React just did an episode where their reactors got to see a full screening of the movie, and it’s great! Especially since over half of the reactors they had (Danny, Morgan, Sharon, Jonathan, and Dionte) are gay and shared their stories and how much the movie affected them. Also everybody was crying.
It seems a bit extreme to say over a sweet, teen romance book, this ruined me but in all honesty, it did. Never have I read a book that fit this facet of my life so perfectly. There really isn’t anything out there for queer LDS and former LDS people like myself. I own Sue-Ann Post’s memoir, and borrowed Saving Alex from the library. I own Latter Days on dvd. I even owned the church-endorsed In Quiet Desperation, a book written by the parents of a gay kid who knew he was suicidal and chose not to intervene despite knowing this (because God told them not to), and the LDS posterboy for the new face of pray the gay away. That’s how thin on the ground representation is.
This book was the book I needed, not just as a teen, but as an adult. This book is going to save the lives of so many queer LDS kids. That’s not an exaggeration. It’s an absolute fact.
As someone born into Mormonism, all the terminology, attitudes, language and doctrine was spot-on. They got it right. So many kids are going to find this book and have something that was written just for them, a candle in the dark. The scene where the hypothetical is mentioned? I did that. It crashed and burned in a slightly different, but still heartbreakingly predictable way. Too many of us die, either at our own hand, actively or passively, or are murdered, actively or passively. Too many of us end up with nothing once the walls are removed and we’re standing in that field for the first time. But for the ones who find this book, be it through libraries, or friends, or illicit ebook… they won’t be standing alone.
I didn’t mean to code Olivia as autistic, no: Olivia is autistic, full stop. She says as much a little later in the book, when she’s talking about her relationship with her parents (mostly her father) and some assumptions they made about her future before she was old enough to shut that shit down.
Excuse my ignorance – what’s the difference between somebody being “coded” and actually being it? I was under the apparently erroneous impression that they were basically the same thing, only coded being used exclusively for fictional characters showing real life disorders/sexualities/whatever.
Frequently when a character is “coded” one way or another, it’s to get the schema of a group of people without actually having to commit to the realities of fictional diversity.
Example: Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory is coded autistic. He does things that are stereotypical “autistic behaviors,” as interpreted by the mainstream media; he talks in the “ha ha funny” way that is often used for neuroatypical characters.
But.
The creators will not say that Sheldon is autistic, because then the fact that much of the show’s humor (”humor”) is at his expense would be visibly and blatantly cruel. Look at us, mocking an autistic person for being themselves, aren’t we swell people ha ha ha oh wait. So they basically say “no, he could be just like everyone else, he could be ‘normal,’ so when everyone is awful to Sheldon, he’s bringing it on himself,” while still writing the character using a set of schema and narrative shorthands that makes it very, very clear that we’re supposed to laugh at people mocking an autistic man.
(Sheldon is also an asshole. You can be autistic and still be an asshole. But consider how hard it is to have conversations like “knowing what dinner will be at 9am is important for my mental health because I have food insecurity” if you’re not allowed to say the words “mental health” or “food insecurity.”)
I saw something earlier today that pointed out that mocking people for behaviors we code as autistic–special interests, stimming, etc.–is an asshole move whether they have a diagnosis or not, and that is absolutely true. But mocking the “weirdo” is still considered socially acceptable in so many circles, and that means that characters get coded as autistic, or OCD, or queer, or Jewish, and then never actually given that identity, all to make them “other.”
It’s the acceptable face of bigotry. It’s also why you have a lot of really intense same-gender relationships in mainsteam tv shows (Rizzoli & Isles, White Collar, etc.) that never turn romantic or sexual, because they want the numbers queer viewers bring, but they don’t want to lose conservative viewers. Before you think, ‘oh, but they’re just really good friends!’ remember that any relationship on tv betwen opposite-gender people is all about ‘will they/won’t they’ from day one (The X-Files, Castle, Bones, etc.) If you think this is an exaggeration, consider the amount of shit Elementary has gotten from trying to keep Sherlock/Joan platonic. It’s only okay to have queer-coded dynamics if you never intend to pay them off with actual representation. Some shows try to do this right, but are actively stopped by the network (Leverage) and others give representation, but then invoke the Bury Your Gays trope as the endgame (Buffy). Things are slowly improving. Both the Librarians and Brooklyn 99 have given us bi representation in the last year. But there’s a long way to go.
I feel very strongly that if historical romance can give women a happy ending, it can give queer people a happy ending. M/f historical romance doesn’t tie itself in knots over the likelihood of the rake having syphilis, the terrible dentistry, the lice, the prolapsed uterus after multiple pregnancies, the prospect of death in childbed, or the horrifying legal discrimination against married women. We don’t close the book on the wedding scene reflecting that the heroine can now be legally raped, has just lost all her property to her husband…and would be vanishingly unlikely to obtain a divorce. Historical romance readers aren’t stupid; we know this stuff, but we choose to believe our heroine will be one of the lucky ones. And I don’t see why we can’t extend that happy glow to other stories, too. If women’s lives don’t have to be blighted by social oppression in romance, neither do those of people of color or queer people.
Moreover, human nature doesn’t change. A lot of what we read about LGBT people in history is appalling because the records we have are the legal documents, the newspaper reports, the accounts of people who were victimized. We don’t generally have the hidden stories of the people who lived under the radar…. But we know…people we’d now call gay, bi, trans have always existed and [that] as a matter of statistics plenty of them must have lived and died without ever coming to the law’s attention. Which is not to hand-wave the horrors of the past but only to say that horror isn’t the only story, and it’s not an acceptable reason to deny marginalized people their happy-ever-after.
Some weeks ago, I reblogged a gifset of Mark Hamill talking about gay fans headcanoning Luke as gay, and expressing his support for them feeling free to interpret his character that way if they wanted to. I replied, talking about the importance of this kind of acceptance by a creator of fan interpretation. The original post is here, but I’ll duplicate my comments here for context:
He gets it, gets why seeing yourself in a character is important, and that is so rare. Too many creators and authors and actors get wrapped up in what their intent was when creating/writing/performing, and don’t see that the moment the work is out there, it’s open source for head canons, interpretations, fanworks and meta. This is all the more important for people of marginalised groups. So of course Luke is gay, if you read him that way. The power is YOURS not Mark’s, and he’s not so egocentric that he misses that. This should be far more common than it is, this generous acceptance of fan interpretation and evolution of canon.
And, I didn’t think any more about it, until yesterday morning, when I noticed I had a PM from a total stranger who’d seen my comment on a reblog somewhere. They asked some questions, I formulated a reply, and then we had a conversation which I think is important because it covers the intersection of straight privilege, the desire and push for diverse representation, and respecting the boundary between creators and fans.
I will forenote this with the fact that this conversation is being posted completely with the consent of the person involved. I have removed all identifying information as to the user, fandoms and ships mentioned in this discussion and anything else I think is too identifiable. If you think you can identify specifics, please do not add them to tags or reblogs or badger me for confirmation. This is purely posted because the discussion is applicable to most if not all fandoms, and might help to enlighten those who don’t understand the nuances of fandom (and transformative works and headcanons) for minorities but WANT to understand.
anon:Hello 🙂 I love what Mark says and I agree with him that it is perfectly ok to have an active fantasy life about a character. But I’m not positive I agree with everything you said in your comment and I’d like to ask you something:
If I watch a show that is based on two gay characters and I want one of the characters to be straight and I ship them with another character in a heterosexual relationship – that’s okay? Even if they are written as gay, but I don’t see them as gay?
Also, is it okay for me to push that agenda on the actor who plays him or her and say, oh but you’re NOT gay in the show, you’re really straight – you just don’t realize it? Would I be welcome with this interpretation or would I be considered homophobic for completely denying these characters are gay?
I don’t believe that interpretation by an audience should reach the level that the artist is forced to completely deny their intent to make said audience happy. Then it is like fascism or some form of rule that allows one section of the population to decide but the other section better watch itself. If art is truly free, then the audience should not attempt to control the artist by intimidation – it should at least be polite and also allow said artist his or her interpretation.
Just up late and sleepless – not trying to offend but to understand if there is a double standard at play here.
iamshadow21: The difference is, queer people and other minorities are denied representation. We have to look into the subtext to find characters like ourselves. When someone changes a queer character to straight, the situation is different because straight people have all the power, all the representation, and 99% of media is full of people exactly like them. You take a dollar from a guy with a hundred bucks, he’s probably going to be fine and not care. You take a dollar from someone who only has a dollar, you’ve stolen everything from them.
As for ‘pushing agendas’ on the actors, there’s a difference between politely asking and pushing an agenda. Agenda’s a pretty loaded word that’s been used by heterosexual people terrified of queer empowerment and civil rights for decades – we have an ‘agenda’, we want to ‘steal’ their children from them and convert them and make them satan worshippers and paedophiles. The fact that you used the word agenda when talking about forcing an orientation headcanon on an actor was probably an unconscious choice on your part, but you should be mindful that it is a word with a history and is a word still used in the present to fearmonger and oppress a minority that a large amount of heterosexuals would prefer would cease to exist. They would literally prefer we died, and if you think that’s exaggeration, just look at the protest movement in the early years of HIV/AIDS. Google Act Up and the ‘die-ins’ held just trying to get powerful straight people to give a shit, if you want to educate yourself futher.
I’m of the opinion that with a lot of fandom stuff, you shouldn’t cross the streams. Don’t be creepy, don’t do or say anything that might make the creators uncomfortable. This includes forcing a headcanon on them in the manner you suggested, be it gay, straight or otherwise. But asking a polite question about a character’s orientation, a character that doesn’t have a romance onscreen? I don’t see a problem with that.
As for your paralleling the desire and push for representation with art-crushing fascism, well. Wow. May I refer you to the first paragraph. We are awash in straight representation. Having gay characters and headcanons doesn’t diminish the plethora of them. But taking a canonically gay character and straightwashing them? You’re taking the dollar from the guy who only has one. As for attempts to force a creator to deny their intent, may I refer you to the paragraph on fandom and boundaries. There are, however, times when it is appropriate to push for greater diversity and representation in our media. For us to shout, because otherwise, creators forget we exist. They default to white/cis/hetero, because that’s the factory settings and unless there’s a vocal segment calling out for something else, that’s what we get. Yet another white bread sandwich, when all we want is one fruit salad.
If you really want to ship a canonically gay character with a person of another gender, I’m not going to flat out say you can’t. The joy of fandom is that your brain is a free place where you can imagine whatever the hell you want. You can create stuff based off it, too, though you might get shit for doing it, because when we get representation, it matters so much and we don’t like it being wiped out like it’s an inconvenience. One way to make your ship work without erasing the queerness? Consider whether your headcanon works if the character is bisexual. If gay people have a single dollar, bisexuals have fifty cents, and they mean you can have your ship without praying the gay away.
anon: Everything you said makes total sense and if there is one thing I wish for is that there is more representation and diversity so it’s not necessary to take a show that is written straight and look for subtext.
Apologies for using the word “agenda”. I wasn’t using it derogatorily against the gay community but just using it for lack of a better word that I couldn’t pull out of my head at 2 in the morning!
Anyway, let me explain a little more where I’m coming from on the artistic level, and you’ll probably understand why I asked you the question in the first place.
I meant to write to you from my main blog but accidentally sent from my secondary blog. My main blog is a [fandom] blog. Do you watch or know about the show? If you do, you will know what relationship I’m referring to and which actor I’m thinking of. Since season [#] of the show, [m/m ship] has been around. I don’t ship it, but I know many who do and many are very cool with it being fanon only and realize that it has not been, nor will ever be, declared canon. Show’s creator, writers and actors (well with the exception of one who in the past has liked to tease) have declared it not to be canon. However, there is a small part of the ship who are fairly vocal, and not always in a pleasant way. I have no problem with shipping, but I do have a problem when people who are disappointed that it has not been accepted as real, bully and bash the actors who have had to answer the same questions over and over at conventions. Even members of the ship find this behavior reprehensible.
Anyway, this is where I was coming from last night when I was wondering how it would feel to have the tables turned and have heterosexuals insisting – sometimes rudely – that two gay characters were straight. Shoe on the other foot kind of thing.
I’ve seen [actor] have to field these questions and I don’t envy him the task or the inevitable backlash that he is homophobic. He’s proven in his own life he’s anything but homophobic, but because he is being honest about what he sees his character (these fans think he is bi) as after [show run length] years, he gets penalized.
Anyway, the wheels of progress grind slowly, and over the years we’ve seen more and more gay representation on shows and in movies, and like anything else, it will take time. I hope TPTB in Hollywood will see the wealth of subject matter there and start producing more and more shows to represent the LGBT community and there will be enough artistic expression to go around. xo
iamshadow21: I don’t watch [show] but I’m aware of the popular ships, both in-show and RPF, and I can tell you without any hesitation that this is a case of fandom conspiracy theories/tinhattery and bad behaviour. It’s something that crops up in a lot of fandoms where people decide that their own headcanon is the only way and try to force it on the creators rather than being content to theorise and create transformative works. This isn’t really about the characters being gay or straight, it’s about a group of fans with an altered perception of reality and canon who are ruining it for the rest, and I’m sorry you have to deal with that in your fandom, but it’s very common. From [super threatening behaviour] in [other fandom #1] to the labyrinthine weirdness of [actor ship conspiracy theory] in [other fandom #2], every fandom has their subset of people who take it too far. That the ship in this case is a gay one is a peripheral issue, though it seems to you the primary one. It isn’t about representation at all.
anon: Your last sentence: that is so, so true…a friend of mine had some fantastic tags on one of the posts that recently dealt with another outburst of this fringe group and she really nailed it on the head (she is bi):
[I have removed the tag set because I didn’t have the OP’s permission to post it, but it covered the points that 1) she supported the actor’s stance 2) the fans in question were being inappropriate, threatening, and throwing shame on the fandom in general and 3) even if the actor did concede to their version to make them shut up about it, it wouldn’t be a true victory for social justice or diversity representation in media.]
But, no matter what forms of logic we use, it really never makes a dent in the delusion.
Well, thanks for chatting with me, it was interesting and I learned some things! xo
iamshadow21: Hey, no problem. Yeah, I was just going to add – ‘straightwashing’ in retaliation won’t change this subset’s mind because they are convinced of the verity of their beliefs, and only hurt those, like me, who long to see ourselves on the screen. So just step back and leave them be. Try and enjoy your fandom and don’t engage. Engaging never works. And they’re crying homophobia, but that’s just a word to them, a ‘reason’ for their reality not being real. It’s not the actual reality we live with. I mean, sure, without homophobia and queerbaiting, [ship] might be canon. But it might not. And the idea that it’s secretly coded into the show is magical thinking.
anon: Yes, I totally get that. And I think I forget sometimes and want to lash back, but you’re right, engaging never works. I really never do.
Oh they are convinced of that!
iamshadow21: Yeah, so don’t engage.
anon: Which is why [actor] lately looked straight at the questioner and said “[that ship isn’t a thing in the canon]” and of course the shitstorm happened. Poor guy.
iamshadow21: Because every time you do, you reinforce that there are ‘forces’ trying to prevent their love.
anon:Nope, I don’t follow anybody that messes up my dash lol.
YES!!
iamshadow21: It’s a delusion, a shared delusion, which makes it stronger because the core believers reinforce it amongst themselves. It’s what happens in cults.
anon: Wow it really is a certifiable delusion isn’t it?
Absolutely.
It is a cult.
Well, that being said, there is no more to be said other than don’t engage 🙂
Thank you.
iamshadow21: Yeah. So be aware, keep out of the mess, and don’t make the mistake of thinking it’s actually about social justice and representation. It’s about false belief.
Thank you for listening to my answers. I really hope it’s helped.
anon: I will remember your words and re-read this thread whenever I’m feeling murderous haha
It really did 🙂
knitting in the dark 