#why were there so many people conflating the two

[justarabidlittleyingzhao]

Went on reddit last night, looked for LBFaD discussions.

I'm tired. I'm angry, but I'm also tired.

Gonna rant in tags.

[avi-on-jumblr]

awful tweet warning:

Before I describe everything that's wrong with this tweet, let me transcribe Stephen Fry's words:

I am Stephen Fry, and I am a Jew. The great Irish thinker and writer Conor Cruise O'Brien once said that antisemitism is a light sleeper. Well, it seems to have woken up of late. The horrendous events of October 7th, and the Israeli response, seem to have stirred up this ancient hatred. It's agonizing to see all violence and destruction that is unfolding, and the terrible loss of life on both sides brings me an overwhelming sadness and heartache. But whatever our opinions on what is happening, there can be no excuse for the behaviour of some of our citizens. Since October the 7th, there have been 50 separate reported incidents of antisemitism every single day in London alone, an increase of 1350%, according to the Metropolitan police. Shop windows smashed, stars of David and swastikas daubed on walls of Jewish properties, synagogues, and cemeteries. Jewish schools have been forced to close. There is real fear stalking the Jewish neighbourhoods of Britain. Jewish people here are becoming fearful of showing themselves, in Britain, in 2023.

(Then it cuts off.)

For those who still don't know why this tweet was ignorant and inane, let me explain.

"To hear him conflate antiZionism with antisemitism has shocked me."

Guess how many times Stephen Fry mentions zionism? Zero! Guess how many times he mentions the country of Israel? Zero! (Unless you count "the Israeli response" which is unrelated to the existence of the country, or Zionism at all.) What this person is saying, is that they consider the smashing of shop windows, and the vandalism and marking of Jewish property, to be anti-Zionism. Considering they are an anti-Zionist, by following their logic, we can conclude that they not only believe this destruction and harassment is acceptable, but they believe it is ethical.

Further, they accuse him of showing no care for the Palestinians, even though he explicitly states that the loss of life on both sides brings him overwhelming sadness.

Finally, they accuse him of "[Centring] people in this country". It is disturbing that this person believes one cannot be concerned over two issues at a time. It perpetuates the idea that we can only talk about the "worst oppression" and talking about anything else means you are complicit in "silencing" someone else. If this were true, we would not be allowed to talk about Gaza either, or Ukraine, or police brutality, racism, islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and so on and so on, because clearly there are other issues with hundreds of thousands more deaths, and millions more displacements, so why bring attention to it ever?

Unfortunately, people are not talking about those countries, like Syria, Yemen, Ethiopia, Congo, and more, and anyone who does is spammed with "free Palestine" comments. In fact, the most I've heard people talking about Sudan is when these TikTok geopolitical experts attempt to spam the Palestinian flag and get it wrong.

This is not new. This is obviously not new. I have seen tweets like these every single day in the hundreds for the last 80 days. It is not surprising that people think smashing windows is "anti-zionism", nor that they think it good. It is not surprising that they hear a Jew speak, and experience shock and disgust, regardless of what we say.

I do wonder if they would regard anything short of a second Holocaust as antisemitism.

[letteredlettered]

Went to a panel about slash fanfic at a con. Moderator said, "Welcome to the panel about erotica." The words "slash" and "erotica" were used interchangeably throughout. Panel was great.

There was a Q&A at the end so I raised my hand and said these terms seemed conflated. Moderator explained she'd run this panel for 10 years and it started out being about slash but drifted into erotica and she never changed the name. (She also said she was glad I brought it up and would keep it in mind for the future of the panel.) The guy on the panel who writes original m/f erotica said that slash and what he writes are basically the same thing. I said I had no complaints about the name of the panel or the panelists, I was just curious about what slash meant to them, and whether slash by necessity had to include sex scenes to be considered slash.

Two panelists answered that slash was romance between men but usually had sex. Eventually one of them did make clear that slash didn't have to have sex but that it was what they wanted to read. Another panelist said that to them slash really just meant dude romance but people wouldn't read their fic unless there was sex so they felt they had to put sex scenes in.

Person came up to me after the panel. Said they felt I didn't get my question answered. Then they explained that since the 70s, 'slash' has been used to mean m slash m romance, meaning explicit and sexual. Then they said it sounded like what I wanted to ask about was shipping. They explained to me that shipping is just wanting the characters to be together but slash meant sex. They explained that since the invention of AO3, people had begun to use the ampersand to mean the fic had two characters who were friends and that the slash was used to denote ships, but even though that punctuation just meant romance, the word "slash" in the last twenty years had become synonymous with explicit fic. I explained I had been in fandom longer than twenty years and this was not necessarily my experience. They said, "Bye!"

Though they seemed confused as to whether what they personally defined as slash had been mainstream since the 70s or since the last twenty years (the person was 24), they were well-meaning. The panel was great. I'd recommend it to anyone, though I'm not stating the name of the con here because I don't want anyone involved to feel this is really a critique of the panel itself. The moderator in particular was superb.

I think that this conversation just brought up a whole lot of feelings for me. I think it bothers me that people still think that all fanfic is smutty, that all slash requires porn, and that all fic must have porn in order to be read. I am familiar with this conflation and feel perfectly fine going to a panel that I think is about slash fic and finding out it's about erotic lit, some of which is fanfic. After all, I like both, and I recognize that fandom mushes these things together and teasing them out into separate strands isn't something everyone--or possibly even most fans--have any interest in. I recognize that I am pedantic to a degree that most people find uninteresting.

I have a little bit more of a problem with the idea that slash is "basically the same" as het, but this was said by only one of the panelists. If your panel is actually about straight up erotica and not slash, then the problem is just the name of the panel.

What I found the most frustrating, however, is that whenever I have this conversation, I feel like the default assumption most of my interlocutors begin AND end with is this: smut is why we're here. And I just don't understand that. Away Childish Things has 44,800 kudos, and it has no smut in it. My next most kudosed fic has almost 15,000 kudos and tons of smut. My next most kudosed fic has almost 14,000 kudos and it doesn't even have a kiss.

I'm not talking about kudos to show off how many I have, or because I think kudos make a point about quality of a fic. They have nothing to do with quality. But they do have to do with popularity, and the truth is, sex doesn't sell. It's something else. It's not good writing. It's not a great plot. It's not in-character characterization. IT'S SOMETHING ELSE. What is it?

I've had people say to me, "Well, you're lettered; it works differently for you." DOES IT??? Maybe they meant that because enough people know me as fic author, people will read my fic anyway, but let me tell you, it's always been this way for me, long before my fic was really popular. The ones with smut did not get more praise and attention. The ones that PEOPLE LIKED got more praise and attention. Do people like fic that has smut in it more than fic without smut? Some of the time! Does there have to be smut for people to like it? NO.

Have I had people tell me they didn't want to read something I wrote because it didn't have smut? YES. But the point I'm trying to make is, there are people who want to read fic that doesn't have smut in it. THEY are your audience for the fic you want to write that doesn't have smut in it. Fic does not have to have smut to be fic; it doesn't have to have smut to be read.

I think part of the reason I get so upset about it is that slash as we know it today didn't just emerge because some people weren't getting to read smut and they wanted to. It emerged because women and queer people and other marginalized communities were not getting to see what they wanted to in mainstream media. They weren't getting sex scenes, but they also weren't getting queer content, they weren't getting stories about sensitive men that defied patriarchal stereotypes of male toxicity; they weren't getting stories about disabled folks and people of color and folks who are into kink and folks who have different lifestyles. To reduce fanfic to porn is to remove the rich history of why it exists and who it exists for.

I asked earlier what makes a fic popular, and to me, it's exactly this. It's when you read a thing and you feel, "this is really satisfying to my id in a way that I am not getting from mainstream media." And sometimes what is satisfying to your id is very horny anal sex. Other times what is satisfying to your id is Bucky Barnes getting a blanket and facing his trauma. Sometimes it's Harry Potter being trans. Sometimes it's Naruto and Sasuke getting to just hold hands as the sun sets. I have no idea who those two people are but boy howdy do I know they just fucking need to hold hands.

But the other reason I get so upset about it is I'm so fucking tired of reading a great fic that devolves into mediocre mechanical porn that is there due to the collective brainwashing that states that this is the ONLY reason ALL of us are here.

Discuss.

[nekropsii]

Hello, pardon and I don’t want to be a bother but I would like to ask for your take on something. And if you’re not down to answer this question, that’s completely fine, you seem to make large opinion posts on a noteworthy basis so I understand if you don’t have the energy or motivation to give an opinion right now.

But I wanted to ask for your take on the ethics of enjoying Homestuck in the modern day. Many people such as myself and seemingly you as well enjoy Homestuck but are painfully aware of all the gross stuff in it. And as I see the comic pop up in more and more dni lists, with people claiming that enjoyers of Homestuck are supporting these things inherently, no matter the fact that most of us stand against Hussie and attempt to reclaim Homestuck as something to express joy and our identities in, it makes me wonder more and more the ethics of enjoying Homestuck. Since you seem to have thoughts on the matter, I was wondering if you’d like to share your take.

I once again want to stress though, absolutely no pressure to answer. I am not entitled to your time or hearing your opinion. You don’t know me, I don’t know you. I was just asking in case you wanted to speak about it.

Hi, Anon! This is a very interesting question, and you were right to assume I have thoughts on it. They might not be as long and complicated as some of my other essays, but they still exist, and I would quite like to share them. Thank you for the opportunity.

My opinion on The Ethics of Enjoying Homestuck is that I believe it's perfectly fine to do so. I also think it's perfectly fine to dislike, or hate, or not want to associate with it or any fans of it. This is a personal boundary set by and for the individual, and it's not my business to question, nor my place to cross it. However, I don't really agree with the way some people go about communicating or enforcing this boundary. I've seen some people put Homestuck and Harry Potter on the same level before. I've seen some say that enjoyment of either piece of fiction is, at least in part, comparable. I heavily disagree with this- and the fact that this is a point that comes up shows to me that there's quite a few people who don't actually fully understand why so many people are saying to stop supporting Harry Potter.

The conflation of the two things reads to me as if some believe that Harry Potter has been "cancelled for having a problematic creator"- and that's not wholly true. Yes, J.K. Rowling is, by definition, problematic, and she is the creator of the Harry Potter franchise, but people have drawn such a hard line against supporting the series not just because J.K. Rowling is Transphobic, but because she has honest to god legislative power. She is, as it stands, currently the backbone of the TERF movement, and is spending a lot of time and money to ensure that Transphobes dominate the government. Monetary support of Harry Potter pools into her funds, which adds to her ability to further Trans Genocide. Communal/Fandom support of Harry Potter increases her visibility as a public figure, which adds to her ability to further Trans Genocide. J.K. Rowling has made very clear statements saying that she takes any support of the Harry Potter franchise- any at all, including Queer/LGBT+ Friendly fan content- as support of her beliefs. Support of Harry Potter is a method of legitimizing and validating Transphobia, and is being used as a way to further Trans Genocide.

If J.K. Rowling was just an average Transphobe, the outcry would not be nearly as severe, and the line wouldn't be nearly as clear cut. It would just be disappointing, bring to mind the phrase "same shit as always", and many would make the personal choice to distance themselves from it. But that's not the reality we live in. We live in the reality where J.K. Rowling has sway on the government, and is getting real people hurt and killed.

Andrew Hussie, creator of Homestuck, however, is just some random asshole with no political power outside of his own vote. Yes, Homestuck is filled with plenty of unsavory elements- random out-of-place interjections of Hussie's own past bigotry included- but at the end of the day, Homestuck has no influence over government action. Hussie has no tangible political influence, and does not want to have tangible political influence. We don't even have evidence that Hussie still holds the same beliefs as he did during and prior to the creation of Homestuck. This is just some random indie comic, made by some random guy in 2009. J.K. Rowling is dangerously close to billionaire status, and using that power for evil.

It's fine to like something that's not very morally clean- or something made by a not very morally clean artist, during a not very morally clean point in time in a not very morally clean place in this world. It's okay. The fixation some have on this is OCD-inducing. The best that can be asked is that one recognizes the bigotry, and doesn't perpetuate them. That's all. You can read, watch, play, and enjoy just about anything, as long as you don't make the more unsavory elements out to be a good thing. Don't start acting like Racism is awesome, or Antisemitism is cool, or Transphobia is based, et cetera, and you'll be totally fine.

The ability to find value in something impure or unsavory is a valuable one. Some may not want to associate with that, or find the particular flaw in the work in question to be too uncomfortable to stomach, and that's fine, too. Not everyone can just sit through Era-Appropriate Casual Homophobia or Racism and come out feeling fine enough to keep going. I'd argue- hope, even- that most feel at least a bit bothered by such things. It's all about personal tolerance levels. No one's committing a moral crime by either enjoying it or not wanting to even look at it.

[m1ssunderstanding]

Understanding Lennon McCartney Rewatch Part 1.2

George: We don't have to keep [an image] up, we just remain ourselves. Don't we, Ringo? Ringo: well, we do, I mean, it's the other two we're worried about. It's a joke about John and Paul being bigheads, but a crazy person – definitely not me – could also see it other ways if they wanted to.

Paul talking about their mutual friend when asked how they met and John telling him not to complicate it. They're so married it's ridiculous. 

Always looking at each other with every single joke. 

He looks like he's in a lovely enclosure at the petting zoo. I've always been so confused by this footage. Can anyone tell me what the hell is going on?

I LOVE that we now know Paul was cast as Thisbe and John as Pyramus and then they switched. I'm actually dying to know how and why that happened though. My first instinct was “of course. Paul was scared he'd look too convincing as a woman, so John did it for him.” But no. Paul dressed as a woman at the cavern, wore ladies lingerie in Hamburg, and wanted to do a full drag show on TV in the early seventies. So why not Thisbe?

Why do you as a man randomly bring up the color of your friend's dick while staring lovingly into his eyes?

It must be noted. They had a wonderful time playing star-crossed lovers. 

The bickering pianos are so cute! And then John (prompting Paul): and John and I . . . Paul: oh I hate this. John: will probably carry on . . . Paul: we'll carry on songwriting . . . You just know Paul didn't hear the end of that one interview answer for a long long time. And it's because John just had to hear it over and over again.

Love the editing so that Paul smacks John's ass right as the symbols crash. 10/10 A+

This iconic moment. Poor George tally number 4.

Interviewer brings up marriage and John takes a shot like he wants to forget that the whole concept even exists. Literally poor Cynthia. And not even in an “lol her husband's gay” type of way. Just in a genuine “the way their relationship fell apart actually breaks my heart because she really did love him and in his way he loved her too but they were just so thoroughly incompatible” type of way. 

Paul: makes a stupid dad joke. John: giggles gleefully and kicks his feet

I have never seen someone so disappointed that they didn't need to lend their friend a pen. Paul had his hand in his pocket before John even asked the interviewer for a pen and when the interviewer gives him one, Paul literally hangs his head like he's just been cut from the school play. I just. The obsession is frankly cartoonish. But also, he just needs to be needed, you know? How many songs does he have which conflate being needed and being loved?

The juxtaposition of Paul and John elaborately messing with the interviewer (“yes John Lenard, that's me” and “actually it's done by mirrors.”) vs George's “I don't know” and “yeah.” it's actually kind of mean editing but whatever. It is ULM not UH. Someone should make that though.

Again, John. Calm down. He's not that funny. Just look at Jimmy. That's the normal person's reaction to that joke. John is half the reason Paul has such a big head honestly. 

Paul's answer to a question about the Beatles gaining a lot of adult fans is nice. Sometimes he shocks with a bit of wisdom. Sometimes his words don't get messed up at the point they hit his throat as he says. 

What the fuck? Okay so the interviewer asks Paul what he likes in a girl, right? I've always been too distracted by Paul saying he likes a sense of humor and John doing an obnoxious fake laugh in the background because John. It's embarrassing how obvious you are. Stop.

But I never noticed Paul actually says “people”. The interviewer asks about girls and he says he likes “people - er - girls” to have a sense of humor. Huh. Okay. 

So ULM was actually what made me a serious Beatles fan and this was the first moment where I had to pause it and verify to see if what I'd just read was actually true. It really is a doozy. 

How to flirt. A guide by Paul McCartney. Step one: get your crush’s attention. This should be extremely easy. Just gesture vaguely at something you're holding. He'll be interested. Step two: do something suggestive to a phallic object. Step three: that's it. You've got him. He'll do whatever you want.

The editing in this thing truly is brutal. Just the jump cuts from a question about Cynthia to John and Paul making each other laugh to girls screaming to John and Paul unnecessarily touching to girls passed out on the ground to John and Paul desperate for each other's attention to girls waving signs to John and Paul sharing weird eye contact to girls physically mobbing them to John and Paul beaming at each other to a question about Jane. It really does drive home the immense pressure of compulsory heterosexuality back then. 

Then a question that's obviously meant to poke a nerve and start some bad feelings. “Paul. Is John the leader of the Beatles?” Easily rebuffed with “no I'm not” and “there's no real leader”. I know I'm dramatic but really it's like every aspect of that society was against them you know? And they just kind of said "fuck you, we're crazy about each other."

Question: what do they think about when they're imprisoned in their hotel rooms? John: we don't think about one thing. *Whips head to look at Paul* well, some of us do. Oh and you know that how exactly? What, do you just have a printout of his every thought? Do you keep constant tabs on his dick?

Someone give me the heterosexual explanation of that moment when John very clearly and obviously checks out and appreciates Paul's ass as he and Ringo are pretending to be cowboys. Seriously. I'm at a loss here. 

Poor George tally number six? Seven? They're asked what they'll do if England reinstates the draft. John brings up Southern Ireland. George brings up Germany. Paul and John plan their joint escape to Southern Ireland as if George hadn't even spoken. 

The choice to play “Another Girl” over that quote of John's being like ‘Paul's actually much meaner than i am’ is great. Because that's seriously such a jerk song. I don't much like Jane, honestly, but fuck, she deserved so much better than Paul. He was such a douche.  

Literally all the song choices in this are phenomenal. “Hide Your Love Away” over the montage of 60s homophobia moments? It's so genius. Saying everything without saying anything. Letting the Beatles do the talking. 

The laugh track over the cartoon is honestly so sad. Nobody asked them if they were okay with being mocked like that and they never even made a dime off it. What would that have felt like to know that your being “too close” with your best friend was a running joke on TV?

“It's only love and that is all. Why should I feel the way I do?”

[hiiragi7]

Purple and Yellow-Colored Transness - An Intersex Trans View of Transition

It is strongly my opinion that an intersex lens is fundamentally necessary to understand transness, as much as race, disability, class, & culture is.

Yet, much of the time, when intersex is applied to transness it is used as a fetishization - and use without consent of the used is abuse. (Audre Lorde, Uses of the Erotic)

Our perisex trans siblings so often use us as a tool for pornography, as an object to shove insecurities and pain and desire onto, as a temporary escape from dysphoria and thought, as an imagined excuse to supposedly avoid oppression. Afterwards, we are discarded, much like an object that has fulfilled its purpose.

Intersex people do not exist for the purpose of abuse, incestual or otherwise. Intersex is power, intersex is love, intersex is experience.

As a group so deeply harmed and betrayed by our perisex trans siblings, it is no wonder why so many of us reject any lens which suggests there is intersexuality to be found in transness - I doubt that many of us have ever seen what it may look like outside of as an abuse of our bodies, our identities.

And yet, I cannot help but feel that there is an inherent intersexness to be found in transness. Rather than rejecting this, erasing this, I feel it is absolutely necessary to embrace without conflating or fetishizing this. This is not to say, however, that we are one in the same; in fact, within our differences is where I find a lot of our power lies. It is our ability to share experiences without using one another which is vital.

I struggle with this feeling, knowing so much more work must be done, knowing it cannot be fully expressed yet.

When my trans sibling is excited over newly developing traits we now both share, I would love to partake in that joy not only as trans joy but a joy of intersex traits as well. When sex characteristics I have been shamed for my entire life for having naturally becomes something which another person not only seeks out but actively falls in love with as it happens, is this truly only trans love? Is it not also an intersex love?

And yet, at the same time, I find myself choosing my words carefully; I fear they will be stolen from me, used as a weapon against myself and my community. We are still made so fetishized, so invisible, so abused, even amongst siblings. Because of this, I fear the answer to my question is that we are not yet at a point where trans love is an intersex love, but rather what I am seeing is a trans love of traits detached from any intersexuality at all. Even in cases where our bodies may look so similar, you don't see all of me - You only know me as trans, never intersex. You only know my variant sex characteristics as something possible through transition or pornography, and have erased any mention of me in them.

I see my trans self reflected in my intersex self, and my intersex self reflected in my trans self. My body no longer produces its own hormones; I get mine from a clinic that provides gender affirming care for trans people, the same place where just two days ago I had to spend time educating a nurse who learned the word intersex for the first time that day because of me. The surgeries which I both have gotten and will get in the future are both as trans as they are intersex. The letters from my doctors to appease insurance say I am transitioning and that this is a requirement for treatment of gender dysphoria, some of my medical papers say I am intersex and seeking a urethral reconstruction. Both of these hold truth to them.

There are intersex people and trans people who share scars in the exact same places, from procedures which were similar, but were done for different reasons. One grieves where the other celebrates. One tells a story of their identity being stolen from them, one tells a story of finally being able to be themselves. In some cases, both of these are the same people at different points in time in their life.

[transmutationisms]

could you talk more on eds and biopolitics?

sure, so this is broad strokes and it's also worth reiterating that the energy deficit characteristic of EDs can have a lot of different causes besides intentional food restriction—food insecurity is a huge and underrecognised factor here but there are many others. so when i talk about intentional restriction and the desire to be thin / lose weight, i'm not suggesting these are universal characteristics or causes of EDs.

anyway though, in the context of discussing these things, and particularly the relationship between 'diet culture' and EDs, a perennial frustration to me is that i often hear people fall back on the idea that the desire to be thin comes about as a result of the beauty standards perpetuated in mass media, fashion adverts, &c, without any subsequent interrogation of why it is that beauty itself is now so heavily dependent on thinness. after all, plenty of people have pointed out this is not a universal; beauty varies in different times and places, what is described or depicted as beautiful in historical records doesn't necessarily have much overlap with today's hegemonic standards, and so forth.

so when historicising this phenomenon it becomes very clear that the euro/anglo standard of thinness as beauty is, one, part of the ideological apparatus justifying colonialism thru the creation of race and white supremacy. sabrina strings and da'shaun harrison have written on this. two, the thin ideal is also inextricably tied up in medical discourses defining the ideal body as one that is economically productive, with the promise being that if the populace can be transformed into 'healthy',*** useful, hardworking citizens, the state benefits. control of bodyweight is therefore certainly a means of demonstrating one's supposed self-control, moral discipline, &c, but it is also a demand expressed in medical terms: these two discourses merge and overlap, and are both part of the capitalist state's transformation of its citizenry into a biological resource that can be controlled, managed, and exploited to bourgeois ends (profit): hence, biopolitics.

(***the story of how 'health' itself comes to be so dependent on thinness is obviously a critical piece of all this but this post is long as shit already so suffice it to say that this conflation is also not obvious, necessary, universal, &c &c)

medico-political discourses in the 19th century tended to talk about the dangers of both over- and under-weight more than what we hear now; similarly, if you think about something like wilbur atwater's calorie-value charts, these were explicitly intended to guide labourers to the most calorie-dense foods, because to atwater the central danger to be avoided was starvation among the workforce. these days in wealthy countries like the us, you are much more likely to hear about weight management in the context of demands to reduce; this is of course following moves like the WHO declaring an 'obesity epidemic' in 1997, and the rise in the usa of more explicitly nationalist, militaristic weight-loss rhetoric in the post-9/11 era.

however, my position is that these demands for thinness, and the beauty standard that follows and justifies them, are not a departure from earlier 19th- and 20th-century scientific nutrition advice, just an evolution that, for a multitude of reasons (politics, medical professional interests, insurance company practices, &c) has simply come to focus more on the ostensible economic and national threat posed by fatness. the underlying logic bears the biopolitical throughline: the state has, or ought to have, an interest in enforcing the health of its population, and as part of this demands that you the individual surveil and alter your weight according to the scientific guidelines du jour.

this is fertile ground for the development of what, in extreme form, we regard as ED pathology. first, because even the most purely 'health'-motivated individual engaging in the required degree of bodily monitoring and caloric restriction is liable to respond to energy deficit in ways that can become diagnosably distressing. second, because the morals of 'health' are never far from standards of beauty; thinness is sold in overtly profitable ways (the diet and weight-loss industries) and furthermore, our idea of beauty is often a kind of post hoc justification for the thinness already being demanded by state and medical authorities. which is really just to say, beauty is part of the ideological superstructure both resulting from and invoked as a justification for the material conditions of capitalist biopolitics. again this is very broad strokes, but imo it is a much more useful framework to understand EDs than simply presenting them as a result of desiring thinness because it is glorified in The Media, because... reasons (essentially the rené girard model, lol).

[no-where-new-hero]

omg I need your thoughts on the terminally o line author culture bc ngl it makes my eye TWITCH, there are authors I deliberately avoid even tho I've heard their stuff is good bc they're like that 🙈

HHHHH oh good lord, okay, from how I see it, there are two angles on this, both aggravating and sad: the official decree one and the spontaneous ecosystem one.

The officious one is that the nature of publishing nowadays demands an author have an online presence. You need Twitter/X. You need to let every potential reader know your book is coming out. You need engagement through reviews and pre-orders incentives (if you buy now you’ll get a special keychain!!) and word of mouth assurances from your peers that yes your book is as cool as you say it is. You need a newsletter with links (more buying! more voting on lists that are simply popularity contests!) and promises you’re still working on the next thing, don’t forget about me in the morass of everyone else doing the same thing. You need an Instagram and TikTok now to post pretty pictures and videos because one or two authors made it big off this kind of promotion and now everyone thinks it’s the ticket to the bestseller list (sadly, it seems to be working). You need an OnlyFans (a joke but I do recall a twt spat that was a joke/not joke about how rupi kaur will always be more beautiful than her critics and people who took issue with the conflation of beauty with talent). At the end of all this, you’re basically an influencer, a content creator creating content for the content you should be focusing on creating, the finished novel. And the novel itself seems to be disappearing behind the masks used to promote it (fanfic-style tropes, moodboards, playlists, memes) until I now no longer trust the book that I’ll pick up to have any resemblance to the enticements that brought me here. I’ve seen an author or two complain about the stress all this self-promotion generates, but it’s become such an entrenched part of the industry, I think people just accept it. And thus spend too much time online hoping that if they tweet just a little more, produce just one more reel, maybe that’ll be the difference between a sale and no sale.

The other side of this, distinct but obviously connected, is the ecosystem created by this panic of being perpetually visible coupled with the fact that so many of the new authors came of age during the rise of internet fandom culture. That opinionated community mindset that blurs the line between anonymity and friendship is the lens they bring to their own work. I mean, it makes sense I suppose—if you love yelling about characters and words, why wouldn’t you do that once you start to produce your own? This really came home to me hearing about that reviewbombgate “scandal” and how people involved were in reylo circles and that was used to provide receipts. You’re interacting with your readers and peers about your intimate work but they are also all strangers. They will not always give you the benefit of the doubt, and now—as opposed to the past when maybe the worst that could happen was a handful of bad reviews in newspapers—you will either be tagged in hate reviews, sub-tweeted, explicitly called out, demanded to atone for your sins. It’s no longer the morality of consumption but the morality of production. Of course, the easy answer is just log-off, touch some grass. But that can work only when you and everyone else are separated by anonymous accounts or when you have no platform to maintain. As an author trying to make your livelihood from this, suddenly it’s do or die. We’re in a strange moment of authorship bringing the Internet’s echo-chamber and claustrophobic into the real world (this is a lie: publishing now is no longer the real world. But it looks like it) and thus you can kind of no longer escape things.

Will the average reader who isn’t aware of all these machinations care about reviewbombgate? Would a reader browsing at Target think about the controversies around Lightlark? Very likely not. But the impression I’m getting more and more is that the average reader isn’t the one buying all the books. Or shall we say—a bestseller’s status relies on bookstore stock. Bookstore stock is only huge when they know a book will be a good investment. They’ll only know a book is a good investment if it and its author has street cred based on booktokkers, bookstagram, bloggers and reviewers (have you noticed how many books out these last maybe 1-3 years have these kinds of accounts thanked in the acknowledgments? Yeah), and THESE are also chronically online people who will Know. And decide the cast of fate.

Honestly, @batrachised, I see why you avoid these kinds of writers, though I wonder how long it’ll be before the disease becomes epidemic.

[spacelazarwolf]

i think sexual abuse is a lot more complicated than ppl want to admit and i’m going to use two (of the many) scenarios i’ve personally been in to talk abt it. it’s gonna get kind of explicit so just be warned.

so the first scenario is me and my high school boyfriend. we're both 15 and horny all the time, and the first time we have sex i didn't even know it was going to happen. we were messing around in my garage, and he just like. stuck it in. was losing my virginity bent over a tractor in the garage the way i wanted to lose my virginity? no. did he ask for my consent? no. but. i do not consider what happened to me to be rape or assault. it didn't upset me, it didn't cause me trauma, it really didn't affect me beyond "holy shit i lost my virginity."

the second scenario is something that happened frequently between me and my abusive ex boyfriend. i would be in the mood for sex, express that interest to him, he would reject me, so i would back off. then after a minute, he would start flirting with me and showing interest in having sex with me, so i'd start flirting back, and then he'd reject me again. and when i say reject, i don't just mean "i'm not in the mood" i mean "ew why are you being so clingy get off me" when moments before he'd been grabbing my ass. he would go through this cycle until he was satisfied that i felt shitty enough about myself that i'd let him do whatever he wanted. did i want to have sex? yes. did i consent to that sex? yes. but. i consider what happened to be sexual abuse because he explicitly needed me to feel like shit in order for him to enjoy the sex and in order for me to not question what happened during it because i would feel like i "wanted it."

between those two scenarios, only one happened specifically without my consent. but that's not the scenario i consider to be assault. some might say the second situation was a negation of consent, and i think it absolutely can be. but for me and my own personal experience, i consider it to essentially be weaponizing the consent i did give, which is what made it so insidious. and i feel like people often want to project that violation of consent onto me regardless of how i actually describe the event because they conflate consent with healthy sex, so any unhealthy sex must be a violation of consent, and that's just not how it always works.

i feel like discussions around sexual assault tend to be so incredibly black and white, which makes sense because the people participating in them are traumatized! it's hard to have nuance when you're traumatized! but i think it's still important to have these conversations because there have been times where i was in spaces specifically for survivors and was told that what happened to me wasn't abuse because i consented, and it was "insensitive" to compare it to "actual rape" (which i also experienced from the same ex). in order to really heal, we need to be able to have these tough conversations, because i promise they're worth it.

[blood-orange-juice]

4.5 preload datamine has a book with a Khaenri'ah lorebomb

Text on Project Amber

Excerpts and thoughts under the cut

vol.1:

"In those days, a crimson moon shone down upon the subterranean realm, and not the dark sun of latter days."

Something something Eclypse dynasty.

Due to the Kingdom's unique position, things from outside this world were always leaking into it. The Kingdom's weapons would wipe out the calamities slipping in, but what of all the other objects? Such as, say, a child who may have come from some destroyed world?

What the hell what the hell what the hell

"Oh high lord of the nobles, a child once told me a tale of another world: Once upon a time, there were sea people who believed that the gods came from the sea. Each time they discovered a shipwrecked person, they would treat them with the utmost honor, for they believed that the gods would take the form of the shipwrecked to investigate the mortal realm."

I can't connect it with anything but I feel it's important. Parsifal's and Skipper's story mention a shipwreck. Two, actually. In some sense the twins are shipwrecked and Paimon was fished out of the sea.

The ocean and the sea were often used as a metaphor for the space projected by the stars.

Why sea and Abyss get conflated with it sometimes: Khaenri'ans were more familiar with the Abyssal stars than the sea.

In anticipation of the arrival at their Kingdom of gods from beyond the so-called ocean — or rather, the arrival of beings who could transcend the gods — they founded an organization, an orphanage to take care of such children. In latter days, the orphans of the Kingdom and those who wandered in from outside were accepted as well.

Everything fun in Teyvat is made by kids in orphanages.

The young Perinheri's first memory was that of being asked by the grown-ups to crawl through a dark corridor. This passage might have been a chimney for winter fires, for it was filled with coal ash, and there was not a single crack in it through which smoke or light could pass through. As he crawled, he would sometimes stumble in the pitch-black darkness. Fortunately, the corridor appeared designed for the passage of children in the first place, so the falls were not very painful. It also lacked any annoying cobwebs. When Perinheri reached the end at last, the exit had not opened yet. He knocked, only for the grown-ups to coldly ask: "Are you dead?" Well, how was he to reply if he was dead? But the grown-ups did not like this response. They kept asking the same question, until he at least shouted, "Yes, I'm dead!" The adults then asked, "Did you see it, then?" Perhaps it was the fear brought on by the darkness combined with hunger and exhaustion, but Perinheri did indeed see an illusion. The crimson moon, hanging high in the pitch-dark night sky, suddenly turned around, revealing itself to be a titanic, horrified eye. The adults opened the door and embraced the soot-covered Perinheri: "You have traversed the fire of two worlds within the hearth, and here you are reborn."

Moons being goddesses' corpses, the fake sky, whales, the rebirth ritual in the narcissenkreuz notes. Again, I can't connect it.

Though the crimson moon set, and the dark sun descended into a yet darker dusk, that transcendental person from beyond who the Kingdom orphanage was awaiting never arrived. But unusual individuals they had aplenty, and many of those who strode forth from the gates of that orphanage became great knights of the Kingdom. Perinheri was, in his time, the leading figure amongst their ranks — that is, unless, he were forced to compete with his best friend, Hleobrant.

tl;dr: Khaenri'ah casually welcomed travelers from between worlds, visitors from dead worlds especially. or at least hoped to but didn't get many

[phregnancy]

Sometimes I read bottom Dan fic from a few years ago and I'm like "who are these people?" lol. It's like people totally disregarded Phil's personality in order for him to fit the stereotypical mold they'd cast him in. It was the same for Dan tbh. Lbr the only reason why people thought Dan was the bottom is bc he's younger and more outwardly feminine than Phil. The idea that bottom= submissive and top= dominate is flawed anyway, but also...Dan is not submissive. He's quite bossy and controlling. In the past, I'd even say he could be domineering. I don't see their dynamic as even being Dom/sub tbh. It's more of a playful power struggle. Except Dan fights by asserting dominance and Phil fights by being cute and whining until Dan gives in or being an absolute menace and annoying Dan into submission lmao

rewriting this for the third time because my app keeps refreshing </3 but i agree with alllll of this. putting it under a cut because i got way off course and went on a tangent lol

someone recently said that they can tell who of us have been actively engaged in diverse irl queer communities (clubs, bars, sports leagues, activism groups, etc) vs who of us haven’t and i’ve been thinking about that a lot in regards to this. obviously nothing wrong with not engaging with your irl queer communities, some people don’t have access or don’t feel comfortable or simply don’t want to and all of that is fine - but you do have to work harder to unlearn a lot of heteronormative concepts like these and you have to familiarize yourself with queer culture and history (outside of social media). people’s outward presentations of masculinity and femininity have nothing to do with their sexual preferences, and dan has shared that exact sentiment in so many words (wondering if people think he’s a bottom because he’s slightly more feminine, and then discouraging that narrative as a whole). i also think there was a lot of hyperbolizing with their masculine and feminine presentations, because for a long time dan really was not that feminine and phil really was not that masculine. they were both emo nerd boys who played video games and drank too much soda. even now with personas like sister daniel, that really is not the height of femininity in queer culture or drag culture.

i think there’s also something to be said about people’s lack of familiarity with queer culture showing in people’s thoughts on them being in an open relationship and also 2009 bottom dan.

i don’t particularly care about the open relationship discourse one way or another, but a lot of mlm relationships are open. there are studies and statistics on this, gay men are the most comfortable and open to open relationships. if they hooked up with people when dan was touring or even just someone every now and then, it wouldn’t be as shocking as some people make it out to be. i also think there’s a problem with people conflating open relationships with polyamory, and those two things are often very different. people in open relationships tend to be committed to each other, but will sometimes want to have noncommittal sex with other people. polyamory is having multiple committed relationships (romantic or sexual). clingy phil and possessive dan having noncommittal sex with other people wouldn’t change that they’re still clingy x possessive. and if you’re actively engaged in irl queer communities vs online echo chambers you’ll learn this.

i’m getting way off course here lol but then in regards to people thinking 2009 dan was bottoming as a default, that’s been a pet peeve of mine since forever because it shows a lack of familiarity with mlm relationships. it’s extremely unlikely that dan’s first gay sexual experiences were being on the receiving end of anal sex, that takes time to get used to (with yourself and with a partner) and often isn’t most men’s first gay sexual position. they also weren’t together long enough until phil got his first apartment to have dan be familiar enough with anal to take phil’s dick every time he visited. i know everyone thinks little twink dan taking phil’s big dick is so hot, but big dicks can be painful and are something you work yourselves towards. and y’know, who knows what actually went on in that bedroom so much cherry everywhere, but i do think we should dispel some of these beliefs that again are playing into heteronormativity (little feminine dan taking big masculine emo phil)

dan has always been bossy and controlling and he was quite confident with the people he was comfortable around (phil + other youtubers + his audience) and then grew to be a confident person in general. i see them as a real brat x brat relationship with them being bratty in different ways (bossy/teasing vs whiney/pushing buttons).

here’s my last thing (thanks for reading this novel if you made it this far) - there is a difference between knowing all of this, and still just preferring bottom sub dan x top dom phil because you think it’s hot, vs believing there’s no other dynamics that could exist because of heteronormative stereotypes that you are actively playing into. like what you like and have fun! but please work on educating yourself and unlearning heteronormativity. sorry for the spiel!

[hellyeahscarleteen]

"I absolutely DESPISE the term "foreplay." Let me tell you why.

That term states or suggests -- structurally, it means "before sex" -- that vaginal intercourse is capital-S sex and that every other kind of sex either isn't sex, or should only exist to help prime the pump, as it were, for vaginal intercourse. It denies that all those other sexual activities are no more or less sex than intercourse is. More than anything, I can't stand the term "foreplay," because I very much want for people to have a sexuality and a sex life which is positive, authentic and wonderful for themselves and their partners, and I think that term and idea is a huge barrier to all of that.

The thing is, the kinds of sexual activities usually classed as foreplay -- oral sex, manual sex, masturbation or mutual masturbation, sensual massage, making out, frottage or petting, the works -- are a lot of people's favorite or most enjoyable kinds of sex. For some, those activities are the only kind of sex they choose to engage in or like, which certainly often includes gay men and lesbian women, meaning that for so many people who are partnered with people of the same gender, the sex they're having and enjoy isn't considered to be sex by some folks. Too, for a majority of women (of every sexual orientation), as well as some men, those activities are the ones through which they experience orgasm. You can have a read here to find out about how a majority of women simply do not reach orgasm through intercourse alone and find out the reasons why that so often is. In a nutshell, though, defining only intercourse as "sex" is a pretty huge dismissal of the sexual reality of millions and millions of women.

The idea of many kinds of sex as "foreplay," was an idea that had, and still has, an awful lot to do with both heterosexism as well as defining what sex is and isn't based on what heterosexual men want to define sex as based on their own desires or pleasure -- leaving so many women's experiences and sexualities out in the cold- and/or on conflating sex with reproduction. In other words, vaginal intercourse is the only "real" sex because it's the kind which presents a risk of pregnancy, or is the only "real" sex because a majority of men get off on it."

From Heather's response to We waited two years for good sex together... and even after sex, we're still waiting.

[didalexiabreakupwitholgayet]

i'm sorry what? where in that 1,30 minute clip did mariona and laia pretend they never criticised the federation? because that is some wild revisionist history if i ever heard it. and they weren't even talking about the federation in the clip but liga f, which although tied to rfef, is technically a separate entity! so we are conflating two different issues here.

and if you know my blog, you know that i have written extensively about rfef and 'las 15.' let's examine what mariona said:

"football is capricious like that. when we were at our worst, and not having the best team we could have, we won. i don't know if it's fate or why this happened. we must not forget what we have suffered, which has been a lot and with many people involved. winning always makes you laugh, but we still couldn't laugh as much as we would have liked. there has been criticism. there are always people who criticise us, who whatever you do go against us and we have to learn to live with it. but there are also many people who are on our side, who encourage us. people from other clubs, from other national teams. this also gives you strength and shows you that what we are fighting for is worth it."

in what universe is this mariona praising the federation? i'm sorry but returning to the national team because some satisfactory changes were made is not hypocrisy in talking about how the league needs to change. she's saying that all they went through was worth it and openly talked about what they are fighting for. being satisfied with the changes to the national team in order to return for the world cup is not the same with looking around liga f and calling out why the league is stagnating.

as for laia, well we have talked on my blog about what she has said in the past about footballers being egotistical and not mincing words there. the reason she played for the selection and left barça was to get minutes.

but now to act like laia and mariona were at the same level of olga carmona and athenea in praising rfef. give me a freakin' break. this small section of culers must have amnesia because again this is some whack revisionist history...

yeah, it's the same type of nonsense that i'm seeing all over twitter from immature culers. but now that it's on tumblr, i had to speak on the history.

[nitrosplicer]

https://jameschasesanchez.com/2022/04/29/on-the-paradox-of-self-immolation/

This piece deals with the case of Reverend Charles Moore, an elderly white preacher who self-immolated in his hometown in Texas to object to the town’s racism in 2014. However, it is a (non-paywalled) articulation of how self immolation is a form of protest which should not be conflated with mental health issues.

“Between 2009-2016 in Tibet, self-immolations occurred every 17 days. When you factor in the rest of the world during that period, they occurred more than once every two weeks. Yet this isn’t a recent phenomenon; it has a long historical linage. Many remember the famous image of Thích Quảng Đức immolating in a Saigon street corner to challenge the government’s oppression of Buddhists in 1964. At the time, JFK referred to the image as the most significant photograph of the 20th century. It eventually became the cover of a Rage Against the Machine album. Many experts even argue that the 2011 Arab Spring began with Mohamed Bouazizi’s fiery death in Tunisia, which led to waves of revolution across Northern Africa.

While self-immolation has historical precedent, for many Americans it’s still perplexing.

“Why would someone feel the need to give up their live for a cause?”

“Sounds like a ‘crazy’ person.”

These were the two most common concerns people raised when I interviewed them for the documentary and book.

The answers are simple yet complex: Self-immolation, by nature, is paradoxical.

…No one called for these people to die, yet they chose willingly to do so, in hopes that they might help enact a climate revolution, change governmental policy on climate change, or alter values and ideologies of race and racism. The history of protest demonstrates that we never know what one act might tip the scales. Maybe Wynn’s death could cause the Arab Spring version of climate change. Maybe Buckle’s sacrifice could have become as significant to the 21st century as Đức’s was to the 20th. There is always a chance. These self-immolations stem not from despair in the face of impending doom but rather from looking at the bigger picture. They had faith their deaths could save lives in the long run. What a powerful, compassionate risk—that your life might save others if people collectively choose to act.”

[burningvelvet]

Some thoughts on the topic of Byronism, Byronic Heroes, Byron himself, and Mr. Darcy, Mr. Rochester, and their respective authors...

This was inspired after I was tagged in a post (thank you @bethanydelleman !) asking whether Mr. Darcy should be considered a Byronic Hero or not. I start with my response before delving off, but I refer back at the end and it all ties in.

On Mr. Darcy: to Byronic, or not to Byronic? That is the question...

Whether or not Mr. Darcy should be considered a Byronic Hero is a complex question, as is the concept of the Byronic Hero itself.

I think there two versions of Darcy, and general pop culture tends to conflate them. There is Misunderstood Darcy (pre-"redemption" arc; aka what many think of him pre-Elizabeth's discovery of his true personality) and then there is True Darcy (post-"redemption" arc; "oh he's not rude, just socially awkward and proud"). Misunderstood Darcy has aspects of the Byronic, whereas True Darcy isn't Byronic at all.

Is Darcy Byronic? I recognize that he has Byronic elements that would make the general populace view him as Byronically aligned, so it doesn't bother me too much if people call him such, but without fully going into the debateable qualifications of the Byronic Hero, I don't think he is truly Byronic.

My interpretation of "Byronic" as a concept:

"Byronic" is not an easily defined term. A lot of academics have their own preferred methods of classifying the Byronic and there is no one fixed definition or interpretation. "Byronic" originally referred, of course, to the themes and tropes presented in the characters of Byron, who was one of the best-selling and most influential writers of the 1800s.

However, even applying the term "Byronic" solely to Byron's own corpus is an act of over-generalization. Many of Byron's purported "Byronic Heroes" are drastically different from each other or have little in common, as Byronist Peter Cochran noted in his review of Atara Stein's "The Byronic Hero in Film, Fiction and Television" (https://petercochran.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/stein-green-lapinski-ii.pdf).

I believe there are two main types of Byronic Hero: the Broad Byronic and the Byronist's Byronic.

The Broad Byronic is the modern pop cultural conception of Byronism which has been applied to practically every rebellious anti-hero. You can find thousands of articles analyzing why thousands of characters are or aren't Byronic, from Jack Sparrow to Batman to Luke Skywalker and ad infinitum. If you try hard enough, anything can be Byronic.

The Byronist's Byronic is like the Orthodox Byronic, the more traditional sense of the term. Academics who take the stritcer Byronist's Byronic approach mainly focus on Byron's direct literary descendants, like the Brontës and Pushkin, who were thoroughly obsessed with Byron and whose works/characters are directly and obviously inspired by Byron's own works. Heathcliff and Eugene Onegin are the most commonly cited examples and are Byronic by all standards.

Over time, "Byronic" has taken on a life of its own, leading to what I dubbed as "the Broad Byronic." I personally believe there is sort of a Byronic spectrum wherein I would place Heathcliff on one end and maybe Mr. Rochester on the other, considering his salvation plotline, which I feel is huge to his character and which Heathcliff lacks (as he openly declares at the end, he has no regrets for his actions).

Peter Cochran's interpretation of the Byronic Hero

Peter Cochran was a writer, professor, & one of the best Byronists (scholars of Byron) & I often defer to his opinion. His website is a haven for Byronism. His interpretation of the Byronic Hero is very much representative of the orthodox Byronist's Byronic.

In his essay "Byron's 'Turkish Tales': An Introduction," Cochan provides a brief analysis of the Byronic Hero, which I have sectioned out the most relevant parts of:

"Much has been written about him; what few writers say is that he has so many facets that it's misleading to treat him as a single archetype. [..] The Byronic hero is a human dead-end. He is never successful as a warrior or as a politician [..] he is never successful as a lover. [..] The Byronic Hero is never a husband, never a father, and never a teacher [..] He bequeaths nothing to posterity, and his life ends with him. He is to be contrasted with the Shakespearean tragic hero, who has to be something potentially life-affirming, such as a father (Lear) or a witty conversationalist (Hamlet) or a great soldier (Macbeth, Coriolanus, Antony) or a lover (Romeo, Antony). If they were not such excellent people, their stories would not be tragic. The Byronic Hero is not tragic: he's just a failure, and leads on to the Superfluous Man of Russian literature - as Pushkin demonstrated, when he created the Byronically-fixated Eugene Onegin. [..] The Byronic Hero must never be witty, or be brought in contact with a critical intelligence [..] if he were, his tale would lose its imagined grandeur [..] In his gloom, failure, and rejection of humour The Byronic Hero aligns not with the heroes of Shakespearean tragedy but with the villains of Shakespearean comedy: Shylock, Malvolio, and Jacques. [..] I would suggest that The Byronic Hero is either a closet gay, or a poorly-adjusted bisexual - a problem that Byron would have known all about."

On Mr. Rochester and Mr. Darcy

In his introduction to Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre: Modern Critical Interpretations, legendary literary critic Harold Bloom explained that Mr. Rochester is Charlotte Brontë taking the Byronic Hero, killing him, and then rebirthing him. I fully agree with Bloom's interpretation:

"[Rochester's] transformation heralds the death of the Byronic hero [..] Rochester is, in this sense, a pivotal figure; marking the transition from the Romantic to the modern hero [..]"

I would argue that what Austen does to Mr. Darcy is a lighter, pre-Byronic attempt at doing what Brontë did with her transformation of the Byronic in Mr. Rochester. Women growing to sympathize with rude men and then (directly or indirectly) inspiring them to change for the better. Women taking the Byronic and not just going "I can fix him," but instead "I'll tell him off, and then maybe he'll fix himself." Like Darcy, Rochester has two versions, pre-redemption and post-redemption. This is not Byronic, but their pre-redemption selves are, with Mr. Rochester being much, much more so than Darcy, and being considered an archetypal Byronic Hero (rightfully so in my opinion, his come-to-God ending aside).

Also, what Darcy and Rochester are redeemed for differs greatly; I'm not equating their moral or personal failures, and I know that Rochester clearly has more of them (if any anti-Rochester, pro-Darcy fan is out there, pls don't kill me for comparing them).

On Austen and Byron:

Austen started writing P&P when Byron was 8-years-old, so she definitely wasn't influenced by the actual Byron in creating Mr. Darcy. However, Austen did read Byron's work later on, or at least his poem The Corsair, which was his best-selling work at the time and which is one of his most cliché "Byronic" works. She did write some works, like Emma and Persuasion, after reading The Corsair, but I haven't read these yet and I'm not the biggest Austen scholar, so I don't know if she was ever actually influenced by Byron or not. I'm positive that people have analyzed this before. Lots has been written on Austen/Byron. They also shared a publisher, though they never met.

On Byronic (the writer) VS Byronic (the writer's characters):

To further confuse us, "Byronic" by its literal definition can refer to the Byronic Hero OR Byronic as in Byron the Man. Many conflate these things, but they are separate. This adds to the case of the Broad Byronic. Many of Byron's contemporaries created characters that were direct and obvious tributes or parodies of him, including Mary Shelley's The Last Man, Percy Shelley's Julian and Maddalo, and Thomas Love Peacock's Nightmare Abbey. They all knew Byron personally. Mary Shelley openly put Byron into several of her novels, as explained in "Byron and Mary Shelley" by Ernest Lovell Jr. and "Unnationalized Englishmen in Mary Shelley's Fiction" by William Brewer. Other notable examples of this are Caroline Lamb's Glenarvon (Lamb was Byron's ex) and Dr. John Polidori's The Vampyre (Polidori was Byron's doctor) in which both titular characters were/are clearly known by readers to be caricatures of Byron. The Vampyre was the first vampire novel, and was not only a caricature of Byron but also based on Byron's short story Augustus Darvell. So all modern "Byronic" vampires, including Dracula, are really Byronic as in Byron the Man, although they sometimes may overlap with the Byronic Hero. As I said, easily confusing!

As many academics (and Lord Byron himself) have noted, many of Byron's fans wrongly conflated his characters with himself. Although many of Byron's works were indeed semi-autobiographical, he himself said that they were not intended as actual depictions of himself, and that he was annoyed when people thought so. Many fans who met him would write they were shocked to find he was nothing like the Byronic Heroes of his works. He was humorous, he smiled often, he was somewhat of a dandy and much of a rake (self-confessedly), he was an aristocrat, he was considered by many to be effeminate, etc. -- all elements that are not typically expected of the Byronic Hero.

In reference to his drama The Deformed Transformed (which contains the characters Satan and Caesar) Mary Shelley wrote to him in a letter:

"The Critics, as they used to make you a Childe Harold, Giaour, & Lara all in one, will now make a compound of Satan & Caesar to form your prototype, & your 600 firebrands in Murray's hands will be in costume." [John Murray was Byron's publisher]

Here, Mary mentions how many of Byron's readers expected him to be just like his characters Harold, Giaour, & Lara, who fans assumed were his self-insert characters, as they each had strong similarities. However, these characters were more similar to "alter-egos" than actual "self-portraits." My personal interpretation is that Byron was writing these very similar dark anti-heroes and villains in order to channel the darker aspects of his subconscious, or what Jung would call his Shadow Self, to try to purge or subdue it. Though he lived before the field of psychology officially existed, Byron was very interested in all things psychological, and he used his writing as a method of self-therapy (see: Touched with Fire written by psychologist Kay Jamison, which contains one of the most thorough & reliable psychoanalyses of him).

As Bloom explains in the essay I mentioned, and as countless other academics have explained, Charlotte Brontë and many other women in the early 1800s were obsessed with Byron and his works. Byron's English-speaking fan base has always been primarily female, especially in the beginning of his career. Byron's fans wrote him letters revealing their differing interpretations of him and his Byronic Heroes (but again, most didn't really differentiate between the two).

Likewise, I think the Brontë sisters may have conflated Byron with his Byronic Heroes. Mr. Rochester is such a strong example of Byron the Man and has so many similarities to him that when reading Jane Eyre I felt like I was reading Lord Byron fanfiction. It's clear that Charlotte Brontë was familiar with his biography. For example (one of countless), in chapter 17 Rochester sings what he calls "a Corsair song" -- as I mentioned earlier, The Corsair was one of Byron's greatest hits, and Jane Eyre is set around the time The Corsair was published, and Byron also wrote songs and was also known for his good voice.

Although the Brontë sisters were each influenced by him, they took their own individual spins on the Byronic, and their works reveal the dynamicism of these themes. In my opinion, Emily employs the Byronist's Byronic most raw and faithfully (and maybe even takes it further), Charlotte punishes, redeems, and transforms the Byronic with much influence from Byron the Man, and Anne presents the Byronic most critically and realistically, asking "what if the Byronic Hero were real, and really got married -- what would that look like?" and having perhaps the most (Broadly) Byronic heroine ever, who is also later redeemed by the end, and has her veil of Byronic mystery removed much like Darcy did.

[bg3-npc]

Asexual Awareness Week and BG3

Below the cut is 1,100+ words of interpreting Wyll Ravengard as demisexual. As an asexual person, I relate to many of Wyll's desires and experiences. That relation has lead me to this interpretation of him as a character. Interpretation is the key word here. This is simply another way view this character and gain insight. It's obviously extremely biased, which is why I put the word count first. So if your interested in analysis that is probably more projection than interpretation, I bring you this.

Wyll is portrayed as an almost incurable romantic. He constantly references stories, tales, fables, and myths when discussing his romantic desires. Romance heavily influences his sexual desires as well. It is practically inherent to his sexual attraction. While this can be viewed as idealism, I want to propose an alternative outlook. One where he hasn’t conflated romance and sexuality, but rather one where romance is vital to his sexuality.

Wyll talks little of his sexual habits outside of when romance is being discussed. These quotes are about dancing, but they happen while you’re romancing him.

“Don't worry! It's not really about the dance, it's about who's we're dancing with.”

“I had years of lessons but in truth it's all about your partner.”

Like when you’re romancing most companions, many things said have multiple meanings or implications. He’s telling you that while he does enjoy sex, it’s who you’re doing it with that makes it truly pleasurable. I think Wyll desires the intimacy that comes from sex more than the act itself. He’s drawn to the connection it brings rather than the pleasure.

At one point he describes his sexual history as “tight-laced” when he’s talking with Shadowheart.  He says, “I was never one to sew my wild oats.” Apparently Wyll hasn’t had to practice and exercise much sexual restraint in his life. It’s easy to control one’s sexual desires when you don’t really feel them to begin with.

While he can understand people’s various sexual habits, I don’t think he can relate. He doesn’t see the appeal to casual sex. Sex doesn’t feel satisfying to him without connection. He has impulses, and sometimes he wants to act on them, but they don’t seem worth it. He doesn’t derive enough pleasure from the act alone to pursue it. Romantic relationships already provide sex, and he values love above all else. Why would he want anything else?

“Eh-heh, well, give it some time! Develop a bond, and…maybe I'll show you a move or two.”

“Hm, think of love as a strong ale, or a warm fire. Is the clang of steel on steel not made more satisfying by the pleasures that come after?”

Doesn’t sex feel decidedly better when you’re having it with someone you care for? How satisfactory can it be without attachment? How truly enjoyable is it without a bond?

“I value affection, over fun. A lasting memory over a passing fancy.” 

“But I’ve always been a bit old-fashioned on these matters. I find more pleasure in a courtly dance, than a loveless fling.”

Isn’t it more fulfilling to love someone than lust for them? Do you not feel more fulfilled from loving someone than sleeping with them? Is sex even worth having without love?

“Gods I want you, but I can't take your body without taking your heart.”

Can Wyll even give you his body without giving you his heart? They seem to go hand in hand for him. Love is essential to his sexual enjoyment, he doesn’t seem to experience sexual desire without it. Love might be the only way he can desire it. Here is an interaction between him and Astarion.

Astarion: "You didn’t kiss anyone until you were fifteen?! Gods. What a tragic, sheltered life."

Wyll: "Sheltered? Not at all! I was exposed to all manner of riot and revelry. Hells, my father even urged me on once or twice."

His romantic tendencies don’t come from inexperience or prudishness. Wyll isn’t oblivious or naive when it comes to sex. He’s been exposed and even encouraged to have it. While he might call it “proper”, Wyll is aware his way of courting isn’t for everyone. Your sexual habits might not align with his personal wants, but he won’t respect you any less for yours. Wyll does not believe your sex life effects your worth. If anything, he feels his wants are regressive.

“But I still keep faith in the old tales of love. The ‘once upon a times’ and the ‘happily ever-afters’.”

“I'd, like to do this the proper way. The way of the old romances sung by the bards.”

“But I’ve always been a bit old-fashioned on these matters.”

He constantly uses the word “old” to describe his courting methods. He’s acknowledges these desires aren’t modern, and by referencing fairytales he’s aware they might even be fictious. He calls his sexual habits “tight-laced”, his romantic intentions as “old-fashioned”. They’re not exactly said negatively, but more with the acknowledgment that his wants come across as restrictive. When the habits of today hold no appeal to you, you feel stuck in the past. What are you supposed to do when fiction seems to be the only place where romance is done how you’d like?

If you have sex with Mizora, these are some of his responses.

“You shared your body with the fiend who holds my soul.”

“We danced! We made a connection…and you severed it for a single bite of the Hells?”

This next quote is how he responds if you say, ‘Can you blame me? It’s not like you’ve been putting out.’

“Is that what matters to you? Sex without union? Heat without heart? Did you not take joy in the dance?”

Now obviously the biggest issue is you slept with the being that holds his soul. However, he says these things because he thought you felt the same way about sex as he does. He thought sex was an act as precious to you as it was to him. He thought you also prioritized love over physicality. He thought you enjoyed the way things were going, clearly he was. Had he known you didn’t feel the same, he probably never would’ve pursued you.

Wyll doesn’t do casual, he doesn’t do “let’s see where this goes”. He seems like the type to pursue every romance with the intention of marriage. No, he won’t propose on the first date. He won’t even necessarily think either of you are compatible. However, that’s the whole point of courting! It’s to test the potential of forever. He likes agreements, he likes pacts. He wants certainty, reliability.

Yes, he probably hasn't had much firsthand experience with relationships. Yes, all these things can be seen as restraint. Yes, they can be seen as repression. They can also be seen as someone who knows himself and genuinely wants “happily ever after”. Someone who’s aware of what he’s asking and wants you to desire it as well. Maybe love is the only way he can connect to his sexual desires. Maybe love is important to him because it’s the only way he can truly enjoy sex. Love might be the only thing that lets him experience sex like everyone else. Maybe love is the only thing that let's him feel sex like it’s described in fantasy. Maybe he’s lost in that fantasy, or maybe he’s just demisexual.