Seventeen things you have to learn for yourself
as a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Pansexual
or otherwise Queer youth
by the time you are seventeen.One is that the first Pride was a riot
I don’t mean that it was full of laughter, or that it was some grand party
where everyone spiraled up to dance among the stars
because the only glittering that night
was broken glass on cobblestones.
The first Pride was a riot
on the backstreets of New York
and they never tell us
that night
we won.
The only protest
in a decade full of turmoil
where the cops had to hide out in the bar they raided
and run from shouting rioters
who fought to reclaim the only patch of ground they had ever claimed as theirs
the first Pride was a riot,and two, around the same time it took place
it was a debated topic in the gay community
whether or not they should say
that they weren’t mentally illwhich, three, homosexuality was removed
from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental illnesses
in 1974
congratulations
all it took was a vote to declare that, whoops, we were never mentally illexcept, four, there are still teenagers being tortured today
in what some dare blaspheme as “therapy”
used to destroy their self-identity
in the hopes of making them normal.
except, four, the queer community still carries overwhelmingly high rates for poverty and homelessness and depression.Did you know that, five,
over half the children forced into conversion therapy
commit suicide?And six, that lesbians
were regarded as “hangers-on”
of the movement
by much of the gay community
before the AIDS crisis?Because it turns out, seven can wear a rainbow on your shirt
and still be a bigot.
There are people who stick rainbows in their ears
or wear them on their fingers
or slap them across their cheeks in badges of defiance
and will still hate you for the color of your skin
or the size of your thighs
or your gender
or the way you like to kiss two or more genders
or none of the above.
Don’t ask me why this happens
it just does
I think it might be that we’ve all been taught to hate ourselves
for so damn long
that we don’t understand what to do
in a space with no hate.
Or maybe it’s that the space seems too small, becauseeight, there are people who will tell you that you are not enough
that you do not reach the magical benchmark of “gay enough” to pass through the gate even
especially
when you are some flavor of the rainbow other than straight-out gay.
eight, this is bullshit
eight, those people are bullshit.
eight, you are enough.
eight, there is always enough room.nine, there is no overarching “homosexual agenda”
sorry
we’re all kind of flailing along in here trying to figure out some way to make it work
when most of us have nothing in common
except that society looked at us in different ways and decided we didn’t fit
so we could all go be misfits together
under one big rainbow flagbut just so you know, ten, there are plenty of other flags
there is one for you, I promiseand eleven, misfits may not all need the same things
but we need to stick together, especially in a world wheretwelve—refer to point seven—there are lesbians who hate other lesbians
for having the audacity to be born in a body
that everyone looked at and saw “boy”
which brings me tothirteen, there is so much to understand.
fourteen, you need to understand
because we need to stick together
and to stick together we do not have to be the same but we do have to understand
and it will be hard because
you were probably thrown into this world with no warning becausefifteen, being queer is not genetic and we are not unique among minorities
in that we collect our heritage through broken bits of history and research in a world constantly working to make those misfit bits go away
but we are unique in that when we try to prove our legacy
we can be laughed down
or re-erased
or flat out ignored
but I swear to you
you have a history as old as Alexander the Great
as beautiful as Sappho
as dignified as Abraham Lincoln
and as proud as Eleanor Roosevelt.But even with that behind us
sixteen,
they have always watched us die.
because even though the bystander effect is bullshit, sixteen
Kitty Genovese was a lesbian, sixteen
Ronald Reagan is a mass murderer, sixteen
our children, your brothers and sisters and siblings of all stripes and all colors and sexualities and genders are being murdered
through neglect
and rejection
and hate.Sixteen, there is an entire generation of gay and bisexual men
missing from history
because the government chose to do nothing
when they were dying by the thousands.
sixteen, we died from the disease and died from going back into the closet and died for staying there and died for coming out,
sixteen, they laughed at us because they believed god was punishing us for daring to love,
sixteen, ashes of your forerunners rest on the lawn of the White House because
SIXTEEN, THEY HAVE ALWAYS WATCHED US DIE.SEVENTEEN
you are allowed
to be angry.
You do not have to be one of the nice gays
or one of the nice trans people
or sweet or kind or educate the rest of the world in something less than a yell
you are allowed to be so furious it scalds your bones
at the way we are forgotten
and passed over
at the way, as soon as June becomes July
we are expected
to go back to dying in silence
and mourning our dead
and kissing all alone
when no one can be offended
at the sight of us.
You are allowed to be angry
and scream down the stars
to shatter like broken glass at your feet
because you know what?
The first Pride
was a riot.
Tag: wow
this cracked me up bc my water pipes are noisy like this too
Triple Concerto for plumbing, faucet, and violin.
Types of cis bigots I am quite tired of (a bit of a rant, this)
[warning for cissexism]
The Fundiegelical: “You may think you’re ‘happy’ by wearing the clothing of the opposite sex, but you’re living in sin and you’re going straight to hell! Jesus loves you.”
The “Enlightened” Liberal: “But gender doesn’t even matter, because deep down, we’re all the same. So why is it such a big deal what I call you?”
The TERF: “By embracing a gender role opposite your assigned sex, you are reifying gender/privilege and thus making it that much harder for us to smash gender. I know that sounds contradictory but, if you’d been a feminist for as long as I have, you’d understand.”
The Proto-TERF: “Of course I don’t have anything against trans people, but abortion/sex work/breast cancer/ovarian cancer/whatever is and has always been a women’s issue! Why do you want to take it away from women?”
The Ungendering Fetishist: “Hey, I don’t have anything against sh*m*les! I think you’re hot! I watch sh*m*le porn all the time.”
The Clueless Oppression-Olympian: “Transness is just a white/abled/Western issue, so why should I care about it?”
The Incrementalist: “Look, people just aren’t ready to accept trans folks yet. So instead of arguing about what pronouns to use for you, we should focus on something we can actually accomplish, like [insert other tenuously-related SJ cause here].”
The Genital-Focused: “I totally respect and support trans people, but I would never date one. Because ewww.”
The Broad-Stroke Painter: “I once met a trans person who was selfish/mean/creepy/bad in general, so you’re all like that and I won’t respect any of you.”
The Inveterate Essentialist: “But… you can’t be a woman, because you have a PENIS! And chromosomes! And… a PENIS!”
The What-About-Teh-Cis Whiner: “I know my refusal to call you ‘she’ hurts you, but you have to understand that your demand to call you ‘she’ hurts me, too. What about my feelings?”
The Pig-Headed “Skeptic”: “Do you have actual evidence that you’re really a woman? No, of course you don’t, because it’s impossible by definition. No, shut up; I’m right and you’re wrong, PERIOD.”
The “Free Speech” Whiner: “Don’t you think that, in the spirit of free and open discussion, you should listen to my side of things instead of just dismissing it out of hand as ‘bigotry’?”
The Devil’s Advocate: “I’m not saying prejudice is right, but, to be fair, it is a little weird for someone to present as a woman and yet have a penis.”
The Self-Proclaimed “Ally”: “How dare you say I’ve been cissexist? Don’t you know how very supportive I’ve been of you and your causes? Why aren’t you grateful?”
The “Edgy” Comedian: “Look, it was a joke. I’m sorry you’re too unsophisticated to understand why it’s funny; I guess I’m just too edgy for you. Maybe one day, when you grow up a little, you’ll stop trying to censor humor.”
(Hint to cis people: don’t do any of these things.)
(Hint to cis people: don’t do any of these things.)
All my cis friends in meat space do these
Even the good ones
#this is good things to think about#but i am personally offended that you would compare spock to hux#he isn’t quick to anger he is very patient#he has a dry sense of humor but it isn’t biting or sarcastic#he doesn’t strive for order he strives for logic (and there is a difference)#he isn’t prim or otherwise about sex he literally has sex every seven years biologically have you SEEN amok time#he isn’t embarassed by loving kirk is embarassed by his emotions and ‘not being vulcan enough’#like spock is SO DIFFERENT from this stereotype honestly did you just think ‘emotionless and detached = neat freak sour character’#cuz that is such a disservice#anyway this analysis of hux is v fascinating and resonates a little bit bc i’ve seen loki take on this sort of personality in some fics
Firstly, I cannot argue with your Spock analysis! (Also, I adore Spock! I have a Spock tattoo! I promise that I love him truly.)
Now that I have said this piece, I’m gonna go on a long clarifying tangent, because it is a running theme in the tags on the post/the asks I’ve been getting. But know that the tangent is not directed at you, defender of Spock! I’m just reblogging this version because it collected the fragmented pieces of the discussion into one post, for context’s sake. 🙂
ANYWAY. The point I want to get to is that character archetypes totally exist, and that is not a) a problem, or b) what I am talking about.
Spock and Sherlock and Jeeves all more or less share a type, which is just a thing that happens when people tell stories, both consciously and subconsciously. That doesn’t mean the characters are identical or interchangeable, but you can see how they bear a kind of family resemblance to each other. For example– “it would have cost me my soul” and “it was worth a wound" and “there is a tie that binds” are rhyming moments of Great Import to all three characters, although they refer to moments that are specific to their canons. The characters ARE different, but when you put them together in a iineup, it’s easier to see how they’re similar. That resemblance, imo, is neutral.
What interests me about the fandom ghost isn’t that he is an archetype, or that many characters are very similar to each other. What interests me is that this is a character type that fandom periodically yanks out of the drawer and dresses up in the clothes of a minor character.
That’s a very specific thing to do. It’s not something we are inheriting from any canon. It’s something we are doing, collectively, as the great migratory fandom thing we are.
We (collective fandom we) have imbued minor characters with these traits so often that I can trace it as a type the same way that I can trace Sherlock Holmes as a type. That is a) VERY interesting to me, from a nerdy Henry Jenkins-style crowdsourced-story “the people talk back to the culture” way, and b) EVEN MORE INTERESTING GIVEN THAT THIS GUY IS HERE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY TO GIVE US A WHITE GUY SHIP WHEN THE CANON DOESN’T HAVE ENOUGH WHITE GUY SHIPS READY MADE FOR US. When we talk back to the culture, sometimes we speak bullshit.
Again, I don’t think any individual person is Wrong or Bad for liking or writing the ghost (I have liked the ghost! he can be very likeable!) but I think the fact that we keep resurrecting him and resurrecting him and resurrecting him IN FANDOMS THAT DO NOT HAVE HIM AS A PRE-EXISTING CHARACTER tells us something about what we as Fandom want. It’s a symptom that tells us something about the state of Fandom, the way a bechdel test fail does not tell us whether a movie is good or even feminist, but DOES tell us something about the state of hollywood.
TFA isn’t an incredibly diverse movie, but unless you pump up the empty balloon of Hux’s character with the ghost the only other white guys to pair Kylo Ren with are his blood relatives and Supreme Commander Gollum.
This is in a movie where he and Poe snark at each other with Poe on his knees; where he ties Poe up to a table and digs into Poe’s brain, where he looks at Finn from across a crowded massacre and Feels A Literal Magical Tug, where he and Rey basically mindfuck each other for agonizingly long minutes. There are Other Opportunities here, is what I’m saying.
Kylux is the most popular pairing in TFA fandom. Expanding Hux’s character is a choice that fandom made. Kylux is a choice that fandom made. The fact that Fanon Hux came canned and prepackaged for us–our ready made mayo sandwich–is SOMETHING TO PAY ATTENTION TO.
It’s not the character of the ghost, or his origins, or the canon characters that bear a family resemblance to him that really matter, imo. It’s the fact that WE, FANDOM, keep resurrecting him when we aren’t seeing a familiar enough white guy ship in the canon cast. That’s a canary collapsing in a mine, is what I’m saying.
I think what’s being said here is amazingly on point. It’s fascinating, the way that over time we remodel certain characters in fandoms – deciding they have certain traits and committing to this idea despite no real canon evidence, to the point that reading a fic where they don’t fall act in that way feels genuinely OOC.
In my view – and I’m sure it’s not an original one – Mr Fastidious-Kinky White Guy has a sister, a female character who is recreated again and again across fandoms. She’s the flawless pal of the main white boy couple, you know, the one who mostly exists to roll her eyes at their stupidity and probably save the world off screen while they’re getting their shit together.
Now, I’m being unfair. This character, as you’re saying with Hux, can be brilliantly written and wonderfully entertaining. I first came across her when deep into an obsession with Merlin, filling the role of Morgana – and perhaps significantly she mostly appeared in modern AUs. This Morgana was heart-stoppingly beautiful, wicked smart, eternally snarky, and in turns mean to and indulgent of ‘her boys’, who meanwhile spent the majority of each fic dithering about getting together. And I loved it every time. Actually, Morgana was generally my favourite part of these stories. She got all the best lines, and often felt like a refreshing and well-drawn character. If she didn’t much resemble the canon character, well, it’s hard to reconcile an increasingly murderous witch with a nice coffee-shop AU, especially when you genuinely like the character and want her to have nice things.
It was only a couple of fandoms down the line that she started to bother me. In particular, I found her in Teen Wolf. Mainly it was Lydia who took on the role, although most of the other Teen Wolf ladies could be co-opted into it. Again, I don’t mean to condemn the fandom. There are plenty of fics where lydia is a gloriously complex character. And as in Morgana’s case, there are plenty more where this archetype-Lydia is wonderfully written and puts a smile on my face. But ultimately, she is an archetype, created by the fandom to facilitate the getting-together of the white boy love interests.
And what I find particularly difficult about Morgana-Lydia-etc is that all too often, she’s not actually a minor canon character. Unlike Hux, she’ll often have be drawn in some detail by the writers. Maybe not in ways we always like or approve of, but she’s not an empty shell, and there’s really no need to superimpose a prepackaged character onto her.
We’re not gifted with a huge number of complex female character arcs on screen, and I think it’s interesting that we’re collectively so willing to put aside women in fanfiction and elevate minor male characters like Hux, especially while we’re simultaneously praising a movie like SW:TFA for being more diverse than typical blockbusters. I don’t really have an answer for why – I suspect that if I tried I’d descend into amateur hour psychology that anyone with a brain could tear apart in an instant. But I think it’s something we need to recognise in ourselves.
ABSOLUTELY. It’s a different but related thing, I think? The way canonically well-developed female characters (especially female love interests) get possessed by this “eyerolling at the boys and telling them what their feelings are while being badass conveniently elsewhere” ghost in fic.
Which, I should note, is a thing I have 100% written. Because I was being lazy, and rested the story on a sexist trope instead of doing justice to the characters. It can be done well, as you’ve mentioned, but I think mostly it’s lazy writing.
This one hits me harder than the ghost dude actually. As I read the initial description of Morgana above I was thinking, “that sounds just like how teen wolf fic treats Lydia.” And following the rest of the description, it also seemed a lot like Elizabeth and Teyla both in SGA, and like Natasha in Avengers fic, and even Karen, Marci, and Claire in Daredevil fic.
And yeah, the most frustrating thing there is that all these female characters are actually well-developed characters! They have agency and great stories! Why are they always turned into the sassy, snarky bff who tells her boys to get their shit together and date?
I could probably hit up ye olde googleheim for this but I wonder how they chose the order for LGBTQIA like … what type of alphabet
have you seen the white gays reorganize it to have the G first lmao
no but not like it would change anything anyway that’s basically how it is
This is something I know a lot about, so pardon me for this…
Prior to the Stonewall Riots, even activist groups tended to default toward some variation of the word “homosexual” in their titles. Until the slang term “gay” began to catch on in the 60s.
So in the 70s, it was simply the “gay liberation movement” – at a time “gay” (sort of) functioned as a catchall for all sexual and gender minorities. It was thought of as an umbrella term, even if it wasn’t.
As time passed, because lesbians felt that they were (and they actually were) excluded in many cases from the movement, “gay and lesbian” became commonplace throughout the 80s and into the 90s.
“Gay and lesbian” is still on the founding documents of many organizations that sprang up in the post-AIDS-crisis era of Human Rights Campaign-style activism that was primarily concerned with visibility politics and increasingly focused on the concerns of white, middle-to-upper class assimilationist queers (the “we’re your doctor, your lawyer, your neighbor, your cousin, and we’re just like you” crowd). Examples:
- GLAAD (Gay and lesbian anti-defamation league)
- The Task Force (founded as National Gay Task Force, then the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in 1985. They started going by just “The Task Force” in the early 2000s, before officially changing their name to National LGBTQ Task Force only in 2014)
- NGLJA (National Gay & Lesbian Journalist Association)
- National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
- PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays)
But because of this assimilationist trend in the political movement and the style of activism with the most visibility, people who felt excluded began pushing back. Some advocated for better representation of bisexual and transgender people, hence GLBT began to get added to mission statements. Some, particularly nonwhite communities, rejected the terms altogether, proliferating terms like “Men who have sex with men”/MSM, and “same gender loving”/SGL or even the problematic “Down Low” (DL) into certain activist spaces. As GLBT became common in the late 90s, more groups started pushing for inclusion: Intersex (I), Asexuals (A), Questioning (Q), Queer (Q), Two Spirit (TS), etc.
Meanwhile, some folks thought we should avoid the alphabet soup altogether and run with Queer. An umbrella term that would also encompass things like polyamory, fetishism/kink, etc., without excluding anyone.
Groups coming into play around this time tried to avoid wading into the debate altogether, thus we have organizations like “Equal Rights Nevada” “Equality Utah” “Empire State Pride Agenda” “MassEquality” “Out & Equal” and “Pride at Work.”
It was in the early 2000s that feminist and lesbian leaders convinced people to switch from GLBT to LGBT. Queer never quite caught on for activist circles and organizations, in part because it was too broad, and sometimes you need a little more specificity in your mission statement… otherwise you run the risk of getting hijacked by cisgender, straight allies intent on pushing an oppression narrative about how they’re discriminated against for liking to get spanked. But, probably more importantly, a lot of people of an aging generation had extremely bad connotations around the word and weren’t interested in reclaiming it. Anyone over the current age of 45 or so probably grew up being bullied under the word queer. Queer was too controversial for risk-averse organizations depending on the fundraising support of older gay men and women.
So by the time I was in college (late 90s), GLB or GLBT was the default for most.
I remember the debate around changing GLBT to LGBT (or even TBLG) very well. I worked in the queer press at the time (2000-2005). It made a lot of people very mad. It still makes some people mad. But the idea was to emphasize that gay men were not primary. It was a feminist thing. Sadly, the argument for TBLG (which argued that we name them in order of most oppressed and/or least visible) never really caught on beyond a few academics and some hardcore activists.
We made the editorial decision in 2001 to officially switch to LGBT unless quoting someone or as part of a proper name (e.g. the title of an organization). So did many other papers. GLAAD pushed this standard into the mainstream press. It caught on.
Most groups/editorial boards/journalists/activists put their foot down around the lengthy alphabet soup stopping at 4 – although Q, I and A are sometimes added depending on the group. Whether A stands for asexual or ally and whether Q stands for queer or questioning all depends on the group in question.
As far as I can tell, LGBT is the settled default. I’m not aware of any concentrated political push to move on and change it now, at least not like there was in the late 90s and early 2000s. Although it could happen. I would welcome it. Language, and how we frame our movement, must evolve.
Sorry, I know I wasn’t asked, but I wanted to throw some history out there.
very interesting thank u for sharing!!!!!
This is amazing! Thank you!
how can you be so fucking lucky though?
you write shitty fanfiction and get the chance to turn it into a book
and then you get a fucking movie on top of it
why can’t this happen to me
my fanfics are also shitty and cater to the fantasy of many women
only difference is that i don’t romanticise domestic abuse
every fanfiction-author out there.
Great fandom history at that link, and analysis of some specific dynamics in the Twilight fandom’s relationship to canon.
Also has links, is you go down, as to why older fandom people tend to hate Cassandra Claire/City Of Bones.
This disconnect doesn’t just have to do with female characters,
either. I’m reminded of that Tumblr post that compares two magazine
covers featuring Hugh Jackman: a men’s magazine on which he appears
bulging-veined, huge-muscled, and sort of terrifying and weird, and a
women’s magazine on which he appears as a slim, athletic guy smiling and
wearing a sweater. Anyone who reads comics is familiar with this
weirdness: comics heroes are often depicted as nightmarishly
hyper-muscled, enormous man-mountains. (Interestingly, this trend grew
more and more exaggerated as women became more and more nominally
liberated– that is, as they should have been more and more able to
communicate what they wanted, including what they wanted from men.)
Hyper-masculinity is almost always framed in terms of being attractive–
to women or, for gay men, to other men– and sometimes even talked about
in the same breath as “the female gaze.” Yet, as that Tumblr post points
out, while “the female gaze” is attracted by things like a naked,
sweaty Chris Evans or Idris Elba, it’s also attracted by things like:
men smiling in sweaters, men crying (DON’T LIE TUMBLR), barefoot fragile
Sebastian Stan in the rain on Political Animals, men holding
babies, men speaking foreign languages, Mark Ruffalo, and a whole bunch
of weird stuff on Ao3 that I don’t even wanna get into. And that’s just
“the female gaze as it pertains to men.“But think about whether men would agree that this is what women find
attractive in men. Imagine a men’s magazine that offers tips on being
attractive to women that include: looking fragile, being a bumbling
scientist, acting like a helpless meatball, expressing affection to tiny
children, blushing, being intensely interested in gorgeous clothes,
etc, etc. This is hard to imagine. In fact, these are characteristics
that are typically characterized as not ideal for men, because they are coded as feminine. Yet they’re also not only traits that are commonly attractive to women, but are generally accepted
as commonly attractive to women, if one looks at “women’s”
entertainment (romantic comedies, chick lit, anything in which Hugh
Grant appears).What I’m getting at is that there is a division between what attracts
women and what men accept/permit as attracting women. Men are engaged
in a constant enforcement of heteronormativity, a policing of women’s
desire and their own accession to it. What women want is subordinate to
what men decide that women want, and the latter is then culturally
broadcast as the ideological “what women want” that becomes accepted.This is true also in the case of female characters. What do women want in female characters? Well, I mean, a lot of us just want female characters for the love of God. But
specifically: some of the most popular current female characters in
comics/MCU fandom are: Natasha Romanoff, in a movie (Cap 2) where she
only briefly appeared in a sexy bodysuit and instead spent most of her
time wearing jeans and a hoodie, wisecracking, having a complex
narrative about salvation, and hacking computers, not to mention the
down-to-earth Phil Noto comics depiction, who even (GASP) sometimes
wears a ponytail; Peggy Carter, a 1940s secret agent with little
patience for men; Kamala Khan, a teenage Pakistani-American girl who
writes fan fiction and wears a modest homemade costume; Darcy Lewis,
who’s full-figured, socially awkward, and not a superhero; the lady
scientists of the MCU (Jane Foster, Maya Hansen, Betty Ross)… I could go
on.But what do men apparently believe that women want in female
characters? Well, going by Joss Whedon: superheroines who wear catsuits,
beat up men, are secretly very vulnerable, and are sexually threatened,
fragile and unstable girl-women with superpowers beyond their control…
oh, wait. That’s it. Expanding beyond Whedon, the most common
characteristics tend to be: aggressively sexy, sexually threatened,
beats up bad men but is secretly vulnerable. I discussed already one
potential reason this is attractive to men (see my previous post); my
issue here is: this is not what women want, but it is what men believe
that women want, because it is what they have been told by other men
that women want.Once again, what women want is ignored (or, more accurately, invisibilized– in that men deny or are oblivious to its existence)
in favor of the ideological construct of “what women want,” which is
determined and enforced by men. Men genuinely believe that they know
what women want, and are earnest in their attempts to explain “what
women want” to women. They are deeply confused, because of course
they know what women want! Right? They are unable to see that they are
selling a version of “what women want” is essentially “what it would be
attractive to men for women to want.”
Irreconcilable Differences by Determamfidd
Summary: Bruce has been searching for a cure again, but Tony doesn’t think the green guy is a disease. Abruptly, he’s given everything he’s ever wanted, and… well, it seems it’s all more complicated than that.
FEATURING:
Hulk – Amateur Psychology Hour with Tony Stark – Clint as a troll – more Hulk – Bruce as an angry introspective mess – Hulk again – Steve as Team Dad – Nick Fury as Nick Fury – Hulk smash! – Tony as a caped crusader for Hulk Rights – Rules, Rules, Rules – Natasha as the boss of everything – the Experimental Method (by T. Hulk) – Thor as the God of Thunder and Frustration – Tony as the king of the oblivious idiots – Stealth Sass Master Banner ……and a lot of figuring out who you really are.
And Hulk.
what a wondrous thing to return to!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH, ahhhh I can’t thank you enough! This is awesome, I absolutely LOVE IT! Thank you thank you thank you so sos osoooo much!!!
Valar week: 09/14 – Aulë
– Aulë with
his sonshis Maiar (Curumo left, Mairon right)– Aulë giving tiny smith hammer to tiny dwarf (nearly sent me into cardiac arrest just sketching it, I can’t deal,,)
– Aulë having to/realizing he’s not able to destroy the dwarves
If Aulë ’s taught me anything, it’s that fatherhood must suck tremendously (what with not one, but two of his maiar going bad and never returning– at least it’s not at once)
If anything though, I consider him the “patron father” figure out of the Valar; someone who loved as a father does before the concept was fully hammered out. (Hah. ”Hammered”. I’m funny. . )
OMG!!!!!
This is an awesome depiction of Mahal :O @determamfidd have you seen this?

