Rosemarysealavender - Sea Lavender

One thing is like to see as much as possible of in fandom is interpretive pluralism. Which is to say there’s more than one way to see the story onscreen, because the story is also happening to you. You watching it creates the story you experience, which is different from the story I experience. Sometimes the story I get on a rewatch is different than the story I saw the first time! Not because I got it wrong, but because I’m at a different place in my life, and I connect with different parts.

I write about the story I saw onscreen, but I believe deeply in plural stories. Was Stede an absent dad because of trauma, or did Mary shut him down every time he tried to engage with the kids because the way he did it annoyed her? (Did the pirate game give them nightmares or was she projecting?) Is Stede unaware of his crush on Ed, or knows what it is but thinks it’s unrequited or unsustainable or that he doesn’t have the courage to make it love? Is Ed unmasking who he’s always been as he becomes gentler, or just discovering a person he could become given safety and time? Is Izzy going to learn kindness or is he becoming Captain Hook? Would everything have been joyous if Ed had kissed Stede in front of Jack, or saved him from Chauncey, or did Stede need to go home first to get free?

I hope the answer to all of those can be yes. I hope however they play it onscreen, we keep writing the stories this story is becoming in our own hearts. I hope we give them every possible understanding and becoming and ending. And I hope we treasure that in each other’s work. The joy of fandom is making a thousand stories for love of one.

Burning Books… Again?

Look at the two pictures above: Both pictures depict the same thing; the burning of books. One was taken in Nazi Germany in 1933, the other was taken earlier this year in Tennessee, USA. Which one is which? Ok, the colour gives it away, but apart from that, these two images are eerily similar. Is history repeating itself?

In 1933, the books that were burned are now considered classics of German literature from famous authors such as Heinrich Mann and the children’s book author Erich Kästner. In addition to the obvious anti-Jewish sentiment, there was a fear among the far right that they were being attacked by the ideas of left-wing academics: "The state has been conquered! But not yet the universities! The intellectual paramilitaries are coming in. Raise your flags!"

In last week’s book burning, J. K. Rowling’s children’s book Harry Potter was given to the flames, along with Twilight and many other books. But it doesn’t stop there: A few weeks earlier, a Tennessee school board voted to remove Art Spiegelman’s Pulitzer Prize winning graphic novel Maus from its district. The novel depicts Jews and mice, Nazis as cats and Poles as pigs, and recounts the experience of Spiegelman’s parents in the Holocaust and it really makes one think. It’s an excellent book. The reason for its removal was that it was too disturbing – I wonder what’s wrong with a book about the Holocaust being disturbing? If a book about the Holocaust was not disturbing, I would find that problematic. As the book’s author Art Spiegelman says: “This is disturbing imagery. But you know what? It’s disturbing history.”

History should be disturbing, because it’s filled with horrors that we need to learn about. If history makes us all warm, fuzzy and proud inside, then we’re probably consuming propaganda, not history. By removing any potential for discomfort from our children’s history education, we are doing them a disservice. The way we build a better world is to critically and honestly examine the past to learn from it.

Editorial by Jan van der Crabben

Nicknames: when you shorten someone’s name affectionately

Nicholasnames: when you elongate someone’s name affectionately

On 15 August 2021, one year ago this Monday, the city of Kabul fell to the Taliban. I’m marking this anniversary because it is an event that shattered the lives of so many people I know— people who continue to persevere in the face of fear, despair, uncertainty, and grief. 

A huge amount of journalism has been produced about the U.S.-coalition withdrawal, the fall of Kabul, the abandonment of Afghans, and the humanitarian crisis that is ongoing in Afghanistan right now. Here, I’ve gathered just a few pieces that I particularly recommend. Please consider reading these.

George Packer: “The Betrayal.” The Atlantic. 

ProPublica: “Hell at Abbey Gate: Chaos, Confusion, and Death in the Final Days of the War in Afghanistan.” ProPublica

Eliza Griswold. “The Afghans America Left Behind.” The New Yorker. 

Dan Lamothe and Alex Horton. “Documents reveal U.S. military’s frustration with White House, diplomats over Afghan evacuation.” Washington Post. 

Ben Smith: “How the U.S. Helped, and Hampered, the Escape of Afghan Journalists.” The New York Times. 

James Landale and Joseph Lee: “Afghanistan: Foreign Office chaotic during Kabul evacuation - whistleblower.” BBC. 

Mark Townshend: “‘Shameful’: Afghans who helped UK abandoned to a life of fear under the Taliban.” The Guardian. 

“Last Days in Afghanistan: Reflections on the U.S. Withdrawal.” The New York Times. 

Christina Goldbaum and David Zucchino: “Taliban Rewind the Clock: ‘A Woman is a Helpless and Powerless Creature’” The New York Times. 

Alive in Afghanistan: a ProPublica initiative to continue covering stories from Afghanistan. 

Zan Times: A woman-led human rights-focused news site covering life in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

***

I don’t want to participate in the portrayal of Afghanistan, and Afghans, as exclusively a nation and people of suffering. Some of the funniest people I have known in my life are Afghan. The Afghan students I know have continued posting on Facebook and TikTok even as their nation fell and they became refugees. They write poems. They read poems. They make memes. We should care about Afghanistan not because it is so extraordinarily indigent or abject in some sense, but because it is not: because there is so much to it that is lost through the act of not-caring.