move over horoscopes this is the Hot New Personality Metric of 2017
any golden age musical: you’re a dancer, or you really wish you were a dancer. you’re not really involved in the shipping / character analysis aspects of fandom. you are either extraordinarily pretentious or very very chilled out, but either way you probably think you were born in the wrong decade
bandstand: you definitely think you were born in the wrong decade
hello dolly: you have a trademark Favourite Actress™ and you have probably argued with a falsettos fan at some point in the past month
war paint: you really like patti lupone
mainstream sondheim (into the woods, sweeney todd, etc): if you were a spice, you’d be flour. if you were a book, you’d be two books.
obscure sondheim: you have a working knowledge of music theory and you like to try and make objective value judgements of musicals based on this. you probably want to be a music director and you listen along to musicals with a piano and/or a copy of the score by your side. alternatively, you actually prefer a mainstream sondheim musical but you want to sound cultured
any german musical: much like the golden age musical fan, you’re either really chill or REALLY pretentious. you also care a lot about costume design
any show that’s basically only done for school productions: there’s a solid chance that you’re the kind of theatre kid everyone hates. either that or you’re very independent and don’t give a shit what anyone thinks, to a really admirable extent.
cats: you’re a furry, or you had a warrior cats phase, or you started liking it ironically but accidentally got really into it. you’re either an incredible dancer or the very thought of dancing strikes terror into your heart
any other lloyd webber musical: either you’re very committed to being ironic, or you’re chaotic evil. maybe both
les mis: you’re a little bit basic and you either embrace it or try way too hard to disguise it. you have no concept of liking things in moderation. you probably actually care about the west end
phantom of the opera: as above. you probably had a twilight phase, or used phantom as a substitute for a twilight phase. you also have really strong opinions about the design aspects of theatre
wicked: you do high school theatre. you are alittle bit too passionate about high school theatre.
next to normal: you’ve probably been in the online theatre fandom for a while and you sometimes forget it’s not 2012. aaron tveit was your first celebrity crush.
newsies: you’re incredibly good at picking out a single ensemble member at the start of a show and following their entire track for 2 and a half hours. you really wish you were a dancer
fun home: you’re a lesbian
ghost quartet: either your favourite musical is actually great comet but you’re scared of sounding too mainstream, or you manage to be really weird and effortlessly cool at the same time. you have a favourite cryptid and you definitely believe at least one conspiracy theory
great comet: you were in the les mis or hamilton fandoms at some point. you want to be a little bit edgier than you actually are, and you’re probably a little bit depressed. alternatively, you’re a mother with a crush on josh groban. you probably have strong opinions about the 2017 tonys.
falsettos: you definitely have strong opinions about the 2017 tonys.
hamilton: on the one hand, you’re not afraid of liking things once they start to be seen as overhyped, and that’s to be admired. on the other hand there’s at least a 50% chance that you’ve called thomas jefferson a sinnamon roll so uhh
in the heights: you probably also like hamilton, but you either love or despise the hamilton fandom.
the dear evan hansen / be more chill / heathers combo: you love making fanart and animatics make up the majority of your youtube recommendations. you also really love memes. you can sometimes be a little bit obnoxious but your heart is in the right place
the above combo plus hamilton: i’m scared of you.
feel free to reblog and add more but these are the main categories of Theatre Fan i have encountered here on tungle dot hell
come from away: you’re canadian and gay, probably not even from newfoundland, let alone gander, but you’re hyped about it all the same.
american idiot: you’re punk rock. you don’t like rules. you miss someone.
spring awakening: you’re a prestigious classic asshole.
deaf west spring awakening: you love good staging and choreography makes you nut.
waitress: you have good taste, both in women and in music.
an american in paris: you’re an aesthetic hoe
avenue q: be ashamed.
something rotten!: you would let christian borle [REDACTED] your [REDACTED] [REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED]. You’re the only one to ever make plans and get your friends together and appreciate some good comedy.
hairspray: you love some yourself
the book of mormon: You’re a jokester. You sing that annoying “hello” song at innoportune moments and make people wanna give you a swift right hook.
25th annual putnam county spelling bee: you’re the cutest theatre enthusiast around, so excited to be here and in with it. you’re perfect and beautiful, keep doing what you’re doing.
anastasia: you’re russian regality and appreciate some beautiful tunes and good lighting.
the above plus great comet: you’re the exploding brain meme of russian aesthetic.
rent: you’re gay. you’re depressed. you really love mimi.
amélie: you’re into art films. you probably took french before. you got in trouble in school for doodling or looking outside the window
jersey boys: you want to form a doo wop group but you hate group projects. you probably own a leather jacket
a bronx tale: this exchange has happened with you once: “but what about your dream?” “it’s not my dream, dad. it’s yours”. you like movies that star robert de niro
bonnie and clyde: you would rob a bank if you had the chance
the lightning thief: you were That Kid in middle school who wouldn’t shut up about mythology. you’re probably really fun, but you have a problem with authority
carrie: you have a hit list
This is so funny and accurate and I can’t stop laughing
me: chess is an extended metaphor for conventional masculinity that is revisited several times in both acts 1 & 2 of Falsettos (2016). Marvin expects several roles to be fulfilled by Whizzer– the domestic housewife to maintain convention, and the epitome of masculinity that Marvin is undeniably attracted to as a gay man and thus left his wife for. Whizzer wants none of these – is neither intellectually engaging nor willing or able to complete the chores Marvin expects of him because he loves fashion, sex, money. this flippancy, as well as his lavicious sex life outside of their relationship, is a point of tension between them, as well as Marvin’s continued attempts at constraining his boyfriend into being things he is not. the chess game towards the end of act one acts as a counterpart to “this had better come to a stop” wherein Whizzer’s ‘wifely’ duties were addressed (“check their hairlines, make the dinner and love me!”), and in this reprise of sorts (“clip the coupons, make the dinner and love it!”) Whizzer is expected to play chess, but not beat Marvin lest he loses the submissiveness that Marvin wants him to perform. when Whizzer says ‘let me win’ and Marvin agrees, Whizzer immediately acts like he is playing checkers and runs over the board while Marvin attempts to maintain some sense of order, highlighting their juxtaposed contexts. Whizzer wants to be thrilled, to be admired, to have fun where Marvin is weary and wants security, stability, a tight-knit family. in act two, Jason leaves the king on Whizzer’s grave, indicating that despite not being a conventional man and being flirty, lustful, and indulgent in fashion, while also showing weakness and vulnerability, he demonstrates the real values of masculinity, the ability to grow, the capacity to love, and courage in the face of adversity.
friend: I’ll raise you to racquetball being a major influence on the relationship between Marvin and Whizzer in act two because it is something that Whizzer excels at where Marvin cannot. it is an indication of character development that Marvin can handle defeat easily and, presumably, return to play despite knowing that he won’t win this time (‘winning is everything to me’). this is what makes ‘more racquetball’ so heartwrenching – the one thing Whizzer can do, the shoulders on which his masculinity is seated upon, his athleticism, has been ripped from him, leaving him open like an exposed nerve and without the ability to defend himself. Marvin rushes to his side, and where act one Marvin may have mocked him or told him to get up, Marvin acknowledges his pain and stoops down instead of pulling him up, showing a fundamental understanding of human relationships and demonstrates Marvin’s capacity to love and care for another even when they are not the pinnacle of both masculine charm and banausic femininity. Marvin’s love for Whizzer comes too late – they appreciate the best of one another and overcome their differences just in time for Whizzer to contract HIV+ and die of an AIDS-related illness.
These giant bumblebees have been handmade using the highest quality materials. They have cashmere velvet antennae, hand-dyed mohair legs for the authentic fuzzy-bee-leg look, and dense, soft, fake fur bodies stuffed so they are super cuddly.
Their legs are fully posable and you can also move their wings and antennae into different positions.
They come with a discrete loop in the thorax so you can hang them up to look like they’re flying!
Why did I decide to make giant bees? Well who wouldn’t love their own pet giant bee! I also want to raise awareness of the plight of pollinators through my work. Changes to agricultural practices means there are far fewer wildflowers than there used to be, meaning that many bumblebee species are struggling to survive.
Through the pollination of commercial crops such as tomatos, peas, apples and stawberries, insects contribute billions to the EU economy, not to mention that if any more pollinators go extinct it could mean we no longer see such variety on our supermarket shelves. Plants provide the base to a very complex food-chain, and if wildflowers and fruit cease to exist it’s easy to imagine how other wildlife will suffer as well.
Fortunately there are many organisations and people out there working to raise awareness and understanding of the bumblebee and honey bee. I own a 60 acre croft (a small agricultural unit in the Highlands of Scotland) which has an abundance of rare and ancient wildflowers on it. We work through grazing and management practices to make sure the meadow is kept rich for pollinators, which means it’s also good for our animals.
By buying this bee you are supporting my ongoing efforts to help save pollinators, as all that I earn from my art goes back into the croft, which is a haven for all wildlife. You can follow my croft blog at facebook.com/tighnaneun
I do offer layaway plans on the bees. Payment can be split fortnightly or monthly over up to six months (making it about $50usd a month). Contact me for more details and to enroll in this offer.
For a long while, Broadway has been considered somewhat of a haven for the LGBTQ+ community (the past few years, though, have been monumentally lacking). For this post, I’m making a list of LGBTQ+ representation currently on Broadway. This will not include fanon opinions or implied LGBTQ+ characters. I’m talking about characters who either say “I am LGBTQ+/not cis/not straight” outrightly or are seen/discussed as being in a romantic relationship with a same-gender character. I will also only be discussing musicals, as plays have very, very limited accessibility.
Shows that I have not seen before and/or do not have enough information/knowledge to confirm one way or another are labeled with a question mark. If you know about any LGBTQ+ representation in these shows, please reblog with that information, and I’ll update this post accordingly! Also, if I have missed or somehow misinterpreted any representation, please send me an ask, or something, just tell me, and I’ll make the appropriate changes!
Here we go! Happy pride!
A Bronx Tale – No.
Aladdin – None.
Amelié –?
Anastasia – No.
Bandstand –?
Beautiful: The Carole King Musical – Nope.
Cats – Nada.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory – No.
Chicago – None.
Come From Away – A lot of non-straight characters are in this show! Two of the most prevalent supporting characters are an interracial gay couple! Also, LGB (sadly, no transgender/nonbinary/or otherwise non-cis characters are ever mentioned) family members are mentioned by various other characters. No discussion of non-cis people, though, and all non-straight characters are supporting, not lead.
Dear Evan Hansen – :/// None.
Falsettos – The best! The greatest! The lead character is a Jewish gay man who is in love with another Jewish gay man! Also! An interracial lesbian couple!! The most representation of LGBTQ+ people on Broadway since Fun Home. (Still no non-cis people, though.)
Groundhog Day: The Musical – There is a very minor gay character in this show.
Hamilton – Noooope! (It’s here that I’ll remind you of this: “This will not include fanon opinions or implied LGBTQ+ characters. I’m talking about characters who either say “I am LGBTQ+/not cis/not straight” outrightly or are seen/discussed as being in a legitimate romantic relationship with a same-gender character.”)
Hello, Dolly! –?
In Transit – Yes! Two of the main characters are gay men in love, and the homophobia they face is mentioned a lot as well! I absolutely love this show, and it has wonderful representation all-around as well! (Thank you to @meepzer for pointing out that I forgot to mention it the first time around (I’ve been listened to this cast album on repeat for a month so I don’t know how I did that))
Kinky Boots – No. (Thesecondary main character, named Lola, is a self-described “drag queen”–which, of course, is not, under any circumstances, the same as a trans woman–who mostly uses she/her pronouns but identifies as a man and, if my memory is correct, is only attracted to women.)
Miss Saigon –?
Natasha, Pierre, and the Great Comet of 1812 – Kind of? Apparently, at one point, Dave Malloy may have confirmed Anatole to be bisexual, but this is never explicitly mentioned or confirmed in the show itself. Also, there is a lot of same-gender attraction seen in this show–i.e. women dancing with and kissing other women, men dancing with and kissing other men–specifically in the chorus, but no character is ever explicitly mentioned as being LGBTQ+.
On Your Feet! –?
School of Rock: The Musical – Yes! The parents of one of the main characters are gay men! BUT, this show has been criticized for a stereotypical portrayal of gay men 😦
Sunset Boulevard – Nope.
The Book of Mormon – There is a gay male supporting character who eventually overcomes his internalized homophobia and leads a self-accepting life.
The Lion King – No.
The Phantom of the Opera – Not at all.
Waitress – None.
War Paint –Yes! There is a gay male supporting character.
Wicked – Nope.
Simply put, there’s a lot of work to be done on Broadway, in relation to LGBTQ+ representation, as well as representation overall.
Now that Falsettos is no longer on Broadway, there are no explicitly lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or nonbinary characters in any musical on Broadway at this moment.
Every time someone brings up Rent, a musical that was last on Broadway nearly nine years ago, in this post, which is specifically about the musicals on Broadway in the year 2017, I just,,,, ://
I was cruising through the net, following the cold trail of one of the periodic “Is or is not Fanfic the Ultimate Literary Evil?” arguments that crop up regularly, and I’m now bursting to make a point that I never see made by fic defenders.
We’re all familiar with the normal defenses of fic: it’s done out of love, it’s training, it’s for fun. Those are all good and valid defenses!
But they miss something. They damn with faint praise. Because the thing is, when you commit this particular Ultimate Literary Evil you’ve now told a story. And stories are powerful. The fact that it wasn’t in an original world or with original characters doesn’t necessarily make it less powerful to any given reader.
I would never have made this argument a few years ago. A few years ago I hadn’t received messages from people who were deeply touched by something I wrote in fanfic. So what if it’s only two or three or four people, and I used someone else’s world and characters? For those two or three or four people, I wrote something fucking important. You cannot tell me that isn’t a valid use of my time and expect me to feel chastened. I don’t buy it. I won’t feel ashamed. I will laugh when you call something that touches other people ‘literary masturbation.’ Apparently you’re not too up on your sex terminology.
Someone could argue that if I’d managed the same thing with original characters in an original world, it could’ve touched more people. They might be right! On the other hand, it might never have been accepted for publication, or found a market if self published, and more importantly I would never have written it because I didn’t realize I could write. The story wouldn’t have happened. Instead, thanks to fanfic being a thing, it did. And for two or three or four people it mattered. When we talk about defending fanfic, can we occasionally talk about that?
I once had an active serviceman who told me that my FF7 and FF8 fic helped get him through the war. That’ll humble you. People have told me my fanfic helped get them through long nights, through grief, through hard times. It was a solace to people who needed solace. And because it was fanfic, it was easier to reach the people who needed it. They knew those people already. That world was dear to them already. They were being comforted by friends, not strangers.
Stories are like swords. Even if you’ve borrowed the sword, even if you didn’t forge it yourself from ore and fire, it’s still your body and your skill that makes use of it. It can still draw blood, it can strike down things that attack you, it can still defend something you hold dear. Don’t get me wrong, a sword you’ve made yourself is powerful. You know it down to its very molecules, are intimate with its heft and its reach. It is part of your own arm. But that can make you hesitate to use it sometimes, if you’re afraid that swinging it too recklessly will notch the blade. Is it strong enough, you think. Will it stand this? I worked so hard to make it. A blade you snatched up because you needed a weapon in your hand is not prey to such fears. You will use it to beat against your foes until it either saves you or it shatters.
But whether you made that sword yourself or picked it up from someone who fell on the field, the fight you fight with it is always yours.
Literary critics who sneer at fanfic are so infuriatingly shortsighted, because they all totally ignore how their precious literature, as in individual stories that are created, disseminated, and protected as commercial products, are a totally modern industrial capitalist thing and honestly not how humans have ever done it before like a couple centuries ago. Plus like, who benefits most from literature? Same dudes who benefit most from capitalism: the people in power, the people with privilege. There’s a reason literary canon is composed of fucking white straight dudes who write about white straight dudes fucking.
Fanfiction is a modern expression of the oral tradition—for the rest of us, by the rest of us, about the rest of us—and I think that’s fucking wonderful and speaks to a need that absolutely isn’t being met by the publishing industry. The need to come together as a close community, I think, and take the characters of our mythology and tell them getting drunk and married and tricked and left behind and sent to war and comforted and found again and learning the lessons that every generation learns over and over. It’s wonderful. I love it. I’m always going to love it.
Stories are fractal by nature. Even when there’s just one version in print, you have it multiplied by every reader’s experience of it in light of who they are, what they like, what they want. And then many people will put themselves in the place of the protagonist, or another character, and spend a lot of time thinking about what they’d do in that character’s place. Or adjusting happenings so they like the results better.
That’s not fic yet, but it is a story.
But the best stories grow. This can happen in the language of capitalism—a remake of a classic movie, a series of books focusing on what happened afterwards or before—or it can happen in the language of humanity. Children playing with sticks as lightsabers, Jedi Princess Leia saving Alderaan by dueling Vader; a father reading his kids The Hobbit as a bedtime story as an interactive, “what would you like to happen next?” way so that the dwarves win the wargs over with doggie biscuits that they had in their pockets and ride to Erebor on giant wolves, people writing and sharing their ideas for deleted outtake scenes from Star Trek and slow-build fierce and tender romance with startling bursts of hot sex between Hawkeye and Agent Coulson.
A story at its most successful is a fully developed fractal, retold a million times and a million ways, with stories based on stories based on stories. Fanfic of fanfic of fanfic. Stories based on headcanons, stories based on prompts, stories that put the Guardians of the Galaxy in a coffee-shop AU and stories where the Transformers are planet-wandering nomads and stories where characters from one story are placed into a world from another. Stories that could be canon, stories that are the farthest thing from canon, stories that are plausible, stories that would never happen, stories that give depth to a character or explore the consequences of one different plot event or rewrite the whole thing from scratch.
This is what stories are supposed to be.
This is what stories are.
Fandom and fan creations are a communal act. They do not disguise how they are influenced by each other. They revel in it.
Literature was once a communal act, too. Film as well. It’s only once we decided to extend and expand the idea of copyright and turn stories into primarily vehicles for profit that we rejected this communal structure. The literary canon shouldn’t be all dead white men. They didn’t build the novel. They didn’t build theater. They took what was already there and said “This is mine now,” and we believed them.
Creativity is communal. There is no such thing as the lone genius on a mountaintop. Ideas are passed around, handed back and forth, growing all the time. Fandom is what human creativity looks like in its normal form. Fandom is like this because humans are like this.
We didn’t just borrow the sword. We remade it because we saw in it the potential for something better. And we did that together, all of us.
Someone could argue that if I’d managed the same thing with original characters in an original world, it could’ve touched more people.
And the people it did touch might never have read it—might never have encountered it—because it didn’t lie so neatly within the scope of their interests.
Fanfiction is a category organizer. It organizes stories, quite brilliantly, by Will I Like These Characters—simply by virtue of repurposing the ones we already know and love. It gives you the emotional connection with the characters, and background knowledge of them, right off the bat. Someone you recognize, love, know, want more stories of. We value that, and it’s an important factor in the choice of investing the time and attention to read that story.
Why the fuck would I want to read about So-and-so and Whatsisname falling in love or saving the world or whatever it is they do in an original novel when I could read about Prowl and Jazz doing it? Do I know the characters will be people I’ll like? Do I know they’ll be of any quality? Do I have any background info on them to fill in the gaps that even the most talented author can’t help but leave?
Heavily fanfic’d characters have a depth to them far beyond what the original source, because they’ve been percolated through thousands of writers, each adding something, until they have a presence that can work with almost any take on them. They function like icebergs, held buoyant by so much of themselves underneath the surface, holding up so much better than the romance-novel cardboard or two-dimensional built-to-suit-the-story placeholder blandness that many original characters end up being, even in professionally-published novels.
I mean, yes, I read original stories, quite a lot even, and some of them have engaging enough characters that they start mattering to me, that I want to read more about them outside the scope of the original story (the highest praise I can give)—but it’s not something that just any characters can do, and even if it does that isn’t a substitute for the ones I already love.
A big part of this is building the character from multiple viewpoints. Author A develops the character; Author B views the character and then shapes them to her perspective; Author C considers the synergy of A’s and B’s joint creation and forms her own additions; Author ZZC, much later, consults not only Canon Character but the web of traits and nature and backstories that everyone has produced and crafts the character to her story. And every reader can fill in wherever it might need filling, reshape as needed for their own enjoyment, and expand to their own inclination in reading or in writing. The character takes shape under all of them in the same way we take shape from our collection of thoughts and observations and experiences. The same way AI learns. From the flow of information, one discerns a shape.
The POINT is that you are working with something much bigger than what fits on the page. Yes, one can write original characters for original stories—and if they’re most successful they’re good enough to be built on, by the original creator, by the fans, by the readers, until they get to be bigger than their pages, bigger than their singular stories, big like people.
And if you write fanfic, you get to engage in the communal creative space of fandom and share your story with the people who are the most interested in it. You are connecting the story instantly with the people who will love it.
The world of published original fiction organizes itself by genre; the world of fanfiction organizes itself by character. And it does so much more to build those characters. Sometimes you like planting seeds, and sometimes you want to climb a tree that only someone else could have planted, watered, shaped, and grown.
I can’t help but feel this is one of those things where we had actual documents saying “it was done with this and this”, and some old rich white guys looked at it and went “oh mirth, the ancients were so silly. They probably wrote this basic stuff down and the actual builders had Secret Techniques we need to Discover”
For a long time, archeologists didn’t know how greek women did their high-piled braids and hair. There was a word that translated to “needle” in the descriptions. They went, “seems like we’ll never know.” Then a hairdresser took a fucking needle (big needle) and did the fucking thing you do with needles, which is sew – and by sewing the braids into place, she replicated ancient styles.
The Egyptians had diagrams of construction steps for their pyramids. Archeologists went “oooh, ancient primitive people, how they do this?” LITERALLY MYTHBUSTERS OR THE OLD DISCOVERY CHANNEL or someone went “what if we did the thing the pictures said they did” AND GUESS FUCKING WHAT. GUESS FUCKING WHAT.
Also that thing with native Americans saying squirrels taught them how to get sap for maple syrup, and colonizers going “that’s a myth sweaty”
Sincerely, if the scientists had to do actual analysis like spectroscopy or whatever, kudos, and no flame. But swear to god, if all these years, we’ve had the recipes and there was just this fuckin institutional bias against just TRYING THE THING THEY SAID WOULD WORK, HELLFIRE AND DEMENTIA.
In this case, it was more they had roman writings saying what went into it but figured there was some secret because when they followed roman recipes it never turned out quite right.
Because the sources left by Romans always just said to mix with water. Because, if you were a Roman??? Obviously you knew that you used seawater for cement. Duh. That’s so obvious that they never really bothered specifying that you use seawater to mix it, because it wasn’t necessary, everyone knew that.
But then the empire fell, other empires rose and fell, time passed, and by the time we were trying to reconstruct the formula the ‘mix the dry ingredients with seawater’ trick had been forgotten, until chemical analysis finally figured it out again.
It’s sort of like the land of Punt, a ally of Egypt that’s mentioned all the time, but we don’t actually know where it was located. Because it isn’t written down anywhere. Why would they write it down? It’s Punt. Everyone knew where Punt was back then. It’d be ridiculous to waste the ink and space to specify where it was, every child knows about Punt.
3000 years later and we have no damned clue where it was, simply because at the time it was so blindingly obvious that it was never written down.
Ok, so, after last night’s Doctor Who I’ve seen a bit of a fuss on the internet about Roman perceptions of sexuality, so I thought I’d make up a post on the subject, somewhat at the prompting of @tillthenexttimedoctor. Much of what will follow is actually based on research I did for a paper I presented this past February at the University of Tennessee, so some of it is my original interpretation, but the good folks at the University of Tennessee found it compelling enough, so I hope it shall also be compelling here. I should also note that some of the language in this post will be very frank and graphic, because the Romans were very frank and graphic.
1. Traditional Norms
Most people who seem to know a thing or two about Roman sexual attitudes are familiar with the traditional paradigm of masculine penetration we know from literary sources – Craig Williams, who literally wrote the book on Roman Homosexuality, is something of an expert on the subject. Among the Roman elite, it was perfectly ordinary for Roman males to penetrate younger men: what mattered was not the gender of one’s partner, but that the free Roman man was functioning in the penetrative role (Williams 17-18). These younger men were often slaves, and were probably often unwilling partners – that said, many of them may well have been free. The descriptions we have of male anal sex in Roman literature “evoke the physical realities of anal
penetration” in such a way as to suggest that those writing may have had
firsthand experience with being penetrated (Williams 31).
This suggests that many of our elite Roman authors – Martial, Petronius, Catullus – may have found themselves on the receiving end of sex as youths.
As far as female homosexuality, we don’t have so much information. The Romans seemed keen to pretend that female
homoeroticism simply didn’t exist. When they are forced to admit that it does
occur, they quickly dismiss it as a Greek aberration or as a monstrous relic of
the ancient past and denigrate its participants as not being “real” women (Brooten
43-44, 49). Plautus’s Truculentus is
an early source for such ideas: Plautus makes a pun about the possibility of
two women having intercourse, and masculinizes them in doing so. We also have
one of the elder Seneca’s Controversiae
which dwells on a case of adultery wherein a man catches his wife in bed with a
woman – as Bernadette Brooten notes, the way Seneca portrays the affair masculinizes
and Hellenizes the women involved, and treats the act itself as inherently
monstrous and shocking (Brooten 44). From these and other examples it seems
clear that, while male homoeroticism was accepted in certain forms, love
between women was taboo in an official sense.
2. The Reality – Male Homosexuality
While the above is probably true for Rome’s upper classes, we actually have a decent amount of evidence from graffiti which suggests that for the average person on the street, there wasn’t much stigma associated with the gender and role of one’s sexual partners. I’ll focus on two examples, primarily, which serve to hopefully demonstrate my point. This first is a short graffito found along the wall of the palaestra, or public gymnasium, in Pompeii – not so different from a lot of modern graffiti, this would have been more public than the sharpied phrases we’re used to seeing on the insides of bathroom stalls, and probably more equivalent to something scrawled on the wall outside a locker room.
It reads, in Latin: VII Idus Septembres Q[uintus] Postumius
rogavit A[ulum] Attium pedicarim. My own translation of the graffito is: “On September 7, Quintus Postumius asked if I could fuck Aulus Attiusin the ass” (CIL 4.8805).
There are a few things we can tell, right off, from this example: first, “Attius” and “Postumius” are the sorts of names which Roman citizens tend to have. We can’t necessarily prove this definitively, but at this time, in this place, I would be surprised if both of these men were not Roman citizens – one or both may have been freedmen, who were expected to participate in slightly more gauche behavior, but they would have been citizens nonetheless. Accordingly, for Postumius to fuck Attius – one Roman, citizen male having anal sex with another Roman, citizen male – would have actually constituted the crime of stuprum (Williams 130-131). It seems quite bold to not only proclaim a crime on a public wall like this, but also to name yourself and the object of your affections, if this is a crime that presented any serious danger to Attius and Postumius. The obvious takeaway, then, is that most of the people passing by would not have cared.
3. The Reality – Female Homosexuality
The second example I have is actually our only expressed example of female homoeroticism in graffiti at all, positive or negative. It is, in fact, a love poem between two women (Milnor 202). Because it is rather long, I will only include my translation, which reads as follows:
“Oh, if only I could embrace with my neck
your little arms and to your tender lips little kisses bear.
Come now, darling, trust your joys to the winds:
believe you me, it’s the nature of men to be fickle.
When often in the middle of the night I, forlorn, lie awake,
reflect on this with me: many are those Fortune’s lifted up;
these, cast down suddenly and head first, she overwhelms.
Thus, as Venus suddenly joins the bodies of lovers,
daylight divides them and…” (CIL 4.5296)
The grammar of the Latin in this poem makes it exceedingly clear that its author is a woman writing to her female lover (Levin-Richardson 321-326): Latin, like Spanish, French, or German, features grammatical gender, meaning certain nouns are inherently gendered one way or another, and adjectives change form to match the gender of the noun to which they apply, and the author genders both herself and her addressee as feminine. It’s also, as a poem, just a little bit sexy: “Venus” is often a metonym for sex in Latin poetry, and the specific Latin word in line 3 which I have translated as “joys” is often a euphemism for the female orgasm.
So we have this kinda sexy lesbian love poem, and there are two really important things about it: first, where it is. It is actually found neatly inscribed in very nice handwriting on a panel in the doorway of an upper-working-class house in Pompeii. Much like the above example, if this sort of racy lesbian love poetry would have been condemned in strong terms, it seems kind of radical to put it in your doorway as casually as a “Live, Laugh, Love” sign.
Secondly, we actually have an ancient reaction to this graffito: in a clearly different hand, someone has written “paries quid ama” below it. This seems to be
a
truncation of a line from Ovid, “paries,
quid amantibus obstas”, or “wall, why do you obstruct the lovers?”
The obvious takeaway is that this is an expression of sympathy – this is a quote from the story of Pyramus & Thisbe, a Greco-Roman version of Romeo & Juliet. The reality, though, is probably actually better: it’s a meme. There were so many love poems being written on walls in Pompeii that certain individuals may have taken it upon themselves to write such things as jokes, as if to groan and say, “Oh, not another love poem on another wall!”, something between a snarky Facebook comment and “Kilroy was here” (Milnor 198-99).
4. Conclusion
So, then, to the point of this post: Doctor Who. Season 10 episode 10, “The Eaters of Light”, featured Roman soldiers displaying a very casual attitude towards bisexuality and homosexuality, and actually seeing homosexuality as a bit narrow-minded, because it limits you to one gender. This does indeed contradict the norms displayed by the literary elite, but those are the norms of the elite, not the masses. For the kinds of average people who would have been ordinary Roman foot soldiers, like the characters in the episode, the evidence we have from their own hands suggests that what we saw in Doctor Who last night was probably pretty on the nose. Then as now, same-sex attraction was a reality encountered by the average Roman fairly regularly in daily life, and while they did have stigmas and prejudices associated with sexuality, they weren’t the same as ours, and, just like us, were probably not necessarily universal, anyway.
References
Brooten,
Bernadette J. Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female
Homoeroticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Accessed
September 14, 2016. ProQuest ebrary.
Levin-Richardson,
Sarah. “Fututa Sum Hic: Female Subjectivity and Agency in Pompeian
Sexual Graffiti.” The Classical Journal 108, no. 3 (2013): 319-45.
Milnor,
Kristina. Graffiti and the Literary Landscape in Roman Pompeii. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2014.
Williams,
Craig A. Roman Homosexuality. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press,
2010.
Can we just talk for a minute about how emotional this frame gets me? Like, look at this poor boy at the start of the season:
Tight, tense shoulders, hat pulled low while he’s talking to Bitty, kinda freaked out that Tater caught him.
Then halfway through the year:
Hesitant, not sure these people he’s starting to think of as friends will accept him.
Now, like, yeah, you can look at how happy he is in the photo with Tater, you can look at like all of Family Skate. You can see how happy he is that he doesn’t have to hide Bitty, that his teammates can finally start feeling more like real friends, even family, now that he doesn’t have to hide from them.
But that frame up there, that says so much more to me. Like, honestly, as wonderful as Family Skate is, it still feels to me like what it is – Bitty meeting these people for the first time, all of them being extra-nice to him both because he’s new and because they all know that they need to make super duper sure that the gay couple feels comfortable and knows that everyone’s on their side. It’s warm and happy and feel-good, but it’s people trying to be warm and happy and feel-good, y’know? Which is what they should be doing in that context, there’s nothing wrong with it.
This, on the other hand, is not warm or happy at all. What it is, is everyone treating Jack and Bitty exactly how they would treat a teammate whose wife made this life-altering jam. They’re calling their own wives to get orders, they’re being rude and demanding (*ahem* Tater), they’re all trying to get in before each other. Nobody’s on his best behavior, nobody actually gives a shit that Jack is trying to talk on the damn phone.
Nobody “cared” before that Bitty was a guy, in that nobody judged them or looked down on them or was mean to them or anything like that. But they cared in that they were aware of it when interacting with him and it affected their behavior, even if it was in the direction of being nicer.
But this is nobody giving a single shit anymore, his gender and Jack’s sexuality are entirely 100% irrelevant. All that matters is getting their jam.
And just think about how nice that is for Jack, to be really, truly accepted like that, after all this time. He wasn’t even out to anyone at Samwell. Obviously, the team would have been fine with it, but dating a guy would have meant more risks than just SMH rejecting him.
And now that he’s in love and happy, he can finally just be. With this team and these guys he’s known for less than a year, he can be all of himself and nobody cares. It’s all good. It’s all so freaking good.
if someone wanted to really understand you, what would they read, watch, and listen to? gosh, I don’t really know.. there are tons of books but a few would be aaddtsotu, Tamora Pierce books, and a bunch of kid’s books. listen to some musicals I guess
have you ever found a writer who thinks just like you? if so, who? I don’t know if this is supposed to be like stuff you can tell from the actual writing or what, and I doubt I think exactly like anyone, but based on her tumblr, I think I have a lot in common with theladyragnell (fic writers so count)
list your fandoms and one character from each that you identify with. all of them? no. but Supernatural – Cas, Les Mis – R, uhh Harry Potter? – Neville, Spring Awakening – god I don’t know Ernst maybe
do you like your name? is there another name you think would fit you better? Yeah I like it! but I was almost Maxine and I would have been ok with that too
do you think of yourself as a human being or a human doing? do you identify yourself by the things you do? this is stupid
are you religious/spiritual? no
do you care about your ethnicity? like I can appreciate that I have privilege but beyond that I really couldn’t care less
what musical artists have you most felt connected to over your lifetime? Darlingside, Trans Siberian Orchestra, The Avett Brothers, Mumford and Sons, Dietrich Strause, probably others idk I’m not completely sure I get the question tbh
are you an artist? uh kind of I guess but not really
do you have a creed? no?
describe your ideal day. sleep listen to music watch something maybe read do the tumblr stuff sleep there should be some eating in there
dog person or cat person? I love both but CAts
inside or outdoors? depends on the mood
are you a musician? no
five most influential books over your lifetime. aaahhh that’s hard um definitely Aristotle and Dante, maybe like collectively Harry Potter, The Voyage of the Basset?, no I can’t do it
if you’d grown up in a different environment, do you think you’d have turned out the same? probably not
would you say your tumblr is a fair representation of the “real you”? more or less yeah
what’s your patronus? I think the pottermore test said a swift which is a little bird
which Harry Potter house would you be in? or are you a muggle? realistically I would probably end up being a muggle lol but I usually think of myself as a Ravenclaw although I could see myself in Hufflepuff too
would you rather be in Middle Earth, Narnia, Hogwarts, or somewhere else? either Hogwarts or Narnia would be cool
do you love easily? not really
list the top five things you spend the most time doing, in order. tumblr, listening to music, reading, talking to Kate, uhhh I don’t know eating
how often would you want to see your family every year? I don’t know
have you ever felt like you had a “mind-meld” with someone? not really I don’t think? but I maybe come pretty close sometimes with Teresa we get each other pretty well
could you live as a hermit? if I had wifi yeah sure
how would you describe your gender/sexuality? cis female, uhh kind of questioning atm but a-spec for sure
do you feel like your outside appearance is a fair representation of the “real you”? I guess
on a scale from 1 to 10, how hard is it for someone to get under your skin? really depends on my mood and the person but in general probably like 5
three songs that you connect with right now. I don’t know