#wheeler family analysis

[aemiron-main]

i am so normal about the wheelers

having an absolutely Normal Day thinking about mike being punished for vandalizing the bathroom stall in s2 & how mike says that everyone else does it and how he’s STILL punished in spite of this because the wheelers want him to conform- but god forbid he conform in the wrong way. everyone else is doing it. isn’t that what his parents wanted? for him to be like everyone else? but he’s still getting in trouble for it. ted still starts giving him shit about conformity and ‘if your friends jumped off a cliff, would you?” all while making comments like ‘our son? with a girl?’ the wheelers aren’t just pro-conformity. no, they’re pro-conformity under the guise of being anti-conformity, something i talked about with the ST soundtrack as a whole in this post.  they’re a living, breathing representation of american exceptionalism. they don’t conform, of course they don’t, they’re different, they’re go-getters, karen’s not like other suburban moms who cheat on their emotionally unavailable husbands, she’s good and pure and makes sacrifices for her family or at least that’s what she tells herself until the day she finds herself in the bathroom with her red lipstick, getting ready for her date with billy, and then she tells herself that she’s still not like those other moms at the pool drooling over billy, she’s a red hot fox in her prime, she shouldn’t waste that, right? it wouldn’t be a waste for those other women, right? because they don’t have her figure, they don’t have her style, they’re not the exceptional karen wheeler.  but she’s exactly like them. she’s exactly like them. it is her belief that she’s not like then that is what makes her exactly like them. her delusions of exceptionalism are what puts the final nail in the coffin of her conformity. because all of those women think that they’re not like the woman next to them. they’re all just identical little exceptions in their identical little worlds on their identical little pool chairs just like how their grand country of america is sitting on its identical pool chair on the world stage kicking and screaming about how different it is- just like every country that kicks and screams about how different it is, it is through its kicking and screaming about its exceptionalism that it becomes like all of the others.  karen goes to her jazzercise and she goes to her salon and those things in and of themselves are not immoral but they are a glaring contradiction to her exceptionalism because she is not exceptional at all- she’s just putting up a front of it, she works so hard to be inherently and naturally exceptional but it’s all for nothing because people who are naturally exceptional don’t have to work at forcing themselves to be exceptional. she’s just like every other exceptional red  hot fox at the jazzercise class. the wheeler dinners stop happening when season three rolls around. when activewear is introduced into karen’s wardrobe, when she starts going to jazzercise, when it becomes less about her family and conforming to that nuclear housewife dream and instead about conforming to the fantasies in her romance novels about daring women who cheat on their husbands and how it’s not their fault that they’re cursed with the sort of main character exceptionalism that makes it a waste and a sin NOT to cheat on their husband, because there’s some lucky man that would love to have his hands on her in the way that her husband doesn’t bother doing, the exceptionalism that takes karen away from being a commodity of a housewife to being a commodity of a milf. it’s still conformity. it’s just a different type. she goes from looking like every generic 80s mom to still looking like every generic 80s mom in a different way. she is still an object, just a different kind. billy does not see her any differently than ted does, at the core. karen is ted’s gorgeous, young wife, his reward for making money and doing everything ‘right’. karen is also billy’s gorgeous, older date, billy’s reward for being a hot young man (in the eyes of society), his reward for being like every other rebellious, bigoted, misogynistic badboy teen. she is still a commodity. she is still an object. she is still a prize for the men around her.  and mike has ALREADY been punished for the act of defacing the bathroom stall. he already lost his atari for it. the toys were brought up before the bathroom stall was. having to give away the toys was not originally a punishment for the vandalism. but karen wheeler lives in a world of exceptionalism, where she is the exception, she can’t be a bad, mean mom like those other moms, and so, there MUST be a reason as to why she’s right, there must be a valid, good mom reason for ignoring and demeaning her son’s feelings. so she looks for a reason and finds one. it’s not something wrong with her: it’s something wrong with mike. it’s not her parenting that’s the problem, it’s mike. he’s the problem. or, again, at least that’s what she tells herself as she punishes him again for something that he’s already been punished for, because really, he’s not being punished for cursing out mr kowalski, or for defacing the bathroom stall, or for plagiarizing an essay: he’s being punished for existing, for the fact that his existence holds a mirror up to karen’s bad parenting, for the fact that he’s not even trying to reflect her own guilt back at her, it just comes to him naturally because he is so much a product of the very environment that forced guilt onto him, so now they’re surprised that he’s made of guilt whenever they look at him? now karen’s SURPRISED that all she feels is guilt when she sees him, despite being the one who always dumped all of her guilt onto him and covered him in it. gee, karen, maybe he reminds you of your own emotions because you project those emotions onto him and force him to cater to them?  mike being punished for defacing a BATHROOM STALL because god forbid his existence make a mess or have any impact on the space he's in. god forbid somebody be aware of his existence, god forbid he can’t be something that karen can just compartmentalize right next to her resent and guilt about motherhood and resent and guilt about ted. he’s not her wedding ring that she can take on and off when it suits her. but god, she wishes he was.  god forbid mike and the evidence of his existence isnt something that can just be packaged up into exactly two boxes for the charity toy drive. it’s like nancy talking about how she’s seen mike’s bedroom looking worse than the cabin obliterated by an interdimensional monster, when the reality is that mike’s got a couple pairs of pants and a shirt on his bedroom floor- he can’t make any sort of mess, can’t leave any evidence of his existence, lest it be blown out of proportion and used to scapegoat and punish and mock him. 

mike isn’t just expected to conform: he’s expected to conform in the RIGHT WAY.  it’s like when he fakes being sick. i made a post about this awhile back that i can’t find right now, but karen previously is mentioned to have gotten upset with mike/sent him to school when he was ACTUALLY sick, when he was sick in a way that’s inconvenient and unpalatable for her, sick in a way that reminds her of the inconvenience and disgust she feels, in a way that reminds her of the guilt she feels for feeling that inconvenience. but as soon as he’s such in the RIGHT way? as soon as he’s faking it and pretending and being sick in a convenient, patable way? then karen seizes the opportunity to soothe her guilt and fawn over him, but it’s still not about him, it’s about her, and trying to seem like a good mother, and trying to get him to go on a car ride, and trying to beat back the guilt about how mike thought she would be mad at him again for being sick, the guilt about how she WOULD’VE been mad if he was sick in the way he was last time, in the inconvenient way, in the way that makes her aware of his existence.  it’s like nancy trying to clean the punch off of her shirt. because god forbid she makes a mistake or leaves any evidence of her existence, right? she could’ve changed shirts- it’s not about not wanting to wear a messy shirt. it’s about not wanting the mess to exist in the first place, to not even be able to clean it properly because you don’t want people to become aware of it in the process of leaving to go home to take it to the laundry. it’s not just about making a mistake and trying desperately to clean it up, it’s about making a mistake and trying to eradicate that mistake out of existence, but not in a way that’s too violent or draws too much attention, she can’t destroy the shirt because then people start asking questions about where the shirt went: just like the wheelers with their kids. their, uh- mistakes, i mean, children, can’t just be eradicated out of existence, but the wheelers DO want them to stay silent, to never make any mess or leave any evidence of their existence- it’s not even about wanting them to clean up their own messes, it’s about not wanting the mess to exist in the first place.  and ted? ted doesn’t realize that his son IS the friend stepping off the cliff. he’s so focused on false exceptionalism by telling him not to follow someone off the cliff that he inadvertently results in his son being the one to walk off the cliff because he’s doing what dad told him to, right? he’s not following anymore, he’s leading, he’s leading, he’s an exception, but he’s still not an exception in the right way, he’s still not conforming in the right way, he’s genuinely nonconformist which is frowned upon because he’s supposed to be nonconformist in the RIGHT way, in a way that still conforms. he’s supposed to not follow his hypothetical friend off the cliff because dad and society told him not to! he’s supposed to conform to THEM! he’s not supposed to conform to the friend who walks off the cliff, he’s supposed to conform to ted who tells him not to walk off the cliff. but then what happens when he does neither? what happens when mike IS the friend walking off the cliff? he’s doing what you wanted, ted. he’s not following his friend off the cliff. isn’t this what you wanted? but we both know it’s not. because we know it’s not about your son’s wellbeing, nor is it about any genuine nonconformity- it’s about getting him to conform to YOUR wishes, nonconformity is nothing but a tool to you to try and get people to conform in a different way, conform in a way that aligns with what YOU want.  because yet again, god forbid mike leave any evidence of his existence, right? mike being the friend who jumps off of the cliff is a problem not because it harms him but because he’d leave too much blood on the rocks, because it’d be a pain in the ass to clean up just like his toys were, because the quarry wouldn’t be the place where the byers kid died anymore, it’d be where the wheeler kid died, and we can’t have that because the wheelers are exceptional, the wheelers are both exceptional and entirely conforming and it is their false delusions of exceptionalism that pushes them the furthest into conformity. god forbid mike runs in the house in early season 2. god forbid nancy does it either. god forbid you’re reminded that you have kids. god forbid that the rattle of the cabinets as they run is evidence of their existence, no matter how brief. mike wants so badly for people to be aware of his existence even if it means it’s just from them seeing his blood on the rocks, he wants to help his friends and give up all of himself doing so, he wants to be a hero.  again, mike isn’t just expected to conform: he’s expected to conform in the RIGHT WAY. he can’t even die properly by their standards. his family wants him to be invisible, to not be aware of his existence, but not in the wrong way. he can’t even conform right. he gets a girlfriend and ted STILL mocks him about his ‘sweetie pie’. nothing will ever be good enough for them. he can never even conform proprerly in their eyes- the tragedy is how hard he tries. he tries so hard to conform and ends up being nonconformist and exceptional as a result of his attempts to conform, all while his family is so desperately trying to be nonconformist and exceptional and ends up being conformist specifically BECAUSE of their attempts to be nonconformist.  hell, jonathan even talks about this EXACT idea in the show- nancy thinks she is rebelling against being a typical suburban kid but shes rebelling in the same way as every other suburban girl. 

[strawberrybyers]

poltergeist vs stranger things parallels

i watched poltergeist for the first time the other day and there’s a lot details that actually feel very similar to stranger things?? not entirely sure what these parallels are going to prove, but maybe someone would be able to add to it??

In Poltergeist, a little girl named Carol Anne is able to communicate with something through the TV. The home starts experiencing weird things happening such as objects moving, lights going out, and TV automatically turning on. In Stranger things, Eleven is able to use her powers by using white noise of a TV. She also can communicate through radio signals. Will was able to communicate through lights whilst being in the Upside Down.

Look at how similar these scenes are of Carol Anne’s mom communicating with her vs Joyce communicating with Will

3. Something else I noticed was how similar the Freeling Family is to the Wheeler Family.

Literally, copy and paste lmao. You have the brunette teenage daughter, the middle child son, and the blonde haired younger sibling. Both families are considered successful, middle class families. They both do not want any information of what’s going on within their household to be leaked to the public because that would ruin their “perfect suburbia” image. Also, interesting how Carol Anne was targeted by the Poltergeist through the TV and when Holly went to the Byers house, she was led astray from Joyce and Karen to Will’s room because of the lights. Also, Steve Freeling and Ted Wheeler both support Reagan.

4. Even though I said the Freeling Family and Wheeler Family parallel each other— there’s actually one member of the family that parallels Will and that’s Robbie. Robbie actually has trouble sleeping one night because he’s afraid of the tree outside his window. He explains to his parents he feels like it knows he’s there—that the tree is actually alive. Interesting to think about Will and how he can sense the presence of the Mindflayer. Also, interesting how if you think about how even though Robbie wasn’t the main target like Carol Anne was, he was still able to sense something evil was lurking… Makes you think about how Will was kept alive in the Upside Down… Also, Robbie and Will’s appearances are somewhat similar??

5. The tree that Robbie is afraid of eventually does snatch him, but he’s saved by his parents. It’s wild because the tree has a similar appearance to the Mindflayer. And we know that Will has a connection with the Mindflayer, just like Robbie had a connection with the tree.

6. The Poltergeist creature’s appearance looks very similar to the Mindflayer…

7. Even the portal vs the Gate look similar…

8. In the Poltergeist, a medium ends up coming to the house to help rescue Carol Anne. She mentions that the dimension that Carol Anne is in, she’s there with something very evil. A presence that is angry and has felt betrayed. Who does that remind us of? Oh, yeah 001/Vecna. 001 gives a monologue about how angry he is and he tells El he uses that anger to increase his power. Also, the medium mentions that the beast or whatever they refer to it as, lies to Carol Anne and keeps her close. Well, why did the Mindflayer keep Will alive? Will still has a connection with the Upside Down. We know Vecna was manipulative. He could alter realities. He knew what people were thinking and their fears. The creature in the Poltergeist has the same capabilities. The medium explains that Carol Anne thinks the creature is another child and uses her to restrain the others… Um, doesn’t this sound like how Will is being used for a reason we’re unaware of yet and that’s why he was kept alive? Doesn’t this sound like how Vecna was used by the Mindflayer? Doesn’t that sound like how Billy was used as a host?

9. A conversation that has been had about the Upside Down is the presence of no water. Also, El uses water to help with her powers. In the Poltergeist, the medium mentions that when Carol Anne and her mom return, they have to immediately be put in the bath. Also, the Freeling Family was getting a pool built in. One of the mom’s fears was the kids falling in. The pool is shown multiple times with both parents falling into it. Just another interesting way of how water plays a role in both Poltergeist and Stranger Things.

10. The final parallel I discovered was the slime that Carol Anne and her mom are covered in when they exit the portal and the slime that’s on Nancy when she exits a gate in season 1. For some reason, I feel like there’s more Stranger Things characters who have entered the Upside Down and have had slime on them, but I couldn’t find any other images/clips of that??

Anyways, not sure what this post proves or whatever. It’s possible someone has already made this parallel considering Poltergeist is considered a classic 80’s movie and Stranger Things takes place in the 80’s. Just wanted to share my thoughts and if anyone has anything else to add to this analysis or has a theory, please share! I’d love to read it!

[messrsbyler]

went back to the scene in season 2 during the wheeler’s dinner, where karen is scolding mike for taking nancy’s money and lists him some of the things he’s done throughout the year and how this isn’t even strike three. maybe this is a reach, but i have a pretty cemented view on karen as a mother so… what karen says is “we’ve been patient michael” and for some reason that rang the alarms in my brain.

because karen says “we’ve been patient” as in “we’ve given you time and tolerated your bad behavior” and that just sits wrong with me. karen doesn’t say “we’ve been patient and understanding” or “we’ve been patient and there for you, but we can’t do more if you don’t work with us”. no. karen says “we’ve been patient” and then “this isn’t strike one. it’s not even strike three” and that sounds to me as in “we’ve given you time to lick your own wounds and we’ve overlooked your behaviour that clearly is a sign that something is wrong, but you still can’t get over the traumatic experience you went through on your own last year” a reach? maybe, but aligns with my view of karen.

it’s like back in season 1 when mike skips school and karen finds him at home. mike is so worried she’ll be mad at him (because it’s happened before that karen ignored mike being sick and sent him to school either way), but this time karen tells him she isn’t mad because she knows mike must be going through a lot with everything happening with will, and that’s where the scene stops. i don’t remember if this is the scene where she offers mike to go with her to get some shopping done or not and mike rejects her or what (i think that’s a different scene), but my point here is that karen sees mike is portraying an odd behavior (staying at home without telling anyone), she gives him a small talk, and then tolerates/overlooks said behavior. she doesn’t dig deeper to find the cause of said behavior, she just assumes she knows it and allows mike to act on it instead of truly being there for him with actions and not just words.

so when mike in season two is having all these problems at school with his bad behavior, karen is patient with him and overlooks it or doesn’t present any consequences to mike’s actions, letting him be and expecting him to get better with the power of time alone. and when mike doesn’t get better and karen deems she’s given him enough time, she punishes mike for not living up to expectations and not healing at the pace she set even though she’s not actively tried to help mike through his process. same with ted btw this applies for both of them.

mike’s parents set a timer on mike for him to heal of the trauma he underwent, and leave him alone to process it and heal from it on his own. or at least that’s what i get from that exchange at the table.

maybe i’m reaching, but i wouldn’t be surprised if mike’s parents did something like this…

oh, and this applies for nancy too with her trauma regarding barb’s death. we see nancy telling karen no one is listening to her, because it is true! when nancy was being interrogated and the cops paid more attention to a teen’s sexual life than the disappearance of yet another kid in town, karen didn’t have nancy’s back.

instead, once they go back home, karen reprimands nancy for lying to the cops and because she had sex with steve. karen is following her own agenda not seeing her daughter’s distress for her best friend, and nancy has to explode at her saying no one is listening.

and then in season two, knowing nancy’s friend is still missing, karen and ted still show no behavior of caring about nancy’s trauma or keeping an eye on nancy’s behavior and the signs that show she’s not okay. nancy returned home with alcohol spilled all over her, drunk out of her mind, brought back by a guy that isn’t her boyfriend late at night, and her parents didn’t notice a thing? and then nancy managed to go to murray’s house and spend the night away without any alarms activating in karen and ted’s head? even though nancy IS struggling with her trauma and guilt, so this is the moment for karen and ted to keep an eye in nancy’s behavior so they can be there for them. but they don’t, they just overlook because they expect things to be over and for their kids to have healed already. they aren’t involved in their process of healing, they just stand on the side and wait for their kids to push their way through.

just like how karen said “he’ll come to us when he’s ready,” she and ted keep waiting for their kids to be ready on their own and seek them out instead of being there for them.

[henrysglock]

dude creels are supposed to represent the byers, lol. how the hell karen is virginia coded? virginia was calling henry broken and such. she is lonnie's direct parallel. viktor is supposed to represent joyce, they are literally given the same lines. and alice is supposed to represent the jonathan, henry's big sibling. and henry is supposed to represent will. it is just gender bent byers family.

Okay, dude, let me direct you to my Link Library. It's pinned at the top of my blog. I have a post talking about Karen and Virginia vs Billy and Henry in there that details how they're the same. Begging you to read that.

The fact is that none of this is mutually exclusive because it's all tied together on a spectrum.

The Creels exist as a direct, clear, black and white foil to the Byers. They show us what Will could have been, and by extension what Henry could have been, if their places were reversed. They exist in static. They're extremes. They don't show us how the spectrum works.

So what about the Wheelers?

They're showing us the progression in real time. It shows us how a family exists in-between the extremes, and how change at any time can affect the outcome.

The Wheelers are so similar to the Creels. They're well off, they're normal, Karen/Virginia is the bad blonde mother, Ted is the ignorant father who does genuinely love his children, Nancy is the golden child older sister, and Mike is the gay scapegoat son who's slipping through the cracks. I'll come back to Holly.

The Wheelers are at a turning point. This is why character growth arcs will be so important in ST5.

Karen needs to actively show that she loves her children, rather than this "he'll come to us when he's ready" and "punishing/blaming Mike for his trauma response to Will's disappearance instead of meeting him with compassion" bullshit. That is how she escapes the Virginia coding she's progressed into across the seasons in ST5.

Ted needs to open his eyes. He needs to wise up and start actively fighting back. No more "ask your mother" "sit lamely in front of the TV" bullshit. He needs to continue his S4 discovery arc and physically fight back in ST5. He needs to escape his Victor-coding.

This directly ties into Mike, our Henry figure.

ST1: Karen is brunette, and she's the supportive Mike that we see her be.

ST2: She's got blonde highlights and the Virginia bangs make an appearance. This is the season where she punishes Mike for his trauma-linked misbehavior instead of reaching out with compassion.

ST3: She's full blonde with Virginia bangs and she's hitting on teenagers. Mike is still in Hawkins, but she has no idea where he is. At all. Meanwhile she's here supporting Nancy and giving her pep-talks. She's lost Mike.

ST4: She's still blonde, but the style is different. She's got the bangs, but she's also got a perm. She's changing. She's getting back to ST1 Karen, but she's not there yet. Mike is physically gone. When he comes back, she meets him with love (love that seemed to surprise him, if you recall).

I wouldn't be surprised if Karen is brunette with no bangs again in ST5, in which she moves back to the Joyce end of the spectrum. I think maybe she'll be supporting Mike more, she'll be actively fighting, she'll be in good mom mode.

Ted hasn't changed much across the seasons, not until ST4. His change may result in his death, which shifts our final picture to an inverse 1959 Creel/current Byers state.

Mother present, father gone. Both siblings alive and cared for. They've fully escaped the Creels.

Now I said I'd come back to Holly, and I'm doing that now.

Holly ties in with my siblings analysis part 2, and I'd suggest you read it for more detail. It's in my pinned post. To summarize:

El is the little sister Henry holds on to in hopes of replacing/atoning for Alice. This is why he keeps her around instead of just killing and absorbing her, and why he's so upset that she keeps going against him. She's the littlest sister in the Creel household by association.

Holly is the exception that proves my point. Holly completes the pattern.

It might be easier for me to diagram it.

Adult Henry wanted El to be his second sister, younger. She said no. El tried to become Mike's sister ("Nancy can be like your sister!" "Will you be like my brother?" "No"). He said no. El became Will's second sibling, and I'll bet she's younger than Will (who is already the oldest in the Party). They said yes.

This all works narratively because of the family structure and narrative patterns. El rejects Adult Henry because he's the opposite of the way he was the last time Alice was alive. El couldn't be Mike's second sister...because he already has one. El becomes Will's second sibling because Will is almost identical to Young Henry. So of course El, the Alice-proxy figure, adores Will and he adores her in return.

I hope that all makes sense.

We can use these two extreme families to figure out how the Wheeler family is going to end up in ST5.

If Karen/Ted begin to act less like Virginia/Victor and act more like Joyce/Jonathan (parentified), then they'll end with the inverse of the Creel ending (and vice versa).

Less like Creels: Karen, Nancy, Mike, and Holly live. Ted dies.

More like Creels: Ted lives. Karen, Nancy, Mike and Holly die.

This is why Nancy sees Karen, Mike, and Holly die but makes no mention of Ted. She's seeing the Creel ending, which is what Henry anticipates.

But Henry is a mirror, so we're going to get the inverse of Nancy's vision.

Hope this helps!

[meatychunks]

Don't know if anyone talked about this yet but Matthew Modine posted a video of El and Brenner with a quote taken from the second act of Romeo and Juliet.

To sum it up in modern terms, It's where Juliet compares her desire to control where Romeo goes to a spoiled child keeping their pet bird tired by a thread simular to a prisoner in shackles.

This perfectly represents their dynamic metaphorically, Brenner attempting to make himself the dominant aspect of El's identity for his selfish desires (framing it as "love") and knowing that'll end if the thread becomes too loose.

But that got me thinking, you know who else in the past was controlling about her identity.

where she has also been referred to as a "pet."

Expressed concern about her leaving.

AND be the only other pairing that's been compared to Romeo and Juliet?

[light-lanterne]

hmm, i just saw the loveliest gifset of nancy being protective of max and once again got reminded of the fact that she's never shown that amount of concern for mike.

for three seasons straight, she'd even leave him to his own devices when it wasn't the safest. ditching the kids at the gym in s1 regardless of the fact that they were being hunted,,, leaving them with steve in s2 when there were demodogs still at large (and knowing the kids have a proclivity towards getting themselves in danger),,, straight up driving away from starcourt, leaving them with no escape method, as well as russians and a flayed biIly in the premises (even when seeing first hand what happened to the last two flayed men they "killed").

in all three instances, mike's the only constant (which doesn't seem unintentional in the slightest) and it's not just about that. she's worried about will in s2 and s3,,, el in s3,,, max in s4,,, even on lower stake circumstances, she comforts dustin in s2, when he was sad at the snowball (even though mike was also moping at right around that same time).

and yet, for mike, she only showed concern in s1, a little in s3 (but it was mostly about will, seeing as he'd been targetted by the mf before), and a little in s4 after vecna shows her his plan.

idk,,, it just makes me sad to see her being so protective of everyone, pushing herself to be brave even when she's still just a teen girl who shouldn't be dealing with any of this, but always leaving her own brother to the end. almost like an afterthought; the last thing in her mind, only worrying about him when the big bad straight up shows her his death.

and even then, when he returns from cali after days of suspicious lack of contact, she doesn't give him a hug. doesn't ask how he's doing,,, doesn't even talk to him, from what we were shown.

because, after all, there are larger problems at hand than mike.

[foreverautumn89]

Every clue that Lonnie was abusive Pt 3

There is a couple of points of abuse in here kind of all wrapped together: Jonathan says Will is really good at hiding. So good at hiding that even the police couldn't find him so Jonathan thinks. Police who are trained to find hidden things.

Jonathan thinks they won't be able to find him. Although theres more to this one hold up so…either way you frame this I dont know whcih one is the truth or if both are true but either way it confirms Lonnie is abusive: Why is Will so good at hiding? Another clue. Well Will got so good at hiding because Will and Jonathan would have to hide from Lonnie and when Jonathan was fighting Lonnie off and protecting Will, Will would go and hide and would have to hide often. So much that he got so good at it.

And/or Jonathan was again making up an excuse that the cops wouldn't be able to find Will's body and Lonnie was good at covering up his bad behavior and what type of person he is [we know this to be true given the funeral scene] and Jonathan would know where to look first where Lonnie possibly hid the evidence so Lonnie couldn't get away with it. He also would know if Lonnie was lying to the cops which is why Jonathan wanted to be there to hear what Lonnie had to say and Jonathan didn't trust the cops he was so used to Lonnie talking his way out of things with everyone and always just getting away with everything. Either way it confirms the abuse and the fact that a certain someone was ignoring the abuse and making up excuses for Lonnie.

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

Hopper refuses to let Jonathan go and tells him so. ''Yeah well cops are good at finding. Stay here with your mom she needs you." Again, I'm not sure if Hopper is competely aware of the abuse or hes strongly suspecting it. Its never clear.

In this part Hopper was either testing his theory to see Jonathan's reaction to figure out if Jonathan was being abused OR he did this because thats just Hopper being stern with him. But either way, Jonathan's reaction is what gives it away that he was abused. Hopper grabs Jonathan by the shoulders and Jonathan looks frozen and scared because usually when hes grabbed by an older man what came after was what Lonnie did to him. Then Hopper gives him a punch on the arm to see his reaction. If Hopper was trying to figure out if his theory was correct-Jonathan's reaction to all of that just proved it [and notice he continues to hunt down Lonnie] If Hopper knew Jonathan was being abused already and didn't need to test it, than that was just Hopper being stern with him and the little 'man to man' punch on the arm was intended to be a manly sorry about grabbing you way.

Really what I think was happening was Hopper grabbing him so aggressively was not what was intended, that just shows how scared Hopper was of Jonathan going there to see Lonnie. He was so scared he grabbed Jonathan because he was that terrified of another kid getting lost. and the pucn on the arm was to a manly thing to say sorry about grabbing you in alarm, buddy. Didn't mean to.' But even this way shows how scared Hopper is by the thought of Jonathan being around Lonnie. So either way you interpret that situation, it all points to abuse.

Jonathan disobeys Hopper and goes to Lonnie's house anyway to look for Will BY HIMSELF since Hopper wouldn't let him go, Jonathan is going to save Will from that monster one way or another. And it shows that Jonathan doesn't trust the police/any authority figure to do their job because hes so used to that happening. Again going back to everything I said in the previous posts about why that is.

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

On the drive to Lonnies, Jonathan remembers him and Will listening to should I say or should I go and the relevant bit to this discussion is Will saying 'Idk its fun to go with him [Lonnie] sometimes'. The ppl claiming that Jonathan and Will were never abused always try to bring this up to debunk the Jonathan and Will were abused 'theory'. But it actually does the OPPOSITE.

Usually abuse victims have something called 'stolkholm syndrome' where someone loves their abuser and wants their approval. And this happens often with abusive parents and thier children. Because you're taught that you should love your mom and dad no matter what. Even if they're mean to you sometimes they just want whats best for you. Society not realizing the problem with telling children this-or at least telling abused children this. The rest of the world teaches them that its wrong not forgive your parents mistakes. Its wrong to not love your parents. So Will and Jonathan don't want to be bad people and even naturally they loved their dad because he is their dad. He was the one that didn't care about them, it wasn't the other way around.

They went through what every child went through: Wanting to spend time with your father and be close to him and make him proud and to get his approval. It must have taken a lot for Jonathan to overcome that and ofc the fans don't appreciate this fact. That Jonathan had to learn and teach himself the right things and raise himself and then Will: That if you have to change everything you are for someone to love you then they don't really love you [like what they went through with Lonnie]. If they really loved you they wouldnt want to change you, they'd love you for who you are. This also applies to Jonathan's issue with the Hawkins townspeople because they also believe that you should change everything you are to be accepted/popular/fit in. And ofc the fans also think Jonathan is disgusting for this and paint it as him 'thinking hes better than everyone''.

When really its just that Jonathan believes that you should be loved for who you truly are, not be somebody elses idea of perfect to be loved. Jonathan believes and had to learn the hard way that you should love and accept yourself for who you truly are and real love is when someone loves you for who you truly are. Like how he and Will love and accept each other and in this scene Jonathan even tells encourages Will to stop pleasing Lonnie ext and Jonathan shows that he loves Will for who he truly is.

That will doesn't have to pretend to be someone hes not with Lonnie to receive a fake version of love for him, when Will has someone who loves him as is always by his side [Jonathan]. And Jonathan even proves it to the audience that he means this when he asks Will again So you like this [the song] for real? Will nodded and smiled 'For real' and they danced to the song together. It was showing us that Jonathan was making sure that Will wasn't just saying he liked the song because Jonathan liked it and Will thought that was what J wanted to hear. He was making sure Will liked it because he really liked it, not to get someone elses approval.

[crunchcrunchteacakes]

I see many people speculating that just like Yuri unconscious Loid will call out Yor’s name, especially since Fiona disguise looks so much like Yor’s and she has been exhibiting Yor like strength in the recent chapters.

It might just happen, the black hair and the way they frame the face the bag and the coat with buttons really look like Yor’s outdoor ensemble. Is Fiona subconsciously trying to look like Yor to make Loid fall for her or is she purposefully trying to emulate Yor’s disguise so that she can take Yor’s place in Operation Strix?

But also Winston Wheeler looks suspiciously like Twilight too, they even have the same mannerisms.

And when I was reading the below panel it sort of felt like foreshadowing of Yor and Loid’s fight because of how much Wheeler and Fiona looked like Twiyor.

Wheeler like Twilight is an extremely talented spy, calm under pressure, good with disguise and an resourceful agent. They both talk about not forming sentimental attachments and not investing into anything. Wheeler is a mole/double agent with no clear loyalties who seems to be a Spy for his own amusement as he is to sacred to trust anyone other then himself. Twilight to doesn’t trust anyone other then himself, he has a strong sense of responsibility in that it is his responsibility and his alone to make his mission successful. That makes him take his job very seriously by making his mission the most important thing in his life. They both will soon discover that it’s not weakness to depend on others. Twilight felt powerless as an orphan his childhood was filled with loneliness and without hope so that’s the way he chooses to live his adulthood to. Just like Yor found her motivation during the Cruise Arc, I think Loid will find it at the end of this arc to. What good would his abandoning of forger family be if it comes at the cost of making Anya cry?

Whereas Fiona, like Yor shows that Wheeler’s philosophy are wrong, emotions don’t make you weak but lend you strength, as strength can only be found when trying to protect someone other then yourself, by sacrificing yourself for the sake of another. Fiona sacrificed her limbs while Yor sacrificed her soul. Difference is while Fiona is selfish as her motivations are to gain Twilight’s affections , she has a dangerous obsession towards Twilight and will make sure to obtain him by any means necessary, like sabotage Operation Strix, no matter how Twilight himself will be affected in the end because the only thing she care about is her own feelings. Yor took on the role of both mother and father for Yuri, provided him with all the resources, support and love necessary to make him into a functional adult and this sacrifice came at the cost of her own childhood and innocence. But it is selfless and that’s why Yuri returns the affection in such magnitudes. Both Fiona and Yor need to learn to do things for themselves, Fiona needs to discover who she is apart from her obsession for Twilight. And Yor needs to learn value herself she needs to accept the love she readily gives others.

So I think Wheeler and Fiona are supposed to represent the dark side of Twiyor’s professions and extremes of their personalities. They are Loid and Yor if Loid and Yor didn’t have Nobel motivations of creating a world where children don’t cry or protecting Yuri’s carefree childhood. But at the same time Wheeler and Fiona represent what Loid and Yor would eventually become without having Anya of each other in their life.

[kittyvolvox]

sometimes, i think about the will byers situation from nancy's perspective. how in the first scene, el finds will and everyone's so relieved. but then, when el looks for barb, she's already dead. and everyone just continues on, thinking about a plan for will. but barb's still dead, it's too late for her. and nancy just has to live with that, that will gets to come home but barb doesn't.

then the second scene - this whole time, her and jonathan have had their grief in common, but now they just... don't. because his brother's coming home but her barb isn't. like jonathan's still there for her, but not in the same way, he just can't understand it, not fully anymore. he can try to, but he won't understand nancy's grief in the same way. because he/the byers family/mike got a miracle and she didn't.

imagine how painful s2 must've been for nancy. seeing will walking around, knowing that barb didn't get to come back too. i wonder if she ever felt a little jealous of mike and jonathan and joyce, seeing them all with will. then, the guilt of feeling that jealousy when will was so young and it would've torn mike & the byers apart if it had been will who died instead. on top of that, everyone seems to have forgotten barb except for a key few people like barb's parents and murray and jonathan.

[ectonurites]

Mike & Superman

So, I want to take a second to discuss the Superman comparison from the van scene in relation to Superman in the comics (specifically his origin, or at least the version of it that Mike as a character would likely be familiar with).

(Stranger Things S4E8)

The general situation I think we're all aware of is that Mike compares El to Superman and since El's his girlfriend (even though they weren't in the best standing the last time they'd talked before this, that's still more or less the situation) he makes an attempt to parallel himself to Lois Lane. Which makes enough sense at first glance—Lois is Clark's primary love interest, this is pretty common knowledge even among people who aren’t terribly invested in Superman lore. But from the way Mike trails off here, it's clear that he feels he doesn't measure up to Lois, he's just some 'random nerd' as he says.

Is that his self-doubt and insecurity talking? Absolutely. But I don’t think he’s wrong about one aspect of it—that he doesn’t fit the role of Lois Lane when we compare El to Superman. He does fit into the story in a different way though!

What I primarily want to talk about is rooted in his specific phrasing when he starts this comparison, "Superman landed on his doorstep." As evident from the bit of the conversation right before this, when he says that he's talking about when The Party found El in the woods, when she'd recently escaped and just 'needed someone'

(Stranger Things S1E1)

And much like El, Superman did once crash land in front of some kind strangers when he entered into a world/society unlike the one he came from and definitely just 'needed someone'...

But Superman landed in front of Ma & Pa Kent, not Lois Lane. 

Clark's origin has had many many retellings over the years, but from literally the late 30's this has been a consistent element of the story in basically every iteration—be it comics, movies, cartoons. Considering the time period Stranger Things takes place in, when talking about the comics (and like, we know our characters are comic nerds) I'd consider the Silver Age/Earth-One retelling to be the most relevant (because while Crisis on Infinite Earths did just happen in 1985, the Post-Crisis Superman lore updates weren't getting established until later in 1986 after S4 takes place):

(Superman Vol. 1 #146)

And I mean... 'It would be suspicious to just suddenly have this child we found, so we'll try to have them be discovered somewhere else as if we hadn't been the ones to find them' sure sounds familiar

(Stranger Things S1E2)

But anyways, my point here is that the people who are there for Superman when he’s new to Earth—the people that take care of him and give him a new name—they welcome him into their family:

(Superman Vol. 1 #146)

(Stranger Things S1E2)

(Stranger Things S1E8)

...they're not his love interests. Like, Clark and Lois meet at the Daily Planet when they’re both adults:

(Superman Vol. 1 #146)

They don't meet until after Clark has already spent years growing up on Earth, not when it's all entirely new to him! Lois isn’t his first girlfriend/teenage love interest, Lois is a person he falls for once he is his own fully realized adult person.

Mike doesn’t fit the role of El's Lois not because he's not good enough or any of the reasons his self-doubt might try to make him believe—he isn't El's Lois because that's just the wrong comparison for their situation altogether. When considering El to be Superman, with the way Mike starts this comparison he's (whether on purpose or not) paralleling himself far more closely to Superman's parents—his family—than Superman's love interest.

[aemiron-main]

soooo normal about Karen, Ted, and Holly having a family bonding moment on the ferris wheel in s3 while Mike and Nancy are busy getting traumatized yet again

[stranger-chichka]

Another familial connection between Mike & El: Nancy, cousin Joanna, cousin Eleanor & Jane from Lenora Hills

Nancy (whose name means “favor" or "grace”) has a cousin named Joanna (meaning “God is gracious”). Another form of the name Joanna is ... Jane (it has the same meaning).

Jane is Eleven's real name, but Mike doesn't know it, so he calls her El (meaning "God"). El is a nickname for Eleanor and, well, a few episodes later he calls her his cousin Eleanor (meaning “merciful” -- from ancient Greek “éleos/ἔλεος” = compassion/mercy -- and “God is my light”).

In s4 Jane lives in Lenora Hills, California. Lenora is a variant of the name Eleonor.

And Mike, again, is referred to as her brother: "We're her brothers, and we're family."

Let's go back to Nancy. Her name is originally a diminutive form of Anne or Ann, and the names Hannah, Anna, Anne, Ann are etymologically related to Joanna: they are derived from Hebrew חַנָּה Ḥannāh "grace" from the same verbal root meaning "to be gracious."

Oh, as I was checking the meaning of the name Nancy the first thing that google gives is this:

And the Duffers gave us THAT scene: Steve calls Mike "Nancy" while having a rainbow Band-Aid on his face. HOW CRAZY IS THAT??? But wait....

Mike's first word after his first kiss with El is "Nancy."

Also, in s2 Mike & El are saying their goodbyes (the scene starts with Nancy looking at them) at the same spot he reunited with Nancy in 1 while EL was wearing her clothes.

Even Hopper's car is at the same damn place!

Not to mention their Snow Ball dance paralleling Dustin & Nancy's (credit to @heroesbyler).

[strawberrybyers]

so the photo of mike is resting on a “see, hear, read” vinyl. many of these were made for different stories. the one featured in the image is “the swiss family robinson” vinyl

here’s a synopsis of what the story is about (also in the original book, william is just known as father, but in one of the many adaptations of the story he develops the name william which ya know is interesting considering stranger things has their own will)

while looking up the lore of “the swiss family robinson”, i discovered that there was a comic series developed in 1962 and continued releasing comics until 1982 in a series called “space family robinson”.

i am intrigued because it mentions a war between two planets, so in stranger things terms “hawkins vs the upside down”. the robinsons meet telepathic tripods, which we could could compare to el and any other kids from the lab. it also mentions fixing the station’s power source and considering there has always been an emphasis of electricity and lights in stranger things and there’s been even more hints regarding those things with them filming at a radio station— that intrigues me. there’s a mention of being able to “restructure matter with their thoughts”… isn’t that kali/008’s and vecna’s power?? now idk who tam is, but considering will was the first to go into the upside down and was kept alive, could he be “tam” and the “aliens” be vecna since vecna obviously isn’t done with will yet?? then the final mention is that the swiss family lands on a duplicate earth which they think is home. THE UPSIDE DOWN IS LITERALLY A CARBON COPY OF HAWKINS ON NOVEMBER 6, 1983!!!!!

[emblazons]

so I posted about how the mlvn breakup + Max talking to her mom leading into a Vecna vision making to clear the scenes were at the very least thematic parallels (while mentioning 2 other scenes where the track was used) but I got a couple of asks requesting clarity about what I thought the connection was, so!

Here's a video with all 4 uses of the alt-Eulogy included, with notes demarcating elements that make it clear they're the same.

the scenes are:

El losing her connection to Terry Ives in the Void in 'Will the Wise'

Hopper reaching out to El via radio when she's gone in 'The Spy'

The Mlvn Fight in 'The Monster and The Superhero'

Max's time with her mom turning into a Vecna vision in 'Dear Billy'

Each of these scenes has a familial love undertone (including the mlvn fight if you take all of my other 'parentified mike' commentary at value) while also carrying some element of loss of connection or emotional distance—aka an relational loss to the "actual" loss of death we see for the uses of actual Eulogy (which plays when Nancy cries over Barb while at dinner with her parents, and when Mike is talking about how a recently-dead Bob started the AV club).

TL;DR: when you look at all the other times this track has been used in the show, it becomes clear that its use for the mlvn fight is a coded signifier of the fact that Mike's "care" (and later 'love') for El is platonic-familial, rather than romantic—which is why he struggles to say it to her when she wants him to say it romantically.

Given the fact that in S1 we started with "will you be like my brother," them giving S5 being like 'S4 & S1 had a baby," it is clear with this (along with 4899273 other bits of evidence) that rounding back to the start with these two means we're getting breakup-meets-familial vibes from mvln come S5. Which, if you know El's arc is about found family rather than romance, makes complete sense! lmao

[henrysglock]

'ted should shoot a demogorgon'. no actually karen should shoot a demogorgon, it is her time tbh because you are telling me karen, who has usually been supportive of nancy and mike does not get to shine but ted's lazy ass comes and takes the charge? yeah no bro let karen and joyce team up actually.

hey anon it might shock you to know that these things can coexist. they’re not mutually exclusive.

Karen stepping up to be an actively good parent alongside Joyce would separate her from her Virginia coding. That would be character growth. That would be good, and it’s more than possible.

Ted also deserves character growth, though. We’ve seen him begin to grow already in s4. Him physically fighting/dying to save his children would separate him from the trap of Victor coding. Him doing this alongside Murray and/or Hopper would be peak comedy, too.

The Wheelers stepping up and not remaining ignorant would separate them from their Creel coding.

Long story short: Mirror effect.

[lunabug2004]

Has anyone else ever wondered if maybe Mike has always felt out of place in his family, even when he was incredibly young, purely because his appearance, specifically his black (curly?) hair, is so starkly different from the rest of his family's?

Idk if this is just me, but whenever a picture of the Wheelers is shown, he stands out. I don't know if this was necessarily on purpose, or if it even holds any type of meaning, like him feeling out of place even in his own home & family, but it's something to think about ig. 🤷‍♀️