#they can be buried! but they CANNOT be used for queerbait because they. are. queer.

[castielsprostate]

breaking the sign in two by how hard im tapping it

[blakbonnet]

AUTHOR OF THE WEEK: @soupbtch

Ever read a fic and go "they're so 😭" - that's every single Danny fic to me, aka today's second aotw feature, and god, what an amazingly talented author they are.

I'm so glad you decided to write and grace us with your lovely and bonkers fics, because I cannot imagine the OFMD fic world without your incredible Every Part of You series. I cannot imagine logging into this website without another incredible post from you. Every single thing you write (and do) leaves me in stitches and then, more often than not, you straight up chair your friends with your ultra soft way of writing how much they love each other - in between the much needed elbow fucking. You are such an amazingly kind person - hilarious, supportive, and the best cheerleader 💕 Thank you for answering my questions:

What's your writing process like? Do you start with the beginning or the end? Do you write in order or as the scenes come to you?

I start with a pretty detailed outline because if I don’t go in with a plan, I’ll drop threads and/or write myself in circles. Then I have my outline open on half of my screen while I have a separate doc open on the other half where I’m actually writing. I write in order from beginning to end.

Favourite trope or headcanon you like to explore while writing? (Things like Ed's sweet tooth, Stede's ability to bury his feelings etc)

I have a lot of fun writing angst, so I think any facet of that I can explore is a good time. Weigh them down with insecurities and see how far I can bend them with external factors like plot points, each other, or other characters before they snap. So things like Stede believing he ruins everything he touches, Ed believing he doesn’t deserve fine things, and how they both stand in the way of their own happiness because of these feelings. I also love exploring like, the horrible communication skills Ed and Stede have with each other when it comes to their emotions, and setting up story beats where that intercommunication can break down. Because they’re idiots (affectionate).

Whose voice is easier to write - Ed or Stede? Why?

Ed for sure. I find him very easy to connect with, emotionally. All my favorite characters think they’re unlovable monsters and no, this says NOTHING about me personally, etc etc etc.

Your personal favourite thing you've written that you'd like more people to read

Red Skies at Night! It's modern au, but they're still on a boat! If you like slow burn, bitchy Stede, Ed with a tongue piercing, fun costumes, and a big dash of pining, I def recommend checking it out!! ❤️

What is the one word that you think you use a lot?

The one that comes to mind is ‘blink.’ Kind of a funny one, but to me, it’s such a juicy way to imply so much while saying so little, so I know I use it frequently. Stede asks, “Do you trust me?” and Ed blinks back at him as he tries to work out why that question hits him like a truck (because the answer is a very easy yes). Ed says, “You make me happy,” and Stede blinks back at him in awe (because Stede? Making someone happy? That can’t be true). You get it.

Do you have a beta reader? Have they made you a better writer?

Yes, Beedle (@sleepystede) and Connie (@spirker) have both beta read for me! They’ve helped me tremendously with flow and rewording awkward sentences, and I’ve improved a lot from their feedback. Connie has also been invaluable to bounce ideas off of for new fics and just generally pushing me to be more creative through her never-ending support and big beautiful brain.

Why OFMD 🥹

I loved season 1 when I first watched it, but as soon as I saw the season 2 trailer, something clicked in my brain. Where season 1 was slow burn, will-they-won’t-they, is this real or are they queerbaiting, season 2 was posing itself as very, very clearly queer. Stede is going to get his man. That’s it, that’s the show. Undisguised, unabashed, unapologetic gay yearning and gay romance. There are a million other things I can say, but I think it really all comes down to that. What a gift. No one does it like our show. 💖

Please head over to @ofmdlovelyletters (who also made the header) and send your love to all your favourite authors (and authors of the week 😈 watch that blog for some special letters coming your way)

[dinitride-art]

Why Byler Would Be a Failure of a Queerbait

Queerbaiting is used to draw in an audience and usually results in a strong fandom. It’s goal is to gather a larger audience, and the audience that would not want queer characters. What I’ve noticed about it, is that it usually is comprised to two straight characters who are good friends. They then sprinkle stuff into interviews outside the media from actors. Things like, maybe she likes her? I guess you’ll just have to find out in the next season! Or saying they could see it happening. Basically anything that would draw in people who want to see a queer pairing, but keeping a reasonable amount of doubt available to those who don’t want to see a queer pairing. Also fan service when the queer bait is being directed at an audience of mostly straight women shipping two male characters. It’s a marketing tactic.

Queer baiting does sometimes result in queer characters, but not the ones that they’re marketing. Or if it is the ones their marketing, they immediately die. The Queer baiting and bury your gays combo. See, supernatural. Having canon queer characters usually isn’t what is intended. They aren’t important to the plot, and can be easily disposed of once they’ve played their part. Their part being covering up any trace of queer bait with the argument that they actually have a queer character in their show. These characters, more often than not, are one dimensional side characters and aren’t there to stay. Main characters revealed as queer, can’t be more than one, and are only revealed at the last possible moment as not to lose the part of the audience not being queer baited.

Stranger Things has two characters that are canonically queer and are relevant to the plot. Robin on her own could be seen as potential queerbait, if byelr were at that time, popular enough to warrant baiting. The queer side character backtrack comes after pressure from a queer baited audience. Not before. Prior to season four, there were more people on tumblr who shipped Mike and El, than Mike and Will. On tumblr. In fact, there were so few byler shippers, that they were in a position where they could be targeted by Mike and El shippers with no consequences. In season three there would be no reason to even think about smoothing over anger from a baited fandom. There was no fandom to be baited. The audience being baited needs to actually be present for it to work.

With one queer character introduced there is no need for another. If Robin were a side character who died in season three then that might allow for another queer character to be introduced in season four. However, Robin is very much alive in season four. She’s not going anywhere and actually has a character arc discussing both her as a person, and her experience as a lesbian in the eighties in Hawkins. That’s pushing it for queer bait. It’s really pushing it.

Will Byers is in love with Mike Wheeler. That’s canon in season four. It’s been built up to since the beginning. If Stranger Things was baiting a queer audience, this would be a weird move. Considering that Byler shippers have never been worth noting before season four, and that Will’s the character that they built the foundation of the show off of, this is a terrible option for queerbaiting. Not because it wouldn’t draw a queer audience that wasn’t to see queer characters, but because it would push away the audience that doesn’t. That is a line that they cannot cross. Will Byers would be crossing that line, and then some. This character is not one that can be thrown away without consequence. He’s important and affects almost everything that happens. I have never seen a main character be queer, and have their story represented in a genuine manner. Never would it affect a central straight relationship. They wouldn’t dare lose a single member of a heteronormative audience.

Two queer characters that are this important are not queer bait. They are not a marketing tactic, they’re integral to the story. Their experiences are integral to the story. Robin Buckley was the first straightbait I have ever witnessed. She is a queer character who was a character first, and queer after the work was put in to make the audience see her as a person. This character is enough to say that Stranger Things represented a queer character well.

Will Byers says that Stranger Things is about queer people. He’s in love with another main character, and it’s affecting the plot. Will Byers being in love with Mike Wheeler is actively changing Mike and El’s relationship. It has been since the beginning.

You can’t queer bait an audience that isn’t there. You can’t bring in a queer character to cover your asses when no one’s accusing you of anything. This isn’t something I’ve ever seen before. Robin is introduced in preparation for Will. It’s the literally opposite of queer baiting. It’s creating a story with queer characters, about queer characters, and marketing it to a straight cisgender audience.

Queer baiting has never been done like this. Because this isn’t queer baiting. It doesn’t effectively function as queer baiting because there was no audience, and their largest audience is the one they’re testing. It is more of a problem to lose a straight audience than a queer one that barely exists.

Byler cannot be queer bait because that’s not how queer bait works. There are not two canon queer characters in a queer bait. Certainly not one of the characters the plot has been centred around since the beginning. And definitely not a character that they would lose members of their audience for writing him as gay.

Will Byers is in love with Mike Wheeler. Will’s relationship to Mike is still important to both of them even after the audience sees this. In fact, Will is affecting Mike’s decisions, and it’s stressed how much he cares for him. Mike and El’s relationship is in shambles and Will is the character they’ve chosen to get involved in that.

This doesn’t happen.

Will is in love with Mike, and he’s still someone who Mike cares about. There’s no distance put in their relationship. They actually spent an entire arc repairing and strengthening it.

Will Byers is in love with Mike Wheeler.

And he’s still alive. He’s still important. He’s still important to Mike.

I literally don’t know what to do with Mike and Will. Because it’s not queer bait. It doesn’t function as queer bait because queer bait is not an aspect of the story. It’s always marketing to an audience. Never an experience or a conversation or anything that’s significance goes further than saying there’s a queer character for the sake of having a queer character.

And it’s never a main character.

When your main character is queer, your story is queer.

They cannot use queer bait as a marketing tactic because they’ve already committed to writing a queer story. Their main audience is not queer. There’s no reason to queer bait a straight audience that doesn’t want queer characters in the first place. It doesn’t work like that. Queer baiting has never worked like this.

This isn’t queer bait. It never has been.

They’re going for it. They are actually going for it. And I can’t wait to see it.

[saint-starflicker]

I concur with this: Not every story in which a queer character dies is a Hays Code throwback tier Bury Your Gays story...and not every story in which the queer subtext doesn't become overt and consummated is queerbait.

My own long ramble tangent with no real resolution, under cut:

the book is fundamentally about the struggles of poc so the layer of queerness that was introduced felt like a subtle extension of the experiences of characters of colour in the book, and i enjoyed and related to it as a queer chinese person who kind of realised they had to prioritise their fight for the liberation of poc over queerness mainly because the idea of western queer liberation cannot be dissociated from imperialism and many aspects of homophobia as we know it was an export of christian european empire into our colonised countries in the first place

To this part, I don't know your life so I don't know the specific situation that got you thinking you had to choose between one or the other part of who you are and how to leverage what you can do about it overall, so please believe I am not saying that did not happen because I do not know what happened—But from my own recent experiences, I am troubled by the idea I sense floating around a lot of other places that...because there is white imperialist rainbow-capitalist queerness (homonationalism, tenderqueer fragility) that queerness is white, imperialist, and capitalist��instead of an intersection of identity that would inform a perspective.

I am not saying that you are saying that, but I'm getting flashbacks to Moana and Encanto queerness discourse.

So I think a common point of contention in all these cases could have to do with cultural capital, which means a lot of things but applicably here that cultural markers can become a tenderable social currency...it's a game piece in cultural capital...which I loathe with every intersection of my being, and I think it's a trap to play that game, but I understand we live here.

About that Encanto discourse, that I think in a big part a resolution was proposed and described by sociologist Alexander Avila (and the power of academia):

TL;DW intersectionality being more than a buzzword

As this applies to Ramy and Robin—I'm a Regency-era historybounder, too, and England in what medievalist-outside-his-lane (affectionate) Ian Mortimer calls the Regency era was not a culture very accepting of queer men. (With queer cis women of color in this era, so far I only know the one, Eliza Raine who was Anglo-Indian as in South Asian Indian and the first girlfriend of incriminatingly thorough diary-keeper Anne Lister.) (Like many 19th-century women living outside the impossible social restrictions, Eliza died in a Victorian-era insane asylum.) (I don't know that many or any queer men of color in 19th century England in our timeline would even make it to the gallows and into historical documentation.)

Not everyone has to be historically accurate about it, because even the source material had peasant seafood at the ball buffet, and I started out in historybounding because of the dresses so I am not a historian. It's only that the time the Babel cohort lived in is another factor I find interesting to explore the influence of the culture they lived in. (The way Letty basically went "but racism is over" because they lived to witness official abolition of slavery in Britain, "as though America didn't exist"—very 19th century, but also very contemporary to us in the 21st century.)

With regards to the intersection of race and queerness, between these specific characters in this specific story, it played out and was framed in this specific way.

That doesn't mean they must be representative of all possibilities or desires of what we want to see, (by we I mean all and any of us readers)—that's impossible—and besides I get the feeling that Kuang had a lot more of this story in mind but that a lot had to be cut if this book was going to be published at all, in a way that people would actually finish reading. What exactly happened in Burma between Griffin's cohort will remain a mystery for now...Victoire's life and activism after the Oxford Translators' Revolution...and so will the subplot of Ramy and Robin figuring out how to be together in 19th century England that wants to use then but doesn't really accept or like or barely tolerates anything about them. Which is fine, then, Ramy and Robin getting together or talking about it are not a subplot in the canon of their story. That's what fanfiction is for. It's fine. We're fine. This is fine.

this is gonna be SO long and rambly sorry anyway i saw a post abt how babel does queer characters and it got me thinking abt why the tropes it uses would usually turn me off other stories but didn’t here

MAJOR BABEL SPOILERS //

i feel like i’d be more mad abt how robinramy ended up in babel if it marketed itself as queer lit at all or if its fans were going “WOW AMAZING QUEER REP” abt it. but no one told me any of that, so finding out they were gay was just a fun little bonus surprise to me. i get why ppl are eh abt robinramy not getting together/technically still being subtext (which i dont think is really true btw like the book literally says “robin was falling in love” but idk i guess if you were stupid you might’ve assumed that it was falling in love with oxford given how romantic some of the other language is (WHICH IS ALSO THE POINT bc i think robin’s friendship with ramy blurring into romance is why he romanticised like all his friendships/experiences in oxford BUT IM GETTING OFF-TOPIC)). i just think robin’s repression abt being gay was intrinsically tied to his attitudes on imperialism (wrt refusing to acknowledge anything that complicated his life until it was too late) and i don’t consider it a cop out or queerbait. like i genuinely don’t think robinramy could ever have gotten together without drastic alterations being made in terms of plot and character. plus i think it’s clear that kuang didn’t want to write a story with any kind of focus on romance at all, because it’s not that kind of book. there’s no successful het romance either, so it grates a lot less. the only reason romance is included at all is to show the ways in which white entitlement manifests. so the tragic way robinramy played out just made sense to me.

and i speak as someone who accidentally spoiled myself on You Know What in the middle of reading and i was like ugghh boooo dreading it the whole time expecting to roll my eyes when it happened but then when it did i was like. wow im actually not that mad LMFAO 😭😭😭 actually thematically the book sets it up so well that i believed that this was unfortunately the only way it could’ve gone. babel is about the loss and tragedy and grief that colonised people experience. it’s about the lengths people will go to to uphold empire and the lengths ppl will go to to tear it down like idk 😭 i guess it is bury your gays but it didnt bother me this time because i thought it fit thematically ❤️ i enjoy tragedy as a genre a lot and i would’ve made it gay anyway you know. thanks rf kuang for doing it for me so i didnt have to.

WHICH IS ALL TO SAY that i guess if you’re going into babel for the queer rep without appreciating that the story is fundamentally a tragedy it would feel like it’s just reusing tired tropes….. but i think the choices kuang made were rly deliberate and not in a way that feels like trauma porn or shock value. the book is fundamentally about the struggles of poc so the layer of queerness that was introduced felt like a subtle extension of the experiences of characters of colour in the book, and i enjoyed and related to it as a queer chinese person who kind of realised they had to prioritise their fight for the liberation of poc over queerness mainly because the idea of western queer liberation cannot be dissociated from imperialism and many aspects of homophobia as we know it was an export of christian european empire into our colonised countries in the first place and FUCK THIS IS A WHOLE OTHER TANGENT ABOUT HOW I THINK RAMY AS A CHARACTER IS EMBLEMATIC OF THE TENSION AND STRUGGLE THAT QUEER POC DIASPORA HAVE BETWEEN OUR IDENTITIES GODDAMNIT OK FORGET IT POST CANCELLED i just rly think babel’s handling of queer characters is fine and makes sense and i like it personally and maybe i will make a coherent analysis about it one day but that day is not today byeeeeeee

[hunxi-after-hours]

Hunxi how do BL dramas even get made? I don't believe that censors are just being tricked into letting things go. All they would have to do is type the name of the novel being used into google and it would immediately come back as "a BL novel." Why aren't the stores banned wholesale? Unsurprisingly US sources have nothing useful to say about it when I've tried to find answers.

so there's a distinction between a "BL drama" and a "drama based on a BL novel," one that we tend to collapse in English but is much more distinct in Chinese. BL novels are called 耽美 danmei, and adaptations of BL novels (e.g. 《镇魂》 Zhen Hun / Guardian，《陈情令》 Chen Qing Ling / The Untamed， 《山河令》 Shan He Ling / Word of Honor) are what would more accurately be called 耽改 dangai -- "adapted from" or "changed from danmei."

the problem isn't that the source novel is danmei; the censorship board has zero problems with the original source being gay as hell (well, not zero). what the censorship board has problems with is if the adaptation is explicitly queer.

generally speaking, the audience for a TV show is going to be many, many times that of the audience for a webnovel, so if you're a homophobic authoritarian regime, you're going to crack down on the adaptations that are getting billions of views first before making your way back to the source. Over the past few years, increasingly severe restrictions have been placed on what webnovels can explicitly write about, to the point where MDZS and SVSSS have been locked on JJWXC (i.e. you can't even buy them anymore, they're functionally banned). If you ever see someone making a comment about "nothing below the neck," that is a reference to some of the restrictions put in place by censorship (i.e. authors cannot write about any sexy things below the neck)

I think Anglophone fandom has a tendency to make light of censorship in China, which is... well, I don't think people really understand how sophisticated and all-encompassing it is. The censorship board aren't composed solely of dumb machines that need to be tricked with a quick 'no homo'--there are many more factors at play, from the Chinese history and culture of homosociality (Anglophone viewers thought CQL was undeniably queer; a great deal of Chinese viewers were completely sold on the bromance. and because CQL is dangai, not danmei, you can't say that those viewers are wrong--that is absolutely a legitimate interpretation of CQL), to state-sanctioned queerbaiting (I feel like someone out there must be writing a dissertation about about 炒CP as a marketing tool).

it's not as simple as "this is danmei, and therefore must be banned." there is gray area and room for negotiation; there is an insidious amount of nuance and intelligence involved in the particular kind of homophobic censorship enacted by the authoritarian regime (e.g. if you keep your gays, you have to bury them by the end of the show). there is an unquestionable and undeniable amount of money being exchanged in the process, both under and over the table

tl;dr Chinese censorship is not a joke, even if Anglophone fandom tries to make it out to be

[girl4music]

So in my search for characters from TV shows that I believe provide the most significant characterization, representation, development and evolution, I've found the character Willow Rosenberg, and of course there's always been Gabrielle from Xena. But I need more characters that undergo incredibly strong and substantial character development throughout the entire life-span of the TV show and I'm asking for recommendations because you guys know your television shit on Tumblr and I don't watch much TV.

Here are the requirements:

1. (most important) This character has to go through a huge transformation mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually to the capacity where I will disagree with them or feel dissonant towards them and I would feel the need to insert myself in the TV show to call them out or slap them across the face at some points. I want them to SHAKE me. If I don't feel that towards them, they're not worth my time or attention. And believe me, I have a high threshold for this because I like to LEARN.

2. I would prefer cisgender female since that's what I am and I want to be able to relate to and resonate as much as possible but it's not that big of a deal so can be of any gender identity or sexuality or fluctuating.

3. The TV show must be a DRAMA or a dramedy (drama-comedy). Reason for this being I often find pure comedies to have shite writing and the characters can come across annoying or even insulting because of this. So TV shows like 'Glee' is no go for me. Not that that has shite writing. It's just I've already seen it and I wasn't particularly interested in any of the characters from it. Can be any other genre along with DRAMA too. (action, fantasy, sci-fi, horror, thriller, romance, ect.) Suprise me so long as it's not a pure comedy.

4. In order to have significant character characterization, representation, development and evolution for ALL the side and recurring characters and not just the main (I. E. the protagonist/hero of the TV show), the TV show must last longer than 2 seasons. And I don't want no cancelled and left on a cliffhanger bullshit. Full shows with a conclusion.

5. Give me somebody to root for. Meaning can be an antagonist/villain who has a redemption arc of some kind and joins up with the protagonist/hero at some points to help them out or even is the flawed protagonist/hero of the TV show themselves that needs to do some growing. Think of characters like Xena, Spike, Zuko, Ares, Callisto, Korra.

Or an underdog for whatever reason that doesn't recieve the attention or credit they deserve and gains leading ground with more and more screen-time given to them to flesh out their arc with this. Think of characters like Gabrielle, Willow, Katara, Toph.

6. Can be any TV show from any point in time. 80's, 90's, 2000's or recent. Whatever. But preferably something that isn't dated before the 80's so the picture quality is somewhat watchable on a 55 inch screen TV.

7. Can be either live action or animation or a mix of both (I. E Lizzie McGuire) but not a show that's for toddlers. So that leaves teenagers/adolescents/coming-of-age or just all out adult. I have no issue with sex/violence/gore/addiction themes. In fact I'd prefer it for the sake of the character dealing with heavy shit that causes them to go on a roller-coaster ride of emotions often. Remember the point is for me to relate to or resonate with it. I am 28 years old. So unless it's family-oriented like Lizzie McGuire, I don't want Disney/Nickelodeon/Cartoon Network TV shows. And I've seen most of them anyway.

8. If it includes Black/POC or LGBTQ+ representation (which I would prefer it to do so), I must absolutely attest that there be NO QUEERBAITING, NO RACISM, NO HOMO/BI/TRANS/QUEER/XENOPHOBIA within the writing. While I realize that the latter is a good confliction and compelling storyline, understand that I am absolutely fed up of tropes like Bury Your Gays, Man-Inserted, It-Was-All-A Dream/Mental Illness or anything where it makes you percieve any of the characters as complete fucking dicks surrounding this. They can still be complete fucking dicks in other ways.

9. Depending on how dated it is, I want decent graphics, special FX and clever use of environment/props. Anything of a CGI or anime style cannot be lazy because it takes the human realism away from it. I like characters to look HUMANOID. No animal-hybrid shite.

10. Does NOT have to be English or of an American/Western production. Can be of any language or culture whatsoever. I am trying to get more into watching something beyond my own backgarden as far as languages/communications go. Obviously, it needs to have English subtitles or text of some kind though because there'd be no point to me watching it if I can't even understand it. I only speak/read English.

That's my lot for requirements and the dos and donts. You have free reign with everything else. Somebody please answer this post. 🙏

[thewatsonbeekeepers]

Thoughts re LotSD and Thasmin forming more lucidly now:

The thing that's annoying me is that this episode marked the four year anniversary of the introduction of Yaz. And this is the first actual wlw conversation we've had between her and the Doctor. Now I'm all in favour of a slow burn, and god knows Mandip in particular has been playing that slow burn phenomenally hard. But here's the thing. A queer slow burn is a lot harder to write than a straight slow burn. RTD talked about how Tenrose was so much easier to write than his usual queer romances because put a man and a woman onscreen and you're telling a love story. Two women and your straight audiences will not see it - and a lot of your queer audience will hope, and ship, but will not dare to believe. So from that point of view, the slow burn may be visible from rewatch, but most people don't consume media that way. So instead, for the majority of audiences, the queerness is something confined to the last three eps.

Now this becomes a problem for me because it's not like a series-long romantic arc where you are trapped into fruition at the end. Yaz and 13 were around for more than 3 and a half years before a word of this was breathed, at a point at whuch we knew this could only end in 13's death. There was no promise of happiness, not even a little. And no, not all stories have to be happy, and not all queer stories have to be palatable. But I've been around the block and seen this particular pattern too many times - queerness brought in in the final moments for a bury your gays, so the writers never have to contend with a queer relationship, and get the good old trope of gay tragedy, a love that cannot be. And actually, Doctor Who is often the first queer media kids see. I'd like them to see the love that CAN be

There are things I love about the way Thasmin has been written, and I am pleasantly surprised by lots of the dialogue, which is much less heavy handed than previous queer stuff from both Moffat and Chibnall. But the thing that annoys me is that Chibs has had so much time to tell a new kind of story, and this feels like a tired old trope to me. People were up in arms over Killing Eve, and rightly so - this feels a bit like more of the same, and LotSD seemed to confirm the whole doomed love angle.

When I used the term "queerbaiting" on another post and got all sorts of bizarre shtick for it, I was using it to refer to the nonstop queer marketing BBC social media has been doing to draw the queers in. And sure, we have canon queers, so queerbaiting isn't the perfect word, but pulling queer people in with the promise of a will they won't they when the moment you watch you immediately see it's queers doomed to another never can be relationship is disheartening, and feels a little bit exploitative given the BBC's history of pulling in a queer audience for a bury your gays.

There was a point in s11 where the average lifespan of a Chibs character after coming out was about 40 seconds. Can't help but see the same pattern of unsustainable visual queerness here. It's 2022 and I would like some living sapphics for longer than an episode.

[actual-changeling]

VERY very good post OP. Amazing explanation.

I hope it's alright to add my own thoughts.

The thing is that for some reason, many people online went into this show expecting a queer rom-com and are now disappointed that they did not get it. That is, for lack of better words, your fault for making that assumption and deciding that the show is going to stick to YOUR wishes. And I mean that in a completely sympathetic way because I yearn for queer happy endings too.

However, I also want the gritty, angsty, dramatic shows and movies where queer people make horrible choices and are faced with the consequences because they are PEOPLE. Not because they're queer. That's the fundamental difference here.

I genuinely cannot wrap my head around thinking that Agatha would have been happy with her powers and gone on to live a nice life. She's been stuck in a nightmare partly of her own making for centuries, she's traumatized so deeply she's not going to be able to go back to any nebulous previous version of herself. Killing people, stealing their powers, being a "villain" is a role she played because it is the only thing people accepted her as.

We're told in the very first episode that she will die when she tries to take Rio's powers, we basically got the entire last fight in episode 1, right down to her being horizontal in a grave. How much more obvious do they have to be?

Agatha's fundamental fear the road forced her to confront (which was exactly as real as Billy thought it was) is being alone. So she's adapted a specific mentality to make sure she doesn't have to face it. Kill them before they can kill you. Make sure they don't like you, don't treat you kindly, so you do not get attached and they cannot betray you.

Her mother, her coven, her family betrayed her and tried to execute her. The person she fell in love with betrayed her and took her son, and while she knows that it's not Rio's "fault", the pain remains the same. The witches she tried to kill bonded just to be ready to kill her the second a ghost suggests it.

Agatha dying was the only way to break the cycle and give her the chance to be someone else. Usually, I'll be the first to rage against death being presented as a happy ending for a mentally ill person, but that's not what's happening here. And we have to remember that the flow of time is an illusion—death is not a final ending, it's the beginning of something new. A dandelion dies and it's seeds are carried by the wind and grow new life.

Kissing not Rio but Death was Agatha beginning to forgive her for Nicky. She looked her in the face as she died, Death shed tears over her grave, and yet they're closer together than ever, especially if you go with the assumption that Agatha did, in fact, absorb some of Rio's powers.

I totally understand being disappointed or otherwise having complicated feelings towards the ending, but it's important to remember that the show has been totally honest with us from the very beginning. This wasn't queerbait or bury your gays, it was a genuinely queer story with only queer main characters that dealt with a lot of important topics. It's fucking amazing it exists the way it does considering that Disney probably pushed back on every single decision Jac tried to make.

So I've just watched the finale and I'm feeling... Weird. I think part of it is because this show started with everything I like in a story (cool badass ladies, a queer romance, found family, redemption, etc etc) and ended up being... Not all that (most characters die, the romance is doomed, and I guess the redemption mostly happened but wasn't entirely satisfactory to me). Also, I'm someone who as Trauma (tm) with death so, I guess my brain's first reaction is "fuck that I just want them all happy and safe" and it takes me a while to accept when stories take these paths, however well written they might be.

Still, I thought it all went a bit fast in the last 2 eps, with parts of the show ringing just a little bit more hollow than I would have expected? I'm left feeling like the characters of Alice, Mrs Hart and Jen were treated a bit superficially (Lillia's story felt more complete). I also wished we had seen more of Agatha's past because spending centuries just conning witches then killing them is... a bit boring? (maybe we learn more about her in WandaVision, I haven't seen it). And obviously I wished we had seen more of Agatha and Rio. It's like the show couldn't decide if it was about Agatha or about Billy (partly because, I'm guessing it's setting up a 3rd show about him?), and with this short format we ended losing a bit on Agatha's part.

Anyway, curious of what you think of all that because your analysis are always super interesting, and like I said my own brain might be a bit biased towards resistance with this one. And obviously would love to read your fanfic(s) should you write any!

So, I've started and restarted a reply to this a few times, but I think what my answer boils down to is: we're meant to have multilayered responses to this finale. We're meant to sit with it. It's meant to change our experience of the show we've had to this point.

I think the best metaphor for this is the fact the revelation that Rio is Death. Bear with me, because I know this got spoiled for us way early on and we all knew it and were all just waiting for the revelation to drop - but imagine for a second that we didn't know that Rio, Agatha's ex-girlfriend and spooky fun vaguely-a-psychopath as played by the delightful Aubrey Plaza, is death. Your perception of Rio would have been turned on its head. Your perception of Agatha would have been turned on its head. Your perception of the Witches' Road and what we're even doing here with Death walking alongside us as a tourist would have been turned on its head.

Now, we all had an incredibly fun time even with the knowledge that Rio is death before we should have had it. But I think some of the power for what it meant for the story - and our perception of what was really happening - was muted.

Jen, at the beginning of 1.08, says, "She told us who she was from the very beginning."

Sit with that - because the same is true of this story.

---

It turns out that the Road is a metaphor for death. This isn't fully illustrated for us until Nicky, the author of the Ballad, walks down the road with Death's hand in his, and we go, oh. Oh.

Agatha tells us in the beginning that the Road doesn't exist, a rare instance of her giving anyone unbridled truth. And sure - the Road that our coven walked down doesn't exist. The Road that all the witches Agatha lured to the deaths believed in doesn't exist. It's a fiction. But it's significant that Agatha lured them all to the Road and killed them. They wanted to walk the Road. They died. Not "they died instead" - it's a two-fold statement. They wanted to walk the Road and they died. In a gruesome way, Agatha's been taking witches on the Witches' Road since the 1750s.

I don't think the significance of that is lost on Agatha, either, especially where we pick up at the beginning of 1.08. Lilia's dead, and everybody's reeling.

Perhaps Agatha more than anybody.

---

I also want to quickly take a look at Rio's accusation of Agatha regarding Billy.

"The bodies are really piling up." "Did you doubt me?" "Yeah, I did. I thought there'd be a trick in there somewhere. And there was! You were distracting me from him."

Because this is a revelation about Agatha's actions toward not just Rio, but any audience watching her - i.e., us the viewers. She's been distracting us! Not from who Billy is, we know that of course, but with regard to what the Road itself is. Agatha's known the Road isn't real the entire time. She's been protecting Billy from that knowledge. She's been protecting Billy from Rio. She's been protecting the coven itself from disintegrating. And, the biggest con woman move of them all, she's been distracting us - with less and less success as the show goes on - from the fact that she is not even the slightest bit in control.

---

So I definitely want to circle back to what you said about how the show started out with everything you like in a story, because oof, yeah, I felt that. I felt that hard in the finale. Coming off the impact of the incredible storytelling in 1.07, and the queer jokes and campy Wicked cosplay balancing out the sad, I think many of us spent the next week expecting some kind of emotional resolution that probably involved the remaining coven banding together in some more of that found family we've felt them becoming along the way.

Here's where things starts going wrong, right off the bat: they don't. Instead, they splinter. Not only are you aware of just how few of them are left (Jen, Billy, Agatha), but Jen and Agatha can't handle Lilia's death. Jen's distraught. The close up on Agatha running away out of the trial and back onto the Road, alone, shows her looking hunted and wild in her guilt. Everything that follows has its seeds in that moment of rending that began with Lilia's death.

From the beginning, the point has been that Agatha Harkness is a covenless witch. It's something we've seen her revel in - maybe simply because she has no choice but to own it. But the fact is that here, for the first time in centuries, she had a coven. She didn't intend to have one - she intended to kill them all in her basement and not think twice about them again. But events transpired the way they did. They became her coven. And one by one, they all died on the Road.

Rio, of course, has the words to cut right to the quick: "Your coven is shrinking," she teases Agatha cruelly. Agatha looks wild - because she's right. The worst thing is that she killed Alice - and she didn't mean to. She didn't want to. But she did, and in exactly the same way she'd intended to kill her at the beginning, the same way she's been killing witches for hundreds of years. "Your coven is shrinking," and it's Agatha's fault. It's Agatha's coven. It's Agatha's coven.

Hold on to that, too.

---

One of the things that I've been mulling over most is Agatha's character. She's so much fun in the beginning. We're all fucking charmed by her. We also don't have the full context of just how much of a serial killer she is.

So for me, at least, watching 1.08 and not only not getting found family, but getting an Agatha so far away from a "redemption" story that she only just barely is willing to not sacrifice Billy for herself, was kind of a rude awakening. Agatha's a lot more of a villain that I was prepared for. Surprise!

Agatha's so far away from "redemption", in fact, that she's only just barely starting to feel empathy for other witches. She's just starting to be affected by people who aren't #1. And that's a trauma response. And it's so, so, so deeply rooted in her that she's only just starting to be able to conceive of the idea of people who care for her. Of the possibility of being able to live in community. She's not ready for a redemption arc. There was no way that the kind of redemption arc she'd need could fit into nine episodes, because so much of it would for her be predicated on a mental shift that Agatha just hasn't arrived at yet. She's still so angry. She's still so traumatized. She's done almost none of the work. And even at the end, even with the final gesture of sacrificing herself for Billy, that's not a final act of redemption, oh Agatha's now a good person/forgiven/insert word frame of choice.

What this show did in terms of redemption for Agatha was set her up to be in a place where she might want it - where she might want to do and be better for Billy, and someday, for Nicky.

And it's significant that that point comes for Agatha in dying… and after death.

---

This show is about death. The Road is about death. Death is a character on the show.

Like, okay, you're saying. Fine. But what about my gay fun times? What about my queer romance, my found family?

And please know that I'm there with you.

I'm not hugely in touch with what the larger fandom is saying and how they're reacting because I have my little echo chamber here on tumblr and a few friends who have actual social media, but even here I get the sense that we're all kind of :/ for fairly similar reasons. What happened to the show I fell in love with?

And for me, the last few days, I think it's been important to realize that the fact that the show I fell in love with didn't suddenly become a different show. It didn't pull a bait and switch. No twists were in bad faith. Everything has been right here in the text of the show from the very beginning.

And I think it's important to see the story that Jac Schaeffer et al. were actually telling vs. our expectations of what they were telling, or worse, what we wanted them to tell. For just one example, I was convinced we were going to see Alice again - maybe Lorna Wu, too. I wasn't expecting it to be for the sole purpose of recognizing that not only is she dead, but to give Alice herself the space to say that it wasn't fair, that she wasn't ready, that she'd just broken her family's curse, that now she can really do something with her life! Because, ugh, yeah! It's not fair, for all those reasons! But that's also death. Likewise, Sharon's just dead, and worse, her death was pretty much meaningless. Lilia rediscovered herself again, and she chose her death to save everyone else - extremely meaningful. But at the end - she's just dead. We don't see her again. She's gone. She, like the others, walked the Road and away with Death.

I loved these covenless witches. I loved them finding themselves together. I loved them bonding around the campfire and discovering community. I miss them all, so so much. But they told us from the beginning how haunted by death all of them were: Alice and her mom, Lilia and her coven in Sicily, Billy and William Kaplan, Agatha and her son and her ex-lover. And of course, Death herself. Forget haunting these individuals - she came to actually join the temporary coven. Like, fuck. They told us what this show was about.

---

This show is about death, but it's more complicated than that: we'll take our cue from Rio again, who, in being Death, is also the original Green Witch. In short, this show is about Green Craft, "growth and decay in constant flow."

So yes - almost every single witch in the coven dies. Yes, it's permanent. No, the queer romance isn't resolved happily. No, Agatha doesn't have a redemption, satisfying or otherwise. And no, none of it follows what we've come to expect from found family story trajectories.

But the focus shouldn't be solely on the decay. There's a whole cycle of growth coming up after it, even now, and it's being made possible by the death and decay that we just witnessed. And most importantly, it's confirmed that this isn't the end of the story - just the end of "Agatha All Along."

---

I'll finish by actually answering your question - I've been sitting with the finale for a few days, because I also felt weird about it. And I think that's the right word: "Weird." Very spooky season-esque, first of all, but also not tipping all the way right into "bad".

The first thing to acknowledge is that no story is perfect - they were limited by nine episodes by what they had the space to show, and finales are really hard to get just right. The second is that you're allowed to not like any or all of it, especially when something happens that asks you to change your entire understanding of the story thus far, i.e. the Road isn't real, or when you have a particular trauma around death and it turns out that that's what the whole show is about in ways we hadn't fully realized. The third is that it's worth sitting with stories sometimes and seeing how they marinate and develop in your brain and your soul over time. All of these things can and should coexist.

This isn't my first go-round with a series finale that initially made me ???, so I was fortunate in that I felt like I had a cheat sheet. I've still got some marinating to do to see how this continues to change for me. But it's helped me to realize that my ??? reaction is what the story wanted me to have - that the characters are reeling right along with me. Not just Alice in shock about her death, but also Billy at the implications of his creation of the Road regarding his responsiblity for what happened on it. We're meant to feel this way… and then we're meant to reconsider the journey we've been on, the Road we've walked with all of them and the death we've died alongside them, and see it anew for what it really is.

[wigglebox]

I’m still not calling it queerbaiting. I’m not calling it “homophobic”

The last 12 years did happen and it did build to a romance. Season 15 especially. They, the actors and writers and crew, had that finish line in place. Their intent, until I’m proven otherwise, wasn’t to yank the rug out from under us. That finale isn’t what they wanted. That’s not what they built to. They gave us queer hope because it was supposed to have a specific conclusion otherwise 15 wouldn’t have been like that. The finale I think was always gonna kinda suck just thinking if Jensens’s comments on it over a year ago but I think at that time it wasn’t how it turned out to be.

He and Misha wouldn’t have signed on with the idea of this kind of unfulfilled ending for their characters’ relationship. Despite what some think, it does mean a lot to them, and they know how much it means to us. Bobo also wouldn’t have floated the idea of an unfulfilled ending like that for them.

They didn’t queerbait us because they initially signed on to an ending that still would have been questionable but would have at least given us satisfaction on that end of things be it in heaven or not.

And if I’m proven wrong then fine but right now, logically, this makes sense.

THEY—the writers, the show, the actors—didnt queerbait us because it’s not queerbaiting if you intend on having everything culminate into the satisfying ending it’s supposed to be. It’s called building a romance and a moment.

THEY got kneecapped at some point. THEY are just as big of a victim in this as we are. You cannot look at their laughing and playful teasing and whatever about this whole relationship since summer of 2019 (and truthfully, longer than that) and then say they knew it would end like this. Bobo wrote that monologue for 15.18 on day one we are told. They specifically built this season around a love confession. The whole overarching thing this season was 1) ending without cas sucks 2) Cas is free will and reality 3) his relationship with everyone but specifically one person.

Bobo wouldn’t have done a bury your gays trope like that. You can still have the gays die fine in the end whatever but if they are both there and both in a changed place then that’s one thing and as a queer man he’s allowed to play with the trope—but no one, unless he tells me himself, can convince me he wanted what happened. No one can convince me that’s what Dabb wanted either.

And it’s definitely not what J and M would want either.

So no—the show, meaning those who breathed live and live into it—did not queerbait us.

Someone in Suitland screwed up.

[zandracourt]

And now for something completely personal...

I have unfollowed Misha on social media, which makes me sad. I appreciate anyone who wants to keep talking, but I had to turn it off because Misha’s words tonight were hard to hear from someone I thought had a better understanding of the community he is advocating for. And perhaps what we are seeing is just the reality of being an ally versus actually being part of the community. In the same way that whites just end up sounding defensive and tone deaf when trying to explain why something racist really wasn’t.

My story is of being bi. I have a daughter who is pan, and I am het-married because that happened before I fully understood my bisexuality. I’m out now and I have had F/F experiences, but I have not moved in the world with a full-time female sexual partner, so I don’t know the full weight of queer oppression and I think that is important for people to know.

But what I do know really, really well is what it’s like to not fully understand being bisexual until my late 30s-early 40s because of falling for my best friend. I understand that it takes time to process and even believe in the feelings you have. It can take years. I understand having to come to terms with queerness when you’ve lived your life very convincingly heterosexual. I understand the sense of hypocrisy and denial you feel inside. And I understand what it means to know that a life you might idealize just can’t be the life you live. So I profoundly understand Cas making a confession of love and having Dean not be able to reciprocate, whatever his reason. What I don’t understand is why you took a situation that could have been a true gift to the queer community and literally salt and burn it to ash.

The damage SPN did was in being unwilling to operate from any kind of queer perspective while deliberately using queer tokenism to manipulate a fanbase for profit and longevity. The problem the show cannot escape is that the world has changed tremendously in 15 years. Queer viewers no longer have to accept scraps. We have shows that give us queer characters right up front in many genres. Not saying they all do them well, but representation is higher than it has ever been. And that is exactly why all this schlock by the CW, the desperate attempts by the actors to smooth it all over, and their repeated comments that they just have no idea why everyone is so upset just feels like they are reacting to not being able to continue to use queerness for profit and not out any actual caring for queer people. They just don’t want the bad press and they don’t want to be called out for their homophobia because that damages their reputations. They had a chance to be a landmark in queer storytelling and ended up as a enormous example of everything wrong with homophobic storytelling and queerbaiting.

Destiel is not new. It’s not fringe. And it’s not our fucking imaginations. It’s not. And if you can’t see it, chances are you are hopelessly, painfully straight. You will never get queer stories and I feel bad for you honestly, because the depth and vitality that queer characters and queer romance brings to storytelling is incredible.

Cas loved Dean, yes. And he finally got the courage to say so and promptly died. It DOES. NOT. MATTER. Why he died. It doesn’t matter that we got word he was brought to heaven or that it was written by a gay writer. It IS a bury-your-gays, devastating, repressive, horrible message because Cas never got to be fulfilled as a queer character. He never got to discover how to be queer and find happiness even if Dean doesn’t love him back. He became canonically gay and died within seconds. That is NOT supporting the queer community or queer stories. It’s literally killing them.

As for Dean and whatever he said or didn’t say, again, the conspiracy theories around it demonstrates exactly why people are so upset. Because they were cowards. They were cowards in an era when everyone is fucking done with those who cannot take a stand and instead flounder in the “there are great people on both sides” ethos. It is the same level of GTFO attitude I have for any one who says “gays are fine, as long as they are not gay here”: be that church, a restaurant, on a television set, or any where else. To echo Justice Ginsberg, there will be enough queer stories on TV when they all are. And it is exactly SPN’s fear of “going there” with Destiel YEARS ago that brought them to this miserable end. Destiel only became a risk worth doing when they believed there was no cost to them; when they could kill everyone and never show anyone being queer so they never had to actually deal with queerness at all. After all, Buffy didn’t truly love Spike, but she still told him she loved him and held his hand as he sacrificed himself for her in the final episode. *That* is the trope of a sacrificial romantic death. And now they are paying the price for their lack of integrity to their own show and story telling.

As a final note, I’ve been thinking about the fact that as a fic writer, I’ve had no desire to fix this ending, despite having written many Destiel fics over the years. The embers were still burning on the McDanno dumpster-fire last April when I started to write that fix-it fic and that was my first ever fic in that fandom! That’s how badly I needed to change that ending for myself. After Endgame, I needed better closure for Steve, so I wrote one. But after SPN, I’ve had no desire to write Destiel at all. I haven’t even wanted to read any SPN fics. I have lost my joy for the show and everything attached to it.

I don’t give a shit about CW or most of their programming. I *have* cared about the actors and the fan spaces because there are amazing people there and Misha has been an incredible role model in so many, many ways for not just the fandom, but for human beings in general. Until tonight.

Nina Simone said we all have to learn to get up from the table when love is no longer being served. That was exactly how I felt when I saw Misha’s message on Facebook. He is so much more than this fandom and after some time, I know I will probably follow him again in the future because he is a truly fine person who is doing incredible things in this world. For now, though, I can’t.

So to the network, showrunners, and as painful as it is to say, actors, here’s the hard, cold, truth: Destiel fans have not caused any of this. The show did. And sadly, there is nothing you can do to repair the damage you have done. That is your legacy now and we all have to live with it.

[tea-at-221]

It's a sad world when every single time queer fans see one of their same-sex ships do something that should seemingly make the ship canon, they have to take a STANCE and DECIDE what the intention was there, because it's never either: a.) Irrefutable or b.) Minus the bury-your-gays trope.

Everything is always done in such a way that the cis het viewers aren't made to feel too freaking squicked.

EVERYONE should be pissed off at anything less than an EXPLICITLY HAPPY, CANON GAY ENDING to these stories until it's the NORM.

Yeah gay characters should have hardships and emotional arcs like any other characters. But not EVERY TIME. Not the MAJORITY OF THE TIME.

So until our happiness is just as important as that of the straight audience, I would love to see us all unite and say HAPPY ENDINGS ONLY.

This is how we show the world we're normal. That we *deserve* happy endings. That THEIR stories are not *more important.* Because when their stories end happily and ours don't, that's the message. It's not even subliminal.

A queer character's death shouldn't be even *hinted* to be the "moral of the story."

It shouldn't be that a canon M/M relationship on screen was fine, cause at least one of the gay characters is dead and the story is done with.

It shouldn't be okay a character was queer *only in light of the fact* that you almost felt bad for them due to all the trauma and tragedy they ultimately suffered.

It's NOT okay that things were left "open to interpretation, so you can ship it if you want but that gay stuff isn't my thing and can't you shut up about it because you're ruining the fandom for everyone/can't two men ever just be friends without you people reading into it". 🤬

That isn't PROGRESS. It's *2020.* Where ARE we?

Taking a look around, it's easy to see we're stuck in stagnation. *No one's* rights are moving forward at a measurable pace. We're always all being held back to keep the hateful comfortable. Because *those* people, I guess, are the ones who deserve to see more of themselves reflected in the world at large.

It's not okay for a queer writer to sneak in canonization wherever they can, possibly unintentionally (but only with the best intentions in mind) contributing to queerbaiting just because that's the best they can do. Bless the writer, but no. It's not okay because THOSE ABOVE THEM STOPPING THEM FROM WRITING A FULLY-FLESHED-OUT, HAPPY QUEER STORY ONLY HAVE PROFIT IN MIND AND ARE AFRAID OF LOSING THEIR STRAIGHT AUDIENCES. The writer shouldn't have to settle for working under those conditions!

It's not true that queer writers *can't* queerbait or wouldn't wish to. Many of these writers are older and grew up oppressed and probably even have nostalgia for the stories they grew up with where everything was *aching* and *implied* and *subtext* because that was the best they got, and it was close enough to the surface to make them feel seen and hopeful. Those sorts of writers are capable of keeping that low standard ball rolling, not even actively *meaning* to do harm. It's not that they're vindictive or evil--though stubbornness and a refusal to reflect on the messages they're sending can make, and in some cases certainly HAS made, them out to look like they *mean* to hurt us and will continue to do so out of SPITE because now it's their right to do so since we said something and tried to "stifle their creativity" with political correctness.

Then we get a nice freefall of infighting and suppression, both real and imagined.

But if we treat it like this is okay, like we're happy with this, like we've gotten what we wanted when really all we've actually gotten are the barest table scraps, then it's Stockholm Syndrome!

Raise your hand if you're a queer person and you're okay with Sherlock and John implying there's more to be said between them, and then never explaining what they meant by it. If you're okay with them making gay "jokes" all the time, with serious expressions and tears in their eyes.

Raise your hand if you're LGBTQIA+ and you're over the moon about the fact that Castiel looked at Dean, said he loved him, got no confirmation of reciprocation, and was sent immediately to hell. Thumbs up if you're super hoping that doesn't get reversed somehow. If you don't care if it does get reversed only for Cas and Dean to then act like they're Totally Close Bros.

Raise your hand if Quentin Coldwater's "artistic" suicide (oh ahem, "noble sacrifice") and Eliot's subsequent, uncomfortably forced "relationship" with Charlton was your idea of the sort of happy ending you've always pined for. Let's hear it for how our mental health was boosted by watching a canonically bisexual, clinically depressed dreamer do the "right thing" by all of his friends by ending his life despite the literal existence of real magic, meaning that even in a world where the impossible is possible, a character like that *cannot be saved.*

Is this really, REALLY, what we want to settle for?

And do we really, REALLY want to keep fighting with *each other* about what it means and why it should all be okay?

Do we really want to say that huge strides are being made because one or two shows with LGBTQIA+ couples (though in actuality, LG and maybe A couples if you're informed enough to identify them) have had happy couples/endings? Are we actually gonna die on this hill?

Or don't we all collectively know that actually, this is not enough and we shouldn't be trying to shame each other into accepting it merely because it makes the crappiness of it all easier to bear if we've personally managed to justify the disappointment of story A or B to ourselves and it would really help if all the other exhausted people just got on board? Can't we agree we're tired of the need to bludgeon each other with "but"s and "consider this though"s in the name of being able to keep heart at the end of the day?

The way forward in this case can only be paved by standing still and making a concrete happy space HERE, 100 miles wide smack dab in the middle of the heterosexual desert.

Hey, I look forward to the day when someone can be progressive by breaking that annoying HAPPY GAY COUPLE TROPE. Don't you????

[deramin2]

The main thing that's pissing me off is people coming from fandoms of culturally straight shows trying to put an embargo on all queer death (calling everything "bury your gays" instead of understanding that's a specific trope with specific conditions), treating all complicated relationships that don't immediately get together or fall out (even temporarily) "queerbaiting" (instead of understanding that's a specific trope with specific conditions), and treating people hurting others due to trauma as "problematic" and needing to be exiled.

Honey I don't know how to tell you this but queer people have made so many plays, films, and shows about those subjects and they're deeply queer because of the people who made them representing their own or real community experiences and expressing how our experiences are fundamentally different to straight ones with systemic oppression roots. And if you're incapable of sitting with those realities, claiming them, and choosing to embrace life and love past them, then you're not ready to sit with our culture, our history, or our elders. And that's not going to help us. It holds us back.

Our media does not have three norms or same tropes as straight media. Ort cannot be read honestly through that lens. It represents queer people because it's made by queer people (even if directors or show runners are not always queer, they are in with the culture and surrounded by queer people guiding them).

Queer people are not a monolith. Each character is an individual person not intended to be done platonic ideal of queerness for all people. Characters come and go from our stories all the time and you're more likely to find an open ending than happily ever after.

Often our stories and our struggle are never fully finished because our lives are not finished. Or it's explicitly about facing three finishing of a life both lingering and abrupt. The last imparting of a lifetime of wisdom, however long. Or relationships that were so meaningful and life-changing but don't last forever. Sometimes because people get scared. Sometimes because they need a few tries to overcome themselves. It's all cyclical. This is what our media says is beautiful.

And it fucking sucks to have people who have never engaged in our beauty repeat the straight lie that it's ugly. That our stories aren't worth telling honestly. Being so critical of everything that no one invests in our stories and they're always sidelined. If you want queer stories, you have to let queer people tell their stories. In all their messiness and stark reality. Our beauty is in greasy rings of keys and fat hairy bellies, and old sagging tits with a surgery line, and young crow's feet, and people living hand in loving hand with our own mortality. It's the beauty of broken noses, and broken hearts, and found family, bad decisions that led you too all the right places and profound love to be free. How can we see ourselves in all our glory if we won't actually look at our real selves?

I wish viewers (especially fandoms) would understand queer media as stories about individuals in specific circumstances interacting with other individuals in a compelling story and not vehicles for representation that are supposed to check specific boxes with only approved stories being told.

If you know anything about the history of culturally queer media you know that attitude is the antithesis of it. As a genre it has some of the messiest, emotionally difficult, and trope-defying stories that constantly challenge norms.

But now it's being put in boxes by people who want it to be a modification of straight norms. And it's really disheartening. They're going to kill everything that makes stories culturally queer (instead of just involving queer characters and relationships) in the name of "good representation" that really amounts to privileging assimilation.

Fuck assimilation. Be messy, face death and rejection from society head on unbowed, be ungovernable, take risks, fuck nasty and also explore why fucking isn't interesting, be real even when it hurts, let everything fall apart and build a new normal, be brave, and be wild.

Sick of people saying "elder queers must be appalled by this, when it's elder queers that have been telling those stories for generations. It's the kids that want uwu soft stuff that's not problematic and where everyone has plot armor. Queer movies and TV descends from the raw ness of theater, not toothless Disney films. Leave me out of your cultural destruction.

This is why I'm basically refusing to be part of queer fandom spaces because they're toxic as hell to people who want good meaningful stories and not just check boxes. Gonna just stick to Discord conversations with people who have real cultural context instead of Supernatural.

[nymph1e]

Ok so I cannot interpret this in any way other than Dabb saying "these fans are fucking rabid, and I never should have catered to them because now they've gone crazy", and while first of all, fuck him, second of all, he's absolutely fucking right, he shouldn't have.

Because what he thought of as "feeding the baboons" was actually something called "queerbaiting", and it worked out marvellously for him. His show BOOMED in popularity for the final, making sure it went out with a bang instead of a whimper, and that was SOLELY because of the queer fans he baited back. He knew what he was fucking doing.

This piece of shit decided to give us scraps, after 15 years, and expected us to lick them up grovelling. He didn't expect that we'd expect better. He buried his gays, ignored the queer storyline, and expected us to thank him.

Andrew here's a piece of free advice: don't create expectations if you're not gonna follow through. Especially with a marginalised audience. Especially when you follow up by immediately killing off anyone to do with that plotline.

If he'd never done it, never given into his temptation to bait one last time, no one would give a shit. He made his fucking bed, now he can sleep in it.

[keagan-ashleigh]

I have read Misha's post on Facebook and I didn't know what to say or what to think. I said it over and over I have zero expectations so on one hand I am satisfied with Castiel being gay and didn't think they were going to show more than that, but on the other hand... reading that felt bitter. And there’s a couple things I’d like to answer to that.

I am trying to sort of explain all of this to myself, I’m trying to make sense of things, but what is clear to me is that: the CW is at fault, the showrunners, producers and writers are at fault too, and I think Misha is being honest. He genuinely doesn’t believe the CW censored destiel and maybe they haven’t in the way we’d want to think they did. But they did. 

Also, let’s be clear that there is something fishy in him saying there wasn’t some cut bits from 15x18 and no alternative ending when he, Jensen and even the writers admitted there was. I think maybe he was saying “there is no alternative gay ending for Dean”, still... I don’t know. But I believe him when he says there is no destiel conspiracy in which a gay scene existed but was censored - like I for a moment believed there was (I even twitted that yesterday). I am not so sure now but what I think is that it doesn’t matter HOW they fooled their queer audience, it’s the fact they did at all.

There was a form of interference and Misha needs to understand that people are right to be angry nonetheless. 

I  know that CW is still not a lgbt ally, however they have some lgbt friendly shows. They are probably the network that has the most lgbt characters.

Just to recap things a little bit and give sort of a context, from my perspective - I think it’s really important to know what are their other shows in term of representation - it’s probably gonna be a long read but bear with me:

I don't know them all but I am also a DC fan so I know the majority of the arrowverse shows are lgbt friendly, plus there is The 100, there was 3 lgbt characters in Vampire Diaries, I didn’t watch those but I think there was a little bit of representation in Gossip Girl, Riverdale, the Charmed reboot, the Roswell reboot, Beverly Hills reboot, The Originals and Legacy - and some others I don't remember here.

So yep, there is some representation and they truly believe it’s ok, they pat their backs calling themselves progressive for allowing one or two characters in each show to be lgbt, and sometimes the writers are good enough to make it good on screen (which really is the case for Black Lightning for instance).

And actually we owe the representation in the arrowverse shows to a gay producer named Greg Berlanti,  the CW allowed it, they didn’t came up with the idea.

The CW is not an ally, they are a company and they show what brings them money. And if you watch the shows I cited you know they are familiar with the bury your gays trope, maybe a little less blatantly than in Supernatural. As far as I know, in only three shows they have couples that are happy and that haven't been killed : Supergirl, Legends of Tomorrow (which is not that popular cause in terms of writing the first 2, 3 seasons were awful, it started being good when they got free to be more goofy and self-mocking) and Black Lightning - which btw has not been renewed for a 5th season and Supergirl has one season left too - with all the arrowverse shows ending one after the other I can only predict LoT won't last much longer - there would be Batwoman but we don’t see a settled couple, we see a broken relationship and since they chose not to recast the lead, they have made the subsequent decision not to give this relationship a satisfying resolution).

There is a number of issues with the representation in those shows, but yeah, the arrowverse is progressive because the shows producers, the writers and the CW were on board for that. It wasn’t the case for Supernatural who has had more BYG than all the other CW shows united - because CW had better interests in making it the way it is, and because the writers are not that good. I keep repeating it but it’s true, they also are to blame, THEY wrote the BYG in the show and they wrote that ending. It was possible for a better representation in spn if everyone tried. Only the actors tried, that’s the problem, and they don’t have much hold on what can and cannot be done. 

Supernatural is different in CW eyes - not because it is their most popular show in terms of audience - I know everyone says that but when you look at the numbers The Flash is actually their top popular show (and that is why it will be the last big arroverse show to go, what will stay will be Stargirl, maybe Batwoman for one or two seasons), it’s the one that has the most viewers, it was racking up 1.2 million viewers in 2019 against 1.1 for Supernatural (x) - without counting the illegal streaming and downloading), Supernatural only comes second in terms of audience in 2019/2020 (and it is important to note that) (it was also second best in 2017, this is not only true for 19/2020 (x) ). But it it special in terms of status and fanbase, it doesn’t have the most viewers but it a show that have a consistent audience; it is big to them nonetheless. Just as this article explains: “Supernatural’s linear ratings have faded. But its importance to the CW, however, hasn’t”.

 At this point you will note that The Flash has, in terms of representation, one (1) gay character that is a secondary one (David Singh, the chief of Central police) and he is mentioned to be gay.

Supernatural is important to them because Supernatural’s ratings influence their other shows and the network as a whole.

It is also because they have a contract with Jared for Walker and they don't want it to fail (Supernatural and the arrowverse shows are all coming to an end rn so they need a new golden goose), if they have had shown interest in being lgbt friendly with this show they would have done it earlier. This only means that it's not financially worthy for them. 

All of this only shows that the CW has monetary interests and that you need everyone involved to make it work. It worked for the arrowverse because the producer pushed and because it was actually a form of queerbaiting for the CW. This ensures that the lgbt people have what they want and they get to have their money, but they don’t loose their straight audience either. They don’t touch Supernatural and The Flash because that’s their big money makers. 

So, as a conclusion, what this context definitely show us is that they aren’t interested in progress in itself, they are interested in profit. They give us lgbt representation as long as it’s their interest to do so. Castiel was gay so episode 19 and 20 ratings could skyrocket, don’t let yourself think it was for the love of progress. No, Misha, there wasn’t the kind of conspiracy you describe, but the CW still wronged its viewers and weren’t well intentioned. And the showrunners did us wrong too because they wrote that and they wrote Dean impaled on a nail and Sam miserably codependent with his brother. I do believe they didn’t actually wrote destiel, but they cut out the possibility of it being written, mainly because they are the network’s bitches and because they don’t have interest in writing it. 

Misha might be well intentioned by saying what he said but he’s wrong, The CW did interfere and sort of censored destiel, if not by subtilizing a script for another by preventing it to be written at all. Whether he knows and he is coverint the CW whether he doesn’t know at all, but, he’s wrong to defend them - the network as well as the writers. 

I still think we were robbed and I understand why he thinks it's not a bury your gays because Cas goes to heaven but he's not sitting in our seat, however great of an ally he is, I am sorry to say he just don't feel it like lgbt fans do. Another point that has to be made is that not every representation is good representation, and it doesn’t matter that Castiel is alive and reconstructing heaven if we don’t SEE IT, if we don’t see him at all nor the effects of his self realisation, it might as well mean it didn’t matter, Cas is gay but it had absolutely zero importance. It has only shown the character being erased afterward. Sure he was resurrected but it still was wiped out of the writing, you’ve GOT to understand bury your gays doesn’t necessarily means the character has been LITERALLY killed, it means it has been taken out of the narrative. Like, for example, Claire has been erased from the narrative, we never see her again once she’s revealed to be a lesbian, even though subtextually she’s fine and happy.

Misha is sweet and the fact he is always on board to learn and spread love is amazing and I love him for that but he is wrong here and he should listen and learn what BYG effectively means. 

I kinda want to copy paste that into another post because it is important and I wish someone would say that to him, I am sure he is kind enough to listen.

What we’re also mad about isn’t only that Castiel has been erased. It’s that Dean has been erased too and doesn’t get to answer and give a full closure to this narrative. Castiel being gay is huge, I said that already, but it’s only half satisfying if he doesn’t get to be with the man he loves and who loves him in return, or if he doesn’t get an answer. Maybe it wasn’t written, maybe it was censored, no matter what, Dean’s love was there and it should have been acknowledged. And after all, I wouldn’t have been mad about them writing a platonic answer because it would have been an answer (even though I wouldn’t have been satisfied because in the whole context of television, there is not enough gay couples that are settled and not written in traumatic way). The fact no one acknowledges the fact Castiel was gay, it’s hurting, from our perspective. It’s like he spoke his truth but wasn’t heard. 

And that is a problem. Not every representation is a good representation and people need to understand how offensive it is to us to hear “well you should be happy we’ve given you that much” - especially when in the whole picture, there is like TWO shows that aren’t about homosexuality that shows a healthy relationship between two lgbt characters without one of the two be killed or erased from the narrative.

We deserve more than the bare minimum.

So, okay, no, the mexican sub wasn’t the proof of a manipulation (and nonetheless we just can’t tell because there is NO objective evidences), BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN ANY OF THAT IS OK.

I love Misha Collins, I think he is a beautiful human being, but he doesn’t possibly know why we are hurt and I am sad he didn’t think this further. 

[adrunkgiraffe]

I have been through this journey before, so I get to be actually frustrated about it.

IUnder a read more because im not subjecting y’all to this. Also: I should caveat I haven’t watched the episode cause I’m waiting till its on Netflix but I have watched way too many other episodes of Supernatural so I have a right to say these things. 

TL;DR: I mean you all knew Cas’ confession was fucking bullshit and that SPN is...hm. But I’d like to actually express my genuine frustration, for a moment? I’m going to say things you already know, but I have too much knowledge of this show and too much stupid meta in my brain about a series I haven’t genuinely enjoyed for at least 5 years which makes this not just blandly bad but disgustingly insulting to me not even as a gay just as like. A writer?

Or, even shorter: Cas’ confession is just a Charlie Bradbury Speedrun 

So. As some of you may know if, for some reason, you followed me back in 2013 (and till...okay fine 2015), I used to be, uh. Really into SPN. Really, I was into Destiel. Like, as in, I slogged through seasons 1-3 to get to Cas and am also really vulnerable to the Sunk Cost Fallacy and projecting onto characters. (I was in 8th grade in 2013, okay? Get off my back)

Also, because I monopolised use of the TV, I kind of...also got my parents into it? In a “this is silly but fun” kind of way.

Over time, critiques of the show from viewers, learning what queerbaiting is at all, fatigue with how long it was going, and also fatigue from how characters I enjoyed, like Rufus, or Crowley, or Ellen, or Jo, or Kevin, or Charlie, or Cas a few times, kept getting killed off. As time went on, it didn’t escape my notice that, aside from Cas, all of these characters fit one or more of the following criteria:

They were a woman

They were a person of color

Were Queer or Queer-coded in some way (listen Crowley was bad rep but at least Mark Sheppard actually kissed a man on screen)

I also just...generally got tired of the way the show treats women and sidelines people of color. 

The final straw really came with Charlie’s death. It got us all excited, because she hadn’t been back in a bit! And it was interesting to see how reuniting with her dark side from Oz had changed her! (yeah remember the fucking Wizard of Oz storyline? The writers sure don’t!) And maybe she’d get developed! Because at this point, Charlie and the fairly good writing of her character was a major upside for the series! Charlie was cool, fun, gay, and morally complex in a way...none of the female characters had been before her, in large part because by definition, her relationship with the boys would always be platonic.

And then. Offscreen. She is violently murdered. For no damn good reason. Like, literally, her being brought back in this episode after fucking off to europe after having returned from fucking off to Oz seems to have filled two purposes in total. 

The codex is solved (but Sam doesn’t know till next episode)

Charlie is dead, which means Dean can be angry, specifically at Sam, and kill more people because he’s the big bad this season. 

That’s it. Two things. Twooooo whole reasons to do this episode. Whoopee. 

But you didn’t come here for this, you came here for me to rip this reveal to shreds. Don’t worry, I’ll get there. What I want in your minds is that Supernatural already had a really good anddynamic queer character. And then they killed her off to make Dean angry. No, it doesn’t matter that they brought her back in season 13 or whatever. They made that decision. 

After the rage this incited, I started realizing general flaws in the writing (I had probably already noticed them but now I was angry enough to complain.) Every conflict is born of Sam and Dean not communicating/taking on burdens and Dean being angry at Cas for reasons that ranged from good to ridiculous, but in a way that always went way too fucking long, (which...yes, does make the “you do it for love” gifs fucking hilarious). It didn’t help that seasons 11 and 12 were next, which meant Demon Dean and GOD’S FUCKING SISTER, plus the decision to resurrect Mary, which, while I do like her later scenes, as a season 12 finale it...well I’ll be honest it kinda sucked. It undercut the majority of the Winchester’s’ arcs and their slow and painful journey out of their father’s toxic vengeance quest and knowing Mary as a person when it’s too late to know her was one of the last semi-compelling grounders of the narrative. 

By this point it was a hate-watch for my parents and I.

So then, I’m at college, and I’m not watching anymore cause I don’t have the motivation or access to Hulu to continue, and SPN is bad. I watch the Scooby Doo crossover when it comes out and my friend and I make fun of it, and we also continue making jokes about Dean and Cas and queerbaiting because we’re queer, but I don’t keep up. My Dad does though, so when I return, I watch some with the fam and lads. It’s even more tiring without context. 

So flash forward to Quarantine, my sister, the only one with taste, has left, and we have run out of netflix to watch. So we return to the well, and seasons 13-14 are. I’m gonna say it. Bad. Really fucking bad. The cycle of bad communication continues, season 14 has like seven antagonists and the way it’s structured makes it so I literally cannot remember the timeline of a season I watched 3 months ago. Oh also, they have a queer coded cannibal snake monster for...well I guess Jack’s snake bud was cool but like. Huh wow it’s almost like these writers don’t handle queers well. 

Our one saving grace is Cas, but he’s barely in any episodes, though I did note that his deal with the empty, being happy completely for one moment killing him, that struck me as “this has potential and I know they’re gonna half-ass it somehow.” Also Jack and Mary, but then oh...plot….The most compelling it gets is literally the finale.

But then, 3 days later, the first half of season 15 comes out on Netflix and it’s...actually kind of acceptable. The new character they give Jack’s actor is fun to watch him play until they make him evil. Exploring just how toxic Chuck can be gave the series direction again. The alternate future was genuinely scarring, and Eileen’s return was genuinely moving. Most of all, though, Cas got the opportunity to tell Dean no, that Dean was being unfair to him, had always been unfair to him, and he was sick of it. I had no illusions, I knew Destiel was never gonna happen, and Cas was gonna die, but giving him that bit of agency, letting Cas grow and be self-sufficient, and be angry with Dean not for existential reasons but interpersonal ones, was such a good sign for me, and Dean grew too! Dean fucking apologized for being horrible and Jensen Ackles had a...yknow what, ill give it to him, he had a good acting moment. 

But the thing. About. The “I love you.” 

Let’s take it in parts.

What was good: I’m gonna admit it, lads, “Wanting what I can’t have” - AS A LINE - is good, and, structurally, there is something to the Empty Deal that could have been an interesting aspect of Cas’ arc when it comes to self actualization and being on even footing with Dean. The problem is, this is Supernatural, and that arc only comes up when I bring it up because character study, even in bad media, is fun for me. 

What was bad:

I mean. Like. All of it? All of it. 

Okay. Fine. I’ll be specific. 

Cas dies immediately when - possibly because- he is revealed as having feelings for Dean. They kill him as they queer him, that’s a Bury Your Gays Speedrun right there.

Like the least they could have done is have him mention it to someone in another scene or something to establish some romantic feelings on the part of canon a full episode beforehand. That would have been the literal bare minimum. 

When Cas starts praising Dean, for some reason both the writing and Misha’s acting take a bit of a downswing (from...where it already was). Cas, whose most powerful moment this season was acknowledging that Dean’s anger at him is cruel and unfair, flatly praises him for doing everything out of love and it reads with a misunderstanding of both Dean as a character and Cas’ understanding of Dean. Dean is angry! VERY ANGRY! And it’s a problem he needs to work on and rarely does. 

Talking out of my ass, a better speech would have been about how Dean is angry because of his love for Sam, family, and the people around him, how, for better or for worse, he can’t help but be angry on behalf of others, and that his journey of moving that tendency towards the better is what made Cas care so much. Guys this alteration to the metaphor took 2 minutes to write tops I am an Art History student and these are TV WRITERS WITH YEARS OF EXPERIENCE CAN YOU TELL THEYRE NOT TRYING YET? 

A better speech would, of course, have come out of a better series. My point: this part was half-assed. Poorly written. Wow it’s almost like the series is also poorly written. 

 Also, Misha is the better actor of the three(***OF THE THREE), but his choices in that scene are jarringly out of character which. Makes the bad writing worse. It doesn’t help that they cut to the same fucking shot of Dean 3 times. The chemistry in that scene makes it feel so fucking hackneyed. Because it is. 

This combines lead me to the point: (wait there was a point to this?)

As someone who does not have the luxury of watching this capsized ship fall into boiling seas from a distance, it is less insulting to me that they did this so last minute and then sent Cas to the Void than it is how they did it. They had ingredients for something that could have been compelling enough to me as a former fan of the show to think that they had put effort into it, that they had decided months, perhaps even years ago to do this, and had crafted a storyline around it. That this was an intentional decision they cared about. It wasn’t. It was barely even pandering, because it’s almost insultingly blatant. 

SPN kinda proved to me that it didn’t care about queers when Charlie was killed off. It proved it to me again when Cas, not only died in confessing his love for Dean but did it in the weakest result of what could have been a surprisingly strong story.

[colorful-yarns-queer-stories]

Wayward Son: You’re Probably Going to Hate Me for This

A quick caveat: This post took me almost 8 months to write because Wayward Son wrecked me that thoroughly. It left me that much of a mess, reeling that hard over how very wrong it went after Carry On. This post reflects those kinds of feelings from a queer reader, so if you love the book and feel extremely positively toward it, this post is not for you. Just keep scrolling and go on to enjoy your day. Your opinion is valid. If Wayward Son left you feeling sick, betrayed, and worse than before you got it, maybe we can commiserate. If you’re teetering back and forth on whether to read it, this post offers you the worst to look at opposite the best. If you don’t want to hear it, don’t read it. It’s that easy. 

On September 24, 2019, I was practically shaking when I opened my eyes and began setting up my cozy reading nook. I requested the day off work, cleared my entire schedule, and settled in my comfiest sweater and blankets with a fully stocked tea cabinet to read what was, for me, one of the most highly anticipated book releases of the year. I pre-ordered a signed physical copy of the book, the audiobook, even got the collectible patch. I could not WAIT to sit down and read the healing story of Simon Snow’s cross-country queer road-trip with his boyfriend Baz and his best friend Penny. I was so excited to see how Simon was helped on his road to recovery from the trauma of the previous book. Rainbow had psyched us up so much to see how things would get better for our favorite Chosen One, despite how hard his journey to mental wellness might be.

Oh, reader. I was so naive.

Now, before I go into my complicated emotions about this book, I need to clarify something. This is not really a book review. This is a brief and personal  examination of how queer characters and audiences are advertised toward vs. what product/representation they receive. Because Wayward Son? As a book, it was solid. Great story, great conflict, great characters. A Very Good Book. But it wasn’t the book we were advertised.

If you are a member of the LGBT+ community, you know what it is to be queerbaited. Shows advertise as though there will be LGBT+ representation, market these stories as queer love stories or stories about queer people learning to love themselves, but in the end, those promises are never delivered upon, leaving LGBT+ audiences open to attacks from cishet fans mocking them for hoping for representation in the first place and reminding LGBT+ audiences that their stories will never be center-stage unless they are fetishes, jokes, or tragedies. (Teen Wolf, BBC Sherlock, and The Cursed Child are just a few immediate examples that spring to mind.)

Rainbow Rowell did not technically queerbait. She wrote two LGBT+ main characters! They got together at the end of the first book! She delivered, right? Mmmm, not quite. Yeah, Simon and Baz got together at the end of the first book, and it was wonderful and heartwarming and hopeful, even if it was still a little bittersweet. After all, that’s realistic right? And they are both still the main characters of the second book. They are still together. She kept her word, right? Wrong.

Rainbow Rowell marketed us a hopeful cross-country road-trip with the Chosen One’s boyfriend and best friend in pursuit of healing and recovery for Simon Snow after he was left traumatized and adrift in the wake of saving the magical world. Well, we got a road trip. He did have a boyfriend and best friend present, sort of. Healing? Hahaha no. None. Not even a little bit. We were promised recovery and hope. What we got instead was a whole lot of Queer Suffering. Literally hundreds of pages of it.

Look, part of writing solid representation is being aware of the cultural and political climate in which you are writing. After the 2016 U.S. election, the LGBT+ and POC communities came under massive fire from the U.S. President, the federal government, and all of the devoted bigots who have loudly and violently sworn themselves to the cause of rooting out and eliminating every minority present here in the States. Since 2016, minority communities have done nothing but suffer under attack after attack over and over and over again. If you look at the majority of books published for LGBT+ audiences since 2016, you will notice that most of them are geared toward messages of healing, of hope, of strength in the face of adversity, because that is what we need given the reality of our existence right now. We need strength, we need hope, we need healing. We exist under a constant barrage of hate and vitriol and violence, and the number of hate crimes being committed against minority communities have risen consistently through the entirety of this Presidential term. So when we are marketed a book about hope and healing, by god we are putting faith in you to deliver on that promise, that commitment you are making to us as a community. We are trusting you, giving you our money, our time, our emotional commitment.

Wayward Son did not deliver on those promises of healing and hope and recovery. Nothing positive happened to any of the characters in the book. Nothing. What hope? What healing? What love? You made Simon and Baz essentially strangers planning their breakup from chapter one, not to mention their individual suffering you attached to their own identities (Simon as ex-Chosen One, Baz as a vampire). You made Penelope Bunce lose her partner of several years. You forced Agatha Wellbelove into a traumatic kidnapping specifically imitating and amplifying her brand of trauma from the end of Carry On. Every single character in your book was a minority (LGBT+, POC, QPOC, women), and every single one was forced to suffer even greater trauma this time with no reprieve or recovery from their previous experiences. YOU MARKETED THE BOOK WITH A FU**ING PRIDE PATCH ONLY TO HAVE YOUR QUEER CHARACTERS PLANNING THEIR BREAK UP FROM CHAPTER ONE. WHAT ABOUT THAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE PROUD OF? Did you even take the time to become aware of the big tropes aimed at queer characters by straight authors? Of either burying your gays or making them end up apart? Of why it’s wrong to use your female characters constantly as damsels in distress (I thought you wanted Agatha to be the opposite of that, but here she is being the damsel in distress AGAIN)? Rainbow, YOU were the one who wrote Agatha hating her part in the Chosen One BS. You wrote her hating danger and magic and you wrote her escape only to reel her right back in? Wayward Son felt like Rainbow Rowell hitting the “Undo” button on all of the positive rep she gave us in the last book and replacing it with loads of misery just because cynicism is “In.”

If someone asked me to recommend a YA fantasy for their teen with solid queer rep, a diverse cast, and healthy messages, I absolutely would have had no problem recommending Carry On. I have, in fact, put it into the hands of LGBTQIA+ teens on multiple occasions. I could not, however, recommend Wayward Son. This book was the antithesis to Carry On and destroyed everything I loved about the original. Was Wayward Son, from a literary standpoint, a good book? Absolutely. But I cannot in good conscience recommend it to any LGBT+ readers, especially given the current political and social climate in which we live. Maybe the third installment will be a fix-it. Maybe things will get better. As for me, though, my faith in this author’s representation of minority characters was broken with Wayward Son.

What kills me about it, though… the thing that really just tears me up inside… is that if she had marketed it to us as, “Lol you’re all going to suffer, this book is totally going to hurt,” I would have been okay with it. I love TJ Klune’s books, but they tear your beating heart out of your chest and then feed it back to you by hand. His books hurt. The difference between him and Rainbow Rowell, though, is that he advertises them that way. When he writes something painful, he markets it as painful. When he writes something soft, he markets it as soft. We know we can trust him because he makes realistic promises and then delivers on them. Rainbow did the exact opposite, promising us recovery and giving us nothing but several hundred pages of pain for literally every single character involved. How are we supposed to trust you now? Honestly, for my part, now I know I can’t.

I’m sorry if this is upsetting. I know lots of people (if they ever see this) are gonna be VERY, VERY angry with me for writing it and for feeling this way. But this is my honest take on Wayward Son: the entire book is one giant trigger, and I think that, until there is anything at all positive to offer in its place, that it’s better for LGBT+ and other minority readers to avoid this one. Maybe wait until the next book or stop after Carry On. If you are a member of a minority group and struggle hard with mental health issues, this might be one to avoid for now.