#very interesting because i think. the two books i read that were FOUNDATIONAL to my self and identity and writing | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

onceuponaoneshotfanfic · 1 year

Text

Any Time You’re Ready

After another lousy date, Oliver’s parents remind him that love might be closer than he expects.

Oliver Wood x Fem!Reader

1.7k words

Warnings: none, fluff, kissing, embarrassing parents

A/N: Inspired by the Shawn Mendes song “When You’re Ready” because I’m obsessed with “What if my dad is right/When he says that you're the one”

“Goodnight, Oliver.”

“G’night, Casey.”

The girl stepped into the green flames in the Wood family fireplace, called out her address, and was gone. As soon as the flames resumed their usual orange tint, Oliver turned around and strolled into the kitchen. He found his parents, sharing a slice of cake and sipping tea. Their heads snapped up as he walked in.

“So, what’d you guys think?” Oliver grinned as his parents.

“She seemed nice,” his mom answered with a shrug.

His dad nodded. “Yeah, Cadie seems like a nice girl.”

Oliver’s face fell. “Casey, Dad. Her name’s Casey.”

“Right, right.” His dad took a sip of tea, clearly not embarrassed by his mistake. “But what about-”

“Dad, stop,” Oliver groaned. He already knew what his dad was going to say; he said it every time Oliver showed interest in a new girl.

You and Oliver grew up next door to each other and had been best friends from the time you could walk. Going to Hogwarts only brought you closer together, with all the time you spent together both in and out of the classroom, practically attached at the hip. And both of your parents had been convinced for years that the two of you belonged together.

Oliver’s dad held up his hands in defense. “’m just saying, son. I don’t know why you bother going out with these other girls. You’ve already got a great girl right next door. You’ve been friends since you were born. And everyone knows a friendship like that is the foundation of a solid relationship. Just look at me and your mother.”

“Dad,” Oliver said slowly. “You asked Mum out on your very first day at Hogwarts.”

“Yeah, and we were friends for the whole trip on the Hogwarts Express before that. Good foundation, like I said.”

“Right.” Oliver grabbed a tin of biscuits from the counter. “Well, ’m heading to bed. See you in the morning.” He waved at his parents and headed upstairs, taking the steps two at a time.

He should have been more surprised to find you lying on his bed, reading a book.

“How was your date?” you asked casually, eyes still on your book as he closed the door behind him.

“Fine,” he answered, crossing the room to close the window you had climbed through. He lied down next to you and opened the tin.

You took a cookie and shoved it in your mouth. “What do we think? Potential girlfriend?”

Oliver shrugged, helping himself to a cookie. “Probably not,” he admitted.

“It’s just as well,” you said, closing your book and tossing it on his nightstand. “She’s a bit of a dolt, if you ask me.”

A snort flew out of Oliver’s nose. “I don’t remember asking you.”

You elbowed him. “Well, you should’ve. I could’ve saved you a night of ‘Oh Oliver, you’re soooo funny, let me grab your muscles.’” You let out a fake high-pitched giggle and squeezed Oliver’s arm.

He warmed at your touch. No matter how hard he tried to fight it, he had finally admitted it to himself when he was fourteen: Oliver Wood was in love with you. So for the last two years, he tried to act normal, like he wasn’t thinking about you every second of the day, like you were just his best friend and nothing else.

But laying on his bed with you right next to him made it really hard to pretend.

“You’re so mean,” he laughed, trying to sound even. “Casey’s a nice girl.”

“Yeah, but she’s not right for you.” You wrinkled your nose.

Oliver turned onto his side and propped himself up on his elbow, facing you. “Oh, and you know what’s right for me?” he challenged.

You mirrored his pose, your nose close to his. “Of course I do. That’s what best friends are for.”

He felt a little tug on his stomach at the word friends. “Yeah, sure,” he scoffed, trying to play off the sting he’d felt every time you called him your friend over the last two years. “What about you? Any dates so far this summer?”

“A couple,” you admitted. “Nothing worth mentioning.” You flipped back onto your back, gazing at Oliver’s ceiling. “Why do we have so much trouble dating?”

Oliver stared at your profile, admiring the shape of your adorable nose and your perfect lips. “What d’you mean?”

“Well,” you sighed, “think about it. We’re both very good-looking, popular enough, definitely not idiots. Yet neither of us can get more than a couple dates out of a person. What gives?”

“Mmm.” Oliver thought a moment. He knew why none of his dates panned out, but he couldn’t for the life of him figure out why you, the most beautiful and perfect girl he knew, didn’t have a boyfriend.

Not that he minded.

“It’s not like I don’t have theories,” you continued, ignoring Oliver’s non-response. “Personally, I think you’re just too good for any of the girls at school.” Oliver felt his cheeks go warm again. “As for me, I’m going to go ahead and blame you.” You turned your head and smiled at your best friend.

“Me?” he asked with a dry chuckle. “How do you manage to blame me for your lack of boyfriend?”

You shrugged. “Think about it. Boy, girl. Best friends. Boy is good-looking and could probably beat up most of the boys in our year.” You popped another cookie in your mouth. “So, no one wants to date his girl best friend.”

Oliver stared at you a moment. Despite the fact that he definitely did not want to see you all cozied up with any of the boys at school, he couldn’t help feeling bad. If you wanted a boyfriend, you should have one. He never wanted to get in the way of your happiness.

It was as though you could feel his guilt. “It’s alright though,” you assured him with that sweet smile you usually reserved for Oliver. “Not like any of those boys are worth my time anyways. You’re the only decent boy in our year honestly.”

“Oh really?” he asked in a teasing voice, as though his heart was not hammering. The two of you had been doing this a lot lately: compliments, teasing just this side of flirting, skittering around a line no one was quite willing to cross, playing a game of chicken neither of you was willing to lose.

Tonight, you were the one who broke first. “So what’d your parents think of Casey anyways?” Your eyes were back on the ceiling of Oliver’s room, following the wizards flying around his Puddlemere United poster.

“They thought she was nice,” he answered, following your gaze. “My dad’s just disappointed that she’s not-” Oliver stopped himself, his eyes darting back to you.

You looked at him out of the corner of your eye. “Not what? Smart?” A smirk played on your lips.

Oliver thought a moment. You weren’t a mean girl typically. You were sweet, and you had plenty of girlfriends. The only people you were mean about were… well, the girls Oliver dated. The gears turned in his head as he calculated the risk he was about to take.

“Well, not you,” he finally admitted. “Dad’s disappointed she’s not you.”

“Oh.” You blinked a few times. Oliver could see the rapid thinking behind your expression. “And… what about you?” You sat up and looked down at Oliver, all the playfulness gone from your eyes.

Oliver heaved himself up as well. “I… I mean…” He licked his lips and sighed. Just spit it out, he told himself. “Sometimes I wonder if my dad’s… right?”

“Right about what?” You fidgeted with the hem of your t-shirt, a nervous habit Oliver knew well.

“He…” Oliver cleared his throat and took your hands in his. He saw your eyes flicker to them before meeting his gaze again. “He says that you’re the one.” Oliver winced, preparing himself for rejection and the end of your friendship, the thing he’d been dreading for two years.

“The one?” you echoed, your hands still in Oliver’s.

He nodded. “You know. The one.”

The smirk playing on your lips broke some of the tension between you. “What would that entail? If I was the one, I mean.”

His fears melted slightly at the sight of your small grin. “Well, it would probably start… with this.” Oliver closed his eyes and leaned forward, pressing his lips gently against yours.

Much to his relief, you kissed him back, letting go of his hands and wrapping your arms around his neck while his hands settled on your hips. He could taste your bubblegum flavored Chapstick, the one he borrowed annoyingly often, and you could taste the chocolate from the biscuits that now sat forgotten near the foot of the bed.

When Oliver let go, he didn’t bother trying to play cool; instead, he grinned from ear to ear, not caring how goofy he looked.

Likewise, you couldn’t help the giggle that tumbled out of your mouth, your hands still on Oliver’s shoulders. “Starts with that, huh?”

“Yeah, that’s just the beginning.” Oliver leaned forward again, his mind racing with excitement. He laid back, pulling you on top of him-

“I think you mean that’s the end of the night,” came a voice from the door neither of you noticed opening.

Color rushed to your cheeks as you scrambled to sit back up, pushing Oliver off you. “Hey Mr. Wood,” you managed, as if he caught you making out with his son all the time.

Your best friend’s dad nodded pointedly. “You should probably head back out that window, young lady. I’m sure we’ll see you tomorrow. When you use the front door.”

With one last awkward smile to Oliver, you jumped off the bed and opened the window, clambering out the way you’d done millions of times before. Trying to be a gentleman (especially in front of his dad), Oliver watched carefully as you climbed down the tree by his window, tiptoed across his backyard, through the gate between your houses, and through your first-story window, where you disappeared after a quick wave in his direction. When Oliver turned around with that still dopey smile, his dad was still in the doorway, a smug grin on his face.

“Told ya so, son.”

#oliver wood #oliver wood fanfic #oliver wood fanfiction #oliver wood imagine #oliver wood drabble #oliver wood fluff #oliver wood x reader #harry potter #harry potter fanfiction #harry potter fanfic

1K notes · View notes

drconstellation · 6 months

Text

Come Back When You Can Make A Whale

This is going to contain some speculation for S3, so you know what to do! Or not do!

SITIS: What did God say? JOB: Um... I'm not sure. I didn't understand much. Things too wonderful for me. Ostriches came into it. SITIS: Ostriches? JOB: And whales. God's very proud of the whale. Went into some detail about... how great whales are. SITIS: But did They explain? JOB: [shakes head] I think the point was, if you want answers, come back when you can make a whale.

Whales, huh?

If you aren't well read, this could be quite the misdirection. It should be reasonably obvious, given who is doing the talking - Job - what he is actually referring to, then we can join a couple of dots to make some speculative leaps.

You still with me?

No? Then let us start with how do you make a whale?

By giving it another name.

Leviathan.

Chapter 41 of the Book of Job is all about the Leviathan, a great sinuous sea serpent with impenetrable scales and breath like fire. It sleeps beneath the sea until the end of days. Over time it came to be associated with any sea monster, then anything large, and what is the largest animal ever known to have lived? The whale.

The top of the matchbox is also worth a look. We have a skull and crossbones, which is classic Memento mori symbolism, fitting in with the resurrection theme of the Second Coming - but look at the way the address of the pub is spelt! Now, this not the same way it is spelt on the record single Maggie gives to Aziraphale; Goatgate is spelt as one word, not two. A little bit of searching reveals the meaning behind this fictional address that backs up and reinforces the quote on the side of the matchbox.

Strong's Concordance for 66 gives us "wild, savage, fierce." Goatgate is an interesting one, because it turns out to be a relatively modern term from the urban dictionary, and I'm just going to refer to the polite version of it here - it's another word for "mouth." So 66 Goatgate is a "fierce and savage mouth." Yes, that does sound about right - in more ways than one, once you know who it is. (If you want to look up the impolite version, go ahead - I'm sure you will still find the connotations very amusing.)

Our metaphorical Leviathan is Crowley. He gave the game away at the end of S1 during the appearance-swap.

This also means Aziraphale is his counterpart, Behemoth. Why - well, I made a bit of joke in my post here that he was playing at being a "river horse" while he wallowed in the bath of holy water during his part of the appearance-swap scene. Modern day scholars think the description of Behemoth in the Bible may be that of a hippopotamus in real life history. If that is so, I'd still be betting this is what the "dark horse" comment from Nina in S2E1 is foreshadowing.

Maybe none of this new to you if you've been hanging around the the fandom for a while. That's fine, I'm just trying to establish the scene. And the next bit we need to talk about is this one, where Job gets a lecture from God.

During this sequence, we hear lines that come from Job 38 and 39.

GOD: Job, if you have questions for me, I have questions for you. Do you know how I created the earth? Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth, Job? Were you there when all the morning stars sang together and all the Angels shouted for joy?

These lines are paraphrasing some of the beginning of Job 38.

Then we have:

GOD: Do you know the rules of the heavens? Did you set the constellations in the sky? Can you send lightning bolts and get them to report back to you? Did you give wings to peacocks, Job, or teach the ostrich to run?

These lines are again, paraphrasing Job, half from 38 and half from 39.

So then, we need to ask, why highlight these lines in particular?

Job 38 is mainly about setting the boundaries of the universe around us. The Earth might seem impossibly huge to a human, but it started with a single stone at its foundation. Earth and the other planets obey certain laws as they move around the Sun. The patterns of the stars in the sky take so long to change that it seems like they are set and inconstant. Even the chaotic form of lightning respects its Creator and returns to its point of origin.

From the last part of Chapter 38 to the end of 39 God challenges Job with a list of animals. The theme here is about freedom and wildness. Whether it is a noble lion, a loathsome crow, a nimble mountain goat, the head-strong wild ox or the willing war horse, they all flourish upon the Earth under the sight of the Almighty. Even the mightiest and most fierce beasts of all, Behemoth and Leviathan, have a place, although only God has the means to control those two.

None of this needs a human to be involved. We are so often the center of our own universe, and try so hard to control every aspect of the world around us that we lose sight of the bigger picture. Shit happens. Some things are out of our control. That doesn't mean its your fault and you're wicked and damned to go to Hell because of it. And that was the point God was trying to make to Job. The world is a far bigger, wilder and chaotic than you can imagine, but its also incredibly beautiful, and it runs itself within the rules and limits that seem to be set by invisible forces you can't see.

So back to the script from the show.

The first set of questions from God could apply to both of the duo. They were both around when Earth was created and were more than likely there when the "morning stars" (the highest angels, such as Lucifer, Gabriel, Michael and angel!Beelzebub) sang together.

The second set of questions are the ones that seem to have got the most attention so far, with ops cross-matching them to things Crowley does in S2.

Do you know the rules of the heavens?

Did you set the constellations in the sky?

Can you send lightning bolts and get them to report back to you?

Did you give wings to peacocks, Job...

(I make a suggestion this has something to do with Michael, but also see comments below)

...or teach the ostrich to run?

The first three of those questions are fairly straight forward, and I doubt many would dispute what they are referring to. But the reference to the peacock and the ostrich are more subtle and curious, and I would like to take a moment to look at the actual verse - because it is only one verse that is providing both questions - that is being paraphrased here.

Job 39:13 Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?

Did you realize that the King James Version of the Bible is the only one that mentions peacocks in this particular verse? All the other versions mentions the first sentence of that verse in relation to the wings of ostriches: "The wings of the ostrich wave proudly." The ostrich is considered a cruel and witless bird in the Bible, pleased with the way it looks, and seemingly careless about its young.

Why does that sound familiar...

Shax thinks this ostrich feather-clad angel in disguise isn't too smart either.

So using the peacock line is a curious choice in the script. Other than the "eyes" in the tail of the peacock having a connection to Michael's many watchful eyes on the world, it's still not clear how Crowley helped them upwards. Unless both lines are supposed to refer to Gabriel, and how the vain peacock was helped to both fly and run to a distant location in the stars.

Edit: Since I first wrote this, @beebopboom pointed me to some more peacock lore, and this helped me delve a bit deeper into them. Peacocks were associated with wealth and royalty, but they were also associated with immortality in early Christian beliefs. There was a belief that the flesh of the peacock did not decay after its death. The bright colours in its tail came from its eating venomous snakes, which reminded people of Christ becoming sin for humanity's sake (think of Crowley downing the laudanum to save Elspeth from Hell in the crypt in 1827, its a similar action.) The "eyes" on the males tail also represented the all-seeing eye of God. So we have a connection with both royalty and resurrection here.

(Oh - just as an interesting connection here - a number of the newer versions of the Bible not only don't mention the peacock in this verse, they compare the ostrich to the stork! The meaning is meant to be that the stork cares more for their young than the ostrich, but if you read the words at face value, you could take a double meaning away...)

Let us return to questions, answers, and whales.

Questions. Always questions. It's like the proverbial toddler who's always asking a never-ending string of "but, why?" for funsies and you just want them to shut up for a moment and think about the last thing you said first. They, too, are a bit like Job. They are the center of their own universe at that age, having not had much experience of the world. They have no grasp of how far it extends beyond them, and how little even we as adults know.

If at this point you're going "oh, no, no, no, no, op, please don't tell me the point of this meta is it's all ineffable," relax. I'm not.

The point was to set you up for some nice, juicy, awesomely sweet S3 speculation.

Because I believe Crowley will finally get to ask his questions of God.

(oh lordy, I made the mistake of taking a break to have a shower before trying to finish this off, because I was having trouble seeing how to finish this in a tidy way, and that caused me to have "shower thoughts" and now the nice sweet simple speculation has turned into a slightly bat-shit crazy kind-of one, although still on the same track as what I was originally thinking. Here goes...)

We have this three card spread from waaay back at the beginning of S1. We all think its something to do with the three babies.

What if its not?

Because we need something like this to happen again - Aziraphale and Crowley either side of a third protagonist. What if it's the King of Kings, Love personified, Jesus, in the middle? (Or Adam again, I wouldn't discount that option either...)

If you would look at the GIF and the screenshot together again and go, well that makes, sense, white for the angel on the right, and green for the demon on the left, I would jump up and shout at you - NO!

Look at the cards again! In the Tarot, that's the Ace of Swords on the right - it belongs to Aziraphale. It's a very powerful card, about new beginnings and change.* Lets call the one of the left Knight of Wands, which also represents the element of Fire. Knights are all about movement and journeys. Who owns the Bentley? And look what Gabriel has instinctively done with his hands - he has held his screen-left hand out to Aziraphale, the Sword, the angel who wears green, and his right hand out to Crowley, the Knight of Fire. The yin and yang qualities are actually swapped. That was what I was trying to tell you in this post. They aren't as obvious as they seem at first glance.

And love is the answer, it turns out. Did you see my comment the other day on another post? In Strong's Concordance 25 = to love.

Anyway, we should get a third parallel scene somewhat like this, and like when Aziraphale and Crowley took Adam out of time to talk to him in S1.

Only this time the three of them (with who ever is in the middle) should be having a talk with God about what is or isn't supposed to happen.

JOB: I think the point was, if you want answers, come back when you can make a whale.

Crowley could be a literal serpent (though I would be very surprised if he did manifest that way) but it should be a metaphorical Leviathan that stands before the Almighty to ask his questions and get his answers. And it will be that he has earned the right to be there, because he finally understands the lessons of Job.

@makewayforbigcrossducks I hope this answers one of your questions

*The Ace of Swords speaks of new beginnings, but it is a two-edged sword that can cut both ways. It is strength in adversity, victory out of struggle, good out of evil, a change in the old order on the way.

#good omens #good omens 2 #good omens meta #crowley #aziraphale #job minisode #book of job #leviathan #behemoth #i only ever asked questions #come back when you can make a whale #gabriel #shax #did you give wings to peacocks?#teach the ostrich to run #king of kings #king of hearts #yin to his yang

205 notes · View notes

tarotwithdanise · 1 year

Text

Your future best friend's personality

1 - 2 - 3

SOURCE AND CREDITABLE : All of the pictures are collected and downloaded from pinterest , I don’t own any of them but credits goes to the rightful owners however edits goes and the reading itself belong to me. I use the editor tools canva and ibispaint for the header and divider. If saved/downloaded the divider use a proper credits and tag/mention along my acc @tarotwithdanise. Expect grammatical errors with this reading, bear with it because english isn't my mother tongue.

💌 check out my back-up account @danisetarot bio ; click the link, choose your favorite deals that you wanted to purchase and then send all of them to my email account ([email protected])

Pile one

This is someone who already on their spiritual awakening. They are someone who you can't just tricked and fooled easily, this person makes you think twice of all your actions. They are smart people, if you play trick ways, they will know it immediately without any hesitation because they are mastermind. You will meet this person to any spiritual groups and places. It can be that this is where they work or they're someone who used to teach others. People come at them to ask for their advices, they're great mentor. They like to inspire and be inspired. They might come off as mysterious and secretive individual too. You two will create a strong foundation of friendships. It's not yet the right time to reveal themselves fully to you. But all of i had said was the highlights of them.

Pile two

-this gonna be long compared to previous pile, this person is like an open book.

If I were describe this person, they always look at the bigger picture. Most likely, this is is someone who have vision board or they already have an idea what they want to be in the future. Most likely this person is someone who have a young spirit or probably younger than you. They enjoy and love to try new things, they're adventurous and brave individual. They're quite rare individual and ready for any change that surrounds them, in fact they're risk taker and will enjoy traveling around and across each country - they're adventurous individual. I see that they're talkative individual, someone who likes to share their MU's and crushes to you. They're typically jolly and has an extrovert personality, they like encouraging people. If I am not mistaken this person is probably the one who will try to get you out of your comfort zone. I picking up a strong masculine energy so they maybe a boy? but they can also be a girl that just embodied a masculinity. The cons of their traits is that, they experience unstable mental health and might have a very childish attitude, they probably has a lot of break downs with their past that's why. It's like they see their past self to you, that's why they're trying their best to help you as they can with pure intention.

They might be young but their experiences is level up into the next level that most of their ages doesn't yet uncover. I do also see here that even though they not really a ‘star pupil’ or a ‘straight A's pupil’ their classmates or their co-workers likes them to be their leader ; someone who will guide and lead them into a project or teamwork. Some people feels very irritated towards them because they're very jolly, hyper and friendly, somehow their friendliness can affect you because you only have them while they have many choices but what's more interesting here is that they're longing always for your presence, you maybe way more matured and intelligent when it's comes to logic rather than them so this is one of reason why few people take an advantage to their innocent and kindness. And what else? They prefer and like more to share their problems and secrets to you more rather than to their other friends. Like they typically see you as their only lifetime best friend while the rest of their friends is temporary. You tickled this person heart, you got their full trust. This feels like a friendship between a straight forward and trash talker person with their wild and funny friend.

Pile three

This is someone who maybe from a well-off family, it's either the relationship with their family is okay or in other way, it's broken. This is someone who is same age as yours, they likes traveling whether inside or outside of country. They also likes country music and artists. They are not emotionally stable and may need someone to lean on. It's hard for them to somehow find balance between two choices. This friendship may lead from friends to lovers, if both of you will pursued this connection. They may not be good at decision making but they are kind person and will do everything to share the life they have to their friends and other people. This person might own atleast one pet at their home and probably someone who may like the color of black. They maybe act spoiled and stupid sometimes but they're totally kind, it's just they used to act one. They may have an unpredictable nature and maybe someone who hold a lot of responsibilities even though they can't.

#pick a card #tarot #pick a pile #free tarot reading #tarotcommunity #tarot online #pick a card reading #pick a pile reading #tarotblr #witches #tarot witch #witch #witchblr #divination #cartomancy #spirituality #fortune telling

314 notes · View notes

theweeklydiscourse · 10 months

Note

I 100% agree with your last acotar meta. I remember reading the book and thinking the sisters were so cartooney that it was legitimately comedic. And the worst part is, their characterisation isn't even contradicted in acomaf, it's in the second half of acotar. Feyre goes back home and suddenly they're all completely different people.

EXACTLY! I found that this contradiction was most present in Nesta because initially, she was portrayed as a a spoiled fool, but when Feyre returns, she becomes a cunning and concerned older sister. I read the second half of ACOTAR and thought: “Hold on, where was this Nesta at the beginning?” Because in the first chapters, there was hardly any evidence that Nesta had any feelings for Feyre aside from contempt and irritation.

“My hands slackened at my sides. “You went after me,” I said. “You went after me—to Prythian.” “I got to the wall. I couldn’t find a way through.”

I raised a shaking hand to my throat. “You trekked two days there and two days back—through the winter woods?”

She shrugged, looking at the sliver she’d pried from the table. “I hired that mercenary from town to bring me a week after you were taken. With the money from your pelt. She was the only one who seemed like she would believe me.”

“You did that—for me?”

How do we get from “Keep it up, and someday—someday, Feyre, you’ll have no one left to remember you, or to care that you ever existed.” To Nesta suddenly becoming a shrewd and observant woman with a mind of steel? In the first chapters, she is impractical, spoiled and naive but suddenly is flipped into a way more interesting character in the latter half of the book. It’s as if Maas had a foundational idea of Nesta as a wicked step sister, but then decided to expand upon her and completely transform her halfway through her draft (except she never tweaked the first draft to match her second one).

One could argue that the restoration of the Archeron’s wealth influenced this change, but even in the beginning there was hardly a hint that this version of Nesta existed beneath the haughty Nesta we saw initially. If Maas wanted to maintain continuity she could have laid down more hints about Nesta’s strength of character and planted seeds that might later grow into a fully-formed character arc. Nesta is way more compelling in the second half of ACOTAR and it is bizarre that Maas never really made the two halves match up with each other.

But I would not find this rapid change to be so frustrating if it were not for the fact that the initial characterization of Nesta we see is brought up several times throughout the series as a point of contention against her. How she acts in these first chapters (which is later contradicted in the very same book) is used as a major plot point in Nesta’s development later on in ACOSF and colours the Inner Circle’s perception of her. It’s especially terrible when you try to mediate this first draft of Nesta with the character that she is most of the time because it is just so…incongruent. How the hell can I engage with this character when their story is riddled with contrived nonsense and they act like a caricature in their first introduction?

#sjm critical #feyre archeron #nesta archeron #elain archeron #acotar meta #acotar #acomaf #ACOSF #anti sjm #inner circle #fandom meta

134 notes · View notes

ddarker-dreams · 8 months

Note

Hi Lock~ I wanted to ask you abt how you got into literature, and how you’d maybe recommend someone else to start? I want to expand on my reading (and also you’ve hyped up Dostoevsky sooo much I’m hooked but I KNOW I’m not at that lvl yet haha) but there’s so many different sources and stuff idrk where to start. I have seen your list of recommendations and other people’s lists as well but Im never sure if they’re a good place if someone is just starting into literature; I’ve been really interested in Picture of Dorian Gray, Jane Eyre and Frankenstein right now, do you think they’d be okay? Did you look at books you knew you’d be into? Or did you try out smth new entirely? Also did you look at any sources online that you could recommend? I know I’ve asked a lot so you of course don’t have to answer them, but please let me know what you think!!

I also wanted to ask, as someone who’s read many classics in literature, in your opinion, how would you define literature? And what do you think makes a book a classic?

From a very clueless anon, hope you and bun bun have a great day and stay hydrated!!!!

hello anon!!! there are so many interesting questions here, i'll try answering them to the best of my abilities!!!!

(how i got into literature)

i'd been neglecting published works for most of my life because i just preferred fanfic way more. it wasn't until a bit into 2021 that i saw this Discourse Causing Post that 'you can't grow as an author if you don't read published works,' or something among those lines. i thought this was really interesting because i'd never given it much thought. around that point, even though writing was a hobby, i felt really motivated to improve. i normally spent no more than a day or two on a story before moving onto the next. which is fine, because fanfic writing is a hobby, but i felt i'd be capable of more if i put in the extra time and effort.

so basically i got into it because i wanted to write my silly little yandere fics better jdfklgjsdg

(recommendations for getting into literature)

i focused on the genre i thought i'd be the most interested in: horror. then i branched out from there. i looked up what people considered must-reads for the genre because i figured that'd be a good place to start. if you know what sort of genres you like, doing some research into its most prevalent/foundational works isn't a bad idea. that's the approach i took. authors throughout the centuries influence and inspire one another, i wanted to be able to map those connections out. this also helps give some context to older books with references that'd be loss on a modern audience.

(how i went about looking into books to see if i wanted to read them)

i research everything like my life's on the line, so i do look into books before i read them. i go for a synopsis that doesn't include spoilers and consider if that's a story i'd get invested in. if not, i'll read some reviews for fresh perspectives. if i'm still kinda meh by then, the book gets passed on.

(defining literature/classics)

UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH literary theory is not my field of expertise ... i'd personally define literature as any written work such as fiction and nonfiction. it can encompass so many things that defining it feels tricky. as for how i'd define a classic, all art is subjective or whatever, but there are stories that just have the It factor. whether that is their cultural impact, or works that are pillars to the genre(s) they were written in. you can see the ripples that it made after its publication.

finally, as for the books you listed (jane eyre, the picture of dorian gray, and frankenstein), i'd highly recommend them!!! all of them are apart of the gothic genre, which is one of my favorites. they've all stood the test of time for good reason.

#lock lore #answered #Anonymous

59 notes · View notes

lovemyromance · 2 months

Text

Idk why this is a hard concept to grasp:

Anything that would move the plot or character development forward.. is included in the book.

Major developments that move the plot forward - included in the book.

Character interactions that are important to the integral plot - included in the book.

Plot points to set up for future overarching plot - included in the book.

Therefore it makes absolutely no sense to have an entire couple that has been foreshadowed for 3 books now to break up in a bonus chapter.

That would leave readers confused. They will ask "oh, weren't Az & Elain a thing?" They will wonder about all the moments they read between the pairing in the last book.

It also makes no sense to include a new love interest in a bonus chapter.

I know people love to bring up "Have you read the bonus chapter?" any time someone says they don't know where Gwynriel came from. I think it's funny, because if Gwynriel was foreshadowed in the actual book, don't you think they'd be asking "Well, did you read the book?" Why is the first question "did you read the bonus chapter?"

That's what Elriels ask, btw, if someone even says they don't know where Elriel came from (very rare occurrence). They don't point to a BC where Azriel is explicitly showing desire for Elain (though that would be too easy), they point to the 3 books of canon text.

Gwynriel doesn't have anything outside the bonus chapter. And that bonus chapter is also heavily skewed based on their interpretation of the text. Most people still do not see romance between the two even after reading the gwynriel's beloved 2nd half of the BC.

My point is, if someone opened the next ACOTAR book and it was Azriel suddenly head over heels for Gwyn of all characters, people would be confused. Yes the bonus chapter is available, but most people haven't read it, and even then, it's not a very solid foundation for a whole BOOK of their romance.

SJM is not going to write something to cause more confusion with the plot in a bonus chapter. She's not going to suddenly break up the couple she's been foreshadowing for 3 books and insert a new love interest in a limited edition version of the book only found from one bookstore in the US.

And I know there are people that are like "Oh well SJM has written full marriages in the BC."

I assume they are referring to singular occurrence of that in the HOFAS BC.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Ruhn & Lidia get married in a BC. That's true. But their marriage and that BC occurs at the end of the book. After the main conflict has been solved, and it is essentially a happily ever after epilogue type bonus. It is not a major development of the plot nor a shock or twist to anyone. They were already mates and together. Them getting married in the bonus chapter was just a fun wholesome way to add to the series. In fact, the entire event was so lowkey Ruhns mom wasn't even mentioned as being there.

There were no questions raised after that BC. SJM could write a 4th CC book, and their marriage would likely not have any relevance to the overall plot of that novel. She could have never published it, and it wouldn't have changed a thing.

Thats the difference. BC do not cover major plot development, they sow seeds for the future and are sometimes just for fun. They are often not needed or relevant for the plot in the book at that time. So they are not included in the book. That's it. She doesn't write bonus chapters to cause even more confusion.

But I thought it was obvious 🤷🏻‍♀️

#elriel #azriel #elain archeron #pro elain #elain x azriel #acotar #antigwynriel #elain

42 notes · View notes

flightyalrighty · 5 months

Note

What have been some of your big inspirations/points of education* with your comic work?

*could mean learning resources but also just, good advice you got once or improvements to your workflow you figured out

Thanks for this ask!! :]

I went to the School of Visual Arts, where I majored in Cartooning! A lot of what I learned, I learned from Indie Cartoonist Jason Little and DC/Marvel Editor Joey Cavalieri, both of whom taught multiple classes I've taken (mainly fundamental stuff but there were also some extra classes with them like Jason taught my Digital Comics course and Joey taught my History of Cartooning class). I learned how to draw trees from Jason. And from reading Pogo.

I've drawn a lot of inspiration in my storytelling from both Bone and Hellboy, mostly! Both Jeff Smith and Mike Mignola are masters of pacing in comics, and if you happen to be unfamiliar with their works, I can't recommend them enough. Besides those two, the rich, moody internal monologues of Spider-Man: Blue and Spider-Man: Evolve or Die are things I often think about when it comes to dialogue writing. That and (at least when it comes to writing Rouge's dialogue) my older sister. Just, like, in general. Pay attention to how the people around you speak. It helps a ton when figuring dialogue.

Hellboy is getting mentioned again because Mignola's heavy inks are something I like to look over in order to learn from and improve myself. Hellboy, Carl Barks's Donald Duck comics, Asterix & Obelix, Will Eisner's various works, Calvin and Hobbes ALL have this beauty in their inking that can really inspire. Personally, I'd like to get a bit messier with my inking. Messy inks feel so alive. They're so visually interesting.

For colors, I highly recommend this book. I've read it and re-read it as much as possible. It may be for painters, but cartoonists can and should learn from all kinds of art forms. The works of Moebius were also mega foundational for me in learning how to color my comics. The man knew his palettes and how to not confine himself too much to what's "realistic". Speaking of painters (you may roll your eyes at this one) I'm also a fan of Frank Frazetta.

For panelling, I only have one true inspiration, and that's the work of Tess Stone. I grew up reading Hanna Is Not A Boy's Name. It changed how I viewed the limitations of panelling forever. Of course, it may be harder to find that comic these days, so here's a snippet:

Basic advice: really really take your time taking in art that you like, and try to reverse-engineer how it was made in your head. Heck, even if there's art you DON'T like, overall, but has elements you DO like, you can learn from that, too!

Okay! Sorry for rambling! Now here's the thing you're actually here for:

How To Think When You Draw collection of REALLY GOOD tutorials for whatever you need, these guys helped me out a ton when I was figuring the jungle scenes early in Infested.

This Pinterest Which Has Absolutely Everything You Can Possibly Think Of For References And Inspiration Sources.

An Extremely Good Font Site That Is Used By Professionals In The Comics Industry To Letter Their Comics.

The Most Important Book Any Cartoonist Can Read

A Different Book By The Same Man About Making Comics (for free, thanks Internet Archive)

Perspective For Comic Book Artists, thanks again Internet Archive

As for workflow... Man, I wish I could give you any kinda advice on that. I'm struggling with it, myself. I guess I've got two things?

If you have multiple deadlines for, say, multiple commissions or something, or you're trying to put out a weekly comic, but you're also doing something else, break the day up into time slots for each project, and switch the moment it's time to. Keep yourself on that schedule. I'm not very good at this.

I draw pretty detailed thumbnails, so sometimes I'll skip the penciling step in comics and blow up the thumbnail to ink over that. It's faster for sure! It's not always the right solution, however.

Thanks for reading! I hope any of what I've said helps at all!

#Anonymous #asks

36 notes · View notes

saltineofswing · 4 months

Note

Hello! I'm the person that made the rant post about my dislike on the lack of natural dichotomy of the Pyramids and Traveler since the introduction of the Veil that turned into a whole thing. You mentioned a lack of pulp in your reblog and it's stuck with me since then. I wasn't familiar with the term and did some research on it, but I still don't think I get what it is. I tried looking it up but a lot of articles and videos I could find explain the history of pulp and its influences in modern day sci-fi but not necessarily what it is, especially in a way that would give me context to better understand your reblog. If it's not too much trouble, can you explain a little more what the "pulp" is that destiny is lacking?

I’d be happy to try and give you a little more insight into what I feel are important tenets of pulp as a genre/concept! I decided this might be a good opportunity to talk a little about it generally because I am really feeling its absence generally in the past couple years, so I included some historical backing which you’re probably already familiar with – hope that’s OK.

I did a little digging personally, for some good places to familiarize oneself with the basics of pulp as a concept and/or genre. It was nice to re-affirm some info that I’ve felt secure in holding as true without a ton of evidentiary support, and I also learned some cool new stuff as well! I think a good place to start would be to link to the TV Tropes page about pulp magazines, which does a pretty good job of explaining the origins and foundational aspects of the concept in a way that is easy to digest. It also has a lot of examples available to peruse. I also found this cool article on the golden age of pulps, which is an interesting read.

This got long, so below the cut!

To reiterate, the original ‘pulp’ terminology and vibe comes from early/mid-20th century magazines, which were cheap and easy ways to access genre fiction and action/adventure stories before comics, paperback novels, and TV/movies were really on the scene. Pulp magazines spanned a very wide array of genres, but because of a lack of appreciation for the medium, a majority of pulp magazines and aspects of what I would consider to be pulp as a genre have been allowed to fall into obscurity. There are places where I feel it is particularly obvious, especially the superhero genre (don’t get me started we’ll be here all week) but also in fantasy and science fiction – a term which was, in fact, coined by Hugo Gernsback, an editor for pulp magazine Amazing Stories.

They were cheap to make, cheap to buy, and easy to serialize; they could be really schlocky, crass, and unpolished. They could also be fucking incredible! The Shadow is a good example of an early pulp property with screaming highs and frankly peat-bog lows. Lovecraft published a lot of what is considered to be his ‘best work’ in Weird Tales! Conan the Barbarian, too! They kind of came out of the gate with a somewhat negative connotation associated with ‘low-brow’ forms of literature like dime novels, but where other magazines of the time tended to incorporate non-fiction articles and photography, pulp mags tended to be fiction stories only – short stories, or longer stories split into serialized chapters. Early on, not many of them had art, though with the advent of comic books that changed (you could argue that books like Creepy and Eerie are direct offspring of early pulp mags). Similar to what Weekly Shonen Jump does with manga.

If you think of a genre as a toolbox, pulp is a box full of tools that function fine alone, but excel at assisting the function of other toolboxes. I would almost liken ‘pulp’ to the concept of ‘camp’, which are also two concepts that can and do overlap with a high degree of synergy. Pulp has its own foundational attributes that are distinct from camp – for example, camp is gay relies a lot more on its self-awareness, at being able to wink at the viewer or participant, and telling you ‘yeah, we know it, but isn’t it fun?’ Pulp, on the other hand, is the (no pun intended) straight man counterpart to this aesthetic sensibility; pulp is at its best when it is being completely earnest. The quippy lines and dramatic proclamations are meant to be taken on their face. Nowadays it’s the kind of stuff that memes are made of – ‘That Wizard Came From The Moon’, ‘I don’t have time to explain why I don’t have time to explain’, ‘Whether we wanted it or not, we’ve stepped into a war with the Cabal on Mars’. Saying shit that has no explanation with your whole chest. Trying to be cool on purpose, the ultimate cringe move.

Nowadays I think that this kind of thing has mostly died out of modern media, but the counter-motion is still prevalent in mainstream superhero movies. A good example is the ‘Would you have preferred ~YeLlOw SpAnDeX~’ line from the OG X-Men movie. Hey dickhead! The yellow spandex is cool if you, the guy making the movie, believes its cool! Crucially, while a lot of modern superhero stuff is quippy and irreverent, it often uses these tropes in a self-aware or cynical manner – afraid of being earnest, committing the aforementioned cardinal sin of trying to look cool on purpose.

(God damn it, I’m talking about superheroes again. Sorry. Before I get back on task this is why I loved the recent Moon Knight run so much; Jed MacKay is NOT afraid to have the characters say some absolutely batshit thing but it comes off as so, so cool. And yes, a little cheesy.)

And then, where modern sci-fi typically has an ultra-detailed explanation on-hand, I think a lot of early pulp stuff just… didn’t. Ask a sci-fi property for an explanation on, oh I don’t know, ‘where did these super-humanoid sapient machine warriors come from’ and it will likely have a molecule-deep explanation of how those unnamed machine people were created. Ask a fantasy property for an explanation on the same and it might say, ‘no’. It’s not that a pulp-leaning property won’t give you the answer to that question… it just might not have it. The ‘why is it/how is it’ is not as important as the ‘what is it’ and ‘how is it relevant’; a writer had a limited amount of page real estate, as multiple features were typically crammed into a single magazine. Even if a feature was serialized, much like television episodes (before the binge trend), one had to keep information digestible, and not too reliant on a prior or later edition that a reader might never see.

Explanations tended to be in service of an emotional beat, or to a theme, versus as a grounding agent to immerse a reader in the world. For the record I don’t necessarily think of either method as being better or worse, and heavy worldbuilding can still utilize pulp as a veneer or filter to engage audience expectations in different ways. Pulp stuff relies a lot on suspension of disbelief without utilizing a rigid lore-based framework to – though, you know, your story/setting still has to have its own internal logical consistency.

(I feel that it is important to note, as a partial consequence of the time period in which these magazines were being made, and when pulp fiction was most heavily consumed, xenophobia and racism are also heavily present in pulp works. I think everybody knows at this point about how much Lovecraft sucked but it’s a valuable example of how a lot of ‘fear of the unknown’ in that time was transliterated into ‘fear of the different’, in general but especially relating to genre fiction. If you decide to explore material in this genre, in this time period, be forewarned! Some of it was pretty glaring!)

So, let me tie some of this stuff to my previous statements about Destiny. I think that Destiny is an excellent example of how pulp tropes, aesthetic, and genre conventions can be used to enhance and streamline a setting… and how stripping too much pulp away can have a detrimental impact on the depth of a narrative.

The original narrative and worldbuilding of Destiny drew very heavily on pulp aesthetics to create a foundation, both in its appearance and its lore. The ‘Golden Age of Science Fiction’ was a period of time in the mid-20th century that sort of transitioned sci-fi out of pulp magazines and into its own thing, but the foundational structure of science fiction at this time was still heavily pulp-influenced. I think this is very well-represented by the portrayal of Venus as a ‘garden’ (jungle) world, very lush and with sulfurous and sometimes acidic rains. Before advancements in astronomical technology went and fucked everything up for us writers, Venus’s opaque cloud-covered atmosphere was impenetrable enough that there could be anything under there – and a popular portrayal of Venus was a muggy, humid, rain-heavy world that sometimes also included lush jungles. In Bradbury’s short story The Long Rain (WHICH ran in Planet Stories, a pulp mag, by the way!) this portrayal is a central obstacle to the narrative; it’s also used in Heinlein’s novel Space Cadet.

The color scheme that Destiny uses for Venus also matches a common color scheme for Venus in this era – see this cover for Fantastic Adventures. Visually, I think that this comparison between the postcard that went out with the D1 limited/collector’s edition and this Planet Stories cover for The Golden Amazons of Venus demonstrates the influence, at least regarding terrain and biome.

In fact, I think that you can see from this Eververse postcard – which could have been peeled off of any era-appropriate paperback novel – that the influence goes bone-deep. Destiny even refers to humanity’s halcyon age as ‘The Golden Age’.

(Below: Is this image from Destiny dev, or a science fiction paperback from the 60s? Who knows! I know. It’s Destiny.)

In the modern era of Destiny storytelling, though the visual elements of the universe remain largely rigid relative to this early framework, the pulp underpinning of the narrative has been largely left behind. The original game’s story, and the stories of subsequent DLCs, felt very pulp-inspired – this ranged from ‘sort of effective’, like in House of Wolves, to ‘game-savingly effective’, like in The Taken King. Pulp lends itself to straightforward conceptual executions, and brisk narratives, because of its roots as short-form literature. The narrative of D1 was simple and to the point; Light good, Dark bad, humanity is in the shit, think you can kill a god? The surrounding world scaffold was rich but not deep. As I like to say, sometimes a river can be wide but shallow. This is not a commentary on its quality – something can be good but not complex, and IMO, sophistication is not necessarily synonymous with complexity. Destiny managed to pull off a trick that many high-quality pulp stories employ: it made the river look deeper than it was. This is the whole reason that Lovecraft’s oeuvre has the staying power it has: other writers got to play in the space because it felt very deep, even though the stories themselves were fairly straightforward.

I also don’t mean to say or accidentally imply that ‘morally grey storytelling cannot exist within pulp stories’, because that would probably get me torn apart; that’s just not the kind of straightforward foundation that the original Destiny was built on. ‘It is what you see, but what you see could be anything’, you know? The problem that began to muddy the waters in the Destiny narrative is that they started to say, ‘You know, actually, it ISN’T what you see’.

Tentpole narrative additions to the Destiny 2 game employ varying levels of pulp. As I said in the other post, the Hive have a potent pulp influence built into their foundational coding, and so subsequent portrayals of the Hive as a main antagonist have higher degrees of pulp genre naturally present in the narrative – it’s hard to separate the two of them. Shadowkeep and The Dark Below draw strongly on the ‘sword and sorcery’ convention, a subgenre of fantasy that is a heavy (perhaps 1:1) blend of fantasy and pulp; think Conan, or Elric of Melniboné (who, hey! Showed up in a novella feature, in an issue of Science Fantasy magazine, named… THE DREAMING CITY). The Witch Queen leaned away from pure sword and sorcery and more towards noir/detective pulp – though, I think, TWQ is a good example of the pulp slippage in its narrative, resulting in some more bland moments and things that feel ham-fisted in a bad way. Part of it, I think, is the need to make these expansions ‘long’ and complicated without making the player feel like they’re slogging; in a more pulp-forward TWQ narrative, the reveal that Savathûn is actually NOT evil-aligned and is a potential ally would come much earlier in the story, and the central mystery would be MORE about ‘what the fuck is she trying to do/prevent’, leading to the Witness reveal as the centerpiece of the finale and the ‘solution’ to the central mystery.

The decision to start retroactively appending more complex connections between disparate pieces of content naturally leads to a reduction of pulp prominence, in my opinion. If you imagine Destiny as a vessel that is mainly full of three component liquids – Fantasy, Sci-Fi, and Pulp – you can say that adding more of one genre pushes out another to make room. You can always pour more of one genre in to re-balance, but in response to increasing levels of sci-fi the narrative seems reticent to reintroduce pulp back into the mix, instead favoring fantasy. But another problem is that once you take it out, Pulp is really hard to put back; once you solidify and unionize world-lore, every subsequent retcon risks diluting and destabilizing that world-lore until a) nobody cares about it anymore and b) it stops being mutable at all, and becomes sludge.

The lore behind the existence of the Exo was originally very pulp, with no real explanations given for exactly what they were and where they came from, and how they attained sapience. Early hints that Cayde and a few other Exo having once been human didn’t preclude other Exo from having other origins – for example, implications that Exo war-frames eventually achieved sapience as a result of the ‘Deep Stone Crypt’, and that they were originally simple AI-equipped warriors designed and overseen by Rasputin to minimize human casualties. This early mystique around the origins of the Exo is classically pulp: we don’t need to know how the hyper-advanced robots were made, we just need to know what they are, why they are relevant to the story. It allows You, The Player, to engage with it at whatever level you want. In a game where You, The Player, are also being asked to step into the role of You, The Protagonist, this is beneficial to engagement for people (like me!) who like to think too much about the backstory of the your-name-here protagonist on-screen. It is also beneficial to not distracting the player with conflicting information, or accidentally contradicting previously-established lore.

Enter Big-Head Bray. The Beyond Light-era explanation of why Exo were created and how they were made is a retroactive nuclear strike on the Exo lore; it strips away a lot of flexibility and thematic richness from the concept of the Exo, shoehorns them into a single narrow use case, and directly conflicts with early-game Exo lore implying their connections to Rasputin (which they then had to go back and hastily shoehorn back in later) or existence as war machines for the Collapse. If D1 lore is wide but shallow, the D2 lore is narrow but deep. Just because something has a lot of ‘depth’, I.E. many layers to traverse before you reach foundational bedrock, it doesn’t make it good.

Same thing with the Fallen. Season of Plunder felt to me like an attempt to reintroduce pulp genre back into the setting, but it fell flat because of two reasons: it didn’t really want to be pulp, and it was more concerned with its tethers to the science-fantasy exterior world than it was with creating its own cohesive narrative. Why was Mithrax doing evil pirate shit when he was young? Because he comes from a race of fucking evil space pirates! It Does Not Need To Be More Complex Than That! But the exculpation of pulp from the D2 narrative means that if Mithrax doesn’t have a good enough reason, WRT the larger narrative, it would be a glaringly obvious plot hole. By Plunder, Destiny had already undertaken the task of filling out the Eliksni lore with sympathetic science-fantasy excuses for why they were trying to exterminate humankind – the more earnest, pulp-forward explanation would just be that desperate, hurt, suffering people will do desperate things, hurt people, and may perpetuate the cycle of suffering.

Oy. There’s a lot you COULD get into. How the Destiny macro-narrative seems to be decaying the rigidity of good and evil in its original lore vs. how the micro-narrative is obsessed with trying to recapture that good/evil dichotomy in order to give players a reason to like the main characters. How the determination to connect and explain everything has resulted in a general flattening of the background lore, and the subsequent trivialization of many things the game included in earlier iterations of the narrative/lore. How the narrative has basically nothing to do with the Vex because they wrote themselves into a corner by trying to explain them too much while simultaneously not altering the foundational lore of the race, meaning there were too many things they can no longer do without retconning again.

Overall, I guess I will just end by saying that many of the things that Destiny is CURRENTLY doing, feels like the game is straining to rip the part of it out which proudly asks its audience not to think too hard about sweeping, dramatic statements that built a lot of the things people love about the game’s setting and narrative… and in doing so, is just ripping itself to pieces.

#More lore! MORE LORE!#dinklebot sitcom #northbot sitcom #destiny 2 #Pulp genre #Genre discussion #Sorry this got so long! I’m not used to writing this kind of big essay #it may not be super coherent but whaddya gonna do

30 notes · View notes

alcalexandria · 2 years

Text

The Case for Dani X Grace.

This is a post to lay out the reasons viewers might have to think that, at some point in the development of Terminator: Dark Fate, Dani & Grace were actually meant to be a romantic couple.

Or else, at the very least, that a decision was made to rework the movie specifically to prevent that reading.

We know it was reworked, because we know a lot about the minor tweaks after initial test screenings; in itself that’s not uncommon. But we're specifically looking at how these two and their dynamic changed in the process, and whether that was the whole intention.

Only the purpose of the changes is up for debate - and we'll get to that - but the main effect was definitely to change how Dani & Grace’s relationship can be interpreted.

You can find a more detailed breakdown of Dani & Grace related cuts/changes we’re aware of here, but we'll talk about the key ones below. A bunch of these minor cuts, shot swaps and reshoots add up to take them from a dynamic that might be interpreted as romantic, to something familial; sealing the deal with the last-minute addition of a single scene and line inserted to retcon Dani into a parent figure.

We’ll probably never know the whole story for sure one way or the other, but I think we know enough to speculate that I think would be of interest to franchise fans from a Behind-The-Scenes perspective as well as to would-be shippers.

So I’ll try to go through what we actually know for sure as much as possible first, and how we know it, before getting into my own theories about the whys, so hopefully even if you don’t agree with my conclusions you might find it a worthwhile read.

We'll look at three questions -

i) First, whether Dani & Grace could reasonably be interpreted as a romance in at least one version of the movie, regardless of whether they were meant to be or not,

ii) Whether the late-stage overhaul was done specifically to block that possible reading, regardless of whether it had been an intentional or reasonable one, and lastly,

iii) Whether it was actually initially intended to have a lesbian romantic subtext – and subtext at least - rather than simply an accident of some clueless Action Movie Dudes who didn’t know how it would read, before they panicked and rowed back as seen in ii)

Much of it won't be new to anyone likely to care, but maybe some of it is, and I figure it doesn’t hurt to compile it all in one place for my own purposes as much as anything. There will be some necessary duplication of older posts that I hope you’ll forgive.

Also, I guess some of us didn’t get enough of Book Reports as kids.

Come join the nerd party under the cut.

i) Could Dani & Grace reasonably be interpreted as a romantic couple in at least one version of the movie?

So firstly, let’s think about whether Dani & Grace could reasonably be interpreted as a romantic couple even if only by happy accident, rather than solely imagined in feverish f/f shipper brains like mine.

Well, a good litmus test for that question is always “How would we read these characters if we were looking at a man and a woman?” Regardless of where we’re all coming from, we all learn to view media through the heteronormative lens. We may learn it as a second language, but we learn it.

So the question is just as much “How would we be expected to read these characters, if we were looking at a man and a woman?

Usually, that’s kind of an abstract thought experiment - you have to find other kinda similar stories to try to compare, but they’re never quite exact, so there’s always a level of subjectivity and plausible deniability.

That’s not the case here though, because we have a direct, like-for-like comparison; Grace & Dani are very explicitly and purposefully cast in roles to mirror a man & woman in a preceding movie, and I’ve gone into lots more detail about that here.

Not just any preceding movie, neither - the first one, and the foundation of all the lore after.

The fact Kyle & Sarah were lovers isn’t simply incidental to Terminator, it is the basis of the whole mythology – if they weren’t in love and didn’t have sex, their son would never have been conceived or raised by Sarah to be the lynchpin of that first loop.

In other words - the central pillar of the whole franchise very much depends on the fact those two boned down.

So, we know that if they were a guy + girl, we would be meant to see them as romantic - because when they were, we had to. This whole storytelling universe depends on it.

And pretty much all of the same cues used to tell us Kyle & Sarah were in love are used to tell us what Grace & Dani are to each other too. Most obviously, that Kyle and Grace both came across time for this bodyguard job, and we're told for sure why Kyle did it for Sarah at least - because, he simply says, he is in love with her, and has always been.

We know how we’re meant to read Sarah’s plea not to confront the cops, too – she doesn’t want to see him get killed. Just as Dani, fully aware that capture is likely a death sentence for both her and the human race in turn, surrenders to the CBP sooner than watch Grace die fighting them.

We may not get the same explanatory statements in each of the parallel incidents with Grace & Dani, but it seems pretty natural to infer them. And ultimately, Sarah summarises her relationship with Kyle by saying that, in the even shorter time they spent together, they “loved a lifetime’s worth”.

Almost the only major divergence is that Grace & Dani never have sex - but even then, one of their earliest scenes involves Dani watching over the crashed-out Grace in a motel room, a motel room that’s deliberately identical to the one where Sarah and Kyle did. So we’re still asked to see them in that parallel anyway.

And we could interpret them the same way even if we’d never seen T1 at all, because the same language of action movie romance is applied to both cases. Not only can you interpret Grace’s protectiveness towards Dani (and Dani’s tenderness towards her in return) as an intentional reference to that famous, previous love affair, it also comes across as romantic in itself, because that's just the established vocabulary of this kind of movie.

There are plenty of other parallels in the post linked above if you want them. But the point is – if all the stuff T1 used to tell us that Kyle & Sarah are in love is also used to tell us what's going on with Grace & Dani, then it’s both reasonable and predictable that people will interpret them the same way.

And they go further than the stuff in common. Think of Grace dropping to her knees to beg that she be let go back to her death, and Dani openly weeping over the prospect - I think we can take it for granted this is not how John and Kyle’s corresponding interaction played out, even offscreen or in some deleted sequence somewhere.

Think of Dani tearfully apologizing to Grace as she cuts into her. Think of her setting out to change the whole future just to save her. Think of Grace choosing to die with her eyes on Dani, too, something Kyle didn’t get to do with Sarah.

In fact, just think of this scene –

Now, how would you interpret this scene if this was a male and female duo?

More importantly, how would you think you were expected to interpret their relationship, if you saw this play out onscreen?

Over to you, Nick from The New Girl –

"Anytime a man shows a woman how to do something from behind, it's just an excuse for him to get really close and breathe on her neck. Watch any sports movie."

And you, Bridgerton –

In fact, this is such well-established shorthand, it’s got a TV Tropes page.

There is of course a big complication here - the maternal framing they’re given in the last act. But as noted above, we already know this was only inserted after the test screening stage, and at the expense of a very particular deleted scene (more on that below).

We happen to know for a fact it's a reshoot now from Director’s Commentary and such, but the scene in question was so out of synch with the movie as it is that plenty of folks had already taken it for granted before it was confirmed anyway - not only does that future flashback look and feel entirely different to the rest of the movie, it's seated in a scene riddled with weird giveaway continuity issues.

So it just plain feels like it was plugged in at the last minute, as indeed we now know it was. And in that basis, I do think folks can feel justified in simply disregarding it as a “no homo” disclaimer.

It’s not hard then to imagine how differently this movie would play without that line, and to read their dynamic accordingly.

Grace would be a character that we only ever see interact with Dani as an adult, one who devotes both her life and death to her, because…

Because they’re friends? Because Dani’s her heroine?

Because she saved her?

In what way?

I mean, “You saved me” is a pretty powerful figurative line to just toss out there, as the million romance novels with that title can attest. But in the original cut of the movie, without the reshoot, we would never have seen any literal Dani-saving-Grace at all.

So, yeah. In sub-conclusion, I believe it is completely reasonable for a viewer to interpret Dani & Grace's dynamic as romantic.

To do so does require consciously rejecting the idea there’s a foster relationship in play, but the fact that’s so easily done – by mentally nixing one jarringly ADR’d line and scene retcon - kind of speaks for itself, doesn’t it?

ii) Was it specifically changed to stop people interpreting them as romantic?

The next question is whether some or all the changes we know of were specifically to try to head off shippy interpretations – regardless of whether they were an accident – rather than for any other reason we’ve been given.

I’m going to save you scrolling and say I think yes.

I absolutely think this movie was re-edited because somebody panicked that it was going to be interpreted as orbiting an opti-tragic lesbian love story spanning time and space.

The main reason I believe this is that the rationale given for the anti-“tactile” edit pass and cuts makes no fucking sense, so quite frankly I think it’s a lie, and I’ll explain why.

In the commentary, Director and Editor tell us they did an entire editing pass - essentially revising the movie from top to bottom, no small task - relatively late in production, to make cuts and swap takes, purely so that Dani & Grace would look less "tactile", less physically close. They say these changes were important to prevent the audience working out that Grace knows Dani, at all. That surprise was apparently so important it was worth the considerable extra time and money it would take to rearrange and recut scenes that had already cost time and money to film. This in a movie that was already going way over budget, due to flood-damaged sets, a production shift from Mexico to Spain/ Hungary, multiple forced location changes mid shoot, and asbestos being discovered in a studio (!).

And yet, in the flashback - we are straight up shown Dani on the rescue stretcher, after very pointedly seeing Grace personally attend to her, the VIP, during the rescue flight, even though this adds nothing to the reveal we’ve been told was all-important to preserve.

How is this less of a giveaway than Grace & Dani standing too close sometimes or whatever?

And we would also have been shown “The Commander” again, in the alternate version of the volunteering scene –

The sight of her is what directly prompts Grace to volunteer for surgery - this shot is literally her POV, looking at Dani, and it makes her insist on the surgery to her reluctant medic. If we're supposed to think the Commander is just some rando, this scene would have a really strange emphasis.

And if we're not supposed to know or guess it's Dani, why risk this at all?

We know from Miller that the Future War battle was cut short; the longer original version showed us Hadrell/Quinn having a glorious last stand against the Rev-7s until they killed him. This presumably influences Grace’s decision to be Augmented, because she wants to be able to do what she saw Hadrell do, for Dani. And according to confirmed test screening reviews on Reddit, the scene was still intact by the time they saw it.

These Future War scenes all need a ton of VFX, bespoke sets, props and wardrobe that can’t be bought off the rack or recycled anywhere else in the movie’s main storyline, so they’re very expensive. Whatever else you might do as a just-in-case, you would not shoot more of this than you had to.

Given she’s bundled up on a stretcher, it would have been trivial to conceal the identity of the injured VIP completely – simply by not shooting her clearly or covering her head. Natalia Reyes wouldn’t even need to be on set.

But she was - they went to the lengths of having her, having her face visible, putting her in injury makeup, and showing us Grace is uniquely, personally affected by her condition.

Why bother with any of that if were never meant to be able to infer that it’s her? If it was in fact important for us not to know that it’s her? Considering how innocuous some of the scenes they supposedly cut for that reason, isn’t this a pretty glaring contradiction?

I don’t believe these scenes are shot as if it’s a secret Grace knows Dani, or that Dani is the Commander. But I do believe they’re edited to try to make it a secret Grace knows Dani.

I think it was shot as if we could take it for granted Dani’s the Commander, and then after the fact, someone chose to cut it down as much as they could afford to. The fact Dani’s face is plainly visible is because there was only so much they could cut without losing coherence completely.

But let’s take them at their word for now to have a look at another scene change.

There’s a notable swap from the version of this sequence we see in early trailers –

Source: Booasaur

- to what we actually see in the movie:

In the commentary, the guys explain this scene (what’s left of it) and Sarah’s reaction is intended to show us she knows that, quote, "Grace is not telling the whole truth, there's something more to their relationship that Grace is not telling her".

But… hold on.

That makes no sense at all in light of their explanation for the rest of the cuts, which were supposedly to prevent us inferring precisely that. And if this is the moment we are supposed to be clued in after all, then why is even this swapped out for a less touchy shot?

Why spend money recutting the whole movie, and even reshooting some of it so that we won’t speculate Grace might know her, while also incorporating this scene to… tell us Grace might know her?

And why change the shot used in all the initial trailers to the one we see above if this scene is meant to flag they’re close anyway?

For this to be true would mean they’re both doing an entire editing pass to prevent the audience knowing Grace knows Dani more than she’s letting on, but also including this scene with the specific intention of suggesting Grace knows Dani more than she’s letting on… but still also making them less tactile... even though we’re now allowed to suspect they’re close anyway?

Which is it?

I think there’s a fib somewhere.

Some of the “anti-tactile” cuts harm the movie in general, too. Cuts around the motel, border wall and cockpit in particular create significant continuity errors, and a huge amount of the movie’s exposition has to come from what are clearly late overdubs pasted onto generic reaction shots.

The cuts in the motel and the CBP centre make the scenes they’re in choppy as hell. The cuts when Dani sees Grace alive again after the drone attack actively hurt the coherence of the scene, and even the story as a whole, IMHO. What made it worthwhile to do that?

Now, to be fair - some of the cuts to the motel room bit were apparently because the audience didn’t respond well to seeing Dani crying again. That makes sense.

But it doesn’t really explain this -

Source: Booasaur

This picture from the tie in card game's "FIRST AID KIT" card shows Dani caring for Grace when she’s unconscious, in a motel room that – as noted – is a recreation of the one where Kyle & Sarah slept together.

Images for the card game are promotional shots that would have been approved for release by the studio, but the manufacturer would have needed to have them as early as possible to design and produce their material in time.

This card's image – and only this one – has no corresponding scene in the movie we see. Dani never gets anywhere near this close to Grace here. And that’s not in itself strange for press shots, okay, but what stands out is that I have searched all over, and nothing like it appears in any of the subsequent press material either, while all the other card images, or at least some from the same scenes, do.

That includes this promo shot, which was widely circulated even though it also comes from a cut scene, and one I'll discuss at length later -

From this we can draw two conclusions.

Firstly, that a scene existed where Dani physically tended to Grace like that while she was out, in a room that Terminator fans will know was the backdrop to Sarah & Kyle’s romance - and that it was cut.

Secondly, that at the relatively early stage in production, when the cards were being designed, the image was approved for promotional use - but that at a later one, when the time came to release promo material to the general press, no longer was - and that it was, curiously, the only such image that happened to.

Once we were all good with it, now we’re not. The scene was important enough to shoot, and the image was approved at one point in the early stages – but then suddenly then it wasn’t.

Then there’s the drone attack itself. Like the truck, this is another change that was made in between the early trailers and the movie itself, and it’s another one that damages the editing and story for no clear reason.

In the movie, Dani, knowing that Grace will be killed fighting the CBP, gives herself up rather than see her die. The Rev-9 then uses the chance to drop a drone on them.

Grace realizes what’s happening, easily breaks her restraints, and then takes the brunt of the blast to save Dani from it.

In other words, having just surrendered to save Grace’s life, Dani has to see her being – for all she knows - killed after all, and we see her look on at Grace’s lifeless body in despair.

Incidentally, doesn’t this echo the shot of Grace seeing the Commander in the stretcher after the Rev 7 attack?

This pays off – or would have – later, in a shot seen in the trailers when Grace finds Dani again, and we see Dani’s clear relief that she’s alive.

YMMV, but to me it also looks like she’s showing concern for Grace’s very conspicuous burns, too.

A subsequent trailer shot, also cut, has Grace & Dani fleeing the Rev-9 hand in hand, in dreamy blockbuster slow motion -

All of these moments are gone from the movie.

From what I’m pretty sure was a rehearsal – but again, check out Dani’s expression.

Leaving aside for a moment the obvious recurring question of how this stuff would be interpreted if they were a straight pairing - it’s still very hard to explain cutting it.

In its place, we get this absolute... mess of cuts, ADR, cuts, Davis barely being in frame, more cuts, and… at any point in this how confident are you of what direction anyone’s facing?

I haven’t recut this, to be clear - this is exactly how this sequence plays out onscreen. It’s a salad of jumbled editing and weird shot choices that make the CBP centre seem about the size of a bus stop, has dialogue dubbed in where people clearly aren’t speaking, suggests a floor plan that somehow overlaps, and struggles to keep the 5’11 Davis in frame with the 5’2 Reyes for more than a second at a time.

Scroll up again to those deleted shots, and compare how much clearer and better composed they are than any of this.

In fact, this is so disjointed you’d be forgiven for thinking Dani & Grace are in an identical but totally separate building from Rev here, because there’s no sense of where he is in relation to them or how far away. It’s not even implausible this is another (very expensive!) reshoot, at least in part.

And in the middle of all this, that’s Dani’s cousin getting killed. Did you even notice that when you saw it first? I don’t blame you if you didn’t – our heroines aren’t framed, lit or seen clearly enough to know if Dani herself even knows he’s dead.

Let’s look the effect of these cuts solely from a storytelling perspective though.

The original sequence would have been -

Dani is terrified she’ll get Grace killed so surrenders for that specific reason.

Is devastated to see Grace apparently killed anyway.

Is more relieved to see that Grace is alive than she cares about the attack.

Dramatic slo-mo escape to the chopper

Grace’s deferred freak out that Dani would risk her life like that for her or Sarah.

Besides being shot noticeably better, these little moments also make for a much more coherent little A-to-B journey that shades both characters in significantly.

With the cuts, and Dani's new non-reaction, the drone stuff is just a very dramatic splash of fireworks – narratively, it might as well not have happened. And Grace’s tantrum in the chopper, about Dani’s life being the only one that matters, comes from almost nowhere without that full mini-arc of Dani having endangered herself sooner than put Grace in danger, Grace being an apparent casualty anyway, and how glad Dani is to see she’s alive after all.

These bits seem to me then to have been very deliberately filmed – and then even more deliberately, cut.

But that’s not nearly as dramatic a change as cutting the absurdly angstoromantic “Send Me Back” scene.

And for real, do stop and watch this before carrying on -

youtube

This moment explains just about everything you need to know about Grace and her motivations, absolves Dani of sending her back to her doom, and ties directly into a climactic exchange of dialogue later on - the Theatrical cut still even has that now orphaned follow up line, when Grace repeats her plea to "our" Dani, to let her save her, before she dies. Commander Dani is shown shedding a tear when Grace asks to save her here, presumably because she remembers they will be some of Grace’s last words to her own younger self, later/before.

All that, and that clever little internal loop, is totally lost without this pivotal little scene. We even lose the visual parallel of Grace on her knees to Dani in the present day cockpit, just as she is in her memory from the future here, just as the two versions of Dani converge.

The suggestion Dani raised Grace from childhood is solely from cutting this scene and overwriting it - at the cost of all that continuity and connective tissue mentioned above - with another that looks aesthetically out of whack with the rest of the movie, feels cheap, and was written by monkeys.

Without the swap, without any suggestion of Grace ever meeting Dani as a child, and with this scene back in place as in the original cut, I’m not sure how else could you possibly interpret Grace’s devotion to Dani instead.

But it’s important even regardless of that - it’s laying down all the emotional groundwork for Grace’s death, and the underlying Bootstrap cycle's structure. Cutting it robs Grace and Dani of big chunks of their characterisation and personal arcs, undermining Grace’s dying dialogue and Dani’s vengeful fury after it, and it can’t be explained by saying some subtle reveal needed to be preserved, since both scenes make it apparent Dani’s the Commander even if it isn’t already.

And it's worth highlighting too - @beneaththethunders confirms that the English subtitling of Dani's screams after Grace's death is wrong. She doesn't say he "took everything she had", she says "Mataste todo lo que quería, cabrón!" - "You killed everything I loved". Big difference!

Which all feels a little... coincidental, one might think. Check out how differently it plays out with the corrected translation here.

So it's safe to say that firstly, you would need an excellent reason to shell out for a replacement scene for this one at the last minute, and secondly, that the only explanation we've been offered to date is nonsense.

That's compounded by the fact the reshot and rearranged bits of the movie are almost objectively weaker than the original ones, the deleted scenes were still in place as late as the advance screenings, and even the existing cut of the movie calls back to parts that are now missing as if they’re still there.

And... say, how did those screenings go?

Well -

What the totality of all this suggests to me, and very strongly, is that there is in fact no good “internal” reason for a particular thought-line of these cuts.

They don’t make the story better. They don’t make the movie look better. They damage continuity, they cost a bunch of extra money, and nobody had a problem with them until the public started providing feedback.

To me that means the only reason can be external to the movie – for some reason apart from the good of the plotting, the continuity, the aesthetics or the budget, these changes were applied to the story, and they were applied after the public gave their takes.

In other words, that the point of the changes weren’t to help tell the story better, but to change the story being told.

So my conclusion, in the end, is yes.

Yes, I think the cuts were made because test audiences reported that these bitches looked gay. No other reason I can think of would explain all of these decisions.

That brings us to the last question.

iii) Was it initially intended to have a lesbian romantic subtext?

So this is the big one. At some point in the production of this movie, did somebody want us to see Grace & Dani as a love story?

I’ve talked about making weird cuts to make them less “tactile” and why the supposed reasoning for that doesn’t hold up. I’ve also talked about the allusions to another, canonical love affair in stuff like the truck scene, and I want to come back to that.

Source: Scumlow

In the commentary, Miller mentions this was actually unscripted – it was simply something he realised he could easily do once he got to the location for Dani’s uncle’s place. Unlike the Future War stuff, they already had the truck, the cast and the location ready to shoot with, so it was only an extension of what they were already doing.

If that makes it sound thoughtless, it’s not.

The commentary also makes it clear that Miller has a real fluency with Terminator lore; he even talks about some very longstanding Terminator geek debates like the age old “terminator bomb” argument, stuff that makes it obvious he knows both his canon and fandom discourse inside out.

He absolutely knows what this scene means, and we’re meant to too. We’re meant to recognise it, and I’ll bet a thousand dollars that we’re being shown that Sarah does too.

Miller isn’t the only one aware of the parallel neither –

Source: Youtube, around :045

Mackenzie Davis herself is also very much aware of her character’s relationship to Kyle Reese, and his role in the franchise, and acknowledges and goofs around with the implication.

So the above scene may be unscripted, but there is absolutely no way it’s an accidental echo of T1’s own – there is no way Miller just “accidentally” had Dani & Grace re-enact a moment from Sarah and Kyle’s romance, when the fact they became lovers is the single most important event of the whole franchise. He knows it. The cast knows it.

T1 is often described as a love story first and a scifi/ horror second because of scenes like above, but even aside from Kyle, we get details about Sarah’s love life as an aspect of her characterisation. At one point we even hear a boyfriend – voiced by James Cameron, incidentally – leave her a message to cancel their upcoming date.

Curiously, there’s nothing at all like that in T:DF as we see it. There’s never any suggestion of either Dani or Grace’s romantic inclinations, in any direction, at all. Which may not seem unusual for a modern action movie, to be sexless and romance free, but the complete lack of that element in the story is glaring when we’re being asked to directly compare it to T1 in so many ways otherwise.

It will be no secret to Tumblr that Grace is quite the lesbian thirst icon, and much has been made of her being lesbian – sorry for the discourse word – “coded” in her character design and demeanour.

But… let’s talk about Dani here too, while we’re at it.

Are we supposed to take it for granted she’s to be read as straight?

I’m not actually so sure.

(Natalia Reyes doesn’t seem to mind us wondering either, incidentally)

As the eagle eyed @yorkieeightyseven copped, for some reason wardrobe went to the rounds of customising her shoes with rainbow laces for the scene we're first introduced to her, which is a minor but eye catching choice to make -

Source: Prop Auction Store

A far more more interesting one though was made for her introduction to Sarah. If you wondered why this guy in the Pharmacy got so much focus, only to disappear -

It’s because, per Miller, he originally asks Dani out in the midst of all this and gets instantly rebuffed.

I mean, sure, she wouldn’t be looking for a date just now - but why even write and shoot this? Why was it worth making time and space to ever show us Dani dismissing him while she’s attending to Grace?

And then why was it cut, along with all the other stuff we know about?

The only potentially romantic context we know we might ever have been given for either Grace or Dani is to have Dani reject this man. Otherwise, they never show anything you can even infer as interest in any characters. Well... apart from each other, at least.

This is even starker in light of the audition script used for would-be Danis, but before we get into that, again, I want to be really clear what this is.

An audition “side” is a very rough placeholder script used to test chemistry and emotion. A side’s dialogue will tend from rough to terrible, and sometimes the scene is deliberately misleading, as sides regularly leak via actors who don’t get the part (that’s why we have this one).

The general mood of a side though, is key. It's usually right on the money, because that’s what you’re trying to test your actor for. The side is designed to showcase the particular vibe the Director needs most – so however clumsy or misleading the dialogue is, it represents something that matters so much for a character that they’ll be cast solely on the basis of it.

This side was used to audition actresses for Dani. It takes place on the train to the border, with a Grace who does not know, or claims not to know, Dani or what’s so important about her.

It’s a tentative bonding moment between the two, where Dani shows concern for a shoulder wound Grace is tending to –

(Dani scoots closer, eyes the wound critically.)

DANI (CONT'D)

That scar's gonna be sick. But I got it beat.

(She pulls up her sleeve to reveal a scar of her own on her shoulder.)

DANI (CONT'D)

Like it? Bus accident. The big one in Puebla. I was fourteen when they pulled me out from under. It made the news, even in the States. They gave me obleas to calm me. Like candy can make you forget the pain. The bodies. The weight of twisted steel bearing down—

(She touches [her own] scar, gently with her fingers.)

DANI (CONT'D)

I'll never eat obleas again.

(Grace studies Dani as she traces the line of the scar with her finger.)

GRACE

You wanted to understand where I come from? You already do.

(Dani's eyes meet Grace's for a moment.)

DANI

My mother told me scars make the skin stronger.

(Dani covers her scar with her shirt, then looks out again as the train slows, approaching Nogales.)

Now uh… I don’t think I even have to ask the fanfictionally inclined, but please picture this scene actually playing out on screen, actors and all.

Bearing in mind that the point of a side is the mood - what is the mood you imagine as described here? Because it was so important for Dani’s actress to play that she was to be cast based on it alone. Not her bravery, her sensitivity, her comedy, her action chops, or anything else - but the mood when she and Grace bond over the marks on their bodies.

Sure, we can just about imagine cuts to make them less close were down to some Action Movie Bros suddenly realising they'd accidentally made the gayest ass Terminator imaginable. But it is greatly straining credulity to suggest they were oblivious to the implications of a directions like “Grace studies Dani as she traces the line of the scar with her finger” or “Dani’s eyes meet Grace’s for a moment”.

Let's be real - this scene here reads like Dani is hitting on Grace with a two by four.

And how well this particular scene was performed was the one that decided who got the job.

It’s classic action movie romance stuff. And again, if there could be any question what you were being told if you'd been presented with a guy & girl playing it out, have no fear - Kyle & Sarah are here to clarify, because their corresponding scene in T1 was straight up foreplay. Their scar examination is used to allow for a closer level of intimacy with Kyle, a slightly awkward virgin who thinks entirely in Military radio protocol. Stuff like "affirmative", and "standard operating procedure". And yes, it is immediately followed by sex in a motel room, and yes, the very one they painstakingly replicated for that lost scene of Dani watching over Grace in the bed. I don't really feel like we're having to work too hard for inferences here.

It's just not plausible that someone with Tim Miller’s fluency in Terminator-ese doesn’t know what he’s asking us to think of when we see that motel room or that scene in the pickup. To Terminator nerds, those Sarah/Kyle scenes are so iconic it’s the equivalent of having them mime out the “I’m flying” scene from Titanic, there's not a whole lot of room to miss the implication.

Similarly, it’s not plausible to think that stuff like the “teaching Dani to shoot” scene was done in blissful ignorance. It’s such a well-known visual shorthand it’s its own sitcom punchline by now, and Miller is as well versed in action movie tropes as he is in geek lore – several Love, Death + Robots eps he wrote for are explicit genre spoofs.

The train scene we see in the movie is, of course, very different to the side above. Sarah doesn’t even seem to be in that scene at all, whereas she’s the central speaker in the final version. The one we do see is odd for a whole other reason of its own though - it’s actually pretty much the only scene which really engages with the idea we’re supposed to expect Dani to be the mother of the Commander, rather than she, herself, the Commander.

Isn’t that a little strange?

Given that’s key to what's supposed to be the big reveal?

Shouldn’t that be a much bigger deal for her, too, given there isn’t a single surviving human male in her orbit? And that our Kyle proxy here is very much a woman? And she’s got to have a kid in the next like… 24 months for them to be an adult in time for any of this to work? And even that’s a stretch given Grace says she’s from 2042?

But it’s never mentioned again; not until the reveal it won’t be her hypothetical kid after all. Nobody, Dani included, even seems to think idly about her impending destiny-altering-messiah-pregnancy after this, not until the very heavily ADR’d and continuity-messy cockpit scene, when, incidentally, the foster mom stuff is also introduced, for the first and only time.

Keep that in mind, because I don’t think the weirdness of both plot strands is unrelated.

Recasting Dani as Grace’s parent is a weird choice that doesn’t really serve any purpose except to create an alternate explanation for their bond. But it doesn’t even do that very well, even if we take it as a given they’re not in love, because nothing at all about their relationship otherwise reads as maternal.

Let's, for the sake of argument, accept their dynamic was never supposed to be romantic, and try to imagine how else we were supposed to understand them originally, ie before the maternal stuff was introduced either.

Think about the deleted border gunfight - Grace takes orders from Dani about wounding the Federales and surrendering to the CBP, yes, but not without friction. Okay, they are technically Officer/Subordinate - but evidently they have a personal working relationship that puts them on more equal terms than that suggests, if Grace is openly contesting orders from someone about two dozen ranks over her. This happens again at Carl’s place, when she point blank rejects the killbox plan. And even in 2042, it is Grace, not Dani, who outlines what’s going to be done about the TDE.

Ultimately she does almost always defer to Dani, yes - but not without making her own case first. She sure as hell does not simply accept what Dani says as the kind of sacred, inviolable Commandment set down by a mother figure, but forgetting that for now; it’s not how a suicidally loyal footsoldier would behave, either.

So how were we supposed to think of this?

As somebody (I'm incredibly sorry I've forgetten who) once very neatly put it, the movie finds itself in the bizarre position of having to convince us its two leads are not in love despite itself - even though the implication of their alternatives create a bunch of other weird problems.

Primarily, that without the scene which tells us that Grace, with full agency, actively opted into this suicide mission, and with one that instead casts her as her kid, the movie is asking us to root for a leader who ordered her own child to die for her. She found and raised her, just to sacrifice her to save... herself, apparently? And we’re not given any mitigation like Grace having plead with her to do it, or the tears Dani sheds in response.

You might think that’s a weird choice to make for a heroine - and Tim Miller agrees.

In a panel discussion with about directing in 2022, he says this -

"We shot a scene on 'Terminator' that I didn't believe in, but I had to shoot it. I got up in front of the crew, and I said, 'So I hate this scene. I don't believe in it. I don't think it's going to work and I don't think it'll ever be in the movie, but I'm going to do the best I can to shoot it.' [M]y rationale there was I've been working with these people and if they know it's s*** too, and if I don't say it's s***, then they question my judgment. They don't believe in you. You got to say it. You got to be honest."

He doesn’t specify which scene he means here, but I think we can safely guess it’s the one that looks absolutely nothing like the rest of the movie, was shot after everything else, blows a hole in a dialogue callback later on, and creates a plot element he had a “problem” with. From another interview with io9 -

“I always have a little bit of a problem with Dani sending Grace to die,”[Miller] said. “We set up this whole [story] where Grace is kind of Dani’s surrogate child and a mother sending her child to die for her is just...yeah, I had a different scene in mind.”

I think the scenes he means here are one and the same.

So… if the Director of the damn movie didn’t like the scene's implication, why is it there…? If the original "Send me Back" scene was his preference, which seems to be the case, where is it gone?

In the commentary, he mentions that his idea of Dani’s Resistance depends on the fact a time traveller died for her; it is foundational to her gospel as a leader, because the fact that somebody came back for her proved that the past can be changed, and thus the war avoided. And separately, Davis has let slip that she would have been back for sequels, implying that Dani would/will successfully rewrite the immediate future, and generate a new iteration of Future Grace in the process.

That makes the cut “Send Me Back” scene seem integral, I think, to Miller’s concept of the whole story, and I think there are hints of how he communicated that to the folks he worked on it with.

Here, for example, is how legendary make up and prosthetic artist Bill Corso contextualizes his work for the scene –

“In which Grace tells her beloved Commander” that she wants to go back.

Not her like… mighty, respected, esteemed or adored Commander. Not her beloved foster mom, parent, or mentor either. Her beloved Commander.

Huh.

The core tragedy of Miller’s story then is that Dani & Grace are locked into a cycle of heroism and sacrifice that fate keeps demanding of them. But without that key scene you’ve lost the axis of that, and again, you'd need a really compelling reason to replace it with one that both costs more money to reshoot but looks cheaper, doesn’t cohere with the rest of the movie, and weakens the emotional punch of a character’s upcoming death.

And since we know Miller didn’t want it, it has to be worth overruling him as Director to do it, by someone with the authority to do so.

Miller has repeatedly said there were serious conflicts with Cameron during post-production – describing debates over the final cut as leaving “blood on the walls” of the edit suite - but he’s fairly vague about what the major arguments were about (worth noting - Mackenzie Davis mentioned she had a beefy NDA when backing off a question about the by-then already scrubbed sequels).

Miller has mentioned one scene - Sarah confronting Carl in the cabin – in passing, where there was a disagreement over the tone. He handled that by shooting everything Cameron wanted to keep him happy, plus what he wanted, with a view to editing it down to only the stuff he hoped to keep.

In that case, he mostly won out, and the comedy elements JC wanted were scaled back.

But he didn’t win them all – he also mentions he very strongly wanted to suggest the humans are losing the Future War this time, where Cameron insisted the opposite. Here, the compromise was not to make it clear either way, so we’re left to guess (though I still think it hints more towards Miller’s version than Cameron’s).

The “Send me back/You raised me” swap though is much bigger than either of those. The Future War winning/losing stuff is just background lore geek wrestling; the comedy stuff in the cabin is a drag but not a gamechanger.

But framing Grace and Dani as a love story vs a half assed familial thing changes the whole timbre of the story. It changes the movie’s genre even, from a straightforward actioner to a romantic tragedy in an action costume, something far more in the vein of T1 than what we saw.

So… is that what Miller was alluding to?

Was Miller’s frustration that he made a movie about two lovers trying to save each other across time, and then watched it get retconned into a much more confused story about, I dunno, really intense work colleagues?

My conclusion, in the end, is yes.

I’m 90% sure that at some point Dani and Grace were intended to be interpreted romantically. Not 100% - but 90%. More sure it was than it wasn’t.

Here’s an oversimplified summary -

Deliberate, overt parallels to iconic scenes from mythology’s core romance, by a Director who is extremely well versed in both the movies and fandom, with a cast who are well aware of same.

How physically close Dani & Grace are, to such an extent they couldn’t hide all of it even with an entire extra edit pass.

Innocuous justification for those cuts is a blatant fib.

The one single No-Homo disclaimer having to be imposed against the Director’s wishes, and at the cost of continuity and storytelling issues.

Swoony romantic clichés like tending to wounds, teaching to shoot, courtly kneeling.

Odd little details like Dani’s costuming.

Just how much more sense their dynamic, and indeed the plot, makes if they’re in love.

Dani losing her shit at Rev 9 for killing what she querías in response to Grace’s death, and the strange subtitling discrepancy around this.

So what to make of that?

Well, here's my working theory of what might have happened to explain it all.

Let’s imagine that Tim Miller, fresh off directing Deadpool 2 ft Negasonic Teenage Warhead, and knowing his Terminator lore like gospel, wants to push the franchise forward a bit with DF. He wants to make a movie structured around an operatic love-and-sacrifice-and-love bootstrap tragedy where, instead of creating the next warrior-messiah by fathering him, Grace drives Dani to create that person from herself; Dani, in turn, creates the Grace we know.

This idea both honors the original lore and puts a fresh and maybe genuinely surprising twist on it (and incidentally, is very much in the LD+R flavor of scifi)

Miller still has to answer though to James Cameron, Producer and IP stakeholder, who we know was vetoing some of his ideas, like the losing war, and adding some of his own, like the plane crash sequence.

No worries. As Director, it’s him, Tim Miller, who’s going on set every day, and that means he can do stuff like guerrilla shoot the truckbed scene or collect alternate takes to have options later on. There’s nobody on the set to stop him, at least.

But we know Cameron reared his head later, in the editing stage. Miller describes serious conflict with him in this phase, while skirting around the main bone of contention.

I say - what if it’s this?

What if the question of whether Dani & Grace can be a romance was the problem, the big conflict between Miller and Cameron?

I suggest it is plausible that Miller intended and shot Grace & Dani as a love story on set (and sometimes off-script) where he could. I think he got it past Cameron & Co in the initial test screenings, either without them picking up on it or simply not caring enough to intervene yet - but then when they started getting notes like… well, “lesbian” from the audience, or saw the backlash to the early promo images of THREE WHOLE WOMEN, panic kicked in among higher ups.

It's now, at this point, in the editing and reshoots, that the romance stuff gets nuked, at a considerable expense.

But it's not that easy, because doing that creates a big new storytelling problem - by neutralizing the whole tragic cycle drama and its climax, it’s pulling the structure out of the story as Miller had built it.

Realizing this, that now the third act has just lost its bones, Cameron, or the studio, try to have the movie restructured around an improvised new twist, the “reveal” that Dani herself is the Commander.

It has to be done by cutting, overdubbing, and reshooting chunks of what they've got, sometimes resorting to sub optimal alternate takes, and even then there are still awkward artifacts that can’t be avoided, like Dani in the stretcher.

The train scene, which was already being totally reworked, was further repurposed to plant setup for the new twist too - but since the rest of the movie still proceeds as if we all already know it’s her anyway, it feels very much like the afterthought it is. The efforts can only be a limited success, simply because Miller did the shooting taking it as a matter of fact that Dani was Grace's Commander.

That’s also, ultimately, why the twist surprised literally no one – because the movie wasn’t shot for it to be surprising.

The real surprise, the point, the heart of the whole thing, was supposed to be that this, too, is a lover's loop just as T1 was – that while Dani may not be the mother of the next messiah, both she and Grace are the Resistance’s parents, albeit in a new and unconventional way.

And that Grace came across time for just the same reason Kyle did.

...Now all that's just a theory. But it’s my theory, and it's the only way I can make sense of the whole picture we've got. I’m all ears for any better ones, or elaborations or corrections, but by now I'd need convincing it is not what happened.

But don’t get me wrong - oddities and all, I really do love this freaking movie.

I'd just love to see the one hidden under it too, wouldn’t you?

***

Hopefully, you found something of interest in there. And if you’ve made it this far, holy shit, well done and thank you for joining me on this protracted Crazy Wall of a post.

Please go check out Station Eleven, it's gorgeous, and write more fanfic everyone, the T:DF Ao3 tag is starving out here.

Shout out to @booasaur, @evocatiio and @scumlow, I hope they don't mind me using their gifsets and posts as I have above, @yorkieeightyseven for catching that little detail about Dani's shoes, and @beneaththethunders for the legit translation of that line the subtitles LIED to me about.

297 notes · View notes

elvenwhovian · 2 years

Text

Thoughts on the criticisms for The Rings of Power

The negativity around ROP has been so disheartening and I need to rant/have my say. Below are the most common criticisms I've seen and my responses to them.

1. "They butchered/desecrated Tolkien's story! They changed the story too much so I won't watch/ will only hate-watch."

Some of you are too young to remember, but I was there 3000 20 years ago when PJ's films came out. He changed A LOT. And I was surrounded by homeschooler book purists who had a lot to say, both good and bad. Here's my thing ... if you don't like ROP because they changed things, fine. You do you. But don't tell me that PJ's films are perfection if you say you can't handle major changes to Tolkien’s works.

Arwen didn't rescue Frodo. The elves never came to Helms Deep. Faramir didn't take Frodo and Sam captive. And Frodo never sent Sam away before Cirith Ungol, just to name a few. These were SIGNIFICANT changes that PJ made. But they didn't ruin the story ... dare I say, they made things more interesting.

2. "The story moves too slowly."

Bro ... have you read LOTR? Its a slow burn at the start. And then half of TTT is just Frodo and Sam simply walking into Mordor. Just like Tolkien, I feel like the show runners are laying a foundation and then in season 2 things will pick up. Also they have 5 seasons planned. Also its television. Its meant to be in installments to keep you coming back. Honestly, compared to some modern TV, it is refreshing to have a show that is taking its time and not beating you over the head with info dumping and action set pieces every single week. We are back in Middle-earth. Enjoy the ride, my dudes.

3. "The Harfoots are annoying/cheesy/unnecessary."

I'll admit that I was leery about them including proto-hobbits in the show, but I think they are delightful. They have their flaws, but Hobbits always have. They are quirky; the refreshing contrast to the darkness of war just beyond their borders. Yeah, Nori royally screws up A LOT. Reminds me of another hobbit who Gandalf used to berate for his stupidity.

I also saw one comment complaining about "Wandering Day" and that the montage/song was too much like a Disney movie. First of all, how dare you? Do you even Tolkien, good sir? His books were full of songs. The hobbits had walking songs in the book. Tolkien loved songs and poetry. It is very VERY in character for Hobbits to have a song with their storyline. And honestly, that song is perfection. I've been singing it as a lullaby to my 6 month old son and he loves it.

4. "Galadriel is too manly/angry/vengeful ... Also the men are weak."

Perfect people are not interesting. Flaws make characters realistic, engaging, and worth watching. Galadriel is a flawed character in ROP and I LOVE IT. She is prideful, ambitious, and strong-willed ... all stuff Tolkien wrote about her. She is also very athletic/physically skilled. Tolkien also wrote this ... I have references. And yeah ... if you believed the evil who killed your brother was out there and no one believed you, you would be miffed too.

And as I predicted, she is undergoing character development that is helping to temper her vengeance. She literally gives up her sword.

The symbolism is spot on.

Also, those saying she is too manly... bro, what the heck? Her costumes and armor are so beautiful and well done! My two favorite looks are the dress she wears in Numenor and her armor design.

I think they did a fantastic job making her a strong yet flawed female character.

And the men are weak? Elrond and Durin have a rock breaking contest. Arondir fights for his girl ... doesn't get more manly than that. Also, Elendil is just fantastically done and oozes that stable yet compassionate masculine energy Tolkien's male characters are known for.

5."I don’t like that they cast people of color."

Don't be racist. Its 2022.

6. "The elves aren't done right/have short hair/ aren't like PJ's elves."

Ok first of all, while many of the elves in the legendarium are described with long hair, its never defined as a standard for elvish culture. Second, if you are going to expect any and all Tolkien adaptations to conform to PJ's films, then I guess we can toss out all the cartoons that are beloved by so many people. Also, I don't see anyone beating up the legendary painter and Tolkien illustrator Ted Nasmith for his depictions of elves with shorter hair.

Also, let's be real ... Elrond was described as "kind as summer" in The Hobbit. I love Hugo Weaving's portrayal, but he's never seemed particularly warm or kind to me. I adore Elrond's portrayal in ROP! I even like his floppy hair. He's a young whipper-snapper of an elf and he seems like the kind of person who would create a place like Rivendell. I mean ... look at this precious cinnamon roll:

Also Celebrimbor has that wise old British dude energy that reminds me of Bilbo or even the professor himself. Tolkien's elves were complex people with varying personalities and passions. They weren't the stoic, almost vulcan-ish, people PJ made them out to be. I love the PJ films, but if we are going to make them the standard, then I guess the room for creativity is gone(?)

7. "The writing sucks/ is fan fiction."

I'll admit, the writing is rough in a few places. Galadriel jumping ship was kinda dumb. But its not Rise of Skywalker level dumb. And I'll fully admit that this is fan fiction. All television writing based on an IP is fan fiction. Its fiction written by fans/writers based on already established characters/worlds.

And frankly, the term "its fan fiction" is not an insult to me, because I've read some darn good fan fiction. Next argument please.

8. "Its a cash grab from Amazon so we should hate it."

It’s not. Read the article by The Hollywood Reporter. Also, let's remember that lots of passionate people worked on this series and it shows. Punishing them because Amazon's name is on it is unfair. I know, I know ... Amazon is not squeaky clean. But if we boycotted every company who had stains on their record, we would be living in cabins in the woods eating squirrels.

7. “Galadriel couldn’t have survived the volcano/ she does dumb over the top stuff ... this show is not realistic.”

You guys do realize this is a fantasy series, right? Also the way she stood their was so bad@$$.

And yeah, she did this:

You do know that horse acrobatics is a real thing right?

Also, need I remind you this over the top elf:

He did dumber stuff and we loved it. It was cool. If we are going to take the time to pick apart the “unrealistic” story full of wizards, elves, and magic, then we are gonna be here awhile.

In conclusion, there is only one episode left and I can’t wait! Even if the finale is “just ok”, it’s been a blast to be back in Middle-earth and that means a lot to me. If you are not a fan of ROP, that’s fine. You don’t have to watch it. But some of us are really enjoying it and I can’t wait for the next 4 seasons. Be nice.

Rant over :P Thank you for listening.

#rings of power #lord of the rings #rant #this show is dope #and no one can convince me otherwise

215 notes · View notes

thefirstempress · 4 months

Text

Some background on The First Empress

So the following excerpt was going to be my original foreword for The First Empress. Last October, however, I was informed in a rejection letter that the foreword was too long (among other, more homophobic reasons for rejecting it). Then, when I looked up how to write a foreword, I found out that, at least in fiction, it's customary to have someone else write it for you. While Matthew Keville (@matthewkeville) was kind enough to write my new foreword, I kept the original foreword, and at a beta reader's suggestion I think I'm going to use it as an "About" page for my website. Content warning for background and personal history.

I think it was fall semester of 2002 at Boise State University. During one of my literature courses, the professor was highly impressed with my reading responses for Homer’s Iliad, particularly in regards to my observation that the story is in no way a conflict between good and evil. And I liked that about it. I liked that there were noble and ignoble characters as well as likable and unlikable characters on both sides of the conflict. In his notes on one of my responses, Professor Jim recommended that I read Thucydides’s History of the Peloponnesian War, which began my interest in ancient history in general and Classical Greece in particular. One of my college friends owned a lovely little coffeehouse/used bookstore for several years, and I bought many volumes out of her ancient history section.

In the late ‘00s, I developed acute depression/anxiety while working on my Master’s Degree in Literature. Though I somehow managed to complete my degree, my depression became so severe that in 2011 I had to step down from a teaching job I loved beside colleagues I liked, because I couldn’t function well enough to fulfill my duties outside the classroom. I decided it was horribly unfair to my students that they couldn’t count on me to do my part, so I walked away. I made the most painful decision I’ve made in my life and stepped down from a job I’d spent three years studying and training for.

My first successful step toward recovery came when I started writing for myself again. No more thirty-page theses, no more ten-page research papers written over the weekend, no more feedback on forty-to-sixty student papers. I typed up some story concepts and revisited some old stories that I hadn’t looked at in a decade. I started a blog, and then a side-blog, and then a Tumblr page to go with the side-blog. I even started a fan-fiction account that features mostly The Legend of Korra novellas and Star Wars one-shots.

During the summer of 2012, I wrote several chapters of a young-adult fantasy novel in a high- to late-medieval setting, featuring a young, somewhat Mary-Sue heroine whose wizened mentor was named Zahnia, the Chronicler—an immortal historian trapped forever as a nine-year-old girl. As I started to flesh out Zahnia’s character, I decided I wanted to explore her origin story, tying it in with the creation of the Tollesian Empire, where the story takes place. For National Novel Writing Month 2012, I began work on the first draft of The First Empress and spent over ten years tinkering, expanding, and revising in my free time. But the more I worked on the story, the bigger it got. George RR Martin once described a spectrum of writers, ranging from architects who outline and design the structure and foundation of their story before they start writing, to gardeners who plant the seeds of the story, then let it grow, expand, and develop organically. I’m very much the garden-variety writer.

And so the story kept getting bigger, both in my head and on paper. I fell short of the original 50K word goal by over 10K, but felt like I had a pretty solid start. By the end of that first NaNoWriMo, I knew that it was probably going to be multiple books, so I narrowed down what I wanted to include in Book I and started focusing on those story lines. The original story was to be two separate stories that converge at the end of Book I, with the main story focusing on the title protagonist, Queen Viarra, and the first year of her rise to power, while the background story focuses on Zahnia, the curse of her immortality, and her escape from her captors. In the original outline, Book I would end with our characters first meeting.

Even in the early stages, however, it was extremely difficult to reconcile the two stories. Viarra’s story was over twice the size of Zahnia’s and, for the most part, more exciting for my beta-readers. Zahnia’s scenes often felt like unwelcome interruptions, rather than interesting interludes, and were difficult to intersperse side-by-side with scenes happening in Viarra’s story. At some point in the process, I stopped trying to intersperse them and made Zahnia’s scenes separate chapters. While this worked better, there could be as many as four or five Viarra chapters between Zahnia chapters, and some of my readers pointed out that they sometimes had to go back and reread previous Zahnia chapters to understand what was happening in the latest chapter. I occasionally thought about taking Zahnia’s story out altogether and making it its own novel.

I made my ultimate decision on the matter in July of 2021 when I finally finished the first complete draft of The First Empress. The draft weighed in at over 206K words—which I knew was a lot, but I didn’t grasp the full size until one of my readers pointed out that in paperback format, that’s over eight-hundred pages! I decided almost immediately that the best option was to split them up into three books. Books I and II now deal entirely with the first year of Viarra’s rise to power, meeting Zahnia, her future chronicler, at the end of Book II. Book III is instead mostly about Zahnia’s origins, including her curse of immortality and her daring escape from the madmen who cursed her. This worked out wonderfully as it allowed me to break the revision process into smaller chunks instead of attempting to revise 800 pages in one go.

Though Zahnia isn’t physically present for Book I and only gets a single scene in Book II, I make sure she’s still present in spirit throughout both books. In homage to classic fantasy stories like Frank Herbert’s Dune or Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series, I include epigrams written by Zahnia at the beginning of each chapter. Additionally, all footnotes and appendices are also by her. Despite her unavoidable sidelining in what was supposed to be her origin story, Zahnia became something of an alter-ego for me, and I want readers to understand that she is still a foundational character in the series.

While brainstorming leading up to that first NaNoWriMo, I decided to put my studies of Ancient Greek history to use, basing the setting and culture on the late-Classical, early-Hellenic Aegean Sea and the surrounding regions. The culture, politics, and technology—both in how they begin and how they advance as the series progresses—are intended to feel similar to the cultural, political, and technological changes occurring in the wake of the Peloponnesian War through the rise of Kings Philip II and Alexander the Great and beyond. Indeed, Philip and to a lesser degree Alexander were both inspirations for Queen Viarraluca, my title heroine.

(That being said, I don’t tend to view any of my characters as being an equivalent of X figure from Greek history. I drew inspiration from many historical and fictional characters for my cast, but I don’t have a story-world equivalent of Socrates or Pericles or Leonidas or Sappho or Olympias or whoever.)

The setting, though, is less intended to feel historically accurate and more about feeling historically authentic. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m a hobbyist historian who hasn’t taken a history course since early in my undergrad studies. Thus, all of my reading and research is unguided, and I have no idea how well my understanding and analyses align with contemporary views. Ultimately, The First Empress is an ancient-world period-fantasy that’s inspired by rather than entirely representative of late-Classical Greece.

Throughout the process, I loved playing with the ancient-world world-building and found perverse enjoyment in taking pagan gods’ names in vain, portraying ancient inventions as new and exciting technology, and treating pants as an unusual and barbarian garment. But as a fantasy, I of course included plenty of embellishments. Sometimes world-building is brainstorming how an intelligent warrior queen and her officers would attempt to adapt a hoplite-centered army to fighting in forested terrain, generally considered unfavorable to phalanx warfare. Sometimes world-building is giving a society based on the Ancient Greeks access to tea, despite zero evidence that the Ancient Greeks had anything similar to tea, all because my warrior-queen protagonist seems like a tea-drinker.

I tried as well to include neighboring cultures inspired by those the Classical Greeks had contact with. The Tollesians are inspired by Classical Greece—the Empire Pellastor and its allies being akin to the Attic and Peloponnesian Greeks while the Hegemony of Andivel and their allies are more like the Ionian Greeks. The Illaran League was originally inspired by the Ancient Illyrians but evolved into more of an Illyrian/Macedonian hybrid. The Gan are inspired by the Gauls. The Venarri are Phoenician. The Artilans are Achaemenid-era Persian. The Kossôn are Achaemenid-era Egyptian. The Wattasu are inspired by Classical-era Nasamones. And the Verleki are largely inspired by the Ancient Scythians. I want to emphasize inspired by, as I’m not an expert on any of these ancient cultures. I have no illusions that I didn’t make mistakes or misinterpret things. I also eventually hope to include cultures inspired by the Samnites, Germanic tribes, Kushites, and possibly even cultures as distant as the Han and Mayans.

Experimenting with ancient-world cultures and in particular with ancient-world sexuality has been some of the most fun I’ve had writing. The Classical Greeks were an openly sexual culture, openly bisexual and often polyamorous. Rather than gloss over their sexuality like a coward, I chose to let my characters embrace it in the story. In doing so, I quickly decided that authors who only write monogamous, heterosexual relationships are missing out on all kinds of wonderful and fascinating relationship dynamics. Queen Viarra is a lesbian, and nearly all of the other characters fall somewhere on a pan- or bisexual spectrum. Zahnia, meanwhile, is asexual, as is one of Viarra’s ambassadors. I have a transgender hoplite officer, as well, and I have other characters in mind for future LGBT+ representation. As bisexuality was normal and even expected in Classical Greek culture, I try to treat it as something normal in my stories as well.

Though so far only one person has asked me why I’d include LGBT+ characters when I’m not LGBT myself, my answer to them and anyone else is that positive representation is important. Louie, my therapist, shared an anecdote during one of our sessions back in 2021 and gave me permission to share with readers. He was hosting some friends of his family for a few days, including his childhood friend who is a lesbian. His copy of my manuscript was lying around, and he started telling them about my lesbian title protagonist who’s also a strong ruler and a formidable warrior queen. His friend was very curious and asked smart questions about the character and story-world. Louie told me that she almost teary-eyed asked him to thank me for writing the characters as gay. She apparently was thrilled not only at the gay representation from the leading couple, but also at the bi representation from other characters.

When a gay woman in her late forties gets teary-eyed at the inclusion of a lesbian couple in a period-fantasy novel, I think it’s a sign that this kind of representation is absolutely necessary.

On the other hand, there were other aspects of Classical Greek culture that I wasn’t as keen about attempting to portray. The Greeks at the time were notoriously misogynist, for example. Much of Greek culture viewed women as property. Athens in particular had all kinds of laws restricting women, including a truly heinous law specifying that female slaves’ court testimonies were only valid if they testified under torture. I did away with a lot of that in my story-world. Scythians, Illyrians, Nubians, Sarmatians, Lusitanians, Suebi, Gauls: plenty of ancient cultures had traditions of skilled huntresses, warrior women, women pirates, influential queens and noblewomen, and successful businesswomen. Philip II of Macedon’s first wife was warrior queen, and he allowed their daughter and granddaughter to be trained in the same manner. That the Classical Greeks couldn’t get with the program is frankly their loss.

As this is my story-world and my tale to tell, I saw no particular reason to carry on that tradition. Queen Viarra isn’t the only powerful queen in the story, nor is she the only woman-warrior in hoplite’s panoply. Though a certain level of misogyny exists, it’s on the level of individual characters or communities, rather than a cultural norm.

Why?

Because it doesn’t have to be a norm! It’s fiction! Misogyny and sexism don’t have to be normal! Racism doesn’t have to be normal! Homophobia and transphobia don’t have to be normal! I shouldn’t have to create a hateful story in order to meet some mouth-breathing neoclassicist’s concept of historical accuracy. One of the best things I learned from reading Effie Calvin and Garrett Robinson’s novels is that truly excellent and inclusive stories with engaging characters, world-building, and conflicts can be created without some need to incorporate real-world prejudices. And when these prejudices do show up in The First Empress, I try to set them up as criticisms of ancient society, rather than something I lazily included for some pretense of “historical accuracy.”

At least three of my beta-readers compared The First Empress favorably to George RR Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire series. (To paraphrase one of my Tumblr readers, any fantasy with historical inspiration and more politics than wizards will draw Game of Thrones comparisons.) Even so, not only would I never assume to be in the same league as an award-winning fantasy author whose stories have sold countless millions of copies and gotten their own popular television adaptation, I don’t feel like Martin’s goals as a storyteller are at all similar to mine. His stories seem to place the most emphasis on shocking readers—and he’s unparalleled at it! My goal is to give readers a lot to think about. Hopefully I pull that off well.Plus, if readers can handle A Song of Ice and Fire… I think The First Empress might seem a little mellow by comparison.

Thanks so much for your interest in my book, folks. I hope you find my story and characters entertaining, interesting, thought-provoking, or at the very least enjoyable to read. Thanks for reading and take care!

#my novel #my writing #first empress

7 notes · View notes