#LGBTQ+ narratives

[deep-in]

I just loved so much how coming-of-age Young Royals was. I can't stop thinking, and wrting, about.

Since the cinematography in the scenes, the close ups and the looks they exchange. It's amazingly tailored for the younghood. I wrote extensively about it in my Substack

[butchious]

we need to make peace with the fact that "i am a girl and retroactively i always was even when i didn't personally think so" and "i am a girl but i used to be a boy" are both equally valid ways to be transfem and both are punk af bc they equally reject societal norms of what a person's gender experience should be

[heretherebedork]

Joke almost gave Jack his dream of a school in the bank and then shattered that dream because he had been lying and now Jack almost gave Joke his dreams of a loving family and shattered that dream when he rejected him and that's the kind of narrative reversal you never recover from. I'll be on the floor, thanks.

[historicalfictionenthusiast]

And they were rivals 💅

[hawkeyeslaughter]

one thing about me is i go absolutely bonkers insane for characters with objectively the same qualities but in the exact opposite direction . take hawkeye and margaret . both of them are talented . dedicated to their role . they’re both very smart . they both fall in love easily . they’re both very snappy and witty with their replies . they both know how to get what they want . yet in their demeanor they’re almost completely opposite from each other — destructive , rebellious hawkeye versus orderly , respectable margaret . yet sometimes we see a bit of margaret bleed through in hawkeye and hawkeye bleed through in margaret . because at heart they’re similar , it was just matters of circumstance . and holy shit they’re still friends — you are all i could have been , i love that i am not you but i love you anyways .

[sunflowerandstrawberryspice]

I love a good old fashioned predetermined destiny that can not be stopped. Everyone knows that Garmadon is my favorite character by this point and while Lloyd isn't one of my favorite characters (not cause he's a bad character I just like others more) I still really like his story and arc over the course of the story.

I will never not think it's interesting that both Lloyd and Garmadon had fates that they couldn't change or escape. Lloyd was always going to be the green ninja it was destined before he was even a thought, before he was even born, before he could develop a true sense of self a title was thrust upon him and thusly the expectations of everyone around him. Garmadon on the other hand was doomed from the second he was bit by the Great Devourer maybe even before then. He was his father's Oni half and he was very aware of that fact throughout his entire journey in Spinjitzu Brothers we see him slowly begin to think he is destined to ultimately left evil and alone. He tries to be good time and time again only to be possessed, killed and brought back to life without his good half.

Tattoo translations:

Garmadon: Statera Latin for Balance

Lloyd: Iussum Latin for Order

Anyways I like to think Lloyd and Garmadon look kinda similar in facial features and stuff while also looking really different. I think Garmadon probably has a couple of tattoos (it just makes sense for him) and I think Lloyd has maybe one or two but they're smaller but meaningful. Also I think I've FINALLY settled on a Lloyd design, since before now it's been changing every time.

I just think these Legos are interesting :)

[hell0jon]

I actually find it hilarious that people are like "ALL GAY PEOPLE GO TO HELL"

Like, what a win for gay people

Every gay person ever in one place

[onlyzhuyilong]

[marlbles]

hey so why does no one talk about how scary being aroace is

[emopulco]

my inquisitor’s mom had no right to be so pretty tbh ✨

[true-dream-games]

Through Yourself: Dev Log Week 1-Week 3

Due to just making this page I will go over what has been done in the last three weeks:

Completion of version 1.0 of the GDD of 'Through Yourself' completed; ensured that this project is small enough to be done with a small team, but rich in story

Reference images added to GDD

Started Unity project; added a textured ball, a camera, and pill for testing purposes on a flat, colored plane

Created basic scripting for movement (FPSMovement)

Created basic scripting for camera control (FirstPersonCamera)

Created basic scripting for picking up objects (HoldObjects which became HoldingObjects later)

Revised movement and camera control scripts to work better with the placeholder 'Player' object as well as picking up objects

Added Object Rotation to HoldingObjects script; removed old script from textured ball placeholder and added new HoldingObjects script to Player prefab

Tuned object movement when on pick-up to come to the hand smoother; further refined FPSMovement and FirstPersonCamera to more easily work with the new HoldingObjects script

Started work on making objects snap to specific places

I am aware that this is not a whole lot at first glance, but I have a vision, and am determined to see it through. I do hope you all take a chance on this, and watch as it progresses.

---Melodania

[gayofthefae]

"The van scene is just for Will's plotline it doesn't affect Mike" what if I said the opposite was true. What if I said it did not serve as a climax for Will because he had already demonstrated an ability for honesty, vulnerability, and the self-assurance required in his confrontation of Mike in episode 2. What if I said that it only served his story as an inciting incident for the Jonathan coming out scene - a scene which, as I've said before, was the actual climax of his season arc, which was about his queerness, not Mike.

It is a setup for Mike, we know that, but it also doesn't really directly serve Will's arc at all. It is a self sabotage - setup for season 5, but something we already know him to do. It is a transition point for Mike. And it is the straw that breaks the camel's back for Jonathan. Besides that, it speaks directly to the audience at best. But it does not serve Will. He gets nothing truly off his chest because he is not unburdened - if anything worse off because he gave up his hope, he doesn't teach us things we couldn't otherwise deduce, and it moves him no internally closer to closure.

The speech only serves for Mike to react to and Jonathan to witness (and the cinematography reflects that). The following scenes reflect that too. The only scenes of importance in either plot following that are Will's scene with Jonathan and Mike telling El he loves her. Both directly tied to the speech, Mike's more textually, and no independently actionable resolution for Will.

This was the post but I had more thoughts, per usual

Will has a theme of unactionable resolutions. In episode 2 he is honest and from there the ball is in Mike's court. His most actionable plot is the painting, which he has demonstrated the vulnerability for already but the self-prioritization required is not a line he as a character is willing to cross, something that isn't a character flaw in need of resolution given what he logically believes the effects would be. The ball is in Mike's court from the beginning and remains there. And will remain there. Will had no arc necessity to confess because not confessing exposed no character flaws (shoutout to the writers for not presenting choosing to remain in the closet as a character flaw!!!). He was put in a helpless position of heartbreak and sadness and, like all of us wanted for him, wanted to do something about it, wanted to be able to do something about it, so he tried, but ultimately realized that the risk outweighed the reward, and the cost of the reward (El) would outweigh it anyways. That is logical. He is logical. He does everything logically. He is helpless this season. And he wants to believe he isn't, and we want to believe he isn't, but he is. Because the ball is in Mike's court. It was then and it is now. And it has been since the Snow Ball, really.

Because in December, 1984, after Will's perpetual but logical inaction towards a relationship, Mike took action against one. And since, it has been his job to undo, and his job to communicate contradictory to his actions that he wants one. Inaction does not require a solution unless it is representative of a problem to be solved. Will's is not. Mike's problem is he takes protective action impulsively when he gets scared that ultimately traps and harms him and others. Mike's problem is not inaction either. If they had stayed silently pining 13 year olds forever it would not have been a character flaw on either of their parts. But Mike took unnecessary - understandable, but unnecessary - action in the eyes of the plot. One can debate whether he did it in December 1983. Or whether he did it in July 1985. Or whether he did it in March 1986 when he ignored Will, because silence is not inaction if it as an active change. But no matter when it became an unnecessary choice,

The ball is in his court because it was never in anyone else's. The ball is in his court because Will never stepped foot on a court. Will isn't playing the game, he didn't pick up a ball. He sat in the stands and watched. In March 1986, he moved to the bench and Jonathan saw him but still, he never stepped foot on the court. He was never playing the game. (Apologies. This isn't a stupid sports game)/ref.

The ball is in Mike's court because as far as actionable plotlines reflecting internal growth go, Mike and Will's relationship is and always has been Mike's plot. Will's is allowing himself to take up space; he's getting closer, and allowing himself to have Mike will be the ultimate demonstration of that, just not its purpose. But Mike's is Will.

[heretherebedork]

I genuinely don't think I've ever been more upset at a fictional character being broken to pieces in my life. Because he is coming apart at the seams and he's blaming himself for everything and the one person he hoped would still love him despite everything he did left him and told him he never wanted to see him again. Because he always knew he wasn't worth it, he knew he wasn't good enough to be loved... and now it's all come true.

[msfisherot]

Stanley Parable : The Homosexual Narrative Update

After the radioactive fallout that turned everyone into gay lizards incident, Stanley was all alone with Narrator. Together, they traverse along with wacky adventures! But what's that? Oh yes, it is the Homosexual Narrative Update! It is the third installment of the hit game: Papers, Please!

Join in with us, as you decide the fate and enjoy the 69 endings available on Steam! No more standing in the broom closet to wait!

..................................................................................

REBLOG REBLOG REBLOG REBLOG REBLO

..................................................................................

[religiousqueer-inbox]

Black queer pentecostal culture is feeling left out even in queer christian spaces because there is a conception that all pentecostals are homophobic and brainwashed and that the only way a queer christian can be safe is if they go to a predominantly white Unitarian church. Because of this I feel distant from God

.

[demontobee]

Good Omens queering storytelling/TV – part 2: PLOT/NARRATIVE

Structure: The show does not present us with a traditional “beginning – middle – end” structure of storytelling that goes back at least to Aristotle. That is not to say that it does not adhere at all to traditional structures of storytelling. Remember, queering things is not about doing the exact opposite of what has become the norm (as that would feed into binary thinking as well), but to challenge the norms by playing with our expectations in a way that make us realise that we had expectations and  normative assumptions in the first place. So, for example, the traditional structure is challenged and exposed through the first scene of S2, which takes place “before the beginning.” This does not only challenge our perception of how time works in general, but it also tells us that what we thought we knew as “the beginning” of Crowley and Aziraphale’s (love) story was not really their beginning. It was just presented in a way that made us believe it was.

It also presents us with more insight into and background of the characters and their relationship, which might also change how we perceive them now and, in hindsight, perceive them in S1. This scene is there to, among other things, tell us that nothing is absolute about the story, that nothing is as it seems, and that everything depends on perspective, editing and version of narration. Along the same lines, the minisodes we get this season play with our expectations of structure. The Job episode, for example, is placed, chronologically speaking, between the flood and the crucifixion, both of which we saw in the first season. Now, the way they were presented in S1 probably made most of us assume that these were the exact times they saw each other, in chronological order (note here that the minisodes themselves upset the chronology of the narrative). In this season, however, we are presented with another encounter (and a whole story with character development and sexual tension which I will not go into here) that took place between the other two. It not only shakes up our assumptions about what we know about Crowley and Aziraphale’s relationship, it also explains, content-wise, how Aziraphale became such a foodie. (Also note, plot-wise, how Aziraphale’s morally difficult decision to lie to heaven in the Job minisode is juxtaposed with the swiftness of him telling a lie in the present day portion of the episode). It is like we are getting small bits and pieces that together make a whole story, but we do not get them in an order that we would expect, and it messes with our expectations and assumptions. A similar thing happens with the sequel to the 1941 minisode. Again, we were presented with a piece of the story in S1, probably assuming that we were being told the most important bit of that part of the story. However, in S2, we get the rest (or, at least, another part?) of the story about the night in 1941. Again, this new part seems to be rather vital for our understanding of the relationship between the two main characters and the level of trust they have in each other (not to speak of the sexual symbolism and tension of the whole magic trick scenario). What we realized while watching S2 that in S1 we were only told parts of the whole story, and only edited versions of what was going on that showed the characters in a certain way that way relevant to the story then. We can assume that this is also true for S2.

Plot: We do not have the typical “hero has a certain goal in mind and has to go out and overcome obstacles to achieve it and become a better person on the way” journey that informs the plot. In fact, a lot of the 1-star ratings of S2 on Prime criticize the apparent “absence” of a plot, or, the lack of action and “sense” in the plot. This is, in my opinion, due to the queer nature of how and to what end the plot is crafted. Because in S2 especially, the journey(s) and “action” in general are not there to make a given character look good or to show them succeed in a very normative way (hetero, capitalist and otherwise). The events of this plot all seem to be metaphorically or literally about Crowley’s and Aziraphale’s character development concerning emotions, moral values and, most immanently, their relationship. Thus, the plot is there to show character development in a very unmasculine way: Learning to face their own, deepest emotions and being able to communicate them better. And there is not even success (yet) at the end of the story!

This ties back to the characters and the roles they are assigned in the story (which probably deserves a post in its own right). Basically, both main characters are initially assigned roles in a system that they both, in one way or another, are not comfortable with – and thus question, defy, rebel against them. They are initially presented as opposing forces and very different from each other. However, we soon understand that they are both liminal creatures who challenge the binary opposition set up by the system in power. And they do this out of love – for the world, for humanity, and for each other. As if this was not queer enough, Crowley seems to be a genderfluid chameleon who journeys through time and space to find out who or what he is, being the only one on his own side. Aziraphale, on the other hand, sets out seemingly knowing who he is and where he belongs, but gradually shifts in his view of his own identity and that of “his side” until he more or less joins Crowley on the (no longer) lonely side of systemically uncomfortable misfits. They seem to recognize in each other the queerness, not only romantically, sexually or gender-wise, but also in their queer habit of questioning and troubling the status quo (in hope of creating a better world). This is what the plot of S2 is there to explore. Not a whole lot of external action, but the formation of a (forbidden but unbreakable) bond between two confused queer beans who do not always know what they want or need. It is not a story of success, it is a story of being queer in a world that wasn’t made for people like you and figuring out how to exist and to love in this world, with all the breakthroughs and setbacks there are to that.

To conclude, Good Omens is queering plot/narrative by challenging the traditional structure and plotline of normative storytelling, meaning what we expect and assume will happen in a story, and thus gives us, to use the words of Neil Gaiman himself, not what we want, but what we need.

Feel free to add your own ideas in the comments or tags!