#even when it comes to its writing surrounding the subject of gender identities

[ardentblossomings]

man I could take veilguard criticism so much more seriously if people were to refrain from using words like "gender ideology"

[fenmere]

Writing Questionaire (tag game)

thank you @the-letterbox-archives for tagging us! this is a writing questionnaire. It's a long one!

about us

when did you start writing?

we started writing poetry in 3rd grade we started trying to write novels in 6th grade and just couldn't we started writing vignettes in 9th grade we started writing massive amounts of poetry just after high school we started writing in social media posts in 1995 we started writing short stories in 1997 we started writing a webcomic in 2000 and then we started writing massive amounts of novels in 2019

are there genres/themes you enjoy reading different to the ones you write?

We write science fiction/fantasy and that's our favorite genre to read. But we also love just about anything else if it's good and recommended by someone we trust. Mysteries are wonderful, biographies and autobiographies are delightful, non-fiction books about all sorts of subjects, historical fiction, comedy, parody, etc. We haven't read a romance yet.

is there an author you want to emulate, or one to whom you're often compared?

We draw from Ursual K. LeGuinn, Octavia Butler, Rivers Solomon, Glen Cook, Akwaeki Emezi, C.J. Cherryh, and Jack L. Chalker, mostly.

can you tell me a little about your writing space?

We wrote our first and second book on an iPhone 5S using our right thumb, on bus rides. Now, we also frequently write at our desk with our computer, which is in the livingroom, with our own pieces of artwork surrounding us, as well as a couple of gundams, some models of the Sunspot and Spindrift from our stories, and a porcelain doll named Akailea.

what's your most effective way to muster up some muse?

Reading other books, watching movies, and listening to music. That can take months if we're between book ideas. Once we have a book idea, if it clicks, there's no effort. We just sit down and write. But, having a playlist for the book helps move it along, and helps us focus when everything else is being distracting.

did the place(s) you grew up in influence the people and places you write about?

Absolutely. Utterly and entirely.

are there any recurring themes of your writing, and if so, do they surprise you at all?

Yes, and not at all. We write about what we care about. And we explore all the different angles of it that we can: plurality, autism, gender diversity, intersex bodies, therianthropy, alienation, consent and autonomy, bullying, fascism, resistance, activism, etc.

my characters

would you please tell me about your current favourite character?

We don't have a single favorite character. However, Phage appears in almost all of our stories for a reason. The way that we depict it in our stories is true to its real life identity. So, it can kind of be easy to see why we write about it a lot. It's sort of our spiritual hero. You can read it's blog here: @ohthatphage It is a monster and a law of nature and not a living thing but it lives while in our vessel, and it nearly killed us, but it is also our greatest protector and advocate.

which of your characters do you think you'd be friends with in real life?

They are us! We are friends (and family) of all of them. In real life. For real. Even the villains (because they play villains in our books, not in real life).

which of your characters would you dislike most if you met them?

We've met all of them. They are us. We each have different opinions of each other. We're not going to say which of us is the least popular.

tell me more about the process of coming up with your characters.

Well. Usually, we have a role in a story that needs to be filled, and then we give the character in that role and name, and that summons or creates a headmate to fill that role, and then they tell us who they are and start roleplaying out their part of the script, and it goes from there. It's all very stream of consciousness. Sometimes it works better than others. Some of our headmates aren't very enthusiastic about participating in the stories they've been called to. But most of the time it works out.

do you notice any recurring themes/traits among your characters?

Since they are all heatmates and we're all autistic, they're all autistic in different ways. Sometimes we try to have a character who is not autistic, canonically, but honestly they still really are. Similarly, we can't really write a character who isn't ace.

how do you picture your characters?

Vividly! They do sometimes have pretty vague appearances in the beginning, but as we write them and their headmate-actors embody the role more and more, their visages become quite detailed and animated. It gets to the point where we can sometimes draw them pretty well as if working from a model.

my writing

what's your reason for writing?

To live. We live most thoroughly through either reading or writing. And when we don't have stories that are good enough to read, we must write. We also reproduce through writing. In a variety of ways. It prompts us to create new headmates, which always feels good. But also, it puts these fictional versions of ourselves out there that can then become fictives in other systems. And in that way we'll have children that can outlive our own body.

is there any specific comment or type of comment you find particularly motivating coming from your readers?

"well fuck I wish that was real" and the very simple "thank you for writing this" - both the best comments we've ever gotten.

how do you want to be thought of by those who read your work?

as people who can now live in your head and help you live a happier life

what do you feel is your greatest strength as a writer?

we outnumber Portland

what have you been frequently told by others is your greatest strength as a writer?

we haven't been told anything by anybody yet

how do you feel about your own writing?

we write it mostly for ourselves, we live it, we reread it frequently and regularly, and we relive it, and it makes us feel OK with existence when we otherwise would not

if you were the last person on earth and knew your writing would never be read by another human, would you still write?

absolutely, because it would be read by us. We're not human, but we are constant having more children, and they need good stories to read

when you write, are you influenced by what others might enjoy reading, or do you write purely what you enjoy? if it’s a mix of the two, which holds the most influence?

We know that what we enjoy and need is something that some few other people need and enjoy. And while we write primarily for ourselves, we share our work for the people who are like us who yearn for writing that is like ours, for the kinds of stories we write, that most of the rest of the world never writes. We write primarily about plurality, in all sorts of different forms and variations, and what it means to be plural, in heroic fiction. And none of our plural systems are villains so far. And you just don't really get that in any traditionally published books, comics, or movies.

Tag yourself and answer this please.

[mistymem0ryy]

Il Dottore x Reader

The Fall of Icarus Chapter 1 - An unexpected letter

Summary: While being a student in the prestigious Sumeru Academy, the reader begins to form a weird friendship with the genius student Zandik, only to then lose said friendship due to his banishment. Years later a rogue letter finds its way to their report-file desk.

The gender of the reader is not specified.

(Minor spoilers for Dottore’s identity ig)// Word count: 2066

Notes: I am quite tired of the constant fics where the Reader happens to not be at a similar intellectual level as Dottore… Do not get me wrong I understand that it could be quite intimidating since the guy is quite literally a genius, but I always wondered how different his common behavior and developing intellect would have been during his Academia years…

Chapter 2

{No beta we die like Zandik’s grades}

People like Dottore are usually blessed with what I call an Imaginative Genius, he is inventive and curious in nature but that is not all you need in order to excel in an Academic environment. Any undergrad level Science student will complain to you about obligatory courses that range from boring classes on how to write an adequate lab report, to mind draining mathematics units that you have to take in order to graduate but most probably will never need in your actual profession.

Dottore is a genius, yes, but he is also impatient and insatiable, and those are the traits that led him to his unlabeled relationship with you…

The Academia is constituted by various facets dedicated to different areas of research, but they all possess one common thing, and that is the dreadful compulsory mathematics and report units. Mathematics is the language of the world, therefore it would be only logical that a self respecting scientist would have a certain degree of fluency in it…And to add unto that, a great researcher must too be capable of describing all observable phenomena in harmonious text.

Dottore… or should I say Zandik? Well, no matter how much his brain was capable of maneuvering itself into creating unimaginable gadgets and devices while simultaneously researching lost ruins of forgotten civilizations, he simply could not wrap his head around a certain set of classes that he deemed utterly useless.

He wanted to go out and research the unknown, feel his surroundings and understand their development, he wanted to acquire knowledge beyond the one present in the various dust collecting books that encircled him every minute… 

He wants to punch down that godforsaken door and leave this classroom at this precise moment… But to his utter disdain he cannot.

You see Zandik is quite the intelligent fellow, his curiosity leads him further in his personal research but he must balance all of that alongside all the courses the Academia requires from him in order to finish his initial program. But no matter how “important” a certain class might be, if it doesn't strike the interest of the blue haired student then he will not even glance towards its direction twice… His time is precious and slowly but certainly running out, so he must make the most of it, even if it means missing a rather concerning number of classes.

You would like to say that perhaps, in some sick and twisted way, Zandik considers you a friend… an appreciated company? a tolerant fellow student?... 

After years of being in the Academia you have come to recognize the fact that you were the one sole person he did not outright treat with pure hatred. Sometimes you look back to your first year in the Academia, when you were solely a freshman ready to embark on a new intellectual endeavor and happened to be partnered up with Zandik for a class on “The Etiquette of Writing a Concise and Clean Scientific Report”. A boring class that you honestly thought quite useless, I mean haven’t you all been writing for years already? Why would you need a specific class centered around writing a report when you could be spending this precious time on other more alarming subjects? 

After receiving your first graded assignment, and looking to your side only to be met with the hellish mess that was your Partner’s crumbling sheet you finally realized why this class was an obligatory module for graduation… You cannot decipher at which point his description of physical phenomena turned into a horrific amalgamation of scribbled equations, and- is that khaenri'ahn script? Nevermind, you do not want to know…

Zandik catches you fearfully attempting to understand the meaning behind his rather… messy report…and lets out an annoyed huff in the process.

He is an excellent scientist in the making yes, but he has a hard time translating the concepts that take place in his head into a mere sheet of paper, and the fact that someone, especially YOU, happened to be witness to one of his intellectual weaknesses, that he so arduously attempted to hide, stroke a nerve.

The moment the class is dismissed Zandik is packing his materials and leaving this humiliating experience, you quickly come to the understanding that his speed is not necessarily a byproduct of his failing grade, but rather of the fact that you saw said grade.

You knew Zandik had a reputation for being a Genius in the making, and honestly a part of yourself could not help but be relieved by the fact that this class was proof that he could also fail, that he was indeed human.

You gather your belongings as fast as you can manage, and decide to follow the boy into whatever corner of this building he has decided to retire himself into. When you find him you offer to secretly help him with his failing grade, which he reluctantly accepts. That is the beginning of the rather weird relationship you happened to establish with Zandik, you weren't necessarily friends… you knew that despite his act in front of the professors and all the well calculated smiles he threw into the air, Zandik didn't actually see any of your colleagues on exactly friendly terms… but you hoped… You hoped that perhaps after all of this he could find in himself the sympathy to see, at least yourself, in a softer light…And the thing is, he did, trully. You simply weren't capable of perceiving it.

It was rather unnoticeable, and only someone with an extremely keen eye and patience would be capable of noticing the slight ways in which Zandik would relax his composure when in your presence, how his gaze would linger on you while you corrected another maze-like report of his, how he would lie to you about being offered 2 coffees instead of one thanks to his Genius-like reputation among the academic staff, and now you would have to drink the other one so he doesn't over caffeinate his system.

It was honestly quite warming, while it lasted at least. You helped Zandik obtain the grade he needed in order to pass that tormenting class, and sincerely hoped that this would not be the end of the untold arrangement between the two of you.

The unnamed relationship between you and Zandik, to your surprise, remained intact after that class, he continued to talk to you whenever you too happened to be in the same room (which even though at first glance does not seem to be that much, it is actually quite important for him since you happened to be the only other student which he does not see as a complete waste of his time), and when he noticed that you were having a hard time with Multivariable Calculus he took it upon himself to tutor you through that fearsome class. It was those tutoring sessions that really allowed Zandik to learn more about you, from your favorite dish to your family history, and eventually to teasingly referring to you only by the name of your favorite constellation.

“Careful there Icarus you don’t want to burn your wings away now do you?”

“Zandik why is the lab on fire?”

It was all going quite well… until the rumors began…

All the compliments that embellished Zandik’s reputation in the beginning slowly metamorphosed into quick whispers in the hallways pertaining to his rather unorthodox ideas, people began fearing for their safety after the disappearances and deaths began… And the initial worry directed towards your person and safety, as being the closest student to Zandik, eventually transformed itself into comments about how you too must also possess some sort of sickness in that head of yours in order to talk with him so casually…

Zandik was ok with people gossiping about him, that is as ok as one can be when your sanity has turned into a theme of communal discussion, but when the hatred that those around him started to deviate from being completely aimed towards him and began to shift towards your unknowing figure, he had to put it all to a stop. You were the only person in that damned establishment that saw him beyond the performance he put up every waking hour, the only person that treated him as if he were an actual human being and not an interesting concept, and no matter how ardently he wanted to be accursed alongside your embrace he couldn't bring himself to actually bring the both of you into your own doom.

He stopped talking to you completely. It's as if in the matter of a fleeting night your bodily presence had been turned invisible to his eyes, your voice echoed upon deaf ears, your pleas for an explanation gone unheard, left to rot alongside yourself.

You tried, you really did, but Zandik persisted, and at some point your loud requests for an explanation had been turned into a fleeting glance on your way to class, only to then become the impossibility of seeing him for weeks on end…

You want to say that you were surprised when he was expelled, but honestly you saw it coming before he did. Zandik, no matter how many times he bashed in his capacity of predicting the outcomes of any possible situation, was always a victim of his own ego, he thought himself undefeatable and it was (temporarily at least) your job to ground him to reality when necessary. 

He had strayed too far, and now his own genius could not save him from whatever grave he had dug for himself this time, not even you could stretch a lending hand to bring him from the darkest pits of his mind back to the light…

It has been years since the last time you saw Zandik, out of everyone in your sector of the Academia he was the only one you were certain of achieving greatness in the future, only for that hypothetical greatness to be cut short before he could even graduate successfully…

You tried to find him, after he was banished from Sumeru, no matter how hideous his actions, you could not forget the fact that he too was a human being, you had seen parts of Zandik the world considered utterly impossible, and you hoped that he could see that no matter how tarnished his person could become by the words of the masses, you still saw him as the boy that would ramble about Ancient Civilizations while you studied anatomy, the same boy that would take you to the areas of Sumeru streaming with wildlife and lecture you on all the different properties of the various species inhabiting your surroundings, the same boy that sent you letters nearly every two days when you had to temporarily interrupt your studies to help a sick family member…

But now it has been years, and even though you were able to somehow balance out both your professional research and that for the whereabouts of Zandik, you have found yourself with absolutely no fruitful outcome to the latter.

You quickly realized that you had completely spaced out with your various reports left untouched in front of you, recently the amount of times you temporarily lose awareness only to daydream about your old days with Zandik has become alarmingly bigger, you really should get some healthy amounts of sleep from now on…Especially after receiving a heads up from Alhaitham of a wandering Traveler that supposedly is going to pass by your office today in order to request your help.

You begin to clean up your reports, organizing every sheet according to your personal system until your eyes land upon a rogue letter that you cannot recall having in your possession.

The only tip that could lead to the identity of the sender was the initial -D stamped upon the untouched envelope. You switfly grabbed and began to open the lonely envelope in an uninterested manner, that is until it suddenly fell upon your paralyzed feet, leaving your trembling hands stuck in their prior position, as if you were still holding that now forgotten letter within your grasp.

All it took was one inked phrase.

“Greetings, my dear Icarus…”

[bao3bei4]

fan language: the victorian imaginary and cnovel fandom

there’s this pinterest image i’ve seen circulating a lot in the past year i’ve been on fandom social media. it’s a drawn infographic of a, i guess, asian-looking woman holding a fan in different places relative to her face to show what the graphic helpfully calls “the language of the fan.”

people like sharing it. they like thinking about what nefarious ancient chinese hanky code shenanigans their favorite fan-toting character might get up to⁠—accidentally or on purpose. and what’s the problem with that?

the problem is that fan language isn’t chinese. it’s victorian. and even then, it’s not really quite victorian at all. 

--------------------

fans served a primarily utilitarian purpose throughout chinese history. of course, most of the surviving fans we see⁠—and the types of fans we tend to care about⁠—are closer to art pieces. but realistically speaking, the majority of fans were made of cheaper material for more mundane purposes. in china, just like all around the world, people fanned themselves. it got hot!

so here’s a big tipoff. it would be very difficult to use a fan if you had an elaborate language centered around fanning yourself.

you might argue that fine, everyday working people didn’t have a fan language. but wealthy people might have had one. the problem we encounter here is that fans weren’t really gendered. (caveat here that certain types of fans were more popular with women. however, those tended to be the round silk fans, ones that bear no resemblance to the folding fans in the graphic). no disrespect to the gnc old man fuckers in the crowd, but this language isn’t quite masc enough for a tool that someone’s dad might regularly use.

folding fans, we know, reached europe in the 17th century and gained immense popularity in the 18th. it was there that fans began to take on a gendered quality. ariel beaujot describes in their 2012 victorian fashion accessories how middle class women, in the midst of a top shortage, found themselves clutching fans in hopes of securing a husband.

she quotes an article from the illustrated london news, suggesting “women ‘not only’ used fans to ‘move the air and cool themselves but also to express their sentiments.’” general wisdom was that the movement of the fan was sufficiently expressive that it augmented a woman’s displays of emotion. and of course, the more english audiences became aware that it might do so, the more they might use their fans purposefully in that way.

notice, however, that this is no more codified than body language in general is. it turns out that “the language of the fan” was actually created by fan manufacturers at the turn of the 20th century⁠—hundreds of years after their arrival⁠ in europe—to sell more fans. i’m not even kidding right now. the story goes that it was louis duvelleroy of the maison duvelleroy who decided to include pamphlets on the language with each fan sold.

interestingly enough, beaujot suggests that it didn’t really matter what each particular fan sign meant. gentlemen could tell when they were being flirted with. as it happens, meaningful eye contact and a light flutter near the face may be a lingua franca.

so it seems then, the language of the fan is merely part of this victorian imaginary we collectively have today, which in turn itself was itself captivated by china.

--------------------

victorian references come up perhaps unexpectedly often in cnovel fandom, most often with regards to modesty.

it’s a bit of an awkward reference considering that chinese traditional fashion⁠—and the ambiguous time periods in which these novels are set⁠—far predate victorian england. it is even more awkward considering that victoria and her covered ankles did um. imperialize china.

but nonetheless, it is common. and to make a point about how ubiquitous it is, here is a link to the twitter search for “sqq victorian.” sqq is the fandom abbreviation for shen qingqiu, the main character of the scum villain’s self-saving system, by the way.

this is an awful lot of results for a search involving a chinese man who spends the entire novel in either real modern-day china or fantasy ancient china. that’s all i’m going to say on the matter, without referencing any specific tweet.

i think people are aware of the anachronism. and i think they don’t mind. even the most cursory research reveals that fan language is european and a revisionist fantasy. wikipedia can tell us this⁠—i checked!

but it doesn’t matter to me whether people are trying to make an internally consistent canon compliant claim, or whether they’re just free associating between fan facts they know. it is, instead, more interesting to me that people consistently refer to this particular bit of history. and that’s what i want to talk about today⁠—the relationship of fandom today to this two hundred odd year span of time in england (roughly stuart to victorian times) and england in that time period to its contemporaneous china.

things will slip a little here. victorian has expanded in timeframe, if only because random guys posting online do not care overly much for respect for the intricacies of british history. china has expanded in geographic location, if only because the english of the time themselves conflated china with all of asia.

in addition, note that i am critiquing a certain perspective on the topic. this is why i write about fan as white here⁠—not because all fans are white⁠—but because the tendencies i’m examining have a clear historical antecedent in whiteness that shapes how white fans encounter these novels.

i’m sure some fans of color participate in these practices. however i don’t really care about that. they are not its main perpetrators nor its main beneficiaries. so personally i am minding my own business on that front.

it’s instead important to me to illuminate the linkage between white as subject and chinese as object in history and in the present that i do argue that fannish products today are built upon.

--------------------

it’s not radical, or even new at all, for white audiences to consume⁠—or create their own versions of⁠—chinese art en masse. in many ways the white creators who appear to owe their whole style and aesthetic to their asian peers in turn are just the new chinoiserie.

this is not to say that white people can’t create asian-inspired art. but rather, i am asking you to sit with the discomfort that you may not like the artistic company you keep in the broader view of history, and to consider together what is to be done about that.

now, when i say the new chinoiserie, i first want to establish what the original one is. chinoiserie was a european artistic movement that appeared coincident with the rise in popularity of folding fans that i described above. this is not by coincidence; the european demand for asian imports and the eventual production of lookalikes is the movement itself. so: when we talk about fans, when we talk about china (porcelain), when we talk about tea in england⁠—we are talking about the legacy of chinoiserie.

there are a couple things i want to note here. while english people as a whole had a very tenuous knowledge of what china might be, their appetites for chinoiserie were roughly coincident with national relations with china. as the relationship between england and china moved from trade to out-and-out wars, chinoiserie declined in popularity until china had been safely subjugated once more by the end of the 19th century.

the second thing i want to note on the subject that contrary to what one might think at first, the appeal of chinoiserie was not that it was foreign. eugenia zuroski’s 2013 taste for china examines 18th century english literature and its descriptions of the according material culture with the lens that chinese imports might be formative to english identity, rather than antithetical to it.

beyond that bare thesis, i think it’s also worthwhile to extend her insight that material objects become animated by the literary viewpoints on them. this is true, both in a limited general sense as well as in the sense that english thinkers of the time self-consciously articulated this viewpoint. consider the quote from the illustrated london news above⁠—your fan, that object, says something about you. and not only that, but the objects you surround yourself with ought to.

it’s a bit circular, the idea that written material says that you should allow written material to shape your understanding of physical objects. but it’s both 1) what happened, and 2) integral, i think, to integrating a fannish perspective into the topic.

--------------------

japanning is the name for the popular imitative lacquering that english craftspeople developed in domestic response to the demand for lacquerware imports. in the eighteenth century, japanning became an artform especially suited for young women. manuals were published on the subject, urging young women to learn how to paint furniture and other surfaces, encouraging them to rework the designs provided in the text.

it was considered a beneficial activity for them; zuroski describes how it was “associated with commerce and connoisseurship, practical skill and aesthetic judgment.” a skillful japanner, rather than simply obscuring what lay underneath the lacquer, displayed their superior judgment in how they chose to arrange these new canonical figures and effects in a tasteful way to bring out the best qualities of them.

zuroski quotes the first english-language manual on the subject, written in 1688, which explains how japanning allows one to:

alter and correct, take out a piece from one, add a fragment to the next, and make an entire garment compleat in all its parts, though tis wrought out of never so many disagreeing patterns.

this language evokes a very different, very modern practice. it is this english reworking of an asian artform that i think the parallels are most obvious.

white people, through their artistic investment in chinese material objects and aesthetics, integrated them into their own subjectivity. these practices came to say something about the people who participated in them, in a way that had little to do with the country itself. their relationship changed from being a “consumer” of chinese objects to becoming the proprietor of these new aesthetic signifiers.

--------------------

i want to talk about this through a few pairs of tensions on the subject that i think characterize common attitudes then and now.

first, consider the relationship between the self and the other: the chinese object as something that is very familiar to you, speaking to something about your own self vs. the chinese object as something that is fundamentally different from you and unknowable to you. 

consider: [insert character name] is just like me. he would no doubt like the same things i like, consume the same cultural products. we are the same in some meaningful way vs. the fast standard fic disclaimer that “i tried my best when writing this fic, but i’m a english-speaking westerner, and i’m just writing this for fun so...... [excuses and alterations the person has chosen to make in this light],” going hand-in-hand with a preoccupation with authenticity or even overreliance on the unpaid labor of chinese friends and acquaintances. 

consider: hugh honour when he quotes a man from the 1640s claiming “chinoiserie of this even more hybrid kind had become so far removed from genuine Chinese tradition that it was exported from India to China as a novelty to the Chinese themselves” 

these tensions coexist, and look how they have been resolved.

second, consider what we vest in objects themselves: beaujot explains how the fan became a sexualized, coquettish object in the hands of a british woman, but was used to great effect in gilbert and sullivan’s 1885 mikado to demonstrate the docility of asian women. 

consider: these characters became expressions of your sexual desires and fetishes, even as their 5’10 actors themselves are emasculated.

what is liberating for one necessitates the subjugation and fetishization of the other. 

third, consider reactions to the practice: enjoyment of chinese objects as a sign of your cosmopolitan palate vs “so what’s the hype about those ancient chinese gays” pop culture explainers that addressed the unconvinced mainstream.

consider: zuroski describes how both english consumers purchased china in droves, and contemporary publications reported on them. how: 

It was in the pages of these papers that the growing popularity of Chinese things in the early eighteenth century acquired the reputation of a “craze”; they portrayed china fanatics as flawed, fragile, and unreliable characters, and frequently cast chinoiserie itself in the same light.

referenda on fannish behavior serve as referenda on the objects of their devotion, and vice versa. as the difference between identity and fetish collapses, they come to be treated as one and the same by not just participants but their observers. 

at what point does mxtx fic cease to be chinese? 

--------------------

finally, it seems readily apparent that attitudes towards chinese objects may in fact have something to do with attitudes about china as a country. i do not want to suggest that these literary concerns are primarily motivated and begot by forces entirely divorced from the real mechanics of power. 

here, i want to bring in edward said, and his 1993 culture and imperialism. there, he explains how power and legitimacy go hand in hand. one is direct, and one is purely cultural. he originally wrote this in response to the outsize impact that british novelists have had in the maintenance of empire and throughout decolonization. literature, he argues, gives rise to powerful narratives that constrain our ability to think outside of them.

there’s a little bit of an inversion at play here. these are chinese novels, actually. but they’re being transformed by white narratives and artists. and just as i think the form of the novel is important to said’s critique, i think there’s something to be said about the form that fic takes and how it legitimates itself.

bound up in fandom is the idea that you have a right to create and transform as you please. it is a nice idea, but it is one that is directed towards a certain kind of asymmetry. that is, one where the author has all the power. this is the narrative we hear a lot in the history of fandom⁠—litigious authors and plucky fans, fanspaces always under attack from corporate sanitization.

meanwhile, said builds upon raymond schwab’s narrative of cultural exchange between european writers and cultural products outside the imperial core. said explains that fundamental to these two great borrowings (from greek classics and, in the so-called “oriental renaissance” of the late 18th, early 19th centuries from “india, china, japan, persia, and islam”) is asymmetry. 

he had argued prior, in orientalism, that any “cultural exchange” between “partners conscious of inequality” always results in the suffering of the people. and here, he describes how “texts by dead people were read, appreciated, and appropriated” without the presence of any actual living people in that tradition. 

i will not understate that there is a certain economic dynamic complicating this particular fannish asymmetry. mxtx has profited materially from the success of her works, most fans will not. also secondly, mxtx is um. not dead. LMAO.

but first, the international dynamic of extraction that said described is still present. i do not want to get overly into white attitudes towards china in this post, because i am already thoroughly derailed, but i do believe that they structure how white cnovel fandom encounters this texts.

at any rate, any profit she receives is overwhelmingly due to her domestic popularity, not her international popularity. (i say this because many of her international fans have never given her a cent. in fact, most of them have no real way to.) and moreover, as we talk about the structure of english-language fandom, what does it mean to create chinese cultural products without chinese people? 

as white people take ownership over their versions of stories, do we lose something? what narratives about engagement with cnovels might exist outside of the form of classic fandom?

i think a lot of people get the relationship between ideas (the superstructure) and production (the base) confused. oftentimes they will lob in response to criticism, that look! this fic, this fandom, these people are so niche, and so underrepresented in mainstream culture, that their effects are marginal. i am not arguing that anyone’s cql fic causes imperialism. (unless you’re really annoying. then it’s anyone’s game) 

i’m instead arguing something a little bit different. i think, given similar inputs, you tend to get similar outputs. i think we live in the world that imperialism built, and we have clear historical predecessors in terms of white appetites for creating, consuming, and transforming chinese objects. 

we have already seen, in the case of the fan language meme that began this post, that sometimes we even prefer this white chinoiserie. after all, isn’t it beautiful, too? 

i want to bring discomfort to this topic. i want to reject the paradigm of white subject and chinese object; in fact, here in this essay, i have tried to reverse it.

if you are taken aback by the comparisons i make here, how can you make meaningful changes to your fannish practice to address it? 

--------------------

some concluding thoughts on the matter, because i don’t like being misunderstood! 

i am not claiming white fans cannot create fanworks of cnovels or be inspired by asian art or artists. this essay is meant to elaborate on the historical connection between victorian england and cnovel characters and fandom that others have already popularized.

i don’t think people who make victorian jokes are inherently bad or racist. i am encouraging people to think about why we might make them and/or share them

the connections here are meant to be more provocative than strictly literal. (e.g. i don’t literally think writing fanfic is a 1-1 descendant of japanning). these connections are instead meant to 1) make visible the baggage that fans of color often approach fandom with and 2) recontextualize and defamiliarize fannish practice for the purposes of honest critique

please don’t turn this post into being about other different kinds of discourse, or into something that only one “kind” of fan does. please take my words at face value and consider them in good faith. i would really appreciate that.

please feel free to ask me to clarify any statements or supply more in-depth sources :) 

[fictionalmenmistress]

Shadow From The Window (Leonardo)

Imagine your scared of the dark and alone, but your sexy hero-in-the-half-shell comes to sleep at your side, after a long partol. Exausted, he forgets how easy you startle, and comforts you.

(SFW but blushy, leaning Fem!Reader/ but also gender-neutral, Bayverse Leo, no swearing, FLUFF, a lil spooky at the start but all sweet and completely handle-able. Its safe 💙)

(So, this is my first official post here and I'm so excited! First of all, HI EVERYONE! I'm so happy to have found my peoples and to be here uwu, I love you all. Hopefully, this brings you comfort to rest before bed, or in the middle of the night. Want me to do one for all the boys? Lemme know!💙)

I am writing this at 2-3 am, after imagining this scenario to comfort myself, settling down to rest. The thought of Leo hiding in the dark, makes the dark a lot less scary. (Tho I decided to write it instead of resting lol) LETS GET IT!

Its 3 am in your studio apartment.

You've been living in New York city for a while now, but its always been a hassle to fall asleep in your own place. That's been the hardest adjustment after leaving home... how scary it can be on your own. Truth be told, you're 'scared of the dark'. Not nescessarily scared of the darkness itself, but the shadows in the corner of the room... the random noises and things that go bump in the night... the mere thought in the back of your mind that something, as ridiculous as it sounds to others, will come and get you once your guard is down.

There you lied, stiff as a board on your back. The covers, pulled up to your neck, as you breathed in and out as silently as you could. Why did you still feel like you had to hide from monsters or bad guys in your own home? "Dang it, y/n..." you sighed, wiping the nervous cold sweat from your forehead, overheating internally from the anxiety.

"WHY... why did I have to watch that horror movie with Donnie?" You thought, internally shouting at yourself. "He said its not scary, that its 'too absurd to be plausible, and thus won't trigger a reaction of fear'. So much for a slow and steady introduction to the genre!"

You should have known when Raph said "Nope, I'm out." Donnie sat there the whole time, laughing at the movie at the scariest and most ill-timed moments... and you recall just glaring at him, teeth chattering, whispering to yourself:

"Yeah, he's cracked alright."

Just because something isn't scientifically proven, doesn't mean it can't happen... or hasn't happened, right?

"Ugh..." you groaned, curling your lips into a gremace, scared your groan was too loud amongst the unsettling silence. "I can't sleep with the lights on again..."

Glancing toward your phone, you noticed a blue light illuminate the screen, informing you that you got a new text. But that blue light... it instantly made you think of the blue-loving turtle you so dearly loved. The light of your life.

'Leo would protect me.'

Ah, that comforting reminder that you would feel so safe in your boyfriend's arms... if only he were here with you.

But... he wasn't. He was probably out on patrol, far away, and unable to come any time soon, even if he could.

"That's it." You said, taking and deep breath and mustering up all of your courage, throwing the covers off and dashing to the light switch.

*flick!* And... everything in the room was normal. It was comforting, but you scolded yourself for not accepting that everything was already secure, and nothing was lurking in the dark.

Everything was still, as you closed your curtains and lied back down in bed.

"Light on it is." You sighed, before the light suddenly flickered by itself.

"Oh crap-" you muttered, taking a gulp, as the power went out. "OH CRAP, ITS JUST LIKE THE MOVIE-"

Now, you felt screwed. You lied as still as possible, for what felt like forever, refusing to close your eyes. Dang it... DANG it!

Grabbing your phone light, you quickly tip-toed to the bathroom, trying to pee as fast as you could, so you could get back to your warm bed where it feels semi-safe.

As soon as you opened the bathroom door, you noticed your curtains flowing and twirling in the night wind. Street sounds from the never-sleeping city below echoed faintly through your widely-opened window.

"My window... is open?" You thought in horrified shock, examining your surroundings in the dark carefully.

You froze in your tracks, as your phone light turned itself off.

BATTERY TOO LOW TO USE FLASHLIGHT, PLEASE CHARGE.

A chill went down your spine, as you stood there in the center of everything, slowly backing to a corner, where you planned to crouch in the fetal position, so you could see all angles of the room for the rest of the night.

You took another step back, and another, before you bumped into a large mass, standing behind you.

'Not the wall...' your brain registered, feeling the heat of whomever or whatever this tall thing was, radiating against your back.

"Hello, beautiful~" A deep voice chuckled, startling you.

Jolting around, you saw a dark, tall shadow, looming before you.

The fear disoriented you, quickly rushing adrenaline through your body, as your fight or flight reacted. You quickly let out a shriek, chucking your dying phone at the shadow and darting quickly toward the window.

The shadow caught the phone instantly, with lightning fast reflex, as a large hand suddenly wrapped around your wrist, gently yet firmly pulling you back into the room before you crawled out onto the fire escape.

"WHOA, hey hey! Y/N easy! Its okay." A gentle, farmiliar voice assured, gently pulling you around to face him. "Its just me!"

"L-let go!" You whimpered, still not realizing who it was. "P-please..."

"Hey, its me..." he softly whispered, as your breath began to steady, blinking a couple of times as his identity fully set in. "Shh, sh sh sh." He lulled.

"L-Leo?" You squeaked in disbelief.

The figure slowly leaned into the moonlight, casting over you from the open window, revealing his GORGEOUS, icy blue eyes. Those intense-yet-soft eyes... that you knew and loved more than anyone else's. That comforting, strong, lovingly soft gaze, that instantly reassured you that you were safe.

"Your aim is getting better," he softly chuckled, smirking with his adorable grin. Leo slowly slid your phone before you, onto the moonlit sheets, barely revealing his outstretched, chiseled, manly hands. "I'm so sorry I scared you, love. I didn't mean to... I would never on purpose..."

Leo's voice sounded composed, but also ashamed and regretful, as he became more serious to apologise. He always spoke so softly to you...

"Leo, I'm sorry! I didn't mean to, I-" you desparately assured, bursting into tears. "I-"

"Hey hey, I should have knocked, or called. I'm sorry I scared you, sweetheart. I thought I would suprise you in a good way, not startle you." He murmured, reaching his large hands out to gently grasp you, holding you in his arms.

"Oh... I'm so happy to see you!" You sighed, falling against him.

"Donnie felt bad about that scary movie, he told me about how scared you were and begged me to check on you." He whispered, with that composed, reassuring voice.

"Oh Leo... you really came." You whispered, sniffling back your tears.

"Of course, my love... I came straight here after patrol. I would have come sooner, but Raph was getting his shell handed to him by this big..." he hesitated, biting his lip.

"Leo?" You asked, wondering why he stopped.

"-You know what? It doesn't matter." He gently corrected, changing the subject.

"What? What was it?" You innocently asked, curling up against his warm, sculpted chest.

You could feel Leo's skin grow warmer with a blush, as he slowly and sweetly welcomed your embrace, holding you close.

"I'll tell you during daylight. Just... sweetie, I'll never let anything bad happen to you, as long as I live. You're safe, whether I'm near or far. Okay, sweetheart?" Leo promised with his deep innocent voice, planting a soft kiss against your forehead.

Suddenly, you heard a generator power on through your front door, and the power flicked back on.

You could at last see him. See his muscled arms around you, and the tails of his worn out blue mask resting against his chest, along side you. His plastron... rising and falling as he took in slow breaths.

Leo was so careful holding you in his arms... like you were this precious, tiny thing, that he adored with his entire existance.

"Hey, you... you there?" He muttered, growing increasingly bashful in his tension.

"I'm here." You gently assured with a smile, before pulling away to examine his handsome face.

Leonardo. Sexy, handsome, justly-confident, fierce leader. This fearless, giant turtle mutant, who was unlike anyone else in the world. His jaw clenched from sudden bashful nervousness, as his gaze shyed away from your eyes. Your stare always overwhelmed him... it was such an intimate thing to meet his eyes.

Leo cleared his throat, as he slowly reached out to your face, ever-so-carefully wiping away a tear from your cheek, watching intently and focusing as he did so.

Over cautiously gentle so he wouldn't risk hurting you with his strength.

"There we go..." he softly whispered in satisfaction, sighing with a relieved smirk.

"Can you..." you began, with every ounce of security and confidence you could muster. "Can you... stay? With me, all of tonight?"

You felt your cheeks blush intensely, blooming red, as Leo bit on his bottom lip. His eyes widened, as he fully realized your question.

"Y-yeah, o-of course I can..." Leo answered, all of a sudden a thousand times more innocent and adorable, intensely flattered and touched that you wanted him to stay at your side. "Uh... I'll... uh-" he began, moving back from kneeling on your bed before you, aimlessly pacing into your tiny kitchen.

Leo usually was so bold and certain, organized and authoritative, when he was on the move.

You recalled how you had seen first-hand how he can lay out the strategy of attack for the boys. He could be flipping into action, or running through the rooftops as he did it, with perfect coordination in his speech and movements. But with you and only you, Leo wasn't able to get the words out when he was this nervous or bashful.

He had a tendancy to overthink things.

Leo wandered into the cupboard, beginning to steep some tea on the stove as his tongue caught up with his brain.

"Do you want... tea?" He gently asked, clearing his throat.

Such husband material...

"Ah, sure." You grinned, sweetly answering.

You realized how safe and secure you felt now, with him in the studio. You weren't alone anymore.

Leo didn't say much while he prepared the tea. He hyper-focused to distract himself from the nervousness of staying at your place, ALONE with you for the night. He paced around without speaking... doing little thoughtful things, like closing the window and locking it for you, shutting the closet and bathroom door, and picking out the perfect cups for the two of you, from your DC glass cup collection.

(Leo liked the Nightwing one since it was blue, and he always gave you the batgirl one, because you loved purple. He loved it when you would geek out and tell him how those heroes were the perfect couple... it reminded him of the both of you, and hoped that you gushed about him like that when he wasn't around.)

Leo brought the cups over, moving carefully with his eyes on the glass, gently placing one in your hand, and his own at your bedside.

"I"ll sleep right here, beside you." He thought out loud, examining the hardwood floor panels.

"Ah, Leo, you're not sleeping on the ground." You ordered, taking a long drink from your cup.

"Its no trouble," he assured, unlatching and taking off his belt and sword straps, placing them on your countertop. Leo sat down across from your bed, and began taking off his customized traditional ninja footwear, so all that remained were his pants and mask.

Why did this make you blush and get so flustered, the way he lifted those muscular arms over his head? Its not like he's taking anything revealing off...

"Modest like Leo... modest like Leo..." you whispered under your breath, recomposing your wandering thoughts.

He slowly walked up to you, lying you back and pulling your covers over you. Leo gently placed his hand against your cheek, staring deep into your eyes, as a soft smile rested over his lips.

He slowly nuzzled his nose beside yours, cherishing every small movement, before planting a soft kiss on your forehead. Then, he pulled away.

You felt your arms involuntarily reach out to him, taking his face into your hands. You both stared innocently into one another's eyes, before you made a bold move, planting your lips against his. You gently kissed Leo's lips, and he kissed you back, in the most respectful, admirable, and sentimental way possible.

Kissing Leo always felt so intimate and special... even as soft and innocent as it was. Leo made the tiny gestures special to you again.

"Leo, would you please... hold me?" You whispered, tightly closing your eyes and resting your forehead against his. "Please, sleep with me tonight."

"S-sleep with-" he panicked, turning vibrant red. For the first time that night, he realized that you were wearing blue pj's... and you looked gorgeous in them. Suddenly his heart began to pound through his chest, as his posture stiffened. "Sleep... together? Like... m-make love together?"

"Ah not like that!" You bashfully assured, unable to hide your shy grin. "Just... sleep together, at least for tonight."

He took a deep breath in, that sounded shaky, like the remenants of your kiss and closeness gave him the chills. The thought of you being together in the most close and intimate form made him overwhelmed, causing him to slightly tremble. Leo invoulintarily giggled, pecking a kiss against your nose, before he pulled his mask off.

"Alright." He grinned, suddenly much more eager and confident, leaning close to you as he set his mask on your night stand, switching off the light switch with a mere stretch.

Suddenly, it was dark again. But, a peaceful dark.

"Will you, Leo?" You muttered.

"Yes." He whispered, so softly and so intimately, gazing bravely into your eyes. "Yes, Y/N."

You beamed with joy, resituating to the side of your bed, curling up and watching Leo with an adorable, excited expression. Leo broke out a nervous, adorable chuckle, as he hesitantly sat down on your bed, realizing how massive he was on the size of it. He downed his tea like a shot, (wanting to finish it as fast as possible, so he could do this soft and intimate thing with you) and clearing his throat. Blushing, he slowly lied down on his back, slowly turning to his side that faced you, and hesitantly placing his hand over your shoulder, unsure of what was too much touch.

You giggled, sliding his hand on your waist, so you could sit up and pull the covers over him. "O-oh..." Leo murmured, stiffening up from his shyness.

This was very overwhelming to him, since he really liked taking things slow and was inexperienced to everything involving romance before you. But... you loved that. It was like everything was new to you again too. It endeared you beyond belief.

You lied on your side, examining his face one last time, as he examined yours, trailing your fingertip across his sharp jawline.

"I really love you..." he whispered, meaning every word.

"I really love you too, Leo." You softly agreed, as you continued to smile.

You and Leo talked quietly for a bit, sweet whispers between soulmates, as you scratched his shell and caressed his shoulders to help relieve his stress and tension. He would slowly drift off more and more, talking less and less, gifting you with tiny, soft, slow kisses, all over your face instead.

You both drifted off to sleep, and slept wonderfully side by side, as safe and sweet as can be, just the two of you.

And, as you found out in the morning, Leo was a total, clingy cuddler in his sleep. Throughout the night, he had nuzzled closer and closer, wrapping his arms around you and cradling you, until you were cozy against his body, sharing the same warmth.

💙 Sweet dreams.💙

[majestywritez]

Writing Strong Female Characters

Intro to Post:

Another Friday post for you all!! Todays going to be all about female characters that are strong. These characters come in all shapes and sizes and can be very hard to write. A lot of writers use stereotypes to write women like that trope where the girl is just mean rather than "strong" or where she's "motherly" (nothing wrong with being motherly but some writers think this is how ALL women act and that is not the case). Anyways let's get started!!

Characteristics of Strong Female Characters

Strong female characters can encompass many different types of women, with varying opinions on what is considered “strong.” In order to write strong female characters, old tropes and stereotypes (like the damsel in distress or the nagging wife) should be avoided. So if you’re looking to write a strong female try using these characteristics:

1. She has her own opinions. A strong female lead will listen to her own instincts and make her own decisions based on her own value system (even villains have their reasons for their choices). She’ll make mistakes, but she’ll always try to learn from them. A strong character isn’t immune to influence, but they have their own thoughts and feelings about their world and the things that happen within it. Think of Korra from TLOK. Korra makes a LOT of mistakes on instinct BUT she never fails to learn from them as well as overcome some kind of struggle.

2. She is her own person. Strong female characters don’t all have to be single, independent women. They can be in relationships and care about their partners without being weak or codependent. However, a strong female character has her own identity and trajectory that she follows, as well as her own ambitions and goals outside of her relationship with another person. I see a lot of shows that always make the female lead in a relationship. I personally don't see why. Women shouldn't always be subjected to that kind of stuff. She's a lead for a reason, meaning she doesn't always need a romantic partner. This is just my personal suggestion: when having a female lead with a love interest, try not to make her relationship seem like its the ONLY thing that matters. There should be more to her character than just a significant other.

3. She has flaws. Strong female characters have struggles and flaws just like everyone else, but what makes them strong is how they deal with their shortcomings. Even the strongest characters have weaknesses, but that’s what humanizes them and makes them relatable to audiences. Again, I will reference to Korra. I always loved Korra from the moment I started watching her show. She reminded me of myself and I liked the fact that she WASN'T perfect. She was such a great character because she was imperfect. She went through many downfalls and overcame them never giving up on herself. Something that made her development so great WAS her flaws. Characters aren't supposed to be perfect, remember that!

4. She’s tough in her own right. What makes a female “tough?” The term is subjective. Is toughness just a character’s ability to physically bring down foes? Or can it be her ability to think fast under pressure or negotiate with powerful figures? A stay-at-home mother can be just as tough as a soldier—a woman’s role does not necessarily dictate who she is as a person. Its alright to have a stay at home mother character. But make sure to add more to her character than just that. She has more depth that purely being a stay at home mother.

Examples of Strong Female Characters:

Korra (obviously)

Nobara Kugisaki from Jujutsu Kaisen

Maki Zen'in, also from Jujutsu Kaisen

Katara, Toph, Mai, Azula, and Ursa from Avatar: the Last Airbender

Allura, Pidge, and Acxa from Voltron

Catra, Glimmer and Adora from She-Ra

Jericho, DeriEri, and Elizabeth from Seven deadly sins

Harmaionie Granger (I know I did NOT spell that right pfftt) from Harry Potter

Artemis and Cheshire from Young Justice

Hawkgirl and Wonder Woman from Justice League

How to Write Them

Creating strong female characters is the same process as creating strong characters in general—they need backstory, motivation, and depth in order to make them feel like believable, real people. Here are some ways to write strong female characters:

1. Give her complex emotions. Vulnerability and emotional depth are important characteristics for good characters of any gender. A strong woman shouldn’t be written as a one-dimensional trope—she can be a stoic warrior who cries when her best friend dies, or a sweet kindergarten teacher who boxes to deal with her rage. People are complicated and often unpredictable, so giving your female character the same complex range of emotions you yourself experience as a human being is a good way to start writing stronger characters. Referencing Korra again: Her emotions were complex. It was difficult for her to express sadness, though she never struggled to express her anger. She didn't like showing weakness in front of others. She would cry alone most of the time or she'd get really quiet.

2. Give her multiple kinds of strength. Physical strength isn’t everything—even the most hulking adversary can be taken down by smart, tactical fighting—and a female lead doesn’t have to be a bodybuilder or professional athlete in order to be strong. There are different types of strength that female characters exert. They can have confidence, wit, and mental fortitude. They can be brilliant scientists who stand up for themselves when no one else will listen. They can be stay-at-home mothers who won’t tolerate their spouse leaving a mess. Female characters have their own strong opinions and morality and aren’t just generalized for being women.

3. Give her female allies. Sometimes writers try to make a female character appear stronger by turning her into a “tomboy” who only has male friends. However, your female protagonist can just as easily draw strength from the women who surround her. Giving your female lead character female friends can help her feel more like a real-life person. Your character can also be strong mentally too, rather than physical strength.

4. Give her more than her looks. Describe the way your female protagonist looks in a way that informs who she is. Does she have a defining physical feature that is integral to the storyline? Does her body language denote a particular personality trait? Brainstorm ways to avoid or subvert clichés (“she was pretty but didn’t know it”), which can weaken an audience’s first impression of your character. Oh god, that trope is so awful like please NEVER use it.

Alright, that's it for today guys, have a wonderful Friday!!

[justasmallbloginabigklainefandom]

Final paper

Representation of queer women in the television show Glee

For Naya Rivera

Introduction

Representation of queer people has gotten better in the last few years, in both quantitative and qualitative ways. Yet, there is often still a discrepancy between the representation of queer women and the experiences actual queer women. It still happens that queer women are overly sexualised, lack depth or that they are marketed towards men as fanservice through the usage of the male gaze (Smith, 2018). The main reason for all of this is that queer women in mainstream media are often created by men.

According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary (n.d.), queer is defined as “of, relating to, or being a person whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual and/or whose gender identity is not cisgender”, but in this paper, we will only focus on portrayal of female sexuality of queer women. For this paper, I will look at the agency of queer female characters in the television show Glee. With agency I am referring to the subject being able to act in a certain narrative (McAdams & McLean, 2013). I will try to figure out how the audience reacts towards the portrayal of queer women in Glee.

There are two reasons why I chose the television show Glee. First, despite its many flaws, it is my favourite show. Second, Glee has always been a frontrunner when it comes with queer representation. Glee has a total of 23 canon queer characters (Glee Wiki, n.d.). Three of them are women in the main cast: Santana Lopez (lesbian), Brittany Pierce (bisexual) and Unique Adams (transgender). As stated above, we’re only looking at the sexuality aspect, so Unique will be left out of the analysis. Through a close reading of the series’ portrayal of its characters, I ask this question: “How does Glee allow an enjoyable queer viewing experience?”

Theoretical background

The representation of sexuality has become more prominent in television in the last few years (Kidd, 2014; GLAAD 2005/2020), but it is still portrayed in a heteronormative way to show that heterosexuality is the norm (Avila-Saavedra, 2009). Since women are also still underrepresented and often badly represented, it is interesting to look at queer women in general (DeCeuninck & Dhoest, 2016).

Queer women are often represented in function of male fantasies and they are often sexualized and can normally be described as conventionally attractive (DeCeuninck & Dhoest, 2016). This is due to the male gaze. Mulvey (1989) describes the male gaze as an act of depicting women and the world heterosexual view that presents and represents women as sexual objects for the pleasure of the male viewer. Mulvey writes that the women displayed have two roles: one as an erotic object within the story and one as an erotic object for the audience. There’s a third component that places women as an erotic object for the men behind the camera.

But Mulvey writes from a heterosexual perspective and that does not always capture the experiences of queer viewers (Gokcem, 2012). It is argued that the “gay gaze” (man to man or woman to woman) is more about understanding that there’s a homosexual act on screen and acknowledging that act (Snider, 2008; Gokcem, 2012). It’s less about the sex appeal or objectification of the characters. Evans & Gamman (1995) even claim that there’s no such thing as a “lesbian gaze” when it comes to good lesbian representation, but that it’s more about lesbian imagery that is created by lesbian filmmakers for lesbian consumption. To them, subcultural codes are the reason that even objectifying imagery of women is still different than the ones in the male gaze.

Subcultural styles can be seen as coded transposed into the specific context of youth (Murdock & McCron, 1976). Murdock & McCron speak about class differences, but this view of subculture can also be applied to the queer community. Huq (2006) says that the term subculture carries implications of the oppositional and unofficial. Both writings speak about youth, and not all queer people are young, but when it comes to media, youth can find solace in specific subcultural media.

Within media, agency is important. Agency can be defined as the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices (Barker, 2012). In narrative theory, this means the degree in which a protagonist is able to affect change in their own lives or influence others in their environment (McAdams & McLean, 2013).

Glee’s background

When it comes to the quantity of representation, Glee has always been a frontrunner (Marwick, Gray, & Ananny, 2014). It has shown a wide variety of serious topics in the show. Glee has characters of different ethnicities, gender identities, sexualities and economic classes. Glee also has characters in a wheelchair, it has characters with down syndrome, and it has characters with mental health problems.

Unfortunately, the quality aspect of representation in Glee is less than ideal. There is racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, and a strive to be well-abled and neurotypical. I am not talking about what happens within the show (as in, characters facing hatred from other characters), but by the way the show is written by its creators. Artie, the character in a wheelchair, constantly wishes that he could walk and he’s seen dancing in several dream sequences[1]. Queer characters could only kiss in “special episodes”, while their straight friends could make out anytime and everywhere[2]. A male character speaking out for himself is portrayed as heroic, strong and inspirational, while a female character speaking out for herself is portrayed as annoying, complaining and bossy[3]. Glee also portrayed heteronormativity by presenting its queer characters mostly as suffering while aspiring to fit in a heteronormative worldview, but also as happy and self-confident (Dhaenens, 2013).

An explanation for these underlying microaggressions can be ascribed to the fact that most people on the creative team of Glee were straight white men and when a woman did write a script, produce or direct, they were always working together with straight white men. Same goes for people of colour working in the Glee crew. They also had less episodes to work on (IMDb, n.d.). As a result, Glee often reflects a male heteronormative worldview.

Methodology

For this paper, I will take a closer look at Glee and its queer female characters. I will describe the three queer female characters and I will give some background. While describing the stories, I will look at how much the characters were allowed to exist with agency. Apart from that, I will also talk about certain fan reception towards storylines about the sexuality of these women and how they were allowed to express their sexualities.

I do have to point out that a lot of discussion is from archival material, since these storylines all happened in 2012 and 2013. I have spent time tracking down old blog posts and articles written by fans, but many have been lost due to domain changes or due to the deactivation/changes of blogs. I am aware that it is a huge methodological fault to purely rely on my memories, but Glee has ended years ago and people who once actively participated in discussions surrounding these characters have moved on. The posts that I have found were either difficult to find or they’re recent and written after the show. Not all posts are in-depth analyses. Sometimes they’re memes, but they still express the opinions of fans.

Analysis of Glee

I will split this section in 3 parts. Each part is about a certain character.

Santana Lopez

Santana Lopez got introduced in season 1 episode 1 “Pilot” as a background character. During the first season, she was portrayed as a girl who had sex with every guy in school and she actively sought out this sexual attention. In season 2, things started to change for Santana when it comes to her sexuality. In season 2 episode 4 “Duets”, Brittany and Santana are seen making out for the first time. At first, it wasn’t supposed to be a real storyline, but Naya Rivera, who played Santana, advocated for this relationship to become real and not a throw-away thing (NayaMitchell, 2011).

This changed Santana’s character from a heterosexual man-hunter to a deeply closeted lesbian. Her relationships with men became a way for her to hide her sexuality and Santana had to deal with a lot of internalised homophobia. This followed her all throughout season 2. This change was seen as abrupt by certain people and as a result, some people felt like they couldn’t get emotionally invested in the relationship. Others were happy to see female sexuality become a topic, since beforehand, Glee mostly focused on male sexuality (Marwick, Gray, & Ananny, 2014).

           Season 3 showed Santana’s sexuality developing. In season 3 episode 4 “Pot O’ Gold”, Brittany and Santana decided to date, but Santana wanted to hide the relationship. Unfortunately for her, she got outed by Finn Hudson in season 3 episode 6 “Mash-Off”. The episode afterwards, “I Kissed A Girl”, dealt with the repercussions of the outing, but this episode was heavily scrutinised by fans and critics and even after the show ended, fans discussed how badly it was done (see Appendix for screenshots).

The episode tried to make Finn look like a hero by outing her and Santana even thanked him for it. Santana also sung the Katy Perry song I Kissed A Girl, which is a song that treats women kissing other women as a joke and a party activity for drunk straight women. Santana sung that song with a straight character named Rachel Berry, who appropriately sings the lyrics “I hope my boyfriend won’t mind it!”. Brittany barely spoke in this episode and Santana’s coming out to her parents got brushed off easily as something irrelevant that happened off-screen. A scene of Santana standing up for herself towards the other cheerleaders got cut and was only released after the end of the season (MrRPMurphyExclusive, 2012). Overall, Santana became a background character in her own coming out story, so that the narrative could focus on the straight boy who outed her (lesbianstana, 2018).

There is only one scene in the entire episode that focused on Santana, which is the heart wrenching scene where she comes out to her Abuelita. This scene is the only one where Santana gets to express her emotions to what has happened to her and this part is often regarded by fans as the only good part of the episode. There is a big reason why this scene stands out: it is written by a queer woman named Ali Adler, whereas the rest of the episode was written by a man named Michael Hodgson. Ali has written more media about queer women and she puts the narrative on them and their story. This scene focuses on Santana expressing and overcoming her struggles and not on Finn being the hero.

After this episode, Santana completely embraced her identity. For the remainder of the show, Santana was open about being a lesbian and she had relations with four other women and she ends up with Brittany. Santana’s confidence has helped a lot of young women feel comfortable with themselves, since it showed them that there is nothing wrong with liking other women. Her relationship with Brittany gave people hope (Marwick, Gray, & Ananny, 2014). This is especially true for women of colour, since not only did Glee show a confident lesbian, but also a confident lesbian of colour. Naya Rivera was aware of how Santana’s journey has impacted people and she said that she’s very proud of it (NayaMitchell, 2011).

Brittany S. Pierce

Brittany got introduced in season 1 episode 2 “Showmance” as a background character. She is also the dumb blonde with a lot of funny one-liners. Brittany is bisexual, but as a viewer, you never see or hear anything about her discovering her sexuality and coming out. She is the only of the 4 main queer character who does not have a storyline about sexuality and the struggles of coming out. Just like Santana, Brittany’s portrayed was very sexual in season 1, but she also mentions attraction towards women easily. This can be interpreted as a portrayal of a woman who’s very accepting of her own bisexuality, but it can also be interpreted as a thrown-away joke. It looks like Brittany’s comments about women are there to spark laughter.

In season 2, her attractions towards Artie, a boy, and Santana, a girl, becomes more fleshed out. In season 2 episode 18 “Born This Way”, she says that she thinks that she might be “bi-curious”. The word “bisexual” was barely used in the show and when it did, it was done in a very negative way[4]. Brittany referred to herself as “bi-curious” “a bicorn” (instead of a unicorn) and “bilingual” (not knowing what it actually meant)[5]. There is never a big revelation. The other characters in the show just know at one point that Brittany is bisexual.

           After Brittany and Santana break up in season 4 episode 4 “The Break-Up”, Brittany falls in love with a boy named Sam. This relationship was not very well-received by Brittana (Brittany and Santana) fans and it felt like they were made fun of in season 4 episode 9 “Swan Song”, when Brittany talks to Sam that she does not want to date him to prevent a group of angry lesbian bloggers to hate Sam and turn violent. This felt very invalidating towards the feelings of queer women who found strength in the Brittana relationship (see Appendix for screenshots).

This relationship led to some debate within the fan community about Glee’s representation of bisexuality. Another problem of the Bram (Brittany and Sam) vs. Brittana debate was the fact that Brittany was suddenly allowed to express her attraction towards Sam way more than to Santana. The Glee Equality Project (2012) made a chart of how Brittany was allowed to kiss boys within the first episode of dating them, or even before dating them, but Brittany and Santana only kissed after 9 episodes of dating and after a fan campaign advocated for a kiss. Glee showed a big double standard in Brittany’s bisexuality and this led to anger (see Appendix for screenshots).

As written above, Brittany and Santana end up together in the end. Even though Brittany was not seen struggling, it was meaningful to have a happy ending for her. Heather Morris, who played Brittany, talked about the impact after the show’s end and how the Brittana relationship eventually helped people (FlyingHippopotamiSpy, 2015). Just like with Santana, watching Brittany be confident and comfortable helped young women realise that there’s nothing wrong with liking girls, or liking girls and boys. Brittany’s happiness showed that her sexuality did not prevent her from having a happy ending, which impacted viewers.

Bonus: Quinn Fabray

Quinn Fabray was introduced in season 1 episode 1 “Pilot” as a main character. Quinn is straight. Fans disagreed. Many people noticed that there was chemistry between Quinn and Rachel and people started liking them as a couple. Faberry (Quinn and Rachel) was one of the most popular couples in the show even though the characters were straight in the text of the show. That is due to the fan reception and fan work surrounding Faberry. As of July 2020, Faberry is still the 3rd most popular couple on the fansite AO3 (Shipping, n.d.). Fans often advocated for the characters to at least not be straight and Dianna Agron famously said: “Quinn could always go gay” (breakmelove, 2011).

           During the show, there were little scenes[6] and pieces of dialogue[7] that indicated to Quinn not being straight, so that is why people latched more onto Quinn and not onto Rachel. That is why I’m only writing about Quinn in this paper. People believed that Quinn was heavily queer-coded. Queer-coding is “to be implicated as having or displaying stereotypes and behaviours that are associated (even if inaccurate) with homosexuality or queerness” (Kim, 2007, p. 157). It is often seen in a negative light, but more recently, queer-coding is also used to find positive subcultural codes in a text. That is what happened with Quinn.

In season 4 episode 14 “I Do”, Quinn gets drunk with Santana and the two of them have sex. When this got announced, fans were interested, since it seemed like they were finally going to acknowledge fans’ interpretation of Quinn. Yet, in the episode, it became clear that Quinn sleeping with Santana wasn’t out of attraction towards women, but more for experimentation. This led to disappointment and it also happens a lot that relationships between women are portrayed as not serious. This “heteroflexible” depiction makes women loving other women seem ‘bad’ and ‘guilty’ and ‘naughty’, basically like it’s a sneaky party trick to put more focus on the hot lesbian outcome (Jackson, & Gilbertson, 2009).

People also felt betrayed by the show. They felt like they’d been queerbaited, since the support for Quinn not being straight was already very apparent by this time. Queerbaiting is “a tactic whereby media producers suggest homoerotic subtext between characters in popular television that is never intended to be actualised on screen” (Brennan, 2018, p. 189). This has a negative connotation, since it feels like people are being lured in by false promises. Despite the negativity, there was also some positive news from women who liked to see it and found it enticing (Hogan, 2013) and still saw it as a sign that Quinn is not straight, despite her saying that this was just a one-time experiment. To this day, people still don’t believe that Quinn is straight (see Appendix for screenshots).

Discussion and conclusion

To answer the question “How does Glee allow an enjoyable queer viewing experience?”, I looked at the show and fan reception. The answer is that Glee allowed an enjoyable queer viewing experience when the characters had agency and happiness. The happiness led to a feeling of acceptance and belongingness for the viewers.

The stories surrounding the queer women in Glee have ups and downs. The flaws in the representation can be attributed to the fact that queer women weren’t a prominent part of the Glee crew. Yet, both Brittany and Santana have a happy ending: they’re alive, in love, and married. Fans seemed to enjoy the storylines when the characters have agency. When that agency gets removed (Santana’s outing not being about her, Brittany not being able to express her bisexuality without double standards), the storylines are not as well-received, since fans want to see the characters succeeding within the context and narrative of the show. Fans actively root for their happiness.

           An interesting finding is that not many fans reacted towards the fact that Brittana consists of two hot femme cheerleaders. This wasn’t expected, since a lot of writing on bad representation revolves around the focus on the male gaze. This unexpected finding can be due to the fact that the relationship was treated fairly and not as a joke. Brittana did start out as two hot girls making out for fun, but it grew into a developed relationship. Another explanation might be in the faulty methodology: maybe I just never saw existing criticism and I didn’t have the time to ask people about it.

           The representation of these characters have helped people and they also found a community, so the idea that subcultural media is correct. After all, fan’s interpretation of Quinn can show that subcultural codes are seen in media. Finding those codes also impact queer viewing of Glee. Even though it wasn’t always perfect, the characters have had a positive impact on representation for queer women. Especially for young people, Brittany and Santana were some of the first representation of teen female characters on mainstream television.

Afterword: in memory of Naya Rivera

This is not part of the paper, so you do not have to grade this and I don’t see it as part of the word count. This is just information that I think is important to share. Naya Rivera, the actress who played Santana, died on July 8th 2020 in Lake Piru in California. She was 33 years old. She drowned while saving her son’s life and her body was found on July 13th 2020. I am very sad about this news and I found it kind of hard to write this paper afterwards. I don’t believe in the afterlife or the whole “this person is looking down on you” stuff, but this was written in her memory and I hope I made her proud with this paper about her influence.

Even though it has been five years since Glee ended, many fans are very shocked and upset by this news. People, including celebrities who grew up with Glee, have shared stories of how much Santana meant to them and how Naya’s portrayal made them feel okay with themselves. Loads of (former) fans have expressed how much Santana’s portrayal has helped them with acceptance. Santana was not a perfect character, but she was a milestone for representation. Naya was not a perfect person, but she will forever be remembered for how much her sheer determination to handle Santana’s storyline respectfully has helped young women everywhere.

Naya Marie Rivera

* January 12th 1987 - † July 8th 2020

Cause I feel that when I'm with you It's all right I know it's right

~ Songbird Glee version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJUgLEtA-74

Bibliography

Avila-Saavedra, G. (2009). Nothing queer about queer television: televised construction of gaymasculinities. Media, Culture & Society, 31 (1), 5-21. doi:10.1177/0163443708098243

Barker, C. (2012). Cultural studies: Theory and practice (4th ed.). London: SAGE

breakmelove (2011, October 9). Dianna Agron Always Go Gay Same as Quinn Fabrey [video]. YouTube, Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bTmdLfpjvo

Brennan, J. (2018). Queerbaiting: The ‘playful’ possibilities of homoeroticism. International journal of cultural studies, 21(2), 189-206. doi:10.1177/1367877916631050

DeCeuninck, A., & Dhoest, A. (2016). I’m feeling some sapphic vibes comin’ off of you. Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies, 19(1), 7-27. doi:10.5117/TVGN2017.1.CE         

Dhaenens, F. (2013). Teenage queerness: Negotiating heteronormativity in the representation of gay teenagers in Glee. Journal of Youth Studies, 16(3), 304-317. doi:10.1080/13676261.2012.718435

Evans, C., & Gamman, L. (1995). The gaze revisited, or reviewing queer viewing. In P. Burston & C. Richardson (Eds.), A queer romance: Lesbians, gay men and popular culture, (p. 13-56). London and New York: Routledge

FlyingHippopotamiSpy (2015, March 25). PaleyFest2015 Glee Panel--The Glee cast discusses Klaine and Brittana [video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3ZxY2RT_YY

GLAAD (2005/2020). Where we are on TV. Retrieved from https://www.glaad.org/whereweareontv19

Glee Wiki (n.d.). LGBT characters. Retrieved from https://glee.fandom.com/wiki/Category:LGBT_Characters

Gokcem, S. (2012). Transperance me I want to be visible: Gay gaze in Tom Ford’s film A single man. Cinej Cinema Journal, 1(2), 86-91. doi:10.5195/cinej.2012.46

Hogan, H. (2013). Is “Glee” going there with Quinn and Santana? Retrieved from https://www.afterellen.com/tv/105301-is-glee-going-there-with-quinn-and-santana

Huq, R. (2006) Beyond subcutlure: Pop, youth and identity in a postcolonial world. New York: Routledge

IMDb (n.d.). Glee: Full cast and crew. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1327801/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ql_1

Jackson, S., & Gilbertson, T. (2009). `Hot lesbians': young people's talk about representations of lesbianism. Sexualities, 12(2), 199–224. doi:10.1177/1363460708100919

Kidd, D. (2014). Not that there’s anything wrong with that: Sexuality perspectives. In D. Kidd, (Eds.), Pop culture freaks: Identity, mass media, and society (pp. 142 – 177). New York: Routledge

Kim, K. (2007). Queer-coded villains (And why you should care). In T. Budd & L. Dexheimer, (Eds.), Dialogues@RU, (p. 156-165). USA.

lesbiansantana (2018, May 23). Anonymous asked: Can you break down all the problems with I Kissed a Girl? I'm genuinely curious. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://lesbiansantana.tumblr.com/post/174189446619/can-you-break-down-all-the-problems-with-i-kissed

Marwick, A., Gray, M. L., & Ananny, M. (2014). “Dolphins are just gay sharks”: Glee and the queer case of transmedia as text and object. Television & New Media, 15(7), 627–647. doi:10.1177/1527476413478493

McAdams, D. P., & McLean, K. C. (2013). Narrative Identity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(3), 233–238. doi:10.1177/0963721413475622

MrRPMurphyExclusive (2012, August 12). The Santana “Coming Out Scene” [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpjZZx5F8JI

Mulvey, L. (1989). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. In L. Muvley (Eds.), Visual and other pleasures (pp. 14-26). London: Palgrave Macmillan

Murdock, G. & McCron, R. (1976) 'Consciousness of class and consciousness of generation'. In S. Hall & T. Jefferson (Eds.), Resistance through rituals: Youth subcultures in post-war Britain. London: HarperCollins.

NayaMitchell (2011). Naya Rivera Talks Lesbian Storyline, Fans, Guest Stars, Graduation on Glee [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGRPTMKZa90

Queer (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queer

Shipping Wiki (n.d.). Glee. Retrieved from https://shipping.fandom.com/wiki/Glee

Smith, A. (2018, August 10). 'Oral sex – and no scissoring!' How the lesbian gaze changed cinema. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/aug/10/oral-sex-and-no-scissoring-how-the-lesbian-gaze-changed-cinema

Snider, C. (2008). Queer persona and the gay gaze in Brokeback Mountain: Story and film. Psychological Perspectives, 51(1), 54-69. doi:10.1080/00332920802031888

The Glee Equality Project (2012, December 6). Reaction post 409 “Swan Song” [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://glee-equality-project.tumblr.com/post/37381267319/reaction-post-409-swan-song-in-this-episode

Appendix

Santana’s outing

keepholdingontoachele (2011). Just noticed the “Here’s what you missed on Glee” voiceover saying that. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://keepholdingontoachele.tumblr.com/post/13547911507/just-noticed-the-heres-what-you-missed-on-glee

justanarchiveinabigklainefandom (2011). Santana coming out. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://justanarchiveinabigklainefandom.tumblr.com/post/13783395882/nayasexual-tenacitysuperbrains-it-wasnt-a

thelesbianladydi (2017, May 28). It has been 2008 days since…. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://thelesbianladydi.tumblr.com/post/161161858089/it-has-been-2008-days-since-santana-lopez-was

lesbiansantana (2018, May 23). Anonymous asked: Can you break down all the problems with I Kissed a Girl? I'm genuinely curious. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://lesbiansantana.tumblr.com/post/174189446619/can-you-break-down-all-the-problems-with-i-kissed

(see link for the full 9 reasons that led to this summary)

 Brittany’s bisexuality

proudlyunicorn (2012, December 6). Brittany and Bisexual Representation: A Gleenalysis. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://proudlyunicorn.tumblr.com/post/37353682285/brittany-and-bisexual-representation-a

glowinthedarkparades (2012, December 6). Can someone please explain…. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://glowinthedarkparades.tumblr.com/post/37318713323/hummelsmytheanderson-can-someone-please

glowinthedarkparades (2012, December 5). Why is the Brittana fandom going apeshit? What’s happened? [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://glowinthedarkparades.tumblr.com/post/37292738950/why-is-the-brittana-fandom-going-apeshit-whats

iheartbrittana (2012). “… All the dreams …. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://iheartbrittana.tumblr.com/post/37241910228/all-the-dreams-we-had-for-brittana-as-a-couple

The Glee Equality Project (2012, December 6). Reaction post 409 “Swan Song” [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://glee-equality-project.tumblr.com/post/37381267319/reaction-post-409-swan-song-in-this-episode

gleerant (2012). Bram, Brittana, and issues of visibility. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://gleerant.tumblr.com/post/36943266496/bram-brittana-and-issues-of-visibility

(full post is too long to screenshot)

 Quinn’s queercoding/queerbaiting

diannaaagron (2020, July 5). The world if glee writers made quinn fabray a lesbian. [meme]. Retrieved from https://diannaaagron.tumblr.com/post/622846421520023552

blaineanderdumbass (2020, June 9). Can you believe quinn…. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://blaineanderdumbass.tumblr.com/post/620457887277498368/can-u-believe-quinn-was-meant-to-be-str-i

justasmallbloginabigklainefandom (2020). Me, in 2020: …. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://justasmallbloginabigklainefandom.tumblr.com/post/617643961118507008/me-in-2020-anyway-lucy-quinn-fabray-was-not

justasmallbloginabigklainefandom (2020). Quinn fabray: *exists* …. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://justasmallbloginabigklainefandom.tumblr.com/post/617643867261550592/quinn-fabray-exists-me-there-is-no

inimitabler (2018, Feb 3). You know what bothers me the most about faberry?. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://inimitabler.tumblr.com/post/170475507292/you-know-what-bothers-me-the-most-about-faberry

diannaagrn (2020). #it’s her she’s gay. [Tumblr photoset]. Retrieved from https://diannaagrn.tumblr.com/post/614675450454736896/its-her-shes-gay

Footnotes

[1] 1x19 “Dream On”; 2x10 “A Very Glee Christmas”; 3x11 “Michael”, 4x10 “Glee, Actually”; 6x06 “What The World Needs Now”. Kevin McHale, the actor who plays Artie, is abled and a trained dancer. The role for Artie was not written as a wheelchair using character.

[2] 2x16 “Original Song”; 3x05 “The First Time”; 3x13 “Heart”

[3] Too many episodes to source.

[4] 2x14 “Blame It On The Alcohol”; 5x02 “Tina In The Sky With Diamonds”

[5] 2x18 “Born This Way”; 3x02 “I Am Unicorn”; 3x12 “The Spanish Teacher”

[6] 1x15 “The Power of Madonna”, 3x14 “On My Way”, 3x15 “Big Brother”

[7] 3x13 “Heart”, 3x14 “On My Way”

[diverse-writing]

Book Review: “Queer City” by Peter Ackroyd

Thanks to @kyliebean-editing​ for the review request! I have a list of books I’ve read recently here that I’m considering reviewing, so let me know if you’re looking for my thoughts on a specific book and I’ll be sure to give it a go!

2.5 ⭐/5

Hey all! I’m back with another book review and this time we’re taking a dip into nonfiction with Peter Ackroyd’s Queer City: Gay London from the Romans to the Present Day. Let’s dive right in.

The good: Peter Ackroyd is a hugely prolific writer and a historian clearly trained for digging through huge archives of history and his expertise shows. This particular volume--his 37th nonfiction book and 55th overall published work--provides a startlingly comprehensive timeline of London’s gay history, just as promised. Arguably, the book’s subtitle short sells the book’s content; Queer City actually rewinds the clock all the way back to the city’s origins as a Celtic town before it became Roman Londinium. From there, Ackroyd’s utilizes his extensive historical experience to trace proof of gay activity through the ages. From the high courts of medieval times to the monks of the Tudor era, the gaslit back alleys of Victorian London to the raging club scene of the 1980s--gay people have lived and even thrived in London for literal millennia, and Ackroyd has the receipts to back it up. If you need proof that homosexuality has been a staple of civilization since the Romans--and the homophobia has often recycled the same arguments for the same period of time--then look no further.

The mediocre: All that being said, Ackroyd’s “receipts” often tend towards the salacious, the scandalous, and often the explicit. It seems that legal edicts and court cases made up the foundation of his research, so us readers get to hear in full detail the punishments levied against historical queer individuals, from exile to the pillory to the gallows. Occasionally, Ackroyd dips into the written pornagraphic accounts of the time to describe salacious sexual encounters, which add little to the overarching narrative except proof that gay people do, in fact, have sex. Later down the historical record, once newspapers became more common, we also receive extensive account of the gossip pages of the day, complete with rants about the indecency of “buggery” and the moral decay of “the homosexual.” Throughout the book, ass puns and phallic wordplay run rampant, so much so that it occasionally feels like it’s only added for shock value.

While I’m not a professional historian, as a queer person I can’t help but feel that there must be more to the historical record than these beatings, back alley hookups, etc. In focus on the concrete evidence of gay activity--that is, gay sex and all the official documents surrounding the subject--it feels like Ackroyd neglects the emotional side of queerness in favor of the physical side. Even the queer poetry excerpts or diary entries of the time (which I’m nearly positive exist throughout the historical record, though once again I’m not a professional) sampled in this book are all focused on the physical act of sex. No queer person wants a pastel tinted, desexed version of our history--but we also don’t need to hear a dozen explicit accounts of gay park sex. Queer love and queer sex go hand in hand and to focus on one without the other is disingenuous, not to mention dangerous in promoting the idea that queer people are hypersexual and predatory. Admittedly, I do think the omission of queer love is an unintentional byproduct of Ackroyd’s fact-checking and editorial process. He may not have intended to leave out tenderness, but his intentional choice to focus on impersonal records--court cases, royal decrees, newspapers, etc.--rather than personal ones--diaries, poetry, art, etc.--meant that emotion was largely excluded anyway. 

The bad: Though Queer City does a good job of following queer history through the ages, Ackroyd fails to connect his cited historical examples with larger sociocultural movements of the time. He discusses queer coding in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales but not the larger (oft homoromantic/homoerotic) courtly love traditions that Chaucer drew on. He describes the cult followings around boy actors playing female parts in Elizabethan and Jacobian London but neglects to put those theaters and the public reaction to them within the context of the ongoing Renaissance. Similarly, Ackroyd omits explicit connections to the Enlightenment, Romanticism, Neoclassicism, free love, and countless other cultural movements that undoubtedly shaped both the social and legal responses to the queer community. This exclusion, unlike the exclusion of queer love, had to be intentional on Ackroyd’s part; it’s hugely unlikely that a historian with his bibliography accidentally forgot to mention the last millennium’s worth of Western civilization cultural movements. It’s a massive oversight that utterly fails to place London’s queer history within the context of wider history.

And finally, last but definitely not least, oh boy does Ackroyd have some learning to do when it comes to gender, gender presentation, and gender identity. From the very first chapter, it’s apparent that Ackroyd’s research and writing focused largely on MLM cisgender men, with WLW cisgender women as a far secondary priority. While there are chapters on chapters dedicated to detangling homosexual men’s dealings, homosexual women are often pushed to the fringes of London’s queer history. They receive paragraphs, here and there, and occasionally the closing sentence of a chapter, but overall they’re clearly downgraded to a secondary priority within Ackroyd’s historical narrative. Some of this can once again be blamed on the type of records Ackroyd uses; sex between women was never criminalized or discussed in the public sphere in the same way that sex between men was, so it was a less common topic in London’s courts and newspapers. (And, once again, I have the sneaking suspicion that turning to less traditional sources would’ve helped resolve this issue, though in part the omission can likely be pinned on Ackroyd’s demonstrable preference towards male history.)

Additionally, Ackroyd tends to treat crossdressing as undeniable proof of homosexuality. While it’s true that historically queer individuals found freedom or relief in dressing as the opposite sex, the latter didn’t necessarily equal the former. Additionally, if the crossdressing individual in question was female, dressing as a man was often a way for a woman to secure more freedoms than she would receive while wearing traditional feminine outfits. (Also, he tended to use “transvestite” over “crossdressing,” and while I tend to think of the latter as more preferred, the former may be more in use among queer studies circles or British slang). Though Ackroyd briefly acknowledges that women could and may have crossdressed to more easily navigate a misogynistic world, he nevertheless continually dredges out records of crossdressing women as concrete proof of historical sapphics.

Which brings us to the elephant in the room; in clearly identifying crossdressers as homosexuals, Ackroyd entirely overlooks the existence of transgender and nonbinary people in London’s historical record. This omission, arguably unlike the others, seems definitively intentional and malicious. In the entire book, I could probably count on one hand the number of times Ackroyd mentions the concept of gender identity, and I could use even fewer fingers for the number of times he does so respectfully and thoughtfully. Though he largely neglects to discuss transgender history as a subset of queer history, when he does bring up historical non-cisgender identities it’s often as a component of his salacious narratives rather than a vibrant and storied history all on its own. In the final chapter on modern gay London, Ackroyd’s casual dismissal of the concept of myriad gender identities felt dangerously close to modern day British “gender criticism,” which is likely more familiar to queer readers as TERFism masquerading under the guise of concern for women and gay rights (JK Rowling is a very public example of a textbook gender critical Brit, if you’re wondering). By the end of the book, Ackroyd’s skepticism of so-called “nontraditional gender identities” is so glaringly evident that he might as well proclaim it outright. 

The verdict:  For a book supposedly focused on queerness, the focus on male cisgender homosexuality is both disappointing and honestly not surprising. This book is a portrait of gay London, yes--but it’s also a portrait of Peter Ackroyd as a historian and a professional. It’s clear from early on that he’s writing from the perspective of an older white gay man (I think queer WOC know what I’m talking about when I say that that POV is very distinct, and his clear idolation of 1960s-1980s gay culture makes his age quite evident as well). As you progress through the book, his blindspot in regards to gender and gender politics become increasingly clear, as does his simultaneous obsession and criticism with transgender identities. Overall, Queer City is a clear example of how “nonfiction” doesn’t necessarily mean unvarnished truth--or at least not all of it--and how individual historian’s methods and biases bleed into their research. 

A dear London friend suggested Matt Houlbrook’s Queer London: Perils and Pleasures of the Sexual Metropolis as a more gender inclusive review of the famous city’s queer history. While I take a break from London for a bit, I would welcome any and all thoughts on either Queer City or Queer London, the latter which I fully intend to get to eventually so I can properly compare the two.

[queermediastudies]

Feminist Vampires: Don’t Invite Mainstream Audiences Inside! (Madi Mackey)

Bit, written and directed by Brad Michael Elmore, is the story of a young trans woman named Laurel who moves to Los Angeles and finds herself mixed up in a friend group of female vampires. She is quickly turned into a vampire herself and thrust into their world. Duke, the leader of the girl gang, implements some very strict rules for the group. The most important rule is to never turn a man into a vampire, stating that they can’t handle the power. The film follows the five young women as they navigate their lives as both vampires and members of a bustling Los Angeles night life. The drama comes to a peak when Laurel accidentally bites her brother and has to decide between saving his life and following Duke’s rules.

The film is an excellent example of modern day intersectional feminism. The core group of women is very diverse, representing African American, latina, butch, and transgender identities. They are all women-loving women in some sense, though their specific sexualities are never detailed. They are unflinchingly focused on retaining their power and their sisterhood by refusing to let a man into their groups and forbidding any usage of their mind-influencing powers on each other. However, the film is not perfect, and does not hold up to much scrutiny from a queer perspective. Duke, the previously mentioned leader, is also the only white girl in the group. Their hatred toward men could push the idea that all feminists hate men, further isolating the movement. Finally, the film does not mention class or any struggles associated with the marginalized communities the characters belong to, reducing the film to a post-gender, post-sexuality world. For these shortcomings, I argue that Bit is a great stride in the queer movie industry, but it misses the mark in many categories, and could therefore cause more damage to the trans, lesbian, and feminist communities than the positive impacts of such representation could outweigh, if it were to leave the arthouse and break into the mainstream.

One major theme in Bit is intersectional feminism. As mentioned before, the group of vampires is quite diverse, but this inclusion is only skin-deep. Their dynamic still enforces white, middle-class homonormativity. The girl with the most power is white and cisgender, and all of the girls are able-bodied and middle- to upper-class. Joyrich explains that television industries must continually portray homonormativity to maintain profits, and the same can be said for the film industry (2013, p. 5). Although this is a low-budget film that premiered at an independent film festival, the director, Elmore, stated in an interview that one of his main goals was for the movie to reach a larger audience of at-home viewers (Dunagan, 2019). His yearning for mass reception might have caused him to reproduce homonormativity for the film to be more palatable and, therefore, more profitable.

This is not the only flaw within the production practices for this film. Similar to criticisms regarding Pose and The Death and Life of Marsha P. Johnson, Elmore is a cis white man who took it upon himself to tell a queer story. By doing so, he took production resources and material benefits from its popularity away from the trans, lesbian, and POC communities who live the stories that he is telling (Tourmaline, 2017). Elmore explains that he read multiple theoretical texts and memoirs regarding gender while writing the script, and then had a close, gender non-conforming friend of his approve it before he, “felt more comfortable to show it to people in and around that conversation and community that I wasn’t close to” (Dunagan, 2019). While he did a fair bit of research into the community before creating the film, this isn’t the same as being a member of the community. Cavalcante explains this difference as a split between identifying with and identifying as a character, with identifying as a character always hitting closer to home and being more personal (2017, p. 14). Although Cavalcante makes this distinction in regards to audience reception, I believe it can be applied to production as well, and how Elmore wrote characters he could identify with, whereas a trans or POC writer could have written more personal characters that they identify as. Because Elmore is not trans or a POC, he needed to enforce homonormativity in his film in order to create characters that he identified with, as he has never lived as someone on the margins.

(Brad Michael Elmore, writer and producer of Bit)

Still, the production methods and content of the movie themselves could absolutely be described as queer. Benshoff & Griffin describe new queer cinema as films that have low-budgets, usually remain in the arthouse, and show the inadequacy of labels, instead focusing on the social discourses surrounding gender, race, and class (2004, pp. 11-12). Bit checks all of these boxes, even offering some helpful insights into social discourses. When Laurel, the transgender protagonist, is turned into a vampire, Duke tells her that their number one rule is to absolutely never turn a man. Laurel looks worried and asks, “What about me?” to which Duke responds, “Never even crossed my mind” (Elmore, 2019). Her immediate acceptance of Laurel’s identity expresses a consistent mood throughout the entire movie. Laurel’s transition and identity are never remarked in more explicit terms, and the sexuality and ethnicity of the other women are all treated with the same unspoken acceptance. The only identities that are ever mentioned are class and sex; Laurel asks one of the girls how they afford to live in L.A., and anyone who identifies as a man is immediately treated with contempt.

(watch video until 42:50)

While these approaches to intersectional identity may function well within the underground audience of new queer cinema, they could cause problems if Bit were to hit the mainstream. As Tongson explains, media representations help to produce our material realities; we rely on media to understand identities that we don’t know in the real world (2017, p. 158)). By ignoring the struggles of marginalized communities in the film, Bit raises more questions than it answers for viewers who are unfamiliar with these communities. Their confusion could cause these people on the margins to become cultural interpreters and explain their communities to those who don’t understand. Some see this as an opportunity to share their life experiences and cross cultural bridges; for others, it can become a burden of representation and they may lose a feeling of privacy (Cavalcante, 2017, p. 11). Bit could be seen as a welcome break from tragic representations for people within the trans community. Conversely,  Elmore’s silence on these issues could also lead mainstream audiences to believing that marginalized communities do not face any struggles in modern America, and therefore lose some empathy. 

This mediated understanding of reality could also be greatly detrimental to the feminist movement if it were to hit the mainstream. While I loved the explicitly feminist tone of the film, other audiences could find it off-putting and apply Bit’s ideology to all real-life feminists. The group of women in this film are quite outspoken around their distrust and distaste toward men. This could be applied to feminists, who are already called “man haters” in the real world as an attempt to invalidate their arguments. Elmore could be adding fuel to this fire by depicting feminists as exactly what the mainstream fears them to be.

Simultaneously, this bold approach to intersectional feminism is exactly why I, and many other queer viewers, love this film. My own subject positionality influences my understanding of Bit, just as those of mainstream audiences would make them feel differently about the film. I am a college-educated, middle-class, white, bisexual woman. I am also an outspoken feminist and socialist. All of my converging identities influence my view on this film and the opinions I have on its themes. As a young person who spends a lot of time in feminist spaces online, I felt such a rush while watching this film and hearing them directly saying things like, “Men can’t handle power. They have it already, and look at what they have done with it” (Elmore, 2019). A lot of people online say things about hating men, and I know from my own personal experience that the argument is so nuanced that it is simply easier to say “kill all men” than it is to explain what feminism really stands for and how it is, in fact, not simply man-hating. I love that this film expects the viewer to have this same knowledge, and can therefore say things like this without needing to defend itself and explain all of the nuance behind such a statement.

My status as middle-class and a socialist also have a great impact on my subject positionality and interpretation of Bit. Coming from a middle-class family and city, everything in the movie seemed normal to me. I was able to identify with the characters’ struggles, as they didn’t have anything to do with money or family issues. However, I could see this posing an issue for people who are struggling financially or with their family dynamic. To make up for this, the film has a lot of discourse regarding the redistribution of power and resources. Downward redistribution is a key tenant of leftism, so this movie displays clear leftist ideologies from a socio-political perspective (Duggan, 2002, p.XVI). We can see this in lines like, “How would you like to hold the keys to the kingdom for a change?” when Duke is talking to Laurel about turning, and at the very end of the movie, when Laurel’s brother asks her what they should do next and she responds, “Maybe what everyone with power should do and never does: share it” (Elmore, 2019).

(watch video until 1:30:00)

Finally, watching this film from the subject positionality of a woman greatly influenced my interpretation and reaction. At first, I was appalled by the group of girls and how nonchalantly they killed people, especially men. Laurel was written to have the same feelings of shock and disgust. So, when Duke said, “Our role is secondary. Our bodies are suspect, alien, other. We’re made to be monstrous, so let’s be monsters,” (Elmore, 2019) that was enough of an explanation for Laurel, and for myself, to become sympathetic to their cause. I have been personally affected by the feelings of otherness and being secondary that Duke lists, so this was a perfect line to change my opinion on their actions. However, if a man were to watch this film, especially if he were not to be a feminist, he might not be so sympathetic because he does not have the same experiences and understanding of what it is like to live in this world.

(watch until 41:12)

Bit is a film that crosses many boundaries, while still upholding some homonormativity for the sake of profit and consumption. It was written with the expectation of an audience that is knowledgeable of marginalized communities and social issues, making it thoroughly enjoyable to watch from a queer perspective. However, if the film were to break into the mainstream spotlight, its lack of nuance could cause harmful backlash toward trans communities, people of color, woman-loving women, and feminist movements. 

References

Benshoff, H. M. & Griffin, S. (2004). Queer cinema: The film reader. Psychology Press.

Cavalcante, A. (2017). Breaking into transgender life: Transgender audiences’ experiences with ‘first of its kind’ visibility in popular media. Communication, Culture & Critique, 10(3), 538-555. https://doi.org/10.1111/cccr.12165

Duggan, L. (2002). Introduction. In The twilight of equality? Neoliberalism, cultural politics, and the attack on democracy (pp. X-XXII). Beacon Press. 

Dunagan, R. (2019, August 2). Interview: A talk with Brad Michael Elmore, Director of OUTFEST’s ‘Bit’. Flipscreen. https://flipscreened.com/2019/08/02/interview-a-talk-with-brad-michael-elmore-director-of-outfests-bit/

Elmore, B. M. (Director). (2019). Bit [Film]. Vertical Entertainment.

Joyrich, L. (2013). Queer television studies: Currents, flows, and (main)streams. Cinema Journal, 53(2), 133-139. https://doi.org/10.1353/cj.2014.0015 

Tongson, K. (2017). Queer. In L. Ouellette & J. Gray (Eds.), Keywords for media studies (pp. 157-160). NYU Press. 

Tourmaline. (2017, October 11). Tourmaline on transgender storytelling, David France, and the Netflix Marsha P. Johnson Documentary. Teen Vogue. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/reina-gossett-marsha-p-johnson-op-ed 

[lsmithart]

‘The Object’ by Antony Hudek: Documents of Contemporary Art

Art theory research that collates a series of writings by art critics, theorists, psychologists, philosophers and more. This book has introduced me to theories surrounding the object as commodity, token of memory, being of the body and the relationship between casting, sculpture and found object.

Hudek’s Introduction to the Text:

Page 14 - Martin Heidegger – thing ‘ding’ differs from the object as it is autonomous; self-supporting. E.g. a jug is assertive of its independence, its presence as well as nearness. Objects are everywhere in equal measure, neither near nor far. The thing resists appropriation.

Jacques Lacan – the thing resists and stands outside of language and consciousness

Page 14 - “The world of objects, however ordinary, is a trove of disguises, concealments, subterfuges, provocations and triggers that no singular, embodied and knowledgeable subject can exhaust.”

“Artwork is the prime example of the object’s capacity to evade the knowing grasp.

Page 15 - “Do objects define us by catering to our needs as users, consumers or collectors, and by limiting our movements by their physical properties?”

“Objects define us because they come first, by commanding our attention, even our respect; they exist before us, possibly without us”

Page 20 – ‘Transforming the Duchampian readymade into something dubious and obsolete was a widespread preoccupation in the 1960s and 70s, as the post-war euphoria at the potentially infinite multiplication of consumable objects turned into doubt.

Page 22 - Casting and moulding – the subjective or positive application of plaster, clay or papier-mache on an object and the objective or negative indexical trace of the object’s voided form. E.g. Bourgeois and Hesse’s casts of quasi-body parts (resembling), Alina Szapocznikow’s partial body casts ‘awkward objects’, Marina Abramovic’s clay mirrors. Rooted from Duchamp – small casts Objet Dard and Feuille de vigne femelle.

Links to Freud’s theory of the drives;

Melanie Klein’s ‘part objects’;

Reconnecting the object to the human body;

Identifying the artwork with transitional objects such as toys**;

Psychoanalysis – identifying the object as more than a thing in itself lying statically outside of the subject. It is a dynamic element in constant flux, mediating the subject’s inner and outer worlds.

If matter in these art objects still matters, it is better to confuse genres (and genders), swapping still life for dead life, or still life for a strangely organic, not necessarily human life form.

Krauss on Hesse’s reliefs: demonstration of a ‘wonderfully humorous elaboration of Duchamp’s interest in the mechanics of desire and the relays established by the readymades between bodies and objects.’

‘This mechanistic as well as psychic interpretation identifies the artwork closely with other intermediary or transitional objects (Donald Winnicott), such as toys. Indeed, one of the indisputable achievements of psychoanalysis is to have identified the object as more than ‘a thing in itself’ lying statically outside of the subject, but as a dynamic element in constant flux, mediating the subject’s inner and outer worlds as well as coercing the subject into varying configurations with itself and (other) objects. the toy, like the relational art object, is unpredictable; there is no telling when it will lose its aura and lapse into thingness, or, on the contrary, change from mere thing to object of ceaseless wonder.

Page 24 – ‘The subject must now contend with its own availability and attraction as an almost-object, while the object accrues the status of almost-subject, bearing little relation with the material, graspable thing.’

Further research? Rosalind Krauss ‘part object, part sculpture’; On Duchamp and impressions – Georges Didi-Huberman.

Page 30 - Theodor W Adorno (1969) “Everything that is in the subject can be attributed to the object; whatever in it is not object semantically bursts open the ‘is’.

Universal and particular – neither one can exist wtihout the other. The particular only as determined and thus universal, the universal only as the determination of a particular and thus itself particular.

Adrian Piper ‘Talking to Myself: The Ongoing Autobiography’ of an Art Object (1970-73)

Page 32 - As an artist separate from my art, I saw the effect of my existence in the existence of the work. The work changed the world for me by adding something new that wasn’t there before. Thus in the existence of the work, I saw my effect on the world at large.

Jane Bennett ‘Vibrant Matter’ (2010)

Page 23 - “If matter itself is lively, then not only is the difference between subjects and objects minimised, but the status of the shared materiality of all things is elevated.” We cannot simply cast-off objects and things permanently; the object is an almost subject.

Page 40 – ‘By acknowledging that the framework of subject versus object has indeed at times worked to prevent or ameliorate human suffering and to promote human happiness or wellbeing.

Marcus Steinweg ‘What is an Object?’ (2011)

Page 42 – Fascination digs a trench between subject and object. The subject is faced with an object that opens a distance not easily bridged. Difference or trench, rupture, chasm or distance – in any case there is a gap that gives way to an absence and a disappearance, a non-identity and un unstable presence. The objectivity of the object cannot be compared to a constant entity. It is characterised by all manner of fractures and what it presents is this fragility, this instability and contingency.

In the possibility of self-objectification, the subject transcends its status as object and moves toward its status as subject.

Page 43 – The tear in the present means precisely this: that there is always something missing or absent, that every present is permeated by a non-present.

Allan McCollum ‘Perfect Vehicles’ (1986)

Page 94 – ‘I have observed that a common vase becomes an art object upon the suspension of its utility; that is, it is filled with meaning and value only after it is emptied of substance. Thus, its privileged status must be maintained according to a tacit agreement amongst the social body (a body, perhaps, represented by the vase itself): that the object should not be used for what it was intended.’

Neil Cummings ‘Reading Things: The Alibi of Use’ (1993)

Page 97 - ‘A functional object has a metonymic relationship to meaning while in service; the effect and implementation of its function can be juxtaposed to produce a figure of meaning by contiguity. Outside of its immediate context, stripped of its function, in a museum, gallery or photograph, for instance, an object operates more conventionally, like a sign or written language.’

‘It is conceivable to theorise away any absolute value of use and to erode distinctions based qualitatively upon function.’

‘It is possible to play with the semiotic difference of those actions, to luxuriate in the endless possibilities of signification, but there is a bottom line, a referent, some resistance.’

REFERENCES:

Adorno, T. W., (1969). On Subject and Object. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. pp. 256-257.

Bennett, J., (2010). Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Duke University Press. pp. 12-13.

Cummings, N., (1993) Reading Things: The Alibi of Use. pp. 19-24.

Hudek, A., (2014). Documents of Contemporary Art: The Object. London: Whitechapel Gallery, The MIT Press. pp. 14, 15, 20, 22, 23, 24, 30, 32, 40, 42, 43, 94, 97.

McCollum, A., (1986), Perfect Vehicles in Damaged Goods; Desire and the Economy of the Object. New York. New Museum of Contemporary Art. p.6.

Piper, A., (1970-73). Extract from: Talking to Myself: The Ongoing Autobiography of an Art Object. In: Out of Order, Out of Sight, vol. I: Selected Writings in Meta-Art, 1968-1992. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1996). pp. 34-36.

Steinweg, M., (2011). Extract from: What is an Object? In: Majewski, A., (ed), The World of Gimel. How to Make Objects Talk. Berlin and New York: Steinberg Press. pp. 218-20.

[khaleesirin]

Can your expand on your argument that Dany represents borderlands identity? I read Anzaldua before and your claim is bordering controversial.

The thing is, it only sounds controversial if we only consider Daenerys Targaryen a white person and saddle her own identity formation with white history and guilt, even when the idea of being white doesn’t make sense within the context of her own story line. Whiteness (and all it entails) doesn’t mean anything to Dany at all because she doesn’t have the consciousness of a white person; she never articulated her identity on the position of whiteness. While there may be something to be said with George RR Martin and the way he parallels ASOIAF with real life history, it doesn’t mean we can reduce Dany’s story with white saviorism or white feminism (can we move past this talking point already?) when he spends so much time constructing the world she revolves in, painstakingly writing her own experiences.

I brought up Anzaldua’s Borderlands because it rests on the assumption that there is no such thing as an identity that comes naturally; rather, our identities are articulated based on our positionality (i.e. subjective history, the culture we actually interact with). These subjective factors construct the sense of who we are. Specific to her own dilemma, if you are from a family of mixed-race,  or if you live in a place you call “home” on a land that was forcibly taken from its native inhabitants, or if you are positioned in these different places (i.e. being at once Mexican, Indian, and White) because you are a product of these intersections of culture and history, how do you deal with the contradictions attached to it? Which culture are you going to follow? Which gender norm are you going to assume? Which part of who you are do you have to oppress to privilege one part of your culture, the part of history that was thrust upon you? Where do you belong?

Like Anzaldua, the main problem of Dany’s identity crisis is the duality of who she is. While I don’t think Dany is at that point where she actively recreates her sense of self outside her dual image to finally have her borderlands consciousness (although her long title may be that consciousness), her story does parallel Anzaldua’s own problem with the question “where ‘the home’ is?” exactly because she had to always let go a part of her to belong somewhere. That by constantly having to choose which side of her she should privilege, she ends up feeling not belonging anywhere.

Dany suffers from socio-cultural ambiguity.  She was told over and over by Viserys that Westeros is “our land” but as she admitted to herself, the places he spoke of, “they were just words to her” (AGOT, Dany I). Westeros is an imaginary place for her: a dream, a place that will never be, and a place she can always be.

But being Daenerys Targaryen means she had to silent the other her, the one who constantly seeks for comfort, the one who dreams for a more passive, comfortable, peaceful life of a woman. Dany, who never really wanted to have the responsibility of a queen.

If I were not the blood of the dragon, she thought wistfully, this could be my home. She was khaleesi, she had a strong man and a swift horse, handmaids to serve her, warriors to keep her safe, an honored place in the dosh khaleen awaiting her when she grew old … and in her womb grew a son who would one day bestride the world. That should be enough for any woman … but not for the dragon. With Viserys gone, Daenerys was the last, the very last. She was the seed of kings and conquerors, and so too the child inside her. She must not forget.  (AGOT, Dany VI)

and this:

“If they were so unseaworthy, they could not have crossed the sea from Qarth,” Ser Barristan pointed out, “but Your Grace was wise to insist upon inspection. I will take Admiral Groleo to the galleys at first light with his captains and two score of his sailors. We can crawl over every inch of those ships.

“It was good counsel. “Yes, make it so.” Westeros. Home. But if she left, what would happen to her city? Meereen was never your city, her brother’s voice seemed to whisper. Your cities are across the sea. Your Seven Kingdoms, where your enemies await you. You were born to serve them blood and fire.

….

How beautiful, the queen tried to tell herself, but inside her was some foolish little girl who could not help but look about for Daario. If he loved you, he would come and carry you off at swordpoint, as Rhaegar carried off his northern girl, the girl in her insisted, but the queen knew that was folly.

….

Memories walked with her. Clouds seen from above. Horses small as ants thundering through the grass. A silver moon, almost close enough to touch. Rivers running bright and blue below, glimmering in the sun. Will I ever see such sights again? On Drogon’s back she felt whole. Up in the sky the woes of this world could not touch her. How could she abandon that?

It was time, though. A girl might spend her life at play, but she was a woman grown, a queen, a wife, a mother to thousands. Her children had need of her. Drogon had bent before the whip, and so must she. She had to don her crown again and return to her ebon bench and the arms of her noble husband.

(Dany, ADWD)

The schism between Dany and Daenerys Targaryen, between what she really feels and what she ought to feel, between what she wants and what she must do, between where she really is and where she should be. While Daenerys Targaryen must always orient herself to Westeros, while the Queen must always attend to her people, Dany is simply lost. At one point she thought Vaes Dothrak would be her home, at another she thought Meereen is her city. In both cases in didn’t turn out to be where she can be; it both cases she just doesn’t fit in.

In terms of gender role, what is she really internalizing? It’s interesting that what she truly wants, as Dany the young girl, from the bottom of her heart, and this is something she still longs for even in ADWD when she fully committed herself to the role of a Queen, is to simply have a life with a husband she loves, tending after her children, and be a–excuse my language–home mom; she wants to be a girl from those fairytales who gets to be surrounded by things of beauty, to be saved by the thing of beauty. It awfully sounds like internalized sexism don’t you think? But is it? If you are in her position, when all your life the people around you have been purposely, consistently, persistently, telling you that you are a dragon, that you should act like a dragon, you’re the last scion of House Targaryen, you must take back what once was us, you must be the perpetual Regal Queen (which if we take a step back, are all masculine roles), she seems to be also, and this is more pronounced later on, internalizing masculinity.

For me, in some level, this is really what white feminism isn’t all about. This particular situation echoes what has been brought up over and over and over by many scholars of feminism and intersectionality– what we may define as empowering, what we may describe as finally exercising women’s own-agency, really depends on their situation. It depends on the context. No kind of feminism (which is a revolutionary articulation) happens out of vacuum, it’s always a reaction to something. What that something is will change how we will react to it. While white feminism is tone-deaf when it comes to the particular situation of a person, and very hegemonic with what lifestyle we should be having, here is Dany’s storyline turning gender expectation upside-down. 

So a food for thought here: when she got pushed back in Meereen by silencing a part of her, by making her voice a little bit lower, compromising on everything she really wanted to destroy,  is it really empowering for Dany to choose fire and blood, to believe that she should have completely chosen House Targaryen all along, to be the queen as was expected from her? Or is this chaining her further, and at the end of ADWD when she finally thought to herself she really is a dragon, that’s also her succumbing to a form of defeat, that she can’t escape her role?  That no one will really save her? As someone who constantly chooses to save other people, a big reason for that is her desire to be saved as well.  

So thus for her, the Dany, without the roaring sound of her last name, based on her actual experiences, the fairytale with those traditional sexist roles may be something that will finally bring back what she had lost: herself. And maybe, that is what’s truly empowering for her. 

[ultralullstuff]

Is Paris Burning?

There was a time in my life when I liked to dress up as a male and go out into the world. It was a form of ritual, of play. It was also about power. To cross-dress as a woman in patriarchy -then, more so than now - was also to symbolically cross from the world of powerlessness into a world of privilege. It was the ultimate, intimate, voyeuristic gesture. Searching old journals for passages documenting that time, I found this paragraph:

She pleaded with him, “Just once, well every now and then, I just want to be boys together. I want to dress like you and go out and make the world look at us differently, make them wonder about us, make them stare and ask those silly questions like is he a woman dressed up like a man, is he an older black gay man with his effeminate boy/girl lover flaunting same-sex love out in the open. Don’t worry I’ll take it very seriously, I want to let them laugh at you. I’ll make it real, keep them guessing, do it in such a way that they will never know for sure. Don’t worry when we come home I will be a girl for you again but for now I want us to be boys together.”

Cross-dressing, appearing in drag, transvestism, and transsexualism emerge in a contex where the notion of subjectivity is challenged, where identity is always perceived as capable of construction, invention, change. Long before there was ever a contemporary feminist movement, the sites of these experiences were subverisve places where gender norms were questioned and challenged.

Within the white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy the experience of men dressing as women, appearing in drag, has always been regarded by the dominant heterosexist cultural gaze as a sign that one is symbolically crossing over from a realm of power into a realm of powerlessness. Just to look at the many negative ways the word “drag” is defined reconnects this label to an experience that is seen as burdensome, as retrograe and retrogressive. To choose to appear as “female” when one is “male” is always constructed in the patriarchal mindset as a loss, as a choice worthy only of ridicule. Given this cultural backdrop, it is not surprising that many black comediants appearing on television screens for the first time included as part of their acts impersonations of black women. The black woman depicted was usually held up as an object of ridicules, scorn, hatred (representing the “female” image everyone was allowed to laugh at and show contempt for). Often the moment when a black male comedian appeared in drag was the most succesful segment of a given comedian’s act (for example, Flip Wilson, Redd Foxx, or Eddie Murphy).

I used to wonder if the sexual stereotype of black men as overly sexual, manly, as “rapists”, allowed black males to cross this gendered boundary more easily than white men without having to fear that they would be seen as possibly gay or transvestites. As a young black female, I found these images to be disempowering. Thay seemed to bothallow black males to give public expression to a general misogyny, as well as to a more specific hatred and contempt toward black woman. Growing up in a world where black women wer, and still are, the objects of extreme abuse, scorn, and ridicule, I felt these impersonations were aimed at reinforcing everyone’s power over us. In retrospect, I can see that the black male in drag was also a disempowering image of black masculinity. Appearing as a “woman” within sexist, racist media was a way to become in “play” that “castrated” silly childlike black male that racist white patriarchy was comfortable having as an image in their homes. These televised images of black men in drag were never subversive; thay helped sustain sexism and racism.

It came as no surprise to me that Catherine Clement in her book, Opera, or the Undoing of Women would include a section about black men and the way their representation in opera did not allow her to neatly separate the world into gendered polarities where men and women occupied distintcly different social spaces and were “two antagonistic halves, one persecuting the other since before the dawn of time.” Looking critically at images of black men in operas she found that they were most often portrayed as victims:

Eve is undone as a woman, endlesslyy bruised, endelessly dying and coming back to life to die even better. But now I begin to remember hearing figures of betrayed, wounded men; men who ham; men who have women’s troubles happen to them; men who have the status of Eve, as if they had lost their innate Adam. These men die like heroines; down on the ground they cry and moan, they lament. And like heroines they are surrounded by real men, veritable Adams who have cast them down. Thay partake of feminity: excluded, marked by some initial strangeness. Thay are doomed to their undoing.

Many heterosexual black men in white supremacist patriarchal culture have acted as though the primary “evil” of racism has been the refusal of the dominant culture to allow them full access to patriarchal power, so that in sexist terms thay are compelled to inhabit a sphere of powerlessness, deemed “feminine”, hence thay have perceived themselves as emasculated. To the extent that black men accept a white supremacist sexist representation of themselves as castrated, without phallic power, and therfore pseudo-females, thay will need to overly assert a phallic misogynist masculinity, one rooted in contempt for the female. Much black male homophobia is rooted in the desire to eschew connection with all things deemed “feminine” and that would, of course, include black gay men. A contemporary black comedian like Eddie Murphy “proves” his phallic power by daring to publicly ridicule women and gays. His days of appearing in drag are over. Indeed it is the drag queen of his misogynist imagination that is most often the image of black gay culture he evokes and subjects to comic homophobic assault -one that audiences collude in perpetuating.

For black males to take appearing in drag seriously, be they gay or straight, is to oppose a heterosexist representation of black manhood. Gender bending and blending on the part of black males has always been a critique of phalocentric masculinity in traditional black experience. Yet the subversive power of those images is radically altered when informed by a racialized fictional construction of the “feminine” that suddenly makes the representation of whiteness as crucial to the experience of female impersonation as gender, that is to idealization of white womanhood. This is brutally evident in Jennie Livingston’s new film Paris is burning. Within the world of the black drag ball culture she deicts, the idea of womanness as feminity is totally personified by whiteness. What viewers witness is not black men longing to impersonate or even to become like “real” black women but their obsession with an idealized fetishized vision of feminity that is white. Called out in the film by Dorian Carey, who names it by saying no black drag queen of his day wanted to be Lena Horne, he makes it clear that the feminity most sought after, most adored, was that perceived to be the exclusive property of whte womanhood. When we see visual representations of womanhood in the film (images torn from magazines and posted on walls in living space) they are, with rare exceptions, of white women. Significantly, the fixation on becoming as much like a white female as possible implicitly evokes a connection to a figure never visible in this film: that of the white male patriarch. And yet if the class, race, and gender aspirations expressed by the drag queens who share their deepest dreams is always longing to be in the position of the ruling-class woman then that means there is also thedesire to act in partnership with the ruling-class white male.

This combination of class and race longing that privileges the “feminity” of the ruling-class white woman, adored and kept, shrouded in luxury, does not imply a critique of patriarchy. Often it is assumed that the gay male, and most specifically the “queen”, is both anti-phallocentric and anti-patriarchal. Marilyn Frye’s essay, “Lesbian feminism and Gay Rights”, remains one of the most useful critical debunkings of this myth. Writing in The Politics of Reality, Frye comments:

One of thing which persuades the straight world that gay men are not really men is the effeminacy of style of some gay men and the gay institution of the impersonation of women, both of which are associated in the popular mind with male homosexuality. But as I read it, gay men’s effeminacy and donning of feminine apparel displays no love of or identification with women or the womanly. For the most part, this femininity is affected and is characterized by thatrical exaggeration. It is a casual and cynical mockery of women, for whom feminity is the trapping of oppresion, but it is also a kind of play, a toying with that which is taboo.. What gay male affectation of femininity seems to be is a serious sport in which men may exercise their power and control over the feminine, much as in other sports... But the mastery of the feminine is not feminine. It is masculine..

Any viewer of Paris is Burning can neither deny the way in which its contemporary drag balls have the aura of sports events, aggressive competitions, one team (in this case “house”) competing another etc., nor ignore the way in which the male “gaze” in the audience is directed at participants in a manner akin to the objectifying phallic stare straight men direct at “feminine” women daily in public spaces. Paris is Burning is a film that many audiences assume is inherently oppositional because of its subject matter and the identity of the filmmaker. Yet the film’s politics of race, gender, and class are played out in ways that are both progressive and reactionary.

When I first heard that there was this new documentary film about black gay men, drag queens, and drag balls I was fascinated by the title. It evoked images of the real Paris on fire, of the death and destruction of a dominating white western civilization and culture, an end to oppressive Eurocentrism and white supremacy. This fantasy not only gave me a sustained sense of plearure, it stood between me and the unlikely reality that a young white filmmaker, offering a progresssive vision of “blackness” from the standpoint of “whiteness”, would receive the positive press accorded Livingston and her film. Watching Paris is Burning, I began to think that the many yuppie-looking, straight-acting, pushy, predominantly white folks in the audience were there because the film in no way interrogates “whiteness”. These folks left the film saying it was “amazing”, “marvelous”, “incredibly funny”, worthy of statements like, “Didn’t you just love it?” And no, I didn’t just love it. For in many ways the film was a graphic documentary portrait of the way in which colonized black people (in this case black gay brothers, some of whom were drag queens) worship at the throne of whiteness, even when such worship demands that we live in perpetual self-hate, steal, lie, go hungry, and even die in its pursuit. The “we” evoked here is all of us, black people/people of color, who are daily bombarded by a powerful colonizing whiteness that seduces us away from ourselves, that negates that ther is beauty to be found in any form of blackness that is not imitation whiteness.

The whiteness celebrated in Paris is Burning is not just any old brand of whiteness but rather that brutal imperial ruling-class capitalist patriarchal whiteness that presents itself -its way of life- as the only meaningful life there is. What would be more reassuring to a white public fearful that marginalized disenfracnhised black folks might rise any day now and make revolutionary black liberation struggle a reality than a doumentary affirming that colonized, victimized, exploited, black folks are all too willing to be complicit in perpetuating the fantasy that ruling-class white culture is the quintessential site of unrestricted joy, freedom, power, and pleasure. Indeed it is the very “pleasure” that so many white viewers with class privilege experience when watching this film that has acted to censor dissenting voices who find the film and its reception critically problematic.

In Vincent Canby’s review of the film in the New York Times he begins by quoting the words of a black father to his homosexual son. The father shares that it is difficult for black men to survive in a racist society and that “if you’re black and male and gay, you have to be stronger that you can imagine”. Beginning his overwhelmingly positive review with the words of a straight black father, Canby implies that the film in some way documents such strenght, is a portrait of black gay pride. Yet he in no way indicates ways this pride and power are evident in the work. Like most reviewers of the film, what he finds most compelling is the pageantry of the drag balls. He uses no language identifying race and class perspectives when suggesting at the end of his piece that behind the role-playing “there is also a terrible sadness in the testimony”. This makes it appear that the politics of ruling-class white culture are solely social and not political, solely “aesthetic” questions of choice and desire rather that expressions of power and privilege. Canby does not tell readers that much of the tragedy and sadness of this film is evoked by the willingness of black gay men to knock themselves out imitating a ruling-class culture and power elite that is one of the primary agents of their oppression and exploitation. Ironically, the very “fantasies” evoked emerge from the colonizing context, and while marginalized people often appropriate and subvert aspects of the dominant culture, Paris is Burning does not forcefully suggest that such a process is taking place.

Livingston’s film is presented as though it is a politically neutral documentary providing a candid, even celebratory, look at black drag balls. And it is precisely the mood of celebration that masks the extent to which the balls are not necessarily radical expresssions of subverive imagination at work undemining and challenging the status quo. Much of the film’s focus on pageantry  takes the ritual of the black drag ball and makes it spectacle. Ritual is that ceremonial act that carries with it meaning and significance beyond what appears, while spectacle functions primarily as entertaining dramatic display. Those of us who have grown up in a segregated black setting where we participated in diverse pageants and rituals know that those elements of a given ritual that are empowering and subversive may not be readily visible to an outsider looking in. Hence it is easy for white obsevers to depict black rituals as spectacle.

Jennie Livingston approaches her subject matter as an outsider looking in. Since her presence as white woman/lesbian filmmaker is “absent” from Paris is Burning it is easy for viewers to imagine that they are watching an ethnographic film doumenting the life of black gay “natives” and not recognize that they are watching a work shaped and formed bya a perspective and standpoint specific to Livingston. By cinematically masking this reality (we hear her ask questions but never see her), Livingston does not oppose the way hegemonic whiteness “represents” blackness, but rather assumes an imperial overseeing position that is in no way progressive or counter-hegemonic. By shooting the film using a conventional approach to documentary and not making clear how her standpoint breaks with this tradition, Livingston assumes a privileged location of “innocence”. She is represented both in interviews and reviews tender-hearte, mild-mannered, virtuous white woman daring to venture into a contemporaty “heart of darkness” to bring back knowledge of the natives.

A review in the New Yorker declares (with no argument to substatiate the assertion) that “the movie is a sympathetic observation of a specialized, private world”. An interview with Livingston in Outweek is titled “Pose, She Said” and we are told in the preface that she “discovered the Ball world by chance”. Livingston does not discuss her interest and fascination with black gay subculture. She is not asked to speak about what knowledge, information, or lived understanding of black culture and history she possessed that provided a background for her work or to explain what vision of black life she hoped to convey and to whom. Can anyone imagine that a black woman lesbian would make a film about whete gay subculture and not be asked these questions? Livingston is asked in the Outweek interview, “How did you build up the kind of trust where people are so open to talking about their personal experiences?” She never answers this question. Instead she suggests that she gains her “credibility” by the intensity of her spectatoship, adding, “I also targeted people who wer articulate, who had stuff they wanted to say and were very happy that anyone wanted to listen”. Avoiding the difficult questions undelying what it means to be a white person in a white supremacist society creating a film about any aspect of black life. Livingston responds to the question, “Didn’t the fact that you’re a white lesbian going into a world of Black queens and street kids make that [the interview process] difficult?” by implicitly evoking a shallow sense of universal connection. She responds, “If you know someone over a period of two years, and thay still retain their sex and their race, you’ve got to be a pretty sexist, racist person”. Yet it is precisely the race, sex, and sexual practices of black men who are filmed that is the exploited subject matter.

So far I have read no interviews where Livingston discusses the issue of appropriation. And even though she is openly critical of Madonna, she does not convey how her work differs from Madonna’s apropriation of black experience. To some extent it is precisely the recognition by mass culture that aspects of black life, like “voguing”, fscinate white audiences that creates a market for both Madonna’s product and Livingston’s. Unfortunately, Livingston’s comments about Paris is Burning do not convey serious thought about either the political and aesthetic implications of her choice as a white woman focusing on an aspect of black life and culture or the way racism might shape and inform how she would interpret black experience on the screen. Reviewers like Georgia Brown in the Village Voice who suggest that Livingston’s whiteness is “a fact of nature that didn’t hinder her research” collude in the denial of the way whiteness informs her perspective and standpoint. To say, as Livingston does, “I certainly don’t have the final word on the gay black experience. I’d love for a black director to have made this film” is to oversimplify the issue and to absolve her of responsibility and accountability for progressive critical reflection and it implicitly suggests that there would be no difference between her work and that of a black director. Undrlying this apparently self-effacing comment is cultural arrogance, for she implies not only that she has cornered the market on the subject matter but that being able to make films is a question of personal choice, like she just “discovered” the “raw material” before a black director did. Her comments are disturbing because thay reveal so little awareness of the politics that undergird any commodification of “blackness” in this society.

Had Livingston approached her subject with greater awareness of the way white supremacy shapes cultural production -determining not only what representations of blackness are deemed acceptable, marketable, as well worthy of seeing- perhaps the film would not so easily have turned the black drag ball into a spectacle for the entertainment of those presumed to be on the outside of this experience looking in. So much of what is expressed in the film has to do with questions of power and privilege and the way racism impedes black progresss (and certainly the class aspirations of the black gay subculture depicted do not differ from those of other poor and underclass black communities). Here, the supposedly “outsider” position is primarily located in the experience of whiteness. Livingston appears unwilling to interrogate the way assuming the position of outsider looking in, as well as interpreter, can, and often does, pervert and distort one’s pespective. Her ability to assume such a position without rigorous interrogation of intent is rooted in the politics of race and racism. Patricia Williams critiques the white assumption of a”neutral” gaze in her essay “Teleology on the Rocks” included in her new book The Alchemy of Race and Rights. Describing taking a walking tour of Harlem with a group of white folks, she recalls the guide telling them they might “get to see some services” since “Easter Sunday in Harlem is quite a show”. William’s critical observations are relevant to any discussion of Paris is Burning:

What astonished me was that no one had asked the churches if they wanted to be sared at like living museums. I wondered what would happen if a group of blue-jeaned blacks were to walk uninvited into a synagogue on Passover or St. Anthony’s of Padua during high mass -just to peer, not pray. My feeling is that such activity would be seen as disresectful, at the very least. Yet the aspect of disrespect, intrusion, seemed irrelevant to this well-educated, affable group of people. They deflected my observation with comments like “We just want to look”, “No one will mind”, and “There’s no harm intended”. As well-intentioned as they were, I was left with the impression that no one existed for them who could not be governed by their intentions. While acknowledging the lack of apparent malice in this behavior, I can’t help thinking that it is a liability as much as a luxury to live without interaction. To live so completely impervious to one’s own impact on others is a fragile privilege, which over time relies not simply on the willingness but on the inability of others -in this case blacks- to make their displeasure heard.

This insightful critique came to mind as I reflected on why whites could so outspokenly make their pleasure in this film heard and the many black viewers express discontent, raising critical questions about how the film was made, is seen, and is talked about, who have not named their displearure publicly. Too many reviewers and interviewers assume not only that there is no need to raise pressing critical questions about Livingston’s film, but act as though she somehow did this marginalized black gay subculture a favor by bringing their experience to a wider public. Such a stance obscures the substantial rewards she has received for this work. Since so many of the black gay men in the film express the desire to be big stars, it is easy to place Livingston in the role of benefactor, offering these “poor black souls! a way to realize their dreams. But it is this current trend in producing colorful ethnicity for the white consumer appetite that makes it possible for blackness to be commodified in unprecedented ways, and for whites to appropriate black culture without interrogating whiteness or showing concern for the displeasure of blacks. Just as white cultural imperialism informed and affirmed the adventurous journeys of colonizing whites into the countries and cultures of “dark others”, it allows white audiences to applaud representations of black culture, if they are satisfied with the images and habits of being represented.

Watching the film with a black woman friend, we were disturbed by the extent to which white folks around us were “entertained” and “pleasured” by scenes we viewed as sad and at times tragic. Often individuals laughed at personal testimony about hardship, pain, loneliness. Several times I yelled out in the dark: “What is so funny about this scene? Why are you laughing?” The laughter was never innocent. Instead it undermined the seriousness of the film, keeping it always on the level of spectacle. And much of the film helped make this possible. Moments of pain and sadness were quickly covered up by dramatic scenes from drag balls, as though there were two competing cinematic narratives, one displaying the pageantry of the drag ball and the other reflecting on the lives of participants and value of the fantasy. This second narrative was literally hard to hear because the laughter often drowned it out, just as the sustained focus on elaborate displays at balls diffused the power of the more serious narrative. Any audience hoping to be entertained would not be as interested in the true life stories and testimonies narrated. Much of that individual testimony makes it appear that the characters are estranged from any community beyond themselves. Families, friends, etc. are not shown, which adds to the representation of these black gay men as cut off, living on the edge.

It is useful to compare the portraits of their lives in Paris is Burning with those depicted in Marlon Riggs’ compelling film Tongues Untied. At no point in Livingston’s film are the men asked to speak about their connections to a world of family and community beyond the drag ball. The cinematic narrative makes the ball center of their lives. And yet who determines this? Is this the way the black men view their reality or is this the reality Livingston constructs? Certainly the degree to which black men in this gay subculture are portrayed as cut off from a “real” world heightens the emphasis on fantasy, and indeed gives Paris is burning its tragic edge. That tragedy is made explicit when we are told that the fair-skinned Venus has been murdered, and yet there is no mourning of him/her in the film, no intense focus on the sadness of this murder. Having served the purpose of “spectacle” the film abandons him/her. The audience does not see Venus after the murder. There are no scenes of grief. To put it crassly, her dying is upstaged by spectacle. Death is not entertaining.

For those of us who did not come to this film as voyeurs of black gay subculture, it is Dorian Carey’s moving testimony throughout the film that makes Paris is Burning a memorable experience. Cary is both historian and cultural critic in the film. He explains how the balls enabled marginalized black gay queens to empower both participants and audience. It is Carey who talks about the significance of the “star” in the life of gay black men who are queens. In a manner similar to critic Richar Dyer in his work Heavenly Bodies, Carey tells viewers that the desire for stardom is an expression of the longing to realize the dream of autonomous stellar individualism. Reminding readers that the idea of the individual continues to be a major image of what it means to live in a democratic world, Dyer writes:

Capitalism justifies itself on the basis of freedom (separateness) of anyone to make money, sell their labour how they will, to be able to express opinions and get them heard (regardless of wealth and social position). The openness of society is assumed by the way that we are addressed as individuals -as consumers (each freely choosing to buy, or watch, what we want), as legal subjects (equally responsible before the law), as political subjects (able to make up our minds who is to run society). Thus even while the notion of the individual is assailed on all sides, it is a necessary fiction for the reproduction of the kind of society we live in... Stars articulate these ideas of personhood.

This is precisely the notion of stardom Carey articulates. He emphasizes the way consumer capitalism undermines the subversive power of the drag balls, subordinating ritual to spectacle, removing the will to display unique imaginative costumes an the purchased image. Carey speaks profoundly about the redemptive power of the imagination in black life, that drag balls were traditionally a place wher the aesthetics of the image in relation to black gay life could be explored with complexity and grace.

Carey extols the significance of fantasy even as he critiques the use of fantasy to escape reality. Analyzing the place of fantasy in black gay subculture, he links that experience to the longing for stardom that is so pervasive in this society. Refusing to allow the “queen” to be Othered, he conveys the message that in all of us resides that longing to transcend the boundaries of self, to be glorified. Speaking about the importance of drag queens in a recent interview in Afterimage, Marlon Riggs suggests that the queen personifies the longing everyone has for love and recognition. Seeing in drag queens “a desire, a very visceral need to be loved, as well as a sense of the abject loneliness of life where nobody loves you”, Riggs contends “this image is real for anybody who has been in the bottom spot where they’ve been rejected by everybody and loved by nobody”. Echoing Carey, Riggs declares: “What’s real for them is the realization that you have to learn to love yourself”. Carey stresses that one can only learn to love the self when one breaks through illusion and faces reality, not by escaping into fantasy. Emphasizing that the point is not to give us fantasy but to recognize its limitations, he acknowledges that one must distinguish the place of fantasy in ritualized play from the use of fantasy as a means of escape. Unlike Pepper Labeija who constructs a mythic world to inhabit, making this his private reality, Carey encourages using the imagination creatively to enhance one’s capacity to live more fully in a world beyond fantasy.

Despite the profound impact he makes, what Riggs would call “a visual icon of the drag queen with a very dignified humanity”, Carey’s message, if often muted, is overshadowed by spectacle. It is hard for viewers to really hear this message. By critiquing absorption in fantasy and naming the myriad ways pain and suffering inform any process of self-actualization, Carey’s message mediates between the viewer who longs to voyeruristicly escape into the film, to vicariously inhabit that lived space on the edge, by exposing the sham, by challenging all of us to confront reality. James Baldwin makes the point in The Fire Next Time that “people who cannot suffer can never grow up, can never discover who they are”. Without being sentimental about suffering, Dorian Carey urges all of us to break through denial, through the longing for an illusory star identity, so that we can confront and accept ourselves as we really are -only then can fantasy, ritual, be a site of seduction, passion, and play where the self is truly recognized, loved, and never abandoned or betrayed.

Bell Hooks

[viktcria-blog]

stellaluna • viktoria “vik” • aaland s u l l i v a n

icy breezes float across naked flesh as melodies coated in melancholia float across stale air. useless factoids trail across their mind, she traces patterns against florals sitting in tepid water. she strokes the neck of an empty champagne bottle, shatters it against marble. they say it’s all too much, the thought beckons bumps to rise against her skin.

d e m o g r a p h i c s

full name: stellaluna viktoria “vik” aaland

age: twenty-one 

sexuality: bisexual 

gender: demiwoman / she & they

major & minor: psychology ( major ) & anthropology ( minor )

♪ icy — kim petras

family • history • connections • plots  under the cut & exhaustive

f a m i l y

                father ( adoptive / deceased )                                   mother ( adoptive )                    peter aaland ( sol invictus )                             camille aaland ( née bordelais )

                                                    grandmother ( adoptive )                                      vikoria “angelique” bordelais ( née eriksson )

( cancer / death tw for everything below this warning )

• their father was a musician who went by the alias “sol invictus” ( after the roman sun god ), his band, invincible, was extremely successful in the late eighties / early nineties and has some classics ( the most helpful comparison i have for sol is kurt cobain mixed with alex turner and flung back to the 90s. )

he was diagnosed with cancer when vik was a child, and became involved with a faith healer and his cult ( the sun’s chosen children ) before his death. after his death, there was a vicious battle over his estate, as he left everything to the cult and its manipulative leader. this is a dark chapter of vik’s life, and she didn’t entirely understand what was going on due to her young age, just that her father was dead and it ruined her mother. sol’s involvement with the chosen children was the subject of much tabloid gossip, and so was the legal battle.

• her mother was a model and the daughter of a swedish-french film star ( the original viktoria ) who married an “english screenwriter with a french name.” camille is very fond of horses and horse racing and has spent large parts of her life on stud farms ( including her own parents’ stud in england, where her mother retired to ), and currently lives on one in mexico, somewhat close to mexico city.

• viktoria is adopted, she was born in sweden  ( which both of her adoptive parents had a connection to ) and placed for adoption by her birth parents shortly after. they don’t particularly care to know anything about their birth parents, and haven’t made any effort to seek them out. they were adopted when they were two years old, so they retain some vague memories of the orphanage, but they can’t speak swedish anymore.

h i s t o r y

places lived

stockholm ( childhood )

tokyo ( childhood )

los angeles / new york city ( childhood )

oxfordshire ( childhood / as a teenager )

mexico city / valley of mexico ( as a teenager )

paris ( to attend the paris opera’s ballet academy, as a teenager )

important / helpful information

being a rockstar’s child had its difficulties and successes. vik was always the coolest child in any given room ( at least, by default ) but she spent most of her childhood in impermanent places: tokyo ( two years while sol & invincible were recording a reunion album ), los angeles and nyc ( whenever her father’s profession demanded it ), oxfordshire with her mother and grandmother, stockholm for a few years post-adoption. they never made many real friends, and cultivated a reputation for being just like silk ( pretty and difficult to hold onto ) over time. they’re used to being alone.

dancing, particularly classical ballet, was their first love. they took their first class in tokyo when they were still very young, and they were good. when she was dancing, vik wasn’t someone else’s child, she was her own person, with her own passions. after their father’s death, their mother became despondent ( especially as the legal battle was lost ) and they needed to get away, so they used some of their talent and a lot of nepotism to audition for the paris opera’s ballet academy ( one of the best in the world. ) not that they’ll admit to the nepotism. from age 12-17 vik lived alone in paris, attending the academy and going by her mother’s maiden name ( bordelais ) in order to deny any connection to their father. 

vik stopped dancing when she was 18, after she moved back in with her mother after her grandmother’s death ( without her, her mother would have been completely alone, so it was necessary, and repayment for the five years of freedom she had been afforded. ) but dancing remains their first, and currently only, love, and she still does it. just not under the eyes of any teacher.

their gender expression is hyper feminine ( lots of glitter and neon ) but this doesn’t mean they’re a woman. vik identifies as demigender ( specifically a demiwoman / demigirl ) and came to the realisation that she was not fully comfortable with her identity was a girl for the first time after her father’s death. they don’t particularly care to explain it more than “you can be feminine without being female.” anyone who comes into proximity of her is aware of her pronouns and identification. 

they didn’t want to go to providence. when they were applying, they were disgusted by the enormous wealth and privilege that surrounded them ( nevermind how often she uses hers ) and found it repulsive. but providence was the best school and the easiest to bribe, and in the end, the college was very, very far from mexico city.

in their first semester, they mostly kept to themself, keeping their head down so no one would ask questions about who they were or where they came from. but in her second semester, vik started performing again: she had a third story window, a highly fuckable toned body, and she missed ballet. egged on enough times by partygoers struggling through snow or melt, they would take to their window, a silhouette of a person, smooth bare skin and mystery. performing became parties. parties became more parties. being a partygoer became being sol invictus’ child.

they’re in a constant state of reinvention. are they a good student, or just rich and the child of someone famous ? does she like the endless bacchanalia and orgiastic weekdays, or is it all she knows at this school ? what the fuck is vik going to do with themself after graduating with the degree they don’t care about ? don’t ask.

tldr no one understands what she’s doing, let alone her. & they have a reputation as the person to go to for a party.

c o n n e c t i o n s  ( q u i c k f i r e )

champagne prince(ss): someone vik parties with, possibly a procurer of illicit substances, they have a soft spot ( possibly romantic ) for them

twisted sibling: horribly toxic relationship that consists mostly of egging each other on and fucking each other up 

cheat sheet: vik doesn’t like to study, so they’re her go-to “study partner.” aka, the person she bribes to help her ( aka.... write her papers for her )

invincible ? don’t know them: someone who’s a fan of vik’s father’s band / knows all the gossip and is intrigued by why it was like to grow up as sol’s child

no danes allowed: international kids club ? ( aside: idk what citizenship vik even has lol ? i just realised this ! )

p l o t s 

cause of you, now my heart is so icy ( former lover / enemy / angst / pining / fuck it )

vik’s first real relationship, started at providence, probably in second year ? very intense, ended really, really badly ( think public shouting matches. ) occasionally, always, in moments of weakness, they miss this person immensely, and considering going back / taking them back. she doesn’t even remember why it ended in the first place, at this point. ( but some part of vik also knows it will end in the same fiery crash if they try again. )

this could also be platonic because losing friends ? painful.

gave me something to believe in  ( member of or close to / fascinated by the sun’s chosen children cult )

for the most part, the cult that their mother is certain played a role in killing their father hasn’t played a role in vik’s life in years ( beside camille aaland’s refusal to say its name of the name of its leader. ) but new york is a big place, and the internet is strange and vast, so this plot involves someone who is a member of, or close to someone who is a member of, or is interested in the sun’s chosen children ( a “self help group” dedicated to spiritual healing and the abandonment of modern medicine, in actuality a cult. ) vik still carries a lot of resentment for what they did to her mother and some small part of them fears the chosen children. so living / partying / studying in close proximity to someone who is involved with them is probably not going to end well.

don’t search me in here, i’m already gone baby ( “perfect match” / counterpart / mystery )

someone vik is highly interested in ( platonically / romantically / sexually / whatever, 22 year olds are dumb ). they feel like every time they try to get close to this person, they slip away, which is something vik has a lot of practice doing herself. she doesn’t like it being turned back on her, and she’s starting to run out of patience for them.

... but not yet. 

i ain’t ever gonna settle ( patron / private shows / throwing parties so one person will come / ideal / disaster in the making )

dancing is such a big part of vik’s life, and stopping their dance career may be one of the few things they actually regret. this person is vik’s “dance partner” and “patron”, someone who always encourages her to dance for / with them ( sometimes in private, wink, but as always this could be platonic ) and whose approval she craves for no reason she could name. they’re stumbling towards being dependent on this person, and it’s not going to end well, but for right now, it’s passionate and full of feelings and admiration and divine adoration. 

[un-tide]

Rupi Kaur Taught Me DIY

(TW for mentions of sexual assault.)

Last year, I wrote a short essay on why I hate Rupi Kaur. Not just why I hate her work, but why I hate her as a writer. Maybe even as a person. I had never (and still haven’t) met this woman, which should have been my first clue that there was something underlying these emotions that probably wasn’t fair to her. But I was comfortable in my hate, even more so when I could articulate everything that was wrong with her in a way that was logical and academic and had nothing to do with me—so much so that I was unable to see that my disdain for this woman did, in fact, have almost everything to do with me.

Growing up as a young girl whose first love was books, I found myself torn between worlds. On my top shelf, I kept some of my favorite series—Percy Jackson, Pendragon, Artemis Fowl. These were books my parents approved of, holding imaginative, fantastical worlds and morals of bravery and friendship. Under my bed were my other favorites—the ones my parents didn’t approve of—The Clique and The Princess Diaries. These kinds of stories were adventurous in a way that was relatable to me, with the struggles of teenage friendship and the perils of mean girls, but they did skip over many of the lessons I got from my more “gender-neutral” books, and they did not have fantastical or imaginative worlds unless they came with a borderline-abusive romance.

Early on, I learned another kind of lesson: as a woman, I will constantly have to choose between books that tell stories that are inspiring and creative, and books that tell stories about people like me.  

When I first heard about a young, South Asian, feminist, second-generation immigrant woman who wrote openly about her identity and her story, it was if my childhood prayers had been answered. It seemed too good to be true—I am also a young, South Asian, feminist, second-generation immigrant woman. If I was ever going to find a poet I could relate to, Rupi Kaur was it. Finally, there was poetry being written by people like me for people like me, and I didn’t have to choose between quality and relatability anymore. Imagine, then, how it felt to open up one of her most famous books and read this: “how is it so easy for you/ to be kind to people he asked / milk and honey dripped from my lips as i answered / cause people have not /been kind to me.”

I was dumbfounded. Surely I had picked up the wrong book. This was a book of 2014’s 25 saddest tweets, and the #1 New York Times bestseller Milk and Honey was somewhere else. Where was the symbolism? The wordplay? The rhyme or meter? Even the line breaks had no apparent significance. And above those basic elements of poetry—where was the deeper meaning? It’s a sad conversation, but one that, rather than sitting in a book of supposed poetry, would fit better on a teenager’s Tumblr post, or somewhere else you could read it very quickly, frown a little, and move on. And I did just that.

I returned the book to the stack of fifty just like it, and from Rupi Kaur's Milk and Honey I re-learned that same lesson I learned as a child: good books do not tell your story. Move on.

I won’t pretend that my knowledge of poetry comes from more a few college classes, but if there’s one thing I learned, it’s that understanding a poem takes time. Poems hold secrets—alternate meanings and obscure allusions—that you can only discover when you read them again and again. Their meanings can be argued and refuted using symbols and allusions to books written one-hundred years earlier and a comma placed here instead of there. Sure, over-embellished poetry sometimes does hide more than it reveals, especially to the young or less educated reader, but Rupi Kaur’s work strips an idea of all layers beneath its surface.

Some call Kaur’s style accessible, but I call bullshit. Accessibility is about delivering complex concepts while breaking the barriers that typically surround them, whether those barriers be based on education, class, gender, sexuality, or race. Tossing a sad thought you had in the shower to a young audience does not break barriers to feminist or survivor literature of any kind.

On a personal level, I do hold some empathy for Kaur. Her poems attempt to address difficult topics like heartbreak and abuse, and I imagine she has been through some trauma that many women are familiar with, myself included. The meaning of the poem I read in the bookstore was not lost on me: sometimes people are kind because they are already acquainted with cruelty. But simply stating something true or shocking does not make it well-crafted, and it certainly does not make it poetry. Much of Kaur’s success comes from stating the obvious in the most plain way possible, taking a complicated idea and hollowing it out into a pretty painted shell.

To put it simply, Kaur’s work is shallow. It seems to lack effort as much as it does depth, and despite her education, it displays little mastery of imagery or symbolism or poetic style. It is less poetry than it is bite-size food-for-thought possibly conceived in a trendy hipster cafe and posted on Instagram as the caption for an aesthetically pleasing but disappointingly grimace-inducing over-sweet cup of milk and honey. Kaur touches the surface of ideas before shying away like a cat from water, and in doing so fails to teach her audience of young women and girls—many of whom might have fallen in love with poetry had they not been alienated by mainstream misogynistic and white-centric classics—how to analyze and write complex ideas that are pivotal to their recovery, their self-esteem, and their survival.

If my school had taught more female-friendly literature when I was in high school, I wouldn’t have begun to hate reading. The books we read that actually included women were traumatic at worst and voyeuristic at best, and my teachers seemed oblivious, perhaps simply starstruck by the stubbornly unwavering fame and brilliance of the classics. Nevermind that 1984 featured a protagonist with a burning desire to rape the book’s only notable female character. Nevermind that the sexual liberalism in Brave New World had my elderly, white, male substitute teaching us that the World State was—despite its female citizens’ complete lack of reproductive autonomy and a suspicious absence of female Alphas—a feminist society. Nevermind that The Handmaid’s Tale, despite actually being a feminist novel, depicts a misogynistic hellscape a little too realistic for comfort. 

The older I grew, the more it seemed that very few of the classics were written with women in mind, and almost none of them seemed to be written for women’s benefit, education, or—god forbid—enjoyment.

Disappointed by the classics, I returned to popular fiction as a teenager, desperate for a story with a protagonist I could relate to, or at the very least did not want to strangle every time they opened their mouth. At my local flea market, which I frequented every first Saturday of the month, I had come across a well-stocked used-book stall. While making my way through The Princess Diaries series dollar by dollar, I stumbled upon a book that I can only imagine was placed in flea market stall that day by the Devil himself just so he could have a laugh: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. I won’t give away any spoilers, but I’ll give you one guess what happens halfway through. I am not ashamed to say I stopped reading anything other than The Princess Diaries for some time.

I wish I could say my high school experience was unique. There is a profound need for contemporary literature and poetry that not only does not alienate women, but caters to us specifically. We deserve to read books that do not hurt us more than we already are hurting, that address our trauma but don’t weaponize it against us. We deserve to witness other women powerfully and passionately explore and understand our shared experiences and shared pain. We deserve to learn how to explore these ideas for ourselves. The feminist subjects of Rupi Kaur’s poetry deserve nuance, because the more precisely we are able to articulate our experiences and ideas and traumas, the more understood they—and we—become. Much like I was as a young child, the girls devouring Rupi Kaur’s work are still scrambling for crumbs. She had the opportunity to feed a generation of girls starved for poetry free of white men’s hunger, and she didn’t.

Kaur, at first, seemed to me to be nothing new in a world of successful yet seemingly talentless women who continuously fail and profit off of the next generation of starving girls (the Kardashian-Jenner clan comes to mind). But only on my own journey to becoming a writer did I come to understand that Rupi Kaur might be different, that she might actually be trying very hard--that she might be hiding something. As a reader, I never understood that a fact that I am painfully aware of now: writing makes you vulnerable. The more I wrote, the more I began to realize that what I perceived as lack of depth was, perhaps, a terribly relatable inability to be open.

It’s what I hate the most about writing—displaying yourself to the world when your childhood scrapes are still scabbing over and everyone is certain to see under your skin. I’ve never been good at being vulnerable, which makes me a reluctant writer on a good day and a liar on the rest. People do weird things when they’re afraid, like write mediocre poetry or channel all their anger at the world towards someone they’ve never met. I could not do, or at least have not yet done, what I ask of Rupi Kaur. What would I tell her, I imagine, if I ever met her? I could deflect: “Hey Rupi, your poetry about your suffering needs some work.” Or I could be honest: “Please, Rupi, tell my story for me.”

Because isn’t that what I always wanted: a story just like mine, read to me like a mother would read to her child at bedtime, a story about people like me that teaches me I’m not alone. I had waited for representation so long that when it finally arrived, it felt like a betrayal when it fell so far short. I don’t hate Rupi Kaur because her work is bad—I hate her because her work is bad and there are almost no other options. I hate her because she is my generation’s standard for how to write stories like hers and mine, and it does not do them justice. I hate her because I wanted her to do what I didn’t yet have the courage to do myself.

Maybe I’m projecting; maybe Rupi Kaur is exactly as shallow as her poetry suggests and no amount of openness will make it better. It doesn’t change that I expected someone else to be the writer of my story simply because we have a lot in common. I wasn’t fair to Rupi Kaur when I wrote my 300-word-long-rant about theintolerable injusticeshe was inflicting on young women and girls—which I posted, and I’m aware of the irony, on Tumblr and Instagram. I placed the burden of my vulnerability on her shoulders.

I stand by my criticisms of Rupi Kaur, but I also owe her some gratitude, because she taught me another lesson: I can’t rely on other people to tell my story, or stories about people like me. I can’t rely on other people to fill a void in literature or poetry or to fix any other problem I insist needs solving.

If you want something done right, or even done at all, sometimes you just have to do it yourself, even if—especially if—that means opening up about experiences you’d rather keep hidden. If Rupi Kaur is any indication, the bar for young women’s contemporary poetry and literature is evidently on the floor, which, on the bright side, means that any woman who has the courage to openly, honestly, and vulnerably tell her own story—even if she gets ripped to shreds by mean girls like me—will still be doing all of us a favor.

[freedom-of-fanfic]

antishipping as the ‘cool new trend’

or: why are most antis under 25 years old? (posted June 2017)

I really think that antishipping is a movement that’s gaining ground with the younger & newer arrivals to fandom spaces; a kind of ‘cool trend’, so to speak. In aggregate, antishipping culture is beautifully constructed to be particularly appealing to teenage or college-age people in the late 2010′s - and especially American people - who are marginalized, oppressed, often social outcasts in real life and often under-educated about their own marginalized identity, and I kind of wanted to get into why.

EDIT (October 2018): this post is was originally put up in June 2017. I’ve tweaked it a bit to correct some stuff I now think is just patronizing/incorrect, but overall, I now think it’s overly reliant on adolescent growth stages when the best explanations are societal changes (fandom being on viral social media, fandom being conflated with social justice activism, and increasingly authoritarian trends in 21st century America.)

the other day I posted to talk a little about why I think antis tend to be young (and American). To sum up & simultaneously add a little more:

a brain still growing - until the age of 22-25, the frontal lobe of the brain does not finish development. the frontal lobe handles higher reasoning skills and complex problem-solving. Thus: the growing mind is particularly prone to incomplete reasoning, black and white thinking, and total empathy failure, making it hard for those under 25 to fully comprehend the impact of their actions, sympathize with others, or tackle social problems with nuance. Truly comprehending that others come from entirely different worldviews or have entirely different experiences and that being different doesn’t make them wrong and that most deep-seated problems need complex solutions that require nuance tends to come with this final brain growth. (Not always, of course. but often.) nah I’ve completely changed my mind on this. It’s true that physiological changes are still occurring in teens that make empathy harder, but they can respect the choices of others just as well as an adult can.

current American sex education being mostly scaremongering and abstinence-only + ready availability of sexual content, specifically pornographic material, online + hypersexual marketing = a deeply fucked cultural understanding of sex that adolescents are particularly unequipped to detangle

escaping religious/Christian fundamentalism but not  black&white thinking or authoritarian ‘us vs them’ mindset: the moral/communal purity that organized Christianity often demands can take years to deprogram (and this is not to mention the gender essentialism, homophobia/queerphobia, and anti-sex/anti-kink messages, accompanied by a strong undercurrent of anti-intellectualism to discourage self-education on these subjects!) teens just breaking away from this toxicity are especially unequipped to untangle themselves. Young ppl tend to take the same worldview/us vs them/b&w thinking they grew up with to a more liberal cause instead (such as enforcing ‘social justice’ in shipping), with a side-order of internalized, unexamined anti-lgbt/sex/kink/etc rhetoric that dovetails rather neatly with exclusionist rhetoric.

exclusionary gatekeeping as baby’s first lgbt/queer culture lesson - transformative fandom is a frequent haven for marginalized people who don’t see themselves in the media they consume (so they change the media to meet their emotional, sexual, social, etc needs, you see?). because it’s not taught in schools here in the US, it’s not too uncommon for newcomers to get their first big dose of history and cultural education that’s not centered around straight white men in fandom. but what are they learning? here on tumblr, since about 2013, exclusionists have used the relative lack of education on queer history to build an false history, one where the gender binary is strongly enforced and sexualities can only exist on the binary axis: nb/queer/ace/pan and sometimes even bi and trans -identifying people are erased or ‘not oppressed enough’. this history is the one that young entrants into fandom are more likely to encounter first and have no knowledge with which to counter it.  Antishipping derives its mode of operation and principle values from exclusionists. It dictates who can write or do what based on their sexual/gender identity (and sometimes race as well). Its definition of social justice is also heavily influenced by exclusionists because its members are mostly young people who learned all their queer history from exclusionists.

the particularly adolescent vulnerability to peer pressure (the need to belong & the fear of being ostracized): teens are particularly inclined to be influenced by friendships and maintaining social ties. [...]  it’s easy to become an anti in order to keep your friends and almost impossible to quit without losing everything, and teens are especially vulnerable to this kind of social structure.  I think this was a factor 18 months ago, but not so much now. both ‘sides’ of this argument are pretty well-known and people in fandom can have strong opinions on shipping or anti-shipping from very early on.

less focus on teaching critical thinking & self-government. Education in America has long been aimed towards adequate training to work an assembly line, but 21st century American parenting and education both have neglected teaching young people how to make decisions for themselves & how to engage in critical analysis of what they see and read. antishipping is a highly cohesive, insular culture with enforced rules of conduct, striking clear in/out lines and valuing loyalty and groupthink over originality and intellectualism. also: keeping the party line & persecution of outsiders is encouraged, further strengthening the need to conform.

having a just cause & a space to control: antishipping rests its laurels on a(n incomplete, corrupted) form of social justice/righting the wrongs of the privileged. being an anti feels like making a difference b/c your actions have visible impact on your immediate surroundings. (and having a space you feel you can control can be even more urgent with additional pressures like abusive home situations, past traumatic experiences, academic pressure, untreated/unrecognized mental illness, being forced into the closet b/c of queer/transphobia, etc.)

an American (and to a lesser degree, western European) post 9/11* cultural shift from prioritizing personal freedom to prioritizing communal safety; those under the age of 20 were 3 or younger or not yet born when the shift happened. antishipping prioritizes communal ‘safety’ (‘bad’, ‘dangerous’, or ‘inappropriate’ things must never be mentioned to protect people from hearing about them and being either corrupted or harmed) over personal freedom (allowing ‘bad’/’dangerous’ things to be  discussed, and it is up to the individual to personally decide what content to avoid).

(*actually, this shift started in the US before 9/11. 9/11 just sped it up.)

of course, all of this is conjecture based on my own experiences and observations, and it’s not a set of rules - just circumstances that I believe absolutely encourage young fandom members to end up falling headfirst into antishipping and either never notice how hurtful it is or never get the courage to leave it behind. And I think there’s a lot more the popularity/prevalence of antishipping today, but this post is already longer than I meant it to be.

(I always go light on racism when i talk about antishipping because while antis frequently accuse shippers of racism, it’s disingenuous to class racism as the same kind of oppression as lgbt+-phobia & misogyny, particularly in America - they’re related, but not the same. Centering non-white (and especially black) voices does not get the same focus as centering lgbt and women’s voices in fandom, and I think it’s easy to dismiss legitimate charges of racism as ‘anti bullshit’ when we class all these types of marginalization together.)

[anessayontheprincipleof194]

same day essay

About me

​Is It Plagiarism To Pay Someone To Write For Me?

​Is It Plagiarism To Pay Someone To Write For Me? COVID’s historic significance lies not in what it implies for our daily lives. Change, in spite of everything, is the one constant in relation to tradition. All peoples in all places always are all the time dancing with new possibilities for all times. The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it before republishing it. However, her profession took an identical hit to that suffered by Maya Forstater. Lisa Littman had dared challenge one of many central tenets of trans activism, which is that an individual’s gender id is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans. Fluidity of memory and a capability to overlook is maybe essentially the most haunting trait of our species. As history confirms, it permits us to return to phrases with any degree of social, ethical, or environmental degradation. In the age of social media, many college students strategy emailing just like texting and other types of digital communication, the place the essential conventions are brevity and informality. Logically, it ought to have been hit very exhausting, but the well being care system performed exceedingly nicely. Throughout the crisis, testing rates across Canada have been constantly five instances that of the U.S. On a per capita basis, Canada has suffered half the morbidity and mortality. For every one that has died in British Columbia, forty four have perished in Massachusetts, a state with a comparable inhabitants that has reported extra COVID instances than all of Canada. Odious as he could also be, Trump is much less the reason for America’s decline than a product of its descent. Vancouver is simply three hours by street north of Seattle, where the U.S. outbreak started. Half of Vancouver’s population is Asian, and sometimes dozens of flights arrive each day from China and East Asia. Paul Corrigan and Cameron Hunt McNabb current a means for professors to assist such students. I haven’t written this essay in the hope that anybody will get out a violin for me, not even a teeny-weeny one. I’m terribly fortunate; I’m a survivor, certainly not a sufferer. I’ve solely mentioned my previous as a result of, like each other human being on this planet, I even have a complex backstory, which shapes my fears, my interests and my opinions. I always remember that internal complexity after I’m making a fictional character and I actually never forget it when it comes to trans individuals. The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably delicate and intelligent folks. The attract of escaping womanhood would have been big. She was accused of bias and of spreading misinformation about transgender folks, subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit each her and her work. As they stare into the mirror and understand only the myth of their exceptionalism, Americans remain nearly bizarrely incapable of seeing what has actually become of their nation. The republic that defined the free move of knowledge because the life blood of democracy, today ranks forty fifth amongst nations in relation to press freedom. COVID-19 didn’t lay America low; it merely revealed what had lengthy been forsaken. I’d stepped again from Twitter for a lot of months each earlier than and after tweeting help for Maya, as a result of I knew it was doing nothing good for my psychological health. I only returned as a result of I needed to share a free kids’s e-book during the pandemic. This isn’t a simple piece to write down, for reasons that may shortly turn into clear, but I know it’s time to clarify myself on a difficulty surrounded by toxicity. In fact, at least in financial terms, the nation of the Fifties resembled Denmark as much as the America of right now. Marginal tax charges for the wealthy were 90 percent. The salaries of CEOs had been, on common, just 20 occasions that of their mid-management staff. With slogans like “24/7” celebrating full dedication to the workplace, men and women exhausted themselves in jobs that only bolstered their isolation from their families. The common American father spends lower than 20 minutes a day in direct communication together with his child. But most college teachers consider emails closer to letters than to textual content messages. Students who use emojis of their emails and write “heeeeelp! ” in the topic line don't essentially know higher.