#can’t make it clearer that my problem isn’t not having canon gay rep

[vampish-glamour]

I never watched G*od Om*ns, so it was fandom again with the "they're gay"???

At least Star Trek did this right, you know, not lying to please someone. Spock and Kirk was never a thing and also was never meant to be a thing. But the creator himself said, if you wanna see them like that, it's fine. Do what you want. But in canon it's not that way.

But really, somehow fandom seems to make it easy for creators to just bait, but never commit and they're happy, wtf.

And IF they get actual lgbt rep, they're upset because it's not the character they WANTED to be lgbt....

Actually, the fandom is largely against them being gay because they claim it’s “nonbinary and asexual representation”.

Which bothers me just because they’re basically applauding homophobic tropes simply because they benefit from homophobic tropes.

I want to make it clear that my problem isn’t “why aren’t you making the characters canonically gay?!!?!!? This is homophobic!!!11!1!1”. I’m fine with the relationship remaining a close friendship canonically. And canonically speaking, I think I might prefer that tbh.

My problem is with how the original homophobia in the book sort of goes ignored, and how the writer teases and hints and in this case I would actually say baits… and then receives praise from the fandom for doing what everyone else does when it comes to gay pairings.

Basic overview of the situation from my POV:

Book establishes a character as a gay stereotype

Immediately goes “but he isn’t gay because angels are sexless unless they make an effort” (IMO the sexless thing could’ve been established in many other ways. Did it really have to be done in a “don’t worry he’s not gay” way?)

Book proceeds to make the gay stereotype thing a running joke, with the character being called various homophobic slurs (but see, it’s funny because it’s misplaced homophobia. He doesn’t actually deserve the homophobia he experiences like an actual gay person would /s)

Show comes out, includes romantic music, lots of subtext, and the writer confirming that it’s a “love story”, as well as the actors confirming they acted “in love”. Except… it’s done vaguely enough that anyone can come away with their own interpretation. Which is nothing new. There’s literally nothing revolutionary about leaving a same sex relationship “up for interpretation”.

All the “representation” actually comes from what the writer says on Twitter. He goes on about how they’re sexless and therefore cannot possibly be gay but are also inherently “queer”… but doesn’t actually add this into canon. So casual viewers are not experiencing any sort of “representation”.

IMO this is a homophobic media trope. Give two men or two women scenes that would be explicitly romantic if it were a man and a woman, tease the audience with “maybeee~”, but still make sure that ultimately, homophobes won’t be offended and can come away from the material thinking “what good friends!”. Say “it’s up for interpretation”, which is something I hardly see with M/F pairings. Especially with the virtue signalling on social media.

Keep in mind, something isn’t “representation” if everyone comes away with different ideas of what was represented. If one person can think “they’re gay and married” and another can think “they’re aspec and in a QPR”, that’s not representation. Representation only happens when something is undeniable. For example, a character who is undeniably bisexual because they are shown to be interested in both men and women (biphobic pannies coming to their own conclusions don’t count here lol, since bi = pan and pan = bi, so even if they claim the character is pansexual, they’re still getting the same outcome)

Now here’s where my issue comes in.

Instead of calling this out, the fandom runs with it and benefits from it. A vague relationship on screen allows them to claim representation for themselves, usually for made up labels like aspec, SAM type asexuality, queerplatonic, etc.

They praise the writer for being “inclusive”, and for “representing” them… when really this “inclusivity” is a result of homophobic tropes, and there’s actually no representation at all. Keep in mind, all the clues for what could be going on come from social media. A casual viewer is either going to see two gay men, or two good friends. They have no way of knowing about the woke “queer” bullshit unless they’re heavily involved in fandom.

The writer has a habit of teasing things and being intentionally misleading. Here’s an example

Not telling what’s going to happen and not giving spoilers, is very different from intentionally baiting. “Wait and see” sounds like a “yes”… because it would be incredibly shitty to lead people on when the answer is a solid “no”.

However, considering he’s only half of the writers, and establishing a relationship other than what he and the other writer discussed would be disrespectful… the answer is very likely “no”.

So just say “no”. It’s okay to say “no, they’re not getting together”. But he knows that people are more likely to watch if they’re waiting for the two to get together the whole time…so he has to keep it vague and mysterious and he has to keep baiting.

Of course the answer could very well be “yes” and that’s what he’s hinting at. But I highly doubt it, mostly because of the “only one author around” issue. So until I’m proven wrong, I will maintain that this is him being intentionally misleading, as he admitted to.

So that’s where I have the issue—I wouldn’t have an issue if he just straight up said “no, they’re not going to hook up, they’re good friends”. What is an issue, is perpetuating classic homophobic media tropes, of giving just enough but not too much…and then saying “it’s up for interpretation”. Which roughly translates to “here’s some crumbs for the gays”. What’s especially an issue, is then disguising this under woke kweer language and lapping up all the praise you can get for being such an “Ally” to “queers”.

And of course, I have an issue with how the fandom receives this. Because instead of calling the bullshit out for what it is, they actually call gay people talking about homophobia “aphobic discourse”, and say things like “gay men have enough representation!!”, and try to argue that actually, the homophobic trope of vague same sex relationships that are left up to interpretation, is actually super inclusive and amazing and progressive because it represents asexuals, aromantics, nonbinary people, queerplatonic relationships, etc.

Or they put down gay people for wanting more explicit representation, because “uhh… some people are aro!!! Some people are ace!!”. Despite missing that non romantic or non sexual relationships between men can be found in pretty much every single piece of media ever, and is 100% socially acceptable. Explicit gay relationships however, are still looked down upon.

And then they act like the religious homophobes, by taking “explicit gay representation” to mean “explicit hardcore sex scene”. Like I’ve seen nobody demand a sex scene when they’re talking about gay representation in G O. I’m certainly not. Yet the kweers always manage to interpret gay people wanting proper representation as “you want sex!!! You want porn!!!”. To me, it really seems no different from religious homophobes seeing an advertisement with two men and immediately talking about how it promotes “deviant gay sex”.

What worries me is that these types of fandoms—who applaud creators for giving gay people crumbs—set a precedent for other creators. They make it known that gay representation actually isn’t needed for media to be praised. They give creators a safe way to get out of representing gay couples—while keeping both the queers and homophobes happy at the same time. Now they can hop on social media and say “no, they’re not gay, but it’s up for interpretation!” And the queers will think this is top tier representation, and praise the creators for it.

As always, this turned into a long spiel lmao. But that’s an explanation of my thoughts and why I’m frustrated. Again—I’m not mad that a romantic relationship isn’t canon. That in itself isn’t homophobic. But the way that the writer and fandom are handling it, is.

I’m not familiar with Star Trek (I do want to watch it, mostly to understand the Star Trek vs Star Wars stuff lmao.), but it sounds like that’s a good way to handle it. If you don’t want to make a relationship canon—that’s fine. But be honest about it, don’t drag fans along with teasing and baiting.

#sorry for the ramble again lol #I have nowhere else to rant about this because the fandom would absolutely crucify me for being ‘aphobic’ or ‘enbyphobic’ #as if that holds any weight compared to the homophobia they cheer on lmao #can’t make it clearer that my problem isn’t not having canon gay rep #I’m happy having the two dudes be friends. I like their friendship. #I’m not happy with the fandom and the writer’s bullshit. #asks #anon #q slur

[astudyinfreewill]

tbh i get queer fans being mad/sad about kavinsky being killed off in that yeah, bury your guys can always be upsetting no matter the character. but it's weird to me when people go the 'he didn't DESERVE it blah blah' route because like, that has nothing to do with the trope. like i agree with queer characters always getting killed off being exhausting, but i don't get people going hard for this particular character lmao

hmm i… sort of agree. i guess i can understand fans being sad about kavinsky being killed off if they empathise with him, even though personally i just… can’t imagine relating to a character like that. but i honestly, genuinely don’t believe he’s an example of Bury Your Gays. it would be BYG if kavinsky was the only queer rep in the books, or even he killed himself specifically for being gay… which, no matter what people argue, he didn’t. but rather than give my opinion on it, i’m gonna take this chance to go through the trope systematically and explain why the shoe doesn’t fit. it’s meta time!

Why Kavinsky Dying is Not “Bury Your Gays”

[All quotes are taken directly from TvTropes, though the emphasis is mine.]

The Bury Your Gays trope in media, including all its variants, is a homophobic cliché. It is the presentation of deaths of LGBT characters where these characters are nominally able to be viewed as more expendable than their heteronormative counterparts. In this way, the death is treated as exceptional in its circumstances. In aggregate, queer characters are more likely to die than straight characters. Indeed, it may be because they seem to have less purpose compared to straight characters, or that the supposed natural conclusion of their story is an early death.

Kavinsky is never viewed as “more expendable than his heteronormative counterparts”. If you see Kavinsky as simply Ronan’s foil, then the reasoning doesn’t apply, because Ronan is gay himself, so he can’t be a “heteronormative counterpart”. However, Kavinsky apologists like to latch on to Gansey’s “We matter” quote to prove Kavinsky is treated as unimportant – but that’s a fallacy for several reasons. First, you’re taking Gansey to speak for the author, or for objective truth, when Gansey is one of the most unreliable narrators in the book, and his world view is extremely biased. Secondly, Gansey isn’t Kavinsky’s counterpart. Kavinsky is an antagonist, so you have to look at what happens to the other antagonists – his actual heteronormative counterparts. And, well: they pretty much ALL get killed off. Not just that, but they often get killed off in a way that does not have the emotional/narrative impact implied in Kavinsky’s death. By that reckoning, he gets the better shake. Additionally, we get 4 heteronormative villains killed off - Whelk, Neeve, Colin, and Piper. So in the series, queer characters are not more likely to die than straight characters (even among the protagonists, Gansey and Noah are the ones who “die”, where Ronan and Adam do not).

The reasons for this trope have evolved somewhat over the years. For a good while, it was because the Depraved Homosexual trope and its ilk pretty much limited portrayals of explicitly gay characters to villainous characters, or at least characters who weren’t given much respect by the narrative. This, conversely, meant that most of them would either die or be punished by the end. 

This is not applicable to TRC, as portrayals of explicitly queer characters are not limited to villainous characters; Adam and Ronan are both explicitly queer and they are treated with huge amounts of respect by the narrative. So Kavinsky isn’t being killed for being the odd one out/the Token Evil Queer; plus, there are other reasons why he doesn’t fit the Depraved Homosexual trope (while sexual molestation is a part of this trope, TVTropes encourages you to “think of whether he’d be any different if he wasn’t gay” – and Kavinsky wouldn’t. Not only because DHs are usually extremely camp while Kavinsky’s mannerisms aren’t particularly queer-coded, but also because he is not shown to have any more respect for women than he does for men, and his abuse would look the same if he was straight).

However, as sensitivity to gay people became more mainstream, this evolved into a sort of Rule-Abiding Rebel “love the sinner, hate the sin” attitude. You could have sympathetic queer characters, but they would still usually be “punished” for their queerness in some way so as to not anger more homophobic audiences, similar to how one might write a sympathetic drug addict but still show their addiction in a poor light. 

Again: Neither Ronan nor Adam – the two sympathetic queer characters – are punished for being queer, hence subverting this form of the trope.

This then transitioned into the Too Good for This Sinful Earth narrative, where stories would tackle the subject of homophobia and then depict LGBT characters as suffering victims who die tragic deaths from an uncaring world. The AIDS crisis also contributed to this narrative, as the Tragic AIDS Story became its own archetype, popularized by films like Philadelphia. 

Okay, this is DEFINITELY not Kavinsky’s case. Kavinsky’s death isn’t specifically connected to being gay (e.g.: a hate crime or an STD), and he’s never depicted as some innocent suffering victim. As for the “uncaring world”… eh. Kavinsky may not have a valid support system, but that’s just as much by choice as by chance - and when Ronan extends a helping hand and tries to save him, Kavinsky rejects it. Too Good For This Sinful Earth is definitely not in play. 

The only trope that kind of fits the bill is Gayngst-Induced Suicide… but only on the surface. As TVTrope puts it, Gayngst-Induced Suicide is “when LGBT characters are Driven to Suicide because of their sexuality, either because of internalized homophobia (hating themselves) or experiencing a miserable life because of their “deviant” gender or sexuality: having to hide who they are, not finding a stable relationship, homophobia from other parties, etc.”. Kavinsky certainly has quite a bit of internalized homophobia, but he is absolutely not experiencing a miserable life because of his sexuality – i.e. he’s not being bullied or taunted or subejcted to hate crimes. He doesn’t have to hide who he is: his parents are effectively out of the picture, his cronies worship him, and he constantly makes gay jokes to Ronan and Gansey. As for “not finding a stable relationship”… well that’s not exactly the problem, is it. He’s not looking for a stable relationship – he’s pursuing Ronan specifically, obsessively, through stalking and abuse. So even this trope is not applicable. 

And then there are the cases of But Not Too Gay or the Bait-and-Switch Lesbians, where creators manage to get the romance going but quickly avoid showing it in detail by killing off one of the relevant characters. 

Once again this is not the case with Kavinsky, as 1) there was no romance going between him and Ronan, and 2) he is not killed off before the nature of his obsession with Ronan is revealed – he gets the chance to both admit (sort of) he wants Ronan, and to confront Ronan about his sexuality, to which Ronan admits that yes, he is gay, but he is not interested in Kavinsky. So, there is no But Not Too Gay nor any Bait-and-Switch here. 

Also known as Dead Lesbian Syndrome, though that name has largely fallen out of use post-2015 and the media riots about overuse of the trope. And, as this public outcry restated, the problem isn’t merely that gay characters are killed off: the problem is the tendency that gay characters are killed off in a story full of mostly straight characters, or when the characters are killed off because they are gay.

This is a very good definition of the trope and why it doesn’t apply to Kavinsky: he’s not killed off because he’s gay, and he’s not killed off in a story full of mostly straight characters; TRC is definitely not overwhelmingly diverse, but 2 of the 4 protagonists are queer, giving us a solid 50% ratio (I’m not counting Noah because his “character” status is vague, and I’m not counting Henry because he came in so late, and also because his sexuality is the matter of much speculation).

For a comparison that will make it even clearer: take a show like Supernatural. Supernatural’s range of characters is almost entirely presented as straight white cis men (as of canon – despite much of the fandom’s hopes and speculation). They’ve had problems with diversity in general, with a lot of black characters dying immediately, and a lot of women getting fridged for plot advancement or male angst (a different problematic trope altogether). Now, apart from minor inconsequential cameos, Supernatural had ONE recurring gay character: Charlie Bradbury. And they killed her off for no discernible reason other than plot advancement and male angst, in a context that had elements of Too Good For This Sinful Earth (Charlie being a fan-favourite, ~pure cinnamon roll~, being killed by actual nazis, who historically targeted gay people). See, THAT was Bury Your Gays, AND Dead Lesbian Syndrome, AND Fridging…

However, sometimes gay characters die in fiction because, well, sometimes people die. There are many Anyone Can Die stories: barring explicit differences in the treatments of the gay and straight deaths in these, it’s not odd that the gay characters are dying. The occasional death of one in a Cast Full of Gay is unlikely to be notable, either.

…But that is not the case with TRC. As I’ve said above, there are no explicit differences in the treatments of the gay and straight villain deaths. Kavinsky’s death is not Bury Your Gays; it’s Anyone Can Die – even a protagonist’s foil who has magic powers and is present for most of the book.

Believe me, I would not be cavalier about this. As you rightly said, queer characters always getting killed off is exhausting, and as a bi woman myself, I am deeply affected by instances of Bury Your Gays. When Supernatural killed off Charlie, I wrote a novel-length fix-it fic and basically stopped watching the show – a show I had been following, flaws and all, for 10 years. I don’t take it lightly. But Kavinsky’s death isn’t Bury Your Gays, nor is it homophobia. Sometimes, a character death is just a character death.

#anonymous #answer #meta #trc #trc meta #tropes #joseph kavinsky #mp #my meta