#and of course there's all the subtext that Angel is bisexual | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

herinsectreflection · 4 years ago

Text

The hilarious part about Faith and how incredibly gay she comes across is that it's all a natural side-effect of her intended narrative role. According to Whedon she wasn't intentionally written to be a queer or even queer-coded character, but the way she is written and her metaphorical function necessarily meant she came across as queer-coded. I'll explain what I mean:

1) As Buffy's shadow, Faith is meant to be symbolic of Buffy's repressed desires, and specifically her frustrated sexuality. Buffy is dealing with imposed chastity throughout S3, first with her trauma over Angel getting in the way of a relationship with Scott, and then the curse preventing her from being physical with Angel. It's the centre point of Enemies, its touched on in Amends, and is one of the reasons they break up. There's a reason the season climaxes with Angel and Buffy in a passionate embrace, making orgasm faces as he 'penetrates' her. It's a whole season of sexual frustration for Buffy.

Faith needs to be constantly reminding Buffy of the thing she can't have - sex. She needs to talk about sex to Buffy - and she does, extensively. Faith is written as a very sexual person in general, but it's specifically and disproportionately aimed towards Buffy, because that's her narrative role. So you end up with this character who is constantly going around like "hey Buffy do you like sex? you should think about sex now. sex. when I'm on screen the main thing on your mind should be sex and having it". Which begs the question - why does Faith want Buffy to have sex? Symbolically, it's because she represents part of Buffy, and Buffy wants to have sex. But on a pure character level... what is the explanation? What is motivating Faith to constantly talk about sex to Buffy? A few instances you can write off as her making Buffy uncomfortable for jokes, but not all of them. How it comes across is that Faith has some sexual interest in Buffy, and is probing for her feelings.

2) Faith is a Seductress. That's not a comment about her character, that's her function in the story. She is the version of Buffy who goes down a darker path, and is trying to seduce her into doing the same thing. Part of Buffy's arc in S3 is resisting this temptation, and the symbol of what she is resisting is Faith. So Faith must be an enticing, seductive figure. To quote Passion of the Nerd's review, if Faith is there to to tempt Buffy into a moral dark side, it only makes sense that she is, well, tempting. The seduction is happening on many levels.

Faith is more or less filling the Femme Fatale archetype: the seductive, sexual figure who leads the Hero off their path. It's a trope you see all the time in male-led stories, going back to goddamn The Odyssey. Buffy as a character was invented as a simple gender-swap of an old horror trope, and part of the appeal of the show is that she gets to fill the role of The Hero as a woman. So what happens when you gender-swap The Hero and don't gender-swap the Femme Fatale? You get a gay story, that's what.

3) The Faith arc of S3 is a recreation of the Angel arc of S2. It is structured in the exact same way, with the two having a push-and-pull in the early parts of the season, a setback in their relationship in episode 7, getting closest again mid-season before a night of passion that ends in sudden tragedy. Angel/Faith then turn to the dark side, become the Big Bad, and show that they are beyond saving in episode 17. The season ends with Buffy having to fight and the kill them in order to save others. This is all an intentional recycling, as part of the show building up the Trolley Problem and the idea of Buffy being a killer, repeatedly escalating it to get us to The Gift. What this means is that Faith steps into the role that Buffy's love interest played in the previous season. This is the story that we have just had told to us as a tragic love story. We see it again, and guess what? It's still a tragic love story. Only now Faith is in the role of the love interest.

4) Part of the conflict surrounding Buffy and Faith is Buffy's fear of being "Single White Female'd". She fears Faith might steal her loved ones, and Faith does threaten that. She gets along with her mother, her friends... but most of all, her love interests. Buffy's fear of being replaced manifests as Faith trying to literally seduce away anyone romantically linked to Buffy. Angel, Scott Hope, Xander, later Riley, Spike, Robin Wood... Faith is comprehensively and exclusively attracted to men that Buffy dated. I'm honestly surprised she didn't find Owen and Parker from somewhere for a night in the sack. Again, this makes perfect heterosexual sense from a symbolic point it view - she threatens to take Buffy's place in the narrative, so she takes her place in relationships - but on a character level it becomes ambiguous. Is she actively trying to replace Buffy? Or is she trying to stop Buffy dating anyone for another reason? The simple fact is, there is exactly one common denominator with all of Faith's romantic entanglements: Buffy.

It's a canonical aspect of Faith's character that she is jealous of Buffy. We see that made explicit in Enemies - she's jealous of everything Buffy has: her family, her comfortable home life, her friends, her narrative standing, and of course her loving partners. So of course Faith displays jealousy whenever Buffy is involved with a guy. It's a necessary part of building Faith as this figure of Want and Envy. But how it plays out on screen isn't that Faith is jealous of Buffy because she wants these other guys - of course not, because we see her look jealously through the window at Buffy and Riley in This Year's Girl and Riley obviously means nothing to her. Rather, it very much appears that she is jealous of these other guys, because she wants Buffy.

There's also the added bonuses that come from the show playing with so many metaphors, that sometimes they cross in interesting ways. One of Faith's main purposes is to celebrate being a Slayer, and to encourage the same in Buffy. She wants Buffy to accept and embrace being a Slayer. Here, Slayerhood is standing in for independence and hedonism and making your own rules, all the things that Faith is encouraging. But one of the many other metaphors used is the 'coming out' metaphor. "Have your tried not being a slayer?" "It's because you didn't have a strong father figure isn't it." "I've tried to march in the Slayer Pride parade." It's a note that's hit really hard specifically around the time in the show that Faith is introduced. So if you carry this metaphor on, then Faith becomes an out-and-proud lesbianSlayer, trying to convince Buffy to accept and embrace her sexuality.

And it has a recursive effect too. All this stuff contributes towards Faith feeling like a very queer character. And Faith, of course, is Buffy's shadow self, meant to represent her unconscious desires. So when the symbol of your unconscious desires is so lesbian-coded, then the implication becomes that one of your unconscious desires is lesbian desire. Faith's existence as a part of Buffy implies the existence of Buffy's bisexuality. Which contributes to the relationship feeling ever more queer, which makes Faith even gayer.

I find this absolutely hilarious, because the queer subtext was never intended. Joss Whedon apparently was annoyed that people read this into their relationship, and the commentary from the other writers that does address it tends to point to Dushku's performance. And yeah, she is definitely leaning into that in her portrayal. But the main reasons that so many people have this reading all come from the writing. It's all stuff that is integral to the point of her character. Every metaphor and function in the narrative, every symbolic purpose she has, none of it was meant to be gay and yet it all leads directly to Faith appearing to be totally and completely gay. The queerness is accidental and unavoidable. And I just find that really fucking funny.

#faith lehane #fuffy #btvs #meta #buffy summers #theme:shadow #queerness #s3

4K notes · View notes

quillquiver · 4 years ago

Text

On SPN, Burying Your Gays, and Being Heard

I am shaking, I feel sick, I feel like I’m insane. And did I run a little wild with the theories? You bet. But you know what didn’t help? The botched clusterfuck that was this entire goddamn finale debacle. How was I supposed to believe anything they said in panels when M&G dialogue would leak saying the exact opposite? How was I supposed to grieve and move on when there was nothing from the cast and crew? Nobody said anything! And any info leaked just destabilized what we already knew or directly contradicted what we’d been told. In light of that, how was I supposed to trust anything anyone said? One rogue translator reciprocated the love confession and I was practically sold, because there were so many questions surrounding the English text that this was something good, something that logically fit, and something I wanted to hold onto.

Because they hurt me. This is about so much more than one episode or a ship; for years queer fans have seen ourselves in these characters and been told that we were crazy. That we were reading too much into it. I’m not sure how people get upset and offended when a storyline that doesn’t exist... doesn’t exist! said Guy Bee (2013). And then, after all of that, they turned around and said magnanimously, you have your version, I have mine... and that’s okay. But it’s not okay. It’s not okay, because that doesn’t erase what came before - that doesn’t erase the baiting and the gaslighting, and that invalidates everything we felt in the time leading up to that episode. It gave them an open window for all the subtext that came after. It allowed them to brush us off.

And then we got Cas’s love confession. I watched that scene about 500 times. Added to the rest of the season - to the fandom avatar being presented as successful and intelligent, to arc being the death of the author - I felt seen. Really seen, by a show that made it its mission to erase me. I had been okay with Cas dying at first because I had been sure the romance arc would carry through. I had been convinced that after everything, there was no way they would give that to us and then take it away.

But they did, because this is Supernatural. To anyone saying this is not bury your gays, I implore you to read up on the Hays Code. This link is to an amazing queer history podcast and the episode that covers it. In short, the Hays Code was a legal document that came about in 20th Century Hollywood during the puritanical war on the American entertainment industry, and it stipulated what was not allowed on screen. Not all of it was queer - there’s a whole section about kissing - but what the Code is most remembered for is that queerness was not allowed on screen. But queer people are resilient, and so they started testing the waters... and it turned out that you could in fact code queerness into a narrative, as long as it was subtextual, or as long as the queer character died/was punished, or both. The point is that the character is not allowed to live their truth openly. They are buried, either in the ground or punished in the narrative. The former is normally what we refer to these days, because the latter just doesn’t really happen anymore.

Until Supernatural.

Castiel is immediately punished for speaking his truth - and please don’t tell me he leveraged that punishment and so he had agency. Literally the only thing that could make him happy was confessing his feelings, and so the Empty deal was directly related to this idea of queerness-as-punishment. That being said, Bobo wrote a beautiful scene. Cas’s confession was a love letter to queerness and coming out... but everything that came after buried him. Castiel may have ended the series alive but he was effectively written out of the last two episodes, and that means that he actually never really got to live his truth. He was silenced by the narrative - that is punishment.

Dean is a whole other can of worms. Does one rogue translator confirm canon bi!Dean? Or do we have to read our own version of the text? The fact that we even have to ask these questions firmly places us in the realm of queerbaiting. Were the writers trying to get bi!Dean approved but were unable to? I have no idea, but queerbaiting requires proof that the writers encouraged a reading they had no intent of following through on, and we certainly don’t lack in evidence of that. Not from this writers room, but from those of previous eras. Did these writers try? They might have, but the funny thing about queerbaiting discourse is that there has never been a show to bait this long, and I’m making the call that even if you tried at the end, you baited me with half the ship and all the years that came before.

Of course, the narrative leaves open the possibility of bi!Dean so if you do read the show that way, that means Dean also falls into the bury your gays category; if you read the show this way - which many of us do - the mere suggestion that Dean Winchester was bisexual was enough to punish him. And he was punished. We’ve all written extensively on this, but he was given a random death, on a case his father never finished. All that growth, all that time spent having him accept himself, love himself, that was all taken away. He died the way he always thought he would: as a tool, in service of his father, protecting his brother. He had always believed he’d been a body to throw on the sword and in the end that’s all he was. And when he gets to Heaven? He’s also silenced. He barely speaks in the episode except to monologue during his death, and that is 100% Sam-centric. He is scared.

It was horrific to watch. I sobbed so hard my roommate was seriously concerned.

I had been fully prepared for Supernatural to end disappointingly. I had figured everything would end with a huge heaven reunion because white, straight, cis-male S&F writers love the idea of death as a reward, but instead of being disappointed I felt like I had witnessed a slaughter. Every single one of the queer themes intrinsic to the show: found family, resilience, speaking your truth... were gone. And I know we’ve talked about this too, but it bears repeating, because in doing this, in writing the queerness out of its narrative, Supernatural effectively looked every one of us queer folx in the eye and said: you are not important. You don’t matter. All of that stuff that came before is all good and well, but what really matters at the end of all things is blood family. It’s two brothers in a car. Life sucks but at least we get to die and go to paradise - real paradise, that your angel buddy died for and then made for you and who we never hear from again.

I felt insane. I felt cheated. I felt humiliated. I felt devastated. I still feel all those things, but listen to me. You have been heard. Not by Misha Collins, who is a great guy, but doesn’t get it. Not by Jensen Ackles, who is a similarly great guy, but also just doesn’t understand. And not by anyone else who worked on this show.

You know who heard you? Me. The people who follow me. The people who follow you. We saw each other, and heard each other, and we gave each other a leg up. We made memes. We wrote fic. We drew fanart. We made gifs. All for ourselves and all for each other. We broke Tumblr multiple times. We donated over $60,000 USD to multiple different causes. We got multiple hashtags trending at multiple different points, and today kept it up because we demanded answers and then we got them. There were at least 5 articles written about the show today. We made that happen. We made people listen.

Supernatural didn’t deserve me, and it didn’t deserve you. It didn’t deserve Dean. It didn’t deserve Cas. It didn’t deserve Misha and Jensen. But this show ended with a bleak, awful message and we turned around and showed them that love is loud. So what about all of this is real?

We are.

#alex talks #spngate #archived #this was very therapeutic #and i honestly don't know if i will ever be able to love something like this again #because i have been burned oh man #but this fandom is amazing #and i am proud to be a part of it #and i am not going anywhere #journaling #15x18 #15x19 #15x20 #castiel #dean winchester #destiel

1K notes · View notes

deanwasalwaysbi · 4 years ago

Note

I've gotta say, I find the concept of Bedlund trying to Ben-Hur Jensen absolutely hysterical. I'm just imagining Jensen getting a script and being like "Ben?? What's this? Is this gay? This seems gay????" and Ben just soothing him like a frightened horse.

Hahaha - Look it wouldn't be the first time. What is this verb we're working with? Okay. Strap in everyone. The Multi-Oscar-winning 1959 movie 'Ben Hur' had a bunch of gay subtext. The writer, the director, and the second lead actor all knew that Charlton Heston's character, Ben Hur, was gay. However, one person didn't find out until the 1990s: Charlton Heston. The consensus on set was "Don’t tell Charlton, because he’ll freak out." and when Heston found out in the ninties, freak out was exactly what he did. (x) [the movie may have gotten a reference from Misha back in season 6 (x)]

Whether this happened with Jensen on SPN depends on two things.

Was the character of Dean intentionally written as Bi and, if so, at what point did that become true?

Did anyone tell Jensen? Did he figure it out? if so, when?

I personally DO believe at this point, I really do, that Bedlund - Ben Hur'd Jensen. I think it was part of the writers room but not all of it, until it was. (Which RN I believe finally happened under Dabb.) I think Jensen wasn't in on it, until he was. So for me? I think he really was in the dark at one point. But at what point that changed? Probably only he can answer that question. and RN? He ain't talking.

In the meantime we can only look at things Jensen has said on the subject - Like this unbearably ambiguous GIF set from @nikadd. Was this tongue in cheek? Legitimate ignorance? You're killing me, Jensen. That cheeky lil smile, Jensen. Nvm - I'm going to kill you instead. It's for my own survival. No hard feelings right? You understand.

UH OH HERE COMES A CUT TO HIDE A LONG DERANGED POST...

We can look at the text for number 1 - and I do that uh - a lot - see the blog name #Dean Was Always Bi

For number 2 we can look over some points when we got clues from what Jensen thought was going on [regardless of whether they make sense based on his jacting or directorial choices I guess] and get left wondering whether at any point he felt pressured to lie for his career, for self protection, or to protect the narrative from the network:

2010 - 'We're missing the gay angel' (x) (Season 5 gag reel) (x) “Sorry man, not what the show’s about.” Jared: One of the good and bads about playing the straight [non-comedic] character on the show… Jensen: What wait? I’ve been playing him so wrong

2012 / S8 - Trenchcoat - Jensen talking about how sometimes they change the lines because they're way too gay. Calls Cas a third brother

2012 - "What's Destiel?" Ben Edlund: That’s some weird shit. Jensen: Is this something that you created, Ben? Ben: You don’t want any part of that.

“Don’t ruin it for everyone now” “I still don’t know what the question was. I’m going to pretend I don’t know what the question was.”

2013 @ JIB, re Dean’s reaction to Aaron’s flirting in the season 8 episode Everybody Hates Hitler, (x)

“And the scene wasn’t written to be that kind of - I mean - It was written to be awkward. Ben Edlund wrote the - my favorite line in that scene was ‘carry on . citizen’ that was - I almost couldn’t say that with a straight face I was laughing so hard. But it was - you know - it was comedy. It was a comedic moment in the show and fortunately Dean gets a lot of the comedic moments in the show and it was just, you know, Ben was poking fun at the fact that - you know, how can we make this very kind of manly, heterosexual guy uncomfortable - uh -you know, or or have him back on his heels and throw him off his game a little bit.”

The thing is - Bedlund and Phil Sgriccia made very clear on the commentary track that THEY saw this scene as a 'romantic comedy kind of fluster' "This potential for love in all places."

Ben Edlund calling the writer’s room a boy’s club in 2013 (x)

Misha Collins telling Destiel fans they aren’t Crazy in 2013 after some executives said they were (x).

2014 Jensen says he was glad there wasn’t much Dean and Cas in season 9 - HA Hah HAH (x)

“I think the whole Cas and Dean thing has gotten out of hand” “I don’t think there’s anything secret to their relationship even though a lot of people wish there was” REMINDER - that season we got the nightstands acknowledgement and “play him like a jilted lover” and the “he dumped me James” cut and -

I certainly know that Misha and I don’t play that. SIGH. they Ben Hur'd Jensen.

2014 - the fan fiction joke - 10.05

“I didn’t have a positive reaction, The first time in I think 200 scripts I went and sat down in the showrunners office and said, ‘What in god’s name are you doing?! Why? I need to understand why this is happening.’” “[Carver] gave very eloquent answers and did a great job of explaining why we were doing what we were doing, I guess I had been aware of this ‘fan fiction’ for a while and I felt like maybe if I ignored it, it would eventually go away. When I read it in the script that is what I do for a living and is my work—I’m very protective of these characters and the story and I think we have a right to be—I wasn’t angry. I just wanted to understand why and what was the message we were ultimately sending with this script and story. By the end of it, I felt good and it gave me all the confidence I needed. It was better than I could have ever hoped.”

But then there's Jensen in 2015 talking about all of Dean’s bromances. (x) [gifs at the top] Could go either way - starting to figure it out? or No?

What had changed if anything? the entire Crowely season 10 story line? This was July 2015 - the same day as the SDCC 2015 panel where Misha talked about Destiel (x @ 13) Carver and Dabb were there -

By this time Jensen and Misha were nominated for a teen choice award for best chemistry against various tv couples (and one ensemble cast, but the award nomination did NOT include Jared) .... Misha and Jensen would go on to WIN this award one month after the panel.

At the Panel Rob and Rich ask the question: “You two have branded yourselves as TV’s greatest team since, ... idk who.... Ernie and Bert so.” [Misha says to Jensen & Jared, half not on the microphone: “I really didn’t expect them to throw us under the bus.”] “are we going to see that continue? Is the Castiel Dean relationship still aflutter and still growing as we move into season 11?” Jeremy Carver: “Ish.” [mocking from panel ensues] “Yes. Of course. I mean Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. There’s no doubt.”

Jensen Directs 11x03 and the choreo mimics Goodbye stranger (x)

2016 - Jensen: Dean could have a huntress, but you’d kill her.

Jan 2017 Con the infamous - no hedge - harsh - “Destiel doesn’t exist.” (x)

I would hope that if he knew he wouldn’t have been so harsh with it. So by that point either he still didn’t know - OR - to him ‘Destiel’ was specifically about internet porn/sex and not like - the potential for feelings / a relationship. It makes me think about something Misha had actually said, around 2013, “It’s called ‘Destiel’ and it’s about the romantic interludes between Dean and Castiel.” (x)

2017 - jib8 Jensen called Dean a lover of the ladies

May 2017 - After filming the end of season 12:

2018 - Misha confirms he and Jensen have talked about Destiel (x) - also 2018: The Bisexual Dean essay "? No." (Oh god was this really this recent?! I can't deal with this.)

Well. SOMETHING happened in 2019. cuz here it comes

2019 - "Dean has no taste, clearly." 2019 - 'So, tell us just a little bit about what you're most excited to tackle with your character this final season.' "Cas. Just like a full football form tackle."

Look at this face he gave Dean when Cas told him he loved him and tell me he wasn't playing into it here. You can't. (x)

268 notes · View notes

fuckspn · 2 years ago

Text

I posted 1,275 times in 2022

152 posts created (12%)

1,123 posts reblogged (88%)

Blogs I reblogged the most:

@samdyke

@sunforgrace

@castiellesbian

@fuckspn I'M one of my own top reblogged blogs?? girl help the snake is eating its own tail

@4x01

I tagged 522 of my posts in 2022

#the fuckspn rewatch - 62 posts

#the greatest hits - 10 posts

#heritage post - 6 posts

#oh you know - 3 posts

#prev x2 - 3 posts

#sorry op - 3 posts

#i still think about this post sometimes - 2 posts

#shattered - 2 posts

#prev - 2 posts

#screaming and shaking and spitting phosphoric acid - 2 posts

Longest Tag: 139 characters

#but i’ve only seen up through tombstone so my choice of s8 and s11 is simply because they’re the later seasons i watched almost every ep of

My Top Posts in 2022:

okay but there really is something so malicious about how supernatural was allowed to acknowledge dean’s Intense Subtextually Gay Relationships With Men and how they’re Clearly Different From Sam’s Relationships With Those Same Men as long as it’s all directed at the other character. anyone and everyone was allowed to make cracks about cas and crowley being in love with dean for years on end but when dean admitted that his relationship with cas is different than sam’s--i lost cas and it damn near broke me--the line had to be cut. yeah these guys’ relationships with dean are different than their relationships with sam but it’s all because of them being the weird gay ones who insisted on falling in love with dean despite his valiant heterosexual effort to keep them at a platonic arm’s length. of course dean wasn’t allowed to reciprocate cas’ feelings or react to the confession or even be particularly nice to cas because if we acknowledge that dean is part of the reason deanandcas is so different from samandcas then we’re also acknowledging that the gay subtext isn’t just coming from cas but from dean too, which means we’re acknowledging the possibility that our all-american marlboro man action hero isn’t straight. and we can’t have that because it failed the market research

1,261 notes - Posted September 6, 2022

EXTREMELY fun night for terminally online people

1,355 notes - Posted April 25, 2022

claire novak is genuinely the best character supernatural ever came up with. she’s a bitch. she’s empathetic. she’s bratty. she’s selfless. she held a sword to a random teenager’s throat. she has abandonment issues and struggles to accept the love of her adopted family as a result. a gay angel is possessing the corpse of her biological father and using it to have sexual tension with her surrogate father figure. she has a saintlike capacity for love and forgiveness. she is determined to kill and cannot be stopped. she’s a dean mirror. she was a werewolf for a hot second. she’s holding dean’s dvd of caddyshack hostage. she actively refuses to go to college. she broke the unbreakable cycle of violence by forgiving the supernatural creature that destroyed her family instead of seeking revenge. AND she’s a lesbian

1,476 notes - Posted September 13, 2022

how do you even come back from this. how do you survive doing something this embarrassing. i literally think i’d fake my own death and move to a 12-person town in the canadian wilderness

1,565 notes - Posted April 25, 2022

My #1 post of 2022

saw trap voice hello, jensen ackles. your spn prequel is at risk of cancellation due to low viewership. you know the only way to save the show is to renege on 12 years of homophobia and make destiel canon for the third time. if you refuse, the show will be cancelled and you’ll have to say goodbye to your best friend dean winchester forever. which will you choose, jensen: dean winchester alive but bisexual, or dean winchester straight but dead? misha collins will tweet about cas being a top every hour on the hour until you make your decision

3,728 notes - Posted November 28, 2022

Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →

#tumblr2022 #year in review #my 2022 tumblr year in review #your tumblr year in review

4 notes · View notes

hamarhemmo · 4 years ago

Text

Not related to my usual content but it's Pride Month so I'm gonna give some LGBTQ+ book/TV show/movie recommendations. This is a long post so feel free to skip.

Books:

The Song of Achilles: About Achilles' and Patroclus' relationship from Pat's POV. Not entirely historically accurate but great none the less. Has some slightly graphic sex scenes.

The Secret History: About a group of (mostly rich) college students who commit murder and have a bacchanal. Has one canonically gay character (Francis), one canonically bi character (Charles) and the main character is implied to be queer. There are also some other characters who are probably gay or bi (ex. Henry and Julian). A very messed up book but I love it.

Good Omens: A story about an angel and a demon saving the world from Armageddon. All of the ethereal characters are non-binary. (The main characters usually use he/him pronouns and present masculine.) The story is also practically enemies-to-friends-to-lovers personified. The lovers part is more explicit in the TV show version. A very funny book/show with great characters and some diversity. I recommend.

Brokeback Mountain: Read the movie section.

The Picture of Dorian Gray: A story about Basil Hallward, a moral artist; lord Henry Wotton, a very immoral man who just corrupts people for fun; and of course Dorian Gray himself, a young man who changes his soul for eternal youth. Written by the gay icon Oscar Wilde. Has a shitload of homoerotic subtext and was even used as evidence of Oscar being gay. Basil is in love with Dorian (and so is possibly Henry), Dorian is probably bisexual. (Explicitly in the 2005 movie.) The book has murder and suicide in it but no graphic violence. The movie has some sex scenes. Overall TPoDG is great and I recommend it warmly.

TV shows:

Brooklyn Nine-Nine: A sitcom about detectives. Talks about racial issues, LGBTphobia, the flaws in American prison system, sexual harassment etc. Of the main 6 characters one is gay (Holt), one is bi (Rosa) and one is possibly bi (Jake). Lots of LGBTQ+ and POC representation. Is on Netflix in some countries.

Jojo's Bizarre Adventure: Pretty standard anime (and manga). Tells about the members of the Joestar family. Explaining the plot or the universe would take way too much time so I'm not going to do that. Practically all characters are queer coded and some are canonically LGBTQ+ (DIO, Jotaro, Speedwagon etc.) Very funny but weird. Doesn't have a lot of well written femle characters but I still definitely recommend. First three parts are in Netflix in some countries, all animated parts are in Crunchyroll for free.

Good Place: Tells about a woman named Eleanor who, despite being an awful person, got into the good afterlife by accident. Eleanor is bisexual, Janet is non-binary (uses she/her pronouns tho), Tahani is possibly bi and Jason is attracted to non-binary Janet. A pretty good show, I recommend giving it a go. Is on Netflix in some countries.

Good Omens: Read the book section. Is on Amazon Prime.

Hannibal: A show about everyone's favorite fictional cannibal Hannibal Lecter and an FBI agent called Will Graham, who are obsessed/fall in love with each other. The show is extremely homoerotic and Hannibal is canonically omnisexual in it. Unfortunately the show got canceled after 3rd season so the ending isn't very good. Has some lesbian side characters. The show also has lots of gore so if you don't like that, I can't recommend it. Surprisingly funny despite the violence. I'm not sure where you can watch it anymore. Has some pretty graphic lesbian sex scenes.

Umbrella Academy: About seven siblings with superpowers. One of the characters is canonically pansexual and according to the actor non-binary (Klaus), one is wlw (Vanya, not sure about her exact sexuality) and one just has huge bi vibes and a possible crush on John F. Kennedy (Diego). There is also talk about child abuse and drug addiction. The show has its problems, like two of the siblings dating (they are not biologically related but it's still messed up). It's still a great show tho. (The show is based on a comic but I haven't read it.) It is one Netflix at least in some countries. (Also Elliot Page plays Vanya and I love him.)

Movies:

The Road to El Dorado. It technically doesn't have canon queer characters but the main bois were apparently supposed to be a couple. They act very couple-y and are bi kings in practically everyone's books. One of my favorite animated movies. Is on Netflix in some countries.

Brokeback Mountain: A classic and very sad. Tells about two cowboys in the 60s living together on a mountain for a while and falling in love. One of the main characters (Ennis) struggles with his sexuality. As I said, it's a classic abd I recommend watching it. Ver slow paced but I kinda like that. Has one pretty graphic sex scene. Is on Netflix in some countries.

The Picture of Dorian Gray (2009): Read the book section. I'm not sure where you can watch it.

I can't add more tags so I'll possibly make a second part.

103 notes · View notes

drsilverfish · 4 years ago

Text

Signs and Wonders - of Angels and Mothers in 15x19 Inherit the Earth

Hi everyone,

I am late to the party as usual, and I haven’t jumped into the Tumblr hive mind yet.

First of all, I know this episode will have felt very painful to many of you, because of Cas’ absence and Dean’s contained grief.

Look, those fuckers in the writers’ room are toying with us. Dean running up to the door to greet Cas, only to find The Devil instead? A deliberate twist in the narrative negative space, which screams in the story (lovers parted, and surely reunited).

This episode does a lot of heavy lifting, in that it both serves as a “Brothers Only” ending for certain audience segments (who can, perhaps, depending on what happens, forever pretend 15x20 didn’t take place) and also, I surmise, for certain audience markets, whilst, at the same time, undercutting that ending (15x19) as sad, lonely and cheesy [that montage at the end, lol].

The visual narrative, which has always been one of SPN’s best features, had plenty to say of interest, so I thought I’d start there, with an angels and mothers theme.

Chuck’s empty world contains this shot of New York, which depicts a rainbow on the right, and on the left, a billboard which reads, “Switch, and get 100% total satisfaction”, whilst the billboard in the middle, for Coke, reads “Staying apart is the best way to stay united.”

Cryptic, huh? But accidents don’t just happen accidentally.

An LGBT rainbow, first off. “Switching” could refer to bisexuality, but it also refers, perhaps, to a double ending structure, i.e. 15x19 and 15x20 as endings you can “switch”, in which case, “Staying apart is the best way to stay united”, could be understood as commentary on the two ancient SPN fandom strands (Bronlies and Destiellers) which a double ending structure seeks to accommodate.

In that case Chuck (meaning the writers’ room) really is (as they told us themselves, via a reconstitued Lilith, in 15x05 Proverbs 17:3) a “low rent Dean Koontz”. I wrote about the possibility of a double-ending structure here, in relation to that Dean Koontz comment:

https://drsilverfish.tumblr.com/post/189090087949/hes-more-of-a-low-rent-dean-koontz-15x05

Next visual narrative marker (in my mothers and angels theme) was this shot of Dean next to the Margiekugel beer, which, as all the crazy and marvellous SPN beer meta writers taught us, is the beer associated with mothers in SPN. Dean as a nurturing figure here, yes, but I remain convinced we will see Mary Winchester again in 15x20. That would fit beautifully with Dabb’s Ouroboros narrative, because Amara resurrected Mary, and now, Amara is part of Jack-the Divine-Unity, and he [as her, apparent, killer] would surely wish to bring happiness to his adopted Winchester family by restoring her again:

Oh look, a Mary figure in the Michael church:

And an angel besides:

Which recalls Mary’s line, long ago, in 5x13 The Song Remains the Same, spoken to baby Dean in-the-womb, “Angels are watching over you.” Which now, resonates emotively back into the story, in a new way, through Castiel’s final, loving, sacrifice for Dean in 15x18 Despair.

This shot was also interesting - Route 66:

On one level, this is a visual joke about one of Bucklemming’s (also the writers of 15x19′s) most joked about SPN episodes, 1x13 Route 666, otherwise known as the “racist truck” episode. I actually think that characterisation of the ep is a little unfair - it at least tried to tackle the horror of historic racism, albeit with a rather ridiculous horror show twist.

BUT, on another level, that episode contains Dean’s lover, Cassie. And Cassie has been read by many, as equated (by naming elision) with Castiel, in the show’s narrative subtext. So, we can (if we choose) read this sign as another poignant, subtextual, reminder of absent Castiel, in 15x19.

Then we have this shot, of Dean by the “Men” and “Ladies” doors at this gas station, choosing “Men”:

Yes, of course he’s chosing “Men”, Silverfish - he’s going to the loo (I’m British).

Neverthless, this kind of visual, symbolic, bisexual coding of Dean, is also a deliberate Ouroboros in the narrative, because Dean has been coded as bisexual, in the show’s visual and symbolic subtext, since S1:

https://drsilverfish.tumblr.com/post/115161057824/bisexual-in-the-subtext-since-s1

And now? Now that the Winchesters are free of Chuck’s control, at last? Chuck, for whom Castiel’s rebellion, and Castiel’s love, for Dean, was never part of the story?

Ah, well, that’s still to play for.

Dean’s character is, in my view, at this point, still structured by the narrative glass closet (meaning, his queerness is visible to some, invisible to others, by design); a doubling structure.

Dabb’s finale has now itself been set up as part of a doubling structure - 15x19 Inherit the Earth as one “ending”, and 15x20 Carry On, as another.

#Supernatural #15x19 #Inherit the Earth #SPN meta #Meta #Dean is bisexual #Still subtext #But subtext IS part of narrative #Mary Winchester #Amara Queen of Heaven

390 notes · View notes

hakasims · 4 years ago

Text

The Most In-depth Analysis of Luca Marinelli’s Characters You’ll Ever Need

You’d think I was done with classifications, but I’m not! There’s so much more I can say about Luca Marinelli’s oeuvre and his magnificent roster of characters. And yes, I’ve made this post before where I highlighted specific tropes that show up in a lot of his movies, but that was surface-level shit. This is an actual exploration of what makes a Luca Marinelli character besides being a kinky little whore. And don’t worry, it’s still in that user-friendly question-answer format because I love you.

Here’s the thing: Luca is a chameleon but he also has a type, and this type is:

✨ a (likely) queer repressed addict with daddy issues ✨

That’s the skeleton. Let’s see how many of his major roles possess that skeleton at all and what flavors they add to the picture.

Disclaimer: I excluded characters with little screen time and Joseph from Mary of Nazareth because he doesn’t deserve rights. Also, instead of going in the boring chronological order, I’m gonna start with the least typical character for Luca and end with the crème de la crème. The results may not surprise you.

Nicky (The Old Guard)

Is he queer? Undeniably.

Is he repressed? No.

Does he have an addiction? No.

Does he have daddy issues? I know we’re all deeply affected by our shitty father figures but I would genuinely question Nicky’s sanity if he were still on that shit at the ripe age of 951. A little tip for daddy-hating immortals out there: just do what Angel did and kill your shitty dad. Problem solved.

Is he violent? Despite doling out tons of violence, he doesn’t have a violent nature and seems uninterested in hating his enemy or delivering retribution.

Does he need a good night sleep? I’m sure nothing helps one sleep better than a Joe-shaped big spoon.

Does he need a good cry? Doesn’t seem like it.

Flavors: A perfect immortal warrior bean in a healthy relationship.

Conclusion: Ironically but unsurprisingly, Nicky is the least Luca-like character.

Guido (Tutti i santi giorni)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so but who knows? If someone told me he’s demisexual, I’d believe it.

Is he repressed? The movie may disagree, but I say yes, obviously.

Does he have an addiction? Not unless you count his romantic relationship.

Does he have daddy issues? His family is so supportive and wholesome it’s almost parodic.

Is he violent? He’s the opposite of a toxic macho dude, but then he has a violent outburst out of nowhere because the movie is bad.

Does he need a good night sleep? He doesn’t like sleeping at night.

Does he need a good cry? Naturally.

Flavors: An adorkable awkward nerd with flowery speech.

Conclusion: I can forgive straightness and wholesomeness but I can’t forgive lack of complexity.

Martin (Martin Eden)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so.

Is he repressed? Yes.

Does he have an addiction? No.

Does he have daddy issues? Not to my knowledge.

Is he violent? When he deems it necessary to be.

Does he need a good night sleep? Sure.

Does he need a good cry? Cry your little heart out, Martin!

Flavors: An arrogant, pretentious, politically confused writer.

Conclusion: A little too straight for your typical Luca, but he makes up for it with being complex and complicated.

Loris (Il mondo fino in fondo)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so.

Is he repressed? So fucking repressed!

Does he have an addiction? Nothing beyond his savior complex.

Does he have daddy issues? He has a shitty dad he’s spent his whole life trying to please, and also his mommy left, so like yeah, obviously.

Is he violent? He has his straight dude moments.

Does he need a good night sleep? Definitely.

Does he need a good cry? Oh yeah, let him cry, it’s good for him.

Flavors: A casually homophobic mother hen.

Conclusion: Ruined by heterosexual agenda.

Lui (Ricordi?)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so.

Is he repressed? Very.

Does he have an addiction? No.

Does he have daddy issues? A big sack of them.

Is he violent? No.

Does he need a good night sleep? Oh yes. To sleep, perchance to dream about anything other than his traumatic memories.

Does he need a good cry? So much.

Flavors: Up-his-butt and pensive.

Conclusion: Leave it to Luca to take a guy who would be an absolute nightmare in real life and turn him into someone I actually want to watch for two hours and see happy by the end.

Gabriele (Waves)

Is he queer? There’s evidence he might be gay.

Is he repressed? I’d bet on it.

Does he have an addiction? Doesn’t seem like it.

Does he have daddy issues? Nobody knows.

Is he violent? No.

Does he need a good night sleep? He probably will with how the movie ended.

Does he need a good cry? At least one.

Flavors: A sweet introverted guy who loves boats.

Conclusion: While not particularly complex, Gabriele has layers and nuances. Also give him a big muscular daddy.

Fabrizio (Fabrizio de André - Principe libero)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so.

Is he repressed? He was before music became his only career.

Does he have an addiction? Alcohol, cigarettes, sex, cheating - take your pick.

Does he have daddy issues? Not as bad as some of the other guys here but he’s heard his fair share of “I’m not mad, I’m disappointed” speeches.

Is he violent? He’s soft.

Does he need a good night sleep? He’s an artist, what do you think?

Does he need a good cry? He’s an artist, what do you think?

Flavors: Fabrizio de André is the flavor.

Conclusion: Even though it’s a biopic, there are still many Luca-isms there. He’s just that kind of actor.

Milton (Una questione privata)

Is he queer? It could be argued that he is bisexual.

Is he repressed? Do you even need to ask?

Does he have an addiction? About half of the breaths he takes are filled with cigarette smoke.

Does he have daddy issues? He seems to have a good and loving relationship with both his parents.

Is he violent? Not by nature.

Does he need a good night sleep? Yep.

Does he need a good cry? He certainly does.

Flavors: A repressed bisexual feeling powerless in a horrible world.

Conclusion: This is proof that Luca can carry a whole entire movie on his sexy shoulders, alone. Also Milton needs a safe and loving triad.

Mattia (La solitudine dei numeri primi)

Is he queer? I personally read him as asexual. Though assigning asexuality to characters who are traumatized is a dangerous path so don’t quote me on this, okay?

Is he repressed? Just the most repressed.

Does he have an addiction? It’s debatable whether self-harm and eating disorders can be considered addictions, but they’re part of his character, and I thought you should know.

Does he have daddy issues? His parents played their part in messing him up which then led to the big thing that really messed him up, though other than that his dad is barely a presence.

Is he violent? Not at all.

Does he need a good night sleep? At least 17 hours.

Does he need a good cry? Oh, so much. He needs all the cry.

Flavors: A quiet genius with lots of guilt.

Conclusion: Can you believe this was his first film role? Our boy is talented af!

Fabio (Lo chiamavano Jeeg Robot)

Is he queer? Undeniably.

Is he repressed? You could argue that he is repressed by being limited in his place in social hierarchy.

Does he have an addiction? Amazingly enough, no. He has fixations, though.

Does he have daddy issues? Thinking his father was a loser and not wanting to end up like him is textbook stuff.

Is he violent? Very.

Does he need a good night sleep? Yes please.

Does he need a good cry? He needs to purge his soul from all the bottled up stuff.

Flavors: A campy psycho.

Conclusion: Luca’s most iconic character, so of course he scored high on the list.

Paolo (Il padre d’Italia)

Is he queer? Undeniably.

Is he repressed? I can’t even start listing all the ways in which he’s repressed.

Does he have an addiction? He smokes a lot.

Does he have daddy issues? His issues are more of a mommy variety.

Is he violent? Not in the slightest.

Does he need a good night sleep? He’s the poster boy for needing a good night sleep.

Does he need a good cry? A good cry, a good weep, a good sob, a good bawl, *googles more synonyms* a good wail, a good squall...

Flavors: A self-loathing gay orphan in need of some life goodness.

Conclusion: What can I say about Paolo that all of you aren’t already thinking? Decent film, great character, excellent portrayal.

Mickey (Die Pfeiler der Macht)

Is he queer? Undeniably.

Is he repressed? It’s Victorian England, you guys.

Does he have an addiction? He smokes casually but other than that... eh. And don’t tell me he has sex addiction. He uses his body strategically.

Does he have daddy issues? If what he has isn’t daddy issues, I don’t know what is.

Is he violent? He’s got tons of bottled up aggression.

Does he need a good night sleep? It would be great if he could use the day’s darkest hours for sleeping.

Does he need a good cry? Undeniably.

Flavors: A conniving slut extraordinaire.

Conclusion: A major player in the book (says me who managed like 50 pages), Mickey Miranda was turned into such a nothing character in the miniseries that they needed a truly extraordinary actor to make him memorable. And guess what, Luca delivered.

Cesare (Non essere cattivo)

Is he queer? Not explicitly, but come on.

Is he repressed? Lethally.

Does he have an addiction? He’s an addiction textbook.

Does he have daddy issues? *Jake Peralta voice* Yeah, the guy without a daddy is the one with daddy issues. Explain that logic.

Is he violent? Oh yeah, he’s a rabid little trash goblin.

Does he need a good night sleep? So much.

Does he need a good cry? He’s had his fair share of good cries, but he could always use more.

Flavors: A aimless junkie.

Conclusion: The quintessential Luca. Beautiful.

Primo (Trust)

Is he queer? Listen, just because we don’t see him fuck a dude on screen it doesn’t mean he isn’t a motherfluffing queer icon. It’s not subtext; it’s TEXT.

Is he repressed? Where do I even fucking start?

Does he have an addiction? Oh yeah. And a coke nail to prove it.

Does he have daddy issues? I would need a whole separate post to unpack his daddy issues.

Is he violent? So very violent.

Does he need a good night sleep? Yes, please. On an actual bed in an actual bedroom.

Does he need a good cry? You can just tell.

Flavors: A ruthless criminal with a strong mafia boss potential.

Conclusion: The pièce de résistance of the Luca Marinelli filmography. Not only does he tick every box, he gets bonus points for the excellent wardrobe choices that emphasize Luca’s best features. Primo Nizzuto is everything great you want from Luca, except singing. (Though in my headcanon that whole white car in a snowstorm monologue was a musical number.)

#luca marinelli #the old guard #tutti i santi giorni #martin eden #il mondo fino in fondo #ricordi?#waves 2012 #fabrizio de andré - principe libero #una questione privata #la solitudine dei numeri primi #lo chiamavano jeeg robot #il padre d'italia #die pfeiler der macht #non essere cattivo #trust fx

229 notes · View notes

vampish-glamour · 3 years ago

Note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basic overview of the situation from my POV:

Book establishes a character as a gay stereotype

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now here’s where my issue comes in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22 notes · View notes

sahrayliathefaelia · 4 years ago

Text

on destiel, fandom, stories, and love

i initially discovered supernatural in september 2011, almost a decade ago. there wasn’t a whole lot in the way of queer representation then, and much of what did exist was sorely lacking. all i personally had at that point was glee, which would unfortunately become notorious for its complex queerphobia despite its verifiable rainbow of explicitly queer characters. so when i learned about supernatural and the mountains of homoerotic subtext that purportedly existed between two of its main characters on a quite literally cosmic level, i mainlined that shit so fast you would’ve thought i was actively dying of thirst. i started watching supernatural EXCLUSIVELY because of seeing destiel all over my dash. i clung to dean and cas--as individual queer characters and as a queer romantic relationship--like a life preserver. i didn't realize it fully then, but i was watching queer media history in the making. dean: a deeply traumatized, emotionally repressed, and faithless bisexual man with a heart of gold on fire; and cas: an immensely powerful, impossibly naive, eldritch gay angel without a soul but with ice blue grace in his veins, would genuinely fall in love with each other in the most epic of slow burn romances, against ALL fucking odds, defying narrative constraints both in-fiction and in the real world. i had never seen a love story (and it WAS a love story) told like theirs before, much less an inherently queer love story, unfolding over the course of more than a decade of television.

and this was entirely by accident! i cannot stress enough that the people making supernatural never ever intended for destiel to actually happen; they just kind of tripped and fell into it through a series of increasingly unfathomable circumstances, including the writer’s guild of america strike and misha collins’ general existence. once the supernatural creators realized that this baton had dropped from the sky and into their hands and they actually started trying to run with it, they ended up writing a truly UNBELIEVABLE amount of text and subtext between dean and cas that oops, became so intrinsically interwoven with the larger narrative, it stopped being queerbaiting and unintentionally veered into queercoding before barrelling straight into: oh shit, i guess we’re actually doing this thing now. yes, supernatural inadvertently stumbled into the greatest love story ever told by pure fucking chance. and boy howdy, their sheer ineptitude in handling this story with the care and nuance it so richly deserved was astoundingly astronomical.

we were viciously and maliciously queerbaited with destiel for TWELVE ENTIRE YEARS, straight up fuckin gaslit for more than a decade by the proverbial powers that be, who told us time and time again that we were somehow delusional for deigning to read dean and cas’ relationship as romantic, when THEY were the ones repeatedly writing their dynamic with undeniably romantic overtones DIRECTLY IN THE TEXT. i was deep in the supernatural fandom for just over two years, but i eventually jumped ship in october 2013, a handful of episodes into season 9 airing, because by that point i KNEW i was bisexual, and i KNEW that queer fans of supernatural who saw destiel for what it was were being deliberately lied to and manipulated, and i’d had enough. up until november 5th, 20 fucking 20, i hadn't been anywhere NEAR supernatural. if i were to time travel to october 2013 and tell my 21-year-old self that in ten years 1) destiel would become canon the same night that donald fuckening trump would be voted out of office as president of the united states of america, and 2) i would become so hyperfixated on supernatural again in the ensuing months that i would experience an unprecedented creativity renaissance and be more active in fandom than ever before, i would’ve punched me in the fucking face. the fact that i’m writing this post at all is utterly bonkers. and yet, here we are.

it’s hilariously astounding to me how the supernatural bigwigs are STILL doing their damndest to gaslight fans into believing that destiel never existed, placing literal actual fucking gag orders on their actors which prevent them from being able to talk about their characters or destiel in any meaningful way that acknowledges what happened in their own show. THEIR OWN FUCKING SHOW. when like. they did that. THEY did. them. they planned, wrote, filmed, and aired that. fucking.

ANYWAY.

twelve years later, destiel is canon. homophobically, but like, it happened. and no matter how vehemently the powers that be are trying to sweep it under the rug, it HAPPENED.

the best, most beautiful thing to take away from all of this, is that destiel (and everything else that was great about supernatural) has always transcended the limitations of the established narrative and created its own unique narrative, and that narrative has always belonged to supernatural fans, particularly so now that the show is over. destiel belongs to us. we know that dean and cas are very much alive and well and happy together, and so are the rest of their family and friends, as they all deserved to be. we’ve come together to take charge of the narrative and tell the story of supernatural as it was meant to be told: with love. because, at its core, that is what supernatural is truly about. after all, love is stronger than death.

#supernatural #spn #spngate #destiel #destielgate #deancas #fandom #queer representation #queerbaiting #shay writes

11 notes · View notes

verobatto · 4 years ago

Text

Destiel Chronicles

Vol. LXXXIII

It was a love story from the very beginning.

Forget Me Not

(12x11)

Hello my precious friends!!! We are still in season 12, one of my favorite seasons.

This time we will talk about a very important episode for the storyline, 12x11 "Regarding Dean."

Foreshadow of Season 14 and Healing!Dean

I already talked about this episode in one of my spec from season 14, you can read it here.

Now, let's focus on Dean and the rabbit.

Gif credit @witchyanaels 👇

The rabbit is a representation of introspection, new life. Regarding Dean was a very pivotal episode, Dean centric, that showed us how he ends choosing their hunting lives against happiness, just like in episode 14x13, where he chooses his present family (Cas and Jack) vs John Winchester (his past).

So when Sam says...

SAM: Yeah. We need to retrace your steps. All right, think.

Is exactly the way Dean will walk through season 14, retracing his own steps, introspection, Healing!Dean season. Grow up.

We have also Scooby Doo in this episode, every time this sweet dos appears, is a call back to Dean's innocence, one of the most important characteristics that will keep Dean strong to handle AUMichael possession.

Another important scene that foreshadowed AU!Michael possession and episode 14x13 was when Dean was looking his reflection on the mirror.

DEAN: Ahh. Okay. My name is Dean Winchester. Sam is my brother. Uh, Mary Winchester is my mom. And Cast—Cas is my best friend.

Dean is trying to focus and remember who he is, and to not forget the persons that are important to him. The way he utters Cas name, as if at first he was about to say his entire name, he has to backtrack and give that name the meaning, the importance. He doesn't call the angel Castiel, but Cas. His Cas.

This scene is very important, is a premonition of the possession and a prologue, again, to 14x13, in which we met a Castiel that never rescued Dean from Hell.

It also represents the introspection I was talking earlier. Dean will have to find who he really is, throughout season 14, to love himself, self acceptance, to finally aknowledge what he really wants.

So, the question in this episode was, WHO IS DEAN WINCHESTER?

We have hints of his innocence, with Scooby Doo, and this other side of the coin...

ROWENA: You can really remember nothing, can you? What a gift not to recall the things you've done.

DEAN: What have I done?

ROWENA: Oh, you're a killer, Dean Winchester.

Rowena is calling out the dark side of Dean, the regrets. The guilt. The Guilt is a heavy rock inside Dean's soul. His own old inner enemy, whispering into his ear he doesn't deserve to be saved and loved.

But, Rowena concluded this...

ROWENA: But... but... though you may be a stubborn pain in the arse with the manners of a Neanderthal and the dining habits of a toddler, everything you've done, you've done... for the greater good.

DEAN: Oh, and that's supposed to make it okay?

ROWENA: I wouldn't know. You help those other than yourself.

If you pay attention here, it seems as if Dean is talking with himself, is Dean's innocence questioning his adult self, and the excuse for the greatest good, must be the quote he repeats to himself each time Guilt comes to him.

Then, at the end of this introspection Journey, we have Dean choosing his present, against a happiness ignoring who they really are.

DEAN: Huh. Well, look, was it nice to drop our baggage? Yeah, maybe. Hell, probably. But it wasn't just the crap that got lost. I mean, it was everything. It was us, it was what we do, you know? All of it. So... that's what being happy looks like? I think I'll pass.

This is also the conclusion of episode 14x13 and it talks about improvement of character.

The Bond and the Empty

When the episode starts, we have again, a guy dressed in blue that dies. (Cas mirror and foreshadow of his incoming death).

We also have Dean loving Dory, a blue fish.

And another important thing happened, I mentioned too in the meta I linked before, this scene...

Gif credit @stardustcas

Immediately after seeing a bloody handprint on the log, Dean recalls Castiel, why? Because one of the most important episodes in his life had been to be rescued by Castiel, to meet Castiel and fall in love with him. So, the representation of all of that, is the handprint in his shoulder. That's why consciously or subconsciously, Dean recalls his angel when he sees a handprint.

Two more symbolisms of Castiel and the Empty, were marked by two visual Narratives.

If you were reading all my metas and specs from season 14 and 15, I said dark Forest represents the Empty.

So, in this episode, we had one of the witches walking in the middle of a dark woods. And he is dressed in blue. As a foreshadow of Castiel walking in the Empty.

We also saw a blue dissected butterfly in the witches' house, another symbolism and foreshadow of Castiel's death.

Dean is Bi

We had a clear reference to Dean's bisexuality in this scene:

Gif set credit @shirtlesssammy 👇

We have at first Sammy asking if Dean rode Larry and is a huge second meaning in asking his brother I he's into man. Then we had the girl answering he did good, with her too, of course, so, what else should I say here? Perfect subtext about Bi!Dean settled by the writers.

To Conclude:

Regarding Dean was a pivotal episode that foreshadowed a lot of important topics that will be elaborated in the following seasons.

It was Dean's centric episode, driving the character to the introspection, and preparing him for the season 12 finale in which he will loose Castiel, and after that the possession and finally, Healing!Dean journey towards what he really wants in season 14.

Hope you like this meta, see you in the next one!

Tagging @magnificent-winged-beast @emblue-sparks @weird-dorky-little-deana @michyribeiro @whyjm @legendary-destiel @a-bit-of-influence @thatwitchydestielfan @misha-moose-dean-burger-lover @lykanyouko @evvvissticante @savannadarkbaby @dea-stiel @poorreputation @bre95611 @thewolfathedoor @charlottemanchmal @neii3n @deathswaywardson @followyourenergy @dean-is-bi-till-i-die @hekatelilith-blog @avidbkwrm @anarchiana @dickpuncher365 @vampyrosa @authorsararayne @mybonsai1976 @love-neve-dies @dustythewind @wayward-winchester67 @angelwithashotgunandtrenchcoat @trashblackrainbow @deeutdutdutdoh @destiel-shipper-11 @larrem88 @charmedbycastiel @ran-savant @little-crazy-misha-minion @samoosetheshipper

@shadows-and-padlocked-hearts @mishtho @dancingtuesdaymorning @nerditoutwithbooks @mikennacac73 @justmeand-myinsight @idontwantpeopletoknowmyname @teddybeardoctor @pepevons @helevetica @isthisdestiel @dizzypinwheel @jawnlockwinchester @horsez2 @qanelyytha

@destielle @agusvedder @spnsmile @shippsblog @robot-feels @superlock-in-the-tardis @superduckbatrebel @2musiclover2 @nickelkit @anon-non2 @cea1996

If you want to be added or removed from this list just let me know.

If you want to read the previous metas from this season, here you have the links:

Vol. LXXV, LXXVI, LXXVII, LXXVIII, LXXIX, LXXX, LXXXI LXXXII.

Buenos Aires, October 11th 2020, 11:48 AM

#destiel #Destiel Chronicles #destiel meta #supernatural meta #vol. LXXXII

32 notes · View notes

khaleesiofthegreatdairystate · 4 years ago

Text

I’m now rather cynical about destiel meta, so please excuse me. I’ve been holding onto these feelings for a while now.

I kind of hate this ask I answered because the only people who reblog and/or like it now are people who condescend or patronize me just for not thinking that every single fucking piece of set design is some super secret code that Dean is bisexual!

One of the reasons I departed from the destiel meta community is my complete bafflement with the meta writers who still for some reason have faith in the artistic integrity current crop of writers and producers. Dean didn’t dance with Garth in his dentist dream because Dean is going to integrate more with his inner self, let go all of his insecurities about what kind of man John wanted him to be, and embrace his bisexuality. He danced because Dabb made yet another cheap pop for the audience who still shallow the show whole sale and keep begging for the taste, no matter how insultingly stupid and nonsensical Supernatural has gotten. Anael knew that Ruby was actually loyal to Lilith?! WHAT! How can anyone think that’s anything but a giant fuck you to the audience?

Do I personally think Dean is bisexual? Yes. But I do think that every single person who has ever worked on the show in its 15 year history thinks that, HELL NO! Also I deeply doubt that Jensen thinks Dean is. So why would he play that scene in the Benders like Dean is bi? Especially way back in season 1 when the show was still acting like Dean might just be as macho and douche-y and very heterosexual as he portrayed himself as being.

It has to be said that there are accidents in art! I mean, no fucking really, right?

Not every single detail in every single TV show you’ve seen was planned by a creative mind. Writers and directors even make mistakes! Kripke didn’t plan on the big, over arcing Bible Apocalypse for Supernatural until season 4. All of that vague speech making on the part of Azazel in season 2 wasn’t connected to anything concrete in Kripke’s mind at the time. Kripke got lucky and was smart to hire Ben Edlund because the two of them were able to make everything seem connected even though it wasn’t originally. Also, if it wasn’t for the writer’s strike in season 3, the show would have been entirely different because Dean wouldn’t have gone to Hell in the first place, which means angels probably wouldn’t have been a part of the show. So there were mistakes and plot holes back when the original creator was still running the show. How can anyone have such perfect faith in that flawed group of people to believe that every action done by them is clearly a part of some secret code and not done for a plethora of other reasons? A director might choose ascetics over symbology, or rather what the symbology of the meta writers believes it to be. The “symbol” could be an in-joke for the crew. The set could have been dressed for Sam and Dean to stand in one part of it but for some reason Sam and Dean perform the scene in a different part of it.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

In the sixth season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer a few of the characters wore shirts with numbers on them for no other reason than it was fashionable at the time. The fans ascribed all kinds of symbolic meanings to the numbers on the various characters’ shirts but they meant nothing, nothing at all. A number shirt can be just a number shirt and the same is true with Supernatural.

But okay...even if that completely innocuous scene of Sam and Dean playing pool in the Benders was an untold message to fans possessing a higher knowledge of Dean that he sucked off one of the bikers in the bathroom...what does that give us? I guess for some people it paints an image of Dean always being secure in someway with his sexuality. That’s good for those people, I guess. You do you. I still don’t understand why it’s wrong or harmful for some people, like me, to believe Dean largely repressed his bisexuality his entire life, so much so that he hardly if ever acted on those feelings, especially if he has a significantly higher preference for women.

Of course all of this is probably moot anyway because I don’t think bi!dean or textual destiel will happen. I think it’s possible that Dean and Cas will ride off into the sunset in Baby at the end but the state of their relationship will be cloaked in subtext and metaphor because Dabb doesn’t have the balls to do something that will make significant chunks of the fandom apoplectic.

#anti supernatural #anti spn #dean winchester #bi!dean #anti supernatural meta #I don't know if I'll get any takers with this #and I don't know if I'll respond #dean is bi #I still believe that #dean is bisexual

6 notes · View notes

amwritingmeta · 5 years ago

Text

15x01: Belphegor, Spells and Symbology - Oh My!

So, my chickadees, we’re one TFW 2.0 member short. Yeah, such a bummer, right? The kid who’s so damnnn symbolic of change overall has bit the big one (courtesy of granddad) (like what?!) and is now in the big black Emptiness in the sky where all angels go when they bite it. (but what is the Empty symbolic of though?) (yessss indeed) (the unconscious where all self-liberation commences)

Okay, Jack be gone, but in his stead we now have this new kid on the block, yeah, and this new kid on the block is taking the place of the linchpin for Team Free Will’s push towards self-actualisation and it’s no wonder, then, that this new kid on the block is a speaker of truth! See what I’m getting at here?

Basically it’s just that Alexander Calvert - darling and dearling - is still playing a character pushing our boys towards Good Positive Change. Or so I believe. I mean, obviously we shall see, but the setup of Belphegor isn’t saying anything else.

Oh, he can’t be trusted. Absolutely not. Night and day to Jack in that regard. Or, perhaps, I might go so far as to say that he’s Jack’s shadow manifested. *shrug* But that doesn’t change the fact that he’s Speaking Truths That No One Else Is Speaking.

Man! Still not off the high from that episode, swear to God I would french Andrew Dabb in a heartbeat.

Okay, reeling it in.

So, three things -->

Thing the First: Truths

He calls Cas an abomination in that stupid, dumb trench coat. This goes to the very core of Cas’ internal struggle with his identity, so this calling out of it, threading back through Cas’ journey, feels weighty af.

He speaks candidly of having worshipped a giant rock shaped like a penis as a human and is, unabashedly, checking out men and women alike (shouldn’t actually ascribe bisexual as his choice sexuality but he is clearly not straight), and then he subtly flirts with Dean, which skeeves Dean out since Jack was kinda his kid, so yeah, stop that immediately, Belphegor. (but hey if he jumps vessel then all bets are off) (just saying)

*rubs hands together because oh my god I really want there to be textual flirtation that doesn’t go anywhere obviously because Belphegor is already picking up on the tension between two certain someones*

Belphegor also brings up Hell and Alastair and Dean breaking and torturing souls! Like what?!! The callbacks to end all callbacks. To the beginning of it ALL. Like, yeah, we’re in the final stretch here and Dabb is not kidding around.

And yes, Belphegor calls the moment Dean and Cas share at the end of the episode what it is, which is awkward, and then tries to prod Cas to talk about it. Albeit ironically (of course Cas won’t open up to him) he’s still doing it because he just doesn’t care what anyone thinks of him and this is precisely the sort of character these two need to poke and prod at their inability to fucking communicate openly.

Hot damn!

But. We shall see what we get. :P

It’s interesting that he barely interacts with Sam. Sam is his own man this episode in very many ways and I very much like it.

Thing the Second: Spells

Graveyard Dirt and Angel Blood

Naturally most of us, I’m sure, immediately thought of the “I’m always happy to bleed for the Winchesters” moment in S7. Here, Cas isn’t so happy. He’s suspicious, and rightly so, of this new player on the scene. Still, he complies.

Now, there are things to take from this scene that have to do with life vs death, mortality vs immortality or even Earth vs (or if you’d rather) combined with Heaven.

Cas’ strong reaction to Belphegor defiling Jack and Belphegor predominantly having a personal interaction with Cas through calling out the trench coat (symbolic of duty/humanity and at this point that space Cas occupies between) puts the focus on them here. Add to that the need of angel blood and it’s even more heavily linked to Cas symbolically, right?

What exactly does the symbology mean? Honestly, beats me. It feels like a foreshadowing that won’t be clear to us until further down the line (hopefully), but it excites me to think that for a character who has battled for his entire progression with the question of where he belongs, we get a spell that literally combines dirt or earth with the blood of Heaven.

Does that mean that there’s a choice to be made - mortal man or immortal wavelength? - or does it mean that Cas is already a bit of both and just has to accept himself as he is and continue on wearing that stupid, dumb trench coat proudly, the same way he has for a good while now, eh?

Well, that is the real question, isn’t it?

But then again, I’m a bit biased. :)

Mound of Salt and Human Heart

This one’s very interesting as it’s tied more directly to both Dean and Sam. Cas is a part of it too, as he’s with Sam when the spell is cast and they run for the safety of it together, but Sam is the one most affected by it, and I’m curious to see what effect it will have on Dean as well.

Why?

Because what does salt mean on this show?

It means protection. The spell is, literally, a protection spell, right? A magic ring of salt a mile wide - no ghosts in and no ghosts out. For characters who have always been incredibly haunted by their past, though in subtext, the external hauntings are being salt-circled away from them, while the human heart of the spell could symbolise the brothers’ hearts actually entering a safe space as well.

Again, why?

Because of what Sam does the moment he passes the perimeters of the spell.

He turns around and he faces a fear that has been very pronounced on the show - his fear of clowns (or, as I’d argue, his fear of people wearing masks, not showing their true face) - and he tells that fear to shut up.

Mind. So. Blown.

What a moment for him! *goddamn fist-pumping the air for him*

The heart is at the centre here, and the heart symbology has always been extremely strong with Dean, but in 13x12 it was Sam’s heart on the line and now both of them are linked to the beating heart on that mound of salt linked to a sense of safety, of protection, of trust. The potential, peeps. The potential of a deeper exploration of what the want in their heart of hearts. Yeah?

Not just in the coming few episodes within that mile wide magical ring of protective salt, because Lord knows how long that’ll last, but through the symbology of it. I mean, what a way to instil hope that this is what they’ll all be pushed to explore during the coming season. *fingers crossed*

Thing the Third: Motivation

Or possible motivation for Belphegor.

Given his speech in the crypt about wanting Hell to stay as it always has, it’s intriguing that he’s an opposite mirror of Anael. She had a boring, repetitive job and she couldn’t wait to get out of Heaven. She chose to make a life for herself on Earth because she actually wanted to help people (if that statement sticks) (I’d love for her to come back this season and then all bets are off) while Belphegor wants to help the Winchesters restore Hell to its recent glories so that he can go back to punching that clock. And, you know, torturing souls.

Too simple?

Yeah, maybe.

Of course he knows who the brothers are (love that there are newspapers in Hell) and this feels like a possible plant for him actually seeking them out specifically. Might not be, but it’s an interesting plant if so. Because of how Lucifer tried to make Nick resurrect him, for one, but also because of the Heaven/Hell dichotomy overall and who’s vying for what and who’s on the side of whom. *curious af*

Here we finally have a character who might have some personal stakes in driving a wedge between these men, and what better way to drive a wedge than to dredge out truths no one’s speaking, thinking it’ll break them apart when we know it’ll actually only serve to open their eyes to their own blindness and will end up making them stronger, individually and, through that, as a group.

*gah*

Could Belphegor not be Belphegor?

Yeah, but I don’t see why he would be.

I think he’s Belphegor the demon, but his stated motivations might just be a half-truth. Perhaps he’s even linked to Michael. darkest!Michael would be something tbh. After all, Michael was always, even if God held the ultimate reins, the shadow along the edges of the brothers’ fate. And after a few lifetimes in that cage, I do wonder exactly what might emerge. *goosebumps*

That said, Michael is a pale representative for toxic masculinity when the Almighty himself has stepped into those shoes, so symbolically it might be more fitting that we get something entirely different. Time will tell!

#spn meta #spn speculation #spn 15x01 #tfw #dean winchester #sam winchester #cas #jack #belphegor #truth sayer #shadow manifestation #symbology #michael #my reading

115 notes · View notes

butterflydm · 5 years ago

Text

The Untamed | Chen Qing Ling | Mo Dao Zu Shi

Continue to Rewatch posts: Episode 1 | Index

I am officially finished with all fifty episodes of the live-action drama version of Mo Dao Zu Shi and having finished it, I now immediately want to experience the story all over again. There were twists (some I accidentally spoiled myself over the course of my first viewing and others that stayed surprises) that will definitely affect the way I feel when rewatching, and I suspect the emotional character and relationship work will be even more impressive on a rewatch. …also, I’m gonna watch it on viki.com next time instead of the Tencent youtube channel, because I hear that viki has better (less awkward?) translations.

Non-spoilery summary: Chaotic bisexual disaster dies in the first five minutes of the show but then the story really begins when he gets resurrected years later. It’s a love story amidst a backdrop of magic and politics and family and mystery. The love story itself is one of my favorite kinds — between two people who share a similar moral foundation but express it in very different ways. The love story is… technically (?) subtext due to very real censorship concerns but, um. It’s more than emotionally satisfying. It’s epic and tender and funny and sweet and heartbreaking and ultimately rewarding. I feel emotionally healed by this story in ways that I really needed.

Vaguely spoilery warning: There is a flashback that literally lasts just about thirty episodes (this is not a typo). So, if you feel like that might be confusing or strange for your viewing experience, start at episode three. When you get to the part mentioned at the start of the other summary, go watch the first two episodes. I actually went back and rewatched the first two episodes about halfway through the flashback episodes and it was already a whole new experience at that point. I imagine it will be even more so when I rewatch again now having seen the whole show.

Spoilery glee under the read more (this is all specific to the live-action drama, as I haven’t read the original or watched the other version yet).

An Incomplete List of Things I Loved:

The love story, of course. I was very impressed with how honest and emotional and deep it was. The heartbreak we see Lan Zhan suffer during Wei Ying’s downward spiral and then his death brought me to tears on multiple occasions. But the story also made me smile and cover my mouth with my hands because I was giggling over how sweet it all was. It’s a love story with so many dimensions — a schoolboy crush, a growing admiration, deep fear and concern, heartbreak, and then the incredible softness and joy of getting back a love feared lost forever.

Wei Ying | Wei Wuxian. Wow. Honestly, he’s gonna end up on my list of favorite fictional characters ever, I feel like. Seeing his journey was heartbreaking and then heart-healing. Redemptive death is a subject that I am personally not as interested in exploring, so having this story begin at the death and then BRING HIM BACK to actually deal with everything that his choices created make it a very compelling story for me. And one that dealt with trauma and revenge and morality in complex ways.

Lan Zhan | Lan Wangji. What is this literal angel from the heavens we have been gifted with here. Just. He is. so wonderful. And he gets some great character development and I’m very impressed with the tiny expressions that say so much. Joking aside, he’s not perfect, and that’s part of why he’s such a great character. He has his public face that covers up his private feelings, and his public face is stone (one of the Jades of Lan) but he has so much intense emotion whirring around underneath. He’s incredibly controlled, which is both good and bad. He grows in reaction to adversity, and we also see how deeply his grief has marked him in the future. Lan Zhan after Wei Ying’s resurrection is so incredibly soft with Wei Ying pretty much at all times? He’s gotten the most amazing gift in the world, after all, and he is gonna fucking treasure it. And so much of his stoicism comes from having a difficult time finding the right words, not from any kind of arrogance on his part.

The family relationships, both good and bad. The brothers Lan. The three Jiangs. The Nie brothers. THE WEN SIBS (my heart, please take it). The destructive fallout that Jin Guangshan caused by being a cheating dickhole.

Going back to WWX for a moment (I Really Love Him) — specifically the exploration of trauma and how it has the potential to create horrible people and how to avoid that. Because there are a lot of similarities between WWX and several antagonists — all of whom put on a slightly different version of false face to distract from the complexities underneath. Xue Yang and Jin Guangyao aren’t born into privilege, they fight to become more than what they were born to be. The question of revenge and what we owe to the people who lift us up — another good example is not the main Wen villains but Wen Zhuliu, whose morality WWX directly confronts and challenges. When Wen Zhuliu says he kills in order to honor the promotion/trust given to him by the Wens, WWX points out that he’s sacrificing other people for his honor. And this is the biggest difference, of course, between WWX and the antagonists — WWX also ‘owes’ the Jiangs for taking him in, but he doesn’t murder innocent people for that, instead he does things like sacrificing his golden core. WWX has a sense of perspective, not taking fifty lives in exchange for a crushed finger like Xue Yang does. And he doesn’t murder other people to cover up his mistakes like Jin Guangyao does. One of the heartbreaking things about WWX after his time in the burial mounds is how clearly traumatized he is, yet how much he tries to cover up that trauma by playacting as the Wei Ying that he used to be. The smile that doesn’t quite reach his eyes anymore. Flinching away from Nie Huaisang touching his shoulder. He’s damaged and only the people paying the most attention to his mental state (Jiang Yanli and Lan Zhan) really notice how bad it is but neither of them are able to do more than soothe him in the moment. It’s so painful to watch.

Wen Yuan | Lan Sizhui. All the junior disciples are darlings but omg his story touched me so much. Because one of the heartrending things that WWX is experiencing before he dies is that all his sacrifices for the Wen survivors appear to have come to nothing. He sees their dead bodies; hears their deaths being talked about with glee. For this child to have survived means his time as the Yiling Patriarch was NOT in vain. He wasn’t able to save most of them, but he (and Lan Zhan) saved this child, who we get to see as a nearly-grown young man and he is a sweetheart of a boy. Seeing him reconnect with Wen Ning and then WWX was… very emotional.

Complex morality in terms of what love means. This is a topic that is only briefly touched on verbally but resonates throughout the story, because, both Wei Ying and Lan Zhan do, at various points, see love as something that cages (though from opposing perspectives). The story of Lan Zhan’s mother, locked away by his father; Wei Ying worrying that love would be a yoke around his neck. This is something they both worry at and struggle over at various points. Is love a leash? Is it love to put your beloved in a cage, no matter how golden? How do you prevent your love from becoming a suffocating and controlling thing? Lan Zhan talks about this with his brother, Lan Xichen, describing his affection for Wei Ying in the only terms he ever saw as an example for love — that he wants to bring Wei Ying home and hide him away. That’s the struggle he goes through during the years of Wei Ying’s darkest emotional times. Lan Zhan can see that things are bad (though Wei Ying never admits it until after his resurrection, when they go back to the burial mounds and he says how hard those years were for him and the Wens) but he doesn’t have a toolkit to address the problem in a way that would be acceptable to Wei Ying. This is something Lan Zhan takes HUGE steps to overcome once Wei Ying is back. Like i mentioned above, he is So Soft. He has regrets and now this most painful regret is something he has the chance to address and fix. To make his love into a partnership instead of a cage (and they make such good partners!). In terms of this specific theme (and I don’t know how important it is in the book, relatively speaking), the temporary separation of the characters at the almost-end of the last episode really worked for me. Lan Xichen was shellshocked after what happened with Jin Guangyao, and there was a reaction shot of Lan Zhan looking at him that made me go “oh, yeah, he needs to take care of some things on the home front” and I think he also needed to prove to himself that he was capable of letting Wei Ying go, to prove to himself he’s not his father. Because his father abandoned all his sect responsibilities to seclude himself inside his… idea of love. So, in terms of the themes the show leaned on, I liked that separation with the promise of reunion. And then the last shot of the series, which brings that promise to life.

Overall, the story feels very compassionate. It wants you to love the majority of the characters and it sympathizes with the audience’s pain when those characters suffer. It rewards deeper thought. It rewards the viewer for caring about the characters, which is something I’ve really needed this year specifically, when it feels like so many shows have been punishing their audience for caring about the characters.

One last thing (there are tons of other amazing parts! But this is the last for right now): I have such a complicated love for Wei Ying in episode 32, specifically when he calls out the sect leaders on their hypocrisy in coveting his power while condemning him for creating it. Everything about his scene on the rooftop breaks my heart — he’s laughing and crying at the same time and he almost looks like a corpse himself, pale skin and purple lips. Everything about him screams that he’s on the knife’s edge of just fucking losing it over all the trauma he’s suffered and how lonely and scared he feels. It’s a stunning performance.

Continue to Rewatch posts: Episode 1 | Index

#wangxian #the untamed | chen qing ling #mdzs #mo dao zu shi #wei wuxian | wei ying #lan wangji | lan zhan #long post #text post #i have seen all the episodes of the drama but only once #except for the first two which i watched again part of the way into the flashbacks #once i felt like i would have a better grasp of the characters #the show has some things are not perfect #but this post is about how the show made me feel overall at the end #which was very positive #anyway if there are any factual errors i apologize!#and i loved so many more characters than just the ones i mentioned here!#mdzs meta #adding that tag so it will show up when i do personal tag searches in my own blog

154 notes · View notes

the-desolated-quill · 5 years ago

Text

Good Omens, Queerbaiting And Death Of The Author - Quill’s Scribbles

I confess this is the most reluctant I’ve ever been to write a Scribble. When this topic came up, I remember just groaning and putting my head in my hands because I knew that, due to the nature of what I tend to write about on this blog and the fact that I’m an out and out biromantic demisexual queerbo, people would be asking me to contribute to the discourse. And honestly I don’t particularly want to. I don’t get to enjoy many films and TV shows anymore thanks to the industry doing their very best to ruin everything they touch. Can’t I just watch one good TV show without being dragged into some ideological battle?

Okay. Guess I can’t really put this off any longer.

On the 31st May, the long awaited adaptation of Good Omens was released on Amazon Video. I thought it was quite good. Not perfect. There are some things I could criticise, but overall it was a worthy adaptation of the source material and it was very enjoyable to watch. And that seems to be the general consensus with both critics and fans. However over the past couple of months since its release, a ‘controversy’ began to emerge within the fandom regarding the show’s main characters Aziraphale and Crowley. See, a large proportion of both the media and the Good Omens fanbase have interpreted the angel/demon double act as being gay, but this has sparked a backlash from some fans with them going so far as to accuse the show of queerbaiting as the show never explicitly confirms the characters’ sexuality. This then led to a backlash to the backlash, sparking a whole debate as to what constitutes good LGBT representation. Not only that, Neil Gaiman, the showrunner and original co-author of Good Omens, has stubbornly refused to confirm one way or the other whether or not Aziraphale and Crowley are more than just good friends, which has added further fuel to the fire.

Now before we go any further, I just want to disavow one argument that I see cropping up a lot and that really gets under my skin. That Aziraphale and Crowley can’t possibly be gay because they’re not men. They’re genderless beings that feel no sexual attraction. The implication being that the characters are asexual, but the way you hear people going on about it, the Ineffable Husbands seem less asexual and more like soulless robots. First off, you do know asexual people feel love too, right? We’re not Vulcans. Second, can we stop this ridiculous logic that they can’t be gay because they’re not men? It reminds me of the ‘controversy’ that surrounded Mass Effect 3 when BioWare confirmed that you could play as a gay male Commander Shepard. When people pointed out to the critics and haters that you could already play as a gay Shepard if you picked FemShep and pursued Liara, they retorted by saying that Liara doesn’t count as a woman because she’s a ‘monogendered alien.’ And my response to that was... so? She still looks like a woman and she still uses female pronouns. If FemShep is attracted to her, there’s a good chance she might be gay. It really is that simple. Aziraphale and Crowley may be genderless, but they look like men and use male pronouns. So if they were attracted to each other, they just might be gay. Period.

Anyway. Tangent over. Lets talk about Aziraphale and Crowley. You might be wondering where I stand on this whole issue. Do I believe that Aziraphale and Crowley are gay? Well honestly it depends on which version we’re talking about here. If we’re talking about the book version, I would say probably not. Don’t get me wrong. I’m almost certain book Aziraphale is gay as there are a number of references that seem to suggest that. His bookshop is in Soho, which is famous for its thriving LGBT community, the narrator mentions him going to a ‘discreet gentlemen’s club’ in the 1800s, and there’s of course this brilliant line:

“Many people, meeting Aziraphale for the first time, formed three impressions: that he was English, that he was intelligent, and that he was gayer than a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide.”

So yeah. There was never a doubt in my mind that book Aziraphale was gay. (And before anyone comments saying that the next line mentions that Aziraphale isn’t gay because angels are sexless unless they make the effort, let me ask you something. Who, out of all the characters in the book, does he make a genuine effort for? Aha!). Book Crowley on the other hand isn’t quite so clear cut. Sure there are occasional flashes of something, but it could easily just be interpreted as being gestures of friendship rather than romance. Personally I always saw book Crowley as being more aromantic/asexual. In fact their relationship reminded me a lot of my relationship with my best friend. I’m more like Aziraphale, due to being very camp, somewhat old fashioned and often quite emotional, whereas my friend is like Crowley in that she displays a facade of confidence to mask her insecurities and is extremely loyal to her friends. Now please note I’m not trying to destroy anyone’s personal headcanon here. I know for a fact many LGBT people have interpreted and drawn inspiration from Aziraphale and Crowley’s relationship for nearly 30 years since the book first came out in 1990, and I wouldn’t dream of depriving anyone of that. I’m just merely describing how I personally interpreted the characters when I read it.

So, while book Aziraphale is almost definitely gay in my opinion, I personally don’t think they were anything more than just good friends. Do I think the same about the TV version? Actually no. In fact completely the opposite. I think TV Aziraphale and Crowley are 100%, unquestionably and unashamedly in love with each other and this view is supported by the extra material Neil Gaiman has written for them, most notably the 30 minute long cold open of the third episode that shows Aziraphale and Crowley’s blossoming relationship over the course of human history, as well as how the show frames them. We hear the kind of swelling, orchestral music you would hear in a romance when Crowley saves Aziraphale’s books from a WW2 bomb, the scenes where the two argue about running away to Alpha Centauri are presented as being like a legitimate breakup (with the addition of some random passerby telling Aziraphale he’s ‘better off without him’), the other angels occasionally refer to Crowley as being Aziraphale’s boyfriend (albeit in a mocking way), and the way Michael Sheen and David Tennant play the characters makes them feel much more like an old married couple rather than being simply friends. There’s even a wonderful moment in the third episode where Crowley asks Aziraphale if he could give him a ride somewhere, to which Aziraphale responds “you go too fast for me Crowley.” It leaves very little room for doubt in my opinion, and yet Neil Gaiman refuses to verbally confirm this, even though the actors and the director have expressed numerous times that they interpreted the characters as such. Not only that, but the writing and filmmaking leaves just enough room for plausible deniability, never explicitly confirming the relationship. So the question remains, does this count as legitimate LGBT representation or is this just a very advanced form of queerbaiting?

Well first it would be useful to talk about what queerbaiting actually is, because a lot of people arguing against Good Omens don’t seem to fully understand the term. Queerbaiting is when a creator hints at a possible same sex romance without ever actually confirming or depicting the relationship. A recent example of this would be Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series.

JK Rowling first ‘outed’ Dumbledore as gay back in 2007, saying he was in a relationship with the dark wizard Grindelwald, but unless you read the interview, you would never have known this because the book doesn’t provide any sort of hint or clue or reference to that relationship. Worse still, when given the opportunity to rectify this in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald, Rowling chose instead to downplay the relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald significantly. This is queerbaiting. Implying a character might be gay or promising to introduce a gay character only to then backtrack or not fully commit. Another example would be Avengers: Endgame where the Russo Brothers announced there was going to be a gay character in the film only for it to be some nameless guy who’s only on screen for about a minute. It revolves around luring people in with the expectation of LGBT representation only to then snatch it away once they’ve got bums in seats.

(Also, just to clarify, queerbaiting is not when a bisexual or pansexual character becomes romantically involved with someone of the opposite sex. Yes it’s important that we see more bisexual and pansexual characters and yes it’s important we see more same sex couples on screen, but do NOT conflate the two. Deadpool’s pansexuality, for instance, isn’t suddenly invalid just because he has a girlfriend).

So, with this in mind, does Good Omens fit the criteria of queerbaiting. Well the sexuality of the characters are often the focal point of many interviews, with the director and actors explicitly describing Aziraphale and Crowley’s relationship as ‘a love story.’ Most notably Michael Sheen, who plays Aziraphale and who has been carrying a torch for the Ineffable Husbands since Good Omens came out. But unlike JK Rowling and the Russos, the makers of Good Omens can back up their words with content. As mentioned above, the way the show frames the relationship makes the implication quite clear. There’s even a bit where Crowley thinks Aziraphale has been killed and he leaves the burning bookshop while ‘Somebody To Love’ is playing in the background. It isn’t really very subtle. So, by my understanding, queerbaiting doesn’t seem particularly accurate when talking about Good Omens. The issue here is one of presentation. The overt subtext is all well and good, but does the fact that there’s no explicit confirmation of their relationship make it invalid? To answer that question, we must look into another relevant term. Queercoding.

Queercoding is when a character is given the traits typically associated with those commonly attributed to gay people, such as effeminate behaviour or ostentatious dress sense. This is used often as a way of getting queer relationships past the censor. Implying a character might be gay without explicitly confirming it for fear of the studio or publisher putting their foot down.

While queercoding is often intrinsically linked to queerbaiting, it’s worth noting that while queerbaiting is always seen as a negative (and rightly so), queercoding is neither positive nor negative. It’s merely a contextual device and can be positive or negative depending on execution. A positive example of queercoding would be Deadpool.

While the Merc with the Mouth has never been officially outed as pansexual, both the comics and the movies in particular have framed him as someone who doesn’t conform to heteronormative expectations. The marketing of both movies present Deadpool in traditionally feminine poses as a way of mocking and commenting on how gender is perceived in these kinds of tentpole blockbusters. The comics often make fairly explicit references towards Deadpool’s sexual flexibility for the purposes of humour, such as in his interactions with characters like Spider-Man or Thor.

The movies follow suit. The first movie is littered with moments where Deadpool alludes to being not entirely straight. He occasionally uses gay slang, we see his girlfriend Vanessa penetrate him with a strap-on during the sex montage, and there are frequent references to how sexy Hugh Jackman is, most notably near the beginning when Deadpool describes how he had to give Wolverine a handjob in order to get his own movie. The second movie meanwhile takes it a step further. Not only is the entirety of Deadpool 2 essentially one big allegory for how members of the LGBT community cope with abuse and discrimination, we also see Deadpool express a sexual interest in Colossus many times, the extended cut even going so far as to depict Deadpool trying to give him a blowjob.

Now as I said, Deadpool has never been officially outed as pansexual. That information comes from one of the comic book writers on Twitter. The comics and movies have never verbally confirmed it. We never hear Deadpool describe himself as such. But to say he’s not queer would be absurd because he clearly is. That’s how he’s framed and presented to us across the majority of media. What makes Deadpool a positive example of queercoding is how we view the character. He’s clearly extremely comfortable with expressing his own sexuality and feels no shame in his antics. While the majority of his queer moments are used for the purposes of humour, we’re always laughing with him, not at him.

Now lets take a look at a negative example of queercoding:

This is Moriarty from the BBC series Sherlock written by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss. Sherlock is without a doubt one of the worst adaptations of the canon that’s ever been made and the show’s treatment of Moriarty is a big reason for that. When he’s first introduced in The Great Game, when he’s posing as Molly’s boyfriend, Sherlock deduces that he’s gay based on really no evidence at all other than that he puts product in his hair and his underpants are showing. It’s ostensibly playing on that stereotype that any man who takes pride in their appearance isn’t masculine and therefore must be gay. (if that were true then David Beckham would be the gayest man on the fucking planet). While it becomes clear at the end of the episode that this was just an act Moriarty was putting on to fool Sherlock, he never really loses the metrosexual image. He boasts about his ‘Westwood’ clothes, we see him prance and preen like some over the top camp supervillain (more on that later) and he makes numerous double entendres that imply he’s interested in men, specifically Sherlock. There’s even a moment in The Reichenbach Fall where we see Moriarty sitting on a throne wearing the crown jewels. Ha! Do you get it? Because he’s a queen!

What makes this form of queercoding more offensive than Deadpool is, again, how we as the audience are supposed to perceive him. Moffat and Gatiss want us to laugh at Moriarty’s camp behaviour and they clearly find the prospect of shipping Moriarty and Sherlock utterly absurd, as demonstrated in the episode The Empty Hearse where we see the Sherlock fan club suggest Sherlock survived the fall because he and Moriarty were secretly lovers. This bit was there for no reason other than to take the piss out of Sherlock fans who read too much into the show’s intentional subtext. Also, crucially, Moriarty has no real character or backstory other than as a gay stereotype. He’s a lazily written caricature who serves no real purpose other than as a homophobic punchline. There’s a lot more to Deadpool than just being queer. With Moriarty however, there’s simply nothing underneath.

Moriarty is also an example of how queercoding is most commonly applied to villains. There are countless examples of this across various media over the years. The Joker from Batman, for instance. Ursula from The Little Mermaid. Scar from The Lion King. In these cases, whether intentionally or not, queercoding plants ideas of gender identity into the viewers’ heads. A male supervillain like the Joker is presented as being eccentric, arch and incredibly camp while Batman, the hero, is big and strong and serious and honourable. A manly man. Likewise, Ursula is presented as butch and unfeminine, scheming and malevolent, whereas Ariel is attractive and sweet and innocent. The ideal woman. Queercoded villains have been used to demonise the LGBT community for decades by presenting an ideal, hetronormative image of what a man or woman should be like, battling an antagonist that doesn’t fit in with traditional gender roles. Obviously there’s nothing inherently wrong with having a camp male villain or a distinctly unfeminine female villain, but it’s worth bearing in mind where these ideas originally came from and the impact it could potentially have.

So lets bring this back to Good Omens. The queercoding of Aziraphale and Crowley is obvious and it’s never presented in negative terms. (there’s a moment where Shadwell refers to Aziraphale as a pansy, but considering the man is a complete moron who draws eyes on milk bottles and thinks nipples are the gold standard way of identifying a witch, I think we can safely say he’s not to be taken seriously). In fact their relationship is incredibly sweet and endearing. Except... I can understand why Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman weren’t explicit in expressing the characters’ sexuality when the book was first published. It was 1990, both Pratchett and Gaiman were still relatively fresh faces and Western society’s attitudes toward homosexuality weren’t quite as progressive then as they are now. But it’s now 2019. Things have changed. Gay characters are appearing more frequently in books, movies and TV shows, people in general are more accepting of the LGBT community and Gaiman is now a hugely successful author with a lot of influence in the industry. Why not just make the relationship explicit?

Well there are two ways of looking at this. The first is that it really doesn’t need to be explicit. You would never hear a man and a woman talk about how incredibly hetero they are, would you? Actions speak louder than words after all. But when the two characters in question are of the same gender, suddenly the whole thing becomes a massive debate to the point where unless someone comes right out and says they are gay, people simply won’t buy it. Deadpool, tragically, has suffered from this with obnoxious frat boys deliberately glossing over the obvious queer subtext and hijacking the character for their own self-aggrandisement. This really shouldn’t be the case and this whole ‘straight until proven gay’ mindset isn’t the fault of the show. It’s entirely the fault of the viewer. The second involves our last topic of discussion. The Death of the Author. (no pun intended. RIP Pratchett).

Death of the Author refers to a literary essay written by the theorist Roland Barthes in 1967, which argues against critiquing a piece of literature based on authorial intent. Basically, once a book or movie or TV show is released to the general public, any relation to its creator becomes immaterial. The work in question must stand on its own and be judged independently. The intention of the author no longer matters. (I’m simplifying obviously, but that’s basically the gist of it. If you ever get the chance, read the essay yourself. It’s a fascinating read). Gaiman appears to be a firm believer in this philosophy. On his Tumblr account, @neil-gaiman, when asked about the the relationship between Aziraphale and Crowley, he often refuses to comment, invoking the Death of the Author mindset. It’s up the reader/viewer to interpret the characters. If you think they’re gay, then they’re gay. If you think they’re just friends, then they’re just friends. Some could call this a bit of a cop out, and you’re entitled to do so, but I understand where Gaiman is coming from. We’ve seen writers like JK Rowling get into trouble for queerbaiting, saying that she always intended for Dumbledore to be gay, but never actually showing any real evidence for it in the text, and Gaiman doesn’t want to fall into the same trap. Plus it demonstrates that Gaiman respects the views and interpretations of his fans, unlike Rowling who responded to criticism of her queerbaiting on Twitter with GIFs of people sticking their fingers in their ears and ‘blocking out the haters.’

In some ways I do feel very sorry for Gaiman. On the one hand he wants to stay true to his and Pratchett’s original vision, but on the other hand he doesn’t want to disappoint the hundreds of fans who do view the characters as being gay. Good Omens has been cited as an extremely positive influence on many queer readers, some even going so far as to say that it was this very book that allowed them to finally accept their identities and come out of the closet. Heartwarming stories like this can be found all over the web and hopefully many more will emerge now that the TV adaptation has been released. If Gaiman were to suddenly turn around in an interview one day and say ‘oh. No. Sorry. Aziraphale and Crowley were always intended to be just friends. You’re all wrong’, it would destroy people who invested so much in this relationship. Likewise, if he explicitly confirmed in an interview that the two characters are definitely gay, people would either accuse him of queerbaiting if the show doesn’t fully live up to their expectations or accuse him of shoving his political opinions down their throats. He can’t win either way really. That being said, I can’t help but respect Gaiman for sticking to his guns. It demonstrates that he’s confident in his skills as a writer and his ability to make his intentions clear in the text, that he respects the ideas and opinions of his readers and fans, and that he also respects the ideas and opinions of the cast and crew of the Good Omens TV show. While Gaiman has refused to confirm one way or the other, others like Michael Sheen or director Douglas Mackinnon have made their views very clear. Aziraphale and Crowley are in love. That’s their interpretation and they have every right to it.

So do I believe Good Omens is queerbaiting? In my opinion, no. Does that mean I believe it’s faultless? Again, no. If the intention is to depict Aziraphale and Crowley as being lovers, then I think they could have done a bit more. Obviously I’m not suggesting a full blown sex scene or anything like that. Even something as simple as them holding hands or hugging each other would have done. Some physical intimacy of some kind. Because as it stands, Good Omens does share problems with a lot of other TV shows in how they present same sex couples, in that they’re consciously aware that they are presenting to a heterosexual viewer. This is why a relationship between two women is often sexualised and eroticised for the titillation of straight men whereas the relationship between two men can often be quite chaste. Very rarely do you see two men making out or doing anything beyond a quick peck. Good Omens sadly fits into that camp, though just to be clear, I’m not blaming Neil Gaiman or the show for this. I’m merely saying that this is part of a wider systemic issue that needs to be talked about and addressed as the industry moves forward. (Hell, that might as well be be the title of my entire Tumblr profile). Also, whether you believe the relationship between Aziraphale and Crowley is platonic or romantic, it does not change the impact this story has had on many LGBT readers nor the fact that the story is about love. It’s important to bear this in mind because while, yes, it is important to have this discussion, we can’t lose sight of the positive message it conveys with regards to building bridges and closing divides between opposing groups.

“And perhaps the recent exertions had had some fallout in the nature of reality because, while they were eating, for the first time ever, a nightingale sang in Berkeley Square. No one heard it over the noise of the traffic, but it was there, right enough.”

#aziraphale #crowley #good omens #lgbt representation #quill's scribbles

100 notes · View notes