#me vs adding to the tags as if anyone's reading them lmfao | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

charcubed · 2 years

Note

I keep seeing posts that are like "interpretations of bi!Dean and gay!Dean are equally valid!" and I used to be like, sure, straight!Dean is definitely wrong but beyond that, see him how you want, who cares.

But now (esp after the Last Call script) I just don't understand the gay!Dean truthers? I follow quite a few on sm, and when I initially followed them I was like "they accept Dean is queer, that's good enough for me." But now they're really starting to get to me and it's not really worth arguing about to them, but I wanted to rant to you about it, cuz you get it.

The script literally included "gorgeous women" in the bar. Dean has canonically been sexually AND romantically attracted to women. He's based off THEE bisexual Neal Cassady.

Like I'm not really trying to defend m/w relationships (lol) but why do even queer ppl insist on erasing his identity when it's so clear? Why do they have to take that away?

Gay!Dean in AUs is one thing, but in the actual, textual canon of the show, Dean is bi. And no, gay!Dean and bi!Dean are NOT equally valid interpretations. And I don't think I'm an asshole for saying that 🤷🏼‍♀️

Sorry it took a few days to get to this. Work and life have kept me busy and tired!

Unironically and non-sarcastically, Anon, I'm glad you've seen the light and seem to understand this topic more now. You are, of course, entirely correct. And you're not an asshole for saying it either.

I'm going to take this opportunity to answer your (potentially rhetorical) questions, and also bounce off of you and lay some stuff out about this topic in general at length for the first time–despite the fact that it may turn me into public enemy #1 again. I am already hated for non-combatively voicing these facts on Twitter (this thread tends to be considered one of the "ground zeroes" of the nonexistent "debate" lol), but I have avoided being dog-piled on Tumblr so far, so... fingers crossed I can miraculously keep it that way!

My hope is that anyone who is predisposed to taking this topic very personally just moves on instead of attacking me (or subposting me?) for any of what I'm about to say. I'm also not forcing anyone to read this, before anyone's like "that's way too many words" or "it's not that serious lol."

I do think this topic is important. I've made the decision to publicly spell out why. And if anyone doesn't want to read it, that's their prerogative.

To your questions, Anon:

I think a lot of this comes down to a fandom-wide problem (all fandoms recently, not just SPN) of not understanding the difference between headcanon and canon, the dimensions as to why that distinction does have its uses and its necessity, and the value in both. I'll get into this later.

But in this fandom specifically, based on observation and lengthy conversations I've had with a dozen long-time fans who are my friends... I personally think it's maybe a new dimension of viewpoint that's branched out from a holdover of "all interpretations are valid" being the party line people have clung to a very long time. (That’s also true in other fandoms, but I think it’s especially true here.) It's a form of solace people don't want to deviate from. No one wants to be seen as or feel like the ~jerk~ who's ~invalidating another person's view of canon~ in response to someone else's knee-jerk reaction of hurt. This is a fandom with early-2000s cultural baggage and context, where people dealt with feeling like the "crazy fangirls" who shipped Destiel and dared to call out queer subtext. Misha's "You're not crazy" tweet exists for a reason. I do feel like a lot of well-meaning people–aside from misunderstanding or being ignorant to the analytical roots of this topic and why they absolutely matter–just know what it feels like to have their thoughts on queer content in a show feel "invalidated," and they don't want to be perceived as doing that to other people. And/or: they’ve felt invalidated before (in this fandom or others!), and so they’re hypersensitive to anything they perceive as doing that to them again, especially if they tied personal identity into the projections they’re making onto the media they enjoy.

I understand that people don’t want to seem ~mean~ or make waves. I also don't want to seem mean or be mean, which is why I try to be as clear as possible whenever I talk about this and I never go after people directly (or interact/reference any of the many subtweets from people who openly talk shit about me. haha). But the facts shouldn't be seen as "mean"; they are simply facts. And yes, they absolutely matter.

Because the thing is... none of the above has any bearing on the nuances of the topic at hand, the indisputable fact that Dean is bisexual in canon and that claiming otherwise is erasure, and the truth that none of this should be seen as a threat to people's headcanons.

These are all things that people should understand, and I will not apologize for knowing that and saying it. Misunderstanding this–making the false claim that “all interpretations of Dean’s sexually are equally valid as long as you see him as queer”–is an act of bisexual erasure in this context, and it often (unintentionally!) plays into biphobic talking points. And yeah, in my opinion, that’s something people should care about because it’s worthy of both personal and fandom examination. It is, in fact, why “representation” matters at all.

Let’s not kid ourselves: the bulk of this fandom-wide discourse is about Bi Dean vs Gay Dean. So, y’know, that’s the bulk of how I’m going to address it to just get it all out there.

Right out the gate, let me clarify this: I am not saying–now or ever–that those who are self-proclaimed “Gay Dean truthers” or argue that “Dean being gay in canon is a valid interpretation” are deliberately coming from a place of malice and the intent to contribute to bisexual erasure. By all means, I’m sure most aren’t! Nonetheless, intent does not equal impact. I’ve even seen people say “I’m a Gay Dean truther and I’m bisexual, so how could I possibly be contributing to bi erasure by arguing for Gay Dean?” But in this situation–as in any other–no one is immune from unwittingly perpetuating harm, even including bi people. And it’s important to understand why that is.

“Interpretations” are not opinions, not all are equal, and they do require some level of skill. This is not a personal attack, or a moral judgement on anyone, or somehow a threat to people’s enjoyment of a favorite character. It is just fact.

Gay Dean is not a valid possibility in canon. There is no lens that justifies an argument of it with canonical basis. I have to break down why, in order to sufficiently express why claiming otherwise is a harmful position to take, so bear with me.

(No, this is not an invitation for a Gay Dean truther to treat this like a “debate” with me or waste time writing out a counterargument. Please just exit the tab if you’re somehow here battling that urge.)

For someone to say that Dean is gay in canon, here is an incomplete list of what has to be erased, ignored, or explained away:

• His sexual attraction to, romantic love for, and relationship with Cassie.

• His sexual attraction to, romantic love for, and relationship with Lisa (whether or not one thinks she was ever the ~ultimate love of his life~, attraction and love were present.)

• His stash of and enjoyment of porn that includes women, which is referenced many times.

• The moments where he was seduced by a female-presenting monster.

• Each and every time he made a reference to or joke about his attraction to women.

• Any fling he ever had with a woman on screen, and the enjoyment he had in the process.

The man is canonically sexually and romantically attracted to women, and he has acted upon that and even enjoys that about himself in wildly diverse contexts. It is a blatant part of the text of the show. (The fact that we are at the point where this is somehow a main point of contention rather than his attraction to men does make me feel a tiny bit insane, to be honest.)

Now, in my experience (which I don’t claim is comprehensive!), the people who argue for Gay Dean tend to explain ALL of this away under some form of universal umbrella of Dean being “performative,” a variation on compulsive heterosexuality they ascribe to him. The claim or explanation tends to be that Dean was performing a mostly-faked attraction to women based on his father’s expectations and outward pressures he received in the culture of his life. Moments are often cherry-picked out of context to support this “reading.”

Who is Dean supposedly performing FOR, even in the moments where he acts on his attraction to women when he is alone? How does this explain his significant relationships with women like Cassie and/or the legitimate visible enjoyments he received from those interactions, as well as his flings with women throughout the show? How does this explain things like the Last Call script, where Dean is very clearly written as attracted to “gorgeous women,” a factoid that is not only very clear on screen but also (of course) written in literal black and white?

(There are no sufficient answers to these rhetorical questions. Once again: please do not waste time trying to give me any.)

And what evidence are Gay Dean people using for comphet or performative Dean? The “evidence” is often a misread of canon, pointing towards the consistent theme and false goal presented in the text of the show of characters’ efforts to strive for an “apple pie life,” aka a heteronormative ideal family. Gay Dean people misrepresent what this theme and through-line in the show is actually about, which is the totality of learning to accept your life rather than striving for something ill-fitting, that what you need and want need not be mutually exclusive (family life including fulfilling romance + hunting life can coexist), family is what you make of it and how you define it, and there are no true limitations on what all of this “should” be. While these themes are inherently queer, they are not about narrow performances of masculinity, femininity, or sexual identity, but about making space for ALL forms of all of the above–AND about identifying what it is that one wants and thinks they can’t have.

Namely, for Dean, that’s a version of settling down in a life that fulfills him in every direction, with an open and honest mutual relationship with the person he is in love with. This latter point would be true whether Cas was a man or a woman (though the fact that he is a man of course adds further dimension of interest to the story). Dean doesn’t think he can have a romantic relationship / family that lasts, and by later seasons that yearning is a key part of his character. The times it didn’t work out for him weren’t because those other people were women, but rather because the “lesson” he internalized from traumatic instances of loss is that hunters don’t get to do ~the love thing~ or get the settled down life. This is stated in the text of the show multiple times, and that’s also why Dean seeing examples of hunters who made any kind of balanced life work (especially masculine queer hunters like Jesse and Cesar) is pointed and purposeful. To say it’s about comphet instead (with no sufficient canon evidence that supports that) disregards a key point that’s central to Supernatural’s story, and in my opinion it disregards it to its detriment.

For Dean’s journey in particular, it is about freedom from limitations of structure, and knowing that he contains multitudes. The things he got from John–loving classic rock and loving his car, for example–are no less core joyful parts of Dean simply because they originated from his father. Dean can love classic rock and still occasionally love a Taylor Swift song, for example. He can love cowboy movies and manly movies, and also enjoy chick-flicks. It’s the idea of learning that there are no limitations, not that masculine interests are not inherently something he loves for himself or that aren’t important parts of his identity. It’s an expansion to openly include more, not a switch or a narrowing. The same applies to his sexual attraction and his queer identity. He can be attracted to cowboys and bikers, and also be attracted to gorgeous women. Him being attracted to / loving women does not mean he cannot and does not feel attraction and love for men; likewise, him being in love with a man does not mean he wasn’t and isn’t attracted to women.

(“Last Call,” as an episode, exists in part to drive the totality of these points home, and emphasize that Dean’s attraction to men is something he’s known about himself for most of his life and acted on previously. So is most of the queercoding and queer subtext applied to Dean–which is specifically coding him as bisexual. His attraction to men is sometimes established or made clear because it echoes his attraction to women, etc. etc. Dean’s canonical attraction to men is a whole other post.)

So here we come to why saying otherwise and trying to shoehorn a comphet narrative onto Dean in canon is harmful:

Aside from the fact that to claim Dean’s joyful attraction to women is performative is to cut out chunks of the story and is thus not supported by canon, and it relies on making assumptions about and projecting onto the text… unintentionally or not, the implication is that bisexuality is not queer enough, or that being gay is somehow “queerer” and thus more compelling and a preferred concept, and that attraction to different genders is a heterosexual / straight trait requiring removal. No one is queering a text in a more revolutionary way or unlocking a ~secret good Supernatural~ by making a bisexual man into a gay man. That’s simply not how this works.

“Preferring” an argument for Gay Dean in canon requires explaining away or misreading all of those moments Dean has with women, essentially replacing them with trauma or suffering or discomfort that–in my observations–also sometimes rely on stereotypes of gay men. It also involves potentially preferring to twist them into behaviors Dean must have universally put himself through not out of genuine joyful desire but at minimum because he felt like he “should” or at maximum in an attempt to “fix” his “gayness,” even when no one was watching. And it points to the pressures Dean experienced about living a life that fit him fully–pressures that exist not just in his world, but also in our patriarchal world and society–and it implies that queer people can’t authentically experience attraction or love to someone of a different gender, because maybe they’re actually just “performing” the heteronormative ideal. As in: a “visually queer” relationship is the end goal, right? For Dean, that’s an m/m relationship... so surely m/f matters less, or maybe it can’t be a genuine and significant part of a queer person’s life.

Once again: I do not think any of this is intentional on the part of Gay Dean truthers, nor do I think it’s done with malice. Nonetheless, these harmful biphobic viewpoints permeate these conversations and misconceptions when people say these arguments are valid.

There is no canonical basis for explaining away all of Dean’s moments with women, and the story does not provide or point to any kind of cohesive narrative reason to do so. YES, people absolutely experience comphet in real life, and those experiences are valid and exist. YES, real gay men can and do sleep with or have nuanced romantic relationships with women before realizing they’re gay later in life. No, that does not mean that’s how analysis of a fictional character in a fictional story always works, especially in regards to a story built over time like Supernatural’s unique approach and the way it was molded to place queerness and specifically bisexuality at the core of Dean’s story.

Ascribing comphet to Dean in canon–or making any other insufficient justification for explaining away his attraction to women–is personal projection. And yes, it is bisexual erasure.

This is not a position fueled by personal hurt for me, as I would say the same here whether or not I was personally bisexual. It is an acknowledgement that these conversations don’t exist in a vacuum, and that’s something everyone should care to understand. I know what comphet storylines look like in fiction, and I know they are worth defining as such, and in other fandoms I even defend that very loudly. This is not the case here, and to say it is requires mental acrobatics that are objectively unsupported by canon... and invariably insisting otherwise perpetuates one of these harmful biphobic viewpoints whether or not one realizes it.

To say Gay Dean is a legitimate read of canon–which it is not–supports people who are erasing his varied sexual and romantic attraction to a different gender simply because they’ve decided they want to ignore that. “I like the idea of Dean being gay” does not mean that he is gay in canon, and writing meta to that end is a problem. It’s not an invalidation of someone on a personal level or some weird variation of homophobia to say that, and I do think people should maybe examine why they seemingly like the idea of him being gay more than him being bi, or why they staunchly defend it (or any other “different queer reading”) as a possibility.

I understand there may be the urge to be like “is it that serious” or “this is just a CW show,” but to that I would say… then why are we all here?

Clearly, most people do still care about queer representation on some level and understand that queer subtext is present and acknowledge that Dean isn’t straight... hence the origin of this new prevalent concept of “as long as you say Dean’s queer then it’s fine.”

But in any piece of media, the text is the text is the text. The text can also be compelling, and fascinating, and contain value whether or not it’s an exact reflection of you personally as a fan and as a person. Sometimes there is arguably even greater value in being able to find reasons to relate to the humanity of a character or in a story even though elements differ from who you are personally. It is an exercise in empathy, and it is a pillar of why humans tells stories to each other to expand our viewpoints, and it sometimes results in examining the sources of that empathy. It’s why “representation matters”: not just so we can see ourselves, but so we can see others, and find reason to empathize despite differences. There’s unquantifiable power in that, and it’s also why the diversity of queer experiences and identities should be championed and acknowledged both in fiction and in reality, not turned into a monolith. Our solidarity amongst our individual queer differences and identities is our truest version of strength and authenticity. We are not all exactly the same, and that’s a good thing. When care is taken to specifically convey that in fiction, it is worth not only acknowledgement but also defense.

So: do we or do we not care about why representation is important, and why these sorts of conversations should exist at all? About censorship of queer storylines, and diversity in the queer community, and solidarity in differences? About bisexual men, a vastly underrepresented group in fiction, and the specific censorship that affected Dean’s bi story accordingly? And about how these viewpoints people can place onto fiction through fandom-wide conversation–like implying Dean is ~queerer~ if you say he’s gay, or that you’re somehow sticking it to the CW and “straight culture” if you suggest he’s gay–can influence biphobia that translates into ways people see bi people in real life?

In other situations even in this fandom, people understand the value of diverse queer experiences. No one would dare to say that “you can argue Charlie is bisexual in canon because as long as you say she’s queer it’s fine.” Charlie is a lesbian. It’s very, very clear, and she shows and states that she is only attracted to women. Dean’s attraction to women in canon is equally clear, and is part of his bisexuality. Why is erasing that defendable?

Look: it is people’s God-given right to write whatever fic they want about “what if” variations of Dean’s sexuality through a different lens. It is not their God-given right to make things up about canon and call it analysis.

It is a universal truth that fandom is always going to take canon and mold it into other versions that they love, for their own personal reasons and in ways that have value to them. That’s why transformative works like fic exist, and it’s why fandom is awesome, and I’m glad people use aspects of their favorite stories to tell other inspired stories that are of personal significance to them. But the word transformative is used for a reason: it’s an alteration of canon. It’s not a bad thing or a personal attack on people to say that.

There is a difference between understanding canon and writing actual meta / analysis of the show, and writing AUs for ones own enjoyment and fulfillment. (This is true on AO3 or on Tumblr/Twitter. I often see posts that are positioned as “meta,” but again, are just cherry-picked weirdness.) These differences are important, as is understanding how headcanons and fic affect surrounding conversations and fandom perceptions. And this fandom seems to have a very big problem with understanding the difference between these things, while taking it extremely personally in a negative way when people try to explain why the difference matters.

Confusing analysis and transformative fandom does a disservice to both, and denying the value in the former is not only a form of anti-intellectualism but also removes some of the beauty in the latter. If we can’t distinguish and differentiate between canon and headcanon, we can’t discuss the value in understanding the canon, nor adequately discuss the artistic value and power in creating derivative variations from it in personal ways. Both are different, both are equal, both are vital, and insisting the distinction is needless hampers conversation across every space. And nowhere is that more true than when one is discussing queer representation and queer censorship, like in the case of Supernatural. Again, why are we here? Why do we care? You cannot argue for and discuss the problems of censorship sufficiently if you don’t understand what was censored–and in Dean’s case, that was his love for Cas and his bisexuality.

I leave you with this (probably unneeded) analogy:

Imagine Dean’s a zebra.

(Sorry, EDS community; not that kind of zebra.)

People are trying to say “Dean is a black and white hoofed mammal <3″ and well, that’s accurate, but that doesn’t mean him being a zebra isn’t its own unique thing. A whole bunch of people are looking at him though and saying “well I prefer to say that Dean’s a black and white horse,” because they like that viewpoint better. Close enough, right? A black and white horse is basically a zebra, right? And then there’s the people who are like “I think Dean’s a cow!” and it’s like, okay, no idea where you came from, but whatever.

The point is that those are all entirely different fucking things. They’re different animals. Someone wanting Dean to be a black and white horse doesn’t make him less of a zebra. Pretending otherwise is absolute nonsense.

This debate/discussion/discourse is equally nonsensical. That is the logic (or illogic) that applies here.

Just because Dean is “queer” doesn’t mean any queer categorization underneath that umbrella suddenly equally applies.

Dean is bisexual. And he is “queer” because he’s bisexual.

Those are the facts.

And for the love of God, please... I really don’t think I’m an asshole for saying it.

So, to whoever made it this far: please do me the courtesy of not hating me for it or trying to bait me into a fight.

I’m tired. Thanks.

----

EDIT: Couple of good additions!

• @doctorprofessorsong added some good details about how some of these harmful biphobic concepts translate to real life, and real things that bi people struggle with.

• A lesbian anonymously sent in her perspective as someone who enjoys gay Dean headcanons/fic and agrees with this post, and agrees that the fact that Dean is bi in canon is important.

#dean winchester #supernatural #dean is bi #bisexual dean winchester #HAHA I TOLD MYSELF I WASN'T GOING TO PUT THIS IN THE OFFICIAL TAGS BUT THEN I SPENT HOURS WRITING IT SO FUCK IT #[slaps target on my back and cries] haha here we go #I'm not linking it on twitter though. I don't have that level of masochism in me. maybe this will fly under the radar on here a bit?#spn meta #I take a marijuana level of high road on twitter constantly but fun fact I'm not immune to knowing people hate me for daring to say this #doesn't change the facts though! and unfortunately I do actually give a fuck! even if few others do #maybe this is so long no one will read it #char writes things #also I did absolutely plagiarize myself in parts of this. what about it. ok I'm done goodbye.... screams #PS people CAN reblog this btw. I am being a little baby wincing at potential backlash preemptively but like #I wouldn't have posted it and left reblogs on if I didn't know and accept the risks <3 I will speak the truth idc idc someone's gotta do it #EDIT: I stopped being a coward and posted it on twitter :) because fuck it! I stand by my words etc etc it's all fine #me vs adding to the tags as if anyone's reading them lmfao

138 notes · View notes

laufire · 4 years

Text

@thepawnhits asked: I was wondering if you could go into further detail about your comment under the murphystartedthefire about murphy stans who hate emori?

(I hope you don’t mind that I answered over here; it’s just that this post got long enough to merit a read more and I’ve seen tumblr mess up with those in ask posts as of late smh ¬¬)

I know this might come across in ways I don’t intend to-- I’m not here to tell anyone how they define their fan experience; this is specifically about how I see the fandom spectrum. If someone wants to call themselves a Murphy stan and hate on Emori I’ll simply assume we have a different definition of the term and that they have remarkably bad taste xD and move on.

On that vein: according to my vision of what a stan is, I would never see someone that hates Emori as a Murphy stan.

There are wildly different ways to love a character, and stanning is only one of them, and the rarest one at that, IMO. Sometimes we think we love a character (or like them, or have “come around” to them), to discover later that it wasn’t so. I know it’s happened to me a few times (and I take pride in knowing myself quite well, overall, lol), that looking back I ended up thinking, well --in hindsight, I didn’t love them that much. For example, I would’ve count Daenerys as one of my favourites in the ASOIAF books, maybe even number one at some points, and I did like her on the show whenever I tuned in (not that often). However, I’m not enraged about her ending, and in fact I appreciate quite a lot of what the GOT finale did. Because though I like Daenerys, I was willing to trade her for other characters and other developments that mattered more to me when it counted --at the very end. Because I liked Daenerys, maybe loved her even, but I did not stan Daenerys (that I reserved for Cersei lmao).

Stanning, to me, is something quite unique and nebulous to define, but it more or less comes down to this: you nterpret the story through that character, other characters & how they affect them included (you will ship different ships if you stan a character vs. if you merely like them, IMO); they’re your number one priority to the point you’d “betray” your loyalties to other characters you like (if you’re capable to even like them in the first place, if they’re in the way of your fave. I happen to be, which creates a lot of conflict in my fannish life until the endgame comes and all bets are off lmao, but not everyone is and they probably have an easier time of it xD); and you want them to have the BEST, richest storyline, to get everything they say they want and more (and the keyword here is “say”, because if you stan a character you will take what they say at face value; you won’t doubt their POV, you won’t think they’re ~misguided and need to be “taught a lesson”, that they need to fundamentally change who they are at their core. You’d love them as they are because stanning is a fucking ridiculous state of being), even when it looks like it’s way beyond their reach.

Stanning is also very self-centered of us fans. All fannish love is, I guess. We don’t love characters the way we love people (not the ones we love genuinely, beyond ourselves, at least). It goes through a filter of what WE think and want too, because characters aren’t real people and their well-being only matters in-so-far as we’ve latched onto them. Fannish love is different from person to person, but one thing that’s true for my type of stanning is that “happiness”, as in the character being easily “content” matters a lot less to me than them winning. So whether or not a most interesting ship from them happens to bring them heartbreak once in a while... so what, as long as it brings real, tangible benefits to their storyline? With second-rate characters I like I might say “oh, that ship is nice, it makes them happy, it’s convenient for them”, etc. With my OTPs and my faves that’s not even in my radar. I want victory, not contentment, ffs.

Another thing it’s important to take into account and that I rarely if ever see fandom mentioning is that where a character is positioned in the narrative conditions how you love them. It’s not the same to start out the show with Clarke as your number one fave (even if boy, did she took a few hits in the meantime), or even Octavia and Bellamy (... same with him), than if you latch onto Raven, Murphy, etc. They weren’t quite at the bottom of the barrel, there were always characters way below them, but they were positioned explicitly below other characters in their introductions.

Fans adjust their expectations when they love secondary characters like that, whether they’re able to admit it or even realize it. We expect them to get less than the leads, because that’s how hierarchies work. Most of the time we’re right, but sometimes there are ~shakeups, and The 100 is one of those times, IMO. Because of that, Murphy got a lot more of what would’ve been expected in s1. Faced with that, fans need to reajust, but some can’t. Depending on how risk-averse they are, they might fear that their fave is getting something that’s not their “due” according to the initial structure, and that means they’ll be “punished” for it and have it, at the very least, taken away. The bigger they are, the harder the fall, etc. Personally I happen to like the risk --no risk, no reward--, and this ~timid way of loving your number one doesn’t align with my view of stanning characters at all *shrug*. Like, what the fuck is the point if you’re gonna settle for mediocrity xD

Now, wrt Memori specifically.

I have alluded to this in several post in the past; here I talk a little bit about Memori as a narrative that uplifts Murphy, for example. That, to me, it’s the gist of it. Memori is AMAZING for Murphy’s storyline. AMAZING. It’s THE romance of the show, period. It does wonders for his character, it’s made him The Romantic Hero (which is the most flattering way a male character can ever come across IMO), it’s made him pull outstanding stunts. Memori brings the most of Murphy, and as someone that loves Murphy, I love Memori for it (among other many reasons, like the fact that it’s very much My Type of ship).

Somehow people claim that because she was “mean” (...) to him in s5 that’s a bad relationship for him and... lmfao. EVEN if I thought they said that in good faith (ha!); EVEN if I agreed with them in their reading of the ship (ha!)... MEMORI IS NOT A REAL RELATIONSHIP.

MEMORI IS A FICTIONAL PAIRING. I don’t give a fuck about “healthy”, and I don’t see the vast majority of fans do either; not when push comes to shove, not about the ships that truly matter to them, their OTPs, and not just their ~casual pairings. I don’t want Memori to be a conflict-free storyline, because I think it would be an objectively worse ship if it was. Sometimes the conflict will be Memori vs. the world. Sometimes it’ll be Emori vs. Murphy. I think both have merit and both had done a lot of good for the ship.

So then, I question: why would people who love Murphy (or claim to, or genuinely think they do but), hate on Emori and think she’s the worst thing that’s happen to him, in the face of the overwhelming proof of the contrary?

One option is that, like I say, they find Memori to risky, to beyond Murphy as he was introduced in s1 (this fandom is even more stuck in s1 mentality than most I’ve encountered, and that’s saying something). It could be, though I haven’t seen clear examples of it.

What I have seen are examples of people that, for a variety of reasons, aren’t being quite truthful about their priorities, tbh. This will sound presumptous on my part but I can’t bring myself to care because I’m quite tired of this fandom; it’s repetitive af, even if I weren’t to take into account that I have been in several fandoms, even if often as a mere lurker, and I’ve seen all of this before, over and over again. I’m TIRED people xD

I’ll be blunt: this attitude, comes from CLARKE’s stans, not Murphy’s. People whose priority is Clarke, and that think she should be centered in the show (usually with Bellamy/Clarke as the ship they use to channel it --the ones that go for Lexa don’t seem as keen on invading Emori and Memori’s tags but they might be out there too). Potentially I could see it from Bellamy stans too (though frankly, on the vein of this post, my definition of a stan wouldn’t ship Bellamy with Clarke lol); so far Memori and Bellamy aligned quite well in canon, but all the s7 could change that and turn into resentment.

Because that’s what I think it is in a lot of cases: resentment. Resentment that Murphy and Emori get a Romance, capital letters, while their own ship is... well. While their ship isn’t. I’ve seen this happen in other fandoms and that’s all there is: petty jealousy. Why can’t my fave enjoy this?? Which, btw, is a sentiment I can sympathy with? It’s the way they try to pass it for something more that annoys me LOL.

And tbh I think that’s what a lot of Murven “shipping” comes from (and even that short moment of Murphy/Echo shipping I remember from s5 lol): it’s not genuine, passionate shipping; it’s convenience shipping that doesn’t own up to it. Now, I think there are Murven shippers out there that are passionate about it; I myself like it a little, even if only in a fanon context (and preferably in a thruple lol), but a.) I’ve happened to see those more often than not multiship Memori too either way, and b.) you can tell a lot of those shippers aren’t genuine by their reactions to the Murven scene in late s6 IMO: they HATED it, not because of the admittedly cringy dialogue lol, but because they were there for each other in a way that didn’t account for Clarke. That scene, which by all accounts should’ve been shipping fodder, was derided and hated on, because to a lot of Clarke stans the ship is just a way to get Murphy into a less potent ship, with the added benefit of keeping those women they feel threatened by away from Bellamy. Win-win.

This is a tangent, but hell, if anything I think having getting canonically paired with Raven would’ve been potentially terrible for Murphy’s narrative. Remember when I say stans take their fave at their word? It’s similar for writers: when writers truly respect a character, they take them at their word. In male characters especially, there’s one way this manifests, and it’s in their romantic storylines: the lead guy (or any guy with real narrative capital) loves One Girl, and One Girl only (if he hesitates between more he’s a no good wishy-washy and weak-willed jerk and the writers can even come to dislike him for it). There’s no version of his story that can look truly victorious if she doesn’t love him back and they don’t get their endgame, period. So when writers “stan” that character, in the particular way writers do, they give him just that: Peak Romance.

If the writers had pulled from Memori to write him with Raven, two things could’ve happen: either it’d happen humiliating Raven for Emori, or the other way around (yes, as fandom we can imagine other scenarios. In actual canon F/M/F triangles almost invariably go like that, sadly). If it’d happened before s6, I would’ve said Emori getting the short end of the stick was a more likely option, though now I’m not so sure. Either way, both scenarios would make Murphy Look Bad for hurting a girl’s feelings (yes, Murphy has killed people. But like I’ve said, Romantic Hero is what looks best and you CAN’T be a romantic hero if you seriously spurn a girl, even if it’s not your #1 girl. Writers are ridiculous but this pattern holds over and over smh). It would’ve been even WORSE if said girl was Emori, because it means the writers no longer respected Murphy’s POV and his priorities. It would change the core of Murphy’s character because Memori was written into his DNA, no turn backs, the way Bellamy as Octavia’s Big Brother was on his, for example.

Aaaaaanyway. I hope this has shined some light on what I meant lol. But I guess it can be summarized with: in terms of pure narrative, Emori has been consistently great for Murphy’s character. Why would you hate her if you love him, in the way a stan loves?

#memori #the 100 #john murphy #emori #thepawnhits #t100 thoughts #replies #talking to the void #my thoughts #favourites: the powah of lurve #you WISH your faves could ever

11 notes · View notes