The others think they know. Untouchable Darrow who lets no one near him, more likely to snarl like a wounded wolf and chase them away when he needs them the most; sensitive David who has no one who reaches out with gentle, soothing touch because it doesn’t fit in with their ideals of masculinity, never noticing what that deprivation costs him; Rosie - little more than a child to crawl into a parents’ hold for comfort and cosseting, and yet blossoming enough into woman hood that to hold her in such a way makes her predominantly male crew worry that their intent will be misconstrued.
They think they know.
But for Nico and Casey, the lack of touch is a branding iron, a deliberate slow torture, a sickness that never goes away.
Humans find the tactile aspect of them repugnant. They are told that they feel soft, squashy, but in the way of partly decomposed meat or large larvae instead of in a way that could be construed as comforting. And yet, unknown to their crew, that yielding flesh holds more than triple the sensory receptors of humans. Their species communicates almost fifty percent of the time by touch alone, an array of nuances in caressing tendrils.
They hold themselves, running fronds over their back and neck and nodes. It keeps them warm even if it doesn’t offer what they need.
“We can do it.”
Jay looks doubtful. “Are you sure?”
“You are the superior pilot and should remain aboard. Ensure we are able to leave after ramming the station. Our limbs,” they wave them demonstratively, “are not suited to weaponry. We will require Rosie as cover. But we can manipulate the electronics and find Jemma and we can do it quickly.”
It’s true. Logical. Necessary.
And when they are injured, as is inevitable, David will give soft touches as he heals them.
I, much like a lot of other queer people I've talked to, have a complicated relationship with queer monsters and queer villains.
Of course the fact that these kinds of characters often imply we aren't human or tie bisexuality to amorality or asexuality to emotionlessness is a huge problem.
And simply making a clean cut and saying:" I want actual human people who are the heroes and who are happy and I want nothing to do with this stuff" is in my opinion a valid response.
But to me and a lot of others there is something appealing about queer monsters.
There's a reason so many queer people love the Disney villains most of who'm are arguably queercoded.
There is something appealing about going fuck it guess I'm the villain now. Because of course the rejection of sociatal norms in favor of doing whatever you want is appealing not only to queer people but just in general. A lot of Villains are fun. Especially the queer coded ones. They're funny , they're dramatic and they don't give a fuck.
Every queer theatre kid I've encountered throughout my years of drama club has had a bit of a thing for villains or at the very least morally grey characters.
And then there's the monsters. Monsters are almost always metaphors for a bunch of stuff that can be read in a lot of different ways.
Be it vampires or fairies or ghosts or aliens or haunted porcelain dolls or ancient forest gods.
There's almost always a queer metaphor if you look hard enough. And I assure you a lot of us are looking.
Monsters are monsters because they are different.
Rejecting humanity in favor of being who you are is appealing especially when those two feel like they can't coexist.
Monsters are gender. Especially to a lot of non binary people.
Monsters are relatable to a lot neurodivergent people
Monsters also often hold within themselves a different metaphor. One for mental illness.
This is were this gets complicated for me.
Because I am all of these things. I'm a queer neurodivergent person with a vast array of mental health issues.
And the thing is...
The Villains loose and monsters aren't human.
Both of these types of characters are often intertwined tightly with tragedy. Especially the metaphors for mental illness.
And if you consume to much of this content you'll start to feel like you are destined to loose too. Like you are fundamentally broken in the same way these characters are framed to be.
It's often more of a subconcious than a concious thing. At least for me it was.
I think the best solution to this particular problem is, except for the obvious: actual human protagonists who are queer and or neurodivergent , is more happy monsters who are maybe even allowed allowed to also be explicitly queer and or neurodivergent.
Both "Hello From the Hallowoods" and "Monstrous Agonies" two relatively new fiction podcasts do the simultaneous metaphor and actual representation really well in my opinion. They both feel like incredibly well thought out deconstructions of the queer monster trope. They both feature a lot of non human characters who are often both metaphorically and textually queer/neurodivergent etc without those two taking away from each other.
You might be asking: why keep the monster at all if the identities they're often a metaphor for are actually represented?
For me the answer to that is: Monsters leave room for interpretation which is good. Explicit representation doesn't and it's not supposed to which is also good.
I think this piece of Holly and D is a strong start to this year's artistic journey! I hope to continue to improve my skills and their designs. I'm also working hard to have a better novel draft, I hope it can reach more people who will enjoy it!
Thank you all for your support 💜 Let's have a great 2024!
A character in a sci-fi story I am working on is an android, a human brain controlling a large many-armed crane. Because her limbs are built too weak to lift her whole body, she moves via a track mounted on the ceiling. She is able to move more freely in lower gravity, but can't use that very often. Her mobility limitations are treated as important, but she still has many interests outside of her disability and leads a fulfilling life. I know that fully fictional disabilities are sometimes viewed as being worse representation, and I understand why, so I wanted to check if this character concept needs more work?
Hi there, thanks for your question!
I think this is a neat concept for a character, and I personally am a fan of seeing more non-human characters in speculative fiction who are physically disabled. I think there's a lot of storytelling potential in considering the ways non-human characters would experience disability differently from human characters and how that might look.
It's true that inventing fictional disabilities can potentially be bad representation, but that tends to hold more weight in a real-world setting and with human characters who could just as easily have been written with a real-life disability. As you've already established, your premise is science fiction and far enough away from the real world that I don't see a problem with it. And as an android, this character probably wouldn't experience the same kinds of disabilities that a flesh-and-blood human would, so I don't have a problem with writers getting a little more creative on that front.
Other physically disabled people are welcome to offer their thoughts!
Although I do not plan on seperately posting about every toddler show with sentient objects (there are waaaaaay too many), I simply MUST tell you about this one, because this is most likely the first show that INTRODUCED me to inanimate objects as characters.
Maybe my strange obsession was provoked by this show... Or was my fondness of this show a product of an "innate" obsession...? Hmm, I guess we'll never know... (For the dummies: dw, I'm just messing with y'all.) Anyways, as a former baby, I can say this show was DOPE AF:
You ever love your favorite non-human characters so much you wanna disect them so you can study all the parts of them that make them the way they are like they're your own personal science experiment?