#dvla asks

Anonymous asked: I just want to come back and add on that I’m not trying to say “hey your portrayal of wearing armor in hot weather is highly inaccurate” and after sleeping on it I realize that’s how it might have come across and I’m very sorry about that- it was meant to say that you are absolutely correct in how utterly miserable it can be and that I cannot possibly fathom having to wear my full costume for 16+ hours and actually having to work in it beyond the faire’s shows throughout the day when I worked there! You’ve definitely hit the head on the nail with what it’s like!

Aha, thanks for the clarification, as I admittedly wasn't entirely sure what you meant in the first ask or how to answer that, since I definitely remembered making a point of how miserable it was! Wearing 30+ pounds of chainmail in 90 degree heat, for hours and hours at a time, is absolutely horrid, and I wouldn't want to do it myself for any number of reasons.

Not to say that there’s anything wrong with either, obviously. I love guilty priest Nicky and repressed Nicky and p much every Nicky. But in the vast array of fics out there, it’s rare to see the opposite. Not that you’re working in a binary morally good/religious vs. not way. Your writing in the fic is really subtle and and your characterizations reveal a lot of depth. I just think it’s cool to see Nicky, average second son of a duke, drinking and gambling and feeling terribly guilty (2/?)

Guilty about the crusades and the fucking horror of crusade 1 without being excessively devout. Just an average dude. Not some paragon of virtue (btw, I’m on chapter 2 of the fic, so I don’t know how much your characterization changes moving forward. You have a lovely ability to combine your incredible knowledge of history, your beautiful writing, and these intimate details of the characters that make them fit— fit the canon and fit the history. (3/? Shit I’m sorry this had gotten way too long)

I enjoy the way you’ve really inserted us into the quotidian aspect of history. Aaaaaanyway— the discourse that I was afraid of: I think that a lot of fans of the movie that are generating fan content (tysfm to all of you beauties, btw 🙏🙏♥️) are westerners (which is a whole nother kettle of fish) and that carries a sort of ignorance about the Muslim world in the Middle Ages and this desire to simplify Europe as “Christian” “fighters for faith” etc. (4/? Fuuuuck. One(??) more)

And when we do that, we end up as characterizing the brown people as “not that”. The thing I love about this fandom is that people are definitely down on the crusades. I feel like all the fic I’ve read has been particularly negative about those wars, but the thing I love about your fic is that you don’t just say war is bad because people died and it was despicable and this pious white dude says so and this one brown person agrees. (5/6, I see the end in sight I swear it)

Instead you give us a larger cast of Muslims and Arabs and really flesh them out and give them opinions and different interpretations of faith, and I really appreciate that. The crusades were terrible, and we know this because these regular dudes who struggle with their different faiths and lives say so. And I just. I think that’s really great. Also, I fucking love yusef’s mom. I feel like more people would be accepting of the gift in this fashion and I think she’s lovely and (god damn it 6/7)

Aaaaaaaand. The bit where yusef returns and she’s already gone breaks my fucking heart. Also the moment where he’s like “I’m not sure about Abraham’s god, but my mothers god is worth my faith”?? Just really fucking great. So. Excellent fic. Excellent characters. Excellent not-being-accidentally-biased-towards-white-Christians. That is what I came here to say. Thank you so much for your amazing stories. I love them and I love history. Sorry about the rambling. idek how I wrote so much. (7/7)

Epilogue: tl;dr: you’re great.

Oh man! What a huge and thoughtful comment (which will in turn provoke a long-ass response from me, so…) I absolutely agree that no matter what fandom, I don’t do Discourse TM; I just sit in my bubble and stay in my lane and do my own thing and create content I enjoy. And I don’t even think this is that so much as just… general commentary on character and background? So obviously all of this should be read as my own personal experience and choices in writing DVLA, and that alone. I really appreciate you for saying that you love a wide range of fan creators/fanworks and you’re not placing one over another, you understand that fans have diverse ranges of backgrounds/experience with history and other cultures when they create content, and that’s not the same for everyone. So I just think that’s a great and respectful way to start things off.

First, as a professional historian who has written a literal PhD thesis on the crusades, I absolutely understand that many people (and regular fans) will not have the same privilege/education/perspective that I do, and that’s fine! They should not be expected to get multiple advanced degrees to enjoy a Netflix movie! But since I DO have that background, and since I’ve been working on the intellectual genealogy of the crusades (and the associated Christian/Muslim component, whether racially or religiously) since I was a master’s student, I have a lot of academic training and personal feelings that inform how I write these characters. Aside from my research on all this, my sister lives in an Islamic country and her boyfriend is a Muslim man; I’ve known a lot of Muslims and Middle Easterners; and especially with the current political climate of Islamophobia and the reckoning with racism whether in reality or fandom, I have been thinking about all this a lot, and my impact on such.

Basically: I love Nicky dearly, but I ADORE Joe, and as such, I’m protective of him and certainly very mindful of how I write him. Especially when the obvious default for westerners in general, fandom-related or otherwise, is to write what you are familiar with (i.e. the European Christian white character) and be either less comfortable or less confident or sometimes less thoughtful about his opposing number. I have at times tangentially stumbled across takes on Joe that turn me into the “eeeeeeeh” emoji or Dubious Chrissy Teigen, but I honestly couldn’t tell you anything else about them because I was like, “nope not for me” and went elsewhere rather than do Discourse (which is pretty much a waste of time everywhere and always makes people feel bad). This is why I’m always selective about my fan content, but especially so with this ship, because I have SO much field-specific knowledge that I just have to make what I like and which suits my personal tastes. So that is what I do.

Obviously, there’s a troublesome history with the trope of “sexually liberate brown person seduces virginal white character into a world of Fleshly Decadence,” whether from the medieval correlation of “sodomite” and “Saracen,” or the nineteenth-century Orientalist depictions of the East as a land variously childishly simplistic, societally backward, darkly mysterious and Exotic, or “decadent” (read: code for sexually unlike Western Europe, including the spectrum of queer acts). So when I was writing DVLA, I absolutely did not want to do that and it’s not to my taste, but I’m not going to whip out a red pen on someone else writing a story that broadly follows those parameters (because as I said, I stay in my lane and don’t see it anyway). Joe to me is just such an intensely complex and lovely Muslim character that that’s the only way I feel like I can honestly write him, and I absolutely love that about him. So yeah, any depiction of hypersexualizing him or making him only available for the sexual use and education of the white character(s) is just... mmm, not for me.

For example, I stressed over whether it was appropriate to move his origin from “somewhere in the Maghreb” to Cairo specifically, since Egypt, while it IS in North Africa, is not technically part of the Maghreb. I realize that Marwan Kenzari’s family is Tunisian and that’s probably why they chose it, to honor the actor’s heritage, but on the flip side… “al-Kaysani” is also a specifically Ismai’li Shia name (it’s the name of a branch of it) and the Fatimids (the ruling dynasty in Jerusalem at the time of the First Crusade) were well-known for being the only Ismai’li Shia caliphate. (This is why the Shi’ites still ancestrally dislike Saladin for overthrowing it in 1174, even if Saladin is a huge hero to the rest of the Islamic world.) Plus I really wanted to use medieval Cairo as Joe’s homeland, and it just made more sense for an Ismai’li Shia Fatimid from Cairo (i.e. the actual Muslim denomination and caliphate that controlled Jerusalem) to be defending the Holy City because it was personal for him, rather than a Sunni Zirid from Ifriqiya just kind of turning up there. Especially due to the intense fragmentation and disorganization in the Islamic world at the time of the First Crusade (which was a big part of the reason it succeeded) and since the Zirids were a breakaway group from the Fatimids and therefore not very likely to be militarily allied with them. As with my personal gripes about Nicky being a priest, I decided to make that change because I felt, as a historian, that it made more sense for the character. But I SUPER recognize it as my own choices and tweaks, and obviously I’m not about to complain at anyone for writing what’s in graphic novel/bonus content canon!

That ties, however, into the fact that Nicky has a clearly defined city/region of origin (Genoa, which has a distinct history, culture, and tradition of crusading) and Joe is just said to be from “the Maghreb” which…. is obviously huge. (I.e. anywhere in North Africa west of Egypt all the way to Morocco.) And this isn’t a fandom thing, but from the official creators/writers of the comics and the movie. And I’m over here like: okay, which country? Which city? Which denomination of Islam? You’ve given him a Shia name but then point him to an origin in Sunni Ifriqiya. If he’s from there, why has he gone thousands of miles to Jerusalem in the middle of a dangerous war to help his religious/political rivals defend their territory? Just because he’s nice? Because it was an accident? Why is his motivation or reason for being there any less defined or any less religious (inasmuch as DVLA Nicky’s motive for being on the First Crusade is religious at all, which is not very) than the white character’s? In a sense, the Christians are the ones who have to work a lot harder to justify their presence in the Middle East in the eleventh century at all: the First Crusade was a specifically military and offensive invasion launched at the direct behest of the leader of the Western Roman church (Pope Urban II.) So the idea that they’re “fighting for the faith” or defending it bravely is…

Eeeeh. (Insert Dubious Chrissy Teigen.)

But of course, nobody teaches medieval history to anyone in America (except for Bad Game of Thrones History Tee Em), and they sure as hell don’t teach about the crusades (except for the Religious Violence Bad highlight reel) so people don’t KNOW about these things, and I wish they DID know, and that’s why I’m over here trying to be an academic so I can help them LEARN it, and I get very passionate about it. So once again, I entirely don’t blame people who have acquired this distorted cultural impression of the crusades and don’t want to do a book’s worth of research to write a fic about a Netflix movie. I do hope that they take the initiative to learn more about it because they’re interested and want to know more, since by nature the pairing involves a lot of complex religious, racial, and cultural dynamics that need to be handled thoughtfully, even if you don’t know everything about it. So like, basically all I want is for the Muslim character(s) to be given the same level of respect, attention to detail, background story, family context, and religious diversity as any of the white characters, and Imma do it myself if I have to. Dammit.

(I’m really excited to hear your thoughts on the second half of the fic, especially chapter 3 and chapter 6, but definitely all of it, since I think the characters they’re established as in the early part of the fic do remain true to themselves and both grow and struggle and go through a realistic journey with their faith over their very long lives, and it’s one of my favorite themes about DVLA.)

Anyway, about Nicky. I also made the specific choice to have him be an average guy, the ordinary second son of a nobleman who doesn’t really know what he’s doing with his life and isn’t the mouthpiece of Moral Virtue in the story, since as he himself realizes pretty quick, the crusades and especially the sack/massacre of Jerusalem are actually horrific. I’ve written in various posts about my nitpicking gripes with him being a priest, so he’s not, and as I said, I’m definitely avoiding any scenario where he has to Learn About The World from Joe. That is because I want to make the point that the people on the crusades were people, and they went for a lot of different reasons, not all of which were intense personal religious belief. The crusades were an institution and operated institutionally. Even on the First Crusade, where there were a lot of ordinary people who went because of sincere religious belief, there was the usual bad behavior by soldiers and secular noblemen and people who just went because it was the thing to do. James Brundage has an article about prostitution and miscegenation and other sexual activity on the First Crusade; even at the height of this first and holy expedition, it was happening. So Nicky obviously isn’t going to be the moral exemplar because a) the crusades are horrific, he himself realizes that, and b) it’s just as historically accurate that he wouldn’t be anyway. Since the idea is that medieval crusaders were all just zealots and ergo Not Like Us is dangerous, I didn’t want to do that either. If we think they all went because they were all personally fervent Catholics and thus clearly we couldn’t do the same, then we miss a lot of our own behavior and our parallel (and troubling) decisions, and yeah.

As well, I made a deliberate choice to have Nicky’s kindness (which I LOVE about him, it’s one of my favorite things, god how refreshing to have that be one of the central tenets of a male warrior character) not to be something that was just… always there and he was Meek and Good because a priest or whatever else. Especially as I’ve gotten older and we’ve all been living through these ridiculous hellyears (2020 is the worst, but it’s all been general shit for a while), I’ve thought more and more about how kindness is an active CHOICE and it’s as transgressive as anything else you can do and a whole lot more brave than just cynicism and nihilism and despair. As you’ll see in the second half of the fic, Nicky (and Joe) have been through some truly devastating things and it might be understandable if they gave into despair, but they DON’T. They choose to continue to be good people and to try and to actively BE kind, rather than it being some passive default setting. They struggle with it and it’s raw and painful and they’re not always saints, but they always come down on the side of wanting to keep doing what they’re doing, and I… have feelings about that.

I mean... yeah.

The thing is, I love the funny/light-hearted/recognizable “people have always been people” anecdotes as much as you, because of the pervasive idea that the past was nothing but an unrelieved cesspit of misery, filth, misogyny, racism, homophobia, religious bigotry, and Suffering, until modernity and capitalism came along and fixed everything, yay. It’s crap, everyone who follows my blog for two seconds knows that I think it’s crap, I work very hard trying to educate people about how much crap it is, but... yeah, that’s still the baseline in popular culture, and while it has been deliberately constructed to be that way and is not necessarily the individual fault of the person who has absorbed it by cultural osmosis, it’s still frustrating. So when you can identify those moments when people in history are reacting to things in a way that we recognize as our own, or we catch these moments of levity and joy, or we’re otherwise able to recognize that the Bad Premodern World narrative is wrong and troubling, we’re able to comprehend people as people, and not just rote, thoughtless automatons who always believed whatever they were told by religious and political authority and had no volition of their own.

This ties into my whole spiel on the drawbacks of doing premodern social history (especially in the West, but also more broadly) from a corpus of textual sources written largely by educated religious men. And that’s the only thing we have. So of course life back then doesn’t always look like it’s a great time, because that’s who’s telling us about it, and they’d have the broadly same outlook and priorities as conservative establishment clergymen today. And there is never a less reliable historiographer than someone who promises at the start of the narrative to tell you things “exactly how they happened.” (Yes, we’re all side-eyeing Herodotus and Thucydides, but they were the start of the Western historiographical tradition and the topos of authority always has to be invoked somehow.) The promise of objectivity does not objectivity make, and means that they want to culture, shape, and color the version of events for posterity. And the historian’s job is to deal with that and recover the narratives and sometimes understand that things that don’t intend to be historical sources are actually more accurate and revealing than the constructed narratives that promise to tell the truth and are actually very invested in presenting their truth, which might not always concord with things more generally.

Anyway, jargon-y methodological digressions (somewhat) aside, there’s really no point in studying history, or having an honest historical perspective, if you’re going to refuse to see anything of yourself -- good AND bad parts alike -- in our ancestors. Part of the reason the world is in such a goddamn mess right now is because we’re still pathologically incapable of learning history, the rise of “fake news” has created competing information universes where the facts are the ones that fit your political agenda, and the West particularly has been repeating old and bad patterns of behavior because we -- just -- can’t -- break -- the fucking -- cycle. I’ve said before that absolutely everything happening right now reminds me forcibly of the fourteenth century, and that was even BEFORE the plague hit, which was just a little too on the nose. We don’t have to be in the situation we are. We don’t have to collectively make the same choices and go around the bend again and again and again. But because history and historical education has been SO devalued, and the system of collective memory is so flawed, we don’t really have a chance of fixing our current present until we’ve reckoned with our past. Thus, while right-wingers are the ones howling about “preserving history” when monuments of racists get torn down, historians are on the sidelines cheering, because a) those guys suck, b) we WANT people to start applying critical thinking to the glamorized white supremacist triumphalist narrative that passes for history in most Western countries (America is possibly the worst offender just by global scope, but yeah, the rest of the West, especially the UK, is SUPER not off the hook either), and c) when people finally KNOW that they have the tools to confront the unjust systems that have been forced on them, they can do something about it.

(also on a lighter note: what moments from the third crusade would you absolutely love to be included in historical portrayals of the period? apart from richard x philip which is an obvious given) (2/2) 

Oooh. This is good.

I have written about the massacre at Acre three times that I can think of: twice in fiction (in my novel about Richard and then in chapter 3 of DVLA) and once in nonfiction, in my academic book about the crusades. It’s one of the events in the crusades which gets a lot of attention when somebody has a particular Point To Make, usually about the barbarity of the crusades/crusaders, attempts to portray them as simple excesses of religious zealotry, Ye Olde Bad Violent Medieval Times, parallels to modern-day Western invasions and occupations of the Middle East, well-meant attempts to critique the West’s treatment of Muslims, etc. (I seem to recall that the 2010 Robin Hood has a Bad Take on this, though the rest of it is fictional anyway, so hey.) So if you’re coming into it trying to make a Point for your reader, I advise you to think carefully about what that Point actually is, and how you’re conveying it. Because while it’s certainly a thing that happened and should be dealt with sensitively, it’s also important to think about the larger context of the crusade and how this was treated by both sides, both before and after its occurrence.

First, Saladin’s army had killed or taken prisoner the entire Christian army at the battle of Hattin in 1187, and while there are a few high-profile stories about him personally ransoming Christian captives, there was also an episode where Richard and company freed several thousand (supposedly 12,000, though medieval round figures often have problems) captives from where they were destined to be sold into the slave markets of the Islamic world. Saladin has a well-deserved reputation as a great commander and leader, so this isn’t to attempt some kind of hatchet job on him, but point out that this was a way he would have (logically) expected to make money for his army and to fund his ongoing battles against the Third Crusade. The slave trade was a major part of the medieval economy, often concentrated through the Mediterranean, Eastern Europe, and the Silk Road (as I’ve mentioned before, the word “slave” comes from “Slav.”) On this note, despite their Tumblr-darling reputation as champions of conscience and liberal society and personal cleanliness, the Vikings were also big-time slave traders (which probably isn’t that surprising for people who made their living by jumping off boats and stealing other people’s shit; though the word wicing denotes a particular kind of sea raider within this society and not the entire society itself). Anyway: the point is that people were routinely used as human collateral, both as slaves and as hostages, in medieval society and warfare alike, and that included the crusades. The giving and taking of hostages was a very, very common feature of forcing trust and incentive to cooperate between warring sides; it happened in Europe, it happened on the crusades, it didn’t matter who the enemy was.

In fact, by the time the massacre took place, Richard had already taken a lot of flak (and would continue to take it throughout the crusade) for being so friendly in his diplomatic negotiations with Saladin, which was supposedly one of the reasons Philip decided to leave early. The fact that Richard kept entering into negotiations with the Saracens and trying to resolve Acre’s disputed status with diplomacy as well as warfare was a bit of a shock to the other crusade leaders, who figured that they were just there to kill the Muslims and have done with it. (They also had a grudge against Richard for swiftly dispossessing them and doing everything himself, which was just the way Richard rolled, my bros.) As also mentioned in DVLA, Richard was one of the Western leaders most sympathetically inclined to the Muslims (and especially Saladin and his brother Saif al-Din) during the entire crusades, not just the Third. We can’t know how serious he was, but he did offer to marry his sister Joanna to Saif al-Din, he and Saif al-Din hit it off during their in-person negotiations and referred to the other as their friend, he and Saladin wrote to each other fairly often even if they never met, they are both on record saying how much they admired each other, Richard was open about finding the Muslims more honorable than his Christian allies, and Hubert Walter (the bishop of Salisbury) had dinner with Saladin (when Saladin had invited the crusaders to Jerusalem after the Treaty of Jaffa in 1192, though Richard didn’t go) and told him that if he and Richard ever decided to join forces, nobody would be able to stop them. (I also had to write a novel based on that premise, for reasons.) So Richard and Saladin negotiated for the entire period of the crusades, they fought on the battlefield, they engaged in diplomacy, they respected the hell out of each other, they had a cordial-enemies relationship, and Richard became outright friends with Saif al-Din. And most of this happened AFTER the events at Acre.

That is to say: the Acre massacre, while it may appear particularly shocking to our eyes, did not end up being a major episode for either side during the crusade, at least in its ultimate course of events. Saladin and the Muslim high command had repeatedly dawdled and prevaricated and tried to avoid fulfilling the terms of the arrangement under which they had handed the hostages over, trying to delay Richard in Acre and prevent him from marching down the coast to Jaffa or Jerusalem, and thus, as utterly cold-blooded as it sounds: by the simple rules of medieval battlefield logic, the hostages were fair game. They were POWs and military combatants, and while hostages weren’t USUALLY killed, simply because it was the threat that they could be hurt that was the most effective at exerting compliance... they also could be killed, and both sides recognized that this was a possible option if the arrangement wasn’t fulfilled.

This again, as noted, wasn’t unique to the crusades. You gave up hostages precisely because they were supposed to impel you to keep your word, and if you didn’t, that reflected badly on your own honor, as much or as more than on your enemy’s. That’s why Yusuf is also pissed with Saladin in the aftermath of the massacre in DVLA; Saladin had a responsibility as a commander to free these men, he did not do that and deliberately used their safety as a pawn, so Richard called his bluff and had the prisoners executed. Which again: this was about what anyone in that situation had a right to expect, and Richard was often much more ruthless with rebellions against him by his European Christian subjects back in France; he had given Saladin over six weeks to cooperate, which was a lot more than he usually did. So this wasn’t a case where he was doing it specifically because of the religion of the captives or some mindless excess of religious bigotry, but because a military agreement had been broken. (Richard was many things, but not, so far as I can tell, really a religious bigot at all. This goes for his relations with the Jews as well as the Muslims.)

Obviously, it’s not a wonderful thing that this did happen, the Muslims were rightfully angry about it, and harassed the crusaders’ march repeatedly during the two weeks between the massacre (August 20, 1191) and the battle of Arsuf (September 7, 1191) where Richard defeated Saladin for the first time in the open field. Both of these events contributed to a dent in Saladin’s reputation, which heretofore had been about as glorious in the Islamic world as it was possible to get. There was a lull in hostilities after Arsuf as the fighting season ended, negotiations between Richard and Saladin were soon underway again, he met Saif al-Din not long after, and it doesn’t appear that the Acre massacre had a major impact on the resumption of that diplomatic relationship. This supports the interpretation that both sides recognized it as a valid if regrettable move in the circumstances, and Saladin had some awareness that he’d been outplayed twice in a row and this was, to some degree, his fault too. So while this should obviously be treated with care and not sensationalized, and given its due weight as an episode of warfare in the crusades, the broader context of this particular incident does not support it being some sort of terrible black-mark incident of mindless religious zealotry; the Muslims themselves did not view it that way and were once more negotiating with Richard a month later.

As far as lighter episodes: you DELIGHT me in giving me the opportunity to inform you about the Dueling Dirty Songs of the Third Crusade, featuring Hugh, duke of Burgundy (the commander of the French forces after Philip’s departure in July 1191) and Richard himself. This happened in July 1192, after the final failed advance on Jerusalem and before the battle of Jaffa, when relations between the French and English contingents had completely broken down. Take it away, Itinerarium Peregrinorum:

On top of all this, Henry [Hugh] duke of Burgundy, prompted by a spirit of worthless arrogance or perhaps led on by the most unbecoming malicious envy, composed the words of a song to be sung in public. Such shameful words should never have been made public if its composers had retained any sense of propriety, for they were revealed not so much as men but men beyond raping women [non tantum viris, sed et viros ultra rapientibus mulieribus]. Those who applied their efforts to such shocking and silly activities certainly made themselves conspicuous and revealed the hidden intentions of their hearts […] This invidious composition was sung all through the army. The king [Richard] was extremely annoyed about it, and thought that he should punish them by paying them back in their own coin. So he also sang something about them, and it was little trouble to compose because there was plenty of material at hand.

As I write about in my Queer Richard paper: The IP’s shocked tone in reporting this anecdote, the clear sense that Hugh’s song was too shameful to even be hinted at, and the curious comment that the ones responsible were men “beyond even raping women” gives the distinct impression that this was a musical slander on Richard’s sexual habits, especially given his public repentance in Messina prior to the crusade. It also fits in a tradition wherein which songs were used as one of the most versatile and popular methods of mass communication in crusading armies, praising crusaders’ successes and lambasting their failures. The IP author, for whom Richard was a figure of hero-worship, deflected the charges of sexual irregularity by the straightforward tactic of claiming that the French must be engaging in it instead, and thus by inference, homosexual sodomy was an even worse sin than heterosexual rape. It also shows that Richard’s own reaction was simply to sing a wittier and more scathing song about his accusers. And seriously, his nemesis (well, the henchman of his nemesis, since Philip was already gone) throws a shit fit and is all I’LL TELL EVERYONE THAT RICHARD LIKES DUDES NAH NAH NAH like it’s a middle school playground slap fight? And Richard just goes, “bring it on bro, I’m smarter than you, I’m a better singer than you, there’s TONS OF MATERIAL for me to write about how much you suck, and I will now proceed to destroy you in a diss track competition because I’m Queer N’ Awesome?”

It was everything I wanted, so satisfying, and the thread of Crusades and faith conflicts and the stupid complicated ways humans find to hurt each other was really masterfully woven through. I learned so much; I had a basic idea of the Crusades but you filled everything in and made it come alive. And you got across so well that people across history are just people. (2/6) 

Maryam was my favourite, I would read anything with more of her in it as well. The Constantinople section and the way it ended just ripped my heart out. (PHIL.) I was so glad Hippolyta and Rebecca got out safe. But the end to such a lovely sunlit chapter of life was heartwrenching. (3/6) 

It means a lot to me, as someone trying to confront her own faith’s and her ancestors’awful actions in the past, to have someone present religious conflict the way you do. Part motivations like conquest and glory and riches, part motivated by faith, and very much something that I or anyone else could fall into just as easily as people in the past did. (4/6) 

I graduated three years ago with a minor in history and have done absolutely nothing with it - I was burned out for ages on even reading anything, and I haven’t read anything academically rigorous in so long. This felt like a perfect reintroduction to history, and it made me want to do research and read history again, for the first time in years. (5/6) 

I’m noting the resources you’ve recommended to some other folks about medieval queerness and the Crusades, but I was wondering if you also had any recommendations for reading about Julian of Norwich specifically, or queerness in female medieval religious spaces in general? Thank you so much, I’ve followed your blog for a long time and always love reading your posts. (6/6) 

Ahh, thanks so much. Once again, I must bow to someone’s superlative tumblr ninjitsu skills both in knowing the number of asks it will take ahead of time and preventing the blue hellsite from eating any of them.

I’ve had so many people say these absolutely lovely things to me about DVLA -- about the history, the religion, the journey, the story, the reactions they had to these themes, how they felt inspired by it -- and I really am truly humbled by it. I think it speaks to the way all of us felt some kind of ownership or reflection or empowerment in Joe and Nicky’s story and the way it unfolds both on screen in the TOG film and our own conceptions and reactions and engagement with it. It’s just one of the best ships I can think of in terms of that, and I’m worried that anything I say will end up sounding trite, but I really do mean that.

As a historian, I am obviously delighted to hear that it made you want to return to or re-engage with the subject in some way, as well as to use it to help think through the religious themes for yourself. Because as I said in my answer to how to deal with the history in a hypothetical Joe/Nicky prequel movie, we can’t just have the easy luxury of being like “oh all the crusaders were clearly religious zealots and we would never be like that and never do anything like that.” Because a) we already do that, and b) it prevents us from assessing ourselves and our own behaviour and our own troubling patterns and habits if we just arrogantly assume that all the people in the past were stupider and/or less enlightened than we were and clearly We Won’t Make Those Mistakes. So we have to see ourselves in them in some way, and to understand they still did those things, they still destroyed a lot of beautiful things in their world for ultimately no good reason at all. We’re doing the same thing, we justify it to ourselves in different ways, and the goals and the stakes are a lot larger in a globalized world, and anything that sets up medieval people (or really any people in the past, but the medieval era is the stick that gets used the most often) as so unlike us and so inferior to us is just genuinely dangerous. So yes. I’m sure you know my feelings on that topic.

Maryam, Rebecca, and Hippolyta have all gotten a lot of love, which I think is great, and it seems to be the consensus that chapter 4 ruined everyone’s lives. This is understandable, since I’ve mentioned the fact that despite the pain, I think it’s possibly my favourite, and I am glad that everyone had the totally normal emotions over the sack of Constantinople that I also had while writing it. Because yes! It is a tragedy the likes of which was still a Thing in the year 2004, the 800th anniversary, when the pope felt moved to apologize for it! The scale of what it destroyed and took away and the way it influenced history afterward (as Joe is thinking at the start of chapter 6) is just MASSIVE, and... yes.

As for reading recs (and again, it delights me that you want to dip your toe back into reading academic history), I don’t have anything about Julian of Norwich specifically (though there’s a LOT about her out there, especially right now, so I’m sure you can nose about and see what turns up). But as for queerness in female medieval religious spaces (with some bonus medieval queer ladies in general):

Sahar Amer, Crossing Borders: Love between Women in Medieval French and Arabic Literatures (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008)

Judith Bennett, ‘ “Lesbian-Like” and the Social History of Lesbianisms,’ Journal of the History of Sexuality, 9 (2000), 9–22.

Marie-Jo Bonnet, ‘Sappho: Or the Importance of Culture in the Language of Love: Tribade, Lesbienne, Homosexuelle’, in Queerly Phrased: Language, Gender, and Sexuality, ed. by Anna Livia and Kira Hall (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 147–66.

Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996)

Mary Anne Campbell, ‘Redefining Holy Maidenhood: Virginity and Lesbianism in Late Medieval England’, Medieval Feminist Forum, 13 (1992) 14-15.

Carol Lansing, ‘Donna con donna? A 1295 Inquest into Female Sodomy’, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 3 (2005) 109-122.

Kathy Lavezzo, ‘Sobs and Sighs Between Women: The Homoerotics of Compassion in The Book of Margery Kempe.’, in Premodern Sexualities, ed. by Louise Fradenburg and Carla Freccero (New York: Routledge, 1996), pp. 175-198.

E. Ann Matter, ‘My Sister, My Spouse: Woman-Identified Women in Medieval Christianity’, in Weaving the Visions, ed. by Judith Plaskow and Carol P. Christ (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1989), pp. 51–62.

Jacqueline Murray, ‘Twice Marginal and Twice Invisible: Lesbians in the Middle Ages’, in Handbook of Medieval Sexuality, ed. by Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage (New York: Garland, 1996), pp. 191–222.

Nancy Sorkin Rabinowitz, Among Women: From the Homosocial to the Homoerotic in the Ancient World. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002

Susan Schibanoff, ‘Hildegard of Bingen and Richardis of Stade: The Discourse of Desire’, in Same Sex: Love and Desire Among Women in the Middle Ages, ed. by Francesca Canadé Sautman and Pamela Sheingorn (New York: Palgrave, 2001), pp. 49-83.

.... a Schitt’s Creek discord, you say. I can honestly admit that I was not imagining that as one of the primary audiences for this fic, lmao, but I am glad to hear that it has traveled such a way across the interwebs.

Anyway, the response to the fic has been really lovely and I’ve been incredibly touched by it and the wonderful things people are saying (note: if you have told me that you loved the history and learned so much and want to learn more, I will now casually die for you, it’s fine). Predictably, two days after saying I didn’t have another plot bunny for these two idiots, I.... now have another plot bunny (does it involve vampire!Nicolo, djinn!Yusuf, and medieval magic and lavish historical adventures, as is My Brand and because I apparently have to write at least one vampire or vampire-adjacent fic for all OTPs? Why yes it does!) but I am attempting to hold off on that one for now. Or at least figure out more of the actual storyline before I jump in and run off writing it, and because I want to keep working on my current original project. DVLA just veered in there and rudely hijacked my brain for like 10 days, so I’m like NO. YOU BOYS CAN WAIT A LITTLE BEFORE I DO ANYTHING ELSE. I REFUSE.

2/2... did to those places, and the people - the bit that really hit me was the introduction to Phil, and his propensity for screaming like he's never been fed in his life, and then seeing him lying in the street - that hurt bruh. 3. The whole idea, best exemplified in Nicky & Quynh's conversation that hundreds of years of pain and loss and heartbreak don't have to turn you into a grimdark (tm) angsty tool, but instead it's an endless series of chances to do the right thing... 

3/2 And even if that right thing isn't guiding humanity to this wonderful utopia, but just standing up for what is good and right, and speaking for them as has no voices. But yeah, whole thing was incredible and I really really loved it and thanks for writing it 

Ahaha, I did change the title slightly, to Deo Volente, as a commenter kindly reminded me that (because they ruin everything) white supremacists and the alt-right have co-opted the other version of the phrase for their Nazi crusades fantasia, and I obviously did not want any confusion or misunderstanding with that. “Deo volente” means the same thing in Latin, just a slightly different version of the phrase (”God willing” vs “God wills it.”) So yes, sigh. White supremacists: still the worst.

Anyway, I’m so happy that you enjoyed it so much, and this comment is delightful to me because it picks up on many of the things that I personally enjoyed about this fic (as I said, possibly the most self-indulgent thing I’ve ever written). I’ve had so many lovely comments on AO3 raving over the history, that either they knew some of it already or they’re learning so much of it, and as an early career academic who’s struggling with the job market and feeling useless that I currently can’t do professionally what I’m good at: really,you have NO IDEA how much it truly warms my heart to have people tell me that I’m teaching them something real and valuable (and in the course of gay historical romance enemies to lovers Feelings, which we all have to admit has to be a pretty painless way to do it?) Obviously, anybody who has spent two seconds on my blog knows that I have Strong Opinions on the “hurr durr ye olden days were all terrible” thing, and there was never any chance that was happening. Instead, I very much wanted to do exactly as you say: creating these moments of beauty and wonder and magic, showing how happy they were in places like Constantinople, and then what the crusades ultimately did to those beautiful things, and how it got turned and twisted into something so awful (and frankly, was pretty awful to start with). Obviously this is VERY relevant to what’s going on right now, and the entire “War on Terror,” and.... yes. It’s very relevant to the arc and themes of the whole story and especially post-9/11.

(And yes, Phil. That whole latter third of the chapter during the sacking of Constantinople, as noted, just gives me a lot of emotions. It’s fine.)

And I ended up LOVING Nicky and Quynh’s relationship (and hurting myself deeply as a result). Obviously we never see them together in canon, we just hear Nicky (and Joe) explaining what happened to her, and that whole conversation is deeply poignant in that we KNOW what’s going to happen to Quynh. She’s going to face an even worse kind of totally dehumanizing and insanity-causing experience, she’s going to be put in the position of whether to completely turn her back on everything she loved and swear herself to revenge, and her expressing that fear that she wouldn’t be strong enough to resist that temptation, that she might BECOME a monster, is... ouch. (Where is my sequel goddammit I need the Quynh Reunion and the feelings not just with Andy but Nicky and Joe /gnaws own arm off.) And obviously Nicky being the world’s biggest romantic as usual and talking about how he didn’t even consider giving into revenge long-term because Joe was there, and he always knew that was worth more. In other news, I hate them.

ALSO YES, the idea that you CAN take pain and it can make you kinder, that we all have a choice as to how to respond to all the bad things happening around us (even if not on the same scale/long-term view as the immortals). We’ve all learned that by how utterly much of a shitshow 2020 is for everyone, and I think a lot about the lesson that,  unlike every single Grimdark Fantasy (tm) and Macho Post Apocalyptic Fantasy Where Only The Strong Survive, we can become better even in the face of total darkness, and in fact, it’s the only way forward to any kind of future for anyone. The so-called “strong” are throwing fits over being forced to wear face masks in a pandemic and sitting on their hands while America descends into fascism, while in places like Portland, we have middle-aged mothers in bicycle helmets standing in a human chain to protect BLM protestors from the literal American Gestapo. So after Joe and Nicky try to fix everything permanently from on high with the Sixth Crusade, and then that doesn’t work, they have to reckon with the fact that like everyone else’s, their lives are going to be a series of choices, of small steps, of making things better where they can, and accepting that that will not be forever, rather than just doing it once and thinking that will work forever. They likewise can’t blame ordinary people for not living long enough to see the same things that they do, and they have to understand that they’ll see it crumble over and over, and still hold onto their goodness and desire to do the right thing, and.... yes.

They can’t just work with the kings and sultans and powerful people of the world and try to think that that’s the solution (as Nicky says during their conversation in Malta in chapter 5). They have to stand with the little people, the powerless, the people who aren’t going to get paid attention to in any of these wars, and do what they can, when they can, even in the face of total horror (as is the case with Joe in chapter 6). I really LOVE the movie (and love it more with every rewatch) for so totally demolishing the idea that a) superheroes can only Fix Big Things and b) that being kind even in the smallest and anonymous ways doesn’t ultimately matter. Because it DOES. We’ve all justifiably bagged on Marvel for totally giving into hollow CGI spectacle rather than any kind of authentic conflict that feels personal and constant manufactured conflict between the characters, and on GOT for “everyone is secretly awful and no good deed goes unpunished,” and I really, truly love the fact that the core message of The Old Guard is to do good for the most vulnerable among us, and that it DOES make a difference. Because there are so, so many of the usual tired tropes and cliches that they could have done, and they didn’t. It’s optimistic and hopeful and makes a statement about moral good without being saccharine; it doesn’t feel like we’re being force-fed some Disneyfied version of good and evil, but rather that the good can exist with, and ultimately overcome, even the worst evil. So that was a theme I also wanted to explore in the fic, with both the beauty and the pain, and obviously I also emotioned over that.