mouthporn.net
#romance – @buffriday-with-the-bees on Tumblr
Avatar

lrthreads: multi-fandom side blog

@buffriday-with-the-bees / buffriday-with-the-bees.tumblr.com

Avatar
Avatar
kedreeva

Something I’ve come across often in reading fanfiction is this… pervasive idea that people cannot love wholly twice, and that if they’ve chosen one person, it’s because that love is greater than the other.

It’s not expressly said that way. It’s couched in gentler, loving phrases like “he’s never felt this way before” and “it wasn’t like this with anyone else.” It’s especially prevalent when there is a canon love interest to be denied, or a mutually exclusive ship to push back against, and it feels like trying to quietly dismiss a contrived love triangle instead of recognizing that different loves can share intensity and one might still not work out.

And I’m not saying it’s bad, I’m not saying it’s problematic or amoral or something that needs to stop, that people shouldn’t be doing this. I’m not saying that one true love is a bad trope. I guess I’m just asking, what are we afraid of?

Why can’t the character have felt that way before? Why can’t they have loved someone with their whole heart before? It’s the tragedy of love isn’t it- that sometimes it doesn’t work. Not that the love was missing or less, but that it was there, that it was whole and full and real, that it mattered… but that it didn’t change anything, couldn’t work out. The circumstances were wrong, the people were wrong despite their love, it was everything and that wasn’t enough. Love doesn’t have to be less or gone to recognize that maintaining a relationship for it is unsustainable. A character can leave behind a great love and find a new great love, and while love is never quite The Same between people, it can be As Much.

And I guess I’m wondering, you know, how it is better, to love wholly only once? “It was never like this with the other person” is surely meant to be a soft sentiment declaring how much greater this love is, but, all it does is make me wonder what is so weak about it that if there was an equal love, this love wouldn’t survive it, wouldn’t be chosen.

“I have loved like this before, and I’m choosing to fight for it this time” is surely not a lost cause to explore.

Avatar

James Norrington did nothing wrong. His only crime was being a Jane Austen hero in a Disney movie based on a theme park ride.

Okay, no. I tried, but couldn’t just let this post stand. Listen, OP, I agree with you 10,000%, but it is so much worse than that.

In CotBP, where the criticism that James is boring is most likely to come up, we can see in his introductory scene that James is head over heels for this woman by Regency standards. I mean, the unflappable, highest ranking Naval officer in Port Royal is reduced to a stammering, awkward mess around Elizabeth. If this were an Austen novel, y’all would be fucking swooning.

And what of the deleted scenes? (Don’t even get me started on this, I will rant for hours about how salty I am that they cut them.) We see James agonizing over the fact that he believes Elizabeth has only accepted his proposal as a means to an end. His stony veneer cracks, and we get to see him vulnerable!

‘Is it so wrong that I should want it given unconditionally?’ is such a fucking incredible line, and in a period drama, would be seen as a declaration!

But James isn’t in a period drama. He’s in a Disney movie based on a theme park ride. The film is an unapologetic mishmash of genres, and he has committed a cardinal sin by falling in love with Elizabeth, a modern character. She practically rolls her eyes at his heartfelt confessions! She wants nothing to do with his subtle emotional advances!

While, in a Austen novel, James Norrington would have been the clear hero and most obvious choice for Elizabeth to make, she is completely uninterested because he’s made the mistake of being period appropriate and not a product of the early 2000s like the rest of the main cast.

And the worst part is…once James changes so that he fits into their world…he is killed.

But that’s a discussion for another time.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

@meganphntmgrl and i talked about this endlessly when I was in NYC (and i’m trying to make her read Pride and Prejudice just to prove this point lmao).  I’m not even convinced that Elizabeth has this degree of non-interest in him, though.  I think she just already has a really big crush on Will and thinks, due to the circumstances of their meeting, their being the same age and everything, that they’re meant to be together. (Is that a convention of modern storytelling? Little bit, yeah, but it’s not unknown to either mythological romances or period romances - the class divide between them, and importantly, Elizabeth’s desire to be with him overwhelming her sense of convention and propriety, is what stands out to me the most as a 21st century detail.)  All that said, she doesn’t expect she can actually be with Will at the start of COTBP, and seems to be really considering James’ proposal. He’s not what she wants in life, but she’s not disgusted or rolling her eyes at him.  In her words, more or less, she kind of knew he might propose, and knows her father is all for the match, but it still took her off guard.  She’s having to decide on a realistic course for her life and to put aside her dreams, because she’s a woman now, whether she feels ready for that or not.

COTBP is a film written by men that thinks it’s a story about a girl being forced to choose between reality and romantic fantasy, and it’s very clear that Elizabeth knows that Norrington is an appropriate match for her.  Even though she does, in the story, accept his proposal as a means to an end, her acceptance is still fully serious.  (And for all I might joke about her dumping him or whatever - the proposal doesn’t get a big, dramatic rejection.  He sees her standing beside Will and asks if this “where [her] heart truly lies”, and she confirms it.  The breakup is implicit, but he instigates it, seeing this is what she wants.)  Elizabeth’s heart might belong to another man, but there’s no sulking or anger or even too much reluctance when she accepts James; she might even know they could be happy together.

When Will reminds her that her fiancé will want to know she’s safe after the climactic battle, as much as it hurts her, Elizabeth leaves.

tl;dr Elizabeth isn’t so much of a Spunky Modern Heroine Rejects All Trappings Of Period Drama stereotype that she doesn’t compromise on what she wants as society, her family and her fiancé dictate.  She accepts James’ proposal and is prepared to marry him; she never tries to run off with Will; it is James who breaks their engagement for her happiness.  There is no indication that Elizabeth particularly dislikes him; he just isn’t Will.

Then I just really really love their relationship dynamic in DMC and AWE because it’s not founded on expectation or obligation anymore and it isn’t hindered by propriety.  As soon as those things go away, they actually relate to each other like two people who have known each other for ages.  Elizabeth isn’t an unfriendly sort of person, but she doesn’t just go around relating to the other characters she doesn’t know very well.  The bits of conversation she has with James Norrington in Dead Men’s Chest are more real conversation than she and Will ever have in the entire film trilogy.  Will and Elizabeth get these pining, lovelorn speeches and bits of drama, but James and Elizabeth just talk like old friends.  You already know about the deleted scene where they casually strike up conversation on Isla Cruces; I love the moment where he makes a comment suggesting his dark mental state, and she gives him a look I can only describe as Suddenly Interested.

And she holds his gaze for a couple of frames!

So, not like, romantic interested. But like. Realizing this guy she’s known since forever has depth, and she wants to see it.

They’re interrupted by Jack, who is in this film particularly (a lot more than I realized, actually, but on the writers’ commentary Ted and Terry cannot stop bringing it up) is hoping to get Elizabeth to himself, and clearly picks up on this moment as infringing on that hope.

Curse of the Black Pearl was consciously written to frame Elizabeth as the protagonist, and when she chooses Will at the end, it’s because he and he alone among her potential love interests embodies her romantic dream.  Torn between the reality of Norrington, a man she’s always known might propose to her, a lawful man, a good and honest man, but embodying the smothering sense of obligation that comes with her class and gender role - and the reality of Jack Sparrow, a pirate she’s read about with eagerness who shows her that pirates genuinely are pretty scummy people, dirty and disloyal to everyone - Will appears to offer her a third option: someone who breaks the law, but only for the right reasons; someone who defies social convention, but only to better society. 

Except Ted and Terry are men and what seems obvious to me is that the third option Elizabeth really needs is to graduate from the damsel role life appears to have slotted her into and become the romantic hero she dreams of.  Sure, I buy that she loves Will, with a sort of infatuated and light-hearted love that could develop into something more but could just as easily not - but most importantly, what Will represents to her is a projection of the life she wants for herself.

And acquires, in the next two films.

Elizabeth’s narrative arc, if it weren’t tucked underneath or behind everybody else’s, is the most well-developed narrative arc in the trilogy, well beyond the first installment which is the only one that they actually wrote to particularly revolve around her.  Jane Austen heroine?  Maybe.  Probably not.  But the protagonist we deserved, most definitely.

And as much as I do like Will as a character - I actually think his storyline would have gotten the resolution and impact it deserved if he hadn’t been treated as the protagonist, as much as I think hers would have been, but this post isn’t an excuse for me to air my grievances lol - the character whose storyline most follows hers is Norrington.  

Her arc is about finding her place in the world, rejecting the specific oppressive reality she believes is inevitable as a well-bred 18th century female and embracing the heroine swashbuckler she’s wanted to be all her life but projected onto male love interests.  And this arc is a microcosm of the larger plot in a way no one else’s is - Beckett’s threat to end the age of piracy and keep the entire ocean under his thumb threatens her specific character growth and reflects the world she’s trying to escape in a way that is not half so resonant for anybody else.

Will’s story is, excepting turns of the plot in which he’s trying to save Elizabeth, entirely about his relationship with his father, and how that affects his identity.  It has nothing to do with society beyond the tensions in the first film where he wants to be respectable but has learned his father really was a pirate all along - after that film, there is no thematic or actual connection to society in Will’s plot, which is why it gets so exclusively connected to the supernatural storyline.  But Norrington’s arc is also about his place in the world.  After the first film, in which he and Jack and Will  operate as foils to one another, each of them demonstrating one of the paths Elizabeth may follow as she grows increasingly experienced and consequently disillusioned, Norrington has his fall from grace and subsequent identity crisis.  His maintaining the wig and coat while a drunken, miserable wreck on Tortuga, and his willingness to throw everything away to regain his former standing, implies that the role of Naval Officer was the whole extent of his identity.   So, yes, the man lacks a viable personality in COTBP - it works out to seem intentional by the sequel, because it becomes clear the role he was inhabiting was the only person he knew how to be, and without it he discovered how little of a person he was.  This is a grim inversion of Elizabeth’s storyline.  Elizabeth becomes more and more her true self, including symbolically casting off and manipulating her wedding gown, while Norrington symbolically clings to the relics of his former life and wallows in existential despair.

By the time of AWE, Norrington has discovered that his is not, in fact, nothing, without his social role - as evidenced by his willingness to betray all that he must stand for when that role has been resumed, to “choose a side”, and to choose Elizabeth’s.  But yes… then he dies.  

Both in the substance of their actual conversations, which, owing to their rarely being about love, convey a greater sense of compatibility than Will and Elizabeth’s conversations never being so casual and often running to the dramatic, and the symmetry of their narrative arcs, the story of Elizabeth and James Norrington really would have made a perfect romance.

@morethanprinceofcats really out here bringing the “in this essay I will…” meme to life

@smallvillecommunity this is…….. the nicest thing……… anyone has ever said to me

I remain absolutely floored how much the original trilogy (I haven’t seen any other others) absolutely rose above the fact that they were, in fact, Disney Movies based on an amusement park ride.

Norrington is a gentleman in the best sense of the word. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly like him… but he leaves me no choice but to respect him.

Avatar

we really devolved as a society when we stopped using fully painted pictures on romance novels and started using cheap photoshop instead 

case in point

this is a Hell of a downgrade 

worst crime capitalism ever committed was eliminating Horny Oil Painter as a viable career option.

Avatar
higglety

I went down a rabbit hole this summer researching romance novel covers and painting fanart in this style and

  1. this is an EXTREMELY fun style to work in, and also
  2. many of the most iconic romance novel covers you’re probably picturing when you think “classic painted romance novel cover” were produced by one prolific, masterful artist

Her name was Elaine Duillo, and she had a long and extremely productive career spanning from the mid 60’s to her retirement in 2003. She worked mainly in acrylics.

She did illustration work in other genres as well, but she really found her niche in romance novels. She pretty much redefined the aesthetic conventions of the genre, popularizing male models and male nudity and sexualizing men to cater to the female gaze in a way that simply wasn’t the norm before her work. You know Fabio? she’s the one who started using him as a model, and essentially launched his career. And honestly, just look at her work:

magnificent

Avatar
sindri42

Wait shit, she retired in 2003? I think that’s exactly when I started seeing shitty photoshops on all the new romance novel covers.

She was literally carrying the entire industry single-handed and then they just did not replace her.

Avatar
petermorwood

RIP Elaine Duillo, who died as recently as 30th July 2021, at the grand age of 93. Her art did for Romance what Frank Frazetta did for Fantasy.

*****

Someone should make a Great Big Illustrated Book, or maybe a reference website, on the way cover art has changed over the years and the influence it’s had on the genres it’s used to sell, and another one about why the same book gets different covers in different countries or even from different publishers in the same country.

An obvious reason for that is to differentiate between “our version” and “their version”, but the other whys and wherefores would be far more interesting.

Here, for instance, are covers for the same rather good Romance  / Swashbuckler (the swordfights are well-written, though prolonged and wordy - rapier duels that stretch over 12 pages and more is pushing it, IMO).

They play up various aspects of the book - swashbuckling vs romance vs historical period - depending on what each imprint is selling, though IMO that last one looks like it’s a generic “Historical People Being Romantic At Each Other” from a stock-images catalogue. Apologies if I’m wrong, but whatever she’s wearing it ain’t Elizabrthan.

I’d like to find out what the art director told the artist to provide, or why they chose a particular image from a selection, and I’d like to see how such decisions relate to several different genres: Romance, Thriller, Spy, Fantasy, etc…

It would be a fascinating read.

vb

Avatar
Avatar
arrowmantic

I’m always gonna be pissed that amatonormatvity as a term and a model for understanding society was literally mocked into disuse by exclusionists because of its association with aromantic folks.

Amatonormativity, honestly, has approximately fuck-all to do with aros. We did not even coin it, we’re simply the only people who actually take it seriously cause we’re among the ones who are most hurt by it. And it PISSES me the fuck off that it is not a widespread model used in greater queer discussions.

Amatonormativity is what causes romantic relationships to be prioritized above all else. The adults who find themselves slowly losing friends until their only contacts are their coworkers and their own nuclear family? Amatonormativity.

Rebelling against this culture and embracing a non-hierarchical view of relationships is the first step to making genuine connections and improving our collective mental health.

May I also add: Amatonormativity is what causes consensual non-monogamy be treated as inherently abusive, and its the same thing that causes being in an abusive relationship to be seen as better than being single. Amatonormativity is a fundamental part of slut shaming, stigma against sex work and rape culture. Amatonormativity impacts everyone and really should have become a widely discussed and challenged concept but people just hated aspecs so much they were willing to shoot their alleged activism in the foot for it.

The way capitalism pushes everyone to organize into two-adult-some-kids financial units that are much more easily exploitable and kept under control than interconnected multi-generational communities where you don’t need to be having sex with someone to share resources with them? Amatonormativity.

Avatar

truly nothing hits like stories about the disintegration of deeply troubled couples

i dont care about people falling in love i want to see years-long relationships slowly fraying until something snaps and the whole thing comes unraveled. i want emptiness and isolation, but people still clinging onto whatever they have left because its better than nothing and they dont remember life without it!!!!!!

Avatar
h0ldthiscat

literally me tho

Avatar

Here’s information about sexual/romantic orientations and gender identities that I put together! I..I don’t do graphic design, so this isn’t that great. Also, I’m very sorry if I missed your orientation or identity or got some information wrong. Sources: (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) Flags: (1) Top photo: (1)

I hope this helps some of you out!

READ THIS AND THEN READ IT AGAIN

Avatar

Three kinds of attraction and why it’s important to know the difference

Aesthetic attraction: “I want to look at you.” You think someone is beautiful, very pleasing to the eye, but you feel no desire to touch them.

Sensual attraction: “I want to cuddle you.” You feel a great deal of affection towards someone and you want to hug them, hold them, perhaps kiss them, but with your hands never straying below the belt.

Sexual attraction: “I want to fuck you.” You want to do things of an explicitly sexual nature with someone.

Why is this distinction important? Because I didn’t realize I was demisexual until the age of 27 because all my life I thought that aesthetic + sensual attraction was the same thing as sexual attraction. I always thought that finding someone beautiful and wanting to touch or kiss them was sexual attraction, but realizing that it’s not, that sexual attraction means actually desiring sexual acts with a person, has changed my life and explained so many things. When I was figuring this out, a number of other people commented that they felt the exact same as me, so I think this is some pretty important stuff to spread around.

It’s important to know that there are many different types of attraction we can experience as humans. It’s part of what makes our sexual/romantic identities so rich and varied. 

Avatar
So maybe this time, love doesn’t kick down the door— doesn’t rattle the windows or plant weeds in the flower garden. Maybe you can’t smell the smoke because, for once, nothing is burning. Maybe this love is all the things those loves wanted to be when they grew up. Maybe you spent all that time running so that you’d know how to hang up your coat when you were ready.

Ashe Vernon (via

)

Avatar

You know how the conventional wisdom is that when a male and a female character have chemistry that the absolutely worst thing you can do is get them together, because the audience’s enjoyment of them is based on anticipation and it’s not interesting anymore once they’re together? 

Well I think what the problem actually is is that once they’re a couple all the (very, very boring) heteronormative tropes and cliches about relationships between men and women come into effect, which ruins the dynamic between the characters that was originally fun and interesting. 

Established relationships can be just as compelling viewing as will-they-won’t-they if they’re treated as two individuals in love as opposed to two gender essentialist stereotypes writ large who kind of hate each other. 

Avatar
lierdumoa

I think this is why buddy action comedies are so successful. They’re stories that revolve around a functional long term relationship between two fleshed out characters who respect each other.

It’s funny – I was in this scriptwriting panel at a tiny film festival last month we were doing a table read of a script featuring a happy married couple and someone from the audience actually suggested it would be more “interesting” if they were fighting. So I pointed out that I actually find the unhappy married couples trope overused and extremely tedious and got the reply, “Well it doesn’t have to be anything serious, they can just be arguing about something silly and trivial like how the husband always forgets to do the dishes.”

Like.

Okay buddy, you keep on thinking that recurring fights over the unequal distribution of household labor in your marriage are “silly and trivial” and 5 years from now you can tell me all about how your wife wants a divorce and you just have *no idea* how this could be happening.

I mean I’ve digressed a little but my point is that I think (this is like half speculation, but hear me out) the reason we almost never see healthy heterosexual marriages on tv is because most screenwriters are straight, and most straight people don’t know how to have healthy romantic relationships, let alone write them. Statistically about half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and that’s not even counting all people who stay married in spite of their profound unhappiness and dissatisfaction.

The average hollywood screenwriter is a straight man, who wants to think of himself as a good husband/boyfriend, even if statistically speaking, he isn’t.

He’s going to want to think of his personal romantic life as normal and healthy, even if it statistaclly speaking, it isn’t. 

When he’s asked to write a “normal romantic relationship” he’s going to take his own experiences and try to pass all the bickering and power struggles as normal aspects of a normal healthy marriage, instead of recognizing these “relationship quirks” for what they truly are – red flags.

Avatar
booksmakeme

That “half of marriages end in divorce” thing isn’t actually true (sorry, don’t have a source on me right now, but you can google it), but yes to the rest of this.

Avatar
Avatar
radialarch

the sanctity of platonic male friendship

i’ve seen a lot of variations on this argument pass my dash ever since that cacw empire article came out, so i’m just gonna say it: it is not harder and better and somehow purer to portray a platonic male friendship on screen than it is to make the relationship romantic. it’s not. the body of popular media is full of guys who love each other and would do anything for each other and then go home to their wives, because well obviously they’re not gay.

“romance is just an easy shorthand for intimacy and trust.” please. please send these easy shorthand gay relationships my way. what universe do you live in that gay people can hook up easily on-screen and the audience reaction is “what a cop-out, they’re just doing it to avoid developing their friendship.”

listen. heterosexual romance is often an easy shorthand for intimacy and trust. this works because there’s an expectation – both on part of the filmmaker and the presumed audience – that heterosexual romance is normal and part of the background radiation of everyday life. and any time someone makes a movie where the male and female leads hook up, without much build-up or development of their relationship, they then strengthen that expectation in a self-perpetuating feedback loop.

gay romance does not have the same cultural history. the default assumption is that same-sex leads will not hook up unless they live in the gay/lesbian genre. platonic male friendship is, in fact, the easy way out. 

it’s absolutely homophobic to say a gay romantic relationship would somehow lessen a bond of friendship. and i mean this in the kindest of ways, because it may not be the same degree of homophobia that leads to gay people being physically attacked, or laws being written to actively restrict people’s rights for the fact of being gay. it’s a low-grade, pervasive homophobia that results when the speaker doesn’t conceptualize gay people as a part of a normal, everyday milieu. that a character being gay has to be narratively justified in some way (as if gay people around the world don’t have to justify their right to exist every single day!); that a gay relationship is somehow “pandering” and “inorganic”, because the normal, natural – straight – audience could never really relate to a gay relationship.

look. we are all shaped by cultural expectations. it doesn’t make someone a bad person if their mental conception of “an intense relationship between two guys” defaults to “friendship” instead of “romance”. but responding to any challenges to that paradigm by extolling the virtues of same-sex friendship and ignoring the long history of gay relationships in media being censored and sanitized and othered? yeah. that’s homophobic.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net