Also listened to “The Sweet Tooth”, which reminds me very much of reading “The Glad Hosts”.
They both feel strongly like somebody took a cliche, paint-by-numbers erotic-horror story, stripped out the conventionally-sexual content*, and gave it to a vanilla audience who wouldn’t recognise its pattern.
And so you’re like “…do they know? Is that what they did, or did they independently reinvent this standard plot?”
(IIRC, there’s an RPA behind-the-scenes bit that suggests they didn’t know, and that they did independently reinvent this plot. Which is interesting, in a convergent-evolution kind of way. “The lure is a chocolate shop, and women liking chocolate is for whatever reason more of a Thing than it is for men” and “this story is porn aimed at gynephiles” both lead to the same result of all-female targets.)
*But didn’t do a complete job of it: you can still see traces. Mai’s “love erotic”; the way the shop preys exclusively on women.
Tags:
#I mean yeah the villain loses in this one #but that *would* be a side effect of translating the plot from a genre where the villain usually wins to a genre where they never do #Red Panda Adventures #sexuality and lack thereof #nsfw text? #reactionblogging #tmi? #for some reason it took me longer to notice with Glad Hosts than with Sweet Tooth #Sweet Tooth I remember thinking a few minutes into my first listen ”I swear I’ve read porn with this premise” #Glad Hosts felt *vaguely* familiar and it wasn’t until afterward that I realised #”oh this is basically just cliche dime-a-dozen mind-altering-parasite porn but with the conventional sexuality removed” #”I didn’t like this plot the *first* six times I read it” #(Sweet Tooth was much less horror-y so I liked it a lot better) #(have I mentioned lately I hate horror?) #oh look an original post
