agletbaby: (Default)
Dear Yuletide Writer,

Hello! Thank you so much for writing for me! And for taking the time to read this letter! It felt more natural for me to lay my requests out properly in a letter like this, so this is where my prompts are really prompting.
I'm so excited to see what you create, and really hope you have fun with it. That's what matters. This is my first Yuletide so I'm just happy to be here :)


My Likes and DNWs

I have a handful of notes about these. 1) As a general rule, anything I've written or bookmarked on AO3 as agletbaby, particularly post-2020, gives you a fairly good idea of what my vibe is. 2) I only summarised the headlines of my DNWs in the prompts on AO3, and have added a bit more detail here. There isn't a hierachy to what I've listed where, though - I simply don't want any of these! 3) On the other hand, please feel free to ignore as many of my likes as you want/need. None of them are must haves, they're just things I know I enjoy.

DNWs
PWP, underage sex, incest, sex/romance that isn't within the remit/tone of the original work (so no a/b/o stuff or soulmate AUs), permanent major character death, mourning, sickfic, pregnancy, character bashing

Things I like:
Character studies, experimental structures, experimental forms, outsider POV, time travel/loops/paradoxes, genfic, post-canon, missing scenes, canon divergence, case fic, attention to the tone of the original work, bittersweetness, myths and legends about characters, humour, metaphorical growth
 
 
My Requests

Always Coming Home - Worldbuilding
I'd just really love to see worldbuilding in the style of the original text.
If you need a starting point, some themes that interest me include: archiving in the Valley; examples of writing and storytelling; probing anthropology as a discipline; trains; Pandora and what it means to do academic research in the present vs in the Valley.
 
Palm Springs - Sarah, Nyles
I'd be completely happy with anything character studyish you might want to write. Getting in a timeloop man, that's not healthy.
However, there are a couple of particular scenarios I'd like to read:
1) I love the bit in this fic - https://archiveofourown.org/works/28134495 - where Phil Connors from Groundhog Day pops up, and I'd be interested to see something which expands on that idea, featuring characters from various other timeloop/time paradox movies. Include anything you like: I've seen a lot, and am always on the look out for recommendations.
2) Time travel, as well as/rather than looping. Nyles and Sarah's Excellent Adventure. Let them meet dinosaurs, or Joan of Arc, that kind of vibe.
BTW this request is the reason I've awkwardly listed 'permanent' major character death in my DNWs - I'm fine with timeloop deaths happening, I just don't want to read anything extensive on grief or mourning.
 
Dragonriders of Pern - Menolly or Lessa
I'd like to see something focused on Menolly or Lessa, whether that's a character study, a missing scene, or something exploring their reputation in Pern, like when Lessa is written into song in the Harpers Hall books. I'd like this to be broadly based in canon, but I don't mind canon divergence.
I'm happy for other characters to feature, but I don't want anything too focused on romance, I'm really interested in their relationships with the world and all its politicking and new discoveries.
My favourite concepts from the series are 'timing it' and when fire lizards are cute. I also like when Menolly gets to sail.
I've only read the original trilogy and the Harpers Hall trilogy so far, so I'd really appreciate it if you stuck to bits from those books.
 
Challengers - Tashi, Patrick, Art
I have two self-indulgent and specific things I'd like to request here.
1) I just wanna see some mixed doubles tennis. The idea that Patrick or Art (but not both...) can play professionally with Tashi is so juicy to me. Probably in a Tashi-isn't-injured AU, to make it work. I love romantic tension, so I'd enjoy if this focused on building that tension on-court or at the tournament venue.
2) An entirely different world AU: in a high fantasy setting, having duels and doing quests, or on a far future space station.
I'm picky about Challengers, because I think the movie's basically perfect. Nothing I want to see added to it. As a result, I'm only really interested in AUs, and I like to see the characters' canon relationship dynamics maintained, but refracted or heightened (is that even possible?) by their new situation. I'm a big believer that all three characters are fundamental to the story and each other, so I'd really like them all to feature, in any of their various combinations. I am more than happy for people to be 'offscreen', though: as in, they are not physically present, but they are thought about (I love this). Finally, my favourite dynamic is between Tashi and Patrick. I like when they fight and get really close.

:D


Happy Yuletide (and Halloween, I guess, that being the imminent holiday as I'm writing this), have fun, and thank you again!
Catrin agletbaby
agletbaby: (Default)
am coming to the end of a whole thing, which means i have to edit some older work, and had a very heartening realisation - which maybe shouldn't have been a realisation at all - that my writing has improved in the process of doing a phd. i guess it's all part of the same piece of work, and i haven't finished it to learn from it, so i hadn't quite computed that two years + hundreds of papers read + more than a hundred thousand words written, would make a difference. i am noting this down as a reminder to myself that writing is a way to get better at writing. don't stop once done!

*

had a flash of epithany that: one thing that fic writing is basically useless for, when it comes to 'Learning Writing' is hard editing - in the sense that the whole thing is darlings, and there's no need to kill any of them. on the other hand, academic writing? darlings abandoned everywhere. i think i only just properly understood the use of that phrase for the first time

* * *

someone i follow on tumblr posted, ages ago, that they'd be interested in nominating about 6 writers, and just read them for a year. i absolutely could never do this, but i have recently felt more serious about being completionist with writers i admire, and i find it an interesting thought experiment. my immediate thoughts are something like,
1. dickens (was on a kick last month, but i do think too much dickens in one year would melt my brain)
2. henry james (i find him so interesting and his big novels so hard to commit to)
3. there's a couple of writers i've recently read one or two books, which i've really enjoyed. it feels like a deep end plunge to nominate them, but at the same time, commiting to something less known would in itself be interesting: annie proulx, iris murdoch, george eliot, graham greene
4. (i would need someone genre: maybe le guin, but maybe someone more pulpy like larry niven or samuel delaney.)
however, this is obviously a very limited list so far: very white, very anglophone. this in part reflects my academic research, which is in many ways about the manifestation of local 'classic literature', which is overwhelmingly both of those things. but i've also been pretty awful at reading stuff in translation in my own time the last couple of years, for reasons i'm not totally clear on myself. so, recommendations? your list? (i cannot promise to get to recommendations soon rn, but i will add it to a longer list which i am slowly making shorter.)
it would be interesting to come back to this post in a year and see how many of these guys i've managed to read, and who i would nominate anew.
agletbaby: (Default)
i'm not very good at writing! as in, the physical act! unless it's something that's massively in my brain (fandom), or i'm forced to (work), i simply won't. which is why i do not really write fiction, even though i have that classic person-who's-never-written-at-length belief that, if i were to simply sit down and write, i would be sososo lauded.
with my percieved block apparently being the sitting down, and not the writing, i thought i might look at some tips related to nanowrimo. i don't want to do nanowrimo, sounds horrid, but i figured the forced productivity means that there might be some good tips for Getting It Done floating around in related spaces.
and there was! a lot, in fact. although i think most relate to 6 main purposes. which i have grouped them according. under the cuts is some expansion, and some of my reflections on how i might instigate this into my routine.

1) preparation:
a) ahead of time: outline, plan, however that floats your boat set a clear wordcount goal per day • work out how writing will fit into upcoming plans
b) daily: allow time to reread before beginning know what you will write tomorrow when you finish

Read more... )

2) consistency: write at the same time, same place make it a ritual

Read more... )

3) monasticism: ignore the noise prioritise writing over other things :( • focus on writing during writing sessions

Read more... )


4) forward momentum:
a) leave it for the edit: ignore your inner critic forget the awkwardness and don't mind the mess - aka let the first draft suck don't go back and change things use placeholders
b) just get words down: type as fast as you can keep going if you're on a roll never conclude a session on a chapter end be verbose, over-describe

Read more... )


5) motivation: stay inspired count everything as a success write with friends find community have fun with it, write what you feel like in each session

Read more... )


6) finish


Read more... )



sources: https://writers.com/nanowrimo-tips, https://blog.nanowrimo.org/post/697208690383667200/5-tips-for-completing-your-nanowrimo-novel-draft, https://www.reddit.com/r/nanowrimo/comments/xn5pgf/top_5_tips_for_nanowrimo/

things should be under cuts but it seems that maybe hasn't happened, but unfortunately trying to make it happen was such a faff that i'm giving up now

agletbaby: (Default)
i hate owning too many books. i rent, so in some ways they're just things i'll have to move, and rn i don't reread. this doesn't mean i don't have lots of books in my flat - i do, i'm lent them, acquire them, and i get lots out of the library. but i try to be strong and decisive about getting rid of books once i've read them, and to only keep copied of ones which 1) are harder to find, 2) really impacted me.

i just finished space crone, which is a collection of le guin essays and writings, and a book which i will be holding onto. there was lots in there i want to use and return to, but i just wanted to share - or, really, note, or remember, for me - this passage, which i think is in some ways about the beauty and potential of leaving books behind, particularly in a period where they are consumables as much as artworks. this is from 'dangerous people', a speculative piece of fiction which develops out of always coming home:

she had [...] become not a maker but an unmaker of books, judging what should be saved and what unmade, the knot untied, the letters scattered like seed, the paper gone back to pulp or to earth and ash, to the green shoots and reeds and trees and books of years to come.
 
agletbaby: (Default)
i want to to talk around two things have happened in the last twenty-four hours. [i started writing this last week. at one point, the whole second half of the post was erased. it is no longer the last 24 hrs. but it once was.]

the first is i read a chapter from matthew kirschenbaum's book track changes: a literary history of word processing which mentioned barbara paul's short story 'answer "affirmative" or "negative"'. kirschenbaum has already done the synposising work, so i'll just quote his summary of the story. he writes that
it posited a supercomputer containing “the sum total of man’s knowledge” called the WOMAC. When queried with some especially difficult problem, WOMAC would sometimes— frustratingly and inexplicably— return a line or two of poetry instead of one of the story’s titular absolutes. Eventually the operator in charge of the machine finds out why, and considers reprogramming it to correct this behavior— but then has second thoughts' (2016, p. 94).
the story is available in its original printing in analog magazine on the internet archive.

the first response womac gives in the story runs like this:
WNB/445/2.0003
AAF.4/1.00002*M*Y
OUT OF THIS NETTLE, DANGER, WE PLUCK THIS FLOWER, SAFETY.
END (1972, p. 1)
it's taken from shakespeare's henry iv, a fact the computer, novelly, immediately identifies for the user. in this, then, the response is less randomly generated words, more a way of using reference to answer a question with more accuracy and efficiency that usual explanation would allow it. it reminds me, a little, then, of the quoted 'fragments I have shored against my ruins' which t. s. eliot ends the wasteland with, except womac uses it to articulate technical rather than emotional understandings. to my eye, even the codey bits the response starts with have something of the alienating blur of words which modernism can lapse into; the proximity of technical information to poetry makes it feel poetic.

i want to share one more womac snippet:
XR.1339.01.09
MBX/222.00008*J°MM
SAFE UPON THE SOLID ROCK THE UGLY HOUSES STAND:
COME AND SEE MY SHINING PALACE
BUILT UPON THE SAND
END (p. 15)
this is from an edna st. vincent millay poem, but it also brings very strongly to my mind the house of dust by alison knowles, which is often credited as an early (if the not the earliest) example of computer poetry. programmed in 1967, the poem throws 4 line descriptions of houses back at the reader, which all follow roughly the same pattern, but vary by combination of elements. if quoted, this tends to be the bit you see:
A house of dust
on open ground
lit by natural light
inhabited by friends and enemies
although not a perfect match for the millay poem, it wouldn't be too hard to imagine 'A shining house/upon the sand/using all available lighting/inhabited by me'. i don't have a real point here, but i'm a little charmed by these two computers imagining houses. there's a useful write up of the house of dust here, and a page performing it in real time here.


the second thing that happened is that chatgpt had a melt down. apparently. the reportage i've seen has been mostly twitter based, so it's not clear how widespread, or on-going the issue was. certainly, i've heard the situation seems to be fixed now, and openai has said as much in a statement. mashable did a fair summary, although it's also dependent on tweets.
anyway. if you ask me, this is the most interesting thing ai has done.

i want to now engage with another deeply online form: the tumblr quote collage. here we go.
.




 
chatgpt // 'if i told him, a complete portrait of picasso', gertrude stein, 1923 // 'my/my/my', charles bernstein, 1975 // chatgpt // chatgpt // me, 2018

the chatgpt selections are all taken from a twitter thread which doesn't actually exist anymore [remember when i said this was no longer a post put together in an immediate 24 hr timeframe... really feeling that here], but which i believe in turn took them from reddit anyway, without specific credit. they are also cited and vanished from that medium article. this cannot be sustainable. we must develop digital archiving practices omg...

anyway.
i am not suggesting chat gpt - or me - should be compared artistically to Real Poets, by which i simply mean people who have put immense thought and time and effort and, ultimately, meaning into their artistic practices. but i do think there's a sort of potential loveliness to these computer generated pieces. i love 'all-encompassing kook', as a phrase. and i can't help but think, if you were to try and get a machine to write hamlet today, you sure wouldn't need 1000 monkeys and 1000 typewriters, just one big computer. the potential has to be in there somewhere.

anyway. gertrude stein is a modernist, like eliot, and a significant part of modernist practice was, as far as i remember, a throwing together of allusions into new contexts and juxtapositions to create new meanings. there was an expectation that you would be able to unpick them, or that they might be owned up to in the notes (i haven't finished this youtube vid yet but the first half addresses this wrt eliot), in a sort of echo of womac's citation-on-request in the short story i was talking about earlier. but they're not pointed out as references in the work. even the picasso mention in stein's title reframes the words as oblique references. i bring this up with the large language model process in mind, in which the output has behind it many, many thousands of references, the difference being that it is probably impossible to disentangle the originals being thrown into the maw of chatgpt.

charles bernstein is a language poet - or should that be, a L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poet. this was a movement, a group, a magazine, which foregrounded the reader's capacity to experience and gain meaning from words. the language used was delibrately made resistant to one clear reading, and therefore open to many. it's nonsense, it's whatever you can make it, it's the death of the author made text. when confronted with the inherently meaningless jumble of chatgpt - even when it's working properly, and is just giving you language-made-from-statistics - it's useful to bear in mind this point, about the human ability to find personal meaning in language, if given an invitation to read that language as a certain form (like a poem, or a cover letter).

i came across both these groups in a class i took during my undergrad degree, called modern experimental poetry. it slayed. it was also massively influential on my poetic tastes. possibly because it was the only major chunk of poetry i've spent time with as an adult, but i think also because it's just extremely interesting. the snippet of a poem i've included above was written, if i remember correctly, as a way to unwind during the exam period after that course. the traces of poems i really liked from the course, like 'pause button' by kevin davies and 'pyrography' by john ashbery, are stark in that work, at least to me. but their strong presence is actually kind of weird, because the whole thing is pieced together from google results. none of the words are my own.

the course ended with something called flarf, which is one of those poetry movements with a fundamentally broad and unhelpful self-definition. it's digital/internet/e-poetry, in some way or another. but what i got from it was a very specific process. i would google something, trawl through the little text previews of the results, find interesting little gems of phrases, transfer them into a document, and then frankenstein them together (with constant reference back to the results, to fill in any gaps). i would throw in a tense change or a stop word from time to time, so i guess some of the text is mine, but not much. i thought of it as a kind of reverse black out poetry (adding, instead of removing, like clay scuplting as opposed to carving stone), but on reflection, it's also kind of a massive piece of black out work (what's being removed is whole web pages at a time).

i found this digital writing deeply soothing, and engrossing. it was creative, but with a very clear prompt for starting. if what i made was bad, then i could blame the words i was given, but it's also a process that also allows more distinct moments of inspiration and alignment than more typical writing: it's really rewarding, when you manage to fit together two - or more - phrases just right. i also liked that i didn't have to have a meaning in mind when i started. i often found that, as i pulled together phrases, one would present itself to me. a story could emerge, until this poem was clearly, transportively about something, where previously, there had been nothing; or at least, only my blank page and the white mass of the google results page. like reading a language poem, like a large language model, i assembled odd, unreceptive language into meaning.

it's worth noting a few things about my flarf writing. firstly, there's no crediting. like with chatgpt, you wouldn't really be able to work out where any of the phrase i use come from: i chopped them up small. secondly, you probably could debate whether or not it's actually writing. i was highly involved in the process, there wouldn't be anything which looked like a poem without me, but the words are not my own, and the meaning isn't something i was burning to say. as it is, these poems may not mean anything to anyone other than me: my resources were limited, and make for messy communication. this is where the previous work of experimental poets is a useful defence, but still. is it worth anyone's time to read them? this set of poems still resonate with me, but probably a large chunk of that resonance is the enjoyment i got from crafting them. other flarf, like diana hamilton's 'okay okay' (which is a nicer one), i can take or leave, although that is a fundamentally aesthetic opinion. so, i would be curious to know your thoughts.

anyway. now you know what flarf is, i hope you'll understand a little when i tell you that, one of the possible ramifications of ai which really alarms me was its effect on internet searching. because if every web page is monotonous, ai-generated flatness - even its quirks and flairs seem to repeat - then the possibilities of finding a moment of strangeness, from which to build a poem, are reduced massively. so, consider my joy, when finding out that this bug has given the computer a chance to write its own strange poetic nonsense.

my capacity to look at a computer error - a misnumbering of some token, deep down in the code - and read it as poetry is the ultimate gratification of bathes' thesis that the author is dead, the reader is all. but it's also nice. not because i think it reflects some sentience or understanding from the machine, but because it speaks to the human desire to collaborate, to understand.

however, there is, i want to note, a reason the tumblr quote collage was the format for presenting those extracts, though, and that is because they needed to be extracted. only small segments of these texts seemed to have the capacity for meaning to me, and so i cropped out the unnecessary bits, which undermined my point. in this, i was acting a bit like a flarf poet, choosing parts of the internet to assemble into meaning. which is to say, i was still the poet, the meaning-maker.

i think these machine-made strangenesses and errors can still be poetic, but it requires reading, writing and collaboration with humans to make them convinvingly so, at least as ai currently exists. and i don't mean just typing different terms into the input box until it makes an ugly picture to your liking. i mean treating tools like chatgpt as the very first step, a way to create text for to then chop up, black out, practice on, until you've dug beyond the inital bland intention, to uncover unexpected, personal meaning. whether that's even possible to do, when chatgpt is operating as it is intended to, is impossible for me to say, but it seems unlikely. i should make an admission here: i've not used chatgpt, or any similar ai. the prose they produce bores me, and the environmental cost isn't worth having a play around with. the latter, at least, ought to change. the former probably won't, because bland texts are more profitable than poetic ones. which puts the onus on people to corrupt, twist, play with what it puts out, and what the internet more broadly generates for us, as an archive of language.

i want to end by returning to womac, the all-knowing (or at least, all-knowledge-having) computer from barbara paul's short story. chatgpt's bug was fixed within 12 hours, leaving its poetic musings as brief historic documents. when faced with the same dilemna, though, womac's operator does not sort it. instead of considering it a bug in the system, he considers it a human failing that poetry isn't already part of communication. on the last page of the story, he muses:
But I just might not do anything [...] I think I might just wait and see what happens. WOMAC's poetic responses are relatively few and far between right now, but they'll become more frequent. The whole world depends on WOMAC. I think I might just wait and see what happens when the whole world has to learn poetry.
 
 
 
and with the awareness that this post is already much too long, i just want to add one last postscript. when the bug happened, chatgpt users, in the scrabble to understand how the computer could possibly be explicitly wrong, sought for language to express their response. as quoted in the mashable article linked above, this language recoursed to human understandings of ill/wrongness, questioning if it had had a stroke. with that in mind, i want to link to edwin morgan's poem, 'the computer's first christmas card'. in it, the jumble of language which led users to question if chatgpt was ill is reframed as development. the poem's computer-narrator is learning, and like a child, its words might be wrong, but the spirit is there - it means well. i guess i just hope we can be a little kinder to error, and see the potential there for growth, development, and more exciting things to come from it, rather than framing it as unwellness. i think this is a reasonable human lesson too.
agletbaby: (Default)
i seem to have read 21 books (7+5+4+5) between september and now, which i haven't posted about. that's quite a lot! it's enough that i thought a highlights list would suit as a summary - and then i could cut out the boring ones, or the ones i read for work. and then i looked again and it seemed to be mostly boring, work ones.

still, having picked through it again, i did read some books i've wanted to read for a while, even if i didn't love them, and others which surprised me, so that i liked them more than i thought i would. with that in mind, here are quick (sentence-ish) summaries of the more interesting stuff what i've read. no particular order:


catriona, rl stevenson - the sequel to kidnapped, and a quite charming cross-genre genre novel: i had a really good time with it, although you have to read the first one first, and you have to know some scottish history to do that.

the well of loneliness
, radclyffe hall - it's clear why it was historically important, and also why it's underread in the present (dense and kind of dull).

perfume, patrick süskind - a total rejection and send-up of the superpowered hero trope, in the guise of a historical novel set in 17th century france.

memoirs of a spacewoman, naomi mitchison - what if arrival was set in star trek times, but specifically the bit of star trek times written in the 60s, which can only imagine so much gender freedom.

the master and margarita
, mikhail bulgakov - fun but at times near-incomprehensibly soviet

adventures of tom sawyer and huckleberry finn, mark twain - the most incredibly written boys adventure books. if i ever write a child character i'm rereading these. but the language is rough, so that i wouldn't actually give these to a child.

the master, colm tóibín - if you have the slightest interest in henry james, this is worth your time, although i don't know if that is an interest to cultivate: i have thought about henry james a lot since reading this, but his books are conspicuously absent here, huh (i did read some of james' short stories though, most vividly 'the birthplace' and 'the real right thing'; i like his work but it's a commitment)

the man in the brown suit, agatha christie - a bit of a non-christie that i picked up very cheap and ended up really enjoying; it's her doing a spy thriller, basically, and it's very fun, albeit also very mid-century british.

warlord chronicles, bernard cornwell - read the last two of the trilogy this quarter, and loved them. these are like, what if arthurian legend was historically accurate, and so they take place in this historical moment where invaders and christianity are sweeping through a land already filled to the brim with religion, superstition and ruins. there's all the magic and conflict of the stories, but complicated and unclear and real. really something special.

agletbaby: (Default)
just read this article, 'Entering History: Zadie Smith and the Condition of the Social Novel' by Rosemarie Ho, which i thought was very good. like the main reason i'm making this post is just to acknowledge that and keep it somewhere i can remember it. in school we once had to write an "argumentative article", a pretty impactful activity 4 me because i remember being good at it, whilst becoming very conscious that that sort of emphatic journalistic style is easily rude or cringey. i know those techniques wherever i see them now. anyway, here's a bit from Ho's work i really admired, precisely because it threads that needle of using those techniques whilst also reading well:
 
Not many social phenomena or institutions have been left unscathed in her work: animal-rights groups, academia, Buddhism, celebrity, conservatism, dance moms, the English legal profession, fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, glee clubs (“the revenge of white boy soul”), Hollywood films (yellowface and blackface)—and that’s just the first third of the alphabet.
 
Ho's piece is about Zadie Smith's most recent novel, The Fraud, which i haven't read. it's generally a really solid bit of criticism: she starts by outlining the things which work in the book, which are interesting and convincing and made me want to read the novel, before launching into critique, which remain interesting and convincining, and don't stop me wanting to read it, but do adjust the way i would. i have been thinking about criticism a lot lately - i'm taking letterboxd very seriously (this is not a joke)(i am using it to think about critique, to swap in positionality for argumentativeness, and i enjoy it)(it is the only place where i regularly post, hmu if interested), and Ho's piece does it at a length i don't often get to read. i have an apathetic relationship with Smith: i've read White Teeth twice, in very different contexts, but nothing else she's written, which makes me simultaneously feel unqualified to speak on her, and as though i had my fill. so i found the piece useful in articulating some of my hesitations with her approach: something about the breadth and simultaneous dearth of feeling, or even movement, except for that of time and place. another quote: this new novel is a historical one, and so, Ho writes, in it, 'a genealogy of our past is refashioned into an analogy for our present; history is replaced by empty chronology (or the eternal return of the same)'.

because The Fraud is historical, and interested in the nineteenth century literary scene, and because Smith's approach has always been read as Dickensian, Ho spends some time with the history of the novel, and its particular 19th cent social guise.* and this is actually why i wanted to write something here, although it'll probably take less space than the footnote. but i am not up on my novel studies. even though i have a literature degree, and have been working my way through Proper Old Novels with real zeal lately, i just don't know that period of literary history.
and i was thinking about why, and it's because i don't care. or rather, i don't care for a historical explanation of literary forms, at least not at length. this is entirely a matter of taste, not because i don't think there's a place for them. but there's something about the way history as a discipline frames literature, particularly in the eighteenth and nineteenth century as a matter of facts and parties which i find dull. it's the lack, i suppose, to bring it back to my opening point (wow), of literary criticism. the reason i like literature is because it's history through analysis, rather than archeology. i know there's good historical work going on, but so much of it is so cautious about bringing the present to the past (despite that inevitably happening anyway), so that it's just carefully brushing off the bones and facts we've found. but i think there's so much need and space to recognise now in the then, even if it's just in considering difference. i think that might be why i liked Ho's piece so much. i have been burned by disciplinary disappointment in several non-fiction books this year btw.
but i would like to know more about the (anglophone, probably :/) novel as a form. i've been trying to think about good bits of lit crit i've read, or heard of which might do that: The Country and The City by Raymond Williams, which i've been meaning to read properly for a bit, comes to mind, but not much more. i'll be keeping my eye out anyway. let me know if you've read anything good. wow this is really long now, which i guess is appropriate for literally all the subject matter, but i really have to go, so i will.




* on Smith and Dickens, both Ho and Smith's wikipedia page point to a 2000 article, written just after White Teeth was published, which i (amidst the double peer pressure) also just read. it, 'Human, All Too Inhuman: On the formation of a new genre: hysterical realism' by James Wood, uses Dickens as a way to explain and critique Smith's work, pointing out the trick of balancing character and caricature. Wood uses him convincingly, i think: the piece made me stop and think about what my characters, if i ever put them to paper, would do. it's also another example, a mighty wave, of argumentative prose. i thought this was good, a really useful way of articulating why appropriate metaphor and voice matter: '“Beat” is not Samad’s word; he would never use it. It is Smith’s word, and in using it she not only speaks over her character, she reduces him, obliterates him.'
also, and this is tangential but interesting to me, the piece quotes Smith: 'It is not the writer’s job, she says, “to tell us how somebody felt about something, it’s to tell us how the world works.”' it is astounding how i disagree with this read. pedantically, neither of these are the writer's job - the job, surely, is to write - but i do feel the strength in the art form, in any art form created by one person, is in feeling, not explanation. hell, even in my phd thesis - an inherently explanatory piece of text - i'm having to entrench what i do explain in what i feel, because i'm so conscious that my take is coloured by my belief and situation. and maybe this is changing fashion over the last 25 years, towards reflexivity, and maybe this is Smith's relative naivety at the time of being quoted (or mine - i'm only a year or so older than she was, and maybe my opinion will shift, or maybe it's that i don't trust the opinion of someone my age), but god. idk. i love feeling and i'm hesitant to celebrate one person's read on the world.
agletbaby: (Default)
weird month. already feels very distant. still, art is forever

books

paul, daisy lafarge
Read more... )

great expectations, charles dickens
Read more... )

les liaison dangereuses,
pierre choderlos de Laclos
Read more... )

nothing left to fear from hell, alan warner
Read more... )

my cocaine museum, michael taussig
Read more... )

death's end, cixin liu
Read more... )

films

Read more... )


to watch

Aug. 25th, 2023 04:15 pm
agletbaby: (Default)
quick post for myself. i have a very long list of films i want to watch but i've had the same few running round my head lately. figured i would note what and why here, just to get it out.
  • vengance trilogy - keep seeing oldboy anniversary stuff, so i feel i should give it another shot, and whilst doing that, why not also revisit the films from the trilogy i actually respect?
  • 12 angry men - a classic i haven't seen. and idk it's just been on my mind lately.
  • barry lyndon - a classic i haven't seen. has been high on my list for years (particularly since i enjoyed reading vanity fair), but i've never sat down to watch it, so why not soon.
  • dog day afternoon - see above sans vanity fair mention
  • all that breathes - i haven't forgotten!!!
  • cinema paradiso - leaving mubi in 6 days
  • (my mubi watchlist is actually out of control i really should spend some time there)
agletbaby: (Default)
the other day, i went to a talk by the writer of a novel i didn’t love. but she made some interesting observations, and i was like ‘ok maybe her ideas are more complex than i gave them credit for, maybe i was unfair on the book'. and then right at the very end, she dropped a very bad film opinion unprompted, and i was like 'oh yeah i remember, the book sucked'. (it was the kind of opinion that just opened such a gulf between our tastes and values, that i don't feel like anything she writes has the capacity to be appealing to my interests.) but i'm now trying to work out if this is a bad thing to get from this kind of event (failed to convince me that the book is worth any further consideration) or a good one (i was right).
i don't particularly enjoy author events as a format - i guess i'm happy with my own interpretations - but if i am going to occasionally go, it would be nice to know why, i suppose. my immediate thought is that i would like to get some insight into the actual practicalities of the writing process. but 1) that's rarely what these events are focused on, and 2) does it matter if i like or dislike the author for something as practical as that?
(in defence of this event, it was a joint talk and the other author wrote a book i thought was pretty good and then was very charming and articulate so i guess that confirmed my interest in her work)
 
i’m feeling very sceptical of the phrase ‘i’m the target audience for [blank]’ rn because it’s inevitably followed by a ‘but’ which demonstrates a person was not, in fact, the target audience. i saw it recently in a review which was dismissing a piece of performance art, because its feminist approach 'should have' resonated with the reviewer, but its (classic slam poetry) outspokenness did not. there's an assumption in 'target audience' that message is the entirety of piece of work, in a way which utterly discounts form. but form is deeply important to audience: certain audiences will only see certain forms of thing, regardless of messaging.
been thinking particularly about this with regards to barbie, which i saw so that i could have a conversation with my friends again, and which i thought was not good, despite (some) agreement with (some of) its points. (not all of them.) but which i was never going to love, because children's films (which i would argue it is structured as, regardless of content/rating) are hardly ever for me: i am not the target audience. (there are exceptions, but they're mostly either nostalgic, or doing something more.)

anyway. been working and been going to events (august is events month in my city). back into the swing of writing long, semi-thoughtful letterboxd reviews. my birthday's on sunday; i feel weird about the day, but fine about the passage of time. i'm tired. i'm really into sweater vests rn. i can see a circus tent out this library window. and hills. i should probably get back to work.
agletbaby: (Default)
i finally finished death's end, and thereby polished off the remembrance of earth's past trilogy, three years after starting. despite what the timelag suggests, i liked the first two books a lot, with albeit massive caveats. these i was able to overlook, partly because the story was good, and partly because i have a real soft spot for 20th cent american scifi, so i'm pretty great at tuning out horrible attitudes. i think liu is at least as bad as those guys, but the three body problem and the dark forest are genuinely deeply interesting, intricate books, so it was enough to roll eyes at the almost comically poor depiction of women, and keep reading. not so in death's end

a positive to open with, though. liu is a great mystery writer. it’s deeply satisfying to see how all the carefully established components slot into their eventual place in the plot. sometimes a certain intriguing event or phenomenon (or clue) might seem to disappear from the story, but it's never a lasting concern, because you know it'll come back in. liu is extremely careful about giving you the info as you need to solve the plot, no more, no less.
appropriately, his writing evoked shimada soji's introduction to the english translation of the decagon house murders, in which he writes: '[ayatsuji's] novel approached the form of a game [...] As a result, his characters act almost like robots, their thoughts depicted only minimally through repetitive phrases. The narration shows no interest in sophisticated writing or a sense of art and is focused solely on telling the story.'
it was the robot bit specifically which came to mind during death's end. liu’s characters, you see, are less people and more devices to drive the plot to where it needs to get to for the science to get interesting. like sophon, the novel’s token robot, they are there to serve a purpose dictated by an unseen but controlling force, covered by a thin and too-good-to-be-true gloss of humanity to lend them conviction.
and, as with the present's own robots, ais, they reproduce their creator’s biases too.

death's end is consistently sexist and racist. that's not what i want to talk about here, but it's important to flag. i also want to say that i think it's so funny there was some drama around the english translations of the books (possibly just the dark forest?) being edited to be less sexist, when the sexism is so deeply baked into the plot and setting of this one. also it's still definitely there in vocab, even in translation.

what i actually want to talk about is liu's view of art. he has, to put it simply, the deep and fundemental vibe of one of those guys who thinks we should defund the arts because it's a waste of time and money, and instead everyone should do stem. which is kind of weird given he's an author. but i guess his chosen genre has science in the title and therefore counts in the acronym.

and the fact is, remembrance of earth's past is a deeply sciencey narrative. his approach to scifi is to extrapolate from the hottest of scientific theories, and shape it into a story. like how detective stories might hinge on the real and particular effects of a poison, his work orbits around the supposed possibilites of physics. which is fine - makes me feel like i'm learning something. but what it seems to mean for him is that scientific progress is all that the human race requires as it endures into the future. and i think that's simply not true.

i want to note some instances from death's end that i think demonstrate liu's attitude. there may be some minor spoilers, so i will hide it, but honestly i can't recommend this book. (i do think the first two are still worth it if the premise really appeals to you.) it's also important to note that i am writing this from a deeply different cultural context than liu, and the touchstones i'm referring to here will not apply to him. but i also think 1) he's writing about the whole world (even if he thinks he only needs to bother with asia, north america, europe and australia), 2) i'm reading it, 3) it really bothered me to be faced with the assumed acceptance of this attitude, and i'd like to begin articulating a response so as to better confront it when i next inevitably encounter it.

so, here's what art is doing in death's end

(good) art represents physical phenomena
Read more... )
humankind doesn't create art
Read more... )
art is dangerous, corrupting, bad
Read more... )

remembrance of earth's past is about humankind surviving the apocolypse. the very fundamental set-up of the series isn't too different to 'independence day' or 'war of the worlds': the aliens are coming, and not in peace. the difference, however, is that remembrance of earth's past is not just set now. (well, the first book is, now and in the near past, and that's probably why it's objectively the best.) it sets up futures. and it sets up a future i can't believe in, root for, or mourn the possibility of losing.

liu writes a lot about humanity's reaction to things. his main characters are all very much individuals with their own quirky takes on the world, but they're in conversation with humanity, who function as a chorus, are always taken in by propaganda, follow the (usually doomsday) decrees of science, and who i don't recognise at all. they're a body of people without art, without culture, without response.

i actually find the fact that this world, in which humans lack the capacity to create beautiful things, can be imagined more concerning than any of the constant threat it's under. it's a world which dismisses creativity outside of a lab, and ignores why people are able to bear the incresingly falling sky vibe of being alive today. art is a place of connection, calm, meaning, protest, discussion, understanding, curiosity, utopia. ultimately, it doesn't matter to liu - nothing matters to liu, the science points to the death of the sun and the collapse of the universe, and so on the big timescales, who remembers one person, one artwork, one moment? liu is a hypocrite, of course: his work is full of characters making worldchanging decisions, often emotion based, dreaming of the past; they save starry night and mona lisa from [redacted major event]. the fact is we, as people don't live at universal timescales, nor worldwide consciousness ones (?). it's near impossible to write someone who does (just ask god emp of dune lol). and given we are living here and now in our little worlds, we need our little arts. and we need it, i think, to imagine a humanity who cares about that to care about. i guess. ugh. cringe.
agletbaby: (Default)
hello! i spent the vast majority of july away from home, which means two things.
1) due to time and devices had, there's chunks of the internet i didn't access for a while there. including dreamwidth, so sorry if i missed anything!
2) my consumption habits were a little weird. i watched way less than usual, but had a strong reading month. which has ramifications for Posts Like This. this is my first month on dw and therefore my first month doing one of these, but i don't know if it'll set any kind of useful template going forward. just trying things out


(i am now back in my flat. that's also weird. i keep sleeping in...)


that said, here's what i read/watched this month:


read

👍therese ranquin, emile zola👎the queen charlotte bridgerton spin off novelisation
  • it's a bridgerton spin off novelisation
  • i basically acquired it as an in-joke, but felt i ought to read it. it's not very good, and it's also gets rid of all the stuff that made the tv show interesting. if you want a romance, either to lightly enjoy or to criticise (which is an interesting exercise with queen charlotte, the premise being frankly wack), the show is better.
👎psychogeography, merlin coverley
  • theoretically, this was an introduction to psychogeography.
  • except i thought this totally failed as an introduction. both made strange assumptions of knowledge, and was weirdly limited in its scope too.
👍the count of monte christo, alexandre dumas
  • long book about revenge.
  • i've been reading this for a couple of months, but finally powered through the last half over about 10 days this july. on the one hand, it's very long, and there's a bit of a lull in the middle. but, the first 300 (?) pages and the last 400 (? pages sort of mean nothing when there are this many) are so fun, and that's still a ton of good book for your buck. like, there's a point towards the end of the book (still hundreds of pages left) where dominos start falling, and literally every chapter after (and they're short chapters) has an exciting revelation. overall, lots of murder. lots of sailing. lots of secret identities. a nice romance. a deeply awful romance which actually really dampens the ending. i don't like everything dumas does - the count particularly is a figure i feel kind of conflicted and unconvinced by. but i am glad i've read it, and i had a good time.
👍the employees, olga ravn
  • interviews with the human and humanoid (robot) residents of a spaceship.
  • it took me a chunk of reading to be convinced by this, but that's okay, because this one's short! the beginning reads to me like a creative writing class 'respond imaginatively to an object' exercise, partly because that's lowkey what it was. but the story (which feels like the wrong word) grows complex and knotty (also feels inadequate) in ways that i found fulfilling (maybe) and impactful (yeah).
👍foundation and empire, isaac asimov
  • the second foundation book. (as opposed to second foundation which is the third)
  • one thing i find weird when people talk about the foundation series is that everyone seems to have agreed that it's scifi but like, boring. theoretical. i went in expecting a thought-experiment or something. but these bad boys have plot. yes asimov clearly hates writing action but action still happens - it's just off screen. on screen, there's all sorts of scheming and negotiation. there's a plot twist at the end of this one! anyway, i really like this sort of style/era of scifi, and i really liked this. i also really enjoyed asimov's writing here.
👍the shipping news, annie proulx
  • guy moves to newfoundland.
  • speaking of liking writing styles. the plot here, for me, is entirely secondary to proulx's tremendous capacity to arrange words in groups. she's so good. i feel like reading this has forced me to reconceptualise my entire understanding of sentences: they don't have to be long to be interesting! there's some really good metaphors and similes here, she's great at conjuring moods. a reading experience to take notes about.
🫱illuminations: essays and reflections, walter benjamin
  • a collection of literary criticism plus.
  • i use benjamin a lot, but in a selective ways, mostly picking up an essay as it seems relevant and then focusing in on the sections which resonate with me. i will continue to do that. there was a lot of valuable stuff in here, and i'm glad i have read it all, but it was also very hard work. if you want somewhere to start, i recommend 'unpacking my book collection', which was the last standalone essay i read before attempting this collection, and probably lulled me into the false sense of security which led to me reading a whole book of benjamin's dense theory.

watched

why didn't they ask evans? (2022)
  • three part agatha christie adaption.
  • pretty good! i needed something distracting but familiar to put on after a tiring week and it fit the bill. if you've seen any christie tv adaption you know broadly what to expect. i thought the reveal was a bit artlessly done, but it's not that it's a bad resolution, it's just the way it was filmed. got me considering how the reveal is a real art in mystery fiction. would love to know any faves/stand outs.
black narcissus (1947)
  • nuns set up shop in the himalayas
  • this is a gorgeous, eerie visual experience. i've also been intermittently thinking about nunneries ever since. truly what a fascinating situation to put people in: isolated, close, rigerous and moral. i really think they're such an interesting setting. one of my favourite books is the prime of miss jean brodie, and this story really got me reevaluating the minor-but-key nun stuff in that one. i'd like to read the black narcissus novel, and muriel spark's other nun book. also really got me hype for the nun ii (#nun2sweep) (not really, but i am separately hype about the nun movie, i could enthuse for hours about the conjurings)
the darjeeling limited (2007)
  • wes anderson actors take a train across india
  • i really liked asteroid city. couldn't tell you why, or what it means; not even what it means to me. but i found it deeply moving nonetheless. which reminded me there's only a handful of anderson films i've not seen, and could easily catch up on, this being one. this having been one. because i watched it. i liked it, i found it touching, i think it enters the fairly large bunch of anderson films that i like well enough, but that's it. however, it is the kind of film that i think i would enjoy hearing someone who really likes it talk to me about.
the box (2009)
  • i don't know how to explain this one. cameron diaz and james marsden get given a box and an ethical dilemna?
  • a movie of constant movement. you never know what's happening - but it's so fun to speculate in the moments where you catch your breath. i really liked this, in the same way i liked fincher's the game: less about quality or message, more about the thrill of the unfolding (unboxing?). thinking about it whilst writing this is making me want to rewatch it, which in itself is a pretty glowing review.
red eye (2005)
  • cillian murphy and rachel mcadams have an airport meet-cute. it's a thriller
  • it's fun! the tension's good, there's some mildly gross violence, both leads give actually great performances. i love a noughties thriller, and this is a first class one. something prime to watch with friends, i think, which is what i did.
hoodwinked! (2005)
  • little red riding hood, if it was rashomon by way of shrek
  • to me, this is the funniest film of all time. although i did watch it a lot as a child so i'm deeply biased. however, i think it stands up? like, you could do a live action adaptation of this, call it knives out 3, and nobody would know. (this is a lie, but mostly because half the cast are animals.)
oppenheimer (2023)
  • the one that's in the cinema atm
  • i thought this was quite objectively really good. it's so carefully crafted, and feels so intentional in the story it's telling. i think most of the jokes (all those tweets about reveals of famous historical figures being like in marvel ughhhh) and discourse vastly misses the point. nolan seems to know exactly what story he's telling, and exactly how callous and short-sighted that story was made by the people in it. and he's clearly deeply interested in that. and it's interesting. also this film whizzes by, in a way few three hour films ever do (the batman and zodiac are the only ones that spring to mind)
odd episodes of the witcher and his dark materials, and foundation s2
  • i'm not a tv person, but i spent a few days with my parents, who are. and honestly, it was fun! i will be carrying on with foundation (perhaps expect a post on adaption choices?), and i'd like to watch more of the other two too. it helps that i've either already watched a series (the witcher/foundation) or have the book deeply imbedded in my soul (northern lights). actually, it also made me want to reread hdm and carry on with the witcher book series, and obviously i already finished my next foundation novel. which is the issue with tv: there's too many other things i want to do, so i get distracted and never finish.
(no hands for this section, because i'd broadly recommend everything)




i wanted to do another little sub-category of assorted other things, but i can't think of enough off the top of my head, so here's a few random bits to end on.
  • i read the wikipedia page on the fermi paradox on a beach, and had a great time. it's like, wow, physics. aliens. the universe. i actually come back to it every couple of years and always feel inspired and discombobulated.
  • i'm really into the brian david alvarez's intern videos rn (i love the phrase 'elegant walk' in this one): the way he pronounces things really brings me joy, it opens up a whole new world of words.
  • i just started weaving again, last night, so hopefully i bring that forward into next month! and also just started death's end, which is the last three body problem book. i'd also like to read great expectations, dangerous liasons, and barthes' mythologies in august. we'll see! august can be busy: it's my birthday month, and the only one where the city i live gets properly interesting, so it may be a bit of a juggle.
agletbaby: (Default)
i read thérèse raquin by zola last week! first things first, it's good: grim and depressing, yeah, in a way that honestly goes above and beyond. but good!

but the reason i read it, entirely and utterly, is because of thirst. i don't know if this is widely known (i don't know how widely known thirst is, in some ways), but thirst, the 2009 korean vampire film by handmaiden/oldboy director park chan wook, is based on this 1867 french naturalist novel. random! anyway i love thirst, and i am on an lifelong quest to read every interesting book ever published, so i figured, why not try this one? and i'm glad i did.

thirst is, for me - but i'm right on this one, honest - one of the best films about desire out there. hell, i would even tentatively say it's deeply romantic. it's not, like, a conventional love story (key image: song kang-ho lying on a hospital floor, drinking blood out of a comatose patient with a long straw), but i think it balances cruelty and tenderness in a way which marks park's best work.
it's a story about relationships, in the guise of a horror film. meanwhile, thérèse raquin is a horror novel, in the guise of a story about relationships.

there's a lot the stories still share. the broad structure of thérèse raquin is preserved in thirst. of course, park adds quite a lot (adultery in the 1860s becomes adultery+vampirism in the 2000s, but also all the christianity stuff: in thérèse raquin god is only really notable in absence), but the set-up of tae-ju/therese's situation is recognisably the same in both: the small, dark homes, the strange family dynamics, the small group of tile game-playing friends. even a lot of the fallout is similar: although zola doesn't have vampires, thirst's ghosts are taken right from his novel. both texts are basically social critiques, concerned with, i guess, the smallness of the lives people have access to, and how they try to expand them.

the thing that really surprised me, though, is just how grotesque thérèse raquin already is. i was deeply curious to know how the idea for a pretty intense film got generated by a presumably stiff and self-censoring classic. the answer? it's all already there! there's literally vampire imagery in thérèse raquin that doesn't make it into thirst. as mentioned, there's ghosts. but before anyone dies, the characters are half alive, already dead, living in open graves alongside puppet-like corpses which nodded their heads and moved their heads and arms when you pulled the strings. there's some gnarly body horror too. i read things have gotten worse since we last spoke last year, and i didn't like it anyway, but there was half a paragraph which trumped the entire nasty conclusion which was the whole point of that book. there's a ton of horror imagery and tropes in thérèse raquin which i've encountered before, but only in things that came after this - and i don't know enough about the histories of these things to say for sure that it's an originator, but it certainly felt shockingly timeless in its choices. (i'm being coy; horror is about knowing something's coming, but not when or what, right?) (although i wouldn't say it's scary, exactly - and i wouldn't say thirst is either.)

the adaptation makes a lot more sense, which is honestly more than i was expecting.

also, and this is a total tangent, and probably off-base, but it made me think about decision to leave again. decision to leave is park's newest film and it's.. okay. it's up against a really strong filmography, so in any other context, i'd probably be a bit more enthusiastic, but i simply like park's other work more, and it's difficult for me to disentangle that, and judge it on its own merits. having said that, i also like thinking about decision to leave more when i think about it in the context of his other films. and one major feeling i had, coming out of it for the first time, was that decision to leave was thirst with the timings off. (and no vampires. but that doesn't mean something isn't related to thirst.)

but i also think thérèse raquin allows some sort of opening onto decision to leave. there's (spoilers, broadly) spouse murder. maybe a little bit of adultery. this is fairly minor, but both therese and seo rae (dtl's female lead) are in some way foreign to their societies, in a way which loops back to their statuses as critiques of life in them. (dtl is also mildly unconvinced by the smallness of its character's lives.) (therese's foreignness - she's half algerian, and was born there - is also employed in a pretty racist way, in one of the two instances its mentioned, just as a warning.) thérèse raquin is interested in the assumptions made upon observing people, without really knowing them, and whilst this only becomes a minor part of thirst, it's arguably the whole concern of dtl. and i think there's a coldness around both therese and seo rae that's supposed to be interesting, worrisome, also also understandable; what do you do when you empathise with someone you can't understand, and won't let you in? this is a question for laurent, hae-jun, and the audience.

it's hard to say if the similaities are because of a return to the book, or just park and chung seo-kyung (who co-wrote both)'s interest in certain themes. but i am desperate to find a way into decision to leave, because i do think it's good, i just haven't clicked with it. so here i am.
agletbaby: (Default)
i've read a couple of articles in the last couple of days which i've been folding and unfolding in my head, so i thought i might share them here.

first is After “Barbie,” Mattel Is Raiding Its Entire Toybox. this is full of information which, when cut up into headlines, as @DiscussingFilm and @PopBase and other such important cultural critics keep doing, sounds awful. 45 mattel films. a24 barney the dinosaur. he-man cinematic universe. even the greta gerwig chronicles of narnia revelation (although i swear i'd heard whispers of this before), which i should be warm to (i like gerwig's films, and i like narnia) fills me with a profound sense of apathy. 1) it's for netflix, 2) it's another adaption/remake; i thought we, the culturally minded on the internet, hated the latter especially, 2b) there's already a good narnia film that came out at the perfect age for me to be deeply into it, 3) i'm hesitant about what her perspective will add (although i do think little women works as a new adaption so maybe it's just the netflix/existing adaption stuff making me reluctant to care).

and yet this mattel article is really, really exciting. i don't think the mattel movie complex going to work, but the article conjures a world in which it might, and that's something to look forward to. it's written with a profound eye to detail, and an embracing of the mattel view that really works. like these ideas do sound interesting. in a world where "IP is king", then surely a cool take on an IP is the best case scenario! and these takes do sound interesting, and i will be watching barbie, and isn't it nice that they're giving people opportunities, and those people are the kind who are interested in film and culture beyond IP.

and yet the article feels like it forgets that there is a world beyond IP, for all that it includes other people's references to powell & pressburger and close encounters of the third kind. it's a really exciting article, for a world where there isn't anything better, but there is. there's been a lot of really fantastic films not based on brands. the only IP film from the last couple of films got more than 3.5 stars from me was batman. and i think it's a blueprint for the kind of reinvention mattel wants to do, which is cool because it is good, but i only gave in 4 stars. the films that have really got me, stayed inside of me, have been original, personal: nope and aftersun and rye lane and even turning red.
the fact is, this article is interesting because it's an astounding plan to read about, but also because it's a perfect piece of marketing. it really gets you caught up in this fantasy world that's being made inside mattel hq, where the only option is IP, but they're going to do it really well. the headlines can't compare, because it's all in the rhetoric. the journalist pulled off something amazing here, although i also want to know if mattel paid for this, and how much say they got over what went into the final piece.


i also read How Samuel R. Delany Reimagined Sci-Fi, Sex, and the City. the article is a profile of delany, who clearly was interviewed by and met with the writer several times in order to put it together. it generally functions best, imo, as an overview of his career. i've not read any delany, although i was vaguely aware of his position in scifi canon (as a prominent black, gay writer in the 20th century) and i've had a collection of his short stories for a while, which i will now be prioritising. but he's clearly written a lot of fascinating stuff that i've just not come across, both within scifi and outwith it, and now i have a list of titles to track down. i think the article is particularly strong with showing how his interests grew, changed, and reacted to culture over the years.
there were some quotes and moments that really struck me, and i want to make a note of here:
  • 'apprentice novels, quick and colorful but occasionally spiralling into jejune moral grandiosity'
  • 'There were so many thousands of books, Rickett told me, that he made Delany buy fire extinguishers. (“Not to put out any fires,” he clarified, “but just so we could fight our way out.”)'
  • 'Academic life, though, bored him to tears. “I thought the university was a place where a lot of intelligent people spent a lot of time talking intelligently,” he told me, but colleagues seemed uninterested in discussing ideas outside the classroom. He preferred Manhattan, where neighborhood booksellers were always available for an intellectual quickie.'
  • 'Gayatri Spivak, the deconstructionist scholar, was so impressed with Delany’s work that she asked him to sire her baby'
  • 'He describes Afrofuturism as a “well-intentioned, if confusing marketing tool.”'
  • 'I observed that he was an encyclopedia of the city. “An encyclopedia of failed attempts by the city,” Delany corrected me'
  • also, and this is from a different article which i came across whilst trying to refind this one, but i really like it: 'he does not believe that science fiction is the right genre for his concerns any more or less than another genre would be. “Nothing about the sonnet is perfect for the love poem, either,” he said. “Genre simply provides a way for the reader to look for things that have been done. A form is a useful thing to use. It has history and resonance. It informs you as to the way things have been done in the past.”'
one thing i found really interesting about the profile was how little delany is quoted, relatively. this is something the profiler notes early on: delany is 'a man willing to discuss nearly anything but his own literary significance'. which brought to mind that brandon sanderson article from a couple of months ago, where the writer makes the whole point sanderson's inability to talk about his work properly, whatever that means. i think it's got to be impossible to properly explain writing, especially for something like a magazine profile, which isn't guaranteed a literary audience. i will say that the sanderson article feels a lot more informed by the writer's time with his subject. the article would not look like that if the two hadn't met, and had their weird hangouts and chats. whereas in someways, delany feels almost irrelevant in his article, when compared with his career. but what i'm sure is obscured here is the hours of interviews and discussions which inform the writer's understanding of what matters from that career. and that's so valuable, even if it feels a little like the source of chat gpt's data: for people keen to know or study delany, it's going to be frustratingly hard to identify or work back through the research hidden behind the writing. what is an exclusive interview with delaney, what comes from his essays, what's extrapolated from reading his work or just being around him? what's interviewer bias?

it's funny, because profiles are so often predicated on a claim by the writer of having got to know the subject. yet that doesn't always come through. i was astounded by the fact that the profiler and caroline calloway had been talking for a year and a half for her vanity fair profile, because the resulting piece read as very short and slight. that might actually be part of calloway's mystery/lying, and a need to save something for the memoir(s). but it's also the way it's kept in: how much do you quote the subject, how much do you simply describe their surroundings, how much do you linger on their past versus their present? it's all decisions. the profiler themselves is easy to overlook in these things - the reaction to the sanderson article, if you saw it, was unusual, and entirely based on the way the profiler's biases came through. it's notable that i've named only celebrity names here. but they are part of the story too, even if they are also totally unwilling to discuss their own literary significance.

for what it's worth, i like an oral history more than a profile. the clickhole ones always make me laugh, but more seriously, i think about the bennington college piece at least once every couple of weeks. it's obviously also mediated and assembled, but i like that narratorial biases are the point, and that the story absolutely wouldn't exist without the subject speaking.


just to add: i finished+posted this, and then read Did This Writer Actually Know Tennessee Williams? (btw i am not much of a new yorker peruser normally, the fact that all the main articles mentioned here are from there is a weird coincidence.) and speaking of interviewers, profilers, interviews and profiling, this is a doozy of a piece. it's got something of the allure of the msscribe story too.
agletbaby: (Default)
ok so last week (maybe? time's a little unmoored for me lately) danielle [personal profile] shrimpchipsss linked me to a convo she'd had, thinking about the differences between different fic fandoms. this, from our follow up conversation on twitter, summarises the point nicely: 'i have a whole spiel about how there are a lot of mdzs aus that take place in specific times and places (modern day in philly, for example) [...] whereas haikyuu is set in real time and real place and yet there's a lot of haikyuu aus set in [indeterminate college town, probably american] even though it isn't like there aren't colleges in japan haha/there's a fair number of aus that are sort of. place-agnostic unless multiple teams are part of the story and theres some kind of sense of diff territories etc'

(this is a side post which should be separate, but i'm going to note it within this one anyway, a little nesting doll of thought. anyway i think it's so nice to be able to refer to conversations. most of my writing is academic, so i'm very used to crediting the people i use, but not so much to acknowledging non-peer reviewed inspirations or influences. or even suggesting how you arrived at conclusions from certain scholars, and how you felt about them, even tho a lot of my use of sources is actually extrapolations and massive assumptive leaps and emotional reactions, that probably could do with a bit more explanation. but i'm already citing every other sentence, and wordcounts loom, and i can't. (in some ways, of course, i am. the need for citation does essentially render all academic writing, at least in my fields, a conversation, even if it's often (always, in my case, so far) one sided. it's just that the personal associations which 'conversation' evokes are carefully disguised by academic writing. meanwhile, internet convos are basically all personal chat - 'i speak' 'you speak' 'i reply' - which disguises the fierce and fun generation of new ideas.) anyway, i enjoy giving credit where credit's due, in all mediums and styles)

danielle's point got me thinking about place and writing. i'm always thinking about place and writing, in some ways - they're both things that fascinate me on the personal and academic levels, and that i enjoy enjoying. there was a few different ways our conversation got my brain sparking, but it specifically got me thinking about place in my fic. i mostly write haikyuu, but i believe very deeply in locating what i write about, despite the fact i've probably not been there. this isn't always about physical location - sometimes, it's just about being precise in culture, character, timeof life, and so on - but often it is geographical. one time i wrote about ikejiri and kita meeting and i identified where down to a specific bar, and then made sure to write the interior right. when i think about writing 'know what a river can be', i'm amazed i did it in a couple of weeks, not because of its length (intense for me, but plausible) but because i had to spend so much of that time looking up travel routes, locations, and so on. as i said in the AN, i hadn't actually been anywhere i described in it, so that information took a lot of work to collect. but i didn't want people to know that - at least until they finished reading.
this isn't a slight on people not doing that btw, but it's important to me. i really do think, if you are going to write canon stuff, and not generically relocate it, place, and travel, and space, are important to get right. we experience the world through places, even when we're doing virtual things, like reading or writing. i'm on a train rn, and that's part the writing of this, and when i look back at this post, and probably when i think about these ideas, i will remember which train.

writers write in and about place. there's this article by a geographer named douglas pocock from 1981 called 'place and the novelist' that i think captures this well. he characterises the novel as implicitly 'time-specific and, thus, by implication, place-specific also', and also says some other stuff that i'm going to stick in a list, and may not refer to again, but which are framing my thoughts here:
  • 'we are rooted and grounded in place, by place'
  • 'Recognition of the importance of place to novelists is also seen in the reticence they often express towards the portrayal of foreign scenes and characters [...]The difficulty in setting a novel in a foreign context illustrates the bias imparted by one's native place'
  • 'Place, then, contains our roots, our unique point of reference. We may not be able to begin again but it is a point to which we can return'
they say write what you know, and part of what you know is where you know. certainly, whenever i write original things, it's always around the city i live in and walk through and which structures and is my life rn (even though i'm often apathetic towards it). i don't like that lack of imagination in myself, but it's difficult to remove myself from the city when it's so immediate and easy, and i'm still learning how to write creatively in many ways. even fantasy is often located in places known and lived in: my prime example of this is earthsea, which is modelled on the pacific northwest where le guin lived (in the mini-series they apparently have american accents, which feels strange in a world centred on british-accented fantasy, but that is itself its own kind of placing, firstly by tolkien, and then by a succession of other anglophone fantasy writers seeking castles. why not american, when le guin is?) i'm taking as a given, then, that your writing is about where you know.

so what does it mean, as a fic writer, to inherit a location you don't know? that is someone else's place. can you even write it? how?
i'm going to think through this a little, but i think the ultimate point of this post is to pose that question, and flag that it's weird, and tough, and cool that so many people are, in various different ways.

sidenote: haikyuu's a really interesting example here, because in some ways it conjures some quite generic settings: high school, sports teams. the existence of high school and sports aus as a way to relocate specifically located stories into generic settings prove how easily adaptable these concepts can feel - although that ignores how they are often extremely americanised versions in fics. yet haikyuu is also quite specifically located. firstly, it is about real places - not just town names and landscapes, but street corners and school halls and that big moon face. you can do that thing where you print out an image from the manga, and take it to a real place, and hold it up, and have it match, that's usually reserved for movie stills - photography, not illustration. and it's also very much about furudate's own high school volleyball experience, so there's another layer of additional locating. furudate has also said they research by going to the actual on-going tournaments, so it continues to be located in the existing, bordered and placed world of japanese high school volleyball. this is a very specific setting. there's an interesting contrast, then, between the story's delibrate (volleyball is for everyone - furudate) and inadvertant (high school is for everyone - the high school au tag on ao3) sense of universality, and the place it's actually specifically about. this means that fanworks run the whole gamut from generic to specific (even sometimes in locations entirely different to japan) in a way which must be about individual interests, but also culture. i mean culture in the online sense: the discourses (in both the (broadly) foucaultian and tumblr senses) that i saw on the internet in my formative years raised a lot of concerns about appropriation which made me cautious about how i dealt with other people's stories when i started writing. other people, within the same haikyuu writing spaces, will have inhereted different ideas, been introduced to fic in different ways, will be less neurotic than me. i think that's fine: i like reading all that different stuff. and, as i implied, i also think haikyuu lends itself to the range. this is good, because with the huge number of writers in the fandom, you're going to end up with a ton of different approaches. i'd also be curious to know if the popularity of hq fanworks has been encouraged the fact it can do both, as it were?
anyway, back to me (even more than already)(but listen, literature is always experienced individually, and so is place. i could say more, but instead, i'll converse. i like michael mayerfeld bell's article 'the ghosts of place' a lot anyway, but he has a good bit on this: 'Much of the evidence I use is reflexive, that is, drawn from my own experience of place. This, of course, is not the usual source of evidence from which sociologists draw, for such evidence is so particular. The particularity of place, though, suggests no better source. I hope that the personal evidence I report will, however, recall to memory similar and related experiences on the part of the reader').

anyway, back to me properly. just as a refresher, i'm actually now thinking about what it means to write somewhere you don't know, because you, as a fic writer, have inherited that setting.

i. fantasy
the first implication of writing places you don't know is that you end up writing fantasy. i don't mean this in the making-it-up sense, although that is, of course, a risk. what i mean is writing becomes a different sort of imaginative exercise. of course, all fiction (all writing?) is imaginary, but it's different describing new york vs a city you've made up. if nothing else, the reader needs different information from you. good fantasy writing (imo) requires the imaginative equivalent of going for a walk around the neighbourhood you're writing: the writer must work out the shape and size and feel of a place, what it looks like beyond the edges of the writing, before they can begin to describe it: it must be mapped. i love those tiktoks where people pour rice on paper and then draw round it to make fantasy islands, so that's what i'm picturing. only, miyagi, and othe rhaikyuu settings, are not somewhere i'm making up. it's somewhere real, and already as a clear shape. and so working out the shape/size/feel is not something which you can do internally; you have to look outward. you don't draw your own maps; you turn to google's.

ii. research
this is vital, to me. i want to get things right. partly because i just don't want to get it wrong (ok time for a tangent (who's shocked) but i was in a presentation the other day by someone who was studying a cultural phenomenon that happens, among other places, where i live, which she referenced, and then continued to get details wrong about my home. on a basic geography level. she was a full-on academic. it was astounding. my point is that it's very annoying when people just assume they get where you're from, and then don't. i try very earnestly to not do that). if i get stuff wrong, then anyone who know the place will know, and won't be able to enjoy my work, and will possibly feel weird and alienated more generally, which means i'm failing: there's a level of care i think i owe to my readers. but i also research because i want my writing to feel detailed, intricate, lived in. everything is placed, and every place is composed of a mass of physical things, sensations, emotions. if i'm placing my writing, it needs at least some of that, or it won't ring true, even if it's only me who spots the gaps in knowledge, because i'm the only one who definitely knows i don't know. i'm the only person i'm ultimately writing for.

there's some random, and slightly less precise sources of research i work with. 1) the actual images in haikyuu really help: their hyper-precision is both a challenge and a help to rise to it. 2) there's one phrase in one of my fics, which i took from an actual book; i just happened to read this writer's description of a visit to a place which i was trying to write from my imagination on the same day. i took the phrase not so much because i needed the descriptive help, but because i wanted to mark the moment of inadvertent alignment. 3) there's also other fics. there's definitely been points where i've chosen a fan interpretation over a real thing, even when i know it's wrong (think olympics). i'm aware i'm writing for a community which has this communal understanding, and that in this context, the real thing will seem more invented than the fiction, and will create more dissonance. it's rare i do this, but sometimes, with fanworks which are going to be read only within community, that is the truer option. reading fic is its own type of research, and there's more i can say on that, but i won't rn.

but when i want precision, accuracy, detail, i turn to google. the only problem is, the answers it provides are none of those things. theoretically, everything's on the internet, but not everything is findable, and you only have so much time to look. ideally, i'd read novels or memoirs or something about the place i was writing about, but i'm busy, and again, writing for me. and anyway, who's to say a person's take on a place is all that place is. i had to stop reading a novel set in the town i went to uni once, because it was so unrecognisable, even though i knew the place names. i tend to use travel or culture articles, and pictures. lots of pictures. so many pictures.

but the stuff that comes up on google images isn't necessarily the most recent, or the most accurate: it often prioritises either aesthetics, or just fitting everything into frame. and wikicommons, for instance, has a shockingly outdated selection of images. with photos, you only get one angle, and then the place is stuck that way.
a couple of days ago, i heard someone make the point that 'if you visit a place online, it's fixed like that'. it was a totally different conversation, but at the back of my mind, i was like 'oh i have a dreamwidth post that would be perfect for'. the way a place looks, or is portrayed online, can never full capture what it's like: it won't include all weathers, all viewpoints (both visual and opinion), all anything. i'm not totally convinced by benjamin's rejection of reproductions (see 'the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction'), but the aura of a place on a website will be different to a place on its physical site. websites and photos capture only a still slice of the movements which makes space into place: you only get the end product, not the on-going process (this is terminology direct from my thesis; i'm too close to it to know if it makes sense, but i hope you get some sense of meaning from it - it doesn't matter too much if it's the one i intended or not). it's hard to get past that stillness, imposed by the anonymous curators of the internet, when you're working with a location you don't know, imposed by the original author. you, the fic writer, need to find your own perspective on that place.

the research, then, lays the groundwork. it gives you the detail you need: names, routes, distances, landscapes, but also food, temperatures, currencies. the geograpy of the place and the things in it. to use the fantasy metaphor, tentatively and without endorsing it, it gives you the map and the lore. it's up to you to imagine what happens on the ground, to the people.

iii. places you've been
i wrote this fic about water once. it's the one i mentioned already, with 'river' in the title. i hadn't been to any of the places mentioned. but i did live by the sea for a while, and i missed it. i've looked out across one of the great lakes, and hopped across a stream so small it disappeared when the weather warmed up. i've flown over an ocean. i've been to pebbley beaches, and sandy ones. i can actually see the sea out of the window of the train i'm still on right now. this is the train journey, along the same tracks, that i took when visiting my parents after moving out for the first time - i always look to see the sea along this stretch. my point is, i know water. i know what it feels like to go to a heaving, touristy beach, and one on off-season. these are sensations i know, which i've felt across different places to places. i can apply it to some more.

i know what it's like to move away, but i don't have access to the specifics of doing it to play volleyball and renouncing your citizenship. so, when writing oikawa, i took what i knew, and i built on it, and where i encountered large voids between the story furudate was laying out and what my life has been like, i did a little research, and a little imagining, and i felt my way between them. ultimately, i think, the best research for writing about a character encountering water is visiting myself - but i still have to know what kind of water they're looking at, how deep, are there islands? knowing that there are islands makes me consider what i feel like when i see an island, and suddenly it's all realer - not just the description of place, but character sensation too, because suddenly the character (i) am responding to where they are, and i have been. even if i haven't been there.

writers write place. all the time


iv. places you are
there's a secret layer to my fics that you will never know about. and that's where i was when i wrote them. even if i tell you, you're only getting the fixed, website version. you'll never properly know about the perpetual chill and the specific shade of wood, or the way the unusually warm spring filled up the concrete yard where i had breakfast. the brown, clear water, and the iterative finding of it. the dark street, the gravel lane. the too-short distance between my bed and the ceiling. the train by the sea, where i wrote all of this so far. i'm describing flashes here, i'm gesturing to edges, but you'll never know more than words. but i will, or at least i'll remember (i'm off the train now. it both literally and metaphorically recedes, and i remember it like its windows in the dark: flashes always), but that memory is baked into what i write, and it still spills lights into now. this means that when i revisit my fics, there's a double placing. where i'm describing (already a mix of my real places and the real place), and where i wrote that description. to me, that's as much of the story as anything else, and sometimes i can see it pushing its way through so, so clearly. it's part of what you read. and you'll never know

there's a secret layer to my fics that i will never know about. it's where you read it. sometimes people comment and tell me, but i can't really extrapolate much, not from the anonymised comments. i can fit it onto my knowlege of the world: i know bus stops, but couldn't begin to guess what the one that the commenter stood and read my work at is like: could it have a roof, a bench, did they need to sort out change to pay? (there's nothing like going to a new place to remind you that buses are mysterious and temperamental beasts which may respond any which way to your outreached hand.) i don't know, i won't ask, and i'll never get it. but i know what it means to read at a bus stop and i appreciate how it feels for me, and it makes me smile to think of someone else doing that. place is at once inherently individual, which brings with it a distance from other people, but it's also a source of real empathy. it's a shared experience; we are all placed, all 'rooted and grounded in place, by place'. i hope you remember where you were when you read my fics, and if you revisit that place, you also revisit that memory. not because i want to be remembered, but because i think it makes place, and writing, much richer when they bleed into each other and add all these other, invisible locations into each other. i want to add a metaphor here but i can only come up with lasagne. invisible lasagne of feelings and associations.

places and writings are never fixed. they alway grows and builds on each other, even if the process invisible, and individual, and no one else ever knows. that may sound sad or lonely, but it's really not, because we're all together in that experience.

thank you for reading this. i know it's messy, and horribly long, and i've not edited. i've also not slept much, which is why it's gotten all weird and ephemeral and heartfelt at the end here. but that's okay, because i only write for me.

except, if you made it this far, i also write for you. wherever you are.

first post

Jun. 26th, 2023 09:48 am
agletbaby: (Default)
the first post isn't always the hardest, but it's easy to put it off, so i figured i would break the ice and think, a little, about what i'm doing here.

i resisted dreamwidth for years because the interface is so strange to me (i just caught messageboards, but the most influential internet location of my youth was definitely tumblr) and honestly, i didn't used to think so longform. we're going way back here, but when i first encountered dreamwidth circa 2016 or so, blogging didn't feel like the right medium, because i was much choppier in my thinking. now everything i write/think is longform. much longerform than i want it to be, really. academia kept demanding longer essays of me and i kept rising to the task. i also know more stuff now so i have more to consider.

i've also gotten really into reviewing things in the last couple of years. i have a very active letterboxd, and a sometimes active storygraph. (i always review everything i read, i just don't always review it to a consistent critical standard. the same is true of letterboxd but i use it more and more casually, so things level out.) anyway, the reason i do try and do this is that i've come to really value capturing reflection, and making a note of my reactions and feelings around things in the moment i experience them - i find it helps me place my opinions, so that returning to reviews after time has flattened my thoughts into 'eh' or 'good' or 'horrible!!!!!!!!' helps me round them out again, give reasons for that feeling. all this to say, i see the point of writing stuff down now.

i want this to be casual, because writing is so tricky and time consuming, often, for me. but i also want it to be criticially engaged. the reason for starting today is that danielle (shrimpchipsss... i don't know how to embed names...[personal profile] shrimpchipsss  ok nvm i learnt, i'm getting the hang of it) was linking me to some really interesting posts about fandom and how it shifts over place, and none of them were very long but all of them made me go 'oh!'. and partly i figured it would be nice to see those posts, and posts from my friends who are articulate and smart and i like to hear from, without having to rely on other people to deliver them to me. but also, i have thoughts all by myself that make me go 'oh!', and normally they just stay sat until they flake away and i don't remember anymore. hopefully, this will be a place to put them. will try not to limit subject matter, so will probably be a mix of odd fandom thoughts (fandom thoughts post-fandom) and reviews that i don't want to articulate on accounts where irl people follow me, and also i guess reflections on my own engagement with media and art.

life is busy and although i generally try very hard to do what i say, sometimes i can't. so no guarantees. but i made the account, and the first post, and have defined the scope of this thing. that seems like all the help i can give my future self at this point. time will tell if i'm right. sorry to myself if i'm not - i'm sure you'll be looking back on this either way.

oh, and two things occurred to me while i was writing this, for me to check up on. can i bookmark other people's posts? how do tags work? i'm going to ignore them for now.

Page generated Apr. 23rd, 2025 01:29 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios