#subtweeting

[wormbraind]

lactose intolerant people have the survival instincts of a fucking hamster

[oklooneytunes]

"take a hint"

how about you communicate 🤔💭

[lunaphertalks]

(shippuden s9e498)

shino wearing his bandana in scull cap style because he truely is a side character

[wetchickenbreast]

it’s so joever

[moralitybog]

When I'm dying an excruciating death after being taken down by a predator, it sure makes me feel better when that predator says "Thank you so much for willingly sacrificing your life, just FYI our hunting practices are sustainable "

[teh-nos]

Bloody hell “Mickey the Idiot” and “Rickey” have aged badly.

[siristvantoth]

There is this rhetoric that pops up every so often in discussions of Les Mis and queerness that is like "Victor Hugo did all he could" to put queer characters in without being censored/thrown in prison(???)/other horrible fate.

In no way is this true and you are fooling yourself if you think it is. There were not sodomy laws in France at this time. Hugo wrote Les Mis in political exile and if he was going to be censored it would have been for political reasons and not because he wrote a gay character.

And while this is a historically inaccurate take, it's inaccurate from a literary point of view also. There are explicitly queer characters in texts by other authors of this period. Vautrin may be sort of an example of the Evil Gay trope but he is a well-known example. If you want positive 19th century queer Content, read Mademoiselle de Maupin. That actually did have significant repercussions on Gautier's career and could be said to be "doing all he could" without being censured too hard. Hugo by this point was a rockstar author. If he didn't put explicitly gay characters in Les Mis it's not because he couldn't, it's because he didn't want to. That is the plain and simple truth.

This concept bothers me so much because it's like people are so desperate to see queer representation where it isn't, they are ignoring or willfully ignorant of period representation by authors who were themselves representative. And that is not really a harmless act. Framing the queer experience that way actually makes it harder for queer people to see themselves in history and it pushes a false narrative about what queer lives were like before today. In fact it is really no different from the (largely himself fictional) "historian" Tumblr loves to hate on who views examples of same-sex intimacy and refuses to acknowledge that it could be gay/queer/not-straight/whatever term you want to use. And the fact that this fictional historian shows up on tumblr posts to declare Les Mis "straight", while the same kinds of people erase the fact that there is actual explicit queer representation in other works of this period (and frankly earlier periods too) is just really annoying.

In conclusion: read Mademoiselle de Maupin.

[aurora-inlights]

Saw someone word a money spell with 'Large amounts of money will pass though my hands' and I can tell they haven't been reading their lores.