I went from "this is an anonymized serious account of.a real event" to "omg this is the funniest thing ever" to "huh, this is kind of a serious account of.a real event". You're a fucking genius
Yea - a bit of a commentary on the “high vibe” crowd. I used to be in those spaces growing up, and there’s a lot of avoidance of the “real work” and emphasis on high vibe states
But I like the idea that true Love (for the world, universe, etc) is not some fuzzy comfortable thing - it's something you have to be prepared to face, it demands more from you than singing bowls and ~vibes~
I might get it. To the autistic mind conventional expressions of love can be overwhelming and unpleasant. Rather than summoning love directly, it is better to interact with love through well communicated, consensual, love proxies. Coming to close to raw unmediated love was such a painful experience that the love summoners are left believing it is love they should avoid, rather than foolish ritual demon summoning, "and they would never love again."
I didn't read the story too closely, so take this with a grain of salt. But I feel like in a lot of spaces there are big ceremonies ushering in "inclusion," including neurodivergent inclusion. But when those same people deal with Autistic people and the problems that come along with dealing with Autistic people, it's like a mini emergency, a fear spreads through those who summoned neurodiversity when they feel that this actual Autistic person is about to fuck up all their shit. (Whether or not that Autistic person is about to fuck up all their shit is another thing entirely.)
And so there are these huge efforts to contain the Autistic threat, normal bureaucratic rules fall left and right to deal with this absolutely exceptional and singular threat to the status quo of all those around.
In a workplace, HR starts tactically breaking ADA law because it's assumed that normal accomodations will be more difficult and costly than following the law. In a family, the most humble and quiet are often some of the loudest and most critical.
I don't mean to co-op Aellas art for my critical and political goals, but I also believe we Autistic people tend not to understand how much our marginalization affects our individual politics, our individual philosophies, and our very intuition, vital to all fiction.
I think it's interesting that the paper thin-New Agey characters are invoking "love"--really a universal love--and then when they actually have to deal with Love, they defeat it with "good vibes" and "never love again." To me "good vibes" basically refers to a kind of much-written-about toxic positivity, which I think is deeply characteristic of neurotypical normativity. The fact that the Love actually does, indeed, do harm, is reflective of how Autistic people often will believe that they are actually doing harm when the real harm they're doing is living authentically, existing at all.
In the broadest of terms (read: unrestricted by genre), please do more of this (as your passion suits you). Your wit and subtle humor shine when you get creative with your writing.
Interesting way that you've chosen to depict the eldtrich God personification of Love Itself. I don't know if I would've gone with covered in eyes, for instance, but it's a curious inversion of the usual trope that love is blind. The outrageous projection in the comments section is pure gold.
I only read it as an amusing juxtaposition of new age woo accidentally bumping up against real "do not call up that which you cannot put down" ritual demon summoning.
If there are further interpretations I'd love to hear them.
I read it as: your woowoo hippy free love orgy bull shit gets real messy when real love enters the picture. It will rip people away from your cult, and the only way this type of “love guru” can manage and by banishing the love that hurt them so much.
Basically a critique of a certain genre of free love hippy stuff’s inability to handle actual love
That's what I got out of it, too. The Monster is an interesting perspective, but I feel that they might have accidentally summoned the spirit of Love...craft.
It made me think of the idea of "if you love someone, let them go", which like this story, points to the way that love can be stifling, and it's distinct from wanting the other to fulfill their own "utility function".
I think this point also ties into her last essay about treating kids with autonomy. Some people in the comments mentioned how certain things are in the kids own best interest. I doubt this post is a subtweet at them and I don't think its a super strong connection, but it did come to my mind
Reminds me of "Deep Utopia" where Bostrom explores the idea of post-instrumentality, where there is no task a human could do for instrumental reasons that a machine could not do better. This includes raising children, which means in a post-instrumentality world, if you are raising children, you are doing it because you want to, not because it benefits the child.
If this is an allegory or metaphor for something, it's not the kind that I'm good at understanding. :/
(I know of at least one famous short story that, after I read it, I felt certain that it had a Meaning and was trying to say something, but I had no understanding of what that Meaning was.)
I went from "this is an anonymized serious account of.a real event" to "omg this is the funniest thing ever" to "huh, this is kind of a serious account of.a real event". You're a fucking genius
Yeah, thanks to the timing I briefly thought this was gonna be about LessOnline. Maybe I missed a really interesting session somewhere.
What is the reference?
Hi
How high were you when you wrote this? ❤️
Apparently high enough to banish Love Itself …
"True love is incredibly scary and messy, and most of us will run from it - yet once it consumes us we will be at peace for the rest of our lives."
This is the vibe I got, at least.
Yea - a bit of a commentary on the “high vibe” crowd. I used to be in those spaces growing up, and there’s a lot of avoidance of the “real work” and emphasis on high vibe states
this is a fucking mazing
Reminds me of that one time that love monster ate my hippie friends and we had to play the djembe drum super hard.
The palo santo flamethrower took me out.
But I like the idea that true Love (for the world, universe, etc) is not some fuzzy comfortable thing - it's something you have to be prepared to face, it demands more from you than singing bowls and ~vibes~
I was confused, because initially it came across as all of my nightmares, and then it turned into most of my pleasant dreams.
Monsters eating hippies is far more preferable to hippie parties, I suppose.
Just when I thought there were no new stories to be written, I read a Lovecraftian comedy with Love as a Great Old One.
Kinda wish love just tore them to shreds and ate them all thus leaving us on the hook for it to fuck up the world.
"They had fought with good vibes, they’d won with good vibes, and they would never love again."
This is everything. 💓
I am proud to be asexual. Cuddles without a romantic or sexual purpose should have more place in this world, they produce really good vibes.
You seem to assume that LOVE ITSELF can only be summoned sexually and romantically? Why can't platonic cuddles summon LOVE ITSELF?
I love this. Also, as an Autistic person, this feels vaguely like an LSD-drenched allegory for Autism, as weird as that may sound.
I might get it. To the autistic mind conventional expressions of love can be overwhelming and unpleasant. Rather than summoning love directly, it is better to interact with love through well communicated, consensual, love proxies. Coming to close to raw unmediated love was such a painful experience that the love summoners are left believing it is love they should avoid, rather than foolish ritual demon summoning, "and they would never love again."
Now I'm happy I was so cryptic. We get this really interesting take on my take. Thanks @TT
How so?
I didn't read the story too closely, so take this with a grain of salt. But I feel like in a lot of spaces there are big ceremonies ushering in "inclusion," including neurodivergent inclusion. But when those same people deal with Autistic people and the problems that come along with dealing with Autistic people, it's like a mini emergency, a fear spreads through those who summoned neurodiversity when they feel that this actual Autistic person is about to fuck up all their shit. (Whether or not that Autistic person is about to fuck up all their shit is another thing entirely.)
And so there are these huge efforts to contain the Autistic threat, normal bureaucratic rules fall left and right to deal with this absolutely exceptional and singular threat to the status quo of all those around.
In a workplace, HR starts tactically breaking ADA law because it's assumed that normal accomodations will be more difficult and costly than following the law. In a family, the most humble and quiet are often some of the loudest and most critical.
I don't mean to co-op Aellas art for my critical and political goals, but I also believe we Autistic people tend not to understand how much our marginalization affects our individual politics, our individual philosophies, and our very intuition, vital to all fiction.
I think it's interesting that the paper thin-New Agey characters are invoking "love"--really a universal love--and then when they actually have to deal with Love, they defeat it with "good vibes" and "never love again." To me "good vibes" basically refers to a kind of much-written-about toxic positivity, which I think is deeply characteristic of neurotypical normativity. The fact that the Love actually does, indeed, do harm, is reflective of how Autistic people often will believe that they are actually doing harm when the real harm they're doing is living authentically, existing at all.
It could just be my own shit though.
This one.
Grimes said you were Diogenesian so I wanted to checkout your sub stack.
In the broadest of terms (read: unrestricted by genre), please do more of this (as your passion suits you). Your wit and subtle humor shine when you get creative with your writing.
Interesting way that you've chosen to depict the eldtrich God personification of Love Itself. I don't know if I would've gone with covered in eyes, for instance, but it's a curious inversion of the usual trope that love is blind. The outrageous projection in the comments section is pure gold.
I... Am not following the allegory or metaphor or whatever. Am I dumb?
I only read it as an amusing juxtaposition of new age woo accidentally bumping up against real "do not call up that which you cannot put down" ritual demon summoning.
If there are further interpretations I'd love to hear them.
I read it as: your woowoo hippy free love orgy bull shit gets real messy when real love enters the picture. It will rip people away from your cult, and the only way this type of “love guru” can manage and by banishing the love that hurt them so much.
Basically a critique of a certain genre of free love hippy stuff’s inability to handle actual love
That's what I got out of it, too. The Monster is an interesting perspective, but I feel that they might have accidentally summoned the spirit of Love...craft.
It made me think of the idea of "if you love someone, let them go", which like this story, points to the way that love can be stifling, and it's distinct from wanting the other to fulfill their own "utility function".
I think this point also ties into her last essay about treating kids with autonomy. Some people in the comments mentioned how certain things are in the kids own best interest. I doubt this post is a subtweet at them and I don't think its a super strong connection, but it did come to my mind
Reminds me of "Deep Utopia" where Bostrom explores the idea of post-instrumentality, where there is no task a human could do for instrumental reasons that a machine could not do better. This includes raising children, which means in a post-instrumentality world, if you are raising children, you are doing it because you want to, not because it benefits the child.
I gave another one in another thread here
If this is an allegory or metaphor for something, it's not the kind that I'm good at understanding. :/
(I know of at least one famous short story that, after I read it, I felt certain that it had a Meaning and was trying to say something, but I had no understanding of what that Meaning was.)