thestrangestthing89

[thestrangestthing89]

Time Travel and DID

We know Will was dressed as Marty McFly from Back to the Future in S1. In the movie, Marty accidentally erases himself when he goes into the past. Each season, we have seen Will disappearing in some way. S1 - The Vanishing of Will Byers - Will isn't shown in this season much except in flashbacks. We get glimpses of his past with Joyce and Jonathan. In the present he is missing, but the whole show revolves around finding him. So visibly we don't see him until the end, but his presence is there. He's not forgotten. S2 - We see Will physically but he's slowly disappear inside himself when he's possessed. He's Phineas Gage and no longer acts like himself. His real self is gone and replaced by the Mind Flayer. I think the MF is possibly one of his alters taking over. It's the possessed form of DID.

I believe the other alters (El, Billy, Henry, Eddie, and possibly a few others) are the nonpossessed "out of body" alters. They are literally out of his body. In S3 and S4 Will is noticeably in the background of the story. He's there but not an active participant in the main plot. He's hiding and sometimes blending into the background. I think he's removing himself from the story, however subconsciously. He's watching himself in a movie like the description above says. (And we are watching the "blockbuster" movie that is S3).

All of these describe Will at some point in the series. And he has been acting like a bystander the past 2 seasons. Time loss is associated with people who DID as well. This looks like - waking up in locations without knowing how they got there (Will waking up in a field in S2), "their entire childhood might be blank", and finding art and possessions the individual does not recognize (Will not understand what he was drawing).

I think the time travel on the show isn't going to be exactly like the time travel that we are used to seeing in movies like Back to the Future. It won't be the gang going back in time to prevent Will's kidnapping. That is cliched and boring. Plus the show is about healing and acceptance. Changing the past to prevent anything bad from happening goes against this idea.

Instead I think the time travel will be different than what is expected and in 2 parts: 1) Going back in time in Will's memories so that he can piece together what happened in his childhood (his birthday and his father's abuse that he "vaguely" remembers). This would likely happen in Will's head or from conversations with other people. This would be where the DID tie in comes in. He needs to heal from the past. He needs to connect the pieces of his past that are missing. 2) The more sci-fi part of the story - Their timeline is wrong. The multiverse theory. We've already seen Mr. Clarke explain the Many Worlds Theory so this is already a component to the show. A very brief, simplistic explanation of this is that there are parallel universes. One where 1 person lives, the other where the person dies. I think this is what we are seeing when we get a fake out character death. It's a parallel universe that we are seeing. (@greenfiend talked about John Wheeler in this post.)

I think both of these make sense because the show has been referencing psychology and physics a lot since the very beginning. Will being the main character means he is likely at the center of this. As the fix, as someone who unintentionally messed with the timelines, or both. Will healing from the past will be the thing that fixes the timeline.

[thestrangestthing89]

Thinking about this idea that the subtext is merging with the text. I think we see this a lot with this show, not just the realities blending. Kali has manifesting powers. Specifically she can make people see things that aren't there. She makes them hallucinate. She makes people see what she wants them to see. And I think Kali is in Will's subconscious. Not only as an alter who is a piece of him but as a personification of anger. He needs to accept this part of himself to heal. And by doing so, accepts her powers as well (powers=sexuality). But if we peel back another layer I think not only does this suggest that Will has these powers, but the show is what he wants us to see. He can create and manifest what he wants. He can make people see whatever he wants. He's an artist. He shapes his reality. And he's making the audience see a version of reality where he blends into the background and fades away, but he's actually right there controlling everything the whole time. He wants to step back and have someone else in charge. So that's the version of reality we see. He's making us see what he wants us to see.

Subtext becomes text. Subconscious becomes conscious.

[thestrangestthing89]

Thinking about this idea that the subtext is merging with the text. I think we see this a lot with this show, not just the realities blending. Kali has manifesting powers. Specifically she can make people see things that aren't there. She makes them hallucinate. She makes people see what she wants them to see. And I think Kali is in Will's subconscious. Not only as an alter who is a piece of him but as a personification of anger. He needs to accept this part of himself to heal. And by doing so, accepts her powers as well (powers=sexuality). But if we peel back another layer I think not only does this suggest that Will has these powers, but the show is what he wants us to see. He can create and manifest what he wants. He can make people see whatever he wants. He's an artist. He shapes his reality. And he's making the audience see a version of reality where he blends into the background and fades away, but he's actually right there controlling everything the whole time. He wants to step back and have someone else in charge. So that's the version of reality we see. He's making us see what he wants us to see.

Subtext becomes text. Subconscious becomes conscious.

[thestrangestthing89]

Mike and Will’s queer love story is the hidden code #codegate

How the entire show is filled with layers of code meant to be cracked

First of all, I must say this: the deeper you dig within the story the more spectacular it becomes. There has been a hidden deeper story within the story this entire time. Check out this Substack article that delves deeper into that!

The symmetry of the layers and metaphors are ever so carefully crafted. I hope I’ll be able to properly articulate the beauty of this within this post.

The Hays Code

For those who don’t know, the film industry was heavily censored from the 1930s-1960s. Explicit depictions of homosexuality were banned. This led to the creation of queer coding. Queer coding was a way to imply queerness; to show but not tell. Essentially, queerness had to hide within the metaphorical closet: the subtext. Many media today still shy away from explicit depictions of queerness due to the potential backlash and rely on queer coding and metaphors to depict queerness. I think Stranger Things is breaking free of this.

“The Hays Code forbade the use of profanity, obscenity, and racial slurs and included detailed instructions outlining how certain topics should be shown on screen, especially proscribing graphic violence, criminality, substance use, promiscuity, miscegenation, and homosexuality.” X

Queer Coding

Queer coding was the loophole filmmakers found to depict queerness. Queerness was implied but never explicit. Within Stranger Things, most of us are well aware that the queer coding is abundant. Will Byers, especially, has been heavily queer coded since the very beginning. It wasn’t until the most recent season that he emerged out of the metaphorical closet (the subtext). The painting and his speech made his homosexuality explicit for the audience. Mike, on the other hand, remains within the metaphorical closet (for now) with many implicit clues.

Much like Alan Turing, Will Byers is a “code breaker”, meaning- he broke the queer code. He may also break another queer code.

Codes within the show

Codes and secret messages are frequently used within the text of the show. Our character struggle to find the answers and the true meanings behind the codes. It’s a reoccurring theme for a reason.

Computer Codes

As said in this post:

Mike - has print of Charles Babbage in his basement. He was known as "The Father of the Computer".

Will - did a project on Alan Turing. He was known as "The Father of Computer Science". He was specifically known for breaking the enigma code. And of course, he was gay as well.

Mike is a computer with a code. Will is the code breaker. The code?

Perhaps... the very first song sung by a computer? That just so happened to be the same song in the background of the Russian code being spoken in ST3? That song being...

The song itself is of one person sending a message to the other. A love message which conflates "crazy" with "love" and the original sender's name is "Michael". The code itself came from the basement (!!!) of the mall from Russians who asked Joyce and Hopper if “Mikhail” (Russian version of the name Michael) sent for them. Meaning... Michael was the one sending the message. I’m telling you this is all intentional, the writers cleverly set up this hidden code for us to crack.

The Russian Code

Robin, our first explicitly queer character, hypothesizes that the true meaning of the message (the Russian code) would only need to be masked if it were sensitive. It's something that needed to be hidden. Much like a gay person in the 1980s or a film with queer themes during the time of the hays code.

The Russian code itself is a hidden message of Will and Mike's love story. Blue = Mike, Yellow = Will. I do think there's multiple layers/meanings to the code as well, but one major one (in my opinion) is of Mike and Will connecting at Lover's Lake and entering a new world. More on that in this post.

Will always had to communicate in code

At the very beginning of the show, Will (who is described as overtly gay by others) vanishes to the Upside Down. Let’s take a step back and look at this through a meta lens. Will is perceived as “too gay” (by the audience) and is forced into a hidden realm (the subtext) of the story. Will is forced to “hide” in the story and only express himself/communicate to others through codes (through the lights, walkie talkie, etc) much like the whole concept of queer coding. He doesn’t have the luxury of being direct because… people won’t like the truth (the audience and the people of Hawkins).

Will and Mike communicate their love in code

Due to risk of their own safety, Mike and Will have to express their feelings carefully and subtly. We often see them speak about their feelings indirectly, hoping the other understands the true meaning of their message.

It’s well established that Mike and Will use “El” and “DnD” to communicate their feelings indirectly. But I think they have been doing this in other scenes as well, even in this scene:

While I may not know the exact message being sent here, the fact that Mike looked confused is a huge clue that there’s a double meaning here… a hidden code. More about this in this post.

The direction I think the story is heading

While some who have noticed Will and Mike's love story hidden within the subtext do not believe it will emerge within the text itself, I wholeheartedly disagree. I think a huge theme of the story is the importance of being true to oneself. To be proud of being authentically different. To go against what has been done before. Obviously this works within the story with Mike and Will expressing their love explicitly, but it also works on a meta level. The show runners are doing something different here by making the implicit queerness explicit. They will tell us the truth, even if some may not like it.

I also have to add to the earlier point I made about the Upside Down being a metaphor for subtext. At the end of ST4, that hidden realm became undeniably real, and completely exposed to the residents of Hawkins. This parallels with Will coming out of the metaphorical closet by revealing his painting to the audience. The truth is partially out in the open now.

Key word: partially. We are half way there! Luckily there's an entire new season to come. I think we can expect the curtains to open up real wide (and the curtains behind those curtains too!)

I believe the show has even cleverly hinted to us how the truth will be uncovered back in ST3:

"I know this is a difficult conversation to have... but I hope you know that I... care about you very much. I know that you both care about each other very much. Which is why I think it's important to establish these boundaries... moving forward... so we can build an environment... where we... all feel comfortable and trusted and open... to sharing our feelings..."

Being open and sharing feelings will lead to order being restored! The logical conclusion here is that Mike and Will will both come out of the closet and the metaphorical closet together.

Conclusion

Hidden at its core, Stranger Things has always been centred around Will and Mike's queer love story. This story has been hiding within the show’s subtext this entire time. No, this does not mean other characters or relationships aren’t beautiful and important. No, this does not mean that self love and acceptance aren’t important aspects of the story. The point is that everything connects back to the love between these two boys. Their love holds everything together. "Without heart, we all fall apart".

The two of them will need to choose love over fear and need to learn that being different is a beautiful thing. This will be the solution to the show's major conflict.

Breaking the hays code -> breaking the queer code -> breaking the in show codes -> breaking the Will/Mike code

[thestrangestthing89]

It's unfortunate this show got so popular. I say this because it's about outcasts and it became cool. It's ironic and so annoying. So now the fandom is a place where people who genuinely love the show want to analyze it the way they do in other fandoms, but they now have to contend with people who are only watching because it's trendy. They don't get the show and I don't think they like it. But they don't want fomo. So all the nerds and outcast who feel seen by the story end up having to deal with what basically amounts to high school bullying tactics from the cool crowd. The people who watch simply because everyone else is don't get it but they very badly want to. They want to feel included because they always are included in the cool thing. And often times this ends up being a situation where they are "joking" and using edgy language because they see people who have been discriminated against trying to reclaim those things and they think it makes them part of the group they want to feel a part of. But it ends up coming across as offensive because it's not theirs to claim and they need to be more considerate of other peoples feelings and perspectives. It's frustrating that they don't see the message of the show. It's meant to make people on the fridge of society feel included. But those people can't even take up space in the fandom half the time without setting tons of boundaries because everything ultimately is about the comfort of the cool people. They aren't used to not being prioritized or given space.

👏👏👏

[thestrangestthing89]

Maybe I'm overly sensitive and easily irritated, but the Byler fandom has a real issue with how they speak about gay characters and sexuality. You guys really gotta watch it. It's a bit tooooo aggressive sometimes where I think maybe the intention is hyper excitement or joking in "tumblr speak" but just... watch what you're doing. And think.

Should you really be screaming about Mike being a fairy and calling him Queerler??? Can you replace what you wrote with faggot and HEY would a bigot gladly say it? Think critically and kindly. We're here to uplift and support and love these characters, but the aggression is off putting and has been for years. Had to speak up. It makes the actual irl gay men in this fandom really side-eye certain behavior 😒

[thestrangestthing89]

I love that ST wrote Robin as the show's code-breaker.

The Hays Code invented queer-coding...

Her character is a play on breaking out of queer-coded subtext and into the narrative text!

And then to give that queer character code-breaker lines like "blue meets yellow in the west"... It's foreshadowing that they'll be breaking Mike and Will's queer-code in S5 and bringing it into the narrative text.

"The nature of their message is sensitive..." - Robin

[thestrangestthing89]

And being erased is a part of Back to the Future. I think we've already seen Will try to erase himself in S3 and 4. He hides and blends into the background. He pushes people away. S3 especially is when he's more isolated. His own family doesn't really check in on him much (and we know they are overprotective). His friends ignore him. He's taking himself out of the narrative and putting El in it instead. Erasing himself and having El live his life.

Not exactly literal erasing but erasing from the narrative. A step back from main character to background character. He needs to reclaim his spot.

I feel like we often get carried away with analyzing characters as if they were real people. What I mean is- we take their actions, words, and decisions at literal face value and that’s it. But the thing is, these characters are written within a story that has a greater narrative purpose. There are often layers to the choices being made by the characters- some dialogue or action may be said to both 1. Serve the surface level story 2. Serve as metaphors.

For example: Mike’s choice to jump off the cliff.

On the surface (the text), it is a way to show how much he cares about his friends as he was willing to risk his own life to save Dustin from being assaulted by bullies.

As a metaphor (the subtext), it is a way to show him following Will in death. Further evident by the line said by Ted Wheeler “so your friend jumps off a cliff, you’d jump too?”.

This show uses metaphors and subtext to hint at MANY things and it’s honestly so interesting. What’s especially interesting is that I think the Upside Down is a metaphor for the subtext itself. A hidden world/story beneath the surface that many people deny the existence of (at first). Until, the cracks become so large that it becomes undeniable. The subtext is literally becoming the text.

[thestrangestthing89]

Lets dig into this. The Wheelers. Specifically Mike and Ted and what their behavior tells us within the themes and subtext of the show. I'm not going to get into Nancy's relationship with her parents much. And I'm not rehashing everything that happened in the series between them. What's important is this - Nancy struggles to communicate with Karen in the beginning but by S3 this is different. The two learned to communicate. Communication is a main theme of the show. So we have a successful example of characters learning and growing. This is a model for the way we are meant to view our other characters - Nancy and Karen don't communicate in S1 but learn to later. Nancy trusts her mother. She's vulnerable with her and Karen supports her. (Remember this vulnerability. It's important.) Nancy's relationship with Ted is not depicted on the show. It's not important for the narrative. That doesn't mean there is neglect with this relationship or with the writing, just simply that it's not necessary to drive the plot forward. Mike's relationship with his parents is different than Nancy's. Mike also struggles with openly communicating even though Karen gives him a space to talk in S1. I'm not going to get into the subtext here because I wrote about it in another post. But essentially, Mike is realizing what his feelings for Will are and it's causing him to not want to talk to his parents. He has a secret. Karen can give him a safe space to talk all she wants, but he doesn't want to talk about it/doesn't know how to talk about it. But we do see him going to Karen for emotional comfort - for hugs and when he's crying. He just isn't talking yet. Baby steps. We see this a bit with Will and Joyce too. She has to beg him to talk about what happened to him in S2. This is subtext for Will starting to talk about his csa. He doesn't want to talk about it. Not because he doesn't trust his mother. But because he doesn't know how to talk about it. He doesn't have the words (You know who else doesn't always have the words? El. This is connected.) Will also is scared and feels shame about what happened to him. These are things he needs to work past in S5 in order to fulfill the character arc of healing and emotional vulnerability. Will has a great relationship with his mother. That doesn't mean he wants to tell her everything (he also doesn't remember everything which has been hinted at pretty heavily.) Mike also has to go through a similar arc. His mother opened up a conversation that he didn't want to take part in. But in order for his character arc to be complete (and for this lose end to be closed like it was for Nancy), this conversation will come up again in S5. Mike not having this conversation with his mother sooner is about him working through his feelings, learning to communicate, and learning to be vulnerable before that conversation happens. Character growth! Speaking your truth out loud is a theme. Mike and Will need to learn to express themselves and be vulnerable emotionally. That is the reason they aren't confiding in their mothers.

Being vulnerable and learning to communicate feelings are GIANT themes of this show. Specifically for the male characters. Remember how we see Nancy and Karen learn to work through their communication issues? They had an easier time of it. They bonded over something familiar to both of them - being female in a world dominated by men. They don't have the exact same experiences but found something in common that helped them understand each other.

Now lets get into Ted and Mike. Because this is where I believe some of the main messages of the show are. I think Ted and Mike are meant to be a point of comparison for Lonnie and Will. Ted is different than Lonnie. His main issue with Mike is that he doesn't understand him. They are very different people. And Mike is different. But Ted isn't abusive like Lonnie. Just kind of confused by him. Hello again communication theme. They are struggling to communicate! Where have we heard this before?? I wrote before about how I think toxic masculinity is one of the main themes of the show. For Will, and Mike, and Ted. Jonathan is the point of comparison here. He openly talks about feelings with Will. But guess what? He's another male character who struggles with vulnerability when it comes to his own problems. He's a lying liar about college. And they specifically point out that Lonnie is the reason why. Lonnie is the key to everything on this show.

All these characters have a lot of learning and growing to do when it comes to expressing themselves. So moving forward next season, I believe we will get to see Mike and Will continuing on their path and learning to communicate and be vulnerable, not just with each other but with the people around them. Like I said in a different post, Mike is having an easier time of it than Will. And part of that is because his father didn't abuse him like Lonnie abused Will. He has less trauma to work through. Mike is annoyed by his father (the eye rolling) but he's not threatened by him. Which is why I think we will see Ted and Mike actually work through their problems. A thing that can't happen with Lonnie and his relationship with Will and Jonathan. Like Nancy and Karen, Ted and Mike can also find something they have in common in order to improve their relationship. Relationships between fathers and sons is a theme that comes up a lot on this show. Ted and Mike are the only pair where I think it narratively makes sense to show them working past this. This show doesn't need another emotionally stunted father. What it needs is for one of them to actually learn from his mistakes with his son. We get this with Hopper a bit. His communication problems with El resolved in S3. They worked through it. What we don't have is a father and son dynamic that improves and changes for the better. Hopper is a male character who acknowledges his mistakes, apologizes for them, and learns to be emotionally vulnerable. Who else do we see this with throughout the series? Mike. Mike is always the one reaching out and apologizing, at least with Will (and El). I suspect his mothers influence. He's slowly getting better at this through the series. So what did Nancy and Karen need to work through their problems? Emotional vulnerability, communication, and something in common to find common ground. What is that for Ted and Mike? Not D&D. Highly doubt there is a heartwarming montage of them playing in the basement together in their future. For them, it's being a leader. Ted can understand this stereotypical male role (he was in the army after all) and Mike the Paladin fits right into it. There is understanding to be had here. Plus, lets not forget we already saw a sign of growth in S4. Mike calls the Satanic Panic article "bullshit media propaganda" and at the end of the season we get Ted calling the news "propaganda". I'm thinking Mike likes to rant about The Man at home and it's possible Ted is listening. This is the opening to a conversation. They have something in common! They hate the media! The start of our communication fixes and emotional vulnerability journey! Mike was correct. Ted is kinda acknowledging this. The Wheeler dynamic isn't about neglect and abuse (this is for the Byers family.) The themes that come up for the Wheelers are communication and emotionally vulnerability. Emotional vulnerability and emotional neglect are not the same things. These are things the Byers family needs to work on too, but the two families are in our story to be a point of comparison. So there are some things in common but they diverge. And the point of divergence is with the fathers. And this is where the modern lens of the show comes in. A father-son relationship in the 80s would likely not have had a moment of acceptance about the sons sexuality and them learning to communicate their feelings. But it doesn't fucking matter. Because with the themes of this show, we need to see our main characters (Mike and Will specifically) learning to overcome their challenges and one of those challenges is with their fathers. It's a trial they must face to become stronger (a D&D crawl). For Will, this means healing from his father and rejecting him. For Mike it means communicating with his father and reaching acceptance. The negative relationship and the positive relationship. (Though I think Ted is dying at the end. Sorry to build you up and break you down.)

The point of the Wheelers is not to offer us a critique on parenting in the 80s. It's a critique on society. Both past society and modern society. One of the main connecting ideas that people of the past and people now can relate to is toxic masculinity (anyone see Adolescence?) This is a reoccuring theme on the show along with communication and emotional vulnerability. We aren't meant to judge the parents for not being perfect (except abusive fucks like Lonnie). The point is to understand their motivations within the context of the show in order to understand the subtextual message of the show - love, acceptance, healing.

[thestrangestthing89]

YES. This isn't a reality show. Characters aren't real people. They are a plot device. They are telling the story that the writers want us to think about. Their actions don't exist independently from the plot, themes, and subtext. Their actions are completely dependent on those things. I love getting into characters behaviors and motivations. It's a character driven show so it's important to acknowledge the emotional component and human behavior side of things. However, this needs to be acknowledged within the themes and subtext of the show. They aren't separate things. It's not about how we as the audience would would act if we were in that situation. Or about how people today would respond. The point isn't to project ourselves into the story. But rather understand the message the writers are trying to tell us through the characters. We can look at the show with a modern pov but we can't ignore the themes, symbolism, or metaphors. All of those things are representing some kind of critique on modern society or a message about society. And the messages they are telling us are about conformity, communication, vulnerability, healing, expression, relationships (platonic and romantic), love (platonic and romantic, etc. So how and why are the characters behaving in relation to those messages?

I feel like we often get carried away with analyzing characters as if they were real people. What I mean is- we take their actions, words, and decisions at literal face value and that’s it. But the thing is, these characters are written within a story that has a greater narrative purpose. There are often layers to the choices being made by the characters- some dialogue or action may be said to both 1. Serve the surface level story 2. Serve as metaphors.

For example: Mike’s choice to jump off the cliff.

On the surface (the text), it is a way to show how much he cares about his friends as he was willing to risk his own life to save Dustin from being assaulted by bullies.

As a metaphor (the subtext), it is a way to show him following Will in death. Further evident by the line said by Ted Wheeler “so your friend jumps off a cliff, you’d jump too?”.

This show uses metaphors and subtext to hint at MANY things and it’s honestly so interesting. What’s especially interesting is that I think the Upside Down is a metaphor for the subtext itself. A hidden world/story beneath the surface that many people deny the existence of (at first). Until, the cracks become so large that it becomes undeniable. The subtext is literally becoming the text.

[thestrangestthing89]

This is such an interesting topic to me so I'm going to weigh in...

I don't think the original Anon comment was trying to excuse objectively bad behavior. I think they were just trying to explain the time period to a fandom that really doesn't seem to get it. It was a neutral comment not meant to attack anyone. I think the fandom tends to take things to an extreme when the truth is actually in the middle. So yes, letting your kids wander around all day without supervision or any concern for what they get up to isn't great. There used to be commercials on tv that had to remind parents where their kids were. The "It's 10pm do you know where your kids are?" commercials. Not a good look. However I do think there is something to be said for not hovering all over your kids which is what seems to happen now. I think people need to find a balance. I grew up in the 90s. My parents generally knew where I was. It wasn't the total lack of concern from previous generations, but there was also just simply no way of keeping track of kids during the day and parents have jobs. So they knew I was hanging out with neighborhood kids but didn't always know specifically which one. They knew I was somewhere in the neighborhood though. It was normal for younger teens to babysit while parents went to work or ran errands (my babysitter in elementary school was a 13 year old and this was common lol.) It was also just understood that older teens in the neighborhood and adult neighbors would be keeping an eye on things if the parents weren't able to be around. Something that I think is very different today - I don't think people trust their neighbors to do this anymore. I think a lot of people are interpreting being given some freedom with neglect and I think there is a lot of nuance here that gets ignored. I don't believe my upbringing was neglectful. I never personally felt unsafe and knew if there was a problem I could tell my parents. That being said, there were obviously some people who couldn't go to their parents if they had a problem and that isn't ok. There is a balance here. Kids do need to learn to figure things out for themselves up to a point. This isn't neglect. It's teaching necessary life skills. I saw a post once where someone pointed out that you learn all the life skills you need playing kick the can with all of the neighborhood kids between ages 5-18. When you hang out with a bunch of people there are arguments sometimes but you learn to deal. Independence does not automatically equate to being emotionally neglectful. Context matters and specific situations are going to be different. I think a lot of people these days have this fear that something bad will happen if they let their kids out of their sight for 2 seconds. I'm not saying things aren't dangerous or that there aren't valid concerns, just that there seems to be a big shift towards people being hyper-vigilant and I don't think that's helpful. It's just a different type of neglect. I think there is a big disconnect between how people of different age groups are viewing what counts as abuse or neglect. Because I don't know a lot of people who would view being given some freedom in childhood as neglectful. And I also don't know a lot of people who think parenting now is teaching kids to be emotionally intelligent. It's more like that it's teaching them to be emotionally dependent on their parents. So I think this is where the disconnect is coming in when it comes to interpreting the show. Because older people watch the middle school kids biking around by themselves and get nostalgic for their childhoods and younger fans watch and see nothing but danger (I'm ignoring the plot of the show for a second. Obviously there is danger these characters face lol). But the show is being written by people who are older who have a different view of this time than the younger fans.

That being said, the way the main character parents are depicted on the show is NOT abuse or neglect. They aren't trying to convey this with the story. That isn't the moral argument the writers are making. The only abusers in this story are Brenner, Lonnie, and Max and Billy's dad. The other parents are conveyed as normal parents and normal families. Complex and imperfect yes. But otherwise normal.

It's true the writers are critiquing parts of the 80s and modern society. But this isn't a parenting manual. I wouldn't say that Karen/Ted, Joyce, or Hopper have abusive or neglectful tendencies. I think those are words meant for extreme situations. They aren't perfect parents but they aren't supposed to be. They make some mistakes, sure but I don't like using extreme language to describe those mistakes.

I think the fixation with labeling things is making people miss the nuance here. For example, we see Karen more than once try to reach out to her kids and get them to talk to her. This is the opposite of emotional neglect. Her kids are teens and don't always want to talk. But we do see Nancy reach out to her in S3 when she is struggling at work. Ted offers to go talk to Mike when Will is missing but Karen says to give him space. Again, not neglect. Giving kids space to process things on their own is sometimes important. I'm going to hold off on commenting too much on Ted right now. I don't think he's an absentee parent like the fandom says but there are obviously some problems with his comments towards Mike. I think there is more a disconnect with them because they aren't understanding each other and it will be resolved later, but I'll hold off for now. Karen and Ted's marriage is also a product of the time. Calling it a loveless marriage is complicated. Karen would have been told to get married to someone who had money and stability. A lot of people still do this. It's not necessarily wrong to not marry for love. People just want different things. She wouldn't have had a choice though and that's where the problem is. But a "loveless marriage" wouldn't have necessarily been detrimental to their kids upbringing. In the context of the show, I don't think it was. Mike and Nancy aren't emotionally traumatized by their parents. If parents aren't in love that doesn't mean they don't love their kids.

Joyce is also someone I wouldn't say is neglectful. Her situation makes people uncomfortable and they want to blame someone for it and she gets the brunt of it with this fandom. But back then single mothers were treated very badly. The blame here is with society and deadbeat husbands like Lonnie. That's what you are meant to critique. Not her. She's in an impossible situation. Single women are historically not treated great. The critique is on society not her parenting styles. And I know this fandom gets weird about Hopper. On the surface he's the conventional male hero. But he's not this. Like all of our main characters he doesn't fit in. He's the grieving dad who lost a kid and is struggling to cope during a time when men especially weren't talking about mental health. I think people have a hard time seeing past the fact that he's a straight, white man to see the nuance here. His depression didn't go away the second he had another kid to take care of. You are supposed to feel empathy for this situation. Hoppers mistakes were addressed directly on the show and it's clear El isn't forever changed by his behavior. And Hopper was right to say she needs to learn consequences he just went about it wrong. But El was wrong too. This plot point was resolved already. They both apologized and moved on. So we aren't meant to be left with residual rage that he once yelled at her. Both characters moved on and learned from their mistakes so we are supposed to as well. Every character on this show has flaws. It's what makes them interesting. The time period is influencing a lot of these flaws so understanding the perspective of where these characters are coming from is important in order to understand the point they are making. The are critiquing 80s society but they are critiquing our modern society too. I think a lot of people take the parenting on the show very personally for whatever reason. Within the context of the story, you are not meant to view the characters of Karen/Ted, Joyce, or Hopper as the bad guys. They are flawed but not evil or abusive. You can't critique the show or 80s society if you aren't understanding what 80s society was like. I think this is where the extreme language and fixation with labeling often comes in. It's to cover up not following the depth of the story. I don't think it matters what you call it so much as how it's being written and resolved. But people get fixated on phrases and repeat them and it erases a lot of context.

I think a lot of this fandom tends to misrepresent what happens on this show because of not understanding the time period. The Wheelers are abusive and neglectful to people who have gotten gently parented. But that was just what life was like back then. Parents didn't track their kids every move. They couldn't. Sure sometimes this was neglect. But the Wheelers as they are depicted on screen, are not shown as neglectful. They are just shown as normal parents of the time. It's relatable to a lot of people watching. I had a similar upbringing and I personally don't think gentle parenting is great. I see a lot of kids still struggling with emotions when that type of parenting was supposed to help make kids emotionally intelligent. I think there is something to be said for giving kids a little independence and letting them figure things out for themselves. I don't really think parents being constantly involved in everything their kids do is going to lead to well rounded adults. I think it leads to a lot of young adults who can't handle their problems without their parents. I think that's where the confusion comes from with the teens and young adults in this fandom. They aren't familiar with being given freedom and independence and it seems scary and dangerous to them. Not all parents are great at talking about emotions and sometimes it's better for kids to work though those things on their own. I see people confused about the AIDS references too. This was impacting a lot during this time. So I don't like when people in the fandom are so dismissive. And an extension of this is people comparing Reagan to Trump when they aren't comparable - at least the reactions to each of them aren't comparable. A lot of people loved Reagan. It's why we have a cast of outcasts. They are all people Reagan didn't like. They are people who didn't fit in and they are shaped by the time period. The time period on this show is important and isn't just for nostalgia. So it's not just that the fandom struggles with figuring out how Mike and Will are showing IH. They really don't understand how much each of these characters don't fit into their town in different ways. You have to understand the setting of the show. It's like a character itself. I think some of the young people in the fandom like to assume the younger characters are relatable to them and are there for them. But I don't think they understand them as well as people who were actually teens in the 80s.

As a history buff - all the analyzing and historical context for everything really is a big part of what intrigues and interests me about the show. Even moreso than the deeper "theories" that people otherwise get into! Why the characters might act the way they do, why the sets are the way they are, the references and how they are integrated and reformatted for a modern audience, the music, the costuming, the character arcs and motivations, what was actually going in real history at the time, the culture. Ahhhhhhh. The 80s. My focus eras have always been fixated on the 80s and 90s so that's what drew me to this show in the first place - and not quite a nostalgia factor, it's just what I feel is a very interesting era in modern history, even how close it feels in context of humanity. But it's important!!

The Wheelers are such a worthy topic. I think a misunderstanding is definitely whewwwwwww as you've detailed, some validity there. Definitely cannot hold them up to some of today's modern parenting practices. And the "well, it was normal and commonplace and that's The Way it Was" as I state myself is not something incredibly praise-worthy, but it's realistic. The way it was isn't always Right, but it's not all Wrong - there's nuance and consideration. Are they the best examples of parenting???? No. But, neither is Joyce. Clearly both Karen and Joyce love their children. In different ways. With different lives. I don't think it's useful at all to be like "oh Joyce loves her children more than Karen loves her children." That's not really fair. I do think it's fair to say Ted loves his kids more than Lonnie loves his, however.

Anyway, I think you hit a lot of engaging topics in your ask about parenting styles and a greater conversation is to be had about the whole era context and differences but I'll leave this as is. You made interesting points!!

And ooohhhhhhh yes!! The other contexts - the societal pervasiveness of the fear of the AIDS crisis and the differences in the conservative presidency, then and now. All to be considered for the show - and you cannot completely use modern sensibilities, caveat to the writing and creation happening today, so there is a retrospective and commentary angle as it's not a true product of the times.

"You have to understand the setting of the show. It's like a character itself."

This this this this.

[thestrangestthing89]

This fandoms tendency to confuse pessimism with intellect is irritating. I don't think byler is as invisible to the audience as people want to suggest even if they don't think it will be endgame. But it also just doesn't matter what most of the audience is picking up on. The show has tons of subtext and metaphors and most of the fandom doesn't pick up on it, including the people who discuss the show regularly. So what difference does it make if not everyone saw it coming? The show is simply not going to appeal to everyone. Maybe it's simply not a show for the masses. Love how it doesn't occur to anyone that they are misinterpreting what they are seeing. The writers aren't playing coy. Metaphors and being coy aren't the same thing.

lowk want to post that I can't care less about people expressing b*ler doubt (unless they come directly to ppl's asks to stir up trouble), but I do feel a certain way about the "um, actually, the ship's gonna be treated like a mid af last minute, underdeveloped (cause 'it's categorically invisible so far to most of the audience; the writers dug their grave by playing coy for so long') twist that the d*ffers are going to try to pass as a both a genius move and a satisfying slowburn —'slowburn how, with 90% of the show, counting s5 it seems, being dedicated to the straight pairing??'—" snobbish crowd... which, surprisingly, isn't made up of homophobic mil*vens or will haters this time, but quite the opposite.

[thestrangestthing89]

anti bylers: you think we're going to have time for romance in season 5? no, there's too much else going on, the show is focusing on the plot and action

the show in the middle of the plot and action:

[thestrangestthing89]

I think a lot of this fandom tends to misrepresent what happens on this show because of not understanding the time period. The Wheelers are abusive and neglectful to people who have gotten gently parented. But that was just what life was like back then. Parents didn't track their kids every move. They couldn't. Sure sometimes this was neglect. But the Wheelers as they are depicted on screen, are not shown as neglectful. They are just shown as normal parents of the time. It's relatable to a lot of people watching. I had a similar upbringing and I personally don't think gentle parenting is great. I see a lot of kids still struggling with emotions when that type of parenting was supposed to help make kids emotionally intelligent. I think there is something to be said for giving kids a little independence and letting them figure things out for themselves. I don't really think parents being constantly involved in everything their kids do is going to lead to well rounded adults. I think it leads to a lot of young adults who can't handle their problems without their parents. I think that's where the confusion comes from with the teens and young adults in this fandom. They aren't familiar with being given freedom and independence and it seems scary and dangerous to them. Not all parents are great at talking about emotions and sometimes it's better for kids to work though those things on their own. I see people confused about the AIDS references too. This was impacting a lot during this time. So I don't like when people in the fandom are so dismissive. And an extension of this is people comparing Reagan to Trump when they aren't comparable - at least the reactions to each of them aren't comparable. A lot of people loved Reagan. It's why we have a cast of outcasts. They are all people Reagan didn't like. They are people who didn't fit in and they are shaped by the time period. The time period on this show is important and isn't just for nostalgia. So it's not just that the fandom struggles with figuring out how Mike and Will are showing IH. They really don't understand how much each of these characters don't fit into their town in different ways. You have to understand the setting of the show. It's like a character itself. I think some of the young people in the fandom like to assume the younger characters are relatable to them and are there for them. But I don't think they understand them as well as people who were actually teens in the 80s.

As a history buff - all the analyzing and historical context for everything really is a big part of what intrigues and interests me about the show. Even moreso than the deeper "theories" that people otherwise get into! Why the characters might act the way they do, why the sets are the way they are, the references and how they are integrated and reformatted for a modern audience, the music, the costuming, the character arcs and motivations, what was actually going in real history at the time, the culture. Ahhhhhhh. The 80s. My focus eras have always been fixated on the 80s and 90s so that's what drew me to this show in the first place - and not quite a nostalgia factor, it's just what I feel is a very interesting era in modern history, even how close it feels in context of humanity. But it's important!!

The Wheelers are such a worthy topic. I think a misunderstanding is definitely whewwwwwww as you've detailed, some validity there. Definitely cannot hold them up to some of today's modern parenting practices. And the "well, it was normal and commonplace and that's The Way it Was" as I state myself is something incredibly praise-worthy, but it's realistic. The way it was isn't always Right, but it's not all Wrong - there's nuance and consideration. Are they the best examples of parenting???? No. But, neither is Joyce. Clearly both Karen and Joyce love their children. In different ways. With different lives. I don't think it's useful at all to be like "oh Joyce loves her children more than Karen loves her children." That's not really fair. I do think it's fair to say Ted loves his kids more than Lonnie loves his, however.

Anyway, I think you hit a lot of engaging topics in your ask about parenting styles and a greater conversation is to be had about the whole era context and differences but I'll leave this as is. You made interesting points!!

And ooohhhhhhh yes!! The other contexts - the societal pervasiveness of the fear of the AIDS crisis and the differences in the conservative presidency, then and now. All to be considered for the show - and you cannot completely use modern sensibilities, caveat to the writing and creation happening today, so there is a retrospective and commentary angle as it's not a true product of the times.

"You have to understand the setting of the show. It's like a character itself."

This this this this.

[thestrangestthing89]

All the signs that make Kali sus

Before I talk about the important discrepancies between Terry’s flashbacks and El’s memory in 4x07 (nothing is like it seems in this show) I need to talk about Kali again (more here)

She was in Terry’s flashbacks. That’s why El looked for her in the first place. So, after S4 and the Henry reveal, I analyzed 2x07 again and looked for any clue about her role. What I found makes her and Terry’s flashbacks even more sus.

The first time we see Kali, she uses her powers to escape from the police. Before she uses them tho, we see the tattoo on Axel’s forehead. Brain Damaged. In S3, Mike is worried that using too much power, might cause El brain damage. Definitely not a good sign.

Even before El meets Kali: ICU, I see you… Someone’s watching her (this one was found by givehimthemedicine)

Here she’s listening to Hopper’s voice, but Kali wakes her up. And it’s definitely not like when Mike can reach Will in S2. It is not reassuring. Kali grabs El and scares her. Another bad sign.

It gets even more interesting. Same scene, when Kali introduces El to her friends. Behind them: So long and thanks, a famous line of Douglas Adams’ series The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galazy, which was first published in 1979. And what looks like a blood stained door. Imo, a reference to the massacre at the lab. Strange tho. Kali shouldn’t be connected to the massacre. She had already escaped. But look at her, her smirk… 

This is one of my favorite. The word PAWN behing them. They literally told us.

The word ROT

Stinky Fate

A big face= someone staring at (spying?) them. It reminds me of the I’m watching you poster at Murray’s house. Also, the words FORGOT, SOS, GO AWAY!

RUTH. The Nina Project was supposed to help El regain her powers, so it shouldn’t exist in 1984. Why they’re connecting it to Kali then? Maybe because that place already existed and there are even bigger secrets about it. 

(THE FIRST SHADOW SPOILERS)

In fact, in the prequel, we learn that Brenner was already conducting experiments in Nevada in the 50s. And because of one of those experiments, Henry Creel vanished for 12 hours and wound up in Dimension X. 

The Eye. One is watching El.

The word NO. Or maybe, it’s Number. There’s also the word Ace = 1. So, Number 1.

VENDETTA

Search and Destroy.

THIS parallel (screenshoot by Kaypeace21)

Then, El hears Mike in the void, screaming It’s a trap! And I don’t think this is  just about the soldiers in the tunnels. I think it’s another hint.

And after El sees Will (interesting that they didn’t show him), we see the words ONE, DOSE and ROSE.

There is more to analyze, like references to Assassin’s Creed or The Invisibles, like Barbelith (more here/The First Shadow Spoilers) 

Barbelith, again. Help, Call 911.

But for now I just wanted to point out how the writers went out of their way to tell us that El shouldn’t be there. Yeah. SOS and GO AWAY! 

[thestrangestthing89]

Will: Should I Stay or Should I Go?

Mike:

[thestrangestthing89]

Mike’s monologue is framed as a love epiphany… NOT love at first sight

Mike’s love profession is awkward and just sounds off… for a reason. It’s not just a lie, but a hidden truth simultaneously.

This post is heavily inspired by the Substack post. Please go read it! It makes a great point on the bigger picture of the story of Stranger Things as a whole. Basically, the hidden/subtextual story has always been about Mike and Will’s love story. Many other characters and elements serve as metaphors for the struggles of two gay boys falling in love during such an intolerant time period.

El, specifically, is a personification of Mike's love for Will (and vise versa). Yes she is a girl with superpowers who escaped from a lab and became Mike's girlfriend on the surface, but beneath it she is a metaphor for Mike's feelings for Will.

In the very first episode, Will stirred up something deep inside of Mike by being so earnestly honest to him. Admitting to him the truth about the dice roll when he didn't have to. This led to El (pronounced "L" as in Love) escaping and coming to life. Will went missing and Mike's heart grew even fonder. When Mike looked for Will in the woods, he stumbled on El instead. He stumbled on his own feelings, he came to the realization that he loved Will.

Mike said he knew he loved El when he first saw her. Again, on the surface, we know that is a lie. He didn't immediately fall in love with El at that moment. However, it is a deeper truth because that was the moment he realized he loved... Will.

Hopper's letter serves as more subtext clues.

Feelings. Jesus. The truth is, for so long, I've forgotten what those even were. I've been stuck in one place, in a cave, you might say. A deep, dark cave. And then, I left some Eggos out in the woods, and you came into my life and... for the first time in a long time, I started to feel things again.

Finding El was discovering his own feelings. Realizing them after being stuck in a deep dark cave (denial/the closet).

An egg is symbolic of creation, rebirth, and new beginnings.

Mike realized he loved Will which kick-started the entire story.