Tumgik
#'ship that has queer subtext and it's unclear if it's canonical'
Text
Some people seem to think they aren’t canon, but I will simply state that they’re missing the point that they don’t need to explicitly say it.
“”The themes speak for themselves, and make it clear what the intent is. In this actual mini-essay I will actually talk a bit about why focusing on ships being “canon” is wasting the potential of queer representation, in particular reference to Lycoris Recoil.
Tumblr media
Lycoris flowers represent a lot of different things, most famous is that red variants symbolize death and final goodbyes. However, of that same species are also a pink variant which symbolize love, passion, and … ahem “feminine beauty”.
There are also yellow and blue variants in other species of Lycoris plants. Yellow represents cheerfulness, courage, and cherishing what you have. While blue represents being calm and dependable, but also freedom.
It hardly gets more on the nose and it’s clear how these apply to the characters and the themes of their arcs. And how the story overall is at the intersection between love and death.
Plus there are literally multiple homages to pieces of media where the characters have been thought of as gay in the story or by audiences. In particular the scene in Stand By Me where the characters kick each other, which the animators made the deliberate choice of copying the overall mannerisms of to draw a direct parallel.
The story is about a hell of a lot more than just a romance, and that is a good thing! I don’t need every piece of representation to be about just romance. And you’d also have to be joking me if you don’t see them using the term “partner” even after retiring from being Lycorises to describe their relationship, as being tongue in cheek about how there is so much media where the characters are obviously but not explicitly queer. Throughout the show they are constantly making references to other ambiguously queer media, and using common language that is unclear about the exact nature of their relationship. Like, everyone wants their confirmed representation I get it, but could we also not call the show doing the most on the nose and tongue-in-cheek queer coding of their main characters “queer baiting”.
The creators have clearly purposefully evoked when not just directly referencing other media where the characters have been queer coded, or queer audiences have resonated with the experiences of the characters. This isn’t subtext that went nowhere, this is a deliberate choice to code the leads as queer by reclaiming things and phrases that have been used as subtext. And then, this is the important part, actually reframing the context to emphasize when they are doing it. See no further than the picture below this. “Partner” has a long and storied history of being used ambiguously, because how we use it slots between purely romantic and purely platonic, and can mean either depending on ... that’s right the context. Now let’s imagine you’re a restaurant employee, two women come in and order drinks. When one of them gets up to pick up their drinks and brags about the other woman being her “partner”, and reiterates the point. Now what sort of meaning can we imply from that context? Because if it was a straight couple, nobody would for a moment doubt that partner is in a romantic context.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Like c’mon people, they aren’t hiding it, but they don’t have to look directly into the camera saying they’re a couple for it to be obvious they aren’t “just besties”. Also I don’t even have time for going to go over how all the official art that’s come out since, and the fan art by the creators hasn’t been at all shy about showing them being more intimate than you’d expect from “just friends”.
Tumblr media
Or that the season ended with them vacationing in Hawaii of all places. Or that the whole show had a rather open ending clearly hoping for more seasons, and this probably isn’t the end of their story together. Or that one of the original writers who was behind the entire idea for the show, and was a lead writer for the screen play has publicly stated on twitter he’d love to make them official, and told fans asking if the show would end up being a yuri show to “stay tuned for future stories“
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Update: and behold, literally new art and products just got released of them literally in wedding dresses together. It’s more than obvious what exactly their intentions are with these characters. So please, please, understand that queer baiting is not just when a relationship you wanted doesn’t happen on screen. Queer people don’t only start existing once they’re in a fully intimate relationship. And queer people not ending up together at the end of what will probably be the first of multiple seasons is not the same as queer baiting. Especially not when the creators have clearly taken a lot of time and effort to consistently code them both as queer, in high effort and direct references to other media. (In a country like Japan where acceptance of queer people is certainly rising, but is also let’s be frank, far from in a good place and there are clear pressures to not show genuinely good representation for fear of upsetting a bunch of weirdos from the publisher’s perspective) (Yes I know the new Gundam show has lesbians in it, that’s also one of the biggest, most profitable, and longest enduring cross-media franchises in Japan, which is in a lot safer position to risk alienating bigots in their audience than a fully original animated show that didn’t get manga or light-novel deals until after the show was already being released and doing well. And an update since this was posted: the publishers of Gundam literally tried to retcon their queerness. This is my point, if you are expecting a country that hasn’t even legalized gay marriage yet to give you explicit queerness consistently you are barking up the wrong tree. They’ll literally try to walk it back if they think they can make more money off of retconning an explicit gay marriage out, you can’t rely on profit-driven corporations to actually care about making and keeping explicit queer relationships in their media just because it’s the right thing to do)
132 notes · View notes
windyocinspo · 1 year
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Adventure Dog characters.
First there’s Hugo and Adventure the dog. The main characters. Hugo’s real work is unclear and never stated in canon, but he adventures a lot because of whatever he does. Philip (the actor) is super involved how Hugo is portrayed in the show. Many of his headcanons about Hugo have become canon in the show. Sometimes he’s even credited as a writer because he consults the actual writers so often.
Then there’s Hugo’s sidekick, a princess of an unknown country. Her role in the story is to be Handsome, have sword and swoop in to save Hugo when he’s fucked around too much and found out. She’s like. Kind of Hugo’s love interest, but not quite. It depends on the writer. I might change her base expression and attitude, though... Both the character and the actor need a name.
Then there’s sidekick’s sidekick, the princess’ bodyguard (that she 100 % doesn’t need, but has anyway) /butler/servant. The running gag is that he’s Incredibly Serious All The Time, even when doing silly slapstick and always falling for it when the princess goes “hey look over there! *RUNS AWAY*”. The actor received Serious Shakespearean Training and it shows even when everyone around him is chewing the scenery. The actor is also a massive history buff and keeps correcting the writers’ errors/artistic liberties in the script. Also needs a name.
Then the villain. He has some weird subtext with Hugo and there’s tons of slashfic because of it. No one knows why he’s constantly trying to harass this random kid in BDSM gear, but the story just rolls with it. This character is probably 90 % the reason why there’s so many queer people in Lightmore. Villain needs a name, but the actor’s name is Yao (they/them).
Villain’s sidekick. The epitome of a poor meow meow. It’s strongly implied that he has PTSD or other mental trouble, but it’s never explained or explored in the show, It infuriates some fans while other fans are writing so much character study hurt/comfort fic that their fingers are smoking. Also has weird subtext with the villain, which is also never elaborated on. The villain and the evil sidekick are frequently shown to be living together or at least spending the night at one or another’s place but nothing is ever confirmed because it’s That Kind Of Show. The Hugo/Villain and Villain/Sidekick ship wars are vicious and the discourse and wank are intolerable. Both the actor and the character also need a name.
2 notes · View notes
Note
I saw your post about same sex and Sapphic relationships in media and how not every pair of gay/bi/etc people have to be together and homie, I get that there are a lot of other ways to show love in lgbt+ shows but dude. Canon romantic relationships of all kinds is one of the big goals for our community. The "unrequited love" and such was what we Always used to see in shows and media and books. Always hinted at just enough to make audiences hopeful but never any follow through. We are LUCKY to have LGBT+ relationships and romances on screen nowadays and a lot of younger people don't remember the days when no one in the community even thought it was possible to see a pair of women or a pair of men kiss on TV or in a movie in a way that wasn't just a joke or going to be played off. Yes, we need more lgbt+ friendships on air but not at the sacrifice of the romantic relationships our community and our elders have fought to be shown and accepted as normal for decades now. If you wanna see pining and unrequited love and "will they, won't they", you can easily find it in the past. Typically it became queerbaiting of some kind if the authors refused to acknowledge the obvious subtext or in some cases, people would retcon it in after the dust has settled and people can't refuse to watch something if they have to see gay people being gay.
But comparing things to the "control group", it's exceptionally rare that showrunners don't try to shoehorn in some kind of tension between straight people. If showrunners don't, fans are always THRILLED to ship them. Until shows get better writers that know how to write friendships of any kind, I'm sticking firmly in the camp of happier to see the gays kissing rather than hearing showrunners whine about how they gave us representation so why aren't we happy to see said rep not acting on their sexuality in any way.
hello there!
i'm sorry for offending you, and i might've explained my thoughts poorly.
i do not believe we have to sacrifice one or the other, or that there's anything wrong with queers kissing and the "obvious" ( still not sure if that's the right word ) being canon.
what i do believe though is that, especially since comics and other online forms of media ( youtube, for ex ) are becoming more and more diverse and becoming more popular in general, there are a lot of opportunities for different topics of queer romance.
i'm very aware of how difficult it can be for shows/movies specifically, so i think i should've mentioned that i wasn't only talking about TV media, but i'm not sure how relevant that would be in hindsight.
to talk more about the unrequited love conversation, i definitely should've specified more on that! i understand how that can come off as incredibly queerbaiting, and often is, if it was one "potential" queer relationship.
however, i didn't mean to give off that i meant it in that context. i am a writer who makes all of my characters POC + queer, and only not do that in rare circumstances, so it was natural of me to think of what i said in that specific context, instead of how it could come off to others. i apologize for that!
i meant unrequited love, and potential "will they, won't they"s in the context of many already existing queers and queer relationships, rather than the sole relationship with clear queer subtext being used as a bait to lure in the gays.
i know this is less possible to do with TV media than it could be with social media and comics/manga, but i don't feel like that should stop others from trying to play around with these concepts. as time goes on, hopefully society will too, and queer media on TV, books, anything it can be in, can be even MORE diverse!
i'm very sorry for coming off as insensitive and like i want the old things back, this was my own doing by being unclear about my personal experiences of what i was saying. i kinda forgot that not everyone knows what i'm talking about ^^;
thank you for telling me this, though! it'll help me keep in mind of my explanations in the future, and i hope this cleared up your worries or concerns!
TLDR; my discussion was in context of multiple queer people/queer relationships in media, but my wording ended up being misleading and most likely came off as irritated or bitter. and, there is NO problem with having the crystal-clear gays kiss! if they're not unhealthy, let them kiss all they want!
2 notes · View notes
teacupsandcyanide · 3 years
Text
in all seriousness when i say “queerbaiting” i mean the phenomenon it actually refers to, this SPN nonsense of repeatedly manipulating the viewers - in an arguably deliberate way - into thinking queer stuff is going to be canonised and played out. and by that i mean having Cas tell Dean he loves him late enough in the game that they didn’t have to play it out, but early enough that they could wring in some more viewers for the finale - and then not acknowledging that moment at all. capitalising on the queer audience’s desire to be included and validated in order to up the success of their show, but not actually truly including or validating the queer audience. 
it’s a very specific set-up of ‘baiting’ and then setting the goalposts back, or (at the end of the show) acting as though those scenes never happened in the first place. the homoerotic moments have no effect on the plot, the relationships, the arcs - they are not significant or meaningful, but narratively identical heterosexual/normative moments are treated as significant and meaningful.
i understand that what qualifies as “baiting” is so subjective that people now overuse queerbaiting to mean "homophobic writing of any kind,” or even “presence of any level of queer subtext without direct canonisation” - which is wider thing that queerbaiting exists as a subset of. and personally i think that that wider thing isn’t always bad, isn’t always good, whereas queerbaiting is by nature insidious and homophobic. but i think “queerbaiting” is a very useful word that describes a specific  phenomenon and it’s good to remind ourselves what it actually means, so as not to lose the word all together.
#it's still pretty damn subjective and like i know there's some things i consider queerbaiting that others don't#and some things others consider queerbaiting that i don't#depends on where you draw lines#but it would be nice to talk about that phenomenon without it getting muddle with#'ship that has queer subtext but isn't canonically queer'#or#'ship that has queer subtext and it's unclear if it's canonical'#like i think queerbaiting requires SUCH overdoing of the baiting part#often using the parasocial relationship between creators and fans#to tease that queer things will happen and then not delivering#and it's a long term and often cyclical thing#where the queer ship or character is brought to focus whenever ratings are going pear-shaped#there's a direct line between Queer Content Promised and 'Profit'#and then the content not being queer or being really homophobic and non-committal#like yes#maybe the angel will confess hi love#but then he'll immediately die#and then it'll never be acknowledged in the same way a het love confession absolutely would be#and you'll never see the ramifications of it play out at all#it'll be as if it never happened#or a very gay moment will be uh#immediately followed by a moment that loudly corrects it back to heteronormativity#without acknowledging the double standard of moment 1 meaning nothing and moment 2 being Significant#honestly queerbaiting is just bad writing adjklsjdf bc it leads ur viewers in circles#bc it's DELIBERATELY confusing and unnconnected#hmp12
7K notes · View notes
Text
can i say a sort of pointless rambly thing i was thinking about that i can't put under the cut bc i'm on mobile?
jk, i'm not actually asking. ramble below, not edited for clarity. the following is completely unclear and i will not fix it:
i've been thinking about how part of the reason i'm so chill about caryl is bc growing up as a queer woc 99% of my main ships were like, never gonna fucking happen bc they literally couldn't. it was like, "omg, they gazed at each other from across the room, let's analyze the homosexual subtext of this one scene for the next fifty years, that's not necessarily hyperbole." i've watched all my ships fuck other ppl/have other love interests, and i knew that my thing was never gonna be canon, so to see like, one thing being like, "one half of my ship fucked another person several years ago while pining for the other half of my ship," i'm like...#nice, bc that can and likely will be used as a plot point to get them together later on, whereas in other situations i've been in i just kinda had to deal with it. so my impulse when i see ppl losing their shit is to be like
Tumblr media
and to be slightly annoyed, tbh, bc the ship is still on track to be canon, and it's like, literally two white heterosexuals, they're prime candidates for juicy angsty pining that actually gets a resolution.
but!
that being said, i recognize that that attitude isn't necessarily fair. for one thing, i'm not the only queer woc (or some variation thereof) in this fandom, and some ppl's impulse might be exasperation instead, bc like, "wtf, even my mayohet ship has dumb fucking drama," and that's valid as hell, and i get it.
and also, i get that, even if you didn't grow up shipping impossible ships (or mulder/scully, bc that's a brand of bullshit all its own), this has been a suuuuper drawn out process where sometimes it feels like they're legit sprinkling crumbs to keep you hooked, just to play you again, and when you are invested in something, like /rly/ invested, especially if it's a form of escapism or hyperfixation or whatever, that can be e x h a u s t i n g. and i get that. i truly do, and while i make a lot of snide comments about the fandom being bonkers, i do get where the bulk of you are coming from (unless you're one of those ppl who hate on actors and esp actresses for just doing their jobs, and attack them on social media, in which case i am very much judging you and you need to get your life together).
i also realize that in the scheme of things i'm still a newbie. i've been here, what, twoish/threeish years, whereas some of you have been here since the beginning, so i'm not as worn out as y'all. but i also think that gives me a bit of objectivity that some of y'all have (understandably) lost.
my positivity is not meant as a sleight against those of you who are feeling negative, but is more of a semi-objective viewpoint (i say semi, bc lbr, i'm invested af in this, so i definitely have bias), and to me the threads of the storyline they're crafting seem sort of obvious.
like, let's look at it, yeah? they have one season left of this show that has been on for over a decade. they need to cater to everyone to give them a satisfying ending, while still hanging on to carylers bc of the spin-off. darylrreah seems like a very calculated move, bc it gives them both something to make abcers happy, while also creating tension and suspense and pining for carylers (i think they might underestimate just how fed up some carylers are tbh, and are banking on us to hang on for one last ride, which, honestly? if they play it right will probably work.)
if they end up doing a dumb love triangle thing, which, without seeing the episode and gauging the subtext i can't confidently say if i think they will or won't, it will ultimately end in our favor. it has to, bc leah isn't going to third wheel them on the bike in the spin-off. we can say with good authority that whatever that relationship ends up being (again, idk if they'll drag it out or not) it will be temporary. which leaves caryl open to ride off into the sunset and then bone down in every state in the united states and in puerto rico for good measure.
it's a lot of cheap drama, but i really and truly do not think it's anything to worry about, and i still really and truly trust kang to not make it out of character. ik ppl still don't agree with me on that point, and i'm not gonna argue, but to me it really does make perfect sense.
and i also predict that they are gonna play it up hardcore in the promotional shit and talking dead, but when that happens, remember it's bc it gets attention. regardless of where the story is ultimately going, relationship drama gets attention, which gets viewers, which gets amc and twd producers nice and comfy with full pockets
Tumblr media
idk. to sum up ig i just wanted to clarify that i don't mean any harm with my relentless positivity. my history in fandom has just made this seem like nothing in comparison, bc while ppl are freaking out, i'm like, "oh damn, they're actually gonna get together by the end of this, aren't they? i didn't know that could happen!" and that makes me excited instead of upset
and you definitely don't have to listen to me. maybe i'm actually wrong. maybe i'm completely full of bullshit and am just good at making things sound confident. i got a lot of As on papers in college over books i never read, i know how to bs. but i also know how to analyze, and i while i will be the first to tell you i am not the best at a great many things, i do know that i am good at critically analyzing text while taking into account the context it was written in, and imho all signs point to canon caryl. when, i'm not entirely sure, but i see it happening. if it doesn't then they severely fucked up their storytelling, and that'd just be bad writing on their part.
(if you want proof that i'm good at reading writers'/producers' intentions, consider that i watched like, 8 seasons of supernatural before giving up, and said to myself, "i think they're gonna make destiel canon, but not until the very last second bc they are rly into catering to their fans but also have to consider their dumb fanboy audience so they can't do anything crazy overtly gay," and guess who hit the nail on the fucking head on that one)
none of this is important, but it was rattling around my mind grapes and i wanted to write it down into something vaguely coherent, and where else better to do it than here. i can word vomit and then send it into the ether and pretend i never said a thing. i love this horrible website, nothing can compare
i have no real conclusion to this, it was mostly stream of consciousness, but i hope it sort of helps y'all understand where i'm coming from, and why i am as chill as i am about things. not about y'all. y'all cause me so much anxiety i get physically sick and have to legit block tags, but with the actual show content i'm zen as hell
uh
the end ig?
it feels weird even signing off on this, but w/e
-diz
60 notes · View notes
frankendeers · 5 years
Text
Kylux and the Queer Literary Tradition
Tumblr media
So, I have seen a lot of people talk about Kylux in terms of queer fetishisation or even labelling it a “crack ship”.
The discourse has somehow made Kylux out to be this straight-girl fantasy where two men are simply shipped because they are white and handsome. Such an unfavourable interpretation completely takes away from many Kyluxers being queer and/or poc themselves as well as shaming straight people for seeing queer potential where it’s not canonically stated to be. Since the comic came out, there has been much elation because it finally “confirms” some of the things that appeal to Kyluxers, therefore justifying the ship. I don’t think, however, that Kylux has ever been anything but rather conventional in its queer subtext. Kylux falls in line with a long tradition of homoerotic aggression between two men. I will try to put this into words as eloquently as I can.
First, let’s talk about how Kylo Ren/Ben Solo and Armitage Hux are queer coded on their own before moving on to their relationship.
Armitage Hux is almost comically queer coded. The act of feminising a villain to subtly convey to the audience that he is gay and therefore “morally reprehensible” has been a practice since the Hays code era (in some respects even before that -as the Victorian Age marks the beginning of our modern understanding of gender and subsequently, its subversion). He is seen to be physically weak, petty, moving and snarling and “bitching” in a way society would stereotypically ascribe to women.
Tumblr media
His British Accent, at least from an American point of view, already marks his sexuality as ambiguous. This is not helped by the fact that he speaks in an abnormally posh way, alienating himself from the common people.Hereby, the movies draw a well-established line between decadence/queer and pragmatic/heteronormative.
In the “Aftermath” trilogy Brendol Hux states his son to be “weak willed” and “thin as a slip of paper and just as useless”, robbing him of his masculinity – no matter how ridiculous of an endeavour this is when talking about a four-year old boy. Hux is very early on criticised for not fitting into a socially expected form of manhood. This is especially evident when one compares him to his resistance rival, Poe Dameron. Now, Dameron has his own set of queer coding, but he is shown to be what is commonly viewed as “acceptably queer”. He is masculine, trained and proactive. When he ridicules Hux at the beginning of The Last Jedi, there is this juxtaposition of the helpless, feminine villain and the dashing, superior male hero. Hux is supposed to be judged as vain and arrogant while Poe takes risks and although reckless, is somehow to be admired. Further, Hux is constantly abused. He is thrown into walls letting out high pitched screams, runs away in the face of danger (as seen in the recent comic) and is pushed around by his own subordinates. His strength lies in being cunning and calculated, not stereotypically masculine virtues.
Tumblr media
Hux’s destructive powers, his monstrosity so to speak, also follow a long-standing tradition of queer villainization. Harry Benshoff’s The Monster and The Homosexual articulates this as follows:
“[...] repressed by society, these socio-political and psychosexual Others are displaced (as in a nightmare) onto monstrous signifiers, in which form they return to wreak havoc […]” (Benshoff 65).
And what other, than a socio-political Other, is Armitage Hux - the Starkiller?
Kylo Ren/Ben Solo, too, is touched by the mark of queerness. It is no coincidence that despite his raw power and muscular physique, Kylo Ren has not been adopted by hegemonic masculinity in the same way Han Solo has, for example. When the logical is traditionally seen as masculine, the realms of pure and unfiltered emotionality is feminine. And Kylo Ren is unrestrained in his vulnerability, his tears, his pain – People make fun of the dramatic ways he gives words to his feelings precisely because it is regarded as weak, as whiny, as “womanly”. His long curly hair, full lips and dress-like costume only strengthens this impression. Kylo Ren is an amalgam of masculine aggression and feminine expressiveness. Some of his outbursts even remind of the pseudo-illness of hysteria. The gendered lines are blurred and unclear in Kylo Ren, diffusing any efforts to appease the binary. Benshoff describes this as a form of queer existence which does not only constitute itself in opposition to what is considered normal but “ultimately opposed the binary definitions and prescriptions of a patriarchal heterosexism” (Benshoff 63).
Tumblr media
Both are not easily categorised. They are patched up by multiple, gendered signifyers. Kylo Ren’s masculine body in contrast to his femininized fashion. Hux’s slender body with his stiff and masculinised military get-up. Hux’s toxic tendency to avoid showing his emotions while also being shown as weak, womanly, cowardly. Kylo Ren is an excellent warrior, yet simultaneously being prone to emotional outbursts. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen’s famous work Monster Theory (Seven Theses) elaborates upon this further, while acknowledging that queer figures are most commonly depicted as the monstrous Other:
“The refusal to participate in the classificatory “order of things” is true of monsters generally: they are disturbing hybrids whose externally incoherent bodies resist attempts to include them in any systematic structuration.” (Cohen 6).
Nonetheless, many queer people feel empowered by these figures. Lee Edelman theorises in his polemic No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive about the nature of queerness as a force of cultural resistance. According to Edelman, the queer must always refuse societal expectations of a perpetual future and embrace the death drive instead. In this sense, queerness stands in direct opposition to futurity as it negates any meaning in sexual reproduction and marriage (cp. Edelman 13). When Hux destroys planets, when Kylo Ren proposes to burn it all down “The Empire, your Parents, the Resistance, the Sith, the Jedi”, they are not merely killing the past. They are also negating the worth of categories that make up future and present alike. They are resisting the heteronormative values of production.
Tumblr media
Now that we have the puzzle pieces that illustrate how Hux and Kylo are queer figures in on themselves, it might be interesting to examine how they work together.
In her text “Epistemology of the Closet”, Eve Sedgwick talks about a common gothic trope where two men are caught in a feud full of mutual hatred. In this case, both men are mirror images of one another, making them especially vulnerable to the other’s advances: "[…] a male hero is in a close, usually murderous relation to another male figure, in some respects his 'double', to whom he seems to be mentally transparent."
Kylo and Hux are very clearly mirrors of one another. Aside from the gendered oppositions I have already illustrated, they are each other’s double in every sense of the word. Born on opposite ends of an age-old war. Both caught in complicated relationship with their fathers whom both have killed out of opposite motivations (loving them too much vs. hating them with a passion). They represent the opposite ends in the binaries for logic vs. spirituality, restraint vs. wildness, control vs. sensuality, technology vs. nature etc.
This shot from The Last Jedi shows both of them mirroring each other visually, henceforth strengthening this impression.
Tumblr media
They are "mentally transparent" to each other, because they are different sides of the same coin which Snoke tossed around to his whims. Even their aggression takes on erotic forms. It is hard to deny the homoerotic implications in choking another men to make him submit, forcing him onto his knees. The breaching of personal spaces and looming over each other, the obsessive need to prove one’s own worth to the male other with which one is engaged in a homosocial bond:
“The projective mutual accusation of two mirror-image men, drawn together in a bond that renders desire indistinguishable from prédation, is the typifying gesture of paranoid knowledge.” (Sedgwick 100).
Tumblr media Tumblr media
And through all of this, I have not even talked about the collaborative potential between the two of them. Their instinct to protect one another despite insiting the opposite. How both of them could overcome their trauma by engaging with the other, who suffered so similarly under family obligation and Snoke’s abuse.
Tumblr media
Works Cited:
Benshoff, Harry: “The Monster and the Homosexual.” In: Harry Benshoff (ed. and introd.)/Sean Griffin (ed. and introd.): Queer Cinema, the Film Reader. New York: Routledge 2004. Pp. 63-74.
Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. "Monster Culture (Seven Theses)." Jeffrey Jerome (ed. and preface) Cohen: Monster Theory: Reading Culture (1996): 3-25.
Edelman, Lee. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. ,2004. Print.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky-Sedgwick. Epistemology Of the Closet. Berkeley, Calif. :University of California Press, 2008.
2K notes · View notes
incarnateirony · 6 years
Text
subtext, gender/sexual politics, literature.
So I'm going to clarify a few things that have apparently become unclear to some people.
In real life, I am a homosexual woman, possibly genderfluid I guess as I don't actually strongly identify in that and often tend to write/think/operate better from male perspective in regards to how I correspond (or on a literary level as an author, I find my female characters to ironically be far more shallow than my males, which are incredibly complex most of the time, and it takes active effort for me to Girl well sometimes), but not completely; but either way, that's me. I do wholy support any and all discussion of LGBTQIA pairings deserving everything heterosexual pairings do in media, and at times I do have frustration on issues such as bisexual erasure and the like.
However, the bulk of my commentary is and will always be from a literary and/or production based observation level in regards to content/canon. (This is, of course, separate from my data sets and numbers.) As a result, I will make statements that may not necessarily resonate with LGBT+ political and equality issues, because it's true: we don't have equality in viewing.
But conflating all issues together, in my opinion, actually does us a great disservice. Until we can discuss definitions of canon and subtext - until we can acknowledge what makes these things, what our structure is, and why we are where we are - we can not actually make rational statements in regards to what the community does or doesn't deserve.
In example: Destiel
Okay, queer ship that is teetering on the brink of hard-smack-in-your-face-canon like the image hanging in Dean's Scoobynatural mancave from Point of Know Return cover. At this point, on a literature level, does it warrant completion? Yes, it certainly does, and that's it's own topic.
However until we define canon, romance, subtext, etc, how do we rationally engage in what we do and don't deserve, especially while people continue to move the goal line on what we already do and don't have? And yes, we deserve canon pairings fully 100% confirmed on screen with great endings, but don't we also deserve our subtext to be accepted and respected equally as well? Making that statement in no way whatsoever is saying that's all we deserve. It's saying we deserve the same things as everybody else. And if the same lines in the same arrangement in a straight couple is subtextually assumed into canon as a couple when almost exclusively only seeing that content, juxtaposing the right to buckle down confirmed intent of subtext is in no way saying that's what we should settle for - but we should also be equally observed on ALL fronts.
This is something I make a statement on with any kind of literary commentary though. It's not specific to Supernatural, or Destiel. I frequently lob comparitive literature into the frame because it's just that: across all literature. This isn't a point I'd just stand for one specific thing, and I apply it unilaterally.
Subtext with confirmed creator intent of presentation is itself a form of canon as per the dictionary, as almost all content is typically subtextual, especially in a video format where only dialogue is hard committed to words and Actual Text requires ELI5 Speak Into The Camera unless we happen to get a script release which, anyone who knows how scripts read, is still bare bones and subject to the blurring line of what actors see, until directors or showrunners give them extra special guidance and correction (see: Carver correcting Jensen that Dean wasn't enamored with Amara but she was his Kryptonite; Carver telling Misha to play Castiel as a jilted lover.) Without author intent, which is in fact part of the definition of accepted fictional canon, this line continues to further blur along the way as it manifests. We need to be able to discuss author intent and stick to our guns.
Frankly? I have my own headcanons. I rarely insert them into conversation. In example, to me, Castiel represents Asexual most of the time as during his angelic periods he lacks human survival function (sleep/eat/drink/age/curiously headtilt at boner) and angels seem to need to 'learn' to appreciate sex (cuz Lucifer was a billion years old when he figured out sex was fun, and Nephilim exist, Anna carved out her grace for a long list of reasons including but not limited to that) while lacking any other biological drive as compulsion as much as cost-reward-fun. I hold to the authorial intent statement of Edlund/Sgriccia for Dean's capability of love in all places/romcom fluster with dude, which manifests with a lot of standard bisexual repression issues in the character. By nature, I see a repressed bisexual and confused asexual tied in some torrid heart-wrenching homoromantic situation where, sexuality of the issue aside, the romantic elements themselves are all largely confirmed as intentional post-S9. By nature, to me, while I would love a coming-out story for Dean to take action and encourage bridging the gap, and/or a humanized Cas  (as his drives kicked in temporarily during S9), I'm not going to trumpet about wanting it rItE NaO because frankly, I also do in fact bear respect for the Asexual branch of LGBTQIA and I see no reason to force that on Cas either. (< THIS WAS IN THE ORIGINAL POST SOMEONE FLIPPED ON ME ABOUT FORCING THINGS ON CAS/ACE) There is authorial intent statements for biDean Dean, there are authorial intent statements for romantic if nonsexual Destiel, but Cas kinda floats on authorial intent.
But that's just it: While Dean’s sexuality has authorial intent statements, all that stuff about Cas?: that's my headcanon. It's well-corroborated and has a lot of substantiation via canon but Cas himself has never had sexuality statements made on an authorial level. In actual canon, he has stated he is indifferent to orientation which means he could be pan, or could be asexual (which will be addressed in a reblog to follow since this seemed to offend the f*ck out of someone despite context) either of which have foundation, and I can't smack down anybody who believes he's pan either. (and apparently I need to continue to remind the world that Sleeping With A Woman doesn't mean you're totally straight either.)
In result there's no way for me to fairly use literary angles to discuss the gender and sexual equality issues I see in the show with complete bridge to both ends of the pairing, (also part of the original post that somehow got ignored so someone could be offended) without being potentially dismissive of other headcanons that have no opposing authorial intent statement to nail down the content into canon. But this is a trap we often find ourselves in because of the sensitivity OF gender/sexual politics and the reactionary and defensive nature (part of the OP) we're used to while chasing around goal posts people pretend are moving because people refuse to nail down basic definitions like canon, subtext, and romance.
Which is why I find it so critically important for people to stand these points and stop letting straight people concern troll around while trying to pick up and move the goal post, and/or worse, training you into doing it for them. We deserve literally every consideration they get. Every. And while yes, that means we deserve happy endings, that also means our canonical subtext deserves equal footing as well.
So yes, fight for your right for happy endings, but also fight for your right to be held in EVERY same literary standard.
Yes, the world doesn’t take LGBT+ subtext seriously enough, and that’s an issue, and that needs to change, but that won’t change if people come unhinged any time we also try to bolt down canonical subtext with authorial intent under the idea that it’s implicit that it’s “all we need.” Because that isn’t what that’s saying. At all. And until we break this reactive habit we’re going to continue to be a disservice in accidentally abetting the perpetuation of this filtering (ironically missed point of OP) because we’re not even letting ourselves address it on a core and cut it off at the knees.
And that's my piece. (Reblog coming shortly)
130 notes · View notes
love-takes-work · 7 years
Text
Nonbinary characters in Steven Universe
Steven Universe has been (rightly) praised for its inclusion of nonbinary gender characters. We live in a world where media almost exclusively presents characters who are men or women (and often treats binary trans people, when they're even included, as if they are an additional "middle" gender even if they don't identify that way). So of course, characters who are agender or nonbinary are long overdue and worth celebrating.
HOWEVER.
Steven Universe includes two forms of nonbinary characters, and they both involve aliens. We have Gems who come from space and are largely femme-presenting nonbinary aliens (who use she/her pronouns, but that does not make them female), and we have Fusions whose gender and pronouns are shifted to neutral or undetermined when Steven is included.
Tumblr media
While it's still great to have such a cool science fiction show that's got nonbinary characters, presenting their nonbinary gender as a consequence of "mixed" genders or extraterrestrial origin subtly associates nonbinary gender with being nonhuman. 
Stevonnie is referred to canonically as "they/them," and it sets a great example, but we know they are a Fusion of Connie (she/her) and Steven (he/him). 
Tumblr media
Smoky Quartz has been referred to as "they" in a context where it was unclear whether it was them or their components being talked about, but given the precedent, I assume Smoky is also they/them: another Fusion of a she/her and a he/him. Fusions of Gems who both use "she/her" are also referred to as she/her, so these pronouns are not reserved for Fusions.
Tumblr media
I know several nonbinary, trans, and otherwise gender-atypical people who relate really hard to Stevonnie and/or Smoky, and are thrilled to have this kind of representation. It's so excellent to see Stevonnie, with their femme-leaning androgyny and their clear attractiveness to guys and girls on the show, developing confidence and never dragging the audience through a Very Special Episode where they feel required to disclose and discuss their gender. They're worried about other things, but this gender thing? It just is, and people in their life don't make a big deal out of that part of it. But I think we need more, and I think Steven Universe is just the show to do it.
Tumblr media
We currently DO NOT HAVE any known nonbinary characters in the show who are not either aliens or Fusions. If we continue to represent nonbinary characters as having a nonbinary gender only because they're a mixture of male and female or influenced by nonhuman gender concepts, we're presenting it as a concept but not as one that might be applicable to someone in the non-magical, non-alien, everyday Earthly world. 
But nonbinary humans are everywhere, and I would love to see someone show up in the show with casually referenced nonbinary representation--so we know this isn't a gender concept we can only accept in association with fantasy concepts.
What's interesting is the Steven Universe COMICS are already doing this. First, in Issue 1 of the ongoing comic series begun in early 2017, Steven, Peridot, and Lapis find a baby bird. Steven automatically defaults to they/them pronouns for the bird, and after they argue about the bird's name for a while, they settle on naming them Susan. 
Tumblr media
Susan is a name pretty heavily coded as female in Western society, but they set a great example here by NOT having Steven change to she/her pronouns to refer to the bird just because they have a traditionally feminine name. There is no discussion of what pronouns to use and no justification of this. It's just there for you to accept, casually, as it should be.
Tumblr media
In Issue 2 of the ongoing comic series, we have Stevonnie going to prom with Kiki. There is plenty of weirdness associated with this because Kiki doesn't know Stevonnie is a Fusion of two kids and they're both struggling with teen awkwardness that has nothing to do with Stevonnie's Fusion status, but what's significant about this is Kiki's automatic, consistent use of they/them pronouns for Stevonnie when introducing them to her friends. 
Tumblr media
Plus, Stevonnie and Kiki use the same dressing room when trying on dresses, try on a variety of clothes (some of which are traditionally gendered either male or female), and don't completely ignore the issue. 
Tumblr media
Kiki asks Stevonnie if they prefer to lead or follow, and that's a really nice acknowledgment that the expected gender roles have to be redefined for a dance couple like them. 
Tumblr media
If you just present a nonbinary character where no one's ever confused about how to treat them, you're ignoring programming nearly everyone in our society has, and it's inevitable that someone like Stevonnie would sometimes confuse people if they're trying to squeeze them into a gender box--and unfortunately, that also sometimes means being misgendered, like when Kevin called Stevonnie "girl" during their first appearance on the show.
Tumblr media
But then, most notably, in Issue 4 of the ongoing comic series, Peridot goes to a Renaissance Faire and watches a joust, with a visiting knight named "Sir Render." And Sir Render, despite their traditionally masculine appearance and title of "Sir," is consistently referred to with they/them pronouns. 
Tumblr media
Even though they're a pretty beefy, hefty knight, and even while they're getting booed by audience members who want them to lose. Nonbinary people do not have to be androgynous, and they/them pronouns can apply to people who are frequently perceived as traditionally feminine or traditionally masculine. Sir Render doesn't HAVE to "try" to look androgynous or less traditionally masculine to have their pronouns respected. And Sir Render is a background human. Not a Fusion and not an alien. This comic also includes the phrase "Lords, ladies, and gentle-enbies." Wow.
Tumblr media
Some people have criticized Steven Universe for featuring so many same-gender relationships between Gems without broaching that subject with humans. Gems are not women/girls, but because of their gender presentation and consistent use of she/her pronouns, they are clearly designed to at least be very relatable to female and femme audiences. Nonbinary people are certainly supposed to be able to see themselves in the Gems, but girls and women can too--it's amorphous and up to interpretation, and couples like Ruby and Sapphire or Pearl and Rose can be very meaningful to fans who feel their relationships are more like their own relationships than most anything on television. But when it comes to humans, the explicitly romantic relationships and crushes that include them are surprisingly straight. (And this is acknowledging that human men's crushes on Gems are not "straight" crushes, since literally any relationship that includes one of them is a queer-coded romance by human standards, but these men are likely perceiving the Gems as women and being attracted to them for the same reasons they are attracted to women.)
Jamie crushes on Garnet. Mayor Dewey crushes on Pearl. Greg crushed on Rose and fell in love with her. Sadie and Lars have, well, something. Steven and Connie are developing a close friendship that will likely one day be a straight-up romance. Lars's parents Martha and Dante appear to be a straight couple. Connie's parents Doug and Priyanka appear to be a straight couple. Vidalia had a child with Marty and married Yellowtail, and those appear to be straight relationships. I of course have to be cautious here and acknowledge that characters who LOOK like straight couples may not be straight, especially since bisexual and pansexual people who "settle down" in a relationship are often misinterpreted as being an orientation they don't identify as just because of the gender of their partner. But given no evidence to the contrary, the show does appear to be showing us humans coupling up only in cross-gender partnerships.
Tumblr media
The only exception I can think of besides non-speaking background characters is Mr. Smiley's relationship with Mr. Frowney. It is not explicit, but subtext certainly suggests that Harold and Quentin used to be a thing. 
Tumblr media
There is also Pearl pursuing Mystery Girl and receiving her phone number, which does suggest Mystery Girl was attracted to femme-presenting people at the very least. 
Tumblr media
Oh, and of course we also see Peridot rooting for the Percy/Pierre ship on her favorite show, even though the canon of the show has Percy being pushed toward Paulette. And Uncle Andy made a reference to one of his relatives having a "partner," which seems like something he wouldn't do if it was a cross-gender relationship considering he also assumed Greg had a wife and used the word "wife." (This was offscreen, however--not even pictured characters.) 
But overall, what we've seen is that we can have same-gender relationships as long as we can hide it behind aliens for plausible deniability. (Though at least in the United States, I think reports of Cartoon Network actively attempting to stop "gay relationships" from getting on TV is highly exaggerated.) It would be fantastic to get some explicit representation of humans having these relationships too. But at least there are some hints and some subtext, while we really don't have much of anything for human nonbinary characters.
Like most other situations in the show, I think the usually sensitive writing and nuanced understanding of these important issues would be in reach for the Crew on this topic. I really hope we will see nonbinary characters on this show in the future when there is no "alien" or "Fusion" explanation. Plenty of nonbinary humans exist in the real world, and this show would be a perfect place to start reflecting that.
833 notes · View notes
Note
So theres a thing i dont understand about sherlock and by extension about most tv shows: how come that the writers love to delibarately insert homoerotic subtext and yet make fun/dismiss of the possibility of the characters being gay and of fans who pick up on said subtext? For example the way sherlock keeps going back and forth between alluding to romantics/sexual feelings between sherlock and john and sherlock and moriarty and then making fun of the idea is headache inducing to me (contd)
because like its not even like most of this subtext is played for laughs or to show how truly ~depraved~ moriarty is. It mostly feels genuine esp in sherlock and moriartys case and in their case the attraction is apparently mutual too (i mean look at special. That’s the biggest proof of sherlock having feelings for moriarty that go beyond platonic for me). And thats just sherlock case i could name a thousand shows/films where characters of the same sex seem to have genuine attraction for each other and yet the writers act all surprised when people point that out. I guess that part of its because they dont want to alienate their straight/homophobic fanbase. Idk.
To answer your question in a general sense it’s because queerness and queer representation is still a subject producers haven’t found a way to make explicit and profitable.
We’re in a time now where audiences are demanding more diversity and inclusivity or we’re not giving them our money anymore. So coding characters with certain topics and subject matter is their way of sort-of-not-really-addressing that demand because they want in on that specific viewership to remain competitive and current, while still trying to figure out how to capitalize on it properly without alienating their core supporters because they’re not doing this out of the goodness of their heart. They need some kind of return that pays off and the risk isn’t worth it if they don’t get that audience’s buy-in and lose profits they would have otherwise had secured if they didn’t go this route.
The problem with coding, though, is that its always been subjective. It allows just enough wiggle room for the group it’s referencing or talking about to pick up on those hints and teases while it goes completely over another person’s head because they aren’t aware of the language we’ve created to talk to each other in or use to recognize one of our own. There’s more cross-sections to this, of course, like who you’re coding (villains, people with disabilities, non-whites, etc.) and how you’re doing it (stereotypes, negative terminology and character arcs, etc.), but because we’re desperate to see ourselves we go along with it in the hopes that it’ll be the start of bigger and better things.
The part that gets confusing is the moment you then uproot those hints and teases and address them in the open like “hey, thanks for making so and so autistic” or “man, I really appreciate you making so and so bisexual”, suddenly these producers have no idea what you’re talking about. And it’s like “wait a minute, you used our coding, our language, our symbols, our ways of communicating, applied it to these characters who dress like me, act like me, look like me, and then wanna tell me that’s not me??”
The reason for this is because it absolves them of the responsibility for what they’ve created. They didn’t explicitly give you anything, remember? We’re still talking in code, which again is subjective, so it becomes a way for them to have those characters and story lines with the richer quality audiences are looking for, get the money and viewership they were looking for, not piss off the people who don’t know any better about what’s going on because they’re not looking for it, but then never deliver on anything close to the vein of true diversity or inclusivity that’s starting to become a requirement in some situations.  
It’s a vicious, disheartening circle that allows producers to pass it off as you just seeing things even though you saw exactly what they wanted you to see, which is why you’re here in the first place, you know? Oh, and if what you found was bad or offensive, then they really don’t know what you’re talking about. Again, it’s out of their hands because it was never really in their hands to begin with and they don’t owe you much more than that.
So do I think that’s what’s happening on BBC Sherlock? Not really, no. Is coding happening, though? Absolutely, without a doubt, but I don’t think they were fully aware of that.
Something I’ve always found important to keep in mind is that Mark and Steven grew up watching and being influenced by these stories of repressed, socially deviant, heteroflexible heroes going up against these flirty, fluid, and fatal (usually same sex) antagonists they’re charmed by but having to shake off their dangerous fascinations and obsessions with because it’s ‘wrong’, while having these very deep, emotional bonds with their (usually same sex) only confidant who’s side they won’t leave because their fondness for them is disproportionately high for no apparent reason at all. It’s important to note because that kind of media is already coded queer - classically so. That 1950-1970s time period is pretty much where they got this framework from.
Like yeah, yeah, I can point out all the Holmesian media they’re drawing their inspirations from as well - just the other night I was showing two people here where the Holmes and Moriarty dynamic on this show came from in the Rathbone films - but understand I can also go find those same psychosexual undertones between two dark, cerebral figures who consider themselves outside of society’s norms in a Hitchcock film, or blatant homoeroticism between the handsome and masculine hero and the pretty and effeminate villain in an old James Bond movie. Nothing is created in a vacuum and a lot of what I think we’re actually responding to are tropes we’ve seen a million times before that were meant to represent homosexuality symbolically because it was illegal at the time to depict it explicitly. The ban has been lifted, but the effects of it still linger on today and this show is an example of it.
But instead of subverting any of those tropes, they accidentally (?) played in to them when they addressed the conversation surrounding Sherlock’s sexuality directly. Its been a point of interest in his original canon counterpart for years and it made sense to them to bring that speculation in to the 21st century as part of this modernization process since it’s still just as unclear as ever. The beauty of his character, though, is that you can apply any label you want and there’s material to support that, which is honestly what I feel like they were going for at the end of the day.
There was no way in Hell they were ever going to come in with a gravel and definitively state what his sexuality was on the show. Mark and Steven and even Benedict have all put their own opinions out there on what they think it is, but they left it open for a reason. They wanted the conversation surrounding a character that’s always been a queer figure many people have related to and saw themselves in to continue and not end on their word. That’s not to say you can’t have an adaptation where they explore a particular orientation for him, but they’ve stated on numerous occasions that wasn’t going to be their aim. He was always going to be a grab bag and you make what you want of that, but some of the stuff that’s in said bag has a loaded history of pointing towards certain paths and I think they’re aware of that now but not necessarily when they were making the show. That’s why you always hear them go “we didn’t write so and so to be ____, or so and so are not a romantic\sexual couple”. Like yeah, we know you didn’t write them that way, but how they’re coded is maybe saying a little something different than you intended.
So we can get in to all kinds of discussion about how sexuality was used throughout the show’s run, but it was still meant to be one piece of a pie making up Sherlock’s entire character that went on this journey to wherever the Hell he landed. I think the only reason why it became a bigger deal than originally intended is because the louder we got about shipping and the subsequent theories and metas and fanworks surrounding it, and the more the media started asking the cast their opinion about it all in articles and newspapers and conventions and interviews on national television, the more it forced Mark and Steven’s hand to streamline some of it because it was like watching snowballs roll down a hill. They were getting bigger and more out of control, and in some ways the story they wanted to tell really was getting lost in the mad dash to the finish line to see if Sherlock settles down with any of these characters while raising bees in Sussex (part of that is because they lost their own damn story when they failed to give us a solid answer for the events of Reichenbach but I digress).
Some of those snowballs they actively help get bigger, though, and that gets in to what you’re talking about. They wanted to join in on the fun by having characters walking around naked or giving metaphorical blow jobs in Sherlock’s head, or make 50,000 gay couple jokes which are clearly more blatant than the occasional vague line or scene with a character they opted for previously, but then go “wait, whoa, he’s not going to end up with any of these people, what are you talking about?” when we start getting excited. Again, they were always going to give us enough material to make cases for every label and orientation you can think of because that’s how his sexuality and preferences and inclinations or lack thereof was always going to be presented. BUT there’s a difference between wanting to have a conversation about Sherlock’s sexuality being a giant question mark and seeing the way it kind of shifts and takes form depending on who he’s opposite of, and then literally writing fantasy sequences about characters hooking up with him or saying he should get married to this character over here and then becoming flustered no one got “the joke”. 
I got “the joke” every time, but the problem is it shouldn’t be a joke to begin with when you’re running it along side this discussion of a character who’s starting to question his thoughts and feelings on love and sex and romance and relationships more and more. It comes off like they’re ruling out particular options ever being an answer for him (queer, for example) but it’s said with more authority since it is a cheeky gag coming directly from the writers to us (and I know numerous times Moffat would say “the second theory” any time someone asked him what the real Reichenbach solution was because he thinks that’s the least plausible. Like fam, that’s the only one of the three that doesn’t have details which break the whole show if they were true, don’t make me embarrass you). They would have been better off not getting involved in the madness surrounding “shipping” and just keep doing what they were doing before series 3. I didn’t need TAB or TEH to prove anything or highlight the “camp eroticism” Mark has always said was demanded by Sherlock and Jim’s dynamic. It was nice to have what we’ve been saying for years confirmed and have other people finally see that, but I’d give it back in a second if that means they’d stop dishing out attention with the purposes of being funny (actually, okay, I’d keep that moment at the fireplace when Jim is like “What do you want, Sherlock?” and there’s that fucking PAUSE passing between them saying everything he won’t say out loud even in the sanctity of his own mind. All the rest of it can go away.)
So yeah, I don’t think they were sitting in BBC offices going “how can we get money from queer audiences?” when they set out to make Sherlock, no more than I think they were trying to pacify any particular group by not going further with making a more definitive statement on his orientation or preferences. Every major Sherlock-included ship here could probably a solid case for being canon, and I think that’s where they wanted their snowball encouragement to ultimately get to because they’ve said several times they were not going to be the flag barriers for any particular group needing representation - that includes whatever orientations we’re reading Sherlock as. 
That’s what kind of sets it apart from what tends to happen in other shows where they say up front “yeah, diversity is important to us, and #Representation Matters, it’s 2017 let’s include everyone and tell the real stories happening out there,” etc. Then you watch the show and it’s a hot mess, but they’re walking away with your viewership and you’re stuck with more problems than you started off with cause now you have to fix the story line of another dead queer woman or beg them to stop casting cis people as trans. BBC Sherlock just straight up didn’t even consider trying, which is a whole different problem, but I think it’s making the difference here from being another case of baiting marginalized people with faux-promises of being The Show™ their community has been asking for and failing to deliver or saying they don’t know where anyone got that idea from. 
5 notes · View notes