#and i realised that i might need to make things more clear on the refs. so thats what i did!

[blobbei-art]

So here’s a full ref for both of my favourite OC Kasifer’s forms!

Redesigned his alternate outfit and tweaked the ref sheets somewhat for clarity. Figured I might as well put it all together in one post! (Edit: Alt. Outfit is outdated)

[factorialsfandoms]

So the pics may not be done for a lil while because I've literally never draw Time, Twi, or Wars (apparently I can't draw a lot of armour or fur well) so I'll have to look at their ref sheets and practice etc before I start their stuff, but for now have some ideas I did this morning.

Favourite one atm is Time because of the despair but also because I like to imagine he wrapped Hyrule in Sky's sailcloth so no one can see his corpse. Also because I don't wanna draw Hyrule in that specific pose tbh.

Okay, first of all, I love these and thank you so so much for sharing your sketches. Armour and fur tricky but I appreciate you so much. (And also yeah how the fuck do bodies work?!?!?!)

I honestly love the idea that the sailcloth was used to wrap him. I might steal that, if you're good with it? It's not like Legend would have really registered it at the time anyway. It would be such an awful show of love and affection, and I think Sun would understand. At the very least Sky believes she would. It was already a bit bloody from hugging Legend, so... It's probably the one item they'll bother to at least try washing the blood out of, but honestly... Just the idea of it is in my brain and making me a bit sad. They're trying their very best to love him, even if he's dead...

Now to gush about individual little doodles! Top left first, going like reading order. I'll try make it clear. Cut because... words.

Hyrule, Hyrule, poor boy. I know I'm the one who did this to him, but your little sketch is almost painful to look at. The way the one arm is out, almost like he's trying to reach but at the odd angle that looks like it's broken (he certainly couldn't have moved it out after he fell, but it falling to look like he's reaching? To just raise the hand slightly towards Legend? Oh that's heartbreaking and tasty). The other arm over the wound? Almost like he was trying to put pressure on it, to keep the blood inside, but his body is just caved away, there's no way he can? So its just lying in the gore of his wound? That's horrible in such a wonderful way. The mess of his everything - his face, his arms, his clothes, his hair - the massive dip where the bomb stole his flesh. And of course above all else the way his eye is still open and clear, looking out and straight at the person viewing? (At Legend) I can't quite describe it but his whole expression is just... Wonderful. But in a very horrible way. I would like to cup his cheek and somehow take the pain away, but I can't...

Injury map! Those are always fun. You did a real good job at translating what I said into actual physical things. The extent of the damage and everything... I know its probably just a little reference for you, but your choices in mapping it out are... not delightful, because horrifying, but something like that.

Then there is Hyrule and Legend, and /oh/. You may have swapped eyes, but that makes Hyrule look away, which really does hurt something more. Is this just after he died and Legend had just realised? It's make sense, given Wars folded the arm back over him and, well, that's where it is. And the more distant. Its just a scribble, but the awkward angles Hyrule is lying at... And then there's Legend. I can't see his face, I can't see any of him, but he's right there. I can see the tension in his shoulders, and cannot imagine him anything but shaking with sobs, either expressed or held in. The desperation, the way he's still clinging to one of Hyrule's hands... Those poor, poor boys. The both of them.

Then we have Warriors and Wind and Four and... Well, with their backs to us you can see how Warriors is holding them so tight, trying to protect them from the same fate no doubt. Wind's right at the back so it looks like he's trying to press into the hold and get comfort, while Four is trying to stay upright and strong and not need it, but those crossed arms say so much that he does. Warriors staying tall and alert, pressing their two youngest on so they don't have to look, taking point also to ignore his own grief to keep everyone /else/ safe. How tall he is, like he can't bring himself to crack.

And Time, Time, oh Time... I've mentioned the sailcloth thing above, but I still adore it. It's horrifying to use the sailcloth as a shroud, but its probably all they had to hand. Except their blankets, but most of them need those and, well... Hyrule's aren't really the best. And they want something kinder to wrap him in than those. But Time, poor Time, you did really good at displaying the sheer agony at finding the fairies too late, when Hyrule was too far gone for even a clutter of them to save. The way he's grasping his face with the agony, but still using the weight of his body and face to keep Hyrule's corpse safe in his arms, safe as he wishes he had kept him in life. The hand clutching the sailcloth, desperate and so very not okay... I love it so much, but ow... And then the little fairies! Shocked and upset with their little "!"s, desperate to help but there's nothing they can do. Time hunched in on himself, the agony, the pain... Then trying to help but there's simply nothing they can do. Time called for them so desperately, but they arrived too late, and that broke him. Hyrule could not have lived the extra few minutes it took, it just wasn't possible, but if he'd only looked better, been better, fought harder... And he failed his command, and you tied all of it all in so well. Also! Just the side not of the way Hyrule's feet are just... dangling there. Far enough from his chest they're probably bloody, but his boots and his feet one of the few bits entirely intact, and they're all of him you can see...

And then finally, Twi and Wild... Oh, oh this, all of them hurt and it doesn't hurt the most but just... There's not a whole lot to say about Twi. But Wild! The way he's clinging to Twi's hand on his shoulder, surely there to guide him as he's still struggling with the world. His head bowed, utterly despondent... He was saved, but at what cost? his other arm hanging limp, not knowing what to do, just... Walking. Clinging to Twilight and walking. Actually no with Twilight... Such a gentle arm around Wild's shoulder, keeping him from being separated but a quiet comfort all the same. He's grieving too, but for Wild for whom the hit was taken? He's doing his best to protect the scoundrel, just like Wars with Four and Wind, but different now. The two small ones seemed scared and desperately trying to hold it together, but Wild... Wild looks like he's just given up... The only people who look worse are probably Hyrule and Legend, and... Well...We know how that went. We can't see either at the moment in your doodles, but... Horrific times. So bad. And we know why Wild looks so bad! Why they all do! But oh it hurts.

And that brings me to the end of the rambling. I hope the rambles were all okay. May you have a lovely day, and so on and so forth, and my deepest thanks to you.

[zeta-in-de-walls]

Okay, in the wake of the L’Manburg war, allow me to get meta for a bit. 

Now obviously the war, and the SMP server in general, are just for content. The stakes are all fictional - nebulous things like freedom on a minecraft server, sentimental value placed on music discs and all that nonsense.

Bearing that in mind, I want to discuss how it played out.

 Who were the best players? It’s clear who were the most powerful and dangerous as enemies - Dream, George, Sapnap and Punz. (I’m leaving aside Eret for the moment btw)  They all had full netherite armour, planted TNT traps and planned betrayals and ambushes to win the war. They had the upperhand throughout. Meanwhile the other side felt weak and ill-prepared and did very little damage to any of their opponents. 

But you know, being more powerful doesn’t actually make for much content on its own. What makes good content? A good narrative filled with drama, tension and excitement. In those terms, we’re looking at Tommy and Wilbur carrying the server with this war.

 The second they said independence and made some grand speeches, there were stakes. Instead of the server being a somewhat peaceful building simulator, it was in a state of conflict. Alliances were created, flags were made, Hamilton and Revolutionary war references were heard, matching skins and all that were being created. Putting great significance into stuff like a patch of tilled soil, suggesting carrying sticks instead of weapons and wearing no armour but fighting with words - that’s the sort of stuff that made this whole scenario work. Without it, this dispute wouldn’t have been able to call itself a war. They even make ridiculous stuff sound convincing - just the idea of calling L’Manberg its own separate server that happens to be inside another server with the running costs still being paid by Dream. It’s crazy but it works. 

And my goodness, did they have their work cut out for them. 

You see, I feel like Dream and co. weren’t really playing along. They heard ‘war!’ and thought - let’s win. Let’s absolutely crush the enemy! No mercy. 

Now playing the villain can be cool, sure. And it kinda worked here. But only just. Some of their actions definitely irked me. 

See, there are kind of unspoken agreements in stuff like letting people prepare, not attacking too early, that sort of thing. You tell everyone that the war’s gonna take place at 7pm and sure enough it does. And there’s Dream’s server rules: No stealing and no griefing. These rules do get bent in the middle of an ongoing battle - eg battles often involve a lot of placing and breaking blocks and when you’re low on stuff, trying to run to a nearby chest to grab some last minute supplies is going to happen (and later after the battle’s done you’ll probably get yelled at a little before making up) - but generally they are upheld. Especially when others are offstream and you aren’t in the middle of something. 

‘Ah but it was war - rules can be broken!’ one might argue. Yeah, no, this is entertainment. You don’t start early because you’re going to ruin the stream and make the content worse - and the whole point of the war is to make good content. Like, when WIlbur’s stream died - they asked for a pause so WIlbur could sort out technical difficulties before continuing. 

Yeah so Dream and Sapnap basically broke all the rules in order to win. Fundy and Tommy put up insulting signs in different languages. Funny content. Dream and Sapnap burned Tubbo’s house to the ground. Err... okay that’s a bit excessive but we can make it work. No mercy, ha. 

So Tommy asked Tubbo to prep for the war. Tubbo agreed and got to work to try and balance the already uneven odds. At this point, the war’s in a day and all of Dream’s side has full netherite and none of L’Manburg do save Eret. Time is short but that just makes it all the more exciting. 

So Tubbo uses villagers and trading, stealing a frugal amount to get himself started before really getting into it and grinding for diamond armour and makes nine stacks of emeralds - enough to place some high level enchants and even the odds a little and make the fight interesting.

While Tubbo’s offline, Sapnap comes in and steals them, getting books to enchant his own set of netherite armour using Tubbo’s set up. Well then. There goes any hope of a fair fight. And they are trying, you know. They realise the armour discrepancy so they’ve been trying to get potions but even that’s a struggle - when Dream finished his apology stream he logged on to the SMP without warning and managed to kill Tubbo before he could get away while his inventory had been full of potions. (Tommy and Tubbo had been visiting Dream’s base to put a sign in it - an offer of Mellohi for peace. Nothing comes of this sign or any of the other Tommy put in other people’s houses - more potential good content there like demanding Sapnap stay neutral in return for a supply blaze powder (a ref to the drug war that preceded this conflict)). It’s not that Dream killing Tubbo is the issue - it’s more how he logged on basically without warning so Tubbo had little chance to get away as he was mostly unarmoured and ungeared. 

Still, the next day Tubbo is trying to grind back up, to even up things a little. He’s only managed to get 2 end crystals and he has a few sets of plain diamond armour and a few books. So he grinds like crazy in the limited time, trading all his iron, chopping trees, carrots, bamboo, sugar, everything he has into emeralds. But he needs levels. He tries to go to the spawner which the other side has been freely using to grind up exp and they kill him when he goes near. One time, Dream kills him while he has several books on him so he has to trade back emeralds to get them again. And now he doesn’t have a good way to get experience so he can’t even the odds. Punz and Sapnap even combatlog inside the spawner so if he goes near they’d come online and kill him. And yeah, they’re stream sniping. They’ve all streamed very little, hiding all their preparations while taking advantage of the fact that the other side have all been streaming everything they’ve been doing. 

‘Imagine streamsniping.’ Tommy and co. said that at one point during today’s conflict. It’s cheap - it’s not fun, it’s taking advantage - one that’s not even necessary as you’re already all OP. Dream’s side aren’t the underdog, they don’t need every single advantage to win this. Instead it’s more like rubbing salt into the wound. 

And yeah, despite all the griefing that Dream side have done, not once does anyone grief anything of theirs - like the chat was totally asking for them to burn down Punz’s house. No, they just place signs and talk. 

Okay, so Tommy announced the war would be at 7pm. He logs on at 6.45 to say hello and hype all his viewers up, get his music playing and give a rundown of the situation and what’s occurred since he’s last streamed. No sooner has he logged on then Tubbo gets ambushed early! They attacked prematurely! 

...

It’s like there was one rule - war begins at 7pm. And instead Dream, George and Sapnap all attacked Tubbo at his base at 6.45. Tommy is ages away and can’t do anything and Fundy’s in trouble too and Tubbo just barely manages to save the gear he has managed to prep. They’re even more on the backfoot. All their strats are known anyway as they’ve been watching streams so they know all about the potions and endcrystals while Tommy’s side are in the dark about Dream’s side’s preparations. For instance, offstream they filled Tommy’s base and L’Manburg with Tnt which they set off to devastating effect. 

The ‘war’ is as one-sided as you’d expect. Tommy and co. are trying to attack even though they lack arrows and food and are hopelessly outmatched but they put up a pretence of trying anyway. At no point is a single one of Dream’s side even moderately threatened (except perhaps when they ambushed Tubbo early as he tried using harming potions) and everyone knows it. 

Still, Tommy and Wilbur push on - they talk, they rally etc. Finally, Eret betrays them and they’re all killed in an ambush. And they’re shocked by this twist, they react, they call Eret their downfall. (Dream’s side didn’t need to resort to such tactics to win given their obvious advantage.) and Eret being a traitor is fantastic for content anyway so it is a great part of the narrative that they all react to perfectly. Eret seems to have a good instinct for making good content as well as this sort of twist is a good addition. It works because its drama - they trusted him and they never expected him to betray them to the other side after all they’d built together. 

In the end, Tommy finishes it on a high with a dramatic bow duel followed by offering the discs in exchange for freedom. And fittingly, despite have being entirely outplayed in terms of power and tactics, they win the thing they cared about - which was the independence that they started the war for. The content - not anything material. Dream’s side was far stronger and better prepared and they weren’t given so much as a chance to catch up for a pvp conflict. But L’Manberg - they got that. 

-

Okay, so this has been long and I’ll probably rewrite something similar soon - but I wanted to highlight how in meta terms, the war was being played unfairly and its obvious that Dream’s side had different priorities - win under any means necessary rather than continue to make great content for the SMP. They’re treating it like a manhunt or something when its absolutely not and shouldn’t be. They’re lucky that Wilbur and Tommy were so good at making it work as they do all the heavy-lifting for the SMP which ensures its got a healthy lifespan. 

[whence-the-woody]

Finale commentary under the cut

So I wanted to kind of liveblog as I was watching but held back so these are my remembered reactions/second watch reactions

Bummed there was no song recap but quickly figured itd play at the end

PUPPY. Best part of the ep, lbr, Dean was so cute with him

Theyre really doing a cheesey life montage huh - still not clear whether monsters are a thing in this new world?

I was watching the mins tick by during this first montage like OKAY we get it, cheesey happy home life, move along. There was only 40 mins left of the whole show like get on with it, it went way too long 

We definately needed to restablished that Sam is neat while Dean is messy. Totally necessary to spend time on that. Also didnt Dean get houseproud when they moved into the bunker?? What happened to that?

OMG get on with it

Then becomes apparent that hunting is still a thing. Which if so what was the point of showing then doing fucking laundry and dishes while “Ordinary life” plays - if its not just an ordinary life?

At this point i thought it might go the route of them being listless without hunting as a job but then murder scene so I guess not

This whole pie sequence is stupid and a waste of time, we all know it

Dean being a cold, heartless bitch about everyone being dead. Aces. Not unexpected but still just great. How dare you be so happy about pie fuck you dude. 

DOES ANYONE REMEMBER EILEEN

Pie is the face is not funny my dudes come the fuck on

I started skipping through during the murder scene. I was bored. Like, I dont care about tension building to the murder of a family we dont fucking know. Ive always skipped these scenes, what is the damn point. Its not scary or interesting. 

GET ON WITH IT

Same old FBI bullshit. Nice to see the journal again I guess. But like, this is STILL what we’re doing? In the very last ep? Same old, different day, just like 15 years ago. Really?

Singer and Kripke. Subtle. 

I skipped through the interrogation too. I dont find the scary brother act cool or entertaining 

15 mins in and nothing has happened

Theyre trying so hard to give Dean jokes and nothing is landing, its so cringe just stop

The way the little clown faces pop up - if that supposed to be scary? Really? Its all just so silly rn

Watching it again I realise just how easy this hunt is. The answer is in the journal. They find the exact family. They find the exact barn. The kids are just stood in a cupboard. This is what takes Dean out, really? Its not even a normal hunt, its a way too fucking easy one. 

I do not remember this chick or what ep she was in, maybe theres some parallell or foreshadowing by bringing her back but if there is I dont get it

Bottom line if youre gonna bring people back WHY THE FUCK THIS RANDOM GIRL

I knew so fast he was gonna go out like that. Hanging from a fucking nail

I kept saying out loud not like this, no way, this is so stupid, its so stupid omg

I paused and tried to talk myself into putting aside how stupid and awkward it was for him to be doing this scene hanging off a pole and just try to invest in the emotion of the speech. Which I achieved at times

but why was is so awkward tho?? Just the way hes stood pressed against it is fucking weird. Also 1000% Sam couldve gotten help and he wouldve been FINE. It took so long for them to talk, an ambulance couldve been there before they were done, there was no need for this

Okay the speech did make me cry once I pep talked myself into being invested. The reference to being scared Sam would reject him, the I love you so much, Sam saying dont leave me, the stay with me and tell me its okay - all those moments got me and I did cry. I appreciated the family business line. I liked Jensen telling Jared he always keeps fighting, that was a nice reference. 

BUT there were also those moments that made me scoff, roll my eyes or laugh. The whole “always you and me” bullshit especially. The second I knew he was going to say I’ll be in your heart I yelled at them to no do it, I hate that cheesey move, then literally was like “oh my god, he did it”. It WAS NOT always going to end like this - so much of the last 15 years was proving him wrong about that. This is all just so wrong, it is not good. 

Jensen and Jared did a good job with what they were given in this scene but my god

The audacity of the Cas erasure- always you and me. FUCK YOU. 

I laughed out loud when his last shot was a One Perfect Tear. I was literally like “Oh wow they did that”

DEAN DESERVED A BETTER DEATH

It also kinda loses all impact when you see him like 2 mins later

MIRACLE IS THE REAL MVP ILY

Theyre really doing another montage. Really. Like we get it, hes sad, we didnt need the toast to understand that

Omg Miracle by his side. The best of bois. 

Looking around his room like beer and guns was all dean was. Sure. Aces. 

I choose to believe Bon Jovi was a ref to before Dean went to hell

If Donna is back why isnt anyone else?!?

Oh Jared you look so old bby. Go home. He looks older there then later in the ridiculous make up

Why is that shot made to look like hes leaving the bunker forever?? Like that makes no sense

Bobby greeting him is nice and all BUT IT SHOULDVE BEEN CAS

Also they are 1000% doing the show don’t tell by having Bobby just sit and explain everything. SO FUCKING LAZY

Cas has been out of the empty, helping rebuild heaven. Okay, fine. Even Dean’s reaction to hearing that was fine. BUT YOU ASK WHERE YOUR FUCKING BEST FRIEND IS AND GO SEE HIM. WHO IS THIS VERSION OF DEAN WTF

I know people are upset Cas is back working in heaven but I dont think its anything like before. It sounds like he helped fixed things then got his own heaven. Also he’s God’s Dad, hes not serving God, hes teaching him. I know human Cas done right is what we wanted but I dont hate this for him. BUT WE SHOULD HAVE FUCKING SEEN IT. 

Why is a memory of being a kid with his Dad what Dean is reminiscing on. They have literally reverted him back to s1. There are so many memories dean should be thinking about in fucking heaven

Hes going for a drive

Hes going for a motherfucking drive

In the car he was just in

WHY THE FUCK IS HE ACTING LIKE HE HASNT SEEN BABY IN YEARS WHAT IS THIS SHIT

Hes going to drive around doing nothing until Sam gets there are you fucking kidding me. Not going to see any of his family from the last 15 years, just driving. Absolute horseshit. 

This is the moment where you realise that this episode has changed NOTHING. This is the same ending as the last ep except theyre in heaven not on earth

ITS THE EXACT SAME FUCKING THING

Okay so they skip over how Sam went from going on a hunt to walking with a toddler. OMG how unsubtle that they have literally just labelled the child Dean in big yellow letters. I couldnt help but laugh, how fucking stupid. 

I did get a bit teary when the music started I’ll be honest. But mostly through the whole montage (ANOTHER ONE) I was saying to myself This is so fucking stupid. omg this is dumb, what the fuck is this, so stupid.

They literally did a montage so long they had to play the song twice. Im just done at this point wow. 

The old man make up is so bad I just laughed. The only pictures being of the 4 of them, reinforcing the Winchester only bullshit, great. Not even pics of this new random family Sam’s got. The painfully cliche Dad moments for Sam, again so bad its funny. Omg the hand on the head of this random kid, this is so ridiculous. Old man sam in his bad wig trying so hard to move like hes old and crying in the impala. Wtf is happening, this is SO STUPID 

I thought theyd cast a more attractive son I’ll be honest. So he has the tattoo - are they a hunting family? Because that would go against both s1 Sam they’ve tried to go back to and the s15 Sam they build up to for all those years

I know they were going for an emotional parallel with that “you can go now” but this random man saying it to Sam in that make up, with the music cue lined up right there - its just funny coz its so dumb im sorry

I cant believe they actually played another different version, I’ll never get over that

Theres alot of things I’ll never get over

Is this bridge supposed to mean something? They shouldve picked a setting that meant something

I know theyre trying so hard to make Dean look happy and peaceful to convince us its a good ending but sis no

I laughed out loud when Dean turned around - WHAT IS THAT OUTFIT SAM?

Really, they have nothing to say? No questions, no convo? They just have cheesey smiles and look over the water? This is so wrapped up in a fucking bow trying to force us to feel good my god

The cut almost immediately to them talking to the camera, still in character getup, was so cringe I yelled and turned it off

And they pan out to literally none of the people we want to see . Great, Good. 

LITERALLY WHAT WAS THE POINT 

[justlightthefirstspark]

As promised, my analysis/opinion/thought piece on today’s MUWFC game vs Spurs. Everything is chronological which I feel like should go without saying but in the interest of clarity 🤷🏽‍♀️ but not everything is tagged to the minute cause I am an idiot that didn’t realise that that would be helpful til like the 2nd half. Also, if I missed anything, or got players mixed up or anything pls lemme know and I’ll edit accordingly! I’ve never really done any from of sports based writing before (I don’t think tweets count lol) so pls be nice, merci 😘

Line up as follows, I guess this is pretty common knowledge but you know, coherency and such.

Tbh it was kinda hard to see *a lot* of this game, especially on the far side of the pitch and by both goals because of the weather, felt like I was watching Silent Hill for a little while there, but I did my best. My wifi is also horrendous atm, and we all know that the FA Player can be problematic so there’s a very good chance I might have missed something due to a lag or buffering btw. Just drop me an ask if you notice anything that mightn’t be quite right, and I’ll fix it asap! Some ~analysis~ (if you could call it that lol) is more detailed than other bits cause there was a lot happening and today I learned that it’s kinda hard to write one thing and watch another at the same time lol

First half:

Quick, fast and almost successful start. A much-needed improvement on the stagnancy vs Bristol a few weeks ago, and obviously we couldn’t see the midweek game vs Brighton so I can’t compare them.

I have to say I’m not a massive fan of all the back passes, all the time. I think a more attacking FB might be needed in the summer, or maybe Ökvist should be given some time to acclimatise to the WSL soon? I was never the biggest fan of Harris last season, I personally don’t think she’s fast enough – she gets outpaced down the flank by attackers 90% of the time, which isn’t good. I think A. Turner is the strongest FB option currently, at least defensively, and she’s shown she has a decent attacking ability, and has a wicked long ball, as well as crossing. My only issue is sometimes those tackles of hers can be a liability, giving away unnecessary fouls. It’s almost like she doesn’t think before she flies in sometimes, which is a shame, cause I love them. A lot.

There were a couple of really good chances in the first half, including a great ball in and run up from Galton, which should have resulted in probably the opening goal but whether it was as a result of the weather or just misjudged timing and placement from both Ross and Sigsworth, the chance went to waste. Groenen had an excellent chance to net her first for United but unfortunately sent it just wide. Another glorious link up between A. Turner and Galton led to another decent chance, a gorgeous cross in from the right to the opposite side of the box, and the perfect header which unfortunately was aimed straight at the keeper. Very unlucky to head in at the break with nothing.

There was an incredible double save from Earps around halfway through the first half. I have to say, I have some anxieties with her sometimes. She is quite good, but has a tendency to make some silly mistakes, and doesn’t always make the right call for a save. But my god she was on her game today, even if a potential error might have led to the first save. Didn’t disappoint me anytime she was called on this afternoon.

A few frustrations started to show around the 30 min mark, a few sloppy passes and challenges making the rounds. It was also around this time that I realized I’d picked a pretty poor game to start this thing on because I could barely see anything.

Zelem seems to be back in form, which can only be a good thing. But I would very much like it if somehow she could drag some of the other girls back up with her.

There were a fair few soft calls going Spurs way, which I wasn’t entirely convinced by. But then again I’m probably just naturally biased towards my girls.

Another great ball in to Sigsworth from A. Turner which was just *chefs kiss* but unfortunately came to nothing. There was also a spin move either to commit or avoid a challenge, I couldn’t really tell tbh, which was very impressive, as was her chase down on Mitchell at around 43 mins. (Amy’s my favourite player, can you tell?)

Booking for Kirsty Smith just before half time, but I gotta be honest I couldn’t see it due to the fog, so I have no idea what happened. Couldn’t find anything about it in the United post-match report either so apparently we’re just deleting that from the history of the earth which is completely fine by me to be honest.

Second half:

My main takeaway from this game is that both Sigsworth and Ross always seem to be looking for the same ball in the penalty area, and there very rarely seems to be anybody else around looking for a potential rebound. I think that James (who missed today’s game due to suspension) seems to be our main (only?) front line creator and finisher; Sigsworth is fine, that girl works like a dog and always gets the job done, I think she may have just needed another goal to boost her confidence, but I have no real concerns with her. Ross, however, I’m not entirely convinced by, I think a lot of her finishes have been a bit lucky and flukey so far. I’d start Toone over her for the rest of the season to be honest, Ross hasn’t done anything that tells me she deserves the starting place. Feel free to disagree with this of course, this is just my own personal opinion.

56 mins – confusion has entered the chat. McManus ends up pretty much through on goal, and then the ref whistles for what I assumed to be an offside. So naturally I nearly kicked my laptop out the window. The ref then awards a United penalty, and I’m even more confused now than I was in the beginning. I genuinely didn’t see anything but did hear a few shouts from what I’m assuming was the United bench for handball, so I have no idea what happened here.

‘58 – GOAL. Who else? God bless Katie Zelem is all I’m saying.

‘61 – Hanson 🔁 Ross. I think this was a good swap. I don’t think Ross was particularly good today, and Hanson immediately sparked that RW. I would have subbed Ross off sooner but that’s my only issue.

’64 – GOAL – Sigsworth with a pretty perfect if slightly scruffy strike from a corner.

A much better corner than previous attempts, and Spurs hadn’t defended any of them particularly well. I think that we have a major issue with set pieces, I dunno what exactly the problem is, whether they need to allocate a new taker or whatever but before today had we scored from a corner all season? Lemme knowwww.

’65 – A few decent chances for Spurs around this time. One pretty clear run in from the right, and one or two shots bounced right of the crossbar and the post. Basically my heart stopped for about 8 mins.

’66 – I DO NOT WANT TO SEE BACK PASSES IN THE BOX AS OPPOSITION PLAYERS SWARM IN. CLEAR IT. I DON’T CARE WHERE IT GOES JUST GET IT OUT. (sorry for the caps but my anxiety was out in force this afternoon)

United started playing much better after both goals, think they just needed a kick up the arse. *Ahem* A confidence boost. 👀 Much better intensity for the final 30 mins than the previous 60 imo.

’68 – Another decent chance for Spurs, with Earps coming way too far off her line than sat right with me. Very lucky nothing came of that.

’69-72 – Around this time I started to get *very* confused between Amy and Abbie cause they both had yellow boots on and literally the only thing I could see on the far side of the pitch was feet. That was fun.

’73 – The wasteful corners made a return. Slightly less panicked about that one considering we were already 2-0 up but still, I would like to see the glaring set piece issue sorted asap thanks girls x

’75ish – Toone 🔁 Groenen. Man I love Jackie Groenen. She really has been immense for us so far, and there’s a definite difference in how we play without her.

’78 – Harris 🔁 M. Turner. I’ve said my piece about Harris above but man, can we take a second to appreciate Millie Turner. She never, ever stops. Literally the heart of our defence.

’86 – GOAL – Oh captain, my captain. Beautiful strike from a free kick just outside the box, with the perfect bend around the wall and subsequently the keeper to make it 3-0.

United were very obviously stronger in the second half, almost looked like a completely different team at times. Whether they just got the hairdryer treatment at the half (I would imagine Casey is terrifying when she’s mad.) or the goals gave them that spark they desperately needed to kick on, they definitely made up for all the missed chances in the first half.

’90 – 4 additional minutes.

’92 – Another United free kick. McManus found herself almost clear in (again!), but due to an unlucky fumble with the ball at her feet unfortunately nothing came from this one. Surely a 4th goal otherwise.

’93 – FIIIIIIIIGHT. Kinda. You love to see it. Spend a little while conducting some, scientific research 🌚 and have concluded that Toone was tackled from behind just as the ball left her feet, which led to the ~scuffle~. Have to say that Amy walking away with Ella was extremely 🥰🥰🥰 (This is my research - https://twitter.com/48hours8/status/1218896406020349953?s=21)

’94 – Red card for Tooney. I would assume for her reaction more than anything but the camera didn’t catch it so I guess we’ll never know. I would have thought a yellow would suffice, considering that’s all the Spurs player in question received, but apparently not. 🤔 I’m still kinda confused tbh.

’95 – Full time.

Thus concludes what was certainly an interesting match. Please enjoy this comparison of United vs Spurs chaotic energy from @danieljamesmufc

Also thanks for reading if you got this far, it’s a bit stop-starty and clunky cause I just wrote down thoughts and whatever as they came into my head and then pieced it all together later on. I also just wanna say that I was massively impressed with Smith today. She hasn’t had many chances to prove herself this season, but that combo of herself and Galton down the left was lethal today imo. 🔥

Some extra thoughts:

I’m not a huge fan (like, at all) of fans singing men’s orientated chants. Let the women’s rivalries develop on their own, in their own way, and don’t drag the vulgarities across! That said, I do think that particular group of United fans has the potential to be a very, very good thing.

Also, just wanna say that these are my girls, and I would die for every single one of them. None of my criticism is meant to be intentionally negative, I just tried to be as objective and realistic as possible, without being a fangirl lol. Even my faves aren’t immune to criticism unfortunately.

And this picture is now my favourite thing ever to exist

[striddums]

ok, keeping this under a cut cause i just really don’t want to start a whole discourse on my blog, i hope you all understand. so, to the anons:

first: i realise i need to be more mindful & discreet about this topic than i initially was in my tags, especially as a white person, like you stated. and i apologise. i hadn’t watched any of the videos (including pdp’s) yet, and writing “i don’t think he’s a nazi” was just literally me carelessly sharing my gut feeling. cause i still think that he’s not... maybe i’m horribly naive for it. but i don’t think he is. the post i linked there is a piss poor “apology” and whatever, but he does state very clearly that he doesn’t share the same hateful thoughts as those people. he even calls the idea laughable - which to me perfectly summarises the entire problem with this guy. which brings us to...

...point two: in that post he says, i quote, “As laughable as it is to believe that I might actually endorse these people...”. he’s a dumbass. he thinks it’s fine to call it laughable, that he has a place to do so, and that it proves his point. “of course i don’t think that way! that’s so ridiculous i’d never in a million years even consider it! it’s laughable!” to me, that has seemed to be his thought process every time something like this happened... and, again, it’s fucking stupid. he SHOULD realise (especially with his massive audience, god) that he needs to be more careful talking about that stuff, more respectful, more empathetic. people get hurt by what he says and what he does. so many people (RIGHTFULLY) responded the way they did to his offensive jokes cause he caused HARM. and he simply hadn’t fathomed it would have the colossal impact it did. so i understand that people see that and think “well, he’s going around trampling on different groups, seemingly without remorse. this clearly shows his ideologies.” it’s a logical response! my feelings on it however... i’ve been watching his channel since 2012, and i just don’t think he’s that guy? not in a i-watched-him-so-long-and-i-wuv-him-too-much-to-see-mistakes kinda way. i’ve unsubscribed from many people i watched since 2009-2012 in the past cause they did something horrible (alex day for example). but i never got the feeling felix is the horrible person people worry he is. in the recent post (that i now deleted) i saw someone in the comments say “most of his videos have antisemitic tones”, but that’s simply untrue. i still watch a lot of his videos (think of that what you will...) and it’s literally 99% silly, inoffensive memes. the vast majority of his content is completely harmless. i can vouch he does not mention jewish people, or hitler, or anything like that, ever. cause...

...point three: why would he? he’s been under fire by the media and the internet and a big chunk of the whole world for what he did. disney fired him, his youtube red series got cancelled and thus scare pewdiepie 2 will never see the light of day. and, again, RIGHTFULLY SO. his “”””jokes”””” were distasteful and awful, and he had to face consequences for it. (which he agreed with btw! in the end with all the companies dropping him, he was most upset that other people who appeared in scare pdp 2 did all that hard work for it to never get recognised, all due to his idiocy.) so, as we all know, people were very upset with him for what he thought was just a funny-kinda-risky joke, and they still are. i lose followers every time i mention his name lol. he has expressed many times that he feels remorse and wishes for himself to do better and never fuck up like this again. that’s why i think he was not aware of the antisemitic references made by the creator he named in the recent video. if he did know it, regardless of him actually being antisemitic or not, he never would’ve mentioned them. he would’ve known what kind of shitstorm he could expect, ESPECIALLY since it’s regarding a topic he’s already screwed up in! i legit think he had no idea. also cause watching the video by the twitch streamer (from the post i now deleted), i had to rewatch the clips apparently showing antisemitic content many times. i didn’t get the references... at all... maybe i’m super uneducated, but i didn’t recognise them as anything nazi-related. <:/ they’re not blatant, in your face antisemitic references, they’re apparently very hidden and specific. all of them went right over my head, until the twitch guy paused and went “oh my god” and i then tried really hard to look into it... so i think it’s the same with felix. i believe most people wouldn’t notice the messages in them, unless they were familiar with nazi references. i think pdp likely just found a death note review that he enjoyed (it’s his favourite anime and he has Big Opinions on the netflix remake) so he decided to shout out the channel that made it based on that. i think this cause in his video, it’s literally the only thing he had to say about them... “i liked their anime review”. that’s it. so i believe the references went over his head too. (EDIT: after i wrote all this & posted it i saw pewdiepie had just uploaded a video addressing the matter, and he confirmed what i thought. he had no idea there were antisemitic references and never would’ve shared the channel if he had known.)

now, about that creator he gave a shout-out to, point four: from what i understand of the clips the twitcher showed, the offensive person isn't spreading blatant supremacist propaganda, or clearly stating to be in favour of those things. they’re putting in hidden references, and these might reflect his feelings (i wouldn’t be surprised.) but one thing became clear: he is in fact, a horrible edgelord lmao. the 4chan kind. the person who thinks putting a hitler speech bit in a steven universe video is funny. which is disgusting. i honestly doubt pdp has seen that su video, cause it’s on the man’s second channel that he never mentioned in this shout-out video, and cause it’s steven universe related lol. i don’t think he’d click on a su video, but that’s based on assumptions entirely so not very credible, i know. the su video’s title also has a rape joke in it... it’s just all round bad. that’s the only vid that had a more obvious nazi ref too (literal hitler) and the terrible title... so yeah fuck that guy. it’s unsure if pewdiepie actually knew about that video at all (and that one was referenced the most by the twitch streamer). all we can say for sure is that E;R guy is a massive twat. (EDIT: so yeah again, we now know for certain pdp had never seen the su video and junk)

to round it all up... to me pewdiepie is a guy with edgy humor, who thinks he can joke about everything (which, no ya don’t, especially as a cishet white dude), and who by far doesn’t take things as seriously as he should. and by a LANDSLIDE not as seriously as he should as a youtuber with 75 million subscribers. he’s made a lot of mistakes and it was never my intention to come off as if i’m defending or excusing them: i’m not, and i think they’re terrible. they’re extremely upsetting, and i’m deeply sorry for not being clear about that and putting those irritated tags under the post so carelessly. (my irritation was also mainly directed at felix for screwing up... again.)

but yeah, i do feel like he’s not actually someone with offensive thoughts... just someone who needs to grow up more & get better at handling such a big audience (which he has had like 4 years for... too slow). he has a far larger impact than he realises at times and there’s just certain jokes he CANNOT make. not only cause they’re simply unfunny and distasteful, but also cause they harm people. so all the people who say he handles things unprofessionally and has WAY too many screw-ups for someone with the large following he does - i wholeheartedly agree. but i don’t think he’s a nazi.

[digitalsculptingjournal]

Blender Modelling Notes 2 (from chair tutorial)

Add reference image/blueprint - Make sure your viewport is in the view you want e.g. from the side (3), Shift A, Image, Reference. If it wasn’t in the right view before adding the image, go the item properties (top right) then clearing all the rotation values. 

To snap to a view (7 = top, 1 = front, 3 = side) without a number pad, go to Edit, Preferences, Emulate Numpad - will make your normal keyboard numbers into numpad numbers. Hold CMND when pressing these numbers to view the opposite side. 

Change opacity of the image/blueprints - Object Data Properties (bottom rightish), Check Opacity, then change the slider

To start modelling, Shift A, Mesh, and whatever most resembles what you’re modelling, in this case a cube for the chair leg 

To see the ref behind the mesh, go to wireframe mode by clicking on the icon under options in the top right (called viewport shading) - quicker to hold Z to select your view 

Go to the side view (3) and move the cube to be the front chair leg and scale it down to the approximate size

While still viewed from the side (3), change to edit mode, click and drag over the top half of the cube. Make the sure the cube is viewed in X Ray mode - the two squares icon under Options (top right) or by pressing Alt Z to toggle it on and off. If this isn’t turned on, you might select just half of the mesh. 

Move (G) those two selected points on the cube all the way up to match the length of the leg while holding the middle mouse to snap and move on the z axis. Angle the cube to match the angle and shape of the leg. 

Select the cube, then CMND R and click to create a loop cut to start to create the horizontal part of the chair. Line it up with the horizontal part. Double tap G to redo the line if it goes wrong. Use the mouse scroll wheel to multiply the loopcuts if needs be. 

Then select the points that will be dragged to form the horizontal part and press E to extrude. Then drag to match the horizontal part. 

At this stage we should move to front view (1) and position the cube in the right place to match the position of the blueprint of the leg. Also change the thickness. Don’t change the angle to match the ref yet as it will make things harder later on. Things don’t have to be perfect at this stage. 

Go back to side view (3). It’s time to do the rounded inner corner of the leg. Don’t bevel this! As it will be messy later on. Instead we will use a subsurface modifier. Go to the Modifier Properties (spanner, lower right) and go to Add Modifier. Add the Subdivision Surface modifier - it will look terrible at this stage. It is trying to automatically work out and add extra detail and geometry based on the simple shapes/between the vertices.

Add two loop cuts (CMND R) and drag them to form the approximate shape of the rounded inner corner. This has controlled the weird shape more to how we want it. 

Then you can increase the subdivision levels to about 3 in the Levels Viewport area of the subdivision modifier (middle right). To see all the vertices in wireframe mode, uncheck ‘Optimal Display’ in the modifier section. 

Try and flatten out the roundness of the shape and to form the flat inner face of the leg, create an edge loop (CMND R) and mouse over until it goes vertical down the length of the leg and drag it right to try and match the blueprint. Do the same for the horizontal part. This process should create the nice flat faces seen in the chair. 

Now to fix the curved inner corner. The topology needs to follow the curve. Go to Face Select view (top left, next to edit mode, object mode etc.) Should be able press Alt and click on a face to select the face loop, but doesn’t seem to work (UPDATE: EMULATE 3 BUTTON MOUSE IN PREFERENCES NEEDS TO BE UNCHECKED FOR THIS TO WORK) so stay in face select and Shift Click all the faces in the loop. 

Select the vertices on the outside of the chair and deselect the inner most points. Double tap G to get the Edge Slide option and push the selected edge into the edge above so they look merged. It’s really bad to have mesh data placed directly on top of another piece of mesh data, so to fix this, press A to select the whole mesh and press M to bring up the merge option and select By Distance. (refer to 1:50 in the chair tutorial part 2 vid for more context) There is actually an Auto merge Vertices button that does this same thing (merge vertices placed on top of each other) directly to the left of options (top right) Have this toggled on and any vertices that get on top of each other will automically merge. Then do the same process, now using automerge toggled on, for the other part of the curve. 

Create a vertical edge loop (CMND R) to flatten out the front face of the chair leg. 

In order to not have to do the exact same step on one side to the opposite side, use the Mirror Modifier (Add Modifier, Mirror). Make sure you put the mirror modifier above the subdivision modifier in the modifier stack to avoid weird effects. Adding this modifier will actually just duplicate the mesh (it’s mirroring it on the origin axis), so we need to delete half of the mesh. Create a loop cut down the middle (CMND R) but instead of sliding the cut, Right Click to set it directly down the middle. Go into top view (7), box select one half of the mesh (might be easier to do this in wireframe view), press X and then select Vertices to delete half of it. Then turn on Clipping in the mirror modifier section so the two halves stay together. Now whatever I do on one side will be mirrored on the other. 

To make the top horizontal face of the chair leg perfectly flat, the quickest and easiest way is to select all to top faces in face select mode and delete them (X, Faces) 

To flatten the foot of the chair, make another horizontal loop cut (CMND R) and drag it down to near the bottom. Wherever you need a tighter edge, add a loop cut. 

To make the curve near the back of the chair, select the two top right vertices create a loop cut (CMND R) and Extrude (E) and drag across. Here, if the mesh looks different to the tutorial, unclick the little icon next to the PC and the camera in the subdivision modifier bit (bottom right) Toggle this on if you want to see the effect of the modifier while in edit mode. 

A good tip is to, instead of extruding normally with E, select the points you want to extrude and hold down CMND and Right click to extrude/snap to where your cursor is, so it’s a much quicker way. 

When you get to the foot, select wonky points and press S (scale), Z (on Z axis) and 0 (zero) to flatten it. This is a good tip for whenever there are wonky vertices.

Continue to trace the rest of this chair section up to the top. 

If there is a problem with the mesh, it’s good to check if your faces are facing in the right direction. Go to the Viewport Overlays dropdown (top right, next to toggle x ray etc.) and check Face Orientation. The blue areas are correct and the red areas are not. To clear/recalculate the mesh to fix it, select everything (A) and press Shift N. If it’s still not right or you’ve accidentally inverted everything, press CMND Shift N.

In certain situations, a quicker/better way to sharpen too soft modified edges, is to create a bevelled edge. First go into Object Mode, and press CMND A and go to Scale, which will set all the scale parameters to 1. Then select the whole edge and press CMND B to create a bevelled edge. If this action has created unwanted vertices, hold CMND while moving vertices to snap to increments. To change it from increments to vertices, go to the drop down next to the little magnet thing in the top middle and select Vertex. Then you can can select an unwanted vertex/point and move while holding CMND to a correct point to merge them, if automerge is toggled on (top right) 

To flatten out the face that has been bevelled, go into top view (7), select all of one side of the mesh with box select and press S, X, 0 (zero) to align everything to the x axis. 

Around here I realised that I was missing the faces on all of the back of the chair, so I extruded and created a line going down the centre of the back of the chair in order for me to be able to select 4 vertices and press F to make a face, joining it up. 

Create a vertical loop cut to sharpen out the edge of the back of the chair. To fix the top of the back of the chair now, delete the vertices in the top section and select the 3 back vertices of this section. Then press CMND R click to sort of extrude them twice to where the cursor is, to create the curved top of the chair. Then press F to add a face between the vertices.

Then use loop cuts and moving points around to fix any small issues to match as best as possible to the blueprint.  

Now change to front view (1) and object mode (tab) and rotate the mesh to match the angle of the blueprint. It will probably need to be thicker, so press S to scale it to match the thickness. Then press CMND A to get the apply menu and select Scale to clear the scale. It should be at 1; you can check this by going to the little square icon above the modifier spanner (bottom right) and clicking the Transform dropdown. 

A good tip is that you can still edit vertices, slide loop cuts etc. well once something has been rotated by going up to Global (top middle left, same row as the snap magnet) and change the transform orientation to Local. Then any changes will work on the angle of the rotated object. 

Now that we’ve rotated the leg, it will need to be scaled up slightly (S, Z) to match the side view of the blueprint. Then press CMND A and Scale to apply the scale. The leg part is now done. Now onto the horizontal seta part. 

In object mode, first switch to top view (7) and add an object that is most like what we’re making, in this case it’s a plane. Press Shift A to get the add menu and select the Plane. It’s best to add the mirror modifier straight away here to avoid doing everything twice. Cut the plane in half by grabbing (G, X) and moving the left vertices to the right, then add the Mirror Modifier (bottom right) and check Clipping, so they stay together, then push the two parts together by grabbing half of the vertices. 

As the blueprints were kind of dumped in, they won’t be perfect, so go into top view (7) and move the top ref down a bit on the Y axis and to the right on the X axis to match more the leg we’ve made. Adjust the rectangle plane to match the blueprint as best as possible at this stage by using grab. It’s good to turn the levels viewport down to 1 (subdiv modifier, bottom right) for the leg to see things easier.  You could actually hide the leg by selecting it and pressing H. 

Add a Subdivision Surface modifier (bottom right) and make the levels viewport 3 to see the curvature better. Start add loop cuts to try to match the blueprint as best as possible. 

Then go into front view (1) and move the plane down to the bottom of the edge of the blueprint curve. Then move the points to match the curve, based on where the selected orange is, rather than the black modifier line. Then go into side view (3) and angle (R) the plane to match the blueprint and move it down. Then adjust the points to roughly match the ref. 

Now to add the thickness. Add a Solidify modifier under the subdiv modifier in the stack. If the thickness is being added in the wrong direction, change the Offset to 1. If the thickness is coming out at an angle, CMND A and press All Transforms to clear the scale etc. Then you might have to rejoin and clip the two halves in the mirror modifier. 

Then to make everything smoother and get rid of the banding effect, go into object mode and Right click and press Shade Smooth. As it’s smoothed the whole thing including the edges, we need to force Blender to not smooth certain angles. Go to Object Data Properties (little upside down triangle with points under the spanner etc, bottom right), Normals and then press Auto Smooth. By default, it’s set to 30 degrees, meaning any angle over 30 degrees it will not smooth. 

To soften the edges, add a Bevel modifier and place it under the Solidify modifier. Set the offset to a very small number like 0.002m. You can increase the segments for more realism, to about 2, but it will slow down the render slightly. If this creates a weird smoothing effect, it seems to fix it by checking Harden Normals in Shading. 

The order that the modifiers are stacked is extremely important, so keep an eye on that. 

Now unhide the leg (Alt H) and go into front view (1) and correct any small areas with grab. 

Now duplicate the leg by adding a second Mirror Modifier. Select the Eyedropper tool in the modifier and select the Plane/seat. This means it uses the origin of an object, in this case the seat. If you don’t have another object to mirror off of, just add an Empty with Shift A. 

- MAKING THE BACK OF THE CHAIR MYSELF - 

To see the form better, you can choose a different MatCap by going to the Dropdown on the top right under Options. 

A tip is to use Quad View by going to View, Area and Toggle Quad View. This will show your model from 4 different angles, with the top right view being the only one you can move around in - the other 3 are locked in place. This is great to see changes from all views at once. 

If you have wonky vertices, particularly on loopcuts, you can straighten them out by selecting a wonky vertex (point) and Double Pressing G to get Edge Slide and then E to enable Even Mode or F to get a straighter loopcut/point. 

If there’s a vertex that’s way out of whack and sticking out etc. you can select the vertex and press Alt S (shrink fatten) and that will move it along its normal.

To disable clamping when using Edge Slide (double press G) hold Alt while you move your vertex, or press C to toggle it on and off. It works along whatever axis you were on when you pressed Alt. 

To make a rotated object have straight edges, select the edge (edge select) you want and rotate the edge back to being almost straight press S (scale), Y (or whatever axis you want to straighten it to) and then 0 (zero). Then you can rotate it back to the original position and you know it’s straight. 

You can move points along the angle that the object is at by changing from Global to Local or Normal in the little 3 arrows drop down to the left of the magnet, top middle. 

Now to make the rung. Add the closest object to the shape, in this case a cube and add a mirror modifier. When mirroring and clipping two already 3D objects together, always delete the face inside that joins them together by face selecting it and pressing X, Faces.

Now add a Subsurf Modifier below the mirror one. Then grab the end vertices and pull them out to match the length. Then grab and adjust the top and bottom to match the blueprint. 

Now to sharpen the edges but keep them looking nice and bevelled, add two horizontal loop cuts and drag them up and down to match the lines of the blueprint. Now go into object mode and scale on the Y axis to make it thinner roughly - it can be adjusted later. 

Now to flatten off the ends. For realism’s sake, it’s probably best not to just delete the faces at the end like earlier as objects don’t intersect IRL - there will be a subtle gap that creates a shadow. To do this, select all the outside edges of the end face. Then press Shift E and drag it to the end to create a maximum crease of 1 (can see/change this in the crease box that appears in the bottom left corner). 

Now go into object mode, R click and press Shade Smooth. If it looks weird, go into Object Data Properties and check Autosmooth. It’s probably best to raise it from 30 to 60 to avoid weird effects with certain edges. 

Go into side view and rotate to match the angle of the leg. Now scale the rung in side view by pressing S and then Y. Press Y again to automatically scale it locally to match the angle of the object. So when scaling something e.g. something rotated, press the axis letter twice to scale it locally.

Now go into front view and grab the end vertices and drag to the right so it’s almost touching the chair leg. To match the angle of the chair leg, don’t rotate as it will actually decrease the height of the object. Instead, we need to use Shearing. The shortcut for shearing is long, so just search for it by going to Edit, Menu Search and type in Shear. Then shear the end until it matches the leg, and then grab and adjust the end so there is the tiniest gap between the rung and leg. 

Then adjust the end vertices to match the blueprint using Edge Slide (G, G, C (to disable clamping)). 

The subsurf modifier should do a good job of creating the smooth curves on the top and bottom so we shouldn’t need to add loop cuts here. To adjust to match the lines more, just grab and move on the Z axis. 

Now that the front rung is complete, duplicate it by pressing Shift D and move it to between the back legs and rotate it to match the angle. Now go into front view and move it down the Z axis to match the blueprint. Now scale it along the X axis to almost reach the leg like the front rung. Press CMND A to apply the scale on both the rungs. 

Finally it’s time to add the screws. Go to Add (Shift A), Mesh, Circle. Scale it down. If there’s a face, delete it. Make a second circle to be the alan screw and change the vertices count to 6 (bottom left box when you add the circle) then line it up so it’s sitting in the centre of the other circle. 

To join the two circles together, select like a quarter of the outside vertices and the middle circle vertices and press F to fill. (refer to the vid for more context - chair tutorial part 6; 18:30)

Now add some slight thickness to the outer circle by selecting all the vertices and pressing E to extrude. A good tip is to hold C and draw over the vertices to select them fluidly, rather than clicking one by one or box selecting. 

Position the screw into approximately the right place, so that it lines up with the horizontal part of the chair leg. To get the screw to sit nicely on the surface of the seat, make sure the Snap (magnet, top middle) is set to Face and that Align Rotation to Target is checked. Then you hold CMND while moving the object and it’ll stay level with the curve of the seat. If for some reason that object gets flipped vertically in the process so all the vertex points are on the bottom, select it, go into Object Mode, go to Object (top right), Mirror and X, Y or Z local. The it might have to be adjusted with rotate etc. 

Then duplicate the first screw (Shift D) and move it to the front. The when you’re happy with the position of both screws, add a mirror modifier on each one, select the Eyedropper and click on the seat, or plane, so they mirror along the plane. 

Now do the same for the back of the chair. 

Now for the UV unwrapping. It’s very important that Scale is applied to all the objects before unwrapping as it won’t work otherwise. Start by selecting the simplest object, in this case the rung, and go into local view ( / ). Keep the mirror modifier active for now so we only have to place seams on one side of the mesh. The best place for a seam is the end as it will be naturally hidden by being almost in contact with the leg. It’s generally best to put seams at the back or bottom of meshes so their mostly out of sight. 

Go into Edge Select mode and select just the edges of the end face. Then to make that into a seam, Right Click and press Mark Seam. Marked seams will have red lines. Now select just one bottom edge and do the same. This mesh will have two seams. 

Now we need to apply the mirror modifier, otherwise it’ll only unwrap one half and it’ll be mirrored over and look weird. Go into Object Mode, go into the modifier, click and dropdown and press Apply. 

Now to unwrap it. It’s good have the UV editor open so you can see what you’re doing, so click on UV Editing at the top, in the same row as file, edit etc. It will automatically unwrap based on the cube that the object started out as, but we don’t want that. Go into Edit mode, select everything and press U and Unwrap. That’s one object down.

We should now check if it works well. Press New at the top of the UV editing screen and in the Generated Type dropdown, select UV Grid. Unfortunately it’s not easy to preview the grid on the object in the other screen. Go to Materials (the bottom circle icon in the same bit as the spanner etc.), press New, press the little Dot to the left of Base Colour and select Image Texture. Now click the little image icon to the left of New and select Untitled. The press Z, Material Preview and you should see the UV grid applied. It’s good to use the UV grid as a test as it easily shows up any stretching.

Now to move onto the leg. We actually want to fill the empty part that is in contact with the backrest with a face now to match the rest of the objects. Select all the vertices around the empty bit and press F to fill. Then with the points still selected, press Shift E and drag to make a crease and create a sharper edge. Don’t worry if it looks a bit bad as it will be covered by the back of the chair. 

Now select all the edges on the bottom face of the front leg and R click, Mark seam. Then do the same for the inside edge of the leg and then the bottom of the other leg as well. Keep doing this wherever is best (refer to the vid; chair tutorial part 7 for more context) 

To check if the material is working at this stage, you can select the current object and one that already has the material applied and just press CMND L and Material to copy the material from the last object. You can continue to add seams etc. in material preview mode (Z, material preview). A good tip if there is some stretching of the material in areas, is to select a seam and press Shift E to pull the stretched material up to the edge to flatten and neaten it out. 

Then go into object mode and apply the Mirror Modifier. 

For the seat part, keep the subsurf modifier, but apply the Solidify modifier as we need to be able to edit the top and bottom. This will change the shape and get rid of the edges, so we need to add a crease by selecting all the edges and pressing Shift E and dragging to bring back that edge. 

Now do the same for the backrest. 

A good tip for quickly selecting the edges is to go Select (top middle) and Select Sharp Edges. 

Now select all the edges and mark seam, and then do the same for just one horizontal, thickness, edge out of sight at the back. This is so the edge unwraps as well. Do the same for both the seat and backrest.

Now to see how the mesh looks with a woodgrain texture. Download a wood texture (for this, I got the free Wood Quartered Chiffon texture from Poliigon). When downloading from Poliigon, uncheck normals as Normals 16bit is better as it’s a higher quality Tiff file, and uncheck Reflection as that’s for specular stuff. 3K resolution should be enough. The higher the resolution, the more memory usage and the longer the render. 

To add the downloaded texture to the model, go into Material Properties, delete the untitled texture under Base Colour then click Open and select the downloaded colour map (texture). In the UV editor you can now change the view on the left from the UV Grid to the wood texture by going to Untitled (middle top) and selecting the wood texture instead. 

Now to edit the textures on the seams so they align better etc. See the UV maps by selecting a whole mesh in Edit Mode. To only edit one part (island) on a UV map, in this instance the front part of the leg, hover over the problem part on the model and press L, then the Select Linked box that appears at the bottom and select Seam. This will only select up to that seam. So do that for the front leg part and rotate it to the correct way in the left screen. 

Then it’s a case of going over the model and adjusting the textures in this way by moving them around, rotating and scaling etc. to get it as close as possible to the ref. For the edges of the seat and backrest, the multilayered plywood look can be cheated by straightening out the UV map of the edge and scaling it right down on the Y axis to squash and stretch the texture to give a similar look. The best way to straighten out the UV map is to use a free add-on called UV Squares. Select the part you want to straighten and press To Grid by Shape. 

Now to finish off the material. Go to Shading (at the top in the same row as UV Editing). The default setup in this view isn’t great, so it’s better to collapse the left side areas and bottom area and drag out the right view so the screen is in two halves vertically. To get rid of windows, hover between two windows until you get the arrows or the plus sign and R click, join areas, then choose which side you want to keep. Then split the screen so there are two areas and make the right one the Shader Editor window by selecting it in the top left dropdown of that window. You can save a workspace by clicking the plus sign on the right of the top row (with UV editing and shading etc.) and selecting duplicate current, then rename it. 

The Node Editor (shader editor) is for more advanced material and colour editing. It is linked to the Material Properties (bottom right) that we used before, so any changes there will be reflected in the nodes and vice versa. 

Now to add the extra maps that were downloaded with the wood texture. In the node screen, press Shift A to add and select Texture, Image Texture. Now press Open and select the downloaded Gloss map. Now connect the colour part of the Image Texture Gloss node to the Roughness part of the Principled BSDF node. If a gloss map is going into a roughness input like this, you need to invert it by adding (shift A) and then selecting Colour, Invert to add an invert mode, and place it between the gloss and the roughness. Note; the only parameters you should ever really need to edit are the Base Colour, Metallic, Roughness and Normal. Metallic should only ever be either 0 or 1 - non metal or metal. There should be no in-between. 

The gloss image texture node’s Colour Space need to be set to Non-Colour so it treats it like a grayscale image kind of, and it will now read it correctly. So the lighter areas will have more shine and reflection and the darker areas will be rougher and more chalky. 

A good add-on to enable is Node Wrangler. Go to Preferences, Add Ons, and search for it. Now you can Control (control button) Shift L click on the object to preview the map. 

Now to add a Bump map in the form of a Normal map. Add (shift A), Texture, Image Texture and select the other downloaded texture. Now connect the node to the Normal part of the BSDF node. An important note here is that you can’t connect a yellow dot with a purple dot. This will make things look black in the redner. To make it work, you need to add a node between them by Adding (shift A), Vector, Normal Map. 

Now to work on the screws. Go back into Layout mode and into Object mode. Select a screw and go to Material Properties (bottom right) and press New. Rename it however and then go into the Surface dropdown. Firstly we want to change the Metallic slider to 1.000. Now decrease the roughness so it’s not so chalky and matte. Now select all the screws and press CMND L, Materials to copy the material to all of them. 

Now to add a material to the inner part of the screw. Go into Edit mode and select the middle face. Go into Material Properties and press the Plus sign at the top right to add a new material under the main screw material, and then press New and rename it. Then press Assign to assign it to just that part of the mesh. (my screws were upside down so the vertices were on the bottom face, so I mirrored them like I did earlier on - Object Mode, Object, Mirror, Mirror Local X, Y or Z). 

Make the Base Colour black and bring the Specular right down. This is a rare occasion where the specular slider will be edited as we are faking a hole in something. 

To copy this central hole material to the other screws, instead of the copying the material like before, select all the other screws and then the most recent one with the fake hole and press CMND L and select Object Data. This now means that any edit done to the most recent screw will be reflected in all the screws. 

A good tip when duplicating something is, instead of pressing Shift D, press Alt D and that will link the two objects together so they can be edited at once. 

Now it’s time to fix the dimensions and scale of the chair so it’s accurate to the real world. To see the complete height that multiple objects make you could use the Measure tool, but the dragged out line disappears when you then go to scale the objects so it’s useless. Instead, we should add an object and make it the ruler. Shift A and add a cube. Move it so it’s sitting on the bottom line, the same as the chair feet, and central to the chair. Now you can edit the height of the cube in the Transform panel. Make it the height of the real world chair (79.5. cm). Now scale the cube on every axis except Z by Pressing S for scale and Shift Z (not on Z axis) to make it into a yardstick. 

Firstly, before moving the chair, about origin points; where an origin point is set effects how the object will scale and rotate. For instance, if it’s directly in the centre of an object it will scale on all sides etc. To set an origin point, in edit mode you can select a vertex, for instance the bottom left, and press Shift S and then Cursor to Selected. You can also do this with a face in face select mode, and the origin point will be placed in the middle of that face. Once you’re happy with where the origin point is, go back into Object Mode, Object, Set Origin and Origin to 3D Cursor. To reset the origin point back to default, go to Object, Set Origin and Origin to Geometry. 

Now to move the chair. Select all the objects in Object Mode and press CMND P, and Keep Transform. This will parent all the objects to the biggest and most obvious object, in this case the leg, so they can be all moved together. If the relationship lines (dashed lines) are kind of going off in random directions, select all the objects and go to Object, Set Origin and Origin to Geometry to restore the default origin points. It’s probably best to have the origin point on the bottom between two chair legs, so select a face from each of the feet on one side and then press Shift S and Cursor to Selected. Then to set it, go to Object, Set Origin and Origin to 3D cursor. Now that the origin point is in the centre and on the floor, even if the chair gets moved around, it can be place back on the floor by pressing Alt G. 

Now just select the chair and scale it down to match the created yardstick by eye. Don’t forget to clear the scale; select all (A) and CMND A, Scale. If this doesn’t work, you might have to do this step for individual objects at a time. If an object gets an error message about ‘multi users’, select the object, go to Object Data Properties and click on whatever number is to the right of the object name. This should fix it. 

Now just name all the materials in Material Properties. If you need to rename objects, the shortcut is F2. We can now delete the blueprint references. 

The chair is done!

Now onto lighting and rendering etc. Shift A to add a camera. To make the camera front on, go into front view (1) and press CMND Alt Numpad 0. This shortcut will make the camera view whatever angle the scene is at. The shortcut to get the camera view up is just 0. 

An important point here is that you should see the chair in Render mode (hold Z) and go to Render Properties (camera icon, bottom right) and change the render engine from Eevee to Cycles for more accuracy in shadows etc. 

Now you can go into object data properties which should now look like a little camera icon (bottom right). We can now play around with the focal length. 100mm is a good length for furniture. We can also rotate the chair here with R, Z to make a more interesting side on angle (make sure the Transform Orientation (top middle) is set to Global.)

A great way to move the camera around and zoom in and out etc. fluidly and intuitively is to use Fly Mode by pressing Shift and the ~ button next to it. Then you can use the A and D keys to move side to side and W and S to zoom in and out. This seems like the best way. 

You can also go into View and check Lock Camera to View to keep the camera where it is and you can move the scene around with Alt and zoom in and out with scroll wheel etc. This is great but just don’t forget to uncheck it when you’re done. 

To get guides in the camera to help with composition, go into Object Data properties, Viewport Display and Composition Guides and check whatever guides you want. The default camera type is Perspective but you could change that to Orthographic if doing isometric stuff. 

To change the ratio of the camera, go into Output Properties (little printer icon above Object Data Properties in the same area) and then you can change into 1920x1920 or something to make a it square etc. 

Now to lighting. First off, go into World Properties (world icon, bottom right) and take the Strength all the way down to get rid of the default world lighting. This way the light will only come from the lights that we add. 

Shift A, Light and then Point. Move it around with G. Go into Object Data Properties (will now be a little lightbulb icon) and increase the power with the slider. You can also play around with the size (radius) of the light to affect how hard or soft the shadows are. When using a light, it’s good to split the screen so you can have the right side in solid mode to move the camera around and the left in Rendered view to see how it affects it in real time.

Now to add a floor and a backdrop. Shift A, mesh and add a plane on the floor. Resize and move etc. to how you want it in the camera view. Add a backdrop by selecting the back edge of the plane and Extruding up (E, Z). To get rid of the shadow between the two planes so it looks like an infinite plane, you can add a bevel. Select the plane and add a Bevel modifier. Now increase the segments until the join disappears and Right Click, Shade Smooth. If you can still see it, increase the Offset amount. 

To prevent light fall off from the light for a more evenly lit object, move the camera much further away and increase the power of the light. 

There is a good tool to help you to decide whether your light is powerful enough and giving too much or too little light. Go into Render Properties (bottom right) and Colour Management. The View Transform should always be on Filmic, but for this purpose change it to False Colour and that will give you a heatmap sort of thing. The dark greyish areas are areas that are properly exposed, the cyan type colour is slightly under and the light greens, yellows or red are over exposed. Here you can also play around with the exposure slider. As long as there are at least some dark greyish areas (proper exposure), then it should be fine. 

Blender tends to make things looks a bit washed out, so go into Render Properties and Colour Management and change look from None (actually medium) to High Contrast. This will make a big difference. 

Shadows are good and important but if an area is a bit too in shadow, you can add a second light. Hide any other lights by selecting them and pressing H; now you can only see what that second light is doing. Then you can move it around and increase the power until it gives a bit more light to the too shadowy areas without lighting up the backdrop or any unwanted areas. 

You can actually change the colour of the lights, but use this sparingly. Try to stick to white, but if there is colour, make it warm or cool. 

Now you can change the colour of the backdrop if you want by selecting it, going into Material Properties, pressing New and then changing the Base Colour. 

Now for the render! Go into Render Properties (bottom right) and try 200 samples in Render. Here we also want to use De-noising, so go into View Layer Properties (underneath render properties) and go to Data and then check Denoising Data. Then you can press fn (bottom left of keyboard) and F12 to render. Don’t close the Render Result yet.

For finishing touches, go into Compositing (top row) and check Use Nodes (top right). Shift A, Filter and Denoise to add a denoising filter. Now connect Noisy Image to Image, Denoising Normal to Normal and Denoising Albedo to Albedo. Now connect Image on the Denoise node to Image on the Composite node. Look at the Render Result and you’ll see the difference it makes. 

Some areas might still need a bit of extra shadow as there’s a lot of bounce light going on, to make it more realistic. To counter that we can use Ambient Occlusion. Go into World Properties (bottom right) and go to Ambient Occlusion. Don’t actually check the box as it will make things a bit too bright. Instead, look at the Distance. The default of 10m is way too big so make it something like 0.2m and then go into View Layer Properties (above world properties) and check Ambient Occlusion there instead. Now you need to render it again (fn and f12). 

Now while still in Compositing mode, we can preview what the Ambient Occlusion is doing by pressing CMND Shift L clicking until it shows a preview of the AO as a mostly white image with the AO areas darker. Zoom in and out of this preview with Alt V. Now to add this Ambient Occlusion map to the render, add a new node with Shift A, Colour and Mix and place it before the Denoise one. Connect Noisy Image to the top Image input and AO to the bottom Image input. Now on the Mix node, change Mix to Multiply so it will only apply the dark values and ignore the white values. You will now see the difference in the Render Result. Choose a value on the Mix node that suits you, maybe around 0.400. Adding this bit of AO will just make the object just seem a bit more grounded and realistic. 

The chair is done! 

[adventure-hearts]

tri. Chapter 5 - Recap, Analysis, Review [ part three ]

(part one) (part two) 

Watching the Chosen Children brainstorm as a group is always interesting, but I’m particularly fond of how tri. has played with the Koushirou/Takeru dynamic, making the latter constantly ask relevant questions that point Koushirou to the right answer. After deliberating, group comes to the conclusion that Meicoomon may have been used as a "switch" by Ygdrasil, in order to bring these digimon to the real world and exterminate humans.

That is to say, at this point, the Chosen Children think that “Yg-something” is behind all the strange things that are happening in the world, and that it’s somehow against them. However, they still can’t quite understand Homeostasis’s agenda.

This is interesting because they still assume that Homeostasis is on their side but just not helping them; which shows that at this point they’re still seeing things from a narrow enemy/ally prism.

 *

The “horror story” sequence comes next, because this was getting a bit too serious and needed some room to breathe. Let me start by saying that humour is one of the things I value the most in all kinds of stories, and the type of humour tri. has used (often very meta, poking fun at characters and specific running gags) has been right up my alley.  Moreover, I think tri. is often at its best when it moves away from the plot for a bit and just shows us light-hearted character interactions and funny hijinks.

Yet, although I loved this scene and I think it serves a purpose in the episode, it does feel slightly out of place in the middle of a battle for the two worlds, when the characters are pretty much hiding from the media and maybe even the authorities. Sure, it’s Takeru’s idea, and Yamato immediately points out that it’s stupid, but everyone goes along, especially when Takeru enters full-on Troll Mode.

"Oh, he’s just being hopeful”, you may say. “All he wants is to cheer everyone up!", you might say. Let’s be real, he's 99% trying to piss off his brother. (Yamato being afraid of ghosts and playing air bass when he's afraid is two bits of information I NEEDED IN MY LIFE).

Jou tells the first story, because he’s The Eldest (TM) and, obviously, the funniest character in the group. Of course, down-to-earth Jou’s idea of a horrifying experience is very different from the others.

(This was an hilarious moment that reminded me of Hermione’s boggart in Prisioner of Azkaban reflecting a similar fear - but it also indicates that Jou’s preoccupation with school didn’t just vanish after his epiphany in Ketsui.)

Then Meiko gets central stage, and we see a repetition of a familiar pattern: she is amazing at something, apparently out of nowhere (see also: drawing and lighting fires in the woods). It’s the kind of thing that could come across as forced and a bit too convenient, but mostly it just shows that Meiko has talents and a personality beyond her current tragedy.

And, anyway, isn’t it bizarre to see these kids all terrified of some stupid, vaguely scary horror tale? The same kids who have faced literal demons, Vampires, evil clowns, ghosts, and darkness? Frankly, Takeru is the ONLY one who has a normal reaction to Meiko’s story.

His smile is sweet but, like always, you wonder what’s behind it. Is he happy to see Meiko come out of her depressive state and join the fun? Is he just happy to see Yamato's reaction to the whole thing? Is he glad to see the group forget about their troubles just for a while? tri.’s Takeru is a bit of a cypher, and that’s great.

On the whole, I'm still ambivalent about this segment. On the one hand, somehow it also feels slightly out of place and it’s hard to understand how the kids can forget what’s happening out there to play games in the dark. On the other hand, it delivers in terms of laughs and characterisation, and it is nice to have a little break in the middle of all this tragedy. Maybe the point is just to remind us that these are normal kids, who somehow manage to find some solace with each other.

*

In contrast, the " Phone Home" scenes are a terrific depiction of the characters and relationships, via “show not tell”. Mimi and Sora supporting each other; how Koushirou can't leave the computer even for a second; that Yamato still doesn't want to talk to his mum (suggesting the dynamics in that broken family are still complicated). And Taichi's mother trusting he'll be all right and joking about his animated Summer is kind of a gut-punch in retrospective.

It’s always nice to see tri. remembering that the kids’ families exist, so I wish they can make room for actual cameos eventually!

*

The conversation between Taichi and Meiko, and its aftermath, is in many ways one of the most interesting moments in this movie. In it, Taichi and Meiko’s dilemmas in the face of what’s going on are explored, setting things up for later.

When Taichi overhears Meiko admitting she's not okay, expressing her love for Meicoomon, and pretty much questioning all that talk about "hope" the other kids have been feeding her, it has an impact on him. There’s some flirting  kind words between them, while the Digimon spy on them from afar (I half-expected them to start singing Kiss the Girl).

Now, any shipping considerations aside, it's clear there's a mutual respect and empathy between these two. (See my previous comment on Taichi/Meiko). Taichi tries to comfort Meiko once again, by sharing his own doubts about growing up and how he trusts his natural connection with Agumon. It’s an interesting moment when Taichi opens up and is willing to show vulnerability. 

However, Meiko contrasts his arguments with Mystery Mans's words. She still blames herself for Meicoomon going bad. 

At this point, Taichi snaps at her. Is he getting impatient, after hearing her repeat the same doubts, when everyone keeps telling her her the same old stuff about partners and hope? Regretting his bluntness, Taichi walks away, but tells her she's wrong.

Still, you have to wonder if he’s wrong. Is it Taichi (and the Chosen Children) who can't put themselves on Meiko's place and relate to her unimaginable situation? Meiko sure envies them, the bonds they have with their partners, and their absolute certainties. As far as comfort goes, Agumon's simple advice about partners loving each other (from the Digimon's perspective) is more effective and it allows her to finally break down.

*

We get Taichi's side as well. It seems he's starting to see things from a different perspective. He recalls Hikari’s words earlier, about people being unable to understand what doesn’t happen around them.  

Taichi’s inability to relate to Meiko’s situation – that is, not understanding why she simply won’t believe – is frustrating for Taichi, but it also forces him to question his own approach. This reflects the overall conflict in his story: He wishes he could go back to being a carefree child, but it’s too late; he’s already grown up. Now, he can’t not worry -- he can’t help being introspective and reflecting on things instead of jumping blindingly into the fight. His identity is changing, and the way he responds to problems is, too. Old Taichi may have ignored Meiko’s words, but this Taichi listens.

*

Next morning, Meicoomon shows up again. Despite her previous failure, Meiko has listened to her friends’s advice. Once again, she tries to reach out to her partner, to understand why she’s acting this way. In an attempt to share Meicoomon's burden, Meiko asks her to direct these feelings towards herself, for not being a worthy partner.

However, Meiko then tries a different strategy. For the first time, she tells Meicoomon the suspicion she’s been harbouring throughout this episode – the possibility that the partner bond between them is gone.

The other kids decide to follow through with their plan and try and stop Meicoomon again, despite the risk that the digimon may become infected again. 

Meiko senses that Meicoomon is scared - just like she was back in Tottori and in the lab. Daigo points out that fear seems to increase Meicoomon’s powers.

Then Jesmon (who’s on Homeostasis’ side) shows up, presumably to execute Meicoomon. In response, Meicoomon turns into a new form: Raguelmon, a Fallen Angel Digimon. 

Mystery Man, who is back in Digimon Kaiser cosplay (could it be that he needs to use this form in the Real World?) is ecstatic with this development, because everything is going according to Keikaku.

Not only is Homeostasis trying to destroy Meicoomon, but Meicoomon’s powers are increasing to the point when Meicoomon's very existence is destroying the human world.

Slowly the Chosen Children are starting to realise what’s happening: Homeostasis isn’t kidding around, and it’s determined to eliminate Meicoomon, without them. 

So the truth soon becomes apparent. This isn't just “Ygdrasil's will” - this is Homeostasis working against them!

Taichi’s words express their surprise at this revelation. Until now, they’ve always faced a more clear division between “enemies” and “allies”. They always found themselves playing in Homeostasis’s team. But now, not only has (the man they think is) Gennai gone evil, but Homeostasis is trying to kill their friend and is willing to push them aside, regardless of what they want. The Reboot, let’s not forget, was suggested by Homeostasis.

The situation is a bit too complex in comparison to what they’re used to, and this drives the kids crazy. But this is the point where the Chosen Children’s childlike naïveté becomes a problem. They were wrong to assume that just Homeostasis helped them before, it’s always on their side. Above all, they were wrong to assume Homeostasis cares about bonds and friendship as much as they do. The very reason why they’re fighting is about to be challenged.

[whatsonforperth]

Troll Hunting review: Ginger Gorman goes in search of the online bullies

Troll Hunting, by Ginger Gorman It worked out OK in places. Knowledge systems are now laid bare to be mined by the curious or ignored by the determined. Facts are available, and mutable, as never before. And yes, we can talk to each other, almost all the others; that in itself being perhaps the biggest cultural revolution in history. In media, the corporatised core of legacy systems was all but crushed before new titans gathered themselves and worked out how to first control then monetise a democratised chaos of information. In politics? Well, the internet and social media have probably been a disaster, delivering a suddenly immediate and accusatory polity that needed to be gamed and so came to favour the gamers, political professionals who saw a new divide in social communication between fact and feeling and realised there were probably more votes in feeling. Slowly but surely earnestness has withdrawn from the game of power, replaced by an agile, precisely targeted, sometimes even subliminal, populism. And then there was the great truth that dawned as the social media age unfolded and became ubiquitous: a lot of us were not very nice. You could do worse than ask journalist Ginger Gorman about this last bit, she's been the target of invective, threats, the vilest of fearful abuse. The worst of it was some years back, a transcontinental tsunami of bile, and rather than cower, retreating quietly from the online fray as perhaps her online assailants hoped she might she has been consumed since by a determination to track down the perpetrators of this abuse, her trolls. To know them. To understand their methods and motivation. Troll Hunting documents that rather intense, and personal, quest. It was 2010 when Gorman, then an ABC journalist in Far North Queensland, got something badly wrong. "In retrospect the conversation was remarkable because of its ordinariness." Gorman was working on a cross-media project on discrimination against LGBTI people when she interviewed Peter Truong, Mark Newton, and their five-year-old son. Their image become the frontispiece for her ABC online gender project. Gorman writes of how she'd asked an awkward question of the men on their experience of the adoption process: " I was compelled to ask, 'Do you think there was a suspicion that this must be something dodgy? There must be some paedophilic thing going on here?' Both Newton and Truong smiled at the absurdity of the idea they might somehow be suspect. 'We're just a family like any other family.' " By 2013, in the United States, Newton had been sentenced to 40 years jail, Truong for 30, for conspiring to sexually exploit a child. Gorman limped away, confronted both by her unseeing proximity to such utter evil and by a sudden, vicious and unstemmable stream of online abuse accusing her, at best, of a politically correct blindness, at worst of being complicit. She was trolled mercilessly. She wrote Troll Hunting in catharsis; an attempt to reach an understanding of how that hounding happened, who its leading perpetrators were and why those men (almost only men) act to direct such hate-filled abuse to strangers, people only visible through the intimate, yet abstract, connections of social media. Gorman would discover that she is anything but alone. She worked with the Australia Institute to survey the incidence of Australian cyber abuse. The survey found that 44 per cent of the women among its 1557 respondents had experienced some form of online harassment, same for 39 per cent of men; add it up, extrapolate, and that is maybe 9 million Australians. Abusive language is the most common 27 per cent followed by unwanted sexual messages or images 18 per cent and death threats 8 per cent. In this online jungle of hunters and hunted the most vulnerable are the vulnerable, especially if they are women. Gorman walks us through the sad case of Charlotte Dawson, whose suicide in 2012 may or may not have been facilitated by online abuse pushing her toward that outcome, much of it gathered under the hashtag #diecharlotte. The questions rattle: who would send these snippets of hate to a stranger? Is it a behaviour that was always there, in pubs and kitchens, and has simply been amplified by the immediacy and anonymity of the internet? Have we always quietly hated? Or is this a new human paradigm created by a confluence of social collapse, institutional frailty and nihilistic disenchantment; a change facilitated by digital instantaneousness, sweeping us up at a speed that is probably a little outside the capacity for calm human adjustment. The last is probably true, and as Gorman interrogates trolls, victims and experts, she brushes against those issues: the online life connected yet alone the desperate inequality economics, the gender, sexual and racial politics that are the roiling soup of modern life. The troll's intention and effect, she discovers, is to shock and disturb, to push the recipient to either distress or response. Gorman goes in search of motive, pursuing celebrity trolls such as weev and meepsheep in pursuit of some logical explanation that would make sense of online nastiness so widespread it has almost become a normalised vernacular. In a way, to ask that question is to display a view of human conversation that lacks the nihilistic absence of empathy required to comprehend the answer. Trolling, they tell her, with what feels like a shrug, just is. For LOLS.The impact of those new formulas of discourse, however, are terribly real, for both individuals and the broader culture. In this book, Gorman tugs back from broader social movements' implications to return again and again to the predatory individual, the world of the troll it's a fascination driven by her own experience, but one that does this consideration of the dark side of online conversation the disservice of a nagging narrowness. She condenses what is now the dominant pattern of social, and therefore political, communication to a serial patchwork of isolated attacks. Yet it's so much worse than that. An attack on the individual, by winged hordes of unknown, vicious haters is horrific, cruel and stultifying. It has real-world consequence. But the greater real-world consequence lies in the assiduous appropriation of this new social mood to the ends of corporate and political power. That change has been transformative, a shift fatally disruptive to public civility in its broadest sense. This is a world in which "social justice warrior" is an insult, in which "Nazi" is a casual taunt thrown in fits of moral offence. A world in which the restless diversions and extremity of a Donald Trump are political exemplars. It is possibly an unreasonable expectation of Gorman's book so settled is it in the author's own quest for some glimmer of very narrow personal understanding but a more significant accounting of the trolling world would document not just its isolated prevalence, but also its sudden normalisation. Lone tweeters still flock to torment, threaten and tease, but they are stirred cynically by figures of the established media and politics, people promoting fear, loathing and, yes, even their opposites, for their own ends. Gorman and the other individual victims of idly malignant abuse are a little lost in the trees, but the forest, the sturdy trunks of civil culture, is quickly being clear felled. That's personal. But not. Jonathan Green is the editor of Meanjin. Most Viewed in Entertainment Loading https://www.watoday.com.au/entertainment/books/troll-hunting-review-ginger-gorman-goes-in-search-of-the-online-bullies-20190117-h1a6a6.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feed

[miximax-hell]

Happy birthday to me. /o/ And that’s the first and last time I mention it in this post. I don’t care and you shouldn’t either—I just want cake.

FubuGabu is back! Not by popular demand because, well, no one has asked for it, although the feedback I got was lovely. But, hey, I had this material ready, so might as well do something with it, lame as it might be.

These are some early and not-so-early doodles of FubuGabu. The latter was pretty much the base of the final design, but the former… that’s from 2014 or something wild like that. I actually had many more doodles and concepts, but I hated them all so much that I erased most of them. I’m surprised I could save that one. I might have kept it because it was a full lineart, I guess. In any case, I’m glad I could find that much.

Since it’s fitting to do, let’s talk about FubuGabu’s design today! There’s a lot to talk about, but my memory is awful, so I’m sure I’ll forget about some things. I hope it won’t betray me too much.

Anyway, as usual, more under the cut.

Well, well, well. Ain’t this boy one little shit. Fudou gave me nightmares. Kidou is still giving me nightmares (to the point where I’m considering changing the idea I’ve had for around a year now). Someoka was awful to draw and make sense of. Max’s tail was awful to work with. But Fubuki? Fubuki is on a whole different level.

Let’s start by talking about the final design, since that’s the better one. Not even good, just better. That’s an epic victory as it is, so who cares.

FubuGabu’s design, as the reference sheet and my last post states, is not based on Gabumon, but on Gabumon’s line. What this means is that it has elements from (almost) every single one of Gabumon’s evolutions. Just for the sake of satisfying people’s curiosity, namely @IshidoShuuji’s, I’ll list the different elements here, since that’s the easiest and most straightforward way to explain it:

Tsunomon: eyes, colour of the face.

Gabumon: horn, face stripes, teeth, hair ears.

Garurumon: eyebrows, pretty much all of the hair, hair tail, forehead marks.

WereGarurumon: nose stripes, pretty much all of the hair, earrings, eye scar.

So, no, MetalGarurumon, Punimon and Omnimon/Omegamon aren’t part of the design. …Or are they?

Just kidding. They are not. ww But you shouldn’t rule them out just because of that. Well, no—rule Omnimon out. There will be no Agumon miximax, so that isn’t going to happen. I don’t want to keep people’s hopes up for nothing. I made it pretty clear from the start that I wouldn’t use a franchise twice, but I bet most people don’t know that. So, yeah.

Now that I have broken down the elements, let’s look at them from up close. This is truly a difficult design to understand, so I’ll get the explaining done as I move along.

Let me start with Tsunomon’s part. I used the colour of Tsunomon’s skin because it looks human: I didn’t want to turn Fubuki into a furry—I mean, have him all covered in hair, because it just looks weird. It was either Tsunomon’s skin or Gabumon’s, and he’s BRIGHT YELLOW. So you’re welcome.

The eyes have changed very dramatically. Tsunomon’s aren’t all that complex compared to Gabumon’s, for example, so it was easier to pull off without screwing up too much. That’s in the early concept you can see above, Fubuki has eyes based on Gabumon’s instead and it looks like he’s using about 4kg of eyeliner, hah— You’re gonna run out of money if you wear so much of it every single day, pal.

They’re not exactly Tsunomon’s eyes, although it’s a rather radical change. As I mentioned when I talked about Creature miximaxes, eyes get rather distinctive shapes when animals (or monsters) are involved. I did something that goes against my analysis, though: I added light to FubuGabu’s eyes. Just because I hate myself and because it looked kinda weird without it.

While Tsunomon’s eyes are completely round, FubuGabu’s actually follow the shape of Fubuki’s eyes, although vaguely. The irises are Fubuki’s, period. I simply extended the lines to match the new shape of the eye. The lower eyelid creates a straight line based on the hypothetical line of Fubuki’s eyes, which is visible in coloured art. The outer part of the eyes also matches that of Fubuki, not to mention that I kept the fold over the upper eyelid and the little marks below the eyes. The main difference, therefore, is the thicker contour (which is linked to the spikes) and the curve that replaces the right angles on Fubuki’s usual eyes.

Let’s move on to Gabumon. His marks were probably the toughest to place, and it doesn’t help that Fubuki’s refs are so BAD. REALLY. Many, most characters have references that match. Maybe not perfectly, but almost. But Fubuki? Fubuki ain’t need none of that crap. When you are this FABULOUS, no one cares about your face changing size and shape in every screenshot or your hair going longer and shorter every 5 seconds. Everyone is blinded by your sparks, anyway, so who will notice?

I noticed. But anyway. ww

Since Gabumon only has markings on half of his body (since the rest is all yellow), I let FubuGabu borrow those on Gabumon’s nose. Actually, if you were to strip FubuGabu (please don’t do that), you’d see that his whole body is covered with markings. I like to think that those belong to Gabu, even if they could easily belong to Garuru or Were instead. Still, that means that the marks on his neck are Gabu’s.

As for the marks on his cheeks, they were very easy to place on the front view and frustrating to figure out elsewhere. I just gave up on them at some point and thought, “meh, Inazuma has pulled off weirder stuff!” They’re supposed to end somewhere behind the jaw, though, but before reaching the neck. Hence why I actually drew the jawline ww

The horn and the teeth are pretty self-explanatory, but I’ll point something out about the latter: I only added two teeth even though Gabumon has many because I wanted some kind of parallelism with Someoka. He, too, has two teeth, but they grow on the opposite direction. True teammates who complement each other!

Now, for the hair ears, aka those things growing from the sides of his head. Those are 100% hair—they don’t really serve a purpose. As such, using Gabumon’s seemed like the best idea. After all, what makes WereGarurumon’s ears interesting are the earrings, but how do you put an earring on hair? As for Garurumon, his ears are just more boring than Gabumon’s. Gabu’s ears are kind of quirky and worn out, which is a cool little thing that I felt like adding. Also, Garuru’s ears go upwards and I didn’t dig that.

Regardless, Garurumon is probably the star of this design. Most of the bigger elements are based on him, after all. You could argue that many of them also belong to Were, but I was looking at Garuru when I designed them. I guess that’s enough of a reason. I guess.

There was an element of Garuru’s design that I really, really wanted to add to Fubuki: the feather-shaped hair growing from his back. You know, these things:

After fiddling with that idea a whole lot, I eventually realised that it was best to keep it simple and shape Fubuki’s hair to look like those… however you wanna call them. I’ll just call them feathers. It may not be a perfect resemblance (and it may not make perfect sense either lmao), but I definitely thought it looked the best. These are actually not too hard to draw:

The first feather (from the top) follows the natural curve of Fubuki’s hair, but instead of curving down again, it creates an arrow-like shape.

The second feather starts and ends in the exact same spots as Fubuki’s, but instead of curving upwards, it’s completely horizontal.

The third one is the trickiest: it’s long and doesn’t match Fubuki’s normal hair. The part that touches the second feather starts where it should, but the part that touches the fourth one doesn’t. It’s tough to explain, so here’s a picture that will hopefully make it all clear:

The last feather is shorter and isn’t as diagonal as the third one, but it does start and end at odd places, too. The “trick” to draw it is keeping in mind that the third and the fourth feathers end at pretty much the same height:

The fifth feather isn’t even a feather; it’s just a simple spike. Nothing relevant there ww

Garurumon is also responsible for the marks next to the ears and the one on the forehead, not to mention the top of the head in general. The ones on the ears weren’t too bad, but the forehead was frustrating. As I mentioned, Fubuki’s references are a mess and I draw over them for the sake of keeping the original proportions, but it backfired in this case. Since they’re all so different from each other, Fubuki’s forehead grows bigger or smaller depending on the view, so the forehead mark is radically less visible sometimes, even though it technically shouldn’t be. Still, rather than repositioning it every time, I thought it made more sense to place it correctly to settle for a specific place, so that’s what I did.

Now, the top of the head is tricky. Let’s start by saying that it’s based on Garurumon’s back. Maybe WereGarurumon’s too, but I couldn’t find a single picture of Were’s back, so who knows. As you can see in the following image, Garuru’s back has a long, thin line that goes from his head to his tail, and that’s exactly what happens to FubuGabu too. You can’t quite see the end of the line because of the hair, but it’s still there… technically.

That thin line sprouts into a bunch of rugged lines, and that’s exactly what happens with FubuGabu too. The lines are rather random (and I didn’t spend much time figuring the size out, whoops), but they do follow some certain shapes. The closest line to the face might be rugged, but it goes straight down. The second one starts from way back, but it’s shaped like an arrow pointing at the face. The tips of both lines are fairly close, too. The third line is way smaller than the rest, and is also the last one you can see, but definitely not the last one in general.

Let’s talk about Fubuki’s little sprout as well. As you know, Fubuki’s sprout has two locks of hair, but FubuGabu’s has three. That’s because FubuGabu’s is also based on Garurumon: to be more specific, on this part:

I tried adding that part just the way it is by sticking it to the forehead, but I didn’t like the result at all, so I figured it was best to do something funny with Fubuki’s sprout instead. Oh, well. Choices! And talk about choices, I added Garurumon’s tail simply so the hair would be a complete portrayal of his figure. As I mentioned in the post I linked to above, miximaxing with creatures often leads to that, so yeah.

The hair is obviously the biggest and most visible part of FubuGabu’s design, but Garuru hogs quite a few other spots. Not Gabumon, nor Tsunomon, nor WereGarurumon (nor Punimon) have eyebrows, so I was pretty much forced to use Garurumon’s. Not like I mind, because they’re pretty awesome. It’s kind of sad that they’re usually not visible, but, to be honest with you guys… they’re kind of a pain to draw because of their very specific shape. So I’m secretly glad. ww

And last, but not least, WereGarurumon. Ah, what a little shit. How come there are official linearts for MetalGarurumon, but not for WereGarurumon? Anyway. ww

Were’s contribution is pretty straightforward. Earrings, a scar and marks. There are a couple of things worth mentioning, though.

For the earrings, I noticed too late that Were has both white and red earrings. I was going to use the red earrings because they stand out more, but I noticed that the visible ear was on the side of the white ones… And it was too late to change the design completely, so I just went for the white. Too bad, but life is simply unfair. Especially when you don’t pay attention.

Now, the nose marks are funny. I struggled so much with those. As you can see on the second picture of this post, they were originally going to be shaped like triangles, but I didn’t dig that. And even after I changed the design, I couldn’t get them right, which was… frustrating.

(Also, it took me a long time to realise that the bridge of the nose would be hiding one half of the marks in every view except the front one. After I did, though, everything finally looked better. Thank goodness.)

Anyway, I think that pretty much covers the final design, but let’s also talk about the early designs real quick.

Nothing much to say about the second picture of the post. I just made sure to make some sense out of the markings and retouched the elements I mentioned above. Well, I tried to polish everything, really.

Now, the first picture of the post is easily over 2 years old. It was one of the first, if not the very first, concept of FubuGabu. And, man, what a mess.

It was like, “what does Garurumon have? Feather thingies! SO LET’S ADD THEM EVERYWHERE.” The feather thingies appear on his forehead, the locks of hair over his face, on his hair and even behind his head. I could never figure the latter out—but, man, did I spend hours trying to make those work. And all because Garurumon has feather on his face and on his back, so I felt like FubuGabu needed two layers of feathers too. Thankfully, I eventually realised many of these elements simply weren’t needed, like that second layer of feathers, the earrings on Garurumon’s ear (which, again, are made of hair, so wtf), and… the ring at the end of the tail? Where did that come from? This is Garurumon, not Gatomon! Geez, self!

Some of the early elements made it to the final design. The overall shape of his eyebrows, the markings on the head, the neck and the cheeks and even the horn, just to mention a few. The final feel to it is completely different, though.

This is probably because of how different the hair looks. FubuGabu’s original hair was full of feathers, but they didn’t fit Fubuki’s normal hair. They were randomly coming out of his head for whatever reason. Not to mention that the hair falling over his face looks like tentacles rather than anything else. It looks like a miximax with Squidward rather than with Gabumon. Ugh, I hate myself. XD

One last note: I don’t know where the forehead mark on that first design comes from. I guess it’s meant to be Gabumon’s, somehow? I forgot and I’m too tired to investigate it. It probably never made sense, anyway. XD

I think I covered everything! But, phew, that took long. Still, if anything isn’t clear or there’s something I forgot to mention, please let me know!

(Also, I’m too tired to re-read this post, so excuse the many typos that I probably made. I’ll check it out... eventually.)

[preserving-ferretbrain]

Kristin Cashore, I love you, will you marry me?

by Wardog

Thursday, 29 October 2009Wardog apparently rather enjoyed Graceling.~

There's a bit in The History Boyswhere Hector is discussing Hardy's 'Drummer Hodge' with Posner and he says something like (I can't be arsed to dig out the correct quote) one of the wonderful things about reading is that sometimes it feels as though an author has reached out to you and taken your hand. I know he was talking about High Art yadda yadda but, screw that. For me the experience of reading Graceling felt rather as though Kristin Cashore had reached out to me and into my head and pulled out of it something I didn't even know I needed to read. It wasn’t until I read Graceling that I realised how profoundly tired I am of fantasy. I am sick to the back teeth of making excuses for pisspoor female characters or trying to dismiss the effect of constant, background sexism. It’s been a long time since I read a book and felt safe to relax and enjoy it, without going in constant fear of the author dropping a gender clanger on my head.

In case I'm not making it clear enough: Graceling is simply fantastic. I urge you to go out, buy it, read it, love it, and then get really really angry at the rest of the fantasy genre. I know I am. I don't think I want to read a book that isn't written by Kristin Cashore ever again.

In our fantasy kingdom de jour, the Seven Kingdoms, a select few are “graced” with super-human talents, and identified by their mis-matched eyes. These talents can be for anything from the mundane to the outlandish – from being able to swim really well, predict the weather or even read minds. Our heroine, Katsa, has a grace for killing. As the niece of King Randa, she has been trained since the age of eight to be his weapon and his tool. But Katsa also organises, and works for, the Shadow Council – a resistance network, aimed at righting some of Randa’s injustices. While on a rescue mission for the Shadow Council, Katsa encounters another Graceling who intrigues her and, needless to say, the mission at hand turns out to be connected to much larger, much more dangerous events. The plot, which naturally involves travel! politics! and all the usual things, kicks off from here.

To be honest, it’s basic fantasy fare but Cashore handles it extremely well. The pages keep turning, there is action, adventure, tension, drama and danger, and all this in a delicious 300 pages. The world-building is deft and even the concept of the Graced, which struck me initially as being rather dubious, comes across plausibly. Basically Graceling is competent across the board: excellent writing, snappy dialogue, fantastic characters, I couldn’t ask for more. It is a little bit rough around the edges, as one might expect of a first novel – the pace falters occasionally, some sections seem a little hurried compared to others, and there are a couple of things that don’t entirely come off. For example, I wasn’t especially convinced that a girl of Katsa’s age and temperament would have managed to administrate something like the Shadow Council. And I was also slightly irritated by one of the squabbling Seven Kingdoms so blatantly being designated The Good Kingdom Where The Nice Relatively Non Judgemental People Come From, but, truthfully, it was also kind of a relief.

And, equally, although the villain is genuinely terrifying in concept, his presence is a muted one for most the book, until the very end whereupon he is dealt with rather abruptly. The villain in question is altogether a little bit difficult actually. It’s refreshing that the characters recognise him as the villain at about the same time the reader does and I don’t even mind the fact we’re distanced from him, since this is Katsa’s book, not his. But he’s pretty much invincible until the point at which he’s destroyed, which leads to a rather hollow feeling at the moment of victory. And his ill-deeds over the course of the book stack up to the point that it seems as though he’s just evil for the sake of being evil. It’s not that I demand moral ambiguity from villains but when they’re cutting up kittens for shits and giggles they’ve crossed the line into cartoonish. The truly bewildering thing about it is that as soon as I finished Graceling, I started on Cashore’s next book, Fire, and the prologue offers us just enough information about him to turn him back to terrifying. I have no idea why this isn’t in Graceling. It even makes the kitten killing make sense.

In general, therefore: extremely competent, slightly generic fantasy, in need of a little polish here and there. But the thing about Graceling that is truly astonishingly amazingly fantastic is its approach to female characters, and the solid gold gender-issues awareness that saturates the entire book. It’s simply wonderful to read a book so sensible and sorted and safe. Take the little things. During her travels, Katsa tries to book passage on a ship to take her out of danger. She runs in trouble with the crew for untrustworthy appearance and the fact she is so obviously in flight from something, so they take her to meet the Captain, about whom they all speak with affection and a great deal of respect. This is the Captain:

She was a woman past childbearing years, her hair steel grey and pulled tightly into a knot at the nape of her neck. Her clothing like that of the sailors: brown trousers, brown coat, heavy boots, and a knife at her belt. Her left eye pale grey, her right a blue as brilliant as Katsa’s blue eye. Her face stern, and her gaze, as she turned to the two strangers, quick and piercing.

Kristin Cashore, I love you, will you marry me. Thank you for the attractive, competent mature female sea Captain, thank you, thank you, thank you. The worst of it was, until the moment they met her, it hadn’t crossed my mind that the character would – and could – be a woman. Graceling is peopled with, err, people. Man persons and woman persons, all of them realised, rounded, fleshed out, admirable and not so admirable. It’s the first time in a very long time that I had a sense of a world in which any character in it was as likely to be a woman as be a man. That’s so damnably important, I can’t believe I’d ever forgotten it.

As for Katsa herself, I just adored her, adored her and wanted to be her, which, again, is the sign of an excellent female character if you ask me. Given her Grace, she is exceptionally kick-ass, but she possesses enough flaws to be human. It was hugely pleasurable to revel in her strength and her courage, and relax into a book where the heroine can take care of herself and isn’t going to be fondled by rough barbarian hands any time soon. The hero, Prince ‘Po’ Greenleaf, the Graceling Katsa meets on her rescue mission, is an equally successful character, and a perfect match for Katsa. I don’t say this lightly but by about halfway through I was head over heels in love with him myself.

I’ve read a few reviews which found the relationship between Katsa and Po unsatisfying, claiming that Katsa has to be “emotionally rescued” by a man. I didn’t see this at all. It’s true that Katsa is strong, surly and not very good with her emotions, and Po is a much lighter, much more emotionally intelligent character, but I never got a sense of their relationship being any other than based on mutuality. And personally I appreciated the gender-role reversal – the alpha heroine and the man who isn’t afraid of her.

He laughed “You may hunt for my food and protect me when we’re attacked, if you like. I’ll thank you for it.” “But I’d never need to protect you, if we were attacked. And I doubt you need me to do your hunting, either.” “True. But you’re better than I am, Katsa. And it doesn’t humiliate me.” He fed a branch to the fire. “It humbles me. But it doesn’t humiliate me.”

You know, I think that’s the most romantic thing I’ve ever read.

Okay, I’m giving up now. This is a terrible excuse for a review. But, in my defence, positive reviews are harder to write than negative ones, and I genuinely don’t want to spoil Graceling for anyone. I do, however, think you should read it and I hope at the very least I’ve convinced you of that. Fantasy needs more of this!

Themes:

Books

,

Sci-fi / Fantasy

~

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

~Comments (

go to latest

)

C J Morgan

at 18:26 on 2009-10-29Man, you Brits get the best book covers. I went to buy this book, and I never would have looked twice at it, if I had seen the American cover:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0547258305/ref=s9_simz_gw_s0_p14_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=04DJ2FA20F5JCARHVJ9T&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846

I mean, seriously now...

permalink

-

go to top

http://ptolemaeus.livejournal.com/

at 02:07 on 2009-10-30

This is a terrible excuse for a review.

If you say so; you sold me on the book, one way or the other! Oh, how I love a good feminist-friendly fantasy...

permalink

-

go to top

Bryn

at 02:17 on 2009-10-30What Ptolemaeus said. Kyra, you've sold another book! :)

permalink

-

go to top

http://katsullivan.insanejournal.com/

at 06:45 on 2009-10-30I enjoyed Graceling a lot. I think my favorite scene in any of the books I've read in recent years is Katsa and Bitterblue trekking through the snow and surviving. I had shivers up and down my spine as I read that bit. A lot of reviews thought it was boring but I thought it was one of most powerful and vivid bits of writing I've ever seen. I really loved the relationship between these two young women.

Katsa's Grace is not the Grace to kill but the Grace to survive.

The villian, unfortunately, was the weakest aspect of the book and the weakest aspect of any book I've read in recent years. I did like the ignominious way he died and the way he was so villainous. But the cutting kittens and little girls was, as you said, just plain cartoonish. And I read Fire hoping to find out a little bit of why he was bent but all Cashore seemed to say was that some people are born eveeel. Which isn't very profound or original.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 12:13 on 2009-10-30@CJ

God, that is a horribly generic cover - doesn't do the book any sort of justice. I really like the English covers for both Graceling and

Fire

, I think they're beautiful. Fire is a little bit silly - why is she wearing that ballgown and trying to shoot an arrow - but Graceling is awesome. It's attractive and communicates "kick ass woman" without being hideously in your face about it. And look at her there, wearing clothing appropriate to kicking ass. No bare legs and pointless cleavage.

@Ptolemaeus and Bryn - well I tend to prefer reviews to be a bit more analytical but I didn't want to analyse Graceling and spoil the pleasure for others. And all I really wanted to say was "ohmygodthisisawesome*. But, yes, do read it, it's thoroughly excellent feminist fantasy. MOAR! I want MOAR of this!

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 12:21 on 2009-10-30Kat, that's one of my favourite scenes as well. I actually cried. I don't know why because I knew the narrative demanded they survive but they were both being so *brave* and I loved them both so much... *embarrassed* Also I adored Bitterblue. So rare to find a child I can stand in fiction and there she was.

Also, I know Katsa's grace is survival not killing but the moment you find that out is quite important for both Katsa and the reader - basically I thought it constituted a spoiler so I obfuscated it.

Leck is certainly the weakest aspect of the book, I agree, but I thought Fire made more sense of him. I've only read half of Fire so maybe there's more to come but I thought Cashore was going for A Clockwork Orange vibe rather than a "some people are born evil" message. The point is, I think, that you can argue that people are born literally amoral. And the thing is, Leck is born with incredible power over human beings, without any social or moral structures around him. You *would* in fact turn into a complete sociopath under those conditions. In fact, why *wouldn't* you? I think you can probably see a similar thing in Cansel?

It also really helped illuminate the rather hostile attitude to the Graced - I mean, yes, you would hate and fear these people if just one of them could bend the world to his will with a word.

*shudder*

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 13:56 on 2009-10-30An interesting travel sequence in a fantasy novel? That's even rarer than decent treatment of women.

permalink

-

go to top

http://mary-j-59.livejournal.com/

at 14:58 on 2009-10-31My sister has also raved about both these books, and I'm certainly going to read them, but have been putting it off lest it queer my pitch. But what you have said about the travel sequence reminds me:

I simply love both Sam and Frodo's trek through Mordor and Genly Ai and Harth rem ir Estraven's trek over the ice. (that last in Le Guin's "Left Hand of Darkness") I am half wondering if Cashore could have been influenced by Le Guin?

permalink

-

go to top

http://barefoottomboy.livejournal.com/

at 04:53 on 2009-11-02Long-ish time lurker, first-time commenter.

I have to say, Ferretbrain has been an excellent source of book recommendations (

Finnikin of the Rock

,

On the Jellicoe Road

,

Feeling Sorry for Celia

- couldn't find

The Year of Secret Assignments

in my library, but borrowed FSrC, which is by the same author, instead), and I am

massively! overexcited!

about tracking down

Graceling

as well. Feminist fantasy?! Hurrah!

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 10:58 on 2009-11-02Just FYI, in some countries "The Year of Secret Assignments" was called something like "Finding Cassie Crazy". They changed the name for the UK market.

Welcome to FB

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 11:07 on 2009-11-02

Also, I know Katsa's grace is survival not killing but the moment you find that out is quite important for both Katsa and the reader - basically I thought it constituted a spoiler so I obfuscated it.

I'm about halfway through Graceling and one of the things I've found interesting is the fact that while people *outside* the text talk about Graces in quite simplistic terms (her Grace is killing, her Grace is surviving) the way they actually work *within* the text is actually rather more complex. Po's grace, for example, demonstrably *does* make him a better fighter, even though it isn't specifically "fighting".

One rather wonders if Cashore isn't making a specific point about labels...

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 14:29 on 2009-11-02

An interesting travel sequence in a fantasy novel

Well, there's more character than geography which I think is what makes the difference ;)

@Mary.J

I wouldn't like to guess at Cashore's influences but I really enjoyed Left Hand of Darkness as well. I'm generally not big fan of the travel narrative but watching two people develop their relationship while throw upon each for survival is really satisfying. I'll just add my voice to your sister's - you should really read Graceling. From the little I know of your tastes from your comments, I suspect you'll really love it - at least, I hope you will :)

@Barefoottomboy

I shall just echo Dan's welcome - and I hope you enjoy Graceling. I'm feeling kind of anxious now since I've made such a big deal of recommending this book to all and sundry in case somebody hates it. But, hell, Dan is reading it right now and he likes it and Dan doesn't like anything ;)

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 15:00 on 2009-11-02

Kyra: This is a terrible excuse for a review. Ptolemaeus: If you say so; you sold me on the book, one way or the other! Oh, how I love a good feminist-friendly fantasy...

I'd offer to race you to finishing it, but I just discovered the library out here has it on playaway, so that wouldn't really be sporting. (Three copies, too, it must've made quite a splash with someone.)

Thirded on the review. Personally, I was just about sold on the title. If Kyra Smith is that enthusiastic over a book, 9 of 10 says that book is awesome.

As for the UK covers, for both

Graceling

and

Fire

I find they look gorgeous until I take a good close-up look at the faces, at which point I feel like I've suddenly stumbled into the Uncanny Valley.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 15:05 on 2009-11-02I am not 100% sold on the UK cover. Bare arms out on the tundra?

Really?

Her Grace might be for survival but there is such a thing as tempting fate.

That said, I am a sucker for narratives about people freezing to death so I will pick it up anyway.

The Left Hand of Darkness

, the ending of

Frankenstein

,

The South Side of the Sky

by Yes...

permalink

-

go to top

Niall

at 17:15 on 2009-11-02Opinions do vary on the UK cover. Since having it

pointed out

to me that the sword wouldn't fit into the sheath, it's all I can see. (Well, that and the similarity to Justina Robson's Quantum Gravity covers.)

permalink

-

go to top

Rami

at 19:29 on 2009-11-02

(Well, that and the similarity to Justina Robson's Quantum Gravity covers.)

Ah, but the Quantum Gravity covers are consistent on both sides of the pond...

permalink

-

go to top

http://barefoottomboy.livejournal.com/

at 04:20 on 2009-11-03@Dan and Kyra: thanks for the welcome!

@Dan: yup, it's called

Finding Cassie Crazy

in Australia, it was just that someone had borrowed it last time I checked the library.

@Kyra: Well, I read

Jellicoe Road

on your strong recommendation and absolutely loved it, so I wouldn't worry. :-)

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 10:31 on 2009-11-04"That is a mighty big sword you have there, little lady.."

Sigh. Now I'm obsessing about it too, damn you Niall. But at least the UK cover says something - even if what it says is "impractical kick-ass chick", whereas the US cover says "blah."

To be fair, I quite like the Quantum Gravity covers as well...I guess I'm a little bit primitive in my tastes.

permalink

-

go to top

Niall

at 12:15 on 2009-11-04

consistent on both sides of the pond.

Not completely: in the US, the

first book

comes with

extra man

. (Er, apologies for wandering completely off-topic.)

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 12:43 on 2009-11-04No worries - but that's actually kind of weird. Did they think the US wouldn't be into a book that didn't have sufficient man in it? Is that supposed to be Zal do you think?

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 12:50 on 2009-11-04For me it's not the size of the sword which is distracting - I could write that off as dodgy perspective.

It's the fact that she's got a straight sword but her scabbard is

clearly curved

which, to me, is definitive proof that the artist just wasn't thinking things through.

permalink

-

go to top

Guy

at 15:13 on 2009-11-04Just playing devil's advocate here, but, could the curve of the scabbard be explained by it being made of leather and hence, liable to bend in the middle when it doesn't have a sword in it? Actually, I can't convince myself that that's what it is. The base of the blade appears to be twice the width of the scabbard. Actually, maybe it's better not to focus too much on the details - as an overall composition, the picture works for me.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 22:36 on 2009-11-16It didn't strike me as generic, exactly. There's a weird fantasy category in my head that seems to be neither stereotypical nor particularly imaginative - it's sort of a fantasy neutral to my way of thinking.

Graceling

fits in that category. (Similarly, the story itself struck me as okay-edging-to-really-good-at-times.)

This is the Captain

And she is indeed quite badass, considering what she was willing to put herself and her crew through if necessary.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 11:09 on 2009-11-17To be honest, I don't think that's a simple distinction to make. I mean, I've read plenty of absolutely excellent, thoroughly imaginative fantasy novels that were also quite defined by genre tropes, but equally stuff that has been touted as amazingly 'original' has ended up being quite disappointing, and actually not that original. The point being that there's nothing actually inherently wrong about working within your genre, it's just "original" has an implicit value judgement of "better" attached to it.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 15:00 on 2009-11-18Crap! Loginfail seems to've eaten the rest of my comment.

To explain what I've already said: I wasn't attempting to tie the two thoughts together. I just said that the setting struck me as neither generic nor imaginative, I consider it neutral on that axis. Then I happened to mention that additionally, the storyline for me occupies a similar position on the entertaining/meaningful axis. I did not mean to imply that the two axes are interchangeable.

Now as to what I'd intend to say earlier: I also felt that Katsa's and Po's relationship worked quite well. I think Cashore gave them just enough buildup to make the payoff truly satisfying, but not so much as to have the sexual tension between them wear out its welcome. I was also very pleased that finding the Right Guy for her did not at all change her attitudes toward either marriage or motherhood. I love how she's able to find love without contorting herself to fit her man's desires/society's expectations of her.

On the other hand, I kinda wish Cashore had given us a better sense of the cultural context of the seven kingdoms so I could have a clearer idea of why it didn't even

occur

to Katsa that she could sleep with Po without marrying him. Preferably, something other than “Katsa is a bit of dunce.”

The other thing I wanted to say was that while the female characters in

Graceling

were great, in terms of sheer numbers they were rather crowded out (or should I say “swamped”) by the male supporting cast. I do hope

Fire

has a more egalitarian f/m breakdown.

And does anyone else get a relationship vibe between Katsa's cousin (Raffan? Rathan?) and his assistant, Ban?

I don't have much evidence, just this nagging suspicion I developed in that scene where Katsa asks him “you're not in love with me too, are you?” and they both burst out laughing—almost as though they're sharing a private joke. And otherwise, Ban seems completely extraneous to the plot. Plus there's the speculative fiction rule which states that any suitable member of the other sex

not

madly in love with the protagonist must already be engaged in a loving relationship, or gay, or both.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 15:13 on 2009-11-18Just the idea of an axis, or rather axes, is totally alien to me - in the sense that it's not the way I would choose to look at a text. Also why is being entertaining opposed to being meaningful, I found Graceling both entertaining and meaningful.

I noticed a balance in the gender of the suppporting but then I don't think I was counting. What mattered to me than quantity was that each of the female characters were whole human beings, with non-stereotypical roles to play.

And, yes, I think it's pretty clear that Raffin and Ban are gay.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 17:29 on 2009-11-18Playing numbers games with gender is always a bit difficult because not all fictional characters are created equal.

I'd also suggest that the mostly-male supporting cast is, in the case of Graceling, actually extremely important. One of the big features of Katsa's emotional development is that she grew up in a male-dominated society surrounded almost entirely by men.

The way Graceling deals with gender issues is actually quite subtle and complex, and there are very few characters whose gender is accidental or arbitrary.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 22:02 on 2009-11-18Well Kyra, I guess we just think about these things a little differently.

I did not, however, intend to create a dichotomy between "entertaining" and "meaningful" (I really must take more care when writing these comments). I guess the term I was reaching for might better be described as "story quality," and instead of saying that, I came up with "entertaining

and/or

meaningful."

The imbalance is perhaps a bit more noticeable in a full casted audio dramatization. While I agree that fully realized and well-developed female characters are preferable to large numbers of female characters, I feel that both would be better still.

As you say Dan, not all fictional characters are created equal. Looked at in that light, the most important supporting female character is a prepubescent girl who strikes me as more than a little Mary-Sueish (not that I dislike her, but tell me she isn't a little

too

perfect). Compared to a fistful of equally important (or near enough) supporting male characters.

I can accept the argument that Cashore may have weighted the scale so heavily on the male side as part of the novel's discourse. If so, though, I hope she doesn't try pulling something similar in

Fire

, as I don't see what good rehashing the same territory she explored in

Graceling

would do.

permalink

-

go to top

http://katsullivan.insanejournal.com/

at 10:27 on 2009-11-19

<q>not that I dislike her, but tell me she isn't a little too perfect</q>

I love Bitterblue!

But yes, she is a bit too perfect as well. :) I never quite grasped exactly how she was able to resist her father's influence so thoroughly. It would have been a different thing if Bitterblue remembered

seeing

her mother being killed by him; and then she'd have a visual weapon to use whenever he tried his Jedi powers on her. As it is, she's just speshul that way. :p

Still... I really love Bitterblue and I'm looking forward to the book with her as the main character. Does it count when you don't

mind

that the character is perfect?

permalink

-

go to top

http://katsullivan.insanejournal.com/

at 10:28 on 2009-11-19

not that I dislike her, but tell me she isn't a little too perfect

I love Bitterblue!

But yes, she is a bit too perfect as well. :) I never quite grasped exactly how she was able to resist her father's influence so thoroughly. (It would have been a different thing if Bitterblue remembered

seeing

her mother being killed by him; and then she'd have a visual weapon to use whenever he tried his Jedi powers on her.)

Still... I really love Bitterblue and I'm looking forward to the book with her as the main character. Does it count when you don't

mind

that the character is perfect?

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 11:07 on 2009-11-19Kat, agreed - I adore Bitterblue too. She is incredibly brave and incredibly strong but I didn't get too much of a Mary-Sue perfection vibe from her, to be honest. She's also tired, fretful, snappy, and hindered in all things by the fact she's a child with only limited strength and understanding. But, yes, I can't wait for Bitterblue either - I'm especially to see Cashore write a heroine without special powers of any kind.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 11:21 on 2009-11-19

I can accept the argument that Cashore may have weighted the scale so heavily on the male side as part of the novel's discourse. If so, though, I hope she doesn't try pulling something similar in Fire, as I don't see what good rehashing the same territory she explored in Graceling would do.

Umm ... I'm not sure what you're saying here.

The "territory" Cashore explores in Graceling can broadly be described as "being a woman". One might think there was enough material there to sustain two books, possibly even three?

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 15:30 on 2009-11-19I love Bitterblue as well. However, it seems to me her incredible empathy, intelligence (heck, even wisdom) and stoicism vastly overshadow her flaws. As far as I'm concerned, a Mary-Sue is still a Mary-Sue, even if you don't mind that the character is too perfect. (I quite liked Jenny, the Doctor's Daughter from the

Doctor Who

episode of the same title, but she was still an incredible Mary-Sue.)

The "territory" Cashore explores in Graceling can broadly be described as "being a woman". One might think there was enough material there to sustain two books, possibly even three?

Tut-tut, my good man. Four, surely. Maybe five, at the outside.

But I was responding to your thesis that the specific way she explored "being a woman" in

Graceling

was one which required a majority-male supporting cast. And I say that if so, well enough, but if her next book just so happens also to have a majority-male supporting cast, I'll be more inclined to get disappointed/irritated.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 18:16 on 2009-11-19

I love Bitterblue as well. However, it seems to me her incredible empathy, intelligence (heck, even wisdom) and stoicism vastly overshadow her flaws. As far as I'm concerned, a Mary-Sue is still a Mary-Sue, even if you don't mind that the character is too perfect.

By this logic any character whose positive qualities outweigh their flaws is a Mary Sue.

What's wrong with having a character who is smart, empathetic, and stoic? Such people do exist in the real world.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 19:03 on 2009-11-19

But I was responding to your thesis that the specific way she explored "being a woman" in Graceling was one which required a majority-male supporting cast. And I say that if so, well enough, but if her next book just so happens also to have a majority-male supporting cast, I'll be more inclined to get disappointed/irritated.

Okay, let me put this more specifically.

What Kristin Cashore explores in Graceling is the experience of growing up as a woman in a male-dominated society. This pretty much by definition requires a large supporting cast of men if you are going to do it properly. This is because "society" is actually quite complicated, and in order to explore it properly you need several well realised characters to speak and act for it.

As I said earlier, I cannot thing of a single member of the supporting cast who would have been better off as a woman. Worse, I cannot think of a single member of the character who, had they been a woman, would not have utterly undermined the point of the book or - worse - just been flat out sexist.

Raffin: Heir to the throne. Again, patriarchal society, you can't have the heir to the throne be a woman.

Bann: Exists purely as Raffin's lover. Making him female would have been actively sexist.

Giddon: Very specifically represents the element of patriarchy that will attempt to control women by trying to protect them. Your classic "Nice Guy" if you wish.

Po: Contrary to what Joss Whedon may think, lesbianism is not inherently better than heterosexuality. Either way coming to terms with your sexuality is an important part of growing up whatever your sex.

Grandfather Tealiff: Spends the entire book being rescued or passing out. This is another character it would be *actively sexist* to recast as female.

Spymaster Dude: So unimportant I can't even remember his name, and see Raffin re: patriarchy.

Leck: Utterly corrupt, the living embodiment of the dangers of power and privilege. Make him female and you're saying "women can't be trusted with power".

Randa: Like leck, but smaller and meaner. Again the fact that he's a man is sort of integral to the book.

Basically Cashore's books contain a lot of men because she is writing specifically about being a woman in a patriarchal society. If you would be "disappointed" to find a similar setup in Fire this implies one of three things:

1) You believe that "being a woman in a patriarchal society" isn't worth writing about.

2) You believe that "being a woman in a patriarchal society" is worth writing about, but it is not something you, personally, are interested in reading about.

3) You believe that "being a woman in a patriarchal society" is worth writing about, and it is something that you are interested in reading about, but you believe that Cashore should write about it in a different way.

(1) and (2) are basically the same thing, and if you genuinely feel that way it's fine. You and I are not the target audience for this book. It is a book by a woman, about a woman, for women, it's totally okay to decide that a book like that hasn't got much to offer you. If it's (3) then ... well as a man, I'm not sure I would be comfortable passing judgment on the way a woman chooses to write about the experience of being a woman.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 23:59 on 2009-11-19I think part of the problem, and I've experienced this too (most of my characters end up male and I've always kind of wondered why), is that often a reader judges a female character more harshly than a male character. It might be because we assume they represent all women, and thus we have to ask ourselves, "What is the author saying about women by having this character?" even if there are other females in the book. There are also far more stigmas attached to woman, I think. For example, if you had a character who was sharp-tongued and didn't take sh*t from anyone, as a man, he comes off kick-ass, as a woman, you run the risk of her coming off as a bitch. It's not fair, but it can happen. Even just as a character, women tend to get pigeonholed a bit. I'm not saying its right, or an excuse for lacking in female characters; I'm just saying that the problem exists.

I hope that made some sort of sense. I feel I'm rambling.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 00:02 on 2009-11-20Sorry, Arthur, I must not have made myself clear. I didn't mean to suggest that

because

Bitterblue is smart, empathetic, and stoic, she's a Mary-Sue. I meant that the

amount of intelligence (wisdom even), empathy, and stoicism

she displays in the book (which is a

lot

) make her a Mary-Sue. I might not have been so quick to label her a Mary-Sue were she an adult (as you say, such people do exist in the real world) but a twelve-year-old girl displaying that kind of selflessness and maturity strains my willing suspension of disbelief.

Possibly she's supposed to have matured quickly due to Leck's (attempted) abuse, but even if I were prepared to accept such a scenario, I never got the sense that his mistreatment of Bitterblue or her mother was anywhere near that traumatic for her.

Dan, thank you for the explanation, that clears I few things up.

I won't question your analysis of the characters, Dan (although I'm enough of a pedant to point out that your argument for Raffin is complete nonsense, as European history demonstrates quite clearly. Are you suggesting that Moncey with its Queen Bitterblue isn't patriarchal?). However, I think we're looking at the book from opposite directions. You're looking at the characters who're already there and how they work. I'm looking at the characters who

aren't

there but

could have

been. What about the characters who would have worked better just as well or better as women? Why weren't they included?

I can think of two possible reasons:

1) The specific discourse of "being a woman in a patriarchal society" Kristin Cashore was writing in required that most, if not all, of the major supporting characters be male.

2) Writing about "being a woman in a patriarchal society"

by its very nature

requires that most, if not all, of the major supporting characters be male.

If (2) is the case, then I'm going to need to see a really good argument for why it should be so. If (1) is the case, though, then it suggests to me that there are other ways of writing about "being a woman in a patriarchal society" where having a more equal gender balance of well-realized major supporting characters would be nondetrimental to and maybe even enhance the discourse.

Further, if (1) is correct, that would suggest to me that another book with a similarly male-dominant supporting cast would fall into the same narrow range of subdiscourse of "being a woman in a patriarchal society" in which

Graceling

resides. (I realize this doesn't necessarily follow, but it seems likely.) That's where my line about "rehashing old territory" is coming from.

Of course, must disappointment in that case is not Cashore's problem, nor does it mean that I would dislike the book, probably. Nor am I trying to say what Cashore

should

do, just what I think she could do and what I would

like

her to do. As you point out, it's not my business to tell her what to do; but neither is it my business specifically to refrain from asking if she couldn't say what she needs to say with a larger female supporting cast, and whether that might not be even better.

(I guess partially, I'm hypersensitive due to a regular bombardment of stories - even really good stories - with tokenized and/or marginalized female casts because male characters are just the default. I'm pretty thoroughly convinced that Cashore's smarter than that, but that still doesn't tell me why she also considers majority-male casts a necessity.)

permalink

-

go to top

Niall

at 00:05 on 2009-11-20

Make him female and you're saying "women can't be trusted with power".

I don't agree with this logic; if you have a large cast with diverse roles for women in it, you're not saying anything about women in general by having character x be a woman.

I do agree with the general point that the balance of the cast in Graceling supports the argument being made; I would disagree with your implicit point that it's the only way, or even necessarily the most effective way, to make that argument.

permalink

-

go to top

Sonia Mitchell

at 00:07 on 2009-11-20Haven't read the book, but I do think arguments like

Leck: Utterly corrupt, the living embodiment of the dangers of power and privilege. Make him female and you're saying "women can't be trusted with power".

are pretty dangerous. The whole "when you're wearing school uniform you represent the entire school" mode of thought is very prickly after all. To go back to xkcd, see

How It Works

. The problem isn't with the girl who can't do maths, it's with the guy who sees that she can't do something and applies it to all girls.

Saying that one shouldn't cast a woman in a role which reinforces a sexist stereotype because there are readers who will apply this to all women just seems to be catering to that type of person. If I want to write a novel about a woman who can't do maths then that should be fine - I shouldn't have to second-guess the reader and decide I'll write it about a girl who can't arrange flowers nicely enough.

Which is to say, I don't think casting a woman in the position of a powerful corrupt spymaster would be sexist unless one reads it expecting women to represent their sex (Or, indeed, unless the writer genuinely believes women can't be trusted with power, in which case we'd have bigger problems).

permalink

-

go to top

Sonia Mitchell

at 00:09 on 2009-11-20Cross-posted with Niall there. Jinx, as the pre-teens were saying back when I was one.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 00:12 on 2009-11-20

I won't question your analysis of the characters, Dan (although I'm enough of a pedant to point out that your argument for Raffin is complete nonsense, as European history demonstrates quite clearly.

Would that be the European history during which the nobility have practised male-preference primogeniture pretty much exclusively up to the present day?

2) Writing about "being a woman in a patriarchal society" by its very nature requires that most, if not all, of the major supporting characters be male. If (2) is the case, then I'm going to need to see a really good argument for why it should be so.

How about "male dominated societies make it inherently difficult, if not impossible, for women to attain any degree of power and agency, and there's only so many powerless, agencyless characters you can fit into a fantasy adventure story?"

Or perhaps "by having most noteworthy individuals that Katsa meets be male, Cashore underlines the point that wherever you turn in Katsa's world most of the folks calling the shots are dudes?"

Either seems applicable in this case. I am sure there are more.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 00:32 on 2009-11-20

Saying that one shouldn't cast a woman in a role which reinforces a sexist stereotype because there are readers who will apply this to all women just seems to be catering to that type of person. If I want to write a novel about a woman who can't do maths then that should be fine - I shouldn't have to second-guess the reader and decide I'll write it about a girl who can't arrange flowers nicely enough.

I agree. I do feel that it's unfair that writers feel they can't write a female character who is, say, demure and emotional and can't fight just because people will get all upset and start accusing them of being sexist. Girls like that exist. Girls of all kinds exist! I think what's important is representing a variety of female characters - weak, strong, whatever. My friend and I always complain how just because a girl likes shopping or dressing up and doing her make-up doesn't make her a moron. If a female character is well-rounded and multi-faceted, I usually jump up and do a dance because it doesn't happen as often as it should.

permalink

-

go to top

Sonia Mitchell

at 00:52 on 2009-11-20I didn't mean to rehash your point - I think quite a few of us were posting at the same time :-)

My friend and I always complain how just because a girl likes shopping or dressing up and doing her make-up doesn't make her a moron. If a female character is well-rounded and multi-faceted, I usually jump up and do a dance because it doesn't happen as often as it should.

Yes, this exactly. I agree that it's a problem if people only write about women behaving in a certain way (ie. shopping) because that's all they think women can do. However it's equally a problem if critics say that you should *never* write about a woman who shops because of sexism.

It's still holding women to a different standard, because male characters are seen as individuals while female ones have the weight of representing the sisterhood. It's just this time it's done under the banner of being progressive.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 00:54 on 2009-11-20

I didn't mean to rehash your point - I think quite a few of us were posting at the same time :-)

No worries. :-) Yeah, I think we all just jumped there all at once.

permalink

-

go to top

Sonia Mitchell

at 00:57 on 2009-11-20It's like the Okavango here. Once one brave wildebeest decides to cross the river, the rest all follow together.

permalink

-

go to top

Rami

at 03:04 on 2009-11-20

It's like the Okavango here.

I love that simile.

My friend and I always complain how just because a girl likes shopping or dressing up and doing her make-up doesn't make her a moron.

I have to admit that I have frequently been guilty of looking down on women who like those kinds of things ☹ I think a problem is that our brains

may not be able to deal with lots of different people

, and so unless you know someone who really challenges the norms it's far too easy to just use stereotypes as handy guidelines. I know I found it much harder to stereotype women who like to shop after I met someone who loves malls and dressing up and doing her nails... and happens to be a quantum physicist whose day job is miles outside my comprehension.

permalink

-

go to top

Leia

at 03:43 on 2009-11-20

Would that be the European history during which the nobility have practised male-preference primogeniture pretty much exclusively up to the present day?

What about the Marys, the Elizabeths and the eternal Victoria? I'm always very wary of people using historical context to explain why there were no women in power in the "old days" or no Blacks outside Africa. Most of the time, it's not even historical accurate. Then it's conveniently hand-waved in the same story when it fits the plot: Queen Bitterblue.

How about "male dominated societies make it inherently difficult, if not impossible, for women to attain any degree of power and agency, and there's only so many powerless, agencyless characters you can fit into a fantasy adventure story?"

Well, as part of Cashore's intended audience - i.e. female - I think I would prefer more stories where the Heroine is not also the

only

female character who tries to challenge the status quo. The ship captain already comes from a culture where the status quo allows her to be empowered - so she's not challenging it. It would have been nice to have some innkeeper's wife who baked bread for Kasha's rebellion/spy-ring and kept the King's soldiers busy with free beer while the rebellion held their secret meetings. Or if one of the girls who ran Kasha's bath murmured something about how it was cool that the Lady could defend herself when she needed to. I mean, I can buy that it takes one woman to speak up against the system but the way rebellions and revolutions work is that that one person is usually voicing the present but silent disgruntlement of a greater number.

As it stands, Kasha ends the story thinking about setting up a training school for girls and one is left wondering where she'll find her students.

The problem isn't with the girl who can't do maths, it's with the guy who sees that she can't do something and applies it to all girls.

Well said. And, knowing full well that I'm in the danger of commiting that same crime with this statement, I actually have a big problem with Bann existing purely as the Token Gay Lover. It bugs me to admit this, but at least Alec and Magnus from the Clare books added more to the story than just the confirmation that the author was being "diverse".

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 04:12 on 2009-11-20

I actually have a big problem with Bann existing purely as the Token Gay Lover. It bugs me to admit this, but at least Alec and Magnus from the Clare books added more to the story than just the confirmation that the author was being "diverse".

Yeah, there seems to be a trend going around of including gay characters...for the sake of including them? I haven't read the book so I'm not saying Cashore did this. I just wanted to point out something I've said before but not here. There's a difference between making a gay character and making a character who just happens to be gay. I'm all for the inclusion of gay characters in literature (yes, please!); it's when "gay" becomes their whole character that I find a problem with it.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 09:04 on 2009-11-20

What about the Marys, the Elizabeths and the eternal Victoria?

None of them would have ever been in power if there were a male heir to hand.

Actually, in the case of Mary I and Elizabeth I, neither of them came to power until the death of Edward, their younger, sicklier, and generally vastly less suited to actually being monarch brother. And Elizabeth basically had to forego marriage for her entire life in order to retain her power (whereas Mary's marriage to Philip of Spain caused the nation to collectively shit bricks in fear of being annexed by Spain). So those are pretty much the worst two counterexamples you could come up with - yes, they were both powerful, but in order to get a sniff of power in the first place they had to a) patiently wait until their brother died, hoping that he didn't have any kids in the meantime, and b) make sacrifices which a man in their position would never have been asked to make. (As for Victoria, by the time she came to power the monarchy was basically there to provide a nice figurehead, and genuine political power lay exclusively in the hands of Parliament. A bunch of men elected by men.)

Just because England occasionally had female monarchs doesn't mean it wasn't a male-dominated society in general. If anything, the fact that most people can only name 3 pre-20th Century female English monarchs is evidence of exactly how rare it was for people to buck the trend.

permalink

-

go to top

Shim

at 09:08 on 2009-11-20

Make him female and you're saying "women can't be trusted with power". I don't agree with this logic; if you have a large cast with diverse roles for women in it, you're not saying anything about women in general by having character x be a woman. I do think arguments like Leck: Utterly corrupt, the living embodiment of the dangers of power and privilege. Make him female and you're saying "women can't be trusted with power". are pretty dangerous...Which is to say, I don't think casting a woman in the position of a powerful corrupt spymaster would be sexist unless one reads it expecting women to represent their sex

I haven't read the book, and I'm not sure if this is exactly what Dan was getting at, but anyway... it seems to me that the smaller one subset of a cast gets (e.g. "women"), the more they're likely to seem like representatives. If this book is also using gender in a very careful way, to explore

the experience of growing up as a woman in a male-dominated society

(Dan)

then it seems likely to me that characters are also a bit symbolic/representative of influences. Or something like that...

In a context like that, with very few female characters, it seems to me that making just one or two of those mentioned female might end up seeming sexist because of implications like those Dan suggested. As Niall said, a large diverse cast can overcome this; but Graceling doesn't have one, and making

several

of the characters female would presumably wreck the "patriarchy exploration" part in the process.

Also Niall, I'm not quite sure what argument you mean in your 00:05 comment. Could you clarify that?

But yes, I agree that the "everything is representative of its 'kind'" argument brings up all kinds of problems.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 09:28 on 2009-11-20Not to put words in Dan's mouth here but I think he over-rhetoricised his point in order to respond to Robinson's Just Plain Stupid notion that because the book has a largely male supporting cast, it didn't score enough feminism points.

I genuinely think it's got to the stage of being picky for the sake of it. Ultimately I'd say Graceling is feminist-friendly fantasy - criticising it because it doesn't have enough homosexuals in it, or because it isn't a sufficiently correct portrayal of the socio-cultural political of Medieval Europe, or because it does attempt to address every aspect of gender-inequality in life, in art and in fantasy strikes me as just plain churlish.

There are plenty of women doing admirable things in Graceling, it's just Cashore doesn't stand up, yelling "LOOK HERE IS A WOMAN DOING AN ADMIRABLE THING BECAUSE I AM A FEMINIST" every time it happens. I mean, there's Po's Mother, there's Bitterblue, there's Bitterblue's mother, there's Helda, there's the sea Captain all of whom have an immense impact on the events in the text. Without Helda, Katsa would likely never have had the strength to form the Shadow Council, without his mother Po would be a political puppet, without her mother Bitterblue would be dead... and before anyone says something, I think it's *important* and *deliberate* that these women acheive what they achieve from within the system as it were.

permalink

-

go to top

http://katsullivan.insanejournal.com/

at 09:30 on 2009-11-20

Arthur B

, I think the point that

Leia

and

Robinson

are making about female monarchs is that ...

they existed

. Sure, they existed under shitty circumstances but they are not anomalies. If Kristin Cashore chose not to make Raffin - the King's gay only son - the female heir to the throne and facing pretty much the same challenges that her male counterpart already does (he is a "weakling" of an heir in his father's eyes), it's not because a female!Raffin is something that is unheard of in the annals of history.

Like Robinson L, "looking at the characters who aren't there but could have been", a female!Raffin, an "Acting" Crown Princess living under the shadow that her crown may be taken by a baby half-brother, would

fit

a story about women struggling for power in male patriachal societies. As Leia said, it would have been nice if Kasha wasn't the only woman who was unhappy with the status quo. That would make one more awesome lady in the story. That can't be a bad thing!

I haven't read the book so I'm not saying Cashore did this. I just wanted to point out something I've said before but not here. There's a difference between making a gay character and making a character who just happens to be gay.

I have read the book and this might have been the only other thing I didn't like about it. The other thing was Leck being cartoon!evil. But Bann is such a shadowy character that until now, I had completely forgotten about him.

I didn't mean to suggest that because Bitterblue is smart, empathetic, and stoic, she's a Mary-Sue. I meant that the amount of intelligence (wisdom even), empathy, and stoicism she displays in the book (which is a lot) make her a Mary-Sue.

I noticed that as well. I didn't mind it as much as I minded her ability to block Leck's powers which falls too neatly into the box of "Super-speshul, unexplained powers". But, like I said, Bitterblue is such a delightful character that I am more than willing to over-look this.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 09:35 on 2009-11-20Just to keep going on about it, this time in response to Kat, one the things I really like about Graceling and the way Cashore writes, is that she kept her focus squarely on her main character and somehow managed to write reasonably well-paced fantasy novel that wasn't 800 pages long. I think we have to remember that Katsa, as a heroine, is young, and a little bit too caught up with her own struggles, and her own injustices, to really look around her and *see* what's truly going on. This is partly, I think, one of the many things she learns over the course of the book, and something that both Po and Bitterblue help her learn. Although I *loved* Cashore's characters and would gladly have taken more Raffin, more Bann and more anybody else she wanted, I think they served to provide a nuanced background for Katsa's personal story without detracting or interfering from it. And let's remember Graceling is the first book of a series - I imagine we'll see much more Raffin in later books, and of course, Bitterblue... *excitement*

permalink

-

go to top

Niall

at 10:22 on 2009-11-20

In a context like that, with very few female characters, it seems to me that making just one or two of those mentioned female might end up seeming sexist because of implications like those Dan suggested.

As Kyra says, actually there are plenty of female characters. And to continue with the case of Leck specifically, given that he ends up being replaced by Bitterblue, I cannot see how making him a woman would carry the implications Dan suggests it would.

But that doesn't mean I think it should have been done. When I talk about a book's "argument" I'm referencing the description of sf and fantasy works that says they are "arguments with the world"; that everything in them necessarily engages in dialogue with the world as it is, and makes a statement about the relationship between the textual and real worlds. In the case of Graceling, that argument is, as Dan says, about growing up as a woman in a male-dominated society, like our society; so it matters that the figures with the most power are men, because they tend to be in our world.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 11:02 on 2009-11-20Wow, a lot of responses:

Sonia:

Saying that one shouldn't cast a woman in a role which reinforces a sexist stereotype because there are readers who will apply this to all women just seems to be catering to that type of person.

This, unfortunately, is the same logic that leads to things like the "colour blindness" defense of Earthsea and Avatar. If you have the choice to perpetuate a stereotype or not to perpetuate a stereotype you should choose *not* to because perpetuating stereotypes *actively harms people*.

The notion that women cannot be trusted with power is actually something Graceling specifically addresses - the whole "her grace is killing/her grace is survival" thing is *specifically* about the tendency of society to demonize powerful women. If the main villain of the book had been a woman whose power had turned dangerous it would have reinforced *the very ideas it was critiquing*.

It's perfectly okay to write books where the villains are women. It's perfectly okay to write books where women do horrible things to people. It's not sensible to suggest that a book which is specifically about the power dynamics of relationships between men and women in a patriarchal society would be improved by making its villain female.

Kat:

Like Robinson L, "looking at the characters who aren't there but could have been", a female!Raffin, an "Acting" Crown Princess living under the shadow that her crown may be taken by a baby half-brother, would fit a story about women struggling for power in male patriachal societies.

Again, I think this misses the point.

Graceling is not about women struggling for power in male dominated societies, it's about one, particular woman struggling for - not even power particularly, but freedom, identity and a sense of self - in a male dominated society.

Making Raffin female would have *profoundly lessened* the book for precisely that reason. Part of what Cashore was trying to capture with Graceling (as far as I can tell) was a sense of isolation. You can't have that if you've got another character who's in exactly the same predicament as her. Suddently Katsa would either have to change her behaviour entirely (staying in the Middluns to support Raffin) or else wind up looking utterly selfish and hypocritical. And either way it would have reduced a quite subtle, quite complex analysis of power dynamics to a rather simplistic "women good, men bad" axis, which would have done nobody any favours.

permalink

-

go to top

http://katsullivan.insanejournal.com/

at 11:18 on 2009-11-20

Although I *loved* Cashore's characters and would gladly have taken more Raffin, more Bann and more anybody else she wanted, I think they served to provide a nuanced background for Katsa's personal story without detracting or interfering from it.

Do you think that Raffin being female and essentially playing the same role in the text would have made him less a background character? Make him take the spotlight from Kasha? Because there's a part of me that thinks that and it's making me wonder about that theory that says that many people (men and women) will regard a room half-full with women as

too many

women.

In the case of Graceling, that argument is, as Dan says, about growing up as a woman in a male-dominated society, like our society; so it matters that the figures with the most power are men, because they tend to be in our world.

I don't think the argument is about Graceling having more women in power or even more women doing admirable things. I think it's about it having more women who are discontent with the male-dominated society (i.e. outside of Po's island which appears to be progressive in terms of gender equality. So the ship captain and Po's mother and even Bitterblue, his niece, don't actually count). They aren't doing anything about the male-dominated society in the scale Kasha is but they aren't resigned to it either. I get the point that was made that at the end of the book, you have to wonder where the girls that go to Kasha's school will come from.

permalink

-

go to top

Sonia Mitchell

at 11:33 on 2009-11-20This, unfortunately, is the same logic that leads to things like the "colour blindness" defense of Earthsea and Avatar.

I don't think that's a fair point at all.

However I'll have to bow out, because as I said I haven't read the book and was speaking rather generally.

permalink

-

go to top

http://katsullivan.insanejournal.com/

at 11:44 on 2009-11-20Sorry Dan, we must have posted at about the same time.

If the main villain of the book had been a woman whose power had turned dangerous it would have reinforced *the very ideas it was critiquing*.

That's a very good point. I just knew Leck had to be a guy, but I couldn't put my finger on why.

Making Raffin female would have *profoundly lessened* the book for precisely that reason. Part of what Cashore was trying to capture with Graceling (as far as I can tell) was a sense of isolation. You can't have that if you've got another character who's in exactly the same predicament as her.

A female!Raffin won't have been exactly in the same predicament at Kasha, at least, if you assume that Raffin being female would have added another layer to his father's present discontent with him and not changed his personality. Nor should female!Raffin make Kasha's decision to leave any more selfish: Randa was still alive and able to produce a male heir at any time. Unless Kasha was going to remain in the Middluns to take care of any bastard brothers that might threaten Raffin's crown...?

permalink

-

go to top

Shim

at 11:44 on 2009-11-20

...actually there are plenty of female characters.

Given I know almost nothing about this book, I'll give up trying to analyse it now...

Ah, the "argument" bit makes sense now. I read it before as meaning the phrase you quoted from Dan:

Make him female and you're saying "women can't be trusted with power"

. The paragraph didn't really seem to make much sense that way (i.e. why would you, Niall, want to make a case for that anyway?).

permalink

-

go to top

http://katsullivan.insanejournal.com/

at 11:51 on 2009-11-20

Graceling is not about women struggling for power in male dominated societies, it's about one, particular woman struggling for - not even power particularly, but freedom, identity and a sense of self - in a male dominated society.

Not to be redundant but isn't the reason why it's a male-dominated society in the first place, because

women

don't have power? Sure the book focuses on one woman's struggle and there's nothing wrong with that. But why would this impact or theme be lessened if Kasha's story had been told against the

backdrop

of other women's struggles?

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 12:49 on 2009-11-20

But why would this impact or theme be lessened if Kasha's story had been told against the backdrop of other women's struggles?

I, uh, rather thought it was, to be honest? It's just the way Cashore has chosen to explore it is through the lens of one character. I didn't feel there was a lack of explicit female struggling going on, I just thought it didn't particularly need to be constantly addressed by the text. It's kind of got to the point where we're criticising Cashore for doing something one way, instead of another way.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 12:58 on 2009-11-20

Arthur B, I think the point that Leia and Robinson are making about female monarchs is that ... they existed. Sure, they existed under shitty circumstances but they are not anomalies.

If we take the medieval period in England as spanning around 500 years (from the Norman Conquest to the Elizabethan period), then as far as female monarchs of England are concerned you've got Matilda (whose reign was contested throughout by Stephen), Mary, and Elizabeth. Oh, and there was Lady Jane Grey, but she's not often counted because a) she's generally regarded as a puppet candidate propped up by a desperate anyone-but-Mary movement, and b) she was convicted of treason and killed, and was monarch for barely a week.

4 instances. 500 years. Arithmetic mean once every 125 years, and even then 3 of those instances are packed within one generation at the end of the period.

If you've got an event which only happens

once every few lifetimes

, how is that not anomalous?

If Kristin Cashore chose not to make Raffin - the King's gay only son - the female heir to the throne and facing pretty much the same challenges that her male counterpart already does (he is a "weakling" of an heir in his father's eyes), it's not because a female!Raffin is something that is unheard of in the annals of history.

But in the annals of history the solution to the King's "problem" of having an heir he considers unsuitable would be very different.

If you are not happy with a female heir, you could just

keep shagging

until you spawned a male one. It worked fine for Henry VIII.

If you have a male heir you're not keen on, though, it's a very different matter. In theory you could disinherit him. In practice, even a disinherited male heir hanging around would pose a problem for any preferred heir, because there'd always be the threat of opponents of your preferred successor using your disinherited son as a figurehead to spark off a dispute over succession. In medieval Europe such disputes tended to play out in battlefields, not courtrooms, so any monarch who cared even slightly about the fate of their country after their death would be loathe to just disinherit a kid. Murder is of course an option, if you don't mind being compared to King Herod for the rest of history, and even in medieval times you had to be especially psychotic to kill your own kids.

At least in England, the monarchs seem to have been satisfied to just let their sons inherit the crown, and hope that they will rise to the occasion when the time comes, whereas female heirs - regardless of their qualities - were regarded as generally a really big problem.

Not to be redundant but isn't the reason why it's a male-dominated society in the first place, because women don't have power? Sure the book focuses on one woman's struggle and there's nothing wrong with that. But why would this impact or theme be lessened if Kasha's story had been told against the backdrop of other women's struggles?

Dan points out the isolation angle earlier, which I think is key. If Katsa isn't isolated, if there are women out there openly struggling for the same things Katsa is looking for, then a) it's just plain less exciting than Katsa trying to sort these things out without help, and b) suddenly it's no longer just about Katsa the character, but women in general, because by providing the other struggles as a backdrop you're inevitably inviting the reader to draw the comparison and make a link.

permalink

-

go to top

http://katsullivan.insanejournal.com/

at 13:15 on 2009-11-20

If you've got an event which only happens once every few lifetimes, how is that not anomalous?

Er... Sorry about the word choice then. I was just trying to say that it wasn't "Impossible" that Raffin could be a girl. What Dan said was:

Raffin: Heir to the throne. Again, patriarchal society, you can't have the heir to the throne be a woman.

But history shows that there have been female monarch ins patriarchal societies so that statement isn't accurate. If Cashore had made Raffin female, it would have still worked. That's all.

If you are not happy with a female heir, you could just keep shagging until you spawned a male one.

I had this private theory that Randa couldn't have any more children, or he'd have got a spare to his heir.

I didn't feel there was a lack of explicit female struggling going on, I just thought it didn't particularly need to be constantly addressed by the text. It's kind of got to the point where we're criticising Cashore for doing something one way, instead of another way.

I guess I'm always a fan of "more" awesome female characters, especially from a writer who's clearly good at creating them. That's a compliment to Cashore, isn't it? I think Graceling is awesome. This discussion has made me see ways in which it could have been

more

awesome. Is there anything wrong with that?

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 13:19 on 2009-11-20

I don't think that's a fair point at all.

Actually you're right, it was a cheap shot, sorry.

All I meant was that I think we've got caught up between specifics and generalities. Obviously it would be possible to imagine a book in which there was a powerful, corrupt female antagonist, which was not in any way sexist, but that book would not be Graceling.

The reason I reached for the Avatar/Earthsea analogy was, I admit, partly just reflex defensiveness but partly because I was talking specifically about *changing* the existing text. But yeah, sorry, it was cheap of me.

permalink

-

go to top

Leia

at 13:28 on 2009-11-20Just repeating what Kat said: the point wasn't that female monarchs were a dime a dozen in history. The point is that they were not absent from it. In fact, Medieval Europe is too far away. Too often the historical "accuracy" is used in application to fantasy worlds. Let's stick to the Seven Kingdoms.

Queen Bitterblue exists.

In the same world. In a similar patriachal society as Randa's. (And child to an even more twisted King-father).

A child-woman monarch.

How is Queen-to-be Raffina an impossibility?

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 13:38 on 2009-11-20

Er... Sorry about the word choice then. I was just trying to say that it wasn't "Impossible" that Raffin could be a girl. What Dan said was: Raffin: Heir to the throne. Again, patriarchal society, you can't have the heir to the throne be a woman. But history shows that there have been female monarch ins patriarchal societies so that statement isn't accurate. If Cashore had made Raffin female, it would have still worked. That's all.

It would have worked in the sense that, legalistically, she'd be the heir, assuming they follow the same general rules as we did in medieval Europe.

It wouldn't have worked in the sense that the more women Cashore put in positions of power and influence, the less male-dominated the society depicted would seem. In fact, I could

guarantee

you that if Raffin had been female, people would be arguing that the society depicted wasn't

really

male-dominated, and point to female-Raffin as proof. They would be

wrong

, but why give them that wiggle room in the first place?

Which comes back to the basic point: yes, more significant characters could have been female. But why should Cashore blunt the "this society is male-dominated" message when she could be driving it home with full force? Why should Cashore lessen the perils and obstacles that face Katsa - and thus lessen her heroism in overcoming them - when she could pile 'em higher instead?

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 13:39 on 2009-11-20I also am now bowing out of the debate as I was also speaking generally and cannot address this book particularly. I didn't mean to insult Graceling or Kristin Cashore. ^^

Have fun with the debating!

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 13:41 on 2009-11-20

Let's stick to the Seven Kingdoms. Queen Bitterblue exists. In the same world. In a similar patriachal society as Randa's. (And child to an even more twisted King-father). A child-woman monarch. How is Queen-to-be Raffina an impossibility?

Queen Bitterblue exists specifically because of Katsa's heroism, though; she's the end result of Katsa's victory over her society. If Raffina were female, and a viable choice to be heir, then what need for Bitterblue?

permalink

-

go to top

Leia

at 14:14 on 2009-11-20Bitterblue owes her life to Kasha not her crown. She's Queen because she's the child of the late King and in Cashore's world, that is claim enough. Kasha doesn't put her on the throne. She just keeps her alive long enough to be able to claim it. But the system that makes it possible for a child queen to be crowned is already part of Cashore's world.

I'm not sure I like the implication that Raffina being a heiress makes Bitterblue redundant. Forget that they play polar opposite roles in the story and have opposite relationships with Kasha - it's too much of the "we can't have two [Insert Characteristic X] *girls* in the story. In fact I'm uncomfortable with the whole argument that a woman's story loses its power when there are more women in it. It's an argument that never comes up when the protagonist is male.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 14:24 on 2009-11-20Looks like we're all bowing out here. I think the debate is certainly interesting but I hope things didn't get too heated and nobody is hurt/irritated/furstrated with anyone else. If I was overly defensive regarding either Cashore or Graceling, it's just because I think in these sort of discussions it's all too easy to lose track of what the book *did do* in the welter of speculation about what it *doesn't do*. And when you get right down to it, Graceling has been some of the best, feminist-friendly fantasy I've read for a long time.

permalink

-

go to top

http://katsullivan.insanejournal.com/

at 14:26 on 2009-11-20

But the system that makes it possible for a child queen to be crowned is already part of Cashore's world.

Yes, this is what I thought. I think you could even argue that Bitterblue claiming her throne so easily - because Leck as a sick, crazy Dad is the obstacle she overcomes not the rejection of her own people against a child Queen - might even do what Arthur B thinks Raffina would have done and make the world less patriarchal while a Crown Princess Raffina who is shown to be resented/endangered because of society's expectations of their monarch's gender underlines the patriarchal philosophy of the world.

Wow, that was a long run-on sentence.

Yes, I too am uncomfortable with the idea that more women in a story makes it less powerful for the one woman the story is about. For one thing, I don't believe that. But I don't know how to argue that or express or explain that.

Er... so that means I'm also bowing out of the discussion. I think I've pretty much said everything I have to say and the bottom line is that though it's hard not to find room for improvement in anything, I still like Graceling and Cashore's writing a lot. That's all.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 14:28 on 2009-11-20

Kasha doesn't put her on the throne. She just keeps her alive long enough to be able to claim it.

You see, I'm enough of a pragmatist that I think the two are the same thing.

In fact I'm uncomfortable with the whole argument that a woman's story loses its power when there are more women in it.

This would obviously be an untrue thing to say of all women in all stories.

That doesn't mean it isn't true for

Katsa

in

Katsa

's story, which is about how

Katsa

found her way in a male-dominated society.

It's an argument that never comes up when the protagonist is male.

Wouldn't that be because there just ain't that many stories about men striving to find their identity in a female-dominated society?

permalink

-

go to top

Leia

at 14:48 on 2009-11-20If Bitterblue had outlived Leck and her people revolted against the idea of a Queen and, let's say, dug up the records of Leck's foster parents to trace the rightful King, no matter how obscure the relationship, the matter would have been out of Kasha or Bitterblue's hands. It's like arguing that it's Harry's ingenuity that saves him in GoF when it's Rowling making his wand match Voldemorte.

Only in Cashore's world, by her rules, it's apparently not a big deal that a woman is crowned. Like Kat said, Raffina struggling to just be Queen-to-be as opposed to Bitterblue waltzing into her throne would be more fitting to the patriachal society the story is supposed to be set in.

No, there aren't that many stories about men like that. But there are far too many stories where the male:female ratio is skewed to the men's side. For A Lot of Very Good Reasons. I guess I'm just skeptical of One More Good Reason why women are in the minority. And I'm saying that as a woman, part of the "target" audience.

This is probably a good time for me to bow out.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 15:18 on 2009-11-20It's probably wise for everyone to bow out at this point. There is always, after all, the possibility that Kristin actually knows precisely what she is doing and intends to introduce a greater and greater proportion of female characters over the course of the series to reflect the development of the culture of the Kingdoms, and there's only so far we can take this discussion when we're only seeing a portion of her plans.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 15:23 on 2009-11-20Okay I meant to bow out and failed.

But there are far too many stories where the male:female ratio is skewed to the men's side. For A Lot of Very Good Reasons. I guess I'm just skeptical of One More Good Reason why women are in the minority.

Again, it's possible my love for Cashore is blinding me to inequalities in the text but I genuinely don't believe this kind of thing can be judged numerically, and I think we might be doing Cashore a grave injustice by looking and her text and counting up the men and counting up the women and trying to work out whether it would be better if x person was a man, or y person was a woman.

I mean if a book has 100 women and 3 men in it, and the women all stand around in the background, or bake cookies for the men, or are constantly raped by passing barbarians, I think we'd all agree that it was a problem. And, let's face it, it's tokenism.

If you have a text with 5 men and 5 woman, and the women are all terrible stereotypes then, again, I think we'd all agree that it was a problem.

And so on.

To be honest - and no offence to Dan - I think the "these characters have to be men for this reason" rhetoric did more harm than good, although I know exactly why you did it. I think we're looking at this completely the wrong way round - the point is not why the men in Graceling are men, but what Cashore is saying, and doing, with her female characters.

The point is, I would argue, is that they're all fantastic characters, with a meaningful place in the text, no matter how brief their appearance. Despite living in a patriarchal world, they have agency, they have strength, they are, individual and wonderful. They have significant interactions with Katsa. They are, most importantly, people, rather than token women stuffed into the text to give a semblance of gender equality. I hope this makes sense.

permalink

-

go to top

Rami

at 18:13 on 2009-11-20Congratulations! This article has leaped into the top five most discussed so far. Perhaps we should let Cashore write another book before we start extrapolating about her plans or worldview, though.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 18:29 on 2009-11-20If you'll bear with me for a second, I'm going to a do a play-by play of how the discussion has got to this frankly unhelpful stage.

We've got to the point now where people who haven't read the book are arguing that the book should be changed in order to remove features it does not in fact possess. In particular people are arguing that it should contain fewer male supporting characters. It contains five.

Here is how it went down.

Robinson, L posted a comment further up in which he suggested that the book contained too many male characters. Since the book is remarkable for the large number of interesting, well rounded, well developed female characters it contains Kyra and I both thought this was a bit odd, and pointed out that while in some parts of the book, Katsa is indeed surrounded almost entirely by men, that's kind of the point.

Robinson L, whose impressions of the book I should remind you came from an audio dramatization and not from, well, actually reading it, continued to insist that the book contained too many men.

Kyra and I once again tried to explain that the book actually contained an awful lot of women, and that the men it did contain were there to make some very specific points about the relationships one has with men when one grows up as a woman in a male dominated society.

At this point, Robinson L took it upon himself to declare that Kristin Cashore was wrong to write the book the way she chose to write it (he insists he is not saying this, that he is merely saying it would be "better" if she wrote it differently, this is in fact the same thing). He insisted that he would be "very disappointed" if she "went over the same ground" in her next book and declared that he "hoped she didn't pull something like that again."

He then went on to pat himself on the back for how awesomely tolerant and feminist this made him.

This made Kyra so angry, so offended, and so genuinely hurt, that she did not feel herself able to reply in an appropriate or professional manner. Because, and let me be very clear about this, when you are a man, saying you know how a woman could improve the book she wrote about growing up as a woman is fantastically fucking patronising.

I attempted to reply on Kyra's behalf in order to make three points. Firstly that there actually aren't very many men in the book. Secondly that the men that are there are mostly there to make very specific points about what interacting with men is like for women and thirdly that claiming you know how to write about being a woman better than an actual woman is kind of a problem.

Unfortunately I overstated my case, people went off on a variety of tangents, and we're now in the farcical situation where people are strenuously arguing that a book entirely about women has somehow dropped the ball because it contains a few male supporting characters.

Sorry to have such a go at you, Robinson, but Kyra and I are both really quite angry, because you took a powerful, beautiful book which says genuinely important things about growing up as a young woman and got everybody to judge it by a set of standards which you, as a man, took it upon yourself to define. The main character is a woman. The most important supporting characters are women. The book is entirely about women. The entire last third of the book focuses entirely on two women completely alone in the wilderness. Yet you presume to find it lacking because of a "majority-male supporting cast".

As Kyra initially refrained from saying: how fucking dare you.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 20:22 on 2009-11-20And it's irritating as hell that some really interesting discussion has been dominated and buried by this nonsense as well :(

Although I'm thrilled to have swooped into the top 5 discussed articles I am conscious that things have got more than a little bitter - so I just wanted to thank everyone for their time and their thoughts.

And for the record I still love Kristin Cashore and want to marry her.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 21:30 on 2009-11-20Kyra, I am so deeply, incredibly, unbelievably sorry to have offended you. I'm still not sure how on Earth I ended up giving the impression of the extremely judgmental and sanctimonious attitude you and Dan attribute to me. But apparently I have upset you terribly, and for that, I am truly, deeply sorry.

I may not agree with all of you about the gender breakdown of the casting in future books. However, something that obviously did not come through anywhere near clearly enough in my previous comments is that as far as I was concerned, this was a very minor point – in other words,

not a big deal

. I was under the impression (grossly mistaken, I realize now, to my shame) that this was a light philosophical discussion. I hope you will believe me when I say I

never

would have continued shooting off my mouth like that if I'd known that this was not the case.

You've said:

Ultimately I'd say Graceling is feminist-friendly fantasy

. And I agree with that. And further:

And for the record I still love Kristin Cashore and want to marry her.

. Good for you. I did not have that strong a reaction, but she's certainly a good writer and has written a very good book. It seems that my overall feelings about the book got lost in the argument over one detail. Once again, I am so, so sorry. I only wish there was something more I could do to amend the damage I see now that I have done.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 22:09 on 2009-11-20It's not the fact that you didn't like how many male characters there are in Graceling, it was the more the idea that you thought the themes Cashore explores and the way she explores them - which I would define broadly as 'being a woman' and 'from the perspective of a woman' as evidence that she has failed as a writer. Quite frankly I'm sick to the back teeth of men telling female writers how they should portray women and what they should be writing. If you consider that as light philosophy then fair enough, but I rather imagine that's a prerogative you only get as a man. But you absolutely don't have to apologise to me - you think what you think, and I'll think what I think. I'm kind of hoping we can salvage the discussion actually - I've completely lost several of Kat's very interesting points in the noise.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 17:46 on 2009-11-21

Yes, I too am uncomfortable with the idea that more women in a story makes it less powerful for the one woman the story is about. For one thing, I don't believe that. But I don't know how to argue that or express or explain that.

Just quickly replying to this post from Kat which got lost in all the fail.

You are of course quite right, I'm afraid I wound up arguing a more extreme position than I intended, apologies.

I don't believe that the fact that the Shadow Council consists entirely of men represents any kind of flaw in the book - not even a minor one. On the other hand I do in fact see that arguing that "these characters have to be male" is a dangerous path to go down - as you observe it leads to some nasty implications because it leads quickly to the point where you're saying "whoops, can't have too many women in this." Obviously that wasn't my intention but that doesn't change the fact that it wound up being the implication of my argument.

So, yeah, you're dead right on that, sorry.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 21:19 on 2009-11-21It brings up an interesting question to me. Where does the author's freedom to create characters as he/she sees them (as man, woman, white, black, straight, gay, etc) end, and the burden of social responsibility come in where an author feels compelled by social issues and things to not only include diversity but to make sure he/she doesn't overshadow the diversity? (Wow, long, sorry.) In my opinion, it's just as detrimental or offensive to include a character just to have a woman, gay person, or minority.

Any thoughts on this?

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 19:19 on 2009-11-22I haven't got anything I'd call a thought, Melissa, but here's a sketch of the beginnings of a thought:

It's perhaps useful to separate in one's mind the design of the story-world (i.e. the society in which the story takes place, or more specifically the parts of the society that we see, including the sorts of people we encounter) and the presentation of it (specifically what effects any given aspect of the society is shown to have, and whether that aspect is presented as good or bad).

Having made that mental distinction, one could say, "I shall design whatever social setting feels right, and choose my cast of principal, supporting, and background characters accordingly. Then, once I've done that, I'll step back and look at it. Very carefully. I'll turn over every aspect of it and ask myself what I think about it, whether it's positive or negative, whether I approve or disapprove. And then I'll write my story (or, if I've already written it, I'll revise it) to make sure that I reveal the positives and the negatives appropriately, that I don't seem to approve or reinforce the negatives, that I give due weight and approval to the positives."

I don't know whether that's the best approach, or a good one, or even a practicable one. I haven't written any fiction except short comedy sketches for many years, so I certainly haven't consciously tried that approach. But it strikes me as one possible way to be free and creative without feeling overburdened by worry, and also to be suitably burdened by worry without letting it stifle the creativity.

On the other hand, perhaps that wouldn't work. Perhaps, as both Robinson and Dan have both at times seemed to suggest earlier in this discussion, it isn't enough to make sure that the presentation expresses the right approvals and disapprovals: perhaps the very design of the society and the composition of the cast of characters can perpetuate unhelpful stereotypes and reinforce bad habits of thought.

In that case, maybe the writer can take the mental separation I've suggested and use it the other way: start by thinking of the messages she wants to send or the stereotypes she wants to undermine or avoid, and build these consciously into the design of the world and, in broad terms, the cast. And then, once satisfied, she can say, "Whose story shall I tell? What should happen? What, within the confines of what I've designed, could happen, and to whom, and with what effect?"

Perhaps that wouldn't work either; it might need to be a sort of Hegelian zig-zagging between periods of untrammelled creativity and responsible self-correction. But my instinct is that it's probably helpful to keep in mind that there are those two separate things: the way you design it, and the attitude you ask the reader to take towards it. Or, to look at it from the critic's point of view rather than the writer's, it's probably important to avoid examining and criticising the composition of the cast, for example, or the design of the social institutions, without also looking at the attitude of the text toward those facts, and vice versa.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 19:51 on 2009-11-22I think I came up with similar thoughts too. I mean, it's impossible to do everything right so I guess the author has to decide what's most important to him/her as far as what they want to say with their book. If the book is about tolerance, it's important to show diversity because if the author doesn't, the theme is undermined.

I suppose this interests me because I tend to be a character writer. I come up with characters before theme. So, in cases like mine, I guess what's important is to go back afterward and look over what you've done and if you're presenting any possible stereotypes and how to maybe turn the reader's mind away from that idea, either by tweaking a character or introducing another. And I think there are times when you ask, "Does this character need to be white/man/straight/etc?" and the answer is no, but I think there are times when the answer is yes too. So, maybe the most important thing is to ask that question whenever you make a character.

Now I might just be rambling though.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 03:02 on 2009-12-02

Kyra: you absolutely don't have to apologise to me

On the contrary, if Dan's account is anything to go by, my words in the conversation above were hurtful, which was far removed from my intentions, I assure you. I do apologize for having given offense.

If you consider that as light philosophy then fair enough, but I rather imagine that's a prerogative you only get as a man.

An excellent point, one I will endeavor to keep more firmly in mind.

I do not at all, however, propose to tell Cashore what she should do, in matters of writing or any other.

It's not the fact that you didn't like how many male characters there are in Graceling, it was the more the idea that you thought the themes Cashore explores and the way she explores them - which I would define broadly as 'being a woman' and 'from the perspective of a woman' as evidence that she has failed as a writer.

A position which I in no way propound.

It seems clear to me now that we have been speaking at cross-purposes for some time.

The composition of a book's main cast is absolutely a feminist issue, and a somewhat separate issue from that of discourse. However, you and Dan and others have quite satisfied me that

Graceling

's discourse addresses feminist issues very well indeed, and for myself I will not argue the matter of casting from a feminist perspective. In light of what has been said already, I do not consider myself qualified to assess

Graveling

's handling of feminist issues one way or another.

Something I should perhaps have tried to explain earlier is that casting for me is also a matter of personal taste. All else being equal, I prefer large female casts (“all else” including such matters as the female characters being well-written and not exploitively written, yes). Aside from a feminist angle (which, as I say, has now been more than aptly addressed), I can not come up with any particular reason why this should be so, other than to restate that it is what I prefer, and so I left that part unsaid—unwisely, I now realize.

It was in this light that I made my comments. I liked

Graceling

. I was slightly disappointed by the casting, but having seen the arguments in favor of Cashore's decisions in that regard, I accept the casting as is. I hope that in at least some of her future books, Cashore will be able to convey her feminist discourse in a way which will be congenial to—or even enhanced by—a larger female supporting cast. I think Cashore could do some great things with a large female cast, and I think I would like such a story even better.

None of which says anything at all about what Cashore

should

do, as it is certainly not my place to make any such statement. I merely offer my opinion on what I would like her to do, which places absolutely no obligations on her whatsoever.

As Dan points out, Kristin Cashore is not primarily writing for me or even for people like me, so my opinion counts for even less, which is fair enough. For what very little it's worth, then, I offered it. Had I known how it would be taken though, and what that would lead to, I would a) have picked my words with a

lot

more care or, more likely, b) not bothered entirely.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 15:57 on 2010-05-07Hey, remember this thread? I do! I've remembered it all this time while reminding myself to pick up this book and I finally have. Just wanted to thank you for the rec and also, months after the fact, to put in my 2 cents about some issues brought up here.

I didn't find Bitterblue to be a Mary Sue. I think in my head I was expecting it, having remembered the discussion, but she really didn't come across that way to me. I guess her personality seemed to just make sense given who she was. She was a princess and was taught to be self-possessed. She had already broken through Leck's power by the time we meet her--it wasn't about seeing her mother killed, it was that she had already seen her mother hurt. Essentially, she was the child of an abusive marriage and seeing her mother hurt at the hands of her father repeatedly had opened her eyes. This was not a special power of Bitterblue's, they were careful to say. Everyone, when hurt enough by Leck, gained that power.

I do agree with the few flaws pointed out here, particularly Leck's downfall. I could think of many ways that Leck could have become the way he did given his power so I didn't think he was just evil for the sake of being evil, but we never know him and his death is almost intentionally anti-climactic.

TBH, the thing I thought was a bit weak actually was Po. I loved the guy, but that was the thing. He was just too much a fantasy for me. He made Ginny Weasley look like a character not created to be the perfect mate for the protagonist! He was still an interesting guy, but if there was a Sue in the story I'd be looking at Po far more than Bitterblue. I can't really think of a single flaw the guy had.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 11:47 on 2010-05-10I'm actually okay with Leck's downfall, I thought it was actually quite well thought through. Leck's power very specifically *isn't* a D&D charm spell, it's that you believe whatever he says. Which means that if he threatens you, you do actually get a narrow window of believing he's dangerous before he backtracks and says "but we're friends really".

The end of the Leck arc actually highlights some rather chilling things about Katsa - it's quite clear in the text that she "beat" Leck because she really was willing to kill a man who she believed otherwise innocent, purely to protect Po.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 10:23 on 2010-05-11I didn't really find Po too Mary-Sue-ish, I think because he was someone for me to want to have, rather than someone I'd necessarily want to be, if that makes sense? Mary Sue heroines are annoying because they are (meant to be) more awesome than me, but idealised lovers I enjoy very much :)

And actually I thought Po behaved like a bit of a twat when he went blind - at least, he doesn't respond to a position of new found vulnerability particularly well.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 17:20 on 2010-05-11

I'm actually okay with Leck's downfall, I thought it was actually quite well thought through. Leck's power very specifically *isn't* a D&D charm spell, it's that you believe whatever he says. Which means that if he threatens you, you do actually get a narrow window of believing he's dangerous before he backtracks and says "but we're friends really".

Oh, I bought how it happened. I was just left wishing we could have gotten to know him a bit more. We only see him for a few moments before he dies, and that's after a really chilling build up.

I didn't think he was much a twat after going blind given the circumstances. I mean, it's a huge thing to go blind, and he was a bit mopey about it but that's probably nothing compared to what a regular person losing their sight would be. Especially since he had the added factor of not being able to tell anyone for fear of revealing his Grace.

I didn't really find Po too Mary-Sue-ish, I think because he was someone for me to want to have, rather than someone I'd necessarily want to be, if that makes sense? Mary Sue heroines are annoying because they are (meant to be) more awesome than me, but idealised lovers I enjoy very much :)

Yes, I shouldn't have used that term. He's definitely not a Mary Sue but an idealized love interest, which is a different thing. But I did find it a little distracting that he was so perfect that way.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 15:23 on 2010-12-16'Late to the party' doesn't even begin to describe it, but hey! I have read this book now! Yay!

I really liked it. And it was interesting, having read it, to re-read this article and

Dan's

about it, and skimming the discussions on each. Interestingly partly because one of the things that struck me as very striking and appealing about

Graceling

, especially from a 'gender studies' type perspective, is something that hasn't come up much in the commentary so far.

[Slight

spoilers

hereafter. Not that there haven't been any already, but.]

Kat and Kyra mentioned that they particularly liked the sequence in the mountains, and I feel the same. And I think one of the reasons I found it so striking is linked to the broader question of the qualities that the book treats as heroic. I loved the way it valorizes care and survival and practicality. I think that comes through very clearly in the way the most climactic and memorable sequence — the one in the mountains — is not a massive battle but is actually an escape.

What they're doing is running away, which is something that the conventions of not only fantasy (of which I have no very deep knowledge) but genre fiction generally tend to portray as massively un-heroic. Even when an escape is heroic in fiction, the heroism is usually found in the one who self-sacrificingly stays behind to hold back the pursuers. We even had all the ingredients for that trope in

Graceling

, and I really thought (and feared, because I liked Po a lot) that it was going to happen. But no, the focus was on the actual escape itself, and Herclé! it was just the most heroic and awe-inspiring thing.

People have already remarked that Cashore has a women doing cool things without being all 'Look, Awesome Women' about it, and it's a similar thing with qualities and activities. Practicality and survival are interesting in terms of gender because they feature as strands in both traditional masculinity and traditional femininity, while being heavily gendered in both. Men put up shelves, women mend clothes. Men hunt animals, women seek help and shelter. The obvious 'feminist' things to do in a book would be either (1) to have a female character who is Awesome because she does the traditionally masculine things or (2) to deprecate the traditionally masculine things and have the traditionally feminine things turn out to save the day. What

Graceling

does is more progressive than that, it seems to me: Katsa mends clothes and makes fire and weapons, hunts animals and and makes them into meals. The fact that she does all these things makes her super-cool, and also makes the point that there's nothing inherently masculine or feminine about any of them and there's no reason why a woman can't do all of them. She fights and she escapes, and she's a hero both ways.

And the other interesting one is care. Care, of course, is a very gendered thing: so much so that it's the basis of the main strand of feminist ethics. But traditional gender-stereotyping tends to depict care-giving as something that women just spontaneously do because they want to, because women are naturally loving and caring, and therefore care is effortless for them. Which is insulting to men because it implies that men don't love or care and to women because it implies that care-giving isn't sometimes bloody hard work and often something you do even if you don't feel like it.

Graceling

makes care heroic, but again not in a 'Men Are Rubbish, Traditional Femininity FTW' way. Katsa isn't an especially caring person, and the care she gives to Bitterblue isn't because she's a broody mumsy woman who instinctively cuddles and protects children. She does it because she has to, because that's the position she's in (which is, of course, the sort of position that many care-givers are in but that doesn't get a lot of air-time in fiction). She does positively want to care for Po but doesn't entirely know how to and eventually has to face the fact that she can't (which again is something that a lot of care-givers have to deal with). And the care she gives to Bitterblue is at her expense and almost kills her (yet another issue that arises with care in real life but not so often in fiction).

Another related note is that the escape is different not only from the classic 'running away' but also from the classic heroic rescue. It is undeniably a rescue: Bitterblue will die if Po and Katsa don't get her to safety. But rescues are usually all about the swinging through windows on ropes and having sword-fights and stuff. They aren't so much about actually getting away and keeping the rescued person alive. Which is wierd, because that's kind of the point? But fighting is for Heroes, and the way Heroes rescue people is to fight the threat until the threat is gone. It's the fictional version of a hostage-rescue by a SWAT team. Whereas in real life rescuing someone is usually not about destroying the threat but just getting the person out of the threatening situation and not unduly endangering yourself in the process. Which is what we have in

Graceling

.

The escape from Monsea brings all this stuff together, the practicality and survival and care. It says 'Sewing is a useful skill and so is fishing, and they could both save your life, and there's no reason for them to be gendered like they are'. It says 'Fighting injustice is grand, but surviving cruelty and oppression is also pretty bloody heroic.' It says, 'You can't always decide who needs your care and you can't always help the people you want to help, but if you can keep someone alive and safe you've done an amazing thing.' I really liked that about it.

And that may be why I wasn't too bothered about the odd brevity of the ending, because that didn't feel to me like the climax of the story. We'd already had the climax. The rest was more like a coda and a resolution of the 'Katsa's character development' thread.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 01:19 on 2012-03-24I finally read this and it was just as brilliant as you said, so thanks for the recommendation.

I read Fire too. What did you think of that? I guess I thought it was good but not *as* good. The characterisation seemed weaker and there were fewer moments that made me just go 'wow'.

[gawaine]

About A Girl, Chapter 2: reaction by ladymxdnight

CHAPTER 2

So, I really liked getting confirmation on Ari’s lack on involvement in the disaster that was Dara’s wedding. And I like the idea of them hanging out, though I’m still kind of salty about Ari blackmailing my girl Mara.

Going back to Mara’s and Dany’s POVs was very enjoyable for me, since I adore them. However, I’d forgotten how dense Dany could be. I mean, seriously. He actually thinks Mara is carrying on with this charade for her career. I get that it might be a contributing factor but… they’re both. So. Dense. About each other.

It took me an embarrassingly long time to realise the scene with them in his room takes place right before the CB x UB crossover, and then I was super hyped because I always wondered how that came to be and wanted to see the aftermath of it.

Listen. I love these two. Why can’t they just be happy? wHY?

Thinking about how complicated they are gives me a headache, man. Like, they don’t even understand how complicated they are. It’s like they both think if they ignore these things it’ll go away which is so ridiculous but precisely what I expect from their characters. Dany seemed kind of harsh here which I wasn’t really a fan of, sigh. I suppose it’s kind of understandable, but… yeah.

I was also thrilled to see that not only does Mara grudgingly admit she had feelings for Dany, but he tells her he loves her (again? What is that supposed to mean?). I’m SHOOk.

This chapter had a lot subtle, underlying themes, so let’s get into the first one: consent. Where, exactly, are the boundaries for consent? Should it matter if something happens against your consent if if ultimately turns out well? Shouldn’t it? Does it matter if Dany put Mara on the spot during their wedding? Does this mean he forced her into the marriage, or did she still have a choice? Did he have the right to do something like that? Was it the right thing to do? This chapter brings up so many questions that have no easy answers.

Like, Dany taking her to the hospital. Since she really did need medical attention it seems this was the right thing to do, but she didn’t want to go, so did he have the right to force her? And if he did because it was for her own good, by that logic does that mean he was right to change the plan for their wedding and go through with it because it was for their own good? Sigh, so much brain exercise.

It’s also really interesting to see this take on the fake-dating trope (which in itself has been thoroughly exhausted). This makes you think of the aftermath of it, and calls into question whether a relationship built on a lie can actually work. It’s a nice twist on the trope.

Mara’s inner monologue can be confusing sometimes because she tends to, like, cut herself off a lot even though she’s just thinking?? Idk how to describe it? It can sometimes be a little hard to understand. It’s not really a thing that happens in Ari’s POVs as far as I can remember; is this a conscious decision or just the way Mara’s voice works when writing? It’s quite distinctive, but also reminds me of Soph. Sometimes it can be a little too confusing but it makes her come across as unsure of herself (which she is). It’s painfully clear how much she wants to belong somewhere, be that with the Zafars or with her birth parents, and the lengths she goes to (a kidney!) are astounding. I understand Dany’s disbelief when he finds out about the kidney thing but I also understand how it can be difficult to let go of a parent no matter how terrible they might be. Do I think she was silly to donate the kidney? Absolutely. Do I blame her? Nope. It’s complicated.

Another thing I liked in this chapter is Mara’s realisation that the Zafars are flawed people. Because they’re public figures and because she idolised Soph for so long it’s easy to see how she might have romanticised them and built them up in her head but in truth, they’re just people. There’s a John Green quote that summarises this pretty well - What a treacherous thing to believe that a person is more than a person. (I might be misquoting lol). Their family isn’t perfect (cough, Tara) and neither are they, and I’m glad she’s realised that. Having said that, I do think they love Mara. She wants to be a part of them but at the same time doesn’t want to get attached because she always ends up hurt when she opens up to people, and that’s something she needs to overcome before she can truly be comfortable.

Like I mentioned before, Mara reminds me a lot of Soph. They’re both ambitious and capable of world-domination, and both have a lot insecurities. I’m eager to see where Mara’s character goes, because I feel like she and Soph could have a super interesting dynamic if only they interacted more.

Also, Pixie’s wedding! This, I’m really excited to see. I’d love to know more about her and Sarfaraz, and her friendship with Mara. All in all, this was a really exciting chapter!

This reaction makes me so happy omg

I’m glad you’re salty about Ari’s interactions with Mara. You’re right to be. Their whole dynamic is so interesting to me and it’s the premise of AAG - because which girl are we learning about?

Dany is super dense, Mara is wilfully ignorant and they’re both emotionally stupid. It’s so fun, but equally frustrating, to write.

Oh my God. Your questions ref: consent, boundaries, etc. I’m so happy. Like, so so so happy. That’s a major theme in their relationship and this story, especially in coming chapters and I just love that I’ve done it at least enough (?) justice that there’s enough to grapple with in the actual text.

Also, I agree! I think even we, as creator/fellow writers/readers fall into the trap of seeing Sam was the Ultimate Ship and, in doing so, forget how flawed they were (and still are) now. Mara is so desperate to belong but she’s grappling with the fact that stems from an idea of these people vs their reality and whilst she is (as far as we know) considered a member of their family, it’s also enough bitter hope for her to try and find that in her family. I love that you can feel that. Mara’s story is complicated and not necessarily as accessible as some of the other characters, but to know that the underlying emotion is coming across is... So good!

Mara’s inner-monologuing is partly deliberate and (probably) partly my adjustments to the format, still. She is so similar to Soph in a lot of ways (I LOVE THAT YOU SEE THAT AND IT’S NOT JUST ME ARGH) but I think she’s also a bit more... Imbalanced than Soph, in terms of allowing herself the room for that internal discussion. So much has happened, so much is still happening, she is... Disjointed, she’s not comfortable with that inner conversation yet, because as you say, she’s so far into ignoring what she wants to. So I’ll try and make it clearer from a writing perspective, but I’m glad you’ve picked up on it too!

I’m honestly LIVING for these reactions

[strangegeez]

The defiant HMS Thunder Child attacks the Martian abominations. 

I've always wanted to view The War of the Worlds from another perspective. My new vision would remain in the same steampunk realm of Victorian Britain. I admired that era in history. I thought it would be exciting for a reader to see the apocalyptic world through another pair of eyes.Many of us fantasise about escaping into a domain of science fiction. I still live inside a schoolboy’s imagination where I can go on grand adventures and battle mythical Titans. Of course, I always defeat them. I also enjoy historical stories. The feel of being in the land of yesterday is stimulating. From an early age, my mind has always been full of fantasies. I was captivated by the notion of dystopian lands or themes with a turbulent and exciting past.The War of the Worlds fits into sci-fi and historical genres. I freely admit to being biased towards this story on account of it being British based. I'm compelled by much that has a British feel. I also know there are fabulous and wonderful stories from across the world that deserve applause.I remember enjoying The Day of the Triffids and The Chrysalids. Both the novels were written by John Wyndham. I read them during my English literature course. On the historical front, I had fallen madly in love with Lorna Doone. I thought R.D. Blackmore's compelling story was a joy. I never wanted it to end. I wanted to be John Ridd winning the affections of the fairest lady of my fantasy.In my English literature class, the teacher (Mrs Foster) would get each pupil to read allowed for a few pages before selecting another student to continue. Gradually, we developed confidence as we read aloud. My English teacher was very good at encouraging us to be bold and clear when reading. Those pupils that were slow at first, began to read with seasoned ease after a short time. Sometimes the teacher would stop and explain issues that the author was trying to get across. Mrs Foster was also very articulate. When she spoke to the class we listened. She had total control of all us adolescent boys. Many of us fancied ourselves as Jack the lad. But not in Mrs Foster’s class. She was not a strict teacher and was never given to scolding us. She did not have to. This was because she had that infectious enthusiasm to get us into the books. It worked. We all lived inside the pages and chapters. We were encouraged to dive into these worlds and escape. My adrenalin would soar. My imagination knew no bounds. I wanted to live in a world of danger.I’m certain the idea of writing my own story germinated in those English literature classes back in the seventies decade. A happy time when I was at my secondary school. It left me with a love of books. When I started work in the city of London, I always looked forward to commuting. I would have my book to read going to, and coming home from work.When I first read The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells, I started to imagine how I might be a Victorian British sailor from the time of 1898. This occurred when reading a particular episode that compelled me to dwell on the incident for a long time afterwards. Perhaps a little on the obsessive side. I was on board the HMS Thunder Child. I could see H.G. Wells’ horrendous portrayal of Britain in panic. The alien fighting machines shooting heat rays and blanketing the conquered land with sterilizing black smoke. In reality, I was sixteen and going work in London. The year was 1977 and the train was rolling along. I was a low-grade filling clerk in a Re-insurance company. I watched underwriters dealing with Re-insurance brokers from Lloyds. Yet I wanted to be sixteen and in the Victorian Royal Navy of 1898. In this illusion, I was low-grade sea cadet watching the powers that be deal with this uncanny situation. A surreal world where giant Martian contraptions stalked the Earth.I wanted to know more of the HMS Thunder Child and her plucky crew. The intrepid ship was a monument of heroism. The most valiant vessel on Earth. Mythical, but real in my mind's eye. A reader could live in that danger and return to a cosy chair afterwards. How did the Victorian ship arrive at such a circumstance? Perhaps the crew had never seen such things as the Martian fighting machines. The HMS Thunder Child would be at sea. News of such alien abominations would come via strange semaphore messages. Imagine the surreal information coming from the shore stations. Invaders from Mars striding about and destroying the entire fabric of human civilization. Would you believe such outrageous fixations? The HMS Thunder Child would be alive with speculation and disbelief.As readers of the original story, we would know these sailors would be destined to confront three Martian fighting machines. The huge monster tripods that will wade into the River Blackwater to attack a paddle steamer full of fleeing refugees. The small ironclad would steam to the rescue. The coal-driven engines would move her between the Martians and the escaping boat. The HMS Thunder Child against the monumental three. Each abomination, a colossal edifice of battle. That would be the final goal of the story. Everything must lead to the climactic conflict. The small section of the original story. A pastiche to lure an avid science fiction reader.

When the time was right.One day, I decided I would go further with my pretence. I would go aboard the legendary ship and invite others who might wish to come along. I would write a pastiche story dedicated to The H.M.S. Thunder Child. I began to imagine the captain and other ranks. I looked through history books and decided the ship would look like HMS Devastation. I knew my aim for the story. I had an end before the adventure had started. Now I needed a beginning and a compelling storyline between start and finish. There were so many rudimentary ideas. With these basic concepts, I begin to write things down. As I did, more thoughts began to manifest and soon my appetite for the tale began to take control.

I Needed a New Perspective.The classic sci-fi tale could be shown from a new and unique perspective. I wanted to re-create the dystopian world of Victorian Britain in chaos. Being on board the HMS Thunder Child would be a magnificent way to offer a fly on the wall account. Watching from the sea as though one could be a spectator from a safe distance. A new viewpoint through the eyes of the Royal Navy crew. The pastiche novel had to convey a greater understanding and appreciation of the original classic.

The Pastiche Project

Step1. The Tale Begins to develop 

The book was an enjoyable venture and many fine ideas fell into place. The delightful indulgence took the best part of a year. A little here and there. It became my hobby. A forbearance that took up much of my free time. A tolerance that I easily allowed for myself. It was like being an artist trying to paint a landscape. Except my panorama was with words and it could move. The whole endeavour was wonderful and very absorbing. Gradually I got to the finishing line of my written work contribution.

Step 2. The Next Phase of the Story’s Creation

No matter how pleased we should be with ourselves we must stop and think. We are pleased because we have got all of our wonderful words down on a canvas of creation. We must get a liberated assessment. Especially if the writer is an independent author. There will be many mistakes and a good critic will wade in and unpick every sentence.I knew that the next step for my story would require proper editing. I put my project before a board of qualified editors. They began to bid for the editorial work of my story. These bids came with an overall price and some sample pages to show what the editorial work looked like.

Step 3. Choosing Your Freelance Editor

It is important to know that good online editorial agencies have a list of qualified editors. These people must have all the relevant qualifications. The agencies will check these and only recruit freelance editors that make the grade. It is important to know that there are a lot of predators out there.I selected an editor after some sample pages came back. There were many that were good and choosing from so many fine bids was hard. I was spoilt for choice. Then the professional editorial work followed, chapter by chapter. There were many errors that I had missed time and again. I was pleased that I had accomplished the written work but realised I could not see the wood for the trees. Each page seemed to be a sea of red. Nothing escaped scrutiny. I got my page in red and the edited one side by side. Although I was shocked by the many errors, when I read the newly edited version, I was thrilled by how better the story flowed. I would advise any independent author to get good editorial work done.

Step 4. I Needed a Front Cover to Capture One’s Imagination.

After the editorial work came the front cover. Again, there were so many artists that put in bids for this work. There were lots of wonderful samples. I felt guilty having to choose one and reject so many other fabulous bids. I think the completion of the cover design caused my excitement to reach a new and undreamed of height. This was it. The moment had arrived.Finally.My adaptation was done. A science fiction and alternative history pastiche of H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds. The Martians did fall from the sky in 1898. I could offer science fiction lovers a chance to join the crew of the HMS Thunder Child as she embarked upon her incredible voyage. Walk her decks before her courageous battle with three Martian tripod fighting machines. An action that takes place on the River Blackwater in the county of Essex, England, the UK. The golden age of Queen Victoria's Empire. An alternative British Empire in a more dreadful circumstance. An empire that is vanquished within days.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1484088263/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_lm4rAbV18Z6E7

[teaguppi]

The Exam -Voltron Mage AU

Out of all the days to be late, it had to be the day that young mages participate in the largest exam known to Voltron Academy. The school is one of the ideal magic institution for any rookie to magic, this is because it is where a lot of the most successful and powerful mages were born, but it also makes it the hardest school to get into. Anyway, Lance had no time to dwell on the history of the school, he was already as late as it is and he didn't want to show up unprepared, so he brought a few of his books, not that he cared much for learning. As he rushed down the hall, Lance flipped through his notes that he took about other elemental based powers, he wanted to make sure he was ready for anything that might happen. It wasn't long before he entered the large arena, it also had long line of students waiting for their turn to battle, so he quietly slipped in beside his friends, who were ready to scold him for showing up late. Lance didn't pay much attention to most of what they were saying, do to the fact that he hardly cared, he was paying more attention to the battle that was happening right now. Yes, the exam that he had to take today was a battle between a student and a pro, the pro's were mages that had already graduated from the academy. Though it felt like ages, once it was finally his turn to show off his skills, the head mistress Allura called him to the front “Lance McClain, please make your way to the front. Do to the fact that you were late, you are the last to battle and I hope you've been listening to all your teachers.” she seemed to be mocking him a bit, cause everyone else was laughing. Lance didn't appreciate being made a fool of, so he kinda snapped back at her “You just watch Missy, soon I'll be the one to laugh.” he didn't want to get her to angry, but it was enough to make her glare at him with high expectations “I hope so, because you'll be battling with Takashi Shirogane.” she said as she walked away toward the other judges. When he looked around the room, almost everyone looked nervous for him, even Keith, which is not like him to show pitty, not that he wanted it. Though he had to admit, he was nervous as hell, Shiro was one the few who were born to use dark magic, what was Allura thinking, an ice & water mage has nothing compared to the dark mages. Lance took a deep breath and turned around to see Shiro entering the arena, the man was quite beefy and he did have a nice figure, wait, why should he care, he's the enemy. He can't let the simplest of things distract him, but it was already to late, he hadn't heard the ref say “Fight!” and dark pulse was heading toward him, this caused him to freak out and automatically forced a wall of water to block the attack. This was stupid move to make, but who could blame him, it was an unexpected attack. The dark pulse had gone through the water and hit Lance with such force that the Cuban boy had been slammed into a wall. The attack was way to strong for his body to handle, but he couldn't give up now, forcing himself to get up created a splitting headache run through his brain. It was now difficult to see anything else except blurs of unknown motions. Lance had to do something, unfortunately it was to late for him, Shiro had already came at him with yet another dark pulse, but it sure wasn't long distance. No, Shiro had came up to him and punched him directly in the stomach at the same time releasing the pulse through his body. Surprisingly Lance couldn't believe he was still able function properly, it didn't matter, now that Shiro was this close he could see him clearer. This was his chance,if he could just place one strong attack against the stronger man, maybe it would give him some time to focus. As Shiro came at him once more with a punch, Lance ducked and grabbed Shiro’s right leg, pulling forward, causing it to buckle under the older man's weight, also making lose his balance slightly. This was enough for Lance to directly freeze the muscles from the inside of the body, the trick was a dangerous was one and was strictly banned from use, do to the fact it froze all the muscles in the body including the heart. Lance heard Allura yell out “Stop the match.” which of course the ref had shot up a red flare, lucky for him his eyes cleared up more so he was able see it. That wasn't the only thing he saw, he gazed at the frozen mage before him, his face had a surprised yet in pained look. It wasn't till then he feared, had he killed him. Keith had been called over to try and melt the ice, the black haired boy place the tips of his fingers on the other man's chest and slightly realised heat from them. Without giving Allura a chance to punish him, Lancs bolted out of the arena, what had he done? He was such a fool. Lance had went to his secret hiding place, he needed to think about everything that had happened today. The brown haired boy knew he could get kicked out of school for using a banned spell, what was he to do now, now that he has broken the rules. Running his hands through his hair, he started to tear up before bursting in tears, it didn't last long though, for he had fallen unconscious from the pulses that finally got to him. Waking up, Lance realized he had been in heading for almost the whole day, that is if it wasn't the next day already. Pushing himself off the cold floor of the hidden catacombs that was under the school, he brushed himself off. No one knew this place still here, but he does and he kept for himself, just reasons like this. Lance just sat on the ground while his stomach grumbled with protest against not eating, but he ignored his hunger and didn't move. It wasn't long before he started hearing things, maybe it was just a rat, then again the noise sounded like footsteps. Someone must of been looking for him and found this place, either that or they already knew it was here. Getting up him was just about to leave the spot he was in, before he heard an unfamiliar voice “Lance? Is that you.” the boy was reluctant to turn to see who it was, but curiosity got the best of him. He looked back to his founder, his eyes widened when he saw Shiro, he could hardly say his name “T-Takashi?” why did he say his last name, he shook it off and corrected himself “I mean Shirogane...um, Shiro.” Lance could barely look at the man without guilt flooding him. Shiro made his way toward Lance, he didn't seem angry, but he wasn't sure at all anymore. The older mage was just about to say something, but Lance cut him off “I'm sorry. I didn't mean to freeze your whole body, I've been practicing that spell for months and on how to control it, but I failed and now I'll be expelled for my ignorance..” his blue orbs slowly made their two Shiro's dark ones. Once their eyes locked, it was hard for Lance to look away, they must be enchanted, he thought to himself, though Shiro chuckled and said “Thanks” had he said that out loud or did he read his mind, either way Lance was embarrassed. Then Shiro spoke up with serious tone to his voice “I do not blame you for doing what you did back there Lance, in fact I am really honor to have gotten to battle with such mage like you. You were being beat up, you had to defend yourself and you did it with confidence despite knowing the consequences for your actions. I can admire that.” was Lance hearing him right, was he praising him for his mistake? Lance brought his hand up and placed it on Shiro’s heart “I don't think I would be able to stand myself if you were killed by someone like me...you should praise Keith for saving you, not me.” he honestly wanted to accept the compliments he was getting from his hero, but he didn't deserve it. Shiro took Lance’s cold hand in his own, which was warm “Hey, I appreciate what Keith did for me, but I am here now with you, not him and so I'll continue to support you.” these words made him happy. Lance wasn't sure on what to say, so he hugged Shiro, which he was surprised to feel Shiro embrace him in his arms. Lance pulled back from the larger man and held his hand, then asked boldly “Would you like to help me go confront Allura?” he hoped he would come with him, he didn't want to do it alone “Of course.” the answer almost took his breath away. Walking out of the catacombs with Shiro by his side, he felt confident “Thank you Shiro, you really are my hero.” he commented softly as they left the hidden room.