Tumgik
#just the whole discussion around what it is to depict queerness and to do it 'right' is i think one of the banes of my existence
redshoes-blues · 2 years
Text
The Heroes Theory
The key to understanding Stranger Things lies within a single song.
Buckle up, folks — this is very long. But I hope you enjoy your read! :)
This is my argument that the entire concept of Stranger Things, from the messages to the themes to the characters and relationships, can be summarized within one core motif that weaves through every season. Here I’ll be looking into the subtext and metaphors at play in Stranger Things as a whole, using Heroes to help show why requited Byler is the most sensible outcome from a writing perspective.
When I refer to the “Heroes Theory,” I want to be clear that this theory includes more than just the song for which my theory is named. Of course, Heroes itself is the foundation of the theory, but it extends far beyond that. This includes character arcs, dialogues, plots, and themes.
Let’s start with a bit of background on Heroes itself, its context, and what it can tell us about Stranger Things.
[CW: I briefly discuss the depiction of MH issues on the show, as well as various forms of oppression like homophobia, classism, and racism]
Background to Heroes
Heroes is an original song written by David Bowie, released in 1977. At the time, Bowie was living in Berlin after a long run of tours while battling addiction. It was a time of creative exploration and innovation for him. Keep in mind, this is all taking place in the midst of the Cold War, which is also the historical backdrop to Stranger Things.
Bowie has explained that he was first inspired to write Heroes after seeing a couple kissing next to the Berlin Wall. The couple were having an affair, and combined with the context of their affair happening next to the Berlin Wall, the scene he saw was one of forbidden love. So Bowie wrote the song describing a moment of defiance when the couple decided to forget about society’s judgement and shame, choosing to live as heroes in a moment of passion.
For the sake of our discussion, the following lines form Heroes are the most important. This is around the bridge of the song, at the point when the forbidden couple finally overcome their feelings of shame and their fear, choosing to embrace their passionate feelings instead:
I, I can remember (I remember)
Standing, by the wall (by the wall)
And the guns, shot above our heads (over our heads)
And we kissed, as though nothing could fall (nothing could fall)
And the shame, was on the other side
Oh we can beat them, for ever and ever
Then we could be Heroes, just for one day
And not only is Heroes a song about forbidden love in the face of violent repercussions, Bowie himself was a revolutionary figure for queer folks in the 70s and beyond. From his identity as a bisexual man, his androgynous clothing style, and full of acceptance of queer people when we were ostracized by most.
For these reasons, his role in Stranger Things is an important one given the themes of conformity and being an outsider that the show highlights (along with its queer characters). Now, put on some Bowie, and let’s discuss!
Heroes in Stranger Things
At this point you might be like: “okay cool, but what on earth does this have to do with Byler and Stranger Things?” I hear you! Let’s look at how Heroes is used in the show.
Heroes plays twice in Stranger Things. However, what plays is a more somber cover by Peter Gabriel. Both times it’s used during emotional scenes.
In my view, the song has come to represent two important themes: 1. resurrection and 2. conformity vs. acceptance/love.
Season One: Will’s Body
The first time Heroes plays is during S1, when Will’s “body” is discovered in the quarry. It plays as Mike goes home, and while Jonathan and Joyce hug in a shot which mirrors Mike and Karen back at the Wheelers house.
This scene expresses two things. 1. For Mike, he is told his best friend is dead. He watches as his body leaves the water. He’s heartbroken. 2. For Joyce, who doesn’t yet know about Will’s “body,” she has spent the day communicating to Will in the lights. She’s terrified, but hopeful.
As viewers, we see both sides. We see Will’s “death,” but we also saw Joyce communicating with who we suspect is Will. In this way, Heroes plays over a scene symbolizing both death and resurrection. By resurrection, I mean the fact that Will was believed to be dead, but he turns up alive.
While the cover of Heroes plays during this pivotal moment of hope and heartbreak, it’s quite telling what we’re shown on screen when certain lines are played:
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
What I consider to be the most romantic and thematically queer lyrics in the entire song play during the point when Mike runs into Karen’s arms after learning Will is “dead.”
And we kissed, as though nothing could fall (nothing could fall)
And the shame, was on the other side
Here, the symbolism of “other side” is important given the context of the show. For Bowie, “other side” meant the East Berlin at the other side of the wall. The wall itself had violent repercussions (represented in this line by “the shame”) for attempting to cross it. In the context of Mike, “the shame” could represent his internalized homophobia and the confusing feelings of losing a best friend who he doesn’t realize he has romantic feelings for.
In Stranger Things, the “other side” could obviously represent the Upside Down. Especially given that we know Will is in the Upside Down at this point in the show, facing violence. But in this scene, it could also represent death as the other side of life. I think it’s interesting that the Upside Down consistently has imagery of death and decay, given that it’s the very opposite of the warmth we often associate with Hawkins.
Although Heroes itself isn’t a song explicitly about queer love, it is thematically queer. By this, I mean that the subject matter of the song is lauded in queer subtext and imagery.
This is all taking place during the 1980s. A time that was profoundly homophobic and opposed to anyone remotely different to the societal standards. We’re also located in a small town in Indiana and have canonically homophobic characters. The theme of shame over being who you are vs. learning to accept yourself anyways is crucial throughout the entire show.
I don’t think Will or Mike were aware of their romantic feelings for each other during S1, rather, the use of Heroes during S1 serves as foreshadowing for the future of their relationship, and sets up the theme of resurrection.
Could the placement of the Heroes lyrics be a coincidence? Sure, anything could be. Even so, the writing and production team chose to use a romantic song about forbidden love (written by a bisexual rockstar and queer icon) for this scene. In a series where every song serves an explicit lyrical purpose, these things aren’t accidental.
Especially when the song is used more than once.
Season Three: Hopper’s “Death”
The second time the Heroes cover is played is during S3. It’s the final scene of the season. The song begins to play as El finishes reading Hop’s letter. Then it continues as Joyce takes one last look around the Byers’ house before leaving for California.
This time, the lines “and we kissed, as though nothing could fall (nothing could fall). And the shame, was on the other side,” are not included. None of the lyrics line up with Mike or Will. This time, the song is hinting at the theme I spoke of above: resurrection.
All of our characters and the audience are supposed to believe Hopper is dead at this point in the story. Of course, we now know the truth. Just as Will was believed to be dead the last time Heroes played, the song once again signals this isn’t the case. Hopper isn’t really dead. There’s hope. New life and love will blossom again in S4.
Moving Beyond Season Three
Originally, I theorized [here, here] that Will would fall under Vecna’s curse in S4 vol. 2, and Heroes would be the song to save him. Only this time, it would be Bowie’s original version of the song. I was obviously wrong . . . but I wouldn’t be surprised if Heroes pops up again in S5 with the context of Will (and especially his relationship with Mike). Rising above self-hatred. Living life to the fullest, refusing to let fear stand in the way of pursuing the love you feel inside.
“Being a freak is the best, alright?”
The times Heroes plays in Stranger Things aren’t the only times Bowie is referenced. I do think if the song plays for a Byler scene, it’ll be the original version that plays. I go into this in more detail in another post [here], but for a bit more context, let’s take a look at one of my favourite moments: Jonathan and Will’s conversation about shame and being a “freak.”
Tumblr media
Jonathan: You know what? You’re right. You are a freak. But what, do you want to be normal? Do you wanna be just like everyone else? Being a freak is the best, alright? I’m a freak . . . Who would you rather be friends with: Bowie or Kenny Rogers?
Will: Ugh.
Jonathan: Exactly. It’s no contest. The thing is, nobody normal ever accomplished anything meaningful in this world.
One of the core themes of Stranger Things is accepting what makes us different. Our differences are our strengths, and the writers of Stranger Things want their characters (and us) to understand that. Jonathan’s line: “nobody normal ever accomplished anything meaningful in this world” is particularly important. 
Our characters aren’t the typical heroes of 1980s films and movies. They aren’t popular. They have nerdy interests and aren’t ashamed of it. For the most part, our core characters own the things that others judge about them. And when they don’t, part of their character arc is about learning to accept their true selves.
Jonathan uses Bowie as an example for the outsider figure that represents not only Will and himself, but every other character we’ve come to love. Even Steve, reformed stereotypical 80s jock, is no longer bound to the pressures of the larger society.
But in the context of Will, his comparison to Bowie is another way of queer coding a character who we know is canonically gay and in love with his best friend Mike. Bowie is a “freak” because he’s unique and an outsider, but also because he’s queer — and in 1980s small town Indiana, at the height of the AIDS crisis, being gay was just about as “freaky” as you could get.
To demonstrate this core idea of embracing your inner freak and finding a found family who loves you despite your “outsider” status, the entirety of our main cast have experiences which turn them into outsiders in the eyes of larger Hawkins.
To list a few: Joyce is divorced, working class, and a single mother who has “conspiracies” that many shame her for, Jonathan is bullied for being working class, Will is gay and bullied by homophobes; Lucas is Black and targeted by racists (Troy, Billy, Jason); Max has stereotypically “boyish” interests, is from an abusive working class home, and has mental health issues; El has superpowers, lacks assumed social cues, and is neurodivergent coded; Dustin has a rare genetic condition which he is bullied for; Robin is a lesbian and worries about becoming a “social pariah”; and Mike . . . is a gamer?
Alright, I know Mike is also bullied for being a nerd and is called “frog face,” but other than his status as a geeky kid, is Mike really any different than what Hawkins expects of a boy his age? He’s upper middle-class, has great friends, is smart, and even has a girlfriend. So why is it that the least-outsider of our outsiders is seen as our leader, and the eyes of the audience?
Mike Wheeler is the Audience’s Eyes
Given that, in my view, Byler is the only sensible outcome for Stranger Things because of its themes, character arcs, queer references, costuming, staging choices, etc. etc., I don’t believe the Mike we see is the real Mike Wheeler. We only see the real Mike in brief glimpses. Here’s why.
Mike is the central POV character for seasons 1 and 2 of Stranger Things.
In another breakdown [here] I analyzed Mike as the central POV character in S1 and S2. But let’s stick with this idea that Mike is the main member of the party who we learn alongside during S1. For example, during the Will’s “body” scene discussed above, it’s Mike’s reactions that the camera pans to. We see Mike crying and reacting to his best friend dying, we follow him home, and learn about Will’s “death” with him.
In S2, we have other establishing shots where the camera lingers on Mike longer than the other party members. When Will is taken to Dr. Owens, for example, the camera focuses on Mike and we hear his thoughts. Mike finds Will having an episode in the field, which is also when we discover his episode. Mike spends the entirety of S2 with Will, including the climax of Will’s exorcism where Mike plays a pivotal role.
Why Mike? For the original audience demographic, which was probably expected to be nerdy teenage boys/adults, our “eyes” in the show are placed onto a character who a wide variety of people can relate to. He’s the loyal ‘til death, heroic friend, nerdy boy, bullied, but not for any perceivable differences. And this is mid-2010s media we’re talking about, so of course the protagonist character is going to be a white boy.
What the hell happened in seasons 3 and 4?
Mike seems to vanish as our primary POV character after S2. Multiple POVs come into focus, and El becomes our main character over Mike. I think Will’s writing in S3 and S4 is a bit of a mess at times, but aside from S2, his screen time was never as much as Mike’s. The reduction of Mike’s importance, and the strange turn his character takes in S3 is telling. I think the Duffer brothers deliberately reduced Mike’s role as our “eyes” in the show during S3 because this is when his queer awakening begins to take place, and we aren’t supposed to know yet.
Mike Wheeler, I Know What You Are
Tumblr media Tumblr media
And you sure as hell ain’t straight!
This isn’t an Em-tries-to-convince-you-unbelievers-Mike-is-queer theory. I’ll leave that up to the pros! Instead, I want to tell you why Byler endgame makes the most sense thematically within the context of a story that is at its heart about freaks and outsiders and found family and refusing to conform.
Mike Wheeler has Internalized Homophobia
“What’s internalized homophobia?” it’s a real nasty piece of work, that’s for sure.
Basically, it’s the idea that as queer people grow up in a heteronormative society which perpetuates shame and hatred towards queer people, we will internalize that shame and hatred, pitting it against our own sexuality. It’s a very common experience for queer people, especially in less-accepting generations, and Mike’s strange behaviour from S3 onwards could easily be explained by his own feelings of internalized homophobia, including his relationship with El.
Mike and Will have the potential to be the classic childhood friends to lovers storyline, only this time it’s between two boys instead of a boy and girl. We all know how much the Duffers love to subvert expectations.
Only their storyline is more complicated by the internalized shame each boy harbours towards himself. We’ve canonically been shown Will’s internalized homophobia, starting from S2 when he worries about being seen as a “freak.” Growing up and having his father call him homophobic slurs, being bullied for being gay, and living in the midst of the AIDS crisis when gay men were scapegoated and treated abhorrently by a moral majority — all are prime reasons for the shame he feels towards himself. S4 only emphasizes this with Will feeling like he’s a “mistake” for being different.
But Stranger Things doesn’t want its viewers or characters to feel this shame. They want us to find a family who loves and accepts us. They want us to accept our differences and love the things that make us “outsiders.” 
That’s the whole point of the show. That’s why the homophobes, racists, and bullies are consistently fought against: because what they say isn’t right or true, even though it was popular opinion at the time.
In the case of Mike, the way he pulls away from Will in S3 and S4 could be explained with the shame he feels for his own queerness. A lot of people think Mike has turned into an asshole. A shitty friend. He’s so drastically different from how he was in S2, and there’s no real reason for this change. Unless the reason is an internal one that we haven’t been shown yet.
The Rain Scene
The rain scene has been analyzed a thousand times. From the parallel to the Milk Ban fight where Milk Ban is played for laughs and Byler is meant to be devastating, to colour analysis, film references, and more. This scene haunts me. Seriously, they did that.
Tumblr media
Mike obviously isn’t homophobic. We’ve seen him defend Will from homophobic bullying in S1. But he does have a hell of a lot of internalized homophobia, and oh boy is he ever projecting during the infamous fight scene.
His attack on Will (which is really projection of his own feelings onto the boy he fancies) is twofold: 1. internalized homophobia combined with 2. Mike’s idea that growing up means conforming to heteronormativity.
But this scene isn’t from Mike’s POV. It’s from Will’s. We’re meant to see Mike as an asshole. We’re meant to empathize with Will as he destroys Castle Byers: a symbol of his childhood and heteronormativity [more here].
Mike: “I’m not trying to be a jerk, okay? But we’re not kids anymore. I mean what did you think, really, that we were never gonna get girlfriends? That we were just gonna sit in my basement all day and play games for the rest of our lives?”
Will: “Yeah, I guess I did. I really did.”
This isn’t just Mike being mad at Will for “refusing to grow up” or whatever. He’s specifically calling out Will’s critique of Mike having a girlfriend. At this point Will is fully aware he’s gay and has feelings for Mike. Mike is very much in denial. For Mike, growing up means getting a girlfriend and following the lifestyle his parents outlined for him. He denies any other feelings he may have and instead takes out his self-hatred on Will.
It’s important to note that his parents are also Reagan supporters (Reagan was a homophobe who spread moral panic over gay and bisexual men during the AIDS crisis) and unhappily married. He has no representation of loving romantic relationships in his house, and no positive representation to compare his feelings to. Let alone any gay feelings he has for his best friend.
When Will destroys Castle Byers, it’s a devastating moment, but also a moment of clarity. Will suspects that Mike knows he’s gay, and as S4 opens, we see early signs of Will beginning to embrace his queerness: from the Boys Don’t Cry poster to the painting for Mike to the way he questions Mike’s behaviour towards El, and their relationship as a whole. He even talks to Jonathan about how he’s feeling.
But Mike is still in denial. Because he is no longer a POV character from S3 and S4 until the couch scene [more here], we don’t see his thoughts. In my view, he realizes his gay feelings are for Will at the end of S3, after his closet kiss with El, when Will puts his D&D set in the box. This is why he pulls away from Will again, even though they seemingly made up by the end of the season. It was too much for Mike’s internalized homophobia.
Mike’s scenes with Will in S4 are all from Will’s POV, (again, except for the couch scene and a couple minor moments). Mostly when he’s looking longingly at Will as Will digs a grave, which is awfully interesting because we have no need to see Mike look at Will that way unless Mike has feelings for Will. I see what you’re up to, Duffers and Michael Wheeler.
All this said, if Byler isn’t canon, then the following premise must be correct: Will Byers, a traumatized boy who was bullied for being gay and feels like a mistake for the feelings he has for Mike — a boy who has stood up to his fears and faced violence because of it — will not find love at the end of the series.
Keep in mind that the Duffer brothers haven’t only written Will as a gay character. They’ve explicitly written him as a gay character in love with his best friend Mike Wheeler. He’s shown no other interest in romance aside from Mike. His feelings remain unresolved at the end of S4. There are no other love interests for Will Byers. We only have one season, 8 episodes long, and the Duffer brothers have said they aren’t adding any new characters.
There’s no time to set up a love interest. There would be no tension, and it would be bad writing. For two writers who planned ideas about the Upside Down that we’re only just now discovering in S4 & S5, I have more faith in them than that. Mike is the only possible love interest for Will. And in a series which wants to pair up all/most of its main characters, why the hell would the traumatized gay boy end up alone?
Well, I’m here to tell you that the themes of Stranger Things back up Will having a happy ending. In fact, Byler endgame is what we’ve been building towards since the very first episode of S1.
Forced Conformity is Killing the Kids
Tumblr media
When Eddie said the infamous line in S4, I was like, oh yeah they’re going for it.
Eddie: “It’s forced conformity. That’s what’s killing the kids.”
It’s just so on the nose. It’s the entire message of the show summarized in one line. The way to survive is to accept yourself for all that you are, and to find other who accept you as well. This is exactly what Jonathan said to Will, way back in S2 about how “being a freak is the best!” (ILY Jonathan Byers, best sibling and ally in the whole show <3)
The kids who are targeted by Vecna are traumatized and do not fit into the societal mold, despite their attempts to. Chrissy has mental health issues stemming from an abusive mother and feels pressure to change her body to appease her; Fred has immense survivor’s guilt and is a nerdy outsider; and even though Patrick is popular, it’s implied he lived in an abusive household. As for Max, she’s an outsider for many reasons that I’ve gone over.
Each of Vecna’s targets attempts hide their trauma in order to fit into their expected roles. In their own ways, they are conforming. As Eddie, ever the non-conformist, says: “it’s forced conformity. That’s what’s killing the kids.”
And I think he’s right.
I’ve discussed a lot of the ways the characters don’t fit into typical 1980s society and how the point is for us to empathize with these outsiders and freaks. There’s a reason why seeking popularity is seen as a negative choice (for better or worse), and why accepting your weirdness and refusing to hide yourself is held in high regard.
Vecna’s Victims Attempt to Conform
In fact, we could even argue that Vecna’s victims are targeted because they conform. In a way, it becomes a narrative punishment. Conforming = bad. Characters who conform/hide = targets. Take Max, for example. Max attempts to hide her trauma and depression by pushing away her friends. She’s able to overcome these inner battles and finally comes clean to Lucas and the rest of the party by the end of the season, revealing the parts of herself she attempted to hide.
Similarly, we see the way Will’s attempts to conform put a weight on him, and especially on his relationships. The end of S4 presents a Will Byers who is beginning to accept himself after coming out to Jonathan, but hours earlier he still felt like a mistake for who he is. He probably still feels that way by the season’s end because of how entrenched in internalized homophobia and shame he has been growing up with Supreme Dick Lonnie Byers as a father.
A Brief Note on Lucas
Since S1, we’ve seen the way racism has impacted Lucas as the sole main Black character in the show. From Troy to Billie to Jason, the way Lucas is bullied by racists in Hawkins is important to take note of. For this reason, it’s understandable that Lucas attempts to prevent his othering by conforming and trying to “fit in” by joining the basketball team. We’re not meant to view this as inherently negative, as is the case for most other attempts at conformity. Rather, we’re meant to understand that Lucas doesn’t want to be ostracized further than he is already.
Other analysts have pointed out more specific analysis of race and racism in Stranger Things that deserve their own conversation outside of this post, but I wanted to bring up Lucas’ experience because he’s: 1. our sole Black protagonist, and 2. an example of conformity which isn’t meant to be inherently bad to viewers. We’re supposed to understand Lucas’ choice as a means of survival. Conformity isn’t inherently evil, but his desire to conform paints a larger picture of Hawkins as a place where anyone who stands out of the dominant society is put at risk because of prejudices in the town. 
What About Mike?
Mike pushes Will away after S2. He spends all his time around El in S3, conforming into the expected role he has grown up around: seeing his parents, unhappily married in a heterosexual relationship. Others have pointed out just how many parallels there are between Mike and Ted throughout the show, from dialogue to his wardrobe, and this certainly isn’t an accident. Realizing his queerness and seeing nothing but homophobia and heteronormativity, Mike feels the need to conform to his parent’s expectations. He sees no other choice, and this is why he projects onto Will — “it’s not my fault you don’t like girls!”
Even after Mike and Will reconcile at the end of S3, Mike pulls away again when Will moves away. To a smaller extent, Will is certainly at fault. But given his feelings for Mike and the shame he feels, it’s understandable that he tried to keep Mike at a distance. But what excuse would a Straight Mike have?
Mike: “We’re friends, Will. Friends.”
I can practically hear the just in front of his “we’re friends” statement. And to answer my previous question, a happy straight Mike would have no reason to pull away from Will again. He’s not annoyed about Will acting childish — he literally plays D&D (which he called Will childish for playing in S3) while Will does not anymore. Their roles have completely reversed by T4. Will is in the early stages of the self-acceptance we expect from Stranger Things, but Mike is still in denial of his own emotions.
Tumblr media
S3 Mike is annoyed at Will for being “childish” and wanting to play D&D, meanwhile S4 Mike only wants to play D&D.
Tumblr media
But S4 Mike is beginning to change in small ways.
His wardrobe is influenced by Eddie. He starts to play D&D again. He makes up with Will and this time he seems to mean it, even though their relationship is still strained with everything left unsaid. The couch scene signals a movement back into Mike’s POV. Essentially, S5 will reintroduce us to Mike’s POV, and we’ll begin to understand why he’s been acting so strange since S3. It’s because he loves Will.
El, Friendship, and Found Family
We’ll get back to Heroes and look at the way the song ties up all of the themes I’ve laid out soon enough, but first it’s important to consider El, who is our protagonist from S3 onwards.
One of the largest critiques I see from people who don’t think requited Byler is likely to become canon comes from a segment of people who believe El’s romantic life is a large part of her character arc. I simply disagree with this assessment of her arc, and here’s why!
What about El, what about her love story?
El has a perfectly beautiful love story forming in front of our very eyes. Only for her, it’s the story of a girl who was raised without love or kindness or family, who grows and finds a family for herself. Found family ties into the queer themes in Stranger Things and the idea that all of our main characters are outsiders. It’s the glue that holds the series together. The heart of the show is the love the characters have for each other, platonic and otherwise.
This is one reason why we don’t see endless death of our central characters as is the case in similar shows. That’s because at its core, Stranger Things is about love and acceptance. Sure, there are also monsters and alternate dimensions, but that’s not the core of what holds the story together.
From the first time we meet El in S1, we understand her position. She is deeply traumatized, having grown up in a hostile environment where she was dehumanized and subjected to brutal experiments. Hell, her name is literally a number.
But in S1, she meets Mike.
This is El’s first real and normal connection to any person. Mike treats her like a human being and teaches her about the outside world and the way it works.
In S2, El finds a father in Jim Hopper and learns the ways of a family (and pretends to be Mike’s cousin). She still has her bond to Mike, but the romance isn’t what matters. El is on a journey to discover more about where she came from, including her family and what that says about her powers. At the same time, she’s learning about the outside world and the societal standards that restrict she and her friends.
In S3, El becomes close to Max and realizes that romantic relationships don’t and shouldn’t define her life. There’s more to life than stupid boys! She’s learning about herself and what it means to be a kid and what it means to have a family. She learns to balance her relationships, but she still sees herself as a superhero at the end of the day.
In S4, El has a family. A brother and mother who love her. She struggles with bullying because she’s different from everyone. And again when she goes to get back her powers, she’s on a journey of self-discovery.
For three seasons she’s been treated and believed herself to be the superhero who must save the day. But it didn’t work this time. Max is in a coma and everything is falling to pieces, but she has Hopper and Joyce and Will and everyone who loves her. Her relationship with Mike is turbulent. Even after his monologue, the two of them never discuss their supposed romantic love again. Instead, her relationship with Hopper is prioritized; Mike and Will have their moment on the couch and then everything falls apart again.
Tumblr media
Oh yeah. And we get this epic final scene where El stands alone in front of the people who have become her family. Only the six people behind her are arranged in groups of two. And two of those groups are canonical couples who are most likely to be endgame. And then we have Mike and Will. Interesting. 
At the heart of El’s character arc is her growing awareness of the world around her and her found family. After a childhood of neglect, trauma, and dehumanization, she’s being treated like a person. Not only that, but she’s learning to love and be loved by those around her. To say that her romantic relationship is central to her character arc is to ignore the true story that is unfolding in El’s life.
Besides, El wasn’t planned to live past S1. I’m so glad she did because she’s a wonderful character, but romance between El and Mike was never the original end goal for the story.
The Healing Power of Music
Tumblr media
I promised we’d get back to Heroes eventually!
To overview: the core theme of Stranger Things is learning to accept your differences and status as an “outsider” in the eyes of larger society; not only accepting, but loving these parts of yourself for which you’re made to feel ashamed. And in this, forging a family of outsiders, underdogs, and freaks who understand you and love you as you are.
In the context of Heroes, I discussed how the song focuses on a forbidden romance wherein the couple overcomes their feelings of shame and fear, choosing to embrace their love, even though it’s frowned upon in the eyes of the outside world. What matters isn’t the view of onlookers, but living and refusing to conform to expectations.
By accepting yourself as you are, you’re being born again. You’re resurrected.
S4 may have showed us the literal saving power of music, but music has always been crucial within the show. Just think of Will singing Should I Stay or Should I Go to keep himself safe and comforted in the Upside Down. The way music is used to forge connections and bonds. The way music is used to highlight being a freak: from Bowie as the icon of freaks to Eddie’s “this is real music” and beyond.
Any song that plays more than once over multiple seasons is bound to be important and lauded in meaning. Will listening to Should I Stay or Should I Go represents his fight or flight response when faced with danger, and his choice to be brave. Max listening to Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God) represents her depression and survivor’s guilt; the way she desires to switch places with Billy. When It’s Cold I’d Like to Die plays when Eddie dies, when Sarah dies, and when Will is saved from death.
And as I’ve said already, Heroes has come to represent resurrection. It’s about forging a new life for yourself out of the ashes of trauma and shame. If even for just one day, accept what makes you different, because it’s these differences that make you a hero in the eyes of the show.
So when we get to S5, music will continue to hold its healing power and symbolism, just as it has since S1 when Will first entered the Upside Down and shaped it to his image. I think our final season (which has been said to be similar to S1 in the way the characters are united) will directly parallel S1 in many ways. Including Will’s role. I think he will revisit the Upside Down and confront his trauma and fear as Bob taught him to. 
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
This being said, I think Heroes will make an appearance again. 
Think of it: it played during S1, S3, and we have S5 left. How perfect would it be for the song to play during a moment of two characters defying all odds, casting aside their shame and guilt, choosing acceptance and love instead. I’m thinking S5 will have a post-apocalyptic feel, with Hawkins abandoned by many, and only our heroes left to save their town. They’ll be surrounded by the violence and decay of a Hawkins morphed with the Upside Down, and larger society’s pressure will cease to matter.
This is life or death. Our characters must be the heroes we’ve always known them to be, or else Vecna will continue to expand and claim innocent lives. And part of this journey is self-acceptance, just as it always has been. Our characters have to accept the things that make them different, otherwise they won’t survive. Conformity is what’s killing the kids. Nobody normal ever made a difference in the world. They have to be Heroes, just for one day.
Dear Underdogs, Outcasts, and Freaks
One of the things I’ve always loved about Stranger Things is the way it subverts expectations and rewrites 1980s nostalgia through a modern lens. If it came out in the 80s, the show would look so different. We certainly wouldn’t have any of the (still very limited) representation the show has today. 
All of this is to say that thematically, the ending which makes most sense is for Mike and Will to end up together. It would defy expectations, yet the clues have been written on the wall since S1. All general audience viewers will have to do is re-watch the show after a requited Byler reveal to see just how many hints have been there all along. They’re already revisiting the show with fresh eyes after Will has been canonically confirmed to be gay (something many Bylers have known since S1). 
The Duffer brothers have even stated in multiple interviews that they aren’t worried about the general audience reception to the series’ end. They know that some people will be angry, but the story they’ve been telling is so much bigger than that. The cast has described the ending as beautiful. What’s more beautiful than revealing you’ve been playing the long-game in what would be one of the most revolutionary representations of queer love in any piece of mainstream media? 
Stranger Things is a love letter to everyone who has ever felt like they don’t belong. To the underdogs, outcasts, and freaks. From a writing and queer representation perspective, it simply makes no sense to have a deeply traumatized gay boy end up alone. There’s a reason Robin is being given a love interest for the final season. The Duffer brothers love happy endings for their outcast characters.
All of these ideas are shown in the song Heroes, which is about choosing love in the face of ostracism and violence. Very much an idea which we see throughout the series. Because at its heart, Stranger Things is a show about finding family and love in a broken world. What would be more perfect than to end the series with Mike and Will finally accepting themselves and overcoming everything they’ve dealt with since November 1983?
Tumblr media
Author’s Note
This post has taken me ages to put together, but here we are, at the end!
I recently read the theory behind Flickergate and I find it wholly convincing. It also fits with my theory that Heroes will play a large symbolic role in S5, so I recommend reading that theory or watching the linked visual. 
I’ve also linked some of my own theories throughout this one which give a bit more context to some ideas I have about Stranger Things at large. They’re also linked in my pinned post. 
If you have questions or add-ons for this, please share them, I’d love to know your thoughts!! :)
—Em
367 notes · View notes
absolutebl · 2 years
Note
I've been showing a good friend BL twice a week since early pandemic. She's seen a lot of the best stuff, and recently finished To My Star 2. We were discussing how the seme/uke and top/bottom perceptions affect how the characters are portrayed.
With TMS2, I commented that the scenes we get to the end where they keep switching who is big and little spoon felt like a tasteful way to show that they were versatile. We also noted that Pat and Pran are never shown in a way that confirms their positions.
Does your spreadsheet track anything regarding top/bottom presentation, and do you have thoughts on BL and how it presents this?
Verse Characters in BL 
What an interesting question.
Well I would argue that Fighter & Tutor are the only Thai BL couple who are explicitly verse, in their case they talk about it openly in terms of "showing ownership" which is pretty clearly code for who fucks whom. As in, the idea of being taken or taking (invasion) = ownership. Trust a BL script to use the language of war for an act of communication and connection. 
My spreadsheet doesn’t track this because it’s so rare. I remember a couple other times getting very excited about it (other than Why R U?) but not which shows. 
Okay here’s our biggest example: 
Cornered Mouse Dreams of Cheese shows them verse (explicitly depicts the sex act both ways), but it’s one of Japan’s discussions about the nature of identity and intimacy and possession. It could actually be argued that the whole movie is a debate of what seme/uke means and does to its characters, what obsession means, how long term devotion without consequences of boundaries corrupts. It’s kind of like the very dark version of what could have happened to the characters in My Beautiful Man if they had never managed to find each other and reconcile (and Hira learn to accept and express himself). The leads in CMDoC are genuinely at war, so the lens showing us who fucks whom as an expression of who is winning the narrative battle at that point in time. 
Look, I don’t like this movie, but apparently if it’s Japan I’m always going to have a lot to say. 
I mean there needs to be enough self aware queerness in the BL to realize this should even be addressed - otherwise just slap seme/uke on it and conflate personality with sexual preference (SIGH). 
Also the BL has to somewhat follow the characters into the bedroom, and it would need to be higher heat which, in and of itself, is pretty rare. 
So I did a heat ranking, then a ratings sort (since I’m more likely to rate verse characters higher) and here’s a short list of ones for which a case for verse... could be made. 
Tumblr media
Why R U? - Fighter & Tutor (no question - couched in a request to “prove/show ownership”) 
My Day - Ace & Sky (also I think this is pretty clear via their sex scenes - they were the other ones I was thinking of, also they engage in some fun light kink, I LOVE these two) 
To My Star 1 & 2 - implied by the cuddling debate in 2
Bad Buddy - actually they imply, when asked at one point, that it’s still open to debate between them, so we don’t know what they settled on but given their dynamic, probubly verse 
HIStory 2: Crossing the Line - ZiXuan & YuHao, I mean YuHao's fantasies go both ways so I think he, at least, is verse
Mr Cinderella - mostly because of the linguistic grappling, but also both actors have a history of the seme role (clearly also implied top) in their other BLs, they swap tropes around a lot too in this one 
His the movie - it’s just... not important 
Ai no Kotodama - I actually think they have a kinda conversation about this, it’s been a long time since I watched it though, and 2010 = intentionally confusingly vague about everything 
Boys Love - right so there’s a bit of an underpinning dialogue about this in both installments. In both cases I think the “teacher” is meant to be the bottom, but also the student is so desperate and so needy there’s an implication that he would do ANYTHING, including alter his whole identity (even sexual preference as a top) in order to be with the object of his desire, which is part of what makes their love destructive - it cannot and does not conform to... anything, least of all seme/uke (which at the time, when present, was always conflated with Top/bottom). 
Tumblr media
Either of KarnNat’s pieces, I mean I think Nat is meant to be the catcher, but they don’t act their higher heat scenes that way, it’s extremely mutual, and power exchange back and forth in terms of who kisses whom and stuff. 
Frankly, any of the couples who have no seme uke are open to debate since in Thai BL especially Top/bottom = Seme/uke (it shouldn’t, but in the narrative it’s implied). BL couples where there is no seme/uke
Be Loved in House: I Do - YuZhen & ShiLei, maybe 
Double Mints - fuck ‘em, though 
Ingredients 
My Tee 
Wish You 
Second Chance - PaperFah
Seven Days 
So Much in Love - North & Onsah, there’s no seme/uke in this Thai pulp, but it’s so much a pulp and so confusing I’m not sure if that’s intentional or just failure of narrative clarity and poor acting 
Your Name Engraved Herein - I am NEVER watching this movie again, but from my recollection of the characters’ behaviors, maybe?  
Gameboys 2 - I have only seen discussion here and the previews, but I think they make this pretty clear in conversation and behavior
Hey Rival I Love You - certainly entirely up in the air in all ways
Love is Science? - Mark & Ouwen, I think the flip flopping of who’s on top/in charge in their sex scene implies general experimental willingness, shall we say?
HIStory 3: Trapped - TangYi & ShaoFei, possibly, ShaoFei is hesitant because he’d scared, but that’s of the implications and intimacy of being a couple, not really of sex. After all he runs away when TangYi is too nice and gentle with him.
Tumblr media
I honestly think My Engineer 2 should go there with RamKing. They are perfect characters and actors to do this with. But Thailand really doesn’t have the guts. 
Other pairs who I think can and should rep verse? 
First & Toru 
PokeTongue 
MaxTul could absolutely portray verse. Why they haven’t yet is a weakness of Thai BL and y-novels inability to stop heterosexually vomiting all over their gays. 
Weirdly? EarthMix, I think they could and should do a bit of a FighterTutor sitch in Moonlight Chicken. 
Crosses arms.
Impress me, GMMTV. 
A reminder: 
So top/bottom/verse is difficult because it means we follow the characters into the bedroom AND have a glimpse into their penetration preferences, that means very high heat, and there is (statistically) less of that in BL.
As opposed to Dom/sub/switch which plays into personality and correlates better (but not perfectly) to a seme uke dynamic because it is about who has the power to make decisions.
And my definition of Seme/uke - which is the character showing the most narrative drive to consummate the relationship (physically or otherwise) = seme. 
Finally: 
Sexual preference does not correlate to personality! Please stop this. I put it to you in het terms: 
If you are a straight women who likes to ride reverse cowgirl style does this show up in your personality as you walk around in your day to day life? No it does not. 
So a boy likes to fuck or be fucked - that’s like cake verse pie, it doesn't say anything about how aggressive that boy is in relationships. And prying into that dynamic is tantamount to me asking you about the details of your penetration preferences. (Which, to be fair, I probubly would, but I'm a curious, rude, intrusive shitmonger.) 
Also, it behoves me to add, plenty of gay men do not like penetration at all. Plenty of straight women don’t like it. Or don’t like vaginal but do like a-play. And plenty of straight men like to be pegged. A-play has to do with how sensitive you are, how relaxed, how prepped, how much lube, whether you find the idea a turn on when applied to yourself, how self conscious you are, and a host of other factors. 
Puts proverbial soap box away while reminding you that soap = also to be used prior to such encounters. 
(source)
135 notes · View notes
Text
The Hours and Times
We watched The Hours and the Times, and we don’t want to yuck anyone’s yum, but we hated this movie.
The movie starts in black and white, with what can only be described as “sad olden times music”. It was a full 4 minutes of cheesy music and aerial street scenes before we saw a character. If we didn’t know any better, we would have thought it was from the silent film era…except those movies are done better. 
The actor playing Epstein really looked nothing like him, though his voice was pretty good. John’s actor looked a bit more the part, though he hardly showed any expression on his face during the whole movie.
Tumblr media
It was pretentious and artsy for the sake of it, which didn’t do anything for the movie. And by artsy we mean everything from pacing and scripting, to the music choice (when they bothered to include music), to the choice of black and white. 
The acting was bad, the directing was bad, and the script was probably worst of all. 
The opening scene, on the plane over to Barcelona, has a significant section where John is off-screen. It’s not well constructed, and doesn’t feel like we’re focused on Brian’s face for any good reason. It just feels like John’s been cut out accidentally. This happens multiple times: John is in the scene, and speaking, but off-screen for no obvious reason, and it was clearly a voice over. There were times when John was on screen, and his lips moved but there was no audible dialog, and others where the ADR (overdubbing) was comically bad (like bad enough to rival Help!). Not to mention John would never wear his glasses around a girl he was trying to impress, or on a commercial flight at all. 
Tumblr media
The conversations were stilted and weird. They didn’t help us understand what the characters had previously discussed, how they felt about one another, or what they wanted. The best one in the film was between John and Cyn (on the phone). Cyn’s voice actor was great, but she was working with some terrible material. The conversation was stilted and not in a “we can glimpse the cracks in their relationship way” in a “the screenwriter hasn’t finished writing this” way.
One thing we really don’t understand is how everyone says it ends on such a sad note. As far as we can tell the film ends with them being a proper couple. They are in bed together, and then back in Liverpool with Brian telling John to promise him he’ll never leave him. That seems very much like a real couple to us. Then suddenly back in Barcelona. Is the sad note the fact that they talk about meeting there in (their future) 1973?
Tumblr media
Though in true 90s fashion they don’t make the queer commitment explicit or unambiguous, but it seems kind of obvious all the same.
Side characters:
The gay bar weirdo - terrible Spanish accent, in fact it was more a terrible British accent than anything, unclear why John invited him back to their room, his behaviour was so inconsistent between the bar and the room we were briefly unsure it was the same guy.
The hotel employee - very uncomfortable scene with Brian
The air hostess - best character in the whole movie, potentially a great friend for a confused gay guy to have, very good dancer
The film didn’t once depict Brian and John discussing the types of men Brian was attracted to, it didn’t bring up the conversation about songwriting credit (in fact the other Beatles may as well not have existed) and it didn’t mention Bad To Me, which John finished writing on that holiday and played for Brian one afternoon. And those are the three things we know did happen on that trip. 
The second to last scene was on the roof of NEMS. It felt like it was either a very badly-signaled flash back (or forward?) or it was accidentally inserted at the wrong place in the movie.
If you love this movie, first of all apologies 😬, but please tell us what makes you love it. We’re not promising we’ll watch it again, but we do want to know what you see in it.
Be honest, is it just the (incredibly awkward) bathtub kiss?
Tumblr media
17 notes · View notes
variousqueerthings · 1 year
Text
as per the latest video I watched + my aroace!hawkeye headcanon, the guy talking about how “does there need to be a declaration made, or a specification made, or is just the plot acknowledging that there is no romantic future for this character enough.” the interesting thing there was that he was talking as an alloromantic gay ace person, so to him as an ace person “not having a romantic future in text” overlaps with the search for asexual representation and he’s not wrong! 
as much as we (I) talk about not-conflating, there is overlap between aromantic reads and asexual reads (the difference in conflation and overlap is whether we’re being conscious about it, I think)
so to take this perspective and see how it relates to hawkeye not just romantically, but also sexually. yes, in the sense that there is a running-ish joke in later seasons that he has a date set up that doesn’t work out for whatever reason or that someone doesn’t want to sleep with him -- with the notable exception of “who knew” (and that is a whole Thing, especially aromantically, as well) -- but also in the sense that lack-of-romance is a common way for asexual people to imprint on a character in and of itself, because we know that narratives very much use romance as a shorthand for sex (and if a romance doesn’t have sex, then that’s a shorthand for dysfunction in the relationship). romantic arc = sexual person, regardless of whether or not sex is depicted
was also thinking once again about allowing asexuality to be complex -- that is, not simply creating a divide between people who do have sex and those who don’t have sex, when the reality is far more interesting and fluid, especially in a society in which sex = romance and romance = sex -- sidenote on how the queer community tries to challenge the former notion in some ways, but still very much struggles in much the same way as non-queers to think of it beyond easily definable stereotypes about what sort of people aromantics and asexuals are (egotistical, childish, robotic, mentally ill - especially psychopathic and/or with some learning disability/developmental disability (yes this is all ableist), boring, prude-or-hypersexual, shallow, traumatised, etcetc)
but thinking more deeply about why someone has sex and why they don’t creates a very interesting possibility for analysis, and hawkeye is one of the more obvious leading characters I’ve seen who has a complicated relationship to romance, through which one can easily confer a similarly complicated relationship to sex because of the ways these things are depicted on the show, both as a consequence of the time in which it was being written and of the time-and-place in which it’s set
hawkeye as both someone who falls in love at the drop of a hat, but for whom “love” is not really romantic, but who doesn’t have other forms of categorisation, and for whom, naturally, and especially as a man, that love = sex for the time in which that sex lasts (leading to accusations of shallowness), until at some point he consciously stops a young woman from pursuing him based on his reflections of how he is and his trauma, and at another point believes himself to be in love with a woman he never really knew, just because he felt guilty about her death
versus hawkeye at the end of the story who is very much designated as a character for whom there is no romantic future in the canon (avoids the “margaret is also this character” tangent for nooow) and is surrounded by people who love him/whom he loves in turn -- are the relationships around which his story revolves
also was having fun with the discussion about kink and asexuality in the video, the assertion that asexual people are often some of the kinkiest you know (we know) and how that relates to hawkeye and physicality and sex as well
essentially that hawkeye’s relationship to bodies and relationships is (as I said above) complicated, but surprisingly obviously non-romantic in direction, and you can take an easy wrench to that complication if you so desire, and that is very common for asexual people to do... and so I shall. 
18 notes · View notes
answrs · 2 years
Note
BIG OOF
SORRY I'm one of the anon that tries to come up with immortal ingo ideas over at Swifts
And I'm so sad that this happened to you.
Like this whole ableism talk ( how autistic people can be portrayed) kind of feels ableist it's insane
I'm gonna rant a bit, but bear with me because guess what?
that's because it is!
saying "uwu sweaty don't forget monster characters are always morally bad" to a person exploring their own ACTUAL LIVING REALITY through metaphor and self indulgent fic that maybe 12 people in the entire world will ever interact with, policing how someone that's neurodivergent, queer, trans, POC, and any other marginalized people discuss their experiences is fucking gross! policing tiny content creators who are ACTUALLY, IN REAL LIFE, experiencing dehumanization OF THEMSELVES AS ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS, exploring their experiences through art and relating to monsters is, shocking enough, NOT the cause of all ablism/racism/sexism/homophobia in the world! In many cases it's a direct response to it actually! whodathunk!
can someone of x group be uncomfortable by depictions of y? YES, OBVIOUSLY. but other x people find it freeing and even euphoric to explore something they experience trauma of in a safe media! just because someone didn't like something, or is even triggered by it, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS MORALLY WRONG. that is what the block button is for! filtering! there are tools to protect yourself from that content you don't want to see but it DOES NOT MEAN PEOPLE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE IT.
now if anon was actually going after massive studios where the single token ND is always a monster, sure, go for it. good representation in MASSIVE MAINSTREAM MEDIA is NOT THE SAME as ideas thrown around on some random person's tumblr account. but the secret is, people like that don't actually want to work towards systematic change, they just want to bully someone they can easily access, which are 99% of the time the people they claim to be """"protecting""""
(i remember someone back in HS fancomic days getting completely blasted by anon hate and callouts because the ND author had the GALL to DARE make one of their ND characters evil or whatever)
it wraps around to an infantilizing "uwu autistics MUST be PURE and PERFECT unflawed paper cutouts of characters that do no wrong otherwise you're ablist for following stereotypes (insert suicide bait with a smiley face here)" and it's fucking infuriating
43 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media
“back for a minute. i’m bi. congrats for forcing an 18 year old to out himself. i think some of you missed the point of the show. bye,” the British actor wrote.
His declaration came following months of relentless speculation, discussion and obsession from fans around the actor’s sexuality.
Heartstopper premiered on Netflix earlier this year as a streaming adaptation of Alice Oseman’s graphic novel of the same name. The series follows two boys in high school, Charlie (Joe Locke) and Nick (Connor) as they fall in love and navigate friendships, coming out and questions of identity. The series was praised for its sweet and warm depictions of young love— particularly the exploration of Nick’s bisexuality—and for its diverse cast of queer and trans youth.
But until now, unlike many of his castmates, Connor hadn’t publicly identified his sexuality. And many fans seemed to take issue with that absent label, particularly when images of Connor holding hands with actress Maia Reficco circulated in September with suggestions that the actor was straight playing gay—despite bisexual people who date other genders definitely being real! Connor temporarily left Twitter due to the public scrutiny and accusations that he was “queerbaiting.”
Ultimately, this entire situation shows a fundamental flaw in our cultural expectation of what makes for “good” queer representation onscreen and off, and how we still have some work to do in its understanding of identity and representation.
What does queerbaiting mean?
The notion of queerbaiting is pretty nebulous these days, with fans quick to use it in reference to everything from Harry Styles’s magazine covers to Madonna’s TikTok.
But in its origin, queerbaiting was meant to describe a marketing technique, often for a piece of media, that hinted at queer content, but didn’t actually follow through. For fellow members of my very specific generation on Tumblr, the prime example is Supernatural, a show that teased a central gay relationship between Dean and Castial, but didn’t pay off until the series’ end. Or the BBC Sherlock series that features its fair share of longing glances between Watson and Holmes, but no actual acknowledgement of anything queer going on.
But it’s a lot more complicated when we start talking about real people. Were Queer Eye stars Jonathan Van Ness and Antoni Porowski queerbaiting when they teased a new brand partnership with language and social media posts that hinted they were dating last month? Is a straight—or at least apparently straight—actor queerbaiting when they play a queer character?
To put it simply: no! A straight or straight-passing actor playing an openly queer character is not queerbaiting! It’s a whole different thing, and the fact that that term has continually been tossed around shows fans’ fundamental misunderstanding of what’s going on here. The entire situation with Connor highlights a reductive sense of identity politics when it comes to queer (or not) actors and the portrayal of queer characters. In 2022, it’s not as simple as queer actor playing queer = good, straight actor playing queer = bad.
When straight playing gay is okay
Yeah, there have been some pretty egregious examples of straight/cis (or apparently straight/cis) actors playing queer or trans characters (hi, Eddie Redmayne), but there are a slew of actors who are celebrated for playing queer despite all indications that they’re straight. Fans cheered when director Rian Johnson described Daniel Craig’s Benoit Blanc from the Knives Out films as being queer. And Cate Blanchett (who my partner described as being married to the most boring-looking man in the world) is garnering rave reviews and Oscars buzz for her climactic turn as a lesbian in Tár—just as she did a decade ago in Carol.
Those two know what they’re doing, have stated who they are and have also demonstrated a fondness and allyship to queer folks again and again (just look to Blanchett’s many interviews on the subject and Craig’s noted adoration of gay bars alongside wife and fellow frequent player of gay, Rachel Weisz).
“I will fight to the death for the right to suspend disbelief and play roles beyond my experience. I think reality television and all that that entails had an extraordinary impact, a profound impact on the way we view the creation of character,” Blanchett told the Hollywood Reporter in 2018.
Blanchett’s comments speak to the ideal world I and many others aspire to when it comes to representation in film: queer actors can play straight just as a bisexual actor can play gay or a straight actor can play bi, so long as they’re doing it right. I like to optimistically think we’ve moved past an era of queer people only getting cast (and paid) for queer roles.
But one key thing separating Criag and Blanchett from Connor is age. He’s 18. I don’t know about you, but when I was 18 I thought I was a very different person and used very different labels to describe myself than I do 10 years later. At that time in my life I leaned toward avoiding labels altogether, because I didn’t know which one quite fit.
One of the great things about the progress we’ve made as a culture in LGBTQ2S+ representation is how we don’t have to put people into neat boxes any more. Genders change. Sexualities change. The words we use to describe them and ourselves are constantly in flux. It’s an exciting time to be a young person, because ostensibly you don’t have to have all of the answers right away. You don’t have to “come out” as straight or gay or anything until you’re ready. It’s part of the reason young people are increasingly identifying as non-binary: why stick to one gender and box yourself in?
It’s the sort of utopia so many of our queer and trans ancestors who came before us have fought for. Or so it seems: what happened to Connor shows that fans haven’t moved as far forward as maybe we’ve hoped.
I ran a fandom Tumblr account for years, so I understand how important and meaningful it can feel for the person who made your favourite piece of media that reflects your identity to also reflect your identity themselves. But it’s more complicated than that, and we’ve got to remember that performers are real people—and in this case a young person just coming into adulthood with this huge spotlight on him. Give them time, give them grace and celebrate the fact that they get to figure this out on their own.
When they’re ready, they’ll tell us.
14 notes · View notes
plague-of-insomnia · 1 year
Note
hm idk how ur gonna feel abt an ask like this but i do want to get smth off my chest & u seem p safe. feel free to delete if u want
i saw a post recently talking abt how "gay" got used as a slur a lot more than people acknowledge. and it got me thinking of my school years & how often it got thrown around.
thing is. and heres where my train of thought goes off the rails. i actually experienced the word "incest" as an attack more than the word "gay"... which. ill explain. but it really got me thinking on this whole purity culture & demonising of incest depicted in literature & yknow taking things too far with whats considered incest.
bc at the end of the day. the reason incest is illegal (mostly) is to prevent inbreeding & the health issues that come along with that. if ur not blood related then theres no problem.
and like. the reason i got called incestuous and generally ostracised was bc i was close with a boy in my year. like we dated for a week as 14 yros do. and at some point i discovered that hey. his last name is the same as my aunts and lo and behold hes my 2nd cousin thru marriage or smth. so. not incest at all.
anyway that p much ruined our friendship (& it was a friendship. i broke things off before i even knew we were related bc i just didnt feel the same way and we stayed friends for a little bit) all bc some kids couldnt let it go that we had the vaguest relation to each other. he got bullied for the rest of our school year & ive felt horribly guilty for leaving him bc i wanted to be "cool" & ended up without any close friends like we were.
sorry if thats a weird thing to put in ur inbox.
Hey, anon. I don't mind this ask. I hope you don't mind me replying publicly. (In future if you don't just say so.)
This post will be a bit long, so I'll go ahead and put it under a readmore.
TW for discussions of "gay" used in a negative way, and discussions of the use of the word "incest," and its association with child sexual abuse, though there's really nothing terribly bad here as I'm not going into detail on any of thse topics. (If you need something tagged, though, let me know.)
Now, I'm old as dirt by tumblr standards, and I remember VIVIDLY the word "gay" being used in a negative light. As a kid, I didn't really see it used as a "slur" per se, but it was used to mean something was bad.
Like, if you saw a movie that sucked, you'd say "Man, that movie was so gay." It meant something like "lame."
So obviously, it wasn't a good thing, and when I got a bit older and was explained why using the word was bad, I stopped, and fortunately most other kids did too and it mostly faded from use (in that sense) at least as far as I noticed.
(I'm not saying gay hasn't been used as a more nasty slur/word ofc, this is just my personal experience with it.)
Granted, keep in mind when I was in high school, our LGBTQ+ club was just the "Gay/Straight Alliance." Back then, it was basically, you were gay/lesbian, or you were an ally. We never talked about trans people or nonbinary people or ace/aro people. Ofc every one of those identities/kinds of people existed, but as far as my world went, they didn't. Most of my circle of friends was queer in some way, but many were closeted or semi-closeted for various reasons.
Anyway, sorry for that detour. Now, as to your incest situation. I'm sorry that happened to you. It definitely wasn't fair. You didn't have any way to know if you were related, and if/when you did it was "easy" to end the relationship. But kids are kids, and they always love to find a way to single people out, and they probably didn't really care what the actual truth was.
Even if you'd discovered having a similar name was total coincidence, I'm sure they'd still have bullied you for "incest."
I wasn't bullied for it, thankfully, but I did have a classmate in high school with the same last name as mine. My name is very common in some places, but where I lived at that time it was not, so everyone assumed we were fraternal twins. He was a nice enough guy, but I really didn't want people to think we were siblings. But no matter how many times we both explained we weren't related, no one believed us.
Sometimes, once someone makes their mind up about something, there's no changing it.
As for "abandoning" your friend because you didn't want to be left out and regretting it, I get that too. There was a guy I dated when I was around 16, and we were very passionate, but I think honestly I entered a major depressive episode and lost all interest in everything, including him, and... anyway, I regret how things ended between us even today, many, many years later. I wish I could shake my 16-year-old self and tell them not to be so cruel, but we can't change the past, only learn from it and move forward.
With regards to antis/purity culture taking incest so far, I do agree it has gotten ridiculous. As you said, the reason incest is taboo is because of inbreeding, because if your (general you) DNA is too closely related, you increase the chance of having major/significant diseases due to a lack of genetic diversity. But antis tend not to understand the WHY's behind things (since they also believe pedophilia is bad bc it's disgusting, and not because it hurts children, who become real grown adults).
But I have seen some really wild takes called incest. Like a ship from one fandom where the male and female characters are friends. A lot of people consider it "problematic" apparently, because they have a "sibling-like" relationship. They did not grow up together, they aren't related, and yet that's "incest" according to antis.
I do want to mention another reason that incest can/is considered so bad, and it's because, despite what antis may think, most sexual abuse of children comes from someone close to them in their lives, often a family member or close friend. So for a lot of people, when they think of "incest," they closely associate it with sexual abuse of a child. It's possible that's why antis get so upset about it. I don't know. But that is another aspect to it. (Ofc for you, in your past situation, you were both around the same age, so that's not the case, but that association is there.)
But, in the end, in fiction, it doesn't matter, because there are not actual children who can be conceived or harmed, and so the whole purpose behind why incest isn't allowed in many places in modern times doesn't exist.
I hope you're doing OK now, anon. Don't be to hard on yourself. A lot of people have done things when they were young teens they regret and wish they could "undo," but as long as you learned from that experience so you could become a better person than that 14-year-old version of you, I think you're doing OK.
Sending you some hugs. <3
5 notes · View notes
zeawesomebirdie · 2 years
Note
Remember when I sent you huge novel-length asks? I kind of miss taking like, an hour to read your answer and type my own like a lady sending the latest gossip to her friends across the country, so I'm gonna start again haha. I'm not sure of what to say exactly, but all conversations need a beginning, so uh... I've been researching for my jedi OC who's visually impaired, and it's been both fascinating and really annoying. I'm basing myself on what actual real-life visually impaired and blind people can do and describe, but also I'm trying to add in the 'space wizard with plot-appropriate magic' and it's certainly been a time. The obvious problem is the only example of a blind force sensitive I know is Chirrut, which... I'm not saying his treatment was wrong because I don't know anything about the topic so that would be stupid of me, but I'd feel lazy if I said 'oh no don't worry Reil is blind but like, he's a jedi, the force guides him and you can't notice it at all!' Like why say he's visually impaired if you could just ignore it y'know? His whole personality doesn't revolve around it, but it's still, well, it's still pretty important in your day-to-day life, seeing almost nothing, that's gotta change some things. So it's been a fun time :') the other two are giving me less difficulties because I'm way less outside my comfort zone, we're much closer to my own experiences with them haha. The fact that the only Harch ever is Admiral Trench is really annoying though, because they designed him as a side-villain so a lot of his chara design is just 'does that look evil? Yeah? Great, crank it up and we're good' which is fun but for a Jedi that works a little less (also just. His arms. Why did they stack them like that?? What the hell??) Good thing is his first apparition is in Cat and Mouse, that is to say the 'two steps and you'd actually be kissing it' episode, so I get to watch that again and again hehe. Outside of SW, I've been working other general OCs, and I have to fight my brain on one of them so so hard because it decided he was going to have the biggest Qui-Gon vibes and I don't want them to be the same guy but one of them has magic powers and the other is a vampire. I feel like that the Good Place meme with Janet who keeps giving Michael cacti :')) 'this is a new idea about my OC Raphael?' 'yes!' 'brand new, about my original character?' 'yep!' 'not based way too much on another character?' 'of course not!' and then my brain just gives me a picture of Qui-Gon. I haven't even read that much fic with him in it so it's just vague vibes :')))
Anyway this was a ramble and a half haha. I of course invite you to share the gossip on your side of the country, if there's anything you wanted to share I am all ears! (all eyes?)
<3
omg so Ram I am just so happy to have the novel-length asks back!  There's just something so intimate about writing these massive in-depth things about our headcanons and ocs and SW or whatever other media we're currently referencing; it really is just like being some victorian lady sending their letters of gossip out!  Truly the peak fandom queer experience is discussing the very fine minute details of our respective interests 😌
So, re: writing a visually impaired character with the Force, holy shit Reil sounds so cool!  I totally get the “how do I write this without being lazy” thing, especially in regards to the Force.  I can’t attest to a visually impaired character like Chirrut, but with other disabled characters such as Anakin and Luke I’ve found it really is a difficult thing to have a disabled character and also have them be realistic in their depictions of their disabilities.  For example, I’ve only ever read one instance of Luke struggling with his prosthetic and phantom pain, and that was in a scholastics novel more than a decade ago, and I’ve never seen mention of Anakin’s life changing at all until he gets put into the Vader suit.  As a disabled person (albeit a disabled person who still has all his limbs), I’ve found this method of ignoring their disabilities to be frustrating, but I also know that a lot of other disabled people really like the representation of having both Luke and Anakin have no difficulties with their prosthetics.  It really is a difficult thing to handle.
I do think that as long as you’re doing your research and such, Reil is going to turn out super well!!  It’s always so so cool to see how people interpret the Force and how it interacts with users who are disabled in some way, I am so excited to know more about Reil whenever you’re ready to share more!! 👀👀👀
I do remember your Harch oc, I can’t recall their name off the top of my head but I think the “villainous” look would be so cool for a Jedi.  Like, talk about subverting expectations and stuff!  Any time you want to ramble about any oc please do!!
If your brain wants to have an oc of Qui-Gon, I vote it should be allowed to have that oc!  I’ve never gotten super far on designing and creating ocs prior to making Solme for my kylux bang fic, so the fact that you have all these ocs is just so incredibly impressive to me.  And like, Qui-Gon vibes are the perfect vibes anyway!  He’s so chill and cool, and I think an oc designed from him would be so neat!!
Let’s see, gossip from over here,,,,  I’m experimenting with my writing process, and I’ve discovered that I need to have a minimum of three different writing projects going at the same time.  Right now I have three fanfics going - one that I’m writing properly (that’s the beedlink fic I posted to Ao3 the other day) and two that are being zero drafted - plus an original novel that I’m zero drafting currently as well.  That sounds like a lot of things, and I mean it is, but I make a good amount of progress on all four things on a daily to every other day basis, so this process is working lmao!  This is actually the farthest I’ve ever gotten on an original novel ever, and I think I can attribute that to the fact that I’m actively working on fanfics alongside it 😅
Other than that, I’m currently having yet another fatigue episode and as such have been on tumblr a lot more than usual lmao.  Hence why it took so long to get this written up, so thank you so so much for your patience!  Because I have fatigue issues, I don’t really have much else that I’m up to besides writing right now, so let me know if you want to hear about my writing!  I don’t want to bore you to death, but I can and will talk for hours about all these fics (/v pos)
Thank you for the ask!!  It’s been lovely getting to do another long-form reply, I really enjoy these too!!
1 note · View note
Text
Textual Analysis Blog Post-Revised
Tumblr media
Some might ask what does alien identity in sci-fi have to do with anything in real life? 
All television shows are typically written with a purpose or follow societal issues pertaining to the real world. As seen in Roswell, New Mexico, many identities are revealed. A major one is the psychological effects of alien representation; which can be a controversial topic being displayed through the idea of aliens. This is due to the fact that in real life, aliens are inhuman, so the question arises if they can truly outline real-scenarios of psychological difficulties.   
In observing the aliens as real life people instead of characters, these traits of identity crisis and past traumas(psychological problems), and how their relationships are developing, show the depiction. 
Tumblr media
With a focus on Isobel and Michael specifically, they are not just aliens, but alien/human hybrids. They both struggle to develop real relationships, while fighting their inner alien abilities. For instance, the way Isobel is perceived is with an inner conflict of being able to show human emotion, but also struggling with alien powers, such as control. On another note, Michael is having struggles with being bisexual and being known to sleep around. 
All of these traits coincide to create the idea of alien representation and its connection to the show and real life stereotypes. As it can be taken in a negative way the article Alien Chic, discusses, “On the one hand, there is the human; on the other hand, there is the alien, and the two remain distinct, pure, opposed, unlinked” (Alien Chic 9). This presents the controversy in having alien representation in shows. The separation of alien identity to human identity helps provide background into why the showrunners chose to use these traits in presenting psychological problems. 
As described above as the human is separate from the alien, the show does a great job in not making that the focal point. However, the main focus is to paint the picture of cultural norms in relation to real world societies. For example, many think of non-straight people as queer. In using Michael to show the notable stereotypes of bisexuality, it shows that it is okay to go against the norms and not participate in status quo. This contradicts the idea that aliens can not represent human identity crises and problems, rather they are able to reflect atypical norms. 
Tumblr media
These relationships that Michael develops with Alex(a man) and Maria(a woman) explicitly show that he is able to love two people of different sexes. This is the cross-identity of human and alien coming out, with this more focused on human traits. Ultimately, this is portraying that in real world situations this could happen and people view these situations as not normal. It is typical to think that a male is supposed to have relations with a female.
Tumblr media
In having aliens portrayed in the main plot line, it helps to take pressure off problems Roswell, New Mexico is trying to address, like psychological identity crisis, which is defined as a period of uncertainty or confusion in a person's life. It helps to show that aliens are the “other” and so are people with crises in real life. The bisexuality aspect of Michael and Alex; with Alex’s father(whom was in the military) not approving of it paralells the stereotypes of today’s world. Michael is also having an identity crisis while trying to figure out his sexuality and if it is alien to be that way, with his human abilities, and who he is attracted to. 
In transitioning to earlier in the show, Isobel Evans has many hurdles in her life such as her relationship with Noah and how he has been controlling her mind the whole time, to her being able to be a normal human with characteristics such as showing empathy and care for her siblings Max and Michael. She makes it known that she has their best interest especially when she worked on saving Max’s life when he passed away. This entails her human characteristics as a normal person would experience in real world situations.
Tumblr media
Furthermore, Isobel Evans is faced with much trauma and trouble after the discoveries of her past husband Noah controlling her. She faces an internal conflict, which is the struggle within her own mind, prompting her to decide between two choices. An example of this is when she is faced with the struggle to have Noah’s baby, she says “I can’t have Noah's baby. I can’t recover from what he did until I put an end to the parts of him that are living inside of me” (Good mother). Adding in her conflicts shows the alien identity in her coming full circle as she struggles with past trauma, but also the real life aspect of having a baby.
Tumblr media
With the show using Isobel’s conflict of many aspects, but more specifically the parts of her with Noah’s baby, helps to portray real world questions women face too. She has issues with making decisions and facing obstacles on her own because there is another voice in her head fighting against her. 
Again, it can be questioned as she is an alien, “For Descartes, the human being is known, knowable and present to the very being that is engaged in the meditation upon what it means to be human: ‘I understand myself’, he insists, ‘to be something quite single and complete’.”(Alien Chic 7) Literally speaking, a human can not be anything, but a human experiencing present traits and that there is no such thing beyond this. This idea of humans, “It is, moreover, absolutely distinct from the inhuman, for only human beings are capable of rational thought. And reason, which ‘distinguishes us from the beasts’, also confers upon the human being the power to tell the difference between itself and its non-human others”(Alien Chic 7). Based on this, Isobel has no rational thought as to her crisis and technically can not make the decision, due to her being “inhuman.” Here again, this is going against the idea of alien representation, but looking at it through the lense of a Roswell, New Mexico showrunner their goal is to show ideas that may be perceived as not normal in real life through not-normal people in a show. 
Pulling this all together, Michael and Isobel, portray their rough crises of relationship status and figuring out their lives as human, helps the viewers of Roswell, New Mexico relate to their own problems. The show runners prove that their goal is to show that these problems they face are not just because they are aliens in the show, but that it helps in relation to the real world due to these psychological issues being classified as an “alien”(not typical) way of life. People are able to feel as if they connect with the show whether they are having trouble coming out to the LGBTQ+ community or whether they are facing obstacles with past traumas and decision making within themselves. There is a great representation of psychological problems paralleling real life scenarios, defying the idea that it is controversial. 
0 notes
aquickstart · 3 years
Note
thanks for the response! (i had the propaganda question) still haven't seen movie so will wait before digging for those spoilers but definitely curious about the writers/artists comments regarding the comic and arcs you mentioned! it's fascinating that the creators are able to pull off what seems like a very queer-coded relationship despite even in spite of extreme censorship which i think is very different from queerbaiting (again, not having seen/read the source material) but there's been a lot of recent discussion in fandom spaces about this with respect to chinese media as well so am very interested to learn about how creator intent faces off against state censorship and what people end up still picking up on after the fact :) thanks for your thoughts!!
of course!! i'm very eager to discuss anything Major Grom-related to the best of my abilities (and i leave room for doubt and correction because i am fairly new to the fandom, fyi). here's a brief summary of some relevant info; i won't be including creator names and links here so it's not searchable, and also because it's all in russian (again i can do it in dm's). AND i'm sure you can find it out on the Bubble Comics website!
re: canon text itself. according to official extras, one of the characters was initially supposed to be a generic bodyguard type, but the story required him to become a more important companion for the antagonist; to be very brief here, he ends up essentially what the antagonist values most in his life and is narratively mirrored to the protagonist's girlfriend in one of the story arcs. it all comes down to a very pointedly dramatic, tragic, and emotionally charged moment for Igor Grom with his gf, and Sergey Razumovsky with his bodyguard. you know. a very casual bro moment for the latter pair, obviously.
re: creator feedback. the main artist & co-writer of the series has a multitude of what you'd call fanart pieces of these two characters in, like, a romantic relationship. i can't quite say they're canon since they're not included in the actual printed versions, but nothing in the comics contradicts or discredits the possibility of these scenes existing in the canon universe throughout.
the main writer/producer/Bubble Comics owner used to be very much against any kind of non-canon shipping, but he's radically changed his opinion over the years, which he expressed just recently in one of the official Bubble Comics podcasts. him and chief editor/producer are both very open to fan content and encourage any type of fan interpretation, which, to me, doesn't come off as pandering to the audience as much as it does as genuine gratitude and understanding of how storytelling and fandom spaces work. kudos to them from me for that.
as a side note, i do have some uhh uncertain feelings about the chief editor recently being a bit too eager to support the queer ship in question. some people see it as sort of queerbaiting wherein he's playing into the hype, but to be honest he seems like a geeky guy himself who's just generally very comfortable with his own sexuality. do whatever you will with that. i think he's allowed, maybe would be cool to tone it down a bit, but also, maybe not. it's all within reason, i guess.
re: queerbaiting & censorship. here's the part i dread discussing the most because the very concept of queerbaiting is a bit blurred in fandom discussions. i personally believe it becomes even more complicated in places like russia; like you mentioned, i do think this specific case is something other than queerbaiting. like, how are you supposed to do queer rep in mainstream media if you can get prison time for doing it? i think it's very much the case of context and reception, and if you look at the core fanbase, it's got a lot of queer people and/or folks who support the opposition.
of course, it's important to examine the authors of the content and their possible motives: the aforementioned main writer/company owner is linked to pro-state publications through his relatives, so yes, his money does come from the state, technically, at least in part, or at least that is what some people believe and i have no way of proving either point. still, i personally differentiate that from Bubble Comics being state-sponsored (like, FondKino did not sponsor the Major Grom movie, and FondKino sponsors so much of mainstream russian cinema). some people don't, and i guess i get their point. i firmly believe i'd go insane if i filtered every creator i've ever been interested in through the lens of absolute moral purity especially in russia.
but i circle back to the fanbase aspect of it: at some point i think it's equally important to look at interpretation and reception of content as well as its creators. if queer people find themselves relating to the story and the characters, i think it's doing something right.
maybe not though. maybe we are all just being tricked into consuming pro-state propaganda because we are obviously all idiots and my donations to medusa and doxa and ovd-info are nonexistent and dissolve into the air <3
25 notes · View notes
wolfstar-in-color · 3 years
Text
July Colorful Column: Remus is a Crip, and We Can Write Him Better.
There is one thing that can get me to close a fic so voraciously I don’t even make sure I’m not closing other essential tabs in the process. It doesn’t matter how much I’m loving the fic, how well written I think it is, or how desperately I want to know how it ends. Once I read this sentence, I am done.
It’s written in a variety of different ways, but it always goes something like this: “You don’t want me,” Remus said, “I am too sick/broken/poor/old/[insert chosen self-demeaning adjective here].”
You’re familiar with the trope. The trope is canonical. And if you’ve been around the wolfstar fandom for longer than a few minutes, you’ve read the trope. Maybe you love the trope! Maybe you’ve written the trope! Maybe you’re about to stop reading this column, because the trope rings true to you and you feel a little attacked!
Now, let’s get one thing out of the way right now: I am not saying the trope is wrong. I am not saying it’s bad. I am not saying we should stop writing it. We all have things we don’t like to see in our chosen fics. Maybe you can’t stand Leather Jacket Motorbike Sirius? Maybe you think Elbow Patch Remus is overdone? Or maybe your pet peeves are based in something a little deeper - maybe you think Poor Latino Remus is an irresponsible depiction, or that PWPs are too reductive? Whatever it is, we all have our things.
Let me tell you about my thing. When I first became very ill several years ago, there were various low points in which I felt I had become inherently unlovable. This is, more or less, a normal reaction. When your body stops doing things it used to be able to do - or starts doing things you were quite alright without, thank you very much - it changes the way you relate to your body. You don’t want to hear my whole disability history, so yada yada yada, most people eventually come to accept their limitations. It’s a very painful existence, one in which you constantly tell yourself your disability has transformed you into a burdensome, unworthy member of society, and if nothing else, it’s not terribly sustainable. Being disabled takes grit! It takes power! It takes a truly absurd amount of medical self-advocacy! Hating yourself? Thinking yourself unworthy of love? No one has time for that. 
Of course, I’m being hyperbolic. Plenty of disabled people struggle with these feelings many years into their disabilities, and never really get over them. But here’s the thing. We experience those stories ALL THE TIME. Remember Rain Man? Or Million Dollar Baby? Or that one with the actress from Game of Thrones and that British actor who seemed like he was going to have a promising career but then didn't? Those are all stories about sad, bitter disabled people and their sad, bitter lives, two out of three of which end in the character completing suicide because they simply couldn’t imagine having to live as a disabled person. (I mean, come on media, I get that we're less likely to enjoy a leisurely Saturday hike, but our parking is SUBLIME.) When was the last time you engaged with media that depicted a happy disabled person? A complex disabled person? A disabled person who has sex? No really, these aren’t hypothetical questions, can you please drop a rec in the notes?? Because I am desperate.
There are lots of problems with this trope, and they’ve been discussed ad nauseam by people with PhDs. I’m not actually interested in talking about how this trope leads to a more prevalent societal idea that disabled people are unworthy of love, or contributes to the kind of political thought processes that keep disabled people purposefully disenfranchised. I’m just a bitch on Tumblr, and I have a bone to pick: the thing I really hate about the trope? It’s boring. I’m bored. You know how, like, halfway through Grey’s Anatomy you realized they were just recycling the same plot points over and over again and there was just no WAY anyone working at a hospital prone to THAT MANY disasters would stay on staff? It's like that. I love a recycled trope as much as the next person (There Was Only One Bed, anyone?). But I need. Something. Else.
Remus is disabled. BOLD claim. WILD speculation. Except, not really. You simply - no matter how you flip it, slice it, puree it, or deconstruct it - cannot tell me Remus Lupin is not disabled. Most of us, by this point, are probably familiar with the way that One Canonical Author intended One Dashing Werewolf to be “a metaphor for those illnesses that carry stigma, like HIV and AIDS” [I’m sorry to link you to an outside source quoting She Who Must Not Be Named, but we’re professionals here]. Which is... a thing. It’s been discussed. And, listen, there’s no denying that this parallel is a problematic interpretation of people who have HIV/AIDS and all such similar “those illnesses” (though I’ll admit that I, too, am perennially apt to turn into a raging beast liable to harm anything that crosses my path, but that’s more linked to the at-least-once-monthly recollection that One Day At A Time got cancelled). Critiques aside, Remus Lupin is a character who - due to a condition that affects him physically, mentally, emotionally, and intellectually - is repeatedly marginalized, oppressed, denied political and social power, and ostracized due to unfounded fear that he is infectious to others. Does that sound familiar?
We’re not going to argue about whether or not “Remus is canonically disabled as fuck” is a fair reading. And the reason we’re not going to argue about whether or not it’s a fair reading is because I haven’t read canon in 10-plus years and you will win the argument. Canon is only marginally relevant here. The icon of this blog is brown, curly haired Remus Lupin kissing his trans boyfriend, Sirius Black. We are obviously not too terribly invested in canon. The wolfstar fandom is now a community with over 25,000 AO3 fics, entire careers launched from drawing or writing or cosplaying this non-canonical pairing. We love to play around here with storylines and universes and races and genders and sexualities and all kinds of things, but most of the time? Remus is still disabled. He’s disabled as a werewolf in canon-compliant works, he’s disabled in the AUs where he was injured or abused or kidnapped or harmed as a child, he’s disabled in the stories that read him as chronically ill or bipolar or traumatized or blind or Deaf. I’d go so far as to say that he is one of very few characters in the Wide Wonderful World of media who is, in as close to his essence as one can be, always disabled. And that means? Don’t shoot the messenger... but we could stand to be a tiny bit more responsible with how we portray him. 
Disabled people are complicated. As much as I’d like to pretend we are always level-headed, confident, and ready to assert our inherent worth, we are still just humans. We have bad days. We doubt our worth. We sometimes go out with guys who complain about our steroid-induced weight gain (it was a long time ago, Tumblr, okay??). But, we also have joy and fun and good days and sex and happiness and families and so many other things. 
Remus is a disabled character, and as such, it’s only fair that he’d have those unworthy moments. But - I propose - Remus is also a crip. What is a crip? A crip - like a queer - is someone who eschews the limited boundaries placed on their bodies, who rejects a hierarchy of oppression in favor of an intersectional analysis of lived experience, who isn’t interested in being the tragic figure responsible for helping people with dominant identities realize how good they have it. Crips interpret their disabilities however they want, rethinking bodies and medicine and pleasure and pain and even time itself. Crips are political, community-minded, and in search of liberation. 
Remus is a character who struggles with his disability, sure. But he’s also a character who leverages his physical condition to attempt to shift communities towards his political leanings, advocates for the rights of those who share his physical condition, and has super hot sex with his wrongfully convicted boyfriend ultimately goes on to build community and family. Having a condition that quite literally cripples you, over which you have no control, and through which you are often read as a social pariah? That’s disability. But using said condition as a means through which to build advocacy and community? Now that’s some crip shit. 
Personally, I love disabled!Remus Lupin. But I love crip!Remus Lupin even more. I’d love to see more of a Remus who owns his disability, who covets what makes him unique, and who never ever again tells a potential romantic partner they are too good for him because of his disability. This trope - unlike There Was Only One Bed! - sometimes actually hurts to read. Where’s Remus who thinks a potential romantic partner isn’t good enough for him? Where’s Remus who insists his partners learn more about his condition in order to treat him properly? Where’s sexy wheelchair user Remus? Where’s Remus who uses his werewolf transformations as an excuse to travel the world? Where’s crip Remus??
We don’t have to put “you don’t want me” Remus entirely to bed. It is but one of many repeated tropes that are - in the words of The Hot Priest from Fleabag - morally a bit dubious. And let’s face it - we don’t always come to fandom for its moral superiority (as much as we sometimes like to think we do). 
This is not a condemnation - it is an invitation. Able-bodied folks are all but an injury, illness, or couple decades away from being disabled. And when you get here, I sincerely hope you don’t waste your time on “you don’t want me”ing back and forth with the people you love. I’m inviting you to come to the crip side now. We have snacks, and without all the “you don’t want me” talk, we get to the juicy parts much faster. 
Colorfully,
Mod Theo
110 notes · View notes
i-did · 3 years
Note
Do you know when the racism and ableism accusations against Nora started? Because back when I was active in 2016/2017 and don't think they were a thing, or were very low-key. Was it something she said or are people just basing it off the things she wrote in the books?
From what I remember, the first time I heard the blanket statement of “Nora is racist/fetishizes gay men” blanket statement was early fall 2019 (which is so ironic for the fandom to say on so many levels lmao). There wasn’t a catalyst or anything, just she went offline 2016 and no new content was coming out and the aftg fandom is such an echo chamber that… an accidental smear campaign happened.
 Before then, I would see occasional “Nora used ableist slur” which… is funny (not that ableism isn’t serious) to me people care more about that than Seth saying the f-slur. IMO this is because with Seth, it clearly shows the character thinking it and not the author who is writing about what will be an end game mlm relationship. 
But anyways! Long story short, it's the fact that she’s an ace/aro woman who wrote a mlm book, and based off of the events in canon. There is no “Nora called me/someone else a slur” it’s “Nora wrote a book where slur(s) are used” and “the Moriyama’s are Japanese.”
Below I put my own opinion on these claims and go into more detail:
CW for discussions of: racism, ableism, mlm fetishization
Fetishization: (and mentions of sexism at the end)
To one question in the EC about her inspo for aftg she jokingly responded how she wanted to write about gay athletes. On other parts of your blog you could see she was a hockey fan and an overall sports fan (anime or otherwise) but I've seen this statement taken out of context and framed as “she's one of those BOYXBOY” shippers. Considering how… well-developed both Andrew and Neil’s relationship is, and it takes them until like the 3rd book and there is a whole complex ass plot going on around, you can see how that's just. Not really true. And considering the fandom is like… 85% women (queer women but still women) and I've gotten into a discussion with someone who is a woman and called Nora a fetishizer and was ignoring my opinions as a mlm, and I really just wanted to say “well what does that make you?” it's a very ironic high horse. She didn’t write 3 all 3 books to put Neil in lingerie pwp or crop-top fem-fatal fashion show, fandom did. 
Also, I talked to an ace/aro friend about this, and she talked to me about how AFTG spoke to her very much so as an ace/aro story. Neil is demisexual, Nora didn’t know of the word at the time of reading it, but she did get an anon asking if Neil was demi after, and she said “had to look it up, and yep, but he doesn't really think about it” (paraphrased). Obviously it would have been cool if andreil were canonly written as wlw by Nora instead, (which would have increased the amount of wlw rep and demi rep) but tbh I don’t think tumblr would have cared about it nearly as much and everyone would just call Neil a cold bitch–like people do with Nora’s other published book with a main character who's a woman. Plus they're her OC’s, not mine. 
The fact is that 50% of all LGBT+ rep in literature is mlm, mostly white mlm, and not written by mlm. I’m not going to hold her to a higher standard than everyone else, she already broke a shit ton of barriers in topics she discusses that otherwise get ignored. I’m grateful to these books for existing even if it's a mlm story written by a woman. I still will prioritize reading mlm written by mlm–and vice versa with wlw– in the way I prioritize reading stories about POC written by POC. But credit where credit is due, this is a very good story, and a very good demi story. 
Ableism:
To me, AFTG is a story about ableism and how we perceive some trauma survivors more worthy than others. Neil and the foxes using ableist language shows how people actually talk. Neil thinks shitty things about Andrew, like the others do too, and thinks he's “psycho”. The story ultimately deconstructs this idea and these perceptions of people. Wymack, someone who says the r-slur (which is still not known by the general population as a slur even in 2021 much less the early 2000s when the book was beginning to be written and what the timeline is based off of) is a character who understands Andrew better than most of the others do, and gives him the most sympathy and understanding despite using words like the m-slur and r-slur. Using these words isn't good, but it is how people talk, and this character talks. Wymack is a playful “name caller” especially when he’s mad, the foxes think Andrew is “crazy” and incapable of humanity and love because of it. They call his meds “antipsychotics” as an assumption and insult in a derogatory way, when really antipsychotics are a very helpful drug for some people who need them. Even Neil thinks these things about Andrew until he learns to care about him. All the foxes are hypocritical to am extent, as people in real life tend to be. Nora herself doesn’t use these or tweet them or something, her characters do to show aspects of their personality and opinions and how they change over time.
Racism:
As for the racism, I've seen people talk about how racial minorities being antagonists is inherently bad, which I think lacks nuance but overall isn't a harmful statement or belief. However, Nora herself said she wrote in the yakuza instead of another gang or mob because she was inspired for AFTG by sports anime, (which often queer-bait for a variety of reasons). I haven’t seen a textual analysis acknowledging the racist undertones surrounding the Moriyama’s as the few characters of color who are also major antagonists, but instead just “Nora is racist”. Wymack having shitty flame tribal tattoo’s is just… a huge 90’s thing and a part of his character design. Her having a character with bad taste in tattoo trends doesn’t mean she's racist. There is the whole how Nicky is handled thing, but that's a whole thing on it’s own. The fandom… really will write Nicky being all “ai ai muy spicy, jaja imma hit on my white–not annoying like me–boyfriend in Spanish. With my booty hole out and open for him ofc.” and as a Mexican mlm I’m like … damn alright. 
I think there is merit to the fact that she writes white as the default* and unless otherwise stated a POC a character was written with the intent to be white is another valid criticism, as well as the fact that the cast is largely white, but everything Nora is accused of I've seen the fandom do worse. That goes to the debate of, is actively writing stereotypes for POC more harmful than no representation at all? And personally I prefer the lack of established race line that lets me ignore Nora’s canon intent of characters to be white and come up with my own HC’s over the fandoms depictions of “zen monk Renee with dark past” “black best friend Matt who got over drugs but is a puppy dog” “ex stripper black Dan who dates Matt” vague tokenism. I HC many of the upperclassmen as POC and do my best to actively give thought behind it and have their own arcs that also avoids the fandom colorism spectrum of “darkest characters we HC go to the back and fandom favorites are in the front and are the lightest.” 
*I however won't criticize her harsher or more than… everyone else who still largely does this in fanfiction regarding AFTG as well as literature in general. This isn't a Nora thing, it's a societal thing, and considering the books came out in like 2014 I'm not gonna hold her to a higher standard than the rest of the world. She's just someone who wrote her personal OC’s and self-published expecting no following. I don’t know her race and I’m not gonna hold her to a higher standard than everyone else just because. 
The criticisms I've seen have always been… ironic IMO, and clearly I have a lot of thoughts on it. I think most people say those things about Nora because they heard them, and it's the woke thing to say and do and don’t critically analyze their actions or anything, but just accept them. 
193 notes · View notes
qqueenofhades · 3 years
Note
Hi. You made a post a couple of days ago about how queer historical fiction doesnt need to be defined only by homophobia. Can you expand on that a bit maybe? Because it seems interesting and important, but I'm a little confused as to whether that is responsible to the past and showing how things have changed over time. Anyway this probably isn't very clear, but I hope its not insulting. Have a good day :)
Hiya. I assume you're referring to this post, yes? I think the main parameters of my argument were set out pretty clearly there, but sure, I'm happy to expand on it. Because I'm a little curious as to why you think that writing a queer narrative (especially a queer fictional narrative) that doesn't make much reference to or even incorporate explicit homophobia is (implicitly) not being "responsible to the past." I've certainly made several posts on this topic before, but as ever, my thoughts and research materials change over time. So, okay.
(Note: I am a professional historian with a PhD, a book contract for an academic monograph on medieval/early modern queer history, and soon-to-be-several peer-reviewed publications on medieval queer history. In other words, I'm not just talking out of my ass here.)
As I noted in that post, first of all, the growing emphasis on "accuracy" in historical fiction and historically based media is... a mixed bag. Not least because it only seems to be applied in the Game of Thrones fashion, where the only "accurate" history is that which is misogynistic, bloody, filthy, rampantly intolerant of competing beliefs, and has no room for women, people of color, sexual minorities, or anyone else who has become subject to hot-button social discourse today. (I wrote a critical post awhile ago about the Netflix show Cursed, ripping into it for even trying to pretend that a show based on the Arthurian legends was "historically accurate" and for doing so in the most simplistic and reductive way possible.) This says far more about our own ideas of the past, rather than what it was actually like, but oh boy will you get pushback if you try to question that basic premise. As other people have noted, you can mix up the archaeological/social/linguistic/cultural/material stuff all you like, but the instant you challenge the ingrained social ideas about The Bad Medieval Era, cue the screaming.
I've been a longtime ASOIAF fan, but I do genuinely deplore the effect that it (and the show, which was by far the worst offender) has had on popular culture and widespread perceptions of medieval history. When it comes to queer history specifically, we actually do not know that much, either positive or negative, about how ordinary medieval people regarded these individuals, proto-communities, and practices. Where we do have evidence that isn't just clerical moralists fulminating against sodomy (and trying to extrapolate a society-wide attitude toward homosexuality from those sources is exactly like reading extreme right-wing anti-gay preachers today and basing your conclusions about queer life in 2021 only on those), it is genuinely mixed and contradictory. See this discussion post I likewise wrote a while ago. Queerness, queer behavior, queer-behaving individuals have always existed in history, and labeling them "queer" is only an analytical conceit that represents their strangeness to us here in the 21st century, when these categories of exclusion and difference have been stringently constructed and applied, in a way that is very far from what supposedly "always" existed in the past.
Basically, we need to get rid of the idea that there was only one empirical and factual past, and that historians are "rewriting" or "changing" or "misrepresenting" it when they produce narratives that challenge hegemonic perspectives. This is why producing good historical analysis is a skill that takes genuine training (and why it's so undervalued in a late-capitalist society that would prefer you did anything but reflect on the past). As I also said in the post to which you refer, "homophobia" as a structural conceit can't exist prior to its invention as an analytical term, if we're treating queerness as some kind of modern aberration that can't be reliably talked about until "homosexual" gained currency in the late 19th century. If there's no pre-19th century "homosexuality," then ipso facto, there can be no pre-19th-century "homophobia" either. Which one is it? Spoiler alert: there are still both things, because people are people, but just as the behavior itself is complicated in the premodern past, so too is the reaction to it, and it is certainly not automatic rejection at all times.
Hence when it comes to fiction, queer authors have no responsibility (and in my case, certainly no desire) to uncritically replicate (demonstrably false!) narratives insisting that we were always miserable, oppressed, ostracised, murdered, or simply forgotten about in the premodern world. Queer characters, especially historical queer characters, do not have to constantly function as a political mouthpiece for us to claim that things are so much better today (true in some cases, not at all in the others) and that modernity "automatically" evolved to a more "enlightened" stance (definitely not true). As we have seen with the recent resurgence of fascism, authoritarianism, nationalism, and xenophobia around the world, along with the desperate battle by the right wing to re-litigate abortion, gay rights, etc., social attitudes do not form in a vacuum and do not just automatically become more progressive. They move backward, forward, and side to side, depending on the needs of the societies that produce them, and periods of instability, violence, sickness, and poverty lead to more regressive and hardline attitudes, as people act out of fear and insularity. It is a bad human habit that we have not been able to break over thousands of years, but "[social] things in the past were Bad but now have become Good" just... isn't true.
After all, nobody feels the need to constantly add subtextual disclaimers or "don't worry, I personally don't support this attitude/action" implied authorial notes in modern romances, despite the cornucopia of social problems we have today, and despite the complicated attitude of the modern world toward LGBTQ people. If an author's only reason for including "period typical homophobia" (and as we've discussed, there's no such thing before the 19th century) is that they think it should be there, that is an attitude that needs to be challenged and examined more closely. We are not obliged to only produce works that represent a downtrodden past, even if the end message is triumphal. It's the same way we got so tired of rape scenes being used to make a female character "stronger." Just because those things existed (and do exist!), doesn't mean you have to submit every single character to those humiliations in some twisted name of accuracy.
Yes, as I have always said, prejudices have existed throughout history, sometimes violently so. But that is not the whole story, and writing things that center only on the imagined or perceived oppression is not, at this point, accurate OR helpful. Once again, I note that this is specifically talking about fiction. If real-life queer people are writing about their own experiences, which are oftentimes complex, that's not a question of "representation," it's a question of factual memoir and personal history. You can't attack someone for being "problematic" when they are writing about their own lived experience, which is something a younger generation of queer people doesn't really seem to get. They also often don't realise how drastically things have changed even in my own lifetime, per the tags on my reblog about Brokeback Mountain, and especially in media/TV.
However, if you are writing fiction about queer people, especially pre-20th century queer people, and you feel like you have to make them miserable just to be "responsible to the past," I would kindly suggest that is not actually true at all, and feeds into a dangerous narrative that suggests everything "back then" was bad and now it's fine. There are more stories to tell than just suffering, queer characters do not have to exist solely as a corollary for (inaccurate) political/social commentary on the premodern past, and they can and should be depicted as living their lives relatively how they wanted to, despite the expected difficulties and roadblocks. That is just as accurate, if sometimes not more so, than "they suffered, the end," and it's something that we all need to be more willing to embrace.
125 notes · View notes
impalementation · 3 years
Text
spike, angel, buffy & romanticism: part 2
part 1: “When you kiss me I want to die”: Angel and the high school seasons
“Love isn’t brains, children”: Enter Spike as the id
For all that I’ve just discussed all of the ways that the first three seasons subvert the romance of Angel, it’s also true that the writing still fundamentally takes him—and Buffy’s relationship with him—seriously. To some degree it has to. Because Buffy is the show’s emotional anchor, if the writing didn’t take her emotions seriously, the audience wouldn’t either. It needs to be sympathetic to her (regardless of whether it endorses her, per se), or else it would run the risk of losing all pathos. Making fun of Buffy and Angel makes for a great gag in “The Zeppo”, and fits with the general way that season three undermines the romanticism of them, but if that was the show’s attitude the whole way through, it would come off as simply meanspirited. It would seem like it was making fun of Buffy for being a stupid teenage girl in love, instead of sympathetically depicting the human experience of being caught up in big, tempestuous emotions.
But at the same time, if the writing were to only take romance seriously, that wouldn’t feel very true either. Or fit with the general Buffy ethos, which loves to flip between serious and silly moods in order to capture all sides of whatever it’s exploring. And therein is the magic of Spike’s addition to the chemistry of the show. Practically from his introduction, Spike parallels Buffy’s romantic storylines, except unlike Buffy, Spike is allowed to do the comic or morally incorrect thing. His status as a soulless vampire means that the show is free to use him to point out both the sillier and darker sides of romance, without tainting Buffy’s heroism or the seriousness of her emotions.
In “Becoming, Part 2” for example, Spike is free to explicitly say that he’s saving the world because he wants Dru back, and leaves Buffy to die once he’s gotten her. Whereas Buffy, despite also wanting the person she loves back, ultimately chooses to save the world rather than keep him. Spike allows the episode to show what Buffy’s, or anyone’s, romantic id might want, without Buffy herself going through with it. He also allows the episode to show the ridiculousness of the romantic id, by giving him comic moments like “Didn’t say I wouldn’t”, or “God, he’s going to kill her”, or beating Angel with a tire iron, or any of the times that Buffy makes fun of him (“The whole earth may be sucked into hell and you want my help ‘cause your girlfriend’s a big ho?”). All of which is in contrast to the tragic seriousness of Buffy’s heartbreak. Spike in season two is not a character without pathos; in fact, he has quite a lot of pathos that parallels Buffy’s--think of the tortured close-up on his face as Angel and Drusilla taunt him in “I Only Have Eyes For You.” But neither is he limited or defined by that pathos.
He plays a similar role in both “Lovers Walk” and “The Harsh Light of Day”. In “Lovers Walk” he’s devastated by the loss of Drusilla, as Buffy was devastated over Angel in “Anne”, yet the way they get out of their respective depressions is very different. Tonally, “Anne” plays Buffy’s misery extremely straight, and when Buffy decides to stop moping and become an agent in her own life again, her version of “agency” means getting in touch with her leadership and heroism. Whereas for Spike, agency means a love spell, or torturing Drusilla into liking him again. The romantic id tries to re-possess the object of its desire, whereas the ego or superego is able to set that desire aside, whether or not it wants to. More obviously, Spike in “Lovers Walk” parallels all of the other characters and their romantic situations. All of them are behaving somewhat selfishly or self-destructively in their love lives (Xander and Willow cheating, Buffy and Angel torturing themselves with friendship) but are in denial about the fact that they’re doing so. And then Spike blazes in with his version of love that is selfish, scary, grandiose, charming, pathetic, genuine, and absurd by turns—and suddenly, everyone’s romantic weaknesses are out in the open. It makes perfect sense that Spike finishes the episode gleeful and optimistic, because “Lovers Walk” as a whole represents a triumph of the romantic id over the romantic ego, if only temporarily. And it’s all handled with a brilliantly whiplash-y mix of comedy and tragedy because at the end of the day, the power of the romantic id really is ridiculous. The way that Spike turns on a dime between being scary and pathetic parallels the way it’s at once absurd, and kind of frightening, that your id would make you, say: cheat on your wonderful high school boyfriend, just to have a chance with your childhood crush.
Because Spike is often treated as the show’s romantic id, the writing’s relationship to his romanticism gets complicated. Like Angel, there is something romantic in his aesthetic and behavior, even if he doesn’t look like Angel’s conventional Byronic hero. He wears a long, dramatic coat, poses rebelliously with his cigarettes, and dotes on his paramour with the elaborate attentiveness of Gomez Addams. But unlike Angel, he is not just a romantic symbol or object, he is also a romantic subject. That is to say, Spike’s romantic storylines tend to emphasize his romantic desires, and use those desires as motivation. By contrast, Angel’s storylines don’t really have much to do with whether he’s “gotten” Buffy or not—instead they have to do with whether Buffy has gotten him. The fact that Buffy and Spike are both treated as romantic agents in this way is a key indication that the two characters are meant to parallel each other. Angel’s side of the Buffy/Angel romantic storyline has to do with whether he can control himself around Buffy, whereas Buffy’s has to do with whether he likes her or wants to be with her. Similarly, Spike’s romantic storylines hinge on the status of whether Drusilla or Buffy want him. 
Not only is Spike a subject when it comes to romantic relationships, he’s also a subject when it comes to Romantic thinking. He is a character practically defined by his romanticism. He aspires to romantic things, and therefore can be used to poke at romantic outlooks. Despite his grand love for Drusilla for instance, she still cheats on him, and he still has to knock her out, do a love spell, or torture her to get her back. Or he’ll make grand pronouncements that are immediately followed by things like getting tasered by the Initiative or falling into an open grave. Because of this, Spike is able to parallel Buffy’s Romantic thinking as well, not just her romantic desires. Notice how in “The Freshman”, when Buffy is feeling out of touch with her Romantic Slayer self, that she has a scene where she’s treated like Spike--she delivers a dramatic threat and then falls through a ceiling. Or in “Some Assembly Required” when she obeys her id and hotly demands that Angel listen to her, she falls into an open grave. This kind of comedy has a lot in common with the deadpan Angel humor discussed in the last section, but notice that the target of that humor is Angel’s romantic objecthood rather than an outlook Angel has. Angel’s role, when it comes to romanticism, has to do with how Buffy and the audience sees him, whereas Spike’s role (at least in the early seasons) has to do with how Spike sees, period.
The show doesn’t just poke at Spike’s outlook though, it also uses him to poke at other people’s romanticism. In season two, for example, Spike is the one who gets impatient with Angel’s grandstanding, sarcastically explaining that “we do still kill people, you know” and “it’s a big rock.” In “Lovers Walk” he’s the one who cuts through Buffy and Angel’s drama, reducing it to “googly eyes” with a dismissive handwave (while also building it up in his projection-y “you’ll never be friends” speech). In “Something Blue” he points out that Willow is barely holding it together. In “Pangs” he’s the one who brings the debate over the Chumash nihilistically back down to earth, and in “The Yoko Factor” he schools Adam on Yoko not really splitting the Beatles apart. In other words, Spike attempts to see both the romance and the reality of things. He is the avatar of both, which I would argue makes complete sense, because in many ways romance and reality are really two sides of the same coin. Poetry and stories are fake and bigger than life, but you use them to tell truths. But being the id, his point of view can be hypocritical and biased as much as insightful, just like anyone’s gut reactions and poetic notions can be. After all, you can use poetry to tell lies, too. 
Lastly, on a meta level, there is a tackiness to Spike that undermines his romantic qualities better than making him dangerous ever could. Spike likes Passions and Dawson’s Creek (in contrast to Angel reading La Nausée by firelight). He lives in a crypt, but the vibe is more “homeless” than “Dracula” (in contrast to Angel’s tastefully decorated apartment). Spike may act like a romantic, but what does it say about how romantic romanticism really is, that the romantic things he likes can be so unrefined? And with the chip, he’s rendered impotent and pathetic. To me, there’s no more perfect image of how the writing uses Spike than the image of him in his black coat, red shirt, and big, leather boots, blasted under the fluorescent light of his Initiative cell. Light that makes his aesthetic seem suddenly fake and silly and surreal. For all that the writing subverts Angel, he is still the kind of character who gets to disappear mysteriously into the shadows, because he is the romance that Buffy has been forced to abandon. Whereas Spike is left with no place to hide. 
If Angel represented the idea of binaries, then Spike represents the lack of them. There is a reason that Spike invites so many queer readings. He is a vampire, but he loves. He is an object, but he’s a subject. He tells the truth, but he lies. He is a villain, but he is a hero. He is masculine, but he is feminine. He is insightful, but he’s a fool. He is pathetic, but he is sympathetic. He is on the outside of the Scoobies, but he is on the inside. These aspects of him are not split between different personas, but exist within him simultaneously. It is telling that the show introduces human, mythos-bending vampires like Spike and Dru in a season about disillusionment, and it is telling that Spike’s role in the show becomes ascendant in the seasons after Buffy leaves Angel and his split personality behind. As Buffy begins to reckon more deeply with her id, and her dualities, she will begin to reckon with Spike.
part 3: “Something effulgent”: Season five and the construction of Spike the romantic
140 notes · View notes
itsclydebitches · 3 years
Note
TBH I think the whole "You didn't have an issue with this in 'insert x show here' but you have an issue with it in RWBY? What are you, sexist?" thing can easily be defused with a simple, "How did RWBY present this plot-point compared to the show I like?"
Sure, technically Cinder Fall and Darth Maul are the 'same' character, but how are the two presented in their respective shows? Cinder eats up screentime and none of it goes anywhere and gets frustrating. Maul is a relatively minor villain that had one season's worth of attention in CW and then was the villain of a few episodes throughout Rebels before getting killed off.
The only reason someone would be confused as to why people like Maul but hate Cinder is if they just read the two's respective wiki pages.
Really the whole "Your issues with RWBY are just subconscious misogyny" is just some people wanting to slap labels onto others so they can feel validated on not agreeing with their opinions.
Generally speaking, I'm wary of any take that boils down to a single sentence, "You're just [insert accusation here]." Not because such accusations are always 100% without merit—with a canon dealing with as many sensitive subjects as RWBY, combined with a fandom as large and diverse as it has become, you're bound to come across some people whose "criticism" stems primarily from bigotry—but because such dismissive summaries never tackle the problem a fan has pointed out. If one fan goes, "Ruby's plan was foolish because [reasons]" and the response to that is "You just can't handle a woman leader," then that response has failed to disprove the argument presented. The thing about "criticism" based in bigotry is that there isn't actually a sound argument attached because, you know, the only "argument" here is "I don't like people who aren't me getting screen time." So you can spot that really easily. The person who is actually misogynistic is going to be spouting a lot of rants about how awful things are... but very little evidence as to why it's awful, leaving only the fact that our characters are women as the (stupid) answer.
And yes, there is something to be said for whether, culturally, we're harder on women characters than we are men. Are we subconsciously more critical of what women do in media simply because we have such high expectations for that representation and, conversely, have become so used to such a variety of rep for men—including endlessly subpar/outright bad stories—that we're more inclined to shrug those mistakes off? That's absolutely worth discussing, yet at the same time, acknowledging that doesn't mean those criticisms no longer exist. That's where I've been with the Blake/Yang writing for a while now. I think fans are right to point out that we may be holding them to a higher standard than we demand of straight couples, but that doesn't mean the criticisms other fans have of how the ship has been written so far are without merit. Those writing mistakes still exist even if we do agree that they would have been overlooked in a straight couple—the point is they shouldn't exist in either. Both are still bad writing, no matter whether we're more receptive to one over the other. Basically, you can be critical of a queer ship without being homophobic. Indeed, in an age where we're getting more queer rep than ever before, it's usually the queer fans who are the most critical. Because we're the ones emotionally invested in it. The true homophobes of the fandom either dropped RWBY when the coding picked up, or spend their time ranting senselessly about how the ship is horrible simply because it exists, not because of how it's been depicted. Same for these supposed misogynists. As a woman, I want to see Ruby and the others written as complex human beings, which includes having them face up to the mistakes they've made. The frustration doesn't stem from me hating women protagonists, but rather the fact that they're written with so little depth lately and continually fall prey to frustrating writing decisions.
And then yeah, you take all those feelings, frustrations, expectations, and ask yourself, "Have I seen other shows that manage this better?" Considering that RWBY is a heavily anime-inspired show where all the characters are based off of known fairy tales and figures... the answer is usually a resounding, "Yes." As you say, I keep coming across accusations along the lines of, "People were fine with [insert choice here] when [other show] did it," as if that's some sort of "Gotcha!" moment proving a fan was bigoted all along, when in fact the answer is right there: Yes, we were okay with it then because that show did it better. That show had the setup, development, internal consistency, and follow through that RWBY failed to produce, which is precisely what we were criticizing in the first place.
What I also think is worth emphasizing here is how many problems RWBY has developed over the last couple of years (combining with the problems it had at the start). Because, frankly, audiences are more forgiving of certain pitfalls when the rest of the show is succeeding. I think giving a Star Wars example exemplifies that rather well. No one is going to claim that Star Wars is without its problems (omg does it have problems lol), but there's enough good there in most individual stories to (usually) keep the fans engaged. That doesn't mean that they're not going to point out those criticisms when given the chance, just that disappointment isn't the primary feeling we come away with. Obviously in a franchise this size there are always exceptions (like the latest trilogy...), but for most it's a matter my recent response to The Bad Batch, "I have one major criticism surrounding a character's arc and its impact on the rest of the cast, and we definitely need to unpack the whitewashing... but on the whole yes, it was a very enjoyable, well written show that I would recommend to others." However, for many fans now, we can't say the same of RWBY. Yang getting KO'ed by Neo in a single hit leads into only Blake reacting to her "death" which reminds viewers of the lack of sisterly development between Yang and Ruby which segues into a subpar fight which messes with Cinder's already messy characterization which leads to Ruby randomly not using her silver eye to save herself which leaves Jaune to mercy kill Penny who already died once which gives Winter the powers when she could have just gotten it from the start which results in a favorite character dying after his badly written downfall and all of it ends with Jaune following our four woman team onto the magical island... and that's just two episodes. The mistakes snowball. RWBY's writing is broken in numerous ways and that's what fans keep pointing to. Any one of these examples isn't an unforgivable sin on its own, but the combination of all of them, continuously, representing years worth of ongoing issues results in that primary feeling of, "That was disappointing."
Looking at some of the more recent posts around here, fans aren't upset that Ruby is no longer interested in weaponry because that character trait is Oh So Important and its lack ruins the whole show, they're upset because Ruby, across the series, lacks character, so the removal of one trait is more of a problem than it would be in a better written character. What are her motivations? Why doesn't she seek answers to these important questions? Why is her special ability so inconsistent? Where's her development recently? What makes Ruby Ruby outside of wielding a scythe and wanting to help everyone, a very generic character trait for a young, innocent protagonist? We used to be able to say that part of her character was that obsession and we used to hope that this would lead to more interesting developments: Will Ruby fix/update their weapons? Is her scythe dependency the reason why others need to point out how her semblance can develop? What happens if she is weaponless? Surely that will lead to more than just a headbutt... but now we've lost hope that this trait will go anywhere, considering it has all but disappeared. Complaints like these are short-hand criticism for "Ruby's character as a whole needs an overhaul," which in turn is a larger criticism of the entire cast's iffy characterization (Who is Oscar outside Ozpin? Why was Weiss' arc with her father turned into a joke and concluded without her? etc.) and that investment speaks to wanting her to be better. We want Ruby to be a better character than she currently is, like all those other shows we've seen where the women shine. Reducing that to misogyny isn't just inaccurate, but the exact opposite of what most fans are going for in their criticisms.
34 notes · View notes
epic-sorcerer · 3 years
Text
Merlin would have been so much more gay if the writers stayed true to Celtic paganism(the historicaly accurate “old religion”)
Trigger warnings:
Main triggers: talk of sex, homophobia, religion, Catholics, colonization, anti Celtic, murder
Mention triggers: rape and sexual assault, creepy men, gore, insest, toxic masculinity
I will mark the sections with quick triggers with 2 red lines. Below the second one is when the trigger is gone.
_____________
I am posting this on December 21st, as today is the Winter Solstice, a Celtic Pagan holiday. It will be posted at 3:33 PM, as 3 is a sacred number among the celts. Because of the special occasion, I will be speaking on a subject that was important to many of them—homosexuality.
Some stuff first for introductions. Yes, yes, I know this may be boring but it helps with context. This religion didn’t have a name other than Celtic pagan or Celtic religion bc it seams everyone there believed it. This was until the Roman Empire concurred what is now the UK. Since Rome had adopted Christianity—more specifically, Roman Catholocism—they only allowed that religion to be practiced.
———(genocide)——
Once England was concurred in 43 A.D, the pagans were killed and their religion was surpressed. Not much is known about the pagans for this reason. However, we do know somethings from what the Romans have written down. Although, it is biased, as they believed the celts to be barbaric and also didn’t wright much about women.
——gore ——
First, we know they preformed human sacrifice on kings when the kingdom suffered along with some other groups.This could be from bad ruling to really bad weather. These kings died horribly, as they seamed to be stabbed multiple times, had thier nipples cut off, and left to die in a bog.
They had thier nipples cut off because the subjects would suck on the kings’ nipples to demonstrate submission, so cutting them off would fully dethrone the king.
—————
Now, background over. Here’s where it gets good.
Nipple sucking between too lovers or ‘special friends’ was seen as a preclemation of love, physical intimacy, and sexual expression. This, like other types of sex, was seen as something beutiful and sacred. Often, male soldiers would have these ‘special friend’ relationships with many fellow soldiers in groups. The Romans even observed that Celtic men seamed to prefer other males for love/sexual interest over women.
Nipple sucking was mostly described was between two men. Although, we must recognize that women may have been left out of written history. I would also like to point out, this may prove that aromantic people existed in that time, as these ‘special friends’ had sex and were not mentioned to be romantically involved.
The celts were known for their sex positivity and even eroticism because they loved it so much.This is one of the reasons why the pagans and the Chatholics clashed so badly.
Before the Romans really took over, Saint Patrick—yes, the Saint Patrick—started to try to convert the celts into Roman catholosim. He was appalled at the wide acceptance of polyamory(women were aloud to marry however many people they wanted) and homosexual relationships/marriages. Not to mention the celts could have sex with any one at any time as long as it is consensual.
——(Tw creepy men)——
That means no waiting til marriage, unless a Celtic chose to do so. Although we should take into consideration a statement made by Diodorus Siculus, an antient Greek historian, that “the young men will offer themselves to strangers and are insulted if the offer is refused.” In his series Bibliotheca historica. This could mean that either creepy men were comman place, or that homosexuality was so comman and done with everyone, it was wierd to be rejected.
————
Getting back to the Roman Catholics, the book Sextus Empiricus is published in the early 3th century and states,
“...amongst the Persians it is the habit to indulge in intercourse with males, but amongst the Romans it is forbidden by law to do so...”
It also goes on to say,
“...amongst us sodomy is regarded as shameful or rather illegal, but by the Germanic they say, it is not looked on as shameful but as a customary thing.”
For clarification, Germany is apart of Celtic society. So what we can infer is a very serious culture shock in terms of Rome and other places. During Emporor Serverus Alexander’s reign, openly homosexuals were deported.
In early 4th century, Emporor Constaine—the first Christian Roman Emperor—destroyed an Egyptian temple populated exclusively by femme, gay, pagan, priests. The Emproror then went on to eradicate all of them. However in 337 A.D., 3 emperors ruled, including Constantius II and Constans I, who where both in mlm relationships.
An odd thing these emporors went on to do was criminalize male bottoming during mlw sex 342 A.D.. 8 years later, Emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I, and Arcadius ferther punished this act by killing these men by Public burning at the stake.
———(Tw toxic masculinity)———
I believe this was because masculinity was very important and a man acting in a more feminine role was seen as emasculating and humiliating. For the average man, he had to fight and defend his masculinity. Not doing so was seen as a personal failure.
——————
The last ever known peice of European literature containing a positive representation of homosexuality for 1,000 years was a large epic poem by Nonnus of Panopolis. It was titled Dionysiaca and the first part was published in 390 A.D., the last in 405 A.D..
So yeah, The catholics were very selective in terms of sex. One can only imagine how badly the celts and Catholics clashed. Back to 435 A. D., Saint Patrick began to preach Catholism and around that time wrote in his Confessio. He recounted that he found a boat to get out of Ireland and refused to suck on the nipples of those aboard.
“And on the same day that I arrived, the ship was setting out from the place, and I said that I had the wherewithal to sail with them; and the steersman was displeased and replied in anger, sharply: ‘By no means attempt to go with us.’ Hearing this I left them to go to the hut where I was staying, and on the way I began to pray, and before the prayer was finished I heard one of them shouting loudly after me: ‘Come quickly because the men are calling you.’ And immediately I went back to them and they started to say to me: ‘Come, because we are admitting you out of good faith; make friendship with us in any way you wish.’ (And so, on that day, I refused to suck the breasts of these men from fear of God, but nevertheless I had hopes that they would come to faith in Jesus Christ, because they were barbarians.) And for this I continued with them, and forthwith we put to sea.”
—(Tw very mild rape/sex assault mention—
So, as you can see, Celtic and Catholic ways clashed horribly. Something seen as good and sacred to the indigenous tribes was seen as barbaric and sinful to Saint Patrick. Also, don’t worry, the celts did not press the issue ferther, or else this would be a very different story.
—————
This only snowballed into a much bigger issue much later in medival English sexuality. They were VERY picky on what sex was aloud. Missionary was the only aloud position and it has to be the least pleasurable as possible. Making out and masturbation wasn’t aloud either, as that was also seen as a sin. Here’s a low Rez chart to help figure out when sex was okay.
Tumblr media
While we are discussing such a queer topic, I would like to bring up the topic of Anam Cara, or Soul Friends in Antient Celtic culture. A Soul Friend was a word used to describe a Philosophy in which one is not completely whole without thier “other half.” This person can be in a platonic, romantic, or familiar kind of love. Really, all it boils down to is that 2 poeple were made to be together since the beginning of time and will be at thier strongest when they become companions.
There is a Celtic legend that seams to depict a mlm Anam Cara relationship. It tells the story of Cuchulainn and Ferdiad, two male worriors who have known and loved each other a long time. But they must kill each other in a duel. Both are vary reluctant, as at least one of them will have to die.
————(Tw insest)———
Before I go on, it is important to mention there is a lot of debate on wether or not this is homosexual. Mainly because they were foster brothers, but since insest wasn’t as much of a taboo, I do not think this would be as much of a set back as it is today.
—————
They had tried to kill each other each day for 3 days, but they ended up hugging each other and kissing 3 times. On the fourth day, however, Cuchulainn killed Ferdiad. The man then holds Ferdiad in his arms and sings peoms for a long time. Here are some:
“We were heart-companions once,
We were comrades in the woods,
We were men that shared a bed
When we slept the heavy sleep
After hard and weary fights.
Into many lands, so strange,
And side by side we sallied forth
And we ranged the woodlands through,When with Scathach we learned arms!”
Heart companions seams to be similar or the same as soul freind, because of how it’s used. Although sleeping in the same bed isn’t inherently sexual, Cuchulainn then goes on to complement Ferdiad’s physical features.
“Dear to me thy noble blush,
Dear thy comely, perfect form;
Dear thine eye, blue-grey and clear,
Dear thy wisdom and thy speech”
Although this is deeply sweet I would also like to caution that Chuhulainn may have simply been commenting on his healthiness, but blush is an odd word considering he is now dead.
Two male lovers, one dead in the other’s arms. Soul friends, maybe. Reminds me of a certain show..I don’t know I just can’t put my finger on it...
I would also like to point out that because Celtics did not pressure others to have sex, and that a soul friend can be any type of love, I do think that an asexual or someone on that spectrum could live without judgment.Unfortunately, I could not find much about intersex, androgynous, or trans people. Perhaps if I find anything in the future and will make a new post.
In conclusion, if Merlin were more historicaly accurate, he definitely would have been queer. Especially because he is said to be magic itself, it would make sense for him to be the personification of Celtic values. That may include homosexuality, because as previously stated, Celtic men really liked other men.
I’m excited to see what will come of this post, seeing as not a lot of people in the fandom seem to know this. More fanfiction? More fanart? It would probably inspire a lot of creators. So, if you do make something because of this post, please notify me in the notes, an ask, an @ or something. Basically anything but a PM. I would be happy to see/read the creation.
Sources:
Sexuality and love in Celtic society:
Same Sex Celts
Druid Thoughts: of Sex and Druids
Anam Cara, what’s a soul mate?
Sexuality in Ancient Ireland
The Celts, Women, and Sex
LGBT history
Sexuality and love in Medival Society:
Getting down and medival: the sex lives of the Middle Ages
Sex in the Middle Ages
Here’s What Sex Was Like In Medieval Times. It’ll Make You Feel Glad You Weren’t Born Back Then!
General Celtic Society:
Who Were the Celts
Celtic Religion and Belieifs
Saint Patrick
17 Things You Probably Didnt know about Saint Patrick
Confession of Saint Patrick
Cuchulainn and Ferdiad
Cuchulainn and Ferdiad, Gay Lovers?
The Combat of Ferdiad and Cuchulain
Insest in Antient Celtic Society
Ancient Irish elite practiced incest, new genetic data from Neolithic tomb shows
Homosexuality in the Roman Empire
Timeline of LGBT history
Timeline of LGBT history in the United Kingdom
203 notes · View notes