#speaketh the empress

[garaks-huge-naturals]

@littleguysdaily

[church-and-state]

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein in Comparison to Modern Ideas of Amatonormativity and Isolation Caused Violence

Frankenstein is a novel that carries many themes applicable to the modern day. The traditional lens through which Frankenstein is viewed is that of an omen of scary technology to come. But here I will go into the relationships within Frankenstein, and how their themes parallel to the present.

Amatonormativity is the assumption that all human beings pursue love or romance, especially by means of a monogamous long-term relationship. There are two main instances of amatonormativity in the novel, Victor’s marriage to Elizabeth and the Creature’s want for a wife. Starting with the Creature, through chapters 10-16 he witnesses the life of a family in a cottage. During this, he watches Felix and Safie court each other. His time watching the De Laceys is the Creature’s only prolonged study of humans at this point, and Safie’s arrival notably ups the spirits of Felix and the others in the house. The message the Creature then learns is that partners, especially those of a female kind, make one happy. This is exacerbated by Safie’s “otherness,” which the Creature identifies with. She comes from a distant land, and doesn’t speak the language, but is accepted nonetheless.

Additionally, the Creature continually seeks validation of his humanity. He wants acceptance, and even more so, he wants love. Romantic love is often seen as a hallmark for one’s humanity, we perceive it as going beyond animals’ basic need for procreation. When we strip those of their humanity, we tend to strip them of their ability to love. So to gain precious humanity, the Creature asks for a mate. And the way he describes her fits perfectly within the confines of amatonormativity; saying that they will live together, never seeing another soul, until his dying breath (a long-term monogamous relationship). This idea is so fixed in his mind that he eventually kills Elizabeth and Henry over it.

A thread through Victor’s entire life is his adopted sister, and eventual wife, Elizabeth. From the beginning of his life, Victor is heavily encouraged to marry Elizabeth. His mother wishes so on her deathbed, and his father reiterates this sentiment throughout the book. Victor’s relationship with Elizabeth is very important to him, and when he is threatened or feeling adrift, he tends to invoke her name. But the way he talks about her contrasts this. He tends to use more stilted language: “I love my cousin tenderly and sincerely, I never saw any woman who excited, as Elizabeth does, my warmest admiration and affection.” Especially in comparison to how he describes his best friend, Henry Clerval: “His wild and enthusiastic imagination was chastened by the sensibility of his heart. His soul overflowed with ardent affections, and his friendship was of that devoted and wondrous nature that the worldly-minded teach us to look for only in the imagination…” This is representative of amatonormativity because even though Victor has more explicit and broader affection for his friend, he focuses his life and thoughts around Elizabeth (the person he is supposed to be in a long-term monogamous relationship with).

This correlates to modern-day amatonormativity as codified in law. Married couples get tax deductions and next-of-kin privileges. By emphasizing the importance of romantic love in Victor’s and the Creature’s lives, Shelley reinforces ideas of romantic supremacy and the undermining of open and platonic relationships.

The Creature is, despite his initial benevolence, treated with extreme cruelty that eventually results in his complete social ostracization. He is rejected by his creator, he is rejected by people he thought of as friends, and any attempt to build himself a mate is thwarted. As a result, he lashes out. After being rejected by the De Laceys, the Creature burns down their cottage. This has a startling similarity to school shooters. According to a study published, school shooters “seem to be anomic and have stopped trying to integrate into groups,” just as the Creature had. Social isolation works as a “crisis multiplier”, this is seen represented in the Creature because, at the beginning of his tale, he is already in a precarious position. He is treated with hostility, homeless, and struggles to find food, but it is not until he is rejected by the De Laceys that he turns to violence. The Creature would have never acted violently if society at the very least, amicability interacted with him. This is mirrored by mass shootings, although their perpetrators’ motivations are more complicated, they both have solutions that lie at societal and individual levels. Either more societal acceptance for those perceived as “others” and/or one person who takes it upon themself to break through the norms, and provide a meaningful relationship.

[queenclaudiabrown]

What edit should I make next?

1.

2.

3.

[garaks-huge-naturals]

do you ever think about them + bonus:

[garaks-huge-naturals]

little lad wants berries and cream

[garaks-huge-naturals]

i feel like often it is not that there is no platonic explanation for this, but more in the context of cinematic language, friendships are not framed like this.

[garaks-huge-naturals]

it's my turn

[garaks-huge-naturals]

do i need to start a garden or do i just need aromantic representation

[garaks-huge-naturals]

have you waited your entire life for a fic where discowing is nightwing as a drag king? well i have some great news for you!

[garaks-huge-naturals]

GUESS WHO GOT APPROVED FOR TOP SURGERY

[garaks-huge-naturals]

the frustrating aromantic representation of chuck tingle's "bury your gays"

i feel like i should preface this by saying that i'm a huge chuck tingle fan and, representation aside, i greatly enjoyed his book. so this is not like, a hate take down. this will contain spoilers for bury your gays, you are warned.

the parts i have issues with will be more towards the end and are marked.

a quick synopsis: misha is a queer horror writer who is told to either kill off his gay characters after getting them together, or let them live and be straight (for the algorithm, ratings, etc). while he is reeling from this he begins being stalked by the monsters/villains of his past works. plot happens and these monsters are really nanobot contractions from his studio's fx company. misha survives these attempts on his life (and his boyfriend's and best friend's), eventually giving a heartfelt award speech about the need for a shift towards queer joy. when he comes back to work the entire studio is like decked out in pride flags and the now stereotypically gay management tells him that queer is IN! even better, it's profitable (according to the algorithm). but these nanobots are still out there. so they go to the fx studio to insert a virus that takes them down, the best friend, tara, being an unprecedented aroace that the algorithm has no information on due to a lack of content, is able to circumvent the nanobots and take them down!! happy ending!! yippee!!

i'll be going in order of the book, touching on the times where tara's identity is relevant

tara's aspecness is established almost immediately when she says "you know i don't swing that way...i don't swing any way, baby." classic aspec joke, i have no issue with this.

its first explicit mention is on page 42, "tara is aromantic and asexual, which has always made me appreciate her take on relationship advice." ok this part is so real. we are so good at that.

ok now we get into the main stuff. Tara says, "do you realize how hard it is to tell your parents you're asexual?" this part is true, and in comparison to misha coming out as gay. and i really appreciate it highlights the strange societal position aspecs are in!! it's hard to affirm an identity defined by a lack. and even harder for baby wanting parents to accept an identity that is largely incompatible with the nuclear family model. as this is in reference to like sex -> having a child, mentioning just the asexuality makes sense. but it is still weird to not mention how hard explaining aromanticism would be considering aces can more easily have straight passing relationships. let's begin a tally: ace mentions: 2, aro mentions: 1.

(!) time skip we are now towards the end. misha is giving his heartfelt speech, "i call on all of you to usher in a new era of stories where the gay, or bi, or lesbian, or asexual, or pansexual, or trans character lives happily ever after. buy those stories. make those stories profitable." we are now entering the territory here i begin to get a little angry. fandoms and drama in shows are so closely tied with romance. they are profitable. they are like, the lifeblood of ao3, etc. people also have this notion that you need a partner to be happy, and that this is a universal goal. so characters and story arcs that stray away from this tend to be, y'know, less profitable. and since this is extremely relevant to aromanticism as an identity and important to debunk, the lack of a mention of aromanticism is frankly stunning. our stories are not wanted, we have no characters to live happily ever after. because we are not profitable. we don't get that joy. so where are we? this is a nitpick but i find it strange that misha would forget to mention like, entirely half of his friend's identity. ace mentions: 3, aro mentions: 1

(!!!) this is the most egregious part to me. when i read this part i was genuinely so stunned that i started crying. ok so i've established that aros have very little representation. it is a fact that there is less aro representation than ace representation. especially in regards to non-ace aros. "there's a hero clad in pink, purple, and blue, the bi one...this continues on and on until every aspect of the community has been covered...tara steps up next to me, her eyes locked on the poster. "there' no asexual hero...they've got everyone up there besides an ace character...every fucking time." ok. so. a lack of representation for aspecs is like a Thing That We All Know. as also established, aros are not algorithm friendly, so i just see no plausible way that there is aro representation but not ace representation. and there's just this like, poetic irony to this. that aros are so forgotten, so uncared for, that the author of the fucking book forgot to even mention them. because there are three ways this shakes out here. either there is an aro in the line up and dr. tingle deprived us of the validation we need to justify our anger for a lack of representation (which effects us all but aros more). or he just straight up forgot to include us. or he's grossly conflating the two identities. there's no good option. anyway. ace mentions: 5, aro mentions: 1

here we have yet another mention of tara being ace, yet not aro, "my name's tara. i'm the asexual in the corner everyone's been ignoring." would be funny if aromanticism hadn't been grossly ignored once again. ace mentions: 6, aro mentions: 1

(!!!) time for tara to save the day (girlboss). "just pull up all the information you have on asexual and aromantic heroes...oh wait, that's gonna be pretty fucking difficult because there are almost no human asexual heroes represented in popular media, are there." like actually like the fuck. what the fuck. there are so little aro heroes that the author forgot about the one he had!! there are so little aro heroes that the author fucking forgot to mention how few there are. incredible. ace mentions: 10, aro mentions: 2 (ace mentions not quoted here but part of the rant)

so. thats the end of the book. it seems to me that dr. tingle might be a little confused. he's been a great supporter in the past of the aspec community. but there is a pattern of aro erasure in this book that frankly, pisses me off! but wait, there is more!

dr. tingle. babygirl. bestie. what the fuck is this? op explicitly said aroace character. and what do you do? you reblog with only an ace flag. do you not remember your character's own identity? or do you not acknowledge aros outside or aces? let's look at some more quotes from this post.

wow thanks for the solidarity dr. tingle (like, actually)!

what is this? whoopty fucking doo! aros totally dropped after their initial mention? again! but there is simply no precedent for this!!

i'd like to end this with a quote by dr. tingle.

glad you remembered the aces. maybe next time, remember the marginalized people you leave behind.

[garaks-huge-naturals]

*taps mic* would anyone like a shitty ms paint meme?

[garaks-huge-naturals]

do you every think about space punks

[garaks-huge-naturals]

[garaks-huge-naturals]

[garaks-huge-naturals]

horror movie where the villian is amatonormativity and the main character is aromantic and the song the movie is based around is sooner or later by the grass roots