#do you understand simple narrative themes or literary devices like. at all.

[paintingformike]

thinking about how you can never have a productive and civil discussion on sttwt about how mike is intentionally associated with brenner in s4 without people holding pitchforks in an outrage and twisting your words to make it seem like you’re trying to call mike an abuser

[wonryllis]

please give writing tips too

sure love! everyone’s different so in no way would the same things work for all but these are some tips that have helped me improve and just you know expand my horizons.

feel free to add your own points to this to help people more!!

001. READ READ AND READ (I CAN’T STRESS ENOUGH ON THIS BUT THIS IS THE MAIN KEY). be it fics, or novels or normal story books even non-fiction. reading will help in expanding your vocabulary and grammar, and give you an idea on how to build words in different kinds of scenarios. how to set the mood and what kind of details will have the most impact.

002. for expanding your vocabulary i would suggest searching up words you come across and don’t know the meaning of. don’t skip them, search them up and try understanding what they mean and look through what other words have similar meanings(synonyms)

003. CONSTANTLY PRACTICE WRITING. even if you’re not going to post it anywhere, just try writing a little bit on different themes. in that way you will be able to find out more about your writing style and flair as well as what points you need to work on.

004. STOP HESITATING TO REWRITE. there’s hardly anything one gets right at the first shot. and the same goes for writing. rewriting pieces will help you figure out what you should’ve added that you didn’t the first time and how changing the order of words or adding new literary devices(metaphors, similes, anecdotes etc) can make more of an impact.

005. DON’T BE AFRAID TO EXPLORE DIFFERENT GENRES. just 100 words can also help with experience. search up different genres that interest you and try coming up with a short scenario if you can.

13 points more under the cut!

006. TRIAL AND ERROR. don’t be let down if you fail to write a specific type of au, theme or trope. it takes certain amount of time and experience to be able to write different genres or anything as such. you need to have exposure to that topic to be able to create imagination on it.

007. with that being said, when you pick up a certain trope, au, theme or any topic you want/plan to write on: DO PROPER AND A LOT OF RESEARCH. trust me, it helps a lot.

008. as well in relation to the point above when writing a story, make sure to plan a rough outline. what kind of characters you’re going for, what events are going to define your story, how do you want the ending and the beginning to be. what your protagonist(s) is going for, what all they would be facing throughout and such.

009. SET A MORAL/POINT OF VIEW YOU WANT TO CONVEY through your writing. it helps you have a basis, a particular aim and drive behind what you wish to leave an impression through. it could be anything complex like dark themes of toxicity or even anything as simple as comfort. you just need to know what you’re writing for.

010. for inspiration i would suggest, LISTENING TO SONGS. any song you’re listening to, try thinking of a story behind it. for example let’s take taylor swift’s “no body no crime” go through the lyrics, the vibe and think what type of story could have this as background music. or what kind of a story could have that type of no body no crime summary?

011. KNOW WHEN TO SHOW THINGS RATHER THAT TELLING THEM. too much of anything is never good. when writing, it’s important to keep the balance between descriptions, narratives and dialogues. try thinking what are the things that would be better when described, for example the relationship between your characters: it’s something which is better shown than told. like how they treat each other, how they see each other, their dynamics in general is not something that can be told through a big lengthy dialogue or JUST one paragraph(short drabbles being an exception)

012. an additional point to the one above would be, try keeping yourself in the reader’s position and see what pulls you in more. what makes you feel the emotions better.

013. PICTURE THE SETTING YOU WANT TO WRITE ON. close your eyes and think of any type of place that you would like to write the story in. a suburb? or an abandoned city for an apocalypse? this will help in brainstorming for ideas.

014. INTO THE CHARACTER’S MIND. this is a very important point. explore the world within the mind of the character, something that defines them. THIS IS ANOTHER BIG KEY TO IMPROVE, pull your readers into the character(s)’ mind, show them the fears, the memories, the feelings, the thoughts, the hopes and dreams. it helps them understand the character and get into the story.

015. when using dialogues keep in mind that the DIALOGUES SHOULD ALWAYS BE MEANINGFUL AND REALISTIC. unnecessary talks aren’t often attractive so write what is necessary, needed. even with humor, excessive fun is not always impressive. and short but impactful dialogues always literally always leave the best impression.

016. CHALLENGE YOURSELF. try starting off strong since the very beginning. strong meaning starting off with words that leave a lasting impression. or words that pull you in with intrigue.

017. LEARN TO PACE YOURSELF. first of all it’s okay to take a break. actually its very important. pushing yourself beyond limits would never give positive results. know when you need to stop, cause being tired is not going to give better ideas or better word building. let yourself go into writer’s block, don’t fight it. you’ll come back better than when you’re forcing yourself to stay put and continue.

018. and last but not least. KNOW THAT IMPROVEMENT TAKES TIME. don’t be disappointed or discouraged if you are not good today. not being good today doesn’t mean you won’t ever be good. keep trying and with little to little progress over time, you will see yourself getting there. don’t lose hope🤗! YOU CAN DO IT!!!

[the-algebra-thing]

I'm about to confess something that does not sit right with me at all for one reason or another but it's absolutely and undeniably a thing at this point. throughout much of my first reread of the left hand of darkness I drew COUNTLESS parallels to the organization of themes and the literary devices used in captive prince. I kept trying to put it out of my mind because I didn't like the comparison, but it's so potent and I can't just let it fall by the wayside. and I've even cut it off so you can easily scroll right past. but here's the deal.

the easiest comparison to make here is that estraven narrates much more often than laurent does, but it works to serve a similar purpose: for one, bringing clarity to the cultural aspect of what's going on now and has been going on for the entire story. we also respond to estraven's changes in mood—whether or not he's narrating—with the same cat's whisker sensitivity that we do laurent's, for the same reason: we get so little exposure to them, as these characters are very withdrawn. they also serve the same purpose of guiding our feelings about what we're reading towards a specific idea. this is what I noticed first.

in fact laurent and estraven are very different. the reasons they behave as they do are actually pretty diametrically opposite, with estraven's behavior coming directly from how steeped he is in his culture and how rightfully unequipped he is to deal with anything different, while laurent's stems from trauma that exposed him to the worst of his world, and caused him to widen his scope to an unhealthy degree—and he cleaves to values that contrast clearly with his culture's appearances in an attempt at defense. laurent's behavior is taken as simple incompetence, and revealed to be complex machinery; estraven's is taken as complex, cruel irony, and revealed to be simple, frank pragmatism. laurent snares damen intentionally; estraven snares genly ai sort of as a side effect of greater purpose.

still, they both guide their respective stories with an invisible hand and with the same dedication, devotion even, to goals beyond the scope of the duality their worlds present them with. they both have a much bigger and more complete picture right off the bat of what's going on—and how they can use it to steer the future—than we do, or than the main characters do.

on the other hand. genly ai and damen experience the same revolution of worldview, and thus identity, almost to a tee, it would seem. their role, in contrast to their respective narrative counterparts, is to bumble through the world they've been thrust into and discover along with us readers what the story is about. their role is to gain this new understanding of duality and what lies outside of it.

genly ai does this conspicuously. this is what the bulk of the left hand of darkness is dedicated to, without artifice. we follow along with him and are maybe a little surprised by the reach of estraven's goals and actions, but it's not a complete bombshell. damen does this mental legwork less obviously, as he doesn't realize that it's happening really until it's almost over—and I didn't begin to grasp the far reaches of this process until at least my third time reading. and we are both shocked hopefully on some level by the sheer godlike extent of laurent's machinery. but they both travel this path, inescapably shepherded by someone whose role they do not initially understand, and are equally shocked when they find out the extensive grasp those characters have on the narrative. and they both bring the idea and the means for the revolution the others so desperately needed.

honestly, the way these stories approach and use the idea of sex and sexuality is their most interesting similarity and their most potent difference. it holds a shit ton of symbolism, obviously, everything being about sex until it's about sex and all, but the directions they approach it from are almost opposite. and their resolutions specifically regarding it are pretty much opposite as well. there's also something to be said for captive prince not even trying to pass the bechdel test, and genly ai's thing about using "he" all the time because gethen's languages lack gendered human pronouns. I honestly don't even want to get into it because that's just a whole other post that I don't care nearly as much about. but it's there.

these stories are not one to one, obviously. captive prince takes on awareness pretty strictly through the lens of interpersonal relationship, while the left hand of darkness takes on awareness through a balance of like five different things, though politics do feature prominently in each. the scope is wider at first glance in tlhod, and in the end it really is, but not nearly as much as it originally looks, I think. still, it lacks a lot of the fetishism and directness that captive prince comes at you with, and utilizes more variety in proving its point—by the end, you feel less like a besieged dead horse. this is because captive prince's greatest strength, its scrupulously guarded limits to its purview, is also its fatal flaw. but again, that's an issue for another discussion I don't care to get into.

I'm not trying to say which one of these stories is better. I just am saying, directly off my second time ever reading the left hand of darkness, that a lot of the parallels are super wild

[theevilmaninyourcomputer]

There is something deeply unsettling about the Angel in Angels In America. I have discussed this at length with a friend, and we came to the consensus that the otherworldly (but not ‘ethereal’) nature of the Angel builds a wall between her and the rest of the characters in the play. She struggles to grasp human concepts, like that of the desire for “more life” in a bleak and utterly hopeless world. She is intentionally removed from humanity, because humanizing her would negate some of the most important aspects of her character. Portraying the Angel as a generic, beautiful woman strips her of her narrative purpose. I struggle to put my thoughts on this matter into words. I cannot articulate what exactly is so creepy, yet so inexplicably wonderful, about the stage version of the Angel. However, I can articulate what is wrong with the HBO adaption’s attempt, and I am certainly going to, because this has been weighing on my mind for almost a year.

Where to even start. In the revised Perestroika script from 1995, Kuschner writes a foreword, in which he details a few instructions for successfully putting on a convincing show. Among these instructions, he cautions against ‘cheapening’ the angel. “The (Angel’s cough) is a single, dry, barking cough, not wracking emphysemic spasms…sharp, simple, and effectively non-human. It was not funny so much as it was ominous, and always always dignified. It is my terror that the Angel be played for laughs.” He then goes on to say that, “The Angel is immensely august, serious, and dangerously powerful always, and Prior is running for his life, sick, scared, and alone…The play is cheapened irreparably when the actors playing the Angel, and especially Prior fail to convey the gravity of these situations.” “There is a danger,” writes Kuschner, “in easy sentiment. Eschew sentiment!” What does that mean? What is ‘easy sentiment?’ In what way does Angels In America avoid evoking ‘easy sentiment?’ I believe this direction is intended to warn against leaning into the melodrama of the story. In expressing ‘easy sentiment,’ Angels In America becomes soap-opera-ified. The stakes are lowered, the characters come across as disingenuous. 

According to a definition by Studio Binder, the difference between drama and melodrama resides in the nature of the conflict. “In a drama, the conflict a character faces is realistic. The conflict arises through a logical and reasonable series of events. In a Melodrama, conflicts are exaggerated and intensified to elicit stronger emotional responses from the audience.” I understand where Kuschner is coming from in advising his actors not to do this, because melodrama, as a literary device, is kind of…cheating. A strong, emotional audience response can be achieved through good storytelling. Raising the stakes past the point of believability actually serves to lower the stakes. Constantly expressing ‘intensified’ emotion makes the moments of legitimate emotional turmoil less impactful. It’s the contrast between the quiet and ‘loud’ moments that makes the loud moments all the more exciting. If the characters are constantly miserable, there is a point at which the audience ceases to care. Misery becomes the status quo, the emotional resting state. The story becomes oversaturated with strong emotion, the narrative is not satisfying. To quote Bob Ross, “Gotta have opposites, light and dark and dark and light, in painting. It's like in life. Gotta have a little sadness once in awhile so you know when the good times come.” The reverse of this concept can be true as well, of course. There can very well be an undersaturation of emotion that makes the story feel empty; that causes it to fall flat. A balance must be struck between the two in order to, in Kuschner’s word’s, “convey the gravity of the situation.” In Angels In America, the dark themes are overlaid with humor. Comedy is, after all, tragedy plus timing. Kuschner certainly does not shy away from tragedy. Kuschner considers Perestroika to be “essentially a comedy,” but notes that, “Every moment must be played for its reality, the terms always life or death; only then will the comedy emerge.” Kuschner knew that the comedy of tragedy was to be realized through that tonal contrast, and it works. It works really well.

    I swear, I am very slowly arriving at a point, so bear with me. HBO fucked up the angel They changed her wings from mottled brown to white, and generally adapted her character and manner of speaking to read as more pure and stereotypically angelic. The decision by national theater to cast an older, less orthodox woman as the angel made her affect on prior all the more interesting, because that's what she is-unorthodox. That's part of why, besides the genderlessness and being "hermaphroditically equipped," Prior, a gay man, feels sexual attraction towards her. She exists beyond the realm of human understanding, she is intentionally written to contrast the standard christian characterization of what an angel is. The angel is not a bastion of moral goodness, she is so removed from humanity that she does not understand it, hence the very important character design: her hair is frazzled and white, she is adorned in filthy rags, and she has an odd manner of speaking. The way the dancers move her wings give the impression of spider's leg's, and her whole demeanor is generally very off putting. Prior Walter is never comforted by the Angel, she is alien, everything about her is bizarre and unfamiliar. 

[loonatism]

WHAT IS THE LOONAVERSE? PART 2 – THE NARRATIVE DEVICES

LOONA is special among K-pop for its immersive storyline. These girls are not just k-pop idols performing a song, they also perform a story and that story is what we call the Loonaverse.

So, what is the Loonaverse? In a few words: The world and story that LOONA inhabits.

Yeah. Duh. But what is it?

Well… it’s complicated.

The Loonaverse is a fictitious story that borrows elements from real science and fantasy to build its world but also uses allegories, metaphors, allusions and other literary devices to tell its story. Our job as spectators (and specifically us theorizers) is to look beyond those devices to understand the message they are trying to send. In this post I’ll attempt to explain the numerous literary devices used to narrate the story of the Loonaverse.

So, these 2 things are LAW:

Each girl has two conflicts: an external one and an internal one.

The LOONAVERSE story is one of fantasy and mystery.

INTERNAL CONFLICT VS EXTRNAL CONFLICT

Or as I like to call it: UNIT vs SOLO

I’ve explained how the girls are trapped in a time loop and how escaping it was their overarching goal. This is the external conflict of the Loonaverse. The progression of this storyline is seen mainly in the Sub-Unit MVs and LOONA MVs but also in some teasers and other videos like Cinema Theory. The conflict is external because: 1) It comes from the outside. 2) The characters not have power against it, at least not at the beginning. 3) The conflict has effect over multiple people.

Also…

Every character has an internal conflict. A personal story. Each girl perceives the world differently and that changes the way they act and interact with each other. It is internal because: 1) It comes from within the person. 2) They themselves may be the cause for the conflict. 3) The conflict has effect on only one person: themselves. This Internal conflict is presented to us in the Solo MVs. Every solo MV is a window to the character’s mind. While the solo MVs are tangentially related to the main external conflict, they mostly focus on the internal conflict of the character.

External and Internal conflicts often mix and interlace each other to create a wider story. We will see how the external conflict fuels the internal conflicts of the girls and how their internal conflicts will shape the way they act towards solving the external conflict.

FANTASY AND MYSTERY

What is fantasy? The genre of fantasy is described as a story based in a world completely separate from our own. It usually features elements or magical/supernatural forces that do not exist on our own world. It is not tied to reality of science.

Wait a minute. You just spent an entire post explaining the science of the Loonaverse. You can’t call it fantasy now. Well yes, yes I can. Since most of the scientific elements I explained are theoretical, unproved in our world but in the world of LOONA they are a reality, a scientific reality. A reality that differs from our own, and thus a fantasy to us. But regardless of that the reason I call the Loonaverse a fantasy is because of the themes it explores.

Fantasy is a broad genre, it is one of the oldest literary genres, being found in old myths. Some of the themes often found in fantasy stories include: tradition vs. change, the individual vs. society, man vs. nature, coming of age, betrayal, epic journeys, etc. All of these themes are very present in the Loonaverse. But I’ll delve into each one as we encounter them.

What is Mystery? The mystery genre is a type of fiction in which a person (usually a detective) solves a crime. The purpose is to solve a puzzle and to create a feeling of resolution with the audience. Some elements of a mystery include: the Crime that needs solving, the use of suspense, use of figures of speech, the detective having inference gaps, the suspects motives are examined in the story, the characters usually get in danger while investigating, plus these:

Red herring. something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question and leads the audience to a false answer.

Suspense. Intense feeling that an audience goes through while waiting for the outcome of certain events.

Foreshadowing. A literary device that hints at information that will become relevant later on.

I just though you should know these definitions.

In the Loonaverse, the “crime” is the time loop itself, and the mystery is finding a way to break it. Or so we think. In reality, the “How do we break the loop?” question is solved rather easily. But can we really call this a mystery if the main question is already answered? Yes! It may no be a mystery story for the characters themselves but because BlockBerry uses various mystery genre tropes while telling the story, it is a mystery TO THE AUDIENCE.

That’s right! WE are the detectives!

In a classical mystery, the detective examines all clues, motives, and possible alibis, for each suspect, or in our case, each character. The same way we analyze every MV, every interaction, every possible clue to where and when everything is happening.

The Loonaverse differs from a classic ‘Who done it?’ by establishing that no suspect is actually guilty. The crime IS the loop, but no girl is responsible for it (or so we think). Our job as detectives is not to figure out who is doing this but to explain how and establish an timeline of events that shed a light to what really happened. In that sense, our job resembles more closely a real crime investigation than a mystery novel.

LITERARY DEVICES

There are many literary devices an author can use to tell its story. Too many to cover them all in here, so I’ll focus on the most recurrent ones in the Loonaverse:

Allusion. Referring to a subject matter such as a place, event, or literary work by way of a passing reference.

Archetype. Reference to a concept, a person or an object that has served as a prototype of its kind and is the original idea that has come to be used over and over again.

Faulty Parallelism. the practice placing together similarly structure related phrases, words or clauses but where one fails to follow this parallel structure.

Juxtaposition. The author places a person, concept, place, idea or theme parallel to another

Metaphor. A meaning or identity ascribed to one subject by way of another. One subject is implied to be another so as to draw a comparison between their similarities and shared traits.

Motif. Any element, subject, idea or concept that is constantly present through the entire body of literature.

Symbol. Using an object or action that means something more than its literal meaning, they contain several layers of meaning, often concealed at first sight.

Genre. Classification of a literary work by its form, content, and style.

Some other literary devices worthy of your private investigation are: Negative Capability, Point of View, Doppelgänger, Flashback, Caesura, Stream of Consciousness, Periodic Structure, THEME, Analogy.

About Genre:

Genres are important because they give a story structure. They help an author tell the story in a way that makes it simple for the audience to understand what kind of story is being told. The classic genres of literature are Poetry, Drama and Prose. Some scholars include Fiction and Non-fiction. 

In film there are a variety of accepted genres: Comedy, Tragedy, Horror, Action, Fantasy, Drama, Historical, etc. Plus a bunch of subgenres like Contemporary Fantasy, Spy Film, Slapstick Comedy, Psychological Thriller, etc. What defines a genre is the use of similar techniques and tropes like color, editing, themes, character archetypes, etc. 

I point this out because the Loonaverse uses many genres to tell its story. Sure, the main story is a fantasy/mystery but every MV or Teaser has its own genre (especially the solo MVs). So, when I point out later that Kiss Later is a romantic comedy or that One & Only is a gothic melodrama, this is what I mean.

TLDR:

The Loonaverse is the world and story that LOONA inhabits. It borrows form real life science and fantasy elements to better tell its story. Each girl has an external conflict (escaping the loop) and an internal conflict (portrayed in the solo MVs). Both conflicts interlace to tell the story. The Loonaverse is a story of Fantasy because it takes place in a different world from ours and it is a Mystery because it is told using various mystery tropes. The story uses multiple literary and visual devices to tell it’s story and fuel the mystery.

REMEMBER: This is all my interpretation. My way of comprehending and analyzing the story. You don’t have to agree with everything. I encourage you to form your own theories. Remember: every theory is correct.

After all that you may be wondering what the story even is. And we’ll finally be getting to that. While I have my own interpretation of the timeline, themes and who did what. I think it’s more fun to slowly explore every brick instead of just summarizing it in one (incredibly long) post. I’ll do that much, much, much later. The journey will be just as interesting as the destination. I hope you’re in for the ride.

Let’s get to the real deal: The MVs. I’m going in chronological order so let’s start with girl No. 1!

Next: The bright pink bunny of LOONA: HeeJin’s ViViD.

[ouyangzizhensdad]

Phoenix Mountain Kiss and Consent/Boundaries in MDZS

The following opinion, expressed in the recent mdzs controversial opinion thread on twitter, is actually one I’ve meant to address for a while:

Even if most of fans loves the 'stolen kiss scene' in the Phoenix Mountain in the novel, that was a sexual harassment.

People in the fandom, especially those who were introduced first to the novel through cql, have a tendency to criticize the Phoenix Mountain kiss scene, saying it was non-consensual. My problem is not that they are wrong. The kiss is (or starts as, at the very least) non-consensual. My problem with this criticism is that people point this out as if it were a mistake. As if mxtx had meant to write a romantic kiss and had instead fumbled it all up and made it not consensual by virtue of not being woke, not being a good enough writer, or being too influenced by bl tropes. And that readers are too unsuspecting or not educated enough to realize the wrong mxtx committed. 

Here’s my hot take: The kiss is non-consensual because it was written to be non-consensual. mxtx is not trying to pull the wool over our eyes. The reason why we, as readers, can infer that, is because the non-consensual aspects of the kiss are important to the events of the plot, some of themes explored in the book, lwj and wwx’s relationship after wwx’s return, and lwj’s character arc. mxtx uses this moment and its aftermaths, amongst others, to make a point about consent and communication in relationships--one of the central themes of the novel. Shocking, I know. Arguing that consent and communication are a main theme in mdsz: now that's a controversial opinion.

Now, I won’t argue mxtx always manages to develop this theme with utmost finesse. You can critique and disagree with her treatment of the theme throughout the novel (taking into consideration, as well, how it’s not just explored through lwj and wwx’s relationship). That being said, isolating events in the novel like the Phoenix kiss scene to mark them as Good or Bad without considering the context in which they happen and are explored within the novel is just bad literary analysis :/. 

Let’s first consider this simple statement: the non-consensual aspect of the kiss is not accidental--mxtx knew it was non-consensual when she wrote it, and she wasn’t trying to hide that fact. 

By the time we reach the Phoenix Mountain competition, lwj has accepted his feelings for wwx, and that these feelings will not be returned. After all, in the xuanwu cave, wwx took great pains to ‘reassure’ him that he is super-straight-and-totally-would-never-flirt-with-him. Yet, wwx continues to ‘flirt’ with him--tossing a flower at him just before the competition--which we can gather is a source of, um, great torment for him. 

We are not privy to lwj’s thought process leading to the stolen kiss. What we know for certain, however, is how he reacts to and perceives his own actions after the fact.  Through wwx’s unreliable narration, we can still understand that lwj immediately regrets his actions and feels uncontrollable anger towards himself and his lack of self-restraint. While wwx has more complicated and contradictory feelings bout the kiss, lwj clearly sees his actions as wrong and disrespectful. He is scared of what he has been capable of doing unto another person--pushing wwx away the moment he sees him after the kiss. 

The person spun around. It was Lan Wangji after all. However, right now, his eyes were bloodshot, his expression almost frightening. Wei Wuxian was startled, “Wow, so scary.”

Lan Wangji’s voice was harsh, “Go!”

Wei Wuxian, “I just came here and you want me to go. Do you really hate me that much?”

Lan Wangji, “Stay away from me!” [chapter 69]

As readers, we are told that the Phoenix Mountain kiss, nor its implications, is not something to consider lightly. The fact that lwj’s reaction after the kiss is written in, and that it is so intense for someone usually so reserved, or the fact that we learn that more than a decade later he is still ashamed of himself and describe himself as having done something wrong (or, very wrong 很不对 ), all prove that the non-consensual aspect of the kiss is not an accident and is not downplayed as something to expect from someone in love with another person. 

蓝忘机闷声道：“我，那时，自知不对。很不对。” [chapter 111]

I can already hear some people ask: even if it was not an accident, why chose to include a non-consensual kiss between the two romantic leads? if not because it is a bl trope/weird kink, why did mxtx chose to put this in her novel? what do we gain by including dubious consent or non-consensual interactions in our fiction?

The long-short answer is: because the act of crossing boundaries is a very productive story-telling device for any piece of media focusing on any type of interpersonal relationships. Crossing boundaries--willfully or unintentionally--is a source of conflict, internal and/or relational, which can drive the plot forward, shape character development and relationships, as well as be useful for certain thematic discussions. 

Current discourses regarding consent in English-speaking, mostly-western spheres of the web tend to be very polarized, painting people who cross boundaries as bad. The solution presented (i.e. how to not be a bad person) tends to be an invitation for everyone, within any relationship, to constantly negotiate consent verbally and honestly: to constantly disclose boundaries, to constantly ask for permission, etc. While I do not dismiss the value of these suggestions, it is an ideal representative of certain socio-temporally specific cultural expectations of what communication is, how communication should happen, and how relationships should be like, etc.. Human relationships are messy, people are flawed and hurt each other, and we have complex internal lives (for instance, someone might not realize their wants or limits until they are faced with them). Instead of having media show us only a specific type of idealized relationships where boundaries are never crossed, ever, they allow us to explore the implications of boundaries within interpersonal relationships. Or, sometimes, media and fiction just aim to represent or are influenced by this very real part of human relationships, and use it as a way to create conflict within the narrative and relationships (sometimes in a interesting manner, sometimes in a very gross manner).

In mdsz, the Phoenix mountain non-consensual kiss is a two-fold source of conflict:  internal (lwj) and relational. While wwx remains unaware until he and lwj are together of the identity of the person who kissed him, the implications of the kiss ends up shaping their relationship both before and after wwx’s rebirth. 

A source of (unknown) conflict between lwj and wwx after he is summoned back from the dead is the fact that lwj believes wwx is aware of his feelings. But this conflict is further compounded by the fact that lwj has once forced his feelings unto wwx, and is utterly afraid that he would dare to ever do it again. That is why, every time wwx initiates physical contact, or flirts very deliberately with lwj, lwj never goes further than what wwx has initiated. Sometimes, he even de-escalates their proximity or level of intimacy (usually by asking wwx to “ 别乱动”  or, famously during Drunk#2, by literally knocking himself out) --out of fear that he, again, would lack self-control and do something wrong to the man he loved.  He never presumes he has the permission to push their relationship further than what wwx is offering. Without that added source of conflict, would it have been reasonable to expect lwj and wwx to have realized their mutual feelings earlier, even with the issue of lwj not being aware wwx does not know of his feelings?

“In the beginning, the reason for behaving in such a manner was to let Lan Wangji be disgusted with him and kick him out of the Cloud Recesses, and they would never have to meet again, going their separate ways. Lan Wangji couldn’t possibly tell what his real intentions were. Yet, [..] even when faced with Wei Wuxian’s various actions, tricks, and pranks, Lan Wangji never once lost his temper, reciprocating with restraint and courtesy.” [chapter 99]

That is all true, of course, until Drunk 3. Here again, the ghost of the stolen kiss plays a part in accentuating the conflict. Without it, would lwj have jumped to conclusions as quickly? And, plot-wise, the shared perception of wwx and lwj that they have taken advantage of the other is a source of conflict that does multiple things--it gives wwx an incentive to go look at the temple at night to distract himself from his guilt and sadness, instead of going the next day with lwj (at which point jgy would have had perhaps already left) and it keeps wwx in the dark about lwj’s feelings until lxc reveals to him the events of the past he has forgotten. Here again, issues of consent are clearly taken into consideration as a source of conflict, shaping both characters’ motivations and the events of the plot.

Finally, the theme of consent/boundaries is an important aspect of lwj’s internal struggle, particularly in relation to his father’s choices. The kiss is part of his journey. 

It is not coincidental that the Lan motto is “Be Honorable”/”Self-restraint,” and that lwj is presented as the model Lan disciple. This element is part of the context that gives narrative and thematic meaning to the non-consensual kiss. When lwj forces a kiss on a blindfolded wwx, lwj goes against the values he holds dear and the teachings that were imparted unto him--prime internal conflict. 

But what is also interesting, to me in any case, is how consent is the thing that ultimately differentiates lwj’s choices from his father’s. 

How willing was Lan-furen to be saved by Qingheng-jun? to be taken to live in seclusion in the Cloud Recesses? to be married to him? to have children with him? The novel never tells us clearly. However, the novel gives us an idea of how lqr, lxc and lwj perceive their parents’ relationship. For lwj, we are given an insight into his perception indirectly during the following conversation between him and lxc.

[Lan Xichen] spoke, “Wangji, is there something on your mind? Why have you been so tense?”

Of course, in most people’s eyes, the ‘tenseness’ probably looked no different than Lan Wangji’s other expressions.

Lan Wangji’s brows sunk low as he shook his head. A few moments later, he replied in a low voice, “Brother, I want to take someone back to the Cloud Recesses.”

Lan Xichen was surprised. “Take someone back to the Cloud Recesses?”

Lan Wangji nodded, his expression pensive. After a pause, he continued, “Take them back… and hide them somewhere.”

Lan Xichen’s eyes immediately widened.

[…]

“Hide them somewhere?”

Lan Wangji frowned softly. “But they are not willing.” [chapter 72]

Indirectly, we come to understand that lwj draws parallels with his father situation: they both want to protect someone by taking them to the Cloud Recesses, but these persons are unwilling. The unsaid question here is, would I choose to do as our father did? 

The non-consensual kiss is part of lwj’s journey, through which he comes to understand that, despite his strict upbringing and disciplined lifestyle that was supposed to keep him from becoming like his father, he is capable of being his father (or at least who he thinks his father is). He learns that he can understand what sort of passionate feelings could bring someone to do something that goes against not only the wishes of his clan members, but the very wishes of the person they love, for the sake of keeping them safe or for the sake of having them by their sides. And at the end of that internal journey, lwj chooses not be like his father--to put wwx’s decisions and wants and needs first. After buyetian, lwj offers his protection and confesses his feelings--and wwx rejects him. lwj respects wwx’s choice, while still going against his clan to protect him. He brings wwx back to Mass Grave Hill knowing full well that wwx would not survive long the wrath of the four great sects seeking revenge against him, and goes home to receive his punishment.

Overall, what I tried to say in many many words, is that the Phoenix Mountain kiss is not non-consensual by accident. It is not because mxtx is an awful person or is not educated enough, or because she thinks dubious consent is romantic. The fact that it is non-consensual is addressed within the narrative, fuels internal and external conflicts, and is as well woven into the plot structure and the themes of the novel. The kiss is not an outlier element, added to titillate a readership--it exists as an integral part of the novel.

I’m not saying it’s not okay to decide that you do not want to engage with any content that includes non-consensual interactions or dubious consent because that triggers or irks you regardless of the way it is handled. It is totally valid to not personally enjoy or have criticisms about choices mxtx made in exploring these themes, in presenting the internal and relational conflicts around consent/boundaries, or even in the way she decided to write the scenes that figure dubious consent. However, it is not really helpful to divorce an event from its context within a piece of media in order to brand it as either Problematic or Unproblematic, Good or Bad.

Note: Much more could be said about the theme of consent/boundaries in mdzs; this is not exhaustive in the least. 

Note2: Much more could be said, in relation to the question and theme of consent, about: the cultural limitations of Westerners to engage fully with a text written for a chinese audience; the limits of fan translators to fully understand  the nuances and themes of a novel and to communicate them in a different language; about the place dubious consent and non-consensual interactions has had in the romance/erotica genre for a long time, and no, not only because Misogyny or Homophobia. 

[rainycloudh-blog]

Dictionary of literary terms (A-U)

A

Alliteration:

The repetition of sounds at the beginning of words. It is what gives many a tongue twister its twist: How can a clam cram in a clean cream can.

Allusion:

An (in)direct reference to another text, e.g. the Bible

Anaphora:

The repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of successive clauses.

Antagonist:

An antagonist is the opponent to the protagonist/main character.

Antithesis:

A rhetorical or literary device in which an opposition or contrast of ideas is expressed.

B 

Bias:

A prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.

Broadsheet:

A newspaper with a large format, traditionally regarded as more serious and less sensationalist than tabloids.

Byline:

A line at the top of an article giving the writer's name.

C 

Caption:

A text that accompanies a photograph or illustration.

Character:

Character is the term used about the persons in a work of fiction. We distinguish between main characters (see below) and minor characters. In contrast to the main characters, who may be round and dynamic, the minor characters tend to be rather flat: they do not change or develop.

Chorus:

Part of a song that is repeated after each verse (= refrain in poetry)

Cliché:

A cliché is an idea or phrase that has been used so much that it does not have any meaning any more.

Climax:

The climax is the moment at which the conflict comes to its point of greatest intensity and is resolved. It is also the peak of emotional response from the reader.

Column:

a. A regular article on a particular subject or by a particular writer.

b. A vertical division of a page or a text.

Composition

Composition is the term used about the structure or organization of the events in a story – the elements of a text. A typical composition gives the events in chronological order, maybe with a flashback or two.

D 

Dialogue:

Dialogue is a conversation between two or more characters in a piece of literature. It can be written as direct speech (with quotation marks and “he said”) or the conversation can be presented as indirect speech (reported speech), not using the exact words used by the characters.

E 

Editorial:

A newspaper article expressing the editor's opinion on a topical issue.

Ellipsis:

Ellipsis is the term used when there is a significant jump in time to a later point in the story. The word refers to the fact that something has been left out.

Essay:

An essay is a composition giving the writer’s personal thoughts on or opinion of a particular subject or theme.

Ethos:

A form of appeal based on the speaker's character (e.g. reliability).

Exposition:

Exposition is a narrative technique that provides some background and informs the reader about the plot, character, setting, and theme of a story. In classical short stories, the exposition will be placed in the opening, but in modern short stories it may be placed anywhere – or even left out.

F 

Figurative language:

Figurative language is often associated with poetry, but it actually appears quite often in prose as well. It describes things through metaphors and other figures of speech.

First-person narrator:

The first-person narrator uses an “I”, takes part in the story but has no direct access to the thoughts and feelings of the other characters. Be aware that the “I” can only see things from his/her own point of view, and this also limits the reader to that one perspective – can he/she be trusted? (See unreliable narrator.)

Flashback: Flashback is an entire scene which leaves the chronological narration for a while and jumps back in time from the point which the story has reached. The purpose of a flashback is to provide background for present events.

Flashforward:

Flashforward is an entire scene which leaves the chronological narration for a while and jumps forward in time from the point the story has reached. The opposite of flashback.

Foreshadowing:

Foreshadowing is hints or clues in a story that suggest what will happen later. Some authors use foreshadowing to create suspense or to convey information that helps readers understand what comes later.

Formal language:

Formal language is a style of writing that often uses fairly complex sentences and neutral, sometimes technical, words that tend to be more difficult/abstract than common everyday words. Formal language is often used in official public notices, business situations, and polite conversations with strangers.

G 

Genre:

We say a poem, novel, short story, fairy tale, etc. belongs to a particular genre if it shares at least a few characteristics with other works in that genre.

H 

Hero:

The hero is the central character around whom the events revolve and with whom the audience is intended to identify. If the hero is female, we may use the term heroine. If the hero (or heroine) has an opponent, the villain would often be the preferred term for him (or her). If the hero behaves in an unheroic way, we could talk about an anti-hero.

I 

Informal language:

Informal language is a style of writing that uses everyday (spoken) language. It usually uses simple sentences and everyday words, sometimes slang and/or dialect.

Imagery:

Imagery is the use of vivid description, usually rich in words that appeal to the senses, to create pictures, or images, in the reader's mind.

In medias res:

In medias res is the term used when a story does not begin at the beginning, introducing the setting, the characters or the context of events, but instead opens “in the middle of things” (this is what the term means in Latin).

In retrospect:

Most stories are told in the past tense, thus indicating that they describe past events. But some stories - especially first-person narratives - make this much clearer than others, probably to remind the reader that the narrator is no longer the same; he or she is now older, maybe even wiser. The reader also understands, of course, that the events still mean something to the narrator. A story like this is told in retrospect, we say.

Interior monologue:

The written representation of a character's inner thoughts, impressions and memories as if the reader "overhears" them directly without the intervention of a narrator or another selecting and organizing mind.

Inverted pyramid:

The metaphor used in journalism to illustrate the placing of the most important information first.

L 

Limited point of view:

A narrator with a limited point of view knows only the thoughts and feelings of a single character, while other characters are presented only from the outside. This is also called a restricted point of view.

Logos:

Appealing to the receiver's logic and reason.

M 

Main character:

The main character is the central character around whom the events revolve and with whom the audience is intended to most identify.

Metaphor:

A direct comparison, used when you describe someone or something as if they were something else. If the comparison uses the words 'as' or 'like', it is called a simile: Human breath is like a dangerous weapon.

N 

Narrator:

The narrator is the one who tells a story, the speaker or “the voice” of an oral or written work. Although it can happen, the narrator is rarely the same person as the author.

Novel:

A novel is a long and complex story, usually with several characters and many related events.

O 

Omniscient narrator:

An omniscient narrator has a godlike perspective, seeing and knowing everything that happens, including what all the characters are thinking and feeling.

Onomatopoeia:

A term used about words that sound like the thing that they are describing. Animal sounds may be the best examples: quack, meow, croak, and roar!

Oxymoron:

A paradoxical antithesis with only two words: freshly frozen, deathly life.

P 

Parallelism:

The use of successive verbal constructions in poetry or prose which correspond in grammatical structure, sound, metre, meaning, etc. E.g. Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I may remember. Involve me and I will learn.

Paraphrase:

When working with difficult and/or condensed texts - typically poetry (and Shakespeare's plays), it is a good idea to make a paraphrase of the text to clarify its meaning. To make a paraphrase, you "translate" somebody else's words into your own, thus making the text simpler but without losing its essential meaning. A paraphrase is written in prose and can be done line by line, stanza by stanza, or whatever suits the text and your purpose.

Pathos:

Appealing to the receiver's emotions.

Personification:

A figure of speech which gives human qualities to inanimate objects, animals and ideas. The wind can howl, cats can smile, and hope can die.

Plot (and story):

The plot of a story is the order in which the author has chosen to tell the events of a story. It may or may not be chronological. The chronological order in which those events would have happened is called story.

Point of view:

The position from which the events of a story are observed or considered is called point of view. The author must choose to present the story from either a neutral point of view, one person’s point of view, or the points of view of several characters. They can be participants in the events, or simply observers.

Protagonist:

Protagonist is another term for the central character around whom the events revolve and with whom the audience is intended to most identify. If the protagonist has an opponent, he/she would be called the antagonist.

R 

Receiver:

In the communication model it is the general term used for the audience/listener/reader.

Refrain:

The part of a song of poem that is repeated, especially at the end of each verse (song) or stanza (poem).

Rhetoric:

The art of using language in a way that is effective or that influences people - rhetorical device.

Rhetorical question:

A question you answer yourself, or that needs no answer.

Rhyme:

When two words sound the same, especially at the end of each line.

Rhythm:

- or metre - a sequence of feet. A foot is a combination of stressed and unstressed syllables. The most common foot is an iamb: an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed one, as in da-DUM.

S 

Scene:

In prose fiction, a scene is one part of the story during which there is no change in time or place.

Second-person narrator:

The second-person narrator uses a “you” about the main characters and his/her actions. It will feel as if this type of narrator is addressing the reader, or as if the reader is a character in the story, which is quite weird, and therefore a second-person narrator is rarely seen.

Sender:

In the communication model it is the general term used for the speaker/writer.

Setting:

Setting refers to the time and place of a story. If the focus is on the conditions and/or values and norms of people at a particular time and place, we talk about milieu or social environment.

Short story:

Short story is the term used about a brief work of prose fiction which usually focuses on one incident, has a single plot, a single setting and few characters. It tends to provide little action, hardly any character development, but simply a snapshot of life.

Showing: Showing is a narrative technique in which a character’s feelings and mood etc. are expressed in an indirect way (through what the character says and/or does) so that the reader may create his/her own images and understanding.

Six Ws:

The six elements that must be covered in an article: What has happened to Who, Where and When, How and Why.

SOAPSTone:

Acronym for the elements you look at when analysing non-fiction: Speaker - Occasion - Audience - Purpose - Subject - Tone.

Sonnet:

A classical poetic form which has 14 lines, subdivided through its rhymes into two parts. The Petrarchan or Italian sonnet: I = 8 lines, an octave, rhyming abbaabba, and II = 6 lines, a sestet, rhyming cdcdcd (or cdecde). The metre is an iambic pentameter (da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM). Shakespeare created his own version which has slightly different rhymes. 

Standfirst:

An introductory paragraph in an article, separated from the body of the text, which summarizes the article.

Stanza:

The grouping of lines in a poem, like the 'paragraphs' of the poem.

Strapline:

An additional headline above or below the main headline.

Stream of consciousness:

In literature, stream of consciousness is a narrative technique in which a character’s thoughts and feelings are expressed as a continuous flowing series of images and ideas running through the mind, thus imitating the way humans think.

Symbol:

A symbol is an object, a person or an event that represents or stands for something else, usually a general quality or an abstract idea.

T 

Tabloid:

A newspaper with small pages, traditionally popular in style and dominated by sensational stories, e.g. The Sun. Today, also some serious newspapers use the small size.

Telling:

Telling is a narrative technique in which the narrator tells the reader directly what characterizes the characters in a story – what they are like.

Theme:

Theme is the central idea, opinion or message that is expressed in the story. The heart and soul of the story.

Third-person narrator:

The third-person narrator uses “he”, “she” or (more rarely) “they”. This type of narrator provides the greatest flexibility to the author and is therefore the most commonly used narrator in literature. The third-person narrator’s point of view is what determines the type even more. If the point of view is from the outside, with no access to the thoughts and feelings of the characters, we call it an objective third-person narrator. If the narrator has access to one character’s thoughts and feelings, it is a limited (or restricted) third-person narrator. And finally, if the narrator has access to the thoughts and feelings of several characters, it is an omniscient third-person narrator.

Tricolon:

A list of three items, building to a climax, e.g. ... the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Turning point: A turning point is a point (usually an event) in a story where the plot takes a (sometimes unexpected) turn, and things change because of this. In long texts, there may be more than one turning point.

U 

Unreliable narrator:

An unreliable narrator (usually a first-person narrator) gives his or her own understanding of a story, instead of the explanation and interpretation the author wishes the reader to obtain.

[duncanwrites]

Books I read in 2017, reviewed in 2 sentences or less.

Among other things, in 2017 I tried to read more books by authors from different eras other than our own. I also ended up putting down more books half-read than usual. I’m sure those two things say something about our year in anxiety.

But here’s what I finished and what I thought:

Birds of America - Lorrie Moore: This book contains some of the very finest short stories I've ever read. Every word, sentence and paragraph seems perfectly put together to draw out the real humanity of flawed people in a flawed world.

Wolf in White Van - John Darinelle: Among other qualities, I think Wolf in White Van has the best title of any book on this list: in the context of the novel itself it provides a perfect framing device that allows you to see the poetry of a dark twisted staircase of a story.

The Sympathizer - Viet Thanh Nguyen: If I talked to you about The Sympathizer this year, it probably came out as an excited rant about any number of things - its dark humor, brilliant structure, mind-bending narration - but I promise you that beneath the exuberance there's a genuinely stunning novel sort of unlike anything I've otherwise read.

The Shock Doctrine - Naomi Klein: I re-read this book to get ready for Trump, and it did help, but it also reminded me about how angry I still am about the war in Iraq and so many other things. Still my favorite book by one of the best political writers out there doing the work.

Hegemony How-To - Jonathan Matthew Smucker: Another pre-Trump read, I think Smuker's book is one of the most useful -- as in practically, real-life make your work better -- books on politics in a long time. My only complaints is that I didn’t have a chance to read it years earlier so I could have avoided a lot of the things Smucker describes so well.

Three Body Problem, The Dark Forest and Death's End - Liu Cixin: The first two novels of this trilogy I thought were some of the finest science fiction I've ever read: both grounded in real human suffering, sweepingly large in their approach to theory, and bringing out some exciting ideas. The third book dragged itself down with the darkness that already ran through the start of the series, but that shouldn't at all stop you from taking these on.

Snow Crash - Neal Stephenson: Another re-read, this is a classic science fiction novel that contains the kinds of themes and concepts that you begin to see everywhere around you once you finish it. Noticed a few more plot holes this time around.

The Diamond Age - Neal Stephenson: Set in the same world as Snow Crash, The Diamond Age never reaches the same wild intensity of the previous book, and is plotted more in the model of a shaggy dog story than a sci-fi thriller.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Thomas Kuhn: A classic text, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions is the source of a lot of conventional wisdom that was revolutionary in the 70s when it was published. Maybe a bit more tedious that it needs to be.

Flight Behavior - Barbara Kingsolver: I think Barbara Kingsolver is a terrific novelist, and although this book moves quite slow through its paces (and is a bit stressful if you spend your days already thinking about climate change), the payoff towards the end is real. She does a lot, with a lot of heart.

The Mother of All Questions - Rebecca Solnit: Humane, withering, lyrical: Rebecca Solnit is one of the writers I most admire, and this is a really wonderful compilation of some of her best work on feminism, hope and politics.

In Dubious Battle - John Steinbeck: I love John Steinbeck as much as the next left-leaning American, but only up to a point. This is a rough book about Men doing Men Things, full of people named Mac and Doc who do a lot of fighting and dying and it's just not his finest work.

Native Speaker - Chang-rae Lee: I re-read this book for the first time in about 10 years, and found myself coming across passages that had still somehow stuck with me through all that time. I could recommend Native Speaker as one of the best novels about New York City, relationships and language all at once, and its the kind of thing that will bear re-reading again in the future.

Trauma Stewardship - Laura van Dernoot Lipsky: I dunno, this one just didn't work for me. It felt over-broad, attributing so many behaviors and outcomes to trauma to render the concept almost meaningless.

Moby-Dick - Herman Melville: An epic that earns its place in the canon, I gushed wide-eyed about Moby-Dick at strangers for several weeks/months. Chapters on chapters about whaling history, seeming diversions, pile in between portraits of personal and collective madness: so much of this book is not about the White Whale and yet all of it is at the same time.

Direct Action - L. A. Kauffman: Direct Action is deftly written, insightful in its analyses and one of the best practical histories of contemporary organizing I've read. Hugely recommend for anyone trying to get a handle on What to Do Now.

What is Populism? - Jan Werner-Muller: I put this book next to The Shock Doctrine, Hegemony How To and Direct Action as one of the crucial books to read about Trump and the moment we're in. A book that covers the things that really need saying about Populism, but with the good sense to be brief, approachable and clear.

Bad Feminist - Roxane Gay: I am late coming to this book of essays, but I was thoroughly won over from the very start, because Gay has this way with short, direct but vulnerable language that makes her polemical points land with so much more intensity. I can't quite put my finger on it, but her manner of writing is so special, and she uses it to say such necessary things.

Istanbul - Orhan Pamuk: Let's just say this book is an acquired taste: you need some ready familiarity with Istanbul and a lot of patience for detailed personal stories and obscure asides in service of a memoir with a small focus. I quite like Istanbul and admire the literary goals of the book but didn't quite have the patience needed to really enjoy this throughout.

Dune - Frank Herbert: Apparently some people still haven’t read this book? They really should.

The Thing Around Your Neck - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: A book of short stories that are all elegant windows into the lives of people who are coping with distance, displacement and dread. They cover a lot of the thematic territory she addresses in other books, but with little experiments in style and structure that usually work.

Fear City - Kim Phillips-Fine: I've been waiting for years for someone to write the history of the New York City Financial Crisis that we all need, and I just don't think this book is it. It ended up being a sort of surface level history of a handfull elites involved in the crisis that never dove into the depths I hoped for.

Isaac's Storm - Erik Larson: I didn't always care for Larson's potboiler narrative style but I think the 1900 Galveston Hurricane is interesting and important and I'm glad someone wrote a book that lots of people could read about it.

What I Talk About When I Talk About Running - Hakuri Murakami: Since I read this (all at once, on a beach), I've been drifting back to certain points of it that just seem to stick with me. It's only in part a book about running, but also about writing, and I quite like both of those things.

Quicksilver - Neal Stephenson: Apparently there are 8 more books in this series. I'm not going to read them.

A Little Life - Hanya Yanagihara: I can't remember the last time I was quite this obsessed with a book, to the point of being driven to read into inappropriate hours of the morning and setting aside other obligations to make time for it. I also can't remember a book so devastating and frustrating to read, that puts its characters and readers through so much trauma and then describe in claustrophobic detail how it curtails their experiences of joy and success. There's nothing like it, and you need to experience it to understand.

The Fifth Season - NK Jemisin: I didn't love this book as much as everyone else I know who has read it. The story is clearly brilliant conceptually, but something about the melodrama in the writing style just kept getting in the way for me.

Radio Free Vermont - Bill McKibben: A Monkeywrench Gang for the modern age, but with less weird macho nonsense, and a better sense of humor.

Waiting - Ha Jin: What I most admired about this book was the ascetic, unadorned language that the author uses to follow a simple but elementally powerful plot line. You do end up waiting a lot as a reader, but there's much to observe as you do.

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings - Maya Angelou: You don't need me to tell you that Maya Angelou knows how to write exceptional sentences. Instead, you should read some of them and learn the real power of a well-placed metaphor, or how you honor the half-formed, overpowering complexity of a child's feelings.

The Interpreter of Maladies - Jhumpa Lahiri: I've lost track of how many times I've read these short stories, but they destroy me pretty much every time.

Rules for Revolutionaries - Becky Bond and Zack Exley: There's some useful stuff in here.

The Lowland - Jhumpa Lahiri: This was the first novel of Jhumpa Lahiri's that I had ever read, and I just don't feel like she was able to stretch her voice -- which is so concise, spare and evocative -- to meet the scale of this novel.

The Great Gatsby - F. Scott Fitzgerald: One of the greatest books of all time, a perfect picture of the spiritual depravity of money and consumption.

Frankenstein - Mary Shelley: It turns out this book is very little like the pop culture Frankenstein myth -- there is only a glancing mention of dead bodies, the monster is articulate and an almost wholly private terror. Instead it's a nested doll of stories about nature, knowledge and spiritual purpose. Consider Phlebas - Iain M. Banks: A perfectly fine pulpy space opera. I’ll probably read more of the Culture books at some point.

[apprenticebard]

“So you see, there’s this person, and there’s another person who’s really good friends with that person, and that person also has another good friend, but that person’s friends aren’t exactly friends with one another--do you see what I’m trying to say?”

“A mighty wind can fan flames and make treetops sway, but flames burn trees to the ground.”

“So, wind and flames and trees, huh? Does that mean they can never get along with each other?”

“Who’s to say?”

“Huh. But if the wind was too strong, it would put out the fire and topple all the trees, so that means.... I don’t get it. Well, thanks anyway, Miss Edel!”

So like, one, Duck and Miss Edel have the best conversations. It’s weird that she’s immediately accepted this woman as a friend, despite knowing absolutely nothing about her except that she knows Duck is a Duck, but I think that’s part of how Duck is? She gets attached to people very easily, and there’s something very sweet about that. (And about how Edel curtsies. She’s so proud of not helping at all. Where’s that “but you didn’t do anything” tuxedo mask picture. I love her.)

But two--and I know I’m reaching here, but this is my break from lit class and not my lit class itself, so I’m allowed--I think this exchange highlights that Duck’s approach to storytelling is very different from that of some of the other characters. For Drosselmeyer, and for Edel here, it’s enough that the story makes symbolic sense, that the metaphors hold together on a basic level. But Duck isn’t like that--she’s very concerned with concrete things. I almost want to say that she isn’t concerned with stories, but I really don’t think that’s true at all; she’s very concerned with the stories of the people around her, and with understanding why people make the choices they do.

It’s just... Drosselmeyer writes a story where the characters are hollow archetypes, puppets wandering through beautiful stages, acting out classically-themed stories that have become more powerful through continual retelling. And his stories are very powerful, clearly, if they’re so vibrant that they can literally leap out of the pages of the book they’re written in. But they’re extraordinarily stylized, and it doesn’t bother him at all to treat characters as symbols, or to ignore the pieces of the setting or storyland that aren’t relevant to the story he wants to tell.

Duck would never write a story like that. She wouldn’t talk about psychological complexity or realistic settings, but she would find it very reductive to analyze a story in a way that reduces some characters to symbols, or to set pieces that happen to talk. I think in her mind, even the simplest metaphor has to be subject to pushing and pulling. We’ve created these hypothetical trees now, and we’ve got to think about what happens to them when their hypothetical world doesn’t act quite the way it’s supposed to. I don’t think she’s doing this intentionally, mind you, or that Duck has any real knowledge of literary analysis or storytelling methods--she has probably not read a single book in her entire avian life--but the end result is that Drosselmeyer makes everything a story, treats everything as if it doesn’t matter, forces reality to fit his narrative. Duck looks at narratives and wants to discover what reality is for them, or what it would be if they were real--I’m reminded of that Pratchett quote about having a realistic approach to flying pigs.

So I think for Drosselmeyer, the world is a story, and people are characters who he can toy with however he wants. For Duck, even the people in a fictional story ought to be given consideration--on some level, on the level that relates to them, treated as if they were real beings. I don’t want to say that this really extreme tendency towards empathy is, like, necessarily a good thing in all circumstances, but because the lines between fiction and reality have been blurred for this town, that tendency is what allows her to take Drosselmeyer’s archetypes and poke at them until they remember how to act like real people. It’s how the world and the characters progress from these stageplay versions into ones that have more consistency, complexity, and emotional weight.

I don’t think it’s that she considers stories to have more moral weight than real people (she will eventually get really upset with Drosselmeyer for ignoring the needs of her friends for the sake of his ~magnum opus~), but I do think she’s, like, acutely aware of how real everyone is? That they’re all people who have their own stories and backgrounds and opinions and battles to fight. And so creating a story that doesn’t reflect this rings false to her. You have to treat your fake trees like real trees within their tree-world, even though your fake trees are ultimately fake and don’t matter the way real trees do. And like, I laugh at her for this, and wherever Drosselmeyer is he is definitely laughing at her for this lack of ability to understand a simple metaphor like this one, but I think this is one of the things that makes Duck so powerful. 

And I think Miss Edel is a pretty good example of this. For Drosselmeyer, Edel is a puppet, a device to offer exposition. For Duck, she’s a friend.

It would never occur to Drosselmeyer that this sort of thing is what makes her a dangerous opponent. But I think maybe it is.

[may-shepard]

Doyle’s The Parasite and s4

This little non-Sherlockian, paranormal gem, published in Harper’s Weekly starting in November 1894--that’s right, a little less than a year after Doyle published The Final Problem (November / December 1893)--deserves our attention. When @longsnowsmoon5 pointed it out a week or two ago, a few of us shouted about it a bit, but we didn’t really dig deep with it. Since then, I’ve re-read it twice, and boy howdy. 

In case you’re not familiar, here are some plot elements to whet your interest: 

a skeptical physiologist (Austin Gilroy) who allows himself to become a subject in a mesmerism / mind control experiment

a woman with mind control abilities (Miss Penclosa) who is generally unimpressive and walks with a crutch, but is surprisingly powerful

two people about whom Gilroy cares--his fiancée Agatha and his colleague, Charles Sadler--who are also both mesmerised (to offer some comfort to more tender readers of this meta, I read both Agatha and Charles as Sherlock equivalents when translated into the BBC Sherlock narrative)

obsession--specifically, Miss Penclosa’s desire to seduce Gilroy

supernatural mind control abilities that cause Gilroy to behave erratically, cause missing time, and, eventually, make him do things he would never otherwise do, some of them criminal

narrative bonus feature: the story is told from Gilroy’s perspective, in the form of his journal entries

(I recommend reading it at Gutenberg because there is much more to it of interest than I’ve been able to cover in this meta.)

Sound like it might, maybe, have some relevance to s4? I think it does, especially in terms of figuring out what the fuck is happening to both John and Sherlock. 

Reading s4 through the code of The Parasite may help explain Sherlock’s sudden propensity for intuition / premonition, and John’s erratic behaviour. Ultimately, including The Parasite as one of the many intertexts of s4 offers a great deal of support to readings like @jenna221b‘s theory about Mary manipulating John using TD12, which in turn adds support to the ever growing pile of evidence that Mary is a villain (thanks to @teaandqueerbaiting for that monster post). It also informs readings of Mary as femme fatale and the Woman in Green (femme fatale thread by @inevitably-johnlocked, Woman in Green addition by @deducingbbcsherlock​). Although I’m not sure mofftiss should ever be let off any hooks for s4, this reading might offer John fans (myself included) a much needed opportunity for a more positive reading of John in this series. 

Details under the cut.

Although the fandom as a whole has put its finger on a massive number of movie intertexts for s4, many of which seem to have unduly influenced this series, especially TFP, The Parasite is, to my mind, the standout literary intertext, for two reasons: 

First, it represents one of Doyle’s dips into the “strange tale” / paranormal / horror genre. Given the general bent of s4 away from the detective story genre and toward something uncanny / weird tales-ish / disturbing, The Parasite seems a more likely fit with s4 than the stories from which the series borrows its titles: The Final Problem, The Six Napoleons, and The Dying Detective. With s4′s final revelation of Eurus as the ultimate antagonist of the series (although I read that revelation as hallucinatory), it points very directly to the themes of The Parasite. 

Second, specific features and key plot points of The Parasite are echoed in series 4 character / plot / thematic developments. These serve as an interpretive aid in understanding what the hell, exactly, happened in s4, to very, very interesting effect.

A Study in Genre Hopping

One of the major disappointments / wtferies / cause of mass despair of TFP, and s4 in general, was the apparent sudden switch in genre. Sherlock Holmes, although in this incarnation an astoundingly sensitive fellow, has always been the centre of stories that stuck to a certain rational, materialist, logical ethos. If you can think clearly enough, and know the right facts, you can understand the world around you. Almost sort of comforting, right? 

Well. 

This series offered us a Sherlock transformed--into a really, really, kind, good man, which, YAY!--but also into a sort of intuitive soothsayer. The show even went out of its way to signal the turn away from Sherlock’s deductive methodologies, quite early, in this moment in TST, as Sherlock is deducing this client, and explaining how he’s arrived at his conclusions:

KINGSLEY: Sorry. I-I thought you’d done something clever. (Sherlock’s head turns towards him.) KINGSLEY: No, no. Ah, but now you’ve explained it, it’s dead simple, innit?

Excuse you, Kingsley.

Meanwhile, Sherlock is intuiting stuff all over the place, like in this moment in Mycroft’s office:

SHERLOCK (thoughtfully, looking off to one side): There’s something important about this. (For a few moments, the reflection and sound of dark blue rippling water seems to surround him.) SHERLOCK: I’m sure. Maybe it’s Moriarty. Maybe it’s not. But something’s coming. (The water disappears. Mycroft frowns and leans forward, folding his hands on the desk.) MYCROFT: Are you having a premonition, brother mine? (Sherlock blinks and looks towards Mycroft.) SHERLOCK: The world is woven from billions of lives, every strand crossing every other. What we call premonition is just movement of the web. If you could attenuate to every strand of quivering data, the future would be entirely calculable, as inevitable as mathematics.

This series emphasizes, from the beginning, the idea that we’re not in the land of deduction any more. Something else is at play, something that can only be arrived at through following intuition:

JOHN: Now what’s wrong? SHERLOCK: Not sure. I just ... ‘By the pricking of my thumbs.’ JOHN (scoffing sarcastically): Seriously? You?! SHERLOCK: Intuitions are not to be ignored, John. They represent data processed too fast for the conscious mind to comprehend.

We never quite seem to discover what these intuitions might be trying to say, not really. The Thatcher busts continue to give Sherlock the heebie jeebies. They lead him to AGRA and Ajay, and Mary’s past, a series of events that ends in Mary’s death (“Mary’s” “death”). We never really get a sense of why the Thatcher busts give Sherlock these intuitive hits, or why that water effect happens when he looks at them, or. (They are surely not geniune premonitions. They are something else.)

As beginnings go, I think that it could actually have been an interesting setup to something or other. One of the best things a writer can do to a character is take away their usual method of doing things and plunge them into an unknown territory. And Sherlock is clearly lost. Something is not right with him. He’s in some kind of altered state. But what does it all mean? 

If we follow the throughline offered to us on a textual level in s4, all of this means, apparently, nearly getting murdered in a truly weird hospital room, and ending up on Horror Movie Mashup Island for some hijinks with the plot device secret sister that literally no one cares about. Not exactly the payoff one might hope for, is it? 

In times of textual failure, it pays to follow the subtext, however, and, in this case, the intertext, because this is where The Parasite comes in--at least, I think it does. We are, at least, on the level of the text, in hinky jinky supernatural territory, from the beginning of the series--or at least, things are presented that way. (They are not really that way, but I’ll get to that in due time.) 

A Nefarious Plot

Back to plot of The Parasite. The story starts when the main character, Austin Gilroy, gets roped into attending a party thrown by Wilson, a wacky eccentric academic who is all wrapped up in pursuing the brand spanking new field of human psychology (ahhh...the state of science in the late 19th century). Wilson has decided to start by pursuing the most out there phenomena he can find: specifically, cases of extreme mesmerism. He thinks he’s found the perfect practitioner in Miss Penclosa, who humblebrags her way into Gilroy’s attention, and, essentially, challenges him to pick anyone in the room for her to influence, by way of demonstrating what she can do.

Miss Penclosa claims to have extraordinary powers of exertion over others--powers that depend, she asserts, not on anything known to science, but on her ability to extend her will into whomever she chooses. Gilroy picks his fiancée, Agatha Marden, believing that she’s strong of mind and unlikely to be influenced. Miss Penclosa puts her in a trance, and whispers in her ear--

--oopsie--

--Miss Penclosa whispers in Agatha’s ear, and all is well. 

Until the next morning, when Agatha turns up at Gilroy’s house and tells him their engagement is over. She offers no further explanation, simply assures him that they’re finished, and she leaves. 

Gilroy discovers it’s all part of the demonstration; half an hour later, Agatha doesn’t remember breaking up with him, and the engagement is still on. But, in an excessively creepy moment, Gilroy asks Miss Penclosa if Agatha would have killed him if she’d programmed her to, and Miss Penclosa agrees, yes, she would. 

In fact, Miss Penclosa affirms that she has only scratched the surface of revealing her abilities. She has “further powers.” He, of course, wants to know more. She replies:

"I shall be only too happy to tell you any thing you wish to know. Let me see; what was it you asked me? Oh, about the further powers. Professor Wilson won't believe in them, but they are quite true all the same. For example, it is possible for an operator to gain complete command over his subject— presuming that the latter is a good one. Without any previous suggestion he may make him do whatever he likes."

"Without the subject's knowledge?"

"That depends. If the force were strongly exerted, he would know no more about it than Miss Marden did when she came round and frightened you so. Or, if the influence was less powerful, he might be conscious of what he was doing, but be quite unable to prevent himself from doing it."

"Would he have lost his own will power, then?"

"It would be over-ridden by another stronger one."

"Have you ever exercised this power yourself?"

"Several times."

This sort of wildly successful, wide-ranging mind control, is, of course, familiar from TFP:

GOVERNOR: Everyone we sent in there; it-it’s hard to describe. (John turns as the governor continues.) GOVERNOR: It’s ... it’s like she ...

MYCROFT: ... recruited them.

SO! So far we’ve got mind control powers, people under the influence of mind control powers, and those same people doing things they would never normally do. It’s enough of a connection, especially with Murder Mind Control Island TFP, to argue that The Parasite is at work in s4. BUT GUESS WHAT? IT GETS BETTER, IN THE SENSE OF MUCH MORE SCREAMINGLY RELEVANT.

It gets better because Gilroy’s narration, through his journal entries, in addition to some implications of missing days / time fuckery throughout the story, offers a first person description of what it’s like to be under the influence of Miss Penclosa. He describes not being able to help himself, but, once she decides to use her mojo as a tool of seduction, Gilroy holds hands with her, and spends time talking about how boring Agatha is, in comparison with Miss Penclosa. He tries to resist, and Miss Penclosa’s influence only deepens. He decides that, at all costs, he’ll never go anywhere near her again. And yet, when the evening rolls around and their usual meeting time comes, he finds himself simply and irresistibly drawn to her. 

So, he locks himself in his room and slides the key under the door. When the moment for his standing appointment comes, he finds himself on the floor, trying to reach the key with a quill pen. This is how he describes what he feels:

It was all wonderfully clear, and yet disassociated from the rest of my life, as the incidents of even the most vivid dream might be. A peculiar double consciousness possessed me. There was the predominant alien will, which was bent upon drawing me to the side of its owner, and there was the feebler protesting personality, which I recognized as being myself, tugging feebly at the overmastering impulse as a led terrier might at its chain. 

(Gilroy compares himself to a dog, and others compare him to a dog, so many times, I lost track.)

Most striking of all about The Parasite is what happens when Gilroy confronts Miss Penclosa, telling her that he finds her disgusting:

The very sight of you and the sound of your voice fill me with horror and disgust. The thought of you is repulsive. That is how I feel toward you, and if it pleases you by your tricks to draw me again to your side as you have done tonight, you will at least, I should think, have little satisfaction in trying to make a lover out of a man who has told you his real opinion of you. You may put what words you will into my mouth, but you cannot help remembering--

I stopped, for the woman’s head had fallen back, and she had fainted. 

Mary is no fainter (I mean, idk, maybe faking your death is a type of fainting), but John certainly makes a move toward rejecting her in Morocco:

MARY: I always liked ‘Mary.’

JOHN (smiling): Yeah, me too.

JOHN: I used to.

Gilroy’s repudiation of Miss Penclosa triggers an endgame, in which she causes him to do increasingly terrible (and out of character) things that threaten to ruin his life. She goes after his career first, making him interrupt his own lectures at the university with gibberish. He becomes a laughingstock--people start attending his lectures to see what bizarre things he’s going to say next. 

The university suspends Gilroy’s lectures, deciding that he’s not mentally fit to run classes, effectively taking his career away from him. 

Has something similar happened to John? It’s certainly implied in TLD:

NURSE CORNISH: You involved much? JOHN: Sorry? NURSE CORNISH: Um, with Mr Holmes – Sherlock and all his cases?

JOHN: Uh, yeah. I’m John Watson. NURSE CORNISH (looking as if that means nothing to her): Okay. JOHN: Doctor Watson.

NURSE CORNISH: I love his blog, don’t you? JOHN: His blog?

...

JOHN (interrupting): It’s my blog.

SHERLOCK: It is. He writes the blog. NURSE CORNISH (to John): It’s yours? JOHN: Yes.

NURSE CORNISH: You write Sherlock’s blog? JOHN: Yes.

NURSE CORNISH: It’s ... gone downhill a little bit, hasn’t it?

I can’t think what the hell would fuel this exchange, unless the blog has genuinely gone downhill (you guys, I miss the blog), or Nurse Cornish is in on the whole gaslighting / manipulation / mind control deal (extremely possible, as implied by her position in front of a big hairy grinning yikes worthy head shot of Culverton Smith). Since the blog has stopped, or whatever is actually (”actually”) happening, it’s impossible to check and see if the blog really has gone downhill. If we take The Parasite as an intertext, however, we could certainly imagine John’s writings, and his sense of self, deteriorating as a result of the forces that are manipulating him. 

Things take a turn for the extremely disturbing when Gilroy thinks he has found an ally in Charles Sadler, a friend and colleague. [I’ll just say here that this is the bit that convinced me that Mofftiss are cribbing off The Parasite, and, if anything in this meta has a trigger warning, the next bit should, for physical violence on par with the morgue scene, or, one might say, exactly like the morgue scene.]  Charles Sadler has also been under the influence of Miss Penclosa, albeit to a lesser degree. Gilroy plans to talk to Sadler after they spend an evening together, at a university function, where Gilroy goes to prove that he hasn’t completely lost his sanity. Miss Penclosa is there, watching both of them from the sidelines. She knows that Sadler might support Gilroy. Gilroy narrates:

To-night is the university ball, and I must go. God knows I never felt less in the humor for festivity, but I must not have it said that I am unfit to appear in public. If I am seen there, and have speech with some of the elders of the university it will go a long way toward showing them that it would be unjust to take my chair away from me.

10 P. M. I have been to the ball. Charles Sadler and I went together, but I have come away before him. I shall wait up for him, however, for, indeed, I fear to go to sleep these nights. He is a cheery, practical fellow, and a chat with him will steady my nerves. On the whole, the evening was a great success. I talked to every one who has influence, and I think that I made them realize that my chair is not vacant quite yet. The creature was at the ball—unable to dance, of course, but sitting with Mrs. Wilson. Again and again her eyes rested upon me. They were almost the last things I saw before I left the room. Once, as I sat sideways to her, I watched her, and saw that her gaze was following some one else. It was Sadler, who was dancing at the time with the second Miss Thurston. To judge by her expression, it is well for him that he is not in her grip as I am. He does not know the escape he has had. I think I hear his step in the street now, and I will go down and let him in. If he will—

Gilroy wakes up the next morning, having broken off his journal entry with no memory of doing so, only to find that his hand is “greatly swollen” for some reason he can’t recall.

JOHN: I really hit him, Greg.

JOHN: Hit him hard.

Gilroy goes to Charles Sadler’s rooms, and is shocked by what he finds there:

I went to Sadler and found him, to my surprise, in bed. As I entered he sat up and turned a face toward me which sickened me as I looked at it.

"Why, Sadler, what has happened?" I cried, but my heart turned cold as I said it.

"Gilroy," he answered, mumbling with his swollen lips, "I have for some weeks been under the impression that you are a madman. Now I know it, and that you are a dangerous one as well. If it were not that I am unwilling to make a scandal in the college, you would now be in the hands of the police."

"Do you mean——" I cried.

"I mean that as I opened the door last night you rushed out upon me, struck me with both your fists in the face, knocked me down, kicked me furiously in the side, and left me lying almost unconscious in the street. Look at your own hand bearing witness against you."

I won’t screencap the morgue beating, because it’s traumatised people more than enough, but I was really, really struck by the identical quality of the choreography of what Gilroy does to Sadler, set against what John does to Sherlock. 

John Watson, who wonders why everything is always his fault in HLV, may not in fact be to blame for these terrible actions, if we follow The Parasite intertext. If he is being manipulated, if Mary is in his head the same way that Miss Penclosa is in Gilroy’s, then it may be that John has been in some way compelled to hurt the one person who matters most to him. 

The story of The Parasite progresses quickly from Gilroy’s attack on Charles Sadler. Miss Penclosa takes Gilroy over once more, and tries to force him to throw a bottle of vitriol (sulfuric acid) in Agatha’s face. Gilroy comes awake in Agatha’s room, vitriol in hand, and realises that the influence has lifted. It turns out that Miss Penclosa is dead--having tried to force him to do something so absolutely awful to Gilroy’s beloved, Miss Penclosa has exerted too much of her will / mojo / magical effort-stuff, and it’s killed her. Love conquers all? Ish? In any case, Gilroy and Agatha (and Charles Sadler too, I suppose) are free.

Implications for s4

Some free association style thoughts:

The Mary John sees in his mind may or may not be actual Mary (I really *love* the idea that Mary is still lurking around both John and Sherlock throughout TLD); she is, at least, the trace of an undue and unnatural influence that Mary has on him. 

It’s possible that by the time we get to John’s confession scene in 221B at the end of TLD, he has, somehow, through the power of his will, transformed this mental image into something genuinely benevolent / representative of what he in fact wants--like Gilroy, exerting his own will to drain the spectre of Mary’s influence. However, it’s also possible that there are two Marys--the trace of the Mary that is trying to destroy John (and through him, Sherlock) and the image of Mary that John has made into something better.

This reading is suggested by the appearance of “scary Mary” in the Childrens Ward scene in TLD (balancing the frame behind John with Nurse Cornish--I SEE YOU VILLAIN) 

with “angelic / Jiminy Cricket” Mary, who sits in front of him:

(I will just add, once you become aware of Scary Mary in this scene, it is NOT OKAY to watch it, it’s super creepshow.)

Obviously I wouldn’t argue for a magical mind mojo influence deal in s4. We don’t need to presume anything supernatural, because the narrative gives us a perfectly good mind control mechanism in TD12. Like others have argued, Mary could have been dosing John for as long as the narrative suits. Sherlock may or may not have been dosed by her as well--evidence suggests there may be other people involved. 

I personally have always favoured the idea of Mary as henchwoman (because of her coding as Moran in HLV / The Empty House scene), rather than as main supervillain, although I don’t much care either way--she bad. I like the idea of Eurus as Moriarty sib, orchestrating John’s deterioration through Mary, even as Sherlock is similarly fucked with. The plan is to tear John and Sherlock apart, and it very nearly works, too. 

As for Sherlock himself, he may have been receiving his “treatments” by another hand (Wiggins? I know...say it ain’t so...but Wiggins).

.

WIGGINS: Is ‘cup of tea’ code?

...

SHERLOCK: Stop talking. It makes me aware of your existence. 

(If John talks to not-there / sometimes-there Mary, does Sherlock talk to not-there / sometimes-there Wiggins, who shows up from time to time to assure that Sherlock is fully dosed?)

So. What looks like genre-hopping, a sudden embrace of nonsense, and serious gaps in both plot and storytelling technique from the beginning of TST, may simply be the artifacts of memories erased, replaced, manipulated, and controlled. If Mary can make John hallucinate her, then she or whoever she’s working with can also, presumably, make Sherlock think he’s having a premonition / intuitive hit, when he is, in fact, trying to process memories that have been taken from him, or ideas that have been planted. Since TST is probably Mary’s exit plan--wild speculation here--could it be that she needed to make sure Sherlock found the breadcrumb trail of the Thatcher statues that would lead to her “death,” in order to make her exit plan work? 

Similarly, many of the qualities of TFP could be the legacy of mind control on John’s hallucinating, dying mind after he is shot at the end of TLD. Sister X-Man’s uncanny abilities could be the explanation invented by the dreamer / John for the anomalies he has been encountering in his waking life. Unable to process or understand what has happened, even his own actions, and unable to deal with the idea that Mary is at the root of his personal torment, he ascribes executive function in the prison in his mind to a madwoman who can make people do whatever she wants, and who is a mishmash of his own impulses and desires, and the influence he’s been under. The events of TFP are John’s mind offering a partial explanation of a probable truth that has only barely leaked through the text of s4. 

So, what really happened in s4?

Tentatively, I think that the real plot of s4 concerns Mary's failure to take John away from Sherlock, which was, I would argue, always her assignment. Sherlock is too stalwart, too loyal--he even befriends the woman sent to destroy him. Because of her failure, Mary is now withdrawn from the field via a faked death, leaving maximum carnage in her wake by manipulating John to behave in a totally self- and Sherlock-destructive way. This plan also fails to ruin John and Sherlock, because they do the unexpected--John allows himself to be forgiven, and Sherlock forgives. At the end of TLD, they’re closer than ever.

The only thing left is for John to die. It’s the last in a series of plans to burn the heart out of Sherlock. Enter TFP--the extended Garridebs moment--and the cliffhanger of the century.

Tagging @devoursjohnlock and @shamelessmash because look! I finally posted this.

[swipestream]

Tales of the Once And Future King

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Uther Pendragon sires a secret son and with his last breath sticks his sword into a rock and proclaims it a test to determine who shall inherit his crown. Arthur yoinks the sword, founds Camelot with its Knights of the Round Table, saves Britain from multiple threats, and finally dies at the hand of the bastard son sired by Arthur and his half-sister. Along the way King Arthur’s knights engage in antics of both heroic and debauched, and generally fail to heed the warnings of Arthur’s chief advisor the (wizard?) Merlin. In the end, we are told that King Arthur will one day return to Britain in her hour of greatest need.

Better yet, don’t stop me, because you’ve never heard this one quite like this before.

Fans of the King Arthur myth understand that it is not just A story. It is THE story. The rise and fall of Arthur encapsulates the history and myths of Western Civilization, and includes all of the best and worst that post-Roman European culture has to offer the world. From Arthur’s rags to riches rise to the arrogance that leads to his fall, to the redemptive arc that runs through the final stages the story, it even manages to embrace both western pessimism for the state of the world today and its optimism for the future. It is at once the story of one man’s heroic journey, but a story that includes space for the tales of his coterie of knights as they struggle to defeat their own challenges both internal and external. As such, the legend of King Arthur goes beyond just THE story and becomes ALL of the stories. It’s not just a legend, and its not just a genre. Taking all of this into consideration, the King Arthur myth becomes a narrative device – a means of storytelling narrow enough to provide context all out of proportion to length, and wide enough to create space for adventure quests and morality plays and even execrable feminist doggerel. The legend’s scale and scope occupy a large enough chunk of literary real estate to have earned its own moniker – Arthurian.

The rich vein of the Arthurian legend has been tapped countless times by authors and film-makers, each with their own spin and take on the subject matter, and most of them using the deep cultural cachet of the story lend weight to thin plots, weak characters, and stomach churning political messages. By now the Arthurian “brand”, such as it is, has been so watered down that fantasy enthusiasts can be forgiven for rolling their eyes at each new entry into the field. They would do well to set aside their reservations upon seeing the cover to the recent Arthurian collection, Tales of the Once and Future King. This collection, edited by Anthony Marchetta and published by Superversives Press, represents a triumph of the genre on both the technical and the entertainment level.

Already a collection of stories united by their Arthurian inspiration, this collection is further united by a narrative that presents four weary travelers crossing Britain during a vaguely modern time of troubles. Lost in a dark wood, they find themselves captured by…bandits(?)…one of whom claims to be the Bard of Britain, Speaker for the King, and heir of the legendary bard, Taleisin. The interplay of these four wanderers and their captors provides a framework for each of the individual stories to both inform and influence the action. The result turns Tales of the Once and Future King into a strange hybrid at once a novel featuring Inception-style levels of tales within tales within tales, and a complete narrative in its own right.

It’s not the first book to use this technique, but it is one of the most effective. In most cases, a narrative framework for stories from a collection of authors feels bolted-on – an awkward and hamfisted excuse to pad the length of a book, and often one that come across as being as cheap and as lazy as a sitcom clip episode. Marchetta’s use of the narrative framework is seamless. The placement of the tales is deliberate, the characters within the larger framework react to the stories in the collection naturally, and the action in the interludes lays the groundwork for the story to follow. In most collections of this type, the reader can safely read the stories in any random order and the narrative within the framework won’t lose any of its punch. In this case doing so would lead to a nonsensical series of non-sequiturs. The deftness with which these stories are tied together elevates the quality of entire collection to create a title even greater than the sum of its parts – and its parts are excellent.

Though a little heavy on the YA side of storytelling, the individual tales evoke the sense of wonder and majesty that the theme of the book demands.  Taliesin’s Riddle, by Peter Nealen, starts things off with an Arthurian contemporary tale of a knight facing his first significant test.

Then things get a little crazy. The title of the next entry itself spirals out of control – an excellent precursor to the tale that follows – as Matthew P. Schmidt presents (I’m not making this up) Tristan and Isolde, A Chivalric Tragedy with Giant Steampunk Battle Robots (also, vampires). In this day of “LOL so random” humor, one can be forgiven a quick sigh on reading that. Have a little faith in your editor. What follows is indeed a chivalric tragedy with giant steampunk battle robots (and vampires), but a chivalric tragedy with giant steampunk battle robots (and vampires) that takes the concept of a chivalric tragedy with giant steampunk battle robots (and vampires) seriously. The characters in Schmidt’s story are deadly earnest – they face a mortal threat armed with battered equipment and never once break character to crack wise or throw knowing winks at the audience. They are genuine people living in a fully realized world and that simple authorial decision lends this story a weight as heavy as the machines they pilot. The action is stirring, the stakes meaningful, and the result a page turning read with far more gravity than the title suggests.  Tristan and Isolde, A Chivalric Tragedy with Giant Steampunk Battle Robots (also, vampires) manages to rank as my favorite story in the collection, which clears a high bar because I don’t even like steampunk.

From these first two short reviews, you can already see how much variety this collection contains.  Not content to limit itself to prose, the collection gives us Ben Zwycky’s epic poem, The Beast.  The modern day ghost story of Jonathan Shipley’s Lady in Waiting eschews the iron-clad route to delve into the depths of the Lady in the Lake.  L. Jagi Lamplighter brings her own dreamlike take on the mythic cycle, in Understudies of Camelot, one that touches deeply upon the central Christian core of the mythic cycle.  We even get a World War Two adventure story in R. C. Mulhare’s Sacred Cargo.

All in all, Tales of the Once and Future King presents a very satisfying collection of short stories.  Like the best of symphonic music, the variations on a theme are used to the best extent possible to give the reader that ever elusive “same, but different” quality that trips up so many creatives in the written and visual arts.  Although the settings vary wildly, the central core of the Arthurian mix acts as a perfect framework within which to present a wide variety of tales.  In it, Marchetta proves that the rich mine of the story of King Arthur and friends is anything but played out.

Tales of the Once And Future King published first on http://ift.tt/2zdiasi

[zipgrowth]

From Analog to Digital: Why and How to Teach Students to Write for an Online Audience

When was the last time you wrote an essay? When was the last time you read one other than for grading?

Now think about the frequency with which you read online articles, blogs, social media posts or listen to podcasts that inspire you or provide new information and perspectives. When did you last watch YouTube to figure out how to do something complicated, from cross stitch to car repair?

If you’re like me, you’ve done much of your reading and learning through some kind of digital publishing platform—because it’s easy, accessible and often free. Whether text, video or something else entirely, each of these mediums encompasses a form of writing.

The ubiquity and impact of digital writing can’t be ignored.

The ubiquity and impact of digital writing can’t be ignored. Nearly 70% of Americans get some of their news from social media; world views—impacting presidential campaigns and more—are shaped by these platforms. Yet most high school and middle school students are illiterate when it comes to online texts, and can’t discern real information from fake news.

We can not omit digital literacy from our curriculum.

In addition learning how to read and consume digital texts, our students must know how to author and publish in the digital realm. What’s at stake is our students’ ability to become thoughtful citizens, and their ability to write and publish perspectives and information that will be crucial for their career success. The National Association for Media Literacy in Education has defined media literacy as being able to analyze digital texts as well as create them.

Redefining writing

We need to reframe our conversation about writing from one based on polarities of analog versus digital to one about purpose, passion and relevance. Just as the technological revolution of the printing press democratized the authorship and distribution of books, so too does social media and the internet allow for more voices to be heard and for a wide variety of authors—including our students—to connect with audiences around the world.

Increasingly, writing doesn’t mean a five paragraph essay written by hand. And although the medium used to write can take many forms other than words on paper, the foundations of good writing are the same in any platform—critical thinking and analysis, structure, voice, tone, and audience.

. . . the foundations of good writing are the same in any platform—critical thinking and analysis, structure, voice, tone, and audience.

Like its analog predecessors, digital writing can be used in formative and summative assessments, non-fiction writing, and for creative self-expression. Authoring with multimedia such as video, photography and sound introduces an entirely new set of grammar and vocabulary, not just a new set of tools. Students become savvy consumers of information and ideas when they understand how the messages they encounter are created.

How to help your students evolve from analog to digital writers

Start with simple assignments that are an easy transition from what you and your students are already familiar with. Try blogging, then build to more complex projects like podcasting or video storytelling. In addition to concentrating on the ideas and the writing itself, try to create situations where the students’ writing takes advantage of the medium and the connectedness of the internet.

Some criteria I use to develop assignments include:

student agency

engagement and passion

audience impact beyond the classroom

authoring skills and experiences needed for success outside of academia

collaboration and connectivity with other authors and audience members

experiences authoring in a variety of media other than text

When we develop our writing assignments, we must ultimately come back to one main concern: purpose. Why are we giving specific types of writing assignments and how do they help our students convey their ideas in ways that resonate with their audience?

Resources on Writing for an Authentic Audience

A Guide to Producing Student Digital Storytellers, by Michael Hernandez

Create to Learn: Introduction to Digital Literacy, by Renee Hobbs

Evaluation Within Project-Based Learning, by Michael Hernandez

Social media: The haiku of digital writing

A great way to introduce students to online publishing is to use social media. It’s a familiar, relevant publishing platform and allows for quick access to a global audience. The brevity of the format (Twitter’s 140 characters, for instance) forces students to synthesize their ideas down to the essential story elements.

For example, Larry Reiff, a high school English teacher in New York, uses Twitter to teach his students about Shakespeare by having them tweet in the voice of characters. Students learn the literature through public performance, understand social media tools, and become better writers.

“Knowing that the whole world may see their work forces students to step up,” says Reiff. “They proofread a little bit more closely. They double check the punctuation. I soon as the students begin to post their work online, I noticed a gradual improvement in their writing.”

Journalism students use Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat to publish news, becoming familiar with the platform’s immediacy and how to connect with audiences through tagging and mentions. Social media relies heavily on an awareness of voice and audience. Each social media app has a slightly different demographic, and the nature of a scrolling feed means that publishing content demands an awareness of timing and when audience members will see posts.

Blogging: The online magazine

An online publication can have one or many writers, developing assignments around student-selected themes. Digital ‘zines can include expository and persuasive writing, each involving research, interviews, and analysis. Narrative writing is a great way to integrate creative writing in the form of short story or poetry, and is the next step in the publication of literary magazines.

The best part about digital writing is that it is also its own portfolio.

Because blog entries are published on websites, they can easily incorporate photography, infographics, and embedded video. This is a great way to scaffold all elements of digital literacy, as student assignments become increasingly complex and build digital literacy skills over the course of the school year.

The best part about digital writing is that it is also its own portfolio. Because student-published work lives online—not in a file cabinet—it is easily collected into a resume with hyperlinks, or a Storify best-of collection of social media posts. Resumes are their own type of story, carefully curated for each employer (target audience) who is looking for a specific set of skills. 

A picture is worth 1000 words: Video and multimedia writing

While scripts and interview questions form the foundation for multimedia projects, the real communication going on here is with the images themselves. Visual literacy, the understanding of and use of images to convey information, is where writing is headed.

Facebook predicts that in a few years the majority of posts to its site will be video. What’s more, the presence of photos and video on social media posts increases audience interaction significantly. If one of our main purposes for writing is to have an impact on an audience, then this is going to be the best way to go.

Visual literacy, the understanding of and use of images to convey information, is where writing is headed.

Podcasts and explainer videos have taken off in popularity because they’re relevant, packed with information, and are easy for a global audience to access. Explainer videos also let you assess student knowledge in a way that is dynamic and actually useful for an audience beyond the classroom. Rather than an essay or multiple choice test, students create videos to demonstrate their knowledge. After all, the best way to learn is to teach.

With a grammar all its own, video is so much more than recorded plays. Using visual evidence in documentaries and journalism is the ultimate skill for learning expository and persuasive writing. It can also be used to teach a variety of literary devices through creative visual storytelling.

As teachers, our goal is to instill a love for writing in our students, to get them to write in all of its forms, and prepare them to communicate ideas effectively to an audience in the real world. When we teach our students to write for digital media, it sends a message that our assignments are relevant, exciting and important.

From Analog to Digital: Why and How to Teach Students to Write for an Online Audience published first on http://ift.tt/2x05DG9