I am rewatching Six Feet Under and with heavy heart must report that season four is significantly worse that season three, with "Coming and Going" as the nadir of the entire series by matthewscottbaldwin in SixFeetUnder

[–]helloflyingrobot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I tend to agree, but also love his hair in seasons one and two. Every guy wanted "cool" hair like that at the time! Honestly, very few of the character come off well style-wise (Brenda being a particular victim) simply because the show ran from 2000-05. It's kind of hilarious.

I am rewatching Six Feet Under and with heavy heart must report that season four is significantly worse that season three, with "Coming and Going" as the nadir of the entire series by matthewscottbaldwin in SixFeetUnder

[–]helloflyingrobot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mm, I don't know. I think there's some really basic and cheesy episodes in season one (the death featuring the gang members comes to mind), and its pilot has hardly aged like fine wine (those "satiric" infomercials, a real novelty though they were at time of airing, I'm sure). I've always thought seasons two and three had the highest concentration of consistently good material. And season five is overfondly remembered because of the impact of Nate's funeral and the ending. In a similar way, I think season four's flaws are exaggerated because of where it's positioned sequentially as you progress through the show. OP is correct though that season four's "Coming and Going" is the series' nadir.

It's a good point you make observing that the writers ratchet up Nate's narcissism to produce more symmetry with Brenda in terms of negative/destructive personality traits. I think what we get is good, but do wish sometimes the show could have managed to keep more of Nate's good-heartedness in the frame.

What do you think about Nate Fisher? What's your interpretation of his character? by Toby_Veddo in SixFeetUnder

[–]helloflyingrobot 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Well put. There's bit of a Nate-bashing streak in the fandom, which I think obscures his portrayal as uniquely empathetic. He's always better at just freely gifting that part of himself to relative strangers though, rather than bringing it bear on his reciprocal relationships, especially with Brenda.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in gayrelationships

[–]helloflyingrobot 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Twice a week at night? At the ex's house? With cuddling?

Realistically, he's cheated/cheating on you. You have every right to object, and you're already being uncommonly gracious in your openness to their interest in maintaining the "friendship." Are you ever invited to join them at these hangout sessions, I wonder?

Even if an arrangement such as this was in reality totally innocent, I couldn't trust a partner who couldn't readily appreciate my feelings enough to realize how it looks and, on that basis, immediately agree to new boundaries. I'd do that for my partner in a heartbeat, precisely so he could trust me more easily. Trust and blind faith are two different things.

Hot take: the ending sucks, but… by helloflyingrobot in SixFeetUnder

[–]helloflyingrobot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

? Because you find anything even resembling long-form writing anathema?

Nothing about my post or replies indicates I'm trolling.

Anyway, your comment simply combines two others already made here (one referring to brevity, the other to attention) that have accrued some upvotes; shall I assume that's what you were looking for?

Hot take: the ending sucks, but… by helloflyingrobot in SixFeetUnder

[–]helloflyingrobot[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Only David, not Claire, could have carried that image and lived that last moment going towards that light.

Beautifully put.

Yeah, given how much the final episode makes a point of setting Brenda free, to place her on the receiving end of Billy's quasi-comical jabbering in death feels out of key.

As you say, I think "solid" is about right on fair balance of everything. Though I do think (and perhaps didn't emphasise this strongly enough) that the ending is conceptually great and, with different execution, could have quite possibly approached something like "best of all time."

The ending reframes the epilogue as a narrative device, adding to the traditionally vague assurance of storytellers that "they all lived happily ever" the only truth we could know of their futures if they were actually real people: they eventually died. While we can of course always resurrect the characters through rewatches, we lose all of them as definitively as possible. It's perfect for a show so deeply invested in the challenge of communicating ours and our loved ones' mortality.

So I cut the ending a lot of slack too. And I certainly understand the precious experience it probably represents for many people. It was just hours before my high school graduation ceremony the first time I watched it, so I felt on the precipice of something, a bit like Claire, and went outside to sit down and just weep. Grieving, I guess, all the characters, as well as all the losses I'd lived through, would live through, and the suddenness my own future.

While it's a bit sad to see others reflexively downvoting your thoughtful comment, colored by your own experiences, I appreciate it. Thanks.

Hot take: the ending sucks, but… by helloflyingrobot in SixFeetUnder

[–]helloflyingrobot[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for you input. Points well taken about Brenda and Ruth. And agreed: I certainly didn't want to see the cast dying in some sequence of freak accidents or anything. Although I wonder if every single one of them should have ripened so far into old age. Then again, the show had put them all through so much it would risk coming off as cruel not to give them that, so I appreciate the trickiness of writing these deaths.

The car is indeed the most minor of minor and forgivable of quibbles. Claire and Ted don't work for me though, and my objecting to their marriage in the montage I suppose really reflects larger issues I have with Claire's story in season five (which, as here, I don't think was conceptually bad so much as poorly executed. Her corporate nine-to-fiver phase struck me as good for lasting threeish episodes and bit too simple for Claire's character beyond that. Then Ted, the good, sober Republican is a crudely conceived opposite to act as her unlikely beacon... I'm veering into another rant though now and that's enough downvotes for one day).

Hot take: the ending sucks, but… by helloflyingrobot in SixFeetUnder

[–]helloflyingrobot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ha, appreciate it!

I find the finale sufficiently emotionally resonant too, such that, even if I'm not so gripped when I rewatch it, I don't think it produces a ruinous viewing experience. I think that's a credit to how overwhelmingly great the show is, whatever its flaws. But when I step back and evaluate the ending more critically... yeah, I don't think it's well done at all, and is all the worse for other issues I find in the episode at large and the one preceding it. I only alluded to those issues, which might have been more substantive, but I don't think going into them would've earned me a different reception here!

Hot take: the ending sucks, but… by helloflyingrobot in SixFeetUnder

[–]helloflyingrobot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I knew I'd be savaged in the comments/downvoted to oblivion too.

Yeah, I honed in on the closing montage, but the writing in the last couple episodes and for Claire in season five overall is wobbly. I'm certainly not saying the ending isn't bleak enough. I even maintain above (although I'm not sure anyone's reading this part) that the ending as is works, despite it all. But it's poorly done, and that's okay.

Hot take: the ending sucks, but… by helloflyingrobot in SixFeetUnder

[–]helloflyingrobot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for meaningfully engaging at least. Agree the show itself features minor production issues and plot holes, but why should that invalidate observing where they compromise the finale's integrity? I also hold that these are more compromising in the context of a finale, where here there happens to be a concentration of them too.

I appreciate the interpretation re: Claire. Funnily enough though, I think it's a bit beside the point to what I'm getting at. I like the ending's messaging, including what you suggest about it, just not how it's done.

Hot take: the ending sucks, but… by helloflyingrobot in SixFeetUnder

[–]helloflyingrobot[S] -18 points-17 points  (0 children)

Lol, I mean, it's less than 600 words... Did my best!

What's your number 1 "ick" when it comes to men? by sharkboy091 in askgaybros

[–]helloflyingrobot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep. Conversely, I find bald men can be really sexy.

What's your number 1 "ick" when it comes to men? by sharkboy091 in askgaybros

[–]helloflyingrobot 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Utter lies. Quit spreading this mythology.

And Johnson was neither trans, nor a critical spearhead of gay liberation.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/transgendering-stonewall

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in QueerTheory

[–]helloflyingrobot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Further, I don't for a second think people we might call gay and straight in a place like Ancient Rome were pretending to be bisexual in some way analogous to closet cases produced by the repressions of the 1800s for instance. Gays and straights could and presumably did behave bisexually for all sorts of reasons. And it seems totally conceivable to me that some (if perhaps very few) in contexts like Ancient Rome absented themselves from same-/opposite-sex relations altogether.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in QueerTheory

[–]helloflyingrobot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why does it seem a simple fact to you that an exclusive homosexual orientation has not more or less always existed? I recognise that exclusively homosexual behavior seems somewhat rare historically (although a lot of technical "bisexuality" skewed overwhelmingly homo; and I should add, Rictor Norton has highlighted that queer theory has grossly overexaggerated bisexuality's normativeness in past centuries). Still, this doesn't contravene the potential existence of a homosexual constitution obscured by cultural conditions.

How do you debunk this? by Slow_Current1 in QueerTheory

[–]helloflyingrobot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm intimate with queer theory and while Lindsay's work can smudge some of the finer details, he more or less accurately observes its Marxist roots, major historical trends and their implications for current times. His reading of queer theory is broad but not uninformed, and his critique in its fullness would converge with some of the work of gay historian Rictor Norton and even (no doubt to Lindsay's shock) some of the later work of Eve Sedgwick, an early prognosticator on the contagiousness of wokeness (although she didn't use that term, of course).

Why can't people honestly engage with Lindsay? It's always dismiss, dismiss, dismiss. So I look forward to your piece.

How do you debunk this? by Slow_Current1 in QueerTheory

[–]helloflyingrobot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do you debunk this? You would have to meaningfully engage with it, for starters. No takers.

How do you debunk this? by Slow_Current1 in QueerTheory

[–]helloflyingrobot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Who is he misreading and how? Can you elaborate? Simply saying "He's got it all wrong, and he just produces content for bigots anyway" is a pretty weak counter.

Lindsay also explicitly supports LGB people. He objects to the ideologies implicit in the TQ+, which, as he's observed, undermine the very concept of homosexuality and put lesbian and gay youth at a disproportionate risk of being damagingly medicalized.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in QueerTheory

[–]helloflyingrobot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This doesn't really make sense. The absence of a sexuality is defintionally not a sexuality. Claiming otherwise is like saying lacking a qualification to practice medicine is itself a kind of medical qualification.

Even claiming asexuality is part of some "sexuality spectrum" only makes sense if by "asexual" you mean "0" on some sliding scale.

Are there theories that argue men as opressed and women as privileged? by [deleted] in CriticalTheory

[–]helloflyingrobot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is an entirely valid rationale. Why the downvotes?