#pointless rambles

[gameringgungke]

I WILL NOT TAKE THIS SLANDER ANYMORE

kris only does extra damage to tenna if you've completed the mantle minigames. otherwise,

just like with the knight, kris's damage is halved against tenna. they may not be happy with him, but they don't hate him

[mild-lunacy]

The Women in Refrigerators

I've been reading a fantasy that's not a romance by an author I didn't know for decades (for whom I make exceptions), and it's the Tuyo series I recently talked about considering. I was thinking further about books I used to read before my romance fixation began, many more of which had been written by male authors, and the issues that led me-- again and again-- to quit those books in disgust. These are books I really enjoyed-- I considered them well-written, fun, engaging. I'm still a fan of Jim Butcher and Robert Jackson Bennett and haven't written them off entirely in my mind. I plan to come back to them, but. But. The trust has been broken, with these and other male fantasy and sci-fi authors, more than once. More than twice. Many times.

Thinking about how they broke my trust-- Bennett and Butcher specifically, but also others-- I realize what they have in common is the use of fridging, or the Women in Refrigerators trope.

If you read the book(s) in question, it's not like it stands out so horribly-- I mean, there's a plot reason for what happens to kill the female love interest. (Though in one egregious case I remember, the female main character dies after she actually has a baby, with the man who becomes the male main character after her death). It's not like I can't see why the woman 'has to die'. And yet-- mysteriously-- the male best friend almost never dies. The male love interest almost never dies in a non-romantic fantasy/sci-fi that nevertheless has a love interest, written by a female author. It's always that the men feel the need to do this. It just never clarified itself to me that this is what led me to quit reading and retreat to fanfic and/or romance, again and again.

In the case of Jim Butcher, this is an author I had trusted for decades (since the Dresden books are an old series). He has killed a love interest before, but she wasn't a major character, so it wasn't so bad. It's okay to kill minor love interests-- to be clear, plenty of female authors, even female authors writing fantasy romance do this. By 'minor', I mean they aren't super integral to the series, the books don't set them up at any great length, and they're 'just' a love interest.

For example, Sarah J Maas really loves killing off early male love interests in all her fantasy book series-- like clockwork. Same with Kim Harrison. The thing is, though, these early lost love interests-- while painful-- are nevertheless very clearly not that important overall. I don't even know how to explain this properly-- but there's a way to kill off love interests that doesn't feel gross. I don't know if I'd call it 'respectful'. Maybe? The Kim Harrison Hollows books have Rachel's vampire boyfriend, Kisten, die early on. It's a big character impact moment for Rachel, just as Dresden's girlfriends die and have an impact on Harry Dresden. But not so much of an impact on him. Or perhaps it's just a more self-centered kind of impact, possibly.

I don't want to tempt fate, but I'm reasonably certain female authors in general, and Maas or Harrison in particular, wouldn't kill off one half of an 'endgame' pairing. They'd face a reader rebellion, of course. But it's not even that.

I think it's the way these women die, and how they die no matter how important they are. No matter what, the feeling becomes, a woman is just not that important. Not even if she's the main character (though that's going a little far, to be fair).

It's not that I'm saying endgame pairings should have to be sacred or untouchable. It's more subtle than that, although maybe I'd even argue that. If you've spent book after book setting up a character arc and a relationship and built many arcs on top of it, to just discard it is disrespectful both to your characters and your readers, who've been there every step of the way. I guess it's just this sudden realization that they're 'just' characters, and on top of that, 'just' a love interest, and even, possibly, 'just' a female character. That last part is almost certainly uncharitably harsh-- it's just impossible to avoid the feeling.

The thing I like about series about a single character-- the thing I look for entirely outside any interest in romantic pairings-- is just this feeling of being with characters in other worlds that I know well, that I'm enjoying spending time with. They're my friends, almost. I'm 'friends' with Harry Dresden, in a sense, moreso than a 'fan'. And this is the context in which things happen. It's not that I take things personally, but rather that I want things to resolve in a way that's satisfying and comfortable, even if death is involved. With the death of Kisten in the Hollows series, that comfort is about the main character's memory of Kisten, the way he's framed and understood and contextualized later on. Just like in real life, death exists as part of the tapestry of life, and sometimes it's sudden, shocking and raw. But in stories I enjoy, it is... appropriate.

It's a hard thing to explain, except that I know when there's a lack of that respect, that sense of appropriateness. And I know this happens with some regularity with male authors writing about women. How very cliche.

[they-took-my-fucking-spleen]

I think if Morro read warrior cats he'd probably end up liking scourge and hollyleaf.

[balioc]

Here we have the meritocratic delusion most in need of smashing: the notion that the people who make up our elite are especially smart. They are not—and I do not mean that in the feel-good democratic sense that we are all smart in our own ways, the homely-wise farmer no less than the scholar. I mean that the majority of meritocrats are, on their own chosen scale of intelligence, pretty dumb. Grade inflation first hit the Ivies in the late 1960s for a reason. Yale professor David Gelernter has noticed it in his students: “They are so ignorant that it’s hard to accept how ignorant they are. It’s very hard to grasp that the person you’re talking to, who is bright, articulate, conversable, interested, doesn’t know who Beethoven is. Looking back at the history of the twentieth century, just sees a fog.” Camille Paglia once assigned the spiritual “Go Down, Moses” to an English seminar, only to discover to her horror that “of a class of twenty-five students, only two seemed to recognize the name ‘Moses’.… They did not know who he was.”

-- Helen Andrews, from “The New Ruling Class”

This is a pretty good exemplar of a particular claim that you hear a lot.  “People these days don’t know anything about anything!”  “No high school senior in the country today could hope to pass the 1800 Harvard admissions exam!”  etc.

Unlike some, I’m not inclined to dismiss this lament as stupid on its face.  I do think that having a well-stocked mental encyclopedia is important even in the age of Google. I often find myself with the sense that the (elite, intelligent) people around me are just hopelessly ignorant about crucially important things, and I know that they often think the same thing about me.

Whenever I try to think it through, though, I find my mind spiraling around one question:

How many Pokemon can you name?

Which is, of course, a silly shorthand way to say: We have crammed the world way more full of information than it ever was before, there are so many things that a person can dedicate himself to knowing, and while our brains aren’t any smaller than they used to be they aren’t any larger either.  And we don’t have a canon, an agreed-upon prioritization mechanism for that information.  It’s reasonable to expect any member of the intelligentsia to be able to cite the core texts chapter-and-verse if we all understand that we’re talking about the Bible, Shakespeare, Homer, and Virgil.  It’s less reasonable if you multiply that number of texts by ten, or a hundred, or a thousand.  Less reasonable still if you also expect your intelligentsia to be keeping up with a dizzying whirl of pop culture texts, which, let’s face it, is totally a key expectation under which all our reasoning classes labor. 

[shrug] I don’t really know where I’m going with this.  Just...we all know lots of stuff, and it’s mostly not the same stuff, and it’s mostly not stuff that we can easily and comfortably label as “important to know.” 

[robinandraven]

What even is my blog?? It started with Starco for a year and a half, then Robrae for another year, and then Catradora for like 5 months, Oddlita for a few weeks, Miraculous Ladybug (so inconsistently tho lol), and now Red Crackle (and this isn’t even including the millions of other little ships I always reblog and make gifs of) I’m sorry to any of my followers, my blog is a big mess of so many ships and I feel so bad for the people who follow me lol

[eh-fandomtrash]

Been thinking about Harry Potter Houses and I kind of realized two things.

One- Gryffindors aren’t loyal to people, they’re loyal to principles and the people who embody those principles.

Two- JK Rowling only included one “good” Slytherin (I mean a Slytherin who was actually GOOD at being a Slytherin) in her books and that’s a damn travesty.

Brain Dump Follows...

(Addressing Item One)

HUFFLEPUFFS are loyal to people.  That’s why Newt turned down Dumbledore (who asked him to fight for principles), but went charging into battle when he heard Tina was involved.  It’s not about the principles, it’s about the people.

Gryffindors on the other hand...

You’ve got Percy, who decided to follow the ministry instead of his family.  He’s dedicated to the rules and laws of society, sure he’s ambitious, but being seen as someone who upholds the rules and lives by the rules is more important to him than actually being powerful.  He is an amazing toady.

His relationship with Barty Crouch Sr. epitomizes this--Barty Crouch Sr. was a great man who upheld law and order while Voldemort terrorized the world.  Percy wanted to be just like him and was happy to settle for working under him in whatever capacity Crouch required.

You’ve got Neville who stood up to Harry, Ron, and Hermione in book one and was ready to turn them in if they went out after curfew again.  And that was considered a very brave, very Gryffindor choice.

You’ve got Hermione, whose burning need to do the right thing occasionally drives her to part ways with her friends (she founded SPEW, Harry and Ron did not agree with or support her, but she did it anyways and stuck to her guns; she was furious with Harry when she thought he’d given Ron the Felix Felicis potion... there’s a list of times that Hermione was angry with Ron and Harry for failing to stick to key principles and I can’t remember all the instances).

It almost works better if you think of it in terms of ‘dedication.’

Hufflepuffs are dedicated to people.  They like and care about people.  Ask them to fight in a war to save the world, they won’t do it.  Ask them to fight in a war to save a friend, they will go out and fight.

Ravenclaws are dedicated to knowledge and information.  They care about knowledge, its accumulation, dissemination, and protection. (I don’t have much to say here, because we haven’t seen many Ravenclaws in action aside from Luna and Cho...  Though I think that the pursuit of truth is very, very important to them.)

Gryffindors are dedicated to principles and the people who embody those principles.  That’s why Harry, Ron, and Hermione are together.  They see in each other principles that they believe should be upheld (usually).

Slytherins are dedicated to the pursuit of their own happiness and betterment by whatever means necessary.

(Addressing Item Two)

Now, that may sound kind of harsh, but it’s not in and of itself a bad thing (having your own back is important).  And it’s totally possible to be a great and good Slytherin leader, particularly when that ‘dedication to the pursuit of their own happiness and betterment’ is extended to include all of society (I’d bet money that the BEST Slytherins figure that out early on... too bad none of those are in the books), because if you uplift society that means there’s more to go around.  The biggest piece of a pie the size of plate isn’t worth half as much as a more equitable piece of a pie the size of a table.

However, if a Slytherin is overly selfish and isn’t smart about personal betterment they can screw themselves (and countless others) over pretty badly.  And, due to certain authorial prejudices, there’s like... maybe ONE halfway decent Slytherin in the books...

But speaking of Slytherins who screw themselves and countless others over...

Let’s take a quick look at Draco.  Draco would have been FAR better served befriending Harry instead making the boy who lived an enemy.  But he let something dumb and petty like Harry being friends with Ron get in the way.  That was stupid of him.  He set himself up for failure at age ten and just dug the pit deeper every year, because he was such a little drama queen who needed to be the center of attention.

The other Slytherin who was bad at being a Slytherin?  Snape.  Snape was just so fucking jealous (of James and Harry) it was almost painful and he just screwed himself and everyone around him over because he could not let it go.

Snape may have been a good spy, but he was not a strategist and he always looked for instant gratification over long-term benefit.  Don’t get me wrong, I like Snape, but he was incredibly arrogant (never forgive, apologize, or admit you owe anyone anything), a poor judge of character (Harry... Dumbledore... Voldemort...), and frequently, spectacularly short-sighted (not going to bother listing those...).

No.  Slughorn was the smart one.  Slughorn knew what he was doing.  Slughorn was the only Slytherin in the books with half a brain...

He knew that you needed to find the best and brightest and bring them up with you, because the Hufflepuff student that needs that extra tutoring in potions is going to remember you ten years on.  That Gryffindor student you sponsored?  They’ve got principles that will make them help you out of that sticky position you landed yourself in.  They’ll leap to your aid, because it’s the right thing to do.  The Ravenclaw you got that rare book for?  They’ll send you a copy of that rare spellbook you need twenty years later, because they feel that you care about knowledge as much as they do.  Your Slytherin students?  They’ll remember every favor you do for them and they will pay you back, because they know their worth and they don’t like debts.

That’s how you effectively Slytherin.  You find the ones who will watch your back and help you along when you need it and you help them first.  That way, when you turn around and ask for help, they will not hesitate.

And there just were not enough really “good” Slytherins in the books.  I mean, the fact that none of the muggleborns in Slytherin were actively and aggressively trying to befriend Harry?  That’s kind of a travesty.

[iucretius]

uhhhhh babes send me asks while i drink my hot apple cider and i’ll love you forever

[yoonjunghanarchive]

I can't wait for seventeen to come to Chicago so I can sneak into their hotel rooms in the middle of the night, armored with black hair dye. Black hair for everyone.