The idea that queer characters were somehow shoehorned into the story to fit a contemporary queer "agenda" is laughably wrong to anyone who’s read the comics. Lucifer is genderless in the comics, and so are any angels that will appear later. Desire has been non-binary from the beginning, even in the 80s and 90s when Neil didn’t have the language we have now to describe gender identity. The Corinthian was always interested in men (though that rarely ends well for men). Judy in the diner in the comics was still trying to get in touch with Donna after a fight, she just didn’t have a cell phone. Hal/Dolly in the comics was also a fabulous queen longing to get out of Florida. There are so many more characters, but I won’t keep listing them because this post is long enough already. The queerness of these characters wasn’t “added,” it is an integral part of what makes them who they are. At the same time, their characters are not reducible to “being queer” because as complex people (or anthropomorphic personifications, or nightmares…) they’re not defined by a single trait. 

Because our mother does,

Because her mother did,

Because her mother lived through the Dust Bowl.

One day my father sat me down and told me about epigenetics.

How the trauma he went through

As a child in an abusive home

Wrote itself into his DNA

And, in turn, into mine.

How he and his brothers,

In various ways,

Are all sick from it.

How I might be too, someday,

And I’m not sure I’m not.

I hear people say,

When will we get back to normal?

And I think of a woman born in the twenty-first century

Who puts her glasses away differently

Because of what her great-grandmother endured

Hello babe🌝 of course you can, i cannot say no to this handsome face😏❤️‍🔥 and thank you, same goes for you❣️😽 and i am adding a song that fits the character in my opinion.

“the faerie queene,” by edmund spenser. this poem is both an epic and an allegory, written in (mostly) iambic pentameter. it is divided up into six books (plus a little bit of a seventh) which you should read, if for no other reason than the fact that there’s supposedly an exclusive book club at harvard university for the select few people who have finished all six sections

“romeo and juliet,” and “othello,” both by shakespeare. these plays both involve two lovers who die because of communication issues. and they’re both super important to read because there are so many references to them, both in other pieces of classic lit., and in modern culture

“the picture of dorian gray,” by oscar wilde. if you can’t tell, this is my favorite book ever. if you can get past the purple prose, it’s one of the most ‘dark academia’ books ever. it’s got references to other famous pieces of literature (which i’ll include on the list), lots of gay shit, a dramatic young adult who loves shakespeare, and ofc, murder

“the brothers karamazov,” by fyodor dostoevsky. actually started reading this one to impress a boy; i think that perhaps he and i have different concepts of what is considered impressive, but the book has turned out amazing, so i’m happy. it has lots of wonderful philosophical and theological discussions. the one thing you may not like is that Dostoevsky constantly goes off on little tangents (like Herodotus). it simultaneously fascinates me and makes me want to smack him with a stick

“the prince,” by niccolo machiavelli. this isn’t classic literature so much as it is political science, but honestly, so many people talk about ‘machiavellianism’ without ever having read the original Machiavellian treatise, and it would be so much better to just read the book and then be able to cite machiavelli himself at your next political-philosophy discussion.

“the canterbury tales,” by geoffrey chaucer. these are classics. they’re filled to the brim with medieval language and sexual innuendo, but that’s part of what makes them so wonderful. if that’s not enough of a selling point, ‘the tale of the deathly hallows’ from “harry potter” is super similar to ‘the pardoner’s tale’ from this book.

“the divine comedy,” by dante alighieri. includes a crap ton of great history references and some super sick burns directed towards the corrupt people of dante’s time.

“meditations,” by marcus aurelius. the original metaphysical journal. probably the epitome of ‘light academia’ if i’ve ever read one

“the great gatsby,” by f. scott fitzgerald. jay gatsby is low-key super relatable…and so is nick, the third wheel…and so is daisy, who feels like women are forced by society to be ‘beautiful little fools’

“the iliad” and “the odyssey,” by homer. i will never ever be able to read ‘the iliad’ again without sobbing hysterically. :’((

“frankenstein,” by mary shelley. not only is this a great book in terms of philosophical potential, but there are so many great things to debate about in it. and, it’s written by a woman :)

“oedipus rex,” by sophocles. my favorite book in 9th grade, though god knows why my mother let me read it then

“metamorphoses,” by ovid. a collection of my all-time favorite myths, which every single person needs to read because it explains how the ancient romans believed the world operated, from the way the sun rises, to the reason we hear echoes.

“the aeneid,” by virgil. suggested by @catilinas :) the final addition to the holy iliad/odyssey/aeneid trinity, written hundreds of years after the last part, by a different author, and in latin instead of the original greek. chronologically ocurrs at about the same time as the odyssey, although from the trojan perspective.

“1984” (suggested by @alexickotowaffle) and “animal farm,” both by george orwell. i’m sticking them together because although the plots are completely different, they both remind me of today’s culture in rather unfortunate ways. but they’re very well written, and i do adore orwell’s style :)

“don quixote,” by miguel de cervantes. an absolutely hysterical book; i kept laughing out loud the entire time i was reading it. it satirizes getting wrapped up in the world of books, to which i’m sure we can all relate.

His wife, Yukiko, was also a part of this; she is often credited with suggesting the plan. The Sugihara family was held in a Soviet POW camp for 18 months until the end of the war; within a year of returning home, Sugihara was asked to resign - officially due to downsizing, but most likely because the government disagreed with his actions.

He didn’t simply grant visas - he granted visas against direct orders, after attempting three times to receive permission from the Japanese Foreign Ministry and being turned down each time. He did not “misread” orders; he was in direct violation of them, with the encouragement and support of his wife.

He was honoured as Righteous Among the Nations in 1985, a year before he died in Kamakura; he and his descendants have also been granted permanent Israeli citizenship. He was also posthumously awarded the Life Saving Cross of Lithuania (1993); Commander’s Cross Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland (1996); and the Commander’s Cross with Star of the Order of Polonia Restituta (2007). Though not canonized, some Eastern Orthodox Christians recognize him as a saint.

Sugihara was born in Gifu on the first day of 1900, January 1. He achieved top marks in his schooling; his father wanted him to become a physician, but Sugihara wished to pursue learning English. He deliberately failed the exam by writing only his name and then entered Waseda, where he majored in English. He joined the Foreign Ministry after graduation and worked in the Manchurian Foreign Office in Harbin (where he learned Russian and German; he also converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church during this time). He resigned his post in protest over how the Japanese government treated the local Chinese citizens. He eventually married Yukiko Kikuchi, who would suggest and encourage his acts in Lithuania; they had four sons together. Chiune Sugihara passed away July 31, 1986, at the age of 86. Until her own passing in 2008, Yukiko continued as an ambassador of his legacy.

You want to know about my motivation, don’t you? Well. It is the kind of sentiments anyone would have when he actually sees refugees face to face, begging with tears in their eyes. He just cannot help but sympathize with them. Among the refugees were the elderly and women. They were so desperate that they went so far as to kiss my shoes, Yes, I actually witnessed such scenes with my own eyes. Also, I felt at that time, that the Japanese government did not have any uniform opinion in Tokyo. Some Japanese military leaders were just scared because of the pressure from the Nazis; while other officials in the Home Ministry were simply ambivalent.

People in Tokyo were not united. I felt it silly to deal with them. So, I made up my mind not to wait for their reply. I knew that somebody would surely complain about me in the future. But, I myself thought this would be the right thing to do. There is nothing wrong in saving many people’s lives….The spirit of humanity, philanthropy…neighborly friendship…with this spirit, I ventured to do what I did, confronting this most difficult situation—and because of this reason, I went ahead with redoubled courage.

The stone next to him bears a quote from the Talmud; “He who saves one life, saves the entire world.”