#and even less the third

[theindiscreetbookworm]

"Man, fuck that guy" to "can I fuck that guy?", also know as the Izzy Hands fan experience.

[captainjonnitkessler]

You know I used to think "tumblr's absolute refusal to actually engage with the Trolley Problem in favor of insisting that there must be a third, morally pure option that doesn't require them to make a hard decision and anyone who asks them to make a binary choice is just a short-sighted idiot is really fucking annoying, but I guess it's not actually doing any harm".

Anyway that was before we asked tumblr at large to decide between "guy aiding a genocide but making progress elsewhere" and "guy who would actively and enthusiastically participate in a genocide and would also make everything else much, much worse for everyone elsewhere" and the response was that there must be a third, morally pure option that doesn't require them to make a hard decision and that anyone who asks them to make a binary choice is a short-sighted idiot.

[anghraine]

It's always been intriguing to me that, even when Elizabeth hates Darcy and thinks he's genuinely a monstrous, predatory human being, she does not ever perceive him as sexually predatory. In fact, literally no one in the novel suggests or believes he is sexually dangerous at any point. There's not the slightest hint of that as a factor in the rumors surrounding him, even though eighteenth-century fiction writers very often linked masculine villainy to a possibility of sexual predation in the subtext or just text*. Austen herself does this over and over when it comes to the true villains of her novels.

Even as a supposed villain, though, Darcy is broadly understood to be predatory and callous towards men who are weaker than him in status, power, and personality—with no real hint of sexual threat about it at all (certainly none towards women). Darcy's "villainy" is overwhelmingly about abusing his socioeconomic power over other men, like Wickham and Bingley. This can have secondhand effects on women's lives, but as collateral damage. Nobody thinks he's targeting women.

In addition, Elizabeth's interpretations of Darcy in the first half of the book tend to involve associating him with relatively prestigious women by contrast to the men in his life (he's seen as extremely dissimilar from his male friends and, as a villain, from his father). So Elizabeth understands Darcy-as-villain not in terms of the popular, often very sexualized images of masculine villainy at the time, but in terms of rich women she personally despises like Caroline Bingley and Lady Catherine de Bourgh (and even Georgiana Darcy; Elizabeth assumes a lot about Georgiana in service of her hatred of Darcy before ever meeting her).

The only people in Elizabeth's own community who side with Darcy at this time are, interestingly, both women, and likely the highest-status unmarried women in her community: Charlotte Lucas and Jane Bennet. Both have some temperamental affinities with Darcy, and while it's not clear if he recognizes this, he quietly approves of them without even knowing they've been sticking up for him behind the scenes.

This concept of Darcy-as-villain is not just Elizabeth's, either. Darcy is never seen by anyone as a sexual threat no matter how "bad" he's supposed to be. No one is concerned about any danger he might pose to their daughters or sisters. Kitty is afraid of him, but because she's easily intimidated rather than any sense of actual peril. Even another man, Mr Bennet, seems genuinely surprised to discover late in the novel that Darcy experiences attraction to anything other than his own ego.

I was thinking about this because of how often the concept of Darcy as an anti-hero before Elizabeth "fixes him" seems caught up in a hypermasculine, sexually dangerous, bad boy image of him that even people who actively hate him in the novel never subscribe to or remotely imply. Wickham doesn't suggest anything of the kind, Elizabeth doesn't, the various gossips of Meryton don't, Mr Bennet and the Gardiners don't, nobody does. If anything, he's perceived as cold and sexless.

Wickham in particular defines Darcy's villainy in opposition to the patriarchal ideal his father represented. Wickham's version of their history works to link Darcy to Lady Anne, Lady Catherine (primarily), and Georgiana rather than any kind of masculine sexuality. This version of Darcy is a villain who colludes with unsympathetic high-status women to harm men of less power than themselves, but villain!Darcy poses no direct threat to women of any kind.

It's always seemed to me that there's a very strong tendency among fans and academics to frame Darcy as this ultra-gendered figure with some kind of sexual menace going on, textually or subtextually. He's so often understood entirely in terms of masculinity and sexual desire, with his flaws closely tied to both (whether those flaws are his real ones, exaggerated, or entirely manufactured). Yet that doesn't seem to be his vibe to other characters in the story. There's a level at which he does not register to other characters as highly masculine in his affiliations, highly sexual, or in general as at all unsafe** to be around, even when they think he's a monster. And I kind of feel like this makes the revelations of his actual decency all along and his full-on heroism later easier to accept in the end.

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

*The incompetently awful villain(?) in Sanditon, for instance, imagines himself another Lovelace (a reference to the famous rapist-villain of Samuel Richardson's Clarissa). Evelina's sheltered education and lack of protectors makes her vulnerable to sexual exploitation in Frances Burney's Evelina, though she ultimately manages to avoid it. There's frequently an element of sexual predation in Gothic novels even of very different kinds (e.g. Ann Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho and Matthew Lewis's The Monk both lean into this, in their wildly dissimilar styles). William Godwin's novel Caleb Williams, a book mostly about the destructive evils of class hierarchies and landowning classes specifically, depicts the mutual obsession of the genteel villain Falkland and working class hero Caleb in notoriously homoerotic terms (Godwin himself added a preface in 1832 saying, "Falkland was my Bluebeard, who had perpetrated atrocious crimes ... Caleb Williams was the wife"). This list could go on for a very long time.

**Darcy is also not usually perceived by other characters as a particularly sexual, highly masculine person in a safe way, either, even once his true character is known. Elizabeth emphasizes the resilience of Darcy's love for her more than the passionate intensity they both evidently feel; in the later book, she does sometimes makes assumptions about his true feelings or intentions based on his gender, but these assumptions are pretty much invariably shown to be wrong. In general the cast is completely oblivious to the attraction he does feel; even Charlotte, who wonders about something in that quarter, ends up doubting her own suspicions and wonders if he's just very absent-minded.

The novel emphasizes that he is physically attractive, but it goes to pains to distinguish this from Wickham's sex appeal or the charisma of a Bingley or Fitzwilliam. Mr Bennet (as mentioned above) seems to have assumed Darcy is functionally asexual, insofar as he has a concept of that. Most of the fandom-beloved moments in which Darcy is framed as highly sexual, or where he himself is sexualized for the audience, are very significantly changed in adaptation or just invented altogether for the adaptations they appear in. Darcy watching Elizabeth after his bath in the 1995 is invented for that version, him snapping at Elizabeth in their debates out of UST is a persistent change from his smiling banter with her in the book, the fencing to purge his feelings is invented, the pond swim/wet shirt is invented. In the 2005 P&P, the instant reaction to Elizabeth is invented, the hand flex of repressed passion is invented, the Netherfield Ball dance as anything but an exercise in mutual frustration is invented, the near-kiss after the proposal in invented, etc. And in those as well, he's never presented as sexually predatory, not even as a "villain."

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Laios's three Boy Best Friends. And yes, they hate him.

[mobius-m-mobius]

loki in season two // mobius in season one (insp)

[sensiblereblogifposts]

We interrupt our usual broadcast to ask the USAmericans out there, please make plans to go vote for Harris.

What ever you think of Kamala Harris, remember the other guy is basically a fascist.

One of the two will take office after the election - there is no other possibility.

Please do your part in keeping Trump out of power. Go vote for Harris.

[icantalk710]

Looong day of catching up on emails and work to set myself up to be (mostly) on vacation as of xmas 😩☕😵‍💫

[adhd-sonic-the-hedgehog]

wanted to do an art render of elise in the modern maria style (including my combat outfit design)

[yardsards]

i needed to express a sentiment in the creative stylings of @dunmeshiminimumwage

[a-dandy-and-a-clown]

i am a mosaic of everyone i have ever known and loved etc etc

[sciderman]

Have you watched the musical "Spiderman: Turn of the dark"?, what is your opinion? (I love musicals, but haven't watched this one, first I want to know if it is good).

Also I would have expected that the one who would get a theatrical musical, would be DP. I bet that if the musical exist in the universe of the boys, Wade would be a little jealous. 🤭🤭

i actually haven't seen this one - i've listened to the entire soundtrack and read synopsises, and know all the lore behind it and it's a point of obsession for me but - all the cams of it are so poor quality that it's completely unwatchable for me. i get too frustrated that i have to just stop watching.

i always ask people the question, you know, if you could time travel to any moment in time, what would it be - and when they turn that question back at me, my answer, at the ready, is that i'd go see spider-man: turn off the dark, on broadway. i'd give anything to see it, honestly. i want one of the spider-man stunt-men to fall on me, so, so bad.

i have read the script, for - you know, some version of it. there was more than one version. i read one of them. and i have to say, i really like it. i think peter's actually really, really hilarious, in his socially inept sort of way. it's very fun. also bonus points for having it canon that flash would fuck a spider, even before spider-man was a thing.

hilarious. also! pretty obvious from the soundtrack but gg is immensely queer coded and honestly it reads as though he just wants to share a condo and adopt a dog with spider-man. you're a queer in tights? IM a queer in tights. lets be queers in tights together. it's so funny how he goes about trying to be peter's bff. most hilarious interaction between a villain and hero ever 10/10

uh-huh. uh-huh. (writes a note in my little gay notepad)

how to make friends 101

[stardestroyer81]

So @retrobee drew a Ruby Spears take on an absolutenutcase162 comic...

[beach-bears-surfer-girl]

One thing I’ve never heard talked about within the animatronic community is what the perspective of both concept unification and 2.0 remodels were like for employees and casual customers, specifically concerning the animatronics.

I hear the general fan consensus all the time, from the CU & Chuck E. Cheese lovers to the Rock-afire fanatics, but I want to know the perspectives of the people who experienced it in real time. The people who WEREN’T super fans.

Did they care at all, during Concept Unification, when switching the costumes of the characters? Was it sad when they were instructed to remove Billy Bob and destroy all props? Or was it a positive thing, a new beginning?

What about the uninformed kids, teens, and parents, coming to a once recognizable pizza chain location, only to find out that something had changed about the show?

It can be assumed that majority of today’s Chuck E Cheese employees don’t really care about the animatronics, but did it feel wrong defacing something with so much history during 2.0 remodels? Sure it’s just a robot, but it’s also a relic of the past, with eyes and a face, legally required to be cut up, spray painted, and become unrecognizable.

They might be viewed as old, outdated, and creepy now to the general public, but you have to wonder, did it ever cross anyone’s mind during the destruction process that these characters once sparked joy?

[the-star-rigel]

All I kept thinking about, over and over, was ‘You can’t live forever; you can’t live forever.’ 8/10

The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald

Next

Previous

[bugeyedfreaks]

I was just thinking about how for years on this blog I have posted several hot takes about the Powerpuff Girls. Most of the time, they ruffle a few feathers, but I’m sometimes surprised that a majority of people agree. And even for the ones where not everybody agrees, usually people are cool about them. Usually. Kinda.

But today in my mind I was going through some of my absolute hottest of takes, like… the totally bananas, really ultra hot ones that I have. And I don’t know if most of you guys could survive them. I really don’t.

Maybe some day…

[reineydraws]

Saw your Mishanks bodyswap art! Very cute and fun! (Mihawk with a genuine smile on his face so so fun)

I imagine Shanks whould have trouble fighting in Mihawk's body at first since it's been years since he's had two arms

yes absolutely, i imagine that too! conversely, i think mihawk would have a little bit of trouble adjusting his balance and reach with a body missing one arm, as well. it's interesting to think about how they both would be forced to change their fighting style, and whether or not they would exchange swords.

mihawk's been seen using yoru with just one hand so he could probably pull it off with shanks's body. also interesting to think about shanks tripping up on having two arms until he naturally slips into his old fighting style again--or would he? because there's also the question of muscle memory, right? would mihawk's body automatically do things that shanks isn't predisposed to doing, and vice versa?

the other thing i find intriguing about body swapping in one piece is the question of whether or not your haki powers would switch as well. they say haki is spiritual presence, so presumably your haki switches if your spirits switch, but if it's the kind of spirit that's tethered to the presence of the body? then consider mihawk having the strongest conqueror's haki out on the blues, or shanks being able to use observation haki at mihawk's level, practically being able to predict the future--or mihawk, able to counter with shanks's haki-kill technique. food for thought!