#endings but... it isn't really a book that lends itself to a interpretative ending so

[lemonhemlock]

hi! I wanted to know your opinion, I also love helaegon, but even in books it is written about aegon's infidelities. do you think he loved Heleina romantically if he was cheating? yet before B&C they slept together

i ship helaegon, so yeah, i do think there was romantic love woven into their sibling bond. which, in and of itself, is a curious and fucked-up starting point to expand upon. was he a perfect husband? lol no. sure, fire & blood doesn't stop to spell out every relationship and interaction between these people, bc the medium just doesn't allow for it.

but we do know some things about helaena. she is hinted to have been a very popular and charismatic person - she was an involved mother to three children, was beloved by both alicent AND viserys. even rhaenyra didn't have any particular beef with her. the common people loved her so much they rioted in her name, which means she had a very active public persona, perhaps related to charities and other good works and wasn't holed up in the palace all day.

she claimed dreamfyre, so that proves she was a brave and enterprising person, not afraid to take risks and take charge of the situation, if needed. milquetoast pushovers are not really successful dragon claimers - i feel like fandom glosses over this aspect a lot and the show doesn't help. can you imagine how it must feel like to fly in that time when the only method of air transportation is a dangerous fire-breathing creature? or to have a deep telepathic bond with one?

so, in this context, aegon isn't really given any particular reason to dislike her. she has a retort at hand whenever needed, is not afraid of her husband, is involved in political decisions before B&C and aegon even listens to her. is that a whole lot of build-up? ofc not. but it's really not the "helaegon h8 each other" gotcha zinger that's become popular in the fandom. although hotd does not help in this regard.

in the show she is kind of the opposite of what she was portrayed in FB - she's shy, withdrawn, keeps to the palace grounds, is mostly ignored and content that way. these traits are not "bad" or "good", but it does change the family dynamic and imo not much is done to compensate for it. i don't get the feeling they're telling a better story with this, just a more frustrating one by not providing some kind of counterbalance.

at the end of the day, this relationship has a lot of potential for interesting exploration, but any adaptation will boil down to what specific themes the writers want to develop. and, whenever readers interpret this ship, they're also going to be viewing it through whichever lends they find more compelling. it's always going to be like this with any underdeveloped aspect of any story.

so, if you make aegon hypersexual and helaena withdrawn, that's definitely a choice that's going to inform how these characters interact with each other, but that new dynamic is different from the text and we should acknowledge that, not pretend it was like this all along.

as for whether it's a good change to make or not, i'm not inclined to say so. transforming helaena into another long-suffering wife, when she is already going to lose her mind over the trauma she is subjected to, is boring. they already explored that with alicent and, at the end of the day, helaena is not your typical westerosi lady. her dragon is bigger than aegon's, but nobody bothers to take that into consideration. she should be whacking her brother over the head if he's being annoying, not cowering in fear of him.

#like. could we have some nuance in this house please #messy relationships can still be complex and interesting #it's not all just one party is shitty and the other is suffering in silence #fire & blood gives us some bones; it's up to us what kind of meat we use to dress them with #helaegon #helaena targaryen #aegon ii targaryen #ask #demonvgolove

[insideline]

people Outside sports fandoms are often surprised at the concept of sports rpf (see everyone shocked abt hockey rpf atuhors) but i think it makes a lot of sense! sports lends itself particularly well to fic for a few reasons: (longish text under cut)

1. lack of an author & externally fabricated narratives

fanfiction is an extension of the story world, for example prodding into plot holes, imagining an alternative ending, providing different perspectives than the original author's narrative. the thing with most (well-written) stories is that they're already complete and there isn't AS much material to extrapolate from. comparatively, there isn't any central authority on what is/isn't canon in sports, thus there's a lot of room for imagination and evolution!

narratives within sports are created communally. there's a fanspace agreement on what each athlete's "story" is, extrapolated and manufactured through championship standings and media interviews. those sources of info aren't really linked together at all, they're reports on Things that Happened without any kind of teleology. sports news sites and fan accounts coming up with narratives of teammate infighting, or redemption arcs is essentially a form of creative writing, which then clearly leads to rpf.

2. evolving stories and publicity

books and movies are limited. there's a certain finality to it each series- these three books in the trilogy is all that you get, and there's nothing further created. sports are a never ending story. you have the same narrative arcs played over and over again with different people (ex. young rising star unseating the established champion a la kimi/seb -> seb/charles etc.). this means that the fandom can't really die out after a season's over like other media fandoms die- there's another season of racing to come, another series to follow, or vintage races to watch.

there's also just so much more content available to extend on! "canon material" can mean anything from the races themselves, pictures of the drivers together, news reports... these many avenues provide different access points for a broad variety of people interested in the sport, inviting more authors into the space!

3. character "space"

in rpf, there's a multiplicity of characterizations and media sources available. athletes show a "public self," and authors fill in the distance between the public self and the private self. different scenarios reveal different traits (ex. a drivers personal social media vs. them in team publicity videos). in other forms of media, there is only one "self" of each character as there is only one official distributive source for information. this constrains the possibilities for characterization. however, in sports rpf you see a lot of competing understandings of each athlete as people interpret media sources in their own way! this ultimately leads to more fic written as different readers/writers are attracted to different characterizations.

i think all these characteristics lead to especially good writing in rpf fandoms that i dont see in others!! purely anecdotal of course, but all of the most Literary fanfics ive read have been from sports rpf.

this is all just me thought-dumping after reading real body, fake person: recontextualizing celebrity bodies in fandom and film which i recommend reading!! its a comparative analysis of the similarities in biopics and rpf, i cant remember who exactly first shared the link but shoutout to them

#f1 rpf #fic #z rambles #f1 fic meta #no idea how to tag this lol #fic stuff

[megexpress]

Finished reading:

Gods of Jade and Shadow by Silvia Moreno-Garcia

The Ten Thousand Doors of January by Alix E. Harrow

The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society by Mary Ann Shaffer

The Mermaid by Christina Henry

The Turn of the Key by Ruth Ware

Dear Evan Hansen by Val Emmich (+ Steven Levenson, Benj Pasek & Justin Paul)

Currently reading:

The Clockmaker’s Daughter by Kate Morton

#Meghan's reading list #books #gods of j&s wasn't my cup of tea. i struggled #to finish it. forced myself to plow through it. it's most def a YA novel but limp & #lifeless (but perhaps i'm too old for it? idk. it just wasn't to my liking). 10K Doors #on the other hand WAS SO FREAKING GOOD DUDE I LOVE IT SO MUCH. it #is v much up my alley. if Netflix is looking for a book to adapt next...u can't go #wrong w 10K Doors. TRUST ME. TGLAPPPS was... meh. not into the entire #book written in correspondence. the ending was also abrupt so it fell short. movie #on netflix was better imo. The Mermaid was GREAT. i enjoy how christina henry #writes & her world-building so i knew it would be the perfect palette cleanser. #Turn of the Key was great until the disappointing ending. i'm all for open-ended #endings but... it isn't really a book that lends itself to a interpretative ending so #that really annoyed me and soured my enjoyment (it was creepy tho!). DEH was #obv not as good as the play but having watched it & listened to its amazing #soundtrack it really added to the experience. pt 2 upped my rating from a 3 to a 4 #but then the final ch/epilogue upped it to a 5 rating. #now i'm reading a book that #has been on my shelf for a really long time. taking one for the team. let's go~

[mittensmorgul]

do you think it's open to interpretation whether dean and cas are in love with each other? Like is it just as valid an interpretation to say they're not? Whenever anyone calls destiel "one interpretation" or whatever, my hackles rise. And I know I'm overly sensitive about this stuff, being a gay and whatnot, but I mean, is it? Am I just insecure because my otp isn't canon, or is destiel really more valid than other readings or what? What do you think?

Hi there. :)

I’m gonna give you the diplomatic, academic answer, and then I’m gonna give you the grumpy-ass queer lady answer. Hold on to your horses. :)

Polite answer:

All media is open to interpretation. Of course, this doesn’t mean that all interpretations are equally valid, or equally supported by canon, especially when taken in context of the entire body of the work in question.

For example, I replied to a post the other day about 13.17, and that scene where Dean and Sam are-- on first glance-- rather disrespectful of the extremely rare and valuable books in the bunker... but in context of the rest of the episode and the rest of the season, that montage wasn’t about disrespecting those books at all. It had less than nothing to do with the books themselves as objects or as sources of knowledge that should be properly cared for and respected. But out of context it kinda looks that way. So, based on that one short gif set, it might seem like a perfectly legitimate interpretation to suggest that Sam and Dean were careless with the immense knowledge and invaluable books they’ve found themselves in possession of. But in the larger context of their entire history, of all their interactions with the bunker and the untold store of knowledge it holds,  and with the context of the specific reasons for their frustration in that particular scene, it seems obvious that there’s a lot more to the story, you know?

You could technically argue just about any weird headcanon can be supported by canon. I wrote this weird little post right after 12.11 aired, and it sat in my drafts for a good long time before I finally posted it. But there’s nothing in canon that legit quashes the possibility that endgame fish!Cas is where the story’s been headed all along. He’s positively swimming in fish metaphors. (sorry, I couldn’t resist) Does that abundance of fish, fishing imagery, and water imagery that have surrounded Cas for years lend itself to a literal interpretation? I mean, it’s definitely AN interpretation that is there if you want to see it, and if in your heart of hearts you believe it’s legitimately what the storytelling is attempting to convey here. But does that make it a valid interpretation that deserves serious consideration? Does it truly make sense when taking the larger story around Cas as a whole? Or is it obviously a literary theme that we’re supposed to consider through the themes traditionally associated with fish and fishing as used in countless other fictional works of the past? I suppose that sort of interpretation has been left open for us to take or leave as we see fit. It invites us to examine those references more closely, to help us understand Cas as a character and the journey his personal character arc is taking him through. It gives his experiences and growth a depth of context that is there to explore if we so choose.

(for more on Cas vs Fish, please see my tags regarding “The Fisher King.” I like to think there’s a more well-reasoned and logical line of thinking for pinning so much fish to Cas than my cracky example of fish!Cas would suggest.)

Now, looking at destiel specifically, if you take any single moment out of context, it’s absolutely possible to make an interpretation that their relationship is clearly more “brotherly,” or clearly more “familial,” or clearly one of “very close friends.” But it requires the same removal from the larger context to explain away what taken with the entirety of their history begins to look entirely undeniable.

I suppose, since Supernatural is an open canon and the story hasn’t been fully told yet, that it’s possible the writers could change course with the storytelling. It’s possible that something might prevent them from taking Dean and Cas and their story to the conclusion they’ve been building to for the last ten years. They could decide to leave this particular “interpretation” open-ended and unresolved.

Since that is always a possibility, and because I’m not psychic, nor do I have any top secret inside information from the writers and showrunners, I can’t say that my particular interpretation is more valid or correct or likely than anyone else’s. But I have yet to come up against a credible, coherent explanation for the entire body of extant canon that invalidates my particular interpretation, either.

The vast majority of arguments against boil down to logical fallacies-- cherry-picking scenes out of context as “proof,” straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks. Because of this, I’m content to wait for canon to play out. I’ll happily watch the rest of the story unfold, and happily continue to interpret what I’m witnessing as a whole instead of attempting to dissect it out and explain away what I see as an entirely logical progression of storytelling.

As an aside here, I find it entirely fascinating that one of the most common complaints I read from people who deny Dean and Cas are in love is that the writing has become progressively more terrible, that the story of Supernatural as a whole makes less and less sense, and that the characters are behaving in increasingly “out of character” ways. And as someone in possession of rational capabilities, I wonder if their disconnect from the storytelling is simply their refusal to see and accept that perhaps their “interpretation” of the story is just... not correct.

When we attempt to deny or rationalize away certain interpretations of characterization, or certain progressions of events and how they relate to one another, the larger narrative just falls apart, you know? Of course it doesn’t make sense if you exclude large portions of it because you don’t want to see it or believe it’s happening, or important to the story.

Meanwhile, I’m over here loving every minute of it (okay... most minutes of it). So even if my interpretation isn’t absolutely 100% “correct” (and really, with any media, there’s always different ways to interpret everything, from what the color of the curtains might imply to who’s gonna get to fire Chekhov’s Gun in the third act), I’m content to continue to interpret it in a way that not only makes me personally happiest, but in a way that makes the story itself seem both logical and entertaining, as well.

Okay, that’s the end of the rational portion of this essay. Now on to the angry queer lady portion:

There’s more canon evidence for Dean and Cas being in love, or at the very least caring for one another to ridiculous, rather mind-numbing degrees, than there is for practically every canon heterosexual couple on television in the last fifty years. Think of any slow burn, will they-won’t they hetero couple, and do the point-by-point checklist of all the tropes they burned through before they got to the love declarations and the kissing and the happily ever afters (or worse, the dramatic breaking up and getting back together, or even worse, the tragically breaking up forever). I challenge anyone to name one hetero-presenting couple who required as many love tropes for audiences to recognize and acknowledge they were in love. Yeah, I’m thinking of that whole “they shared a pencil” post.

So yeah, there is likely a measure of heteronormativity to it, and a lot of the arguments against also devolve into rather gross denouncements that there’s no way Dean’s not straight, because he said so that one time... Mr. “I lie professionally” who also never actually said he was straight... gah... I’m not gonna dig up every ancient meta post on the subject. If anyone is legitimately interested in understanding why making those same tired arguments just doesn’t have any legitimacy in a reasoned discussion, they can damn well do their own digging. It’s not like any of the evidence is difficult to uncover, and it’s not my job to spoon feed it to every naysayer myself.

I feel like I’m standing on a Mt. Everest size pile of rational, reasonable, well-argued analysis supporting the claim that Dean and Cas are in love. *stands back and points at my whole entire blog again* If anyone would like to come back at me with something even remotely worth my time and attention to persuade me to alter my interpretation, I suggest they get busy. I’ll just be up here on top of my mountain enjoying the clean, destiel-scented air up here.

And finally, who says it’s not canon? Ah, right. Moving goalposts. At this point, I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that Dean and Cas don’t love one another. And profoundly, at that. I mean, you don’t give up an army for one guy if you don’t at least like him a lil bit. You don’t shout down God begging him to bring back that dude you’re kinda buddies with, or sink into a suicidal funk that reverses completely within minutes of finding out said buddy’s alive again. You don’t offer to march to your death with your chum because he’s such a nice guy and all. I mean... honestly. How far in denial does someone have to be to suggest they don’t love each other? At this point, when comparing Sam and Dean’s reactions far into s13 to Cas’s death in 12.23, either you accept that Dean has much stronger and far different feelings about the loss of someone that Sam does love and considers a brother, or else you kinda have to assume that Sam’s just kind of a dick for not being as broken up about Cas’s death as Dean is. So... which interpretation do you think is the one they’re trying to convey?

Bleh, whatever. I await the inevitable inbox full of nastiness that I will cheerfully delete while judging every anon who sends it as someone who really should find a better hobby than antagonizing strangers on the internet over a work of fiction.

Anon, basically, don’t let the bastards grind you down, okay?

Now for some reason I feel like listening to Achtung Baby. Imma go do that and feel the love.

#destiel #the scheherazade of supernatural #btw for anyone who still feels the need to antagonize destiel shippers #that tag would be the one for you to find a lot of that content you'll need to actually address in order for anyone to take you seriously #Anonymous

[bluewatsons]

'In A Different Key' Traces History And Politics Of Autism, All Things Considered, NPR (January 19, 2016)

Siegel: How would you define autism?

Zucker: Well it depends who you are actually, because autism is now seen as a spectrum, and the spectrum is so broad right now that there are people on one end of it that are severely, severely disabled and you can't help but call it a disability because people are literally injuring themselves — they can't communicate, they can't do things by themselves. On the other extreme end of the spectrum are people who can speak for themselves, they can manage their lives; they do not see autism as a disability but just as a different fabric in humanity.

Donvan: Because this condition is not one that has a biological marker, you cannot identify autism by a cheek swab or a blood test, but you identify it by looking at people's behaviors. That has allowed, over decades, for so many various interpretations of those key traits that the definition itself has moved again and again.

Siegel: The book describes how autism was first diagnosed, how it was named and explained. I want you to describe this: For years, there was a psychoanalytic approach that dominated the understanding of autism, and the cause was really held to be bad parenting.

Donvan: It was called the refrigerator mother theory, and the idea was that children were somehow insulted — psychologically insulted — by their mothers, who, for some reason, signaled that they didn't love their children enough. And, as a defense mechanism, the children were said to have withdrawn into their own world. So this was a very, very poisonous idea.

Siegel: Much of the story of autism is frankly about parents and about what parents have done to bring attention to the condition of their children — very often for the good. [But] sometimes — in the case of advocating a vaccine theory as the cause of autism — not for the good.

Zucker: Well, in our book, we really see the parent as unsung heroes. They literally change the world for children with autism. I mean, parents were told to put their children into institutions, and that was what the norm was 50 years ago. And they opened up the schools for them. [Before parents insisted on a change in policy] the schools were allowed to not have children with autism in them. So without parents, we wouldn't be anywhere near where we are today.

Siegel: On the other hand, parents did lend their voices to, well, to the vaccine theory. And the fact that there are many voices saying something doesn't make it scientifically true.

Donvan: Absolutely not. The story of autism has very often been the story of bad science, many, many times. In the case of the vaccine issue, yes, 15 years ago, when the question had not been investigated, it made sense to ask it; it was not a ridiculous question. But it was asked; it was answered, and the science settled it. Vaccines don't cause autism.

Siegel: By the year 2000, the rise in the number of autism diagnoses became the subject of congressional concern. In hearings that year, Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana said, "The rates of autism have escalated dramatically in the last few years. What used to be considered a rare disorder has become a near epidemic." Has there been an autism epidemic?

Donvan: The truth is that we don't really know whether there has been an epidemic. And I know that sounds strange to people, because they hear so much more about autism now than they ever have before, but what we think is that there has been an explosion in autism diagnoses, which is different from there being more autism. We started looking for autism, so found it. Also, at the same time, what we call autism became a much, much broader spectrum, and the definition kept changing over time.

Siegel: Toward the very end of your book, you acknowledge the "neurodiversity movement." These would be people who are on the spectrum and who say, "Look, this isn't an illness. We don't want to be cured. This is a different way of being wired, a different way of your brain working." And there's an exchange between an activist of that sort with a mother whose son has autism. Describe what goes on between them.

Donvan: It's a conversation between Ari Ne'eman, who is a very, very prominent and successful activist for the concept of neurodiversity. And Ari Ne'eman, whom we have a lot of respect for, has been very, very successful in promulgating the idea that people with autism should be accepted as they are. And he had a conversation with a mother named Liz Bell. Liz Bell is the mother of a young man named Tyler. In his mom's opinion, Tyler's experience of autism is very, very limiting in his life and his ability to dress himself, to shave himself, to feed himself, to go out the front door by himself and not run into traffic. And these are two very, very different views of what autism represents that come down to the fact that the spectrum is so broad that there is room for an Ari Ne'eman on it and there is room for a Tyler Bell on it. And the basic disagreement between them is whether autism is something that should be cured — whether the traits that limit Tyler's ability to be independent in life should be treated to make those traits go away. On one side, Ari is saying that it's suppressing who he actually is and his identity; on the other side is Tyler's mother saying that to treat him, and even cure him, of his autism would be to liberate who he is.

Siegel: But it does pose a question: Since there is no biological test — as you say, "no cheek swab that defines someone's condition as being autism" — are we really clear that Ari and Tyler have the same condition, and that we should group them together on this spectrum? Or does the spectrum inevitably include everybody in the world?

Donvan: Boy, that is the question of the moment in the autism conversation. How big is the umbrella under which we want to include people who have autistic traits? We don't look at the spectrum concept as necessarily the last word. We may end up splitting the spectrum again into different parts. And this tension between lumping together or splitting apart has been repeated again and again through the history of autism. We happen to be in what's called in the field a "lumper moment" in that the spectrum idea is dominant, popular — it makes a lot of sense to a lot of people.

Siegel: Caren Zucker, is it any easier to be the parent of someone with autism today than it was, say, 15 or 20 years ago?

Zucker: Absolutely. I have a 21-year-old son [with autism], and when I was trying to get services for my son, I was making it up, or I was on a list for 300 people to try to get into a program that could actually help him. And if you look back at how far we've come in 15 years, it's remarkable in terms of awareness, in terms of education. We have figured out what to do, to a very large extent, with the kids. But we have not gotten to the adults. And part of that is because adults weren't around, you know, 50 years ago — they were mostly in institutions. So that's really the heart of where we're also trying to go with our book — for people to see: Look how far we've come. Look at what these parents and advocates have done. But look how far we still have to go.

#interviews #discussion #autism #disability #autism spectrum #controversy