#where characters aren't really allowed to be gay until the main relationship is Happening and only with that one person

[arohuacheng]

hi everybody! in case you did not know, xie lian, man who spent 800 years not even thinking about sex until someone came along who he was interested in and who was interested in him and took the time to be with him and go on silly little adventures with him and genuinely get to know him and be friends with him, is demisexual. just like. a public service announcement.

[idridian]

I would love to hear about your crime=queer reading of The Hoodlum Priest!

the simple answer is that it's exactly what it says on the tin: i watch the film and pretend like the way the ex-convicts - and, to some extent, father clark, as the only person who is willing to engage with them on their own terms - are treated is a metaphor for the way queer people were treated by society in that era. namely they're outcasts, denied work and housing and legal representation, treated with extreme prejudice, existing on the edges of society and othered by 'squares' (non-criminals). the entire plot centres around clark's attempts to carve a safe space for convicts in this world - the halfway house where they're among people who share their experiences and have an actual support network

(and like. obviously this film isn't actually doing queer subtext. it's very straightforward about its message re: crime and rehabilitation and death penalty and what have you. but it just so happens that all the struggles that the ex-convicts go through are ALSO things that apply to queer people)

then of course we have the main thing that makes me eat queer drywall about hoodlum priest, which is the entire dynamic of the relationship between father clark and billy. it's... a lot

pretty sure this was more a limitation of them not being allowed to have anybody say swearwords (bc it's the 1960s and they would have gone directly to movie jail for it), but i have to mention this because it made me do the most hilarious double take when i watched the film. so basically the criminals all talk kinda weird, and when billy and his friend pio first visit clark, he grills them about their (really bad and not well thought out) plan for a heist, to the point where billy gets pissed and runs off. at which point pio turns to clark and goes "you queered it. you queered it; what'd you do that for?" and listen, i KNOW they mean it in the sense of "you messed with him/annoyed him" but COME ONNNNNN

there's the obvious one, of course: "preach to me, daddy," billy says snarkily, with his shirt unbuttoned halfway down his chest, while in a crowded elevator with clark standing directly behind him. what a normal and heterosexual thing to do

in turn, clark affectionately calls billy "little guy" throughout the film. it's kind of adorable right until the point where it becomes THE MOST HEARTWRENCHING THING IN THE UNIVERSE

"little guy" is a nickname he seems to use for all the young ex-convicts who come to him for help. as evidenced by the fact that he also calls pio that when he and billy first visit. and by this i mean that clark opens the door for them with his shirt partially unbuttoned, not in his Priest Outfit, and goes "heya, little guy~" in the MOST suggestive tone possible i stg. like the vibe of it is straight up that he thought pio was there for a quick dicking

after the aforementioned Preach To Me, Daddy incident, clark takes billy under his wing and helps him find proper work. the first step to this is taking billy clothes shopping and buying him a nice shirt. sugar daddy behaviour

also jsyk billy pulls his old shirt off to try on the new one in the middle of the store with clark right there and watching. again, a very normal and heterosexual thing to do. zero qualms about undressing in front of another man (side effect of two years in prison, perhaps. but also prisons are kind of notorious for homosexual activity, aren't they)

i'm not sure how to categorise the watermelon thing. it's very odd and whimsical. but i'm putting it up for consideration. fellas, is it gay to break open a watermelon on the fuckin pavement and eat it while crouching next to another man and you're both smiling like goofballs?

every single (antagonistic) character in this film spends a significant amount of their screentime side-eyeing the clark/billy situation SO incredibly hard. at the fundraising party for the halfway house, the reporter guy whose name i refuse to remember runs into billy and comments "ah, so you're the one father clark has on display today, huh?" (and then proceeds to write an article trying to ruin clark's reputation by insinuating really bad shit about him based on his association with the criminals he tries to help)

mario, the brother of the guy who owns the produce market billy gets a job at thanks to clark, calls him "priest boy" at one point. correction: multiple times, actually! again the implication that there's something to their relationship that others consider strange/suspicious. mario also just generally spends all of his screentime making billy's life difficult - he's the one who accuses billy of stealing stuff which leads to him getting fired and kickstarts the downward spiral the plot goes into

billy theoretically has a heterosexual love interest (a woman whose name i'm not sure we are ever told in the film, but who i think is called either helen or ellen if i remember imdb correctly), who could in fact provide him with an alibi for when the theft at the produce market happened because he says he was with her at the time. and then he... refuses to give her name and address when they want to confirm it with her. you can read this as him being cagey and defensive bc he doesn't trust 'squares' and just wants to be left alone. OR you can interpret it as him having been with someone else that night (and if they question helen/ellen, they'll figure that out)

the finale is incredibly sad and upsetting, yes. but also billy is almost entirely naked, drenched in sweat and breathing heavily and clark is constantly VERY, VERY CLOSE to and touching him

"father? too tight" - again, sad and upsetting and i am screaming & crying about it. still very horny when taken out of context though

(on that note btw, it's genuinely insane how much this film invites us to look at billy's body. he's constantly exerting himself, sweaty or in various states of undress. "on display", as the reporter guy would say)

anyway, that's the gist of the 'crime = queer' reading. thanks for coming to my ted talk

[anarmorofwords]

Hi! You're probably not going to like this ask, but before getting into it I'd just like to say that this isn't meant as Kamala hate or anything, and I don't really want to offend.

Having said that, wouldn't it make sense that we get to see how Kamala treated Anna after she came out? It's in all likelihood one of the things that's weighing on Anna the most.

Obviously Kamala had her valid reasons: her parents aren't as liberal as the Lightwoods, she believes (knows?) their love is conditional as she's adopted, she's not white and not being heterosexual could further any treatment she's suffered from being different... Her reasons have already been listed multiple times by multiple people. Kamala has the right to stay in the closet and fear coming out. And while that shouldn't be villianised, we can't forget that closeted people can harm those around them.

If Kamala had kept treating Anna like a good friend, rumour would've sparked, and even if it was denied, she'd have been harmed by merely associating with Anna. Especially with the life Anna began leading; she could have been labelled as one of Anna's 'conquests' by the Clave. That, as we've established, is detrimental for her safety.

But at the same time, it would create a breach between Anna and Kamala. And Anna had the right to be hurt by it and weary of it when Kamala said she wanted a relationship.

If we look at it from that perspective, Anna's actions (though inexcusable in how they treated Kamala --who was also at fault for not accepting a negative for four months) make sense. Kamala wasn't only a fling of a week*, but also the girl she lost her virginity with, who asked her to be her secret (until she married Charles, after which Anna's affections would be discarded), who hid her sexuality for two years and sat back while Anna suffered from homophobic commentary, and who now wants a relationship hidden from most of the people that know her.

Kamala shouldn't be forced to come out; but the harm that can do to the women she may engage with is reflective of what happens nowadays. I can mostly think of examples with gay men, so my apologies in advance. But how many women have seen their marriages ruined by their husband having affairs with men?

Creating characters that reflect a toxic part of the 'hidden' LGBT community shouldn't be seen as hating or villinifying. Thomas isn't out and he isn't labelled a villain by the narrative --because his actions don't harm anyone. The hate Alastair gets in-universe is because of his past as a bully, not because he's gay. Matthew's not fully out and he isn't villianised --like Thomas, because the decisions he makes to keep his sexuality hidden don't impact anyone negatively.

I'll even go as far as saying that not even the narrative villianises characters like Kamala and Charles. If it were, they'd be seen more like Grace in Chain of Gold. We'd see how Kamala's actions are affecting Anna's in more ways than anger (that in itself put the fandom against Anna), and the characters would note so. We wouldn't see scenes were Cordelia empathised with Charles, nor Matthew said he loved him.

Be it as it may, Kamala and Charles represent ugly parts of being closeted that can naturally occur when someone is in their position. LGBT people are human. Humans, when put into very difficult situations (and Charles risks his career; Kamala her safety), can make decisions that harm those around them. Consequently, the people they're harming have a right to feel, well, harmed in whatever range of ways --this goes mostly for Alastair, and very partly for Anna, whose treatment of Kamala was horrible.

Readers need to understand what is pushing these 'villianised' characters to harm (again, mostly for Alastair) the more prominent characters and go beyond how they are instantly depicted. Because these are complex characters based on complex real people influenced by very ugly realities we will move on from someday, but sadly not yet.

By the way, Charles and Kamala's situations aren't that similar beyond the closeted thing, but I crammed them together because of a post I saw you reblog.

Please understand I'm not justifying Charles's actions; that I understand the pain he's put Alastair through, and know that he shouldn't ever be near Alastair. Nor am I trying to justify Anna's actions nor hate on Kamala.

I'll just finish my pointless rant by adding that I do think cc has sensitivity readers. I think she asked a gay man to go through tec (I don't know if he still revised her other books, though), and know she asked POC's input when writing someone for their culture. I don't know much beyond that, but I doubt who revises her stuff is up to her. Wouldn't that be something the publisher is responsible for (honest question)?

*I've also noticed people using the argument that they didn't know each other long enough for Anna to harbour such ugly emotions towards Kamala, but Kamala also remembered Anna pretty deeply and is 'in love' with her. I just wanted to say that considering cc writes (fantastical) romance where someone can ask a woman they met two months ago marriage, stressing over time spaces doesn't make much sense. Just my take.

hi!!

alright, where do I start? probably would be best with stating that while I can analyse Kamala's situation with what I know/see/read about racism and discrimination and reasonably apply things I've read/heard from PoC to the discussion, as well as try to be as sensitive about it as possible, I'm still a white woman, so not a person that's best qualified to talk about this.

that being said - if someone wants to add something to this conversation, you're obviously more than welcome to, and if there's something in my answer that you don't agree with or find in some way insensitive or offensive - please don't hesitate to call me out on that.

back to your points though: (this turned into a whole ass essay, so under the cut)

I don't think Anna shouldn't be able to reminiscent on Kamala's behaviour/reaction to her coming out, or be hurt by it. what bothers me is the way CC talks about it - I can't remember the exact phrasing, but the post where she mentioned this suggested something along the lines of "you'll see how Kamala sided with the Clave and didn't defend Anna after her coming out", therefore putting the blame on Kamala and completely disregarding the fact that Kamala wasn't in position to do much at all. It suggest that their situation was "poor Anna being mistreated by Kamala". therefore I'm afraid Kamanna's main problem/conflict will remain to be portrayed as "Anna having to allow themselves to love again and forgive Kamala", while Anna's shortcomings - and Kamala's vulnerable position - are never discussed. I think it would be possible to acknowledge both Kamala's difficult situation and the possible hurt her behaviour caused Anna without being insensitive towards Kamala's character, but it would take a really skilled - and caring - author to do both of the perspectives justice. CC would have to find a balance between being aware of the racism/prejudice Kamala faced/ writing her with lots of awareness and empathy, and still allowing her to make mistakes and acknowledging them. As it is however, I'm under impression that she's just treating it as a plot device, a relationship drama.

I'd say no one expects characters of color to be written as flawless or never making mistakes, it's mostly the way these mistakes are written and what things these characters are judged/shamed/

And that's - at least in my understanding and opinion - where the problem is. it's that the narrative never even addresses Anna's faults, and portrays Kamala as the one that caused all - or most of - the pain, without ever even acknowledging her problems and background.

White characters in TLH make mistakes and fuck up - because they're human and they're absolutely allowed to - but the thing is, non-white characters aren't afforded that privilege. Anna's behaviour is never questioned - none of it, shaming Kamala for not being able to come out, dismissing her desire to be a mother, or any of the questionable things she did in ChoI. Same with Matthew, James, Thomas. Alastair and Kamala however? they're constantly viewed through their past mistakes, and forced to apologize for them over and over, forced to almost beg for forgiveness. Moreover, those past mistakes are used as a justification of all and any shitty behaviour the other characters exhibit towards them now, which is simply unfair and cruel. They're held to a much higher standard.

So I'd like to say that yes, Kamala was in the wrong to keep nagging Anna after numerous rejections, and she was in the wrong to not inform Anna about Charles prior to them having sex - but that doesn't give Anna a free pass to constantly mistreat Kamala. And let's be real, Anna isn't stupid - while at 17 she could be naive and uninformed, I can't imagine how after years of hanging out with the Downworlders and numerous affairs and being out and judged by the Clave she's still so ignorant about Kamala's situation. I definitely think she's allowed to be hurt, but to still not understand why Kamala did what she did? Anna isn't blaming her for not telling her about Charles earlier - which would be fair - but instead for refusing to engage in an outright romance with her. She's being ignorant - and consciously so, I think.

Overall, I think you're definitely right about how coming out - or staying closeted - can be messy and hurt people in the process, especially in unaccepting environments/time periods, and I've seen enough discourse online to know there will never be a verdict/stance on this that will satisfy everyone. I, for one, would really like to refrain from putting all the blame on a single person - but, at least the way I see it, CC is pointing fingers. maybe not directly, but she is. Kamala, Alastair and Charles have no friends or support systems, and the only people in the narrative that defend them are themselves (ok, Cordelia does defend Alastair from Charles, but not from shitty takes about him and his "sins"). Also, sorry, but I don't like how you say "hid her sexuality for two years and sat back while Anna experienced homophobic comments" - it sounds very much judgemental. Kamala had every right to do that? The fact that she slept with Anna doesn't means she owed her something, and certainly not coming out and most probably destroying her life, or even defending her at the - again - expense of her own reputation, or more possibly safety.

As for Charles - it's a different issue here, at least imo - I fear that it'll be implied that his refusing to come out will is his main "sin", and therefore not something he can be judged for, which ironically, will be villainizing, but mostly will mean his actual sins are dismissed. This is where the scene with Cordelia feeling a pang of sympathy for him comes into play, and it worries me. I've never hated Charles for not wanting to come out, but rather for, let's see - grooming Alastair, disregarding Alastair's needs and feelings, disrespecting his mother, being a sexist prick, being low-key far-right coded "make Shadowhunters great again" etc.

As for sensitivity readers - I'm no expert, so I don't think my input is worth much. From what I've gathered from multiple threads/discussions on twitter, tho it is probably consulted/approved by the publisher, many authors push for that - and authors less famous and "powerful" than her. I'm not a hater, but seeing fandoms' opinions on much of her rep, I think she could do better. Because if she does have sensitivity readers, then they don't seem to be doing a great job - maybe they're friends who don't wanna hurt her feelings? Or maybe she thinks a gay guy's feedback will be enough for any queer content - which, judging by the opinions I've seen from the fans, doesn't seem to be true.

Again, these are mostly my thoughts and I'm more than open to reading other opinions, because *sigh* I really don't know how to handle this.

Bottom line - I really really don't want to be hating on the characters in general, playing God in regards to judging the struggles of minorities, or even criticising the characters too harshly for being human, flawed etc. What my main issue is is how CC handles those complex and heavy topics.

I hope I make sense and this answer satisfies you somehow - I also hope someone better equipped to answer might wanna join this conversation.

* I desperately need a reread of TLH before I engage in any more conversations like this, but I didn't wanna leave you hanging. So yeah, I might be remembering things wrong. Again, let me know, I'm very much open to being corrected as well as to further discussion.

* I use she/her pronouns for Anna because that's what she uses in canon