?

Log in

 
 
05 August 2003 @ 12:39 am
"It seems like just yesterday we were setting fire to Strong Sad's underwears..."  
"That was yesterday!" *bumbumTheCheatIsNotDeaaaaaaad!bumbum*



TheNightSpore: The new Advocate has an article on the hottest actors. No Crispin. Stupid gays. (I don't know why, but this makes me laugh like a maniac.)

TheNightSpore: EW has a cringe-inducing article on the gaying up of tv
roondaboot: I was, um, reading an article in Jane while I was waiting for my meds and it was talking about how, overwhelmingly, the ring finger is longer than the index finger in most gays. *shrugs*
roondaboot: Mine are about the same length.
TheNightSpore: Reminds me why I don't subscribe anymore
TheNightSpore: They talk about how this is a "post-gay society" yet the cover is in pink and silver-metallic and the first line of the article is a joke about the Style channel
roondaboot: Oh, I saw the cover. It was PINK, dear lord.
roondaboot: YES.
roondaboot: PINK!
roondaboot: *shakes head* I refuse to wear any pink triangles, dammit.
TheNightSpore: Mine's shorter . . . hmm.
TheNightSpore: So much for that theory
TheNightSpore: I was embarrassed to read it. Another sucky article
TheNightSpore: It's a good thing Crispin isn't gay, imagine what they'd do to him in interviews then
TheNightSpore: Pink triangles are a Nazi symbol, hello!
TheNightSpore: Or rainbows. I hate the stereotyping!
roondaboot: ... only time I'll hear you say that, I think.
roondaboot: Yeah. I know... Nazis, rainbows... stickers on the car. It's like voluntary segregation. (After all, you don't see Jews wearing yellow Star of David patches anymore, do you?)
TheNightSpore: Exactly
TheNightSpore: I say that ONLY for the sake of not liking to read articles trashing him, certainly not because I don't want to have mad gay rat sex with him
TheNightSpore: It really is
roondaboot: I want something that says "I can have pride without the fucking rainbow."
TheNightSpore: It's like solidarity between people who have blue eyes, or who happen to be 5 foot 6. it's a genetic condition you have no control over
TheNightSpore: That would be a GREAT bumper sticker, OMG!
roondaboot: XD "Mad, gay, rat sex."
roondaboot: I should make bumper stickers.


Because he's not allowed to fake normality in public. Or at least... he's not supposed to. That's what the rest of us have to do everyday, dammit.

TheNightSpore: Y'know, I was thinking it over. I'm certain he was lying thru his maloccluded teeth in that RS interview
TheNightSpore: This is the man who kept trying to convince people Rubin was a guy who just looked like him

I don't think I've ever been so upset with an article. Not because of Crispin or Alexa, even (well... not too much) ... it's more the way the writer presents Crispin, with an undertone of incredulity for his home and his belongings and his idiosyncrasies even as Crispin desperately tries to be taken seriously. The way he mocks Crispin's fans by saying, "Glover's more obsessed fans think that, like them, he must have had a dreadful childhood..." (I personally have never thought any such thing, usually trying to make any connections through common interests in the present; I have no real desire to obsess over teenaged Crispin... it's grown-up Crispin's personality I'm after, obviously.) Or maybe it's just the personal facts that seem a little too personal. That he was wearing white briefs? That he lost his virginity at nineteen to a girl who later committed suicide? Why is it necessary for us to know this, when it would be far more interesting to hear him talk about culture and counter-culture and so on and so forth? I don't know, whatever he felt like talking about... because I kind of get the impression that that subject would not be what he does in the bedroom, but I could always be wrong.

Although, if Rolling Stone was asking me about my sex life (V is for Virgin, people; remember that), I'd probably tell them it was fairly unremarkable and satisfying too. Because that's sort of a catch-22... at the same time our society craves more sex in the media, any actual truth would be mocked or shunned. We want it because it's still taboo, despite what we're having forced down our throats.

The only thing I liked about it was this: "... Glover wasn't too fond of the way his dramatic parents always argued. 'When you're an only child,' he says, softly, 'You really feel the anxiety of a situation like that.'" Ah, how refreshingly... honest. Honest on a very media-safe topic of course, since few people like to read about abused or frightened children. But I latched onto this. Why? Because I'm an only child. And my parents are divorced. And what he said is true. When your parents are at war, there's no one to stay on the side of neutrality with an only child. And, trust me on this, I never thought of that happening to him. It never occurred to me. But, now that I know it, do I connect with it? Sure. How could I not? But I never imagined it, I never imagined a terrible childhood for him. (After all, why bother when I'm already one of those mere plebes who dealt with "depressions, beatings, cruel hazings..." and public school life in general?)

But, dammit, I truly dislike reading articles that insult both the subject and the reader...
 
 
Current Mood: irritatedirritated
Current Music: Mad at Gravity - Walk Away
 
 
 
i am not avery.: [ you sunk my jenga-ship! ]amazingrando on August 4th, 2003 10:02 pm (UTC)
Hey man, where did this choir come from?
DrWormdrworm on August 4th, 2003 10:08 pm (UTC)
Hey, Strong Bad... Batman... what are you guys doing in my house?