Glandular Fever

I rant about books and shows I like and, occasionaly, driving. Sometimes I might post silly song lyrics. I love birds and snakes and chemistry and sci-fi, so such things might pop up from time to time.

[glandularfever]

I‘m not sure if it’s intentional or not, but there’s a line in the PHM book (when Grace is marvelling at the beauty of planet Adrian) that is so fucking funny to read if you know how he ended up on the ship.

For some context, this is in the chapter that comes right after we learn that he’s only good at EVAs because he was being used to test the spacesuit’s capability for EVA astrophage sampling, not because he had astronaut training. So you get that bombshell which is immediately followed by,

“aw man I wish I could remember the beautiful view of Earth from when I was AWAKE and PRESENT for the launch of the Hail Mary :) at which time I was presumably PRESENT and AWAKE enough to watch, am I right guys? Did you catch that? I said I’m sure glad that I was PRESENT and AWAK-”

[glandularfever]

I always feel like an asshole for thinking it, but I do actually sometimes find the “yuri/yaoification (and whatever the straight version is),” of every single strong relationship in popular media, platonic or otherwise, quite frustrating.

Like, listen. I’m a huge Star Trek nerd (TOS, no less), and I love all of the gorgeous art of Spirk that I see, all of the great fanfic, etc. If Paramount decided to canonise it out of the blue tomorrow in either SNW or some new pet project I would be shocked but not displeased. But at the same time - I LOVE that they have a relationship that is unique and strong and goes beyond the bounds of a regular friendship (even a “best-friendship,” like the one they share with Bones). Not to say you shouldn’t ship them or that they don’t have chemistry - you can and they do, and there’s a lot of strong evidence that at least some writers on the team at the time wished to allude to something… different from a friendship/more romantic (if not Gene Rodenberry himself).

I just think that friendship is so undervalued as a concept by fans and fandoms. Again, not that shipping shouldn’t exist - it definitely should, I just don’t think that people should treat a close, intimate bond as irrefutable evidence that a couple should 100% ultimately undoubtedly be together. (I also get that a lot of shipping isn’t done by people who want their ships to be canon, necessarily, just by people who think a dynamic is cool and compelling and that’s awesome, keep doing what you’re doing, I get it and I appreciate it). Let me reiterate - I love Spirk!! I think it’s such a sweet dynamic. But I love them as both romantic and platonic.

I don’t want one thing to stop, necessarily, I just want more of the other.

It’s why I think the popularity of Strattland and Grocky and Grockdrian in the phm fandom rubbed me the wrong way at first, because I was so excited by the notion of a piece of media focused solely on friendship. Like again again again, dgm, the art you guys make is cute as Hell and I see how compelling the dynamic is. I just think that regardless of whether or not a character is aro/ace/aroace, they should also be recognised for their beautiful friendships.

We live in a time where there is so much social discontent and such a lack of cohesion. We’re all pretty lonely, and it’s so important to remember the beauty of all types of love, however complicated or messy, whoever they’re between.

The only thing I’m actively against in shipping culture is the fetishisation of queer relationships that a lot of straight people (and some queer people) put out. That shit is gross!! But is not what I’m talking about here.

[dogpuppy]

[glandularfever]

Yep

[glandularfever]

I’ve not traditionally been one to be involved in fandom discussion or discourse (my blog would beg to differ, but it’s only existed for just under two months now, so this is a new experience for me). I’m also not one to really become “attached” to or inspired by fictional characters. I’ll enjoy a piece of media and its themes, think that the characters and their traits are interesting or that their designs are cool, relationships are intriguing etc, and then move on after a few months of hyper-focusing on the media not the characters, despite how much I might enjoy analysing their motives. Eva Stratt is the first character I have EVER considered buying a mini-poster of or having merch of somewhere in my room. I don’t do merch or character art, as cool as it might look. And I’ve been inspired by dialogue and such before but rarely by a whole character 😭😭

It’s just that total commitment to saving Earth, no matter what it might do to her, no matter how it might make people see her. Ughhh.

I also love rocky, he’s da real rock (+ Grace too he’s awesome).

[glandularfever]

When I first heard about Grocky I thought that people had made an Eridian version of Grock or Grok or whatever that weird twitter AI is caller 😭

[glandularfever]

In German, there is a phrase “Ich glaube, ich spinne,” which is usually translated in English as, “I think, I spider,” but as a saying basically means “I think I’m going crazy/about to lose it.” Now, “spinne,” in this context is actually being used like spinnt/spinnen as in, “spinning” like spiralling, but the spelling is still the same as “spinne” (spider 🕷️🕷️).

So I think that the TRUE tragedy of Project Hail Mary (movie) is that Eva Stratt, a German woman, wasn’t the one sent into space alone with man-made amnesia, possibly convinced that she’s losing her mind, to make first contact with the rock-spider-alien.

(it’s also a play on “I think, therefore I am,” which is amusing in the context of figuring out that Eridians are intelligent beings and/or that Rocky lost his mind after being alone on his ship for 46 years. “Es glaubt, es spinne.” = “it thinks, therefore it is spider” but also, “oh mein Gott it is losing its mind.”)

something to consider for the Stratt-meets-Adrian AUs

[glandularfever]

I really love the fact that Grace doesn’t start out as a hero at the beginning of the story. From Stratt’s perspective, he’s almost a villain. As much as she “betrayed,” him by putting him on that ship, he betrayed her by sacrificing humanity, and the life of all of the children he claims to care for, so that he specifically can try to live out his life in full. The whole movie is his redemption arc! What’s even cooler is that it’s one he undergoes without his memories fully intact, meaning he thinks he completed it before leaving - and not a redemption arc, but a hero’s journey! To Grace’s mind he’d already committed to the big heroic sacrifice by going to space knowing he would die.

His true hero’s journey/redemption arc in space remains incomplete when he risks his life to gather the Adrian taumoeba. Again, it’s an act of great bravery - but not true, full bravery. The bravery of sacrifice. He’s already committed himself to a suicide mission, death isn’t a big fear factor here, you could almost argue he’s motivated both by a desire to save Earth + Erid *and* by the sunk cost fallacy, its far far too late for him to back out. Even knowing Rocky’s fuel could potentially get him home - that doesn’t matter if he doesn’t get the sample, he’d still die, just slowly and painfully of starvation and *maybe* at home.

Grace’s true “redemption,” comes when he turns around to save Rocky *with* the memories of his fear and cowardice, knowing that he’s giving up returning to a home that *can* be saved, and choosing to be brave - truly brave, not for himself, but for Rocky (he’s found somebody to be brave for, as Yáo suggests, at the beginning of the film). It’s also brilliant because it shows that beneath his fear Grace always has been a good person, he just needed and extra kick to be brave enough to do good even if it is to his own detriment. Being good wasn’t the issue - we know he’s good, that he can be brave because of it, I just don’t think that Grace fully realised that before the end of phm. Like I said, he’s not motivated purely by the sunk cost fallacy or being stuck between a rock(y) and a hard place. He genuinely wants to save Earth and Erid, he wants to honour Yáo and Ilyukhina, he wants to help this alien that is all alone and from a different star system. Even on Earth, he was willing to follow Stratt into saving the world. But he is also a bit of a coward - and he is most definitely proud.

Pride and cowardice go hand in hand - I don’t mean that they are his only or even defining traits, but for Grace I think they are strong traits that he is both aware and deeply ashamed of. I think he needed to make choices he made in space without his memories to prove to himself that he’s a good person, despite what his flaws have lead him to believe, before he could be a brave person.

Redemption is not a common arc for a main character at all - especially one that isn’t actually a, “villain,” but is instead a good man being redeemed for making a very *human* selfish decision, but a selfish decision nonetheless. Suchhhhhh a cool film and idea for a plot I can’t wait to read the book.

[glandularfever]

I think something that a lot of discourse around good omens 3 misses, and something that I’m not sure I’ve managed to impart well in my own critiques - is that the whole concept of free will is ineffable. Whatever you argue is technically correct. That’s the whole reason they’re able to get out of the mess of going against the great plan at the airbase - Beelzebub and Gabriel/Metatron (depending on whether it’s book or show canon) can’t actually argue that what happened wasn’t a part of the great plan. What matters first and foremost is that it was freedom of choice, Adam chose not to end the world and he was able to stand by that. Regardless of whether or not he’s a pawn in a greater game of chess or solitaire, demons and angels ultimately have no real say over Adam or humanity.

I personally believe that this means they do have free will, and that the ineffability of it is both a narrative device to make you think about what you’ve read AND a tongue-in-cheek prod at the un-falsifiable-ness of religion.

That’s why it’s so important that God never shows up - you’re not quite meant to be sure about it one way or another, and you’re certainly not meant to be given an ultimatum (loss of choice). That’s neither ineffable nor particularly clever.

[glandularfever]

Went on a date with my GAY girlfriend today and drove home in my GAY car and said hi to my GAY dog and looked outside to find a fairly regular rainbow

[glandularfever]

Writing female characters who are “strong,” and “stoic,” as a function of just being strong characters vs as a result of possessing uniquely “male” traits always feels like such a fine line to me. On the one hand it’s a trap I fall into somewhat often a) because I’ve grown up around women like that and b) because I’m fairly masc myself, so writing about women who are more overtly feminine doesn’t come incredibly naturally to me.

But it’s a huge issue with modern media - the idea that in order for a woman to be on par with a man she has to meet society’s expectation for the baseline “masculine,” traits you need to be strong.

it’s also an issue because I think a lot of the traits associated with being male/masculine are not unique to that gender-role but are ascribed to it because men (cis men specifically) have historically been the only social class perceived as being “strong,” outside of the “strong matriarch,” archetype but that’s rooted in more gender role nonsense around motherhood.

And THEN there’s the issue of: not all women are feminine at all! This isn’t necessarily a positive or negative character trait. But in fiction it’s something that is so difficult to represent, although that can be balanced out by just… having more than one woman in your cast, and at the very least more than one TYPE of woman.

This is also why a lot of modern male characters are celebrated for possessing femininity that female characters might be ridiculed for or boxed in by. This is seen as a clever subversion of gender roles, because it’s not something that the men are trapped by. So much female representation has been marred by sexist under and often overtones that many modern “subversions,” are usually those that end up reinforcing negative stereotypes around femininity, and trapping the women they’re representing in a space between the real world and the fictional ideal that built them.

Most of the men and women in my writing act in quite similar ways, outside of their own personal quirks, but I really want to try to push myself to include some more traditionally “feminine,” qualities for all of them, because I want femininity to be something that can be associated with strength. And even then - not all characters need to be strong to be worthwhile, we see too many “cool,” unflappable, unstoppable characters nowadays it’s nice to see normal-ish people in fantastical situations for once.

My point relates more to those, “tough,” female characters, the ones who might start out as an attempt to be progressive but end up as just another gimmick.

[glandularfever]

Not to prattle on or anything, but it does strike me as odd that the more traditionally, “feminine,” lead in Good Omens is the one who is stripped of a great deal of agency towards the end, and constantly reminded of the fact that his choice to try and save humanity by changing what he perceived to be the most powerful force in the universe from the inside was foolish and naive. Naive? Perhaps, but not without reason. I will never stop being angry about the fact that they make show-Aziraphale “stupid,” towards the end (s2 and 3). He’s hardly a character at all - moreso a vessel for Crowley’s angst. What a waste of a perfectly interesting character - two perfectly interesting characters, Flanderised almost beyond recognition. Soft does not mean stupid, or helpless, or weak. Soft just means… soft.

[glandularfever]

The idea of Aziraphale and Crowley being turned into humans at the end of the show would likely feel more satisfying if they weren’t *already* human in the ways that matter the most. It’s a completely redundant change or, “metamorphosis.” The trope of metamorphosis in much traditional folklore and mythology comes from the idea that the individual who has been “changed,” is being forced to learn a perspective either about the life of a creature they have been oppressing, or the moral integrity and/or corruption that it represents. In a lot of Greek mythology specifically, it is also used to represent similar divine punishment (whether or not this is justified) or protection, but even then I don’t think that that fits the narrative the Good Omens TV show had been setting up. Beauty and the Beast, the Frog Prince, Metamorphosis (Kafka, not a fairytale but still fits and carries similar themes), Arachne, Galanthis, Io, Lycaon, Children of Lir, etc.

In European folklore (beauty and the beast, the frog prince) characters often change to learn a lesson that typically involves humility, chastity or charity. I would argue that Crowley and Aziraphale, through their time on Earth, have already undergone such a transformation. Sure they’ve learnt to, “sin,” (or at least Aziraphale has), but largely they have learnt to love and appreciate the world around them, with less arrogance than those above and below. Here they’ve (somewhat) learnt humility, they both demonstrate charity at the airbase towards Adam and humanity writ large in avoiding the apocalypse, and I don’t really believe that chastity is something either one of them has ever worried about. These actions are all a product of their exposure to humanity - it has, as written in the book, made them more human and thus allowed them to act in more legitimately compassionate and, “good,” ways. They have undergone metamorphosis.

Even if analysed from the perspective of Hell with their “sinning,” this still works - after they defy Heaven at the airbase they live forevermore amongst mortal men in sin as a “punishment,” for this rebellion, an association which has already made Crowley better at tempting and Aziraphale more gluttonous and slothful. These are not necessarily contradictory results either, as where the book differs from folklore morality is that the main “lesson,” that A and C are taught is to be more human, which includes all of humanity’s “good,” and “bad” traits. Again, they have undergone a metamorphosis that has changed them to better represent the “lowly,” creatures that they were (unintentionally) forced to live amongst by Heaven and Hell. So, From both a Heavenly and Hellish lense they can be argued to have “changed,” for the better - which is the beauty of the message of the book and its satirical commentary on politics and human nature.

Which all goes to say - they don’t need to fully “become,” human by the end of the show, because that defeats the point of them learning this, “lesson.” By which I mean they’ve already *learnt it.* You could argue that it’s the final stage of the metamorphosis - letting go of their divine power and becoming fully human, after 6000 years of “readying,” themselves, but that doesn’t work unless they retain all of their memories, because otherwise that completely wipes the lesson itself from their mind! The idea of them meeting and becoming human (and that it’s implied that they find each other in “every universe”) to me speaks more of the Greek divine-punishment angle, rather than a satisfying or “sweet” ending.

Arachne, a weaver, is turned into a giant spider because she dares to challenge Athena’s weaving prowess. Galanthis is turned into a weasel by Hera for facilitating the birth of Heracles and attempting to save his human mother. They are both examples of human characters who are not explicitly morally “wrong,” in their conduct - their only crime is defying the Gods. This is somewhat reflected in the ending of Go3 - Crowley and Aziraphale challenge God’s plan and as such are disintegrated and turned into humans, living out a similar story over-and-over again across universes, yet unable to save their original universe as a reminder that nothing, not even and angel and a demon, can defy divinity and come out unscathed. The issue is, this ending is portrayed to a degree as more of a bittersweet tragedy, or in some cases a triumph, than a true tragedy.

Certain legitimately “bittersweet,” tragedies such as the Children of Lir and Io feature human characters being turned into animals (“lesser creatures”) for protection. The animal itself specifically correlates to the moral of the story and the moral character/narrative purpose of the individuals - swans for the innocence, nobility and beauty of Lir’s children, and a cow for the inversion of Io’s beauty and her role as Zeus’s consort (I’m not as familiar with the story so forgive that lacklustre analysis, but you get the gist).

One could argue that A and C being turned into humans is a similar form of divine, “protection,” their celestial/occult love being so strong that it is literally etched into the fabric of every new universe, but I don’t think it works either (or sends a very strong message). In both Children of Lir and Io - those who undergo metamorphosis do so as a result of either divine power beyond their control or as a last resort against evil. They have no agency, to the point where they quite literally lose their humanity and human free will as a result of the machinations of OUTSIDE FORCES, which contradicts the message of good omens the book and s1 of the show.

In s2 and s3 of Good Omens, some of their more “human,” characteristics are dialled down - especially in s3, where both of them are almost completely isolated from humanity and are its *sole* protectors in the final hour. But this isn’t done intentionally. Or rather it is - but not for any effective narrative-serving purpose. It’s the result of rushed production and a show that should never have been extended past its first season without a clear, structured story. Post s1, Azriaphale and Crowley are at once de-humanised in their own duo-bubble, and then shown to still be perfectly capable of making human-decisions without human-influence. This is done for the “drama,” to make their relationship feel fragile and exciting, as opposed to worn-in and known, and to put them at the centre of the show’s universe so that the audience has a titular couple to follow.

The problem with this is that it forgets the actual human element of humanity - that to be human is something that BOTH Crowley and Aziraphale have to *learn* to become, and that as a result they aren’t all that separate from. Showing them un-learning their lessons from s1, and indicating that a lot of their more “human” traits developed as a result of *each other* rather than *actual people* makes it seem like they never actually learnt a lesson on humanity, from humans, at all. After s1, it feels as though retroactively there was no true metamorphosis before they are turned fully human (they don’t once consult humans about what to do about the second coming, which you might think was something they should have learnt to do after s1, humans hardly have any influence in the story’s outcome), even though the audience was strung along to believe that there was (what we do see in s1, Maggie and Nina’s storyline) - so the final, “true,” metamorphosis STILL doesn’t feel earned!

This means that, ultimately, changing them into humans at the end of go3 served no purpose in terms of playing into the “lessons,” they had to learn about being more human because a) they had already learnt that lesson in s1, and b) erasing their memories means that, even as a final act of ultimate human-learning, it doesn’t make sense as they have no memories of what they’re supposed to be learning in the first place. Neither does it strictly meet the requirements to be a metamorphic tragedy or a means of divine protection, as both of these tropes go against a) the messaging and earlier progress of both the book and s1 and b) the way in which the ending was framed.

[glandularfever]

Was pleased this year that with just a couple years of adulthood under my belt I’d apparently balanced the Three Adult Humors of: Job (Moniy), Romantic Partner (Honiy), and Hobbies (Foniy). Unfortunately the sinister and nefarious beast Werklyfecohmitment toils ceaselessly to strip me of all three.

[glandularfever]

I think it’s quite important for people to consider the role of Heaven in Good Omens as not simply a side that is, “just as bad as Hell,” when considering Aziraphale’s character.

Because while it’s repeatedly inferred that Heaven IS just as bad as Hell in their disregard for humanity and their rigid definition of what biblical, “good,” is - the way in which they operate is not always inherently “bad,” either. Their ultimate plan for Armageddon and second coming might involve the total destruction of humanity - but in the meantime, the general notion of spreading peace and good will among the masses is a pretty difficult ideology to refute, no? If we look at the direct inspiration for the (admittedly loose/subtle) representation of Heaven in the book, it can be assumed that it is largely a stand in for capitalist Western powers (specifically the US) during the Cold War, and the intense/zealous beliefs of modern fundamentalist Christians. Hell acts in opposition to this force as a representation of Communist powers (Russia) during the Cold War and, quite literally, Hell. The insidious thing about all of the highly morally questionable (horrendous) things that the US has done over the last century, is that it’s also done a lot of good. Heading the UN, miraculous medical development, a nation that (at least 50 years ago) was a leading force in the establishment of the Western Democratic World Order that, while certainly not perfect, was (and in some cases is) still predicated on trying to do good. While the nebulously evil perception of “communism oooh scary” from the time (and today) is not an accurate representation of communism itself, Communist dictatorships such as Russia were and are pretty objectively, well, “bad.” Not in their totality - but given the position Russia was in economically, on the global scale it’s activity was more related to competing with the US for geopolitical resources than furthering itself or its people on as wide a scale as the US was able. While fascinating academic discourse and development was occurring in Russia at the time, it was also a dictatorship, and much of the progress being made was belied by this fact.

Obviously there’s a lot more complexity that I’m not going to delve into in a good omens post - but the thing is, the US (like many other Western countries built on a history of imperialism and off the back of the slave-trade) has managed to get away with so much Bad Shit because it’s also done a lot of Good Shit that it has used to cover up the Bad Shit. That’s not to say the system doesn’t need a reboot - CLEARLY it does and it clearly did back in the Cold War, because funnily enough doing Good Shit DOESN’T erase the Bad Shit. Especially if you’re still actively doing it.

And if the, “good shit,” that the US and other Western nations have done might just happen to only really benefit themselves well… hey, at least someone’s benefitting from it, right? (Heaven and ultimate Armageddon) But it can be hard to see the forest from the trees, and also hard to completely divorce yourself from an ideology or set of principles related to a nation that you thought was doing good, and in some ways has done good. Or at least, that’s the side of it you’ve grown up with.

In the same vein, just because the Russian government was more obvious in their Bad Shit, it did not mean (and does not mean) that the average Russian citizen is inherently evil.

Similarly, one of the reasons walking away from any Christian demonisation can be difficult - is that despite all of the Bad Shit that can be interpreted from the bible and spread by Bad People using religion as their excuse… there’s also a lot of Good Shit. Love thy neighbour (unless they fall into a specific group of people we don’t like), Pray for the sick and injured, Do Good (whatever that means), Lead a life of discipline, Be grateful, Be kind, etc etc etc. While a lot of religions, especially those that fall under the Abrahamic umbrella, have been used as a tool for control and Bad, faith itself is not an inherently Bad thing to have. Kind people will interpret the word of a kind God, just as cruel people will interpret the word of a cruel one.

So it can be hard, no matter all of the bad, to walk away from a religion that ALSO preaches peace and love (not matter how hypocritically). A major point of Aziraphale’s character is that while his “grumpiness,” is his own trait that has blossomed as a result of his time amongst humanity - so is his true, genuine kindness, divorced from Heaven’s more superficial divine kindness. These facets of himself are separate from Heaven - but I think his kindness is actually something that simultaneously strengthens his faith in Heaven’s purpose AND gives him the impetus to doubt it.

Aziraphale has his own sense of righteous justice (I talk about this a lot more in a different post so I won’t get into it here), but ultimately he stands against Heaven and Hell to preserve a humanity he’s come to love - for his gluttony and his greed, and his KINDNESS. But before this, why would a creature so kind want to totally question the motives of a creator and a Heavenly body that ostensibly wants the same things as him? And that, given that he’s never given them a reason to, has never turned its divine wrath on him specifically?

You can rationalise why humans suffer - he does so himself, when he describes to Crowley the “benefits,” of social inequity being that a person born in the most dire circumstances has the most brilliant chance to prove themself! In the book it’s presented a little more complexly than the show - Aziraphale isn’t necessarily saying that the suffering itself is good, but that it gives the individual suffering a good old chance to bring themselves by the bootlaces and show the world what-for!

Obviously this isn’t exactly a morally sound way to look at the world, but that’s the distanced, Heavenly perspective on it that he is able to “logically” maintain so long as it isn’t in direct opposition to his own personal values - because he believes that his personal values ARE Heaven’s values (by and large). Aziraphale only seriously questions Heaven when he is directly presented with either suffering (actually having to kill Adam himself, the end of the whole world, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc) or what he perceives as superfluous/overtly hypocritical (the design of the human airway, for one).

Aziraphale is kind, he is neurotic and vaguely guilty at all times, but he is also shrewd. This is why he comes to question Heaven, when confronted with both its hypocrisy and his own. You can see this in his conflict over whether to contract the Metatron or Crowley over Adam’s location. His knee-jerk reaction is to contact Heaven - not necessarily because of an all-encompassing blind faith, but because of the last dredges of hope he holds that he and Heaven are both truly working for, “good,” despite its ruthless nature. Which he immediately and OPENLY regrets when the Metatron comes down and disabuses him of that notion.

It’s “easier,” in a sense for Crowley to question both Heaven and Hell - because he hasn’t had the privilege of benefiting from Heaven’s literal good graces, whereas Aziraphale HAS. But it’s not only Aziraphale’s Heavenly privilege that makes him put more trust in Heaven than Crowley has in Hell (he’s a demon, he’s not supposed to trust anyone!), it’s the fact that this Heavenly good favour has actually allowed him to do good.

As relatively unimpressive as he is at “thwarting evil,” Aziraphale is clearly fond of using miracles to wipe away human pain (just as much as Crowley secretly is). And while Crowley is actively stopped from expressing the “better parts,” (the more human, kinder parts) of himself by both Heaven AND Hell, Heaven unintentionally enables Aziraphale’s kindness - and consequently unintentionally enables his humanity, which makes it more difficult for Aziraphale to disentangle the two.

So I don’t think that Aziraphale has any blind faith in Heaven - I think that he questions, and feels guilty for questioning because Heaven as a body, while committing numerous atrocities and restricting Aziraphale somewhat in “how,” he is supposed to help people, has never really stopped him from helping them, either (until Armageddon). In fact, it has often “helped,” him, which means that Aziraphael mixes up his own nature with that of the Angel he is meant to be on Heaven’s accord. I think this is true for both the book and the show, but I think that generally Book Aziraphale is more aware of the Heaven-Humanity conundrum than Show Aziraphale, at least outwardly.

anyway. Just my thoughts.

[glandularfever]

Papa can you hear me? Papa are you therrre? I never see you anymore! Come out the door! It’s like you’ve gone awayyyy!

[glandularfever]

Also if I’m going ten OVER in the outer lane and actively overtaking fuckkk you if you’re driving up my bumper and DOUBLE fuck you if when I merge to let you overtake because you’re driving like an idiot, you MERGE WITH ME. Triple fuck you if I’m stuck behind a different idiot driving 10 under and you can clearly see them and you’re STILL driving up my bumper even though I can’t go any faster, short of causing a 10 car pile up by trying to squeeze past them through the shoulder which I’m sure would make your drive so much quicker you UTTER twat

[glandularfever]

I do have to say, as a queer person myself, the fetishisation of queer relationships in fandom spaces (especially those of cis gay men/gay men in general) has never sat right with me. From the age of 13 I’ve cringed back from the over-feminisation, over-sexualisation, infantilisation and objectification of two characters that occurs simply because they’re either canonically queer or because they, “might be gay.” I’m not even going to touch on the subject of treating REAL gay couples like this, but to put it simply: leave them alone, you freaks.

Only consuming media that includes borderline to full-blown gay porn isn’t healthy, nor is it healthy to expect every close same-sex OR opposite-sex relationship to end in romance/sex. Shipping is great, but not all of it is good/healthy, and just because you ship something doesn’t mean you should see it becoming canon as a given. I personally believe we need more close friendships in media in general, between women and men and woman-woman pairs especially! But we do also need more mainstream queer media - people can desire both, so I see where a lot of that push to see two main characters with lots of chemistry end up together romantically comes from. I’ve loved the influx of queer media over the past few years! Seeing myself and people like me represented on the big screen is beautiful, and I think it is very important that big mainstream TV shows have main queer couples who just happen to be queer, it normalises it and shows that there’s more to us than just the funny side character or being the token gay couple or the tragic ending. So yes, I understand why queer shipping is so prolific and it’s not a bad thing, it’s very sweet to see fandom spaces create beautiful stories based off of books or shows they love. It’s when they blur the line between fiction and reality, and when the love for representation becomes a fixation on the sexuality of the characters itself and on a very specific demographic of character that it rubs me the wrong way.

This being said - I don’t necessarily think it’s fetishisation to hold at least some desire to see two characters whose relationship has been built up as romantic for the past three seasons share a kiss. Did I particularly want to see Aziraphael and Crowley kiss? No, not really, not more than at most a peck on the cheek. But I do see how the lack of overt physical affection (barring the hand-kiss, which I did like and is about the most I believe they’d ever indulge in) might upset people. I do think that A and C have been and continue to be subject to fetishisation (twink Aziraphale… goodness gracious), but I don’t think that that should be the first accusation lobbed at people who are upset with the finale. Nor do I think people who wanted a kiss are fetishists, even if it’s not how I wanted the dynamic portrayed. Again - the way in which fandom spaces treat queer (and again, especially queer male-presenting relationships) is definitely something that needs to be discussed. Straight people who describe every queer relationship as yuri or yaoi and turn it into something vastly sexual or only a joke frustrate me to no end (I feel the same when queer people do it too, although they’re generally not the worst culprits). But it’s not a “gotcha,” catch-all umbrella to be applied to people who wanted to see some mild on-screen confirmation of an overtly queer romance in times such as these.