u/Odd_Pomegranate_788

Sorry for the delay folks, life got crazy for a while! Thank you for your suggestions!

(One last doodle before I disappear into the void…I shall return when I finish the six fanarts!)

Finally finished these bad boys!

1. lupus form

2. crinos form

3. Lupus form + Hunts, The Gnome Queen

Credit to u/january_silence for the idea and references!

(Was gathering some gnome references and had a thought)

So I haven’t read much on the Society of Leopold but my first thought was ‘Benedicte is about to execute a cowardly apostate…’

You know an institution is truly gross when your first thought is, “Oh, Big D would HATE these slimy bastards…

To clarify the meme’s punchline: I am NOT claiming that every person ever associated with the Gypsy Lore Society is a eugenicist. I am referring to the Society’s publishing and legitimization of explicitly racist and eugenic scholarship—including the work of Hermann Arnold, a postwar defender of Nazi eugenic researchers Robert Ritter and Eva Justin (may they rest in piss).

Arnold, along with other anti-Roma racial theorists, promoted ideas about racial authenticity (“blood purity”), hereditary criminality, and biologically determined behavior—all under the institutional banner and legitimacy provided by the GLS…and White Wolf ENDORSED those very journals by recommending them alongside its other “good sources.” AND WE’LL GET TO THAT…

I am NOT calling for anyone to harass the writers or White Wolf. I am BEGGING for some damn transparency about the sources they actually consulted, what they took from them, and how this book was EVER allowed to happen. Since White Wolf hasn’t seen fit to provide said transparency, I’ll now provide what I can about the bibliography.

(Note to readers: I am an independent researcher and autodidact who has studied Romani history for nearly a decade. If you have any questions or wish to see my sources, I will happily oblige.)

1. “Bettelheim, Bruno, The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales”
Irrelevant—and already academically controversial by 1994. Bettelheim applied a speculative, Freudian framework to familiar European fairy tales; he neither studied Roma nor documented Romani folklore. In 1991, folklorist Alan Dundes published an essay titled “Bruno Bettelheim’s Uses of Enchantment and Abuses of Scholarship,” in which he delivered a scathing critique of Bettelheim’s “borrowing” from earlier scholarship (translation: PLAGIARISM), as well as numerous errors resulting from Bettelheim’s limited knowledge of folkloristics. The book may be useful for discussing psychoanalytic theories of fairy tales, but it is not a source on ROMANI folklore. Why White Wolf presented it as one is anybody’s guess.

2. “Rena Cotten, Russian Gypsy Tales”
An ACTUAL mistake by White Wolf: Rena M. Cotten did NOT write, compile, or even translate this book. The credit belongs to Yefim Druts and Alexei Gessler, two Romani folklorists who collected stories from Romani communities across the Soviet Union as part of an effort to preserve their oral traditions. British scholar James Riordan translated and introduced the English-language selection.
Cotten, however, wrote a six-page article titled “Gypsy Folktales” in 1954, which White Wolf appears to have confused with the book. In doing so, its bibliography erased the actual Romani scholars and their work preserving the traditions of specific Romani communities within the Soviet Union.

3. “Ficowski, Jerzy, The Gypsies in Poland”
A deeply troubling, double-edged source that can be hard to read. On the one hand, Ficowski DID preserve important information about the histories, experiences, and cultures of Polish Roma (including very enlightening early testimony concerning the Romani genocide). HOWEVER, he took knowledge gained through trusted relationships and published it without giving his Romani sources meaningful control over how that information would be presented or used.

The Romani poet Papusza was close friends with Ficowski, sent him letters and poems, and even shared cultural knowledge with him. Despite this, it is unclear whether she understood or even consented to the full extent of his publication. After Ficowski published descriptions of Romani customs and language, Papusza was accused of betraying community knowledge and suffered ostracism and severe psychological distress. While the book remains historically valuable, its production raises serious questions about consent, power, and responsibility in ethnographic research—particularly when the researcher receives the credit while members of the studied community bear the consequences. It is worth reading, but absolutely NOT uncritically.

4. “Hancock, Ian, The Pariah Syndrome: An Account of Gypsy Slavery and Persecution”
Genuinely the strongest source in this bibliography (and is often baby’s first ‘Roma History’ book for researchers). Written by a Romani scholar, it documents centuries of anti-Romani persecution, including the enslavement of Roma in Wallachia and Moldavia AND the Samudaripen/Porajmos (if you do not know what that is, read this book). It is older scholarship and can now be supplemented by newer research, but it remains important, accessible, and genuinely informative. No complaints: GO READ IT.

5. “Tong, Diane, Gypsy Folktales” (White Wolf incorrectly printed “Folk Tales” as two words)
For 1994, it was a reasonable source for Romani folklore. Tong made a genuine effort to identify her storytellers and sources, but it must be understood that this is a popular anthology rather than a rigorous academic study. The collection also places stories from certain itinerant Indian communities (including the Banjara) under a broad “Gypsy” category—even though their relationship to Roma is far more complicated and cannot simply be assumed. Useful as a collection of stories, but not as evidence of universal Romani beliefs, customs or supernatural traditions.

6. “Yoors, Jan, The Gypsies”

A valuable but HEAVILY romanticized personal account. At twelve, Yoors ran away from home and began traveling with a Lovara community. Throughout his adolescence, he divided his time between his birth family and the Lovara, forming what appears to have been a genuinely close relationship with the families—so close that their leader (whom Yoors called Pulika) adopted him as a son.

The problem is that Yoors repeatedly portrays nomadic Roma as more “pure” or authentic than settled communities and describes Roma as timeless people existing outside ordinary history. While the book provides a rare outsider’s account of one particular Lovara community, it is not a reliable template for all Roma. Worth reading, but its romantic language and sweeping generalizations must be approached critically.

7. “The collected journals of the Gypsy Lore Society”
We already covered these in the opening, but I will say it’s interesting how both White Wolf AND the GLS weaseled out of apologizing to the Romani communities harmed by their publications.

Thank you all for your suggestions! It was a pleasure to draw for others this time! 💜

Finally have some free time to finish! So here’s a little sneaky peak before I post the rest!

Thought I'd share a sneaky peek of my next ‘Six Fanarts’ project.

I have two days off starting tomorrow so who wants to suggest some ideas for my uninterrupted doodle sessions?

Can’t believe I forgot the very first one I ever did! (It HAS been about a year though in my defense 😂)

(Have this also)

Drew this when the episode came out!