#all the imagery and the subtext and the metaphors

[uhbasicallyjustmilex]

right, can we please take a moment to talk about the bridge sequence in bad habits because oh my god the SUBTEXT??

at the start of the video, the distance between miles and alex is really highlighted, e.g. opposing colour palettes, the kind of divided imagery above, alex standing several paces behind miles etc. they're constantly in each other's eyeline, but also constantly apart. throughout the video, they gradually get closer, and the biggest catalyst for this is miles's guitar solo at the bridge of the song, where they start off at opposite ends of the room and miles moves backwards to alex as he's playing; by the end of the solo, they're finally properly side by side for the first time.

this is then immediately followed by shots like this of the two of them together:

in the earlier stages of the video, miles's singing was just intercut with sexual imagery of either women, or him and women - now, in the build up to the song's climax (and as the sexual imagery gets more heated), his singing is intercut more vividly and more frequently with clips of him and alex; the images of women become fainter and more infrequent, outnumbered by moments of him and alex wrapped around each other, while the women remain hazy and separate from miles.

this is then followed by a full on physical altercation between them; throughout the video, alex has been this silent, imposing presence behind miles, and at the bridge of the song here, miles finally turns around and confronts him in a way that has distinctly sexual undertones - and idk, this just feels so much like a metaphor for being followed around by desire and finally grappling with it (i.e. alex is the desire that's following miles around)

we then this gorgeous shot of miles's gaze and the fantasies behind it where (unlike earlier in the video) the images interposed behind it aren’t of abstracted female bodies, but of a woman walking up the stairs to him and alex lying entangled with each other, and then some fleeting imagery that clearly shows the three of them engaged in sexual acts together.

then - and this is the part that really gets me. the undertone of lust and fantasy laced through the video is finally being played out explicitly (in the scenario we get a glimpse of between miles and alex and the woman), and then is then IMMEDIATELY followed by a sequence of imagery that is ONLY OF ALEX AND MILES. and not just only of them, but of them being increasingly close to each other; they're no longer at opposite ends of the room, they're lying on each other and their faces are pressed together and they look utterly blissed out. all the shots of proximity are of them; the intercutting imagery of women has completely disappeared at this key point of the song and it's just them. them together in a situation that has been established as explicitly sexual.

the fact that throughout the song, alex and the two of them being together is inextricably linked with the fulfilment of desire and fantasy is just - it makes me a little bit insane, actually.

because it’s only once the two of them come together that the sex behind the images of fantasy interspersing miles’s singing actually come to fruition. it’s only once they’ve touched each other that others touch them, only after they come together that the sexual images that have been chasing them come into focus and become anything other than hazy, fleeting fantasies. in a music video so explicitly about sex and desire, it’s all about them.

[heliumcake]

god i hated s4 at first and i still don’t like it as much as the others for a lot of different reasons but i love how it plays with some of my favorite themes. religious beliefs. truth vs lie. forced conformity and being normal. its SO good. and i love being able to see how all of them influence mike’s character and push him through the story. I LOVE IT SO MUCH.

[weirdly-specific-but-ok]

Pt I wash it down but i've never watched it... and neither have you.

Well, hello there, remember when you guys tried to explain Goncharov to me and I said I wanted to create a fake movie/show? Have it, beautiful maggots. Wash It Down the TV show, mostly accurately explained. Kind of. You know me by now.

Everything is a metaphor, except for the things that are subtext.

The rich blonde girl Carla turns into a deranged psychopath, but in a way that is vaguely inspiring. In the year of our lord and damner 2024, any kind of character development is vaguely inspiring. Especially when it's done by Saoirse Ronan.

Purple hearts this RWRB that, you guys are SLEEPING on Nicholas Galitzine's role in Wash It Down. Which is mostly being disappointingly straight, until he isn't, and inspiringly revolutionary, until he isn't. Dan is honestly just a whole neurotic mess, and we at tumblr do love us a good neurotic mess.

It's a tale as old as time, really. Girl meets boy, girl falls for boy, girl meets girl, boy betrays girl, girl falls for girl, boy falls for girl. Just your average love story.

American cops being shits, just another day on planet earth. The DARE program failing miserably, just another day on planet earth.

Yasmin Finney the gorgeous as Talitha, who is very gay, very angry, and disturbingly obsessed with making paper dolls. Which I'm sure will not come into play later in the s--nvm it's another metaphor for the paper-thin veneer of civilised society in a world on fire with rage.

There is a lot of alcohol. Mostly wine. White wine. Which isn't significant, until it is because it is now also a metaphor.

Inappropriately timed renditions of the Mary Poppins 1964 soundtrack, that are guaranteed to slowly ruin your childhood until the word sugar inspires the inner arsonist in all of us.

First-Twilight-movie-levels of intense blue saturation of, well, everything. It's for the metaphor, guys, I'm sure the filmmakers knew what they were doing.

Carla and Dan are absolute OTP, until they aren't, and Carla and Talitha are absolute OTP, until Carla pulls a gun on Talitha and sings a lullaby to her. I am no longer sure the filmmakers knew what they were doing.

The world is Bad Bad Very Bad. Which I'm sure none of us can relate to.

Love is complicated and unstable, but like, in a shippy way. Mostly.

An oddly specific ring of imagery that becomes so convoluted that it starts to parody itself until the show is a metaphor for the show itself and even Christopher Nolan is raising his glass in reluctant admiration.

Senseless cliffhangers that are an interesting directing choice for sure. Bold, but interesting.

More Mary Poppins. Your childhood is entirely ruined. You become an arsonist.

The paper dolls catch fire. You are now part of the metaphor.

Very cute romance with a lot of attempted murder and societal rebellion thrown in. Hallmark is shaking.

Accurate? Who knows. Not you. Not me. Not anyone... yet.

@queermarzipan @madfangirlontheloose tagged for no suspicious reason.

[spicybylerpolls]

Well, unknown hero agent man / pen symbolism anon, i hope you're reading this, cos you hit the nail on the head! this kind of symbolic storytelling is not only a fine art of cinema (being lost these days a little sadly, what with the whole netflix speedy turnover etc), but exactly what (good) films of the horror genre aim to do.

horror has long been a way to creatively tell 'normal' dramatic stories through subtext and symbolism. not sure if this is still a way around traditional censorship but im sure it began that way. films like the exorcist, the shining, rosemary's baby... all classics that are filled with subtext. its also an exciting way to talk about things that might seem trite or too bleak when portrayed as a 'straight' drama (this is the term meaning 'non-genre based' or 'non-musical' lmao). So you could say that ST is NOT straight, in more ways than one 😉

but much of this will go over casual viewers heads, so its finding the balance between making a story believable on the surface (another dimension exists! scary government men trying to kill us!) and subtextually (the UD as a metaphor for trauma/AIDS/closeted homosexuality/abuse etc) if viewers are clever enough to see/feel it. i say feel because much of storyviewing is instinctive instead of analytical.

so ST incorporates both - not just metaphorical, vague storytelling, but also real issues too. but it goes one step further, and actually has characters talk explicitly about reading deeper into stuff (murray's behind the curtain speech). it's a very meta show, even for a genre piece, which is why it astounds me that some people think it's not that deep lol. and some people think that only literature can be deep, but never tv or movies - which is an insult to anyone who has ever been passionate about cinema tbh. It's a statement that would probably rip the heart out of the duffers' chests and stomp on it. these guys are super nerds who have dedicated their adult lives to this passion project. as finn said, 'most people make it then just cash in - im so glad they still care'.

I'm sorry you don't feel comfortable talking about the beauty of this storytelling on your main. it really does surprise me that the fandom is so censorship obsessed because sexual metaphors have long existed in visual media, and especially in horror films. there used to be a long post about byler and a potential sex scene at lover's lake on here, but the user disappeared and the post went missing. it was about all the sexual imagery in ST, with a focus on byler in s4. i especially loved how they mentioned mike's introduction, where he was just in underwear: it is both appropriate for the setting, but also gets the audience used to him as a growing lad with a body and draws attention to those uncomfortable, potentially sexual aspects of being a teen. i mean, he was in tiny pants for god's sake. did we need to see that? why did we see it? etc etc

hilariously, they also referenced the always sunny in philadelphia scene where a character is in a therapist office talking about a pen being a dick. he then puts it in his mouth and chews the pen lmoao

i think you'd enjoy @therainscene's rod symbolism post too. I'm personally hoping for some explicit sex scenes with byler, because the show so far has arguably been telling that story metaphorically already for 4 seasons, and bringing it out of the subtext could be a storytelling device in itself. bringing byler's secrets into the light. after all, this is a period piece that aims to shed light on a bygone era. its not a propaganda piece that needs to remain coded; the reasons for staying secretive still exist for mike and will in the 80s, but times have changed since then for us as a global audience, and more importantly, the aspirational message has changed. what message would the duffs want to send to viewers that are still bigoted? clearly one of the beauty of homosexuality, seeing as will, our fav gay boy, has been the darling sympathetic victim of the show since s1e1. the show needs to remain true to both the 80s while also having a strong message for this decade in order for modern audiences to be able to gain something from watching this story; in order for there to be a reason the show exists at all.

so to answer your question, i had never picked up on the pen symbolism until now, but i immediately agree, not least because 1) it must have a meaning that connects to byler's conversation otherwise why does it just interrupt them with no reason? (from a storytelling pov), and 2) because of the always sunny scene lolllll

thanks for the discourse! if you stick around into s5, im sure we will be able to start discussing this on our mains. it'll be a new era and there might even be gifs/pics of byler to accompany our 'spicy' discourse haha!

Amazing/fascinating points! Thanks for adding to the discussion!

[sporesgalaxy]

hi. quastion. i experience religious based delusions that sometimes get made worse when i watch stuff thats about religion (mostly christianity) or has religious undertones/subtext/Whatever (i.e. i cant watch good omens bc itd Do Things to me), if i was interested in getting into trigun should i be careful about this.

Okay so it varies between 1998, Stampede, and Maximum (the manga). Mostly: Yes do be careful. Less so with the animes, though? Sorta? But it depends on your threshhold, which I don't know. Details about each below

•••

Trigun (1998 anime): One major character carries around a giant cross shaped gun all the time. He is a preist, but this is played for laughs mostly; he describes it as a "trade" and seems to just be trying to use confessional as an excuse to raise money for an orphanage. At one point he very truly genuinely prays to God in desperation, and on a few other occassions he offhandedly says Christian ritual phrases. In a flashback, some symbolic parallels are drawn to the Garden of Eden although no characters make the comparison. As far as I can remember, no serious supernatural things occur that are genuinely attributed to Christian entities. It is primarily sci-fi focused. The Angel imagery is very limited, as we only see a battery being one time and it is...not super well drawn. They are mostly offscreen. Vash and Knives' transformations are limited to one arm each. The arm appears to have angelic-looking beings on it when transformed, but they look more like statues than genuine living creatures.

Okay Im goin off of memory here so if I missed anything people should feel free to comment etc.

So you didn't mention if it's holy or unholy stuff or both that sets you off, but I'll mention that none of the Trigun adaptations have demons in them. Demons ARE referred to metaphorically, but no literal demons or truly demon-like supernatural entities appear. The monsters are all explicitly man-made, excluding the alien bugs, but those are just bugs not demons. Anyways. Knives is often likened visually to a fallen angel, but not a demon.

Trigun Stampede (newer anime): Cross gun guy is still there, but his devotion to God is depicted as even less genuine (mostly unacknowledged). This one also uses stereotypical religious cult tropes. We hear someone on the radio preach about doomsday in Christian-like terms, and Knives is addressed by his followers as a messiah. There is one instance where a child sacrifice dies, and it miraculously changes the weather; the cult responsible seems like an offshoot of Christianity. Knives and Vash are referred to by their caretaker as angels sent by God in a flashback. There are angel-like wings sprouted by Vash and Knives in the finale. The Angel-like battery beings look much more like normal non-holy aliens in this one.

Trigun Maximum (the manga): the MOST Christian. Cross Gun guy is still there. Has his desperate genuine prayer to God moment. The battery beings look VERY much like Angels, are likened to angels by characters repeatedly with what reads as genuine reverence, and they have incredibly strong, miraculous-seeming supernatural powers that we see demonstrated multiple times. These beings are stated to have been created by humans somehow, but they are often treated as miraculous and inscrutable by humans in the present because the science that created them has been lost. Even in flashbacks, it is implied that these beings are not fully understood by human scientists, giving their apparent "miraculousness" more weight. There is a scene where Vash is extremely depressed, watchingna sermon in a church, and he wonders how God could ever forgive him. The angel imagery in the finale is cranked up to 11, as many supernatural ohenomena are caused by the angel-like battery beings, as well as Knives and Vash in angelic winged forms.

[pinkeoni]

where do you fall on whether or not will was a csa victim before the UD?

Hi anon,

tw for discussion of csa below

It’s interesting you bring this up now because I’m actually working on a post right now that discusses how the show hints at Will’s abuse subtextually, especially in season one. Basically, Will’s experience in the UD is meant to be literal, he is literally trapped in the Upside Down and encountering real monsters, but it’s also meant to deliver subtext about the abuse he endured from Lonnie. I think that when the vine is inserted in his throat, he is literally being assaulted while at the same time referring to a different assault that could have happened in the past.

Part of me sometimes wonder if all of this imagery is going to stay in seeped in metaphor, that maybe there isn’t a literal assault but rather something akin to it, but at the same time there is so much suspicion around Lonnie such as—

Emphasis on him having a young girlfriend

The “Do Not Enter” sign on Will’s bedroom door

The fact that Castle Byers (his safe space and hiding spot which he built the day Lonnie) is so far from the house and requires a passcode to enter

The fact that Lonnie made comments about Will’s sexuality when he was so young, which could have been seen as just bullying for him being gnc if not for the bullets above

So, while I don’t yet know what the show is going to do with all of this, yes I do think that Will was a csa victim even before the show began.

[sleepymrshmllow]

my sister and i finally watched eternals (obviously lol) and I think that concludes us binging some of barry keoghan's filmography (for now) ✨️

final(?) ratings + ranking:

Saltburn 10/10 (perfect film no notes /hj. I love this fucking movie so much and its quickly become a comfort film for me ♡ gorgeous cinematography, perfectly cast and impeccable performances by the entire cast! they nailed the mid 2000s feel. amazing soundtrack and ost. the queer subtext/tone, the vampire imagery, the metaphors and exploration of deep carnal desire, oliver domming his way to the top? all just *mwah* perfection. im not very good with words lol but basically this movie slaps and its required viewing imo)

The Banshees of Inisherin 9/10 (the trailer didn't do this film justice and I enjoyed it so much more than I expected. incredible film!! the characters were so well done and every actor in this movie did an amazing job (especially colin farrell, kerry condon, brendan gleeson, and barry ofc). I highly highly recommend this one if you haven't seen it ♡ the cinematography is beautifully done as well and goshh the location is breathtaking. one of my new favorite films ♡)

Mammal (2016) 8/10 (this film surprised me! when I read the synopsis I really didn't think I'd come out enjoying this movie as much as I did. it does a really good job with its characters and the complicated relationships between them. great performances and a very interesting and at times uncomfortable exploration of loss and grief. recommend this one! but definitely look into CWs before viewing)

Light Thereafter 8/10 (my favorite of barry's performances after oliver/saltburn. it didn't even feel like I was watching barry play a character, pavel felt like a real person and barry was just!! so incredible in this film and i loved getting to know pavel sm (his passion for art, his stims, the way he enjoys touch and textures :') ) and i was sad when it ended.)

The Killing of A Sacred Deer 7.5/10 (if you enjoyed saltburn, I definitely recommend this one! weird ass film (affectionate) and martin was a strangely endearing character to me lol i dont want to say too too much, you should watch it for yourself! 🍝)

Calm With Horses 7/10 (blonde barry keoghan was a major serve lol no but good film!! sad, but definitely worth watching. not too much to say about this one, but I enjoyed the characters (dymphna the most tho))

Eternals 6/10 (it was pretty enjoyable! the characters definitely carried this film over the plot itself (except ikaris.. I really didn't care for him at all lol). the cgi was a bit distracting and I wish there was a little more show dont tell and that certain scenes/plot points were done better/explored further BUT still entertaining and doesn't deserve the hate it gets imo!)

American Animals 6/10 (slightly disappointing but still worth a watch! evan peters carried imo)

Stalker (2012) 5.5/10 (so weird but also iconic?? worth watching at least once lmao)

Dunkirk 7/10 (objectively great film, but I just don't care for war movies im sorry 😩 soundtrack was actually so incredible tho)

Stay 4.5/10 (it was fine, it just wasn't very interesting)

and a bonus character ranking for fun ♡

Oliver Quick

Dominic Kearney

Pavel

Joe

Martin Lang

Dymphna Devers

Druig

Tommy Valentine

George Mills

Spencer Reinhard

Sean

[kasienda]

Adrino Fic Recs - Part 2!!!

I’ve been promising this for months, and I’ve been struggling to finish any of my fics, but I figured this was something I could definitely finish! And share with you all. 

Here’s is Part 1 if you missed it the first time. I was in search of romantic Adrino when curating this list, but a few of the ones that made the list might be a bit ambiguous and could be interpreted either way.

Here we go again in no particular order:

(Actually, I lied, the multi-chapters all ended up at the end):

1) In which Adrien braids his boyfriend’s hair by @ck2k18​. The title says it all. This is a little tiny one-shot, and it packs an emotional punch of pure sweetness. And I can’t say more than that. It’s just perfect. You should read it!

2) Blindsided by Leisey. Nino has figured out Adrien’s identity, so despite his own feelings, he’s determined to set Adrien up with Ladybug, but Adrien isn’t cooperating. I positively adore the narrative voice the author has written for Nino in this one. It’s just delightful and fun and hilarious all in one. Longer one-shot.

3) Corrupt you on the dance floor/take you home by Reiaji Nino doesn’t fit in Adrien’s crazy life. But somehow he’s still in it, and he’s not letting go. This is the same person who wrote “whose woods these are (I think I know)” so you know they just have a way with metaphors and imagery and making your feel things, and this one-shot is no exception to that.

4) Would you Rather? By SiderealSandman The class is having discussions on who they would rather kiss. Ladybug or Chat Noir. Nino and Adrien are both super embarrassed. This is just mostly miracuclass shenanigans in an au where Nino is Ladybug. One-shot.

5) Emotional Support Turtle by Distraught_by_your_Love Nino figures Adrien out and then helps him run away from home. This one alternates between narrative scenes and text fic, and I love it. This writer really did capture Nino’s voice in both dialogue and text. Platonic longer one-shot.

6) Chit-Chat by MuseofWriting Chat Noir keeps visiting Nino to hang out, and Nino has no idea why, but he doesn’t want it to stop. Again, more platonic, but it hints at something more developing. One-shot.

7) Your Secret is Safe by WoodenSuitcase When Ladybug lets it slip that she told her identity to Alya who is her best friend, Chat comes to the conclusion that Ladybug is Nino. This setup is borderline crack and requires a bit of suspension of disbelief, but the concluding conversation about pronouns is just so wholesome and made me cry the first time I read it. One-shot.

8) How We Began by Heart With A Vacancy Adrien tells the story of how he and Nino began to their child. Beyond precious. Established relationship. Short one-shot.

9) I can think of something better by @ladynoirist Chat has a tendency to come visit Nino after Nino’s had some rough days. Nino starts to notice some patterns. They’re kinda dating in this one, but it’s never actually acknowledged. Super cute! One-shot.

10) Antihero Adrien WIP Two: Carapace Edition by LoganLight (@chronicallylatetotheparty​) Look! I can read this one over and over again, and it makes me feel things. This writer is kinda my idol for fight scenes with emotional subtext that just makes everything feel raw. (The Adrigami part one of this is also amazing). Little tiny one-shot. But it’s intense.

11) Off the Mark by @buggachat Nino vents to Adrien about Chat being weird, so Adrien keeps changing Chat’s behavior to make Nino happy, which just makes Nino feel even more weird. Both hilarious and sad. Ultimately cathartic. Platonic longer one-shot.

12) Out of Your Orbit also by @buggachat Buggachat apparently is in the habit of dropping multi-chapter fics all at once out of friggin nowhere (in addition to almost daily comics). This particular fic is amazing!! The characterizations are perfect. There is longing/pining, core four shenanigans with so much hilarity, but also feelings, and definitely lots of romance. Features Alyanette throughout the fic, but this story is ultimately about Adrino. I’ve already reread this one like three times. No powers au. Multi-chapter.

13) Best Friends and Boyfriends by Kasienda More shameless self promotion, and I feel less awkward this time because there’s so few multi-chapter stories with this pairing. But basically, in this incredibly self indulgent fic, Chat and Carapace are dating pre-reveal while Adrien and Nino are talking to each other about their boyfriends. Also features background Alyanette. Mostly fluff with a little bit of disagreement thrown in for depth. I find the make up (and make out) scene and reveal in this one to be SO SATISFYING. This is my comfort fic. I reread it when I’m sick. Hope you enjoy it!

And that’s part two of my recs! Hope you enjoy them!

[annoyangle]

Speaking of books, did you ever read A Bad Case of Stripes? Its body horror, but for the kiddos, gotta start them early I guess. The imagery still haunts me with both its beauty and horror-esque ways it showcases things. Plus the whole metaphor of your lies making you into something you can no longer control and all that.

KIND OF A SAD STORY IN MY EYE! HERE WE HAVE A HUMAN SHOWING OFF AN AMAZING GIFT - A SHAPESHIFTER WITH COLOR CHANGES ON COMMAND, FULL BODY TRANSFORMATIONS AND PRETTY PATTERNING? I COULD USE A FREAK LIKE THAT IN MY ARMY OF WEIRDOS, NERDS, OUTCASTS AND GHOULS! AND INSTEAD OF EMBRACING HOW UNIQUE AND INTERESTING IT MAKES HER, OR USING HER SPECIAL TALENT TO MAKE HERSELF WEALTHY AND POPULAR, SHE JUST LETS EVERYONE TALK HER OUT OF THAT GIFT AND BACK TO BORING NORMAL ONE-SKIN-COLOR MUNDANITY. THIS IS MONOCHROMATIC NORMALIZATION! ALSO AM I PICKING UP A CERTAIN UNFORTUNATE SUBTEXT HERE IN THAT HER FAMILY NAME IS CREAM AND HER """"AFFLICTION"""" IS BECOMING COLORFUL?? LOOK BUDDY, SHE LOOKS BETTER THE MORE SHE BECOMES AN ELDRITCH HORROR MERGED WITH HER BEDROOM! SHE SHOULDA STAYED A BEAN-EATING BED! THAT'S THE KIND OF THING YOU CAN BUILD A WHOLE ROADSIDE ATTRACTION ON! APPRECIATE THE MANY STARING EYES AND DISTORTED FACE IMAGERY THOUGH, IT'S GOOD FOR KIDS TO LEARN TO DISTRUST THEIR PEERS AND AUTHORITY FIGURES EARLY.

[jiangwanyinscatmom]

ugh I’ve read too many metas to count and I’m starting to notice this pattern where some metas are so heavily biased with a personal agenda to prove and you can tell so obviously from the way they’re written. I hardly find unbiased metas nowadays that are written genuinely. It sucks :(

I apologize for the hard times you have had anon. The best advice I can give is to always know in some part, meta itself is different from literary analysis. Meta is meant to work off of an emotional driven argument in order to persuade others to follow the stated bias of the argument one is making. By default, meta is manipulation of the text/imagery and subtext to convince an audience of something that may or may not happen (this is usually only for ongoing series and is a still up for debate on how an end or relationship resolution will occur based only on present context clues).

Then, we have full analysis, this is of a piece of media that has already concluded and has the full canonical evidence presented to its audience. There is a beginning, escalation and conclusion of all involved textually, through verbal dialogue and authorial (meaning if someone asks what happened to so and so and the author themselves states a further conclusion i.e. characters marry and authorial intent of that end).

That last point, is heavily contested of course, as how much personally does one choose to accept authorial intent, that was unstated by the work itself, as canon. Some take word of author as blatant canon as well, while others will only take written confirmed text. I have learned if an author stated intentions of a piece is said, that is from the word of the author and verified. This statedintent, can make or break subtextual assumptions by an audience.

What analysis is supported by is only the written text that we have been given. You do not use emotional wording and only the text to say "this is the text, this is what happened. This is the sequential action and conclusion we see happen that makes it verified as having happened".

For example Wendy Darling followed Peter Pan because she did not want to "grow up", but we are shown by the text, she is maturing into adult thinking, unlike Peter Pan the forever child. The conclusion at the end of the work, she inevitably goes home and becomes an adult because she is not afraid any longer of being an adult and is able to fondly hold those memories of childhood despite maturing. Peter Pan doesn't want to grow up, while she did. This is textually confirmed by the plot conclusion and the subtextual actions through the story to confirm this end for her. Was it satisfying? Debatable on who you ask, but text confirmation shows us what the end is and regardless of the maybe's the audience feels is unfulfilled personally. I can say, this was only sub-textually hinted at, if it was indeed there, by the character action presented to me only. Emotional appeal is by the arguer alone. I can say Wendy did regret this, but I need to present the proof with textual basis from the work itself to make this an actual analysis and a point that the audience was supposed to glean from the story beats.

For finished works, these meta emotional appeals do not stand as strongly, because we do have concluded text to reference in argument and those usually are counter to the argument appeal being made. The emotional argument can not be supported when the text has said otherwise on all points of a character relationship conclusion.

When in doubt, just look at what we were given on page, dialogue, metaphors, and action conclusions in order to know what the meant points the audience was supposed to learn. The curtains are meant to only be blue, unless the author meant them as more thematically and for the character conclusion ending. But what text is telling me they are more from the work itself in order to say that this was the intended purpose all along. Better have some good examples of the text itself and not your thoughts if I am to buy into that the author meant me to perceive a character or event in a certain way that is counterintuitive to what they have written in all ways.

[twentytwo-onebee]

ides of march: the aj raffles read: the “i cant post these ones in the lfw server thread because they’re too nasty” edition

first of all i’m 12 years old and i laugh at every “fag”/”fagged” in this. but with that one out of the way--

this is a scene 10k into a 50k fanfic centered on gay pining. the subtext is not just paper thin it’s RICE PAPER THIN

One of his hands fell kindly on my shoulder, while the other slipped into my overcoat pocket, and I suffered him to deprive me of my weapon without a murmur. Nor was this simply because Raffles had the subtle power of making himself irresistible at will.

powerful handjob/gunplay imagery here hornung you really just went for it out the gate huh

We’re in the same boat, Bunny; we’d better pull together.”

“Together!” I jumped at it. “I’ll do anything in this world for you, Raffles,” I said, “if you really mean that you won’t give me away. Think of anything you like, and I’ll do it! I was a desperate man when I came here, and I’m just as desperate now. I don’t mind what I do if only I can get out of this without a scandal.

1. haha pulling something together all right 2. i understood several paragraphs above why everybody says theyre so gay but i verbally went “jesus christ” at this part and at the next bit where bunny continues to expound on how hot and mysterious raffles is. jesus CHRIST. fellas is it gay to say your friend has an “unscrupulous” mouth

“Well, you were the right sort of little beggar then, Bunny; you didn’t talk and you didn’t flinch. You asked no questions and you told no tales. I wonder if you’re like that now?”

i dont even have to say anything about this one do i.

ALSO AW they have their own holmes/watson “then i am your man” exchange!!!! that gets followed with “i’m your man.... for tonight ;)” lmfaoooo.

My part was simply to stand by with the dark lantern in one hand, and a small bottle of rock-oil in the other.

this whole b&e bit is very sexy but also i know theres so much porn with them using this rock-oil as lube. i know it. you know it. this entire next scene of lock-picking is a thinly-veiled fingering metaphor

bunny is getting off on this why is the completion of the lock picking SO SEXUAL

i got distracted actually talking about this because i had non-horny commentary but wow, bunny really omitted an entire gay sex scene from the last bit where raffles has his hand on his back by the fireplace! good job bunny! you burglared and got laid!

[anna-dreamer]

Сон Амариэ: a breakdown. Part 1

Sooo. Ever since that summer concert performance of Finrod in Moscow i've been obsessed with Сон Амариэ. I've thought a lot about strengths and hiccups of this song, and i really wanna talk about them. Full lyrics han be found here. Unfortunately, stupid Tumblr character limitation won't let me make it a single post so i will have to break it into several. Let's start with a common issue that can be conveniently summed up.

False semantic pairs (and other grammatical oddities)

There is a common problem in this song that if very typical for Finrod's lyrics in general. I am talking about concepts and ideas that are put into an associative pair but actually cannot form one due to a logical error. The first one we encounter early on, in the phrase Лес молчит, словно полк, лишённый короля. Now, granted, a king like Finrod is expected to also be a military commander, and it is natural for regiments to be led by him into battle and to lose their resolve and fall into silence when their king is suddenly gone. (Though i must say, here i read a weird subtext of 'disloyalty to the cause', as if someone is trying to rally this troop, but in response gets only silence. A really weird undertone to describe a still forest which it the only thing that is there to answer you - and it doesn't - when you call out a lover's name. But that might be just me. It's far more likely that Amarië invokes the imagery of Finrod's deeds in Endorë as she imagines them and feels a foreboding dread that he is not there anymore. Of course a forest can look as abandoned as a troop without a commander. It is, after all, a dream.) But still - it is plain that a pairing "regiment - king" is occasional and conditional. The most natural associative pairing for полк would be полководец, командир, офицер.

Чтобы верить, не нужны ни разум, ни глаза. Now, it is a beautiful sentiment that describes faith and trust against all reason and evidence. But there is still a problem, a case of misplaced metonymy! Разум (reason) is a non-material entity that is usually associated with a body part - a head. Глаза (eyes) is very much a material thing, it is a body part which corresponds with an immaterial sense - sight (зрение). The point being made in the lyrics is, in order to have faith, one needs neither to reason nor to see with their own eyes - or, in other words, one believes with neither their head nor their eyes. But the lyrics try to have it both ways, and it doesn't work. The author chooses to use разум instead of голова (or (иметь) глаза instead of видеть), and as a result we get a mismatch.

Ветви, словно руки, сплетают сеть. The logic in this metaphor is again faulty. True, we often compare tree branches to arms or hands, it's very common. (In Russian both arm and hand are called by the same word, рука.) But then this net thing creates a confusion. Branches indeed can interweave, and arms/hands (or rather fingers) can be interlocked. In Russian both these meanings can be expressed with cognate verbs плести, сплетать, переплетать, the root -плет- meaning 'weave'. The problem is that branches do not actually weave any nets of any material - they themselves intertwine in such a way that a net is formed. On the contrary, hands do weave nets, they are not a material, but an instrument for that. Again, there are two conflicting ideas in this sentence, and they cannot be combined into a functional metaphor. Now, i'm gonna add another entry, a bit of a different kind, that does not necessarily describe errors but still is worth mentioning.

В тьме и в свете я тебя по имени зову. A couple of things here. For euphony sake it is customary to use во not в when the preposition is followed by several consonants (во тьме). Here it is not so for the sake of rhythm. (Also it is worth mentioning just for completion sake that there are two words in Russian that both mean 'darkness': темнота and тьма. The latter, the one used in the song, carries more of an elevated, metaphorical meaning along with the literal one.) В свете is a curious thing, and it is a bit of a nitpick. I don't begrudge the author this form, in my opinion it is acceptable in a poetical work, but i feel it is still worth mentioning. The form в свете that appears in the song is actually a locative that is used not for material but immaterial entities. For carrying across a meaning 'in the light', 'being lit by light' one would say на свету or при свете. В свете is a form that belongs to a word that usually has a separate dictionary entry. It is свет as in 'world', '(high) society'. Here is an example from Eugen Onegin: when Tatiana's husband sees that Onegin does not recognise his wife, he tells Onegin, Давно ж ты не был в свете! Charles H. Johnston has it translated as "...you banish yourself too long from social life". Again, in our case this form comes to use for convenience sake and is used for poetical uniformity. Part 2 Part 3 Part 4

[olderthannetfic]

i don't think attack on titan, the story itself, is antisemetic. more, I think antisemetism is subtext and general oppression during war is a theme. the reading that the ending is saying 'genocide is good' also doesn't make sense because eren and his followers are punished by the narrative. they literally kill him in the end. yes, eren is the character the story is localized through, but the actual protagonist post-time skip is armin, who hates warfare and hurting others. armin is the character the audience is meant to agree with, not eren. protagonist ≠ morally righteous character. the characters were thanking eren for sacrificing himself because he wanted to save them, but it's pretty clear, they didn't approve of what he did. eren is even paralleled with gaby and reiner, who the narrative positions as misguided, incorrect, and blinded by internalized racism. the narrative isn't pro-nationalism or pro-military either. it actually critiques both systems.

i remember reading an interview where isayama says he liked a japanese general from WWII, but he was talking about the general as a character in a short story. it's the equivalent of saying people who like ofmd are anti-black because they like blackbeard, who participated in the transatlantic slave trade. at most, I think the heavy-handed use of WWII imagery is tacky and shortsighted and evidence of poor editing. but no poorly written polygon article written by a guy who speed-read through the manga in 3 days and went into the story looking for something to hate, can change my mind on something. at most, I think isayama is a military buff or enthusiast who used mixed metaphors (that an editor should have helped him clean up) in a story with a rushed ending, but that's about it. I'm warry of taking the word of random people on twitter, of all places. they're not known to be the best bunch when it comes to critical thinking or reading comprehension and are just as reactionary as the people they claim to hate.

--

I haven't read it. Nationalism in a mangaka is nothing new, but I have no way of evaluating how likely it is in this case.

Fight it out yourselves in the replies.

[scary-senpai]

It's good to see this come up in the manga, because this is something I'd been wondering about/concerned about since I dipped my toes into the OPM-verse: what it means to be a monster, both figuratively and literally. (Well, I guess "good" is the wrong word, but you get what I mean).

I wrote this on my main blog awhile ago (OG post is here), but I think the point still stands, so I'll say it again:

Monster has a funny etymology — it’s an antiquated term for all the things we didn’t understand once upon a time, because we didn’t know any better.

Those bones belong to a dinosaur, not a dragon — and that terrifying, strange and mysterious creature has always been the same animal — even if we called it something else for centuries, that doesn’t alter its core components. But the words we choose influence the sentiment surrounding a thing and that’s why some people see a monster where others just see a Precious Wolf Boy.

The stories we tell take on a life of their own — growing into myth and lore; misunderstandings that we can feed or even dispel, if we’re so inclined to enlighten others. This is why, as an avid reader, nomenclature — an artist’s rationale for picking one descriptor over another — has always fascinated me. And also I worked in a linguistics lab for awhile, that ruined me for anything else.

Today, the word “monster” survives mainly as metaphor or hyperbole. Going back to my earlier example — if I refer to a dinosaur as a “monster,” you might take umbrage with the accuracy of my terminology but you’d understand the subtext behind why I chose it & the emotions I intended to evoke.

Nowadays, people would more readily apply the word monster to other humans — humans that kill indiscriminately and strip away the rights of others — than any unexplained phenomena in the natural world. Essentially, what's happening to Psykos here (and possibly Garou in the future, and definitely Amai Mask in the WC).

The point that ONE/Murata make is a worthwhile one: if you support the right to something, then you have to support those rights for everyone--even people you don't like. Once you draw a line in the sand, it won't stay put.

“no rights/no assets because monster!” is literally something out of the propaganda books (and unfortunately from not-so-recent history).

Anyway, I think it’s interesting that ONE specifically mentioned rights and asset forfeiture. I can’t speak for the author, of course, but it’s an unusual (and very specific!) aspect of world building. It’s a heavy thing to touch and never revisit again.

Given that OPM is fundamentally about subverting tropes, I always read the monsters as neutral beings — and I will point out that ONE goes so far as to frame them as a public health issue (because anger / dissatisfaction cause people to transform) or environmental (pollution causes the water/earth/animals to transform). And fighting monsters inadvertently causes them to evolve and become stronger — which seems like a case against fighting them, and a good reason to focus on the root cause.

This post peripherally inspired by: an episode of throughline where one of the guests more or less said: “we get all high and mighty about the concept of ‘humanity’ and 'human nature’ but in reality no other living creatures are as cruel as humans. you don’t see penguins rounding up and torturing other penguins.”

Anyway just putting that out there as a thought, and also sharing the whimsical imagery of penguin strife. Here's the OG episode; this is one of my favorite podcasts: https://www.npr.org/2021/03/15/977526130/chaos

[bluemeetyellow]

ok a little bit of (maybe bullshit) costume analysis here for your consideration: the triangle pocket on Mike’s shirt here... reminded me of the triangle symbol used on the pink triangle pride flag. (not to mention the fact the muppet poster behind him has a rainbow on it already lmao)

(the first flag pic is taken from footage of one of the ACT UP protests of the 80s)

EDIT: now that there’s confirmation from Finn that this outfit was handmade for Mike this season... I’m gonna post this again lol.

[tw for the Keep Reading section: contains references to/images of gay men in N*zi concentration camps and discusses the persecution of gay men. nothing graphic, but i wanted to put a warning just in case...]

(+ disclaimer: i am not a historian or prominent activist, any and all of this research has been conducted by myself and is limited to what i have currently seen/read. i do not claim to be an expert. some of the information i have may be faulty, plain wrong, or now outdated. feel free to let me know if you spot anything that is incorrect, has bad sources, or is disrespectful so i can fix it!)

now, while i certainly would hope mike’s struggle with identity and his feelings would become more overt over the course of the season, if this is where they’re going to officially take mike’s character, it would make sense to have the first few episodes using mostly coding/subtext to convey Mike’s confusion  until mike feels ready to talk about it and feels he has the right words so it doesn’t feel too abrupt to general viewers not as closely following/used to decoding subtext (which would also make sense because, again, in-universe he likely doesn’t have the words to describe his feelings and experience just yet).

so, without further ado, here are some more examples of the pink triangle and how these messages and their imagery could tie into a possible arc where we see Mike struggling with his sexuality this season...

the famous SILENCE = DEATH flag here also reminded me so much of Mike likely having a ‘One Way’ or ‘This Way’ sign pointed directly towards his closet in his room back in Hawkins... aka he will have to stay silent/in the closet if he stays in Hawkins or doesn’t get away for a while to ‘find himself’. now combine this with the fact that Mike is going to Cali for spring break and therefore getting a chance to get out and far away from Hawkins (and his “closet”), that makes his upcoming arc this season even more compelling to me.. if i am onto something here.

+ since this season will likely already contain heavy themes of how, over time, the continual Lack of Access to Info, Spreading Misinfo & Cover Ups, Repression, Secrets, Lies, and Mistrust as a result of those Lies = Escalation of Tension and even Death [be it a physical or metaphorical death, of self/of relationships/trust/community/etc] what with Vecna being the new big bad or whatever, it would make sense more than ever for them to tackle this side of Mike’s character this season...

as it seems like the 2019 HBO Limited Series on Chernobyl has inspired a lot of the visuals/coloring for this season (and the Duffers even managed to snag the makeup artist from the series to work on the makeup/SFX for Vecna this season), I’d imagine this quote could apply to this season’s themes just as well: “What is the cost of lies? It's not that we'll mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all.” and these political themes are certainly still just as relevant today as they were in the 80′s.

(separating this bit from the rest since it’s a bit of a detour from the topic as it pertains to themes of this season/series as a whole, rather than relating to specifically Mike’s struggles with sexuality..)

+ [ST4 SPOILERS AHEAD] the themes of ‘going out west’: consider the lyrics from the song that plays over Mike reading his letter from El, California Dreamin’, “i’d be safe and warm if i was in LA...” (compare this to how Will described the ‘Upside Down’ as somewhere dark, empty, dangerous and cold..) and how also in the letter, one of the lines El pens is ‘I think you will love it here [in California].’ when Cali is ...

(blue text’s source: http://picturethis.museumca.org/timeline/reagan-years-1980s/gay-lesbian-rights/info)

[the potential for any ST4 SPOILERS currently leaked Ends Here.]

now, onto the triangle symbol itself. the upside down pink triangle symbol was made infamous as a piece of pink cloth that was sewn onto the uniforms of gay men in N*zi concentration camps as a way to identify them and persecute them.

the placement of these patches was located where the right breast pocket was/would be. so maybe you can see why i immediately did a double take seeing that triangle on the right-side pocket of mike’s shirt.. again, i would certainly hope they’d get more overt as the season goes along-- but i could understand using these subtle cues to the LGBT viewers at first as a way to sort of signal that ‘hey this is where we’re going with this character’

i believe this history ties in as well with a theme in ST of how the 80′s a lot of knowledge and access to information could be more easily limited/relegated to what media you were able to see or read due to there not being an easily accessible source of endless information (and misinfo alike lol) in most people’s homes like we have now. a lot of the history on the pink triangles was difficult to divulge for a long time as well, due to the ongoing persecution of the LGBT community-- so it was unsafe or just didn’t seem wise at the time for survivors, who had already been forced to endure such unspeakable trauma, to hold onto these things which would likely only serve as painful ‘reminders’ for most.

of course, this could all just be coincidence... it could just so happen that they wanted a simple shape and the one they used was a triangle, maybe the costume designer just likes that shape for pockets, or maybe it was generally a popular design in the 80′s (i’m not a fashion expert, nor was i coming of age in the 1980′s so sorry i’m not sure either way there lol)... but if it isn’t a coincidence, i could see this being a visual representation of mike’s fears of his secret being ‘found out’ while also aimlessly signaling how he desperately wants someone who is gay to notice the signals he’s giving off-- he wants someone who understands to answer his changed demeanor as the cry for help it is. it’s even harder to ask for help when you don’t currently have the words for what it is you’re struggling with, because that isn’t me saying mike consciously was thinking these things when he chose that shirt, but rather it’s a way of conveying the subtext/what mike is feeling and thinking by the designers to the audience through recognizable symbols.

(here are some links to sources with more information on the pink triangles:

/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLwSF9uhNQQ&ab_channel=PoweredByRainbows%E2%84%A2

/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj-wGkcyTL8&ab_channel=UnitedStatesHolocaustMemorialMuseum

/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OxH1rqBAgw&t=747s&ab_channel=JamesSomerton 

/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o84srvQAaWk&ab_channel=CambridgeDocumentaryFilms

/ https://thereaderwiki.com/en/Pink_triangles

/ https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/the-men-with-the-pink-triangle-heinz-heger)

the pink triangle was a symbol eventually reclaimed by LGBT activists and became a more well-known symbol amongst the community and then to the general public in the late 80′s/90′s. sometimes this reclamation involved turning the triangle from upside down to right-side up, as a “reversal” of its original usage, and has since been used and adapted as such onscreen... take, for example, one of the costume designs for Dr. Frank ‘N' Furter here...

(https://forward.com/culture/352199/the-secret-jewish-history-of-the-rocky-horror-picture-show/ & https://medium.com/thinking-about-queer-art-performance/rated-r-for-resistance-c6e21611a0fa)

but again.. this could all be a massive stretch so.. just take it with a grain of salt! these are purely inferences i’ve made thru my own lens where i recognize a lot of this imagery pretty immediately so i have a bias probably lol.

+ new addition post-s4: I also found it interesting the parallel between how the Act Up organization made their own shirts for protests and how Dustin makes specific mention of how The Hellfire Club makes their own t-shirts..

[sugarcubetikki]

Robin/Vickie/her bf storyline - the Byler of it all

This was initially supposed to be in response to this post but I realised that I have a lot to say about the Robin/Vickie/her bf storyline and all the Byler coding/parallels within it because they’re insane. During my first watch of Vol 2, they actually gave me a lot of hope and literally every part of that storyline can be linked back to Byler. I don’t know if it’s just me and my brain making crazy connections but let me just break everything down here.

One of the reasons why all the parallels between the Robin/Vickie/her bf love triangle as well as Mike/El/Will one is because Robin’s storyline is the only other canon queer storyline we have in the show and it’s depicted in a more blatant way compared to the Byler one. Having Robin out as a queer character to the audience via Steve and us being able to view her having these interactions about who she is and her feelings makes it more possible for us to engage with Robin’s storyline in a more active way rather than the confusion we feel over the Byler one as it’s a lot of subtext that hasn’t been directly stated. 

The connections between them are therefore important as if they’re making Byler parallels with a more explicit queer storyline then it really does make you wonder exactly what direction they’re going in with Byler.

I think one of the most blatant parallels that a lot of people have pointed out is the shot where Robin stumbles open Vickie and her bf kissing and Will in between the Mike and El reunion scene. 

The love triangle imagery in both these shots are clear as day but the context of them are quite different in nature.

Some key differences to note is that Robin is the one in focus whilst Vickie and her bf are blurred out to emphasise Robin’s pain/suffering over them as a couple whereas for Will he’s the one who’s blurred out whilst Mike and El are in focus to emphasise their reunion. Let’s also note that Robin is clearly upset here whereas Will is smiling and happy.

I know that doesn’t sound much like Byler proof but I think these differences here are important to note the different nature of both storylines in a sense. With Robin’s queer storyline being more blatant and explicit compared to Will’s it is just meant to focus on her more over Vickie and her random bf who aren’t relevant characters. 

Whereas in this scene, this reunion is quite significant and has been built up over some time as they spent the last few episodes searching for El. This is not a Will-focused shot. In the audience’s eyes, it’s not supposed to be even. This shot is not intentionally supposed to blatantly be referencing the love triangle at all compared to the Robin/Vickie/her bf shot. What I think is really important here is they chose to insert Will in between Mike and El in this shot.

Whilst the focus is not on Will, which does allude more to the fact that this shot isn’t supposed to blatantly reference the love triangle, he’s still in between them. They didn’t have to do that. They didn’t have to clearly place Will in between El and Mike during their reunion scene. Placing Will in between Mike and El literally also suggests he’s metaphorically in between them as well. And this is not the first time they’ve done this. They’ve focused on Will’s suffering too many times in the roller rink and he’s majorly in frame with Mike and El this season. (Last season, although not Will himself, they had El carrying Will’s bear whilst kissing Mike and she was holding it between them - again why have El hold Will’s bear during the scene - it’s also key to note that he’s always been in between them).

Coming back to Robin/Vickie/her bf, I think you can also argue that Robin is not only literally framed in between Vickie and her bf but she’s somewhat metaphorically and figuratively there too. As when Vickie sees Robin there, she has an odd reaction..

The guilt on Vickie’s face like she’s been caught doing something she wasn’t supposed to be doing is very strange. It’s meant to cue us into the fact that things aren’t what they seem to be here. That Vickie indeed has feelings for Robin because you do not react that guilty if your “just a friend from band” catches you with your bf. Cuing the audience in here is important because it tells us that just because Vickie has a bf it doesn’t mean that Robin’s chances are out of the window. Being queer and questioning your sexuality is complicated and it’s not nearly as black and white as it seems. If you also consider that a lot of people watching this show just do not understand queer people at all this is definitely an important to see. Also, if they were to make Byler canon later on, this storyline definitely eases up the audience into the fact that Mike having a girlfriend beforehand doesn’t discredit Byler at all. 

Robin is therefore in between Vickie and her bf not because she’s literally coming in between them because Vickie has feelings for Robin as alluded in this scene (and the end scene too which we’ll get onto later). This also can be linked back to Will being in between Mike and El not because he’s trying to but because Mike has feelings for Will. 

Like Vickie in that scene with her suspicious guilt upon seeing Robin, Mike has also been doing questionable things throughout the entire season that make no sense unless he has feelings for Will. However, due to the nature of both storylines, they are implicit and not as clear to the general audience but they are there.

The hug refusal at the airport, intentionally ignoring Will because he’s oh so in love with his gf but if that was the case how did you even notice his moping over El’s lying and even blame him for sabotaging your day, the whole “El’s my girlfriend ” whilst “we’re friends, we’re friends” as an excuse to why he didn’t send Will letters but that doesn’t even make sense, going on about who all his other friends were great but Hawkins just wasn’t the same without Will implying that Will is not like his other friends but special to Mike, the heart eyes and lip glances he never gives his girlfriend, he can’t say that he loves his girlfriend only until she’s on her deathbed and he needs encouragement from Will to do that as well-

We’ve clearly established that all the weird inconsistencies in Mike’s behaviour is either trashy writing or that they’re trying to tell us something here.

If we go with the second option, yes, they are trying to tell us something here just like they were with Vickie’s little guilty expression to indicate her having feelings for Robin and feeling conflicted about it, just like how Mike is now. He has feelings for Will, but there’s also El and he’s questioning a lot of things, basically he’s very confused. 

If we move onto Steve and Robin’s little talk after Robin runs away, I think what Steve says during that entire scene is particularly interesting.

We have Steve talking about how it doesn’t make sense in response to Vickie having a boyfriend.

As Steve is used to make the audience more aware of Robin’s queerness and her storyline, I think it’s important to listen to what he says. Him saying it doesn’t make sense makes me think of another straight relationship that doesn’t make sense this season hmmm...

In fact, us Bylers, have been talking about how M*leven’s relationship doesn’t make sense at all. Especially this season. This season it was nonsensical.

Here, we have Steve talking about how Vickie’s whole relationship doesn’t make sense, Steve, who was so sure Vickie was queer (he’s right too), is once again pointing out how it doesn’t make sense and things aren’t what they seem upon first sight to Robin. It’s like with Byler and M*leven throughout the seasons, on the surface, things really aren’t what they seem, you really have to dig deeper into the subtext and understand the narrative to realise that. And Steve pointing out Vickie’s queerness as well as mentioning how her bf doesn’t make sense is pretty much all of us pointing out signs of Mike’s queerness and talking about how M*leven doesn’t make sense. It was just written so nonsensically this season especially. They actually don’t make sense whilst our “gay Mike Wheeler” bible grows more and more every day. 

Robin’s reaction, on the other hand, she’s very pessimistic about the whole ordeal. She feels ready to submit to the possibility that Vickie is straight and will never like her back rather than anything else and it’s so sad but it’s what queer people are used to. She’s also living in a small town in the 80s and what are the chances that her crush is queer too and likes her back. It’s something us queer people struggle with. During that time, when we were more discriminated against and had to hide who we were, it was even trickier for Robin. The same could be said for Will’s situation here. It’s hard for Will. He doesn’t know who to open up to. Who he is sometimes makes him feel like a mistake and it’s difficult. Will, like Robin, is ready to submit to the prospect of being rejected/it being impossible rather than actually reaching out and giving it a chance because it’s not safe for us. He’d rather repress his feelings for Mike and accept the fact that he’s straight and has a girlfriend than open up to him about it just like Robin seemed keen to do with Vickie. 

Both Robin and Will are unreliable narrators because their fear and feelings here cloud their judgement. They are coming from very reasonable places however but the what the show conveys here is that despite their fears things might actually work out for them.

The last two scenes that I’d look to look at is the Rockie PB&J scene and the Byler painting scene because parallels galore.

For the audience and Robin, mainly to the audience though, this scene confirms queer Vickie and her feelings for Robin in subtext are very clear. With Vickie’s inexplicable nervous behaviour making her feelings for Robin blatant, as well as the reveal she broke up with her bf better setting up Robin as a romantic option, and not to mention Vickie mentioning how sometimes her mouth moves faster than her brain paralleling the exact same words Robin said in Vol 1 to Steve in relation to her feelings for Vickie (also Steve just smirking at the end of their scene). 

After all the parallels with Byler, Robin and Vickie being set up as requited - possibly endgame - is a very good sign. Because after poor Robin’s denials and internal suffering which paralleled Will’s a lot, she’s finally on the route of getting the girl (the girl who appeared straight with a bf like Mike!).

Their interactions in that scene also parallel Byler interactions in the painting scene. 

I’m going to reference this post by @bluemeetyellow​ here because it’s absolutely perfect.

I think when Vickie first enters and continues to ramble on nervously to Robin about what she meant when she said certain things is literally paralleling Mike giving the most ridiculous responses ever during his fight with Will at the roller rink that wouldn’t make sense unless he’s gay (The difference being Vickie here is showing nervousness due to romantic feelings whilst Mike was being hostile and weird due to internalised homophobia and feelings). 

Then Vickie and Mike both starting off talking about their insecurities/worries over relationships with their straight partners with Will and Robin (who both have feelings for them) listening. Then, both of them proceeding to apologise with how stupid their complaining seemed in the odds of bigger problems whereas we have Robin and Will reassuring them that it’s alright. 

Moving on, both the scenes move out of the focus of their straight partners, and become way more romantically coded in terms of their dynamics.

With Robin and Vickie, it’s the nervous gazes, soft music in the background, and Vickie’s final words paralleling back to what Robin said in Vol 1 in relation to her romantic feelings towards Vickie ultimately just confirming that they’re reciprocated and romantic in nature.

With Mike and Will, they’re not there yet and I don’t think this interaction exactly parallels the Robin and Vickie scene at the end but the bedroom one does which I’ll move onto, however, the scene does become more romantically coded towards them despite the fact that Will is using El’s name to hide his feelings, there’s more blatant focus on the fact that he’s talking about his feelings to the audience. Mike’s reaction is kept as ambiguous as possible but there are some soft looks and lip glances and little giveaways that we picked up here and there. Unlike Robin, Will does not get his closure this season but with all the narrative clues and things not adding up it’s like we’re getting there, we’re getting there and if they’re building up to it slowly (but if they screw us over we are definitely not forgiving them but it wouldn’t make sense if this went unaddressed this scene was so significant).

Moving onto the bedroom scene, it parallels Robin and Vickie’s last moments so well: the nervousness, the soft looks, the tender, emotional music, the double meaning behind all their words. When Mike says “we need to be a team...friends...best friends” there’s especially so much double meaning to unpack there it also parallels Will saying “we used to be best friends” back in the roller rink and we all know Will wants more than that but the emotional value of best friends is so strong for him. Especially after they pushed each other away. Same for Mike. Being best friends right now and having the other near is important to them. Besides, they don’t believe that the other will ever reciprocate and they believe that being best friends is the closest they’ll get to each other they just want to be close to each other. 

Mike’s nervousness accompanied with Will intensely looking at him with a “yes” conveys this mutual understanding between them that’s clearly layered. That mutual understanding at the end is the same with Robin and Vickie with the whole “my mouth runs faster than my brain” statement actually equating to their feelings for each other. Just like “best friends” does for Mike and Will. The way these scenes are shot with the soft music and soft looks are just crazily similar and as Rockie is basically reciprocated it’s even more proof that Byler will be. 

To wrap it all up, I’m not sure how crazy these connections seem or not, but there are just so many, and they match up so perfectly, their are some things that just can’t be ignored. So many of these scenes are filmed similarly to Byler. This entire storyline is just written similarly to Byler too. And both of them are canon queer storylines as well and seeing how things ended for Robin and Vickie...I guess a little hope comes a long way for Byler too : )