Markus: I don’t think we can mansplain, manipulate or malewife our way out of this, guys.
North: [cracks knuckles]
North: Manslaughter it is.
Why would you hide that in the notes
I want an ice maker and enough room in the freezer for a pizza and that is IT.
I want the dumbest fridge you got. Gimme the orange tabby of refrigeration. I want my fridge to pull the wrong lever and turn my enemies into llamas instead of killing them. I want the following features: keeps things cold, has compartment that keeps things colder, a door that opens and shuts.
"Here at Stupid Jeff's Dumb Appliance Warehouse we sell the dumbest fucking appliances. Check out this fridge. This fridge won't ask you about your day, this dumb fucking fridge doesn't know what an Elon Musk is and won't fucking tell you what bullshit that dumb monkey is slapping into his phone today when you try to get some fucking milk. We took out all those "smart" electronics and in their place we put a loaded Glock 9mm that is put right up to that light that turns on when you open the door, which is the smartest thing in this fucking stupid fridge and let me tell you that fucker is on thin goddamn ice, if it gets too smart and tries to turn on before you open that door, the Glock will blow it to hell. Speaking of ice, this stupid fridge makes it. It makes ice, it keeps things cold, it comes with shelves. It's sturdy enough that when your ex comes back to your place looking for their stuff that they think they left behind like nine months ago and they know that you don't have it, but they wanted an excuse to come start a fight with you and throw a chair at your head but miss you and hit your fridge MICHAEL, this fridge will keep trucking because it gives zero shits and it only lives to keep things cold. Come to Stupid Jeff's Dumb Appliance Warehouse, if you ask us if we have an app, we break your kneecaps."
One of the really fun and interesting things about writing a polyamorous romance as someone who is ambiamorous/polyamorous is finding new ways to make sure the narrative hits the expected genre beats without just sort of... mushing it into a pre-existing monogamous romance mold, which is what I'm afraid happens a lot of the time.
Trust me, it was my job in the publishing house to make them fit that mold. I hated it.
Reading other poly-centric romances, I can always somewhat tell when someone is writing polyamory from a sexual fantasy aspect (zero shade; I'm here for all the group sex) without actually considering how it functions as a relationship dynamic, which can often come off as... well.
It's lacking for me as a romance.
Erotica-wise, it's fine. But it misses the romantic beats for me that I want as a polyamorous-leaning person.
There's so much emphasis on the polycule and never the individual dyads within the larger relationship.
For example, in a triad, there are actually four relationships to handle.
The dyad between A + B.
The dyad between A + C.
The dyad between B + C.
And the overarching relationship between A + B + C.
With monogamous-leaning authors or authors that've been pressed into conforming to the pre-existing genre beats, there's a tendency to treat the relationship as a homogenous mass where everything is fair and equal, and you treat all your partners the exact same way.
And I get it. It's easier to write everything as peachy-keen and to have external conflict be resolved with either acceptance or a brave confrontation.
But it doesn't always land for me as someone who wants to see my style of love represented in the genre.
In healthy polyamory, either closed or open, each relationship is unique in its own way. Taking the example of a triad again, the way A acts with C likely differs from how A acts with B.
And that's a good thing!
Because C might not want the same things as B, so trying to treat them both the exact same is a surefire way to make sure someone isn't getting their needs met, and that will lead to conflict.
Polyamory isn't striving for equality between partners but rather equity.
What are your individual needs, and how do I meet them, as well as meet the needs of my other partner(s)? What do you want from the larger relationship as a whole? How do we accommodate everyone without making someone feel neglected or uncomfortable? How do we show this in the narrative? How do we make sure character A isn't just treating B the same as C in every interaction? Do they ever fall into that pitfall? How do they remedy it?
It seems like common sense when you write it out like that, but it's a major pitfall I see time and time again. The characters never alternate their approach between partners, if there's any focus on the individuals at all.
The other major telltale thing I've noticed is that taking time to be with one partner is seen as a step down from the "goal" of the greater polycule.
The narrative is framed in such a way that they might start out with individual dates, but the end goal of the romance is to eventually be together 100% of the time all the time, and wanting individual time alone with any one partner is somehow "lesser."
Which is the goal of romance in monogamy, but it's not the goal of romance in polyamory.
Granted, you do need to end on a Happy Ever After or Happy For Now for it to fit the genre requirement. And a nice way of tying that up is to have everyone together at the end as a happy polycule all together all at once. I'm not disputing that as a narrative tool. I'm just pointing out that there's a tendency to present those moments as the sum total of the relationship when in actuality, there are multiple relationships that need to end happily ever after.
The joy of polyamorous love is the joy of multitudes. It's the joy of experiencing new things, both as individuals and as a polycule. If you're not taking care of the individual dyads, however, your polycule is going to crash and burn. You cannot avoid that. So why, then, is there such avoidance of it in stories meant to appeal to us?
Is it simply inexperience on behalf of the author? Or is it that they're not actually being written for us? Is it continued pressure to meet certain genre beats in a largely monogamous-centric genre? All of the above?
Either way, I'm having fun playing around with it and doing all the things we were warned against in the publishing house.
I'm having fun with Nathan and Vlad enjoying their own private dynamic that is theirs and theirs alone. I'm having fun with Ursula and Nathan being so careful and vulnerable around each other. I'm absolutely 100% here for the chaos of Vlad and Ursula without a chaperone. And I'm here for the chaos of Vlad and Ursula together and Nathan's fond, loving eye roll as he trails after them, too enamored to tell either of them no because where would the fun in that be...
Anyway. Don't mind me. Just getting my thoughts out while everyone else is in bed.
"it's not queer fiction unless the queerness is explicitly declared in the text according to currently accepted terminology and in a way that meets the approval of the entire audience" I mean follow your heart I guess but I trust myself as a queer person to recognise queer themes
"but doesn't this risk giving the author undue credit for queer representation" I do not care about the author
Remember The Blind Side starring Sandra Bullock? The movie showed how a kid who had an extremely rough upbringing got help from the family of a school friend, found success in football and ultimately ended up being adopted by the family. Turns out he was never adopted.
Michael Oher says that he was tricked by the Tuohy family into signing documents that made them his conservators. Since he was already 18 at the time the family told him, “that it means pretty much the exact same thing as 'adoptive parents,' but that the laws were just written in a way that took [his] age into account.”
Oher also says that papers were signed so that his story and likeness were given away for free to use in The Blind Side. He also never got a single royalty check for the hugely successful, Oscar nominated film in the 14 years since its release.
It just continues to baffle me that they essentially purchased a young Black man's life to make football money off of, like buying a racing horse, except a person. Like, I don't know how else to say it. And then made everyone think it was something wonderful they did to "save" an "impoverished, Black boy", and he's been saying it for years to no avail that they took advantage of him!
i don’t know how to tell people that deriving pleasure - sexual pleasure included! - from art* is good actually, and that creating specific kind of art “just” because you find it hot or whatever is just as good a reason as any, and you don’t actually need some “deep and meaningful” reason to create art about things. pleasure - sexual pleasure included - is not the devil, it is not Bad and shameful, and it’s not any less valid of a reason to create something than because you want to, idk, explore the depths of the human consciousness or something
* art here includes writing
i’m glad this post resonated with people because i lost a years-long mutual over it when i made it lmao
