#i'm sure there's more but there's such a us-centric perspective on history here even in “world history” class. GAHHHHH

[alullinchaos]

i know wwii was a beyond major geopolitical event but it still surprises me how often i come across something that says "and things are this way because WW2"

[incorrect-koh-posts]

Other than leper king and his heirs which book would you recommend for research on Baldwin iv of Jerusalem?

All right then, buckle up for some nerdery! 😁

I will preface this by saying that I am not a total expert on Baldwin and haven't done a colossal amount of research specifically on him. I could chew your ear off prattling on about the general world of the crusader kingdoms, their politics, and about Raymond III of Tripoli and Sibylla of Jerusalem in particular, but Baldwin isn't my main interest here. Also, as far as I know, Hamilton's study is the only longer academic work centred solely around Baldwin. Hence, in order to learn more about your fav and the world he lived in, I'd recommend reading a little more broadly. Being a king, he is featured (at least in some capacity) in most publications that deal with the Latin kingdoms in the latter half of the 12th century.

That said, have a list:

Piers D. Mitchell: "Leprosy and the Case of King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem: Microbacterial Disease in the Crusader States of the 12th and 13th Centuries", International Journal of Leprosy, vol. 61, no. 2, 1993, pp. 283-91. Pretty self-explanatory. You can find this article on the internet; Mitchell also has a few other publications that deal with medicine in the crusader states, so you might find some additional Baldwin stuff there as well.

Elma Brenner: "Recent Perspectives on Leprosy in Medieval Western Europe", History Compass, vol. 8, no. 5, 2010, pp. 388-406. Has a little bit on Baldwin, might be useful if you want to find out more about how the disease was regarded by his contemporaries.

Helen J. Nicholson: Sybil, Queen of Jerusalem, 1186-1190. Routledge, 2022. This is a really good and really recent one that I was lucky enough to find in my uni library. Of course Sibylla-centred, but gives a good overview of the politics in Outremer and of course has passages about Baldwin in it. Also look into some of Nicholson's other publications if you're interested in the role of women in the context of crusading.

Kevin James Lewis: The Counts of Tripoli and Lebanon in the Twelfth Century: Sons of Saint Gilles. Routledge, 2017. Obviously mostly a Raymond-centric source, but it is also relatively recent and has a good chunk on Baldwin in the chapter where Lewis talks about Raymond's time as Baldwin's regent.

Joshua Prawer: Crusader Institutions. Oxford University Press, 1980. More politics to be found here, but very well put together. Prawer was an extremely prolific scholar where the history of the Latin East and the crusades was concerned, so - once again: if you're interested, look up his other works.

Jonathan Riley-Smith: The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades, Oxford University Press, 1997. Good overview that goes into detail about the mentality among crusaders and aspects of daily life. Again, Riley-Smith is one of the authorities in the field, so looking into his bibliography might be worth a shot.

If you're into military history, the works of Benjamin Z. Kedar, John France - or, if you want something more dated, R.C. Smail - might be of interest to you. They mostly cover general points of Frankish and Muslim warfare or the Battle of Hattin in particular (other than in Hamilton or in some of the primary sources from the crusader period, I've never come across an article on the Battle of Montgisard), but might be helpful if you want to get a feel for what life was like at the time.

Hans-Eberhard Mayer is also definitely worth a look as a scholar, even though his works are a bit older now. However, I'm not sure how much of his stuff you can find in translation - I've only read him in German.

For the physical setting of crusader-period Jerusalem and the material culture, I very heartily recommend two works written or edited by Adrian J. Boas: Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades: Society, Landscape and Art in the Holy City under Frankish Rule (Routledge, 2001) and The Crusader World (Routledge, 2016). I consult both of these frequently for world-building in my fic writing.

If you want something on the general concept of the knight / chivalry, Maurice Keen's Chivalry (Yale University Press, 2005) might be a good start. For a detailed analysis of medieval courtly culture, I recommend Joachim Bumke's Courtly Culture: Literature and Society in the High Middle Ages (2000, English translation by Thomas Dunlap). That thing was invaluable when I was writing my BA thesis. And if you'd like to know more about the literary life of the crusaders, there is a recent publication called Literature of the Crusades (Cambridge University Press, 2019) edited by Simon Parsons and Linda M. Paterson that I also found rather good.

For fashion: The various Osprey Military History books are a good choice if you want visual representations of knightly dress. There's also a collection of essays called Encountering Medieval Textiles and Dress: Objects, Texts, Images (Palgrave Macmillan, 2002) edited by Désirée Koslin and Janet Snyder, which is one of the better ones I've found, as most books about medieval fashion focus mostly on later centuries. This one might be a bit hard to get through, though, if you don't have some kind of background knowledge about medieval texts or architecture.

If you want something less strictly academic and more in the vein of popular history, you might want to try James Reston's Warriors of God (2002) or the much more dated but rather fanboy-ish The Crusades: A History (also sometimes titled The Dream and The Tomb) by Robert Payne, which is very pro-Baldwin.

Other than that, I'll link you an older post about fictional depictions of Baldwin and other assorted good bois and girls from KoH. I hope this will scratch the Baldwin itch for you!

And: If anyone has more suggestions, of course do feel free to add them!

[inclusiveplurality]

Sending this off anon so you can choose to answer privately or not: could you explain Mad liberation? We’ve heard it before but dont remember what ot stands for or what its about. Thanks and we love your& blog! We hope you feel better soon

sure!

so at its core, the term "Mad liberation" comes from reclaiming the term "mad"--synonymous with crazy, insane, etc. it's a term that people whose experiences do not line up with consensus reality--the reality experience that society punishes deviation from--are forcibly labeled in a world that devalues our experiences.

(a lot of people balk at the idea that consensus reality is something that it is "OK" to deviate from, or that it is not an entirely objective framework divorced from social context, but consensus reality is, in actuality, a very fluid construct. for example, a middle-class white Christian woman in the USA saying that G-d guides her decisions is saying something perfectly in-line with consensus reality in her social context--it's socially thought of as "OK" for her to believe that, even among people who don't personally believe that themselves. but change one aspect of that situation, and it could suddenly not line up with consensus reality, even if the beliefs themselves are essentially the same--a Black woman in the same situation, for example, is much more likely to be labeled as experiencing religious delusions. a pagan in the same situation would be labeled as mentally ill by the vast majority of psychiatric structures in the USA.)

(that's an incredibly simplified example, to be clear--there's so many factors that go into what determines consensus reality, and there's a ton of factors that go into what reality experiences are punished socially in every cultural context--i'm being US-centric because we're from the USA.)

Mad liberation and Mad pride grew out of the psychiatric survivor movement, and are often referred to in conjunction with Mad studies (academia focused on Mad identity and lived experience). they're, very loosely, about decentering the psychiatric lens through which Mad people are viewed, and centering lived experience and pride in identity.

Mad liberation is a neurodiversity movement, which means it often takes a psychiatry-critical stance, due to how the western psychiatric institution quashes a neurodiversity lens in favor of a pathology lens. (BTW, "neurodiversity" is a word that's been heavily, heavily watered down by the mainstream from its roots. its roots are directly opposed to the pathology paradigm; it's intended to mean that neurological variation is natural and non-pathological, and no neurological variation is inherently "disordered." here's a good article on the matter.)

i'm being incredibly vague and talking in general strokes, and that's on purpose--Mad liberation & pride is a very broad movement, and one that often requires a knowledge of certain paradigms and lenses that are seen as unthinkably radical from the perspective of someone raised in a white supremacist, hierarchical, pro-psychiatry, pathology-paradigm culture. without explaining the very broad strokes around the movement, without an understanding of the Mad history and survivorship that bonds the movement together, it's incredibly easy for an outsider to scoff at and dismiss it. "oh, those people are crazy!" and yet, that's the exact attitude that Mad folx want to challenge to begin with--the idea that our reality experiences are dismissable, are disordered, need to be dismissed for our own good.

(as a side note, no discussion of Mad liberation and Mad pride is complete without also discussing how often even completely "normal" behaviors and reality experiences are pathologized to uphold power structures in society such as white supremacy. Black activists have historically been, and still are, diagnosed with schizophrenia for talking about racism. homosexuality was a diagnosable mental illness under the psychiatric institution for decades. ODD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, is a disorder where the criteria is solely and only disobedience towards authority figures--disrespect for authority is considered a pathology all on its own and leveraged strongly against anarchists, socialists, anyone questioning the hierarchical structure of capitalist society. Mad liberation looks at these experiences as the logical end point of a society that pathologizes and punishes any reality experience outside of the status quo--so long as the system is what it is, it will always be carceral.)

anyway, i've talked for long enough, and i'm getting kind of repetitive/incoherent. interested parties can go to project LETS and the hearing voices network for more information, resources, and peer support/outreach. the Wikipedia article for Mad pride also has some pretty good links to follow in the citations, and does an OK job at summarizing some key historical moments. our DMs and askbox are also open for more specific questions or requests for more resources, if desired!

-dave

[casually-inlove]

Hello. In one of your responses, you wrote: "I also have things that I don't necessarily agree with." Can you tell us about it? I am very interested in your representation of this manhua. What do you think is written well in the story, and what is not? What would you add or remove? What is missing and what is too much in history? I would very much like to know your TianShan headcanon. I have too many "wants". I'm sorry if I was rude.

Dear anon, this was not rude at all. Indeed, you have many questions, so much as I try to be concise in my posts, this one is going to be very lengthy. Let me start with a little disclaimer. Everything below is entirely subjective. It is in no way meant to undermine anyone's enjoyment of the series, nor is it supposed to be an attack against the author. I value the comic's episodic nature and light-heartedness myself, otherwise, I would not have stuck around. It is also true that for the past half a year my interest in it waxes and wanes. Besides, I am well aware that certain groups of fans grow dissatisfied with the manhua direction. That said, I must state once again, OX has every right to write the story as they please, while the fans, no matter how displeased they may be, do not have the room to make demands of the author. So then, without further ado, some of my quibblings follow below. Beware of the wall-of-text.

1) The plot and characters get stagnant at times — these two go hand in hand. I suppose it is a prevalent gripe with 19 Days, and I am sure everyone has experienced it at least once. Some of it stems from the very way the story is told: the manhua timeline moves slowly in comparison with the readers' timeline. It works for depicting slow-burn relationships and subtle changes in the characters' outlooks. The problem is, more often than not, the latest chapters are inconsequential to either plot or character growth. They do not have the substance or the conflict to them. When OX had introduced the characters, while undoubtedly charming and loveable, they were practically walking tropes. Jian Yi, the bubbly airhead. ZZX, the stoic childhood friend. HT, Mr Popular. As time passed, OX did the clever (and the right) thing — they have subverted these stereotypes, by showing us that the characters are not who they appear to be. Thus, we learned that Jian Yi is a lonesome, affection deprived kid who on occasion dreads going back home because it's empty; his bright grin is there to hide his sadness.  We also learned that HT had a dysfunctional family and had been exposed to violence since a tender age; we also learned that he used to lead an empty life devoid of close interpersonal connections and passions, etc. I am not going to write about Mo because it is obvious and self-explanatory.

That sudden change in the perspective is what made those characters fascinating. A few of these developments co-occur with the addition of the “darker” mafia/gangster subplot. Indeed, the introduction of the criminal legacy theme (which is true for Jian Yi, He Tian, and Mo to an extent) allowed to show the wounds and troubles these characters had to face. It also dangled the prospect of an intriguing plot direction — a mafia-related story that is disguised as a school-themed slice-of-life. It was the underlying gangster plot-line that hooked me up; I kept asking myself: Are they connected (the Jian family, the He family)? Were they responsible for what happened with the Mo family restaurant? Will their backgrounds converge at some point? How does Jia Yi's kidnapping fit into all this? That sort of stuff. Alas, right now that subplot seems to be put on a backburner, which is a shame because this is the plot-line that leads to future events, such as Jian Yi's disappearance. The kidnapping is still going to happen and the threat looming over Jian Yi is still real, yet OX does very little to explain anything about it. Naturally, revealing everything at once is out of the question, but if it were me, I would have opted for unveiling bits and pieces now and then. To start with, it would have propelled the plot forward. Apart from that, it would have given the readers some food for thought and kept the intrigue fresh — they would have been cracking their heads to piece the puzzle. Finally, the characters' darker backgrounds provide the opportunity to give them development. For instance, how would Mo's view of He Tian change, if he learned that the latter had to face his warped father to save Mo (ch. 245 and further on)? Or how would Mo react, if he learned that He Tian lost his mother (presumably) due to his family shady dealings? Would it make him understand the other boy, relate to him on some level? Etc. 

The comedy and fun, light moments are precious, but I miss those moments when the manhua challenged my impression of the characters. Right now, the plot stagnates in the sense that we know that someone is threatening Jian Yi, but we aren't being given any clues or updates on the matter, as if the whole thing wasn't important. So, in response to your question “what would I have removed”, I would say that I would probably drop quite a few school-centric chapters in favour of “criminal” subplot. Just a bit: maybe show Mr Jian's messages, or Jian Yi's mother discussing the situation with him, or He Cheng receiving some reports on the situation.  

The character recent portrayal also disappoints me on occasion. They started as stereotypical manga characters, then they were given some depth, and now they are close to becoming yet another set of stereotypes. Yeah, I get that Mo is a tsundere and enamoured He Tian is an idiot in love — OX has been depicting them as such for the past year. It would be cool to take a look at other facets of their personalities now and then too. While it’s understandable that only a few weeks have passed since the beginning of the story, OX should remember that years have passed for the readers; keeping the audience engaged should be among their priorities.

I suppose I do have a bias here because as an adult I have little interest in all things school-related, and in general, I am not too fond of slice-of-life (I typically avoid reading it).19 Days attracted me because it had some universal themes, like dealing with past and legacy, finding your path, healing from the old scars, learning to handle difficult relationships within a family, and of course its low-key “mafia” subplot. It could be that OX truly doesn't have a meticulously chapter-to-chapter thought-out plot, hence why the manhua meanders at times, or it could have something to do with Mosspaca's internal agenda. Perhaps, it is the latter and the company somehow insists its artists stick with simplistic plots for the sake of keeping their target audience. Even so, there's a catch here, which was brought to the attention by @agapaic: the original reader audience has aged up already so to keep them hooked it would be wise of OX to “mature up” the comic as well. Not in the sense of 18+ content, but in the sense of introducing more mature subjects alongside the comedy and slice of life. Perhaps, they are not looking to keep the fans but to attract the new, younger ones. Who knows.

2) Drama and comedy imbalance. It is a pet peeve of mine which I consider to be one of the prominent manhua flaws: there is lots of slapstick comedy which ends up being out of place on occasion. I do realize the comic is humorous, however, there is no denying that OX introduced themes and topics that are no laughing matters. Jian Yi's and He Tian's loneliness, bullying and ostracizing, extortion racket, absentee parents, youth gangs and violence — just to name a few. There is a lot more, but you get the picture.

It is also obvious that three out of four main characters carry the remnants of childhood trauma with them, which directly affects their present selves. All the same, these topics practically fizzle out as soon as they get introduced, or get swept under the rug with comedy. Considering the humorous nature of the comic, it is given that dispersing some grimmer topics with playfulness will be used now and then. To my mind, however, OX relies on that abrupt drama-to-comedy switch too heavily, which makes the transition steep and often out of place. At times, it creates an impression that the author does not take these issues seriously. There have been numerous episodes when emotional moments were subverted and then dropped, without gaining climax and closure. For instance, the moment that sticks out to me the most is when He Tian attempted to tell Mo why he liked him. The visuals made it clear that it wasn't easy for He Tian to say out loud, yet OX never gave the intense moment the needed closure.

Mo brushed He Tian off and the latter just rolled with it, as if it never took him any courage to say those words, and then everything was swiftly engulfed by slapstick humour (the ball-slapping scene). A panel showing a glimpse of He Tian's face sinking to indicate he was somewhat let down by Mo's nonchalant response would have been appropriate — in fact, it would be natural for someone to get hurt when their confession is taken lightly. Likewise, I half-expected OX to show a bit more of He Tian's reaction towards Mo's story about his meeting with She Li. We got to see his expression darkening when he learned that She Li gave Mo the ear piercings, yet this time — mind you, when Mo suggested that She Li might have murdered someone — we never see He Tian react much. For the record, it was He Tian who asked She Li a rhetorical question about being able to take responsibility for taking a life.

Furthermore, I believe that someone romantically invested in another human being would have naturally shown more inquisitiveness upon hearing a story like that. Sure enough, some would say that Mo would not have liked talking about a traumatizing event, and that is fine as well — just show it. A single panel of He Tian being concerned and trying to inquire further and Mo refusing to talk would have been a very neat detail that could have potentially smoothed the transition into humour, while keeping our heroes in character.

3) Sometimes there is too much focus on the couples. The manhua has introduced several reoccurring supporting characters which are directly linked to our main quartet. For example, Mo had bonds before meeting our boys: his henchmen, the Buzzcut. Likewise, He Cheng was the one to raise He Tian; he shaped the boy's outlook on life.  These characters all played important roles in making our boys the people they are today, and yet we know so little of their bonds. Maybe the Buzzcut is unimportant in the larger scheme of things, He Cheng, however, is not only linked to He Tian, but he also plays a part in the underlying mafia/gangster subplot. It would have made sense if he was the one to shed some light on the situation with Jian Yi and He Tian's traumatic past. I would have loved to see our boys interact with other people as well — it would have served to show the variety of relationships out there: friendships, familial bonds, mutual respect between the leader and underlings, etc.

Anyway, I am going to stop now. I could name a few more, but this text is already more than 2000 words long. I have made some posts with my nitpicking before, so if you wish you can read them here.  

link & link 

Once again, this is all entirely subjective and it is not meant to be perceived as me saying that the manhua is poorly written and no one should enjoy it. Writing and creating compelling plots is a tough job, especially when it comes to long pieces. It also goes without saying that the author should keep their target audience and marketing goals in mind. 19 Days appeals to a great number of people of all ages and that means that OX succeeded in creating something compelling. Their writing is indeed flawed at times, but there is no way around it. It is impossible to excel both at being a great artist and a good writer. While there may be things that each of us would want to change (when comes to characters or the plot), it is still important to remember that it is not our creation. We can only decide whether to keep reading and enjoy what we get or move along. There is no point in attacking the author or generating constant pessimism.

[deveharrington]

I don't know if there's anything to read into David and citing all male actors, male authors, male leaders etc. I'm a woman and I never cite women as the people I think are the best authors, actors, leaders. That's just me. I identify as more on the male side than female so that might be it. All I'm saying is that there might not be anything to read into that? I've never had a bad experience with women but I just generally lean the other way so maybe D does too? Dunno. My two cents.

ok anon I was just about to say fair enough but literally just a few moments ago apparently David said, “I appreciate a MAN who doesn’t share on Instagram” or something along those lines and AGAIN why is it just men for him. As if, it is the norm for women to share but not men or what? lmao I know that is reading too far into it probably but I feel like he clearly makes a distinction between men and women. And its just his pattern to be male centric n male identified.

absolutely what you say here is valid and I think it could apply to any normal person, but how much has David shown us already that he has a strange (to say the least) view towards women, even as just evidenced by the shitty way he treats Gillian (personally, I still think it is about him being intimidated by her and lashing out, lmao.) but then the patronizing way he treats other women (or symbols of women in his mind).

(below is some overthinking because it could just be as simple as he is trying to give a quick answer for an interview. It just seems that men are always at the top of his list)

but thanks for this anon and you make a fair point just know that what you said is a normal person’s perspective on art and admiration and I’m saying that Dustvid is coming from a different place, well, I feel, anyways.

*** To take it to an extreme: Like, it is not always about improving his art or admiring the efforts of other artists (not sure if i even buy that personally lmao just a suggestion), but part of it is about identifying with figures of the past he wants to be seen side by side with, or trying to grasp onto what it would mean to be masculine (look at the themes of his “music” as well as books for example) or an accomplished man or accomplished artist based on what history tells him

(continued under the cut and thx anon)

idk, his ideas in his work come across as very cliche to me, he even says at times that he basically reiterates something that came before, like for example i think he would be happier to be identified as an author side by side with male authors vs. trying to create work that is timely, political or innovative and FAIR ENOUGH thats fine but with regards to your point, thats also what i mean with him constantly citing these particular figures - he wants to be seen in his group :-)

1. Short answer: the proof is in the organic pudding for this man, he still has yet to cite a female as a source of inspiration for his “work”

2. Long answer: Personally, on the subject of who he cites, I factored in Davids obviously .. uh just strange view towards women 

+ coupled with his silence on the female director /writer thing on The X Files + keeping quiet on the crap treatment of scully (but he’ll deflect with a i won’t complain about my work…. while completely missing the point of what people are actually concerned about nowadays in terms of the messages the media is sending lmao i think he just really is that out of touch he doesn’t get that). 

+ crap writing of and perspective towards female characters

+ also he says he’s been reading forever but i’ve never seen him cite a female author 

+ “relationship” history speaks for itself