gravything

[gravything]

this is, as the kids say, frying me (a glasses wearer)

[gravything]

So there’s been this mini-discourse on my dash about queernorm aristocracy/monarchy in fiction, and how trying to find an “unproblematic” version of it just leads to creating scenarios that have DIFFERENT problems than the obvious ones. (The big example right now is adoption as continuance of royal bloodline—where exactly do the babies come from? Isn’t that in itself a problem?) And I think this discourse is interesting because it illustrates something a very smart friend of mine has been talking about for a while.

The idea of a queernorm monarchic system is one that has the hallmarks of from what the author St John Starling refers to as “pulp”—“fiction that prioritizes the pleasure and enjoyment of the reader above all else.” It’s a pleasurable fantasy—people want to marinate for a while in an imaginary world where queer people are at the highest echelons of society and have big dramatic fairytale romances that take place in ancient castles.

Pulp is an old and venerable genre but, as St. John points out, people have some anxieties about it now and are trying to write work that is both pulp and not-pulp at the same time. This is the source of fretting about creating a queernorm monarchy that’s “unproblematic”—people feel like they have to solve every possible point of queasiness in the worldbuilding before they’re able to indulge in the fantasy. The solution to this, of course, is not even to try. The pulp queer monarchy will contain latent problems, but those aren’t the focus of the story, and a reader in it for the fantasy—as any pulp reader is—will just ignore them.

[gravything]

as humiliating as it is to repost myself from a light-mode-user's reddit screenshot, i cannot allow this year's zenquish to go uncelebrated.

celebrate my favorite holiday with me, my friends.

[gravything]

weather sure is happening

[gravything]

I love it when Conclave said oh so the church is able to break with tradition when it comes to iphones, vapes, rolling suitcases, and steel-fortified window coverings, but not when it comes to feminism, pluralism, and the nuances of sex and gender. How interesting. Anyway, here is a remarkably sad old man.

[gravything]

crazy that sam reid is like the most beautiful man alive and yet only the third most beautiful man on amc's interview with the vampire

[gravything]

there’s a very tall monstera (or friend) that lives near me and has a leaf bigger than my torso, and today I saw that leaf has like an inch of crispy brown all along the edges. I hope giant plant neighbor is doing okay.

[gravything]

“let’s here it for captain america”

[gravything]

inspired by 250 miles, here’s every fourth beat of take on me

[gravything]

[gravything]

The Bouquet

Not much has changed since, I'm still only able to make the world gayer thanks to people leaving tips for coffee 🌟

[gravything]

[gravything]

theres a phenomenon that happens on here i have been calling "normalize loving parents posting" which is when you spend a lot of time on tumblr and are exposed to a lot of one specific counter-cultural narrative day in and day out until you start to forget what the dominant ideas are for most of the human population and thus feel the need to "defend" things that are widely accepted and popular. it's called this because of the time a bunch of text posts about shitty dads were circulating and then people with good relationships with their dad didn't feel included enough and started making "uhmmm can we normalize loving parents? not everyone has a deadbeat dad, MY dad is great" type posts, seemingly forgetting that good relationship with dad is a cultural norm that is expected and encouraged. i think its good practice, especially when im annoyed, to stop before i hit the post button and ask myself if this is a real issue or if im normalize loving parents posting. because often im about to try to normalize loving parents

[gravything]

I watched Leverage for the first time way too young, and a lot of things went over my head. I just rewatched "The Future Job" from Leverage and something about this scene just hit me.

The way they broke down the mysticism around the predatory psychic for Parker feels so intentional both in character and out of character.

In character, they do not judge Parker for falling for the con. The team is supportive and kind as they explain how a cold read works to her. They break it down for her step by step. They never belittle her nor do they pry about her past. This approach makes sense for Parker as a charcter, and it's sweet to see her friends try to help her through a difficult moment this way.

And out of character, it's kind of like they are telling the audience "it's okay if you've fallen prey to this scam. We're living in hard times and this is exceedingly cruel even by our standards. You aren't stupid, you are human. Here's some tools to avoid being tricked like this in the future". I cannot tell you the number of times I've realized I was being manipulated because of how this scene stuck with me.

I love the writers of Leverage, but something about this episode always makes me feel like the writers truly cared for their audience. I'm not sure if this was intentional or if I'm reading into it. But damn I think about this scene a lot.

[gravything]

First thing you see after you zoom in is how you die

How you dying 👀