#but like. it's not that people are saying that no author ever endorsed the things that they wrote. that is true
Text
Thalias from the Thrawn Ascendancy trilogy is how you do a female character with "traditionally feminine" virtues correctly.
The culture of the Ascendancy involves using young girls - the only Force sensitives their race has, since they all lose their Force sensitivity when they enter puberty - as ship navigators necessary to navigating the chaotic part of space that they live in. These girls are taken from their families at a young age and raised by a series of caregivers, and just like a bunch of plenty of carers IRL a lot of them are dogshit at their job. As someone who's worked similar jobs and watched other people work similar jobs, Timothy Zahn is BRILLIANT at portraying all of this - it gives me feelings like I can't describe. If you've ever seen a mean preschool teacher harranguing their charges or a shitty foster parent who doesn't treat their foster kids as individuals or anyone of the sort, you will feel this in your bones. Zahn goes hard on the "children are people" themes in this trilogy and I love love love this - it really means a lot to me to see a man known for his military and engineering competence porn stuff put so much thought and care into portraying caregiving as the important and complicated task that it is without coming off as sexist or patronizing towards it.
Anyway, Thalias is one such navigator, but even though most of them want nothing to do with the whole trauma-inducing system once they grow out of it, Thalias ends up returning as a caregiver and puts so much effort, compassion and logical thought into it that it makes me cry tears of joy. She draws on her own experiences but is quick to course correct when she realizes that Che'ri's experiences are different from her own (Thalias loved to read as a kid and still finds it comforting, Che'ri hates reading), she treats Che'ri with empathy and gives her as much autonomy and independence as she is allowed to. She uses a scientific method to figure out how the navigator powers work and adjust Che'ri's work routine accordingly - something no one has ever thought to do. She advocates for Che'ri with the rest of the ship's crew. She's amazing, and Zahn also makes sure to show how HARD it can be at times rather than just make her a perfect mind reader who always knows what her charge is thinking and what to say or do.
She's also kinda flawed - she seems to have an unhealthy obsession with Thrawn because he was once nice to her when she was a miserable kid in the throes of the shitty navigator system, and it comes off as kind of weird or cringe at times, and that's a GOOD thing in my book because it makes her character more 3D.
ALSO, the really nice part of it is that these books are filled to the brim with cool female characters that all feel really really different from each other, so Thalias being the nurturing, diplomatic type doesn't feel like Zahn sending some kind of message - the other prominent character is Ar'alani, a clever military woman who's a natural leader, excellent at handling her subordinates and recognizing their talents, excellent at handling politics even though she hates it, excellent at improvising on the fly, and also a kind and loyal friend. A lot of the other soldier or officer types are also women, and Zahn's other works also have a shitton of varied and cool women, so you feel safe in the knowledge that anything Thalias says or does is indicative of Thalias as an individual and not some vague idea of what women are like that the author has.
I also love how her character provides a contrast to all the "necessary evil" and "people are assets"-type thinking that a lot of the Ascendancy's more military types endorse (which make up a large percentage of the main cast, since this is mil scifi after all) - her conversation with Samakro about this is just chef's kiss to me. I feel like it's cool that we get this kind of POV because to me it serves as confirmation that Zahn knows what he's doing here - he's not being a stupid edgelord fanboy in love with the concept of doing shitty things for the greater good, he's just keenly observing how different people approach life and how all of these sorts of thinking are very useful in certain situations and deeply stupid in others. And the topic is treated with zero smugness - I've read things where similar arguments are used as a way of showing how wise and perfect one of the characters is and how stupid the other one is (coughvorkosigansagacough), but here everyone is treated with respect and empathy and consideration.
THALIAS SUPREMACY!!!
281 notes
·
View notes
Text
Discussion summary: Left Hand of Darkness
Published in 1969, The Left Hand of Darkness is a classic in science fiction that explores issues of sex/gender in an alien-yet-human society where the aliens are just like us except in how they reproduce. These aliens, the Gethenians, can reproduce as either male or female. They spend most of their lives sexually undifferentiated. Once a month, they go into heat (“kemmer”) and their sexual organs activate as either male or female (it’s essentially random).
Here's a summary of the discussions we had on 2023-08-25 and 2023-09-01 about the book:
HIGH LEVEL REACTONS
Michelle (@scifimagpie): even though it was written by a cis straight perisex woman there is a queerness to the writing that feels true and that she nailed. There is a queerness to the soul of this book that still holds up, that's true and good, and I cannot but love and respect that.
Elizabeth (@ipso-faculty): this book is such a commentary on 1960s misogyny. Genly is a raging misogynist. It takes a whole prison break and crossing the arctic for Genly to realize a woman or androgyne can be competent 👀
Dimitri: [Having read just the first half of the book] I wonder if it keeps happening, if Genly keeps going "woaaaah" [to the Gethenians’ androgyny] or if he ever acclimates. It's been half the novel my guy
vic: yeah a book where a guy is destroyed by seeing a breast makes me want queer theory
vic: [it also] makes me feel good to see how much has changed [since the 1960s]
THE INTERSEX STUFF
A thing we appreciated about the book was how being intersex is contextual. The main character of the book, Genly Ai, is a human from a planet like Earth, who visits Gethen to open trade and diplomatic relations.
On his home planet, and to Earth sensibilities, Genly is perisex - he is able to reproduce at any time of the month and is consistently male.
But on Gethen, Genly becomes intersex. On Gethen, the norm is that you only manifest (and can reproduce as) a given sex during the monthly kemmer (heat/oestrus) period.
The Gethenians understand Genly as living in “permanent kemmer”, which is described as a common (intersex) condition, and these people are hyper-sexualized and referred to as Perverts.
At this point it’s worth noting that depiction is not the same as endorsement. Michelle pointed out the book is very empathetic to those in permanent kemmer. LeGuin does not appear to be endorsing the social stigma faced by these people, merely depicting it, and putting a mirror to how our own society treats intersex people.
Throughout the book, Genly is treated as an oddity by the Gethenians. He is hyper sexualized. He undergoes a genital inspection to prove he is who he says he is.
When Genly is sent to a prison camp and forcibly given HRT, he does not respond “normally” to the hormones, the effects are way worse for him, and the prison camp staff don’t care, and keep administering them even if it’ll kill him.
Two of us have had the experience of having hyperandrogenism and being forced onto birth control as teenager, and relating to the sluggishness of the drugs that Genly experienced, as well as the sense that gender/sex conformity was more important to authority figures (parents, doctors) than actual health and well-being.
Another scene we discussed the one where Genly is in a prison van en route to the gulag, and a Gethenian enters kemmer and wants to mate with him and he declines. He is given multiple opportunities over the course of the book to try having sex with a Gethenian, and declines every time, and we wondered if he avoided it out of trauma of being hyper-sexualized & hyper-medicalized & having had his genitals inspected.
We discussed the way he described his genital inspection through a trauma lens, and how it interacts with toxic masculinity - in vic’s terms, Genly being "I am a manly man and I have don't trauma"
Those of us who read the short story, Coming of Age in Karhide, noted that once the world was narrated from a Gethenian POV, the people in permanent kemmer were treated far more neutrally, which gave us the impression that Genly as an unreliable narrator was injecting some intersexism along with his misogyny
WHY IT MATTERS TO READ THIS BOOK THROUGH AN INTERSEX LENS
Elizabeth: I’ve encountered critiques of this book from perisex trans folks because to them the book is committing biological essentialism, and dismissing the book as a result. I think they’re missing that this book is as much about (inter)sex as it is about gender. I think they’re too quick to dismiss the book as being outdated or having backwards ideas because they’re not appreciating the intersex themes.
Elizabeth: The intersex themes aren’t exactly subtle, so it kind of stings that I haven’t seen any intersex analyses of this book, but there are dozens (hundreds?) of perisex trans analyses that all miss the huge intersex elephants in the room.
Also Elizabeth: I’ve seen this book show up in lists of intersex books/characters made by perisex people, and I’ve seen Estraven listed as intersex character, and it gets me upset because Estraven isn’t intersex! Estraven is perisex in the society in which he lives. Genly is the intersex character in this story and people who misunderstand intersex as being able to reproduce as male & female (or having quirky genitals smh) are completely missing that being intersex is socially constructed and based on what is considered typical for a given species.
WHAT THE BOOK DOESN’T HANDLE WELL
The body descriptions. As Dmitri put it: “ Like "his butt jiggled and it reminded me of women" ew. It was intentional but I had to put the book down. It reminded me of transvestigators and how they take pictures of people in public.” 🤮
Not pushing Genly to reflect on how weird he is about other people’s bodies. We all had issues with how Genly is constantly scrutinizing the bodies of other humans to assess their gender(s) and it’s pretty gross.
vic asked: “how much of this is her reproducing violence without her knowing it? A thing I didn't like was how he always judging and analyzing people's bodies and realizing others treat him that way. And I wish there was more of his discomfort about this, that it made him feel icky.”
Dimitri added: “I really wanted him to have a moment of this too, for him to realize how much it sucks to be treated this way. As a trans person it's so uncomfortable. What are you doing going around doing this to people?”
Using male pronouns as default/ungendered pronouns. Élaina asked why Genly thinks a male pronoun is more appropriate for a transcendent God and pointed out there’s a lot to unpack there.
OTHER POSITIVES ABOUT THE BOOK
Genly’s journey towards respecting women, that he still had a ways to go by the end of the book. vic pointed out how “LeGuin was straight, and she loves men, and is kinda giving them the side-eye [in this book]. Her writing about how Genly is childish makes me really happy. It’s kind of hilarious to watch him bang his head against the wall because he’s so rigid.”
To which Dmitri added: “I agree with the bit on forgiving men for stuff. I don't know how she [LeGuin] does it but she really lays it all out. She gives you a platter of how men are bad at things, how they make mistakes that are pretty specific to them. She has prepared a buffet of it.”
Autistic Estraven! As Michelle put it: “autistic queer feels about Estraven speaking literally and plainly and Genly not getting it”
The truck chapter. Hits like a pile of bricks. We talked about it as a metaphor for the current pandemic.
The Genly x Estraven slowburn queerplatonic relationship
The conlang! Less is more in how it gets used
MIXED REACTIONS
The Foretelling. For some it felt unnecessary and a bit fetishy. For others it was fun paranormal times.
Pacing. Some liked how the book really forces you to really contemplate as you go. Others struggled with a pace that feels very slow to 2023 readers.
WORKS WE COMPARED THE BOOK TO
Star Trek (the original series) - we wondered if LHOD and Genly Ai were progressive by 1960s standards, and TOS came up as a comparison point. We were all of the impression that TOS was progressive for its time but all of us find it pretty misogynist by our standards. The interest in extra-sensory perception (ESP) is something that was a staple of TOS that feels very strange to contemporary viewers and also cropped up in LHOD
Ancillary Justice - for being a book where characters’ genders are all ambiguous but the POV character is actually normal about how they describe other characters’ bodies.
The Deep - for being another book in a situation where being able to reproduce as male and female is the norm. The Deep was written by an actually intersex author, and doesn’t have the cisperisex gaze of scrutinizing every body for sex. But oddly LHOD actually winds up feeling more like a book about intersex people, because it features a character who is the odd one out in a gonosynic society. In contrast, nobody is intersex in the Deep - everybody matches the norms for their species, which makes the intersex themes in the work much more subtle.
Overall, as vic put it, “there's something to be said about an honest depiction that's not great, especially when there's no alternatives”. For a long time there weren’t many other games in town when it came to this sort of book, and even though some things now feel dated, it’s still a valuable read. We’d love to see more intersex reviews & analyses of the book!
#intersex book club#book summaries#book reviews#left hand of darkness#the left hand of darkness#ursula k. le guin#intersex books#intersex literature#queer books#queer literature#queer fiction#queer scifi#intersex
152 notes
·
View notes
Text
The weird thing about two of the book-to-show changes — Daemon killing Rhea and Alicent physically trying to murder a child — is how differently certain circles interpret them.
For the most part, you get a lot of "TB" making divorce rock jokes because they actually find the change so silly that it breaks the suspension of disbelief.
Not only does it not work with book canon, but it doesn't even make sense for the show. He was always only going to run off with either Rhaenyra or Laena, both of whom he'd need to 'carry away' and wed without permission regardless of his own status. He has no incentive to kill Rhea when Viserys would have been forced to annul it after word came out to preserve either of the girls' honour.
Daemon's not stupid and wouldn't risk alienating the Vale like that, and even if he was desperate, would never be clumsy enough about it that someone would suspect him enough to confront him. Which is why "TB" will often point out that it was a stupid change when they should have just shown him kill Laena's betrothed. (And part of me wonders if they changed it because they didn't want to show him working for Laena's hand).
And when it is discussed as a character choice rather than a writing choice, you mostly get "TB" saying, "Yeah, not great. Definitely among the darker parts of a grey character."
But what weirds me out is that when you look at the other change I mention, of Alicent rushing a child with a dagger and screaming that she's the victim when Rhaenyra dares to stop her.
Of neither Rhaenyra nor the Velaryons seizing upon the chance to turn it to their advantage, of Alicent ever being given authority regarding the children or allowed into the Council room again, and of Rhaenyra continuing to trust her. You get "TG" endorsing that moment not only as a writing decision, but as a character decision. And not just as a "grey act," but a spectrum of, "Oh, poor Alicent was finally pushed too far," to literal "Yesssss Queeeen!!! (But not because she's being evil in a fun way because Good Queen Alicent is good I mean good for her taking back her power and doing that good thing against bad people)."
Why can't certain circles just admit that a lot of the changes from the book are just bad writing? That if you refuse to see some of these changes as a bad writing choice, rather than character choice, it makes everyone look bad. That the show writers are trying to twist a story into something it's simply not and that if you look at the writing with a critical eye, the original story remains intact, and is simply covered with a patchwork of strange additions trying to obscure it? (And making it worse in the process)
Oh, right. Never mind.
75 notes
·
View notes
Text
@gatorgenny asked (edited for length):
Generally speaking Donal Noye seems to be placed as a trustworthy voice by the author, and his role mainly seems to be giving Jon good advice (and yet more fuel for his whopper of a father figure complex)
But... Isn't he just wrong on like 2/3? Even if you ignore the fact that he's passing lifelong judgements on people who he hasn't seen for almost half their life (or more since Renly was like 5!) Robert's basically a bro-y jackass before then too. Charismatic? Yes! Strong? Yes! Smells good enough that Ned's still thinking about it more than a dozen years later? Yes! But Renly's got most of those strengths too, and is only a little more hollow, and as far as morality, Robert's tacit encouragement of the murder of children is already on the books.
[...]
I'm just having trouble squaring this circle. Donal is presented so strongly as a wise mentor, and Jon doesn't have a later moment of reconsidering that advice or anything else Donal meant to him (that I can remember)
I agree that Donal Noye is placed as a trustworthy voice by the author, even allowing for the usual Westerosi biases (patriarchy etc).
But I do disagree that he got Robert wrong. I think a large point of Robert's character is that he did have the potential to be a great king. That charisma is not something that can be written off. Robert used that in wars to get people to side with him. Robert appears to have far better martial chops than Renly ever did, not just in personal combat, but also at least reasonably capable in command himself. Robert had everything going for him...and he went to rust. Fast.
Plus there's the usual thing that the author wants us to think about: is a good king in a bad social system really good?
As for Stannis, Donal Noye is talking ACoK!Stannis. As you say, he's got no way of knowing the character development Stannis has been through over ASoS. While it might be a good idea for Jon to form his own opinions, it doesn't make Donal Noye wrong - and even if Jon concludes that Stannis is more flexible than initially thought, 'more flexible than cast iron' is not exactly a ringing endorsement. Jon can also see that there are things Stannis doesn't bend on. It can still be a useful character assessment even if it's outdated.
58 notes
·
View notes
Note
I do think the disclaimers from authors about NOT ENDORSING!!!! certain behaviors in fics is pretty funny, but I’ll admit I do it too. Oddly I only put warnings for abuse of the self, not the abuse of others. I write a fair bit of fic that “romanticizes” (or seems like it does) suicide/self harm/eating disorders to the point where it can almost be a tutorial of how to do it if I’m graphic enough. So in those I normally just add dead dove tags and put a disclaimer about how the trigger warning is no joke and you shouldn’t do the things that the characters do in the fic. It’s not like a Lifetime Movie end credits where the authors note is filled with hotlines and stuff, just a quick little note that, hey, yeah, if you’re considering this, don’t do it.
Oddly, I don’t think that behavior comes from fandom itself but rather from a completely different corner of the internet — when I struggled with the same stuff that I write about, it was pretty common for everyone’s bio to say that they “don’t promote” or they’re “not pro” and I guess old habits die hard. (Whether or not certain types of depression/SH/ana blogs etc really DONT promote or those words are just a please-don’t-ban-me card is a completely different discussion.)
It’s pretty ironic actually because when I’m on the other side of things (as the reader), reading about it is really cathartic in fic, but triggering (not in a fun way) in “real” books. Like there’s several books I had to DNF or shelf because it got to be too much, but oddly enough fic actually helps me a lot.
WOW that was all way heavier than I intended to get when I first started typing this ask! But yeah, that’s my own personal relationship to “I do not endorse” and I didn’t realize how odd it actually is until I started reading some of these other asks! I don’t think any type of “this is bad, actually” authors note is ever necessary honestly, but I also don’t think they’re that big of a deal — if a note from the writer about how they’re ~totally against the “bad” thing they’re writing about~ really takes you out of the fic that much, I don’t understand that either…it’d be one thing if they rambled on and on but even then I don’t think it’s that big of a deal 🤣 Annoying maybe but no one is required to read the AN.
My general threshold is “would a movie/podcast/real™️ book have a similar Viewer Discretion Adviced notice? If so, your A/N is likely fine and not virtual signal-ly or OTT at all.”
--
Heh. I think you're assuming a very different type of PSA from what other people are.
From what I've read, self-harm, suicide, and disordered eating are some of the topics that are a bit Monkey See, Monkey Do. Even support group discussions may increase the desire to cut, for example. It's still not 1:1, and we should be able to make art about serious topics, but a PSA doesn't feel totally absurd here. There are plenty of scientific studies showing measurable increases in people hurting themselves IRL after consuming certain material. Even if you did include a hotline, most people's objection is like "That number isn't valid for where I live", not "No one should ever do this".
I think if you polled people, you'd find that many of the PSA-haters are actually totally fine with "Hey, this fic contains serious depictions of mental illness. Make sure you're up for that today." and similar warnings.
But what people are actually talking about in 99% of "PSAs suck" discussions is rape fantasies.
Some clown writes a fic that is blatant fap material for people who like bodice ripper ravishment, and then they plaster it with "Rape Fantasies Bad" commentary that shows that they're judging themselves and their readers in a puritanical way that's a mega-buzzkill, completely out of keeping with the tone of the fic, and completely out of keeping with the actual scientific evidence.
Rape fantasies are commonplace and not a big deal, and to the extent that any depictions are demonstrably harmful, it's things like mainstream Hollywood movies reinforcing very standard cultural narratives, not somebody's sex pollen fic that's probably full of "It's so wrong, so why is it so hot???" anyway.
71 notes
·
View notes
Note
ok you’ve convinced me, i should absolutely read homestuck, now how the fuck do i do that
firstly, you’re going to want to download the Unofficial Homestuck Collection to some kind of computer or laptop. This is the ideal way to read Homestuck in the 2020s, because the official website is semibroken and poorly maintained ever since the death of Shockwave Flash. The Unofficial Homestuck Collection is ironically endorsed by Homestuck’s main author, Andrew Hussie, and has everything you could ever want, laid out in a way that is friendly & accessible for new readers. It even unlocks new content like soundtracks, extracanonical material etc as you read the comic so as to give you the most faithful experience possible
secondly, the main trick to staying engaged is to keep an open mind, pay attention to the dialogue, remember that the main characters are stupid edgy thirteen years olds & the things they say might not reflect what the author thinks is good/funny, and try to engage with the comic the way it wants you to. It will at times pretend to be an old school text-based adventure game, which throws a lot of people off, but just treat this as a quirk of the story: Homestuck intentionally makes itself hard to place into a medium, to have fun with that you’re going to have to just go with the flow. It’s a text-based adventure game, it’s a JRPG, it’s a series of shitty claymation Vines for all you care. just keep reading. it’ll make sense, and everything that doesn’t make sense doesn’t matter. Just keep reading.
GOOD LUCK
172 notes
·
View notes
Text
You cannot understand the failure of Conservative rule unless you accept that we are living with the failure of honestly held Conservative beliefs. The UK is in crisis, not because Tories are criminals or charlatans or fools, although they can be all of these things, but because they tried to govern according to their sincerely held beliefs and sent us into a deep crisis.
I accept that this is a hard concession for the government’s opponents to make. They like to think of Conservatives as crooks. And they are right in part. The Tory administration from 2010 to the present, which offers peerages for £3 million to passing bidders, has been the most corrupt government of the modern era.
Why, then, pay these crooks the courtesy of taking them seriously?
Meanwhile, those of us brought up in the British class system have a second reason for refusing to offer Conservatives the smallest mercy.
David Cameron, George Osborne, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, and, for a while, their Liberal sidekick Nick Clegg, fit our resentful image of dilettantish public-school boys: foppish wreckers, who do not care about the damage they inflict as long as they can stay at the top of the heap.
I have lost count of the number of times anti-Tory columnists have reached for F. Scott Fitzgerald’s lines from the Great Gatsby to describe our rulers.
“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy – they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
There is a terrific piece in the current edition of the New Yorker on fin de regime UK by Sam Knight. Without endorsing the notion that we have been ruined by dilettantes, his interviewees provide plenty of evidence to support it.
“It’s all about constantly drawing dividing lines,” a former Conservative party strategist told him. “That’s all you need. It’s not about big ideological debates or policies or anything.”
“He is not a Brexiteer,” George Osborne said of Boris Johnson. “I really would go to my grave saying, deep down, Boris Johnson did not want to leave the E.U”.
Knight himself, while never losing sight of the suffering austerity brought, says that the best way to think about the ruling politics of the past 14 years is to see it as a “psychodrama enacted, for the most part, by a small group of middle-aged men who went to élite private schools, studied at the University of Oxford, and have been climbing and chucking one another off the ladder of British public life” ever since.
Clearly, there is truth in this. But we will not save the country merely by replacing upper-class chancers with middle-class moralists.
However satisfying a rhetorical tactic, dismissing you opponents as liars and crooks misses that they can be far more dangerous when they are wholly in earnest. As the Conservatives were when they were at their most destructive.
The damage austerity caused to schools, local authorities, the criminal justice system and national defence (a subject, incidentally, we should worry more about given Russia’s aggression) flowed from the authentic Conservative belief that lower rates of taxation produced economic growth.
There is a strong link between Liz Truss and George Osborne.
The 2010 Cameron government cold-bloodedly refused to take advantage of a once-in-300-years opportunity to borrow to invest in infrastructure at next-to-zero interest rates.
Instead, it paid off the debt accrued in the finance crisis by cutting public expenditure rather than raising taxes.
Do not underestimate the extremism that followed.
The Office for Budget Responsibility said of the period up to 2018
“In the 12 years from the outbreak of the global financial crisis in 2007-08 the UK public finances will have suffered their largest peacetime shock in living memory, followed – on current policy – by one of the biggest deficit reduction programmes seen in any advanced economy since World War II.”
From Osborne to Truss, Conservatives genuinely believed that low taxes would produce economic growth, and they have never had a programme to turn to when their strategy failed.
As we can now see.
Knight cites some horrendous figures.
Between 2010 and 2018, funding for police forces in England fell by up to a quarter. Officers stopped investigating burglaries. Only four per cent now end in prosecution. In 2021, the median time between a rape offense and the completion of a trial reached more than two and a half years. In 2023, hundreds of school buildings had to be closed for emergency repairs, because the country’s school-construction budget had been cut by forty-six per cent between 2009 and 2022.
I could go on. But the point worth noticing is that at all times between 2010 and 2016 Osborne’s austerity programme had the full support of the Tory press, Tory donors and Tory MPs, and many of them went on to support Liz Truss in 2022.
There is an effort underway to rewrite the Conservatives' time in power. The period from 2010 to 2016 is presented as an era of moderate conservatism ruined by the aberrations of Johnson and Truss. In truth, the continuity is more striking than the change.
The result of 14-years of Conservative rule is the wrecking of the public sector combined with the highest taxes the UK has experienced since 1945.
As policy wonks now joke in their rip-roaring way, the British used to want American levels of taxes and European levels of public service. Now they have American levels of public service with European levels of tax.
The fiscal room for manoeuvre of the next Labour government has already been curtailed. It will not have pots of money to bail out local authorities, universities and the court system, to pick just three of the many deserving cases.
It will have to encourage growth
Economically, the quickest way to do it is to rejoin the EU. But politically it is a nightmare, I agree with George Osborne that Boris Johnson didn’t believe in Brexit. I wrote in 2016 that going with the Brexit campaign was the smart move for a charlatan on the make.
But fascinating though the speculations about the court politics of the 2010s are, they have no relevance to the urgent need to halt the UK’s decline by rejoining the EU.
We can’t because of the tyranny of the anti-European minority, which unlike Boris Johnson, has an authentic belief in Brexit.
Indeed, so great is the minority’s power, British politics does not even talk about Brexit. It is as if, as George Osborne says, we are in the old Soviet Union and essential questions cannot be debated for fear of offending the ruling ideology.
Most people now regard Brexit as a mistake. But then there are the Brexit diehards, who so resemble 20th century communists when they insist that Brexit has not failed, but simply has not been properly tried yet. Beyond them, are those who think that Brexit went fine, or who don’t want to reopen the question, or don’t care about our economic fortunes.
Under our electoral system, a dedicated minority can have real power. The majority of Labour voters support rejoining the EU, but they will vote Labour whatever European policy the party puts forward. A minority of pro-Brexit voters may even now turn away from Labour if it supports Europe, however, and lose them seats in the north of England. (Or at least that is what the party believes.)
Labour politicians feel they must wait until an overwhelming majority of the population realise that Brexit was a monumental blunder.
If only the Tories had just been a bunch of crooks. They would have stolen some money but that would have been the end of it.
As it is, it will take us years to recover from their sincerely held beliefs. Assuming, that is, we recover at all.
36 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hi, I'm sorry to bother but do you know about this?
https://mobile.twitter.com/hitthebookspost/status/1557621677508513792
If you don't, I hope you can read this, and maybe you can repost about this...
Again I'm sorry to bother but this woman is like Umbridge in Harry Potter. Really. It's terrified.
Yes, I've seen that. I've been pondering how to talk about this, as I've seen other authors/blogs bring it up.
It's no secret that I love and use ao3. I've been on fanfiction.net, LiveJournal, Dreamwidth, etc etc in my time. I've seen fanfiction purges and policing, and it's almost always to users' detriment.
There are many topics and stories I don't personally agree with. I know the adage "don't like don't read" is a bit overused, but I stand by it. Personally, I hate reading stories about underage sex/abuse. It grosses me out. I stay away from stories about graphic sexual assault and rape; it triggers me.
But that doesn't mean I want those stories wiped off the internet. And who am I to really draw that moral line, anyway? If, say, I purge ao3 of pedophilia and any underage sex, will non-con and dub-con be on the chopping block next? Who decides that?
Proponents of "curation" on fanfiction sites make a similar, parallel "slippery slope" argument. They claim that easy and visible access to topics like child abuse or incest will lead to inappropriate behavior or beliefs in real life. It will legitimize these topics, and encourage such actions.
I don't think I need to tell most people that reading about something doesn't mean you like it, endorse it, or want to perform it in real life. Nobody ever asks men who read American Psycho if they maybe shouldn't have, in case they start killing women left and right. Just because I read a story where siblings sleep together (hello, Game of Thrones?) doesn't mean I want that to happen in real life!
The candidate referred to in the tweet seems to be not so subtly endorsing fandom censorship. You can read her interview at the link above, and it's chilling. She seems indifferent to the nuances of these discussions, ones we've been having for years on tumblr and in reaction to fandom purges.
Fanfiction is censored, corralled and contained when it looks bad for owners, companies, and sites. When advertising interests hesitate to put their ads next to graphic smut, capitalism reacts accordingly. IOS hides things on tumblr mobile because it's about money.
And that's exactly what ao3 was created to avoid. It is user-owned and operated. It is literally -- literally -- an archive of our own.
I support the hell out of ao3, and I always reblog posts encouraging others to do so if possible. We finally have a goddamned "safe space" for any kind of fiction under the sun -- any -- and we're risking it over a candidate who appeals to misinformed, underinformed moralism.
I can't blame new fandom members for getting caught up in it. Especially teenagers. They're still figuring out where they personally draw the line. Of course they're clumsy, and apply that filter to everyone around them. It's human nature.
I encourage every reader and non-reader alike to consider where their opposition to certain topics and stories stems from. Is it personal? Moral? If this story was a book at a library, would you ask the librarian to toss it in the shredder? Or would you simply put it down and walk away?
In the United States, even atheists and non-Christians are still unconsciously performing Christian, moralistic values. We do things for the sake of the "children" that make very little, logical impact on perceived ills. We are all (even me, and I'm Jewish) subject to this line of thinking, even if we reject it.
My opinion at the end of the day is that well-tagged, well-described, age-gated content should be allowed to exist on ao3 with very few, if any, limitations. If you don't like the tags -- great! The system worked! Read something else.
"Don't like, don't read" needs an update. In my mind, I've been calling it "bag it, tag it, don't wag it" which I know is silly, but it covers all the bases. Put your content in the correct category (explicit, etc) tag it correctly (sexual assault, etc) and don't shame others for what they choose to consume.
Anyway. If you're a member of ao3 (donated 10$ or more in the last year) you're eligible to vote in the board elections. I highly encourage you to do so. You can learn more about the discourse at the link above, or at ao3's elections page.
#whew#that was a bit of a rant#rant#thoughts#ao3#archive of our own#ao3 elections#fic#fic things#fandom#fanfiction#fanfic#ffnet#fanfiction.net#censorship
429 notes
·
View notes
Note
sorry if you’ve answered this before but how come you run a monarchy blog if you’re anti monarchy? i’m genuinely curious, i’ve never seen that before
I have answered it before but Tumblr's search function isn't great and it's probably time for an update. It's not as unusual as you think. There are a ton of people from Republics in this fandom who would never want to live in a monarchy themselves (come visit the fandom on 4th July lol). They're politically anti-monarchy, but they like the individuals. So I'm really not in any way unusual. But basically it was an evolving journey:
I became interested in monarchies at age 4 or 5. So clearly pre any kind of political thinking. I was mostly interested in historical monarchies - I've been obsessed with Anne Boleyn most of my life, I have a tattoo dedicated to her!
I started blogging about royals about 12 years ago so I was around 18 or 19. I wasn't massively politically active so I didn't have a strong opinion on the monarchy. I was at St Andrews at the time of William and Kate's engagement so I became quite interested in that but nothing serious. Then I was on my non-royal Tumblr (don't use it anymore) and I stumbled across an account who was saying really nasty things about Kate. This particular account was one of the few British people in the fandom at the time - it was mostly young Americans - and so they had an air of authority about them and they would say "this is what most Brits think" but it was bollocks. And then I would research other things they'd said about things like finances and realise that they were wrong about those too. There were one or two people who questioned her narrative but they weren't British and so after a couple of years of this I just had had enough and decided to create an account. I wasn't really a monarchist or an anti-monarchist. I liked William and Kate but I dislike people talking rubbish more! I had really just stumbled into this world and realised there was a place for someone who was going to provide evidence, who was going to challenge, and who could offer a different perspective on life in a monarchy. And monarchy as a system was something that had interested me since I was little so it seemed natural.
After a little bit of time I became more politically active and at that point I became anti-monarchist. It was a gradual shift so there was no moment where my mind changed but I didn't feel the need to leave anyway. Partly because it was fun. I liked blogging and I knew a lot about royals by this point, I didn't want to start from scratch in a more crowded fandom. I realised I can separate the institution from the people. I can like Kate but not think monarchy is a perfect system of governance. There are so many things that we find fascinating but don't necessarily endorse. I mean, I listen to a fuck load of serial killer podcasts but I don't think Ted Bundy was a great guy! I just find it interesting. If you've ever heard our podcast you'll know I am obsessed with corruption scandals. They're not good but I find power fascinating as a concept. But also this is just my nature. If I'm going to take a stance about a political matter I want to know as much about that as possible, I want to have considered the opposing argument and what their objections might be so I can counter them. And I found it frustrating when I saw friends of mine who generally shared my political views say stupid, incorrect things about the monarchy. Like this came later but a friend of mine once complained that they spent money on Meghan's wedding dress instead of the cladding on Grenfell which is rubbish.
I'm now in my 30s, I am at a very different place from when I started. Anti-monarchist is probably too simplistic but I've had the same bio and photo for like 5 years so I'm not changing it lol. My political view now is more pragmatic than anything else. But I've also done so much more research into the constitutional side of things than I had 5 years ago. My view now is if I could click my fingers and change our system of governance to a functioning, elected head of state without any issues of course I would. Just taking a step back it makes no sense to have a monarchy and for our head of state to be a symbol of such glaring inequality. But we can't just click our fingers. Ending the monarchy won't actually solve any problems in society but it could cause new ones. There are positives to having a monarchy, it does work to protect democracy even though it shouldn't, and so I would have to be presented with a system that keeps those positive aspects if I was to vote to end the monarchy. On a theoretical level I don't support it, it makes no sense, but on a practical level I think there are more important things, it won't be the quick fix people say it will be, and I would need guarantees about what a Republic would look like first as Brexit has shown us that we can only trust the Tories to deliver the worst possible outcomes if we leave it to them (which is what would happen).
26 notes
·
View notes
Text
─ 𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐇𝐈𝐌 ❞ billy loomis and stu macher
billy loomis and stu macher general headcanons
tw: none!
author’s notes: i will always write billy and stu as a pair, they just would not be complete without the other i think - enjoy!
BILLY LOOMIS
so mean. like, incredibly mean to people he doesn’t know, like, or trust - which is just about everyone.
will make mean comments about weight, height, gender, sexuality, nothing is off limits to this guy. and he knows when he’s being ignorant, billy is completely aware unlike other slashers (i.e. bo, billy lenz, thomas, etc.) who may not know what harm their words could cause to you. billy is FULLY aware and takes delight in upsetting others - a true menace.
if you manage to escape his words, or can handle what he does say to you, building a friendship with billy is pretty fulfilling. billy doesn’t date who he isn’t friends with first and if he does, trust me, he has no good intentions.
at first, he’s not the most reliable friend? don’t call him in times of need, for sure, but once he really warms up to you, you cannot get rid of him. if he’s not with stu he’s with you, and vice versa. the two of you are his people!
afterwards billy is a very good friend, you’ll appreciate him on nights you needs excuses to get away or a way to get out of plans. he always prefers that you spend time with him, anyway.
also, liking stu is a must. not like it’s hard, but you have to be able to get along well with stu - not tolerate, not generally accept, no - you have to basically be stu’s second biggest fan for billy to heavily consider dating you. if you get stu’s endorsement relatively quickly, you’re in! otherwise, be prepared for the guys to push you out on more than one occasion.
at first, billy won’t include you in much. even after you’ve started dating and you’ve been going steady, he’ll keep you away from the more private parts of his life. don’t push him, he’ll let you in on his own time. pushing billy only ever causes irritation and stress for the both of you.
he always knows just what to say!
which is a good and bad thing - billy knows how to comfort you, how to ease your mind and make everything seem okay. he’ll pry your secrets and insecurities right from you, after all, he’s your boyfriend.
on the other hand, he knows just how to get under your skin. how to use your worst fears and insecurities against you to get what he wants. don’t think billy is above manipulation with you, outright or not.
unless you’re okay with snooping, do NOT give billy your passwords, keys, passcodes, none of it. he can and will take the liberty to search through your things.
“babe, who’s alex?” you stop what you’re doing in the kitchen, turning away from the popcorn on the stove. “alex?” you parrot, mind racing. “yeah. you left your journal key out and i looked through it,” he’s leaning on the counter behind you, meeting your eyes as you turn. his face is dark, lip curled a little. “good words about ‘em. you close friends?” you blank, completely. who the hell is he talking about? suddenly it clicks and your burst out into incredulous laughter. “alex? like my third grade crush alex?” you clutch your middle, doubling over as billy’s face pinkens. “right, yeah no, i knew that,” his bullshitting only makes you laugh harder.
STU MACHER
the light of my life. apple of my eye. much nicer to you than billy when you first meet!
typically doesn’t have a bad word to say about anyone, but he’s very good at being passive aggressive and being backhanded.
normally though, he’s so funny and bright, it’s whiplash between the two of them when you, stu, and billy are hanging out.
teases you a lot at first, all in good fun, never says anything with ill-will, but he does this to test your limits, see if you’ll snap at him.
stu gets away with a LOT so if you don’t let him bs you he’ll become more interested in you immediately.
people are always reprimanding him, but never actually follow through on punishing him. again, do not fall for his bs, if you don’t like something he’s doing, call him out and he’ll cease immediately.
very handsy, surprisingly so for someone who’s just supposed to be your friend.
it won’t take much for stu to make you - for lack of better words - his side piece.
if you wanna date him you’ve gotta press, bug him about it until it’s too much for him to ignore.
if you’re lucky he’ll just start dating you outright, without having to go through a side piece stage.
he has a very big ego, just like billy. though stu expresses it in a spoiled rich kid way, not in a broody loner kind of way.
he flaunts his money all over the place, intentional or not, and has absolutely no remorse about it. why should he?
pays for your stuff. 24/7. even if you BEG stu not to, he’s gonna!
to be honest, he kinda, doesn’t respect you at first? that’s how he is with everyone, not just you. it doesn’t take much to get him to respect you once you’re friends, but no matter the circumstances strangers don’t mean shit to stu. typically he just throws his money at people and that’s all they want. they’re nothing else but possible kills, sex, or entertainment to him.
if you stick around past that, well, you’re okay in stu’s book!
this is also why stu’s only actual real friends are you and billy. sure, you all hang out with sidney, tatum, and randy but stu’s not too fond of any of them - it’s just very hard to tell he’d rather watch them bleed out than be friends with them.
he’s a spam texter. no explanation needed.
“stu, honey, you’ve texted me forty times,” you look across the room to where your boyfriend is sitting on an armchair, giggling maniacally. “and i’m right here. just say what you need to say!” stu whines, though he’s still smiling as he continues to tap away at his phone. “just check,” he sounds like a little kid being refused a toy. sighing you open up your phone to see a bunch of hearts, intermixed with ‘i love yous’ and ‘hi’. this is such a waste of minutes.
stu and billy are a package deal. you get one, you get the other. consider that the only reason you started dating either of them is because you’ve already been heavily discussed between the two of them.
everyone else is prey. it’s the three of you against the world!
xoxo, babe
#scream#slasher headcanons#slasher imagines#billy loomis#stu macher#billy loomis x reader#stu macher x reader#billy loomis x stu macher x reader#slasher x reader#horror#horror x reader#scream x reader#ghostface#ghostface x reader#buddy's pieces
526 notes
·
View notes
Text
Book Review 5 - The Bright Ages by Matthew Gabrielle and David M. Perry
Okay, the Harper Collins strike is over, so I can finally post this! As you might notice, the wait has meant I have ended up writing far too much of it. Turns out people really are telling the truth when they say writing negative reviews is funner and easier.
Anyway, I did not like this book! It’s an ungainly thing, torn halfway between wanting to be pop history and wanting to be an intervention in the discourse, and entirely too short to do either well. Insofar as is it history, it’s far less revolutionary than it seems to think it is, and the subjects it actually focuses on either already fit entirely into the pop understanding the book is positioning itself against, or else entirely about symbolism and architecture and generally abstracted from (being partial and small-minded) the stuff I’m actually interested in.
All that said the first and fundamental is pretty simple – it’s just altogether too short to do what it wants to. The book tries to be a history of the European Middle Ages – a thousand years of history for an entire continent (more than, given the repeated digressions about the Middle East and also the Mongols one time) – in 200 pages. Which is just, like, I mean I don’t want to say impossible, but I can’t really see any way you’d do it. Which means what we actually get is a series of snapshots, scattered across space and time – just specific, particular dynamics or situations that rarely have much to do with each other. I’m pretty sure the only specific place we ever return to after focusing on it is Ravenna, and that’s for a big, dramatic bookend starting the age with Galla Placidia and ending with Dante. Also the return is really more about Italian city states as a whole. Which is to say only Florence gets any detail at all.
A necessary causality of the snapshot approach is that there’s wide swathes of the period that just, aren’t mentioned in the slightest. Which again, fair, but also it’s a bit much for one of the lacuna to be the entire Holy Roman Empire, right? (Okay, not the entire, there’s repeated off hand mentions of Emperors, and also talk of how the Italian city-states fought the Empire. Just never any description whatsoever of what it, like, was. Except for the specific disavowal of saying it started with Charlemagne, which was never followed up on.) Which is still better than what Poland or Hungary or Lithuania or Kievan Rus got – if any of them were even mentioned, it was only off hand. Which does end up giving the impression that Medieval Europe included Jerusalem but not Krakow – to be fair, something a lot of actual Medieval people might have totally agree with. But given the amount of time spent on the Crusades to the Levant and the Albigensian Crusade, not even mentioning the bloody Christianize of the Baltic in passing feels negligent to the point of being actively misleading.
Also it’s weird, given the books whole focus on connections and commerce between Europe and the rider world – the steppe is right there! You don’t need to wait for the Mongols!
Speaking of – they give a bunch of apologia for the Mongol Empire that’s – well, basically the same stuff all empires get, brought safety to the roads and allowed free movement and trade, brought people together, spread culture and technology, enlightened and cosmopolitan, etc. Which I mostly just find funny because of how obvious it is the authors would, uh, probably not endorse the same sentiment for any more recent imperial projects.
But okay – it’s not that you can’t tell a useful history in what might seem to be way too little space – John Darwin tries to tell a literal history of the world from the 16th century in ~500 pages and I’d still say After Tamerlane is absolutely worthwhile reading. You just need, you know, discipline. Focus. A firm idea of your thesis and an obsession of what’s relevant to it (or just be entertaining and full of fun memorable trivia). So, what are Perry and Gabrielle actually trying to do here?
Honestly, it’s a little bit unclear? The thesis they present is that the Dark Ages didn’t exist – they insist on referring the whole Medieval period as ‘the Bright Ages’ through the entire book, it’s incredibly annoying – and that the Medieval period get a horribly unjustified bad wrap as uniquely cruel and provincial and barbaric and full of disease, illiteracy, superstition, etc. They explicitly position themselves as being a reaction to the vision of the past you see in Game of Thrones or Vikings (I’d say ‘or the Witcher’ but again, for the purposes of this book Eastern Europe doesn’t exist). Instead, they fill the book with hand picked examples of medieval beauty, sophistication, and connection to the wider world with the quite explicit contention that everything good about the Renaissance (and later) was really just outgrowths of the Medieval, and it was only the bad stuff that was new.
(At the same time, they also do not like white nationalists, and go out of their way at length on numerous occasions to remind you that Nazis are bad. Those digressions do always leave me wondering who they’re for – no actual Deus Vult type is going to get more than five pages into it, and they rarely get much deeper that surface level refutation of things no one else is likely to actually believe.)
Anyway – look, the central, overriding problem of the book is that it’s not nearly as revolutionary as it seems to think it is. Very problematic, when it has such a high opinion of itself for being so. The assorted trivia the book uses as shocking examples of how cosmopolitan and tolerant the period was mostly just, well, fit perfectly fine into the popular imagining of the Medieval era? Like ‘royals and elites imported foreign luxury goods and status symbols at great expense; missionaries, adventurers and religious emissaries travelled across Eurasia to preach, trade and try to find someone to help them invade Muslims ; women often wielded significant political influence by virtue of royal birth of marriage, and were active political players’ – are these statements shocking to literally anyone? Basically all of that literally happens in Game of Thrones!
Part of that is that the book keeps almost committing to a really radical thesis – not to say pure unreconstructed romanticism, but close to it – and then always has an attack of professional ethics and cringes away from it, and just awkwardly brings up how, to be sue, there were serfs and slaves and atrocities, but nonetheless when you think about it the later Crusader States really were fascinating sites of cultural exchange, or whatever.
Psychoanalyzing the authors is bad form, of course, but like – reading this book the overriding sense you get is that they’re proud progressives, and have dedicated their lives to studying the Medieval era. But in the contemporary discourse people on their side use ‘Medieval’ as an insult to mean patriarchal, or brutal, or cruel, and the people who like the Medieval era are all in the Sack of Jerusalem Fandom. The sheer angst and righteous indignation they have about this state of affairs just about oozes through every page – honestly if I’m being maximally pithy and uncharitable, you rather get the sense that the real aim of the book is to make ‘being really into Medieval history’ a less reactionary-coded interest to bring up at professional-class dinner parties.
But honestly I could have forgiven almost all of this if the anecdotes and snapshots the book did focus on were informative and interesting. And this is almost entirely pure personal preference, I fully acknowledge but – the things that the book chose to focus on just really weren’t, to me?
Which is to say that The Bright Ages is incredibly interested in architectural and monumental symbolism, especially of the religious variety – there are whole chapters overwhelmingly dedicated to exploring the layout of churches and how their architecture and lighting was meant to convey meaning, or detailing at great length a specific monumental cross in northern England. These are used as synecdoches for broader topics, of course but, like, an awful lot of word count really is dedicated to describing how Gala Placedia’s chapel in Ravenna must have wowed people. And even as far as using them as synecdoches – the way that monasteries, bishops and the royal household in Paris competed to have the most impressive church/chapel as a way to convey religious authority is genuinely interesting, but I’d honestly have rather heard a lot more of the actual politics and sociology or how sacred authority and legitimacy was gathered around the Capetians in the later middle ages and a lot less about how specifically impressive the royal chapel on the palace grounds was. There’s a massive amount of symbolic and artistic detail, a fair amount of time spent charting great thinkers and proving that there was too such a thing as a Medieval intellectual, and almost none at all on, like, political and social and (god forbid) economic history. Which are, unfortunately, the bits of it I’m actually interested in.
The book isn’t just architecture of course, but much of the rest is either very basic – yes, the vikings were traders as well as raiders and travelled shockingly long distances, yes there was intellectual interchange between Muslim, Jewish and Christian thinkers across the Mediterranean, yes the Church acted as a vital sponsor of learning and scholarship. I’m sure these are new information to like, someone? - or so caught up in historiographical arguments and qualifications that it loses sight of the actual subject – I swear the book spent more time saying that it’s wrong to call it a Carolingian Renaissance because that implies there were actual dark ages before and after than it does explaining why anyone actually would.
Beyond that – okay, so as mentioned this book is really consciously progressive. Which, beyond a certain antiquarian distaste for how desperately they’re trying to get across ‘see, our field of study is Relevant! And Important! Please please please give us tenure/prestige/funding’ I wholly support. (I mean, like, I do think Medieval Studies deserves tenure/prestige/funding. Just slightly unbecoming to so transparently be grasping for it, and also more than a bit self-defeating) - but, like, the book’s politics are weird? Or weirdly surface level and slightly confused, given how much of the book is focused around them.
Like – the book spends a massive amount of time and attention combating the myth that women in the middle ages were all cloistered and politically mute and totally powerless. But the sum total of what it actually says is ‘did you know: elite women in the aristocracy and church exercised political influence? And a lot of the Christianization of western Europe happened through highborn christian women marrying pagan kings and raising their children Christian?” And while I suppose ‘elite women have influence even in patriarchal societies’ is a useful fact for someone to learn, I’m not sure examples that more or less cash out to ‘queens could have power by manipulating their husbands and sons’ is a particularly novel or progressive take, you know? More broadly – it’s a weakness of the book’s framework of jumping across countries and centuries between anecdotes that we never get any sense of gender roles and how power and influence were gendered systemically, so much as single (or if you’re very lucky, two or three) particular women with a vague gesture that they’re kind of typical. Not to complain about a lack of theory, but there’s really basically zero theory.
The book’s choices of examples for women to focus on are also – okay, not to be all ‘why didn’t you talk about my faves’, but insofar as you’re talking how women were able to exercise power, it’s really very odd that you never talk about any women who, like, ruled in their own right? C’mon, you mention the Anarchy offhand to introduce Eleanor of Aquitaine but don’t even say what it was about, let alone talk about the Empress Matilda? (I’d say the same thing about Matilda of Tuscany and the investiture Controversy, but it’s not like the book actually talks about the Investiture Controversy beyond the absolute basics, so). The final result is a book that talks a lot about how elite women had influence, and then the influence they actually bring up is almost always of the most stereotypically feminine-gender variety imaginable.
All that really pales to how confused the book seems when it talks about Christianity. Which it has to, of course, fairly constantly – it’s a book about Medieval Europe. But it’s kind of horribly torn between two imperatives here – on the one hand, it desperately wants to fight back against the whole black legend of the tyrannical, book-burning, Galileo-murdering, science-suppressing hopelessly venal and corrupt, all-powering Magesterium. But on the other, they really don’t want to come off as supporting, well, the heretic murdering and antisemitism or being the sort of guy online who posts memes of the Knights Templar. So you see this somewhat exhausting two-step where they go on at length about all the beautiful architecture and scholarship preservation the church did interrupted every so often by this concession about how of course it wasn’t all good and obviously pogroms and burning heretics wasn’t great, but- (The chapter on the vikings is much the same, except with a much clearer ‘it’s important not to romanticize these people because the people who do that are white nationalists, but also see how tolerant and far-ranging and cool they are?’)
Discussing the Church is also a place where the book’s whole allergy to social structure and institutions really serves it poorly. I at a certain point stopped keeping count of the number of times where the book called out that the centralized, papal-centric Church was a creation of the high middle ages, and not at all how things worked for most of the period. But then they just never actually explain how they worked instead, or really even how things changed to so enshrine the Pope’s power. They talk about how convents could be wealthy and powerful landholders and their abbesses’ wield significant power, but never even gesture at explaining how they interfaced with the institutional church. It’s really very frustrating.
Of course Christianity still gets far better treatment than Judaism or Islam – there’s a chapter which goes into some detail on the life of Maimonides in the process of extolling Medieval scholarship and talking about how classical learning was never really lost and the Renaissance is fake news. But despite the gestures to the presence of Jewish communities throughout Europe there’s essentially zero, like, description of how they actually functioned, or were organized, or (aside from the occasionally mentioned pogroms) how they interacted with their christian neighbours. The treatment of Islam is much the same – there are some mentions of the Islamic wold and its intellectual traditions, but essentially just to rehash the same points about the Islamic Golden age and Ibn Sina and all the other bits of trivia everyone probably picked up keeping up with the culture war during the Bush Administration. But again, only the most passing mentions of, like, politics or organization or even theology. It felt gratingly cursory, given the emphasis placed on the fact that eg Al Andulas was clearly part of Medieval Europe
Underneath all this is just the fact that The Bright Ages is almost an entirely a history of the elite. Peasants, serfs and slaves only exist in the for the sake of concessions about how of course things weren’t all good. The book has almost no interest in the lives of the lower classes, and barely seems to realize this. It starts to really, really grate, especially when you’re making all these implicit judgments about how the Medieval era was compared to what came after – in which case, the lives of, like, 90% of the population are rather important! Like unironically peasant life is fascinating! What did life actually look like of the overwhelmingly majority of people? If you want to give a sketch of the entire era, it’s kind of important.
I’m almost certainly being unfair here – basically everything about the book’s sensibilities grated on me, so I can’t say I was trying to be especially charitable. But really – the book’s perfectly fine light reading, but as intentional propaganda is hamfisted and it’s unclear who it’s for, and as an actual history it’s just...bad. It’s useful as a way to get a sense of the discourse, I guess, but otherwise I couldn’t really recommend it.
76 notes
·
View notes
Text
Plushies, Passion, & Pathos
(Or, An Analysis of the Modes of Persuasion Found in the Episode "Can Plushies Improve Our Health?")
While mainly a promotional episode to advertise new plushies, the episode "Can Plushies Improve Our Health?" has some excellent examples of the modes of persuasion used in debates.
First things first, here's a quick explanation of the different Modes of Persuasion, just so we’re all on the same page to start:
Pathos - an emotional argument. Think of those ASPCA commercials where they show you a bunch of videos of sad and hungry puppies and kittens and say in a soft voice that you could help, if only you’d give money for these clearly neglected animals. That is the mode of persuasion known as Pathos. They play on your emotions and your empathy to get you to do what they want. And you don’t want to see sad puppies, so of course you’ll give your money to help (never mind the fact the 90% of that money goes to a CEO and right back into promotional material to make more of these damn commercials, and you’d honestly be doing way more by just volunteering at your local animal shelter, but I digress).
Logos - a logical argument. It’s a mode of persuasion that uses logic and facts to make a point, so think of a scientific research study, where they display their findings and graph out the results. It's common to use deductive reasoning to make a point, like using the "if A, then B" comparison, which can make something easier for an audience to understand. However, it’s all about how you present that data, so if you ever see a graph showing something rising or correlating to something else, always be sure to look at how they are scaling their data. Sometimes data is skewed purposefully to make the arguer’s point come across very differently - we've all seen how Janus liked to cherry-pick data to present in SvS, right? Someone may be using accurate facts in their argument, but how are they using them to convince you to do what they want?
Ethos - an argument made based on reputation and trust. The best example of this mode of persuasion would be having an actual dentist endorse a type of toothpaste (as surely they're an expert on the matter!) or any kind of celebrity endorsement. Oftentimes people are more likely to trust an authority figure or someone they know (even if only from youtube or a movie or twitter) than some random stranger telling them things about a product or idea. Ethos can be extremely effective (we all know how good Word of Mouth is!), which is also why it can be considered particularly heinous when a celebrity or public figure knowingly endorses a scam to their audience, as they’re taking advantage of them for nefarious or greedy purposes. Ethos arguments require someone to stake their reputation (be that as a celebrity, authority figure, or just someone who is considered trustworthy or reliable), so the consequences of manipulating someone with that method and being found out can ruin careers and relationships. This is also where the 'ethics' part of Ethos comes into play. It’s definitely more of a high risk, high reward option compared to other modes of persuasion.
Kairos - an argument made in opportunity. A less recognized but still relevant mode of persuasion, Kairos is less about how you present your argument and more about doing so at the right place and the right time. For instance, if you were to make a pitch about getting rid of orcas because they're attacking yachts but you make it at a Save the Whales conference, chances are, you're not likely to be listened to at all. So it's all about finding the right location, finding the right time to address your idea, and making your points with the right audience if you want to improve the chances of your argument succeeding.
There are many instances of these modes of persuasion used in this episode, but the one most masterfully on display would be Pathos. And who better to use it than Patton, the emotional and moral heart of Thomas?
But why is Patton a master at using Pathos? He has been shown to implement that particular mode of persuasion in the past as though it’s second nature to him. In many episodes, he namely uses this argument on Thomas, pushing at his empathic tendencies to try to get him to do something - this can be anything from adopting a dog (because the little puppies deserve a home!) to attending a wedding instead of a callback (because friends are more important than personal endeavors, apparently).
Patton’s leading tactics with this mode are usually guilt-tripping and empathy-driven hypotheticals, and these work extremely well on Thomas, as we’ve seen. When it comes to using emotions to convince Thomas to do what he wants, Patton is clearly very experienced and knows what he’s doing. He knows Thomas very well and knows which emotions to use to get the reaction that he wants.
In this particular episode, however, he isn’t just trying to convince Thomas to listen to his opinion on the matter, he’s also using a Pathos mode of persuasion to discredit any argument Logan may make in turn.
The viewer of the presentation is technically both Thomas AND Logan, but since the idea was posited by Logan, the majority of the presentation is directed at him, and it is implied that should Thomas go through with this decision, it is then directed at him, as well.
For his presentation, Patton immediately goes on the attack against Logan’s suggestion, and uses harsh, emotionally-driven language right off the bat, stating that the viewer of the presentation is thinking about “abandoning” their “life-long stuffed friends” as a way to suggest they are doing something mean to someone/something that doesn’t deserve it. He says the viewer is “leaving them, to fend for themselves”, again making the viewer out to be an unempathetic person who lets others struggle instead of offering help. “Discarding them like a heartless monster” is how he sums it up, going out of his way to make it seem like someone who would decide to do something like this is a horrible, terrible person who is making a very bad decision.
This is an extremely good example of Pathos in a debate setting, because it puts the opposite party on the defensive, and makes them want to defend the accusation against their character instead of taking their turn to make their counterpoint. The opposite party now has to worry about not being listened to at all, whereas before they would have only needed to state their argument and move on.
This is especially clever to use against someone like Logan, as Logan’s not as affected by emotions himself but he’s very aware that Thomas is, and thus will have to cater to Thomas’ opinion here. Instead of being able to counter with facts and knowledge, he has to waste time countering whatever Patton just said about his character and reputation instead.
While it’s very manipulative, it’s also quite effective. Patton really did pull out all the stops for this one.
And this is absolutely planned, as you can see once Logan begins to clarify that he did not advocate to throw the toy away but rather to donate it elsewhere to where it may be more needed, Patton, having anticipated such an answer, argues that this is just another thing the viewer would say. He even remarks that saying so is “sweet” but argues again that if doing so is only in an effort to “mature” then it’s actually bad. He has succinctly employed that Pathos argument against Logan yet again, this time also attacking Logan’s presumed motive for the suggestion in the first place. He is absolutely winning the debate at this moment, arguing that Logan is actually a bad person with bad intentions for suggesting Thomas do a good deed ONLY because he wants Thomas to act more mature, for some sort of selfish gain.
It’s accusatory, assumptive, and doesn’t listen to what Logan's actual intention is, because he’s not even given Logan the chance to make any counterpoints yet.
It’s also not the first time we’ve heard Patton pull out this tactic; if you’ll recall how many times he used this one against Thomas (and Roman) in SvS and SvS:R, claiming that doing a good deed with the expectation of a reward (even if the reward is simply feeling good afterward), it technically makes you a bad person. Patton may have a very skewed understanding of virtue, but he definitely knows how to wield it!
Patton then continues his argument by adding how “we all know that stuffed animals are objects of nostalgia” to which Logan just sighs, because he knows that nostalgia is Patton’s domain, literally. In a way, this employs a tiny bit of an Ethos argument, as Patton would be the one to understand and know about nostalgia and its effects the most out of any of the sides. Thomas (and Logan) can trust his judgement in regards to nostalgia, because he would be the closest thing to an expert on the topic here.
And again, Patton presents a harsh, emotion-driven argument that it would be “heartless” to throw the toy out. He’s determined to make that his main argument here.
Now, Patton is not usually this quick to use such harsh tactics in a discussion, especially if it’s only going to make Thomas feel bad about himself and his actions, because he doesn’t want Thomas to be upset. However, he started this presentation with very strong emotional arguments as though he felt it was necessary to pull out his best tactics right away. But why?
Given his mention of expecting this discussion to happen and even stating that this is very important to him, it seems he felt he had to bring out his best moves because he sees Logan’s suggestion about the stuffed animal as some sort of full-scale attack rather than the simple suggestion that it actually was. He’s threatened by the possibility of Logan being listened to in this instance, regardless of Logan’s intention. And this may be because Logan utilized a Kairos mode of persuasion to start this whole thing off.
See, Logan must have been paying attention to Thomas stating his list of activities at the beginning of the episode, as he popped in immediately after Thomas mentioned making his bed. This would be the right time and place to bring such a suggestion about the stuffed animal on Thomas' bed to the forefront, especially if Logan wanted to be successful in making his point. And, up until Patton intervenes, it seems like Thomas was definitely considering Logan's initial argument. This could easily explain why Patton came in so strongly, knowing he would have to counter Logan's argument which had already started off on a good foot.
On the one hand, this is somewhat understandable. When something is really important to you, you don’t want to let it go, no matter what argument may be made against that. It makes sense that Patton is very passionate about his argument here, especially since we already know how much he cares about both nostalgic items from Thomas' childhood and stuffed animals in general.
On the other hand, however, that passion led to him being very harsh, potentially hurting those around him, which is something that Patton wouldn’t usually do nor necessarily want to do. But he is so desperate to be heard here, he doesn’t care if his tactics harm someone, which is very concerning.
Put a pin in that thought, because we’ll come back to it.
Next in his presentation, Patton uses a different mode of persuasion, one that he has some experience with, but not as much as Logan - the Logos method, or a logical argument. He cites sources and even quotes experts on the topic of discussion, which really shows that the one he’s trying to convince most here is, in fact, Logan. It should be seen as a positive notion, that Patton was so passionate about appealing to Logan that he was willing to use the methods Logan himself would use in an argument, believing that doing so would make him understand.
This shows that he’s actually aware that Logan struggles to understand more emotional arguments and that changing that up can have better results. Unfortunately, this is slightly soured by the fact that Patton keeps cutting Logan off so that he can’t get any counterpoints in, even when he expresses that he’s impressed by Patton’s use of a logical argument instead, which just shows that he doesn’t respect Logan’s opinion on this, likely due to the same passion that made him use this different method to appeal to him in the first place.
After this is when Virgil interrupts to contribute to the presentation, employing his own brand of the Pathos mode of persuasion, leaning more into the emotion of Fear. It is what he’s known for, but it’s nice to see that he’s experienced in this particular type of mode, as well, at least when used in this very specific way. Logan, again, shows that he’s impressed by the level of detail of factual knowledge on display in Virgil’s part of the presentation, as he had given examples about stuffed animals reducing stress and anxiety. He's catering to mental health, which is something Logan knows a lot about and would recognize as factual.
However, Virgil then brings in his worst-case scenario about what would happen if Thomas got rid of his stuffed bear to finish off his part with more of that Pathos mode of persuasion, but this is a common tactic Virgil has used many times in the past. Genuine or not, that is what it is and how it’s used, to convince Thomas to do (or not do) something.
And then we get Roman’s argument, which really isn’t aligned to a particular mode of persuasion, outside of appealing somewhat to the emotional response of loneliness, suggesting that stuffed animals can provide companionship. It’s not as strong an argument as Patton and Virgil’s, but it’s a valid point nonetheless.
It’s from here that Logan is finally given his chance to make his counterpoint, but instead of arguing against them, he chooses to recognize their opinion as valuable and their points as valid. And then he does something that none of the other sides bothered to do in all of this - he asks Thomas what he wants.
Whether this is because Logan noticed that the purpose behind the presentation was to convince Logan more so than Thomas, or if he truly values Thomas’ opinion on this above making his own counter-argument on the matter, he knew that this wasn’t about what the sides wanted, it was about what Thomas wanted.
When Thomas admits that he agreed with everyone else’s argument and that he wanted to keep the stuffed bear, Logan stated that he would then join their side of the argument to “contribute to the facts” which gives him the chance to add a much-needed thorough Logos argument to this presentation, using logic and facts to speak on mental wellness, mental health, and finding balance. This is a wonderful addition, as it catered to Thomas and what he would actually need the stuffed animal for, even as an adult, rather than just wanting it for emotional ties or due to feeling guilty from getting rid of it. Presenting facts in this way allows Thomas to feel emboldened by his decision, rather than feel as though he's holding onto excuses to validate such a decision. Even though the other reasons given were absolutely valid, they can feel flimsy (especially as an adult) when a decision is only emotionally-driven, so logical arguments can help attain that balance and keep him validated and satisfied.
But then, Logan is, of course, cut off again. However, he then explains to Thomas that while he already knew all the facts presented here today, he hadn’t realized that Thomas was affected positively by the concepts mentioned in the emotional argument from the other sides. This explains his intention behind making the suggestion in the first place, because he didn’t know that Thomas keeping the stuffed animal had been anything more than a force of habit.
He knew there were other people who had other reasons for keeping a comfort item, but he hadn’t realized that Thomas was one of those people, which says a lot about Logan’s understanding of Thomas’ emotions, as though he’s somehow cut off from them completely (but that’s a discussion for another post).
After that, Logan gives Patton accolades on his presentation, telling him he did a good job. This seems reminiscent of Logan being a good sport about his debate with Virgil back in My Negative Thinking, where Virgil was then shocked by Logan's praise because he'd been so rude to Logan throughout the episode. In this episode, though, Patton had been rather cruel to start, but was clearly trying to prove his point above all else. Logan recognized that the behavior was not necessarily about him, but rather a side effect of its cause, showing that Logan is remarkably unbiased in this kind of setting.
Now, he does note that he found Patton's presentation a bit silly at times (which it was), but he respected his tactics regardless. He recognized what Patton was doing to make his arguments and doesn't show an issue with it. He clearly appreciated the level of work and research that went into their presentation overall and he shows that appreciation genuinely.
And then something interesting happens. Remember that point about passion that was made earlier? Well, here's why that matters.
You see, Patton waves off Logan's appreciation, simply stating "sometimes passion makes you act a little silly," to which Logan straightens up, and gets an…odd look on his face, as though he's been struck with a realization of some sort.
And while I don't find credit in body language interpretation, it's still notable to see that he glanced down and to his right, because that is supposedly what someone accessing their emotions would do. Whether that actually means anything or not is anyone's guess.
Though, it's likely foreshadowing for what we may see from Logan in the future, as well as a potential explanation for some of his more extreme behavior in the past.
The idea that someone may act out of character or even against their own wishes due to their passion in something could possibly help explain some of Logan's harsher behaviors seen in previous episodes. Seeing something as important and then being ignored, talked over, cut off, and belittled could lead to some of the more explosive behavior we've seen from Logan, such as throwing a crumpled flashcard at Roman or yelling "stop ignoring me" at Remus.
In a way, such actions can be classified under the Pathos mode of persuasion, as getting angry with someone and being threatening or violent technically qualifies as an emotional argument - they are trying to use an emotional response to get someone to do what they want.
However, as Patton said, passion is capable of altering that behavior from intentional to unintentional. Just because someone gets angry doesn't mean they intended to get angry. Just because someone cries doesn't mean they had meant to cry. Can someone cry to manipulate someone? Yes. Does that mean anytime someone cries, it's a manipulation tactic? No.
Passion can take a desire and twist it until the resulting behavior is unnecessary or outlandish. It can be within that person's control, or completely out of their control.
And who better to understand something like passion than Patton, the most trusted source they have on emotions? In this way, Logan can perceive Patton's remark as an Ethos argument, that he knows what he's talking about, and he understands what passion can make someone do. Logan trusting him about that information can be very important, especially if he aims to understand it further in the coming episodes.
Right to the very end, Patton clearly shows that he's a master of persuasion, and not just to Thomas but to the other sides, as well.
We'll just have to see how he uses it next…
#sanders sides#can plushies improve our health?#patton sanders#logan sanders#sanders sides analysis#modes of persuasion#orbs thought bubbles#long post#tried to put some pics in to make it an easier read bc i know its really long sorry#theres more i could say about logan here but i reeled myself in#theres so much logan angst anywhere you look and this episode was no exception#haha
23 notes
·
View notes
Note
Idk about other people but I’m always a slut for that old man and I think you got amazing taste so pls rec anything you like anywhere
I think you will find that my taste is actually kind of garbage but like, in a fun way that makes you go "wow really???" rather than being so embarrassed for me that you can never look at me again. of course that would be fine too haha you know, don't yuck my yum etc but I will try to put together my unfuckable old man rec list right here, right now, and we can all just live with that
(mostly because titling a post makes me cringe it's too much attention, and I'm a stereotype)
These come from a section of my actual Fic Rec List, which is massive (by my standards), lives in a googly doc, and is much more embarrassing. this list generally won't include any ship stuff and if it does, i will say so. mind any and all tags.
This section is titled: The Redemption Narrative (lol)
1. Empty Nester - egomaniac (THE WHOLE REASON I MADE A NEW LIST. BRO AND NANNA!!!!!!!!!!!! also bro/grandpa, aka “he fucks that old man”, but not the most important part to me, because as good and tragic and hurtful as their relationship is in this fic, it is dwarfed, to me, by the kindness shared between Nanna and Bro, which once again, to me, is the Crown Jewel of the whole story. PLEASE read this please if u have time A++ endorsement)
2. dualshock desertbloom (the whole fucking series. i hardly need to say why, you should just know by now. i call dd dirkfic, because it is The Dirkfic, u know??)- geometrician (🔶)
3. sun’s angle - dellaluce (they can orphan it all they want but i never forget. very old, but never GETS old, u feel)
4. Hexadyne Meetings - Saesama (the rarity of bro and nanna fics could absolutely destroy me but i really like the interactions between all of the guardians in this one)
5. Flop, Flutter - cthchewy (technicality, big nasty soulless bro yikes sorry)
6. The Estrangement Thing - NoBrandHero (there’s a theme here listen to me don’t be doubtful it’s worth the trouble, there is brojohn in there, which is not my thing at all, but it is NOT relevant to what i like about this fic, and i think if u read it, u will realize that immediately lol (*i am not including second best even though that fic is literally my favorite ds fic ever because it is NOT bro centric))
7. cold front off the pacific - drow_sy (i actually read this bc geometrician bookmarked it lol but it punches down on u and i like that)
8. insect clockwork - SORD (aka, if it was written pre-2013, i’ve read it)
9. Flashing Lights and Raisins - RadioMoth (the strider manpain tag exists for a reason)
10. Hide - Plajus (OG post-sburb type shit. we love to see it)
11. Blackout - lantadyme (bro strider sick fic. Wrow. old shit. I don’t even know how i have held onto these for this many years.)
Things that don't quite fit into the category necessarily but It's MY List Not Yours:
12. signs at sundown - geometrician (I don't need to say it, do I? I think we understand, I do think that. Imagine being canon together with you favorite author. Imagine it. Wow.)
13. No Homo - Laurasauras (bro/dennis. yes, dennis from gamebro. yes, it's good i've said it before i'll say it again. i'm into it, i think you should be too.)
14. flash - problemsloth (this shit is just. absolute chef's kiss to me. i don't know how else to explain it. young bro. he's perfect, and perfectly dreadful)
15. play ball! - spacepuck (this is a johndave fic but it has this very stressful atmosphere around bro and dave that kinda fucks me up and also, delights me beyond reason. it tastes like summer to me. sandlot lookin ass. an old favorite)
#this list is. shorter than it could be and longer than i meant it to be#this is by no means a Full List there's lots of other stuff out there#rabid raccoon rehab is for everyone obviously#and i am not a person who reads a ton of ship fic so if there are good fics that also have ships in them i probably just haven't read them#lol sorry about that#sloth has a brodad that's on my to-read which i think will probably be added to the actual doc but at this time i have not read it#i want to say i take recs but the truth is they will probably end up in the shameful pile of Marked For Later that grows taller and taller#every day that passes by#well anyway i just wanted to talk about empty nester like an insane person so#i want to say u can just like. plug in all the things i have excluded on ao3 for bro's tag and then sort by kudos and these will pop up#but the truth is that i have also been dragging some of these around with me for literal years and there is a Reason they are top kudos'd#to me#anyway yeah okay sure whatever sorry this is just. hells of embarrassing it's all homestuck it's all bro related sorry#for non bro centric fics consider begging on ur knees or it will never see the light of day#actually i think you'd have to pay me or weasel your way into my server. it's not happening is what i'm saying#ANYWAY OKAY FINALLY IT IS DONE
17 notes
·
View notes
Note
As an indie/self-publishing author, do you have any advice on how one could reach out to an author for a blurb of their upcoming 2024 debut book? Is it appropiate to reach out to their agent, their email, etc?
Ugh. Blurb-getting is the absolute worst. I'm going to be REALLY REAL with you, OK? It can be really hard to get blurbs from total strangers, even for trad published authors who have an agent and editor helping them.
Unless you know the author personally, I prefer blurb-askers to go through me, the agent, because I don't want my client to have to be in the position to say no to people, it sucks. Most of my clients also prefer this, and if you were to approach them separately, they'd probably suggest that you go through me. I'd say that's your best bet. Make sure to include all the relevant information about your book, and the deadline by which you need a blurb.
HOWEVER: It's highly unlikely that most "name authors" in the trad-publishing sphere will blurb a self-published book from a stranger -- not because they are snobs (well some are probably) -- but rather, because popular authors are inundated with blurb requests, far more than they could ever possibly read. While it's flattering that people want to approach them, obviously, if they read all those books for endorsements, they wouldn't have time to write their OWN books. Many popular authors in this position will have a no-blurb policy -- or one per season, or something like that. If they do blurbs, they probably have already been approached by lots of people they know, or their editor recommended, etc etc, and are full up for the season. It's just hard to cut through the noise if you don't know the person, and hard for the person to commit to doing a favor for a stranger when they are busy.
THAT BEING SAID. If you aren't asking for a blurb -- but are just offering a copy for their enjoyment -- that might go over better. Write a lovely email -- include genuine flattery about the author, why you think they might really enjoy the book / why you thought of them -- an image of the cover, etc etc. And say, look, I know you are inundated with blurb requests, so I'd just like to offer you a copy of the book because I think/hope you will like it. If you do, I'd be over the moon to get an endorsement or a mention on social media, but there's no deadline and no pressure. (Or that kind of thing) -- in other words, do NOT have expectations, but if you really think they might love the book, hey, why not offer it. And you might just be pleasantly surprised. Maybe they will send a blurb! Or, review it or talk it up to their friends. Even if they just tweet about the thoughtful author who send them this rad-looking book - -that might be MORE useful than an "official" blurb!
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
Sorry for all the ooc but at least this one's about writing!
My s/o joined a N*w V*gas discord some months ago and he's told me some unfortunate things about how roleplayers who picked up Legion characters for the server turned out to be weirdos/fascist sympathizers.
It sucks that one of the two fallout factions I'm even remotely interested in attracts these kinds of freaks. I understand how that happens tho (I literally wrote my masters thesis on the appropriation of roman/greek aesthetics by modern american extremists). But it bugs me either way.
When I write, I'm never trying to make sense of the Legion or make excuses for them. I never touch characters like Caesar, Lanius or Joshua because I have no interest engaging with their thoughts or writing from their perspectives. That's a waste of time for ME personally, and as a person from a colonized people I'd rather talk about the people who are subjected to their tyranny. The frumentarii are as close to authority as I will ever touch, and even then I take liberties in stripping away their power and exploring what it really means to suffer while surviving directly under Caesar. I have no sympathy for the Legion, and I never endorse what happens in the things I write. Though because of these freaks I fear getting misinterpreted or glossed over. I'm also afraid of weirdos thinking they'll have a safe space with me when I'd sooner bite into concrete.
This is all to say that I wish more people would approach the Legion from the bottom and not settle for what's at the top. I'd love to write stories about soldiers, workers, artisans, survivors, rebel groups, etc. It gets really boring seeing threads of people either using the Legion as easy canon fodder for action stuff or as a vague wall of evil coming in from the East. All of you are so creative, you could do more! You could destroy or change the Legion in so many creative ways ;-;
There's real pleasure in just randomly killing Legion troops, that's true! I do that very often in-game. So trust that I understand and by all means go ahead if that nurtures your motivation for writing. But there could also be so much more!
Plus, as someone writing Legion characters, who has spoken to other cooler people writing Legion characters, it becomes VERY DIFFICULT to write with ANYONE because of everything I already mentionend.
7 notes
·
View notes
Note
I recently updated a fic that I wrote in 2014 because I got a heartwarming comment last January and honestly I have never been more motivated to complete that mofo. Got out all 7 chapters to complete it within the end of the month. Now those are comments that fuel you and your muse like the both of you chugged Red Bull, Duracell battery fluid, and whatever the fuck Dionysus was endorsing behind a Wendy's to spite the throne of god and the lies it was made on. Those 'is this abandoned?', 'update quickly' etc...that's just makes me less interested in ever picking it back up.
Yes yes yes to all of this. This kind of thing happens a lot more often than people seem to think. It's one of the reasons why I'll always scream to please PLEASE leave gushy comments on fics you love. Not matter how long it is, not matter how old. You never know when your comment is going to be the kick that gets the author to say Fuck It and throw down another 50k words or something
42 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
malfoytrash-blog
come at me Craig
therealnorapresley
Nora Presley
azso
AZso vs. Tumblr
loshyhon
Untitled
dog-training-cannot-p
Parcelling of alessi model farther make gross