#this show is just so incredibly important to me

[astroismypassion]

Relationship and Compatibility Takes 📍📍📍

Credit @astroismypassion

This is purely based on real life, more so astrology opinions about placements in the Natal chart, so don’t take things to heart.

📍 Cancer Venus men: What is up with them? I think this is one of the placements that is so misrepresented in astrology community. They act really impulsively based on emotion without careful reasoning or thinking of the long-term consequences. The clingy, emotionally mature and wise must be Cancer Venus women then. They are attracted to younger partners. Loves giving food as a gift, even for birthdays. Even when committed, they are not that incredibly loyal and devoted as often described, I’ve seen these people change partners fast or end a partnership on a whim. Also, minus points for not being as affectionate as they are often described. Low key this Venus sign does not give me any stability vibes, they are highly unpredictable (each day is different), must be up there with Gemini, Aquarius, Virgo Venus.

📍 Capricorn Moon: These people attract people with father issues or those who don’t have a father present in their life. Usually Capricorn Moon’s partner has life-long challenges with the father. I noticed a lot of partners of Capricorn Moon became more depressed as the time passed. The partnership with Capricorn Moon can weigh them down, but only after years, this becomes noticable. Loves younger partners.

📍 Gemini Juno: having a Gemini Juno as a partner is a very unique experience. They will remember your favourite snack, song that you mentioned on the first date. However, they do demand a lot in return! They like someone as equally thoughtful, observant and some who just pays attention to everything they say, do and how they react. Gemini Juno native, however, really just loves simple picnics in nature, going for coffee with you, cooking with you, watching films with favourite snacks. They are in love with all the little, simple things in life shown consistently and usually don’t need big gestures.

📍 Ascendant Pluto aspects men: Loves to date significantly younger partner from what I’ve seen. They always go for someone unassuming and less popular than them, but who is really kind, sweet and cute. Genuine kindness and being a good person is so important to them in a partner. However, likely to choose a younger partner, so they can better control them. I said what I said, they can’t help themselves.

📍Pisces Moon: Low key loves to be bossed around. They attract controlling and orderly partners, because they crave a sense of structure that they lacked as a child.

📍Aries Moon: They are looking for a partner with rules, who will bring discipline to the relationship and someone who will dominate them. These people are so soft and obedient around their family members, close friends or a partner! They just don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, like ever.

📍Aquarius Moon: They love travelling with their friends, even with a couple third wheeling like a really throuple. Some even go camping with friends often. They love having traditions with friends, like for halloween or like a yearly ski trip. This is either a city boi turned country boy or vice versa. Someone who lived in the country their first half of live and later moved to a bigger city. They are kinda urban people, but then always complains about wanting a more peaceful environment.

📍Pisces Mars: Quite literally the dick that doesn’t know any limits. So struggles with boundaries, if their feelings are involved. These people are lead by their emotions. If they still like you, they will want to touch you. Low key, sometimes disregards whether you are in a partnership or not, because they don’t even care, because their emotions are involved. But they do give plenty second chances, benefit of the doubt! And you will feel like it is incredibly hard to walk away from Pisces Mars, just because they are trying to have that eternal bond with you and it shows! They really want to keep you in their life forever, if they feel like you two are vibing well!

📍Scorpio Moon: Now, this is just alltogether an unique one! I argue this is the most unique, complex and interesting native, because each is so specific due to their lifestory and experiences. They have really one-of-a-kind life and energy and you will feel it! However, yes! They are obsessed with themselves (like JLo), but usually is rightly so! They are the highest earner in the company, your rags to riches lifestory hero, someone who had a transformative effect on their field. They usually have controlling partners.

📍Taurus Moon: Why does every Taurus Moon I know behave like a Libra Moon? 😩 They are either single and content for a while or can be constantly found in a partnership. This doesn’t mean they are codependent, just always find themselves in a partnership. Though, they do heavily rely on emotional support from their partner, because they don’t receive it from their family.

📍Gemini Venus: For what I’ve seen a lot of Gemini Venuses met their “real love” partner while in a marriage or partnership to someone else.

📍Libra Mars/Mars at a Libra degree (7, 19): They are low key so erratic😭. Their behaviour towards you is constantly switching up. This makes them appear chaotic, inconsistent and indecisive, very hot and cold behaviour as well. They are actually really critical of people around them. They have a tendency “to discipline” their partners. They can be tactless, out of all Libra placements this is not a peaceful mediator, but the one that stirs conflict between their partner and their family. And at the first moment they seem to be fed up, they end the relationship and find a new one. They switch partners a lot and have dated quite a few people in life, but always for a shorter period of time. They struggle with keeping a partnership for 2, 3 years. They also desire really flexible, compromising partner who go along with their wishes.

📍Leo Venus: some say that if you have Leo Venus as your partner, that this means you are really good-looking. They are realy sweet, but demanding. It’s not a walk in the park to get them OR to KEEP them. They are selective. But their downside is that they struggle not with getting a partner, but keeping them. I think they have a hard time holding onto a relationship, like any other Leo placement (I’m looking at you Leo Moon and Leo Lilith👀).

📍Capricorn Venus: Ahh, these are my late bloomers. Best not to get tied down to a marriage before your first Saturn Return. These natives when younger, before the age of 30, have a skewed idea of love, partnership or marriage. It’s best to do some soul searching and getting to know your values, expectations before entering a partnership. Because this is why they experience so much disappointment in younger years. Their old age is the time to get coupled up! And also, really take the necessary time to understand yourself. You usually when younger just get along with whatever your partner suggests!

����Aquarius Venus, Venus at an Aquarius degree (11, 23): Surprisingly, they could have a committed partner and still a “friend” with whom they are romantic on the side. They are romantic with their friends a lot of time, consciously or unconsciously.

📍 Leo Mars: They are more Leo Sun than the real Leo Sun, if you ask me. Surprisingly emotional! But they are quick to forgive you, if you acknowledge and validate their emotions. They need a partner that will make their perspective heard. When they feel under-appreciated, they act out, which leads to dramatic frustration or hurt. Also, they are constantly act in ways that they seek acknowledgement, validation from their partner. But they will celebrate you in return! If you are acting too shy with them, it’s also a no go for them!

📍Taurus Mars: Surprisingly controlling, like Virgo Mars, likes routine and predictable partnerships, they dislike flaky people. They will resolve conflict only if they believe in the long-term of a partnership! Otherwise, they will sink that partnership. Need a lot of validation from partner. Also, they seek drama and conflica when they sense you ignoring them or pulling back too much and this is kind of unexpected from them.

📍Cancer Mars: Wants to build a home or family together with a partner or completely runs away from the idea. They cherish memories, traditions and milestones, can be sentimental and nostalgic in this manner. They often look back on your shared memories together and reminisce. However, be mindful, they struggle with letting go of past hurts, grievances in the partnership. Because they withdraw so often, you are likely to experience misunderstandings with them!

📍Mars in the 10th house: They are trying to create business, legacy and personal success with their partner. They seek a partnership that aligns with or enhances them. Attracted to people who excude strength, authority or have a commanding presence. Usually Mars in the 10th house takes a leadership role in the partnership, so prepare for this! They also want to constantly influence the direction of the partnership. Or wanting “to guide” you! They might attract partners for the wrong reasons, such as status or mutual gain, rather than emotional compatibility, so beware.

📍Sagittarius Mars: Hates controlling partners. They dislike predictability and stagnant energy, unless this is indicated by other aspects. They love idea of building and growing a partnership. They desire new levels of commitment. Loves someone who is enthusiastic about going to a new coffee shop, wants to try new cuisine. They crave a balance between closeness and pursuing own interests, passions. Because they are so blunt themselves, they expect their partner to do the same! In conflicts, they prioritize truth over sensitivity and that’s the hard truth about them! They are incredibly playful, like what you would expect from a Leo Mars, often create spontaneous plans, trips. They are restless and struggle with focus in long-term partnership.

📍Virgo Mars: They attract a lot of emotionally constipated, emotionally unavailable people (which is true for Gemini and Virgo placements in general). They naturally worry or have anxiety about the partnership. They struggle to see the bigger picture when in a partnership. They are conflict avoidant. But they do need a partner that is stable, deliberate, attentive and not overly dramatic. They always need a sense of well organisation in a partnership in order to thrive.

[choccy-zefirka]

Our Latest Book Club Meeting

[Before we begin: Rook is a Qunari Shadow Dragon with some self-worth issues going on]

Attending: Bellara, Neve, Harding, Lucanis, Emmrich (also Taash, and Davrin, sort of)

Book: Adventures of Dolor the Daring, Volume 48, by I. L. Literatus (chosen by Neve)

Notes taken by: Bellara

Notes:

Bellara (me) was quite surprised (and also excited!!!) that Neve chose a crime serial, as she seemed skeptical about those before

Neve admitted that she selected the book not for the plot, not really (though she was complimentary of it, especially Dolor’s final confrontation with the corrupt magister), but because she suspects the author might be… Rook!

Lucanis was first to break the stunned silence afterwards; asked why she thinks that

“Any excuse to hear me talk, hmm, Lucanis?” oh this one is good, must write that down Neve explained that it’s “rather suspicious how the mysterious I. L. Literatus took an extended break from writing the moment we all got tangled up in Solas’ mess, and then showed up again, just as Rook got injured in that fight with the Antaam and had to take a bit of downtime”

Bellara (me) pointed out that it could be a coincidence (mostly to try and ground myself for disappointment, because WOULDN’T IT BE INCREDIBLE IF ONE OF MY FAVORITE PEOPLE WROTE ONE OF MY FAVORITE SERIALS). Sorry

Harding joined in; recalled how the rooftop chase between two burning buildings was almost an exact match for how she, Rook and Varric hurried to rescue Neve on the day when… things happened. Down to the shortcuts they took!

Neve added another detail: apparently, she and Rook were once looking for clues in Docktown, and Rook paused to look up at the sky and say that it looked like a “miserable grey towel that the black claws of the Archon’s palace would not stop wringing”. This was the same description as in the serial’s opening scene! Neve never forgets a thing, she is amazing

Lucanis conceded: he was more convinced now. Realized that “Scorpion”, a mysterious cloaked figure who helps Dolor investigate evil mages, might have been inspired by Viper.

Bellara (me) also realized something! Viper is in the story, but Tarquin isn’t! That’s because the Venatori already know about him, from rumors at least, so mentioning him in a serial in passing would not compromise him… But nobody knows about Tarquin! Rook is protecting him!

Taash was passing by on their way upstairs; but stopped and said, more or less (with a lot more “vashedan” thrown in): “Nah, I read a couple those. Hid them in my Advanced Qunlat textbook so I’d look smart when my mother checked on me. That can’t be Rook. Dolor is nonbinary too, but Lit-Whatsit keeps saying that they always knew who they were, were always confident about that. Rook wasn’t always confident. They struggled, like me.”

Neve disagreed. Noted that Dolor might not be a one-on-one copy of Rook, but an idealized version with all the “right” feelings Rook wished they had. Also listed all the places where Dolor gets excited to play their role as a fighter against cultists and blood mages, and the city’s protector. They are human, an everyday citizen of Minrathous who fits in so very well among everyone… But that’s a very Qunari way of putting it. And that’s something that always bothered Rook.

 Some notes had to be copied over at this point, because the “OH!” sound Harding made toppled over some of our mugs, and they spilled all over the paper! Maybe the stone floor reacted to her? No harm done, really! (Harding, stop worrying)

Harding put things together and asked Neve if I. L. Literatus, or Illiteratus, means anything in Tevene. Neve confirmed it means what it sounds like in Trade: Illiterate. Rook must have a very low opinion of their writing skills (doodle of a sad Bellara face)

Davrin (??? He said he wouldn’t be joining, he had more important things to do, like train Assan??? But there he was???) walked (or sauntered! sauntered is a good word! swaggered even!) up to the table. Asked: “If the author is Rook, and Dolor is Rook but without all their worst thoughts, then what do we make of Flosculus?”

On Flosculus! Bellara (me that is, it’s getting awkward talking in third person for so long) wrote this down while there was another long, long pause. He is a new character that just got introduced in this volume. An older lowborn mage that worked hard to earn a place in the Minrathous Circle, despite the contempt from the greedy, cruel Altus nobles that Dolor usually defeats on their adventures. He is very tall, only a “hand’s length” below an average Qunari warrior (which is just about the height difference between Rook and Emmrich), and his face “might have been fairly good-looking when he was younger, but was chiseled into an elegant, dignified handsomeness with age… Truly, time had treated him with the same kindness as he treated those around him”. I really liked him; he does remind me a lot of Emmrich, with his love for flowers, and his wealth of advice on all things arcane, and his eagerness to see the best in people… And you (well, me at least) can’t help but notice how the story, which is usually all about magic duels and human sacrifices and screaming matches with crazy cultists on top of piles of bones, grows softer whenever he is on the page. Like stepping in from a hailstorm to a cozy room with a burning hearth. But then… then, at the very end of the volume, Dolor realizes that they have been developing a crush on him, and decides never to tell him about it because he does not like them back. Which the author praises them for because it’s “the right thing to do”. Dolor always knows the right thing to do.

Book club meeting adjourned here. No dice were thrown to decide who’s next. Because Emmrich, first very pale and then very pink, got up without a word and ran off somewhere.

THAT BETTER BE TOWARDS ROOK’S ROOM!

Sorry.

[allthinky]

OFMD fans on Bsky and to a lesser extent here are suggesting that we need to come together as a fandom, get over the divisions, etc. and in principle I am well in favor of that. The last thing we need is to show up as unhinged as we try to get the show picked up somewhere and Season 3 ordered.

But. A lot of folks were really harmed by the bullying, the name-calling, even doxxing? (I missed that, luckily, but certainly have been accused both of bad faith arguments and hatred for Izzy. [Ha. He's not real, for one thing -- also, he was drawn to be hated, right up until the middle of Season 2.] It's whatever. I've been trained in both argument and advocacy and can show up pretty...blunt? But still don't think people should encourage others to actually kill themselves over a tv show.)

I do think healing the rift is important. But.

It's not more important than respecting BIPOC and queer folks. I won't stop calling out racism and misogyny/homophobia where I see it, or at least suggesting that we can and should do better, especially for this show. For this show, omg!

That's the thing: for me, OFMD showed up not only during Covid but also during a huge life upheaval. One that made me incredibly cynical about the odds of justice anywhere in the world. And it said, in every episode: cruelty is wrong. Misogyny is wrong. Homophobia is wrong. Trying to protect your family, trying to become yourself, trying to make amends for your wrongs: these are still good. You can still choose a family, a life, a way in which you fight racism, colonialism, patriarchy. You may find only a grubby little band of weirdos, but they will make your life good. And also, late bloomers can still find true, queer, love.

I love how so many fans have recognized this and are willing to fight for it. But when there are fans who decide that Ed or Stede are clearly the bad guys, or need to suffer! Or that S1 Izzy is the good guy, or Izzy "deserved" a better ending ... These takes pull me out of the little home that the show built for me. I know, rationally, that such interpretations don't actually threaten what the show is, but they still pain me in a way I'm not sure I can fully explain.

(Worse yet, the attachment some folks have to Izzy seems to mirror my own attachment to the crew and the themes. We're all just unhinged. I can't help but feel it's messed up to love Izzy so much he should be front and center, when we finally had a show where the white masc dude wasnt front and center. Even while I think people have the right to enjoy what they want to enjoy. And who doesn't enjoy that little rat, losing when he thinks he should win. It's perfection!)

By 2.4 or whatever, Izzy is fine, he's learning how to be family, he is still a mess in all kinds of ways but whatever. He can be their dick. Their nightmare. Fine. But make him the "hero"? That's an insult. He can do heroic things -- as we all can -- but it's not his story. It's just not, and man, it feels good that someone else gets to be the hero for a change.

I'm really putting this here for my own edification. This isn't meta, this is just: why is allthinky so touchy about OFMD? I'm not done, but I'm done for now.

[randomfoggytiger]

The Field Where I Died: The Tragic Flaws of Glen Morgan and James Wong

My thoughts on The Field Where I Died are divided into neat little categories for this episode: frustration for what we were given, acceptance of its existence, anger at Glen Morgan and James Wong's behind-the-scenes revelations, acknowledgment of their feelings, determination that the end product's truth was different than what was originally conceptualized, and genuine understanding of others' love for its creativity and vision.

But those thoughts are inseparable from a broader perspective of Morgan and Wong's work on Season 4.

I'm going to be pulling a lot of information from an interview here; but to save time (and sanity), I'll emphasize the quotes in italics instead of continually citing my source.

"I CAN DO BETTER" VISIONARIES

(Credit to: @sleepyscully.)

It's no secret that Morgan and Wong always wrote-- shall we say-- angsty episodes that drove a wedge in Mulder and Scully's relationship. Sometimes that was executed brilliantly-- Squeeze, Beyond the Sea, Home, Never Again-- and sometimes that was executed... badly. Their bent is the nature of conflict, and its potential resolution; or ideals and tarnished realities; or things we thought we knew and understood but never really did. And those are powerful tools... if, like all tools, they're wielded effectively.

They're the difference between the ridiculous conceit of Musings of a CSM-- an episode that set everyone against each other (we'll get to that)-- and Beyond the Sea-- and episode that wowed Carter (convincing him to keep Gillian on the show), fans, and critics alike.

I've already tackled how The Field Where I Died could work here (how Scully broke the cycle) and here (Scully, snakes, and reincarnation.) I have no qualms with the idea that Mulder and Scully themselves aren't romantic soulmates in every lifetime: that was never the magic of their relationship, to me. And I do love the concept that Melissa serves as a contrast for Mulder: as Morgan says,

 One reason why I wrote Melissa that way was my notion that if you’re Mulder and you found your soulmate, the love of all your loves, within the body of this unappealing person, what would you do? I don’t know if we totally explored that. I don’t know if Duchovny would agree with me – he knows more about Mulder – but I think Melissa is the type of women that Mulder would be attracted to. Someone like Bambi in ‘The War of the Coprophages’ is good for a joke, but I don’t really see Mulder going after her. There’s something sad about Melissa. There was a secret within her that was important for him to get at. That mirrors his life, and his own search for his sister. He is a character whose whole drive is to help everybody, but he’s so unsuccessful at that, and with helping himself. All he wants is to find one person that he can rescue – but he’s not too good at it.

No matter how despairing Mulder is, Morgan said, he would not be tempted, like Melissa, to end his life. “I looked at Melissa as if she decided reincarnation might be true, and that if she had chosen this life, at that point she realized, ‘This is a bad idea. This is a miserable life and I’m not getting much out of it. I’m just going back to heaven and I’ll wait for you.’ She wanted out. But Mulder, as much as he’d love to go to the other side to see what’s there, is a life-affirming character. He’s going to keep on looking. He’s not going to quit. Mulder has questions for this life.”

That rings true to me.

What I do have qualms with is that Mulder and Scully's incredible, undeniable, written-into-canon-at-this-point connection (that was established in the Pilot, purposefully, by Chris Carter himself, post here) is boiled down to a destined, warped tri-connection that is part of and secondary to his (chemistry-less) connection with a woman that doomed him in every lifetime. A woman who is an unreliable narrator, and who could easily be swaying Mulder into believing her story because of her own form of mental instability and fragility. It could be a beautiful love story, and it's undeniably beautifully shot (and mostly beautifully written), but it's not Mulder's-- it's Morgan's:

For Morgan, an episode about reincarnation and eternal soulmates was not just a good story for Mulder, but a personal expression of the thoughts and emotions he had experienced during the past year, when his relationship with Cloke grew from friendship into romance (they are now engaged), “I had gone through a failed marriage in which I had really believed,” Morgan revealed. “I had always wanted to believe there is somebody out there for you, and I had been in a situation where that didn’t come true. And I thought, ‘It’s a lie. That person you think is out there for you is a lie.’ But then I met Kristen and I was rejuvenated by that. I really thought. that you can be reborn in this life, not just life after death. I regained faith that there is one person for you, one person who, by being in your life, can motivate you to change the crappy things you were doing before. In this case, it was Kristen. I knew she did a lot of characters and voices, so I wanted to incorporate that.. I wanted to write something for her that challenged her. Also, I wanted to write something for David Duchovny that challenged him.”

("Challenged", indeed.)

And that... that rubs me the wrong way.

NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU

I'm not here for Glen's romance, I'm sorry. I'm here to be persuaded that Mulder might have a soulmate, that Scully might be a soulmate, that all three could be bound in this doomed pattern for lifetimes; and if that cycle was broken with Melissa Ephesian's death. (More importantly: does Mulder and/or Scully believe it's broken?) What we were given instead was a memoir to love in general that shoehorned itself into the show without regard for canon.

I'm not angry with TFWID as much as I am other episodes (most of Existence and canon onward, for example) because Mulder and Scully's characterization never strays-- Field may have been carelessly wedged in, but it was skillful with its emotional exploration. Further, the events and facts presented so summarily contradict each other that there's no real "threat" propped up by its existence. And, while I can't excuse the cringe-inducing acting from Morgan's wife, I can explain why DD's turned out so "badly" (read: jarringly):

Bowman’s director’s cut ran so long that Morgan and Wong were forced to trim twenty minutes out of the episode.... Morgan felt that the emotional impact of Mulder’s hypnosis session might have been marred by the cutting, since it interfered with the flow of Duchovny’s acting throughout the entire scene. “I called David and I said, ‘I’m cutting it this way.’ I could hear that he was upset. I know what actors go through to prepare, and then to have to sit in a chair for a couple of hours in front of a bunch of grips and gaffers and people that they hang out with everyday, and cry – it’s just like taking off your clothes. And then to find it’s been cut out. I had to come home and tell Kristen, ‘Look, this part is coming out.’ She was upset and David was upset. Jim was off prepping ‘Musings of Cigarette Smoking Man’ or doing something and I was just very alone.’

(For context, the hypnosis scene was originally twelve minutes long.)

While I might be tempted to sympathize with Morgan, he didn't extend that sympathy equally to his wife or Duchovny, instead turning this combined loss into a one-sided self-pity party.

MULDER THE SACRIFICE, SCULLY THE SAVIOR

I also have a theory that Carter was writing Scully as a savior and Mulder as a sacrificial lamb for the mainline series (until he made William a magic baby and ruined eight years of build-up), post here.

There's a reason that The X-Files is told through Scully's perspective; and that Mulder is often compared to Ahab chasing the White Whale, to a man on a fated quest, to a boy who lost his sister and can't live freely until he has that closure. There's a reason that Scully is Mulder's "one-in-five billion", his salvation ("But you saved me!"), his constant, his touchstone-- and his "human credential", as David Duchovny put it. There's a reason that Carter banked an entire series off of a chemistry and bond he wrote into the graveyard scene, and maintains that that is when Mulder and Scully fell in love (though to what degree is up for fanon interpretation.) There's a reason that the CSM was wrong to picture Mulder as a Christ-like figure, and Scully was right to walk into Mulder's subconscious and rescue him with the truth ("Get up and fight.") There's a reason that Mulder's rescue in Deep Throat underscores his and Scully's partnership from then on out: he in danger-- be it from Jersey Devils, moth men, fated love triangles, Houston bombs, brain surgery, alien abduction-- and she his rescuer (discussed a little here.)

Why is this important? Because The Field Where I Died's concept is not without canonical merit: Mulder running headlong into danger, Scully holding him back long enough to prevent the cycle from repeating. And it ties into the mytharc's ad nauseam question of Fate v. Freewill (posts here and here.) TFWID could even work if you factor in the theory of Scully's immortality (post here.)

But the reality is, Morgan and Wong were not going for canonical adherence.

THE WONDER OF THE SUPERNATURAL, THE FAILURE OF THE HUMAN CONNECTION

Episodic timeline goofs and gaffes aside, the problems in The Field Where I Died lie deeper than which woman Mulder loves and which one he perpetually makes friendship bracelets with. The greatest problem arrives, settles, and stains with the introduction of soulmates: the recontextualization of the infamous MSR dynamic.

Morgan was focusing again on Mulder and Scully as humans; but he fumbled, amplifying then explaining away their "unspoken" as a supernatural connection rather than the meeting of uncannily similar minds:

Apart from personal considerations, Morgan and Wong wanted to reorient the show’s attitude towards the paranormal, which they felt in the third session had been expressed far too often as something evil or wrong. “The paranormal isn’t about death or evil,” Morgan said. “It’s about wonder.” In line with this approach, he and Wong wanted to avoid writing a conventional villain; instead, the principal conflicts take place between Mulder and Scully or are internal, with both Mulder and Melissa haunted by their pasts, in this life, and perhaps previous lives. 

Morgan and Wong wanted to zero in on two humans, and all their complications as such, brushing up against the unfathomable, neutral force beyond their comprehension... but then ruined that message, that build-up, by justifying the personal, human aspect-- their connection-- by making it inhuman, unnatural, and supernatural, too. All the while, of course, telling us (and believing themselves) that fans were upset because they introduced another romance for Mulder.

(As a side note: why do I excuse-- for lack of a better word-- David Duchovny's similar sentiments towards TFWID and its reception? Firstly, he, and others, genuinely loves it; and I'm happy for him. To David, it seems, love is more powerful when it is guaranteed for a lifetime and beyond-- the insecurity of someone falling out of love, platonically or romantically, is more powerful than a finite and fickle love that can be lost or tarnished. That being his interpretation-- and Morgan's intention-- I can see why he'd love TFWID. It's a powerful sentiment. More importantly, the man doesn't hold it against fans-- he thinks they misinterpreted its intent-- like Morgan thought they did-- understands why it would disgruntle, but maintains that he loves it, regardless. I can respect that position, even if we disagree; because the heart likes what it likes. I, for one, have my own likes that others might hate.)

LAZILY WRITTEN

The greatest mistake of all-- one Morgan humbly recognizes-- is the faults in the writing. Well... more accurately, that he and Wong failed to keep a complete vision that would (most definitely, guys) translate better to audiences. His ideas, I concede, were intriguing; but like all mediums, the final product is what audiences are left to judge and believe in. For TFWID, it was mixed up before the scenes were filmed, and hacked apart after the footage was wrapped-- so much so, that Morgan kept realizing the magnitude of his mistakes after the fact:

Under hypnosis, Mulder describes a scene of death and destruction from the Warsaw ghetto; in this past life, he is a Jewish woman, Scully is his father, Samantha is his son, and the Cigarette Smoking Man is a Gestapo officer. 

Next he [Mulder] becomes Sullivan Biddle, already dead in battle, Scully is his sergeant, and Melissa is there, as Sarah. He has no information on the bunkers, all he sees is death. Morgan wrote these scenes to express the overwhelming sense of loss that Mulder has felt his entire life. The scene was shot in extreme close-up, inspired, Morgan said, by his love of Ingmar Bergman’s films. “To spend three quarters of an act, six or seven minutes, in close-up, on television, is wonderful,” he said. “On TV, we’re always cutting back and forth. We’re always blowing stuff up. Jim and I participate in that. Act Four of ‘Home’ couldn’t be more different than act three of ‘The Field Where I Died.’ I’m proud of that. ”

(And you might have blown it, Glen.)

Morgan’s enthusiasm for the scene was not matched by a good number of the show’s fans, who felt the scene was overwrought, both in the writing, and in Duchovny’s performance. “I think both Kristen and David did a great job,” Morgan said. “David just can’t win. If he walks around going, ‘Scully, I’m going here. Oh. Extreme possibilities,’ everyone says, ‘...that guy just mumbles his way through.’ If he emotes, people don’t want to see that. People can say his acting was bad. I don’t think that it was, but some felt it was obviously ‘acting.’ It’s in a close-up, it’s a long monologue, so it points to acting. 

(An unnecessarily long scene that, unfortunately, had to be chopped; and was chopped so badly that, consequently, it lost its nuance and made Duchovny look like a fool by proxy.)

Bowman’s director’s cut ran so long that Morgan and Wong were forced to trim twenty minutes out of the episode, including eliminating one of Melissa’s personalities, a crude loudmouth named Jobee, as well information that supported Scully’s viewpoint, and large sections from Melissa’s and Mulder’s hypnosis sessions

 “If we’d focused on Scully’s viewpoint more, we could have thrown up the idea that maybe Mulder’s wrong, maybe this is just wishful thinking,” Morgan added. “I know this sounds really bad, but to me the hypnosis scene is more important than a teaser. I was desperate to cut out time, and in favoring emotional content over plot content, I might have blown it.”

[Morgan]: "... I read a post online asking why Scully was always a man in the past, and I hadn’t thought about that. I wish I had altered that; it was a mistake.”

And it wasn't just TFWID that was littered with inconsistencies in service to Morgan and Wong's vision.

TFWID, "MUSINGS", AND THE BLAME GAME

When Morgan and Wong returned from their other writing projects, they had to decide whether to leave the studio-- angry at its interference-- or take a deal and partly work for The X-Files and Millennium. Obviously they chose the latter, and rejoined after a hiatus of one or two years. In that time, the X-Files had become a hit. But M and W had changes, and plans to execute those changes, in mind: they both thought that the show had strayed from its original vision-- again, the "wonder" of the paranormal and supernatural-- and would be set to (better) rights with their input and direction.

Not all of their work was flawed-- Home and Never Again were tightly written-- and not all of their ideas were self-involved. For example: when joining the show, they and the other writers were told this season's purpose was to drive a wedge between Mulder and Scully, and framed Never Again around that idea:

“My understanding at the beginning of the year was that we were going to drive to a point where Mulder and Scully didn’t trust each other,” Morgan said. His own scenario for plotting out the season was somewhat different from what Carter and the other writers came up with this year, but the fundamental issue was the same: trust. “I would have slowly split Mulder and Scully up over the course of the season, then in the last episode have Scully put Mulder away for his own good, which he would perceive as the ultimate betrayal,” Morgan said. “And then the next season, they would have had an entire year’s healing to go through.”

That's not an entirely unreasonable direction to take, either.

The other writers had other plans. For good or ill, it was Chris's show; and Chris wanted to steer it in a certain direction. Those who joined and added their thoughts cohesively helped construct the mainline arcs that bloomed into Season 4's cancer revelation and Season 5's lack of faith, as well as building up Fight the Future concurrently. M and W, however, felt bruised when their visions were either tweaked or countermanded; and left the experience disgruntled. For good or ill, Chris Carter, Glen Morgan, and James Wong all had good and bad ideas; but only one of them had created the show-- something which the latter two couldn't, at times, accept.

Case and point: I detour to Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man because that episode-- from its conception to its creation to its execution-- explains clearly what led Morgan and Wong astray.

Home was successful, The Field Where I Died much less so. For both episodes, Chris Carter seemed content to let Morgan and Wong do whatever they wanted. However, a shift occurred when fans fell out of sync with M and W's vision (TFWID); and that shift manifested when Glen and James immediately wanted to jump into a CSM backstory, the mytharc domain of CC. Both writers felt the big bad of The X-Files had become gutless; and they wanted to inject some terror into him by killing off Frohike in the end. Per their original vision, the narrative element was excluded and CSM would reclaim his villainy via a Forrest Gump monologue then follow through by gunning down an innocent man. Chris Carter, meanwhile, did not want Frohike killed and did not think that CSM would care to waste time murdering a relative nobody to his life and work. William B. Davis, CSM's actor, was also insistent this version of CSM was not his character; and was so dissatisfied with it that he called up CC himself. Carter tried to appease all sides with a compromise: letting M and W write what they wanted (within limits) and reassuring himself and WBD that this episode wasn't canon:

Davis promptly called Carter to ask if this was the real history of the Cigarette Smoking Man (Carter told him no).

...“The Cigarette Smoking Man’s flashbacks were my idea, because I indeed wanted the episode to be a memoir,” Morgan said. But the idea that Frohike could be the real narrator was a Carter-imposed addition to the script, to make it seem as if the events of the episode were not real. Carter even changed the name of the script, from “Memoirs of a Cigarette Smoking Man” to “Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man.”

[Wong]: ...“The line where Deep Throat says, ‘Maybe I’m not the liar’ was another change imposed on the script so you could make the leap that perhaps this is all. a dream, or the ramblings of Frohike.”

If that weren't potentially explosive enough, Morgan and Wong went behind Chris's back, consulting others on set to create their vision, anyway. When CC turned down Glen's dogged request, twice, to film an alternate ending, Wong took matters into his own, unauthorized hands:

Morgan and Wong felt so strongly about this issue, that they decided to try an end run around Ten Thirteen. They figured that if they filmed the scene their way, and cut it into the episode, it would be so powerful that Carter would have to agree with them. Morgan called Wong up in Vancouver and told him to take a few crew members while everyone else was at lunch, and get some shots of blood spattering on the sign to the Lone Gunman offices. Wong decided against the stealth approach; instead, he filmed William B. Davis pulling back on the trigger, and Tom Braidwood, as Frohike, getting a bullet in the head. Morgan nearly panicked when he heard what his partner had done; he was certain word of it would reach Ten Thirteen down in Los Angeles. His fears were justified.

Carter, meanwhile, allegedly proved how cleverly his fingers always remained on the pulse of the show:

Wong recalled: “I was in the editing room, and I said to the editor, why don’t we print up the B negative? We’ll cut it in and show Chris. [The “B” negative was the negative with the footage of the Cigarette Smoking Man pulling the trigger and Frohike getting shot.] And the editor told me, ‘You can’t do that.’ I said, ‘What do you mean, we can’t do that? Just print the B negative.’ He said, ‘Well, it’s been taken out of the lab. It can’t be found.” In a move worthy of a scene from an X-Files episode, someone had deliberately removed the negative without telling Morgan and Wong, and they had no idea where it was. 

(And how do we know this was CC's doing? Because every single actor, writer, and director interviewed always marveled at his inhuman ability to be aware of every single, teeny tiny detail on set.)

Apparently, the incident blew over wordlessly, so much so that Chris asked Glen and James to help flesh out Millennium and called them up, years later, to craft the Revival with him (and sat nearby while Morgan teasingly alluded to the above incident, just a few years ago.)

To tie it all back to The Field Where I Died: the work they created-- while beautifully written-- was sloppily fitted into the show they were hired to write for:

And then there were the timeline inconsistencies, which Morgan and Wong didn’t even know about until the episode aired and Morgan logged on and was bombarded with dozens of internet posts complaining that the events of “Musings” couldn’t be for real, because they contradicted the teaser to “Apocrypha.” In the “Apocrypha” teaser, which is set in 1953, a young Cigarette Smoking Man (already smoking), a young Bill Mulder, and a third man, all in civilian dress, question a horribly burned submarine crewman who had encountered an alien in a flashback shown in the previous episode, “Piper Maru.” Morgan’s version proposed an entirely different history, with the young Cigarette Smoking Man and Bill Mulder, both Army officers, first meeting in 1961 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The Cigarette Smoking Man doesn’t even smoke, until he takes his first nervous puff late in the first act. Although Morgan and Wong had seen “Apocrypha,” they didn’t remember the events of the teaser. “Okay, we’re sloppy,” Morgan admitted.

To top off the battle of egos, Glen and James laid a portion of the blame at the nameless feet of some faceless "other" rather than taking it upon themselves... or having the guts to point the finger at one person in particular:

“But somebody should have told us. They all read the script. It was the same thing that happened to us on ‘Little Green Men when we showed Samantha’s abduction.'” Added Wong: “If somebody had said, ‘Hey, you know, in the third season, this was said and this doesn’t make sense anymore.’ And we would have changed it. But nobody told us that And the internet people go, ‘This doesn’t make sense,’ and now we look like idiots. We have part of the blame obviously; we didn’t know. We didn’t catch it.”

(It's easy to feel for them and their position... until you realize that there is no evidence-- that I have found-- of them asking if there was a show bible or other resource to consult. Meaning, again, that M and W have to take some blame for this grievance, as well.)

And last but not least, they-- particularly Glen Morgan-- martyred their pain instead of fully accepting and owning their own part in this ever-evolving disaster:

But their disappointment over the changes they were forced to make “Musings of Cigarette Smoking Man” caused them to withhold the ghost story and look for something else. “I had done a lot of research and I had always wanted to write a feature about Lincoln’s ghost,” Morgan said, “But I felt they didn’t want my heart and soul anymore, so I wouldn’t give this one to them."

CONCESSIONS

While these two scalawags contributed their fair share to frustrating and complicated behind-the-scenes shenanigans, their instincts weren't completely wrong, nor all their conduct unrighteous.

They were right on the money with Home--

“Thematically, Sheriff Taylor was doing the same thing that the brothers were doing. They didn’t want things to change,” Morgan said. Scully conducts an examination on the baby, and when the DNA tests come back, she is shocked to find results impossible to believe; they indicate the child had three fathers.

“It was much more controversial than we thought it would be,” Wong said. “Some fans were repulsed beyond analyzing the show; they were just kind of sickened by it. They were pretty turned off. Some people loved it. There was a lot of really, really negative reaction.”

“I have really been stung by that whole reaction,” Morgan admitted. “To me, the show must have become so big while we were away. I think a lot of people hadn’t been exposed to what we did when we were first on the show. They were going, '...what are they doing?’ and we go, ‘But, this is what we always did!’ We had “Squeeze,” or episodes like Chris’ ‘Irresistible,’ these shocking, horrible shows. Act four of ‘Tooms’ I think is on a level with ‘Home,’ so we were going, ‘What is all the ruckus about?’ We figured a lot of people don’t know that earlier stuff, or certain tones that we were going after then.”

-- and Never Again--

“He’s been caught off guard by not knowing something about her,” Morgan said. “A date with someone in Philadelphia, someone he’s never heard of, someone she’s never told him about. He’s unnerved by his lack of certainty about her, with her being wrong about Ed.” The episode ends with Scully telling Mulder firmly, “It’s my life,” and Mulder saying, “But it’s…” and suddenly stopping. Why didn’t he finish his sentence? “It was our way of saying to the other writers, ‘Here’s where Mulder and Scully are, and now the ball is in your court,'” explained Morgan. “That’s what I always felt was our role. In the first couple of years when we were on the show, we might hand it off and then have to pick up the ball ourselves a couple of episodes later, but knowing we were about to leave and would have no input whatsoever, we just said, ‘Well, here’s this thing, how about this? Now it’s yours.’ I feel that Mulder had come to respect that there’s more to this than just him, that Scully is now a part of his life and he’s a part of hers. I think that she learned the danger of exploring the rebellious side, and that it has to be accompanied by responsibility. What she did almost got her killed. So I think that she probably has it a little in check, and yet she’s always carrying the memory of it on her back. It isn’t anything for her to let go of. But next time she’ll be smarter about it, and she won’t let it get so far away from her.”

--and were misunderstood both times.

They were also wrongfully done by here or there--

Morgan had the unhappy task of telling an understandably upset Anderson that the scene she specifically requested had been cut. 

Morgan and Wong were frustrated once more when the network decided to move “Never Again” out of its post-Super Bowl slot, and substitute “Leonard Betts,” the episode that was originally scheduled to air after “Never Again.” “Leonard Betts” ended with the wrenching realization by Scully that she might have contracted the cancer that afflicted the other female abduction victims she met in second season’s “Nisei.” This revelation impacted the rationale behind Scully’s behavior in “Never Again” in ways never intended by Morgan and Wong. “I felt horrible,” Morgan stated. “Those are not her motives for her actions in this episode. The motives in ‘Never Again’ are completely altered by posing that she has a disease or a death sentence...."

-- but did wrong themselves, despite unprecedented creative freedom (see the previous section.)

The trouble, it seems, is an inability to differentiate the criticisms they receive. The pearl-clutching, deaf-and-dumb moralizers over Home are not the same crowd scratching (nay, banging) their heads over the blatant and illogical inconsistencies in The Field Where I Died and Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man. (In fact, the last episode mentioned aged nicely, if the IMDb numbers haven't lied.) And that trouble compounds when they can't understand why a behemoth ship, constantly taking on mounting expectations and schedules, might halt for pit stops but won't change course for inconsistent passengers.

Lastly, while I can sympathize with the emotions both Glen Morgan and James Wong felt for having their work constantly tampered with, that sympathy dwindles when contemplating a few factors:

They were working for someone else's show, not their own.

They were given unlimited creative freedom upon their return, and were only reigned in after their projects continued to falter.

They were butting heads against two factors that the show runner himself wanted to keep ambiguous or under hat: CSM's backstory and Mulder and Scully's lives outside of work.

Having one's spirit crushed by back-to-back disappointments can't solely fall on the shoulders of the network or show runners when the first two ventures weren't touched, tampered, or changed (except for a run time you knew you had going in); and they can't fall solely on fans when the end results provided were lackluster in quality.

And an important last note: I do not feel that Glen Morgan or James Wong acted maliciously-- carelessly, mostly; overly self-involved here or there, most probably. Their focus remained on fleshing out the characters, exploring the ramifications of their actions, and digging up and handing over imperative context for canon-- attempting to iron out Mulder and Scully's split-up, William's adoption, and Charlie's estrangement in the Revival, for example. But they're not saints; and they still have an edge against criticism and interference that clings to and eats away at the quality of their work. In short, we are only glimpsing one aspect of Morgan's and Wong's lives during an intensely frustrating moment in their lives-- but it was important enough to The Field Where I Died's lore that I felt it was crucial to share.

CONCLUSION

For me, I'm glad Morgan and Wong messed up so badly that Gestapo CSM was still alive when canon CSM was born. To me, I think Morgan was way too eager (kindly, I shall reframe from saying 'self-involved') and way too disinclined to ask for necessary criticism for his projects. To me, I'm certain Morgan and Wong cared more about their concepts than the canon they were writing for-- making Mulder and Scully platonic (but could become romantic?) soulmates without providing essential explanation or further clarity. To me, I think focusing only on what Mulder gets out of this arrangement-- instead of exploring how this would affect Scully, as well-- was a cheap maneuver to vehicle in Morgan and his wife's love story (the same impulse that drove Morgan to write Melissa Scully as a romantic option for Mulder, that inspired the death of Frohike, and that butchered Maggie Scully's deathbed in Home Again: the impulse of wanting things his way.) For me, I'm glad this episode was too long, was chopped up very badly, and was ultimately exposed as a vanity project by fans' negative reactions. And, to me, I believe that negative reaction was largely brushed aside-- ignorantly, though not maliciously-- by Morgan because "fans just wanted Mulder and Scully together."

And, lastly: to me, Glen Morgan and James Wong-- while wrong to some extent-- at least take (partial) fault for their vision going awry. We're all human, we all make mistakes; we all learn and grow.

The rest I leave to you to draw your own conclusions.

Thanks for reading~

Enjoy!

[chasedeys]

https://www.tumblr.com/chasedeys/771700105318383616

So we have all clocked Joe being reserved when it comes to pda with Ja’Marr ??!

asakljfjkl i think it's like. less 'reserved when it comes to pda with ja'marr' and more of like. 'shy as all hell when it comes to ja'marr'.

begging youuuu to see carmen's post and tags (and also mine lmaoooo) here adore it to bits.

no wait i don't actually know what you mean by 'reserved when it comes to pda' because when you say it like that i take it to mean like. they're already together and joe doesn't really want to show to the world that he's close to ja'marr. that he can be really fucking tactile and clingy with ja'marr. because he's reserved when it comes to his personal stuff. which sure! totally understand this!

but i interpret the entire thing to be like this. they aren't together yet and joe is incredibly.....shy (?) with touching even the bare minimum of skin with ja'marr. six years and the pinky shake is still like a breath of fresh air for him. keeps reaching out first to do it with ja'marr!! every time!!! this man is incredibly sure with everything he does no doubt about it! but with ja'marr he's also sooo uppity and clumsy and awkward it's so endearing!!

joe is reallllllly really tactile as shit with everyone. he lives for skin to skin contact he loves that shit to death if he doesn't show affection to anyone by touching their shoulders knocking his head to theirs or fist-bumping or (especially with tee god this is so important to me too) nuzzling the side of their neck he might actually wilt and collapse into a puddle and like. die. no joke.

and ja'marr is no exception! in fact ja'marr especially!! loveeee writing how joe just. wraps around ja'marr. folds into him. early morning collapses into him and sniffs at his neck and head. sitting together on a couch and there's all that space but they sit on a single spot together (hard knocks titans ep....). reaching out to tuck a finger into ja'marr's belt loops and tugging on it so ja'marr stumbles into him. pinky shake but he doesn't let go and instead pulls on it so ja'marr falls into him. but like. these are whole other examples of a whole other thing sorry ANYWAYS.

joe still shows affection to ja'marr! all the pinky shakes. fist bumps. out of mind helmet slamming bunny hopping touchdown celebrations. shoulder grabbing. saints interview, mid-game calling for attention so many clips of this i'm not kidding. punches his chest telling him good job. kc game shove lol. ufc matches. donut incident. that cowboys tucking into his chest teasing him truly gem of a moment. oh that post-titans game walking together to the bus too actually i don't know why that's such a soft moment to me. and like other examples of just being unable to really look at ja'marr in the faceee, just from the corner of his eyes like that titans mic'ed up moment teasing his ass god what a moment that was. he's soooo shy and abashed with ja'marr! like a schoolboy with a crush! doesn't know what to do! holds himself back! tries to put himself forward but freezes up too easily!!!

so really it's less 'unwilling to show pda' and more like. not wholly able to? like he wants to but something is holding him back and that something is his big fat fucking crush on a boy. if he touches that boy he might combust into a cloud of mushroom and everyone will know and see and he will be perceived, including by the boy he loves. and wow he can't have that.

[more-sonorous]

It seems the people want my rant, since 100% of you answered yes to the poll— so here goes, and please don’t flame me too bad! I know uksies is beloved but after talking to @jackmkelly I gotta share my opinion

here goes

I really do not like Davey’s costume in uksies. I don’t despise all of it- I like the shape of his sleeves, the proper cut of his pants and the height of his collar, but I especially hate his color palette. Actually I sort of despise his color palette, or lack of one. Uksies colors Jack, Katherine, and Crutchie pretty well, and I’m only saying that because they manage to stand out splendidly against the mass of miserable, bland gray and black and white. In my opinion, they fucked Davey’s color palette up so incredibly hard— like WHY is Davey gray and brown like a background newsie? Why doesn’t he have any color at all?

(Take a moment to admire Ryan’s beauty and perfect Davey portrayal before rejoining me on my soapbox. Does this not look positively gray? It’s so *bland*.)

Okay so either I’m colorblind, or this is just the most boring, nondescript pallete known to man. why, even in act 2, is he still blending in with the background? You’d be hard pressed to spot bro in a group of newsies, which doesn’t make any sense because he’s co-leading a strike at this point.

in livesies (and also in 92sies), we see Davey’s personality journey in his costume. In livesies he adopts Jack’s signature blue, rolls his sleeves up and unbuttons his waistcoat to show that he’s truly grown into his position as leader. In 92sies, Davey’s silhouette also changes to mimic the casualty of Jack’s costume. The color symbolism in the film and in 92sies is really important to me and I think it shows off Dave’s journey as a character very well.

In uksies he just remains so boring and it makes me so angry because it’s literally blatant Davey erasure imho. Why doesn’t he get a smidge of Jack’s red? Or literally any other color? Just a necktie or some suspenders would suffice. Some sort of visible change. Why can’t he roll up his sleeves or unbutton his collar? I’ve seen people saying his color is green (I haven’t seen any physical green on his costume but I could be missing something. @make-friends-with-the-rats sent me a picture that looks fairly green but that disappears under the stage lighting, as you can see in the pics above) but idk. It just rubs me the wrong way that the only change we see is an unbuttoned vest.

Where’s the determination? Where’s the assimilation into the rest of the group? Ryan Kopel’s Davey is anxious, yeah, but he gets angry and frustrated in act 2. He has character growth that is not acknowledged in his costume.

Anyways, rant over. This has bothered me since I watched the bootleg. It’s probably not a big deal in the end but those are my thoughts lol. If you have a potential explanation for this choice pls do lmk

(Uksies lovers please do not flame me too hard, I love Ryan’s portrayal of Davey I just think they did bro dirty with the black and white fit. I have huge gripes with their costuming in general but this is the biggest offense to me. Again— love the production. It made serious strides and it was very well done. But this costume… :( )

[waitmyturtles]

Thank you so much for the tags, dear friend @lurkingshan, and what a way to kick off 2025 Asian QL discourse!

@wen-kexing-apologist done dropped an outstanding response to Shan's piece here that continues the conversation about the stripping of real queer perspectives and frameworks from Asian queer media that is very much worth reading. Just to set up how I want to respond to Shan's piece, I want to emphasize the inverse relationship of the mainstreaming of queer media to both the quantity and the quality of the queerness in queer shows.

A lot of Shan's and WKA's pieces focus on Thailand, which I will as well, because QL discourse on Tumblr is dominated by what's happening in Thailand vis à vis what scholar Thomas Baudinette calls the "T-wave" of media flowing out of Thailand that includes dramas and music, frontally led by international distribution of Thai queer media. Dr. Baudinette speaks briefly about the behavior of fans in the link above, and I want to unwind on this a bit more by way of what we're talking about with the de-queering of queer media.

I've been really critical, in my Old GMMTV Challenge project on the development of the Thai QL genre, of branded pairs, and the subsequent act by fans of shipping two real-life actors into fantasies of queer relationships. Shan above links to an incredibly important piece by @bengiyo from last year where he took fans to task for conflating their fantasies about real-life actors and projecting those fantasies on their understanding of the storytelling of fictional characters. Within that, as Shan quotes above, Ben asks his audience, and I paraphrase -- can you ask yourself if you REALLY like queer people, and queerness as a whole?

I want to propose that the branded pair system, and/or the subsequent fantastical shipping of otherwise real-life people, contributes to the erasure of queerness we are currently seeing in many shows from Thailand; the high majority of them coming from GMMTV, but to the points made above, we have now seen that happen in One31's Spare Me Your Mercy, with the SMYM screenwriter going so far as to say that NC scenes -- queer sex -- would have been distracting to the telling of the show's story. That's wrenching, to say the least, because of the sheer lack of truth behind that assumption of how stories can otherwise be told with sex and romance as important context in queer stories.

How can I prove this? I'm thinking of the controversy last year between Tay Tawan and Gun Atthaphan, both members of their own TayNew and OffGun branded pairs, who were unwittingly caught sharing a brief and playful smooch while playing a game on live camera.

The "Polca" TayNew fans were subsequently up in arms online, challenging Tay Tawan to his devotion to the TayNew "ship." In other words, his fans were angry at him for popping the balloon of their shipping fantasies.

In this case, I would like to note that while we see GMMTV reducing blatant queer perspectives and frameworks from their shows, and promoting friend-ships or bro-ships, in the case of High School Frenemy and the SkyNani branded pair, we see GMMTV's (and Thai BL's) rise continue to grow in certain Asian countries (like China, Malaysia, and Indonesia, among others) that do not allow for public displays of queerness, among other restrictions. GMMTV does not hold branded pair fan meetings in these countries, and yet, these countries are some of the channel's biggest markets for its queer shows and pairs. As well, these countries (I am part-Malaysian myself) do not have public programs of sex education. Thus, if I am to assume that the majority fan bases of these shows are young folks in countries that do not offer robust sex education, then these young folks (of any gender) might not be inclined to join in and participate in conversations about queer equality.

We, thus, get the outcry that occurred after Tay and Gun smooched. God forbid fantasies were to have been destroyed because two real-life people kissed. Two men, kissing, outside of the context of their branded pairs and outside the context of a drama. Some people have never been to the club before.

It seems to me that the fantasies of the fans are worth more, as an investment by GMMTV and other studios in Thailand, than actual artistic material that focuses on queerness at this point. Capitalism and mainstreaming go very well hand-in-hand when there's money to be made, and this, to me, speaks loudly to the excellent points that Shan has made above about really great queer art being anathema to center- and conservative-mainstreams. We're getting less of really great queer art in Thailand, because the dampening of queerness in Thai shows might very well mean more bucks for the studios.

Finally, a last point about capitalism that I'd like to make. I've been seeing a rising number of posts and comments taking Tumblr bloggers to task for being critical (like, objectively critical) of bad shows. Many folks don't want to read criticism of their fave shows and stars.

I want to note that if one takes this position -- the capitalists have won again. If you're someone who's trying to prevent critical takes from being published, well, you got got by the capitalists -- the studios, the managers who want you to be so in love with your faves that you will ponder asking a writer to censor themselves from making a critical take. You might feel ownership of your blorbo, protective of your favorite star. Those critical takes may feel, to you, like a takedown of your fave.

The studios and managers of your faves also don't want these takedowns, because if a star's reputation is dampened, that'll affect their economic bottom line, and the studio's economic bottom line. Just listen to two Thai BL dudes who've been through the ringer on this very issue. This kind of capitalism and social media frenzy can have actual and harmful effects on the human actors performing these fantastical works.

The capitalists are making their play on Asian QL. It was a hell of a move for the makers of Love In The Big City to get that show out the way that it did. And I very much hope that LITBC will have a lasting impact on South Korean media -- as the earlier, and very queer, shows of the Thai QL industry once had, and might have again, if we can support really great Asian queer art with the same gusto and strength as currently popular shows enjoy.

Spare Me Your Mercy, Love in the Big City, and the Trap of Pursuing Mainstream Popularity for Queer Art

I read this excellent post by @waitmyturtles yesterday tackling the frustrating failures of Spare Me Your Mercy, a show that was one of my most anticipated of the year, but that ended up so lost in its own confusing blend of sauces that I didn't even finish it. I appreciated her clarity that despite the show receiving strong ratings and finding popularity with the mainstream domestic audience, that doesn't actually make it a success as a piece of narrative storytelling. And if anything, its popularity underlines why it was a failure as a queer narrative, in particular.

Because here's the thing about great queer art—it's almost never popular with mainstream audiences, especially in socially conservative countries. High quality, well-executed, honest and authentic queer art is more likely to be protested than celebrated in places where real queer people are not safe to live free lives. For an illustration of this, look no further than another highly anticipated queer drama of this year in Love in the Big City. Easily the queerest show to ever get made and aired on Korean television, it drew major protests before it even started, forcing the production to release it quickly in one go to ensure it would reach audiences. And why were those conservative groups so afraid of this little old drama? Because even just in its trailer and promotional materials, it was clear this was no sanitized, G-rated drama created to make gay people seem more palatable to the masses (unlike the film version with the same name, which not coincidentally has been much more warmly received by the Korean media establishment). This show was real, and raw, and QUEER in a way that terrified those bigots, because they know one of the most important ways the oppressed can advocate for themselves is by demonstrating their humanity through art. 

Which brings me back to turtles’ post, and the importance of separating the concerns of art and commerce when discussing the different ways media can succeed. This is something I had some good dialogue about with @biochemjess @pharawee @clairedaring @flowerbeasblog and turtles (and even more of you in the tags) when I was still watching and posting about Spare Me Your Mercy. I originally posted to unpack why the show was flopping narratively, which turned into a discussion of the fact that it was getting good ratings from the domestic audience despite this. And while I appreciated understanding how the show is landing with its priority audience, for me, it’s very important to keep a distinction between these two different kinds of success. Especially in discussions of queer art, and especially for a show whose creators explicitly said they were intentionally downplaying the queer romance part of the queer romance ( @benkaben) to avoid “distracting” from their other messaging goals. 

The important thing to keep in mind is that for queer stories, when they are popular with a mainstream audience it’s often because they are stripping any authenticity from the representation of queer people. Turtles addressed this well in her review of 2gether when she posited that part of the reason it was such a phenomenon in conservative Asian countries (aside from the timing of its release in the early days of the global pandemic), was because its presentation of queerness was mostly unrecognizable to real queer people, stripped of any true notion of queer sexuality or the realities of homophobia. Compare the reception of The Miracle of Teddy Bear—a show that absolutely refused to make its central queer character palatable for a mainstream audience, because the fact that he wasn’t palatable was the point—to that of Spare Me Your Mercy, a show whose creators chose to censor their own story. The ugly truth is that when we’re talking about queer dramas, the best and most vital shows are pretty much anathema to mainstream ratings success.

The impulse to pursue mainstream popularity and commercial success for queer art inevitably leads to watering down queer stories ( @twig-tea) to make them more light, comfortable and familiar to a majority heterosexual and socially conservative audience. And yes, of course, some degree of commercial success is necessary for queer art to get made in the first place. This is how the Thai BL market took off, by recognizing that there was an audience beyond queer people who were open to watching stories about boys falling in love, as long as it didn’t get too real. But there is a careful line to walk here, and it’s so important not to confuse popularity with artistic merit. Queer people won’t win liberation by self-censoring queer media to make it more palatable for mainstream audiences. We win when we make queer art so good and so honest that the mainstream is forced to acknowledge it. We win by challenging the mainstream perspective on queer people and how they should behave, not by catering to it. As @bengiyo said in a completely different discourse, the question is not whether the audience can love queer characters whose actual queerness is suppressed for their comfort. That kind of respectability politics is old hat and it never fucking gets us anywhere. The real question he posed is this: “Do you love us when we’re ugly, when we’re sick, when we’re old, when we’re being mean or catty?”

Which is why a show like Love in the Big City ultimately won by being so excellent, and so true, and so undeniable, that it broke through with audiences around the world and achieved some measure of recognition in spite of how very unpalatable it was to its domestic audience. Unlike Spare Me Your Mercy, this show did not get amazing domestic ratings, but its message was heard far beyond those who watched it on Korean television. And that is the point. Making authentic art that advances the struggle of queer people and making nominally queer art that can achieve mainstream popularity are completely different pursuits, and we must keep that in mind when we discuss whether and how these shows succeeded or failed. And while both must exist in a healthy media ecosystem, one will always be more vital for the survival of queer people than the other. 

[thecaptainamore]

I have no clue what’s actually happening with all of the Book of Bill stuff but I just absolutely love seeing people’s hypotheses and the fandom being so alive GAHHH

I’VE MISSED YOU GRAVITY FALLS

[luna-loveboop]

I want. Four to get appreciation. Because

Four gave a ton of unnoticed help when Twilight was injured

The fight with Wild was difficult, and I know we're all concerned about his negative view of the shadow crystal

But Four did something that no one else really thought of to help- He took care of Twi's stuff

From the beginning he told Twilight to not worry about them

So Four took care of pretty much everything but the others (that Sky and Wars handled)

He took care of Epona

Which is so very important- he took care of Twilight's horse. After her arrival at the stable Four followed up on her

And for Epona, a horse so attached to her human, having some company can help so much for reassurance

He took care of Twilight's stuff

He got Twi's shield- his bags and equipment, and organized it into one place

And he was worried. He obviously found the shadow crystal while handling Twi's stuff, but his negative reactions to it were out of concern.

Also- because of his placement in this scene

I'm fairly convinced Four was ready to start cooking before Wild showed up (since he's beside the counter with food supplies). At the very least he had the basket of fruit out for everyone -but he was literally standing with food behind him- he thought of everything

And he did housekeeping!

Wars payed for the inn, so Four took care of the inn

Realistically these boys were probably not too concerned with tidyness. Four got all of Twi's things on one table, and took care of the room they stayed in

Organizing tables and Twi's things, having food supplies ready, and opening the curtains- overall he was the one tidying up the inn

Four helped in a huge way! He took care of Twi's horse (Epona is so important), his equipment and shield and bag, as well as the other rooms in the inn

Four filled in all the little tasks that others didn't think of. He helped in ways that were needed, but not obvious

There's a lot of problems with the shadow crystal and with Wild, and I don't know what's gonna happen in the future

But don't forget this- don't forget that Four was one who stepped up in an almost unnoticeable way

Don't forget that when everyone was barely holding it together, Four visited Twilight's horse and took care of his things

No matter what develops in the future- this amount of care shown is important ya know?

.

Art and comic from Jojo @linkeduniverse au :)))

[mourn-and-watch]

no but essek's abnormal behaviours in the last arc and especially in episode 140 are my roman empire. which is ironic because aeor is something of a roman empire itself. but in all seriousness, it was the episode that made me realise i love essek and his development so much and it kinda summarised it even before caleb's epilogue.

and i mean the "it's not fair" scene specifically. it's like, an epitome of his whole character progression from a person who put An Objectively Important Goal above all else without hesitation to someone who can't help but care for people around even more than his goal, no matter how big and relevant it is.

the mighty nein - and he alongside them - pretty much saved the world and freed an ancient city from thousand-year-long suffering. they defeated nine extremely powerful menacing entities who managed to stay out of everyone's sight for years and were so close to achieving their goal and dooming exandria in the process. they did the impossible and became heroes and somehow, they survived, even though they had bidden farewells a couple of hours ago because they had already understood what they had been facing. and nevertheless. they made it.

and none of them was celebrating.

mighty nein are basically essek's only friends. he knew them to be very unusual people, to put it lightly, loud and stubborn and completely inescapable once they consider you to be one of their own. and they showed him so much kindness and put so much faith in him, they were here playing the most atrocious music ever and digging clay in his backyard for a spell they invented just to help one of theirs and asking him if he could bring them pastries the day after they found out he was lying to them and had started a war. they were chaotic and weird and sometimes unbearable but most importantly they were carrying so much hope with them all this time - a hope they could end the war, a hope they could stop the angel of irons cult, a hope they could get better, a hope he could get better, and now, finally, that they could save their lost friend.

and that hope shattered, just like that, the moments after they'd already made the impossible. they saved so many souls - and then could not get back just that one.

for essek "my intentions were never good they were important" thelyss it just. shouldn't have mattered. they won. it could have been worse. people die and when they die they rarely come back. they should've been happy everyone else barely made it alive.

but for some reason, mighty nein being so defeated after they saved the world exposed him to that overwhelming feeling of injustice and unfairness. and i mean, there were many things essek considered to be unfair, but when i watched his first appearance and his interactions with mighty nein later on til their reunion in aeor arc, i wouldn't dare to guess that one of the things on that list would be something that personal. and personal not even to him.

the thing is, essek didn't even know who that guy was. why mighty nein cared about him so much. he had an idea, i guess, that he was their friend once, or someone in that body was. it was also a person who wanted to unleash a terrifying horrific aberration onto the material plane. it was a person very dedicated to killing essek and his friends - and they still didn't take any pleasure in fighting him. essek didn't feel strongly about lucien or molly, because he never knew them.

i don't think he mourned his death and failed resurrection. he mourned mighty nein's hope, the one they put in him when they had no reason to, the one they offered yasha in the cathedral and the one they kept after the spell for veth failed and the one they carried til the very end because they wanted it to reach molly. they had saved people with this hope. they had saved nations. they had saved the world. but they ended up feeling like it hadn't even been worth anything.

how desperate would it feel, witnessing people who for some reason always saw good in you when they absolutely shouldn't, who made literal miracles out of nothing, who ended wars and fought gods and tricked the hags and freed cities from horrors beyond anyone's comprehension purely because they thought it was the right thing to do and also loved their friends this much, silently crying over a dead body they couldn't bring back to life? how desperate would it feel to realise that with all your knowledge about time you dedicated your life to and threw away any principles for, you can't undo this? no one can. some things are left to fate alone and this time it wasn't kind to them. no matter how much good they did, they still got slapped in the face.

and it was, i think, such a genuine moment of empathy. like, essek is the character who prefers to put up a facade and act distant and self-composed but this time he just. walked away unable to watch this. the could only say to fjord that it wasn't fair. even when he was caught off guard in nicodranas he was able to explain himself and his motives to an extent even though he was a nervous wreck whose extra important plan went to hell the second the only people he cared about appeared. this time he had nothing to elaborate on. it just wasn't fair. it wasn't fair his friends didn't get what they wanted the most. it wasn't fair he couldn't do anything to make it right.

it is such a sad and beautiful and even cathartic scene because it is about person who started a war that destroyed so many lives - and then met this ragtag group of weirdos who saw a lonely stand-offish guy and said "hey, let's be friends!" and didn't even wait for him to answer. he saw them being serious and calculated and he saw them being ridiculous and extremely stupid, he saw their mistrust to outsiders and their loyalty to each other, he made spells with them and paid a visit to their hot tub, he ate their stale pastries and drank their hot chocolate mixed with whiskey, he was welcomed amongst them and in their wonderful home, both in xhorhas before they even found out what he had done and in the tower when they already knew - and then, he saw them mourning their loss, defeated and helpless, and he, a person who believed there were things more important than whole nations, let alone just one life, couldn't help but share the pain they felt. a pure display of compassion from someone who detached himself from it, who didn't believe he could grow into a better person capable of it again, but became one nonetheless without even realising it

[endiness]

it's not like henry cavill hasn't ever spoken out against his fans, either. he was perfectly capable of doing so when it came to defending his gf.

but yeah, meanwhile he somehow couldn't ever say anything against the racist, sexist, and homophobic attacks his co-workers were facing since the very beginning of the show that's only gotten increasingly worse as time has gone on? along with the general hatred and vitriol thrown at the show and everyone involved? (except for himself, of course.) which he absolutely contributed to and helped to embolden in the first place due to the pr campaign he ran in s2 to paint himself as this huge defender of the books and advocate for them while acting like lauren wasn't and all in order to cover up how he was the one actually responsible for a lot of the deviations to the books such as cutting geralt's lines and when the thing he was actually mad about was that the show was sticking to the source material by heavily revolving around women as women are very important in the books and help drive the plot forward in massive ways?

and it's not like he would've been unaware of the hatred and vitriol and toxicity taking place in the fandom, either, as by his own admission, he is in online spaces and forums and reading everyone's comments:

"I’m on all the Reddit forums. I’m reading all the reviews. I’m literally trying to get everyone’s information. Some of it is not useful, and other criticisms are incredibly useful. I take it all in, and I look forward to bringing it even closer and closer to Sapkowski’s writing. I think any of those criticisms, they often lie in things like I was saying—we don’t have the advantage of a long involved conversation or dialogue with Geralt, so they are criticisms which I think I was prepared for. So for me, it’s about seeing that, understanding it, and working out how I can do my job better within the framework provided, [how to] appease and make those people feel comfortable that I do actually understand this character—and love this character just as much as they do."

"As a source for information, it’s really helpful for me to see what everyone’s saying, what everyone’s thinking, and to see how much my thinking falls in line with whichever side of that spectrum it is and whether I’m doing the wrong thing, for example, by campaigning hard for the book Geralt to exist or whether I’m doing the right thing."

yet despite that, the thing that he wanted to address with the press and to the fanbase and what his main concern was *checks notes* pushing an image of himself as a defender of the books and geralt's characterization and male characters in general (as if women being prominent in the show somehow came at the expense of the men and as if the prominence of women somehow goes against the books when it's completely in line with them.) whilst virtually never taking any responsibility for how he's the one who fucked up geralt's characterization. (out of 50+ s2 interviews, cavill only admits to any culpability in geralt's mischaracterization in 3 out of those 50+ interviews — all of which happened during interviews or con panels that were over 5+ minutes long and/or took place in foreign press which are all less likely to be picked up and reported on by other news outlets and seen by the fandom.) lying the whole time about why he cut geralt's lines by trying to act like geralt was never originally written as being as verbose as he is in the books in the first place (we know via lauren that geralt was, in fact, written as being as verbose as he is in the books since the pilot episode), acting like he was somehow inspired by doug cockle's voice performance (he was cutting geralt's lines since the pilot episode and filming for the show started in late oct/early nov 2018 but he didn't start doing the "geralt voice" until jan 2019), blaming geralt's lack of dialogue on yennefer and ciri's prominence (yennefer and ciri's scenes were the ones that were cut in s1, btw), and acting like the lines he was cutting weren't really that important so it didn't really matter that he was cutting them anyway (we know via joey that he would often have to improvise and take henry's lines just in order to move the plot along.) and throwing lauren under the bus. (for something that he fucked up in the first place. and because he was mad that the show heavily focuses on women.)

so, like, yeah. i will assume the worst of cavill 'cause that's what i've been shown by him. 🤷‍♀️

I've been thinking about The Witcher books and tv show recently. Because half of the things that make Geralt seem cool and edgy in the show just don't exist in the books.

In the show he's always so stoic. Most of his exposition has to be told by side characters implying things and you just have to gage his reaction to decide if it's true or not. In the books however, he gives a full lore dump to anyone who's remotely nice to him.

Random Character: So how've you been?

Show Geralt: Hmmmm.... 😒 😔 😒...

Book Geralt: Terrible actually, thank you for asking. Monster hunting is dying out and I have zero transferable skills. Yennifer's left me again and Jaskier's off god knows where. Overall I suppose it could be worse, but that's the life or a Witcher. Also, my perfectly good leather jacket got ruined in a fight the day after I bought it :(

[ananke-xiii]

[averlym]

ghostwriter (their grandma would tell them she'd lose half her soul)

[katierosefun]

okay so now that i’ve officially finished watching leverage i just want to say that maybe i’m obsessed with this show on multiple levels and something about how it hits so many itches in that it’s about found family and it’s about fucking over bad, rich guys (no billionaire bootlicking in this show! and i fucking love it) and it’s also about how sometimes the bad guys are the only good guys you get and it’s also about how we are all stronger together it’s about how at the start of this show, we have all of these characters who are largely used to working alone and being alone and yet the show concludes that ultimately, we are better when we are together and by being together, we might be able to leave something behind that is bigger and brighter for the next people in our generation and no man is an island and no person is meant to beat goliath on their own or whatever

[papaya-inspiration]

The question that immediately popped into my head upon reading this premise was "Okay, so how does she get along with the 71st virgin?"

I think the most interesting thing to me in the premise is the exploration of the female relationships here. You have so many female characters running around, it would be a huge missed opportunity not to use that for something. Especially because, at it's core, the protagonist's situation sounds incredible boring. You could almost turn this into an absurdist story, where you have all these women sitting around with their assigned purpose to wait on this Man, who can't possibly have time to interact with all of them. So what do they fill their time with, stuck as they are in another person's paradise? How do they entertain themselves? What relationships do the women form with each other--and then how do those relationships bend and shift on the rare occasions that the Man actually does show up and give one of them attention?

This also gives a great chance to explore the various bullet points you outlined above about Lessons on Purpose, because you can give some of the mutually exclusive ones to different female characters who "escape" the story, using each to explore a diferent application of the theme.

There's also a nice feminist angle to it, where there's this dream world that was explicitly created For A Man, yet our window into gives all the interesting narrative attention not only to a single woman and her relationship with that man, but to the collection of women and their relationships with each other. I like that expanding this pitch from just the 72nd Virgin to the 72nd Virgin and Some of Her Friends means that we can explore relationships not just between the girl and the Man, but also between the girl and her community. (I think community is an important aspect of many discussions on finding purpose!) That's an angle that really appeals to me.

Pitchposting: The 72nd Virgin

Pitchposting is when I have a somewhat developed idea I'm committing to never putting much more work into, freeing it to a good home.

I've always thought that 72 virgins was just like ... a lot. I'm an introvert with low social needs and a fair bit of social anxiety, and the proper number of friends for me was like three or four close ones. And if you're in it for the sex, that still seems like too many women to me, even if there's some meaningful variation between these women.

But this is our premise: some guy goes to the afterlife, and there are lots and lots of women waiting for him to fulfill a supposed masculine fantasy, and our protagonist is the woman who is at the bottom of the rankings. She has her own room, her life is fine, but she just never sees the guy she was "meant for" and simply has no other purpose to her life.

This is interesting to me. It's got meat. It's about having a clear assigned purpose in life and that purpose being kind of pointless or lacking. Our protagonist is the backup to the backup to the backup etc., or a tool that's used once every few years, or a park that no one has the time to visit.

This is a risky sort of protagonist, the kind that is just ... sort of an aimless loser. The way to combat a lack of agency is with competence, and maybe that competence can be in other areas that are worthless-to-her, but it's still a book that would, by its nature, be about someone who is at the bottom. You could write a story about this protagonist somehow clawing her way to the top of the pile, but ... eh. Trying to win some man's approval by besting other women is also not a story that I find very interesting.

Instead, I think this story is sort of "one person's utopia is another's dystopia", the Utopia Incompleteness Theorem, except that we're not railing against the utopia itself (maybe), we're railing against being a cog in someone else's utopia. That might make a good title: "Someone Else's Utopia" or "Someone Else's Heaven".

So what kinds of things would I want to explore? What are the beats that interest me?

It's a scattering of scenes. A long table that seats 72, and our protagonist way at the end of it. Our protagonist talking with her friends about their date nights, feeling lonely and bitter about it. Trying to occupy herself with something that she doesn't care about because it's something to do. After a hundred years, finally a date with The Male, only to find it ... awful? Unfulfilling? Fulfilling, but not enough to sustain for another hundred years?

And I think the only place to go from there is one of two directions: escape or revolt.

Revolt would be a story that comes with the revelation that this is not a system which was built for the women, it was a system built for The Male, which is true, but it's not any great revelation for the reader, and I think would be a suitable ending only if we're leaning into a feminist allegory.

Escape is more interesting, less about the society and more about the self. If the story is an allegory, what's the meaning of going beyond the walls? What is behind the walls? This then becomes a whole different story, one that's been unrooted, and I think there's a version where we don't even dwell on the time within the paradise prison, the breakout happens in chapter 1.

If the story is structured so that's not the ending, then you'd want to tie in more Lessons on Purpose. Here are some sketches:

Our protagonist finds herself a New Purpose, but still one where she's subordinate to someone else. She's got more to do, but it's still incomplete, and eventually doesn't suit her because it doesn't come from within.

Our protagonist finds a New Purpose that's not subordinate, but which was placed in front of her by someone manipulating and leading her for some reason. She finds this unfulfilling.

Our protagonist finds a New Purpose that places someone below her, in the style of cycle of abuse, but once she realizes she's done a role reversal, has a revelation that this is not what she wants, even if she was personally happy.

I don't think I would do all of these, but this is how I like to structure a story, with variations on the thematic core. Eventually we can give our protagonist a happy ending, some kind of peace, but I'm not sure that I've solved the problems of listlessness and lack of purpose for myself. (Which is obviously what I find enticing about the idea in the first place, I guess.)

There's some version of this story that's stripped from its original root. Is it important that it's a supposedly subservient woman in a male fantasy? I don't know. I guess not, or not entirely, though there are things that I like about that in terms of what we get from the reading. If you make it the 72nd man in a woman's paradise, or the 72nd man in a man's paradise ... no, I think there are elements of female socialization in play, an expectation that a woman will subsume herself to a man, and those are the things that give the concept some much-needed meat. I also don't think the sex stuff is particularly important, but being salacious does help to sell a story, and sex is an expression of intimacy, and intimacy is what our protagonist wants (or thinks she wants).

I think this story calls to me, but is also not the kind of thing that people would jump to read, particularly because no matter how much I roll the pitch over in my head it sounds like a wet blanket. I like wet blankets, but I'm in a minority position.

So if you do decide to write this, if there's something in what I've said here that calls to you, my only request is that you tell me about it after you have something worth sharing.

[theimpalatales]

James Acaster || Comedians

Buy me a ☕️