#it's similar to how a lot of men get mad when their “historical” shows don't have sexism in it

[ourflagmeansgayrights]

im thinking abt this post by @chuplayswithfire. thinking and considering and pondering.

people deny that ofmd is saying anything about homophobia by just denying that there's homophobia in the show at all. which is stupid, obviously, but i think people deny the existence of homophobia in ofmd for a few reasons:

homophobia is not depicted with Extremely Blatant Modern Slurs that are super recognizable to a modern audience

the existence of gay people is never questioned and nobody ever expresses shock or surprise when they learn someone is gay

ofmd doesn't bother with depicting your classic "gay sex is bad and unnatural" homophobia, and

a lot of the homophobia in ofmd is specifically about prejudice against effeminate men, which is more complicated than just Gay Sex Bad homophobia bc it intersects with misogyny and gender roles and masculinity to the point where you can't really separate any of these topics

but racism in ofmd is different because you can't deny that it's there. british soldiers call Black men "savages" and "slave" in the first fucking episode. but despite the fact that ofmd shows racism, there are still people saying ofmd isn't saying anything about it and that it's stupid for fans to analyze race in a silly romcom

i can't help but think abt how shows set in some historical time periods (or even like, high-fantasy settings) get blasted for being "historically inaccurate" for having characters of color—especially when the show doesn't have those characters face any racial biases. a neutral depiction of POC existing in a historical time period without being called slurs stands out to white viewers. they notice it, and it makes some white viewers uncomfortable.

but when POC are in "historical" shows and are getting called slurs, there's less of that discomfort. it doesn't stand out to white viewers quite the same way. there's probably still gonna be a few fucking morons who say shit like "um, Black people didn't exist in europe in 1411," but white people get less worked up as long as racism is being depicted as what they think is "historically accurate"

i feel like for the people who think it's stupid to analyze race in ofmd, they see the depiction of racism as neutral. it doesn't read as anything other than "well, that's how it was at the time." racism in ofmd isn't a theme, it doesn't mean that the show has anything to say. the racism just there, because of course it is. the existence of racism goes unquestioned.

and i think the fact that the racism in ofmd didn't stand out to people comes from the same place that has white viewers going "why is this character of color not facing bigotry in this show set in the 1920's? that's historically inaccurate!" many white viewers become uncomfortable when the bigotry they expect to see portrayed isn't there. so in ofmd, when the expected bigotry is there, there's no deeper meaning to it than "it's 1717, racism is supposed to be there"

[olderthannetfic]

To that one anon who doesn't get all the men positivity posts, comparing sexism and misogyny in this way is just completely nonsensical. White people and black people in America are not as nuanced as men and women, historically and modern culturally. The reason why posts can say "white people don't clown on this" is because beyond the 70s, the difference between white ethnic groups became negligible as they were incorporated into the in group, and poc were increasingly otherized. If you really want to get into the theory or how to deal with race, you could very much claim that the culture war around supposedly "demonized white people" that Karen's and the like get mad about is absolutely pushing race relations back! This anon has displayed a very uneducated and flawed view of race, racism, and race activism in just a few sentences.

As for historical oppression, again there is not just one kind of man the way there is one kind of white person (supposedly, again if you want to debate the meaning of "white" right now go elsewhere). The patriarchal definition of men is inherently harmful to 99% of men in existence. It is not just something that hurts women and putting men down constantly instead of meeting people where they're at and rationally talking about how it harms people does nothing to help the movement. Men experience misogyny in the same or similar harsh ways women do. When men do not conform to the Patriarchal view of how they should act, be they effeminate, queer, or non-white (oh! Intersectionality!) They are put in danger of becoming the example to other men and boys for how they should behave. Gay and trans men and trans women are constantly targeted, abused, have high suicide rates, high rates of mental illness, and are constantly put into place violently by their peers be they men or women! Or are we going to forget how white conservative women not only willingly aid in upholding the patriarchy and racism?

The long and short of it is that this conversation requires nuance. You cant expect to be the epitome of the screaming sjw radlib that the right likes to broadcast so mucy and edpect sympathy. Sorry you can't reblog your stupid little posts without shaking in your boots, anon. People who are educated and not bad faith actors have a little more balls when showing people what they believe in.

--

TBH, I think a lot of people could stand to have a little more spine when it comes to reblogging things they truly like and have truly thought about and taking the heat.

I've seen whiny "think of the men" posts on tumblr. I've also seen tons of "All men are suspect and should feel guilty". There's really no way of evaluating a hypothetical strawman post. One has to look at each individual real post and weigh its various forms of subtext.

[thiswaycomessomethingwicked]

this is the gentleman jack anon from a bit ago, sorry I dunno why it was anon last time lol- in terms of ur fics reminding me of the show I think it's mainly due to

1) historical queerness - I kno technically most of ur stuff is fantasy but it's basically the same - Annes (eponymous gentleman jack) mascultinity n attire is very reminiscent in vibe of ur discworld fics in my opinion

2) Anne in general really reminds me of Downey bc it's mentioned she had a reputation for gambling / hanging out with soldiers and being rambunctious in her youth but now she's a very mature character and a lot of the plot focuses on her business and landownership deals similar to Downey and running the assassin's guild. also shes really invested in maintaining the status of shibden hall, her historical home which is very similar to Downey's taste for traditionalism and grandeur. Also as characters they're both very into dignity/ courtesy/ 'doing the done thing'

3) theres also scheming and drama and illness which vaguely reminds me of the Sicily plot in thus always

4) Anne's actually a proper nerd aswell and loves to mention her time studying anatomy / art / blah blah in Paris which echoes William 'poisonous plants' Downey n Vetinari the og big nerd

5) also just older queer people which u don't often see in fic n stuff- Anne is in her 40s in the series

anyway that's just a few things that came to mind I could probably write an essay on it but I would defo reccomend u watch it I think it's right up ur lane 💓 (Soz for how long this got hehe)

<3 helloooo 

1) Historical queerness - I do borrow a *tonne* from early modern and late-early modern queerness for Discworld stuff, and Downey in particular (see: Downey’s hats & Florentine mlm and their hats) - and I mean discworld as TP wrote it has no consistency in clothes so there is the late-early modern and early victorian (e.g. Moist & Adora) mixed in with late medieval and early modern (e.g. Vetinari) - I do tend towards the early modern myself because medieval and victorian is overdone 

2) ahhh that is delightful! she is clearly living her best life. But I do appreciate a good #Growth experience with characters - yet ones who never lose their joie de vivre. So, still have a love and lust for life, but you know, also have maturity, responsibility and a sense that there are Consequences for Thine Own Actions. Which us something you rarely see in characters? It tends to be Rake/Louche Living v. Stodge/Do What is Right rather than a more normal mix of someone who once ran wild who learned there are consequences and has appropriately tempered themselves. So they’re still be a mad lad when they want to be but also pay the bills on time and have descent life advice and make good relationship decisions. 

3) ooooooo! this interests me greatly! anyone get suspiciously pushed down some stairs? 

4) <3 <3 ah this Delights me. Downey: Have you heard of this rare mushroom? Vetinari: Have you heard of this super niche linguist? Downey: I love you so much you dumb nerd. Vetinari: takes one to know one. Downey: I will have you know I’m one of the cool kids. Vetinari: mmmk honey. Only because no one knows about your secret sordid plant nerd ways. 

5) YES. OK I LOVE OLD QUEERS. I love them so much. Mostly because i am a 75 year old man at heart. But yes I love old queers and i just - always want more of them. all of them living their best lives. doing what they need to do. just out their. being gay. ugh - be still my beating heart. 

-- 

well! it’s still on my to-watch list and that has been a great booster of it up the list! so good work! 💓 💓 

in cute things; my mom has watched it in an attempt to better understand me since I apparently remind her of the Anne character and she was very excited when she finished it and told me all about it and I was like “thank u you’re great” then she bought me men’s boots. 

so you know, happy 2021 everyone. 

[astudyinfreewill]

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

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

Why Kavinsky Dying is Not “Bury Your Gays”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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