#and fictional characters aren’t going to fit into a certain diagnosis or be representative of a psychological condition bc they’re fake

[yelenadelova]

being a psych student and a huge nerd is wild because like…i’m out here diagnosing my blorbos

[wordsnstuff]

10 Mistakes to Avoid When Writing About Mental Illness

Patreon || Ko-Fi || Masterlist || Work In Progress

–

Reinforcing Stereotypes

This goes without saying, but neurodivergent people (and characters) each experience and cope with their mental illnesses differently. Schizophrenia is not simply hallucinations. Depression is not simply feeling suicidal. Anxiety is not simply consistent fear or unease. Your character, depending on what causes/triggers their symptoms, will present their mental illnesses differently, both on the inside and outside. A person’s experience of mental illness is affected by their environment, their background, their priorities, their personality, and their other struggles. Reflect this in their story, rather than reading a long list of general symptoms and checking them off in your draft. 

1 Symptom Sally

Mental illness affects every aspect of an individual’s life. It’s more complicated and far-reaching than simply “having a harder time than everyone else”. Depression, for instance, is frequently portrayed with an acute emphasis on the symptoms of fatigue, lack of motivation, and sadness. However, depression has a lot of symptoms that many aren’t aware are connected to the illness, such as executive dysfunction, irritability, and sickness. Even those with a general diagnosis of a mental illness aren’t going to have that diagnosis just because they feel sad a lot of the time. There must be more, and it must be shown.  

Romanticizing Suicide

There’s a delicate balance between depicting the reality and gravity of suicidal thoughts/ideation and making it sound appealing. If you’re reading a story, narrated by a character who has suicidal tendencies, it’s inevitable that their thought process will justify or rationalize those thoughts. Approach this with care, and remember that as a writer, you have influence over your readers (whether intentionally or not), and you should prioritize the responsibility you have to avoid romanticizing suicide over the task of portraying it accurately. Some things simply hurt more than they help. 

Generalizing Experiences

Mental illness is inconsistent. Some people display two or three symptoms that are easily recognized, but some experience symptoms most don’t even associate with those illnesses at all. For example, generalized anxiety disorder can present in individuals with a more physically debilitating set of effects, rather than primarily manifesting in feelings of fear or unease. Yes, anxiety is the state of being anxious, but it can also be sensory overload, executive dysfunction, flu-like illness, and fatigue. Every mental illness is unique to the individual who struggles with it, so be aware that your characters should be representing that reality as well. 

Ignoring Coping Mechanisms

Most people who have a mental illness that has progressed to the point of seeking a diagnosis and perhaps treatment have established various levels of coping mechanisms. These can be things like substance abuse or self harm, but they can also be more subtle, like hyper-fixation on media they like or excessive reliance on friends or family. If you’re going to write a character with a mental illness, you should know what they have to do to get through the day. What exercises have they adopted to adapt to their situation? What effect have these mechanisms had on their lifestyle and relationships?

Illnesses Having No Effect On Relationships

Mental illness, especially after having struggled with them for a long period, affects who we are, how we behave and interact, and changes our priorities and thought process. It’s inevitable that it will impact our relationships with other people. In order to accurately depict this experience, you have to also know the characters on the other side, who are maintaining a relationship with your neurodivergent character. What are their thoughts on mental health? How well do they understand what your character is experiencing? Are they more likely to want to be there for or distance themselves from the character because of their mental illness? Strain on relationships can be a very distinct part of a neurodivergent person’s experience with mental illness, and it’s important to represent that. The stigma is still very real and shows up regularly, even in little ways, and in a more accommodating world.

Extreme Cases Only

Some people experience mental illness on a chronic level, others do not. There’s Seasonal Affective Disorder, which tends to only present symptoms in certain periods of the year for various reasons, for example. It could be classified as a “less severe” form of depression, and it’s very common. Not all depression is the same, and it doesn’t always result in severe cases of suicidal ideation or self harm. If you only depict characters in the most extreme cases, who experience their symptoms at the highest level at all times, you may be reinforcing stereotypes about neurodivergence that have taken decades to dismantle. Not everyone with mental illness has an extreme case, and pretending they do can reinforce the idea that all neurodivergent people are “crazy”. 

Good Days vs. Bad Days

Neurodivergent individuals usually experience their symptoms on a wide spectrum of severity. There are good and bad days, and everything in between. Sure, some days, one may experience virtually no symptoms and be very happy and productive, and be totally unable to maintain their composure on others. However, the majority of the time is occupied by a middle ground. Days where a person isn’t constantly on the verge of a panic attack, but they struggle to accomplish their typical agenda, and they feel a variety of symptoms at noticeable, but more manageable level. Symptoms can also intensify steadily and endure for variable periods of time. 

Curing Mental Illness With Romance

Let me say this clearly, and insist you don’t argue: mental illness cannot be cured by a relationship. I admit that new relationships or positive attention can offset symptoms, but if a character’s mental illness (such as depression or anxiety) miraculously resolves because a new partner comes into their life, they either weren’t mentally ill in the first place, or you have misunderstood mental illness. There can be months or even years where someone can go without experiencing their symptoms at a noticeable level, but they will always be neurodivergent, and a new partner isn’t going to change that. That portrayal minimizes the experience of mental illness and trivializes symptoms people suffer with every single day. Do not do this. Please. Just don’t. You can say your character has prolonged period of sadness, but you cannot slap the word “depression” on them, then have all their symptoms disappear because they’ve got a hot date.

Not Every Illness Is Caused By Trauma

This is simply a point of knowledge more writers should have a grasp of. Mental illness can be caused by genetics, chemical imbalances, deficiencies, severe and prolonged stress, longterm health conditions, social isolation or loneliness, etc. It’s natural that in a fictional story where mental illness may be an important aspect, that trauma is one of the more sensational causes to apply to your character, but if you have a cast with diverse experiences of neurodivergence, it’s unlikely that all of them will have a basis in trauma. Neurodivergence is not a one-size-fits-all. 

–

Masterlist | WIP Blog

If you enjoy my blog and wish for it to continue being updated frequently and for me to continue putting my energy toward answering your questions, please consider Buying Me A Coffee, or pledging your support on Patreon, where I offer early access and exclusive benefits for only $5/month.

Shoutout to my $15+ patrons, Jade Ashley and Douglas S.!

[veryvincible]

If tony meets the criteria for ocd, why do you still say he doesn't have it? Not disagreeing just curious

Disclaimer again: I am not a mental health professional, I am simply a mental health advocate with many years of research under my belt, as well as lots of firsthand experience with the diagnostic process and other mental health-related incidences with the medical field (in America specifically). So, as always, feel free to look into it yourself if you’re interested in it, because there’s always discourse in the (very messy) field of psychology. Anyway, on we go.

The thing to remember here is that, with fictional characters, we don’t get to delve into their minds as much as we’d like to; internal monologue, as deep and complex and beautiful as it can be, is still a collection of words to define a mass of feelings, and these masses of feelings can be attributed to so, so many things. When a therapist diagnoses you, they get to ask funky questions like, “Do you feel like your thoughts and concerns spiral, and you’re helpless to stop them?” “Thinking back to your childhood, do you think you exhibited similar symptoms that you’re experiencing currently?” “Do you, personally, have an opinion about what may have been a catalytic event for you adopting this state of mind?” and all sorts of things. Though those are much more formally put than most questions I’ve been asked by therapists, the gist is basically the same-- they get to deep dive into your history, your mind, your self-awareness, your body language, your feelings... and you’re one cohesive person with a cohesive story. 

For comic book characters, we don’t get to delve into that. We don’t get to go, “Well, his childhood was like this, and that explains these behaviors! We can assume his panic response is Like This, and we can assume his attachment style is Like This, and we can assume his symptoms are Like This, and we can assume he feels Like This,” but those are all assumptions, and we can’t probe further. On top of that, most of them aren’t even intentional-- sure, yes, Tony Stark is a very sad man, and most writers make him this very sad man, but I can guarantee that most writers aren’t specifically looking into MDD and writing Tony accordingly. Some may be drawing from personal experience, others may be drawing from assumptions, etc. Whatever the case, Tony is not a cohesive man with a psychological timeline wherein one event leads to a developed response, consistently.

Above all else, diagnosis is a tool for treatment-- yes, it is excellent to be able to better understand yourself and feel the relief that comes along with this, but diagnosis came into being for the sake of medical professionals being able to say, “Hm, you’ve got [whatever]. I will go tell the other doctor you’ve got [whatever], so that guy can help you, because he specializes in [whatever], or you can try these home remedies for [whatever], or we can delve into [whatever] emotionally with talk therapy.”

Because diagnosis is a tool for treatment, you get these funky little footnotes in the DSM (which, again, is not the end-all, be-all, but when it comes to fictional characters, it’s totally fine) and other diagnostic tools that tell you “Even if you meet all these criteria, this diagnosis isn’t necessary if these symptoms would be better explained by something else!” because treating you for every psychological condition you qualify for could be rough on your body, it could end up with conflicting treatments (especially if you make incorrect assumptions, or if certain symptoms are stemming from different physiological factors despite appearing the same externally), and it’s just kind of tedious.

Like, you could potentially exhibit every symptom under the diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety, but if you have severe PTSD from long-term trauma that’s made you super jittery, it might be accepted that Generalized Anxiety wouldn’t be the best diagnosis for you, because ideally the treatment you’d receive for PTSD (trauma counseling, medication, etc.) would help with that.

I will say here that having an “umbrella diagnosis” under which other potential diagnoses could fall is not the same thing as having comorbid disorders; you probably know that already, but I’m going to say it anyway, just in case. Comorbidity involves overlap but separation of diagnoses, whereas the whole “Don’t diagnose your patient with [whatever disorder] if these symptoms are better explained by another thing!” happens more often when the entirety of one potential diagnosis fits under a section of another, more fitting diagnosis. So, if you see anyone with very long lists of diagnoses (probably don’t put big lists like that in your bios, though, please-- that seems kind of dangerous), that’s not a sign that they’re, like, mental illness-hoarding or whatever the fuck, despite that being a very common assumption that a lot of neurotypical people (and honestly, other mentally ill people) can have. Bodies like to be balanced. When one thing falls out of place, a lot of other things might follow. Just a disclaimer for you here, because I feel it’s important to say.

So, that covers... most of the reason why I don’t personally like to point to Tony as a character with OCD. First of all, sure, he has what could be considered obsessions and what could be considered compulsions, but we can’t actually ask him, “Hey, do you think these thoughts are obsessive? Are these potential compulsions things you perform ritualistically in order to make the obsessive thoughts go away?”

And... I don’t know. I think OCD (for me, specifically-- I know there are others with OCD whose opinions differ, and more power to them) is something that has to be written more intentionally for it to read as representation. Sure, they might have what could be intrusive thoughts... but my intrusive thoughts don’t just feel like thoughts that “could” be intrusive. They are intrusive, unmistakably. My compulsions don’t just feel like solutions to the problems I’ve made up or exaggerated in my head; they’re irrational, fear-based, anxiety-inducing. It’s the way you make sure every upstairs door is closed before heading downstairs, because otherwise you get a tightness in your chest and you can’t focus or breathe quite right; or the way you get up out of bed to make sure your door is locked multiple times just in case you forgot; or the way you develop avoidant tendencies or overly communicative tendencies because if you don’t, the ramifications within your relationships could be unbearable. It’s having a voice inside your head that’s not just telling you you’re a monster, the perfect antithesis to everything you’ve ever held dear; it’s a voice inside your head that is the monster, a voice that sounds the same as your own, simultaneously overprotective of your well-being and overly interested in the total destruction of your person.

And... I’m not saying Tony doesn’t experience that. He clearly has this feeling of “I am a monster” inside of him. He clearly has that feeling due to what he perceives as his own shortcomings. But these are comic books, and though there are many ways you could introduce intrusive thoughts in an internal monologue, we don’t really get that with Tony as much as I’d need to in order to feel represented by him. We don’t get him thinking shit like, “You could abandon this all, you could leave this shit to the rest of the team, you could fuck off and live on an island somewhere else, you could hole yourself up in a room and never leave, you could kill them, you could kill him, you could kill everyone, you know for a fact you have the resources to kill everyone, don’t you want to make sure? What if your tech fails? What if you do kill everyone? What would happen, huh? How would that look? How would that feel? What do you think it would feel like to pick up their bodies, to look in their eyes and have nothing staring back at you? You could tell him you hate him. Not to save him from you, no-- you could just do it because you’re able to do it, because you’ve cultivated these relationships and you’ve fooled everyone into loving you despite knowing you don’t deserve it. You’ve tricked them, and every day you continue on like this you’re manipulating them, and you’ve taken so much from them-- they’ve put so much of themselves in your hand that you could so, so easily crush if you just took a second and did it.”

... And we don’t get the accompanying monologue of, “No, god no, what the fuck, that’s not who I am, that’s not who I want, I’m not like that, I love them, that can’t be who I am, if that’s who I am then what does that say about me, what does that say about the space I take up, what does that make me?”

Which is where the OCD version of “I am a monster” tends to originate-- the inherent inability to separate oneself from the illness, the difficulty in coping with an overactive survival mechanism ready to ensure you’re prepared for every single thing that could go wrong, very specifically the things you’re most worried about, because that’s what matters, right? The things you’re worried most about. And Tony’s most worried about love, about his loved ones, about the planet, about life.

But “I am a monster” doesn’t imply that internal monologue. “I am a monster” could be a legitimate analysis of what he’s been through and what he’s done, clouded by self-loathing instilled in him by his father. “I am a monster” could be something he’s thought since he was younger, not because of any specific symptoms he developed, but because of what he was told-- because he was told he was wrong, bad, unlovable.

I think Tony could get there. I think I honestly may have written Tony there at some point, just because it’s easy to write for me. But if we’re following standard diagnostic procedures with a man on a page who really hasn’t been written intentionally with anything other than substance abuse, symptoms of PTSD, and depression... I don’t know. It doesn’t read like OCD to me. It doesn’t feel like OCD to me, and if at any point it did, I think that would be more of me filling in blanks with my own experiences than it would be anything else.

(There is one canonical instance of “I could kill this person right now if I wanted to!” level intrusive-ish thoughts I can think of off the top of my head, and that is in the most recent Iron Man run, and that also doesn’t read like OCD to me because, honestly, nothing Cantwell writes with regards to mental health seems natural or authentic or accurate. Also, I don’t know if it really qualifies as an intrusive thought if it feels more like a justified outburst of rage to the character thinking it, so, uh. Hmm.)

[aspiestvmusings]

The problem with people who see everything as “problematic” on screen (film/TV)

(MILD) SPOILERS FOR “BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY” (2018) FILM

...because I use this film as an example

ALSO ... “UNPOPULAR” PERSONAL OPINION 

In short: 

1. However untruthful you think the surviving band members POV & take  on things & Freddie are, their take is closer to truth than your fan take on things that relies only on hearsay (everything you think you know as fact comes through “journalist” or “gossip” filter - so everything is someone elses take on the man & the events. Even his other friends & co-workers & family members take on him are just someones take on things. That doesn’t make them any more truthful than the bands take on things. Just one POV of so many. 

2. Though biography, it is still a fictional film. This is not a biography book, or a documentary, and people need to stop expecting biopic films be like documentaries - chronologically, factually, and otherwise correct in every detail. How does it still surprise people that a biopic film is still a film. With a script... that is “loosely”  based on reality, but “tweaked” to fit the movie script standards & tell a story... Its still entertainment.  

3. When will the critics stop focusing on the politics & start focusing on the legend? You can have whatever opinions you wish, but  it doesn’t mean your take is correct. And mostly... as the film, too, hinted... Freddie didn’t care  for the politics, or the labels. He cared about the music, about his cats,  about the fans, and about his loved ones. He lived his life as his authentic self (as much as it was possible these decades ago, when being openly “queer” was not so “welcomed”), and he refused any labels & being a poster boy for anyone...any minority he belonged to. He lived & defined the label, the label didn’t “define “him. 

4. The fans projecting their own wishes on him - claiming that this or that label defined him, or that he’d wanted this or that - is the opposite of what Freddie would have wanted. A lot of the things that are disliked by many are actually based on facts & real events - and any wishful thinking doesn’t change them. It baffles me how fans,who claim to have a lot of insight only take claims from  certain sources as the ultimate truth, but not respect Freddie’s own wishes & preferences - the things he said in many interviews. The little he shared of his personal life. And it’s kinda funny in a sad way that what some people claim some groups of people have done to them, is exactly the same (tactic) they are using on those other people. #cryptic 

The problem is that these people only see the package/the labels, not the real product inside/the message and story itself. 

The problem is that the message isn’t that because they see the man/woman relationship portrayed as “good/happy” & the “man/man” relationship as “bad/negative”, forgetting that that view is based on their personal POV. The story itself doesn’t do that. The sexes of the characters are not important. The point is that they are showing two different experiences. It just happens that in this case the negative one is involving a man. Because this is actually accurate - that was one of the things they copied from real life (in general, not in detail). Because yes, they took liberty in changing facts/timeline... to fit the story in 2 hrs, and have an ongoing plot. But they also kept several things as they actually did happen. And in his case the long-term positive pre-diagnosis relationship was with a woman, and negative one was with a man. And if you completely dismiss the ending...and the Jim scenes and that part of the story...then you didn’t really pay attention to what the film was actually showing & telling you. If your brain in wired to make the assumption that you can transfer one (bad) example to every case... if your brain likes to generalize and you truly think that just because one example is like this, then the same can apply to every case... then I am truly sorry that you are unable to think outside the box, and not stereotype and generalize everything. I honestly can’t imagine living this way/with such thought process. 

The problem is that the “breaking off engagement” scene isn’t telling you that either of the labels used in that scene is singular truth or accurate. The fact is that those were the exact words used by the real people... during the real-life moment that scene is based on. This is another scene that is copied from real life (not timeline wise, but lines wise). The problem is that it is your assumption that everything said in films/tv is fact. And that everyone must think that just because some statement is made on screen, it is the truth, and everyone will see it this way. Well... in that case... why don’t we say that characters on crime-shows, who are the villain of the week saying that they committed the crime, because they had the “right to” are correct? Why is this applied to “political/identity” issues themes on screen? Why do the complainers take  one characters opinion as the universal truth? Every single character in fictional stories is only saying what they personally think/how they see things (based on their perception of things...at that moment). And that scene is all about...mostly... how his self-search really begun. And the scenes between that moment and the tea party moment is really about his journey (”back”) to “happiness”, and towards his true, authentic self... finding himself. And because it is not an easy journey... we get to see the bumps on the way. The wrong turns. But we don’t get to see it all. To assume that what is actually shown is the whole story... specially in the case of this man (he himself IRL always preferred to not be labeled, always kept work and personal apart, and was very private..off stage... and never confirmed anything)... is silly IMO. Like.. if you don’t get that not showing him interact with other women after he met Paul means that what you see is all there is, is silly. There is so much of the real on stage & backstage & personal story that was not shown. Those are the parts that you get to add yourself for the fictional story & discover on your own for the real life story...by reading about him...watching old videos/interviews, listening to their music... it’s not erasing anything. It’s just not showing everything....because this is a 2hr film that covers 15 years of history & adding more threads just isn’t possible...

They do not portray any of the characters as simply good or bad. Every character has many sides. We see Freddie’s “wild life” shown, too. Some say that was missing, but it wasn’t. It was there, though in more subtle, hinted way. The white powder on the table, the “inappropriate” behaviour - when he first met Jim (and during the big party scene... when he used the same move on a fat-bottomed girl on a bicycle). We saw the other band-members with new girls & groupies in different scenes. We saw how behind-the-scenes politics tried to make them change them - record company vs the band & the band staying true to themselves & making an operatic album, and choosing their own single song..etc. There were so many little details in so many scenes...that were all references to the real-life moments. Tweaked...a bit.And yes, I admit that not everyone can “read between the lines” & understand movie plots that aren’t spelled out word-to-word...exactly, but... that doesn’t mean the film is lacking. Just because you don’t see or get something doesn’t mean it’s not there/shown/said. You might just not catch it, because you’re focused on the superficial. 

And if even my own mother (who has a hard time following complicated film plots) saw that everything... Freddie’s different  relationships (women, men), his partying & lavish lifestyle, his illness, his bigger-than-life personality, and his music, plus his complex person (the loneliness, sadness, not just the good times)... all were touched upon in the film, then in my book if you missed it, you didn’t pay attention. She saw it all being “shown/mentioned”, and some people might have wanted more, and more focus on those parts, but... that’s just personal expectations, and forgetting this is a fictional film, not a documentary, so you’re gonna have to have a flowing story...that fits 15-20 years  of events into 2 hours of film, and you simply can’t focus on everything in more depth. The film makers this time chose to focus on these elements...to tell the story of the band...with a focus on Freddie & his POV. 

Do not assume that every viewer is so closed-minded and can’t see beyond what’s been physically shown . Viewers are actually very much capable of drawing conclusions.. on wider scale, and not assuming that things said or shown in a fictional story (even if it’s marketed as biopic) are the only truths, and there is nothing more to the story. The problem is that most of the people who see the scene as “problematic” have no actual understanding of what the world was like just 40 years ago. Its like time-travelling to 16th century and judging people of that time for not understanding light-bulbs or plastic surgery, or women and men all studying together in school... being equal. If you do not count in the time when the film takes place, you’re not getting it. (just like in a film taking place when women weren’t yet able to go to uni or be elected...ignoring those realities of those times... just to not offend the political correctness cult people, who can’t appreciate the freedom we have today in out western world) In other words: WHEN a film takes place matters. Just like a period piece from 1550, 1860 are different, because times were different, same is with films taking place in 1970/80s. Language, terms, norms, knowledgeability... all change... and even in a few decades...  So their thoughts represent the actual era...when they were spoken, not todays views. (and IMO the horrible trend of changing words &   things from books & plays (also popular children's books) from 100 and 150 and 200 years ago... that tells you of how things were back then, just to match todays political correctness rules... is super sad, and “erasing the past”... and instead of giving an actual view of the past, we get distorted view, and I think this doesn’t help future generations in understanding how far we have come) 

And mostly... I want to ask the complainers to ask themselves why do they consider Mary’s words to have more weight than Freddie’s...in the “break up  scene”. What makes them think there wasn’t a follow-up conversation later, off-screen? What makes them think that other peoples view of them (in this case Mary’s opinion on Freddie’s sexuality) is the singular truth? In truth...none of us (besides Freddie, and maybe the people closest to him...family, band, close friends/lovers) truly know how he identified as... and it does not matter. No matter how much you think it does, it doesn’t. He was simply an “icon” for “everyone different”. The labels don’t matter. You can all claim him as “your own”... (and let others do the same). I get that it’s vitally important to some to have their “label” be shown/mentioned on media sources (films/TV), but the argument gay vs bi is so pointless in this case. From the film you can both claim him as your representation. In the films universe he was shown to have genuinely loved & have a relationship with both a man & a woman - Mary and Jim (pos), and also Paul (neg). You can take the film in either way (cause they don’t define anything)... if its so important for you to  have your label being the defining point. 

The problem isn’t that the film “erased” or “mis-(re)presented” this or that... historical or personal fact/thing. The problem is the way the brains of the people who say this happened. Humans are wired to transfer their feelings and thoughts onto everything and everyone. To project. And to generalize and label everything. And it takes a little bit of extra use of the “little gray cells” to see the bigger picture, and not to stereotype, generalize and project. To not box everything. And understand that their own personal experiences have tilted their view on ... things... Not everyone can read between the lines, and understand complicated tv/film plots, and not take others opinions/POV as fact. I always used to say that studies claiming that videogames & TV make kids (future adults) behave as in the fictional worlds & claiming that people aren’t able to distinguish fiction from reality and not see fiction as “the source of all accurate & scientific truth” as silly, but modern social media age has made me rethink. As it seems that that’s whats happened. Media (films, TV shows, magazine articles are) is considered as trusted sources... and seen as the source that tells you how things really are - what to believe, how to think... (when I was a kid I considered scientific material as trusted source, now any random line from a fictional story or from gossip magazine is considered as trusted source...by so many). And representation in film/TV does not have to be sanitized & all positive...cause nothing is that...and characters not following the “political correctness rules of 2018″ in films set in past is not erasure or misrepresentation or harmful in any way. It’s portraying the world as it is. Not a perfect, utopian version. Because times are different & people are different). Just because a character doesn’t speak according to the rules made up by today's social media groups does not make them phobic in any way. I understand that is a hard concept to get, but..it is so.

The issue isn’t if the film portrayed his identity incorrectly, erasing something. The problem is that the people seeing this happen are only able to see that one side of things. And claim that their label is accurate, because it’s based on facts, and what the man himself labeled himself as. When the truth is that no-one besides the people close to him (friends, family, band)...and maybe even not them... knew how he actually identified himself. he never confirmed or denied anything in public (ETA: I have found info...though not seen/heard the material myself... that there are one or two unedited videos/interviews, where he pretty much reveals how he identifies, but besides that one/few times... all other times he’s only ever not labeled himself). He never labeled himself...as anything (other than human, singer, rock legend...). Both sides claiming that their label is factual...are actually wrong. They are claiming other peoples opinions as facts. All the “unofficial biographies”, all the claims by “people who knew him”, all the terms used by journalists and others...are those peoples interpretation of him (and yes, the claims from band & his closest life-long friends: “Phoebe”, etc... can be pretty much seen as fact, but their views are still their interpretations of him). The labels they gave him, not how he himself identified. (and yes, based on all the images, video footage, his behaviour & looks - clothes/hair/make-up..) we can make assumptions...but those are just our guesses..based on what we think we see) And the issue isn’t which label is correct. The issue is peoples inability to enjoy the film, and celebrate the man...without a specific label being thrown out. And this goes against everything he was, everything he wanted, everything he represented. He lived as is authentic self (even if it took some time and struggles to really find himself) and not care about labels, opinions. He tried to live for himself, as himself. Not for others. The labels didn’t make him (and its unimportant  which label he truly identified as)... as both (most used options) are represented in the film... said out loud on big screen. And so both groups should feel represented, because both labels got used (about him)... and neither was claimed as fact. Despite anyones take that the scene somehow claimed one accurate, and other not. 

(I fall under a non-traditional label, too, when it comes to sexuality, and I appreciate when there is a character like me on TV/films, but... my worth is not defined by if & how “my label” is represented in fiction.) And I get that I’m different in that way & for “normal people” external validation & representation are needed to feel good about themselves, but... here’s a little secret - (and that was also this films message, in a way) - don’t let anyone else define you - not your parents/family, not your friends, not your fans & idols, not the strangers. The path to self-like is hard, and sometimes long, but the only one who needs to like you is you. You’re not defined by others with the same label. You share the one label with others, but everyone with this label is different. Also... there are heroes & villains in every “group”, but none of those traits are transferable to others in that group. Just because there is one negative gay character in film (Paul) does not mean other gay characters are like that (see: Jim). Just because you’ve heard gossip about the rock stars personal life does not mean it’s all true. Everyone has their own perspective & agenda. And unless it came from Freddie himself, it’s just an opinion. So every single post claiming that “I know he identified as this, because..:” are all just personal opinions, because none of us, fans, knew him. And as much as you may disagree with the band-members & friends take on things... they knew him....so much better than any of us. They are a valid source for info on him...(even if they do change some facts...to fit a movie narrative)

The issue is that no matter how much the man himself in the interviews (etc) that are still available to access, and no matter how much the man who portrayed him on screen now...stress the importance of no labels, and how he was himself, not a “poster boy for any agenda”, the complainers don’t care, and show no respect for the mans wishes, and the story itself. A story about a band...for people. a  story of a man searching for himself and his place. a story of music and legends. A story about how legends were made. It’s not some political correctness fest, satisfying all the “label enthusiasts” dreams... it’s a pretty honest look (even considering all the timeline twisting, and creative liberties taken) into the reality of things... those several decades ago. The complainers completely miss the message - they need to like themselves as they are (gay, bi, extra teeth, foreigner, outcast...)...not pretend for others sake. They can find the man as a role model & representation of their label... because he was & can be more than one label & represent more than just one group. The truth is not singular here - and both the film & real Freddie are representation for all different “outcast” & “minority” labels - not just one. And the arguments that he was just one thing sound a bit silly - both sides calling the other side wrong, when in truth Freddie represents you/us all. 

My conclusion: Fiction/Films are so much more enjoyable, when you are able to see & hear and understand all the nuances - you get the whole experience...not just the superficial and general idea of the story. And I am so happy that I didn’t have to watch this film from inside a box... because my visual field wasn’t narrowed (like I'm a race horse wearing blinders), and my brain... with the aid of my eyes... was able to show and tell me the whole story and whole experience... without any restrictions. And I am still not ready to say more plot-wise, because I do not want to spoil some great scenes...

btw...go ahead and make assumptions about me..based on this. I dare you. ;)

I’m someone who loves pointing out scientific inaccuracies & little continuity errors in films/TV shows (but mostly for fun). I’m someone, who doesn’t fit into specific boxes, and someone who is not traditional. I’m someone who is different...in many ways... but doesn’t let it define me or consume me... I’m someone who doesn’t define themselves by their past experiences... in the extent I see some do. I’m someone, who has experienced... quite a bit... but I’m also someone who isn’t defined by how others see & define me... I’m someone who belongs to many “minority” groups...if I were to list the labels that apply to me, but all of these things are parts of me.... and none demand any outside validation from others to “define” me.