not a mere device

Genndy is a hetero married man who made HIS characters (that you’re not entitled to deciding what happens to them) who are grown-ass adults that can make their own decisions become romantically involved and half of the fandom is just crying about how The Straights™ get everything they want and/or that Ashi is ruined…

…even tho Genndy planned this for a long time and even talked before bout how he wanted his main character to have a girl to travel with cos it’s something he dreamed about as a young boy and isn’t that was a lot of people do, who have OCs? they project themselves on them? was he not allowed to do that with his own OCs?

and like damn, Genndy’s probably just happy to let his most iconic character have a passionate and wholesome moment after nearly dying for the billionth time, but no it’s somehow an agenda of being homo/acephobic or something about how Ashi is only there as a trophy for hetero romance despite having an entire character arc built up and learning to trust someone after having been brainwashed her entire life - like who better for her to fall in love with but a man so positive and full of goodness, the one she was told was nothing but evil and must destroy???? on her journey to find Jack and learning more about the people he helped, how could she not become infatuated learning not only that everything she knew about him was completely wrong, but that he’s an actual legit nice person to admire the strength and bravery of? what’s rushed or forced about that?

if Ashi was a man yall just wouldn’t say a damn thing about her agency or how quickly they got together, and I think it speaks bigger volumes about you as a person if you’re reducing her to merely a romantic device trope only and ignoring how amazing she is and has been as a character who doesn’t need to be rescued like a damsel or that she needs a Dad to teach her like she needs to be infantilized lol

if you stop seeing her as an incredibly great woman just cos she fell for an incredibly great man that’s all on you and your issues lol

and yeah you can criticize and hate the ship all you want, but so much of your reasoning and logic is flawed and I’m allowed to criticize it too

but when!! will i!! see!! eclipsa!! queen!! of darkness!! again!!

I am legit still baffled that we have a hijabi Muslim teenager as a lead and in 8 episodes we have neither seen her go to the mosque once nor have we had a scene during Suhoor OR Iftar. There’s no taraweeh, there’s no POV where Sana gets to show her actual day to day. Our salat was used instead as a mere almost cheap visual device.
Are we really to believe the focus is on Sana when like this a huge part of every Muslim’s life and we’re not seeing even 10 seconds of it? Everyone wants to talk about how revolutionary this representation has been but honestly it really hasn’t? Like no one on here is wiser to Islam than before and more than that I feel it perpetuated more problems than solutions.
No, I don’t believe waiting until the end of the season to hastily tie up loose ends is good story telling or even realistic. Nor does it add gravitas or drama.
It just allows people to play into negative stereotypes and then excuse themselves by saying the show meant for you to be tricked like that. Umm, no.

If you're writing a d/Deaf or Hard of Hearing Character . . .
  • Deafness and being Hard of Hearing encompasses a wide range of hearing loss, and d/Deaf/HoH people communicate in different ways. Whether a person sees themselves as deaf or Hard of Hearing is a very individual thing. Being deaf does not mean you can hear no sound at all, and very few people have this level of hearing loss. The distinction between deaf and Deaf is that deafness is an audiological condition, while being Deaf is a cultural and personal identity based on shared experience, language, and history. Not all d/Deaf/HoH people know sign language, and may use a variety of methods to communicate, which may change given the situation or whether they are speaking to another d/Deaf/HoH person or a Hearing person.
  • Hearing aids and cochlear implants are not like “glasses for your ears.” For the vast majority of people who need vision correction, glasses or contacts can help them see just as well as people who don’t need correction. But hearing aids aren’t like glasses–magnification of a sound doesn’t work in the same way as magnification of an image. Cochlear implants can help someone with severe hearing loss hear, but the hearing these implants provide is completely different from what a Hearing person experiences. These devices merely help a person with hearing loss hear better than they could without them, and what that means varies quite a bit from person to person. In addition, not everyone gets much help from these devices, and many people are not good candidates for cochlear implants or find them controversial.
  • Hearing aids and cochlear implants do not make a d/Deaf/HoH person Hearing. As soon as the person takes out their hearing aids or other assistive device, the challenges associated with their hearing loss are just as they were before. People don’t generally wear their hearing aids or the outer portion of cochlear implants all the time. This could mean they only take them out to sleep and shower, or it could mean that they only wear them when they most need them. When a person is wearing them, they are still deaf/HoH, and will likely still experience problems associated with that.
  • Deaf and Hard of Hearing people often hear better in different situations, and hearing loss varies widely between d/Deaf/HoH people. People who are d/Deaf/HoH may hear better in small group situations, when their conversational partner is facing them, and may have trouble with certain frequencies of sound more than other frequencies. For example, they made have trouble understanding conversational speech because most of their hearing loss is high frequency, but be able to hear lower pitched sounds with less difficulty. Other factors that can impact a d/Deaf/HoH person’s ability to hear something include crowded places with lots of background noise and walking on narrow sidewalks where their conversational partner is walking in front of them and facing away. 
  • Lipreading isn’t easy or accurate. Lipreading can help a d/Deaf/HoH person understand what is being said, but it’s not easy and many people either cannot do it or aren’t that good at it. Lipreading works best when good lighting is available, the speaker enunciates clearly and does not mumble, and is facing the lipreader. Even people who are skilled at lipreading will still struggle with understanding what is being said, and have to use clues about context and word order to piece together speech. This can be exhausting to do constantly, and generally isn’t enough on it’s own. Not understanding what the people around you are saying can be very isolating.
  • Sign language isn’t a visual form of English, and there isn’t just one sign language. American Sign Language is not a a way to speak English with your hands. ASL has distinct rules that do not correspond to English grammar, and ASL does not correspond to the geographic locations where English is spoken. American Sign Language and British Sign Language are distinct, not mutually-intelligible languages, and there are many others around the globe. If your Deaf character grew up and lives in Russia, they probably use Russian Sign Language, not American.
  • You don’t need to write out the gestures and motions of a character speaking who’s speaking sign language. If your character is communicating in sign language, you may not be sure how to best transcribe what they are saying. Some people will translate the speech into English and italicize it to show that it is a translation. Some people will communicate the meaning of what was being said, rather than writing out any explicit dialogue. But trying to write out the actual physical gestures and adequately describe what a sign or string of signs looks like is just unwieldy and is rarely as clear as you think it is. Not only is this frustrating for actual users of the particular sign language, but most of the people reading your story are probably not going to be sign language users.
  • Avoid simultaneous communication in both vocal and signed language. Simultaneous communication, or sim com, is a system that people sometimes use, but it doesn’t actually make for very good communication. Hearing users of sim com will often forget to sign certain parts of what they are saying or will sign in the grammatical structure of the vocal language rather than the signed one, making their use of language inaccessible to the deaf/HoH person that they are trying to communicate with. Many deaf/HoH people cannot hear or struggle to hear vocal language, which means that they are getting no benefit from their conversational partner using both languages.

If you’re not already, here’s why you all should watch Sotus the Series:

QUALITY PLOT: It’s actually very close and true to the novel’s storyline, probably because the author herself was heavily involved in the making of the show as a member of the writing team and being involved of the casting process.

TALENT: All the actors are incredibly talented and truly bring life to the characters, maybe because they were handpicked by the novel’s author herself, maybe because they actually went through the Sotus system themselves in real life or maybe because the two protagonists actually have been friends and went to university together. There are many scenes were very little is said and very much is conveyed by subtle yet strong gestures or facial expressions. There is also a lot of chemistry between all the actors in all scenes.

CULTURAL VALUE: The way the Thai university’s SOTUS system is shown, explained and talked about in the show actually presents the audience with various points of view on the matter. It also gives a well rounded insight into traditional Thai college life as well as the problems and benefits that come with it. So, there’s actual educational and cultural value in it, without forcing any specific point of view onto the audience.

FEMALE REPRESENTATION: Even though it’s a boylove genre storyline, there are many female characters and every single one of them is well developed, positive, relatable and important to the story. There is no antagonism, no emotional limitation, no stereotyping, and no being used merely as a plot device. Every female character is respected and treated as an equal by all other characters. Of all the Thai TV shows that I’ve watched, this is the only show that did that. And, even though industrial engineering statistically is a male dominated profession and course of studies, this show presents the audience with a 50% female student body and university staff.

LGBT REPRESENTATION: Even though Thai media and culture commonly uses effeminate gay male characters for comic relief by ridiculing their manners and ways of speaking, this show never went there. Here, such a character is not only never made fun of, but also fully accepted to be an integral part of the main group of friends. By everybody. There is also a lesbian character, who (in contrast to the stereotypical Thai media representation) has an individual look and characterization and - most importantly - is never ostracized for her orientation by anybody. In addition, she’s actually made the “star” of the year, which would be similar to “prom queen” in Western terms.

REALISM AND RESPECT: While Thai TV commonly portrays love stories by heavily focusing on sexuality instead of emotional intimacy, and by either having the characters touch a lot but never kiss, or only fake kiss (lips not actually touching, actors freezing for several seconds in weird angles) as well as characters crossing personal and physical boundaries without consent, this show did the opposite. There is barely any intimate touching on this show and sexuality isn’t even discussed. There are two real kisses (as both actors decided the characters would benefit from realistic representation). Both kisses are essential to the storyline and they look much more genuine than anything I have ever seen on any other Thai TV show. Also, every single character’s boundaries and emotions are fully respected and considered valid throughout the whole story. By every other character.

Go watch it on the GMMTV YouTube channel, with the official English subtitles:

Here’s a link to the full playlist (so far there’s 12 episodes with official subs, further episodes will be added weekly - there will be 16 in total).

why isn’t noora a lesbian?

Noora has been lesbian-coded since the very first episode and many wlw, including myself, think of her as gay. In season 1, there was extra emphasis on the friendship between Eva and Noora that could definitely be seen as romantic in many senses. So why wasn’t she made a lesbian, and why was she pushed into the most awkward and unhealthy heterosexual relationship ever?

Skam, a seemingly progressive show in the portrayal of gay people, is following a trope that has been around since the earlier days of showing gay people on television and film. In older works, gay people weren’t allowed to have happy endings and would be punished for their depravity, often ending in death (see: Cruising, The 100). In more modern works, gay couples, especially wlw, will have their story obscured as a more mild version of this trope. (see: Bend it Like Beckham, Fried Green Tomatoes, The Color Purple). 

Skam has a history of queer-coding its female characters only to force them into awkward heterosexual relationships (Vagnus) but Noora’s stands to represent the biggest contrast between who she was in season 1 and who she is in later seasons. In season 1, the season she is the most lesbian-coded, she is independent, outspoken, and confident & she loves the girls around her and seems to mistrust men. by the end of season 2, she has compromised her morals, spends less time with her female friends, and is in a relationship with a man she seems afraid of. in season 4, she is barely a character anymore, used merely as a plot device, and is all but unrecognizable from who she was in season 1. it’s almost as though she was lesbian-coded only to be punished for it. now, almost as if to add insult to injury, they push her into the arms of the nearest man in order to create drama. 

Not only does Skam refuse to have canon wlw representation, but they code several of their characters as wlw only to push them into forced heterosexual relationships. Noora is the most extreme example of this, and the correlation between her girl-loving independent season 1 self and her timid, guy-obsessed self in season 4 seems to indicate that the more gay a female character seems, the more she will be punished.

I genuinely think Julie didn’t know what to do with Sana’s season. The only plot the revolves solely around her is a romantic plot, and that’s such an easy route to take. And everything else she’s involved in, it’s like she’s merely a plot device for bloody Noora to get a second season.

We get it, Julie, Noora is the reason you created Skam, but please, Sana isn’t getting the season she deserves. I get it, they have to conclude all the storylines and tie up loose ends, but way too much attention is being put on other characters. Isak for example had a season in which everything was focused on him, *but* we still learnt that Noora left Willhelm, Sana being on the receiving end of unconscious racism, Eva moving onto Chris, Vilde and Magnus etc etc… difference is, they didn’t have clips/texts dedicated to furthering those plots. They were in the background making subtle progression, where in you can witness it, but it’s not rammed down your throat.
Hulu's 'Harlots' challenges the typical TV depiction of prostitutes as nameless sidekicks or props
From the new Hulu series 'Harlots' to 'Game of Thrones,' 'The Knick,' 'Emerald City' and more, brothels have always been a TV staple
By Lorraine Ali

Faceless as they are, television’s ladies for hire have certainly multiplied. If you were to judge the female population based off their representation in the last decade’s programming alone, it would appear more like 4 out of 5 women sell sex for money, and they all happen to look like swimsuit models — just without the swimsuit.

You’ll find them in, to name just a few, “The Girlfriend Experience,” “Emerald City,” “Billions,” “Anger Management,” “Goliath,” “The Knick,” “Taboo,” “Sons of Anarchy,” “Ripper Street,” “Boardwalk Empire,” “True Detective,” “Training Day,” “Ray Donovan,” “House of Cards,” “Secret Diary of a Call Girl,” “Hawaii Five-0” and the various flavors of “Law & Order,” “CSI” and “NCIS.” Remember the HBO drinking game — take a shot every time they show a scene in the whorehouse or strip club? Audiences are still drunk.

And viewed through the male gaze of the hero, as they almost always are, the working women of TV are a fail-safe plot device. They’re the hooker with a heart of gold that he hopelessly falls for, the imperiled hooker he saves, the hooker he brazenly uses, the dead hooker who’s a clue in the case he must solve. They’re the perfect backdrop to help define his dilemma, and require almost no setup when it comes to staging those ubiquitous, hot sex scenes in unlikely places. And that’s when they are afforded the dignity of being a plot device as opposed to mere titillating window dressing.

But with “Harlots,” television’s favorite wallpaper now has its own show.

The Hulu series, which premieres Wednesday, doesn’t just visit the brothel, it lives there among the women of London’s 18th century sex trade. It’s their perspective that drives the narrative and, it turns out, prostitution looks a lot different through the eyes of a woman in the business. (A British co-production, the show airs two days earlier on ITV.)

“Harlots” is a frank depiction of women forced into the profession by poverty, class or birth, but not an entirely desperate one. The sex scenes here are neither titillating nor horrifying, gratuitously explicit or unnecessarily judgmental. They are simply a function of the job.

Bodices aren’t ripped in passion, but rather skirts lifted for the sake of practicality and time. The quickies in an alley are just that, quickies, and it’s onto the next John … or maybe a lunch break.

The women’s lives beyond these paid transactions is where the real story is.

The Wells family is building a small empire off their hard work. Margaret (Samantha Morton) owns and runs a brothel in a hardscrabble section of the city. She was born into this life: Her own mother sold her at age 10 for a pair of shoes. But she’s made the best of the hand she was dealt, and unlike most of the women in 1700s London, she is a small business owner. Now Margaret is pimping out her own daughters, Lucy (Eloise Smyth) and Charlotte (Jessica Brown Findlay).

Her appalling choice is not without guilt, but whatever maternal instincts she has are countered by her goal to raise enough money to buy a home in the upscale neighborhood of Soho.

“Money is a woman’s only power in this world,” says Margaret. “This city’s made of our flesh, every beam, every brick. We’ll have our piece of it.”

There is competition, however. Formidable madam Lydia Quigley (Lesley Manville), who runs a classier crosstown bordello in a more respectable part of London, is intent on destroying Margaret’s business. Their brilliant and ruthless tactics to undermine each other rival that of the competing agencies of “Mad Men.”

The eight-part series was influenced by “Harris’s List of Covent Garden Ladies,” a directory to London whoring written by patrons and pimps in the 1700s. The guide, published for nearly 40 years, was like a Yelp for sex trade customers that listed the specialties, talents and physical attributes of prostitutes in the highly trafficked area.

Created by Moira Buffini and Alison Newman, the show’s team of producers, directors and writers is largely female, which partially explains why “Harlots” is a fresh look at an age-old profession — and television trope.

The casting of Brown Findlay (formerly the feisty Lady Sybil of “Downton Abbey”) as the steely-eyed, calculating survivor Charlotte is a statement in itself. She moves among the powdered-wig upper crust with the confidence of a professional woman, which in contrast to the limited roles for ladies of that era, is empowering.

But “Harlots” is not a feminist proclamation that recasts the sex trade as something noble. It’s a series in which the prostitutes are treated by the show’s writers with the same levels of humanity and importance as the men who’ve historically used and defined them. Here, the Johns play a supporting role to the show’s real stars: complex, shrewd and conflicted women who, just like their customers, have ambitions and goals.

Semiotics in Fandom Texts

A brief lesson on media decoding for the Check Please! Fandom

Semiotics is the study of signs/symbols and their use/interpretation. It’s basically how is meaning is created and expressed. Stuart Hall, notably, had a preferred reading theory. 

There’s encoding and decoding in all media. The content creator (an artist, journalist, etc) makes a piece with an intended meaning. They encode a message into their work. It’s the job of the audience to take that piece and decode its meaning.

 Now, it’s not often that straight forward. It’s not just like you have an audio jack straight from the brain of the creator into your mind so you can download their exact intended message. You have things like ethnic, racial, regional and religious backgrounds. You have how old you are, the generation you were raised in, and  the kind of education (formal or otherwise) that you’ve received. Whether you’re nuerotypical or allisitic sometimes comes into play. What privileges, or lack thereof,  and experiences you carry with you heavily impact how you interpret media. And even when a creator comes out and says “this is exactly the lens through which I want you to see this piece,” that can still be ignored or disregarded. 

Hall broke down how an audience decodes meaning into three major categories: 

Dominant reading- you’ve hit the nail on the head. This is exactly how the creator intended you to consume this media. You figured out the message and have accepted it as such. 

Negotiated reading - you’ve taken the message, and there are parts of it that you accept. You’re negotiating your bias with how much you believe that the intended message is indeed the message. Perhaps you see how it could be interpreted differently, but you’ve chosen to accept your interpretation as THE message. 

Oppositional reading - you’ve basically rejected the entire message in favor of something more aligned with your beliefs. This is like when global warning deniers refuse to look at facts and figures because they’ve been conditioned to believe that “the science is still inconclusive”. (just one example, more on this later)

Typically, the way people read media messages is more on a spectrum. So I’ll be using qualifying terms such as “more”, “less”, “closer to” and “further from” in order to describe placement on this spectrum. 

Case Study: In Universe Meta Meta 

Keep reading


Some of my favourite expanded universe Master things:

  • Delgado!Master legitimately thinking he’s the same height as Three (Harvest of Time)
  • That time Cheetah!Ainley sat sipping a glass of wine while watching someone get eaten by jackals (Prime Time)
  • The fact that Crispy’s entire existence is Macqueen’s fault (The Two Masters)
  • Delgado trying to take over the world through a talent show (Hidden Talent)
  • That time Ainley tried (and failed) to form his own Velociraptor squad (A Town Called Eternity)
  • Delgado sending Three a postcard from the seaside saying, “Wish you were here!” (Fogbound)
  • The Master calling Professor Moriarty a “mere plot device” and then dumping him over the Reichenbach Falls (Character Assassin)
  • “The Magistrate [aka Master] had known the Doctor all his life, and although they’d had their differences in the past, it was clear that they loved one another.” (The Infinity Doctors)
  • That time the Master’s evil scheme failed, his TARDIS got stolen, his bootleg whiskey operation got shut down, he was on the run from gangsters, stuck out in the rain with no umbrella, and he suddenly remembered to his delight that he still had thirty dollars left—and then he got mugged a moment later (The Duke of Dominoes)
  • Crispy killing everyone before Macqueen had a chance to make puns about it (The Two Masters)
  • The existence of a Three/Delgado bodyswap story, and the fact that the only difference anyone noted in the Doctor’s behaviour after the Master secretly swapped places with him was how much nicer he seemed to be (The Switching)
  • Ainley using Masterman as an alias (The Time Savers)
  • That time Delgado gatecrashes the UNIT Christmas party to visit the Doctor (Christmas Truce)
  • Benny punching the Master in the face for trying to ruin her wedding (Happy Endings)
  • Ainley saying “my dear Doctor” no less than nine times in one short story (Birth of a Renegade)
  • That time Delgado and Three were both trying to bluff each other with holographic versions of themselves (The Man in the Ion Mask)
  • The Master and the Doctor being in a band together in the Academy—the Master played the drums (Deadly Reunion)
  • This

anonymous asked:

People already know that 2 big heroes in Shonen Jump like Ichigo & Naruto already married and have a kids. They're not marrying heroine of the series but female character who have a crush on them like Inoue & Hinata. And heroine of the series end up with one of their friends like Rukia/Renji and Sakura/Sasuke. If Oda want Luffy to end up with anyone,do you think he will married with Hancock who have a crush on him. Nami might be with Sanji or Zoro or other people who's not from their crew member

No, I don’t believe Luffy will end up with Hancock. Here’s why: 

Oda has made Luffy outright reject Hancock twice to shoot down any speculation that he would be interested in getting married to her. Now technically he is indebted to her for what she did for him, however he still doesn’t sugarcoat the rejection at all, not even a maybe later, or “I can’t right now”. 

Now why would this happen? Let’s think about it from a mangaka’s perspective, it’s pretty simple. This comical relationship he setup for plot purposes in a matter of chapters has no significant role on what’s going to happen EoS. So he has Luffy do what would be the easiest option to let the audience know that the joke’s over, it’s not happening at the end, by having him reject her clear cut. 

He originally did not plan for Hancock to be this kind of character. In interviews, editors have stated that Oda originally designed Hancock to be a ragged evil looking old woman with snakes. However, it would be harder for the audience to buy that she can ally with him later in the future, so he changed her appearance. He had no intention from the start this character would marry Luffy, as her original design basically ruled her out of marriage to a teenager. He did not plan accordingly for this as you can see, since he made Luffy not react to Hancock’s body in the bath. He even had to make an absurd excuse as to why he reacted to Nami but not Hancock just so millions of his fans don’t start believing that the main character is asexual. 

He needed Hancock to be an ally for Luffy simply to make the Impel Down break in more believable, but he tried to make it humorous at the same time, as One Piece is known for that. And now that it’s over, he has Luffy reject her to make it clear that it’s not happening and her role in the plot has been fulfilled.

TL;DR: Hancock is merely a plot device used and discarded for Ace/Impel Down. I never took this ship as a serious possibility.

Also, as for the “heroine” of Bleach, I think it’s debatable, I’ve heard that Orihime has been depicted and stated as the heroine of Bleach so I don’t think Bleach breaks the formula there, unlike Naruto. 


Titanic Parallels: Letting Go “pg. 30 vs pg. 90″ moments

“Pg.30″ The first time we hear the words, “let go” are when Rose exclaims, “No, stay where you are! I mean it, I’ll let go.” To which Jack responds, “No you wont.” It’s an audacious reply to someone attempting suicide, but in film world, it’s symbolic foreshadowing.

“Let go” has both literal and symbolic meanings. During her suicide attempt Rose threatens to let go of the railing if Jack comes any closer. The audience takes it more literally in this moment, without much thought to the symbolic meaning of it, as she would also be “letting go” of the life she desires to live. Despite her threat, he does approach her and she doesn’t let go. Moments later she slips and screams in peril; jolted in the present moment into realizing how valuable her life really is, she pleads with Jack to help her. Jack promises he wont let go. In so much, Jack is holding onto the value of Rose’s life (symbolically and literally on two occasions) from the moment he speaks to her, throughout the body, up until…

“Pg. 90″ Towards the end of the film, before Jack’s body gives into the icy waters, he places upon Rose the same responsibility he placed onto himself earlier in the film: for her to not let go of her life.

This time the audience takes it much more symbolically, despite it makes much more sense to be received as a literal meaning, given they are both inches from death in the freezing Atlantic Ocean. Jack makes his case by sacrificing his own life for hers, thus showing her exactly how much value he sees in her life. Alas, Rose literally let’s go of Jack in order to symbolically not let go of: the value of her life, and now, his with it.

Although many fans love to be mad at Rose for literally letting go of Jack, we have to remember that Rose kept her promise to him, and she never let go of fighting to lead the life she wanted. As hard as it may be, you can’t see Jack as just her love interest. If you do that, then I would argue you miss the primary emotional plot of the film: Rose’s journey to seeing that her life has value, and then fostering that value by making each day count. Jack Dawson is a literary device, a vehicle, if you will, to merely show Rose the value of her life. Once he does that, his journey is done. Leo makes it irresistibly hard for the audience not to fall in love with Jack, and ultimately we do; but it’s not Jack’s story. It’s the story of Rose realizing that her own life is valuable and can have meaning to it, so long as she never lets go of fighting for it.

anonymous asked:

Are the comedies really that gay, though? Even if some characters do feel attracted to someone from the same sex, at the end of the play they all get into heterosexual relationships, and their homoeroticism turns out to be a misunderstanding. Isn't it really just a comical device to laugh at these characters? The happy ending is that they get over their homosexual desire. I feel like they are really heterosexist.

That’s certainly one reading of the plays, and there are plenty of people who argue that there’s an inherently heterosexual agenda at play in which homosexuality is just a stage of adolescence one needs to get over in the process of maturity and in order to achieve matrimony. 

I personally don’t think there’s any textual reason to think that homosexual desire is presented as a joke though. I just can’t think of any instance of same-sex attraction where the comedy is in the attraction itself. The most overt instance of homoeroticism is probably Antonio in Twelfth Night, but I don’t see any reason why his expressions like ‘I do love thee so / That danger shall seem sport’ (2.1.42-3) or his ‘desire / More sharp than filed steel’ can be construed as funny. In fact, they’re remarkably sincere and heartfelt, as is his plight when he thinks that Sebastian is refusing to recognise him, which is nothing short of heartbreaking, even if the audience are made aware how the misunderstanding has arisen.

The main complicating factor is that the tradition of comedy Shakespeare writes in calls for a set of marriages at the end, and makes no space for homosexual relationships that can’t be celebrated through matrimony. It’s the form of comedy itself that’s heterosexist, not Shakespeare; he’s a lot more interesting than the conventions he’s working in. As I see it, there’s almost always a disjunction between the form of the play and the content when it comes to Shakespeare. As I’ve mentioned quite a few times before, Shakespeare has a tendency to problematise comedy marriage endings, and to highlight the unnaturalness of the convenient pairing off at the end.  After all, he chooses to put what we would call ‘gay’ people in his plays and doesn’t necessarily marry them off at the end. I think it’s significant, for instance, that the both Antonios remain alone and unmarried at the end of The Merchant of Venice and Twelfth Night. If homosexual love is always a mistake or a process of maturation for Shakespeare, then the logical thing to do would be to find partners for these aberrant individuals and diffuse the homoerotic sexual tension raised by the play. But in leaving some people out of the pairing off at the end, Shakespeare stages the fact that there are people who don’t fit into the kind of society that prioritises hetereosexual unions. It precisely highlights the fact that the happy ending depends on the repudiation and sidelining of people who don’t fit into the overall scheme, and it complicates that definition of ‘happy ending’. It also makes me think that you can’t entirely dismiss homosexuality in these plays as a ‘misunderstanding’ or ‘mistake’, given that some people remain ‘uncorrected’.

I would stop short of saying that the plays are ‘gay’ as such, but as I read it, the idea that Shakespeare is heterosexist confuses the form with the content and doesn’t make space for the subtleties of his treatment of certain characters. Anyway, it’s rather unlikely that a man who wrote 126 often highly sexual poems addressed to a young man would use same-sex attraction as a mere comic device.


Post 6x15…Killian makes it back to Storybrooke. Will Emma take him back?

Rated G

Read on AO3

“You come to me, Hook, and you LEAN on me and you TRUST me!”

“Emma, I…”

She was there again, in the middle of the street. All red leather jacket and anger, swinging a broadsword with every ounce of her might. Gideon was facing off against her, the glint of the ruby-hilted sword catching his eye in the moonlight. Killian tried to run but it was as if his feet were bound in an ever-deepening vat of quicksand. He reached for her, straining to take her away from the fight.

"Emma!” He pulled at his feet with all of his might, fighting against the forces which kept him from reaching her. In a final push he was free, but he was too late. He looked up to see her sinking to the ground, the light dimming from her usually-vibrant green eyes, run through with Gideon’s sword.

“No! Emma!”


The pirate sat up straight, swinging his hook violently until it met solid resistance. As he opened his eyes and shook his head, chest heaving. His shirt was damp with sweat, clinging to his chest. In front of him he saw his fellow Captain, Nemo, holding Killian’s left arm tightly, keeping the hook from piercing his throat by mere fractions of an inch.

“Killian,” the man warned, gazing into the younger Captain’s bright blue eyes, “are you quite alright?”

Finally regaining his bearings, Killian allowed his left arm to relax, falling down to the bed once Nemo released his grip.

“He killed her,” he muttered, “Gideon.”

“It was merely a nightmare,” Nemo reassured him, standing from where he sat on the edge of the bunk. Nemo turned and grasped Killian’s leather jacket from its nearby resting place, handing it over. “We’ve arrived in Storybrooke. Go find your Swan.”

Keep reading

I Wasn’t Stood Up | I.M x Reader

Originally posted by colorthekpop

  • characters: reader (gender neutral), im changkyun
  • genre: comedy, fluff
  • word count: 1800

Refusing to accept the fact that you’ve been stood up by your date, you dial their number to question why they have yet to meet up with you at the cafe you agreed to meet at. However, in your hasty attempt to make the phone call, you fail to notice the one mistake you make with the combination of digits you input.

You only come to realize the mistake you made when a certain boy named Changkyun picks up the phone instead.

Keep reading

We got lot a shit eh?

-We got Mutsuki to make Torso proud.

-We got Aura to try to steal Furuta’s biggest a-hole crown.

-We got Furuta and his 101 Nier style Dalmatians.

-We even got Uta back with his new cloning jutsu or mindcontrolling bs. Dafuq is with this guy getting overpowered this much??? 

-He also got mini character development. He’s lonely and does shit because of it. Aizen that you???

-Speaking of it,we got new Kaneki aka Cloneneki brought to you most likely by Uta Sōsuke. 

-Takizawa is alive.

-Kaneki got ulterior motives and is just using people around him for it.Great!

-We even got Maris Stella back.

In mean time ….

-Itori doesn’t even exists.

-Rize is but mere plot device that serves for plot instead of making appearance as she she should and getting her character development.

-No news on Eto.

But most of all…


How ‘Westworld’ Subverts The Madonna And The Whore Complex

The first episode of “Westworld” is a kind of endurance test in watching sexual violence against women.

We see a protagonist, Dolores (played by Evan Rachel Wood), experience one horrific day in a constant loop: after a peaceful trip into town she returns home to find her mother and father murdered. Her beau, Teddy, is killed right in front of her. She is dragged into a nearby barn, screaming, where she is raped offscreen. She’s forced to relive that trauma over and over again ― and we live it with her.

Before “Westworld” had even premiered on HBO, its pilot episode sparked criticism because of the general overabundance of sexual violence against women on the network, particularly on “Game of Thrones.” Critics wondered, was “Westworld,” like “Game of Thrones,” merely going to use the nudity and sexual violence of women as a gimmick, as a tool for shock value? Or was it going to delve deeper?

In August, during HBO’s TCA presentation, one of the show’s creators Lisa Joy responded to the concern. “Sexual violence is an issue we take seriously,” she said.

“[The show is] about exploring the crime, establishing the crime and the torment of the characters within this story and exploring their stories hopefully with dignity and depth.”

The problem that so many movies and TV shows run into, that “Game of Thrones” suffers from, is the fact that rape is so often used as a plot device, a way to move the story along. The aftermath of rape, the impact that it has on the inner world of a character, is rarely ― if ever ― truly unpacked.

Keep reading

I take it 612 is the trolls’ version of 413. There are 12 letters in every troll’s name, 12 player characters, and now 6:12 is the time on the doomsday clock.

At the time, it wouldn’t occur to you to wonder whether the device was directly responsible for the apocalypse, or merely served as its precisely calibrated harbinger. And it certainly wouldn’t occur to you to cast doubt on any perceived difference between those two things. 

It wouldn’t until later, when you better understood the game you were about to play. 

Causality is so screwed in this game that who can even tell anymore.