#2020s does 1970s

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Marshmallow Longtermism

The paperback edition of The Lost Cause, my nationally bestselling, hopeful solarpunk novel is out this week!

My latest column for Locus Magazine is "Marshmallow Longtermism"; it's a reflection on how conservatives self-mythologize as the standards-bearers for deferred gratification and making hard trade-offs, but are utterly lacking in these traits when it comes to climate change and inequality:

https://locusmag.com/2024/09/cory-doctorow-marshmallow-longtermism/

Conservatives often root our societal ills in a childish impatience, and cast themselves as wise adults who understand that "you can't get something for nothing." Think here of the memes about lazy kids who would rather spend on avocado toast and fancy third-wave coffee rather than paying off their student loans. In this framing, poverty is a consequence of immaturity. To be a functional adult is to be sober in all things: not only does a grownup limit their intoxicant intake to head off hangovers, they also go to the gym to prevent future health problems, they save their discretionary income to cover a down-payment and student loans.

This isn't asceticism, though: it's a mature decision to delay gratification. Avocado toast is a reward for a life well-lived: once you've paid off your mortgage and put your kid through college, then you can have that oat-milk latte. This is just "sound reasoning": every day you fail to pay off your student loan represents another day of compounding interest. Pay off the loan first, and you'll save many avo toasts' worth of interest and your net toast consumption can go way, way up.

Cleaving the world into the patient (the mature, the adult, the wise) and the impatient (the childish, the foolish, the feckless) does important political work. It transforms every societal ill into a personal failing: the prisoner in the dock who stole to survive can be recast as a deficient whose partying on study-nights led to their failure to achieve the grades needed for a merit scholarship, a first-class degree, and a high-paying job.

Dividing the human race into "the wise" and "the foolish" forms an ethical basis for hierarchy. If some of us are born (or raised) for wisdom, then naturally those people should be in charge. Moreover, putting the innately foolish in charge is a recipe for disaster. The political scientist Corey Robin identifies this as the unifying belief common to every kind of conservativism: that some are born to rule, others are born to be ruled over:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/08/01/set-healthy-boundaries/#healthy-populism

This is why conservatives are so affronted by affirmative action, whose premise is that the absence of minorities in the halls of power stems from systemic bias. For conservatives, the fact that people like themselves are running things is evidence of their own virtue and suitability for rule. In conservative canon, the act of shunting aside members of dominant groups to make space for members of disfavored minorities isn't justice, it's dangerous "virtue signaling" that puts the childish and unfit in positions of authority.

Again, this does important political work. If you are ideologically committed to deregulation, and then a giant, deregulated sea-freighter crashes into a bridge, you can avoid any discussion of re-regulating the industry by insisting that we are living in a corrupted age where the unfit are unjustly elevated to positions of authority. That bridge wasn't killed by deregulation – it's demise is the fault of the DEI hire who captained the ship:

https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/03/26/baltimore-bridge-dei-utah-lawmaker-phil-lyman-misinformation

The idea of a society made up of the patient and wise and the impatient and foolish is as old as Aesop's "The Ant and the Grasshopper," but it acquired a sheen of scientific legitimacy in 1970, with Walter Mischel's legendary "Stanford Marshmallow Experiment":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment

In this experiment, kids were left alone in a locked room with a single marshmallow, after being told that they would get two marshmallows in 15 minutes, but only if they waited until them to eat the marshmallow before them. Mischel followed these kids for decades, finding that the kids who delayed gratification and got that second marshmallow did better on every axis – educational attainment, employment, and income. Adult brain-scans of these subjects revealed structural differences between the patient and the impatient.

For many years, the Stanford Marshmallow experiment has been used to validate the cleavage of humanity in the patient and wise and impatient and foolish. Those brain scans were said to reveal the biological basis for thinking of humanity's innate rulers as a superior subspecies, hidden in plain sight, destined to rule.

Then came the "replication crisis," in which numerous bedrock psychological studies from the mid 20th century were re-run by scientists whose fresh vigor disproved and/or complicated the career-defining findings of the giants of behavioral "science." When researchers re-ran Mischel's tests, they discovered an important gloss to his findings. By questioning the kids who ate the marshmallows right away, rather than waiting to get two marshmallows, they discovered that these kids weren't impatient, they were rational.

The kids who ate the marshmallows were more likely to come from poorer households. These kids had repeatedly been disappointed by the adults in their lives, who routinely broke their promises to the kids. Sometimes, this was well-intentioned, as when an economically precarious parent promised a treat, only to come up short because of an unexpected bill. Sometimes, this was just callousness, as when teachers, social workers or other authority figures fobbed these kids off with promises they knew they couldn't keep.

The marshmallow-eating kids had rationally analyzed their previous experiences and were making a sound bet that a marshmallow on the plate now was worth more than a strange adult's promise of two marshmallows. The "patient" kids who waited for the second marshmallow weren't so much patient as they were trusting: they had grown up with parents who had the kind of financial cushion that let them follow through on their promises, and who had the kind of social power that convinced other adults – teachers, etc – to follow through on their promises to their kids.

Once you understand this, the lesson of the Marshmallow Experiment is inverted. The reason two marshmallow kids thrived is that they came from privileged backgrounds: their high grades were down to private tutors, not the choice to study rather than partying. Their plum jobs and high salaries came from university and family connections, not merit. Their brain differences were the result of a life free from the chronic, extreme stress that comes with poverty.

Post-replication crisis, the moral of the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment is that everyone experiences a mix of patience and impatience, but for the people born to privilege, the consequences of impatience are blunted and the rewards of patience are maximized.

Which explains a lot about how rich people actually behave. Take Charles Koch, who grew his father's coal empire a thousandfold by making long-term investments in automation. Koch is a vocal proponent of patience and long-term thinking, and is openly contemptuous of publicly traded companies because of the pressure from shareholders to give preference to short-term extraction over long-term planning. He's got a point.

Koch isn't just a fossil fuel baron, he's also a wildly successful ideologue. Koch is one of a handful of oligarchs who have transformed American politics by patiently investing in a kraken's worth of think tanks, universities, PACs, astroturf organizations, Star chambers and other world-girding tentacles. After decades of gerrymandering, voter suppression, court-packing and propagandizing, the American billionaire class has seized control of the US and its institutions. Patience pays!

But Koch's longtermism is highly selective. Arguably, Charles Koch bears more personal responsibility for delaying action on the climate emergency than any other person, alive or dead. Addressing greenhouse gasses is the most grasshopper-and-the-ant-ass crisis of all. Every day we delayed doing something about this foreseeable, well-understood climate debt added sky-high compounding interest. In failing to act, we saved billions – but we stuck our future selves with trillions in debt for which no bankruptcy procedure exists.

By convincing us not to invest in retooling for renewables in order to make his billions, Koch was committing the sin of premature avocado toast, times a billion. His inability to defer gratification – which he imposed on the rest of us – means that we are likely to lose much of world's coastal cities (including the state of Florida), and will have to find trillions to cope with wildfires, zoonotic plagues, and hundreds of millions of climate refugees.

Koch isn't a serene Buddha whose ability to surf over his impetuous attachments qualifies him to make decisions for the rest of us. Rather, he – like everyone else – is a flawed vessel whose blind spots are just as stubborn as ours. But unlike a person whose lack of foresight leads to drug addiction and petty crimes to support their habit, Koch's flaws don't just hurt a few people, they hurt our entire species and the only planet that can support it.

The selective marshmallow patience of the rich creates problems beyond climate debt. Koch and his fellow oligarchs are, first and foremost, supporters of oligarchy, an intrinsically destabilizing political arrangement that actually threatens their fortunes. Policies that favor the wealthy are always seeking an equilibrium between instability and inequality: a rich person can either submit to having their money taxed away to build hospitals, roads and schools, or they can invest in building high walls and paying guards to keep the rest of us from building guillotines on their lawns.

Rich people gobble that marshmallow like there's no tomorrow (literally). They always overestimate how much bang they'll get for their guard-labor buck, and underestimate how determined the poors will get after watching their children die of starvation and preventable diseases.

All of us benefit from some kind of cushion from our bad judgment, but not too much. The problem isn't that wealthy people get to make a few poor choices without suffering brutal consequences – it's that they hoard this benefit. Most of us are one missed student debt payment away from penalties and interest that add twenty years to our loan, while Charles Koch can set the planet on fire and continue to act as though he was born with the special judgment that means he knows what's best for us.

On SEPTEMBER 24th, I'll be speaking IN PERSON at the BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY!!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/04/deferred-gratification/#selective-foresight

Image: Mark S (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/markoz46/4864682934/

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

[sparrowlucero]

just curious, why oviraptorids for your silurians?

oh I definitely tossed around a few different ideas before the oviraptors, they just ended up feeling the most right to me. here's something that could almost pass for a design process:

The first shot at a silurian I did was this tuatara redesign of the original fish guys; i didn't really like it as it doesn't feel very evocative of the original to me (the fact that they're going for "black lagoon fish man" does not jell with how subsequent designs are lizard people, and I just couldn't marry those two things well here) (also, wow, I hadn't even rewatched surface (2005) at this point, goes to show how much of a throttle that's had on my design sensibilities for the past 20 years)

I think the second was this (sort of) prosauropod, after a friend informed me that the species is canonically meant to be prosauropods (sure jan). This wasn't a super serious design, I drew it in like 5 minutes for my friends (I did consider prosauropods seriously later on, but never drew any concepts past this)

When I was looking through my folders I found this drawing next to the last, where its just the humanoid silurians but with feathers. pretty sure this was just meant to be exactly what you'd expect a feathered design would have been on the bbc in 2011. I don't remember drawing this, but here it is for posterity.

the next (actually somewhat serious) attempt made them weird raptors; at this point I was actively trying to give them a flat, owl-like face so they were evocative of the humanoid designs in the show. I really wanted them to feel like generic spec bio dinosaur people of the 2020s (a tongue in cheek update to them being generic spec bio dinosaur people for the 1970s) and this kind of has that vibe, but I didn't think it looks great; something about it feels very non expressive and kind of forced to me. (The kea-inspired colors stuck around though.)

later I revamped that sketch and added a cassowary-esque crest (you can see the one in the frilly clothes here is just that first design with a crest tacked on).

I also doodled an oviraptorid version in the corner while I had dinosaurs with crests in mind; I ended up really liking how much that looked almost human in profile, so I ended up fleshing that out more:

This looked way more expressive and bespoke to me, and felt the most evocative of the original humanoid designs (somehow), while still looking like a real dinosaur species instead of a totally made up one

so yeah the oviraptors ended up sticking around at that point - they just clicked way more than any of the other attempts!

[applepieshy]

I had an idea to redesign vox because I didn't love that a character obsessed with modernization would wear a top hat and bowtie. then after a brief stint into madness where I read my partner's historic costuming textbook I drew.... all this.

(side note: the idea of vox being a trans man who transitioned AFTER death was super compelling and absolutely inspired by @prince-liest so while this is not direct fanart of their series I wanted to give a shoutout anyway!!!)

okay some TRULY unhinged rambling about historic costume below the cut YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

1950s: for this design I very much did not want to go to the typical a-line housewife look, because I feel that is unfitting for vox's character. instead I went for a more business look, but there is still a level of femininity that he would have been expected to perform. i wanted to express his discomfort with that through the pose and expression, though at the time he wouldn't necessarily have a framework for why he hated it

1960s: this one was very fun. i loved the idea of vox beginning to eschew some of the expected feminine presentation, and he no longer wears makeup, jewelry, or hose (though its hard to tell in black & white); however, he's kind of at war with himself in this time period. he's obsessed with seeming perfect and having a respectable image, so he would not go in for the counter-culture movements that were so big in the 60s. he's still kind of riding those coattails though, pushing those boundaries while still not acknowledging his queerness.

1970s: to me, it was very important that the gender hit as he entered the world in color. in my mind the gender euphoria is physically manifested in a wizard of oz situation - he can become who he always has been. anyway, gender aside, I think it was very important to me personally that he wore an ascot. it was for my mental health.

1980s: I wanted the 1980s to be the period where he began to gain some power and notoriety because of the de-regulation of television during this period to allow more ads, mirroring real-world history. I think if the 70s were when vox gained some real confidence, the 80s are when he got an Ego (tm). "business casual" also began to become more acceptable in this time period, and the t-shirt/suit jacket combo was very important for me to include, as to me it epitomizes the commercialism and machismo of the 80s.

1990s: this was actually the decade I was the most nervous to design, and yet I think it turned out the best? the 90s are known for grunge, which I think is NOT vox's style at all. I decided instead to lean hard into the yuppie look, which I know is more associated with the 80s but was definitely still a thing in the 90s. I also allowed a little hip-hop influence in the form of a gold chain from val, which is not something I think vox would ever pick on his own.

2000s: if the 90s were the decade I was worried about and turned out great, the 2000s are the decade I thought I had down SO GOOD and then totally floundered in execution. I still love the bubble-mac inspired head, and I tried to make his clothes as "round" as possible. I also like that this is the time where his saturation got cranked. however, I don't know if I'm in love with the vest and super bright sneakers, because again, looking back on it, he kind of looks like he works at a movie theater or best buy or some shit lol,,,

2010s: I think it's telling that this is by far the closest to his canon design (2014 tumblr lookin ass). I really wanted to pull from that hipster tech bro era, but unfortunately that aesthetic has a veneration for "retro" which again, is not fitting for vox. I still think he would wear the bowtie during this time because, well... he sure does in the show!

2020s: this was fun because I had an excuse to pull from haute couture design rather than street fashion because of the introduction of velvette into his life. I truly do not think velvette would let vox and val walk around in the outfits that they do because it would be an actual embarrassment LMAO. for this, I wanted his decorative "robes" to be evocative of the time he depicted himself as a priest AND of a cape/robe of an emperor. he does think of himself as that bitch, after all.

[deramin2]

I don't know how to really express this except to come across as a "kids these days" scold, but so much of the criticism of queerness in Good Omens would simply not be a thing if kids these days watched more 20th century queer media. Or more complex indie queer media in general.

People seem to want a show that's like the straight stories they grew up with but gay. Or the gay fanfiction they grew up with. But that's not really the tradition it's coming from. First off the novel was released in 1990. Queer film classics of the time are Dead Poet's Society (1989) and Torch Song Trilogy (1988). The TV miniseries Tales of the City (1993) wasn't made until 3 years later and it was so far out there it never had a huge audience. Philadelphia (1993) is also 3 years out and was basically the first big studio queer film. The first fluffy queer Hallmark-style romcom wasn't until Big Eden in 2000, a full 10 years after publication.

Queer stories from the time it was written were about complex and often fraught relationships between people who the world was trying to force apart. There is an incredibly strong tradition in queer films of relationships with no guarantees they will work out both in the face of their personal baggage and the weight of the world. Take a film like Torch Song Trilogy that's about the two great loves of Arnold Beckoff's life over 9 years and how homophobia shapes them. Both externally (especially Allen) and internally like Ed struggling with his bisexuality and being terrified of being publicly out. Written and starred in by Harvey Fierstein, who identified as a gay man at the time and only came out as nonbinary last year.

The Boys In The Band (1968 play, filmed 1970 and 2020) was a monumental moment in Broadway history where finally there was a play about gay men in their own words where no one died and very strongly showed that homosexuality doesn't make people miserable but homophobia sure does. But that homophobia also throws their personal lives into constant turmoil and none of them are in happy relationships, although Hank and Larry are devoted to each other in their own fucked up way.

"Relationships are complicated and hard to make work and sometimes a struggle against the odds" is an aesthetic of classic queer film making. Partly it was influenced by the Hays Code (although independent films were not bound to it), partly influenced by the rampant queerphobia in society at the time that was inescapable. But it's also an aesthetic choice to resist the banal and unrealistic relationship depictions of straight media. There are actual stakes to the relationship. Queer people were actively resisting a world that said "Romance is seeing someone across the room and instantly falling in love with each other and little conflicts happen along the way but ultimately they're destined to be together and everything is happily ever after." Recall that "stalking as romance" was a completely inescapable trope in 1980s straight romance films, and every goddamn movie was being turned into a romance film.

So queer people in film and television when they can make what they please have a long tradition of saying instead "People don't always realize the feelings they've developed for a queer partner right away. They may have reasons for denying those feelings that are both a reflection of the cruelty in society and of their own insecurities. People struggle with where they belong and their relationships reflect that. Loving someone doesn't mean they don't also drive you crazy and you might fight with them constantly. But that doesn't negate the love or that feeling that even if things aren't okay, they're better with that person around. But maybe that person can't stay around. The world may be against you. And also maybe you don't just want that one person in your life. Soulmates is a very flawed model. Sometimes the strongest love is a struggle with yourself and the world and your person. You have to overcome yourself first. Happily ever after is a lie. You may be happy for a while, and hopefully for a long while, but everything ends. And you have to be ready to love again. Also your platonic bonds are just as important and life-altering as your romantic ones. Sometimes those platonic bonds include fucking if you want them to. Real life isn't a bunch of platitudes and world-altering moments, it's daily work to better yourself and the world around you. Especially when things just fucking suck. But also remember to have fun and fuck the haters. People who don't support you can eat rocks and you should yell at them more to shut the fuck up."

That is a fundamentally different outlook on what a "good relationship depiction" looks like. Personally, I thought I hated romance movies and then I started watching queer romance movies and discovered I love them and watch them all the time. Because it turns out what I hated was relationships being shown that had nothing at all to do with reality and privileged incredibly toxic ideals. Finally there was complexity, there were stakes, and there were people who had to truly want to be together enough to fight the world for it and not because they happened to be there. There were people actually talking out their problems and looking for resolutions. (And sometimes that resolutions was "I can't fucking deal with this bullshit anymore and I'm out.") For the first time it felt real.

I'm an aroace trans gay man. Nothing about relationships or being in relationships has come easy to me, and the whole paradigm of straight patriarchal romance depictions makes absolutely no sense to me. It's completely alien. Queer romance stories actually feel human.

And that's the tradition Good Omens is coming from, even as it's being retold in 2019-2023 and hopefully beyond. Gaiman's work has always been based in that queer media paradigm. (I've been remiss and daunted and haven't read Pratchett but from what I do know his work also seems to sit more in that world view.) It's a beautiful cinematic tradition and it's baffling to me that people would resist it instead of embracing it for being honest.

And that's when I turn into a crotchety old man complaining about the youth not connecting with the history of their beautiful culture and instead begging for assimilation into a shithole allocishet media landscape that doesn't actually want them except for their money and has nothing at all interesting or valuable to say. But it's very funny (annoying) to me when people claim Good Omens is someone against queer culture when it's so thoroughly bathed in the best of queer media's storytelling traditions and what people are asking for is straight media with the serial numbers filed off. Like, stop being boring please and know literally anything about the culture the adults in the room lived through and were influenced by. The world didn't begin in 2015.

EDIT: I also want to add that in straight media arcs are linear. Traditionally in queer media arcs are cyclical. Queer media very often depicts people going around in circles relearning the same lesson over and over as they inch towards it sinking in. But every time they go through the cycle they gain just a little bit more enlightenment and slowly move towards a better place. From the comments this is an immensely important distinction. People don't actually have cathartic moments where suddenly all their past bad programming is shed and they saunter forward a new person with none of their old baggage. In reality people fall into the same patterns over and over even though they have had every opportunity to learn better. "People magically get better" is a trope of straight media that's an outright and frankly dangerous lie. Again, Good Omens follows the queer tradition not the straight one and it's depicted 6,000 years of that cycle. The world didn't end, and the wheel keeps turning, as it always has and always will. That's so fundamental to queer storytelling traditions I forgot to even mention it.

[sissylittlefeather]

How the Web Was Woven: Chapter 13

A/N: Woof. This one took me a minute. Also, it's a short bridge-type chapter, but don't worry. Next chapter will be LONG and JUICY. This is just a necessary part of the story. Please don't give up on us! ICYMI this is the soulmate/time travel AU between Elvis and a fem!reader.

Need to catch up? Here's my Masterlist.

Warnings: cussing and angst (a smut-free chapter?! Who am I?! Don't worry. It's coming soon and they will be too 😏)

Word count: ~1.9k

"Why didn't she come for me?"

******

Elvis spends the next few weeks anxiously waiting for you to show up somewhere. It's clear his mind is elsewhere. Everyone around him notices that something is off, but he won't tell anyone what's going on. He just prowls around like a caged animal, nervous and waiting for something that no one understands. He goes back to Memphis before he has to be back in Vegas in August to film his concert documentary. The only thing that gets him out of his room is Lisa Marie. Otherwise, he mopes around or stays inside.

What no one knows is he's grieving. He's pretty sure he's lost you and his son too. The pain almost overwhelms him and he has a hard time living in his real life. He finds solace in music and spends a lot of time at the piano playing a whole catalogue of new songs. His favorite, though, is a song produced by the Beatles' record label, and he eventually asks to record it later that summer. It ends up on his album for the documentary That's the Way It Is and even makes it into a rehearsal scene with him playing it on the piano and singing. For some reason, the song makes him think of you, so he sings it as often as he can.

Even though it begins to look like he's back to himself, the pain of losing you is omnipresent. He resigns himself to the fact that he will likely never see you or his son ever again. As such, he leans into the documentary and even does a photo shoot with Priscilla over Thanksgiving to try to rekindle the affection he feels for her.

But he still feels like part of his soul has gone missing. It's the same old feeling he always has when he's away from you for too long, but this time it settles in his chest and becomes a part of him. 1970 slips into 1971 and he does his best to move on. 1971 slips into 1972 and he throws himself into work and lets his relationship with Priscilla sour. She moves out and he has a hard time even caring, except that she took Lisa Marie and it just twists the dagger of having already lost one child. There are other girls, like there always have been, but they never fill the void that you leave. He has a you-shaped hole in his heart that no amount of sex or romance or even love can fill. 1972 slides by, he films Elvis on Tour, and he plays shows across the United States. He plays Vegas again and then tours again, hoping that by keeping himself busy he'll notice your absence less.

Finally, he prepares for the Aloha from Hawaii concert that will be broadcast across the world. He tries to get back into peak physical shape and does everything he can to throw himself fully into this concert. In the process, he squashes the last hope of you ever showing up again. It's been three years.

You're gone.

******

Covid hits strong in 2020 and your world gets upended. You learn to work from home, host zoom call happy hours with your friends (even though you're pregnant and can't drink), and wear a mask anytime you're in public, which isn't often. In September, you give birth (alone and in a mask) to your daughter and name her Erin Love. She's perfectly healthy and looks so much like her brother you think you've given birth to his twin. And again you weep. Elvis is missing this and you know it'll break him if he ever finds out.

2020 fades into 2021 and you still can't risk going out with a baby. Every time you start to think it might be safe, a new strain or variant shows up and the world cowers in fear again. Vegas opens, but you're terrified, both of traveling and of the possibility of sending Covid back to 1971.

So, you wait. You wait and you wait and you keep waiting until your baby is old enough and the virus seems to slow down. Still, Vegas, with its masses of people, seems too risky. Finally, in December of 2022 you have an idea. You start making plans to head to Hawaii with both kids and your mom in January of 2023. Hawaii is much more secluded and you know exactly where he will be.

When you ask your mom to come with you, she wants to know why. This is going to be a very expensive vacation and she's not sure why you need her. You sit on her couch trying to decide just how much you should tell her. Eventually, you settle on something very close to the truth.

"John is there. We haven't seen each other in three years." You look down at the ring on your finger.

"I was starting to wonder if he still existed."

"I'm not even sure he'll want to see me..." You look at the ceiling to try to stop yourself from crying, but it doesn't work and the tears come sliding down your face.

"Oh, sweetie. I'm sure he does. He loves you."

"I hope so." She pulls you into a hug.

"I will go with you. I'll watch the kids so you two can get reacquainted."

"Thank you, mom."

Once she agrees to go with you, you drop an ungodly amount of money to stay in his suite and pack up both kids to fly to the islands. You decide not to tell John Jessie why you're going, just in case it doesn't work out. He's almost 6 now and he asks about his daddy damn near everyday. Somehow, he remembers him despite the fact that it's been almost 3 years since he's seen him. Erin's too little to ask questions. She doesn't even know she has a daddy, which breaks your heart every time you think about it.

******

After a rehearsal, Elvis heads to his suite to rest. He's 100% invested in what he's doing. But out of nowhere, he thinks of you again. He hums the song he's designated as yours and goes to work changing out of his jumpsuit.

He's got the zipper all the way down when he hears a sound that makes his heart stop. There it is, the old familiar buzzing. He hasn't heard it in so long. He turns slowly, sees the portal, and practically runs through it without thinking about the fact that he has no clothes packed and is wearing a jumpsuit.

******

When Elvis comes through the portal, he stops and stares at you. He's so in shock that he doesn't know how to respond. Your mouth pops open in awe of him standing there in the American Eagle jumpsuit fully unzipped. He looks better than you could've imagined. Obviously, you've seen the footage, but it really didn't do him justice. He zips it back up and gives you a hard stare.

"It's been three fucking years, y/n."

"I know-" You don't get any further though because John Jessie comes bounding into the room. He runs to Elvis and jumps on him. He's supposed to be napping with your mom in one of the bedrooms.

"Daddy! I heard you!" Elvis grabs him and holds him tightly.

"Heyyy buddy, I missed you so much!" You can tell he's trying hard not to cry. You look nervously towards the bedroom. If your mom sees him in this jumpsuit, it'll be impossible to explain.

"Bubby, where's your grandma?"

"She's asleep." You breathe easier and John Jessie turns back to his daddy. He launches into a monologue that only a 5-year-old can follow, but Elvis sits with him on the couch and listens attentively. You stand and watch the scene and Elvis glances at you every once in a while.

After about 15 minutes, you hear Erin cry from the room where she is taking her nap. Elvis looks up at you, shocked.

"Who is that?"

"That's my sister. She's little still." John Jessie answers knowingly. Elvis's head swivels to you so fast.

"Sister?" You nod and duck out of the room to grab Erin before her crying wakes your mom up. When you come back, Elvis looks at both of you and his eyes are shiny with tears. "Is she-?"

"She's yours." He stands up and immediately takes her from you.

"What's her name?"

"Erin Love."

"Love? Like my..." He trails off and looks at her lovingly.

"Yes. Like your mother." He holds her to himself and looks up at the ceiling, trying not to cry. He pulls back and looks at her again while she babbles to him.

"Baby, do you know I'm your daddy?" She looks up at him.

"Daddy?"

"Yes!" She smiles widely and he holds her close to him again. He looks at you incredulously.

"We have another baby."

"Yes, we do." He kisses her cheek and sets her down on the floor, turning to you. His eyes burn through you and he whispers angrily.

"Where the fuck have you been?! We have a daughter?!"

"Please, Elvis, I can explain."

"You better. I'm going to spend the evening with my kids, but you better have a damn good story when they go to bed."

You nod. How will you get him to understand Covid?

******

He changes into some clothes you have for him and helps you put the kids to bed. Despite not knowing the routine, he proves to be pretty helpful. You're amazed at how well John Jessie remembers him. Your mom seems to just know she should make herself scarce through the whole evening and stays in the room. Once you get both kids in bed, you sit on the couch facing him, heart pounding and stomach in knots. He looks at you with a mixture of sadness and anger.

"Tell me why, y/n."

"There is a new virus." You desperately try to explain everything that's happened over the last three years.

"So you couldn't come to me because of a cold virus?"

"Elvis, you don't understand. This was a global pandemic. Everything was closed and people all around the world were dying. They literally shut down Las Vegas."

"I've been other places." He responds, the anger in his voice obvious.

"I know, but I couldn't risk our kids. Or the possibility of you taking this virus back to your time. I finally feel safe here in Hawaii."

"I don't know, y/n, I'm glad you're okay and I'm especially excited to see the kids. But I thought I'd lost you. I buried you in my mind."

"Did you- did you move on?" For the first time, the reality that your marriage to Elvis might be over hits you in the gut and your eyes widen. Elvis isn't sure how to answer. He has a girlfriend, and technically another wife. But he looks at you sitting in front of him and can't help but feel the connection that's bound you together for over fifteen years. He wants to be angry so badly, but really all he is is sad. Sad that he missed the first two and a half years of his daughter's life. Sad that he went so long without all of you. Sad that you almost feel like a stranger now.

You sit on the couch staring at each other waiting for his answer.

******

Come back soon for Chapter 14!

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Taglist:

@ccab @elvisfatass @elvisalltheway101 @aliypop @18lkpeters @dkayfixates @rosepresley68 @your-nanas-house @deniseinmn @joshuntildawn13 @lookingforrainbows @60svintage @littlehoneyposts @epthedream69 @that-hotdog @eddiesgirlforever @helen06dreamer @returntopresley @rjmartin11 @noirrose21-blog @tacozebra051 @deltafalax

[uthseikoashx-goingmyway]

throwing away some thoughts here. it has already been said, but i'd like to recap some things for myself, i have to get all of it out of my system, lmao

EVEN if i set aside my desire for DM to happen a first time in the 1970s/80s (and come back in the 2020s), and examine the situation with some kind of honesty, there ARE leads and clues. or rather, unexplained elements that aren't actually troublesome if unexploited, but that would get depth if they were refered to in a later season.

specifically talking about three things:

the infamous Alice recalling and "she didn't trust you," etc, passage:

we can explain, i suppose, Armand's comment by saying he pulled this info out of Daniel's brain — which would mean it's not an info but one of Daniel's interpretation, by the way. taken from a DM perspective: either it's fuel for the A=A theory, or it implies that Armand was around when it happened.

Daniel foggy memories during the 1970s:

again, it could be explained by Daniel's drug use at the time, as he himself assumes. now, that would be irresponsable of us to not, as least, question it, considering Armand's ability to lock away someone's memories; worse, not only his ability, but the fact that he did this not only to Daniel — a human — but also to Louis, his husband. (to be perfectly sincere, i was (before season 2), and still am, a strong believer of what's sometimes nicknamed here the "eternal-sunshine theory"; it influences my outlook on this, it's so cool)

Armand turning Daniel despite his virulent unwilingness to ever make a fledgling — and we know nothing about how it happened:

still shocked about that, if i'm honest! i find it difficult to believe Armand would turn Daniel out of spite. when Louis read his notes on the script, he didn't seem angry at Daniel but panicking about Louis leaving him: it was a very Loumand moment (the last of the season!); i didn't doubt Armand would not kill Daniel, precisely because Louis told him not to. one might think he would curse Daniel then, a gift worse than death, out of spite and to punish both Daniel and Louis. but Armand repeating over and over how he never made any fledgling and how he never could, never would... a context, a story between them might be a great explanation for a later season. the mystery is still complete; maybe they — Armand and Daniel — had a very long conversation, or they actually had not and because of some element in Armand's past, he actually snapped; or they fought, Armand hurt Daniel, and to save him, Armand turned him... it definitely is the strangest plot point about them and no doubt we'll get answers in a later season; besides, i think several things may be true at same the time — Armand hurting Daniel and DM in the past, etc, etc.

and not to mention some elements like "you're going to teach me how to be fascinating" (2x05), what seems to be Daniel's desire or subdued lust (especially in season 1 with the godsent "what does he taste like?" / sucking on the diner table scene), their dynamics or some of Armand's looks that can only be suspicious... all of this is not enough, in my opinion, to be sure that DM happened in the 1970s in the series canon; but the 3 points developed here sure would make more sense in a past-DM context (methinks)

[mirrorsims]

Sooo.. I may have a tiny bit of an obsession w the 60s, 70s & 80s, and therefore I've accumulated a lot of CAS custom content both made for and capable of working in that time-frame! Here is a (very non-finalized) master list of said CC. I will most likely edit this, or post a part two. (I am also 100% open to WCIFs regarding these decades, vague and specific!) Full list below the cut, but creators shown in the preview are @ridgeport @simduction @ice-creamforbreakfast @feralpoodles @hezzasims @simstrouble @joliebean @zombietrait @its-adrienpastel @deathpoke1qa, @leeleesims1

(an * denotes a TSR link)

1960s

Sets

@enriques4 & @serenity-cc's Back to the 60s set is a must have for bright 60s basics to mix and match

@sentate & @trillyke's 1990s-themed 2020 Collab has pieces that are perfect for mod fashions

From babydoll to boho, Sentate's April 2021 Collection has it all for late 1960s & early 1970s looks alike

For some gorgeous turn of the decade looks, be sure to nab @ice-creamforbreakfast's Date Night Collection

Clothing & Footwear

Create more early 1960s looks with @gilded-ghosts Earth Angel dress!

I love @ridgeport's Birdie skirt as a mod mini! It comes in tons of colors & excellent patterns

amythesailor's Twiggy dress is full of fun patterns and colorways!

If you need something bright, @deathpoke1qa's 60's dress and matching go-go boots are the way to go

Hair

@simduction's blog is full of big fun retro hairstyles, but their Nancy, Peggy, & Beecky hairs are some of my favorites of the bunch.

@daylifesims also has a ton of fun picks, Shades of Cool, Hammer Horror, Heavy Bangs, & their Daphne and Fred Hairs are best suited for 60s style

@joshseoh's Blaire hair is cute and curly for a peppy 60s chick!

@feralpoodles' Monique & Monica Hairs are sleek and modish, they're perfect on their own or with some accessory bangs

Lets talk beehives. @ravensim's Terri Hair is loose and wavy, ridgeport's Fleur Hair is stacked and layered. @candysims4 has two beautiful beehives, Follow Me & the long and sleek Bee Hair.

@glimersims' Sugar Hair is an adorable flippy half-updo

A more 50's style like @birksche's Higher Twist Hair is perfect for your older sims

And @okruee's Bordeaux Hair is a wonderfully messy bun

1970s

Sets

Lets start the decade off strong with Gilded-Ghosts & @surely-sims' Perfect Party Set, which includes some gorgeous Build/Buy items as well (and BB could and should be a masterlist of its own..)

@joliebean & @clumsyalienn's Slavic Allure set lends itself perfectly to hippie and prairie style looks in a gorgeous Eastern-European inspired package.

On the topic of hippie, clumsyalienn's Heatwave Pack is perfect for all your free-spirited Sims

And so is serentiy-cc's Bohemian Child collection- that fur coat is a must have

Now for something bold and fun, straight out of Sears, ice-creamforbreakfast's 70s-inspired November 2022 set

Clothing & Footwear

@glumbut has never let me down with their Sonny and Dahlia jeans, and their Aroa top is recent favorite of mine

I love using ridgeport's Phia Suit for some good late-70s professional girl vibes

Hair

I've got some more feralpoodles hair for you, her Diana Hair is perfect for all your flower children & the layered and windswept Lara & Farrah hairs are straight out of the late 70s

And of course more ice-creamforbreakfast, another Fawcett-inspired look with their Farrah Flip, and their Milla Afro is a must have, whether you make vintage sims or not.

@simstrouble's Mirela hair also lends itself to a more subdued 70s style

And if you're looking for a long shag, @kamiiri's got you covered with their Phoebe Hair

1980s

Sets

Joliebean's 5th Avenue Conversion is great for both 80s business & 80s-does-40s looks.

@zombietrait's 80s Goth Pack is perfect for, well, trad goth looks. It's a must.

@dogsill's Upside Down Pack is full of great basics and rockin hair.

A multiparter, @aniraklova's Wild and Stylish 80s sets are over-the-top in the best way possible. Make sure to check out all 3 parts!

Clothing & Footwear

Now, it wouldn't be the 80s without some Wall Street goodness, and @quiddity-jones' Double-Breasted Suit is perfectly patterned for all of your business needs.

Part 2 of @jius-sims' Retro Collection is sweet and classic, perfect for the 80s housewife, or your girl-next-door.

@cooper322's Blondie Jacket is just so splendidly rocker-chic.

More from joliebean, their Ultraviolet & Daytona dresses are wonderful for all sorts of patterned & neon looks

Hair

joliebean's Beatrix Hair is a fun cropped style, it works for all sorts of fem looks, but I especially love it combined with a classic powersuit

@goamazons' Gloria Hair* is equally classy, and even bigger

Now, it wouldn't be the 80s without curly (often permed) looks, so here's some, ranging in volume. Goamazons' Floris Hair*, simstrouble's Beatrice Hair, & @softerhaze's Rhiannon Hair are all long styles with cute curly bangs. simstrouble's Eddie Hair is similar, works for both frames, and rocks a shaggier mullet-style.

@candysims4-ccfinds' Bonnie Hair is a shorter curled look with plenty of volume

Kamiiri's got two hairstyles I *love* for this decade, the Simone Hair is a full, long, curly style, and the Celine Hair is shoulder length with beachy curls and just the right amount of volume.

Multiple-Decade

Sets

As hilarious as it is, ice-creamforbreakfasts' half of the My Wedding Trauma Set has some awesome pieces. The Kelly-Marie Hair works great for 80s looks, and the dresses involved are right out of the class of 1987's prom. It even has an Elvis-inspired jumpsuit. (Check out surley-sims' half for the matching sunglasses)

Clothing & Footwear

@melonsloth's Jolene Outfit is a wonderfully classic outwear piece

@casteru's Bodycon Wrap Dress is just that! It's simple and works great on 70s-80s ladies.

Jius-sims' Retro Collection has some great footwear as well, they're simple and classic enough for all sorts of decades looks

@hezzasims released some beautiful 50s-inspired pieces, though I think they work great in any decade!

Hair

daylifesims' Long Rose Petals hair is simple enough for any decade, though I particularly love it in the late 1970s & early 80s.

The same goes for simstrouble's Rhoda hair, it reminds me so much of my mom's when she was a teen in the 70s & 80s.

[saintsenara]

what are ur thoughts on all the young dudes man i gotta know

i've never read it, and i can't really see any situation in which i will. not only am i wolfstar-ambivalent, i'm also wizards-knowing-loads-about-muggle-pop-culture-ambivalent - so i'm very much not the target audience.

[although i'm not "what's going on in the 1970s"-ambivalent by any means, so there's that.]

but i suspect anyone who reads this blog regularly knew that - and so i also suspect [even though i wouldn't dare to assume this of you and your intentions in asking this, anon] that it might be presumed that i'm going to pop off about several of the phenomena all the young dudes has set into motion...

and sure, the contemporary marauders subfandom is not a space i'm interested in spending any time in - which is why i don't - but i think it's nonetheless worth saying something in defence of it.

all the young dudes deserves more credit than i think it gets in the fandom more widely - especially in those bits of the fandom which are more interested in canon compliance and canon coherence - for being a genuine pop-culture phenomenon. all corners of the fandom have benefitted from this - i guarantee that huge numbers of people who have returned to the harry potter fandom since 2020 have done so because they've read it [or, at the very least, heard of it], and i also guarantee that many of those people have gone on to make a home for themselves in spaces which seem to have very little in common with the marauders subfandom [such as canon-compliant jily or pro-snape spaces]. many of the things it does - especially the integration of muggle pop-culture into its worldbuilding - have clearly influenced how plenty of authors approach their own work, even if that work is otherwise removed from it in vibe. and its aesthetic is all over the non-fic aspects of fandom too - every "canon-compliant" moodboard or edit or playlist i've ever seen would fit well into the atyd universe. i think it doesn't hurt to acknowledge its influence - it doesn't mean that an author can't disagree with its approach.

[or: my view on all the young dudes is very similar to my view on taylor swift. i've never listened to a single one of her albums, i'm not sure i could name more than about five of her songs - and i don't think the five i can name are any good, i sometimes see flashes of the inter-swiftie discourse and it's like reading a text in a language i can only half speak - but i would be a fool to dismiss her broader pop-culture influence, including on musicians i do follow more closely, or the fact that the fandom which surrounds her is both sincerely interesting, not least from an anthropological perspective, and something in which people i like and respect participate.]

i also don't think the divisions between the marauders subfandom and other spaces are as clear-cut as is often made out. and i think that all the young dudes often gets used as a stick with which to beat this point - particularly because people in the marauders subfandom are frequently accused of not having read the books, and elevating atyd's interpretation of characters [especially sirius and remus] and events over the seven-book series.

that the subfandom elevates fanon and headcanon over canon is a legitimate point. but i think we should all get a fucking grip and recognise that this can disinterest us - or even annoy us - and still not be something any of us should think is that deep.

after all, like anyone, i've encountered people in fandom who write unrecognisable versions of characters, are completely resistant to the idea that their interpretation isn't correct, and believe that it's evidence of deep-seated prejudice to pair their faves with different people... and every single one is someone who believes that their approach is meticulously canon-compliant.

or - as the old adage goes - "people who live in glass subfandoms shouldn't throw stones at roadman remus".

[mariacallous]

Milton Orr looked across the rolling hills in northeast Tennessee. “I remember when we had over 1,000 dairy farms in this county. Now we have less than 40,” Orr, an agriculture adviser for Greene County, Tennessee, told me with a tinge of sadness.

That was six years ago. Today, only 14 dairy farms remain in Greene County, and there are only 125 dairy farms in all of Tennessee. Across the country, the dairy industry is seeing the same trend: In 1970, more than 648,000 US dairy farms milked cattle. By 2022, only 24,470 dairy farms were in operation.

While the number of dairy farms has fallen, the average herd size—the number of cows per farm—has been rising. Today, more than 60 percent of all milk production occurs on farms with more than 2,500 cows.

This massive consolidation in dairy farming has an impact on rural communities. It also makes it more difficult for consumers to know where their food comes from and how it’s produced.

As a dairy specialist at the University of Tennessee, I’m constantly asked: Why are dairies going out of business? Well, like our friends’ Facebook relationship status, it’s complicated.

The Problem with Pricing

The biggest complication is how dairy farmers are paid for the products they produce.

In 1937, the Federal Milk Marketing Orders, or FMMO, were established under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act. The purpose of these orders was to set a monthly, uniform minimum price for milk based on its end use and to ensure that farmers were paid accurately and in a timely manner.

Farmers were paid based on how the milk they harvested was used, and that’s still how it works today.

Does it become bottled milk? That’s Class 1 price. Yogurt? Class 2 price. Cheddar cheese? Class 3 price. Butter or powdered dry milk? Class 4. Traditionally, Class 1 receives the highest price.

There are 11 FMMOs that divide up the country. The Florida, Southeast, and Appalachian FMMOs focus heavily on Class 1, or bottled, milk. The other FMMOs, such as Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest, have more manufactured products such as cheese and butter.

For the past several decades, farmers have generally received the minimum price. Improvements in milk quality, milk production, transportation, refrigeration, and processing all led to greater quantities of milk, greater shelf life, and greater access to products across the US. Growing supply reduced competition among processing plants and reduced overall prices.

Along with these improvements in production came increased costs of production, such as cattle feed, farm labor, veterinary care, fuel, and equipment costs.

Researchers at the University of Tennessee in 2022 compared the price received for milk across regions against the primary costs of production: feed and labor. The results show why farms are struggling.

From 2005 to 2020, milk sales income per 100 pounds of milk produced ranged from $11.54 to $29.80, with an average price of $18.57. For that same period, the total costs to produce 100 pounds of milk ranged from $11.27 to $43.88, with an average cost of $25.80.

On average, that meant a single cow that produced 24,000 pounds of milk brought in about $4,457. Yet, it cost $6,192 to produce that milk, meaning a loss for the dairy farmer.

More efficient farms are able to reduce their costs of production by improving cow health, reproductive performance, and feed-to-milk conversion ratios. Larger farms or groups of farmers—cooperatives such as Dairy Farmers of America—may also be able to take advantage of forward contracting on grain and future milk prices. Investments in precision technologies such as robotic milking systems, rotary parlors, and wearable health and reproductive technologies can help reduce labor costs across farms.

Regardless of size, surviving in the dairy industry takes passion, dedication, and careful business management.

Some regions have had greater losses than others, which largely ties back to how farmers are paid, meaning the classes of milk, and the rising costs of production in their area. There are some insurance and hedging programs that can help farmers offset high costs of production or unexpected drops in price. If farmers take advantage of them, data shows they can functions as a safety net, but they don’t fix the underlying problem of costs exceeding income.

Passing the Torch to Future Farmers

Why do some dairy farmers still persist, despite low milk prices and high costs of production?

For many farmers, the answer is because it is a family business and a part of their heritage. Ninety-seven percent of US dairy farms are family owned and operated.

Some have grown large to survive. For many others, transitioning to the next generation is a major hurdle.

The average age of all farmers in the 2022 Census of Agriculture was 58.1. Only 9 percent were considered “young farmers,” age 34 or younger. These trends are also reflected in the dairy world. Yet, only 53 percent of all producers said they were actively engaged in estate or succession planning, meaning they had at least identified a successor.

How to Help Family Dairy Farms Thrive

In theory, buying more dairy would drive up the market value of those products and influence the price producers receive for their milk. Society has actually done that. Dairy consumption has never been higher. But the way people consume dairy has changed.

Americans eat a lot, and I mean a lot, of cheese. We also consume a good amount of ice cream, yogurt, and butter, but not as much milk as we used to.

Does this mean the US should change the way milk is priced? Maybe.

The FMMO is currently undergoing reform, which may help stem the tide of dairy farmers exiting. The reform focuses on being more reflective of modern cows’ ability to produce greater fat and protein amounts; updating the cost support processors receive for cheese, butter, nonfat dry milk, and dried whey; and updating the way Class 1 is valued, among other changes. In theory, these changes would put milk pricing in line with the cost of production across the country.

The US Department of Agriculture is also providing support for four Dairy Business Innovation Initiatives to help dairy farmers find ways to keep their operations going for future generations through grants, research support, and technical assistance.

Another way to boost local dairies is to buy directly from a farmer. Value-added or farmstead dairy operations that make and sell milk and products such as cheese straight to customers have been growing. These operations come with financial risks for the farmer, however. Being responsible for milking, processing, and marketing your milk takes the already big job of milk production and adds two more jobs on top of it. And customers have to be financially able to pay a higher price for the product and be willing to travel to get it.

[illleavemymessageinmysong]

When Winter Comes animated film - “The characters were designed between the director, Geoff Dunbar, and Paul…and the hair colour was very much directly from them”.

When the short animated film ‘When Winter Comes’ was released on 22 December 2020, just a few days after the release of the McCartney III album, which featured the song, it was met with widespread joy on Macca and Beatles social media. Most of the comments celebrated the fact that the film depicted Paul, Linda and the kids at High Park Farm, circa 1970/71. It’s even got Martha, their dog, it was pointed out.

There were, though, some problems with this interpretation. Well, for a kick off, the dad character, while clearly reminiscent of Paul on the farm, has the wrong colour of hair: reddish brown rather than Paul’s jet black. Most problematic is the fact that the kids depicted are most definitely not Heather and Mary. Instead, they are a red haired girl and a younger, blond haired boy (think it’s a boy but could be a girl).

Yet, we do have the character sitting under the tree who is clearly meant to be John Lennon. His pose is reminiscent of John’s on the cover of the Plastic Ono Band album and he is dressed as John was for The Beatles last photo-shoot.

So, that does ground the film in Paul’s life to some extent. It’s his old buddy, not some random bloke.

What about the mum character in the film? Well, she is, pretty clearly, a redhead. Not a blonde or a strawberry blonde. She’s a redhead, like the daughter. Is she reminiscent of how someone looked in 1970? Well, I’m glad you asked.

It was pretty much only at that time that Jane had that centre parting in her hair.

Look at the height differential between the mum and dad in the film, too. It’s more like a 5’6”/5’11” than a 5’9”/5’11”, yeah?

And while we’re at it, the dog isn’t quite Martha, is it? Like her somewhat but not really an old English sheepdog.

And that’s the thing: the whole animated film is delicately balanced between Paul’s real life and some alternate reality. Maybe in that other reality, John comes to visit. Sits under the tree, does a bit of writing.

A beautiful little film and not quite as it appears at first glance. Quite enigmatic.

[haveyouseenthishorrormovie]

Stats from Movies 101-200

Top 10 Movies - Highest Number of Votes

The Thing (1982) had the most votes with 2,313 votes.

The 10 Most Watched Films by Percentage

Shaun of the Dead (2004) was the most watched film with 69.30% of voters saying they had seen it.

The 10 Least Watched Films by Percentage

The Wicker Man (2006) was the least watched film with 67.02% of voters saying they hadn't seen it.

The 10 Most Known Films by Percentage

Friday the 13th (1980) was the best known film with only 1.04% of voters saying they'd never heard of it.

The 10 Least Known Films by Percentage

The Doll Master (2004) was the least known film with 88.49% of voters saying they'd never heard of it.

The movies part of the statistic count and their polls below the cut.

The Faculty (1998) You're Next (2011) Matriarch (2022) May (2002) Black Christmas (1974) Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006) Friday the 13th (1980) Jason X (2001) The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016) The Tunnel (2011)

Scream 2 (1997) Climax (2018) Raw (2016) Tusk (2014) A Serbian Film (2010) Waxwork (1988) American Mary (2012) In the Mouth of Madness (1994) The Fog (1980) The Mist (2007)

Ginger Snaps (2000) Scream 3 (2000) House of Wax (1953) Shaun of the Dead (2004) Night of the Living Dead (1968) Basket Case (1982) Malignant (2021) Attack the Block (2011) Insidious (2010) Trick 'r Treat (2007)

The Wolf Man (1941) The Invisible Man (1933) The Invisible Man (2020) Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933) Scream 4 (2011) The Last Broadcast (1998) Dark Water (2002) Dog Soldiers (2002) One Missed Call (2003) V/H/S (2012)

The Houses October Built (2014) Occult (2009) Willow Creek (2013) Savageland (2015) The McPherson Tape (1989) Waxworks (1924) Scream (2022) Possum (2018) Cemetery Man (1994) The Slumber Party Massacre (1982)

The Thing (1982) Count Yorga, Vampire (1970) Night of the Lepus (1972) Puppet Master (1989) Gargoyles (1972) From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) The Fourth Kind (2009) Dead Silence (2007) The Legend of Boggy Creek (1972) American Gothic (1987)

Netherworld (1992) The Bad Seed (1956) Satan’s Triangle (1975) The Creeping Terror (1964) The House That Would Not Die (1970) The Wicker Man (2006) Scream VI (2023) From Beyond (1986) Castle Freak (1995) Beyond the Gates (2016)

The Phantom Empire (1987) The Evil Clergyman (1988) Would You Rather (2012) Chopping Mall (1986) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) [REC] (2007) The Bay (2012) Happy Death Day (2017) Happy Death Day 2U (2019) Mayhem (2017)

Child's Play (2019) Freaky (2020) X (2022) Pearl (2022) Possession (1981) Possessor (2020) Hush (2016) Us (2019) Creep (2014) Creep 2 (2017)

The Witch (2015) Eyes Without a Face (1960) The Void (2016) Annihilation (2018) Color Out of Space (2019) The Thing (2011) The Relic (1997) The Doll Master (2004) Hellhole (2022) The Howling (1981)

[olderthannetfic]

Found a head-scratcher of a post from the Trolls fandom. A Trolls BNF is saying that two Troll characters from a release, which is not available yet, are gay-coded, and people need to stop shipping them with women.

Their logic is the VAs for both characters are gay, and one character has an earring on the right side. Of course, even if the characters are gay, they proceed to point out that representation is important, and it's "bad to erase it", which to me doesn't sit well. Logically, any additional things created from a property are not erasure, they are additive. And this is a kid's show. I do not think many kids are going to understand the "blatant", as they put it, significance of having an earring on the right earlobe. If I remember correctly, there are other meanings for that too.

But, they imply that people who either don't get the details, or want to try something different, are homophobic.

This... This is a children's cartoon. Am I way off the mark, or is this complete overkill?

--

I'm dying at the idea that 1. kids know the earring thing and 2. it's used consistently and understood in the 2020s. That's something boomers cared about in the 1970s. It's been functionally dead for like 20-30 years at this point.

And yes, as usual, people should STFU about shipping. It does not take away representation even if we agreed that coded earring troll counts as that.

[eluviannaa]

For October, 31 days of Lovecraft movies:

- The Call of Cthulhu (2005)

- The Lighthouse (2019)

- Dagon (2001)

- Color Out of Space (2019)

- In the Mouth of Madness (1994)

- The Dunwich Horror (1970)

- The Void (2016)

- Underwater (2020)

- The Whisperer in Darkness (2011)

- The Mist (2007)

- The Endless (2017)

- The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)

- Annihilation (2018)

- The Last Winter (2006)

- Prince of Darkness (1987)

- Resolution (2012)

- Spring (2014)

- The Borderlands (2013)

- Absentia (2011)

- A Dark Song (2016)

- Possession (1981)

- They Remain (2018)

- The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016)

- Possum (2018)

- The Ritual (2017)

- The House by the Cemetery (1981)

- The Resurrected (1991)

- Beyond the Black Rainbow (2010)

- The Innkeepers (2011)

- The Blackcoat's Daughter (2015)

- The Endless (2017)

[denimbex1986]

'Last month, the BBC offered an apology of sorts after a red-carpet reporter at the Baftas asked Andrew Scott, star of the film All of Us Strangers, about fellow Irish actor Barry Keoghan’s appendage. This had been the subject of conversation thanks to Keoghan’s naked dancing in the film, Saltburn, in which Keoghan’s floppy bishop steals the final scene. To settle this nagging concern the BBC turned to a gay man. ‘There was a lot of talk about prosthetics. How well do you know him?’ the reporter asked an annoyed Scott who shook his head and walked away.

Had a female actress been asked to authenticate another woman’s breasts, the scandal that would have ensued goes without mentioning, but the BBC dusted it off. ‘Our question to Andrew Scott was meant to be a light-hearted reflection of the discussion around the scene and was not intended to cause offence,’ the organisation said.

The gynarchy has made clear that objectifying men is perfectly fine and, after all, what’s a little light-hearted homophobia when gay movies are having a renaissance? All of Us Strangers – nominated for six Baftas but ultimately snubbed, and Saltburn, nominated for five – joined a handful of other gay titles that studios have banked on attracting an audience beyond the 4 per cent of the population who might traditionally see those films.

Where the box office didn’t pay off, critical acclaim largely has. 2020’s Supernova, staring Colin Firth and Stanley Tucci as a 60-something gay couple, and last year’s drama Passages directed by Ira Sachs, have also inched into a market where such movies typically didn’t belong.

‘Why are gay movies always so sad,’ people used to ask in the 1990s. Thirty years later, nothing has changed. Gay flicks tend to have three themes – loneliness, death, and villainy – and this recent batch of movies is no exception. The miniseries Feud: Capote vs. The Swans, released last month and based on writer Truman Capote’s final years, nicely encompasses all three.

‘New film All of us Strangers centers on gay loneliness and trauma,’ a headline on NBC News read, as though that’s anything new. And while I don’t know what ‘trauma’ is, I do know that gay people have always fixated on it and, increasingly, so does everyone else. Gay films haven’t changed, but the audience has. Women are lonelier, more promiscuous, and more atomised than ever and now they’ve discovered a whole sub-genre of cinema speaking to that and aiming to nurture those anxieties. Just a hunch, but the ladies sobbing along at home to Supernova are probably childless and spend many hours a week on Zoom calls.

When a gay film meanders too deeply into gay insider baseball, like Billy Eichner’s 2022 romantic comedy Bros, it bombs. The most resonate gay movie of all time might continue to be 1970’s The Boys in the Band, but the 2020 remake flopped, probably because it’s a story devoid of hope and beauty, only messiness and casual destruction –something gay men understand but remains far too raw and excruciating for women to enjoy.

Then there’s the other side of it – the neutered gay fan fiction written by and for women, like Amazon Prime’s horrendously stupid 2023 film Red, White & Royal Blue, which offers women magical gay pets to carry around in their dreams. When I asked the feminist writer Louise Perry about these films, she said:

"These are usually gay relationships represented in a uniquely feminine way: intensely emotional, no casual sex, very unlike gay porn for men.

I suspect that young women find these gay fantasies attractive because they’re scared of the asymmetries inherent to straight relationships, in which women are always the more physically vulnerable party. So, they invent fictional gay men and give them a style of sexuality more typical of women.

She continued: ‘Will & Grace was obviously created for women because the gay male characters are weirdly asexual,’ reiterating something gay men have speculated for some time, noting that the bitchy and boozy, heterosexual Karen Walker was the only character they gravitated toward.

That’s not to say women can’t write great gay stories. Brokeback Mountain, the most critically acclaimed gay movie of all time, was based on a short story by Annie Proulx, who revealed in a 2009 interview her frustration with fan letters wishing the story had ended on a positive note. Those ‘idiots’ who want a happy ending, she said, overwhelmingly tended to be men.'

[no-wings-no-angel]

So, the vampire movies i’m in a need to watch (in no particular order) are…

Vampire humaniste cherche suicidaire consentant (2023)

Only Lovers Left Alive (2013)

The Hunger (1983)

Vampire in Brooklyn (1995)

The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967) (aka Dança dos Vampiros, como eu vim a conhecer pela illustríssima senhora minha mãe)

Dracula (1931) (yes im a dumbass)

Dracula’s Daughter (1936)

The Vampire Lovers (1970)

My Heart Can’t Beat Unless You Tell It Too (2020)

Alucarda (1977)

The Lost Boys (1987)

Wir sind die Nacht (2010)

The Shiver of the Vampires (1971)

I’m taking suggestions btw, the more vampires the better!!!! (Already seen the obvious ones like bram stoker’s dracula, iwtv, nosferatu and twilight) (does twilight even count?) (yes it does)

IF YOU KNOW OF A BRAZILIAN VAMPIRE MOVIE PLEASE INFORM ME (im yet to watch vamp and beijo do vampiro alright?)