#it's just interesting through the lenses of gender and class from that time and from today's perspective

[bywandandsword]

It's interesting how Jonathan keeps equating himself with women, first with the gothic heroines of books, now "sitting at a little oak table where in old times possibly some fair lady sat to pen, with much thought and many blushes, her ill-spelt love-letter" and feeling the first bit of comfort in a while in what he identifies as a woman's room. I know tumblr keeps identifying Jonathan as the book's Damsel in Distress, but it's interesting that Jonathan is consciously identifying himself that way, rather than identifying with any number of the action heroes in books of the time.

I wonder what men in 1897 thought about it, and I wonder if it was a conscious decision on Bram Stoker's part

[wolfieloveswade]

My Love and mostly hate for X-Men: First Class explained, aka, what this huge X-Men Fan calls the worst X-Men movie of all time(lol)

back in 2011 when X-Men: First Class was released, me and my sister decided to watch it on dvd rental release, naturally, whenever an interesting movie comes along, especially something that we've always been a fan of ever since childhood, we like to give things a shot, no harm done right?

well, you would think(lol)

X-Men: First Class is what I personally consider to be the worst X-Men movie, number one, it's directed by matthew vaughn, whom I personally detest because the asshole is an obvious dinosaur misogynist and misandrist, that's right, typical stupid Hollywood director that views both genders through a completely trashy and sexist lense and pretends to care about both genders, but I digress, so yeah, the director is an asshole, number 2, jennifer lawrence is a terrible and disgusting actress(that's a conversation for another time lol), number 3, most of the young mutants in this movie are dumb asses I couldn't give 2 shits about, number 4, Kevin Bacon who is a good actor ended up playing one of the worst and cheesy villains of all time(and not the good type of cheesy), his performance was just bad and brutal and felt like alot like an Austin Powers villain only you weren't laughing because this stupid movie wasn't a parody, although it sure as hell feels like one, a really bad one

this movie has too many fucking flaws to count, the forced heterosexuality of Charles Xavier, who is obviously a Gay Man, he's the Harvey Milk of the X-Men for crying out loud

I need to talk about the highlights/the good things about this movie now

1.) James McAvoy as Charles Xavier

ever since I was a fan of the original X-Men growing up, I was always curious to see who they'd get to play a young Charles, when they cast James McAvoy, I fell head over heels in love with the guy, he's a beautiful Scottish actor who often plays British characters and he has the natural sensitivity and compassion of Charles Xavier, his portrayal although at times suffered some mild cringe, was still a stellar and beautiful young portrayal of the leader of the X-Men, McAvoy's performance of Xavier was at it's best in X-Men: Days Of Future Past, I honestly think he should've been nominated for a BAFTA for that performance, his performance was so good and beautiful that everytime I rewatch that X-Men movie, I'm in tears because he put his entire soul into that performance, you believe that this compassionate man is at his lowest point, you see a man who loves others so much but now he's at rock bottom and now he needs help from the greatest X-Man of all time(Logan Howlett aka "The Wolverine"), but I digress

James McAvoy as Charles Xavier is one of the biggest highlights of this film for me

it angers me that they could've went further with the Civil Rights Allegories of the 1960s and 1970s, to me Charles Xavier has always been a cross between Martin Luther King Jr and Harvey Milk, both men were great leaders and were both pacifists, they wanted equal rights for everyone and didn't view violence as the answer and both were also killed because of their brave views

what this movie missed was the opportunity to make Charles Xavier into a canon Gay Rights Leader

to all us of X-Men Fans all over the world, majority of us have always assumed that Charles Xavier was a gay man, we could read in between the lines that he once had a romantic relationship with Erik Lehnsherr aka Magneto, the man who is now his "enemy",

did anyone really buy that cheap ass fuck scene in the bar where Charles was trying to pick up a random woman? you call that flirting? I call that forcing a gay character to say stupid hetero things that they would never say in their lives unless they were deeply closeted

the entire time, throughout the whole movie, you can just feel the sexual/romantic tension between both Charles and Erik, these 2 men are head over heels in love with each other, but their views are so conflicting that it causes them to fight and not have a chance of being together/having a healthy romantic relationship

it's a tragedy, it's good story telling but it's also tragic

Charles and Erik are Gay and always have been, they're a tragic gay couple that can't be together because their beliefs aren't uniting them

2.) Michael Fassbender as Erik Lehnsherr

X-Men: First Class is the first time I've ever seen Michael Fassbender in a role and my God was he the perfect choice to be a young Erik Lehnsherr

honestly, without Michael and James' performances, this movie would completely fall apart and I think most people wouldn't even remember it

their chemistry is amazing, you actually believe that these 2 guys are head over heels in love with each other but because of their beliefs they just can't seem to find a middle ground with each other

their relationship is almost like Israel and Palestine, only Charles isn't dropping bombs

3.) Hugh Jackman's short Logan cameo

"go fuck yourself", only an icon can say those words and have everyone go wild, everyone knows that an X-Men movie without Logan isn't an X-Men movie worth watching

Logan aka Wolverine is our 80s action star when it comes to the X-Men Franchise, it's like watching a Terminator movie without a call-back or cameo from Arnold Schwarzenegger as the T-800 aka Uncle Bob

I'll admit, when I heard that Hugh Jackman was reprising his role as Wolverine for Deadpool 3, I knew my butt would be in that seat in the theatre, I was like, okay, you got my attention, I love Wolverine, he was basically my sexual awakening at a very young age, I just didn't realize it at the time

so yeah, if it's an X-Men movie, you gotta have Wolfie

4.) That Take That Song that plays in the end credits of the movie

Love Love by Take That is a masterpiece of a song, it actually also fits the theme of the movie perfectly, almost like it's being sung from Charles' perspective

perfect band, perfect song, perfect movie idea, just a movie that has so many fucking problems

now, back to what made this movie so bad

it looked like they were catering to stupid people

it feels almost insulting to our intelligence

Super Hero Fans aren't stupid, we're actually very intelligent and we love good stories that have a positive impact

Stan Lee created the X-Men for the outsiders of society, the oppressed, Mixed Races, LGBT, people with disabilities and so on

so the fact that this movie was catered to a dumb hetero male audience is completely insulting

Gay Men and Gay Women make up a huge part of the X-Men fandom, and don't forget the Bisexuals either as well as others,

this movie could've dealt with and could've shown what life was like for Gay People in the 1960s and the 1970s, they could've made the parallels between Charles Xavier and Harvey Milk,

could you imagine a storyline where Charles becomes the first Gay mayor of New York in early 1970s?

that would've been really epic to see on film and it would've been really heartfelt and revolutionary

this movie lacks a soul, it has heart in some parts, but it caters to an audience that doesn't know what it feels like to be hated on simply for being just you

heterosexual men aren't killed everyday just for being hetero men, Gay Men and Trans Men and Trans Women however are victims of violent attacks everyday, society still hates us for something we have no control over

I know this got long and turned into a big rant about LGBT Rights and issues but I digress, that's another conversation for another time

but this movie really pisses me off, it had the potential to be one of the greatest X-Men movies ever made but because of a retarded director, the movie lost it's soul along the way

[waterghoulcalamity]

I think it's way more layered than that. Race is a relevant factor in loustat's dynamic given this is an interracial relationship of a black and white man in the early-mid 1900s, but not the only one. Sexuality, gender expression, class, nationality... They're all important aspects too, as well as to how fans perceive them. But also the fanart, there are multiple ways to interpret it. You can see it as a something affectionate, an innocent kind of flirty, as something more sexual, as a dominant/submissive thing. But then again, people are way more nuanced than that? They can also reverse roles? A person of color and/or woman can be dominant sometimes? Doesn't mean it's always like that? There are scenes on the show when Lestat initiates things and moments when it's Louis who takes the action, for example. And submission isn't always helplessness, people can prefer to be submissive in certain moments and enjoy that. Also, Louis and Lestat both have feminine sides to them, whoever denies it isn't watching the show properly. And, yes, sometimes their experiences can relate to women because they're both queer and fluid in their gender expression, so things can intersect sometimes. But they're not women. They both have a masculine side too. They're still men. Not your 100% Alpha macho men troglodyte, somewhat androgynous/feminine too, but men. Denying that is also ignoring who both Louis and Lestat. So, to see them through heterosexual/binary lenses sometimes works and sometimes it just falls flat and fails. For me, the problem is to act like Louis is the epitome of stereotyped masculinity, strong, loud, violent, controlling, intimidating and Lestat is the soft, sweet, delicate, feminine, fun person in the relationship. Because that's a very harmful stereotype associated with black men (and black people in general) and not at all what happens on the show. But I don't want to criticize or make assumptions on these artists, because they could be black people or at least some of them. I see a lot of people of color, including Black people on this fandom, despite what people may think. And I've also seen fanart with Louis sitting on Lestat's lap. And depending on how you interpret it, that could be problematic too? With Louis being overpowered and controlled by Lestat? Again, people are going to interpret things in different ways, everyone has their own experiences, opinions and feelings about representation. That's why it's important to have black people talking about it, the more the merrier, because black people aren't a monolith and people won't agree all the time. You can't reach a consensus, but the majority oof the opinion should matter. Specially if it comes from other black, gay men with to some extent androgynous/feminine interests and expression. Because that's to who Louis is. Anyway, not sure if I helped you with this, I might have made it worse lol. But I think it's a relevant conversation.

no, it helped!! thank you, and i agree with you, people are nuanced and don't have a single side to them, nor are they alienated from external factors like society. i guess my main point of confusion was that i don't really see people "masculinizing", so to speak, louis all that much compared to how much they do that to lestat, so it surprised me when this turned out to be something that people would have a problem with.

also, i'm aware that race dynamics are very important in loustat. while lestat says "vampires don't do race" —and he means it, they still live in the human world around mortals who very much do race A LOT. i was just saying that, since my brain doesn't work like that, it had never occurred to me to attribute certain characteristics like dominance/masculinity to louis because he's black, not only because it isn't something that i'd do but also bc i never seen people attributing any of those qualities to louis period. rather than seeing it being about race, my brain took it that it always appeared like, since we've only gotten louis's pov until now and we were so well acquainted with his emotions and vulnerabilities, some people couldn't help but assume certain gendered stereotypes that we often see in media when it comes to heteronormative couples. the man is destructive and cold and the woman is sensitive and basically has feelings in general. in a way, we're supposed to pick up on all of these context cues —since we're seeing everything happen from louis's eyes, but we're not supposed to hyperfixate on a single dynamic either, there are many more factors at play than that.

i don't know if i'm explaining myself well, but i did appreciate your input and thanks again!

[gardenofyv]

Blog Assignment #3

Side by Side Comparison & Reflections on Candyman (1992) and Candyman (2021)

Growing up, the only “Candyman” I had heard was by Christina Aguilera (if you know you know). So hearing about a Candyman that would appear in your reflection after you said his name five times was giving total “Blood Mary” vibes and I was not all too excited about it. However, I had fairly big expectations for it before watching it for the first time simply due to the general word of mouth buzz it had as a classic Black Horror movie. That being said, let’s get right into it.

Candyman (1992), directed by Bernard Rose, is easily the scariest movie I’ve watched in this class so far. This original film had so many classic horror elements that I absolutely fear, from jump scares to the gore to his face and body being covered in bees. I genuinely did not expect this level of explicit gore coming into it and so I was watching this film from between the gaps of my fingers for at least a good quarter of it. However, despite all these classic elements that, in my opinion, successfully created a fearsome and gruesome horror movie, it was significantly problematic from the get-go when analyzed through gender and racial lenses.

Quickly going over the gender-related issues I had with this movie, we first see a gendered power dynamic between Helen and a male peer over their research of Candyman. He essentially sits and mansplains his work and the lore of Candyman to her and that to me just signaled an outdated yet very present gendered conflict specific to the sphere of academia. Additionally, speaking on women in horror in the 80s/90s, there is a disturbing hyper-sexualization and fetishization of women suffering. It goes unnoticed both the subtle and overt depictions of female nudity in horror films that I often question. It’s just interesting yet uncomfortable to watch unnecessary female nudity so obviously tailored to the male gaze in the middle of a horror movie. But that’s a deep dive for later.

Moving forward, as Professor Due mentions in her “Candyman” lectures, a central issue to this first film adaption of the Candyman story is that it portrays Black trauma through a White lens. Upon realizing Helen Lyle is the protagonist (and knowing that Candyman is a Black horror classic), I was immediately put off by the notion of an upper middle class White woman disrupting an entire community for the sake of her own personal research; research that would then ignite a series of murders and violent consequences for everyone around her but never her. Doing so directly or indirectly made the other Black characters- whether it was Benradette, Jake or even the bathroom thugs- feel more like props and background characters in the journey of a White woman’s experience in the “urban jungle” and a being a victim to the “coincidentally” Black monster that is Candyman. She’s going through all these history and horrors that originated in Black communities but the film never truly engages with the depth of that history and its effects on the communities rendering all the characters we meet in Cabrini Green to be rather flat or two-dimensional; acting more as historians and guides for Helen. Overall, while adding the element of race can make for a more inclusive and interesting story, it also calls for responsibility to portray narratives of POC accurately. Something this movie simply did not do.

Now, watching the Candyman released in 2021, directed by Nia DaCosta and produced by Jordan Peele, we see a dramatic yet much needed transformation of the story’s premises and message.

Instead of the blood and violence and fear being so upfront and directly tied to Tony Todd’s character like in the 1992 version, this adaptation, in my opinion, turns the horror more inwards in a psychological manner. Simply put, the 2021 reboot necessarily corrects the original by depicting Black trauma through a Black lens, respects Black pain and Black bodies (i.e. doesn’t kill off the Black characters for no reason), and maybe most importantly, reimagines Candyman as an avenging angel: “TELL EVERYONE”. This detail about this version of Candyman is so crucial to understanding the difference between the two films.

A quote that sticks out to me is when Colman Domingo’s character, William Burke, says, “Pain like that lasts forever. That’s Candyman. Candyman is how we deal with the fact that these things happen and are still happening”. Unlike the original, Candyman is not a monster that preys on and knowingly kills the innocents of the community. Here, he is essentially an avenger of justice- as seen in the killing of the corrupt cops- as well as a protector. I absolutely love the ending in which Brianna, who is in shock and fear of watching her lover’s psychological and physical transformation into Candyman, calls upon him to protect her in this situation. To me it indicates a kind of faith that she and evidently whole communities have in this version of Candyman.

Additional notes I had for the reboot are that mirrors played a much larger role. All the violence and deaths mostly occurred in the reflection of mirrors keeping it to a very specific area and it just felt more contained yet impactful compared to killings left and right in other horror films. To me, this pushed more of an introspection of the idea and fear of candyman, almost forcing characters to confront their relationship or fear of candyman and what he represents.

[gingerswagfreckles]

Queer is my fave word, thanks for posting about that book, I'm gonna try to get a copy! It's just awesome to have an umbrella term for not feeling cis-hetero but not entirely certain where you fit under the umbrella yet.

Ahh yes!! You mean Gay New York by George Chauncey? That book is THE book on queer history in the US (it's really not just about NYC, but it is focused there). Not only is it the most meticulously well researched book I have EVER read, it is just. So brilliant in how it analyses the construction of and intersection of gender, sexuality, biological sex, class, race, and society. Like I read it for a class in freshman year of college and trust me I was already EXTREMELY liberal and well versed in queer discourse. Yet it completely I mean COMPLETELY changed my understanding of not only sex and gender but just like. What identity is, how much of what we see as static and natural are actually very contextual social constructs. And it really showed in a very concrete and reality based way how every identity exists and is defined through the context of its environment, and that while our experiences are very inherently real, the lines we draw around these experiences to define them are not. Like. The existence of a queer identity the way we generally think of it now did NOT exist in the same way throughout history. The intersection of so many facets of life have been interpreted so completely differently throughout history and in different places and social contexts. The queer community has never been some static and well defined club that one is or is not a member of. It is and always has been a nebulous and highly changeable social network of people with common experiences and interests who have defined their own communities in wildly different ways depending on where you look. Trying to strictly define who does or does not belong in or who has or hasn't existed in the queer community throughout history is completely pointless, because in reality we are talking about an absolutely enormous group of people who have been variously connected to and socially isolated from others, who have seen their own identities and their own communities in completely different ways.

It really highlighted for me how pointless 99% of the discourse on this website is, and how much almost all of it boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of what identity is. NONE of the identities we think of as inherently real are inherently real, and arguing about who should be included in a community or who's identities are "valid" just shows that you think the framework through which you understand sex and gender is universal rather than cultural, contextual, and highly individual. Like, identities overlap! Identities step on each others toes!!! Words and labels change, and people do not universally agree on what they mean at any point in time!!! You would not believe how many people who you would think of as being part of the queer community didn't think of themselves as part of the queer community, and you would not believe how many people who you do NOT think of as part of the queer community DID see themselves as part of it, and were accepted!!

Like, for example, the interpretation of what it even meant to be "homosexual" was SO different depending on what period on time you look at, what location, what social and financial class these people were part of, what racial identity they saw themselves as (and that's a whole 'nother can of worms!) Sexuality was often seen as MUCH more connected to gender performance and sexual roles one took than it is today, and a lot, I mean a LOT of men who always topped did not see themselves as homosexual/gay/part of the queer community at all, especially in working class communities. And!! Guess what!! This is the part that will really blow your mind!!!

T H E Y W E R E N ' T W R O N G!!!!!!!!!!!

They were not WRONG about how they defined their identities or how they saw themselves in relation to a certain social community!! Because they were using their OWN social and sexual framework to interpret their identities and their actions!!! And saying they were WRONG in their interpretation fundamentally misunderstands that the criteria YOU use to measure whether someone is part of an identity or social group is not any more correct or real than the criteria THEY used! Saying these people were "wrong" is to impose one's own modern and highly contextual social framework on people from the past-- and TBH it's fine to see people from the past through modern lenses, and to recognize that they would be seen as gay/a certain identity by modern standards. That's fine! But the way they saw themselves then wasn't wrong, it was just different, and your criteria for what you see as gay or straight or part of a community is just as arbitrary and based on the context of your environment as theirs was.

People like to argue with this all the time, saying things like that these individuals were just suffering from internalized homophobia, gender bias, ignorance of what this or that identity "really" means, and these people are really really really misunderstanding the point. These are usually the same people who say things like "words mean things!!" when points like the one I'm making are brought up, because they continue to misunderstand how much these words yes, mean things, but mean things within historical and cultural contexts that are NOT shared by the entire world. Like, ok, you may say our example man from the 1910s is gay whether he recognized that or not, because he engaged in homosexual acts. But what does it mean to have homosexual sex? To have sex with someone of the same biological sex? Well what is biological sex, and how do we define what makes ones biological sex the "same" or "different" from your own? Is it someone with the same type of genitals as you? That's not a universally shared opinion, and the way you define the "types" of genitals are not universally shared either. What if I told you that there have been cultures throughout history who have categorized biological sex through the length of the penis, with people with shorter penises being seen as a separate sex than those who have longer penises? So two people with penises could have sex with each other and not be understood as having sex with someone of the same sex, in that culture!

Oh, that's not what you meant? That's wrong? Why? Why? Because your personal understanding and your culture's general perception of what biological sex is is more valid and real than that culture's? Why? WHY? Could you really explain why, or is it just that the difference is making you uncomfortable, because it threatens your perception of a LOT of the ideas you see as inherently real?

And we could do the same thing with the ACT of sex! I mean, what is sex? What physical acts are sexual, and what aren't? Is it just someone putting a body part inside of another person's body in some way? Well what about handjobs and other kinds of outercourse? Is sex then some physical thing we do in pursuit of an orgasm? What if you don't orgasm? Is it not sex then? Is sex the use of our bodies to derive general physical pleasure? Well what about a massage? Is a massage sex? In some times and places, many people would have said yes!

These aren't just theoretical questions- Chauncey outlines how these differing definitions of what sex is and what makes it queer not only allowed for a lot of people we would unquestioningly think of as part of the queer community to exclude themselves, but also resulted in the inclusion of people we would never consider to be queer now. Like, most female prostitutes who served only male cliental absolutely hands down refused to give blow jobs in the early 1900s, because blowjobs were seen as an extremely deviant expression of sexuality and were understood to be part of "homosexual" activity, regardless of the sex or genders of the people involved, because it was sexual activity that explicitly was not seeking to create a baby. This was a widely understood concept at the time, and persisted despite the fact that many of these women were using contraception and therefore obviously not seeking to get pregnant. Blowjobs were still seen as perverse and "homosexual," and thus not something most regular female prostitutes were willing to engage in.

Therefore! Female prostitutes who only ever had sex with male cliental but DID provide oral sex (and many other not-penis-in-vagina-activities) were often lumped in with lesbians!!! And treated as such in arrest records and propaganda! And guess what?? As a result, guess who these women usually hung around with, and where they usually could be found? Within the queer community and queer spaces!! These women were seen by the broader society as well as by much of the queer community as QUEER, and many of them likely understood themselves this way as well!

And for the record, these questions of what sex is and what gender is and what makes it gay or straight or whatever are not questions that belong strictly to the past. Survey the general population about what act they consider to have been the one where they "lost their virginity," and you will get wildly different answers. Survey self identified gay or straight people on what kind of sex acts they engage with and with who, and you will similarly find an enormous variation in reports.

And these questions MATTER! These questions matter, not in that we have to find some way to answer them, but in order to understand that we can't, definitively, and that thinking our own perceptions of any of these things are more valid than others' perceptions is incredibly harmful and dismissive to the lived experiences of other people. You can't define other people's identities out of existence just because they threaten or overlap or contradict with your own understanding of some concept, because your definitions of literally any of the criteria you are using to try to build your boxes are ALSO up for interpretation!

Like, I'm sorry I know I am rambling soooo much but you opened the same floodgates that this book opened back when I read it. If the people on this stupid website had any understanding of the history they claim to know so much about, they would see how their attitudes of "this identity is more valid than that identity" and "you can't sit with us because you're not actually part of this or that identity because my definition is better than your definition" is nothing new or woke or progressive, but is the exact same shit that has always been done and has been used to marginalize people who's existence or behaviors threaten the status quo. Like yelling at asexual or pansexual or nonbinary or aromantic people or whatever other group that they don't belong, or that their identity isn't real because it threatens the perceived integrity of another identity...it's all so stupid!! Your identity is also just a way for you to define yourself within your cultural context! Like I've literally seen people be like "asexality isn't a real identity bc if we didn't live in a society that was so sex obsessed then you wouldn't feel the need to define yourself this way." And it's like....what?? Yeah, ok??? But we do live in this society???????? And you can say that about LITERALLY ANY identity??! Not even ones related to sex and gender! Like "you aren't really deaf and deafness isn't real, because if we lived in a world without sound then you wouldn't notice you couldn't hear." Like yeah?? But we do live in a world with sound?? So...people find this term useful to articulate their experiences? And they might even dare to form an identity around it, and maybe a community, and might even become proud of it, even though it is a social construct, just like pretty much everything else??

It just drives me nuts. We go around and around in circles without ever understanding that so much of the bigotry we face is the same thing we are perpetuating with each other, because we don't understand that it is natural and normal for people's definitions of certain identities to conflict, and for their interpretations of the world to run up against each other sometimes. And that there is no strictly defined queer community, and who does or doesn't "belong" is not a decision that any one person or even any one culture gets to make, ever.

To try to finally actually wrap back around to what your actual comment was to begin with, I think queer is a wonderful word, and that GENERALLY SPEAKING in our current cultural context, it is used to encapsulate so much of the messiness and overlap that makes people so uncomfortable, but is what makes the queer community so great!!!!! That being said, it of course has had different definitions in different time periods and cultural contexts just like everything else, and some people may still have negative connotations associated with it and therefore not feel comfortable using it to self-identify. And that's fine too, as long as you don't try to force other people to stop using the term to describe their own identities on the basis that your definition is more real than theirs, which is the opposite of what queer history is all about.

If anyone is interested in the book I am talking about, you can buy it as an ebook, audiobook, or paper copy here: https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/george-chauncey/gay-new-york/9780786723355/

It goes into way way way more depth about everything I'm rambling about here, and backs it up with the most research and evidence I've ever seen in one single book. The physical copy is about as thick as two bricks stacked on top of each other, so if you can't get an exclusionist to read it, you can always just whack them over the head.

[artemisia-black]

You bring up an interesting point when mentioning Walburga. I’ve never seen her in particular as being put into that stereotype, but that’s strictly because I’ve always seen her in the lense of the themes in the Black family - notably insanity. To me when the warning about the Blacks is their emotionally unstable streak, I felt like Rowling meant to use Walburga as an example. At the same time when you look at the portrayal of women in the series in a larger scope, it definitely becomes problematic. (Rowling has admitted she struggles to write female characters I believe? And….it shows a bit, I hate to say it). I've taken it upon myself to try and mould an actual character by looking at the possible causes that could have resulted in Walburga's absolutely unhinged portrait.

My headcanons on her involve 1) a childhood where while she was treated well, the adults around her were still toxic and she developed neuroses that grew worse over the years; 2) Something that happened in Grindewald's War/WWII during the London Blitz (she would have been a teenager); 3) What will be an extraordinarily careful examination of how upper class women back then were very much ignored and misunderstood when it came to post partum pregnancy ; 4) A very intense, passionate love for the glory of her family that due to what happens in my #2 headcanon, spins out of control in her adulthood. Call it a suspicion of mine that perhaps...Walburga was not ready for motherhood and what was likely an intense personality came with mixed emotions that she herself couldn't decipher. And no one would help her because the Wizarding World seems to chuck mental well being right out the window.

As far as to why Rowling chose a female character to represent Black insanity, the only thing I can think of when choosing the optimistic route is a thematic portion of motherhood that lays in the pages of her planning notes and was never put into the book. Mothers are highlighted over other themes in the Harry Potter series. The negative route is as you said - some really unfortunate implications about JKR's view on the female psyche. She uses language when describing other female characters that I don't like as well (notably the phrase "shrill" to describe a voice).

Thanks for the ask. I love talking about depictions of mental health in literature especially when it overlaps with gender theory ( my specialist area of research and work).

I have a meta (linked below) about how problematic I find Walburga’s portrayal.

It really reinforces some very negative views of women and mental illness. And one of the key barriers that prevent women seeking perinatal mental health services ( in the UK) is the socially- coded trope linking mental health to being a bad mother. There are innumerable women who can both manage a mental illness and be excellent mothers to their children. And the conflation between Walburga’s so called ‘madness’ and her being a bad mother, gives me the deepest ick and just reinforces harmful tropes.

Also her ‘screeching’ seems ripped out of a diagnostic manual from the 1800s. And the dialogue should have just gone the whole way, and have Kreacher fetch her a vibrator for her female hysteria. I’m being slightly facetious but it gets me riled up lol.

And although I love the books, everything should be consumed critically

[boys-night]

Mickey and Ian - communication, sex, and relationship styles, post 11x07

Here’s my take on how Ian and Mickey relate to sexuality and relationship styles, thinking mainly about 11x07, but also looking more broadly at the series and including HoS. If you’re not interested in incorporating 11x07 in your version of canon, ignore this! I enjoyed 11x07 but I understand people have different ways of seeing Ian and Mickey’s relationship. I’m also doing the classic meta thing of taking seriously exaggerated/comic/contradictory elements in the show because that’s how I roll. 

Super long post under cut. 

I’ve been reading Sexuality: A Graphic Guide by Meg-John Barker and Jules Scheele which is where a lot of the following ideas and terminology come from. I’ve also been looking at Meg-John Barker’s free relationship zine on their website rewritingtherules.com. I highly recommend their work, including the podcast they have with Justin Hancock, The Meg-John and Justin podcast (although MJ has left now and it’s called Culture, Sex, Relationships, but you can check out the backlog!) 

They think about sex and relationship styles using various models including monogamy/polyamory, allosexuality/asexuality, romance/aromance etc. They look at these different facets of sexuality/relationship styles as complicated continua rather than binaries which shift over time. They also write about sexuality on an action/identity spectrum, communication strategies around relationships styles, and the windows into relationships. Here, I’m looking at all of these things thinking about Ian and Mickey’s relationship and as individuals within the relationship. 

The monogamy/polyamory continuum

I’ve seen a bit of debate about how to label Mickey and Ian’s relationship on the monogamy/polyamory spectrum and I think it’s a pretty complex question especially considering those labels mean different things to different people and that relationships shift a lot over time. While labels like these can be useful, they can also be rigid and restrictive in their own ways. 

Some terms that come close-ish to what they say they’ve decided in 11x07 are monoamorous and polysexual, considering they aren’t at all interested in romantic connections outside of each other but are up for sex (in a broad sense) with other people. But these terms don’t account for the agreement that they’re only exploring sex with other people when they’re together. 

As people have pointed out, some of the boundary setting around exactly how they’re involving other people in the relationship is left off-screen, and also they’re not necessarily going to form identities around how they act in one episode. I’ve also seen people suggest reading their relationship style as monagamish and/or that what they do with other people is part of kink/play. I think these make sense in different ways and that in 11x07 Ian and Mickey definitely focus more on what they do (action) rather than who they are (identity) in regards to monogamy/polyamory. 

In 11x01, Ian’s focus is more on identity. He sets up a binary choice between being monagamous or not in their relationship. 11x07 indicates they’ve moved through off-screen discussion into a much more personalised arrangement with more focus on actions allowing for flexibility over time. In 11x07, we see them agree on rules: sex in a broad sense is allowed outside of the primary partnership, love isn’t. They keep negotiations ongoing (e.g. in the bedroom, in the furniture store), and there is an indication that these rules could change over time. 

I’d love to read/explore more about the ways in which this approach has changed over the course of the whole show. At the start of their relationship, definitely prior to s4, they have much more implicit rules about who they can have sex with, and those implicit rules become problematic in s5, when they realise they’re not completely on the same page regarding them. They bring up clashing ideas around the rules when Mickey’s leaving prison in s10 too. In s11, their relationship becomes more intentional, with these rules stated aloud rather than assumed. 

The action/identity continuum in regards to gay sexuality 

On a slight tangent, I think there’s a comparison to be made here to how they relate to sexuality (specifically gender of attraction) and the idea of gay identity, which seems to develop in the other direction. For Mickey especially, for a long time having sex with men was something he did rather than something he was, and that’s gradually somewhat shifted over the course of the show. There’s so much more that can be explored here, for instance, about how the action-based approach is much more acceptable within the hyper-masculine environment he was raised. Terry also approaches it this way when talking about prison sex, for example. According to this very oppressive social script, having sex with men in certain circumstances can be OK but claiming that as part of who you are is absolutely not. 

But I also want to stress, I don’t think either approach to gay sexuality, looking at it through actions or through identity, is inherently better or worse. These different lenses on sexuality also intersect with class and levels of education. As explored in Sexuality: A Graphic Guide, the identity approach is also relatively a very modern way of seeing sexuality (late 20th century). Gender of attraction is also only one facet of sexuality (which includes amount of sex you want, type of sex, sexual roles etc.) but its now often regarded as the only or most important facet of sexuality. The identity-based approach is much more acceptable within the more aspirational/middle class settings they interact with in s10 and s11. In these seasons, Mickey and to a lesser extent Ian aren’t completely willing to accept it wholesale. I like how, for example, even well after “coming out”, Mickey often still approaches sexuality through actions rather than identity, e.g. his response to the woman at the flower shop asking if he’s a homosexual: “He is, I just like having another man’s dick up my ass.”

However, I also think it’s cool/interesting how Ian and Mickey both move towards and embrace various parts of mainstream gay identity in s11 too, and a large part of that involves combatting the sexism, femmephobia, and hypermasculinity with which they were raised, e.g. of course, singing and dancing to Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande in the bathroom.  

You could also look at the different ideas about the origins of their gay sexuality in HoS through this lens. Mickey goes for a psychological/behavioural approach (based in like early 20th century sexological theories); Ian goes for a born-this-way, biological/genetic approach (popularised in the 1980s as part of gay pride movements). 

Mickey’s approach is very old school (definitely a way of thinking that reflects his upbringing), which assumes straight is the norm from which gay deviates, to do with Freudian theory/the idea of homosexuality as pathology. He doesn’t, for example, seek to use the same model (Fiona’s bad relationship history) to explain why Lip is straight. Ian’s approach (”not because I was born this way?”) reflects his investment in the intractability of sexuality related to his strict opposition to conversion therapy models and the idea of being gay as a choice. It also reflects the way he reacts negatively/disbelievingly to Debbie’s more flexible sexuality (in s8?). While obviously it’s fucked up/impossible to force people to change their sexuality and it’s perfectly reasonable for him to define the origins of his own sexuality however he wants, this approach risks excluding more fluid experiences of sexuality. 

Again, Mickey’s approach is more behavioural/action oriented and Ian’s is more identity oriented. They both seem pretty willing to shift their ideas around this though (especially Mickey, who potentially is just regurgitating old stuff he’s heard without thinking). The concluding thought is that Ian is gay because he likes Mickey’s d, lol. 

Individual differences on sex and relationship continua

I really like the detail that Ian doesn't want to have sex and be friends with anyone else aside from Mickey. In 11x07, he doesn't want to make friends with the guys in the locker room although he's down for repeat sexual experiences which suggests he thinks he forms romantic attachment through a combination of both sex and friendship. It seems like it's important to him in his negotiation with Mickey that they don't form romantic attachments outside of their own relationship.

This relates back to the 87% thing in HoS where Ian says he tends to get at least slightly attached to everyone he has sex with and Mickey has 87% of his heart. Mickey doesn’t like the 87% thing at all but I reckon it outlines a really interesting difference between the two characters in regards to relationship styles. It indicates that Ian is comfortable with a slightly less mononormative way of doing nurturance/care than Mickey, while Mickey seems to initiate more of the polysexuality than Ian in 11x07. (Although of course, we don’t see how Ian would react if Mickey were to tell him he’s got 87% of his heart! -- but this is a very difficult to imagine scenario).

Sex is a big part of their relationship for both of them. Both Ian and Mickey seem pretty allosexual (e.g. they feel sexual attraction for other people generally), but Mickey is possibly even more so than Ian. Mickey also maybe falls on the aromantic/grayromantic spectrum (once again, the labels can be really useful but I don’t want to be too prescriptive/rigid). Ian seems to be more alloromantic, with a capacity to experience romantic attraction to a whole bunch of people. For him, sex and romance seem to be more interconnected in all cases although he can definitely separate the two (especially when thinking about transactional sex etc).

But I think it's more complex than that. For instance, Mickey reserves certain sexual acts for just between him and Ian and its clear that they have both intimacy and exploration in their sex life. From the outset, Ian and Mickey’s relationship involves exploration and excitement with sex, and provides a freedom to explore their sexualities in regards to sexual roles and kink. It’s clear that Mickey values the safe space Ian specifically gives him in this regard from very early on in their relationship. There’s a parallel here with the bathroom Gaga/Grande scene where Ian’s instinct isn’t to tease or make fun of Mickey but support him embracing more stereotypical gay behaviours and/or more fluid gender roles to the ones he’s grown up with outside of sex too.

Also it might be useful to complicate the idea of romance itself which is a really difficult idea to pin down and which seems to mean different things for both of them. I love the stress on friendship in 11x07. Friendship and also family connection play such key parts in their relationship with one another and the way in which they are attached, arguably even more so than traditional models romance. Both HoS and the Hopper painting discussion are interesting to think about in regards to the ways Ian and Mickey think about the concept of romance differently and the ways it intersects with or differs from their ideas around friendship/family. I like how Mickey’s willing to see getting a coffee together as romantic in a positive way for instance after Ian explains that it’s about togetherness in hard times. While maybe Mickey sees Ian’s suggestion of having a bath together as awkward/weird because he views it more as trying to live up to a social script of what is “romantic”.

Communication strategies around relationship styles

In s11, Ian and Mickey’s relationship is very entwined, and, in comparison to Tami and Lip, for instance, they disclose a lot to each other. Ian asks that they tell each other everything, and although Mickey is more resistant to that initially, he becomes much more forthcoming with his feelings in s11 (around Terry, around moving to the West Side, around becoming a parent). 

While I appreciate Ian’s role in initiating more communication between the two of them, I felt sorry for Mickey in their initial discussion in 11x01 in re “monogamous or not”. The turning over the paper method is a pretty binary way to open up a discussion about a very charged and complicated thing. 

They do seem to complement each other in this regard though with Ian generally more keen to initiate conversation but also getting more trapped into binaries, narratives of normativity and should-stories. While Mickey totally still projects an image that is informed by local expectations around masculinity and white supremacy, he’s also a rule-breaker in many ways and doesn’t have the same desire to conform to what society perceives to be “normal” (thanks HoS), especially behind closed doors and within his relationship with Ian (“liking what I like don’t make me a bitch”).  @fiona-fififi had a really good point in the tags a while back about how Mickey’s investment in their wedding and its success might have spurred Ian on further to embrace more normative ways of doing relationships. This is super interesting, and also makes me think just about how being married itself prompts Ian to think about taking a more active role in pushing the relationship further up the relationship escalator and in pushing for more communication around these steps in general. 

There’s also something to be said about pressurising each other in 11x07, especially when they jokingly(?) threaten each other with sex with other men if both of them aren’t around. I doubt they were making these suggestions seriously but it definitely doesn’t strike me as the most consensual method of communication. But there’s parallels here with generally using sex as a bargaining chip earlier on in the season. Ian seems to do that after having exhausted his attempts at trying to have conversations around money/monogamy etc, as a tried and tested way of getting Mickey to engage with him. And it definitely reflects using sex with each other and sex/relationships with other people (e.g. s3 Angie/Ned, s10 Byron/Cole) as modes of communication in earlier seasons. It kind of makes sense that they still have these habits in s11 even if they are no longer the primary mode of communication. 

Ian and Mickey relied so much on implicit communication in the early seasons and they have highly developed nonverbal ways of communicating. I don’t want to say that either verbal or nonverbal ways of communicating are inherently better than the other. They seem to understand each other on a deep level, which is really cool, but people have pointed out can make them think they don’t need to verbally communicate when they do, because they assume that they’ll understand one another and be on the same page. It’s super interesting to see them maintain that deep connection and continue to use nonverbal cues while also adopting more explicit and intentional communication styles in s10 and s11. 

The windows of their relationship

The fandom is always bringing up how Ian and Mickey leave the doors open when they bang, lol, and also making fun of how much Ian overshares. I think this is v fair but it also strikes me as pretty healthy that he wants people to see into his and Mickey’s relationship, especially in his discussions with Lip. But Ian’s got plenty of people around him who can see and help when things get tough. 

In s11, it’s great to see Mickey get closer to the Gallagher family and see various members defending him or taking his side in arguments, but he definitely does have less of an on-screen support system than Ian. (I wish that they had developed his and Sandy’s relationship in s11). I think the aftermath of the City Hall incident in s10 really reveals this particular imbalance in their relationship. On one level, Mickey moves in with Byron as a reaction to being hurt and even maybe a strategy of revenge/manipulation, on another, he doesn’t really have anywhere to go aside from the Gallagher house when/if he needs to get away from Ian. Also, the way he retreats back to the Gallagher house when he can’t deal with the Westside is an interesting development of this in s11. 

Ian’s need to share stuff about their relationship is kind of exciting considering his history of being unforthcoming about his relationships (and his history of being in a lot of secret relationships), as well as how difficult he found it to talk about Mickey while Mickey was away. But there is a different problem with ongoing talk around privacy and boundaries here too (Mickey doesn’t want Ian to chat about how he’s not into rimming!). Although to be fair, Mickey also chats about a lot of explicit sex stuff with strangers. 

Although they do ultimately decide against pursuing the pretty inorganic way of making friends in 11x07, Ian’s desire to make gay friends who he can talk to about relationship stuff makes sense in terms of the way he has been pushing for a more intentional relationship with more communication and more explicit discussion and compromise this season (and last season too). It also intersects with an idea of him/both of them going further to embrace gay sexuality as an identity. 

It’s interesting that Mickey’s the one to initiate this decision through ribbing Ian about his relationship with Lip. Why’s Mickey doing that? Is it just to be a little shit or is he also trying (subconsciously?) to activate Ian in some direction? (And also, maybe there’s a parallel there to getting their apartment in the west side, where Mickey’s the one inadvertently introducing Ian to the idea by pushing for them to go play in the pool). 

-----------

There’s a lot here which is just scratching the surface of thinking about Ian and Mickey’s relationship in the context of these different sexuality and relationship continua. For e.g. it would be really interesting to think more about this stuff in terms of shifting sex roles and kink exploration. Of course it’s all up for interpretation and I am sure I am highlighting areas that I’m personally interested in and inadvertently projecting myself/my own preferences and styles into this discussion. Very down for disagreements and discussions if other people are interested and manage to read all of this, lol. 

[nice-kill-tanaka]

If it's not to much trouble may i have a (male) host club matchup please. Im a Capricorn, my mbti type is infj-a/infj-a. I tend to be shy around new people but I can be somewhat loud around people who Im close to. My pronouns are she/her. I have long-ish length brown hair, green eyes, wear round glasses and have pale skin. I have a lot of freckles. My height is 5'0 I like to read books and also cook and bake food. Im not very athletic and im not a big fan if sports but I love to go roller/ice skating. I also have been playing the violin for 6 years. And I like to garden. I also like to watch nature/animal documentaries. I love animals and in planning on becoming a wildlife veterinarian. Some things I dislike are people who bend/ruin my books and people who talk over me when I try to speak. I hope this is ok, sorry if I spelt anything wrong. I hope im not bothering you :) also I hope the information I sent in is ok :)

[🌄 @armin-ocean-eyes​ requested one (1) regular Ouran High School Host Club matchup. I have just the ingredients for that! Sit tight while I get to work.🌌]

Taurus INTJ-t here 😗✌️So,,,,hi I guess! Also, since you are two (2) inches shorter than me, I am legally obligated to adopt and protect you. I apologize if I use gender neutral pronouns for you. That’s just my default!

Anyways, I have just the guy for you:

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

🌓Kaoru Hitachiin🌓

(Please tell me this is Kaoru, gifs are stupid 😭😭😭)

🌱Humble Beginnings🌱

You are the daughter of the C.E.O. of a successful publishing agency

You were no stranger to the wealthy lifestyle. But, your parents made it a point to not let you become vain, lazy, or unsympathetic to the human condition

I’m not too sure if there’s an actual term for this, but a thing I like to call “right-brained intellectualism" was emphasized in your household. Basically, the ability to classify complex human emotions and not only understand them. But, view them through the lenses of objectivity and abstract concepts (Hence, the “right-brained” part)

The goal was to instill curiosity in you to explore how different personalities act in different situations and why. This could ultimately help you guide your social interactions in the future

(Forgive me if I'm speaking over your head! This information serves a purpose I promise!)

So, essentially super-charged EQ

But, here's where it comes in handy:

Due to your reserved tendencies, you weren't that high on Ouran's social ladder. Especially in middle school. You tried your best not to pay that fact any mind, reminding yourself to always pack an extra novel in case you finished your current one during the day

But, the (sort of) benefit to having so much time on your own, was that you had plenty of time to observe the students around you. Their actions, quirks, and relationships

Two particular oddballs caught your eye

Brothers. Identical twins that seemed to want no company than that of each other

You knew they had names. You knew what they were. But, not being able to pin a name to an identical face made that fact lose meaning

They didn't have any friends (Which wasn't a hyperbole). But, neither of them seemed shy, like you were

Rather, they were the asocial types. And you saw secondhand that they went out of their way to keep their little world for only them

You had accidentally seen one day what they did to girls that dared to confess their feelings for one twin. And that only reaffirmed that trying to figure out why the Hitachiins acted the way they did was too much pressure for your meek little heart

But...still.

There weren't any surface level answers to reach for that could calm your curiosities (Other than just passing the Hitachiins off as jerks and moving on). You could tell their reasoning was much more complex

And that. Frustrated you

To ease your mind, you wanted to start off small: Learn which is Hikaru, and which is Kaoru

One day, just before the lunch period started, you had finished your current novel. But, when you reached for the extra book in your bag, it had ✨vanished✨

You panicked a bit. You knew you packed the book. You re-checked earlier in the day!

The teacher unfortunately noticed you looking around like a lost puppy, asking what was wrong

"Mm?? Oh- uh...I just lost my book. It's, y'know, it's fine! I'll just...look for it later..."

The teacher didn't pick up on how embarrassed you were, asking the class if someone wanted to help you look

You were surprised when someone actually raised their hand

And just your luck, it was one of the twins, who turned to his brother and reassured him that they'd see each other at lunch

You (lowkey paralyzed by fear) followed the Hitachiin's lead, waiting until the rest of the class had left the room to begin your search

But, as you started to sift through the shelves in the back, you felt the boy tap your shoulder

And there it was in his hand, the first edition book on botany you had gotten for your birthday not too long ago

"You...you found it already??"

He rubbed the back of his neck, more bashful than you would've pegged him for

"Kind of…? I took it during class. I thought your reaction would be funny, but it was sort of just hard to look at. It would've just been cruel to embarrass you more in front of everyone."

"Oh...well, thanks for telling me at least."

The boy raised an eyebrow, your reactions catching him off guard once more

"You're not mad?"

"Not really. You realized your mistake and that's more than some can say. So, I can forgive that."

"Hm...well, I should get going. I can't keep him waiting!"

Before he left, you called out to him, asking for his name

"Hm? Kaoru."

🌳Flourishing Love🌳

The start of you and Kaoru's romantic relationship actually began in high school

The (in)famously idealistic Tamaki Suoh had approached you, Hikaru, and Kaoru to be a part of his new "host club". The twins as a part of the service, you as the manager (To garner male financial support, of course :D)

Since you weren't involved in a club anyway, you agreed to join next semester for your first year of high school

Once Haruhi came into the picture, you became fast friends. Seeing as you were both practical souls, if not intellectual

Through your friendship with Haruhi, you got closer to the twins you were so afraid of all that time ago

Especially Kaoru, the twin you had spoken to first

Both of your crushes formed rather fast as you got to know each other personally (And since Hikaru was already starting to take interest in Haruhi)

Kaoru had fallen for the way you never made face-value judgements of people. Like how you were so understanding about his dumb prank on you just last year

He learned to love the bright rays of passion that shone through your timid exterior. The way you talked about the things you loved like they were the greatest things in the world. You always made your case with such conviction, and Kaoru couldn't help but believe you all the way

You, Haruhi, Hikaru, and Kaoru were hanging out in the courtyard one day, and Kaoru had managed to get you to talk about the flora and fauna in the area (Which quickly segwayed into how you loved gardening and caring for animals)

All the while, Kaoru intently listened, staring at you like you were the only person in the world

During a pause in your avid canine classification spree, Kaoru picked up a few cornflowers that had fallen from a bush, putting them in your hair and behind your ear

While you were blushing up a storm, Kaoru bluntly, but sweetly, confessed

Hikaru and Haruhi looked on, endeared that the two sweetest souls in their little group had finally gotten together

In your relationship, you manage to draw out the more relaxed and mature side of Kaoru's personality

(Though, you always get a good laugh out of his more cunning and mischievous side)

You always affirm to him that he can enjoy both sides of being a twin, and being his own unique person. He doesn't necessarily have to choose

Kaoru definitely takes advantage of your height difference, using you as an armrest at the most inopportune times

He loves to kiss each and every one of your freckles (At least, on your face and neck). No matter what you think of them, he sees them as little targets to go for when he wants to shower you with love

But, like a respectful boy, he always lets you take off your glasses first if you need to

You guys went ice skating for your first date! Since it was your hobby, you paid for skating, and Kaoru paid for food afterwards. Kaoru knew how to skate, but pretended not to so he could have an excuse to hold your hands

Kaoru found out about your violin training later in the relationship, immediately teasing you about playing for one of the host club's sessions at some point

He has undoubtedly picked up a disturbing amount of animal facts from you and the documentaries you watch. He shares them with the host club to get disgusted reactions from them, and flattered smiles from you 😊

Y'all are just so freaking cute together, I need to chug salt to get the sweetness out of my mouth ❤️

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[🌌 There you go bud! That’s one matchup for the road. Hopefully it lasts for a while, but if it doesn’t, feel free to come back! I’d be thrilled to see you again.🌄] —Reagan

[yurtletheturtlehenderson]

COSMIC - S1:E5; Chapter Five, The Flea and The Acrobat - [Pt. 1]

A Will Byers x Gender Neutral!Reader Series

𝘏𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘣 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘴 𝘔𝘳. 𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯.

||𝟑𝐑𝐃 𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐏𝐎𝐕||

His heart racing, Hopper could hear the blood pumping in his ears as he ran through the twisted corridors of the lab. Beads of sweat dripped down his face as he swiftly maneuvered the facility be had just broken into in search of the missing boy.

"Will?" His desperate calls echoed off of the cold tile walls.

"Will?"

In the midst of his frantic haste, he had gotten turned around. The chilling corridors all seemed the same and a new wave of panic flooded him. Taking a deep breath, the chief tried his best to recompose himself. He came across a crossroads; it resembled a four-way intersection that one may find on an ominous back road in the country. He stared ahead and sighed.

Each corridor was identical to the next. Cold and unwelcoming.

"You gotta be shittin' me." He growled under his breath.

Grabbing his bearings, the man kept straight and hoped for the best.

The hallway stretched for what felt like miles, when finally, after a few turns, it came to a dead end. He looked around and noticed this was quite different than the others.

The chief's instincts that had earned him the title in the first place suggested to him that the small corner of the facility had been long forgotten. This particular area had been neglected the upkeep that was evident in the rest of the laboratory. Ahead of him lay two doors; an old broom closet, labeled as such, and a rather ominous looking door, with an accompanying window with a glimpse inside an untidy room.

This particular room piqued his interest. The door was closed, though the handle seemed to be broken, the room ajar. Hopper cautiously stepped toward the door, reaching his arm out and slowly pushed it open.

Hopper stepped inside the cluttered room, his heart racing, not knowing what to expect. It was clear that the room was designed to have a greater purpose, but had been hastily abandoned and eventually forgotten. It seemed that just about every item in the room, much like the rest of the facility, was made of steel. From the counters to the filing cabinets with half-opened drawers. His eyebrows furrowed in curiosity as he stepped inside and around the steel table to the cabinet on the opposite end of the room.

Knowing he had little time, he shone his flashlight into the drawer and he quickly rifled through the filing cabinet waiting for something that might catch his eye. Hopper sighed in disappointment when he found nothing useful. He began to shut the filing cabinet in defeat when he caught a small glimpse of a peculiar label shoved all the way to the back, almost like it was meant to be forgotten.

Tilting his head in curiosity, Hop pulled the drawer out as far as it would go and even then, the man had to reach for the file. It was a wonder he caught it in the first place. He pulled it from the drawer and examined the front with haste.

The label on the edge of the manilla folder had been scratched out and written over many times that it was now indistinguishable. The front cover was all blank, except for a few words that had been scribbled in black ink.

SUBJECT 009; THE MISSING EXPERIMENT

The familiar words sparked something in Hopper. With no time to waste he shoved the file into his jacket and closed the cabinet, making a run for the door.

Fortunately, Hopper was able to retrace his steps back to the where he had gotten lost, this time making a right turn down the hallway. He continued his calls for Will when suddenly, he found himself in a room, not that different from the strange room he found himself in earlier. Only this room, contained a bed.

And a security camera, which happened to be the first thing Hopper noticed when he entered.

He stepped closer to the bed, the light of the flashlight landing on a small stuffed animal, that was placed neatly at the top of the bed near the pillow. Frowning, Hopper moved his flashlight to the wall above the bed, a small piece of printer paper had been taped to the wall.

It was a drawing, clearly done by a child.

There were two people depicted in the drawing, in the form of stick figures. What appeared to be a tall man standing next to a smaller stick figure who he could only assume to be artist. The child wore a frown, and they faced a table that appeared to have a cat on it. Hopper almost didn't notice the words above each stick figure.

Above the child, was the number eleven. And above the man, written in messy handwriting was a single word.

Papa.

||𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑'𝐒 𝐏𝐎𝐕||

The five of us were scattered around Mike's basement. El was curled up on the couch, most likely physically exhausted from contacting Will. Mike was sitting at the opposite end of the couch by El's feet, concentration etched in his features. Lucas occupied the lounge chair deep in thought while Dustin resides at the bottom of the stairs.

"What was Will saying?" Mike wondered.

He began reciting Will's words from earlier in an attempt to recall the only clue we might have that he might be alive.

"Like home... Like home... but dark?" He stood up from the couch, hands still in his jacket pockets as he began pacing the room.

"And empty." Lucas pressed his intertwined fingers against his forehead, his eyes closed deep in thought.

My leg bounced up and down at an alarming rate, a nervous habit I picked up at a young age as I spoke up, my eyes still focused on one random corner of the room.

"And cold."

Dustin sighed.

"Empty and cold. Wait, did he say cold?" He looked around the room, seeming to second guess himself.

"I don't know, I think? The stupid radio kept going in and out." Lucas sighed.

"He did. He said cold." I muttered, unable to shake the haunting voice of my friend's terrified cries for help.

"Like home." Mike repeated once more. "Like his house?"

"Or maybe like Hawkins." Lucas offered eagerly.

"Upside Down." El muttered.

"What'd she say?" Lucas asked.

"Upside Down." Mike said, a hint of astonishment in his voice as something seemed to have clicked.

"What?" Lucas repeated.

Mike walked over to the table I sat at and looked at the overturned game board. It was then I recalled what El had been telling us the other night, with Will's game piece.

My mouth fell into a silent gasp as everything began falling into place. I turned myself back around in the chair and looked at the board.

"Upside down." I breathed.

Mike had taken a seat across from me, both hands on the game board while the other boys got up and joined us at the table.

Mike began flipping the board over multiple times as he explained.

"When El showed us where Will was, she flipped the board over, remember? Upside down. Dark. Empty. Cold." He finished, locking eyes with me as he said the last word.

"Do you understand what he's talking about?" Lucas asked me and Dustin.

We replied simultaneously.

"Yes."

"No."

We both looked at each other with confusion and a hint of annoyance for a split second before dismissing the thought.

"Come on guys, think about it. When El took us to find Will, she took us to his house, right?" I offered, gesturing all around me as I spoke.

Lucas shrugged.

"Yeah. And he wasn't there."

"But what if he was there?" I offered, eyebrows raised as I looked between my brother and Lucas. "What if we just couldn't see him? What if he was on the other side?"

The boys, aside from Mike, of course, seemed to consider this. Mike jumped back in as he flipped the board right side up once more.

"What if this is Hawkins and..." he flipped it back. "This is where Will is? The Upside Down."

Dustin seemed to perk up as he connected his own dots.

"Like the Vale of Shadows."

⊹ ⊹ ⊹

Dustin slammed Mike's collection of Dungeons and Dragons guides and spell books on the table and began flipping through the various guidebooks. After a few moments he stopped on the page he had been looking for and began to read aloud.

"The Vale of Shadows is a dimension that is a dark reflection or echo of our world. It is a place of decay and death. A plane out of phase. A place of monsters."

As he read the next sentence, Mike, Lucas and I all shared the same, unsettled look, and a chill ran down my spine.

"It is right next to you, and you don't even see it." Dustin finished, and looked up, sharing our looks of concern.

Mike spoke up.

"An alternate dimension."

It seemed I was not the only one who was having difficulty handling the information.

"But... how... how do we get there?" Lucas asked worriedly.

"We cast Shadow Walk." Dustin said.

"In real life, dummy." Lucas deadpanned.

"We can't shadow walk, but... maybe she can." Dustin offered.

We all look to a drowsy looking El.

"Do you know how we get there? To the Upside Down?" Mike asked her gently.

She shook her head softly and we all felt the heavy ache of disappointment. Some of us were better at hiding it.

"Oh, my God!" Lucas sighed dramatically.

I tuned out the bickering that began between the boys when I gestured for the handbook and Dustin complied, sliding it over to me.

Maybe, just maybe, there must be something in one of these books that could help us or even give us an idea. I began flipping through the spell book and found myself lingering on my characters class, the Druid. More specifically, the Druid spell pages, getting lost in thought.

My eyes scanned the pages, my hope and curiosity had bubbled down to desperation and boredom as I read the all too familiar page. This time, with a new lense.

I recognized the many spells I had used in previous campaigns; Produce Flame had gotten me out of a pinch with a mimic once, I smiled at the memory. And of course, Plant Growth - one of my personal favorites - Will would always tease me about my love for plants carried on into my character.

I soon found myself unable to tear my attention away from one of the lower class spells I always used, Cure Wounds. Something in the back of my mind kept gnawing at me. I bore my eyes into the page as I reread the words over and over again.

"You or a creature you touch regains a number of Hit Points equal to 1d8 + your Spellcasting ability modifier. This spell has no effect on Undead or constructs."

It dawned on me. That night we saw "Will". It was just moments before we heard the sirens, I realized my cut had mysteriously vanished. I had immediately gotten distracted when we heard the sirens and then everything happened one after the other that I had forgotten.

'How could I possibly have forgotten something like that?'

I thought about El. A week ago I never believed it possible to move things with your mind, but yet El could. It made me wonder.

I shook my head, clearly, I was grasping at straws.

'Remember what mom said?' I asked myself, some part of me desperate to bury the ridiculous notion growing in the back of my mind. 'My body has always been faster than most medicines.'

I broke myself out of my thoughts to see Dustin and Lucas packing up. Suddenly realizing how tired I was, I happily joined in and grabbed my jacket from the chair and we said our goodbyes.

[sweetsmellosuccess]

TIFF 2020: Days 1 & 2

Films: 5 Best Film of the Day(s): One Night in Miami

One Night in Miami…: I guess you could form an argument that basing a film on a pre-existing play would make the feature easier to put together, but that wouldn’t be taking into account the tremendous differences between the mediums, their relative strengths and weaknesses. For her feature debut, the Oscar-winning actress Regina King has cinematically adapted the stage play  by Kemp Powers about a fictionalized fateful night amongst four famous Black men in 1964. Those men, Malcolm X (Kingsley Ben-Adir), Jim Brown (Aldis Hodge), Sam Cooke (Leslie Odom Jr.), and Cassius Clay (Eli Goree), are all in town ostensibly to celebrate Clay’s beatdown of Sonny Liston to first become the heavyweight champion of the world at the tender age of 22. But the film puts them all together in Malcolm X’s modest hotel room, watched over by Nation of Islam security men, to spend a night, essentially, debating the merits of what they bring to the struggle for Black equality and economic emancipation, and arguing back and forth about their distinct positions. Here is precisely where many play adaptations falter, without the dramatic friction of a live performance to power the emotional core, such conventions generally fall flat on the screen, but King’s virtuoso acting instincts serve her able cast well, and her work with DP Tami Reiker allows the film to flow, seemingly organically between its few location movements. Working from a skilled script by Powers, the celebrated figures feel three dimensional, which gives even their more didactic diatribes (Malcolm), and pithy rebuttals (Cooke) enough weight to avoid sounding contrived. The cast work wonders on the material, granting a needed organic vibe to their nonfiction characters, echoing the essences without tipping into caricature. It’s a strong debut for King, and the film’s complex ruminations on the responsibility of successful Black people towards their community as a means of bringing attention to the country’s oppression couldn’t be more on point. At one point Clay tells Cooke the four of them will always remain friends, because they are among the few who can possibly understand what it’s like to be “young, Black, famous, righteous, and unapologetic.”

Shiva Baby: Danielle (Rachel Sennott) is in the midst of having a day. Turns out Max (Danny Deferrari), the sugar daddy with whom she has frequently been visiting as part of her regular prostitution gig, is somehow a friend or cousin of the deceased at the same Shiva she has come to attend with her well-meaning, but completely overwhelming parents (Polly Draper and Fred Melamed). If that weren’t enough in Emma Seligman’s spry comedy, Danielle is also horrified to find Maya (Molly Gordon), a successful young woman she’s known for years, and a recent ex, also there. Crammed into the Shiva house, full of cousins and aunts and uncles all kvetching about everyone else, and being physically grabbed and moved about by her mother, Danielle faces this house of horrors, with everyone commenting concernedly on her weight-loss (“You look like Gwyneth Paltrow  —  on food stamps!” her mother hisses at her), and her lack of job prospects when she graduates, and her parents telling scathingly embarrassing stories about her in front of Max and his shiksa wife (Dianna Argon), whose 18-month-old baby, her mom says is “freakishly pale  —  and no nose,” with no respite in sight. As a result of this sort of hyper-scrutiny, Danielle goes the only route that makes any sense: Lying to everybody about nearly everything, from her current major (“gender business”), to the many job interviews she has supposedly lined up. She’s just trying to get through the ordeal, one that Seligman, along with a continually spiraling score from Ariel Marx, ratchets up, until, near the end, poor Danielle is in a near fugue state, sweat glistening on her face, and the attendees, shot in unflattering slo-mo, and distorted lenses, take on the sheen of a waking nightmare. At a brisk 77 minutes, the film still doesn’t have quite enough to sustain its running time  —  at a certain point it begins doubling back on itself  —  but it’s still a lot of horrific fun, as Seligman expertly captures the absolute loss of agency one can feel, swallowed up in a claustrophobic family gathering, where escape feels futile.

Limbo: If Scotland has a cinematic identity, as such, it seems like the kind of place, desolate and unforgiving, where individuals come to exit regular society and come to a land filled with eccentric loners (stoic and unique in their oddities), in order to get better in touch with their souls. Ben Sharrock’s serio-comedy captures both the pitiless beauty of the land, and the lonely plight of a Syrian immigrant, Omar (Amir El-Masry), waiting with a group of other men from across the Middle East and Africa, on an island off the mainland, for word from the Immigration Office that his bid for political asylum has been accepted. Omar, sweet-faced and approachable, was a musician by trade in his native Syria, and walks around everywhere carrying his precious oud, bequeathed to him by his grandfather, also a musician, even though his right hand is locked in a cast from an unspecified injury. Even without the cast, however, you get the sense that his heart really isn’t into playing, despite the entreaties from Farhad (Vikash Bhai), his Afghani roomie and self-appointed “agent and manager,” who wants him to enter a local music contest. Omar is carrying a significant amount of weight beyond missing his mother’s fragrant home-cooking. Talking to her on the lone payphone on the island, where other immigrants-in-waiting stand in line for a chance to hear from home, she implores him to speak to his older brother, who chose to stay behind in Syria and fight in the Civil War that has plagued the region for years. Omar feels guilty for having left, and suffers from having disappointed his father in the process. It doesn’t help him that the culture he finds himself in seems so foreign to him, despite his speaking flawless English. Sharrock’s brand of deadpan perfectly suits the setting, but as funny as the film can be (when asked in a culture/language class to create a sentence using the “I used to” construction, one immigrant offers “I used to be happy before I came here”), it doesn’t paint a rosy affirmation for Omar and his ilk, stuck as they are, as the title suggests, between countries and lives. Omar’s pain is real, and for every positive step forward he takes, it’s one further away from his family and his beloved home country.

Enemies of the State: Sonia Kennebeck’s challenging and curious documentary seems at first to present a case for its protagonist, Matt DeHart, a young teen hacker interested in social justice, who through his work with Wikileaks runs afoul of the U.S. government, and his beleaguered parents, Paul and Leann, who vigorously defend their only child against the evil forces conspiring against him. Through a series of personal interviews with Paul and Leann, both retired Air Force intelligence officers, who believe their country has turned against them for what Matt had downloaded from his computer into secret thumbdrives shortly before the FBI arrived at their door and confiscated all his equipment, and various lawyers they employed, first to protect Matt from what they claim as utterly bogus child-porn charges, then, after they slip away to Canada in the middle of the night, the lawyers trying to earn them asylum. While in Canada, under close supervision and confined to his parents’ apartment, Matt uses his charms, his hackavist bonafides, and his skill at PR, to generate enough interest in his case to become a digital cause celebe, along the lines of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Protests are fronted, defense funds gathered, and pressure put on the government to come clean about why they seem so hard-driving against the young man. During a peculiar reenactment set in a Canadian immigration hearing  —  Kennebeck employs actors who apparently lip sync their lines in perfect time with the actual recorded audio  —  DeHart describes a harrowing ordeal earlier in the affair, after having moved to Canada to attend college, being abducted by the FBI shortly after crossing the border to renew his Visa, and tortured for days for information related to the material on the thumb-drives. Some documentation seems to corroborate his claims (even Paul and Leann, as fierce supporters as can be, were shocked to see just how ready the FBI were to snatch him), but as the film continues, and we hear more and more from the investigators and prosecuting attorneys about the original child-pornography crimes, it becomes clear that our sympathies are being played with by Kennebeck. By the end, the film itself becomes an indictment of our rapid-assumption culture, in which decisions of guilt and innocence are determined in seconds online and forever after based on the presentation of information before us.

The Way I See It: For non Trumpites, the switchover from eight years of the dignified, intelligent, and measured leadership of Barack Obama, to the perma-tanned tackiness of power-mad, narcissistic bloviating of Donald Trump, was like a double-feature that went from Citizen Kane to Kevin James’ Loudest Farts. One man better than most to measure Obama’s time in office against the subsequent regime is photojournalist Pete Souza, who served as the official White House photographer for both of Obama’s terms, and has gone on to become an outspoken critic of Trump by way of his devastating IG account, in which he juxtaposes stately Obama photos with Trumps scandal-du-jour. Lest you think he’s just another divisively partisan liberal, you have to take into account his previous turn in the White House, as one of the official photographers for Ronald Reagan’s presidency. In fact, Souza’s fly-on-the-wall quality was considered one of his strengths in the oval office. Documentarian Dawn Porter travels with Souza as he makes the media rounds promoting his newest book, Shade, a collection of those IG photos that have earned him millions of social media followers (a sort of companion piece to his previous book Obama: An Intimate Portrait). Hauling from far-off India (where he gets a standing ovation before he even takes the stage), to domestic conferences and speaking engagements, Souza emerges as a man becoming more used to being out from behind his ever-present Canon lens. Through that lens, as he displays to his rapturous audiences, he has taken many hundreds of indelible photos, showing Obama’s various interactions with foreign dignitaries, his council of cabinet members, and his more raucous time with his two daughters (one shot of Obama with his girls making snow angels on the rear lawn during a heavy snow storm remains his computer screensaver, Souza says with pride). As Porter moves from talking heads to public oratories, Souza’s remarkable photos  —  brilliantly composed, and inspiringly intimate, having been given nearly unlimited access to the president  —  play throughout, showing us a collection of images that capture the inspiring hope the president inspired and the agonizing rigors of the job he was elected to perform. The film spends little time on his Reagan years, except to note how media and image-savvy the former Hollywood actor and his wife were (Souza professes no political ill-will towards the Reagans, other than noting that while he didn’t always agree with him, he was a genuinely caring man, who at least understood the parameters of leadership). At first, the film trolls Trump by a sort of subtweet level of backhandedness: Without directly naming names, Souza makes it entirely clear who he finds failing in comparison to Obama’s empathetic, engaging deportment, but by the time the film comes around to his notorious IG account, there can be no doubt the subject of his ire. Souza maintains it has less to do with his partisan feelings (his political affiliation is never revealed), and more the way he finds the current president’s undignified manner and total disrespect for the office and the leadership it demands unacceptable. Trumpers will of course take great exception to the portrait the film portrays of the sitting president, but even the most hardcore GOP folks won’t be able to help noting the blatant differences between the loving, genuinely close Obamas; and the preening, viciously competitive Trumps, each trying to outdo the others in acting as their father’s primary sycophant.

In a year of bizarre happenings, and altered realities, TIFF has shifted its gears to a significantly paired down virtual festival. Thus, U.S. film critics are regulated to watching the international offerings from our own living room couches.

[incarnateirony]

Hey dude! Do you have any recommendations for LGBTQ+ movies in the romance genre that have like a happy ending. I really don't care how old they are. I'm feeling the Gay™ hence I need the Gay™. You feel me?

HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII NONNIE

First sorry for taking so long, not only did I have to timeline this :) but :) my computer :) froze :) after writing like :) 2 pages :) and I had to do it again :)

So anyway let it be said, the LGBT dialogue is one of osmosis and shared growth and awareness. Some of these films will be very poorly dated, but as you (thankfully) mentioned that them being old wasn’t a *problem*, expect a lot of old stuff. Because one of the most important things to have under your belt when talking about the LGBT media representation battle is the actual journey from A to B – be that incrementalization, subtextual inclusion, text-breeching features, outright evocative and groundbreaking films at the time (which is what MOST of this list will be) and an improvement in our dialogue; let us never forget that while tr*nss*xual is considered a slur and transgender is proper, tr*nss*xual was at one point the politically correct way to speak it – things like that breach in our growing understanding of the spectrum of human sexuality. 

I *WILL* disclaimer these aren’t all romance, so if you explicitly want romance, google them and take a look if it sounds to appeal, but I’m taking this as a general cinema history plug considering what a confused mess fandom conversation about LGBT history in film or modern text as applicable, accepted or not.

Wonder Bar (1936) (I wouldn’t really call this queer cinema, but if you have the time to watch it too, I think it was the first explicit mention of homosexual engagement even if it was fleetingly brief. You might even call it Last Call style. A blink and you’ll miss it plug that was still decades ahead of its time)

Sylvia Scarlet (1936) (Again, I wouldn’t call this queer cinema, but a lot of the community takes it as the first potential trans representation on TV due to the lead literally swapping gender presentation, even if the presentation is… not what we would modernly call representation IMO)

Un Chant d'Amour (1950) (Worth it for the sheer fact that it pissed off fundies so bad they took it all the way to the US supreme court to get it declared obscene.)

The Children’s Hour (1961) (also known as the 1961 lesson to “don’t be a gossipy, outting bitch”)

Victim (1961) (The first english film to use the word “homosexual” and to focus explicitly on gay sexuality. People might look on it disdainfully from modern lenses, but it really helped progress british understanding of homosexuality)

Scorpio Rising (1964) (Lmao this one deadass got taken to court when it pissed people off and California had to rule that it didn’t count as obscene bc it had social value, worth it for the history if nothing else)

Theorem (1968) (Because who doesn’t wanna watch a 60s flick about a bisexual angel, modern issues and associations be damned)

The Killing of Sister George (1968) (by the makers of What Ever Happened To Baby Jane)

Midnight Cowboy (1969) (…have I had sassy contagonists in RP make a Dean joke off of this more than once, maybe)

Fellini-Satyricon (1969) (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA THIS)

The Boys in the Band (1970) (This… this… this made a lot of fuss. Just remember leather)

Pink Narcissus (1971) (a labor of love shot on someone’s personal camera)

Death in Venice (1971) (This is basically a T&S prequel but whatever, based on a much older book)

Cabaret (1972) 

Pink Flamingos (1972) (SHIT’S WILD)

The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant (1972) (The title doesn’t lie, be warned)

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) [god I hope you’ve at least seen this]

Fox and His Friends (1975) (some really hard lessons that are still viable today, that just because someone acknowledges your sexuality doesn’t mean they give a shit about you as a person, and that some will even abuse the knowledge for gain)

The Terence Davies Trilogy (1983) (REALLY interesting history look it up, it’s sort of one of those “drawn from own experience” story short sets)

The Times of Harvey Milk (1984) (Documentary)

Desert Hearts (1985) (Pretty much the first film to put lesbianism into a good light as a true focus based on a novel from the sixties)

Parting Glances (1986) (the only film its creator got out before his death from the aids epidemic)

Law of Desire (1987) (two men and a trans woman in a love triangle, kinda ahead of its time)

Maurice (1987) (This one’s really interesting, cuz it was based on a book made about 15 years before it, but the book itself had been written half a century earlier and wasn’t published until after the guy died, he just thought it’d never get published Cuz Gay, so basically it’s based on a story written in like, the 20s finally getting screen time. It has a bittersweet but positive-leaning-ish ending without disregarding the cost that can come with it and even addresses class issues at the same time 100% DO RECOMMEND)

Tongues Untied (1989) (a documentary to give voices to LGBT black men) 

Longtime Companion (1990) (This one’s title alone is history, based on a NYT phrasing for how they talked about people’s partners dying, eg longtime companion, during the AIDS epidemic)

Paris Is Burning (1990) (Drag culture and related sexual and gender identity exploration as it intersected with class issues and other privileges explored in a documentary)

The Crying Game (1992)( I should correct this that I guess it’s more, 1992 considered, “SURPRISE, DIL HAS A DILL!” – I guess I really didn’t do that summary justice by modern language and dialogue as much as how people in the 90s were talking about that and that’s a my bad. LIKE. SEE, EVEN I CAN FUCK UP MY LANGUAGE I’M SORRY CAN I BLAME THE STRAIGHTS T_T) #90skidproblems – I guess I should call it a trans film. And this alone tells me I should go watch it again to recode it in my brain modernly rather than like circa de la 2000 understanding.

The Bird Cage (1996) (So you mix drag culture, otherwise heterosexually connected lovebirds, and then realize the girl comes from an alt-rightish house and the guy comes from a Two Dads Home and does cabaret, how to deal with the issues OF this conflict when it’s between you and your happiness, even if the fight isn’t even your own as much as it is that of the person you love. The answer is PROBABLY NOT to dress in drag and pretend to be straight, but what are you going to do? – while played for laughs we’d consider modernly crude, the fact that they even dared to approach this narrative was pretty loud)

The Celluloid Closet (1996) (Ever heard of the Vito Russo test for LGBT representation? This is based on a book by Vito Russo.)

Happy Together (1997) (Ain’t this shit an ironic name; a mutual narrative, via chinese flick, of hong kong ceding to china and an irrevocably tangled MLM pairing as a giant mirrored metaphor)

Boys Don’t Cry (1999) (one of the most groundbreaking films about trans identity at the time)

Stranger Inside (2001) (As easy as it is to recoil to the idea of “black gays in jail”, the film makers actually went and consulted prisoners and put a great deal of focus into intersectional african american issues that really weren’t around even in straight films at the time)

Transamerica (2005) (While it made a bit of a fuss for not casting an actual trans actor, it was one of the first times a big budget studio really tried to tackle it which really pushed us forward)

Call Me by Your Name (2017) (since I’ve apparently leaned really heavy old cinema throw in a modern one lmaooooo)

Also honorable The Kids Are All Right (2010) mention for the sake of the fucking title alone. 

And to any incarnation of “On the Road” by Kerouac, which

Was originally a book

Released a sanitized de-gayed edition because of the times

Later released the full homo manuscript

had a few film adaptations

Was one of Kripke’s founding inspirations for Supernatural once he left behind “Some reporter guy chases stories” and took the formula of Sal and Dean (and tbh later, Carlo) in a beat generation vibe gone modern as we know it today.

Reading both versions of this can actually help some folks currently understand that when you get confused over some shit (WHY IS CARLO SO UPSET? WHY IS HE ACTING LIKE AN UPSET GIRLFRIEND??? WHY IS HE SO JEALOUS AND SAD WHEN DEAN IS AROUND GIRLS???? WE JUST DONT KNOWWWWWWWWWWWWW) it’s because some big money asshat bleached the content, and sometimes, it takes a while for the full script to come out and again, surprise, it’s been GAY, they just didn’t want to OFFEND anybody. *jazz hands*

Now if you wanna go WAY WAY BACK, during 191X years, a bunch of gender role flicks came out like Charley’s Aunt, Mabel’s Blunder and the Florida Enchantment.

Also where is @thecoffeebrain-blog to yell about the necessity of watching Oz, for the next few hours? But no, seriously, just look into the entire LGBT *HISTORY* of Oz.

Beyond that though I’m gonna stop here cuz hi that’s a lot. I really don’t know how much counts as “happy ending” but if I had to give an LGBT cinema rec list, that’s it as a sum. I don’t really have like, a big portfolio of UWU HAPPY ENDING GAYS because 1. there aren’t a lot of those but 2. to me, it’s not about the ending, it’s about the journey. Be that in flick or through culture and history itself.

If you want more happy ending stuff, you definitely have to look at 2010+, but it’s not like we’re in a rich and fertile landscape yet so honestly just googling that would probably serve you better since I don’t explicitly explore romance genre or happy endings to really have a collection. LGBT life is hard and film often reflects that if we’re making genuine statements about it and really representing it, and we’re just now getting to a point of reliably having the chance at a happy ending. That or maybe someone can add like “Explicit happy endings” lists after this that has more experience in that subgenre.

Also, I can’t emphasize ENOUGH to remember what was progressive then is not what is progressive now, and frankly, what some people think is progressive now they’ll probably look back on what they said and feel really fuckin’ embarrassed. See: “It’s not text because by alt right homophobic dialogue, M/M sex isn’t gay if you do the secret handshake” MGTOW kinda crazy ass dialogue or parallel narratives they inspire that encourage self-closeting and denial based on the pure idea that being gay makes you somehow lesser, so It’s Not That. Like. I am. 99% sure. At least half of the people talking in this fandom. Are going to regret that the internet is forever. And maybe hope hosting servers end in the inevitable nuclear war that will annihilate this planet.

Also, edit: Speaking of mistaken dialogues and words aging poorly, I’d like to apologize from the poor description I rendered “The Crying Game” with, but that really goes to show how deep-seated the issue is we can so casually fuck up identifying a trans narrative as SURPRISE DICK IS GAY when we were all absorbing the content like 20+ years ago and HOW HARD it can be to de-code yourself from that kind of programming because here I am, writing a giant assed rep post and fucking it up because my brain hadn’t soaked that movie since Y2K. Guess what, time for me to go watch the Crying Game again.

[comparatist]

Sabitribai Phule: The First Dalit Woman To Be A Teacher

Savitribai Phule, was the first Dalit woman to be the pioneer of spreading education among the impoverished section of the society by working day and night, firmly sticking to resolution of making academia inclusive. She always raised her voice against unfair segregational terms of the society. During her time, education was reserved for the dominant caste, class and gender but then, she was brave enough to breakthrough the notions of dominant hegemony and was hell bent to provide for the oppressed communities.

• Personal Life:

Born in 3rd January, 1831, in Naigaon, 50 KM from Pune, Savitribai was the eldest daughter of Lakshmi and Khandoji Neveshe Patil. She got married to Jyotirao Phule at the age of 10 in 1840. The couple started living in a Dalit working locality. Jyotirao took interest in educating his wife and trained her to become a teacher. Shakharam Yashwant Paranjpe and Keshav Shivam Bhavalkar (Joshi), his two associates took the further responsibility of helping in the progress of Savitribai's education. She went through the formal teacher’s training at Ms. Farar's Institute in Ahmadnagar and Normal School of Ms Mitchell in Pune.

A Voice Of Dissent Ensuring Social Justice:

Savitribai was the first person in the country to become a teacher and headmistress as a woman. The couple started their first female school and set up a Native Library in 1863. They also built a ‘home' in their own house, which was a safe haven for tortured widows and pregnant women, meant for the prevention of infanticide. Together they established the Satyashodhak Samaj which preached of marriage devoid of dowry and extravaganza, supporting widow remarriage and protesting against child marriage alongside. Savitribai and Jyotirao had no child of their own, so they adopted the child of a brahmin widow, educated him, and arranged an inter-caste marriage for him.

Their constant resistance against the brahminical hegemony was a ray of hope for the Shudra and Atishudra women. She started a school for Mangs and Mahads but then a lightening struck their fortune when Jyotirao's father threw them out while the training was going on. Govande immediately arrived Pune and took the responsibility of Savitribai. When she returned, Bhavalkar looked after her education requirements. Throughout the training process, the couple encouraged vocational and the practical form of learning for both sexes, so that the students can flourish their own independent thought process. The believed in the attachment of an industrial educational sector along with the school so the children can learn useful trades and acquire craftsmanship to lead a comfortable life. Education should provide the agency of free choice, they preached. The school they created had special zones for children’s creative freedom. The planning and their dedication sprouted shoots of success when the parents of girls studying there, complained about the ‘overindulgence' of their daughters in studies.

• A Staunch Personality Overthrowing Obstacles : She was one of the flagbearers of gender justice during that time. Women weren’t allowed to access education then. She went forth against the normalised patriarchal set up enough, to make men wait for her in street, passing lewd comments, pelting stones or cow dung at her. She always kept 2 saris with her and change into the cleaned one after reaching the school, which would again get soiled on her way back. This happened everyday but she refused to back down. The guard who was appointed for a safety had in his memoirs written about what she would say to those men who teased her for making education available for women, “As I do the sacred task of teaching my fellow sisters, the stones or cow dung that he threw seemed like flowers to me. May God bless you!”

In July 1887, when Jyotirao suffered from massive heart attack and got paralysed from his right side, she nursed him from dawn to dusk and was always by his side. Her intense support made him recover quickly. However the financial system of the family was in tatters by that time. Mama Paramanand, a well known political sage and a well wisher tried to help them the most. In the letter to the King of Baroda, Sayajirao Gaekwad, Paramanand mentioned the historical ground breaking work the couple was doing and said the following about Savitribai, “More than Jyotirao, his wife deserves praise. No matter how much we praise her, it would not be enough. How can one describe her stature? She cooperated with her husband completely and along with him, faced all the trials and tribulations that came their way. It is difficult to find such a sacrificing woman even among the highly educated woman from the upper castes.” The couple had literally spent their whole time working for the marginalised sections.

Students living in their hostel had praises for the couple for their contributions. Laxman Karadi Jaaya from Mumbai said, “I have not seen another woman as kind and loving as Savitribai. She gave us more love than a mother could.” Another student named Mahadu Sahadu Waghole wrote, “Savitribai was very generous and her heart was full of kindness. She would be very compassionate to the poor and needy. She would constantly give the gift of food, she would offer everyone meals. If she saw torn clothes on the body of poor women, she would give them saris from her own house. Tatya(Jyotirao) would sometimes say to her, “One should not spend so much.” To this she would smile and ask, “What do we have to take with us when we die?” Tatya would sit quietly for some time after this as he had no response to the question. They loved each other immensely.”

When Jyotirao passed away, she was present there. As municipality had refused the burial of his body with salt as he wished, the last rites were performed in the pyre. Savitribai had courageously approached for the earthen pot to be held, then, and consigned his body to the flames. It was the first time in the Indian history, that a woman performed the funeral rites. Savitribai later erected ‘Tulsi Vrindavan' with his ashes on the spot where he wanted to be buried. After his demise, she took the reins of Satyashodhak movement in her own hands and was the chairperson of the Satyashodhak Conference in 1893 at Saswad, Pune.

• Her writings:

Poems that she had pinned down, along with other forms of creative outlets, are full of anti caste hegemony sentiments and provide boost towards harbouring a thought of attaining a gender equal society. Her works continued to be an inspiration to many, not only in the present time, bearing the reflection of struggles of past, but in the near future too.

The list of her writings is presented here:-

1. Kavyaphule- Collection of Poems, 1854

2. Jyotirao’s speeches, Edited by Savitribai Phule, 25th December 1856

3. Savitribai's letters to Jyotirao

4. Speeches of Matoshree Savitribai, 1892

5. Bavankashi Subodh Ratnakar, 1892

• Death: The year was 1897. The plague had overtaken the city of Pune. People were dying in clouts. The Government assisted by the officer Rand went out for helping the needy. Savitribai with the help of Yashwant set up a hospital and would herself go to pick up people, hospitalise them and ensure treatment. She continued to serve selflessly in spite of being fully aware of the contagious nature of the disease. The son of Pandurang Babaji Gaekwad from the Mahad community was affected by the plague. As soon as the news reached her ears, she wasted no time, to rush him to the hospital, carrying the sick child on her back. This way the disease reached her too. On 10th March, 1897 she passed away at 9 PM.

• Teacher's Day:

Go, get education

Be self-reliant, be industrious

Work-gather wisdom and riches,

All gets lost without knowledge

We become animal without wisdom,

Sit idle no more, go, get education

End misery of the oppressed and forsaken

You've got a golden chance to learn

So learn and break the chains of caste

Throw away Brahman's scriptures fast.

Since 1962, 5th September is regarded to be the Teacher's Day and calls for apparently an unanimous celebration on the birth anniversary of independent India’s 1st Vice President and 2nd President, Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan. The popular understanding of teachers, educators and gurus has been moulded by upper caste brains and has been always represented through the upper class and patriarchal lenses in the form of Dronacharya, Manu etc. The ‘meritorious' men shaping the history with their social-political and economical dominance over the forsaked is just a version of excluding the contribution of the marginalised and emphasising on the insurance of the right to education for the privileged only.

For a counter, a section of people are already speaking up against such dire injustice and celebrating Teacher’s Day on January 3rd as Education day or National Teacher’s Day, on the birth anniversary of Savitribai Phule.

Our academia, nation has disregarded her works in the context of societal upliftment, to a great extent, by erasing her contributions from history books, nationalistic discourses and our memory. Her resistive stamina against brutalities performed upon the non-dominant sections is a stain in the brahmin dominated and appropriated knowledge system in India.

[eldritchsurveys]

822.

When was the last time you baked something for someone? >> I don’t remember the last time I baked something, period. Do you ever spend the night at random people’s houses? >> I’m trying to think of a situation where this would occur outside of being a traveller / transient type who couch-surfs... but even then, I feel like those people whose couches you’re surfing still aren’t random. What did you eat for dinner tonight? Was it any good at all? >> It’s still morning. What is the most annoying thing that your parents do? >> --- Would you be mad if your mom showed your boyfriend your baby pictures? >> ---

Would you say you’re someone who has good manners? >> I don’t know whether that’s true or not. I do my best to be respectful, and that’s that. When was the last time you went to an amusement park? Which one? >> Uh... does Luna Park at Coney Island count? That was like 6 years ago. Would you rather be kissed on the neck or on the lips? >> --- Do you completely trust the person you’re dating? >> I trust the person I’m married to about as much as it’s possible for me to trust someone (that isn’t an Inworlder), I guess. Has someone ever called you heartless before? Why is that? >> Probably. I say “probably” because I’ve definitely known myself to be callous about things, so it’s possible someone’s called me out for it. What color was the shirt you wore yesterday? >> Black. Have you ever completely given up on someone any time in life? >> Yeah. What is one thing you’re not looking forward to in the next week? >> I can’t think of anything that I even know is happening in the next week. Would you consider Christmas your favorite holiday? >> Yeah. Would you rather give someone presents or receive them? >> I don’t care either way. But honestly I’m selective about who I like receiving gifts from, because I suspect some people give gifts for reasons I don’t feel comfortable with. How many chances do you normally give someone before giving up on them? >> There is no set number. Did you parents know what gender you were before you were born? >> I don’t know. Are any of your really close friends pregnant right now? >> No. Are you for or against inter-racial relationships? >> *withering stare* Would you say you’re more of a pessimist or optimist? >> I wouldn’t say I’m either. I’d say that I have multiple lenses through which I perceive myself and the world, and some of those have darker tints than others, and some of them have lighter tints. Do you know what your true typing speed is? What is it? >> I don’t. That’s not even something that matters unless I was trying to get a data entry job or something. What would you say is the longest survey you’ve ever taken? >> I remember taking the 5000-question survey... what I don’t remember is if I ever finished it or not. Do you get bored by things really easily, or not so much? >> I get restless easily, and I also have a hard time... just not getting in my head about stuff. Like I’ll be interested in something I’m engaging with, and then this weird shit will start happening in my head to make me second-guess my interest level or become avoidant of the thing or whatever. Probably more shame-based bullshit, ruining my enjoyment of life once again. Do you hate it when people pronounce ‘potatoes’ as ‘taters?’ >> No. Have you ever been addicted to something unhealthy? >> No. Do you wear a lot of make-up on a daily basis? >> I wear no makeup on a daily basis. Who makes the best desserts in your entire family? >> --- When was the last time your received a hug? Who was this hug from? >> Earlier. Can Calah. Do you have good dreams or nightmares more? >> Most of my dreams are some level of neutral. I don’t remember the last time I had a particularly good dream. I do have bad ones on occasion. Would you rather color pictures with markers or crayons? >> Markers. I’ve never really liked crayons, even as a kid (I liked coloured pencils then, came around to markers as an adult). Do people come to you for advice a lot of the time? >> No. When the holidays come around, do you watch holiday movies? >> I have a few that I like to rewatch, but I actually don’t like most holiday movies (which is funny, since I love Christmas, but Christmas movies are just something else entirely). On the flip side, when I do find one I like, I really like it. Would you say you’re a friendly person or not so much? >> I wouldn’t say that I was a friendly person. I certainly do not feel like one. Have you ever / do you ever recycle? >> I don’t recycle. When was the last time you ate something from Burger King? >> I don’t remember the last time I was at a BK. It’s been a long time. When someone mentions a song, does it make you wanna listen to it? >> If it’s a song I like, sometimes. Do you usually talk more than you should about things? >> No. Who is the nosiest person you know? Do you like them anyways? >> I don’t know who that would be. When did you last talk to one of your teachers? >> --- How many class periods does your school have? What are the classes? >> --- Would you say you’re a faster or slow learner? >> I don’t know. I guess it depends on what I’m learning. I think some things I process more efficiently than others, and then there are things I almost just can’t process at all. Are you one of those people who like The Nightmare Before Christmas? >> I didn’t like that movie. Do you fully understand the concept of ‘love?’ >> I don’t think full comprehension of it is possible for one individual. I mean, that’s just my interpretation, who knows. Maybe full comprehension just isn’t possible for me, and everyone else is gliding along with lvl 100 knowledge about shit. Wouldn’t surprise me.

[hvforks]

Demystification: Occultism, Contemporary Art & the Market

Art: no other relic or text from the past can offer such a direct testimony about the world which surrounded other people at other times. In this respect images are more precise and richer than literature. To say this is not to deny the expressive or imaginative quality of art, treating it as mere documentary evidence; the more imaginative the work, the more profoundly it allows us to share the artist’s experience of the visible and invisible.  

Yet when an image is presented as a work of art, the way people look at it is affected by a whole series of learnt rules about art. These rules can be beauty, truth, genius, civilsation, form, status and taste. Many of these assumptions no longer accord with the world as it is. The world is more than fact, it includes consciousness. Out of true with the present, these rules obscure the past. They mystify rather than clarify. The past is never there waiting to be discovered, to be recognised for exactly what it is. History always constitutes the relation between a present and its past. Consequently fear of the present leads to mystification of the past. The past is not for living in; it is a well of conclusions from which we draw in order to act. Cultural mystification of the past entails a double loss. Works of art are made unnecessarily remote. And the past offers us fewer conclusions to complete in action.

For example, when we ‘see’ a landscape, we situate ourselves in it. If we ‘saw’ the art of the past, we would situate ourselves in history. When we are prevented from seeing it, we are being deprived of the history which belongs to us. Who benefits from this deprivation? In the end, the art of the past is being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to invent history which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes, and such a justification can no longer make sense in modern terms. And so, inevitably, it mystifies.  

Discovering works of art which have undergone a degree of mystification is what I love about art and art history. Uncovering these ‘truths’ is what gives a voice to the underprivileged or the hidden, and also shines a light on an unwanted underbelly of history, which in turn informs our present conditions. 

Through my time studying and working in the arts, I knew there were artists who were explicitly interested in occult themes; artists like William Blake (1757-1827) who’s iconoclastic positions on equality of the sexes and classes, the existence of magic and mysticism, and the right to unfettered sexual expression not only separated him from his peers but also marked him as controversial for his time; artists like Salvador Dali (1904-1989) who produced a tarot deck called the Universal Tarot in 1984, as well as writing a book titled ‘50 secrets of Magic Craftsmanship’ published in 1948, which is an unexplicit top tips of how Dali created his surrealist style of paintings using magical techniques; and another artist like Madge Gill (1882-1961) who believed she was possessed by a spirit called ‘Myrninerest’ and who was openly a member of the Theosophical Society. But the more I started to engross myself in my own esoteric practices, the more I started to notice occult and spiritual themes in art at my place of work; archiving 20th and 21st century art acquisitions. I saw it in Cecil Collins (1908-1989), Eileen Agar (1889-1991), as well as artist Greyson Perry (born 1960) and many more. However, unlike Blake, Dali and Gill, these artists weren’t explicitly documented as mingling with the occult. So what was going on here?

My first thought was to research these artists, to try to confirm their affiliations with occultism - but it became clear to me that it wasn’t about affirmation; it was already visible that occult symbolism kept recurring in art history regardless of whether the artist was ‘into’ the occult or not. To me, what was important was seeing that these themes had been repeated throughout art history for centuries - and there’s lots of great writing about that, for example: Carl Jung’s ‘Man and his Symbols’ published in 1964, or Carl Abrahamsson’s ‘Occulture: The Unseen Forces That Drive Culture Forward’, published in 2018. It became apparent that there were two sides to this: one side being that occult references in art history have been ignored and hidden; they have undergone a degree of mystification. A recent example of this is William Blake’s retrospective at Tate Britain (2019-2020). William Blake had an intense dislike and mistrust of the prevailing orthodoxes of his time: organised religion, divisions by class and gender, and the stultification of social conventions. He and his wife Catherine joined the New Church of Emanuel Swedenborg in 1789 where they practiced a more gentler, mystical form of Christianity in which truth came from personal revelation, not priestly academics and arguments. Blake had a desire for free love and the right for adults to engage in sex unfettered by ideas of sin or social ostracism, and subscribed to the kabbalistic belief that sex was a sacred communion with the Divine. To my disappointment, the exhibition did not explore Blake’s imagery and symbolism, but instead considered the reception of his art with his peers and the monetary value of how much he was paid for certain works; a somewhat capitalist perspective. At no point did the exhibition consider Blake’s radical thoughts, practices or politics; and so this truth remains somewhat hidden in the present; it has undergone a degree of mystification. 

During the last decade (2010-2019), I began to see a huge resurgence of occult popularity, especially in contemporary art and thus the art market. Which brings me to the second side: that occult themes are now gaining popularity in contemporary art practices, that occult or spiritually inspired works are being sold on the art market through commercial galleries and huge art fairs like Frieze - they have become marketable, valuable, and curatable… and most importantly, this means that they are now being viewed through the lenses of the learnt rules: beauty, truth, genius, civilisation, form, status and most importantly ‘good taste’.

Let’s briefly explore this idea of ‘good taste’. As sentimental as I personally am about art for art’s sake, from a strictly sociological perspective, I have to admit that taste is pretty intimately related to power. When you go to a museum you look at various objects on pedestals under special lighting which makes them look magical, which is not too different to when you go to a shopping centre and you walk past all the shop-front displays; but what sets museums apart from any shopping experience is that you can’t buy any of the art on display, and that’s important. In the retail context of commodity fetishism, you correlate your aesthetic taste with material desire, whereas in the museum, because you can’t buy anything, you feel like your aesthetic pleasure is pure, that you’re simply enjoying out of context objects - but of course, that’s an illusion. The museum is the context, and the context is telling you that the things you’re looking at are art. So, whoever decides what’s in the museum decides what ‘good taste’ is, what’s beautiful and what’s valuable, and that goes the same with the art market.

It’s no secret that occultism has been viewed as ‘bad taste’. The resurgence of occultism in contemporary art and culture is not without precedent: the occult has faded in and out of the cultural arena for centuries, from the Witch Trials of 1580-1630 during the Counter-Reformation and the European wars of religion, as well as the 19th century - the setting of the first widespread occult revival since the Christianisation of Europe; the early-modern witch hunts and the so-called age of reason, to the development of Wicca after World War II, the esoteric counterculture of the 1960’s, to the rise of the ‘Satanic Panic’ that troubled the US throughout the 1980’s and early 1990’s. It’s no lie that occultism has had a roller coaster of a time throughout history, but we can recognise this desire in our current moment - steeped in advanced capitalism, swift gentrification and right-wing political gains - the occult and spirituality now holds the promise of connection and empowerment to those who feel powerless. So, of course during this time of uncertainty, a new wave of artists have once again been inspired by occult and spiritual ideologies and themes. Currently in the art market, occultism is on trend and as the art market sees it; political and social turmoil surrounds us, so it’s no surprise new age spiritualism is booming. For example: Damien Hirst’s (born 1965) ‘Mandalas' exhibition from 2019 at the White Cube had people queuing around the block on the opening day, the esoteric was on the ascendent at Frieze Art Fair 2019 with many works exploring the spiritual and supernatural, including high profile commercial galleries like Maureen Paley, Gagosian and the White Cube. A take by Marc Glimcher, the president and chief executive of Pace gallery says: “For many, organised religion’s rejection of universality has left a gap.” for context; he made this statement after opening his new gallery in New York with a blessing from a shaman (2019). It was, Glimsher says, “a moment for the family that is Pace to reflect and appreciate one another and the journey. [...] a growth in the search for an expansion of consciousness today; artists are often the first to recognise and articulate this”.

But many of these ideas have their roots in the counterculture of an earlier time. What Damien Hirst is doing at the White Cube exhibition isn’t particularly new; he’s just doing it in a more acceptable time. But with this, such ideas have entered the mainstream and have become a saleable commodity. The new Pace gallery in New York has crystals embedded in its walls and the London gallery Sadie Coles HQ was selling ‘healing’ gems and minerals in its pop-up shop with the US artist Andrea Zittel (born 1965) (exhibition 2019). Occultism and spiritualism has arguably been co-opted by capitalism and spiritualist art is a booming business. But with any subculture that is embraced by the mainstream and commodified, has the concept of the occult or spiritual lost its purpose?

Let’s take a step back to Marc Glimcher’s statement; what caught my eye here was “artists are often the first to recognise and articulate this”, and well, he’s right. So, let’s examine who the spiritual artist is: if we strip back major western figures, also known as blue-chip artists who created occult inspired or spiritual art in the 20th and 21st century; for example: Wassily Kandinsky (1866-1944), Salvador Dali and Bill Viola (born 1951), then we’re left with predominantly outsider-artists, artists who are considered to be from a minority group, or middle-class artists who weren’t credited for their work during their lifetime. You see, a lot of mainstream visual art inspiration, especially in the fine arts, works in what we might call a trickle-up model of aesthetics, especially with religious and spiritual imagery in 20th and 21st century art. This kind of imagery and philosophy is created by the most marginalised groups and communities, then they trickle up to the middle classes, and then finally to big named artists and commercial galleries. A great example of this is Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) and his African Period which is also known as Primitivism. Primitivism ultimately led to the invention of Cubism and produced one of Picasso’s most famous paintings, the ‘Les Demoiselles d’Avignon’ (1907). During Picasso’s Primitive Period, he painted in a style which was strongly influenced by African sculpture, particularly ceremonial African masks. In the early 20th century, African artworks with spiritual significance were being brought back to Paris museums in consequence of the expansion of the French empire into Sub-Saharan Africa, which brings up a lot of questions about colinialisation, the theft of important spiritual works, and the cultural appropriation of Picasso’s work. We could say that this is happening now, with the popularisation of occultism in contemporary art. That small communities of marginalised groups have been creating and forming a specific aesthetic and philosophy for decades, sometimes centuries, which have then been accessed and popularised by the middle classes with things like yoga becoming more mainstream, mindful meditation apps, healing crystals and Harry Potter, which has then trickled up to the very top and is now being commodified at the art market. The occult has once again gone from ‘bad taste’ to being viewed through the lens of ‘good taste’. 

It’s no secret that the art market has taken a turn in the past two decades, works by women and people of colour are more popular than ever; maybe this is the elite taking advantage of people’s cultural shift towards inclusion and diversity in a way to capitalise on it, or maybe the elite are like, totally ‘woke’ now? To understand the market better, let’s take a look at an institution like MoMA; one of the world’s most important artistic institutions, it came into being in 1929 after a small group of rich New York benefactors made an initial gift of eight prints and drawings. That initial donation grew into the new MoMA which reopened in 2019 after a $450 million renovation which shows more of the museum’s permanent collection of 200,000 artworks. Before the renovation the museum could only present 1,500 artworks on average, now it can show nearly 2,500 works permanently. To put that in perspective, if MoMA stopped collecting new works today, but continued turning over the entirety of its permanent collections gallery every 18 months, it would still need more than 80 years to put everything it owns on view to the public just one time. MoMA decided to take new liberties with the chronological presentation of its collection, and introduced a more theme-based approach which will promote a healthy diversification of genres - putting a Pablo Picasso next to a Faith Ringgold (born 1930) for example. But why is that important? MoMA’s acquisitions and choice of display radically affects the market, and their choice of contemporary art always stimulates the market. It is no surprise then, that MoMA opened one of it’s new gallery spaces with printmaking artist and mystic Betye Saar’s work in October 2019 with the exhibition ‘The Legends of Black Girl’s Window’; this exhibition had an immediate impact on the artist’s prices. Celebrating the acquisition of 42 rare, early works on paper, this was MoMA’s first dedicated examination of Saar’s work as a printmaker and those acquisitions had an inflationary effect on the prices and popularity. Spotlights by major museums almost always have a virtuous impact on demand, and growth in demand means higher prices. And so in October 2019, thanks to institutions like MoMA, we saw a huge resurgence in art exploring occult themes hit the market; right in time for Halloween. 

Even though MoMA’s new expansion did more to reinforce the established canon than to atomize it, the museum’s expansion did more to reinforce the art market status quo than to disrupt it. In a museum system still largely subject to the preferences of its super-rich private patrons, it’s important to recognise that the new MoMA was largely made possible by checks bearing the same old signatures (David Geffen, David Rockefeller, Debra & Leon Black, Ken Griffin and Steven A. Cohen being the largest MoMA donors since 2015). However, with the inclusion of spiritually influenced works like Betye Saar at MoMA as well as the other countless exhibitions of occult or spiritual themed work over the past ten years: like ‘A History of Magic’ at the British Library (2017-2018); ‘Spellbound’ at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (2018-2019); ‘The Medium’s Medium’ (2019) and ‘Art + Revolution in Haiti’ (2018) at The Gallery of Everything, London; as well as Damien Hirst's ‘Mandalas’ at the Whita Cube, London (2019); Lenore Tawney at Frieze as part of Alison Jacques Gallery (2019); Melanie Matranga’s wall hangings at Frieze as part of High Art (2019) and Shana Moulton at the Zabludowicz Collection (2019) to name some of the more recent exhibitions; I believe I can safely say that the occult is now going through a state of demystification (from the upper class patrons of MoMA, through to the working classes). The mystification of occult themes appears to be lifting and with this, a whole new occult perspective on not only current artistic practices, but also historic works of art are being discovered today; a good example of this is the Strasbourg Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art’s (MAMCS) exhibition ‘The Europe of Spirit or the Fascination of the Occult, 1750-1950’ (2011-2012) which explored a vast range of works from over 200 years which showed how the visual and literary arts were informed and inspired by appropriated occultism.  

With this demystification of history, we begin to see occult symbolism in the present: we gaze into pools of data, in a terminal trance running on light, power, numbers. We raise histories long dead on Wikipedia, we cast chat communiques to fellow citizens via vibrations. We summon demons, turn our base metal devices to the task of making gold, astral project into virtual worlds, program the very landscape we live in; and this resonates most strongly with working class and unrepresented artists across the UK (the trickle up model of aesthetics; the unrepresented artists are usually the first to notice). Artists like Chloe Langlois (born 1980), Arianne Churchman (born 1988), Joseph Winsborrow (born 1994), Craig David Parr (born 1990), and artist collectives like Chaos Magic, Dohm Ceramics and KÜHLE WAMPE are all exploring occult themes using digital ritualism. This could suggest that the current mining of the esoteric underground and the upsurge of mainstream interest in the occult mysteries serves a more practical function for young, unrepresented and working-class artists. It’s not about the return of Gods and the re-enactment of a technologically dischanted reality. Instead, it’s about the rediscovery of tools and strategies that are, paradoxically again, pragmatic and instrumental. These artists recognise that magic may help us map, manipulate, and navigate the weird political, social and technological landscape that yawns before us. 

Since the eighteenth century, the West has seen a profound transformation in the relationship between art and religion. The Reformation, the rise of capitalism, the ideals of the Enlightenment, the worship of Reason and the growth of the town all led to what Max Weber (1864-1920) called “the disenchantment of the world”. At the same time, the sense of the withdrawal of the divine that found expression in the Romantics, followed later by Nietzche’s announcement of the death of God, the advance of science, the emergence of psychoanalysis and the growing influence of Marxism, led to a reconsideration of Man’s place in creation and thus of his relationship to religion. It was in this landscape of belief violently unsettled that Modern Art came to birth. In the course of this long process the secularisation of society delivered artists from their subordination to occultism and spirituality; the crisis of religion did not at all mean the disappearance of metaphysical questioning. There remains a survival of such questioning today which continues to fuel the invention of contemporary artistic forms, and as such represents an essential key to the understanding of art history and contemporary art. 

Images: 1.  Shana Moulton, The Pink Tower and The Waterfall of Grief, 2019, exhibition view Zabludowicz Collection, London. Courtesy the artist and Zabludowicz Collection. Photo: Tim Bowditch

2. Madge Gill, Untitled, Undated, Courtesy Newham Archives and Local Studies Library

3. Damien Hirst, Mandalas, 2019, exhibition view The White Cube, London. Courtesy the artist and The White Cube.

4.  Left, Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, 1907 with Faith Ringgold’s American People Series #20: Die, 1967. Exhibition view Museum of Modern Art, New York, 2019.

5. KÜHLE WAMPE, Under Different Stars, 2019. Vivid Projects: Black Hole Club. Photo: Marcin Sz

[fenrirlives]

So after getting some feedback here and from some gacha folks on discord, the overall picture I’m seeing here is that people had a much larger problem with the way Minase wrote a lot of the servants and their interactions than the concept of Agartha in general. I also see alot of people base their dislike on the JP version, which I can’t really comment on because I don’t speak the language and I’m not a fan of basing opinions on possibly biased translations for or against the subject matter

tl;dr, I liked it a good deal! Hated the repetitive dialogue, but the blended fictional worlds, Megalos, and a bunch of other things were really to my liking! I view it as a cool singularity with a sloppy ending and sloppier dialogue. Not as good as Shinjuku, but leagues better than Septem, London, or Orleans on my chart.

also as far as villain servants go, Columbus goes in my “What a douche, I love em!” shelf of fame right next to Mebd and Teach. I mean look at this dude!

Truly Rider is best servant class in all respects! (also his artist is great go follow!)

Addressing the elephant in the room first, I was really confused at the whole misogyny complaints. I saw a few people who found the tyrants to be sexist in concept, while others took more issue with Fergus’ interaction with Scheherazade, or how Fergus as a character was treated overall. 

I don’t imagine there are THAT many people who see the kingdoms as the problem, as they never came off as a commentary on gender to begin with, and context shows that they wouldn’t even work as commentary since all aspects of them are either A) fabricated in regards to the non servants, or B) altered by Scheherazade’s Noble Phantasm in regards to actual servants. If anyone saw them as the writer’s take on gender roles, I think it’s unintended.

People taking umbrage with Fergus and Sche, I can understand a little more, as alot of that is a symptom of the repetitive dialogue that plagues this whole singularity. Fergus’ message near the end is one that I agree with (living in constant fear of death isn’t living at all, and using your trauma as an excuse to generalize or hurt other people is unacceptable), and I was a big fan of how the end of his quest to become a good king is realizing he’s just not meant to be one.

 The thing is, character arcs are carried by their dialogue, and having Fergy either repeat the same crap about training/not hitting women or break the pace of a scene to internally monologue about the philosophy of a kingdom really did no favors. I also wished that his revelation about there being strong women was something someone else told him instead of something he just randomly remembers when the time is convenient, because that makes his whole “younger self” aspect kind of meaningless outside of not letting him be playable. Medea and Medusa lily were far better examples of how one goes about writing these younger servants and their relation to the knowledge of their future selves.

 I think it would’ve worked better to use Adult Fergus instead, and have him show new levels of discomfort both with the situation in Argartha, and with his own behavior when first interacting with Sche (thereby betraying her expectations and reason for summoning him by actually being more thoughtful and reserved than she initially expected) . Maybe have him focus more on male camaraderie with Columbus and the resistance than sleeping with women, as I don’t imagine he’d have much interest in cell dividing zombies with fabricated personalities, even if he doesn’t know that’s what they are yet!

Now, Scheherazade is actually my favorite character from this singularity besides Wu. I love stories that have trauma & behavior developed from trauma (rather than principle built upon trauma) as an antagonistic force. Having to perfect your craft of storytelling to survive for over 2 and a half years while also suffering abuse and captivity is nothing short of awful, and the fact that this attracts the Demon Pillar to her and allows them to work together is really interesting.

 I did dislike the fact that she seemed more affected by her infatuation with Fergus than his encouragement to find strength and pride in her storytelling, and see her nature as a heroic spirit as a boon to it, rather than something to fear. It feels like a big flaw of her character in FGO, which is that DW can’t decide if they want her to be a shivering leaf that hates fighting, or a sly beauty that subverts authority with her tales. Ideally these two aspects should be combined, but it comes across as inconsistent since there’s no solid in-between to give that transition more nuance. 

That being said, I think the folks that label Fergus’ speech as inherently sexist are kinda missing the forest for the trees. No amount of headcanon or fan interpretation changes that he’s a character highly motivated by carnal instinct, and the fact that it’s the lense through which he tries to argue against Scheherazade’s viewpoint is pretty consistent, though the afore mentioned issues with his dialogue makes his sudden shift back to being horny on main jarring and could be fixed by him always being adult Fergus. I can at least appreciate that the story brings up the clumsiness of his words and that even if they get the message across, the flaw in delivery means that Scheherazade will not indulge him on his terms, even if she’s grown just a tiny bit out of her old mindset (plus everyone calls him out so it’s not like his attitude is treated as being “good”, just that it’s not all there is to him). Bottom line I love both those characters, and Agartha left them both in a place where I’d love to see more about them and their relationship explored!

Drake/Dahut was unremarkable (though I was a huge fan of the character design, and I wish DW would make that a skin for Drake). The concept of Ys and her being a creepy rapist/murderer using Drake as her puppet was interesting, but she really didn’t get screen time needed to do anything with that. Wu Zetian on the other hand, I felt was really fun!

I would’ve liked to see her more before the confrontation while we were in the Nightless city, but her speech about working her way up from nothing to becoming a ruler through sheer tenacity, contrasted against the lady that tries SO hard not to let it show that she likes being doted on really clicked with me. All in all, she definitely swiped Gorgon’s spot as the 4 star servant I’m gonna use that ticket on later in the year!

Penthesilea and Megalos had the highlight of the singularity. Nothing was cooler than fighting a bunch of Amazons as those two clashed overhead, and despite almost losing that fight due to a string of Penthesilea’s intrusions hitting my team, I actually wish they did more damage at this point because I wouldn’t even be mad (fyi Colombus actually got killed by Penth during the Megalos fight and I couldn’t stop laughing).

Now if we’re talking about parts of Agartha I absolutely hated, that’s Phenex with a bullet! Besides his bossfight being the most drawn out and irritating thing ever, the fact that both him and the Pillar in Shinjuku don’t fight us in their more humanoid form feels like such a waste. These are supposed to be 4 (5 counting ccc) Pillars that had enough independence gained to run away from Goetia, so the fact that they still look like pillars and never become those human forms when we fight them seems like a real dropped ball here when it comes to visual storytelling and Story/gameplay integration.Also, after how radical Shinjuku’s final fight was, Agartha really didn’t do much to sell Caladbolg finally going off in the middle of the fight (the poison of Wu’s NP was a nice touch at least!)

so yeah, I had quite a few problems here, but I always regard the art and media I consume on a component basis, and for me, the lows here really couldn’t beat out the fact that Agartha was this really cool combination of fabricated settings with tyrannical rulers facing off against a villain masquerading as a revolutionary hero, with a Nightmare monster appearing anywhere at any time, and our heroes seeking to find out which of these figures was the one truly responsible. 

This was always the strength of the Remnants imo, taking looser concepts that normally don’t fly in Nasuverse fiction, and using it to twist the rules of servants through singularities in a way the original seven didn’t outside of Camelot and Babylonia. It wasn’t as great as those two by a long shot, but at the end of the day, It’s left me quite excited for Shimosa, which I’ve been told is the hypest Pseudo Singularity out of the bunch. 

It sucks that this singularity gets such a bad rap when it has so many cool and interesting things in it, but if people dislike something, then there’s nothing for it. As for me, I’d give it a B- on an F to S scale, with Camelot still sitting at the absolute top for me. Anyway, Happy 4th of July tomorrow if you celebrate it, and here’s to EoR 3 and Shirou eventually getting in the game (lmao nope)

[my-wayward-son]

2 months on T-------------------> 7 months on T

I’m late with this post.  Again.  Because I’m doing really shitty.  Again.

First, let me address the obvious: yes, I’ve lost weight. (Well, if you wanna get technical, I weigh the exact same thing as when I started, which I probably shouldn’t).  But beyond that, I don’t want to talk about it.  That change is probably 25% due to testosterone and the tendency it has to aid in the development of lean muscle, and 75% due to other factors.

All the previous changes I’ve noted in these posts are still happening/happening more, such as still more body hair growing/thickening.  There’s really nothing new to report, except that I pass better when I have on glasses and teenage boy clothes (as opposed to professional clothes), but still get a lot of gender neutral and she/her designations mixed in with the he/hims.  

I had a dream last night about correcting my dad (his typical naming convention for me is Laura, I mean, Laur, she, I mean, Laur...) . So he’s trying when he’s in front of me, but it’s obvious he isn’t trying when he’s talking to my mom without me present.  I’m torn between being upset about it and letting it go.  My dad was diagnosed with Aspergers as an adult and he struggles with shifting his perspective.  This is something else I don’t want to talk about, but just know that my far-from-NT-yet-decidedly-allistic ass has a hard time reconciling it.

But anyhow, the transition is going great, and I have no reason to be upset about anything, but I’m upset about everything, and the rest is going under the cut because it’s going to be full of triggers (suicide and ED stuff).

For my whole life I never understood why anyone would want one of those dolls that you can customize to look exactly like you.  My thought was always, ‘what’s so special about me?  I kind of suck.’  I thought so little of myself and my live, even as a little kid, that I would rather pick the princess or the American Girl or whatever with the most interesting story and change myself to match.  Like I’d beg my mom for an outfit the same color as the character’s, or wear sunglasses with the lenses popped out, or only style my hair the same way as the character in order to adapt into that character.  

Of course all those phases were just that, phases.  They were highly tied to the media I consumed, and as I aged, that media changed.  So I was always editing myself to match my current obsession.  I never gave thought to what I was actually like, deep inside.  Like it didn’t matter what my actual personality was.  I hardly even thought about it until the end of high school, and then a series of traumas knocked me down a few pegs, and that sense of self didn’t come back to the surface until mid 2017.

In mid 2017, I went to a 2-week dance convention.  At that time I was living as female, had basically given up on the idea of transitioning, and was just trying to push through as a painfully shy 24-year-old who worked full time and danced part time with a local ballet company.  At the convention, I studied various styles of dance, realized I was extremely untrained in every field but ballet, and spent the entire thing on the verge of tears because I was with students over 10 years my junior in most of the classes.  It was an “all ages” program, but literally all the other adults were in professional level classes for all styles.  I was only in the professional level class for ballet.  I couldn’t wait for the convention to end.  I hated every second of it.  I had a chronic foot injury that made dancing painful (but not dangerous), but I’d always pushed through it because I loved it.  Now I could barely stand to go to class, even back with my regular company.  So I made arrangements to retire. 

I retired from professional dance in May 2018 and had foot surgery in June 2018.  I could dance again, if I wanted to, but I’m not ready yet.  Eventually I might go back as a recreational adult dancer, just taking class from time to time.  But I don’t know.  

I still love ballet, but as of a year ago, ballet was the one thing hanging over me that I hated.  I hated the obligation; I hated the way it tore up my body; I hated the way it made me exhausted and ate up all my spare time. However, I was damn productive.  I wrote so many fics and drew so many pictures, and I went to therapy at least every other week, and sometimes to PT.  I was at the studio approximately 20 hours a week, on top of working 40 hours a week.  But I guess I was so busy and tied to my obligations that I quite literally couldn’t fall apart.  

My uncle died (suicide, marking the 4th attempt and 2nd success in my family) and my granddad died (heart condition), so I had good reason to fall apart.  I was freaked out and sad for a while, but I was also fine.  I was a robot.  When I look back, I realize that the last time I was happy was prior to the 4th of July 2017.  I call that the “Wonder Woman Moment.”  I did a photo shoot for a ballet personal training/nutrition service that dressed me up in WW-esque dancewear.  We blasted Patty Smythe and had a ball.  Even though it was a really feminine thing, it was so much fun, and I had no worries.  It was July 1st 2017.  Before my uncle died, and before my granddad died and before I went to the dance convention.  That’s my last happy memory.

After unpacking some acute issues with grief and anxiety, my therapist started talking to me about my issues with gender ID.  By November 2017 I was thinking about transitioning (I had thought about it before, but never felt it was feasible).  By December, I’d decided it felt right.  I sought out a doctor in January 2018 and had my first appointment in February.  I told my mom on Superbowl Sunday.  Then a month later at my Oscar party, she basically washed her hands of me.

I love film crit and the Academy Awards almost as much as I love fanfiction and ballet and coffee and all the other good things.  I’ve been on the edge of my seat waiting for the 2019 noms to drop.  I know a few of them just from the grapevine, but I haven’t looked them up yet.  I’m still working from my early prediction spreadsheet, even though the actual noms are just a few clicks away.  I’m scared of the feelings that’s going to bring up.

One year ago, all I could think about was getting through the next 6 months and reaching a series of milestones: my company’s production of Alice in Wonderland.  Moving to a new apartment.  My company’s production of Water for Chocolate (an original contemporary ballet choreographed on me and 14 other dancers).  Starting testosterone.  Retiring from ballet.  Foot surgery.  I thought my life would be so much better.

And in a way, it is.  I have the confidence to do random shit, like walk into Autozone and talk to the workers about what is wrong with my car, then help them fix it.  A year ago, I would have panic attacks over things like that.  But a year ago, my mom loved me.  A year ago, I thought I’d have my current job forever.  A year ago, I thought once I got on T, my eating disorder behaviors would go away.

I’ve gained personal confidence, but lost so much else.  Lost my family.  Gained a new one, but still, I lost my relationship with my biological mother and father.  Lost my job satisfaction, which makes me worry that at some point I will have to interview for a new job and integrate with a new company, which is frightening in the extreme.  T has changed my body shape in the way I like, but it’s not magic.  I’m still afraid of eating, and stress doesn’t help.  I’ve also had health complications that add pressure and make me feel run down.  Some is my own damn fault (Hi, I’m Laur and I abuse OTC medications like a rebellious teenager, which is apparently not advisable when also on several prescriptions).  Some is a fluke.  But feeling like shit while also mentally feeling like shit has destroyed me.  I hate my life.  I hate everything.  I don’t see the value in anything.   

I know there’s a Spider-Man: Far from Home trailer out there.  I haven’t seen it.  I don’t know what to expect.  I want to see it.  But I also don’t want time to move forward.  I like the MCU as it is (I like it pre-Infinity War, actually, but nobody asked me, so I won’t belabor you with my opinion).

And that’s a good metaphor for my life right now.  It’s a mess.  I can’t picture anything far in the future, so the light from my proverbial headlights is dim and dull.  I’m afraid of moving forward, so my tires are spinning in place, kicking up mud and dust.   I’m incapable of shifting side to side, so when I do roll ahead a few inches, I hit every obstacle in the path.  If I just changed the lightbulbs, twiddled the steering wheel, took a breath and let myself move, I’d probably be fine.  But somehow that seems like the most impossible choice.  

I could slam the car into one of the cave walls, triggering a rockslide and killing myself.  If I did that, I know it would hurt a lot of people in my life, but it would also fulfill all of my hopes and dreams.   Peace.  Calmness.  Stillness.  Not having to deal with a world that insists on moving forward with the passage of time.  

The most compelling reason is that I can’t find a reason not to.  I wish I was an undergraduate student again, because I want to get a degree in philosophy.  I don’t know why living is so highly valued.  I can’t figure out what makes this “will to live” the correct way of thinking and the desire to die the wrong way of thinking.  Right and wrong are subjective.  They don’t exist, really.  There is not value behind things and thoughts and actions.  They just are.  What’s to say that a lack of serotonin or whatever in a depressed brain is really not normal?  The non-depressed brain may have an excess.  Normal is relative.  Averages don’t mean correct.  Just because most people in the class chose answer B doesn’t mean that it is the right answer to the question.  Just because most Americans are a little overweight doesn’t mean that that’s the healthiest body type.  

Sometimes I really want to try to get well and forge ahead and get my life together.  Sometimes I want to say fuck it and take all the pills in the house and lay down and drift away.  I can’t decide which is better because neither is better, they both are just choices.  I can’t use other people’s reasoning to back up either one, for they are slanted for reasons I cannot understand.  They have a bias toward life.  I have to choose what I really want most, and I just don’t know.  I truly don’t.  My wants and desires-the deep ones in the core of my being- have been so long ignored, given up for what a character would do, or what my mom would do, that as an adult, I hardly know how to access the decision-making skills that most children have already mastered.  I’m a fucking goldfish; when I’m upset, I’m only upset, and I’ve always been upset.  When I’m happy, I’m only happy and I’ve always been happy.  I don’t know how to take a step back and see both at the same time.  I can’t hold contradictory truths at once.  I’m not wise.  I’m set up to fail because there are cracks in my foundation.

As long as I continue to not decide, I don’t take action.  I’m stuck in a holding pattern of “I don’t know,” and “what’s going to get me through the next 5 minutes,” and “just fuck it all, it doesn’t matter.”  

I’ve never, ever, in my life imagined myself as an elderly person.  I’ve thought of myself as a middle-aged adult, but never past 40 or so.  Sometimes I see myself as a woman, sometimes as a man, sometimes an NB person.  But that’s not what matters.  I don’t see myself living to old age.  Mortality is comfort.  The fact that this life doesn’t go on forever is one thing that honestly makes it seem ok to keep living.  But by definition, it also makes it seem like a good choice to die when things go wrong.  Because I will in the end.  

I see my life as a project, and I’ve always had this dilemma with projects: if I make a mistake, what point is too ruined to salvage?  What factors make it more worthwhile to backtrack and fix the mistakes vs. just throwing it away.  Fixing the mistakes shoes dedication and perseverance, but it’s frustrating.  Hot.  Angry.  Uncomfortable.  Embarrassing to show youthful ineptitude to the world.  Throwing it away is quick.  Easy.  Zen.  Brings immediate cool relief with grace and style.  But it’s selfish.  So fucking selfish.  

If you’ve read this far, please proceed to pour water into your ears and shake vigorously.  This was not meant to be imprinted on your brain.  This is for me to sort out my thoughts, which are, and shall always be, unable to be ordered.