lotesse: (Default)
from f-fa: here is a link to an 09 podcast interview with Andy Blake, aka thanfiction, aka Victoria Bitter, from back when no one knew he was the same person as VB. His interview segment starts at about 1:33, and beyond the hillarible accent, the most striking thing is his insistence on presenting himself as the newbiest of newbs - looking up "fan fiction" on the net with his bandmates for a lark, never written a thing before, no experience with fiction - when zie had been in media fandom for more than a decade at that point, actively producing fic in Star Trek: Voyager and Due South and Hornblower and Sharpe and LotR.

it's super weird to hear Andy as a voice; I'm used to hir being this disembodied and now largely ghostly presence, the author of works that zie can no longer claim because zie's killed off the associated personas that originally posted them.
lotesse: (books_dreaming)
Even though I know others have told stories about fandom as a negative space in their life, I've never felt that way about fandom. Any kerfuffle weight I came under was purely my own fault, for intersectionalityfailing, and I appreciate that education. So - I've been doing nostalgia reading in HP fandom, like I said a while back, and remembering why I've always put fandom on my mental map in the place of roses and diamonds. I came across this wonderful ff.n review response (I didn't see the my text, but as I was in high school at the time, I'll lay nickles to knuts that I'd been fussing about how my parents didn't like me spending such a lot of time on the internet):

Dear Mrs. Lotesse;

You may not know me, but I have been writing stories on Fanfiction.Net for some time now. Stories which your daughter, the English Teacher, has been kind enough to consent to review for me.

I can assure you I am of good character and only have a small arrest record, and despite the video tape, my lawyer is still fairly certain he can beat the rap for me.

As an author myself, I can tell you that most of my education as a writer came from my reading of other people's books. I spent large sums of money on this. But somehow it managed to impress itself enough upon my own meager writing skills to help me become a published author.

Therefore, it is with a great deal of sincerity that I would request that you support your daughter's inborn, incessant need to read everything she can get her hands on. And one day, after years of sacrifice on your part for all you had to give up so that she could have books to read, she will proudly come to you one day and show you her first published book. She will then tell you what she was paid, which will promptly have you crying in your tea thinking that she could have had a real job making good money by now.



And I just. Fuck, I fucking love you guys.
lotesse: (l'engle_unicorn)
random thought (I'm not panicking, I'm not): now that I'm old enough to identify more with the adult Harry Potter characters than the teen ones, I think maybe the reason why I found capslock!Harry in the books so upsetting, and the fandom dismissal of the issue with "yes teenagers are often little shits this is realism" so utterly didn't work for me, is that I see that sort of sullen withdrawn angry stuff in a canonically abused child character and think "this kid needs help that's too much pain." Which would have been a fine direction for the books to go in, if anyone ever actually acknowledged that Harry was fucked up, if the books in any way dealt with his damage, either by forcing him to struggle against it or by working to process it and heal. But they don't. And that feels really dismissive, to me, of abuse survivors' pain. Not to mention teenagers' pain, which is routinely denigrated and normalized.
lotesse: (books_sapphic)
I've picked up Charlotte Brontë's The Professor half a dozen times since high school, but never managed to finish it before. (The first chapter is very dull, and also I'm not sure one could read it successfully without knowing a little French, which until recently I did not.) And, indeed, I could scarcely finish it now. Only the expedient of my exam list got me through. Because oh, I found it so inexpressibly painful, uncomfortable, and generally pitiful that reading it physically hurt.

This is the first book she tried to publish, before Jane Eyre. She plundered it later to write Villette, and the novel itself was published posthumously in 1857 by her husband. The weird - and painful - thing about it, though, is that it's Villette from the other side. The pov character, the "I," is the brusque older male teacher, and through his first-person narration you watch him falling in love with the shy, clever, poor, plain, young female instructor.

And it's - it's impossible not to read the biographical in here, but - it's watching this young writer trying to write herself as lovable, especially knowing that in life, the beloved object didn't return her passion, that's so absolutely excruciating. The point of view is strangely attenuated - it keeps stretching out to encompass the girl-lover's feelings and impressions, which of course Charlotte knows, but I also feel that in the scenes of classroom instruction there's something in Charlotte that delights in inhabiting such an absolute position of disdainful masculine superiority, in tearing down the stupid vain girls and patronizing the prim schoolmistresses. Of course her analog-character never does this, but is meek and quiet, but in the same way that Agnes Grey clearly draws on a personal experience with childcare, so The Professor draws on Charlotte's own experience as a teacher.

The whole thing is really making me crave Snape/Hermione fic.

me me:

5 May 2011 10:54 am
lotesse: (miyazaki)
Name me a character from a fandom I have known, and I will tell you:

* How I FEEEEEL about this character
* All the people I ship romantically with this character
* My non-romantic OTP for this character
* My unpopular opinion about this character
* One thing I wish would happen / had happened with this character in canon
lotesse: (sarc_victlit)
hmm. What do y'all think the likelihood is that JKR's SPEW is a swipe at the Victorian Society for Promoting the Employment of Women? I keep coming across the acronym and having odd moments of fannish dissonance.
lotesse: (fairytale_goldenbird)
The meme's been going around - if there was a zombie apocalypse and I had to choose five of my own stories, they would be these five.

(bind you with love that is) graceful and green as a stem Frodo/Sam postquest h/c, 21435 words - because this is the one where I finally feel like I managed to say what I mean about hobbits, and also to coherently feel through my half-opposition to the Grey Havens. Because I still feel proud of myself for finding a way out of that ending I could live with. Because I feel like I could happily bask in hobbits taking care of each other for ever, yo.

Of Smoke and Gold and Breathing The Dark is Rising, Will/Jane/Bran multiple histories, 9421 words - this was my Yuletide 2007 main story, and I still have very tender feeling for it, and for this canon as a whole, and for the girl I was when I wrote it.

Calligraphilia Hermione + autoeroticism + pens and ink, 1307 words - an old story, back from a moment in my life when I was just starting to really explore my own sexual identity and the excitement of that was erupting into my fiction.

until you cry:now you must try my greed Holmes/Watson rentboy porn, 6440 words - because this one gave me a chance to play it oldschool, and use pretty nineteenth-century words, and everything in it was pretty and Victorian and sexy. One of the pieces I'm most content with - I feel like it's doing everything I meant it to, and that's not nothing.

we have laced the world together Sherwood Smith's Wren books, Wren/Tess/Connor/Tyron ot4, 9158 words - my Yuletide 2009 story, which got positive author feedback homg! But only if I could also save that review!
lotesse: (woolf_virginia)
I had an epiphany today: I can deal with the concept of modernism if I connect it to the increasing naming of names with regard to gender, sexuality, and the psyche. I've always found myself allergic to the concept in the past - mainly because it was always explained to me from a very masculinist "oh noes the world be changing I don leik it!" perspective. But if I think of Havelock Ellis and all that lot as a turning point in modernity - that, I can get on board with. I'm glad to have figured this out - it will make my upcoming reading course on sex and gender in modernity progress much more smoothly.

The Uni bookstore ran out of my undergrads' required readings, so .pdfing ahoy tomorrow. And nearly all of the central campus printers appear to have broken at once. I feel bad for the kids - and I hope they don't use it as an excuse to not hand assignments in or do the reading.

Also, I seem to have fallen into Remus/Sirius (Three Year Summer style), and I can't get up. So I would totally take recs! /hint hint
lotesse: (feminism - Buffy)
Because I love the girls and women in my fandoms, and think they're awesome.

spring on horseback like a lady )
lotesse: (jossverse)
Fictional boyfriends that I would so totally actually date:

-Sam Gamgee - devoted, steady, and hardworking, with a bonus respect for academic work
-Simon Tam - really, really smart, with guts, wits, and the ability to persist (plus you know he's gotta be whiz with anatomy)
-Gilbert Blythe
-Daniel Jackson - I know his girls have a tendency to end up with snakes in their heads, but he's so worth the risk. Smart, sweet, and the linguist thing really turns my crank.
-James Wilson - he's just so, so, so decent!

Fictional boyfriends that I should never, never even so much as contemplate dating:

-Angel - I'd end up slapping the broodyness irl, plus Angelus eep!
-Edward Elric - just a few too many mommy issues, kthx
-Jim Kirk - I don't think I could ever actually go with a military type. Am peacenik.
-Sirius Black - it's never a good idea to take home the pretty, unstable, sparky ones
-Luke Skywalker - he's just a little bit more suicidal and messed up than I like my men in person
lotesse: (Default)
omigosh fandom, stop it, I can't get sucked back into Potterverse! I have trauma! I have issues! I've been getting better!

And. Yes Remus/Sirius was my pairing back before all of that, but oooh maaan I don't wanna dredge all this up again. But. But. I can't help it. The power of squee compels me.

Remus/Sirius LovePost. I'm off to read PoA-era fic. And hate myself. And curse my fate.
lotesse: (feminism - Buffy)
Okay, so...

I apparently have left the Harry Potter fandom. Because my only reaction to the Big Gay News this morning was, "Shut the hell up, JK." Dumbledore has always been asexual, the mentor figure, the old guy. saying he's gay is like saying Dobby is, or Hedwig, or the Weasleys' attic ghoul. Completely meaningless. Plus not canon. And come on, Joanne, you really couldn't have had the guts to write it in, if it was what you believed? Homosexuality is no longer cutting-edge, dear - just a grandstanding interview. She's throwing us crumbs, and they're really crummy crumbs.

And anyway, Dead/Evil Gay Person anyone? DD/GG does in many ways symbolically conflate gayness with the temptations of the Dark Side, and the fact that she NEVER ADDRESSES IT IN THE BOOK does nothing to combat that reading.

I'm sorry, but the obvious degayification mechanism of Remus/Tonks at work in books 6 and 7 doesn't leave JKR as looking much like an ally.

lotesse: (Default)
So, have finally seen GoF. Yes, I do in fact live under a rock, which is very pretty and sparkly. Like this movie. Mmmm, pretty. Yes. There is a reason why I should not see these things with my bitty cousins, who kept giving me strange looks as I desperately restrained myself from leaping bodily at Cedric, Viktor, Snape, Ron, Cedric, Fleur, the Weasley Twins, Cedric, Barty Crouch, and also, did I mention Snape? Yes. Sooooo much with the pretty.

cut for spoilers because Singe reminded me )

Okay, now where's my Narnia?

No .

16 Jul 2005 11:40 am
lotesse: (erised)
spoilers )
lotesse: (jane)
Adding to the discussion that's been linked by [livejournal.com profile] metafandom, just one thing:

If an author's intent is not made clear by the text, that's her problem, not ours. And we don't have to listen to any explanations. If JK wrote Draco as a little psychopath, that would be one thing. But obviously she didn't. She may think that she did. But hundreds of fen find him sympathetic. I don't love him myself, but it seem to me that for the story to develop properly he can't just be a demon from hell. It's not the Way of Stories. And so I have a hard time believing him to be the source of all evil. If that upsets JK, her problem again. I feel that way because to a certain extent she failed as a writer.

Writing is all about communication. A writer is one who communicates through words, and a storyteller is one who communicates through stories. And if JKR didn't tell the story she meant to, it's not my problem.
lotesse: (erised)
There's this weird assumption in HP fandom that people who don't like Harry are contrary asshats, and that people who do are textual sheep. Come on, you guys. He's a character in a book. You can love him or hate him or just find him interesting.

Yes, he acts like a little bitch through most of OotP. Yes, he's been raised in a borderline abusive environment and has to save the world and Dumbledore's not helping much either. But the argument that we should all love him to itty bitty bits solely because he's the main character holds no water at all. His protagonism only means that we see more of him. Whether or not we like what we see is totally up to us.

I guess what really confuses me is why this is such a big deal. Harryfen express amazement that people could possibly be so black of heart as to not love their darling, and Slytherin apologists can go a bit overboard in their indictments of OBHWF. People who think differently from you are not hindering your own thoughts. Civility is a good thing here. Not talking nice and hissing later, but admitting that your reading may not be the only possible one. It's interesting to find out why some people end up in a completely different place than you after reading the same book.
lotesse: (rainbow)
In OotP when the members of the Inquisitorial Squad are being hexed, Pansy ends up with antlers.

OMG she's OBVIOUSLY Harry's sekrit twin sister that was separated from him at birth! Children of Prongs, unite!
lotesse: (Miranda)
Okay, so, question to the fandom: what on earth is so terrible about Muggles "wantin' magical solutions to their problems," the explanation Hagrid gives for Wizarding secrecy? I mean, shouldn't the wizards want to help Muggles if they can? If wizards can cure cancer or track down serial killers, why not offer their services to society?

As a child I interpreted Hagrid as referencing the traditional story of the human who is given wishes and messes it up, a la the folktale where the woman ends up with the pudding on her nose. I think I also brought to it a vague idea that it's not good for people to be handed the world on a silver platter, and that the journey towards something is often more valuable that the having of that something once you've got there. I thought about wanting to magically be rich, magically be famous, popular, happy, ect. And any kid who's read stories about magic knows that of course it doesn't work that way, and wizards would be seriously screwing everybody up and the Muggles would demand it anyway and it would be narsty.

Okay, but somehow that Wizarding World manages to have an economy. Still not sure how that works--why don't the Weasleys just transfigure nice clothes for themselves, a huge mansion house, whatever? If you can turn an inanimate object into an animal, couldn't you transform it into a servant? Why can't you conjure up food? Money is magically controlled, so inflation's not the problem. The issue is that money is only valuable as a unit of exchange, when you have it and want something else. But if you can make as much of "something else" as you want, if twelve-year-olds can give life to non-living things and pots can easily be made to stir themselves, why would you need to exchange for it? I mean, this whole thing obviously falls apart at the seams, but I'd think that if the Wizarding World does work, there must be some sort of restrictions.

But there are so many other things wizards could do for others. They can heal wounds, protect, conceal, cure, find the lost. Can they change the weather? They can certainly effect agarian production--doesn't Hagrid "do something" to his pumpkins? So it's not too far a stretch to guess that they could put a significant dent in the problem of world hunger. You know wizards have a pretty darn fail-safe method of contraception. Why not bottle and sell potions? reduce the dangers of travel by transporting Muggles via Floo Powder?

Okay, so I'm getting a bit frivolous here. But the point still stands. These people have great power, and could really, truly make the world a better place, and I don't see why they resist doing so. None of the Muggleborns ever get upset that their parents die from terminal diseases that St. Mungo's could fix in three seconds? It doesn't make any sense.

Of course, none of this really jives with the most commonly given reason for Wizarding secrecy: self-defense. The idea is that Muggles hunt them, burn them, kill them, and thus they have to hide themselves away lest the Bad Old Times begin again. But then you have Wendelin the Weird, and honestly, how could Muggles do any sort of systematic damage to people who have power of time and space and can kill you with two words? Does not compute.

lotesse: (Default)
[livejournal.com profile] silverbookworm has a post up about things that bug her in fanfic, and one of them is when authors have Ron or Harry rape Hermione. And I don't think that this, as a peeve, belongs asides discrete/discreet.

Because one of the primary purposes of fanfic is to play "What if?" with canon. To explore dark corners, twist just a little, and come up with something that has an obvious relation to the original text while being a completely different take on it. And often, darker portrayals have strong roots in canon.

Harry can be an asshat sometimes. He's got anger issues up the wazoo, and yes, that anger is directed at the other members of the Trio. Sure, he's not a rapist right now, but would I like to read a well-written fic detailing how the path that he's on takes him there? You bet I would. And Ron and Hermione...well, either they're "bickering" or they're "at each other's throats," depending on how you read it. both are viable readings, and both can lead down interested threads of story. Maybe it's UST, maybe it's years of bottled-up hatred. I don't mean to make a case for Harry or Ron as a rapist, though, just to say that it's not an automatic fictual sin to write them as such.

I guess that what it comes down to is the premise that any story can be worth reading and worth telling. There are no forbidden or inferior themes, only clumsy writers. I mean, yes, by all means let's do away with the fics that use rapist!Ron as just an excuse to get Hermione in bed with Harry, or vice versa. But any portrayal of a character can be interesting, and canon can be twisted in more directions than I think we give it credit for.

(Actually, [livejournal.com profile] mirabellawotr did this in her story "Trinity" http://theguestroom.houseofhobbits.com/hp/Trinity.html , turning the relationships between the Trio into something hateful and dark and supressed and hidden, and it's one of the greatest things I've ever read.)

daughter of the sea, oregano's first cousin


expand cut tags

No cut tags


RSS Atom