This idea come fully formed this morning and I had to write it all down.
Note: If you want to run with it and make it a fic/art/whatever please do because I doubt I will write it unless I can think of a good story beyond blending the two worlds.
Basic Plot:
During the height of the Jaeger programme, a rich benefactor called Stede Bonnet builds his own Jaeger called the Revenge and want to pilot it himself. Unfortunately, he’s not found anyone who is Drift-compatible amongst his crew. (He originally thought his wife would join him, but he knew deep down it wouldn’t work even if she wanted to).
He gets injured in a kaiju attack and finds himself taken care of by Edward Teach, one of the greatest Jaeger pilots in the programme’s history.
Edward asks Stede to try Drifting together and they work incredibly well, coming up with a plan to save a city under attack within a day of knowing one-another. They begin to pilot the Revenge together, whilst Izzy is furious they can Drift so easily. He hates Stede with a passion and tries to sabotage their every mission.
Edward is desperately trying not to give away that he likes Stede while Stede feels really strongly about Edward but he doesn’t really know that what he is feeling is love.
During a bad training session, they both end up chasing the RABIT and delving into their worst fears. Edward remembers how he killed his dad after years of domestic and child abuse. Stede remembers how he was bullied and how his dad hated him.
Together they fight kaijus and work through their problems and make out.
Main Characters:
Stede Bonnet: Rich benefactor stuck in an arranged marriage who wants to be a Jaeger pilot more than anything. Commissions his own Jaeger and runs away to the LA Shatterdome to start his career.
Edward Teach: The best Jaeger pilot in the entire programme, having had 12 kills with multiple co-pilots. Edward is currently piloting with Izzy Hands on the Jaeger called Blackbeard but they are not compatible (Edward is just good at blending in and adapting to his partners). Edward is bored with the rock star lifestyle and would love to give it all up, but Jaeger pilots pretty much don’t get to retire, only die in battle.
Izzy Hands: Current co-pilot with Edward on Blackbeard but brings out the worst in Edward. (When Edward and Izzy Drift together they become ruthless and less concerned about civilian casualties/collateral damage.) Wants to be immortalised amongst the greatest pilots but can only achieve that with Edward, and so he is dismayed when Edward finds the perfect co-pilot in Stede Bonnet of all people.
Stede’s crew:
Oluwade: LOCCENT Mission Control Technician. Voice of reason and brilliant leader.
Jim: They first work as a mechanic for the Revenge, keeping their head down until they are discovered and become Assault Specialist. They worked with their family in the Lima shatterdome until their family was killed by a kaiju attack (Jim knows they were put in the line of attack by a corrupt politician and seeks revenge).
Olu and Jim are Drift Compatible but haven’t been given the chance to test (yet).
Lucius: Journalist following Stede’s story. Stede acts like he’s his personal biographer, which Lucius goes along with so long as his expenses keep getting paid.
Black Pete: J-Tech Engineer. Claims he worked on Blackbeard, but nobody believes him.
Lucius and Black Pete get together and have the suspicion they might be Drift Compatible but they are in no way interested in piloting a Jaeger.
Frenchie: Neural Bridge Operator. Scams other Jaeger crews for laughs.
Wee John: Weapons Specialist. Has a crush on Frenchie but hasn’t acted on it yet.
Roach: J-Tech Engineer and team cook.
Swede: J-Tech Engineer and general disaster.
Buttons: Battle Programmer. Claims he can talk to the kaiju but nobody wants to take him up on proving it.
Other notable characters:
Mary Bonnet: Finds herself alone after Stede runs away to become a Jaeger pilot. Uses her wealth to help people on the Pacific coastlines and raise awareness of the corrupt Anti-Kaiju Wall programme.
Calico Jack: Edward’s old Jaeger partner before Jack was injured in battle. Comes back after Izzy contacts him to break up Edward and Stede. Tells Stede they used to be an item to throw him off on their next mission.
Nigel Badminton: Stede’s childhood bully and now in charge of the Anti-Kaiju Wall programme. Thinks Jaegers are a waste of money and resources.
(I’m uncertain if Stede kills him by accident or if he’s just a pain in the arse foil.)
Spanish Jackie: Kaiju Organ Harvester and mob leader.
Not sure who the Marshall/Officer of the LA Shatterdome would be, if it matters?
I’m reading Coriolanus and, like, what’s Shakespeare’s beef with guys named Brutus? He’s got two dudes named Brutus who overthrow “ambitious” Romans. This is not about historical accuracy. Shakespeare regularly did not give a shit about historical accuracy. Julius Caesar had a goddamn clock. Some Italian boy named Brutus pissed him off and he was like, “you know what’s good name for the guy who’s gonna start a coup? Brutus.”
Uh if this isn’t fully a joke I will argue in defense of the historicity of Julius Caesar, since the play actually follows the events really well.
Don’t worry, I know about Julius Caesar, but there’s academic debate about whether or not Coriolanus’ story was based on a real historical event. The joke was that Shakespeare decided they should both be Brutus. One Brutus is accuracy, two Brutuses is suspicious.
(My specialty is Julius Caesar so I get excited when it looks like there’s even a small question about it) As far as I understand, it seems Coriolanus takes place near the beginning of the Republic, where there was indeed a tribune named Brutus, who was supposedly an ancestor of the Brutus in Julius Caesar. (Also IIRC the earlier Brutus also appears in the poem the Rape of Lucrece, since he was one of the men who deposed the Tarquin, hence the line “My ancestors did from the streets of Rome the Tarquin drive when he was called a king.”) So if Coriolanus takes place around the time of the founding of the Republic, that Brutus could very well be Lucius Junius Brutus, who actually did exist. @strengthsbystrengths any commentary on the Coriolanus side?
Historical links with the two tribunes is one of my favourite underrated things about Coriolanus so thank you for the tag @percyhotspurand@the-full-shakespearience you’ve just given me the opportunity I’ve been waiting for to ramble about my favourite topic
Because it all ties in that Martius being proud isn’t just a petty jab, but paranoia that he’s going to be like their last king, Tarquin the Proud.
While it compresses seven years together, rearranges some events and is much more critical across the board in terms of characters (the original is much more anti-plebeian, and the play is much more critical of Martius despite him getting arguably a more sympathetic portrayal here) Coriolanus is actually pretty good in terms of historical accuracy, with some of the speeches taken almost directly from Plutarch. While there’s still questions over whether the entire thing is mythological, I think at the time of writing the plays there wasn’t that doubt. There was actually a second tribune called Brutus, but he only appears in some of the versions of the Coriolanus myth and doesn’t have a full name, while Sicinius appears across the board. He could be inspired by Lucius Junius Brutus, the famous member mentioned in Julius Caesar, and parts of his speeches against Coriolanus could be inspired by his oath to “suffer no man to rule Rome” and causing the people “desirous of a new liberty, not to be swayed by the entreaties or bribes of kings.” He was one of the major players in overthrowing Tarquin after pretending to be loyal and obvious and was against the family prior to the events of the Rape of Lucretia.
But he died leading what looks like the first battle Martius fought at 16 at Silva Arsia (making Coriolanus in his 30s through the compressed timeline of the play), and with the way he’s treated by other characters, particularly in being mocked by Menenius, I doubt he’s supposed to be Lucius. His two sons, Tiberius and Titus, also shared the name Junius Brutus, but they’re also dead by the start of the play: brutally tortured and executed as their father watched after they tried to reinstall the monarchy.
‘Junius Brutus’ is just the family name and title without the first name (like Martius Coriolanus without the Caius; Julius Caesar’s Brutus, Marcus, shares it too), so it feels like he’s been characterised as a mixture of its early members: the sneaky duo trying to gain their own power, and the man willing to sacrifice anything to ensure another tyrant doesn’t become king.
With the republic being little over a decade old at the start of the play, regardless of the specifics of who he is, just being a part of the family ties him straight to the reputations of Lucius, Tiberius and Titus. I’d love to see a production with more distinct tribunes, because they’re histories are so different: at the very least Brutus was a part of one of the most prominent, beloved and honoured patricians families, and Sicinius was a plebeian. Potentially one of the first to come to power, and he personally planned and lead the protests from the beginning of the play (which were actually peaceful successions to a nearby hill). There seems to be more bitterness between him and Coriolanus than Coriolanus and Brutus (he’s the one who wants to throw him off the rock), so a lot of Coriolanus’ hatred towards plebeians can come off as very personal insults. It also makes how carelessly the tribunes use the people in the play so sad, particularly with how much they adore them in later scenes: Brutus is from a family who swore to protect them, and Sicinius is one of them whose finally managed to give them a voice, perhaps the first to do so.
Speaking of the people and early founders, it also adds a lot to some other characters. I think Valeria is criminally underused, not only due to her fantastic speech convincing Volumnia to go stop her son, but also due to her family: her brother was another one of the founding members and Martius shows respect to her due to it (calling her the “noble sister of Publicola, the moon of Rome”), but his very title means “friend to the people” and a lot of his career was dedicated to aiding the people and stopping the monarchy: including all rights being forfeited of anyone suspected of restarting the monarchy, as they seem to fear Coriolanus does. He’s in some ways the anti-Coriolanus, publically mourned for a year and having his funeral was payed for by the people (shortly after passing consulship to Menenius Martius is literally the only one of his friends without a consulship Volumnia must be so disappointed). And his reputation for public support precedes him: for Hamilton fans, the Federalist Papers written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay used his name as a pseudonym. Historical Coriolanus is even more blatantly classist, but in the play he actually shares more in common with the plebeians than his fellow patricians, and a lot of their lines mirror each other; it seems ironic he turns down money and customs when they’re the main things separating him from them.
And the paranoia of Coriolanus’ consulship turning into another monarchy could be tied to Cominius as well, who was one of several consuls burned alive on order of the tribunes (different ones) a few years after Coriolanus attacks Rome due to plotting to make a consul king. A lot of the lines from him and the tribunes are very interesting through that lens, either through genuinely plotting to make Coriolanus a puppet king - the tribunes do wonder if his “insolence” can endure to be commanded under Cominius and that a lot of his honours are due to Martius - or whether the tribunes exploit the suspicion for their own gain.
Aufidius’ depiction also could tie into the “King Martius the Proud” undertones. While Shakespeare does use the historical names he’s given and they come from a different root, Tullus does sound a lot like Tullia, the name of both of King Tarquin’s wives. The first and oldest was milder and gentler, while the younger was fierce and ambitious, and after being in-laws the pair murdered Tullia’s husband and sister to marry each other. She also encouraged him to take the throne himself, ordering the assassination of the former king: her own father, who she then ran over in a chariot. While Aufidius does take Martius into his house and give him his army in all versions, the blatant sexual and romantic note to their relationship, and the attention its given in the play, is purely Shakespeares. So its plausible that a lot of Aufidius’ characterisation could have been taken from Tarquin’s life, making him almost a Lady Macbeth type figure and I have another entire Aufidius rant with the fragments of Volscian history/mythology and ties to Homer
But speaking of reoccurring Italian names, it sounds like Shakey might have had a fling with a a sailor called Antonio or five
The only reason why vigilance over yourself would fail is that passion does not always approach in its obvious form, but often appears to be so comely that you think it is something good, not guessing it is a passion. When anger erupts, for example, it is evident to everyone that this is a passion. However, anger is not always in its obvious form; it often appears as righteous indignation. Every passion has a similar habit of dressing itself up and posing as something comely. You are virtuous and may fall for this bait quite easily. Watch out! One must renounce all that is passionate in its most insignificant forms and subtlest features. Observe, accordingly, and do not allow anything inside.
This is why I get meal kits. Do I need them? No. Can I easily make them myself? For way cheaper? Yes. WILL I??? No.
Other tips: if you are going to buy things that aren’t pre-taxed, you need to make a habit of always doing the prep AS SOON AS YOU GET HOME. it will NEVER HAPPEN if you don’t.
Get the bulk pack of steaks! But you are never gonna eat them before they go bad. If you freeze them in individual ziplocks as soon as you unpack you probably will?
Get the celery, but you need to cut it ALL UP and store it in the fridge in water or it will rot.
And don’t do all tgese at once, get like, one or two prep things a trip. You aren’t gonna get it started if it’s a huge task.
ALRIGHT EVERYONE I FIGURED OUT HOW TO DO FUCKIN INVOICES SO HERE YOU GO HERE’S THE TUTORIAL
invoices are an easier / safer way to request money from commissioners. all the commissioner has to do is accept to pay the money, so you don’t have to worry about them clicking or typing anything that will get you in trouble with paypal.
STEP 1
underInvoice Information you can choose what date your invoice needs to be paid by. if you don’t have a specified date for your commissioner then make sure to select No Due Date so they don’t get into any trouble for not paying by the default date.
STEP 2
go through your Business Information to make sure it’s only showing what you want it to show. your default template may show your address, phone number, name, etc, but everything is optional and can be turned off. personally i only keep my e-mail visible so commissioners know where the invoice is coming from.
STEP 3
your commissioner’s e-mail goes here
STEP 4
fill out what your commissioner is paying for and how much it costs. double check the Total towards the bottom to make sure you’ve filled out everything correctly. keep item names vague like “commission” or “image” since paypal may freeze your account if they catch any buzzwords they don’t like.
STEP 5
here you can fill out any terms and conditions your commissioner should know about, ie when you accept payment, if you give refunds, etc.
STEP 6
in the Memo box you can write a note for yourself to see when you look at the invoice. you can write down who commissioned you and anything else you’ll need to remind yourself of later
TEMPLATE
remember that you can replace the default template so you can save your business info, terms and conditions, etc for the next time you fill out an invoice.
IF PAYPAL IS ASKING YOU TO “SHIP” YOUR DIGITAL COMMISSION
look under Selling Tools on your home page and click Seller Preferences
clickUpdate next to Shipping Preferences
go to Display Ship Button at the bottom and make sure Goods is un-checked
reblogging this again because i’ve been seeing that post about paypal charging thousands of dollars over policy violations floating around
idk what policy violations those apply to, but just in case, i want to direct everyone to invoices, which is a much less risky method of requesting money than relying on the customer to pay themselves!!
I started using invoices a couple of years ago and they’ve saved my ass so many times. It’s a great way of keeping track of your commission info which you can cross-reference with Trello or Google Drive or whatever you use for queuing, that way you know for certain who has paid and who hasn’t.
Welcome to my commission sheets! Thank you to everyone who encouraged me along my journey this last year–I’m overjoyed to be able to share my art with you. Please pay attention to my pinned post for when commissions are open/closed, and feel free to send me a DM or email to discuss your ideas!
Dream SMP Quotes as if it were the 1800s (or maybe Shakspeare. I can’t tell which anymore)
“Behold! I wear a garment of chalk! Why dost thou imagine me a keeper of answers?” - Fundy (“I’m wearing a crayon suit. What the f do you want from me?”)
“I have just slain a woman. All is well.” - TommyInnit (“Just killed a woman. Feeling good.”)
“Master Tomathy, are we knaves? Are we the villains of this grand tale?” - Wilbur (“Tommy, are we the bad guys?”)
“Thou wish'st to be remembered as a hero? Then perish as one!” - Technoblade (“You wanna be a hero, Tommy? Then die like one!”)
“If I cannot be blamed of laughter, then upon my honor, I shall be blamed of tears.” - Fundy (“If I can’t make people laugh, then I’ll make them cry.”)
“Doomed! Doomed from the moment of inception!” - Eret (“It was never meant to be”)
“If the path of blood be the only choice, then I walk it with bold stride.” - Technoblade (“There’s no other way. I choose blood.”)
“Behold the pickax in my hand! It shall rearrange thy mouth!” - Technoblade (“I have a pickax and I’ll put it through your teeth!”)
*Quick aside: Techno is just SO quotable, it’s incredible. It’s what he gets for being an english major :)*
“Art thine eyes blinded? Dost thou not behold history circling back upon itself as before?” - Technoblade (“Don’t you see what’s happening? Don’t you see history repeating itself?”)
“When next the sun rises, it will rise on a world unfamiliar to its ancient eyes.” - JSchlatt (“This place is gonna look a lot different tomorrow.”)
“Give us liberty or give us death.” - Wilbur (“We would rather die than give in to you and join your SMP.”)
“Hades opens his arms to me and I am drawn into his warm embrace.” - Ranboo (“There I go. Down to hell.)
And finally, my favorite one:
"For all their stark differences, the people of the world share a common tongue, though they realize it not. It is the language of the beasts in the wood, the language of fists and blades, of strength and domination. We speak this language, too.” - Technoblade (“The only universal language is violence, and we’ve spoken that language.”)
Comment or message me with quotes you’d like to see done, or repost and add your own :)
i saw a post abt the mcelroys and their fandom and since i didnt agree entirely w/ the op and my brain went off on a related tangent im making my own post:
i think the level of scrutiny/boundary crossing/pedestal placing that goes on with people who get overly involved in the lives of minor internet celebrities (who dont have the money to protect themselves from the audience) is really uncomfortable and weird at best and grotesque invasions of privacy at worst. the way people use the same attitudes to talk about/discuss real people as they do fictional characters is unsettling and i think there needs to be a mass call for some empathy in fandoms that involve real people. at the very least the fandom needs to coach themselves on maintaining a respectable distance from the people who work hard to provide them with entertainment, instead of feeling entitled to every single aspect of their being.
yeah, yeah I know I already reblogged “autobiography” earlier today which is basically about a thousand times more exactly what I want to say than any essay could possibly be BUT then I went and actually read what people are arguing here and you know what
SOOOOOOOO
There are two things that are being collapsed in this argument that we really, really cannot afford to collapse. That is:
For AO3 to be a sustainable project long-term, there needs to be a comprehensive policy in place designed to prevent its users from harassment and abuse; and
Some content that people would like to host on AO3 is, to some people, vile or offensive.
Both of these things are true. However, it does not follow from (1) that we need to regulate or restrict the content of the works hosted on the Archive to ensure the content referred to in (2) doesn’t make it onto the Archive. People seem to be taking it for granted that (1) means banning all that stuff in (2), and that’s wrong.
(cw for high-level references to the existence of rape, underage sex, and anti-Semitism; as well as one marginally more specific reference to kinky sex)
“[H]arassment and abuse occurs when a person—a user of a given platform—is subjected to content, by means of that platform, that they find vile or offensive, without their consent and without the ability to avoid it.” Awesome way to lay out the issue!!!
so as we all know, my dumpster fire of a family, the pittsburgh penguins, have done some fuckups lately! i’ve gotten a couple of asks about it and i thought i’d just make a post.
Q: DO YOU THINK THE PITTSBURGH PENGUINS DID A FUCK UP? A: buddy, i sure do!!!!!!
Q: ARE YOU SPITTING MAD ABOUT IT? A: buddy, i sure am!!!!!! youcantellbecausei haveyelleda lot. i plan to yell some more, all season, until they’re like, “why won’t this girl leave us alone?” and then i’ll be like, “YOU KNOW WHY PITTSBURGH!!!! YOU KNOW WHY.”
Q: DOES THIS MEAN YOU’RE GOING TO STOP SUPPORTING THE PENGUINS? A: listen…………no. sorry. it doesn’t. i feel weird and conflicted about it, but they’re still my favorite team and i still want them to threepeat unless they lose in game 7 to the marc-andre fleury golden knights. that would also be fine.
Q: BUT YOU JUST SAID THEY WERE BAD? HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT SOMETHING BAD? A: i am a complex person capable of loving something and being disappointed in and angered by it at the same time.
Q: DON’T YOU THINK YOU SHOULD JUST SUPPORT A DIFFERENT TEAM? A: i’m really sorry but it doesn’t work like that, and even if it did work like that, literally the only team in the NHL that is not guilty of something is the las vegas golden knights and that’s because they are 3 days old. i’m not saying it doesn’t matter just because everyone is doing it! of course it matters. arguably it matters more, because it is a symptom of the toxic and greedy shit the NHL does, constantly. of course it is fair and right to be angry, specifically, at the pittsburgh penguins, and even specifically sidney crosby, who had the platform and the opportunity to do a good or even just morally neutral thing and instead chose to do a gross thing. i support 100% your and my right to be angry at them/him.
it isn’t that i think it’s not a big deal. i think it’s a very big deal. i’m so, so angry at them. i’m angry with them while i’m watching them play and i’m angry with them while i’m ignoring their interviews out of spite. remember that scene in sex in the city where charlotte is like, “mommy loves you but she can’t look at you right now” to her dog?
that’s how i feel about the pittsburgh penguins.
but i still want them to threepeat. if you feel like you have/want to give up being a fan of the pittsburgh penguins, or even make them your hockey nemeses, i support you doing that. do what you gotta do, bub. we all have our limits about what we can tolerate in the things we love, and if this is your limit, then please! abandon them. i don’t blame you.
Q: BUT– A: i know, buddy. i know.
Q: IF YOU STAY A PENGUINS FAN YOU MUST CARE MORE ABOUT SPORTS THAN DOING WHAT’S RIGHT. A: okay, well. we’re all works in progress.
Q: I CAN’T FOLLOW YOU IF YOU’RE GOING TO KEEP REBLOGGING THE PENGUINS. A: i get it!!!! be free, little bird.
sometimes I just want to talk about media theory and its relation to media criticism. stuff like “criticism of media should be proportional to its source, reach, and context in order to be effective” where:
Source: is the media putting itself forward as an expert, educational, or reliable source? Is the creator seen as knowledgeable? Historical accuracy is very important in documentaries, far less so in doctor who episodes. Documentaries should face harsher criticism than doctor who for historical innacuracy.
Reach: how many people can be expected to see this? How accessible will it be? What are the barriers to entry? highly promoted movies should face harsher criticism than unlisted YouTube videos. Obscene content with no warning should face harsher criticism than obscene content with a warning.
Context: where was this published? How does it compare to other similar works on the same platform and in the same time period? How reputable is the platform and the media shown alongside it? Works published in an online journal should face harsher criticism than tumblr posts. 20 year old editorials should face less harsh criticism for not using modern vocabulary.
Effective: how likely is this criticism to stimulate a productive discussion and potentially effect change? Would a change by the creator and/or audience have an impact that’s worth your time? Spending 48 hours to get someone to take down a post with less than 200 views just isn’t worth it, especially if you increase its reach in the process. Sometimes languishing in obscurity is a more effective criticism than anything you could say.
Sometimes languishing in obscurity is a more effective criticism than anything you could say.
This is something I feel like everyone needs to understand a lot better.
So, back when Ancillary Justice was essentially sweeping that year’s SF awards, there was some talk from certain quarters about it not really being all that, people only claimed to like it because Politics and SJWs and PC points and Affirmative Action and nobody was really reading the book and if they were they didn’t really enjoy it, they just claimed they did so they could seem cool and woke.
My feelings were so hurt that I wept bitter, miserable tears every time I drove to the bank with my royalty checks. I mean, those people must be right, it’s totally typical for non-fans who don’t actually like a book to write fanfic or draw fan art, totally boringly normal for students to choose to write papers about a book that just isn’t really very good or interesting, and for professors to use that boringly not-very-good book in their courses, and for that book to continue to sell steadily five years after it came out. I totally did not laugh out loud whenever I came across such assertions, because they were absolutely not ridiculous Sour Grape Vineyards tended by folks who, for the most part, hadn’t even read the book.
Now I am sorry–but not surprised–to see some folks making similar assertions about N.K. Jemisin’s historic (and entirely deserved) Hugo Threepeat. Most of them haven’t read the books in question.
But some of them have. Some of them have indeed read the books and not understood why so many people are so excited by them.
Now, Nora doesn’t need me to defend her, and she doesn’t need lessons from me about the best way to dry a tear-soaked award-dusting cloth, or the best brands of chocolate ice cream to fortify yourself for that arduous trip to the bank. Actually, she could probably give me some pointers.
But I have some thoughts about the idea that, because you (generic you) didn’t like a work, that must mean folks who say they did like it are Lying Liars Who Lie to Look Cool.
So, in order to believe this, one has to believe that A) one’s own taste is infallible and objective and thus universally shared and B) people who openly don’t share your taste are characterless sheep who will do anything to seem cool.
But the fact is, one doesn’t like or dislike things without context. We are all of us judging things from our own point of view, not some disembodied perfectly objective nowhere. It’s really easy to assume that our context is The Context–to not even see that there’s a context at all, it’s just How Things Are. But you are always seeing things from the perspective of your experiences, your biases, your expectations of how things work. Those may not match other people’s.
Of course, if you’re in a certain category–if you’re a guy, if you’re White, if you’re straight, if you’re cis–our society is set up to make that invisible, to encourage you in the assumption that the way you see things is objective and right, and not just a product of that very society. Nearly all of the readily available entertainment is catering to you, nearly all of it accepts and reinforces the status quo. If you’ve never questioned that, it can seem utterly baffling that people can claim to enjoy things that you see no value in. You’ll maybe think it makes sense to assume that such people are only pretending to like those things, or only like them for reasons you consider unworthy. It might not ever occur to you that some folks are just reading from a different context–sometimes slightly different, sometimes radically different, but even a small difference can be enough to make a work seem strange or bafflingly flat.
Now, I’m sure that there are people somewhere at some time who have in fact claimed to like a thing they didn’t, just for cool points. People will on occasion do all kinds of ill-advised or bananapants things. But enough of them to show up on every SF award shortlist that year? Enough to vote for a historic, record-breaking three Hugos in a row? Really?
Stop and think about what you’re saying when you say this. Stop and think about who you’re not saying it about.
You might not have the context to see what a writer is doing. When you don’t have the context, so much is invisible. You can only see patterns that match what you already know.*
Of course, you’re not a helpless victim of your context–you can change it, by reading other things and listening to various conversations. Maybe you don’t want to do that work, which, ok? But maybe a lot of other folks have indeed been doing that, and their context, the position they’re reading stories from, has shifted over the last several years. It’s a thing that can happen.
Stop and think–you’ve gotten as far as “everyone must be kind of like me” and stepped over into “therefore they can’t really like what they say they like because I don’t like those things.” Try on “therefore they must really mean it when they say they like something, because I mean it when I say it.” It’s funny, isn’t it, that so many folks step into the one and not the other. Maybe ask yourself why that is.
This also applies to “pretentious” writing. “That writer is only trying to look smart! Readers who say they like it are only trying to look smarter that me, a genuine,honest person, who only likes down-to-earth plain solid storytelling.” Friend, your claims to be a better and more honest person because of your distaste for “pretentious” writing is pretension itself, and says far more about you than the work you criticize this way. You are exactly the sort of snob you decry, and you have just announced this to the world.
Like or don’t like. No worries. It’s not a contest, there’s no moral value attached to liking or not liking a thing. Hell, there are highly-regarded things I dislike, or don’t see the appeal of! There are things I love that lots of other folks don’t like at all. That’s life.
And sure, if you want to, talk about why you do or don’t like a thing. That’s super interesting, and thoughtful criticism is good for art.
But think twice before you sneer at what other folks like, think three times before you declare that no one could really like a thing so it must be political correctness, or pretension, or whatever. Consider the possibility that whatever it is is just not your thing. Consider the possibility that it might be all right if not everything is aimed at you. Consider that you might not actually be the center of the universe, and your opinions and tastes might not be the product of your utterly rational objective view of the world. Consider the possibility that a given work might not have been written just for you, but for a bunch of other people who’ve been waiting for it, maybe for a long time, and that might just possibly be okay.
____ *Kind of like the way some folks insist my Ancillary trilogy is obviously strongly influenced by Iain Banks (who I’d read very little of, and that after AJ was already under way) and very few critics bring up the influence of C.J. Cherryh (definitely there, deliberate, and there are several explicit hat tips to her work in the text). Those folks have read Banks, but they haven’t read Cherryh. They see something that isn’t there, and don’t see what is there, because they don’t have the same reading history I do. It’s interesting to me how many folks assume I must have the same reading history as they do. It’s interesting to me how sure they are of their conclusions.
Real Person Fiction is a tense subject in fandom. When I joined in the Metazoic era mid 1990s, reading about The X-files, everyone knew that people wrote RPF about Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny, but nobody wanted to admit they were into it. It wasn’t just suspect, it was bad, rude, because you were speculating about people’s actual lives. These days, basically everyone on Tumblr is down with Gillovny.
I’ve had the same transformation of opinions as the rest of fandom (these days I’m into One Direction). So here are some objections to RPF that I used to have, but have gotten over.
RPF is just about lusting after real humans, which is creepy!
Desiring celebrities is as American as apple pie. Open up Playboy orMaxim and observe the starlets laid out for your delectation. The reason you don’t see this as “lusting after real humans” is that you have been brainwashed by the patriarchy. RPF, in its very porniest version, is basically the same thing. And much of RPF isn’t actually porn, or even sexually explicit.
RPF is not accepted anywhere in the world. Socially, we have a contract not to write RPF.
Have you ever heard of a little Broadway show called Hamilton? That’s entirely about real people. Oh, you want high culture? Read Don Delillo’s Libra. Or look at any of the movies that fictionalize recent events—The Social Network, for instance. That’s unauthorized real person fiction about Mark Zuckerberg. Your argument is invalid.
What about when the subjects of RPF find stories about them? What about how they feel?
Well, presumably you aren’t tweeting or emailing your RPF to celebrities. If you are, you’re in the same category as people who send unsolicited dick pics to hot ladies on Instagram. Outside of that possibility… the price of fame is an increase in people talking, thinking and writing about you, which can be equally gratifying and miserable. It’s part of the deal.
If you don’t participate in celebrity culture at all—don’t read tabloids, don’t think about them, don’t ever speculate on the lives of famous people who aren’t long dead—then you might have a leg to stand on here. But get real, you go to the hair salon and pick up Peoplelike everyone else.
When celebrities complain about the attention, I get it. I wouldn’t like paparazzi in my business either. But RPF isn’t stalking. It isn’t paparazzi following you around. It doesn’t intrude into your daily life. And more than that, it’s not about you: it’s about a fictional you. RPF is not the same as tinhatting, or claiming to know some ~truth about celebrity relationships, or what have you. It does not claim to be an expression of the truth. And that puts it miles ahead of things like this, which are chock full of lies intended to deceive:
But wait, you’ve said before that you stopped writing Sleepy Hollow fic when you hung out with the cast. How does that match up with all this?
Yeah, I did. I didn’t like writing it at that point, because I had intended to write Ichabbie and after meeting Tom Mison and Nicole Beharie, I didn’t want to write a sex scene featuring their characters. I don’t think I would be morally wrong to write such a scene, it just felt strange to me, and since I write fanfic for fun, I decided not to do something that wouldn’t be fun. I don’t think that my feelings are a moral compass.
So does that mean I should write stories about you?How would you feel then?
If I don’t know you, how I feel is irrelevant. If I do know you, then you’ll have to weigh my possible reaction against how badly you want to write that fic. Similarly, if you love a celebrity a lot, you might want to think “what if they read my fic?” before writing it. If the answer is “they would hate it and we could never be friends,” and that bothers you, then probably don’t write it.
Think of it this way: I might choose to write a story including a character being abused. If I had a friend who’d been abused in exactly the same way, they might have all sorts of feelings about this. I’d need to find out how the friend would feel and, if they would be hurt by it, I’d make a decision about whether I valued writing the story or keeping the friendship more. I might make either decision—to keep the friend or write the story—and I don’t think one or the other is the “obvious” right choice.
Personally, I don’t think I’ll ever know One Direction. If I did ever meet any of them, I have no idea what we would talk about. I don’t think we share very many interests. So if, in an imaginary world, I met one or all of them, there probably wouldn’t be a budding friendship to ruin anyway.
