#this is supposed to be literary analysis. literary critique.

[anqelbean]

Every now and again, YouTube recommends me a booktube book review for a “controversial” book and every time I decide to watch it I realize these people’s minds would be blown by SVSSS and 2HA. Their heads would just explode. They’d die after the first 5 chapters. Their little brains wouldn’t be able to comprehend them, they’d just shut down and self destruct.      

[nateconnolly]

“I have tried to show you what I am,” says Barb, the protagonist of one of the most controversial short stories ever written. “I have tried to do it without judgment. That I leave to you.”

Barb comes from I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter by Isabel Fall, a science fiction story about gender and imperialism. It was Fall’s first published story. There was no backlog of stories to analyze, and her author’s bio was sparse. Readers weren’t given any information about Fall’s gender identity, but that didn’t stop activists from speculating. “… this reads as if it was written by a straight white dude who doesn’t really get gender theory or transition,” complained Arinn Dembo, President of the science fiction writers’ collective SF Canada. The author Phoebe Barton even compared the story to a weapon against trans people: “Think of it as a gun,” she tweeted. “A gun has only one use: for hurting.” N.K. Jemison joined in, tweeting, “Artists should strive to do no (more of this) harm.” But Dembo and the hundreds of thousands of others were mistaken about Fall’s supposed cis identity. The publisher responded to the backlash by taking the story down and posting a statement about the author’s identity. Isabel Fall was a transgender woman, and self-identified activists for trans rights bullied her so mercilessly that she attempted suicide. Dembo later adjusted her criticism, saying “a lot of people might have been spared a lot of mental anguish” if Fall had made a statement about her gender identity. Meaning, Fall had a moral obligation to out herself as a trans woman. Both of Dembo’s comments reveal a preoccupation with the author that distracts from the text. The recent obsession with author identities is one of the great failures of contemporary liberal movements. In order to win liberation for any given group, liberal activists must focus less on who speaks and more on what is spoken. 

Roland Barthes’ 1967 essay The Death of the Author argued that an author’s intentions and life experiences do not make the “ultimate meaning” of their text. The author might as well “die” once the text is in the reader’s hands. The text is “a multi-dimensional space” that one cannot simply flatten with biographical details about the author. Barthes has largely been vindicated among literary critics and theorists, but his idea has not been well-received among liberal activists. It is easy to refuse to acknowledge multiple dimensions of a text. Moralistic groups like liberation movements might even be tempted to sort texts into a simple dichotomy—“good” or “bad,” without any gray areas—on the sole basis of the author’s identity. That is exactly what Dembo tried to do: she suggested that Attack Helicopter was bad simply because of the author’s (supposed) gender. 

I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter is not a transphobic story. Although an in-depth analysis would be beyond the scope of this essay, I can confidently say that Fall critiqued American imperialism, not transgender people. I think that would be clear to anyone who reads the story. But apparently, reading a story is no longer a necessary step in the process of interpreting it. Barton—who suggested her fellow trans woman was a “gun”-wielding transphobe—had not actually read the story. Jemison also admitted she had not read the story before tweeting that it was harmful. We now have a complete reversal of Barthes’ idea: this method of moralistic interpretation is nothing less than the death of the text.

Fall is far from the only queer storyteller to face backlash for allegedly not being queer. Becky Albertalli, Kit Connor (who was still a teenager), and Jameela Jamil all came out of the closet because they were harassed for telling queer stories as “straight” and “cis” people. It is a common talking point in activist circles that the government should not compile lists of queer people or forcibly out them. Why, then, do activists engage in the same behavior? It simply is not always safe to admit that you are gay, or trans, or autistic, or epileptic, or that you have had an abortion. The reason that we need liberation movements for these groups is the same reason that people might not want to publicly claim these identities.

You can read the rest on Substack

[avelera]

Fandom Meta vs. Literary Criticism vs. Workshopping Fiction

I recently wrote a post about how I do not want authors of works like say, Neil Gaiman to see my fandom meta or literary critiques about their work, such as The Sandman which is my current fandom. Not just because there's a time and a place but because, depending on the audience, I'm going to frame my critique in different ways.

Workshopping fiction, ie, offering critique to an author with an eye towards improving the work or improving their overall skill level, is a sacred trust and one I take very seriously, to the point where I often refuse beta request (as workshopping is often referred to in fandom spaces) because I do not trust that the person on the other end of the request is mature enough as a writer to accept the level of critique I would offer to a pro or pre-pro author who is seeking to improve their work. I am careful because I want to foster a growing author and not slam them with the level of professional critique I'd give someone trying to go pro, so until I know what level I'm working on as far as how in-depth my critique should go, I usually only offer the lightest of touches. But if, for example, Neil was a fellow pro or pre-pro author who seriously solicited my thoughts on a piece that could be improved, this is what I might say to his face:

Ex. "Hey Neil, overall I love this comic you brought to the workshop, "The Men of Good Fortune"! One question, in the 1689 beat, I noticed that the death of Hob's family is just one beat of many in his string of misfortunes. However, in my experience, the loss of someone's family would be a seriously traumatic event, likely outweighing the loss of their wealth. Was this intentional? As it is, this beat makes me less sympathetic towards Hob because he seems to view his wealth as more important that his family. If not, might I suggest adding a bit more weight to the loss of his wife and adult son? I understand this was just one minor beat of the many you were juggling to show us this jaunt through time and I wasn't sure whether or not I was meant to have less sympathy for Hob here, since this arc appears to be about watching him change and evolve as a person over the centuries, or if this was merely an oversight as the loss of his family only meant to be one of a series of beats on the historical misfortunes that could befall him in this "worst of all possible centuries" and you just didn't have the time, energy, or space, or interest to expand upon it?"

To which Neil might respond, "Yes, you are meant to find Hob distasteful in that century, well spotted! Hob sees his family as possessions as much as anything else and you are not supposed to like him." Or, "I never thought of that! I had so many other things going on and I was under deadline that in truth, it was just meant to be a bit of a laundry list of misfortunes. I never really thought of or meant to explore that beat. Maybe I will improve it in the next draft!" OR, "However, that exploration is beyond the scope of this story and while I see your point, I just don't have the time/interest/space to explore the long-term ramifications to the character of him losing his first planned family."

Now, Literary criticism is when I, with a somewhat more formal tone, offer my personal analysis of a work, heavily steeped in my own experience, historical knowledge, opinions, etc. It's not going to be published in a literary magazine because this is Tumblr, but I am putting a little more effort into it and will likely do things like cite my sources.

Ex. "In Neil Gaiman's work, "The Men of Good Fortune" the narrative treats Hob in his "worst of all possible centuries" in the 1600s with a remarkable lack of sympathy. He is depicted as ugly, diseased, unpleasant, and uncaring for the wife and son he has lost, or least, no more troubled by their loss than he is by the loss of his material fortune. This century is largely passed over for its long-term impact on Hob's character, despite the fact that the tragedies invoked would likely change someone forever and represent major traumas. It is possible we're meant to see Hob unsympathetically during these years, as the whole arc is meant as a growth narrative, or it could be that as a relatively juvenile author, Gaiman only thought of these tragedies abstractly, as a way to illustrate possible historical misfortunes, and didn't really think out the extrapolations of how these stated events would impact the character's arc."

Meanwhile, Fandom meta is for funsies. It's just my opinion on a work and usually it's me rotating an idea around in my mind while I consider how to transform an element of the original media for use in a fanfic I'm writing. For example, the Doylist explanation for an inconsistency might be "The creator didn't care enough to fix it" but in a fandom meta I might acknowledge this and say, "Yeah but for the fic I'm writing I need to know why this happened so here's a possible logical, in-universe explanation that jives with the story I want to tell." There usually won't be cited sources and I will not argue with you if you disagree, even if I might side-eye someone considerably if they decided to pitch a fit about it, because it's literally just my opinion and might not even be spell-checked.

"Yo, why the fuck is Robyn's death not treated as a bigger deal for Hob in the "Men of Good Fortune" beat of Sandman?? Dude lost his son, it's a major theme throughout Sandman that losing a son can majorly change someone's entirely outlook on life, like Roderick Burgess capturing Dream to force him to bring back his son, or Dream himself and Orpheus and how killing his son to spare him his awful fate is what kicks off Dream's entire arc towards self-destruction. Yet Hob loses a son and it's barely mentioned? I just have to assume this is because Neil was like a 20-something year old dude who only knew about "losing a child" as an abstract historical thing, but losing a son who is 20 years old is a majorly traumatic event that rips entire families apart. Are we not meant to think Hob was traumatized by this, maybe leading in part to his utter collapse of circumstances in the 1600s, or did Neil just not consider it at all??"

The latter two I would never ever want to show to Neil. It's not my place. We are not involved in the sacred trust of a writer-workshopper/editor relationship. I'm not tempering my question by asking what the intention was. And ultimately, the "Word of God" doesn't matter. I can have my own interpretation and Neil's statement wouldn't likely alter it very much and my critique would be pointless because it can never actually change the story. It's just a beat I found unsatisfying and felt the need to fix in a fic, not anything that Neil ever needs to hear about what is now 34 years after publication.

I'm using Neil and Sandman as a specific example but, for the most part, this applies to all my meta and analysis. You will rarely see me writing workshop style critique on this site because that's usually done one on one. For the most part, I'm writing out my thoughts for my own sake and that of fellow fans. It is never, ever ever meant to be seen by the creators of the work.

[uniquelyuncanny]

The Hate on Hazbin Hotel

A little thing I wanted to say my piece on is, the hate on Hazbin Hotel.

First off, if the subject matter, story line, character design, or general premise of the show, doesn't appeal to you, then just don't watch it. NO ONE is forcing you to engage with a piece of media, it's your choice to do so, but please, you've got far better things to do with your time than hate watch something, or watch it purely so you can give an 'informed critique'. The second thing, a 'critique' used to mean (and I'm taking the direct definition here) a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory. But moreover, it's supposed to be a fair judgement, meaning you weigh BOTH the positive and the negatives of something, and deconstruct why that may be (usually including a little self analysis if you want to get extra credibility points.) A critique DOES NOT mean, I'm going shout from the rooftops about this thing that I don't like, go out of my way to spread my negative opinion on the show everywhere, and vilify anyone who disagrees or who doesn't outright agree with my opinion.

The thing here is, it's new, and the marketing team has done their very best by putting it everywhere to get people to watch it. That's their job, they wanted to expand their audience for the premiere of this new show that's been in development for around 4 years now, in the hopes of making it's launch a success. Blood sweat and tears have gone into this show whether you find it appealing or not, and it's changed a lot along the way from what it used to be, both for better or worse.

Now, I'll admit, I'm not a down in the trenches fan. I watched it, I thought the songs were nice, I enjoyed the show but I'm not overwhelmingly invested in it. But I am a fan of animation, heck I even did a degree in it cause I loved it so dang much, and what I hate is for people to claim 'bad animation' cause it 'didn't click' with them, or they think it's an eyesore/ugly.

You watched, you didn't like it? Good, now you have a better understanding of what you do and don't like, move on. Cause regardless of anything, the context for what makes something good, is typically very subjective and often agreed upon after the initial fanfare has died down.

Let those who DO enjoy it, do so without your burdensome criticism. You're not beholden to engage with something you don't want to, if you do, THAT'S ON YOU not the shows creator, not the animators, the advertisers, the voice actors, the music writers, the score composers, the spreadsheet managers, the pre-production crew, the overly pushy streaming service you're watching it on, or even the team behind Spotify marketing management. Just you. The rest, are doing their jobs, the least you can do, is let them do it in peace without making it all about you, and your negativity.

The other main 'booing' point I've seen is 'bad writing', and I'm sorry but that's so funny to me cause like, they JUST released the first season. THE FIRST SEASON. As in, hopefully, the beginning of a story. Not a complete story, more like a chapter, a starting point, a general introduction if you will, of where the development team (writers included) get to set up the ground work for the REST of the story to play out in. (While also hoping that it gets renewed so they actually have a chance to continue it). You can't KNOW that it's bad writing, cause you don't know where the story is headed or how it's planned to play out. How many shows or books, that were presented as being the first of something, have you indulged in, where after you have finished the first season or book and gone, well that was a completely satisfying experience and all the story line points were perfectly executed and made complete sense in a delightfully fascinating manner that kept me engaged with the thrilling story? Cause I know I haven't, and I'd love to have more stuff like that, (so if you genuinely have any recommendations please do send them my way).

The thing is, if you don't like the ultra brand spanking new show animated show Hazbin Hotel that's currently being talked about on social media, that's perfectly okay. Wait a month, there'll be something new for the internet to fixate on to a nauseating degree soon enough. There's nothing wrong with you if you didn't like the humor, or the characters just didn't do it for you, or the character design made it a bit chaotic to get invested in. Those are all perfectly valid points and opinions, and you are welcome to share those opinions in spaces where people have similar opinions as you. But for the love of all things good, don't spread that kind of nastiness onto people, or into spaces where people clearly do not share that opinion.

A little bit of consideration for the people who actually like and enjoy the show, especially those who worked hard to get it out to world, would be lovely, cause again, no one is forcing you to be here or indulge in this media, you're making a conscious choice to be an asshole if you deliberately spread overtly negative opinions about something to people who clearly love it. It's nasty human behavior, and is reminiscent of adolescent bullying tactics and the need to present yourself as 'cool' and 'different' simply by hating the newest 'popular' trend.

It's actually sad, boring, and overall, uninteresting discourse that I'm honestly over seeing pop up in fan spaces.

My end point is, this kind of behavior? Not new. I remember hearing and being flooded with the same discourse over, The Simpsons, Futurama, Teen Titans, Young Justice, Bojack Horseman, Cowboy Bebop, (and many others I won't waste time naming) and literally every single animated show that managed to get a chance in the spotlight over the years.

So you don't like Hazbin Hotel? Good for you, don't watch it, don't talk shit about it, leave it for those who actually like it and find something that brings you joy that you actually like to spend your limited time on earth with. It costs you nothing to be kind, and not every opinion needs to be heard by the masses, it's actually okay if you don't talk about something that's popular, I promise. Rant over.

[musings-from-mars]

You don't need a reason to not like something. Or rather, you don't need to make some sort of objective judgement on the thing's supposed quality, nor do you need to make some moral arbitration to justify you not liking it. You are allowed to dislike things just because it doesn't suit your tastes or squicks you out.

I say this because I find it a common theme, on this website at least, where when people choose to express their dislike of a show or movie or what have you, they make comment on, say, the poor pacing, or the weird art style, or the dreaded bad writing—the vaguest, most meaningless, most damning critique known to us all (/sarcasm). And granted, some of these can be valid criticisms and can absolutely turn viewers away, but I just don't buy into the idea that the majority of viewers are these selective media analysis buffs who are spurned by substandard production values and derivative storytelling. We're on the weird fandom website. We like things because they make our hearts happy and our brains buzzy, and we dislike things because they make our heads hurt and our nerves feel shot.

It is okay to just not like a thing. You don't need to try to dress up your personal tastes and sensibilities as some sort of objective literary critique when the only real feelings you have regarding the thing is "I'm not enjoying this, it's annoying and I hate it." I know this is the case because to really do a good, deep analysis of a thing, even critically, you have to have at least some sort of affinity for it. You know when in school you were expected to write a report on the most godawful boring book ever? An impossible, meaningless task. Like, nobody who studies Shakespeare hates Shakespeare, even if some may act like it. You have to love something to bear the breadth of its flaws.

It is alright to dislike a thing, but you do not need to therefore go on a crusade against it. The fans of that thing have already unpacked and studied all those flaws and weird bullshit bits in a kind of fond detail you cannot fathom. You won't be able to add anything new or of substance to the general discourse around the thing, but you sure could make yourself and a lot of people upset for no reason.

[azuredragoonterra]

I found that Berserk AU with Sandy as Casca after googling "Casca in a dress" and scrolling down a bit. Also Griffith was portrayed by a character named Nazo. Honestly my only critiques of the au are that Sandy's inclusion feels a bit arbitrary without the other SpongeBob characters and that her personality as the smart one on SpongeBob lends her more to Schireke's role than Casca's.

Well they got Farnese right.

How the hell do you stumble upon this anon?

Whatever, I could go full literary analysys and point out that Casca deliberately feels like an "outsider" to the band by being the only woman, which I suppose is the link to... fuckin Sandy Cheeks, with her being a land animal underwater. But that doesn't work in this context, cus everyone is a land furry here.

Fuckin Charka-X Nazo Unleashed what a throwback. Brilliant.

[nik-jr-lit]

dude, that's not literary analysis...that's just your opinion

Every time I finish a good book, I close the cover (or turn off my Kindle), sit back, and savor the moment. Joy, heartache, peace, excitement - whatever feeling I have, I let myself relish in it.

And then I promptly turn on my computer and look to see what others thought about it.

At some reflections I clap my hands in joy, exclaiming "yes! Exactly!" while others I cannot help but groan aloud and tut while reading it through; I can't help but read even those scathing ones in their entirety in case just a sliver of their theory strikes my fancy.

I must say that I don't dislike literary analyses or reviews that are different than mine; really, I don't think two people could have a perfectly identical stance - there is always a difference, even if by only a shade. If I avoided all claims that differed from my preferences then I should keep myself away entirely. No, I really do appreciate hearing from everyone: what did they think of the setting, our protagonist, the diction? Were they fooled by the villain? Who was good and who was evil? Was anyone truly righteous?

I expect the answers to these questions to be different among us all, but I do struggle with claims that resort primarily to feeling rather than reason (yes, I'm looking at you in the back, Brontë). Of course we are meant to feel - this is art, people! Literature is supposed to evoke emotion from us; if we had no empathy for the plot, the characters, the situation...there would be no point. We are meant to relate - perhaps a character is uncannily similar to that nosy librarian we know, and we can perfectly understand the narrator's feelings of exasperation and spite. Or maybe we remember our own bittersweet love story as we watch our young protagonist fall, feeling the clammy hands and hot cheeks as well as they do. Yes, we are certainly meant to feel, but we cannot trust those feelings to always lead us to truth.

It's only been in recent years that I've taken pains to think critically about the reliability of narration; we cannot assume what we're told is the God-given truth. Characters have biases, prejudices, history, and feelings. I think it equally important that we examine our own feelings and responses to ascertain just how reliable we ourselves are. We view situations, relationships, characters, or settings with a lens specific to us, and these undoubtedly impact our literary analyses as much as our emotional responses. We must take care to detach ourselves, as best as we're able, and test our theories and critiques by fire to see whether they stand true. Sometimes, we can sufficiently perform this test in our own minds during the drafting period, and other times it takes a peer to see the chink in our armor. Be gracious and forgiving to yourself and to others during these times; it's difficult to admit to blindness, especially when we experience blindness of self.

[asweetprologue]

nili’s witcher watch: the critique

hello all! I’m doing something that literally no one asked me to do, which is to go through the witcher season 2 episode by episode and answer the big question: does this shit suck? why does it suck? what parts of it, specifically, suck, and what could have been done to change that? I am doing this mostly because I think it’s fun and I want to, but also I think a lot of people felt kind of let down by season 2 and its treatment of the characters but no one can really put into words why that is. I hope to do that here, as best as I’m able. 

as a disclaimer, I do not have a degree in media studies or literary analysis; I DO spend a lot of my time analyzing text for historical purposes, but not in this way. this is an amateur project and not meant to be taken super seriously. that said, I do welcome alternate perspectives and engagement! I’d love to hear other people’s takes on this stuff, and I’ve only watched the season twice so there may be things that I missed. Let me know if you think my take is steaming hot garbage. I promise I won’t take it personally, I want you to do it. just don’t get irl mad okay this is all for fun

I’m going to structure this post episode-by-episode, with a sort of global critique of each one as well as additional bullet points about certain elements. Obviously this is going to be a pretty long post, so I will put the rest under the cut!

Let’s start at the beginning (of the middle): Season 2 episode 1.

S2E1: A Grain of Truth

The first episode of season 2 starts off directly where the previous season left off. I’m not going to summarize it in-depth because, well, I hope if you’re reading this you’ve already seen it. This is actually one of my favorite episodes of the season; I think it’s thematically poignant and that Nivellen and Vareena are good characters. It sets up themes of monsters being reflections of the dark deeds of humanity, and Vareena prompts Ciri to question whether she can trust Geralt to protect her if she herself is a monster. 

My love for this episode makes it difficult to say this, but I have to: I don’t think this episode should have been in the season at all. If this was a 20 episode season, I would think absolutely nothing of it, but we only have 8 episodes to cover an insane amount of ground. Nivellen is an interesting character, but it takes a lot of time to set up his whole backstory, and I like the interactions between Ciri and Vareena but they don’t actually have that much bearing on Ciri’s journey. If the culmination of this season was that Geralt had to really struggle to decide if he was going to kill his daughter or save her, then maybe this would have been an appropriate way to start the season. But we never really feel like Geralt ever thinks about harming Ciri, and it’s not even Ciri that’s the monster at the end of the season, it’s Voleth Meir. This episode makes sense in an alternate version of the script, but it sets up some internal conflict that I just don’t think was really ever resolved. 

I think the scenes with the Brotherhood were much too long. The scene in the infirmary didn’t need to be there at all; it barely pushes anything forward. These characters won’t be interacting with any of the Big Three - Yennefer, Geralt, and Ciri - for another two episodes, and the power struggles going on with the sorcerers could easily be explained through some clever dialogue when Yennefer gets to Aretuza. Again, they just spend a lot of time with these side characters and they sacrifice time that we could have spent on main characters. 

That said, I love the scene with Tissaia torturing Cahir. Their acting is just great and it gives us so much insight into where these two characters are at right now. 

This season was supposed to be about Geralt struggling to find his footing as a father figure, a role he’s never had to fill before, and Ciri trying to find a place where she belongs after losing everything and having her identity thrown into question. But Geralt seems to step into the role of Ciri’s father figure pretty easily, despite their disagreements; it never feels like he just bumbles and says the wrong thing, imo. 

The knife scene also doesn’t tell us anything new, aside from a little bit about how Geralt was turned into a witcher, which should have been left for the next episode. It feels like filler, which is an odd sense to get out of what should be a very fast season.

S2E2: Kaer Morhen

Oof, this one is going to be difficult. This episode is pretty good anytime Yennefer is on screen; her interactions with Fringilla are great, and her being scorned by the elves and then later by men in Redania really plays nicely into the overall themes this season of identity and otherness. She’s too human to be considered an elf, and too elven to be considered human, and she no longer has a place with the mages because she’s lost her magic. It’s good! I think the Deathless Mother could have been used much more effectively this season to push the plot, but overall I like her as a villain, and I like Francesca and Fringilla’s storylines. The messiness in this episode comes from Kaer Morhen and the infamous Eskel incident. 

I’ll present my controversial take up front: I don’t hate that Eskel died. It sucks that book/game!Eskel won’t be in the show, because hey, I like that guy. But I don’t mind them killing him off as part of the story they’re telling now. What I dislike is the lack of setup for it. We don’t know Eskel, so his behavior doesn’t wring false to us when we meet him. I wish that Eskel actually hadn’t been killed but instead put in some kind of magical coma; this would have made figuring out the mystery behind the mutated monsters much more pressing and immediate, and him falling ill would be another reason to bring Triss to Kaer Morhen earlier in the season. I also wish he didn’t come off as an asshole for 100% of his screen time.

I was shocked by how many witchers were in the keep. In the book/game universe, there are really only five witchers that spend time at Kaer Morhen: Vesemir, Geralt, Eskel, Lambert, and Coen. And that’s still true! These are the only witchers at Kaer Morhen, because they’re the only witchers we meet in the show. But for some reason there’s all these guys running around in the background, having no impact on the plot or the main characters. I know that it was just so they could kill more of them off in the finale, but all it serves to do is make Eskel’s death have way less impact. The later scenes with Ciri wanting to become a witcher and Vesemir’s desperation to make the mutagen would have felt much more intense if it’d just been those five originally. As is even at the end of season 2 I have no idea how many there are, or what the stakes really are.

Listen. If you’re going to have a huge fight inside the place you built up as a safe haven, and the monster is there specifically because of your main character, why the fuck would you not have that monster interact with your main character even once? Ciri spends the entire fight in her room, and the leshy doesn’t say or do anything that relates to her. When Geralt said that leshen had been around since the Conjunction and couldn’t mate, I was certain that Ciri would at some point communicate with the leshy and she would feel its loneliness. The monsters are drawn to Ciri because they know that she can take them home, but for some reason Eskel’s leshy doesn’t interact with Ciri at all. This would have been a great opportunity to set up the monsters themselves as sympathetic antagonists, as well as thematically relate them to Ciri and Yennefer and their stories of trying to find a place of belonging. Instead Ciri gets sidelined hard, and barely feels present in the episode. 

I can’t believe they didn’t use Yennefer’s pre-transformation self as Voleth Meir’s illusion. Anya is such an amazing actress and could have made this role so chilling. Presenting Yennefer as a version of herself without magic would have been so powerful in the context of offering her power back.

All that said, the final scene with Yennefer trying to create a portal while overlaid with Geralt saying “this Continent is meant for no one” and quoting Calanthe’s “keep your sword close and keep moving” is. Amazing. This show is good sometimes.

S2E3: What is Lost

This episode is very Ciri and Yennefer centric, which is good, and very Vesemir centric, which is fucking weird. Ciri training under the witchers and having this conflict with Geralt about becoming a fighter makes sense and I think it fits with her overall quest to find her new place in the world. Yennefer being at Aretuza is a little messy, but I think it also helps solidify her own lack of place and her isolation. Geralt losing Eskel is... okay, fine, we need to talk about this. But if the other characters are exploring their identities and desire to fit in, why isn’t Geralt? Instead we focus on Vesemir because we need to set up his desperation to create more witchers for the later episodes. Like, who is this guy? Why focus on his emotions over Geralt’s? This episode should have included more scenes of Geralt and Ciri and Geralt talking to Vesemir about his struggles to fit into the role of parent, instead of focusing on Vesemir. 

Ciri training: <3 Geralt building the ab armor: <\3

This episode is mostly about the Brotherhood, and features a pretty solid time skip. It’s been a month since Yennefer was brought to the hut, and presumably a month since Ciri arrived at Kaer Morhen, though that part isn’t clear at all. I’m not sure why this time skip happened; it doesn’t seem to lend to the story, really, and it just makes our timelines a little more confusing. But that’s par for the course in twn. 

We see a LOT of Brotherhood drama in this episode, and again, I don’t think we needed to. We all know that Stregobor is a fucking ass, and we understand that Tissaia and Vilgefortz are making a power play because Tissaia says so to Yennefer. If they’re going to tell us this on screen, there’s no real reason to make a whole scene beforehand about it.

The flashback about Eskel is sweet, but I think it’s also out of place and tonally off. I wish this episode had opened with a flashback of Eskel and Geralt as kids, post-Trials, with Eskel comforting Geralt and acting as anchor. Maybe show them talking about how if they can get through this they’ll be heroes, showing how they used to justify this torture to themselves, and then cut to Eskel’s dead face, showing the harsh reality in opposition to their childhood dreams. This episode is about Ciri wanting to train, and the tension between her and the witchers, and I think they could have used this flashback to drive home the horror of being a witcher and help us understand why the other witchers are so resistant to Ciri and why Geralt in particular doesn’t support her goal. It also would have highlighted what Geralt has lost through Eskel’s death - someone who supported him and cared about him, and gave him strength. 

ALSO, why was Nivellen the one to tell us about how witchers were transformed and not, I don’t know, fucking Lambert? Lambert is canonically the angriest about his circumstances as a witcher, and it makes perfect sense to me that he would confront Ciri and tell her that she didn’t belong there. Lambert feels like he had no choice in his life, and he is, significantly, also a Child Surprise. He should have been the one to explain all this to Ciri so we could draw parallels between them.

Why is Istredd at Aretuza? Narratively speaking, he doesn’t do much other than to interrupt awkwardly about how he thinks monoliths are important, and tell Yennefer information she should probably already know. I love him, but I think it would have made a lot more sense to have him already be in Cintra, and show a scene of him petitioning Fringilla to study the monolith that fell. He should know about that, idk why he wouldn’t, and then he would already be in place when Geralt speaks to him later.

Did we seriously need three scenes of Yennefer running into men in the hallway? I don’t think the Vilgefortz scene serves any real purpose, and the scene with Cahir is fine but it’s not clear if they know each other at all. The three scenes being back to back are so messy that Yennefer herself calls it out in pretty bad meta joke. If your solution to lazy writing is to make a character point it out and laugh then you’re just a bad writer. 

Thanks to the writers for making Lambert and Coen seem so fucking married though. That part was good. Ciri running the gauntlet while Lambert taunts her and gives her pointers in turn is also extremely good.

New monster is also good but I wish we’d gotten to see the leshy more :’(

I wish that the scene with Vizimir at Cahir’s failed execution had been the first and last time we saw that bitch this season. Every scene with Redanian Intelligence ended up having absolutely no bearing on the plot. Mention Dijkstra and then don’t bring him up again until he’s fucking relevant.

S2E4: Redanian Intelligence 

This episode is called Redanian Intelligence but are they? are they

Episode four is, in my opinion, one of the weakest of the season, which some people might find surprising. Those people have been blinded by the return of Jaskier in this episode and his scene with Yennefer, which is one of the best in the season. But every other scene in this episode is either sloppy or just doesn’t need to be there at all. 

I like Triss being here, but I don’t really see how she got to Kaer Morhen. They mention her being called away earlier, but when did Geralt reach out to her? How did Geralt reach out to her? Does he have her on speed dial or what

Cahir and Yennefer in Redania is good, but I wish so much that they’d taken some time to explain what’s going on with the elves in more detail. Jaskier says that Redania thinks the elves are sympathizing with Nilfgaard because of Francesca’s new relationship with Fringilla, but what are they actually doing with them? Are they just killing them? Are they putting them in camps? If Jaskier had been given more time in this episode they could have expanded on this a lot more, but instead we have-

The two sewer elves. I think this is one of the most misplaced arcs in the entire show, and I cannot fathom why they included it. Yennefer and Cahir go into the sewers to escape from the guards, and meet two elves. One of them dies, partly because his friend is a coward, but only after they’ve agreed to take our characters to see the Sandpiper so he can smuggle them to Cintra. These characters serve one purpose, and that is to get Yennefer to Jaskier. Maybe to elaborate on the plight of the elves, but they don’t even really do that. They don’t relate to the plot or the themes of the show really at all, and they both end up dying needlessly. And the scenes with them take up eight full minutes of our forty minute episode! That time could have been spent on Ciri talking to Geralt and Triss, or on Yennefer talking to Jaskier. Wasted time.

The scene with Jaskier on the docks is absolutely garbage, and you didn’t need me to tell you that. It contradicts itself both narratively and tonally. We’re told that Jaskier has been smuggling people to Cintra for a while, enough that he’s well known for it in elven circles. And yet he apparently can’t keep it together enough to brush off an insult when there are actual lives at stake? It would be one thing to make a metatextual joke here about Jaskier’s songs not making sense, and then having him talk himself out of saying something. We could all roll our eyes and laugh at that. But it goes from being a kind of funny bit to being very very serious, because we cut to all these elves and Yennefer who are now thrown into real danger by Jaskier’s actions. And then this other elf that we just met redeems himself (which we didn’t need, who cares) by sacrificing himself. It’s stupid and feels completely off.

Jaskier should have flirted with the guard so that the elves could sneak past him and that’s my firm take. Double down on bisexual Jaskier you cowards. 

I love having two separate scenes of them investigating the monster head in the lab. I love when the plot doesn’t move forward for almost an entire episode <3

Dara gets introduced here as the Redanian spy and we get introduced to Dijkstra, but ask yourself: does any of this fucking matter? Will Dara or Dijkstra do a single solitary fucking thing in the remaining four episodes of this season that has any impact on the main characters? And the answer is firmly no. I love Dara and I was glad to see him come back, but I don’t think I’m overexaggerating when I say that these characters had absolutely no impact on the plot this season. They should have kept Redania out of it except for random shots of the owl in various important scenes, leaving half the audience thinking “what’s up with that owl?” and the other half screaming, and then at the end of season 2 reveal that Phillipa has been listening to all the major important conversations this entire time, setting Redania up as a player in s3. They don’t do anything in season 2 so why introduce them now.

S2E5: Turn Your Back

This episode is quite good, though I wish we’d gotten more interaction between Jaskier and Yen instead of so much background on Rience. Geralt and Istredd’s interactions are fucking good as hell, and we get to see a more academic side of Geralt that’s very fun. Istredd as a scholar is the absolute perfect person to be giving us this exposition (alongside what should have been Jaskier, but whatever) and I think it does a good job of setting up basically what the monoliths do. I wish they’d given a little more background on the Conjunction before this episode, maybe through Triss in episode 4, but it’s pretty good overall.

I wish they’d not shown us so much of Rience before the scene with Jaskier. It makes the timeline way more confusing - we see Lydia break him out in Cintra and then he’s in Oxenfurt torturing Jaskier, and it’s unclear how much time passes in between. It would have been way scarier if he’d just shown up and we hadn’t known who he was working with for a while, and his background could have been explained through a simple piece of dialogue from Lydia later on saying “you owe us.”

Wish they’d said Ciri was seen with a witcher in Sodden instead of just that she was seen in Sodden. Rience’s knowledge of Ciri’s whereabouts always seems to come almost from divination, so I wish they made that more clear.

All that to say: Jaskier torture scene my beloved

So glad Geralt’s hatred of portals remains intact. 

When did Istredd get to Cintra? How long has it been now? He should have been here from the beginning and not in Aretuza >:(

I wish there had been more of a focus in this episodes on Ciri struggling to contain and control her magic and less on this witcher mutagen bit. The point of having Triss here is to highlight how much Ciri needs Yennefer and Yennefer specifically. She should have had a few scenes where Triss tries to teach her to control magic but then fails, maybe resulting in some level of destruction. I don’t think the whole plotline about the Elder Blood bringing the witchers back really matters. The idea of her isolation could have been pushed just by revealing that she has Elder Blood and that’s why her magic is so different, at once showing her that her family lied to her and that she can’t really be a sorceress because her magic is so different.

The scene with Fringilla and Francesca doesn’t really matter or forward the plot but I love them so I’ll allow it <3 if god hates the gays why do we keep winning 

Istredd finally telling Geralt that Yennefer is alive when Triss could have done that weeks ago. We love a man who fucking communicates relevant information for the characters and the plot

Can anyone just use the hut invocation to escape from any situation at any time.? Get out of jail free card babey

S2E6: Dear Friend

This episode deserves to burn in hell for what it did to Roach. Fuck you fuck you fuck you

This is another weak episode, in my opinion, and despite how much I adore Nenneke and the temple of Melitele, I don’t really understand why they’re here. It is once again a moment where they put the characters in a setting and then nothing really happens for a long time. Ciri carries around the magic ball for the entire episode and it doesn’t end up doing anything or helping her at all. Geralt talks to Nenneke and Yennefer and neither conversation really change the character outlooks. Yennefer and Ciri get portaled out, which sets up the next episode, but that’s like... basically the only important thing that happens. Meanwhile all this setup between Fringilla and Francesca is going on, and I just think it’s really weird to spend so much time on these side characters that, even in the books, played a pretty minor role. These people won’t interact with our main characters again for a really long time, so why give them so much screen time now? Once again, it just doesn't feel economical. 

This isn’t a critique I just want to say that “Where the fuck are my swords” is one of the funniest lines in the show and Henry delivered it brilliantly. Hilarious. 

How the fuck did Yennefer get to the temple? Was she portaled there by Voleth Meir? This is the only thing that makes sense, but what the fuck. When she showed up I was legitimately startled. What a weird, anticlimactic way for she and Geralt to meet again, too.

If you are going to reveal that Francesca has the power to bring dead roses back to life with her magic and then kill her baby later on and not bring that shit back why even bring it up in the first place. 

I don’t think that all this political drama between Francesca and Fringilla and Cahir should have been given this much screen time, but I DO love Cahir showing up and being like Fringilla do you goddamn remember what we were doing here in the first place?? We literally came here for one reason

I love Filavandrel he’s such a king and he doesn’t deserve all this. He just wants his family to be safe and for his girlboss wife to be successful 

How the FUCK does Rience get to Kaer Morhen? How the fuck does he know where it is? How in gods name does he know that’s where Ciri should be? And if he had access to this information all along, what was the point of torturing Jaskier? Jaskier doesn’t give up any information that we see (and he doesn’t even know where Kaer Morhen is) so how does Rience get here? It maketh no damn sense

I like Fenn and Codringher as characters but it’s so weird to introduce them here. Istredd is a powerful magic user and one of the foremost researchers on monoliths and the Elders, AND he’s staying in Cintra, where the bloodline of Lara Dorren lived for hundreds of years. Why would he need these people to tell him any of this? Wasting! My! Time! introducing new characters who aren’t necessary! 

I think if you added up the full amount of time we spend this season watching Yennefer walk down hallways trying to open locked doors I would kill myself. Can this woman just arrive at her destination expediently for once.

Yennefer and Geralt’s reunion is so bad. Yennefer goes from screaming about how betrayed she feels and commiserating with Jaskier over their shared hurt in episode 4 to falling into Geralt’s arms in episode 6. It’s weird! I would have expected some level of hesitation, or at least a mention of her being concerned that his feelings and her own aren’t real. I’m glad that she tells him that he hurt her, but it still feels like they get past the mountain trauma way too easily.

If I’d been in that damn editing room you bet your ass that every scene with Dara talking about being a spy would have been cut who cares who cares!!! it doesn’t matter!!! cut them or else 🔫

S2E7: Voleth Meir

The Ciri and Yennefer scenes in this episode are great! I like seeing Yennefer’s struggles to decide whether she’s going to go through with this, whether it’s worth it, and her telling Ciri that magic is all that matters when Ciri’s role in the story is to prove to Yennefer that that isn’t true. The Jaskier and Geralt scenes are a little lackluster, but I think Joey’s performance really pulls through and shows how Jaskier’s dismissive air is a mask to hide how hurt he still is. This episode is messy because this season’s plot is messy, but overall I think it’s pretty alright.

Yennefer said Jaskier was in Oxenfurt and Geralt said I know my daughter’s just been kidnapped but I better swing by and spring my boyfriend out of prison rly quick

Redanian spy in Xin’trea plot is as said before terrible and stupid and does nothing it deserves to be cut in its entirety 

Jaskier’s prison song is great and the way he says Geralt’s name with such devastation when he shows up is awful. Joey you are more than we deserve 

 I don’t really know that Francesca and Fringilla’s falling out makes a ton of sense. In the books I believe Francesca remains in alliance with Nilfgaard for a long time, at the expense of the elves left in Redania. I think it would have been a lot more interesting if her baby had died and she’d remained loyal to Nilfgaard, thinking that she could help them destroy the north, while Filavandrel left to lead the Scoia'tael. Could have set up an interesting dynamic later on, and her falling out with Fringilla doesn’t have anything to do with her baby dying, so...

Tissaia saying that Dijkstra is wasting their time, acting as a stand-in for the audience

What was the point of bringing the dwarves back? They don’t really do anything other than apparently escort Jaskier and Ciri back to Kaer Morhen, which we don’t even get to see, and then they apparently just fuck off? We don’t see them in episode 8 at all, so I don’t understand what the point of writing them in was. Just to give Geralt a horse??

I think focusing so much on Fringilla's and Francesca’s political journey was a mistake with such a short run time, but I can’t lie and say that the culmination of it in this scene where Fringilla brutally murders the generals and puts Cahir in his place doesn’t fucking rule.

S2E8: Family

I think this episode is fun to watch, but it is one of the messiest this season in terms of structure. Voleth Meir was set up as a very interesting monster, even if I think she could have been used better, but the payout was not great. The final battle has so many elements going that feel like they get kind of dropped off, and thematic elements that should have seen payout in this climactic scene either don’t get shown, didn’t get enough build up, or are executed badly. 

If we were going to go back to Kaer Morhen from Cintra - a two to three week journey at minimum! - why didn’t we get to see any of that? I know they were short for time because they wasted so much of it on political drama with the Brotherhood and Redanian spy plots that had absolutely no impact on the story, but you can’t just put two of the most important characters in the story together for the very first time, send them on a long cross country journey, and then not show us any of that. Jaskier and Ciri had not met before this moment, and then spend a significant amount of time together. The fact that this season includes not one scene with Jaskier and Ciri actually talking is fucking bananas. 

No I’m going to talk about this more actually. Jaskier is a bard, and therefore the exposition mouthpiece of the story, not to mention serving over and over again as a stand-in for destiny. He leads the main characters, particularly Geralt, where they need to go. He is responsible for Geralt knowing both Ciri and Yennefer. He is the one who studies myths and songs and legends. The fact that he doesn’t get to give us exposition about the legend of Lara Durren or give Ciri any advice on her place in the world is such a waste of potential for his character. 

Voleth Meir clearly wants to use Ciri to open the portal back to the Wild Hunt, and allows herself to be taken to Kaer Morhen to use the monolith there. Why, then, does she spend so much time killing witchers and lollygagging around? Even if she gains power from it, it seems like a huge risk to sneak around in the dark murdering people when she’s in the keep of the witchers who historically defeated her and imprisoned her for hundreds of years. Why did she open the portal to draw the basilisks in, or any of that, instead of just jumping through the portal right away? 

That said the basilisk designs do fuck.

The thematic payout of this season fell so flat. They’re supposed to draw Ciri back by telling her that she’s their family, but are they? They spend most of this season making her feel othered, and we don’t have enough scenes of her feeling supported and cared for by the witchers to make this land. And the idea of allowing your love to overcome your resentment and hate is something that could have had huge implications for Geralt, if they’d actually committed to it. Jaskier is supposed to bring him the stone to remind him to use love and not hate to beat Voleth Meir, and he sort of does - by dropping it on the floor. Why doesn’t he get to actually convey that to Geralt, thus thematically beginning the healing process between them? It just seems like a weird choice for them to back off of that statement and let the rock on the floor do the talking instead of their characters. 

Yennefer tells Geralt that Voleth Meir preys on your greatest desires and fears and brings out all your worst pains. I assumed that this meant that she would take turns presenting illusions of herself to the characters present or she would goad them into giving into their hatred and pain by taunting them about their own hurts. Maybe even throw them into their own illusions like Ciri or possess various people. There's even a moment when Jaskier comes into the great hall and her eyes drop down to him and then it cuts back to him looking awkward and nervous, and I thought for sure she was going to call him out - a character who has been in pain and felt rejected for so long by Geralt, who still hasn't had the opportunity to resolve any of his feelings about all this - but then they didn't. It almost felt like they were going to do something like that and then there was some rewriting done. Maybe they just needed to save time after the 400 Dijkstra scenes this season taking up so much space but it just felt like such a lost opportunity to lay out all the ways that these characters have hurt each other, and then for Jaskier to say that no, they are choosing to find each other and forgive each other, not because of destiny or fate, but because of love. it could have provided a moment of real catharsis from which the characters could start to rebuild from in season 3, but instead we have this very weird disjointed fight where Voleth Meir's motivations are really unclear and everyone's role is just as murky.

But at least them all going to the new plane was cool. I don’t know why the FUCK they decided to make the Wild Hunt all red when in every version of this story they’re supposed to herald the White Frost and be in cool tones, but whatever. Fine. Whatever. 

Good strong ending though with the Emhyr reveal. Embarrassing for Fringilla and Cahir RIP 

Overall I think that this season was a fun watch, but most of the episodes as they are feel like pieces of a much larger season. There are some missing scenes that you can feel pretty harshly - not enough scenes with Ciri and Geralt struggling to find their dynamic, scenes between Yennefer and Ciri, literally even one scene with Ciri and Jaskier meeting. If this had been a 12 episode season, I think they would have been able to keep it as is and pad it out with those missing scenes, but as-is they just didn’t kill enough darlings. I think Jaskier and Yennefer still being on shaking footing with Geralt is a good place to start off season 3, gives us room for more growth, but I wish they’d given us more scenes to expound on the new dynamics. Jaskier and Yennefer being friends is very good at least, and I thought the actors all did a great job. I enjoyed it, but I’m hoping that if season 3 is the same length as 1 and 2 they learn to keep it a little cleaner. 

And that’s it! I was going to do a whole “Nili rewrites the witcher s2″ thing but this was already a lot so I’m probably not gonna do that. You’ve heard me talk enough already. Thanks for reading Nili’s Opinions <3

[sketching-shark]

I think we should start a protection squad (although they don’t need it because they can protect themselves) for Sun Wukong and Guanyin

“Begone monkie kid fandom trying to down grade these really interesting characters with interesting personality’s and backstory ( the both of them like seriously Guanyin backstory is so cool) to a villain wile trying to justify your angsty backstory (that are no where near as cool as monkey who fights gods and Person who has 1000 arms and heads to help people in need) for the actual villain”

So who wants to join

Me:*raises my hand*

Ps: sorry if I got Guanyin backstory wrong am not an expert on it.

Haha okay so some critiques on the jttw & associated media western fandom & fandom in general coming up, so please skip this upcoming text wall if you don't want to encounter my undoubtedly ~devastating~ words (i.e. don't like don't read as people love to say, & if I have to be inundated with images of my notp every time I go into the sun wukong tag then I imagine people can be chill with me expressing my opinions & giving people fair warning that I WILL be critiquing common fandom trends, but no need for you to see that if you don’t want to. Cool? Cool.)

-----

PFFFFFTTT oh man there are many times when I feel like signing up for such a protection squad...when it comes to the current western jttw & Sun Wukong fandom I do feel like I'm often swinging at a rapid pace between "well it's fandom & people are allowed to make the stories they want" & "I am once again begging my fellow monkie kid enthusiasts (& sometimes creators) to do more research into the og classic/show it more respect so you can avoid any potentially offensive/off-the-mark misunderstandings of the status & cultural context of the characters in their country of origin (I promise it's super interesting & I can provide you with links to free pdf copies of the entire Yu translation, i.e. the best one ever created, so feel free to ask!) & maybe also stop constantly stripping away all the nuance of Sun Wukong's character for the sake of either making him an entire asshole so your little meow meow can look completely innocent in comparison and/or making the monkey king's entire life & character revolve around said meow meow."

Like I get that fandom's supposed to be a kind of anything-goes environment, but one thing that honestly seems to be true of a lot of fandoms--and the western one for Sun Wukong & co. is certainly not immune from this--is that there often seems to be a kind of monoculturalization at work in what stories are created & what character interpretations are made popular. Across a multitude of fandoms, you frequently see basically nothing but the exact same tropes being made popular & even being insisted on for the canonical work (especially hasty redemption arcs & enemies to lovers these days), the exact same one-dimensional character types that characters from an original work keep getting shoved into, the exact same story beats, etc. And I get it to an extent, as fandom is generally a space where people just make art and fic for fun & without thinking too hard about it & without any pressure. 

This seems to, however, often unfortunately lead to the mentality that it’s your god-given right to do literally whatever you want with literally any cultural figure without even the slightest bit of thought put into their cultural, historical, and even religious context, even (and sometimes especially) when it comes to figures that are really important in a culture outside your own. For such figures--even if you first encounter them in a children’s cartoon--you should be a little more careful with what you do with them than you would with your usual Saturday morning line-up. It of course has to be acknowledged that there exists a whole pile of absolutely ridiculous & cursed pieces of media that are based on Journey to the West & that were produced in mainland China, but for your own education if nothing else I consider it good practice for those of us (myself certainly included) who aren’t part of the culture that produced JTTW to put more thought into how we might want to portray these characters so that at the very least (to pull some things I’ve seen from the jttw western fandom) we’re not turning a goddess of mercy into an evil figure for the sake of Angst(TM), or relegating other important literary figures into the positions of offensive stereotypes, or making broad claims about the source text & original characterizations of various figures that are blatantly untrue, or mocking heavenly deities because of what’s actually your misunderstanding of how immortality works according to Daoist beliefs. Yet while a lot of this is often due to people not even trying to understand the context these figures are coming from, I do want to acknowledge that the journey (lol reference) to understand even a fraction of the original cultural context can be a daunting one, especially since, as I’ve mentioned before, it can be really hard & even next to impossible to find good, accessible, & legitimate explanations in English of how, for example, the relationship between Sun Wukong and the Six-Eared Macaque is commonly interpreted in China & according to the Buddhist beliefs that define the original work. 

That is to say, I do think it’s an unfortunate, if unavoidable, part of any introduction of an original text into a culture foreign to its own for there to be sometimes a significant amount of misinterpretation, mistranslations, and false assumptions. There is, however, a big difference between learning from your honest mistakes, & doubling down on them while dismissing all criticism of your misinterpretation into that abstract category of “fandom drama.” The latter attitude is kind of shitty at best and horrifically entitled at worst. 

Plus, as I’ve discovered, there is a great deal of interest and joy to be drawn from keeping yourself open to learning aspects of these texts & figures that you weren’t aware of! I can say from my own experience that I’ve always really enjoyed & appreciated it when individuals on this site who come from a Chinese background--and who know much more about the cultural context of JTTW than me--have taken the time to explain its various aspects. It often leaves me feeling like woooooaaaahhhhhHHH!!!! as to how amazingly full of nuanced meaning JTTW is like dang no wonder it’s one of China’s Four Great Classical Novels. 

And I guess that right there is the heart of a lot of my own personal frustration and disappointment with the ways that fandoms often approach a literary work or other piece of media...like don’t get me wrong, a lot of the original works a fandom may grow around are just straight-up goofy & everyone’s aware of it & has fun with it, yet the trend of approaching what are often nuanced and multi-layered works in terms of how well they fit and/or can be shoved into pretty cliche ideas of Redemption Arc or Enemies to Lovers or Hero Actually Bad, Villain Actually Good etc...well, it just seems to cheapen and even erase even the possibility of understanding the wonderful complexity or even endearing simplicity that made these works so beloved in the first place. Again, I feel like I need to make it clear that I’m not saying fandom should be a space where people are constantly trying to one-up each other with their hot takes in literary analysis, but it would be nice and even beneficial to allow room for commentary that strives to approach these works in a multi-faceted way, analysis & interpretations that go against the popular fandom beliefs, & criticism of the work or even of fandom trends (yes it is in fact possible to legitimately love something but still be critical of its aspects) instead of immediately attacking people who try to engage in such as just being haters who don’t want anyone to have fun ever (X_X).   

----

Anyway, I know I didn’t cover even half of the stuff you brought up in the first place anon, but I don’t want any interested parties to this post to suffer too long through my text wall lol. I was asked to try my hand at illustrating Guanyin, but as with you I’m nowhere near as informed as I should be about her, so I want to do more research on her history and religious importance before I attempt a portrait. I’ll try my best, and do plan to pair that illustration with my own outsider’s attempt to summarize her character. From what little I do know I am in full agreement that her backstory is so incredibly amazing...just the fact that she literally eschewed the bliss of Nirvana to help all beings reach it, and even split herself into pieces in the attempt to do so (with Buddha granting her eleven heads and a thousand arms as a result)...man, I can see why she’s such a beloved & respected deity. 

----

 As for what western fandom commonly does with everyone’s favorite god-fighting primate...I can talk about this at length if there’s interest, but for this post I’ll just say that I guess one lesson from all of this is that for all the centuries that have passed since Journey to the West was first completed, literally no one drawing inspiration from the original tale in the west (lol) has come even slightly close to being able to equal or even capture half the extent of the nuance, complexity, religious, historical, and cultural aspects, and humor that define Wu Cheng'en's story of an overpowered monkey who defied even Buddha.

So thank the heavens we'll always have the original.

[theshedding]

Lil Nas X: Country Music, Christianity & Reclaiming HELL

I don’t typically bother myself to follow what Lil Nas X is doing from day to day, or even month to month but I do know that his “Old Town Road” hit became one of the biggest selling/streamed records in Country Music Business history (by a Black Country & Queer artist). “Black” is key because for 75+ years Country music has unsuspiciously evolved into a solidly White-identified genre (despite mixed and Indian & Black roots). Regrettably, Country music is also widely known for anti-black, misogynoir, reliably homophobic (Trans isn’t really a conversation yet), Christian and Hard Right sentiments on the political spectrum. Some other day I will venture into more; there is a whole analysis dying to be done on this exclusive practice in the music industry with its implications on ‘access’ to equity and opportunity for both Black/POC’s and Whites artists/songwriters alike. More commentary on this rigid homogeneous field is needed and how it prohibits certain talent(s) for the sake of perpetuating homogeneity (e.g. “social determinants” of diversity & viable artistic careers). I’ll refrain from discussing that fully here, though suffice it to say that for those reasons X’s “Old Town Road” was monumental and vindicating. 

As for Lil Nas X, I’m not particularly a big fan of his music; but I see him, what he’s doing, his impact on music + culture and I celebrate him using these moments to affirm his Black, Queer self, and lifting up others. Believe it or not, even in the 2020′s, being “out” in the music business is still a costly choice. As an artist it remains much easier to just “play straight”. And despite appearances, the business (particularly Country) has been dragged kicking and screaming into developing, promoting and advancing openly-affirming LGBTQ 🏳️‍🌈 artists in the board room or on-stage. Though things are ‘better’ we have not yet arrived at a place of equity or opportunity for queer artists; for the road of music biz history is littered with stunted careers, bodies and limitations on artists who had no option but to follow conventional ways, fail or never be heard of in the first place. With few exceptions, record labels, radio and press/media have successfully used fear, intimidation, innuendo and coercion to dilute, downplay or erase any hint of queer identity from its performers. This was true even for obvious talents like Little Richard.

(Note: I’m particularly speaking of artists in this regard, not so much the hairstylists, make-up artists, PA’s, etc.)

_____

Which is why...in regard to Lil Nas X, whether you like, hate or love his music, the young brother is a trailblazer. His very existence protests (at least) decades of inequity, oppression and erasure. X aptly critiques a Neo-Christian Fascist Heteropatriarchy; not just in American society but throughout the Music Business and with Black people. That is no small deal. His unapologetic outness holds a mirror up to Christianity at-large, as an institution, theology and practice. The problem is they just don’t like what they see in that mirror.

In actuality, “Call Me By Your Name”, Lil Nas X’s new video, is a twist on classic mythology and religious memes that are less reprehensible or vulgar than the Biblical narratives most of us grew up on vís-a-vís indoctrinating smiles of Sunday school teachers and family prior to the “age of reason”. Think about the narratives blithely describing Satan’s friendly wager with God regarding Job (42:1-6); the horrific “prophecies” in St. John’s Book of Revelation (i.e. skies will rain fire, angels will spit swords, mankind will be forced to retreat into caves for shelter, and we will be harassed by at least three terrifying dragons and beasts. Angels will sound seven trumpets of warning, and later on, seven plagues will be dumped on the world), or Jesus’s own clarifying words of violent intent in Matthew (re: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” 10:34). Whether literal or metaphor, these age old stories pale in comparison to a three minute allegorical rap video. Conservatives: say what you will, I’m pretty confident X doesn’t take himself as seriously as “The true and living God” from the book of Job.

A little known fact as it is, people have debunked the story and evolution of Satan and already offered compelling research showing [he] is more of a literary device than an actual entity or “spirit” (Spoiler: In the Bible, Satan does not take shape as an actual “bad” person until the New Testament). In fact, modern Christianity’s impression of the “Devil” is shaped by conflating Hellenized mythology with a literary tradition rooted in Dante’s Inferno and accompanying spooks and superstitions going back thousands of years. Whether Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Scientologist, Atheist or Agnostic, we’ve spent a lifetime with these predominant icons and clichés. (Resource: Prof. Bart D. Erhman, “Heaven & Hell”).

So Here’s THE PROBLEM: The current level of fear and outrage is: 

(1) Unjust, imposing and irrational. 

(2) Disproportionate when taken into account a lifetime of harmful Christian propaganda, anti-gay preaching and political advocacy.

(3) Historically inaccurate concerning the existence of “Hell” and who should be scared of going there. 

Think I’m overreacting? 

Examples: 

Institutionalized Homophobia (rhetoric + policy)

Anti-Gay Ministers In Life And Death: Bishop Eddie Long And Rev. Bernice King

Black, gay and Christian, Marylanders struggle with Conflicts

Harlem pastor: 'Obama has released the homo demons on the black man'

Joel Olsteen: Homosexuality is “Not God’s Best”

Bishop Brandon Porter: Gays “Perverted & Lost...The Church of God in Christ Convocation appears like a ‘coming out party’ for members of the gay community.”

Kim Burrell: “That perverted homosexual spirit is a spirit of delusion & confusion and has deceived many men & women, and it has caused a strain on the body of Christ”

Falwell Suggests Gays to Blame for 9-11 Attacks

Pope Francis Blames The Devil For Sexual Abuse By Catholic Church

Pope Francis: Gay People Not Welcome in Clergy

Pope Francis Blames The Devil For Sexual Abuse By Catholic Church

The Pope and Gay People: Nothing’s Changed

The Catholic church silently lobbied against a suicide prevention hotline in the US because it included LGBT resources

Mormon church prohibits Children of LGBT parents to be baptized

Catholic Charity Ends Adoptions Rather Than Place Kid With Same-Sex Couple

I Was a Religious Zealot That Hurt People-Coming Out as Gay: A Former Conversion Therapy Leader Is Apologizing to the LGBTQ Community

The above short list chronicles a consistent, literal, demonization of LGBTQ people, contempt for their gender presentation, objectification of their bodies/sexuality and a coordinated pollution of media and culture over the last 50+ years by clergy since integration and Civil Rights legislation. Basically terrorism. Popes, Bishops, Pastors, Evangelists, Politicians, Television hosts, US Presidents, Camp Leaders, Teachers, Singers & Entertainers, Coaches, Athletes and Christians of all types all around the world have confused and confounded these issues, suppressed dissent, and confidently lied about LGBT people-including fellow Queer Christians with impunity for generations (i.e. “thou shall not bear false witness against they neighbor” Ex. 23:1-3). Christian majority viewpoints about “laws” and “nature” have run the table in discussions about LGBTQ people in society-so much that we collectively must first consider their religious views in all discussions and the specter of Christian approval -at best or Christian condescension -at worst. That is Christian (and straight) privilege. People are tired of this undue deference to religious opinions. 

That is what is so deliciously bothersome about Lil Nas X being loud, proud and “in your face” about his sexuality. If for just a moment, he not only disrupts the American hetero-patriarchy but specifically the Black hetero-patriarchy, the so-called “Black Church Industrial Complex”, Neo-Christian Fascism and a mostly uneducated (and/or miseducated) public concerning Ancient Near East and European history, superstitions-and (by extension) White Supremacy. To round up: people are losing their minds because the victim decided to speak out against his victimizer. 

Additionally, on some level I believe people are mad at him being just twenty years old, out and FREE as a self-assured, affirming & affirmed QUEER Black male entertainer with money and fame in the PRIME of his life. We’ve never, or rarely, seen that before in a Black man in the music business and popular culture. But that’s just too bad for them. With my own eyes I’ve watched straight people, friends, Christians, enjoy their sexuality from their elementary youth to adolescence, up and through college and later marriages, often times independently of their spouses (repeatedly). Meanwhile Queer/Gay/SGL/LGBTQ people are expected to put their lives on hold while the ‘blessed’ straight people run around exploring premarital/post-marital/extra-marital sex, love and affection, unbound & un-convicted by their “sin” or God...only to proudly rebrand themselves later in life as a good, moral “wholesome Christian” via the ‘sacred’ institution of marriage with no questions asked. 

Inequality defined.

For Lil Nas X, everything about the society we've created for him in the last 100+ years (re: links above) has explicitly been designed for his life not to be his own. According to these and other Christians (see above), his identity is essentially supposed to be an endless rat fuck of internal confusion, suicide-ideation, depression, long-suffering, faux masculinity, heterosexism, groveling towards heaven, respectability politics, failed prayer and supplication to a heteronormative earthly and celestial hierarchy unbothered in affording LGBT people like him a healthy, sane human development. It’s almost as if the Conservative establishment (Black included) needs Lil Nas X to be like others before him: “private”, mysteriously single, suicidal, suspiciously straight or worse, dead of HIV/AIDS ...anything but driving down the street enjoying his youth as a Black Queer artist and man. So they mad about that?

Well those days are over.  

-Rogiérs is a writer, international recording artist, performer and indie label manager with 25+ years in the music industry. He also directs Black Nonbelievers of DC, a non-profit org affiliated with the AHA supporting Black skeptics, Atheists, Agnostics & Humanists. He holds a B.A. in Music Business & Mgmt and a M.A. in Global Entertainment & Music Business from Berklee College of Music and Berklee Valencia, Spain. www.FibbyMusic.net Twitter/IG: @Rogiers1

[starsfic]

Niú Mówáng R. Boy and Qi Xiaotian

Summary: Writer Red's summer of peace is broken one morning when his new neighbor moves in.

AO3

-_-

A loud crash was what Red woke up to.

He sat up, rubbing his eyes, still not quite awake and very confused. Loud yelling and the beep of a moving truck was what made him wake up enough to growl and pull a pillow over his head.

The plan had been peace and quiet. His therapist had encouraged this summer of serenity to give him time off from writing and time to think over who he wanted to be without his parents’ expectations. He had thought the country would be nice and peaceful.

Except he was wrong.

Another blaring honk broke the silence and Red growled, glancing over at the clock. It was six, way too early to deal with this. He dropped the pillow and grabbed his slippers and bathrobe. He stalked to the door, throwing it open.

“-wake up the entire neighborhood! Just-just leave it by the curb!”

The sun wasn’t even up yet and all he could see was a thick blanket of fog. The streetlight managed to break it a bit. As well as the headlights of the moving truck. He slammed the door shut and stalked towards it. Whoever was making that noise was going to get an earful.

Before he could do that, something rammed into him. There was a yelp from him and whomever, as well as the sound of things falling into the gravel at his feet. “Sorry!” Red turned at the voice, clearly the person yelling.

And blinked.

The first thing he noticed about the noise complaint was the bright orange jacket that contrasted vibrantly against the fog. Then they looked up, revealing a pretty young man, a red headband pushing back dark hair. His mouth was pressed in a firm line and dark eyes were annoyed. “Sorry,” he repeated before turning back to the ground. He was holding a box that was full of books and art supplies, several books and a drawing tablet on the ground.

“I didn’t mean to bump into you,” the man explained, grabbing the books and stacking them in. “This fog is really thick and- this isn’t even my yard. Sorry about the noise!”

Red found himself kneeling, helping him stack the books in. “It’s no issue,” he said, his anger extinguished and mouth dry at the sight of the handsome man. He grabbed the tablet and the last book and stood, watching as the man stood. Something about the book caught his eye.

Stars of the West.

Hey, he had written this! It was his very first novel, a sci-fi version of the Journey to the West and the stepping stone to the literary power he had today. Nowadays, he was more known for business articles or his research into how much influence the economy had in politics. He ran his thumb over name indented into the glossy cover: Niú Mówáng R. Boy. He hadn’t been able to help it. Red Boy had been his favorite character in the Journey to the West.

He hadn’t seen it in years.

“Have you read it?” The man said, having noticed his gaze. “You can borrow if you haven’t.”

“I’ve read it.” Red said. He should’ve told him it was him that had written it. He had done it to several people before and he had always enjoyed the reactions. But he stayed his tongue. “One of his older ones, right?” Maybe he could hear an honest critique.

“Yep!” The man took the book and tablet and managed to stack them in the box. Steadying it on his knee, he managed to get a grip with both hands on the box. “Nice to meet you!” And just like that, he was walking past him and to the house next door. Red managed a wave.

So, that was his new neighbor.

He stood there in the fog and his pajamas, feeling the latter getting damp from the former. The thought rolled through and he looked around. It seemed like the driver wasn’t interested in helping, so…

He sighed and turned back to his house.

Once he was inside, he headed up to his bedroom. He got dressed, ignoring his stomach’s desire for breakfast, finding himself choosing casual but flattering clothes. He headed back out and to the moving truck, finding his neighbor was at the back, grabbing another box and nearly falling out of the truck.

“Do you need help, Noodle Boy?” The nickname came in a flash, stemming from the white shirt he wore that read Pigsy’s Noodles. He resisted the warmth that wanted to rise up when he squeaked, eyes tracing his arms.

“Uh, yeah! That would be great.” He passed him the box, turning back to the truck to grab another. “I’m MK, by the way.”

“Red.” he said simply.

The two worked together to bring in boxes. Much to his pride, Red noticed a few more of his novels, but he held off on asking. Soon enough, the last thing was the couch. Together, the two managed to heft it up and lug it to the door.

Then a problem presented itself.

The door was too small.

“Maybe if we turn it sideways…” MK eyed him, sweat making his hair stick to his face. Sweat started to form, but it was more due to the low boiling heat coursing through Red than any of the work. It was a bit before he realized the other was speaking. “- a shot.”

Then he was distracted by moving the couch.

“Turn it a little to the left- My left!”

“Yeah, that’s right!”

“No, my left!”

“That’s my right!”

After a few minutes of arguing and shoving, the couch popped through the doorway. The two managed to set it in place and Red collapsed on it, sighing with relief. He heard MK moving around, but he didn’t open his eyes, not even when the door closed and he could hear the moving truck move away.

Then something warm rested on him. He opened his eyes and bit back a yelp when he saw MK leaning against him. His new neighbor seemed to not notice, busy typing. “So, it’s a bit late for breakfast,” he said, looking up with a smile that made Red’s heart flutter. He was cute. And charming. And read his books. It was hard not to like him. “But can I treat you to brunch?”

“Absolutely.”

After that, MK hopped off the couch and set to work opening boxes. Red followed, placing things where they were supposed to go. Another novel of his caught his eye. The Blueprints of the Star Chaser was another sci-fi, this one a short story and reminding him. “So...what do you think of Niú Mówáng R. Boy?”

There was a chuckle. “I like his older stuff.”

He blinked, caught off-guard. Most people he had spoken to preferred his more current stuff. (The fact that most people were his parents was something he ignored.) “Really? Don’t you think it’s kinda… childish?”

“Yeah, they’re amateur, but that’s what I like. He clearly enjoyed what he was writing back then. Nowadays it’s either articles or political dramas. I can understand why people like his more polished stuff, but at least it didn’t read like every word was a rotten tooth being dragged out by a dentist.”

That was… graphic. But his parents had told him that he needed to get serious to be respected, and his sci-fi novels and different analyzes of the Journey to the West weren’t serious. Before he could spiral into these thoughts, MK’s voice broke his thoughts. “What about you? What do you like?”

“Qi Xiaotian.” It was immediate. The name brought up the memory of beautiful art. “His comic version of the Journey to the West , to be specific.”

“Really?”

Red shrugged, unable to resist his smile. “I love his artwork. It’s so colorful and… wow. You can really feel his passion on every page. And that doesn’t describe his blog posts and short stories! I mean, on some of his analysis I don’t agree with. But the amount of research shows.” When he looked up, MK was flushed, a pleased smile on his face. Before he could continue or ask, there was a knock on the door.

They both hopped to their feet and scrambled to their feet, eager for food. When Red opened the door the delivery boy yelped. “Ah! Mr. Niú Mówáng! Are you- I mean, I have an order for a Qi Xiaotian?”

Red froze.

“That’s me!” MK said, reaching forward with cash in his hand. “I’m paying for all of it.” Soon enough, money and canvas bag full of food had exchanged hands and he was shutting the door. Now alone, the two blinked at each other.

“So…” MK said, breaking the silence, tapping his fingers together. “Can we forget the part where I compared your writing to rotten teeth?” Red burst into laughter and he smiled, moving past Red to the kitchen. “But, seriously, I’m sorry for whining about you not writing sci-fi anymore.”

Red chuckled, leaning over to grab the set of paper plates and plastic utensils Mk had set. “Well, I’ll forgive you, Noodle Boy, if you tell me what you’re working on now if you forgive me for my dislike of your analyzes.”

“Deal.”

Yeah, this was gonna be great.

[strangestcase]

Bro I fucking hate the gothic lit fandom bc they just have like a million excuses for the gross shit they do and nobody can ever hold themselves accountable

Same here!

I love gothic literature but holy shit, it’s probably the most toxic cesspit of a fandom I’ve ever been in. Because everyone has this tendency to justify the bullshit that appears in the books such as racist tropes or incest, and if you tell them that’s gross and fucked up they’re like “well it’s canon! Imagine liking dark Romanticism and complaining about incest!” as if we’re supposed to agree with everything the author lays down... as if we have to take everything at face value! For a fandom based on literary analysis, some people can only see subtext if it’s gay.

I’ve seen them say “Romanticism is a movement of the grotesque therefore romanticizing pedo shit is okay!“ like sure Jan, go ahead, tell victims of CSA you think the hell they went through is desirable. I’ve seen people stan dead writers, ignore their antisemitic beliefs and the awful shit they’d do (ahem ahem OSCAR WILD ahem) and overall be very vicious. I’m not surprised a genre of fiction that’s already full of problematic elements (even when many times it’s to DENOUNCE THEM) attracts these sorts of people but their reading comprehension skills are fucking down the gutter to the point it’s baffling.

It’s amazing how the “they looked at each other angrily! they’re in love!” yaoi obsessed crowd has somehow gathered around literary classics that have already been butchered and misinterpreted thousands of times (and that def don’t need to be misinterpreted again, not even in a “gay” way).

When I complained about this back in my old blog, I’d get basically pissed on. I’d get angry comments and even hateful anons because how dare I tell them to tag their porn accordingly! How dare I criticize an adaptation they like! And then I still saw so so many posts that were all like “the jekyll and hyde fandom is so peaceful and devoid of drama” yeah because you fucking refuse to hold gross users accountable! Every day I saw gross users still be platformed! Only recently I’ve started to see jekyll and hyde fandom blocklists and callouts! And I’ve spent years seeing gross ships and bad takes fly about and almost no one listened to my critiques?!?!? How was I the one stirring up drama? By calling them out on their bs? How dare I be angry at users that fetishize my sexuality, right?

Like only a few months ago I got angry anons because I complained about the fatphobia and ageism in the jekyll and hyde fandom!

Because of this I’ve walked away from the gothic lit communities I used to frequent (looking back? some of them were... a little messed up...) and now I only stick to like... the three or four blogs that produce what to me is genuinely enjoyable gothic lit content (and that have healthy boundaries at that).

Sorry for the rant, I just have Thoughts and Opinions.

[scientific-tricorder]

This is a rather incoherent thought/observation, in reference to two critiques/reviews of Star Trek episodes that I saw somewhere, sometime, although I'm sure it applies across media in general. One of the episodes was one of those 'planet that bans technology because it is a corrupting influence' stories and I believe the other was "Statistical Probabilities", although it really related to the augment storyline as a whole. With the former, the criticism was basically that the people on the planet were being hypocritical and illogical because they still used simple technologies, like wheeled carts and hoes and stuff. On the latter, it was that prejudice against augments was illogical because other species possess superior abilities like that and don't have issues being in Starfleet and stuff along that line. In both cases, these were used as criticism (and not in the literary analysis way) against these episodes; basically, that since the central conceit involved characters acting irrationally, the whole episode was unbelievable and therefore not good.

I'm not going to argue that characters weren't being irrational, illogical, hypocritical, etc. in these episodes, because, well, that's the point. People do act irrationally and illogically and are hypocritical, and one of the things these episodes are doing is showing that it's irrational and illogical and hypocritical. Having a group that is anti-technology still use some forms of technology helps show that there is no clear line that can be drawn between 'good, simple tools' and 'bad, advanced technology', which can then play into a larger storyline of how blind dismissal of technology can be harmful (of course, technological development can also cause issues, but that's a different topic). And as regards the augments, the prejudice is shown to be illogical because prejudice is illogical. People don't sit down and logically think through if they have valid reasons to be prejudiced against a group; they just are and/or they make up reasons.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes things in stories don't make sense because they're supposed to show things in our real world that don't make sense, and I don't get why people can't seem to grasp that. Ditto for characters acting irrationally because people act irrationally.

[random-thought-depository]

Also, from Brett Devereaux’s latest Dothraki horde essay that I just posted about:

“This isn’t actually much of a surprise. Martin has been pretty clear that he doesn’t like the kind of history we’re doing here. As he states:

“I am not looking for academic tomes about changing patterns of land use, but anecdotal history rich in details of battles, betrayals, love affairs, murders, and similar juicy stuff.”

That’s an odd position for an author who critiques other authors for being insufficiently clear about their characters’ tax policy (what does he think they are taxing, other than agricultural land use?). Now, I won’t begrudge anyone their pleasure reading, whatever it may be. But what I hope the proceeding analysis has already made clear is that it simply isn’t possible to say any fictional culture is ‘an amalgam’ of a historical culture if you haven’t even bothered to understand how that culture functions. And it should also be very clear at this point that George R. R. Martin does not have a firm grasp on how any of these cultures function.

Once again, Martin has instead constructed this culture out of stereotypes of nomadic peoples.”

Ouch! This is a harsh dunk, but it’s also an insight into how to write speculative fiction that I’m going to take to heart. Well, I mean, it parallels thoughts and the approach I already have. Reading this makes me feel better about having the artistic process I have.

I know it sounds arrogant to think I’d do better than a famous and very successful big name author, but reading these essays I can’t help thinking that I’d have handled that stuff better. Like, at least before writing extensively about a steppe nomad culture I’d Google things like “what did the Mongols eat?” To be fair, I think ASoIaF was started in, like, the ‘90s, when it wasn’t so easy to just Google stuff, but still, I like to think stuff like “how did historical precedents for this culture get their food?” would be things I’d look into a bit before sitting down to write.

To also be fair, I have the opposite problem of spending like 90% of my time “worldbuilding” and taking forever to get around to actually writing anything. Maybe I should be more like George R.R. Martin! He‘s clearly doing something right!

But on the other hand, I think I do better work for actually thinking about stuff like this. Like, here’s another quote from Mr. Devereaux’s latest essay:

“But that leads into the larger problem, which comes out quite clearly in how Martin has carelessly separated the shepherds and the nomads into separate cultures living side-by-side. As we’ve discussed, that’s wrong: the shepherds and the fearsome riders were the same people. But Martin has stripped away not just the shepherding from the Dothraki, but also the cheese-making and wool cleaning and so on – after having already, as we saw last week, also stripped away the artistry, creativity and artisinal skill. His Dothraki don’t do anything as whimpy as herding sheep – something they regard as unmanly because of course they do – they kill the sheep (with arrows, which just makes it a double waste for every shaft that breaks or tip that is lost) and leave them to rot, like (very stupid) badassess.

He has stripped the Dothraki of every part of a Steppe nomads life, except the barbaric violence. And in so doing, he has taken one of only a handful of non-white cultures that we really meet and get a real taste of (rather than merely passing through) and reduces it from a complex culture which grows and nurtures and conserves (but also kills and destroys – we’re not going to don any rosy glasses about the violence of nomads here – that discussion is coming) into a pure vehicle of violent destruction, offering nothing of redeeming value.”

Like ... right now I’m planning out a story I intend to write in January; it’s supposed to be a kind of deconstruction of the Fremen mirage, and very much one of the thoughts going into it is “yo, a Proud Warrior Race would be a horrible society to live in or have as neighbors, we shouldn’t romanticize them!” and yet ... I feel that the “bad guy” culture in it is much better, from a literary viewpoint, for me having given some thought to the material base of their society and how that would shape their culture. I could have just written them as flat edgelordy-grimdark barbarians, but thinking about their culture in materialist terms gave me a more complex and nuanced picture that I think will make for a more interesting and nuanced story and a fictional society that feels more interesting and human and alive.

And to be really fair ... I think if I have an advantage over George R.R. Martin writing in the ‘90s, it’s partly from reading essays like this; because I was shaped by a geek culture that very much appreciates good worldbuilding and that is full of advice about it (of varying levels of quality, but lots of it is at least decent, and there’s a lot of it). If I do better, much of the credit belongs to the people I’ve interacted with and the people whose thoughts I’ve read and listened to over the years. “If we can see farther, it is because we stand on the shoulders of giants” very much seems to apply. Except I don’t like that quote because I think it’s too implicitly elitist; “giants” implies a few outsize individuals. I think it’s more accurate to say that if we see farther it’s because we stand at the top of an enormous human pyramid; it’s not about any particular person, it’s that we reap the benefit of enormous collective efforts. And that enormous human pyramid dynamic exists in science and government and morality and so on just as much as it exists in writing science fiction and fantasy novels.

Side note: it was informative to learn that the big Mongol food animal was sheep (or at least that’s the impression Mr. Devereaux’s essay gave me). I knew Eurasian steppe nomads primarily relied on domesticated animals other than horses for food, but I never had a very clear picture of what animals, and I kind of vaguely thought it was cattle (I guess cattle-herding nomads were more of a thing in Africa and I just kind of assumed Eurasian steppe nomads worked the same way).

Side note 2: seconding a comment somebody with the username “Roxana” left on that essay; if Mr. Martin wanted something plausible-ish that would still make the Dothraki look all macho and badass, a good way to do it would have been to loosely base them on North American horse-riding bison-hunting cultures and have them hunt some sort of terrifying badass fantasy megafauna.

[literaturebylamplight]

I’ve been working really hard to stay motivated and productive over summer break without burning myself out.

I started a book club with a group of my friends. I’ve never joined a book club before so I’m really excited but not exactly sure what I’m supposed to do, so I’m just gonna do a literary analysis and critique. It’s been a lot of work but I’m really proud of what I’ve done so far! It was really important to me to focus on authors of color because I didn’t have access to a lot of literature from other cultures growing up. I’ve always been a big reader but I was reliant on libraries either at my public school or at my community library, so the options were limited. It was Brianna’s turn to pick the book and she picked the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. I’ve never read anything by Rushdie before so this will be new for me!

I took a break from studying for calculus II to revise my Physics II notes from last semester, which I always enjoy.

I also started to grow some Hollyhock flowers from seed and they are finally sprouting!! I’m one step closer to my poisonous plant nursery.

[justforbooks]

Truth, justice, or whatever

Is there such a thing as a self-respecting philosopher? Aristophanes, in The Clouds, made the philosopher into an object of derision: impractical, impoverished, devoid of common sense and emotional intelligence, and so obsessed with metaphysical esoterica as to be incapable even of self-care.

Against such formulations, how does the philosophical nerd stand up for himself? His prognosis seems to improve when we recall that his natural enemy is not the jock but the poet — not himself known for practicality. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates famously describes the “ancient quarrel between poetry and philosophy,” started of course by the poets, when they made fun of philosophers.

For those who can’t decide which side to take, there is the third way practiced by Nietzsche: to enter the battle on the side of the poets but as a philosopher. This is the spirit of Simon Critchley’s Tragedy, the Greeks, and Us. The book is not merely an account of ancient Greek tragic drama (and its relevance for us) but also an attempt to turn Plato’s famous critique of the poets back on itself: Philosophy must be corrected by “tragic consciousness.”

No one who has set foot in a philosophy classroom will be surprised by Critchley’s recital of what he calls “philosophy’s tragedy”: It overestimates the power of rational reflection to obtain knowledge of the world and ourselves. It establishes metaphysical and moral absolutes. And it overestimates our agency — our ability to act freely on the basis of reasoning about what is right and good. These anti-philosophical tropes have been in fashion since the beginning of philosophy and have reached their apotheosis in the fusion of critical theory and post-structuralism that now dominates the humanities and social sciences. In fact, they are increasingly influential in public discourse: Critchley himself is the moderator of the Stone, the New York Times's philosophy forum.

Will an analysis of tragedy add something further to such well-worn complaints? Critchley is particularly insistent on the idea that philosophy is devoted to a “non contradictory … psychic and political existence” that has no place for the feeling of grief. This describes the position of Plato, whose Republic attacks tragic poetry for encouraging audiences to identify with the spiritual conflict and sorrow of the poems’ protagonists. Such identifications, Plato warns, allow us to take pleasure in painful psychical states, which means that pain then overwhelms our rational capacities and no longer serves as the proper corrective to bad behavior. Instead, we are encouraged to indulge in our sorrow, mimic the psychological disorder of protagonists, and write off our own conflicts as part of a hopelessly irrational human condition.

One might attempt to defend tragedy by challenging Plato’s rather simplistic rendition of identification, in which the audience simply incorporates represented mental states whole cloth. We get the seeds of a more robust account in Aristotle’s Poetics. Particularly important here is the concept of catharsis, which suggests that tragedy can actually purge us of the emotional states it elicits instead of leaving us with their permanent detrimental effects.

Critchley does not like this sort of account, nor does he like various attempts to deepen it: Catharsis, in his view, is not purgation, nor is it purification, emotional recalibration, psychotherapy, or any sort of moral education that leads to greater “psychical integration” or “authenticity.” He has no argument against such understandings except to say that they come dangerously close to having something favorable to say about the possibility of human autonomy and self-knowledge. His preferred view, tragic consciousness (or “tragedy’s philosophy”), is concerned with the ways in which we are irredeemably compromised by fate, understood as any force (social, psychological, or divine) that exceeds our capacity for deliberation. Our agency and self-knowledge are never more than partial.

In Critchley’s view, a protagonist’s tragic flaw symbolizes human fallibility and finitude. The tragic hero is essentially conflicted, “at odds with himself, doubled over and divided.” So is the audience, and so is “the city of which the tragic hero is both the expression and symptom.” Tragedy forces us to recognize both our limited agency and the world’s incomprehensibility and moral ambiguity. “Tragedy’s philosophy” turns out to be “a bracing, skeptical realism” that stares down a world “entirely without the capacity for redemption.”

There’s much more to this account, including Critchley’s praise of Plato’s other well-known antagonists, sophistry and rhetoric. The last section of the book is devoted to Aristotle’s Poetics and rejects its focus on coherence and organic unity in favor of Euripides’s “tragedies of disintegration, disunity, and incoherence.”

Unfortunately, Critchley’s distaste for coherence is clear in the way his book is structured and written. It consists of 61 brief chapters of disjointed rambling that at times verge on mania, as if Holden Caulfield lost his mind after attending a graduate postmodernism seminar. It combines ham-fisted attempts at being accessible and relevant with all the pretentious tics of contemporary continental philosophy. Pop culture references abound, and an alarming number of sentences end with “or whatever” — as in “truth, justice, or whatever.” But if you need any reassurances about the author’s sophistication, you’ll be treated to many a “horizon,” “doxa,” “otherness,” and “lacuna.”

This is all to say that the book is full of the counterproductive effects that follow from a philosophical bad conscience — from Critchley’s attempt to disavow a simplistic conception of philosophy in order to ally himself with a simplistic conception of the poetic. In doing so, the book sacrifices both philosophical depth and literary sensibility.

What substance the book has it borrows from a handful of well-known secondary sources. It reports these sources faithfully but makes no attempt to analyze, synthesize, or otherwise critically engage with them. Meanwhile, it represents philosophy in general as a form of dogma — a straw man devoid of the nuance to which “tragic consciousness” is supposed to attune us. Contra Critchley, philosophy has always sought to grapple with its own fallibility. Socrates, after all, claimed to know nothing, and his willingness to die for it was tragic.

If you can’t be friends with philosophy, you ought to at least make friends with psychology. Whereas Critchley identifies “affect regulation” (or our ability to manage our emotions) with reason’s repression of emotion, depth psychologists think of it as the capacity to have emotions without being overwhelmed by them: One contains them. This in turn requires a capacity to represent feelings, to put them in thoughts and words, instead of disavowing them only to enact them tragically. And this capacity is thought to be a product of growing up, a process in which loss and mourning are essential. We give up the ministrations of our early caretakers only to internalize the ability to take care of ourselves.

The insight of the depth psychologists is that integration and disintegration, much less reason and emotion, do not form the binary opposition that Critchley thinks they do. The experience of loss may involve an integration of what is lost and forms the basis of the identification at work in an audience’s experience of the tragic. This sort of account is essential to deepening our understanding not just of catharsis but also of the aesthetic. If we can understand the relationship between external losses and internal gains, we are in a much better position to explain the pleasures of tragic consciousness and defend them against anti-poetic mania.

Tragedy, the Greeks, and Us, by Simon Critchley. Vintage, 336 pp., $16.95.

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at http://justforbooks.tumblr.com