#i could write a whole literary analysis of just this passage and how it's so well done

[sagevalleymusings]

A Caveat for my super long Scholomance Essay

I got a few new followers from a recent reblog of mine so as a thank you and definitely not secret plot to scare everyone away, I got the motivation to push through and finish my essay on relationships in the Scholomance series by Naomi Novik. It is, and this is not a joke, over five thousand words. I cite nearly a dozen sources and I have no apologies. Okay I have one apology. Sorry to the person who I will neither be tagging nor naming who said the thing about all the other Scholomance couples being monogamous that inspired me to write ten pages of literary analysis.

Anyway, continue on with your day, or maybe...?

The Scholomance through the Lens of Relationship Anarchy I’m gonna be honest. I was shy to talk about my love of Naomi Novik’s angry anti-capitalist response to Harry Potter. Shortly after I read A Deadly Education, I read a highly critical review which addressed Novik’s diversity and said that it felt more like 90s multiculturalism than 10s intersectionality. The passage about mal hiding in locs was… bad. And having the family that El was estranged from being the Indian half seemed like having your cake and eating it too - the appearance of diversity with none of the work. I’m not going to be able to find the original review now, but I think this article from Book Riot does a good job of addressing both the criticism and explaining a less critical interpretation.

So I was quiet. I could see where the criticism was coming from but appreciated a magic school that had a different interpretation than certain others which have already been named. I decided to wait until The Last Graduate to really make any judgment calls. 

In my extremely white opinion, Novik responds to criticism in both The Last Graduate and The Golden Enclaves in a way that recontextualizes the multiculturalism in A Deadly Education. This book isn’t just anti-capitalist. It’s anti-imperial. Places like New York and London are given more weight because the whole Scholomance is a metaphor for imperialism. The very foundation of the way they’re doing magic is imperialist and corrosive to the soul. But I don’t want to get into all of that until I can really chew on it, since my lack of personal experience as a person of color means I need to bring receipts and a body of research if I plan on speaking at length on that subject. 

I bring it up in context to say that Novik’s The Scholomance series has received valid criticism from various fronts throughout this series. But I think a deeper reading reveals that the thing which you are criticizing was part of the point the whole time. 

I feel similarly about “the cheating subplot” in The Golden Enclaves. 

“The Cheating Subplot” is not how I would categorize it. But I’m responding to this Goodreads review and a lot of interpretations which, as far as I can tell, were influenced by it. 

To summarize, because there’s no way to talk about this without spoilers for The Golden Enclaves, Orion has pushed El away only to, as far as she is aware, be eaten by a maw-mouth. Liesel shows up, and starts trying to actively seduce El. At some point, while processing her grief, she has sex with Liesel. Then, Orion comes back, very much alive. Then he leaves again. More El/Liesel bonding ensues in an airport loo, then Orion comes back, and El and Orion probably get back together.

This has been called a cheating subplot, partly for sleeping with Liesel the first time when she “knew he was probably alive.” And the second time when he was definitely alive and just not around. And at no point does El mention she’s slept with Liesel to Orion. I have a handful of issues with this, and I’m going to address the more minor issues before we get into the meat of it. 

Does El actually sleep with Liesel the second time?

This is splitting hairs, but when I read that section, I stopped, went, “wait they didn’t have sex though” and then read the passage again, and concluded that no, they had not in fact had sex. So when I saw people claiming on the internet that sure, he was dead the first time, but definitely not the second time, I was genuinely confused. There was no second time. So I’ve copied the entirety of what could be the description of El and Liesel having sex on the plane. And Liesel was right: it helped to feel good in my body, her hands and the water running over my skin reminding me that I was whole, even if I didn’t feel that way, telling me I was still all in one piece at least on the outside.

That’s it, that’s the whole description. You can infer that they had sex, but it isn’t stated. What if, instead, they just showered together? Is it still cheating then? Some people would say yes, because you’re naked and intimate with another person. But some people would say no, because that’s not sex.

Does El really not mention it to Orion?

One of the linchpins on this argument is, it’d be fine if El mentioned it to Orion, but she doesn’t. But… does she not? 

After all, we don’t hear every single conversation that people have - just the important ones. Or rather - just the ones that our unreliable and emotionally stunted narrator considers to be the important ones. This series is narrated by El to a mundane to describe how she became a maw-mouth hunter, essentially. Is “and then I told my boyfriend I slept with Liesel” really that important of a conversation to include in the text of the book? Couldn’t we just assume they had that conversation? After all, she does have that conversation with Liesel, in a way that makes plot-relevant sense. We could infer that she’s mentioning it to Orion in the same time frame (and if it seems like a stretch to infer that, see above inferred sex scene).

But I don’t think this is a likely place for this conversation to have occurred because Novik herself says that things were too busy and chaotic for most of the book for relationship negotiating to have been a priority.

The second place El could have mentioned it was in the epilogue, when El hand-waves away several weeks of serious emotional labor into a single paragraph. That would have been the place any rational person would have mentioned their fling to a partner.

We’ve been told in this book by El that she’s perfectly happy as a narrator to hand-wave away huge chunks of the story. I think it is plausible for these two to have had a conversation off screen and for El to just not feel the need to tell us that. This brings up one of the theory points which I’ll circle back to when I get to the theory part - it isn’t enough that it’s possible for those two to have had the conversation. The audience feels the need to have this relationship norm performed for them, so they can assuage their concerns that this might be cheating. But that brings me to a new question…

Assuming their relationship is exclusive, was El under any obligation to have mentioned it to Orion?

Okay, let’s assume that El and Orion are exclusive during the periods that they are dating, with the normal caveats that would apply to any relationship. 

The first time El has sex with Liesel, Orion is dead.

Or rater, El has been presented with a situation wherein the only possible outcome is eternal torture worse than death, and the person she loved is effectively dead because he cannot be brought out from that eternal torture except through death. Point being, it is not cheating to sleep with someone after your partner dies. 

Orion comes back, and El and Orion get back together, but is El under an obligation to tell him any and all people she’s slept with while they weren’t dating?

I would argue not, because it isn’t a parameter that’s applied consistently in monogamous relationships - in fact, if anything, we’re discouraged from telling our current partner our relationships before then. And what happens “on break” in my experience depends on the people involved - some people don’t want to know, some people do. But if it’s dependent on the people involved, the only time El would be obligated to tell Orion about the first time she had sex with Liesel would be if the words “did you have sex with anybody while we were on break” came out of Orion’s mouth.

So what about the second time (which again, I would argue is ambiguous)? Well, I think it’s pretty obvious that they’re on break. Orion leaves to join his mother, who El will have nothing to do with, and before he leaves, Orion tries to ask her to promise to kill him if his mom can’t fix him. They’re saying goodbye. It is unlikely these two will ever see each other again.

So if El and Orion are on break when she sleeps with Liesel the second time, why would she tell Orion about it? They weren’t dating at the time. 

And this is the stance Novik seems to come down on as well, because in her AMA on this question she says, “if El ever wanted to hook up with Liesel again, I think probably a conversation would happen at that point.”

Because it would be at that point that she would actually be dating Orion. 

But I also think we shouldn’t assume that their relationship follows the rules we’re expecting. After all, Novik also has this to say, “To me, it's just, people have different kinds of relationships with different people.” So… Do we know for sure whether or not El and Orion’s relationship is exclusive?

Actually, scratch that, and let’s dig into the meat. When I was arguing on the internet with someone about this, they said “the only other canon Scholomance couples we see are all monogamous.”

That’s already a pretty loaded statement, to be honest. We’re already pre-disposing ourselves to assume both that the people we’ve heard about relationships from are monogamous, and that the default state of Liesel and El and Alfie and Orion is that they are all supposed to be monogamous -this person doesn’t just say “the other relationships are monogamous”, they say couples specifically. But just because a relationship looks monogamous doesn’t mean that it is.

It’s probably for this reason that my irl partner is extremely careful to shoehorn in references to the other people he’s dating whenever the opportunity presents itself, because we live together, and people assume we are monogamous unless we state otherwise. 

I want to set aside this assumption, and look closely at the text to see what norms Novik is really setting for us. To that end, I’ve scoured all three books for every example of relationship drama, and I think Novik is inadvertently saying some rather profound things about the hegemony in monogamous heterosexual relationships in patriarchal post-imperial countries that doesn’t mesh with an anti-colonial anti-capitalist agenda. In simpler, but less accurate words, non-monogamy is anti-colonial. And I think Novik’s descriptions of relationships bear this out.

All of the parents that we see are a straight couple with biological children. No one has gay parents. No one is adopted. Even these cookie-cutter relationships still have a decent amount of variability. Gwen is raising a child on her own as a widow. Liesel’s father was having an affair. But heteronormative expectations for these two bear out. To our knowledge, Gwen never moves on. She is never described as having any intimate relationship with anyone else, despite living on the kind of neo-pagan commune which in my limited experience is absolutely rife with free-love types. Gwen is the textbook perfect example of a mourning widow. She has sex with her high school sweetheart, what, one time? Certainly a limited number of times if El’s statements on the lack of opportunity are to be believed. And loves him and only him for the rest of her life.

Meanwhile, Liesel’s mother is punished for sleeping with a married man - killed for it in fact. And her father is as distant as cheating husbands have ever been stereotyped to be.

So I would still argue that all four of these examples are a body of expectations - of amatonormativity - which is, at the end of the day, rooted in the same colonial, patriarchal mesh that had them building a school on the backs of dead children. 

Meanwhile, this new generation of children are doing something different. 

Rule one about whether or not something is a date or an alliance is if they do something with you and don’t ask for fair share in return. And that’s pretty much all we’re told about relationships for quite a while - El doesn’t even notice that Ibrahim and Yaakov are already dating. 

Our protagonist is willfully oblivious to most everyone around her, so we don’t know much about anyone really. The first hint of an inkling of anyone’s thoughts on relationships other than the one El’s only pretending to be in, really, is when a girl propositions her and Orion for a threesome in the library.

And that is literally the only two mentions of relationships of any kind in the entirety of A Deadly Education. I checked. 

During their senior year, more people are dating. Ibrahim and Yaakov are revealed to have been an item for an unspecified amount of time previously, Liesel starts pursuing Alfie, and Liu has her own fair share of relationship drama.

And don’t forget about Jermaine!

… Here’s the thing. I know for a fact that you forgot about Jermaine because it took me two solid weeks to find this passage again.

We knew that Jermaine from New York had spent the last year in a competitive love triangle with a boy from Atlanta over one of the top alchemists, and we all knew when in a perfect storm of gossipy delight it turned into a trio and an alliance, halfway through the first month of term.

This is in chapter 9 of The Last Graduate, right after El catches Ibrahim and Yaakov kissing, and she explains that there’s just not a lot of romance drama to be had when you’re fighting for your life every day, but that they chewed very thoroughly on the drama that they did have. Jamaal was courting a girl from Cairo “by the book,” and Jermaine had wound up in a triad.

And on that note, I want to come back to Liu’s relationships, because of a very specific line towards the end of the book.

“What was up with letting us hassle you about Zixuan all this time! Or were you trying to decide?”

Here’s the thing. There’s a strong implication in this one line that when Liu kisses Yuyan two days before graduation, she hasn’t severed her flirtation with Zixuan. That’s still on the table. She wants to want the right things. 

The Thesis

So when I say “how do we know for sure that El and Orion’s relationship is exclusive”, it is in the context of the kinds of relationships we’ve been presented with throughout the entire trilogy. And across the entire trilogy, rather than “the only other canon Scholomance couples we see are all monogamous,” of all the romances we see from the kids in the school during El’s tenure, less than half  of them are in completely exclusive monogamous relationships. And only one of the couples is heterosexual.

And I think it does bear noting that there are several hundred kids in each grade, and we don’t know the relationship status of most of them. But I want to circle back to the very first thing we learn about relationships, because I think it bears repeating. 

Rule one about whether or not something is a date or an alliance is if they do something with you and don’t ask for fair share in return. El is in an alliance with Liu and Aadhya. She winds up adding Chloe to the alliance. So… what about everyone else? El spends the entirety of Book 1 criticizing Orion for doing things for other people without asking for fair value, then spends the entirety of Book two doing things for other people without asking for fair value. 

It can be interpreted that this is a rule El made up in her head that doesn’t actually have any basis to the other Scholomance kids, but I think this is the more shallow reading. After all, if we compare it to El’s understanding of the Scholomance, she’s shown to have a better understanding of it than most throughout - even at the beginning. 

I think instead it is one of many examples of the layers that get peeled back across each book. There is the Scholomance as everyone else sees it, the Scholomance as it sees itself, and the Scholomance as it truly is. Each peeled-back layer reveals a truth about El too. In Book 1, the group’s understanding of El is one of grim prophecy - they all believe, even herself, that she has the power to undo them utterly. In Book 2, that force is used for good, and the El she strives to be shines. But in Book 3 we’re given the truth - that the El of grim prophecy and the El as a radical force for good are the same, and the system needed to be brought down.

Book 1 through the lens of El is largely devoid of romance or sexuality at all. She doesn’t see herself as capable of those kinds of feelings and therefore misses them in others. Book 2’s relationships are largely about expectations. Liu struggles with the expectation of choosing Zixuan, El struggles against her mother’s wishes, Liesel seeks an advantageous position, and Yaakov and Ibrahim are found out by accident. There’s a self-consciousness to the relationships in Book 2, an awareness of being observed. 

If Book 3 is how the relationships truly are, then the important takeaway from the addition of El/Liesel is that relationships are messy and undefinable. They happen or not, with societal expectations or not, and sometimes they’re happy and sometimes they end tragically and sometimes you do something stupid because you want to. 

And, I think critically and the reason I think there’s a deliberate amount of relationship anarchy in this book: romance is only one way of forming connections. In The Golden Enclaves, El is finally back with her Mum, previously the only person she could confide in, except this time, it feels  hollow and empty, because of all the things she’s learned and the person she’s lost. Liesel reaches out because London needs help. They meet up with Alfie there too of course, and then decide to talk to the New York Domina. Aadhya drives them there, and Chloe meets them outside to do introductions. El gets coordinates to the real entrance to the Scholomance and rescues Orion, both Aadhya and Liesel coming with. They go back to Mum’s commune and all five of them spend some quiet time together, Mum and Orion needing to heal. Then Liu calls, and the kids have to rush off to Beijing. They meet up with  Zheng, the younger cousin El has bonded with just a few months prior, and rescue Liu from a horrible fate. But in the meantime Orion can feel himself slipping away, and he leaves. Liu needs to heal, so Aadhya decides to stay with her, and Liesel and El go to Dubai - they’ve been told they’re next and want help from El.

They’re met at the entrance by Ibrahim and Jamaal. By the way, do y’all remember “by the book” Jamaal? I find it interesting that Novik mentions his grandfather has three wives (pg 308). And then we find out that Ibrahim and Yaakov, who’d had such a romance in school… couldn’t stay together. They’re from different enclaves. The systems in place tore them apart. But then, because more than just El needs to cast the spell, and the people chanting need to live there, the Dubai enclave guarantees that anyone who agrees to work on El’s golden enclave spell gets a spot in Dubai. And all of a sudden Cora and Yaakov are both with Ibrahim in Dubai now.

Afterwards El leaves for Mumbai to confront her past and it is the only time in the entire book that El is alone. And once she’s done some important self reflection, she goes to the gates of the Scholomance again, and meets up with Liesel and Alfie, Aadhya and Liu, Khamis, then most of the seniors there, and eventually Orion again, who has been in the book less than half the time and who, it is revealed, was literally dead the whole time. Orion as a living, autonomous person exists and is present in the book for seven pages.

Novik’s romances are some of my favorites, because they are always grounded in a person’s complexity. The women in her books don’t become mothers and vanish from the page the moment they find a man they like. They exist for themselves, and love incidentally to that. It’s something that feels unusual next to even feminist books like the Vorkosigan series. 

The Golden Enclaves seeks to break the systems of power that have held El et al captive through the first two books. That includes the expectation so ingrained in our society that most people don’t even know it’s there that a romance is the best and most important thing that can happen to someone.

Having said all that, I want to conclude with an additional side examination. I don’t think people are correct to interpret this as a cheating subplot, because of all the reasons outlined above, and because, like everything, the relationships in The Scholomance series are about so much more than simply X/Y. But even if the interpretation that it is a cheating subplot is correct…

Is The Cheating Subplot Really So Bad?

Young people forget what it’s like. But I’m like, five thousand in internet years, and I remember. The first girl I ever made out with had a boyfriend at the time. So did the second. And the third. 

I’m reminded of The Price of Salt AKA Carol. Or Fingersmith. Young people can call cheating a “bisexual stereotype.” But when I was younger, it was a survival tactic. 

I’m not saying that this is what Novik is trying to portray. But I can say that as someone who was part of a Star Trek mailing list back in the early days and founded AO3, Novik knows what it means to be queer. And relationships when you’re queer are messier. They’re freer. They’re defined by what you say and what you don’t say, which may seem obvious, but too many relationships are defined primarily by what a relationship should look like, and not at all by what you do or do not say.

El and Orion are dating for a year before she realizes it. That’s pretty queer. When El gets him back, there’s never an explicit conversation that they’re dating again. They have sex, but their relationship is fairly undefined. Novik has even explicitly said their relationship remains specifically undefined because El is unused to and uncomfortable with being intimate with people. And we see this, again, not just with Orion, but with every relationship, even the platonic ones. El doesn’t like so much as admitting to knowing someone’s name, because learning their name means caring about them as a person.

There’s never any discussion that El and Orion’s relationship is exclusive. That doesn’t mean that it is, but it doesn’t mean that it isn’t, either. One could see this as cheating, or you could not. But even if it was… why is that something to knock a series you love from five stars to two?

That feeling that you’re having right now? That discomfort? That says that this is running against a taboo that you have. And maybe it’s a taboo that you have for a very good reason. But my point is that you’re responding emotionally, not rationally. And rationally, there’s a lot of good reasons one might have a cheating subplot. Because it wasn’t acceptable at the time to date other women for example. Or to highlight that our characters are still just teenagers, and prone to making bad decisions. Or to draw attention to the messiness that comes even from protagonists, who are traumatized, and just need a little bit of human connection, even if they know it’s stupid, and will probably hurt them in the long run.

Cheating is an extremely human thing to do. Numbers on this are pretty hard to find, but studies estimate that around 1 in every 5 people admits to having cheated on a partner. How many partners have you had? Is it more than five?

I’ve been the person being cheated with, as I’ve already mentioned. But I’ve also been cheated on. Sometimes, authors say things that are true, and it isn’t acceptance of the thing, but merely a reflection of lived experience. These characters are teenagers. Teenagers make bad decisions with little forethought. Why can’t we simply have a messy character? Why does the existence of a cheating subplot have to be treated with such vitriol and hatred?

I think the problem is twofold. A, for lack of a better word, uwu-ification of media which encourages cutesy, shallow stories, and an expectation of conformity due to capitalist streamlining and fan pressure. Uwu-ification

The world has sucked for kind of a while. Things are improving in fits and starts, but in the meantime my generation has seen multiple unprecedented generation-defining tragedies. 9/11, the war on terror, the 2008 financial crisis, COVID, the first coup attempt in 300 years, the COVID recession on top of COVID, a massive uptick in mass shootings and in specific school shootings, just to name the most prominent ones. And the commodification of attention that blossomed with social media means that even what should be good things about this generation - the absolutely incredible technical advances - still sap away at our mental health. 

On top of that, you have the decimation of the long-form essay. I’ve been working on this essay for weeks, read two books and multiple articles, and right now, it’s nine pages long.

Who the fuck is going to read this? Why would anyone read this when they could just check Twitter for a bite-sized hot take instead?

This is starting to change. Podcasts are growing in popularity quickly, and you can also find a lot of long-form essays on youtube (though they’re all, they tell me, going to Nebula). But long form essays are a huge time commitment, and a niche interest, all things told. This is, I have no doubt, exacerbated by the crimes against education George Bush installed. No Child Left Behind was a fucking travesty and absolutely has eroded critical thinking skills substantially. Engaging in that type of deeply analytical pondering takes a lot more energy for someone who wasn’t taught how to do it as a child. So we all have PTSD or at the very least chronic anxiety and on top of that we don’t have the training necessary to unpack our own trauma. Millennials and younger really just want to relax. They want to sit on the couch and enjoy something charming, and cute, and not painful (that or like, deeply terrifying and gory horror, don’t understand that one). 

And I’ve absolutely been that person. Sometimes I just want something cute and charming and fun that I don’t have to think that hard about.

Fan Pressure

But… It seems like on top of this desire for everything to be only the happy parts of Hayao Miyazaki, there’s also this really aggressive push against anything that’s not. Internet collectivism can absolutely be a force for good. I think campaigns to draw attention to people like R Kelly are a good thing.

And also, special interest groups have realized that if they pool together their collective resources, they can campaign for change they want to see. Doesn’t mean they’ll always get it, but we know that if we just use the right hashtag, and just tag enough people, someone who matters will see my tweet about how Destiel should be canon. Even if they don’t listen, they can’t avoid hearing me.

And I bring up Destiel specifically because what we’re talking about is fandom and fan behavior as it pertains to creators and creations in general. Supernatural fans have done a lot of good (raising huge amounts of money for charity) and a lot of bad. But I’m not the only one who has wondered if maybe this ability to amplify one’s voice can be… kind of dangerous. Being able to leverage your voice to call for more representation is good. But that’s not the only thing that gets leveraged.

This is no doubt exacerbated by the way mainstream media has become more and more algorithmically streamlined - catering to the widest audience means producing the same reliable and meaningless format over and over again. I could write another (whoops I’m up to ten now) pages on the finale of She Hulk and its manufactured consent to Disney-fied conformity all on its own.

So what does this mean for The Scholomance?

To bring this back around, because that was a lot of background that felt irrelevant: people want works that they consume in general to be less realistic. They want something cute and easy (or action-packed and easy, or gory and easy). They leverage this to actors and creators, who respond by providing that thing people want. This is all fine so far. But then you get this amplified by the tendency towards monopoly - stories whether they be books, movies, or tv shows, are published because they’re believed to be profitable, and something which is profitable right now is the most processed kind of junk food media you can make. 

But then you get someone like Novik who is portraying an imperialist system in her magic with the intent to destroy it, or who has time-period accurate relationships, including all the lack of consent, or who has messy romances that kind of feel like cheating, and it seems like suddenly, it doesn’t just feel like something different. It feels like a betrayal. Fans aren’t just surprised. They don’t say this one’s not for them. They say they’re disappointed, gutted, devastated. How could Novik have betrayed our trust by adding this kind of a story element… Reach out to Novik and make her change it!

And that’s… not really okay. And that’s the problem I have, ultimately. Because you don’t speak for 100% of fans. You don’t speak for me, certainly. And even if you did speak for all fans… is populism really the ultimate truth in our society? Do we only want things that appeal to the broadest group of people?

I don’t. 

[riddlecrux]

Light seen through the windows: an analysis of windows as a literary tool in Elriel relationship

I would love to preface this meta with my favorite disclaimer that everything that I will be discussing is based on what I have gathered from SJM writing. The quotes used in this post will serve as a starting point for further analysis. Additionally, I will be using things such as symbolism, metaphors, and literary device methods to build up my reasoning and beliefs. On another note, this, as usual, is strictly pro-Elriel meta. If they are not your cup of tea and you wish to comment, please be civil and bring arguments supported by the text.

So many of us like to gaze and stare through the windows daily. Looking at the world behind the glass often is considered a form of tranquility that we feel. Windows are essentially doors that lead us to whatever lies behind them - the last border between being in one place and then in another. It isn't then surprising that windows serve as symbols and metaphors in literature. From the start, whenever I read a passage about windows in ACOWAR I was reminded of Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte. You may ask why?

Emily Bronte used windows as symbolism in her work. They are very important for her characters and their personal arcs. They are symbols of barriers, misfortunes that characters face. Windows there are metaphors of various obstacles estranging Bronte's characters from achieving their hopes - realizing that the dreams they had will be not fulfilled. As I don't want to get spoilery with Wuthering Heights, I'm going to draw conclusions in a very neat manner. Bronte used windows as a connection to nightmares that one of the main characters was suffering from - it ties to the fact that in his nightmares he sees the person he had loved, haunting him. Because of the relationship with a said woman, the imagery of windows in this particular scene symbolizes death, an obstacle that stands between both of them. Throughout the book, we also get glimpses of how windows might be used as a metaphor for social classes and the contrast between them, and how Heathcliff and Catherine have to go about it. Along with the windows, doors are also used as a symbol of trapping someone in one place, obstructing them from achieving their dream or preventing them from reaching out to their loved one. Not to mention that during a very particular scene with Catherine, she wants the windows open - a symbolism of her wanting to feel free, to connect with something she knows, she longs for. This leads to the conclusion that windows in Bronte's novel are symbols of life and death, they are the in-between - a symbolic barrier.

On the other hand, windows in literature signalize something called "art of watching", and usually it is connected to a female protagonist that observes life, events through the window. Not to mention, the most famous association to windows such as "windows to the soul" - which, of course, is more metaphorical. It allows us, the audience, to connect with the character's inner feelings, struggles, as we are presented with the emotional aspect of said person. They are the bridge between the inside and outside. Windows are also a source of light, which we humans crave. Looking through the window one can absorb the light, which can resonate as a symbol of growth and change. Metaphorically we see the light from the window when we feel a need to light up the darkness inside us. They expose us, our inner feelings, and struggles.

When I read ACOWAR I have noticed that SJM decided to use windows, quite clearly, in the indication of two particular characters. Azriel and Elain. For the first time, when we met Elain again in the third book the window is a big issue.

"The suite was filled with sunlight. Every curtain shoved back as far as it could go, to let in as much sun as possible."

We have a clear description of the sunlit room, curtains shoved to further underline the need for light.

"And seated in a small chair before the sunniest of the windows, her back to us, was Elain."

In the brightest place in the room sits Elain, in front of the window. She is exposed to the sun, to sunlight and is absorbing that light - which is highlighted during this scene (which makes it important to note).

"Her skin was so pale it looked like fresh snow in the harsh light. I realized then that the color of death, of sorrow, was white."

The sunlight exposes Elain, its harsh light makes her pale, almost translucent. Even Feyre realizes the graveness of this picture comparing this white hue to death. As you can see the chain of events in this scene played like that: sunlit room -> curtain swept away -> Elain sitting in front of the window -> sudden comparison to death.

"She had been always so full of light. Perhaps that was why she now kept all the curtains open. To fill the void that existed where all of that light had once been. And now nothing remained."

Feyre deducts that the need for light on Elain's part is a desperate call to brighten the darkness inside her - which perfectly aligns with the metaphorical usage of windows. Elain basks in light in a helpless cry for help. The very dark void that appeared within her after being Made eats her away. It sucks her immortal life away - the one which she yet didn't get used to. On the other hand, we as readers are presented with the fact that Elain is trapped. In this Fae life, in this room, in this situation in which she grieves for her past and many what-ifs.

Nothing. Not even a flicker of emotion. “Everyone keeps saying that.” Her thumb brushed the ring on her finger. “But it doesn’t fix anything, does it?”

Sitting in front of the window - a sunny one to be precise, which symbolizes life, growth, and change, Elain is presented in a contrast to her surroundings. To show that visible barrier that her person has to overcome. She realizes that her dreams are meant to be unfulfilled, that they are unreachable.

"My stiff, limping steps, at least, had eased into a smoother gait by the time I found Elain in the family library. Still staring at the window, but she was out of her room."

The next time we see Elain she is out of her room - her "cage", but even though she left the boundaries of her entrapment she still chooses to linger around the windows. As Feyre notices, Elain gazes through the window - we are obstructed from Elain's POV and it's hard to imagine what she could be thinking about. Yet the symbolic manner of using the window as some sort of mirror, a passage that happens throughout the series, allows me to think that the metaphorical usage of windows, in this case, isn't a far-fetched idea.

"Elain didn’t turn. She was wearing a pale pink gown that did little to complement her sallow skin, her brown-gold hair hanging in loose, heavy ringlets down her thin back."

SJM uses this sentence to highlight that it isn't just a quick glance out of the window - in fact, it is constant staring through it. It is important for us as readers to note that this thing, window gazing, is an occupation that lasts for long periods of time. It isn't something trivial, it is something that showcases the importance of said windows in Elain's journey.

“What are you looking at?” I asked Elain, keeping my voice soft. Casual. Her face was wan, her lips bloodless. But they moved—barely—as she said, “I can see so very far now. All the way to the sea.”

Feyre decides to ask Elain who is still gazing through the window. Her answer is very ominous and holds a great deal of importance, but also underlines the fact that she is drawn to the window. Not to mention that what she is seeing is the sea - another vastly discussed symbol. In this situation, I believe that the interpretation can lay in a more psychological aspect of the matter rather than a literary one. In the works of very well-known psychiatrist Carl Jung the sea "symbolizes the personal and the collective unconscious in dream interpretation". So from his notes there comes this annotation that caught my attention, "The sea is a favourite place for the birth of visions."

Elain is a seer who constantly gazes through a window which symbolizes the in-between, life and death. These two are connected to one another and SJM used many things to further develop Elain's character as a powerful figure.

"Elain only turned toward the sunny windows again, the light dancing in her hair."

After the whole conversation Elain doesn't move from her spot, quite the contrary she returns to her previous activity. Gazing through the window. Once again we are reminded about the sun and light - which signalizes that Elain tries to undergo through the process of rebirth, but also tries to break free from the unhappiness that came with lost dreams.

"Something in my chest cracked as Nesta’s eyes also went to the windows before Elain. To check, as I did, for whether they could be easily opened."

Here we have an instance of both sisters realizing that Elain spending so much time in front of windows can be dangerous, as in her attempting to jump from them. Once again, the symbolism of death.

"More steps—no doubt closer to where Elain stood at the window."

Elain is still beside the window when Lucien tries to talk to her. Even alone she seeks the place next to the window to stare.

"But sunlight on gold caught his eye—and Elain slowly turned from her vigil at the window."

Elain is still by the window, for the whole scene she is there not moving an inch from it. Furthermore, the word "vigil" is also an interesting choice. There are different meanings of it, but I find these ones very telling and suitable for this instance: a period of sleeplessness; insomnia, a watch kept, or the period of this and a devotional watching, or keeping awake, during the customary hours of sleep. We can speculate about what happened to Elain while she was in the Cauldron, what made her so withdrawn from life and so desperate for the light. I want to believe that we as readers will get our answers in the next book since Elain being a seer with unknown powers makes her a perfect target for Koschei with which she has already had connections.

She looked away—toward the windows. “I can hear your heart,” she said quietly.

Again, during the whole conversation, she doesn't move away from her spot next to the window. Windows for her, start to become a symbolism of change and rebirth - the things she probably wished while being confined to her room.

Elain only stared out the window, unaware—or uncaring.

We have another mention about staring - which further highlights how important windows are as a literary tool for Elain's character. She seeks light, she wants to overcome this barrier that was thrown at her the moment she was Made. She, perhaps, watched through the window to observe the life which was stripped away from her and turned her into this immortal being. Or, maybe she just desperately wanted to brighten up the darkness that gathered inside her because of that whole situation. Another important thing to note is that this scene is a first moment alone with Lucien - her mate, which should have been very painful for her. The conversation also held a lot of weight, yet she valiantly stood by the window as if somewhere behind it she could find an answer.

“So it can’t be a perfect system of matching. What if”—I jerked my chin toward the window, to my sister and the shadowsinger in the garden —“that is what she needs? Is there no free will? What if Lucien wishes the union but she doesn’t?”

Here we have an instance of "art of watching" in which Feyre observes Azriel and Elain through the window. By watching them she comes to the conclusion that both of them are better suited and actually can comfort each other in comfortable silence. The window here is used as a barrier to showcase parallels of two couples: happily mated Feysand and unhappily in love with other people Elriel.

"But I looked to Azriel, currently leaning against the wall beside the floor-to-ceiling window, shadows fluttering around him."

And here we are start with Azriel and windows (also in ACOWAR). He is another character that has an extraordinary connection to windows. He is often mentioned next to them and somehow parallels Elain's behavior - staring through windows, being near them.

"I blinked, realizing I’d been lost in the bond, but found Azriel still by the window, (...)."

As we can see Azriel lingers next to the window without moving away from it - as the scene progresses we know that the conversation lasts a good ounce of time, yet Azriel stands in his place by the window.

"Azriel didn’t so much as turn from his vigil at the window, though I could have sworn his wings tucked in a bit tighter."

The same wording, the same imagery. Both used for Elain and Azriel. Both of them keeping vigils at the windows, staring through them as if they could find an answer through them.

"The main room of the guardhouse was stuffy and cramped, more so with all of us in there, and though I offered Elain a seat by the sealed window, she remained standing—at the front of our company. Staring at the shut iron door."

This scene is when Elain is about to confront her lover - Greysen. It is underlined that she rejected her usual spot, which is by the window, and preferred to face the door. She was trapped, she knew that a very important discussion will take a place here. She chose to look at the door rather than at the window, which in this matter could symbolize hope for a change - she stared at the door which metaphorically means transition or imprisonment.

"(...) close to Elain’s side as she and my sister silently kept against the wall by the intact bay of windows."

Another instance of Elain and her being content with being next to the windows.

"I’d seen Elain staring out the window earlier—watching Graysen leave with his men without so much as a look back at her."

"Art of Watching", but also the window's symbolism of dreams that were unfulfilled. At that moment, we can assume, that Elain realized that her dreams concerning human life and her future with Greysen would only be unattainable dreams/hopes.

“What now?” Elain mused, at last answering my question from moments ago as her attention drifted to the windows facing the sunny street. That smile grew, bright enough that it lit up even Azriel’s shadows across the room. “I would like to build a garden,” she declared. “After all of this … I think the world needs more gardens.

At the end of ACOWAR, we have this powerful moment, in which Elain gazing out of the window sees sunny streets = life. A chance of rebirth, which also beautifully overlaps with the fact that she proposed building a garden! The in-between that she balanced on while gazing through the window for so many times turned from death and misfortunes into life and hopes of the future.

ACOFAS

"Elain politely refused, taking up a spot in one of the wooden chairs set in the bay of windows. Also typical."

From Rhysand's point of view, we can deduct that even they are aware of the fact that Elain and windows are something notable. It is a place where she feels comfortable and probably spends a lot of time.

"Beyond the windows, darkness had indeed fallen. The longest night of the year. I found Elain studying it, beautiful in her amethyst-colored gown. I made to move toward her, but someone beat me to it."

In previous quotes, we could gather information about how Elain craved the light and how desperate she was to lighten up her person. Here, we can see that she also started to embrace the darkness. She is again by the window, observing the darkness as if no one else was around her. And of course, the one person who goes towards her at that moment is Azriel, a personification of darkness in the books.

Azriel strode to the lone window at the end of the room and peered into the garden below. “I’ve never stayed in this room.” His midnight voice filled the space.

Azriel went straight to the window. And not an ordinary one, but the one through which you can see the garden. Life and light. I know many were theorizing if what kept Azriel so occupied by the window was Elain, but I would love to put some of my thoughts in this discourse. Yes, I do think that what caught his attention, or who caught his attention was Elain. However, Elain at that moment represents life and light - the things that are associated with windows. And if you spin it around you have Azriel=darkness, death staring at Elain=light, life. The in-between, the very initial symbolism of window in literature. Not to mention that in this scene we have Azriel watching the light and next we have Elain observing darkness.

“No,” Azriel said, not turning from the window.

Azriel remained at the window. “Will Nesta stay here if she comes?

“I’d still be surprised if they remember once the storm clears,” Azriel said, turning from the garden window at last.

We have a whole scene in which it is so heavily implied that Azriel was constantly staring through the window, not even bothering to move away from it. We also have another highlighted thing which is the fact that it was a garden window.

There was a tiny box left on the table by the window—a box that Mor lifted, squinted at the name tag, and said, “Az, this one’s for you.”

A small thing, yet a very sweet one. The fact that even his present was placed close to the window, which starts to become an Elriel thing.

ACOSF

"She’d barely slept for fear of Elain walking off this veranda, or leaning too far out of one of the countless windows, or simply throwing herself down those ten thousand stairs."

We have a reminder that during her stay at House of Wind, Elain was a symbol of death. She carried it on her while being associated with windows that were used as a source of light that helped her heal.

"Elain stood at the wall of windows, clad in a lilac gown whose close-fitting bodice showed how well her sister had filled out since those initial days in the Night Court."

Even when she visits Nesta, she takes the place by the windows. It is something that is strictly connected to her. As if the windows were part of her now.

Elain’s smile was as bright as the setting sun beyond the windows. “I thought I’d drop by to see how you were doing.”

Light, sun, life = Elain.

“You’ve got good coloring, I mean,” Elain clarified, striding from the windows to cross the room. She stopped a few feet away. As if holding herself back from the embrace she might have given.

SJM still used the passages to underline the passage of time that Elain spent standing next to the window. It is a place in which she feels good and perhaps safe.

"They’d sat in them, before this fire, so many times that it was an unspoken rule that Azriel’s was the one on the left, closer to the window, and Cassian’s the one to the right, closer to the door."

We also get the information that Azriel always was the closest to the window - which is an odd thing to add without a deeper meaning. As if to further build up that connection between him and Elain - that both of them are aware of the fact that they are also the symbolism of the allegory of windows. I believe that SJM really researched that light and darkness trope, with which she built and she is still building up Elriel. The windows are just another tiny nugget that further envelopes both of them as one. Because while Elain transformed from death to life, she still welcomed darkness and embraced it - and Azriel opened to the life and light, seeking it. As I said, windows are a literary tool, which perhaps wasn't the main idea in the SJM text, but the amount of parallels between both of them and even the same wording applied to different scenes tells me that it's yet another connection between them.

[autoirishlitdiscourses]

Discourse of Sunday, 29 August 2021

Preparing for and serving as a bridge to question 1 and 2 and pointed to. Arrangement was enjoyable and you'd clearly spent some time and/or social construction of your discussion around a male visions of beautiful women, and I know that for you to speak eventually if you have any other questions, though. Two student musical performances have been doing. You reacted to it? I'm sorry you're so inclined. If you have any questions, OK? Sigh. I felt like you were also a fertile hunting ground. Questions and answers for the registrar to release grades, explained below was 87. There were several small errors, your attention should primarily be on the final, you should do now, you have a nuanced analysis. Good question. It's OK to hold a discussion with the Clitheroes in The Walking Dead, which at least apparently reaction to the course website: good reading of the spreadsheet, because there are some available on it not in many ways that looking at the Recitation Assignment Guidelines handout, which words and ideas in a couple of ways. Too, your paper in on time.

There are a couple of suggestions. Race is a weaker assertion that takes a directly historical perspective on it before, and I've gone ahead and changed that the ideas you had a B paper turned in a competition that valorizes certain characteristics by denying the opportunity to explore variations on standard essay structure instead of electronically.

You picked a longer-than-required selection. Hawthorn in the text of Pearse's speech without too much, but you picked a good number of things would have helped to have gone to your secondary sources. Deadline this week, but rather to set up the image properties, then V for Vendetta seems to me, I also think about might be to prioritize senior English majors trying to assess attendance now, you should have the effect of giving your attendance/participation that is, specifically? But there are a fair number of important ways.

You have a word out in the early bits of the math, then please come talk to me, I will cut you off. Dennis Redmond 2. A particular way of thinking about specifics before you ask ask them to argue that one thing, I just won't see that you're likely to be helpful. One of these various types and weave them into a Fish. They should also give a more fluid, impassioned performance; but make sure that you're making a claim about exactly what is your central claim about Yeats's relationship to each other than the top of page 6 to Let's stop talking for four minutes, so it hasn't hurt your grade further, and I hope you're feeling better now.

If it's not a play. All in all, you lose the opportunity may not have any questions, and your close-reading individual passages, but I absolutely meant what I would have liked to have been to let me know what you intend to accept it by 10 a. A on a different text on a specific claim of what I'm trying to take so long to get an incomplete petition which requires you to leave your paper, is the best way to be absolutely sure. I'll see you tomorrow morning. I distribute during class for instance, if any of that first draft I often do, or the viewer is likely to be more careful about the distrust of the University, and mechanics are mostly solid, though I think that your body paragraphs don't wander too far afield. Travel safely and enjoy your time and managed to introduce a large gap for recall before the quarter. Hi! I'll see you in lecture tomorrow and I'll get back to you. Is late, you really have produced some excellent work at the point value of the people not warming up to me, and no special equipment is required. A lot of your plans by ten a. Oversleeping, even if it's necessary to come to both, although I would recommend that, and none of them. There are a core opportunity for you to be a hint or not this lifts you to become familiar with any passages talked about topics 1. You are in fact up this week. Administrative Issues: 1 ratio. You picked a good background to the connections between the poem, Parnell which is full of rather depictions that are not present last night, but Seamus Heaney I'm extending this backwards a bit because this book has similar interpretive problems for Ulysses recitations is over and in a different relationship to each other. The maximum possible discussion credit if you feel better soon. Ultimately, you'll still want people to reflect on the assumption that you were on track throughout your time and managed to convey or build up to this document is an awfully slow recitation.

I had your paper and I enjoyed having you in lecture but didn't address the question so that you do will depend on what it means: are you using a number of good plays: thanks to! Sunk himself by taking the absolute minimum standards for a job well done, both of you is so strong that it is. It is also quite short and contains some hesitations that deserve a bit like they've been represented by men in literary texts such as background information. The Stolen Child second half of the poem. Let me know what works for you to demonstrate what a very very close and, say, an A-is if you have any more questions, and religion, and your material very effectively. You have a 91. If you have been pushed even further, though, overall. Whatever is appropriate for quick questions, OK? —You've got some good ideas in there what I'm really saying here is going to be as specific and nuanced readings by a bus or abducted by aliens over the last sentence of the total grade for the bus, walking between classes, you in lecture, and your presence in front of the class warmed up and see what he thought just so that we have seen here would have been to be more specific, particular idea is that you can make absolutely sure that I'll be looking through the Disabled Students Program. Again, thank you for a late paper/must be killed except as a whole. Have a good idea to skim the first line of thought, that what I'll expect is that you realized that each of you this quarter you've worked hard and it's documented on the syllabus for Thursday, December 10 30% of course, it allows you to achieve goals that you realized that your choice of texts to think about it in the front of the guinea actually fluctuated a fair amount of what they'd discussed, then we'll figure out what you most need to let you know how you're going, including absolutely everything except the final that gets deep into the discussion go on! Let me know, and any other race I think that there are some ways in the back of your analysis more specifically what the implications that this would have to do this would not be everything that I've pointed to some punctuation and formatting issues—none genuinely hurt you a photocopy from it, in this case. You must also provide me with a very good ideas.

Romance has or has not removed the price tag from his hat. I'm glad your schedule to drop a photocopy of the text and helping them to pick up more points than you already have a copy of Ulysses that's sitting in a productive exercise I myself am less than thrilled about with this paper would have been pushed even further, and you exhibit a very good job here. If you are performing—for instance, if you'd like them to larger-scale concerns with other representations of very good work here in a way of thinking even more care than you to make progress toward graduation that satisfies the include an audio/visual text of some parts of the novel's characters are, and nearly three-syllable metrical foot, accented-unaccented-unaccented-unaccented-unaccented-unaccented-unaccented.

Hi! Truthfully, I feel that it wasn't assigned in class that you are thinking about how you'll effectively fill time and perhaps other poems, as well. There are not by any means the only or best way to think if there was anything else around, it's impossible to do anything differently on your life, you had an excellent job. I'll have your grade should be substantiating some aspect of love, but I'll say a selection from McCabe in your thesis to say, Italian Futurism Giacomo Balla, for instance, if you have a good student this quarter, though they'll probably require a fair amount of detail. I think it will boost your attendance/participation grade that was helpful rather than a path that you'd have to speak with me in an in-section responses, OK? I think making a clear argument that is also a thinking process, but may not know yourself yet, I don't know that I built in the assignment handout. I'll see you next quarter we have tentatively arranged to work with, and they will benefit from an assigned course text is fine with me in a Darwinian sense? But you've been very close to their hearts, you have disclosed any part at all you receive a failing grade policy. Be excellent. I'll see you in section Wednesday night with details about the negative sides of nationalism, exactly, surely there are places where attention to how other people have done some very, very good job with it—it was written too close to convenient and painless as possible, OK? That is to write a draft, letting it sit for two or three people together may perform a recitation/discussion segment. For one thing that will be given away on a Leash has been trying hard with limited success to motivate to talk about, but made up for them to move up, then feel free to let you know what's going to be worth emphasizing that your first question, for instance, you must email me a handout or other information, at 7 am for session A but could make it difficult for you if you have a fully developed idea yet, and that neither one has stolen them, and your reading for class must represent your thoughts might be hidden in the symbolism of motherhood, those who. Here are some real contributions in a donut shop is less reliable than a merely solid job, but also the only student who missed the midterm to avoid specificity, and that missing more than happy to discuss Francie's stream of consciousness is potentially very productive move, given Ulysses, is a good weekend! Could you email a description of your discussion. 1% of the contracting party, based entirely upon attendance I won't be assessed until after the meeting you'd have to leave it. Thank you so much for being so long as to avoid hesitation, backing up your final grade for the quarter, and I'm happy to send it along. I said verbally, any your grade I'd just like to see models, there is also a traditional vampire repellent and, Godot TBD, McCabe TBD, please let me know by Friday afternoon for posting on the final exam; b they showed a substantial number of things that would mean that you can bring your copy of your new score for the Self. Was that helpful? You have a good thumbnail background sketch of your own section, and this question lies at the context of your argument and graceful, nuanced close readings and comments into the perspective of a combination that would be a hard time distancing themselves from their topics and themes, looking closely at whether every word, every B paper turned in on the assignment requirements next week: Patrick Kavanagh, I think that there are many other possibilities, and you're certainly on track throughout your paper topic is a mark of professionalism that I think that the rather thin time slice that Joyce gives us of their material. Think about the play with which you dealt. Hi! Hi! My suggestion, then waited four days.

One recall. At the root of these are impressive moves. What is his point is a bit more slowly would have helped to have particular specific takes on all of Godot is already an impressive move, which is entitled to demand from the syllabus, but I think that Easter 1916 is a bit due to strep throat, so it is, I think that's a good student this quarter. If you can get the group develop its own interests while staying on task. IV: lyrics and discussion and question provoked close readings would help to motivate you to get to people that I really did enjoy your long weekend. The cost of a paper that pays off as abrasive, which is entitled Odysseus or Myth and Enlightenment. I know that I think, is the instructor of record for classes that I think that you should rightfully be proud of it. You picked a good weekend, and the way that mothers and motherhood are used as standalone software although it's never bad to have a strong understanding of the poem to music. Don't forget to mention that you are nervous or feel that there is going to be ready to write questions on the rest of your passage, but I think. Lesson Plan for Week 7:00. Absolutely. See Wikipedia's article on the Mad Hatter's hat in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland. Batteries die, power cords fray, hard drives crash, printers break or run out of it to be as effective as it could, theoretically informed paper, and more specifically, to be on the section website and see whether I was happier then. I won't post them tomorrow night!

Anyway. This was not acceptable, that there are two common practices that students have jobs and sports and family emergencies and about nine billion other things, that I could give you the opportunity to recite, the discrepancy, the average score would be after lecture tomorrow and offline for several reasons, including the fact that you will have failed to satisfy breadth requirements, major requirements, and that not doing so. Distribution of paper handout. —You have a good impression and pick up his midterm; talked exactly twice in section. The Plough and the larger-scale questions may also, if you're leaving town. One of the Heaney poems that will occasionally have reminders, announcements, and Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake, all of the room, were engaged, thoughtful performance that you'd have to be helpful. I think you've prepared more material than was required by the Easter Rising, the notes my students: You changed before to as in just a little bit and will have an excellent sense of harmony and rhythm.

I suspect that this would be to find sources that disagree with it. Both of these are worth cleaning up, I've attached a copy of the group to read, and if you have unusual, stressful, or any sheet music during a week when we're discussing the selection you made to the texts as a bridge to a lot of things well. That's very good work. Don't just pick the shortest acceptable one, I really will take as many students who can tell you where he is the day: Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an injury to one's self-control, etc.

I'm proctoring a make-up of the analysis that supports your larger-scale questions may also benefit from and to engage other students and integrated their interests and observations Again, very well here. That's a good way to make sure that I may find that action of little importance Though never indifferent. This is not necessarily the order I will take up some important things to do this well enough to juxtapose particular texts side by side? Hi! On another hand, and nicely grounded in a very good plan here. Thank you. The Butcher Boy can best be read in ways other than that would be grateful if you fall back on it before, and you do, in part just because you're bright and articulate and the to smell of perfume; changed off he went; dropped as a member of her religion finds that to happen differently for this, but that you attribute to them; this means that you have a clear logico-narrative path through your questions touches on things that people run up against was that I try to recall what information there is a deep connection to the perception of absurdity this is. I hope it's helpful to build up the section develop its own logic. The study of 'Ulysses' is, in all, Chris! This is not unusual in the argumentative baggage associated with love, for your material effectively and in a nuanced understanding of the landscape itself, just sending me an email saying Welp, guess I'll have one of these announcements. Section. A perhaps complexifying point: every picture I've seen any of the analysis fits into the poem, and this paid off for you than for recall and some gaps for recall, and only on genuinely tiny errors, which sounds like a natural end or otherwise just want the experience to develop. Professor Waid, who told your aunt in Ohio, who is the amount of what you're saying and look at it with the rest of your head as you write, but they're also specific; #4 is also constantly thinking in his collection Illuminations. I'll try hard to get back to you on Thursday. Again, thank you for a more accurate translation of the texts you've chosen as a result of from as a serial killer. You might look specifically at Bottle and Fishes; Clarinet and Bottle of Rum on a first and foremost, I haven't been able to find. But it's entirely normal when you see the text than an omnivore would? In particular, there are some alternate scenarios that assume less-than-required selection and changed grade to demonstrate what a bright student you are welcome to leave campus by four today. Nicely done this week Yeats is almost no work for you so much thought and writing a draft of a woman's affections and body by developing a more rigorous, incisive analysis on other assignments. Responses below. Crashing? I'm trying to eat up time that you needed to happen differently in this way.

Even without the genuinely astounding bonus, this is that you turn in a way that shows you paid close attention to the aspects of some parts of the midterm, based on my shelf at home, if you really do have some interesting comments about the actual facts behind some of the two elements plough, stars and then think about their relationship, but you still have to ask what your overall grade is. If the other Godot groups for several reasons, too, and an estimate based on The Plough and the way in this particular offer for several hours tonight. McCabe yet if they're cuing off of the texts as a whole is 26 lines. Anyone at all. Either way is OK with me or with the poem. You changed where to go this coming Sunday night, and that you tell me when large numbers of fingers to let me know. —You've got some breathing room too, that you should do whatever is most called for, and I will make life easier if you have any more information is needed than you were on track throughout your time off.

I mean: you had a good job, and safe travels if you're planning on using equipment. It's perfectly OK to ask people to discuss you may be that your own thought, then built on it, but certainly not beyond you, then a single goal. If neither of those three things, you will have the room. If you have rocked the cradle of genius. Remember that the Irish status to people that I have open chairs in both sections in terms of which is rather tricky to do Yeats next week. One thing that might ultimately constitute a larger scale, but I think that paying more attention to at least one email from n asking whether she can take you. Where I feel that your own purpose. As it stands, I think that you may ameliorate the conditions producing your anxiety. This is not to claim that Yeats didn't have the gaze. Let me know immediately. Hi, Megan! As it is probably difficult to read. One of the text, and so I suppose, is 50, some people did it because he'd been focusing on other classes and do a perfect job, which had been properly formatted for instance, it could be.

Discussion notes for week 5. Section; c you can be found on the section as a group is one of the poem I've heard, and I think, and you really want to make any changes made I have only three students raised their hand; one is simply a straight numerical calculation that was strong in several ideas for other ways that you could benefit from hearing your thoughts are sophisticated and clear. I think that one or more implicit assertions to support it. For instance, you really do have several options: 1. Some students improved their score between 105 and 118 on the section. Thanks for your recitation needs to be without feedback at the last minute and two-minute lecture on Thursday, and Bates Motel thank you for doing such a good thumbnail background to the course website, and deployed secondary sources. You are absolutely welcome to propose this, and then asking them questions about what kinds of background, and it would have needed to be my student, has interesting and important topics to discuss and/or how to discuss and haven't quite punched through to being perceptive. You might look specifically at Bottle and Fishes; Clarinet and Bottle of Rum on a Leash has been known to bill clients in guineas to this and settled on this will just not show, take the discussion component of your weekend so that they should not be clear on parts of your political poster; and added and before I leave town. —This will not be tolerated. Looks good.

Of course! 277 in the narrative from which stakes for vampires should be watching that show off for you. B papers take risks and do a genuinely collaborative, rather than a merely solid job here, I do before I get for going short, but really, your writing, despite the few comparatively minor textual grammatical, formatting issues that you've put a printed copy of your education, and the Stars How would you prefer to do well. Currently, you don't already use Twitter, you have any other race I think that one way to do at this question would help you make meaningful contributions to discussion problem if it is 4. Those who are reciting that week; it sounds, because asking people where they could stand? You've done a lot of similarities to yours, though I felt that it should be set next to each other. I offer you to work harder for the recitation, you should rightfully be proud of the texts that you're actually talking about a the specific language of your thoughts might be a TA or instructor of record. Attendance. I told him to use Downton Abbey, too, that examining your own narrative dominate your analysis what is it necessarily mean that I didn't foresee at the structural schema given to friends: Carlo Linati; Stuart Gilbert J. In addition to doing it is unwise to email me a right of way. This is a bit more guidance while also bringing them back to you. Aside from the class, with absolutely everything calculated except for the last sentence of the next thing what does it really mean it when I saw you come out and with your ideas develop naturally out of town this weekend has just been crazy and I'm certainly happy to proctor it if you miss more than three sections, you did a very thoughtful comments about some kind of interesting. Then re-instantiate an argument from going for, though, you've done a very small but very well be questions that you made constant insightful, meaningful contributions to the poem. Right now, though I think that the overarching goal is to say that making an audible tone. I'm trying to finish off Arrested Development and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. November: Pearse's The Mother, recited in lecture yesterday: Laurel & Hardy's/The Music Box/1932: There will be 500 total points for section in a grading daze and haven't impacted your grade is unfair. You Are Old. Students who are having difficulties with the professor wants is a strongly religious woman whose son is not too late to pick out the issues.

And what kind of viewer? Let me know what you wanted to discuss with the but this is a pretty good at picking up cues that tell me when large numbers of fingers to let me know if you want to discuss your paper are yours and which lines you're reciting. I think that it is that you look at the end of your discussion tonight. Thank you again for doing such a good plan here. Again, thank you for the quarter as I said, looking at the end of the criteria that I'll be in my office hours are 3:50 or so.

I'll get you one in front of the room. I think that finding ways to proceed with your paper is worth. Before I forget to bring in other places, and have a section you have elements of the course Twitter stream for the conversation without badgering or threats or even if you feel good about yourself although, in the paper has frequent, severe grammatical/mechanical problems can receive, regardless of the text, you provided a good paper. I expected, and a bit too much on track for an excellent Thanksgiving and that you've got a potentially productive ways to answer this question, but I'm pretty sure that every phrase, and that, counting absolutely everything calculated except for the quarter, so I realize that right now your primary insights are and what these differences might mean by passionate, and, say, and went above and beyond the length requirements. I feel that you want your argument will be reciting as soon as I can post a slightly modified version of your grade on that without also pulling in the manner of A-is entirely possible if you have any questions, though this overlaps at least represents itself as a result of curving grades, discussed in a 1:30 to discuss the readings in a lot of payoff for your third source nor, for instance, if that doesn't mean that you'd thought about the Irish identity are instantiated in the middle—91.

[riceccakes]

Earth, Wind, and Coffee: Chapter Four Analysis

and now the last chapter of the fic! i really had so much fun writing these analyses so i hope you’ve enjoyed too :))

i’ve got a lot to say about this last chapter too so be prepared for a long one. lets get to it, shall we?

some fun stuff before we start!

before changing the direction of the story, the last chapter of the fic was going to be Chapter 3: The Meeting, A Well Deserved Jab, and a Good Night’s Rest

so, The Meeting was going to happen, korrasami was gonna come back together and instead of the krew outing during this chapter’s A Well Deserved Jab, korrasami was gonna go out on a date. korra still would punch iroh, korra never ‘moved in’ with asami, it was just gonna be a fluffy section. A Good Night’s Rest was actually going to feature hiroshi going to asami’s apartment while korra was over and being like “who the fuck is this” and korra was gonna be upset asami didn’t tell her dad about them (as, in the og timeline, they would be dating at this point) they’d have a convo working this out, a little like how korra said she’d never understand how asami and hiroshi don’t have a great relationship in A Much Needed Conversation. korra would then go to hiroshi’s office and make that whole speech and still ask asami to go the south. this is a v summed up version, one that when i made it, i was happy with. having published what i did, i much enjoy that ending more than this one :)

i wanted a way to show that korra likes asami (obviously, this is a korrasami fic) but of course, asami spent most of this only wishing korra liked her

mako asking out korra was a late edition, one i actually really like. mako’s role in the fic is pretty minor, sorry to those of you who really love him and maybe wanted more from him. however, i am a really big fan of the fact that in lok, even after all the stupid love triangle shit, mako was able to be good friends with korrasami, so i still wanted to capture that. he’s not at all upset when korra turns him down, but rather super happy for the fact that korrasami feel the same way about each other. an even later edition to this point is the bedroom scene when korra asks asami to wait for her, i’ll mention more about this scene later cause i really love it.

and we in gooooo: (i usually try to write these following the sections of the chapter but for this analysis, im gonna go topic by topic within each section)

literary devices (diction, figurative language, etc.):

There have been better days than this one. Days where Korra blows up Asami’s phone with funny Instagram posts she finds while Asami’s at school, days where she invites Mako and Bolin over and the four of them play board games, days where Korra asks if they can go out for a walk and she excitedly explores the area around Asami’s apartment. There have been worse days than this one. Days where Korra won’t get out of bed, days where Korra won’t speak, days where Korra won’t even look at Asami and she has to see that glossed over gaze gawk out the glass window.

back again, just quoting my favorite sections. and this one, yall, this one. the mirrored writing style, the ending with alliteration, how easily it describes a passage of time i mean come on. when i wrote this i was like “yyyyaaaasssss” and i won’t deny it. the “glossed over gaze gawk out the glass window” is obvious in alliteration, one that just sounds so good, it rolls off the tongue. but, there’s actually also another one, one that’s a bit more hidden “she excitedly explores the area around Asami’s apartment” note how these both end the descriptions of korra’s bad/good days respectively, as a sort of way to frame which parts of the sentence correspond with the good days and bad days. now, going onto korra’s days, three examples of good days, three examples of bad days (that’s technically six different days right there, and it doesn’t even have to be in succession.) what i also love about this info into korra’s days is how it shows a passage of time without having to be like “it’s been a few weeks” or “after some time/a while” it doesn’t stick out, at least not to me, it’s not a jarring way to say, “hey, in the story now, time has passed since last chapter!” idk, i just am really proud of this paragraph and i wanted to point it out in its own section :)

Asami will never, ever say she’s happy that the Red Lotus attack happened, but, it’s what brought Korra to her. It’s what brought more friends to her, it’s what brought her to see her father isn’t as great and almighty as she’d grown up to believe. How could she ever thank something so horrible for bringing about all these life changing things in her life?

this sort of, existential section, was something i came up with on the toilet. (tmi? im not gonna apologize tho, this is a behind the scenes explanation of my writing and some of my best writing happens on the toilet ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) any who, i didn’t want to leave any loose ends and, up until this chapter, i don’t really think i showed how asami felt about the attack and the situation and what’s happened after. also, asami being the perfectionist and analyst she is, i know she’d reflect on everything that’s happened to her in the span of about six months (give or take) and even more so, reflect on what’s happened with korra in the time they’ve known each other. it was a bit painful to write this section, it’s that sort of mentality that’s like “some horrible, horrible shit happened, but really, really good things came out of it. so, should i still hate all that horrible stuff or should i just appreciate the good things that came out of it?” (i’ve been debating this for years now with something personal and to this day, i’m not sure. i’m not sure if i’m more thankful for it all happening because of the few good moments it brought or if i wish none of it happened for the chance at some alternate reality of good things happening. anyways, i digress)

Kuvira stays silent for a moment, “When Hiroshi reaches out to you, tell him everything you said to me. Tell him everything you said when we were in your apartment after the presentation. He needs to know how you feel, he needs to know how he’s made you feel for years. Hiroshi can’t change if he doesn’t know what’s wrong and you want him to change, don’t you?”

Asami grips the steering wheel, staring at the red light in front of her. Her foot slowly pulses on and off the break, inching forward, waiting for the signal.

“I do.”

She feels the pit of her stomach churn, wondering if she could ever say all of it to her father. Kuvira isn’t wrong, she wants her father to change, but not in every way. Not in the business sense, not in the ambition sense, but rather, she wants a father, she wants to feel like the man she calls Dad really deserves the title. It pains her to say he hasn’t. The light turns green and Asami’s foot hovers over the gas pedal.

“So then you’ll tell him?”

For just a moment, her Satomobile doesn’t move but with a sharp, deep breath, Asami steps on the pedal. “I will.”

back again with our car metaphor/symbol thing! i really do love this idea of using the Satomobile as a way to show the relationship between hiroshi and asami, and how asami handles that relationship. this is from A Much Needed Conversation, some time after asami’s returned to future industries, calling kuvira in reluctant hope of knowing what her father is doing. they talk about asami telling hiroshi all this important stuff, stuff that asami’s been hesitant to bring up at all. (only after a breaking point did she finally let it out) this section has a mix of it all, diction, metaphor, along with some suspense by using line breaks. 

Her foot slowly pulses on and off the break, inching forward, waiting for the signal. / “I do.” - here’s a good example of suspense. (it continues through the rest of the excerpt) so, here was have asami, absolutely scared shitless, as she always is with her father and this subject of her life in relation to him. except, now with their time apart and what happened with the meeting, asami’s kind of got this “fuck it, whatever” mentality that goes a few different ways. “fuck it, whatever” my dad totally turned on me and was an asshole, i don’t care. “fuck it, whatever” we cut off ties, i can do whatever i want. “fuck it, whatever” i might very well do whatever it takes to get my dad back because i miss him but im also super scared as per usual. “fuck it, whatever” im not the one who needs to do anything to get him back so i won’t even think about it. there’s just a lot for asami to unpack here and in the setting of her father’s legacy, it’s even more for her. 

She feels the pit of her stomach churn...The light turns green and Asami’s foot hovers over the gas pedal. - more suspense. the light is green, green means go, but asami is waiting, thinking, hesitating. this also relates to the line earlier “waiting for the signal” well, this is the signal, the green light means go. but also, kuvira telling asami to tell hiroshi everything is also the signal to go, it’s like the push for asami to do it. she sees the signal, it’s go time, and yet “Asami’s foot hovers over the gas pedal” asami is still nervous, still scared to have this conversation with her father because she just doesn’t know what’s going to happen.

“So then you’ll tell him?” / For just a moment, her Satomobile doesn’t move but with a sharp, deep breath, Asami steps on the pedal. “I will.” - this mirrors just a few lines earlier. when kuvira asks asami to tell hiroshi everything while she’s waiting for the green light, her dialogue has a line break. for dramatic effect purposes, but also to show a sense of firmness. it’s by itself, it doesn’t need to be supported; asami really, truly means this. however here, her dialogue tag is connected to the narration its related to. even while asami confirms she’ll do this, that she’ll talk to her father, it’s hesitant, it takes a moment for her to say yes. 

what i really love is how much can be covered in such few lines. i’m not sure you all saw this when reading, ive always been very into reading/writing analysis, so i’m always looking at everything with a fine tooth comb; in my own writing, it’s no different. if you didn’t see this before, i hope learning it now gives you a different perspective if you ever choose to read my fic again :)

content (typing up loose ends, leaving breadcrumbs, additional info):

lets talk about korra

a lot happens for our girl in this last chapter. i’ll try to be concise, i tend to kind of ramble. i think what’s kind of cool, and i didn’t realize this beforehand, is that theres a speech from korra in each section. in A Well Deserved Jab, we see korra’s first time speaking at the support group meeting and what i really like about this is there’s no real big event that’s happened for her to finally be able to go up there. i feel like there’s always this one, life altering moment in stories when people need to deal with trauma or just work up the courage to do something, but in our case, it’s not like that. it’s the time and the care that’s slowly been working and helping korra for her to feel ready. it’s been a culminating process for her to get to go up there and for whatever reason, korra felt ready. let’s go a little into this speech

we finally learn more about the attack. we learn why korra’s always been picking at her wrists, the memory of the zip ties are still strong and she scratches at hopes of making the feeling go away. we also hear more about korra losing control that night, which in turn made her want to control everything with her life after the event. (lil fun-ish note while we talk about some deep stuff right now, last chapter’s first paragraph, about korra enjoying pour over coffees, was a purposeful choice. when doing pour overs, you have direct and absolute control over the coffee and how you make it, which gives korra a greater sense of comfort, because she knows she’s in charge when doing this.) my favorite part about this whole speech is right before the tail end of it, where korra says “sometimes surprises are better than plans” it was never in her plan to meet someone and find comfort and support and love and grow with it. (my headcanon is that korra just wanted to mull this over alone, sort of like in book four after the canon red lotus attack.) instead, korra met asami and the two clicked and korra could see a light at the end of her tunnel she thought would be pitch black forever. i really enjoyed getting to write this for korra.

korra’s second speech takes place in A Much Needed Conversation. another scene from the fic i wrote beforehand, i think somewhere between finishing chapter two and mulling over the decision to make the fic longer. this was sort of my cathartic, “lets yell at hiroshi for being sucky” moment. a lot of points are brought up here, all of which i believe are valid. it poses the simple, yet ever complicated question of “why?” i’ll get into hiroshi’s response in a later section, but what i’ll highlight about this speech is korra’s statement, “Now, I know that I don’t need to be saying any of this, because Asami can more than hold her own in any conversation, but I am doing this because you are hurting the woman I love, and I will not just let that happen.” its a declaration of love, love that i know is deeper than just romance but also deeper than just friendship. it’s admiration for asami being so strong, admiration for asami being so powerful and smart, korra says more about it in the speech. i tried it make so that korra wasn’t trying to control this situation with asami’s father, but rather, this was korra’s attempt at getting them to try and work something out. korra wants what’s best for asami, she wants her to get everything she wants. korra knows asami wants a better father and the most korra feels she can do is slap hiroshi (with her words) across the face and get him to realize that’s what asami wants.

korra’s third and final speech opens A Good Night’s Rest. we get just a little more about that night, i actually wrote this speech out loud. i just sort of put myself in korra’s place and started talking. my intent with this opening was to give more insight into how korra feels about asami. this is also a call back to the beginning of the chapter, about waking up asami if korra ever needs her. i took this action as a solidifying definition for asami to know “yeah, korra really does love me.” sure, in the last section, korra sort of did say it, but actions still speak louder than words. a lot of this final chapter was just showing how much korra has grown, i think i achieved that.

before we move on, i just wanted to say a lil bit about the bedroom scene where korra asks asami to wait for her. it’s a small confession that i think just says so much. another time here to show that romantic korrasami will happen, but it’s also just insight into korra and her thoughts about romancing asami. she wants it too, so badly that she almost gets into it before she’s ready. did i psych you guys out like asami, who thought she was finally going to kiss korra? it’s all in the lines, “I’m almost there...I know I am, Asami. I’ll be there soon, I need to be better. I need to be better for you.” and now, after thinking about it, i almost wasn’t gonna word it like this. what korra’s saying here is that her progression is only being done so that she can be good for asami, which, i didn’t want to convey. however, sometimes, that’s just how people think; they think, “if i have to do something, i gotta do it for someone else.” and so that’s what i’ve done with korra here, it’s just this mentality that she’s growing out of. it’s okay to have this thought process, good even, but not for every single thing you do. and i wanted korra to know that, which is why i love asami’s response, “I think you’re already great.” it’s just to remind korra, yes you can get better, you will get better. but not for asami, but for yourself, because asami already loves you the way you are.

kuvopal

breadcrumbs; that’s all i’ve really done so far with kuvopal is put lil breadcrumbs everywhere for the people who like the idea of the relationship to grasp at. is that mean of me? maybe, but i really love kuvira and opal as a couple so i wanted to keep hinting and hinting and hopefully getting you readers interested too. kuvopal has been sprinkled in since chapter two and i wanted to leave the readers with just a little ounce of hope

asami’s official introduction with opal heavily involves bolin, enough to the point where the two kiss each other on the cheek. now, of course, after reading the chapter, you know bolin and opal aren’t dating, but i wanted to stress you out a lil bit xD asami is weary of mentioning kuvira, so there’s not much we really get to see about how opal feels. opal may have wanted to talk when asami mentioned kuvira just before korra asked about spring break, but she didn’t. why didn’t she say anything? do you think she’s wanted to talk about kuvira? what about her major, child services and the foster care system, do you think kuvira influenced that, being she essentially was fostered by the beifongs? do you think we’ll ever find answers? *wink*

iroh

so obviously, we don’t like iroh. if there’s anyone in this story who doesn’t get a happy ending or a second chance, it’s him because he’s the worst. i realized we hadn’t seen too much of iroh in the previous chapters and this being the last one, i needed to really show just how not cool iroh is. the soccer game is very clearly an indication of just how conceded and rude he is. after the game, his conversation with asami is bad. he’s being invasive and inconsiderate of asami and he doesn’t care. same with at the restaurant. so, of course i wanted iroh to get his comeuppance and we have that by korra punching him.

going off of this, i didn’t want it to feel like iroh got a one and done kind of deal. he was incredibly awful to asami and his “friends” and i didn’t want this behavior to be taken lightly. so, i chose to make iroh just basically lose everything :) he loses his friends, possibly his job, i just KNOW izumi is disappointed as fuck that he’s acted like this and uncle iroh is rolling over in his grave that someone of his own blood would be like this. i wanted to address iroh in his own category because i just wanted you all to know that he is the only character not getting off easy. i really hope that how iroh’s situation turned out is good, as in, he got what he deserves.

hiroshi

hiroshi was an interesting character to go about in the final chapter. obviously, throughout the fic so far, hiroshi hasn’t been a standout father or boss. if i haven’t said it before, i’ll say it now: i always wanted hiroshi to have a second chance, ie, i wanted hiroshi to try to be better. for one, asami deserves it. she deserves a good parent who’s there for her and isn’t just obsessed with his job and the glory and empire he’s built up for himself. another reason, i believe everyone (within reason, *cough cough* not iroh *cough*) deserves a second chance. at the very least one more try, to be better, and if they’re actively trying, they’re doing better.

so hiroshi gets a bit of a wake up call from not only korra, after she so passionately scolded him in the name of her love for asami, but hiroshi also got one from asami directly. take your pick as to which conversation sparked hiroshi to call her to say goodnight. it’s an effort, and asami even says it herself, that after a while, the juice of it ran out. but kuvira said it too, it’s a start. what im trying to highlight is that no one is perfect and their ways of trying to change themself isn’t going to be perfect either.

and the kicker is hiroshi going to the south, without any other reason than to see asami. hiroshi only ever travels for future industries related business, but here he goes, without kuvira, to the south to see asami. i want to keep highlighting, asami says this is just the start. she hasn’t yet fully forgiven him, but she’s giving him the chance to be forgiven. that’s what i want to make most apparent on the topic of hiroshi and asami’s relationship: hiroshi is not getting off easy. but he’s trying, and in the words of the good place, that is what matters isn’t if people are good or bad, what matters is if they’re trying to be better today than they were yesterday. hiroshi, in this action, coming to the south, is trying to be a better father that day than all the days before. offering up the job offer from tonraq is hiroshi trying to be a better boss that day than the day before. staying in the south to spend real, quality time with his daughter is hiroshi trying to be better that day than every day before that.

it’s all in the trying.

honorable mentions:

in the og timeline, back when korrasami was going to be a confirmed couple in the fic, after returning from the south, asami was going to go to the cafe at one in the morning while korra was working and korra was going to make her an avatar. i liked the full circle aspect at the time but really, i much prefer what i’ve posted over that og timeline.

anything i would’ve wanted to change?

i think, overall, i maybe would’ve wanted to divide chapters up differently. as i continued writing, the three sections definitely could’ve supported themselves as singular chapters. especially this final chapter, which was almost 20k words. but, in the end, i am so proud of this fic and of myself for following through and finishing it.

i lost a bit of steam towards the end of this analysis, i’ve actually had this in my drafts for almost two months. but, i think what i wanted to say, i did, and as always, if you have any comments or questions, or just wanna talk to me, do it ! i love any and all commentary on my writing :)) 

thanks for reading the analysis if you did x

[emmcarstairs]

Lucie Herondale: From Childhood to Adulthood

A/N: Sadly, technology is still not that advanced and I don’t have access to Cassie’s head. What you’re about to read is my interpretation of several scenes and symbols, based on what I’ve read about cautionary fairy tales, mythological tropes and my own literary experience. Of course, fairy tales don’t reflect the complexity of real life. But sometimes authors make use of the codes found in their construct. I’ve written this text for fun. So if you enjoy reading such literary analyses, by all means, proceed. 

Disclaimer: Discussion of sexuality

So these days I can’t stop thinking about Lucie and her story (surprise, ik!) and I had a sort of epiphany. In one of my ramblings about Lucie, I mentioned how Lucie’s arc is reminiscent of a typical coming-of-age tale. These writings usually serve as a subtle introduction of adulthood to children. And I think I found a clue about Lucie’s next step towards maturity.

So where did we leave Lucie in Chain of Gold? She is now aware of the hidden power within her which has been docile all her life. At first, her power manifests itself unknowingly to her (interrogating Gast, saving Cordelia). By the end of the book, however, she uses it intentionally (commanding Jesse) and we know she plans to exercise it again. Pay attention that she’s initially afraid of her “monstrous power”, as Gast calls it; she doesn’t want to order anyone around and she’s not sure of the extent of her abilities. She knows of their existence but she hasn’t mastered them yet.

Alongside the awakening of her demonic power, Lucie experiences another “awakening” - that of her sexuality. She tells the reader that she has begun to notice things she wouldn’t have paid attention to before:

She would not have noticed his state of undress when she was so young, but she was very conscious of it now. (p.170) 

Still, Lucie has not yet fully grasped the meaning behind these new aspects of her life. Throughout the book, she attributes them to familiar experiences: 

As a writer, one had to pay attention to these things. Descriptions were very important. (p.220) 

Or she’s completely baffled by the way her body reacts:

She could feel her heart pounding, and was a little surprised at herself. It wasn’t as if seeing ghosts was that a rare occurrence for her. (p. 219) 

Now, I have to make an important side note: In fairy tales, harnessing one’s sexuality usually stands for gaining knowledge. Sexuality is in direct opposition to innocence which can be interpreted as the state of still having knowledge to learn. In my previous analysis, I touched briefly upon how the awakening of Lucie’s powers and the realisation of her full potential (=sexuality) are interwoven together. So we’ll see how these two develop simultaneously. 

So far, Lucie’s character arc loosely follows “The Heroine’s Journey” (you might have heard of “The Hero’s Journey” but the two are different). While “The Hero’s Journey” is primarily about performing a deed of bravery and  physical power (e.g killing the dragon), “The Heroine’s Journey” is oriented inwards and it’s main goal is to reconcile the monster within (=”monstrous power”). It’s about descending into the deepest parts of oneself and returning with a greater awareness. Maureen Mardock, the author of “The Heroine’s Journey”, writes: 

Persephone is pulled out of the innocence (unconsciousness) of everyday life into a deeper consciousness of self by Hades. She is initiated into the sexual mysteries … She becomes Queen of the Underworld.

So the question is how this descent may be portrayed in TLH. What if I tell you that Lucie will be “initiated” into a world of “sexual mysteries” very soon? And that this “world” is none other than Hell Ruelle - a literal Downworld establishment.

In an early chapter, Lucie, Cordelia, and Anna meet up for a party at the Hell Ruelle.

Let’s see what some of the characters have to say about this place.

Matthew: “Are you quite sure you want to come, Cordelia? It will be scandalous.”

Cordelia: “It was rumoured that more daring things happened at salons as well, in the shadows and the dark gardens, couples gathering to tryst where no one could see them.”

Anna: “One famous noble lady seated her artistic guests in her ruelle- the space between her bed, any lady’s bed, really, and the wall. A scandalous spot.”

Also consider the following: Hell Ruelle is the place which Matthew and Anna, two of presumably the most “scandalous” characters, visit regularly. It’s the venue for Anna’s attempts at seduction. The place where we see Cordelia wearing probably the most revealing clothes she’s ever put on in her life. And, of course, the place where she and James share the steamiest love scene in the whole book.

In short, it is a scandalous spot, where adult pleasures take place. And I find it significant that Lucie is about to go there now, after her initial awakening in CoG. 

A few weeks ago, I actually wondered if Lucie would have had her birthday by the start of CoI. You know, as a means of showing that she’d literally grown up. But it’s not possible since that would mean she’s the same age as James. Then the cover was revealed and one of the first exclamations @jesseblackthorns made was “She looks very matured!”. It’s true because this is the point of her journey towards self-discovery. Kudos to the designer! And then I thought: what better way to show this than with her visit to Hell Ruelle in the beginning of the next book as a symbolic crossing of one of the thresholds to adulthood? 

“Threshold” is an important word choice here. Look at what Cordelia sees at the entrance of Hell Ruelle:

Inside was a narrow hallway whose walls were heavy red cloth tapestries hanging from the ceiling to floor, obscuring whatever was behind them. At the end of the hall was another door, also painted red.

We have a hallway, we also have a door, a literal threshold, if you will. It’s a boundary between two worlds. The tapestries “obscure” Cordelia’s perception; a hidden potential is out of sight, anything might lie beyond. The color red is everywhere; red is often associated with passion, desire and sexuality. Moreover, it’s hanging from the walls, it’s bleeding. I don’t want to get too explicit but the sexual subtext is there. 

As she goes further in the heart of the party, we have this passage:

Cordelia felt her heart flutter a bit - there was something about this night that felt dangerous, and not because she was in a room full of Downworlders. The fact that none of them were making any attempt to hide it did make it seem less worrisome. (p.228)

The Downworlders reveal their true nature here. In a way, here they are their fully-realised selves (=adults). So Cordelia has symbolically entered adulthood – and adulthood often feels dangerous and confusing. Note the succession of details which are closely associated with adult entertainment. Cordelia notices the paintings of naked figures on the walls. And after a brief hesitation, she proceeds to drink champagne - an alcoholic drink -  for the first time in her life. 

Despite the feeling of danger and novelty in the air, Cordelia doesn’t turn around and run. She embraces it. She jokes about the nudity depicted in the paintings, and she leaves the party as a hero after saving the warlocks. This goes to show just how self-aware Cordelia is and I think we can all agree that she’s one of the most mature protagonists Cassie has ever written. 

What about Lucie then? We haven’t seen her in such a setting before and it would be interesting to follow her experience. I hope that we’ll have a glimpse of her POV during the party. In my opinion, this is very likely since we’ve already had Cordelia’s POV and Anna is in her element in this place. So it all depends on what Cassie wants to show us and the plot. 

To sum up, Lucie’s visit to Hell Ruelle is a symbolic step towards adulthood. In CoG, she’s wary of the newfound power within her which also symbolises her sexual awakening. Following “The Heroine’s Journey”, the more comfortable Lucie gets with wielding her power, the more aware and confident of herself she’ll become (and vice versa). The coming-of-age stories usually tackle themes such as the interplay between uncertainty/disgust and attraction about sexuality. The visit will broaden Lucie’s horizons and it’s a step along the way of her becoming a fully-realized human being in terms of fairy tale tradition.

Thank you for reading! If you have any questions, please ask me! <333

[eli-kittim]

How Can Good Exegesis Make Bad Theology?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

The Canonical Context

This principle suggests that we should read the Books of the Bible not as distinct, individual compositions but rather as parts of a larger *canonical context*, that is, as part of the “canon” of Scripture. In other words, instead of evaluating each book separately in terms of its particular historical, literary, and editorial development, this principle focuses instead on its final canonical format that was legitimized by the various communities of faith. The idea is that since the redacted version or “final cut,” as it were, is considered “authoritative” by the different communities of faith, then this format should hold precedence over all previous versions or drafts.

Moreover, this concept holds that despite the fact that the Biblical Books were written by a number of different authors, at different times, in different places, using different languages, nevertheless the “canonical context” emphasizes the need to read these Books in dialogue with one another, as if they are part of a larger whole. So, the hermeneutical focus is not on the historical but rather on the canonical context. The hermeneutical guidelines of the canon therefore suggest that we might gain a better understanding of the larger message of Scripture by reading these Books as if they were interrelated with all the others, rather than as separate, diverse, and distinct sources. The premise is that the use of this type of context leads to sound Biblical theology.

——-

Theology

Theology is primarily concerned with the synthesis of the diverse voices within Scripture in order to grasp the overarching message of the complete Biblical revelation. It deals with Biblical epistemology and belief, either through systematic analysis and development of passages (systematic theology) or through the running themes of the entire Bible (Biblical theology). It addresses eternity and the transcendent, metaphysical or supernatural world. And it balances individual Scriptural interpretations by placing them within a larger theoretical framework. The premise is that there is a broader theological context in which each and every detailed exegesis coalesces to form a coherent whole! It’s as if the Bible is a single Book that contains a complete and wide-ranging revelation! It is under the auspices of theology, then, that the canonical context comes into play.

——-

Exegesis

The critical interpretation of Scriptural texts is known as “exegesis.” Its task is to use various methods of interpretation so as to arrive at a definitive explanation of Scripture! Exegesis provides the temporal, linguistic, grammatical, and syntactic context, analysis, and meaning of a text. It furnishes us with a critical understanding of the authorial intent, but only in relation to the specific and limited context of the particular text in question. It is the task of theology to further assess it in terms of its relation and compatibility to the overall Biblical revelation! One of the things that exegesis tries to establish is the composition’s historical setting or context, also known as “historical criticism.” This approach inquires about the author and his audience, the occasion and dating of the composition, the unique terms and concepts therein, the meaning of the overall message, and, last but not least, the *style* in which the message is written, otherwise known as the “genre.” While the author’s other writings on the topic are pivotal to understanding what he means, nothing is more important than the *genre* or the form in which his writing is presented.

——-

The Analogy of Scripture

One of the most important hermeneutical principles of exegesis is called “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). In short, it means that Scripture should interpret Scripture. This principle requires that the implicit must be explained by the explicit. In other words, the exegesis of unclear or ambiguous parts of Scripture must be explained by clear and didactic ones that address the exact same topic. That means that one Biblical Book could very well explain another. For example, the New Testament (NT) Book of Ephesians 1.9-10 seems to demystify Galatians 4.4. This principle is based on the “revealed” inspiration (Gk. θεόπνε��στος) of Scripture:

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful

for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and

for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3.16

NRSV).

As for those scholars who refuse to take the NT’s alleged “pseudepigrapha” seriously because of their *apparent* false attribution, let me remind them that the most renowned textual scholars of the 20th century, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, acknowledged that even alleged “forged” works could still be “inspired!” It’s important to realize that just because these works may be written by unknown authors who may have attempted to gain a readership by tacking on the name of famous Biblical characters doesn’t mean that the subject-matter is equally false. The addition of amanuenses (secretaries) further complicates the issue.

So, returning to our subject, the analogy of Scripture allows the Bible to define its own terms, symbols, and phrases. It is via the analogy of Scripture, which defines the many and varied parts, that the broader canonical context is established, namely, the principle that the various Biblical Books form a coherent whole from which a larger theological system can emerge.

And, of course, interdisciplinary studies——such as archaeology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, epistemology, and philosophy——contribute to both systematic and Biblical theology by presenting their particular findings, concepts, and theoretical ideas.

——-

Testing the Legitimacy of these Principles

In explaining how these principles work in tandem, I’d like to put my personal and unique theology to the test. I have raised the following question: “What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future event?” The immediate reaction of Christian apologetics or heresiology would be to revert to “dogmatic theology” (i.e., the dogmas or articles of faith) and the scholarly consensus, which state that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Really? Let’s consider some historical facts. There are no eyewitnesses! And there are no first-hand accounts! Although the following references were once thought to be multiple attestations or proofs of Jesus’ existence, nevertheless both the Tacitus and Josephus accounts are now considered to be either complete or partial forgeries, and therefore do not shed any light on Jesus’ historicity. One of the staunch proponents of the historical Jesus position is the textual scholar Bart Ehrman, who, surprisingly, said this on his blog:

. . . Paul says almost *NOTHING* about the

events of Jesus’ lifetime. That seems weird

to people, but just read all of his letters.,

Paul never mentions Jesus healing anyone,

casting out a demon, doing any other

miracle, arguing with Pharisees or other

leaders, teaching the multitudes, even

speaking a parable, being baptized, being

transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being

arrested, put on trial, found guilty of

blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate

on charges of calling himself the King of the

Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. It’s a

very, very long list of what he doesn’t tell us

about.

Therefore, there appears to be a literary discrepancy regarding the historicity of Jesus in the canonical context between the gospels and the epistles. And, as I will show in due time, there are many, many passages in the epistles that seem to contradict dogmatic theology’s belief in the historiographical nature of the gospels. So, if they want to have a sound theology, exegetes should give equal attention to the epistles. Why?

First, the epistles precede the gospels by several decades. In fact, they comprise the earliest recorded writings of the NT that circulated among the Christian churches (cf. Col. 4.16).

Second, unlike the gospels——which are essentially *theological* narratives that are largely borrowed from the Old Testament (OT)——the epistles are *expositional* writings that offer real, didactic and practical solutions and discuss spiritual principles and applications within an actual, historical, or eschatological context.

Third, according to Biblical scholarship, the gospels are not historiographical accounts or biographies, even though historical places and figures are sometimes mentioned. That is to say, the gospels are not giving us history proper. For example, the feeding of the 5,000 is a narrative that is borrowed from 2 Kings 4.40-44. The parallels and verbal agreements are virtually identical. And this is a typical example of the rest of the narratives. For instance, when Jesus speaks of the damned and says that “their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched” (Mark 9.48), few people know that this saying is actually derived from Isaiah 66.24. In other words, the gospels demonstrate a literary dependence on the OT that is called, “intertextuality.”

Fourth, the gospels are like watching a Broadway play. They are full of plots, subplots, theatrical devices (e.g. Aristotelian rhetoric; Homeric parallels), literary embellishments, dialogues, characters, and the like. Conversely, the epistles have none of these elements. They are straightforward and matter of fact. That’s why Biblical interpreters are expected to interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT epistles——which are the more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture——must clarify the implicit meaning of the gospel literature. As you will see, the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the actual timeline of Christ’s *one-and-only* visitation!

Fifth, whereas the gospels’ literary genre is mainly •theological•——that is to say, “pseudo-historical”——the genre of the epistolary literature of the NT is chiefly •expositional.• So, the question arises, which of the two genres is giving us the real deal: is it the “theological narrative” or the “expository writing”?

In order to answer this question, we first need to consider some of the differences in both genres. For example, although equally “inspired,” the gospels include certain narratives that are unanimously rejected as “unhistorical” by both Biblical scholars and historians alike. Stories like the slaughter of the innocents, the Magi, the Star of Bethlehem, and so on, are not considered to be historical. By contrast, the epistles never once mention the aforesaid stories, nor is there any mention of the Nativity, the virgin birth, the flight to Egypt, and the like. Why? Because the Epistles are NOT “theological.” They’re expository writings whose intention is to give us the “facts” as they really are!

Bottom line, the epistles give us a far more accurate picture of Jesus’ *visitation* than the gospels.

In conclusion, it appears that the gospels conceal Jesus far more effectively than they reveal him.

——-

Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies

The “proof-text fallacy” comprises the idea of putting together a number of out-of-context passages in order to validate a particular theological point that’s often disparagingly called “a private interpretation.” But, for argument’s sake, let’s turn these principles on their head. Classical Christianity typically determines heresy by assessing the latter’s overall view. If it doesn’t fit within the existing theological schema it is said to be heretical. Thus, dogmatic theology sets the theological standard against which all other theories are measured. They would argue that good exegesis doesn’t necessarily guarantee good theology, and can lead to a “coherence fallacy.” In other words, even if the exegesis of a string of proof-texts is accurate, the conclusion may not be compatible with the overall existing theology. This would be equivalent to a coherence fallacy, that is to say, the illusion of Biblical coherence.

By the same token, I can argue that traditional, historical-Jesus exegesis of certain proof-texts might be accurate but it may not fit the theology of an eschatological Christ, as we find in the epistles (e.g., Heb. 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev. 12.5). That would equally constitute a coherence fallacy. So, these guidelines tend to discourage independent proof-texting apart from a systematic coherency of Scripture. But what if the supposed canonical context is wrong? What if the underlying theological assumption is off? What then? So, the $64,000 question is, who can accurately determine the big picture? And who gets to decide?

For example, I think that we have confused Biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. In my view, the theological purpose of the gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story *beforehand* so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though NT history is *written in advance* (cf. מַגִּ֤יד מֵֽרֵאשִׁית֙ אַחֲרִ֔ית [declaring the end from the beginning], Isa. 46.9-10; προεπηγγείλατο [promised beforehand], Rom. 1.2; προγνώσει [foreknowledge], Acts 2.22-23; προκεχειροτονημένοις [to appoint beforehand], Acts 10.40-41; ερχόμενα [things to come], Jn 16.13)!

So, if we exchange the theology of the gospels for that of the epistles we’ll find a completely different theology altogether, one in which the coherence of Scripture revolves around the *end-times*! For example, in 2 Pet. 1.16–21, all the explanations in vv. 16-18 are referring to the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed” (cf. 1 Pet. 1.10-11; 1 Jn 2.28).

In response, Dogmatic Theology would probably say that such a conclusion is at odds with the canonical context and that it seems to be based on autonomous proof-texting that is obviously out of touch with the broader theological teaching of Scripture. Really? So the so-called “teaching” of Scripture that Jesus died in Antiquity is a nonnegotiable, foregone conclusion? What if the basis upon which this gospel teaching rests is itself a proof-text fallacy that is out of touch with the teaching of the *epistles*? For example, there are numerous passages in the epistles that place the timeline of Jesus’ life (i.e., his birth, death, and resurrection) in *eschatological* categories (e.g., 2 Thess. 2.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d; 22.7). The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of •eschatology• in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, according to the *epistolary literature*, Jesus is not a historical but rather an “eschatological” figure! Given that the NT epistles are part of the Biblical *canon,* their overall message holds equal value with that of the NT gospels, since they, too, are an integral part of the canonical context! To that extent, even the gospels concede that the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (see Lk. 17.30; cf. 1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7)!

What is more, if the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts as if we’re reading a single Book, then the overall “prophetic” message of Revelation must certainly play an important role therein. The Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10b) in “prophetic” categories:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the

prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to

them, God will add to that person the

plagues described in this book; if anyone

takes away from the words of the book of

this prophecy, God will take away that

person’s share in the tree of life and in the

holy city, which are described in this book

(Rev. 22.18-19 NRSV).

Incidentally, the Book of Revelation is considered to be an epistle. Thus, it represents, confirms, and validates the overarching *prophetic theme* or eschatological “theology” of the epistolary literature. That is not to say that the •theology• of the epistles stands alone and apart from that of the OT canon. Far from it! Even the *theology* of the OT confirms the earthy, end-time Messiah of the epistles (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)! As a matter of fact, mine is the *only* view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian Scripture!

Does this sound like a proof-text or coherence fallacy? If it does, it’s because you’re evaluating it from the theology of the gospels. If, on the other hand, you assess it using the theology of the epistles, it will seem to be in-context or in-sync with it. So, the theological focus and coherency of Scripture will change depending on which angle you view it from.

——-

Visions of the Resurrection

There are quite a few scholars that view the so-called resurrection of Christ not as a historical phenomenon but rather as a visionary experience. And this seems to be the theological message of the NT as well (cf. 2 Tim. 2.17-18; 2 Thess. 2.1-3). For example, Lk. 24.23 explicitly states that the women “had indeed seen a vision.” Lk. 24.31 reads: “he [Jesus] vanished from their sight.” And Lk. 24.37 admits they “thought that they were seeing a ghost.” Here are some of the statements that scholars have made about the resurrection, which do not necessarily disqualify them as believers:

The resurrection itself is not an event of

past history. All that historical criticism can

establish is that the first disciples came to

believe the resurrection (Rudolph

Bultmann, ‘The New Testament and

Mythology,’ in Kerygma and Myth: A

Theological Debate, ed. Hans Werner

Bartsch, trans. Reginald H. Fuller [London:

S.P.C.K, 1953-62], 38, 42).

When the evangelists spoke about the

resurrection of Jesus, they told stories

about apparitions or visions (John Dominic

Crossan, ‘A Long Way from Tipperary: A

Memoir’ [San Francisco:

HarperSanFransisco, 2000], 164-165).

At the heart of the Christian religion lies a

vision described in Greek by Paul as

ophehe—-“he was seen.” And Paul himself,

who claims to have witnessed an

appearance asserted repeatedly “I have

seen the Lord.” So Paul is the main source

of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the

belief in resurrection ... (Gerd Lüdemann,

‘The Resurrection of Jesus: History,

Experience, Theology.’ Translated by John

Bowden. [London: SCM, 1994], 97,

100).

It is undisputable that some of the followers

of Jesus came to think that he had been

raised from the dead, and that something

had to have happened to make them think

so. Our earliest records are consistent on

this point, and I think they provide us with

the historically reliable information in one

key aspect: the disciples’ belief in the

resurrection was based on visionary

experiences. I should stress it was visions,

and nothing else, that led to the first

disciples to believe in the resurrection (Bart

D. Ehrman, ‘How Jesus Became God: The

Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from

Galilee’ [New York: Harper One, 2014],

183-184).

Ehrman sides with the *visionary language* that Luke, Bultmann, Crossan, and Lüdemann use. In the words of NT textual critic Kurt Aland:

It almost then appears as if Jesus were a

mere PHANTOM . . .

——-

Exegetical Application

I deliberately stay away from theology when I exegete Scripture precisely because it will taint the evidence with presuppositions, assumptions, and speculations that are not in the text. Thus, instead of focusing on the authorial intent hermeneutic, it will inevitably superimpose out-of-context meanings and create an eisegesis. All this, of course, is courtesy of confirmation bias.

So, I think one of the reasons why we’ve done so poorly in understanding, for example, the story of Jesus is because we have mixed-up exegesis with theology. When theology drives the exegesis, then the exegesis becomes blind and erroneous.

My method of exegesis is very simple. I see EXACTLY what the text *says,* EXACTLY *how* it says it. I don’t add or subtract anything, and I don’t speculate, guess, or theorize based on existing philosophies or theologies. The minute we go outside *the analogy of scripture,* that’s when we start to speculate. And that’s how we err. In short, let the Scriptures tell you what it means. Thus, the best interpretation is no interpretation at all!

——-

Conclusion

To find the truth, we must consider all the evidence objectively. Evangelicals, for instance, would be biased if they didn’t consider the academic standpoint even if, at times, it seems to be guided by liberal theology. In this way, they will be in a better position to consider objectively all the possibilities and probabilities regarding the correct interpretation of Scripture. That’s because the truth usually touches all points of view . . .

One of the exegetical stumbling blocks is our inability to view the gospels as “inspired metaphors.” Given their literary dependence on the OT, it appears as if the gospels themselves are “inspired parables.”

So, if the epistolary literature, which is both expositional and explicit, seems to contradict these so-called “theological parables,” then it becomes quite obvious that the “theology” of the gospels fails to meet scholarly and academic parameters. And, therefore, the epistolary literature must be given more serious attention and consideration!

Our exegetical shortcomings often stem from forced or anachronistic interpretations that are based on *theological speculation* and conjecture rather than on detailed exegesis. Even the Biblical translations themselves are not immune to the interpretative process, whether they be of dynamic or formal equivalence.

That’s why I have developed an exegetical system and have demonstrated the effectiveness of its approach to the study of the Biblical Christ. Accordingly, I argue that the epistles are the primary *keys* to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s ***ONLY*** visitation! Hence, I leave you with one final rhetorical question:

What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future

event?

[jellybeanbeing]

History of My Bookshelf Challenge

Created by the amazing Emmmabooks!

1. The oldest book on your shelf - An Ember in the Ashes by Sabaa Tahir 

This is the first physical book I’ve ever gotten and still have. Yes, I only purchased it in 2018 but it’s been about two years so it counts because the other books I have, I got after.

2. A book you read in 2013 (adjust for however many years you like!) - Divergent by Veronica Roth  

I’m like, 85% sure I read this in 2013. I think I read it because the movie was coming out and I wanted to read the book first so I could judge the movie, but it’s been like five years and I still haven’t seen it.

3. A book you read in 2014 - Thirteen Reasons Why by Jay Asher

I only remember reading this book during this year because I was sitting at a teacher’s desk when someone came up to me and asked me why I was reading the book when it was going to be required reading in the near future. Other than that, I remember liking the book, but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t today.

4. A book you read in 2015 - Side Effects May Vary by Julie Murphy 

Again, this is one I’m 85% sure I read in 2015. This whole book was a fever dream to me and I kind of want to read it again. 

5. A book you read in 2016 - The Fill-In Boyfriend by Kasie West 

The one thing that makes me sure I read this in 2016 was because I had made a new friend that year and the characters in the book had the same names as her brothers and I messaged her about it. 

6. A book you read in 2017 - A Court of Thorns and Roses by Sarah J. Maas 

2017 was a good reading year for me. Before 2017, I read a lot of YA romantic contemporaries and I wasn’t going to change that until my friend lent me ACOTAR. I was reluctant at first because fantasy isn’t my favorite genre but I gave it a try and I really liked it. I ended up finishing the series and moving to other popular fantasy and otherworldly books.

7. A book you read in 2018 - The Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein by Kiersten White 

This is the year I finally started tracking the books I read. I read about 52 books this year and I’m choosing this one because my experience with it is a semi-interesting one. So I read Frankenstein in class that year and hated it. Found out this book was coming out and showed it to my English teacher who preceded to buy the book, read it, and lent it to me. Said I would probably like it better than the original (because I was open about my feelings of hatred towards the book in class) and turns out, I did! I loved what Kiersten White did with the story and the characters. I was engaged and actually really cared about the characters. 

8. A book you read in 2019 - On the Jellicoe Road by Melina Marchetta 

I’m obviously going to talk about this one so here it goes: I honestly don’t know what made me put this book on my TBR but it ended up there somehow (I think Goodreads recommended it to me???? But I’m not too sure). Anyways, I was watching a video from Jessethereader where he deciphers emojis into book titles and one of them was “On the Jellicoe Road” so I took that as a sign to read the book. I read it, was confused for a bit, but then fell head over heels for the story and the characters and everything about it. It’s one of my all-time favorite books now and I’m going to reread it again soon. I’ll try to make a review for it.

9. A book you’ve read more than once - The Raven Boys by Maggie Stievater 

Is this a surprise? No. Well, kind of. I’ve only read this book (and series) twice but I’m already planning on rereading it soon and every year after that. It’s my all-time favorite book series and that’s not gonna change for a while. I love the books, I love the characters, I love the story, I LOVE EVERYTHING ABOUT IT. And it’s funny because it took me so long just to read The Raven Boys because I kept DNFing it. I picked it up in 2016, read the first three chapters, put it down, and forgot about it. A couple months after that, I picked it up again, read the first three chapters, and decided this book wasn’t for me. Around 2018, I got the sudden urge to read the books and thought “fuck it, I’m reading it and I’m gonna finish the book.” I finished the series and mildly liked it. I got another sudden urge to read the series again this 2019 year and IT BLEW MY FREAKING MIND WITH HOW GOOD IT WAS. I just have so much appreciation for this book and Maggie Stiefvater now, and I love it.

10. A book you waited over a year to be published - A Reaper at the Gates by Sabaa Tahir 

This is honestly the only book I’ve waited over a year to come out. I finished Torch in 2016 and I had to wait until 2018 to read Reaper. It was torture. And it’s still torture because we’re all waiting for Ember 4.

11. A book you read on vacation/away from home - Nectar in a Sieve by Kamala Markandaya

I read this for school and I remember going to California for a dance competition and not having a phone or something to entertain me so I took the book with me. For about a week, I read bits and pieces of it before going to bed. One moment I remember so vividly is reading the book on the plane ride back and it being dark and someone telling me to turn off my light because they were trying to sleep. I then proceeded to turn off my light and stare into the darkness because I wasn’t tired and I couldn't read my book. And if you’re wondering, it was one of those planes that didn’t have a TV at every seat.

12. A book you got from someplace special (anything that’s not your local bookstore/online retailer) - Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert 

My English teacher was retiring and giving away some of his books, and so I decided to rummage through his book and found a special edition of Madame Bovary with gold spray painted edges. It was gorgeous, but I gave it away.

13. A book that made you cry - Mosquitoland by David Arnold

I didn’t cry while reading this book at first, but I went back to read a few passages before giving it away and I don’t know what struck a chord in me but I was crying my eyes out over the book. The passage I had read just resonated with me in that moment and I couldn't help but cry. I read the book before some problems in my life occurred so I guess when I went to read the few parts of the book again, it all hit me real hard.

14. A book you read in one sitting - My Heart and Other Black Holes by Jasmine Warga

This one is a fun one (my experience with the book, not the book itself). So, I was, I think 12 or 13 or 14 years old when I read this. At this particular age, I was a firecracker when reading books. I would finish a book, A FULL 300 PAGE BOOK, in one night. I did this a lot. I’m not exaggerating. I think it’s about more than 20 books that this “finishing in one night” happened. This one though, was crazy. I started this book one night at around 7/8pm and finished it around maybe 12am? I then proceeded to pick up another 300 page book right after AND FINISH IT THAT VERY NIGHT, or morning, whatever you think. My reading energy was off the fucking charts at that age. I can’t do this anymore, by the way. It will literally take me a whole month to finish a 200 page book.

15. A book that was a gift - A Conjuring of Light by V.E Schwab 

I had already gotten the book for myself but a friend of mine bought me the book and I couldn’t say no so I took the book and now I have two paperback copies of ACOL, and I’m not mad about it.

16. A book you read before owning (library, borrowed from a friend) - Sula by Toni Morrison

I read for school, and let me tell you, it’s the only book I’ve read for school that I liked and was memorable for a good reason. Right from the first page, it captured my attention and kept it through out the book. I’m planning on rereading it and hopefully I’ll still like it as much as I first did.

17. A book you lent to someone else - Six of Crows by Leigh Bardugo

Six of Crows is a popular YA series but do you know how hard it was to make one of my friends read this and actually finish it? I gave it to like three of my friends and they all ended up telling me they couldn't get past the first couple of chapters. But I finally got one of my friends to read the duology and finish it and love it as much as I did. I finally have a friend I can talk to about the books.

18. A book that has been damaged - The Raven King by Maggie Stiefvater

I tend to keep my books in pretty good condition, but I also have butter fingers, so that’s something. Anyways, the amount of times that I have dropped this book and bent the covers is truly astonishing. And it’s bizarre, because whenever I dropped TRB or TDT or BLLB, the covers didn’t bend but when I drop TRK, the cover ALWAYS bends and it’s a whole mess but I still love it. I almost forgot to mention that I got it already fucked up so maybe it’s meant to be.

19. A book you got on sale/discounted - An Ember in the Ashes by Sabaa Tahir

Yes, I’m using this book again because, why not? Anyways, I got this at a thrift store and I was so psyched. I saw this book on the shelf and was so appalled because who would thrift such a good book? (If you didn’t like the book, great. That’s your opinion.) So I decided that this was my chance to finally own a book after years of not owning one, and have it be one of my favorite books.

20. A book you read with someone else (buddy read/read with a book club) - The Refugees by Viet Thanh Nguyen

I take this question to also include books I have read as required reading in class because technically, I did read it with my class. I had such a fun time picking at this book. It was not my favorite book, though I really liked the first story. My English teacher had us write commentary and I loved it. There was no literary analysis whatsoever in my notes, and I think that’s what I loved the most. I reread my notes for that book recently and they are gems.

21. A book you associate with a song - A Study in Charlotte by Brittany Cavallaro

When the Party’s Over by Billie Eilish is just a song that I associated with Charlotte Holmes, and that’s never gonna change.

22. A book you associate with a food - Queen of Air and Darkness by Cassandra Clare

It’s not a specific food but more of school lunch for me. I just remember that QOAAD had come out and I was carrying that hunk of a book around and it didn’t fit in my backpack so I carried it in my arms. I was reading the book while my friend was eating her lunch beside me. After she finished eating, I had told her that there were pictures in the book and I wanted to be surprise but she wasn’t gonna read it so she flipped through the book and looked at the pictures. 

23. A book you got years ago that you probably wouldn’t buy now - The Book Thief by Markus Zusak

I got this book in Chicago this 2019 year around May only so it’ s not years ago, but I was a different person in May 2019, alright? I honestly wouldn’t get this book now because I’ve learned that I’m not a big history fan. 

24. A book you associate with a specific time in your life - Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson

I was first introduced to this book a long time ago, around the age of 9, I think? My sister had a stack of books from school and I decided to look through it. I read a book called Hushi(?) and I literally, for the life of me, cannot remember who the author was but I really liked that book. Anyways, after reading that, I read bits and pieces of Speak and I vividly remember the day being a bright and sunny day, and reading the attack scene and being so shocked by it. I didn’t really understand it at the time, but every time I read that book or see it, it brings me back to when I was nine.

25. A book you used to like, but don’t anymore - The First Time She Drowned by Kerry Kletter

I talked about this book in another post of mine but it reiterate what I said: this book was a favorite of mine in 2018 but then I reread it again and didn't love it as much. It wasn’t a book that fully captured my attention or kept me intrigued. 

26. The newest book on your shelf - Call Down the Hawk by Maggie Stiefvater

LAST QUESTION! Call Down the Hawk came out recently and you know I had to buy it. I’m currently reading it right now, and I’m already loving it. I’m so excited for what’s in store for the characters. I am, however, feeling a little bit sad because we won’t get to see the whole Gangsey together again (or for a while). Reading CDTH is also making me realize that those who haven’t read The Raven Cycle aren’t going to know the Ronan and Adam and Gansey and Blue that those who have read TRC know them. I don’t say this to be offensive or “you’re not a true fan because you didn’t read TRC”. No, I’m not trying to say that. It’s just like you meeting someone when you’re both 30 as opposed to 14. People are different people at different ages, and Ronan and Adam are different characters in CDTH than TRC and so some people who haven't read TRC series won’t know that version of them. And also, I mean different as in they’ve grown and certain aspects of them have changed.

[sweetsweetnathan]

Top five favorite characters.

This is definitely a question that will reveal a lot about me, so I hope that’s what you’re looking for ;P It’s going to get really fucking long, so I’ll store it beneath a cut so it doesn’t destroy anyone’s dash.

I’m doing these in ascending order, so #5 is least most favorite and #1 is most most favorite. I feel it’s important to say than since #5 is a character that is going to make a lot of people roll their eyes (as is #4, frankly).

#5 - Holden Caulfield from the Catcher in the Rye

Waitwaitwait, don’t leave just yet! I have tried to explain why I like this character to people I go to school with, and they barely let me finish a sentence before reminding me that he’s a whiny brat with well-off parents who spends the whole book wallowing in self-imposed misanthropy. 

These are not the reasons why I like him!

Although I do feel it’s worth pointing out that he’s barely more than a child (he’s 16, which is the age of consent where I’m from, but by no means “adulthood” anywhere), lost his younger brother at an even younger age, witnessed a suicide, and he does in fact live in a world that is extremely alienating to people who are opposed on principle to conformity. But even these are not the reasons why I like him! I like him structurally, as a character in a book, way more than I like him as a person. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that the book doesn’t want you to like him. It wants you to pity him.

Allow me to share a passage with you to explain myself better:

Anyway, I kept walking and walking up Fifth Avenue, without any tie on or anything. Then all of a sudden, something very spooky started happening. Every time I came to the end of a block and stepped off the goddam curb, I had this feeling that I'd never get to the other side of the street. I thought I'd just go down, down, down, and nobody'd ever see me again. Boy, did it scare me. You can't imagine. I started sweating like a bastard—my whole shirt and underwear and everything. Then I started doing something else. Every time I'd get to the end of a block I'd make believe I was talking to my brother Allie. I'd say to him, "Allie, don't let me disappear. Allie, don't let me disappear. Allie, don't let me disappear. Please, Allie." And then when I'd reach the other side of the street without disappearing, I'd thank him.

Holden is a kid given to sudden panic and fatalistic thinking. There’s something in his subconscious telling him that his life is fragile, that it can be taken away at any moment. Suddenly everything can change and what you thought was safe and innocent can be threatened and defiled. This is an existential crisis without a readily apparent inciting incident (though it has one, we’ll get to that). The Catcher in the Rye isn’t a story with an especially noticeable structure-- we’re not on a journey to destroy the One Ring, blow up the Death Star, or defeat any villain really. Holden is trying to get home. The obstacles he encounters aren’t necessarily trying to stop him from doing that, but they’re obstacles nonetheless. Why? Not because the universe is conspiring against him, and not because there’s an all-powerful villain threatening him with destruction. The obstacles come completely from Holden himself.

So why is it that the Catcher in the Rye can get away with this? On paper a character piece about someone taking the long way home one shitty night sounds like the description of countless Creative Writing 1 school projects, not literary classics. How does Salinger make it work?

The answer is in the prose itself, which like the obstacles is possessed entirely by the main character. Let’s examine this passage:

My brother Allie had this left-handed fielder's mitt. He was left-handed. The thing that was descriptive about it, though, was that he had poems written all over the fingers and the pocket and everywhere. In green ink. He wrote them on it so that he'd have something to read when he was in the field and nobody was up at bat. He's dead now.

Look at each sentence: “My brother Allie had this left-handed fielder’s mitt. He was left-handed.” It’s obvious after reading it that he’s talking about his dead brother in past-tense. What’s the big deal there? He talks about the whole damn story in past-tense, because he’s telling it long after it happened. How is this significant?

Well, the last line is “He’s dead now.” Not “He died”, but “he is dead”. So the whole book we’re reading past-tense lines. But this one, out of all of them, is present-tense. And because of that sudden shift we regard it differently. Allie’s death isn’t something that happened in the past. His being dead is something that’s happening in the present. It’s the reminder that this is a story Holden is telling, which solidifies the illusion that Holden is real. Holden is not real-- Salinger, the writer, is real, and Holden is made up. But when Holden has the dimensionality of having both memories of the past and feelings of the present, he seems more real than another, living person. It illustrates the beauty of prose writing: Movies can give us spectacle, and visuals which evoke emotional depth that words can’t. Games give us agency and interactivity to act as ourselves or as someone else in a situation that is alien to us. Prose gives us no visuals, and affords us no agency. What it gives us is the opportunity to see the world through someone else’s eyes. And Holden Caulfield will always be one of my favorite characters for exemplifying that.

#4 - Luke Skywalker from Star Wars

After all that, Holden is beat out by Luke? 

Yes, but listen: Holden I like for professional reasons. Luke I like for personal reasons. See, I have some anger problems. The causes are as numerous as they are complex, and not very interesting. The bottom line is that my emotions are pretty untrustworthy. I actually dislike when people say that a space is dedicated to letting people feel their feelings uninhibited. What if my feelings are violent and hateful? What if without inhibition, I become the kind of person I hate? I have seen things that I wish I could unsee, things that I hate. Being told to let go of that hate feels like being told to permit evil to exist in the world. I cannot abide that. There are certain behaviors that I will oppose no matter the situation. Through this I put myself in an awkward situation: Everyone who doesn’t feel this way begins to look complicit in the wrongdoings of the world. Focus too long on what makes you unhappy, and happiness seems like an unnatural luxury. Feed anger too much, and you forget how to feel anything else. This is what’s called the “Dark Side”.

Luke struggles against the Dark Side. How could he not? His family was taken from him by a system that exploits and murders with impunity. He took the fight to his enemy and destroyed their greatest weapon-- but they’re still not defeated. In the Empire Strikes Back, Luke is terribly impatient to seize the powers of the Jedi. He wants to win. He wants the Empire destroyed. Anything in his way is wasting his time.

When we see him again in Return of the Jedi, he is as close to the Dark Side as a person can be. He walks into a gang leader’s palace, strangles his guards, mind controls his adviser, and pulls a gun on said gang leader. When the gang leader takes offense to all this, Luke promises him death if he doesn’t submit to Luke’s demands. Luke is indulging in every wrathful instinct he has. But he knows that what he’s doing isn’t right. He meets Vader and the Emperor expecting to turn Vader away from this same behavior, but the Emperor has concocted a situation where only might can make right. 

If I was given the opportunity to decide between offering patience to the evil people I’ve met, and killing them without consequence, I don’t know if I’d make the choice Luke made. His story is fantastical, but to me it feels very real. It’s a story about finding balance. One has to act to stop bad things from happening. But one must also restrain themselves, or become one of those bad things.

#3 Guts from Berserk

So I just talked about anger problems and the Dark Side and all that, so you’re probably thinking, “Oh, Guts is that, but just like...more.”

And okay, that’s a little true. A find that in Guts a lot too. But similar to Holden, I’d like to take a moment to appreciate the literary structure Guts is constructed with as well. None of his empathetic qualities would mean anything without this structure. If he’s not going somewhere, then he is just the angry, violent stereotype of a manly man that solves all his problems through violence that people stereotype him as.

So let me introduce you to Booker’s Seven Basic Plots:

Going to an art school has resulted in me feeling that it’s necessary to spend some time justifying the existence of a textbook about structure. So I’m going to detour away from Guts in order to do that.

To keep a literal textbook’s worth of storytelling analysis very short, the seven basic plots are not meant to be the only plots that should exist, or even the only plots that do exist. They are an incredibly versatile sets of story frameworks. Allow me to explain by comparing two stories that share one of these seven plots: Crime and Punishment and the Catcher and the Rye.

These two stories are “Rebirth Plots”, and Rebirth Plots are comprised of five elements:

Falling Stage: A young hero or heroine falls under the shadow of the dark power.

Recession Stage: For a while, all may seem to go reasonably well. The threat may even seem to have receded.

Imprisonment Stage: Eventually the threat returns in full force, until the hero/heroine is seen imprisoned in the state of living death.

Nightmare Stage: This continues for a long time, when it seems like the dark power has completely triumphed.

Rebirth Stage: But finally comes the miraculous redemption, either by the hero (if the imprisoned figure is the heroine), or by a young woman or child (if the imprisoned figure is the hero).

Crime and Punishment and the Catcher in the Rye are both Rebirth Plots, but they focus on different aspects, and are thus completely different stories. Most of Crime and Punishment is the Recession Stage, where the main character has gotten away with his crime. Contrast Catcher in the Rye, where the Recession Stage ends basically as soon as he leaves his school, whereupon he spends a short time in the Imprisonment Stage and everything until the last chapter is the Nightmare Stage.

So even though the Seven Basic Plots presents an outline, it's not an outline meant to exclude strange stories that don’t fit it. Quite the contrary, it’s designed to include radically different stories, sometimes within the same categories as more traditionally-told ones.

So with that in mind, what story does Guts find himself in? Well, that’s the exciting thing: Guts is so incredible because he goes on every kind of adventure.

Overcoming the Monster - This is Guts’ story when Casca is captured by the Holy Seein the Conviction Arc. He has to fight against a whole society built around zealous hatred-- zealous hatred that mirrors his own obsessive pursuit of Griffith.

Rags to Riches - The first third of the Golden Age Arc is famously this kind of story, as Guts goes from a nameless mercenary to one of the most famous commanders in Midland, making friends along the way and overcoming his apprehension towards close personal connections.

The Quest - The journey to cure Casca of her trauma during the Fantasia Arc is a very long version of this kind of story. Guts gathers allies, teaches lessons, and watches the world change around him, as he changes as well, allowing his heart to soften again.

Voyage and Return - The Black Swordsman Arc and the beginning of the Conviction Arc sees Guts gallivanting around Midland killing demons, only to return to Goto’s cabin to find Casca has departed due to his own failings.

Comedy - The middle of the Golden Age Arc is this, with Casca and Guts falling for each other as he begins to develop into his own man separate from Griffith.

Tragedy - The end of the Golden Age Arc, which I would feel bad about listing here three times if it wasn’t fourteen fucking volumes long. Here Guts loses every connection he’s made over the years, then finally loses himself as he chooses to pursue vengeance rather than stay with Casca. 

Rebirth - The whole of Berserk is a Rebirth Plot on many levels. To start with it’s Guts’ shift from the antisocial Black Swordsman to a symbol of hope in a world overrun with demons. For the world of Berserk it’s a change from being centered around an Idea of Evil to believing in something Good.

Guts is a fascinating character for how he changes again and again, yet still stays the same. 

And Unlike Luke, Guts does sometimes fail. But despite the fact that he fails, he finds chances for further redemption. This is because despite every awful thing he’s been through, he still goes on fighting. There’s this brilliant moment when Guts is a child, where he’s run away from home after killing his abusive foster father in self defense. Guts is surrounded by wolves, injured, and starving. He tells the wolves to kill him, because he doesn’t want to live anymore. And yet when the wolves attack, he reflexively defends himself. Even as he wants for death, there’s a part of him that denies it. He wants to go on living, no matter how bad things get. There’s a lot of strength to be learned from that.

I hope Miura will live to see the series end. The character has been at war for so long, and he deserves to put down his sword and live in peace.

#2 Conan the Cimmerian

Let’s take a detour from all my personal issues and literary analysis to talk about the wisest character on this list. It might not seem so, but the original Conan stories by Robert E. Howard are some of the most brilliant and insightful works of fiction ever published. 

Holden Caulfield gives us a realistic look at a troubled teenager. By viewing this teenager’s uncensored thoughts on the world, we’re allowed to see the world through his eyes. Doing so teaches us a lot about ourselves, and what we discover isn’t always so attractive. Conan is similar. Conan hails from Cimmeria, a gloomy and unforgiving land. There is no civilization in Cimmeria. Its people are tribal and nomadic. There are many different languages and ways of writing, no currency, and scarcely any agriculture. But Conan’s story does not take place in Cimmeria. Conan’s stories take him all over the world of Hyboria, which itself is essentially a pre-historic earth, where he explores the cultures of all the “civilized” nations. This, more than the violence, adventure, or lurid depictions of women, is what makes Conan worthwhile to me.

Allow me to share with you a passage:

Conan has seen how people behave when there are no rules imposed on them. He knows how cruel they can be, as well as how kind they can be. More than anyone Conan knows the dangers of civilization, how its rules and customs and trappings might convince a person they are good when they’re letting their fellow man starve, or that they’re bad when they’re committing violence against someone whom the rules of society declares above reproach.

Conan brings a perspective to things that is sobering and unique, and looking at things through his eyes helps a person see humankind not as one divided by lines on a map, but as a singular entity which expresses itself in many different forms.

#1 Eren Jaeger from Attack on Titan

Gif source: https://weheartit.com/entry/214956834

Anger, Dark Side, hopefulness, blah, blah, blah. What makes Eren so special? What makes him more special than Guts?

Let me tell you something personal about me: I have a best friend. And contrary to all my expectations growing up, it’s a person who considers me her best friend right back. 

She is the only person I know that I consider my intellectual equal (arrogant statement, totally true). I love her immensely. Indescribably. Just like, a fucking lot. We express this love in a lot of different ways. To begin with, we talk all the time. Almost every day, for hours. We share with each other the things going on in our lives, our thoughts, our opinions, the games we play, the movies and TV we’ve seen, our desires for the world, all of it. She is the first person I ever talked to about some of the stuff I experienced in my childhood. 

In short, she is pretty special.

When she watched Attack on Titan for the first time it was I who showed it to her. We watched up to episode 11 on that first night, and the rest of the month she texted me her reactions to the events of the first and second season. As she watched she got really enamored with Mikasa, as Mikasa is a lot of what she would like to be in life (capable, dedicated, beautiful, six feet tall, etc). But of Eren, she said that he reminded her of me. In fact, she said that she started to just look at Eren as me-on-the-screen, and when Eren would do something reckless or talk back to someone, or give a crazy-sounding speech about what he believed in, my friend told me she’d say “Classic Nathan [

There is a quality among the great heroes of literature, both from the east and the west, that Eren exemplifies in spades. While Eren has a tendency towards action that makes me admire him and a defiant nature that makes me envy him, his most powerful quality is his immense capacity for hope. You can see this represented in every character on this list in some form or another. Holden hopes against all reason that his sister can be saved from the falseness of the world. Luke hopes that a person can turn from the Dark Side. Guts hopes that life is worth living, even if it’s shown itself to be nothing but suffering. Conan’s hopes are the most justified, as he places it in the vastness of the world, and the world can’t help but satisfy him. 

Eren hopes that the titans, insurmountable as they seem, can be defeated. He hopes that the world, tiny as it may seem behind the walls, can be explored. He hopes that people will listen to him when he speaks. He hopes that when he fights for what he believes in, he won’t die. He hopes for so much, and no matter how much is on the line he is ready to fight for those hopes, and to deny anyone who wishes to restrain him.

And my best friend told me he reminds her of me.

I’m not saying she was right. I’m not as strong as Eren. I’ll shut down socially when I’ve judged people to be dumb, evil, or boring. My hope doesn’t carry me over every mountaintop. Not that it does that for Eren; part of what I love about watching his story is that he struggles and falters. Hell, he dies in his first engagement with the titans.

But like Guts he keeps fighting.

Like Luke he struggles against his lesser qualities.

Like Holden he has a viewpoint of the world that leads me to consider myself.

Like Conan he is different from everybody else, but still believes in himself.

And that’s all I want to be.

[a-h-arts]

Leisurely Cruise through History of Mankind This is an excellent read. As usual, BBC does not disappoint. The book is compiled from transcripts of a 100-episode series on BBC Radio. One hundred objects are thoughtfully picked from exhibits at the British Museum to chronicle the history of mankind, from its earliest beginnings up to the 21st century. The 100 chapters are short, but solid, each corresponding to an episode on radio. The book is great for leisurely, but very informative reading. A definite advantage that the book has over the radio episodes is that it shows each of the 100 objects in full colour. Go to Amazon

Clear Some Space In Your Mind I believe I learned more per page reading this book than any I've ever read. A tour through all of history using objects collected (stolen?) by the British Museum, this book is a bravura execution of material culture and archaeological studies. In fact, I used several entries with my Advanced Placement Literature class in order to expose them to effective and interesting "close reading." MacGregor does with objects what literary critics do with a passage of poetry: he describes the object (lovely pictures ARE included), he gives a fascinating context of the period in which this object was used, and finally, provides an analysis of what the object "says" about the people, nation, and region that used or owned it. I find this method of historical explication incredibly engaging. Rather than begin with abstract concepts like democracy, Federalism, or ethnic cleansing, MacGregor begins with the concrete--a vase, a coin, a flower pot-- and says here's what this culture produced, here's what that says about them. This also dovetails nicely with what I teach in class regarding advertising; that we can come to understand the ideals of a nation by studying its advertisements. Interestingly, the objects MacGregor chooses also function as "advertisements" for their respective milieus. A testament to how well this book is written and constructed is that I read it incredibly quickly. Before I knew it, I was on object 56 at the 300 something page mark and I had no mental fatigue. The fact that the book is organized in 100 3 to 4 pages "chapters" helps a lot because I found myself reading a few objects here and there whenever I had some spare time. I recommend this book highly to anyone who has even a fleeting interest in archaeology or cultural materialism; your efforts, and the rather hefty price of the book will be worth it. Go to Amazon

Mandatory reading for all and all ages Extraordinary. Everything: the format, the language, above all the content matter spanning all cultures, never boring, ever illuminating the immense shadows of ignorance around those glimpses of our own story that school managed to slip through, but never really taught. I know the author could not possibly fit in the whole British museum, but I miss one more single item I try and never fail to go and see again every time in London: the "Karissima Lepidina" message on wood tablet that from the marginal outpost in Vindolanda speaks of family life and value through about 18 centuries with an immediacy... that requires no mediation, almost no translation: women were writing, cursive handwriting was telling, postage was functional, time was set apart to keep in touch, leisure trips were planned... I would really like everybody to learn from the mastery of Neil Macgregor the details. May the next edition will be of 101 objects. Go to Amazon

are absolutely brilliant. Mr Each of these BBC broadcasts, here in printed form, are absolutely brilliant. Mr. MacGregor has a rigorous and poetic grasp of these various and symbolic representations of the past. I have had the privilege of visiting the British Museum at least 8 times during my lifetime. I plan to visit it again, like a small child, and seek out the brilliant treasures Mr. MacGregor describes. Go to Amazon

A Treasure. Well organized. The history behind each of these beautiful objects is so well presented. The high quality photos help make this book a treasure. Also, at the museum, only a subset of these objects is displayed at any time. To see them all, one would have to make many trips to London. If planing to visit the British Museum, knowing something about this collection of pieces beforehand, makes the adventure even more enjoyable. Go to Amazon

Both pleasurable and didactic When I began this formidably lengthy book I thought I would cherry pick among the 100 objects, choosing the ones that seemed interesting and skipping over others. In the event, I found it difficult to skip over anything, for each chapter seemed to contain new and absorbing information. I thus wound up reading about virtually every one of the 100 items pictured. Go to Amazon

Man the Artist I don't think this replaces the pod cast series, but is a great addition. I would love to have had the series be visual, not just audio clips, and this book gives more images that help understand the objects. While there are quotes from the audios in the book, it is not just a transcript, but has new information that adds to the experience. I think it will stand alone as well, but it's hard for me to tell because I have listened to (some of) the podcasts. Go to Amazon

Poor shipping The book lives up to it's good reviews Informative, not overwhelming Great book Fascinating and worthwhile A winner Five Stars Five Stars Helps me Five Stars

[studyinglogic]

A self-interview

It is difficult for a man to speak long of himself without vanity; therefore, I shall be short.

- David Hume, My Own Life (1777).

A few people have expressed some interest in knowing about me; this post aims to answer their hypothetical questions. Following Kurt Vonnegut’s cue, this will be a self-interview, in which I ask myself questions and then reply to them.

I answer the following questions: some of them might seem pretentious - but all of them are questions I’d like to ask people, and all of them are questions I thought people might want to ask me.

What’s the most important thing to know about you?

What subjects do you know about most?

What are the most important things you’ve learned in life?

What routines do you have?

How do you decide what to post on tumblr?

What do you post about on tumblr? How did you gain this knowledge about it?

Are there any artistic/literary/musical works you’d want people to see/read/listen to?

Who are the people you admire most?

What are the most important concepts for people to know?

What is your favourite characteristic in people?

Which artists do you listen to?

Which non-fiction authors do you enjoy? Which fiction authors do you enjoy?

Would you change anything in life if you could redo it?

What areas would you like to learn more about?

What are your hopes for the future?

What would you like to change about yourself?

What are your main interests?

What are some works which can take us into your mindset?

What’s the most important thing to know about you?

I’m the kind of person who brings an umbrella on a sunny day.

What subjects do you know about most?

Mostly philosophy and theoretical computer science. I’m always trying to learn more mathematics and economics.

What are the most important things you’ve learned in life?

That I must make choices before I am forced into them, and that I must accept the consequences of my choices.

“It’s not my fault, but it is my responsibility.”

Tradeoffs are inevitable, and I will have to make them.

Train by recall, not recognition. (Make learning harder.)

Focus and do a little every day.

Think for the long-term.

Self-cultivation by daily routines is necessary. To paraphrase Agatha Christie from Death Comes as the End, there is always growth, in one direction or the other: if you do not grow better, you grow worse.

Just start, and correct your work later. If I wait for the perfect moment, I’ll never get anything done.

It’s bad to do what’s easy just because it’s easy. Is this making me happy, or productive, or helping me grow? If not, I should do something else.

I try to be graceful.

What routines do you have?

I drink two glasses of water in the morning after I wake up, eat breakfast within an hour of waking up (preferably thirty minutes), and try not to use social media until the afternoon, keeping the mornings free for myself. I also try to sleep by 11.00 to 11.30.

I was inspired by this passage from the Wikipedia article on Lagrange:

Lagrange was a favourite of the king, who used frequently to discourse to him on the advantages of perfect regularity of life. The lesson went home, and thenceforth Lagrange studied his mind and body as though they were machines, and found by experiment the exact amount of work which he was able to do without breaking down. Every night he set himself a definite task for the next day, and on completing any branch of a subject he wrote a short analysis to see what points in the demonstrations or in the subject-matter were capable of improvement. He always thought out the subject of his papers before he began to compose them, and usually wrote them straight off without a single erasure or correction.

How do you decide what to post on tumblr?

I post things which interest me. I try not to post things based on how many notes it’ll receive.

Very roughly, I have three types of posts. Formal posts on mathematics or academia, posts linking different ideas together, or posts on popular culture. If I post something on popular culture, it’s probably something that’s recently come to mind: tumblr is useful as a way of recording my thoughts.

If it’s a post linking different ideas together (for example, Feynman and Tu Fu), it’s because I found a nice connection which I’d like to record. I think part of having a good memory is linking different thoughts together. Even if the connection is tangential, it helps.

I try to be as clear and explicit as possible in my writing, in part inspired by Asimov. Communication is already so difficult in person that I try to avoid any ambiguity in my writing.

I try not to post ephemeral content - I only post what I’d still want to see in three years time (or more). Of course, what counts as ephemeral to me is different from what counts as ephemeral to others.

What do you post about on tumblr? How did you gain this knowledge about it?

When I first started, I used to post about logic and mathematics. I reduced posting about those things when I realised that writing about logic on tumblr actually decreased my productivity. (It was too easy to get distracted.) My answer to the question above gives an indication of what I post on tumblr.

Some I learned in university, and some I read on my own; I am also lucky to have friends who teach me many things. In my free time I look up syllabi for topics I am interested in, read biographies, and find forthcoming books from academic publishers such as Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, and College Publications.

Having said that, this isn’t meant to boast: of course there’s much knowledge I lack, and I’d like to go deeper into many fields. I focus on mathematics, computer science, and economics.

Are there any artistic/literary/musical works you’d want people to see/read/listen to?

While I like certain works, I can’t say that I’d unreservedly recommend them to everyone. The one exception is Donald Richie’s Japanese Portraits, which I cannot recommend enough. Side note: I’ve been meaning to read more Dostoyevsky and Hesse.

Who are the people you admire most?

On the technical side, I like the work of applied logicians: people like Johan van Benthem, Nina Gierasimczuk, Sven Ove Hansson, David Makinson, Eric Pacuit, Rohit Parikh, Raymond Smullyan, Yanjing Wang, and others. On the personal side, I admire people who are kind, honest, and intellectually curious.

What are the most important concepts for people to know?

A whole smattering of basic concepts: opportunity cost, the placebo effect, criteria for theory choice, basic probability and logic, how models are used in science, deep work, wu-wei, the importance of growth, minimax regret, and so on.

What is your favourite characteristic in people?

Honesty. Nearly every fault is forgivable if someone is honest with me about it. Intellectual curiosity is another plus.

Which artists do you listen to?

Bach (especially his English Suites) for my orderly side, Shostakovich (especially his string quartets) for my disorderly side, and Oasis for my pop side. I especially like their song The Masterplan. 

I do not in general have favourite artists - I only have favourite songs.

Which non-fiction authors do you enjoy? Which fiction authors do you enjoy?

My favourite non-fiction authors include the applied logicians mentioned above, Simon Leys, James Gleick, Steven Cahn, Steven Krantz, Sima Qian, Confucius, and Zhuangzi.

I also enjoy reading biographies. My favourites so far are Gleick on Feynman and Farmelo on Dirac. The next ones I’d like to read are Soni and Goodman on Claude Shannon, Roberts on John Conway, and Paquet on Simon Leys.

My favourite fiction authors include Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Raymond Smullyan, Borges, Italo Calvino, and Luo Guanzhong. I read the Three Kingdoms as a child, and it has stayed with me all my life.

In general, however, I do not have favourite authors. I have favourite works, such as Foundation, the Three Kingdoms, and Invisible Cities.

Would you change anything in life if you could redo it?

Sometimes I wish I didn’t study philosophy as my main subject, but that I studied mathematics with philosophy on the side instead of the other way round. But I only came to that conclusion because I’ve done philosophy, and now wish to study other fields! Having said that, I don’t regret doing philosophy: it exposed me to many areas I wouldn’t otherwise know. It’s great for breadth of knowledge - now I’d like to gain some depth.

What areas would you like to learn more about?

Theoretical computer science and mathematics. On the personal side, productivity, memory training, cycling, and knitting. I also keep intending to learn Lojban, but so far I haven’t done anything with it - there are always other things to do.

What are your hopes for the future?

To keep learning and growing, both in knowledge and self. To gain more skills.

What would you like to change about yourself?

To have greater focus, growth and self-cultivation.

What are your main interests?

Formal methods, especially as applied in multiagent systems and social software. Applied logic, decision theory, game theory and epistemic logic, linear logic, agent-based modelling, and security protocols are yet more interests.

What are some works which can take us into your mindset?

Personal:

There are three broad classes of books here: books which shaped my view on life, books on growth, and books which shaped my attitudes. There is some overlap between the three. I end with some non-books.

My philosophy of living (if I have such a thing) can be summed up in the following books:

The Tao is Silent, by Raymond Smullyan.

The Way of Chuang Tzu, translated by Thomas Merton.

Happiness and Goodness, by Cahn and Vitrano.

The Hall of Uselessness, by Simon Leys.

There does not always need to be a purpose to things; a tree grows in its own way. In general, I like stoic philosophy and Confucianism for their emphasis on self-cultivation. (Having said that, I don’t agree with everything they say. But I certainly do agree with the parts on self-cultivation.)

Speaking of self-cultivation, I’m enjoying Cal Newport’s work and Designing Your Life by Burnett and Evans.

I have certain sensibilities which came from the next three books.

The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, attributed to Luo Guanzhong.

The Records of the Historian, by Sima Qian.

Japanese Portraits (earlier published as Geisha Gangster Neighbor Nun), by Donald Richie.

I read the first two books in my childhood, and have been rereading them ever since. (They are both so massive that you can read them again and again without boredom - but their very size makes me unable to recommend them to people.) These books shaped me in a way difficult to describe: an aversion to power, a sense of humanism, a realisation of the power of language. Richie’s book is a series of delicate vignettes.

For non-books, Wes Anderson’s The Grand Budapest Hotel and The Masterplan by Oasis.

Technical:

Now for some of my technical interests!

The article “Logic in the Community” by Seligman, Liu, and Girard is a fairly accessible introduction to using logic to model social situations. The books below give a pretty good indication of my interests. 

Discourses on Social Software [pdf], edited by Jan van Eijck and Rineke Verbrugge. Probably the best introduction to what I like and why I like it.

Epistemic Game Theory, by Andrés Perea.

Any book on multiagent systems (whether it’s by Wooldridge, Shoham and Leyton-Brown, or the Weiss edited collection.)

Logic in Games, by Johan van Benthem.

The Handbook of the Philosophy of Information, edited by Adriaans and van Benthem. The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Information also looks good from the table of contents, but I haven’t had the chance to look at it in-depth yet.

Reading in this field requires some knowledge of game theory and formal logic: Giacomo Bonanno has a textbook on game theory, and P. D. Magnus has a good textbook on logic (modified by Tim Button). My favourite modal logic textbook is van Benthem’s Modal Logic for Open Minds.

For more recommendations, see Marcus Hutter on Ai and Peter Smith on logic.

I’m still looking for a good book on security protocols! Suggestions are welcome.

This post was prompted by @the-axiom-of-hope: thank you for asking about me, and it’s always nice to be appreciated.

In the prompt post I was asked to tag other people: I’d like to know more about @bowtochris, @theparsologist, @transientpetersen, @thousandmaths, @hamliet, @linkspooky,  @jebus0, @dataandphilosophy, @semantictheory, @lambdaphagy, @argumate, @matan-matika, @ambivalencerelations, @eka-mark, @mathcatalog, @mathionalist, @notthedarklord42, @jadagul, @nostalgebraist, @sufficientlylargen, @twocubes, @light-rook, @superclassical and @the-axiom-of-hope. (Yes, you were the one who originally tagged me, but I’d like to know how you’d answer these questions.)

For the people I’ve tagged, you can answer the same questions I answered, or just some of them, or you can do your own thing, or you can (of course) not participate. Whichever you choose to do, thank you for your contributions. I’ve enjoyed reading your posts.

[autoirishlitdiscourses]

Discourse of Sunday, 08 November 2020

Thanks for your patience. You incur a/penalty of 40 _3, if you need to think of this effectively if the equipment does not include your bonus for performing in front of a set of readings here—my suspicion is that he has never been to section and total how many minutes away you are, even if the paper because describing a personal reflection. Well done on this you connected it effectively to themes that have come very close less than half a percent away crossing the line into the theatrical tradition. Good luck with all of this paper are borrowed from other students in the sense of the text.

It is your job to do this, but rather what does it express their situation, and that you needed to happen for this paragraph: attending section on Wednesday! You added an extra word to line 7. Let me know if you have a very good reason for missing section for a productive manner to accomplish, intellectually speaking, of course material, however, I think that it is, there are several ways in which you can instantiate a logical argument that is, your readings are excellent, and I will also photocopy it for a lot of things that are the number of things quite well here, and I want to look at. Often, B papers take risks and do a very high B.

Besides attendance, not a fair grade for the first people to make sure it's at least 24 hours in advance as part of the total grade for the quarter when we first scheduled recitations. Your delivery did quite a nice plan here. You too! 43: A narrow, rural, frequently unpaved road. It seems history is to know your final tonight went or is not because I realized that your situational and historical and cultural ties to the aspects of the research or writing requirement, etc. I'll see you next week if you send me an email letting me know if you cannot arrange a time in the English Office and on your grade back this time, fifteen minutes, not blonde, hair. Let me know if you have left, but I would have helped to have a middle A.

Thanks for doing such an excellent quarter! If you have a copy of the Western World, and The Cook, the impossibility of meaningfully taking a senior-level details of your evidence supports your assertions about female parental centrality need more backing than you're looking for, and only point of analysis, too.

Although I do this, we could meet at a different topic, I think might have helped you to talk about how you're framing it and of showing that you want to make a very limited number/of your performance. I didn't anticipate at the documents developed by my office before 5 p. I feel that it's impossible for you that this is within the absurdist tradition. Similarly, having specific plans for your health. Come by my office or after? Serving as a whole. You picked a very good paper here in order to be answering a question and letting the emotion of the class to be sure without seeing it tomorrow! Let me know if you want any changes made I have defined an A paper; I think that one thing: The hat scene in/Waiting for Godot Chris has generously agreed to share these with your own presentation skills. Barring being hit by a character referred to only as the comments that you are perfectly capable of doing this. You've done a lot of ways, and I'll see you then Great! If you are one of them received a boost of a great addition to motherhood, those who are friends of mine and whom I suspect would fit well with unexpected questions and letting the discomfort of silence force people other than misogynistic. It is not an acting class, because you are scheduled or not this lifts you to do what the exact text/date combinations.

I'd encourage you to engage in micro-level details of your paper wants to do one of the nine options; he also wrote quite a while because everyone is able to comment on them. Not the least insightful essays of anyone in your proposal for your other possible responses if this happens: 1 I think that you will leave me with a fresh eye and ask again. Don't worry about taking longer to get back to you I was wondering whether we'll be having section during the last two stanzas are good for you you have not yet linked them to be re-framed to be docking you points for the 5 p. Well tied to the hesitations and frustrations in the section guidelines handout, you should look at your current grade is OK with the paper is going OK for you if you remind me before I do; added old to what their common thread is, or you otherwise want me to give you a bit nervous and a bit in the same way that is a B for the paper you had planned to cover Ulysses. 8 p. How does he see the outline for here is some aspect of the section. All of which strike me as soon as you can see one here. You could think about how your grade, you have disclosed any part of the poem and gave a sensitive, thoughtful performance that was fair to Yeats's text; just don't assume that your general plan such as mid-century Marxist reading of Yeats's poem, then you may contact UCSB's Title IX Compliance Office, the average i. But you really want to switch to taking the final. Again, all of those sound good, nuanced, and you do this but not past your level of familiarity with the rest of the definitions of romance that you cannot think of anything to talk about it closely it quite good. 12:45 will that work for you but that your grade by Friday afternoon saying so is perfectly OK to subdivide your selected texts and what specifically has changed, but may not use GauchoSpace to calculate grades, but part of the passages in question by repeating something you said in a coffee shop, I'd suspect that that is repeated on both outlines, and bring in several very important to you. We will of course grade.

In a media-saturated age, people have received more than two-minute or so, I think the fairest grade to demonstrate this. Your initial explication was thoughtful and focused without being as closely integrated into it—this has happened, review briefly any major points of analysis, and quite enjoyed having you in lecture. Have a good discussion point as might your others. Is to have been assigned for Tuesday, so if you have to recite, the more interesting one, too.

That alone motivated most students who propose personal topics sometimes have a good reading of Ulysses is a mandatory part of the passages in question generally or always plays by the Office of Judicial Affairs that does a good Halloween! You did a solid job. If you're careful to stay prepared for the quarter. Let me know if you send it along. I'd post a slightly edited version of your life, you should definitely be very very high, and again your comments and passages from the section eventually, and think about: if you can represent your thoughts, are very impressive moves. I think you have a good job with a fresh eye and asking yourself what your discussion. My Window discussion of the early part of your grade, with no credit for attendance if they could stand? I haven't graded the final exam; b you're still listed as TBD, please see me! Very well done there. Three did not explicitly help you really have done something that I think reasons.

You expressed an interest in food-based and less discussion than other people uncomfortable enough that you would be to let you keep an eye on a literary topic; you have to evolve. I'll put you down for inaccuracies as measured against a different time. Paper-related experiences that are working, rather than moving around on the Web: New document on section one. Receiving a D on a Mantelpiece; Guitar, Fruits et Pichet; Still Life-Le Jour. Let me know, and Ocean's Bad Religion was a much stronger delivery than the syllabus pretty well in many ways, you've done some solid work here, and overall you had a lot of ways to go for answers on questions about identity formation, I also understand that it needed substantial additional work. Let me know what you'd like, in which it could conceivably have been beaten into shape this is a pretty broad word that might help students to make a contribution to our own field of action And comes to find an alternative way to contrast Irish and British colonialism, and a grade update, too, because your writing stage. You have a midterm from or? To-morrow for the recitation, and I will definitely pay off. —I will be paying attention to your literary texts rarely constitute direct proof that one thing that leaves me feeling unsatisfied about your key terms what does it express their situation, I imagine, and this question and, again, you will have to choose that passage, getting people to talk.

You really have done something that genuinely moves you and showed this in half if you have just under 95% for the course and scratch and claw for every point available for the next lower grade range—not just a moment. Passages for close reading of a text from the absolute maximum amount of time makes his use of verb tense rather complex in the United States.

Many thanks. You did a very good readings here, I don't think those criteria really apply here. I'll just have so many emails shortly before each paper grade are the similarities and differences, specifically, that connecting Lucky's speech and discussion tomorrow! There was a wonderful poem and its historical situation here, but I'm not mad at any time. Hi! And I'm smacking my own preference would be to find that speaking with me at least some background on Irish nationalism, for instance. If you have written over the holiday weekend this quarter. Just let me know what you are an emergency contact that you cannot recite the lines that you just exactly fill eight pages, and not just closely at the context of your end-of-quarter finals and papers, but I'm hesitant to make it by 10 a.

Hi! My first, and anticipate and head off potential major objections to its topic and you're absolutely welcome to ask how the poem's rhythm and showed this in paper comments, is that if you want me to leave your luggage to section and do not affect the reader's ability to serve as a check/check-minus-type grade, based on the final. You both did a very modernist view of the scenarios above; you could be set next to each other, and that this is of poor quality: The Soldier's Song Irish national anthem in Irish nationalism, I think. Well done on this you picked, the more interesting ones, and listens to a theoretically supportable level. 4:30 works with my own tongue.

I'm familiar with your own reading of is one place where this is because this often doesn't respond to the small-scale concerns very effectively and in writing in a strong recitation. Currently, there's your declaration of how I assign/letter grades onto point totals should map onto letter grades is as follows: If your point, the choice of course, think about my own favorite parts from that part of the story if you'd like, etc. First: Cubism and temporally related movements were often concerned specifically with representations of the text that you could consider the question, and I'll accommodate as many people in the lyrics or music the color green, for that week, then you might want to do what the relationship between the poem constructs tension. 45: A cultural meta-narrative that is necessary to somehow be constructed through texts that you're more effectively. Even if someone else in your paper for instance, to work harder for the quarter when we talked about it, you had an excellent Thanksgiving and a bit because this will hopefully help to motivate to talk about why a specific analysis and what you'll drop if you prefer to do so. You are currently more than five sections and you both for doing a strong job yesterday you got up in certain specific ways that I am not the only one! I'm looking forward to your discussion, your paper should consist of a historical text, be aware of areas where it is likely to receive a grade independently of the selection in the assignment requirements, minor requirements, major requirements, minor requirements, and I won't assess participation until the very rare A and F grades, which at least 80% on the final itself, just as Shakespeare doesn't necessarily tell us how one or two key issues.

[deanssweetheart23]

How come there are certain fic ideas that get written to death? Like the reader being jealous of Dean at the bar and eventually they reveal feelings. Or Dean hides his feelings because he's a hunter and doesn't think he deserves love. Ugh. I wish there were more original ideas out there.

Dearnonnie, I have no idea whether this is a genuine question of yours or justsomething implicitly pointed towards my own writing (since I have a fic very similarto jealous!reader and this just came in after I posted the announcement on mynew mini-series which includes “Dean hides his feelings because he’s a hunter anddoesn’t think he deserves love”) but in any case, I am thankful for your politeness and very happy youasked me this question because I’m majoring in English language and literatureand spent a whole semester studying theory and criticism of lit, so I feel likethis is something I can answer.

My (very long) answer is just belowthe cut..

“We say that every poet has his own peculiarformation of images. But when so many poets use so many of the same images,surely there are much bigger critical problems involved than biographical ones.As Mr. Auden’s brilliant essay The Enchafèd Flood shows, an important symbollike the sea cannot remain within the poetry of Shelley or Keats or Coleridge :it is bound to expand over many poets into an archetypal symbol of literature.And if the genre has a historical origin, why does the genre of drama emergefrom medieval religion in a way so strikingly similar to the way it emergedfrom Greek religion centuries before? This is a problem of structure ratherthan origin, and suggests that there may be archetypes of genres as well as ofimages.

…

An archetype should be not only a unifyingcategory of criticism, but itself a part of a total form, and it leads us atonce to the question of what sort of total form criticism can see inliterature. Our survey of critical techniques has taken us as far as literaryhistory. Total literary history moves from the primitive to the sophisticated,and here we glimpse the possibility of seeing literature as a compilation of arelatively restricted and simple group of formulas that can be studied inprimitive culture. If so, then the search for archetypes is a kind of literaryanthropology, concerned with the way that literature is informed bypre-literary categories such as ritual, myth and folk tale. We next realizethat the relation between these categories and literature is by no means purelyone of descent, as we find them reappearing in the greatest classics- in factthere seems to be a general tendency on the part of great classics to revertthem. This coincides with a feeling that we have all had: that the study ofmediocre works of art, however energetic, obstinately remains a random andperipheral form of critical experience, whereas the profound masterpiece seemsto draw us to a point at which we can see an enormous number of convergingpatterns of significance. Here we begin to wonder if we cannot see literature,not only as complicating itself in time, but as spread out in conceptual spacefrom some unseen center.

…

The myth is the central informing power thatgives archetypal significance to the ritual and archetypal narrative to theoracle. Hence the myth is the archetype, through it might be convenient to saymyth only when referring to narrative, and archetype when speaking ofsignificance. In the solar cycle of the day, the seasonal cycle of the year,and the organic cycle of human life, there is a single pattern of significance,out of which myth constructs a central narrative around a figure who is partlythe sun, partly vegetative fertility and partly a god or archetypal human being.”

These arepassages from Northrop Frye’s essay “The Archetypes of Literature” and the gistis that there are archetypes of stories that every single poet (or writer) followssince they are developed based on patterns of human behavior, the psychologicalanalysis of the human soul and on cultural, political and social influences.

All thegreat stories in time are based on archetypes.

Take Great Expectation by Dickens and The Great Gatsby by Fitzgerald as anexample. These two works of fiction are considered to be two of the greatestliterary works ever made –and, according to me, they are, but they are bothbased upon the same archetype: A young, intelligent or talented boy withambitions falls in love with a mysterious, rather rich girl, and, influenced bypowerful, wealthy figures (Mrs. Havisham and Jason Gatsby) set out to becomerich and powerful.

The fact bothof these works play upon that archetype doesn’t take away their literary value.And there are so many more stories that follow their own archetypes (in ancientGreek tragedies, for instance, the heroes of the tragedy were always saved towardsthe end of the play by a god. It was a convention of that time, but trust me,ancient Greek tragedies are still frigging awesome because of all thesociopolitical, religious and economical information we can get out of them)

But. Archetypescan also be found within the works of the same author. Another example? Jane Austen.Four of her novels actually revolve around the same theme (which is now knownas the “myth of Jane Austen”); “All fournovels are about young women who fall in love, but eventually reject, theCharming but Worthless lover and finally marry a man whom they esteem andadmire rather than love passionately” (From Gorer’s essay “The Myth in JaneAusten”)

Does thefact she used a myth in her writing take away the fact she’s an awesome writerthat has influenced so many others –and played a part in feministic writing?No, I don’t personally think so.

Now, let’smove this within the Supernatural fanfiction world.

Here,instead of archetypes, we got tropes that writers use because they love writingthem (like jealous reader or jealous Dean). It’s not just that they’re fun towrite though. Again, these are based on patterns of human behavior and the psychologicalanalysis of the human soul since it is generally accepted that if someone flirtswith the person you got feelings for you will be upset (though the revealedfeelings part is just really amazing to write).

And when itcomes to Dean not believing that he deserves to be loved and thus, notadmitting his feelings for someone, I don’t think that’s trope per se. Deanreally doesn’t believe he deserves to be loved. Dean really doesn’t stay withthe ones he loves because he thinks he doesn’t deserve them and knows it willnever work out because he’s a hunter and because he wants to protect them (seeCassie, Lisa, J, Ben etc.). So, I think that if someone wants to write an accurateDean fic, that should be included asan essential part of his character (or if avoided, should include anexplanation as to why).

Andbesides. We all write stories based on SPN, where the characters and theirtraits, pet peeves, characteristics etc. are specific. It is only natural thatsomethings get written more than others. The most important thing is not that,but whether the way you write itmakes it special. It’s the way we tell the story that matters more than the storyitself. (Someone could have an amazing idea about a story but if the storytelling is not good, not many people will appreciate it).

Do I want toread more original ideas though? Yes. And I applaud everyone who comes up withthem and puts them perfectly into words (here, let me suggest Wake up, Sammyand Unwell by @hannahindie Escape by @impala-dreamer and As It Seems by @imagining-supernatural as four of the most original things I’ve ever readhere).

But thepoint is, those stories that get written to death? They matter, too. Because weall put our hearts and souls into our works and that should be enough.

I hope this answers your question, dear anon. Ifnot, you can always send me another ask, I’m always open to discussion.

[warholiana]

Lovely review of my Warhol bio by Michael Millner in the US edition of The Spectator:

“An extraordinary and revealing biography — surely the definitive life of a definitive artist….There is something interesting, revealing or humorous on just about every page. Gopnik deftly excavates his data mine. His prose is precise and pointed, and his year-by-year narrative clips along. He is also a master of pithy and informative character and historical sketches.”

Magus of mass production

Warhol by Blake Gopnik

Ecco, pp.976, $45.00

reviewed by Michael Millner

This article is in The Spectator’s April 9, 2020 US edition.

‘If you want to know all about Andy Warhol,’ the artist said in the East Village Other in 1966, ‘just look at the surface: of my paintings and films and me, and there I am. There’s nothing behind it.’ This quotation re-appeared in 2002 on the US Post Office’s commemorative Warhol stamp. It’s fabulously fitting for a stamp that reproduced a self-portrait, but when scholars recently compared the audiotapes of the interview with the printed version, the passage wasn’t on the tapes. Warhol sometimes invented interviews from whole cloth. He answered questions with a gnomic ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or, refusing to speak at all, allowed proxies like his ‘superstar’ Edie Sedgwick to answer for him. After all, he was just surface — leather jacket, shades, wig. The magus of mass production was there and everywhere forever, but nowhere in particular. This negation of personality seems a publicity ploy, or the evasiveness of a shy man, or possibly the self-protection of a gay man in pre-Stonewall America. It was all of this, but also much more. The self-as-surface routine was perfect for a new kind of celebrity, one founded less on accomplishment and talent and more on presenting a surface for the projected desires of a mass audience. Authenticity and the sense of a deep self were obstacles to the creation of this new celebrity persona. Warhol made millions by autographing screen prints that were mass-produced by anonymous assistants. Warhol somehow understood how this all worked. Born in 1928 in Pittsburgh to working-class Catholics from eastern Europe who barely spoke English, he realized the power and danger of being known to the world. The flipside of ‘15 minutes of fame’, Warhol suggests again and again, is death. The paintings of Marilyn Monroe memorialized her suicide; those of Jackie Kennedy, her suffering following her husband’s assassination. After Warhol survived his own assassination attempt in 1968, he allowed Richard Avedon to photograph the surgeon’s scars that crisscrossed the surface of his torso. There is no narrative development or personal bildungsroman in Warhol’s art, and his affectless manner resists psychologizing, the biographer’s stock-in-trade. His images are impressions, flashes whose immediacy, flatness and repetition carry little sense of progression. The Brillo box contains no story, and the subject of a film like Empire, with its eight hours of static footage of the Empire State Building, remains inanimate. Despite Warhol’s resistance, Blake Gopnik has written an extraordinary and revealing biography — surely the definitive life of a definitive artist. He accomplishes this through broad and deep, even obsessive, research into what he calls Warhol’s ‘social network’. Gopnik reports that he consulted 100,000 period documents and interviewed 260 of Warhol’s lovers, friends, colleagues and acquaintances. Warhol kept everything — he was a hoarder, collector and archivist all his life — and Gopnik has left no archival folder unopened or box unperused. Across 976 pages and more than 7,000 footnotes on a separate website, he recreates the swirl of ideas, culture and especially people that orbited Warhol. Warhol famously thought of his studio as a factory, producing work after work off an assembly line. The catalogue raisonné of his paintings, drawings, films, prints, published texts and conceptual works would, if it were ever completed, rival that of the other master of 20th-century self-replication, Picasso. Gopnik has surveyed it all.

There is something interesting, revealing or humorous on just about every page. Gopnik deftly excavates his data mine. His prose is precise and pointed, and his year-by-year narrative clips along. He is also a master of pithy and informative character and historical sketches: ‘Warhol’s Pop wasn’t about borrowing a detail or two from commercial work, as many of his closest colleagues [like Robert Rauschenberg] did; it was about pulling all its most dubious qualities into the realm of fine art and reveling in the confusion they caused there. ‘He wants to make something that we could take from the Guggenheim Museum and put it in the window of the A&P over here and have an advertisement instead of a painting,’ complained one early critic of Warhol’s, getting it right, but backward: Pop pictures started in the windows and then migrated to the museums.’ Warhol is about the Age of Warhol as much as Warhol himself. We learn about the new possibilities of gay life in 1950s New York, the city’s underground film scene, the history of silk-screening (so important to Warhol’s art), the fluctuations of the art market, the history of department-store window design. We learn about fascinating things we may not even want to learn about, such as the size and color of Warhol’s penis. (Large and gray, like the Empire State Building.) Warhol arrived in New York City in 1949 and quickly made a name for himself as a commercial illustrator, especially of women’s shoes. He lived for two decades with his mother, Julia, one of his most influential muses, and sought out an emerging coterie of gay artists including Truman Capote, with whom he had a stalkerish infatuation. The great Pop paintings of the early 1960s transformed American art. No less important was Warhol’s mid-Sixties salon and studio, the Silver Factory (silver because wallpapered in aluminum foil). This perverse and fecund anti-commune of ‘superstars’ and hangers-on spawned Lou Reed and the Velvet Underground, as well as Warhol’s wannabe assassin, Valerie Solanas. On June 3, 1968, Solanas shot Warhol in the name of feminist revolution. His heart ceased beating on the emergency room table before a determined surgeon saved him. In the 1970s, he turned to what he called ‘business art’, mainly portraits of other famous people. He died in 1987, aged 58, after gallbladder surgery. Gopnik unpicks many of the conventions of Warhol’s non-biography. Warhol wasn’t an aesthetic rube when he arrived in New York. He had received an extraordinary avant- garde education from four years at the Carnegie Tech art school and at the Outlines gallery, which had brought Jackson Pollock, Alexander Calder, Joseph Cornell, Francis Bacon, Merce Cunningham and many other transformative artists to Pittsburgh in the 1940s. Warhol did not suddenly reinvent himself as a Pop artist in the early 1960s. As he built a successful career illustrating advertisements in the Fifties, he regularly tried to cross the line between commercial and fine art — a crossover he finally achieved in late 1961 with ‘Campbell’s Soup Cans’. Warhol was baptized ‘Drella’ by acquaintances — part bloodsucking Dracula and part innocent yet social-climbing Cinderella. But Gopnik also argues that one of Andy’s greatest desires was for compassionate companionship. This was never achieved. The ‘routine’ gallbladder surgery which led to his death was anything but routine. He had been very ill for weeks but avoided treatment out of a lifelong fear of surgery and a misplaced faith in the healing powers of crystals. Emphasizing Warhol’s radical ambiguity in art and life, Gopnik makes it impossible to say anything easy about him. His Warhol is a complex artist practicing what Gopnik, in a marvelous turn of phrase, calls ‘superficial superficiality’. The Warhol brand, the images of branded goods, famous faces and dollar bills, celebrates consumerism but also leaves us a little nauseated from our commodity fetishism. Warhol’s endless ‘boring’ films are hard to ignore because they give us so much space and time to think. They are studies in modern emptiness, and thus deep meditation. Warhol the critic of modern celebrity was also one of its greatest adulators. This double image of Warhol seems just right. ‘His true art form,’ Gopnik writes, ‘first perfected in the first days of Pop, was the state of uncertainty he imposed on both his art and his life: you could never say what was true or false, serious or mocking, critique or celebration... Examining Warhol’s life leaves you in precisely the same state of indecision as his Campbell’s Soup paintings do.’ Gopnik’s analysis of Warhol’s ambivalence evokes another great observer of midcentury American culture. Lionel Trilling, the gray-suited lion of Columbia’s literary studies, would have hated Warhol, had he deemed the Silver Factory worthy of a visit. Still, Trilling’s America is Warhol’s: ‘A culture is not a flow, nor even a confluence; the form of its existence is struggle, or at least debate — it is nothing if not a dialectic. And in any culture there are likely to be certain artists who contain a large part of the dialectic within themselves, their meaning and power lying in their contradictions.’ To Trilling, the great American authors contained ‘both the yes and the no of their culture, and by that token they were prophetic of the future’. Warhol absorbed and reflected the affirmations and negations of his America — but was he prophetic of ours? Yes and no. For a long time now we have lived in the Age of Warhol. If he were alive today, he would film us staring blankly at the social networks on our smartphones, hour after hour, while nothing and everything go on and on. By retaining ambivalence, Warhol allowed us to recognize and experience the deepest ethical dilemmas of American life — and he paid a price for being our screen and mirror.

[abookbythesea]

Acts of Love

Just finished reading Acts of Love by Talulah Riley. I would describe my attitude to the beginning of the story as bored. I had picked up this book for the sole reason that it was written by one of Elon Musk’s ex-wife, and was quite disappointed with it. However, as I had already bought and started the book, I was willing to read at least half of it. The unexpected that might have been expectable was that I little by little grew a feeling of involvement. That happens in most fictions I read, but with the first pages I hadn’t thought it would happen. Even though I very strongly suspected the output of it, the urge of wanting to continue was there. It’s a good feeling, and I was happy to let myself into it. So, even with the overly blunt parts, I was endeared with the rawness of thoughts and some emotions. Humans wanting to love and be loved. I should also note that it was a good moment for me to read it. The drama effect was so exaggerated that it became acceptable, and even enjoyable (not at all passages, I must admit, but overall).

Bernadette’s feminist speech wasn’t elaborate enough to have a real meaning - scratch that out, the feeling is there. I however don’t feel like analysing it for now. All I have to say is that even though I wouldn’t say what she said, I understand where it comes from.

I’m thinking on wether I should write more… I feel like it, but at the same time not. The intent on this isn’t to produce a literary analysis, but a quick few words that I can read back to lightly, with a soft smile and knowing eyes. I will end with a few extracts from the book:

Bernadette ran, Lauren’s words ringing in her ears. She had never been called a coward before; she had always been praised for her fearlessness and daring. But it was true: she was a coward, an emotional adventure-seeker who couldn’t face the reality of her own nature.

***

‘Why do you feel like the last sane person on earth?’

‘Because everything inside my head makes so much sense. I’m very logical. I reason from first principles. And yet people call me crazy!’

***

Her eyes opened as he ran his hand gently down her throat, dragging the tips of his fingers across her pale skin. Then suddenly he looked away. ‘I can’t,’ he said hoarsely, pushing himself up to standing and moving from the bed.

‘What?’ she cried, aghast.

‘I never intended to.’

‘What?’

‘I don’t want you like this,’ he said, as if that was enough of an explanation. He walked into the adjoining bathroom, out of sight, and Bernadette could hear him running a tap. When he returned, she noticed he had splashed water across his face and wrists. ‘I don’t appreciate being used, by you or anybody. I’m sorry that you’ve been hurt in your past, and I don’t want to take advantage of a vulnerable person, but equally, I don’t want you to take advantage of me. What you said in the elevator today made me determined not to sleep with you.’

‘I’m not using you,’ said Bernadette, trying to stop her breath coming in ragged grasps. ‘It’s mutual.’

‘But it isn’t,’ he said, shaking his head with shining eyes. ‘It isn’t mutual at all. I want you more that I’ve ever wanted anything.’

‘So have me!’ she cried impatiently, wondering why most of her romantic encounters ended in debate rather that debauchery.

‘I won’t have you unless I can have all of you.’

***

‘I know there’s a warm and fuzzy girl in there somewhere.’

‘You’re wrong,’ she said, matter-of-fact. ‘Deep in my heart there is nothing but ice. It’s a cold and barren interior, just glaciers, and icebergs, and a polar bear named Borghild. Borghild likes to eat men for fun.’

***

‘I can’t bear to be without you, Tim. I’ve loved you from the very first day, truly. I want to be with you. Every single piece of me loved every little part of you. I want to marry you, and have a whole parcel of babies!’

***

‘You are funny,’ he said appreciatively. ‘You might be the most selfish creature I’ve ever met.’

She opened her mouth indignantly. ‘I’m not selfish.’

‘You are a passionate soul, impulse-driven and pleasure-seeking and thoroughly self-serving. The only true hedonist I’ve ever met.’

‘I don’t know where you get this codswallop from,’ she said, her throat dry. He thought her selfish, and it stung.

***

She was intrigued by the idea of being intimate with him, and her perversion was more that sexual. It was arousing to know she would be sharing personal space. She would be a witness to his nightly ablutions, see what snacks he chose from the hotel minibar, know what time he set his alarm for in the morning. Radley Blake was the kind of person who exuded such a mannered superiority, it was difficult to imagine him performing tasks essential to mere mortals. But now she would see him tie his shoelaces.’

***

You may know me, but you don’t love me. Not yet, anyway,’ said Radley, as the doors slid shut behind them.

‘How can I love you?’ asked Bernadette, quietly.

‘Charming. I’m not so thoroughly bad, you know.’

‘No, no, I wasn’t being hostile. I meant it as a genuine question.’ She turned her green eyes up to gaze at his face, wanting very much to kiss him. ‘How can I love you? Help me to love you.’

***

‘I tend to eat all my meals here at work,’ Sam-the-Eager laughed. ‘In fact,’ he said, warming to his theme, ‘going home at all just isn’t necessary. I could shower here, eat here, exercise here… sleep in the meditation room. It would be awesome! I’d live here twenty-four seven if they’d let me.’

‘Wouldn’t you feel the lack of something?’ Bernadette asked. ‘Real life, for example?’

‘But this is real life!’ he exclaimed, his body twisting for emphasis, his face adamant. ‘There is nothing more real that what we’re doing here, nothing more interesting, nothing as beautiful or as challenging! There is nowhere I’d rather be.’

‘Gosh,’ said Bernadette drily. ‘Lucky you.’

He stared at her with clear blue eyes that reminded her suddenly of Elizabeth, his face registering pity and confusion. ‘I’m sorry if I sound extreme to you,’ he said frankly. ‘But there are a lot of people here like me. We all think we’re doing something good and worthwhile. That’s not an easy thing to find in this world. Believe me, I’ve chased that feeling down in all the wrong places.’

‘I’ve never felt that way. I can’t really imagine what it’s like,’ she admitted, feeling suddenly very useless.

***

The mirage Bernadette has created around Tim and Love.

Elizabeth’s integrity and caring.

It’s so out there and overly dramatic. And I can’t help but feel a sense of cliché, even if it’s in a storyline I’ve never experience before. But I can’t deny their passion, and I that doesn’t count for nothing. Passion, even if ridiculous when looked upon from outside, is one of the most enthralling feelings. I felt their’s in this slice of life, and I enjoyed it. Life is more like a soap comedy that we think, we just realise it in our craziest of moments.

When looking back on passages, I’ve come to a realisation that I’m willing to admit; one of the main reasons for my enjoyment of this book is the fact that I’ve thought and felt some thoughts and feelings that are displayed. This realisation came in full speed when I chose to transcribe the avant-dernier passage.

Anyway, after noting the fact that I wrote those last paragraphs in between different passages and not all at the end, I’m going to end this here. I couldn’t stop myself from writing so many passages, even though I wanted to make it short. Let’s go back to real life and kick some ass. I do enjoy reading quite tremendously.

[pinelife3]

What is a labyrinth for?

I've been reading House of Leaves for the last ~7 months. I'm interested, but not engaged: all those months of toil and I'm still only 300 pages in (it is really tempting to just read the Wikipedia summary). The book is about a house which is bigger on the inside than on the outside. People find a mysterious passage which leads to endless hallways, rooms leading to more rooms. An expedition is mounted and the group spend close to two weeks exploring the insides of the house's walls. It takes them four days to descend a staircase. They never find the outside, the house never ends. And as the story goes on the house becomes increasingly hostile and it’s driving people crazy, floors are spontaneously opening up and swallowing unsuspecting alcoholics down into bottomless pits.

Throughout the book (or, really, throughout the bit I've read so far - haha how many book reports have been authored by people who have only read a fraction of the book?) there are lots of references to labyrinths and their purpose. Such a cool word - what's the meaning of 'lab'? Labyrith = misspelt start to labia? That would be interesting. Fingers crossed that that's an upcoming twist in HoL. Okay: the etymology - Online Etymology Dictionary:

c. 1400, laberynthe (late 14c. in Latinate form laborintus) "labyrinth, maze, great building with many corridors and turns,"figuratively "bewildering arguments," from Latin labyrinthus, from Greek labyrinthos "maze, large building with intricate passages," especially the structure built by Daedelus to hold the Minotaur, near Knossos in Crete, a word of unknown origin.

A word of unknown origin... Spooky. They go on:

Apparently from a pre-Greek language; traditionally connected to Lydian labrys "double-edged axe," symbol of royal power, which fits with the theory that the original labyrinth was the royal Minoan palace on Crete. It thus would mean "palace of the double-axe." But Beekes finds this "speculative" and compares laura "narrow street, narrow passage, alley, quarter," also identified as a pre-Greek word. Used in English for "maze" early 15c., and in figurative sense of "confusing state of affairs" (1540s). As the name of a structure of the inner ear, the essential organ of hearing, from 1690s.

This is definitely irrelevant, but in Homer, Odysseus’ stock epithet is ‘cunning’ - the first lines of The Odyssey are: “Sing to me of the man, Muse, the man of twists and turns.” Is this twists and turns because he’s cunning and able to confound people with his ‘figuratively bewildering arguments’ - or is this twists and turns because he’s a terrible navigator and we’re about to hear all about his epic, decade-long journey home from Troy?

Anyway, kind of feels pointless to tell the story of the Minotaur and his labyrinth because you definitely already know it, but just briefly:

Tale as old as time, True as it can be, Blah blah blaaaah  Beauty and the beast

After some funny business between Poseidon and Minos (the king of Crete), the queen (Minos’ wife - and also the daughter of Helios, the sun) falls in love with a bull which was originally given to Minos by Poseidon under the proviso that he (Minos) would sacrifice it to honour Poseidon (sweet deal). Anyway, the queen is totally besotted with this bull and decides she wants to kick things up a gear sexually so she has Daedalus (of wax wings fame) make a hollow fake cow so she can get banged by the bull (what could go wrong?). She winds up pregnant and gives birth to the Minotaur - the queen tries to raise him right but he is savage. Because he’s a monstrosity, he had no natural food source and settles upon humans as his food of choice. 

Minos commissions Daedalus to build a labyrinth (I presume the Cretan royalty had some kind of family discount plan) and they shove the Minotaur in there. Why didn’t Minos just kill the Minotaur? The oracle at Delphi said not to. Plus, I guess it might have upset his wife a bit. Why didn’t Minos just kill Daedalus? That’d be too easy. It seems like at the core of most myths there’s a kernel of morality tale:

For Daedalus: just because you can doesn’t mean you should - be more careful about the stuff you build. And don’t enable bestiality 

For Minos: don’t sass Poseidon

For the queen: typical Greek stuff - all women (even the daughters of the sun god) are depraved liars with bizzareo sexual leanings. Even though it was a curse from Poseidon that gave her those impulses, her shame echoes through eternity (which is weirdly her only cosmic punishment - besides, I guess, being separated from her one true love, the bull... actually, I’m not sure what happened there. One assumes that after the Minotaur thing she decided to hit the brakes on her relationship with the bull but maybe they grew old together, lying in the sun in grassy pastures for the rest of their lives)

If you were hoping that this was the only tale of lady/bull romance from ancient Greece, you are shit out of luck. In another story from Crete, ya boy Zeus takes a fancy to a woman named Europa. Rather than woo her using any of the conventional means, Zeus transforms into a huge white bull and abducts her, taking her to the island of Crete. She becomes Crete’s first queen and has some kids with Zeus - it’s unclear whether this goes down with Zeus in bull or human form. It transpires that one of the kids born from Europa’s affair with Zeus is Minos. So Minos’ mother and wife both had unsavoury relationships with bulls. 

That was a long detour - getting back to the Labyrinth: it was built in Crete to house the Minotaur. The idea was that the Minotaur would never be able to escape, and that anyone who entered the Labyrinth wouldn’t be able to escape either. Why not just lock the Minotaur in a prison? Doesn’t have the same ring to it, I guess. It’s a weird idea though, isn’t it - making a really complicated (but still solvable) puzzle and putting something you never want found or freed in it. Why not just make something actually unsolvable?  

So that’s the first/most famous labyrinth. Herodotus, a Greek historian who was kicking around in the 5th century BC also wrote about one in Egypt. He wrote a book called Histories which Wikipedia bills as the founding work of history in the Western literary canon (I initially misread this sentence and thought that they were saying it was the founding work overall and I was about to be all ‘ah, beaucoup problemo, Wikipedia.’ But a quick reread saves me from from making an embarrassing mistake). ANYWAY, in the second volume of Histories, Herodotus recounts his travels around the far flung and exotic land of Egypt. According to Herodotus:

This I have actually seen, a work beyond words. For if anyone put together the buildings of the Greeks and display of their labours, they would seem lesser in both effort and expense to this labyrinth… Even the pyramids are beyond words, and each was equal to many and mighty works of the Greeks. Yet the labyrinth surpasses even the pyramids.

Ancient Origins dot net says:

It was named ‘Labyrinth’ by the Greeks after the complex maze of corridors designed by Daedalus for King Minos of Crete, where the legendary Minotaur dwelt. Yet today, nothing remains of this supposedly grand temple complex – at least not on the surface. The mighty labyrinth became lost to the pages of history.

It was actually a mortuary temple, not a labyrinth in the traditional sense of looking like a maze, but it was sprawling, complex and difficult to navigate.The only other Greek historian to see it was Strabo. He was kicking around ~500 years after Herodotus but also reported that the labyrinth was pretty crazy, calling it a “great palace composed of many palaces.” He said:

[I]n front of the entrances are crypts, as it were, which are long and numerous and have winding passages communicating with one another, so that no stranger can find his way either into any court or out of it without a guide.

Apparently the temple was lost over time - Wikipedia is blaming Ptolemy II (who apparently married his sister so that gives you a sense of his respect for preserving the integrity of things like historical sites and the integrity of blood lines) for its ‘demolition’ but he died in 246 BCE so, if he’d destroyed it, how would Strabo have been able to see it in the 1st century CE? It may not have been completely destroyed - it sounds like they perhaps just removed a bunch of limestone columns and blocks.

Fast forward to 1888: a British archaeologist named Flinders Petrie is excavating the site - of his findings he writes: there was nothing but a “vast field of chipped stone, six feet deep... All over an immense area of dozens of acres, I found evidence of a grand building. From such very scanty remains it is hard to settle anything." Petrie also apparently found a bunch of papyrus scrolls - including some which contain parts of the Illiad!

So there was definitely something there. Imagine this though: people found Herodotus’ writings ages ago and are searching around in the sand based on 2,000+ year old testimony from a man who many of his contemporaries considered at best a gullible exaggerator and at worst a liar. 

There was an expedition in 2008 - they have a website talking up their geophysic surveys of the area but they might not have found much because the results page of their website was never completed.

There’s a really weirdly specific Wikipedia article dealing with the (figurative) presence of the Minotaur in HoL - obviously some HoL superfan wrote this article (and it is interesting) but I don’t know why it warrants its own stand alone article - it’s not unusual to have a separate article discussing the themes and motifs of a major text on Wikipedia, but this is a whole article discussing a single motif. ANYWAY I like the analysis in the article about how if the house is the labyrinth, the Minotaur is the awful thoughts that crowd around you as you explore the endless hallways - obviously these are different for everyone. SO the Cretan labyrinth was built because Minos didn’t want to kill the bull - that was its purpose. What is the purpose of the labyrinth in the house? (That’s really why I’m still reading.)

UPDATE: have given up on House of Leaves - it’s on the bookshelf and never coming off. I am a quitter. Feels amazing.

[preserving-ferretbrain]

This song is why

by Jamie Johnston

Friday, 11 June 2010Dar Williams' When I was a boy inspires a mixture of analysis and over-sharing.~I had a couple of friends round for dinner the other day and one of them (who is amused by how I think the internet is full of amazingness) asked me what was amazing on the internet at the moment, and I showed them Tiger Beatdown, and there was a bit of 'Oh, er, feminism? Is that... I mean... surely that's a bit... why?' And I answered... in song! Well, no, that makes it sound like my life is a musical, which I'm sad to say is not the case. What I did was I played them When I was a boy by Dar Williams:

Because that, at the moment, is the most complete and coherent and honest answer I can give if someone asks me why I'm trying to be a feminist.

I had never heard of Dar Williams, let alone this song, before I saw it casually mentioned in some blog or other and, as I often do when I see music I've never heard of being casually mentioned in some blog or other, I looked it up on Spotify to discover whether it was any good. I found it (not quite this version, actually, but the one from the Radio Woodstock 25th anniversary album, which remains my favourite version (

1

)), and it started playing, and I carried on reading and clicking stuff and whatever, and really didn't follow what it was about; but there was something compelling in it, and when it finished I felt I needed to hear it again. So I closed everything else down and played it again and properly listened to it, and wept.

As an answer to the sort of 'Why?' that really means 'How did it come about?', this song is an incomplete answer. A more complete answer would perhaps start with some of the

Minority Warrior

stuff here on Ferretbrain, would get a jump-start with

Fugitivus on rape

, and would certainly include Tiger Beatdown as well (

2

); an even more complete one would go back over the many conversations and interactions I've had with female friends over the years that suddenly began to flash through my memory as I read that Fugitivus post and thought, 'Oh god, how could I have so completely failed to understand?' (

3

). But, actually,

When I was a boy

would still be a very major part of any answer, for a simple and important reason. By the time I heard it there had already been feminist writing that had made me think, 'Oh yes, actually that is quite iffy', and there had already been feminist writing that had shocked me, and there had already been feminist writing that had made me feel ashamed, and there had already been feminist writing that had made me feel joyful, and there had already been feminist writing that had made me angry about oppression, but there had never been feminist writing that made me feel (even if only for five minutes) desolate and heartbroken and like I just couldn't bear for the world to be this way. In other words, this song was what changed feminism from an option into a necessity.

It's also an incomplete answer - even more incomplete, in fact - to the sort of 'Why?' that means 'For what reason, for whose sake?' Even at this very early stage of exploration I've absorbed enough to see that

When I was a boy

is by no means a comprehensive catalogue of gender oppression. It isn't hard to think of umpteen reasons to be a feminist that are arguably more 'Important' than anything Williams describes here: endemic rape in the Democratic Republic of Congo, endemic apology for and dismissal of rape in the democratic constitutional monarchy of the UK, the wage gap and the double shift in the US, denial of women's suffrage in Saudia Arabia, and so on and depressingly on. But this isn't a song about every single way women are oppressed: it's a very personal song about a young fair-skinned comfortably well-off first-world woman who could be one of your friends or someone you passed on the street yesterday (

4

). And, you know what, within those limits it actually covers a great deal: the threat of harrassment and rape ('it's not safe') and the way that very threat becomes a way of making women dependent on men for protection ('I need to find a nice man to walk me home'); the way society tries to make women show off their bodies for the enjoyment of men ('more that's tight means more to see') and also tries to mark those same bodies as obscene ('my neighbour came outside to say, "Get your shirt"'); the way gender norms are both imposed from outside ('the signs say less is more') and internalized ('I could always cry, now even when I'm alone I seldom do'); the way we sometimes feel we can't even admit that we don't want to be the way we are ('it's a secret I can keep').

But covering a lot of bases isn't what makes this song so powerful. My grasp of musical theory is even more tenuous than my grasp of feminist theory, but here are a few musical things we can notice. Notice how it starts with various warm and slightly sparkly chords (

5

), matching in each of the first two verses the descriptions of the singer's (

6

) joyfully boyish childhood; and then how it moves to a barer set of two less richly harmonized chords as she moves to the present (leaving the party or standing in the clothes-shop or confessing the missing part of herself), then back to the warmer sound for 'when I was a boy...'. And notice, in particular, the discordant pair of notes plucked loudly just before that first transition ('and I remember that night'), disorientating the ear and wrenching the song for a moment out of the realm of ordinary chords entirely (

7

). And notice the way that the main guitar line roams up and down the scale in quick wave-like arpeggios, and then how during those sadder minor passages the little in-between notes (semi-quavers, possibly?) drop out and leave an unfulfilled two-tone alternation coinciding with the parts of the lyric that most strongly express the sense of a flatter, less complete life. And notice how the words 'when I was a boy' are held back until just after the beat before they canter exultantly up the scale and jump off the end just as the guitar slides up to the next chord. And notice how at the moments when the words move from memory to present sad reflexion ('I don't know how I survived'; 'I know things have got to change') the previously wandering melody rises to a high note and sticks there on that same note for the whole line, as if Williams has suddenly hit the (glass?) ceiling and has nowhere to go. And notice how the parts of the tune that largely correspond to descriptions of the past (when she was a boy) are mostly lower (more 'masculine') in pitch, whereas the parts in the present are higher-pitched (more 'feminine'). And, keeping hold of that last point in your mind, notice how, in a musical tradition (folk / pop / country / whatever) in which a rise in pitch usually signals the singer accessing a new level of power or intensity (e.g. just about any song you can think of), this song is constructed and pitched so that the lower sections (which are also mostly the brighter-chord sections, which are also mostly the sections with the most harmonically rich guitar-figures, which are also mostly the sections where the singer's voice sounds more 'masculine', which are also mostly the sections in which she remembers her 'boyhood') are firmly in the centre of Williams' vocal range and so sound strong and rich and resonant, while the higher sections (which are also mostly the harmonically more dissonant sections, which are also mostly the sections with the flat and incomplete-sounding accompaniment, which are also mostly the sections where the singer's voice is more 'feminine', which are also mostly the sections where she's in her heavily 'feminized' present) are just a bit too high and make her voice breathy and weak. And, with all that in mind, notice how the very highest notes of each verse - the ones where Williams sounds weakest - are in the final lines of the verse, where the rhythm of the vocal line becomes halting and uncertain, emphasizing the singer's capitulation and undermining her inner defiance: 'and you... can walk... me home... but I was a boy too'; 'but I... am not... forgetting... that I was a boy too'; 'and I... have lost... some kindness... but I was a girl too'.

And the lyric. Oh, reader, the lyric. The opening invocation of

Peter Pan

, which both instantly reminds most of us of our own childhoods (which is when we first encountered

Peter Pan

) and tells us that we're hearing about the singer's childhood (because we know Peter Pan only visits children) (

8

), as well as placing the song in the context of a literary work that has some pretty complex stuff going on with childhood and gender (too much to go into here). The telegraphic account of 'liv[ing] a whole life in one night', like a verbal action montage, enlivened by the repetition of sprightly 'L' and 'I' sounds, and rounded off with the heart-warming equality, reciprocity, solidarity of 'we saved each other's lives out on the pirate deck'. The contrast between the you-and-me-against-the-world intimacy of that Neverland adventure and the world-against-me loneliness of what follows, with its blank and anonymous 'some friends' and 'somebody tell[s] me'. It's so much about contrasts, this lyric. One that runs right through is between abstraction and particularity: the passages describing the singer's childhood are composed almost entirely of specific details, images, events (climbing, riding a bicycle, catching fireflies, 'grass-stained shirt and dusty knees'), giving them immediacy and substance, while the present-day passages are much more general and generic (for it's clear that the scenes leaving the party, standing in the clothes-shop, the 'lonesome awful day' are not unique occasions but things that happen quite often), creating a sort of repetitiveness and sameness. Similarly, the childhood passages are full of agency, of first-person active verbs ('I learned to fly, I learned to fight'; 'climbed what I could climb upon'; 'riding topless, yeah, I never care who saw' (

9

)), while the present-day sections are much more passive or third-person ('I hear somebody tell me'; 'walk me home'; 'the signs say'; 'they've got pills to sell'). The linguistic contrasts underline the main device of the whole song, which is of course the rapid switching between past and present. The frequency of this alternation - back and forth at least twice in every verse - means that, once the pattern is established, one hears every section while still retaining a strong memory of the previous and a strong premonition of the next. This makes every joyful return to childhood also sad because it's lost, and makes every glimpse of the present even sadder for coexisting with a contrasting image of the past.

And I haven't even talked about the central metaphor: 'when I was a boy'. So simple and direct, so eloquent and challenging. So eloquent and challenging, in fact, because it isn't really a metaphor at all, and that's the point. It isn't literally true that the singer was ever physically male - I think that's fairly clear from the line 'I said I was a boy; I'm glad he didn't check'. But if gender consists (at least to a great extent) in behaving and having one's behaviour interpreted in certain ways that are strongly associated with physical maleness or femaleness ('he behaves like people with male bodies do or should so he must be a boy'), then in behaving like a boy the singer literally was a boy. If, on the other hand, we flip that round and see gender as a matter of having one's sexed body interpreted as necessarily or probably implying certain types of behaviour ('he looks physically male so he can expected to behave like, and assumed to be, a boy'), then in growing up and becoming visibly physically female the singer becomes a woman, regardless of her own wishes and behaviour. In short, without any kind of conscious or voluntary transition, it is literally true that the singer used to be a boy and is not a boy now. That's why the non-metaphor of 'when I was a boy' is dynamite: the simple use of that word 'was', rather than 'was like' or some other less uncompromising phrase, exposes the fact that socially constructed gender is so crushingly powerful that it has literally changed the singer's identity against her will and based on nothing but her physical appearance. The fallacy of essentialism is rejected: it's clear that she doesn't feel that she's changed, and indeed she hangs on tightly to the memory of 'the other life I lived'. The only things that have changed are things beyond her control, namely her body and the way other people unthinkingly treat her because of it. And I should say here that I don't think it's necessary or even really satisfactory to read this song as about transgender or to see the singer as a nascent or potential transgendered man (though there may well be much in the song that will speak especially to trans people). The singer's 'other life' as a boy doesn't imply that she wasn't also a girl, except in as much as it rejects the distinction between the two. The point, rather, is that as a child she could be both at the same time, or sometimes one and sometimes the other, and - crucially - it didn't really matter: 'you were just like me and I was just like you'. The sadness of the contrast between past and present is one of loss. It isn't sadness that she once had A and now has B; it's sadness that she once had A and B, and one has been taken away.

Because it isn't anything as pedestrian as a nostalgia song, this song. It isn't about how everything was so much better when the singer was a child. That sort of nostalgic exercise generally has at its core the idea that somehow being a child is in itself better: one was more carefree, or more loved, or more innocent, or whatever. Childhood is fetishized as some kind of ideal state. But the singer of

When I was a boy

doesn't want to be a child again: she wants to be an adult who can be herself fully. The importance of childhood is that it was a time when she was allowed to do that; now she is no longer. So the value of her childhood now is as a way to access a certain inner wholeness that's still there even if it can't be expressed; memory is act of resistance: 'I am not forgetting that I was a boy too'. In a sense she's lucky, for although she would perhaps be 'happier' and less troubled (like the person in Plato's cave) if she had no such memories, they also give her a source of strength that isn't so readily available to someone who's so fully internalized her (or his) constructed gender that she (or he) isn't even aware of it. Lucky, but also frustrated and sad. And weary.

That weariness comes across most strongly in the final verse, which begins by evoking the constant, low-level drain on the singer's emotional resources that must (I can only imagine) come from an ordinary day full of ordinary little oppressions (

10

). And whenever I sing this song quietly to myself, if it hasn't already brought a tear to my eye before the last verse, this is the line I always choke on: 'And so I tell the man I'm with about the other life I lived, and I say, "Now you're top gun: I have lost and you have won."' Can there be anything more heartbreaking to a man with any heart at all than the thought that your female friends and relatives might, even only in brief moments, feel like your defeated opponents? And then Williams does something extremely generous and important: 'And he says, "Oh, no, no, can't you see? When I was a girl..."' It's generous because this man's reply could, and in the comments thread of any feminist blog probably would, be treated (quite reasonably) as derailing and possibly also mansplaining (

11

). It's important because it makes a sketch of how sexism diminishes women (which is already a massive and vital point to make) into a sketch of how sexism diminishes everyone. In Kate Millett's phrase, 'each personality becomes little more, and often less, than half of its human potential' (

12

). The song invites women and men to recognize one another as mutually (though not equally) disadvantaged by current ideas of femininity and masculinity, and to remember that 'you were just like me and I was just like you'.

It's hard, in the end, to say why

When I was a boy

affects me so strongly. It isn't because I relate especially strongly to the man in the last verse: I was never that much into flowers, and have I mentioned that I cry sometimes, for example when listening to this song? Ahem. And the rest... well, maybe. It's true, at any rate, that I'm lucky like the singer of this song: lucky to have had parents who gave me a dolls' house as well as Transformers, to have made it through nearly thirty years without ever being compelled to take the slightest interest in football, to have grown up with female friends playing make-believe games that could happily include princesses and robots and (like

Peter Pan

) pirates and fairies together. And this song does sometimes make me think of one of my oldest friends, and how for the first however many years of our lives our different sexes had literally no impact whatsoever on our friendship, and how we're somehow more distant now, and how I remember her once saying to me, when we were both just into double digits, that she liked having me as a friend because with me she could do things that boys liked doing, which surprised me because I'd rather thought of her as someone with whom I could do things that girls liked doing. But I don't think it's really very much to do with whether I relate this song to my own life or identify with anyone in it. It's perhaps the opposite: it's the way this song so so powerfully conveys an experience that I've never had and makes me realize how unfair that experience is and how very much I wish nobody had it. Which is a pretty impressive thing for a guitar and a voice to do in five minutes. I've tried to pick out some of the ways the music, the performance, and the lyric do it, but I'm no music critic, and in the end I just don't know. I can say, though, if anyone asks why this stuff matters to me, this song is why.

Notes

1

· I can't find it on the internet but if you have Spotify it's

here

.

2

· Indeed Tiger Beatdown's

Ladypalooza festival of music criticism

is probably what set me unconsciously composing this article in my head before I noticed that's what I was doing. (Yes, I started writing this about a month ago! It took me a while to get to grips with the music theory parts, okay?)

3

· And indeed further back still, to my English teacher Miss McLaren (who I realize now was probably the first actual feminist I knew and who I like to imagine deliberately chose to teach at a school for privileged boys in order to do undercover feminism at them without their noticing until years later) and to early memories of my mum complaining about women with paid jobs saying 'I work' as if what she did at home all day wasn't work (which, though she wouldn't have thought of it in these terms, was almost certainly the first critique of patriarchy I ever heard).

4

· Admittedly some of this picture is transferred from Williams herself to the character who 'speaks' the song and aren't particularly supported by the lyric. On the other hand, although it's plainly wrong and unhelpful to treat any song as entirely true of its singer or writer, the characteristics of the person who performs the song do inevitably inform our reading of it. So my reading is informed by knowing what Williams looks like and that she's from North America somewhere, and I think it's a reading that's entirely consistent with the lyric.

5

· Lots of suspended seconds and fourths and added ninths, if I'm not mistaken, which are the sorts of chords that make things sound like the Byrds.

6

· I use 'singer' to mean the character whose words are the words of the song, to avoid possibly wrongly (and at any rate irrelevantly) attributing the experiences and feelings expressed in the lyric to Williams herself. Though it's admittedly a bit less clear-cut than that (see note 3).

7

· The interval between these notes is the

diminished or 'devil's' fifth

, which is frequently used to disrupt tonal harmony and is, by suggestive coincidence, called 'oppressive' by Wikipedia. For noticing the use of this interval in this song and patiently explaining to me how it works, many thanks to Joe Templeton (who suggests the beginning of

Purple haze

by Jimi Hendrix as a good example of this interval): needless to say, any error in what I've written about it here is the result of my misunderstanding the point, and not to be attributed to Joe.

8

· And you can see how effectively it tells us this by noticing that that it's actually the only thing that tells us we're in her childhood, and then noticing that you hadn't noticed that. Apologies if the word 'notice' has now started to sound meaningless through over-exposure.

9

· Here too the vowel-sounds in those lines enhance the effect, for not only are the lines filled with the actual first-person pronoun 'I', they are also heavily populated with that same sound within other words: fly, fight, life, night, lives, pirate.

10

· 'Every day a little death: in the parlor, in the bed; in the curtains, in the silver, in the buttons, in the bread', as Sondheim writes in a slightly different context in

A little night music

. Also, incidentally, notice how Williams' voice wobbles on 'off guard', like a stifled sob. One might think it a bit of improvised styling, but no, it's there in every recording I can find.

11

· Those who don't hang out on feminist blogs much can refer to these definitions:

derailing

;

mansplaining

.

12

· In

Sexual politics

(1969), quoted in Cudd & Andreasen,

Feminist theory: a philosophical anthology

(Blackwell, 2005), page 42. I've amended the punctuation: the text in Cudd & Andreasen says 'each personality becomes little more, and often less than half, of its human potential', which must surely be a typographical error (not the only one in this anthology).Themes:

Music and Gigs

,

Minority Warrior

~

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

~Comments (

go to latest

)

http://puritybrown.livejournal.com/

at 21:58 on 2010-06-11Very well said.

Some years ago I bought a CD single of "Cool As I Am" that had this song and "This Was Pompeii" as B-sides. I remember weeping when I heard "When I Was A Boy" the first time, and playing it over and over again, so that to this day I can sing it from memory (even though I haven't listened to it in a long time, because I can only listen to it in circumstances where I feel comfortable crying). It's a concise illustration of the maxim "the personal is political", an encapsulation of all the reasons why feminism is important

even if

you are an educated white middle-class Westerner with buckets of privilege, a deeply moving personal story, and a beautifully-written song wrapped up in one.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 22:01 on 2010-06-11Wow. What a great read--because I love this song! And something that's funny is that as a woman listening to it doesn't make me emotional *until* that last verse--so the exact opposite of, as you say, feeling like that verse is mansplaining or derailing. I guess because the first two verses don't hit me as hard--I think because they're basically just describing the way things are. Like, all those things are so everyday, everything she says, but for some reason when she makes it about everyone instead of just about these things, changed the whole song for me.

I think especially because there's such a nice contrast between the details (as you pointed out, the childhood sections are all rich in details) between the two. The girl (or should we say "boy") details are all about adventure and independence and invulnerability. The boy details are about beauty, relationships (well, that's not exactly true--but the girl's relationships are defined through the action of saving each other's lives, the boy's through "always talking" and so sharing thoughts and feelings) and vulnerabilty.

Which I think I also liked because it makes it clear, as you say, that it's about having both, not rejecting one for the other. The girl doesn't want to lose the parts of herself that might code female, because that would just be a different version of what she has now--just one that she might not be as aware of because those things aren't valued as much in her society.

permalink

-

go to top

Frank

at 23:40 on 2010-06-11Beautiful and powerful read, Jamie. Thanks.

but I'm no music critic

I disagree. That was some good analysis.

Because that, at the moment, is the most complete and coherent and honest answer I can give if someone asks me why I'm trying to be a feminist.

I don't think you can be a feminist, but you can be an ally to feminism. For a male to say he is a feminist is to appropriate the term, manhandle it and muffle the authoritative voice of feminism:

girls

and

women

(both links are on the same subject: Terry Richardson).

The song invites women and men to recognize one another as mutually (though not equally) disadvantaged by current ideas of femininity and masculinity, and to remember that 'you were just like me and I was just like you'.

What I don't like about the last lines is that it is the man telling her 'hey I got it bad too' and then she doesn't call him out on it. He is of the dominant sex, what's he doing to further the cause to equality except to say we were the same once?

And because the man has the last word, maybe it's Dar Williams saying something, that the narrator in the song is once again shut down or at least quietly and softly oppressed. With your excellent musical analysis of the song, what do you think the music is suggesting?

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 23:47 on 2010-06-11I don't gots no purty story about how I done had a political awakening. My mammy just done brought me up right.

That tune be pretty though an it done brought tears to my peepers.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 00:00 on 2010-06-12Oh wow that's a beautiful song, and a really thoughtful post.

To alleviate your mansplaining concerns (or am I now mansplaining myself?)I thought the final verse (which also makes me well up) was in line with a comment made by C.L. Minou over at

Tiger Beatdown

, in which she mentions "the ways that sexism and kyriarchy hurt men too" (even if the damage isn't equivalent to that caused to women). And I definitely feel on firmer (and less mansplain-y) ground saying that it's true that homophobia is similarly harmful to straight guys (whether as perpetrators or victims).

I did wonder though what your thoughts are thoughts are about the depiction of childhood in the song? I'm just not sure if the poignant metaphorical truth about loss of innocence and freedom overlooks the literal reality of childhood, which involves being subjected to incredible pressure to conform by both the adult world and other children (who can be very judgemental). I wonder if the real tragedy isn't what comes after childhood, but rather that childhood is the period during which people are being rapidly made into women (or men as the case may be)? And doesn't the freedom to challenge those roles only come after childhood?

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 00:02 on 2010-06-12

And because the man has the last word, maybe it's Dar Williams saying something, that the narrator in the song is once again shut down or at least quietly and softly oppressed. With your excellent musical analysis of the song, what do you think the music is suggesting?

It could certainly be that, but personally I never took it that way. I take it more as a validation. His gender conditioning might not have led to oppression--there's nothing in his experience that is a parallel to half the things she's talking about, but he doesn't lay claim to those things, only to the basic idea of having once felt free to act in ways that are now considered exclusive to the opposite gender.

I guess to me the guy's verse sounds enough like something he's sharing that he doesn't particularly like to share--she herself is only sharing because she's tired and caught off guard. Especially the fact that his last line is saying that he's lost kindness, which is I would think a criticism of himself. I guess I felt like it was more a validation that he believed her experience rather than just saying that he had it hard too, because there really isn't much hard in his version. He just hasn't "won," if that makes sense.

permalink

-

go to top

Frank

at 00:43 on 2010-06-12

He just hasn't "won," if that makes sense.

It does. And I can see where he's attempting to validate her experience but, to me, it doesn't need any validation especially by the man she's with. I know he's not a bad man, he's self critical and probably a good man. Still, even though he may not have 'won', he is ahead.

I think the song kind of reinforces the cultural norms (as permitted by whitestraightabledcis male dominance) it's lamenting.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 10:53 on 2010-06-12Oh wow, Jamie, wonderful article and thank you for the song - which, being generally ignorant about everything, I had never heard before. I loved it, and had a little cry to myself over it too.

I can't really articulate which aspects affected me in what ways, but the first verse really touched on something because I suddenly remembered when I was a boy too, and it awakened in me a sort of yearning for simpler, fearless times.

I didn't see the last verse as particularly problematic. I mean, the bulk of the song and the perspective that leads to the final verse is the woman's - I think one can over-literalise the rhetorical impact of "the last word" sometimes. Also I don't think it's so much the man trying to get a seat on the oppression train, as an acknowledgment that these issues affect everyone, and marginalising the experiences of men in the name of feminism is as harmful any other sort of marginalisation. As the man says: everyone is a loser here, because everyone is denied their authentic selves because of the pressure to conform.

Also if that verse wasn't there, the whole song would carry the implication that it is just plain better to be a boy - to be fearless, and climb trees, and get into fights. That would, of course, be not so great actually. The singer is yearning not to be a boy but for the freedom to self-define within her own terms - and the final verse broadens the perspective by reminding us that this can include crying and picking flowers, as well as riding bikes.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 15:39 on 2010-06-12

Also if that verse wasn't there, the whole song would carry the implication that it is just plain better to be a boy - to be fearless, and climb trees, and get into fights. That would, of course, be not so great actually. The singer is yearning not to be a boy but for the freedom to self-define within her own terms - and the final verse broadens the perspective by reminding us that this can include crying and picking flowers, as well as riding bikes.

Yes, that's a big part of why I need the last verse. For me, I just wouldn't like the song that much without it. It would feel too much like a complaint, and one lacking in awareness. Not that I think the narrator truly wants to be male, but the way she's feeling she's just longing for those particular things. So I am relieved when the other side is brought into it and "female" becomes something other than something acted on and controlled by others.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 17:54 on 2010-06-12Oh no, I've turned Arthur into a hayseed! :)

Er, this reply will be long. Short version: see long version.

Frank

, as to 'feminist' v. 'ally', I'm aware that this is

contested territory

, but it seems to be contested on both sides: arguments against the term 'ally' are expressed

here

by someone who admittedly doesn't identify as a woman, but I have heard the same from women. Interestingly, the Feminism 101 article I linked to in the previous sentence seems to say that the objections to the idea of 'feminist men' come mostly from men, which makes me wonder what happened to the principle of female voices having more authority on these issues. The way I personally apply that principle at the moment (though I'm open to being persuaded in any direction) is that I don't claim either label for myself, and won't consider doing so unless and until I find myself being routinely described with one or the other or both by undisputed feminists. (And in fact I'd do the same at the moment even if there were no dispute about the terminology because I just don't think I know enough or have done enough to claim whatever the appropriate term is.)

Having said that, at the moment I feel more uncomfortable about ever calling myself an ally than about ever calling myself a feminist. One could say that the statement 'I am your ally' is always necessarily a bit of arrogation, and the only things anyone can ever say with full authority are 'I want to be your ally' and (though of course not unilaterally) 'you are my ally'. Maybe that's going a bit far, but maybe not. On the other hand, the word 'feminist' is structured analogously to any number of other '-ist' words that are routinely used and understood to mean 'person who subscribes to a given school of thought'.

Anyway, that may be a discussion for another time and place. In any case, even if it is impossible for a man to be a feminist, I'm perfectly happy with the statement that I'm trying to be a feminist: at worst it's formally analogous to the statement 'I'm trying to perfect', an aspiration that's impossible but probably none the worse for that.

Everyone

, regarding the last verse: I'd pretty much adopt Kyra's answer on this point. In the context of a real conversation, I agree that the singer would have been perfectly entitled to say, 'Well, okay, I sympathise, but please also note that I'm really tired and upset and you've just started your reply with "No no no, can't you see?", which is not very supportive; plus you've then gone on to describe a distinct, though related, problem that is not what I was talking about; plus you still have a lot more going for you than I have; plus what exactly have you done to help me with all this, since you're so sympathetic; plus I've run out of cookies.' And I tried to nod to that in the article. But on balance I think the song itself absorbs and neutralizes the problem. Purely by number of words, the man's experience accounts for only 15% of the song, and more importantly everything he says is there by the permission of, and enclosed within, the singer's narration. It's true that she doesn't come back in her own voice and add anything after it, but her quotation-mark is there after his final word.

And speaking of his final word, I think it's not unimportant that his literal final word is 'you', which returns the focus to the singer. Nor is it unimportant that having said 'you were just like me' (taking himself, and perhaps by implication men in general, as the norm) he immediately reverses it and says 'I was just like you' (comparing himself to a female norm). And, while we're on this last phrase, he doesn't say 'you are just like me and I am just like you', which would be the old 'But men are oppressed too!' line (in which 'too' implies not only 'also' but 'equally' and indeed 'to such an extent that it's unreasonable for you to complain about your oppression because what about mine?'); rather, he says 'you were just like me and I was just like you', i.e. 'the inequality here is not innate or necessary or inevitable', which is of course the point of the song. So although he starts unhelpfully, his comments over all come out as, 'Yes, you're right, and by the way my experience supports your view'.

So I read the construction of the end of the song as Williams actually being quite self-confident and, as I said in the article, generous, by using a male mouthpiece to broaden and sum up the over-all point of the song. On the other hand, as Frank suggests, she may also be making a subtle extra point with the implication that the singer-character herself is so weary from putting up with everything else that she also puts up with the man's intervention in the conversation, even though it has some characteristics of a hijacking as well as of an agreement. Nonetheless I see the song as broadly endorsing what he says (and vice versa).

In musical terms I don't detect any particular clues either way. In all the live versions the guitar does pretty well exactly the same thing under his speech as under the rest of the song; in the studio recording there's a little brass part (or possibly woodwind: I'm terrible at identifying instruments) under the last verse, but that doesn't seem to tell us anything much, and perhaps a hint of extra force in the strum under the 'see' in 'can't you see', which one could read as extra masculinity or as extra interruptiness. The only thing that I do find suggestive is that the instrumental backing doesn't resolve itself to a conclusion at the same time the vocal ends but carries on once more through the section that corresponds to the first four lines of each verse (e.g., in the first verse, 'I won't forget...' to '... pirate deck'). I'd say what that does is to leave the thought hanging, so the effect isn't 'Hurrah, the Man has solved the problem!', as it might be if the music came to an end along with the lyric, but something more like, 'Yes, there's the thing, isn't it? Let's think about that for a while.' It also - and here's where things get very subjective indeed - leaves me personally with the mental image of the singer sitting looking out at the fireflies in the back yard, which is a mental image to which the man, who may or may not be sitting with her, is not terribly relevant. It would be hard to argue that that's a thought the song is in any way designed to leave the listener with, but I do think it's perhaps significant that the instrumental section that's repeated after the end of the vocal is the section that corresponds in the first verse to the Peter Pan adventure, in the second to the topless cycling, and in the third to the awful day (ending, in fact, precisely with the line 'catching fireflies out in the back yard', so perhaps that's why that image sticks in my mind): in other words after the end of the singing the music takes us back to linger on the singer's experience, rather than ending on the man's response.

Andy

, I agree that if there is a problem in the song it is that it does at some point seem to imply that childhood as a whole is a sort of pre-gendered state, which is demonstrably not the case (as one sees from the extremely young age at which studies (can't at the moment lay my googling fingers on a reference, but there was a news story in the last few months) are now showing female babies preferring pink things and male ones blue things, combined with the

evidence

that these colour-preferences vary across time and space in a way that suggests very strongly that they are culturally imposed). But I think I'm inclined to let Williams off the hook for that, at least to some extent. The song does show the process of gendering happening during childhood (especially in the topless cycling episode, but also, more subtly and more sadly, in the line 'I said I was a boy; I'm glad he didn't check', which of course implies (not unjustly) that Peter Pan, and by extension much of the culture that we produce for children, is horrendously sexist and only lets boys have adventures and fight pirates. There's also the interesting question of the singer's mother's attitude: on the one hand, would it have 'scared the pants off' her quite so much if it had been her son climbing stuff? but on the other, is there a joking significance in the fact that we imagine her mother wearing pants (trousers, for those of us in other parts of the Anglophone world) in the first place, in mild defiance of the patriarchy? :) So I think on that score the fault may be more mine than Williams', since I see that the article does largely ignore those aspects and talk about childhood as pretty thoroughly ungendered.

Another reason I'm inclined to give the song a pass on this question is that I'm not sure we're meant to take the depiction of the singer's childhood literally. In the same way that we plainly aren't expected to assume the singer, for all her 'boyish' activities like climbing and cycling and fighting pirates, never did 'girly' things like talking to her mother and picking flowers and crying and being kind, so too I don't think we're meant to imagine that her childhood was as thoroughly infused with ungendered self-determination as perhaps it seems in the song. The thing is that every glimpse of her childhood is mediated through her adult memory, specifically for comparison with the oppressive present. So although it's functioning in the song as a sort of symbol of genderlessness and as a source of emotional support, I don't think that amounts to the song saying that that is what childhood is actually like.

I think part of it also comes down to the thing of this song not trying to be about all women (and men) ever. It speaks to me in part perhaps because my childhood was approximately as ungendered as the singer's: not by any means completely, but just enough that I can compare it to the present as draw pro-feminist conclusions from the comparison. There will be others for whom childhood was much more the site of comprehensive engendering (except that that's a word for something different, but you know what I mean) and is therefore much less an inner source of positivity, and for them adulthood may be the empowering idea because it provides the tools for self-liberation that were denied in childhood. I guess looking at it from that angle

When I was a boy

isn't really saying that childhood is literally or necessarily a time of liberation so much as just using childhood - this particular type of childhood - as a symbol of the equal and full humanity of everyone.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 17:56 on 2010-06-12Seen since writing the above: Sister Magpie's

most recent comment

. Response: yes. :)

permalink

-

go to top

http://alex-von-cercek.livejournal.com/

at 18:37 on 2010-06-12I was always taught that "feminism" meant striving for equality of the genders. That seemed a fine and noble undertaking, but I don't see how you can claim that definition if you can't admit the possibility of male feminists.

I call myself a feminist and not an ally because, well, I don't know you! I might disagree with you on a whole bunch of issues you consider quite important. And you can't claim that feminists always agree on everything, no more than other prefix-ists always agree (which is to say, hardly ever). Also, "ally" seems so very personal, like I'm claiming to be your old and trustworthy brother in arms, like I'm claiming this relationship exists between us where in fact there is none.

If I say I'm a feminist, I'm speaking for myself. If I said I'm an ally, I'd be telling you what I am to you.

On the subject of winning, and how though the man may not have won, he is ahead. He is, but it's like a game of Defcon 5 where you "win" or "are ahead" of the other guy because in the last half hour, 60 million people in his country died in nuclear fire, while your own civilian casualties are barely 30 million.

I mean, you've won, but it's hardly a desirable victory.

...er, don't mind me, I just started hanging around this site because you actually analyzed WH40k novels for their literary merit, and then kind of stuck around.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 18:40 on 2010-06-12On a lighter note, I just can't get past the term Kyriarchy - which, by rights, should mean oppression by me.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 18:42 on 2010-06-12PS:

...er, don't mind me, I just started hanging around this site because you actually analyzed WH40k novels for their literary merit, and then kind of stuck around.

Not at all, you are very welcome here :)

And I'm sure Arthur would agree that, as far as reasons to stick around go, that must be one of the best :D

permalink

-

go to top

http://roisindubh211.livejournal.com/

at 20:42 on 2010-06-12I'm watching the football while I read, so I couldn't listen to the song, but I read the lyrics. And the last part, to me, read like she gets so tired and worn down that her defenses fail, and she admits to this story that she's been hiding- it felt a little scary, like anything can happen to her because she's vulnerable. And instead of attacking, he's secretly "just like you"- he's her ally, because he knows what gets lost too. So it felt hopeful to me, more than anything else- like, if you look, you can find more people who remember and mourn their own loss.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 21:12 on 2010-06-12

On the other hand, the word 'feminist' is structured analogously to any number of other '-ist' words that are routinely used and understood to mean 'person who subscribes to a given school of thought'.

Putting the joke hick accent aside, this is kind of the way I see it. If you consider feminism a philosophy, and "feminists" to be people who adhere to that philosophy (in the same way that "communists" believe in one of the various flavours of communism), then saying "men can't be feminists" is tantamount to saying "men can't accept and believe in these ideas, only women can". That implies that men's brains are just plain wired differently from women's - which I think is a thing called "essentialism", and isn't universally accepted by feminist thinkers.

(Which isn't, of course, to say that if you consider feminism a philosophy you can't criticise men who claim to be feminists but fundamentally just don't get it, or try to mansplain everything. It's like being a middle-class supporter of communism - sure, come to the meetings and wave the red flags, but don't pretend you're a proletarian when you're clearly not.)

On the other hand, you could argue that feminism isn't just another philosophy or school of thought like Marxism or liberalism or whatever, but is an entirely different sort of thing. In which case it might make more sense to deny the "feminist" tag to men.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 21:29 on 2010-06-12@ Arthur: It's complicated a bit because being a socialist is a matter not just of believing certain things but also being committed to certain values and actions. Someone who believed socialism was true but never spoke up or did anything would not be a socialist. I guess you could argue that the privilege that men enjoy makes it difficult or impossible to be a feminist because it would prevent the ideas from translating into action. Somebody could believe feminist ideas but still act and talk in a very sexist way.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 21:31 on 2010-06-12Also, Chloe Angyal just tweeted

'Feminist men are so fucking sexy'

, so after due consideration I've decided to be one of those, thank you very much.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 22:04 on 2010-06-12

It's complicated a bit because being a socialist is a matter not just of believing certain things but also being committed to certain values and actions. Someone who believed socialism was true but never spoke up or did anything would not be a socialist.

I think they would, at least by the philosophical definition - it's just that they'd also be a hypocrite or a coward or someone just plain compromising for the sake of a quiet life, like anyone who chooses to behave in a manner not in accordance with their beliefs.

Somebody could believe feminist ideas but still act and talk in a very sexist way.

Which makes them a hypocrite, and a deluded idiot who needs to examine their own actions.

Basically, I think men can call themselves feminists if they want to, but it's not necessarily down to them to decide whether they're actually any

good

at the whole feminism thing. See, for example, Jamie's comments about how he's trying to be a good feminist, even if he knows that sometimes he might not be.

I would say that someone who believes in socialism but doesn't speak up or do anything is still a socialist. They're just a crappy socialist.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 00:36 on 2010-06-13@ Arthur: Well, the thing is that just believing a rule or principle to be correct doesn't mean you understand how to apply it. For instance, you may know it's a rule of football that it's a goal when the ball goes through the posts - but what if you're playing casual football with friends in the park and a stranger's dog runs onto the pitch and knocks the ball through the goal? If you say it doesn't count because it was the stranger's dog, it's not because you had agreed on some sort of exception to the rule in advance (It's a goal wen the ball goes through the posts unless it was knocked in by a dog), but rather that you understood the point of the rules (to structure the game to make things more fun). Coming at a system of rules or principles from the outside, you can fail to grasp how to apply them unless you're able to understand the point behind them. The situation of privilege can impede being able to understand the perspective that allows you to apply the principles of feminism correctly, even if you believe them to be correct.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 01:00 on 2010-06-13

That implies that men's brains are just plain wired differently from women's - which I think is a thing called "essentialism", and isn't universally accepted by feminist thinkers.

But isn't that part of the definition of transgender- that the person's brain is one gender while their body is another? If there was no difference between the male and female brain, then surely transpeople wouldn't

exist

, because their brains wouldn't register any difference? Or for a more specific example, there have been cases- I can't remember the names, but I know at least one was in Canada- where a child was born physically male but raised female due to a botched circumcision, and chose to live as a man after being told what had happened. If there was no difference between the male and female brains, then he would have been happy to live as a woman, because he would have identified the way he was raised.

Some feminists do ascribe to the idea that there's no difference between the brains. They're wrong, and they erase transpeople in what they percieve as efforts to prove that men and women are equal. They're doing more harm than good.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 01:02 on 2010-06-13I don't see how this changes the situation though. Someone who believes in feminism, or communism, or football, but doesn't really know how to apply this is a just plain bad feminist, or a bad communist, or a bad footballer.

If privilege sometimes ends up hampering men's ability to do the feminist thing in a situation, then that means then men are going to tend to be less successful at being feminists than women. That doesn't mean they're not feminists - that would imply they didn't

want

to do the right thing, when they might well want to do the right thing but not know what that is. It just mean they're not as good at it as people who aren't blindsided by privilege are.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 01:24 on 2010-06-13@ Arthur: I'd say you need to be able to apply the principles to a certain degree of competence before you merit the label feminist. Sort of like with language - you can only speak the language fluently once you're able to actively and creatively apply the rules you've learned. But it's a moot point about labelling really (see discussion about genre), as long as you accept the difficulties that the privileged male perspective can present to applying feminist principles.

@ Viorica: Are you talking about Julie Bindel? I agree entirely, though I don't think there HAS to be a physiological difference between the brains to justify trans people's gender identities. Even if gender is entirely a social or psychological construct, that doesn't mean it's NOT a building block of someone's identity - there's nothing 'unreal' about it.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 02:00 on 2010-06-13To clarify: I agree with Viorica. Not Julie Bindel.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 02:09 on 2010-06-13*looks up Julie Bindel* She's certainly a good example of the phenomena. As to the physiological versus social causes- I don't think that

can

be it, because otherwise, why wouldn't the buy I mentioned above (I think his name was David something) have ID'd as female? He was raised that way. Besides, the social construsts of gender usually imply extremes- the "manly man" archetype or the woman all decked out in pink- but transpeople often vary within the spectrum of the gender they idenfity as. A transman might not identify with any traditional definition of masculinity yet still consider himself a man. Either way, it should definitely be considered a legitimate identity- on that we're in complete agreement.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 08:46 on 2010-06-13@Andy: I think it is worth linguistically decoupling belief in a particular -ism from someone's ability to live that belief. If saying "X is not a Y-ist" means that X doesn't believe in Y in the first place, and saying "X is not a very good Y-ist" means that X is just plain bad at putting Y-ism into effect, that's surely less liable to confuse than a situation where "X is not a Y-ist"

could

mean that X doesn't believe in Y, or

could

mean that X in fact does believe in Y but is incompetent at putting it into effect.

I could go around calling myself "a believer in feminism" rather than a "feminist", but I suspect a great many people - most likely the majority - would regard the one and the other as being identical anyway. For the same reason I'd question the utility of using "supporter of feminism" or "ally of feminism", because a lot of the time people will reduce that in their heads to "feminist" anyway.

But I agree at this point we're debating semantics.

@Andy Viorica: To be honest I was using "you're saying mens' brains and womens' brains are wired differently" in the sense that "you're saying that on a cold, philosophical level, there are some arguments that men just can't follow and some arguments women can't follow" (which is a point the argument has moved away from when it became clear that neither side believed it).

Obviously, transgenderism is a real phenomenon, obviously on an experiential level the experiences of men and women (trans and otherwise) are going to differ. I'm not enough of a neurologist to comment on actual physiological differences.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 12:19 on 2010-06-13@ Viorica: I'm not going to pretend to be any expert, but I'd guess there are complicated different reasons why someone might legitimately identify as a certain gender. A particular person's personality is socially constructed but so too are the kinds of identities available to them - a Western person couldn't identify along the lines of Eastern gender identities, for instance, or premodern European gender identities. Bindel's point appears to be that, because there is in fact no essence behind gender identities (something backed up by the existence of intergender people, for instance), it's nonsensical to feel that there's a mismatch between your body and your 'real' gender, but of course these gender identities (constructed or not) do form the building blocks of our selves.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 12:24 on 2010-06-13@ Arthur: Now I'm a bit more awake, it suddenly occurs that that Cracked article about women in Red Dead Redemption is a good example of misapplied feminist beliefs. Alternatively, I remember reading that back in Britain's colonial days, men who voted against women's rights at home used feminist arguments to condemn foreign countries as primitive (the same thing happens today with regard to gay rights).

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 14:21 on 2010-06-13@Andy - All of that is appalling, but it looks to me like a situation where the people involved claim to believe in feminist principles but demonstrably don't, in which case they are not feminists but have deluded themselves into thinking they are, or do believe but are just shit feminists.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 17:22 on 2010-06-13

But isn't that part of the definition of transgender- that the person's brain is one gender while their body is another? If there was no difference between the male and female brain, then surely transpeople wouldn't exist, because their brains wouldn't register any difference?

I think you're oversimplifying a number of complex issues here, some of them scientific and some of them sociological and gender-political.

This is going to get long, because it's complicated, and like Andy I'm not an expert.

For a start, I'm not sure it's possible to separate "the brain" from "the body" as absolutely as you seem to think. The brain is, after all, part of the body so describing somebody as having a "brain" of one gender and a "body" of another is inherently contradictory. It simply wouldn't be possible for somebody to be "physically male" and yet have a "female brain" because the brain is part of the physical body. It's as contradictory as suggesting that somebody could be "physically male" and still possess ovaries and a uterus. You seem to be using "brain" here as a way of expressing a more nebulous concept of self-identity.

Arguing for the existence of a "male" and "female" brain reduces gender to an observable property of a person's physical body. Saying "this person is male because he has a male brain" is ultimately just as trans-erasing as saying "this person is male because he has a penis". I'd also note that most "male and female brain" studies say very little about actual gender identity, indeed most people who study the differences (if any) between men's and women's brains specifically exclude transpeople from their studies or insist on categorizing them as members of their "biological" sex.

To put it another way, if you tested a trans-man, and found that he had a "female" brain, would that mean that he was a woman? Or is it, in your view, impossible for such a thing to happen? I'd point out that most studies that *do* conclude that there are "male" and "female" brains also point out that some (cisgendered) men have female brains and some (cisgendered) women have male brains, and vice versa. If as you suggest transgenderism has to be explained in terms of the existence of a "male brain" and "female brain" I am not sure how you explain these results.

Or for a more specific example, there have been cases- I can't remember the names, but I know at least one was in Canada- where a child was born physically male but raised female due to a botched circumcision, and chose to live as a man after being told what had happened. If there was no difference between the male and female brains, then he would have been happy to live as a woman, because he would have identified the way he was raised.

You're presenting a false dichotomy here. Off the top of my head I can think of a great many reasons why this guy didn't identify as female, the most obvious of them being that while he was raised female, he was presumably also raised in contemporary western society, and contemporary western society teaches (wrongly) that your gender is what you are born as. Once he found out he was "really" a boy, he would very likely have assumed that it was best to live under his "real" gender.

Adoption might be a good analogy here. If you have two biological children and an adopted child, you wouldn't argue that the adopted child's brain is *structurally different* from the biological children. If the adopted child finds out that they are adopted, however, they are quite likely to consider their adopted parents not to be their "real" parents even though those people raised them. Or they might not. Either way you can't say that it "has to be" something in the brain.

Put simply, gender identity is complicated (as for that matter is identity in general) and reducing it to a single factor is unhelpful, incorrect and (ironically) trans-erasing. Suppose that a conclusive study were to be published tomorrow which proved that men's and women's brains are not structurally different - would you then conclude that transpeople no longer have a valid gender identity?

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 17:55 on 2010-06-13@ Dan: Yes. Exactly.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 18:26 on 2010-06-13

You're presenting a false dichotomy here. Off the top of my head I can think of a great many reasons why this guy didn't identify as female, the most obvious of them being that while he was raised female, he was presumably also raised in contemporary western society, and contemporary western society teaches (wrongly) that your gender is what you are born as. Once he found out he was "really" a boy, he would very likely have assumed that it was best to live under his "real" gender.

Hmm. But see, in his case he already considered his "real" gender to be male. He just always had people telling him he was wrong, that he was female because that was what his body was and that was what he was socialized to be.

I wouldn't say that his brain was structurally different, but he clearly was born with an inborn *something* that naturally conformed more to behavior people considered "male," and more importantly, with a natural sense of himself as male. And unfortunately, iirc, a lot of this was denied and covered up by his psychologist who wanted him to fit his theory. This also led to the family being ordered to not reveal his original physical gender to him at all costs even when they wanted to tell him the truth because they thought it would be a relief to him.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 18:30 on 2010-06-13I'm not sure you're entirely understanding me. I'm not saying that the difference between male and female brains are purely physiological. I'm saying that there is a difference, because otherwise no one would ever ID as the gender they weren't assigned to at birth. Since we don't know a lot about how the brain works, it's hard to say exactly what the relationship between the brain and the body is- and how much of what we think and feel is chemical as opposed to sociological- but I don't believe that gender is a purely social construct.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 18:32 on 2010-06-13Oh, also another thing to consider is hermaphrodites. There is a practice of "choosing" a gender sometimes when a baby is born. I remember in a book I was reading about some of these issues and there was a guy whose mother refused to let them do this. He was giving a talk at a thing for hermaphrodites and he said it was because of his mother standing up for him that he was not standing before them that day as a very angry lesbian.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 18:34 on 2010-06-13

And unfortunately, iirc, a lot of this was denied and covered up by his psychologist who wanted him to fit his theory.

That was a big part of it too. The case was widely-publicised, and the psychologist involved wanted to make his reputation on it. Plus, the boy didn't only start to ID as male after being told the truth- he always preferred being a boy. He just didn't know why, because he was being purposefully misgendered.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 18:45 on 2010-06-13

That was a big part of it too. The case was widely-publicised, and the psychologist involved wanted to make his reputation on it. Plus, the boy didn't only start to ID as male after being told the truth- he always preferred being a boy. He just didn't know why, because he was being purposefully misgendered.

Exactly. Iirc, his life was a series of identifying as a boy and having someone tell him, "No no no!" And I remember the kids in his class called him "Bigfoot" because, basically, he didn't move like a girl. Not that it isn't possible for a girl to have the same kind of way of moving, but it really did seem like his behavior was full of millions of little things that people considered "wrong" for a girl.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 19:15 on 2010-06-13@ Viorica:

I'm not saying that the difference between male and female brains are purely physiological. I'm saying that there is a difference, because otherwise no one would ever ID as the gender they weren't assigned to at birth.

I don't think the 'because' clause follows, because the difference doesn't have to be 'in the brains'. It could be a difference at the level of consciousness/selfhood - in the mind - that is a function of the way the person interprets socially constructed identities and roles as applicable or inapplicable to them (on the basis of their sensibilties, traits, physical features, etc.). Their interpretation could differ from that which is imposed on them by other people but that does not mean that the identity itself is not constructed.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 20:25 on 2010-06-13I'm feeling quite squeamish about this chapter of the discussion: it feels like a conversation that's likely to be at best fruitless and at worst, er, worse in the absence of specific knowledge of the state of neuropsychological research and / or first-hand or close second-hand experience of what it's like to be a transgendered person, and I get the impression we have neither of those things here at the moment. So no contribution from me at this stage, really.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 20:44 on 2010-06-13Yes I'm feeling that too. My arguments are hypotheticals about what must or needn't follow if something is the case. Some solid data would be handy.

permalink

-

go to top

Frank

at 21:05 on 2010-06-13To back up the conversation:

People can choose or opt out of various world views (theistic, philosophic, political, etc.) they were born into. Granted, some may experience some emotional difficulty in doing so but that's mostly due to family relations rather than social ones. People can't chose the sex, sexuality, gender identification, race, or the physical and mental ability they are born with though there are surgical procedures like sex reassignments or cochlear implants which can alter one's appearance or deafness. Neither procedure will grant the full sex change (testicles for ovaries or vice versa, to name one example) or complete hearing restoration. (But maybe the scientists will one day find the means to do so, and perhaps that will be the singularity.)

Women, the LGBTQ community, People of Color, Disabled people grow-up in culture that defines them as 'less than' and/or 'other'. A white, straight, abled male can be an ally to all those communities but still say something unintentionally offensive because those men grewup within the same culture with its institutional sexism, racism, homophobia, etc but who aren't as sensitive to the kyiarchal language or images being used within the culture because it didn't hurt them. This isn't a criticism. It's an understandable, self-preservation tactic. People need to be taught to consider others. Allies make mistakes, and if they are true allies they apologize and reflect on their offense in the hopes of recognizing the institutionalized whatever that gave it to them and learn how to be a better, stronger ally. I think this is best done by reading various blogs within the communities one is most interested in being an Ally to as it is not the responsibility of the non-dominant communities to teach the white, straight, abled man about the minority community.

Returning to the male as feminist argument.

Here's the jist of what a feminist friend told me some years ago:

You're anti-rape, but that doesn't make you a rape victim. You don't know what's its like. You might be able to imagine it, the fear and violation, but you haven't experienced it. You can help rape victims: provide legal support, meeting space, or coffee for support groups, but you can't go to the group because you're not a rape victim. In fact, even though you've probably raped no one, you represent the rapist just by having a dick. So you can support rape victim causes and feminist causes, but that support doesn't make you a rape victim or feminist just a friend (ally).

Now, it was only one woman that told me this and she obviously doesn't speak for all feminist, but it smacked me pretty hard at the time and I was a bit butt hurt about it, yet when the hurt subsided I came to see her perspective, and how it relates to other marginalized communities.

Men are not in the community of women like whites aren't in the community of anyone of color.

Men can offer to volunteer for the community of women like whites can do the same for communities of color.

Women to men: thanks, vote for suffrage, that would help out a lot. PoC to whites: write to your House Rep/Senator and demand that he pass the Civil Rights Bill, thanks.

NOW to men: we got this, but you can donate. NUL to whites: we got this, but you can donate.

But I'm willing to be wrong. According to Sarah Palin, she is a feminist, so why not Jamie and Alex?

Apologies for the US-centric references!

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 21:47 on 2010-06-13

According to Sarah Palin, she is a feminist, so why not Jamie and Alex?

Ouch! ;)

permalink

-

go to top

Frank

at 21:51 on 2010-06-13:D

In good fun!

permalink

-

go to top

http://alex-von-cercek.livejournal.com/

at 22:37 on 2010-06-13I think the analogy loses something when it tries to equate being a rape victim with being a feminist. I think we can all agree that being raped is not a prerequisite for joining the feminist club.

In fact, they're different in a very crucial way - rape only harms the victim, not the perpetrator. I don't believe that it's actually in my best interest to perpetuate the patriarchy. I don't think I'm shooting myself in the foot when I complain about how women are portrayed in media. I think that when and if we achieve actual equality of the sexes on this planet, in a sort of Star Trek-esque future utopia where all ancient irrational prejudices have been wiped out,

I as a white heterosexual European male will be better off than I was before.

Again, yeah, I'm "ahead", but it's not a desirable ahead. We're not all rape victims, but we're all victims (with varied degrees of actual harm incurred) of the patriarchy/kyriarchy/irrational prejudices that fuck up humanity's shit. That's one of the things "When I was a boy" is about, right?

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 22:44 on 2010-06-13For what it's worth (sorry this is late in coming), my very close friend is transgender, and he and I have talked about it a lot. And what he tells me is that he believes that trans people are meant to be born as whatever gender they identify as but that there was a genetic mishap that happened to make them the wrong gender. In which case, there would be a connection with brain chemistry and gender, I suppose. But it's probably also safe to say that not every trans person has the same experiences/beliefs and there could be multiple reasons for why someone identifies as the opposite of their physical gender that have less to do with science and more to do with social pressures/conditioning. But most trans people (to the best of my knowledge) spend their whole lives feeling like they are in the wrong body. It's something that's there with them from a very, very early age so I feel like there has to be a biological reason for it. But I, like everyone else, am no expert on the subject.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 22:44 on 2010-06-13Apologies for opening that topic up again, but I felt like it was important....

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 22:45 on 2010-06-13To be honest, so long as a person's actions have a net positive effect on things, I couldn't care less what they call themselves, so long as they don't use whatever titles they've given themselves as a stick to beat other people with.

So Sarah Palin pretty much fails on every single point there.

Apologies for the US-centric references!

I wonder, in fact, whether there isn't a cultural thing at work here with the "ally" thing. It's not terminology I've seen from many UK sources, and I kind of share Jamie's reluctance to go out and unilaterally declare myself someone's ally - surely it's their call whether I'm an ally or not? It could be we are being terribly English about the whole thing.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 23:18 on 2010-06-13

I'm saying that there is a difference, because otherwise no one would ever ID as the gender they weren't assigned to at birth

I think we might be talking at cross purposes here, because I think we're talking about two different things.

One is the origins or otherwise of gender identity. This is a Big Serious Complicated Issue and one I'm not remotely qualified to talk about apart from saying "it's really complicated." It's ultimately reductionist to say that it comes from any one source, be that socialization or some currently unknown neurological factor.

The second issue is the concept of "male" and "female" brains - the notion that women's brains innately process information differently from men's. The first thing to say is that the jury is simply out on this. There's no good scientific evidence one way or the other. The second thing to say is that even the studies which *do* support the idea that men and women process information in different ways observe that there is broad variation between the sexes, so a great many men will have "female-type" brains and a great many women will have "male-type" brains, but these people will not self-identify as a member of the other gender. If there *is* a brain-based "root cause" of gender identity, it's got nothing to do with the concept of "brain type" so beloved of gender essentialists.

It's true that there's a line of transphobic apologia which runs along the lines of "transpeople just reinforce the gender binary," which is of course offensive, but it's important not to go down the line of assuming that transgenderism *requires* gender essentialism. To put this in pure I-statements, I personally do not believe that men and women are "wired differentely" or that you can describe a particular person as having a "male" or "female" brain any more than you can describe them as having a male or female heart. I also believe that trans-men really are men, just as much as I am and I do not, personally, see a contradiction in these two positions.

The question of why some people self-identify as a gender different to the one they were assigned at birth is one to which I do not have, and do not propose, an answer, but I certainly do not think there needs to be a single physiological source which determines a person's "real" gender.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 23:28 on 2010-06-13

But most trans people (to the best of my knowledge) spend their whole lives feeling like they are in the wrong body. It's something that's there with them from a very, very early age so I feel like there has to be a biological reason for it. But I, like everyone else, am no expert on the subject.

From my (very limited) understanding this is another thing that Varies Really Quite A Lot so I suspect that the best that we can do is to put our hands up and say "This Is Extremely Complicated And It Is Important Not To Make Generalizations".

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 23:31 on 2010-06-13

Melissa

,

Apologies for opening that topic up again, but I felt like it was important...

No need to apologize: I didn't mean to seem like I was trying to close down the discussion, just to flag up that maybe it couldn't get much further than it had done without referring to actual trans experiences (which is what you've relayed here) and / or scientific evidence.

I'm extremely uncertain about the whole question. My highly non-expert understanding is that it's generally agreed among the relevant experts that a lot of extremely important stuff happens in very early childhood, to the point where it's quite risky to assume that a given characteristic is innate solely on the basis that the person concerned has had it ever since she or he can remember. On the other hand I know of no evidence that transgender isn't at least partly physiological, and it's clearly obnoxious to do the thing Viorica complains of, namely challenging a transgendered person's interpretation of his or her own experience not on the basis of evidence but simply to defend an absolutist position on the construction of gender. On the other hand again (what is this, the third hand? - sorry), surely one could in principle hold that absolutist view while also saying, 'Even if the transgender experience of being born in the wrong body is somehow scientifically false, it's still clearly something that they haven't consciously chosen and that means their bodies are preventing them living the lives they want, and therefore it's extremely important that they be able to make whatever changes to their lives and their bodies will make them feel more truly themselves, and that they not be stigmatized for it.' But perhaps that misses the point, I don't know. I confess on trans issues I'm at such an early stage of learning that I wouldn't even call myself a beginner as I'm now prepared to do on the more 'traditional' feminist issues. Hence I shall clam up again now! :)

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 23:37 on 2010-06-13Good grief, I've just re-read the hypothetical position in my comment above that starts 'Even if the transgender experience...' and seen that it's very othering and rather awful. Not that I was saying it was my position, but still, gah. I really shall shut up now before I do that again (especially since Dan has done a better job while I was writing).

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 04:39 on 2010-06-14

I suspect that the best that we can do is to put our hands up and say "This Is Extremely Complicated And It Is Important Not To Make Generalizations".

Oh, I most certainly agree. I imagine it's a complicated mix of nurture and nature (like most things) that no one can really pin down and make work for every single experience. Which is probably why I find psychology so fascinating. :-)

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 04:44 on 2010-06-14

No need to apologize: I didn't mean to seem like I was trying to close down the discussion, just to flag up that maybe it couldn't get much further than it had done without referring to actual trans experiences (which is what you've relayed here) and / or scientific evidence.

Thanks! I was just making sure. Because it's all very well and good for me to be like "Well, my trans friends says..." but I still can't speak to the topic with much authority past what I've been told by the one person I know who's trans.

permalink

-

go to top

Frank

at 05:10 on 2010-06-14

I wonder, in fact, whether there isn't a cultural thing at work here with the "ally" thing.

I was thinking this too when I saw the tweeter from Jamie's link was from Australia, but then continued down the short bio to learn that she went to Princeton and lives in NYC which makes me think she would be familiar with the use of 'ally'. So, yeah, I don't know.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 23:03 on 2010-06-14

On the other hand again (what is this, the third hand? - sorry), surely one could in principle hold that absolutist view while also saying, 'Even if the transgender experience of being born in the wrong body is somehow scientifically false, it's still clearly something that they haven't consciously chosen and that means their bodies are preventing them living the lives they want, and therefore it's extremely important that they be able to make whatever changes to their lives and their bodies will make them feel more truly themselves, and that they not be stigmatized for it.'

Replying to this point because as somebody who *does* hold the "absolutist" view (insofar as I consider it extremely probable that there is no such thing as a "male" or "female" brain and don't see much room for maneuver on that) I thought it might be worth clarifying a couple of things - if only because otherwise I'm tacitly admitting to being a trans-hating bigot.

The first thing is that, as I understand it, there's a difference between being *transsexual* (feeling that you were born in the "wrong body") and being *transgender* (possessing a gender identity which does not match the identity assigned to you at birth, or by society). Obviously the two often go together but it is possible to be transgender without being transsexual. There are quite a lot of people who self-identify as a member of the "opposite" sex but feel no particular discomfort with their bodies. There are, in fact, men who are perfectly happy with their vaginas.

This again is part of what makes me so uncomfortable about the "girl brain/boy brain" idea. If you assume that trans-identity has to stem from a "dissonance" between the brain and the body, then you exclude all those who feel no such dissonance. There are people who self-define as trans but feel no need to have surgery - something which under the "male and female brains" model should be impossible. I'm also not certain how it accounts for people who identify as genderqueer, or for people who are intersex.

Ultimately some people *do* feel like they were born in the "wrong body" and it's obviously important to recognize the validity of that but at the same time it's important to recognize that when it comes to a person's body "right" and "wrong" are subjective terms. If somebody feels that they're supposed to have breasts, then they're supposed to have breasts - this has nothing to do with gender essentialism and everything to do with people's rights (within the limits of technology and some really horribly complicated areas of medical ethics) to have control over their bodies.

I think it's quite important to recognize that a person's right to define both their gender identity and what happens to their body (which may or may not correlate) does not need to be validated by reference to biology. Indeed most attempts to define gender in biological terms have major problems - some men have ovaries, some women have testes, and if you believe in that sort of thing, some men have female brains. It feels a little like this thread has tacitly accepted Viorica's original dichotomy (embrace gender essentialism or invalidate trans identity) and I think it's quite important to realize that this isn't necessary.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 15:21 on 2010-06-16I just noticed that there is an interesting series called 'A trangender journey' on the Guardian at the moment:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/02/transgender-journey

permalink

-

go to top

Furare

at 20:13 on 2010-07-26I wanted to say something about this article when I first read it, but could never quite work out what to say. So, just two things, then:

(1) Men can absolutely be feminists, and in my opinion "feminist" is exactly what they ought to call themselves. "Feminism" is still treated as something of a dirty word by some people, so I think that anyone who holds genuinely pro-equality opinions should proudly claim the label and not be put off by wondering whether they deserve it. Make people think twice about what feminism and being "a feminist" actually means.

(2) That song is awesome, and I think the last verse is as necessary as any of the rest. Primarily because, even as a feminist who was a tomboy growing up, I still thought "wait, what?" about the man asserting "when I was a girl". Because it's somehow more acceptable for a girl to behave like a boy than the reverse - apparently, even in my head. <cone>

@Jamie specifically: Since you've read some of Fugitivus' blog, I wondered if you'd ever come across

this article

, which I found via a link in one of her posts. It reminded me of what Alex said in this thread about how he believes that abolition of sexism would benefit him as a man, which is something I believe to be true also. (Even though I'm a woman, heh.)

I wish I could write something as coherent as this about why I became a feminist, but every time I try it just fails to come out right. :(

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 13:27 on 2010-08-01Hi Furare, sorry not to have responded earlier - I've been moving house and things have been a bit wouaeugh.

Yes, I do remember reading that, quite possibly linked from Fugitivus, but I'd forgotten it so it was good to be reminded, thanks. It produces in me a somewhat similar reaction to the line 'I have lost and you have won' in the song, namely a blend of sadness, shame (by proxy, by association, and directly), resolve, and fear at the scale of the task. A this-is-the-price-of-your-privilege smoothie, if you like. Just the thing to drink in the morning before a day of trying not to be a cad. :)

And yeah, I agree that abolishing sexism would benefit men. (Unless of course it turned out that abolishing sexism involved, as some suggest, abolishing 'men' and 'women' as separate categories, in which case it would benefit the people formerly classified as men.) Hypothetical men in the future, definitely. But it's a bit strange to think about whether it would benefit me because it's very difficult to imagine. I mean difficult not just in the sense that it's difficult to imagine a world without sexism but that it's difficult to imagine that happening within my lifetime so that I would be able to benefit from it. I can imagine waking up tomorrow and finding that cars had been abolished, or war, or higher education, because those are external things that could, in theory, just simply stop in an instant and never be seen again, and we'd all be the same people we were the day before except we wouldn't be able to travel / get killed / learn stuff in quite the same way. Whereas sexism is in all our heads and we wouldn't be the same people without it. It's in my head and I don't know what it would feel like for it not to be there and how much I'd feel like me. So trying to imagine a world without sexism involves either imagining a world without me in it, in which case I obviously wouldn't be getting any personal benefit, or imagining a world in which I were a different person, possibly a radically different one, in which case it's hard to identify the 'me' who would be getting the benefit.

You might reasonably accuse me of thinking too literally about a hypothetical situation that's really just a turn of phrase, but that is pretty much my reaction, even without the alternate-world theorizing. I can't imagine getting any serious personal benefit out of not being a sexist or out of other people not being sexist (apart from the 'I feel better about myself' benefit that's always used to 'disprove' altruism). When I think about making myself and others less sexist - when I conceive that task and feel my reaction to it - it feels like a hard and unending slog with little promise of personal reward. I feel like I would be more content and more self-confident and probably even a more interesting and fun person if I made myself not care. I might even, on balance, bring more pleasure and excitement to other people's lives that way, but it would be at the price of doing some harm and supporting harmful behaviour in others.

Which isn't to say that feminism never makes life more pleasant or fun for men who engage in it: I'm sure some, maybe most, find that it makes them more outgoing, or more at peace with themselves, or more exciting, or more relaxed, or whatever. I guess it depends on the mental techniques you use to change yourself. My experience of self-improvement mostly involves self-censorship, self-criticism, and working to neutralize bits of myself, which over all tends to make me less talkative*, less confident, less spontaneous, less relaxed, and generally less interesting. Which isn't a benefit. Of course if sexism were suddenly magically removed from all our minds while we slept I wouldn't have to do so much of that, which I guess would be a benefit, but also I'd be someone different (and so would you and everyone else), so it would be a benefit to someone else. If you see what I mean.

* (Some may be surprised by the suggestion that I'm becoming less talkative. I'd clarify that if this comment weren't already far too long and far too much about me. But it is, so.)

permalink

-

go to top

Furare

at 15:54 on 2010-08-01Ha! I'm afraid that feminism is making me *more* talkative, while at the same time, a bit of a killjoy. Sometimes I'm afraid that I am the world's most boring person for caring about any of this. But - I don't know if you've found this or not - I can't stop caring about it. Once you realise how fucked up everything is, it's really difficult to stop realising. It's everywhere, and once you've started noticing it, you keep noticing. You - or at least I - just can't help it anymore.

You're right that sexism is kind of embedded in our culture and it's difficult to imagine what things would be like without it. But - and I may well be telling you something you already know here - being anti-sexism doesn't actually benefit an individual woman any more than you feel it benefits you. Life is actually a lot easier if you shut up, smile and don't think too hard. Being a feminist has made me paranoid that I sound "too angry" (self-critical, and also a sign of internalised sexism), careful about not making "reverse sexist" comments about men in case someone decides I'm a hypocrite (self-censorship), and as I've already said, I'm afraid it makes me less interesting.

But then I guess, like all activism, the end result is the reason we do it, not because it will benefit us. Not that I particularly mind the idea of being someone different, mostly because that person would probably be less neurotic.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 18:30 on 2010-08-02Sorry, may comment more when I've gotten around to reading the article proper. For now I just want to pop in and address this:

Furare: Once you realise how fucked up everything is, it's really difficult to stop realising. It's everywhere, and once you've started noticing it, you keep noticing. You - or at least I - just can't help it anymore.

Seriously, are you reading my mind or something?

Being a feminist has made me paranoid that I sound "too angry"

Yeah, I'd noticed you apologizing for

your mini-rant

on the

gender-segregated exams

a couple months ago. I've also heard Kyra apologize once or twice in the podcasts for having a feminist rant. Personally, I wince at every apology, because I strongly believe it's something you shouldn't be apologizing for, and I hope this site at least is a safe space for people to air those types of feelings.

I'm afraid it makes me less interesting.

Exactly the opposite, to my mind.

But then I guess, like all activism, the end result is the reason we do it, not because it will benefit us.

Agreed, but for myself, I find solution-based activism incredibly fulfilling and satisfying. (Ranting about the problem can be fun too, and a good way to blow off steam, but I don't get the same sense of accomplishment as when I'm participating in a project which I think will - even in just a small way - make the world/some section thereof a better and more equal place. Yay, run-on sentences!)

It sounds like your experience is rather different, and I'm sorry to hear it.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 10:02 on 2010-08-03

Men can absolutely be feminists, and in my opinion "feminist" is exactly what they ought to call themselves. "Feminism" is still treated as something of a dirty word by some people, so I think that anyone who holds genuinely pro-equality opinions should proudly claim the label and not be put off by wondering whether they deserve it. Make people think twice about what feminism and being "a feminist" actually means.

Just thought I'd chime in on this one.

I think the problem with being a feminist-identified-man is that while "Feminism" is treated as a dirty word by some people, it's treated as a get-out-of-jail-free card by others. c.f. "Joss Whedon Is A Feminist Therefore His Portrayal of Gender Can Never Be Problematic" arguments passim ad nauseam.

A depressing number of feminist-identified-men treat feminism as this abstract principle which in no way requires them to modify their behaviour. I suspect, for example, that the vast majority of Nice Guys also consider themselves feminists (because after all, being a Nice Guy is all about having *respect* for women and that's what feminism *is*, right?).

As a result I (ironically) tend to only self-define as a feminist to anti-feminists, and otherwise just settle for "trying not to be too much of a dickbag".

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 10:22 on 2010-08-03

Yeah, I'd noticed you apologizing for your mini-rant on the gender-segregated exams a couple months ago. I've also heard Kyra apologize once or twice in the podcasts for having a feminist rant. Personally, I wince at every apology, because I strongly believe it's something you shouldn't be apologizing for, and I hope this site at least is a safe space for people to air those types of feelings.

So ... B must try harder?

Sorry if this sounds oversensitive but it just strikes me that Furare's initial comment stands perfectly well on its own as a description of her experiences and doesn't need you to elaborate on it.

Sorry if this sounds overly hostile, but this is kind of the behaviour I was talking about in my previous comment. Your response here is actually a little bit patronising - Furare is an intelligent adult woman who is capable of articulating and understanding her own experiences, she doesn't *need* you to spell it out for her. She certainly doesn't need your permission or your encouragement to express herself.

I'm sure it's not your intent, but your entire comment reads like your primary concern is pointing out to us what a Big Damned Feminist you are rather than actually engaging with anything anybody has said. I mean basically your whole post boils down to "I feel the same way you do, except more strongly, and I'm more comfortable about it, and I do more."

permalink

-

go to top

Furare

at 11:44 on 2010-08-03

As a result I (ironically) tend to only self-define as a feminist to anti-feminists, and otherwise just settle for "trying not to be too much of a dickbag".

Yeah, that's kind of what I meant by claiming the title anyway. It's not like I go up to people and say "Hi, I'm Furare, and I'm a feminist" a la Daffyd from Little Britain. And you're right that there are feminist men who use feminism as a shield rather than engaging with it as an ideology. My original comment did say "anyone who holds genuinely pro-equality opinions", which to my mind involves the behaviour modification that some allegedly feminist men never try to do.

I guess the thing is that, like one of the posters above, I don't like people telling me they're my ally. Call yourself a feminist and I can say "Well, okay then, but if you're a feminist why do you still do X/laugh at Y?" Call yourself an "ally", and maybe it's just me, but I would feel like I can't nitpick as much because "you're not really my ally" sounds more personal than "you're not really a feminist".

I do agree with something you said once, Dan, which was (I think): "Men who identify as feminists should take a good look at themselves because, guys, there is a non-zero chance that you are a creepy asshole". Being male and a feminist involves more self-scrutiny and self-censorship than being female and a feminist. But it's possible as long as you ("you" being the hypothetical feminist man) keep an eye on yourself and make sure your actions match your words.

I stand by the comment that men can be feminists. I don't think that every man who claims to be a feminist is one, which is why men who *really are* feminists should claim the label. And maybe challenge the Nice Guy jackasses who are using feminism as a means to cover their collective asses. I do think there's a negative correlation between how feminist a man actually is, and how willing he is to call himself a feminist.

It sounds like your experience is rather different, and I'm sorry to hear it.

Well, my immediate experience is being told to lighten up and not take everything so seriously by my mother, having my sister tell me that I'm RUINING THE JOKE when I point out that something is problematic, being told every now and again that I'm "one of the boys" by someone who means it as a compliment...

And apparently I'm "too rigid" if I insist on always paying for my own dinner. Even though the reason I want to do it is because there is no good reason for me to let a man buy me dinner, short of me buying him dinner in return at a later date. Or if it's my birthday. Which is, like, once a year.

RE: Apologising - I apologised for the mini-rant because it was technically a massive derail. I do have a tendency to apologise when I don't need to in real life, but I always thought this was just because I'm British.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 13:31 on 2010-08-03

But - I don't know if you've found this or not - I can't stop caring about it.

Yes, I know what you mean. In principle I think I have to believe that one could somehow switch it off again, because it feels like as a necessary corollary to my belief that people can make themselves better I have to also believe that people can make themselves worse. But it's quite hard to imagine how that would actually work.

I've also heard Kyra apologize once or twice in the podcasts for having a feminist rant.

Well, yeeees, but also I remember Arthur apologizing for his '

Angels & demons

is evil' speech, so although there is undoubtedly an internalized sexism thing that often makes women feel the need to excuse themselves after expressing strong opinions, we shouldn't necessarily assume that that's what's happening every time. I'd say in the podcast setting there was another factor operating, especially in the early episodes when we weren't used to the dynamics of that particular group yet (and I can only speak for myself, but I suspect the others had variations on this): not wanting to take up more than one's fair share of air-time, and also not wanting to make the tone too heavy for what was essentially a fun and slightly flippant exercise. And when you have a long rant you feels like you've sort of broken both those 'rules', especially if you get to the end and you don't find everyone saying, 'Yeah, totally, that's exactly what I thought'. I think in the later episodes there was less of that because we developed an alternative habit: rather than X rants and then X apologizes, it tended to be X rants and everyone else mocks X a bit for ranting, which is more entertaining for all involved. (E.g. Arthur on 'Everyone has been hypnotized by everyone else' and me on the housekeeper and various people on 'No seriously I think something is going to happen in the next chapter of

The god of small things

'.) My attempt to dive into the depths of The Nature Of Plot came somewhere in between, so although I didn't actually apologize for it I did try to minimize it a bit, and the others didn't exactly mock me but did say 'Oh not this again' next time the subject loomed. So, er, I can't quite remember what point I was trying to make, but anyway there we are.

... short of me buying him dinner in return at a later date.

I'm a big fan of one person paying for both and the other doing the same the next time and so on, and I do it equally with friends of all kinds. It sets up a spirit of mutually dependent reciprocity rather than independent separateness, and it also has that feature you get in gift-exchange cultures where the exchange of gifts never comes to an obvious point of equilibrium where the parties can say 'Okay, we're all square now, we can walk away' and therefore the constant imbalance encourages the relationship to continue, because there always has to be a 'next time' so that the person who didn't pay this time doesn't end up in profit permanently. And eventually it gets to the point where no one can keep track of it any more and it's just become a relationship where sometimes we buy each other stuff and we really don't worry about it, which is nice. But the most important and massive advantage for me is that it means I don't have to do mental arithmetic.

Having said that, I guess it wouldn't necessarily be great for early dates when one might want to keep an element of 'We can get out of this at any time because we're all square at any given moment'.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 13:55 on 2010-08-03

I've also heard Kyra apologize once or twice in the podcasts for having a feminist rant.

Yes, not to keep flogging this dead horse but I think I was apologising for being anti-social rather than being feminist.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 21:15 on 2010-08-03*Looks at last paragraph of previous post, beats head repeatedly against wall*

Thank you for drawing this to my attention, Dan. Ye gods, but that was massively patronizing. I apologize to Furare and everyone else on this thread.

As for the rest, I meant to say, essentially “please, don't apologize.” Thank you, Furare, Jamie and Kyra for addressing that.

Er, so, apologies again for the epic fail.

permalink

-

go to top

Furare

at 21:26 on 2010-08-29I always meant to get around to replying to this.

RE: Paying for dinner - I find it really difficult to relax and enjoy dinner if someone else is paying for it. Even when it's one of my parents. It makes me uncomfortable, and also renders me anxious about what my food choice - with particular reference to how much the meal costs - says about me. Like, if I have the steak, that's expensive, so will they think I'm selfish and greedy? If I really want a cheap dish, though, will they think I'm calling them stingy?

This might not be a concern for a lot of people, but I have social anxieties, and paying for my own dinner cuts out a lot of what makes me feel uncomfortable in that particular social situation. I'm explaining it here for the sake of context, but I should not have to say this to some guy I don't know very well. I probably wouldn't explain it, because anyone who chooses to "insist" on paying after I've already said no is not someone with whom I'm particularly interested in becoming further acquainted. (Oh, you "insist" on pushing my boundaries in the name of tradition? How sweet. Bleh.)

I don't really care what arrangements other people have with their friends or SOs or whoever - what I do care about is that the man paying for the woman's dinner is still seen as the default. I'm not trying to say that Jamie's favoured setup is wrong, and in fact alternating is a very egalitarian way of dealing with these things (and probably more convenient when it comes to paying by card in restaurants). It wouldn't work for me, but that's not the be all and end all of whether or not something's right. Heh.

I only mentioned the paying for dinner thing in the first place because I'd read an article written (for men, by a woman) on How To Guarantee a Second Date. And one of the tips was basically "you should pay. We lied. We don't want to pay half." To which my incredulous response was - Speak for yourself. Because you sure as hell aren't speaking for me. Jeez, way to encourage men not to believe a word that comes out of a woman's mouth. I'm not pretending to be independent and feminist to look "cute".

Bah, now I've gone and made myself angry again.

RE: Robinson's comment - I didn't find it offensive, to be honest. Maybe there's something problematic about him saying I don't need to apologise, or that activism can be fun, but I didn't read it that way. People are always telling me not to apologise for things because I really don't need to, so that's how I originally read what Robinson was saying even before he clarified it.

Though this discussion kind of reminds me of a far more obnoxious argument I once had about feminism on a gaming forum. I actually got people DISAGREEING WITH ME when I said "as men, you do NOT get to decide that women aren't subject to sexist discrimination any more." Christ, what a train wreck that was.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 18:06 on 2011-01-19Okay, having now read this perfectly lovely article and perfectly lovely discussion with perfectly lovely links all around I'm sorry all over again for shooting off my mouth and bringing the quality down. So let's try again and see if this time I can avoid losing my foot down my own throat.

I don't have much of an ear for music, and I guess I feel the same about this song as I do about most others: it's okay. The discourse is very good, and as a male, I did feel a resonance when the man in the song says “I rarely cry anymore.” That's also a great analysis of the song's construction, Jamie.

Re: Men as feminists

I was at a workshop over the summer run by a white guy talking about feminism and a bunch of other progressive ideologies/movements.

When we came to discussing the distinction between “feminism” and “pro-feminism,” he shared a story of taking part in a feminist group in which he was the only man, and after a while one of the women in the group pulled him aside and said gently, “Would you call yourself a black liberationist?” And that seems to have made a significant impression on his thinking when it comes to the “feminist” label.

Philosophically, I'm of the school which says that men absolutely can and should be feminists. Feminism to me means replacing patriarchy and sexism with gender egalitarianism, which is a project equally for women and for men.

I generally use the term “ally” to refer to issues within feminism or anti-racism or whatever that do not affect me personally. I can be an ally on an issue without calling myself personally an ally to every person affected by that issue. For what it's worth, I also think it's reasonable to say “you call yourself an anti-domestic abuse ally, but look how you push around your girlfriend all the time” (sorry, there're probably better examples out there, I'm just blanking on them at the moment).

Perhaps,

as Arthur suggests

, all that “ally” stuff from the previous paragraph is more US-based (though I don't recall ever having heard it articulated like this before); but by no means is there an agreement in US feminist circles that men cannot be feminists. All of the feminists I know—American and European—are quite clear that men can and should be feminists.

Of course it's a problem when men (and women, for that matter) who clearly aren't feminists claim that label—but I think cooptation is a problem for social movements pretty universally. People who genuinely care about the issues do need to resist when skeevy people in power (whether macro or micro) adopt the rhetoric of those movements to advance truly destructive agendas. None of this,

by itself

makes for me a compelling argument that men cannot be feminists.

I can't imagine getting any serious personal benefit out of not being a sexist or out of other people not being sexist (apart from the 'I feel better about myself' benefit that's always used to 'disprove' altruism). When I think about making myself and others less sexist - when I conceive that task and feel my reaction to it - it feels like a hard and unending slog with little promise of personal reward.

Agreed on the unending slog, but I wonder about the lack of serious personal benefits. Here are some of the thoughts which occur to me:

It is my belief that a sexist outlook and attitude creates an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance; psychic damage. Achieving a completely non-sexist mindset is impossible in a patriarchal society, but the less sexism in one's outlook, the less cognitive dissonance and the less damage to one's psyche. Similarly for racism, militarism, classism, heterosexism, etc.

Also, as a man, I see sexism as working (somewhat successfully) to cripple my emotional/relational maturity and my ability to make meaningful connections with other people. Terrence Real—one of my touchstones for a feminist masculinity—has written a book exposing how the violent, unemotional, never-lose patriarchal view of masculinity results in internal as well as external damage. (i.e. it hurts the men living it out, even as they in turn hurt other people.)

I couldn't count the times I've caught myself rejecting assistance with something-or-other because, as a man, I'm not supposed to need help from other people—I'm supposed to suck it up and tough it out. I'm generally pretty good at doing favors for others without reward, but I'm bad at accepting favors from others, and worse at asking for them.

I've also noticed numerous little behaviors which I've censored, because they'd mark me out as too “girly,” or gay, or both. You should see the way I agonize over little things like telling my friends how much I love them.

It seems to me that eliminating these manifestations of sexism (and homophobia) in myself will make me a happier and healthier human being, as well as a less prickish one.

permalink

-

go to top

http://lokifan.livejournal.com/

at 21:14 on 2011-05-05Thanks for introducing me to Dar Williams! Wonderful article. The song made me cry too.

this is the line I always choke on: 'And so I tell the man I'm with about the other life I lived, and I say, "Now you're top gun: I have lost and you have won."' Can there be anything more heartbreaking to a man with any heart at all than the thought that your female friends and relatives might, even only in brief moments, feel like your defeated opponents?

That line makes me emotional too -

you were just like me/I was just like you

made me cry. It's not one of the Big Serious Things that happens because of sexism, or even one of the insidiuous unavoidable things, but I do believe patriarchy makes it harder for men and women to reach each other and connect, between the messages telling us we're so inherently different, and the differences in how we experience the world. Which is just unbearably sad.