always serve conflict, which will develop character and move the story forward. Conflict comes through action or dialogue. Something is said, or something happens, which has impact. Every beat pushes the character toward their goal or away from it. Conflict is essential to scene. Without conflict, no scene. This is all I have to tell you.

Now we know that dialogue is made up of beats and that beats build scenes. Think of beats as shifts of power among characters. In the following scene the characters are Bertie and his trusty man-servant, Jeeves. Listen to the beats, the positive and negative value exchanges. With every new line, Bertie advances or falls behind.  

From Wodehouse’s The Code of the Woosters

I reached out a hand from under the blankets, and rang the bell for Jeeves.

“Good evening, Jeeves.”

“Good morning, sir.”

This surprised me.

“Is it morning?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Are you sure? It seems very dark outside.”

“There is a fog, sir. If you will recollect, we are now in Autumn – season of mists and mellow fruitfulness.”

“Season of what?”

“Mists, sir, and mellow fruitfulness.”

“Oh? Yes. Yes, I see. Well, be that as it may, get me one of those bracers of yours, will you?”

“I have one in readiness, sir, in the ice-box.”

He shimmered out, and I sat up in bed with that rather unpleasant feeling you get sometimes that you’re going to die in about five minutes.

Now read the same scene again, this time with boldface notation indicating the rise and fall of Bertie’s state of mind (i.e. the values at stake in each exchange and the positive or negative charge on our poor hungover good sir):

I reached out a hand from under the blankets, and rang the bell for Jeeves. [- desire]

“Good evening, Jeeves.” [+ welcomed relief]

“Good morning, sir.” [- contradiction/setback]

This surprised me. [- unexpected/continuation]

“Is it morning?” [- inquiring/confusion]

“Yes, sir.” [+ receiving confirmation]

“Are you sure? It seems very dark outside.” [- questioning/doubt]

“There is a fog, sir. If you will recollect, we are now in Autumn – season of mists and mellow fruitfulness.” [+ explanation]

“Season of what?” [- increasing confusion]

“Mists, sir, and mellow fruitfulness.” [+ clarification]

“Oh? Yes. Yes, I see. Well, be that as it may, get me one of those bracers of yours, will you?” [+/- understanding, desire]

“I have one in readiness, sir, in the ice-box.” [+ remedy]

He shimmered out, and I sat up in bed with that rather unpleasant feeling you get sometimes that you’re going to die in about five minutes. [- hungover]

Note the values oscillating between confusion and clarity, between the fogginess of a hangover and the clear light of sobriety. These are the beats (action/reaction) creating friction between characters with opposing views of reality. Think of this as x-ray vision--a view into the code behind the user experience. It’s worth trying on any piece of fiction. Slow down, reread, and analyze the code. What are the positive and negative values being exchanged in the following dialogue?

From Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants”

The girl stood up and walked to the end of the station. Across, on the other side, were fields of grain and trees along the banks of the Ebro. Far away, beyond the river, were mountains. The shadow of a cloud moved across the field of grain and she saw the river through the trees.

“And we could have all this,” she said. “And we could have everything and every day we make it more impossible.”

“What did you say?”

“I said we could have everything.”

“We can have everything.”

“No, we can't.”

“We can have the whole world.”

“No, we can't.”

“We can go everywhere.”

“No, we can't. It isn't ours anymore.”

“It's ours.”

“No, it isn't. And once they take it away, you never get it back.”

“But they haven't taken it away.”

“We'll wait and see.”

“Come on back in the shade,” he said. “You mustn't feel that way.”

“I don't feel any way,' the girl said. “I just know things.”