#Stranger Things Critical

[love-too-believe]

Everytime I'm reminded that Billy really could have had the most raw complex interesting gay storyline in the history of media, but the Duffers are shit writers...

Like could you imagine how great this would have been. A gay character that's allowed to be problematic. Complex. Rageful. His story isn't fluffy. It isn't cute.

It's unapologetically a raw story of a gay teen in the 80s with rage issues, an abusive father, an absent mother and no support system.

[dunroamins]

It really fucking sucks as someone who likes both Steve AND Jonathan, but sometimes the fandom lowkey makes me hate Steve - whether it's by demonizing Jonathan/attributing his best tributes solely to Steve, or by wildly mischaracterizing him.

Yes!

Steve has his own, entirely valid, good qualities, many of which he actually shares with Jonathan: being brave, protective and loyal.

He's also practically intelligent and observant (realising the recording was coming from inside the mall), and he's done what a lot of young lads do. He was a bit of an arsehole in high school, and now he's grown up and grown out of that behaviour.

What that means is that he's a fairly ordinary kid. That's the whole point-he's the normal small-town boy who ends up doing battle with interdimensional monsters.

Jonathan, by contrast, gets so much hate because he's not ordinary. He is primed for the Upside Down. He's not ready for what happens to Will...but he's been expecting things to go wrong his whole life because they always have. When the GA calls him weird, or ugly, or boring, what they really mean is 'I can't relate to what he's been through so I don't have any sympathy for him'.

He's intelligent, sharp, witty, spiky, strong and compassionate. He has a moral centre because his father never did. He's a dad before he's a high-school grad; a mother's helper before he gets to be a child. This is the young man who organised his little brother's funeral, and still made sure his mother ate. This is the young man who had his spine cracked wide with a surgical stool, and tried to save his girlfriend through the pain.

This is a man who (probably without fully realising) limits his own choices because he's determined to expand his little brother's.

The constant erasure of Jonathan's complexities-his constant relegation to the background by large swathes of the fandom-hurts, because that's exactly what happens to kids like him. To kids like me.

Jonathan is different by design. The whole Byers family (sans Lonnie) is different by design. They are the ones best equipped to deal with all of this because they know the darkness that lies beneath normal life. It's not a shock or a surprise to them. The whole concept of the show is about a family that's been beaten down by people who don't care to understand, responding to the Upside Down in a way only they can.

Jonathan doesn't get to have the redemption arc Steve does, because (aside from the photo debacle) he doesn't need one. He doesn't need to grow up, because he's already had to. His outlook on life is more mature, more cynical, more responsible, because it's had to be. From the first episode, Joyce is already in the habit of focusing on Will because Jonathan 'can take care of himself', so his needs don't show on her radar. Not only does that mean she doesn't see them: it also means that Jonathan doesn't have a good handle on his own needs either.

When you learn to make yourself small to keep everyone else afloat, you lose the ability to tell when you're sinking.

And a big chunk of the GA seems to see this and go 'Oh, he's sinking, what a loser!' because it's become normal for him to sink. They see his character as the oddball tragic foil to Steve's everyman charm, when they were supposed to see it the other way around. Jonathan was supposed to be one of the central characters for once, and to take that away from him because he is the way he is...misses the point entirely. You're supposed to sympathise with Jonathan. You're supposed to watch the show and think deeply about the harm we do when we exclude people. You're supposed to learn from him.

Yes, Jonathan does struggle to be sociable, and charismatic, and open! He does struggle to express himself! That's the whole point: he is a child who's been through more in 16 years (as of S1) than most people in small-town America have in a lifetime. He is the way he is because he trudges through Hell and keeps going.

Because he'll be damned if anyone he loves ends up there with him.

[vanesawye]

great critique of season 3 jancy by jexonite

[the-lark-ascending69]

I'm sorry but I have a very real problem with Vickie as a character. A fan-favorite character is revealed to be queer in the previous season and gets a love interest shaped appendix with no plot relevance or personality, created only to be Robin's trophy girlfriend, in a way that is so painfully and obviously different from how they did it when they tried to make a new character entirely to give her a love story with an already existing main character.

I'm talking about Robin herself, and how, despite not having the deepest character arc in S3, she still had some meat on her bones. She still had some stuff to work with. She was actually important and involved with the plot and had real chemistry with her would-be love interest, Steve. Making her a lesbian at last second pretty much saved both her and Steve's characters and made the Scoops subplot, the only redeemable subplot of S3, actually salvageable. By recontextualizing Stobin with that revelation, you go from a forced, heteronormative/amatonormative "love story" with mysoginistic undertones (because what are frmale characters if not trophy wives for male characters!) and 1) you give Robin actual stuff in her life that has nothing to do with Steve, turning her into a real character on her own, yet also shows why their friendship is so valuable to her, giving her a mini-arc in the process about overcoming isolation, alienation and loneliness, and 2) you wrap up Steve's arc the way his character clearly needs to be wrapped up - by moving on from his immature pursuits of women as romantic/sexual fulfillment and his highschool persona constructed on that, and embracing maturity by working on himself with the help of the people who challenge him the most, his platonic bonds (Dustin and Robin). Like I'm being 100% serious when I say making Robin a lesbian somewhat saved season 3.

But you can tell the brilliance of that move did NOT come from the Duffers' mastermind because they couldn't even attempt to replicate their unexpected success with Robin and Vickie. Because even before Robin was made into a lesbian, she still had SOMETHING. Vickie has nothing. She's a non-character. And it's interesting to note the difference in treatment when it comes to straight male characters vs. queer female characters. You can make the case that Max's introduction in S2 followed a similar pattern to beta!Stobin - new character paired up with pre-existing character. But you wouldn't say Max was added just to give Lucas a girlfriend, because even if her plot relevance in S2 was rather lackluster, she still had... so much more than even Robin in S3, and she's simply uncomparable to Vickie. She feels like her own person right from the start. We know the Duffers like to add wayy to many characters, making the show feel crowded and inevitably leaving a few characters behind, but when they add new characters in a given season, they're actually pretty good at making us fall in love with them quickly. Max, Robin, Eddie, hell even Billy if you're into that - like I said before, there's always some work that goes into them that makes you care about them.

Sure, there are less important characters that don't get half the effort put into them - Heather, Benny, idk, Barb's parents? And many others I can't remember right now. Not every character needs to be a fan-favorite.

But none of these guys were a main character's love interest. Not even for like, a second-row main character like Robin. Lucas gets a girl and she gets proper character development. Steve was originally intended to get a girl and she gets plot relevance, screentime and charisma (and a bit of character development pre-coming out too). Robin gets a girl and... it seems like Robin and her girl don't matter that much.

Which makes me question, why give Robin a love interest at all if they weren't going to do anything about it. My guess is that, well, she's a lesbian, so of course she gets to kiss girls. Character arc? What is that? Just watch her gush over a girl without last name and not care about anything else for most of the season. The writers just didn't know what to do with her now that she's no longer gonna be Steve's trophy girlfriend. Just throw in a poorly put together gay subplot, because everyone knows gay people only get to kiss other gay people and there's nothing else about the lesbian experience worth talking about (like, idk, the loneliness? The alienation?). I'm of the belief that, if you're gonna half-ass it, don't write a romantic subplot at all, regardless of the characters' genders and sexuality. But what bothers me isn't a shitty romantic subplot. It's the difference in treatment that the queer characters get vs. their straight counterparts.

And it bothers me because it could have been fixed SO easily! You get three options:

Give Robin a character arc that's not a romantic subplot. That doesn't mean she doesn't get to have a crush, but it should be in the background. My idea would be to make it about her, Nancy and Barb, and their old friendship + Robin's sense of alienation. Robin learning the truth about Barb's death, and her and Nancy helping each other heal. Robin and Nancy becoming friends through long conversations about their feelings, through which Nancy gets a sort of "second chance" at having a friend again and Robin gets to connect with someone who initially hated her in her own special way. The point is to not make r0vickie obviously endgame, EVEN if it turns out to be that way next season, because if it's obviously endgame it suddenly begs for a deeper development and the lack of it becomes a problem. An easy solution would be to give Robin multiple crushes, to signal at how unserious they all are at the moment.

Give Robin a love story with a newly introduced main character. And the obvious option is *rolls drums" genderbent Eddie! Or Vickie in Eddie's place. Best and easiest solution imo. It may sound weird but if you think about it, it all makes sense - plot relevance, character development... only problem would be killing your gays if you squint, though Robin would be alive and ready for a new character arc next season, as a changed person. Sad, angry, possibly seeking revenge and seeking to assert herself as a threat after hiding and running her entire life. Robin's feelings are suddenly plot relevant now. I'm picking Eddie here (or rather, his role) because he's the most important one out if all the new S4 characters, and the one that spends time with the group the most. It's clean, minimalistic and practical.

Give Robin a love story with a pre-existing main character, i.e Nancy. As a ronance shipper, I maintain that pairing up Nancy and Robin would have been original and unexpected in the best way. I feel like I don't even need to explain why this would have been a good idea - tons of people already have. Mostly, I want to lament the impossibility of this option, which links directly to the point I'm trying to make.

Robin was never going to be paired with a main-main character, old or new, because queer relationships on-screen need to be pushed to the sides as to not interfere with or threaten the straight main characters. Nancy, as the main girl, was never going to get a romance with a girl. Vickie was never going to get the centrality that Eddie got. Straight relationships get to be taken seriously, even if they're writen stupidly, like whatever the fuck happened with stancy and jancy in S4. Queer relationships don't get to be more than silly forgettable subplots. Queer characters like Robin need to be inobtrusive. She could never fall in love with Nancy, even if one-sided-ly, because that would create a conflict straight audiences don't want to see.

And if a queer character DOES fall in love with a main straight character, like Will, it's all meant for pointless suffering. Not the kind of suffering that's vital for a character arc, or the kind that gives depth to a character. It's not a kind of suffering that leads them to change, to take any given decisions that they wouldn't otherwise have taken. It's not a suffering that could possibly interfere with the straight main couple's happiness. It's not a pain that causes conflict. Queer love and pain doesn't get to be part of the conflict in straight-dominated stories. So Robin can never fall in love with someone from the front-row sphere and Will suffers pointlessly, even though that pain has no real effect on him.

[aviaryartist1800]

Controversial take that might get killed:

Angela was not playing victim, she was the victim AT the moment when El struck her face, severely wounding her(the Stranger Things fandom would probably want the same for characters like Diamond Tiara)

The Stranger Things fandom cannot fathom that bullies CAN be victims and still be a bad person, like i am NOT a bully apologist

You guys say she deserved this:

TW:Slight Gore and Injury

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

And claim is playing the victim card, all because she is screaming in pain and is crying out in pain

This is a NORMAL response, can't you fathom that? Its basically people echoing Lily Orchard's "Violence is Golden" video

And compared to other bully characters i've seen, she is just cartoonishly the 80's type villain(she isn't even an absolutely vile character like Kyoya Sadamoto)

Also, i would bring up Lost Judgement because it tackles bullying, the bullies there actually redeem themselves at the end because the point was that they are still teenagers, they have room to change!

Why doesn't the Stranger Things fandom realize this(or any fandom at all)

(also this isn't me defending Angela, i'm just pointing this out because it is absolutely real)

[stranger-feathers]

Why Lucas' arc in S4 doesn't work narratively

I will not talk about Lucas on the Line or the Dustin Experiment in this analysis, since I have read neither, nor will I go into the topic of racism in the 80s and the show's constant refusal to grapple with it directly. I will purely focus on what the show itself could have done to make the arc work, within the constraints of what the writers established (aka canon typical lack of acknowledgment of racism and its effects on Lucas). Feel free to discuss those topics in the reblogs or replies, I simply didn't find a way to fit them in satisfyingly, since none of these would have single-handedly fixed my issues with the show's choices.

1. Lack of foreshadowing in S3

The sudden inclusion of Lucas playing basketball was a surprise for most viewers when S4 aired, and for good reason : there were little to no hints towards that development beforehand. We know Lucas mows the lawn for neighbours to get money; we remember his iconic wrist rocket and army-like costume in S1, or his "kicking a door open at school" stunt in S2, which are all physical activities he seemingly partakes in happily. But while Lucas has always been hinted to be more sporty than the rest of the party, basketball was never one of the activities associated with him, or even sports in general, let alone school ones. That lack of foreshadowing means that Lucas is likely to lack the viewer's support from the get-go, because he appears to be the one breaking the status quo for no reason by choosing basketball over D&D. That might be intended, it might not, but I lean towards unintended : S4E1 tries too hard to make the viewer empathise with Lucas if they didn't want us to side with him at least partially.

2. Flawed setup

Rewatching Season 4, one of the main issues I had with the setup for Lucas was who it was focused on : Mike. It's a logical choice given their previous interactions, because Mike and Lucas have always been pivotal characters for one another, especially in S3 where they spent the season tied together at the hip. The idea behind the conflict works really well : it's a continuation of their conformism in the previous season, except Mike is now trying to go back to who he was before it all. Lucas is understandably a bit upset that Mike changed his mind on something they apparently discussed (Mike nods when Lucas mentions plans to change things before they started high school), yet the viewer knows why Mike has done so (the rain fight comes to mind, along with the D&D themed goodbye to Will). It could have used a bit of foreshadowing in S3, but it's relatively easy to infer what's going on.

But this setup doesn't work past episode 1, since Mike fucks off to California for his romcom plot, which makes the conflict hard to resolve. After all, by the time Mike comes back, Lucas has bigger problems (his girlfriend in a coma and a pseudo apocalypse). A focus on Dustin would have been much easier to resolve, but the D&D/basketball conflict is never really brought up between them either. So, if it it's not treated as an intraparty conflict that needs resolving (as opposed to the S1 fight, for instance), what is it supposed to be ? A commentary on high school cliques and the damage they cause is my guess.

The other huge component in the setup is the high school cliques. Jason and Eddie are representative of their two clubs : the Basketball Team and the Hellfire Club. The boys are mostly caught in the crossfire between them, rather than the conflict being an active choice by Lucas or Mike/Dustin to not attend either of the activities. Lucas would come to Hellfire if Eddie moved it, and the other two would come to the game if it wasn't for the campaign. None of them are willing to lose their social standing over it, but there is no desire to force the others to choose : the only thing Lucas asks is a rescheduling, not for Dustin and Mike to ditch Hellfire. This in some way absolves them of at least some responsibility in the conflict, and might be why the writers decided that the personal resolution through either Mike or Dustin was unnecessary. None of them wanted to hurt each other, circumstances and high school mentality were the real issue.

The Jason/Eddie conflict is the root cause of the conflict, and it's through these characters that the writers will aim to solve it. The dispute starts as rather petty, one where Eddie is far from innocent : episode 1 leaves the viewer with a pretty terrible image of Eddie, as a pretentious man child who pretends to be more than he is through being the leader of a D&D club. The Chrissy scenes show a better side of him, but he still doesn't come across as a stellar individual with the boys (intended or not, considering Dustin's view of him later on, but that's a "Eddie's writing is eh" issue, and not one directly related to Lucas' arc). Regardless, it's still mostly a high school clique rivalry, not anything serious beyond the overall theme of outcast vs conformity of the series, and the question of "conforming to anti-conformity" while disparaging anything "normal" being, in itself, conforming (a pretty big part of Eddie's mindset). The issue lies in how Jason and Eddie then evolve as characters, and how this evolution forces Lucas to be presented as wrong, while Eddie and the other two boys aren't.

3. Intertwined arcs and delayed payoff

Jason and Eddie start the season as about equally in the wrong : by extension, so do Dustin and Lucas. However, Eddie gets a chance to grow out of the mindset that led to him hurting Lucas (seen notably in his speech to Steve), while Jason falls from grace more and more as the season goes on.

This leads us to the finale, where Jason is a direct antagonist, whereas Eddie dies a hero : they're not on equal footing anymore, but the conflict has yet to be resolved. Lucas is therefore forced into a setup where he "admits his wrongs" ("I never should have knocked" and "normal's just a raging psychopath", both very rad lines that nonetheless put him as firmly in the wrong thematically), whereas Dustin waxes poetry about Eddie's bravery. It's an unfair payoff to the initial setup, because Lucas was the character who was wronged in the first place, and is the only one who apologises. Regardless of the reason - unexamined bias on the part of the writers or innocent poor execution - the conclusion still leaves a pretty bitter taste. The payoff came too late into Jason's arc to be right for the initial conflict, and Eddie and Lucas don't get to have any scenes to resolve things before his untimely demise, leaving the viewer unsatisfied.

A simple scene between Lucas and Eddie would have done wonders to resolve the feeling of Lucas having been wronged, and would have let the Jason scene be what it was supposed to be : Lucas' refusal to fall down the same way he did, and his realisation that he will not find safety and happiness in conformity, nor in making himself anything less than he is. Imagine if the Steve scene had instead been a Lucas and Eddie scene, where Eddie gets to admit his wrong mindset and the hurt it caused ? Especially to someone we saw him hurt ? That certainly would have made the scene a lot more memorable than "Nerd learns Steve the popular jock isn't that bad : Electric Bugaloo (but without the build-up Robin's had)", and helped a lot in making Lucas' arc more satisfying.

Alas, that did not happen. The best we can hope for is for some reference to the conflict in Season 5, be it in some lingering tension between Mike and Lucas who have yet to clear the air between them, or in letting Lucas have a differing opinion from Dustin on Eddie. We will have to wait and see, although I would have much preferred the conflict to be well written in the first place.

[gaylienstage]

okay but why is stranger things trending. wasn't there this whole thing about how everyone was rightfully calling noah schnapp and some of the other people involved on their zionism and everyone was like. "let's boycott stranger things we need it to flop" "let's end noah schnapp's career" and now it's trending like none of that happened? and i see posts like "omg where's will byers" like, are you all serious? stop barking without any bite

[spale-vosver]

There's something to be said about how Stranger Things totally ruined its own chances of having a lasting cultural impact by spacing out the seasons so much -- whenever a new season is released, there's fanfare and articles and the like, but after it finishes airing, everyone stops being interested. How many people have actually rewatched the entire show? And with Season 5 supposedly having movie-length episodes, I'm sure that number is only going to drop. It's also not for nothing that the 80s nostalgia craze seems to be ending. ST cashed in on it with its first few seasons but hasn't been able to rely on it recently beyond using songs by Kate Bush and Metallica -- not to mention that the Duffers didn't even grow up in the 80s and so have no actual attachment to the decade.

ST really is a fascinating failed experiment, a show crafted to be perfectly marketable that's hoisted by its own petard in the name of making each subsequent season bigger and more bombastic than the last.

Enough with world-ending Eldritch nightmares. Bring back the small town boys playing D&D.

[nutzgunray-lvt]

Someone needs to tell the Duffer Brothers that by focusing way more on memeable character traits and moments, it's a large part of why Seasons 3 and 4 weren't as well regarded as Seasons 1 and 2.

[thequeenkida]

Had a dream about Stranger Things out of nowhere and now I'm pissed off being reminded of what shit writers the Duffles are and how much they fucked up Billy for no discernable reason, so thanks for that one subconscious! 👍🏻

[sinclairstarz]

biggest byler doubt for me is just that it makes too much sense for the people writing stranger things to write

[pixel-punk-chaos]

"Your Violence is just a silent cry for love "

Yo hello

Here's a little character analysis of Billy Hargrove and a song analysis of a German song from the 80s-90s because I've only been listening to the 80s for days thanks to my Stranger Things hyper fixation and I think the song fits Billy Hargrove really damn well. Oh also I am from germany too lol

The song is called "Schrei nach liebe" by the German punk rock band "die Ärzte". The band is one of the most famous German bands and I'm honest Billy would definitely have listened to them. Also they was very popular in the 80s and the 90s.

The song is about a fascist and is actually just a criticism of fascism and right-wing extremism. At least that's the core message of the song. However, if you analyse and interpret the lyrics more (one of my favourite hobbies lol) the song is about a person acting aggressively, behaving like an asshole because the person has never experienced love in their life and this aggression is actually just a "silent cry for love."

I even took the trouble to translate the lyrics for you. (In general, the music of the Ärzte is really great. I just don't know if it's for someone who doesn't speak German xD)

__________________

https://youtu.be/arYpKveHrq8?si=fVOrAMqiHrTdO4PC

(For everyone who want to hear the song. Very good rock song btw :D)

"Lyrics" /translation (explanation)

[Verse 1]

"Du bist wirklich saudumm" /you're really damn stupid

"Darum gehts dir gut" /That's why you feel fine

"Hass ist deine Attitüde" /Hatred is your attitude

"Ständig kocht dein Blut" /Your blood boils constantly

"Alles muss man dir erklären, weil du wirklich gar nichts weiß / Everything has to be explained to you, because you really don't know anything

"Höchstwahrscheinlich nicht einmal, was Attitüde heißt"/ Most likely not even, what attitude means

[Chorus]

"Deine Gewalt ist nur ein stummer Schrei nach Liebe" /Your violence is just a silent cry for love

"Deine Springerstiefel sehnen sich nach zärtlichkeit" /Your combat boots yearn for endearment (combat boots were clothings for a typical neo n@zi in the 80s.)

"Du hast nie gelernt dich zu artikulieren " /You never learned to articulate yourself

"Und deine Eltern hatten niemals für dich Zeit."/ And your parents never had time for you

"Oh oh oh Arschloch!" /Oh oh oh Asshole!

[Verse 2]

"Warum hast du Angst vorm streicheln?" /Why are you afraid of fondling?

"Was soll all der Terz ?" / What's all that fuss about?

"Unterm Lorbeerkranz mit Eicheln" /Under the laurel wreath with acorns

"Weiß ich schlägt ein Herz" /I know your heart beats

"Und Romantik ist für dich" /And romance is for you

"Nicht bloß graue Theorie" /More than mere theory

"Zwischen Störkraft und den Onkelz" /Between Störkraft and the Onkelz (also two famous Rock Bands from the 80s known as right wing extremism bands. )

"Steht ne Kuschelrock LP"/ There's a Kuschelrock LP (Kuschelrock/ cuddle rock. Soft rock basically)

[Chorus]

"Deine Gewalt ist nur ein stummer Schrei nach Liebe" /Your violence is just a silent cry for love

"Deine Springerstiefel sehnen sich nach zärtlichkeit" /Your combat boots yearn for endearment

Du hast nie gelernt dich zu artikulieren " /You never learned to articulate yourself

"Und deine Eltern hatten niemals für dich Zeit."/ And your parents never had time for you

"Oh oh oh Arschloch!" /Oh oh oh Asshole!

[Verse 3]

"Weil du Probleme hast die keinen Interessieren" /Because you have problems that nobody cares about

"Weil du schiss vorm Schmusen hast, bist du ein faschist" /Because you're shit-scared of cuddling, you're a fascist

"Du musst deinen Selbsthass nicht auf andere projizieren /You don't have to project your self-hatred onto others

"Damit keiner merkt was für ein lieber Kerl du bist" /So that no one notices what a kind guy you are

[Chorus]

"Deine Gewalt ist nur ein stummer Schrei nach Liebe" /Your violence is just a silent cry for love

"Deine Springerstiefel sehnen sich nach zärtlichkeit" /Your combat boots yearn for endearment

Du hast nie gelernt dich artizukulieren " /You never learned to articulate yourself

"Und deine Freundin die hat niemals für dich Zeit." /And your girlfriend never has time for you

Oh oh oh Arschloch Arschloch Arschloch /oh oh oh Asshole Asshole Asshole

_________________________________

Billy is portrayed in the series as the cliché asshole from the 80s. He's sexist, racist and has no respect. He was shitty to Max yada yada yada... but in truth Billy is just a character who hasn't experienced love. The only love he got was from his mum who left him when he was a kid. Now he lives with his abusive father and gets to listen to how shit Billy is day in and day out. Not a great feeling. He's built walls around himself to protect himself from it all. He's a tough guy and plays the asshole so that he can't be hurt any further. Dacre Montgomery (Billy's actor) said himself that Billy is a sensitive guy. Especially in season 3, we got to see a very different side of Billy. A vulnerable side. He hurts to stop being hurt, but really he just wants to be loved

"your violence is just a silent cry for love"

The 3rd verse in particular suits Billy very well.

"Because you have problems that nobody cares about"

It's true. Nobody in this series really cares how Billy is doing. His stepmother Susan just watches while his own father beats him. On the one hand understandable because Billy is not her biological son but on the other hand really not nice of her. And Max... ohhh Maxine Maxine.

Max and Billy's relationship is complicated. Neither of them obviously want the situation they are in at the moment. Billy never wanted a sister. Max never wanted a big brother. Yet they both care about each other. The worry when Max ran away in episode 8 season 2 was real. Especially when Billy saw that Max was alone with 3 boys and a much older one. Billy had a point during the whole confrontation with Steve. Everyone was supposed to be on Billy's side because he was right. This also brings up the theme of the song again. Billy acted with violence because that's the only way he knows. Because that's the way he was treated by his father and those around him. He could have tried to talk, but he didn't, because violence is the only language he knows.

"You don't have to project your self-hatred onto others so that no one realises what a kind guy you are."

Billy hates himself. That is obvious. He's not good enough for his father's love. He never will be. He will never be able to show enough respect and responsibility because everything he does is not good enough. People who are not happy with themselves very often project this self-hatred onto others and take out their anger and frustration on others.

I would also like to come back to the fight between him and Steve. The anger Billy showed was not directed at Steve. Before Billy turned up at the Byers', his father was shouting at him and hitting him. You saw the fear in Billy's eyes. He was crying afterwards. And then the fact that he had to cancel his date, which he was really looking forward to. And all because his sister didn't listen. She just did what she wanted without considering the consequences. That is disrespectful to her brother and she shows no responsibility.

What did Neil say to Billy in the scene? What should he have ? That's right. Respect and responsibility. He should always be respectful and responsible. And Max? She can do whatever she wants because she doesn't get punished. That's unfair. Another factor why he was angry in that scene. What happened with Steve just make the camel overflow and Steve got this pent-up anger. Of course what Billy did is not cool and what I've written here is no excuse... but Billy is always shown in the show as the bad guy and the asshole. A real monster even. Which is just complete bullshit. Billy is just a teenager who was mistreated by his father for years, never experienced love and therefore doesn't know what it is. This hatred and this anger are a cry for help. A silent cry for love.

And what I wanted to say again about the whole "Billy is a racist" thing. Yes, the Duffer brothers have confirmed that he is a racist, but they have also said that Billy is pure evil. If Dacre hadn't insisted that scene with Neil exist, then Billy would just be an asshole for no reason. In my opinion, Billy is not racist. Neil does. Billy got the idea from his father that non-white people are bad. If Neil had seen Max hanging out with a black boy, he would have freaked out. In the worst case scenario, she would also have become a victim of Neil's violence. Billy wanted to prevent that. She shouldn't suffer from Neil like he did. So he told Lucas to stay away from her. So neutralize the danger. Of course Lucas isn't a danger because he's a damn child, but he would have been dangerous if Neil had found out. Why didn't Billy just talk to Lucas? That was due to the situation. The pent up anger and all that...I've already explained it above.

I just think it's a shame that many people don't look behind Billy's hard facade. He is a complex character with far too little screen time. He did have his "redemption arc" by sacrificing himself for the children but... let's be honest, no one was really grateful to him for it. Nobody except Max and El gave a damn about him. Billy was just a teenager who was in the wrong place at the wrong time in Season 3. The Duffer brothers wanted the audience to dislike him. They should degrade him to an asshole by hook or by crook. No villain should be evil simply because they are evil.

Billy is just a misunderstood teenager who deserves better than what the Duffer brothers did to him. I would have really liked to see him in season 4.

RIP Billy ❤️

Thank you for your attention

[cringelordofchaos]

WHY DOES STRANGER THINGS KEEP KILLING OFF ALL THE CHARACTERS

Like for LITERALLY NO REASON it's just annoying at this point

[somethingnonenatural]

the differ bros are soo fucking misogynistic and it’s not cuz of the love triangle aspect. it’s literally because they’re rhetoric in season 1 with nancy was that she gets to be upset at the jock who does. horrible shit to her but when the weird awkward guy does it it’s okay. like holy fucking shit they’re Nice Guys through and through. i can go on and on about the misogynistic writing with nancy in season 1 and this is mainly what it is. the duffer bros saw nancy as this prize for the creepy awkward dude

[aviaryartist1800]

Saw your posts about the Stranger Things fandom and how they wanna maul bullies-

The first thing I learnt when being bullied as a kid, was that the kids bullying me were often victims of familial abuse or bullying themselves. I was bullied to the point of the police being involved and me being hospitalized due to an attempt during me running away from them [your brain does crazy things in fight or flight], but I don't think I've ever thought about seeing them mauled or killed.

I'd never think about them going through the same pain they put me through, because thats only making the cycle worse... Like I can get wanting to kill/maul pedos and rapists... but bullies? Who are either children or teens? Thats too cruel and heartless.

I'm sorry that happened to you anon...

Anyway....

It strange to see that i used to be like the fandom, until i realized it was a wrong way to think like that

Maybe its because after seeing different shows and games with bully characters(Lost Judgement, Gravity Falls, MLAATR, TSSM, and MLP)

I've realized that violence isn't always right, and that sometimes the bullies might redeem themselves!

And the victims NEVER try to brutally hurt or maim them, they will never stoop to THAT level

Its just strange seeing a bunch of grown adults hating and wanting harm done on a young teen who happens to be a bully...

And Angela isn't even the worst bully character i've seen, at worst, she humiliates El in public, but other than that, she just name calls her n stuff, basically the catty kind of bully

[brionysea]

people aren't wrong that reducing lucas sinclair to "some white guy's helpful black best friend" is racist, but like. that's. it's in the show. if you analyse the text that's a very present arc for his character. this isn't an interpretation flaw it's a design flaw