#nothing wrong with deciding not to give narrative time to homophobic characters

[marypsue]

Ahh also as an addendum to my previous ask about the age swap (which I might’ve accidentally labeled as the body swap fic due to the foibles of being awake unexpectedly early ), I was curious what your criticisms are regarding Robin and Will’s treatments by the Duffers? I know you’ve alluded to being bothered by both but I’d be curious to hear more ( if you have the time/hankering!)

Hooboy. Okay. Buckle in. 

Obviously this is going to be a combination of actual literary analysis and Big Feelings That I Have, so like, please don’t take this as any kind of moral dictum on what to or not to watch, or how to or how not to interpret what you watch. Also, a lot of what makes me uneasy and unhappy about how canon deliberately handles queerness (as opposed to when it does queer things apparently by accident, which as you may have noticed, I have considerable amounts of fun with) has to do with behind-the-scenes context I’ve read about, so there’s a certain degree of Telephone involved. And I’m still only halfway through season four. There’s just so fucking much of it. 

With all that said. 

The behind-the-scenes context I’m most specifically concerned with are the season-one pitch bible(? I think that’s what it’s called) (which, it should be noted, ended up diverging in some quite significant ways from what ended up in the show) where the Duffers first raised the possibility that Will might be gay, and the anecdote that Joe Keery and Maya Hawke were the ones who decided Robin should be queer and had to really push for it and wrote and choreographed that scene in the bathroom. Put the two together, and it tells you that the Duffers planned that there would be One (potentially) Gay Character in their show. 

And that character was the one they spent an entire season directing violent, vicious, eventually outright murderous homophobic hatred at through the mouthpiece of a couple of bullies. You can say what you want about revenge narratives and those characters ultimately getting their comeuppance, but for Me Personally, it sucks all the fun and escapism out of season one to watch it thinking that those bullies only got punished when they aimed that vitriol at someone to whom it didn’t literally apply. Also I still have to sit through however many episodes of that vicious homophobia onscreen regardless, so, like, that’s a walk in the park anyway. /sarcasm 

And then there’s that whole bad business in season three, where it’s never been quite clear to me if we’re supposed to see Mike as having been in any way in the wrong. Kind of scuppers the argument, to me, that we’re supposed to be on Will’s side. And season four, which so far has had Will tagging along after people who are supposed to be his best friends but mostly don’t seem to give a single damn about him, doing absolutely nothing but looking morose and sullen and tragic and *coughcough* Artistic, and causing Problems for the nice straight couple. 

(Tangential to the point I’m coming to, but also, my son deserves better than to be reduced to a soggy cardboard standee with ‘GAY’ scrawled across it in magic marker the way season four seems to be angling toward. All the Byers, but especially the Byers boys, deserve better than season four seems interested in giving them. But I digress.) 

Also. I love Robin. If you follow me, you probably know that. I’m a hardcore, ride-or-die Robin girl. But. With Robin, from what I’ve heard of the context, the Duffers never intended for her to be queer. They wrote a girl who was smart and funny and sharp and talented and a little bit mean and a little bit insecure and a little bit weird but in an interesting, endearing way - as a love interest for Steve. 

And then, as soon as season four rolled around, once they’d been pushed into making her canonically, on-screen queer (in a beautiful, tender, heartfelt, true-feeling scene that they didn’t fucking write), suddenly she’s had a complete personality transplant. Suddenly, she’s an awkward, bumbling, annoying loser who’s only funny when she’s the butt of the joke, who’s no good at anything and who nobody really likes except maybe for Steve, an outcast even amongst the freaks. When she does do something smart or competent, everyone around her reacts with shock, like it’s wildly out of character instead of how her character was originally written. One of these versions of Robin was written with ‘gay person’ in mind, and it unfortunately wasn’t the one we were obviously supposed to like. 

In both cases, I get the feeling that the storytelling issues stem from this like...assumption that queerness equals isolation and misery and tragedy, and that there’s nothing to queerness outside of that. That there’s something inherent to queerness, something pitiable but repulsive, that causes the isolation and misery and tragedy (not that those things are imposed from outside, by, say, violent homophobia). That it would be absurd to imagine that queerness could ever be joyful, or playful, or that someone might ever, given the chance to choose, not choose to be straight instead. Or that there could be enormous friendship and community and heart and pride in queerness, or even that queer people might find friendship and community and strength in each other. Or even fucking talk to each other, ever. 

Which is especially infuriating, because the whole central theme of season one (besides surface appearances being deceiving) is that community and care between people who are very different but discover they have more in common than there is that separates them is what saves the day! That love comes in all kinds of forms, and they’re all important, and that love can be stronger than fear! 

But apparently, according to the Duffers, queer love doesn’t count and queer community doesn’t exist. It’s just isolation, misery, and tragedy, and I guess we the watchers are supposed to sit outside of it and pity Them for it (and be quietly, sneakily, a little bit nastily grateful that it’s not happening to Us). Because of course nobody watching the show is queer. Of course. This show is made for normal people. 

It’s part of the same attitude I’ve also seen play out with the Duffers’ inability to just let a white dude be bad. Oh, they want to talk a big game about how they’re on the side of the freaks, and bullies are bad, and everybody should be respected and appreciated for who they are. But when it cuts down to the bone, when applying that precept to a girl or a person of colour or a queer person makes a straight white guy come off as a monster, they keep trying to dodge it. 

The more antagonists they try desperately to rehab without ever acknowledging why they were antagonists in the first place, the more it starts to look like they simply don’t really believe that the people those antagonists hurt really matter. That, somewhere deep down where the assumptions that are so baked in you don’t even realise they’re assumptions live, they don’t really believe that girls, or Black kids, or queer people are as fundamentally human and deserving of respect and compassion as their beloved awful straight white men are. That what they really think about bullies is that bullies are bad because the bullies picked on them, instead of the kinds of people who deserved it.

(See also: that time a twelve- or thirteen-year-old Sadie Sink didn’t want to have to do a kiss in the Snow Ball scene, so the Duffers, who had just been joking about having her do it, actually made her do it. For multiple takes. Specifically because she didn’t want to. And then later related that anecdote to the press. Because they thought it was funny.)

Anyway. Personally, I’d prefer canon just never say anything definitive on the matter of Will’s sexuality and stop trying to push the narrative in that direction, so I don’t have to watch the Duffers spectacularly fumble yet another attempt at Writing About Marginalised Groups. 

(Also, this is absolutely not me saying Watch A Different Show - I’m here writing fanfic for this stupid show, it’d be pretty fucking rich of me to try to tell people to stop watching it. But I’d really love for many of its fans to get some more exposure to less-mainstream, more deliberately queer literature and film, so y’all can see what it really feels like to be seen and acknowledged and loved by a story, on purpose. I get it! I do! I too have wanted very badly to feel like something I loved, loved me back. 

But you don’t have to content yourselves with scraps. And you definitely don’t have to be so concerned with those scraps that you blame your friends, cousins, siblings, brothers in arms for ‘stealing’ some kind of ‘representation’ from you by asking to be seen and acknowledged and loved as well. The bastards who’ve been withholding that recognition from all of us would love nothing more than to watch with amusement, gorging themselves on a banquet, while we tear each other apart over a couple of discarded bones. Don’t give them the satisfaction. We don’t have to be isolated, pitiable, pathetic, miserable tragedies. Put the hollow promises of exclusionism and respectability down. There is queer art and literature and film and community and joy and love in abundance that you don’t have to beg anyone for, and you are invited to participate. This is me inviting you to participate. 

And cordially inviting the Duffers to meet me in the woods behind the 7-Eleven.)

...

tl;dr the way the Duffers treat queerness when they do it on purpose feels like a combination of othering, contempt, and misery porn, and I hate it. And that, in a nutshell, is the rant I’ve been sitting on for the last two-and-a-bit years. I’m getting down off the cafeteria table now. 

#chatter #stranger things #i have been first uneasy and then very fucking angry about all of this for Quite A While Now #but robin's personality transplant broke open the fucking dam #it's worse because they did such! a good job! with seasons one and two! #obviously Not Perfect but also painfully obviously Better Than This #and then I guess they'd made enough money for netflix that they stopped having creative reins and restrictions placed on them #and it all went to shit #just total anne rice/stephen king editor syndrome #anyway I won't be following anything they do after this bc i'm pretty sure I like the show in spite of its creators instead of because of th #*them #they also aren't applying season one's theme of appearances being deceiving when it comes to queer people! #they keep saying every shitty shallow queer stereotype is true! #(the tragic gay martyr #slash the obsessive possessive friend-borderline-stalker) #(the unfuckable lesbian) #(the predatory gay villain - I didn't talk about closeting and s2 Billy Hargrove bc hoo boy that's a can of worms #but I do think they took that angle with him on purpose #especially since his 'redemption arc' goes hand in hand with suddenly switching his focus from steve to karen #and he stands to gain nothing by manipulating karen in s3 so it's pretty obviously a cheap dodge #so the duffers can go 'what? no he wasn't sneeringly derogatory toward teenage girls bc he was so deep in the closet he could see narnia' #'nooooooooo he just...only likes ~mature women~' #which. yes boys jennifer coolidge was hot in american pie but please grow up.) #anyway yes that loss of sight of that central theme is exactly how we got the russians in season three #and we all know how much that fucking sucked #i do hope having the word 'fuck' in the tags still hides a post from search

[batsarebetterthanpeople]

🍺 Jamie, we need the full unabridged Calico Jack essay you certainly have.

Ok so here's the thing. I've already made a lot of the meta about him that I need to make so I'll just link some and give you director's commentary. This is in reverse chronological order of when I posted it so my understanding of my evil alcoholic meow meow has grown more complex and nuanced the farther down it goes.

The full throttle Jack apologia I was on before the canyon materialized - I understand why this one has 7 notes and three of them are from me. I really do. However I stand by most of what I said here. I don't stand by my relative minimization of what Jack did do wrong (Being homophobic, being a bad friend to Ed and saying that they're not friends, Being manipulative instead of just warning Ed and letting him make the call about Stede). I think that what's missing from this little essay is that Jack is, as a narrative tool, trying to pull Ed back into his old life that he hates. His fundamental narrative purpose is to show what Ed's life was like back when he was shitty. Now I think from this perspective that Stede is just as culpable for doing that to Mary but it's not Mary's story any more than it's Jack's story so I am reading against text in this meta. However what you have to understand is that in may of 2022 when I published this thing that Jack was universally hated. I personally saw him as a sympathetic and wrong character where as the general consensus back then was that the dalliances he talked about with Ed had to have been non consensual if they were real because why would Ed ever have sex with a guy like that. Which is a take I have a lot of problems with but the main one is that it denies Ed agency to have sex with a guy that rubs you, the viewer the wrong way. So basically, I agree with this post but I would not make it in the current relatively Jack friendly climate of the fandom. Nor would I make it in a post canyon enviornment where the homophobic masc white guy apologia has reached a fever pitch just because I don't want to be associated with that. Also I'm a lot less charitable to Stede than most ofmd fans for personal, non jack related reasons. Also I want to make a note here that I should have made in that meta but will make now that I'm not saying that Stede is terrible and you shouldn't like him, my argument was essentially that seeing Jack as one dimentionally evil is kind of weird when you're willing to completely write off Stede's misogyny era as an oopsy. I like Stede. Most people like Stede. I stood alone in also liking Jack at the time.

Here's a much more reasonable strain of Jack apologia that I've settled on - In the early days I bounced back and forth between "he literally did nothing wrong except kill Karl" and "He's the worst guy ever (affectionate)" but eventually I saw how the wind was blowing on people who said "he's never done anything wrong" about Izzy and I was like, I'll dial it back even though I'm not throwing Ed or Stede (generally unless I'm also defending Mary B in the same breath) under the bus to say it. You'll notice it's pretty much the same thesis except for instead of being phrased as "Stede was out of pocket and Jack did nothing wrong and you're all highschool brained" it's phrased as "I think this is what happened but these two other things could also be the case and I would still like him. This is the clear role he plays in the narrative giving it to someone else annoys me." Also Beardy is what I started having my Jack tulpa call Ed before season 2. I've explained why Here on the @ask-calico-jack sideblog where I'm the mod because I got an ask about it and I decided to address it out of character. Also I'm Not Going Anywhere is a Jack apologia fic I was writing at the time which I have since abandoned. Basically I whumped him into submission.

My Evidence for Jack being willing to risk his life to save Ed - more apologia that I stand by. Once again I want to reiterate that in 2022 everybody hated that guy and most people still hate him which is fair and natural but enough people have come around that I'm now willing to ignore the haters because I have to fight with the people who like him wrong.

this was part of an ask game asking me what I thought about ships and I went off about Ed and Jack

I learned that Calico Jack was named after calico the fabric and I made this because I'm still on my Jack/Ed enemies to rivals who fuck shit - Not sure about Ed's skin here, is he too orange? depends on whether you're on desktop or mobile.

Calico Jack penis discourse - This one is integral to my view of the pissing scene. I love the pissing scene it's one of the only scenes of tv ever.

Jack is cute he would kill me for saying it but it's true 2 3 4

Brief asside that I feel like I have to put in and here's probably best: At some point in late 2022 early 2023 Jack stopped being so villified and people started to think he was kinda fun. After this the CJizzys attacked. I used to passively like the concept of CJizzy because in my head they were the worlds worst guys being terrible together. It was giving Izzy a pirate captain to obsess over the way he obsesses over blackbeard, except the pirate captain actually liked being a pirate captain so it was healthier than what he has going on with Ed, and also it was like if that one straight couple that are together but hate each other because she's a nag and he's a slob were gay pirates who partake in unsafe bdsm. Then a bunch of people started writing and drawing this wildly out of character CJizzy stuff and I got turned off of it completely because they would hollow out my favoriate little villain to turn him into the perfect white masc boyfriend for their little guy because they cant enjoy a show if there aren't masc4mascs in it, and now because of that I hate the ship. I just can't stand people giving Jack emotional intelligence without him being wrapped in a blanket and socialized by force first. It's not that I don't like woobifying him it's that you're woobifying him wrong and above is the way you ought to do it. anyway, onwards.

Anon asks me how I think Jack felt about being rejected by the crew - I stumble upon an interesting potential motive for him faumenting mutiny against Stede and potentially evidence for him telling the truth about having been mutinied three times.

Ed has a type - I added Frenchie in here because I'm a serial shipper and I stand by that decision despite Frenchie being different from Jack and Stede in most ways but I genuinely think that Stede and Jack are a very similar type of guy

Jack is not a frat boy - this one is me being a dick again but also I'm right.

Jack calls Stede slurs, this is funny - note that Stede also calls Jack "calico" as if his first name is Calico and his last name is Jack and that historically Jack was called "calico" Jack because some guy writing a salacious book about pirates wanted to make him seem gay so to me Jack's nickname for Stede is Fairy and Stede's nickname for Jack is Fudgepacker. This to me is both amusing and homoerotic.

Fic rec - What I think Jack and Ed were like as kids, there's a one paragraph meta and then below it a link to a 2k word fic

Jack has a type - Anne and Mary came out and I love them

Jack fucks - This has always been my take but I think there's a lot of people on here who thinks he doesn't fuck well and all of them are wrong, and more importantly, have not had sex with as many bisexual 50 year old alcoholic perverts as I have, so they don't know what they're talking about. Jack would try to sell me meth on grindr.

Jack and Ed are tragic actually - they could have been highschool sweet hearts who got married if Jack wasn't a little bitch

I am shipping so hard right now - my thesis about my pet 5 way

Aro cowboy pirate- Jack and Jim also have stuff in common

Jack has dimentions don't you dare say he doesn't have dimensions - Jack actually is sympathetic Ed told me himself and he also told you and Jack also says a lot about both Ed and Stede and that's the whole reason he's there is to say a lot about Ed and Stede if you will just listen to what his presence says about the guys you like maybe you would understand him like I do. (you general not you specifically)

and finally

my writing advice.

#calico jack #cj meta masterpost

[notcapableofbeingtheguy]

Hiii I love bcs so much but I still haven't decided for myself if I feel queerbaited or not (re Gus, mostly, like I just want to be Acknowledged by the universe in a way straight audiences can't ignore you know?); do you ever get frustrated by this/know people who talked about it on tumblr/do you know of more subtle nods like that Patrick Fabian thing...

(Bf hasn't seen bcs and I have nobody to talk to about it u_u so hiiii)

Hiiii! Thanks for asking this and sorry for the response time. I wrote like a ten page essay on why what BBC Sherlock did was so wrong so I also hate queerbaiting and I totally feel you. I don’t talk about it very much on here because having invested a lot of energy into pulling for queer ships/characters that didn’t pan out ina previous period of my life, it’s not where I currently try to center my experience of media, especially when there’s so much about BCS that’s just so wonderful to celebrate (tldr I’m just trying to meme around and have a good time rn)— but you are totally right that there is a very frustrating problem in the gilliverse with queer rep (there isn’t any), and it’s worth talking about so I’ll throw in my two cents.

I tend to categorize content that lacks explicit canon queer rep, but has queer coded characters into two varieties:

1) classic straight people shit. Writers are too heteronormative/homophobic to even think about having queer characters. They are not aware of/concerned with their queer audience. Any queer coding that arises in such content/any characters that are read as implicitly queer is largely accidental. We (queer viewers) know how to easily recognize common signs of queerness but the writers don’t, and so when these things get into their scripts and characters, it’s not intentional. They’re just reflecting what they see in the world (which happens to include queer vibes, queer codes, queer narratives, because those EXIST in the world), and trying to write characters who feel varied and unique— and traits that often clock as queer (e.g. gender deviance, a witty/flirtatious edge, flamboyance in men and stoicism in women) tend to make for compelling and real feeling characters. They don’t have the awareness to understand how those things read to an audience— they think they’re just writing saucy straight people.

2) Queerbaiting. Writers are aware of queer themes and queer codes, and of the potential queer flavor they can give characters. They are aware they have a potential or actual queer audience, to whom these codes and themes will speak. They want to write characters who have a queer flavor, for whatever reason (courting a queer/liberal audience, because they think it’s “funny” (which may not even be something they consciously clock as homophobic), or simply as part of an attempt to write characters who feel varied and unique, as I mentioned above), BUT they also INTENTIONALLY don’t want to write queer representation for whatever reason (e.g. marketability to a conservative audience, their own homophobia).

(((Bonus #3 would be content written by queer people/allies who are living under censorship of some kind that makes it impossible for them to state their characters are queer explicitly. But this doesn’t apply to the gilliverse so we’ll ignore this for now)))

Obviously the major difference between these two types of rep comes in the intentions of the writers—do they know they’re writing queer coded characters or not, is it intentional? And this can sometimes be difficult to parse.

When I watched Breaking Bad, I assumed Gus’s writing was an instance of type 1. These were straight people who had no idea they had written a very gay man. And when I watch type 1 shows, they mostly don’t bother me. I get to have a laugh out of making a character queer with the fandom, and know there’s nothing to really be done about it. Yes, not having queer characters is homophobic, but the act of queer coding some of their characters itself wasn’t intentional, and so it doesn’t really add to my ire.

But in Better Call Saul, it became clear to me the writers KNOW. I only started paying attention to behind the scenes stuff recently, so people are welcome to fill in the blanks there if writers have talked about this in a way before that makes their intentionality clear. BUT I saw some things on the show in season five that were an explicit nod to Gus being queer-coded, the foremost being:

This reads as a homophobic Lalo joke to me (in terms of writer intention— obviously we all know lalo is gay, mlm hostility, etc etc etc), not as a canonization of Gus/Max. And when writers JOKE about their queer-codes relationships, THAT is what makes my blood boil. It shows that they are actively aware of the coding, but will not take the step to make it explicit. It feels like I’m being taunted. The baiting metaphor is apt: you bite down on what you think is sustenance and instead you get stabbed in the mouth by a barbed metal hook. I hear “boyfriend,” and I invest emotionally (I’m hooked), but I never get anything from it— no kiss, no explicit acknowledgement of who Max was to Gus— and that hurts.

Now, we don’t know yet whether we’ll get a canon acknowledgment of Gus’s sexuality. Maybe the fountain/school he dedicated to Max was supposed to be that nod from the writers? If so, I guess I would understand that it comes in the context of a show where many things are implied and the writing is very restrained. I would still be frustrated, and it would still be homophobic, because it would be SO EASY to make Gus (or any character) explicitly queer in a way that wouldn’t need to feel heavy handed but that would be impossible for straight audiences to deny (straight characters mention their partners in scenes all the time!). But I could MAYBE see a piece of where the writers were coming from.

I’m not really keeping my hopes up, honestly. For either explicit canonization on screen, or explicit statements from the writers. 🤷‍♂️ it could happen. If it doesn’t, we’ve been queerbaited. Not egregiously, in my opinion. I think the writers realized Gus was queer coded late in the game, and were too skittish/homophobic to fully pivot (I think they have NO IDEA howard, lalo, nacho, et al. come across as queer, and those are type 1 mistakes). Which IS homophobic, but isn’t bone-rattling to me. Still, it sucks, because I would love to be seen and Acknowledged, like you said, rather than toyed with. I’d love for the best show on television, which is celebrated for its dynamic characters (many of whom are dynamic and interesting in part BECAUSE of their queer coding), to have explicit queer representation on it. But alas… I don’t think it’s gonna happen 😔

Gilligould prove me wrong challenge!!!

#better call saul #breaking bad #Gus fring #Gustavo fring #vince gilligan #Peter Gould #bcs #bcs meta #i have EVEN MORE thoughts on this but I had to stop #very very open to people replying/reblogging with their own thoughts and feelings or sharing evidence for what they think the writers’ #intentions are #I really didn’t follow behind the scenes stuff until this season #and obvi I’m not the only queer voice in the world lol feel your feelings y’all #ask #long post for ts

[cutcontinuity]

Sometimes I read stories and people seem to throw in homophobic parents like it’s an immediate-sympathy card (which it is) but as a reader half of the time it doesn’t feel like the writing expresses the trauma of it at all — like I read narratives like that and the parents and the child’s reactions feel like cardboard

#nothing wrong with deciding not to give narrative time to homophobic characters #but it’s like ‘having homophobic parents’ is like a shorthand for the character having a bad time or smth #idk it’s just disingenuous to the character somehow for me #homophobia #family

[diamondcitydarlin]

what do you think about the arguments that lokius is being queerbaited? I want to enjoy and ship it so bad but it seems like im setting myself up for disappointment

And I can't assure you with full confidence that you wouldn't be. I can't be certain I won't be, though I've personally chosen to enjoy what is there and extrapolate from what we are given, even as I know that historically, statistically, it's best to assume a mainstream depiction of a m/m relationship in a Disney-Marvel production is pretty slim. But then...not nonexistent and, in many ways, the likelihood of it actually going there is higher than it's ever been. So there is that.

I've been independently studying LGBTQA+/queer representation in mainstream media for over a decade now. The term 'queerbaiting' is relatively new in fandom spaces (if we're looking big picture, back into the earliest films and TV shows, some of the earliest shipping fandoms like Star Trek), as I only started seeing it maybe around 2012-2014. It's a term I appreciate, because it represented a switch in cultural thinking from holding no expectations of creatives in Hollywood to large swaths of LGBTQA+ fans gaining the confidence to say 'no, this isn't good enough'.

It also represents the switch in Capitalist approaches to LGBTQA+ citizens, from catering solely to the religious, satanic panic morality by pretending gay people simply don't exist, to deciding that gay fans are in fact lucrative and need to be included just enough to feel inclined to monetarily contribute to a brand. They'll write scenes between characters with intentionally confusing, ambiguous energy, give them moments that are meant to be read into deeply, but rarely, rarely, with any kind of payoff that would alienate homophobic investors. The insidiousness of this tactic is in the fact that when payoff does not happen, viewers can be easily gaslit into thinking that was never the intention in the first place, they were the ones who were wrong in their takes. As I've worked professionally in entertainment as actress, director and producer with rather big capitalist brands I won't mention names of, I can assure you this -is- very much a thing, please stop giving corporations the benefit of the doubt.

There is no clean definition or qualification for queerbaiting, despite how often people want to gatekeep how gay viewers use this term. To be clear though, it is an accountability term before anything else. Not an insult, not an accusation that someone isn't good at what they do, it's a reminder that we're owed more than what we're usually given. If we don't speak out, if we don't label things queerbaiting (when they very much usually are), if we don't demand better we will never, ever, ever get it. I promise you that.

Okay, so now that we've established what queerbaiting is at least in my mind...

Do I think Lokius is being queerbaited? Yes, possibly. I'm waiting to see how the rest of the narrative plays out before I come to a definitive conclusion on my own (yes I'm actually optimistic I say as I put on clown make up), but I'm also not going to deny LGBTQA+ fans the right to feel like that's what's happening and voice their opinions. Anyone tasked with writing/creating content for mainstream audiences has a huge responsibility, in that this content will reach millions of people and has the potential to help shape our culture, perceptions- it even has the potential to help normalize and give broad optics of what it means to be queer and have queer relationships, romantic and otherwise. None of this is as trifling as, 'it's just a TV show', because it's never that simple.

As far as Lokius itself is concerned, the show spent a great deal of time first developing their bond and dynamic before (seemingly) switching gears towards elevating romantically the first feminine-presenting character Loki ran into even though there are some clear, uhm...conflicts with the idea of this actually being a thing. If it becomes a thing. It also seemed to first build a solid, unique platonic bond between the 'fem' and 'masc' character that a lot of gay fans would have appreciated seeing playing out before having them mashed together haphazardly as a romantic pairing, as has been done in media for 50+ years now. That's to say nothing of the fact that the most visible feminine character being forced into role of 'love interest' for a broken main character is one we've had to see play out over and over and over and over again too, poorly. People have a right to feel frustrated about that and voice their frustrations accordingly. We expected more of this show than that. (And yes, I am bisexual, I know that it would still technically be a queer relationship, but please consider the broader history/picture here of queer rep in media and the optics of that against that mosaic, please consider the heteronormative lens that so often claims any and every possibility for itself, please consider the long history of how feminine characters are often used as coping tools and objects of lust before they are treated as individuals deserving of their own development)

Now, again, I want to say that I am not convinced of anything really right now. I'm not taking any of the writers at face value because they are all bound by contracts and NDAs and aren't going to come out and say what the outcome of the show will be, so nothing they're putting out on twitter or in interviews is something I will be taking as absolute truth beyond assuming they're trolling, maybe even have been instructed to keep the pot boiling in the fandom through social media antics. Don't rule it out.

Things really could go either way, but my point is I do not deny the possibility of what this is and I'm certainly not going to gatekeep how other gay viewers feel they're being queerbaited, and I really don't see any reason why anyone else should either.

#lokius #im a little stoned and got wordy #to be clear i love lokius it is my life #but i have to pair it with my intimate knowledge of what goes on in capitalist entertainment #also i choose to use the term queer and im not going to debate that with anyone sorry

[homosociallyyours]

Your last post about the ideal stunt girlfriend! I have some thoughts on this as well. I think first of all as you said the preference is that they just do not exist that is essentially why anything and everything they do seems to be picked apart. I am not sure what it is that someone can do then if their existence is the problem. (This is only in context of the 1D fandom because I have no idea how stunt girlfriend might be treated elsewhere). The blame for the closeting is placed entirely on the shoulders of the stunt girlfriend as if she is the one forcing a closeting whereas we do not know anything going on behind the scenes. (Just want to add that there is nothing wrong with someone choosing to be closeted in order to navigate a homophobic industry and world and to protect oneself.) I know the common story told about larry is that external people are forcing things upon them or are sabotaging them and there may well have been times where they were advised strongly (or manipulated and mistreated when they were younger by those who should have tried to help them in the industry) to stay in the closet but that does not mean that they do not have any agency at all for anything especially not in the present day. Perhaps in an ideal world they may choose to disclose their sexuality and their relationship (but even if they did not they do not owe that to anyone. Anyways the problem is heteronormativity and assuming people are straight by default). I do personally believe that both Louis and Harry want to at least be recognized as part of the LBTQA community for as long as they do not state things publicly (and also show that they are together to those that recognize it. I am a larrie so that is my belief lol) and possibly do want to come out at some point (both about their individual sexualities and their relationship) but until then they do have to perform heterosexuality for many numbers of reasons. And while they do that there is a need for a stunt girlfriend whether as PR or just for the purpose of appearing straight depending on their career needs. I know people who will speak out against attacks on Olivia might still have issues with Eleanor because one is PR and one is not (this is a simplified version of the reasons and I don't want to go into comparisons or reasonings people have for anything. At the end of the day neither attacks is justified to me.)

Okay this is already quite long and I haven't yet got to the point sorry about that. I think at the end of the day the purpose of the stunt girlfriend (when there is no PR involved) is to help maintain the closet until the closet is required. It doesn't matter who the person is tbh. If it were not Eleanor it would have been someone else so people who say things about Eleanor's personality, looks, character, mistakes she may have made do not make sense to me. None of these people know her yet they have made their own head canon version of her which is always a negative version. It would be the same no matter who was in her place. I think Louis' purpose for Eleanor specifically has to do with the story he wants to tell with his music and in interviews (a story that could possibly be most similar to his actual relationship perhaps even if not entirely the same) and I do believe Eleanor specifically helps tell it (as his longest public relationship). It allows him to mention a girlfriend that has "helped him" through tough times and give anecdotes about his "girlfriend". I think Eleanor probably does other things behind the scenes like a personal assistant as well we just do not see it. But the Eleanor we do see is the image that we are shown, the image that tells the story that Louis wants told. And that story in itself is so interesting and to me just confirms things that I believe about his actual relationship. So its more intriguing to me than something to stress over or look at negatively. I don't know Eleanor but what I know is this is her job and she will do it. It is work and I don't know why it has been villainized. I understand being frustrated by the situation and feeling like Louis (and Harry) may have not been happy through stunts in the past (potentially) but that does not translate to hating the stunt girlfriend. Disliking a situation you are in does not mean you dislike everyone who is part of it. But yeah anyways the end point is I do not see any situation in which people would be happy with a stunt girlfriend.

It doesn't matter which song she posts there will always be some criticism over it. It doesn't matter if she just posts herself with dogs or doing influencing there will be a problem. It doesn't matter whether she posts about Louis or not there will be criticism in either case. Lastly it doesn't matter if she talks with Louis' sisters or not either way there will be arguments that they are not on good terms. So I am not quite sure what it is that an ideal stunt girlfriend can do for fans. I don't see any situation where people who have already decided to have a problem just based on the concept of her being a stunt girlfriend will suddenly stop. But talking about these things might help at least some people understand the bias? I just think the best approach is that she keep doing what she feels is best according to the story that she has to tell and ignore the criticism (which can be tough I know because of the immense amount of hate you can get for it). I think if I were to find and guide someone my focus would be on guiding them on how to navigate the hate and I guess general tips based on the story that needs telling. And I think when it comes to finding someone it is probably a mix of finding someone who would look like what the ideal image of a girlfriend to a popstar should look like (which has its own problems and really we need to reevaluate standards of deciding these things) and also someone who can do the other behind the scenes work too?

Idk I have done a lot of rambling (and still probably haven't got all my thoughts down lol) but it was definitely an interesting post that led to some thoughts I felt like discussing. I hope you do not mind my sending an anon with all these thoughts. You do not have to post it if you are afraid of the reaction and can instead reply in tags?

I just want to end with agreeing with what you said about considering bearding to be like sex work. And also thankyou for your post.

hi nonny! thank you for your long and thoughtful response :) i hope you don't mind that i'm publishing it-- i think you made some good points and i appreciate that you really tried to answer the question of who to pick and what to guide them to do. image would definitely be key, as would an internet presence of some kind. i imagine celeb pairings would mean more frequent but less involved appearances while a famous/not famous pair would be able to get away with fewer public spottings but maybe more in depth/intimate scenarios.

and i really think there's just no way to please everyone, but you're right that the blame for closeting seems to fall on the shoulders of the woman who's bearding. :/// that often goes hand in hand with the narrative that they're (still) being forcibly closeted instead of looking at the very real history of ex-boybanders and performers who came out, which is relatively bleak/unsuccessful and making a decision to try to gain more credibility as solo artists.

meanwhile i share your perception that they want to be seen/read as LGBTQ+ by those of us who are part of that community. signalling is real, and it's not based on stereotypes like "oh he wore makeup! he has a limp wrist!" i mean as a queer femme from the south, when i go home i tone myself down quite a lot, but i still wear/use symbols that other queer people are more likely to notice, tell stories about myself that indirectly mention my gender and sexuality, and engage with queer history when possible in ways that straight people just. wouldn't perceive.

but of course you can do all of that and STILL want or need to be in the closet!

i really appreciate you responding to my question, even though i think you're right that there's no answer that would make the hatred these women get any less virulent. i do hope that, like you said, talking about it is at least useful in getting more people to realize that maybe it's undeserved? beards don't build the closets, they just stand there to make sure nobody walks in on the person they're working with while they're half naked, basically.

#long post #closeting #stunt mention #1d #if i get anyone trying to say HL don't signal queerness you're getting blocked #as i hopefully made it clear this is simply how i (and the anon) view the situation #other people can post their perceptions on their own blogs-- that's what they're for :)

[obsessivelollipoplalala]

It annoys me as well that Phoebe is an openly gay man, yet for some reason is deciding to pander to the narrative as well these days. He used to support Jim but now he undermines him and tries to make out that he was being unreasonable in Mercury and Me (which he wasn’t.) He confirmed Freddie was gay, but now he says we can’t confine Freddie’s sexuality to one label, basically going along with the “Freddie was bi/ambiguous about his sexuality” bullshit. He defended that trashy film and said nothing was wrong with it, despite its erasure of Freddie’s sexuality, blatant homophobia, Mary ass kissing, fucked up timeline and the butchering of Freddie’s character. I honestly find it sad. It’s almost like as soon as Jim died, he did a U-turn and now says what he knows the homophobic masses want to hear.

He’s not totally unsupportive of Jim now. He’ll still say he gave Freddie the stability he needed, but will invalidate some of his feelings in M&M and act like Freddie couldn’t fully give himself to anyone, yeah. Strange comments from time to time which seemingly increased after Jim passed, which is :/ He still says Freddie was gay but pushes back against...the importance of saying so, I suppose, which I disagree with. His defense of the movie is absurd because he said there’s not a single inaccuracy, but we know that’s not true. I think he wants to cozy up to official Queen stuff, so he has to praise the movie as a result, but like I said before, even freaking Brian will admit that inaccuracies exist in the film. Idk. I’d love to know what’s going through Phoebe’s head.

#phoebe freestone #replies #Anonymous

[lightsandlostbells]

wtFOCK season 3, episode 5 reaction

This whole episode I kept doing that Marge Simpson groan. You know, the one that’s like tight-lipped and this low, exasperated mmm from deep in the throat? That was me constantly.

Episode 5

Clip 1 - Jens gives Robbe sex advice

Robbe texts his mom and says to her he can’t visit, lying that it’s because he’s sick. One repeated element that does exist in this season is Robbe listening to music on his headphones, which is him retreating into himself, or using music to cope. The song lyrics reflect that: “I used to feel so alone, now I’m feeling better on my own.”

Since I’ve been trying to think of ways to rewrite this season, they could expand Robbe using music as a coping strategy even further. Music should have been something that Robbe bonds with Sander over. And not just Sander’s recommendation of Bowie, either, which is all they’ve done so far - it seems like Robbe should give recs or insight as well. Talk about how important music is to him with Sander. Make it a serious point in their developing relationship.

Jens skates up and talks to Robbe. Robbe wants to get high, but Jens doesn’t have weed with him at the moment. He asks Robbe if he’s thought about the Brrrothers, because they’re not the same without Robbe. Robbe snaps and turns away from him, then lies and says his bad mood is about Noor. Jens has already heard that they’re fighting.

Jens’ talk to Robbe, knowing that Noor wants to have sex and Robbe doesn’t, is actually pretty sweet. Even though he doesn’t understand the real reason why Robbe doesn’t want to, his talk is thoughtful and not shaming Robbe for being a nervous virgin, it’s considerate of him. Considering the Brrrothers have been obnoxious about sex and girls all season, this was a refreshing change. One question I do have is how Jens knew that Noor wanted sex and Robbe didn’t, but I guess it was implied that this explanation was part of the rumor mill. 

Of course, the downside is that Jens’ advice prompts Robbe to text Noor about how he misses her and wants to meet up. Bad, Robbe! I don’t know if Jens’ talk encouraged Robbe to text her because Robbe was like “Yeah, I’m supposed to like Noor, better get back on that,” or because maybe he genuinely told himself, “I just don’t want to have sex with her because I’m nervous, yeah, that must be it,” and decided to just move forward with it. 

I do like drama that comes from characters trying to be helpful but unintentionally saying or doing the wrong thing - that’s what happens in the locker room scene with Isak and Even. When Isak says he’s better off without mentally ill people in his life, he’s telling Even this as a way of saying that his mother won’t cause problems for them, he doesn’t care what she’ll think of them dating. So taken on its own, I think this scene is fine.

HOWEVER. The pacing of this season is again, SO SO weird, because this scene would have fit right in around episodes 2-3? Right after Robbe tried and failed to have sex with Noor, you know ... the first time? Or the second, or the third? Like … have it be in line with Isak’s episode 3 sexuality crisis, all the “why does he have to be so gay” stuff. It would’ve worked well to have this talk at like, the beginning of episode 3, and then have Robbe making the “that guy is so gay” comment as an unintentional result of this - by trying to convince himself he is just straight and nervous and distancing himself from being gay. We had three entire scenes of Robbe failing to fuck Noor, so narratively, why did we need to wait this long for Jens to talk to him about it? 

Clip 2 - AGAIN?

Robbe invites Noor over to bone. He’s lit about a million candles and is trying to make this a big romantic deal, except lmao, he has on David Bowie’s Life on Mars … Robbe … what u doing…

Actually, I’m not sure if this is diegetic music or not, if Robbe is blasting Bowie from his phone as mood music or if he’s only hearing this song inside his head. I think we’re definitely meant to take away that Robbe is hearing the song since it gets distorted as he slinks down Noor’s body, and that it’s not just there for the audience. In either case, Sander is supposedly the shadow hanging over this sad hetero affair.

Tbh listening to Life on Mars is the best part of this season and I wish I could just like … listen to this song play against a black screen instead of watching poorly written, repetitive clips.

They start to get it on and he takes off her shirt, unhooks her bra, yadda yadda, he doesn’t look happy but he soldiers on and it’s implied they went All The Way. On the one hand, I will rage if they actually had sex. On the other hand, if they don’t, it’s yet another clip where the same shit happens, Robbe tries to bang Noor and fails.. 

Clip 3 - Robbe’s not turned on by Noor and this is BRAND NEW INFORMATION

… okay, so he didn’t have sex with her AGAIN? He couldn’t get it up?

For fuck’s sake. I mean, on the one hand I’m glad it was actually Robbe’s choice (apparently) to put a stop to the sex instead of like, someone else walking in and interrupting yet again, but on the other hand, I feel like we have done this scene SO MUCH. We KNOW. About the only thing that’s changed I guess is that Robbe kissed a boy and now he’s trying to be straight? If this was only like the second time this scene had happened, it would have been fine.

I just don’t have a coherent idea of Robbe’s arc. This season is going in circles. 

Anyway, Robbe couldn’t get it up, Noor is sympathetic, she asks if it’s her, Robbe says she’s amazing, he looks sad and haunted blah blah we’ve already seen this play out.

Why were these separate clips? In the first clip, we have Robbe seemingly determined to have sex with Noor, and then in the second, he can’t get it up. So why not SHOW THE MOMENT OF CHANGE? Are these filmmakers on drugs? This is storytelling 101. Like there’s no reason to split up these clips except to cause a bit of anxiety if you happen to be able to watch the clips at the exact time they’re posted, and from a real-time perspective I get it, but that’s ineffective for the vast majority of people who will have to watch later and then will watch these two clips together at the same time. I mean, the fact that it’s not even 10 minutes in between clips … just SHOW THE WHOLE SCENE. Holy fuck. How are they this incompetent?

The pacing of the scenes themselves is so weird. So many of the clips are oddly short, we don’t NEED them to be split into parts. It makes me really appreciate Julie’s pacing: Skam S3 episodes had 4-6 clips each, and in those clips, we got rich scenes packed with details, often multi-tasking within different story threads. wtFOCK’s pacing is simplistic and choppy and unnecessary.

Clip 4 - Milan gives Robbe a pep talk

Robbe is Googling erectile dysfunction which is honestly kind of funny (but again, probably would have been a better fit for earlier in this season, before Robbe had already kissed a dude ...) Milan comes in wanting advice on two shirts, Robbe is annoyed.

Milan tries to get Robbe to talk to him. It takes some prodding (and I do like how Robbe is swiveling in his chair and not looking at Milan) but Robbe admits there’s a guy who likes him and, after Milan asks, admits that it’s mutual. 

Tbh … I don’t find it so hard to believe that Robbe opened up to Milan even though they’re not anywhere as close as Eskild and Isak, because I do think another gay guy is a “safe” person to talk to about this situation and I can see Robbe doing it. What I do NOT get is why, here and now, Robbe is now openly admitting it. Why did we go from Robbe trying to fuck a girl and, before that, calling the boy he kissed a pervert and a homophobic slur, to admitting his attraction for a boy? Why the sudden turnaround? Based on the clips themselves, all we have to go off as a turning point is that he couldn’t fuck Noor, BUT this is nothing new for either Robbe and the audience, AND not being able to fuck a girl does not actually mean that Robbe would be able to fuck a guy, or that he’s into guys, and it especially doesn’t mean that Robbe would accept that he likes a guy.  I mean, he’s Googling “erectile dysfunction” not “am I gay?” which tbh seems still more like denial than anything. He’s blaming his lack of arousal on a medical issue, not his sexuality.

This scene would feel more true to me if Robbe was like, downplaying his side of it, or playing it off as only Sander had feelings and it wasn’t requited. That’s more in line with the characterization we have just been given, that Robbe is denying his attraction to Sander.

Another way would be to not split up the sex clip and to show like, Robbe flashing back to his kiss with Sander while he’s making out with Noor, so we get that it’s not just that he’s not into Noor, it’s that he’s very into Sander, and we see him grudgingly admit to himself that yes, he’s attracted to Sander (at the very least.) which would make it believable that he admits it to Milan. Cause and effect, etc.

MIlan is like, are you so nervous to tell me you have a crush on another guy (...????? um, yes, Milan, you have to know it’s hard to come out???) but is pretty supportive and says Robbe’s lucky to have him, Milan would have wanted himself when he was going through this. Robbe is just like, I don’t know what I feel and I want everything to be normal, there’s too much shit going on right now. Milan says Robbe IS normal and he doesn’t want to bottle up who he is, the pressure will get too real and he’ll explode, he’ll hurt people. Robbe seems to take this advice seriously, so hopefully this scene will actually lead to cause + effect.

Again, this scene is fine on its own? There’s just something about the pacing of the season as a whole that feels strange.

I don’t know if this is supposed to be the equivalent of the Pride clip, because Robbe doesn’t say anything offensive and Milan didn’t get upset. Milan’s advice is good about not pushing away who you really are, but there’s nothing specifically confronting internalized homophobia, which Robbe desperately needs seeing as he’s had some extremely homophobic outbursts. I think it’s a shame to lose that part of the scene, because it’s got a very pointed and urgent message. (EDIT from the future: We got the Pride clip later in the episode, so that’s good.)

Clip 5 - Robbe tells Jens he likes someone else

Robbe is sitting on the sidelines listening to music again. Jens comes over and asks how things are, Robbe says he took his advice with Noor and Jens is happy that he’s a matchmaker. Robbe is like no, there’s someone else. He says he thought it would go away, but it didn’t. 

For a moment it seems like this might be a sudden coming out scene, but Jens finally asks who it is and Robbe clams up and finds it hard to get out. Jens asks if she goes to their school. Robbe is saved by Moyo wanting to play a game against some guys.

This is some plausible conflict, at the very least, Robbe not being able to tell his friends that he’s into a guy. It would have been way better to focus on this instead of Robbe flinging a slur at Sander. Robbe’s friends seem like the clearest explanation for his internalized homophobia. 

Now Jens needs to follow up on this development, or else turn in his Jonas card. Because there’s dropping the subject if he senses Robbe doesn’t want to tell him yet, and then there’s forgetting about the subject because Jens isn’t that engaged with what’s happening with Robbe, and unfortunately the latter vibe has come across far more than the first. Like why does it seem like Jens is always walking away?

Clip 6 - Robbe breaks up with Noor

Old Town Road is playing as Noor meets Robbe in a cafe. One thing I do notice is that there are a fair amount of gay musicians on the soundtrack this season, so that’s cool.

Robbe is stressed because we can tell he’s gonna try to break up with Noor. He doesn’t order anything to eat. Noor is sympathetic about him not getting it up with her, but Robbe says he needs some time for himself, he has so much shit on his mind. Noor says she can help with that, he’s like nah, Noor is crying and reaching for him desperately. He gets up and walks out.

L O L I heard all about how Robbe supposedly handled this better than Isak, and I mean … on the one hand, I certainly agree that he did Noor a solid by officially breaking up with her and not just running away from her in the hallway. But er ... first of all, Robbe went wayyyyyyyyy farther with Noor than Isak EVER did with Emma. Robbe and Noor had an actual relationship for what, a month? Isak and Emma made out twice and flirted a bit. They were not exclusively, seriously dating. So yeah, Noor is owed this breakup. 

Second, Robbe still cheated on her with Sander before he broke up with her. The fact that they were naked while they made out in the pool frankly adds an on-screen sexual element to the cheating. And technically Isak making out with Even in the pool was not cheating … for sure it was a dick move to lead on Emma and then ditch her like that, I’m not going to say it was NBD, but like I said, they weren’t exclusively dating. I mean, in all my years of Skam fandom, it’s pretty rare that I’ve heard anyone refer to what Isak did as cheating - it’s usually talked about differently than Even cheating on Sonja. Robbe and Sander BOTH cheated on their girlfriends here. 

Third, it’s nice he did this with Noor but lmao, kinda small potatoes considering what Robbe said to Sander. 

Fourth, Robbe just gets up and leaves while she’s crying, lol. He let her order soup and then he ditched her! That’s cold as ice! Bro, you need to stick around until she tells you to leave, or you needed to pick a breakup location where both of you can leave ASAP without someone coming by with the meal you ordered.

And to be clear, I don’t think Robbe not handling this perfectly makes him a terrible person or anything. It’s more the comparison to Isak with how Isak is supposedly worse and Robbe is much nicer. Nah.

Sucks for Noor and all, but whyyyy are they making the Emma character so tragic and emphasizing this het relationship so much? We don’t even end the clip on Robbe’s POV. Because how he feels about this breakup doesn’t matter, I guess. Does he feel guilty? Free? Unsure? Conflicted? IDK because we close on her, not him! I’m sorry, but it’s not her season!

I mentioned this in an earlier reaction but I’m just super tired of gay storylines that have this intense focus on how much someone being gay hurts a straight person. I believe I mentioned Love, Victor as a prominent example, because Victor’s relationship with his girlfriend seemingly gets more screen time than the relationship with his actual male love interest. And I get why this storyline is relevant to a coming out arc, of course I do, but it really bugs me when the het relationship seems to overshadow the gay relationship, as it does here. At this point I feel like Robbe/Noor has been given equal plot relevance as Robbe/Sander, if not more, and that should not be the case. It’s not about shipping, it’s about wanting a story about a gay kid’s journey of self-acceptance to focus more on the life-changing love story that is the catalyst for embracing his sexuality, than the fake passion-less relationship that is doomed to failure that is just a momentary stumble in said journey of self-acceptance. There is no need to demonize Noor, but there is actually a middle ground between treating her with respect and empathy and making her the real victim of this story.

This narrative choice also does not exist in a vacuum. It is completely fair to be skeptical of the prioritization of a het relationship over a gay one. It’s fair to wonder why we’ve gotten multiple scenes of Robbe getting hot and heavy with a girl, why Robbe spends a pivotal clip being so sad about Noor that he doesn’t seem to really notice or care that he’s alone with the guy he supposedly likes. 

I mean, fuck, Robbe seems more upset about hurting Noor’s feelings by breaking up with her for legitimate reasons than he does about hurting Sander’s feelings by calling him a f*g and accusing him of sexual assault.

Clip 7 - Robbe tries to speak with Sander

Robbe goes to school (not his school, Sander’s) and asks where the art room is. He’s in a way better mood, a spring in his step, but LMAO you better pray that Sander actually wants to talk to you rather than kick your ass or avoid you for all eternity because of what you said to him.

Sander is sketching a nude male model. Robbe seems happy just to see him. He walks away and goes to the bathroom, fixes his hair, stares in the mirror, takes a deep breath. Then he goes up to Sander after the bell rings. Robbe wants to talk, Sander is not having it and walks away. Robbe is sad, angsty music plays. 

Uhhhhh, serves you right? No offense but I can’t even feel sad for Robbe in this scenario, because what he did crossed a line. Internalized homophobia is a hell of a drug, but there’s such a difference between Robbe just denying that the kiss meant anything or blaming it on being drunk or whatever, and essentially accusing Sander of sexual assault and calling him a slur. It’s not an ignorant mistake, it’s a malicious one. I feel bad that Robbe ever had such self-hatred that he made those comments in the first place and I certainly don’t hate him or think he should be forever alone, but it is 100% understandable why Sander would not want to speak to him after that.

Also, going up to Sander at his school was not the best move, because he’s basically ambushing him. Sander doesn’t have a choice whether to deal with Robbe in that moment. It would’ve been better if Robbe sent him some kind of apology text or voicemail first and left it up to Sander whether he wanted to meet. I get that’s not as good for televised dramaaaa, but it’s kinder to Sander. (And if Sander doesn’t respond, or if he’s blocked Robbe, well, those are just consequences of Robbe’s actions that he’ll have to live with.)  EDIT: Robbe actually did contact Sander first via text, wanting to meet up so he could explain. That does make it somewhat better, although I still think he shouldn’t have approached him at school. If Sander doesn’t want to talk to you? Then give him space. Maybe he’ll be willing to hear you out in time, or maybe he’ll decide he’s better off without you, but Robbe’s the one who did something wrong and it’s not up to Robbe whether Sander forgives him.

Clip 8 - Robbe and Sander make up and kiss

Angsty music keeps playing as Robbe walks home. He sees a mom and her kids playing, more sadness presumably due to his own family troubles.

Sander has followed him and says he has five minutes. Robbe’s like “Why don’t you want to talk?” LMAO IDK ROBBE, WHAT COULD IT BE. 

Robbe says he’s sorry and that he loves Sander. LMAO WHAT. Is this a nuance of translation where “I love you” isn’t as strong as it is in English? Are you kidding me? 

First of all … he LOVES Sander when they’ve barely interacted? They’ve spoken only a handful of times. Hell, they only met in episode 3, and this is episode 5. It’s been like two weeks since they’ve met, and while I could buy that some ships fell in love in that short of time, this is sure as fuck not one of them.

Second … Robbe goes from shoving Sander and calling him horrible things and trying to fuck Noor, to professing his love for Sander, WITHIN DAYS? And this is the character who’s supposed to have a big coming out arc? What is nuance, what is good writing, what is a coherent idea of this character’s struggles with his sexuality and himself... The talk with Milan might convince Robbe to accept his feelings, but it would make way more sense if Robbe was more tentative about them. He doesn’t need to come out swinging the big epic declarations in order to accept his romantic interest in Sander.

Like this isn’t even based on what I personally think is believable for a romance, this is based on what wtFOCK has told me about this character! They made the choice to make him say more viciously homophobic things. They made the choice to have him go back to Noor and try to have sex with her for the millionth time.

I’m glad that Sander doesn’t buy the confession at first, at least. 

Robbe says that he was really fucked up and hat Sander is the first dude. There is a cute moment where he’s like “that kiss (mimes fireworks)” but then things went Chernobyl. Would have been great if we saw exactly what made him go Chernobyl and make him regret the kiss. He says he’s sorry but asks for one more chance.

Sander steps in, leans in for a kiss. “What about Chernobyl?” “Fuck Chernobyl.” They kiss, it’s really sweet, but lol they’re kissing in public??? Robbe is ok with this?? I just have abso-fucking-lutely no idea where this kid’s head is. Like ... how is he so cool with this considering where he was just days ago? Apparently Robbe’s internalized homophobia was so extreme that he was all “get away from me f*g” toward Sander with no clear catalyst, but also not so extreme that it couldn’t be fixed with a pep talk from Milan? Okay!

This scene would have been totally fine if Robbe’s mistake was less cruel and amounted to blocking Sander or telling him to stay away or w/e. It doesn’t feel satisfying for what Robbe actually did say.

Also, sigh, because Sander did forgive Robbe just like that, and I don’t buy it. I mean, if anything, it makes me sad for Sander. I want to tell him that he deserves better. I suppose I can buy this as part of his fear that no one will ever love him, that he’s desperate to be accepted and loved and so is quick to forgive.

It would have made more sense for Robbe to have a longer period of self-reflection, have him come out to his friends, etc. and then reunite with Sander an episode or so later, similar to how Isak and Even reunited at the end of episode 7. Or to have Sander take some time before letting Robbe talk to him, during which Robbe works on his own issues.

Sander gets a call from Britt, which he ignores, saying Britt’s the past, he and Robbe are the future (as the song lyrics talk about the future and the past … they’re going pretty on the nose this season. Fine by me, OG was also on the nose.) Lmao but Robbe has no right to be upset about Britt after he explicitly told Sander to stay away. I mean, it’s dubious of Sander to keep dating her after cheating, but he also thought Robbe was no longer an option sooo don’t be surprised Sander is still with her, dude.

Sander goes to meet Britt, but not before some make outs, some handholding. I think their chemistry is good! It’s just that I don’t really buy the depth of this relationship. It legit makes me sad that these actors are getting served this half-assed material. 

Clip 9 - Zoë gets a letter

Robbe goes home and gets a text from Sander, with a sketch of them, saying their kiss was Chernobyl. Well, that’s cute.

Milan is telling Zoë about seeing some straight-looking dude on the bus who melted when Milan looked at him. Robbe is in a good mood and is gonna do the cooking. Milan observes that he’s happy and asks if things went well with his (Robbe looks toward Zoë) “lovely girlfriend”. At least Milan covered for him! (EDIT from the future: Ahahaha, funny considering how casually people out Robbe this season...) 

Robbe hands Zoë some mail that turns out to do with Viktor, the apparent Nikolai in this version, about the case going to court. She has to testify. She is upset and walks out of the kitchen.

I complained a bit about Zoë/Senne drama taking up time in Robbe’s season, but to be clear, I have no problem with them following up on this plot point from S2. It’s a hugely important story. But I also think it works best if you integrate it into Robbe’s story, by drawing a parallel to their situations, finding a common theme, etc. And it depends on whether Robbe’s story is otherwise satisfactory, because if the writing is pretty tight, I’m not really bothered by digressions in other characters’ subplots. 

Clip 10 - Robbe and Sander get cozy

Oh hey, it’s the big cuddling clip! Robbe and Sander goof off, pillow fight, smoke a joint, make out. Mostly make out. Sander shows Robbe a sketch of him (Robbe) and implies how good it would look on a wall (big). 

Robbe’s fave actor is Leonardo DiCaprio, because hasn’t Sander seen Romeo + Juliet? It’s fucking beautiful.

Man, on the one hand, sick Skam reference, and it’s just a simple, cute little nod to OG, not something complicated. I can dig that. But on the other hand, now I’m annoyed at how Isak got all of this beautiful development and watching R+J actually meant something for his character, and Robbe has absolutely nothing like that. Stuff like the fact it’s Robbe who likes R+J instead of Sander, WHICH IS FINE, but like … doesn’t say anything about Robbe’s view on masculinity or w/e, doesn’t do much for his characterization.

Sander takes pics of Robbe. Their chemistry is cute. Once again I despair at gifted actors being given subpar material leading up to this clip.

LMAO at them copying the dialogue from OG, Sander being all life is like a movie. Again, irrationally annoyed because this dialogue MEANT something to Even. Even was a huge film buff and an aspiring director. Sander hasn’t mentioned movies at all, he’s into art and David Bowie and photography. So why not have Sander quote some Bowie lyrics that explain his thoughts on life? Mention what art means to him? Personalize this dialogue so that it’s specific to Sander. Or, if you’re going to borrow this chunk of dialogue, at least establish Sander as a film enthusiast prior to this clip.

Also that Isak brought up the multiverse theory because he was smart and inquisitive, but I have no idea who the fuck Robbe is. Does this make sense with Robbe’s prior characterization? Shrug.

I do like the multiverse reference to Spider-Man because HELL YEAH Into the Spider-Verse!!! Fucking masterpiece! I could be watching that for the 20th time instead of the upcoming gay-bashing hate crime.

I do like Sander’s acting in this scene and his reaction, how the music (“Ocean Eyes”) stops when Sander starts talking about multiverse theory. His dialogue is a little different here than OG, about thinking about what he’s done and wondering why he thinks something, his thoughts never stop, which fits in with bipolar disorder.

Robbe notices he’s a little agitated, Sander says the only way to stop your thoughts is from dying. So I guess we’re putting in the suicidal thoughts in this version?

“Sometimes I forget how young you are.” Are they the same age in this version? Lmao. It’s a joke so it’s not a big deal.

Robbe starts kissing him and asks when Sander fell for him. Sander is like, before you! When Robbe was spraying the graffiti he knew Robbe was the one. Robbe is like … you were there??

I mean. this is cute and all, but doesn’t it kinda take away from later events, if Sander goes back to Britt, then like … knowing Sander has been Pining All Along should create way less doubt in Robbe’s mind? When Even went back to Sonja, there was room for actual doubt in Isak’s mind (and the audience’s) about the sincerity of Even’s feelings. I think people forgot that the “I saw you the first day of school” moment at the end of the season was a surprise. I was in the fandom and I don’t think a lot of people thought Even had fallen for Isak that early. So Robbe now knows that Sander fell for him well before they even talked, doesn’t that remove some of the tension about Sander’s motives? I suppose it depends on how the story goes from here, but if it’s similar to OG, then I think it slightly lessens the ambiguity and tension.

Also, another reason why it would have been good to actually see the graffiti scene play out in episode 1… and to see what Robbe tagged on the wall … come on. COME ONNNN. Let’s see what got Sander’s attention! Did Robbe create something funny or clever or insightful? Wouldn’t that have been a great detail to show their connection? This is basic storytelling, hello? 

I guess if I’m being fair, we don’t know exactly what Even saw in Isak that first day of school, either. But then again, we didn’t see the first day of school in a clip, while we definitely saw the graffiti scene. Just a missed opportunity, IMO.

They kiss and Sander gets a text from Britt. According to Sander, he told Britt about him and Robbe, but she doesn’t believe him, which is what I assumed of Sonja too, btw. At least, that’s what I thought at Emma’s party where she initiated the kiss with Even. Sander says Britt is so controlling. Robbe seems uncertain.

Sander says there’s probably another universe where Sander is still with Britt, but he’s glad to be in this universe. I do like this part.

Clip 11 - Milan schools Robbe on Pride

Robbe’s alarm goes off in the morning. He smiles a bit, though, presumably because he’s got Sander in his life. He gets a good morning text from Sander, which is cute and makes him smile more. Goes into the bathroom and Milan is there. Sander texts Robbe that he’s been thinking about him in all universes, Robbe is happy.

Milan is like, when can I meet your boyfriend??? Robbe says soon. Awww, this interaction is pretty sweet. Milan is like, welcome to the club! You know, “our” club meaning dudes who like dudes.

Robbe is like, just because I’m with Sander doesn’t mean I belong to some club, I’m not like you. Milan is like … and how am I? Robbe gives the usual Isak-ish response of dressing up and talking about BJs, Milan gets upset. Robbe says there’s nothing wrong with being gay but when people think of being gay, they think of that and it’s not fair to those who aren’t like that. Robbe’s not going to put on leather pants and dance at pride just because he likes Sander!

Milan gets very upset and goes into the Pride speech. I always appreciate this scene and I’m grateful that it’s one thing the remakes don’t really fuck with, since it’s so important (I think the remakes all recognize that it’s amazing, heh). 

Senne wanting to use the bathroom is kind of a jarring thing, they should’ve just let the moment sink in.

Robbe takes a Good Hard Look at himself in the mirror which is on the nose but like, better than nothing. I think there was a mirror earlier in the season? I confess that I’m so hung up on the basic writing fumbles that I might be missing stuff that’s actually supposed to be symbolic.

Anyway, all things considered, I think they did fine with this clip. Robbe coming out to Milan earlier in the episode did help pave the way for this talk since they didn’t have the close relationship as Isak and Eskild. Like, any issues I might have with it are related to the bigger issues in the season, but on its own, I felt like it was decent, and the “welcome to the club” comment is something I can believe Milan would say and something that would make Robbe reply with a boneheaded comment.

Clip 12 - This fucking scene

Robbe and Sander flirt in a bar and get touchy-feely with each other. For some baffling choice, we start with some rap/hip-hop song and then it cuts to “Two Men In Love” by The Irrepressibles … like … you could just start the clip with that song instead of this weird non-transition?

They kiss and then move outside the bar and then kiss and cuddle some more (again … I ask, where did Robbe’s boldness with gay PDA come from ...) Robbe jumps on Sander for a piggyback ride. They kiss passionately in the street.

Ahahahahahahahahah HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAA FUCK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Some homophobes spot them and call them slurs. Robbe and Sander try to grab their bikes and quickly leave. The bigots manage to grab them and beat the shit out of them. It’s really brutal, like we get POV shots from the ground as the guys kick them. The guys call them f****ts once more before leaving Robbe and Sander crumpled on the ground in the fetal position. The wheels on the bike go round and round.

I mean … where do you even start.

OK, I’ll start here: worst decision made in a Skam S3 remake yet.

“Yeah, Skam season 3 was a masterpiece and all, but you know what I could have used more of? Violent gay-bashing,” said no one ever.

I don’t get triggered by media, not really, but boy am I glad I was spoiled for this. Because I do get fucking angry at media. And I’m angry now, but if I was watching this unspoiled? Man, I would’ve popped a couple of blood vessels. And I feel so, so sorry for people who watched this unprepared and were triggered. Because yeah, it is a remake and not 100% like the original, you can’t predict everything that will happen. But this isn’t something that you expect in S3, because you expect the writers to know enough to leave this shit out. This isn’t made with kind intentions for the audience, it’s made for shock value.

Consider that the WHOLE POINT of this very, very short clip is the hate crime, btw. It’s like two minutes long! They dropped a clip just for a cute kissing montage and then to interrupt it with a brutal beating! Something about that makes it even more repugnant than if it were like … a long involved scene about something else, and this happened. IDK, something about it feels even more tasteless, like this beating is their cinematic setpiece.

The first-person POV of the beating = not necessary. Like of ALL the fucking times in your season to actually give a shit about the importance of POV, lmao. This isn’t a video game. I’m not shooting zombies or getting jumped by bandits.

Remember when Skam faded to black on Noora’s blackout? And cut away from Even walking naked out of the hotel? Yeah, there are plot and POV reasons for those, but they were also ways to respect the audience and not include pointlessly triggering, exploitative material. 

There’s just so much to say about this bad choice that I’m at a loss. Why did we need to go here? In particular, why did we need to go here knowing how the rest of the season plays out? Because for me, that’s what clinches this as a terrible decision. This isn’t a shitty scene with a satisfying follow-up. The resolution - or non-resolution, as it turns out - of this plot development is what exposes wtFOCK’s true character.

There is an AMAZING Evak vid set to Two Men In Love and I recommend you watch it to get the bad taste out of your mouth from this scene.

HOW I WOULD REWRITE THIS EPISODE:

Sigh.

This is just textbook bad writing for coming out stories, not to mention packed full of tired cliches.

Closeted gay guy is violently homophobic (Robbe calls his love interest homophobic slurs and accuses him of being a pervert) - I’m sorry but I am so tired of the “dating your bully” trope and this is what it fell into for me. Why should Sander take back Robbe after that? After Sander told Robbe he was afraid no one would ever love him? 

Gay-bashing For The Drama, to make sure you know homophobia is bad, really bad.

Overemphasis on the heterosexual love interest (“love interest”) and how it’s hurtful to her, like I get that it’s a delicate topic with not demonizing her, but I always feel like there is SO much interest on straight characters in these stories! It’s not about them!

The hate crime has to go. Really. What is even the POINT of it in this particular story? As if there wasn’t enough angst in S3? Especially if you consider: they wasted a few episodes on repetitive nonsense. Their pacing is fucked up. And now you have to insert this monumentally offensive storyline and its fallout into a season already full of problems? Next.

Okay, I will offer ONE way to incorporate the hate crime, and that is simple: Make the rest of the season about the fallout. Similar to Noora’s season with her assault, dive deep into the trauma, spend a few episodes with Robbe and Sander recovering, telling their friends about it, going to the police about it. Cut back on other drama from S3. Don’t fuck around with Sander going back to Britt, unless you tie it in directly to him being afraid to date a guy after the hate crime. Don’t fuck around with Noor outing Robbe considering he has enough shit on his plate. If you want to bring her back, make her support him through the trauma. Honestly? Don’t fuck around with the hotel incident. Like I truly hate to lose Sander’s mental illness as a vital part of the season, but adding a full-blown manic episode on top of gay-bashing is way too much misery porn. I think you could probably show how the hate crime and resulting trauma affect Sander’s mental state without pushing it into full-blown wandering the streets naked while manic. 

Do I particularly like this plot? I mean, no, not compared to the original, and I feel like this is better off as its own thing rather than a S3 adaptation. But at the very least, I can see the attempt to take the hate crime seriously. You cannot just throw in this type of scenario to shake things up and leave it at that. This show is specifically made for teenagers, to take their struggles seriously and to give them positive examples of how to handle problems. If you prioritize the violent act itself because it’s dramatic and shocking, rather than the recovery (because that’s like, boring and uninteresting, amirite), then you’ve shown your ass. You don’t understand the purpose or the appeal of Skam in the first place.

Jumping ahead, I think this is exactly where wtFOCK exposes its true intentions. wtFOCK does not care about helping vulnerable teenagers find solutions to tough problems. wtFOCK does not care about healing or educating. wtFOCK is about shaking the audience so hard that viewers get whiplash. If wtFOCK gave a shit about helping the audience, the rest of the season would focus on Robbe and Sander dealing with the assault, giving them options to report it, showing them ways to cope with the trauma. Things that might help audience members who unfortunately also found themselves victims of hate crimes or homophobic violence. Those are not present in the rest of the season. It’s just a fucking soap opera. 

If you MUST have a homophobic incident to go with your dark ‘n’ edgy season, you can still limit it to some assholes yelling homophobic slurs without resorting to violence. That’s bad enough, and it did happen to Isak and Even later in the series. Even if you decide you MUST have a violent angle to this incident for whatever reason, I don’t fucking know why but OK, you don’t need to film it in this super exploitative manner where our heroes are getting viciously beaten on the ground. But there are so many ways to incorporate external homophobia without this shit.

Wouldn’t this dreadful scene make more sense at least if it had happened after the pool kiss? Like they go out a few days later, the hate crime happens, and then THAT’s why Robbe pushes away Sander and calls him names? Because now he’s afraid and he’s internalized what the bigots said? It’s tragic and gross, but at least there’s some character-driven logic in that sequence of events.

Another thing that really doesn’t work is that they’re straying so far from the original script, but at the same time they keep jamming in scenes from the original, except there isn’t the same buildup. Or any buildup, sometimes. This results in an incoherent mess of a season and of a POV character, where Robbe is part-Robbe, part-Isak.

I think all the remakes do this to a degree: there are certain beats they feel they must hit, and they hit them even though they’re off course. You need to commit either to doing a mostly faithful adaptation of the original, or to doing a remake with your own spin on the characters, but you need to be very, very careful not to just haplessly mix ‘n’ match the two. Does a scene from OG make sense within this remake universe? No? Then drop it, rewrite it, do what you need to do, just don’t carelessly recreate it if it doesn’t fit.

The way they’re writing Jens is bizarre because he seems to care enough about Robbe to ask him how he’s doing, but also not care enough to stick around and listen once the next shiny thing comes along. From the beginning they’ve set up the friendship tension with the boy squad as not just Robbe’s fault, but as a failure of his friends to pay attention as well. Like in the first episode Robbe is trying to talk to them and they just ditch him! They really need to make Jens more aware of how he himself has messed up with his friend, and not act like this is all Robbe’s doing.

We don’t need another Noor blue balls scene, thank you, bye. But if we keep this one, then we absolutely needed to see what exactly made Robbe stop in the act of sex with her, such as him flashing back to his kiss with Sander. Or even just letting us see him make the decision, because goddamn, what’s with wtFOCK not letting this young actor actually act out some of the meatiest material?

Overall, give Robbe more baby steps in his personal development, and not unbelievable leaps and changes in his behavior because the plot demands them.

I did try to think of a way to incorporate much of the same material from this week, including a hate crime, in a way that made more sense and was not ridiculously OTT or offensive. It’s hard because I really think you need to go back to the beginning of the season, but here’s what I came up with, borrowing some elements from the last episode as well.

Robbe wakes up the night after kissing Sander. He’s happy and glowing, he sees a cute text from Sander and smiles. Then he goes to the kitchen and Milan is there with a black eye or something, he’s talking to Zoë and Senne, maybe they’re tending to his injuries. Robbe asks what happened. Milan had a date last night and some homophobes started giving them a hard time, Milan wasn’t having it, punches were thrown. Milan is very shaken and upset. So is Robbe, who panics. Is this what he has to look forward to if he’s dating a gay? Will people harass him just for being out with his boyfriend? The implications of what it means to be a gay person in this world hit him really hard. He looks at Sander’s text again and ignores him and possibly blocks him. At some point we will establish that Robbe is also ignoring texts/calls from everyone else, too: Noor, Jens, his mom...

Sander shows up the next day outside Robbe’s place after Robbe has been ignoring him. He tries to talk to Robbe, but Robbe is freaked out and visibly nervous, his eyes darting around - he’s paranoid now about being seen with Sander, due to Milan’s incident. He’s worried about being a target for homophobic violence, understandably so. Sander doesn’t realize that Robbe’s frightened, however, and keeps talking and being nice. Robbe tries to play off the other night as just him being drunk, it was a mistake. When Sander physically gets too close to Robbe, Robbe yells that he’s not gay and runs inside, leaving Sander alone.

Robbe encounters Milan at home alone. Milan is still bruised from the homophobic incident. Milan is unusually subdued. Robbe says he’s sorry for what happened to Milan, it’s terrible. Robbe then sticks his foot in his mouth by saying something well-intentioned but hurtful and ignorant about how maybe Milan shouldn’t be so gay in public or w/e, since that will just attract homophobes, and that not all gay people act like Milan (meaning flamboyant, etc.) Milan gets really, really upset and snaps at Robbe about how gay people have been beaten and killed for just being who they are - basically a version of the Pride speech with a somewhat different context - and that it takes bravery and strength, Robbe doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about. So that ends on a bad note for them.

Now trying to get out of the house since he’s fought with Milan, Robbe meets up with Jens, or maybe Jens finds him at the park or whatever. Jens comments on how it’s been a while since they’ve talked. Robbe says he was just worried about what the guys would say since he blew up at them previously. Jens is like, dude, we’re your friends. You have to talk to the people who care about you, you can’t just ghost them and avoid facing your problems. Robbe takes this advice to heart. Jens tells Robbe that he’s ready to listen when Robbe wants to talk.  Maybe Robbe sees something that reminds him of Sander, like graffiti on a building, and despite his fears, we can see that he really misses Sander, and that his feelings for Sander are stronger than his fears.

Next he meets up with Noor. She’s really upset that he’s been ignoring her. He apologizes and a version of the breakup scene goes down. When Robbe leaves, we see him walk away with a conflicted expression. Sorry that he’s hurt Noor, but understanding that this was the right call, and relief that he doesn’t have to pretend any more. 

Robbe sees Milan again and apologizes for what he said last time. Milan accepts his apology. Robbe admits that he’s been confused lately because he likes a guy and he doesn’t know what that makes him. Milan says something like that’s great Robbe likes a guy and that Robbe doesn’t need to label himself right now, he should just follow his heart. Maybe that liking boys is scary (Milan points to his black eye) and sometimes you need to be careful, but at the end of the day, Milan has to be himself and live his life honestly, and so does Robbe. After Milan leaves, Robbe takes out his phone and texts Sander saying he wants to talk.

Sander meets Robbe somewhere and Robbe apologizes for ignoring him, says he freaked out because that was the first time he kissed a guy, but now he’s made up his mind that he wants to be with Sander. They kiss and make up, yayyyyy.

This is by no means a perfect solution (like the thought of then going into the shit with Britt next episode on top of this makes my head hurt), this is just an attempt to include stuff like homophobic violence, Robbe’s ghosting Sander, scenes with Jens and Noor, etc. in a way that makes a little more linear sense to me and doesn’t feel as haphazard, and isn’t super triggering or exploitative. I think if you have a hate crime happening to Robbe himself, that really needs to be the main focus from here on out, for at least a few episodes; if you have something off-screen happening to another character, you can address the topic of violent homophobia without having it dominate the season or featuring triggering scenes. And hopefully it would still have some emotional impact, because we see how it affects Milan, and some clear consequences for character development, because we see how it affects Robbe, as the situation he may find himself in one day.

If I missed anything, cultural notes, translation nuances, let me know!

#wtfock reactions

[destiel-otp-yayy]

A Great “Fuck You” to the Supernatural Narrative

After season 15 episode 18, there was hope, love, sacrifice and a reinforcement of the ideas of inclusivity and family. Ironically, the episode titled “Despair” gave us hope. The show has always stood for family, love, hope and free will and disappointingly they took their own narrative and threw it out of the window into literal hell.

Just to clarify my stance, the actors did a terrific job and I couldn’t be more proud of Jared, Jensen, Misha and Alex and literally every other actor who has been a part of the show since season 1. You gave us everything and we love you for that. Additionally, we also sympathize with the fact that you unknowingly became a part of a show which after the finale represents nothing but homophobia, racism, sexism, ableism and everything the show claimed to be against.

So with this, I need to say some things.

Media is an amazingly powerful medium of storytelling, whether it be fictional or non-fictional. However, the fictional stories enjoy a kind of liberty that non-fictional stories do not and somehow still equally create an impact on their viewers. Media like movies, television shows and novels and books have a huge impact on their audience from a psychological and a sociological perspective. I will focus on the ‘Social Learning’ perspective to emphasize my point. Social learning, or rather any learning takes place in four stages in any human being; attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation. This means that in order for something to become a part of an individual’s behaviour, they usually go through all these four stages. Let’s take an example. A teenaged girl is watching a high school centric movie where the lead character who is loved by everyone wears ripped jeans. She pays attention to that detail, retains it and tries to reproduce that aspect by wearing ripped jeans herself to be liked. If this behaviour of hers is liked and appreciated by her peers, the behaviour gets reinforced and the chances of the behaviour being repeated increasing.

Consequently, if the teenaged girl sees many loved lead characters from different movies and television shows wearing ripped jeans, her reaction to finally seeing someone wearing ripped jeans in real life would most likely be positive and appreciative. This is the power of media. It can make and break perceptions and plays a huge role in the behaviour portrayed in the society.

People might come at me saying that media is technically the mirror of the society and tends to represent the society the way it is, but I am not talking about realism or non-fictional stories, I am specifically talking about fictional storytelling and will later delve into the narrative created by the longest-running sci-fi television show ‘Supernatural’. Television shows like Supernatural, The Boys, Flash and Arrow don’t represent reality in its pure form but take the fantastical approach towards reality. This basically means that they can show the nature of the world and humans their stand while tweaking reality the way they want. You can have superhumans who are power-hungry and apathetic to represent the modern-day corporate organisations or you can show two brother fighting for God to show how much humans value love, hope and free will. These grand narratives which the shows stand for remains the same and are realistic and relatable despite the obviously fictional storyline. This is what truly makes a good fictional story.

However, this also means that they get the liberty to play with the characters as much as they want. They can literally show men in drag and women in commanding positions, masculine men (or whatever that even means) as members of the LGBTQIA+ community, people of colour at leads and differently-abled people as not objects of pity but rather people who represent strength and hope. This is necessary and it is not wrong for people to ask for representation because this is what will change people’s perception and yes, the onus of this falls on the showrunners and the writers who are creating this fictional world.

The fact that even after fifteen seasons, it was physically impossible for the writers and the showrunners of Supernatural to give us this representation disgusts me. They were able to show an ending where apparently it represented hope, love and family for the two white, male, heterosexual leads on the expense of the sacrifice made my queer, female, differently-abled and Asian characters. Supernatural basically said, “There is hope for the white, straight men and the rest of you can go to hell".

In addition to this, they baited us with the return of our last queer representation by putting Castiel on every promo picture in order to increase the number of views, which they got. They tainted Castiel’s love confession by refusing to acknowledge his love and sacrifice in the subsequent episodes. I refused to believe that the confession scene was homophobic or adhered to the trope of “Bury your Gays” before knowing what happens in the finale, but Supernatural pulled a one over the trope and gave us worse than that. They not only refused to show Dean’s reaction to a love confession but also refused to acknowledge everything that Castiel had done because of course, a queer character doesn’t deserve screen time and appreciation.

Sadly, there is an addition to the above mentioned problematic aspects to this show. Since season 8 specifically, the show has been baiting us with bisexual Dean Winchester. Now, if Dean were an actual, real human being, what I’m about to say would be highly unethical. However, he is not a real person. Dean is a fictional character who represents strength, love, hope, free-will and selflessness who could still represent all of these things while being queer. The writers and the showrunners baited us with Dean’s bisexuality time and time again through background colours, subtext and his scenes with Castiel. But of course, how could a white, male warrior like Dean Winchester be bisexual? How can they break the heteronormative box created for the him which depends on the possibility of him having sex with only women, because that is the reason why Dean represents strength, love, hope, free-will and selflessness. Homophobia runs so deep within this show that Dean wasn’t allowed to reply to Castiel or even acknowledge his presence. He wasn’t allowed a goodbye to the character who literally died countless times to save him. Dean never mentioned how Cas died, not even to his brother because a queer person doesn’t deserve attention. They don’t deserve appreciation and respect. Castiel, after his “homosexual declaration of love” literally went to the Empty, which is canonically a place “worse than hell”.

Enough about the queers already right? Let’s talk about the one differently-abled representation on the show. Technically Eileen should’ve been back, she should’ve been alive. If she is alive, knowing the history between her and Sam, it would make sense if Sam ultimately ended up having a family with her. Then why wasn’t she mentioned? Why did Sam marry some unknown white, petite, able-bodied woman? This argument in keeping in mind that even if they couldn’t have brought the actress to act due to COVID-19, they could’ve still mentioned her if they wanted to (thing to note here: If they wanted to). However, how could an abled bodied warrior like Sam Winchester end up having a family with a differently-abled woman? Blasphemy.

The show managed to kill the gays, women, member of the black/Asian community, differently-abled people and everyone who did not fit into their white, male, heterosexual narrative and this is problematic. This is problematic because this is (was) a fictional show and they could’ve shown all this and still followed the storyline they wished to, but they purposely decided to not do that.

So yeah, fuck you Andrew Dabb, Robert Singer, Eric Kripe and anyone who had the power to change this narrative because you failed your audience, you failed your society and most importantly, you failed your own story.

#supernatural #supernatural fandom #Homophobia #castiel #misha collins #jensen ackles #jared padalecki #representation #Destiel #Social learning #Media

[thecaffeinebookwarrior]

More Female Characters to Avoid in Your Writing

A long while back, I typed up some posts ranting about characters and tropes I disliked.  These were Male and Female Characters to Avoid in Your Writing, and they’ve become my most popular posts yet.  Recently, I was struck by some topical inspiration, and decided it was time for a sequel!  

One again, these are my personal, subjective opinions!  No one dictates your writing or portrayals but you, and no one can or should decide how you consume fiction.  Also, as you may notice, I actually like most of the ladies below;  I just don’t like certain aspects of their portrayal.

Enjoy, and happy writing everybody! 

1.  The Daenerys (i.e. the spontaneous war criminal)

Image source

Who she is:

The formerly heroic Mother of Dragons, who randomly charbroiled a city full of innocent people.

Why it sucks:

I’m not even talking about this from a feminist standpoint, or how one of the most consistently heroic and powerful female characters took an abrupt and undignified backflip into the Dark Side.  I’m speaking from a writer’s standpoint.  

Regardless of whether you liked Daenerys, she was rivaled only by Jon and Brienne as the show’s most consistently heroic character  From locking away her dragon children to ensure the safety of her subjects, to freeing countless enslaved citizens, she’s spent a decade proving herself to be an altruistic and noble figure.  And then, in the final two episodes of the entire show, the writers dracarys-ed that shit.

For some comparison, just imagine how ridiculous it would be if Jon Snow suddenly went batshit and started hacking up citizens because he was feeling stressed.  That’s about as plausible as Dany’s sudden passion for genocide.

And for the record, I’m not opposed to Daenerys becoming Mad Queen.  If it was done properly. This would mean informing the actress far in advance so she could modify her portrayal accordingly (which they didn’t), and building up to it through foreshadowing and established attributes.  Not at the last fucking minute.

Honestly, the only characters who remained narratively consistent to the very end are Drogon and Ghost, who are both precious babies who did nothing wrong.  

How to avoid her:

Decide as early as possible where a character arc is going.  Contrary to what Game of Thrones seems to believe, the character arc is important.  It should have a beginning, challenges that incite development, and a satisfying conclusion that showcases how a character has changed and evolved.  

And if you didn’t decide early?  You still have to come up with a conclusion that makes sense for your character, and not slap on the most unexpected ending possible in the name of Subverting Expectations.

On that note?  Subverting expectations isn’t always a good thing, and a reader predicting your ending isn’t the worst possible outcome.  Focus on telling a good story.  

2.  The Rayon (i.e. the transgender stereotype)

Who she is:

A transgender woman (portrayed by the male, cisgender Jared Leto) dying slowly of AIDS in Dallas Buyer’s Club.  Her role in the narrative is to teach the supposedly heterosexual (more on that later) main character that queer people are human beings.  

Why it sucks:

Rayon is many things in Buyer’s Club, and most are firmly rooted in stereotypes.  She’s a sassy, flirtatious, clothing-obsessed, self-loathing, drug-addicted prostitute.   She’s hypersexual, but never treated as romantically desirable.  She’s tragic, but also one of the few consistently comedic characters in an otherwise bleak film. 

It’s her job to gently goad the main character into treating her with basic respect, but he never quite gets there.  He refers to her with male pronouns throughout the entire film, and never acknowledges her as a woman.  At one point, he aims a gun at her genitals and offers her a “sex change operation.”  Which, is supposed to be comedic.

This isn’t to say that there are no sassy, flirtatious, clothing-obsessed, self-loathing, drug-addicted transgender sex workers, nor is there anything wrong with “stereotypical” trans people.  It isn’t the job of the marginalized to dispel stereotypes.  And if real trans people had created and portrayed Rayon, she could have been a realistic, dynamic, and compelling character.

And I say “created” because Rayon is strictly fictional.  Outside of this film, she didn’t exist.  

“Well, at least they tried to offer representation!”  you protest.  “What else was it supposed to be about?  A straight dude in the AIDS epidemic?”

Well, no.  Though the main character, Ron Woodroof, is presented to us as a violently homophobic, transphobic, womanizing asshole, the real Woodroof was, by all accounts, kind-hearted, open-minded, and bisexual.  

What could have been a powerful story of a queer man defying his diagnosis, living joyfully and meaningfully, and helping to prolong the lives of countless AIDS-sufferers, was instead watered down to a story of a straight, pugnacious asshole and his stereotypical, long-suffering, transgender sidekick who dies to Teach Him Compassion.  

How to avoid her:

Read books by trans people.  Consume media they create or endorse.  

List of youtube channels created by trans people here, and 21 books for trans awareness month here.

Put out a special call for transgender beta readers to point out mistakes, misconceptions, and offer tips on an authentic portrayal.

Garner insight into their perspective and experiences, and give them personalities outside of being trans.  

3.  The Piper Chapman (i.e. the unflavored oatmeal)

GIF source

Who she is:

The “protagonist” of Orange is the New Black, and its least compelling character.  She and Larry are the sort of people who would ask me for a threesome on Tinder.  

Why it sucks:

Piper’s hook is that she’s a privileged, affluent white woman who unjustly finds herself in prison for -- well, for crimes she committed.  But expected to get away with, because, Privilege.

This isn’t to say Piper is boring.  She’s far from likable, but being likable and being boring aren’t the same thing.  In another series, watching a relatively cushioned, naive, bourgeoisie woman string along various significant others, thoughtlessly incite violence, and navigate an unfamiliar prison setting would make for thought-provoking and hilarious satire.  

But when compared to her charismatic supporting cast, with richly developed backstories, motivations, and relationships, she’s painfully bland.  I would much rather watch a series centered around Suzanne, Nikki, Taystee, Poussey, or even Pennsatucky.  They’re just more developed, opulent, enjoyable characters. 

It could be argued that Piper is the viewpoint character, whom the audience is supposed to relate to.  But I can assert that I don’t relate to Piper.  At all.  Her lack of empathy towards others -- such as leaving Alex after the death of her mother, cheating on her fiance, and inadvertently starting a *ahem* white power gang -- alienated me to her.  

Which might not be such a bad thing, but Piper is (supposedly) the protagonist.  We don’t need to like her, but we should probably be able to relate to her.

Or maybe I’m just jealous that hot women aren’t inexplicably fighting over me.

How to avoid her:

Your protagonist doesn’t have to be the most likable character in your story.  They don’t even necessarily have to be the most interesting character in your story.  And certainly not the most morally good, powerful, or knowledgeable.  But the viewpoint character is the character who we spend the most time with, and from whose eyes we perceive the story.  It’s important that we understand and relate to them emotionally.

Look at examples like BoJack Horseman, Holden Caulfield, Tony Soprano, Beatrix from Kill Bill, Mavis from Young Adult, Nadia from Russian Doll.  All are complex characters, with varying degrees of moral ambiguity.  Yet we can empathize with them emotionally and identify with them.  Even if we’ve never been in their situation, we see where they’re coming from.

4.  The Charlie (i.e. the dead lesbian)

Who she is:

One of the few recurring openly queer characters in the incredibly long-running Supernatural.  A lesbian who’s journey was (sort of) brought to an end when she was killed and dumped in a bathtub to incite drama.

Why it sucks:

I love Supernatural  but it can be remarkably tone deaf towards queer people, women, and marginalized groups.  Which, probably merits fixing, considering its following is largely comprised of queer people, women, and marginalized groups.  

I probably shouldn’t have to explain why killing off women and queer people for drama is Bad, but I’ll delve into its history a little:  from what I’ve read, censorship laws of the twentieth century forbade the portrayal of queer people unless they were ultimately killed or “reformed.”  This is why so much LGBTQ+ fiction is essentially gay tragedy porn, and why gays are so frequently buried to aid in the emotional narrative of their straight counterparts.  

That’s not to say queer people can never be killed off.  I might not have an issue with Charlie’s death (especially in a show as violent as Supernatural), if she weren’t the only openly queer character at the time.  

And there’s plenty of room for representation!  If Dean was openly bisexual, if angels were vocally confirmed to be nonbinary, and if there were more recurring, respectfully portrayed female and sapphic characters, Charlie’s death might not feel like such as slap in the face.  But as it is, it feels like a contribution to an ugly pattern.

In fairness, Supernatural has since improved in its portrayal of queer people:  two gay male hunters were introduced and given a happy ending, an alternate universe version of Charlie was introduced to the cast, and God is portrayed as a bisexual man.  

Yes.  All of that happened.  You have to see it to understand.

How to avoid her:

Educate yourself on the history of censorship in the LGBTQ+ community, as well as hate crimes and decreased life expectancy.  Make sure you aren’t contributing to the suffering of queer people.

If you have only one confirmed queer character in the midst of a very large cast, I’m inclined to think you need more.  You could say I’m BI-ased on the matter, though.

Look up “fridging,” and think about how many stories use the death of female characters to incite drama for men.

5.  The Allison (i.e. the reformed feminine)

GIF source

Who she is:

She’s one of the most interesting members of the Breakfast Club, and that’s saying something.  A self-proclaimed compulsive liar who will “do anything sexual” with or without the promise of a million dollars (as well as one of the most quotable characters in the film) she demonstrates the emotional pain and complexity that’s often ignored or shrugged off as teen angst.  

And then she gets a makeover and a hot boyfriend, and suddenly everything’s better.  

Why it sucks:

It would be one thing if Allison’s problem was that she didn’t feel pretty or desirable.  But she never (to my recollection) offers any indication of that, and that’s part of what makes her such a refreshing portrayal of insecurity.  She’s emotionally neglected by her parents, and that is appropriately treated as devastating.  

It’s a complex and beautifully-portrayed problem that deserved far more than such a superficial, slapped-on solution.

Similarly, there’s no reason why Allison is paired up with the jock at the end of the film.  Neither showed any romantic interest in one another until her unnecessary makeover.  

A much better ending to her arc would be her finding acceptance among her newfound friends, and finally garner the recognition and acknowledgement she never got from her parents. 

I was torn between using Allison for this example, or Sandy’s makeover from Grease.  In both, girls are encouraged to alter their appearances to solve plot-related problems.  And both were “fixed” to conform to some standard of femininity or feminine sexuality that they didn’t meet before.

How to avoid her:

If a character feels the need to change their appearance to accommodate others or be respected, that should probably be treated as a negative thing.

Your character’s appearance can be a good tool to represent emotional changes.  If they alter their appearance, there should be a meaningful reason behind it -- outside of fitting into societal norms or garnering the approval of others. 

A girl putting on makeup isn’t a groundbreaking plot point, and girls who don’t perform to standards of femininity aren’t broken or deficient.  They don’t need “correcting.”

#writing #writing tips #writing advice #game of thrones #daenerys targaryen #jon snow #game of thrones spoilers #transphobia #orange is the new black #supernatural #fridging #homophobia #charlie bradbury #the breakfast club #grease #sexism

[koganphrancis]

Ernie & Bert Are Planning A Wedding

OR: My thoughts on Episode 11

Everything just hurts.  Let me start with the “previously on” segment.  Yeah, we finally get an Ian/Mickey intro, but it’s just like so many of the other intros-random characters outside yelling at viewers.  Since there’s been little to none intimacy for this couple this season we couldn’t have caught them in bed?  Or in mid-kiss?  Nope.  Ian can be drinking yet another beer tho.  Pretty sure those meds we saw when Sandy grabbed Mickey’s dick all those episodes ago now was Mickey’s gerd medication.  Ian’s clearly not being written as taking medication at all (yet again).  

But as usual, I digress.  The show starts with a somewhat cute reminder of how the Gallavich house is within running distance of the (now torn down in real life, RIP) Milkovich house.  Unfortunately it’s Terry who reminds us.  Ian’s watching Terry screaming up at the house while Mickey’s...off doing something without Ian.  Seriously, whatever the opposite of “joined at the hip” is, that’s what these epic soulmates are this season :( 

Anyway, Mickey walks downstairs and Ian unhelpfully informs him, “Your dad’s here.”  Mickey says yeah and goes out to see Terry.  Ian gives one more peek thru the curtain but must decide that Mickey’s in no danger, since next we see him, Ian’s sitting in the kitchen casually chatting with Lip about something that’ll never happen (Lip moving to Wisconsin).

Outside, Mickey and Terry draw guns on each other while Terry’s just now (?) trying to figure out where Mickey went “wrong” and turned out gay.  Um, I know Terry’s been busy with prison and running his illegal enterprises (whatever they might be), but he’s just now trying to catch up on what he learned literally years ago when he walked in on Ian and Mickey having sex?  

(Gif credit: jackorowan)

The scene at least gives us an iconic Mickey line, “I definitely love one,” but is it too little too late?  It’s enough to send Terry on his way for now, after one last threat.  Mickey calmly goes back inside, says “mornin’” to Ian and Lip, and starts to make himself a bowl of cereal.  I list all that out to stress how non-stressed he seems.  Ian says, “So, how’s your dad?”, and just like the, “Hi, Mr. Milkovich” and “Was Mickey adopted?” conversation Ian had with Terry in S9, so far everything is being written to show how this is just normal family life when it comes to Terry.  But by the next scene the show will want us to buy that something entirely different is going on and I just don’t understand why they can’t find a narrative and stick to it.  In the days since the episode aired, I’ve read so many head canon posts about how understandable it was for Mickey to flip out after seeing Terry, and how that brought all Mickey’s past trauma to the surface and of course it turned him into a groomzilla, but I just can’t agree that that’s what the show either set out to do or accomplished.  Mickey’s been working for Terry, he’s been around him-it’s one of the few things about Mickey’s life the show has shown us since he’s been out of prison.  Everyone in Terry’s world that they’ve shown is perfectly comfortable talking about the fact that yes, some people are in fact gay.  Terry’s peers in prison, Terry’s own relatives-why suddenly in Episode 11 is this “a thing”?  

Anyway, the scene continues after Mickey quips that he doesn’t think Terry will be his best man.  Liam joins the scene and there’s very cute, well executed banter where Ian, Lip, and Mickey tell him they can each forge Frank’s signature.  It’s a tantalizing glimpse of what the season could’ve been if these guys were allowed to all be in scenes together.  

Mainly thanks to Myles’ AV Club review, I know that for whatever reason, the show decided to do a one month time jump between the engagement episode and this one.  WTF?  It doesn’t even make sense-it means somewhere that woman holding Frank captive was feeding him and clothing and bathing him?  That Liam hasn’t been to school in a month because Frank hasn’t been around to sign him in?  As if that wouldn’t have had CPS showing up at the Gallagher house (that has to be red flagged in the system by now)?  Debbie being toyed with by that mother and daughter has been going on for weeks at this point?  The only thing the time jump did that I care about was rob us of seeing Mickey and Ian telling people they were engaged.  We deserved a little scene of Ian and Lip talking about it at least-give Lip the opportunity to ask Ian what changed his mind about marriage and give the audience the opportunity to hear some sort of explanation.  “I heard some guy I know Mickey didn’t care about putting him down and I just knew then and there I had to marry him,” doesn’t quite cut it.  

But so much for what should have been.  In the next scene, Mickey slaps down a pile of wedding magazines and drops the news on Ian (as he hands him a beer) that they’re going to have a “wedding wedding”.  Mickey needs a headcount for the reception venue-clearly money is no problem, so working for Terry all those intervening weeks must’ve been lucrative.  

In a rare instance of the show actually cluing us in on someone’s thought process, Mickey says flat out that he now wants a “real” wedding because his fuckhead dad threatened to murder him-again-cuz he’s gay.  So, see?  AGAIN.  What’s different this time?  It’s like the show NEEDS there to be a reason, a mitigating circumstance, for two men to want to get married.  They can’t just let Mickey and Ian have the natural progression of their relationship leading to a lifetime together.  It’s so offensive.  And again, for viewers that have been invested in this relationship for so long, it just hurts.  Mickey’s doing this as a big FU to his father rather than as a big ILY to Ian.  That’s OOC for sure-Mickey’s always put loving Ian first in his life.  

In planning the wedding, Noel does get some great moments.  Talking about the “little shits that light the candles”, and his choice of wedding song, and confronting the homophobic old bitch at the florist.  And the literal scenery chewing he does at the wedding chairs rental place was, I’m sure, quite fun for Noel as an actor.  BUT-the only moment we get where Ian seems on board/with Mickey in any of it is at the florist before the bitch sets Mickey off.  Otherwise Ian’s like a casual bystander in all this-and that’s just not in character either.  Why can’t they both be into making these decisions?  Why, even if Ian truly couldn’t give a shit about seeing Mickey happy about these little details-why can’t they at least be affectionate with each other?  I don’t expect Schitt’s Creek level adoring looks, but I do expect Gallavich level.  Ian used to look at Mickey with awe even when Mickey was being his Mickey-est.  Why aren’t they allowed to show that anymore?  

I will say, I did love the stargazer lily thing-altho it’s all the more frustrating to realize this week’s writer must’ve watched at least the fan compilation video of Gallavich to know that detail was a very sweet throw back-why couldn’t they also write some kisses and hand holding in too?  But anyway, “Beyond Blue” and Mickey looking touched when Ian said he liked the blue ones-we needed a lot more moments like that this season.  Why everything’s getting crammed into these final, rushed episodes is beyond me.  

Now I have to bitch again about what was wrong with the florist scene.  Yes, I’m sure there are plenty of people like that woman in the world.  But there are also plenty who don’t oppose same sex marriage.  Why is it always such a big deal on Shameless?  Either everything’s gay or nothing is.  They’ve given us an entire squad of fire fighters who are gay.  Debbie clearly can’t walk five feet in any direction since the show decided she was gay without her finding a woman DTF her.  Ian had-what was the ridiculous number?-7 million Instagram followers when he was Gay Jesus.  So ONE homophobic old lady in a flower shop means disaster?  Ian knows how to look shit up on his phone, he proved that looking for wedding statistics.  You mean to tell me he doesn’t know how to check Yelp reviews to somehow find a gay-friendly florist in a city the size of Chicago?  

Mickey did get a couple of funny lines in that scene (killed me when he called her Grandma), but, again the show is throwing too much in the blender.  Is the scene supposed to be that funny?  If Mickey is dealing with past trauma, this is just adding to it.  And Ian, who is supposed to know Mickey better than anyone (including the viewer) isn’t acting worried about him, he’s acting like he’s being dragged all these places against his will.  So where’s the comedy in that?

Next there’s a scene of Mickey walking down the sidewalk and glorious natural light, looking like he’s glowing.  It immediately gets ruined by Ian stopping in front of a store window full of bride mannequins and looking at them and then after Mickey, with the visual implication strongly suggesting that Mickey’s the “woman” in their relationship which is so outdated in 2020 that the show and the network should have to pay a fine.  

Then we get the chairs meltdown, which gives us the truest line, “Why does everything always have to SUCK?”  You’re singing our song, Mickey.  Then the show proves that point for the millionth time by having Mickey call the chairs guy the R word-twice. 

In the next scene, Mickey’s called in the always reliable important character of Mand..um, Sandy because Ian’s of no use to him.  WTF?  Mickey is still talking up grandiose wedding plans and Ian’s still trying to figure it all out.  He tries to ask, “This is still about Terry, right?  You don’t give a shit about weddings...” Mickey interrupts him to ask where his ring is.  Ian has to stop and think and realizes he must’ve left it on the sink.  He runs off before Mickey can tear him a new one.  Mickey throws his pen down and says to Sandy, “I can’t even.”  Sandy replies, “I can see why you called,” but on Twitter fans have pointed out her lips appear to be saying, “Is he even into this at all?”  WHICH IS ANOTHER THING.  After all Ian’s marriage issues, why is Mickey bulldozing ahead and not noticing what Ian seems to be feeling AT ALL.  (Which appears to be that he’s once again regretting this whole marriage thing.)  Why does the show make the two of them so blind to each other’s feelings now?  WHY?  Now that Lip’s living in the RV, do they even share a room anymore?  They act like they never, ever talk now.  There is such a disconnect hanging over the short time they are shown together in every episode.  Not to mention they’ve been desexualized to the point of being a couple of Ken dolls.  John Wells must be so thrilled he doesn’t have to sit thru dailies of them physically touching anymore.  I’m willing to believe he hired someone to Jeff Giloolly Cam’s leg so he could have Mickey and Ian get engaged and married without any love scenes at this point.

In the last scene, Ian and Mickey are at The Alibi and Ian’s (having a beer) making one last attempt to simplify the wedding.  After another “it depends who’s the bride and who’s the groom” eye-rolling moment, Ian asks, “Can’t we just be Ian and Mickey?”  I guess not, when it comes to this show.  In the past Ian would’ve loved Mickey’s tension away for him-letting Mickey find his release in multiple orgasms, not in wedding planning.  Now all he can do is hire some guy with a guitar to show up at the bar and sing Mickey’s wedding song-and “sing” is a very generous term here.  Props to the show for not having an amazing singer just show up out of the blue, but, for the love of my bleeding ears, couldn’t they have found less of a screecher?  

Mickey is, at first, freaked out by this guitar playing weirdo coming near his booth, but when he recognizes the song he asks, “How the fuck did you know that?”  The guitarist replies, “Little bird told me” indicating Ian, and then unfortunately goes back to the song and soon finds himself way out of his range.  Mickey gives Ian a soft look, Ian gives Mickey one of the smiles he only ever has for Mickey, and Silver Tree becomes JW’s favorite director ever by not even letting us see them holding each other’s hands-that’s below the camera line.  For all we can prove, maybe Ian and Mickey were just reaching for the salt shaker at the same time.  Personally, I would’ve ended the episode with Ian and Mickey metaphorically and literally getting on the same page-they go back to the house, their double bed is covered in Mickey’s wedding magazines and color swatches and seating charts and whatever other wedding prep detritus.  Ian, seeing it all laid out like that says softly, “Are you really doing all this for Terry?” and Mickey says, “Course not, it’s all for us.  We deserve it.”  Then they flop down on the bed together and get to kissing, right on top of it all.  

But no, can’t have them intimate or even on the same side of a booth.  So, you’d think that happy-ish ending we did get means Mickey’s out of his Terry-induced panic, but scenes and stills for the season finale will disabuse you of that hope.  

My final thought is: I’m wondering how much, if any, of these wedding details we’ll see.  The show is too cheap now to spend money on a church wedding with those gorgeous stargazer lilies and the little shits that light the candles.  Plus why would you have Living On A Prayer sung again when you used it in this episode?  Will one of them-or both of them-walk down an aisle?  They’ve already got their rings and have been wearing them-I don’t see them wearing multiple rings each.  If the show had any guts at all, it’d have them exchange cock rings at the ceremony ;P  Will we even get to see the wedding part or will they go straight to some sort of brawl/reception?  And, sadly, I’ve felt from the first time I saw pictures of them driving off in the Mercedes that we’re not going to see them get to consummate the marriage.  I hope I’m wrong about all of it, but I won’t be surprised to be let down utterly-either by what they don’t or what they do show :(  See ya on the other side!

#IanandMickey #Season 10 Episode 11 #Recap #It's a heartache nothing but a heartache

[sol1056]

My ask box continues to fill up, and I have no answers for any of this. I’ve gotten comments that @dreamworksanimation is good about things like fair representation in other shows when it comes to disability, queer relationships, racial diversity, and just plain solid storytelling. Why was @voltron the exception? 

Or you can just have the questions from my asks:

I really, really wanted [Dreamworks execs] to address the situation, to tell us why VLD took that enormous shitty turn and to apologize and do us better. But I'm guessing we already know the answer (arrogant inexperienced EPs) and I think they won't do anything about it, just try to fade Voltron to the background as it's ending and focus on She-ra, if they ever decide to apologize, they're just gonna focus on the LGBT rep as if its the worst problem of their story.

You know what, I hope someone makes an extensive list of all the morally questionable messages Voltron has sent with all its characters (Shiro & Kuron everything, and Lotor as abuse victim in particular), all in detail and shove them in their faces saying, but to you it's 2 guys in love and in a healthy relationship that is wrong, instead of ableism, racism, homophobia, etc. When I think of what the kids will take from Voltron I feel sick. But queer love is the problem here, right. I’m disgusted.

Us: can we get a happy ending too like the het people and couples in the show?

VLD: no, not a happy or even semi-happy ending, you'll get a miserable ending but get this, we're going to write the last survivor of the 4 queer characters we killed off to be totally on board with this. We'll write him and animate him as if he's happy and got resolution, growth, and catharsis and not as if he got demoted, sidelined, isolated, discarded by his family, worst of all by Keith. We'll say a monster like him can’t be a paladin.

Let’s also go back to talking about how they not only made Lotor, a victim of child abuse not to mention biracial character who grew up with everything against him: suddenly evil, be the same as his abusive "father" and "mother" (who even after remembering who he is pulled the same crap as before), took every happiness away from him and had the nerve to mock his abuse in S7?! As a child abuse survivor I'M HORRIFIED.

The messages in the Shiro/Adam scene is disgusting, this is such a difficult subject, even for adults show with plenty time to explore and be fair to both characters while being explicit about it all. I was worried: in a kids’ show? how can they write this in a way they'll get it? With barely time for it? but look what they wrote, Adam gave an ultimatum instead of support and died, then they blamed the disabled guy for everything. Message: you’re gay so your relationship and your life are worthless, you'll be miserable and alone.

For a team that is all about working together, voltron members after 7 seasons still don't feel like a family and more like colleagues from work. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It feels odd knowing that they weren't actually battling homophobic higher ups. It feels more tactical and greedy for social justice points than out of genuine desire to showcase diversity. Is it coincidence that the character they dislike the most is the one selected for this honor? As a lesbian fan i'm skeptical and angry and refuse to watch anything else by these two.

People keep trying to excuse this stuff with "Voltron is a kids' show", but you know what? There are gay kids out there. There are disabled kids out there. Much as we may wish it otherwise, there are kids out there experiencing trauma. Do we REALLY want to teach those little kids that they are broken and tainted forever and nothing good is waiting for them in the world from here on out? People need to know how damaging it is to have ZERO stories in media showing realistic healing of trauma.

The lady who betrayed them got a proper send off scene even tho she send Adam & the others like pigs to slaughter & betrayed them & caused them all to almost lose and die. Got screentime & some characterization. But sure why respect Adam that way too. I will never forget the dread I had for him when I saw he was with the fighters who were sent to die, then watched them one by one lose their lives until he too, was killed. I still feel sick thinking about it. We never even learned his last name.

I know it's been a while but I'm not over how they treated Lotor in s6. I'm from a broken and dysfunctional home and this show I watch for escapism told me I'm doomed to repeat the same mistakes of my parents, end up just like them. ... Are they even aware of the messages they send to their audience? Not all of us had good childhood like Allura.

From a chronically ill perspective, I felt downright insulted by the choice they made to give Shiro a degenerative illness. The idea of a chronically ill hero is cool but they pull the cure narrative, they don't give him a real illness, and it's just used for cheap irrelevant drama. Plus the whole "Has to choose between loved ones and goals" thing was pretty insensitive, we're already expected to sacrifice so much as ill people so the reinforcement of that was unpleasant to watch and read meta on.

Even if everyone was white cishet abled guy the messages sent to kids were awful: One who fought to carve his own path was forced to become someone else, one who suffered and fought till the end was told he’s a monster that can’t be a paladin, the insecure one will never be worthy as himself and he'll always be someone else’s replacement, one who survived genocide and suffered loss upon loss until reduced to nothing, one who suffered by his parents’ hand became like them, the whole Kuron thing. You cant brush off all THAT.

going into the new semester with the horrible messages of s7 on my mind...i’m lethargic. i have been since the “retired paladin” interview. it was bad for me to balance my mental health on the state of a fictional character, but it was really effective. Until that awful message that disabled people are helpless in controlling their own lives. I’m trying to disconnect and thrive anyway, out of spite against ableism if nothing else.

I had this horrible realization: you know how Shiro is a victim of abuse and him getting the Black Lion was him regaining the control the lack of he suffered in his capture? I think they gave him the illness and handwaved it with the clone, so as to argue for his removal from the Black Lion. They claim that the reason he wanted control was the illness and not the victimization in the Galra hands. They're essentially erasing his trauma.

Writers: so we'll write endearing multidimensional characters with many layers, we'll have them subvert stereotypes, especially those that characters like them usually are written with, ie. Keith isn't a loner nor is he angry just 'cause, but a lonely abandoned kid with trust issues due to his mom leaving him, thus has poor emotional control and anger management, struggles to connect and open up, he is the one whose arc embodies the found family theme more than anyone. 

EPs: nah we want stereotypes loool

We talk about Shiro and all the ableism in his story but we don't talk nearly enough about how horrifying the message is that Keith is the one to take it all from him and kick him aside. Keith chose to discard Shiro because he's broken and useless, so he can take his place. I've been through things they both have and I find all that horrifying. S7 sent terrible messages to kids watching.

They had the chance to let Shiro overcome and be a hero. To defeat his own abuser (Sendak) except Keith takes over everything and fixes everything for him while he lies helpless on the ground without a new arm yet. They had the budget. The animation. They could have empowered Shiro. They saw how many people saw themselves in Shiro's struggle. They must have seen the concerns. And they actively chose to go against that.

The Bury Your Gays trope is even worse this season when you consider the heavy lesbian subtext with Lotor's former generals who get blown up on screen. And naturally, it's the one with a crush on Keith who turns good and survives.

Was there a minority that hasn't been screwed over? Bury Your gays was merely the last shocking straw, because the whole season was chockful of terrible messages and proved they would never treat their characters right and address stuff from before. Homophobia, racism, ableism, sexism, mocking of abuse, excusing abandonment & so on.

I’m adding my voice because I'm so, so tired. None of the characters i see on screen are the characters we got to know in s1/2. The character i most related to was beaten down out of spite for 4 seasons and now may as well be a cardboard cutout. DW and the EPs don't seem to give a single shit about how badly this season has affected people. i don't know whether to jump ship or spit fire over everything. i'm just... exhausted.

I want a transparent statement & apology from DreamWorks. I want to know THEIR stance & role in this, ALL the events that ended up with us getting a show that is not only homophobic but also ableist, racist, mocks child abuse and so much more. I want them to acknowledge & explain why they allowed the marketing team to bait fans with ship content in their videos, thumbnails and even that EP interview about shipping. I want to know who and why allowed the show to to take a worse direction in recent seasons.

I have no answers for any of this, @dreamworksanimation. If there are any explanations, any reassurances that you’ll work hard to prevent any repeat, you need to say so. The longer you’re silent, the more it looks like you’re fine with the story and all its horrific messages. Are you?

#vld #voltron #representation

[theinkstainsblog]

Do you mind if I ask how you feel about J. K. Rowlings? You mentioned you don't like her personally, I'm just curious why :)

no i don’t mind although the last time I talked about this it sparked off a lot of debate so we’ll have to see how this goes.

This is gonna be long sorry about that…

Like I said I admire her very much as a writer and the Harry Potter books were a huge part of my childhood that I’ll always treasure but she’s done an awful lot of things that mean I just don’t feel I can support her anymore. And it’s mostly not problematic stuff within the text (they’re all very straight and very white but so are a lot of books) it’s problematic stuff outside of it. And while everyone is problematic to a degree my issue with Rowling is that she doesn’t listen to marginalised fans when they try and tell her she’s been hurtful, she blocks them and goes “la, la la la, i can’t hear you, i’m too perfect.” Which… don’t become an author if you can’t take any criticism. 

So first off she’s homophobic and transphobic.

1). There’s the Dumbledore thing. She lists him as being gay in the books on twitter but its not canon cause its never even hinted in the text. However, she does act like that’s proper representation and LGBT fans should adore her for it (wants the adoration without doing the work).

2). This has then got worse recently because the next Fantastic Beasts film is supposed to build on Dumbledore and Grindelwald when Grindelwald is coming to power. We know that supposedly Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald as a kid and that’s why it takes him so long to bring Grindelwald down. So its massively relevant to this film’s plot then right?? And she’s already said he’s gay so it will be made canon now right?? Wrong. She’s stated she’s not doing anything to do with it at all. Because she loves getting fake ally points but hates actually doing anything.

(This is the part where someone tries to tell me something about how Hollywood won’t allow gay characters and its nothing to do with Rowling.. and I’m sorry but no. a). she writes the damn scripts for these films but chose not to put it in there b). she’s rich and powerful and popular enough that if she threatened to pull it if they didn’t do it right they’d listen. No way they’re going to lose the moneymaker that is the next Fantastic Beasts)

3). Everytime queer fans tried to bring this up, even very politely, she blocks them and accuses them of bullying. Is that really anyway to treat lifelong fans just because they raise an issue they’re worried about? Especially when its her books that helped teach a lot of us to speak up when we see something wrong.

4). The queerbaiting in Cursed Child. Now she didn’t write this one so she’s not directly involved I guess. I haven’t read Cursed Child so I can’t talk on it much but if you just google queerbaiting in Cursed Child you should be able to find out more.

5). She recently stated that the werewolves are a metaphor for the AIDs crisis. Now a). personally, I think there are certain narratives that belong to the people they happened to and the AIDs crisis would be one of them so she needs to get her dirty straight fingers the hell off of that. b). besides Lupin one of the main werewolves is Fenrir, a guy who literally just goes around biting children to turn them. That sounds massively like the stereotype from that era that gay men were just predators and paedophiles and were out to infect your kids.

6). She liked a bunch of tweets where terfs were saying vile things about trans women. She claims this was an accident but you tell me how easy it is to like multiple tweets on the same topic by accident (especially when they shouldn’t even come up on your feed unless you followed people with those views or searched for them). So yeah make of that one what you will but I’m adding transphobia to the list.

Next up we have racism and cultural appropriation. Now I’m white so I can’t talk about this in as much detail as others can and I apologise if I miss something! 

1). Cho Chang.. So she’s one of very very few non-white characters in the books and it’s patently obvious that Rowling didn’t do even the slightest bit of research on how to represent her (you can tell because both Cho and Chang are actually surnames so… what the fuck). 

2). Her narrative is incredibly stereotypical and harmful. Here’s a poem by Rachel Rostad that explains that much better than I ever could.

3). The Pavartis… they’re small side characters but their biggest moment is probably going to the Ball with Harry and Ron. Where they’re promptly ignored and sidelined. Because who cares about brown girls right?

4). Rowling keeps taking concepts like the thunderbirds to use in her world-building that Native American people have asked not to be used in fantasy because it’s of cultural importance to them. Ignoring that request is… well, cultural appropriation no matter how you look at it. 

Then there’s the abuse apologism… 

1). She allows Depp to be in her films despite what he’s done (abused his partner) and how many fans of expressed discomfort with that. Even if it was the studio pushing for that, she could have spoken out against it (something that’s at the core of her book's message - speak out when bad stuff happens) but instead she wrote some bs about being in full support of him. 

So yeah… I still love and always will love the Harry Potter books despite their flaws. My issue with JK Rowling isn’t in her writing itself but in the fact that she is unable to let it die. Every time someone tries to criticise her she makes up something to make herself look like a great ally when in reality she has no intention of caring for marginalised fans e.g. rather than accepting that her books have no gay characters and she should do better, she randomly decides Dumbledore is gay. 

Because of this, I can no longer feel comfortable supporting her and I won’t be going to see the new film or giving her any more of my money. It’s fanfiction and headcanons only for me! 

#harry potter #hp discourse #jk rowling

[nonbinarysasquatch]

An Argument for Rebecca Bunch’s Bisexuality:

So first things first: it should be clear that this post isn’t exploring whether Rebecca is intended to be seen as bi. It’s clear from Rachel and Aline’s comments, and Rebecca saying that she has certain bi tendencies in season 3 are just an exploration of sexual fluidity that Rebecca is not intended to be bi.

It’s also clear that a lot of the things related to Rebecca’s seeming queerness come from Rachel Bloom and I also want to be clear that this isn’t commenting on Rachel Bloom herself as she’s a real person and her business is her business.

This is purely examining why Rebecca can be read as being bi when only looking at the show itself.

In an interesting way, I think Rebecca seems the closest to the experiences of myself and other bi people I’ve known out all the characters. The other queer characters on the show largely eschew stereotypes, but if we ignore authorial intent, in a funny way Rebecca seems most the stereotypical in terms of a queer narrative. She seems a lot like a closeted bi woman who hasn’t broken through her own internalized biphobia.

The hints that Rebecca could be bi begin very early on, particularly in the first episode when she goes to the strip club to look for Josh. Rebecca is sitting right in front of a dancer (in the original pilot she apparently stuck her face in the dancer’s bare chest) and only vaguely seeming to look for Josh. Now, this could be read as Rebecca being in denial (as we know she is) but still… it’s a weird thing to do if you’re a straight woman. But admittedly, this is not out of character for Rebecca.

In the second episode, we are introduced to Josh’s girlfriend, Valencia Perez, who herself is confirmed to be a WLW in season 3. Rebecca, still very much in denial about her feelings for Josh, tries to befriend Valencia, inadvertently becoming the first woman Valencia has ever been able to be close to (and possibly helping to awaken her own queerness.)

Rebecca is clearly jealous of Valencia but also seems to genuinely like her and be attracted to her (keeping in mind “Feelin’ Kinda Naughty” was originally “I Want to Fuck You With My Jealousy Dick” before the show moved to the CW.) And obviously, Rebecca tries to make out with Valencia and is swiftly rebuffed (again, by a woman who herself will later realise her own attraction to women.)

Why does Rebecca do it? She wasn’t doing it to impress Josh, he was clearly uncomfortable with Rebecca and Valencia having anything to do with each other. Valencia wasn’t giving her any signs. And wanting to make out with someone isn’t a typical expression of jealousy. The simplest explanation is that Rebecca misread Valencia’s actions as evidence of attraction, and being impulsive and having boundary issues, Rebecca acted on it, probably with little thought to why she was doing it.

There’s not much for the rest of season 1. Rebecca spends most of season 1 dealing with her feelings for Josh and Greg. The big thing I would talk about though with season 1 is the ways that Rebecca and Darryl are paralleled (something deliberate on the part of the writers.) Both are lonely characters with identity problems. When it comes to loneliness, Darryl and Rebecca do act in similar ways, hatching schemes and even being in denial about their own stalking behaviour. Both can be inappropriate in their efforts to deal with their loneliness.

As far as identity issues goes, when faced with who she really is inside, Rebecca buries it (in season 2 outright expressing disgust for who she really is inside.) Darryl, on the other hand, quickly adapts to realising he’s bi, even proudly announcing it to his employees at work.

The show does other things to parallel Darryl and Rebecca. For instance, they both fall for men named Josh. Darryl even gets Rebecca’s heart flutter theme when he and WhiJo first kiss, something that is otherwise exclusively used for Josh Chan (until “Getting Over Jeff” when it’s used for Paula and Jeff.)

Another interesting level is that Maya is a character that mirrors Darryl. She is also bi and Darryl initially bullies her because she reminds him of himself, especially the parts of himself he doesn’t like.

In the first episode of season 2, one of Rebecca’s most bi moments happens and much like her kissing Valencia in season 1, it makes so little sense if she’s intended to be straight. I am naturally referring to her attempting to seduce Paula, literally feeling up Paula’s crotch with her foot, not even realising she was doing it. Then, having successfully convinced Paula to help her find Greg, Rebecca is clearly turned on by Paula’s hacking. Why? There’s no context for any of this ever given.

It’s not like Rebecca is super horny all episode long or something. Contrarily she has recently been having sex with Josh. It’s not as if there was some subplot about her being sex starved. Rebecca just inexplicably tries to seduce Paula, then gets horny from Paula’s actions and it’s not set up or brought up again.

Several episodes later, Rebecca tries to re-initiate her friendship with Valencia, erm, kidnapping her and taking her to Electric Mesa. Rebecca and Valencia take drugs (accidentally) and bond over both having gotten burned by Josh Chan. They pee on Josh’s equipment and Rebecca expresses excitement over the best part of the experience being that she and Valencia saw each other’s vaginas. And of course, in the tag we see Valencia, ask to see Rebecca’s vagina again. Valencia, who will later end up in a relationship with a woman…

Two episodes later and Rebecca and Valencia are still bonding, Valencia for the first time partaking in criminal shenanigans. Rebecca, apropos of nothing pretends she and Valencia are lesbians who are house shopping, even though no one is actually even around. It should be noted that at the end of the episode, Valencia decides she needs to get laid, picking up a guy at the bar, disappointing Rebecca. Valencia at this time obviously hasn’t embraced her queerness (in fact that’s something that we never really get to see, since it happens in the time jump.)

The rest of season 2, mostly has Rebecca dealing with Josh and Nathaniel, but there is a tiny beat in the video for “So Maternal” when Rebecca imagines two grown women breastfeeding from her. Objectively, this an odd thing for a straight woman to imagine herself doing.

Season 3 is possibly a bit lighter on these Rebecca moments of apparent bisexuality. I’m admittedly in the middle of my current rewatch so I only have notes for the first half of season 3 to look at it.

But obviously, the show for the first time directly acknowledges Rebecca’s apparently bi-curiosity, when Stacy misunderstands, thinking that Rebecca is bi and possibly seducing her. Rebecca denies that she’s bi but backtracks a little and clarifies that she does have certain bi tendencies, saying she’s a 1.8 on the Kinsey Scale. Now obviously, the Kinsey Scale is a very, very outdated model, but even taking the model as it is and looking at Rebecca’s behaviour, a 1.8 seems a bit low.

A point of interest is obviously Valencia ending up in a relationship with another woman. It’s impossible to look at Valencia’s queer narrative and not talk about Rebecca. Rebecca was the first woman she has ever loved. The show makes it abundantly clear how much Rebecca means to Valencia, not only via her outburst in “Josh is Irrelevant” but simply in the number of times Valencia forgives Rebecca. Rebecca has given Valencia every reason to give up on her but Valencia cares enough to remain her friend.

Rebecca is a part of Valencia’s queer narrative. That much is incontrovertible.

The final point I would make about Rebecca really relates to what it can be like to come to your bisexuality (or any sexuality really.) In general, even now, we still live in a culture that is very homophobic and particularly biphobic (which are related things, but biphobia has threads in both other queer people and straight people as well.)

I didn’t wake up one day and realise I was a bi. There was some denial and personal dismissal. I was a teenager in the 90s and back then most people didn’t think of bisexuality as a real thing. So when you are confused because you feel this other thing but are afraid of it because what if it means everything you know is wrong… it’s weird. And it’s easy to dismiss it.

Personally, I was in a relationship for most of my 20s that kept my sexuality (and gender issues) buried. I knew they were there but I chose to believe they weren’t significant or important. And I thought, well, maybe it just isn’t strong enough to call myself bi. I was aware of sexual fluidity. It took time to even let myself explore it.

Rebecca has spent her entire life seeking male attention, obviously eschewing close female relationships until she came to West Covina (and I’m not even going to touch on the DELIBERATE romantic parallels they do with Paula and Rebecca here.)

To me, Rebecca Bunch, regardless of intention, feels like a bi narrative. Will there be any payoff? Unlikely. And hey, this show has done a lot for the bisexual community (literally gifting us with an anthem) and it has multiple bi characters (though I do think readings for Valencia’s sexuality are still open as long as they don’t label her.) So it’s not like I’m going to be pissed and the fact that they even took the time to acknowledge Rebecca’s bisexual tendencies as being a real thing and not just a joke is kind of remarkable.

But it’s not going to be explicit canon. Rachel and Aline don’t think Rebecca is bi. But I certainly do.

#crazy ex girlfriend #rebecca bunch #bisexuality #this isn't even comprehensive #there are other little moments scattered throughout #and stuff that I'm probably not even thinking about

[not-poignant]

I really like love stories between two men and I'm worried that I'm..fetishizing homosexuality and if that's actually homophobic, because I don't want to be that. Also, I don't particularly have any interest in lesbian love stories and I feel like I should, because otherwise maybe it's internalised misogyny and homophobia? I should mention that I've never seen any really positive heterosexual relationships so that could be partly why I like gay romance so much and reading about it. I don't know

Well, I don’t know either.

I mean I certainly can’t draw any conclusions from a single anon post. :)

These kinds of journeys of self-reflection are necessary, and are actually the kinds of things that antis seek to shut down (making people choose between ‘one side’ or ‘the other side’ and not necessarily seeing that it’s a very complex process and highly individual). It might be a lifelong journey for you, to listen to the answers that come from within, and change your choices as you go, or not change them, or change them a little, and so on.

(Read More because this is a complex topic and my response got long)

Like, I know for myself, my not reading femslash for a long time was a combination of many things. At first I thought it was only internalised misogyny. This is the most obvious choice, given I’m queer, AFAB and and write queer relationships. Then over time, I realised it was partly a lack of choice and stories role-modelled to me too. And that a larger component of my ‘story’ with my relationship with femslash (after deliberately seeking it out and challenging myself) was that, for me, AFAB bodies (assigned female at birth) had been politicised for so long, I just didn’t want to read about AFAB bodies in fiction for a while. Whether het or femslash (though femslash is much easier). It was like part of the journey of escapism for me, was getting to not be in a body that gets politicised in specific ways, even when fanfiction and original authors don’t intend to be part of that global and cultural narrative.

In fact even when they’re working in opposition of that narrative, I still know they’re positioning themselves in opposition to something shitty, and that reminds me something shitty exists. Because of the way my brain works, it makes reading femslash more difficult, less immersive, and less escapist. I’ve learned I can still love femslash! (I’m way more likely to write it than het, for example). But it won’t be my default, at least for some time to come, because I’m still sensitive to the politicisation of AFAB bodies.

I’m sure in amongst that cocktail of things influencing what I enjoy, there are other things that play into it. I continue to read what I enjoy reading (it’s not making me hurt anyone, and it’s not hurting me), and at times will question what I’m looking at. Why I hate reading anything het. Why I only write queer works. Why I love hurt/comfort so much. Why AMAB characters work better for me and what’s playing in behind that. Etc.

As you can see, it’s not by any means simplistic, even when you’re only looking at one facet. Tumblr and ‘The Discourse’ will try and give you simple answers, and will try and corral you into the ‘Good Side’ or the ‘Bad Side’ and they’ll often write checklists of like: ‘if you do this thing (from squeeing about gay male couples, to simply reading m/m fanfiction), you fetishise gay relationships, and are wrong and shitty and bad.’ Anything that tries to reductively simplify something complex, that changes by culture, person, orientation, and more, is probably not going to be a good compass for you.

Though it might prompt you to ask some deeper questions of yourself. You can ask them without something trying to make you feel bad about yourself as a person.

When you’re engaging in fiction, it’s important to remember that a lot of antis and similar will try and convince you that fiction and reality are the same, or that what you like in fiction means you are some how ‘like that’ or enjoy the thing in reality. I have been called a rapist and pedophile because of this. But you don’t see a lot of these antis calling anyone who’s ever killed anything in a video game (basically all of us who have ever played a video game) ‘actual murderers.’

While fiction can influence reality, it is in complex ways that again, change by circumstance and person etc. It’s difficult to talk about because everyone has a different line in the sand. I’ll read fictional fantasy slavery fics, as I love it as a trope, but I acknowledge that slavery tropes in general can be seen as problematic, especially because in real life people have had their lives destroyed by slavery.

Captive Prince is an area, for example, where some people will never read the story on the basis of Damen being an eroticised slave. Others will blindly love it and say there’s nothing wrong with it. For me, I know that it’s a problematic trope that in this specific case is often misinterpreted or looked at through the lens of American Imperialism, which ignores the lived experience of the author. I still enjoy it. It doesn’t make me any more likely to think slavery was right. Because slavery is shitty. Some people think my viewpoint (that I’m going to read it and enjoy the story anyway) isn’t good enough, and isn’t okay. Some people do. Some people think I’m probably making it too ‘political.’

Whatever you decide about what you’re doing, people are going to disagree and/or agree with you about it. And for me you can imagine it comes up again and again because I’m frank about enjoying dubcon and noncon, including titillating noncon, I’ve enjoyed underage as a category (Sebaciel, anyone?), I’ve enjoyed incest (Thorki) and other very problematic tropes. I’ve thought about all of them at length. 

Which is why it’s deeply personal. Ultimately, no one can tell you why you’re doing or thinking or reading certain things. Sometimes you’ll decide that something is too much for you, and sometimes you’ll realise that maybe you had some internalised hatred somewhere and unpack it. Sometimes unpacking it means you can read more freely and with more ease. Sometimes unpacking it means you can’t read it anymore. That’s stuff you can’t know until you come across it.

Anon, if you’re going through this process gently, with self-reflection, it won’t take you days or weeks to figure out. It will be lifelong. It will be ongoing. The landscape will constantly shift as you change and shift and learn. You may come to a happy conclusion about one thing and see a thing beneath it once the smoke clears, and realise you now need to spend time contemplating that thing instead.

In the meantime, people from the sidelines will scream at you and try and convince you that their way of doing things is Right.

It’s good to not know.

It means you’re trying to figure out what’s right for you.

#asks and answers #personal #pia on fandom #imho you have to be as careful of the whole #'fetishising gay relationships is evil' #as you do the whole #'reading dubcon makes you a rapist' #it is *not* default homophobic #to engage in certain types of fics or certain types of excitement around fics #or fandom #i mean that topic is huge and i don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole on tumblr #because you could write a whole *book* on it and still not be done #and then someone could write a rebuttal *book* and still not be done #i think one of the most dangerous things imho about tumblr #is how often it tries to reduce viewpoints #to vicious soundbytes #that ignore the need for long-term self-reflection #and maybe i'm wrong too #i'm just doing what works for me #administrator Gwyn wants this in the queue #Anonymous

[balsamfirs]

First, let it be known that I am a diehard Pens fan, and a lifelong fan of Crosby, so I may be biased. Also, my stance on Donald Trump is that he is a giant asshole. I welcome the discourse and disagreements that’ll come with this post! Just don’t be like, rude, but I completely understand that I may be wrong.

My two cents on the Sidney Crosby controversy:

Though what he said wasn’t right, I don’t think it was… well, that bad. But let’s go with the Pens statement first:

“The Pittsburgh Penguins respect the institution of the Office of the President, and the long tradition of championship teams visiting the White House. We attended White House ceremonies after previous championships - touring the historic building and visiting briefly with Presidents George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama - and have accepted an invitation to attend again this year.

Any agreement or disagreement with a president’s politics, policies or agenda can be expressed in other ways. However, we very much respect the rights of other individuals and groups to express themselves as they see fit.”

The statement the Pens made, to me, was a whole lot of, well, nothing. It’s passive. They did not say they support Trump, they said they support the white house as an institution, the office of the president (not the president himself), and the “tradition”. They didn’t bash, or make any negative comments on anyone who is protesting. Nor did they praise them. 

It’s passive. More should’ve been said, especially when they release the statement at a time where many NFL and NWBA/NBA players are showing their dissent (rightfully so). In my opinion, they shouldn’t have decided to go at all. They should have kept in with their brothers in sports, and actually shown their support for, well, the non white male community. But it is what it is. At least they’re not actively supporting Trump. They got what they were shooting for really: a decision that is not the right one, but it’s not the worst one they could make. At least, it’s not framed as the worst they could make, as they say that they are merely respecting the institution and the tradition. 

There’s also something to be said of how the majority of the team is either European or Canadian. Trump is quite literally not their president. They may just not care all that much, and don’t wish to get openly bashed by the president of a country that isn’t theirs.

Now, onto Crosby. Here are his most controversial statements:

“I still feel like we look at it as an opportunity.” “We respect the office of the White House.” “I’m pretty aware of what’s going on,” “People have that right to not go, too. Nobody’s saying they have to go. As a group, we decided to go. There hasn’t really been a whole lot of discussion about it.“ “I support it. It’s a great honour to be invited there.”

The first three statements are pretty much exactly what the Penguins organization said. Probably, they just media-trained him to say exactly that. Spineless? Perhaps. He could have definitely declined the invitation personally, and decided not to go. But again, he and the Pens are going a sort of “neutral” route. The last one, that’s the most problematic, at least in my opinion.

But even still, if you look at the last statement with the lens of the first few, with the Pens’ rhetoric of them respecting the institution of the white house and the office of the president, not (necessarily) the president himself, it’s… exactly as bland as the others. It’s a great honour… for them to be invited to see the white house as an institution. 

And honestly, having a vague idea of what Crosby is like, which is being as bland as a slice of white bread in terms of personality, un-opinionated in most things (to the media), and just generally not causing a stir, I think he’s just trying not to cause a stir. Not to get the attention of the president on him. Even looking at demonstrations of his character, such as him visiting with sick children without media presence, openly supporting LGBTQ+ athletes with You Can Play, or even giving the cup to Trevor Daley (a black man) first, so his mom could see him win the cup, are indicative that he does not agree with Trump’s policies. I don’t think this controversy about the trip erases his past of being a generally good person. We simply don’t have hard evidence of him being racist/sexist/homophobic.

Now, my conclusion? They’re being very passive. It’s a neutral decision. On one hand, they are “respecting the institution of the White House and the office of the president”, not the president himself (as far as we know). Crosby shouldn’t be ultimately crucified as a white supremacist and trump supporter, because we just don’t have sufficient evidence. On the other hand, they’re going to the White House, which is ultimately, a political statement in midst of many athletes actively showing their dissent.

So, to sum up:

- The Pens shouldn’t have made the decision to go. It’s the wrong one. Trump is a dotard. 

-But, their insistence on neutrality, that they’re going out of respect to the White House, not the president, does make the situation a bit better.

-Crosby shouldn’t be crucified, as he pretty much did just stick to the narrative the Pens are writing.

Of course, this is just my opinion. Feel absolutely free to tell me and explain why I’m wrong, I’m happily welcoming discussion. I’m writing this as a white person from Canada, from a place of privilege. Please, dissent!

Edit: would also like to add that the NHL as a whole is doing nothing. The NHL should be criticized as well as the Pens for being passive about the current political situation.

#sidney crosby #nhl #pittsburgh #pittsburgh penguins #penguins #hockey #nhl hockey #sid the kid #squidno #sid #crosby #pens #stanley cup #white house #trump #donald trump #donald the orange #donald the dick #fuck donald trump #don the con #politics #news #sports #sports news #national hockey league #nfl #nba #opinion