#like. just the fact that billie put out an explicitly queer song in the first place

[untimelyambition]

been almost a week since hmhas dropped and every single day i have thought about how the biggest hit from that album is a song about billie eilish eating out a woman

[that-curly-haired-lesbian]

Analyze love story from a queer view?

Hianon!

Surething, one analysis of Love Story comingright up!

Before we startlooking at the lyrics though,we need to talk about Shakespeare real quick, everyone knows who that is,right? Writer dude that was kind of a big deal in the 1500’s (and interestinglyhad quite a few gay rumors surrounding him.) Anyway old Billy wrote this famousplay called Romeo & Juliet and it’salmost impossible to talk about Taylor Swift’s Love Story without constantly referring to this play so lemme breakdown the plot.

These two kids (she’s14 he’s 17, creepy right?) meet at a ball that Juliet’s family is throwing.

Juliet doesn’t knowwho Romeo is when she first meets him at the ball, but later (when he comes toher bedroom window and gets her attention by throwing pebbles at said window) shefinds out that he’s a Montague. A member of the family that’s having agenerations-long feud with Juliet’s family thus making it difficult for them tobe together even though they’re very in love.

Oh and also, whilethe goal of these analyses isn’t to tell you who a certain song of Taylor’s is orisn’t about I cannot quite help but attribute Love Story to Emily Poe. You know, Taylor’s first semi-publicgirlfriend? The girl who played the violin for Taylor in her early career onlyto then be fired on vague grounds somehow connected to the “negative influence”she was supposedly having on Taylor’s image.

This song is on thesame album as Breathe a song withmore than a few queer elements that Taylor has all but publicly stated waswritten for Emily. (Here’s a Taymily master post by @karlieskupkake for anyonewho’s interested)

Anyway, I just wantedto point that out since I may mention Taymily in the analysis. As always though,any interpretation of the song I offer below is nothing but my own speculationand I’m obviously not claiming it to be fact.

Okay now let’s lookat Taylor’s song, one of her most popular ones in fact. On the surface we havea song that’s using references to one of the world’s most famous hetero lovestories to tell its own hetero love story, fairly unoriginal really. But if wedig a little deeper we have a queer retelling of Romeo & Juliet with SPOILER ALERT: a happy ending! Pretty cool,right?

Lyrics cred onceagain goes to AZLyrics, this time with no edits from me.

–

We were both young when I first saw you.

I close my eyes and the flashback starts:

I’m standing there on a balcony in summer air.

–

These opening lines almost immediately lay out the Romeo & Juliet narrative by invokingimages of a girl on a balcony which is a clear reference to the source materialas her balcony is the first place Juliet has a proper conversation with herlove interest Romeo in Shakespeare’s play. Romeo and Juliet are also bothindeed very young when the events of the play unfolds, but the fact that Taylorthinks back on the events in her own life (the “flashback” part) that she’schosen to explore with the help of Romeo& Juliet suggests one key difference between Shakespeare’s story andthe story Taylor is telling. Unlike Romeo (the character I’d argue she plays inthis narrative, despite what she tries to tell us) she’s alive to think back onher time spent with “Juliet.”  

–

See the lights, see the party, the ball gowns.

See you make your way through the crowd

And say, “Hello.”

Little did I know…

That you were Romeo, you were throwing pebbles

–

So, like I said, Tay- I mean Romeo is thinking back onher time spent with Emi- I mean Juliet. Just like the characters in the play it’splainly stated that the lovers from the song met at a ball and had a briefinteraction there, not knowing what they’d later come to mean to each other.

I think the party part (no pun intended) is mostlythere to keep the references to the play going, it’s probably not suggestingthat Taylor and her girlfriend met at an actual ball, but perhaps they also metfor the first time briefly and in a formal setting and a room full of people,not knowing they’d come to be important to each other in a personal way?

–

And my daddy said, “Stay away from Juliet.”

And I was crying on the staircase

Begging you, “Please don’t go.”

–

If we’re to believe the hetero narrative the song istrying to put forth Taylor is playing the role of Juliet and her MALE loveinterest is Romeo, right? Well, in these lines she tries to point this out tous as to #NoHomo-proof the song. She’s now explicitly stating thather lover is Romeo and then she implies that her father tells Romeo to leaveand stay the hell away from his daughter.

However these lines always struck me as a little weird…It’salmost as if Taylor’s dad is telling HER to stay away from Juliet, don’t youthink?

It’s unspecified who the dad is talking to when hesays to stay away from Juliet and then Taylor is immediately telling us what she’s doing, not what the male love isdoing. As if those words are directed at her,not him. She’s only saying she was upset by them, but not specifying how theyimpacted the male who they were supposedly spoken to.

Additionally, when she begs the love interest not togo Taylor’s doing what she usually does, despite having just told us that thelove interest is Romeo she’s now having them be gender neutral, not calling him“him” she’s done #NoHomo-proofing for now.

So to summarize,with our queer googles on the scene Taylor is painting looks something likethis: Taylor is told by her “father,” or perhaps more likely, label or managementthat she can no longer see her girlfriend. This upsets Taylor and reduces herto tears as she begs “Juliet” not to leave her.

–

And I said…Romeo, take me somewhere we can be alone.

I’ll be waiting; all that’s left to do is run.

You’ll be the prince and I’ll be the princess,

It’s a love story, baby, just say “Yes”.

–

After that daring little “you” in place of “him”Taylor takes us to the chorus by once again reminding us that the other person inthis story is a BOY named ROMEO. Just in case we got confused by all thatgender-neutrality and started wondering which lover is playing which part.

Anyway, after once again shouting “NO, HOMO, GUYS!!”At us Taylor is saying she’d very much like to be alone with her love so thatthey can have a private and perfect love story. She’s suggesting they run awaytogether and begging for her girl to say yes to the idea (Call It What You Want, anyone?)

She also throws in some more#NoHomo for good measure, this time by referring to herself as a princess andto her BOYFRIEND as a prince.

Remember in my analysisof Angelina when I said Taylor was using “princess” as a metaphor fora heterosexual girl? Yeah, she’s doing that again, but this time she’s describingherself as the “typical princess” that in Angelinashe said she’d never be. 🤔

–

So I sneak out to the garden to see you.

We keep quiet ‘cause we’re dead if they knew

So close your eyes,

Escape this town for a little while.

–

Here Taylor’s talking about a secret relationship andhaving to hide the love, wishing they could just be far away from where theyare so that they could love openly, pretty queer, right? Interestingly a famousquote from Taylor about Love Story statesthat while she choose to tell the story by relating it to Romeo & Juliet she relates more to the song as being about “alove that you cannot really elaborate on — a love that maybe society wouldn’taccept or maybe your friends wouldn’t accept.“ (x) Once again, pretty damnqueer!

–

‘Cause you were Romeo, I was a scarlet letter,

And my daddy said, “Stay away from Juliet.”

But you were everything to me,

I was begging you, “Please don’t go.”

–

Something interesting happens here, Taylor refers toherself (or perhaps her girlfriend, if we’re sticking with the idea that Taylorherself is Romeo) as a “scarlet letter” this is another literary reference asit alludes to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel TheScarlet Letter from 1850. In the novel this girl Hester falls in love withthis dude named Dimmesdale and they have a kid together out of wedlock which wasa big no-no in those days. To make everyone aware of Hester’s “crime” she hasto wear the letter A in bold scarlet on her chest at all times. Many litprofessors and such agree that the letter in the context of the novel symbolizessin. (Ha, I KNEW that lit degree I’m in the process of getting would be goodfor something!)

Many homophobes consider homosexuality a sin and so I thinkthat line is simply Taylor warning everyone involved that if she and hergirlfriend were to publicly date it’d be societal suicide. In the sense that alot of society would look at them as “sinners” or mark them as odd or out ofthe norm, just as if they were wearing a giant red A on them at all times, they’llalways stand out and society would always be aware of it.  

She may also be talking about how being in a publicrelationship with another girl would “mark” her a “gay artist” and limit hercareer, as if she was wearing a giant L for lesbian everywhere she went. To stop this from happening “daddy” (or Taylor’s management/label) isstepping in to stop the girls from going down the path of being publiclytogether. 

With the you were everything tome, I was begging you please don’t go-line though Taylor is, at least for amoment suggesting she doesn’t care about the consequences of being with hergirlfriend, professional OR personal ones, the girl is worth it all.

–

(Chorus)

–

Romeo, save me. They’re trying to tell me how to feel.

This love is difficult but it’s real.

Don’t be afraid, we’ll make it out of this mess.

It’s a love story, baby, just say “Yes”.

–

Interesting fact: the original lyrics here was allegedly“This love is DIFFERENT, but it’s real” 🌈🌈🌈  

Anyway, with these lines Ibelieve that Taylor is trying to reassure her love that while management orother various outside forces are trying to tell them how to feel (aka “don’t begay, it’s bad” again, teaching children internalized homophobia is fun, right? 🤢) or advising them to break up for the benefit of Taylor’scareer etc. that’s not what she wants and she wants them to fight for theirlove and she’s encouraging “Juliet” to agree that they’ll try to stick togetherthroughout all of this, closeted if they have to.

–

I got tired of waiting

Wondering if you were ever coming around.

My faith in you was fading

–

This is the part of Romeo & Juliet where Juliet is waiting for Romeo to sneak backto see her so that they can work out an escape plan and be together far awayfrom their feuding families, but she’s starting to fear he won’t actually showup. If we assume this song is about Taymily this is where their story would’ve ended,right? Emily is fired and they give in to the pressure from management and breakthe relationship off never to associate with each other ever again…Meanwhile inthe play Romeo and Juliet both die, everything is super upsetting, but THEN…

–

When I met you on the outskirts of town.

And I said…Romeo, save me. I’ve been feeling so alone.

I keep waiting for you, but you never come.

Is this in my head? I don’t know what to think.

He knelt to the ground and pulled out a ring andsaid…

–

Taylor decides to go against both the canon of theplay and her own reality by giving the star-crossed lovers a happy ending. It’seven implied that perhaps this last part is imagined (is this in my head? I don’t know what to think) but regardless,just when she’s given up hope Taylor is reunited with her lover and proceeds to tell “Juliet” all about how lonely her “Romeo” has been without her, Then suddenlyshe decides to use a pronoun for her love interest for the first time in thesong and of course it’s a “him” and now “he’s” proposing. This is (almost) Taylor’slast desperate attempt to #NoHomo-proof this queer af song.

–

Marry me, Juliet, you’ll never have to be alone.

I love you, and that’s all I really know.

I talked to your dad – go pick out a white dress

It’s a love story, baby, just say “Yes”.

–

Hi, thanks for sticking with me so far and um, welcometo the best part of the song! You see, it turns out Taylor was #NoHomo:ing like crazy in this song for a REASON. In what is perhaps her gayest lyrics ever to date Taylor finally fully steps into her rightfulrole as Romeo and proposes to her Juliet. This isn’t the first time Taylor hasstepped into the shoes of “the guy” in her songs in order to sing about a girlin a #NoHomo way. (She does this in Mine andOur Song among others) Taylor istelling Juliet that she loves her and that none of them should have to bealone, that they’ll figure out the rest as they go along. She then continuesthe proposal by stating she’s talked to Juliet’s dad (#NoHomo) or as we’vechosen to look at it management/the label and managed to convince theseopposing forces that the lovers should indeed be allowed to be together. With the white dress line Taylor is begging “Juliet”to take her back and say yes to being together once more so that their lovestory can get the ending it deserves.

–

Thanks for gettingall the way to the end! This song was considerably longer and more complex thanAngelina, but I hope you all enjoyedthe read and if you want me to look at another one of Taylor’s songs from aqueer perspective, don’t hesitate to send me an ask! 😊

[oneweekoneband]

ALL THE WAY ACROSS TOWN: Contributor’s Roundtable

The very first decision I made about this week (before, in fact, Hendrik had even given me the go ahead) was that if I was going to do it, I wasn’t going to do it alone. Part of that was self-preservation: Green Day are a massive band, with a three-decade-long career and insurmountable amounts of energy. It’s a lot for one person to tackle. Even between the five of us, we’ve barely managed to scratch the surface.

But more than that, there was this nagging feeling that’s only grown more powerful over the course of this week, that it would really just be a shame if only one person wrote about Green Day. They belong to everyone. They’re there for the people who need them, when they need them, for whatever they need them for. Yes, they mean the world to me. The thing is, they probably mean the world to you, too.

So I put out the call on Twitter and my blog (restricting it somewhat to my circle of acquaintances by doing so, unfortunately, but this did make me more comfortable with asking in the full knowledge that I wouldn’t be able to pay any contributors for their work), and I got lucky: most of the people I was secretly hoping would offer to write about Green Day did just that. And, oh man, did they write. I can’t express how proud I am to have been able to give those pieces a platform, and to have myself and my writing associated with them and their writers. I was so impressed with the generosity and honesty of everyone’s writing that I wanted to hear more, and so I suggested the idea of a roundtable, where we could all come together to talk about our mutual topic: Green Day. This is the result.

All of us, this week, have touched on notions of belonging and acceptance in our pieces. There’s been an undertone, throughout, of the notion of Green Day as a safe space of some sort - whether it be for kids to start to figure themselves or the whole punk rock business out, or in the crowd at gigs, or as not-male or not-straight music fans. Do any of you have any more (or more specific) thoughts about this? Is this a feature of Green Day’s music, or the band themselves, or something else entirely? (Despite my piece on punk, I know it’s not as simple as that, as I’ve been in more than one punk space and met more than a few punks who made me feel unsafe - there’s a difference between ideal and reality, always.) What is it that makes a band feel “safe”?

KJ:  I think I thought of Green Day as a supportive space for all sorts of people who were different, and therefore avoided owning up to liking them because I didn't want to be thought of as different? Thankfully, I've gotten over that.

Jessie:  For me, it’s a combination of factors. Some of it has to do with the punk thing. Green Day weren’t the first punk band I heard--that honor goes to another East Bay band, Operation Ivy--but sometimes I call Green Day my first punk band because it was around the time I first heard them that I started thinking of punk as an identity. I have definitely felt unsafe in punk spaces/around certain punks, and I guess Green Day sort of represented some utopian ideal of punk as this super welcoming club for nerds, freaks, and outcasts. I’m not sure why that is--maybe because of the scene they came out of, or maybe, because I said in my piece on “She,” it felt like they understood what it was like to be freaks and outcasts. Which leads into the second reason they felt safe to me, and that was entirely about their music. I was being bullied pretty much constantly during the time when I first heard them, and it just felt like they understood that. Like they’d been there. I mean, Dookie had a song (“Having A Blast”) about getting revenge on the people who bullied you. (More on that song later.) The third reason they felt safe to me is a very personal one, and it may sound weird, but--they felt safe to me because I didn’t have a crush on any of the band members. From the age of 12 to around 17 (or maybe even older, but that would lead into some topics that are beyond the scope of this roundtable), I usually ended up getting a crush on at least one member of every band I liked. I mean sexual fantasy-type crushes. And I was sort of terrified of my burgeoning sexuality (for many reasons). But with Green Day, I thought of them more like cool older brothers than people I wanted to get with, and that made them feel safer to me than a lot of other bands.

Jacqui: Jessie, I’ve never even thought about it the way you put at the end there, but now that you have I completely agree. I’ve also never had a crush on any of them, and it does make a difference. There’s something a lot safer about wanting to swap guacamole recipes with Mike, for instance, than ever having been properly attracted to him would have been. 

Alice:  It was much the same for me, though I think Green Day was my first punk band (or, possibly, The Offspring). But Green Day also was sort of a gateway drug, in terms of pop punk, and I think that in so many ways the pop punk scene of the early-to-mid-2000s was my safe space. It’s like we’ve said, that punk in reality isn’t always the safe space it is supposed to be - and of course, it is different for everyone and we are ignorant, of certain things, when we’re young. But when I was growing up, in Alabama, there weren’t many spaces for me. The pop-punk boom/resurgence of the 2000s was a saving grace, I think. Those bands - Green Day, My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, etc. - and the people I met through them, mostly online, became a huge part of the ways in which I reckoned with myself and my identity. Between “Well, maybe I’m the faggot America / I’m not a part of the redneck agenda” and Bert McCracken (of The Used) wearing a shirt that said “Gay is OK”, I felt included and comforted by these group of weird punk misfit dudes.

This is perhaps a corollary to the above: as far as I know, everyone who’s written for this week is, in some way or another, not-straight. One of my favourite things ever written about Green Day, Cristy Road’s coming out memoir Spit and Passion, is also, obviously, written by a not-straight woman. I know that when I think of Green Day, I think of a band that is Not A Straight Band, in smaller ways and larger ones (I’m thinking of Billie Joe, of course, and of certain lyrics, and safe spaces, again, and of the secret-community like collection of “Coming Clean” tattoos I’ve seen over the years). What do you think?

Jessie:  I don’t know why so many not-straight people are into Green Day, but it certainly does seem to be true. I didn’t know that Billie Joe identified as bi until way after I got into the band, but when I found out I was like “Hell yeah! Yet another reason to love them!” Dookie came out the year I realized I was bi (though it would be another four years or so before I actual felt wholly comfortable with that label), and though there were no explicitly queer songs on it, it goes back to what I mentioned above--so many Green Day songs seem to speak to that sense of being an outcast, being lonely, being bullied, and one of the things that made me an outcast and that I was bullied about was my sexual orientation and gender expression. Another theory as to why so many not-straight folks love Green Day: they are not an uber-macho band. Billie Joe has often been seen wearing makeup, nail polish, even dresses; I’ve seen Tre in eyeliner, too, and he’s just sort of goofy-looking (I mean that as a compliment!). Mike is probably the most ‘masculine’-looking of the band members, but even he is not some meathead. There are just so many rock and punk bands that are so so into the whole machismo, look-at-me-I’m-a-man thing, and Green Day are not one of them and it’s great.

Cat: So, haha, funny story, Billie Joe is sort of the reason I admitted to myself that I liked girls. I mean, God knows every single person in my life knew I wasn’t straight, I was bullied for it relentlessly from the ages of eight to eighteen, but I was really terrified of this idea of “not being normal”. Small town, small school, white picket fences and 2.5 kids - I had this really clear idea that there was a Right way to live your life, which was “how everyone else was living it”, and that there was a Wrong way. And then I read that Advocate interview - which I was so happy to find again in your post about Coming Clean, Alice! - and Billie Joe says there, I think everybody is born bisexual, I think everybody fantasizes about the same sex. Which I disagree with as a point of view these days - but at the time, it was exactly what I needed to hear, to understand that my thoughts and feelings about girls weren’t just a random fluke that I needed to suppress. And then later I was able to move into a more mature standpoint, i.e., “oh, it doesn’t actually matter if this is normal or not, it’s okay anyway”, and also, “oh, I’m actually way more into girls than guys.” But I really, really needed that Advocate interview to get me to that place.

Alice: Thanks, Cat! Yeah, as I mentioned in my piece, I didn’t read The Advocate interview until much, much later. But I read it - when I was seventeen - exactly when I needed to read it. I don’t think that I ever connected Green Day, and the ways in which their music always meant so much to me,  to my being gay until that moment. It was a moment of satisfaction, reassurance, almost. Like oh this is maybe why they always felt like home to me.

KJ:  I have a very vivid memory of frantically late-night Wikipedia-ing a “list of bisexual celebrities” and feeling utterly relieved when I saw Billie Joe’s name. Like, if this guy who I looked up to could be bi, so maybe could I? Not for the first or fifteenth time, I thought about starting a band.

[ continued under the cut ]

We’ve also talked a lot about what Green Day meant to us, about our memories of the band and their songs, simply by virtue of this week being a retrospective of their career. Have your feelings changed, in the present? Do they mean/are they the same band to you now as they used to be?

Jessie: Green Day have drifted in and out of my life. They’ve grown as I have and sometimes I’ve needed them and other times I haven’t. It’s like they’re old friends who I sometimes go years without speaking to, but when we run into each other we pick up where we left off. Some of their albums have come out exactly when I needed to hear them, others have grown on me, others I’ll probably never be that into. But they’ll always mean a lot to me because of the things we went through together (to stretch that “old friends” metaphor), and I adore Revolution Radio--I think it’s their best album since American Idiot.

Cat: I mean, part of it’s just going to be the usual punk problem, i.e., American Idiot was the most important album of my entire life, it defined everything in my life, it was my constant soundtrack and the only thing that explained the world, and then Obama was elected president.

And then Trump was elected president! And suddenly it’s - not the most important album in the world, the Bush era was very specific and unique and I need slightly different content from my punk for 2017, but it means more to me than it did in 2010. It’s like cicadas, it comes out of the earth to scream every 16 years.

KJ:  Funny enough, I was up at my parents’ house the week before this OWOB started and my mother still uses the one mix tape I made her in high school as her alarm clock cd. So, while I'm thinking about Green Day and Having Some Real Feelings, out of nowhere comes the strains of “Good Riddance (Time of Your Life),” my mom's only acceptable Green Day song (all others deemed too noisy). So in a way, Green Day is less a rebellious sound and more a coming home, to me, now.

Is there anything else you wish you’d had the space to say about Green Day? Another song you wanted to cover, maybe, or a story or observation or thought that wouldn’t fit in any of your pieces?

Jessie: There is so, so, so much more I could say. A lot of thoughts and ideas came up over the course of this week. One thing I thought of that I eventually want to explore further is about “Having A Blast.” That song came out before Columbine, and I wonder if it sounds different to people who heard it for the first time after that. I wonder if that song could even be written now. In 1994, it sounded like a harmless way to vent about being bullied, a way to get our your anger without actually hurting anyone. Now that people have actually taken those feelings beyond the realm of fantasy, that song sounds a lot darker. 

Alice: Only that we really, really should have planned for a second roundtable, just to discuss Green Day’s cover of Eye of the Tiger.  

More seriously, I am a bit sad I wasn’t able to write a piece about the musical (sorry Jacqui!) - I had the chance to see it when it opened and it remains, to this day, the only Broadway show I’ve ever bought full price orchestra tickets for. It wasn’t perfect, but sitting in a Broadway theatre between people my age who had obviously been with the band since the beginning and women in their 60s and 70s who still wore gowns to the theatre - and seeing that they were both equally happy to be there - that was a really special moment for me.

KJ:  Oh man, eye of the Tiger! Ditto their “I Fought the Law” cover. Basically, I guess we should have luxuriated in covers.  

Jacqui: I know that I, personally, avoided covers this week because there was already so much to say about their original work. But if I had gone in that direction, it would have been “Working Class Hero”. One of the major ways I had of connecting with my dad was through music - a good 75% of the stuff I know about rock history, still, came from him - and this song and really the whole benefit album it was released on was an actual, tangible bridge between us (I have this incredibly fond memory of waiting for me just inside the door when I came home from school one day, bursting with the need to tell me that “Justin Timberlake is really talented, actually”). I’d also want to talk about the difficulties and complications of things like benefit albums, probably, and about Green Day’s activism in general.

Finally, is there anything you want to say to each other (or me) - responses to posts, questions you want to ask, etc?

Cat: I get the feeling I’m a lot younger than a lot of you - was born in ‘95, Bush’s election is my first real political memory, and you guys talk about American Idiot and the Iraq War and the ‘00s as things you experienced as people who were coming of age, not young kids. Do you all think that makes a difference? Do you need to be a certain age to appreciate Dookie in a certain way, for example? Also, jeez, y’all have been incredible, I’m so honored to be part of a week with such amazing and thoughtful writers for such an amazing and thoughtful band.

Jessie: Hmm, I don’t know if it’s an age thing. I will say that I’m probably the oldest one here--I was born in 1981!--but I know people who are 10-12 years younger than I am who heard Dookie as adolescents and loved it just as much as I did. So maybe it depends more on who you are/what your life was like when you heard it than on your actual age. 

I don't really have any questions for any of you, but I’ve thoroughly enjoyed being part of this as well. All of you are amazing writers and I’ve loved reading your different perspectives on Green Day. Also, I’m working on a long essay-thing about Dookie (I’ve been mapping it out for about a month already!), and I may want to interview some of you for it, if that sounds like something you’d be interested in.

Alice: I certainly don’t think you need to have been a certain age to appreciate Dookie - like I’ve said, my mother loves early Green Day and she turned 65 this year. But I do think perhaps you’re right about American Idiot, not that it doesn’t hold meaning for people who were too young to remember 9/11 or people who were well into adulthood. But, I was born in 1990 and so my “coming of age” period was literally when Bush got elected. I very much remember watching the towers fall. And, as someone who had the questionable delight of meeting him personally, I certainly remember George Bush. There aren’t words for how important that album was, in that moment in time. Waking up when you’re eleven years old and realizing that world had suddenly and completely changed, and for reasons you don’t really understand - well. Music helped with that, it helped a lot. So, again, not that it didn’t or couldn’t mean the same to someone a bit younger than me (it obviously did!) but for someone who came of age in Obama’s America? I don’t think it’s possible to really get the very specific - and bleak, angry, defiant - zeitgeist American Idiot captured.  

I don’t have any questions either, but like Jessie I wanted to thank you all so much for this! I love doing One Week One Band and I loved it even more doing with it with y’all! And thank you Jacqui for facilitating this. It’s been an absolute blast.  

KJ: Just want to thank Jacqui for the opportunity to write about and come to terms with my Green Day fandom. (I don't think my therapist was...intending? To discuss a pop punk band for 30min this week?) Also re: age, it really doesn't matter, as there are many accessible avenues to Green Day. (Thatsaidamericanidiotisclearlythebestfightme.)Thanks again!

Jacqui: Jessie, I would be absolutely delighted if you decided to interview me, and am going to take a second right now to beg you to let me know when that essay goes live regardless, because I will definitely want to read it. I’ve left your mention of it in, here, so that people will know to keep an eye out for it!

I agree that age doesn’t matter when it comes to getting into Green Day, or even understanding them - there’s a difference between remembering a specific point in time and understanding or finding your own meaning in what came out of it, and I think that’s true of all art. Whatever you love, whatever sparks a feeling of recognition in you, that’s yours and no one can take that feeling away from you. That said, I do think there’s a difference in types of understanding when it comes to huge, world-shaping events like watching the towers fall (or, more positively: the development of the internet and its ability to facilitate both music sharing and community building.) Basically, I agree with Alice. No one is surprised.

Thank you so much again, everyone. It really has been a delight, and a privilege. I’ll be making a round up post that re-introduces you all and collects your contributions to end the week.

[fallenandthefaithless]

“I Wrote Myself Into It”: Authorial Intent and Writers in Supernatural

So I've seen a few posts floating around discussing how Mr Ketch's talk with Mary resembles Metatron in 9x18 and it was while trying to put my own thoughts about this together that I was struck by another thought. Throughout the series we've had several characters be storytellers and author stand-ins for the showrunners. It was while listing all of these characters that a theme became clear to me. All of these characters are telling us stories but as an audience we are either ignored or quietened. Until now.

This got rather long (oops)

We meet our first writer stand-in at the start of 4x18 'The Monster at the End of This Book' in the form of Chuck Shurley. It's  been discussed to death how Chuck is a stand-in for Kripke so I'm not going to go into it here.

Chuck is introduced to us reading aloud his work as he makes corrections, altering details to better suit his vision as he reads. Whilst we're being told the story we are never acknowledged – Chuck doesn't ever look into the camera the way others will in future episodes.

Chuck directly referencing/writing a story is seen again briefly in 4x22 and 5x22 when Chuck is or has already finished typing his stories "Lucifer Rising" and "Swan Song". While he never reads "Lucifer Rising" aloud to us, we do witness the characters take control of their story – a possible aside on how much the original plot outline has been changed in the series. In 5x22 we have Chuck's voice over at the start and end of the episode though, once again, we are ignored as he focuses on writing his story.

The next time we have a character talk to us is in 6x20 'The Man Who Would Be King' with Castiel looking directly at us as he says "Let me tell you my story. Let me tell you everything". This time around the audience is acknowledged by being directly looked at though we still don't have a chance to respond. We are being told a story and can only listen. God, who Cas was textually speaking to, isn't even present and doesn't respond.

We don’t have another writer stand-in until Metatron in 9x18 'Meta Fiction'. The episode opens with Metatron typing away on his typewriter in a mockery of Chuck before he looks up into the camera to address us.

What makes a story work? Is it the plot, the characters, the text? The subtext? And who gives a story meaning? Is it the author? Or you?

Not only are we acknowledged but we are even asked questions. However, this illusion of being involved doesn't last long and illusion it is as the camera reveals Cas to be tied to a chair and gagged, forced to listen to Metatron's story without being allowed to address any of the questions being raised.

Metatron typing away acts a callback to Chuck and highlights how, despite the questions being asked of Cas/the audience, the story has already been written and Metatron is currently rewriting it to suit his version better. He even burns a copy of the Winchester Gospels because though it may be his inspiration, it doesn't fit with the story he wants to tell.

In season 11 we have Chuck return after Amara has broken free of her restraints at the conclusion of season 10 and is running rampant, demanding retribution for the crimes committed against her.

Subtextually, what crimes could possibly have been committed at the end of season 10? If there was one thing that caused chaos and forced the writers to pay attention, going so far as to bring about the return of God, the original showrunners stand-in, it was the outcry at the death of Charlie Bradbury.

Throughout season 11 Amara desperately searches for God, wanting him to apologize for the wrongdoings he has committed, the wrongdoings he has been committing since the very beginning of the story – the unfair treatment of the minor characters. Going back as far as the pilot episode with the fridging of Mary Winchester, there has been a lack of justice for these characters and Charlie was the final straw. One only has to see the 2015 Supernatural Comic Con panel to see how badly it was received and how the writers coped with that fallout. But throughout season 11 we saw small changes being made; more explicitly queer characters (Jenna, Jesse, Cesar and Kat's mums), more female characters as big characters, new and returning (Jody, Donna, Alex, Claire, Amara, Billie, Rowena, Clea, Eileen, Mildred) and more characters of colour (Billie, Rufus, Clea) with decent roles. But it wasn't until the season 11 finale that they made the biggest apology. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

In arguably the best episode of the season both Chuck and Metatron return, locking themselves up in a bar to work on Chuck's latest piece of work, safe from the chaos of the outside world which is only present through the televisions in the bar. Only on screens do they see anything happening whilst the audience witnesses everything as it happens to Sam and Dean.

Metatron proceeds to call Chuck out in one of his best speeches on the show:

You know, I was a crappy, terrible god. My work was pretty much a lame, half-assed rewrite of your greatest hits. But at least I was never a coward!

Metatron acknowledges that what he wrote was copied from Chuck's work, that the stories were all running in circles.

Chuck goes on to say that he is "done watching [his] experiments failures" to which Metatron rebuts "you mean your failures". He holds Chuck responsible for the failures of his stories – Metatron, after all, does admit he himself was a "terrible writer". The least Chuck can do is admit the same.

It is after this that Chuck turns the televisions on and tells Metatron to watch.

If you ask me, they're all reruns.

The chaos of the world is a "rerun". It's all happened before. And Chuck, our original creator, walks away. Metatron, however, who has been knocked down a peg or two by "his characters", looks on in horror at what has happened to the story.

In the next episode we face the first removal of a writer. Metatron's death.

Metatron has accepted his failures and now he seeks to help fix the problems he was implicit in and ends up paying with hi life. He faces the issue head on, and while he dies, he does so after his best attempt at redeeming himself. And Chuck is now left to face his own problems in the face of Lucifer and, subtextually, Cas.

Castiel, the easiest to unpack of the two, represents himself, the underappreciated main character who has been pushed to the side too many times.

Lucifer, as a left over of Kripke's era, represents all the loose ends left over from the earlier seasons – this is clear from Lucifer's lingering presence throughout the series despite the fact he was supposed to have been dealt with in season 5. While his main storyline – the apocalypse – is over, Lucifer hasn't ever really left the show. Just like many niggling plot holes.

So Dean's "We're gonna save Cas, we're gonna ice the devil and we're gonna shank the darkness and anyone gets in our way, well God help them" highlights the three main issues of the season – Cas' underappreciated presence on the show, the loose ends from seasons past and the fandoms displeasure with how things are being done. And they're all being thrown in Chuck's face at the end of the season.

So Chuck makes up with Lucifer, promises Cas will be safe and then turns to face the big "bad". Amara. But he just wants to lock her back up. He keeps repeating his previous mistakes but this time he doesn't get away with it. This time he's almost killed. It's interesting to note too, in light of this reading, that it was Amara who banished Lucifer and saved Cas.

In the end it is Dean who convinces Amara and Chuck to talk which results in Chuck apologizing for the injustices Amara has faced at his hands and the two peacefully leave the characters to be together. After, of course, Amara resurrects Mary – the personification of the injustices in the show and how they are being visited and fixed. We're on the B-Side now.

Which brings us to season 12.

After 12x09 many people wondered if Mick was going to be Dabb's stand-in but in 12x12 it is Mr Ketch who talks to the camera. Combining these two would suggest that it is the British Men of Letters who are Dabb's stand-in, which raised another interesting point I'll get to a little bit later.

First off, Mick.

12x09 opens with Mick typing away at his typewriter which instantly brings Metatron to mind. He then looks up and gives his "Let me paint you a picture" speech, trying to sell his vision to an unimpressed Wally. A lot of people have commented on how Wally appeared to be a John stand-in in 12x12 which would paint him as a more old-fashioned hunter. Wally proceeds to mock Mick and his "soft hands" before leaving. In other words, a hunter who resembles John Winchester, aka an old fashioned hunter better suited to the earlier seasons, mocks the story being described to him by our current showrunners stand-in. The "soft hands" comment threw me for a bit until I just took it at face value – Mick's not a fighter and that shows in his unblemished hands. The show isn't about throwing yourself into the middle of a world-ending battle anymore. It's about the smaller, emotional storylines.

At the end of the episode Mick tries again and this time Mary, the character who is the opposite to John and literally symbolizes the new story, was willing to listen to what Mick (Dabb) is offering.

In 12x12 it's Mr Ketch who talks to the camera but something interested me before he even looks at us. We get a lengthy shot showing Mr Ketch organizing his cup of tea before taking a sip and then he turns his attention to the camera. Why so much time dedicated to something so insignificant? It wasn't just to bring attention to his mug which is straight out of Reservoir Dogs. Making his cup of tea and sitting back show how Mr Ketch is willing to listen before he even says "Tell me a story". He's getting comfortable before giving the camera his undivided attention. He wants to hear this story.

"Tell me a story" he says to the camera and, for the first time, we the audience, as well as the character being addressed textually, are able to respond. Unlike Cas in 9x18, Mary is free to tell her story (ironically while dressed like Cas). Ketch listens without interrupting and at the end, shows how impressed he is. Mary, however, is not appeased.

I lost a friend. I almost lost one of my boys.

Mary almost lost of her boys. We almost lost one our boys. Mary and the audience are given the chance to vent to Ketch (Dabb) about how hurt we were by their actions and Ketch, as repentant as any writer, apologizes most insincerely.

One last thing, at first I was confused as to why Dabb would choose the BMoL as his stand-in – they aren't exactly likable. As I thought this over I remembered @argumentsagainstbideansuck post on authorial intent. It highlights how Supernatural is a postmodern text and how authorial intent means zilch:

"the entirety of seasons 4 and 5 (widely considered the show's best) are ALL ABOUT THE VIRTUE OF DEFYING 'THE AUTHOR' and "throwing out the script."

(Seriously, go read all of it – you will not regret it)

With this in mind, let's turn to the BMoL.

The BMoL came crashing onto the scene in 11x23 and tried to force their views onto the American hunters insisting that their way is the best way. They didn't stop there though – they tortured Sam and attacked/threatened out other main characters. (Pretty fitting for writers)

So why would Dabb use them as his stand-in?

Because authorial intent has no place in Supernatural because it is a postmodern text. The writers can't tell us how we are supposed to read the show. Our readings are valid and the characters revolting against the BMoL support this. They certainly don't want their way to be restricted by the BMoL. And while certain characters may be listening to them for now, that certainly won't last.

So after years of being ignored or gagged, we are finally not only being given a voice but are being listened to. Instead of the writers telling us to listen to their stories, we are being invited to tell our own. And Dabb is listening.