no line can ever top 'when a man has been fucked he wants to know who's cock has been in him!!!' and i think it's time we accept that
taylor price
Keni
Show & Tell

pixel skylines

izzy's playlists!
$LAYYYTER
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Color Me Curious
One Nice Bug Per Day
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year

Game Changer & Make Some Noise
Today's Document
almost home
NASA

Love Begins

bliss lane
No title available
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
YOU ARE THE REASON
Cookie Run:Kingdom Official!
seen from Costa Rica
seen from Brazil
seen from Colombia

seen from Mexico
seen from Germany

seen from Venezuela
seen from Georgia

seen from Finland
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Indonesia
seen from Vietnam
seen from Canada
seen from Ireland
seen from Mexico
seen from Iraq
seen from Poland

seen from United States
seen from Argentina

seen from United States
seen from India
@seaofgriefs
no line can ever top 'when a man has been fucked he wants to know who's cock has been in him!!!' and i think it's time we accept that
Black Sails and Art Figures Part 1/?
nothing but respect for MY lady macbeth
“Queer people rarely get to see themselves represented in historical narratives, let alone represented positively. But on Black Sails, the 18th century was full of queer characters, and their stories mattered. Their lives were riveting and their choices determined the fate of the world. These characters and stories were revolutionary for a period show, let alone TV that aims for a serious and prestigious tone. If anything should be the legacy Black Sails, it should be us demanding better from the rest of television.”
— ’Black Sails’ Depicts the Untold Story of Queer Pirates
jack rackham serves as quartermaster and plays it like a shakespearean fool and i will never shut up about it
A Max sketch. Fountain pen on vellum.
I keep encountering the argument that Black Sails argues that love is important even though it is not enough, and I just don’t think that’s accurate. I know the show ends with the failure of the revolution due to the way Silver approaches whatever love he has for Flint and Madi, but I don’t believe the show intends for that to mean that love is not enough. Rather, I think that we see in Flint the very idea that love is the only way that a revolution can succeed.
This excerpt from “From Algiers, for Marcha: The Cuban Revolution Today,” a collection of works by Che Guevara, explains what I mean:
At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality. Perhaps it is one of the great dramas of the leader that he or she must combine a passionate spirit with a cold intelligence and make painful decisions without flinching. Our vanguard revolutionaries must idealize this love of the people, of the most sacred causes, and make it one and indivisible. They cannot descend, with small doses of daily affection, to the level where ordinary people put their love into practice.
The leaders of the revolution have children just beginning to talk, who are not learning to say “daddy”; their wives, too, must be part of the general sacrifice of their lives in order to take the revolution to its destiny. The circle of their friends is limited strictly to the circle of comrades in the revolution. There is no life outside of it.
In these circumstances one must have a large dose of humanity, a large dose of a sense of justice and truth in order to avoid dogmatic extremes, cold scholasticism, or an isolation from the masses. We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity is transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force.
The revolutionary, the ideological motor force of the revolution within the party, is consumed by this uninterrupted activity that comes to an end only with death, unless the construction of socialism is accomplished on a world scale. If one’s revolutionary zeal is blunted when the most urgent tasks have been accomplished on a local scale and one forgets about proletarian internationalism, the revolution one leads will cease to be a driving force and sink into a comfortable drowsiness that imperialism, our irreconcilable enemy, will utilize to gain ground. Proletarian internationalism is a duty, but it is also a revolutionary necessity. This is the way we educate our people.
In essence, revolution is doomed the moment it ceases to be guided by love. Thus, love is the only thing that is enough. It is the thing that animates everything else in life. Black Sails is tragic in its ending not because Silver loved Flint and Madi too much but because he didn’t love them enough.
This is a fantastic quote and I do think that it applies to the show, but personally I don't think it's Flint that represents this. I think it's Madi.
The argument in the forest is about the conflict between an extreme commitment to gloryseeking/revolution (Flint) and an extreme commitment to homecoming/comfort (Silver). I read Flint's position in this scene as the kind of "dogmatic extreme" that Guevera talks about.
All of Flint's arguments are framed in terms of the political/ideological, and all of Silver's come from a personal/emotional perspective. They both make strong arguments, but ultimately they are both wrong because there is no balance to their worldviews.
I think this is the point of the ambiguous ending - it avoids painting one or the other as morally superior. If they'd shown Silver saving Flint, it would feel like the show was validating Silver's perspective/decision. If they'd shown Silver killing Flint, it would feel like the show was trying to force you to see him and his motivations as villainous. With the ambiguous ending, the audience has to decide whose arguments were more compelling, who was more correct.
I think they frame Max's approach as the most pragmatic, given the circumstances. She prioritizes herself and her loved ones while still trying to affect positive change where she can. Her choice in the end doesn't come with the implication that she will be miserable in the future, unlike Silver's.
And if Max is the better version of Silver's homecoming, I think Madi is the better version of Flint's gloryseeking/revolution. She pursues the war out of genuine love for her community. I don't think this is true of Flint. Even at the end, he treats the individuals on his crew as expendable.
Madi is so committed to the war because to her, leadership means being responsible to the "chorus of voices" before her. The revolution fails because Silver cannot understand that for Madi, the politcal is personal.
I think the fact that Madi is framed as one of the few (only?) moral compasses on the show implies that she is what a true, moral revolution looks like.
So I was talking with a friend today about my rash of Charles Vane apologist reblogs mostly from @twinsunstwink and my knowledge on this rewatch that he is, apparently, the most disliked character in the fandom.
I DEFINITELY get this. He is the one we see onscreen committing, what i would argue, is the most heinous onscreen act with regard to what Max is put through. I am never going to argue with anyone who doesn’t like him, his being propped up as a martyr, or can’t continue watching the show because of how that violence is portrayed so early on. I always understood it as the writers leaning on prestige TV tropes (competing with GOT) and then realizing they couldn’t have their romantic lead be this terrible a person.
I will fully admit Vane has the least interesting arc, even though it’s very personally meaningful to me for reasons. And that he never quite moves beyond being the character that is there to keep the 18 to 35 year old dudebro demographic happy. I am totally dazzled by If Bad Then Why Hot and also by only having seen Zach McGowan in a slapstick comedy role before watching Black Sails and being impressed with his range. I also was not radicalized when the show started and wasn’t thinking as critically about media so I was consuming his actions towards Max in a more passive way. This is the kind of thing pirates did. It’s a genre convention, and on I went.
But I have just seen this meta by @seaofgriefs about how, in Season One, everyone is acting according to preconceived notions of the pirate story and are slowly given more subtle characterization. In this framework, Vane is the raping pillaging villain. He is repeatedly referred to as an animal by Eleanor and Flint. His actions towards Max show him to be so. But a less competent viewer, as I was, might just take it as “well this is accurate and this kind of sexual violence is a big part of prestige TV.” Like I said, I definitely get viewers who don’t want to look past that. I am only 90 percent sold on the intentionality of this character expansion. But it makes Season One an easier sell. Maybe the writers did just realize this was a fucked up move. But maybe they used that pushback in a way that benefited the writing for the whole.
But it got me thinking it’s only after he attempts to aid in Max’s escape and realizes he can’t stop the violence he set in motion that he begins thinking about his past and goes to face the man who enslaved him. We see this as being a result of wanting to reassert power over Eleanor. But those scenes when he returns to the island have a heavy overtone of him having experienced sexual violence to me. When he returns to Nassau in power as a result of that coup, he tells Jack he won’t kill him and Anne because “I am a little less concerned about perception than I used to be.”
His perception, his notions of “a proper pirate” and his toxic masculinity motivate his method of punishing Max. But what if, once he realizes he cannot stop the situation, he sees what he has done to her as a mirror of what he underwent? It would certainly be better if he freed her in the way Anne feels bound to. But what if shame for her as well as being shamed by Eleanor motivates his return to face his abuser and move forward?
I am not saying any of this to let him off the hook. A true redemption arc would involve him asking Max how he can make amends. But it is a read that possibly integrates his Season One actions into the rest of his arc.
So I understand that most people here dislike Vane because they associate him with what happens to Max, and that's valid (although Rackham is willing to let her stay on the beach to keep the crew on their side, and most people let him off the hook for that).
But I think the point of Vane is that he is a representation of absolute freedom. I don't think he enjoys what happens to her at all. He actually tries to save Max before that scene; it's his crew that does what they do.
I also understand why people hold him responsible for the actions of his crew. But fundamentally, Vane does not believe its his job or his right to police what other people do. The violence and chaos of his crew is a reminder of the drawbacks of his ideology of total, unadulterated anarchy.
Flint and Eleanor refer to him as an animal because they are both actively seeking to bring order to Nassau in the beginning. That's what the conflict around the fort is about. Flint wants order, Vane wants chaos, and Eleanor is split between the two. Its not until Flint stops trying to work with England (for good reason) that Charles Vane is willing to be his ally .
I'm sure part of the reason the dude bros love him is because he's cool and violent (especially after 205, when they stop projecting themselves onto Flint). But more charitably, he's popular with them because he has a very simple personal code of honor, and is almost always true to it (even when it has terrible consequences - the mess in Charlestown is another example).
It makes sense to me that in a story full of morally grey, conflicted characters, people latch on to the one "pure" (black and white) ideology. Its simplicity is applealing and makes it easy to root for. He reminds me a little bit of Omar from the Wire, and how people reacted to him. Although, for me, this makes him the least interesting of the major characters (I like 'em messy).
Charles Vane, his ideology, and the violence that comes with it, is the purest expression of piracy. That's why it makes so much sense to me that he's the one to die in 309.
Historically, Charles Vane was a notoriously violent pirate (you see this in Jack's library conversation). I think what they did with his character is an interesting way to stay true to that, while adding nuance beyond "complete, unrepentant monster." And considering his backstory, I can understand why he has the beliefs he does, even if I don't agree with them morally. Just my two cents though. I get why many don't like him.
Also every other show is like "show don't tell", and yeah Black Sails does it too a bit, but i love how they don't shy away from just simple telling a story. A story about a story filled with a lot of smaller stories etc. I can't formulate my thoughts, but yeah, Black Sails good.
Yes! I think what makes this so effective is that they usually give us backstories after/during a major character defining decision. Like they show us enough about the characters to piece together what's motivating them by ourselves, and only then do you get an explanation for why they are the way they are.
Flint is the most obvious example of this, but we learn about Max's backstory after she chooses to stay in Rogers' Nassau. Billy's story is after he backs Flint over Dufresne. Anne's is after she has a breakdown over being abandoned by Jack, and Jack's story is after he refuses to turn over the cache. Eleanor talks about her childhood right before she tries to leave the island. Madi discusses her childhood with Eleanor after she decides to trust Flint (although I wish we'd gotten more from her).
They don't use stories to replace indirect characterization - the stories are there to contextualize their choices. So by the time we hear them, we're already interested in learning more about where they come from. I think they got a lot better at this after the 1st season (*ahem* Vane).
And also, the writing and acting is just good enough to support that kind of dialogue-heavy scene. And yes, stories within stories within stories.
black sails is like. a story is true a story is untrue. the narrative is sentient, the narrative is dead. you cannot change anything about it, you cant move it, you cant change the fact that the story people tell is the story people tell whether its true or not, forever. and at the same time again thats what makes it alive and immovable; something that can be shaped by everyone but owned by no one. and then you're supposed to be normal about it
@black sails fandom pspspspsps
I can't stop. Now I'm thinking about how similar Black Sails' approach to history is to the way it approaches Treasure Island.
Just like with the historical record, it doesn't limit itself to being perfectly faithful to Treasure Island. It avoids setting a precedent where every minor discrepancy becomes a flaw.
Just like the historical record, events are grounded in and recall the shape of the book, but are distinct enough to frame Treasure Island as yet another distortion of pirate history. It uses these differences deliberately, to call its own source text into question. The differences are a feature, not a bug.
And they take this theme of narrative ambiguity and weave into the story by creating an ensemble of morally ambiguous characters. Which means you can choose to follow any major character, and watch the story change depending on who you're following, who you relate to.
It's a show about the subjectivity and ambiguity of stories/history told through a collection of ambiguous, subjective perspectives. I can't.
When you go to read Treasure Island, everyone is now a potentially unreliable narrator (including RLS himself). The novel itself now feels like an unreliable distortion of whatever truly happened 20 years after the show ends. Just like the historical record now feels like an unreliable distortion of the real, forgotten history.
Again, I can't name one other TV adaptation that deconstructs its source texts like this. That finds a balance between "this has to line up perfectly" and "we're doing whatever we want" and then makes a point out of that space at every opportunity. Its themes are just so perfectly tied to its structure, its form, its genre(s). Its so good it makes me angry.
I'm still on this historical genre thing. Like the process of watching the show IS the process of having your assumptions about pirates and history proven wrong.
The characters in Season 1 play on a lot of historical action and pirate tropes. Flint seems like a "badass" captain, Eleanor seems like a girl boss, Billy is the naive newbie, Vane is the "savage" villain, Rackham is a slippery sidekick, Anne is silent but deadly, etc. This could just be a product of weak writing. Certainly not all of the characters are completely fleshed out in the beginning.
But all of these characters are given at least some nuance early on: the badass goes too far in his violence, the girlboss is secretly insecure, the naive one lies to the crew, the villain is genuinely heartbroken, Jack and Anne are surprisingly tender with each other. But I didn't really see these details until at least the second viewing.
The first time around, these nuances seemed like discrepancies rather than intentional. I dismissed them the first time. I think the tone really encouraged me to watch it uncharitably. The gratuitous nudity and slapstick humor undercut the more serious moments. When the characters seemed tropey, I assumed there was nothing more to them. I didn't give the writers enough credit to believe that depth would be added along the way.
Instead, they took these seemingly flat characters and then added layer after layer of complexity, without contradicting what came before. There are moments for each character that defied my expectations about them so much that it forced me to reasses them, and the show as a whole. Its only when you have the context of their entire arcs that you can return to S1 and recognize that what you saw was just the tip of the iceberg.
I think this is the reason I liked S1 so much better on rewatch. Its far from my favorite, but it feels like I'm seeing pieces of a much larger puzzle. You can't fully appreciate it until you know what the complete picture looks like. Even though literally the first two scenes tell you that there is more to this world than you assume (the scary pirates joking around after the raid).
Despite the flaws in S1, the way they took what they had and capitalized on it is incredible. It elevates its first season in retrospect. I don't think it would have had the same impact if they had done a more abrupt pivot in S2. Instead, they gradually add complexity. At the same time, the tone shifts to become more and more like a historical epic, something encourages you to notice how literary the writing is.
Whether or not it's what the writers set out to do in the beginning, the show first presents and then systematically deconstructs popular assumptions about history, pirates, civilization and the frontier. It weaponizes the preconceived notions that you are projecting onto the show against you. That's why the characters are continually surprising, even when they've heavily foreshadowed their true natures.
And that's why Flint's line about how they will "be defined by their histories" and "distorted to fit into their narrative" hits me so hard every time. We KNOW its true because that's precisely how we entered the show. Its only by the end that you fully realize how tragic that is.
Okay, so like everyone else I have Feelings about Flint’s freedom in the darkness speech, and I think I’m finally gonna try to put some of it into words.
I remember the first time I watched it I was just - so incredibly moved, and it resonated so deeply in me… but I also felt like I recognized this? Like it was beautiful but also familiar, as though I already “knew” this and it was just being brought to my attention again.
A couple months ago I finally realized why.
Black Sails is incredible, and I think part of the reason this speech is so powerful to me is because of the ways it relates to Black Feminist theory, specifically Audre Lorde’s essay “Poetry is Not a Luxury” in the book Sister Outsider.
The essay talks about how darkness is not only not bad, but the source of power and possibility. How, through poetry, we can name the feelings and experiences that are within us and which resist the dominant systems and ideologies that oppress marginalized groups. How that which is not valued by european consciousness is what can be most valuable in that resistance.
These are some of the specific lines from Lorde’s essay and Flint’s speech that I feel were really deeply tied together (emphasis mine):
“These places of possibility within ourselves are dark because they are ancient and hidden; they have survived and grown strong through that darkness. Within these deep places, each one of us holds an incredible reserve of creativity and power, of unexamined and unrecorded emotion and feeling. The woman’s place of power within each of us is neither white nor surface; it is dark, it is ancient, and it is deep.” (Lorde)
“Because in the darkness, there be dragons. But it isn’t true. We can prove that it isn’t true. In the dark, there is discovery, there is possibility.” (Black Sails)
.
“[Poetry] is a vital necessity of our existence. It forms the quality of the light within which we predicate our hopes and dreams toward survival and change, first made into language, then into idea, then into more tangible action. Poetry is the way we help give name to the nameless so it can be thought.” (Lorde)
“In the dark, there is discovery, there is possibility. There is freedom in the dark, once someone has illuminated it.” (Black Sails)
This next section is long but I feel like really matches the speech in a lot of ways, so I broke it into three sections with the matching Black Sails sections underneath (emphasis mine):
.
“For within living structures defined by profit, by linear power, by institutional dehumanization, our feelings were not meant to survive. Kept around as unavoidable adjuncts or pleasant pastimes, feelings were expected to kneel to thought as women were expected to kneel to men.
“They paint the world full of shadows, and then tell their children to stay close to the light. Their light. Their reasons, their judgments.
But women have survived. As poets. And there are no new pains. We have felt them all already. We have hidden that fact in the same place where we have hidden our power.
Because in the darkness, there be dragons. But it isn’t true. We can prove that it isn’t true.
They surface in our dreams, and it is our dreams that point the way to freedom. Those dreams are made realizable through our poems that give us the strength and courage to see, to feel, to speak, and to dare.” (Lorde)
In the dark, there is discovery, there is possibility. There is freedom in the dark, once someone has illuminated it.” (Black Sails)
.
I just - when I first read this essay several years ago I remember feeling like I didn’t fully understand it, and yet being deeply moved by it, a visceral feeling in the bottom of my chest. Flint’s speech moved me in much the same way. We owe so much to Black Feminism, and although I doubt Jonathan Steinberg and Robert Levine were thinking of Audre Lorde when they wrote the speech, I find the connections between them really meaningful.
~
I didn’t find a way to connect this to Flint’s speech, but I think of this quote from “Poetry is Not a Luxury” a lot, and so I’ll leave it here (emphasis mine):
“The white fathers told us: I think, therefore I am. The Black mother within each of us - the poet - whispers in our dreams: I feel, therefore I can be free.” (Lorde)
.
You can read the essay here (I know it’s a genius.com link but I couldn’t find anything else that was accessible without some kind of university credentials). I also wrote a short post on Audre Lorde and this essay for this feminist research instagram account.
Thinking about how unique black sails is as a piece of historical fiction. Most "prestige period pieces" try to meticulously recreate a period. From the beginning, steinberg recognized that even if they wanted to do that, its impossible. The historical record is too incomplete, too biased.
But its not total historical fantasy either. Most major events on the show are based on historical precedent. (Spanish raids, the maroon wars, the free Pirate Republic, the universal pardons). Its not trying to be historically accurate; its trying to be historically plausible.
And then it shows you over and over and over how our idea of this history has been distorted by imperialist power structures.
By the end, its like this secret pocket that exists between the lines of the official historical record. As though it may well have been real, but we could never know because these are people who were never allowed to tell their own stories.
Am I crazy? Is there any other historical drama on TV that is about how history is constructed??
I just want to know what Steinberg was reading when he wrote this damn show.
The Maroon Wars happened in Jamaica, not the Bahamas. That's kind of my point. They're not trying to do a historically accurate depiction of that war. They used it as inspiration, but it's not the same war.
The Maroon Wars of Jamaica were just one of many attempted slave uprisings in the region. Groups of maroons existed all over the Caribbean, and central and South America. Cimarrones in Panama revolted, ending with a similar treaty with the Spanish. Haitian maroons had a failed uprising in 1757, led by a one-armed vodou priest named François Mackandal. They had a successful slave rebellion in 1791, defeating napoleon's forces and becoming the first decolonized country in the world (and then got fucked over by the West because of it).
There is so much incredible history from that time period that so few know about because of the exact same power structures that Black Sails explores.
The idea that there could have been another attempted uprising in the Bahamas, similar to Jamaica, that got forgotten by history seems very plausible to me.
I'm not an expert by any means, though. just very interested in caribbean history.
Thinking about how unique black sails is as a piece of historical fiction. Most "prestige period pieces" try to meticulously recreate a period. From the beginning, steinberg recognized that even if they wanted to do that, its impossible. The historical record is too incomplete, too biased.
But its not total historical fantasy either. Most major events on the show are based on historical precedent. (Spanish raids, the maroon wars, the free Pirate Republic, the universal pardons). Its not trying to be historically accurate; its trying to be historically plausible.
And then it shows you over and over and over how our idea of this history has been distorted by imperialist power structures.
By the end, its like this secret pocket that exists between the lines of the official historical record. As though it may well have been real, but we could never know because these are people who were never allowed to tell their own stories.
Am I crazy? Is there any other historical drama on TV that is about how history is constructed??
I just want to know what Steinberg was reading when he wrote this damn show.
when someone refers to black sails as the Gay Pirate Show i get intensely irritated bc it is not the gay pirate show it is an artistic exploration of marginalization of ALL KINDS its about gayness its about womanhood its about poverty its about RACE it is about how the colonial order reinforces itself through narrative and the silencing of marginalized voices/stories. but when someone refers to our flag means death as the Gay Pirate Show im like no the fuck it is not. know your herstory.