#I really don't want to list all my traumas and issues to justify the choices I made | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

spockandawe · 3 years

Note

Hi.....if you don't mind me asking, what are your top 10 favorite books? And why? Sorry if you've answered this question before....

This is an interesting question, and a difficult one! Which is why I let it steep for a few days while I was in a bookbinding fugue, haha XD

I’m not sure I’ll be able to answer it, because my level of fondness is highly dependent on how recently I read a book/how many times I’ve reread it, with an optional nostalgia modifier if something made a huge impression in my youth. And when I’m picking favorites, as the number of potential [thing] expands, the more I end up dithering and fretting that I’m forgetting something HUGE as I choose. So rather than a selection of top ten, I’ll just run down through some of my favorites! I’ll split it as five cnovels (recent reads, current genre hyperfixation) and five more conventional english-language novel (realistically, probably more like series, unless a standalone book occurs to me), and I’m not going to rank the conventional novels.

SO. Regular novels first. There’s a heavy recently-read/frequently-reread element going on in here.

The Imperial Radch trilogy, by Ann Leckie. Okay, I am a sucker for a nonhuman protagonist, which is going to pop up in at least two other entries. And I’m also a sucker for themes of what can be perceived about a person externally versus their internal world, and Breq delivers like WHOA. She has SO MUCH going on in her head, and even though we’re in there with her, she still hides lots of her emotions from us. And characters like Seivarden hit me in character development buttons that I’m a sucker for, and the whole idea of consciousness being split across multiple bodies is DELICIOUS to me. Also... love me a sentient spaceship. ‘The Ship Who X’ series by Anne McCaffrey isn’t going to make this list, but I also love it a lot. (also, a universe of ‘she’s made me realized how STARVED i was for that degree of representation in certain genres that i love a lot, but don’t often see myself in as often as i might like)

The Murderbot series, by Martha Wells. Another nonhuman, sometimes-human-passing protagonist! Another one processing MASSIVE trauma of a sort that I, the human reader, have to slow down a lot and try to comprehend from an extremely different life experience! I like that a lot, it really forces me to LINGER on the nature of what a character is feeling. And oh my god, Murderbot’s voice is one of my favorite pov voices of all time. And watching it work (or go hogwild on its own asdfdgd) is absolutely delightful. I love literally everything about this series, except what happened with Miki. Other than that? Flawless.

The Books Of The Raksura, by Martha Wells. Martha Wells is a DELIGHT, y’all. Also! Another heavily-traumatized, nonhuman protagonist! And this time, like... It’s a fantasy world with huge amounts of sentient species, and the protagonist grew up away from his people, who are basically a bunch of feral homesteaders (LOVE THAT), and is trying to figure out how to reintegrate into their societal structures as an adult. That desperate desire to belong and feeling of discomfort and not-fitting-in, and the connections he makes and the way he DOES find a way to fit... like if u crey every time. Also, as far as we’re shown, it’s a cheerfully bisexual, polyamorous society, and *grabby hands*

Discworld, by Terry Pratchett. God, what do I even say about this series. It was a PARADIGM SHIFT. It’s bitingly funny, and also just plain biting, and full of huge varieties of interesting stories, set in a fascinating world, with a series of protagonists who I love too much for words. Vimes! The witches! Moist!!! They’re all so WONDERFUL. I still haven’t read the last book in the series yet, because then it will be Over Forever, and I can’t deal. This one is heavily nostalgia-tinted, but also, I stand by it.

The Belgariad/Mallorean, by David Eddings. Okay. Also very nostalgia, and the choice I can justify the least. But these books CLICKED with me. I’m afraid to reread them, because I’ve been wallowing in queer fiction for so long I’m worried about what the compulsory heterosexuality will feel like, and I know both series are very... episodic, in a way that isn’t necessarily great literature. But I dunno! Feels good, man. It’s high fantasy with a magical system I like, segmented worldbuilding of a sort that isn’t necessarily WELL-MADE, but it’s like... comfortable and easy. And something about the style and the character voices just clicks with me. I have no idea how well these hold up in the present day, but I do love them, and I’ve been planning to reread at least The Redemption Of Althalus by the same author as a standalone before I commit to a 12-book rereading of this universe, but.... I like em XD

Cnovels! I think I can rank these, so let’s go for it.

Fifth favorite: The Disabled Tyrant’s Pet Palm Fish :B Look, it’s ridiculous. It’s a transmigration story where the lead enters this fictional universe in the body of a fish, where he is adopted by a prince who eventually falls in love with him, and YES IT IS TAGGED MPREG, BUT HOLD ON A MOMENT-- I don’t know! I came here to point and laugh, but I’m honestly having such a good time right now. It’s really cute! And sweet! The main character is delightful, and the love interest is that particular flavor of semi-socialized upper-class young man, where like, can he do court politics? yes. can he politely express his affections for the main character? uh....... less so. It’s a really fun read, and I felt very sincere emotions about this prince who is passionately, deeply in love with his pet fish!

Fourth favorite: Mmmmmm, Mo Dao Zu Shi, I think. I struggle here, because it is NOT an easy book to read or show to watch, but having consumed the story, I love it to PIECES. I know a big draw for me is the protagonist, specifically, and his relationships to the people around him. And the more I cared about him, the more I wound up caring about the people around him, who I’d kind of neglected before, if that makes sense? It’s a story that really rewards some good old pondering. I didn’t care that much about Lan Xichen, but then I started thinking about how Wei Wuxian and Lan Wangji relate to Lan Xichen, and then oh no, I care SO MUCH about his emotions, and now I’m thinking more deeply about how Lan Xichen relates to Jin Guangyao and Nie Mingjue-- It does lose points in this ranking because it IS hard to get into, and I would struggle to keep everyone straight even more if I didn’t have the show visuals to lean on, but it is still story I enjoyed VERY much.

Third favorite: Erha, but I feel REALLY, REALLY BAD that I can’t fit Yuwu on this list too, and I just want to loop them together. It’s time travel fixit fic, but it’s the book! Yes????? I love this. I love the striking character growth we get to see, and the changing perception of the world as the main character relives through events he already experienced and sees things in a new light, and I adore how Mo Ran’s growing guilt goes hand in hand with his growing love. And Meatbun in general... like, my god. I haven’t read another author who’s able to yank me through emotional whiplash so hard and fast. She makes me hoot with laughter one moment and then burst into tears the next. It’s absolutely wild. I love mxtx, and I think svsss/tgcf are gentler entry points into the genre and deal with lighter themes, but meatbun is seriously an UNBELIEVABLE writer if you can deal with the darker topics she covers.

Second favorite: The Scum Villain’s Self-Saving System :V Look, I love it. I just love it. I love, again, characters dealing with the aftereffects of old trauma, plus I do also love seeing NEW trauma piled on top of it. I love having a main character with emotional dysregulation issues who doesn’t necessarily make good decisions, but doesn’t just leave me thinking ‘jfc what an asshole’, and I think that’s a really hard balance for an author to strike, especially without us getting direct pov. I love themes of being wanted and insecurity about being wanted, which is Luo Binghe’s major, major damage. And this is my first transmigration story I ever read, and the contrast between a main character who read the novel telling us about what’s totally going to happen versus the ground shifting under his feet is INCREDIBLY delightful to me. I’ve read other transmigration stories I enjoyed, but none that got my attention quite as much as this one.

First favorite: Tian Guan Ci Fu ;u; It’s so good. It’s so well-made! It’s so LONG, and it meanders, but also, I would scream if anyone tried to trim anything out of it. I am here a lot for the ship, honestly, but I also find the plot themes VERY interesting. I am very much here for reading about characters trying to process old trauma that’s been dredged up by new events, and also very here for the themes about how characters either pass their traumas along to the next generation, or try to shield the next generation from taking the same kind of damage (see: mdzs). And I’m also very much into tempering stories about pain with like... memories of kindness, and small acts of kindness repaid with an outpouring of devotion (see: svsss). But the craftsmanship in this book is just... DIVINE. I’m always reluctant to start rereading this one, because I have a terrible time stopping. There’s nothing about this book that I don’t like.

#spock replies #long post/#thanad-zid

37 notes · View notes

gallavictorious · 3 years

Note

I really wish people would stop excusing their favorite character's actions with convoluted theories instead of just accepting that their faves aren't perfect. Ian should not be comparing Terry and Frank. Full stop. Especially not to Mickey's face, when Mickey is in the middle of trying to deal with the complicated feelings he has about the father that raped him by proxy and tried to actually murder him. It's ok to say "yeah you're right I don't know what you're going through but I'm here" and not make it into a shitty father competition.

And I really wish people would refrain from making groundless assumptions and recognize that trying to understand a character's motivation for doing something does not equal taking a stance on whether or not the action discussed is morally sound but alas, nonnie, we live in an imperfect world.

For those just turning in, this ask was received in response to my addition to this post.

Now, nonnie, if I understand you correctly, you disapprove of what I wrote because you see it as 1, an attempt to excuse Ian's behavior because 2, he's my favourite character and 3, therefore I can't stand to have him do something wrong. You also think that, no matter his motivations, Ian shouldn't be comparing Frank to Terry. Below, I'll quickly refutate points 2 and 3, as well as detail the difference between explanations and excuses and – hopefully – demonstrate why you can't with any sort of certainty claim that the offending post is an example of the latter. I will not really engage with the question of whether or not Ian was wrong for saying what he did, because (as we shall return to forthwith) that was not the issue originally discussed, it doesn't actually interest me, and as you do not offer any sort of reasoning for your moral judgment there really isn't anything for me to work with there anyway.

Strap in, kids; it's another long one.

Let's start with your claim that Ian is my favourite. I'm not actually going to spell it out there, but instead direct you to paragraphs 3-7 of this post. A little lazy, perhaps, but I'm sure you can appreciate why I have limited time to point out the same basic flaws twice in a fairly short period of time. (Should I pin a pic of me holding up a little sign reading ”Actually, Mickey is my favourite, even though I love Ian too” to the top of my blog? Would that be helpful?)

Moving on to point 3, I do agree with the general notion that it's fine to accept that the characters we love (no matter who that character is) are flawed and make mistakes! If you had taken the time to familiarize yourself with my thoughts on Ian and Mickey – or if you had, you know, just asked – instead of jumping to completely unsubstantiated conclusions based on a single post, you might even have realized that them being fucked up and making fucked up choices from time to time is one of the things I find most compelling about them. They are messy and complicated and human, and I love that. I neither think nor want either of them to perfect, because perfection is unrealistic is static is boring.

With that out of the way, let's get to excuses versus explanations. If one confuses the two, any attempt to discuss or explain a persons behavior will be construed as an attempt to excuse it, but to understand something and to condone it are actually two different things.

For instance, I can explain and understand why Mickey acted the way he did in 3x09, but still think kicking Ian in the face was wrong. I can explain and understand why Ian called Mickey a coward and a pussy in 4x11 but still think he was wrong for doing so. Do you see? Understanding – or trying to understand – why someone did something is not the same as saying that what they did was okay. Understanding the reasons for someone's actions might lessen the severity of our condemnation (for instance, stealing is generally considered wrong, but most of use would agree that stealing bread to feed your kid is less wrong than stealing bread because you're too stingy to pay for it) or might remove condemnation entirely (hitting someone because you are angry with them is wrong, hitting someone as part of consensual BDSM sex is fine), but understanding an action does not automatically lead to declaring said action morally correct. In short, ”why did X do Y” and ”was X right or wrong do to Y” are two different questions, and the fact that our answer to the second question often is at least partly dependent on our understanding of the first does not change that.

So explanations and excuses are not the same. And yet, sometimes the reasons for doing something (or failing to do something) are offered up as an excuse; as a reason why someone should not be held responsible for their actions, or why they were correct in performing/not performing them in the first place. That neatly leads us to the question of whether or not that's what's actually happening in the post you took exception to. And the answer to that is... you can't know. What boys-night and I discuss in the post is what Ian is actually doing (is he trying to compare trauma och convince Mickey he had it worse) and why he is doing it; that is, we are trying to understand and explain his behavior. Neither of us make any sort of statement on whether or not he was right or wrong for saying or doing what he did: that's just not the topic of conversation. Now, maybe I do think his motivations means that he's morally justified in what he said; maybe I don't. My point is that you can't know that just from what you've read in the post. You might draw some tentative conclusions, and they may be correct, but you don't know, and the reasonable and responsible way to go from there is to seek clarification by asking (polite) questions, not aggressively throwing around accusations about others grasping for straws in a despertae attempt to exonerate their favorites from wrongdoing.

(And just to remind you, even if I were making excuses for Ian, it wouldn't be because he's my favourite or becuase I can't bear to have him do wrong.)

You are perfectly free to disagree with any of the points made in the post, by the way, but you need to recognize that what we're disagreeing on then is motivation, not morality.

And, oh, of course it would have been okay to say "yeah you're right I don't know what you're going through but I'm here", but that's not what Ian did. Now, if you are happy to go ”ah, Ian fucked up, he's not perfect” and move on, that's fine. You do you, nonnie, and if analysis and discussion of character motivations isn't your jam then it isn't and I'm sure no one is going to force you to engage in it. (And if they try to, you can simply say ”I don't care” and walk away.) However, to be perfectly honest I am a bit perplexed that you should be so indignant over other fans trying to make sense of his actions. Do you still feel that way now that you – hopefully – understand that trying to explain a characters' behavior doesn't necessarily mean trying to excuse it? I mean, surely you are aware of the fact that people usually have reasons for acting the way they do, even if the way they act is shitty or misguided? (Note that I'm not saying that Ian's actions were shitty and misguided. That is not the discussion we're having.) I am rather curious, actually, as to what you think Ian's motivations were? Do you imagine he was deliberatedly diminishing Mickey's trauma? Why, if so? Do you perhaps think that he is obsessed with being The Most Victim and thus takes every opportunity to list all the ways Frank sucked? Or maybe that his mouth just moves without any thought or reason and the words just randomly happened?

To be fair, it seems that Ian's motivations is not something you consider relevant: you write that ”Ian should not be comparing Terry and Frank. Full stop.” And that's absolutely a moral stance you can take, albeit certainly not the only one. Maybe Ian shouldn't have said what he said Had you given any reasons for this verdict, I might even have agreed with you because I can think of several reasons why it might be better if Ian refrained from comparing Terry and Frank, no matter his motivations. (And I might not, because I can also think of several reasons why such a comparision might be justified, even though Terry is clearly the more evil of the two.) However, we shall never know, because you fail to back up your claim. I guess that's because you deem it self-evident? It is not, and until you provide any sort of reasoning for your grand proclamation, I won't engage with the question. Not going to shadow-box with you, nonnie, or do your work for you; if you want a discussion, make your case properly. Though maybe make it elsewhere – as previously noted, passing judgement on the characters is not my primary interest when discussing them. I am much more intrigued by trying to understand why characters do and say what they do and say.

Phew. Okay, that's me done, I think. I realize that you might not be very impressed with this answer, nonnie, but I hope it may to some degree reassure you that no sneaky attempt to excuse my favourite character's actions with convoluted theories was made by this humble blogger. Not this time, at least.

#today will be a housekeeping day where i try to catch up with a few asks and tag games #sorry to spam your dashes #i have a theory by the way #and that's that the sudden influx of curious asks in my inbox is the result of my occasional andcareless foray into shitty graphics and gifs #it makes people not take me seriously anymore #okay maybe they never DID but even LESS seriously then #also it's a way to distract me from the shitty graphics and gifs #can't make them if i'm spending half a day writing this sort of stuff #so yeah i think this is the universe tell me to stay in my fucking lane #boo universe #where's your sense of fun?!#i'm gonna do what i want anyway #btw if you sent me an ask and weren't rude then NO i'm not talking about your ask #asks #shameless spoilers #11x06

16 notes · View notes

jamestaylorswift · 4 years

Note

You're so mind-blowingly brilliant -- your posts never cease to make my day! I don't even have a tumblr account, but I check your page at least ten times/day, hoping for a new analysis. Reading your essay on "folklore"'s dreamscape felt like an acid trip in the best possible way. Please share your thoughts on the original "Cardigan" lyrics ASAP!

Thanks, anon! You’ve got me blushing like a damn fool over here 😊 You’re always welcome on this blog, lurking or otherwise!

Okay so this is more a line of reasoning that starts at the OG “cardigan,” not just lyric analysis. I’m not exactly sure how to organize all these thoughts so I’m just going to put them in the order that they came. Apologies if this is a mess. (And under a cut because I can’t shut up lmao)

To me, the OG “cardigan” is the antithesis of the song as we now know it. That got me thinking about how the core of the album might have been much different too.

The album-making process started with “my tears ricochet.” (I believe this song is from Karlie’s point of view, per the notes in the dreamscape essay.) I’m assuming Taylor didn’t edit this song much. She has implied in the past that a song is “written” when it takes musical form (i.e. lyrics literally get put to a track). The idea of a dead lover is also extremely compelling. She made “cardigan,” “seven,” and “peace” next.

It’s likely that these four songs represent folklore’s original ideological pillars. The common thread of Aaron’s three songs (both versions of “cardigan”) is the idea of age or maturity. “peace” and “seven” are age-related endpoints and “cardigan” is a midway point. “my tears ricochet” happens to be an endpoint (i.e. dying, as opposed to reaching an adult maturity).

From these songs, I extrapolate that Taylor wanted to explore emotional growth specifically by addressing Peter Pan and Wendy’s philosophical disagreement. (Also…veer off into gay childhood trauma.) “peace” is about the strongest argument anyone could make in favor of Wendy—growing up is necessary, especially in order to love and treat someone properly. (This song even argues for mutual maturity/understanding.) “my tears ricochet” is the fallout if two people end up fighting with each other, not for each other. OG “cardigan” comes down on Peter’s side—if given the choice to preserve youth or yield to age, one should prefer the former. The album was to transform an endorsement of Peter into an endorsement of Wendy.

The three songs done with Aaron were likely written to appear in the order they do today: “cardigan” as exposition, then “seven,” then “peace.” Observe that to chart a course hitting all four songs, Taylor has to align OG “cardigan” with “my tears ricochet.” “seven” can stand on its own, provided she pads it with enough storytelling. “peace” and “my tears ricochet” cannot both be endpoints of the story, especially because they are at odds with each other. The mutual understanding in “peace” is not at all consistent with the hatred and sadness in “my tears ricochet.” Thus, the track list requires the partial ordering of OG “cardigan,” then “my tears ricochet,” then (much later) “peace.”

Let’s talk about OG “cardigan.” The first verse paints the potrait of Karlie. “Vintage tee, brand new phone // high heels on cobblestones // when you are young they assume you know nothing” alludes to the glamor of modeling, plus its stereotype as the profession of being young, dumb, and beautiful. “Livin’ in a gold age // sneakin’ to my bird cage” reintroduces the tension of reputation, youth and freedom at odds with oppressive forces. “Laughin’ like a damn fool // breakin’ every damn rule” contrasts the characterization of Karlie in the verse. She instead has a marvelous time being hot, smart, and moderately evil. Through this contrast, Taylor suggests that the power of youth is the freedom to choose to ignore very serious problems (pseudo-escapism?). The OG outro full of zingers is Taylor’s perspective as someone who gets burned by the freedom of choice. Young Karlie leaves young Taylor because the high of reputation-era antics wears off. Then, old Taylor, still affected by this loss, also loses her mind in a reverse-“Don’t Blame Me” kinda way.

Word choice, to me, suggests that “cardigan” was originally conceived not as the Breakup Song of the Cenozoic Era but a narrative partner of “illicit affairs.” Karlie and Taylor are on the same team in OG “cardigan.” They have a marvelous time being hot, smart, and moderately evil and breaking all the damn rules together. “You know damn well // for you I would ruin myself” gets spit back in Taylor’s face and is that much more impactful.

Karlie is justified in leaving because the moment dies. This phrase describes a relationship that mutually and/or slowly dwindles. Karlie makes a decision to leave and save herself, and indeed makes the better choice because she retains her wild and her sanity. Hence, Peter wins the argument.

It’s unclear when “exile” was written, but I think it was early on in the process because Taylor added bird noises to it. “exile” plus OG “cardigan”/“illicit affairs” illustrates two joint affairs, such as double bearding. Pronoun issues with the second verse of “cardigan” aside, Karlie’s eventual downfall (i.e. the emotional end of “illicit affairs”) is implied to be a result of Taylor…also cheating? Maybe it’s the whole Friends “we were on a break” thing. (IDK, I’ve never actually seen Friends.)

OG “cardigan,” “illicit affairs,” and “exile” were once closely affiliated. More pertinently, by the partial ordering, “illicit affairs” and “exile” were meant to explain how OG “cardigan” connects to “my tears ricochet.” Karlie leaves Taylor during their illicit affair; the affair ruins Karlie; Karlie dies and Taylor shows up at the funeral because she’s pissed; Karlie becomes a vengeful ghost and Taylor is also emotionally ruined forever. Scene.

But these are not the connections that Taylor put out into the world. Obviously we can never know precisely why. One thing that does stick out to me, though, is how hard it is to turn around and align with Wendy given the illicit affair narrative.

In “peace,” Taylor shows her own maturity by acknowledging that she was cowardly and dishonorable. For what? Karlie left her in OG “cardigan,” not the other way around. Taylor runs away with someone else in “exile” (“him”), ostensibly to enjoy a more stable relationship. Her playing the role of the angry funeralgoer in “my tears ricochet” is perfectly reasonable. Taylor was promised love and Karlie didn’t give her what she needed, so she moved on. Therefore, we should conclude that maturity is really…hanging onto someone who doesn’t stay? Having the courage to stay in an incredibly tenuous affair? Apparently, one also must be cheated on in order to mature. These are all strange conclusions.

Taylor illustrates Karlie’s maturity with a monologue of numerous promises—of pretty much everything except peace itself. The illicit affair narrative does strongly support the argument that maturity is learning how to stay true to one’s word. Yet its logical beginning is that one must cheat on another—plus be unfaithful to the person they are cheating with—in order to mature. (Karlie gets burned by the freedom of choice only when she later faces the consequences of the affair.) Also strange.

The illicit affair narrative as a primary emotional catalyst of the album generates even bigger inconsistencies.

“august” both humanizes the person cheated with and leaves them worse off than the cheater. “my tears ricochet” emphasizes the opposite: the one cheated with stays alive and becomes a very ugly person, but the cheater dies.

Arguably, both people should have anticipated the fallout of the (implied to be years-long) affair. “my tears ricochet” is internally inconsistent. “I didn’t have it in myself to go with grace” suggests Karlie died an unfortunate or unforeseen death, not an inevitable one. “You turned into your worst fears” suggests Taylor turned around and became a cheater too.

“invisible string” can support the argument that Taylor and Karlie were always bound to get back together after a breakup. Morally dubious underwriting of the initial affair notwithstanding, this song contradicts “mad woman.” Taylor wrote “mad woman” song shortly after “peace;” in it, she is staunchly against cheating. (She avoids morally dubious underwriting of illicit activity on the album by axing the OG “cardigan”/“illicit affairs”/“exile” narrative, then condemning cheating and seducing in “mad woman” and “illicit affairs,” respectively.)

Again, it is impossible to know when, why, or even exactly how the narrative of the album changed as Taylor was writing it. The dramatization I’ve provided of inconsistencies piling up is only one plausible explanation—and a convoluted one at that—for a change of artistic heart. Whatever the reason, I think it is significant that Taylor performed a volte face to never argue in favor of Peter in the first place.

The album version of “cardigan,” and indeed the entire love triangle, supports Wendy’s side of the argument. “cardigan” shows that James and Betty’s relationship was vibrant, joyous, thrilling, and tender, but above all, perfect. The tone of the song helps Taylor denounce James’ choice to leave Betty as cruel and unnecessary. It is James’ fault for leaving once the “thrill expired,” not Betty’s fault for believing James would stay after the honeymoon phase. “betty” reinforces James’ characterization as the ignorant fool too. Because the album necessarily pigeonholes the leaver in the role of the coward, Wendy wins the argument on the grounds of moral fiber.

(James technically ‘wins’ in “august” because the titular character is left devastated and alone. August embodies youth through hope and yearning. James’ lack of conviction kills that hope. Thus, youthful traits are always collateral damage of the entire maturing process. And, the narrative that pits the characters against each other ends with James, regarded as the paradigm youth, losing the most.)

Perhaps this is the best justification for the existence of the teenage love triangle. Introducing characters who are maturing in various ways still allows Taylor to explore emotional growth. Three separate but fixed perspectives act as a proxy for one person’s changing perspective. By aligning herself with each character at a different time in their life, she shows that maturity (e.g. realism, reliability, patience, etc.) always gives one the upper hand.

The love triangle’s main purpose is to illustrate the philosophy that permeates the rest of the album. folklore as we know it is Taylor’s memorial to all the things lost to youth. Maturity would have prevented so many losses. At the same time, it is impossible to mature without first being youthful, making mistakes, and feeling lost while doing so. This is Taylor’s singular but melancholic endorsement of Wendy. How sad, valuable, and necessary, she says of growing up.

Lest my point be misinterpreted as ‘we can confidently reverse-engineer Taylor’s artistic process,’ here are my main takeaways from the “cardigan” changes:

OG “cardigan” is sad and we should appreciate it as such. “I knew to love would be to lose my mind?” Please.

“cardigan,” as a midway point with respect to age, is the only ideologically ‘variable’ song of the original quartet. Furthermore, by placement and construction, “cardigan” is/was intended to be expository. Changing “cardigan” changes the course she charts through the album. Taking sadness out of one song and spreading it over a storytelling album really changes the meaning of that sadness.

Of the eponymous characters, it’s worth noting that Taylor is James, the leaver, whereas she is left in the OG “cardigan.” It’s utterly fascinating that Taylor chooses to embody ‘hanging on to youth’ angle. What we assume is a very deep, primal feeling is one she overemphasizes for narrative purposes. Consequently, dismissing the love triangle as (fix-it) fiction requires dismissing Taylor’s attachment to youth—being Peter. To that end, we might also need to dismiss the infamous “I never grew up, it’s getting so old” line from “The Archer.” Many others, too…

Red herring though it may be, the love triangle alters folklore’s underlying philosophy, hence the very essence of its melancholy. It seems rather unwise to ignore the love triangle or to reduce it to a cheesy storytelling device. Recognizing that Taylor endorses Wendy and only Wendy is, in my opinion, crucial for clarifying other nebulous ideas in folklore. (I know I sound like a broken record, but I really do think abstraction in the music requires abstraction in analysis. It’s really easy to fall into the habit of tying specific lyrics to people or events. Personally, I find richer and deeper connections by actively working against that habit. I’m not saying this is the only way to do analysis—on the contrary, I think all analysis is correct because it’s all subjective. Rather, I think people overlook the value of occasional abstraction, much to my distress. folklore analysis even seems to demand abstraction. Sue me for believing that things like the underlying philosophy of an album are important, I guess?)

Would you believe that there’s more to this change than what I’ve argued? I’m weary that this is answer is already not what you wanted, so I won’t bang on and quadruple its length. In conclusion: the Implications.

#kaylor #folklore analysis #anonymous #qs

8 notes · View notes