#that's one of my biggest problem with gothic literature | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

rametarin · 1 year

Text

More grumblings about Werewolf: the Apocalypse and V5. And missed opportunities. (Settle in, because this is going to be a big screed.)

One of my biggest issues with World of Darkness is it's usually fine when you can separate the ideological hamfistedness and occassional diatribe by the authors that so DESPERATELY have wanted to use fun gothic punk horror as a recruiting ground for anarcho-communists, from the actual fun fanciful macabre and horror.

Except, the problem arises because the socio-political people seek to browbeat and reinterpret what is allowed or acceptable in horror, and by extension, literature and culture. So anything that deviates out of what they want to be acceptable cultural messages gets removed and suppressed. No room for questions, they don't even want the possibility that you may answer anything but what they want you to come away with.

No horror monsters or mythological creatures that they ideologically disagree with, either.

So if your culture has a mythological creature that amounts to the ghost of a stillborn baby haunting it's mother, or any mother, out of revenge? "That's misogyny and punishment against women! Such patriarchal myths perpetuate an anti-woman view in culture and society, and so they shouldn't exist!!! It also perpetuates the idea you have to be female to be a mother, so THAT is a problem too!" So they simply make that problematic mythological creature disappear into omission and edit it out of the folklore canon as if it's not there, and stigmatize the retelling as something only a stinky evil monstrous male chauvinist would do. While they'll hem and haw and hoot about being sooOOoO Inclusive, for the credits, if your culture and community has any elements it finds an issue, it will 1.) avoid mentioning that out loud, because contradicting the Oppressed Minorities while giving them a platform means they may be gunshy about being voices against "the mainstream," or supporting them as they selectively browbeat white people as oppressive or ignorant. 2.) try to get the young people inside those communities themselves to be the ones to argue such mythological or folklore figures should stop being talked about and stop being considered part of the culture, because they, "perpetuate bad thoughts and sentiments."

They love folklore for the fact it's a window into a culture, they just hate that these aspects of culture and folklore exist, and their definition of, "folk" is very specific and one they demand everybody else exclusively adhere to, no questions, no alternatives. They just say it indirectly and often through force, when they can enforce it.

So why did I go on this screed above? Because it's padding to talk about an example of this in gameplay and how our species works. The monkey babble and rules and perceptions of human beings, as we relate to the horrors of our own biology.

Biological exclusivity and inclusion into how we determine culture. Birthright. Maternal and paternal exclusivity and privileges based on whom your biological parents are, somehow mattering on a legal, biological and spiritual level.

The problem is they ideologically disagree that biology should be destiny and that ethnicity should be based on biology. They argue that the ONLY important factor should be culture and nurture, and that elements such as the state can embody and lead said cultures, not individuals from said in-group. That you shouldn't be allowed to have a group based on characteristics that can't intellectually or socially just be appropriated and majoritied, because that's some sort of social evil and oppression.

So how do they characterize people that believe birthright and heredity play a role in culture and society and family are the devil?

Why, they do what they always do. They treat you like a child and antagonize you, loudly bringing up, "OH. OKAY, NAZI. SURE, NAZI. THAT'S SOMETHING NAZIS BELIEVE. YOU BELIEVE THIS IS TRUE, THEREFORE YOU MUST BE A NAZI, NAZI. WANNA EUGENICALLY CLEANSE ME FOR BEING NEURODIVERGENT, NAZI?" as a way to shame you if your culture treats hereditary connection to a community as a qualifying characteristic.

However, they do not levy this weapon equally against all cultures. They will absolutely invalidate any claim to validity from any white ethnic community and argue, VIOLENTLY, that there's no such thing as any cohesive European ethnic group, or any kind of coherent 'whiteness' at all, for that matter, treating Europeans as some sort of cultural anti-culture that are just incoherent static of human beings. Not individuals and cultures unto themselves, not a valid community, not a valid People.

They will not, similarly, say the same things about capital B Black people, or Asians. To them, Black and Asian are demographics.

But it has become out of vogue to refer to black as a race. Races, it's believed, are, "social constructs," and not real. This argument isn't had directly between Black ethnonationalists and Black identitarians or Black separatatists and the social constructionists in the far-left, because that would represent a skewing schism in the allyship. So, one seeks to constantly circumvent and go both over and under the others' heads in just whom tells whom what to do and define the other and the parameters of how they're defined.

So they started capitalizing the B in Black to refer to the social group of Black people. Whom is black? Anyone with sub-Saharan African phenotypes and hereditary characteristics unique to that part of Africa.

Can a person without that ancestry thus be capital b Black? If Blackness is culture and not subject to heredity, can a person be a fair skinned, red freckled ginger and be certifiably black as Wesley Snipes?

No, they argue, because the characteristics of being Black necessitate a level of racial pur- I mean, "passingness", that unless you grow up characteristically resembling a person of that ethnic group, you don't get the valid "experience" of growing up Black. Thus, capital B Black people are left as the only vaid "culture" where you have to be born from a Black mother or father in order to be Black.

Cultures can be joined or left and have no biological necessity, so the thinking goes, and surely no uprigth person would dare entertain something so racist and bioessentialist as a culture or community exclusive to a certain hereditary line.

But surely you aren't suggesting that these rules apply to Capital B Black culture, right? Because if you were, that poses an existential threat to Black peoples' existence! That would mean that defining Black as anything more deep or ingrained or exclusive than a Jazz band or a basketball court or a big Christmas dinner or Muslim family gathering, would be bioessentialism and share characteristics with Nazism. Right?

Hm. Sure are a lot of competing points of view here. Irreconcilable differences and immovable objects as different views vy for dominance in what is right and wrong. I wonder which values will pan out the winners in the argument, or if there'll be some sort of division in the narrative. Or hypocrisy.

So anyway. This is Rachel Dolazel.

Rachel got in trouble relatively recently. See, she's a white woman. She has no immediate Capital B Buhlack racial heritage. She falsified her ethnic identity and took selective ambiguous photos with older black men that she passed off dishonestly as potential dads in order to get a career speaking up about the oppressions black people face in Academia, where due to the way she did her skin and hair, it could be assumed she was mixed. She spoke on behalf of black people and their problems and her proposed solutions. And she, "considers herself Black."

Now, competing schools in progressivism have been arguing internally about this for a long time. Because on the one hand, they really want black allies and narrative in their struggle for narrative and social dominance of values. And those values are, biology should not be a legitimate determining factor in any social culture or community. That you should be able to join any group without the biological necessity to inherit those characteristics or birthright.

And the other side that says, "if you aren't born from our in-group, you are not of our in-group, and thus, not entitled to our love, compassion, resources, or social organization. You are an outsider, you are an enemy, and our culture is closed to your input."

They really want those oppressed ethnic and social groups to be on their side as allied communities to use as collective democratic vehicles of social organization, but they don't want those groups to be autonymous and structurally exist outside of the control of society. So it's a careful dance of saying and not saying things until those groups have no choice by law or by the grass roots values of their children, to change how they can validly define themselves.

They vehemently disagree that any validity exists to any culture or community that uses paternal or maternal heredity to define and distinguish itself as true and valid. And they don't just want that to be opinion, they want to be in a position to tell said people, "you are not valid, your culture is not valid, and you do not exist. You will not be treated as a distinct culture or community if your culture and community use hereditary birthright as sacred things."

So, surprise surprise, modern folklorists and urban fantasy, gothic punk horror writers choose not to have fun with the tropes of "harmful" culture, but to argue against the participation of it at all in society or pop culture.

In Werewolf: the Apocalypse, that game departed from the conventional pop culture folklore where a werewolf was not the result of being infected or baptized into darkness by the bite of a werewolf, but through biological heredity. W:tA Werewolves were this hereditary community of shaman and spirit workers that were fighting an attritional war against an overwhelming for.

The Garou as a culture in the old games existed as a kind of anomaly. Only 5% of the children a werewolf would have (male or female) would be a werewolf. The rest would be either normy human beings, or spiritually aware but unchanging humans called Kinfolk that could relate to the were-wolves and serve as go-betweens for the more supernaturally inclined monster folk and basic humanity. Often taking the roles of a support system. They were the Alfred Pennysworths, the Lois Lanes. Kinfolk drastically raised the potential of a werewolf being able to produce another werewolf.

And this problemed, bizarre biology that fought so hard against large losses against their adversary was one of the horrors of the setting. You had to balance modern sensibilities about how your horrible supernatural biology functioned, how new members of your group are made, vs. just how dehumanizing that could be, all in the face of the grind of the enemy at the front gates and time itself threatening to destroy your community.

W:tA set the werewolves up as having screwed up bigtime in the past, treating humans like chattel and breeding stock. This was their history and something they had to come to terms with. It was part of the body horror that is synonymous with werewolf and the knowledge of horrors of things groups inflicted on others in the past. All because the only way you get more of your in-group is due to biological heredity, and that without that component, the pacts with your spirits, the traditions that make your group's magic function, don't work.

This unchangeable facet of existence, this immutable, static part of you, that you just have to live with and even if you can transform and change some parts, cannot change around by yourself, was part of the horror. That some social structural changes are beyond one person alone to change. That no matter what you do, you cannot change heredity and the choices that people preceding you have made. You can only live in the environment and time created by circumstance and inherit that culture and history. For better or worse.

These were themes in werewolf that were very heavy and their own source of terror.

So how did W5 decide to play off these deep, juicy source of not just body horror, but social horror?

Take the entire thing and put it in a dumpster and start fresh, actively and intentionally refusing to even touch them.

They determined that werewolf tribes would not directly grow out of existing folklore or pay homage to cultures and communities with their own were-wolf myths, incorporating those folklore stories and their origins. Not just because, "that would be cultural appropriation," on behalf of Native American or African stories of people turning back and forth between animals, but because acknowledging the different narrative traditions and cultural tales of say, Greek werewolves Vs. Roman werewolves Vs. Irish werewolves would necessitate acknowledging that there are cultures within white European people that are themselves indivisibe, distinct and didn't just exist, but are currently alive.

And we've already covered, they do not believe to be white or European should be considered a culture in and of itself the way they feel being Asian or Black are cultures with valid racial characteristics that are endangered by whites when mixing.

So naturally they do not want to include an Irish tribe of werewolves.

Then we come to the most reviled tribe of all to these new guys.

The Get of Fenris are a tribe in Werewolf: the Apocalypse that borrows heavily from Norse mythology, as the name implies. The Get of Fenris are a viking werewolf culture that claim to descend from Fenris the Wolf, whom they venerate most.

They use old Norse runes, weapons and iconography, and are a result of Neo-Pagans in the anti-Christian revivals of culture that were popular throughout the 60s-00s. They were fun, cheesy, deathmetal and axe slinging motherfuckers. Fucking viking werewovles! What's not to love?

But as you well know from the tone of this post, there's no room for fun in the hamfisted ideological platform that is modern World of Darkness. The 90s "everything's good, lets just incorporate everything equally" gave way to further editions trying to wag a finger at Werewolf: the Apocalypse fans and reminding them that white supremacists existed that were taking the Get of Fenris and just using them to validate the idea of white genetic supremacy, or, gasp, the idea a 'white' culture exists or existed at all. Not like those noble oppressed ethnically homogenuous demographics, whom are definitely cultures unto themselves.

They exaggerated the number of actual W:tA players supposedly unironically trying to play out their nazi Werewolf fantasies of blonde haired, blue eyed Norsemen, and so by the Revised (third) edition, set up the Get as having an internal racism and sexism problem that the players had to punch. They set up lore about the Get fighting on both sides in World War 2 and the Nazi get losing by, you guessed it, getting punched. And overall just browbeat and negged Get players by attaching this stigma of "suspected Nazi" to them just by virtue of the Get being Odinist themed.

They went out of their way to emphasize the number of Get that themselves were either Asian or blacker than the Ace of Spades, took great pains to acknowledge horrible and disgusting Get existed and had their own political group within the tribe that all the right thinking Get hated and marginalized and wanted to go away, and overal just made the bad guy Get the mincing racist, sexist, patriarchal stereotypes for protagonists to punch. Just, so, y'know, you get the message.

But that STILL wasn't enough contrition and self-flaggelation of the Get for them.

So by Werewolf, 5th edition, the Get of Fenris are no longer the Get of Fenris. Right out of the gate, the CULT of Fenris are no longer playable characters. The Cult of Fenris are radical white supremacist snarling ultra-radical militarists that have charged down the mouth of the Wyrm and become an unplayable lost Tribe. They just simply took them off the table in the most mean spirited "fuck you" to Werewolf fans of the past, just to do that limp wristed solidarity fist and say, "no platform for Nazis," in a room with no Nazis in it.

Now compare and contrast this to what they did to the werewolf clan that took Irish werewolf myths and made them ethnically Irish; they just made them Hearth Keepers and excised the Irish from them, so being descended from Ireland had nothing to do with your attachment to the tribe. No mention of Shileleighs or guiness or bardic stories.

They did not turn the Irish tribe into god damned evil monsters, they just removed the Irishness from them save for some vague, ghostly nods to some fragments of folklore of werewolves originating in Ireland, but kept the rest of the tribe somewhat valid.

They did not decide arbitrarily that the celtic cross wielding tribe decided to just become raging lunatics and throw themselves down a fairy circle to fight Satan, thereby becoming demons themselves.

They structured the entire basis of the Cult of Fenris not just to make them unplayable, but make them cursed corpses and read any of the people that wanted to play them as assholes. Not just reinterpreted out of the game without mention, like the Fianna, but made examples of. That isn't just, "I hate this group and don't even want to mention them in my game," this is, "fuck your group, and fuck you." That's active hostility. The Get could've just been reimagined. Instead, they were pilloried.

No matter how much they tried to expand upon the concept of werewolf tribes to make them racially inclusive, acknowledge sexism and paternalism as tragedies in the past to overcome, try to underline what role the players had in trying to become part of the solution to restructure or reform these tribes and their cultures to be something else, it was never enough. Just being a culture that necessitated coming from Europeans was enough to get something characterized as, "inescapably Nazi," the more it necessitated European origins instead of flavorless homogenuity. Europeans are not allowed to have culture, merely exist, and folklore isn't allowed to come from recognizable and distinct "folk."

They also took issue with the hereditary nature of being a werewolf. Because, as stated above, they do not believe culture and literature should perpetuate the idea that birthright and heredity plays any role in destiny or group affiliation, and don't even want to perpetuate myths and folklore of such things operating that way. You know, because, "then the little people may get ideas about perpetuating it in culture and literature."

So in V5, there's absolutely no hereditary tribal structure that passes down the tribe. It's all arbitrary, postmodernist, "how much do you vibe with these spiritual characteristics that all individuals possess." Nothing unique to a bloodline or hereditary group, nothing that is a unique mutation that only members of a certain group possess or you have to marry into to perpetuate.

Kinfolk are not distant cousins and fellow descendants of these shamanic tribes, they're individuals who resonate with your supernatural values that can come from anywhere, and it's the virtue of their beliefs and feelings that matter, not their blood.

And the fucked part is, the actual lore, if they bothered to even fucking read it, ALREADY SET UP for stuff like this to happen! They could very, VERY easily have worked these changes into the franchise, if they wanted. By the end of 3rd Edition, they talked about mysterious humans appearing that had NO biological, hereditary attachment to tribes like the Get of Fenris, that had the Pure Breed Tribe spiritual characteristic of 5/5, as if they were sired by a famous Get of Fenris themselves. They previously SET UP the modern era to start having people that weren't the byproducts of generations of grooming and in-culture to authenticate their tribal affiliation.

And then these new people took the meta of progress towards these changes to not just the game, but the meta, and said, "No platform for Nazis and TERFs," and just.... threw it all in the trash. Because, "we know better. :^)"

Every single issue they had a problem with could've been addressed and solved and the integrity of the game maintained. And they chose the most flavorless, bland way to just reset the game possible in the interests of homogenuity and modularity and "intersectional inclusion."

And congratulations, you took what was interesting and unique about the game and how it approached body horror, social horror and social issues, went, "I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG, WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG!" and tossed it in the trash.

I won't even get into the overcorrection involved in stripping the Native American tribes from their roots and overcompensating by treating the Wendigo as too sacred of a figure for even non-Natives to mention the name of. These people would use this same argument to scream Christians shouldn't even be allowed to write God because some Jews refuse to reference them by name, and it's sacred to them.

The level of bad faith that went into this edition of the game means I'll still be playing 20th edition and basing things off 20th edition lore. This ain't it. You couild've warded away the fash/naz players in so many better ways, could've done more with "inclusion and cultural sensitivity" with the Native American tribes using the tools of the setting, could've done so much more

And you fuckers chose the laziest, most ideologically masturbatory ways to do everything, right down to sticking obligate MAGA hats on the, "white supremacist tribe," and roasting them in a pot as a middle finger to imagined strawmen.

#Werewolf: the apocalypse #w5

6 notes · View notes

introvert-celeste · 6 years

Text

My Topics in British Literature class is so much more interesting than I thought it would be, like we’re doing a discussion this week on the polar ice debates and climate change and this connects to the message in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. The whole class is dedicated to “wild romanticism”: how nature is portrayed in the British imagination in the Romantic period. It’s such a big deal as far as British literature is concerned, but it seems like such a niche topic.

Anyways, I’m writing about how Frankenstein represents humanity and his monster is the dangerous environmental imbalance we have caused through our own actions, but are currently helpless to stop it. It’s a message that far more applicable now than it was in 1818.

#college talk #god I remember trying to read frankenstein in high school for fun and just hating it #I was on a classic horror story kick and I thoroughly enjoyed dracula by frankenstein's character pissed me off so much that I couldn't #finish even half the book #dumbass can't take responsibility for his fucking actions #also the MONOLOGUING #that's one of my biggest problem with gothic literature #the characters have to go on pages long tirades about #how tragic their situations are #both frankenstein and his monster do it and it's so exhausting #hell the entirety of the novel is just frankenstein monologuing while some guy writes it down #the entire novel is just some guy monolguing to his sister via letter about how terrible frankenstein's life is #but it's far more interesting now than it was then #clearly I finished the book this time

10 notes · View notes

yeah-oh-shit · 5 years

Text

Sherlock S5/Dracula Meta

I’ve been thinking about this for a long time. I’ve never written any fan theories or meta before (although I have so many), so please bear with me. I know my theory is going to sound a little out there, but I here it is: I think BBC Dracula is actually Sherlock S5, or else that it is somehow going to lead directly into it without warning.

Warning: this is going to be a long piece. I’m going to break this down as follows, because there are many different pieces of evidence to examine:

TFP, the story and the episode

Gothic Horror, HOB, Dracula

Vision, Timing, 20/20

The Final Problem

The first one is a fan theory I read probably 6-9 months ago that sadly I can’t find anymore (if you know who this person is, please please comment so I can give credit!). Basically this person was talking about how the naming of the episodes typically has some tie to what occurs in the original story by that same name, but how TFP has nothing AT ALL to do with the original story. In the original story, Sherlock goes face to face with Moriarty, and we are all lead to believe that both he and Moriarty die over the Richenbach falls. In all reality, ACD had meant to kill off Sherlock in this story, and stopped writing Sherlock Holmes stories for ten years before bringing him back in “The Empty House,” due to the public outrage and demand for more stories. So, the logic follows that maybe the one thing that they have in common is that they are both pitted as the end to Sherlock Holmes (in the story, he is dead; in the show we are given [force fed] an ending, it's made to seem like the final piece). The author of this theory also pointed out the show runners in this way are comparing ending the series with TFP (no canon Johnlock) to ending the show with Sherlock dead. We are left with a straight-washed version of John and Sherlock, with Mary’s voice controlling the narrative and that narrative being: It Doesn’t Matter Who You Are. The chemistry between John and Sherlock has been more or less completely lost throughout S4, and so we are left with this empty, dead-feeling version of them that doesn’t feel true to the characters we know and love. Even casuals thought S4 sucked.. this is why. They metaphorically killed them/killed the show.

Before S4 aired, Mofftiss had said that if they pulled off what they had planned, it would be the biggest thing in television. Well, what we got in TFP doesn’t really fit that at all, does it? What could they be referring to: A secret sister? Not really that epic. Even if we find out that most of S4 didn’t take place (either EMP theory or some other way of explaining it) that isn’t really a new trope. The audience discovering that they have actually been seeing things that are inside the main character’s head the entire time has been done over and over (Sixth Sense, A Beautiful Mind come to mind off hand). So what could this huge, history making move be? The argument that the meta I read previously made was that the show will come back (from the dead) unexpectedly, with no warning. That it will be a revival and in that revival, we will get canon Johnlock. I can’t remember if OP explicitly theorized that Dracula is actually Sherlock S5, but I think so.

Now, I was with this theory from the beginning.. there is just something that feels possible to me, despite the fact that it sounds far fetched. Dracula seems like a weird, random thing to do when Sherlock, Moftiss’s mutual obsession, isn’t finished. (Also creating an escape room to keep up hype is odd if the show is over, but I digress.) I just don’t believe Moftiss’s constant claims that they couldn’t get everyone together to film S5 because of schedules, that they wanted to take a break, that they don’t know if they will do more (when Moffatt has talked about wanting a 5 season arc before, not to mention John Yorke). And then there’s the fact that we know they have filmed scenes that we have never seen (Niagara Falls anyone?). All this evidence that S5 is definitely coming, combined with the fact that we haven’t heard anything about it but have heard about Dracula, sort of fell into place for me. Despite me being willing to buy into it, this theory still seemed a little far fetched. But wait, there’s more!

Victorian Gothic Literature, HOB, Dracula

A lot of people have been talking about how gay Dracula is going to be, and citing evidence of the connections between Bram Stoker and Oscar Wilde (Dracula was written directly after his trial and Dracula is read as having characteristics of Wilde) as evidence. This, along with the extremely homoerotic last clip of the trailer, certain parts of the text that read as queer coded (I haven’t read Dracula, so I don’t know much but have seen some things floating around that seem v gay to me), and what we know about queer coding in Victorian gothic literature in general, all make a convincing argument. Gatiss actually recently confirmed (more or less) that Dracula will be bisexual in the upcoming series. And while I’m all about gay vampires (I am a huge vampire fan, seriously I love Vampire Diaries and True Blood and was one of “those girls” during the middle school Twilight craze), there is something about Dracula being Moftiss’s first cannon gay show that feels both disappointing and incongruous.

I want to bring up the All Ghost Stories are Gay Stories meta by heimishtheidealhusband. Now, this meta was written in 2015, in anticipation of TAB. Its great and you should definitely check it out if you haven’t/don’t remember it. The part I am most interested in is actually the reading of HOB, which I will get to in a bit. The takeaways from the first bit of the meta are that monsters and ghosts (to a different extent) are representations of queer desire in Victorian gothic literature. I’m summarizing drastically here, but as queer desire was obviously unacceptable in Victorian times, writers would obfuscate it by creating an “other,” a monster or ghost, that represented the queer or “inverted” desire and also demonstrated the fear and horror that society had for homosexuality. So the monster becomes the representation of homosexuality (homosexual acts or desires) that is pursuing the protagonists. Oftentimes, the protagonists were originally obsessed with the monsters or the concept of them, before actually confronting them, but are terrified and frightened when it actually occurs (think Dr. Jeckyll or Frankenstein). This meta also specifically talks about Dracula and vampires as the most queerly coded of the Victorian monsters: “Think about your vampire tropes: Dracula sneaks into your bedroom at night, lusting after your bodily fluids. The victim, meanwhile, is paralyzed with fear, but also excitement. (Oh hi phobic enchantment, I see you there!) The tension mounts until there’s a climactic penetration of fangs into flesh. And lots of sucking. Then think about the fact that the one doing the penetrating and the one being penetrated can be - and often are - both male.”

This all seems to bode great for our queer reading of the new BBC Dracula, yay! Vampires are clearly queer coded, and making it explicit makes sense and seems like a no-brainer. But I think it’s important to point out the ways in which this is also potentially (and likely) problematic. In Victorian times, there weren’t really many other options for portraying homosexuality. This is part of what makes what these writers did so brilliant - they were unable to show these desires as normal and healthy, because it was too dangerous and society didn’t see them that way (hence the use of the word “inverts” for homosexuals). Using the horror genre allowed them much more freedom to explore homosexuality, identity, and societal reactions to it, but also obfuscated the difference between reactions to homosexuality and the thing itself. In some of the stories, like Frankenstein, the monsters are actually misunderstood. Frankenstein’s monster only turns evil after experiencing society’s horrified reaction to it. However, in a modern context, I wonder about the message it sends to remake a Victorian story in a modern time and make the monster queer.

To flush this out a bit, I think it would be helpful to take a look at how Moftiss (and particularly Mark Gatiss) have played with this Victorian monster trope already, in Sherlock. Which brings us to HOB. heimishistheidealhusband points out that ACD’s original story “The Hound of the Baskervilles” would definitely fit into the scope of Victorian gothic literature, and their meta “All Ghost Stories are Gay Stories” does a particularly good job of breaking this episode down with the lens of Victorian gothic literature and queer coding. I am going to quote this reading here, and also also want to touch on the reading of this episode by Rebekah of TJLC Explained.

Here is what heimishtheidealhusband has to say about this episode: “Here’s why BBC Sherlock’s treatment of Hound is particularly beautiful. The creature – the hound – is our queer monster. In ACD’s Hound, the hound was indeed physically altered – he was painted in phosphorous to give him a hellish, glowing appearance. And the hound was actually the one to do the killing. In BBC’s Hound, there’s “the hound” – the monster that everyone is afraid of which is actually imaginary, and “the dog” – the real thing that actually exists. In other words, in this version, the “queer creature” in the horror story has been de-monstered. Homospectrality is being flipped on his head – rather than separating the man from the queer, they’re separating the queer from the monster. Because the dog isn’t inherently evil, it’s just the poison in the air that everyone is breathing that makes them fear it, and see a monster instead of an innocent dog. So in this treatment, if the dog/hound represents queerness, heteronormativity becomes a poisonous element in the air we all breathe.”

This is why it is so important that Hounds is plural (as opposed to the original story “The Hound of the Baskervilles”). They are emphasizing the differentiation between the two dogs, the differentiation between the monster and the queer. Rebakah of TJLC Explained also points out that despite all the conspiracy theories, there is actually no monster inside Baskerville, but rather a rabbit that glows “like a fairy,” (let’s all take a moment to remember the skipping dance and sing-song voice Ben does in this scene, in case it wasn’t obviously queerly coded enough). It’s hard to imagine a less-threatening animal than a glowing bunny.

Mark Gatiss has been very open about his love for horror and the gothic. He has studied the gothic writer M.R. James, and was involved with the BBC documentary about James that explored his “repressed sexuality.” He clearly loves and respects the genre, and is familiar with queer readings of Victorian gothic lit. In HOB, he chose to engage with the genre in a modern context, and to separate the monster from the queer. In doing so, he points out the inaccuracy and harm that coupling queerness with monstrosity generates. With this in mind, the choice to make Dracula feels like a step backwards, especially when you bear in mind that Gatiss has actually said that he isn’t really interested in gothic horror anymore. In an interview with Shadows at the Door in 2017, Gatiss stated: “I used to think nothing could exist without waistcoats and bubbling test tubes and now I’m actually more interested in modern horror; the gothic but in a modern context. I don’t think it has to be about the old and obviously I still love it but it doesn’t have to be about candelabra and castles. You can get the same feeling from modern methods, and in a way that is more frightening.”

All this isn’t to say that gothic horror or vampire stories isn’t still interesting and worthwhile as a concept, or that a canonically queer Dracula wouldn’t/couldn’t be badass. (I for one would love a Vampire Diaries remake wherein Damon’s character is a woman, but I’m off topic..). It doesn’t even mean that there can’t still be something complex or provoking in this representation for a modern audience. But it also feels dangerously close to repeating the queer coded (or even plainly queer) villain that we have all seen a hundred times from horror films and Disney movies. At best, still doesn’t seem particularly new or exciting, and at worst it could reinforce frankly problematic and dangerous stereotypes.

I am now going to analyze the actual trailer for BBC Dracula that was released a few weeks ago, because it is going to help me to illustrate this point. One thing that struck me most when watching it was just how horrific it really is. The 45 second long trailer includes: a fly that crawls into an eye, a bloody fingernail being ripped off, a blood covered hand, something that appears to be being birthed, a scary, old-looking Dracula with a bloody tongue, and bloody flesh that is being carved. There are at least 3 instances of mouths: the fangs at the very beginning, the mouth with bloody tongue, and the frame after the gunshot of a mouth that looks desiccated like a zombie, that only flashes for a split second. All in all, it’s not only scary, it’s quite disgusting. The three bloody or otherwise monstrous mouths that we see relate most strongly to the covert sexual tones of Victorian gothic literature (and also remind me of Moriarty’s oral fixation in TAB). These are some of the most disturbing of the images. While the intro fangs are pretty mild, the clip of Dracula’s frightening face and bloody tongue (which is followed immediately by the bloody flesh being carved) and the decayed mouth are both quite gruesome. If we apply the metaphors that we know from Sherlock, they are making some pretty damning connections. The mouths in-and-of-themselves could be read in a sexual way, but then there is the added fact that the decayed mouth appears directly after a gunshot, which we know has been tied to dicks/gay sex in Sherlock (and generally). The bloody flesh being carved on a table also recalls the food/sex metaphor in Sherlock, specifically reminding me of how disgusting the meal scene is in John’s wedding to Mary. Food and eating can be really disgusting, and this trailer makes a point to show us that. When we connect this back to the sex metaphor again, and give it a queer lens, we are once again being metaphorically told that queer sex is disgusting and horrific.

Whether or not Moftiss are purposefully making these metaphorical statements, they definitely went out of their way to make this variation of Dracula particularly scary, horrifying, and gruesome. It’s always possible that they are just hyping up the goriness in order to get audiences excited. It’s also possible that they are highlighting the disgustingness of Dracula’s monstrosity as a means of engaging with the public perception of homosexuality or that they will complicate the narrative in some other way. But even if we give them the benefit of the doubt here and assume they aren’t trying to paint queerness in a bad light, this highlighting of the disgusting nature of Dracula’s monstrosity doesn’t seem to push forward any kind of unique, modern narrative. We have seen this, this is exactly what Victorian gothic literature is all about. They needed to explore homosexuality through its repression, to make it monstrous, because they lived in a time when there were few alternative ways to explore it (except for maybe the example of our sweet “bohemian” boys - check out this meta from artemisastarte to learn more about bohemianism and queerness in Sherlock Holmes). But in our modern day, is this really that exciting? Is this the kind of queer representation we want and deserve in 2019 (soon to be 2020)? To me, the answer is no, especially in light of the incredible and complex work they have done in Sherlock toward building a queer love story that is normalized, and completely removed from any conflation with monstrosity.

The fact that Dracula is tied so heavily to Sherlock makes this distinction even greater. Gatiss said that they got the idea for Dracula from a still image of Benedict Cumberbatch on the set of Sherlock with his collar up. Supposedly it reminded them of Dracula and the BBC asked them if they wanted to make it. In an interview, when asked about Dracula in relationship to Sherlock, Gatiss called it a “stablemate” of Sherlock Holmes. I’m not really sure how we are supposed to take this, and he doesn’t explain at all (of course), but that would mean that they are in some way similar or connected. I think he doesn’t just mean that they both come from him and Moffatt, as that is rather obvious and was acknowledged in the question itself. Both shows are not only created by Moftiss, but written in the same format, produced by Sue Virtue, and shot at Hartwood Studios. They also really emphasize the connection to Sherlock in the trailer (which isn’t surprising because advertising), and also in the new Netflix description, which states only: “From the makers of ‘Sherlock,’ Claes Bang stars as Dracula in this brand-new miniseries inspired by Bram Stoker’s classic novel.” There isn’t even a background image, only a weird gray distortion on a black background.

Furthermore, there are also elements from Sherlock that point to Dracula, either directly or indirectly. In S4, when John is supposedly texting “E.” He asks “Night Owl?” and the response he gets is “Vampire.” It feels odd and out of place to mention vampires in this offhand way, as we have never really seen anything like this on the show. To be fair, a lot of S4 feels this way, but I believe that it is actually chock-full of symbolic meaning and that almost everything that we see that feels wrong or untrue to the show has a deeper meaning. What, then, is the purpose that this plays? Additionally, in the escape room (Spoiler alert for The Game is Now), there is a television in the first room (Molly’s lab) that is playing what is set to look like British news. In the newsreel at the bottom, they included the announcement that Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffatt are making BBC’s Dracula. Once again, this feels a little throwaway, or could be explained away as advertising (although the escape room is so fast-paced that having any time at all to look at the television, let alone read it, when it wasn’t explicitly part of the puzzles would seem rare). Once again, there is a subliminal connection made between these two shows that I would argue is purposeful.

The decision to make a gothic show that so completely plays on this horror trope, and then to tie it both explicitly and implicitly to the show that they have already done, which has a very different messaging around the gothic as it relates to conceptions of homosexuality, seems odd. In and of itself, a Gothic exploration of queerness is possible, but feels limited by its very nature. Gothic horror through a queer lens is about queerness and otherness being equated to and embodied by monstrosity. Dracula’s trailer seems to clearly be playing up this monstrousness. I want to reiterate that I don’t think making something like Dracula gay couldn’t be cool or interesting for what it is, or that there isn’t a way to engage with the gothic without it being problematic. But in comparison to what they are doing with Sherlock, it feels unimpressive. And in light of HOB, Dracula seems to go directly against the argument that Gatiss makes so beautifully, that queerness is harmless and very distinct from monstrosity, despite what the fog of homophobia might depict. To build up this narrative in Sherlock, then cut into the middle of it with something that is explicitly connected to it but symbolically making an opposite assertion feels counter-intuitive.

Vision, Timing, 20/20

Even with all this evidence, I don’t know that I would really believe they would go through the trouble to do all of this if not for the timing. Dracula is set to come out “soon,” but people have been speculating for this winter. That would make it the end of 2019 or beginning of 2020. Now I’m going to explain a little bit about my reading of HLV, which happens to coincide nicely with The Game is Now, and ultimately this theory as a whole.

Something that caught my eye in HLV is how much glass there is in its first scene. We open on a shot of CAM’s glasses sitting on the table. We are below them, looking up through glass (although we see later that the table is actually wood). Next we get a shot of lady Elizabeth Smallwood, reflected through glass so as to show her in double (which is particularly interesting given that she is repeatedly called Lady Alicia Smallwood, both by CAM in the text that flashes on the screen during his analysis of her later this episode, and in the S4 scene where she leaves Mycroft her card). Next we see the entire interviewing committee through glass walls (it continues but you get the picture). We are introduced to the concept of lenses, looking through them, and at times the distorted image created by them.

CAM owns a newspaper, and he controls people through rumors: it doesn’t matter what the truth is, it matters what people believe (what they see). (This sounds a lot like Mary in S4 to me). So we are introduced again (after TRF) to the concept of fact vs. fiction, truth vs. lie, and this time with the addition of lenses. What lens you view something through matters, has a bearing on how you read something, how clearly you see it (sounds kind of like the fog in HOB). By the end of HLV, we have been removed from the narrative enough, we can’t see completely clearly. We don’t know what has happened during the time between John and Sherlock’s confrontation with Mary and the scene at Christmas. We don’t see if Sherlock and John are on the same page or what Sherlock is planning.

This episode leads into TAB, followed by S4 fuckiness. In S4, there are many things that feel “off” but one of the biggest is that John and Sherlock are distant the entire time. In the beginning we get the indication that John is missing Sherlock, but then we see Sherlock acting as if he is closer to Mary than John, inviting her on cases in his place. She gets inserted between them completely, becomes part of the gang. After Mary’s “death” John blames Sherlock (in a feat of logic that is truly baffling) and we have them at their most distant in TLD. And then, they come back together again in TFP, but the warmth and closeness is missing.

This season makes it clear that Moftiss were writing in all the little things that made their dynamic romantic and their chemistry so clear. They were able to take that out, and they did so with intention. It is if we are seeing the show through a lens: through the lens of straight-washing, the lens or perspective that Mary (John’s wife, the symbol of a straight John Watson, a platonic John and Sherlock) narrates for us so thoroughly at the end of the series. (Also side note, this straight-washed version of the show also fits into the 5 part John Yorke structure with part 4 being the height of the antithesis or the “worst part” - I learned about York from garkgatiss’s meta). The heart of the show is John and Sherlock’s dynamic. This dynamic is clearly intimate and romantic and has been in every iteration of Sherlock Holmes since the original stories, despite never being explicitly canon. S4 really follows through on Moriarty’s promise. The heart of Sherlock Holmes is gone, missing, burned out.

Then we have the escape room [mild spoilers]. The entrance is Doyle’s Opticians; its filled with glasses. (Side note there was definitely a wall displaying glasses that were arranged by color to look like a rainbow). Once again we have the theme of lenses. Being in an optometry office, it’s interesting because the focus is obviously on correct vision. 20/20 vision. Vision is “right” when it’s 2020. (This wasn’t my realization, but someone else went to the escape room as well and wrote about it). So now, we have this idea of being able to see correctly tied to the number 2020. To the YEAR 2020. This is also interesting because one of the signs in Doyle’s Opticians read “You were told but you didn’t listen: coming soon.” Just another indication that we will be getting more (Sherlock) soon.

Now, finally, we come to what I see as some of the most convincing evidence about Sherlock S5 coming in 2020. It has to do with copyright laws.

In England, all of ACD’s stories are in the public domain. However, in the US, this isn’t so. US Copyright laws are different from the UK, so the last of the stories won’t actually enter the public domain until 2023. American copyright duration is 95 years from the date of publication. This is important because the Arthur Conan Doyle Estate is extremely protective of how Sherlock Holmes is portrayed in the media. It turns out that despite the fact that most of the stories are already in the public domain, BBC, CBS, and Warner Brothers have all gotten licenses from the Estate in order to make their shows/films. In 2014, the ACD Estate lost a lawsuit in which they were trying to argue that the characters are “complex” and that any use of the character (at all) was still valid under copyright laws (as not every story had entered the public domain) and therefore in need of a license from them. While some of the later stories are still under copyright, they lost the lawsuit and it was ruled that the character (as written in the earlier stories) is in the public domain. They sued Miramax for its production Mr. Holmes, which portrays an elderly Holmes, arguing that it drew from the later stories and therefore violated copyright. Miramax ended up settling to avoid litigation. The Estate is known for being litigious and basically doing its best to stay gatekeeper, hoard ownership, and generally extort money out of anyone who creates anything having to do with Sherlock Holmes. While the BBC has paid them for licenses before, I’m not sure how this clearly conservative group would feel about making Johnlock canon. Even if its not legally in their power to prevent it from happening, it doesn’t sound like that has stopped them in the past from suing basically anyone that has tried to create Sherlock Holmes material without their consent, and if that material in any way seems to come from the later stories, then they might have a case.

Which brings us to the Three Garridebs. Moftiss have said in the past that this is one of their favorite stories due to it being the story where Holmes shows his depth of feeling for Watson. As stated by Watson himself, “It was worth a wound–it was worth many wounds–to know the depth of loyalty and love which lay behind that cold mask” Generally speaking, the fandom has posited that a Johnlock reveal may happen in a “Three Garridebs” moment. And do you happen to know the story that directly precedes the Three Garridebs? The Sussex Vampire. A story in which Holmes investigates a supposed vampire only to discover a loving mother who is attempting to save her infant child by sucking poison out from his wound. Kind of sounds familiar huh? A perceived monster, who is in fact nothing dangerous at all. Who in this case is the exact opposite of monstrous, is actually loving and gentle (like the real dog that is tellingly tied to sentiment, or Bluebell the glowing rabbit).

Both the Sussex Vampire and the Three Garridebs are part of The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes, the last collection of stories. They were both published in 1924, meaning that both their copyrights run out in 2019. It will really only be possible for Moftiss to use material from the Three Garridebs for a queer storyline starting in 2020. And if we assume that this is their plan all along, that they have even potentially set it up in S4 (looking at you John Watson getting shot by “Eurus”), they have HAD TO WAIT until now. But they won’t need to wait any longer, starting in January.

Oh and by the way, here is an interview Martin gave recently in which he tells a story about how he had to literally give up the Hobbit because he was CONTRACTED to Sherlock S2 and they wouldn’t move filming on that. (Thankfully Peter Jackson moved filming around for him, so we still have him as Bilbo). So I would imagine that if S2 was contracted, and they were planning on making a 5 series show all along, that they are probably contracted for all of it. Which means all those claims that its just too difficult to get everyone together for filming are just another means of throwing us off the trail.

If they have been waiting for this copyright to expire, but also unable to tell us that that is why they are waiting, it also makes sense why they have stretched it out so much. It's even possible that they didn’t realize how horrible the ACD Estate was going to be when they first started filming, and had to adjust/drag it out so that they could finally do what they want to do, what they have been planning for from the beginning.

So there you have it: the ending of The Final Problem, an analysis of HOB, Dracula, and Victorian gothic lit, and finally the symbolism of lenses, correct vision, and copyright issues all leading up to 2020. I think S5 of Sherlock is coming. I’ve been feeling it, sensing something for the last few months. I think we can all feel it. And it might just be sooner than we thought.

---------------------------------

Thank you so much to my love @canonicallybisexualjohnwatson who co-developed this theory with me, edited this, helped me with the links, and was also the one to introduce me to Sherlock/TJLC, subsequently changing my life. i love you b.

#tjlc #johnlock #tjlc is real #bbc sherlock #sherlock meta #bbc dracula #sherlock

106 notes · View notes

gchoate17 · 7 years

Photo

I read 18 books in 2017. These were my favorite 10.

1. True Grit by Charles Portis (1968)

Portis captures something intangible about Mattie Ross that neither movie seems to be able to, or maybe they don’t even try. The movies place the bulk of the weight of the title on Rooster Cogburn’s character, the book places an equal amount of “true grit” within Mattie. She plays a supporting role in the movies, but she stars in the book. The story is efficiently told with impeccable dialogue and it maintains a perfect balance between suspense and action.

2. The Infinite by Nicholas Mainieri (2016)

Teenage love often runs the risk of melodrama, but The Infinite places the love between Luz and Jonah into a perspective that extends far beyond the scope of its teenage characters. Mainieri juxtaposes the authentic beauty of a post-Katrina New Orleans and the complicated dynamic of different populations within the city with a vast and dusty swath of Mexico ruled by drug lords—each a landscape of self-destruction that yearns for forgiveness and hope.

Like most teenagers, Luz and Jonah are eager to come to terms with the events of their lives they had no control over while also attempting to navigate the dodgy waters of young adulthood. The Infinite captures that time for its characters in a way that is somehow both believable and astounding in its suspense, but above all, in a way that is sincere.

3. How to Be Alone: Essays by Jonathan Franzen (2002)

These essays are undoubtedly dated, but they're also surprisingly still relevant. The collection is a sort of homage to literature in the face of new technology, and there will always be new technology.

4. What the Dog Saw and Other Adventures by Malcolm Gladwell (2009)

This collection was my introduction to Gladwell, though I’ve known for a while I would appreciate his work simply because of the caliber of my friends who reference him on a regular basis. In these essays he writes with a psychological depth that goes well beyond what would ordinarily be expected from a writer, and to me, that is the payoff. Some of the essays didn’t necessarily leave me feeling as if I had an exhaustive understanding of the topic so much as they left me feeling like I was not alone in feeling inadequately equipped to understand what might never be understood. And that’s at once terrifying, and reassuring.

5. In the Valley of the Sun by Andy Davidson (2017)

The horror genre is something I generally steer clear of, but left to my own interpretation, I don’t think my instinct would’ve placed Andy Davidson’s writing in the genre to begin with. To me, it belongs right next to Cormac McCarthy’s work in the Southern Gothic category.

In the Valley’s conclusion feels like horror, but the book’s plotline was never the driving force of enjoyment for me. Rather, I found the payoff to be in the characters and the landscape, both of which revealed just enough about themselves to maintain constant intrigue. I’m eagerly looking forward to Davidson’s next book.

6. Carry the Rock: Race, Football, and the Soul of an American City by Jay Jennings (2010)

This book is a reminder that we are not far removed from the 1957 Central High Crisis, and that we are still grappling with factors that contributed to that event. And also that that recognizable and celebrated occasion is just one event in a spectrum that forces our society to look into the mirror at who we actually are. It parallels well with Coach Bernie Cox, who forces his 2007 football team to take a look at themselves and see how lacking teamwork will inevitably lead to a loss—in football, and in a segregated society.

7. Shakespeare: The World as Stage by Bill Bryson (2008)

I appreciate Bryson's ability to keep things in perspective. Most biographies tend to present opinions as fact, while Bryson is more likely to say "Here's what scholars think and the reason they think it." The problem with that brand of presentation is that you sacrifice a continuous narrative in lieu of one that starts and stops, rewinds, then starts again. Good for scholarship, but not as entertaining from a storytelling perspective.

8. War Porn by Roy Scranton (2016)

If nothing else, this book lives up to its title. It gives a glimpse into the strange and terrible and pornographic effects of war on the people who voluntarily and involuntarily participate in it. The American soldiers in the book are vile when described both in country and while stateside. While I understand those soldiers exist, as an Army veteran, I have a hard time accepting that generalized portrayal. Crude and disrespectful, yes, but not vile. I wanted a character I could relate to and the closest thing this book gave me was the Iraqi mathematician. That part of the novel I found to be the most impressive. My least favorite sections were the ones intentionally made up of clipped scenes and nonsense, which had no payoff for me.

9. Dead Lands by Benjamin Percy (2015)

Intriguing story, but I think the overt acknowledgment of Lewis & Clark kept jeopardizing my suspension of disbelief. It was a constant reminder that this was something a writer thought up. However, I did enjoy the mystery of the world, and Percy’s ability to craft powerful sentences. I look forward to picking up another of his books.

10. All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque (1929)

I appreciated how much ground--time, geography, philosophy of war/conflict, camaraderie, history--this novel covers, but the cost of that seems to be a lack of character development.

Biggest Disappointment: 15. Thunderstruck by Erik Larson (2006)

I had a hard time getting into either of the two stories here. I kept waiting for the characters involved in the murder to get interesting, but it never happened, so I kept thinking we would get some gruesome details when we got to the actual murder, but that didn’t happen either. The advancement of technology is interesting in theory, but when all the details were laid out, it was simply a parade of egos. I think I would’ve rather read this as a 5,000-word short story.

Previous Book Lists: 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011.

#books #lists #best of #best of 2017 #2017 #lit #literature #true grit #charles portis

3 notes · View notes

lou-bonfightme · 7 years

Photo

Toulouse Henri Bonfamille - Character Sheet

if you get sleep or if you get none / the cock's gonna call in the morning, baby / check the cupboard for your daddy's gun / red sun rises like an early warning / the lord's gonna come for your first born son / his hair's on fire and his heart is burning / so go to the river where the water runs / wash him deep where the tides are turning...

Archetype — The Caregiver Birthday — May 10, 1995 Zodiac Sign — Taurus MBTI — ENTJ Enneagram — 3, the Achiever Temperament — Choleric Hogwarts House — Slytherdor Moral Alignment — True Neutral Primary Vice — Pride Primary Virtue — Diligence Element — Earth

Overview:

Mother — Adelaide Bonfamille (nee LaBlanc) (Portia de Rossi FC) Father — Hector Bonfamille (Tony Goldwyn) Mother’s Occupation — socialite Father’s Occupation — politician Family Finances — wealthy Birth Order — oldest child Brothers — Berlioz Bonfamille (Matt Hitt FC, 20, Birthday: June 20, 1997) Sisters — Marie Bonfamille (Olivia Holt FC, 17, Birthday: April 22, 2000) Other Close Family — Maternal Aunt: Duchess LaBlanc Best Friend — Hades Other Friends — Sophie, Daisy Enemies — Roger, Perdita, literally so many people tbh Pets — A cat that is not his. Also his plants. Home Life During Childhood — emotionally manipulative/abusive; argumentative with father; parental disagreements; was put in charge of younger siblings Town or City Name(s) — Paris, France Details of Town(s) or City(s) — loved the river and parks, only place he had refuge What Did His or Her Bedroom Look Like — rather plain, big windows, bright, painted a cream color, not a lot of toys but an easel and paints in one corner, a large desk with art supplies. Any Sports or Clubs — nope, he focused solely on his art. Favorite Toy or Game — didn’t really play a lot of games, but he liked building legos with his siblings, or reading to them. Schooling — did excellently in school Favorite Subject — science (especially biology), though he has a fondness for literature as well. Popular or Loner — loner, but girls liked him alot; he had the broody bad boy thing going on, which annoyed him immensely. Important Experiences or Events — moving to Swynlake Health Problems — undiagnosed manic depressive; some minor PTSD and agoraphobia Culture — french, and proud of it. Religion and beliefs — raised catholic, attending church mainly to keep up appearances, he finds parts of religion very beautiful, but also calls bullshit on most of it; he’s too logical and scientific to really find any sort of comfort in it; respects those who are religious though; has a predisposed inclination to dislike muslims based on rhetoric and a lack of proper understanding about the religion.

Physical Appearance:

Face Claim — Freddy Carter Complexion — pale and freckly! Hair Colour — Russet Eye Colour — Green Height — 6′0 Build — slight and tall Tattoos — none and never will Piercings — none Common Hairstyle — perfectly styled 90% of the time, if you catch him without his hair styled he really likes you. Clothing Style — the Most fashionable, very flamboyant, lots of colour Mannerisms — tucks his hands behind his back when he’s nervous or being respectful, if he’s embarrassed his ears turn red Usual Expression —

Health:

Overall (do they get sick easily)? — not since he’s become a werewolf, but he never really got sick Physical Ailments — none Neurological Conditions — bipolar II Allergies — none Grooming Habits — grooms better than some of my girls lmao. takes very good care of himself--when he’s not in a depressive state, then he has more trouble, but if he’s going out he’ll still go through the motions. Sleeping Habits — terrible sleeper. has really bad insomnia. is up late a lot, sleeps in late a lot. wakes up a lot throughout the night. tosses and turns. has trouble falling asleep. Eating Habits — super picky eater. when depressive/manic sometimes doesn’t eat that much Exercise Habits — lmao what exercise Emotional Stability — off his meds? like a 2/10, on his meds he’s closer to a 6/10 probably. Body Temperature — normal Sociability — very charming, knows what to say to get people to like him. that doesn’t always mean he says those things lol Addictions — none really? Drug Use — smokes pot, doesn’t do other drugs thank god that’d be so bad Alcohol Use — drinks more than he should

Your Character’s Character:

Bad Habits — what habits are not bad habits? Thinking he is right about everything, pointing out people’s flaws, getting in fights, generally believing he knows better than everyone else, not feeling out his emotions, withdrawing when things get tough, not speaking to anyone about things that suck in his life, taking on all challenges alone, i could go on... Good Habits — he’s a good brother, he takes care of his siblings, he takes care of himself, for the most part; he’s an excellent studier; he’s very loyal once you win his loyalty Best Characteristic — his unfaltering loyalty Worst Characteristic — his lack of ability to properly communicate his emotions Worst Memory — all the times he had to hide in the closet, or his father sent him to bed with no dinner and kept him there for hours Best Memory — his siblings being born Proud of — his siblings, his art (sometimes) Embarrassed by — not much, honestly. When people catch him having a proper emotion Driving Style — doesn’t drive but he’d be a total soccer mom Strong Points — his loyalty. It’s unwavering and uncompromising Temperament — volatile Attitude — melancholic. Weakness — not being emotionally vulnerable. Seriously, it would solve so many of his issues Fears — not being good enough, being unlovable, worried that he will always be horribly bitter Phobias — pfft nothING (jk he’s lowkey afraid of storms) Secrets — lmao so many where to start? Mostly that he actually does crave affection Regrets — lol everything; probably the biggest is being so hard on ber during their teen years Feels Vulnerable When — he’s having emotion Pet Peeves — god where do i start? People who dont say what’s on their mind Motivation — protecting his siblings is his main motivation Short Term Goals and Hopes — he doens’t really have any im realizing this rn Long Term Goals and Hopes — also does not have many here Sexuality — grey asexual, biromantic (he could be either rly) Exercise Routine — pfft exercise is for the weak Day or Night Person — night owl Introvert or Extrovert — introverted extrovert lou really does thrive in a crowd but needs a lot of recharge time after Optimist or Pessimist — pessimist highkey

Likes and Styles:

Music — Classics. Classical. Stuff with not a lot of lyrics. Though, he’s also fond of the Opera. He really likes Faust and Don Giovanni. Also, he secretly likes a couple of musicals--Les Miserables and Cats are probably his favourites, though he very rarely indulges in them. Books — Candide by Voltaire is his favourite novel, he’s read it several times. He is a fan of the gothic period, he enjoys books like The Phantom of the Opera. Is not a huge Victor Hugo fan because he finds him a bit wordy, but he does like Hunchback of Notre Dame. He prefers concise language in his novels, but also likes beautiful imagery. He’s an avid reader. Magazines — He reads National Geographic and TBH probably gets a copy of Vogue, as well as a few museum magazines, just to keep up with the art scene. Foods — Lou is not a very big sweets person, he prefers richer foods. His favorite is frozen grapes--red or green, that doesn’t really matter. He’s almost always snacking on grapes. Drinks — Lou loves champagne. He also is an avid drinker of water. Animals — Lou loves birds, they’re his favorite. He’s also a fan of reptiles. And he has a particular interest in dinosaurs. Sports — Lol. Social Issues — Lou takes a bit of a middle road on these issues. There are things that he is rather passionate about--such as LGBTQIA rights (this is a recent development), but he also has some rather...unethical opinions about things like immigration that he usually keeps to himself because he knows that they are contentious subject. Favorite Saying — “Chacun voit midi à sa porte” Translation: Everyone sees noon on his doorstep. Basically, everyone views the world the way that they view it. Color — Ah, he cannot choose--but he does gravitate to warmer, earth colors in his paintings, oranges and reds and browns. Clothing — Lou is extremely fashionable and he always is dressed impeccably. He loves color and very rarely wears dull ones. Jewelry — Not a huge fan of jewlery, I’m sure he has a nice watch though, that his father gave him. Games — Chess. Puzzles. Things that challenge the mind. Websites — Eh, he’s got a tumblr blog, and he’s #instafamous so. TV Shows — Lou doesn’t watch television enough to have favorite shows but he detests reality shows and probably watches them with his brother to make fun of people. Movies — Lou doesn’t watch movies often, but he loves good cinematography. Also, documentaries. Especially nature and historical ones. (Also loves Legally Blonde on the lowkey.) Greatest Want — To be needed. Greatest Need — To learn to embrace his emotions.

Where and How Does Your Character Live Now:

Home — lives at his mother’s home in Swynlake Household furnishings — very modern, aligned with the latest Parisian fashion. Favorite Possession — his art studio, does that count?? Most Cherished Possession — the drawer of arts and crafts that lou kept from his siblings when they were little. Neighborhood — the woods, very posh Town or City Name — Swynlake Details of Town or City — small magic friendly Married Before — to Anita Dearly, long story. Significant Other Before — none. Children — none. Relationship with Family — close with his siblings, though closer with Marie than Berlioz, a bit of a momma’s boy, and has a cordial relationship with his father, is very close with his life-long nanny, Nounou. Car — none. Career — will probably be an artist; should be a surgeon. Dream Career — surgeon he just doesn’t know it yet Dream Life — a successful magical animal treatment center, where he can also practice his art on the side; very little chance of having a family but deep down would love a wife/husband and children, maybe he’ll adopt. (he does not know any of this.) Love Life — a hot mess; tries not to develop feelings for people. Talents or Skills — painting, obviously Intelligence Level — he’s very intelligent and observant Finances — wealthy af

Your Character’s Life Before Your Story:

Past Careers — he’s been a student. Past Lovers — many; mostly one night stands, very few repeats Biggest Mistakes — being so hard on ber in secondary; marrying anita. Biggest Achievements — uhmmmmm his art has hung in several galleries

#character sheet #about #this was p much finished and since #everyone is POSting them #viola

7 notes · View notes

bellringermal · 7 years

Note

oh jeez, your LND fanfiction sounds amazing every time you talk about it! Will you ever release it to the public, English translated or not?

EDIT: this post became longer than I thought and contains stupid ramblings about gothic literature and me overanalyzing stuff even if nobody asked me about any of this lmao. You’ve been warned.

Thank you :3 I’m pretty proud of that little soap-opera! Has been a while since I spent so much time just dwelling into characters’ personalities and trying to imagine how they changed as time went by. The last time I did something like this was at least 5 years ago with my own original characters.

Sadly, translating it would take me way too much time considering that I just hit 40 pages (add the 150+ pages of my ‘main’ fanfic and you’ll get the picture of how much Gehrmaria and Micorom crap I’ve written XD) but I can consider uploading the Italian one somewhere in the future.

The biggest problem I have with the LND AU rn and why I am hesitant to post it anywhere (aside from the language) is that I’ve lost the 1st chapter when my file got corrupted and I honestly doubt that I’ll ever re-write it. It was a nice introduction imho, taking place 8 years after the massacre of Fishing Hamlet with Patches, now on the run like many other Cainhurst survivors, carrying on his sketchy business in post-industrial revolution Lothric and giving Gehrman precious information in exchange for a conspicuous sum of money. The greedy bastard :P

From there, Gehrman made contact with Greirat (or at least, his Bloodborne-ish counterpart. He’s not supposed to be the same man, just like Patches is not the same as DeS and DS1-3) who’s the counterfeiter who forged Maria’s documents allowing her to safely leave Carim. The story then moves to the small, peaceful village near the border between Vinheim and Astora where Maria fled, a place so different from Yharnam that Gehrman can’t believe his eyes. I just like to imagine how shocked the characters would be to find themselves in places where not everything is trying to kill them lmao.

I mean, it’s super cheesy. It’s a rip off of the worst Phantom of the Opera fanfiction ever written (and performed. I still can’t believe that I saw that thing on stage 3 times. I AM SCARRED FOR LIFE WEBBER!) after all, but I guess that’s why I love Gehrmaria so much in the first place XD

I love Gothic Romance and many of its tropes but I am bored to death by how most of the time it presents female characters. Boring, empty, subservient ladies with no character *cough cough, Christine, cough*. So, let me explain why I find Maria to be a much more engrossing character, but in order to do so, we need to take a look at the old man himself first :P

Gehrman perfectly mets all the ‘requirements’ of the male counterpart in traditional gothic romance:

Is in a position of authority over the female lead. (Owner of the mansion/castle/whatever spooky place the story takes place in, teacher, replacement of a fatherly figure, betrothed the poor girl has never met before and so on)

Is usually older than the heroine and of a different social status.

Deceives the heroine. (this aspect changes from character to character and can range from an elaborate evil plan to kill the heroine just like Mr.Sharpe plans to do in Crimson Peak to Erik hiding his monstrous appearance from Christine or simply hiding an inconvenient secret like Mr.Rochester does in Jane Eyre. Most of the time, is just hiding the fact that they REALLY like the chick because *insert moral reason here*.

Uncertainty of reciprocation / unreturned love.

Elements of manias of various sorts and neuroses. (Ironically enough, these characteristics are found also in positive heroes such as the Byronic ones. In fact, most modern super villains AND superheroes can be considered Byronic heroes, depending on who you ask.)

Is associated with the supernatural, death and the underworld. (it can be through visual clues, the house is described as a tomb, is located underground, the character possess attributes, supernatural or not, that associate them with death. Erik is literally a living corpse, Maxim De Winter is haunted by the ghost of his deceased wife and Dracula is obviously a vampire. I don’t like to include Dracula among the other boys because his character was made an icon of tragic love only in modern media and not in the original book :/. “Eros&Thanatos” and “Death and the Maiden” are really common archetypes.)

etc.. etc…

BUT what I like about this ship is that you can easily turn the tables and say that almost all of the above applies somehow to Maria too. She is in a position of power being a noblewoman from a scary and powerful family of pseudo-vampires with a dark history. She’s not physically inferior in any way and had no reason to take interest in someone like Gehrman unless she wanted to because she saw something admirable in them or because they proved themselves worthy of her attention. Maria is also depicted in canon as someone in possession of traits traditionally associated with gothic heroines such as kindness, mercy and the will to bring solace to those who suffer BUT Gehrman possesses the exact same traits even if he shows them in a different way.

Personally, I love how balanced they are and that’s why I like writing about them so much.

#gehrmaria #anon ask #lnd au #gothic romance

14 notes · View notes

jenmedsbookreviews · 7 years

Text

No exciting nature shots to share with you this week I’m afraid folks. After a long weekend away last weekend for Bloody Scotland, this week has been all about work. Straight back into it on Tuesday delivering a training course for two days. Thursday I spent a good part of the day driving back up north to Airdrie as I was due to spend the day on Friday out with one of my delivery team. It was his first time out with our new POD system after being trained last week and the first time I’ve been out on a van in quite some time. Won’t be the last.

Had a cracking day out but after being in work for 06:00, spending the day making deliveries around Irvine, then at around 15:00 doing the slow drive back home, I was absolutely shattered. It meant the weekend has been spent catching up on all of the household gubbings I have missed like doing a grocery shop, shoving my clobber in the wash, buying new pillows… you know. The usual.

While I was raiding Dunelm (other shops are available), I picked up Luna a teddy bear blanket. She absolutely loves it. I know this because from the moment she jumped on my bed the first night she started purring and padding away at it. The purring lasted a good ten minutes until she finally fell asleep. After a feed the next morning she jumped back on my bed – same again. She crawled up a ways onto the duvet and had a bit of a fuss – nothing. As soon as she walked back down to her blanket that happy rhythm started up again.

I think I have been forgiven for abandoning her all the time. Either that or she just likes the blanket so much she has forgotten me entirely. Hey ho.

But back to the real reason I’m here. The books. No book post this week 😦 Unloved again, but that’s not a bad thing to be fair. I ‘collected’ a fair few last weekend. ARC wise I had just the three (whoops) from NetGalley – one of which was for a blog tour, another a Christmas feature. I received Barbara Copperthwaite’s Her Last Secret; Fiona Neill’s The Betrayals and The Usual Santas, a collection of Christmas crime capers from a variety of authors.

Purchase wise I’ve been very good. I only purchased 1 book. Well, preordered technically and that was Barbara Copperthwaite’s new book, out next month. I know right? See. I told you I’d been busy.

Busy… reading as it happens. Had a stonkingly good week book wise. Finished the audio book that I started last weekend, listened to another and read four actual book books. Go me. I feel accomplished. Now all I have to do is actually write the reviews…

Books I have read

Love Like Blood (Audio) by Mark Billingham

A BLOODY MESSAGE As DI Nicola Tanner investigates what appears to be a series of organised killings, her partner Susan is brutally murdered, leaving the detective bereft, and vengeful.

A POWERFUL ALLY Taken off the case, Tanner enlists the help of DI Tom Thorne to pursue a pair of ruthless killers and the broker handing out the deadly contracts.

A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE As the killers target their latest victim, Thorne takes the biggest risk of his career and is drawn into a horrifying and disturbing world in which families will do anything to protect their honour.

Wow. What a powerful book. As anyone who saw the recent ‘Written In Blood’ Tv show will know, this book was inspired by a true story, that of Banaz Mahmod, who was tortured and murdered by her own family for falling in love with the wrong person. A so called ‘honour killing’. This book both moved and shocked me in equal measure, as Mark Billingham captured the subject perfectly, the unique elements of humour lighting what could otherwise have been a very dark tale. My review will be posted in the coming weeks but you can purchase the book for yourself here.

…

The Surrogate by Louise Jensen

‘You know that feeling? When you want something so badly, you almost feel you’d kill for it?’

Be careful what you wish for…

Kat and her husband Nick have tried everything to become parents, and are on the point of giving up. Then a chance encounter with Kat’s childhood friend Lisa gives Kat and Nick one last chance to achieve their dream.

But Kat and Lisa’s history hides dark secrets.

And there is more to Lisa than meets the eye.

As dangerous cracks start to appear in Kat’s perfect picture of happily-ever-after, she realises that she must face her fear of the past to save her family…

From the no. 1 bestselling author of The Sister and The Gift, this is an unputdownable psychological thriller which asks how far we will go to create our perfect family.

Oh my. What a story. More than simply a story about a woman desperate to become a mother, this encapsulates the power that a lie told or a secret kept can hold when finally it is uncovered. Forced to face her past and a secret she has never told her husband, Kat is not too keen on what she sees. But she’s not the only one keeping things back. Twisted with a slow building tension, nothing in this book is what it seems. You can preorder a copy here.

…

House Of Spines by Michael J Malone

Ran McGhie’s world has been turned upside down. A young, lonely and frustrated writer, and suffering from mental-health problems, he discovers that his long-dead mother was related to one of Glasgow’s oldest merchant families. Not only that, but Ran has inherited Newton Hall, a vast mansion that belonged to his great-uncle, who appears to have been watching from afar as his estranged great-nephew has grown up.

Entering his new-found home, he finds that Great-Uncle Fitzpatrick has turned it into a temple to the written word – the perfect place for poet Ran. But everything is not as it seems. As he explores the Hall’s endless corridors, Ran’s grasp on reality appears to be loosening. And then he comes across an ancient lift; and in that lift a mirror. And in the mirror … the reflection of a woman …

A terrifying psychological thriller with more than a hint of the Gothic, House of Spines is a love letter to the power of books, and an exploration of how lust and betrayal can be deadly…

Wow. Part gothic ghost story, part pyschological thriller, it’s hard to know how to describe this book and still do it justice. It certainly kept me turning page after page, combining all that I like about literature – horror and thriller blending seemlessly to create an unnerving tale with echoes of Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House, a book I absolutely love. I’ll be sharing my thoughts in full next week but do yourself and bag a copy by following the link here.

…

The Unexpected Inheritance of Inspector Chopra by Vaseem Khan

Mumbai, murder and a baby elephant combine in a charming, joyful mystery for fans of Alexander McCall Smith and Rachel Joyce.

On the day he retires, Inspector Ashwin Chopra discovers that he has inherited an elephant: an unlikely gift that could not be more inconvenient. For Chopra has one last case to solve…

But as his murder investigation leads him across Mumbai – from its richest mansions to its murky underworld – he quickly discovers that a baby elephant may be exactly what an honest man needs.

So begins the start of a quite unexpected partnership, and an utterly delightful new series.

Last weekend I received rather a lovely email, inviting me to be part of a reviewing team for First Monday Crime, a once a month panel held down in London. The plan is to review books from the authors featured on the panel. November’s panel includes the lovely Vaseem Khan, so it seemed the perfect time to break out the audio books on my trip up to Airdrie. And who doesn’t love an elephant right? Well at the beginning of this story, Inspector Chopra is not too chuffed to find himself the proud owner of baby Ganesh. A truly intriguing story and one which captures the spirit of Mumbai through the eyes of a retired Police Inspector and a young elephant with a rather unusual gift. You can see my full review in the coming weeks, but in the meantime why not order a copy here.

…

We’ll Always Have Christmas by Jenny Hale

An enchanting story about the magic of Christmas, the importance of family, and the joy of falling in love during the most romantic season of the year…

Christmas has always been a special time for Noelle Parker. Winter evenings spent with family and friends, drinking hot chocolate and eating cookies at her family’s cozy bakery have shaped her love for all things festive. But this year everything is changing…

The beloved bakery is facing closure and Noelle needs a miracle to save Christmas.

Determined to raise funds for the family business, Noelle sets about revamping the bakery while juggling a surprise new job, caring for the elderly and cantankerous William Harrington in his luxurious, sprawling mansion.

As Noelle melts the frostiness of the house with cake baking, snowball fights and glittering decorations, she helps William to reconnect with a romance that has spanned decades and unexpectedly finds herself falling for his grandson – the gorgeous but mysterious Alexander Harrington…

In the countdown to Christmas, can Noelle save the bakery, reunite a family and create some magical memories of her own along the way?

Aww. My first Christmas book of 2017 and what a book it is. Single mom Noelle is facing unemployment, the loss of her Gram’s beloved bakery and an uncertain Christmas and future. When she is offered a job as a carer to an elderly gentleman it is the perfect lifeline – until she learns that she will be working for the very man threatening the bakery’s future. A heart warming romance written in a beautiful style, I raced through this in one evening. My review will be up soon as part of the blog tour but in the meantime why not preorder a copy here.

…

The Man Who Died by Antti Tuomainen

A successful entrepreneur in the mushroom industry, Jaakko Kaunismaa is a man in his prime. At just 37 years of age, he is shocked when his doctor tells him that he’s dying. What is more, the cause is discovered to be prolonged exposure to toxins; in other words, someone has slowly but surely been poisoning him.

Determined to find out who wants him dead, Jaakko embarks on a suspenseful rollercoaster journey full of unusual characters, bizarre situations and unexpected twists.

With a nod to Fargo and the best elements of the Scandinavian noir tradition, The Man Who Died is a page-turning thriller brimming with the blackest comedy surrounding life and death, and love and betrayal, markinng a stunning new departure for the King of Helsinki Noir.

Who knew mushrooms could be so deadly. Well, aside from anyone who has ever accidentally eaten a poisonous mushroom that is… I loved this book. I love the blend of hunour and mystery. I love the true sense of place and setting you get when reading Antti Tuomainen’s work. I love the simple and understated way in which the story makes me smile, the way the darker moments of humour make me chuckle out loud. I love the fact that I only started reading this as a break from writing up reviews and yet I powered my way through it in one evening. If you take one thing from my post today, let it be ‘buy this book’. You can do so by pre-ordering it right here. Genius.

…

Quite a week huh? Can’t quite believe it myself, but then it’s a lot easier when I can travel and manage an audio book or two. I’ll be listening to the second Inspector Chopra book later this week as I head back to Scotland again for a meeting. Some sacrifices have to be made I’m afraid 😉

Blog wise I had another full week, with a little help from the big sis. I’m still running my giveaway for another week so if you fancy some Scottish themed goodies, enter away.

Cover Reveal: Barbara Copperthwaite and Bookouture

A weekend to remember. @Bloodyscotland Roundup September 17 + Giveaway

#Booklove: Patricia M Osborne

Review: The Dragonfly by Kate Dunn

#BlogBlitz: The Missing Girls by Carol Wyer

#BookLove: Eve Seymour

Review: You Don’t Know Me by Imran Mahmood

The week ahead is pretty full on two. This morning I had a fab guest post from author Alison Brodie about her new book, Zenka. Tomorrow is a double whammy with an author interivew with Billy McLaughlin as part of the blog tour for The Daughter, plus I’ll have my review of She Did It by Mel Sherratt. Wednesday is my turn on the blog blitz for Cold Blood by Robert Bryndza and I have two more blog tours planned for The Frozen Woman and Reach For The Stars on Friday and Saturday. On top of all of that I’ll be sharing the #booklove with author Patricia Furstenberg and rounding out the week with a new review.

Busy Busy Busy. Loving it. I have a punishing schedule at work over the next few weeks but I’m determined to keep up with everything bloggish. If I’m quiet on Social Media, don’t panic. I’m still around but books and reading come second only to work this week.

Have a fabulously bookish week and see you next Monday

Jen

Rewind, recap: Weekly update w/e 17/09/17 No exciting nature shots to share with you this week I'm afraid folks. After a long weekend away last weekend for Bloody Scotland, this week has been all about work.

#Rewind Recap #Weekly Round UP

0 notes

annabelaplit · 8 years

Text

Reading a Childhood Book Series Through a Feminist Lens

I was going to write about Dickens, I swear. I woke up bright and early at 8am this morning with a plan to get up, write a blog post about the theme of Death and Rebirth in A Tale of Two Cities, do an assortment of other homework and then write scholarship essays. But before that I wanted to spend a little time reading a set of favorite childhood books called A Series of Unfortunate Events. A television show based on the series came out a few weeks ago, and I had a party with my friends where we watched the entire thing in a day. Afterwards I decided it might be fun to revisit the series again. So in my constantly-shrinking periods of free time I have slowly been working my way through the 13 book series.

Today I was reading Book 8 and my eyes looked over a passage that made me think of the entire series in a different light. So naturally I went back and skimmed the first 8 books, read books 9-13 in their entirety, watched applicable parts of the television show and read some literary criticism. Then I realized it was 10 pm and I had accomplished exactly 0 of my academic goals. I had, however, come up with a pretty viable theory for how all these works of Gothic children’s literature are actually feminist texts. So enjoy I guess?

A bit of background because you probably have no idea about the plot of any of these books. A Series of Unfortunate Events is written by a man named Daniel Handler, but it’s narrator is a persona called Lemony Snicket who seems to be this secretive man with a tragic past and a dead lover named Beatrice whom he mourns for consistently. He is chronicling the lives of three orphans as they struggle to protect their late parents fortune and their own lives from a man named Count Olaf. Basically they go to stay with a series of eccentric guardians or end up working and living in a series of eccentric places, and Count Olaf follows them, often in disguise with a bunch of henchmen, and concocts various schemes to get their fortune. Some main themes deal with critiquing adult authority and basic societal institutions, reckoning with the cynicism that comes with growing up, and exploring the ideas of morality and moral relativism. It’s peppered with all sorts of literary references, and it’s much darker than a typical children’s series. Overall it makes for a good read, even for an adult.

Anyway the three orphans are named Violet, Klaus, and Sunny Baudelaire and they are 14, 13, and an infant respectively. They all have their own special talents which they repeatedly use to get out of all kinds of tricky scenarios. The youngest, Sunny, has unusually sharp teeth with she uses to chop things, bite people, climb walls, and sword-fight. As the series progresses she also reveals a latent talent for cooking, Klaus, the middle child, is a voracious reader and researcher with an encyclopedia of knowledge in his head. And Violet, the eldest child, is a skilled inventor with a Mac Gyver like knack for using household objects to escape dangerous situations.

I think that Handler’s choice to make Violet an inventor is really interesting in a feminist context. Female inventors or females in any kind of engineering, scientific, or mechanical job are less common, both in literature and real life. The lack of women in STEM fields is a real and documented problem. But it is Violet, a girl that has this talent, rather than the bookish skills that are slightly more associated with women. Tison Pugh the author of a literary article about the role of gender in A Series of Unfortunate Events writes,

“Gender roles in the series are additionally undermined through the reversals of gendered norms that have already been reversed. Violet may be coded as somewhat masculine due to her inventing skills, and Klaus may be coded as somewhat feminine due to his inveterate reading, but their respective tendencies in regard to gendered activities do not limit their potential to act in new ways....Gendered categories are rendered meaningless for the Baudelaire children, who express the freedom and agency to strip themselves of the prescriptive cast of gender's historical enactments”

So Violent Baudelaire’s identity is primarily based on the fact that she is an inventor not that she is a girl. However most of the people around her, especially the adults view her more in the context of her gender than in the context of her skills and talents. Characters that can be considered “friendly” towards the orphans exhibit a lot of subtle and sometimes blatantly sexist behavior towards her.

For instance, in Book #3, The Wide Window Josephine Anwhistle, the new guardian of the Baudelaires, gives gifts to the children.

"For Violet," she said, "there is a lovely new doll with plenty of outfits for it to wear." Aunt Josephine reached inside and pulled out a plastic doll with a tiny mouth and wide, staring eyes. "Isn't she adorable? Her name is Pretty Penny."

"Oh, thank you," said Violet, who at fourteen was too old for dolls and had never particularly liked dolls anyway. Forcing a smile on her face, she took Pretty Penny from Aunt Josephine and patted it on its little plastic head

Now to a certain level this incident can just be seen as disinterested parenting instead of a specific attack on gender. However, Josephine’s entire rationale for giving Violet this gift is that Violet is a girl and girls like dolls. She sees the 14 year old in the context of her gender instead of seeing her for her talents and interests outside the scope of her gender.

In Book #7, The Vile Village Count Olaf is trying to frame the orphans for murder and he uses a hair ribbon for evidence

“He reached into the pocket of his blazer and brought out a long pink ribbon decorated with plastic daisies. "I found this right outside Count Olaf's jail cell," he said. "It's a ribbon — the exact kind of ribbon that Violet Baudelaire uses to tie up her hair.”

The townspeople gasped, and Violet turned to see that the citizens of V.F.D. were looking at her with suspicion and fear, which are not pleasant ways to be looked at.

"That's not my ribbon!" Violet cried, taking her own hair ribbon of her pocket. "My hair ribbon is right here!"

"How can we tell?" an Elder asked with a frown. "All hair ribbons look alike."

"They don't look alike!" Klaus said. "The one found at the murder scene is fancy and pink. My sister prefers plain ribbons, and she hates the color pink!"

Here the townspeople of the Village of Fowl Devotees, the ostensible guardians of the children, decide that Violet is guilty based on the assumption that she would wear a fancy pink hairband because she is a girl.

In Book #11, The Grim Grotto, Klaus helps a sea captain find the location of an important object. The excited captain explains,

“Aye! You're sensational! Aye! If you find me the sugar bowl, I'll allow you to marry Fiona!”

“Stepfather!” Fiona cried, blushing behind her triangular glasses.

“Don't worry,” the captain replied, “we'll find a husband for Violet, too! Aye! Perhaps we'll find your long-lost brother, Fiona! He's much older, of course, and he's been missing for years, but if Klaus can locate the sugar bowl he could probably find him! Aye! He's a charming man, so you'd probably fall in love with him, Violet, and then we could have a double wedding! Aye! Right here in the Main Hall of the Queequeg ! Aye! I would be happy to officiate! Aye! I have a bow tie I've been saving for a special occasion!”

“Captain Widdershins,” Violet said, “let's try to stick to the subject of the sugar bowl.” She did not add that she was not interested in getting married for quite some time”

Captain Widdershins decides that marriage is a suitable reward for the Baudelaire’s help. First he thinks of marrying his stepdaughter to Klaus and then of marrying his long lost stepson to Violet. At this point the Captain has considerable knowledge of Violet’s personality and her passion for inventing, but he still thinks that she is more interested in love and marriage than anything else.

In Book #12, The Penultimate Peril, a mentor of the Baudelaires named Kim Snicket attempts to show the children how much they can accomplish,

"When your parents died," Kit said, "you were just a young girl, Violet. But you've matured. Those aren't the eyes of a young girl. They're the eyes of someone who has faced endless hardship. And look at you, Klaus. You have the look of an experienced researcher-not just the young reader who lost his parents in a fire. And Sunny, you're standing on your own two feet, and so many of your teeth are growing in that they don't appear to be of such unusual size, as they were when you were a baby. You're not children anymore, Baudelaires. You're volunteers, ready to face the challenges of a desperate and perplexing world”

I think here the sexism comes across pretty subtly. Kit is trying to talk about how all three of the children have changed as a result of what they have faced after the deaths of their parents. Sunny goes from a baby with unusually large teeth to a older child with more normal teeth. Klaus goes from a “young reader” to a “experienced researcher”. But Violet goes from a “young girl” to someone who has faced endless hardship. Both Sunny and Klaus experience change based on their talents: reading and biting. But Violet’s change is related to her femininity rather than her skills or talents. Arguably Kit is the best ally the orphans have in any of the novels, but she still falls prey to subtle gender stereotyping

Probably the greater instance of sexism in the novels is in Book #2, The Reptile Room. The banker Mr. Poe who is in charge of placing the orphans in the care of various guardians discovers that Violet has picked a lock in order to discover vital information about how Count Olaf murdered the herpetologist Dr. Montgomery Montgomery.

"It was an emergency," Violet said calmly, "so I picked the lock."

"How did you do that?" Mr. Poe asked. "Nice girls shouldn't know how to do such things."

"My sister is a nice girl," Klaus said, "and she knows how to do all sorts of things.

"Roofik!" Sunny agreed.

I think this one is pretty self-explanatory

This behavior isn’t entirely unique to adults. There are only two male characters in all 13 books that are approximately Violet’s age and the connections she has with both of them are to some degree romantic. The only people that seem to view her completely outside of the context of her gender are her siblings. However Violet’s romantic interests, most of the other child characters, and some of the adults recognize Violet’s innate inventing skills. They see her as being more than just a girl and it is important that this way of looking at her is connected with the “good” people. Readers, especially impressionable children (including me at that age), see how it is right to value Violet as an inventor instead of as a girl.

If those with friendly towards Violet can be said to sometimes value her gender over her talent and skills in other areas, those who are the enemies of the Baudelaire can be said to treat her far worse. They see her only in the context of her physical attractiveness rather than in the context of any of her other attributes.

Violet is pretty and this is an attribute that Count Olaf and his various henchmen unerringly pay attention to throughout the series. Some examples,

In Book #1, The Bad Beginning the children are put in the care of Count Olaf and his various evil henchmen

“Nobody paid a bit of attention to the children, except for the bald man, who stopped and stared Violet in the eye.

"You're a pretty one," he said, taking her face in his rough hands. "If I were you I would try not to anger Count Olaf, or he might wreck that pretty little face of yours." Violet shuddered, and the bald man gave a high-pitched giggle and left the room.”

Here an evil henchmen pays attention to Violet over the other children only because she is attractive and then he uses her attractiveness as the basis of a threat.

At one point in Book #1 Count Olaf asks the children to participate in a play he is producing,

"And what will I do?" Violet asked. "I am very handy with tools, so perhaps I could help you build the set."

"Build the set? Heavens, no," Count Olaf said. "A pretty girl like you shouldn't be working backstage."

"But I'd like to," Violet said.

Here Count Olaf literally devalues Violet’s mechanical and technical skills in favor of her physical looks.

At one point in the Bad Beginning Count Olaf imprisons Sunny in a cage and Violet gets captured by a hook handed henchman while trying to rescue her

" How pleasant that you could join us," the hook-handed man said in a sickly sweet voice. Violet immediately tried to scurry back down the rope, but Count Olaf's assistant was too quick for her. In one movement he hoisted her into the tower room and, with a flick of his hook, sent her rescue device clanging to the ground. Now Violet was as trapped as her sister. "I'm so glad you're here," the hook-handed man said. "I was just thinking how much I wanted to see your pretty face. Have a seat."

Seeing Violet just climb a 30ft building using a homemade invention this henchmen’s first thought is to mention how to wanted to see Violet because she is attractive.

Things cool down with all the references to Violet’s looks until midway through the series. In Book #9, the Carnivorous Carnival. Count Olaf and his associates talk about which children they would most like to have survived the fire they set at a hospital.

"I hope it's Sunny," the hook-handed man said. "It was fun putting her in a cage, and I look forward to doing it again."

"I myself hope it's Violet," Olaf said. "She's the prettiest."

Rather than any of her various other merits the sole reason Count Olaf mentions wanting Violet to be alive is because she is “pretty”

In Book #11, The Grim Grotto the Baudelaires need to convince Count Olaf to help Sunny who has been poisoned by a rare fungus,

Sunny coughed inside her helmet, and Violet thought quickly. “If you let us help our sister,” she said, “we'll tell you where the sugar bowl is.”

Count Olaf's eyes narrowed, and he gave the children a wide, toothy grin the two Baudelaires remembered from so many of their troubled times. His eyes shone brightly, as if he were telling a joke as nasty as his unbrushed teeth.

“You can't try that trick again,” he sneered. “I'm not going to bargain with an orphan, no matter how pretty she may be. Once you get to the brig, you'll reveal where the sugar bowl is – once my henchman gets his hands on you. Or should I say hooks? Hee hee torture!”

Here Count Olaf feels the need to slip in the fact that Violet’s looks play a role in this bargaining process.

But for me the passage which illustrates this phenomena best comes in Book #8, The Horrible Hospital. This was the passage that got me started on this whole 18 hour researching and blog post project. The Horrible Hospital was the first of the Series of Unfortunate Events that I read, way back in the 3rd grade. Something about it stuck out to me then and today I realized what that was. Its background is that Count Olaf has captured Violet and is going to basically saw off her head but make it look like a surgical procedure. Klaus and Sunny have disguised themselves as evil henchmen nurses and are attempting to find a way to break their sister out of the hospital.

The bald man took a key out of the pocket in his medical coat, and unlocked the door with a triumphant grin. "Here she is," he said. "Our little sleeping beauty."

The door opened with a long, whiny creak, and the children stepped inside the room, which was square and small and had heavy shades over the windows, making it quite dark inside. But even in the dim light the children could see their sister, and they almost gasped at how dreadful she looked.

When the bald associate had mentioned a sleeping beauty, he was referring to a fairy tale that you have probably heard one thousand times. Like all fairy tales, the story of Sleeping Beauty begins with "Once upon a time," and continues with a foolish young princess who makes a witch very angry, and then takes a nap until her boyfriend wakes her up with a kiss and insists on getting married, at which point the story ends with the phrase "happily ever after." The story is usually illustrated with fancy drawings of the napping princess, who always looks very glamorous and elegant, with her hair neatly combed and a long silk gown keeping her comfortable as she snores away for years and years. But when Klaus and Sunny saw Violet in Room 922, it looked nothing like a fairy tale.

The eldest Baudelaire was lying on a gurney, which is a metal bed with wheels, used in hospitals to move patients around. This particular gurney was as rusty as the knife Klaus was holding, and its sheets were ripped and soiled. Olaf's associates had put her into a white gown as filthy as the sheets, and had twisted her legs together like vines. Her hair had been messily thrown over her eyes so that no one would recognize her face from The Daily Punctilio, and her arms hung loosely from her body, one of them almost touching the floor of the room with one limp finger. Her face was pale, as pale and empty as the surface of the moon, and her mouth was open slightly in a vacant frown, as if she were dreaming of being pricked with a pin. Violet looked like she had dropped onto the gurney from a great height, and if it were not for the slow and steady rise of her chest as she breathed, it would have looked like she had not survived the fall. Klaus and Sunny looked at her in horrified silence, trying not to cry as they gazed at their helpless sister.

"She's a pretty one," the hook-handed man said, "even when she's unconscious."

"She's clever, too," the bald man said, "although her clever little brain won't do her any good when her head has been sawed off." ....

Although her siblings preferred to think about her inventing abilities and conversational skills rather than her physical appearance, it was true, as the hook-handed man had said, that Violet was a pretty one, and if her hair had been neatly combed, instead of all tangled up, and she had been dressed in something elegant and glamorous, instead of a stained gown, she might indeed have looked like an illustration from "Sleeping Beauty."

There is a lot to take in here. Handler does a really great job subtly deconstructing the fairly tale of Sleeping Beauty and making it look stupid. He first does through diminishing the action to things like taking a nap and suggesting that getting married doesn’t necessarily equate a happy ending. The idea of a sleeping beauty is then contrasted by Violet’s decrepit treatment and quite sad appearance as she lays unconscious on the gurney. The two henchmen talk about her attributes, focusing primarily on her natural beauty as opposed to her “cleverness”. But the most important part of the scene might be that last paragraph where Snicket talks about Violet’s beauty but not before mentioning, “her siblings preferred to think about her inventing abilities and conversational skills rather than her appearance”. It is an unobstructed fact that Violet is beautiful but only the “bad” characters focus on her beauty while the “good” characters think of her outside of this context. It is a really subtle morality lesson, saying that it is correct to think of girls is outside the scope of traditional fairy tales, and it is a lesson that personally reverberated with me after the reading the book for the first time.

There is an elephant in the room regarding the way in which Violet is viewed by her enemies. An analysis can’t be complete without referring to the fact that Count Olaf tried to marry Violet, who I should remind you was 14 throughout A Bad Beginning and throughout most of the series. This almost-marriage was solely a convoluted way for Count Olaf to get his hands on the Baudelaire fortune, and it seems a lot less strange when you read the actual books, and this whole plot is foiled which some hand signing shenanigans. But the whole thing is still quite weird and it has some weird implications as well as spawning some more commentary on Violet’s character in relation to her gender and appearance.

The reason that Count Olaf imprisoned Sunny in a cage above his house was to force Violet to participate in a legitimate marriage ceremony embedded in a play he was putting on.

"Come now," Count Olaf said, his voice faking—a word which here means “feigning"— kindness. He reached out a hand and stroked Violet's hair. "Would it be so terrible to be my bride, to live in my house for the rest of your life? You're such a lovely girl, after the marriage I wouldn't dispose of you like your brother and sister.

Violet imagined... wandering around the house, trying to avoid [Count Olaf] all day, and cooking for his terrible friends at night, perhaps every night, for the rest of her life. But then she looked up at her helpless sister and knew what her answer must be. "If you let Sunny go," she said finally, "I will marry you

Okay this is really really creepy especially for a children’s novel. But is also interesting to note how Violet’s physical appearance is the sole reason Count Olaf seems inclined to treat her with a modicum of kindness afer their theoretical marriage. Violet’s view of how marriage with the villain will be also seems to her involve being a sort of housewife who cooks dinner for the Count’s henchpeople every night. Her life with him would have nothing to do with her actual talents and everything to do with her attractiveness and traditional gender roles.

There is also a really important interaction with Violet, Count Olaf and the Hook Handed Man right after she gets caught trying to break Sunny out of her cage.

“ The hook-handed man reached into a pocket of his greasy overcoat and pulled out a walkie-talkie. With some difficulty, he pressed a button and waited a moment. "Boss, it's me," he said. "Your blushing bride just climbed up here to try and rescue the biting brat."

He paused as Count Olaf said something. "I don't know. With some sort of rope."

"It was a grappling hook," Violet said, and tore off a sleeve of her nightgown to make a bandage for her shoulder. "I made it myself." "

She says it was a grappling hook," the hook-handed man said into the walkie-talkie. "I don't know, boss. Yes, boss. Yes, boss, of course I understand she's yours. Yes, boss." He pressed a button to disconnect the line, and then turned to face Violet. "Count Olaf is very displeased with his bride. "

"I'm not his bride," Violet said bitterly.

"Very soon you will be," the hook-handed man said

Once again this whole thing is pretty creepy and weird especially without the context of the whole novel. But throughout this passage Violet is referred to by the bad guys in the context of her role as a future wife, even as they discuss what she has done in her role as an inventor. There is also the whole thing with Violet belonging to Count Olaf which sexist in a pretty blatant way.

So overall the fact that Violent’s appearance and actions in traditional gender roles are granted such importance by the bad characters and are neglected by the good characters signals to readers that that sort of behavior is bad in general. It teaches them that girls shouldn’t be just thought of as “pretty” and future wives, they can be inventors, or researchers, or poets, or spies.

Okay I’m not quite done yet. I want to talk about Violet’s “foil” in this story, a girl named Carmelita Spats. We are first introduced to Carmelita in Book #5, and she comes back in Book #10, Book #11, and Book #12. The first sentence of Book #5, the Austere Academy is

“If you were going to give a gold medal to the least delightful person on Earth, you would have to give that medal to a person named Carmelita Spats, and if you didn't give it to her, Carmelita Spats was the sort of person who would snatch it from your hands anyway. Carmelita Spats was rude, she was violent, and she was filthy, and it is really a shame that I must describe her to you, because there are enough ghastly and distressing things in this story without even mentioning such an unpleasant person”

So basically Carmelita Spats is THE WORST PERSON EVER. But besides being rude and greedy and doing a lot of mean stuff to people Carmelita is quite obsessed with her looks and fitting into traditional gender roles. In the Austere Academy she informs the Baudelaires

"I have a message for you from Coach Genghis. I get to be his Special Messenger because I'm the cutest, prettiest, nicest girl in the whole school”

Notice how two of the three adjectives she uses to describe herself deal with her physical attractiveness. This self obsession is only heightened later on. In Book #10 The Slippery Slope Carmelita relates to the orphans a truly dull and awful story,

"Once upon a time, I woke up and looked in the mirror, and there I saw the prettiest, smartest, most darling girl in the whole wide world. I put on a lovely pink dress to make myself look even prettier, and I skipped off to school where my teacher told me I looked more adorable than anyone she had ever seen in her entire life, and she gave me a lollipop as a special present"

Look how Carmelita thinks of herself, she mentions once that she is smart, but she mostly talks about how attractive she is, how she is the “prettiest”, the “most darling”, “adorable”. She gets rewarded by a teacher for being beautiful instead of being smart. She also talks wearing a pink dress to become more attractive, something that fits in with tradtional gender stereotypes, and can be seen as the opposite of Violet with her plain hair ribbon.

Later on in The Slippery Slope Count Olaf’s girlfriend Esme Squalor asks Carmelita to join their band of villains. Her sales pitch?

"I think you're adorable, beautiful, cute, dainty, eye-pleasing, flawless, gorgeous, harmonious, impeccable, jaw-droppingly adorable, keen, luscious, magnificent, nifty, obviously adorable, photogenic, quite adorable, ravishing, splendid, thin, undeformed, very adorable, well-proportioned, xylophone, yummy, and zestfully adorable," Esmé pledged, "every morning, every afternoon, every night, and all day long!"

Almost every single one of those compliments have to do with Carmelita’s looks. There is barely any mention of any other skills or talents Carmelita might have. With references to being “thin” and “well-proportioned” the idea that beautiful women ought to be skinny is also enforced. Carmelita is entirely defined by her femininity, while Violet’s status as a girl is tangential to her personality.

When we meet up with Carmelita in Book #11, The Grim Grotto her reliance on traditional gender roles is even more enforced.

“Carmelita had always been the sort of unpleasant person who believed that she was prettier and smarter than everybody else, and Violet and Klaus saw instantly that she had become even more spoiled under the care of Olaf and Esmé. She was dressed in an outfit perhaps even more absurd than Esmé Squalor's, in different shades of pink so blinding that Violet and Klaus had to squint in order to look at her. Around her waist was a wide, frilly tutu, which is a skirt used during ballet performances, and on her head was an enormous pink crown decorated with light pink ribbons and dark pink flowers. She had two pink wings taped to her back, two pink hearts drawn on her cheeks, and two different pink shoes on each foot that made unpleasant slapping sounds as she walked. Around her neck was a stethoscope, such as doctors use, with pink puffballs pasted all over it, and in one hand she had a long pink wand with a bright pink star at the end of it.

“Stop looking at my outfit!” she commanded the Baudelaires scornfully. “You're just jealous of me because I'm a tap-dancing ballerina fairy princess veterinarian!”

Carmelita has grown more spoiled but she has also grown even more attached to feminine stereotypes. Look at her blindingly pink outfit, covered with hearts, ribbons, and flowers. Her career choices are ballerina, fairy, princess, and veterinarian, all of which are tradtionally associated with females except maybe veterinarians. Even then her stethoscope is covered with “pink puffballs”. Carmelita has basically become the very embodiment of female stereotypes, compiling every traditional desire of little girls into one person. Her constant reminder of what a “typical girl” should look be directly contrasts how Violet acts. And since Carmelita is “the least delightful person on earth” and we know Violet is wonderful from spending 11 books with her, readers feel that Violet’s is the example that they should follow.

The only other thing interesting to note about Carmelita Spats is what happens to her in Book #12 the Penultimate Peril. Violet sees her playing in a pool on the rooftop of a hotel.

The last time Violet had seen the unpleasant captain of this boat, she was dressed all in pink, and was announcing herself as a tap-dancing ballerina fairy princess veterinarian, but the eldest Baudelaire could hardly say whether being a ballplaying cowboy superhero soldier pirate was better or worse.

"Of course you are, darling," purred Esmé, and turned to Geraldine Julienne with a smile one mother might give another at a playground. "Carmelita has been a tomboy lately," she said, using an insulting term inflicted on girls whose behavior some people find unusual.

"I'm sure your daughter will grow out of it," Geraldine replied, who as usual was speaking into a microphone”

This time the lesson on gender stereotypes doesn’t come from Carmelita’s actions but from Snicket himself. Carmelita has changed from an incredibly feminine person to one with masculine interests. Rather than legitimately accepting her ward’s more non-tradtional interests Esme insists that she is just going through a phase, and a local reporter insists that these interests will soon change. But Snicket calls out these adults and others who use the term tomboy. He calls the term “insulting” and describes it as being “inflicted” on girls. The message is clear: it’s perfectly acceptable if one wants to act outside the bounds of traditional gender stereotypes and children shouldn’t be shamed for it.

A few other minor notes. Handler likes to comment on the gendered quality of words and phrases in various places in the series. At one point a female villain says that she prefers to use the term henchperson as opposed to henchman. And the stepdaughter of Captain Widdershins insists on inserting the phrase “or she” in the Captain’s personal motto of “He who hesitates is lost”. He also deconstructs more fairy tales such as Cinderella and Little Red Riding Hood.

There are also other instances of the behaviors I have described here in the Netflix show based on the first four books of A Series of Unfortunate Events. The teleplays for that series was also written by Daniel Handler. In the Episode A Bad Beginning Part 2 one of Olaf’s henchpeople states that

“I just think, even in changing context, that marriage is an inherently patriarchal construction that is likely to further the hegemonic juggernaut that's problematizing a lot of genders”

This is intended to be comic relief but you can see some of Handler’underlying messages about gender roles in the statement. There is also a truly creepy scene in that episode where Klaus insists, “You will never touch our fortune” and Count Olaf replies, “Klaus, I’ll touch whatever I want” and then squeezes Violet’s shoulder. It is just another instance of Violet’s physical features being valued over her mental ones.

Also in the Episode: The Reptile Room Part 2 the critique that Violet shouldn’t pick locks because she is a nice girl is stated by both Mr. Poe and Count Olaf on separate occasions. Count Olaf also insists that he is willing to settle for taking just Violet to Peru, where there are lax childcare laws, instead of all four siblings.

Alright that is literally everything I can possibly think of to say about this book series from a feminist perspective. Through the views of different characters on Violet Baudelaire's attributes readers can understand how treating girls in certain ways is inappropriate. Girls are more than just their looks, they are more than traditional gender roles, and their identities based on their talents and skills are just as important as their gender identity. When you read A Series of Unfortunate Events you may think you are reading a children’s story about secret organizations and eccentric guardians but you’re actually reading subtle feminist propaganda. As a huge fan of the books when I was young, it is invigorating to look at them through this lens and I am glad I got to use my AP Lit skills for something I am so passionate about.

Also it’s 2:30 in the morning and I have literally spent 18 hours researching and writing this post. It’s time for bed yo!

0 notes