#meta writing history

[gay-jewish-bucky]

Debunking the Claim that Bucky Barnes' Dog Tags "Prove He Cannot Be Jewish"

In 2021 and 2022, when discussing the fact that MCU!Bucky (henceforth referred to simply as Bucky) is based off of Arnie Roth, a gay Jewish man and Steve's childhood best friend, I received pushback from fans telling me that Bucky can't possibly be Jewish due to his dog tags; citing a behind the scenes picture posted by Sebastian Stan to his instagram story.

Transcription of the dog tags:

James B. Barnes (Legal Name) 32557038 (Serial Number*) T41 42 (Tetanus Immunization) O (Blood Type) R. Barnes (Next of Kin) 3092 Stockton RD (Address) Shelbyville IN (Location) P (Religion Marker)

*A serial number starting with a 3 indicated that the servicemember was drafted into the Army, it's important that we do not forget that Bucky didn't chose to fight.

During World War II the dog tags of American service members would have had one of the following regulation religion markers:

P for Protestant (the marker we see on Bucky's dog tags)

C for Catholic

H for Hebrew, this being the marker for 'Jewish'

NO (or left blank) for No Religion

For Jewish servicemembers fighting in Europe, being discovered to be a Jew by your captors–especially if you were captured by the Nazis–carried considerable risk and could mean the difference between life or horrific torture, experimentation and possibly even death.

Some Jewish service members, justifiably incredibly fearful of what could happen if they were found out, would either omit a religion marker altogether or, after getting their tags, would attempt to obscure the 'H' marker in some way so it could not be read by their captors.

While this saved some lives, it was not a perfect and fool-proof system, and we have no way of knowing how many times it failed.

In 1943, the year Bucky was drafted, the Army introduced a more official (and more widely adoptable, and thus widely adopted) option to protect Jews in its ranks:

Through the European Theatre of Operations United States Army, Jewish servicemembers could elect to have the 'H' marker for Hebrew on their dog tags replaced with a 'P' for Protestant.

This would offer Jewish servicemembers a more convincing layer of protection if they were ever captured by the enemy, because, unlike an obscured religion marker (or that lack of one) which could itself draw suspicion, a set of dog tags printed with a 'P' would be entirely indistinguishable from the dog tags worn by a gentile and would be less likely to draw suspicion.

Due to this option being made available to Jewish people serving in the United States Armed Forces, the 'P' marker on Bucky's dog tags not only does not definitively prove that he's really a gentile, in actuality its presence provides even further historical support in favour of him being a Jewish man.

Sources and Additional Reading:

Jewish GIs and Their Dog-Tags by Rabbi Akiva Males - Hakirah

A Star of David for Pvt. Benjamin Garadetsky - Jewish Telegraphic Agency (jta.org)

U.S. Army WW2 Dog Tags | WW2 US Medical Research Centre (med-dept.com)

Do You Know the History of the "Dog Tag" (jcveteranscouncil)

Beyond The Battle: Religion and American Troops In World War II (uky.edu)

World War II and American Jewish Identity

European Theater of Operations, United States Army - Wikipedia

Pride Month 2022, 40 Years of Arnie Roth and Michael Bech - Marvel Comics: The Queer History Behind MCU Bucky’s Backstory

J.M. DeMatteis, the creator of Arnie, confirming the character's use for MCU!Bucky

Full screenshot of Sebastian Stan's post of the dog tag

How to Decode a WWII US Army Serial Number | Amy Johnson Crow

[fantastic-nonsense]

I wouldn't mind the heavy focus on warrior Amazons so much if they were allowed to be competent instead of just being used as red shirt cannon fodder. But it seems DC only hypes up the Amazons as deadly fighters so other characters can look more impressive when they take them down.

Oh and Happy New Year.

Happy New Year! Forgive me if I use your ask to talk about a piece of the Wonder Woman mythos I've wanted to discuss for some time, because your complaints offered me the perfect segue to write a nice, in-depth meta on it and I couldn't pass up the opportunity.

Honestly, I think a lot of people (both creatives and readers) either don't know, forget, or fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the Amazons' warrior status. So they often get reduced to "deadly warriors who strike first," "supposedly deadly but generally incompetent warriors when outside of their own books," or "militant man-haters" by a lot of people. None of which are true.

The Amazons are incredibly competent warriors and have been since Marston's first portrayal of them in the 1940s, so I don't inherently mind them being shown as such. However, where people get bogged down is insisting that they be shown as deadly and trigger-happy offensive fighters who are happy to strike first and hard, which fundamentally goes against the philosophy and thematic messaging built into Amazonian lore.

DC's Amazonia, lore-wise, is traditionally framed as an Aphrodite vs. Ares "peace and love vs. violence and war" story. In Marston's original rendition of the Amazon's backstory Aphrodite is not only their patron goddess but also their sole creator; it was only after Crisis on Infinite Earths and George Perez's long-overdue lore expansions that the rest of the goddesses became co-creators and co-patrons of the Amazons. Regardless, Ares and his domain are consistently invoked as what the Amazons don't want to be like or engage in. That behavior is the antithesis of what Amazons are supposed to be. This lore informs literally everything about how the Amazons view both their combat abilities and their duty to the goddesses.

The contemporary Amazons are, for the most part, women who died in terrible and traumatic ways at the hands of men (usually through domestic violence, murder, or as conquests of war). When the goddesses created the Amazons by reincarnating these women via the Well of Souls, they specifically charged them to become their champions. And what did these goddesses want? They explicitly wanted justice and protection for women in a violently patriarchial world. The Amazons being warriors is thus specifically tied to an understanding of necessary self-defense and protection (both of themselves and other women), not offense.

Which of course is what lands the Amazons on Themyscira in the first place: invoking the goddesses' ire by not obeying these commands after their rebellion against their enslavement by Heracles and his men crosses the line from the necessary battle to achieve their liberation into wanton violence and revenge:

"The battered Hippolyta prayed to her goddesses and found the courage and inspiration to free herself. Athena had reminded Hippolyta of the Amazons' purpose and mission—but not all of the Amazons remembered. Or cared. They yearned for vengeance. For retribution against those who violated them...and under Antiope, many found it." -Wonder Woman: Our Worlds at War (2001)

And as Hippolyta and Menalippe tell Antiope:

"No, Antiope. Never vengeance; never again!" /// "That is Ares' way, Antiope. We achieve no glory by embracing the Dark God's power!" -Wonder Woman (1987) #1

The Amazon way is promoting a society based on love, equality, truth, and peaceful conflict resolution, not vengeance and violent combat. It's a philosophy that defines Diana's mission in Man's World as an ambassador, teacher, and living example of her peoples' way of life:

Enraptured, they listen to her dissertation on equality between the sexes, tolerance, peaceful coexistence. Social Philosophy 101, Amazon Style. -Wonder Woman (1987) #170

Diana's gods-given mission was to spread the Amazonian ideals of conciliation—to give those living in the World of Man the proper tools to peacefully coexist with each other. It was her life's purpose to teach the possibilities of respect and love by being a living example of an upbringing founded in those ideals.

Truth-seeking, diplomacy, and peace are the Amazonian way of dealing with conflict, not violence. And when you are forced to engage in combat (and you should be prepared for that eventuality because sometimes it will happen), your goal should be self-defense and de-escalation, not offense and prolonging the conflict longer than necessary.

This is also, as an aside, why Diana (and specifically Diana in her capacity as Wonder Woman) does not usually carry offensive weapons like a sword and why her primary "weapons" are the Lasso of Truth and protective bracelets. She's the official representative of her peoples' culture and personally deeply believes in that cultural philosophy. Other Amazons have different views on the matter, including her mother, but Diana grew up completely separated from the World of Man and fully immersed in that belief system, which deeply informs how she views her mission as Wonder Woman.

Personally, I think many (but not all) of the problems re: depicting the Amazons in the modern era come from various writers attempting to solve contradictions that don't exist. They see "kickass trained warriors living peacefully on an island" and see that as a contradiction they have to solve: why do they train if they're pacifists? Why do they fight if they're peaceful? In reality, it's not a contradiction: their status as warriors and champions is specifically tied to self-defense and protection (both of themselves and others), but given the choice they don't want to have to take up arms to protect people because that goes against their fundamental cultural philosophy. Outsiders and meddlesome gods are the ones who force them to do that! What they want is for everyone to be treated with love, respect, and understanding so they don't have to!

And there's a lot of problematic elements built into the concept's execution, but this is the core thesis behind the split between Hippolyta's Themyscirans and Antiope's Bana-Mighdall. The Themysciran Amazons have had their fill of violence and war; they just want to live in peace. But a) they were specifically tasked with guarding Doom's Doorway when they were taken to the island, a duty which necessitates perfect combat readiness, and b) their history is littered with examples of people refusing to leave them alone. So they train, in case someone decides to take shots at them, but otherwise live in peaceful isolation. Meanwhile, the Banas looked at that same shared history and went "we need to take the fight to the outside world. Offense is the best defense, and the only way to protect ourselves and the other women of the world is to actively seek vengeance for the violence women face." So they chose to actively intervene in Man's World, fighting constant battles and exacting revenge for any women mistreated at the hands of men.

...which is also why Artemis was such a necessary and interesting addition to the Wonder Woman mythos (even if she's often handled...poorly), because she and Diana represent two diametrically opposed views of how to protect and represent both their cultures and the women of Man's World, but that's a rant for a different time.

Anyway, the Themysciran Amazons' martial pacifism as a cultural value isn't a contradiction; it's one way of looking at a history filled with violence and victimization and saying "no more." And it's a pretty subversive way of doing so, which (well-written) comics tend to note!

So yes, the "Amazons are warriors" mentality has always been there and has been solidly emphasized at various points throughout Wonder Woman's history, and it should be acknowledged and shown that they're all incredibly competent in battle when they're forced to engage in it. But the way in which it gets emphasized is what defines whether a writer has a solid understanding of the history and baggage that comes with depicting the Amazonian struggle and the socio-political issues embedded in their lore. And unfortunately...many writers just don't seem to get it.

[polutrope]

"Wherefore dost thou of the uncouth race of Men endure to upbraid a king of the Eldalië? Lo! in Palisor my life began years uncounted before the first of Men awoke. Get thee gone, O Úrin..."

'Turambar and the Foalóke' in The Book of Lost Tales Part II. Written c. 1919.

"How do ye of uncouth race dare to demand aught of me, Elu Thingol, Lord of Beleriand, whose life began by the waters of Cuiviénen years uncounted ere the fathers of the stunted people awoke?"

'Of the Ruin of Doriath', The Silmarillion, ed. Christopher Tolkien. Published 1977.

So I think something that gets left out of the Thingol discourse (note: no Thingol bashing on this post please), is the textual history of the chapter 'Of the Ruin of Doriath'. Most of the published Silmarillion very closely follows drafts written by Tolkien. Not so this chapter, which Tolkien only ever got to in his first draft of the Silmarillion in the historical summary tradition as we know and love it, i.e., the 1930 Qenta Noldorinwa, where he wrote:

Thingol ... scanted his promised reward for their labour; and bitter words grew between them, and there was battle in Thingol's halls.

(Consider that the Thingol of the Narn i hin Hurin, often cited as a gentler and more complex character, was written in the 1950s.)

The only other time he touched it in more expansive prose format was in the late 1910s, when Doriath was Artanor and Thingol was Tinwelint and the Silmarils barely mattered. He again mentions these events in brief annalistic form in the Tales of Years, most lately revised in the 1950s.

502 The Nauglamir is wrought of the treasure of Glaurung, and the Silmaril is hung thereon. Thingol quarrels with the Dwarves who had wrought for him the necklace.

That's it. That's all Christopher Tolkien and Guy Gavriel Kay (hired to help write this gap in the narrative) had to work with. So they took Tolkien's words where they could get them, and here you can see they took a speech Tinwelint (later Thingol, but not the same character as he developed) spoke to Úrin (later Húrin, but also not the same character) and adapted it to another context, i.e., Thingol's conflict with the Dwarves over the Nauglamir.

In The War of the Jewels (HoMe 11), Christopher writes a revealing commentary on how he put together this chapter, and expresses regrets on how it was done. He admits, "How [my father] would have treated Thingol's behaviour towards the Dwarves is impossible to say."

Now, I really dislike the 'Christopher did him dirty' line of thinking. Working through HoMe, it's obvious Christopher did the best, most faithful-to-JRRT job anyone could have done putting his father's drafts into a cohesive narrative. But, in this case, Christopher (and Guy Kay) did tinker with Thingol's character in a way that, I think, he regretted, or at least questioned. And, unfortunately, the way Thingol speaks to the Dwarves here -- a speech Tolkien did not write -- has become a huge sticking point in fandom conversations.

Yes, it's canon that Naugrim means "stunted folk" in Sindarin. There's definitely tension and mutual disdain between Elves and Dwarves, no question about it. Does Thingol call the Dwarves an "uncouth race" and claim superiority as a lord of Elves in the published Silmarillion? Yes, he does. And so yes, it's canon and it's part of Thingol's character. But it's not the only part of Thingol's character, which is the point I always see the (shall we say) appreciators of nuance returning to.

But I've wanted to make this post about the textual history of what I would consider Thingol's worst moment for a while, since I've not seen it included in the conversation before.

"Canon" in Tolkien's legendarium is hard to define, as we know. (Personally, that's precisely what makes it so creatively inspiring to me.) But I think there are some places where it's harder to define than others, and this episode with Thingol and the Dwarves is one of them.

Take it as you will.

[glowinggreeneyes-e]

let’s talk about the Captain’s education for a second because we all know he’s a bit silly with what his position was (requiring the revolver… for the countryside… multiple times; immediate invasion the second France surrenders; perhaps disproportional order and expectations; and that’s not even mentioning the ‘job’ he has for himself as a Ghost and his interactions with them) but he’s also well spoken, enthusiastically informed and seeks out knowledge, and to get the role of Captain - albeit researching at home in Blighty - he must have had a pretty well-off life beforehand.

this is where all the headcanons about his father and family life comes in; we know his father was distant and uninvolved as was typical - even expected- in that era, but he probably handed down expectations (and trauma lbr). so, working backwards, the requirements for the Captain’s position were more meritocratic - Oxbridge or Durham educated at the very least (being ranked) OR experience.

he showed enthusiasm to get involved, we know he had previous experience (one day… the ceasefire) and training to get the rank, but we can only theorise that he was probably working in a similar field to his position. to get to Oxford/Cambridge he had to be at least middle/upper-middle class with family friends/acquaintance connections to Oxbridge, or even his father went to Oxbridge (Oxford is 30 ish miles away from Bledlow). I don’t think he’d find it hard to get in with a connection, being the studious and enthusiastic man he is on certain subjects. so he’s not just a nepo baby.

about his upbringing, we can assume a few things from where he was born - it’s been a conservative seat since 1924, and probably similar ruling when he was growing up there, it’s very white and middle class, very Church of England, but not very interesting… sensibly English village vibes/typical middle England. he probably didn’t get to experience much of it though, likely sent away for some of his schooling.

also basing him off of the men that made the limpet mine, we can use their histories to fill in a few gaps that make sense. they - Stuart Macrae (couldn’t find uni) or Cecil Vandepeer Clarke (Uni of London, dnf) - were both extensively involved in constructing and engineering, even with a military context. both of them were involved in WWI and the army interwar, so they were decorated and knowledgeable before they got into WWII… we do not know if the Captain was either of those things. we do not know his route into his role, but I think the university and research career route makes more sense for his character of overcompensating and paranoia.

but he’s not uninformed or underprepared for the work of Captain in this research base for HQ - he’s fucking clever and connects dots and can gather information - he’s uniformed and underprepared for the position of Captain. which is where Havers comes in.

and when Havers leaves, he compensates for that two-fold loss. and when he dies, he continues to fit the Captain position, informed by his father, the war, the expectations, the position, his education, but not by experience like Macrae and Clarke. he’s good at his job and work but he was born to be something else not quite within reach.

[onbearfeet]

Queerwolf By Night: Queercoding, Media Literacy, and Werewolf By Night

Okay, @bluemoonperegrine got me thinking about a thing, so it's time for Media Studies And Writing Hacks With Kat. Grab your beverage of choice, and let's talk about queercoding in Werewolf By Night.

Let's start with a definition, because queercoding can sound like a conspiracy theory if you don't understand the context. In media studies, "coding" means using indirect means (usually details) to imply a state of being without explicitly stating that such a state exists. For example, if you're watching a TV show about a group of high-school friends, and one of the characters is consistently dressed in more expensive-looking clothes than the others, is more familiar with elite cultural signifiers like designer brands, and casually drops statements like, "Oh, yeah, I met him in the Hamptons last summer," then that character is being coded as wealthier than the others. Now, if a knowledgeable character SAYS, "Oh, that's Amelia, her family's rich," then it's not coding anymore. Amelia isn't wealthy-coded; she's just wealthy. Coding is only coding if the state of being is IMPLIED.

Now, why would anyone use coding when explicit statements are an option? Why can't people just say Amelia is rich? There are a number of reasons. First, maybe there isn't time or space to establish every single detail of a character through dialogue. Maybe Amelia's wealth is important to the story, but less important than the fact that she's dying of cancer, or in unrequited love with another character, or obsessed with rubber ducks. Or, second, maybe the coding is a setup for some kind of surprise or reversal. Maybe Amelia wears fancy clothes and has summered in the Hamptons, but surprise! Her parents just went to federal prison for fraud, and she's now penniless and sleeping on another character's couch, with no one mentioning it at first because it's painful for her.

And finally, there's arguably the most famous reason for using coding in media: because you literally can't be explicit about it. Let's talk about the Hays code.

The Motion Picture Production Code, widely known as the Hays code, was a set of mostly self-imposed rules restricting the content of Hollywood movies between the 1930s and the 1960s. There was effectively a censorship board in charge of approving, disapproving, and demanding changes to films. The Code arose in response to a moral panic about sex and violence in movies; studios instituted the censorship board as a preemptive measure to head off possible censorship legislation. At the time, movies were such a new art form that there were serious concerns that First Amendment free-speech protections might not apply to them, so studios came up with this self-censorship system to avoid dealing with external censorship.

And what guidelines did they choose, you may ask?

Essentially, the guidelines were the conservative Catholic values of the 1930s. Yes, Catholic specifically; the man in charge was Catholic and talked a lot about how he applied his personal values to the task. So the Code included rules like a ban on insulting or denigrating religion or its institutions, among other things. There were also restrictions on what kind of crime and violence could be displayed, sex rules so strict that even married couples couldn't be shown in the same bed (if they even sat on a bed together, they had to keep at least one foot on the floor), and you KNOW there was a ban on anything gay. It was called "perversion" in the text of the code, but it meant gay stuff. Or trans stuff. Or kink. Or women being interested in sex. You get the idea.

But there was an exception to all these rules, and it was that more "objectionable" traits were allowed for villains. After all, a film isn't endorsing murder if the murderer goes to jail at the end and everyone stands around saying, "Wow, murder sure is terrible!" Right?

Yeah, what happened in practice was that filmmakers started giving villains and monsters traits that were stereotypically associated with queerness, supposedly to heighten how eeeeeevil these characters were, but actually for any number of other reasons. Apropos of absolutely nothing, here's Peter Lorre being extremely heterosexual with a cane in The Maltese Falcon.

Now, how does this relate to WBN? Well, we all know WBN is an explicit love letter to 1930s and 1940s horror movies. If you don't believe me, here's Lon Chaney Jr. in 1940:

And here's Gael Garcia Bernal in 2022:

So let's talk about queercoding in classic Hollywood horror movies.

Obviously, confining queer material to villainous characters meant that monsters and their movies could be MUCH queerer than the rest of Hollywood's output. It also helped that horror filmmaking was full of extremely queer artists like James Whale, the openly gay director of Frankenstein. He's often brought up as an example of really obvious queercoding in horror cinema, especially in regard to his film Bride of Frankenstein, in which a young scientist is literally lured away from his impending marriage to a woman in order to create life with a VERY queercoded older man.

Look at these proud new dads.

And lest you think this is an outlier, let me introduce you to Dracula's Daughter, aka the Carmilla adaptation with no lesbian overtones, no sirree:

Yeah, queercoding is absolutely A Thing in classic Hollywood horror. It's part of why horror movies are as much of A Thing in gay culture as they are.

The Hays Code went away in the 1960s, partly due to the fact that Code compliance was SUPPOSED to be the one true path to wide distribution and profit, and yet the genderbending comedy Some Like It Hot made piles of money despite not being even CLOSE to Code-approved.

But 30 years is long enough to develop an entire cinematic language, and the legacy of the Hays Code lives on in things like queercoded Disney villains.

Now, let's talk about Werewolf By Night. A movie made under conditions not dissimilar to those of the Hays code in that Disney, for all its vaunting of First Gay Characters, absolutely refuses to put those characters in anything with wide distribution in such a way that they can't be edited out for Singapore.

So if your choices are 1) No Gay Stuff, 2) Easily Deleted Gay Stuff, and 3) Gobs and Gobs of Queercoding That Can't Be Removed, and you're making a retro black-and-white horror movie, you may find that option three makes the best, and queerest, movie. The cinematic language is all there for you, and you know at least some of your audience will pick up what you're putting down. And at this point, it's practically a genre expectation.

Now, I want to be clear about something: coding of any kind is, by its very nature, subject to interpretation. If we say something is queercoded, we are NOT saying that it's explicitly queer or that no heterosexual explanation exists or whatever. That's not how coding works. Queer theory and queercoding are a lens through which to look at a work. Sometimes queercoding is even unintentional; it's baked into so much American media by now that tropes like queer-coded villains sometimes happen not for particularly queer reasons but because an actor decided he wanted to sound like the villain in his favorite black-and-white movie. When I say WBN has queercoding, that is ALL I'm saying--that the coding is there. (And yes, I do realize this is the piss-on-the-poor website. Sigh.)

Queercoding is also not queerbaiting; the latter is where a piece of media deliberately builds up the expectation of expressly queer content and then refuses to deliver, often while mocking queer fans who fell for it. (Looking at you, Sherlock and Supernatural.) Queercoding may be used for queerbaiting, but the terms are not synonymous. Because WBN makes no queer promises (no romantic promises at all, really), it cannot be said to be queerbaiting.

So with all that in mind, let's look at coding in Werewolf By Night. And because he's the protagonist and everyone's favorite woobie, we'll start with Jack.

Look at this man. Enjoy him.

He will be the subject of Part Two.

[dallasgallant]

Time period post: Terminology and technology

This started as quick and easy smaller one but it’s sort of diverged into subsections, anyways… this’ll be on some of the existing technology and terminology of them time. There was actually a far bit more than you’d assume.

Let’s start terminology wise. “Refrigerated air” is still one of my favorites that I’ve discovered, it basically means that a building is air conditioned! HUGE! NEW THING! It was being added to motels, businesses - homes eventually etc. so a motel being “Refrigerated air, color Tv, swimming pool” is a really damn nice place. Now days motels seem to be looked down upon but they’ve always been a huge part of the culture, especially when cars were new and big and the height of road trips back in the 1950s-60s. (Howard Johnsons , holiday inn etc) this was also the height of roadside attractions/tourist traps think ‘worlds largest’ anything, Route 66 (before it crumped into the remains of today)

~

Another terminology heavy thing is Schooling,

Back in the day it was much more common to hear “Primary school” in America than it is now an alternative is Grammar school - both of which being daycare-Elementary. Then “junior high” was more common than Middle school

But in a smaller town it’s also common to have more than one if not all of these schools and grade levels shoved into one huge building.

Corporal punishment- hitting students, was still a thing. (Also the argument of basically student rights/are people when it came to anti war protest in high schools)

Desegregation of schools began.

Schools also started later in the morning but still got out at a decent time; this changed in the 1980s

~

As for general terminology a lot of slang is still used today that was introduced in the 60s, I’d recommend looking it up but for JD specific stuff I do have a post up!

It’s also important to recognize some of their language would be outdated… not actively out to harm but they wouldn’t have knowledge of language 50+ years in the future etc. (like how a lot of older phrases or words have become offensive etc)

~

As for technology, a lot was changing too. The computer was still new and huge— spanning rooms as this huge mechanical thing that was going to get man to the moon. Still far from being in homes. However, still a lot of neat stuff and gadgets for people to play with.

The 60s are really the height of what we’d now consider “Retrofuturism” with how maybe one day they’ll be huge video screens and transporters and video watches and world peace etc. there was a obsession with progress and innovation in a very optimistic way.

Though if you wanted to transport your music (and weren’t going to carry a huge ass record player around) you have small portable radios but also hand/shirt pocket ones as well. I can’t speak to sound quality …

Phones were still on the wall or on the table. Color tv was slowly being adopted in households across the country— but still pretty $$$ a lot of people would be sticking with B&W even if tv and movies were making the more permanent switch.

So uh fun fact about cars. It wasn’t until 1968 models came out that seatbelts were standard and required. It’s more than likely the boys cars don’t have seatbelts. (They were invented in the late 50s and it sort of depended)

Bench seats were also super common so it didn’t matter which side of a car you got into as you could just slide across. You can see where this only adds to teen car culture- make out points, drive ins with some uh backseat bingo (actual term! Lmao)

[charlottesbookclub]

should we talk about the interlace on gwayne's horse's armor?

since I spend altogether too much time looking at stills and gifs of gwayne anyway, I figured I might as well share some observations I have about the really interesting visuals that are happening with his horse's armor

this is part art historical analysis, part gwayne meta, and part "let's look at some gorgeous images under the guise of doing visual analysis" so if that's your thing, please read on! if not, that's also totally fine – I get that this is hyperspecific and also a symptom of my very serious gwayne brainrot, so I'm putting everything else below the cut! 💚💚 (also it's quite long – sorry! 😅)

okay I want to be upfront about my qualifications and my shortfalls here: I'm an art history phd student and so basically all I do is visual analysis of objects. I've studied a number of medieval manuscripts that feature interlace (which is where I'm going to draw most of my knowledge from here), and I've taken a seminar (an advanced graduate course) specifically on medieval manuscripts, for which I wrote a research paper entitled "From Kells to Celtic: The Aesthetics of the Book of Kells Illuminations as a Marker of Irish Identity." HOWEVER I am NOT a historian of armor, so I will be taking my knowledge of interlace on other objects and applying it to the armor we see in the show

a short intro

so, the first thing that struck me about gwayne's horse's armor is that it's really different than the other equestrian armor we see, even amongst the other men who came with him from oldtown. to be honest, my guess is that this was likely done in the show to help him stand out and also show that he is a special and precious princess (which he is btw 😌😌) who needs fancy armor for his horse. I'm not sure if further thought went into it than that (but maybe it did! I'm happy to stand corrected here!)

however, the catastrophic levels of brainrot I've developed over this man have compelled me to read much further into it than that, which I shall now proceed to do with great enthusiasm! ☺️

first, let's look at the armor:

it's hard to find really detailed close-ups, but it's clear that the armor is incredibly intricate. not only do we have this very complex interlacing, but certain designs are marked out with different colors and internal patterning, making the whole thing even more visually interesting and complex

while interlacing is used across a vast range of time, cultures, geographical regions, and artistic mediums, given both the visuality of this armor in particular and knowing that westeros is based on medieval europe, seeing this interlace instantly called to mind a style that we today call "insular fusion" (I'm not going to go into all the specifics of it here because that's a post all its own lol 😅). it's a style perhaps most famously exemplified by The Book of Kells, but it is found throughout many different objects of the same period (ca. 700-900 CE)

now let's look at some fucking interlace hell yeah!!!!!!

from The Book of Kells (ca. 750-810 CE)

from The Lindisfarne Gospels (ca. 698-721 CE)

and two non-manuscript examples:

Animal Head Post from a Viking Ship Burial (ca. 825 CE)

and a later example, but one of my favorites:

Wooden Portal of the Urnes Stave Church (ca. 1050-1070 CE)

do we see the vision??? are y'all picking up what I'm putting down???

"okay, charlotte, I see the similarities, but why does this matter?" you may be asking yourself (or maybe you aren't idk), and the answer is: this type of interlacing had some super fascinating meanings and uses, some of which I think we can apply to gwayne! 💚💚

let me break it down from least to most potentially related to gwayne:

the aesthetics of interlace as an identity marker

use of interlace in a religious context

interlace as a status symbol

the protective potential of interlace

and now let's go into detailllllllll!!!!!

the aesthetics of interlace as an identity marker

I bring this one up because it's what I focused on in my personal research on the topic of interlace, but I also think it's the least relevant to gwayne. my argument in my paper was that the aesthetics of the interlace in the Book of Kells have been thoughtfully and intentionally re-used throughout history and into the present as a clear visual marker of identity that draws a narrative back to the production of the Book of Kells. however, in terms of the show, we have very little indication that the particular style of interlacing we see on gwayne's horse is associated with any larger identity concepts. it doesn't seem to be associated with house hightower, as none of the other men with gwayne seem to borrow this motif, nor do we see it associated with alicent (as far as I can tell from the little looking I've done, but I'm more than happy to revise this!). for it to make sense as some form of identity marker, it would have to be clear what identity he's visually referencing, and since his use of interlace seems unique, I think it's doubtful that it's part of a larger visual invocation of identity

use of interlace in a religious context

part of what makes insular fusion so interesting as a style is that it is indeed a fusion of a number of different regional styles, including vine scrolls from the mediterranean, triskeles from the northern british isles, and zoomorphic (meaning "in the form of animals") interlace from northwestern mainland europe. although insular fusion is used to decorate christian objects (like gospel books and churches), its component parts are much much older and have connections to various pagan religions that significantly pre-date christianity. obviously it's impossible to be 100% certain of the exact significance of interlace in any of these religious contexts (there are no written records explaining it), but scholars have a few guesses

one suggestion is that interlace in some way represented the spirit world/the world of the gods, or perhaps even a point of connection between the human world and the world beyond. although the religion of westeros is obviously different than any of the real-world religions that used interlace in this manner, I do still wonder if there could be a religious connection here. it's pretty clear that gwayne's mother was quite religious, and alicent is as well. although we don't totally know gwayne's relationship with religion, we could certainly guess that it's at least a little bit important to him, given the beliefs of the women in his life. I know that the most common religious symbol in westeros tends to be the seven-pointed star, which is not something I see on the interlace on the armor, so I'm not sure how far I would want to take this hypothesis, but I did want to put it out there for anyone who might have further thoughts!

interlace as a status symbol

as I mentioned to in the beginning, I do think it's likely that this particular type of armor was chosen for gwayne's horse because it does come off as a bit ostentatious. the manuscripts with interlace that I mentioned above were hugely expensive and time-consuming projects, and only the most affluent religious communities could afford such luxurious gospel books. given the level of detail on the armor, I have to imagine that the same is true in the world of the show. in some ways, it's a mode of conspicuous consumption; a demonstration of the hightowers' wealth and influence. there's a reason gwayne's horse's armor stands out: because it's meant to. it's meant to set him apart, even from the other soldiers who came with him from oldtown

now this next part is just my own conjecture, but I also wonder if the armor is meant to speak to a more artistic sensibility on gwayne's part. after all, equestrian armor is a very functional object with a very clear goal: to protect the horse. from a purely functional standpoint, the interlace does nothing to serve this purpose (and may actually hinder it a little??), it simply adds a complex visuality to the armor. aside from just flaunting the wealth that must have been expended to commission such a piece, it also suggests that it was crafted by artisans who had both functional and aesthetic goals in mind while creating it. whether it was gwayne himself who directed the commission or not, it seems significant that he chose to use this armor that doubles as a kind of art piece. he does seem to be someone who enjoys the finer things in life, so it wouldn't surprise me if he had an artistic appreciation too, and was using this armor as a way to demonstrate that (or perhaps even just as a way to show his own personal artistic taste/preferences)

the protective potential of interlace

technically, I think "interlace as a status symbol" is the most likely reason for the armor being the way it is, but this one is my favorite theory, so I'm putting it at the top. circling back to the religious uses of interlace, another theory of its religious significance is as a mode of protection. some scholars think that its creators believed that the weaving, intertwined lines of the interlace would confuse and trap evil spirits. building on this theory is the fact that complex interlacing was often used at transitional or liminal points, such as the beginning pages of a gospel book or on the doors of churches. the idea here is that the interlace wields its protective powers at these key entry points against any evil entities that might try to enter sacred or protected spaces

interlace as apotropaic (a fancy technical term meaning "protective," often used in reference to magic or magical practices) seems particularly poignant for an object that was literally going to be worn into battle. now, I admit once again that there is little canon evidence to suggest that interlace is thought of in this way in the world of the show, so I'm running with this theory more because I like it rather than because I think it's legitimately based in canon. but I just think it's very sweet that gwayne's horse would be adorned with this complex interlace that seems to be woven with protective powers. even if gwayne (or others) didn't literally believe that interlace had those kind of powers, the fact that he still made the choice to invoke the idea of protection against harm and evil is a lovely thought. (it makes me think of how people today still might carry a rabbit's foot or have charms against the evil eye, even if they don't actually place stock in the beliefs surrounding those objects. I just think it's cool that generations of cultural belief still imbue these objects with a kind of magical aura). I just like the idea that he (or someone else?? otto? alicent? his mother?) chose armor that might have been associated with protection against harm

and now I'll finally wrap up!!

whew that was a lot! if you've read this far – thank you so much!! I'm honestly not even sure if these thoughts were coherent, but I kept thinking about this when I looked at that interlaced armor, and I just had to get the ideas out of my head lol

but I'd love to hear what others think about this topic! I'm certainly not an expert on the matter, and I'd be super open to hearing if others have different interpretations!

if nothing else, I hope you learned something cool about interlace! (and also just how far I have descended into madness over this man that I am writing pages-long analyses of his horse's armor 😅🤪)

[paldogangsaan]

the most frustrating part abt the scene with alicent and rhaenyra (other than it being ridiculous) is the attempt at portraying alicent as a passive victim with zero agency (TO BE CLEAR she's a victim of both otto and viserys, that's not a question, she had no choice there. she did, however, have a choice in other moments and those are what i'm talking abt in this post). the writers essentially made her go "oh i thought he was talking about MY aegon. well, it's too late. i am a tragic figure who never wanted war. oh no" like ?? some of us have eyes and can see that alicent has been actively trying to gain power, undermine rhaenyra, and divide the family even before the time skip. she shows up to rhaenyra's wedding late and wearing green, she sows discord between their kids, spreads rumors of rhaenyra's children being bastards despite knowing it could get them killed (+ in the book the only ppl yapping abt them being bastards were alicent and criston cole bc the point of spreading rumors was to undermine and hurt both them and rhaenyra, if it was true or not was irrelevant), and she literally hits aegon and insists that rhaenyra will kill him to cement her claim to the throne even when there's been no indication that she would. alicent did not have to do any of those things, she actively chose to

and rhaenyra was willing to leave all that in the past by marrying helaena and jace thus ending the (then metaphorical) war between their sides of the family, but alicent refused bc she wanted power and for rhaenyra to not have any, so she made active choices to ensure that, and didn't care for the consequences. now her son is the king, she never prepared him for it so he's shit at it, she can't control him, she has no power, and the only person surprised is her (and otto). but again, these are choices SHE made or helped make. making an enemy of rhaenyra, and everything that came bc of that, was a choice. she would've helped put aegon on the throne whether viserys quoted the prophecy to her or not, be it usurpation (which it was) or not. that was a choice alicent made. stop portraying her as a passive victim of the dance when that role belongs to helaena

[seamayweed]

In Defense of Lady Kang/Queen Sindeok (1/3)

As promised, here's the first part of my defense of Queen Sindeok, explaining her historical political situation + clearing up some common fandom misconceptions about her, which I don't blame anyone for since they originate from the show itself. I must admit that I have a bit of a soft spot for her since history generally tends to be unkind to women - this extends to modern media and MCTNA is no exception:

(more under the cut)

Before we start, I thought I'd give a small refresher on the Yi family constellation - crucial for setting up the conflict and crown prince issue - with the aid of this extremely useful graphic by bodashiri (excluding the daughters for simplicity's sake):

(From here: x)

As you can see, Yi Seong-gye (King Taejo of Joseon) had two wives:

His first wife Lady Han (Queen Sinui) gave birth to six sons: 1. Yi Bang-woo (Prince Jinan), 2. Yi Bang-gwa (Prince Youngan), 3. Yi Bang-ui (Prince Yikan), 4. Yi Bang-gan (Prince Hoean), 5. Yi Bang-won (Prince Jeongan) and 6. Yi Bang-yeon (Prince Deokan).

His second wife Lady Kang (Queen Sindeok) gave birth to two sons: 7. Yi Bang-beon (Prince Muan) and 8. Yi Bang-seok (Prince Uian),

meaning that Seong-gye had eight sons overall.

With that out of the way, let's get started!!!

1. Queen Sindeok was NOT a concubine

(From here: x)

She is referred to as Yi Seong-gye/King Taejo's capital/Seoul wife in the show too:

However, every time Bang-won calls her a concubine and her children illegitimate there is never any pushback or correction by anyone, not even when he calls her younger son Bang-seok/Prince Uian a ‘seoja’ (illegitimate child born to a commoner concubine or royal concubine) in front of Seon-ho:

You'd think Seon-ho would defend Bang-seok by correcting Bang-won... but nope. Nada.

Not even Queen Sindeok (!!!) is allowed to defend herself and her children when they get accused of the same:

Like, what is this madness!!!

Anyone who doesn't know about Korean history would never even SUSPECT that this isn’t actually true, and that Queen Sindeok is in fact a legitimate second wife and queen. By giving no pushback to the (false) claims of illegitimacy, the show seems to implicitly support Bang-won’s narrative of her being a lying, conniving, greedy bitch who wants to push her child on the throne despite having no right to it whatsoever as a concubine and bastard respectively.

Queen Sindeok's tragedy, the one that MCTNA fails to portray, is not that she was a concubine who tried to rise above her station (because she was not); it's that, due to the transition from Goryeo to Joseon, she found herself caught between two conflicting sets of laws:

(From Tombstones without a Tomb by Hildi Kang)

A queen while alive, and unjustly demoted to a concubine in death by Bang-won/King Taejong who used these legal changes and the new Confucian ruling to his advantage, her status was a matter of contention for scholars and kings alike for almost 300 years, until finally, in 1669, the scholar Song Si-yeol managed to amass enough people and put enough pressure on King Hyeonjong to make him give in to their demands and restore Queen Sindeok to her rightful status and honor as queen.

+ Bonus:

(From Tombstones without a Tomb by Hildi Kang)

Turns out that according to the new Confucian ruling, Bang-won himself should have been considered illegitimate too!! Surprise!!!

[kenobihater]

i keep thinking about the pale as the past, as an amalgamation of all human experience, as a force that we create and shape through merit of our existence as sentient beings. about how it's unmaking everything, how it's ever-expanding, how it's not a matter of if it will end the world but when. i'm thinking about history as violence - how the past is a real force of nature and it is coming to eat you.

[murdockmeta]

A Human Fly: The Importance of Daredevils Before Daredevil

I've recently watched a video on "human flies", a social phenomenon that peaked in the 1920s-30s, where people would go out and do death-defying tricks literally just because they wanted to. (At first. Money became involved later, of course.) They were called human flies (sometimes human spiders, human lizards, etc.) for their ability to climb up the walls of buildings so easily. They weren't just called human flies, though. They were also called daredevils.

The video I watched talked about how this phenomenon was so popular because of the role it played in displaying masculinity. Most of these daredevils were men, and at the time being seen doing these death-defying stunts was the height of manliness. And suddenly, while learning all this new information, all I could wonder is if that at all was related to Stan Lee's motivation behind the creation of Matt Murdock. Anyway, here we go.

Okay, so, gender roles and how they functioned in society around the first half of the 20th century are similar but also different from what they are now. There were stiffly set rules to what it meant to be a man that was entirely unrelated to genitals. These same standards are echoed in the modern day. I don't think it's a coincidence that Matt falls outside of those rules.

Obviously, Matt's blind. Disabled. And, as a fictional character, that had really heavy (negative) implications before the disability rights movement became more popular. You even see that reflected in the comics themselves. There's the implication that Matt is expected to live out his life unhappy, unmarried (which extends to not having children), and is helpless to such a fate. That is the complete opposite of what being a man in US American culture was in the 1950s and 60s. Matt exemplified what it was to not be a man.

Stan Lee, when co-creating this character, takes these concepts that absolutely oppose one another and he smashes them together. It feels like spitting in the face of standards and expectations. He says, "Oh, look, a blind man. A man that can't be a man. I'm going to take him and I'm going to turn him into something that is undeniably manly." Lee does this through this phenomenon that links back to human flies.

Being a human fly was about proving to the people around you that you were a man among men. That you were capable of physical feats that others only could wish to accomplish. And Lee grew up in a time when he was surrounded by these types of people as a child. Most of these people would travel to New York City, where Lee grew up, just to perform these stunts.

How masculinity was defined in that age was rigid. You had to be strong, you had to be capable, you had to have the ability to provide for your family. There were certain elements that also took away from your masculinity. You couldn't be too smart or bookish, you couldn't be too skinny, you couldn't be disabled. And being able to fit into these standards wasn't just about pride, it was about social status.

These human flies were often referred to as daredevils by newspapers. It doesn't seem like much of a reach for me to think that they could've possibly related to Lee's creation of Daredevil.

This strip is from the second issue of volume one.

It was revolutionary* (asterisk), to an extent, what Lee was implying with his creation of Matt's character. That you could be disabled and still be fully capable of accomplishing what society has deemed impossible for you or deemed you unworthy of. That you could represent the peak of masculinity (meaning you could be perceived as an equal to those around you) while having supposed qualities that strike you from it.

I'm not saying that that's a goal that every disabled/blind person has or should have. In fact, under a modern lens, I think it's very counterproductive. But, I think the social and cultural context surrounding the character's creation is important to understand. I think it's important to know why implying those things at the time was important to disabled representation.

Many people don't like or struggle to read older comics due to them aging badly. While I don't blame them, I think there would be less resistance if people stopped trying to interpret those comics through a modern lens.

Context is important. History is important.

(asterisk) *This is in relation to the time-specific era of disabled representation. This is not to ignore the problems with the representation of Matt as a blind man. I'm not saying or implying that there's nothing wrong with the original comics, in fact, they are incredibly ableist. I am simply focusing on the importance of that representation at the time of the issues being published.

Thanks for reading.

[orange-coloredsky]

a couple other folks on both twt and on here (sorry its been awhile i cant always remember who said what) mentioned something that also didnt sit right with me that no one was really taking into account in their analyses of power dynamics. w regards to "absence" being a storytelling force -- the fact that there are very few hornsent that are named unless they are directly related to marika (morgott & mohg) or just. a major boss lol (inquisitor jori, curseblade labirith). even the member of the miquella party is just called "the hornsent". no one in the party refers to him by any name.

meanwhile i could easily run down a list of names of tarnished, golden order followers, golden order defectors, and the like in the lands between. even in the lands between, "omen" and "misbegotten" not related to marika are given placeholder names (misbegotten warrior, the fell twins, misbegotten crusader, etc). this feels very deliberate. in the crusade, all hornsent have been stripped of any personhood. we are allowed to humanize the people under the thumb of the golden order, we can recognize that being within an imperial order's reach doesnt mean you support that order, or that you are a necessary part of upholding it. but the hornsent, because of who the story is centering, arent allowed that luxury by way of leaving them unnamed. theyre a faceless terror. none of them is worth truly knowing in this game where your name tells a story of your home and lineage, because the golden order has deemed them inhuman as an entirety.

[doubleappled]

The thing with the names

… is under the cut bc of s3 spoilers…

We’ve noticed how NYC chef calls Carmy “Bergazzo,” right, and how Shapiro then calls Luca “Lucas”? We see this?

And then we see Chef Terry at the end asking Carmy to call her by her first name the next time they’re together?

That’s something.

[dementedspeedster]

//I think the insistence to not read any of Thad's appearances past the Impu/se comics or that his appearances post Impu/se are out of character for him has poisoned the well regarding fandom's understanding of his character. Popular fandom interpretations also don't help.

I think with regard to Thad there is an inundation in fandom of the character people want Thad to be and not the character that Thad actually is. And I'm personally frustrated with it.

[touchoffleece]

Reflecting back over the last few years of AO3 and why it was made in the first place (to archive fan works) and older fanfic enjoyers trying to warn about purges of days gone by

It feels ironic that we're now experiencing a new fanfic purge in some sense. Either authors are trying to hide their works for a sense of control over unwanted AI Scalping in AO3 because of it's success as the best place for fanfiction hosting. Meaning unregistered or people not logged in won't be able to find fanfictions because they are behind a curtain now essentially "purging fics" from the public. Not that I blame any author who chooses to do this, I actually am pro authors doing what they feel they need to. I've decided to private fics because I really don't even like the idea of it possibly happening to my shoddy drabbles if it hasn't already and feeding into the misuse of AI by people looking for easy money. Or we see this other type of 'fanfiction purge'. New generation of fic readers being more demanding of free passion projects to the point of being rude, and driving the authors to stop writing, or even have authors publicly state the increase in considering just deleting their works because of the shift in attitude in what fic readers decide to comment under works. This observation made from looking at comments of newer fandoms (be it ao3 comments or social medias) and seeing more and more comments just be "update soon!" (and those comments only ask for more) or some veiled demand for more content under the guise of 'a joke demand for more'. And while there is nothing wrong with letting a author know you like the story and would like to read more, when it's just constant "more" comments with no acknowledgement of anything that goes on in the story/update it comes off as dismissive of the work someone put into an update. It sucks to see people act entitled to demand more from fanfic authors who are generally associated with distress but willing to put updating a fanfiction above irl commitments because of the love they hold for their fanwork, only to get asked for more and more. We have seen and know of the memes, but hey: fanfiction writers are humans, humans with emotional limits regardless of outlandish sounding some author's notes come off of to people without context. Entitled comments more likely then not lead to burn out, or authors just deciding to stop writing or decide to take their works down to not feel harassed by people asking for more. I really don't know many creative oriented people who take constant demands for more and more work without some type of reward well; and while some might try and ask "Aren't comments in themselves a feel good reward for the authors? Isn't that enough?" It probably depends on the author, but when the comments are just constant "more!" "I need the next update now!" ect, it doesn't give much feel good vibes after the initial "oh someone liked what I wrote" because more often then not they will wonder "I wonder what they liked about it" only to see the comments are just people rushing to order more free fanwork to be devoured as fast as possible without appreciation to what was already shared to the public for free. This has turned into a venting rant from what I originally had thought when I got the thought in my head late at night, but I do want to include that this probably can be linked back to people underappreciating or being apathetic about comparative literature, media literacy, or just appreciate taking art and doing some deep thinking on it, and it's a damn shame it seems it has lead to what feels like a new fanfiction purge in a place meant to be a safe space for fanfictions. Another example of history repeating itself because of complacency and forgetting or choosing to ignore our past mistakes.

[c-is-for-circinate]

Background AD&D info for Stranger Things Fans

I'm doing it, I'm writing an overly-long post A WHOLE SERIES of overly-long posts about how the Stranger Things kids play D&D, and what exactly first edition and AD&D were for.

Source: I've been playing since 3rd ed/3.5 era, NOT AD&D, but I've had a lot of friends who've been in the game for much longer and I'm kind of a nerd for rulesets so I watch D&D bros go off on youtube sometimes for fun. Also, I've actually read the AD&D player's handbook, which is an experience let me tell you. If anyone who's played older editions wants to chip in, go for it!

I think I'm going to have to write a separate post (or posts...god hopefully not posts) about the kids' individual classes. So stay tuned for that. I'll link it from this one when it's done.

First, some history: The earliest editions of D&D are a little confused, numbering-wise, because they didn't know there were going to be numbered editions yet. Dungeons and Dragons debuted in 1974 as an offshoot of mini-based tabletop wargames that already existed at the time. These were mostly big games, where players controlled whole armies rather than creating individual characters, and set their forces against one another. (Not unlike very complicated games of chess, if you really think about it.) D&D was not, to my knowledge, the first individual-character-based ttrpg, but it became the biggest pretty readily.

Advanced Dungeons and dragons, or AD&D, came out in '77 or '78 (Wiki says '77, the publication date on the copy I've been using says '78), although they were still publishing Basic D&D as an alternate option, more or less until the mid-nineties. AD&D was a lot more rules-heavy and had a lot more intricacy going on (relatively speaking), and it's the game the ST kids play.

Compared to modern D&D, AD&D's basic rules feel both more and less. The mechanics themselves are often way more complex, and navigating your way through all of those percentage tables as a DM implies a pretty high level of math skill, worth noting for both an 11-year-old or a guy who failed senior year twice. The character options, on the other hand, feel slim. On first glance.

AD&D only has five classes -- ten if you count subclasses, which you probably should for AD&D. There's fighters, with special fighter subclasses ranger (Lucas's class) or paladin (Mike's class); clerics (Will's class, supposedly), with special cleric subclass druid; magic-users (or mages, theoretically El's class), with special mage subclass illusionist; thieves (NOT rogues! but this is definitely Lady Applejack's actual class, with some caveats), with special thief subclass assassin; and monks. You will note I did not mention bards. We will get to bards. (Probably in the character post, when I talk about Dustin. Bards are...special.)

AD&D had no barbarians, no warlocks, no sorcerers. No special, prescribed forked paths for a character to venture down. Subclasses functioned mostly like classes do nowadays -- you'd roll up a character and be a paladin from day one, simply lumped under fighter because many of the core mechanics were the same. And a significant percentage of text given to describing these classes seems full of really restrictive orders and conditions. Clerics are never allowed to use a bladed weapon? Druids refuse to touch metal? Assassins must engage the local guildmaster in a duel to the death in order to progress to level 14? Where's the creativity, asks the modern 5e D&D player? Where's the freedom?

And this highlights a really core, central thing about how AD&D works and what it was for, that I think modern audiences can very easily miss:

1st edition AD&D is a game about archetypes.

Modern D&D is a game played in a sandbox that's been dug up and worked over for the past fifty years, in a cultural landscape that values individuality and originality and sometimes pretends that daring to share a trope with anything that came before is somewhere between boring and a straight-up crime. Original D&D came with very different baggage, and while it was still very much a game about storytelling, the KINDS of stories being told were a little different.

Characters weren't intended to be highly specialized, granular creations with intricate backstories and complex individualized skill sets. This wasn't even because those kinds of character-driven games or narratives were seen as bad, necessarily -- it's simply not what the game was written for!

First edition D&D was designed for big, epic adventures, where players could embody their own personal instance of a specific stock character trope. It was written for "I want to be a knight!" and "I want to be the magician!". It was about getting to be YOUR VERSION of a very particular, already-existing idea that would have been familiar from fantasy fiction at the time.

So, when the AD&D rules say that druids hold oak and ash trees sacred, that they will never destroy woodland or crops under any circumstances, that they cannot and will not use metal weapons or armor, that there only exist nine Level 12 druids in the world and they form a council with students below them -- this isn't an attempt to micromanage players, to be arbitrarily pedantic or controlling. This is Gary Gygax attempting to present the archetype that 'druid' is meant to encompass. This is what a druid is, according to this ruleset: a priest of nature, part of an order with rules and loyalties, with these priorities and these ideals. Mechanics and personality are not divorced in AD&D as they are in 5e; they are written together, to outline a specific character concept, and that is what's presented for the players to get to play.

If this sounds like it leads to boring, formulaic stories -- well, it could. But archetype-based stories, particularly adventure stories, are by no means necessarily bad. A story about a mysterious and knowledgeable old wizard; a naive-but-determined farmboy full of destiny and potential; a reckless rogue, slick but sometimes bumbling, selfish but secretly loyal; a beautiful princess, charming and clever and sharp-tongued when she wishes to be -- it's a pulp novel full of stock characters and tropes. It's Star Wars. What makes Star Wars special is NOT that its characters are specific, convoluted, or entirely original. What makes it special is that the specific instantiation of these characters, the little things that make Luke Skywalker be Luke Skywalker and not any other callow farmboy. Star Wars uses these archetypes well, and that makes them deeply satisfying. THAT'S the kind of story ethic behind AD&D.

First edition D&D has a reputation of being all about combat, and not about story at all. And on the surface, it's somewhat true: AD&D's rules are also highly combat-based. This isn't because players were expected to only do combat and dungeon crawls, and never roleplay -- but it WAS expected that, by signing on to play D&D, players were most interested in a campaign of exploration and fighting towards some fanciful goal. There was an element of buy-in from the start. The game was (and still very much is), at its core, about going on a quest.

The thing to remember, though, is that a quest IS a story. It's not the psychological trauma-unburdening character-driven narrative that pop culture might tell you to expect in modern D&D, but AD&D was every inch as story-based as the game's ever been. The stories being told were a little different, but with a very similar root.

The 1979 Dungeon Master's Guide is actually full of information about how to set up a world and stock it with people, political factions, and socioeconomic logistics. There are extensive rules about how high-level adventurers become part of the political fabric of the realm, building forts and amassing followers and making names for themselves. (Here, again, we see echoes of AD&D's forebearers in war games, and certain elements of the game that are all but gone from modern D&D.)

What there AREN'T a lot of rules about, on the other hand, are things like skill checks. There's no "persuasion" or "investigation" in AD&D, no list of specific things players can do and how good they are at them. Aside from combat and a small handful of specific non-combat activities, discretion over the success or failure of just about anything was left up to the DM. A DM was always free to call for a dice roll, and could set an arbitrary target number for success at any activity, but the rules also don't say they have to. To see if the characters persuade the barmaid to give them a hand, the players would have to be persuasive. To find the hidden clue in the cluttered chamber, the players might have to describe themselves looking in the right place.

In other words, there are relatively few rules for activities outside of combat, not because those activities were expected to be absent, but because they were expected to be unpredictable. How much exploration, and what players had to explore; what NPCs to interact with, and how they might react to being spoken to; what factions might exist, what moral quandaries could unfold, even the goal and big bad guy of the whole campaign -- the original sourcebooks for AD&D offer at best some very general advice, and NO hard and fast rules. That was for players and DMs to decide.

Many players and DMs, I know, fell on the side of engaging in relatively little worldbuilding complexity outside of the very mechanically-crunchy dungeon crawl. What little we see from the campaigns in ST is certainly mostly combat-oriented. And yet there are also hints of storylines happening off camera. Season 1's one-day eight-hour adventure was probably mostly dungeon crawl. Season 4's campaign takes most of a school year, until the players recognize the members of the cult they've been chasing for months, and know Vecna lore that would only have been published in one or two places anywhere by then, which means they probably learned it in-game. We don't see a lot of evidence of specific character plotlines -- in fact, repeatedly we're shown that the Party's characters share names with their players, making the whole thing even more clearly a big kids' game of let's-pretend. But that doesn't mean there's not a story.

So in short, the original game of D&D is built for epic quests, founded in very specific archetypes, but with the space for just about infinite in variation within that framework. That's what the Stranger Things kids are playing.

(And with this posted, I can start writing about the individual classes these kids are playing and what that says about each of them.)