#about interpreting art through a queer lens

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

I just read the NYT piece in full (because I couldn’t finish it the other day) and holy shit it’s even more infuriating and deliberately obtuse than I’d read

What in the conspiracy theory fuckshit did I just read

[likedbyuarmyhope]

queer armys could literally just be like “as a queer person many of the themes and symbols bts use prominently in their art feel very familiar, personal and comforting” and would still get jumped by cishets/bootlicking lgbt armys calling them freaks. Oh wait  that literally does happen

[butimnotseventeen]

.

[percheduphere]

LET’S TALK ABOUT EXPLORING LOKI & MOBIUS THROUGH THE LENS OF QUEER EXPERIENCE

Thank you for this request, @nabananab 

Before I dig into this juicy ask, I think it’s important to note (however obvious the fact maybe) that an individual’s unique engagement with art is an inherent and integral part of art. The intention of the artist and the sociopolitical influence of culture, while important in our interpretation of a work, are not the sole source of drawing the work’s meaning. We are all artists in one form or another. I consider myself one of the pen, and nothing is more important to me than art giving someone a sense of emotional connection. I should hope other artists would agree, and for this reason I am an ardent believer in art taking on a life of its own once it has been created. The creator’s word, while it matters to some degree, does not supersede an individual’s relationship with the creation. Our histories, our desires, our fears, our likes, our dislikes, indeed our infiniteness as fragile human beings, allow us to create an elevated, spiritual interpretation beyond the confines of original intent. With art, there is no such thing as “reaching” or “reading too deeply”. 

I leave this message with all of you as we look at these beloved characters through the lens of queer experience. 

LOKI 

Culture influences what we see and hear, which in turn influences artistic portrayal. Setting aside Norse myth, Marvel’s Loki is a classic example of a queer-coded villain (later canonized as a queer antihero). Deception, daggers, sexual temptation, transformation, and magic are all culturally tied to the “immoral” facets of femininity. Just as a strong, independent woman untethered to the control of man is deemed a “wicked woman”, a man demonstrating gender ambiguity and like qualities is similarly judged. Only masculinity is viewed as pure and good, and this no doubt was—and continues to be—a key force in white, western colonization’s destructiveness. It all but crushed our rich global history of divine femininity, gender diversity, and romantic and sexual expression. 

Asgard, as Marvel portrays it, is without a doubt a masculine-dominant warrior society. Only two women feature prominently: Queen Frigga and Lady Sif. Whereas Sif embraces her masculine qualities and fits in easily with Thor and the Warriors Three, Queen Frigga embraces her feminine powers, though her authority is submissive to the All-Father, Odin. Her influence is most heavily seen in her adopted son, Loki, with whom she shared and taught magic in hopes that Loki might “feel some sun on himself” despite the “long shadows [Thor] and [Odin]” cast. The magic that Frigga gifts Loki, however, attracts scorn. The subtext here is that Loki’s specialness, his individuality, comes from feminine powers despite presenting as a man, and a gender ambiguous one at that. Unlike Thor and Odin, he is not masculine. While strong, he does not exhibit Thor’s brute strength. He is cautious, thoughtful, another feminine quality, whereas Thor’s courageousness often veers toward foolhardy and brash.  

Thus, if Loki cannot be loved and accepted as he is (a queer person of another race), he will force love and acceptance through the power of the throne. Kings oft inspire fear, coercing subjects to love them whether they wish to or not. But we know Loki never truly wanted the throne. The throne is a mere distraction from, perhaps even a poor replacement for, what he truly wants: genuine love and acceptance that cannot be bought. Unfortunately, Loki believes he will never get these things, which is why, when Mobius questions him, Loki’s desire for control (Loki, King of the Midgard; Loki, King of the Nine Realms; Loki, King of Space) can never be satiated. Mobius challenges Loki for the exact purpose of revealing this to him. What do you really want? At this point, Loki does not have the words to form an answer. In S2E5, Syvlie raises the question Mobius originally asked in S1E1. It is then, after experiencing Mobius’s friendship and the other relationships that come to being as a result (including Sylvie’s), that Loki can articulate his answer. 

Loki’s othering, even before the discovery of his true identity as a Jotun (an allegory for a villainized foreign race), creates a lonely environment in which Loki’s potential for goodness is quashed by centuries of resentment, bitterness, and jealousy. His attempts at masculinity take the form of violence, all of which are, as Loki admits in S1E1, “part of the illusion; the cruel elaborate trick conjured by the weak to inspire fear.”  

Loneliness and the desire for love and acceptance are a universal human experience, but they are felt far more acutely within our intersectional queer communities. 

MOBIUS 

His fascination with Loki is compelling because there are many things we can infer about its reasons. The first, most obvious explanation is Mobius’s “soft spot for broken things”, which is in some ways tied to his qualities as a compassionate, forgiving, and supportive father. A secondary explanation is a wish for partnership. We know from S1 that Mobius’s friendship with Ravonna spanned eons. We later learn in S2E6 that he and Ravonna started out as peers, hunters. They were partners on the field, but where Mobius “failed” because of his humanity, Ravonna “advanced” because of her ruthlessness. This change in relational dynamics left him partner-less. Finally, a third, less obvious reason is Mobius’s desire to express himself in ways Loki does so effortlessly. That desire may come from the suppression and repression of his own softspoken queerness in order to survive the fascist culture of the TVA. 

Mobius is captivating for many reasons. Whereas Loki is a textbook example of culture viewing “queerness as evil”, “queerness as flamboyance”, “queerness as stylishness”, “queerness as loudness”, “queerness as sexual promiscuity and deviance”, “queerness as chaos”, Mobius very much aligns with the image of a straight-passing, repressed queer individual. This is an identity that does not get as much attention or presence in artistic media as it deserves, for there are many who need this representation to reflect them. He is not stereotypically queer by any means: he is not colorful. He is not stylish, flamboyant, or loud. His sex appeal primarily derives from the viewers’ attraction to his personality, though it certainly helps that Owen Wilson is quite handsome.  

Combine these three reasons, and it becomes easy to see how a character (or person!) like Mobius might fall in love with a character (or person!) like Loki.  

There is a certain amount of beautiful irony in how Loki and Mobius affect one another and consequently their identities. Mobius, feeling compassion toward an individual who has been brutally othered and oppressed, seeks to free Loki from the confines of his narrative, as determined by the “Time Keepers”.  The only feasible way to do this is to bring a variant of Loki out of the timeline and into the TVA. Mobius then provides Loki with the opportunity to change by: acknowledging Loki’s strengths, giving Loki the chance to use his strengths in productive ways, praising Loki when he does well, listening to Loki, believing in Loki, calling out Loki, and accepting Loki as he is, with all his history, without judgement. Mobius does not try to force change like Thor or Odin. Rather, he creates an environment in which change could happen naturally. This kindness and, indeed, what becomes unconditional love by the end of S1E4, allows Loki to embrace his authentic queerness with self-love and use his feminine powers for altruism rather than masking them with self-hatred and masculine rage. 

FREEING LOKI 

In S1E1, Mobius is enthralled with Loki’s hijinks as the handsome, charming, devil-may-care, D.B. Cooper. This minor escapade in Loki’s life, which was likely only intended for laughs by the writer, reveals something interesting about Mobius: Loki’s mischievousness, his magic, his cunning, are all quite endearing to him when no real harm is being inflicted. That is, Loki, when not under duress, is someone to be admired when he’s being himself. We admire in people what we wish we had in ourselves, and this, at times, may lead to powerful attraction. 

Loki, for his part, does much the same for Mobius. The environment (the TVA) which allowed Loki to thrive is also the same environment that has abused and constrained Mobius. 

The heat that Ravonna presses upon Mobius, however, changes his tone with Loki himself. When Loki asks Mobius why he “[sticks] his neck out for [him]”, Mobius provides Loki with two options to choose from: “A. He sees a scared little boy shivering in the cold, or B. He will say whatever he needs to say to get the job done”. Option A, while insulting, has compassion layered beneath the barb. Loki, an expert at cloaking truth with meanness, sees through this and indirectly chooses what he believes to be true in the cafeteria scene: that Mobius feels sympathy for Loki’s painful childhood. The subtext of this acknowledgement is that the true means to the end is reversed: Mobius doesn’t need Loki to catch the Variant on the timelines. Mobius needs the Variant to free Loki from the timelines. The Variant is an excuse and another agent of poetic irony: when Sylvie unleashes the multiverse, she literally frees Loki of his predetermined narrative. 

The conceit of S1E1 is that Mobius intends to use Loki for the “good” of the Sacred Timeline. It is important to remember that characters, while not real, are meant to mirror human complexity. Multiple, seemingly conflicting things may be true concurrently. In S1E2, we see in Mobius’s conversations with Ravonna that he deeply believes in Loki’a capacity to be a wonderful person and wants him to have the opportunity to change. His enthusiasm for these things outshines his desire to catch Sylvie.  

And, because the Variant is Loki, because Sylvie is Loki, because, as she says, “[they] are the same”, Mobius’s own freeing of Loki, his unconditional love for him, cascades from Loki to Sylvie. Sylvie would not be free to live as she pleases if not for Mobius’s compassion for Loki in the first place. 

In S1E4, Loki reveals the TVA’s sham. Mobius’s sense of self becomes fragile alongside his sense of partnership with Loki. But because of our sociopolitical culture’s influence on capitalism, the creative voices of the Loki series self-censures what could be (what is) a queer romance. This self-censureship makes itself known in Mobius’s own self-censureship. His jealousy and heartbreak cannot be spoken directly. It must be spoken through the words of a woman, someone who presents as the opposite sex. Through a looping memory of a scornful Sif telling Loki, “You are alone and always will be”, Mobius makes known the nature of his feelings for him.  

BUT WHO WILL FREE MOBIUS? 

In the same cafeteria scene in S1E2, Loki asks Mobius if he’s ever ridden a jet ski. Mobius’s response is demure, saying him riding one would “cause a branch for sure”. The jet ski gives the audience another clue as to what Mobius seeks in life: something fun, thrilling, and reckless. Yet Mobius sets aside his desires for what he believes is for the good of the TVA, and thus humanity. This suppression and repression of authentic selfhood mirrors the queer experience of living within a heteronormative culture, especially one with religious doctrines that equate pleasure with sinfulness.  

Because Mobius extended his heart, his partnership, his love (symbolized by twin daggers hidden in his locker [a closet]; notably a male phallic symbol of which there are a pair [partners]) and was soundly rejected, Mobius retaliates with the loneliness he himself feels. This loneliness may be interpreted as an allegory for the loneliness of being closeted as opposed to the loneliness of being out but othered. 

Ultimately, Mobius’s love for Loki shifts from selfish desire to unconditional love when he chooses to help Loki save Sylvie. In S1E5, it is conspicuous that after delivering Sylvie safely to Loki’s side, Mobius’s partings words are, “Guess you got away again”, to which Loki replies, “I always do”, which echos the lover’s trope of “the one that got away”. 

[It drives me absolutely bananas that I can't find the specific gif I need when I literally saw it multiple times earlier this week but didn't need it THEN]

Owen’s acting choice is interesting here. He laughs, smiles, then looks down before looking up again, his eyes shifting from fondness to what feels like longing. Mobius extends his hand, a sensible choice for someone who believes his love is unrequited and is unsure of how Loki defines their relationship. Loki, appreciating what Mobius has done for him, closes the distance with an embrace and thanks Mobius for his friendship. 

In S2E1, upon Loki’s time-slipping into the war room, whatever apprehensions Mobius had about physical contact was wiped away by the collapse of the TVA and the memory of Loki’s hug. In this scene, it becomes clear to Mobius that Loki is panicking. He makes the executive decision to use his physical contact as a grounding force, relocates Loki to a quiet environment, asks after Sylvie with no bitterness in his voice, then prioritizes Loki’s physical well-being. Perhaps, in Mobius’s view, his love is unrequited, but there is nothing in place to stop him from expressing that love more freely while honoring Loki’s feelings for Sylvie. This regard, which may be construed as platonic, may also be viewed romantic, courtly love. 

The fight between Loki and Sylvie in S1E6 sets the stage for Mobius to receive Loki and become a refuge for heartbreak.  

S2E2 and S2E3 has Loki’s and Mobius’s temperaments when it comes to investigating flipped. In S1, Mobius was focused on the mission and often had to reign in Loki. In S2, Mobius is more casual, more willing to take his time and enjoy the sleuthing as it unfolds, while Loki administers pressure to stay focused. The question is why? 

In S2E2, Brad attacks Mobius’s sense of self. He points out how weird it is that Mobius is not at all curious about looking at his timeline and stresses that the TVA, and everything in it, isn’t real. Brad calls into question Mobius’s reason for staying. Knowing that the answer is Loki, we can surmise through the queer lens that Brad also corners Mobius into potentially outing himself in front of the object of his affections, someone he believes does not return his feelings, and whose knowledge of those feelings may threaten their friendship. This is a traumatic experience for queer people in the real world, and this extra layer of emotional conflict adds depth to Mobius’s violent response.  

Mobius influenced Loki in a myriad of ways. One that has not been discussed yet is an appreciation for focus and order. Loki, in turn, has cracked the door open for Mobius to explore pleasure. We can speculate that, in his own way, Mobius is testing what happiness could look like living a life between the TVA and the timelines. For him, this means cocktails at the theater, cracker jacks, and exploring the World’s Fair, all of which are pleasurable on their own but are even more so with Loki’s company. His queerness, once again, is quiet, mundane, but playful in its own right, and finally brave enough to explore. These scenes suggest that Mobius is indeed happy at the TVA and, as we see in the finale, this happiness is solely rooted in his relationship with Loki and the emotional intimacy they share together. 

Loki expresses concern for Mobius, noting that he has “never seen him like that before.” Mobius, interestingly, deflects every concern by absurdly blaming Loki: “He got under your skin”, “I was following you!” The psychological undercurrent here is that Loki is the reason why Brad got under Mobius skin. Loki is the person that Mobius will follow.  

Loki takes Mobius’s distress in stride, responding in a way the Mobius normally would. However, Brad’s question piques his interest, and his own care for Mobius prompts him to gently challenge Mobius’s lack of interest in his own timeline. Mobius’s reason for avoidance is, “What if it’s something good?” 

In S2E5, it’s interesting that “good” in this narrative is defined as a heteronormative fantasy of a house, two kids, and (possibly) a puppy and a snake. The “good” in Mobius’s original timeline, however, is imperfect. There is a partner that is missing (partners being a recurring theme in the series, particularly in S2E3), pronounced gone not once but twice. The entire scene between Don and Loki has been discussed at length by many, so there’s no need to reiterate it here. However, let’s bring our attention to Mobius’s avoidance of this “good” because this avoidance resonates with another queer experience. 

The TVA, for Mobius, is the place where he studied, saved, and developed a close relationship with Loki. The fear of the “something good” is the fear of being confronted with something Mobius “should” want more than the TVA, and therefore “should” want more Loki. The fear is wanting something (or feeling pressured to want something) other than a queer relationship with no children. The question of “choice” is impacted by what is considered the “norm”. 

S2E5 very pointedly focuses on the concern of choice, especially Mobius’s choice, in the bar scene between Loki and Sylvie. “Mobius should get a choice now, no?” At this point, Loki’s regard for Mobius has finally caught up with the romantic nature of Mobius’s feelings for him. And Loki, living his own queer experience, is also afraid of his true desires like Mobius. In being part of the intersectional queer community, the psychological need to guard against disappointment is high and commonplace. Desires are easily disappointed by the expectations of oppressive social mores. This survival tactic manifests itself with our hope and heartbreak with mainstream media, Loki the series being among them. 

But Sylvie, the harbinger of true and absolute freedom, takes on the role of supportive ex and challenges Loki to answer Mobius’s question in S1E1: “What do you want?”  

In this, Mobius and Loki’s individual relationships with the TVA are identical. It was never about where (the TVA), when (time works differently at the TVA), or why (the timelines). It was about who. It was about each other. The TVA represents a liminal space which became home by virtue of the people who brought love into it. The TVA is code for Loki and Mobius when each speaks of it. 

Again, the artists behind the media must self-censure. In this, Loki also self-censures while giving the truth. “I don’t want to be alone. I want my friends back.” It cannot be denied that Mobius is Loki’s first truest and closest friend. “I don’t want to be alone. I want Mobius back.” Sylvie appreciates and validates this desire, but also points out that showing the TVA is something that cannot be unseen. The implication of this response suggests that Sylvie believes that Loki’s friends will feel compelled to join the TVA out of moral pressure. She reiterates the true lives that are being lived, and Loki, loving his friends, loving Mobius, elects to not take that away from them. “You are just fine without the TVA.” 

Yet, Loki must choose an act of profound selfless love to save everyone. In doing so, he saves and frees Mobius in the way Mobius saved and freed him. The tragedy and, once again, poetic irony is that they both would have chosen each other. In giving everyone freedom, the true freedom of Loki and Mobius is sacrificed. This double-standard reflects in our reality between those who identify as cis and heterosexual and those who do not. 

When Mobius looks at his timeline in S2E6, he does so for one reason: that timeline survived because of Loki’s sacrifice. He must honor that sacrifice and see what Loki protected. Mobius appreciates what he finds, but he doesn’t belong there. It is not what he ultimately longs for. And there must be worry, shame, in recognizing he would prefer to give up the house and two children if a life with Loki were a viable choice. 

We all experience loss in our lives. Loss without a goodbye is also commonplace but is another pain that is more acute within the intersectional queer community. I speak of missed opportunities for happiness due to external forces. I speak of loss of self. I speak of loss of friends and family and home. I speak of death, losing a loved one without a goodbye, because same-sex lovers are not considered next of kin, an impossibility without marriage. Marriage echoes back to Don, who has no spouse, and Mobius, who has no partner. 

[angelsdean]

I know it's a bitter pill to swallow in this fandom for many reasons but, the phrase "open to interpretation" IS inherently a positive phrase that good creators use to affirm to their audiences that stories and art belong to the fans, and that every fan is able to find their own meaning through their own interpretive lens. It's not up to creators or actors to tell people what something--especially ambiguous or subtextual moments--mean. Everyone will come to a different understanding, some views might be more supported by canon than others, but it's still within every viewer's right to see things how they see them.

All "open to interpretation" means is: you get to interpret it! And you! And you! This is a key tenant of any creative work. It can be interpreted. And that is what literary analysis is all about. You build a case for your interpretation. You go into the text and find supporting evidence for your view, your thesis. And some interpretations are argued better than others. But everyone's still allowed to have their interpretation. (Also, literary analysis is fun).

I say all this because I've seen posts about Jensen going from "open to interpretation" to "clear text" as if he's now against the fact that things can and will be interpreted by fans. In terms of Cas's declaration of love? Yes, that is "clear text." It's romantic in nature, that's not up for debate, and Dean processed and understood it as romantic on the dungeon floor. But for stuff that is still ambiguous, still subtextual in some ways, like Dean's own feelings? Those are still open to interpretation by all sides, whether we like it or not. Until we get to see more of Dean and Cas's story in the basically guaranteed reboot, Jensen is not going to speculate about Dean's feelings or Destiel's reunion. He's never going to word-of-god confirm anything about this on stage at a convention. We have to wait to see it play out on screen.

As an actor, it's also not his place to confirm or deny these things. He leaves it up to the fans to read into his performance whatever they want. And yes, that sentiment IS affirming to a Destiel interpretation. We can read reciprocation into his performance. We can read romantic love into his words about Dean wishing he'd said "I love you back." We can look back on the years of queercoding and subtext and Jacting Joices and read Dean as being in love with Cas for years. And, well, the other side can read what they want into it, and we don't need to care what they think, tbqh.

This, IMO, is also part of the reason Jensen tends to give "vague" answers or use language that can be perceived in different ways by either side. As an actor, at a fan convention where fans of all sides of the fandom have paid to be there to have a good time, it's not his job to personally validate specific headcanons and interpretations. Jensen may have his own personal beliefs about Dean's feelings, but he's not going to divulge them in full if they close off one side's interpretation. So he will weave his way through answers. He will use terms like "brother in arms" which one side will hear as simply "brother" and think "platonic" and Destiel shippers will hear as the full meaning, a strong bond between men, and see the queer history associated with these warrior bonds.

He does this, IMO, to keep all lanes open for every fan, because first and foremost he's an actor at a convention being paid to entertain. He's also not a writer, he's not someone who can definitively say what was intended. Personally, I feel that his metaphor about being in an art gallery that he gave back in 2020 is incredibly apt. People come to the gallery and look at the art and find their own meaning. And the artist isn't standing there beside them confirming or denying their interpretations. That's not the artist's job. Once it's out there, it's for others to find meaning in what the artist made.

And again, it's not his place to speculate or write fanfiction for anyone on stage and personally confirm or deny headcanons. He's pretty adamant about the reboot, so I think for some things we'll just have to wait and see.

[damnfandomproblems]

"I feel like I'm constantly being torn between two stances when it comes to representation. On one hand, it shouldn't be considered a political statement to include an abundance of queer people, disabled people, and/or people of color in a story; it's just representing the world as it is. On the other hand, all art is political, but that includes both works that have 90+% cishet abled white people as well as works that have an abundance of queer people, disabled people, and/or people of color. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people claiming an abundance of queer people, disabled people, and/or people of color is automatically political, while their status quo of cishet white abled people is apolitical."

If it shouldn't be considered political to include representation because that's just how the world is despite those people often being politicized, then art itself should be given the same respect and not politicized too. Someone just drawing ship art or pretty plant splatters is not political, is just people living in moment and engaging with a hobby and/or job that has existed long before any governments. Not all art is political. And yes, I know, it can be made with political intentions, and/or later interpreted through a political lens, and/or contain unlearned biases that are politicized, but it is not anymore inherently political than queer people are inherently political. You can not say that queers aren't inherently political because they just exist, then turn around and say art is inherently political when it's an inherent human activity that existed before politics even became a thing. Both things have existed and will continue to exist with or without governments and politics. Is talking about a story idea with a friend political? Is sharing bed times passed down from parent to parent political? Is making a quilt for a grandchild political? Is designing a home political? Is drawing with a stick in the dirt political? Is building sandcastles on the beach political? Is kissing a mirror with lipstick on political? Because those are all acts of art. Art isn't just drawings or writing. It is a huge medium that encompasses pretty much nearly all of human creations and/or expression

I get what you're trying to say, or at least I think I do, and it is all well intentioned and comes from a place of good faith, but that comment about art = politics is wrong and I just wanted to point that out

Posting as a response to a previous problem

[phoenixyfriend]

Saw a post. Got to thinking. Am now wondering how my interpretation of characters differs from the canon, and how much of that is:

Deliberate and reasonable: in a 'fighting against canon-authorial biases' way (e.g. taking queer-coded characters to actually queer, addressing the religious stereotypes and racism baked into certain characters, expanding a female characters motivations in ways that don't match up to canon but do match up to Logical Thinking Human Behavior, updating language and slang to not include slurs, etc.)

Reasonable: in a 'yeah, I guess if you stretch your extrapolation of the canon, or focus on this part of the narrative, you can get there without contradicting the rest too much' kind of way

Deliberate: started nearly canon, and then 'ooc' but as an understandable result of the fic's events

Semi-Deliberate: kind of an art style thing, where it's definitely That Character, but through the author's specific style of dialogue and prose; author-tinted glasses, if you will

Semi-Deliberate: the author was trying, but kind of juggled too many things and you can tell that they slipped too far away from canon, and realized it, but didn't have the time/energy to fix it

Deliberate: different from canon, but within an acceptable standard deviation from the canon/mean

Deliberate: different from canon, in a sort of an AU-where-character-is-X, rather than just a different lens or the result of the fic events

Deliberate: ...but you should have honestly just made an OC, this is basically a different, new character

Probably not deliberate: different, but in a way that's kind of just. off-putting, and not particularly self-aware on the part of the author.

Feel free to reblog and have fun, and use this to talk about your own writing but DO NOT use this to vague and talk smack about other authors in your fandoms. Be Nice.

[merp-blerp]

My Gaylor Journey: A Year Later 🌈

So, I posted about my Gaylor opinions a year ago today, my first (intentional) post about Gaylor after properly looking into the community for the first time and eventually joining it. I can't believe it's been that long, Jesus! Feels both too long and yet too short of a time. Well, I want to commemorate that; hopefully, I'll make sense, as there's so much I feel and want to say. I don't think I'll ever truly get it all out of me. But here:

I've enjoyed my time here so much! This period has been surprisingly influential for me. For one thing, I've gained some lovely mutuals! I've never had so many before, so it's new, but I enjoy you all. You guys are so kind, smart, and welcoming!

I've also learned so much about queerness, the queer experience, and queer history that I just never would've known before. And I was already very into queer history before. I adore how I listen to Taylor's music now. "Wrong" interpretation or not, looking at her music from a queer lens is so interesting and so easy. I had looked at it from a queer perspective before, but it was more through my eyes. How could this song relate to me and my queerness? Never in regards to the possibility of Taylor's. It's crazy to remember being younger, listening to her music, and getting queer vibes, but assuming I was projecting. Nice to know I was never alone in my thoughts. Looking at the potential real muses is fun, but just daring to look at things another way has been fulfilling alone. I had no clue I could get more connected with Taylor's work, but somehow this community has proven me wrong.

Being here has also saved me from a lot of worrying probably. The Swiftie community since Joe ended whatever he had with Taylor has been very much so changed since I discovered it in 2018, so while I have nothing against nice Swifties, I'm glad I mostly stick to the Gaylor side of things these days. This fandom's less crowded and I like experiencing Tay's art this way. Being a fan shouldn't feel so crazy. Not too long ago, I was having a conversation with one of my college mentors, who's a Swiftie, the day after TTPD was announced, I believe. We were both excited and I spouted out several watered-down versions of Gaylor theories (can never be too careful who you Gaylor in front of), cutting out the gay parts, and what I thought they meant for what TTPD was expected to be; theories like the burning lover house symbolizing "a new phase of her career" starting with TTPD, or white symbolizing rebirth, blah, blah, you know. And absolutely no offense to my mentor, she's lovely, but I was a bit gobsmacked when her theories only had to do with Joe. It was so... bare-bones. Dry. Boring. Don't you wonder what this means for Taylor herself, not just some boy she may or may not be dunking on? She also had so much seemingly incorrect info about the Toe narrative, saying Joe has a music career (he doesn't???) and that Taylor herself confirmed, word of mouth, that she cheated on Joe, which definitely would not be very characteristically "cryptic and Machiavellian" of her to just confirm like that. Just saying it would not be how she tells us a detail like that. I didn't realize people truly thought she cheated till that conversation. They were just very hard to believe things, whether or not you believe in Gaylor or mainstream narratives. She said a lot of her theories came from TikTok, so misinformation isn't shocking in the slightest; people rarely give good sources over there, so if you find someone who does they seem to be a needle in a haystack, sadly. But that conversation reminded me just how much things have changed, both in me and the fandom. Having fresh relationship drama for the first time in 6 years made some Swifties feral and I'm glad I'm not in it. Getting swept up in that shit is easy and I fear I could've if it weren't for jumping ship in time. As Taylor's signaling gets louder and louder again, possibly gearing up for another coming-out attempt, I think I joined just in time. The goddess of timing found me beguiling, I guess.

It just makes me sad that for these types of fans, Taylor's music and craft aren't about her anymore, but about the guys. It's so weird to see fans introduce new Swifties by going over all the supposed muses instead of talking about her and how this song or album communicates her emotions about a situation. They are deeply missing out. Even when I was only in the general fandom, despite my jokes about the boys, I ultimately thought Taylor was the most important factor in her songs. And it seemed like others thought that too, until all this new Joe-Travis-drama eclipsed that. Or till some bad new fans came in just for the drama and to hop on the more trendy version of "loving" her that's going on now. Or maybe I was in my own bubble and it's always been like this. She was never simply "Mrs. Alwyn" and she's not "Mrs. Kelce" or even "Mrs. Kloss" and it's strange to see her get called that as if she's not TAYLOR FUCKING SWIFT. That's not enough? Maybe I'm taking it too seriously or literally, but it feels so wrong to boil her down to just that. I get where it comes from, Taylor's music appeals to the hopeless romantics such as myself, but there's more to Taylor, us, and life than just romance and being someone's "spouse".

Many Swifties rightfully criticize the media for only focusing on Taylor's alleged love life, but some of them hypocritically do the exact same thing, only I'd argue it's worse because they seem to think they're entitled to do so because they're fans or feel like her friends. We don't know Taylor. I don't know Taylor. If she's openly talking about her album(s)/re-record(s) and the craft behind creating it, or her emotional journey creating it, maybe don't yell out to her face about some trivial thing connecting to whoever you think the muse is (looking at you TIFF 2022—I'll never be over that). I'm glad Taylor seems to recognize this behavior and has at least tried to remind fans of the distance between herself and them in recent years; I mean, compare the songs she wrote for fans years ago like "Long Live" and "The Archer" vs "Dear Reader" and potentially "You're Losing me" and "But Daddy I Love Him" if you interpret them that way. They're all wonderful, but more recent songs remind us that she's a stranger to us as opposed to just talking about how grateful she is for us (which I'm sure she still is). I've mentioned in the past that I think this is part of why the TV eras beyond the Red TV era and promo for TTPD have been so laid back in comparison; she doesn't want fans getting way too into "defending" her from [insert "ex-boyfriend" here] like they did during Red TV's release, so she's making it less "exciting". 1989 TV didn't even get music videos. She's never dignified invasive questions with a response to interviewers, so why would she for some fan(s)? You aren't any more special or any less of a stranger to her than those interviewers were. None of us are, including Gaylors (that's why we can't out her, strangers can't out strangers with only pure speculation).

I find it interesting to see how differently the two sides of this fandom treat the potential ex-muses of songs. In the general fandom, there's a lot of animosity, where swifties love to joke about hating or destroying whomever (and I'm chill with jokes), but sometimes it goes way too far. Many Swifties hate most potential exes, exceptions being people like Harry Styles or Taylor Lautner because they have their own fandoms that tend to overlap with Taylor's. But Gaylors rarely do the exact same with exes. Potential exes aren't brought up unless necessary and I've never seen anyone even jokingly hate anyone purely because they are an ex and therefore bad; it might be around, but the fact that I can't find it nearly as easily is something. We'll hold ex-muses (and Taylor) accountable for potential mishaps in past relationships and that's it. Say what you will about Gaylors, but I've never heard of any Gaylors sending someone like Dianna Agron death threats like some Swifties have done with John Mayer.

One huge thing I was not expecting when joining this fandom was becoming slightly disillusioned by the Swiftie title. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with being called that, as I know that's what I am ultimately and it's not terrible to be a Swiftie inherently by any means. But being opened up to the deep homophobia, bullying, and even doxxing in the Hetlor community has really made me feel odd lumping myself in with "Swifties", as they still call themselves, at times. I don't know how I never stumbled across it when in the general fandom, at least not that I can recall (I feel like I would if I did). From what I gather, Swifties have a rep for being a pretty sweet fandom, and many people are, but I can't help but feel sour about it sometimes after seeing what I've seen from some Swifties. I hope one day the homophobia and just basic vitriol with these types of fans can be lightened up by a cultural shift or something. Way too many people are unaware of the layers of the conversation about outing, closeting, speculation, etc. I myself wasn't before entering the Gaylor fandom and I'm glad I am now. I knew lots of history, but didn't properly apply it to how we can see things now. It's very odd, almost embarrassing, looking at some of my old Swiftie posts now, especially ones about Joe and Gaylors, because I don't feel that way anymore. I was never hateful, but I had some wrong ideas. I guess I'll keep them up though, in order to be honest with myself and anyone who wants to maybe dig into my blog. Plus there's not actually anything to be too embarrassed about from what I remember, it's just a very "in my head" type of thing. I'm glad I'm not as emotionally invested in Taylor's supposed exes anymore. Even when it comes to Karlie as an LSK, I'd be fine if Kaylor was broken up or never together. Surprised and maybe a little sad, but I expect to be okay if that were to be a revelation. It feels much healthier.

I even suspect that being here has helped me with accepting my own queerness further, and I thought I had fully done that already. I guess internal acceptance is a forever journey, at least for me. I came out to my grandparents mid last year and early this year, something I was planning on delaying till I went away to college (I'm doing college virtually for now). I think this community helped me.

I deeply wish that both sides of Taylor's fandom could come together, hear each other, and co-exist. I hate that Gaylors are so vilified for simply suggesting a random lady might be queer as if seeing potential hints of queerness in other people and pondering their sexuality hasn't always existed in queer culture and continues to prevail. We still see primarily femme sapphics ask how they can signal that they're queer without saying so, much like what Taylor might be doing with her hairpins and games. Why is it wrong to be on the other end of that interaction, seeing and acknowledging the signals? In my personal opinion, I think it's at least a bit homophobic in and of itself to say that queer people must come out in a loud, upfront, obvious-to-straights way in order to be seen as queer, otherwise they are forcibly slated as the default of straight. Yes, some people have a boundary about speculation, and that should 100% be respected for those folks, but Taylor specifically has set no such boundary as of me typing this out. Why still force her into the straight box when she's never plainly said she's straight, always toeing the line no pun intended, not giving any clear answers for now, which she doesn't owe. Honestly, I feel like it's more likely that if she were straight she would have such an issue saying plainly; straight people don't coyly tiptoe around saying they're straight like that, but that's just my perspective. When the discourse around speculation is brought up, I often see people say something along the lines of, "Well, I wouldn't want someone to speculate on me," and that's completely fine to feel, but that's your boundary. Not everyone feels that way. Some want to be seen without a definitive word out of their mouth beforehand. This is coming from someone who, when offline, sometimes gets a bit internally antsy when people inform me they could tell my lesbian-ness with or without me intending to signal, though not offended. Yet I also sometimes hate to tell people in verbal words. It can be exhausting, not in just a scary way, but in the sense that it can be akin to explaining that you breathe; being queer just comes so naturally for me because it is natural, so explaining gets tiresome, especially since straights never have to. For me, and in general, speculation is not as black and white as "you should never do it" or "you should always do it". You shouldn't cross people's boundaries, but you shouldn't assume people's boundaries either; that can be just as wrong and dangerous.

Gaylors and Swifties are the same fandom, so why can't we act like it, even when we disagree?

Everyone and everything I've involved myself in here has been so enriching and even if all the Gaylor theories were somehow proven wrong, I wouldn't regret my time here. It's meant too much to me. I'm very grateful and excited to see how this progresses for me. I can't find enough words to express it.

To any rude Hetlors out there, I hope you find it in your heart to treat others with kindness instead of throwing shade at those you simply don't understand/agree with. If you're going to hurt others, I don't want anything to do with you. Kindly leave for both our peace of mind.

To the vast majority of you who have been wonderful, welcoming, and kind, especially the ones who were here before I entered the Gaylor fandom, and didn't leave after, I love you all. You can stay. ♥

🩷❤️🧡💛💚🩵💙💜

[suffarustuffaru]

Hell yeah transmasc Emilia (Emilio?) let's gooooo! (What inspired this interpretation of Emilia?) Very nice art by the way.

hello again !! :DDD (for future reference this ask is about this post)

ty for liking the art :D !! and the idea of transmasc emilia/o <33 ive actually drawn this idea before here for a slightly different au i did with nonbinary subaru, nonbinary reinhard, and transmasc emilio!! :o the transmasc emilia/o art i did more recently was most likely inspired by a joke a mutual made with me in a convo once where it was like. damn what if emilia just got top surgery. so then i drew that emilia drawing HAH. that outfit is also her outfit from the orchestra rezero thing that happened recently?? like emilia was assigned as conductor so she had the Best Suit ever:

this photo is so crunchy im sorry HAH but anyway loooook at them they look so cool <33 their roles in the orchestra even fit their personalities !! (said by someone who played violin in middle school ........................................................)

but anyway back to transmasc emilia/o i do find the idea super interesting. i think both transfem emilia and transmasc emilio would very fun in different ways especially when a reoccurring part of emilia/o's story is being talked over, controlled, manipulated, hunted down, made out to be a monster or connected to other people (like the whole satella thing or how emilia/o intermingles with things out of their control with the witch cult, roswaal, puck, subaru, etc).

i think it's an unfortunately relatable thing when viewed through a queer lens as emilia/o is an Other to the whole world. i also think it's really interesting bc of satella adding another layer to it. transfem emilia would be struggling similar to you know, canon cis emilia with the complexities of girlhood and such especially when your very appearance looks like Fantasy World Satan and your appearance is smth youre insecure about (and smth that is in the contract she has with puck). though i think with transfem emilia its a slightly different flavor of "i am a girl and its really difficult and im fighting against the entire world to be Me but also i am far happier as a girl because thats Me". you know?

transmasc emilio i think would be like. not only is calling him satella/comparing him to satella like this Terrible thing bc you know, emilio once again getting scapegoated for shit that aint his fault at all and made out to be a monster for No Reason, but also thatd be like misgendering emilio at the same time. youre like the Girl that Ruined the World. it's a special kind of agony on multiple fronts ;-;;;;;

but i think generally like. regardless of emilia/o's gender i Love the idea that they just keep their hair long anyway. i know its partly a puck contract thing until Later but i like the reclamation and acceptance of her appearance that happens throughout rezero. because emilia/o is emilia/o........ just emilia/o <333 and thats what matters !!!!

[fakerobotrealblog]

Destiel, short for Dean and Castiel, is a popular fan-created ship within the Supernatural fandom, featuring the characters Dean Winchester and Castiel. The ship has gained significant attention due to its complexity and the nuanced relationship between the two characters.

Religious implications are woven into Destiel, given Castiel's role as an angel in the show. The angelic themes, biblical references, and Castiel's literal fall from grace contribute to the ship's depth. Fans often explore the intersection of religious imagery and the evolving dynamics between Dean and Castiel, adding layers to their relationship beyond the supernatural elements.

Queer identity is a central aspect of the Destiel ship. While Supernatural primarily follows a heteronormative narrative, fans have interpreted and subverted this through the lens of queer representation. The deep emotional connection between Dean and Castiel has led fans to explore themes of love and identity, fostering discussions about LGBTQ+ representation in mainstream media.

Fan involvement in the Destiel ship is extensive and diverse. The Supernatural fandom is known for its passionate and creative fan base. Fanfiction, fan art, and online discussions have flourished, allowing fans to engage with and reinterpret the characters' relationships. The Destiel ship has even influenced conventions and interactions between the actors and fans, creating a unique and interactive fan experience.

The Destiel ship showcases how fan communities can contribute to the reinterpretation and expansion of narratives. It highlights the importance of representation in media and how fans can use transformative works to explore themes such as religion, queerness, and identity within the context of a beloved TV show.

[thepoison-thecure]

its also important to note that this isnt just about isolated accounts. this isn’t just that every now and then a terf or a transmisogynist worms their way into an otherwise 100% trans inclusive space. transmisogyny is present in this fandom space in other, sometimes less overt ways, even spread by people who are vocally supportive of trans people. performing digital facial feminisation surgery on images of gerard in dresses to make him more palatable and shoehorn him into cishet beauty standards is rooted in transmisogyny. going to ridiculous lengths to make any use of a they pronoun by a public figure close to them “about the band”, even when it makes no contextual or grammatical sense, is rooted in transmisogyny. tearing down trans people who dare to talk about their interpretations and identification with the themes and lyrics explored in MCRs discography through a trans lens, is rooted in transmisogyny. drawings of gerard that give them a perfect hourglass and shave their jawline down and remove any sign that they have ever been through a testosterone based puberty, are rooted in transmisogyny. jokes about gerards gender nonconformity being a bit about a sassy man in a dress, are HEAVILY rooted in transmisogyny. claims that his gender nonconformity and publicly stated pronouns are for clout or money or “““queerbaiting””” or a kink are deeply fucking rooted in transmisogyny. mcr fandom spaces are often vocally pro-trans, and are full of a lot of trans and queer people, but that doesn’t mean that transmisogyny isn’t still informing the kinds of jokes and art and images and memes and discourse that is shared around. as long as we still live in a society steeped in transmisogyny, this will keep coming up over and over again, and transmisogynists and terfs see this as approval and as validation of their bigotry. its on all of us to be mindful, to consciously and continuously deconstruct transmisogyny and to stand with trans women. 

[don-quixotine]

I can't be the only one who wasn’t particularly impressed with Challengers, right?

I mean. The cinematography was great. The music made me feel like I was at a rave in Berlin with the hottest people on Feeld. And the premise was absolutely excellent. Chef's Kiss. Delectable. A pair of bisexual boys being dominated by Mother as they pathetically try to make her their girlfriend? Yes, please. It's the reason I watched it, because it had so much potential.

But.

Is this really it? Is this really all bi representation can come to in this, the year 2024?

I'm just tired.

I'm tired that bisexuals in adult media are represented as these messy, toxic, "don’t know what they want and make it everyone's problem" archetypes that are so demeaning. And that's if they're represented at all.

The bisexuality of Patrick and Art (but more so of Art) is completely left up to your interpretation, and in a world of media that has to come to represent lesbians and gay men in better light, the fact that the same cannot be said about bisexuals is a pity.

I guess, in a way, interpretation is all the bi's have both on and off screen, as it is difficult to pin-point a moment, or a look, or a way of acting that is undeniably Bisexual Coded™️ outside of the sexual spehere.

But that's precisely the point. That is what is so tiring about this conversation. The fact that society's interpretation of bisexuality never moves past a codification, and it's a catch-22. Bisexuality cannot be put in an either/or box. The orientation, and even identity at some points, is fully dependent on context, so it is difficult to grasp by people only attracted to one gender, regardless of context. But because it is contextual and therefore difficult to grasp by society at large, it is often overlooked and misinterpreted, leading to an internalization of negative perceptions and a lack of a third space in the social and mediatic imaginary.

What I am saying is that Challengers had an opportunity to celebrate the bisexuality of Art and Patrick. But instead, it made it a problem. It made it the conflict and called it a day.

And I haven't even mentioned the absolute shit it took on polyamory. Because boy.

It is the same complaint, though. It's about the conflict being based on the miscommunications and unspoken affections of these three people, them clearly being suited for each other, and then throwing in the expectation that the girl HAS to pick one and handling it in the worst possible way. It felt cheap. It felt unintellingent. It felt as "queer" and as "spicy" as that one Saltburn scene was to anyone who has spent more than 5 seconds on Wattpad or AO3: Absolutely mild.

It was baiting at its best for poor polyamory. It was bastardized as a sexy little fantasy the straights and monogamists could indulge in for 2 hours of running time, but now, now, kids. Remember to take your moral of the story with you: Polyamory is Bad, and you can only have The One™️. I mean, there wouldn't have been any toxicity if the conflict had been handled through the lens of normalization of polyamory, and that’s what makes it so frustrating. It would've been funnier, steamier, to have these three come to terms with what they felt and find an arrangement. It would have been more interesting to have Art and Tashi find a way to make ammends with Patrick and reconcile. It would've been wittier if an external force came in between their polyamorous arrangement. Hell, if you wanted to keep your crappy plot, you could've had Patrick fuck Art instead of Tashi as a moment of conflict resolution and that would have sufficed to improve it. But no. Writers in Hollywood have tiny T-Rex hands, and low-hanging fruit is all they're good for.

And look, I get it. I know the movie wasn't supposed to spell it out for you. I know the point was to read between the lines, because this was a tennis movie that wasn't at all about tennis. I know that in the end, there's room for interpretation, to believe that Tashi was hoping they would reconcile and that in the end, they do. I know that. But my point is that the arguments that build the movie's identity as bisexual (and even poly) are blink-and-you-miss-it moments. And on top of that, the qualities that make these characters arguably queer are painted in a negative light.

So, like, yeah. I don’t know who the audience was for this movie. But clearly not the bi's and not the poly's lol.

I saw it with my own polycule, and we couldn't stop raging lol.

[girls-online]

hot take!!! eddie saying “and seventeen seconds” introduces a new means to interpret the shooting, and creates a parallel so romantic i might break.

so—when eddie gets shot, we’re immediately oriented by the framing of the scene to observe from buck’s perspective, watching eddie go down in slow motion. we as viewers are purposely placed to experience the aporetics of buck’s temporality with him—that is, the way that buck’s experience of time becomes separated from objective, clock time. it takes twenty seconds of “clock time”, when you watch the shooting scene back, for mehta to wrestle buck to the ground, the slow motion to cease, and for buck to revert back into an objective experience of time, where things are—in reality—happening extremely quickly. he experiences something more than the objective instant that it would have taken, if we didn’t watch from buck’s perspective, for eddie to have taken that bullet, fall, and for mehta to react.

when buck gets struck by lightening, however, we don’t experience it from eddie’s perspective. we do slow down, very slightly, but only to capture how the instant of the lightening distorts the teams’ ability to comprehend what has happened. within five seconds, though, that slight lag is dismissed, and we’re reorientated back in objective time. we don’t live the experience through eddie’s consciousness, we don’t even see him go from the ground to the ladder. we miss things. we only watch eddie through the objective lens of the third party onlooker. this isn’t, in itself, anything to note. it only matters thematically and narratively because the writers choose, later, to revisit how eddie remembers that experience through an explicit acknowledgement of objective clock time. because, when he does, he rejects the way that we typically talk about time—organizing it through the construct of ‘minutes’, a thing we usually do imprecisely for the sake of brevity or ease. as was the case in the poker scene. eddie can’t do this though. he has to reiterate each second in order to account for his experience. maybe to reconcile how much he felt in such a short stretch of time with how short it sounds in the scheme of things. but a minute can feel like an eternity, sometimes. we all know that.

so, yeah. there’s something about the writers reminding us of time. particularly, exactly how much of it passed between the lightening and buck’s resuscitation, and having eddie be the first person to both acknowledge and stress the length of it—every second of it. they choose to remind us of how he lived each one of those, and how he did so through eyes that we weren’t privy to like we were when it was buck. we are asked in that simple line to consider how it may have felt, or what it may have looked like, for eddie’s conscious experience of those events within his temporal framework. which is so interesting when we consider how temporality is one of the most critical considerations for the study of human experience in the arts and humanities. temporality is also a distinctly queer phenomenon, as it challenges the normative conception of time through a personal reality that shapes our experiences. i’m not saying any of this was intentional, at least not all of it, but i’m not pointing this out because i think it suggests “buddie canon”. i’m pointing it out because there’s just something so poetic about it. there’s something poetic about having eddie reframe what we had heard others refer to, and construct, as ‘three minutes’, because it challenges that construction. it suggests that eddie’s experience of buck’s death cannot be rationalized or reasoned with because that’s not how we experience existential horror or fear. it isn’t how we experience love.

the way we experience time—our temporality—is perpetually at odds with clock time because we are not objective thinkers. there is, despite how nonsensical and manic my articulation of it is here (sorry), a parallel between the lightening and the shooting that is explicitly connected to time. namely, to both buck and eddie’s dialectical encounters with the others death within the social conception of time. this is why temporality is one of my favourite themes in love stories, because love is something we experience so viscerally that it can undermine even the most necessary of our human understandings—time.

and what we are presented with through this parallel is something i can’t quite shake—two men, suspended in time while the other starts dying, as though resisting the second where he finally does. fighting to defy the clock—which is to fight and reject the essential construct that we depend upon to comprehend our experience of the world—just to keep the other for a moment longer. it is the sacrifice that our brain makes in moments of immense trauma to save us from despair.

romantic and terrible.

i love it.

[9w1ft]

So I've been a Kaylor since 2015 but since Karlie came to the Eras tour I've been struggling with the idea of them presenting again to the public as just friends (and how much people seem to want that). I know I'm in the minority here and by minority I mean I think it's just me but to present to the world as just best friends again after so many years seems infantilizing almost, like another step back. To me bearding with Travis and putting Karlie on the map in her life as a best friend again is cut from the same cloth, like the same type of lies going in circles. It wouldn't be authenticity, just more of the same with different actors (I'm also struggling with interest in Taylor with how fake she seems with this whole Travis thing but it might be just performance art and I'm willing to fall for it I guess for the time being). So yeah I don't know how to feel about this anymore and i saw you give some pretty thoughtful answers here and that's why I sent this. Have a nice evening!

i was talking with a mutual about something related to this earlier today actually. i’m not saying everybody needs to think or is able to think the same way but to me, the draw of kaylor is that it’s a story about love enduring through extreme circumstances.

in recent years i’ve read more than one assertion that people who believe she is gay (umbrella term) should be focused on analyzing taylor’s work through a queer lens because a focus on taylor’s muses in interpreting her work is reductive, but i would argue can be somewhat of an inverse situation, at least from taylor’s perspective. because as i see it, her story with karlie spans ages and is the culmination of taylor’s struggles both to find true love and also in defining what she wants that relationship to be. it’s a story that spans multiple spheres… it’s politics, it’s civics, it’s fame, it’s business, it’s philosophy, and yes it’s also about identity. and i would argue that the specifics of their situations shape their story in a way that is meaningful and oh no i’ve gone on a tangent

i brought this up thought to tee myself up to say that, i think i may have engaged with the idea that taylor’s-coming-out-is-the-end-goal for some amount of time, particularly in the beginning of my tumblr tenure, but at some point i came to feel that the end goal for taylor is actually taylor finding true love. it’s what she’s tried for her whole life to put into words. and she found it, and she put it into words (it’s golden).

there can always be new milestones, and hopes to be placed in taylor to do something more, but i think that it’s important to recognize these hopes as our hopes for her, our priorities, our analyses.

and so let’s say that things stay on a certain trajectory and they appear to the public as friends with boyfriends and husbands. i think that there is a big difference between now and the mid 2010’s. because if by some stroke of good fortune or divine intervention, or the years of blood sweat and tears from her and her muse throughout the great war, has coalesced into taylor not only surviving but also settling down with the love of her life but also to have gone so far as to start a family? then she has already won. we too, have already won, if we choose to see it this way.

[leslie-redirects-here]

Tarot Vocab Crash-Course

When I first started tarot, there were a lot of words I had never heard before (what on earth is the Major Arcana), and a lot of words that I already knew which were being used in a different context to mean something tarot-specific (spread; reading).

So here are a bunch of words and phrases that will crop up as you learn more about tarot, with a brief tarot-specific explanation. Words or phrases requiring a longer explanation will have their own posts; links will become live as each is posted.

Arcana - See Major Arcana and Minor Arcana.

Aquarian deck - One of the more common tarot decks.

Court cards - The Page, Knight, King, and Queen in four of the five suits in a tarot deck (Wands, Cups, Swords, Pentacles), and not including the Major Arcana. Unlike regular playing cards, Aces are grouped with the number cards, and not with the court cards.

Chalices - Another name for the suit of Cups.

Coins - Another name for the suit of Pentacles.

Cups - One of the five suits in a typical tarot deck.

Deck - A complete set of cards; usually a complete set of a specific card design (eg Rider-Waite deck, Aquarian deck, Buffy the Vampire Slayer deck, etc)

Divination - The art or practice that seeks to foresee or foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge usually by the interpretation of omens or by the aid of supernatural powers; unusual insight; intuitive perception (via Merriam-Webster)

Fortune-telling - Foretelling events or details about the future, or about a specific person's future.

Major Arcana - One of the five suits in a typical tarot deck.

Minor Arcana - Four of the five suits in a tarot deck (Wands, Cups, Swords, Pentacles), and not including the Major Arcana; said another way, the Minor Arcana are any cards that aren't in the Major Arcana.

Oracle - (oar-uh-kul) An answer or decision given by an oracle; a person giving wise or authoritative decisions or opinions; an authoritative or wise expression or answer. (via Merriam-Webster)

Oracle deck - A deck of cards used for fortune-telling or divination that is not a tarot deck.

Pentacles - One of the five suits in a typical tarot deck. Not to be confused with pentagrams.

Quirent - (queer-ent; like 'inquiry;') the person asking the question, or who is the subject of the reading.

Reading - The interpretation of the information given by the cards.

Reversed - when first looking at a card during a reading (when drawn from the deck, when turned over in a spread, etc), if the card is upside-down it is reversed. The meaning for each card varies depending on if it is reversed or upright.

Rider-Waite - The most well-known tarot deck; considered a standard. Often the one used for teaching and examples, as it's the deck the greatest number of people are likely to be familiar with.

Rods - Another name for the suit of Wands.

Roman numerals - A numbering system invented by the ancient Romans and still in use today, used on some tarot decks (including the Rider-Waite deck).

Sage - A fragrant plant commonly used for smudging and smoke cleansing; traditionally used thus by many First Nations. Currently facing potential extinction due to overuse; should not be used unless ethically sourced or home-grown.

Signifier - a specific card associated with the quirent; a specific card that will act as a lens through which to view a reading.

Smoke cleansing - A type of ritual cleansing done with fragrant smoke, usually by burning dried herbs.

Smudging - A cleansing ritual or rite in many First Nation traditions that should not be used by non-First Nation people.

Spread - a pattern that tarot or oracle cards can be laid out in to add potential meaning and clarity to a reading.

Suit - A set of cards in a deck with a common symbol (eg in standard playing cards: hearts, clubs, diamonds, and spades). In a typical tarot deck, these suits are Wands, Cups, Swords, Pentacles, and the Major Arcana.

Swords - One of the five suits in a typical tarot deck.

Tarot - (tair-oh) A specific sort of card deck, usually used as a meditation tool, or for divination or fortune-telling.

Upright - when first looking at a card in a reading (when drawn from the deck, when turned over in a spread, etc) if the card is right-side-up it is upright. The meaning of each card varies depending on if it is upright or reversed.

Wands - One of the five suits in a typical tarot deck.

Learning tarot | Daily Tarot so far | the Rider-Waite deck | the Aquarian deck | Tarot crash-course | Tarot vocab | main blog

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

The thing with that NYT article that astounds me is that if Taylor (or whoever the subject was) were closeted, what did the author think they would accomplish by outing her or any other public figure in the same position? It reeks of sensationalism and tabloid journalism, and the author of all people would have to know that anything published in the US’s newspaper of record would carry weight that gossip blogs wouldn’t. They can’t hide behind a “it’s just hypothetical!”, even in an Op-Ed, the way tumblruser1389 could around here.

And that’s the real danger here. I’m sure on a personal level it’s deeply hurtful to Taylor because it’s yet another instance in which she is being treated like an avatar and not a human being. (And it’s so unfortunate that it involved a community that does face hardship and discrimination and would benefit from more representation and acceptance at that level.) But on a larger scale, the real issue imo is that the piece gives permission to the chronically online and mainstream readers alike to speculate and publicly out people. Except many of those speculated on probably don’t have the security of someone on Taylor’s level and not only is it reprehensible to force people to do so, it could have real life consequences that could pose actual danger to their personal and professional lives. If the New York Times can do it, why shouldn’t I? It’s dehumanizing.

Yes, it’s sad that it’s 2024 and coming out is still a big deal; in an ideal world, people could love who they love and identify how they want and no one would bat an eye, but that still isn’t the case and I understand why some look for representation from public figures to make them feel seen. But, until that person says so, you can’t assume they are something they’re not. It’s deeply hurtful to them and the community you want them to represent, and it perpetuates the same kind of trauma. Because it sends a signal that there is a gotcha and someone will force you to do something before you’re ready or willing.

As many have discussed here recently, it’s one thing to interpret Taylor’s work through a queer lens. That’s literary analysis! That’s what art is for! And it’s a beautiful thing to be able to interpret a piece of work and relate to something in your own life! But interpreting is not assigning. It’s one thing to say, “‘Ivy’ sounds like it’s a wlw affair,” and write an essay about it — and for all we know, maybe that’s what Taylor imagined when she wrote it. That’s a totally valid interpretation and offers an interesting perspective. But that doesn’t mean that was Taylor’s lived experience. (Just like she may have imagined murdering her best friend’s husband but that doesn’t mean she’s actually done it.) Just because Taylor often writes diaristic music doesn’t mean all of it is, and doesn’t mean she can’t take diaristic elements (eg feelings of hurt, loss, envy, infidelity, etc.) and apply it to other stories. That’s what artists do. For someone in one of the world’s most influential newspapers to claim interpretation as fact and create their own narrative about an actual human being living in the real world is hurtful, along with being just plain lazy journalism. (I know as an opinion piece it’s not strictly journalism, but the NYT is and should have known better.)

I don’t really have a coherent way of tying this all up, but it’s just so annoying that it’s 2024 and we’re still having this discourse.