mortallyfoolish:

moon-crater:

powpowhammer:

ladysaviours:

I’ve been trying to think of a good term for the “weepy movies about tragic queer people aimed at straight audiences” subgenre, and I think I’ve got it:

dead gays for the straight gaze

eh? eh??

queers die for the straight eye

SO YOOOO who wants to learn why this is a thing because the history is actually really fascinating and ties into some of my favorite shit ever?

Okay, so like, back in the mid-twentieth century, when being queer was still totally a crime everywhere in the United States, queer writers started working in pulp fiction–starting with Vin Packer (she is awesome)–and writing pulps to tell our stories.

So one day over lunch, her editor asks her, “Hey, Vin, what’s the story you most want to write?”

And she goes, “Well, I’d like to write a love story about lesbians because I’m, you know, gay.”

He says, “Hey, that’s awesome, I will publish it. One thing, though, the homosexuality has to end badly and the main character has to realize she was never gay in the first place. We can’t seem to support homosexuality. I don’t actually think that’s cool, but the government will literally seize our book shipments and destroy them on the basis of the books being ‘obscene’ if you don’t, so if we want this story actually out there, and not burning in a bonfire somewhere, it’s what you gotta do.”

So Vin goes home and writes Spring Fire, the book that launched the entire lesbian pulp genre. And while one character ends up in an insane asylum and the other ends up realizing she never loved her at all, it’s massively successful, and queer women everywhere snap it up and celebrate quietly in their closets across the nation because HOLY SHIT THERE’S A BOOK ABOUT ME? I’M NOT ALONE and it starts a huge new genre.

But: every publisher is subject to those same government censorship rules, so every story has to end unhappily for the queer characters, or else the book will never see the light of day. So, even though lesbian pulp helps solidify the queer civil rights movement, it’s having to do so subversively or else it’ll end up on the chopping block.

So blah blah blah, this goes on for about twenty years, until finally in the seventies the censorship laws get relaxed, and people can actually start queer publishing houses! Yay! But the lesbian pulps, in the form they’d been known previously, basically start dying out.

MEANWHILE, OVER IN JAPAN! Yuri, or the “girls love” genre in manga, starts to emerge in the 1970s, and even starts dealing with trans characters in the stories. But, because of the same social mores that helped limit American lesbian pulp, the stories in Japan similarly must end in tragedy or else bad shit will go down for the authors and their books. Once more: tragic ends are the only way to see these stories published rather than destroyed.

The very first really successful yuri story has a younger, naive girl falling into a relationship with an older, more sophisticated girl, but the older girl ends up dying in the end, and subsequent artists/writers repeated the formula until it started getting subverted in the 1990s–again, twenty years later.

And to begin with cinema followed basically the same path as both lesbian pulps and yuri: when homosexuality is completely unacceptable in society, characters die or their stories otherwise end in tragedy, just to get the movies made, and a few come along to subvert that as things evolve.

But unlike the books and manga before them, even though queer people have become sightly more openly accepted, movies are stuck in a loop. See, pulps and yuri are considered pretty disposable, so they were allowed to evolve basically unfettered by concerns of being artistic or important enough to justify their existence, but film is considered art, and especially in snooty film critic circles, tragedy=art.

Since we, in the Western world, put films given Oscar nods on a pedestal, and Oscar nods go to critical darlings rather than boisterous blockbusters (the film equivalent of pulps, basically), and critics loooove their tragedy porn, filmmakers create queer stories that are tragic and ~beautiful~ that win awards that then inspire more queer stories that are tragic and ~beautiful~ until the market is oversaturated with this bullshit.

The Crying Game? Critical darling, tragic trans character.

Philadelphia? Critical darling, tragic gay character.

Brokeback Mountain? Critical darling, tragic queer (? not totally sure if they’d consider themselves gay or bi, tbh?) characters.

And so on and so on VOILA, we now have a whole genre of tragedy porn for straight people, that started out as validation for us and sometimes even manages to slip some more through the cracks occasionally, but got co-opted by pretentious ~literary~ types. While tragic ends made these stories more acceptable to begin with, and in the mid-to-late nineties that started getting subverted a little bit (Chasing Amy, But I’m a Cheerleader), eventually that became the point, as more straight audiences started consuming these narratives and got all attached to the feels they got from the ~beauty of our pain~.

Queer history is crucial

gayspacejew:

foxy-mulder:

redkrypto:

saw atomic blonde by myself in a theatre of hets in the middle of the night and let me just say watching THE lesbian in the film get brutally murdered in one of the most violent ways i’ve ever seen onscreen really um what’s the word traumatized me for life

uhm boost

yeah uh i saw this movie just cos I heard it was gay and was really not expecting the ingenue lesbian get strangled by a man in her own bed while half-naked it was Unfun

Super glad for this post; I would not have dealt with that well.

Insecticide

laporcupina:

image

There are valid reasons for why Marvel swapped out Janet Van Dyne and Hank Pym for Natasha Romanova and Clint Barton as founding members of the Avengers in the MCU. Especially for where Marvel’s collective head was back in 2008-2011, when they weren’t even sure there would be an Avengers to form. It required far less CGI (and thus less money), it fit better with the MCU conceit of the Avengers being a SHIELD-sponsored paramilitary unit instead of Team Treehouse living on Tony Stark’s dime, it avoided tipping the team too far into Science Geeks Plus Cap territory, Black Widow and Hawkeye had more currency, etc. These may not be the best reasons, the only reasons, or insurmountable reasons, but they’re valid reasons.

But Marvel is going to have to come up with perfect reasons to justify apparently fridging Janet in 2014 to give Hank a tragic past and Scott Lang an age-appropriate love interest.

They had options here, far more than they did in 2008 when this was all a pipe dream or in 2011 when they punched their golden ticket with The Avengers. The MCU has expanded greatly, both on Earth with Agents of SHIELD and out into space with Guardians of the Galaxy and there is plenty of room to fit Janet in. Janet’s tiny, she fits everywhere.

Except, apparently, in the MCU as a living woman.

Read More

Hey, can you explain what Remender did that was so terrible? Because I see a lot of posts talking about how he did something horrible, but I can’t find what it actually is. Thanks!

scifigrl47:

1.  He killed Rogue and Scarlet Witch on his way out the door on Uncanny Avengers.  (Two female characters who feature heavily in just released/upcoming movies)

2. He fridged Sharon Carter for Steve Rogers’ manpain. (ANOTHER female character who features in a current movie, wow what are the CHANCES he’d find another one to kill?)

3. He just wrote a story that features a sex scene that a lot of people (especially females and POC, two groups that often feel that their concerns are not taken seriously by comics culture) are finding to be very problematic.  It involves alcohol, Sam Wilson (ANOTHER character that was just introduced in a major movie, WOW!) and a female character who may or may not be of age.  Although the narrative has established her to be an adult, the fact that Remender felt the need to clearly state her age in the middle of the sequence means that he was aware that most people did not take her to be an adult.  To put it another way, when Natasha Romanov has a morning after, it does not involve her saying, “I’m thirty-six.”  She doesn’t need to.  Everyone KNOWS she is an adult.  The fact that the character’s age must be stated indicates that the writer and the editorial staff KNEW it would be an issue, and they moved forward with it anyway.

4.  He wrote a speech where a (white, cis, het male who could pass for a non-mutant) character states that he does not approve of the “M-word,” or Mutant, that he considers it divisive.  IT IS BAD TO HAVE SUCH LABELS WE SHOULD DO AWAY WITH THEM.   This kind of speech, written and spoken from a position of privilege, does not feel like inclusion.  It feels like erasure.  Having a pretty blonde white boy dismissing the very real problems of people who CANNOT hide their minority identity, dismissing the way they define themselves, because he doesn’t like that word, but doesn’t offer an alternative, smacks of the worst kind of white male privilege, and it sticks in the craw.

4. I do not appreciate his writing aesthetic.  I do not appreciate how he treats female characters.  I do not approve of the choices he makes.  I do not appreciate how he handles his interviews or how he treats fandom.  I do not appreciate the fact that every time I get an ask saying, “I’m new to comics, but I love the movies, can you recommend a comic?” I cannot, in good conscience recommend Captain America.  I will not, especially to a new, female reader who loves the Cap she’s seen on the screen.  Because Remender does not write that Cap.

5.  He is a hack.  I’ve seen more compelling plots and character development from the average AO3 fic.  

I don’t like him.  I’d be happy to see him driven from comics.  I’d be happy to have Cap in better hands.  I will not buy anything else with his name on it.  I have let Marvel know as much, and I continue to support comics with creators who, in my opinion, treat their characters and their fanbase with more respect.