#honesty same

[s1ushyz]

Isn't he just so dreamy 😮‍💨

[livelovecaliforniadreams]

+Bonus

[zoxsansnc]

maybe one day robin will find a place similar to Ohara and have a mental breakdown

[aizhits]

Magnus archives doodles :P

[ohnonotthehorrors]

I missed the beginning of the event so I’ve only now gone back to watch Martyn’s intro and…

I love that Martyn has like A Job; he’s doing tech and set up stuff, he’s reading the donos like a champ. Still a non-hermit hermit-friend but with Work Experience. Like someone was like ‘oh we need a dono reader,’ remembered Martyn has done it, and reached out.

Meanwhile. Jimmy is Just There.

It makes perfect sense! Don’t get me wrong! Once Grian and Martyn are in the same location there’s like a 99% chance he’ll be there too. Not to mention Ranchers, old Evo friends, and just the life series in general-

But it is incredibly funny cause it’s like:

The Hermits, their IT guy, and also Jimmy.

Who is Jimmy you ask? He’s Jimmy. What’s he doing? Being Jimmy. Next question.

[breesperez139]

Dc x Dp Prompt #6

“I’m a twin”, Damian said one night. He could feel the narrowed eyes of his family drilling holes on his back in disbelief. Not that he could blame them. Damian had never so much as implied being raised with a companion, much less a sibling.

“I had a brother”. Damian paused to recollect himself. He had not said his brother’s name out loud in over 8 years.

“His name was… Danyal”. Damian hated the way his voice wavered, but he could not help it. Danyal was everything to him, his other half. Their heart beat as one and when one heart stopped beating, the other one died with it. At least until his family put his heart on metaphorical life support without ever realizing.

“Where is he now?” His father asked, voice filled with knowing grief and a hint of betrayal. It had in fact been 6 years since Damian first showed up on his doorstep.

“Up there”. All eyes shifted towards the specific star he was pointing to. “Right before he died, he promised me he’d guide me from the stars. Unfortunately, the stars are not visible in Gotham, so my brother is unable to be of much help unless I leave the city.”

“Your brother is Polaris, the North Star?” Tim questioned warily, most likely in attempts to not offend him. Damian was aware of how stupid it sounded, but Danyal had promised, and his brother never broke his promises.

“Yes. Danyal is with the stars now, just as he always wanted”

[zishuge]

The only thing I remember is killing people. You say I'm someone who saves people. I won't kill you — but I don't believe you either. Do you think I'm a fool? You're not a fool. Mysterious Lotus Casebook (2023) | Ep. 20

[dailyloopdeloop]

DAY 71: shy

[jeeaark]

Remember Auntie Ethel's victim who could see people's possible futures? Yeaaah, Greygold walked right into that prophecy.

In the Far Realms, they have memory foam beds

[zivazivc]

oh my god FLOYD........ The band breakup iM CRYING... I love your OCs and the ex band mates lore so much 😭😭 You did a great job with your description of bipolar as well!! I was diagnosed bipolar 1 a few years ago, if you have any question about it and how it feels/some anecdotes feel free to ask! :)

Oh my gosh I was not expecting this! Thank you for the offer, I will definitely take you up on it sometime soon. I've done a bunch of reading but it would be something else completely to talk to someone who deals with this issue themselves. But I am happy that the research I've done is approved, especially since I think, from how I imagine Floyd behaving, I think he has bipolar 1 too, but I'd have to read more to say that confidently.

[onefleshonepod]

Strange Names in Nona the Ninth

Nona’s gang of kids, plus the Angel, all appear to have weird names because they are Nona’s transliterations of their names in their native languages into the language of the Nine Houses.

Hot Sauce nodded. Nona guessed again, “Born in the Morning.” “You mean Born in the Morning,” said Hot Sauce. “That’s what I said,” said Nona.

There are seventeen local languages (according to Ianthe) on New Rho. Nona can speak all of them, without really understanding what she’s doing, so she understands the names she hears and the meaning of these names to be synonymous.

Nona understood everybody, and could speak back to them so that they understood her, and nobody ever said she had an accent. This confounded Palamedes. When she first said that she could speak back by watching them talk and making her lips look like theirs, it confounded him so much more that it gave Camilla a headache.

(I think the same thing’s going on with The Building that Troia cell lives in; I think it’s a word in another language that means building and is used as an official name for the building, but I have no guesses as to what that could be.)

I believe Nona is able to do this both because she is Alecto, who plays the role of the Holy Spirit in Tamsyn's Catholic Trinity 2.0, and the Holy Spirit gave the Apostles the gift of tongues during Pentecost, and because she is the soul of Earth. The languages spoken on New Rho presumably came from Earth, so of course she can speak all of them!

This is my attempt to reverse engineer all of these names into House / English.

The Angel / The Messenger

BOE calls Aim "the Messenger" and the children and Nona call her "the Angel.”

We Suffer: “Usually you both meeting up with the Messenger, whom you call the Angel, would have been very bad.”

When the Angel first appears, her name is playing on the meaning of “angel” as a caring and godly being – the reader gets that it would make sense for children who love her to see her as an angel, so this remark flies under on the radar:

The Angel was what they called the nondescript, washed-out, dusty-haired personage who came to teach the Hour of Science. Why they called her the Angel was unclear.

But it is clear why they call her The Angel! It comes from a word with two meanings: the Greek word “angelos” originally meant “messenger” and later took on the meaning of “angel” or “messenger of God,” so all names originating from this word have both of those meanings.

Names originating from “angelos” include Angela (English, Spanish), Aniela (Polish), Aingeal (Irish), Anděla (Czech), Andjela (Serbian), Angèle (French), Angiola (Italian), Anzhela (Russian), and diminutives like Angelina.

The name is intended by BOE to mean Messenger, because of her societal role, but Nona is translating the other meaning of her name, Angel, because that meaning is what makes more sense to her given the way she sees and loves the Angel.

It's also possible that BOE has a more formal version of this name as a title for the Messenger and the children's "the Angel" which Nona hears as distinct from "the Messenger" is a diminutive or less formal version of the same name.

Born in the Morning

This name could be Sabah (Arabic), Akinyi (Luo from Kenya), or Asa (Japanese), all names which mean “morning” and more specifically “born in the morning.”

Honesty

This is a bit more difficult and I’m really not sure about any of these. There are quite a few boys' names meaning “honesty.” There are even more names that mean “honest” or “truthful,” but for strictly the noun “honesty” we have these names:

Pheakdei (Khmer, from Cambodia); Satyam, Onnesha, and Sachh (Hindi); Zaka and Sadaqat (Arabic); and Onestà or Onesto (Italian).

I don’t speak any of these languages, so I can’t comment on which name is most likely, and there are probably also way more possibilities that I missed in my deep dive into 457 baby name websites and dictionary translations!

Edit: I've seen "Frank" suggested a lot as a potential name, but I don't think this is likely, because "Honesty" is a noun, and "Frank" is an adjective. I think if Tamsyn intended the name to be a transliteration of "Frank" she would have used the adjective "Honest," not the noun "Honesty " – she doesn't seem the type to overlook something like that.

Beautiful Ruby

I think this name is probably just two names, in an unknown language, one meaning “beautiful” and one meaning “ruby.”

Unfortunately, there are millions of possibilities here and I can’t find any combination that particularly jumps out. If you have more thoughts on this please let me know!

Hot Sauce

Hot Sauce, of course – as a delightful choice that only serves to confuse the reader more with respect to all of these names – is literally just named Hot Sauce. You CAN put it on rice and you CAN put it on bread!!

[attemptedvictorian]

Mr. Brocklehurst: And how will you avoid Hell?

Ten year-old Jane Eyre: I must keep in good health and not die.

*uproar*

Ten year-old Jane Eyre:

[shayberri789]

Something about how in chapter 4 of trc Adam is insecure about the fray on his second hand sweater, and how it's a symbol of his background and insecurities, and how most people don't notice it, and if they did, they didnt think better of him for it

And how Blue saw it immediately and it was something she liked about him, a girl too good at seeing the vulnerabilities of other people, but Adam didnt want someone to see his insecurities, didn't want someone to acknowledge that life

But Gansey did. Gansey needed someone to see him at his worst and love him for it, and blue did that

And how Adam needed someone to see him at his most unruly, and encouraged that

And Ronan makes Adam loud

[cerise-on-top]

Fluff alphabet for Nikolai? You’re one of the few who write for him and he’s my favorite character! Thank you so much!!

Hey there! Really? There aren't many people who write for him? That's such a shame, he's literally such a cool character and I adore him so much! Also, sorry I wrote this relatively late, but life got inbetween! But I wrote it now!

Fluff Alphabet for Nikolai

A ctivities - What do they like to do with their s/o? How do they spend their free time with them?

If it was up to him, then you’d be spending most of your days at home, within the safety of your walls. However, he loves doing whatever it is you love. You wanna go on a hike? You wanna have a boxing match with him? You wanna start a book club? Everything is game for him as long as you’re down for it, or make the suggestion. He is the adaptable sort of person who can do just about anything, especially if he gets to spend time with you and make you happy.

B eauty - What do they admire about their s/o? What do they think is beautiful about them?

The fact that you can stay with someone like him. Nikolai can be a very cocky man, he doesn’t particularly hide his occasional cruelty either. Sure, he is calm and collected as well, but he could see why you would want to leave him for someone more “proper”. You could likely get anyone in the world, and yet you decide to stay with him? He, who has killed the guilty and innocent alike? Who makes fun of the police whenever he can? It takes a special kind of crazy to want to be with someone like that. He can appreciate that. 

C omfort - How would they help their s/o when they feel down/have a panic attack etc.?

Since one of his abilities is that he can stay calm under any circumstance, he would likely calmly talk to you, try to talk some sense into you as well. His voice can be rather calm too when he wants it to be. He’ll be your voice of reason while getting you away from whatever may be upsetting you, shielding you from onlookers. When you’re sad he’ll offer some advice, or maybe some distraction, whichever you say you need more at the moment. His advice is actually pretty solid too, he’s been through a lot and isn’t the youngest anymore either.

D reams - How do they picture their future with their s/o?

He has a small country house in the middle of nowhere in Russia, and he’d love living there with you. No more soldier or mercenary business, just you and him living together there, disturbed by no one aside from the occasional bird chirping here and there. He’d chop the wood while you make him a lovely pie. It doesn’t need to be fancy, as long as he gets to spend his future with you, winding down from all the adrenaline he gets on a regular basis, he’s happy.

E qual - Are they the dominant one in the relationship, or rather passive?

Surprisingly, he tends to be more passive in the relationship. Though, he could go either way, but normally he just goes along with whatever it is you want. Sure, he can and will flirt with you occasionally, and if you’re on the more passive side then he’ll take charge, but other than that he just goes with the flow and lets you decide. If you can’t decide for whatever reason, then he will. But whatever makes you happiest he’ll do.

F ight - Would they be easy to forgive their s/o? How are they fighting?

He would never raise his voice at you. It’s very hard to anger him in general, he usually believes he’s in the right anyway, which he usually is. He’s calm and collected at all times, but will be more factual with everything when he’s starting to get annoyed with you. However, he easily forgives, regardless of whether you apologize or not. Your relationship isn’t so weak that something like this should make it falter.

G ratitude - How grateful are they in general? Are they aware of what their s/o is doing for them?

Generally speaking, he knows what is and isn’t a given, and he knows to appreciate the things that aren’t. So yeah, he’s a pretty grateful man, even if it doesn’t seem like he’d show it very often. Nikolai knows that you cleaning the house from top to bottom, you cooking him a meal and giving him all the love he deserves and so much more isn’t a given, so he likes to show his gratitude through the small things, such as making sure to take in every new detail about you and always complimenting you, getting you the occasional gift as well. Something small but meaningful.

H onesty - Do they have secrets they hide from their s/o? Or do they share everything?

He runs a PMC, so naturally there are things he can’t tell you about. However, he does believe that secrecy kills a relationship. If it’s something he can talk about, he will. Although he won’t go into detail about how he tortured that man, he will give you constructive criticism on how you can improve your knitting. He’s not one for lying, you deserve to know just about everything. Isn’t the most open about his past, though.

I nspiration - Did their s/o change them somehow, or the other way around? Like trying out new things or helped them overcome personal problems?

I think Nikolai changed the most during his youth, so likely long before he met you. By the time you met he had already become who he is today. I don’t think anyone or anything could change him that significantly anymore, unless something truly terrible happened. He knows to take care of himself. However, I feel as though he could have become a bit kinder as a result of meeting you.

J ealousy - Do they get jealous easily? How do they deal with it?

He has faith in you to not leave him. Sure, he gets his spurts of jealousy, but he’s an adult, he doesn’t really act on it all that much. The only thing he really does when he’s jealous is talk over the other person to try and get your attention. He deals with it by either walking away from the situation or trying to get you away from the other person if he can. Again, he trusts you to not stray from him.

K iss - Are they a good kisser? What was the first kiss like?

He’s an attractive man, he likely had his fair share of lovers throughout his life, meaning he’s kissed plenty of times. When he was younger, he wasn’t a very good kisser, but he learned to adapt to the likes and dislikes of people. He could likely satisfy just about anyone with a few kisses these days. However, your first kiss with him would have beena a gentle one. He loved you even back then and was afraid of intimidating you. It was short, it was gentle, it was sweet.

L ove Confession - How would they confess to their s/o?

It wouldn’t be anything too fancy. He’d get you flowers, some chocolate or other sweets you like and invite you to a lake or something. And then he’d confess his feelings to you in a casual manner and ask you if you want to be with him. If you had said no then he would have made the offer of staying friends, at the very least.

M arriage - Do they want to get married? How do they propose? What would the marriage be like?

On the one hand, he does want to get married, on the other he doesn’t want to subject you to all the danger he’s usually part of. I think it would take him an eternity to propose and then it would be something simple as well. He’d test the waters by asking you if you want to marry him first, the ring comes later. Not much changes when you’re married to him. It still feels rather casual, but there’s always the fact you’re bound by your vows now. He’ll make it his goal to relive his honeymoon with you by going on a vacation with you every once in a while.

N icknames - What do they call their s/o?

Милый/милая (my dear, darling), Любимый/любимая (loved one) and Солнышко (sunshine) are his go to. He’s not overly creative, but he sometimes also calls you by the names of cute little animals. Again, he’s more casual when it comes to things like this. More often than not, he calls you by your name. However, he’s not above using terms of endearment in your native language as well. He knows eight languages, and if yours isn’t among them then he’ll simply learn it.

O n Cloud Nine - What are they like when they are in love? Is it obvious for others? How do they express their feelings?

It’s not obvious at all when he’s in love. Sure, he likes to spend more time with you, but he won’t prioritize you when he’s busy. Sometimes he’ll give you an expensive gift. Knowing fully well you’ll want to repay him, he’ll simply ask for your company and that you’ll pay for the coffee on your little date. He knows how to get what he wants, and if he wants a small outing with you then he’ll get it. He doesn’t express his feelings freely at first, but he’ll call and text you more often to check up on you. That’s about it, he has his feelings in check otherwise.

P DA - Are they upfront about their relationship? Do they brag with their s/o in front of others? Or are they rather shy to kiss etc. when others are watching?

He doesn’t really brag about his relationship. He only really mentions you here and there in front of his closest friends. The entire world doesn’t need to know about you, so he keeps you to himself for the most part. However, he doesn’t really mind PDA all that much. Sure, he won’t really initiate it, but if you really wanna kiss him, then you can just go for it. Same if you just wanna cuddle up to him under his jacket. He doesn’t really mind that sort of thing.

Q uirk - Some random ability they have that’s beneficial in a relationship.

The fact that he can stay cool under any circumstance. Even when you’re out to get on his nerves like no other he can stay almost completely neutral. It’s really hard to piss him off, and even then he thinks more rationally than he normally would. He really doesn’t let his emotions get the better of him when he’s in a negative situation. You’ll never have him yell at you, only tell you facts. He can also argue for you in case someone is being mean to you.

R omance - How romantic are they? What would they do to make their s/o happy? Cliché or rather creative?

He’s not really a romantic at heart. Sure, there’s the occasional gesture. He’ll gift you plushies, he’ll take you on a walk where you can watch the sunrise together, he’ll also cuddle you on the couch. However, he will also train you, he will take you to his shooting range, you will be sparring with him from time to time. Although it may not seem like much, that’s also another “romantic” aspect of his. He wants you to be able to defend yourself in an emergency, so he’ll make all of it seem more romantic than it really is. Will take you out for dinner, though. He can make some really mean pirozhki.

S upport - Are they helping their s/o achieve their goals? Do they believe in them?

Naturally. He’s been through so much, he likely has some piece of advice for just about any situation. And even when he can’t give you any advice, he can help you out by either listening to your woes or by paying for whatever it is you need. He’ll always be there for you. Nikolai is a very loyal man once you’ve gotten on his good side. He would never let anyone he’s close with down, be it a friend or a lover. You can bet he’ll do just about anything for you.

T hrill - Do they need to try out new things to spice out your relationship? Or do they prefer a certain routine?

It entirely depends on what you want. He can honestly go either way. Sure, he might not want to spice his love life up by committing a murder with you every day, even if he could, but maybe going on a vacation every once in a while would be nice. While he may be down to try almost everything at least once, he doesn’t mind staying stagnant in that regard either. It’s really up to you. However, he will make you eat certain new foods he thinks you might like. He’s a great cook, his meals are always top notch.

U nderstanding - How good do they know their partner? Are they empathetic?

He’s not a very empathetic person. Sure, he can usually tell what someone is thinking, but that doesn’t mean he cares enough about most people to feel what they’re feeling. Even in a relationship he isn’t the most emphatic person, he barely has any empathy for anyone. However, he can easily take notice of even the smallest of changes in your behavior and act accordingly. To him, life is more logical than anything else, not so much emotional. So he will act in accordance with the signs you give him and do whatever he has learned works for you. Either that or he will listen to his intuition. His intuition is great.

V alue - How important is the relationship to them? What is it’s worth in comparison to other things in their life?

His relationship with you is on par with the friendship he has with Price and Laswell. He knows that you can’t live off of love and air your entire life, so he keeps close contact with both of them as well. While you could not bribe him out of the relationship if you tried, he does sometimes think about cutting ties with you to keep you safe. He wouldn’t go through with it, but he does value a lot of things in life. Any relationship is important to him, whether it be romantic or platonic. So yeah, you wanting him to cut ties with Price or Laswell would immediately raise a red flag with him. He wouldn’t give up either of them either, please understand that. 

W ild Card - A random Fluff Headcanon.

He runs so very hot. Out of all the main characters, he has the highest body temperature. Nikolai is very comfortable to cuddle with in winter. He doesn’t mind cuddling with you either, if that’s what you want. But just so you know, he’s a tall man and could likely wrap himself around you almost entirely. He’s also very strong, so he could make you feel very protected as well. That’s one of his favorite things to do, making you feel safe and secure. The more you melt into him, the more you trust him to protect you, the better. He’s a nightmare to cuddle with in summer, though.

X OXO - Are they very affectionate? Do they love to kiss and cuddle?

On his own accord he’s kind of like a cat. He prefers to watch you and be in the same room as you to show affection. Once he’s figured out your style of affection, he’ll act in accordance to that. You wanna cuddle? Sure. You wanna be together in the same room? Naturally. You wanna be mushy together and exchange loving words? Yeah, he can do that too, even if he isn’t the most emotional person. Generally speaking, he likes kissing and cuddling, but he doesn’t need to be all over you all the time. The occasional kiss and cuddle is alright, but too much skin contact has the potential to annoy him.

Y earning - How will they cope when they’re missing their partner?

Since he knows that being distracted on the battlefield could lead to him never seeing you again, he tends to not think about you. However, once he has some downtime he likes to replay some of the moments he shared with you. The time you accidentally hurt yourself breaking a mug as he patched you up or when you fell asleep in his arms, he thinks about those moments more often than he’d like to admit. He doesn’t really keep a memento of you, you’re not even on his phone’s background, but he remembers you well. Your smiles, your tears, the way you’d hug him so tightly when he’d come home. He just thinks about you and those thoughts lull him to sleep.

Z eal - Are they willing to go to great lengths for the relationship? If so, what kind of?

I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if he has killed for you several times already. To answer the question, yes. He’s killed for you, he’s broken the law several times for you. He runs his own PMC, he could technically go to war for you as well. And he would if someone were to take you away from him. He could likely destroy a small nation for you. While he won’t do it if you ask him to, if someone were to kidnap you, he would not hesitate to fight for you. Your safety is a priority of his, so he will do what he can to make sure you’re by his side, forever and always.

[soracities]

Hey! It has been on my mind lately and i just wanna ask..idk if it would make sense but i just noticed that nowadays ppl cant separate the authors and their books (ex. when author wrote a story about cheating and ppl starts bashing the author for romanticizing cheating and even to a point of cancelling the author for not setting a good/healthy example of a relationship) any thoughts about it?

I have many, many thoughts on this, so this may get a little unwieldy but I'll try to corall it together as best I can.

But honestly, I think sometimes being unable to separate the author from the work (which is interesting to me to see because some people are definitely not "separating" anything even though they think they are; they just erase the author entirely as an active agent, isolate the work, and call it "objectivity") has a lot to do with some people being unable to separate the things they read from themselves.

I'm absolutely not saying it's right, but it's an impulse I do understand. If you read a book and love it, if it transforms your life, or defines a particular period of your life, and then you find out that the author has said or done something awful--where does that leave you? Someone awful made something beautiful, something you loved: and now that this point of communion exists between you and someone whose views you'd never agree with, what does that mean for who you are? That this came from the mind of a person capable of something awful and spoke to your mind--does that mean you're like them? Could be like them?

Those are very uncomfortable questions and I think if you have a tendency to look at art or literature this way, you will inevitable fall into the mindset where only "Good" stories can be accepted because there's no distinction between where the story ends and you begin. As I said, I can see where it comes from but I also find it profoundly troubling because i think one of the worst things you can do to literature is approach it with the expectation of moral validation--this idea that everything you consume, everything you like and engage with is some fundamental insight into your very character as opposed to just a means of looking at or questioning something for its own sake is not just narrow-minded but dangerous.

Art isn't obliged to be anything--not moral, not even beautiful. And while I expend very little (and I mean very little) energy engaging with or even looking at internet / twitter discourse for obvious reasons, I do find it interesting that people (online anyway) will make the entire axis of their critique on something hinge on the fact that its bad representation or justifying / romanticizing something less than ideal, proceeding to treat art as some sort of conduit for moral guidance when it absolutely isn't. And they will also hold that this critique comes from a necessarily good and just place (positive representation, and I don't know, maybe in their minds it does) while at the same time setting themselves apart from radical conservatives who do the exact same thing, only they're doing it from the other side.

To make it abundantly clear, I'm absolutely not saying you should tolerate bigots decrying that books about the Holocaust, race, homophobia, or lgbt experiences should be banned--what I am saying, is that people who protest that a book like Maus or Persepolis is going to "corrupt children", and people who think a book exploring the emotional landscape of a deeply flawed character, who just happens to be from a traditionally marginalised group or is written by someone who is, is bad representation and therefore damaging to that community as a whole are arguments that stem from the exact same place: it's a fundamental inability, or outright refusal, to accept the interiority and alterity of other people, and the inherent validity of the experiences that follow. It's the same maniacal, consumptive, belief that there can be one view and one view only: the correct view, which is your view--your thoughts, your feelings.

There is also dangerous element of control in this. Someone with racist views does not want their child to hear anti-racist views because as far as they are concerned, this child is not a being with agency, but a direct extension of them and their legacy. That this child may disagree is a profound rupture and a threat to the cohesion of this person's entire worldview. Nothing exists in and of and for itself here: rather the multiplicity of the world and people's experiences within it are reduced to shadowy agents that are either for us or against us. It's not about protecting children's "innocence" ("think of the children", in these contexts, often just means "think of the status quo"), as much as it is about protecting yourself and the threat to your perceived place in the world.

And in all honestt I think the same holds true for the other side--if you cannot trust yourself to engage with works of art that come from a different standpoint to yours, or whose subject matter you dislike, without believing the mere fact of these works' existence will threaten something within you or society in general (which is hysterical because believe me, society is NOT that flimsy), then that is not an issue with the work itself--it's a personal issue and you need to ask yourself if it would actually be so unthinkable if your belief about something isn't as solid as you think it is, and, crucially, why you have such little faith in your own critical capacity that the only response these works ilicit from you is that no one should be able to engage with them. That's not awareness to me--it's veering very close to sticking your head in the sand, while insisting you actually aren't.

Arbitrarily adding a moral element to something that does not exist as an agent of moral rectitude but rather as an exploration of deeply human impulses, and doing so simply to justify your stance or your discomfort is not only a profoundly inadequate, but also a deeply insidious, way of papering over your insecurities and your own ignorance (i mean this in the literal sense of the word), of creating a false and dishonest certainty where certainty does not exist and then presenting this as a fact that cannot and should not be challenged and those who do are somehow perverse or should have their characters called into question for it. It's reductive and infantilising in so many ways and it also actively absolves you of any responsibility as a reader--it absolves you of taking responsibility for your own interpretation of the work in question, it absolves you of responsibility for your own feelings (and, potentially, your own biases or preconceptions), it absolves you of actual, proper, thought and engagement by laying the blame entirely on a rogue piece of literature (as if prose is something sentient) instead of acknowledging that any instance of reading is a two-way street: instead of asking why do I feel this way? what has this text rubbed up against? the assumption is that the book has imposed these feelings on you, rather than potentially illuminated what was already there.

Which brings me to something else which is that it is also, and I think this is equally dangerous, lending books and stories a mythical, almost supernatural, power that they absolutely do not have. Is story-telling one of the most human, most enduring, most important and life-altering traditions we have? Yes. But a story is also just a story. And to convince yourself that books have a dangerous transformative power above and beyond what they are actually capable of is, again, to completely erase people's agency as readers, writers' agency as writers and makers (the same as any other craft), and subsequently your own. And erasing agency is the very point of censors banning books en masse. It's not an act of stupidity or blind ignorance, but a conscious awareness of the fact that people will disagree with you, and for whatever reason you've decided that you are not going to let them.

Writers and poets are not separate entities to the rest of us: they aren't shamans or prophets, gifted and chosen beings who have some inner, profound, knowledge the rest of us aren't privy to (and should therefore know better or be better in some regard) because moral absolutism just does not exist. Every writer, no matter how affecting their work may be, is still Just Some Guy Who Made a Thing. Writing can be an incredibly intimate act, but it can also just be writing, in the same way that plumbing is plumbing and weeding is just weeding and not necessarily some transcendant cosmic endeavour in and of itself. Authors are no different, when you get down to it, from bakers or electricians; Nobel laureates are just as capable of coming out with distasteful comments about women as your annoying cousin is and the fact that they wrote a genre-defying work does not change that, or vice-versa. We imbue books with so much power and as conduits of the very best and most human traits we can imagine and hope for, but they aren't representations of the best of humanity--they're simply expressions of humanity, which includes the things we don't like.

There are some authors I love who have said and done things I completely disagree with or whose views I find abhorrent--but I'm not expecting that, just because they created something that changed my world, they are above and beyond the ordinarly, the petty, the spiteful, or cruel. That's not condoning what they have said and done in the least: but I trust myself to be able to read these works with awareness and attention, to pick out and examine and attempt to understand the things that I find questionable, to hold on to what has moved me, and to disregard what I just don't vibe with or disagree with. There are writers I've chosen not to engage with, for my own personal reasons: but I'm not going to enforce this onto someone else because I can see what others would love in them, even if what I love is not strong enough to make up for what I can't. Terrance Hayes put perfectly in my view, when he talks about this and being capable of "love without forgiveness". Writing is a profoundly human heritage and those who engage with it aren't separate from that heritage as human because they live in, and are made by, the exact same world as anyone else.

The measure of good writing for me has hardly anything to do with whatever "virtue" it's perceived to have and everything to do with sincerity. As far as I'm concerned, "positive representation" is not about 100% likeable characters who never do anything problematic or who are easily understood. Positive representation is about being afforded the full scope of human feelings, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and not having your humanity, your dignity, your right to exist in the world questioned because all of these can only be seen through the filter of race, or gender, religion, or ethicity and interpreted according to our (profoundly warped) perceptions of those categories and what they should or shouldn't represent. True recognition of someone's humanity does not lie in finding only what is held in common between you (and is therefore "acceptable", with whatever you put into that category), but in accepting everything that is radically different about them and not letting this colour the consideration you give.

Also, and it may sound harsh, but I think people forget that fictional characters are fictional. If I find a particularly fucked up relationship dynamic compelling (as I often do), or if I decide to write and explore that dynamic, that's not me saying two people who threaten to kill each other and constantly hurt each other is my ideal of romance and that this is exactly how I want to be treated: it's me trying to find out what is really happening below the surface when two people behave like this. It's me exploring something that would be traumatizing and deeply damaging in real life, in a safe and fictional setting so I can gain some kind of understanding about our darker and more destructive impulses without being literally destroyed by them, as would happen if all of this were real. But it isn't real. And this isn't a radical or complex thing to comprehend, but it becomes incomprehensible if your sole understanding of literature is that it exists to validate you or entertain you or cater to you, and if all of your interpretations of other people's intentions are laced with a persistent sense of bad faith. Just because you have not forged any identity outside of this fictional narrative doesn't mean it's the same for others.

Ursula K. le Guin made an extremely salient point about children and stories in that children know the stories you tell them--dragons, witches, ghouls, whatever--are not real, but they are true. And that sums it all up. There's a reason children learning to lie is an incredibly important developmental milestone, because it shows that they have achieved an incredibly complex, but vitally important, ability to hold two contradictory statements in their minds and still know which is true and which isn't. If you cannot delve into a work, on the terms it sets, as a fictional piece of literature, recognize its good points and note its bad points, assess what can have a real world impact or reflects a real world impact and what is just creative license, how do you possible expect to recognize when authority and propaganda lies to you? Because one thing propaganda has always utilised is a simplistic, black and white depiction of The Good (Us) and The Bad (Them). This moralistic stance regarding fiction does not make you more progressive or considerate; it simply makes it easier to manipulate your ideas and your feelings about those ideas because your assessments are entirely emotional and surface level and are fuelled by a refusal to engage with something beyond the knee-jerk reaction it causes you to have.

Books are profoundly, and I do mean profoundly, important to me-- and so much of who I am and the way I see things is probably down to the fact that stories have preoccupied me wherever I go. But I also don't see them as vital building blocks for some core facet or a pronouncement of Who I Am. They're not badges of honour or a cover letter I put out into the world for other people to judge and assess me by, and approve of me (and by extension, the things I say or feel). They're vehicles through which I explore and experience whatever it is that I'm most caught by: not a prophylactic, not a mode of virtue signalling, and certainly not a means of signalling a moral stance.

I think at the end of the day so much of this tendency to view books as an extension of yourself (and therefore of an author) is down to the whole notion of "art as a mirror", and I always come back to Fran Lebowitz saying that it "isn't a mirror, it's a door". And while I do think it's important to have that mirror (especially if you're part of a community that never sees itself represented, or represented poorly and offensively) I think some people have moved into the mindset of thinking that, in order for art to be good, it needs to be a mirror, it needs to cater to them and their experiences precisely--either that or that it can only exist as a mirror full stop, a reflection of and for the reader and the writer (which is just incredibly reductive and dismissive of both)--and if art can only exist as a mirror then anything negative that is reflected back at you must be a condemnation, not a call for exploration or an attempt at understanding.

As I said, a mirror is important but to insist on it above all else isn't always a positive thing: there are books I related to deeply because they allowed me to feel so seen (some by authors who looked nothing like me), but I have no interest in surrounding myself with those books all the time either--I know what goes on in my head which is precisely why I don't always want to live there. Being validated by a character who's "just like me" is amazing but I also want--I also need-- to know that lives and minds and events exist outside of the echo-chamber of my own mind. The mirror is comforting, yes, but if you spend too long with it, it also becomes isolating: you need doors because they lead you to ideas and views and characters you could never come up with on your own. A world made up of various Mes reflected back to me is not a world I want to be immersed in because it's a world with very little texture or discovery or room for growth and change. Your sense of self and your sense of other people cannot grow here; it just becomes mangled.

Art has always been about dialogue, always about a me and a you, a speaker and a listener, even when it is happening in the most internal of spaces: to insist that art only ever tells you what you want to hear, that it should only reflect what you know and accept is to undermine the very core of what it seeks to do in the first place, which is establish connection. Art is a lifeline, I'm not saying it isn't. But it's also not an instruction manual for how to behave in the world--it's an exploration of what being in the world looks like at all, and this is different for everyone. And you are treading into some very, very dangerous waters the moment you insist it must be otherwise.

Whatever it means to be in the world, it is anything but straightforward. In this world people cheat, people kill, they manipulate, they lie, they torture and steal--why? Sometimes we know why, but more often we don't--but we take all these questions and write (or read) our way through them hoping that, if we don't find an answer, we can at least find our way to a place where not knowing isn't as unbearable anymore (and sometimes it's not even about that; it's just about telling a story and wanting to make people laugh). It's an endless heritage of seeking with countless variations on the same statements which say over and over again I don't know what to make of this story, even as I tell it to you. So why am I telling it? Do I want to change it? Can I change it? Yes. No. Maybe. I have no certainty in any of this except that I can say it. All I can do is say it.

Writing, and art in general, are one of the very, very, few ways we can try and make sense of the apparently arbitrary chaos and absurdity of our lives--it's one of the only ways left to us by which we can impose some sense of structure or meaning, even if those things exists in the midst of forces that will constantly overwhelm those structures, and us. I write a poem to try and make sense of something (grief, love, a question about octopuses) or to just set down that I've experienced something (grief, love, an answer about octpuses). You write a poem to make sense of, resolve, register, or celebrate something else. They don't have to align. They don't have to agree. We don't even need to like each other much. But in both of these instances something is being said, some fragment of the world as its been perceived or experienced is being shared. They're separate truths that can exist at the same time. Acknowledging this is the only means we have of momentarily bridging the gaps that will always exist between ourselves and others, and it requires a profound amount of grace, consideration and forbearance. Otherwise, why are we bothering at all?

[thefirstanomally]

Professors are so funny. "How has this book I made you read changed you fundamentally as a person?"

Lol. My dude. I will write this report and then never think of it again.