i know kaz and ronan share the same aesthetic and similar demeanors but I lowkey feel like kaz=adam and inej=ronan and an adam and kaz talk would be so elite
"the towhead blonde with the eyes of salt" - that's adam
"raised her brothers on her own" - that's declan!!!
if someone creates an animatic with this but in the chorus both declan and adam like are slowly surrounded by jordan + mathew and the gangsey respectively i will perish
and in the bridge?? like a scene at the barns with the whole group where they're just chilling and aaaahhhhhh
Opinions please I'm v v confused how to feel about him I'm just mostly sympathetic at everything he's gone through but also think he's a bit of a dick - im stuck.
and I'd love to hear some extra opinions
@incorrectmahabharatquotes and other hindu mythology stans rb with how you feel about Karna
(I'd tag you all but idk who of you all desi mutuals is a mahabharat stan so yeah)
(TW: non-graphic discussions of discrimination including caste-based discrimination, sexual violence)
I think that's an absolutely valid take OP. Karna is a sympathetic character as a person who has been oppressed and still managed to reach immense amounts of success. He's a tragic character in all the opportunities that have been taken away from him and the way he has been treated just because of his caste and position in the social hierarchy. (problems that are still very much present in India today, which is why I get pissed when people say "how could Karna be mistreated just for his caste?!? and it's like how do you think bro).
buuuut
what Karna does after that is what makes me hate him. My personal stance is that if an oppressed person perpetrates violence against another oppressed group, they aren't excused for it just because they might have also faced discrimination. Draupadi was wrong to mock Karna's caste and class position, but it doesn't justify suggesting she's (TW: sexual violence) disrobed and raped. And that really makes it hard for me to like him as a character.
and also Karna has just seemed less of a relatable character to me? I think I just relate a lot more to Arjuna's insecurities, fear he will never live up to expectations struggles with morality and quest for perfection than I have with Karna's inability to realise his homie is a dick. Something I once read somewhere that has always stood out to me is the fact that Karna was likely 22/21 when he challenged a 16-year-old Arjuna to a duel.
why would you waste your time reading a 750 page book by an author you know you donât like just to then pick it apart and hate on every aspect of it on tumblr dot com
*unhinges jaw*
*screams*
THERE ARE SO MANY BOOKS IN THE WORLD AND RELATIVELY YOU HAVE SO FEW YEARS TO READ THEM, DO NOT WASTE TIME ON BOOKS YOU HATE WHEN YOU COULD BE READING BOOKS YOU LOVE
you are not ADDING anything important by dedicating endless time to making anti sjm posts on here. srsly, ppl have brains and eyes and do not need your ~hot takes~ to figure out what they do and do not like in a book
I wrote a post on why I read SJM? Just going to copy and paste it here in the hopes that this will lead to more discussion about the role of critics! (and also as a shameless selfplug)
"I - Why do I care, and why should you?
There are two things about me you need to know at the top of this multipart endless rant.
I detest SJM
I have read every single one of her books
Why? I don't know, but I have been trying to figure out. I think it boils down to this: It is equal parts the fact the joy we derive from criticism and don't want to admit, and the fact that she represents the icky parts of so much of things that I love: YA without the good representation and innovative plotlines, feminism without the knowledge of intersectionalities, fantasy without nuance. Here's why you should care. If you aren't the biggest fan of SJM, I hope this will help you work through some of the feelings you have about her books. If you are a SJM fan - no hate at all, we are all entitled to our opinions - but I do think recognizing the works we love may be flawed and problematic in some places should be considered integral to properly enjoying them.
I also think it is necessary to care given the audience that SJM appeals to. That is - tens of thousands of children of all genders across the world are shaping their perception of the world based on these books, and we should ensure what they are reading - and the subconscious molding young adults and adults are going through as well - is truly in line with our values and the world we want to see."
CW: sexism, homophobia, swearing (sorry - should have had the warning up from the start!)
Just like - I get so pissed when people say things like "oh montero should not be celebrated" or "WAP is not a feminist piece" because yes it is. It is the fact that you would rather shove us under a rug and not let us showcase those things that make songs like that revolutionary and norm-breaking.
It is when you look down on a woman owning her body and sexuality that WAP becomes a feminist piece. It is when you call a queer person the work of satan and say that they can never see any positive in that label and must constantly feel shame and insecurity because of the way society sees them that montero becomes even more groundbreaking - they are important because of the toxic fuckall environment you've created.
k so I donât talk much about ACOTAR on this blog, at least not in my own posts, but let me make something very clear - I think ACOTAR is a million times worse than TOG. Like, TOG is almost so bad itâs good. ACOTAR is.. not.
But Iâm not here to bitch about ACOTAR in general, Iâm here to bitch about a very specific thing in ACOTAR - the fact that it has an inherently flawed concept and breaks basically all the rules of retellings. ACOTAR is meant to be, and was marketed as, a Beauty and the Beast retelling. The entire series is referred to as a Beauty and the Beast retelling. Over the course of ACOTAR and ACOMAF, we cycle through three different fairytales/myths - Beauty and the Beast, Eros and Psyche, and Hades and Persephone. This is not how you write a retelling.
And this mightâve been solved had it, y'know, been marketed as an Eros and Psyche retelling. Itâs not as if people wouldnât have bought it; this is SJM weâre talking about, people will buy literally anything she puts out (for exhibit a of âSJM stans will take anythingâ, allow me to direct you to: the entirety of ACOFAS). But, instead, it was labeled as a Beauty and the Beast retelling for.. some reason? The thing with ACOTAR is that the first half works decently as a BATB retelling, and the second half goes straight into Eros and Psyche and never looks back.
For reference: the myth of Eros and Psyche follows the story of the Greek princess Psyche as she marries the god Eros, who had fallen deeply in love with her. However, Eros appears invisible to her, and thus Psyche doesnât know the identity of her husband. When her sisters come and convince her to sneak up on Eros as he sleeps and uncover his true identity, Psyche does so, but burns Eros when hot oil from her lamp falls upon his flesh. Eros flees, and his mother Aphrodite tells Psyche that she can have her husband back if she completes several tasks. During the last task, Aphrodite sends Psyche to the underworld in order to obtain some of Persephoneâs beauty for herself. Persephone gives Psyche a closed box and instructs her not to open it, however Psyche does anyway, and as it turns out all that was inside the box was murder. Psyche dies, but Eros rescues her and brings her back to life, then turns her into a god.
Sounds a lot like ACOTAR, doesnât it? ACOTAR awkwardly flips between BATB and E&P, which makes the story almost feel disjointed. The plot matches that of E&P, but the motifs, recurring themes, and backstory all match BATB. Needless to say, this was a stupid decision which weakens ACOTAR as a novel. But then we get to ACOMAF and we switch myths yet again, this time to Hades and Persephone. There is nothing more I hate in retellings then when the same characters represent different archetypes. Apparently Feyre is not only Beauty, but also Psyche and Persephone at the same time. Tamlin is not only the beast, heâs also Eros and.. Demeter? In ACOMAF, Tamlin suddenly takes on the role of Demeter for some reason, because thereâs literally no other character he could be. Rhysand is the only character with a consistent analogue (Hades) and thatâs only because he comes strutting in out of nowhere in ACOTAR and only gets actual development in ACOMAF.
In ACOWAR, SJM drops the retelling aspect entirely to have a more 'thrillingâ conclusion. The law of threes is a thing. If ACOWAR was also a retelling, it wouldnât have fixed the problem, but it at least would have been somewhat consistent. And yet, itâs not. Itâs your generic final battle conclusion story. The overarching narrative feels lopsided and unbalanced because of it.
Now, you could argue that Hades and Persephone is technically the progenitor of stories like BATB and E&P, and this is true. However, in their current incarnations, these stories are so fundamentally different that you canât retell all of them at once. You canât make a Snow White retelling into a Sleeping Beauty one at the last second just because both of the heroines are asleep for most of the third act. They are different stories, with different implications and motifs. If you want to retell Beauty and the Beast, retell Beauty and the Beast. If you want to retell Eros and Psyche, retell Eros and Psyche. And if you want to retell Hades and Persephone, retell Hades and Persephone for godâs sake. Pick one and do the best you can within the parameters of that story.
anyway I hope you enjoyed my 10am ranting about 1000-year-old fairytales and why SJM canât write a retelling for shit
In "Macbeth", Macbeth and Banquo are narrative foils to each other. While Banquo is loyal to the king and uses language of growth and imagery of nature when he speaks, the traitor Macbeth's words are full of references to destruction, fire, and unholy happenings. Foils are not just good ways to explore character traits, but also excellent for setting up conflicts and exploring the thematic concerns of the world.
I think it's safe to say Tamlin and Rhysand are foils. They have opposing imagery (spring, flowers and sun for Tamlin, winter, snow and night for Rhysand) and always stand in opposition to each other when it comes to Feyre's narrative, switching in and out of being the "bad guy" and the "good guy". But the way this is handled is .... eh.
I'm going to look at shifts in Feyre, Tamlin and Rhys that work of this foil - and try to look for when and how they were set up.
1. Feyre's shift - TW: discussions of abuse, mental health issues
In the first book, Tamlin is a source of protection and love for Feyre. But by the second book, Feyre is not only struggling with her PTSD but has begun to realise that life at the Spring Court as a dolled up accessory might not be for her. By the end of the book, she has found her place in the Night Court - by Rhysand's side. And honestly? Go girl! Go live up to your potential!
The problem arises with how this is done - that is, Sarah J Mass never does the brunt work of showing us why Feyre cares. It is plausible she is motivated by a desire to protect the human lands, but we never actually see that. There isn't a moment where she realises she needs to work for a greater good, or a moment she realises that she needs to protect those more vulnerable than her - instead, the narrative has her tolerating abuse until she finally has had enough.
Which is great. I have got to admit that I really like the explicit rejection of a happily ever after storyline for Feyre because it took away her agency. But we get this radical shift in character motivation from wanting to be protected and comfortable with those she loves to desiring agency and understanding of herself in two lines:
"The girl who had needed to be protected and who had craved stability and comfort... she had died Under the Mountain"
and
"I didn't know how to go back to those things. To being docile"
hhhhhh. I mean - if you have to say it that explicitly, you're already doing something wrong. But also, why? We never see Feyre struggling with herself in her new body, and wondering why she does not want the same things as she did when she was a human, never see an impetus point for when her desires shifted.
But honestly? I don't mind Feyre's arc. I think it's a bit confused and lacks clarity or intent, and as a result, it is harder to root for her because you don't quite know what she wants, but I think it's still quite good. Where I really have problems are with Tamlin ad Rhys.
2. Tamlin - TW: discussions of abuse, mental health issues
I am not a fan of Tamlin's arc. You could argue that it is part of the thematic message of the series: that things are not as they seem. Tamlin is the wolf to the savour to the abuser, Rhysand is the "most beautiful man " Feyre had ever seen to Amarantha's monster to Feyre's eventual mate. But - the constant twists are unnecessary, more importantly, they and have little to no foreshadowing and just seem like retcons- making it seem as if they are there to keep the audience guessing rather than genuine plot progressions. This becomes even more obvious when the series abandons its core theme of "appearance vs reality" altogether, and as a result loses a lot of its cohesion: a direct consequence of having a bad setup.
His reason for doing the abusive things he does is conveyed to us in two lines, in the same monologue that Feyre's motivation is:
"Tamlin had gotten his powers back, had become whole again - become that protector and provider he wished to be"
Sure. He was much more powerful than Feyre when they first met, so I am having a hard time buying it is the return of the powers that his making him act this way. We know that his actions come from a genuine desire to protect Feyre - this is the guy that was willing to sacrifice his life multiple times and the future of his entire court to keep her safe. The only justification we have left then for the way he acts is that his PTSD, borne out of the trauma and torture he underwent and watched Feyre undergo changed him in some way.
This is why the endless villainizing of Tamlin makes me really uncomfortable. While it is true that the abused can become the abuser, and figuring out how to help them while protecting yourself is something that absolutely needs to be discussed and explored - the way it is done with Tamlin is horrendous because he is never given a chance to heal. Instead, he is thrown from plot point to plot point, an eternal punching bag for the Inner Circle and others to seem morally superior in front of.
And his treatment of Feyre is just weird. If he's so concerned about her safety - why does he not wake up when she has nightmares? Is he instead trying to pretend like everything is okay - if so why does he give Feyre an escort of guards? If his core motivation is protecting Feyre at all costs - why does he lash out at her?? And the text really tries to tell us how to feel about him in this regard, but it doesn't do it very well. For example, take the scene where Tamlin says "There is no such thing as a High Lady". Feyre a second before expressed her desire not to take on any responsibility, and Tamlin responded with this - and the text really makes us want to hate him for it, but all you can see is a person who is perhaps not the best at reading subtext trying his best.
In conclusion - Tamlin's shift to the villain of the narrative is hamhanded and underexplained, making it hard to genuinely hate him, and further confusing the narrative.
3. Rhys the foil gets the girl - TW: discussions of abuse, sexual assault mental health issues
Rhysand in the first book is interesting - he clearly has a heart and a soft spot for Feyre but is also a schemer with dubious motives that drugs and sexually harasses Feyre. There are places in the set up where we understand he cares - but never where we can begin to see he might be a genuine paragon of virtue.
And I will address this more in my post on ACOMAF, but the point I am trying to make here is: we are told through the constantly opposing imagery that Rhys and Tamlin are wolds apart - but never actually given examples of how. Rhys is said to be different from Tamlin because he respects Feyre's choice - but he drugs her in a bunch of weird scenes (that serve no clear narrative purpose by the way - like what was he trying to achieve? why he couldn't he just let Feyre in on that part of the plan?) and withholds information from her about life-threatening situations. Rhys is said to pull less rank - but we multiple times see others defer to him, especially in later books, and never actually see rank being enforced in Tamlin's court with his treatment of Lucien (many times described as his partner, and openly questioning him) and later Ianthe. Rhys is said to have less archaic laws in opposition to Tamlin's Tithe - but he abandons the Court of Nightmares to the monsters who rule it, and never takes serious actions against the Illyrian people who clip of women's wings, and a lot of Tamlin's idea of racial superiority and general superiority just come completely out of left field in the middle of ACOMAF.
Both of them are problematic - it's just that the text tells us to root for one, without actually showing us how one is better, or setting up any clear ideological difference between them. And that cheapens Feyre's character shift and lessen the efficacy of the foil - turning it into Feyre hopping from one lover to the other with little to no character consistency and no nuanced exploration of the theme of the series or trauma.
The one with eyes like a lotus, neck shaped like a conch, with lips as red as the bimba fruit, a face like the moon, and a nose like the champaka flower, adorned at the end with a pearl.
Something I am fascinated by in Hinduism is the way desire plays into worship. We imagine gods as lovers - whether faithful or cheating. We describe their beauty, we describe their hips, their lips, their eyes - and you can see this across numerous songs and styles of music and dance: regardless of the gender of the poet and the gender of the god.
Sure. Maybe Thyagaraja going on endlessly about Lord Ramaâs features isnât even slightly gay (tbc - this is a joke, I do not know enough to make a judgement like that). But it is a trend through Indian music and dance as a whole. Krishna is the boyfriend dancing the raas, or trying desperately to win back your favour. Murugan is the one you send your friend to bring - and even admonish for cheating.
It is definitely not always romantic. Portraying Krishna as a child, and showing him love as a mother is very, very common. Poets across history repeatedly admonish gods almost as you would a friend, asking why they have not yet come to their aid. Of course there is respect here, a consciousness of the divine, but it is morphed by every dancer and poet and musician and devotee into the sort of relationship that best suits their worship.
There is a Eurocentric and quasi-racist perception that idol worship is somehow less than. That we have to eventually move on to a monotheistic god with whom we have a solely paternal relationship - viewing him (and it is somehow always âHimâ) as something to be desired, or a mischievous child to be coddled, or a friend who has not done what they have promised is dangerous and wrong and perhaps even disgusting. And like - 1) screw you man and 2) there is no reason why the default is servitude, and there is nothing wrong with tailoring their worship.
This view would not bother me so much if some Hindu people did not also do this sort of moral policing. Saying that âsringara-bhaktiâ (worship through love) cannot be a bhava, that is less than âpure bhaktiâ (pure worship), santising mentions of desire in kritis and varnmans when teaching them and passing them on - that isnât us evolving to be better, that is us narrowing our view of our possibilities and regressing.
TLDR; Hinduism takes the supreme force behind the entire universe and says âhow sexyâ or âwhat a gud bud they would makeâ and I just think thatâs pretty neat.
(Would love to hear your own takes on this and/or any corrections or suggestions you have! Also feel free to reach out if you want specific songs that have themes like those mentioned above)
I have shit knees and sitting posture or my experience being queer, desi and a dancer
Saw a post a while back asking for queer Bharatanatyam dancers? And it got me thinking about the way traditional songs and javalis in particular perpetuate a norm of heterosexuality that could be terribly alienating for many, and trying to sort out convoluted thoughts about male dancers who dance from the perspective of her women to her male lover, and if that was beneficial, and then to teachers I know that refuse to dance or teach their male students songs from the perspective of women.
But most of all, it got me thinking about the fact that my experience with dance was more liberating than freeing, especially when it came to discovering and coming to terms with my sexuality. Disclaimer that the two ways in which it did this is personal to me, is heavily influenced by my upbringing, and is not universal.
1. Desire - Not only did Bharatanatyam give me talented, stunning, intelligent, funny dancers and choreographers and singers to have bisexual panick talking to - it also described desire and love in ways my relatively liberal family would not have. I have read love - and lust - being described as intoxicating, of all-consuming - and danced those items and portrayed those who felt those things.
What that meant was that when I started feeling these desires, I hated myself less for it. I did not try to ignore it, but instead tried to learn more about the way I was feeling more about it. When I listened to sexualised descriptions of the goddessâs hips, the way she walks like an elephant in rut, her valour and skill in battle - I was able to access the sort of things that would help me figure out my sexual orientation.
2. Mythology - I think all religions tend to filter down myths to better suit their agenda for that era/time period. It is obviously harder to do this when the person you are attempting to brainwash knows the topic well. All my time dancing exposed me to newer and newer stories: the tale of Chitrangadha and Arjuna which is queer coded as fuck, Krishna and Arjuna who are queer coded as fuck, Arjuna who is bi panic as a person and I will fight those who disagree - what these myths thought me was that I was not alone, that I was not a product completely removed from the values of my community, family, and those I hold dear.
TLDR; I am gae and Bharatanatyam actually helped me
(and I will most likely feel instant regret after posting this cause most of this is just one long rant)
As always, this is not meant to hate on SJM or SJM fans, but simply analyse and critique a piece of literature. And would love any and all feedback and opinions on this!
SPOILER WARNING: Since the post will discuss arcs across the series, there will be spoilers for all SJM books - including ACOSF. Other books that this critique spoils is the first book of ASOIAF
The premise of this particular critique is that a good setup and/or character introduction has three main things:
It tells us things we should know- tells us something crucial about how we should perceive a character, gives us important information about the world we live in.
It sets up future plot points - this could be in the first introduction itself, or even in the second or third time we meet this character - the reasoning is behind this is that it is not very fulfilling for the reader to be invested in an arc and then have something come out of the blue and radically change its course. It's the same thing as the mystery novel advice that rather than making the culprit the least expected person, seed in clues through the novel so that when the mask is pulled off, readers go "how did I not realise that" rather than "WTF". In other words, it pays off.
It sets up thematic concerns and character arcs - important ideas the author wants to discuss
Let's take a look at the introduction of Bran Stark, from George RR Martin's Game of Thrones. Bran Stark is introduced to us as curious and empathetic, setting up his character traits. As a result of his naivety and innocence, we immediately root for him. When he is thrown off the tower, that plot point is a result of his curiosity, something we as readers already recognise as his core traits. This also sets up his further arc and the theme of Bran's story: discovering the world is harsher and less black and white than he thought it was, and also tells us something about the world of ASOIAF: it is brutal, unforgiving and dangerous.
This is not to say that a good set up needs to have all of these things, or even can execute all of these things within the first 100 pages of knowing a character - but it should, in my opinion, try to achieve at least 2 of these things.
Sarah J Mass is not very good at this - and ACOTAR, which introduces a lot of the characters she goes on to explore in the series of the same name, is a pretty good example of what NOT to do when setting up characters.
PART I Feyre - where is she going?
When we are introduced to Feyre, she is pretty much perfect. She is selfless, skilled and brave. She kills a fae with a bunch of arrows, she fends off Tamlin, and she piques his curiosity. With that, she is carted off to Prythian - after her father soliloquizes about how pure she is, that is.
What does this intro tell us about Feyre? It fulfils the first criteria of telling us who she is and information about her situation. You can argue that it sets up plot points, but it really doesn't past "Feyre is going to a different place". And it doesn't set up any sort of thematic or character related concerns.
What this then sets up is a world in which Feyre's struggles come from the outside world - danger, scarcity, needing to scrounge up food for her family. I personally am not extremely fond of arcs where the only conflict is external, mostly because they are really hard to do well. And you can see this so clearly when Feyre journeys to Tamlin's manor and learns her family is being taken care of - because you can feel the plot stutter for a fair bit of time. And it's not shocking this occurs, because the kind of externally motivated arc that SJM sets up withers away the moment Feyre and her family are clothed and fed.
The other reasons external arcs are hard to write is because they need to run parallel to internal arcs. For example, the external arc of Bran being chased from his home mirrors his internal arc of finding his place in the world. But having confusingly related arcs, or perpendicular arcs, are humoungously detrimental to the whole experience not just because they are hard to understand, but also because they could end up being contradictory.
Feyre's arc is confusing because it seems to be one where she lets herself relax and trust - but it then creates friction with a wider arc of not trusting appearances, and contradicted by Feyre needing to undergo terrible struggles because she let herself get attached to Tamlin, and Tamlin later betraying her.
Let's put that aside for a second. The other major plot point is Feyre's relationship with her sisters. But that doesn't really get explored at any point extremely well in the series - and definitely not as a major plot point or serious defect in Feyre's character. What that means is the other major thing that gets set up - doesn't really pay off.
The last thing I want to look at here is the inspiration behind the story. ACOTAR is a loose retelling of Beauty and the Beast. In Beauty and the Beast, Belle undergoes a "flat arc" - an arc in which she doesn't need to change, the world around her does. She needs adventure, romance, excitement, but does need to necessarily change herself to get it. But SJM seems to want Feyre to change, or heal in some way - but never actually gives her the opportunity to do so, or sets up what it is she needs to heal.
I - Why do I care, and why should you?
There are two things about me you need to know at the top of this multipart endless rant.
I detest SJM
I have read every single one of her books
Why? I don't know, but I have been trying to figure out.
I think it boils down to this: It is equal parts the fact the joy we derive from criticism and don't want to admit, and the fact that she represents the icky parts of so much of things that I love: YA without the good representation and innovative plotlines, feminism without the knowledge of intersectionalities, fantasy without nuance.
Here's why you should care. If you aren't the biggest fan of SJM, I hope this will help you work through some of the feelings you have about her books. If you are a SJM fan - no hate at all, we are all entitled to our opinions - but I do think recognizing the works we love may be flawed and problematic in some places should be considered integral to properly enjoying them.
I also think it is necessary to care given the audience that SJM appeals to. That is - tens of thousands of children of all genders across the world are shaping their perception of the world based on these books, and we should ensure what they are reading - and the subconscious molding young adults and adults are going through as well - is truly in line with our values and the world we want to see.
II - How will this be structured?
I thought it may be a fun idea to structure my grievances with her by book. I might skip some if I don't have enough material, or combine some others - but that is the broad structure. I'll also be using this post as a sort of index.
III - Contents
To be posted:
ACOTAR and setups
I. Feyre
II. Rhysand and Tamlin
III. Nesta
ACOMAF and a rant about where we go wrong with the bad boy trope
ACOWAR and suffering =/= scenery
ACOSF and writing healing arcs
TOG and the "POC guide" trope
COM and sex positivity
HOF and imperialism
EOS and I am sorry but it's time to talk about Mary Sues
TOD and tokenistic representation
KOA and a short overview of colonization (with a brief foray into whatever the fuck the Night Court wants to do to Prythian)
jacobvanloon
germansingergirl
discoholicmusic
titsay
gummygunk
andulkaphoto
theartofmadeline
dailybridgerton
annaxmalina
