A very interesting AU concept would be swapping Sanji and Pudding, hear me out:
It starts with 9 year old Sanji at G€rma. In one way or another, his modifications partially activate. He is still weaker than his siblings, but its enough for J@dge to not imprison him even after Sora's death. (He still gets berated tho) Living like this slowly makes Sanji lose his emotions. He doesn't have a will to to live, yet he can't die.
Meanwhile, at Tottoland Big Mom is furios at a 6 year old Pudding because she just can't awaje her 3rd eye. She calls her a failure, punishes her for nothing, and tells her that she isn't her favourite daughter anymore. Hearthbroken, Pudding decides to run away like her big sister Lola did by hiding in the hold of a ship. She ends up in the east blue and after the ship wrecks, she meets Zeff. They are both stuck on an island fir 80 days, but he sacrifised his leg because he could never let a lady go hungry, its just wrong. Later they are saved and end up opening the Baratie.
Zeff raises Pudding as his precious daughter. She is already great at baking, but he teacges her how to make other dishes and cuisine. Everybody loves her, and anyone who even lays a finger on her will die.
Then Luffy arrives. While Pudding's real dream is to learn about the 3 eye tribe, she tells everybody that is to find the All Blue for her old man (she still covers her eye, Zeff is the only person who has seen it). After the events of the Baratie arc, she joins the crew as the cook.
The rest of the story would be similar. Pudding is now a pirate who uses her leg fighting skills and smarts to get by. (As well as an idden power thats connected to her 3rd eye) The marines gave her the epithet "chocolate leg Pudding". Im not sure if she already has the memo-memo no mi... I'm gonna assume she does and its very useful for her.
The first change in the plot is at Thriller Brak. Pudding notices her sister, but she is scared to face her at first, since that woukd mean telling her friends about her true lineage. For most if the arc, she deribetaly tries to hide herself and even wears a disguise. In a final moment in the arc, she asks Lola to talk to her privately. We don't see what happens yet, but we will one day.
The rest of the story is the same, until Whole Cake Island. When she is kidnapped by the Big Mom pirates. When her bounty poster is changed to "only alive". When the invitation to the wedfing of the 3rd son of the V!nsm@ke family and the 35th daughter of the Charlotte family are handed out. When Big Mom decides to claim her disowned child to give her up in an arranged marriage as part of a coup. Threattening to hurt Zeff and her friends if she doesn't comply.
I love this so damn much you don't even know-- I've always been saying that Pudding's story is basically Sanji's but like, with the bad ending because she never got to escape when she was little but Sanji did. And now that you mention this AU, it's just perfect to show their similarities but also to turn the stories around and,,, It's amazing.
Starting with Sanji, I adore that the approach here is that he's emotionless. I don't think he'd be like his brothers in a narcissistic, egocentric way. I think that after being abused constantly he just loses all will to leave and shuts down completely even if there is still empathy within him. The whole thing with the Vinsmokes is that they were all raised to be powerful killing machines and that's why they act like this, not because they actually are emotionless. And Sanji in this context isn't either, he just seems like he is because he just... Gives up. So I imagine a black-haired Sanji with some blond, completely shut down and just taking the abuse and living with it and serving the family without anything else.
But there is still some type of connection in him to like, animals and women, I think. It's small but it's there. He's not our sweetest boy but he won't harm women the way Niji does and he will help and feed animals because he is strangely attached to them and cooking. But Judge doesn't really say anything about it anymore because at least the kid gets the job done and doesn't seem like he's going to rebel or anything. He's kind of like in a Reiju position? Where he understands their situation and has his own emotions but just shuts down? Except that he's well, extremely depressed and mean and she's concerned for him. I think she still protects him though, she's the only one Sanji doesn't push away. Typical "they sit in silence and she hugs him and even though he stays expressionless it's obvious that he likes it with her".
And Pudding... I love that she gets her happy ending here. I've been saying Zeff has girldad energy and it just makes sense that he'd be extremely protective of her while teaching her to cook and fight on her own!! He raised the most gorgeous, sweetest, and yet ruthless cook of all seas! I think he'd be such a great dad for her because he would help her stand up for herself and also take care of her in their early years together when she is still having trouble adapting to a new, healthy environment. Of course, she still has nightmares and trauma responses when she grows up, and he helps her anyway, but she gets better at some point.
I love that he's the only one who sees her third eye!!! That'd be like, such a good plot point too for her to join the strawhats... Also, her dynamic with Luffy would be hilarious because despite being sweet, I wanna desperately keep her mean personality and she would be SOOO done with Luffy. Their relationship would kind of resemble Lusan's a lot, imo. And Nami would be sooo happy to have another girl in the crew so early!!! I also think she'd hate Zoro but not because of like, parallels with Zosan or anything, I just think their personalities clash too much-- And she'd have a soft spot for Usopp but that's because, you know, everyone does. Also, I like having a girl in the crew that isn't part of the coward trio. She actively fights and I love it. Then Vivi and Robin join them and y'know, I am starting to think another girl in the crew would be literally amazing hahahaha (I've been saying this for so long). So I am guessing everything stays the same except that during Thriller Bark she reunites with Lola but yeah, she doesn't tell the others about it. Because that's what WCI is for!
Then WCI happens... And I am losing it because I really, really, really want her to have the biggest breakdown about it and sacrifice herself Sanji-style (don't you just love how you don't even have to change the plot because they're literally parallels??? I will never understand how some people can hate Pudding lmfao she's literally Sanji). So she's forced to do the exact same thing she does in canon if she wants to save the ones she loves, but she doesn't want to kill Sanji?? Like at all?? And then you have Sanji who literally gives zero fucks about what's going on. I think he'd be forced to act politely and like a gentleman when he literally doesn't care about all of this-- And probably Pudding finds out and he's mean to her, yadda yadda yadda.
And y'know I would absolutely love if Sanji knew they're going to kill him but couldn't care less about it because perhaps dying is better than whatever life he's living, and when Pudding realizes what's going on she makes him want to live just... A little bit. Something awakens inside Sanji and suddenly he's scared and he doesn't want to do this. Sanji sees Pudding's third eye... Pudding finds out about Sanji's mother... They actually won't stop arguing at first, Pride & Prejudice style, and then Sanji sees her with a different perspective and all of a sudden he starts acting more protectively and sweet to her? So she's confused as hell and still tries to argue but uhhhh complicated relationship they've got there, but at least they help each other out.
And idk perhaps we have the Viinsmoke sibs having the same scene they have in canon and helping Sanji out but the crucial part is Reiju paralleling the original scene in which she helps Sanji escape. And he finally does and he leaves with the strawhats because I need them to have a happy ending. So he's still dealing with, you know, trying to express his emotions and wanting to live but he'll get there someday because at least now he's safe. Nobody kisses and forgets anybody because I will not allow a sad ending here, thank you.
42 notes
·
View notes
I read Possession by AS Byatt after people told me "if you liked Gaudy Night you'll like this" and WELL.
Warning- spoilers for both books abound below!
So it sounded great- as a lapsed academic (though not in the field of literature by any means) there's a part of me that loves reading about academia because it's full of such obsessive people, and this book seemed to be exactly that and so I was excited.
Then I read it, and on the one hand, my first thought was "all these people are dull as heck, the only sane modern-day one is Val, and at the end of the day the historical stuff is just two people having an affair, who cares." My second thought was "there's just enough stuff here that makes me think that maybe the author knows that all of this is stupid, like the fact that Val is obviously one of the few sane ones here." But the ending made me doubt even that. Essentially, and I say this even as that lapsed academic, the author could not convince me to care about the important things at stake here, and as a result couldn't get me to care about the people who only seemed to care about those things.
I didn't care about Ash and LaMotte- they came across as two people high on their own supply who had a tawdry affair. (And each of them is the less interesting person, as a person, than their official partner!) As a result of not caring about them, I couldn't POSSIBLY care about Roland, Maud, and the rest of their crew, because their only functions were to be possessed by, and weirdly possessive of, these two entirely unworthy individuals, whose in-universe historical and literary significance Byatt couldn't convince me of, and to use that possession as a mirror for their own very lame romance. Beyond that they're utterly uninteresting, and there isn't even meant to BE much beyond that so it's not that surprising.
Anyway, I didn't like this book much, but it still made me think a lot. And there's a way in which a certain kind of person might say "well if it made you think then that's surely a sign of some positive quality" and... maybe? I don't know. I didn't hate all of it, and some parts were interesting, and I do have a whole separate list of things about the book that bug me including a breakdown of some of the book's (perceived by me) themes that I particularly disliked lol. Perhaps I'll post it another time. So I guess you can say it spurred me to thought, but loads of things that I don't like do that, and the only positive thing that that draws from me is that they're not downright dull.
The thing is, after finishing the book I was immediately struck by that "if you like Gaudy Night..." element, because it has a situation that felt weirdly similar (if for totally different reasons)- a young scholar stealing a letter from a library/archive. The circumstances are different- in Gaudy Night, the scholar does it to hide its existence so as not to contradict his thesis, and in Possession, the scholar does it so as to explore the document further, though still secretly- but there are still some interesting parallels vis a vis class. Possession goes into the class thing more than Gaudy Night does, but neither book goes much into it- the scholar is lower-class and someone who has scraped their way to their position, and is encumbered by a female partner of lower social and academic standing, and in the end they are juxtaposed against scholars who come from an elevated class and who have more money and opportunity. In Gaudy Night, Arthur Robinson is judged by the likes of Lord Peter Wimsey and a college full of women who don't have to do anything but think, teach, write, and grade papers; in Possession, Roland has to convince a bunch of academics of standing and resources to take a chance on him (and while this is more about money than class, he's the main one who's like "maybe it's good if Lady Bailey gets her wheelchair"). Byatt elides over this at the end by having him magically become in demand and on his way to achieving his academic goals, but I think in both books, the class element really could have taken on more significance in the text.
(I'd add as well that Byatt pits the upper-class and moneyed Maud, who of course is doing things for "the right reasons," vs the evil American businessman who clearly... doesn't care about Ash enough? Despite how much he clearly and obviously cares about Ash? The book was way more interesting when he seemed like a valid rival to the British team, who only thought that they deserved the letters more because of their obsession, rather than how it turned out at the end where the American dude is an actual cartoon villain. What made him genuinely less worthy besides having money without class, and of course having the bad taste to be American? What makes one scholar's possession more justified? Sayers was never this unsubtle.)
So that made me think more about Possession vs Gaudy Night, and the thing is, there are actual living people in Gaudy Night! Say what you will about the unworldliness of the academics at Shrewsbury, but you get a very keen view of their personalities by the end, even as they are (by necessity given the rules of their world) subsumed by academia, or subsume themselves in it. And the people who do fall in love are REALLY in love, and you understand why...
And somehow a book from 1935 feels far more interrogative of the possession (or lack thereof) found in love and romance, and just about the place of women in academia and relationships overall, than one from the late 80s. In Gaudy Night, Harriet accepts Peter once she has determined that despite their power differential (brought on by class, money, history, and to a degree gender) he will not threaten her personhood, because he has proven himself to her. In Possession, Maud accepts Roland because she has the power (money, class, position, even height) and so Roland actually cannot threaten her- and yet still that final scene is about her being taken by him, basically to prove some kind of a point. In contrast, in Busman's Honeymoon, the euphemistic sex scenes are about Peter trying to please Harriet.
When I say it's to prove a point, I'm paraphrasing Byatt, incidentally- who said: "And in the case of Maud I had made it very inhibiting. She was a woman inhibited both by beauty (which actually isn't very good for very beautiful women because they feel it isn't really them people love) and she was also inhibited by Feminism, because she had all sorts of theories that perhaps she would be a more noble kind of woman if she was a lesbian. And so she was a bit stuck. And Roland was timid because I am naturally good at timid men. It's the kind of men I happen to like. He's a timid thinking man, so of course it took him the whole book." I mean... yikes, but also that explains a lot. Maud can only bring herself to be with a man who is weak/effeminate (?) enough to justify whatever weird psyche Byatt has imagined up for her, but still she needs to get over her inhibitions and under him because... reasons. I don't know.
(Height is also interesting here as a point of contrast- Byatt makes Maud taller than Roland to make a point about how on the one hand she retains the power but on the other hand there is now even more of her that has to surrender. Peter and Harriet are the same medium height and wear the same size gown.)
I think the thing that most stuns me is how regressive Possession feels when it comes to gender politics on relationships than Gaudy Night does. I'd need a whole other post to talk about this, but the theme of Possession seems to me to be "relationships that produce things (whether art or children) are worth more than ones that don't." Roland is better with Maud than with Val because Val is a second rate scholar who drags him down (while supporting him financially) and Ash is better with LaMotte than with Ellen because LaMotte didn't only inspire his writing (Ellen's contributions are described only in the negative "didn't impede"), she gave him the child that Ellen refused to. Incidentally, in both cases it's the man pursuing a relationship that will give HIM something... But, to paraphrase Peter in Busman's Honeymoon, one wouldn't want to regard relationships in that agricultural light. Gaudy Night is about how two people can produce great things without each other but choose to be with each other for their own, and each other's, happiness. They aren't each less apart, and as I noted in a prior post, they don't need to solve cases together or conjoin their work in order for their relationship to be worth something. It is worth it for them to be together because it encourages some kind of inner balance within them and between them, as people. They enjoy collaborating but that is by no means the basis of their love (and, incidentally, I think that a lot of, if not most, detective series romances fail this basic test of "would they have fallen in love if they were accountants who met on a dating app." Peter and Harriet definitely would have- would, say, Albert Campion and Amanda Fitton have? I do NOT think so).
And here's the thing- another reason why Byatt's quote above is so off-putting is that it makes it clear that not only in the text but on a meta level, the purpose of the relationships is to prove a Point. I found Roland and Maud to have zero chemistry, and honestly I was expecting them to get together 3/4 of the way through and split up at the end when it turned out they had nothing in common- it seemed like that kind of book. I was kind of stunned when they only got together at the end in an "it's meant to be" way because nothing about it seemed meant to be. They were stuck together by that one thing and they each apparently needed the relationship for some kind of self-actualization or historical rhyming or other. (Whatever I say about Ash and LaMotte... at least they seemed to like each other!)
Peter and Harriet... they get together because they love each other. Do they change over the course of Gaudy Night, and over the course of the other books they share together? Of course they do. But if it makes sense, I'll put it this way- Harriet doesn't accept Peter's proposal as proof that she got over her hangups, Harriet gets over her hangups so that she can accept Peter's proposal. Her hangups only matter because they were keeping her from this particular kind of happiness- she was a fully actualized person even with them. She is a person who does things for human reasons so that she can build a mutually happy life with the person she loves, not a little plot mannequin being moved around in order to tell the author's desired Message. People can say what they want about Gaudy Night and its flaws, but despite the intricacies of its construction, nobody can call the characters' actions and motivations anything but brutally human.
Whether within their universes or on a meta level, the books have SUCH different things to say about the value and nature of love, the place of and purpose of sex, the place of art and intellectual accomplishment in relationships, all of the above in the context of femininity… and I can't help but feel that each time, Gaudy Night wins the contest. It's possible I'm missing something major about Possession, and maybe sometime I'll post the rest of my notes about the things I disliked and people can tell me what I'm wrong about- but if nothing else it made me appreciate Gaudy Night even more, so for that I'm grateful.
8 notes
·
View notes