22 | She/Her | Writer | BR | Socialist

Hey, guys! Welcome to my profile, here you'll find my books (which are partially available here on Tumblr).

My books are self-translated, so my English might fail me sometimes, so I'd thank you if you could spare some minutes to critique my work if you decide to read it (I hope you do!)

Besides that, just enjoy the ride, I hope you love my stories and my characters as much as I do <3

All Creatures on Earth - Summary

The series will follow Adra, a witch born in a world of demons who has to navigate this world to get revenge for her father's murder. A murder mystery filled with political intrigue and a bit of Dark Academia vibes.

To Decadent Poets - Summary

The series is a coming-of-age type of story and will follow Chris, Annie, Oliver, and Noah as they grow up together in the north of Scotland as World War II devastates the world. A historical fiction with some mystery, a lot of comfort vibes, and Light Academia aesthetics!

The Freak Show Series - Summary

Like, I get it with Shane because it makes sense. They know each other for a long time and Ilya knows what makes him tick.

But like, Hayden, for example. Why is it so annoying to be called Montreal's 15th worst player when he is clearly not? Like, he's in the first line, he wings Shane Hollander, he's definitely not bad, so why does he behave like Ilya's the most annoying human being on the planet for chirping something that is not even true?

Same for JJ, Scott and pretty much everyone else tbh.

So, Taipei Story and R.F. Kuang.

First of all, I would like to disclaim that I am a writer and I'm currently doing my masters about hegemonic and resistance discourses on the Palestinian Genocide, in which I defend that pro-Israel stances and Israel itself is a market not a State, so I'm not in the slightest bit even a little pro-Israel or even neutral-Israel, please keep that in mind.

At first, I was thoroughly disappointed when I learned about Kuang's normalization of Isr*el in her upcoming book. However, since then, I've watched this video and now I've got some thoughts on the matter:

While I still do believe it's in poor taste to just throw an Israeli character in a book, that it is (allegedly) done to point out how part of a society idolizes white colonizers is a major thing and it has been left out of the discussion, so we've been going on circles over something we (a) haven't read in it's entirety, (b) haven't read even the EXCERPT apparently, (c) are actively picking at with a tunnel vision.

See, if the character is a minor character within the story and it's used to portray a certain attitude of the people around the MC as an admiration of colonizers and the colonizer's culture, then that's not pro-Israel. "Israel" is a colonizing venture and therefore, its "citizens" are colonizers and occupiers, and how other societies relate to them show a lot about themselves which is very good for writing social context.

Now, did they have to be Israeli? Well, not exactly, but I would say that it makes sense that the pianist is Israeli for the sole reason that Taiwan and Israel share a lot of history International Relations-wise and that, within Taiwan, there are colonial relations very similar to that of Israel and Palestine. So yes, it makes sense that the pianist is Israeli and is so admired, especially if we're talking about the colonial relations within Taiwan, which I get is probably the case.

But again IF that's even the case, because we don't KNOW.

I've recently seen a post here on tumblr talking about the portrayal of this Israeli pianist as something that is morally wrong, and I think that's very alarming:

First, because the portrayal itself is not the problem. Israelis exist —that is the whole crux of the matter, because they shouldn't. Or, at least, not in a land that doesn't belong to them and moreso, not if their existence is tied to the colonization and genocide of Palestinians and people on the Levant as a whole. But nonetheless, they exist, and literature portrays reality. It's not wrong to portray them, it is wrong to portray them as anything other than the colonizers they are because that wouldn't be realistic or honest of an author.

From what I've seen on the excerpt, that's not the case.

Second, this also brings me to a bigger issue we've all been discussing, which is the moralization of literature. R.F. Kuang has been known to write characters who are prejudiced, bigoted, flawed, imperfects in ways that we are all uncomfortable with. It's not a stretch to know that she's doing the same in Taipei Story and the truth is, not a lot of people who are not politically engaged think much about Israel or ANY International Relations problem —they have more urgent matters to worry about.

Now, calm down, guys, I'm NOT saying those things don't matter and that those struggles aren't tied together —I KNOW they are. But a big amount of people don't and they don't think too hard about it as well. Writing a character like that isn't a moral failing on Kuang's part, it's just a reality.

I'm a politically engaged person, a socialist, I've been politically aware since I was eleven. But I am also a writer and I worry about the policing of literature we've been seeing lately. And I've seen that this is expressed much more thoroughly against Kuang's books. One of the posts about the matter I saw on Tumblr was that it was just as bad to portray an Israeli as it was to portray a Russian, and I'm sorry, what?

There is nuance to this conversation, of course: portraying an Israeli as a nuanced character while speaking on colonization is not acceptable. But when is it that we're going to stop? Oh, you can't write a Russian because of what is doing to Ukraine; you can't write a Iranian because of what the Ayatollah Regime does; you can't write Venezuelans because Maduro... Dude, just stop.

The difference is that Israel is a political project. It is not a State, or a people, or a culture, it's a market of resorts and religious vacations and oil. Russia, Venezuela, Iran and so forth are States (though, yes, this comes with its own dose of violence as well) and identities that are formed because people are from those Territories and share a language and a culture. Israeli identity, on the other hand, is tied to whiteness and to (very antisemitic btw) propaganda.

All that to say: just wait to read the book and please actually READ it, guys. You can read it in epub or pdf if you don't want to buy it or give money to it if you're not comfortable, but truly, stop trying to censor art based on moral panic online and actually UNDERSTAND what the text is saying about it before you pass judgement. I swear to God, it's not a moral failing to read whatever you want or things that are problematic (with nuance once again: please don't give money to people who are actively causing harm to groups with their money).

One of my favorite books of all time is a Brazilian classic that portrays the boyhood and coming of age of poor homeless boys in the state of Bahia, and it's astounding how much violence against women it portrays. But it's not there just for the sake of it: instead, it is a very interesting study about how patriarch, class struggle, race and gender are passed along and internalized within the poorer parts of society. So, yeah, it's not because someone wrote something morally wrong that they are terrible people.

Yes, when I'm talking about men, there is intersectionality for trans men versus cis men, or black men versus white men, but you should be able to understand from the context of the conversation why I am making a broad generalization instead of correcting me on a nuance that doesn't pertain to the conversation.

You shouldn't feel the need to point out that different men have different experiences and have suffered different impacts from their own shared political backgrounds just because I'm commenting that men irritate me because of a personal experience. You need to be able to understand why the person across from you is making a generalization and in which context this is acceptable or not.

Do you guys also have the hardest time focusing on the people around you, like remembering birthdays or important details about the people you love and find yourselves hurting those people unintentionally because there is so much information and you end up losing the very information that mattered, then spiral into feeling so guilty it tanks your self-confidence to the point where you believe you're a terrible person?

I don't want to know about their lives, their relationships (or lack thereof) and if they're not fascists or "moderates", I'm fine with pretty much most political point of views.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I think JJ is secretly homophobic or something like that. In truth, I don't think he even realized that suggesting that Shane would trip on purpose for Ilya is was as problematic as it was. But it was problematic.

The thing about JJ is that, as much an ally as he is the whole time and as much of a good friend he is to Shane, him publicly, as an Alternate Captain, questioning Shane's integrity as a player because of his partner is homophobic in nature and steeped in hetero privilege.

Like I've seen in a fanfic, no one would question a player's integrity if their brother was on the opposing team, or if one of the players were married to one of the opposing team player's sister or something. The questioning of their integrity as players and professionals stems from the fact that Shane and Ilya are partners and I would go one step further:

I'd point out that, if Ilya had been the one to trip, he wouldn't have faced this kind of questioning, and I'm not saying that because Ottawa is a good team. I'm saying this because Ilya is white and perceived as dominant while Shane is neither. While this is an accurate deduction of their bedroom activities, the Voyagers don't know that. That's an implication (of the question) based purely on bigotry.

When JJ, as an A and as a man of color himself, questions Shane, the very nature of it is problematic as fuck and it could have had serious repercussions to Shane's career. The Voyagers were already icing Shane out and JJ's questioning could've been perceived as implied permission to be louder about it, or for management that JJ would be open to "take over" should Shane never trade to Ottawa. Now, I don't think JJ realizes the nuances of what he's done: he's frustrated (as a player) and fairly hurt (as Shane's friend) and lashing out.

But it is most certainly NOT okay that he calls Shane's integrity into question that way. It calls out to both JJ's and Hayden's hetero privilege that they never name names to the homophobia Shane's been experiencing the whole of TLG. The Voyagers had been icing Shane out since he came out and as much as they can't really say much, it's a testament to the problematics within very heteronormative spaces that no one openly speaks about what's happening and that, in JJ's case, even unknowingly, uses their privilege as leverage against the very minorities they are in support of.

Despite the conversations about JJ being very black and white, I really think he is a good friend to Shane and that it was to their friendship's detriment that Shane actively lied to JJ about his relationship with Ilya. I also think that JJ has a right to be hurt (although I'd call to question the intensity of his anger as inadequate, especially because he doesn't have the context the readers have —in his place, I'd probably be more insecure about not having been enough of a safe space or deduced they weren't ready, but to each their own). But his question about the trip was inheritedely problematic even if unknowingly.