the thing about cersei lannister is that she’s supposed to be the hottest woman in westeros. so hot that even ned stark’s like damn she’s so hot. NED STARK. ser honor. he’s like wow damn that blond hair those boobs winter is coming all right it’s coming in my pants.
and like, i think lena has done an admirable job with the cersei material she’s been given (which is a softer, more toothless cersei, which just goes to show you even when cersei’s not nearly as evil as she could be people are gonna be misogynistic as fuck about her) but even a diehard show cersei fan will tell you that show!cersei is not book!cersei
show!cersei is not sexual
and by cutting out her sexuality they’ve erased a lot of what makes her tick and a lot of what drives her mad because she’s this hyper masculine woman ideologically who’s really frustrated that the gods gave her tits instead of a sword but because she’s the hottest woman anyone’s ever seen she’s like fuck it i’ll use my sexuality because it’s the weapon i’ve got on hand (because cersei thinks like a swordsman she thinks in short terms she thinks a parry or two ahead and not beyond that she’s all tactics and no strategy)
and like we’re rapidly approaching the storylines where it makes no sense for cersei to do the shit she does in affc (sleep with the kettleblack, mostly) if she’s not an incredibly sexual character already, which she’s just blatantly not on game of thrones
and like the thing about her walk of shame in cersei ii is that the whole point of it is that she’s losing her sexual appeal she’s losing her long golden hair she’s losing her armor and her weapons and kevan’s like ha ha now everyone knows she’s just a mother with stretch marks and saggy tits but cersei’s like jaime always said i was beautiful and hair grows back and she finds a new fucking thing to weaponize (her newfound “”“”demure demeanor”“”“)
but how can the show take away her sexuality and her beauty when they never fucking let her have it in the first place? how can they express the deep profound loss she feels and the shame and the way her pride breaks at the last moment only to be buoyed by the hope of her revenge and the knowledge that she still has weapons left?
like, her hair can’t grow back if you never fucking let it out in the first place HBO
#cersei of the books is this ouroboreal generator of rage and sensuality#the one comes from the other:#she knows what people see when they look at her#it makes her furious#because when they look at her and see ‘westeros’s 1 hottie’ they don’t get to see her as politician or fighter i.e. as she’d like to be#she doesn’t want to be valued as a woman#but the weapons she has been given are women’s weapons#and she’ll use them just because they’re weapons#so she amps the sexuality and gets more and more spiteful with every smile and swish of the hip#she knows the role she’s playing and it’s a common one in the genre:#we get to see inside the head of sexpot evil queen and know how fucking out of her head pissed off she is at her character restrictions#rage and sex: that’s what drives her; that’s what she has.#what has show cersei got?#a mean son and a careless father#writers that don’t know how to write character without begging for audience sympathy#it’s cheaper and much much easier#and it’s going to get stuck static for the rest of the show#we’ll get to cersei ii and it’ll seem an arc of senseless cruelty#we’ll see scenes of lena crying in the cell#it’ll hurt and make the audience queasy#but it won’t have the same about-face audience implication of the book#(‘no matter how cruel she is she doesn’t deserve this’/’no matter how she has used her sexuality THAT THING is not what makes her evil’)#because she’s had audience sympathy the entire time—again: d+d don’t know how NOT to beg for that#and because those galvanic forces are absent in this cersei#she’s not cruel. she’s not furious. she’s not fighting. because she doesn’t have the arsenal.
8. Basketball Shorts
ew why wear your basketball pants when youre not working out save it for the courts. if u dont play basketball, you probably shouldnt wear these. if you play basketball, you probably shouldnt wear these
7. Obey products
obey what? obey you? nah
How about shut the fuck up and let a guy dress in whatever makes him feel happy? Why do we always have that one person try to tell A WHOLE RACE/GENDER OF THE OPPOSITE SEX OR ETHNICITY how to dress/act? Message to you: YOU DON’T KNOW HOW THE FUCK ALL GIRLS THINK. YOU ARE MAKING FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. BASED ON YOUR OPINION. STOP. YOU’RE MAKING SOME GUYS FEEL LIKE SHIT
How to make someone inadvertently agree with your opinion:
Step 1. Talk about a shitty thing that happens to women
Step 2. Rewrite so that it affects men
Step 3. Wait for hypocrites
i’m laughing so hard jfc
So basically, as a dude, I say that it’s not fair for guys to tell you what to wear, and you tell me that it’s ok for you to do it. NO GUYS fucking supported that post except for total D-BAGS! I think it’s clear who’s the hypocrite hear. This is why we say feminists aren’t for equality. I want equal rights, not feminism.
According to the professor of my young adult fiction writing class, John Green is the revolutionary who brought back the young adult novel and made reading and writing cool again.
Bravo, dear Mr. Green, and thank you for making it possible for me to read, study, and enjoy your work as a class requirement.
Okay, this actually makes me pretty upset?
(That is not your fault, how-could-i-ever-hope, so this is not directed at you!)
But YA writing has been “revolutionary” and integral to many young people’s lives for years and years and years. Tamora Pierce wrote her first series in the eighties and it is still highly influential and beloved today. Laurie Halse Anderson’s beautiful and powerful novel Speak was published in 1999. How I Live Now by Meg Rosoff was published in 2004 and won a landslide of awards. Walter Dean Meyers, Carolyn Mackler, Angela Johnson, Madeline L’Engle, Judy Blume, Christopher Pike, Margo Lanagan, Lois Lowry, MT Anderson, Markus Zusak, and many more were already publishing amazing, influential, much-beloved YA books in the early 2000’s and before.
Looking For Alaska, John Green’s first novel, was published in 2005 — the same year the first Twilight book was published. LfA won the 2006 Printz and started quietly making waves, as literary novels often do, but didn’t really “break out” until much later after he’d gained a following. It became an enormous following, do not get me wrong, but there’s a timeline here.
Say what you will about Stephenie Meyer and the Twilight series, but the boom in YA? The point around 2005 where it EXPLODED and started pumping out book after book? It was because of that series. Whatever your feelings about it are, it blew open the doors for publishers to take bigger risks and try different things in YA. It proved a YA series could, in fact, be “the next Harry Potter.” (Fun Fact: Meyer and Green have the exact same literary agent!)
So to see that someone who knows literature, someone like a collegiate literature/writing professor, is saying that John Green is THE revolutionary who “brought back” the young adult novel? Oh my god that makes me so upset. It discounts all the hard-working and incredible authors who have been writing YA before it was a moneymaker, before it made you “cool.” Of which John Green is a part, to be fair, since his first novel came right before the boom and he is a literary writer, which is not the most lucrative of book markets, typically.
Caveat: this is not a “let’s crap on John Green post,” because that’s not how I feel and not how I roll. I do not want to discount that John Green IS influential and he (and his work) DOES resonate very strongly with A LOT of young people. This is not me trying to say that he’s not an important piece in this puzzle, because he is.
But do you see my problem here? Do you see why I get so PISSED OFF when people scoff and handwave and shit all over YA, but then they go, “Oh, but John Green! He’s the Savior Of YA! Without him, it would all be pointless drivel or it NEVER would have been cool to read and write again!”?
It’s discounting a class of novels (those written for young people) that is HUGELY HUGELY HUGELY influenced and written by ladies and minority writers who can touch the hearts of young people. It completely discounts the pop culture powerhouse and influence of the Twilight series, whether or not you think it’s “great literature.” Which I personally do not, but my opinion of its literary merit does not affect the fact that it was HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL. If you’re going to give a single person all the credit for “bringing back” YA and making it “cool” (which is a flawed premise to begin with, but whatever), it should probably go to Ms. Meyer, if we’re honest.
Just… WHARRGARBL. STOP HOLDING UP JOHN GREEN AS THE ONLY YA AUTHOR WHO MADE A DIFFERENCE, WHO WRITES POWERFUL BOOKS, WHO GAVE READING BACK TO KIDS. STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT. You can love and admire someone without attributing that kind of power to them, especially when it’s at the expense of other incredibly talented individuals. Many of whom happen to be not white guys.
Wow that got intense.
ALL OF THIS.
And can we talk about how conveniently, the supposed savior of YA is a guy? Can we talk about how the three best-selling YA series in the past few decades—Harry Potter, Twilight, The Hunger Games—were all written by women, but John Green is the one that saved the genre? Can we talk about how incredibly culturally influential Harry Potter has been, how many young kids only got into reading because they wanted to read Harry Potter, how fan culture around Harry Potter has spurred on a new generation of writers, and yet John Green is the revolutionary?
Can we talk about how the only reason people freak-the-fuck-out about YA being “dominated” by female authors writing for girls is because traditionally, “YA for boys” was just called “literature”? Can we talk about how Tamora Pierce and JK Rowling are YA but Patrick Rothfuss and Lev Grossman are Serious Fantasy?
Can we talk about how this is not just a YA issue? How the incisive cultural commentary of Jane Austen is even now dismissed as vapid chick lit with male students barely deigning to force themselves through it for an English credit, but Tolstoy and Flaubert and Ibsen, who also wrote about romance and social constraints placed on women and unrequited love and the treachery of upper class society, are revered?
Can we talk about how stories of boys becoming men are called Bildungsromans and make their way to syllabi around the continent, but stories of girls becoming women are called shallow and insubstantial? How Nora Roberts has to write her wildly popular In Death series under a male-sounding pseudonym while John Grishom and Dan Brown pump out book after book after book that are literally just the same plot with different character names to great acclaim?
Can we talk about how, of all the romance that exists on the market, Nicholas Sparks’ formulaic saccharine “dude with a boat and a puppy” drivel is the stuff that gets adapted into movies year after year after year?
It doesn’t surprise me that the prof would laud Green over all the writers who came before him who paved the way. Literature writers, by and large, skew male. And they tend to write about books written by men, and tend to interview those male authors. If all you know about YA is the stuff you got in mainstream reporting in the last few years, of course you would think that nothing worthwhile in YA existed before Green.
But if I were in that class, and the prof exhibited so little critical thinking about the state of the industry and its social politics and understanding of literary history, I would definitely think thrice before taking that professor’s word on anything else.