#live a little love a little (1968)

[hooked-on-elvis]

Elvis Presley in Live a Little, Love a Little (1968) — Dir. Norman Taurog

[presleypictures]

Elvis in between takes of “Live a Little, Love a Little” – April, 1968.

The photo was taken by Sandi Miller, fan turned friend of Elvis. “I always asked before I took a photo, that lasted a few months before he finally said: “You don't need to ask me first. If I ever don't want you to take a photo, I will tell you.” So from then on, I just snapped away.”

[missmaywemeetagain]

Pink Schnapps 🥃 (A Pink Scarf U Exclusive!) out now on Patreon!

Inspired by this gem of a story from 1968 where Elvis gets drunk. Elvis gets Reader tipsy on peach schnapps and tension and shenanigans ensue...😏

Join HERE to read! ✨

SNEAK PEEK

TW: Alcohol use, drunkenness, flirtation/tension, nakedness, vomiting, hangover, Jack, Reader is confused and clueless as always lol

Early April 1968

“Baby. Baby, listen,” Elvis slurs, a long arm sliding over your shoulders like it has always belonged there. He doesn’t touch you much these days, so the sensation feels strangely intimate and peppers your skin with goosebumps.

You look at Jack, Charlie, and Joe in succession, all of whom throw their hands up in the air like they have no clue what has gotten into Elvis but judging by the almost empty half pint of liquor in one of his hands and an unopened, full bottle in the other, you know they aren’t innocent. Elvis Presley just doesn’t walk into liquor stores by himself. You’re not even sure he carries money on him.

“Ya gotta try this stuff, honey, it’s so good! Don’t even taste like al-kee-hol! Prolly don’t even have al-kee-hol in it cuz I could drink a barrel of this stuff an’ not feel a thing,” Elvis continues, shoving the bottle into your hand.

“Oh, E, I’m sure this—” You turn the bottle to read the label, willing yourself not to cringe, “—peach schnapps is great and all, but I don’t—”

“Ohhh, don’t be like that, honey,” he interrupts you. “These guys don’t get it but you, I know you get it.”

“Do I?” you say, eyebrow shooting up while you try to keep a straight face. “What exactly do I get?”

“That this is the nectar of the gods! They put it here for you and me,” he goes on, his depthless blue eyes watery but twinkling as they look down at you.

He’s positively smashed. You could count on one hand how many times you’ve seen this man drunk in the many years that you’ve known him, which might account for his current state. Elvis might pop pills like candy sometimes, but he doesn’t drink.

He pushes the nearly empty bottle into your hand. “C’mon, live a little, honey.” He grins wildly, bouncing on his toes. “Hey! That’s the name of my picture!” he exclaims like he’s discovered the answers to the mysteries of the universe. Then he starts giggling.

And the joy from a giggling, hiccupping Elvis is contagious. Always has been. You can’t help but smile. It feels foreign; you can’t remember the last time you really smiled.

The moment is nearly ruined by your husband’s sardonic eye roll, his chocolate eyes dull and bloodshot. Unlike Elvis, he is well acquainted with being drunk and it definitely doesn’t make him giggle. Jack looks disinterested and annoyed, not even hiding the pill he pops as he mutters, “I’m goin’ to bed.”

Your heart sinks. Part of you feels rejected—he didn’t even acknowledge you were there, much less say goodnight, but that’s nothing new. Another part of you thinks to go with him, but you know it’ll get you nowhere. If he took a pill, he’ll be out soon anyway.

Honestly, it saddens you that this is your life now. Long gone are the happy days of young love, replaced by an ever-present shadow of disappointment and indifference and, occasionally, fear. Jack can be a mean son of a bitch when he’s too far gone.

“What an ass,” Elvis says blatantly, seeming to surprise even himself and he giggles, taking a swig from the bottle.

Suddenly, you are feeling uncharacteristically awake. There’s a fire in your chest when you grab the liquor out of Elvis’ hand, taking a long draught from it. It’s cloyingly sweet but does the trick, the burn sinking down into your belly...

Join HERE to read the rest! ✨

Taglist Pt 1

@eliseinmemphis@russian-soft-bitch@tattywood

@sassanoe@thella @suspiciousmidge @hiddlepiddlediddlewiddle@carolinesbookworld @juggernort @aesthetic-lyss @stitchattacks @donnamarie23

 @littlebitofgreen@paigevis@bugg06@xhannahbananax03@artlover8992

@18lkpeters@frozenhuntress67@girlblogger2002@kendralavon7@misspresley

@be-my-ally @whositmcwhatsit @vintageshanny @ellie-24 @thatbanditqueen @powerofelvis @from-memphis-with-love

 @precious-lil-scoundrel @stylespresleyhearted @prompted-wordsmith @crash-and-cure @elvisgf @lookingforrainbows @fic-over-cannon @godlypresley @ab4eva @whatstruthgottodowithit @elvisabutler @amydarcimarie@idontwanttoputanything @callieselvisobsessed @captainamerica1235-blog  @xenaspace3-blog 

@simplyamberj@claire-elvisgirl@everythingelvispresley@louisejoy86@deniseinmn @madelynpresley

[tcbeps]

- greg nolan my baby from my favorite movie of his; live a little love a little

[thewonderofelvis]

Elvis in Live a Little, Love a Little, 1968.

[vintagegirl50s60s70s80s]

Elvis Presley and Michele Carey in Live a little love a little (1968)

[earthbaby-angelboy]

hello all you beautiful people!

a little unknown fact about me: i love reading! i mainly read reference material and nonfiction, but i don't mind the occasional fiction! i have plenty of friends on here who like reading (after all, you're on my page!) and who love elvis, so i figured i'd make a compendium of books that were adapted into elvis' movies.

it will be organized by the movie / the year it came out, and the story / its author. i'll also include a little description of each.

-love me tender (1956) & the story of the reno gang: this movie was not based on a story, but actual historical events! the reno gang were a group of brothers who went around the midwest robbing trains. clinton reno was a real person, the youngest of the five brothers (his nickname was "honest", as he never got involved with any criminal activity pertaining to his brothers.)

-loving you (1957) & a call from mitch miller by mary agnes thompson: the movie was based on a short story by mary agnes thompson that was featured in the june 1956 edition of good housekeeping.

-king creole (1958) & a stone for danny fisher by harold robbins: king creole was the first of el's movies to be based on an entire book! the role was originally meant for james dean, and was set in the backstreets of new york city.

-flaming star (1960) & flaming lance by clair huffaker: this was one of two movies where the original author was involved in creating the screenplay.

-wild in the country (1961) & the lost country by j.r. salamanca: although some creative liberties were taken (el's character went from an artist to a writer and hope lange's character became a psychiatrist rather than a teacher), it still followed the same plot as the original novel. it was also the first to feature elvis on a published paperback.

-follow that dream (1962) & pioneer, go home! by richard p. powell: the novel is based on a family from new jersey (WOOT WOOT), and although technically based on the book, the movie takes many creative liberties to the point of it being almost completely opposite the original source material.

-stay away, joe (1968) & stay away, joe by dan cushman: this is what el considered his first "serious" role. although involving some incredibly racist stereotypes, it is rooted in some truth about elvis' lineage: his great-great-great grandmother was a cherokee woman named morning white dove, and some attribute his high cheekbones and striking features to his distant native ancestry.

-live a little, love a little (1968) & kiss my firm but pliant lips by dan greenburg: the movie, like follow that dream, was so loosely based on the book that it was almost completely opposite the original source material.

-charro! (1969) & charro! by harry whittington: this is the only "officially endorsed" book based on an elvis movie.

-the trouble with girls (1969) & chautauqua by day keene: this is my absolute favorite movie of all time, and ironically, there is no information about the book's plot. based on what i've gathered from other sources, it follows an almost identical plot to the movie. unfortunately, the author died 9 months prior to the movie's release.

-change of habit (1969) & title-not-available by richard morris and john joseph: according to wikipedia, change of habit was based on a story written by richard morris and john joseph. i've scoured the internet under both of those names, and found nothing! oh well.

i hope you all had as much fun reading this as i did writing this, and be sure to shoot me a message if you read any of these!

(...or if you find a reasonably priced copy of chautauqua.)

-all my love, calla xx @kiankiwi @arianatheangel-girl @mooodyblue

[zanygardenherowobbler]

Watch "Elvis Presley - You're The Devil In Disguise ( Oh Yes You Are ) REACTION" on YouTube

[kidasthings]

Noa and Mae: A Taboo Affair?

Hi, there! Kida checking in again with yet another controversy - you've been warned.

I see a lot of people on Tumblr and Reddit pointing out that a Noa/Mae (#NoMae?) pairing would be at best controversial, at worst beastiality.

I mean, he IS a CGI ape, right?

Not so fast.

I'd like to break down a few points, if I Mae (pun intended!), and address this argument. I'll be using a few of the comments I've seen on the web already to do so, on the part of the dissenters to the pairing.

1st Argument: "Planet of the Apes wouldn't show a kiss between a human and an ape. Ew."

Reply: Oh, they already have, my friend. Not in the full-blown sense, but they definitely did film Zira and Taylor kissing lips to muzzle in 1968. You can view that lovely bit here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEp7yunwVF8

I apologize in advance for impinging on your delicate simian sensibilities. #sorrynotsorry

2nd Argument: "Why would they even depict a human/ape couple? Humans and apes can't even reproduce in the franchise."

Reply: They can't? News to me. There was a Hum-Ape written into the early scripts and screen tests for Beneath the Planet of the Apes in 1970. Seems the Planet of the Apes franchise truly thought it was worth exploring back then. You can read all about that little guy right here: https://planetoftheapes.fandom.com/wiki/Hum-Ape

Aww, just look at that adorable lack of face-fur!

3rd Argument: "The audience of today isn't ready for that kind of thing."

Reply: And the audience in the 1960's/early 1970's was? I didn't know we became even more conservative 50+ years later. I'll be sure to adjust my high neckline and clutch my pearls in absolute horror at the thought of all of those deviant libertines living before me. Excuse me, I must go confront my parents about this.

BUT, before I do, I do want to point out we seemed to accept an on-screen kiss between Goliath (a gargoyle) and Elisa (a human) during a certain Disney children's cartoon show in the 1990's - anyone remember that?

Disgusting. I bet his breath smelled like rancid pigeon.

Additionally, we have more recent films such as Avatar, The Shape of Water - which won 4 Academy Awards, including best picture (not bad for a human and a fish-man pairing), and Beauty and the Beast.

And hey, if a living monster is not your thing, you could always opt for Warm Bodies. Think female human and male zombie. Necrophilia, anyone?

4th Argument: "Okay, fine, I see your point on the Taylor/Zira thing. But that only worked out because it was a human in a monkey suit, and we all sort of knew that. It didn't make it so strange. As for the other films you listed, well, those creatures don't actually exist so it's out of the realm of true possibility anyway. Noa is depicted as a real chimp, and him getting with Mae just makes it hit too close to home for comfort."

Reply: #Ishetho? Let's take a good look at what a "real chimp" looks like:

He's so damn Chimpy.

Okay, now let's look at our leading man--er, ape:

Looks like Chimpy had a love-child with Owen Teague. #shudder

As you can see, the two are pretty different. Chimpy has a true muzzle and a mouth that curves around it. Noa has a flatter, human face with an actual nose bridge and wider-spaced eyes.

And the EYES. My god. If you don't see the humanity in those baby-blues you might want to get checked for psychopathy. Besides that, Chimpy lacks eye-whites and has rounder eyes than Noa. Additionally, that pronounced brow ridge on Chimpy has thunder clouds gathering beneath it. Don't get me started on the ear comparison between the two, I'm sure it goes without saying!

Anyway, I think it can be safely stated that no chimp alive on this earth looks like Noa. He's too physically humanized to resemble an actual chimpanzee of the typical zoo variety. Thus, I would place him safely in the category of fish-man, the tall, blue cat creatures from Avatar, and those barbaric blue aliens that keep cropping up on certain ice planets in books #ifyouknowwhatImean.

---------------------

All that said, everyone can ship what they want. If you want Noa playing house with Caesar, never mind that trifling little timeline issue, you go with your fine self and write that fanfiction. Create an account on DeviantArt.com and fill it with their anthropomorphic babies who eventually grow up to be the first ape astronauts. Someone out there is going to love it and eat it up, I promise you.

For the points above, this is about Noa and Mae. They've got something, something tangible. Whether or not it becomes canon is yet to be seen.

For now, it lives on in our minds. With our inner eye, we can see it just fine.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Emil Ferris’s long-awaited “My Favorite Thing Is Monsters Book Two”

NEXT WEEKEND (June 7–9), I'm in AMHERST, NEW YORK to keynote the 25th Annual Media Ecology Association Convention and accept the Neil Postman Award for Career Achievement in Public Intellectual Activity.

Seven years ago, I was absolutely floored by My Favorite Thing Is Monsters, a wildly original, stunningly gorgeous, haunting and brilliant debut graphic novel from Emil Ferris. Every single thing about this book was amazing:

https://memex.craphound.com/2017/06/20/my-favorite-thing-is-monsters-a-haunting-diary-of-a-young-girl-as-a-dazzling-graphic-novel/

The more I found out about the book, the more amazed I became. I met Ferris at that summer's San Diego Comic Con, where I learned that she had drawn it over a while recovering from paralysis of her right – dominant – hand after a West Nile Virus infection. Each meticulously drawn and cross-hatched page had taken days of work with a pen duct-taped to her hand, a project of seven years.

The wild backstory of the book's creation was matched with a wild production story: first, Ferris's initial publisher bailed on her because the book was too long; then her new publisher's first shipment of the book was seized by the South Korean state bank, from the Panama Canal, when the shipper went bankrupt and its creditors held all its cargo to ransom.

My Favorite Thing Is Monsters told the story of Karen Reyes, a 10 year old, monster-obsessed queer girl in 1968 Chicago who lives with her working-class single mother and her older brother, Deeze, in an apartment house full of mysterious, haunted adults. There's the landlord – a gangster and his girlfriend – the one-eyed ventriloquist, and the beautiful Holocaust survivor and her jazz-drummer husband.

Karen narrates and draws the story, depicting herself as a werewolf in a detective's trenchcoat and fedora, as she tries to unravel the secrets kept by the grownups around her. Karen's life is filled with mysteries, from the identity of her father (her brother, a talented illustrator, has removed him from all the family photos and redrawn him as the Invisible Man) to the purpose of a mysterious locked door in the building's cellar.

But the most pressing mystery of all is the death of her upstairs neighbor, the beautiful Annika Silverberg, a troubled Holocaust survivor whose alleged suicide just doesn't add up, and Karen – who loved and worshiped Annika – is determined to get to the bottom of it.

Karen is tormented by the adults in her life keeping too much from her – and by their failure to shield her from life's hardest truths. The flip side of Karen's frustration with adult secrecy is her exposure to adult activity she's too young to understand. From Annika's cassette-taped oral history of her girlhood in an Weimar brothel and her escape from a Nazi concentration camp, to the sex workers she sees turning tricks in cars and alleys in her neighborhood, to the horrors of the Vietnam war, Karen's struggle to understand is characterized by too much information, and too little.

Ferris's storytelling style is dazzling, and it's matched and exceeded by her illustration style, which is grounded in the classic horror comics of the 1950s and 1960s. Characters in Karen's life – including Karen herself – are sometimes depicted in the EC horror style, and that same sinister darkness crowds around the edges of her depictions of real-world Chicago.

These monster-comic throwbacks are absolute catnip for me. I, too, was a monster-obsessed kid, and spent endless hours watching, drawing, and dreaming about this kind of monster.

But Ferris isn't just a monster-obsessive; she's also a formally trained fine artist, and she infuses her love of great painters into Deeze, Karen's womanizing petty criminal of an older brother. Deeze and Karen's visits to the Art Institute of Chicago are commemorated with loving recreations of famous paintings, which are skillfully connected to pulp monster art with a combination of Deeze's commentary and Ferris's meticulous pen-strokes.

Seven years ago, Book One of My Favorite Thing Is Monsters absolutely floored me, and I early anticipated Book Two, which was meant to conclude the story, picking up from Book One's cliff-hanger ending. Originally, that second volume was scheduled for just a few months after Book One's publication (the original manuscript for Book One ran to 700 pages, and the book had been chopped down for publication, with the intention of concluding the story in another volume).

But the book was mysteriously delayed, and then delayed again. Months stretched into years. Stranger rumors swirled about the second volume's status, compounded by the bizarre misfortunes that had befallen book one. Last winter, Bleeding Cool's Rich Johnston published an article detailing a messy lawsuit between Ferris and her publishers, Fantagraphics:

https://bleedingcool.com/comics/fantagraphics-sued-emil-ferris-over-my-favorite-thing-is-monsters/

The filings in that case go some ways toward resolve the mystery of Book Two's delay, though the contradictory claims from Ferris and her publisher are harder to sort through than the mysteries at the heart of Monsters. The one sure thing is that writer and publisher eventually settled, paving the way for the publication of the very long-awaited Book Two:

https://www.fantagraphics.com/products/my-favorite-thing-is-monsters-book-two

Book Two picks up from Book One's cliffhanger and then rockets forward. Everything brilliant about One is even better in Two – the illustrations more lush, the fine art analysis more pointed and brilliant, the storytelling more assured and propulsive, the shocks and violence more outrageous, the characters more lovable, complex and grotesque.

Everything about Two is more. The background radiation of the Vietnam War in One takes center stage with Deeze's machinations to beat the draft, and Deeze and Karen being ensnared in the Chicago Police Riots of '68. The allegories, analysis and reproductions of classical art get more pointed, grotesque and lavish. Annika's Nazi concentration camp horrors are more explicit and more explicitly connected to Karen's life. The queerness of the story takes center stage, both through Karen's first love and the introduction of a queer nightclub. The characters are more vivid, as is the racial injustice and the corruption of the adult world.

I've been staring at the spine of My Favorite Thing Is Monsters Book One on my bookshelf for seven years. Partly, that's because the book is such a gorgeous thing, truly one of the great publishing packages of the century. But mostly, it's because I couldn't let go of Ferris's story, her characters, and her stupendous art.

After seven years, it would have been hard for Book Two to live up to all that anticipation, but goddammit if Ferris didn't manage to meet and exceed everything I could have hoped for in a conclusion.

There's a lot of people on my Christmas list who'll be getting both volumes of Monsters this year – and that number will only go up if Fantagraphics does some kind of slipcased two-volume set.

In the meantime, we've got more Ferris to look forward to. Last April, she announced that she had sold a prequel to Monsters and a new standalone two-volume noir murder series to Pantheon Books:

https://twitter.com/likaluca/status/1648364225855733769

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

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/01/the-druid/#oh-my-papa

[hooked-on-elvis]

I love, love, LOOOVE this movie couple. ♥

[presleypictures]

Elvis and Michele Carey photographed for Live A Little, Love A Little, 1968.

[deramin2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[gophergal]

Behold, a silly AU I've been yapping to @cursed--alien about for... A week? Or two? Idk. Either way this is what they called Nine Mercs And A Baby, in which Medic creates a test tube baby (using his and Heavy's genetics) to develop an artificial womb then gets really attached to the resulting offspring. I'm not much of a fankid or kidfic person (kids weird me out), but this AU has really grown on me despite being a joke at first

(more details under the cut)

Before their "birth", Medic refused to acknowledge the question of what he was planning on doing with the baby if it survived. After it was born he claimed that he was only keeping it to study human growth and development first hand

Medic is extremely weird about fatherhood. He's simultaneously really anxious and distant. He knows he's not cut out to be a primary caregiver. It's just not something he's capable of, and he thinks himself too old for this nonsense. However, once he realizes that he really does have the support of his dysfunctional found family, he allows himself to learn to be a better father

The kid was raised relatively gender neutral. Ever read the book "X: a fabulous child's story"? They're not quite that neutral, but they're not really forced into gender roles or expectations. They have two first names (one feminine, one masculine), but no one in their family uses them. Most of the time they're just called the Kid, but everyone has a nickname for 'em. They don't care about pronouns all that much. (C'mon, they're my OC and I headcanon Medic as transmasc. There was no way they wouldn't be some flavor of nonbinary)

Heavy treasures his child and is so fucking protective. He's wrapped around their little finger. Though everyone helps out with their needs, he's his child's primary caregiver and no decisions are made about them without Papa Bear knowing

They're born in 1968 and spend the first four years of their life living on the base. MvM doesn't happen in this AU, so once the Gravel Wars end, Red Team goes their separate ways... At first. After a year or so they start trickling back together because nothing feels quite as right as being A Team. Kid only had about a year of their life where they didn't have a big family to rely on

It's not all sunshine and rainbows, but the only Major Issue in the family (at least for Kid) is how distant Medic is despite being their actual Legal Father. He tries, but he's afraid of smothering them or pressuring them into following in his footsteps. Had he been younger when they were born, he probably wouldn't have cared. But having the opportunity to form strong bonds has made him a softer man. Regardless, they still love each other, and Kid feels lucky to have a dad like him

[nexility-sims]

𝐍𝐎. 𝟏   ❛ 𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐝 ❜   |   VARIOUS LOCATIONS AND YEARS

❧  𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬  /  𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐭.

❛ The queen’s voice broke as she talked. Staring into the camera, she willed the tears to stay. Her eyes grew glassy, and the small audience before her—palace staffers and journalists, a mixed array of stone faces and quivering lips—blurred into a white haze. The decision to speak had come early in the morning as she sat alone in bed. The windows and doors were thrown open, and she stared at the moon until she could see the rabbits dancing upon its surface. Her hair was gone by then, wrapped in a bundle to accompany her daughter into the first of her graves. With one hand, Beatriz felt her scalp, with its hair shorter now than even on the day she was born. Mothering had never come easy to her. Neither her children nor her subjects received her love in full, or the way they desired it, or when they needed it. She had tried her hardest for Sayfa, of which she made no secret. Still, because she could not trust herself to have shown it, she also could not trust that her daughter had known.

𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭 ↓

❧ woo, finally ! mixed feelings, but the important part is that it's done. my favorite part is the rowena guest appearance, personally :^)

TRANSCRIPT:

[RV] Good morning. I’m Inti Rivera. Today, the nation prepares for the funeral of Princess Safya. This daytime in memoriam edition of UBC Nightly News will be followed by live coverage of the procession.

[RV V.O.] Princess Safya was born in 1950 to the recently crowned Queen Beatriz and her second husband, Matias Villar. With the preference for male heirs ended, the princess was presumed to be a future queen.

[RV V.O.] The Queen elected to reveal her daughter’s name at the annual naming festival in Yaas. She was the first royal infant in two generations to participate. Princess Safya would later do the same with all three of her own children.

[RV V.O.] Although she was her mother’s heir and began accompanying the queen on business early, the princess was also close with her father. Commentators regularly noted their similar personalities and interests, as did Queen Beatriz herself.

[RV V.O.] Mother Rowena, formerly queen, returned to public life following Princess Safya’s birth. The princess shared her first patronage with her grandmother, and the pair became the most popular royals. [I] Can you tell us where you were today, my princess? [S] We visited an orphanage. The children are less fortunate, so we take care of them. I’m happy to say that is my responsibility now.

[I] How did the princess do today, Mother Rowena? [R] I don’t know how she can stand upright with a heart of gold! She’s full of empathy, this little girl, for others. She’ll be a servant her whole life, just like her grandfather. I envy everyone who’ll live to see it. [S] {Gasps.}

[RV V.O.] In the eyes of many, Princess Safya ceased to be a little girl when she announced her engagement in 1968 to Rodrigo Dardarich. The news excited the public but was not without controversy. [S] Some will say this is quick. We accept that. It is. However, it’s also true what they say: when you know, you know.

[RV V.O.] The Princess married in 1969. In a first, the family shared behind-the-scenes photographs of preparation for the ceremonies. Her new husband, in another break from tradition, would not share Safya’s titles. The princess penned a letter to the public for the occasion, calling her marriage, quote, “the first true act of my own, my first real decision.”

[RV V.O.] Critics who expressed suspicion of the relationship were vindicated soon enough. The princess and Lord Rodrigo became a favorite subject of photographers. The most skilled captured public arguments on multiple occasions throughout the years. These photos proved lucrative as interest in the couple and their life together continued to grow.

[RV V.O.] In 1975, the Office of the Crown Princess issued a formal statement refuting an “investigation” published by Concordia that year. The paper alleged impending divorce, with lurid but unsubstantiated details of infidelity and financial strain. The Crown declined to support privacy legislation proposed by the Assembly of Uspana in 1976, 1977, and 1980.

[RV V.O.] Princess Safya and Lord Rodrigo gave a joint interview on the state of their marriage in 1985. The unprecedented, polarizing broadcast broke daytime viewership records. The interviewer, Isabel Eannes, was widely panned by most viewers and commentators. [S] I don’t think that’s a fair question. [I] So, you disagree, then? You haven’t been unhappy?

[R] She’s unhappy right now—she hates combative journalists. [S] {Laughs.} No! I don’t hate anyone. We asked for this. We begged.

[I] Let’s talk about the ring, then. It’s new. Smaller. Why? [S] People like us don’t get do-overs. But, we’re trying anyway. [R] The alternative is being apart. That’s impossible. It can’t happen. We must try, even if it isn’t easy. [S] It’s hard, but that’s love. ‘To love someone is to suffer for them.’ [I] {Scoffs.} That is Tecuani maxim, isn’t it?

[RV V.O.] The princess gave birth to her first child, Leonor, in 1970. To the nation’s delight, Princess Safya and her new baby were inseparable. [R] Let us see her! Can you talk a minute? Share something! [S] We’re late for a meeting, I’m sorry!

[RV V.O.] In 1974, Princess Safya and Lord Rodrigo welcomed their second child, Mateo. Her office announced two years later, on the heels of former Queen Rowena’s death, that Princess Safya would be scaling back to, quote, “refocus on her growing family.” She would regain her place as Uspana’s “hardest working royal” by 1981.

[RV V.O.] Princess Safya’s final child, Gil, was born in 1979. The princess had declared a decade prior that she hoped for a trio of children.

[RV V.O.] When asked in 1985 if she wanted more children, Princess Safya remarked that she was, quote, “retired” and “content” to await her future grandchildren instead of “competing” with her mother. Queen Beatriz has six children, all born between 1950 and 1962.

[RV V.O.] Princess Safya, like heirs before her, formally began her career as a working royal at the age of ten. Commentators described her that year as, quote, “articulate,” “cautious,” and “soft-spoken.”

[RV V.O.] The princess and her younger brother, Prince Arnaut, became regular members of their mother’s retinue. The Queen described her feelings on the matter in passing during a press conference: [B V.O.] “Teenager” is a weak term. Once, Safya would have governed a province in her own right as a teenager. No longer. We coddle and undertrain our heirs just like everyone else now. The assembly tells me that’s a “parenting” problem. Well, what I say is it certainly won’t be my problem when I’m dead, and you’re stuck with them! {Laughs.}

[RV V.O.] Queen Beatriz and Princess Safya were proactive concerning Leonor’s training as well. The pair remained inseparable in public, gaining valuable experience together. Before her death, the princess announced her daughter would join the team she intended to task with passing a new education initiative through the Assembly.

[RV V.O.] Princess Safya began crafting policy proposals in 1988 to encourage and improve access to higher education. In addition to boosting funding for Uspana’s institutions, the princess was in talks with lawmakers to make attending schools abroad a feasible, affordable option.

[RV V.O.] Princess Safya’s last official public appearance was during a tour of elementary schools in southern Uspana. The fatal yachting trip capped a month of nonstop travel. Having allegedly, quote, “hit a wall” with legislators, the princess was focusing on what she did best. Commentators as well as school administrators, teachers, parents, and students described her in warm terms. The princess was enthusiastic and always connected on a human level with her future subjects.

[RV] That concludes this morning’s in memoriam special. Now, we go to Bernardo Rea for live coverage at Nakawe Palace.

[RE] Good morning. The mood is somber at Nakawe Palace as the family and silent gathered crowds prepare for the procession. Moments ago, Queen Beatriz unexpectedly announced she intends to give televised remarks. We are waiting to be invited inside.

[B] My firstborn will be interred today. I doubt that requires prefacing. How can it? It’s reality. The burden is immense. I’ve done what I can to lift it from my family. After funeral rites, the most sacred ritual we have is to shear our hair. This is surrendering power—spirituality vulnerability. It says, “Give me the pain of mourning. I can carry it for us all.” Not just anyone can be so burdened. You must be ready. You have to be empty.

[B] My request for all of you, the hundreds of thousands who I suspect will gather across Uspana, is this: empty yourself for her. Cry for my daughter. Weep as profusely as you can. Fill the streets with water so it will carry her home—to the mountains that chose her, that chose to take her away from us all, from me. We will let her go together, as one People.

[vintagegirl50s60s70s80s]

A very wet and cold Elvis Presley with Michele Carey drying him off in Live a Little Love a Little (1968)