how to defend against accusations of hating queers
I just read this post by sparkindarkness, whom I don't know but whose post resembles many a rant I have ranted myself. While I believe in the potentially transformative/political power of queering tv via certain kinds of fic/vid/art practices, it in no way makes up for the lack of real queer representation on tv (for me). I find that boyslash or femslash (for example) is more a palliative than a cure, when it comes to my yearning for representation (when it comes to my yearning for smut, it does fine).
Anyway, zie mentions the whole Rowling and Dumbledore thing at the end, and it reminded me of a post I've been meaning to make for a while. Basically I'm astonished at the sheer efficacy of the Dumbledore strategy: acknowledge a queer character in an extra-textual space (the internet, interviews, webisodes, specials, outtakes) so that everyone thinks you're super-progressive and cool and doesn't notice that hey, you still haven't represented any queers anywhere. Rowling's move, however she intended it (I'm sure she also thinks she's super-progressive and cool) also has the effect of limiting queerness in the Harry Potter books, rather than opening them up to queerness: Dumbledore is gay. Not Dean Thomas, not Ginny Weasley, not Minerva McGonagall, and certainly not Harry Potter. Dumbledore. It makes Dumbledore this sort of . . . well, lonely queer, actually; the PTB have declared him gay, and everyone else is as always presumed straight. And, of course, cis, because trans and genderqueer identities get an even shorter end of the multi-pronged privilege stick when it comes to representation.
Anyway, that's old news, right? But the pattern is what freaks me out. Because that's exactly how it happens on BSG, twice. Cain is gay in the Razor special, not on the show; Gaeta is gay in the webisodes, not on the show. This has actively frustrated me during discussions of why I find these representations problematic; when I've argued that these are horrifying and painful representations of queer characters, people have claimed that a) oh, I didn't even KNOW they were gay! so it's not a negative representation of a gay character! or b) I knew they were gay but not everyone watches the webisodes/specials so it's not common knowledge so it's not a negative representation of a gay character, or c) the negativeness of the portrayal is in no way connected to their queerness.
(note: I'm so not interested in arguing about BSG anymore. It's extremely homophobic and heterosexist; this is not something I'm going to change my mind about, and I've heard it all already.)
So in the end, it becomes impossible to say that there are no queer characters on BSG (look! Cain! Gaeta! Also Baltar had that hot Cylon threesome that time that was totally not about straight male fantasy!) but simultanteously impossible to argue that the representation of queer characters on BSG is problematic - because there are no queer characters on BSG, they're only queer in webisodes/the Razor special. This is a logicless and horrifying cycle of ARGH for me.
I can give you other examples, too: on SGA, there was an episode in which we met an offworld team made up entirely of women, and this one asshole executive producer blogged at one point that one character on that team was gay - that just got cut out of the final script! We ran short on time so we had to cut that scene! This character (Alicia Vega) was also, hilariously, the character who died first in the horror-movie-style episode she was in, so it was sort of like retroactive queers-gotta-die TV logic. WTF! But of course you can't critique it for its queers-gotta-die TV logic, because hey: she wasn't queer in the episode! And then you can't critique SGA for never having queer characters, because hey: that one executive producer ttly told the internet that one time that that one guest character was queer.
That same douchebag also claimed that one of the regular character was gay, but they just didn't mention it on the show because sexuality just isn't important - which is a way of saying, hey, we're so hip that we don't even make a big deal about it when someone's queer! There's no need for a very special coming out episode! We'll just keep it a complete fucking secret instead. Of course McKay's sexuality, Sheppard's sexuality, Keller's sexuality, Ronon's sexuality, Teyla's sexuality, Elizabeth's sexuality, and various other peoples' sexualities were all important enough to talk about, but those were straight characters. But sexuality just isn't a big deal anymore, and by sexuality I mean queer sexuality, and by not a big deal I mean I'm super cool about queers, and by super cool I mean denying them presence on my show. I'm not making this up: here's an article on douchebag's comments, with quotes from douchebag. This is so that I don't have to link to his blog; the article isn't anything special.
See how it works? Genius!
I understand that Tom on Lost also received this treatment - gay in some extratextual way, in an interview or something, but never featured on the show. And also he was killed off. Just like Vega, right? (I'm getting this one second hand, so I'm sure yall know more about it than I do. Feel free to jump in with details).
I also remember one time that some fan asked Neil Gaiman why he doesn't write more queer characters, and he responded all huffy (big surprise coming from him) to say that he writes TONS and PILES of queer characters ALL THE TIME omg, and went on to list them. That one cab driver in American Gods! Some veiled women who collected spiders and claimed to be sisters in Sandman! Gaiman does actually have a couple of decent queer characters here and there, but one item in the list stuck out for me: he said that there's a character in Neverwhere who's gay, and it just never comes up in the course of the story. You know, because it wasn't important. To the story. Richard's sexuality: important to the story. This unnamed character's sexuality: not important to the story. And yet this is offered by Gaiman himself as the ultimate proof, in a way, of his incredible hipness and inclusiveness: he sometimes THINKS of characters as gay even when their gayness isn't apparent in the text. Never mind that gay characters having their gayness apparent in the text would be . . . well. Nice. For some of us.
Anyway, this is just a rambling list of examples, but I guess I'm listing them just because it frustrates me so much, the way these creators are all huge fucking cowards who aren't brave enough to write a queer character into their children's book, their tv show, their novel; huge fucking cowards who blame the episode running long or the whims of the story itself (the story just never went there! it's like novels are magical creatures with self-determined lives of their own and not texts written by people!) for the fact that queerness is reduced to subtextual or extratextual appearances; huge fucking cowards who will use this not-quite-queer not-quite-not-queer kind of character to simultaneously protect themselves from criticism (if Dumbledore's not gay in the actual book, then his unrequited love for a monster isn't problematic) and protect themselves from the accusation that they fail to include queers. It's a giant pile of bullshit.
I have no real conclusion, just . . . ARRRRGH! I get so tired of dealing with this.
Do yall have other examples? I bet there are tons. And I honestly find it all the more frustrating when fandoms go all, "Oooooh, Character X is canonically gay!" and hanging on the creators' every word about it while ignoring the vast representation problems associated with this. If you have stories to share about fans or fandoms being frustrating in this way, feel free to share those too.
(click to comment at dw || there are
comments right now)
Anyway, zie mentions the whole Rowling and Dumbledore thing at the end, and it reminded me of a post I've been meaning to make for a while. Basically I'm astonished at the sheer efficacy of the Dumbledore strategy: acknowledge a queer character in an extra-textual space (the internet, interviews, webisodes, specials, outtakes) so that everyone thinks you're super-progressive and cool and doesn't notice that hey, you still haven't represented any queers anywhere. Rowling's move, however she intended it (I'm sure she also thinks she's super-progressive and cool) also has the effect of limiting queerness in the Harry Potter books, rather than opening them up to queerness: Dumbledore is gay. Not Dean Thomas, not Ginny Weasley, not Minerva McGonagall, and certainly not Harry Potter. Dumbledore. It makes Dumbledore this sort of . . . well, lonely queer, actually; the PTB have declared him gay, and everyone else is as always presumed straight. And, of course, cis, because trans and genderqueer identities get an even shorter end of the multi-pronged privilege stick when it comes to representation.
Anyway, that's old news, right? But the pattern is what freaks me out. Because that's exactly how it happens on BSG, twice. Cain is gay in the Razor special, not on the show; Gaeta is gay in the webisodes, not on the show. This has actively frustrated me during discussions of why I find these representations problematic; when I've argued that these are horrifying and painful representations of queer characters, people have claimed that a) oh, I didn't even KNOW they were gay! so it's not a negative representation of a gay character! or b) I knew they were gay but not everyone watches the webisodes/specials so it's not common knowledge so it's not a negative representation of a gay character, or c) the negativeness of the portrayal is in no way connected to their queerness.
(note: I'm so not interested in arguing about BSG anymore. It's extremely homophobic and heterosexist; this is not something I'm going to change my mind about, and I've heard it all already.)
So in the end, it becomes impossible to say that there are no queer characters on BSG (look! Cain! Gaeta! Also Baltar had that hot Cylon threesome that time that was totally not about straight male fantasy!) but simultanteously impossible to argue that the representation of queer characters on BSG is problematic - because there are no queer characters on BSG, they're only queer in webisodes/the Razor special. This is a logicless and horrifying cycle of ARGH for me.
I can give you other examples, too: on SGA, there was an episode in which we met an offworld team made up entirely of women, and this one asshole executive producer blogged at one point that one character on that team was gay - that just got cut out of the final script! We ran short on time so we had to cut that scene! This character (Alicia Vega) was also, hilariously, the character who died first in the horror-movie-style episode she was in, so it was sort of like retroactive queers-gotta-die TV logic. WTF! But of course you can't critique it for its queers-gotta-die TV logic, because hey: she wasn't queer in the episode! And then you can't critique SGA for never having queer characters, because hey: that one executive producer ttly told the internet that one time that that one guest character was queer.
That same douchebag also claimed that one of the regular character was gay, but they just didn't mention it on the show because sexuality just isn't important - which is a way of saying, hey, we're so hip that we don't even make a big deal about it when someone's queer! There's no need for a very special coming out episode! We'll just keep it a complete fucking secret instead. Of course McKay's sexuality, Sheppard's sexuality, Keller's sexuality, Ronon's sexuality, Teyla's sexuality, Elizabeth's sexuality, and various other peoples' sexualities were all important enough to talk about, but those were straight characters. But sexuality just isn't a big deal anymore, and by sexuality I mean queer sexuality, and by not a big deal I mean I'm super cool about queers, and by super cool I mean denying them presence on my show. I'm not making this up: here's an article on douchebag's comments, with quotes from douchebag. This is so that I don't have to link to his blog; the article isn't anything special.
See how it works? Genius!
I understand that Tom on Lost also received this treatment - gay in some extratextual way, in an interview or something, but never featured on the show. And also he was killed off. Just like Vega, right? (I'm getting this one second hand, so I'm sure yall know more about it than I do. Feel free to jump in with details).
I also remember one time that some fan asked Neil Gaiman why he doesn't write more queer characters, and he responded all huffy (big surprise coming from him) to say that he writes TONS and PILES of queer characters ALL THE TIME omg, and went on to list them. That one cab driver in American Gods! Some veiled women who collected spiders and claimed to be sisters in Sandman! Gaiman does actually have a couple of decent queer characters here and there, but one item in the list stuck out for me: he said that there's a character in Neverwhere who's gay, and it just never comes up in the course of the story. You know, because it wasn't important. To the story. Richard's sexuality: important to the story. This unnamed character's sexuality: not important to the story. And yet this is offered by Gaiman himself as the ultimate proof, in a way, of his incredible hipness and inclusiveness: he sometimes THINKS of characters as gay even when their gayness isn't apparent in the text. Never mind that gay characters having their gayness apparent in the text would be . . . well. Nice. For some of us.
Anyway, this is just a rambling list of examples, but I guess I'm listing them just because it frustrates me so much, the way these creators are all huge fucking cowards who aren't brave enough to write a queer character into their children's book, their tv show, their novel; huge fucking cowards who blame the episode running long or the whims of the story itself (the story just never went there! it's like novels are magical creatures with self-determined lives of their own and not texts written by people!) for the fact that queerness is reduced to subtextual or extratextual appearances; huge fucking cowards who will use this not-quite-queer not-quite-not-queer kind of character to simultaneously protect themselves from criticism (if Dumbledore's not gay in the actual book, then his unrequited love for a monster isn't problematic) and protect themselves from the accusation that they fail to include queers. It's a giant pile of bullshit.
I have no real conclusion, just . . . ARRRRGH! I get so tired of dealing with this.
Do yall have other examples? I bet there are tons. And I honestly find it all the more frustrating when fandoms go all, "Oooooh, Character X is canonically gay!" and hanging on the creators' every word about it while ignoring the vast representation problems associated with this. If you have stories to share about fans or fandoms being frustrating in this way, feel free to share those too.
(click to comment at dw || there are
comments right now)