#like YES i understand the context of the time period and the society he was born into

[toddtakefive]

I thrash around like those inflatable tube men every time I remember that Neil literally just wanted to act, no matter if he had his parents permission or not. Possibly the most harmless way a teenage boy could rebel, and it was successfully twisted into a tale of obsession, and deception, and malicious defiance. So successfully, in fact, that I see some people who watched the movie call it that. It was just acting.

#the pursuit of his own happiness being labeled as dangerous and wrong and disgraceful… no one touch me i need to throw up everywhere and di #like YES i understand the context of the time period and the society he was born into #and YES i know that that’s the POINT because nonconformity (no matter how harmless) was to be squashed as soon as it was found #but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t still make my stomach turn in grief and anger for him #neil perry i couldnt have parented you but i could have been a listening ear im so sorry #dps #dead poets society #neil perry

[theodysseyofhomer]

when i insist on odysseus as a rape victim i'm not trying to absolve him of patriarchy. he is, in many ways, a hero of patriarchy. even if i think some of the people who use him that way rhetorically have probably not read the odyssey, let alone understood its nuances, the cultural world of the poem and the narrative itself are patriarchal, and odysseus is both a product and perpetrator of that. but when i read about calypso forcing odysseus to have sex with her, i will still call it rape, not because i like him as a character, although i do, but because i think to not do so reveals a very troubling attitude toward rape and patriarchy in the ancient context and now.

i've tried and tried but i don't know how to have this conversation with someone who is determined not to accept the premise that, in the text of the odyssey, odysseus has no choice in the matter. if they've read the text, it's right there. from what i can read of the greek, it's there (ἀνάγκη, force, constraint). i've never read a translation where it wasn't there. if they just don't care, that pretty much kills the discussion.* but sometimes they'll try to sidestep it, bringing up that the text implies he slept with calypso willingly at some point, or arguing that she doesn't explicitly compel him on the last night they spend together before he leaves ogygia forever.** to be frank, that's not the point. i'm not trying to absolve him even of the accusation of cheating on penelope. i'm not saying he was faithful to penelope. i'm saying he was still, at the point that we meet him in the odyssey, raped. period. i'm saying that's important in some way. i'm saying that using that word is important.

odysseus has power, as a man in a patriarchal society, but that power is not absolute. power is never absolute. i've heard it suggested that in the ancient context, the rape of odysseus is comic, in the sense of affirming life even in its indignities, and in the sense that humiliation is amusing (i have a lot of disagreements with the article, but it has given me endless food for thought). i'm quoting at length here, but bear with me:

Athena leaves Odysseus lingering on Calypso’s island in what is certainly the most unheroic, most challenging of all the trials that befall him on his return home. The narrator describes Odysseus as desperately wanting to leave Ogygia, crying in homesickness, but having to stay and, more to the point, share Calypso’s bed. I mentioned much earlier that an audience of that period would not expect celibacy from a married male away from home. Yet the situation must produce, it seems to me, quite another reaction in the males in the audience when the narrator emphasizes Odysseus’ profound unhappiness with the arrangements. In a patriarchal society of that time, where marriages were arranged and wedding nights were more likely than not sanctioned rape scenes, households teemed with female slaves, the highways and byways with prostitutes, men were no doubt accustomed from puberty to have their way easily with women, and on their own terms. Nothing in their experience would prepare them for enforced sexual servitude to a woman. [...] With this episode, the narrator has introduced a comic counterpart to the ubiquitous comments on the faithful Penelope’s celibacy, that is, the image of her husband manfully performing his nightly duties in the home of the insatiable Calypso. It is comic, yes, but also every man’s deepest fear.

why is it comic? because it's a reversal of expectation, of roles, of fortune. why is it unexpected? because it exploits the fear that a man could be treated by a woman the way he treats a woman; because a woman becomes monstrous by acting like a man. these are misogynistic ideas and fears, and they sound strikingly modern.

which means that: i understand the impulse to salvage calypso's image. i understand how it could be interesting or productive or empowering maybe, for some women, because homer is so concerned with any fault in penelope's sex life (reinforced by clytemnestra’s, and those of the slave women that odysseus and penelope own) and seemingly not at all with odysseus’. but calypso is arguing for the right of female gods to treat human beings however they want to, not for the rights of human women.

it also means that: the rape of odysseus becomes remarkable, when the rape of countless others is not, because of who he is. it's humiliating for him to be treated like a sex slave because he's a man and a king; other slaves are just slaves. similar logic is found elsewhere in the odyssey (it's humiliating for him to be treated like a beggar, but the other beggar in the house is just a beggar). this is not a text that believes in equal rights of any kind. but i think we have to ask the question, is it not rape because of that? should we not call it rape because he's a man, because he's a man who perpetrates specific evils, because other people have it worse? and why do i keep arguing that his situation is important to remark on?

god. i don't know. sometimes? just because we don't.

i've lost count of posts like this, comments like this, attitudes like this, of how many times i mention the odyssey and immediately hear about calypso, of how at best odysseus weeping on ogygia becomes the butt of the joke. and i'm not sorry that i don't find it more progressive than treating calypso as a shrill misogynistic stereotype. i do not find it interesting or original to take a man who is not in the position of power in a sexual encounter and say that he's being either disingenuous, ungrateful, or mystifying.

when we refuse to name what calypso does to odysseus as rape, absolutely regardless of what we feel for him, just that it happened, that that's what's going on, i think we do something sinister, potentially to real people. especially because this exists in a text where slavery is also often unnamed in translation and discussion, and other forms of rape and captivity and human suffering, and i think we need to name them all, without being afraid that naming one will take away from the others. saying odysseus was raped doesn't mean we excuse the intense misogyny penelope is subjected to, the enslaved lives of melantho and the other hanged women. it all matters. it's all important.

*as does the suggestion that odysseus could be lying and actually had a great time. but odysseus isn't the one telling us what's going down on ogygia; the narrator is. when given the opportunity, odysseus himself says very little, only maintaining that his heart wasn't in it. of course odysseus could be lying. he could always be lying. but calypso is the most relevant counter-perspective we have, and even she doesn't claim that odysseus wants her, just that she thinks he ought to be happy with her. it's to her obvious frustration that he isn't. without another authority in the text, saying "it could be straight lies" is a conversational dead-end.

and if, by the way, there's a lost version of the odyssey in which odysseus was philandering, and the version we have was written to clear him of those charges... it's still the version we have. how we deal with it says something about us.

**if i say "calypso raped odysseus" and a hypothetical person (actually several real people i have encountered) makes this counterargument, that implies that the threat of force is, then, what? not real? if 'at some point' being willing means that the harm of whatever came after that point is negated, it casts him as someone who mopes around out of boredom with an equal partner, when the text seems much clearer on the point that he's in this position against his will than under what circumstances and for how long he might have slept with her willingly. they are clearly not equals by the mere fact that she is a goddess; his mortality is, in calypso's eyes, the barrier between them. rip to everyone who finds the decision to leave ogygia a "surprising choice" but i am never less surprised by odysseus than when he's handling calypso as delicately as possible, in order to leave her as fast as he can.

#anna.txt #a tag for bitching #rape tw / #slavery tw / #one day i'll exhaust everything i have to say on this subject. and then you'll be sorry

[starbylers]

Honestly and truly, one thing that makes me so confident in Byler is the quality of most anti takes being absolutely horrendous. And I’m not talking about the childish hate, I mean when they actually try and make a critical point about the show.

The other day I saw a Mlvn say that Bylers apparently think Mike is being too ‘normal’ by dating El, and we are wrong because El actually ‘goes against societal norms’…because she grew up being abused in the lab…and because Will grew up ‘normally’ (was not abused in lab) Mike being with Will would actually be the choice that ‘traps him in normalcy’... And then I saw another one say that Mike dating El isn’t conformity because El is considered a ‘threat to society’...because of her powers. Like 😭😭😭

It just made me think…wow. You’re telling me this is the grasp the opposing side have on the themes of the show, how those themes influence the characters, and how that all interacts within the social context of the time period? El is a girl. Will and Mike are both boys. It’s the 80s. Obviously the situation is more complicated and nuanced than just those facts, but it is truly not that hard to understand where conformity might come into play.

Like society is not oppressing Mike because he decided to date a female superhero 💀 meanwhile him growing up in an extremely homophobic place and time period maybe possibly definitely could lead to suppression of his sexuality and dating someone of the opposite sex rather than his 1000x more compatible same-sex friend because society would deem that immoral and wrong. Also yes, El does deal with mental health difficulties stemming from her childhood and it certainly impacts how she moves through the world, but again…what societal conventions and rules is Mike rejecting/not conforming to by dating a girl who happens to struggle with childhood trauma? No-one who we come across in the series finds anything strange about these two dating, in fact their feelings are suspected/expected by their friends before they even get together.

It’s wild that they think the height of nonconformism in 1980s small town America is having made-up superpowers…when a gay man is literally right there…and them also implying that El being traumatised makes her like, 'not-normal enough’ for her and Mike’s relationship to be considered subversive or something…sure is an opinion! A really awful one!

It’s like they’re conflating conformity with ‘everyday normalness’, and using fantasy elements and dramatic plots within the show to prove how different from regular reality/life the Mlvn pairing is, rather than understanding conformity (the theme spelled out for us in the show) for its actual definition—behaviour in accordance with socially accepted conventions.

Just saying if you ever worry that you think too deeply into Byler evidence…just remember that at least you’re actually thinking. The “worst” Byler take will always be a million times more carefully thought-out than the “best” anti take.

#byler #anti mileven #I hope I worded this correctly #I just had to share because reading these things actually left me speechless like what do you meannnn

[adamsvanrhijn]

yes i agree w all of that!! i think it's actually one of the most interesting things tga is doing w/ oscar's storyline, the fear that once you define yourself as an "other" you're essentially cutting yourself off from mainstream society, where in actuality the power dynamic is flipped, and others are defining you whether you like it or not. i think beyond being an experience that many people can relate to, it rings true for the time period and the development of sexual identity that was going on (and assorted attitudes towards that among gay people that i've read about and seen in early gay literature, letters, etc). personally i find it affecting and "period-typical" in the actual sense lol. sorry for these super long asks... i have too many blorbo thoughts rattling around in my head

never apologize for asks... i am not great at answering them but i love them very much 🫶

yeah i think it does ring true for the time period which i appreciate. john is actually the odd one out here in terms of being more recognizable to modern viewers because he is characterizing himself in terms the modern viewer can understand.

side note, sorta kinda — i TRULY dislike how "period typical homophobia" tends to mean "there's homophobia, but only because the time period was homophobic! 👍" rather than "the homophobia is intended to be in line with that representative of the zeitgeist". (can i use zeitgeist in this context.) it's pretty cool to see a tv show intentionally (i assume) demonstrating the reality of the time rather than framing it only in terms the modern viewer can most easily recognize.

i am hopeful that that will continue and that oscar's arc will not see his reckoning with himself and his choices inherently reliant on him developing a more 21st century view of himself. that would be a bummer to me, and i would dislike the implications.

#oscar van rhijn tag

[thesilverlady]

Hi! So I've been thinking about this for some time now, it seems to me like GRRM often exagerates the misogyny women suffered in medieval times.

It's not that women were happy and living in utopia but from reading about different historical societies and time periods in comparison to what he is writing it looks super exaggerated and women often suffer a lot more than what it would be like in comparison to real life.

Maybe it's just me and I don't want to sound mean..but it's starting to feel weird...for example there's a lot of women that have died from the birthing bed, a big number and although it happened it wasn't like every hour a woman died giving birth to a child. Another thing that bothers me it's when really young characters start having sex (Aemma, Daenerys, Viserys II....) It's super bizarre since yes of course women tended to be younger but and I'm pretty sure that no one was advising to have sex with a 13 year old child (there are cases I'm sure but normally it was frowned upon). Even politically women are more restrained ... I don't know maybe I'm seeing gohsts where there are none 😂.

it's definitely a valid subject to criticize and it's been something I've been conflicted over myself.

grrm is generally a. fantastic author; he knows how to write characters, worldbuilding, dialogue and how to play with themes.

With that being said, I can totally understand your feelings on the subject.

On the one hand, you're right, the whole "died in childbirth" is. just a very convenient, easy way to get rid off a female character while adding a tragedy to the mix. On the other hand.... some of these characters were simply not meant to be around.

I think he has definitely tried to add some elements around childbirth death to make it slightly different each time. Like, in f&b the difference between Alyssa Velaryon and Daella Targaryen who both died in childbirth is that Alyssa was at a quite old age and had complications from her pregnancy and her husband and maesters completely disregarded her health and basically sacrificed her to get that child out (for context: her dead was basically what Aemma had in the show. they copied it from that part of the story) In her tragic death, we see how shitty her husband was and the power maesters have over life. We do get her other daughter, Rhaena, rightfully calling out Rogar Baratheon's callous actions.

With Daella her death., while similar is a bit different because her issue was that she was waaay too young. Her mother, Alysanne felt guilty after her death and even wondered if it would have been so much for Daella to stay a child a while longer before pushing her to marry.

Both fall.victims to the patriarchy that is established in Westeros, in the belief that a woman's duty is to be a wife and a mother and a childbirth death while sad is noble. I won't analyze each childbirth death we see 'cause that would take forever - but I do think they all kinda serve a theme that has been existing all throughout the asoiaf series.

As for the age.... listen, i know it's uncomfortable for everyone but I think that's purposely done. Later in the series dany does think. of her old 13 yo self as a child so George doesn't pretend that she wasn't.

Were her descriptions in the first book oversexualized? Sure

But as for the age factor, I study history and cultures at uni and you'd be surprised at the age range young girls were thought to be suited for marriage and childbirth. You gotta consider multiple ethinicies, cultures, social norms, and not to mention life expectancy which played a huge factor in this.

George takes inspiration for all of this. The series is not meant to be a realistic portrayal.

And while I constantly think about the pro and cons about the way George writes his female characters, i don't see enough prase nowadays about how he writes the vulnerability of girlhood, or motherly love, or the caging feeling of being a woman who lives in such a restraining society.

As a man George does a surprisingly amazing job at describing these feelings. And while, I definitely think we should be objective and consider the good, the bad and the ugly with how he writes woman, the good heavily outweigh the bad

#ask reply #asoiaf critical #maybe I'm desensitized about the age thing because I've spent 3 years learning some shocking historical social norms that used to exist but #I honestly think George is approaching the subject as well as he can. it's always left in the air that marry and bedding someone this young #is tragic and not good. It's not really romanticised y'know? #I do think he's worth of some lashes for some subjects. Like the whole dany/drogo thing could have been better written but whatever

[littledreamling]

Trigger warning for mentions of antisemitic historical attitudes and actions throughout the European Renaissance!!

I’m gonna make a longer post about this at some point, likely with references and evidence and other such sources to back up my argument but I’m exhausted rn so I’m just gonna say this*:

We need to give 1789 Hob a little more credit with how much he’s grown since 1389. We all focus on how wrong he was about the slave trade (which is very fair and I’m not excusing his actions at all) but it overshadows another of his lines that’s pretty subtly important and it’s this: “and I’m not Jewish”. More importantly, it’s how he says it.

It’s a joking line, we all probably chuckled at it because it’s such a snarky thing to say in the face of Lady Johanna Constantine’s threat of violence, but when you realize the geopolitical and religious atmosphere of Europe for… well, all of history, it holds a little more weight than that.

Europe has always been pretty deeply antisemitic. During the early 1300’s and into the 1400’s, Jewish people were heavily blamed for the Black Plague and were kidnapped and tortured into confessing to crimes they didn’t commit (poisoning wells with the plague, selling cloth that was laced with the disease, etc). In the 1400’s, Jews were completely banned in the Iberian Peninsula, triggering the Sephardic Diaspora that displaced Jewish communities all across Europe and forced many Jewish people to convert to Catholicism to continue their ways of life in what is now Spain and Portugal. For the majority of the early Renaissance, Christian humanists spent a great deal of time, money, and effort into understanding Jewish thought, Hebrew, and Kabbalah (which is a Jewish mystical school of thought), with the ultimate goal of getting to the root of Christian truth through the Hebrew old testament instead of Latin translated bibles or the Greek new testament. I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, antisemitic attitudes ran deep in European society, in every corner of the continent, for the majority of pre-modern history (and post-modern too, but that’s outside the realm of this post).

So imagine my surprise when, after learning about all of this history that is seeped in antisemitism, Hob Gadling (an English peasant who canonically lived through the Black Plague, the Spanish Inquisition, and probably received a Humanist education) said “I’m not Jewish” with almost no discernible contempt. He wasn’t angry at the accusation. He wasn’t even really offended. He says it as a point of clarification, with a small chuckle. And that? That’s big, because he’s lived in a society brimming with hatred for Jewish people for his whole life.

So yes, he made a mistake in stepping into the slave trade as a line of work, but if there’s one thing we learn about Hob Gadling, it’s that he learns from his mistakes. He attempts to atone for his wrongdoings. He’s not always on the right side of history, but he’s willing to put in the effort to educate himself and change his behavior. And I particularly love this example of that, because it’s not obvious. It’s not overt, it’s a subtle detail that the majority of people won’t pick up on, not without the historical context that makes it so impactful. And in any other show, I’d say it was just coincidence, or that I was reading too much into it, but this is the Sandman. This is Neil Gaiman, who is highly knowledgeable about all of this, who does his research, who is himself Jewish. I know it’s not a coincidence and it’s all the more wonderful for it.

*I am in no way attempting to claim to be an expert on this subject. I’m not Jewish, nor am I trying to speak for Jewish people who no doubt have more knowledge and expertise on the topic, I’m simply taking a class on the Renaissance period from 1300-1700 and I’ve noticed some historical contexts that add depth and nuance to episode 6 that I feel is important to share. I would love to start a discussion about this and open the floor for those who are more educated about this time period and Jewish history to have a chance to speak on the topic.

#antisemitism tw #discussions of Jewish history and deeply rooted antisemitic views throughout European history #Hob Gadling #I hope I didn’t just put myself into a line of fire with this post #I just wanted to bring attention to it because I noticed it on my last watch through and thought it was interesting #the sandman #sandman netflix #neil gaiman #sandman neil gaiman

[darrowsrising]

isn’t it ironical how there is criticism for eo being the “wife in the fridge” (i’ve seen it even for bryn) but no one would ever say the same for a character like julian?

The reason why fridging is a problem for short - characters are obviously writing tools, but female characters deaths are used to stir the plot forward for the male characters and after death, they are usually not mentioned. Even before death, there isn't that much to them, no personality beyond what the male character saw in their relationship and interactions - whixh mostly focus on him anyway. Basically, these female characters are no longer tools for writing the story, but for writing the male characters.

I do think that Julian is perceived as a saint by the fandom which is weird af. But I don't think it's comparable to Eo or that the context of fridging fits his storyline. The comparison itself beyond both of their deaths affected the storyline and moved the plot forward and secondarily other characters, is wildly reaching.

Julian is not fridged in any way, it's just that the irony of an innocent person who cries when fishing fish in a fascist, cutthroat environment that wants to diabuse him of it, is quite lost on the fandom. Julian was allowed to be innocent on the backs of billions of enslaved people. He cries for fish and wouldn't hurt a fly, it's almost twisted that he was coddled to this point, but it's sick that he had to die like that.

And then his death is used as a tool, depending on who uses it. Darrow uses it to get closer to Nero and call out Cassius, but in reality he's deeply affected. House Bellona uses it in different ways for their own excuses - ironically enough, no one cares that the Passage must happen, they care that it happened to Julian and with few exceptions, they see it as a stain on their House name rather than a tragedy. And the plot picks up from the conflict.

All that being said, Julian was not used for anyone else's writing, but the story's. His memory still influences characters and his death stirred the story forward. Period.

Regarding Eo's fridging - I know opinions vary a bit, but there was no fridging. If you take her story and tell it from beginning to end and it ends with her death, it makes sense. She passes Thor's mum test.

And she's for the story, not Darrow. She's based on Antigone and her sacrifice echoed and affected things beyond Darrow - he doesn't even get recruited due to Eo, his uncle saves him. He then is told the Sons knew what Eo was going to do and that is why the execution was holo'd to every available device - they made that possible.

The scenario is flipped, her martyrdom is respected, her character is respected. The second installment of the saga is about whether her dream can survive the test of time.

Eo as an inspiring figure, a martyr, Persephone is her power in death. In life, Eo was her own person, with her own ideas, ideals, dreams and qualities and flaws. From the start she tells you what she wants, what she is willing to do, why she even chose Darrow as a husband, how she's willing to do it alone if he wouldn't help. She has a personality separate from Darrow and it is plain to see it.

And the irony concerning her character is how the fandom or the anti fandom makes her either a madonna or a whore and then accuse Pierce Brown of sexism over either stance, when either stance is sexist af. I find it ridiculous, but people are entitled to their opinion - as far away from me with that bullshit as possible, but still entitled to their opinion.

That being said, the first Red Rising book is not the best book representation wise and while I understand and back the criticism, Eo still wasn't fridged. And over all he writes interesting and compelling female characters that are treated equally by the narrative. Yes, even when covering Red and Obsidian societies that are patriarchal and matriarchal, respectively.

So yeah, not fridging, but also...not the same thing.

Also, Bryn was sort of fridged until the comics established her as a character and we find out that while Fitch wanted revenge for her death, the Sons were for justice and his son's better future.

[justastrugglinghotchocolate]

Chapter 1 of the Role Swap fic

Some time ago, I wrote out an outline for a role swap au (I would give you the link, but tumblr doesn't like when I do that), and over the last few days I have written a chapter of this au (I don't have a name for it yet, so suggestions are appreciated!). Thank you to everyone who interacted with my first post, and please, let me know what you guys think, I loved hearing your feedback!

DISCLAIMER: I am not a professional writer by any means, and admittedly it has been a while since I've read the book in depth. Some characterizations may be a tad off, but I've tried my best to keep canon in mind, while also changing them to reflect the new context. Additionally, I am not from, nor have I ever been to England or anywhere near the UK. Though I have put in a lot of research of the time, I have only a base understanding of the period, so things may be somewhat inaccurate.

In the golden afternoon of a warm August day, Dorian Gray sat across from Lord Henry Wotton, engaging in light banter. The two men would be involved in a scandal and crime in the coming years, but on this day, they discussed their friend, Basil Hallward.

Some months ago, Basil had been accused of unseemly behavior. Everyone involved in high society might have turned a blind eye, but when evidence from that night was presented, most turned away from the painter. Fortunately, the courts didn't find Basil worth the time or resources to jail; instead, they took away his wealth and the rumors took away his clientele. His name was only spoken in warnings or vicious gossip.

Dorian and Henry were left to watch as it all happened in a whirlwind of speculation and accusations. Though they offered help, the artist declined, fearful of what might have befallen his closest friends should they try and intervene on his behalf. In truth, his concerns were for Dorian; he had known Lord Henry would somehow be unaffected as usual.

What the artist did not know was that the lord was far from unaffected.

“He refuses to speak with me,” Henry grumbled as he smoked, “Does he think I would mock him over this?”

Dorian smiled politely, still unused to such a sight. In the time he had known the man, Henry had seldom shown any emotion besides amusement and glee. The recent event had not only revealed that the lord was capable of more than that, but that he was particular to worry.

“We've known each other for years, surely he knows that I would never make light of a situation like this!” he puffed his cigarette—his fourteenth one in the hour and a half Dorian had been there, “Especially because it's him!”

“Perhaps he's embarrassed,” Dorian offered halfheartedly. He understood Henry's worry; he himself had been concerned ever since the night after the trial. Until that night, Dorian had thought himself as the one person Basil could never turn away. After a panicked cry and slammed door, he revised his outlook on his perceived favoritism.

“Embarrassed? By what? Some daft rumor?”

“It was more than a rumor, Harry. He lost everything. People refuse to even say his name!”

“Because they are all hypocrites! They've done much worse than our dear Basil, yet they act as if he murdered someone!”

“They've done more for less.”

“Yes! They have! It is infuriating to see all of this happen and then to have Basil turn me away, to avoid me! I don't understand any of it,” the lord ended his rant with a scowl.

“I invited him to tea today.”

Henry perked up, “Did he say he'd come?”

“No, but I'm sure he will.”

“Why's that?”

“Because I'm leaving.”

Basil Hallward followed the servant into Henry's study. This was the first time he had ventured out of his home since the trial and the first time he would see Dorian and Henry after that night. He wrung his hands nervously as the servant notified the lord and Dorian as well. The servant motioned him in and then closed the door behind him.

In a blur of blonde, Dorian tossed himself into Basil's arms, tightly hugging him.

“Dorian!”

“Basil, I knew you'd come!” he grinned and guided the man to sit nearby Lord Henry, who had hurriedly stabbed his cigarette into an ashtray. He attempted to look composed, but relief could be clearly seen in his eyes.

“Basil, it's good to see you're alive,” the lord tried to say smoothly, “I knew you'd come out eventually.”

“Liar,” Dorian hissed, “Basil he was worried sick! I can't get the smell of smoke out of my hair because of him!”

The lord cleared his throat, “Dorian, don't pout, it mars your face.”

Dorian stuck his tongue out, then turned to Basil, “Please stay for a while? I can't stand Henry when he's worried.”

“Oh, I'm sure it wasn't so bad,” Basil fidgeted with the cuff of his sleeve, “Are you really leaving Dorian?”

The young man froze and looked at Basil and then to Henry for help. Eventually he solemnly nodded, “In about a week.”

“How long will you be in France?”

“I'm not sure,” the young man said, “Apparently my songs are quite famous there and an unexpected number of orchestras have asked me to play with them.”

“It could be anywhere from a year to ten,” Henry supplied, “It might become a lifetime.”

“Nonsense!” the blonde cried, “I will return. I would never leave the two of you behind.”

“Don't limit your experience because of us, Dorian,” the lord smiled sardonically, “France is known for its many delights, someone with your beauty can easily experience them all.”

Dorian rolled his eyes, “I had to deal with this for weeks, Basil. You're the only one who can temper Henry's philosophical ramblings. I'll die if I have to listen to another!”

“Well, you have nothing to worry about, you're leaving for France in a week,” Henry chuckled, but his smile fell when he looked towards Basil, “Are you alright?”

“Yes,” Basil said unconvincingly, “I'm happy for you Dorian, truly I am. But I will miss you greatly.”

The young man smothered the other man in another embrace, “Basil, I'm going to miss you the most! I'll write to you, I promise!”

“Calm down, Dorian,” Basil focused on the divan past Dorian, “I don't think you'll have the time to do so.”

“I'll make the time,” he insisted, “Always for you.”

“What about Henry?”

The lord scoffed good naturedly.

“Harry doesn't appreciate my letters. He says he adores my romantic notions of friendship, then throws them away in front of me!” Dorian glared at the man in question, “And I'm not a boy, I'm twenty-four!”

“You do act like a child,” Basil admitted.

“Basil!” Dorian gasped dramatically and threw himself onto the nearby divan, “I have never been so betrayed! I shall never recover!”

Basil smiled. Henry motioned for him to sit next to him, then gently grasped the other man's hand, “I am happy to see you again.”

The trio found themselves locked in easy conversation about everything and anything but Basil's situation or the events leading up to it. Easy laughter and general pleasantries were shared all around, but the knowledge of the limited time they had pressed heavily against them.

“It's getting rather late,” the painter stood up, “I should leave.”

“Stay for the night, Basil,” Henry said.

“No,” he said far too quickly to be reassuring, “No, I couldn't possibly do such a thing.”

The reason went unsaid.

“You'll come by tomorrow, won't you?” Dorian fluttered his lashes at the man, “And every day, until I leave?”

“I can try,” Basil said, uncomfortable with the intensity, “But I'm not sure I'll be very entertaining to be around.”

“We can keep our meetings in our respective houses,” Henry offered.

“Please, Basil,” Dorian clasped his hand together as if he were praying.

“Alright, I'll see you tomorrow.”

“And the day after?”

“Yes, every day until you leave.”

Dorian grinned triumphantly, “Oh, before you leave—!”

The blonde fished through the inner pockets of his coat and pulled out a small wooden box with a crumpled bow.

“Oh, it looked nicer before,” he muttered. He handed it to Basil.

It was a brown ornate box with a golden key on the side of it. The top of the box had an intricate carving of what was assumedly a floral scene. Dorian winded the key, then opened the box and turned it towards Basil. On the inside, it had three miniature orchids, one red, one purple, and one white, each with a basil leaf adorning the sides.

Then a gentle melody filled the room. It was beautiful, delicate, and filled with a sense of longing. The orchids slowly turned, like they were dancing.

“Is this one of your songs?” Basil asked.

“Yes.”

“I haven't heard this one,” Henry leaned forwards.

“That's because I finished it a few weeks ago. It's for you Basil.”

“The box or the song?” the lord looked at the artist who appeared shocked.

“Both!”

“Both?”

“I wrote the song for Basil,” Dorian beamed, “Then I had the box commissioned. You two are the first people to ever hear it, besides me of course.”

“You wrote this song for me?” Basil murmured, “Why?”

“Because you're his favorite,” Henry joked.

“Because you mean a lot to me, Basil. No one can do what you can with your paintings. I have never met someone so intelligent, yet so careful and caring. I wrote that song to express the beauty of your soul,” Dorian confessed. Henry opened his mouth to speak, and the young man threw a pillow from the divan at him, “What do you think?”

Basil looked at the man in earnest, “I think I'm going to cry.”

“Oh!”

“I was going to tell you,” Henry said. He patted the seat next to him, “Bring him here, Dorian.”

Tentatively, the blonde led the crying man to sit, then frantically said, “If you don't like it, I can take it back. I didn't want to hurt you.”

“You haven't,” Basil sobbed, “I promise, I'm not hurt.”

“No, really, Basil, if you dislike it at all, I'll take it back and throw it away or burn it or whatever you like. Just tell me and it will be gone.”

“And throw away your work?! I'd rather die!”

Lord Henry shook his head, “Why are you crying then, Basil?”

“It's just,” Basil wiped his eyes and took a shaky breath, “It's just moving, that's all. Do you really believe that about me, Dorian?”

“Yes. Every word. If you'd let me, I would like to name the song after you. I want you to be known for centuries after today.”

A sob escaped the painter, “Oh, how I wish I could capture beauty as you do! To be able to do such a thing, I'd do anything! I would befriend the devil himself!”

“Basil,” Henry laughed, “That is quite unlike you!”

Dorian giggled behind a pale hand, “Besides, Harry is right there, Basil.”

Henry threw the pillow at Dorian. Basil genuinely laughed for the first time in a while.

At his home, Basil laid in his bed, still awake despite his many attempts.

He couldn't stop thinking about the end of the week. While he was happy for Dorian, he was worried too. Dorian wasn't the most responsible and he was often too willful for his own good. A week from today, he would be all alone in a completely different country. Basil hoped that the young man at least knew someone there and wasn't rushing into this as he normally did.

He got up from his bed and searched for something to busy himself with. Eventually his eyes landed on the small music box Dorian had given him. He picked it up and clutched it to his chest, then, feeling childish, shyly placed it back down.

Basil sighed as he absentmindedly turned the key. When he had it far enough, he let it play as he sat at a desk to sketch. He drew flowers, houses, and then Dorian. Surrounded by flowers, the young man smiled in the sketch and Basil felt a sense of sadness flood him. He tore the page and returned to bed, falling asleep to the music box's gentle song.

First(You are here!)//Next

Thank you for reading, I hope you enjoyed, again let me know what you think! The song in the music box can be whatever you want, but I personally think it's Million Miles Away from "Belle" because the lyrics that play in the only music box version will be painfully ironic in a few chapters. Also, Sam Yung has a beautiful extended piano and string arrangement that would totally be Dorian's composed version.

Next chapter we'll meet the capitalist!

AO3 link:

#the picture of dorian gray #basil hallward #dorian gray #lord henry wotton #role swap au #alternate universe #fanfic #the losing game

[mike-el]

First of all I want to say that its not really my place to discuss an issue like this because it’s partially something I’m not a part of, BUT: we need to establish and clarify as people that WOMEN struggles (anyone who identifies as a women) are much greater than homosexual white men struggles. Gay men have struggled and continue to struggle every day, I’m not denying that. However, we need to (as people who respect both gay men and women) recognize that gay white men are still white men. I am so sick and tired of seeing women in this show fight for their lives to be recognized just for yet another white man (regardless of orientation) to come and suck all the viewers’ sympathy. And YES I am speaking about el and will. I love will dearly he’s one of my favorites (and bylers will never ruin him for me) but to say that his struggles “as a closeted teenager in the 80s” are more real than “a disabled abused girl” who’s been experiencing misogyny pretty much since the day she was born is fucking insane. I’m sorry that will is struggling but he’s gonna be fine, I promise you that he will be fine, it’s still sad but he’s fineeee. Yes el is privileged in the sense that she can express her feelings towards the person she loves freely but please tell me how that makes her life so much easier than will when she’s a fucking women in the 80s that should be enough, but even then that’s not even why she’s had it worse and you know it. Give me a fucking break. Will (one of the most well written characters in the show) continues to be the most selfless person on this show and his fans somehow make up for that by making every fucking thing about him. Ask any gay person in the 80s about wills story arc and I promise you they will relate. And I’m saying all of this because once season 5 comes out and El gets her happy ending with mike you best believe that will fans are going to invalidate her happy ending for will not getting his. I know they will give him his happy ending, but if they don’t for some reason I want everyone separate their own frustrations with their blatant misogyny. Please stop being misogynistic towards El, please.

OK, I think this ask deals with 2 completely separate issues and it is important to clarify the separation.

It is not my belief that LGBT people don't experience oppression nor is it my belief that gay men do not have a history of oppression. To say "Will is going to be fineee" is understating not only the character's experience, but the experiences of all those who lived in this time period. The AIDS crisis happened in the 80s; a lethal disease came out of nowhere and wiped out entire communities of LGBT folks, majorly gay men, while the government watched and did nothing. To have LGBT rep in a show about the 80s is actually super important considering the historical context, and it is actually why I understand the Duffers' decision to hold off on official coming out moments for Robin and, especially, Will. It is an authentic representation of the time period, and it honors the struggle of self-acceptance that was most likely a lot more difficult 40 years ago. In my personal opinion, it would be insulting to the experience of those people who identified LGBT in the 80s (some who married and lived lives in heterosexual relationships in order to protect themselves) to have romantic relationships come easily to Will and Robin or to have them not experience fear or shame. Only by authentically representing something can we shine light on the truth and learn from it.

It is also not my belief that we should be in some weird oppression war of who has got it worse. And I certainly hope that my blog does not come across in this way. Gay men and non-LGBT women both face different hardships in modern society, as they did in the 80s, and I don't think it's necessary to compare the two. Both can, and do, exist simultaneously, and we should be supporting one another.

All of this is separate from fandom discourse regarding El, Will, and B*ler.

It is my belief that El is perceived by many members of this fandom from a (majorly internalized) misogynistic lens. And, it's been my personal experience, that the members of the fandom who discuss el in this way tend to also strong supporters of b*ler. However, there are many important things to remember. First, being a b*ler shipper and identifying as LGBT do not go hand in hand. Second, that b*ler does not serve as the only LGBT representation on Stranger Things. And lastly, the oppressive experiences of being LGBT are not erased by having bad takes on El.

The only point I have ever tried to make is not that Will's story is less important than El's, nor that being a woman is harder than being gay (I wouldn't even know how to quantify those experiences into a value that is measurable for comparison), but that El's story is important, as is the storyline of her relationship with Mike. No more or less, it just is. And to erase that story that has been fleshed out over the course of four seasons to make room for a story that was never planned (Mike & Will), just to service fans, would be a misogynistic act, yes. As you say, it takes the light off of the main female character and shines it on two white boys. But, also, to do this (go Mike & Will in the final season) would also invalidate the experiences of those of any gender or sexual orientation who have been watching and see themselves represented in El, those who have been affected by abuse and trauma (especially women), and deserve to to see her find happiness and healthy love.

Those who identify with Will or Robin also deserve that representation, and it is also important. However, b*ler is not the only path to representation, and to actually go that route in canon would be disrespectful to the story that has already been written and to those who see themselves in El. It is absolutely possible to honor the experiences of Will and Robin and those who identify as LGBT by writing good story and character arcs for those characters and have them end the show in happy and fulfilling relationships, without making b*ler canon.

So, this is my long-winded way of saying it is unwise of any member of this fandom to mistake our personal feelings and opinions of a show with real life experiences. In order to honestly evaluate if something in this fandom or this show is problematic, I feel like we have to remain as objective as possible. I know firsthand the difficulty of that; I am not perfect and I am not shaming anyone for holding this show and certain storylines/characters close. I certainly do. But I don't think we should be dismissing real life oppressions and hardships, and history, so freely in the name of supporting a fictional character and/or relationship.

PS: why do I have these super long asks in my ask box about how this fandom disrespects women and gay people but never once has anyone brought up the blatantly fucked up way this show and fandom handles the representation of Black people and POC on the show? Just a thought.

#tw discourse #long post #asks #I share a thought

[mostotherthings]

I... like The Sign. A lot.

And maybe I'm the only person who doesn't think that Episode 11 has that amount of plot holes and Episode 11 does not make Tharn stupid (if he's stupid, ALL the characters are stupid- OK maybe that's a decent point too)

There are comments out there that I thought about that seem a bit harsh to the characters in the show.

Not all characters know what's going on (even our main characters)

maybe some personal points to note about me - I am Asian and live in an Asian country (but not Thai), and my religion involves icons (lots of Gods that take care of different things in our lives), similar to Thai Buddhism. Someone close to me was once part of the uniformed services in an Asian country

For Phaya's grandma, Paranee and Dujdao to say things like, "maybe he shouldn't be a policeman, maybe he should quit", these are conversations I heard every single day previously. In our society where your choice of a job affects you and your family's status/pov of other's towards you (in good or bad ways), your relatives are always going to have opinions of what you do, period. Even if you turn 50, 60. Your sibling is going to be the one with beef. Oh, and your friends judge you too, especially those who see you like family. (A good partner is a lawyer, doctor. Your partner is a policeman/fireman? Isn't that dangerous?)

A death of a family member at young age changes everything about you. Tharn has a loving grandmother, but he made complaints to his dad before they died, and this sticks with you. "Our last conversation ended badly and after that he died". Some people's natural response is to stop talking much or stop expressing opinions. I've heard it many times at funerals, "I should have been better to him before he died- I should have listened - We should have been nicer and more understanding- I should have been here in time to see him for one last time". Hindsight is always 20/20, no? I would think that Tharn's singular desire to be part of elite police forces is to solve his parents' mystery and right the "wrong" he did before they died. He really cannot believe that doing this let him meet Phaya.

Tharn meets Chalothon at a young age. This guy, whatever kind of doctor he is, has placed himself into Tharn's life from young and made himself the "perfect big brother". There's no reason for Tharn to be suspicious until he overhears the conversation the Abbot and Phaya have at the grave. I'm sure his mind has been trying to justify Chalothon's behaviour, but at this point, he doesn't know the seriousness of Chalothon's desire until the fall off the cliff and Chalothon's real face. You can't underestimate how sly people are, and how they're able to keep a benevolent presence in front of others while actually they are just, bad people. (ok but a psy doctor, doing drug tests is ???? but i take it on the logic that Tharn knows Chalothon who will know a good doctors, who can take care of these for him. This is basically how I found the person who installed air conditioners in my house- someone i knew, knows someone reliable who does that kind of work)

Grandma and the Abbot, in not telling Tharn abt Chalothon, did it to protect him. So yes, you can say, that's not protecting him. in context, Gods can do whatever they want. We have Gods that protect our household, our health, wealth, etc etc. Our is a system of good karma means a continued good and smooth life. God don't always come in to solve our problems or show the way- Gods can punish us if we do the wrong thing. When I was young my school arranged a trip to a "theme park" that had laid out the punishments you would receive if you break precepts or disobey your parents/elders. There's 18 stages of hell, each for the level of "crime" that you did. It was 3D to me, suddenly. And let's not forget about reincarnation too! After we get punished, our souls renew and what we become (an animal, what kind of animal, a human, a rich or poor human), depends on the karma we achieve in this lifetime. When we say, "in my next life, I hope to see you again"- we mean it. When we have a bad relationship with someone, we often say offhand "that person's so bad to me because I owe him a debt from a previous lifetime"

So our fear of Gods, our fear of breaking the precepts, especially if you grew up in households like Phaya's or Tharns, or you are an Abbot like Luang Por, is there. So if I were Grandma, terrified seeing this snake God in the house looking to take away the only family member I have left in my life, I will try to keep him away, but I won't say anything to Tharn. The Gods are listening. If my Tharn knew about this, would Chalothon not even give me the time I have now, to be with this person I love?

Since Episode 3, when they established the Naga lore, I had a feeling that this is not going to be easy for international fans to understand. But I didn't expect the amount of "stupid Phaya" and "stupid Tharn" to come out of the last few episodes. (I mean, by all means, the police procedure is the part we HAVE to be making fun of, but generally I've grown up with television series that sort of ignore real life to "create plot points" so I've grown a tolerance). Coupled with how generally "being gay" is still something that we don't always share with people, even if they are family, that's what the show has kind of built itself on.

Phaya and Tharn are not communicating well because they believe their silence will save the other. The Abbot and Grandma are both keeping quiet because they understand the power of the Gods, and how if they slip up, Tharn can be taken away from them. There's also an urgency in Wawisa's warning "if Tharn is taken away this time, there will be no return" (this has no Lore that I know if, but i go along with it coz it is a "PLOT POINT"). Even Akk, almost sworn brother of Tharn, has decided to keep silent- losing Tharn, means letting Tharn's father down. He's already lost people to this investigation (Tharn's Dad, that Lt in the beginning sorry forgot his name, and now maybe even Chart). To lose his almost adoptive's father's son- that's unimaginable to him too.

The key to a good relationship is communication, but the fear of losing someone may also cause you to hide things from them. This is human nature, so in this aspect, I feel the drama is very real.

In Episode 11, Phaya asked Tharn to let go because he doesn't want Tharn to die. In the next, Tharn will let go (leave), because he doesn't want Phaya (and everyone else) to die. A God's threat cannot be ignored easily. We want him to fight, but Tharn is already frightened. What if he fights, and everyone dies? He can't ask everyone to make that sacrifice for him. Someone (his parents) have already died.

For a first time director, A has been amazing to me. It also shows that he was/still is an acting teacher on set- every choice, every expression, every movement he has asked the actors to do, has been done with great thought and deliberation. And Babe- he still needs work, but so far, he has been very good. and Billy as Phaya, he fights with Tharn, he complains and whines, he makes some laughs, and I personally feel he's improved a lot since SCOY.

So even if they bomb the last episode (lol, yeah that threat is still there), I have found the Sign enjoyable and a series that's becoming close to my heart because it aligns with me and my personal beliefs.

Lol, I don't even know why I'm saying all this and even if I'm making sense but I have just got to let it out. Maybe I just wanted to share my opinion, that Episode 11 isn't really all that bad.

[writingwithcolor]

Rebellion in Ojibwe Society: Considerations for Pre-Contact Indigenous Peoples

@raconteuse3​ asked:

Hi! I'm writing a fantasy story with an Ojibwe-like culture, and I'm wondering what rebellion/counter culture would look like in a tribal culture pre-contact? One of my characters has a rebellious spirit, but I keep writing her in a very ... American-teenage-rebellion way, which I know isn't a phase of life in all cultures. To rephrase in snarky terms, "what were Ojibwe punks up to 500 years ago?" I haven't been able to find any helpful information, so I thought I'd ask here! Thank you!

Traditional disclaimer: not raised under traditional parenting techniques, not from that nation, this is primarily pointing out structural differences in Indigenous society vs Western from a reconnecting person.

Teenagerhood as we know it is modern

When it comes to the concept of rebellion, there is one very important thing to keep in mind: how recent and privileged the concept of “teenagerhood is a sheltered time you figure yourself out” is. In a lot of traditional societies, you started helping doing the adult work in childhood alongside your parents. By teenage years you were a pretty valued member of the community, and were beginning to work on adult honours, were looking to get married, etc.

Pre-contact parenting traditions exists in modern day, too. You can absolutely look at very modern, very connected Indigenous societies and notice the way they structure work and parenting is different. Parenting traditions are going under a huge revival as communities heal from residential schools, and these traditional techniques are being preserved.

So what is she even rebelling against? She’d be in a world where she’d be granted a lot of autonomy, be able to do basically everything an adult could by this point, and would have been guided by people working alongside her. The traditional avenues of rebellion like “you don’t know what it’s like to grow up now” and “I’m not a kid stop treating me like one” are harder to rely on.

It’s really primarily an industrialization invention to have teen years be the “in between” years we know them as today. In modern times, teenage years are considered the years you focus on your education to eventually get started as an adult in your 20s, once you have a job that is in a separate institution to your family.

In non-industrial societies where the primary work available is what keeps the community running, and extra time is spent creating beauty (art, stories, music), or advancing our understanding of the world (medicine, scientific experiments). There is far less need for a period of being sheltered where all you do is educate yourself in order to be an adult; I’d assume the primary structures of teenage years would be based around helping teach emotional regulation.

A note: the average hunter-gatherer, according to anthropologists, only “does work” (to survive) about 20 hours a week. There would be plenty of time to do fun things in society. 

And I’m sure somebody in the notes will mention it: yes, the fact that the average age was closer to 60-70 instead of 80-90 like we have in industrial society is part of it. But elders could and did live into their 80s pre-contact, so the point is less salient than you’d think.

Environmental controls didn’t exist

The other important thing to keep in mind is: there was only so much rebellion you could do before you ended up dead from the natural world.

Elders were those who had survived and whose wisdom you could use to help everyone’s survival. Counsel and collective leadership were often prized, along with young experience. Humility was often taught as a virtue because pride went out and got you killed, and greed would render the land uninhabitable.

So really, the likelihood of having her be rebellious in any way we’d recognize is slim to none. Traditional Indigenous parenting techniques are worlds different than American parenting techniques, and anthropologist after anthropologist has noted that kids in Indigenous societies—when those societies don’t have massive traumas that come from, say, residential schools and parents never being able to learn Indigenous practices—are way more well adjusted than Western teenagers.

If you’re dead set on having her be rebellious in some way: my biggest suggestion would be to read ethnographies of the Ojibwe that described their cultural practices and see if there were any social norms discussed around teenage rebellion; you could get lucky and find a gem of rebellion actively described, or you might have to read through a bunch and piece together a cultural context from them. 

But you need to do this research anyway, so look for particularly thick and comprehensive tomes. As I said, this can be found in modern day, so you’re not super limited by time period. If you really want to focus on “as it was”, you’ll be looking for writings between 1850 and 1930.

(I’ve read one ethnography that mentioned an avenue of rebellion among the Omaha, written in 1911. It described how arranged marriages for teenage girls were common, but if the girl could get her chosen husband’s family to treat her as his wife, then the father couldn’t force her to marry the guy he chose. But that relies on a patriarchal society, even if the idea of a patriarchal society would have looked different at the time)

Look for things published by universities; those will have the best academic rigour. I’m not super well versed in the modern anthropology programs because my education stopped right before I got to that point, but an edu with a heavy involvement in the tribe will be the best.

Historically your best sources, or at least a place to look for sources, are those who had close connections with the tribe and lived there for extended periods of time, or even better had tribal co-writers. An example of the former would be Margaret Mead, who wrote Coming of Age in American Samoa, and she kind of single handedly brought breastfeeding back to American society. Her work is highly debated, but the Samoans she worked with loved her; she lived with them for most of her life, from her 20s to retirement. An example of the latter is Alice Fletcher, who co-wrote The Omaha Tribe with Francis La Flesche.

Ojibwe, please comment: What does “rebellion” look like to you?

~ Mod Lesya

#Asks #ojibwe #fantasy #parenting #parents #rebellion #native american #Teenagers #worldbuilding #family #Family Life

[lawisnotmocked]

@clouiis asked: sorry for the like fkhskjfhjskd sudden dm but i wanted to ask since youre a fellow javert enjoyer! what's your take on all the animalistic imagery that gets assigned to him? Especially in terms of it's relation to violence, dog son of a wolf that would devor his kin and all (but then arguably, the imagery shifting to gentleness in Javert Derailed w the whole dog licking the hand of its master thing) and the???? pleasure sounds weird but ig???? thrill????? that he gets from pursuing valjean w all the predator imagery?? mans just a furry

[tumblr straight up deleted the ask you sent when I was trying to answer it but I had all the text saved bc I thought something like this might happen omg :’3]

I can’t tell you how excited I am to get to answer this omg :’3 I, Known Javert Enjoyer And Furry, am being asked to infodump about my special interest?? Hell to the fucking yeah let’s go!!!

Javert being The Man With The Literal Dog Soul has so much personal importance to my dog man self that I am literally incapable of being normal about it no I will not explain myself yes I’ve written multiple paragraphs as an answer thank u for your time and I hope you enjoy uwu

The first thing I’d probably want to talk about in relation to Javert’s animal imagery is the way it fits into Victor Hugo’s Characteristically Complex And Layered Web Of Furry Symbolism bc I love that shit ☺️

Just gonna set some stuff up before I get into my ramblings lol so it’s accessible to anyone reading it uwu’’ But Hugo’s symbolic animal code is woven throughout the whole text of Les Mis and is most often used to assign moral worth to actions, illustrate the emotional state of characters, foreshadow future events and make broad ideological statements about society and the ways people interact with each other within society. It’s a pretty common French literary device for the period and one I’m personally absolutely in love with! But like a lot of things in lm it also relies on the reader having the full cultural context to be able to understand a lot of what he’s talking about and obviously most modern audiences won’t have that ^^’ I’ve done my best to decode some of Javert’s most important animal symbolism but I’m still learning so I’m sure there’ll still be some things I miss uwu’’

One of the commonly recurring symbolic animals in Les Mis that’s very relevant to Javert’s own symbolism is the wolf! Wolves in Les Mis often mean two things - that a person has dangerous, malicious or violent intentions, or that a person is prohibited from being part of Polite SocietyTM, normally because they’re in extreme poverty or are a criminal. Lots of people who are both violent and criminals get assigned wolf imagery in Les Mis, including Thenardier, Montparnasse and Valjean while he’s in prison and he’s traumatised and angry. Javert however is not a wolf, he’s the dog son of wolves, and this is an Important Symbolic Distinction to make.

Javert is read by many people as being the romani son of two imprisoned parents. Again just gonna give some brief context just in case anyone needs it, but the romani people are an incredibly persecuted ethnic group who live mostly in Europe. I grew up next to a British Romany community, and modern romani communities still face a lot of racism and violence both from governments and individuals in the present day. If you’re not romani I’d definitely recommend educating yourself on the issues romani people in your country and community face because ignorance to these issues only allows violence against romani communities to continue. As a white English man I’m definitely not the right person to talk in depth about Javert’s experiences as a French Romani person but I’ll try and give some basic context with links to posts made by people with a lot more knowledge on the topic than I have.

Before they even ended up in prison, Javert’s parents were ‘wolves’ just by committing the crime of existing as romani people, hence Javert is the son of wolves. However, Javert is not a wolf himself, his main Symbolically Significant Fursona is a dog. Javert was born outside of society without much hope of ever being able to enter it himself - ‘as he grew up, he thought that he was outside the pale of society, and he despaired of ever re-entering it. He observed that society unpardoningly excludes two classes of men,- those who attack it and those who guard it; he had no choice except between these two classes’ (1.5.5) He had the choice between becoming a wolf and most likely ending up imprisoned himself, or turning himself the state’s guard dog, aka a prison guard then a police inspector, so he chose to become the dog who devours his wolf siblings. The peasants of Asturias quote makes me crazy and stupid it’s my favourite part of the whole book it makes me rabid and feral :’3 This bitch gets me so emotional man his whole character motivation comes from a place of trauma and self hatred and trying to escape the same fate as his parents 😭

Going slightly off topic to link some other related posts for a second but! since Javert was born in a prison, he was most likely taken from his mother at a very young age and placed in the care of someone else until he was old enough to work at Toulon. Even ‘Javert’ would be a name given to him by the state to prevent his bio family from being able to find him once he grew up. This post also has an interesting discussion about Javert’s internalised racism and how that might have affected him growing up, especially if he was taken from his family as a child, and it’s definitely worth a read.

There is a lot of violence in the dog symbolism too like you said!! He is first and foremost a hunting dog belonging to the state, and he gets used by the state to do the dirty work of dealing with other lower class ‘animals’ who are excluded from society just like he is. At a certain point though Javert is choosing this line of work as opposed to just being forced into it, and he derives a vicious pleasure from doing his job! Javert isn’t an exceptionally violent police inspector, he’s actually an unrealistically perfect and idealised police inspector for the 19th century, but his character illustrates that the law itself is violent, and even by following the letter of the law and being incorruptible Javert is a dangerous man.

This is where Javert’s other main symbolic fursona comes in - the tiger! Cat symbolism in Les Mis is A Whole Complicated Thing and cats have a lot of different symbolic meanings but as far as I can figure out, domestic cats in Les Mis represent progress, potential, indecisiveness, neutrality and choices to make/paths to take. Lions are heavily associated with the barricade scenes and revolution and represent an action or person being a force for good, while tigers are associated with dangerous people and Morally Bad Actions. Domestic cats also represent the potential for an individual to become a big cat - when Valjean enters Myriel’s room at night he’s described as catlike, but when he leaves with the silver he’s a tiger. Tiger = merciless cruelty and Morally Bad Actions is actually an established part of 18th and 19th century writing, and Robespierre was often compared to a tiger after his death in order to portray him as bloodthirsty and ruthless. Javert is introduced with both dog and tiger imagery, and this imagery is consistent throughout the book. ‘Javert, serious, was a watchdog; when he laughed, he was a tiger.’ (1.5.5)

In relation to all of the hunting and predator imagery associated with Javert, I do actually think pleasure is the right word to describe what he’s feeling! And, gonna get a lil bit nsfw here but, I think there genuinely is an intentionally sexual subtext to some of the ‘hunting’ scenes!

‘Then he began the game. He experienced one ecstatic and infernal moment; he allowed his man to go on ahead, knowing that he had him safe, but desirous of postponing the moment of arrest as long as possible, happy at the thought that he was taken and yet at seeing him free, gloating over him with his gaze, with that voluptuousness of the spider which allows the fly to flutter, and of the cat which lets the mouse run. Claws and talons possess a monstrous sensuality,—the obscure movements of the creature imprisoned in their pincers. What a delight this strangling is! Javert was enjoying himself. The meshes of his net were stoutly knotted. He was sure of success; all he had to do now was to close his hand’. (2.5.10)

Like?? ‘one ecstatic and infernal moment’?? ‘Monstrous sensuality’?? This is very intentionally intense language!! Hugo even literally says ‘Javert jouissait’ in the original French!! Which is slang for orgasm!! I joke that Javert is into vore but you cannot make this shit up!! :’D

There are like Actual Academic Discussions about this word choice that aren’t just me screaming on tumblr dot com lol, and a 2 second google search brought up this passage from Richard D Burton’s book ‘Blood in the City: Violence and Revelation in Paris, 1789–1945’ - ‘Hugo’s inspector Javert stalking Jean Valjean from afar, delighting sadistically in the godlike power he exerts over the unwitting object of his gaze, postponing the moment of capture as a lover defers the moment of orgasm’ (p.285)

I’m also gonna bring attention to this post that talks about this scene - ‘these combinations having been effected, feeling that Jean Valjean was caught between the blind alley Genrot on the right, his agent on the left, and himself, Javert, in the rear, he took a pinch of snuff’ (2.5.10) - as reading very much like a premature post-coital cigarette, both bc it’s funny and because everything wolfsbaneblooming says is really interesting 😌

Of course you don’t have to read anything in this scene as sexual pleasure! Like any kind of literary reading there are so many different ways to interpret the text, but I personally get joy out of reading this scene as Javert being very horny about hunting Valjean down in the streets of Paris and I personally think he would benefit from quitting his job and getting involved in the kink scene instead uwu

Last tangent I’m gonna go on I promise but you also mentioned the dog imagery in Javert Derailed and that means you’re gonna be subjected to my Javert Is Canonically In Love With Valjean reading of Les Mis 😌

I’ve talked about this reading in more detail before in this post here, but a lot of Javert’s animal imagery is used as a way to show how he emotionally reacts to things. Javert is going through a whole lot of complicated emotions during the derailment chapter and a lot of this is reflected in the dog symbolism!

One example I’m absolutely insane about of Javert’s conflicted feelings is this passage here - ‘when he had so unexpectedly encountered Jean Valjean on the banks of the Seine, there had been in him something of the wolf which regains his grip on his prey, and of the dog who finds his master again’. (5.4.1) He still has the ‘hunting instinct’ telling him that he’s supposed to capture Valjean, but now he also feels that to do so would be ‘wolf’ behaviour - it would be violent and malicious and serve no greater purpose. Now ‘the dog who finds his master again’... Javert’s ‘master’ up to this point has been the state and his superiors in the police - he’s belonged to and dedicated his whole self to the state for his entire life, but this quote implies that he’s now starting to see Valjean as his ‘master’ instead. I don’t think Javert is in the right emotional state to be forming healthy normal bonds with anyone at this point (or arguably at all?? King u need community support and so much therapy :’3), but I read this scene as Javert starting to almost replace his devotion to state authorities with a devotion to Valjean and protecting him from harm. Also like!! A purely surface level reading of ‘dog who finds his master’ immediately suggests feelings of excitement and adoration and relief!! Sounds kinda like love to me, as weird and canid as Javert’s love is!!

But oh no!! Javert’s weird canid love strikes again!!

‘A terrible situation! to be touched. To be granite and to doubt! to be the statue of Chastisement cast in one piece in the mould of the law, and suddenly to become aware of the fact that one cherishes beneath one's breast of bronze something absurd and disobedient which almost resembles a heart! To come to the pass of returning good for good, although one has said to oneself up to that day that that good is evil! to be the watch-dog, and to lick the intruder's hand! to be ice and melt! to be the pincers and to turn into a hand! to suddenly feel one's fingers opening! to relax one's grip,- what a terrible thing!’ (5.4.1)

I’m!!!! Hhhh!!! The tenderness!!!! The gentle adoration and devotion!!!! The resignation to what he already knows must be true!! God I’m never gonna get over this paragraph!!!! He loves Valjean like a dog loves its master!! He’s in awe of him in the same way that men are in terrified awe of angels!!

A benevolent malefactor, merciful, gentle, helpful, clement, a convict, returning good for evil, giving back pardon for hatred, preferring pity to vengeance, preferring to ruin himself rather than to ruin his enemy, saving him who had smitten him, kneeling on the heights of virtue, more nearly akin to an angel than to a man. (5.4.1)

What could this be but weird canid love from this man? Javert spent his whole life devoted to system that placed no value on his life and ended it devoted to the man who cared enough to save him.

I tried not to repeat myself too much because this is already obnoxiously long but I did go into more depth with my Javert loves Valjean reading here if anyone hasn’t already had enough of me going ape about dogs or whatever uwu’’

Hsvsbsv anyway in conclusion I think Javert is a fucked up little man who needs to be held gently and my professional recommendation is that he quit his job, join a furry kink group, try to reconnect with his bio family and see a therapist 😌💞

#javert #valvert #les mis #les miserables #les mis meta #monsters of our making #was gonna queue this but I want immediate validation rn so I’m posting it and I’ll schedule it for later too uwu #fave posts tag

[ctl-yuejie]

How the diverse world of the addictive tv series “Cherry magic” got made

(interview with scriptwriter Yoshida Erika by Yokogawa Yoshiaki)

沼堕ち続出ドラマ“チェリまほ”の多様な世界はどうやって作られたのか【脚本家・吉田 恵里香さん】2020.12.22  横川 良明

for @howdydowdy because we were talking about what a fantastic character Fujisaki is and the notion of consent when it comes to reading someone’s mind

Currently, societal values continue to change rapidly. On one hand the movement of respecting each other’s diverse individualities and making it easier for each and every one to live in society has become more active, one the other hand it is not a rare occasion to be lost for words when suddenly unconscious discriminatory biases – derived from not being able to cut loose old values that are rooted deep in oneself – raise their heads.

How should we exist within this period of polarization? This series is to create the opportunity to think about this topic by having discussions with the toprunners in the entertainment world. The person I am introducing for the first edition is screenwriter Yoshida Erika.

She is behind the script of “Thirty Years of Virginity Can Make You a Wizard?!”, the tv series that has grabbed the first spot on the oricon satisfaction ranking for 4 weeks in a row, and has gained fast popularity despite its late-night spot. The enthusiasm for the show can be attributed to the soft view Ms. Yoshida has on the world.

Yokogawa Yoshiaki (YY): I am happily watching the series. I really liked the original work, however the way it was adapted to a television format has been brilliant. One big thing is the making of the character of Kurosawa played by Machida Keita. By Adachi’s magic (played by Akasouji Eiji), the voice of Kurosawa’s heart spills out, and while the original text had him be quite blatant in his expressions overall, the drama carefully examines them.

Yoshida Erika (YE): That is definitely where there is a difference in depth. The original has the premise of a work in the BL genre, readers are expecting a BL-like development, so they can take such things in stride, but the viewership of the tv series is more varied. Under them there might be people who do not like BL. That is why I was conscious about how different people from different backgrounds might watch this show.

It is not okay to assault someone just because you were invited to their house, kissing or touching without consent is not okay and being of the same or different sex makes no difference in this. Treating such things as okay because it is BL would be rude to the parties concerned. Because we are using the BL genre, we want to specifically protect the “firsts” of the parties concerned. That is something the producer Ms. Honma Kanami and the director agreed about and I therefore paid extra attention to.

YY: Adachi himself, as he is about to step into Kurosawa’s house thinks “Not that I might possibly get assaulted?!”, and is very vigilant, but with some soul-searching realizes that that is rude towards Kurosawa. To say it briefly, you can feel the probity of the creators.

YE: I thought that a main character that thinks that he will get assaulted when he steps into the house of someone will not be loveable. No matter how well received the person is who acts it out, if we cannot love them on a human level, this drama will not work. Adachi’s power to read people’s hearts is also the action of seeing people’s darker sides on his own volition. That’s why a character we cannot love as a person will receive push-back by the viewers.

YY: Just like you said, the act of reading peoples’ hearts includes great violence. That is why I think that when he realizes that Kurosawa has fond feelings for him, unlike the original where he reads Kurosawa’s heart on purpose, the drama treats it as an accidental force. Over the whole series, it is of focal importance that Adachi doesn’t overuse his magic.

YE: That is where we were extremely careful. In the manga easy comprehensiveness is important and that type of suspense is interesting - and we don’t intend to deny that - but if you do it as a drama, I didn’t want to make him into a young man using his powers at ease. That is why, especially in the first half, he decides and tries very hard not to use his powers when possible. The scene where he reads the CEO’s heart appears in the first issue of the original, but in the drama we pushed it back to the 5th episode. We made it a point to illustrate how Adachi is filled with the emotion to help Kurosawa and that is why he uses his powers.

                                                       -

That what I don’t want others to do unto me, I do not want to inflict on characters.

                                                       -

YY: His colleague Fujisaki (Satou Ryo) is a Fujoshi in the original and that premise was cut from the series. If you decided to have a Fujoshi character on a prime time show, did you think that misunderstandings might arise easily?

YE: That was definitely a thought. In BL as a genre it is not an issue that a character exists that takes the same viewpoint as the reader, and I love Fujisaki in the original, but the people who are acting it out in reality are real people. At that point, loudly fawning about someone else’s’ love life is not perceived as good conduct. At the least, I thought that I wouldn’t want to be treated like that.

YY: It is fine to envision fictional characters as romantic partners, but it is different when you make a real acquaintance the target of that.

YE:

A thought we had was that if Adachi and Kurosawa were to really date it would be one thing, but grinning at someone - who might even be heterosexual – because you inflate your own BL adjacent delusion isn’t much different from a man grinning at a woman with big breasts and calling her sexy. I wouldn’t want to get treated that way, so I didn’t want to inflict that on the characters in the story as well.

When it comes to Fujisaki it isn’t like she isn’t a Fujoshi. We do not clearly state it, but I thought there was no reason to show it in the drama. 

YY: You are saying, that it is fine that people might interpret Fujisaki as a Fujoshi when she is smiling at Adachi and Kurosawa.

YE: Yes. That is where you are free to imagine (laughs).

YY: What I thought was very fresh is that instead of proclaiming her to be a Fujoshi, Fujisaki is turned into someone who “is happily living her daily life even without romantic love”. We don’t often get characters like that in Japanese tv series.

Personally, I also like romantic tv series, but while feeling venerated when the main characters have realized their love in the final episode, when trying to build a romantic connection to someone else in real life it might not go well and beyond that, it is not that it never happens that I, who also holds interests in other things than romance, end up feeling empty because of the lonely feeling of having been left behind (when watching a romance on tv unfold).

But with having Fujisaki appear, it felt like I got rescued.

YE: Until now, for several projects I made the suggestion of a character that is not interested in romance, but I wasn’t understood. “Is it necessary to do that?” “Aren’t you overthinking it?” were things I got told often.

But with this production, when I said that I wanted Fujisaki to be asexual or aromantic, no one denied me. From that stage on I thought that this place was a good one, and thanks to the original writer giving her agreement it got turned into reality.

YY: Since this kind of character hasn’t really appeared in a tv series, it felt like people like Fujisaki were assigned to be non-existent in this world. But thanks to you envisioning her like this, seen from a person that like Fujisaki might say “I got used to acting “normal”” and feel a notion of despair when confronted with people not understanding them, it felt like it got emphasized that people like her also exist in our society. Picking such little voices feels like it is one of the purposes of entertainment.

YE: If that could become the case I would be glad about it. 10 to 20 years prior, a “fairytale gay” (describing the flamboyant gay friend, that mentally supports the heroine by giving some harsh but accurate advice) often appeared in tv series from abroad, but this portrayal slowly changed, finally it has reached the point where the view point that being gay isn’t something special has penetrated the public.

So this time, I believe that one of my duties was to tell the story of people that are not interested in romance or people who do not only love one person, not from a standpoint that is convenient for consumption, but to have properly realized characters up to their individual backgrounds.

                                                     -

I hope the time comes where it isn’t necessary to especially say “This is a BL series”

                                                      -

YY: Please let me speak on something that has confused me this far. Prior, when you explained Fujisaki in context of the script, it felt like it wasn’t okay to call her asexual or aromantic because she herself doesn’t use any of those labels. I was somewhat afraid that an outsider would just selfishly declare that “you are asexual, aren’t you!?” in regards to someone who hasn’t professed anything.

YE: There is the point of both of the terms asexual and aromantic not being widely known in Japan as much as compared to overseas and I also think there are people who just wouldn’t use these words. Even when you think you are not interested in romance at the moment, it could also be that you just haven’t found the person that makes you feel that way. That’s why I can understand how labelling someone has a violent notion.

YY: My next question is also relating to that: This applies to Cherry Maho, but generally when I write about over works that feature a lovestory between men I try not to use the word BL.

This is my own opinion but to me it feels like the term BL has too much of a sexual image.

In private I casually use the word BL. However, for the content of an article that is read by an unspecified number of people, I remember stumbling over labelling something as BL. Using BL as an easy genre specifier has the effect that there will be a layer that won’t get looked at. I simply want to have more people enjoy a piece of work. I don’t object to the editor using BL in the title but in the content I write, I try not to use the term BL story but simply “love story between two men” and keep it close to how you’d address it in reality.

YE: I understand that. Obviously, I don’t intend to shame the taste of people that like BL. However, I understand that there are people that feel a sense of resistance towards BL as a genre. That is why I also don’t use the word BL when I promote on twitter. I do think that it would be great to have a new word.

Just like women have things they don’t want to be subjected to, men also have things they don’t want to be subjected to. This kind of awareness has become more broadly spread bit by bit. However, in order to have it really penetrate society it needs for the voices of the affected people to be heard. But it is also the reality of today’s society that violence is directed at people that raise their voice. That is why I feel like it is the job of the people that create tv shows to speak up instead.

At the least, that is how I want to straightforwardly create the world, so that in 10 years without directly stating “this is a BL series” we have a society that takes it in as a “new cool romantic drama beginning” with “the leads being actor x and actor z” and as nothing unusual.  Now we really have such a transitional period, and as a writer I want to build the steps towards it.  

                                                          -

original article: https://mi-mollet.com/articles/-/27045?page=3&per_page=1

#cherry magic #thirty years of virginity can make you a wizard #30歳まで童貞だと魔法使いになれるらしい #30 sai made #a bit rusty with my translations but i really enjoyed how they were talking about the writing and character composition in the series and #decided that I had to share #long post

[gingerswagfreckles]

Queer is my fave word, thanks for posting about that book, I'm gonna try to get a copy! It's just awesome to have an umbrella term for not feeling cis-hetero but not entirely certain where you fit under the umbrella yet.

Ahh yes!! You mean Gay New York by George Chauncey? That book is THE book on queer history in the US (it's really not just about NYC, but it is focused there). Not only is it the most meticulously well researched book I have EVER read, it is just. So brilliant in how it analyses the construction of and intersection of gender, sexuality, biological sex, class, race, and society. Like I read it for a class in freshman year of college and trust me I was already EXTREMELY liberal and well versed in queer discourse. Yet it completely I mean COMPLETELY changed my understanding of not only sex and gender but just like. What identity is, how much of what we see as static and natural are actually very contextual social constructs. And it really showed in a very concrete and reality based way how every identity exists and is defined through the context of its environment, and that while our experiences are very inherently real, the lines we draw around these experiences to define them are not. Like. The existence of a queer identity the way we generally think of it now did NOT exist in the same way throughout history. The intersection of so many facets of life have been interpreted so completely differently throughout history and in different places and social contexts. The queer community has never been some static and well defined club that one is or is not a member of. It is and always has been a nebulous and highly changeable social network of people with common experiences and interests who have defined their own communities in wildly different ways depending on where you look. Trying to strictly define who does or does not belong in or who has or hasn't existed in the queer community throughout history is completely pointless, because in reality we are talking about an absolutely enormous group of people who have been variously connected to and socially isolated from others, who have seen their own identities and their own communities in completely different ways.

It really highlighted for me how pointless 99% of the discourse on this website is, and how much almost all of it boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of what identity is. NONE of the identities we think of as inherently real are inherently real, and arguing about who should be included in a community or who's identities are "valid" just shows that you think the framework through which you understand sex and gender is universal rather than cultural, contextual, and highly individual. Like, identities overlap! Identities step on each others toes!!! Words and labels change, and people do not universally agree on what they mean at any point in time!!! You would not believe how many people who you would think of as being part of the queer community didn't think of themselves as part of the queer community, and you would not believe how many people who you do NOT think of as part of the queer community DID see themselves as part of it, and were accepted!!

Like, for example, the interpretation of what it even meant to be "homosexual" was SO different depending on what period on time you look at, what location, what social and financial class these people were part of, what racial identity they saw themselves as (and that's a whole 'nother can of worms!) Sexuality was often seen as MUCH more connected to gender performance and sexual roles one took than it is today, and a lot, I mean a LOT of men who always topped did not see themselves as homosexual/gay/part of the queer community at all, especially in working class communities. And!! Guess what!! This is the part that will really blow your mind!!!

T H E Y W E R E N ' T W R O N G!!!!!!!!!!!

They were not WRONG about how they defined their identities or how they saw themselves in relation to a certain social community!! Because they were using their OWN social and sexual framework to interpret their identities and their actions!!! And saying they were WRONG in their interpretation fundamentally misunderstands that the criteria YOU use to measure whether someone is part of an identity or social group is not any more correct or real than the criteria THEY used! Saying these people were "wrong" is to impose one's own modern and highly contextual social framework on people from the past-- and TBH it's fine to see people from the past through modern lenses, and to recognize that they would be seen as gay/a certain identity by modern standards. That's fine! But the way they saw themselves then wasn't wrong, it was just different, and your criteria for what you see as gay or straight or part of a community is just as arbitrary and based on the context of your environment as theirs was.

People like to argue with this all the time, saying things like that these individuals were just suffering from internalized homophobia, gender bias, ignorance of what this or that identity "really" means, and these people are really really really misunderstanding the point. These are usually the same people who say things like "words mean things!!" when points like the one I'm making are brought up, because they continue to misunderstand how much these words yes, mean things, but mean things within historical and cultural contexts that are NOT shared by the entire world. Like, ok, you may say our example man from the 1910s is gay whether he recognized that or not, because he engaged in homosexual acts. But what does it mean to have homosexual sex? To have sex with someone of the same biological sex? Well what is biological sex, and how do we define what makes ones biological sex the "same" or "different" from your own? Is it someone with the same type of genitals as you? That's not a universally shared opinion, and the way you define the "types" of genitals are not universally shared either. What if I told you that there have been cultures throughout history who have categorized biological sex through the length of the penis, with people with shorter penises being seen as a separate sex than those who have longer penises? So two people with penises could have sex with each other and not be understood as having sex with someone of the same sex, in that culture!

Oh, that's not what you meant? That's wrong? Why? Why? Because your personal understanding and your culture's general perception of what biological sex is is more valid and real than that culture's? Why? WHY? Could you really explain why, or is it just that the difference is making you uncomfortable, because it threatens your perception of a LOT of the ideas you see as inherently real?

And we could do the same thing with the ACT of sex! I mean, what is sex? What physical acts are sexual, and what aren't? Is it just someone putting a body part inside of another person's body in some way? Well what about handjobs and other kinds of outercourse? Is sex then some physical thing we do in pursuit of an orgasm? What if you don't orgasm? Is it not sex then? Is sex the use of our bodies to derive general physical pleasure? Well what about a massage? Is a massage sex? In some times and places, many people would have said yes!

These aren't just theoretical questions- Chauncey outlines how these differing definitions of what sex is and what makes it queer not only allowed for a lot of people we would unquestioningly think of as part of the queer community to exclude themselves, but also resulted in the inclusion of people we would never consider to be queer now. Like, most female prostitutes who served only male cliental absolutely hands down refused to give blow jobs in the early 1900s, because blowjobs were seen as an extremely deviant expression of sexuality and were understood to be part of "homosexual" activity, regardless of the sex or genders of the people involved, because it was sexual activity that explicitly was not seeking to create a baby. This was a widely understood concept at the time, and persisted despite the fact that many of these women were using contraception and therefore obviously not seeking to get pregnant. Blowjobs were still seen as perverse and "homosexual," and thus not something most regular female prostitutes were willing to engage in.

Therefore! Female prostitutes who only ever had sex with male cliental but DID provide oral sex (and many other not-penis-in-vagina-activities) were often lumped in with lesbians!!! And treated as such in arrest records and propaganda! And guess what?? As a result, guess who these women usually hung around with, and where they usually could be found? Within the queer community and queer spaces!! These women were seen by the broader society as well as by much of the queer community as QUEER, and many of them likely understood themselves this way as well!

And for the record, these questions of what sex is and what gender is and what makes it gay or straight or whatever are not questions that belong strictly to the past. Survey the general population about what act they consider to have been the one where they "lost their virginity," and you will get wildly different answers. Survey self identified gay or straight people on what kind of sex acts they engage with and with who, and you will similarly find an enormous variation in reports.

And these questions MATTER! These questions matter, not in that we have to find some way to answer them, but in order to understand that we can't, definitively, and that thinking our own perceptions of any of these things are more valid than others' perceptions is incredibly harmful and dismissive to the lived experiences of other people. You can't define other people's identities out of existence just because they threaten or overlap or contradict with your own understanding of some concept, because your definitions of literally any of the criteria you are using to try to build your boxes are ALSO up for interpretation!

Like, I'm sorry I know I am rambling soooo much but you opened the same floodgates that this book opened back when I read it. If the people on this stupid website had any understanding of the history they claim to know so much about, they would see how their attitudes of "this identity is more valid than that identity" and "you can't sit with us because you're not actually part of this or that identity because my definition is better than your definition" is nothing new or woke or progressive, but is the exact same shit that has always been done and has been used to marginalize people who's existence or behaviors threaten the status quo. Like yelling at asexual or pansexual or nonbinary or aromantic people or whatever other group that they don't belong, or that their identity isn't real because it threatens the perceived integrity of another identity...it's all so stupid!! Your identity is also just a way for you to define yourself within your cultural context! Like I've literally seen people be like "asexality isn't a real identity bc if we didn't live in a society that was so sex obsessed then you wouldn't feel the need to define yourself this way." And it's like....what?? Yeah, ok??? But we do live in this society???????? And you can say that about LITERALLY ANY identity??! Not even ones related to sex and gender! Like "you aren't really deaf and deafness isn't real, because if we lived in a world without sound then you wouldn't notice you couldn't hear." Like yeah?? But we do live in a world with sound?? So...people find this term useful to articulate their experiences? And they might even dare to form an identity around it, and maybe a community, and might even become proud of it, even though it is a social construct, just like pretty much everything else??

It just drives me nuts. We go around and around in circles without ever understanding that so much of the bigotry we face is the same thing we are perpetuating with each other, because we don't understand that it is natural and normal for people's definitions of certain identities to conflict, and for their interpretations of the world to run up against each other sometimes. And that there is no strictly defined queer community, and who does or doesn't "belong" is not a decision that any one person or even any one culture gets to make, ever.

To try to finally actually wrap back around to what your actual comment was to begin with, I think queer is a wonderful word, and that GENERALLY SPEAKING in our current cultural context, it is used to encapsulate so much of the messiness and overlap that makes people so uncomfortable, but is what makes the queer community so great!!!!! That being said, it of course has had different definitions in different time periods and cultural contexts just like everything else, and some people may still have negative connotations associated with it and therefore not feel comfortable using it to self-identify. And that's fine too, as long as you don't try to force other people to stop using the term to describe their own identities on the basis that your definition is more real than theirs, which is the opposite of what queer history is all about.

If anyone is interested in the book I am talking about, you can buy it as an ebook, audiobook, or paper copy here: https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/george-chauncey/gay-new-york/9780786723355/

It goes into way way way more depth about everything I'm rambling about here, and backs it up with the most research and evidence I've ever seen in one single book. The physical copy is about as thick as two bricks stacked on top of each other, so if you can't get an exclusionist to read it, you can always just whack them over the head.

#gingerswagfreckles #queer #queer history #queer community #panphobia #ace discourse #acephobia #transphobia #queer discourse #mogai discourse #discourse #gay community #oh i accidentally wrote an essay #im so sorry anon u did not ask for this #this just came pouring out tho #its been brewing inside me for years and with the recent resurgence of panphobia for NOOOO reason uuugh #ive been really agitated and thinking about this a lot #and it just came pouring out #source is the fucking book obviously #so pls dont ask #btw anon i say you you you a lot in this and ofc I am NOT talking to u specifically i promise lol #im talking to a general audience

[therealvinelle]

I agree that Aro definitely is not straight, but if he is gay and not bi, why window shop for a wife? If he wanted a partner for some reason, why not find a male one? It was a different era, yes, but are vampires really homophobic?

So, for this meta, we’ll have to get historical. Before we do, keep in mind that while I know Ancient Greece better than most, having studied it (introductory level classes only, mind), I don’t know it well enough to be any kind of authority on the matter. History, more than any other discipline I can think of, is not respected as an academic field, and people with poor to no understanding of historical hermeneutics will make very bold assumptions that they then have too poor understanding of history to realize are bullshit. This is a disclaimer because I don’t want to join in on the chorus of authoritative-sounding people on the internet with no verifiable credentials who spout things about history that are then taken to be gospel truth by readers because the author made it sound good.

More, I say this because your question is asking me to explain the morality and social norms surrounding a character from 14th century BC Greece. And this man would not, for the record have been Ancient Greek, he would have been Mycenaean Greek. Very quick history lesson: Mycenaean Greece was a flourishing society that suffered a downfall, Greek civilization fell into its very own dark ages, until around 800 BC when Greeks began forming what would become the Ancient Greece we know and love. This in turn means that I can’t very well read up on the marital and sexual norms of Ancient Greece when I’m researching for Aro, because he was five hundred years old already when Ancient Greece became a thing.

And your question concerns cultural history. And for that we’re going to have to look at how we know the things we know about history. How history is studied.

Historians have two kinds of sources: archeological findings and written records. (I’m aware that oral tradition, like the one carried by the Aborigine people, isn’t technically one of these, but to my understanding it’ll be treated to similar analysis as written records, which leaves us with the two types of sources standing strong.) These sources are analyzed, and we apply various theories and models onto them to make sense of the context they were written in. The more sources we have, the more we can refine or eliminate these theories or models.

More, history is an ever evolving field. There are movements and schools of thought that influence how history is written (marxism in history, that is, history as a class struggle, was heavy in the 60′s and I think until the 80′s), which means that how a certain culture will be perceived today is not the way it was perceived a few decades ago, nor will it be perceived the same way a few decades in the future.

You see why I am daunted by you asking me to give you an answer about sexual and marital norms for a guy who lived 3000 years ago, and I hope you’ll understand why I feel this word vomit is necessary.

Now, the danger with Mycenaean Greece is that it’s a society it’s easy to feel we know a lot about, because it was the precursor to Ancient Greece, and we know a lot about the latter. But, first of, the reason why we know as much as we do about the Ancient Greeks is the Romans. The Greeks wrote about their history, their philosophy, their government, and they wrote plays and told stories. However, that was two thousand years ago and their writings would have been lost to the sands of time if the Romans hadn’t idolized and sought to emulate their society. This meant preserving their written records. This tradition was carried on by the Christians, in part because Hellenistic philosophy was incorporated into Christian philosophy. We have neo-platonism to thank for Christian asceticism, the “mind over matter” cornerstone.

What I’m getting at with all of this is that we know the insane amount about Ancient Greece that we do because of some very unique circumstances, and so we can make very sophisticated theories about what the Hellenistic world was like. It’s still detective work, but not Pepe Silvia type of detective work. This is not the case for Mycenaean Greece. We know a comparative lot about Mycenaean Greece, considering how long ago it was, but there is very much we don’t know.

With Mycenaean Greece, we are dealing with a lot more uncertainty. We haven’t deciphered one of their two writing styles, and a lot of the text we do have is very fragmentary. Coming up with detailed societal models for Mycenaean Greece, and for the 14th century BC specifically, is... well I don’t know enough about what this society left behind to know what historians have to work with, but I imagine they have their work cut out.

More, I haven’t studied this at all, which means that any attempt on my end to research this would be stumbling around in the dark.

One example: the Illiad and the Odyssey, while composed around the 8th century BC, were set in the early 12th century BC, which is nearly Aro’s time period. The Illiad depicts a homoerotic relationship between Patroclus and Achilles, and both works depict a lot of matrimonies, so I wish I could use it as a source. However, not only would this time gap alone make these sources questionable, but there’s also the matter of the Illiad and the Odyssey being transmitted orally, from bard to bard. Changes were made over the years. For example, the technology described in the Illiad is from several eras, as the warriors will be using bronze weaponry in one book and then switch to iron in the next. This game of telephone is what happens when a story is transmitted orally from person to person. So, while it’s tempting to use these works as a sort of reference point, the possibility, likelihood even, that the bards made adjustments to keep the old story entertaining for their contemporary audience is strong.

For this reason, I can’t give you any kind of historically correct analysis on what the marital or sexual mores would have been like in Aro’s time. Even if the knowledge is out there, I don’t have it.

But I can say this, spouses have for the longest time been partners. Men and women got married, even in the gay, gay, Ancient Greece, not just to have children but because they complemented each other, they were partners. Men needs wives, and women needs husbands. And a partner was canonically exactly what Aro was looking for, feelings had nothing to do with it:

After Caius and Marcus had found their romantic attachments, Aro decided to find his own, although rather than finding his other half in another vampire Aro decided to create his own instead. Aro had a certain type of woman in mind and he found what he was looking for in Sulpicia. He successfully courted her and she came to fall in love with him.

As for vampires being homophobic, I think that is for another post about what culture they bring with them into their new life. But to be brief I’ll say that while the individual vampire can be homophobic, there can be no homophobia at an institutional level because vampires have no institutions. And it’s the institutional homophobia that gets ya. It’s what the whole fight for gay rights has been about: secure legislation against discrimination and that protects gay people. (The right to marry and protection from employees firing LGBT employees comes to mind as examples of this.)

So, no one could force Aro to marry a woman. 

And I’d go into a rant here about how the prospect of gay marriage, of even identifying as homosexual (the labels homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual are very new and, to my recollection, were born off of the Western psychiatric discipline as men who slept with other men were diagnosed with homosexuality. I imagine a man from the Antiquity would be confused at the notion that just because he likes to sleep with dudes he shouldn’t get married to a woman), was unthinkable up until very recently, but I just made this obscenely long rant about how I can’t really make these kinds of guesses, so I’m not gonna.

I think being married to a woman and then banging hot dudes who came along suited Aro just fine.

Also, I can’t believe I’m doing this, but - I’m going to encourage history asks. Because this fandom has a bit of a history problem, as a lot of the characters are from different time periods and many feel unsatisfied with the way Meyer handled that. I am by no means a historian, but I know several of the historical periods the characters of Twilight are from well enough to make educated guesses.

So, hit me with your worst.

#WHEW #aro #sulpicia #aro/sulpicia #history #twilight renaissance #twilight meta #twilight #this is very long and I'm tired so I didn't proofread #GERONIMO as they say #hope there are no embarrassing mistakes #also yes I know I just made a pretentious ass of myself #but i'm writing twilight meta on tumblr so i left my dignity behind long ago #doktrajediscovery #ask

[greenlivvie]

why i like historical romances

When I say “historical romances”, I mean works of fiction set in Regency England (or time periods close to it) centered around the love story of two straight people - atleast one of whom is closely related to the aristocracy. Most opinions I’ve read on the lure of these books are in the line of “etiquette, gowns, balls, different setting, escape from current world”, and I realized I don’t think any of those things make me like these books. I don’t like immersing into new worlds - that’s why I’m not into genres like sci-fi. I don’t like to rewire my brain to understand a completely new world, and yet I like historical romances. I don’t find joy in the intricacies of etiquette and ball-planning and reputation-saving, yet I enjoy a lot of these books. One can cringe about a lot of elements in these books (and I do), and yet I find myself re-reading parts of them. This is my attempt to theorize why I like historical romances. 

the setting

Today, women have  - for the most part - equal rights. Where they don’t, it is understood by most modern societies that they should. Historical romances are written in settings where this is not the case, legally or socially. Women’s assets are controlled by men, they cannot legally say no to their husbands once they’re married, they are not educated with the goal of being able to work, they are expected to marry to save their reputations - the list goes on. While women are still subjected to a lot of social pressures, they have way more legal protections today than they did back then, and people who mistreat women weren’t looked down as much.

Today, when men don’t treat women like crap behind closed doors - they do so with the knowledge that women have legal protections. Not all men (that I’ve met anyway) acknowledge the basic human decency that should be afforded to women, and only limit their decency to what they have to lawfully do. I’m sure most women can think of men who would absolutely cross boundaries if it was legal and not looked down upon.

In the setting of historical romances, men are allowed, sometimes even expected and encouraged, to not show women basic human respect. What attracts me to historical romances, atleast the ones I like, is that despite being clearly allowed to be absolute monsters to women in their lives, the male protagonists treat women with respect. Yes, this is a very, very low bar - but it is a bar that doesn’t exist in that setting. These characters respect women when it is not expected of them, they give women rights and treat them with dignity when they are allowed to not do so - both legally and socially.

the examples

(because yes, I want to do this properly - by that I mean I want to give atleast one example, will keep adding as I keep remembering them)

In Devil In Spring by Lisa Kleypas, despite her reputation being ruined, Lady Pandora Ravenel’s cousin (and guardian) makes it absolutely clear to her that she will always have a home in his house, regardless of her scandelous reputation. In the same book, the male protagonist Gabriel, upon hearing that Pandora is against marriage because she wants financial independence, tries to find a way by which she could retain total control of her assets after marriage. He fails because such a method doesn’t exist -  but he tries earnestly, because he believes that she should have full control of her business, even though neither the law nor the society thinks so. (Gabriel, you’re so hot for this)

In Chasing Cassandra by Lisa Kleypas, while negotiating the terms of marriage (you need to read the book to understand the context), Tom makes is absolutely clear to Cassandra that her body is her own and that she doesn’t owe him anything and can always say no. This was in response to Cassandra saying “it’s a husband’s right”, a sentiment that was echoed by law and society at the time - and not by Tom, at all.

#romance #historical romance #books #fiction #literature #lisa kleypas #devil in winter #chasing cassandra #thoughts #the ravenels #regency romance #yes the bar is low -- but it's a bar that didn't exist at the time and that's why it's attractive that these men treated women with dignity #i also dislike books where male protagonist doesn't treat the female protagonist with respect #just instant turn off #like i want them to be exceptions in their social setting