#posting like an 18th century gay man

[my-deer-friend]

We took a wrong turn as a society when we entirely subordinated friendship to romantic love.

"They're just friends" ???

What about this profound human bond is so inferior to you? Must someone really be sticking their dick somewhere before you dare to call it love?

[chaos0pikachu]

Two Flavors of Japanese (BL) Cinema

Recently I came across a post that proposited that Japanese cinema hadn't changed since the 1950's and came in, essentially, two types. 

Let's discuss that. 

I can’t go into the history of all Japanese cinema in a singular blog post like that’s just not possible, there’s literal books and classes you can take on this subject, and I will be linking further reading down at the bottom of the post so you can do just that. 

This fact alone, should already disprove the point that Japanese cinema hasn’t changed since the 1950’s. Other than the fact that like, Japan isn’t a static society that is forever unchanging because human beings do not work like that. 

Which is why I’m writing this essay at all. 

I love cinema, I love storytelling and filmmaking. And, frankly, I may not be an expert but I am annoying. I own that. 

Japanese cinema has held influence over many directors, writers, animators, and so forth. 

Just watch this playlist of Sailor Moon references across various cartoons. Or how Satoshi Kon influenced the work of Darren Aronofsky and Christopher Nolan. Or how James Cameron and the Wachowskis were both influenced by Mamoru Oshii’s 1995 Ghost in the Shell. And then there’s Akira Kurosawa who’s been cited as a major influence for directors like: Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Martin Scorsese and a slew of others.

I want folks to know there’s a slew of amazing films from Japan and that distilling the industry - the blood, sweat and tears of its creators - to a strict dichotomy of this or that, either/or is disrespectful at best and xenophobic at worst. 

It’s also just a shame because, like, guys there’s so many great films from Japan! There’s also probably a lot of great live action shows from Japan but I’m not super knowledgeable about them - I mainly watch anime so that’s not a great metric in terms of Japanese television - so I’m just talking about films in this post. 

Ok so main points I’m gonna address: 

Japanese Cinema hasn’t changed since the 1950s 

Japanese film style falls under an extreme dichotomy of cinematic/sweeping (described as “atmospheric”) or cartoonish/slapstick (described as “live action manga”)

Baby does any of this have to do with BL? (no, but it IS more gay than you think)

With these four films: The Hidden Fortress (1958), Lady Snowblood (1973), Gohatto (1999), and Kubi (2023). 

I picked these four because they’re all “period pieces” taking place feudal Japan - or with the aesthetics of feudal Japan, The Hidden Fortress nor Lady Snowblood aren’t based on actual historical events, like Gohatto and Kubi are, however loosely, but take place in an amorphous 15th to 18th century Japan - and I think they strongly show the development of this singular genre in Japanese cinema. 

Plus the latter two films, Gohatto and Kubi, are gay as fuck and I know my people. 

[you can also read this post on this blog post which includes additional links as tumblr has a limit and for easier readability as this is a long post]

The Hidden Fortress 

Released in 1958, directed by Akira Kurosawa it’s probably the most well-known film on the list. It’s a film that exists within the “Golden Age” of Japanese cinema alongside films like Kurosawa’s own Seven Samurai (1954), Yasujirō Ozu’s Tokyo Story (1953) and Kenji Mizoguchi’s Ugetsu (1953). 

It was also the era where, after the American Occupation post-WWII a boom of movie distribution took place with new film studios such as: Toho (y’all know them from any Godzilla movie ever made), Toei (if you know One Piece you know Toei but they’ve done a ton of films both animated and live action) and others. 

The story is straight forward, two peasants, Matashichi and Tahei who bicker their asses off like an old married couple the entire film, happen upon a Very Hot Man with the Only Thighs Out (Toshiro Mifune was a BABE) named Rokurota and his companion a icy young woman named Yuki. 

Matashichi and Tahei have just escaped like, a ton of ~circumstances that include failing to become samurai, being broke as fuck, getting captured and forced into servitude - don’t worry that lasted like 6 hours tops - and then find gold hidden in a stick on a mountain. 

Turns out Rokurota has all the stick gold they could want! So they team up neither realizing Rokurota and Yuki are actually part of a clan that’s been recently wiped out and they’re on the run from a rival clan who has wiped theirs out. Yuki is the princess of said clan and it’s only survivor, while Rokurota is her samurai general and retainer. 

Tahei and Matashichi, living in ignorance of these facts, try to steal the gold away from them because they live that hustle life until the end when all is revealed and Yuki grants them both with a gold piece to share (this is a really big piece of stick gold). 

There’s other things that happen, like a fight scene between Rokurota and rival clan member, Yuki owning every single scene she in - I fucking love her - but that’s the gist. 

The story is, again, pretty uncomplicated, it balances the comedy of Tahei & Matashichi with the stoicism of Rokurota and Yuki well, and all the acting is strong. In terms of its film style, by modern day standards it’s not especially “cinematic” Kurosawa doesn’t favor fanetic camera movements, his camera is often very still and the movement he employs is often in individual character ticks, and/or background set pieces. This film has a lot of great set pieces. 

Kurosawa didn’t employ camera techniques like panning, he doesn’t really do extreme close ups, there's no swooping shots or fancy tricks, I’d say a majority of the camera shots in The Hidden Fortress are a combination of mid, and wide, with a few mid-close ups. One thing to notice is Kurosawa’s use of scene cuts; instead of a cut he used pan sweeps to change scenes. If you’ve ever watched a Star Wars film you know exactly what I mean. 

The Hidden Fortress, first and foremost, is an action adventure film. It has more in common tonally with Top Gun Maverick or Star Wars A New Hope, in that it's straight forward, sincere, and grand in scale, grounded by a very honest set of characters who are strongly motivated. 

I feel like in modern day discussions we association “action/adventure” films in a sorta of negative way; this is probably due, in part, to the oversaturation of the high budget blockbusters of the last ten years - oh MCU, how you’ve fallen - that are overly bombastic, overly complicated, overly connected, and the root of what audiences connect with - the characters - tends to be lost. 

Scott Lang's motivations in Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania are to protect his teenager daughter and the family he's built, which are simple, strong, and relatable character motivations. However, they got lost in the conventions of the plot, the frantic energy of the film, the simple amount going on around Scott that his motivations become less a central focus and thus he becomes small within his own film. We, the audience, become distant and it grows more difficult to connect with what's happening. This can still work on some level, the Fast and Furious franchise isn't successful because it's sophisticated, but the Fast-chise has embraced it's cheesier conventions and spectacle, while blockbusters like the MCU's output, simple juggle to much all at once. It also helps that while the cast keeps growing in the Fast and Furious films, there's still less than ten characters you have to actually know and care about. To fully understand and connect with the characters of The Marvels, you have to watch Ms. Marvel and WandaVision on Disney+ and the task becomes more akin to homework than simply the enjoyment of watching a movie. 

The epic scale grows so large it feels daunting, rather than exhilarating. 

I think this is why a film like Winter Soldier, more so than most MCU films of the last decade, has continued to be a fan favorite of the universe and of blockbuster lovers whether you are a fan of the MCU or not. At its root, Winter Soldier is character driven, with deeply motivated characters,  which is what makes the action and adventure aspects stick. 

The Hidden Fortress is similarly character driven with a simple and straightforward story that is about honor, loyalty, a princess, a loyal samurai/knight, rebuilding a decimated clan, and two “normal” characters to keep everything grounded and relatable. Which in turn, helps make it timeless. While the filmmaking itself isn't grandiose as what modern audiences may be used to, Kurosawa knows how to direct a scene and more than that, direct his actors. Mifune is commanding as always, but for me, it's really actress Misa Uehara as Princess Yuki that steals the movie. 

Lady Snowblood

Released in 1973 and based on a manga of the same name by Kazou Koike and Kazuo Kaminura, directed by Toshiya Fujita, Lady Snowblood and its sequel Lady Snowblood: Love Song of Vengeance are considered cult classics. Lady Snowblood, famously, is Quentin Tarantino’s inspiration for his Kill Bill saga (like, a freaking lot). 

Lady Snowblood is a part of the era of “new wave” and “pink films” that were emerging in Japan and elsewhere. Stateside I think a close equivalent to both the style and content of Lady Snowblood and other films like it are exploitation films. In fact while watching Lady Snowblood I couldn’t help but get exploitation film vibes just off the aesthetics and thematics of the film itself. 

To break down Lady Snowblood’s plot it goes like this: Yuki is tasked with getting revenge on four people who had a hand in her father, and older brother’s murder, and her mother’s rape (which is seen on screen so warning for y’all this is def a Does the Dog Die movie). 

Yuki’s mother kills one of her rapists, but is imprisoned before she can kill the others and while in prison she purposely gets pregnant so her child can carry on her revenge after she dies. Yuki is born, and raised by one of the fellow inmates and a priest who trains her in martial arts. She’s raised as a “demon”, whose only purpose is revenge for her mother, father, and brother. And boy does she get revenge the film is violent and graphic (even if by modern day standards the blood looks fake as fuck the emotions are there). 

Like The Hidden Fortress this film is very character driven, with a highly motivated protagonist but it’s also revels far more in it's violence and the spectacle of that violence. Yuki, in comparison to her earlier counterpart Princess Yuki, is the driver of the action in the story. She's an active participant in the plot, and the story centers around her. Princess Yuki is commendable, she's compassionate, and she makes decisions, but the story is more about what she represents - a fallen princess - than what she does. She's symbolic, the embodiment of a leader, a samurai spirit of nobility who becomes a leader worth following. Yuki, on the other hand, needs no protection from others, she's a much more direct and active part of the story since the story is hers - and her mothers - she's more elegant than regal, and there's nothing necessarily 'noble' about her.  She's not seeking to rebuild her clan as a leader, her motivations are singularly about her revenge quest to fulfill her mother's dying wish. 

In some ways, they're very similar - Yuki also feels compassion for another woman who's been used by the men around her as Princess Yuki does - and in others they are very different and speak to the changing expectations and idealizations of women from the 1950s to 1970s. 

Lady Snowblood is also way more violent than any Kurosawa film I’ve watched including The Hidden Fortress. While there is action in The Hidden Fortress, it’s all employed with specific purpose. Which is one of Kurosawa’s strengths as a director. It’s calculated and singular. Yes blood spurts up in Yojimbo but it's limited; quick and efficient, with more in common with John Wick or Collateral than the more fantastical and aesthetic Tarantino or Robert Rodriguez fare. 

Lady Snowblood revels in the aesthetic violence, there’s no “purpose” for Yuki to cut an already dead person in half, she does it out of pure frustration and for the glory of showing the audience that internal rage. Of a body hanging, dripping blood and gore onto the clean floor as the curtain draws to a close. 

The film also features on screen rape, sex, and nudity which The Hidden Fortress does not. There’s an implication that characters in the film would assault Princess Yuki if they could, but nothing ever goes beyond brief implication (still gross tho guys come on). Whilst in Lady Snowblood, the rape is brutal, the violence is brutal, and the emotions are far more intense because of it all. 

The allowance - for lack of a better term - of this kind of material showcases a cultural shift overall in the terms of visual storytelling filmmaking began experimenting with in telling, and in what audiences were responding too. Lady Snowblood was a beloved success for its overall low budget. In comparison to the two, The Hidden Fortress is filmed better, with more technique and focus, Lady Snowblood almost seems rustic in comparison, but it's a sort of rustic that speaks to experimentation. 

Low angles from a characters pov staring high above her, extreme zooms on Yuki's burning eyes, the oversaturated colors of red-orange blood or green walls or white clothes, the starless pitch black sky as powdery snow falls. The images are arresting even if at times they're choppy, and while the film opts for non-linear chapter breaks to create a story flow in comparison to Kurosawa's iconic screen swipes and straight forward narrative, yet, both work. 

Gohatto

Behold, the promised gay cinema I promised. 

Gohatto is a 1999 film directed by Nagisa Oshima based on the short story, Shinsengumi Keppuroku by Ryotaro Shiba. 

Gohatto is a pretty late entry in the new wave/pink films of its heyday but those films were Oshima’s bread and butter. Often dubbed as one of Japan’s cinema outlaws for his anti-establishment films, one of his films, Night and Fog in Japan (1960) was pulled from theaters all together. Most people in the west will probably know him even tangentially for his queer film Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence starring David Bowie and Beat Takeshi or for this absolutely banger quote from the New York Times article, A Japanese Film Master Returns to his Cinema: 

(If you’re a BTS fan, the composer Suga and RM like, Ryuichi Sakamoto, both starred and composed the main theme of Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence Forbidden Colors, he plays the guy in love with David Bowie’s character)

Gohatto combines the setting of a Kurosawa film, with the more experimental storytelling of Lady Snowblood, whilst imbuing the film with more surrealistic elements and more complexity. And making it gay like - for real for real. 

Gohatto goes like this: it’s the late 18th century in Japan, everything politically is on shaky ground, and the shinsengumi are looking for newbies to join ranks. Welp, they find two promising newbies and wouldn’t ya know it one newbie, Kano, is like, hella pretty. He’s got bangs. 

He’s so pretty in fact that all these other dudes in the shinsengumi crew wanna smash, I mean down bad like the Taylor Swift song or whatever I don’t listen to Taylor Swift. 

This is all treated with a lackadaisical normality; there’s teasing about “I never considered sleeping with a man before, but damn that Kano kinda…” but there’s never a moment of “omg they’re GAY?”

Beat Takeshi’s - who’s also in this film, he’s been in a lot fo queer films I'm noticing - character Vice-Commander Hijikata Toshizo often asks other characters not if they’re attracted to Kano - the implication being that they are - but rather if they are in love with Kano. Because lust is fleeting, but love is dangerous to your duty. 

Kano also might be a spy, or a murderer, it’s all very ambiguous and the ending isn’t a “happy” one. This isn’t a film about a love story of any sort, it has more in common with erotic thrillers than the action adventure of The Hidden Fortress, or the rape revenge fantasy of Lady Snowblood. Where as the former films have definitive endings, Gohatto ends ambiguously. 

What actually happened? And why did it happen? What did it all mean, in the end? The film offers no strict answers to these questions, asking instead, that its audience to come to their own conclusions. It’s also much more historical than the previous two films, taking real life historical figures like: Hijikata Toshizo, Okita Soji, and Kondo Isami and asking the question, “hm, what if they all maybe fell in love with this super pretty man before being overthrown and what does that mean metaphorically?” 

The Hidden Fortress doesn’t ask its audience to interrogate society in any meaningful way and that’s not a knock against it, it’s just an observation. Lady Snowblood specifically presents the plight of women, and a slight take on classism within the system, through the lens of violence and destruction. Gohatto is much more metaphorical, it’s not providing the audience with a direct message like the former two films, but presenting it’s thematics in a much more abstract way. The Hidden Fortress is an action adventure, with heroes who achieve their goals and overcome their obstacles. Lady Snowblood is a rape revenge with an understandable protagonist who succeeds in her bloody revenge. Gohatto has no heroes, and offers no straightforward catharsis at the end of its story story. 

Its film style is also far more atmospheric compared to the epic scale and straightforwardness of The Hidden Fortress, or the lower budget charming violence of Lady Snowblood. 

There’s lots of mood lighting, overhead shots of characters dimly lit, camera cuts to rain after two characters have sex, extreme close ups of one character observing Kano’s eyes and lips. It’s not a black and white film like The Hidden Fortress, but it’s not nearly as saturated in color and brightness as Lady Snowblood. 

Lady Snowblood drips with color, and light, even at night there always almost seems to be a spotlight on Yuki with an empty starless sky in the background. Gohatto is much more grounded in realism than high visual aesthetics, opting to create more of a lingering dreamlike trance or fog to the cinematography when the story’s final act begins to unfold. 

Yet, one thing Gohatto has in common with both The Hidden Fortress and Lady Snowblood is its violence; operating somewhere between the two. Like The Hidden Fortress the violence is quick, purposely, and specific, and like Lady Snowblood blood spurts, gushes, and heads are displayed proudly and grotesquely.

Kubi

Kubi is a 2023 film directed by Takeshi Kitano aka Beat Takeshi - this is the third time his name has been dropped in relation to a queer film in this post go Beat Takeshi - based on a novel of the same name that Kitano also wrote. 

Kubi is like Beat Takeshi’s sengoku period slash RPF fanfic come to gruesome bloody (literal, not British) life. A period piece epic; Kubi is both about samurai warlords and a historical event known as the honno-ji incident, which took place in 1582. It features various historical figures like Oba Nobunage - if you’ve watched some anime or played some JRPGs you’ve probably at least heard of this name before - and other prominent historical figures of the time. 

The basic gist of the movie is Oba Nobunage is both really good at his job, so he’s super powerful politically, but he’s also a grade-a asshole whom all the other important samurai lords fucking hate. However, they also all fucking hate each other and all want to take Nobunage’s place and get all that sweet, sweet power for themselves. The honno-ji incident involved one of these guys doing a coup for reasons still unknown today and then pretty much almost immediately dying swiftly after leaving another samurai lord to take over. 

Kubi takes these historical events, and is like “okay but what if we added some gay innuendo and gay sex to this drama?” with more beheadings than a French revolution. 

Out of all the films on this list Kubi is, admittedly, the one I enjoyed the least, however, it’s an interesting retrospective on the growth of both the Japanese film industry and this specific genre in and of itself. 

Kubi’s film style is very modern, it’s beautiful, it’s sleek, it’s expensive looking. And yet there’s specific scenes that feel like callbacks to the Kurosawa era, like the black and white flashback between Nobunage and his fellow samurai lords. One of Kurosawa’s top films was Kitano’s Hana-Bi (1997), and Kitano has worked with Kurosawa’s daughter on costume design on four other films as well, so these references feel not only purposely because of general influence but also referential in a way. 

In terms of story and tone, Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress is sincere and straightforward, Lady Snowblood is experimental and fearless, Gohatto is introspective and suspenseful, whilst Kubi is unrelenting and even feels mocking at times. There is no break in Kubi's violence, there's almost no tenderness or softness, characters are selfish, and self-centered. The selfish, but joyful peasants in The Hidden Fortress don't exist here, and are replaced with a peasant character who murders his own friend and then rejoices over being relived of his family once he discovers they were murdered too. At times, Kubi feels like a subversion of the more glamourous depictions of the samurai in film. Which feels as though following similar footsteps established in Gohatto which also explored, subtextually, the faults within the samurai media persona. 

At times the film feels almost like a dark comedy, it doesn’t glamorize these samurai warlords, nor their clans, nor their ideals in the way The Hidden Fortress does, nor does it interrogate them in the way Gahotto does. Instead the story at hand is presented with a brutal realism, objective if a bit mocking with a side order of gay sex. Which isn’t presented in a mocking way so much as just an everyday aspect of life. 

When Mitsuhide and Murashige are caught by spies sleeping together there’s no shock or awe about it, just a calm report and the bigger issue is Mitsuhide hiding a fugitive more so than him sleeping with a man.

Similarly, when Nobunage is literally fucking one of his vassals in front of Mitsuhide, it’s not to disgust the other man, but rather a powerplay of sorts to make the latter jealous - at one point Nobunage promises if Mitsuhide accomplishes a mission for him, he’ll sleep with him - and it seemingly works to some degree. There’s subtext throughout the film that Mitsuhide might be, if not in love with Nobunage, want him in an obsessive way all the same (including being down to bone). 

Like with Gohatto the queerness is inherent, just a part of the culture. It’s not “romance” by any means, but it is simply a part of life and the culture itself. 

In terms of characters, Kubi's characters couldn't be more different from the characters in the previous mentioned films. The Hidden Fortress characters like Princess Yuki and Rokurota are easy to like, honorable, quiet, steadfast; while Matashichi and Tahei are less outright likable they offer a grounding and relatable to the big presence that are the former two. In Lady Snowblood, Yuki is quiet, calculating and menacing in her own right, truly embodying the idea of cold vengeance which makes her intriguing. In Gohatto Kano is elusive, which adds to his sensual allure, Okita is playful yet clearly hiding a more sinister air about him, and you just feel bad for Tashiro who’s pushy but seemingly sincere in his affections for Kano. 

Kubi has no by-the-by “likable” characters, every character is out for themselves in some way shape or form. So much so that the brief tenderness between Mitsuhide and Murashige is like a balm to a burn. Though I did absolutely enjoy the scene-chewing of Ryo Kase who played Nobunage. While Nobunage isn't a "likable" character by any means, he was so fun and engaging to watch he became a highlight of the film. 

Stylistically, this is a very modern epic film; it’s the type of film in terms of scale I imagine Kurosawa could have made if he had access to the same technology, but also wouldn’t because there’s no stillness or sincerity to it. The violence is also more in line with Lady Snowblood, but with a budget. Heads are lopped off with ease and at times with glee, dead bodies, headless bodies with crabs crawling out of the necks, a literal pile of heads for trophies it’s all here. It’s beautifully and dynamically filmed, it has a similar scale of a Lord of the Rings, or a Creation of the Gods I: Kingdom of Storms. 

Big set pieces, big costumes, big landscapes, big battles, and bigger body counts. It also has the largest cast of any film on the list - kinda neat that Kitano and Asano Tadanobu were both in Kubi and Gohatto together - and the best costumes of the bunch. 

It also, in my opinion, has the most complicated plot of all the films because of the heavy political intrigue - though this, admittedly, could be because of the culture gap as I’m not overly familiar with Japanese history. 

Okay so like, where does all this leave us in terms of those original bullet points? 

The Original Bullet Points

Japanese Cinema hasn’t changed since the 1950s 

If there's one thing - well okay many things cause I'm greedy but overall - I hope I've been able to outline here with these four films is that obviously Japanese cinema has changed since the 1950s. And thoroughly at that. Not just in terms of style, but in terms of character presentation, tone, stories technology, experimentation, and a growing reflection of the shifting and developing culture. 

It’s not simply that all four of these films are different stories, but that all four of these films are addressing different aspects of their modern culture via these period pieces, as well as, viewing this time period in ways that reflect the filmmakers own experiences and how they feel or felt about the world. 

Kurosawa was born in 1910 to Kitano’s 1947, Fujita and Oshima’s 1932. Kurosawa’s father was a member of an actual samurai family, his worldview would be thoroughly different from someone like Oshima, or Kitano, or Fujita’s. Some overlap, sure, but also still thoroughly different. 

And I feel that you can see that in their films; Kurosawa’s samurai films are almost referential at times, not always, but his work with Toshiro Mifune often leans that way; in The Hidden Fortress Mifune’s Rokurota is deeply loyal to his lord, the Princess Yuki, to the point that he won’t shed tears over his own sister being executed in her place. He spares the life of a rival because he respects him even though they stand on opposing sides. 

The samurai in Gohatto and Kubi aren’t nearly so idealized nor idolized, there’s very little “honor” in Kubi and even less loyalty. Whilst in Gohatto there’s a deep and subtle interrogation of the strict and oppressive bylaws of the shinsengumi. In one such scene, Kano is having drinks with a man who is interested in him, Yuzawa, who’s passionately talking about how the shensengumi uphold oppressive ideals including classism. 

[And then he jumps Kano’s bones I guess politics got the dude going lmao]

The Hidden Fortress’ Princess Yuki is at first, masculine - in story she was raised as a man rather than a princess - from the way she walks to the way she talks. She’s fierce, and upstanding, while also being compassionate to other members of her clan; even saving a young woman who’s a member of her clan that had been sold. There’s a regal quality to Princess Yuki. 

In comparison, Yuki in Lady Snowblood is elegant, and feminine, before striking out violently. Princess Yuki never has an “action scene” and in fact for a chunk of the film has to pose as a deaf woman to hide her identity. While not a passive participant in the plot, nor does she directly drive the action herself. While Yuki, well the entire movie is driven by her actions and the actions of her mother. The story is first and foremost, hers. 

Meanwhile women just like, they don’t exist in Gohatto or Kubi they’re like, in the ether~~~ they’re drifting, keeping out - or kept out? - of the drama. 

Given the vast differences in both style, tone, story and execution, how can you say wholeheartedly that Japanese cinema hasn’t changed since the 1950s? 

Japanese film style falls under an extreme dichotomy of cinematic/sweeping (described as “atmospheric”) or cartoonish/slapstick (described as “live action manga”)

I’m just…not gonna get into the overall history of Japan's adaptation of manga into live action films cause it would derail this conclusion and I ain’t got the time for that. I would like to note, Lady Snowblood is a live action film based on a manga of the same name - and it is not slapstick. It doesn’t even have comedic elements, it is a violent rape revenge story; I don’t think there’s a single moment where I chuckled. The Hidden Fortress is far lighter in tone, while Gohatto has more in common with Lady Snowblood - deeply and sincerely serious - and Kubi goes for a darker sort of comedy. 

This is just incorrect information. Personally I’m of the mind that “cinematic/sweeping is too broad a spectrum to even quantify as a film genre they are descriptors. 

That said, I don’t think Lady Snowblood is cinematic or sweeping. Gohatto is the only one on the list that’s even close to “atmospheric” though all four films have atmosphere - because atmosphere is a film technique it’s not a genre of film - The Hidden Fortress and Kubi are the only two I could qualify as “cinematic/sweeping” because they’re going for a larger bombastic scale. Though I feel folks watching The Hidden Fortress in the modern day might not find it cinematic because of how static and slow the film can be at times - the first act is long and drags quite a bit. 

To place such a strict dichotomy on an entire industry of filmmaking is simply bad film critique at best and xenophobic at worst given the context here. I’ve only talked about four films in one singular genre, I didn’t mention the countless other new wave films, or the birth of the kaiju genre with Godzilla, the expansion into horror and grindhouse - where does a film like Tag (2015) fit into such a strict dichotomy? -  nor the long, long history of animated works from various insanely highly influential and/or successful directors like Satoshi Kon, Makoto Shinkai, Hideaki Anno, Rintaro, Mamoru Hosoda, Mamoru Oshii, Isao Takahata, I mean the list goes on and on. 

If you expand your horizons you’ll find so many amazing films that do not flatly sit in this one or the other imposed categorization. Think about what queer cinema you may be missing out on by adhering to this imposed binary. 

Baby does any of this have to do with BL? (no, but it IS more gay than you think)

So, in the end, what does this have to do with BL? I would say it has both little and a lot to do with BL/GL which are genres all their own in Japan and other neighboring countries; as such their subject to the same waves, exploration and expansion as the four aforementioned films. 

It’s easy, if intellectually dishonest and academically lazy, to look at The Novelist and What Did You Eat Yesterday and say “BL only comes in two shapes and sizes”. 

There’s chocolate or vanilla and that’s it. When in reality there’s lots of ice cream flavors available, even if chocolate and vanilla are the best sellers it doesn’t mean strawberry or mint chocolate chip don’t exist. 

Where does animated BL fall into this western imposed binary? How does capitalism affect the output of what gets made for the screen and how? How does the political climate affect what’s being financed? Are BL and GL works that are being made somehow unaffected, existing in a stasis state, by the works across the film industry? Even from other queer works of film? What are we, as outsiders, not considering when we engage with this media? 

If we’re only looking at BL/GL for “queer representation” what films and/or television are we missing out on from these countries? What BL/GL are we missing by only engaging with what's put in front of us, and not diving deeper into learning more, expanding our individual knowledge, and experiencing stories that might take some work towards seeing? Stories that might be outside of our direct comfort zones because they don't fall into those strict if seemingly comforting boxes. What exploration into queer identity are we denying or ignoring the existence of because of these imposed binaries? 

I know some folks who are more well versed in BL history that would and do consider Gohatto and Kubi BL or BL adjacent, but I also know most western, especially American, audiences would consider neither of these films BL. 

So where does that leave them?

Further Reading: 

Cinematic History: Defining Moments in Japanese Cinema, 1926-1953

A Brief But Essential Introduction to Japanese Cinema

Filmmaking from Japan: The Golden Age of Japanese Cinema

Nagisa Oshima: Banishing Green

JAPANESE SOFTCORE: THE LAST OF TOKYO'S PINK EIGA THEATERS

The Last Samurai: A Conversation with Takeshi Kitano

The Evolution of the Japanese Anime Industry

Check out other related posts in the series:

Film Making? In My BL? - The Sign ep01 Edition | Aspect Ratio in Love for Love's Sake | Cinematography in My BL - Our Skyy2 vs kinnporsche, 2gether vs semantic error, 1000 Stars vs The Sign | How The Sign Uses CGI | Is BL Being Overly Influenced by Modern Western Romance Tropes? | Trends in BL (Sorta): Genre Trends

[pub-lius]

Why don't you have any detailed posts about Steuben smh do better

AW FUCK NO MY REPUTATION!! HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO BE THE GAY HISTORY PERSON IF I DONT HAVE A DETAILED POST ABOUT STEUBEN!!!! i have to fix this...

Early Life

Friedrich Wilhelm August Heinrich Ferdinand Baron de Steuben was born on September 17, 1730 in Prussia. He joined the Prussian army at the age of 17, so he got a real early start.

Note: I've written his name here as "Baron de Steuben", as this name is from a French record, however he is typically referred to as "Baron von Steuben", as "von" is the translation of "de" from French to Prussian, and they both mean "of" in English. I just wanted to clarify that for the sake of my own linguistically correct sanity

Steuben began his service in the French and Indian War (or Seven Years War if you're a dirty European) as a second lieutenant, and was then wounded at the Battle of Prague, a Prussian victory. Then, he joined General Johann von Mayer's adjutant and principle staff officer in a special detached corps.

Then, he was promoted to first lieutenant and wounded AGAIN at the Battle of Kunersdorf, which was a Russian and Austrian victory. He was then transferred to general headquarters as a staff officer in the position of deputy quartermaster (this is important!!).

He was taken prisoner when Major General von Knoblock surrendered at Treptow, and was released after a year in 1762. He was promoted to captain and then became an aide-de-camp to Frederick the Great, which is as metal as it gets. He joined the King's class on the art of war, where he learned even more super cool military leadership skills.

Life Between Wars

Steuben met St. Germain in Hamburg (a notoriously great place to meet people). If you aren't in the know like I clearly am, St. Germain would eventually be the French Minister of War during the American Revolution. They'd meet again in France when Steuben was serving as Grand Marshall to the Prince of Hollenzollern-Hechingen, and if that sounds made up to you, it's because you don't even know him like I do.

Steuben continued looking for military work, but those European assholes (the British, French, and Austrians) rejected my man for no good reason (probably because he was gay or something). It was during his stay in France where he heard of the rowdy Americans across the pond.

St. Germain introduced Baron von Steuben to Silas fucking Deane and Benjamin "Slim Shady" Franklin, but they weren't able to promise Steuben anything but some regurgitated American propaganda, since, by this time, they were already getting yelled at by Congress and Washington for allowing too many incompetent Frenchmen into the Continental Army. They told him that the only way he could assist in the American fight for independence would be to go to America and present himself as a volunteer to Congress (like Lafayette ended up having to do).

This obviously pissed off Steuben since he was actually experienced trying to get a job, because its not fun being an overqualified, unemployed gay man in 18th century Europe. But still, he settled for being a volunteer, and set out for America, his passage being paid for by the French government.

WHAT THE FUCK IS A KILOMETERRRRRRR

Steuben traveled to America with his Italian greyhound, Azor, and his two assistants, Louis de Pontiere (ADC) and Pierre Ettienne Duponceau (military secretary). They arrived in New Hampshire on December 1, 1777. They were almost arrested upon arrival because Steuben had a blond moment and mistakenly dressed them in red uniforms instead of blue. They traveled through Boston to York, Pennyslvania, arriving on February 5, 1778.

In Steuben's letter of recommendation, Franklin mistranslated Steuben's rank to "His Excellency, Lieutenant General von Steuben, Apostle of Frederick the Great", which made him seem way more distinguished than he was. As a result, he was presented a much higher rank by Congress.

Steuben was ordered to report to Washington's headquarters at Valley Forge, where he arrived on February 23, 1778, and was described by a soldier as "a perfect personification of Mars."

Steuben's good first impression also had an effect on Washington, who appointed him temporary Inspector General, and it was in this position that he had his largest impact on American history, and changed the course of the war

Why Every Army Should Have Gay People, An Essay by Publius

Baron von Steuben began his transformation of the Continental Army by writing training drills, overriding the regional trainings of the state militias into a unified and universal regimen. There was a significant language barrier, however, as Steuben originally wrote the drills in French, which were then translated into English by Duponceau, John Laurens, and Alexander Hamilton. Then, they were given to the brigade inspectors, who made the copies which were then copied to be delivered to each officer. There was definitely a more efficient way to do this, but you know. It was also Valley Forge.

General Washington's Life Guard and some men from each state (totalling around 120 men) were used as a model to show the rest of the army how they were supposed to go through the drills. As they trained and demonstrated the drills, Steuben was writing new ones, only a few days ahead, which is a massive time crunch. This was done intentionally to make the drills as simple as he could, so the training of the army was dispersed in a rapid, orderly fashion. This man was a genius, I can't emphasize it enough.

The officers in the British army, which was the standard for Americans in many respects, would allow the sergeants to drill the men, but Steuben said fuck that, I'm gonna do it myself. This made many American officers uncomfortable because the men developed a bond with him because of how talented he was (and the fact that he was funny and used profanity in multiple languages), and along with the fact that Steuben's office seemingly had no limitations, this caused them to complain to the big boss, Washington. To make them feel better, Washington issued orders on June 15, 1778 to govern the Inspector General's office until further word from Congress.

The reformed Continental Army showed off their swag on May 6, 1778 when they celebrated the news of the Franco-American Alliance, which impressed soldiers, officers, and civilians. More happy news came when Steuben was given his commission from the Congress as Inspector General, with the rank of Major General.

It was at the Battle of Monmouth when the new training of the Continental Army was able to take what would have been a losing battle for the Americans to a technical draw. Steuben was actually almost killed/taken prisoner (depending on the mood of the British) during this battle because he was wearing so many metals of honor that he glimmered in the sunlight, and was spotted by the British. He was fine, though.

General von Steuben went to Philadelphia in the winter of 1778-79 to write his book of regulations, referred to as The Blue Book. Lieutenant Colonel Francois de Fleury, a volunteer, assisted in writing it. It was with the assistance of ~Benjamin Walker~ and Duponceau that the blue book was translated into English, which is why we know Walker as being important! And the fact that he and Steuben totally boned! Anyway, Captain Pierre Charles L'Enfant was illustrated it, and the book was used all the way until 1814.

After the war

General von Steuben rejoined the Continental Army in April of 1779 to serve through the end of the war. He was an instructor and supply officer for General Nathanael Greene's southern army from the beginning of the southern campaign until Yorktown. Steuben commanded one of three divisions in the Continentals at Yorktown. He assisted in demobilizing the army in 1783, and resigned his commission in 1784, which is actually the latest I've heard of a Continental General resigning his commission!

Steuben continuously petitioned Congress for financial compensation for mesothelioma (not really) and fuck ass Congress only gave him a part of what he was owed, which was pretty typical. But! New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia all gave him land grants, which he sold portions off to have enough money to live. So, he retired from NYC to his land holdings to live the remainder of his life.

Oh, and fun fact, Steuben was present at one of the riots in New York that Alexander Hamilton tried to stop, and they both had bricks thrown at them. It might have been the Cadaver Riots, but I could be wrong since I didn't feel like double checking.

Steuben never married, and instead lived with Benjamin Walker for a long period of time. He died on his 16,000 acre farm tract in the Mohawk Valley of New York on November 28, 1794.

Homosexuality

The source I used for this does not mention his homosexuality at all, but I'm going to, because the last thing you'll ever see me do is pretend like gay people didn't exist or are "unprofessional" to talk about in history.

If you say that Alexander Hamilton was gay, you have to say Steuben was, and vice versa. Rumors of homosexuality followed Steuben from Europe all the way to America, and play a large role in why he relocated many times, and never seemed to have a permanent home until the end of his life. This was a form of unofficial exile that many queer people faced in times where their existence was illegal. As soon as your name was associated with possible homosexuality, you couldn't get comfortable anywhere.

But von Steuben wasn't brought down by this, and you've gotta respect that. He threw elaborate parties starting almost as soon as he arrived at the Continental Army. If you're new to the amrev community here, this is what we mean by "flaming shot/pantless parties", because they had shots of liquor that they would light on fire, and in order to get in, at least part of your breeches had to have been missing. While straight men did attend these parties, the subtext in discussions about them seem to imply that they were also a gathering place for queer men.

These parties continued, and some familiar faces were there, such as Duponceau, Walker Hamilton, Laurens, and, later on, Charles Adams. However, I'm not going to speculate on who was fucking who, though it has been largely accepted by historians that General von Steuben and Benjamin Walker were lovers, and I personally think there is substantial evidence to support this when you align their personal correspondence with the close proximity they maintained throughout their lives.

General von Steuben is a figure that is very important to many queer people as a conspicuous queer man in history who had an undeniable impact on the course of American history. Portrayals of Steuben in media typically disregard this, however more and more biographers are discussing his homosexuality and the significance it plays in queer history. So, I'll end this post by saying this: Steuben is just as significant in American history as he is in Queer history, and it is irresponsible to pretend like he isn't.

Source:

National Park Service- Valley Forge

British Battles.com- Battle of Kunersdorf

George Washington's Indispensable Men by Arthur S. Lefkowitz

John Laurens and the American Revolution by Gregory D. Massey

Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow

Anyway, thank you for giving me an excuse to talk about Steuben lol. I didn't previously know much about his life before the American Revolution, so I was very happy to learn. I actually bought a biography about him not long ago, The Drillmaster of Valley Forge: The Baron de Steuben and the Making of the American Army by Paul Lockhart, but I haven't read it yet. If anyone has, pls let me know if it's good or not. After Massey and Chernow, I'm practically on my hands and knees begging for a male author to treat queer history seriously. Anyway, thank you for the ask! I'm going to go watch the george washington mini series for steuben content

[livelaughlovelams]

OOO I found this crusty draft but I need to get back on AMREVBLR so...

(don't come at me I just wanted to post something oml)

One thing the whole Lams community gets fatally wrong is the relationship between Laurens and his father.

Sure, John and Henry had their differences, but they were actually fairly close. Gregory D. Massey even called John the favourite child!Was Henry a GREAT father? Heck no! But he did try, and he wasn't HORRIBLE at it. Just a bit forceful. Most of this fandom's hatred for Henry Laurens sparks from one thing: John's sexuality.

Yes, Henry Laurens was homophobic, and John Laurens was most likely a homosexual man. But we're forgetting that it was the 18th century. Homosexual acts were illegal, and you'd be arrested, severely punished, or even executed if you were found intimately with someone of the same sex, and definitely disgraced permanently. Period-typical homophobia really isn't the same as today's view. It's likely Henry had a slight guess that John wasn't interested in women, but you've got to understand how outrageous that was for the time. When John wrote to Henry about his wife, Henry was most likely relieved and stopped worrying about his son's sexuality altogether. Of course, Henry likely didn't know that John married her out of pity and just because he was a genuinely good lad.

A lot of media and fanfiction or just fan portrayals overall portray Henry as this cold, heartless being who despised his family with a burning passion, but that really isn't true. Henry mourned very deeply after John's death, and did the same after Eleanor, John's mother's death. He spent a lot of time with John, specifically in his teenage years when they were in London. Henry tried, he really did.

Henry DID put down his son's interests, however. It was clear from a young age that John was very interested in biology and plants, as well as art and medicine. If it wasn't for Henry, John would have likely become a painter, naturalist, or doctor after his career as a soldier. Yet, Henry pushed John to study law over his other subjects of interest, and so he did. This wasn't because these subjects were "gay" or "girly" as I've seen some people say. These really just weren't high paying or honorable careers for the time. Today a doctor would be very impressive. At the time, a doctor wouldn't have been seen majorly better than a maid. Is it wrong that Henry discouraged John from pursuing his interests and passions? Yes. Honestly, it is. But it's clear that Henry only wanted what was best for his son, even if he wasn't great at showing it.

[revolu]

Were John Laurens and Alexander Hamilton lovers?

I think I need to state the obvious here; no one knows 100% if they were lovers or just friends. We have reasonable evidence to believe that they were lovers, or at least had something romantic between them... However, we can also see that they refer to each other as "friends".

I posted a video about this on my tiktok, but I'll post this here as well; in text format instead of a slideshow.

Here is basically what I'll talk about:

History of male friendships

In ancient times, men were extremely close. They valued male friendships a lot, even more than their relationship between their wife. This was because men believed women to be inferior to men. This belief is still present today in many parts of the world, and it was, of course, a common thing to believe in the 18th century – the timeline in which Laurens and Hamilton were alive.

Men would embrace each other, hold hands, sleep in the same bed if necessary, and even go as far as kiss. Kissing your male friend, as a male, on the cheek was nothing unusual. It is not only a greeting in some cultures, it is also a sign of affection and to indicate friendship, family relationship, or to confer congratulations, to comfort someone, or to show respect... It was not generally seen as anything romantic.

Although homosexuality was highly looked down upon, people were not really as scared to be labeled as "gay" as people are today. And feelings of love were not as strictly labeled as either "platonic" or "romantic" as they are today either.

In many instances, male friendships, in the 1700s-1800s, had a similar intensity as a romantic relationship between a female and a male. Many do not know this, and therefore assume close male friends were lovers... Which is probably the case for Hamilton and Laurens.

Men would use very affectionate and endearing words to each other, which is seen in the Hamilton-Laurens letters. However, there is always a line to cross. And many think that Hamilton and Laurens definitely crossed that line.

Hamilton & Laurens

Before we dig deeper into Laurens' relationship with Hamilton, we need to discuss his supposed homosexuality.

John Laurens didn't seem to necessarily express any attraction towards women. We know this, not only because of his sexist behaviors and his lack of effort to humble his wife, but we can also read about this in his father's letters.

"Master Jack is too closely wedded to his studies to think about any of the Miss Nanny's"

Henry Laurens writes.

This basically says that John was too focused on his studies to show any interest in women.

However, he was a teenager at that time, and not every teenager starts developing feelings for people at the same age.

Henry did not seem so happy with John's lack of interest in women, but we also do know that Henry was most certainly emotionally manipulative towards John, which we also can read in letters. But I will not discuss that now, that is for another post.

Anyways, John expressed a fair lot of sexist behaviors and opinions, even towards his own sisters. Most men had some sort of sexist belief, because as said before, men believed women to be inferior. But it's almost as if Laurens showed more toxic masculinity and seemed to be quite strict on the subject. This, most likely, plays a part in Laurens' supposed homosexuality.

Laurens hid the fact that he had a wife (and a child) from Hamilton for nearly two years. This awakes questions. Why did he do that? To get a better chance with Hamilton, or to try and forget his family? Or was it simply because he didn't want to share such a fact about himself to someone new, and never found the opportunity to tell him?

Nevertheless, we know for a fact that Laurens only married his wife, Martha Manning, after she got pregnant. He married her to keep legitimacy of their child, but also out of pity.

John writes to his uncle;

"...Pity has obliged me to marry.."

When Laurens left for war, he left his pregnant wife in a whole other country... In December 1780, when congress chose John to be a special minister to France and had him travel there, Martha decided to travel with her daughter to reconnect with him upon hearing his arrival in France.

But apparently, John completed his mission and returned to the United States before Martha was able to see him.

Martha Manning died in France, 1781, during this trip. Only a year before John himself died. Their child, Frances, was sent to live with her aunt.

I don't know if he had the opportunity to bring his wife with him when he went home to America to fight, but he certainly did not make any (known) effort to visit his wife or daughter while in France.

However, a thing worth to know, is that Laurens only ever called his wife "Dear Girl", and Hamilton "Dear Boy"... As far as we know. We know that Hamilton was special to Laurens, but was his wife really special? Or was it just an affectionate name out of pity, because he felt bad? Did he grant her that name to make her feel loved? Whatever the reason is, this supports Laurens and Hamilton being lovers, or at least having some kind of chemistry, seeing as Laurens didn't call his other close friends such names.

Many believe that Laurens was gay, mostly because of his extreme lack of affection towards women, which his sexist beliefs could've played a major role in, but also because of his letter correspondence between Alexander Hamilton, and a guy named Francis Kinloch. We will never know his true sexuality though.

Time to talk about Hamilton, his wife, and his supposed bisexuality.

Alexander Hamilton was born out of wedlock in Charlestown, in the Colony of Nevis, in the British West Indies in 1755 or 1757. His father left when he was about 10 (depends on what birth year you go off), and his mother died when he was around 12-13, leaving both him and his brother orphaned.

Contrary to popular belief, Alexander did have a number of parental figures growing up. But unlike Laurens, who was born and raised to be that typical man of their time, and whose father chose his career path, Alexander was more "free".

This is a possible factor to Alexander's openness, the way he started his first (survived) letter to Laurens with the famous;

"Cold in my professions, warm in my friendships..."

Laurens was pretty disciplined, and was probably taught a number of different things on how to be the ideal man.

Hamilton, however, didn't have the same opportunity, and his environment growing up was very different from Laurens'.

We can see in letters when comparing them that Hamilton seems much more affectionate. Although Laurens uses affectionate language as well, he seems more "professional" and "careful" than Hamilton.

Another thing to note is that Hamilton was often described as feminine.

"...something almost feminine about his gentleness and concern for the comfort and happiness of other people..."

These are reasons as to why people believe Hamilton was bisexual, especially because he expressed love (true love, mind you) towards Eliza as well! Reading the letters between him and Eliza, it is evident that he really did love her.

Note that Hamilton was a flirtatious man, and that his letters to Laurens seem almost as flirtatous as his letters to Eliza. Even if his flirtatious language calmed when he met Eliza, the years before that he definitely expressed something more "romantic" and flirtatious in his letters to Laurens.

And supposedly, someone(?) had asked Hamilton if he was bisexual (in other terms, of course). I don't know whether or not this is true, but it is certainly another reason as to why people think he was bisexual.

Did Alexander really invite Laurens to have a threesome with him and Eliza on their wedding night?

The simple answer for this is "probably not."

But this obviously needs more digging.

Hamilton writes to Laurens;

"I would invite you after the fall to Albany to be witness of the final consummation"

The word "consummation" is most commonly used to refer to two people having sexual intercourse to seal their relationship/marriage. It was quite common, especially around Christians, to do this.

Hamilton is most certainly referring to this, and he is inviting Laurens to "witness" it. A.k.a., to watch. (which wasn't too unusual!)

Hamilton, in the same letter, mentions that Eliza loves Laurens in the American manner and not the French manner, meaning that she loves him as a friend and nothing more. So the possibility of Hamilton inviting Laurens to have a threesome with them is pretty low... Especially because Hamilton explicitly wrote "witness", and not "join". So, he most likely did NOT invite Laurens to have a threesome with him and his wife.

So, were Hamilton and Laurens lovers? (Conclusion)

Considering the little knowledge we have, we cannot say for sure.

Historians say that the possibility of them being lovers, at least before Hamilton met Eliza, is big!

Personally, I think it is very possible that they were lovers, or at the very least had some sort of romantic relationship. A lot of things point to a romantic bond, however a lot of things also point to them being only close friends.

But from my perspective, the romantic signs outnumber the platonic ones in their first years of friendship. It is clear, however, that Alexander did really love Eliza, and you can see an obvious change in Alexander's language towards John after Eliza came into his life.

To summarize their relationship with a bit of comedy, I'd say it's more like a high school crush type of situation; Alexander and John had a crush on one another, which possibly turned into something more serious, before Alexander fell in love with the new girl at school, and they ended up together, later marrying. High school sweethearts.

But in all seriousness, my friend actually worded it amazingly good;

"they were just real close friends trying to serve one anothers ‘needs’ till they found the one"

Which is a very good and possible theory!

But, is it okay to ship Lams?

I'd say so, yes.

Shipping historical figures is weird asf if the people didn't have any romantic chemistry and so... Which Laurens and Hamilton seemed to have.

Therefore, I think it is okay to ship Lams. But of course is it also okay to not ship Lams, and to dislike it! We will never know for sure if they were lovers or not, and we cannot say that they 100% weren't lovers or 100% were. Sadly, a lot of letters have been destroyed/not found, and we can only know so much.

Feel free to ask questions or add anything, whether it's supporting them being just friends or the possibility of them being lovers.

I know I haven't covered everything in this post, like Hamilton joking about his own pp in the first (survived) letter to Laurens, so if you're interested in reading that; go on my tiktok (@historicalhamsandwich) and check out my slideshow about this there. (I also cover more letters)

With that said, have a good day/night!! :)

[can-of-w0rmz]

@shotofstress

When I tell you I read this I saw it and I WHEEZED I was in TEARS and I shouldn’t be bothered arguing about it but quite frankly I’m trying to procrastinate anyway and I’ve had a god awful week and need to take out my frustrations somehow, ergo, I’m going be petty not because this person disagrees with my reading of the novel, but because they implied that in reading queer or neurodivergent elements in a work, people “can’t see the important themes that the novel is about” which actually does piss me off a fair bit

Right so first before we argue we’ve got to decipher because English apparently isn’t this person’s forte for someone who is, apparently, such an avid reader and esteemed critic of English literature. Also I just realised I haven’t really provided any context here so apologies this was in response to that joke post I made about mischaracterising Frankenstein adaptations (again yes the pettiness is not lost on me but I’m embracing it anyway)

“He is not gay nor autistic” cheers this person disagrees that Victor Frankenstein is either gay or autistic. To each their own. Wonder what kind of backup they’ll have for that argument.

“Pls stop seen representation of us everyone bc u can’t make the difference,” Right so this is where we get confusing, I’m going to take a wild guess and I think they’re trying to say “please stop seeing representation of us everywhere because you can’t make the difference”, and I still don’t know what “make the difference” means, but we’ll go with it.

“read nothing new”, alright so they’re saying people who see representation everywhere read nothing new, and then the kicker that’s kind of the only reason I decided to respond to this anyway, “nor really see the important themes that the novel is about.”

First off, “stop seeing representation of us everywhere”, let it be known that as I make a hundred jokes about Victor Frankenstein being homosexual, I myself am thoroughly through and through without a doubt bisexual as the days are long. Absolutely love men. Also adore women equally. So no, I am not a Disney corporate executive trying to squeeze in as many queers as possible for the entire purpose of using the fact they have representation in media to excuse the fact it’s a shite film but also, not trying to revisit every old piece of media to squeeze representation where it doesn’t really fit or make sense just for shits and giggles. (Also just saying, you made this comment on Tumblr. So even if I was just going haywire with lgbt headcanons on my favourite media with no real backup, who gives a shit? Who actually gives a flying fuck? I don’t. Let people live, man. It doesn’t mean they don’t understand the source material just because they’re having fun and playing loose with it. It’s Tumblr, not a Netflix adaptation. Let people do whatever they want and have fun with it. It’s cool.)

But like I said, I do have backup and a lot of it so let’s get into that, shall we?

First of all, whoo, autism. I’ll be real not really a hill I’m going to die on but the wording you put of “he is not autistic” is just ridiculous because yeah, no, there is a lot of perfectly decent ground to read Victor Frankenstein as autistic and a lot of people do, mostly people who are autistic or otherwise neurodivergent themselves. Just because in the 18th century people didn’t necessarily have the language for things doesn’t mean they didn’t exist, and I mean, now we do. So what’s the harm in using it? They had their own language for things back then, do we have to revert back to speaking in early 19th century English every time we want to refer to a character who was written back then as neurodivergent or lgbt or anything else?? What’s the point in that??

But yeah, Victor Frankenstein. I can’t even be bothered to explain and to be honest every single other person I’ve said “Frankenstein is autistic to” has immediately responded “oh yeah, obviously”, even my father who famously is just hypercritical of all sorts of headcanons just went “oh yeah no for sure the man is definitely autistic no doubt about it”. So instead I’m just going to include some quotes.

My temper was sometimes violent, and my passions vehement; but by some law in my temperature they were turned not towards childish pursuits but to an eager desire to learn, and not to learn all things indiscriminately.

It was my temper to avoid a crowd and to attach myself fervently to a few. I was indifferent, therefore, to my school-fellows in general; but I united myself in the bonds of the closest friendship to one among them.

From this day natural philosophy, and particularly chemistry, in the most comprehensive sense of the term, became nearly my sole occupation.

Two years passed in this manner, during which I paid no visit to Geneva, but was engaged, heart and soul, in the pursuit of some discoveries which I hoped to make. None but those who have experienced them can conceive of the enticements of science. In other studies you go as far as others have gone before you, and there is nothing more to know; but in a scientific pursuit there is continual food for discovery and wonder.

Like I said, self explanatory. It’s harder to come up with an argument for why he isn’t autistic than why he is, and frankly, what’s the harm in reading him that way? It doesn’t really change anything about the plot or themes, and his character doesn’t change. It’s just a very probable diagnosis for said qualities. It doesn’t change them, whether you use that word or not. The concept of autism was coined in 1911 anyway, so its not like Mary Shelley’s going to be sat at her writing desk in 1817 writing in big bold letters “BY THE WAY, FRANKENSTEIN HAD AN AUTISM DIAGNOSIS.” It doesn’t change the fact that people still had autism back then, just because the term wasn’t discovered yet. Anyway.

Now, second bit. “He isn’t gay” – now, if you read Frankenstein and thought “ah yes, this man seems perfectly heterosexual to me”, then honestly, sure. Go ahead. But to say that reading Victor Frankenstein as queer in any way means that people “don’t understand the important themes of the novel” is completely bloody ridiculous because, again, there is astronomical ground to read him that way.

Victor Frankenstein never really shows interest in any women in the novel, except for Elizabeth, who he has been raised, since he was five years old, to see as his “gift” and was told by his mother since he was a very young child that he was going to marry her – to the point where his mother, on her deathbed, tells both Victor and Liz: “My firmest hopes of future happiness were placed on the prospect of your union. This expectation will now be the consolation of your father.” Also, they’re cousins/adopted siblings. If you don’t think that’s fucked up, even by the standards of the time, I’m not really sure what to say to you. Of course he married her. And before he married her, he generally expresses very little romantic interest in her bar just expressing as much affection as you would a close friend or sister, or seeing her as his “gift” who he “has to be wed to”. Read any other story from this time period, in this genre, and you will not be remotely questioning whether they’re actually attracted to each-other or not. In fact, here’s an excerpt from The Vampyre, another book born from the same trip to Geneva that Frankenstein was, by John William Polidori, about the protagonist’s love interest:

And that’s only part of it. So. Yeah. Victor’s lack of romantic affection for Elizabeth is not “a product of its time” nor “a product of its genre.” And The Vampyre is a short story.

And so you may be saying, “well, just because Victor doesn’t show any interest in women doesn’t necessarily make him gay”, and yeah, true that (ace and bi Vic hcs y’all are valid) but there is very good basis to take the reading that he is attracted to men.

For one thing, just the fact that he’s so particular about creating “the perfect man” is subject to a lot of queer readings in itself, but let’s be real here, you all know me enough by now to know that I just want an excuse to rant about Clerval and Frankenstein. And rant about them I shall.

First, I’m lazy, so here’s an excerpt from one of my previous essays I’ve written that I’ve never posted everywhere on Frankenstein in general:

Just as The Creature is Victor’s narrative foil, so is Clerval. He's equally ambitious and fascinated with the secrets of life, however he’s healthy with how he goes about it and healthy with how he keeps the balance between taking care of himself and pursuing his dreams, while Victor goes over the edge and neglects himself and his sense of morality to complete what he set out to do. He's supposed to represent the ideals of gothic romanticism in Victor and he's supposed to be his anchor and support, (something the Creature doesn't have), caring for Victor during his illness, (“reanimating” him, almost, once again showing that comparison between both Victor and Henry, as Henry “reanimates” Victor with compassion and cares for him after, and Victor reanimates The Creature in a haze of obsession and mania and immediately abandons him, showing what Victor could have been), and constantly accompanying and being sympathetic and empathetic towards him. I also find it very interesting how he does also seem to have those darker aspects to him, lying to Victor’s family about the extent of his illness and caring for Victor in his apartment despite the fact that, for all he knew, from the evidence lying around his workspace and Victor’s feverish rambling, he very well could have murdered someone, and Clerval chooses not to press him on the issue and instead to intentionally help Victor cover it up. The fact that Clerval exhibits these traits only makes Victor’s own downfall all the more tragic when we consider that it likely very much isn’t a stretch to imagine that Clerval, too, likely exhibits a lot of the same morbid curiosity as Victor; he isn’t a superhuman figure with purely positive attributes who is completely far removed from Victor’s situation, the only difference is that Clerval chooses to prioritise his own sense of morality over his selfish aims, which only emphasises the point that Victor’s downfall is, ultimately, Victor’s own fault. When Victor "kills" the Creature’s chance of the same support and love (his unfinished bride), the Creature kills Henry and sends Victor into a downward spiral of suicidal thoughts and heavy depression because the character that represented that stability, that romanticism, that balance of keeping healthy, is dead, and that throws Victor downward into his inevitable obsession with the monster's destruction and his own death.

On this point, I feel like it’s worth bringing up that a reasonably good case could probably be made regarding a lot of queer subtext in the novel, although I won’t rant about it excessively as it obviously isn’t the focus, the theme of love is a very prominent theme as I’ve previously mentioned with The Creature; familial love, platonic love, parental love, romantic love, and I don’t think it’s particularly much of stretch to suggest that Shelley, intentionally or unintentionally, might have added a lot more romantic subtext than given credit for. Not that it matters particularly narratively speaking what kind of love is portrayed, but in reference specifically to Clerval and the Ingolstadt chapters there’s a very good argument to be made regarding Shelley’s poor relationship with her own husband and how she may have projected a lot of her wish for that kind of care and sympathy into his character, perhaps not taking into account, or perhaps she did, how it would come across – author intentions are mostly lost with time and we’ll ultimately never know for sure, but even for the standards of the late 18th century when the novel was set and the early 19th century when it was written, “I desire the company of a man who could sympathise with me, whose eyes would reply to mine. You may deem me romantic,” and “your form so divinely wrought, and beaming with beauty, has decayed, but your spirit still visits and consoles your unhappy friend,” probably weren’t standard platonic sentiments.

And honestly on that essay excerpt, that still sums my thoughts on that subject up pretty much perfectly. After all, a character in a book talking about his best friend going “I loved him with a mixture of reverence and affection that knew no bounds” as well said best friend tenderly nursing him back to health, and the character talking about how his body is “divinely wrought and beaming with beauty” and gently pressing his hand and referring to him constantly as “my dearest”, “my dear” and “my beloved”, while living together and travelling together and talking about how his voice “soothes” him and “cheats (him) into a transitory peace”, pretty gay!

And yes, before anyone says a single thing, if it wasn’t already obvious from the essay excerpt, I do understand “the important themes the novel is about”. I do understand that there are more themes and characters and subject matter, and more than that, I bloody love it! Because this is one of my favourite novels! Of-fucking-course I’m invested in it on a deeper level than “ooOoooh what classical literature characters can I RUIN with my gay agenda today!” But you commented this on a joke post, a joke post, again, on Tumblr. No harm but Jesus Christ if there is a singular platform I can go on and just post stupid bullshit about two book characters from 200 years ago being soft and gay without having to justify that yes, I did in fact read the book, and shock horror yes, I do know that there are other themes, it’s bloody Tumblr. (Absolutely love you lot btw especially all my lovely fantastic incredible mutuals all your takes and readings and art is 👌✨ chef’s kiss)

Oh and by the way, op, I noticed you reblogged this:

And to be honest if I had to say any take or reading was a misunderstanding of the text, it’d be that one (as well as “Victor is sexist for cutting women out of the creation process” takes – Christ that’s just gross. And feels mildly if not explicitly homophobic.)

So just for shits and giggles to counter that argument, here’s another excerpt from the same older essay as before:

Speaking of Hugo, it is rather interesting how many adaptations and literary criticisms seem to go down the route of the Hunchback of Notre Dame moral of “who is the monster and who is the man?”, suggesting that Victor is the “true monster” of the narrative. And, as much as I am a decent Victor Hugo fan, (I’m over 50% through Les Misérables, have you seen the size of that book? I’d have to be), in reality the point of the story is that neither Creator nor Creation are more monster nor man than the other – Victor mutilates corpses and brings the creature to life, and allows Justine to be executed without owning up to his actions, and The Creature murders a child and a multitude of other innocent people, Clerval and Elizabeth who had nothing to do with anything and Ernest left completely alone with his entire family dead. We can’t acknowledge The Creature’s sympathetic qualities without also acknowledging Victor’s, and regardless, sympathetic motivations don’t make up for immoral actions.

Also this meme, which I can’t for the absolute life of me remember who posted it originally I’m sorry I use it all the time in GCs whoever it was you’re so valid:

[auspex]

VtM Fangfest 2024 Prompt 9: Strength

Hello! Here is my ninth fic for Fangfest 2024 :) I am fallin' behind but still writing!!!

All my fics will be about characters that are previously established, so you might not have context for everything mentioned or hinted at within :( Feel free to reach out to ask I love explaining!

I've never really posted my writing before so be kind!

my first fic is here

my second fic is here

my third fic is here

my fourth fic is here

my fifth fic is here

my sixth fic is here

my seventh fic is here

my eighth fic is here

This fic is about Eden! Eden was a character i made for a game that unfortunately died after session one. She uses she/him pronouns (mostly she, but likes he as well) anddddd god i love her so much. He was a firefighter in life. She's a lasombra embraced into the Camarilla after they defected. He's a known corpse <3 he eats people who won't be missed <3 She has SELF ESTEEEEEM ISSUESSSS and she is super gay. Yeah.

EDIT: ALSO SHOUT OUT TO @dykeferatu AS THEIR OC PEYTON IS IN HERE FOR A BIT :D they were gonna be a player with me

I wanted this piece to be longer but wanted to post it... so maybe i'll continue this later!

Eden still liked the crunch of her boots on the snow, even if the icy feel of wind on her face wasn’t as sharp now, since she was cold too. He missed how the cold made everything come into focus, though to be fair, his senses were far stronger now than they ever had been when he was alive. That she liked. 

What she did not like was having to report to her fucking sire, Dante. 

Up the stairs to the his porch. She hated how this old wooden building looked like a stereotypical vampire mansion. She hated how she was hand delivered letters like it was the goddamn 18th century. She hated Dante, ordering her around like she was a child. 

But most of all, she hated herself for just going along with it.

It wasn’t time to think about that though. Bang on the door, yell “I’m here,” wait for his ghoul to open up. 

And there he was, the sniveling pathetic man. “Good evening, Miss Cheng.” God, could he be any more stereotypical, always insisting on ‘miss.’ 

“I’m here, so it could be better.”

His lip curled, shifting his graying mustache. “Certainly. Come in, Master Dante is ready.” 

Eden was already walking in the door. 

Dante’s haven had shockingly modern furniture for his age; probably because he was feral in the woods with the Sabbat less than a decade ago, and only recently joined society. Eden’s lips curled in distaste upon passing the foyer; he had bought more wine that he did not drink. What a joke. She made a note to ask him sometime if he even remembered what alcohol tasted like. 

Eden made a point to stomp wet snow and mud on the rug specifically on the way to his office. The door was open, and she swung it open without a second thought. 

“Sup.” 

“No knock today?” Dante gave his standard asshole grin and ran his hand through his hair as he replied. “Sit down.” 

Eden did as he was told, and said nothing. He hoped that Dante didn’t know what ‘sup’ meant and was just refusing to ask. 

Wait, oh my god. Was that another skull on his desk. 

“Is that another skull?”

“How observant, Miss Cheng. Yes, it is.” 

Eden almost spat on his desk at that; he hated being called miss. Second time tonight. However, he had previously told her not to spit in his office. She gave him a tight smile instead as he continued. 

Dante picked up the skull and looked at it, holding it just above eye level, as if he was in a goddamn theater. “This fellow is actually what I am here to talk to you about tonight. Can you feel it, Eden?” 

Eden sucked in her breath, stalling as he tried to come up with a witty reply. Failing that, she just said “no.” 

Dante’s grin never faltered. “Not surprised, you are certainly not a natural.” Bastard. “Look at this skull. Deep into its eyes. It’s a surprisingly strong fetter, even you should be able to discern this. Take it.” 

Eden took it, though she felt absolutely nothing. 

“You shall show this to Peyton, and request their sire take a look at it.”  

Peyton’s mysterious sire. Dante was always asking about her, in a roundabout way, though Eden had no idea why he was so fixated on her. “And what’s in it for you?”

“Promise them more where that came from if they teach you how to feast upon its energies. Do not show Anisha until Peyton promises you something, even if they cannot commit to fully teaching you.” 

“What.” 

“What is the confusion?” 

“You want me to ask them to teach me to feed off of energy? Huh? Isn’t our whole deal that we eat blood and only blood?”

“Eden, you sound like a fool.” 

“No, you do, what the hell dude. Vampire 101” 

“I’ve told you not to curse. It’s disrespectful. Now, do as I said”

Eden stood up abruptly, and stalked off without a word. She almost punched the ghoul when he tried to get the door for her. 

“Miss Cheng, you may want a bag for the, erm, skull.” 

“Don’t fucking call me that.” He stuffed the skull under his armpit, mostly hiding it, and headed out. 

Time to text Peyton, or whatever. It was difficult to do with one hand. 

“Hey need to talk to u got somethin”

Eden was not about to carry this thing around all night. He stalked back to the apartment complex where he had been making his haven recently. It was a good hour long walk, and the skull was already digging uncomfortably into her. 

She gritted her teeth and continued. 

~

In her current, temporary as usual, apartment, she set the skull casually on the kitchen counter. Seeing Peyton hadn’t texted back, he pulled up a stool and stared at this skull. 

It looked like a regular skull, not much notable about it. It was fairly white, so couldn’t be that old. Eden reached out and rubbed the top of it, trying to tap into well, something, but there was nothing. No energy, or whatever. At least not to her. 

Eden had only turned on one light; the room was dim and shadowy. Closing her eyes for a moment, she gathered the shadows around her - something she usually did to stalk prey in the middle of the night. 

Now, looking at her hand, or rather, trying to - it was cloaked in shadow - she lifted the skull once again, unintentionally similar to how her sire did. 

He focused in. Were the shadows darker, or just in his imagination? 

As she waited for something, anything, her phone vibrated. Eden put the skull down. 

Peyton had replied, finally. 

“Ok i’m free”

“Cool im at apartment 109 come when ya ready” 

Guess she’ll just bullshit it. 

[coochiequeens]

It's not bad enough they let works by men into a Women’s Art exhibit but they features these freaks?

By Genevieve Gluck December 30, 2023

A prestigious art museum in London has prompted backlash after featuring trans-identified males in a historical exhibition of the women’s liberation movement. The Women in Revolt! exhibit is a first of its kind project offering “a wide-ranging exploration of feminist art” made by over 100 female artists during the period between 1970 – 1990.

While the exhibit purports to amplify the work of women, some female visitors to the museum quickly noticed that a number of trans-identified males had been slipped in among the displays.

One of the most disturbing pieces include archival copies of a publication created by men with a sexual fetish for pretending to be women, including one letter from a transvestite who complains of being jealous of his wife.

“Once I had admitted my true inner self to others I felt great relief, and thereupon decided to be myself all the time and live life as it suited me and not as the way I had been committed to live since coming out of the womb,” reads the letter, written by a man identified as “Julia.”

“Prior to this, my marriage (to a woman), had broken up and my wife was seeking a divorce together with the custody of the children because of my attitude to life, namely brought about because of my jealousy of her femininity and her ability to become pregnant and know true happiness within the straight society.”

The admission was one of several personal anecdotes contained within a magazine primarily catering to gay men called “Come Together.”

Information on the exhibit was first posted to X by women’s rights advocate @Sorelle_Arduino, who visited the exhibit yesterday and uploaded photos to her social media showing displays featuring trans-identified males.

One of the photos snapped by the user was an abstract painting by transgender artist Erica Rutherford displayed next to Monica Sjöö’s iconic piece “Wages for Housework.” In the display’s description of Rutherford’s painting, it states that he was inspired by being brought “face to face with the humiliations” of being treated as a woman.

“No cultural womens event can happen any more without men. Art has become a simpering pile of conformist junk,” one user said in response to @Sorelle_Arduino‘s thread on the exhibit.

“It would be bigoted to talk about women without talking about the ones that are men,” another quipped sarcastically.

Other displays featured articles from newsletters produced by the Beaumont Society, a group created in order to advocate for heterosexual crossdressers to be allowed to practice their sexual fetish publicly.

Among their goals, according to the group’s website, is to “promote and assist the study of gender.” The lobby organization uses as its namesake the 18th century French nobleman Charles Chevalier d’Éon de Beaumont, who would assume the identity of a woman named Charlotte, and was officially recognized as a woman by King Louis XVI.

The Beaumont Society, which currently advocates for the medical ‘transitioning’ of minors, was founded in 1966 by four male transvestites, one of whom was a leading figure in the fetish movement in the United States. Virginia Charles Prince, born Arnold Lowman, aided in creating the organization as a branch of a secret society of transvestic fetishists, who called themselves Full Personality Expression (FPE), located in California.

Initially, the group, as well as others like it which began to spring up in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia at the time, refused membership to homosexuals, presumably on the basis that prominent transvestites did not want the practice associated with sexual motivations. In one newsletter printed by Virginia Prince, who is credited with having popularized the term ‘transgender,’ he writes: “Some of the more narrow-minded of our sister TV’s [transvestites] see nothing good in anything that homosexuals do, but personally I am all for their success and would cooperate in helping them to achieve it where I could out of pure self-interest for our group.”

Prince has also openly discussed the sexual nature of the crossdressing fetish. In 1985 he appeared in an HBO documentary titled, “What Sex am I?”, where he commented on the element of arousal involved, saying that it was a “turn on” for “almost everybody” who participates.

“You have to grow past the stage of being an erotically aroused male in a dress, which results eventually in an orgasm. But when the orgasm is over, if you continue to stay in the dress, you begin to discover there’s this other part of yourself. You cease being an erotically aroused male, and you simply become a man who becomes to recognize that, gee, there’s something nice about girlness that I’m enjoying experiencing,” Prince, a co-founder of The Beaumont Society, said.

In recent years The Beaumont Society has become increasingly influential within the government and the medical establishment. The group is listed as an advisor to the National Health Service (NHS) in England as well as in Wales.

This is not the first controversy involving the Tate Museum centering trans-identified males, with multiple incidents occurring over the past year that have raised concerns amongst women’s rights advocates.

In June, a trans activist known for staging protests involving human urine was invited to read poetry during the Queer and Now LGBTQIA+ art festival. Jamie Cottle was dressed in women’s lingerie during the reading, wearing white panties that had the words “Sugar Money” embroidered into the crotch.

Though Cottle’s presentation was said to be for ages 16 and up, there were even younger children in attendance in the nearby area, with no boundaries set up to prevent minors from entering.

[etoilesombre]

sad captains make bad choices chapter two PLEASE I need it like I need breathing

For the WIP game. I was just WAITING for someone to ask about this one because I'm so excited to post the second chapter. Should be done over the weekend! First chapter here for context. Flint is so sad and pining (and also drunk and bad at people) that when he and Silver are staying at an inn together on a war mission and things get flirty, instead of making a move on Silver he goes out to an 18th century gay bar and has really intense group sex with randos. Was this an excuse for free use porn that then got out of control? Why yes, yes it was. Anyway Silver walks in, Flint sends him away, everything is horribly awkward, and Flint shuts down and is a bastard about it (see: bad at people.) In this, the second chapter, they... talk. Uh. Etc.

I had a hard time picking an excerpt for this one but here goes, the first bit of their conversation.

“Captain, this has to fucking stop,” Silver said at last, their third day back on the island.  They were on the cliffs, sweaty and panting between bouts. Flint had only spoken to comment on Silver’s form. “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” he said, hoping it might be true. That hope was immediately dashed.  “We need to talk about what happened in Virginia,” Silver said.  “We absolutely do not,” Flint replied, putting as much cold warning into his voice as he could muster. “I told you, it was a mistake. Leave it alone.” But Silver was not nearly as inclined to be cowed into silence as he had once been. “I tried to leave it alone,” he insisted. “And you’ve barely fucking spoken to me. It is obvious that you harbor some– some anger or resentment toward me over the matter, and I just—” “I don’t,” Flint interrupted, flatly.  “Then I don’t understand–” “Have you considered that it is not for you to understand?” Flint snapped, backed into a corner. “That perhaps you do not have a right to every goddamn piece of my life just because…” Flint trailed off, seeing the darkening of Silver’s expression and realizing the hypocrisy he would perceive in the words.  “You know what I think?” Silver’s tone was light, almost conversational, but it carried a bitter, dangerous undercurrent. “I think you’re just plain fucking embarassed. And I think you’re taking it out on me, because you can’t stand that I witnessed something that makes you as human as everyone else.”  Flint bridled at the accusation, at how simple, how petty it sounded when Silver said it. He wasn’t… it wasn’t just… He reached for a counter argument, and slowly deflated as the truth of it sank in past his defensiveness.  “And you know what?” Silver continued, apparently not finished but only hitting his stride. “That’s a bit fucking insulting, Captain. Considering that I’ve been coming up here every day and utterly humiliating myself in front of you. Considering that you were the only one who I—” He stopped abruptly, and Flint heard what he couldn’t say. The only one Silver had let near him, when he awoke after losing his leg, the only one other than the doctor allowed to witness the particular degradations of his suffering. “I meant it, when I said I didn’t think pride was an issue between us. That’s the only way this partnership works.” For a brief moment Silver sounded hurt, but found his way quickly back to outrage. “And I tried to be your fucking friend, as insane of a proposition as that may be. I did not judge you for your relationship with Thomas Hamilton, any more than I have ever judged any man on our crew for the same.” He glared at Flint, eyes blazing. “And if you’re going to be a bastard to me just because you assume I must be horrified by seeing what you like in bed, then fuck you.” 

[arthurianlegend144]

I think I should do a pinned post? I am so disorganised with my social media, good lord .

Well, my name is Arthur, 22, Brazilian, I make traditional art and digital art. I don't make NSFW art, just artistic nudes, well I don't think those count as NSFW?

My favourite ships are UsUk and TurkFra, but I usually enjoy almost any gay shit you feed me. I am just not the biggest fan of FrUk and RusAme, but I don't care if y'all enjoy it and post about it. I don't like those DNI stuff, I feel like an old man seeing that stuff.

I write a TurkFra fanfiction on AO3 named "The Lily and the Crescent", it's in Portuguese. I usually post when I update it. I am a major nerd about the French-Ottoman alliance of around the 16th to 18th century and I love discussing things about historical Hetalia!

I would love to make some new friends in the Hetalia fandom, because I have been here since 2016, but I've always been a loner that occasionally wrote angst fanfic on Spirit Fanfics. So well, everyone that isn't a piece of shit is welcome in my blog and if you want to talk, don't hesitate to send me an ask or a message.

SO LET'S GOOO, HETALIA FANDOM YIPPIEEEE

[blakegopnik]

THE FRIDAY PIC is back in the saddle after a July vacation ... that included a trip London and a visit to the show of Warhol fabrics and garments now at the Fashion and Textile Museum.

The exhibition included this dress, made from a fabric designed by Warhol in the mid-1950s, and it came with a wall-text commenting on how the pattern must have been inspired by displays of mounted butterflies from the 18th or 19th centuries, and how that pattern seems to have been "a particularly happy expression of well-being for Warhol."

But I'd bet anything that the pattern was based on pinned butterflies that Warhol would have seen much more recently, in the 1930s in Pittsburgh in the Carnegie museum's natural history displays. And I think that pattern may just have had an almost political meaning for him.

The curator of those displays was an eminent White Russian lepidopterist named Andrey Avinoff, who was possibly the most openly gay man in Pittsburgh, caricatured as a "butterfly" in a local newspaper. (See the image at the end of this post.) So I think Warhol's butterfly pattern invoked that history, and was one of many examples of a gay man taking on mainstream society's homophobic stereotypes and slurs, as a way of resisting them.

I'd love to read a serious study of how mid-century gay culture used feminine signifiers — butterflies, flowers, pastel pinks, curlicued calligraphy — to assert itself in, and against, a society that billed gay men as fluttering pansies. Warhol would have to be Exhibit A.

Around the time of his butterfly fabric, Warhol did a self-portrait drawing of himself as a butterfly child, with a text that read: “Here is Andy at the age of two—Looking wistfully at you—He has wings like a butterfly—And if you ask the reason why—He will say: I’m a butterfly you see—Won’t you come and fly with me.”

[my-deer-friend]

"stick their dick"

Typical Virgin Tumblrina

I know you're trying to be hurtful and sarcastic but I'd like to thank you for making me nostalgic for my time at high school mumblemumble years ago, which was the last time I recall "virgin" being thrown around as an insult. I guess some things never change.

It's obvious that you've come across my post floating around in the wild, because if you were one of my followers you'd know the context relates to the way (18th century) queer history is critiqued – often held to an impossible standard of proving a sex act occurred before a historical figure can be "assigned gay" – and my frustration in the way expressions and non-sexual acts of love, desire, need, longing, heartache and more are dismissed as being "just the normal way friends were back then".

This positionality entirely ignores the many, many, many ways a historical person could have been queer even if they couldn't, didn't, or didn't want to have homosexual sex – off the top of my head, there are: asexuality, celibacy, fear of social stigma and legal punishment, gender confusion, experiencing romantic but not physical attraction to a specific person, disability, lack of opportunity, unreciprocated desire, internalised homophobic rhetoric about how "dirty" and "sinful" gay sex is.

It ALSO ignores the teensy little issue that we cannot prove a same-sex sex act occured at all. Heterosexual sex leaves traces – pregnancies – but since men in the 18th century faced the threat of shame, ostracisation, ruin and even death by execution for "sticking their dick" in another man, not a lot of them were writing it down when it happened. I'm not sure why my innocuous and pedestrian turn of phrase brought out this response from you, but if you prefer, please feel free to substitute "sodomise", "fornicate", or "engage in pederasty" (or "play backgammon", if you're feeling whimsical). In any case, I did intend to convey a sort of vulgarity or lewdness in the phrasing, on account of how puerile this academic discourse can get.

What delights me most, anon (other than the opportunity to write a few paragraphs about my favourite topic), is that your impulse on seeing something that annoyed you was not to spend a minute or two looking at my blog to see if you might have misconstrued me (normal behaviour), but rather to hop onto anon and send some amusingly off-piste trollish comments (Typical Tumblrina behaviour). Well done!

[waugh-bao]

🍄 🍬 🔪

🍄 ⇢ share a head canon for one of your favourite ships or pairings

I fully believe that Mick has a Charlie horde on the same level as Keith’s, he just chooses to hide it from us.

🍬 ⇢ post an unpopular opinion about a popular fandom character

We all know I’m not a Glimmer Twins girl, but in general I also find a lot of the fandom analysis of Mick (as a real person, but also as a character in fic I suppose) sort of silly or eye-roll worthy. I’m especially not fond of the whole ‘he’s only bad to women because he’s a closeted gay man who couldn’t have the partner he wanted most!’ discourse. Both as apologia for a lot of misogyny (as well as questionable/absentee parenting) and because I just don’t think it’s especially true. It says so much to me about their relationship that the band’s publicist Tony King wrote in his book about telling the Glimmers they needed to share a mic and stay closer together on stage more often because the fans eat it up.

🔪 ⇢ what's the weirdest topic you researched for a writing project?

I’m constantly looking up weird shit because of what I do for a living (you start questioning your life choices when you’re Googling why Sabbtai Sevi putting little clothes on a fish was a signal he was the messiah), but for a fic it was probably double checking whether scholarship boys were a thing in the way we (?) think of them at Eton in the 18th century for that Patrick O’Brian style Age of Sail AU. It gave me some unwanted flashbacks to Robinson-Gallagher ‘official mind’ historiographical discourse, and also a lot of guys I didn’t particularly like at LSE.

[supercantaloupe]

alright operablr might hate me for this one but i...was not wild about don carlo, tbh. i think it's kind of a mess. before i elaborate i want to stress that a lot of my opinions are taste based and i am not saying that the opera or anyone who likes it are Bad or Wrong, i just don't think it's quite For Me. adding a cut so you can ignore all this if you want

anyway after having seen both nabucco and don carlo within a week of each other (thereby doubling my previous experience with verdi of traviata and otello), i'm starting to feel like, stylistically, early/mid verdi is much more my speed than late verdi. i remember coming away from otello thinking "that was alright" whereas with nabucco and traviata i was thinking "wow that was great!"...after finishing don carlo last night i was just...confused. i feel like i'm missing something.

actually, i definitely am; i've seen people posting about recurring motifs and beautiful arias etc in the music and i definitely missed those. again, late verdi (along with a lot of late romantic music tbh) just Is Not My Thing, i think. and considering how late don carlo is in verdi's output i'm not surprised (very much a post-wagner composition, don carlo is. same with otello). i'm planning on writing a separate post about this so i won't go into much detail here but the music really lacked a lasting memorable-ness for me; what was there was nice, yes, but it didn't feel like anything stood out much. i mean, numbers like the brindisi and amami alfredo in traviata, va pensiero in nabucco, and la donna e mobile in rigoletto -- these all Stand Out, even after only a single listen, but i am not even 12 hours off watching don carlo and i don't think i could hum for you one of its melodies. again, this has a lot to do with personal taste; in general i tend to prefer 18th and early 19th century music styles, and i plan on going into more detail about memorable music in theater in a different post.

and man, the plot is a mess. also, not to apply too modern a lens of story criticism here, but the pacing is all over the place: act ii is, like, twice the length of act i, and act iv is no quick jaunt either, then v is pretty short again. (and really who am i to complain about a 3.5 hour runtime, as a giulio cesare fan, an opera which bumps up against 4? well, at least giulio cesare has a consistent if slow pace...)

it is all over the place. one moment it's a typical operatic romance, then a political intrigue, another it's a gay psychodrama, and then it's about the catholic church. i think this is a feature rather than a bug for some people but it really did not work for me. like it's all well and good watching rodrigo and carlo swearing their loyalty for one another in the most totally heterosexual way possible or making plans to save flanders or deal with carlo's embarrassing crush on his stepmom or whatever, but when the very next scene (with no real warning) is a public parade of heretics for shaming and burning...bit of a tonal whiplash there, i think!

again, taste is a factor here. known sexy oklahoma enjoyer sasha supercantaloupe is no stranger or opponent of tonal whiplash in theater, but when it comes to "no one expects the spanish inquisition!" i think there's a difference between guys with silly outfits and silly accents popping out from behind a corner and a crowd of people dressed in friar habits carrying crosses and torches around onstage...especially to a jewish viewer like me. the plot very much feels like something someone who doesn't like opera would make up to belittle the art form imo: it's like four different things at once all thrown together in a very long, kind of jumbled mess. (i mean, what does eboli even do other than show up, make things Even More Complicated, and then disappear within two acts?)

and...i get the sense that verdi/contemporary audiences might've thought this, too. obviously the fact that it got so many productions that it HAS so many different versions at all shows that people liked it enough to keep performing it -- but there being so many different versions of the opera (disregarding translations), four acts versus five, cut or revised arias, etc, i think also indicates that something about the opera was not working quite right that they kept trying to fix. now i've only seen one version (granted it came highly recommended to me by mutuals, but only one nonetheless) and can't comment on other versions of the opera; maybe another version works better for me, idk. on its own i actually think it's really interesting that there are so many different revisions out there to study -- a real lucky glimpse into the dramaturgical process that you don't normally get to see from shows of the era or earlier. (ask me about hadestown if you want to know more of my thoughts on changes made over the course of a show's development being for better or worse.) but the finished version of the opera (at least the version i saw) is a bit of a mess imo. i definitely think it has its high moments, but i don't think they completely overshadow its lows. comparing it again to otello, which was a much more consistent product in tone and pacing etc. to me, although a bit less interesting overall too.

i feel like i might be disappointing some people by saying all this lol but i have to be honest. don carlo was just not my thing. suffice to say that i think late verdi has absorbed too much wagnerism for my taste, musically and dramatically. maybe i'll rewatch it at some point -- i'd be curious to check it out in french this time -- but i don't expect to be doing that anytime soon, unless a friend or something is watching and really wants me to join (and i can spare four hours...). i can see why y'all like it (well, some of why y'all like it) and i do admit there's some good stuff in there to like. namely the carlo & rodrigo shit. i understand now lol. the opera definitely feels like it's ripe for shitpost/meme content and i am here for that. but i can't say this one is going at the top of my fave shows list. sorry everybody!

[jermaobsession]

Things Jerma has been compared to in the notes of this post so far:

People and characters

Guybrush Threepwood x 6

Cornelius Hickey x 4

Aphex Twin x 4

Hozier x 3

Fleetwood Mac x 2

Gordon Freeman x 2

William Turner x 2

Venom Snake

"hannah montana's father"

Captain Ahab

Prester Virgil

Van Augur

Chip (notably, a podcast character)

Doug Eiffel (another podcast character)

jamiroquai virtual insanity live from jools' millenium hootenany 1999

"that one man from outlander" (i think this one?)

Personal relations

me x 4

my dad

"my stupid gay brother when he puts his hair in a ponytail"

Miscellaneous comparisons

youth pastor x 3

a sailor

an 18th century fishmonger

cabin boy ass

genuinely like a scallywag

like he should be wielding a rapier

like he kills whales as a side hustle

like hes going to write bad poetry about boats and then die at sea

like he uses horse shampoo

"type of guy id spill wine on intentionally at a high society party"

lin manuel miranda in a play about lin manuel miranda's hamilton

on some who goes there shit

"my white whale"

guy who drinks craft beer

uncle who likes ska on a disney show

wearing "just a normal shirt"

captain's steward on an 18th century merchant ship fit

[abutter2oswego]

Blog Post #5: CYOA Frames of Reference in The Picture of Dorian Gray.

In The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde often plays with the way characters are referenced in the novel. This is so frequent that oftentimes Wilde will refer to the same character in a variety of different ways in the same paragraph. Early in the novel, for instance, Basil Hallward is referred to by his full name, his first name, his last name, and simply as the artist. I would like to think of this as a framing of the characters, and how there framing changes how we interpret them; how is Basil Hallward different than the artist?

In many ways, I think our society relies heavily on labels in order to organize and understand the world, and the way Oscar Wilde decides to refer to characters highlights this. I would like to consider these labels as frames for our understanding of what, or who someone, or something is. Dorian is also referred to as the painter, and what is the difference between an artist and a painter? Our associations with these words can paint our perceptions of the characters in subtle ways. The artist is much less personal than Basil, and Basil Hallward is much more formal. We label ourselves, and others, constantly in our day to day lives.

When you Google The Picture of Dorian Gray, and I find this somewhat amusing, one of the first things you see is the question, "Is The Picture of Dorian Gray inappropriate?" And within that there is a blog that has collected bad reviews of The Picture of Dorian Gray. The review that Google finds the most prescient to this question is one that espouses how "corrupt" and "disturbing" the novel is because it is, as the writer of the review puts it, "homosexual fiction". My point with this example is that the writer of the review does not refer to Oscar Wilde as an artist, or author, but instead simply says that "it was written in the 18th century by Oscar Wilde". This may seem minor, but by referring to Oscar Wilde in this way strips away the artistry and authorship. Anyone can write something down, and so the writer of this bad review has created a frame of reference for Oscar Wilde that defines him in our minds as we read the review. Wilde does the same thing when he changes the reference of a character, such as when Basil and Lord Henry attend Sybil's play with Dorian. As they get up to leave they are referred to as, and I'm paraphrasing here, two young men, and only two days later when Basil speaks with Dorian at his house, Basil is described as the old man. These frames of reference and how we choose to label things says just as much about ourselves as it does about the things we label.

(Sorry this post went a little long, I struggle sometimes condensing larger ideas and concepts like this one. Every pun was very intentional.)

Link to the bad review below: