maybe with more info it'll change but Javert>Valjean gets funnier with the way it goes in the book
like Javert saw Valjean when Javert was in his early 20s, then he became a policeman, and some 15 years later (when he’s around 40) he meets a guy, his instinct goes !!!! and he spends FIVE YEARS watching him and thinking about him and studying him and collecting info and trying to make him crack, but also three of those years were spent being extremely respectful towards Madeleine because he was his superior (not to mention Javert avoided him as much as he could in those three years), and all that time Madeleine is just kind to him and Javert's mind just goes: but convict? can't be? no? yes? no? but my instinct! but instinct is not infallible! convict? no?
and then Madeleine is not kind to him once and Javert gets petty and goes yeah, he's Jean Valjean after all
65 notes
·
View notes
Here is your answer then, humblest of mortals
The reader may believe a goddess came bearing a message for the king or believe it was only the effect of the smoke from the braziers. The acolyte can offer no corroboration. From the slightly bored expression on her face, I gathered that she saw only the king lying on the floor, not Moira bending over him, the pattern on her shawl changing in the dim and uneven light.
"Eugenides," said Moira, and I heard for the first time what the Oracle's voice only echoed. "Tell me again why you pester the Great Goddess?"
[...]
She crouched beside him and pushed his hair to one side, tucking it behind his ear so that she might whisper softly into it. "Here is your answer then, humblest of mortals. You will fall, as your kind always fall, when your god lets you go." She patted him on the shoulder. "Now you know what many men do not."
~Megan Whalen Turner, Return of the Thief
Me, tackling yet another scene where the complicated lighting situation is explicitly described: There better not be any fecking complicated lighting in there
But the temple scene has been living rent-free in my head ever since I first read RotT, and after the tentative lifting of the most recent bout of art block (also known as Too Much Stuff Going On), I thought it was a good idea to tackle it at last. Although I cannot reccommend taking on illustration ideas clearly above one's skill level when one is also lacking the time and motivation to do it justice, sometimes a half-assed exorcism is better than none. Or, in this case, a half-assed invocation. I guess. Please do not ask me about the perspective or proportions. Let's blame it all on the coleus smoke, OK?
51 notes
·
View notes
Looking back on the books I read this year, and was reminded of just how much Megan Whalen Turner's The Thief- absolutely frustrated and disappointed me. Spoilers ahead.
To some degree, this was going to happen; the whole series has been heavily hyped up to me, it's hard for any book to live up to such lavish yet vague praise. But, you know, I actually got through most of the book without being distracted by my own expectations. It was tense, and spare- it felt like every word mattered and hinted at an underlying truth. I love when books withhold from the reader, and nudge at you to consider what might be left unsaid. And I was so, so satisfied when my predictions paid off (totally called Gen palming the stone rather than losing it).
The worldbuilding was interesting and unique, I enjoyed that the author wasn't committed to a super specific and our-world-accurate timeframe for technology, and I found the characters compelling and variable. I always enjoy travel stories, nevermind stories about thieves.
Which is exactly why I was so annoyed by the ending.
Again: I love twists. I love being able to predict them, and I love being surprised. I did not feel like any of the twists in The Thief were unearned; it's a well-composed book, with plenty of foreshadowing.
However, one of the twists, despite being foreshadowed, absolutely blindsided me- because I would not have considered it as a possibility, due to undermining exactly what had me so excited to read The Thief in the first place. Fantasy literature sometimes shies away from politics, into pure escapism and fluff. Even some of my favorite fantasy books are pretty hollow when it comes to their fundamental beliefs, and shy away from challenging the status quo- unless it's to restore old glory (cough The Old Kingdom series).
But I can almost always count on stories about rogues, and thieves, and con artists, to at least bring up the issue of class. These characters so often come from disenfranchised backgrounds, from the poor and displaced. They're street rats and gutter scum, who have clawed their way up from the bottom, and never forget where they came from- can never forget, from the way others treat them. Theft is subversive; there's a reason we won't let go of Robin Hood, but even more self-motivated thieves often have something to say about the unfairness of wealth distribution. Stories about thieves almost always have something to say about the relationship between the wealthy and the poor.
So, yeah, I was really fucking annoyed at the reveal that Eugenides was actually the Queen's cousin. That pretending to be from a lower class background was so insufferable to him; that of course he's only so educated and knowledgeable because he's a noblemen, that it was so hard for him to pretend to be stupid and crass like a peasant. That the reason he was so pissed about being disrespected by his captors wasn't because they beat him and imprisoned him and insulted him constantly, that they treated him as less than human because he was poor and a criminal, a tool for their own use and disposal- but because he was one of them, and it injured his pride- his noble pride, not his human pride- to be treated like that. Like he wasn't one of them, and deserving of their respect.
Fuck, I hate it so much. It immediately took away my favorite parts of the book- the tension between Gen and the magus's companions, the weight of the magus having been a commoner once, the way Gen constantly stuck by himself and refused to just accept his shitty treatment- the way every monarch treated him as a means to an end. I thought there would be more tension in Gen having conflicted feelings of resentment and camraderie with the magus- I thought it would pay off with either some of them acting in his interest for once, and/or some of them rejecting their freindship and leaning back into that class difference between them.
I'm not opposed to Gen having been working for the mountain kingdom the whole time! But there are so many other ways to do that- I was suspecting that someone was holding his family hostage in some way. It's easy to imagine a story where Gen is a lower-class thief, who was also being used by his own country's royalty.
But, making Eugenides a nobleman is a subversion of the classic trope- which means it's clever and interesting. Uugh. It just exhausted me, and- disappointed me. I loved so much of this book, and it had been a while since I'd read a good low-fantasy story about thieves. It was suspenseful, with rich descriptions, and interesting character dynamics. I thought I was getting something like Fly By Night by Frances Hardinge, or The Goblin Wood by Hillary Bell- not necessarily stories about thieves, but stories about the underestimated and undervalued, peasant con artists and hedgewitches. But with more of the tension and bite of your average dnd rogue getting up to stupid shit (my go-to class since I was a kid).
I totally understand why people love this book. There is a lot I really admire within it. But man, I don't think I can get over how much that final twist- not just rejected my original interpretation of the story. That's fine, plenty of good science fiction or horror does that. But that it specifically rejects the character and story type of the lower class thief. The very name of the series, The Queen's Thief, had me expecting a story about that seeming contradiction; about the power imbalance, and a constant game of cunning, of maintaining autonomy despite being bound to a royal power. And I expect there will be some of that, in the later books; it just loses a lot of its appeal, when it turns out Gen himself is a nobleman, who was doing a favor for his cousin, the queen.
I liked that the book ended with more insight into the mountainous kingdom, and Gen's feeling of belonging and pride to a cultural group everyone else had been deriding- but that didn't have to be accomplished by him being related to the nobility of that country. None of this had to be accomplished through Gen being a nobleman; it just felt like a 'gotcha' subversion, taking away, rather than adding more.
25 notes
·
View notes
PJO RANT FOR THE ONE PERSON WHO ASKED :D
@seeking-further-illumination here you go, lol.
I think that the expectations of the show were for exactly what everyone wanted, because of Rick's involvement and the budget, but everyone imagined the books differently, so not everyone could ever be happy with it.
There's that, and it is marketed towards a younger audience and I'm not making any assumptions but most of the fans who aren't happy [from what I can see] are a bit older then the target audience [not that there's anything wrong with that, obviously, don't come at me], and if you re read the first book it's literally written for children.
There's literally backlash for everything ever made because for some reason people just can't chill [???] but I think the reason the Percy Jackson show had such a large amount of people unhappy with it is because we haven't had anything like it before. I don't know how to explain it but we've all created our own little versions of the show and made our own content for the fandom cause we were left to our devices for so long, so now that we have something, viewers already have these empires in their heads that they want to see on screen.
I'll just put it like this, if the show came out, like, a few years after the og book series, there would be less people unhappy with it.
11 notes
·
View notes
okay so disclaimer about differing social mores of the time and intimate friendships and modes of expression meaning that straight men's interactions were often different than the average straight dudes of today, i haven't read up on the author but the subtext is most likely unintentional blah blah etc etc
but
y'all. i have lost count of the times i've stopped in my reading to be like. bunny, sweetie, that's gay. dude has it baaaaaaad for raffles
I see his indolent, athletic figure; his pale, sharp, clean-shaven features; his curly black hair; his strong, unscrupulous mouth. And again I feel the clear beam of his wonderful eye, cold and luminous as a star...
it's the UNSCRUPULOUS mouth that gets me. that's the most (probably unintentionally) homoerotic thing i've read since hemingway's description of f. scott fitzgerald "The mouth worried you until you knew him and then it worried you more."
8 notes
·
View notes
The neverland kisnapping AU?
anon this beast is EXTREMELY SELF-INDULGENT and i made it purely and 100% because peter pan has been a fixation of mine since i was a little sprog (specifically the 2003 version with jason isaacs as hook)
TL;DR baz and his siblings are awayed in the night by a sinister faerie creature known as peter pan, who baz finds out has been doing away with the lost boys when they get too old to play his games anymore.
(extra dangerousTM because baz discovers that not only can he be injured like a normal person here, but if you die in never-never-land you DO die in real life)
also finds out that captain hook used to be pan's right-hand playmate as a child and has been rescuing pan's castoffs to try to fight back, the guy takes baz under his wing and teaches him to swordfight. that coat is the one hook was wearing when pan maimed him, and he gave it to baz because it was the only thing he had on hand that would fit a teenager.
"Didst thou ever want to be a pirate, me hearty?"
bonus content when baz gets back to watford simon has a minor crisis about him looking all scarred up and adventurous and rugged
72 notes
·
View notes