#and that's already a queer narrative at its core

[the-eclectic-wonderer]

Dorothy being assaulted at 17 and then trapped in a marriage for the next 38 years really makes the queer subtext heartbreaking rather than funny. It also adds a whole lot to how barbed she gets when they discuss her sex life and how vanilla it is or how little sex she had, no wonder it would be a sore subject (and no wonder its consistent that she had very little sex with Stan in her marriage and said she didn't enjoy it when they did).

Yep, that's part of the reason why I think that queer subtext is so insightful!

A queer reading of Dorothy is not necessary to understand the gravity of what happened to her, to be fair. Stan is very clearly depicted as a bad lover in general and an especially inattentive lover to her -- take eg what she says of him in S1E22 Job Hunting:

"It took three seconds. I wasn't sure that we had done anything, actually… until nine months later, when the baby came. Then I figured out that we had."

Which... doesn't seem like a great experience. Add onto it the fact that a) this is a recollection of her first time, b) she was coerced into performing the act either via emotional manipulation or alcohol/substances (as well detailed in this post by @eeblouissant), and c) her situation didn't improve at all during her marriage; if anything it got worse, since Stan was always out cheating on her -- no wonder she has a bad relationship with sex! Actually, I've said before that I think she has a remarkably open and healthy attitude towards sex, all things considered.

Thinking of Dorothy as queer (especially as a repressed lesbian) makes it all even more tragic, though. I think it's very likely, considering that she's a Catholic of Italian origin, that she hadn't even realized she liked women by the time she got involved with Stan -- I myself reached that conclusion in my early 20s! However, by that time Dorothy was already married and a mother; can you imagine how painful the mere idea would have been, for her? Of course she'd never even consider it while still married to Stan, and she'd have a hard time coming to terms with it after her divorce. It adds a thick layer of suppression and self-sacrifice to her whole story that I think is very thematically appropriate for her character (and that personally destroys me lmao. I cannot think about it for too long or I'll cry my heart out).

I think her whole experience with Stan also justifies her enthusiasm for some of her lovers in the show, even in a queer reading. I mean -- after all that, her standards must be on the floor! The bar is so low, she's dancing the lambada with the devil! Even a modicum of attention to her needs would blow her mind, I think -- even if it didn't come from her preferred gender, and especially if she wasn't ready to confront the truth about her sexuality yet. A lifetime of suppression isn't easy to get over -- she'd probably blame her bad experience with sex during her marriage on Stan alone (instead of considering that maybe she'd rather not be with a man at all).

Sorry, anon -- you probably weren't expecting a ramble in response, haha! But yeah, you make a great point; reading Dorothy as queer adds even more depth to her character and greatly enhances the tragedy of her story.

(Just for the record -- I've never thought the queer reading of Dorothy was funny! Maybe I'm reading this wrong, I just wanted to clarify.)

[lucabyte]

i'm so curious about your character gender reads now tho 👀👀

(You enter the kitchen and see me, eating shredded cheese out of the fridge by the handful)

(I turn around to face you.)

Hi. Do you want me to sell you on amab NB Siffrin? I'm going to try and sell you on amab NB Siffrin. And maybe even a little bit of tranfem siffrin and/or loop. as a treat. just for you.

So, (I put the cheese back in the fridge.)

This read of mine comes from a number of things, a lot of them to do with the game's themes, and to do with Siffrin being a narrative foil to the other characters. And Vaugarde as a whole.

(READMORE WARNING: THIS IS LIKE 6K WORDS LONG. YOU ALL SHOULD KNOW BY NOW I DON'T MAKE POSTS WITHOUT UNCONSCIOUNABLE AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION. IF ANYTHING I'M BEING RESTRAINED HERE. THUMBS UP.)

(Pre-readmore note: this is in response to me having given an analysis of how I personally percieve Sifloop in relation to asexuality and shipping. Which you can look at here. (x))

It is however, not what my like, no-holds-barred no-rules just-for-me headcanon for Siffrin would be. (which is intersex 'head empty no thoughts' siffrin, for the record). This is instead my close-reading-of-the-text-and-themes interpretation of Siffrin. This is why I'm gonna be saying Read and not Headcanon, to distinguish the two. (Anything I consider a little bit too much of a stretch vis a vis interpretive hard reads I will call a headcanon. But those are for the last bit of this post.)

Unlike *gestures at mass media* All That… ISAT is already packed to the gills with queer rep, to the point where I feel no need to grasp at straws and make overextended reaches into obviously unintended subtext. Like with, y'know, most media. Since here, the subtext isn't unintended. Like this isn't a Transfem Metal Sonic or Aroace Ash Ketchum situation where I know none of the evidence is on purpose and I'm just having fun making a conspiracy theory pinboard out of it. This is like… There's intentionality there. And I want to engage with it on its level, see what the text itself suggests. It's my personal preferred method of expressing deep respect to a text. (Not that it has to be anyone else's, obviously. This is just my way of showing I love a work.)

So yeah, I am, in general, very interested in hearing hard-fought arguments when it comes to interpreting texts. I'm glad ISAT has a lot to pick at here, and so, I will. (and since not a lot of texts ever have anywhere near this kind of depth in this arena, i don't wanna squander it… i'll try and keep my own biases as in check as i can, and already have done by hashing quite a bit of this interpretation out with two people of very different gender identities to mine. To put it mildly, binary-aligned or transfem I am very squarely Not.)

(Now that the cheese bag has been removed from the equation, I drop this framing device, sit you down at the table and begin to dredge up evidence from below it.)

Okay, so. What are my like… Core reasonings here? I think I can split it into three categories. Broadly, with an amount of overlap, so bear with me…

SIFFRIN AS A FOIL AND CONTRAST TO MIRABELLE, ISABEAU AND THE CHANGE RELIGION AS A WHOLE.

SIFFRIN'S HABITS OF CLINGING TO 'KNOWN QUANTITIES', SCAPEGOATS, AND THEMES OF RACIAL IDENTITY INTERSECTING WITH GENDER IDENTITY.

SIFFRIN, LOOP, DE-PERSONING, DEHUMANISING, APATHY AND SURVIVAL.

Okay so up top I'm going to split my argument for Siffrin's gender identity Present and Future here. This means, for now, I'm arguing for AMAB NB Siffrin alone. The transfem stuff is for later (and more for loop, in my mind, too).

I have a few direct observations of the text here that set things up. Here are the things in-game that make me assume that Siffrin, as of the start of the game, has not yet undergone any radical change to their identity in their life. Not on purpose, at least. These are ordered in a messy but logical flow, so uh, try and keep up. I'll synthesise at the end. I Prommy.

SIFFRIN AS A FOIL AND CONTRAST TO MIRABELLE, ISABEAU AND THE CHANGE RELIGION AS A WHOLE.

CHANGE & THE UNIVERSE: PERCEIVED OPPOSITES

When interacting with most objects in the Changing Room in the house, they express a genuine curiosity toward body craft. It seems they are legitimately unfamiliar with it on a deeper level than having simply heard of it.

Despite this curiosity (explicitly stating they've previously wondered about it), they dismiss it as too much work early on in the game. These points combined seem to suggest to me that they have never previously sought out any kind of real change to their appearance or identity. Either for gender reasons, or other body dysmorphia reasons. (Which, despite the dismissal, they do refer to their body as a 'meat prison', which is not particularly positive) However...

This changes in Act 3. In acts 3 and 4 they flatly state: "You're thinking about crafting your body. You seem to have all the time in the world now." While still never spoken aloud, their declining mental state corrosponds with a worn-down, almost nihilistic reckoning with the feelings they masked with the 'meat prison' joke in act 2.

[Image: Interactions with the change craft textbook in acts 2 and 3/4.]

In talking to Mirabelle, they are very self assured that one can stay the same/be comfortable with their born identity. They also seem a little unsettled by the change religion's flippancy in general, which makes sense, as they have been clinging to the famliar (even when painful) to cope with other traumas. (More on this later, section 2)

The Universe Faith appears to heavily disincentivise Wanting for oneself and other expressions of Free Will due to safeguarding against Wish craft. This seems to have impacted Siffrin's mental state majorly, even if they do not recognise it. The followers of the faith are (if Siffrin is to be believed) incentivised to 'go with the flow' and take paths of least resistance, and those that DO make big decisions will tend to justify things as being The Universe's Will. (See: The King's entire Modus Operandi, and the way Loop (and Siffrin) do the same rote actions, constructing worldviews (the play analogy, the Universe's Will) and justify that as what the Universe Would Want (despite a total lack of evidence to prove as such)) As such, it seems as if a follower of this faith as neurotic as Siffrin would be unlikely to act upon any Wants to Change Themselves without a lot of turmoil and backwards-justification. (Of note, Loop's forcible change coinciding with a dropping of pronoun. But that is again for later, section 3) As of the start of the game, they do not appear to have broached this kind of turmoil directly.

[Image: Act 5 interaction with the star journal, emphasis on it being a cautionary tale against reckless usage of wish craft, instilled so deeply to be a children's bedtime story]

Siffrin, in act 5, grows frustrated with both The Universe and The Change God, feeling abandoned by the former. They struggle with simultaneously anthropomorphising the Universe as a cruel onlooker, while also seemingly acknowledging them as a cold, almost scientific fact of nature. This would heavily imply that the 'blame' put upon the Universe by Siffrin in these moments is known to them, at least a little, to be potentially meaningless. It seems that somewhere in Siffrin's belief system is something, be it the core or merely a creeping worry, that the Universe is not a thinking, feeling, thing. And thus that their invocations of "The Universe's Will" are merely rationalisations of random chance and consequence. This is in DIRECT contrast to the Change God, proven to be an emotive sapient entity, who merely refuses to offer a helping hand. (Similar sentiments are, too, spoken by the Change God itself.)

[Images: Interacting with the window in the observatory in act 5, text from the change god meeting]

So. These are the bulk of my observations when it comes to how Siffrin is positioned in contrast to the Change Belief. It would seem to be that Siffrin, inkeeping with their role as an outsider, is a complete fish out of water in Vaugarde's change-centric world. This makes sense! It makes them a compelling foil to the Vaugardians in our cast, and allows the Vaugardians to challenge Siffrin's worldviews merely by existing. It also, more importantly, makes Siffrin an interesting lens through which to inspect our two most Change-driven characters. Mirabelle and Isabeau.

MIRABELLE.

Mirabelle and Siffrin's differing faiths are put on display the most frequently. Interactions like the circle key and the party's disbelief of Siffrin's facts about the stars make this clear. These interactions other Siffrin from the group further, and are another avenue through which Siffrin can ignore their own needs, not communicating with the party and allowing them to dismiss things he deems important.

Obviously, the friendquest is primarily about Mirabelle's struggle with her aromanticism and asexuality. But there's an implicit undercurrent of gender there too. Mirabelle has never made a big change, not like Isabeau. She has never 'changed completely', by her words. And Siffrin distinctly finds this an odd thing to be worried by. Whatever culture he carries has no pressure to explore these avenues, it seems. Siffrin is able to help her by sharing their honest opinions, that he's never felt the need to change these things, and he's happy (allegedly). Why should she?

[Image: Mirabelle's friendquest text] Siffrin is not thinking particularly hard when he first does the friendquests, they are just being themselves. By positioning Siffrin as this unchanged yet confident object, they are in the perfect position to help Mirabelle by being in her almost exact position, both sexuality and transgender status (albeit, with the caveats of potential alloromanticism, and a they pronoun), that they become her ideal foil. (And in fact, the subtle differences between their positions in canon add to this, showing a display of Perceived Genuine Truth, rather than simple in-group camaraderie)

Whereas…

ISABEAU.

When Mal du pays speaks as Isabeau, it says the following;

"I don't want to know someone who won't even try to change, who luxuriates in things staying the exact same like you do."

I don't want to know someone - Shame of being known, that's Isabeau's insecurity. Reflected back at Siffrin, who has become the worst thing imaginable to each of their friends, in Siffrin's own mind. He absorbs their insecurities like a sponge and incorporates them into himself. Empathy turned ill.

Who luxuriates in things staying the exact same - Now THAT'S interesting. This is not Isabeau's insecurity, it's Siffrin's own. But also, it appears as if, Siffrin, whom to Mirabelle was unflappable in that not changing was alright, has internalised some of her worry. That it is MDP's Isabeau saying this, though, shows this is about Personal Change, perhaps even Specifically Gender and Self Image, rather than Mirabelle's spiritual side.

Isabeau and his distinct change in personality and gender, to become someone who he actually likes… Diametric to Siffrin, who has been stagnant for a long time, presumably as far as they can remember. It would seem to imply they have no recourse against this argument. Siffin becomes, in his mind, the opposite to Isabeau, a man he deeply admires the bravery of when told the story of his Change. These are Siffrin's words against themselves, that they consider themselves to have never even 'tried' whatever it is they think Change to be.

So. These are my main points vis a vis: Siffrin as a foil. This reading would posit that Siffrin's He/They status is, well, almost accidental? Which I would imagine befitting of them. They are, at the start of the game, still the mysterious rogue who never elaborates upon anything. They aren't going to be correcting a they/them from a teammate who is likely far more cautious about assumptions.

Notably, Mirabelle excludes Siffrin from the label "man" in the bathroom monologues… But as does Siffrin when in the prologue poem room. Though one needs remember, Siffrin only expresses these thoughts internally.

[Image: Bathroom conversation featuring Isabeau identified as the party's singular man]

[Image: Prologue!Siffrin expressing that they are not a man in very certain terms.]

While I do wonder what Mirabelle's knowledge (or lack thereof, potentially! Did Siffrin actually divulge this to her, once? Or is she making assumptions again?) is here, this is pretty clear evidence that Siffrin doesn't see themselves As A Man. (that, and Adrienne's word of god "fella" comments). I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this… but.

The thesis here is, that Siffrin may want to explore their gender further; doesn't feel connected to Masculinity, and yet, keeps that He pronoun around? Well, the Universe does not, in Siffrin's mind, really allow for personal wants and desires. If their friends start they/themming them, then cool. They like it, but never requested it, so it's the Universe's will. But, asking? Making decisions and requests and rocking the boat? That seems to scare Siffrin a lot. It seems to scare them so much it causes a lot of, if not all of, the conflict in the game. I feel like it's a fair deduction that this aversion to humour their own desires pervades a lot of their existence.

Plus, I think there's meat there. By only allowing Siffrin to reckon with any potential desires to change only after growing closer with the family, you get to explore things like "How does Mirabelle feel that even the person who said she didn't have to change is changing." and the slightly less potentially harrowing (OR MORE, IF YOU WANT IT TO BE? IDK. I'M NOT YOUR BOSS.) "Isa's continued changing allows Siffrin a space to explore it, maybe even just by proxy, or maybe by joining them."

But mostly, this section is about how Siffrin not having Changed Yet makes them delightfully strong narratively; allowing them to relate to Mirabelle, and get cold feet when comparing themselves to Isabeau. I love this as a narrative strengthener. It's very rare in media that we get to explore a nonbinary character's thoughts and insecurities on whether or not they're "doing enough" to be nonbinary. Even less so Aligned nonbinary people. And reading that alignment and insecurity through the lens of a nonbinary person not fully disconnected from their assigned gender at birth? It's a very compelling exploration of a very common and raw and yet underdiscussed feeling, much like the rest of ISAT. I think this is an extremely potent element should it be read this way, and is only strengthened when taking Siffrin's other themes into account.

Speaking of which.

2. SIFFRIN'S HABITS OF CLINGING TO 'KNOWN QUANTITIES', SCAPEGOATS, AND THEMES OF RACIAL IDENTITY INTERSECTING WITH GENDER IDENTITY.

HOLDING ON TO WHAT YOU KNOW. (OR KNOW THAT YOU DO NOT.)

I explained above many of my thoughts on the Universe Faith, and trying to keep these two sections separate was difficult, but needed to be done for the sake of clarity. But this section and the above are deeply intertwined.

Siffrin… Holds on to the things they know. They do not know much. But man do they fucking hold. And yet, paradoxically, they are also avoidant about it.

It is made clear in the text, to the point where I really don't feel the need to rehash it here, that Siffrin's disconnection from their homeland is incredibly painful, but that they consider that culture utterly and irreplaceably important to them. They cannot face it, it is too painful. They cannot let it go, it is too important.

Knowing what we know of the Island's irl inspirations (though, word of god, the exact location is not supposed to matter, one can infer it from the text (and I did! within reasonable proximity!)), Siffrin is of an indigenous peoples of some description, more than likely. And at the very least, Siffrin carries with them inherent biases and ignorances that show that Vaugarde's conceptions of things don't quite mesh with their own. Bowing to the Vaugardian way of things could very easily be seen as assimilation, in this way.*

And identity? Gender? Presentation? Role? All of that has a cultural element. There's no telling what specifics Siffrin has lost in that arena, and that's the problem. Neither do they. How paralysing, the feeling, to know that should you change yourself you risk unknowingly erasing another piece of home? I wouldn't blame them for locking it off. Keeping their old clothes, keeping what little they can remember of themselves… It doesn't seem to me a conducive or safe mental space to get experimental.

And the Universe makes for a perfect scapegoat. As referenced in the section above, a lot can be justified should you call it "The Universe's Will", because who's there to call you on it? Hardly anyone. Your divine right to Freeze A Place In Time; Your Deserved Punishment for Wanting to be Loved: All of it the Universe-- If you want it to be. And thusly, if the Universe wanted you to be a certain way, wouldn't you already be? Wouldn't it make you so? (Wouldn't it take away your body, that which makes you human? If that is what it thought of you?) So best to put it out of your mind. Wouldn't want to accidentally wish anything.

But as the game itself puts it, personified by The King, you cannot stay mired like this forever. As Loop themselves puts it, they can "get so fixated, sometimes." At some point they need to allow themselves to grow in whatever direction they need, because in the end, they need to live their life. They don't need to abandon their country, their culture, but they can't let it restrain them either.

(* MASSIVE CAVEAT: im white as fuck boyyy. i cant say shit. im like technically Of The Land im like 90% pictish or something ridiculous like that so my particular line has never moved anywhere but. this is notttt something i have input or insight on. this is all gleaned from reading and listening to indiginous perspectives from wherever they may be. i am simply trying to infer from what the game gives us without inserting my own feelings on the matter.)

3. SIFFRIN, LOOP, DE-PERSONING, DEHUMANISING, APATHY AND SURVIVAL.

Alright, here's some less heady and purely-thematic points to round things out. And where we'll also address the fucked up star being in the room; Loop.

My last couple of reading points are the most potentially-transfem to me. Or at least the ones that really hammer home, to me, a seeming lack of want to be masculine-aligned.

ANOTHER NOTE ON THE 'NOT A GUY' THING.

Obviously, there is the aforementioned "Not a man/not that you're a boy" thing. This is rather straightforward, but also still pretty ambiguous. You can be masc-aligned and still Not A Guy. But it does seem to be of note that being a guy very much does not seem to be a goal of Siffrin's. I would posit this in direct contrast to… Isabeau.

But not Isabeau's masculinity. I would instead hold it up against Isa's femininity.

ISAT, as a text, has its characters have genuinely different levels of security in their gender identity, and Isabeau, despite still having insecurities, seems super chill on the gender angle specifically! Their internal strife comes not from their 'not feeling like a man enough' or 'hating being a woman', but instead from their self perception as a friendless nerd! Something that seems to be only tangentially related to Isa's gender, really?

The big dumb bruiser thing is certainly aided by being a dude, but Isa still seems completely comfortable referring to themselves with feminine language, calling himself a "mother hen" (prologue) and having "the heart of a fair maiden" (cookie snack time). (However, they also take being excluded from Mira's girly book club as a surprised compliment, implying they weren't expected to be excluded, and find it affirming.) And even further so, Isa states they want to continue changing further and exploring their identity more, being rather blatant that they might lean back into femininity (and more importantly, let themselves be outwardly smart again), since they're starting to feel hurt by everyone assuming they ARE genuinely stupid.

[Image: Prologue Isa calling himself a mother hen]

And man, this is such a breath of fresh air vis a vis representation. I don't think I really need to explain that. A character who's gender identity is driven by chasing euphoria, even if it started out by trying to drive out misery. Isabeau's character is so damn good. But this essay isn't about him, so get back in the crate, boy.

... So here we have Isa, who is genuinely comfortable reclaiming things about their birth gender, and Mirabelle who loves her traditionally feminine traits to the point where she feels a little guilty that she isn't rejecting them to foster change. And then we have Siffrin… who seems to reject masculine language…? Hrm… (��� And then we have The King. A Masculine Title. Someone who Siffrin increasingly sees themselves in and deeply, deeply dislikes this.)

APATHY AND SURVIVAL

It should be clear by now that I see Siffrin's core character as being driven by avoidance and survival. This seems to lead to a lot of apathy, brushing off emotions that are too intense or events and occurences that are too painful. (See: just absolutely everything with Bonnie)

It's all Siffrin really seems to be able to do to Survive. They've travelled, seemingly alone, for what would be around a decade by what the game says about the island's disappearance. They've lived alone on the road as a traveller in a country that so openly welcomes strangers that THE KING and his whole motives can happen. Siffrin is avoidant and refuses to acknowledge problems or strive for help and comfort.

So. That line about the dress. Let's unpack the line(s) about the dress.

THE DRESS LINE, AND THE WAY IT CHANGES BETWEEN PROLOGUE, ACT 2, AND ACT 3.

Good god where to start with this. Full disclosure, the first draft here was way more vague in how I approached this line because I remembered it (and another line, I'll get to it.) way more tame, but going and getting the screenshots..... Siffrin. Buddy. We gotta unpack this.

In act 2, we have "You haven't worn a dress in forever!". This is a neutral, if seemingly a little joyous statement. All we really glean from this is the information that Siffrin at some point, wore 'a' dress. No real inferences there. (Maybe you could say that the singular as opposed to plural makes it more likely that they borrowed/only owned One Dress rather than owned several? But that's a massive stretch...)

Then, act 3/4 shuffles this off into a more general "You wonder if you'll ever wear different clothes again." Which is a more despairing and distant statement. Considering Siffrin seems to travel with only the items they can carry, and owns sleep clothes... It's unclear how many changes of clothing they have. The party seems to consider the cloak a pretty permanent fixture, anyhow. But this line doesn't really say much aside from 'oh god i'm losing myself to the time loop malaise'

NOW THE PROLOGUE. Prologue Sif, buddy, pal, Loop, if I'm allowed to call you that....

Thousands of loops in. We are wistful for specifically dresses. You've forgotten almost everything. You dream about someday seeing the sun again. To be anywhere but here. You want to wear a dress again.

I. Kind of do not know what to do here but point at it. Like I said, my first draft had me half-remembering the progression of this line and as such I was far more vague on what I thought it could imply. Instead this is just straight up yearning.

To, try and segue back to what I had initially written, we'll pick up here...

Siffrin expresses a want to wear other clothes, explore changing their body... But instead, they wear a ratty old form-covering cloak that keeps them warm and safe and is a last reminder of home. They are shapeless, formless, hiding their face under the brim of a wide hat. They do not voice their desire to wear a dress aloud. They once again, keep a desire to themselves, because they do not allow themselves to want publicly. Apathy is safer. Apathy and quiet means you do not risk retribution or hurt.

While I do not think the above is exclusively a transfeminine feeling, it really, really reads like one when taken part and parcel with assuming Siffrin has denied themselves prior exploration.

... And here I have to break my first draft again. I was being, once again, restrained in my reading when writing this. Because I had convinced myself I had maybe straight up imagined one of the lines I was basing my reads on, because I couldn't find it. Because it was a line that read so strikingly desolate to me that my brain had slotted it in during Act Five, meaning when I went looking for it neither me nor my friends could find it.

It's in acts 3 and 4. It's a line I already brought up.

"You're thinking about crafting your body. You seem to have all the time in the world now."

good fucking christ. sorry to break the academic tone but Jimminy Fucking Willikers, Siffrin. What's with that bit. The resignation and despair and guilty comfort we know the timeloop brings them, bleeding into the gender.

This. *taps my finger harshly on my desk* THIS, this feels transfem. this feels so wildly transfem to me. The knowledge that they've never changed before this line lends. The admission that they've been holding back because it's 'too much work'. I spent a lot of time during the game relating Siffrin not to myself but to my friends.

If I'm honest, really, truly, I'm not all too often in Siffrin's shoes. I'm the stable one, of my group. I'm the rock people ground themselves on. And I see so much hesitance, all the time. Denial of joy because what if it's taken away, again? Or futilely out of reach? It hurts more to try, and to fail, than to never try at all.

I wanted to shake Siffrin by the shoulders this whole game. Grit teeth beg them to accept help because for fuck's sake people are clearly offering it get it through your skull--

*coughs* Ah. Ahem. Right. The uh, academic tone.

Right. What I mean to say is, this read as transfem to me because of the way it relates to real-world experiences of denial. And this combo of the Dress line, and the progression of the Meat Prison line, the constant evidence of never having strived for what they want, and that insistance that you're not a man, seem to dislike being percieved as a man, but not being able to shed the outward signifiers?

Individually, yes, these points can be read in different ways. The total opposite ways, even, I'm sure! But as a gestalt it feels really, really transfem. Even if yeah, sure Vaugarde is a magical setting where being transgender is accepted, and this hesitance, specifically, around gender, might not 'make sense' in 'the lore'...

Diegesis isn't everything. Sometimes something that reflects a real-world feeling is important, even if it doesn't 'mesh' with 'the lore' of the world.

TANGENT: DIEGESIS AND READING INTO NON-REAL-WORLD-SETTINGS.

This is a Watsonian vs Doylist spectre that's been haunting this whole argument. In-universe (Watsonian), Vaugarde has seemingly no discrimination between genders, sexualities, and a lackadaisical approach to most things in the arena. Reading our own patriarchal/heterosexual/amanonormative/perisexist society unto it does not make sense, not in this context.

In the real world, however (Doylist), ISAT is a text made in our prejudiced society. A text that is distinctly flavoured by those bigotries which it is kicking back against. Because of this, it is not the whole story to simply read the text while discarding our real-world-informed inferences. Isabeau is a big example of this. While perfectly accepted in Vaugarde, he is very obviously a revolutionary character in our real-world space! He has so much to say, specifically BECAUSE things about him that are not readily accepted here, are accepted there! Same with Mira's struggles, and yes, Siffrin's too.

ISAT was written with the knowledge of how it would play against our real world in mind, we know this, clearly, from many an interview. This is most present in how it engages with asexuality and aromanticism (and immigrant identity), but make no mistake, it influences the Whole Text.

Ergo, just because I view certain writing choices here in the context of Our Real World Perspectives On Gender and not Vaugarde's In-Universe Perspectives, it does not make them an invalid read. They are simply a Doylist read.

There's been an admittedly loosey-goosey lack of delineation here between things I'm reading with either lens, because for the most part all of these points have been a vague synthesis of both that I can't quite decouple. Unprofessional, I know, but I'll admit to not having written my thoughts down like this in a good long while. Usually I just hash this out verbally over discord voice to a small number of weirdo literature and classics student friends who are willing to humour me. I'm an arts student too, but animation hardly required I actually write an essay to a literature degree's standard. Lol.

DE-PERSONING. AND LOOP. OH JESUS . LOOP .

Siffrin de-persons themselves a lot. I say de-person rather than dehumanise because, well, there's a subtle difference there. Siffrin doesn't see themselves as vermin or an animal or an object, but they do seem to see themselves as lesser, not requiring the respect they grant others. They aren't, you know, a 'real person'.

People get to have things like thoughts and wants and identities. Siffrin is, at best, Just Siffrin. They have what they have and they don't ask for more and they don't (CAN'T) feel too strongly on what they do have!

When Loop at first offers their pronouns they offer the Royal 'We'. This is at least a little bit, a joke. A nudge toward their true identity, a potential dig at themselves for becoming so understanding of The King. Mostly though, a joke on the first thing…. and a sign that they do not see themselves as a separate entity to the Siffrin stood before them.

When Siffrin rejects this, they settle for they/them. Loop drops the he/him, presumably partially to cover their tracks, but… They just showed their hand with the 'Royal We', and if you wanted to go even further with this, there's no way for us to know whether Loop is treating this pronoun as singular or not. They presumably are, but it is still a potentially plural pronoun.

Loop… Clearly does not see themselves as a person. It's, I would say, a completely reasonable assumption that the form they have taken reflects implicit feelings toward themselves as less than a person, an actor, a monster, a tool, a means to an end. They are rendered inhuman by The Universe, frivolous distractions removed. No mouth, inventory and clothes confiscated, nothing between the legs. Formed roughly in the shape of a person to allow them to do their only job: Help.

Loop's body does not make logical sense, given their continued ability to sleep, dream and their continued habit of deep breaths to self-soothe. It would seem to me, it was made in the image it was, with only the tools it needed to Help Siffrin. Why obfuscate their identity? Because giving the game away too early would likely make them lose hope. Why so deeply, thoroughly star themed? An instant signal, that even if a stranger, they are an ally. They are home.

[Image: Loop saying that they take naps and dream, and evidence of Loop habitually attempting to breathe in the twohats lose-to-loop ending]

And they… Degender themselves. No longer with any bodily signifiers of masculinity, and cruelly disallowed the ability to hide themselves beneath fabric, they are null. The spoiler Q&A (paratext, as it were) states that:

Q. Is Loop: 1. Actually comfortable with both he and they, but only gave the one pronoun to emphasize the distance? 2. Only using they/them because a large life event led to a shift in identity/ how they’d like to be perceived? or 3. time lops stole he from they they :( A. Mostly that first one. But all three of those reasons have a bit of truth to them.

While the 'mostly the first one' comment does imply that Loop would not baulk at being he/him'd (similar to how Siffrin does not), the other reasons, especially the second, having 'a bit of truth' does lend credence to this reading. That Loop's self-perception has shifted, and what I posit, is that this shift is in tandem with a disconnection with humanity. Due, presumably, to the dehumanising experience of the timeloop.

Loop has no biology to speak of, and yet they remain blind in one eye. I take this as an implication that they considered this so core to themselves, to who they could remember being, that it stayed. Even if they had forgotten their own face, trapped in a part of the house with no mirrors, they knew they couldn't see. They kept this, and yet seemingly they, or The Universe, or both of them in tandem, discarded all else.

This isn't like…. Healthy behaviour. That is for certain. But it is interesting that Siffrin and Loop seem to hold on to their masculinity by a thread, and that Loop, when actually given the excuse to make a choice, chooses the Neutral Option. Siffrin might de-person themselves, but Loop, Loop is absolutely dehumanising themselves. From Loop's own mouth (or lack thereof) do they call themselves a Corpse. That's… pretty damn bad.

TANGENT 2: POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE JAPANESE TRANSLATION.

Did somebody say 'distance'? Yeah turns out that has some more potential evidence. In the form of First Person Pronouns. See, English, with its third person only pronouns relies on others to gender you. Japanese, you get to gender yourself. And Siffrin specifically has an interesting discrepancy in the way he refers to himself.

(DISCLAIMER: I . DO NOT KNOW MUCH ABOUT JAPANESE. THIS IS SECOND-HAND KNOWLEDGE. SOURCED FROM THIS TUMBLR POST AND OTHER QUICK SKIMS OF WIKIPEDIA)

Loop and Siffrin use the same, very neutral "mostly male but could go either way" pronoun of 僕 boku. Safe, soft friendly pronoun. Used by people on the younger side of adulthood, not so impolite that you can't use it in a formal setting. Such a neutral all-rounder that female singers in japan tend to use boku in their songs to relate to the audience with quiet confidence.

And in their internal monologue? Siffrin uses a completely different pronoun. In his head, for himself, he uses 自分 jibun. Now, this may be an artefact of the monologue's english second-person "You", since jibun can also be used to mean a very neutral "self". A "myself/herself/himself" type 'self'. But when used as a first person pronoun, it has a connotation of being… distant, introspective. Which is… a fascinating implication, if that was the intent.

But I don't know anything about japanese so ! If I'm off the mark, discard this!

LOOP, PART 2: MAYBE NOT A GREAT STATE TO BE IN.

While Siffrin I can comfortably argue that they can like, keep their current gender presentation, whatever you may perceive it to be, once the game is over, Loop, I cannot.

Siffrin's potential issues with their identity are ones that honestly feel like they would best be explored with gentle refinement and searching. They don't need to violently seperate themselves from what they are now, far from it, in fact. They need to learn to grow comfortable in their own skin, and with the people they love. To become open and trusting, with an open mind to where it may lead.

Loop has already lost this battle. They don't get to refine anymore, just pick up the pieces. While I don't necessarily think radical change is Good for Loop, I think they may Need It. For them, resting will probably become stagnation (see: napping all day under the tree, resigned, really, to the idea they're stuck there forever.), they need a shake-up in order to re-find their feet. Even if they end up right back where they started, they still need to do the actual painful process of soul-searching first.

Problem is, they're still rather avoidant. So it basically becomes a question of getting them into a situation where this exploration is forced upon them. At which point, that's a whole new plotline. This becomes fanfiction. Hence, why while I think Transfem-Egg Loop is a Valid Read when extrapolated from Siffrin… I must concede any actual adventures into them acting upon that as headcanon territory. I just do not know how you would get them there without making a whole new Thing, at which point it stops being Just A Read of the text haha. It doesn't help that Loop and Siffrin (grudgekeepers supreme) both have reason to spite the Change God after who was phone.

As for whether this egg-read reflects directly back on to Siffrin? Maybe! They are the same person. But I think that, especially with Vaugarde's lax views, and their actual differences (Loop's general worse mania // Siffrin's incentive to stay a reminder to themselves and Loop of their country) means they could easily go two different routes, along the road to becoming their own distinct individuals. (And in all honesty, growing into their differences is probably the more healthy option in the long run if you're keeping Loop around? But again, we are going so far into the future here this is no longer a read. And I am not here to dispense baseless headcanons without massive disclaimer, so…)

Tl;Dr:

Siffrin's Survival-Apathy and hesitance to change feels really thematic to their being 'what's left' of their homeland

They seem unsettled by the flippancy of the Change Religion at times, clinging to the familiar to cope with the trauma of displacement.

Mal du pays speaks of them that they have not 'tried' to change, showing an insecurity there, even outside of the literal stagnance of the loops.

They are self assured to Mira that one does not have to change, in a very genuinely personal impulsive statement.

They and others exclude themselves from being "A Man", but Siffrin keeps desires to explore their expression to themselves.

The Universe belief, seemingly in Siffrin's view of it, disincentivises Free Will and Wants very heavily. It is not hard to assume they extend this to all elements of their life.

They have self-admittedly never pursued tangible change, likely due to this aversion to choice. Despite this, they express interest in changing, seeming nonplussed with their body, and house at least some desire for more traditionally feminine expression.

Oh Good God. Loop Sure Does Not Treat Themselves Like A Person. Why Does That Come With A Pronoun Change? What Does That Mean?

But most of all:

It makes them such a fascinating foil and lens to Change and characters who believe in it! It makes them eerily similar to The King! It opens up such fascinating debate between characters like themselves and Mirabelle, Isabeau and Loop, on whether or not they want to change in future, or if it truly is okay to never radically change yourself! What genuinely fertile ground for dialogues. And man if I'm not heavily drawn towards dialogues.

(End of essay! Congratulations for making it the whole way! 🎉 I hope this nightmarish deep dive helps with understanding some of the ways I've been writing Siffrin and Loop too. Since while I've not ever focused on the gender side of it (and probably won't in comic form) this does pervade my view of the two, since it would be impossible for it to Not. As you can see, I do think it is pretty relevant to both their themes.)

(Now for some bonus material)

ADDENDUMS:

PERSONAL BIAS NOTE:

Not included in this analysis since this is more a Pet Theme of my own (usually kept quarantined to the realms of my OCs), but something else I see in Siffrin is a reflection of the Dude Issue(tm) of patriarchal irl society disincentivisng Dudes(tm) from ever fucking introspecting ever.

I'm curious about nonbinary/trans characters who have no idea they’re nonbinary/trans because they’ve been disincentivised from thinking/doubting their identity due to societal power structures or simply tradition. I dig around the themes of “a lot of guys are trapped in a societal prison without ever knowing and it makes them miserable but they can’t escape because they don’t even see the cage” like, a lot, in my personal work. It intrigues me. So bleh, cards on the table there. That mode of interacting with nb/trans characters is one I'm inclined to.

This kinda goes hand in hand with the watsonian vs doylist situation i took an aside to mention. But it is so far along the doylist side that I didn't want to include it, since it is a little too assumptive of the text for my comfort. I don't think the game necessarily has much commentary on this specific Societal Bind. But if it does, then hey, there's my thoughts on it.

STRAY SIDE NOTES AND HEADCANONS ABOUT OTHER CHARACTERS (AS A TREAT FOR GETTING THIS FAR):

MID-GAME OBSERVATION ABOUT BONNIE AND ODILE THAT I NEVER WENT BACK TO VERIFY:

I got the impression that Bonnie heavily favours they/them pronouns for Siffrin, and Odile he/him, as a bit of presumed character voice. I don't know that I am right, literally at all, in that observation, because it very well could've been confirmation bias.

BUT! It did give me the impression that one of the things Bonnie was idolising about Siffrin was a degree of "wow!! older person with my gender!! wow!!", which is just like, cute. I like it even if I don't have any solid evidence.

ODILE, WHAT'S HER DEAL?:

Oh she stays just as mysterious as she intends to be, huh? Even with her comments in the Changing Room alluding to knowing things about underground changing operations, you can't draw much of a conclusion about her. I appreciate verily that she's word-of-god unlabelled and also poly. That shit's great. Woman who has stopped drawing lines or caring what she's up against. Nice characterisation flavour I think.

Anyway, I do think that transfem Odile is a really, really nice take. I have no evidence in either direction for her in either direction, and her being a woman of any description makes her relationship with her absent mother something interesting to chew on, but the idea that she pursued womanhood intentionally lends an interesting texture. I've not much to say, but it's a thread to pull on. Makes you wonder what other female role models she had in her life instead. Anyway she's mysterious as fuck I can't extrapolate Jack nor Squat. Shrug! I'm also made curious by the idea of her potentially moving away from womanhood as she feels the weight of her history lifted. This goes either way, really. Diagnosis: mysterious.

HEADCANON NOTE: INTERSEX SIFFRIN

I don't have any in-text support for this so this entire thing is an unbased headcanon to me. but i DO like it because 1. fun and 2. potential for more thematic exploration

haha gotcha its fuckin themes again. its always themes with me.

But yeah. Not much to say here besides drawing a parallel (that I believe I've seen drawn elsewhere in the fandom already?) between ISAT's comments on how a society that values change would view Aroace identities, and how Mira feels about not wanting to change with the real world experiences of Intersex people having alteration and conformity forced upon them, saying the Change Belief would likely be just as bad for them as it is for aroace people.

So, adding it to Siffrin's situation further drags them into the opposition-to-change foil role. Which like I said, think has a lot to explore.

HEADCANON NOTE: A POTENTIAL METHOD FOR GETTING LOOP OUT OF THEIR GOD DAMNED COMFORT ZONE

I think utilising Loop's contrarianism is an effective and funny way to get them to explore their gender. I personally think running with them trying to hide their identity from the party is a hilarious way to do it. Having them try to position themselves in direct opposition to Siffrin to "throw the party off their trail" (not that i think they really need to?), going full feminine-revealing-clothing because it's NOT what a Siffrin would do and accidentally growing accustomed to it. Funny to me. Especially when the party eventually do find out who they are and go . "????? what was the girl stuff about ??? is that something you wanna do now ???".

[Isabeau] "Ohhhh it was a bit! Haha you really are Sif, still a jokester!" [Loop] "HAHA YEAH . JOKES. LOVE THOSE. LOVE TO MAKE JOKES!" [Isabeau] "Yep! Anyway. Tell me if you need anything!"

Bonus bonus:

[Siffrin] "Okay, so, if you're a girl. Does this reflect on like… me?" [Loop] "No doubles. Get your own gender, parasite~!"

[shortpplfedup]

We Are Episodes 6-8: The talking stage, and how to escape it

One of my consistent complaints about New Siwaj has been his penchant for daily minutiae and character antics and how much of it he injects into his stories, and how that feels like it disrupts the movement of his narratives. Who knew the solution was just to let him make a whole show about daily minutiae and character antics, without much of a narrative for it to disrupt. This is by far the most I have ever enjoyed a New Siwaj show. IDK if this is what Star and Sky attempted to give (I ain't watching that), but when your concept is 'dudes vibing', it does help if they have some vibes. The cast is most of the reason to be here, granted, but they ARE a good reason.

If this show has a core, I'd argue its core is Toey, and specifically how this loving bunch of of queers adopted a baby gay and did everything possible to ensure that he was happy and cared for, while falling for each other along the way. Everybody in this group shows up for Toey, always, and I love it so much.

This show has put a lot of time and attention into slowly building its core ships, spending an extended period examining that dreaded hell known as 'the talking stage'. Phum/Peem and Q/Toey know they feel attraction and a vibe, both couples have even kissed already (in Phum and Peem's case more than once). But flirting is not dating, and everybody's very clear on that even if they're clear on nothing else. I kind of like that these things are not expected to be assumed or understood, nobody's going to become a couple without having a conversation about it in this universe. I like the effort these boys put into thinking through their feelings, and being intentional. Are they overthinking it a little? Of course they are, they're what, 20? But that's GOOD, that they're thinking it all through and really trying to understand how they feel and what they want to do about it.

That extends out to the side ships of Tan/Fang and Pun/Chain who are on the extremes of this: we saw Tang grab the tiger by the tail, asking Fang out and getting a positive response; Pun and Chain on the other hand, well they're doing their best it seems to neither think nor talk about their clear feelings for each other AT ALL, leaving them in this weird 'just friends' space even as they behave like a couple.

We're halfway through this show and I'm ready to update my couple scores.

Q and Toey: 3/4 hearts

These two take a teensy dip for me because I hate to see Toey cry, but they're on the right path now.

Phum and Peem: 3/4 hearts

+1 for Peem realising his feelings and Phum making an attempt to confess, -0.5 for Phum not committing and Kluen hanging about.

Tan and Fang: 3.5/4 hearts

How is it I love them the most? They understand each other, they like each other, and they don't want to change each other.

Pun and Chain: 2.5/4 hearts

I fully expect their score to go up as we enter the second half of this thing, but there still isn't a whole lot going on. Still, them losing focus and having a whole-ass moment in front of Peem and Tan at the beginning of episode 7 was fun.

[sapphicbookclub]

Author Spotlight: Apolline Lucy

This week, we're excited to bring you a guest essay titled Exploring the Dark and the Romantic in my Upcoming Novel: THE SILVER BIRDS from author Apolline Lucy. THE SILVER BIRDS will be released on September 26, 2023.

When the idea for my novel struck me, I immediately knew I wanted it to be a sapphic enemies-to-lovers story. Sapphic, because I wanted to write about women; enemies-to-lovers because I basically live for this trope. But I didn’t want romance to be at its core. I wanted to craft characters filled with rage and wants for revenge, characters so fiercely protective of the ones they trust enough to love, that they became monsters.

By mixing gore—the visceral, the violent, and the gruesome—and sapphic—love, desire, and identity—I wanted to explore the darkest corners of human existence, defy expectations, and create a space for queer characters to exist outside the confines of heteronormative narratives. My novel isn’t about characters being lesbian—they just happen to be. It’s about them grappling with their own demons and external threats.

That being said, the horror elements in THE SILVER BIRDS do serve as a metaphor for the discrimination and violence LGBTQ+ individuals have historically faced. The book explores the themes of survival and resilience, reflecting the real battles queer people face in their daily lives. But it’s more than just thrills; it's about empowerment. It’s about wanting to give voice to characters from different backgrounds, ethnicities, and identities, and make fantasy a more inclusive and richer genre.

As THE SILVER BIRDS is self-published, I had the freedom to explore taboos and delve deep into themes of obsession, vengeance, and the blurred lines between love and violence. Some scenes are quite graphic and might have faced heavy censorship in traditional publishing. But I believe they challenge readers to confront uncomfortable truths and question the boundaries of desire, love, and violence.

Despite the darkness, my novel ultimately celebrates sapphic love. It’s a reminder that love is a powerful force, even in the face of adversity. I’m committed to writing happy endings because the world is already a terrible place, and I want my books to offer an escape. Yes, I will torture my characters, present them with impossible choices, and reveal terrible consequences for their actions. But I will also grant them happy endings. Love must triumph, even in the darkest of places.

[chuuulula-sauce]

**SPOILERS FOR OUR FLAG MEANS DEATH SEASON 2 BELOW**

About Izzy in that S2 Finale…

Well. I’ll say some nice things first. Unlike other tv shows I’ve seen, Izzy had a whole redemption arc for being the show’s previous antagonist rather than just jumping straight to a “redemption” death. And as a friend poetically said, at least he died doing what he loved, knowing he was loved.

HOWEVER. HOWEVER HOWEVER HOWEVER, I think Izzy should’ve been allowed to live, for the following reasons:

Con O’ Neil is an international treasure and the man acts his ass off.

We could’ve explored Izzy moving on from the abusive relationship with Ed. He repressed a lot of the trauma. Naturally, negative side effects would’ve cropped up. I think showing Izzy further learning to thrive and explore healthy relationships would’ve been reaffirming for viewers.

Speaking of romantic potential, we could’ve gotten an Izzy-Lucius-Pete pairing. The romantic tension between Stede and Izzy could’ve been addressed. Or Izzy could’ve found a leather daddy/daddies who deserved him. Etc, etc.

Izzy is a significant, visibly disabled queer character on a tv show. That’s rare media representation that has to be treated with the care it deserves. With the way his death happened, it not only removed the representation but also made it so a disabled queer character lost the will to live. Other tumblr users like @bougiebutchbitch and @cononeillbreastingboobily explained it better. Their posts can be found here and here.

Izzy also represents the emotional core of the crew and hope for an older queer generation. Why would you ever get rid of those things?

Although I can see how Izzy’s death was intended to create a more dramatic finale, it felt both anticlimactic and unnecessary. If Izzy’s death hadn’t happened, the narrative would still make complete sense. The finale-worthy emotional impact they were going for could’ve been achieved by showing the whole crew saying goodbye to Ed and Stede as they started a new life together. Ed and Stede could’ve appointed Izzy captain, which would’ve had precedent since Izzy has been the heart and voice of the crew. Ed and Izzy still could’ve had their healing moment together. And Izzy would’ve been set up for a potential matelotage, since this show loves its parallels. Sometimes a straightforward, happy ending makes the most sense and you don’t have do too much. It’s already great.

[emblazons]

you've been writing a lot about parentified Mike lately, and while I appreciate it, from a story perspective I just don't understand why.

Maybe its just because I'm an elmike truther, but it really doesn't make sense to me why they would put such an unpleasant aspect into their friendship or romance when they could have just had her upset at him over Max's death or not sharing interests? With steve and nancy they broke up over barb and nancy wanting something else which made of sense without making steve "parent" her. idk. Maybe you're the wrong person to ask lol I'm just thinking out loud

I mean. Maybe I'm not the best person to give insight into why the duffers do what they do, but I can give why I think they did it?

Forewarning: this got really long, apologies lmao

Honestly (and take this from an out-of-universe perspective): I think they're fully aware of the strangeness of El as a character, and how she has a lot of narrative/personal "growth needs" that other characters don't just by nature of her background. She even from the pitch is referred to as "the outsider," and all of her arc, not just the romantic one, has been centered around finding a 'home' in the world, on top of finding the family she lacked before.

This, I'm almost certain, is why she always ends up on different paths than every other person she interacts with—she started with almost no sense of self as an individual, which means a sense of "self" has to be built and discovered (and remembered) for El in a way it already has been for our other characters. Max, Mike, Will, Dustin, Lucas—all of them have interests and desires, a sense of family (good or bad), know what they enjoy, and are evolving as they go along...but El didn't at the start of ST beyond lab trauma, which is why The Duffers have centered almost all of her character growth since then around discovering where she came from & who she wants to be.

With Mike though...there is an entirely different set of relational and character needs that have to be addressed. With Mike, the main struggles he has (from the pitch, again) are with insecurity, his belief that a girl will resolve that insecurity, his feeling valueless unless he can do something for the people he loves (almost like 'earning his place' in their lives) and his (almost certain) queerness...combined with how he is, at the end of the day, just another "everyman" guy.

Unlike El, Mike has some sense of personhood, his own established friends and interests and a home—but he doesn't feel like he has a place he's intrinsically appreciated, because (for whatever reason) he feels who he is inherently inadequate. Its why every season (and every time we hear Finn dig a little into Mike's character) we hear about Mike trying to serve others and "feel needed again," despite being hesitant to let them in—he desires unconditional acceptance, and to be valued for who he is inherently...while also being terrified to let people in enough to see him (lest his core identity be rejected).

When Mike and El were just friends, it was easier to sort them out as some version of "equals;" we all have friends who are in different life phases than us, or who have different needs we're trying to walk alongside as they try to meet them, which is why their friendship is cute in S1. With actual romantic partners though, we introduce an element of "trying to get your needs met" with the person you're most closely involved with...and for Mike and El, that means blending "a nebulous sense of self and desire to find an identity + family" with "a desire to have a girl fill a sense of inherent unworthiness," which, as most of us can see, leads to disaster.

Basically: From the snowball onward, writing romantic mlvn meant exploring what happens when you mix what El is looking for with what Mike tries to do to feel valued...and The Duffers have decided (rightfully, I think) that this means Mike is going to (consciously or not) move towards becoming the things El lacks to "become valuable," aka: protection from the "bad men," someone who is able to keep her safe from them, and...someone who can help her fill her needs for home + family, even though he is dramatically under-equipped at all of 12-15 to meet that task.

Because (especially s4) one of El's core needs has become a healthy father figure and found family, Mike is going to move toward behaving that way to be valuable...which means he's going to inadvertently conflate himself with the men who have also placed themselves in that role: Hopper and Brenner. It also means that Mike is going to feel that same "my child is leaving the nest" energy when El "grows up" and into herself as a wholly independent entity—which is why we see him say as much to Will in the van before the painting—

—and why it sometimes seems like El is almost "rebelling" against Mike as much as she has Hopper and Brenner over the seasons.

To your point though: all of this is inherently different from Steve and Nancy...because both Steve and Nancy had that sense of individual identity that El lacked at the start of the show. There was no space for a "parental" aspect to enter their romance in that sense—it was just two people who were incompatible, which is why they failed. Similarly, if Mike and El would have started the romantic part of their relationship at end of S4 points of the narrative—or even end of S3, after El had a second to come into her own with Max—things would have been a lot different for them, I think.

Only...that's not what happened, and...not how they're resolving Mike's insecurity about being inherently valuable. They broke Mike and El down romantically vis a vis this "she's looking for herself and he's trying to fill his own void with her" track, and then gave Will the entirety of the hand to soothe Mike's deepest fears instead, which is why Mike and El will break up and Mike will end up with and around Will more, because Will knows Mike’s heart and sees Mike as an equal even with his flaws...and loves him for it. 🤷🏽‍♀️

(There are also (in my opinion) fundamental thematic reasons they were working toward as reason why they wrote even the breakdown of mlvn that way (the themes of rejecting forced conformity, found family, and even embracing your love for things other people might think are childish are served by this "version" of the Mlvn to Byler transition) but. I can see why someone wouldn't like it if they were attached to Mike and El being close anyway lmao).

Anyway! I hope...that helps? Honestly that's just how I've come to understand it, and hope that offers some sort of solace or explanation. Its what makes the most sense to me anyway (lol).

Regardless, thanks for the ask! :)

[thedrarrylibrarian]

Several people have been kind enough to let me publish their thoughts on fandom, community, and queerness to celebrate Pride in the Library. Today's piece is a conversation between @academicdisasterfic and his boyfriend, @saintgarbanzo. If you missed it, @saintgarbanzo organized a fundraiser to help support @academicdisasterfic with funds for top-surgery. This fundraiser has met its goal, and is referenced to throughout their conversation.

In this conversation, @saintgarbanzo is chickpea in bold, and @academicdisasterfic is rooney, in regular text.

chickpea: ok baby. let's talk about the gift economy in fandom. it’s something that's part of our politics but many of us struggle with feeling like our worth is tied to our production, even in fandom. has your fundraising experience changed your understanding of those concepts for you?

rooney: Short answer: yes.

Long answer: I think part of what drew me to fanfiction in the first place was a complete divide from capitalism. It’s such a relief in this world of productivity culture. I started writing purely because I loved it and I never thought anyone would read my fics. But then people did, and that meant everything to me. After this fundraiser, I truly understand why the gift economy is so imperative to fandom. People are doing me a favour by donating to my surgery, reading my fics, or writing fics that I love to read. It still feels overwhelming to have as much support as I did. I haven’t processed it at all, I can’t actually fathom it, and I initially had this dread about how I was never going to be able to repay the fandom for what it did for me - it’s not true for all trans men, but for me, this surgery will save my life. But fic saved me too, and I know the same applies to many. When I thought about it like that, I realised that I would do the same thing for anyone here, and it would make me happy to do it. I’d never think they had to pay off that debt. The difference between capitalism and the gift economy is that one is about power and competition, and the other is about the cyclical nature of community. Debts don’t exist, because we don’t give from a finite pool of resources. We give to each other from an endless pool of infinite possibilities.

chickpea: i had that same realization. initially the only way we felt comfortable asking for help was by offering an exchange, but then the exchange wasn't really necessary. everyone just offered up their resources–money but also their time and talent and attention. i go back and forth between feeling guilty/indebted and trying to remind myself that this is how communities are supposed to function and i can feel grateful without feeling guilty. 

you talked about fandom's resistance to capitalism being an initial draw. what about its queerness? my first fandom interactions were very much based in fandom being a safe place to explore queerness. i want to hear about the relationship between your gender realizations and this community.

rooney: You know, I didn’t even think about it in that way - it was more, “I need a queer space, I want it to be a creative space”. It was so apparent to me, even before I knew I was trans, that whatever community I invested in had to have queerness at its core. Back in 2010 when I was figuring out my sexuality, fandom and shipping on Tumblr became really important to me, so I already knew it was there and when I started to explore it, that’s when a lot of gender stuff happened.

I think so many trans people have a more nuanced relationship with their body than is portrayed as the mainstream trans narrative of just being born in the wrong body. I worked very hard before learning I was trans to love and respect my body, and I’d never call it wrong. But reading about queer men fall in love was truly a lightning bolt moment. I’d always felt like an outsider in sapphic spaces - I’m bi/pan/whatever so I do really love women and femmes, that was never the issue - but I realised that I wanted my partners to be perceiving me differently, that I wanted to be treated as a queer man. I think the transgression and fight against purity culture in fandom was so crucial to it - the feelings of displacement and disconnection aren’t articulated the same way in published literature. One of my first fandom friends was @softlystarstruck who writes amazing trans characters with a variety of bodies and sexualities and genders. That sort of representation, of bodies coming together in all those different ways, specifically in sex, made me feel like there was hope - that transness and pleasure aren’t incongruent but born of the same instinct. We have to desire the things that will bring us joy.

chickpea: i love you

rooney: i love you too baby

chickpea: i love that you talked about displacement within queer communities. we've all seen and experienced queerphobia and racism, the demands for productivity, toxicity, discourse that's both helpful and harmful etc. you're someone in fandom who i really admire for the way you acknowledge and navigate the problematic parts of fandom while still focusing on building community in a healthy and joyful way.

can you talk a little bit about being a trans man who consciously decides to stay in hp fandom?

i’ve definitely struggled with my participation here and your fundraiser has brought up those arguments for me again, because we've harnessed this really material and transformative help for you as a trans person, that was carried pretty much entirely by this community.

rooney: Ooft, the big question. 

First off I have to make it clear that I completely understand trans people who don’t want to engage with the HP fandom, because it’s a fucking hard moral and ethical quandary to navigate. But also, I don’t think anyone, including other trans people, should judge those of us who find the inherent transgression of fandom empowering and freeing. That’s my go to answer.

I understand the ethical problems of HP and its fandom. The series is just flagrantly racist. It’s heteronormative, homophobic, and all around “ethically mean spirited”, as Ursula Le Guin so eloquently put it. But it’s still something that I loved, and more importantly, the fandom is so strong not in spite of the series' flaws, but because of them. The more broken it is, the more there is to fix - and we’ve put in Desi Harry and Black Hermione, we’ve written whole essays on why Wolfstar is canon, we’ve taken terrible things like “house elves love to be enslaved” and written complex, thoughtful interpretations of the relationship between oppressor and oppressed. We’ve fucked with it all. Some hasn’t gone far enough, particularly in regards to the way we think about and portray people of colour. But overall, we’ve improved upon something without a single cent from that work going to J.K. Rowling. I find people in this fandom have had a much deeper understanding of the problems in the series for the longest, because we examine it so critically and closely.

No one’s perfect, but we’re all trying - at least, most of us are - and we’re doing things that make the lives of trans people and other marginalised people better. And I’m a trans person who can attest to that, and I know you are too. Universal maxims like “any engagement with HP is transphobic!” don’t even begin to understand what fandom is, what it does, and why it exists. (Those universal maxims also tend to be hugely influenced by Western morality and the legacy of Christianity)

And yes - my fundraiser, and how this community came together to support a trans person in need, really shows all of it in a tangible way. The people here are here to support and uplift those who need it.

chickpea; i often fall into the trap of feeling like if my resistance doesn't transform my oppressors then it doesn't count. i’ve written posts about racism in fandom and a lot of times i still approach it from the position of like, how do i make this palatable, if i just say it with the perfect tone then it will be more approachable and i'll like, convert the racists. i write it with the idea that i have to reach the unreachable. but over and over what i see is that those posts strengthen the people already on my side. and i think it's the same when we're talking about the effects on queer people of engaging with hp. like, a lot of times the argument is that our silly little stories don't translate into real resistance, because people think of "real" resistance as legislative changes and boycotts, as efforts that transform and educate or punish oppressors. and our trans fanfic isn't convincing any terfs that they're miserable pieces of shit. but it bolsters other trans people. it supports us as individuals in this community. i think that the emphasis on whether or not hp fandom engagement translates to "real world" resistance focuses too much on that idea of reaching the unreachable people. we're here and we're doing it for each other, and i *know* it's effective because every queer person i've met in this community has a story of being strengthened by a fic, or a post, or an illustration.

i want to bring it back to joyfulness  in fandom. how has it encouraged you to cultivate more joy for yourself and others?

rooney: Honestly, I think that idea about remembering who we’re actually doing this for is so important. And also I believe we can plant seeds for change through joy. Because here’s the thing - change doesn’t originate from someone signing a piece of paper enacting legislation. That’s an important part, but that person enacts legislation because they represent their communities. Communities who believe joy is possible are stronger, because they have something to fight for. Joy is essential to resistance. I want to reach my community with my words and make them strong. And perhaps then those sentiments will reach further, because we will feel supported by each other and capable in our own lives of challenging bigotry and violence, knowing we are not alone. I am convinced that is how change happens. 

But I don’t just want to be happy so I can fight better. I want to cultivate joy because I deserve it, because I’m a person. Transphobic rhetoric dehumanises trans people, and that disconnect from our humanity can be internalised; perhaps we don’t feel worthy of indulgence, frivolity, the whimsical and beautiful and luxurious parts of life. Fuck that. Every human deserves access to joy. Treating myself cruelly will not change anything about me - depriving myself of joy when I fuck up doesn’t make me fuck up less the next time, and it doesn’t help the people affected by said fuck up. But treating myself well, indulging my creativity and dreaming and desires, actually does change me. It makes me better to the people around me, and better to myself, which means I have more energy for others and myself, which means I give more - it’s the gift economy, it’s cyclical. 

So fandom just makes me happy because it does. I love watching these dumb boys in love. And rather than try and analyse that or judge it, I let myself accept it, and go with it, purely because it’s joyful and life affirming and connects me with the world in a new and beautiful way. It’s really just the power of storytelling, I think - it calls to something primal in us. Maybe it reminds us that we’re humans in this world that wants us to be more like machines.

Fandom makes me joyful because it reminds me of my humanity, I think. With every fic I read or gorgeous artwork it’s like I’m accessing this part of my humanness that I have to keep segmented and separate from my work life, my life where I have to so much of the time be productive and disciplined. Here, I feel all of my flaws acutely and deeply, and all of my wonders, and it’s soul deep. How wonderful to be a human and to feel so keenly - how preferable to a life of trying to stay in the boring, lonely middle.

chickpea: your soulful intellectual rigor is very attractive

rooney: i think that’s my favorite thing you’ve ever said to me.

chickpea: a lot of times i have to frame my self-care and creative work in terms of resistance because that's the only way i can allow myself to have it. but you are so fundamentally right. cultivating joy isn't only for the collective, it's for me. i need to think about pleasure and joy less as a fuck you to the people trying to crush me, and more as a gift. giving yourself that gift of joy really does give that gift to others, and that's such a beautiful, community building action. 

thank you for the reminder that being in community is about engaging with our humanity. it's a perfect conclusion to our whole discussion. humanity is gorgeous and gross and so is fandom and stories are reflections of that, and those reflections are so special to so many of us.

thank you for letting me trick you into processing your feelings. 

rooney: for the record i encourage all of your attempts to trick me into processing my feelings. 

Thank you both for joining me in the Library. I loved what you both had to say about fandom being a gift of joy to ourselves and community being a gift we give to each other. Thank you so much for the privilege of reading your conversation as a way to celebrate Pride in the Library.

If you want more @academicdisasterfic, be sure to check out his work on AO3! I particularly love his fic like the sun came out, because it so accurately portrays the way people who truly love each other treat each other - with gentleness and kindness and patience.

If you want more @saintgarbanzo, be sure to check out his work on AO3 as well! I love Sweeten to Taste because I'm always a sucker for a beautiful food description, and also because I love the thoughtful and nuanced discussions Harry and Draco have in this fic about justice and forgiveness and what we all deserve even when we've been wronged and when we have wronged others.

🏳️‍🌈 Lots of Love and Happy Pride! 🏳️‍🌈

[vanquishedvaliant]

Not to harsh on it too much because it’s generally Fine but it’s interesting seeing people’s reactions to Senpai wa Otokonoko’s anime as first time viewers

For a lot of these people it’s really a first time introduction to this kind of queer coding narrative and they find that novel

But to me the anime is a slog because it’s a pretty lazy and weak adaptation of the already strained source material that didn’t revise any of the early content to punch it up

So the anime hits the story’s actual conclusion at literally episode 4, and spends the rest of the runtime adapting the subsequent filler the author was pressured into creating because of its success that by its nature regresses on the core themes of the story in order to maintain dramatic tension…

Only to just… resolve at the same place again. To me it was an initially promising but ultimately forgettable “crossdressing but it’s actually a trans girl” manga that are a dime a dozen that has overstated its welcome

But it’s surprise popularity and anime adaptation are introducing that genre to a lot of new people who find it novel and not as trite

It’s a curious situation

I just hope the poor author gets to work on something else someday after being financially pressured to extend its finale 3 times and then write a gods damned prequel

[james-vi-stan-blog]

Ok my personal response to The King’s Assassin. From the perspective of a layperson who is not in any form a historian, merely a fan of James VI/I. Edit I also fixed the author’s name in my post, I dunno HOW I messed that up, fever scrambled my branes.

I don’t hate the book, and it would be wildly arrogant of me to say “it’s bad! It’s inaccurate!” when I know like 5 things, have read a handful of books and have to scrape my meager knowledge outta JSTOR allowance and what my library has. And overall, I think it actually does a great job of introducing the different factions involved, the shifts in politics as they happen, and presenting loads and LOADS of interesting anecdotes in order of their occurrence. It’s highly readable and takes you on this rollicking adventure through a twisting and turning, but comprehensible narrative.

But… I think that’s its core problem. It’s a narrative. Woolley is telling a story from history, with themes and characters and surprise reveals. Woolley has a particular vision of George Villiers as a villain protagonist with an arc, and writes almost from a third person omniscient perspective. And I think this is to the book’s detriment. The full complexity of human beings, who can’t be boiled down to archetypes and who aren’t on coherent trajectories and don't have arcs, gets flattened.

It’s very, VERY credulous in general. Basically, any rumor that ever existed is included. All accounts are essentially trusted with no interrogation of political slant or provenance. As a James fan, I noticed the unquestioning use of Weldon and Eglisham in particular; since my knowledge is limited I can’t say what other questionable sources were used, but this review calls it out for heavily using an alleged hoax. The epilogue and “““proof””” of the poisoning is especially weird. (Leanda de Lisle's review talks about it. Listen to her, an actual historian who knows actual things, not me)

On the one hand, this maximally inclusive approach brings in all kinds of tales that an unfamiliar reader might not have heard of, giving the most colorful possible account. But I felt that mixing in the extremely dubious sources with the reliable ones, distinguishing them little in the text and using unnumbered endnotes, is really deceptive and misleads the reader about the certainty of the narrative Woolley favors.

As far as what this means for Mary & George… I mean. The book is a titillating account of lurid scandal. And we already knew the series is going to be a titillating account of lurid scandal. Expect the series based on a book that already incorporates fiction and wild speculation to become even more fictionalized and speculative for the sake of drawing in viewers who want to watch and thirst over while also judging bad people who do bad things.

But that’s what all historical dramas are like and have been like forever. Especially the general time period—the Tudors have gotten this treatment forever. Viewership and big bucks don’t come for “documentary with re-enactment”. And in general, people don’t find history worth watching unless there’s butts and boobies.

Sure, I’ll be disappointed if when the drama inserts loads of stuff that definitely never happened for sexXxyness. Yeah, I’ll be bummed out when it conforms to traditional depictions of historical figures that were codified by agenda-laden traditions. But this always happens. And you know, if a bare butt gets someone to watch who would otherwise have never known about the incredible queer drama that played out in the Jacobean court, who probably doesn’t even know Buckingham from the Three Musketeers, I’m happy. Because even though it didn’t happen as M&G is gonna depict it, it did happen in the broad strokes, these people were real, and that’s been largely buried and forgotten.

The world NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT JAMES. And even if the picture someone comes away with is inaccurate, at least they will know he existed and loved men, and just that fact now being in their brain will please me so much.

[denimbex1986]

'Andrew Haigh's All of Us Strangers is finally available to watch widely after a very slow theatrical release. While this film has been snubbed for many awards, it is still spectacular, complimented by fantastic performances from Andrew Scott and Paul Mescal. Based on the novel Strangers by Taichi Yamada, All of Us Strangers provides its own interpretation of the story by changing not only the setting but the romance as well. Its introduction of queer themes enhances the emotional journey of its central character, which concludes with a devastating revelation. At its core, All of Us Strangers is more about the experience of grief, reconciliation, and moving on than it is about a conclusive, straightforward narrative. The film naturally leaves a lot up to interpretation for the audience, delivering a heartbreaking ending that feels earned.

What Is 'All of Us Strangers' About?

All of Us Strangers focuses on Adam (Scott), a lonely screenwriter based in London who is attempting to write about his long-dead parents. The film begins with a fire alarm in his apartment building. Adam evacuates, seemingly the only tenant to do so, and looks up at the empty building to see a man, Harry (Mescal), looking down at him from the window. After Adam returns to his apartment, there's a knock at the door. Harry, a bottle of whiskey in hand, leaning on the door frame. Through their short conversation, it's understood that Harry, above all else, doesn't want to be alone. Adam rejects Harry's offer to spend the night together, and he solemnly returns to his apartment. As the days go on, Adam comes to regret this decision and eventually invites Harry in, beginning a romantic relationship with him.

As this relationship blossoms, Adam is attempting to write about his parents, who both died in a car crash when Adam was a young child. Struck with writer's block, he starts looking over mementos from his childhood, finding an old photo of his former home. It's then that he decides to go back and visit for the first time in his adult life. There, he finds his parents, the same age as when they died, a few years younger than Adam is now and aware of the fact that they have been dead for decades. They invite him like an old friend they haven't seen in a long time, eager to hear what their son has been up to for the past 30 years.

‘All of Us Strangers’ Is Just as Much About Romance as It Is About Grief

The entirety of the film is a back-and-forth battle in Adams' life between living happily with Harry and going back to have time and important conversations with his parents that he never got to have. It's not all pretty, and that's what makes it feel all the more real. These visits change him in good and bad ways. His life is suddenly revolving around the ghosts of his parents like an addiction, yet Adam is opening up more to Harry because of them, with Harry only coming to Adam's apartment. He even tells Harry of his parents' death, a car crash that killed his father instantly, but left his mother in the hospital for some time before she died, showing how intimate their relationship has become.

Still, as he visits them more and more, his parents realize that he will waste the rest of his life there with them instead of trying to find some semblance of happiness with Harry, especially after Harry has an adverse reaction to what Adam is doing in his childhood home. It also seems that the more he visits his parents, the more Adam gets sick and weak. Both his parents and Harry mention his high temperature, and he coughs more and more throughout the runtime. When they tell him that this situation is preventing him from moving on, Adam says "It hasn't been long enough." To which his mother (Claire Foy) replies "It never could be, could it?" The film already sets up the idea that despite this situation providing more time, he's still going to lose them, and nothing can stop that. He is clinging to the past, abandoning a possible future for himself.

He journeys with his parents to a restaurant that they frequented when he was a child, and even orders "the family special," despite appearing alone to other diners. In the end, the most interesting part of this culmination between a child and his parents is that he ends up comforting them just as much as they do him. Despite protest from his mother, Adam's father (Jamie Bell) asks him if both of their deaths were quick. Adam lies and tells them yes, despite the contradictory story he tells Harry earlier on in the film about the car crash, just to give them a final bit of solace before they move on. In their final moments, they tell Adam that they are proud that he is just still here, living. They have nothing else left to say except their love for each other. In the end, they horrifyingly relive their deaths in front of Adam's eyes, and just before they both disappear, his mother makes him promise to try with Harry, to try and make each other's lives a bit happier.

Paul Mescal's Harry Has Been Dead the Entire Time

After losing his parents yet again, he follows the words of his mother and seeks out Harry, whose relationship with him has gotten rocky as Adam has spent more time with the ghosts of his parents. But this time he goes to Harry's apartment instead. Immediately after entering Harry's apartment, he discovers Harry's dead body in his bed. We see a glimpse of his body, with the same whiskey bottle he had when Adam turned him away that first night. It's safe to assume between the bottle being the same, and the discoloration of his hand, that Harry has been dead since the first night they met, and we already know Adam can see ghosts.

After spending a few moments with Harry's body, someone walks into the apartment: Harry himself, again in the same clothes as his body, bottle in hand. Adam confesses that he was too scared to let Harry into his apartment, also serving as a confession that he was too scared for anything to happen between them romantically. Between the loneliness of the two of them, it's clear Harry understands. Yet again, Adam comforts the dead, reassuring Harry that he is not in the bedroom, but instead here in front of him. Adam takes Harry back to his apartment, where they lie in bed together for the final moments of the film. Their conversation wraps up the themes of the film beautifully. Harry asks Adam if he got to say everything he wanted to his parents before they moved on. Adam, unsure, says "I don't know, but I got to be with them." There is constant pressure to get everything you need to say out for closure, but All of Us Strangers proposes that simply being together is enough. The film ends with exactly that, the two of them embracing in bed (if you look closely enough, Harry is in the same position as his corpse is in his apartment), the camera pulls out, their bodies forming a singular star in a vast universe.

Is Adam Dead in 'All of Us Strangers'?

All of Us Strangers intentionally leaves a lot for the viewer to entertain while watching. From the exact moment Harry dies to whether the ghosts Adam is haunted by are even real or a figment of his imagination. That brings the biggest question the film suggests: Is Adam dead like his loved ones around him? While this film can be read as a straightforward ghost story about the reality of grief and loneliness, the oddness of the film suggests there is more at play here. Many scenes in this film feel like a dream. This was even commented on by Andrew Scott, saying "I feel very strongly that the film is like a dream [...] [Andrew Haigh's] achievement is that he directs us towards the feeling, rather than the logic of what the feeling might be." Haigh pushes the audience to understand the feelings Adam is experiencing, rather than presenting something that is more logical plot-wise.

From the distorted, almost scary subway sequence, to the disorienting club sequence where we first get a glimpse that there may be something more going on with Harry, this film is not afraid to push into the fantastical. For this theory, the beginning of the film is the most important, as it starts with a fire alarm. In a bit of awkward conversation following that alarm, Harry quips "One day it'll be for real, that alarm." Throughout the film, Adam coughs and gets increasingly hotter, something noted by his parents. It's possible that Adam is dying, or already dead, due to a fire in his apartment. The entirety of this film could be a flash before his death, or limbo for his spirit to wander until he has enough closure to move on. It would certainly explain the more interpretive sides of the movie. The only scene that could discredit it is where he interacts with the waitress. But the beauty of this film is that it doesn't matter, the message stays the same, and it wouldn't mean any less if Adam were alive or dead. Haigh sums it up perfectly in an interview with Entertainment Weekly, "In many ways, the whole film to me was a love letter saying, it's okay. It's quite hard. You've all been through some stuff, but you can move on from this and you can find love." Sometimes, time spent together is all you need, even if it may never be enough.'

[yelena-bellova]

prev anon with the opposing view point—thank you for being so kind in your response!

i just want to add one more thing: i really didn’t mean to say that anyone who is upset is maliciously trying to defend their upset (but reading over what i wrote, i don’t blame you for taking issue with it—very sorry for that!). my point, hopefully better articulated this time, is that quite a lot of the reasons for upset have answers, to me, if people were a) willing to think creatively and b) were already operating with the idea that a sapphic romance is the equal of a straight one. the reasons like: “losing michael” in place of michaela (women and men are not so different that a change in gender means losing a character entirely—michaela will be differently positioned in society but there are ways of writing her life that the core traits of michael remain); or “losing the infertility plot to a queer awakening” (gay women can have struggles with both infertility and wanting children—in fact i would say these two struggles compliment each other bc francesca’s desire for children could be the ultimate thing keeping her from committing to michaela and a resolution, such as adoption, would serve both stories. one need not be sacrificed for the other); or that it’s an “unoriginal” story queer story, a complaint that seems to imply that turning a straight romance queer somehow robs the queerness of its validty, thereby implying that queer love is fundamentally different from straight (the conceit of the show is one season per bridgerton sibling, to write an original story for the queer romance is treating it as different from the others, which is a disheartening thought); or the reason of “a black woman chasing a white woman” which is ignoring both the fact that we don’t know what happens in the show yet and also that the optics of a black man “chasing” a white woman is the actual fraught trope, given such a narrative’s racist and political history.

all this to say: when i, a lesbian, read the reasoning of people’s upset im struck by the lack of effort towards creativity in adaptation. the gender of francesca’s love interest should not have the power to ruin the story for people, and yet it seems to. which is a bit heartbreaking in turn.

Girl/bro/mate, no apologies necessary.

At the end of the day, people are going to disagree over the whole topic. As long as we’re all respectful and check the anger/hate/prejudice at the door, these discussions are useful to understand the other’s pov! 🩷🩷🩷

[mermaidsirennikita]

I'm actually a little worried over the fact that Bridgerton is gonna be the standard for period dramas nowadays, like, that's how period dramas are gonna look like (and I'm not even talking about the diversity part, I'd ve very happy with a show actually giving poc people the protagonism they deserve and not call it diversity and having the only White character to be the main character of the whole show) we have things like The Buccaneers and that horrible Emma film Netflix made and wonder if that's the quality we are gonna have now

Mr Malcom's List was amazing, I love everything about that film, it was so well done

Honestly? I'm not that worried about it. Period dramas have always been hit or miss for me, and I think that while big hits always have an impact on their genres, they often don't have as massive an impact as we may think--because shows that try to follow them underperform, tastes change, and other big hits happen.

An example I'd think of is The Tudors, which... I'm not gonna lie to you. Like it or not, is probably one of the most impactful, if not THE most impactful period dramas we've seen in the past 20 years. It revived the idea of the high end period piece soap for an American audience--and it reminded people that period pieces don't have to be Masterpiece, BBC, ITV, whatever. They could be super sexy and super dramatic and super bloody. You didn't have to be a stickler for history.

That show got a lot of viewers and a lot of buzz--and honestly, it went a long way towards launching the careers of Henry Cavill and Nat Dormer. Showtime tried to replicate it with The Borgias, but obviously had much less success there. HOWEVER, I always think it's a little unfair that GoT gets credit for making period pieces hot again when a) it's not a period piece and you can tell its core audience doesn't associate it with those because of how much they talk about the dragons and the ice zombies and b) The Tudors had already stoked that flame, and then the general Tudor frenzy grabbed onto it, which is why Starz has been able to get mileage out of its PGregs/Tudor-general shows for so long. THOUGH! I hope the flopitude of their last Elizabeth show means they slow up.

You see other mini trends too--Vikings was a big hit, and because of that you got The Last Kingdom and its ilk and Vikings: Valhalla. Vikings really was nothing like The Tudors, aside from the fact that it had somewhat explicit sex for its network (nothing like The Tudors, but still) and centered on a piece of shit who treated women like garbage and needed!!! Sons!!!!!!!! It walked through a door I think The Tudors left open, but it wasn't as clear a followup as The Borgias or the PGregs shows were.

So while I think Bton is obviously having an impact, as seen with Buccs, I'm not worried about its long term impact. I HOPE we see more diverse period dramas continue to be a thing, though I feel that really is less a thing we can thank Bton for (see: Mr. Malcolm's List) and more a trajectory that was brewing already. I mean, Shondaland had technically already done it with Still Star-Crossed, a show I didn't like... at all. But it was diverse.

I mean, shows like Mary and George on the horizon are nothing like Bton and hopefully (if they're good) will have an impact. I think we're slooooowly seeing the rise in more explicit, less woebegone period dramas (not movies) centering queer people. Gentleman Jack got cancelled, obviously, but I think it still made strides on that front, and Mary and George will obviously be very queer but also very much not a "sad queer man is closeted and sympathetic but doomed" narrative. We haven't seen many shows depict a man actually using his sexuality to get ahead the way women are often depicted doing in shows like The Tudors--and at his mother's urging, versus his father's as is usually the case with a narrative like Anne Boleyn's.

Things just come and go in waves. I mean, watch The Artful Dodger if you're super worried about more romantic period dramas, it was so fucking refreshing. I do kind of wonder if the romance in that show was upped BECAUSE Bton had success, but it's so much better than anything they offered, all the while focused on a period of history we never see in international TV (1800s Australia), doing a fun little revamp of a classic story (Oliver Twist), with a diverse cast and a focus on like... medicine? But medicine in a way that feels less procedural and more narrative? Medicine and THEFT? Medicine and Theft and Kissing? And putting a salve on her inner thigh and blowing on it in an alley? And sexual tension during medical exams? (The 30 seconds of Jack and Belle tensing while he sits behind her and listens to her heartbeat in her darkened room after she strips out of her dress is better than anything Bton offered in two seasons.)

And additionally--if books are any indication, I actually don't know that Bton is having that big an effect. Historical romances are going through a slump right now; the most Bton has done is push Julia Quinn's books and offer a "if you like Bton" comp for some books, which...

Yes, Buccs got renewed, but I don't know that it... has had much of an impact? I don't see it mentioned much on social media, which could be my circles, but I also don't see it mentioned much on sites that normally push streaming shows, so. I don't know. I've yet to see a Bton acolyte (and there have been few) actually make an impact and stick around the way some of the Tudor spawns did, or the way shows that followed Vikings did, for that matter.

[ineffablegoose]

the ungay good omens petition is funny in a lot of ways but i had some thoughts

so, okay it's very likely if you follow good omens, you must've seen the petition going around. and yes, while I definitely think its satire, on the off chance its not?? i kinda think that's even funnier

I dont think good omens season 1 was subtle about being, very inherently queer, I'll talk about the book in a bit but GO s1 wasn't hiding it at all. they threw much more of the book's subtlety OUT and were much more vocal about it and the themes. and that makes sense. people nowadays like to complain about 'stuff getting too woke' and like?? yeah? so?

activism and agenda is something very inherent in media. id almost venture to say its impossible to create something (especially write) without hampering in some of your core beliefs. an anti-capitalist will write an anti-capitalist story, or at the very least will not have capitalism be idolized. and you can ponder if its deliberate, what it says about us as writers and as readers (because interpretation is a thing), but then id be going off topic so moving on

the difference is that back in the 90s, people were much more subtle about pushing queer narratives. and you can have your own opinions about whether you liked the stories better back then or whatever, but you have to acknowledge that activism and representation in 2023 are much different in comparison.

one can argue that the GO book itself wasn't meant to have the queerer narrative we have in the TV show.. and whether that's true or not will probably depend on what you think and infer. only two people have the answer and I don't remember if Mr Neil had said anything about it (I apologize, i should probably check, but its also 12am and i have an exam tmrw. this is just a rambly text post i don't think anyone is going to see)

i think GO book had some queer elements, but subtle enough that perhaps someone who isn't of a queer background could ignore it. (again the thing about interpretation of media by the consumers, you will see what you want to see)(though how subtle is the f slur line and the legendary monkeys on nitrous oxide line? seriously?) and they could be chalked up as jokes. plausible deniability is plausible deniability.

It is of my opinion (and feel free to disagree) that Mr Neil had chosen to accentuate the core beliefs of the story that was held in the product that he and Sir Terry Pratchett wrote 30 yrs ago. the agenda was there already, but how you write out representation will continue to change and evolve, as did society change and evolve in 30 yrs. how he chose to change and adapt the book, while i don't think is accurate (because its not 1 to 1), is definitely faithful. its faithful to the source material and its core messaging, and i choose to believe the adaptation reflects on what good omens the book has and always been: a critique of religious extremism by way of satire. and again,

feel free to disagree, but i don't know any narrative that can better push anti-religious extremism other than an inherently queer one

[siverfanweedo]

I posted 12,021 times in 2022

That's 759 more posts than 2021!

821 posts created (7%)

11,200 posts reblogged (93%)

Blogs I reblogged the most:

@adorablegorilla

@possessedscholar

@vivienna-vivid

@nitethekitten

@confronting-reflections

I tagged 3,078 of my posts in 2022

#tmnt - 257 posts

#arknights - 90 posts

#not safe for ace - 38 posts

#toh spoilers - 31 posts

#goncharov - 30 posts

#toh - 26 posts

#ramble - 26 posts

#the owl house - 20 posts

#rant - 17 posts

#fate grand order - 16 posts

Longest Tag: 139 characters

#neillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

My Top Posts in 2022:

#5

VEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEe

97 notes - Posted October 8, 2022

#4

i think this deals some type of damage i just don't know what

122 notes - Posted September 23, 2022

#3

the more I read into arknights the more I wonder how people don't read this as a narrative parallel to ableism and the treatment of disabled folk, especially in regards to something like leprosy

honestly when I read about how there is communities for the infected and such my first thought was about lepers.

I mean I guess that is the issue. No one knows about disabled history no one knows the harm they have been through. Maybe people know about the aids crisis and that would be it but that is cuz it's also a part of queer history.

please realize. The biggest reason the treatment of the infected cannot parallel racism ( which is in the story already ) or homo/transphobia is because of the simple fact people *become* infected as Frostnova said. Before she was an infected person she was a normal person ( idk where the screenshot went I am sorry )

Do you realize how much that hit me as a disabled person? hell, there is even a thing in the new character Goldenglows lines that also are along the same lines.

please it's important to realize the treatment of the infected is more like that of disabled folk and it actually mirrors real-life events that have happened ( there are some videos on youtube that talk about the leper colony in Hawaii )

please realize that discrimination outside of racism and queer/homo/transphobia exists!

134 notes - Posted February 21, 2022

#2

*gets really close to the microphone*

Queer spaces are not safe spaces for disabled queer folk and that's a bad thing.

350 notes - Posted January 12, 2022

My #1 post of 2022

"would you still love me if i was a worm" isn't actually about becoming a worm.

It's not at its core a question about the hypothetical situation where one wakes up as a worm.

Could you love a worm? a life we see as pathetic, something small. Who unearth themselves when it rains to later die on the sidewalks made my man kind. Oh how we do not value the worm. Oh how we look down upon it so.

Would you still love me if i was small and insignificant? Would you still love me if i lived in the dirt, would you still love me if i had become small if i had become what we see a worm as.

when you ask, would you see love me if i was a worm, what are you really asking?

are you asking, if I ceased to be human in all forms would you still love me?

Would you still love me if i became something so far removed from human that people would never see me as such?

Would you love me if i was a worm?

631 notes - Posted November 24, 2022

Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →

Okay the worm post is only so big cuz i blazed it the funny thing is i have only been tagging tmnt posts for like a a month and i have only been in the fandom since say mid or late September

[chasingfictions]

Hi sorry i so desperately want to send this from my sideblog babygirlgiles bc I already went insane about your edit in the tags which gives some Hashtag Context, but I just saw your Someday I’ll Love Ocean Vuong edit and I’m losing my mind over it omg. Like please feel free to interpret this as free reign to like share any and all thoughts about it or how you made choices for it or anything, but I was also curious how you interpreted the line about mistaking these walls for skin? I’ve always read it as kind of constraining (if that makes sense?), walls being something hemming in the “you” being addressed, it just feels almost claustrophobic. But the way you did it complicates that a lot more I think and gives it so much more nuance!! I’m going insane thinking about it and could probably ramble for ages about all the different readings your edit opens up for me (especially bc the pairing of “the room with everyone in it” as the walls, and then the walls being in that final moment of Chosen) but instead I thought I’d ask you if you wanted to ramble about it lol

Sorry if this is deranged :) and if this is a truly “the curtains are just blue bc they’re blue” moment then whoops :)

hi hello i love this ask!!! also both ur urls fuck

ok But basically I think the way I was interpreting that line in my post -- and obviously there are many different ways to interpret it! -- is that for the speaker, they’re viewing their body as a kind of structure, as a hodge podge stitched together of various different elements. like going from “the most beautiful part of your body is wherever your mother’s shadow falls” to “here’s the house with childhood whittled down to a single red trip wire.” Or later the repetition of “the most beautiful part of your body” again directly abuts where the speaker describes a room. and that distance from the physical form exists again at the top of the poem, with the bit about how the spine won’t remember its wings. and that being linked to the father’s role in the speaker’s bodily makeup sort of by the transitive property makes it also about the house, because the speaker’s mother is linked to the house.

which I think is really true of buffy as a show— the idea of the self being made up of many different pieces. like I think you can read the whole show as a map of Buffy’s psyche — which is an idea I’m sure I got from somewhere else but I can’t quite remember where. most likely from @impalementation’s meta though . like in restless, with the core scoobies literally being represented as Buffy’s mind, heart, and spirit, which then becomes a metaphorical framework you can apply to the rest of the show. or how buffy keeps acquiring shadow selves in other characters — notably cordelia, faith, and spike. or how someone like dawn is literally stated by the narrative to be a part of buffy. “normal again” plays with this too — the idea that the scoobies and sunnydale can be read as a metaphorical map of Buffy’s psyche . they’re her insides. Which isn’t to say I take normal again to literally mean that buffy is imagining the whole show. rather that it’s just another sheet of vellum you can lay on top of the rest to deepen the reading

so the “here’s the room with everyone in it,” is like, buffy is the room with everyone in it. The show and the person. all those people in that room, in that shot from family, they’re pieces of her. tara and anya have less clear roles, but I do think that by being the partners of her spirit and heart, they become a part of that framework. and even, again, the episode, the line "we're family," ties us back into the mother and father of it all for this poem, right? and it’s not just that buffy has a fragmented self for no reason!!! i think it can be directly read in conjunction with her queerness, right? Like, being the slayer is so queercoded all over the place . BUT, in the context of this poem, I think the queerness at play here is largely in conjunction with parental reactions to queerness. Buffy comes out to her mom and her mom kicks her out of the house. Buffy is taken to a world where her friends are literally figments of her imagination, and in that world her mother and father still love her and are still alive. Buffy’s mom institutionalized her when she first heard buffy talk about being a slayer—and that’s a huge part of queer history and queer tragedy, is that same thing happening to our community when we’re found out. it’s also this post from @slayer-pride-parade — diversity win! Buffy’s metaphorical heart mind and spirit are all attracted to women! — and it’s also the fact that her shadow selves all can be read to represent that repressed attraction. which I’m not gonna go in depth here about bc my entire blog is about how her shadow selves are a representation of her queerness lmao. that’s basically my whole btvs meta tag.

SO, long story short, I feel like the “mistake these walls for skin” is about like, buffy being able to accept that she isn’t just a bunch of pieces stitched together all wrong, she isn’t just a self who needs to be fragmented apart into separate pieces because the whole of her is too dangerous, too queer, wants too much. and this happening at the final moment in chosen when a) she's just changed forever the status of what it is to be a slayer, both for herself and for future slayers. she's taken the loneliness out of it and replaced it with queer community. and b) she's just had this reconciliation moment with the latest in a long line of her shadow selves -- one of her last acts on the show is to tell spike, her shadow, i love you, and that shadow's last act is save the world. (which kind of takes us back to the joyce of it all. spike being there at that first coming out, spike being embroiled in motifs of home). but that's why i chose that moment to end on -- buffy is obviously a show about a thousand things but one of those is the journey to self acceptance, self understanding, self love, at the risk of sounding buzzwordy. which is why i love that the show goes past 5x22, which is why the show couldn't go past chosen. because this was the central narrative question we've been circling around from the beginning: how do we get buffy to a place where her body isn't just the terrifying haunted house she lives inside of, but where it’s her. and it is. it finally is.

[yngsuk]

That Child, immured in an innocence seen as continuously under seige, condenses a fantasy of vulnerability to the queerness of queer sexualities precisely insofar as that Child enshrines, in its form as sublimation, the very value for which queerness regularly finds itself condemned: an insistence on sameness that intends to restore an Imaginary past. The Child, that is, marks the fetishistic fixation of heteronormativity: an erotically charged investment in the rigid sameness of identity that is central to the compulsory narrative of reproductive futurism. And so, as the radical right maintains, the battle against queers is a life-and-death struggle for the future of a Child whose ruin is pursued by feminists, queers, and those who support the legal availability of abortion. Indeed, as the Army of God made clear in the bomb-making guide it produced for the assistance of its militantly “pro-life” members, its purpose was wholly congruent with the logic of reproductive futurism: to “disrupt and ultimately destroy Satan’s power to kill our children, God’s children.” Without ceasing to refute the lies that pervade these familiar right-wing diatribes, do we also have the courage to acknowledge, and even to embrace, their correlative truths? Are we willing to be sufficiently oppositional to the structural logic of opposition—oppositional, that is, to the logic by which politics reproduces our social reality—to accept that the figural burden of queerness, the burden that queerness is phobically produced precisely to represent, is that of the force that shatters the fantasy of Imaginary unity, the force that insists on the void (replete, paradoxically, with jouissance) always already lodged within, though barred from, symbolization: the gap or wound of the Real that inhabits the Symbolic’s very core? Not that we are, or ever could be, outside the Symbolic ourselves; but we can, nonetheless, make the choice to accede to our cultural production as figures—within the dominant logic of narrative, within Symbolic reality—for the dismantling of such a logic and thus for the death drive it harbors within.

Lee Edelman, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive