recontextualizing this story through the lens of buck/eddie and what it means for them, is like. it's so interesting because recently, i got an anon that asked me (paraphrasing) if i thought 9-1-1 would actually "go there" with buck and eddie as individuals, and that three main characters discovering their queerness would be "too much" for the general audience. and, like, not withstanding that it's actually true to life — that queer people can and do naturally gravitate toward each other even when we aren't out / passing / aware of our sexualities at the time — it's also just like. the belief (or disbelief) that 911 wouldn't "go there" with their stories also comes with this inherent assumption that there's only one way to tell a queer discovery story.
like. when michael came out in season 1, he was already at the end of his journey. he had already walked through the self-hate and forced closeting and came out on the other side to self acceptance. when we meet michael, he is a queer man, a gay man (because the word is important), who has already stepped into self actualization and is ready to live his truth. this is not the story 911 is telling with buck.
and then with eddie, you have this character that is introduced with the idea of being perfect, as ryan said, of having it all together, only for the audience to realize he's not. only for the audience to realize that he's broken and cracked on the inside and that a lot of it stems from war. but most of it? most of it doesn't. most of it stems from his father, and from how he was raised. raised to shut it down, to swallow things whole even if they hurt, even if they make him bleed. he was told to keep it all quiet, repress repress repress. and so. i know this is an unpopular opinion, but to that end, i don't think an explicit queer discovery storyline is necessary for him, in the sense that, subtextually, i think it's already happened. season 5 was very much eddie's unrepression arc. we dug deep into the things that make eddie diaz, eddie diaz. and a lot of that was war. violence. chaos."warzones are my thing." but if that was all that his arc was meant to be, why have it end with a conversation with his father? they could have played that arc out in so many different ways.
for one, they could have had mills still be alive. they could have had her and eddie reconnect. they could have had her and eddie have a conversation where she shoulders some of the weight that eddie's been putting on himself and have him settle into the peace of the realization that he's not alone in this specific thing, that he never has been, that other people survived what he did and that he can find solace in them. but the writers didn't do that. they took it back to his childhood, to the root of where eddie diaz began and they said, this is where you need to go. this is what you need to address before you can heal and move on. so that conversation with his dad that culminated in him choosing wellness, in him choosing happiness, in him choosing safety in his body for himself has very much always read to me as queer acceptance even if not explicit (due to the assumed barriers that were placed on that story at the time).
eddie has always been with women, eddie has always liked being with women, so i'd be shocked if he's ever even thought about the nuances of his sexuality. but his unrepression in season 5, to me, has always made him open to the possibility of falling into whatever comes next, whatever that looks like.
this is also not the story they're telling with buck.
(as a side note, i'd just like to say that queer subtext is still queer existence. subtext is how our stories have been told for generations, well before we were able to take up space on the page, and subtext is still a wholly valid and beautiful way of telling a queer story. please don't forget that).
so then, finally, we get to buck, and he's so very new at this. so very green he may as well be a blade of grass on a country club golf course. and so, despite the fact that there have already been two queer storylines prior, this is the first time in 9-1-1 (and tv!) history, that we have ever gotten to see an unplanned queer character discover who he is at this intimate, detailed level. we get to see buck's story unfold in real time, we get to learn about who this actualized version of himself is, as he is realizing it, and we get to know and dissect the layers and nuances, the ebbs and flows of his sexuality as he's taking himself apart and seeing what's underneath.
friends. this is the story they've always needed to tell.
and so, when i think about buck and eddie, and i think about their progression toward a romantic relationship and what that would look like, realistically and in the eyes of the audience, buck has really always been the missing key. we've talked about it before — who he is, who he was, has in no way been ready for eddie on multiple levels. whether it was because of his insecurity, his lack of place in the world, etc, buck has always been (for lack of a better word) too immature for eddie. eddie is a single father. he doesn't have time to play games, and though he will always love and reassure buck when he needs it, he doesn't have time to heal buck for him. nor should he. so buck was the only one who canonically, canonically, needed to be yanked from point a to point z.
and. it's like everyone's said, even before the season began — buck has been on a hamster wheel, buck has been stuck in a rut, yadda yadda yadda, which means that, as far as the audience was concerned, what always was for buck (women) is what always would have been. and there was nothing in canon, nothing concrete to disprove them from believing so. so we needed him to fall into something, not just radical, but sometime new.
and when i think about buck, and when i think about eddie, and when i think about their stories both as individuals and together, buck has, realistically, been the only real stopping point. at least with eddie, when the time is right and buck/eddie go canon, we, the audience, can go back in time and we can look at the way he came into himself and settled into his identity as a person, as a man, and say, like, oh okay, this is the moment. you know? we don't need the writers to take our hands and guide us through the same processes buck is experiencing because eddie's already had his ah moment, he's already experienced the moment where he decides that his life and his needs and his joy and his liberation are just as beautiful and valuable and worthy like everyone else's.
so when people ask, like, "would 9-1-1 really go there with three queer discovery arcs?" it's just like. well yes. they already have. we've already there. in fact, we're well into the third and final act. buck, eddie, and the audience, are almost ready — as in, actively ready — for each other. and yes, sure, even after the meat of this arc has passed, there will still be some things buck and eddie need to learn — specifically, they will need to learn that, not only do they have feelings for each other, but that feelings for each other is actually an option — but. for all intents and purposes, this is the crescendo before the final chord. this is it. and the thought that we've been here, that we've witnessed these three beautiful queer storylines unfold with these three beautiful characters (two of which are gentle, loving, present men of color) makes me entirely too emotional for words. tbh.
268 notes
·
View notes
yes i'm rooting for m*leven breakup because byler is neat but mostly? i'm rooting for m*leven breakup for the sake of el and mike.
to me, their romance was always a puppy love born out of a combination of social pressures, naïve curiosity, and a lack of true understanding regarding intimacy and romantic love and what it really is. it was real in that they do truly, deeply care about each other and they are close friends, maybe even shared an attraction, but a maturing romance is so much more than that. they've grown up and out of being boyfriend/girlfriend, and that's okay! i think television/film needs to show more often that most of us don't have definite "soulmates" or first childhood loves that we spend our whole lives with. it doesn't mean these relationships meant nothing and didn't impact us, it just means they've run their course and that something else is in the cards, and this is part of life!
i've always felt el was at her best and most confident self when broken up with mike, discovering who she was and what she liked alongside another girl her age instead of just relying on mike for mentorship on how to live in the real world. she deserves more of an opportunity to find herself, her autonomy, and her independence, and to love who she is, and she's made it clear she's felt insecure in the relationship with mike because she isn't being loved and understood the way she wants, needs, and deserves from someone who is her partner.
also, it's okay if mike doesn't love her in "the way he should". he is not obligated to love her romantically and stay in a relationship with her just because she's a girl, because she "needed someone", or because he cares about her a lot. he shouldn't be pressured into a romance if it's not truly coming from his heart. he deserves freedom to find out and honour who he is, too, instead of just staying in his non-functional first relationship — one he got into as a child, essentially — and defining himself that way because it's what's expected when a boy and a girl are close. he loves her in some way, yes, but it's okay if he doesn't feel comfortable or secure being her boyfriend anymore, for whatever reason that is. he's felt insecure too, and that's valid and it matters.
they are their own people and are steadily growing and changing every day. they need time to figure out who those people are, and it's become clear (at least in my opinion) that those people aren't meant to be a couple at this stage.
they deserve freedom. they deserve to grow up and be authentic to themselves and not feel like they need to lie for the sake of a relationship. they deserve to move on from this version of their relationship that isn't making them happy and rekindle the best part of their bond: their strong, beautiful friendship. they don't have to be a couple if it doesn't make them stronger and better and happier people.
i think it would be healthy and wonderful for a show, especially one consumed frequently by young adults, to show a relationship starting, progressing, and ending on good terms in this way. sometimes things don't work out, and that is okay.
146 notes
·
View notes
in your most recent tyson post, you said something about leo being distinctly autistic-coded and I was wondering if you could elaborate on that? it sounds really interesting (sorry if you've already posted something on this, I couldn't find anything though)
Of course! I do have a specific tag for talking about Leo's autistic-coding/traits - [here], and [one for Nico as well].
The main aspects with Leo being autistic-coded actually have a lot to do with Nico being autistic-coded, because it's the comparisons between the two that most clearly indicate Leo is autistic-coded rather than it just being his ADHD or etc.
So with Nico being autistic-coded, it's very clear in the Titan's Curse that he's intended to be autistic. First, the first series has a repeating pattern of secondary characters being very distinctly neurodivergent-coded in different ways (Annabeth's adhd/dyslexia, Tyson's down syndrome-coding, Nico's autism-coding). With Nico's introduction, he's pretty stereotypically autistic and we're given a lot of descriptors about him that are notably not attributed to him being ADHD, like it would be for other demigod characters. He doesn't register social cues such as people getting annoyed at him, he's asking/making inappropriate or impolite questions/comments, he gets particularly upset about change (such as Bianca joining the Hunt) and generally gets emotional, and one of his most notable traits he's introduced with is the fact that he has a special interest (MythoMagic) - and we're shown that this special interest particularly colors how Nico navigates the world. While ADHD has hyperfixations, we don't really get much acknowledgement of hyperfixations with demigods usually - Annabeth gets a little, but most others don't and it's not nearly as focused-in on as Nico's is.
Then as the series continues we see these traits stick with him and him start to show or voice more traits that similarly indicate he's autistic: He regularly mentions how he doesn't understand living people and prefers the company of the dead (social issues). He has more notable stims than other demigods (twisting his ring, fiddling with bones, etc). He's indicated to have strong sensory preferences (usually wearing mostly black/aversion to bright colors, usually wearing layers/his coat, multiple times he's described as wearing loose/baggy clothing or clothes too big for him). He has specific comfort items (his ring, likely his jacket(s) as well). We later get even more information about his special interests (Mythomagic/mythology/history and an older interest in pirates - the latter he specifically notes likely heavily influenced his feelings towards Percy). He struggles with emotions and facial expressions and tone. He struggles particularly with ostracism and feeling like he doesn't fit in and has something distinctly different about him from the people around him (who notably, all have ADHD, which indicates it isn't the ADHD that's making him feel that way), and other characters regularly describe him as being off-putting because of his strange behaviors - again, different from specific ADHD traits they recognize. And that last point is kind of notable because we have Hazel and Bianca for comparison - we know people are off-put by both Nico and Hazel because of being children of Hades/Pluto and their powers/aura, but other characters get past that general feeling of discomfort way faster with Hazel. And even after characters get past the death stuff with Nico, there's a second thing that they aren't moving past that isn't a factor with Hazel (Nico's autism).
So that brings us to Leo - Leo is paralleled to Nico a lot. And there's some very specific traits about him that we know are autistic-coding because of how they're used with Nico: He similarly struggles with social cues/etc, and in a very similar parallel to Nico describes how he prefers the company of machines to people because machines make more sense to him. He has similar types of clothing/sensory preferences (again some stuff with layers but also - pockets! He likes having pockets and things to put stuff in! He's even introduced as having a jacket with lots of pockets), and he has a distinct special interest (machinery) that we specifically know heavily influences how he views and navigates the world (constantly comparing things to machinery, describing things with machinery metaphors/terminology, etc etc). He even describes his entire general worldview to Hazel and it's a machine metaphor. He also similarly struggles with ostracization like Nico does, the only difference being that Leo specifically puts on a persona to compensate for areas he knows he's lacking in and very explicitly describes it as a means to make people like him, because without it he normally struggles to fit in (He's masking!). We also see notes of characters describing that similar discomfort with Leo's behaviors that they do with Nico, except without the aura of death this time. And when we're in Leo's POVs we see a very stark difference between his masking and his actual personality/behaviors such as his internal dialogues or how he behaves when he's alone. Also, like Nico, he stims more than other demigods, though for Leo it's more attributed to his ADHD. Leo also, more often than most, similarly struggles with tone and reading the room, such as making misplaced jokes/comments or etc.
But yeah! It's really interesting. Also it's just a fun thing that ADHD/dyslexia and autism have comorbidity, so it makes sense that we see demigods who are also autistic. It's also really fun to look at how other characters are coded in the series, what coding looks like in the riordanverse specifically (usually it's tied into the mythological stuff - like Chiron being in a wheelchair but he's actually a centaur, Grover being introduced as having a muscular disease but he's actually a satyr, demigods having adhd/dyslexia, Tyson being coded as having down syndrome but he's a cyclops, etc etc - it's a lot of specific metaphor stuff that I've talked about a bit before), and to look at how characters are compared to one another.
83 notes
·
View notes
oh. hm. i wonder if dark made grimm by himself because light refused to participate in creating anything destructive again after the jabberwalker—certainly it seems telling that in the myth, light creates a vast monoculture lawn and then declares that dark’s contribution of a moon and new biomes and plate tectonics is “spoiling” it; the myth flows from light’s presentation of himself to ancient humans and if he saw any value in these things he would surely have claimed them as his own—and then there’s the brother-cult framing that humans were given the capacity for evil (destruction) and good (creation) and the free will to choose which path to walk, always with the underlying premise that if humankind chooses wrong then they will “destroy themselves” (by earning annihilation at the final judgment)
this is in stark contrast to the narrative treatment of destruction as hunger and as an agent of change, and creation-without-destruction as, well, a vast monoculture lawn. sterile, stagnant, artificial, unalive.
(<- not a euphemism for “dead” and i resent that the word has those connotations now.)
to create is to destroy; paint, for example, is destroyed by the act of painting. you can’t ever use it as paint again. eating a meal is destructive—both in the sense that something living has to be killed, whether plant or animal, and in the sense that the food itself is destroyed. but this is the basis of all life. one eats to stay alive, to grow.
so in light’s view grimm are evil abominations because his brother made them to be destructive; to dark the grimm are embodiments of natural forces whose churnings keep the world forever in motion and therefore alive. jabber came out wrong—brutal, but effective, the blacksmith says—because light’s misapprehension of destruction influenced his nature. the grimm, created by dark alone, turned out right.
are they good? are they bad? they just are. the tides, the mountains, the deserts, the storms, earthquakes and volcanoes, the grimm.
meanwhile humans were given destruction by darkness and creation by light—the separation and recombination into one being was probably necessary to avoid a repeat of what happened with jabber—and then taught, by light, to understand their natures as a moral conflict and a moral challenge to rise above ‘evil’, i.e. destruction.
this is, of course, why light is so set on the necessity of permanent death: in his afterlife the dead are unaware and unalive, existing in everlasting stasis, and so nothing can ever be destroyed. darkness, who has never feared destruction, allows salem to glimpse the truth that life and death are a circle. and then he burns it all down and leaves her alive in the ashes, the wellspring of primordial destruction there for her to do with it as she will. and she does, and that is how mankind returns to life and how the faunus come to be.
which is the whole point. the grimm represent and embody pure destruction, hunger and change, which the brothers’ humans were taught to abhor as unnatural, evil abominations. salem becomes grimm and in doing so stakes humanity’s claim on destruction as darkness understood it, rejecting the false moral dichotomy light imposed on her generation. remnant is set free, and humanity rises phoenix-like from the ashes, unbound by death.
the brothers’ humans rebelled in order to claim the powers of their creators and perfect their own design. and she did.
56 notes
·
View notes