lost in pages, drowning in words

When an English teacher, or reader, taught or picked up 1984, it wasn’t with the intention they were going to love the protagonist. They picked it up with the intention of reading a whole story and trying to grasp the theme or catharsis from the story. If the protagonist was a *shitty* person it played into the the themes or the story, because it wasn’t about morally judging the book or *liking* or feeling attachment to the protagonist. Sometimes and often times, books were just about gaining another perspective. 

No one read Lolita expecting to endear, or like, or be inspired by Humbert. You are supposed to be upset by his behavior, you don’t read Lolita with the intention of being inspired. You read it to learn more about what the fuck is going on inside someone’s head when they behave like that. How children get sucked into abusive situations. Or read “The Great Gatsby” not because they want to fall in love with Gatsby or Nick, but to better understand and analyze the experience of the 1920s or destitution of the American Dream. 

A lot of internet and fandom culture has changed that though. When we say something like “I love the Great Gatsby” it comes with the idea or association that means you must *love* or relate to one of the characters. And maybe you do, but the first assumption is not longer about the quality of the work or themes, or cathartic impact-it’s about character admiration. And with that character admiration, in tumblr stan culture, or kin culture, or exalting characters with fanart/romance/so on you don’t just ‘admire’ or find that character ‘compelling’ it now translates to ‘you LOVE that character’ or you ‘DIRECTLY relate to that character.’ 

You can’t say “I love how Humbert is written, it’s so fascinating and dark”, without it directly translating you somehow relate to a child abuser or condone his actions. Taking in media has become an act of worship and connection. We no longer watch meant to just see the story as a whole, we watch expecting to connect to a character and if we offer them our “worship” as it’s become, as opposed to just attention or interest study as it traditionally was, it means we are condoning the character or saying we directly empathize with all their actions. 

I think that’s why there is often now so much fuss over *toxic* characters or not. Or whether that classical novel is showing good or bad things anymore. We’re treating the characters as people we should love or want to draw or write about. Sometimes a story is just about getting the the theme or catharsis or learning another perspective. We don’t NEED to like the character. Or we don’t HAVE to like a character to be impressed by how they’re written or intrigued by their behavior. 

And this is where “unhealthy relationships” in fiction come in too. Well-written, complex stories of bad relationships aren’t supposed to be good and healthy examples. If it’s held up that way (Twilight), then the issue is the writing and the writer. Unhealthy relationships in, say, Anna Karenina are obviously unhealthy but they are, to misquote James Joyce “portals to discovery.” You can know that a fictional relationships is seriously bad and still find it interesting. Psychology! Complexity! 

Also I want to add that some characters (Humbert Humbert is a good one) are written so that if and when you find yourself sympathizing or saying “Yeah, I know that feeling” you’re supposed to stop and consider that. Not in terms of “I am a sick individual and deserve to die.” but more like “is it possible to have compassion for terrible people?” and “what is it in our culture or my upbringing that makes me think like I do?”

I’ve heard way too many people say “I will never read Lolita because of what it encourages” and I just…you’re missing the point? Completely? Like, you’re so missing the point that it’s almost meta? You’re not supposed to like Humbert??? You’re supposed to either be like “wow, gross, dude” or “oh fuck, wait, why do I have even 1 thing in common with this guy?” Nabokov is not going to be straightforward with you! 

It’s like the jokes about being mad at your teacher for asking why the sky is blue in a certain book. Maybe there really is a reason. Did you think of that? For a bunch of people who’ll write thesis-length defenses of your favorite ships and trace down one instance in one minute of one episode of the 15 season show to prove that you’re right, it concerns me that you’re not as willing to look at a lot of other things with any depth. To say nothing of multi-chapter fanfic.

If you surround yourself with only good and pure and wholesome media approved by the purity-culture police, then you just don’t get to do a lot of introspection and I think that’s kind of a shame. I feel like it really limits your view of the world.

I dunno. There’s a weird kind of anti-intellectualism disguised as protection and good intent sometimes. Or it feels like the kind of prudishness that labels some books “dirty” and the people who read them equally disgusting, but just relies on social ostracism to enforce the labels. You know, “Think of the children!!” 

So, I just finished my reread of the Lord of the Rings. And while I could say a lot about how it hits different every time since I read it first at the age of 8 to now being 26, there was one thing that I never realized and that really moved me.

We all know that Frodo never felt at home again in the Shire and left for the Undying lands to be healed. But while I read through the Appendix, I realized… none of the fellowship found peace at their homelands after their quest:

- Frodo leaves for Valinor.

- Sam follows him after Rosie dies.

- Merry and Pippin go to Edoras when Éomer calls for them as he´s getting old, they continue their journey to Minas Tirith, and stay there until they die and are buried besides Aragorn.

- Legolas can´t resist the seagulls´ calls and leaves for Valinor after Aragorn dies.

- Gimli goes with Legolas.

- Aragorn grows into his role as the king of Gondor during the quest and doesn´t return to his former life at all.

- Gandalf may be the only member of the remaining fellowship that is doesn´t fall into the same pattern, but then again, who knows what he was like before he came to Middle Earth and how he´d felt when he came back to Valinor.

- Even Bilbo doesn´t find his peace at the Shire and goes first to Rivendell and then to Valinor.

To me it seems like both a warning and a consolation. A warning that adventures are not just over, they leave a deep mark. That growth comes at a price and that even if it makes you stronger, wiser, and more confident, you may have to leave something behind that will never return, even if you yourself do. 

But on the other hand, it feels like a consolation for anyone who has been fundamentally changed by an experience and doesn´t understand why they don´t feel at home anymore at the place where they used to be most comfortable. For those who longed after their former home so much during times of hardship and return only to realize that they have outgrown their old ways. 

me in middle school: i just wanna read my book and take a nap

jokes and so many deaths

jokes and also people get married

english propaganda

Ending is happy: nice