I’m not in the business of predicting stories anymore…. At least, it wouldn’t be a hill for me to die on, or what have you. I’ve learned my lesson. At the same time, I have opinions, and often they’re pretty strong, and my feeling that I naturally get the narrative subtext in a given story and others seem misunderstand at a basic level is also strong. In a way, it almost seems funny, ‘cause these days it seems like people misunderstand a lot more important information, to a lot more problematic results. It’s like, well, misread fiction all you want. That’s what it wants you to do, especially when you’re talking about plot points that haven’t happened yet. Misreading the news and otherwise factual information is just a bit more dangerous and unfortunate.
Still… I’m not sure I want to forbid myself from arguing with people about low-level fangirl stuff, especially since I mostly do it in my head. It’s okay to have some innocuous debates and disagreements, even– or even especially– in today’s fraught times. Actually, it could even be seen as training wheels for your viewpoint tolerance. If you can’t handle courteous opposition to your interpretation of a book, how can you live in a world where people may violently disagree with your right to live, at least without living in a bunker?
Anyway, to the degree I’m exposed to fandom of any kind, it’s people’s comments on the fanart they post or repost on Instagram, so… really minor. Even so, they often feel the need to preemptively defend their ship from attack, claiming hate won’t be tolerated. No one leaves any room for disagreement, on either side of ship wars, anymore than they do in politics. It’s sad. And you see familiar claims and reactions– new theory comes out with new content, is popular, and before you know it– boom! The old ship/theory is oppressed, hated, persecuted. And the worst part is that the debate probably *does* devolve into persecution. Though I mean, I also think people become pretty sensitized to disagreement and criticism of their beliefs/interpretations, too. I’m not 100% convinced that when the minority shipper fanart posts say 'hate’ they actually mean harassment, stuff that goes beyond strong disagreement.
Of course, I mean, I suppose people are even more justifiably interested in a 'safe space’ in their shipping than most other contexts– certainly moreso than political discussions. You don’t have to entertain debate about your favorite ship. It’s really only because, as usual, people try to justify their ship using rational arguments. But the whole point of a rational argument is that it’s *arguing* something. A ship itself is not an argument but a preference. It’s only once you make up supposedly 'good’ reasons that I start getting twitchy.
I suppose I’ve mostly talked myself out of engaging with the arguments, per se. Overall, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, especially when the ship in question is seen as the 'minority’ interpretation. Like I said, it’s just because of the argument itself.
In this case, the ACoTAR series Elriel fan quoted Cassandra Clare, who wrote that “Being told that love is forbidden doesn’t kill love. It strengthens it.” This appears to be a reference to Rhys, as the High Lord, forbidding Azriel not to pursue Elain in the book extra epilogue everyone’s in an uproar about. This takes the whole situation in the epilogue out of context, basically. Like, yeah…. this would apply, but only if you claim the relationship in question is *love*. Based on the epilogue, it seems a lot more like lust and loneliness, even entitlement. The whole epilogue interaction before that conversation with Rhys was clearly showing the cracks in the reading which previously portrayed Azriel as a romantic, sweet gentleman when it comes to Elain. Not that he’s not a gentleman with her, but it’s more like he’s not really being himself. The context makes the situation more complex than 'Rhys stands in the way of a strong but forbidden love bond’, and in fact that interpretation is pretty silly.
Anyway, in a book series where 'pure love’ with both main love interests so far involved letting the woman go…. basically, there’s a lot of missing context. I can’t help but come up with these rebuttals in my head. I miss arguing with people about books who were actually up for it… but to be honest, fandom was always pretty bad about enabling healthy debates, especially about anything to do with shipping. You don’t even get to feel good when you’re right (unless you’re in your fannish safe space), 'cause most people whose ships sink tend to blame the author and not their own reading.
Not sure what the ideal would be, though. Probably only if I was actually personally friends with a person who shipped something I didn’t, and then we had a conversation about it when their ship sunk. I have this feeling like a part of the problem that creates ship wars is just that these opinions, once they’re widely enough shared, are automatically presented as *groups*, and therefore they’re part of group dynamics. Basically, disagreeing with a friend or even just a single person is not the same as a whole group constantly saying they’re right and your opinions are wrong. Tbh, though, a lot of times even friendship is not enough. I mean, it’s enough not to ruin the relationship between us, but fans who’re really disappointed tend to just be angry and sad, and not in the mood to care much about the book or show in question. I generally tend to retain some interest in open-ended deconstruction even when I’m really wrong, but even my analytically minded friends have been more likely to just quit the fandom and/or stop engaging with the subject.
Not like all my ships have come true by any means, but generally, I have an innate sense of what’s likely and why things make sense in context, especially in retrospect. This reconciles me to all sorts of unfortunate events in stories that I wouldn’t have otherwise preferred. The type of people that see things this way tend not to take sides (or have ships) to start with. Myself, I am like a true believer/fangirl type and the centrist/canon only type rolled into one. I definitely take sides and have strong feelings and preferences… just… retaining a sense of humor and rational criticism of my own preferences and thoughts. Alas, most people are… not this way.
Heya, didja miss me? haha *taps mic* Testing, testing. Is anyone even here?
I’m not in fandom, but I did miss rambling about stories enough that I did it in an Amazon review for a sci-fi romance on Kindle Unlimited. Enough factors combined that I was both alarmed and curious, so I skimmed to the end and it appears the alien hero murders the human heroine within a few paragraphs of the end, during what should be their wedding, because she refuses to have sex in public, in front of her daughter. They go straight from ‘no this is culturally inappropriate’ to 'sure okay I’ll die for my cultural norms’ and the hero just goes with it no problem, though he declares his love as he does it. Well then.
I don’t generally write Amazon reviews, and this isn’t a review, per se. I was curious about the ending and so I read the very end (instead of the very beginning). Things that stood out as bad, more so than the big shocking twist:
- Internal motivations aren’t clear, or even mentioned, even at a pivotal moment.
- Further, internal conflict (where obviously expected) is missing and not shown or told. This makes the big event– the hero murders the heroine– fall flat.
- It has no emotional leverage because of the way it comes out of nowhere (even within a page’s length) and has no apparent build-up or space for denouement. This sort of reliance on a shocking end twist and a surfacey and disconnected narrative is a sign of very, very amateur writing.
- You should not be able to follow the action in the ending from a quick glance. That is a sign, in and of itself, that the ending is apparently disconnected from the story and may even be considered random, just an end because the author needed something to happen and likes pointless drama. Lack of denouement makes the drama pointless in and of itself.
- There’s a reason big things happen in the middle of the book (the big crisis point) and not the end. That’s because readers feel cheated when it happens at the end, and emotionally satisfying plot or character arcs are made impossible, unless the whole work is a tragedy. Note, tragedies are the opposite of sudden. The whole point of Romeo and Juliet is the ending, and it’s built up from the first word Shakespeare wrote in the play. A tragedy is not a love story; they’re two different genres using human romantic relationships as a theme.
- Basically, these few pages at the end are enough to prove to me reading the book would be a pointless waste of my time. I do like analyzing why not, though, so here you go.
For the Month of Love challenge: ‘'Lost in Translation”
I picked the two main characters from Robin McKinley’s book about icky, gross, non-sparkly vampires. Sunshine is a baker whose magic comes from sunlight, and Con is an undead corpse. The two of them have to figure out a way to make their bizarre friendship work.
So I was thinking, broadly, about romance/attraction and the idea of insta-love and how that gets parsed for m/f vs m/m. I see a lot of it. I see so much of it that I don’t think it even registers unless it’s *love*. Like, for ex instant attraction and sudden/fast physicality in m/m stories and fic is pretty much the default. It may even be less overtly prevalent in straight romance. In gay romance, if you’re not having sexual thoughts at first sight, you’re probably a closeted and/or repressed character. The standard really depends on characters being modern and out, though. Not modern or not out are accepted reasons to have slow-burn and/or denial.
In m/f romance, often enough sex is deferred, but generally only because it’s seen as the ‘prize’ where the hero is having some emotional experience rather than merely physical. Generally, many authors even go to extreme (and silly) extents to defer het sex just so it wouldn’t be meaningless at first. Though of course sometimes you have a lot of sex and that’s the path to a lasting relationship and the reason for angst/development. This is common in m/m stuff, less so in contemporary m/f, which clearly seems unfortunate, or at least retrograde somehow. The women definitely feel fast attraction too, but excuses are made, obstacles arise and sex remains a reward.
Anyway, it’s rare when sex isn’t had and kisses aren’t either, *but* it’s just because that’s the natural progression and not 1) the author is very clearly not into writing smut and so sex feels like it isn’t really real anyway, so kisses may substitute for the timing sex would have; 2) there’s the the reward dynamic where it’s used as a motivation for change or a reward at the end, like I mentioned.
Alternatively, of course, there’s the insta-love phenomenon. It almost never happens in m/m romance, though it does in fic 'cause of the desire to skip to the good part we all know is real from fanon. In m/f romance, I suspect it’s a get-out-of-jail-free card so you can have sex as early as desired 'cause the emotions are in the bag. This sort of manipulation gets old, though it can be done better or worse. You start seeing gradations after enough exposure. I like mating bonds. At least it’s an excuse.
What happens in male-written m/f action/plot driven stuff is something else again. Kisses from the woman are sort of used as currency or a reward, which is bullshit, but a similar dynamic exists in female-written stuff, except the reward is held back longer. It’s hard to be incensed since the whole thing is stupid. There’s always more and less annoying ways to go about it, though.
WithGood Omens, I could tell the witch and the witch hunter were set up structurally. That’s more of a connection than you can expect, like the guy in the Battle Angel Alita movie– he was just the first her age to pay attention to her. Here, the exchange (so far) is more straightforward in that it’s sex/kissing (attraction under extreme circumstances) and not a shoehorned “love” of convenience. The two things are pretty different. If anything, I support random pairings based on physical attraction. That’s realistic, 100%. There don’t need to be Deep Thoughts or Feelings involved. That’s where it all goes wrong: romanticizing sex for spurious reasons. Possibly to placate women or moralistic people. I dunno.
Slow-burns that feel real and earned and not like people who fight their attraction for invented reasons are rare like hen’s teeth. Honestly it also works better when you have characters who are asexual or closeted. Normally, people don’t need deep or meaningful reasons to have sex or even have a relationship, unless there are outside factors. Especially het people. Like, I dunno, this applies to average guys in bars but even a guy like the one in Good Omens (the schmuck) ultimately is just a guy who never wanted to be a schmuck and will take the first opportunity to stop, definitely.
There are certain things in a post or book review (usually on Amazon) that tell me that the fan in question is projecting rather than actually seeing the story or characters clearly. Today I saw pretty much all of these in reviews to Sapphire Flames by Ilona Andrews, which is a spin-off to a popular urban fantasy series:
Why does the love interest like the protagonist (if I don’t like the protagonist and/or it’s not spelled out)
Why is the protagonist overly like the former protagonist, who is her sister (or too unlike the protagonist, whose personality was better)
Why would any ostensibly competent adult character behave irrationally with someone they don’t know that well but like? Clearly it’s bad writing
Why would any ostensibly competent adult make mistakes or irrational choices we disagree with or find silly? The characters can only be likable or respected if they’re always sensible and mature, after all. Clearly it’s just more bad writing
How could the old favorite, the former protagonist, possibly have failed to do X rational/logical thing? Clearly it’s out of character
How could the main romantic relationship in an ongoing series not be resolved by the end of the first book? Clearly it’s a major plot hole
How could a minor character’s motivation possibly be what the text suggests, if the subtext says it’s in fact something else? Clearly that too is a plot hole
How could one pick up up on these seeming contradictions or subtext and not have it be unintentional? Clearly, only the reviewers are smart, not the authors.
Crazy stuff. It’s interesting because I actually have read another genre book by a usually decent author where the characters did do rational things and behaved reasonably even in their romantic relationship, at least 90% of the time. The only time I was remotely invested in the story was the brief period where the love interest was behaving irrationally, but that was resolved easily enough and without even overly hurt feelings. All these people can’t even imagine how mind-numbing it is to read about the rational behavior of reasonable people, and then somehow end up asking yourself why the love interest likes the female main character, too. So it’s not like I can’t relate, per se. In this case, at least it’s just that he never shows much impulsivity and it’s based on a magical mate bond, so the later declarations of love just feel really out of left field. It’s more like they’re glad they got all that angsty beginning relationship stuff all but skipped over and can now be reasonable and dependable together. Close enough to love, surely? Conversely, Andrews’ love interest may also be a competent adult who’s focused primarily on work and/or his mission, but he’s portrayed as a passionate Italian man for all that. He’s human.
I should note, characters whose behavior is truly irrational are maddening to read. Here, I just mean it ‘doesn’t make sense in context’, though. Usually it either involves a dependence on a character’s overreactions to get the character to do dangerous but plot-needed things consistently, or the character simply doesn’t process some basic, logically apparent aspect of the plot until it’s conveniently too late. That’s very, very frustrating. But way too many people forget that while it’s bad writing to force irrational behavior to drive plot (known colloquially as a female protagonist being TSTL), the fact is that we are all TSTL sometimes. The trick to a character acting irrational and making it work, as Ilona Andrews demonstrates, is twofold: have the character (or others) be as aware of this failing as possible, and contrast the irrational behavior with some instances of competence and common sense. Note, I’m saying that a character being ‘rational’ enough is about stuff like not constantly running into danger with no weapons, or failing to follow up on misunderstandings. It’s not about thinking five steps ahead or not making emotionally driven decisions in general.
The fact that some people don’t get this only suggests they’re projecting, or their own decisions are probably generally not emotionally driven, in the case of this particular issue. Of course, this doesn’t bother me as much as times where people point out basic subtext as if it’s a critique to notice those things, rather than an observation of an intentional aspect of the book. Sometimes it’s literally like some readers (or worse, writers) have never heard of subtext before. This leads both to bad writing and bad reading.
I don’t know if this is where sociocultural rambles like this go, but I have no place else to really go. So OK, one of the most important progressive slogans (starting at least with the American youth response to the Vietnam war) is the ‘no to war’ stuff. This critique also applies to American interference with Iraq or Syria in similar ways. War has been long understood by people in the West in general and America in particular as a *choice*, that it’s just really easy to imagine how it’s better to quit. Note, the exception isn’t even in US discussions of WWII, but the Civil War and the War of Independence. These are the only wars Americans fought due to existential threats to the country itself.
Anyway, so I think the whole concept of war being necessary sometimes (most prominently when your country is invaded and there’s an attempted hostile overthrow of the state) has been forgotten. It’s been boggling my mind as I try to imagine how people could honestly imagine Ukrainians are just being unreasonably aggressive in response to actual invasion, and the West is encouraging this aggressiveness for their own reasons. And the only thing I can come up with is that for those arguing in good faith, with no particular sympathy for Russia, it’s just that we’ve all forgotten the point of war. And in America, we’ve never really experienced it and are pretty insulated from such a scenario.
I mean, both 9/11 and Pearl Harbor have two things in common: 1) at least initially, pretty much no one in the US disputed the need for immediate and strong response; 2) they weren’t actually existential threats to the existence of the US.
Like yeah, OK, Japan attacked American territory, and politically or *pragmatically* speaking, the US couldn’t just be seen to let that go. At the same time, what are the odds the Japanese were literally going to be able to summon the sheer number of infantry forces and the navy needed to present a realistic threat to American existence? Next to none, though more than a bunch of terrorists could do in terms of direct force. People were shocked and angry, and felt vulnerable, but as a country, was the US ever truly vulnerable to invasion or even a war spilling over on home soil?
Well, we can answer that question in the affirmative, but only if we accept that terrorism = war. But at the same time, you can’t really broker a peace with terrorists the way you can with a nation state, either. You can pull out of the Middle East, but there’s no actual guarantee the terrorists will be happy with that and leave the West alone in that case. After all, there’s always revenge. It takes a long time for even an absent enemy to stop presenting a convenient target.
Anyway, my point is that we’re all used to wars of choice. In that situation, the moral high ground goes to whoever chooses peace. You can argue that the war in question is still justified, but it’s inevitably an uphill battle. There’s good reason so many people are cynical about such wars: so often, the common people on both sides die while the elites get richer on their blood and tears. It’s a dark thing, even if you can justify it.
But the attempts by many to pretend that Ukraine resisting a straightforward invasion by a stronger, larger neighbor is a similar situation is just… unconscionable. I can only begin to excuse it in some cases because like I said, Americans and indeed most Westerners alive today haven’t experienced a 'just war’ (though there’s a reason why Putin loves invoking WWII references… for Russia and much of Europe, it was indeed a war facing an existential threat).
When another country violently invades you with the intent of taking over the government and dismantling your national identity and power to resist tyranny, this is the equivalent of attempted rape and murder– on a broad scale. It’s not so much a metaphor as a simple generalization, because the soldiers of that country straight up want to murder you, your friends, your neighbors, and many of them won’t stop at raping or pillaging, either.
Not that war isn’t always traumatizing and horrific. But not all war is total war, where there are no limits and the society may crumble if the citizens as well as the soldiers don’t fight back. This is what we mean when we use the word 'genocide’, although no word can capture the reality of such a thing.
The thing is, I think the reality of such a thing is so huge, so terrifying and absolute, that it’s essentially unknowable for many. It takes a leap of empathy and imagination to truly conceptualize the ruination of everything and everyone around you, while accepting it’s not your fault and either you escape, help the fight (even just in maintaining morale) or you perish. I understand that. That’s why I keep thinking about the comparison to telling a person facing repeated rape and (attempted) murder they they shouldn’t fight back and others shouldn’t help, and they should simply take it and hope it’s over quickly.
To be clear, the violent criminal engaging in rape and attempted murder (in fiction, at least) often seems to advise the victims not to struggle or 'make things difficult’. Sometimes there’s a little speech about how it’ll just be worse if the victim fights back and the criminal has to make an effort. Inevitably, the victim in stories fights back in a way they may not be able to in real life, and the audience certainly doesn’t blame them. Because that would just be weird and unnatural, wouldn’t it?
Anyway, essentially, when someone has a knife to your throat, and the throats of everyone you love, I imagine that suddenly you too will *want* to fight back, and wish for victory and even vengeance.
In summary: when facing death, either individually or as a people, the moral high ground shifts, and there’s a moral imperative to survive. There’s no moral or indeed practical benefit to submitting to violent oppression. I mean, there’s a calculation that’s necessary to avoid nuclear war, certainly, but I’m talking about those wishing and hoping that Ukraine simply submits to its own ruin and the death of its people. It’s honestly just kind of ridiculous. The *only* scenario where surrender is indeed better is when it’s *necessary*, and fighting further is suicidal, and your country is faced with overwhelming odds or is facing weapons it cannot counter. Even then, in most cases the type of resistance simply shifts to guerrilla warfare and civilian resistance. This is actually the way in which all people will instinctively fight for freedom. It’s not just a slogan, after all.
frankly i’m obsessed with @abd-illustrates ‘s costume designs for his parts of the sanders sides calendar and his speedpaint was a huge part in me getting back into sanders sides sooooo. boys <3
This drove me mad. Making this decision was really hard for me, cos in all whatever I do will affect me in the future. I was gonna take up a course with no income and no financial backing from anybody.
As I said and showed before I’m a makeup artist and I have been since 2011. I put it on hold to get a 9-5 job that I disliked. I got paid but getting paid ain’t enough.
So I’m working in an industry that I love and I enjoy working in, save some money and/or work whilst studying.
So I deferred for a year and then I’ll go to college and study.
In the meantime, please check out my Instagram @gaellemmua
