#but the majority of the queerness people talk about is just headcanons or fan creations that were elevated to canon status | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

katelynsimpsince2016 · 1 year

Text

Miguel isn’t the only villain in across the spider-verse - it’s the fans too

On the surface, Miguel is the obvious antagonist in atsv. From the get go he demonises Miles, treats him as if he understands what’s going on and puts all the blame on him for the multiverse being in danger. His justification for this is that Miles is an anomaly - a mistake. His role as Spider-Man was not meant to happen at all and he’s simply a poor replacement whose existence has catastrophically left a universe without a Spider-Man. The key part here is that Miles is an error, a blunder, just an inferior stand-in: he’s not the original.

The meta-narrative of the spider-verse movies is wholly centred around adaptation and the different adaptations of Spider-man, and Miles himself has a poignant role in this. Unlike the majority of the other Spider-men in the society he isn’t just some other rendition of Peter Parker or a ‘what if this person got bit instead’ character. He is unique. Something new. His lack of connection to previous Spider-men allows him this fluidity and ability to write his own story. For this meta-narrative to work he has to be the protagonist. We have to see the story through his perspective so we can see Miles as his own person and separate from the stereotypical idea of what Spider-man is. Miles’s iconic line from the film “Imma do my own thing” is a perfect summary of what he represents and stands for. He may not be the ‘original’ or anything like Peter Parker but he is something truly amazing. After all, that’s what the first movie was all about: anyone can be Spider-man. But with the wide variety of different Spider-men through atsv and the trans-coding of Gwen’s character, this movie seems to be hammering this point home and is actively fighting against fans who cling onto ‘canon’ and don’t accept any kind diversion or reinvention of a source material. In this movie Miguel represents these kind of fans who desperately cling onto canon and reject things like headcanons and interpretations that threaten to be different from their own.

In atsv Gwen gets a lot more focus and we get to see another side to her, seeing her personal life. We see that on a daily basis she has to hide a part of herself from everyone around her, especially her father. Her own flesh and blood is out to get her, hunting her down and talks about arresting her to her face, and all she can do is just smile and nod. Initially, this appears as simply what every Spider-person has to go through - hiding their identity, but with Gwen it cuts a lot deeper than that. Because she isn’t just hiding her identity as a superhero but she is having to hide her personal (gender) identity. From the phrase ‘Protect Trans Kids’ painted in her room, the trans flag on her father’s uniform to the repeated use of the trans flag’s colour palette during her conversations with her father, Gwen is undeniably coded as trans.

This new approach to her character has angered some people, and that’s what the whole movie is about.

Atsv tells a cautionary tale about how restricting artistic expression and religiously sticking to canon only harms stories and writers. It prevents the creation of amazing works like itsv/atsv! Fans’ obsession with staying inside the box could have resulted in this incredibly revolutionary film - itsv - from literally being created. Atsv is throwing everything at the viewer to tell us that this is still a looming threat and that it doesn’t just stop at producers and executives, fans also have an influence, for better or for worse.

Another example of how queerness is used in this film to fight against toxic fans is the queer undertones in Miles’s arguments with his parents. Every time he’s about to reveal his identity as Spider-man it is very reminiscent of a coming out scene. His parents speak of him lying to them and hiding something, and even more poignantly, that no matter what is going on with him they will love him no matter what. Whether Miles is under the queer umbrella is not what matters here, instead it’s the impact which speaks volumes on what atsv is trying to get across. Spider-man can be queer, can be gay, can be trans (this also applies to Spider-man being a person of colour). Even if the original iteration of the character wasn’t, it has long since evolved past the rigid boundaries of canon.

In the context of fandom, this message is very important right now as queer headcanons seem to be receiving more criticism as of late. This message is integral for many to hear and to remind us all that canon is just the building blocks - not the whole structure.

So the narrative is using Miles and Miguel as placeholders to portray these two clashing point of views. To break canon and continually reinvent stories or to swath canon in a blanket and never touch it. We as the viewers are left with a choice on who to side with, to decide who we believe is right and who is wrong. But to be honest, it’s pretty clear who’s right.

#no idea if this post will reach anyone lol but i think this perspective is important #just be really pissed off seeing ppl throwing fits over Gwen being very likely trans #like ANYONE can be Spider-Man #reblogs appreciated <3 #across the spider verse spoilers #across the spiderverse #atsv #text post

56 notes · View notes

practically-an-x-man · 1 month

Note

💖💛💀💕let's goooo! I don't know if we share a ton of fandoms so I'm ready to read this like the morning paper.

Thank you!! I think I'm gonna go with the Sandman here, just because it's a fandom I haven't talked about yet in this game

Ask Game: Unpopular Opinions Edition

💖: What is your biggest unpopular opinion about the series?

I have no idea what is or isn't a popular opinion since I tend to stay on the outskirts of my fandoms (I write my fics and enjoy the show but I try not to get overly caught up in drama or headcanon battles or whatever), so I'm just going to use this opportunity to say...

Having the physical embodiment of attractiveness and desire be a nonbinary being honestly did wonders for me as a genderqueer person. I've honestly got a bit of anxiety about whether I'll have to choose being desired or being seen the way I want to be seen, but like... people love Desire! People accept Desire in the comics and the show! People find Desire, a nonbinary character played by a nonbinary actor, attractive (and myself included, they're stunning)! And seeing all the positive response to the character has really helped me with my own self-image, I think.

Don't know if any other queer Sandman fans feel the same way, but it was honestly part of the reason I got so connected to it as a piece of media.

💛: What is a popular ship you just can't get behind, and why?

Corintheus. It just gives me the ick - I know it's not technically incest or anything, but the whole creator/creation thing is still flying too close to the sun and it's just viscerally uncomfortable for me.

💀: If you had to choose one major character to die, who would you choose?

If this is a question of dislike: I mean I'd say John Dee but he very much does die in a pretty major way. Maybe he could just die a little sooner?

If this is a question of narrative interest: Lucien(ne). I love him/her to death and it would break my heart to see something happen to him/her, but a piece exploring how the central Dreaming would just fall apart without him/her to manage the library would be really interesting in my opinion. (I'm using both names and pronouns bc they differ from the comics to the show and I'm talking about both here)

💕: What is an unpopular ship that you like?

Uhhhh.... does Calliope/Dream count? I don't know how unpopular it really is but it definitely gets overshadowed by Dreamling and other ships.

#my friends!!!#answered asks #ask game

0 notes

demigoddreamer · 2 years

Text

LGBTQ+ Themes in Greek Mythology

I'm no Greek Mythology expert i don't have any professional qualifications whatsoever(tho when i go to college imma minor in classics with a bio major but you don't care sorry :'(

i'm just a nerd who spends way too much time researching/reading a million books(calling all PJO fans/riordanverse in general i'm a fan too)on greek mythology(btw any of you read song of achilles, that shit broke my heart but i can't help it i just love greek mythology adaptations so fucking much)

these aren't in order i don't have a particular timeline but i think it's important to discuss lgbtq+ themes in greek mythology in SOME CAPACITY especially with something called ERASURE I SAID GREECE WAS GAY YALL but the greeks were more sexually fluid so they don't really have labels for this the same way we do and the way we defined their sexuality is not how we define it but this is most likely how it would've translated in the modern world and it's still important because seeing lgbtq+ figures in ancient cultures proves their existence and that we're here and queer, I can't do everyone here so i might do a part 2 if yall want

*Zeus did have like maybe 1 or 2 male lovers, the most notable ganymede but like Zeus is an asshole he's not cool enough to be queer so no i'm not going in depth about him AT ALL

1. Apollo

we all know Apollo, god of: music, poetry, healing, sun/light, archery, prophecy

but also he's THE bisexual icon(there are other gods like Hermes and Dionysus notable for male lovers I said Hermes was pan in like he was literally the god pan at one point and he's pansexual) but Apollo has the most male lovers out of any god and he does have a fuckton of female lovers(not nearly as many as zeus tho, no one gonna surpass him) Apollo is also depicted to be extremely hot no pun intended but also having a rather feminine appearance

some of his famous same sex lovers include:

Hyacinthus(this one my fav)- so fucking tragic got turned into the hyacinth plant

Admetus- no tragic end for Admetus unfortunately Admetus is a...straight-ie(I usually only call the cringe straights straighties but i'm just in pain in how Apollo hopelessly pines over him)

There's others but they're not as notable so imma speedrun but if you want me to talk more about them in depth and other lgbtq+ themes in greek mythology ask for a part 2

2. Hermaphroditus

This god was the son of Hermes and Aphrodite(please don't ask how THAT happened it just did)

Hermaphroditus is intersex, he's the god of intersex people, a symbol of androgyny and is the reason why intersex animals like snails(they have male & female reproductive parts) are called "Hermaphrodites"

The story is Hermaphroditus was just chilling in a body of water when the nymph Salmacis jumped on top of him while he was chilling and intended to rape him and she called on the gods to make it so that she and Hermaphroditus would be together forever so the gods merged them together into a partly female and male individual

3. Chaos

if any of yall read hesiod's theogony or...just hear stuff elsewhere, you may have heard of this creation myth where in the beginning there was a primordial kind of emptiness or void which was Chaos and this is mostly a headcanon but i legit cannot remember if they refer to Chaos gender AT ALL sooooo

NON-BINARY NON-BINARY NON-BINARY

4. Sipriotes

There are multiple stories of Gods changing mortals gender maybe as divine punishment, to help disguise them/protect them or whatever so the mortals may go mtf or ftm so TRANGENDER

Sipriotes isn't the most notable or even the most important in fact she only gets like a 1 line mention in some author's work but she's important to me

because she has some agency in this story. basically i think what happened is that she(he at the time) saw Artemis bathing(like actaeon but the reason that Artemis gets mad at her isn't clear since this myth is so obscure and it's not certain if the bathing is even the "correct version" or correct as can be with greek myth) so Artemis in retribution gave Sipriotes an ultimatum, she could either be given a woman body and join Artemis's hunters or worse so Sipriotes chose the hunters and the woman bod

5. Iphis and Ianthe

There are 2 people in this one cause 1. this is much longer than i anticipated and i don't think people wanna read that much 2. these people aren't important enough to have their own and their stories are so intertwined that individual sections would be too short and basically the same

Iphis was raised as a dude despite being a woman so one day when Iphis gets married they are offered to a woman named Ianthe. Iphis is sad because Iphis fell in love with Ianthe(mutual) but Iphis knows they can't be together as 2 women so Iphis prays to the gods for a solution to be able to marry Ianthe so the gods like turn Iphis into a dude

so this could be a trans guy with a bi?(if ianthe knew iphis was a woman) woman or technically this could be seen as wlw or i should say sapphic cause this greek i tend to lean toward this being trans guy but i won't argue with your interpretation unless you're being transphobic

6. Callisto

Now greece was very misogynistic and had a high emphasis on manly men. that's why in greek mythology there were so many mlm couples but you can't find shit on wlw there are technically only 2, one of them being the previous one and this one...it's technically not wlw it's awful it's evil but it's all we got

Callisto was a hunter of Artemis who might've been a queer woman. So basically Artemis's hunters say no to the company of men and swear off romance so none of the gods can touch them. But one day Zeus was like "yo Callisto do be looking kinda hot tho" and tried to seduce her even tho Callisto is off limits, he did this by shapeshifting into the Artemis and then called Callisto into a private spot where he raped her and got her pregnant. unfortunately since Callisto is no longer a virgin she had to leave the hunters and i think she got turned into a bear by usually Hera but sometimes Artemis too tired to double check

7. Artemis, Athena, Hestia

Now these lovely ladies are famous for being the only 3 beings Aphrodite(goddess of love) has no power over as they are virgin goddesses who swear to be maidens forever. I tend to see them on the Aroace spectrum.

Artemis was someone who said no to romance and to forever forswear the company of men that could technically be interpreted a few different ways(aka did she like girls? lesbian ace maybe?) I tend to lean toward no she appears more aroace as she had nada in the relationships department(no she never loved orion i'm tired of answering that question)

Athena is pretty specifically aroace as its very much explicit that she has no time for romance and prefers to spend her time on battle strategy and crafts. She is called Athena Parthenos* virgin athena for a reason. I heard her childhood best friend pallas was her woman lover from a random internet person but i can't find any sources for this so take that with a grain of salt but it could be that sources are hard to come by for ancient civilizations idk so she could be biromantic ace maybe????

Hestia is def aroace but also we have very little sources of any kind about her. only about her worship no myths. which is sad as fuck because she's a dope goddess i wish there was more about her

*I just realized i forgot to do achilles and patroclus but i was just so tired, i'll do them in the part 2

101 notes · View notes

ineffable-endearments · 3 years

Text

Okay. Now I'm going to submit some theories about how I think Crowley and Aziraphale specifically are going to go in the future of Good Omens.

Again, this post is not really...specific theorizing about plot events. It's big-picture stuff.

With that said, this post will get a bit heavy at times, in the sense that it will contain opinions that not everyone will like. It drifted into rambling about queerbaiting and all that stuff. I'm not going to spam anyone's dashboard with drama over it, but it's very possible someone else might try. It's also not really a negative post, depending on what you want to hear, I suppose. But if you're only in the mood to read fluff today, you'll probably want to pass it up.

Oh! Also it's very long, and sexuality is discussed in a vague way that doesn't involve any story elements or body parts.

For starters, I don't think Good Omens 2 - or even 3, if that comes about - is going to have anything explicitly sexual or romantic between the two of them, where "explicit" is things like the characters giving outright definitions of their relationship or outright discussing exactly what goes on between them, either on or off-screen. I also don't think there's going to be kissing or "hooking up" (come on...that person on Twitter shouldn't have even asked). Those actions are too blatant for what Neil has already said about the series. While they technically leave some room for interpretation, they probably don't leave enough.

I DO think it's quite possible other characters will continue to define the relationship FOR them and Crowley and Aziraphale will continue to not deny it.

As far as the queerbaiting debate, "is Good Omens queerbaiting"...it's gonna depend how you define it. I always learned that queerbaiting was basically where the creators intentionally make it look like a character is gay or otherwise queer but then swap that character development out for a cis identity and hetero relationship at the end. The point is that the "bait" leads to queer audiences being actively hurt. That's the behavior that seems awful to me, and I don't see Neil and company doing that.

However, I think it's far and away the most likely option that it will be left up to interpretation whether Crowley and Aziraphale are, you know, a buddy duo or a romantic couple or some sort of ineffable queerness all their own off-screen. So if your definition of queerbaiting is "the characters seem gay to us, but homophobes can tell themselves they're not," then yes, I think that debate will follow us to our graves if we let it.

I am a cisgender, possibly straight (?? demi/bi? I might never find out) woman. There is absolutely no way I could ever tell anybody, ESPECIALLY not gay guys and nonbinary people - the people Crowley and Aziraphale tend to resemble the most - how to feel about their treatment in the story. All I can offer is that I'm one flawed individual and there are things I have the emotional capacity to handle and things I don't. Crowley and Aziraphale as both a canon construct and a fandom pairing mean an absurd amount to me, and I can't hang around in spaces where people are constantly talking about how my own interpretations of them are not enough, or how the story is written with ill intentions. I don't want to stop anybody from venting about it, but I am going to be removing myself from those situations.

I like to imagine 1990 NeilandTerry, or TerryandNeil, as a sort of two-headed God who came up with Crowley and Aziraphale, set them loose on Creation, and now are watching them get up to way more ridiculous stuff in the brains of their fans than they'd ever imagined in the first place. I like to imagine them watching, amused and bemused, as their creations fall in love in thousands of universes, and saying, "Well, we didn't specifically Plan for this, but we did promise free will."

This is psychoanalytical toward a public figure and is therefore a bit dangerous, so please take it with an entire mountain of salt, but I sometimes think perhaps Neil sees some of his and Terry's friendship in Crowley and Aziraphale, and suspect that he wants to reserve the possibility that they could be platonic because he and Terry were platonic, while at the same time leaving room for the fans to have their own interpretations, too. Because if there's one thing that comes up really frequently with Neil, it's his belief in imagination and how much stories matter to people. He can have his little corner of the universe where A and C reflect himself and Terry, and we can have...literally anything we want, as long as we're willing to extrapolate just a little bit from canon. It's not even that much extrapolation! It's just "Yes, they love each other, so what exactly does love mean to you?" and if love means kissing, well then, if we can think it, we can have it.

Given that Neil has written LGBT+ characters before, I think he has non-bigoted reasons for wanting Aziraphale and Crowley to remain undefined, and given even the small chance that those reasons may involve the grieving process for a dead friend, I believe it is unkind to argue with him about it or hold his reputation hostage over it.

With that said, do I want canon kissing/hooking up/all that stuff we put in fics? Listen, I can't deny that I do! Personally, I'd be over the moon. I'd probably be so happy I'd have to go to the hospital to get sorted out. Even the thought of it makes me giddy and light-headed, because that physicality is a part of my own experience of love.

However, there are a lot of people who would feel left behind if that happened. Ace and aro people in the fandom whose love for their friends and partners is just as strong as mine, but who are sex-repulsed or just don't want to see kissing on-screen. The loss of Crowley and Aziraphale as a pairing who are extremely easy to interpret as queerplatonic would be hurtful to them, and I do not want to see them hurt like that. I don't think Neil does, either.

So, once again, the "best for everyone" option becomes a really strong canon relationship based in both narrative function and profound affection, which has genuinely thoughtful queer undertones and leaves open the logical possibility for romantic or sexual encounters but does not insist that they must happen. People, especially fans who are super invested, tend to have an easier time imagining scenarios that take place off-screen (e.g. kissing, sex) than they have erasing scenarios that they've already seen in canon (e.g., if someone wished they could continue viewing it as an ace relationship but they were shown "hooking up"). Also, while relationships are super emotional and extremely subjective, I'd argue that in a long-term adult partnership, the non-sexual connection is more important than the sexual one. As a fan, I'd prefer to extrapolate "they love each other so maybe they'd have sex" rather than "they're sexually attracted to each other so maybe they'll intertwine their whole existences together."

It probably isn't necessary to add, but I will anyway: I'm aware that Good Omens is sort of sacrificing social leverage - the ability to whack homophobes over the head with canon if they try to deny the show's queerness - and is thus not really contributing to making specifically gay relationships more widely seen and accepted. However, I don't think all stories have to invest heavily in every social issue they touch on for them to still be meaningful. I also do think Good Omens is an excellent example of a relationship that is extremely profound without being heteronormative.

I don't think the next season is going to be a rom-com. It will likely not even be a "love story," where the definition of "love story" is "a story that follows the development of a relationship and employs certain plot beats to make its point." Remember that conflicts and breakups are key to love stories, so if it IS a love story, then we're going to have to watch the relationship get challenged in ways some of us might have thought were already resolved in season 1! And while that could be thrilling and ultimately very good, it would also be likely to undercut some of the careful headcanoning and analysis we've already done. Any sequel is going to do that to some degree, but a second love story would probably do it a lot, with interpretations that people are even more protective of.

I'm sort of thinking the next season is likely to be a fantasy-heavy mystery, only because those are the two concepts Neil's introduction led with - an angel with amnesia who presents Crowley and Aziraphale with a mystery. Crowley and Aziraphale's connection to each other can still absolutely be a major theme! It can still be the thread stitching the plot together! It just probably, in my opinion, won't escalate and escalate and escalate like it did in season 1. And it will probably be woven in there among a lot of other plot threads that are, in many moments, louder. Still, I'd love to be left with the impression of these two existences, the light and the dark, subtly becoming more intimate, subtly growing more comfortable in this shared place they've chosen in the universe, gradually starting to behave like they know they aren't alone in the world anymore, all while other things happen to and around them.

Nonsexual physical intimacy - a really great hug, or leaning together on the sofa, or a forehead touch, or something like those, something that could happen in a lot of different kinds of relationships but is undoubtedly based in deep trust and affection and a desire to be close...that's the dream, for me. Oh, how lovely it would be.

Of course, I could be just absolutely, embarrassingly wrong about all this. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

11 notes · View notes

protectwoc · 4 years

Text

thots on little women (2019)

or, y’all are giving greta gerwig too much credit (part two)

The character arc that was changed the least from the source material, but that still manages to personally offend me the most, is, of course, Amy’s. It’s no secret that Gerwig is an Amy stan, or at least more of a fan of her than most people. I am as well, which is why I am so disappointed with this particular arc.

It’s honestly more disappointing because Gerwig handled parts of Amy’s arc extremely well, namely, her relationship with Laurie. Gerwig did an excellent job of making Amy and Laurie’s relationship feel less like a consolation prize since Laurie did not end up marrying Jo and more like a fully realized and reciprocal relationship, arguably more so than Alcott herself. HOWEVER, and this is a big however, the Amy/Laurie relationship is not the only important part of Amy’s characterization in the novel, and unfortunately, it is in the movie.

Amy starts out the novel as a selfish twelve year old girl, which is evidenced in no other but the infamous book-burning scene. However, throughout the novel, she grows out of that selfishness and into a more selfless, self aware woman. (Again, whatever your thoughts on “learning to be selfless” as a trope in women’s narratives are not necessarily relevant.)

For example, in the first half of the novel, one of Amy’s most notable chapters deals with pickled limes. For anyone who only watched the movie or doesn’t quite remember the book, a short summary:

Amy, the only one of the March girls who attends school, is upset because the girls in her school have been trading pickled limes. The limes are seen as a status symbol, which can be traded for little trinkets, bestowed upon favorites, or indulged in in front of your enemies. The pickled limes trend has become so popular that the teacher, Mr. Davis, has banned them in the classroom, which has done nothing to curb their popularity. Amy, who is relatively popular among her classmates regardless of her relatively lower class status, has been gifted several limes but had no way to return them, is greatly “in debt.” When Meg gives Amy enough money to buy a whopping twenty-five pickled limes, she flaunts and preens her way around the classroom until a girl she snubbed tattles to the teacher and gets all twenty five limes taken away.

This scene is a good example of the beginning of Amy’s arc of overcoming her one major personality flaw. It shows how her selfish nature is really just immature behavior, and as she ages, she matures out of that childishness. Another good example of this arc happens when Beth contracts scarlet fever. At first, she complains, saying that she would rather contract the deadly disease than to go to her Aunt’s house, but as she remains there, we see her mature and even grow fond of Aunt March. Her personal arc independent of Laurie was a big part of Amy’s plotline, and it was unfortunately left out of the movie.

The most glaring example of this is the omission of one of the most important scenes of Amy’s arc in the book: the occurrences at the fair. Again, indulge me in a brief summary for those who won’t know exactly what I am talking about:

The mother of one of Amy’s friends, Mrs. Chester, holds a three day fair for all of the girls in Amy’s social circle. As Amy is the most talented and most well-liked of the girls, she has the best table at the fair, at the very front, where she is to sell her beautiful artistic creations. However, her friend, May Chester, is jealous of her, and seeing this, Ms. Chester takes the table from Amy and gives it to May, relegating Amy to the back corner to sell flowers. At first, Amy is incredibly upset, and takes all of her art back to the table with her, however, after talking with her family, who are properly indignant on her behalf, she resolves to be gracious and humble and gives her own drawings to May to sell. Seeing this, Jo tells Laurie to take all of his handsome, college-aged bachelor friends to Amy’s table, which he does, and they spend the entire next day of the fair flirting with her and buying every one of the flowers from Amy. On the final day of the fair Amy, who has entirely overcome her own selfish wishes, tells Laurie and his friends to go do the same to May. This string of selfless acts is seen by Aunt March and Aunt Carrol (who in the novel has half of Aunt March’s role in the movie) and is the premier reason behind Aunt Carrol deciding to take Amy to Europe instead of Jo.

Leaving this scene out of Amy’s narrative in the movie is, I think, unforgivable. The inclusion of this scene would have exponentially improved Amy’s arc, for three major reasons:

This scene is the culmination of Amy’s “selfish to selfless arc”. Again, regardless of your opinions on whether this is a good lesson for her to learn, it is an arc, and as the movie stands currently, she simply doesn’t have one. The occurrences at the fair show her finally growing out of her childhood vices into the mature woman we see in Europe, and to exclude this scene does her a disservice.

Prior to her trip to Europe, this is one of the only scenes in the novel where Laurie and Amy have any sort of interaction. If Gerwig wanted to more fully develop the Amy/Laurie romance I cannot imagine the logic behind leaving this scene out. It would make the romance seem less rushed, which has been a common critique of their love story since the book came out, and would even provide context for Amy’s “Not when I have spent my entire life loving you” line which Gerwig added to the narrative.

As previously mentioned, this scene is one of the main reasons behind Amy being allowed to travel to Europe with Aunt March/Aunt Carrol. Within the movie, this reasoning is less obvious, especially given the fact that Aunt March had already told Jo she would take her to Europe, and the inclusion of this scene would have made the trip feel more earned for Amy.

Greta Gerwig has made no secret of the fact that she both a feminist and a fan of Amy March. I am both of those things as well, which is why I cannot understand her logic behind robbing Amy of a complete arc. In the movie, the most important parts of Amy’s arc are all tied to a man. Even that arc is not as fully developed as it could be. Gerwig did a magnificent job with Amy’s overall likability, but that is not the same thing as writing a fully realized arc for her.

But even though Amy is my personal favorite character, and I am more personally invested in her arc, Gerwig’s mishandling of Amy is not the most egregious sin committed in this movie. That honor is reserved for Jo’s arc.

Part Two: Jo

A Buzzfeed article entitled “The New ‘Little Women’ Makes Space for Jo’s Queerness” claims that “Gerwig’s adaptation, without being too explicit about it, does gorgeous justice to that [queer] reading.” An Advocate magazine article called “Greta Gerwig Brings Out the Inherent Queerness of Little Women” makes the bold claim that the 2019 Little Women “offers the queerest and most feminist reading yet.” An even bolder declaration by them magazine says that “The New Little Women Basically Proves Jo is Queer”. Gerwig has been lauded both by critics and by her own actors for creating an explicitly queer narrative for Jo March.

As previously mentioned, I do not generally read Alcott’s Jo as queer. However, upon my first encounter with this headcanon, I could immediately see why so many people did see her this way, and why this interpretation is so beloved. Jo has a lot of non-stereotypically straight traits that have made her something of a queer icon in many progressive literary circles. Both the way she bemoans being “born a woman” and her intense desire not to marry spoke to a lot of queer or non-cis readers, many of whom were excited to see her portrayed this way on the silver screen. And though I am not particularly attached to this headcanon, as a bi woman, I too was excited to see her that way.

And then… I didn’t.

Look, I hate to burst y’alls bubble, but there is literally not a single second in the movie where Jo is anything resembling queer. At best, she could be read as aromantic/asexual, but that’s about it. (Note: Obviously I don’t intend to imply that being aro/ace is somehow “lesser than” being L G B or T, but obviously the form of queerness people were expecting is one in which Jo is explicitly attracted to women.) There are no subtle looks in the direction of another woman, no scenes in which Jo expresses any negative emotion towards the idea of marrying a man specifically. She doesn’t even have a single female friend outside of her sisters.

One of the reasons the 2019 Jo (and by extension, Laurie), have been hailed as queer icons is their relative gender fluidity. Jo and Laurie exchange clothes throughout the movie, which was intended to display their “gender fluidity”. I knew about this particular facet of the movie before going to watch it in theaters, so I was looking for these occasions specifically, and I still couldn’t tell that they were supposed to be gender neutral. Maybe that’s just me, because I don’t know a lot about civil war era clothing, but whatever.

The other reason that Jo is considered queer in the movie is her rejection of traditional Civil War era femininity. She doesn’t want to get married, and she has no interest in “girly” things like dresses or parties. But neither of those things are specifically queer. Being “not like other girls” as your premier personality trait is not queer, it’s just garden-variety misogyny.

Even Jo’s big scene where she laments her competing desire to stay unmarried and her intense loneliness, has nothing marking it as explicitly queer. “I’m so sick of people saying that love is just all a woman is fit for,” she bursts out. Love. Not love for a man. Not even marriage. She is decrying the entire concept of love.

“But Rae,” I can hear you asking, “what about the ending, where it’s implied she doesn’t marry Professor Bhaer and gets to publish her novel?” To that, there are two important things to consider. One: the ending is intentionally portrayed as optional. Even though it is heavily implied that Jo did not go off and get heterosexual married at the end, it is possible to ignore that ending or do some light mental gymnastics to make the two versions of Jo’s ending coincide. And I’m not just saying this as a worst-case-scenario, I actually have seen people do this, in fandom and my own life.

Secondly, even if you take the ending as completely factual, we still have all the scenes involving Bhaer previous to the ending to give some hint of Jo’s sexuality. We never see her even look at another woman, but she flirts with Bhaer and blushes when he looks at her and asks for his opinion on her work. Even ignoring the straight-as-default setting of most casual viewers, canonically, Jo has only ever shown interest in men. One man specifically, but still.

“But she could still be bi/pansexual, or suffering from compulsory heterosexuality,” I hear. And this is basically the crux of my argument. In fandom, you don’t have to assume straight as the default, and it's probably better not to. Bi/pan headcanons for “straight” characters are a good, positive way of adding to a fandom culture. However, when it comes to canonical representation, the opposite is true. Representation is not representation if it is not explicit.

I’m not saying that queer viewers cannot feel represented by Jo in this movie. I personally feel represented by Hermoine Granger as a black woman, due to her “wild, bushy hair” and her penchant for social activism (SPEW). However, I cannot give JK Rowling credit for that representation because she had nothing to do with it. She did not do any of the hard work to actually make Hermoine a black woman. In the same way, we cannot credit Gerwig with adding queer representation to Little Women, because she didn’t.

Conclusion: The Response

I know reading this essay probably makes me seem like a Greta Gerwig-hater or like I disliked the movie. Both of those things are untrue. As previously mentioned, I loved the movie. I’ve watched the Amy/Laurie scenes of the movie like a hundred times already. I also don’t hate Greta Gerwig. This is the only movie of hers that I’ve seen, but I heard all about Lady Bird and its popularity, and I think the directing of Little Women was excellent. The fact that Greta Gerwig is a very talented filmmaker is not necessarily an arguable point.

I don’t believe that Gerwig had to fully develop any of the sisters. I don’t even think that Gerwig is required to add queer representation (or racial diversity for that matter) to her movies. Greta Gerwig decided to adapt an extremely white, cishet Civil War era book into an extremely white, cishet Civil War era movie. Hot take time: she is entirely in her rights to do that.

BUT. The thing that bugs me the most about the movie, and is basically the impetus behind me writing this essay, is the response to the movie. For whatever reason, Gerwig’s Little Women adaptation has been deemed more “woke” than it actually is. Little Women (2019) has been lauded for its strong female presence (even though there are only white, cis, straight women), for it’s development of the other, non-Jo sisters (even though it doesn’t), and for giving its lead space to be queer (even though she isn’t).

Greta Gerwig made an excellent film, but she did not do anything that has never been done before. I liked the movie, but I’m not about to go campaign for Greta Gerwig or the movie to win an Oscar. In general, we need to be less willing to acclaim those who do the bare minimum.

Again, I’m not good at writing conclusions. At a certain point I’m going to just start repeating myself, so I’m going to go ahead and cut myself off now. Again, if anybody has any opinions on this, agree or disagree, please come talk to me about it! I’d love to hear any other thoughts.

#little women #little women (2019)#raetalks #meta #meg march #jo march #beth march #amy march #timothee chalamet #emma watson #saorise ronan #eliza scanlen #florence pugh #greta gerwig

47 notes · View notes