#fandom conservatism
Text
Some of y’all on this site don’t want a redemption arc, you want an apology tour and a penance arc. Do y’all just expect a character to spend the rest of their life mentally beating themself up because of past misdeeds? What are you, Catholic?
#redemption arc#on redemption arcs#fandom musings#I have a lot of thoughts about the overlap of fandom and conservatism#some of y’all have not unpacked your religious trauma as much as you think you have#my posts
316 notes
·
View notes
Note
If you don't mind me asking, do you read fanfiction? Either for Top Gun or other fandoms you're in?
Yes! Not for Top Gun though. if you follow me at all you know how truly tapped out of the fandom i am. my typical fandom experience is as follows: for 99% of fandoms i am a consoomer and never a poaster. for 1% of fandoms (TG included) i am a poaster and not a consoomer. I don’t consume any TG fanworks besides my own. Which is why, if you’re asking yourself, why does compacflt act like theirs is the only right interpretation, it’s because mine is the only interpretation im ever exposed to lol. i do really feel bad about not being more connected to the fandom—but i think it’s just a writing thing, i don’t want to be unduly influenced by others’ work. maybe once i stop writing i can enjoy what other people have done. but also i know the second i stop writing my very specific interpretation im not gonna be interested in top gun anymore because it’s those issues i find interesting, so…
i havent been reading much FF lately cause i don’t really have any active fandoms now that succession is over. need to find me some new IP. but when I do read ff i have exorbitantly high standards so i read very little anyway lol
#compacflt is going through her annoying arc#why am i interested in top gun? cause im interested in my own writing lol#it’s very selfish. i apologize for that.#i am just poasting & not really engaging. sorry.#i do feel very isolated in this fandom sometimes but that’s entirely my own doing so don’t ever let me get away with complaining about it#no idea if i am contributing to the broader conversation in any way (because i refuse to look)#so just want to thank everyone who interacts with me ❤️ im just some guy with some thoughts#the village loon yelling on a street corner about ‘top gun conservatism’ ‘us navy homoerotic homophobia’ etc#none of those words are in the bible#so thanks for reading anyway.#always such a privilege to hear from you guys.#not top gun
17 notes
·
View notes
Text
What antis sound like:
[Image source]
Image text: "Ban this filth!" — Virtue Magazine
13 notes
·
View notes
Text
I don't get the whole "if you support censoring fanfic you're functionally a conservative" argument. I mean, I get the claim, but I suppose the response is: so what?
Taking the view of an anti, arguendo, there are three responses that comes to my mind regarding the "you're functionally conservative" argument:
1. I reject this argument. Opposing incest/RPF/whatever in fic is not related to being conservative.
2. I accept the argument. I am commited to not being conservative. Therefore, I retract my anti views.
3. I accept the argument. I am commited to my anti views. Therefore, I embrace conservatism, at least on this issue.
I guess maybe it's that I'm just naïve in my views of politics -- that I view politics as being about positive models of how the world is and normative models of what we value, rather than the view that politics is about friends and enemies, allies and rival coalitions.
I suppose the assumption is that no one (locally) could actually want to be conservative: that it's like calling a typical Christian a Satanist. Sure, as of 2022 about 36% of Americans claim to be conservatives when asked (comparable with number of moderates, more than the number of liberals), but no one's like that on fandom tumblr.
Still, I guess I wish there were more of an argument along the lines of "here is why your argument is flawed, creates problems, or fails to solve the problems you think it solves" rather than "if you believe this, that makes you a conservative of all things!"
1 note
·
View note
Text
,
#I’m a terrible person maybe#probably a hypocrite#because I can fully agree with a fandom take#but as soon as I see in the notes how their mutuals are celebrating them in like the ‘lol triggered the snowflakes’ style way#I just ignore it#even if it’s the most interesting post I want to talk about because it isn’t talked about enough#so annoyed by that kind of personality#I think twitter sucks butts and that’s why I don’t like interacting with those kinds of posts anymore#even on tumblr#maybe it’s a personality that’s prominent in American conservatism + twitter celebrates that by inundating my feed with them#most of them might be lefty quote tweet dunks but it still puts the stupid initial tweet on my timeline#ugh#negativity#man whatever happened to not feeding the trolls
0 notes
Text
I'm done with your purity
I'm fucking done with all of you westerners fucks who take your freedom for granted. AO3 was banned in china because pissy fans reporting RPF TO THE GOVERNMENT UNDER FALSE REPORT OF PEDO OR WHATEVER thus making life a living hell for Chinese writers and fans. ALSO LET ME TELL YOU that fanfic and AO3 is a safe space for many oppressed LGBT people outside of the west
I can't fucking say that I'm trans and bi without having people beating the shit out of me, but I can fuckin' write that I'm gay as fuck in fanfic or writing gay shit about my fave with fanfic
Imagine some people defending state wide censorship over fanfic, because they don't like icky fanfic, that's a sign that either you are brainwashed or fucking privileged and taking your freedom for granted. You know why Asian and other non western USA-European are more chill with fanfic and fandom?
Why we are less prone to make some stupid callout over fanworks?
Because most of us doesn't have the same information and expression privilege like the west, we take any freedom that we can have
That's in 2017... There's probably more than one million websites being censored rn. I cannot even buy pride pin here because NO ONE outside of internet selling it! The censorship always begin from "banning information to protect children and moral from nsfw" down to censoring Spongebob Squarepants
You don't like something? Just don't fucking read it, it wouldn't stop the author to write and when they do stop writing usually after they are harassed so bad to the point of mental break down or suicide. What the actual fuck...
Defending and supporting state wide censorship because you want to feel superior on the internet is beyond stupid and it showing your privilege... Also yah fuck you who defend china aggressive state wide censorship because adult x adult RPF icky or whatever, I like reading Tom Hiddleston x Reader, because I'm lonely and it's fun. Don't lie that you never thinking of marrying your favorite celebrities or dreaming about dating Gerard Way.
What the fuck you gonna do about it? Crucify my ass? So long you are not shoving it to the person's face, who give a fuck? It's not a justifiable ground to cheer for government mandated national wide censorship. A lot of westerners are so privileged and terminally online to the point their mind revolve around online discourse 24/7 I'm not saying discourse has no damn merits but you get what I said...
Some people particularly white westerners are so privileged they have the chance to goes back 180° and agreeing with conservative mindset they claim to hate so much... Also your kink critical bullshit and your bullshit crusading over dark stories? Yeah. Heavily influenced by TERF and conservatism. Newsflash...
I'm not a person who agree with all ship or stories, i don't claim any moral high ground. I was so scared of getting cancelled due to the hostile neo puritan fandom culture, but seeing people defending China great firewall and aggressive censorship finally broke something inside of me and I cannot stay quiet
I don't give a fuck about your fanfic discourse, If i don't like something i just wouldn't fucking engage with it and wouldn't read...
I'm done, I'm tired. Fucking tagging this shit as anti vs pro because i need to get the message out there and LET THE CHAOS begin
( When you want to escape your country censorship to the internet but then you see the supposed liberated westerners people wanting censorship because they want to feel moral. Yes there are even westerners who don't want to see anything even remotely 'problematic' example: they will attack Zutara or fuckin' Reylo shipper whatever. See? You are terminally online and so privileged... Congratulations... Here's your fucking medal and gold star)
#ao3#fanfic#shipping#shipping discourse#terminally online#puriteens#puritan#china#censorship#SEA#Indonesia#fandom#fandom wank#purity wank#fandom discourse#fandom critical#rpf#archives of our own#lgbt#politics#antis#vs#pro ship#asia
3K notes
·
View notes
Text
My friend just linked me to this article in light of my rage at all the stupid bullshit comments to that dumb post that Neil Gaiman answered attacking any Good Omens meta that may suggest AziraCrow may want sex in the future.
This article focuses on Heartstopper and Red, White, and Royal Blue, but its relevant. Purity culture is insidious and a current plague infecting our fandom spaces. Don't let puritanicals use asexuality as a disguise and shield for their shitty views either. This has nothing to do with asexuality and everything to do with an infestation of conservative christian fundamentalist viewpoints within fandom spaces specifically aimed at attacking canon mlm media.
The fact that apparently in Good Omens fandom fans arent even allowed to make their own posts discussing potential themes and subtext within the show that dares to imply AziraCrow could have a sexual relationship without puritanicals going to Neil Gaimans inbox to complain that such discussions are offending their delicate puritanical sensibilities is horrifying to me. Its not an attack on your sexuality if fans claim that an intense ox eating scene is oddly sexually charged in their opinion.
We really must keep up the discussion against purity culture and stamp down on sex shaming within fandom.
Anyway it's an excellent article. Please read it.
224 notes
·
View notes
Text
So let me get this straight.
If I believe that a particular character should be ruler/would be a good ruler/would have been a good ruler/deserves to be ruler/will probably end up being ruler/was unfairly deprived of their rulership, be it dany, or jon, or rhaenyra or rhaegar or arya or bran or stannis the mannis (ew) or my neighbour or your mother or whomever the hell you want them to be, I am classist. And royalist. And conservative. And going against the themes of asoiaf. Because no one can fix westeros, because there are no good rulers/there can be no good rulers/rulership is inherently bad/inherently moraly wrong/ the throne is doomed to be destroyed because it is the root of all evil-
But somehow if you believe that one particular character, coincidentally your fave, will probably be a ruler (queen in the north or in any other position of FEUDAL power- ruling is not just reserved to the iron throne btw), or that she should be a ruler or that she would be a good ruler, you are somehow not classist or royalist or conservative.
Can somebody tell me why that is? What is the justification behind your speculation in the first place? Why will she/why should she be a ruler? Because she deserves it? Because she has been through so much? Because she's strong and powerful and resilient? Okay? So, the only meaningful difference between your take and my take is that I actually (naively!) have faith in the possibility that a character that has been established again and again as a progressive and radical leader could possibly contribute to a meaningful radical collective change in the world while you just consider rulership as a prize, as a reward for individual struggle? And somehow that makes me more conservative? That makes me a classist? Besties, it is literally the other way round.
I don't even hate that character. I am pretty neutral towards her, I would even say that I am sympathetic towards her. And I actually believe she will end up in a position of power (not queen in the north but a position of power nonetheless). Yes, in a position of feudal power, that's what I mean, that's the only real power any character could ever have in a book series that is set in a pseudomedieval world. But you need to be very careful before you start throwing around classism and royalism and conservatism accusations at people for actively engaging with a pseudomedieval fantasy (fantasy!!) book series whose entire foundation is the question "what is a good leader?", "what makes a good leader?", "how does someone become a good leader?", "how could this system become slightly better?", "what are the powers that stop any real progress? how can these powers be defeated?" The answers to these questions in asoiaf are not easy or automatic. But they exist. All of these questions have answers in the text. Concrete, solid answers, whether you like it or not. Believing in the truth of those answers simply means we engage with the themes of the (fictional!) story. It simply makes us fans of the text. It does not make us stupid or naive, and it definitely does not make us conservative.
There is nothing that I despise more in this fandom than the double standard of "oh you are so lame if you actually believe someone could/will be a good ruler, nobody should be king or queen, meanwhile let's talk about my fave's ruling arc" (asoiaf version), or "oh you are so lame if you actually believe a particular character should have been ruler and not the other, that makes you a classist and we're not, all sides are bad because monarchy, meanwhile let's dedicate 99,9% of our posts explaining why one side is wrong. One specific side. Entirely coincidentally, since we do not take sides" (fire and blood version).
The meaningful difference between these two fandom "factions" is that one is honest and openly engages with the themes of the story in an organic and positive and hopeful way, while the other is just this annoying group of college kids repeating the same, holier-than-thou, pseudo-intellectual takes ad infinitum to appear smarter than anyone else while carefully concealing their obvious bias.
#aspa rambles#asoiaf#valyrianscrolls#daenerys targaryen#rhaenyra targaryen#jon snow#arya stark#fire and blood#rant
95 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Tedependent Tinhat Thesis
Welcome! Welcome to The Tedependent Tinhat Thesis.
As of writing this, only Episode 1 of Season 3 has been released so far. If you feel the need to send me an anon about how Ted/Trent won’t happen, I implore you to remember when fandom culture used to encourage people to ship characters freely — even when those characters never interacted. This is all written in good fun, and to critically analyze Ted Lasso through a queer lens.
Disclaimer: This meta compiles various topics discussed by people in the Tedependent camp. I cannot take credit for everything. If anything, this is a love letter to them.
To make this a bit easier to digest (and write), I’ve divided this meta into the following sections:
Queerness in the Media.
Ted Lasso and His Subtextual Bisexuality.
Trent Crimm, Independent.
Tedependent Evidence.
Rom-com Tropes and Structure.
Narratives and Storytelling.
Unexpected Ending.
So let’s begin on a base level of understanding about queerness in the media and how that history does and doesn’t tie into Ted Lasso.
Queerness in the Media
The presence of queer people in film has been a contentious topic since the enactment of the Hays Code in 1934. The Hays Code sanitized/censored what could be shown on-screen, and catered to an audience of white, straight men. This sanitization/censorship of media went hand in hand with the American societal shift into conservatism at the end of the Great Depression and WWI.
The Hays Code remained in effect until 1968, when the political landscape of America once again shifted — this time into a more progressive light. Until 1968, filmmakers and creatives within the industry sought out ways to bend and push the Code’s rules. The invention of television helped play a role in the dissolution of the Code, as did the growing number of foreign films which depicted things like queerness and women’s sexuality.
Why is this relevant to Ted Lasso, a television show made in 2020?
30 years of conservative censorship and catering to straight, white men does a number on what people deem “acceptable” to show in film. This thinking extends into the world of television. The Hays Code was rooted in conservative ideology and created a system in Hollywood that prioritized white, straight men’s stories — to the point where there was little representation of anyone else. Its effects are still felt today, 55 years on from dissolution. There still is a terrible underrepresentation problem in Hollywood that runs from POC stories to women’s stories to queer stories. Even worse if any of those stories intersect with each other.
Before we dive into the topic of queer-coding in television, we need to understand the history of queer signaling. Queer signaling emerged so that queer people could identify themselves to other queer people without outing themselves to danger. It is by nature subtle to ensure safety within a homophobic society. Men wearing green carnations on their lapels, women giving other women violets, and the use of lavender are all queer signals that were used back in the day. Fashion choices are another signal (the old hanky code), as are certain phrases (“Are you a friend of Dorothy?”).
When you leave things to be subtle, it allows for people on the outside to interpret the information in a way that is easiest for them to digest. That has ramifications on queer history to be erased or explained away or rewritten to better push a heterosexual "default". You see it time and time again when historians call women who lived together for decades "good friends" or when historians laugh at the possibility of someone like Abe Lincoln being queer. There's this homophobic undercurrent of: How can this beloved, well-known person be queer? Why would you even imply something like that?
The same thing happens to queer characters on-screen. Queerness in television, specifically, has a history of being coded. Queer-coded characters are characters who are not explicitly queer — sometimes even are mentioned as straight —, but through their mannerisms and traits can be perceived as queer to the audience. Well known queer signals help aid in queer-coding. Harmful stereotypes also are utilizied to code a character. Therefore it is important to discern the intent and the use of these signals and/or stereotypes.
(Please note: Queer-coding is different than Queer-baiting. To code a character as queer is inherently neutral, while to bait a character as queer is almost always negative.)
The ambiguity of coding allows for the show/studio to not have to present overt representation at the risk of alienating its audience. Hello, Hays Code.
Queer-coding is a reflection on society's stance on queer people at the time the character is written. In the 1980’s, when the AIDS Crisis was labeled a “Gay Cancer”, Disney films queer-coded their villains (notable ones include Ursula and Scar). In the 1990’s, Chandler Bing in Friends became a queer-coded character, but instead of villainizing him, it served to ridicule him. Even jumping forward to today, characters (such as Deborah in Hacks) still remain coded despite other characters within the same show being explicitly queer.
And while the queer-coded characters of today are not targets of outright villainization, there lies an undercurrent rationalization to their subtextual queerness. For example, characters like Wednesday and Enid Sinclair from Wednesday are explained away as: “Well they’re just friends”.
Characters like Ted in Ted Lasso can be explained away as: “Well he isn’t toxically masculine”.
Ted Lasso and His Subtextual Bisexuality
Ted? A queer-coded character? Afraid so, bucko.
He isn’t the only one in the show, either. Keeley, Colin, and Trent are also queer-coded for their own reasons. Colin most notably for his Grindr comment; Keeley most notably for her various sapphic comments. Trent…we will get to later on.
(It is worth noting that as of writing this, there are still no explicitly confirmed queer characters in the show. Although the case can be made that Keeley is confirmed bisexual already).
Focusing back on Ted, there is a good amount of evidence for bisexuality that can admittingly be explained away. People can point out that he’s secure in his heterosexuality, that he isn’t toxically masculine, that that is just how his character is. And yes, those viewpoints are all true and well and good, but I want to pose a question:
Why are we so adamant that Ted Lasso isn’t queer?
Explaining away a queer-coded character’s subtextual queerness is perhaps the easiest route fans can take. Whether there is (implicit) homophobia attached or simply because of the fan’s strict adherence to what’s been canonically established so far, quite a few people’s knee-jerk reaction to reading a theory their beloved main character could be queer is: “Nope! No way, José!”
Let’s challenge that reaction for a second. Let’s put down the explanations. Let’s take a look into what, exactly, I am talking about when I say that Ted can be read as a bisexual man.
“Rugby. What a game. It’s like if American football and sumo wrestling gave birth to a baby with huge muscular thighs all caked in mud.” — Season 3, Episode 1.
This is a peek into how Ted views the sport of Rugby, and it sure is telling to what he pays attention to. It’s also said in the context of asking if Sharon is seeing anyone. The phrase “huge muscular thighs all caked in mud” draws up quite the image, which when paired up with the direct conversation context, lends itself into an erotic visual. Rugby is known to be a homoerotic sport, too.
(Please note: The “baby" in this sentence is Rugby personified to help segue the listener from imagining the sport as an abstract to imagining the sport as tangible. “It’s like if ___ and ___ gave birth to a baby” is a common figure of speech used to mean the combination of two things. The focus in this sentence is not the baby, but rather the muscular thighs.)
Ted could have said anything else about Rugby. But he didn’t. The first association he has with the sport is “muscular thighs caked in mud”. Why is that?
“Guys have underestimated me my entire life. And for years, I never understood why. It used to really bother me. But then one day, I was driving my little boy to school, and I saw this quote by Walt Whitman, and it was painted on the wall there. It said, ‘Be curious, not judgmental.’ I like that.” — Season 1, Episode 8
Walt Whitman was an openly gay poet in the 1800’s. His famous body of work Leaves of Grass has clear homoeroticism within it. The quote Ted references, though, isn’t a Whitman quote. But Ted believes it to be. “Be curious, not judgmental” is an aspired quote that reminds us to be more open-minded.
Added layer: Not understanding why peers underestimate you or treat you different is a common experience in the queer community.
“That’s funny, when it comes to small talk I often ask myself what would Dolly Parton do? Start with the 9 to 5 and end with God Only Knows” — Official Twitter. Sept 28, 2021
“And next week is, if I remember correctly, Shania Twain.” — Season 2, Episode 1
Dolly Parton and Shania Twain are gay icons, especially to country folk.
“Shoot, I know I got goosebumps. I remember being a little kid, sitting in front of the television and watching Queen perform right over there during Live Aid.” — Season 2, Episode 8
Queen is not only an iconic band, but interwoven with queer culture. Freddie Mercury was bisexual.
“Last time I saw equipment this impressive, I was about 20 minutes into Boogie Nights.” — Official Twitter. Aug 30, 2022.
Boogie Nights is a 1997 film about a man becoming an adult-film sensation in the 1970’s. Twenty minutes in, there is a scene referencing the main character’s dick.
Boogie Nights also draws heavily from the disco genre for it’s soundtrack. Disco is a staple in queer culture as it allowed people freedom to express their identities in the nightlife scene. It didn’t matter who danced with who in the clubs.
“I feel like you two [Beard and Nate] are about to do some improv comedy or tell me that you’re dating each other. Either one’s cool with me. ‘Cause your suggestion is: ally.” — Season 1, Episode 9
Ted is supportive of queer relationships. An ally, as he says. But maybe he isn’t just an ally.
He repeatedly calls members of the Diamond Dogs pet names/terms of endearment. “Sweetie” “Baby” “Honey”, the list goes on. When this began in Season 1, Episode 6, Beard found it out of character for Ted to do so. (Nate asking him if Ted’s alright and Beard laughing, “No!”). What makes me pause on this is that the origin of Ted’s terms of endearment stem from Michelle leaving him. Ted’s looking for emotional comfort or familiarity in other men that he can no longer give to or receive from his ex-wife.
Other straight men in the show (like Roy) don’t engage in this behavior.
Ted also really enjoys musical theatre. He references musicals a lot. I mention this information now because it is important later.
There are more examples in the show, but I hope I’ve laid out enough to get you to at least see the repeated mentions of queer culture. They’re spinkled in, sure, but they are there. And they’re given in a way that gives an impression that maybe, maybe Ted isn’t as straight as we’re led to believe.
Keep in mind that sexuality is fluid, bisexuality exists, and characters evolve over the course of their stories. Is it really so out there to imagine Ted developing into his own?
Let’s move on to Trent.
Trent Crimm, Independent
We do not know much of Trent’s backstory. Yet. James Lance has said in interviews that Jason Sudeikis brought it up to him early on. Interesting, as Trent hadn’t yet become a series regular. Was there always a plan in store for his character?
Well what do we know of Trent? From other character’s reactions and comments about him, we know he is someone who writes scathing exposés as a journalist. We know he’s highly obervant, blunt, and at times aloof. He takes his job seriously and he loves the sport of football. A “tough cookie” as Ted put it. People listen to what he writes about, as Rebecca mentions in Season 1 Episode 3. He’s established in his profession.
We also come to discover that he’s grown dissatisfied with his career. He’s “looking for something deeper”. He goes from disliking Ted (“Is this a fucking joke?”) to burning his source out of personal respect for Ted (“My source was Nate”). This shift in character is pretty drastic, though believable if you pay attention to how he acts in the press room and the questions he asks throughout Seasons 1 & 2.
He has a je ne sais quoi about him that queer fans of Ted Lasso have picked up on. Perhaps it’s the way he dresses, his hair, or his overall vibe. Perhaps it’s the way he looks at Ted like he’s endlessly fascinated by him. Trent Crimm, Independent inexplicably reads as gay.
Tedependent Evidence and Speculation
Keeping everything we’ve established so far in mind, let’s go through some of their scenes together. Keyword: some. This meta is long enough as is.
Lasting First Impressions
In the Pilot episode, one of the first things Ted says to Trent is, “I like your glasses.” To which Trent takes them off, looks at them, and replies, “Oh, thank you.” And then it becomes a recurring move he does nearly every time he talks to Ted.
In Season 1 Episode 3, Trent greets Ted, “Hello Coach Ted Lasso from America.” to which Ted replies, “Hello Trent Crimm from the Independent.” And then that becomes a recurring joke between them.
Speaking of Season 1 Episode 3, if you jump to 18:29, you’ll catch Trent giving Ted a full body check as Ted finishes getting ready.
Bring It On!
“Make like Dunst and Union and Bring It On, baby!” Ted says to Trent in Season 2, Episode 3.
The 2000 film Bring It On! includes a storyline about a gay cheerleader who is comfortable in his sexuality. The movie addresses issues of racism, appropriation, and systemic inequality. It’s become a beloved cult classic.
It is also the first time Ted uses a term of endearment on Trent. He doesn’t do that to any of the other journalists, indicating that they’re on personal friendly terms. Most of their interactions seem to happen off-screen. Ted baked birthday biscuits (and decorated them) for Trent’s daughter. Trent and Ted may have swapped phone numbers somewhere along the way too, seeing as Trent’s able to text him about Nate later on in the season.
The Tie Between Oklahoma! and Casablanca
When Ted references Oklahoma! in Season 1, Episode 5, it’s to specify that the musical is ruined for him due to it becoming a safeword in his marriage with Michelle. The direct quote is:
“So if either of us says ‘Oklahoma,’ the other one has to tell the God’s honest truth… Did ruin the musical for me though. So now every time I hear, ‘Oh, What a Beautiful Mornin’,’ or, uh… what… ‘Surrey with the Fringe on Top,’…”
“Surrey with the Fringe on Top” makes an appearance in the 1989 rom-com film When Harry Met Sally. Harry and Sally sing it together impromptu on a karaoke machine in an electronics store. Sally’s profession in the film is in journalism.
What else is referenced in When Harry Met Sally…? So glad you asked. Casablanca is referenced in the film a couple times. In the beginning and in the middle. It serves the narrative purpose to indicate how Harry and Sally’s outlook on love has developed over the years.
Casablanca is a hallmark of the romance genre. And it’s also been referenced in Ted Lasso. In Season 2 Episode 7, when Trent leaves his date to go over to talk to Ted, he says, “Of all the pub joints!”
The Casablanca quote is: “Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine.” It is said by Rick about meeting Ilsa again.
Season 3 Episode 8 is allegedly titled “We’ll Never Have Paris”, which is a subversion of the Casablanca quote “We’ll always have Paris”.
Now for the absolutely insane bonkers speculation. That quote is said in the final scene of the film right after Ilsa asks Rick, “What about us?”. Rick isn’t getting on the plane with her, they’re separating, this is the end of their story. “We’ll always have Paris” is a reassurance that they’ll always be together in their memories.
So if “We’ll always have Paris” is a signifier to the end of a romance, it is possible that “We’ll Never Have Paris” is a signifier to the start of a romance. And who else in Ted Lasso has referenced Casablanca? No one. The only reference in the entire show so far has been said by Trent to Ted.
Twelfth Night
Want to get even more insane in the membrane? Of course you do.
Before Trent walks over to where Ted sits at the bar, Mae makes a reference to the Shakespearan play Twelfth Night. Her direct quote is: “If music be the food of love, play on. Give me excess of it.”
To which Ted replies: “If that's your fancy way of asking if I want another one, you guessed right.”
Sidebar here — because I love connecting the dots even if it turns out I haven’t connected jackshit — Ted’s reply could be a double entendre. He doesn’t say “if I want another drink”, he says “if I want another one”. Another one of what? It’s clear in the context of the bar it’s another one (beer), but it could also foreshadow to mean another one (love). The latter makes sense when combined with Mae’s reference.
Because Twelfth Night is a love story. It’s a romantic comedy. It’s a queer romantic comedy.
So Mae makes a cryptic reference — unprompted — to the opening of a queer love story, and then immediately afterwards we get Trent greeting Ted with a reference to another famous love story.
Remember how Trent did a full body check on Ted in Season 1 Episode 3? Well now it’s Ted’s turn. He does a full body check on Trent around the 31:50 mark in this episode. And he seems genuinely happy to see Trent until Trent puts his journalist cap on.
This happiness is also short-lived if we jump forward to Season 2 Episode 12. When Trent texts Ted initially, Ted smiles at his phone. The smile goes away as soon as Trent sends him the article he wrote.
Burning A Source
Trent burned his source for Ted. This serious, established journalist burned his source.
The Carpark
“Hey! There he is. I was worried about you. I thought you might’ve been in a bike accident or something.”
“Actually, I don’t know how to ride a bicycle.”
“Really? That surprises me.”
“Why? Cause of the hair and the whole vibe?”
“Yeah, I guess so.”
— Season 2, Episode 12
Let’s break this down.
Remember how I said certain phrases are used as queer signaling? Bicycle is one of them. Bi-cycle used to be slang for bisexual (an example of this in pop culture is Queen’s song “Bicycle Race”). Trent saying he doesn’t know how to ride a bicycle could be a double entendre, with the hidden meaning that he isn’t bisexual. He then goes on to ask Ted about “the hair and the whole vibe”, which could be another double entendre. This time with the hidden meaning to ask if Ted’s got a gaydar. The pause at the end of his question and the way he asks it is equally important. He’s testing the waters with Ted.
And Ted passes the test with, “Yeah, I guess so.”
They are also in a carpark, which is a callback and parallel to not just Ted and Michelle, but also to Roy and Keeley.
This entire scene is coded and contains heavy foreshadowing. There’s a lot to unpack. From Trent’s choice of words to locking himself out of his car to Ted saying, “Do what The Man says and try to follow your bliss.”
Speaking of Ted, this is the last scene we see of him in Season 2.
Rom-com Tropes and Structure
So how does that evidence fit in with the story structure? We all know Ted Lasso is a rom-com. So let’s dissect the genre’s tropes and how its typically set-up.
Perhaps one of the most common rom-com tropes is the journalist falling in love (sometimes with who they’re writing about). Sleepless in Seattle, When Harry Met Sally, He’s Just Not That Into You, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, etc. This profession is popular.
There are also the friends of the romantic leads who help guide them. Diamond Dogs, anyone?
The anatomy of a rom-com is typically done in three acts.
ACT ONE: Meet-Cute
Every rom-com has a meet-cute. It’s integral to the structure. And oftentimes — if the rom-com includes someone who is a journalist — that meet-cute happens in the workplace. During this act, the two characters get to know one another and start to fall in love.
ACT TWO: Lose
This stage typically happens two-thirds of the way through. There’s a dissolution of some sort. One character betrays another or they argue or something gets in between them. Either way, one of them leaves.
ACT THREE: Declaration
Whoever left realizes “Wait a minute…I’m in love.” and then the rest of the film leads up to an iconic declaration of love. The characters reconcile and it’s — generally speaking — a happy ending.
It would make sense for Ted Lasso — which references rom-coms and rom-communism out the wazoo — to incorporate this structure. And I think that it already has somewhat in regards to Ted and Trent’s storyline, if you view each act as a corresponding season.
Narratives and Storytelling
Before we saw Ted’s panic attacks and now chronic depression, we got inklings of it. The writers consistently sprinkle foreshadowing into every major plot point in Ted Lasso. The situations in the show feel plausible and real because they’re given the space and the time to breathe, grow, and develop. Pacing is integral to this.
For a show to be so progressive yet not have an explicitly queer character seems strange to me. It feels off. We are given hints, though, which lead me to believe that sexuality will be a major plot point in Season 3. For it being the last season, it’s not going to be enough to potentially only have Colin be the One Gay in the entire cast of characters. That would feel uncharacteristically dismissive from the writers on a show about inclusion and found family.
It would also completely throw out a chance to further enrich the story and deepen the characters. Think about the wasted comedic potential of Trent becoming an accidental gay mentor to Colin. Or the wasted dramatic potential of the Richmond team banding together against homophobia. Or, I don’t know, the wasted dramedy in Ted talking to the Diamond Dogs about how he’s realizing he’s got feelings for men, and there’s a moment where they’re like, “No shit.”
Beyond foreshadowing, another common style the Ted Lasso writers love to utilize is the red herring. A red herring is a misleading bit of information used to distract the audience from the relevant information. We saw it in Season 2 between Ted and Rebecca and Sam. Some people didn’t connect the dots between Sam’s Bantr storyline and Rebecca’s Bantr storyline because Ted — the red herring in this example — was shown also texting on his phone. Editing played a part in this too, as some shots cut to Ted directly after Rebecca had a Bantr Moment.
I honestly think we’re going to get a subversion of this in Season 3. Only this time Rebecca will be the red herring to distract from Ted and Trent. Here’s why:
There are multiple parallels between scenes where Ted interacts with Rebecca and with Trent. This gifset captures those parallels. He gets through both of their barriers (hopping over Rebecca’s “fence” and softening Trent’s “tough cookie” exterior). It’s the Lasso Effect, baby!
What’s more, a larger portion of the audience watching Ted Lasso are primed to expect Ted and Rebecca as endgame. It’s what happens in shows between two main characters of the opposite gender, right? They get together, live happily ever after. Especially if they’re good friends.
Anyone expecting the Ted and Rebecca ending will probably disregard anything developing between Ted and Trent even if its right in front of them. Because historically two men don’t end up together on-screen. Especially not in a show as big as Ted Lasso.
But what if a queer endgame is what Jason Sudeikis means when he says in interviews that the ending is not what we’ll expect?
Unexpected Ending
Before we look at the ending, we must look at the beginning.
The first shot of the season is of Ted’s depressed face in an airport. Since Ted Lasso has so far began and ended each season with a juxtaposition shot, it would make sense for the last shot in Season 3 to be of Ted’s happy face. Whether or not that’s in an airport remains to be seen.
The teaser trailer for this season dropped on Valentine’s Day, which was our first look into Season 3. Season 3 ends on May 31, 2023, one day before June. Or, in other words, one day before Pride Month. The combination here of Valentine’s Day and Pride Month lends itself to an interesting choice.
The official Season 3 playlist dropped on Apple Music. So far all the song’s have been in order, and as there are 56 songs on the playlist, I’m inclined to believe that it’s the entire season.
“Wigwam” by Bob Dylan is the first song of the season. It’s got a melancholic, drifting feel to it, with no real lyrics. If it still stands that the songs are in order, then the last song on the show is “I Am What I Am” by Donald Pippin & George Hearn from the 1983 Broadway musical La Cage aux Folles. It’s got a purposeful, proud feel to it, with meaningful lyrics.
Remember how I said that Ted is a huge musical theatre nerd? La Cage aux Folles is an insane pick — in the best way — to end the show. It’s cultural impact was huge when it came out, as it was the first hit Broadway show that centered on a gay couple, Albin and Georges. “I Am What I Am” quickly became a gay anthem. I can’t give notable lyrics because the entire song is a love letter to being out and proud of who you are. It’s also worth noting that Albin and Georges are fathers to a son.
But why would they pick this particular song from this particular musical? Why choose a gay anthem?
I cannot say for certain that Ted and Trent will end up together by the end of Season 3. All I can say is that it would make sense if they do. From the set-up to the Rom-com tropes to the unexpected ending. And if it doesn’t, if all this ends up being wrong, that’s okay too.
Still, though, I can’t help but root for them.
#ted lasso#ted lasso meta#trent crimm#tedependent#ted lasso speculation#tedtrent#can you fuckign believe this is over 4k words....jesus#there was so much i did not include such as interviews from both james and jason#hope this made sense LMAO
430 notes
·
View notes
Note
The main problem that I have with Youtubers who attempt to approach media analysis and fandom through theory and academia is that the vast majority aren't academics. Just being in undergrad isn't actually enough, contrary to the thoughts of many. Reading a Wikipedia article and reiterating what one may find in some Google, even Google Scholar, searches. Ideally, these would be topics approached by people involved in academia as a profession, people with doctoral degrees, who can discuss complex topics in a way that is easily understood by the masses. "What is the negotiation between gender and sex in BL?" "How does CMBYN articulate/complicate hierarchal roles within the gay novel?" "Could SnK express an alternative reading of the formerly isolated Japan?" These are complicated questions they attempt to answer in their video essays when they seldom ever understand the theories they employ.
Yes, I understand this can sound elitist, but as a Black afab person who is currently in a doctoral program for literature, there aren't "easy" answers to any of the questions they attempt to pose, and many Youtubers who primarily make long-form video essays lack the life experience and expertise to sufficiently discuss anything. They're usually too set in their thoughts to answer or explore the broader implications of their claims. Defending a dissertation forces you to do this. Forming a committee of experts in various fields and convincing them to aid you in the development of your dissertation forces you to do this. Being in academic and cordial communication with your peers from all over the world in your field forces you to do this. It's not easy to constantly intake new information from various eras and nations (depending on your topic), meld this information into a coherent essay, and continually make edits as you learn new information, thus changing your outlook on things. Also: it's really petty of me, but it's also incredibly annoying to grade poorly researched undergrad essays who, after some prompting in office hours, say they got these ideas on books, movies, and shows from breadtubers like Somerton, SZ, FD Signifier, or hbomberguy. Cue: me going to watch their videos and realizing they have no idea what they're talking about 88% of the time in terms of theory and application of said theory. Even the ones who frame themselves on being educators in real life, like Signifier, lack any nuance, depth, or media literacy to make a compelling argument if you know even the slightest bit of information. On the bright side, I now know why I've encountered several students with ideologies that are basically conservatism with a veneer of progressivism, or "conservatism in a queer hat."
This concludes my long-winded way of saying "Don't turn to Youtubers for media analysis. You're better off just reading articles by people who have to actually know what they're talking about. The majority of Youtubers (especially the breadtubers) don't have the bandwidth to discuss anything more complex than an episode of Blue's Clues."
--
I mostly agree, but I'd point to a slightly different problem. I'm hesitant to say that the PhD itself is the deciding factor, but I do think a lot of video essayists are insufficiently prepared.
I'm a big fan of Folding Ideas who does have some formal schooling in film, but I don't think it's that education per se that makes him great. He sets himself apart from other video essayists by actually doing his research and having an in-depth approach to his subjects. He doesn't resort to clickbait, and—here's the key—he often takes months or even a year to work on something.
Honestly, I think that's a big part of it: the hoops most youtubers who want to make a living at it have to jump through involve a lot of clickbait and pandering and a fast production schedule. They don't involve reputable peer review except by the court of shriek-y public opinion on twitter.
They'd like to present themselves as documentary filmmaking (which is essentially what Folding Ideas' longer videos are), but they don't actually live up to any of the usual standards of that either.
I think it can be elitist to say that someone needs to have certain letters after their name, yes, but what really strikes me about your average youtube media analysis type and the fanbase is that they want shortcuts.
Exploring the whole history of the gay novel so that you have enough background to talk about CMBYN means reading quite a few novels. Even if you decide to throw out all past scholarly opinion on the topic (which you shouldn't), if you're going to have a meaningful personal theory, you need to have read a lot of novels first. How can you hope to be the person providing the neat overview of the whole genre if you haven't familiarized yourself widely with said genre, and not just through a summary by someone else? That amount of reading doesn't happen overnight.
The trite, surface-level media analysis online is often from people who want to be hailed as great intellectuals but who aren't willing to put in the years it takes to do all the background reading and to develop their skills in argumentation, writing, etc.
Grad school is a convenient and probably faster way to go about all that, but I think you could do it outside of a formal framework... But you would need to actually do it.
I think it's driven by a bunch of people who were The Smart One in grade school and never learned how to work hard on long-term projects instead of pushing through in a sprint. They're used to relying on being the smartest to cut corners and do things before they get bored, only they probably aren't the smartest anymore anyway, and they mistake being smart at one thing for being smart at all things.
There's a real lack of respect for the entire concept of expertise.
118 notes
·
View notes
Text
Buckle up, this is a long one!
Hi Anon! 😊👋
I cut off the link because, that is not what I’m about. I’m a positive person, I don’t like conflict or ‘coming at people’ none of that. I don’t believe in putting anyone against anyone else on this app. Everyone can do or say what they want on their blog and if someone doesn’t like it, they don’t have to follow them. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone else is entitled to follow or block. I definitely don’t believe in pitting jikookers against each other at all.
I’m a chatter box with a lot in my head and don’t know when to stop a lot of the time, so sorry in advance!
With that out of the way...
I'm someone who believes in Jikook. You know this if you look at my posts, I believe you know this to bring a Jikook related ask.
I believe they have a long term exclusive relationship and that they are still together to this day. In believing that I must believe that they are queer, be them gay, bi, pan or anything under the umbrella that has them sexually and romantically attracted to each other and not concerned with their biological assignment and gender presentation.
Because I believe this, I therefore can see the issues behind a couple who for all intents and purposes are both men in a country that vilifies homosexuals.
YouTubers who take to the streets and speak to everyday people in Korea about their experiences being gay in Korea as natives and also foreigners.
I think I’ll do a post one day on some, but feel free to dm me if you want some links before then.
l also have some links of short docs done on homosexuality in Korea and conservatism.
I can also direct you to some articles on the laws that have been upheld just recently to uphold discrimination against gay people in Korea.
“In the comments every US army saying they nor locals care about artist's sexuality and queer concept they put out.”
I’m English, so I guess I’m part of that ‘West.’
I’m not gonna lie to you, no shade to anyone that believes otherwise, but I have personally only seen that when a celeb is known to be openly queer, not just alluding to it, but out and proud, the media bring it up EVERYTIME they mention anything to do with the artist.
The artist can do a food drive and the media will find a way to mention about when they came out, even though it has nothing to do with the music. It’s like when an artist dates someone famous, the media STILL find a way to bring their past relationships into things that have nothing to do with it. It may or may not make an impact on an artists fandom buying their albums, singles etc but it can unfortunately affect their growth with the general public.
Artists don’t just make music in a vacuum, they have brand deals, shows they go on, festivals, collaborations etc. though you may think in this day and age, being queer shouldn’t make a difference, unfortunately it does. Some brands may not want to associate themselves with an out and proud artist, some producers may not want to work with them, some festivals may not think they match the vibe and don’t want a crowd of queer fans turning up, even in the West.
“Make sense as there are multiple queer artists who are so successful in west. Whole world was singing 'unholy' by a non binary person lol.”
Who are these multiple out and proud queer artists? I’m not trying to be obtuse, I don’t know all the artists right now. I know like Troye Sivan, Lil’ Nas X, Demi Lovato, Sam Smith whose song you mentioned. Please forgive me if there are loads more big western out queer artists I’m missing, I’m just thinking about young big pop artists.
Lil’ Nas X is an amazingly strong person, he deals with a lot but he has such a strength of character, he gives as good as he gets and he gets A LOT! So make no mistake he faces a lot of challenges and fights for where he is and to be unapologetically him.
Demi I can’t say much on because I haven’t taken the time to understand where they are in their journey and their musical career now, but they also came out with a non-heterosexual label for themselves well into their established career.
Jungkook is not Sam Smith. He is not a white man from England who gained success FIRST before coming out as non-binary SEVERAL albums and accolades into their career. Jungkook is not an artist under the same circles as western artists who can rely on the same connections that western artists do.
Big western out queer artists who after coming out of the closet, do not live in a country that still has outdated practices such as mandatory military service, such as terrible women's rights to the point that women feel the only way to take back any control is to abstain from relationships, marriage and children.
This is the country Jungkook is from, the country of his family, friends and loved ones. Though he may make statements that jikookers can see for what they are, that those closely tapped into bangtan and all the fandom intricacies may know about. That’s not on the same scale as a GLOBAL solo debut. The spotlight being solely on him and NOT spread amongst 7 members. That will carve out how the general public, not just ARMY, see him from solo debut and always.
I funnily enough just did a post on Jungkook himself talking about wanting to do music about imaginary scenarios and stories. He said this in 2021. It's my inference (as you want my opinion) that these songs for his solo is that. Is it a reach then to say the music videos do not reflect him?
Also none of these artists are from a group. They are responsible for their career and their career only. They aren’t going to go back to their group work and have deals that don’t just affect them but 6 other people. They don’t live in a country where freedom of speech means something completely different.
“If it's catchy enough not even conservative country fans gives af about artist sexuality or gender imo.”
Your opinion. I don’t believe this to be the case.
Yes one or two catchy songs may get them fame if they’re out from the very beginning, but if they fail to sustain that momentum for any reason they quickly become ‘niche’ confined and limited to their own fandom, not given the platforms again to make a bigger and wider impact, falling to obscurity and only those that were with them from the beginning keep up with their newer projects past those one or two catchy songs.
Unless you come from a conservative country you can’t say with full confidence. Real conservative countries, like Korea have no problem with celebrities calling homosexuality a mental illness and calling queer people depraved, deviants etc. many Korean celebrities have said as much and more to the press and public with no consequence to their fame or career, the same cannot be said for if a western celebrity said as much.
“So how this narrative of JK chose het image to enter western market make sense ? He could get exactly the same results by staying to his authentic self isn't it ? Isn't it just a narrative made by shippers to convince themselves that he's still queer even if he's doing het songs to keep their ship floating? ( I really don't have a problem if he was queer but any excuses given doesn't make sense regarding his choices. Atp the only sensible explanation I can think of is that he's het, it's his choice to portray himself in this concept, it's him choosing to sing about het sex back to back, he agreed to having female lead actress in all his chapter 2 mvs. He kinda confirmed it by saying it wants to show different sides of HIMSELF. So maybe that's what it is.. simple 🤷♀️”
Sensible *to you.* with the information and opinions that *you* have.
Again I believe Jikook are together so of course that's my train of thought and with the information that I have what is sensible to *me* is not the same as you.
However to be completely 100. It doesn't matter what I think.
My thoughts do not change who Jungkook dates nor does it change his sexuality.
If you believe him to be heterosexual ok.
If I believe him to be queer ok.
He'll still be with who he wants to be with, he'll still identify as what he wants to identify as.
If I interpret his music videos to not be a reflection of him and you do interpret his music videos to be a reflection of him, ok.
What difference does it make?
I can see Jikook as real and believe there to be deep meaning behind their years and years of words and actions. I can also see his music videos as 4 minute fictional films with actresses and musical background that once the filming ends, so does his dealings with them.
That is also simple
💜
114 notes
·
View notes
Text
Conservatism is baked into pro-fidelity adaptation arguments
Aka, what incorrect lessons the Percy Jackson and Avatar: The Last Airbender adaptations taught fandom, and why the Internet is mostly wrong about The Rings of Power.
I don't particularly like the film adaptations of Percy Jackson and Avatar: The Last Airbender, but it's not because they "changed things" (and it's certainly not for Annabeth's hair color.) They're bad films purely because they're bad films, lacking the original texts' (Riordan's books/the ATLA show) charm, personality, point of view, and humor. Crucially, they both lack the essentials of plot and characterization and contain ill-fitting humor, bombastic CGI, and appeals to "mainstream" popularity that didn't actually appeal to any kind of mainstream because audiences are slightly too sensible to fall for something that cheap.
But fandom as a whole, and a whole rash of individual fans, took the wrong lessons away from these failed adaptations. People started to complain solely about superficial changes made (Annabeth's hair, the poor/problematic ATLA casting) and came to the conclusion that if the adaptations were only more faithful to the source material, they would've made good movies. (Which is why Riordan and the ATLA showrunners now are so hellbent on proving their new takes will be faithful. Because the fans are feral and bloodthirsty about it.)
Which is wrong. Because films are films, not books/animated shows. The medium demands fundamental, structural modifications. Films have more compact run-times than books and animated shows, and different dramatic shapes. Films are made for a 1-sitting experience—for this type of heroic quest story, it's always a 3-act structure, play credits. The medium necessitates changes. (Since Percy Jackson/ATLA/ROP are TV shows, not films, I'll caveat that TV shows are structurally even more difficult. Not only do you need to balance season arcs and their dramatic shapes, you need sufficient dramatic push-and-pull on an episode-to-episode basis.) On this level, we can agree fidelity is, to some degree, a myth.
Going deeper, though, I argue that fidelity is not only a myth, but also an innately conservative argument that prioritizes "keeping things the same" at the expense of "making something actually good and worthwhile." Fidelity, of course, means faithfulness, but the only other place you commonly hear the word "fidelity" is in the context of marriage and relationships. Who needs to stay faithful? Husbands and... well, really, mostly wives, in the Christian cultural imagination. Why? Purity and sanctity, and freedom from sin, which sounds a lot like fandom purity culture and the Madonna/whore dichotomy transplanted into another realm. Yes, fandom has created a sanctity/sinning, Madonna/whore dichotomy for adaptations. On one hand are the Good and Pure Adaptations that do not stray from the Lord's course (the author's original text.) On the other hand we have The Very Sinful Whore Adaptations, like Rings of Power.
I know a lot of fans had a deep emotional whiplash to Rings of Power, I among them. I was hesitant because I don't trust large profit-driven corporations like Amazon and especially because I despise Bezos (and would support pirating all Amazon material, let's be real.) I was hesitant also because there was such immediate, widespread backlash to the costumes and casting and trailers, it was easy to jump on the bandwagon and nitpick details—backlash that took advantage of my vulnerable emotional state because of how much I care about Lord of the Rings. LOTR, both books and movies, was incredibly formative and important for me and my whole generation, and if it felt like this new adaptation would taint it—well, you weren't alone in thinking that.
(The ROP writers room, of course, operates independently from Bezos and corporate Amazon. But for those participating in the backlash, nevermind that there are hundreds and thousands of dedicated artists and artisans on the show! We hear Amazon, we have an instinctive response that makes us unable to conceive of the show as an artistic endeavor. Still: the writers and artists on ROP are just that, writers and artists. With Amazon's money, they hired some of the best people working in the industry, and from all accounts there wasn't all that much corporate interference. Or... at least about as much corporate interference that Peter Jackson and every other director and writer deals with.)
(Also pause to note that there was immense and similar backlash to the Peter Jackson films as there currently is to Rings of Power. Even think back to the Hobbit trilogy backlash not one decade ago. This is the exact same phenomenon, we just find ourselves on varying sides of the equation depending on our age and experience.)
I'm sorry to say that everyone who jumped on the ROP backlash bandwagon before the show was even released was manipulated and taken advantage of by alt-right, pro-culture-war trolls, tradcaths, and bad actors. I include myself among those duped by the toxic discourse, because as late as March of 2022 I was telling friends I didn't want to hear a single thing about the LOTR show, I was so mad at it already. Mind you that we'd barely had posters at the time, let alone any real information about the show. It was suspect and evil already in our minds.
How do I know it was trolls and not genuine, good-faith criticism driving the response? Firstly, because pop culture divisiveness is a well-known, extremely effective tool of Russian troll farms to further divide democratic nations. There's an excellent academic paper by Morten Bay at USC about how Russian trolls utilized trolls spreading conservative backlash to Star Wars: The Last Jedi to stoke political division. Guarantee you that ROP casting, Little Mermaid casting, Marvel casting, and every other liberal/conservative divide in pop culture has been used similarly by Russian troll farms to stoke American political division. It's not even up for debate—take a look at Bay's research to see the numbers. ROP is a great target for trolls because it's so important to so many people.
Second, conservative Catholic publications published many reviews and thinkpieces that are highly critical of the show. Imagine my surprise then when well-meaning liberals and progressives on Twitter and Tumblr were sharing these pop culture critiques and fully agreeing with them. Unfortunate times when your own baked-in, uninterrogated need for textual fidelity turns out to be a tradcath line of thinking.
Finally, you have only to look at Youtube and Instagram comments on anything ROP-related to see that the vast majority of anti-ROP vitriol is racist, sexist, and/or tradcath and otherwise fascist in nature. I've read a lot of comments because I lack self-control and the complaints really come in one of two flavors: fidelity arguments, and straight-up nasty racism. Or both. Unsurprisingly the two are married, because both types are yearning for an unpolluted, faithful, and ultimately conservative take on Tolkien.
I liked Rings of Power a lot once I actually watched it, though it took me two or three episodes to break through the unfortunate bandwagoning and negative conditioning I had internalized from social media responses. It's not entirely "faithful", which turns out to be a wonderful thing because there are things Tolkien never acknowledged that the show ought to. Like the degradation and dehumanization of the Uruk race. Or the potential for ostensibly noble Elves like Galadriel to dance on the edge of corruption because of her thirst for vengeance. Or (at least I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that they make good on the hints of this idea in Season 2 and beyond!) how Númenor's fall and destruction is an ultimate test of religious faith for the Faithful because how could Eru have allowed it? We could've had a Rings of Power that ignored those themes and subplots because they're not in Tolkien's texts, but it would've been a loss; they're the most compelling parts of the show.
Okay, I promise I'm leading towards a conclusion. It's this: misdirected Percy Jackson, ATLA, and Rings of Power complaints were born from fan culture transposing Christian purity culture onto adaptations, with extreme and emotionally-charged backlash against adaptations that aren't considered faithful. But adaptational fidelity is both an unrealistic goal and an inherently conservative one. Politically and artistically, progressives should be the first to want interesting, new, surprising, compelling interpretations of favorite texts. That's how new ideas and perspectives can proliferate, sparking conversation and ideas and more forward-thinking instead of stagnation and just repeating the same stories endlessly. (Funny how everyone complains about endless sequels and remakes, but the second adaptations make changes people also complain. Can't win!)
But fan attitudes are also revelatory in that they show how much fandom is only superficially progressive. Tolkien fans—even the most liberal—are desperately, slavishly loyal to the Catholic politics of a 20th century white male author (one who, let us never forget, said his Orcs looked like the ugliest Asians [author's disdainful paraphrase.] and the Romantic, Christian-y, black-and-white morality and aesthetics of Peter Jackson's films. ROP's girlboss Galadriel was a funny jokey meme, nevermind that most of the commentary is disgustingly misogynistic; even liberals don't like girlboss Galadriel because, I suppose, ethereal perfect queen Galadriel with an absolutely static character arc is a more compelling character to them? (Unsure why angry rageful Galadriel isn't a feminist favorite on this website—oh, except there's an obvious answer: people's progressive credentials are shallow and uninterrogated, and we don't like angry women who are in the wrong and need to change.)
And then there's Bronwyn, who I've seen criticized for not being a consistent character (as if she should only be a mom or only a leader or only a lover. I think it's realistic and very cool for her to contain multitudes.) Or Míriel, last queen of Númenor who's bound to die a tragic death—I swear it made me want to grind my teeth into dust when I read that this was bad and racist of the writers because she's a woman of color and her storyline involves her getting deposed and dying. As if it doesn't make complete, heart-wrenching sense for a women of color to desperately fight a losing battle against corrupt enemies. As if women of color don't also deserve to be tragic, noble heroines. I think it goes back to the fact that these women contain multitudes, an immense upgrade from Tolkien's women, who with the notable exception of Eowyn are pretty shallow characters.
I almost went and made a caveat here that it's okay for you to dislike the show if you want. Which, I guess, sure, I'm not making decisions for you. But I suspect that if people interrogated their dislike for ROP's Galadriel, Bronwyn, Arondir, Míriel, and other divisive characters, they might find that they're regurgitating what the tradcaths and trolls taught them to say, because the tradcaths and trolls have perfected the art of making you angry on the Internet. Who really benefits from LOTR remaining a 20th century relic of stagnant politics? Traditionalists who want Tolkien to remain pure, white, and Christian.
I do have two main criticisms of Rings of Power, which are the "The Elves will take your jobs!" line (dumb) and occasionally the pacing (needs work.) And other than the casting of Arondir, Bronwyn, Disa, Míriel, and other important characters with actors of color, it's not a particularly progressive narrative in and of itself. But the Internet backlash stems from the sad fact that while we were all happily ensconced in our safe, superficially progressive fandom spaces, we were all duped into the insidious conservative rhetoric that fidelity is good and ROP's a bad adaptation because it's faithless. Frankly, I'm all for faithlessness, provided it's faithlessness in outdated and harmful politics. Let's take back ground from the tradcaths and trolls, and not let them pre-ordain our decisions for us.
274 notes
·
View notes
Note
Do you think the rise of conservatism / fascism can be linked to the rise of purity culture (in fandoms)?
I definitely believe there’s a connection
55 notes
·
View notes
Text
Jean-Paul Valley has been flanderized by fandom for the majority of his fancontent, reduced to a religious fanatic, and oddly assumed to have bigoted conservative morals due to what ppl associate with stereotypical religious fanaticism.
It’s really weird when people automatically label the guy whose family and ancestors grew up in a cult, but is also has repeatedly shown to try to unlearn said cult’s teachings and be a better person, atoning for his past actions, as a perpetual bigoted religious madman?
It’s understandable to make the fanaticism assumption based only on “He’s insanely religious and was brainwashed as a kid” and nothing else, but it’s also making a, while important, beginning era of a character their whole identity, and ignoring their future growth for the sake of either needing an antagonist or something to joke at.
However, the conservatism assumption is confusing, where is that entire piece coming from? Did you not read the Azrael solo, see the destruction of the Order and the entire ordeal with Nicholas Scratch, esp at the end of the series? Or did you just read the Knightfall saga and end your JPV reading at a very transitional point in his history?
42 notes
·
View notes
Text
It’s just that like. Dr who being poorly written is not at all unique to the 13th doctor. And her seasons are not poorly written in a particularly remarkable way. So I do think it’s a bit weird that enjoying Girl Doctor Seasons is the sin that gets you labeled a Dumb Opinion Haver by much of dr who fandom.
And don’t give me “Chibnall is more conservative than other writers” unless you can defend to me why Chris Chibnall’s clumsy attempts at progressivism are Worse politically than some of the outright conservatism and bigoted caricatures we’ve seen with other writers (I am LOOKING at classic who fans who take a moral high ground about Chibnall’s writing while reblogging gifs from The Two Doctors).
Kerblam is One Episode and if you can call Chibnall era fans anti-worker and pro-capitalist for an episode he didn’t write then surely Kill the Moon’s existence is damning to anyone who enjoys Steven Moffat’s writing. Come on now.
It’s SO INFURIATING how classic who fans get the grace of other fans taking as a given that they are aware of the ways it’s flawed and choose not to focus on that but if you like girl doctor you must PROVE that you’re Smart about it and know that it’s bad, or it’s assumed that you Don’t Know or Don’t Understand What Good Media Is. I just don’t think we put other eras of dr who under nearly the same scrutiny as 13 gets. Dr who HAS been bad before and will be bad again and in some ways is Always Bad so it’s WEIRD to me that these seasons specifically are the ones that get the “I judge anyone who likes it” treatment from even progressive factions of this fandom. That other post is right it does remind me heavily of Star Wars fans who give the prequels little to no scrutiny and insist that the sequels are unforgivably bad. I will remain a Girl Dr Who and Girl Star War enjoyer. Sorry.
#discourse#do I main tag this.#doctor who#vent#?#kind of#did you guys know that there’s a whole community out there of people doing scholarship about dr who#and they almost Never care about whether dr who is Good or Bad. because those words close off more interesting analysis#I do think dr who fandom can learn many things from academia. this is one of them
58 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
atiqahsazali
Untitled
reidluna
Rei Luna Art
everybodyknows-everybodydies
memento vivere
bluethemagpie
Blue Icarus
welikethisgame-blog
Hoodie & Batch