#that's not how subtext works

[the-real-list-of-ominous-threats]

I’m going to take away your media literacy skills

[samisadeangirl]

Agree with the points raised in the above comments. First and foremost, Castiel is NOT a main character, period. He appeared in <50% of the overall episodes and <25% of the screen time (55% and 28% respectively if counting from S4 onward), was never the protagonist in a main story line, and was regularly missing from multiple episodes at a time (including most of the season for S7 and S11) with no effect on the plot. Cas was at best a major secondary/recurring character and therefore doesn't count for this poll.

Second, even IF we dubiously included Castiel as a protagonist, it's highly debatable that he's queer. It can be argued that angels in general are asexual, non-binary, and/or genderfluid, but that's trying to apply human terms to completely alien beings, since angels are immense wavelengths of celestial intent that have neither gender nor sexuality. Castiel in particular never showed sexual attraction or romantic interest to anyone (except MEG) other than when he'd lost his grace or memories (i.e. wasn't an angel), and in those instances it was only to women or beings in female vessels. The so-called "confession" in 15.18 Despair should be considered platonic since not only did Cas NOT say "I'm in love with you," but also his speech only referenced familial and altruistic love, he'd previously said "I love you" in a clearly familial fashion to Dean (and Sam and Mary) back in S12, and none of his canon interactions with Dean in his entire 12 seasons had been romantic ("interpretation" of supposed "subtext" with shipping goggles on too tight doesn't count). Not to mention that this scene had been orchestrated to allow Misha to pander to and milk his gullible fans, given that Stands (which he owns) started offering "gay angel" merchandise within hours of the episode airing.

Last but certainly not least, neither Sam nor Dean--the actual main characters--are canonically queer. Both have only been shown having romantic or sexual interactions with women, and Dean explicitly stated multiple times that he's only into women/not interested in men. As above, "interpretation" of supposed "subtext" doesn't count, both because 1) that's not how subtext works in show business--subtext is meant to support the main narrative and is obvious enough for the general audience to figure out, NOT to try to tell a completely different story from the main narrative and be so "subtle" that only a small number of obsessed shippers can see it, and 2) SPN has always been blatantly obvious in revealing the sexuality of other queer characters, all of whom either outright stated it or did clearly romantic/sexual actions with someone of the appropriate gender, so it doesn't make sense that TPTB would rely solely on "subtext" to reveal that either Sam or Dean is queer.

Again, fans are welcome to have headcanons regarding characters' sexual orientation (or anything else), but in the actual canon, there is only one answer--SPN does not have any queer protagonists/main characters.

This year, I’m trying to keep track of how many shows I watch where one of the main characters is explicitly LGBT and I’m divided on whether Supernatural should count.

Question: Should Supernatural count as a show with at least one explicitly queer protagonist?

Possible poll options:

- No. I don’t think there’s anything LGBT about Supernatural. (Insane answer)

- No. Even though Cas admits he loves Dean, it’s only in his last episode, and therefore Cas doesn’t count as explicitly queer most of the show, so the show shouldn’t count.

- Yes. Because coming out of the closet doesn’t mean you were straight before, Cas has always been queer, and therefore Supernatural has always (since s4) had queer rep.

- Yes. Throughout the show I considered one or more of the main characters as explicitly queer.

hey anon! just ran a similar poll here that you might be interested in, but i will make this one as well. only including the options anon suggested, but as always feel free to add nuance in the tags :)

[fatedroses]

And some days, I just wish you wouldn't look at me at all.

[agalychnisspranneusroseus]

In love with the way Sasha holds Marcy so protectively during that last scene. She doesn't let go of her for one moment, despite being severely wounded herself. She really is the protector.

[mc-tummy-blur]

I’ve been so busy with other stuff but I really want to get back to drawing WHF art so I went and cleaned up a wip. Not sure how I feel with some of the angles but I just needed to get this out of my system

Based off of this clip

Click for better quality

Check my pinned post to see links on how you can help the people in Palestine

[screebyy]

A fine secret to share and never speak out loud

[artbyblastweave]

The way in which I know that nobody on this website gives a single solitary fuck about Marvel Zombies by Robert Kirkman and Sean Phillips is that I have never seen anybody, aside from myself, right now, acknowledge how Kirkman just sort of casually included a decades-long mutual-pining functionally-asexual rebound-romance between the still-living severed head of reformed mass-murdering undead cannibal Janet Van Dyne (she's better now, she's very sorry about all that) and the octogenarian demure introverted mad scientist who's spent 40 years doing iterative upkeep and improvements on her neck-down full-body prosthesis. So much going on with that. Utterly batshit thing to just drop in there as a romantic b-plot. Relationship dynamic focus-tested at in a clandestine laboratory to give half of this website's core user base covid if, and this is crucial, if it were to appear in a single solitary work of fiction that was not Marvel fuckin' Zombies

[angelsdean]

I need people to understand how S&P (standards and practices) works in television and how much influence they have over what gets to stay IN an episode of a show and how the big time network execs are the ones holding the purse strings and making final decisions on a show's content, not the writers / showrunners / creatives involved.

So many creators have shared S&P notes over the years of the wild and nonsensical things networks wanted them to omit / change / forbid. Most famously on tumblr, I've seen it so many times, is the notes from Gravity Falls. But here's a post compiling a bunch of particularly bad ones from various networks too. Do you see the things they're asking to be changed / cut ?

Now imagine, anything you want to get into your show and actually air has to get through S&P and the network execs. A lot of creators have had to resort to underhanded methods. A lot of creators have had to relegate things to subtext and innuendo and scenes that are "open to interpretation" instead of explicit in meaning. Things have had to be coded and symbolized. And they're relying on their audience to be good readers, good at media literacy, to notice and get it. This stuff isn't the ramblings of conspiracy theorists, it's the true practices creatives have had to use to be able to tell diverse stories for ages. The Hays Code is pretty well known, it exists because of censorship. It was a way to symbolize certain things and get past censors.

Queercoding, in particular, has been used for ages in both visual media and literature do signal to queer audiences that yes, this character is one of us, but no, we can't be explicit about it because TPTB won't allow it. It's a wink-wink, nudge-nudge to those in the know. It's the deliberate use of certain queer imagery / clothing / mannerisms / phrases / references to other queer media / subtle glances and lingering touches. Things that offer plausible deniability and can be explained away or go unnoticed by straight audiences to get past those network censors. But that queer viewers WILL (hopefully) pick up on.

Because, unfortunately, still to this day, a lot of antiquated network execs don't think queer narratives are profitable. They don't think they'll appeal to general audiences, because that's what matters, whatever appeals to most of the audience demographic so they can keep watching and keep making the network more money. The networks don't care about telling good stories! Most of them are old white cishet business men, not creatives. They don't care about character arcs and what will make fans happy. They don't care about storytelling. What they care about is profit and they're basing their ideas of what's profitable on what they believe is the predominate target demographic, usually white cis heterosexual audiences.

So, imagine a show that started airing in the early 2000s. Imagine a show where the two main characters are based on two characters from a famous Beat Generation novel, where one of the characters is queer! based on a real like bisexual man! The creator is aware of this, most definitely. And sure, it's 2005, there's no way they were thinking of making that explicit about Dean in the text because it just wouldn't fly back then to have a main character be queer. But! it's made subtext. And there are nods to that queerness placed in the text. Things that are open to interpretation. Things that are drenched in metaphor (looking at you 1x06 Skin "I know I'm a freak" "maybe this thing was born human but was different...hated. Until he learned to become someone else.") Things that are blink-and-you-miss-it and left to plausible deniability (things like seemingly spending an hour in the men's bathroom, or always reacting a little vulnerable and awkward when you're clocked instead of laughing it off and making a homophobic joke abt it)

And then, years later there's a ship! It's popular and at first the writers aren't really seriously thinking about it but they'll throw the fans a bone here and there. Then, some writers do get on the destiel train and start actively writing scenes for them that are suggestive. And only a fraction of what they write actually makes it into the text. So many lines left on the cutting room floor: i love past you. i forgive you i love you. i lost cas and it damn near broke me. spread cas's ashes alone. of course i wanted you to stay. if cas were here. -- etc. Everything cut was not cut by the writers! Why would a writer write something to then sabotage their own story and cut it? No, these are things that didn't make it past the network. Somewhere a note was made maybe "too gay" or "don't feed the shippers" or simply "no destiel."

So, "no destiel." That's pretty clearly the message we got from the CW for years. "No destiel. Destiel will alienate our general audience. Two of our main characters being queer? And in a relationship? No way." So what can the pro-destiel creatives involved do, if the network is saying no? What can the writers do if most of their explicit destiel (or queer dean) lines / moments are getting cut? Relegate things to subtext. Make jokes that straight people can wave off but queer people can read into. Make costuming and set design choices that the hardcore fans who are already looking will notice while the general audience and the out-of-touch network execs won't blink and eye at (I'm looking at you Jerry and your lamps and disappearing second nightstands and your gay flamingo bar!)

And then, when the audience asks, "is destiel real? is this proof of destiel?" what can the creatives do but deny? Yes, it hurts, to be told "No no I don't know what you're talking about. There's no destiel in supernatural" a la "there is no war in Ba Sing Se" but! if the network said "no destiel!" and you and your creative team have been working to keep putting destiel in the subtext of the narrative in a way that will get past censors, you can't just go "Yes, actually, all that subtext and symbolism you're picking up, yea it's because destiel is actually in the narrative."

But, there's a BIG difference between actively putting queer themes and subtext into the narrative and then saying it's not there (but it is! and the audience sees it!) versus NOT putting any queer content into the text but SAYING it is there to entice queer fans to continue watching. The latter, is textbook queerbaiting. The former? Is not. The former is the tactics so many creatives have had to use for years, decades, centuries, to get past censorship and signal to those in the know that yea, characters like you are here, they exist in this story.

Were the spn writers perfect? No, absolutely not. And I don't think every instance of queer content was a secret signal. Some stuff, depending on the writer, might've been a period-typical gay joke. These writers are flawed. But it's no secret that there were pro-destiel writers in the writing room throughout the years, and that efforts were made to make it explicitly canon (the market research!)

So no, the writers weren't ever perfect or a homogeneous entity. But they definitely were fighting an uphill battle constantly for 15 yrs against S&P and network execs with antiquated ideas of what's profitable / appealing.

Spn even called out the networks before, on the show, using a silly example of complaints abt the lighting of the show and how dark the early seasons were. Brightening the later seasons wasn't a creative choice, but a network choice. And if the networks can complain abt and change something as trivial as the lighting of a show, they definitely are having a hand in influencing the content of the show, especially queer content.

Even in s15, (seasons fifteen!!!) Misha has said he worried Castiel's confession would not air. In 2020!!! And Jensen recorded that scene on his personal phone! Why? Sure, for the memories. But also, I do not doubt for a second that part of it was for insurance, should the scene mysteriously disappear completely. We've seen the finale script. We've seen the omitted omitted omitted scenes. We all saw how they hacked the confession scene to bits. The weird cuts and close-ups. That's not the writers doing. That's likely not even the editors (willingly). That's orders from on high. All of the fuckery we saw in s15 reeks of network interference. Writers are not trying to sabotage their own stories, believe me.

Anyways, TLDR: Networks have a lot more power than many think and they get final say in what makes it to air. And for years creative teams have had to find ways to get past network censorship if they want "banned" or "unapproved" "unprofitable" "unwanted" content to make it into the show. That means relying on techniques like symbolism, subtext, and queercoding, and then shutting up about it. Denying its there, saying it's all "open to interpretation" all while they continue to put that open to interpretation content into the show. And that's not queerbaiting, as frustrating as it might be for queer audiences to be told that what they're seeing isn't there, it's still not queerbaiting. Queerbaiting is a marketing technique to draw in queer fans by baiting them with the promise of queer content and then having no queer content in said media. But if you are picking up on queer themes / subtext / symbolism / coding that is in front of your face IN the text, that's not queerbaiting. It's there, covertly, for you, because someone higher up didn't want it to be there explicitly or at all.

[puppppppppy]

i feel like im not making any sense but does anyone else feel like there are stories that let u run with them and ones that spell everything out for you

[emily-mooon]

Nancy Wheeler the shoujo manga protagonist you are what with your love triangle and everything about you my pookie <3

[wardensantoineandevka]

I'm not saying that Veilguard was perfectly written and could not have been written better—because there's so many places it could've been written better or more carefully or more elegantly—but some of the rewrites some of you are proposing are truly dumb as shit and often blatantly misunderstanding what the actual text is portraying or ignoring basic tenets of storytelling

[seagull-scribbles]

I want you to tell ‘em that you love the way that they don’t stick out like sore middle fingers

[Continuation of this]

[mikesbasementbeets]

"if they don’t tell me explicitly that mike was never attracted to el then that means he was"

[removes hands while kissing]

[unresponsive to kiss & "i love you," eyes wide open]

[the sunglasses stay on during kiss, also get off me you're crushing the flowers i carefully placed right in between us]

[no fear]

[one fear]

"idk if they don’t make it clear to me that he doesn’t love el romantically then that means he does"

"they haven't given any indication yet that he doesn't like girls..."

"yeah, mike has definitely shown attraction to girls"

[image not found]

...

[encefaloworm]

I'm rewatching Gravity Falls with my younger brother and he keeps refering to Bill as "La Toxica" which is a 110% true, he really is la toxica

[roxysillymode]

I'm counting Noah as bi representation because ROTB kept hinting at romance between him and Elena but I don't think the movie realizes the levels of fruitiness going on between him and Mirage

[daylighteclipsed]

TTS Cass being insanely jealous of Gothel abandoning her for Rapunzel when Cass knows Gothel sucked (literally stole Rapunzel and kept her prisoner for almost 2 decades) and when Cass has a loving stepfather is still so fucking stupid. And it doesn’t even make sense in the context of Crossing the Line.