#so like. you much have a character who’s explicitly queer isn’t defined by their identity and is essential to the plot

[godheadjones]

me being sad about riverdale and it’s queerbaiting: 😔

me being happy when i remember riverdale passes the vito russo test: 😀

#riverdale #im so so funny i can’t share this joke with anyone irl pls laugh #so like. you much have a character who’s explicitly queer isn’t defined by their identity and is essential to the plot #like imagine riverdale without cheryl. no 50s. everyone’s dead. #passes

[attractive-nuisance-esq]

Here’s the thing: After 15x18 - after Castiel’s confession - I will be devastatingly heartbroken with any ending less than a full, explicitly romantic relationship between him and Dean.

Let’s be clear: If they hadn’t had Cas confess, I wouldn’t be terrified about what they’re going to give to us on Thursday night. We’d all made our peace with Destiel never going canon. We never, ever in a million years expected to actually get it. All of us shippers were content to live with what we got on screen, determined to see it live on in our fanfiction, with faith in the fandom to tell the story of Dean and Castiel. We were fine. We were excited! The ending of any show is a momentous occasion, but the ending of this one? With this fandom family? After this long? No matter what happened, it was going to be something we’d cherish forever.

Instead, in the third-to-last episode of all time, Supernatural gave us a confession of love from one of its most beloved characters to the hero of the story. And we all lost our minds. Quite rightfully! We never, ever thought it would happen - no matter how much sub there has been in the text over the last 12 years. You know why? Because of Disney.

We’re used to the Disney version of LGBTQ representation. The kind where about a month before a movie comes out, we see a flurry of articles published about how there will be a “gay character” in it - somehow always for the first time. And the character is always gay; nobody cares enough to draw any distinctions within the community. All of human sexuality that isn’t purely straight is purely gay. *cue the eyerolls* And maybe the first time we got a little excited. (Probably not, but go with me here for a sec.) Maybe for Beauty and the Beast, we thought, “Oh, LeFou was kind of a fun character in the cartoon version. Maybe it’ll be cool to see him have a crush!” But always and inevitably, the “representation” is one of two equally hurtful things: 1) the character’s sexuality is bluntly on display, but it’s a source of ridicule for the person, and the audience is encouraged to laugh at it “with” the character (o hai, LeFou); or 2) the scene is less than two seconds long, or the character is unnamed, or the circumstances of the “representation” are such that they can easily be cut from the project for foreign audiences or swept under the rug in the minds of viewers who’d rather not admit that queer people exist (what up, Star Wars and Endgame?).

And that shit really fucking hurts. We’re told to shut up and be grateful, even enthusiastic that mainstream fiction media noticed we’re here at all. But we’re never main characters. Our stories are never told. This part of our identity is not only left unexplored; it is so exploited for woke points as to be made the single most defining thing about us. It’s offensive, over and over again, to have us included solely because of how we are different.

It fucking hurts.

Things are changing, slowly. We’re starting to get some deeper, three-dimensional representation in television and film. It’s not all starting out in 2005 on the same network that brought us 7th Heaven anymore. My niece is 14-years-old and out, and she will never remember a time when she had to scour the Internet to see queer versions of her favorite characters; she just has them. But all of us adults, well... chances are, our journeys have the potential to look a lot like Dean’s. We didn’t get to come out in high school. We didn’t let our younger selves think too hard about what we knew in our hearts would make us happy. It took us longer to arrive at a place of security and safety in order to be able to admit to ourselves and others who we are. Hell, the whole damn process of recognizing human sexuality is fluid might have taken us years!

Us queer adults - the ones who have been watching and loving Supernatural for longer than its younger audience - can now taste the possibility of seeing something that probably looks a lot like our very own romantic and personal experiences in Dean Winchester. We’ve been celebrating bi!Dean for years on our own, picking up the crumbs the writers give us and clutching them tightly, because what a gift it would be to see this good man, this hero as one of our own! And now... we’re so close to actually seeing it. On screen. For real and for sure.

These last two weeks have been incredibly difficult. We’re ecstatic! Wildly so! What other kind of reaction would we have to the writers allowing Castiel to admit these feelings we’ve all thought would only ever exist in our heads? But we are equally anxious, wary, and - quite frankly - battling hopelessness. Supernatural doesn’t have a great track record with these things. Everyone on Tumblr - even those that don’t watch this show - is well aware that this one is the master of queerbaiting. And then there’s Disney banging around in our skulls, a psychological trauma sounding again like an alarm. We’ve been burned so many times before, by other mainstream media and by Supernatural itself. It feels crazy to hope. I don’t know how many times I’ve watched the confession scene; I still can’t believe it’s real. A male-shaped main character said “I love you” to another male-shaped main character. It can’t be cut out and ignored, or brushed aside as platonic. It wasn’t a joke at the expense of queerness. It happened. It was big, and it was right there.

And now we are so, so close. Fuck.

That’s why if Supernatural doesn’t follow through and give us Dean and Cas unequivocally in love in the final 42 minutes of this beautiful, ridiculous, wonderful, preposterous, absolutely WILD show, it’ll just completely fucking break me. It will be the worst kind of tease, the deepest cut buried in the briniest salt. If they hadn’t given us Castiel’s confession, we’d have no expectations. But they did. And now, if they don’t deliver after all that’s been said and done...

...it will utterly shatter my fragile little bisexual heart into a million fucking pieces.

#supernatural #destiel #dean winchester #Castiel #spn #spn family #Misha Collins #lgbtq representation #lgbtq characters #lgbtq rights #spn finale #spn 15x18 #supernatural 15x18 #spn 15x20 #supernatural 15x20 #deancas #dean/Cas #jensen ackles #Castiel’s confession #fuck you disney #bisexual #bi!Dean

[w3rewolf-th3rewolf]

While I was working on the show as a Pipeline TD I had always pictured Katie as queer but I figured is was just wishful thinking.  Many people, especially those in underrepresented groups, are used to projecting onto characters while the creators leave things ambiguous.  But here she was, a girl who didn’t really fit in, trying to find herself and her people, who was into making weird stuff that others didn’t understand…in my mind there was no doubt.

I had wanted to ask the director, Mike Rianda, about Katie’s sexuality, but I was scared.  Scared that either he would say she was straight and break that dream for me, or leave it open to interpretation which while neither confirms or denies her queerness means that people will automatically code her as straight.  

With representation it has to be explicit, or people who oppose it will find any possible hole/explanation/workaround to disprove it.  But on the other hand, a person’s sexuality isn’t their entire identity, so when characters are defined by their queerness (especially in media where the focus isn’t gender or sexuality) it feels hollow and token.  

Then one of my queer co-workers messaged me that there were discussions about changing Linda’s line at the end of the movie to “are you dating anyone and will she be coming home with you for thanksgiving” and I cried.  Full-on sobbing joyful ugly tears.  I was so excited, but also so scared…I knew that it was a long-shot since most companies play it safe when it comes to that kind of representation.  But it seemed like Mike was really willing to fight to keep the line in the movie.

There was a giant e-mail thread where some of my coworkers gave their insights and opinions on the line change, but the most beautiful part was that this conversation was started by Mike because he wanted to ask people in the LGBTQ community about making Katie a lesbian.  It was clear that he and Jeff Rowe (the other director) put a lot of thought not only on if she should be explicitly queer, but how it should be expressed within the movie.  He wanted responses from us, and unlike a lot of diversity initiatives, he was willing to fight for it but he wanted to make sure we’re fighting for the right thing.

The discussions were an open arena where we could voice our thoughts freely.  They realized that they had an opportunity and a platform for real representation.  As “very much cis white dudes” Mike and Jeff wanted to see if Katie being LGBTQ felt right to members of the community.  And my coworkers were just as passionate about Katie being gay as I was.  

“It may look like a small thing, but it represents a lot” - Guilherme Paiva, Animator

“it's great to finally have a movie where there's an LGBT character who's allowed to exist and have a role that isn't just ‘the gay character’ or to have the whole film be about them being LGBT” - Jabari Cofer, Lead Animator

“I think it's bold, and I really love the character you've created and written of Katie. Would love to see this a reality where it's out there, but understand there could be some push back from higher ups, so I really appreciate [it]” - Jessica Giang, Layout Artist

“I appreciate the thought that you guys are putting into this. It honestly warms my heart seeing how much you genuinely care about getting this right, it really means a lot.” - Chelsea Gordon-Ratzlaff, Lead Animator @not-quite-normal

I don’t know all of the work they put in but it was an uphill battle to keep the line in the movie.  Mike actively defended the representation, using our responses to bolster his campaign.  We were all a bit scared, going to production and even the studio execs to take a chance on doing something like this, but the line stayed.

Katie is a creative teenager who is struggling to find her place in the world.  She has a loving and supportive family that doesn’t really understand her.  She’s the kind of character that I wish had been present when I was growing up.  Having this kind of explicit representation not only normalizes queerness, but embraces it.  But it’s a risk to do something like this, especially in animation which targets a wide and impressionable audience. 

A conversation is only as important as the people involved in it.  Representation is such a complex aspect of media that many companies prefer to keep things simple within their own comfort zone.  But people are complex, and it’s up to art to illustrate that.  By actively listening to queer members of the crew “the Mitchells vs the Machines” was able to create a fun, imaginative, and emotional story that just happens to have a lesbian as the lead.

#the mitchells vs the machines #animation #lgbt representation #netflix #sony pictures imageworks #i should be sleeping

[lylethewarblerguy]

So on a positive note, I wanna talk about how much I love Sebastian as a character.

Set-up And Personality

I do love his snarky attitude but above that I love how his character was set up from the beginning to be somewhat forgivable. Unlike the other mean characters on the show, Sebastian doesn’t start insulting anyone until he is insulted. Yes, he’s trying to fuck Kurts boyfriend but he has nothing against Kurt. Sebastian only starts to insult Kurt after Kurt insults him. And a reminder: he starts his insult spree with “fun”.

It’s clear from the start that this is all just a joke to Sebastian and that he doesn’t actually have anything against these people. He’s just giving back what Kurt is throwing at him, and having what to him feels like a fun back and forth that eventually gets out of hand.

(Just look at his face in the Scandals dance scene, does that look like disgust or hatred to you?)

Queer Representation

I’ve already talked about this. But I love Sebastian as a piece of queer representation. He is an absolutely perfect example of a character who is allowed to just be queer.

As I’ve mentioned before, they try and fail to do this in season 6 with Spencer. Having him specifically identify himself by the fact that he isn’t your stereotypical queer. But Sebastian doesn’t care about that. He doesn’t allow himself to be defined by his queerness, in either direction. He just is queer.

He flirts with a guy and all his scenes are with other queer characters. And some of his storylines are about specifically queer experiences. But the show never makes a big deal out of it. He doesn’t fit every queer stereotype, but he’s also not actively trying to avoid queer stereotypes. 

He is a queer character who is allowed to just be queer. And not to be all dramatic, but that’s so fucking rare that just thinking about it makes me teary eyed. The impact it had on a little queer me to get to see someone like me who wasn’t defined by their queerness but who was also allowed to be explicitly queer is immense. I genuinely think he is just an absolutely amazing and important piece of queer representation.

Redemption Arc

The two previous points also inform how much I love his redemption arc. It makes perfect narrative sense and fits his character so well.

As mentioned, it’s clear from the start that this is all just a game to Sebastian and that he doesn’t actually have any animosity towards the New Directions. Which is why him changing doesn’t just come out of nowhere.

And it’s also clear how important his identity as a queer person is to him, even if he doesn’t let it define him. So having him change after he realises how his behaviour is hurting other queer people and adding to the pain that already comes with being out queer in a queerphobic society makes perfect sense.

The entire redemption arc, however short it may have been, is just *chefs kiss*. 

And honestly, I really like the fact that we didn’t get to see him a lot more after that. Because one of the things that makes his apology mean so much is that we feel like he’s genuinely changed. 

Glee storylines are almost exclusively based on internal conflicts between the characters. Which, when they have the same characters for so long and not very good writing, means they end up reusing storylines a lot. Which is why, for example, you’ll see Rachel making everything about herself, then apologising, then doing it again, apologising again, doing it again, apologising again, and on and on it goes. After a while the apology stops having any meaning because the characters aren’t actually changing.

But because we don’t get to see Sebastian a lot more that means the writers didn’t get to have him fuck up over and over again. Which makes the apology we do get feel a lot more genuine than most of the “redemption arcs” the rest of the characters get.

In conclusion:

❤️ Him ❤️

#sebastian smythe #glee #don’t mind me simping again #glee meta

[unit-zero-two]

Queer Representation in 13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim

13 Sentinels was a game I picked up because the trailer looked neat. I had no clue what the gameplay was even like, I just felt adventurous. And I was rewarded with a fantastic game that constantly surprised me in the best possible ways. One of the ways I was surprised was in the actual textual existence of queer characters. Plural. And with a queer relationship developed and promoted prominently on screen between main characters.

Now, with the increase in queer media around the board, this alone isn’t worthy of praise. My enjoyment, and I suspect that of a lot of people, comes from the fact that there was no expectations or promises made, and yet the game still delivered. It was just there, causally, in a AAA game published by a decently well known studio. It’s a good example of what we’re asking for when asking for queer rep. It being allowed to casually exist and flavor games that aren’t just dedicated to telling these stories.

Like a lot of media if you go in expecting flawless queer representation suffusing every aspect of the game, you will be disappointed. This is a game with 15 main characters and most of the cast ends up in straight relationships. But not all of them. And past those relationships, there is still a queerness that is allowed to exist and be shown throughout this game that constantly impressed me.

I will work through the textual, on screen examples of queer representation one by one. There will be spoilers for this game in the post, so if that is something that you care about, please finish the game first before continuing. Due to the non-linear storytelling and gameplay nature of 13 Sentinels I can’t really set timestamps or anything. If you’re not done yet, but still curious to read, I personally feel like nothing I say here will ruin the experience for you. Through it’s strange nature, this is arguably a spoiler proof game and knowing what is to come can help you view the events in a different, but still enjoyable, light.

Textual Queer Representation in 13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim

The place for us to begin will be with one of the 13 playable characters, Takatoshi Hijiyama. Hijiyama is very much a young man defined by when he was raised in the story. 1945 Japan in the middle of WW2. He is nationalistic and proud of Japan, it’s culture and tries to stand for it’s values. While training to be a Sentinel pilot, he falls for the demure Kiriko Douji, daughter of the professor in charge of the project. His prologue begins with him following Kiriko and finding her operating a time travel system. Kiriko reveals three things: 1) she’s the real scientist behind the project, 2) her real name is Tsukasa Okino and 3) she is a he. Okino leaves 1945 and Hijiyama chases after him. What then follows is a very clear romance storyline as Hijiyama works though self-discovery of his sexuality, his internalized biases and some good old jealousy.

Throughout his story, Hijiyama shows attraction to Okino both dressed as a woman and as a man. It’s made clear that the clothes and gender presentation aren’t the main defining factor for his attraction to Okino. He also shows attraction to some of the girls, implying a sort of bisexuality. But in the end, Okino is the one he directs his attention and dedication. The pair even share a robot in the final battle.

Next we have Takatoshi Hijiyama...of 2188. Through a data log Hijiyama finds during his story he finds out that his self of 2188 was in a committed, queer relationship with Tsukasa Okino of 2188. The two openly express their love for each other in the logs, and Hijiyama 2188′s final words are to mourn the death of his lover. The game makes it very clear what their relationship is. And watching this is a turning point for Hijiyama and how he views Okino. Seeing the death of Okino 2188 shakes him, and hardens his resolve and love.

Tsukasa Okino is an interesting character for many reason. We see him first dressed as a woman. When asked about it, he comments “Let’s just say some binaries work for me, and others don’t.”. Throughout the story, Okino alternates between being dressed as a man and a woman. He’s a very practical person and expresses several times his thoughts on both forms of dress and the pros and cons he finds in wearing them. But he never says, “I’m actually a man/woman or I prefer to wear men’s/women’s clothing.” To him, both forms are equal and he switches between them as he feels like through the story. There is also a point in the epilogue where Okino reveals that he can hack into the simulation and change his gender if he wishes. He then offers to turn into a woman and to sleep with Hijiyama. This is a very confident offer made by someone secure in their identity and sexuality. Hijiyama is understandably flustered at the teasing.

Okino openly shows sexual attraction to Hijiyama, mostly presented as teasing jabs at him. As with 2188 Hijiyama, 2188 Okino is explicitly in a Queer relationship and openly affectionate in the data logs. For the most part, present day Okino is busy during the narrative trying to save everyone from the Kaiju, but still finds time to flirt with Hijiyama.

Hijiyama and Okino are the clearest in text examples, but there’s one other stand out example. Iori Fuyusaka. For the most part she spends her story being boy crazy and confused by strange dreams, but there are two interesting moments with her. The first is during the battle section. One of the scripted after battle sections plays and it’s Iori tripping and she scrapes her hand. Yuki Takamiya helps her up and puts a bandage on her hand. It is a very slow, very tender and very deliberate scene. After Yuki leaves, Iori blushes and comments, “Whoa, what the...why is my heart racing right now? Wait, does that mean...? But I didn’t think I was...I mean, what if...” This scene makes it very clear what Iori is feeling and what she is discovering about herself.

In another scene near the beginning of the game in Iori’s story, she’s looking for a cat. She comes across Juro and Shu talking to each other in secretive whispers and embarrassed blushes.

Shu: Just listen. This is a first for me too. You feel it, right?

Juro: ...

Shu: I want to pursue this with you. Please!

Juro: I dunno...it's just...

The edges of the background softens and the camera shifts to center them, soft music plays, and Iori blushes. While the scene itself is a pretty standard confused for gay joke, it’s interesting to see it from Iori’s point of view. When caught, she says:

"I, uh...umm...I think as long as you love each other...it's okay..."

Juro is embarrassed and corrects things. Shu just laughs and is amused by the idea of dating Juro.

Juro: Do you believe us [about our dreams]?

Iori: Well, actually...I'm more surprised to hear that's all it was. Cause, I thought...

She blushes and is interrupted by the bell ringing and class starting.

And in light of the scene with Yuki, it becomes interesting in reflection that her thoughts would go there so quickly. Whether she was conscious of it or not, Iori is very aware of the possibility of same sex attraction. Whether that’s clever foreshadowing or just a neat coincidence is mostly irrelevant.

Uh...that of course brings us to Yuki Takemiya. So...Yuki will get her own post. Because there’s a lot there. Most of which I would argue is heavy subtext. I love the character and her plotline, but it it would be stretching to say that she is textual queer representation. But there’s still a lot to talk about.

13 Sentinels is a game that deals in all variations of relationships; familiar, platonic and romantic, and it’s great that it included queer representation into the text like it did. Hijiyama and Okino gave us a romantic queer relationship, twice, and Iori gives us a Bi-Sexual character who while not in a relationship with a woman is still queer. And that’s always good representation.

#13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim #13 sentinels spoilers #iori fuyusaka #takatoshi hijiyama #tsukasa okino

[kamipixel]

On the, tiring, subject of “queerbaiting” in Good Omens

I’m aware the lack of nuance on this website is well known by now, but sometimes I still have to ask a very loud and very confused “what?” at some of the takes I see on here. Since Good Omens came out over a year ago, every few months, like clockwork, I inevitably see a post talking about how this show is just really “queerbaiting”, or “queer rep lite”, or “bad queer rep” (the sentence “SPN and Good Omens are just as bad” comes to mind as a recent example. Please note that this is not an invitation to bash on SPN). And not only do I have to sigh, because I guess people still haven’t learned what “queerbaiting” means (and I’ve no intention to define it here, there are so many posts on the subject already), but I also have to sigh because, inevitably, there’s always some lovely bout of queerphobia (or internalised queerphobia) that comes prepackaged with these takes.

The language used in these posts is always very “woke”, as the kids would say, and everything is all laid out much more comprehensively than I could ever do. And every time, it’s always an incredible slap to the face. And I’m so incredibly tired of seeing it that I figured, at this point, might as well write my piece on this mess and address what I’ve seen.

I’ve no intention of naming names and putting anyone on blast because that’s not what I’m here for so I’ll paraphrase very simply. These posts always say something to the effect of “the characters aren’t explicitly, canonically, queer, meaning this is queerbaiting”. And yes, said this way, well, why would I ever disagree? Don’t I want confirmed queer representation? And sure, of course I do. But I’m pretty sure that most queer people whose identities are a bit of a moutful, like mine, could tell you that this isn’t what this phrase really mean.

Because what these posts forget to mention is that by “explicit” they mean: “these characters are in a romantic/sexual relationship on screen, these characters kiss (on the mouth) on screen, these characters mention their orientation on screen, these characters say “I love you” in a romantic way on screen...”

Because what these posts forget to mention is that by “queer” they mean: “these specific letters in the LGBT+ alphabet soup and nothing else.”

And so I’ll ignore the fact that most of these arguments brought up when talking of “explicit rep” would feel, to me, incredibly out of character for Aziraphale and Crowley in the context of the show and instead say this for a moment: Good Omens should have the queer rep that I want. Yes, specifically me and only me. I’m going to watch the show again and if Aziraphale and Crowley’s identities are not explicitly moulded to what I want, I’ll make a second post and tell everyone I’ve been led on and that this is just queerbaiting, really.

“Well why the hell should this queer rep fit only what you want to see?” you may rightfully ask. “There so many queer experiences that differ from yours.”

And I’ll tell you: “oh it absolutely shouldn’t, but this is exactly what these posts are insinuating, isn’t it? Only in a very reasonable manner, and with very nice words indeed.”

Let me tell you three things about myself for a moment. I’m aromantic and don’t care much for romantic relationships, I dislike kisses on the mouth very much, and for complicated reasons it took me years before I openly told my girlfriend I loved her.

Curious, isn’t it? That’s the exact opposite of what these queerbaiting posts say I should want to see.

Let me tell you one last thing about myself. I cried when I first watched Good Omens because for the first time ever, I saw characters and a relationship in mainstream media I could identify with.

Not to mention that apparently, I guess, to the people who write these posts, gender doesn’t exist anymore either. Was Crowley switching up his gender expression a whole lot, not “explicit” enough? Or did no one think it mattered because it wasn’t a romantic/sexual orientation? Have we really gone back to the “if they’re not gay nothing else counts” takes now? Really?

So next time I see someone whine about queerbaiting and Aziraphale and Crowley not being “confirmed” gay, or in a romantic relationship, I think I’ll just laugh and say: “why did you think they were? Where did you even get that impression?”

Honestly I have a lot more to say on all of this, but I’m not quite sure how to write it so I suppose this will do for now.

I really do understand the frustration with shows that give you nothing but crumbs, and I know it’s tempting to buy into the whole “all or nothing” trend with queer rep that tumblr likes to push. And It's understandable to be disappointed by the lack of representation you want to see. And you can make as much art, and headcanons, and posts, and stories as you want to fill that gap. And you're free to find other shows that suit you better or make your own thing as well. But don't come to my door crying wolf, wrongfully saying that Good Omens is “bad rep” or “queerbaiting”, and essentially spit in my face by telling me my idea of representation isn't queer enough. That I’m not queer enough.

#good omens #queerbaiting #long post #fandom nonsense i guess #thanks for coming to my tedtalk #i'm so tired you guys #i write stuff sometimes #i didn't have this on my spn ending consequences bingo but i guess here we are #again...

[thinkingisadangerouspastime]

I find it really intriguing how the ATLA writers could have gone a “brotherly love” route with Zuko and Aang, but they never did. Even in LOK, the only thing that I remember Iroh saying about their relationship was that they canonically became the best of friends and that Zuko knew Aang better than anyone, even more than Katara and their children. I find the direction of their relationship a contrast to how often the bond between the male protagonist and the male antagonist that are spiritually linked in other media is reduced to “they were like brothers” and put aside for the respective heterosexual romances of the leads, even though the relationships between the leads often have homoerotic subtext and can be interpreted through a queer lens. I guess what I’m wondering is: would you classify Zuko and Aang’s relationship as brotherly? Do you support interpretations where their relationship is viewed as brotherly? And finally (I’m sorry for all of the questions): why do you think the ATLA writers - who seem to mostly be composed of cishet men - never took the “brotherly love” route and left the nature of their relationship ambiguous?

This ask has been in my inbox for a Hot Minute 💀 my apologies, my friend. And since I haven’t seen LOK, I won’t try to speak on the front. Before I continue, though, @likealittleheartbeat has an AMAZING analysis here about the interpretation of Aang and Zuko’s relationship through a queer-platonic lens that I found to be an incredible read and arguably could answer this ask on its own, lol!

I guess the general “issue” that must be addressed to answer these questions is simply how we define brotherly. That “we” can be divided into the viewers and the writers, only adding another layer of complexity. Because the reality is that we can’t jump into the creators minds and see exactly how they intended Zuko and Aang’s relationship to be interpreted. We can make deductions, e.g. the existence of Kataang and Maiko suggests Zuko and Aang were not intended to have a romantic relationship within canon (duh, lol). In fact, you could even add another division to the “we” - the writers, the viewers, and the characters themselves (i.e. interpretation through the cultural lenses that inspired the show).

All of this is to say that there is not going to be one agreed-upon definition of “brotherly,” lol! Since you seem to be asking for my personal opinions, I’ll go with my personal definition. If anyone has differing thoughts in response to these questions, please feel free to add them in a comment or rb! I think there’s a lot to explore here and my sole opinion is Not the be-all and end-all, lmao.

So, what is my personal definition of “brotherly”? I’m not going to try to make a formal definition, lol, but the gist of my interpretation is a platonic relationship akin to that of siblings. To me, there is a difference between having a “brotherly relationship” with someone versus a “friendship” (I almost used “friendly relationship” but that didn’t feel right jskdfhakdls). I think these two can overlap and/or be the same, but - for example - I have friends who I would say without hesitation that I am incredibly close with, but I also would not classify that friendship as “sisterly.” (Again, these are strictly my personal thoughts, and I encourage further discussion in comments/rbs!)

I’ll take your questions one at a time:

Would you classify Zuko and Aang’s relationship as brotherly?

Personally? Probably not. To me, there is a sense of superficiality associated with the term “brotherly” that in my eyes can be reductive to platonic relationships between men (can be, not always lol). I think with Zuko and Aang, the relationship just runs much deeper than “brotherly” can connote. For one, they are the primary narrative foils of the show! The only relationship that comes close to theirs in terms of narrative significance is Kataang (which is a very different dichotomy, btw, I’m not trying to compare them lol). We have numerous episodes dedicated to the parallels between Aang and Zuko, including but not limited to “The Storm” and “The Avatar and the Fire Lord.” I mean, this is an actual quote from the latter episode:

Do you really think friendships can last more than one lifetime?

We see variants of this line and the notion of friendship itself associated throughout that episode explicitly with Roku and Sozin, Roku and Gyatso, and of course the Gaang at the end, but implicitly we also know it’s about Aang and Zuko, too. Aang says, “Everyone, even the Fire Lord and the Fire Nation, have to be treated like they’re worth giving a chance.” One common take with this line that I’ve seen is interpreting it as foreshadowing for Aang’s decision to spare Ozai - which obviously is a fair assessment - but we cannot also ignore how much it applies to Zuko joining the Gaang. Specifically, Zuko reconciling with Aang.

We all know Aang was the first person to extend friendship to Zuko back in “The Blue Spirit” and tbh, after he saw Appa licking Zuko, you can tell Aang was nearly willing to extend a second chance to Zuko then and there lol. Aang and Zuko’s friendship, them being drawn together, is a relationship that transcends lifetimes, transcends social norms/expectations, transcends a loss greater than anyone can imagine (for Aang) and offers a new opportunity arguably far more than deserved (for Zuko). I think ascribing a qualifier of “brotherly” to their relationship therefore limits this transcendence because of how much their dynamic encompasses.

Do you support interpretations where their relationship is viewed as brotherly?

Of course! One of the reasons I love A:TLA - especially my small corner of the fandom - is how many interpretations that every relationship presents, be it a small “difference” (such as calling Zuko and Aang’s relationship “brotherly”) or a more drastic one (exploring fanon possibilities with rarepairs, let’s go #AangRarepairWeek 😎). So even if this interpretation isn’t one I’m inclined to in the literal sense (i.e. it’s the “brotherly” qualifier I feel I dislike, because I do love platonic Zukaang as much as romantic Zukaang), I absolutely encourage others to make the most of their fandom experience and product/support content that they enjoy!

Why do you think the ATLA writers - who seem to mostly be composed of cishet men - never took the “brotherly love” route and left the nature of their relationship ambiguous?

I will say that we don’t really have any way of knowing the sexualities and gender identities of every single A:TLA writer, lol. I’m not saying they were all queer in some way, of course, but I just want to establish that we don’t and can’t know unless told. If that makes sense 😂

As I mentioned earlier, I have no way of getting inside the writers’ minds to determine their intentions when they were writing Zuko and Aang’s relationship, so all you’re gonna get here are my best guesses lmao! For one, there wasn’t really a need to outright label Zuko and Aang as having a “brotherly” relationship. The existence of Kataang and Maiko again speak for themselves. Most viewers - especially casual watchers - don’t need the show to state “these two only love each other in a brotherly way” to conclude that the relationship was platonic (or rather, was not romantic), especially considering that the show was made in the mid-2000s (i.e. sad but true, most people weren’t watching A:TLA with a queer lens 😔). So I wouldn’t say they left the relationship “ambiguous” so much as there wasn’t need to qualify it further than simply being platonic.

Of course, I do think there is an ambiguity that comes with Aang and Zuko’s relationship, which I love to exploit in my Zukaang fics 😌. Was that ambiguity intentional? Again, I’m inclined to say no. But I can’t speak with certainty and - as I discussed earlier - I truly think Aang and Zuko’s relationship would be limited by being called “brotherly” when their connection runs so deeply and is intertwined so heavily with the spiritual themes of the show. Thus, it’s possible the writers were purposefully emphasizing that spirituality by not labelling them as “brotherly”! But as I said, there’s really no way to be sure.

At the end of the day, I don’t think it matters how someone chooses to label Aang and Zuko’s relationship. I mean, I’m always a little horrified when a person completely overlooks their narrative significance as foils (because I personally can’t imagine dismissing either of their importance to the other), but hey, to each their own. Brotherly, queerplatonic, romantic, and hell, anything in-between - these interpretations are anyone’s for the taking. Have fun with it! 💛

(I hope this at least kind of resembles the answer you were looking for, anon 😂)

#aang #zuko #aanglove #zukaang #atla #avatar the last airbender #atla meta #the avatar and the firelord #amy answers #anon #amy analyzes

[queerfables]

Destiel and Metanarratives: A Romance for the Ages

There are a lot of reasons the Destiel controversy got as big as it is. Obviously Supernatural is a huge fandom, and Destiel is the biggest ship in it, so to some degree it was inevitable. But this goes way beyond that. 

Silencing of queer stories is an old, festering wound and it affects the entire LGBTQ+ community.  If the relationship between Dean and Castiel had been handled better, on a show as big as Supernatural, it could have been profoundly revolutionary. Instead it just highlighted all the ways that even though representation has come a long way, what we have is so inadequate, and still we have to fight tooth and nail for it.

And then compounding the unfulfilled potential of what this story could have been is the impossible fact that Supernatural ended, but Dean and Cas's story is still not over. We're all left holding our breath waiting to see how it turns out.

It's relevant that towards the end, Supernatural got REALLY meta. Like, seriously, God is a writer trying to control the heroes' lives through storytelling? The characters are literally trying to escape a narrative that's pushing them to act in ways they don't want? And instead of wrapping the final season up in a way that gives fans of a show that's been on air for 15 damn years closure and satisfaction, they drop plot threads all over the place and tell us about happy endings that we never see, show us happy endings that feel hollow. Throw in one of the biggest and most iconic queer ships of all time just barely breaking through into canon, in a way that asks more questions than it answers, and you’ve basically engineered the perfect storm of fandom backlash.

The nature of Supernatural's metanarrative meant the unsatisfactory ending alone would have been enough to make waves in fandom. The characters' last battle was against an ending they didn't want, and we're told they won but it feels like they lost. If "someone else is writing this story" has become a core part of the show's canon, it's inevitable fans will look more closely at what feels authentic and reject the parts of the story that don't ring true. All along characters have been asking questions like "Is this really me or am I just being written that way?" and "How much agency do I really have in this story?" The writers have been telling us to think about the distinction between the choices a real person makes, which arise out of that person’s own interests, and the choices a fictional character makes, which are dictated by the people who control the story, people whose interests might not actually align with the characters'. It’s against that backdrop that Dean and Cas’s story plays out, and boy, is that some foreshadowing.

Because first, you’ve got Despair. Despair, which was supposed to be The Truth. You’ve got Cas dropping a revelation about his motivations that changes the meaning of the entire show (or if you’ve been paying attention, maybe just confirms it). You’ve got a romantic, heroic,  earth-shattering sacrifice, where Cas tells Dean, "I know I can't have you, but I love you anyway, and I'm giving up everything to save you." You've got Dean receiving this declaration under the worst possible circumstances and having no time at all to respond. And after it's over and the dust settles, Dean still doesn't tell us how he feels. There’s a question that any audience with an ounce of investment in the characters is going to be asking, and that question is, does he love Castiel back? And he doesn’t tell us. The show ends, and he doesn’t tell us. We're left to make our own assumptions, and though everything in the story signals there are gaps in the narrative that we're missing, beyond the story we’re told over and over that we're reading into it. The question hangs, but we know we’re supposed to see Castiel's love as unrequited.

And then. AND THEN. Out of nowhere comes a new version of the episode. It's supposed to be identical to the first version, but it's not, and it proves there’s a reason we felt like something was missing, and it’s because something WAS. Despair turns back into The Truth. Dean loves Castiel back. Dean loves him, and he wanted to say it, and he was silenced.

Listen. This is heartbreaking. But it's also breathtakingly, devastatingly romantic. Dean loves Castiel so much that even though their story was supposed to end with his feelings unspoken, he found a way to say it anyway! He said it even though he was never meant to. He said it even though they cut his words out and tried to pretend he never felt them. Against all the odds, he made himself heard. This story about agency and truth and the very nature of narratives is coming to life before our eyes and LITERALLY NO ONE KNOWS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT.

That, I think, is why so many people are riveted. It's not "just about a ship", you can't reduce and dismiss it like that, but it sure is about a queer romance so powerful that trying to cut it out made the whole story fall apart, and even then it still couldn't be silenced. It's about a lot of other things too, but let's take a moment to bask in the sheer triumph of that.

It's not over yet, either. The story isn't just coming to life, it's drawing all of us into it. Will Dean find more ways to make himself heard, as the story is told and retold in other languages around the world? Will we be able to prove that this was always what he wanted to say? And can we make sure the network hears our outrage and suffers actual consequences for trying to silence Dean? For trying to silence us?

I'm talking about Dean like he's a real person because, especially in the context of Supernatural's metanarrative, that is how this feels. But what's more amazing is that there must have been a whole team of people working behind the scenes to get this to the point that they did. In one version of the story or another, Dean and Castiel both spoke their truths, and that's not because of a single "rogue translator" (although, yeah, we owe the Latin American dub team who did their jobs and translated the scene faithfully instead of toning down the queer romance - which happens all too often - and got this piece of the story told). It’s not because of any single person. It's because of the writers and directors pushing the queer subtext for years, until without any other explicitly romantic scenes, this confession made total sense. It's because of Misha and Jensen, putting their heart and soul into these characters and then in their final scene together bringing the romance out of the realm of subtext and into the text. It's because of the editors who cut together the original version of the episode, the one that the Latin American dub was translated from. It's because of every damn person who ever fought for this ship to be a little more present in the show, and it’s because of the fans who fell in love with Dean and Castiel’s relationship and saw that it was a love story worth telling and refused to let the creators forget about it.

Fandom, at its heart, is a community of people who are obsessed with stories. We tell stories about other worlds because they fascinate us. We tell stories about the connections between characters because they make us feel things we can’t let go. We tell stories about ourselves - our identities, our loves, our lives - because sometimes no one else will. We tell stories about stories because stories matter. And when Dean and Castiel loved each other so fiercely that even the story itself couldn’t keep them apart, they became part of something bigger. They became a symbol of the creativity and defiance and freedom that defines fandom. We’re a community obsessed with stories, and beyond the realm of fiction, escaping into the real world that lives outside the television screen, Dean and Castiel’s love story is a great one. 

#supernatural #destiel #somethingtosay #theysilencedyou #fable speaks #otp: la verdad

[qqueenofhades]

The photo set you reblogged of Yusuf and Niccolo helping throughout time just filled me with so many happy feels and it made me realize that it seems so common in media with immortal couples that they take breaks from each other and reconnect after a few decades. Which is a great trope but seeing these two that seems to have been attached at the hip since the day they met just fills me with all the heart eyes.

(I haven't read your fanfics for them yet. I know I'm a bad fan but if it helps I havent been able to read anything since all this started but while writing this ask I got the feeling that all this rambling I spewed out is a big theme)

Hush. Bad fan nothing. We all are coping with this stupid, awful year in different ways, some of us by escaping into fandom and some of us being unable to engage with it and some of us doing both or anything else. You certainly don’t owe me or anyone any obligation to interact with our content, fic or otherwise. So just to have that there on the top. You’re good, hun. :)

ANYWAY, thank you for giving me a chance to meta a bit on the boys and their relationship and to have a window into what my brain looks like pretty much 24/7 these days. (I blame them.) I keep thinking about all the ways this couple is depicted in the TOG film and how lovely it was and how unusual it is for me to have an OTP where I actually love them in canon and don’t need to violently disavow it in order to create AU fan content with just the characters. (See: Timeless, Game of Thrones, pretty much any show I’ve hyperfixated on at some point.) I love AUs anyway, because that’s the way my brain works, but the fact that I can also enjoy canon just as much is rare for me and for a lot of us. I saw a post somewhere remarking on how the fanfic for Joe/Nicky isn’t fixing anything, which is usually the point of transformative fanworks: we take something that canon atrociously fucked up and fix it. But in this case, all our interpretations are based on actually appreciating the way they’re presented in canon and wanting to enjoy that and uphold it, and that -- especially with a couple like this one -- is shocking??

Like. Despite my historian gripes about the occasionally incongruous details for their graphic-novel backstories (which are the only things I HAVE fixed in my fics), I’m just... deeply appreciative of the care which everyone, writers and actors and all else, put into depicting Joe and Nicky and their relationship. And god YES, one of the things I love the absolute MOST is that they’re a loving, faithful, committed, happy married queer couple over centuries, and that seems to be the case for as long as they’ve known each other/ever since they got together. (See Booker’s “you and Nicky always had each other.”) These fools can’t sleep apart from each other even when they’re stuck on a freight train in the middle of nowhere, they flirt like teenagers at dinnertime and even when they’re strapped to gurneys in a mad-scientist laboratory, they make out to enrage bad guys and also because they’re just still that goddamn into each other after all this time.

I think it was Marwan Kenzari who pointed out that there’s simply no way to truly state the depth of their knowledge and devotion and commitment to each other. They’re 950 years old. They have known each other since they were in their thirties; they’ve been husbands for literal centuries. There is no way anyone else in the world could possibly come close to replicating the kind of bond they have with each other, and neither of them have ever had any inclination to look, because why would they? Especially with the fact that queer couples in media, even otherwise sympathetically portrayed ones, often have Drama and Third Parties and Promiscuity and whatever else (because of the tiresome old canard that Gays Equal Hypersexualized!), and Joe and Nicky don’t need or want ANY of that. There’s no urge to make their relationship a cheap source of soap-opera conflict. It’s the rock and the center and the core of both of their lives, and everything they do stems from that.

There have been some great metas/comments on how neither Joe and Nicky are sexualized, they dress like stay-at-home dads during quarantine (Marwan Kenzari and Luca Marinelli are both objectively gorgeous men, and they’re out there looking like that, god bless), and the viewer is never invited to goggle at or fetishize their relationship. There are no leering or exploitative camera angles on anyone, and their expressions of love aren’t posed or intended to titillate the audience, they’re just solidly embodied and natural and lived in. It’s never bothered to be stated clunkily in dialogue that they’re a couple; we just see them exchanging looks and smiles in the early part of the film, and then we see them spooning on the train after the mission in Sudan, which confirms it.

At every turn, the narrative celebrates the kindness and love shared by the Immortal Family, the individual characters, and Joe and Nicky, especially and explicitly in queer form. The villains of the film are also defined by how they react negatively to that love. @viridianpanther​ had a great meta on how Keane as a villain is especially set up to menace Joe and Nicky as the narrative representation of toxic masculinity, aggressive heterosexuality, and the usual “Kill Your Gays” trope that we’ve all come to wearily expect. But instead, after that scene where Joe and Nicky fight Keane, Nicky is shot and comes back to life in Joe’s arms rather than dying permanently like we probably all momentarily expected, and then Joe gets to FUCKIN’ BREAK THE NECK of the guy who enacted that violence.... good GOD. The first time I watched it, I almost couldn’t believe it was happening. (This goes for the whole film, but especially that scene.) Like... when do we get that?? When do we EVER get that???

Obviously, there are so many stereotypes, whether visually or in behavior or character traits, that could have been assigned to a gay Italian character (excessively dramatic, effeminate, fashionable, etc) or a gay Arabic/Muslim character (explicitly announcing He’s Not Like Those Muslims, having to actively reject his heritage to make him more palatable to westerners, being tormented over being gay, etc) and Joe and Nicky subscribe to none of those. I get very emotional about Joe referring to Nicky as the moon when he is lost during the truck scene partly because it’s SUCH a common motif in Arabic love poetry. To call someone your “moon” is a beautiful way to say they’re the light of your life, and since the Islamic calendar is obviously lunar and the holidays, months, and observances, are set by the phases of the moon, this also has a deeper religious significance.

I don’t know for sure if they did that on purpose, but it it’s a lovely and subtle way of showing us how Joe clearly doesn’t have an issue with being both queer AND Muslim, and is able to draw on both facets of that identity in a way that a lesser narrative would have denied him. And that is just really wonderful. Yes, we’re seeing these characters when they’ve had centuries to settle into themselves, but there are plenty of writers who would have forced those conflicts artificially to the surface, rather than letting them be long in the past. It’s the same way when you watch a film set in the medieval era, it wants you to know that it Is Set In The Medieval Era. Cue the filth, misogyny, racism, violence, etc! Rather than it being a lived-in reality, it has to be jarringly drawn attention to, and I’m just so glad they didn’t do that with Joe and Nicky. And for them to have met in the crusades and fallen in love??! Come on. That’s just rude. Rude to me, personally.

Anyway, this was a rather long-winded and feelsy way of saying that these characters are constructed, acted, and written organically in such a way that you hate to even THINK of them being separated, and it’s not because they can’t function without each other, but because they are two halves of a whole. We also see that the characters themselves can’t stand being forced apart: Joe’s freakout in the truck scene when Nicky briefly won’t wake up, Nicky making sure to tell Joe that he’s glad he’s awake in the lab, the whole post-Keane fight scene that I talked about above, the way Nicky fights ferociously to get to Joe when Merrick’s stabbing him, etc. For that to be given to the queer couple, where the strength of their love and devotion is reinforced as one of the emotional goals of the story, and for that queer couple to be written in the way that Joe and Nicky are, both individually and as a unit, is just so very rare.

Because yes, there’s plenty of drama and angst and pain in their lives, but there’s none at all in their relationship, and that’s what fans keep telling TV writers the whole time: they WANT to see the couple confront things as a unit, rather than being kept on tenterhooks the whole time and forced to go through manufactured or artificial drama. It would feel especially wrong for Joe and Nicky, who have known and loved each other for 900 years. The fact that their respective actors also put so much care and love into them is very obvious, and makes me feel even luckier that they’re played by people who clearly get them and honor them and know what they’re doing.

Basically: of course Joe and Nicky have been with each other the whole time, and of course we’re all drowning in feelings over it, and I feel very blessed that this ship exists, and I very much need the sequel ASAP. Thanks.

#the old guard meta #joe x nicky #immortal husbands #long post #roseoswiins #ask

[ineffable-endearments]

Okay. Now I'm going to submit some theories about how I think Crowley and Aziraphale specifically are going to go in the future of Good Omens.

Again, this post is not really...specific theorizing about plot events. It's big-picture stuff.

With that said, this post will get a bit heavy at times, in the sense that it will contain opinions that not everyone will like. It drifted into rambling about queerbaiting and all that stuff. I'm not going to spam anyone's dashboard with drama over it, but it's very possible someone else might try. It's also not really a negative post, depending on what you want to hear, I suppose. But if you're only in the mood to read fluff today, you'll probably want to pass it up.

Oh! Also it's very long, and sexuality is discussed in a vague way that doesn't involve any story elements or body parts.

For starters, I don't think Good Omens 2 - or even 3, if that comes about - is going to have anything explicitly sexual or romantic between the two of them, where "explicit" is things like the characters giving outright definitions of their relationship or outright discussing exactly what goes on between them, either on or off-screen. I also don't think there's going to be kissing or "hooking up" (come on...that person on Twitter shouldn't have even asked). Those actions are too blatant for what Neil has already said about the series. While they technically leave some room for interpretation, they probably don't leave enough.

I DO think it's quite possible other characters will continue to define the relationship FOR them and Crowley and Aziraphale will continue to not deny it.

As far as the queerbaiting debate, "is Good Omens queerbaiting"...it's gonna depend how you define it. I always learned that queerbaiting was basically where the creators intentionally make it look like a character is gay or otherwise queer but then swap that character development out for a cis identity and hetero relationship at the end. The point is that the "bait" leads to queer audiences being actively hurt. That's the behavior that seems awful to me, and I don't see Neil and company doing that.

However, I think it's far and away the most likely option that it will be left up to interpretation whether Crowley and Aziraphale are, you know, a buddy duo or a romantic couple or some sort of ineffable queerness all their own off-screen. So if your definition of queerbaiting is "the characters seem gay to us, but homophobes can tell themselves they're not," then yes, I think that debate will follow us to our graves if we let it.

I am a cisgender, possibly straight (?? demi/bi? I might never find out) woman. There is absolutely no way I could ever tell anybody, ESPECIALLY not gay guys and nonbinary people - the people Crowley and Aziraphale tend to resemble the most - how to feel about their treatment in the story. All I can offer is that I'm one flawed individual and there are things I have the emotional capacity to handle and things I don't. Crowley and Aziraphale as both a canon construct and a fandom pairing mean an absurd amount to me, and I can't hang around in spaces where people are constantly talking about how my own interpretations of them are not enough, or how the story is written with ill intentions. I don't want to stop anybody from venting about it, but I am going to be removing myself from those situations.

I like to imagine 1990 NeilandTerry, or TerryandNeil, as a sort of two-headed God who came up with Crowley and Aziraphale, set them loose on Creation, and now are watching them get up to way more ridiculous stuff in the brains of their fans than they'd ever imagined in the first place. I like to imagine them watching, amused and bemused, as their creations fall in love in thousands of universes, and saying, "Well, we didn't specifically Plan for this, but we did promise free will."

This is psychoanalytical toward a public figure and is therefore a bit dangerous, so please take it with an entire mountain of salt, but I sometimes think perhaps Neil sees some of his and Terry's friendship in Crowley and Aziraphale, and suspect that he wants to reserve the possibility that they could be platonic because he and Terry were platonic, while at the same time leaving room for the fans to have their own interpretations, too. Because if there's one thing that comes up really frequently with Neil, it's his belief in imagination and how much stories matter to people. He can have his little corner of the universe where A and C reflect himself and Terry, and we can have...literally anything we want, as long as we're willing to extrapolate just a little bit from canon. It's not even that much extrapolation! It's just "Yes, they love each other, so what exactly does love mean to you?" and if love means kissing, well then, if we can think it, we can have it.

Given that Neil has written LGBT+ characters before, I think he has non-bigoted reasons for wanting Aziraphale and Crowley to remain undefined, and given even the small chance that those reasons may involve the grieving process for a dead friend, I believe it is unkind to argue with him about it or hold his reputation hostage over it.

With that said, do I want canon kissing/hooking up/all that stuff we put in fics? Listen, I can't deny that I do! Personally, I'd be over the moon. I'd probably be so happy I'd have to go to the hospital to get sorted out. Even the thought of it makes me giddy and light-headed, because that physicality is a part of my own experience of love.

However, there are a lot of people who would feel left behind if that happened. Ace and aro people in the fandom whose love for their friends and partners is just as strong as mine, but who are sex-repulsed or just don't want to see kissing on-screen. The loss of Crowley and Aziraphale as a pairing who are extremely easy to interpret as queerplatonic would be hurtful to them, and I do not want to see them hurt like that. I don't think Neil does, either.

So, once again, the "best for everyone" option becomes a really strong canon relationship based in both narrative function and profound affection, which has genuinely thoughtful queer undertones and leaves open the logical possibility for romantic or sexual encounters but does not insist that they must happen. People, especially fans who are super invested, tend to have an easier time imagining scenarios that take place off-screen (e.g. kissing, sex) than they have erasing scenarios that they've already seen in canon (e.g., if someone wished they could continue viewing it as an ace relationship but they were shown "hooking up"). Also, while relationships are super emotional and extremely subjective, I'd argue that in a long-term adult partnership, the non-sexual connection is more important than the sexual one. As a fan, I'd prefer to extrapolate "they love each other so maybe they'd have sex" rather than "they're sexually attracted to each other so maybe they'll intertwine their whole existences together."

It probably isn't necessary to add, but I will anyway: I'm aware that Good Omens is sort of sacrificing social leverage - the ability to whack homophobes over the head with canon if they try to deny the show's queerness - and is thus not really contributing to making specifically gay relationships more widely seen and accepted. However, I don't think all stories have to invest heavily in every social issue they touch on for them to still be meaningful. I also do think Good Omens is an excellent example of a relationship that is extremely profound without being heteronormative.

I don't think the next season is going to be a rom-com. It will likely not even be a "love story," where the definition of "love story" is "a story that follows the development of a relationship and employs certain plot beats to make its point." Remember that conflicts and breakups are key to love stories, so if it IS a love story, then we're going to have to watch the relationship get challenged in ways some of us might have thought were already resolved in season 1! And while that could be thrilling and ultimately very good, it would also be likely to undercut some of the careful headcanoning and analysis we've already done. Any sequel is going to do that to some degree, but a second love story would probably do it a lot, with interpretations that people are even more protective of.

I'm sort of thinking the next season is likely to be a fantasy-heavy mystery, only because those are the two concepts Neil's introduction led with - an angel with amnesia who presents Crowley and Aziraphale with a mystery. Crowley and Aziraphale's connection to each other can still absolutely be a major theme! It can still be the thread stitching the plot together! It just probably, in my opinion, won't escalate and escalate and escalate like it did in season 1. And it will probably be woven in there among a lot of other plot threads that are, in many moments, louder. Still, I'd love to be left with the impression of these two existences, the light and the dark, subtly becoming more intimate, subtly growing more comfortable in this shared place they've chosen in the universe, gradually starting to behave like they know they aren't alone in the world anymore, all while other things happen to and around them.

Nonsexual physical intimacy - a really great hug, or leaning together on the sofa, or a forehead touch, or something like those, something that could happen in a lot of different kinds of relationships but is undoubtedly based in deep trust and affection and a desire to be close...that's the dream, for me. Oh, how lovely it would be.

Of course, I could be just absolutely, embarrassingly wrong about all this. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[gaysiancomics]

Laura Dean Keeps Breaking Up With Me

Synopsis

Freddy is the indie teen archetypal protagonist of Laura Dean Keeps Breaking Up With Me. As an Asian-American kid caught in an unhappy relationship with her white girlfriend, Freddy shares much in common with Tamaki’s other protagonists. LD hurts Freddy by making out with other girls at parties and dances (Tamaki & Valero-O’Connell, 12), while emotionally manipulating Freddy by engaging when it is convenient to herself, only to vanish afterwards. This is demonstrated when LD abruptly leaves Freddy’s house after having lost interest in the conversation (99), and later when demanding that Freddy attend her birthday party (240). Freddy in turn behaves in a self-destructive manner, returning again and again to Freddy.

Abusive Relationships & Healthy Friendships

LD’s treatment of Freddy forms a cyclical pattern that may define not only abusive relationships, but can also serve as a personification of trauma in general. When Freddy first attempts to break up with LD, LD says, “You know every time we break up, we always get back together” (199). Freddy’s friends are initially supportive, despite Freddy going through her third break up with LD. They listen to her problems (23), and offer to start a rumor about LD (35). But Freddy’s obsession with LD affects her ability to be a good friend. She neglects to defend her friends when LD calls them “boring” (129), and is late to Doodle’s abortion appointment because of LD’s attention-seeking behaviors (250). Freddy’s inability to be kind to herself, ultimately compromises her ability to be kind to others. This culminates in a major conflict between Freddy and her best friend, Doodle (225).

Similar to The Magic Fish, Laura Dean Keeps Breaking Up With Me does not end with romantic love, but platonic love, this time between two friends. It is Doodle’s time of need, after their abortion—and LD’s lack of consideration—that leads Freddy to LD’s house to break up with her. Watching Doodle sleep, Freddy considers her email from the advice columnist. “What does your love with this person offer you? Does it make you happy? Does it give you what you need to be a better person?” (265). These questions, originally posed towards Freddy’s relationship with LD, are recontextualized in Freddy’s relationship with Doodle. It is Doodle who fulfills Freddy, and who gives her a supportive, platonic relationship. Not LD.

Postmodern Spaces

Similar to Skim, there is little mention of Freddy’s ethnic identity in Laura Dean. Her ethnicity has little impact over the narrative. Whereas Skim is kicked out of a party, and that experience significantly shapes her relationship to other characters in the book, Freddy experiences milder micro-aggressions that do not impact the plot, such as being exotified by her own girlfriend for her race: “It’s so multicultural to have an Asian girlfriend with a name like Frederica,” LD remarks as they lay in bed (85).

Sexuality is dealt with in a similarly post-modern approach. Adult figures and peers alike are either ambivalent or supportive of queer relationships—and the issues taken with Freddy and LD’s relationship has nothing to do with them being same-sex, but with theirs being a toxic dynamic. In contrast to Skim’s homophobic, all-white high school, the spaces illustrated in Laura Dean are more likely queer-friendly and inclusive. Laura Dean takes place in Berkeley, a center for queer life, and Freddy works at a queer café, where queer people are free to discuss their interpersonal relationships (159), and where Freddy finds support in her break up with LD. Even spaces that are not immediately notable are made into queer spaces by the fact that Freddy is often surrounded by friends and acquaintances, all queer-coded in some way.

While homophobia, and to a lesser degree, racism, are present, they are presented in an understated way. Buddy, an explicitly queer character, and Marcus, a supposedly cisthet character, for example, have some kind of altercation in the locker room regarding name-calling (113). Though we never know what kind of name-calling this entails, the locker room setting insinuates some kind of queer-phobia in that it has traditionally been a place of binary gender segregation, hyper-masculinity, and homophobia. In taking this approach, Tamaki and O’Connell dismantle differences that have defined narratives about what is queer and what isn’t, while also acknowledging the legacy of racism and homophobia which shape the life of an individual like Freddy.

#laura dean keeps breaking up with me

[bloody-f4g]

i actually kind of like whatever’s happening with adiray. 

if i were writing it, yes, gray would still be alive, BUT, given that he is dead, I don’t think it’s the immediate bury your gays we all thought it might be, and a good thing?

the trans experience is full of loss.  loss of your past identity and the trimmings that come with it, and for many people loss of others in their life because they’re trans.  being trans is loss of nights spent worrying about who you are and those around you.  loss of many experiences, memories you feel you cannot truly relive or share because they represent someone you wish you didn’t appear as or embody.  the same goes for being queer in general: loss of expectations, life no longer fitting into the heteronormative timeline, loss of friends and family members. and the queer community as a whole is still overshadowed by the effects of the aids pandemic.

on the other hand, the trans experience is full of joy.  joy at finally finding yourself, joy at finding others like yourself, joy at love, joy at transition (gender euphoria is imho just as important to the trans experience than gender dysphoria, if not more so -- and you don’t need dysphoria to be trans).  joy in the face of loss, as an act of defiance.  joy that a lot of trans and queer people don’t get to experience. 

I don’t think that being queer is fundamentally an experience of loss, but rather one of underlying joy that is often overshadowed by the loss associated with it within our society.  in the futuristic utopia of star trek i hope the inherent ideas of loss shouldn't be associated with queerness, but these ideas of loss are still so closely tied to queerness in our own world that it is very much in the vein of science fiction and star trek specificially

so.  star trek: so far in discovery we have five canonical queer characters, three of which (jett, paul and adira) have had their partner die soon after (or before) we were introduced to them.  In both Paul and Adira’s cases, we get to see them grieve, with attempts to reconnect and attempts to reconcile this loss. 

I don’t think that this truly fits the model of the “bury your gays” trope.  That trope relies on the Hayes’ Code’s standard that queer characters should be shown to suffer or otherwise be reprimanded for “indecent behavior.”  Although the partners of these queer characters do die, we see their grieving and reconciliation, as well as a return (in some form) of hugh and gray.  The queer characters’ narratives aren’t defined by loss: they are fleshed out characters whose queerness isn’t shown as a progenitor of loss.  The loss isn’t a way to shove away their characters, but rather a way to show development in the face of loss.

I think this development in the face of loss is actually defiance of the trope of killing off queer characters as a way of punishing them.  Queer joy in the face of loss is an act of rebellion.

I mentioned the aids pandemic earlier and this needs expansion: the queer community is used to experiencing profound loss, and the idea of Hugh and Gray “coming back” from the dead because of Paul/Adira in some extent is  really interesting.  because it underlies an idea that the love and bonds between the characters reaches past death.  the queer community’s strength is so much created by death and loss; bringing back Hugh and Gray is an acknowledgement of that history and understanding that in the future, we don’t need that loss to have that strength.

i don’t think it was intentional by the writers, but i think there’s some element of queer liberation to existing in a relationship outside of expectations in society

I really have no idea where Adiray will go.  Will Gray stay as a ghost? Will the rest of the crew know about him?  Will he be treated as Adira’s quirky head rooomate or as a living breathing character with hopes and fears?  But I have hope it could be a strong statement about the power of love and queer strength in the face of loss.

Also: all five of these characters being open (we know that Gray and Adira will be explicitly trans later in the season via an interview with Blu) is honestly a really good step forward and yes, i know that fact isn’t that much, but it gives me a lot of hope.  i wish i had that kind of representation when I was first coming out. 

((this is just my pov, and other queer people are totally valid in their take on this, please add on if you have any thoughts))

#not really related but i think its interesting in the context of the aids pandemic that jett was the one to comfort paul and help him move o #n bc this was one of the first time lesbians in solidarity with gay men like this taking care of the sick. #this ws def not a conscious choice by the writers lmaoo #weee i spent my lunch period writing a rambling on tumblr huh #long post #trek tag #disco #discovery #adiray #culmets #adira tal #gray tal #jett reno #analysis #star trek #someone mightve said some of this stuff bf but i didnt see it lol

[queermediastudies]

Blue is, in fact, not only the Warmest Color, but her name is Emma - Alec Thomas

Blue is the Warmest Color is a 2013 film adaptation of a comic series of the same name, made by Julie Maroh in 2010. This film follows a French teenager named Adele, who is what seems to be very introverted and unsure of her place in the world. Adele dates a boy named Thomas at school, but when they eventually have sex for the first time, Adele is left unfulfilled by Thomas, realizing there might be more to her sexual identity than she knows, and decides to break off their relationship. Her openly gay best friend Valentin hears about her confusion, and decides to take her out to a men’s gay bar. Adele leaves Valentin and wanders off to a neighboring lesbian bar, where she ends up meeting Emma, the blue haired girl who is also a graduating art student. The two have resounding energy off one another almost immediately, and they become friends quickly. It isn’t long after that they kiss for the first time during a picnic, before they bloom into a full relationship with one another. Emma’s family is very welcoming of Adele’s presence and relationship, while Adele’s more conservative parents are told Emma is a tutor for Adele’s philosophy class at school.

The film fast forwards a few years, and we see Adele and Emma living together while they continue their jobs. While Adele finishes school and gets a job teaching at an elementary school, Emma tries to further her painting career by throwing parties to socialize among her art peers. It’s at one of these parties that we meet Lise, a pregnant old colleague of Emma’s. Emma makes fun of Adele’s current job choice, saying that her writing could do exceptionally well, and Adele asserts that she’s much happy with where she’s at now. It’s here where we see some disparities come to light, as it seems like Adele and Emma don’t share that much in common even anymore, and out of loneliness, Adele sleeps with a male coworker. Emma finds out about the affair, and subsequently and ferociously kicks Adele out, ending their relationship. 3 years pass before they end up meeting again, only to find out Emma is now in a relationship with Lise and has a family with Lise’s daughter, while Adele still cannot overcome her heartbreak. Adele expresses how in-love she is with Emma, and despite their strong connection, Emma declines, but tells Adele that she’ll always have an “infinite tenderness” in her heart for her. More time passes before we see the two convene one last time at one of Emma’s art exhibits, where the two meet, but don’t really connect. It’s clear that Emma would rather tend to all her patrons and guests at the party, so Adele congratulates her before quietly leaving the exhibit. The film ends. I argue this film is a generally a great depiction of a heart wrenching love tale between two women, which effectively explores themes of sexuality and queerness explicitly, in order to create a film that leaves audiences wanting more among an ambiguous ending.

This movie definitely connects with some of the talking points we’ve discussed in class. Probably one of the easiest examples we see coming to light is in one of the first scenes in the film, where Adele’s friend group displays some signs of heteronormativity. In the clip above, we see Thomas staring at Adele from afar, with Adele’s friends insisting they’re “so obviously into each other”. Adele then begins to tune out of the conversation as the rest of the group starts discussing other cute boys, while Adele remains silent, clearly uncomfortable to some degree. It’s clear here that Adele’s friend group is using heteronormativity in the sense that they believe Adele is straight, despite no context being added whether they’ve discussed this before. Seeing as how the rest of the film pans out, they clearly haven’t discussed this. “For queer theorists, sexuality is a complex array of signifiers, social codes and forces linked to institutional power which interact to shape the idea of normal or deviant, good or bad, and which has the function of including and excluding people,” (Andersson, 2002, p. 3). In this scene, Adele is unsure of her sexuality, but it is clear how it should be demonstrated among the institution of her school in the ways of heteronormativity. This environment excludes any notion of queerness existing normally, which is reinforced by Adele’s friend group. This becomes problematic for Adele, as it feels as though Adele is almost pressured into going out and sleeping with Thomas because of her friends' heteronormativity enacted upon her. She is then only left to be unfulfilled, simply because she wasn’t attracted to men it seems at this point.

The above clip happens once Emma and Adele start spending more time together, and Adele’s friend group at school seems to pay attention to this fact. They all begin to grill and question her about where she met this girl, only to find out it was at a gay bar. Her “friends” then start getting heated with Adele, begging her to “fess up” to being lesbian, and to “just admit it”, while another girl starts making remarks about how she doesn’t care if Adele is lesbian, but that she’s slept naked in her bed a few times and seen her checking out her ass, calling Adele a “whore”, and then asking the question “Does your bitch have a blue p---y?” before Adele starts to fight. While this is clearly homophobia, it’s carefully inserted into the film to show some of the general public’s opinion on gay or lesbian reception, those of which lines match pretty well with Adele’s parents ideals. You could compare this to a time where “homosexuals” were compared to Communists in the U.S. “Communists bore no identifying physical characteristics...Homosexuals too could escape detection...Because most people confronted with accusations of homosexuality during these witch-hunts quietly resigned, it is impossible to determine the number of careers and lives that were destroyed.” (Gross, 2001, p. 22). This scene almost plays out like an interrogation or a witch-hunt of Adele, which I think draws on some lines on queer folk having to “admit” their queerness publicly, while cisgender folk never have to admit their sexuality in the same way. This part especially demonstrates queerness in a real world lens. To me, this scene was put into the film in order to demonstrate the harsh world that queer folk often experience. It’s made for the audience to have a better understanding of Adele’s current position, and therefore allows the audience to become more compassionate with Adele’s struggles along her life, for simply choosing who she wants to love.

Another dominant theme we see arising out of this film is sexuality and pornography. That being said, I wouldn’t recommend watching this film with your parents in the same room, because boy, you would be in for a trip. The film’s graphic sex scenes are all pretty exposed for Adele and Emma, leaving almost literally nothing to the imagination of the audience. I think this is done in the film because it wants to show the raw and unfiltered bodies of the two lovers, and more obviously done to display queer love on screen. “Queer film study, then, understands cinematic sexualities as complex, multiple, overlapping, and historically nuanced, rather than immutably fixed...queer film study explores how and why the fluidity of all sexualities relates to the production and reception of cinema.” (Benshoff & Griffin, 2004, p. 2). We especially see this sexual fluidity occur within Adele, when she sleeps with Thomas at the beginning of the movie, along with her fling with a male coworker that ultimately ended her relationship with Emma. Adele’s sexuality isn’t ever exactly defined, which leaves it ambiguous to the audience, therefore showing that even Adele is still discovering what her sexuality is exactly. While the sex scenes are explicit, to me, I wouldn’t qualify them exactly as porn, because they are also increasingly dramatic with expression. In a way, if we didn’t have these scenes, I don’t know if the audience could even understand the level of obsession that Adele and Emma have for one another. It’s in these scenes that we get just a glimpse of what it means to love as humans, and how sex is one of many facets to deepen our love for one another. 

For myself, the above clip is one scene in particular where I think the movie doesn’t really hit the nail on the head. In the scene as discussed in the intro paragraph, it features Adele and Emma in a restaurant, a few years after they’ve broken up, with Adele confessing her deep love for Emma again. Emma declines Adele’s love, citing that she’s with someone else now, and thus leaves. Before Emma is able to do that however, there’s a pretty lengthy portion of the clip where the two begin to passionately make out with one another, even getting to literal third base blatantly happening at the dinner table. Don’t get me wrong, my issue isn’t at all with any of the pretty graphic sex scenes in the movie, but this one in particular stands out because it’s literally in public. Literally a waitress confirms an order for coffee before the scene starts, and then the camera even pans out at the end of the scene to witness two other customers dining a few tables away. I felt like this part ran into a few problems, since both Adele and Emma completely ignore everyone else in the room in order to sexually fulfill one another, which for me not only feels a bit insensitive to not only the other people in the restaurant, but a bit unrealistic and hypersexualized. I think this part is more damaging to queer identities, in the sense that the ideal is being pushed that when it comes to sex, they are completely unable to control themselves for their lust for one another. You also get a sense of the power of looking at these characters by the minor characters in this scene, which pins them as public interpretations of sexuality inside the restaurant unfairly. They are more than just the objects of lust being viewed upon by other customers and work staff, but this scene doesn’t help that argument whatsoever.

Much like most things in the movie, the ending is completely ambiguous. You see Adele walk off around a street corner, to supposedly never talk to Emma again. We see this love come together, fall apart, and have a smidge of possible recovery, only to be let down again. Shortly put, I wanted more out of this story, because it felt like it wasn’t over. Maybe the reason it ended was to show that things don’t always have a “Happily Ever After”, especially when it comes to real life. Overall, for myself as a cisgender white straight man, I think this film is great in terms of queer media exposure. I think white and straight people have been given too much in terms of amount of privilege, especially when it comes to roles in love stories in cinema. I was forced to be critical when it came to my analysis of this movie, simply because I wasn’t the identity featured in this movie. I had to interpret information from a queer lens, which made me more objective and honestly a bit uncomfortable - but in a good way. I was forced to feel and see the things these characters were experiencing, in the exact same exposed ways they were seeing them. In a way, I think that made me more drawn to the story, simply because I was experiencing something that I had never gotten the chance to see anywhere else. The fact that the entire film is in French plays a big role as well, as I noticed I was using a lot of nonverbal cues in order to determine how a character might feel at any point in time. To conclude, I think this movie does a mostly great job on representing queer identities in order to create a love story that is unequivocally matched to any other story you see. It hits on the realistic parts of life and love that humans experience, in order to show how rough love can truly be.

References

Andersson, Y. (2002). Queer Media? In E. Kingsepp (Ed.), Media Research in Progress. Stockholm: Stockholms University. 

Benshoff, H., & Griffin, S. (2004). Queer Cinema the Film Reader. New York, NY: Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group.

Gross, L. (2001). Up from Invisibility: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Media in America. NEW YORK: Columbia University Press. doi:10.7312/gros11952

#queermedia #blue is the warmest color #moviereview #queermovie #loveislove

[franklyautistic]

Alternatives to H*rry P*tter

Given Robert Galbraith’s recent decision to become a Death Eater (”I just don’t want mudbloods in pure-blood spaces”), I am sure many people are looking for new fandoms to get involved in. So here are two great literary fantasy worlds to get stuck into.

I have strictly stuck to 1) fantasy, and 2) series, so great SFF authors like @annleckie, @neil-gaiman, @charliejane-anders, @jscalzi, @maryrobinette, Annalee Newitz, Yoon Ha Lee, and many more had to miss out. Particular shout-outs to Anders and Lee, who are both trans, and Newitz and Leckie in particular have handled trans issues very well in their writing.

(If anyone is looking for recommendations of stand-alone works, or sci fi, or more queer-focused works, or anything else, then hit me up and I can throw ideas at you.)

All these books share two key things: characters who jump off the page and into your heart, and

So, without further ado:

N.K. Jemisin’s Broken Earth trilogy

There is a paradox in recommendation: the better something is, the less one wants to say about it, in case it spoils the experience. With most stories, one does not want to spoil the dramatic twists and turns, the surprises, the emotional highs and lows. And the Broken Earth trilogy has all of that. There are several major twists in the first book alone. There are characters you will love, and others you will despise with intense venom, and some who will make you feel both at once. This is a series full of triumph and despair, wonder and amazement. But you could have all the plot twists spoiled for you and it wouldn’t diminish your enjoyment of this book. The emotion is never cheap, but built up through excellent thematic work which gives the series a huge amount of depth and subtlety.

Jemisin is a middle-aged black woman, not a demographic frequently represented in epic fantasy stories like this, but here she wears her blackness and femininity with pride. This story could not have been written by anyone other than a black woman, a proud feminist and black rights advocate. It’s a staggering work which will make you feel intense feelings in even the most mundane details.

Did I mention that all three books won the Hugo Award? That’s a huge deal, completely unprecedented. By any measure, these are historically important fantasy books.

Lastly, there is a trans character who has a significant supporting role, receives lots of development, and who finds a loving, accepting community. She is not fetishised, and while her transness is made explicit on occasion, it does not define her. There are other queer characters, including two very important ones, and a poly relationship. And nearly all the characters are black.

Patrick Rothfuss’s Kingkiller Chronicles

I can’t not mention Rothfuss. The first thing you notice about The Kingkiller Chronicles is that Rothfuss’ prose is extremely rich. The story is narrated by Kvothe, who was once the greatest adventurer in the world but has lost his magic, and is now trying to live out his life in peace. As well as the great prose, Rothfuss excels at character development. Kvothe is never allowed to get comfortable. His life is constantly driven forwards, and his character builds along with it. And there’s some really good payoff in the form of a few great “crowning moments of awesome” when Kvothe masters a skill.

I will say that some of the sex scenes are rather cringeworthy. I hope that this is intentional, with Kvothe being deliberately portrayed as an arrogant guy who plays up his sexual conquests. But he isn’t just a bad boy

There are no trans characters that I am aware of. There are two obviously gay characters who are in a relationship with each other. While there is a range of female characters, the depictions of women are occasionally a little limited - it’s a step above Tolkien but far from perfect.

And given that this is about Galbraith - in 2015 Rothfuss unthinkingly shared a transphobic New York Times article. It would have been easy for him to claim it was a mis-click, or to double down, just like Galbraith. Instead, he owned up to his ignorance and committed to listening to trans voices and becoming better informed.

Laini Taylor - Daughter of Smoke and Bone

Karou is a young artist who collects teeth for a mysterious benefactor, who might be the devil.

This starts out as an atmospheric urban fantasy book, but builds into a sprawling epic, full of tension, some really brutal scenes, and also lots of feely goodness. Characters bare their souls, get them torn up in their face, pick up the scraps, pull them back together again, and do it all again. Themes include identity, memory, transformation, appearances, good and evil, and love. And once you’re done with the trilogy, there is a weakly-related duology (Strange The Dreamer and Muse of Nightmares) to crack on with.

The nature of most of the characters in the original trilogy makes applying human labels difficult. There is an explicitly asexual character who is shown in a romantic relationship, but the first clearly same-sex relationships don’t show up until the later duology, which is slightly disappointing given the first series focuses on romance. However, I think Taylor’s works very much lend themselves to being read through a queer lens, particularly from a gender perspective.

-----

That’s what I have for you. The intent here is to recommend brilliant fantasy series that can replace Harry Potter in your heart. If you’d like queerer SFF, or black SFF, Asian SFF, or anything else, let me know and I can pull a recommendation post together.

#Harry Potter #fantasy #nk jemisin #laini taylor #patrick rothfuss

[signoraviolettavalery]

I’m new to the Roswell New Mexico fandom and I have noticed people,you, don’t really like the creator Carina and I was wondering why.

Ooooh boy. Would you like those answers in alphabetical order, chronological order, order of egregiousness, or order of how much they piss me off? 

I have a lot of issues with Carina, as do a lot of other people. Obviously, not everyone agrees with me, and some of my answers may be controversial (they’re the subject of biiiig debates in fandom). I have no intention of re-opening those debates, so what I write below is a summary of my opinions (many of which I know are shared by at least some others in fandom) for the purposes of answering your question. I’m also putting it all under a cut, because it’s a lot of negativity that some people may want to skip. 

I mention a lot of tweets and interviews in the answer below; I, frankly, don’t want to go searching for and linking to each interview and tweet (and also, Carina has me blocked, for reasons I’ll get into), but everything below has a source that I can find if you super want to read it yourself. 

So, here goes.

Firstly, Carina pisses me off because she is a white, straight woman who is writing about oppressed and marginalized minorities and, quite frankly, doing a bad job of it. She brags constantly about how progressive her show is, how much she wanted to include people of color and comment on things like immigration, how important the Malex storyline is to her, etc, etc, but doesn’t seem to be capable of (or care about) the delicacy, nuance, and care such issues require.

In a panel she did on Roswell (at ATX or NYCC, I think?) she talked about how she had qualms writing about marginalized people from identities she didn’t belong to; she said she was plagued by the question of “should I even be doing this?” Which she then immediately answered with, “but we’re doing it!” and that was that, and that seemed to me to be such a flippant way to answer the question. Like, you’re writing about people whose experiences you don’t share and your response isn’t “I’m going to do research and talk to people,” it’s “eh, I”m doing it anyway”? 

Then there’s the fact that when it comes to representation, Roswell has done a really really shitty job, engaged in harmful tropes, and thrown its characters of color under the bus. Carina insists that she consults with a lot of advocacy groups when writing about the experiences of undocumented immigrants and Latina characters, and yet. Liz simply forgives Max in the span of two episodes, even though he covered up her sister’s murder and was responsible for subjecting her family to racially-motivated hate crimes for a decade. Max, a white man, at no point acknowledges his privilege; he just pouts and whines when she rejects him until the Latina who was fucked over by his use of privilege just...forgives him. It is, in my opinion, incredibly indelicate and kind of insulting. She made the south Asian man (the only Asian character on the show, in fact) the borderline pedophile serial killer who violated Isobel for years, was creepily grooming both Isobel and Rosa, and murdered a bunch of women. She made the only black woman on the show (Maria) the plot device for an entire season: Maria had no storyline. She was there to give information to Liz when Liz was solving Rosa’s murder. She hasn’t known about the aliens all season and was thus excluded from the major show narratives. Her one defining character trait (her loyalty to her friends) was completely thrown away in order to make her a plot device for Malex (because let’s face it, Miluca won’t last and Malex will get back together). Narratively, she was thrown under the bus. 

And then there’s the queer representation, which...don’t get me started. She keeps talking about how much she loves Malex and how they’re her favorites, but she’s also very explicitly said that she finds happy relationships boring and that she uses fiction to work out her own trauma, which means that she’s essentially likely going to put the only same-sex ship on the show through an interminable amount of tragedy (because that’s what queer viewers absolutely need in this day and age). 

Plus, the idea of a straight woman using a fictional same-sex relationship to work out her own issue makes me really, really uncomfortable, because she’s made it clear that she fundamentally doesn’t understand the queer experience. She says she consults with advocacy groups when she’s writing queer characters (she won’t actually name these LGBT advocacy groups, which doesn’t make me sideye her at all), but I have doubts about whether she listens to them. I mean, she said, after the season 1 finale aired, that Michael going to Maria has nothing to do with her being a woman, even though she also explicitly said Michael wants something “easy,” and a same-sex relationship in Roswell, as it’s presented in canon, can never be easy. Roswell is canonically a homophobic, bigoted town, and Malex’s trauma stems largely from homophobia. Their relationship issues stem (not entirely, but largely) from them being the victims of homophobic abuse and a homophobic hate crime. Being with Maria means Michael never has to worry about any of those things, and the fact that Carina doesn’t seem to conceive of this is mind-boggling to me. 

Then there’s the fact that Maria...basically outed Michael to Liz, and this doesn’t seem to be a problem. Of course, maybe they’ll address it in season 2, I don’t know. But, Carina basically wrote a woman who has been best friends with a gay guy for more than a decade as casually outing someone (when she tells Liz that Michael is Museum Guy). The fact that this is a problem doesn’t seem to cross her mind for a second when she tells Liz, even though this is information Michael has never told her himself and they’ve known each other for a decade. It’s not something Carina’s ever mentioned in the numerous post-finale interviews she did. And frankly, it doesn’t matter who Maria outed Michael to; the fact that she’s capable of it when best friends with a gay guy in a town like Roswell, when Maria has been written as a loyal and understanding friend up to now, again suggests to me that Carina just does not comprehend the queer experience. 

(Also, technically, all the Isobel/Rosa hints, then it turning out that actually Noah was possessing Isobel, screams queerbaiting to me)

And then there’s the mess that is the love triangle. I’m of the camp that things that it’s complete and utter bullshit that contributes to the stereotype of bisexual people as promiscuous, though I know there’s people who think it’s good representation. It shows that she’s more interested in her particular (and frankly, kind of esoteric) storytelling preferences more than she cares about representation or continuity. The love triangle is, frankly, really badly written, and nothing about Maria developing “feelings” for Michael (or him for her, honestly) is in any way believable. Maria getting with Michael behind Alex’s back requires throwing out Maria’s only character trait (her loyalty and commitment to being a good friend). But Carina ~has~ to have her love triangle, characterization or continuity be damned. 

Speaking of storytelling, Carina is kind of...a bad writer. Look, I love the characters on Roswell, and I love the world she created, and it had some truly beautiful moments. But let’s just admit the season 1 plot was a mess. There were so many plot holes. Who knows what? Does Alex know Liz knows about aliens and vice versa? Does Alex know about Rosa, or just about aliens? Why did they spend episode 9 establishing that Alex is taking over project Sheppard to find the alien serial killer, only to have him be missing from the episode (1x11) where they find the alien serial killer? Does Alex know that it’s Noah? If Michael’s hand got broken right before he went to cover up Rosa’s murder, why did Liz think it couldn’t have been Michael “because his hand was broken then”? If Isobel is an event planner (a busy and demanding job) how did they manage to cover up her being missing for so many weeks? If Malex went straight from the museum to the toolshed, when did Alex have time to tell Maria about Museum Guy? What is Alex’s rank? (it changes from the pilot to the show). I could go on. Like, I just don’t have a lot of trust in the narrative going forward, in character and emotional continuity, in a fulfilling story for the characters I love, given that Carina seems to have a basic inability to so much as google (”my entropy changes”? that makes no sense), let alone write a story that makes sense. 

Part of the reason she’s not a very good writer, though, is because she doesn’t seem to like criticism. She insists she listens to it from people who matter and whose judgment she trusts, but, um, the mess that is the narrative suggests otherwise to me. The fact that she wrote in the love triangle suggests otherwise; it screams to me that it’s something she just had to have, regardless of whether it made narrative sense. She also literally blocks fans on Twitter who give her any kind of criticism. I don’t mean hate and vitriol, I mean criticism. She complains about how she, a public figure, a showrunner with a show that has millions of viewers, wants to log in to twitter and only see positive things and have fun interactions with friends. And I get it, criticism can be exhausting. But her job is literally to bring viewers to the CW. It is to tell a good story, and, if she wants to be as woke and progressive as she insists she is, it is to listen to different people - including fans. If she wants to shoot the shit with friends on Twitter, maybe she should get a private account. But I personally believe that she can’t use queer and marginalized characters to work out her own trauma, with no understanding of those people’s experiences, and then demand that people only ever praise her for it. It reminds me of the debate about criticism in fic comments, actually: some fic writers don’t want any negative comments. Which is fine if you’re writing fic for fun. Carina’s a professional writer with a TV show, who is getting paid. Insulating herself from literally any and all objections from the audience she’s writing for is, in my opinion, stupid, and also incredibly self-centered if she’s writing about people who’s experiences she doesn’t share. 

Honorable mentions, probably not worth getting into: 

She has like, a really creepy crush on Michael Vlamis, and even though she’s technically his boss, she’s constantly basically...thirsting over him on Twitter and Instagram in very uncomfortable ways

Max’s little speech to Michael in 1x11 about how he felt “everything,” every part of the abuse Michael suffered, and how guilty he felt about it, was just absolutely horrifying and tone deaf. Max, a character with great privilege, basically making all of Michael’s abuse about himself and how guilty it made him feel and acting like he can in any way share or understand Michael’s experience was just in every way gross, but clearly intended to make Max ~compelling~ and get the brothers to start talking and become closer and it just again shows a complete misunderstanding of the experiences of people less fortunate than her. 

Which, in short, all means that I have absolutely zero faith in Season 2. I’m not in the least bit excited for it. I think she’ll completely let us down, and I expect a lot more of the same tone-deafness and lack of nuance in relation to complex issues and marginalized characters. I think she’ll put us through the wringer, emotionally, for the sake of writing angst rather than telling a good story. 

Anyway, hope that answered your question, anon. 

#carina adly mackenzie #ask #roswell new mexico #negativity #roswell negativity #roswell wank #Anonymous

[incorrect-stranger-things-quotes]

You said several times that Robin will kind of represent what being a queer in 80’s means. That’s why I’m disappointed in her introduction and even have doubts about a possibility of coming out for Will. It seems to me that they almost introduced her in order to not deal with Will’s sexuality. Like: “Look we are not queerbaiting, we actually have gay characters”. I hope I’m 100% wrong.

I don’t think Robin will represent the be all end all of ‘queer in the 80s’ but I think she will be the character through which the audience can see being openly gay in the 80s, she’s clearly come to terms with her sexuality and is a much more confident person so she’s far more likely to experience the kind of violent bigotry that was ramping up at the time. I understand where your coming from, not wanting Robin to be an excuse to ignore what they’ve started with Will, but I think it’s more meaningful and realistic for Will’s story to be far more understated and slow. He isn’t confident or sure of himself, he has really low self esteem and honestly far more going on in his life to be focusing on being in a relationship. I would love to see him discuss it with his mum or something but he didn’t even tell her when he thought he might literally be possessed so I think it would ring pretty hollow and honestly like pandering if Will, out of no where went of on a big journey to discover his sexuality, it’s just not really him. Honestly I’m really happy to see a character like Will, I relate a lot more to him than I do to most queer representations in media. I didn’t experiment in high school, or have a sudden epiphany about my identity one day that I was immediately completely confident in but that’s what dominates representation, I get it because relationship drama is the backbone of any teen media but that does not represent my high school experience at all . That’s why it’s so important to see representation in all forms of media, Stranger Things isn’t a teen drama, it’s a sci fi thriller where it’s what happens to the characters rather than their interpersonal relationships that makes up the major plot of the show so giving huge attention to Will coming to terms with his sexuality would be a weird change of pace to any season of the show. 

I understand why people want Will to have some sort of more explicit reference to his sexuality but personally, as a very shy and anxious person, I really don’t see myself ever explicitly ‘coming out’ to anyone, not because I hate myself, not because anyone would be disapproving or that I would even care but that’s just not a conversation I feel comfortable having with people. I understand the 80s would be extremely different and it would be a way bigger deal but I don’t feel like I’m hiding a part of myself with my friends or family and it would be cool to see a character who feels the same way. Robin is one of the only characters I’ve seen where their sexuality isn’t in some way justified by them being in a relationship, it’s like some media buys into the whole “how do you know unless you try” thing. I like that Stranger Things is giving us characters who are allowed to identify themselves as gay without having to have relationship experience. I’m sick of characters being defined by their romantic relationships, queer characters should have the right to exist in and of themselves and they don’t need some sort of romantic relationship or big arc about acceptance to justify it. Will knows his mum and friends love him and who knows maybe knowing Robin is gay might embolden him to talking to his mum but he’s 14 and the show will probably end before he’s 16 so really I wouldn’t be upset if he never personally addresses it. 

Having said all of this I also understand how on a meta level, having Will be an explicitly gay character would be really great and I do hope the Duffers have something in mind for where they’re going with it.

#another round of me spouting garbage #stranger things #will byers #robin buckley #incorrect ask #Anonymous