#that has had male characters with significant roles several times before and they have never overshadowed the girls | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mythgenderedloki · 3 years

Text

To celebrate Loki being confirmed as canonically queer in the Loki series, please enjoy this 12,000 word, fully referenced dissertation exploring Loki’s genderfluidity in Norse Mythology and Marvel comics....

Myth-gendering Loki: Changing attitudes to gender non-binary in the afterlives of the Prose Edda.

Abstract

This dissertation focuses on the character of Loki in the Prose Edda and in Marvel Comics as a way of exploring non-binary gender. The first chapter will use myths involving Loki as case studies through which a queer reading of the Prose Edda can be performed. Developing on the notion that the gender ambiguity in the Edda sets the foundation for Loki being a queer character, the second chapter will acknowledge how some of the most recent interpretations of Loki have fully embraced this aspect of his character and will therefore examine how this is presented through the two different mediums of comics and novels. The value of queer reading means that greater representation can be found not just in modern texts but can be sought out in the historical as well. Through the course of this dissertation, the importance of queer representation has been argued with regards to its place in history and to young adult audiences.

List of Illustrations

Figure Page

1. Stan Lee et al Journey into Mystery (New York: Marvel Comics, 1952), #85 35

2. Al Ewing et al Loki: Agent of Asgard (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020), #2 35

3. Al Ewing et al Loki: Agent of Asgard (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020), #14 35

4. Al Ewing et al Loki: Agent of Asgard (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020), #2 35

5. Al Ewing et al Loki: Agent of Asgard (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020), #5 36

6. Al Ewing et al Loki: Agent of Asgard (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020), #16 36

7. Walter Simonson et al, Thor (New York: Marvel Comics, 1966). #353 36

Contents

List of Illustrations

Introduction: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1

Chapter One: Loki in the Edda: ………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

Gender Ambiguity: ………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

Sexual Deviance: …………………………………………………………………………………………… 10

Race: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15

Chapter Two: Loki in Marvel: ……………………………………………………………………………………. 20

Genderfluidity: ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 21

Existing as Queer: ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28

Identity: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 30

Conclusion: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 37

Bibliography: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 39

Introduction

‘The greatest power of myth: it never stops changing, yet its appeal is eternal’.[1]

Mythology is not something which is set. With every telling and retelling it changes over and over. Even before Snorri Sturluson wrote the Prose Edda in C.1220, the myths he would commit to paper had undergone countless changes innumerable times. Once they had found their way onto the page, the assumption that they would remain there, unchanged, is therefore unwarranted. As Christopher Abram states: ‘Myths of the Pagan North have grown, changed and developed to meet the needs of the new situations in which they find themselves’.[2] With regards to this concept of changeable mythology, this dissertation sets out to examine how the Prose Edda has been changed and developed to adapt to the requirements of modern societies. Using the character of Loki as a point of entry, this dissertation will examine how the Prose Edda has been interpreted to meet these requirements, centring around the concept of non-binary gender. To achieve this, both the original text and Marvel Comic’s interpretation of Loki will be examined through a critical gender and queer perspective.

Gender as something else which is not fixed is an idea first suggested by Judith Butler. Her 1990 book Gender Trouble theorises the concept of performative gender, suggesting that masculinity and femininity are not fixed and are instead performed identities which are acted out constantly. In short gender is not a matter of biology, but instead something governed by the arbitrary rules of a heteronormative ethos. These rules, therefore, can be broken leading to the rise of gender identities that exist outside the sphere of heteronormativity. Genderfluidity and non-binarism define themselves as resistive to the conformed ideas of a binary between masculine and feminine. These terms are not only useful for defining gender identities found in our modern societies but can also be used as tools to re-examine the Edda with, using a queer lens to scrutinize gender performance in this text.

The queer lends itself effectively to the Edda because of the numerous examples of gender inversions. The Poetic Edda especially features gender deviance, with Thor crossdressing in the Thrymskviða,[3] and the questioning of Odin’s masculinity in the Lokasenna.[4] However, for the purpose of this dissertation, only Loki’s role in the Prose Edda will be examined due to it being the most consistent in terms of gender ambiguity and elements of the queer. Although Loki changes between male and female in both this text and the Marvel texts, the pronouns of he/ him will be used to remain consistent with the primary texts. Queer scholarship of the Edda does have some recent precedents, with critics like Brit Solli examining the role of Odin as a queer god, but historically the queer elements of the Edda have been explained away.[5] The main reason cited for this is the difference between the perception of the queer today and of its perception during the composing of the Edda. Although it is true that placing modern terms onto historical texts and forcing certain characters into categories that did not exist at the time can be problematic, this does not mean that a queer reading does not have relevance. Instead, it opens a new way of understanding a culturally significant text.

The Edda has experienced multiple literary afterlives, from Wagner’s Ring Cycle to a significant influence on Tolkien’s work. Most people, however, will first encounter Norse mythology through the medium of Marvel, especially after the phenomenon of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This is why two Marvel texts, Al Ewing’s 2014-15 comic series Loki: Agent of Asgard and Mackenzi Lee’s 2019 Young Adult novel Loki: Where Mischief Lies, have been selected as examples of how mythology has been adapted to meet the needs of their new situation, namely queer representation. Loki is canonically queer in these texts, both in his sexual orientation and gender identity. Increasing diversity has been a clear part of Marvel’s agenda over the last decade, though usually through the introductions of new characters, like Kamala Khan as Ms Marvel. Loki is one of the few already established characters to be reinvented as queer. Although Marvel’s Loki is an entirely separate character to the one found in the Edda, he retains the same archetypical characteristics ensuring he resonates with the original. Whether queerness is one of these innate to Loki and is therefore essential to his character will be examined.

Why Loki so effortlessly lends himself to queer interpretations, evidence of his genderfluidity as well as the intersection of the queer, gender and race will be explored in the first chapter. Marvel’s interpretation and embracement of Loki as a genderfluid and queer character will be the focus of the second, examining how genderfluidity is presented, the pressure to conform to heteronormative societies, and the overarching issue of identity. More widely, this dissertation will argue for the queering of characters from the Edda in modern adaptations.

Chapter One: Loki in the Edda

The Prose Edda is one of our main sources for Norse Mythology. However, as it was written in Iceland around C.1220, the Edda was composed several centuries after Norse paganism had been widely practiced with Christianity replacing it as Iceland’s main religion.[6] The author Snorri Sturluson himself was a Christian and, according to Robert Kellogg, ‘largely functions as a collector or reteller’.[7] I mention this not to question the authenticity of the Edda, but to demonstrate that mythology is always subjected to change. Jan de Vries argues that Norse Mythology has undergone three different stages; a period without Christian influence, suppression from Christian forces, and a final version corrupted by a Christian presence.[8] Those backlashing against diversifying mythological figures often cite ‘original’ texts like the Edda, suggesting diversifying is corrupting the ‘real’ version of this figure. If the oldest existing version of Loki was changed to fit a Christian narrative, why should he not be changed again in modern texts to fit a narrative of queer representation? Nevertheless, this chapter will use the Edda as a way of finding evidence that even this version of Loki has innate queerness.

In the Gylfaginning, where Snorri lists all the main gods, Loki is positioned in between the male Æsir and female Asyniur.[9] Anna Birgitta Rooth refers to this position as a ‘special appendix’[10] which separates Loki from the Æsir gods he is ‘reckoned among’.[11] He is listed after the minor Æsir, making him the last of all the male gods, as this denotes his position as an outsider in the gods society. It also places him in between the male and female categories, hinting at his gender ambiguity. Snorri makes sure that Loki’s sexual deviancy is presented to his audience by listing Loki’s monstrous offspring alongside him, ‘One was Fenriswolf, the second Iormungand (i.e. the Midgard serpent), the third is Hel’, in addition to his mixed racial heritage. [12] When stating Loki’s name, ‘He is Loki or Lopt, son of the giant Fabauti’, Snorri identifies him as the child of the enemies of the gods. [13]

In Loki’s first significant appearance in the Edda, it is possible to read gender ambiguity, queer sexual deviance, and racial anxiety. Some readings of the Edda will try to explain these elements of Loki away. [14] For example, Rooth argues against examples of Loki sexual ambiguity as ‘a motif used to produce comical effects and situations’.[15] This dissertation will instead embrace queerness in the Edda, using Loki as a focal point that intersects gender ambiguity, sexual deviance, and racial anxiety. These three elements of Loki will form the structure of this queer reading of the Edda.

Gender Ambiguity

Before analysing the gender binary found in the Edda, it is important to establish what this meant to medieval Scandinavian societies. For the time of the Edda’s creation and the subsequent oral tradition of Norse myths, Thomas Laqueur defines a ‘one sex model’ where ‘to be a man or a woman was to hold a social rank, a place in society, to assume a cultural role, not to be organically one or the other of two incommensurable sexes.’[16] With regards to this model, Carol J. Clover argues that male and female were not considered opposite in the way modern societies tend to view them. Instead there was ‘a social binary, a set of two categories, into which all persons were divided, the fault line runs not between males and females per se, but between able-bodied men (and the exceptional woman) on one hand and, on the other, a kind of rainbow coalition of everyone else’.[17] This meant that gender was not necessarily assigned to biological characteristics but social ones and, consequently, fluctuated with social status. This can be linked to modern gender theories regarding the connection, or lack of, between biological sex and gender identity. Butler’s theory is particularly notable, arguing that ‘there is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; that identity is performatively constituted by the very “expressions” that are said to be its results’.[18] However, during the Norse period, Clover notes the peril that came with this one-sex system: ‘Not only losable by men, but achievable by women, masculinity was in a kind of double jeopardy for the Norse man’.[19]

The notion of losable and achievable masculinity is illustrated by a story found in the Skaldskaparmal section of the Edda. After the kidnapping of Idunn (which Loki both caused and remedied), the giantess Skadi ‘took helmet and mail-coat and all weapons of war and went to Asgard to avenge her father’ the giant Thassi, who had been killed by the Æsir gods. [20] As part of her compensation for this, Skadi demanded that the gods made her laugh, believing this would be impossible. The task fell to Loki who uses a rather unconventional method: ‘he tied a cord round the beard of a certain nanny-goat and the end round his testicles, and they drew each other back and forth and both squealed loudly. Then Loki let himself drop into Skadi’s lap, and she laughed’.[21] Each character in this tale represents a different aspect of fluidity within the Norse gender binary: Loki represents the loss of masculinity; Skadi represents the gaining of masculinity and the goat itself represents a kind of sexual ambivalence.

Loki’s loss of symbolic masculinity is demonstrated through physical loss in this mock castration. Stefanie von Schnurbein describes this as ‘an act that places his dubious sexuality and gender identity in a grotesque light’.[22] Loki is not only physically sacrificing his masculinity, but his symbolic masculinity simultaneously. This demonstrates ‘dubious sexuality’ because Loki is displaying his testicles in a show of masculinity only to have them symbolically removed by an animal. This willingness to sacrifice his physical gender characteristics supports Butler’s concept that gender is performative and therefore has no relation to biological sex because Loki takes on a performative role, playing a sexually impotent male. Consequently, he is placed into the gendered jeopardy that Clover suggests since he loses his maleness and, therefore, his social status. This reduction in status is a fitting punishment for Loki who betrays both the gods and the giants earlier in this myth so ends up being humiliated for their entertainment. Clover notes how in Medieval Scandinavian society ‘there was finally just one "gender," one standard by which persons were judged adequate or inadequate, and it was something like masculine’.[23] In this system, Loki is undoubtedly found inadequate, and fails to meet the standard of masculinity, placing him on the opposite side of the binary.

Evidence of this decreased masculinity can be found in the position Loki ends up in. He falls into Skadi’s lap, thus ends up sitting on top of her which, in addition to his exposed genitals, creates a sexually charged image.[24] However, Loki is in the female position while Skadi is in the male for this pseudo sex position.[25] Clover notes how, despite gender not being connected to biological sex, the Norse gender system has a ‘dependence on sexual imagery’, meaning that Loki being positioned sexually as female adds to his decreased masculine status. [26] This demonstrates not only how Loki has lost his masculine status, but how Skadi has gained her own masculinity.

This increase in masculinity therefore increases Skadi’s status. She wears a helmet and mail-coat to take on the celebrated masculine image of a warrior; a position that was accessible to women in medieval Scandinavian society as long as they gained the necessarily masculine traits and became, as Clover states, ‘exceptional’.[27] It is this embodiment of the ‘exceptional woman’ that allows Skadi to take revenge in the first place. Preben Meulengracht Sørensen argues that in Medieval Scandinavian society ‘a woman cannot herself take revenge; she must do so through the agency of a man’.[28] Skadi refutes this. Although she does not repay the death of her father in violence, she succeeds avenging her loss through the humiliation of Loki, whose betrayal led to her father’s demise. On the other hand, Sørensen may be right to say only men can take revenge. Skadi has gained enough masculinity to be perceived as socially male within the Norse gender binary. She takes on the image of a warrior and goes to Asgard to demand compensation to restore her family’s honour. The fact her biological sex is female makes little difference. Clover explains that Medieval Scandinavian society was ‘a world in which a physical woman could become a social man’, and this is what Skadi achieves. [29] In later myths, such as the Lokasenna, she is seen feasting with the gods demonstrating her heightened status considering she is not only female, but a giant as well. Moreover, Skadi lives independently without a male guardian. Although she may replace her father with Niord, the husband she gains as part of her compensation for her father’s death, this marriage fails and Skadi lives alone. According to Clover, Medieval Scandinavian society was ‘a universe in which maleness and femaleness were always negotiable, always up for grabs, always susceptible to ‘conditions’.[30] Snorri’s literature provided a safe space to explore these ideas and push the limits of this system. A system that accepted a certain fluidity between genders, but the condition was always one that supported a transition from female to social male but derided the reverse.

The final and most surprising character in this myth is the goat itself. Although seemingly playing only a minor role, the goat symbolises sexual ambiguity and the transition between genders. The nanny-goat is a female animal with male characteristics such as a beard thus combines masculine and feminine in one form, making it a symbol of gender non-conformity. Beards particularly in Norse literature are symbolic of male vitality.[31] There is a connection, quite literally, between Loki and the goat which implies Loki himself is sexual ambiguous. The goat is the one who removes Loki’s masculinity, and therefore, is the vessel through which Loki transitions from physically male to socially female. Margaret Clunies Ross highlights the ‘symbolic equation here between Loki, who plays at his own castration and has a reputation for sex changing, and the sexually ambivalent nanny-goat with the beard and horns’.[32] John Lindow also suggests the presence of the nanny-goat creates doubt over Loki’s perceived masculinity: ‘if the beard attached to one end of the rope is here a false symbol of masculinity, what are we to make of the genitals attached to the other end?’.[33] It is important to remember that Loki himself ties the goat around his testicles. He chooses this method to make Skadi laugh and does so willingly. This disproves Rooth’s notion that Loki’s gender ambivalence is depicted by ‘the epic course of events’[34] since the feminine display here is Loki’s choice and raises the question: why would Loki willingly sacrifice his own physical and symbolic masculinity? Perhaps he does not. It would only be a sacrifice of masculinity if Loki had already embodied the ideals of a Norse man. Loki famously takes on physical female forms throughout the Prose Edda, such as during Baldur’s death[35] and The Fortification of Asgard[36] myths, meaning his masculinity is already questionable. If Loki is prepared to become physically female, becoming socially female matters little by comparison. Loki, after all, is the trickster god; he will use whatever shape, form, or gender to his advantage.

Clover describes the Norse sexual system as a ‘permeable membrane’[37] and stresses an interest in the ‘fluidity implied by that system’.[38] This is a system in which a person can choose to move between feminine and masculine if they do not care about the social consequences for their actions. As discussed previously with reference to Loki’s position in Snorri’s list of gods, Loki is already socially at the bottom of the male Æsir and his status places him in between them and the female Asyniur. With a status already this low, Loki loses nothing when he reduces his masculinity and embraces his position as a social female. To navigate the Norse universe with such a diminished status, Loki uses everything to his advantage, including embracing his own femininity.

Sexual Deviancy

There are multiple terms in Old Norse relating to sexual deviancy with ergi, nið, ragr, and argr, as the most common. Although their meanings do differ slightly, essentially, they are all insults declaring someone as cowardly, weak, and unmanly due to an association with queer sexuality. Ergi especially encapsulates this idea of weakness being associated with sexual deviance, making it the most fitting term to use in this subsection. It fits within Laqueur’s one sex model aligning courage and strength with the masculine, and weakness with the non-masculine. Evidence of the seriousness of these insults can be found within Icelandic law. Grágás, the oldest Icelandic law text to survive, states that ‘one is entitled to kill on account of these words’. [39] Floke Ström also states that ‘the law prescribes its most severe penalty, outlawry, for anyone who imputes womanly behaviour to another in the form of nið’.[40] The severity of the punishment highlights just how negatively sexual deviancy was viewed. Those guilty could be anything from accused magic users, effeminate men or those taking the receptive position in homosexual intercourse, referred to problematically as ‘passive homosexuality’ by some Norse scholars. Loki is associated with all three of these elements, even exhibiting all at same time in the myth of the Fortification of Asgard.

This myth is found Gylfaginning chapter of the Edda. To prevent a disguised giant builder from completing the fortifications around Asgard and claiming the sun, moon and Freyia as his payment, Loki transformed into a mare to seduce the builder’s horse Svadilfæri, which stopped the completion of the wall. However, ‘Loki had such dealings with Svadilfæri that somewhat later he gave birth to a foal’ called Sleipnir who becomes Odin’s own horse. [41] In this myth Loki is clearly ergi; he uses magic to become a female, is sexually penetrated leading to pregnancy thus proving his unmanliness.

Magic, or seiðr to use the Norse term, is associated with the feminine to the extent that ‘males are forbidden to practice seiðr because of its power to damage their essential, defining qualities as males’, according to Ross, and male gods use ‘its power at the price of moral impairment and symbolic feminisation’. [42] It is this moral impairment that closely links Loki and his ergi nature, raising an interesting debate surrounding this association. Is ergi considered immoral because of its association with Loki, or is Loki considered immoral because of he is ergi? Despite also being a seiðr user, Odin escapes most of its negative association with being ergi. It is not mentioned in the Gylfaginning and Kathleen Self explains Odin ‘is made more masculine through the omission of his performance of seiðr, and the distinction between masculine and feminine is maintained’.[43] It is no coincidence that the Gylfaginning, the part of the Edda that contains the introductions of the gods, omits Odin’s magic use while containing myths that highlight Loki’s morally dubious nature. This is the chapter that sets the expectations and conventions for the rest of the Edda and Snorri makes certain that his audience takes away these specified associations. It is only in the Lokasenna that Odin’s dubious use of feminine magic is addressed by Loki himself. Accusations of sexual deviance of are exchanged between the two of them, yet only appears to have a negative effect on Odin.[44] Ström describes Loki as ‘a shameless ergi’.[45] It is this word ‘shameless’ that is the distinguishing difference between the two gods. Like the previous myth, Loki embraces his dubious gender to his advantage, and it is this acceptance that makes Loki so problematic in the Norse conceptual universe. As von Schnurbein notes “(Loki) represents the "effeminate" man and, for that reason, not necessarily because of his malevolence, is subject to derision and considered evil’.[46] He threatens the gods by undermining their one sex system. By embracing magic and resulting unmanliness, Loki challenges the concept that masculine is the pinnacle gender to which members of both genders should strive to achieve.

Further challenge to this system is seen in Loki through the connection his ergi nature has to femininity, specifically effeminate men. According to Ström, if the term was used to insult a woman, it was ‘virtually synonymous with nymphomania, which was a characteristic as much despised in women as unmanliness was in a man’, meaning its connotation of femininity were only applicable to men. [47] In the Fortification of Asgard myth, Loki performs the ultimate female act by both conceiving and giving birth to an eight-legged horse. A further old Scandinavian law that demonstrates just how transgressive this was: ‘the Norwegian laws already mentioned include insults likening a man to a female animal (berendi) among the words liable to the highest personal recompense. To liken a man to a male animal cost only half as much (halfréttisorð). Accusing a man of having given birth to a child… is added by the Gulathing Law to list of ‘full penalty words’ indicating the severest recompense to be paid’.[48] Both insults are applicable to Loki in this myth, demonstrating how morally corrupt he was in the eyes of Medieval Scandinavian society. The fact that these insults are gendered, with the female insult being the costliest, demonstrates how the one sex system impacted life within Medieval Scandinavian society. Everything comes back to the idea that masculine was not just the desirable gender, but the only gender which could gain honour and respect. Sørensen examines the moral repercussions of this connection: ‘the effect of nið was founded on the accepted complex of ideas about effeminacy and of effeminacy as identical with immoral, despicable nature’.[49] The reason these Norse terms for sexual deviance were so offensive is because of their association with femininity; whether it be seiðr’s connection with women, or the idea that a receptive male in homosexual intercourse was taking the female position. Ström agrees ‘that it is the feminine sexual role which makes allegations of ergi particularly injurious and in fact intolerable for the recipient’.[50] This is another aspect of ergi that Loki fulfils.

It is important to note that ergi and the other terms do not translate into modern ideas of homosexuality, something Brit Solli emphasises: ‘the term ergi must be understood contextually and not as a synonym for homosexuality, as we understand it today’.[51] The term is only applicable to those seen as taking the female position, whereas Clover notes ‘the role of the penetrator is regarded as not only masculine but boastworthy regardless of the sex of the object’.[52] Loki represents the concept of the penetrated male in this myth, considering the conception of Sleipnir, and this is an example of his immoral character. Although Loki’s negotiations and tricks save the Æsir, he is not the hero of the myth. That role goes to Thor who kills the giant with his hypermasculine, physical prowess, thus embodying the image of ultimate masculinity and its valued perception within the one sex system. Loki cannot be the hero because of his queer nature with its connotations of cowardice and corruption. Snorri explains that Loki ‘being afraid’ of the Æsir gods’ threats was the reason he changes shape and gender to seduce Svadilfæri which conveys the link between ergi and cowardice. [53] Sørensen explains how ‘in ancient Iceland consciousness, the idea of passive homosexuality was so closely linked with notions of immorality in general that the sexual sense could serve to express the moral sense’.[54] This means that, despite saving the Æsir, Loki still represents immorality. Snorri states Loki ‘is responsible for most evil’ in this myth, even though his only offense was to give poor advice. [55] His supposed evilness therefore comes from the queer gender inversion employed to fix his mistake.

Although not a hero, Loki is still powerful despite deflating his status by transgressing against the Norse gender system. In fact, it is this very transition that gives him power. Anthony Adams acknowledges that ‘Loki represents a type of imprecise, androgynous (or even hermaphroditic), yet still potent sexuality that is entirely at odds with the simpler, overt masculinity of the sagas’.[56] This conflict between Loki’s transgressive position as a queer character and the hyper masculine gives Loki power despite his low status. As much as they distrust Loki, the Æsir need him. The very fact they allow Loki to live amongst them demonstrates how important his transgressive abilities are, especially those associated with ergi such as magic. Soli reasons that ‘Seiðr must have been so important for the maintenance of society that the queerness of its practice had to be accepted as a cosmological necessity’.[57] Therefore, all the Æsir are guilty of engaging with queerness through their tolerance of Loki but only when he can be used to meet their needs.

When it comes to summarizing Loki’s sexual deviance, Ross best expresses how Loki and Odin ‘make good use of their ‘weakness’ (ergi) which allows them access to resources or patterns of behaviour normally regarded as female and hence unavailable to male beings’.[58] By embracing his ‘unmanly’ nature, Loki takes advantage of areas of power restricted from the higher status masculine gods and suppressed within female gods. Unlike Odin, whose ergi is ‘undoubtedly a burden’ (Ström), Loki does not care about the social (or any) consequences of his actions as long as he can use them to survive within the one sex system he simultaneously transgresses against. [59]

Race

Loki’s resistance to fitting within the gender binary is paralleled in his resistance to fit within the mythological race binary between the gods and the giants. His very existence bridges these two opposing races. According to Snorri, Loki is the ‘son of the giant Farbauti. Laufey or Nal is his mother’,[60] the latter Ross theorises was ‘presumably among the Æsir’.[61] This dual heritage unites the two enemy races within one being, meaning Loki is neither giant nor god but an unconventional combination of both.[62] Ross goes on to explain that this means Loki ‘is the embodiment of the most tabooed social relationship in Medieval Scandinavian society’.[63] Existing in between these races, Loki brings together the cultural aspects of both races despite their clear binary differences. By examining the threat Loki’s heritage presents amongst the gods and its connections to femininity, it is possible to see how Loki’s lack of conformity to the Norse racial binary demonstrates his resistance to the gender binary system too.

Loki is not only a product of a taboo relationship, but the participator in one too. From his relationship with the giantess Angrboda, Loki has three children who take the monstrous forms of Fenris, a giant wolf, Iormungand, a giant serpent, and Hel with her half dead body.[64] The gods ‘felt evil was all to be expected of them’[65] and imprison Loki’s children ‘because of their mother’s nature, but still worse because of their father’s’.[66] Despite possibly being half Æsir, it is Loki’s lineage the gods fear more than the full giant blood of Angrboda. This is because he embodies the union of two races whose conflict makes up a key aspect the Norse conceptual fabric. A typical trope of Norse mythology involves the morally superior Æsir gods defeating the monstrous giants, thus maintaining their system of ideals throughout the realms. Even when there is an exception to this, such as Thor being out-witted by Utgarda-Loki, the story still centres around the opposition of gods and giants, not their union as Loki represents. [67]

Loki does not fit within the usual racial structure of the society within Norse mythology. Ross describes Loki as an ‘anomalous being’[68] and notes how ‘the myth of Loki and his offspring indicates the kinds of disorders the gods oppose is not only ‘out there’ in the other world they associate with giants but exists within their own society’.[69] Loki is the product of two races that should be always in contrasting conflict, not uniting sexually, and even his presence amongst the Æsir presents a threat to their strict structures that maintain order. The very fact Loki exists undermines the whole system which sees gods and giants as opposite and opposing binaries.

One reason why the gods and giants live in such opposition is due to their opposing gender systems. While the gods live within a one sex model where hyper masculinity is the true gender and all others are inadequate, the giants’ system contrasts this. They fall within Clover’s ‘rainbow coalition’ making them ‘other’ to the Æsir. [70] Ross explains the connection between giants and femininity as a result of both concepts being treated as ‘other’ and ‘so the combination of the category ‘giant’ with the category ‘female’ represents an intensification of the nation of otherness and therefore an intensification of the association of danger with it’.[71] This adds to the threat of Loki existing within the Æsir gender system. Not only does he embody femininity through his non-binary gender and sexually deviant nature, his giant blood also adds to his innate gender inversion. Self also examines the connection between race and gender: ‘the binary of the gods and the giants echoes the male/female divide with the giantesses appearing more masculine at times and certain giants having a malleable gender’.[72] Skadi is example of this, but her gender is malleable in a way that is in tune with the Æsir one sex system meaning she is the only giant who is welcomed into their society.

Loki also uses his divine heritage as a way of embracing aspects of his femininity. Ross points out that Loki is ‘always referred to as Loki Laufeyjarson (which) indicates the precedence of his divine kinship through his mother’s family’.[73] While it does make sense that Loki would want to be associated with the parent with the higher status and assimilate with the gods by emphasising his racial connection to them, this still transgresses against the Norse patronymic system. By taking a matronymic surname in place of his father’s name, Loki is bestowing an honour usually reserved for men to his mother. This demonstrates his willingness to embrace femininity if it results in increasing his status amongst the gods, therefore we again see Loki using typically eschewed femininity to his advantage.

Although treated as an anomaly, Loki is not the only member counted among the Æsir to have giant ancestry. Both Tyr and Odin also are descended from giants; a fact the Gylfaginning conveniently forgets during their introductions. However, it is no coincidence that both these gods are hypermasculine war gods which places them firmly at the top of the one sex model. Therefore, their desirable masculine traits compensate for their undesirable, unorthodox lineage. Loki’s lack of conformity within the gender system is what makes his mix heritage a problem for the rest of the gods. By not fitting within their system of gender, his race is just another aspect that makes him a threat. Nevertheless, as with his queer nature, the gods will often use Loki’s liminal position between the two races. Rooth notes that Loki’s ‘role is frequently that of mediator’[74] between the gods and the giants but John McKinnell also notes his ‘special role is as a traitor’.[75] The gods depend on Loki’s nonconformity to navigate situations which their strict morality prevents them engaging with, such as magic and interrace relations, and still hold the very aspects of Loki that they need against him. McKinnell reasons that Loki shares these undesirable yet essential traits with other gods but ‘unlike the others makes no attempt to hide them’.[76] This is what makes Loki a true threat to the gods. It is not so much his engagement with taboo practices, but his openness. His refusal to hide his transgressive nature highlights the hypocrisy within the gods and flaws within their binary systems they try to hide.

Conclusion

Loki in the Prose Edda is clearly a transgressive character who resists categorization within the concept on the one sex model. His race, sexual deviance, and complete disregard to gender binaries combine to create a male entity who openly and happily engages with femininity without shame or fear of the social ramifications. However, while modern terms such as gender non-binary, or genderfluid may seem applicable to him, it is important to remember that the gods of the Edda are not characters but mythological concepts, with Thor embodying the concept of strength, Odin wisdom and so on. Loki’s mythology offers a safe arena in which cultural taboos can be broken and their consequences examined. Therefore, he does not have a gender identity in the same sense a modern fictional character has, so cannot identify as gender non-binary or fluid. As A. S. Byatt states mythological figures ‘do not have psychology.... They have attributes’.[77] Loki is instead a vessel through which the concept of gender binary within a one gender system can be explored and ultimately critiqued and punished. As the antagonist of the Edda, he brings forth the destruction of the gods. Loki destroys not only the Æsir hierarchy but the entire Norse universe during Ragnarök.[78] The Norse universe is one that relied on these binaries to exist and collapses once they are destroyed. The concept of Loki cannot survive in the one sex model, and the model cannot last with Loki in it. However, if Loki is removed from this gender system and placed within a modern one, his role and his outcome is entirely different.

Chapter Two: Loki in Marvel

Prior to the 2014 release of Loki: Agent of Asgard, a new comic series which centred around the reimagined, teenage version of the trickster god, the writer Al Ewing confirmed that Loki would indeed be a queer character who would switch between genders.[79] This came as no surprise to many in Loki’s fanbase since evidence of Loki’s queerness can be found throughout his history in Marvel comics. Examples of this include; flirting with a male teammate in Young Avengers Vol 2,[80] the ambiguous sexuality that comes with possessing a female body in Dark Reign[81], to even his first appearance in the modern era of comics in Journey into Mystery #85[82] where he is given a feminised, hourglass figure in contrast to the broad masculine figure of his counterpart Thor. (Fig. 1) However, in his own comic book, Loki’s character could now embrace his queerness and his gender fluidity in his own body much more openly than before.

The recent 2019 young adult novel Loki: Where Mischief Lies written by Mackenzi Lee will be examined alongside this comic. Like the comic, this novel also features an openly queer and gender non-conforming Loki. Both versions of this character face similar problems as they struggle to find their place within the wider narratives of the Marvel universe, especially concerning where they fit within the gender structures and heteronormative worlds and their roles as presumed antagonists.

Unlike the Loki found in the Edda, both Loki in Agent of Asgard and Loki in Where Mischief Lies are fully fleshed out characters with their own identities and motives, especially now they are the protagonists of their stories rather than just antagonists used to highlight the heroism of their adversaries. As a result of their enhanced characterisation, they become representative of genderfluid and non-binary people. Marvel’s acceptance of queer characters is something to be commended. As Mathew McAllister notes ‘comics mirror a pluralistic society’, therefore Marvel presents a fictional society that reflects our own. [83] Underneath stories of gods and heroes, the two texts explore queer gender identities and what it means to exist as ‘other’. This chapter will explore this by analysing how gender non-binarism, transgression and identity feature within Ewing’s and Lee’s stories.

Genderfluidity

By reimagining the mythological concept of Loki in a modern society, he is removed from the one sex model Laqueur suggests for Norse literature and placed in a new gender system. This new system, according to a contemporary critical lens using Butler’s theory of gender, is one based on the notion of performative gender and therefore allows for fluidity between them. However, the concept of gender being directly related to biological sex along with ideas of masculine and feminine being separate and opposite are still prevalent in most societies. Agent of Asgard is set within a society reflective of our own. The comic takes place across Earth and Asgard within their similar performative gender systems.

Where Mischief Lies is slightly more complicated, taking place across two very different societies: the ‘idyllic paradise’ of Asgard and nineteenth-century London. [84] Gender binaries are strictly upheld in the latter, following a system in which women are perceived as inferior to men to such an extent that even wearing trousers is seen as being transgressive, and where homosexuality is criminalised. [85] Asgard contrastingly does not have ‘such a limited view of sex’, instead it is seemingly a society in which all genders are treated equally. [86] Yet, there still is a binary system in place that echoes the one sex model in the Edda. Rather than between male and female, it is between sorcerers and warriors with the latter viewed as the desirable trait and the other as inferior. Loki is encouraged to hide is magical ability and ‘dedicated himself to becoming a warrior’[87] because ‘no one wanted a sorcerer for a king’.[88] There is still a gendered aspect to this system, however. Similarly to the Edda, magic is closely associated with women, with the only magic users in the novel being female (Frigga, Karnilla, Amora) or Loki who is feminised. Whether magic is viewed as inferior because of this feminine association is unclear. Reflective of the one sex model found in the Edda, background female characters who pursue hypermasculine warrior lifestyles, Sif and the Valkyries, are praised while magicians are viewed with fear and suspicion. To observe Lee’s Loki in this system, and Ewing’s Loki in the Agent of Asgard system, this section will examine how the characters exists as both genders, how this is physically presented and how this disrupts each of their gender systems.

Although Loki changes genders several times throughout the comic series, the term non-binary or genderfluid is never used. Nancy Hirschmann identifies the issue of ‘what queer… individuals are called, by themselves and by others,’ as a ‘political, ontological, and epistemological issue’, however, this does not negate from the validity of an identity just because it is not labelled nor means it is not applicable. [89] The first example of Loki changing gender is in issue #2 where Loki takes the pseudonym ‘Trixie’ to infiltrate a heist. Although it could be argued that Loki only becomes female because it is a necessary disguise, as Rooth argues in the Edda, Loki explains that his illusion magic would not have worked in that situation. [90] ‘I am always myself,’ Loki states explaining that being female is no different from being male. [91] This is best demonstrated by a single borderless panel depicting Loki shifting between female and male. (Fig. 2) The lack of borders symbolises the lack of boundaries between Loki’s genders and the single panel means both genders are contained in a singular space as both genders exist within Loki. Panelling in issue #14 again demonstrates how Loki regards shifting between genders. (Fig. 3) The three panels picture male Loki putting on a shirt as he changes to female as if changing gender is no different from changing a shirt. According to Sandra Bem, an individual can contain both female and male traits, which means Loki exists as both female and male simultaneously; changing genders therefore is not an artificial act made capable through his magic abilities and is not done just because it is convenient for the situation. [92]

The most obvious evidence of Loki’s genderfluidity in Where Mischief Lies takes place in Victorian London, due to the scrutiny Loki faces when removed from the supposedly gender equal Asgardian society. Theo, trying to find out Loki’s sexual orientation, asks his preferred gender which Loki misinterprets and answers ‘I feel equally comfortable as either’.[93] When Theo argues that this is again simply because of Loki’s magical abilities allowing him to change appearance, Loki states ‘I don’t change my gender. I exist as both’.[94] The confusion between gender and sexuality highlights, according to Jonathan Alexander, how ‘sexuality intersects with and complicates are understanding of gender’ and further demonstrates the difference between the two gender systems of Asgard and Earth. [95] Loki’s misunderstanding conveys how gender and sexuality intersect so frequently on Asgard that he cannot separate them, while Theo is accepting of homosexuality yet struggles to understand genderfluidity. This is perhaps because Loki has to appear more masculine during his time in London, ‘he missed his heeled boots’, although, he still defends his feminine identity. [96] Whenever feminine terms are applied to him, Loki accepts them: ‘“It’s the feminine version of enchanter.” “Does that matter?”’.[97] The setting of Victorian era with its stricter gender binaries is effective for demonstrating the ‘the arbitrariness of the Western gender system’ through Loki’s critiques of it. [98] By framing these critiques as being ‘small-minded’ and associating them with conservative Victorians, Lee helps to validate queerness and genderfluidity, reflecting the diversity of her young adult audience. [99]

The visual medium of the comic means appearance becomes key for demonstrating Loki’s genderfluidity in Agent of Asgard and consequently meaning his genderfluidity is always present through the art of the comic. Like in his very first issue in Journey into Mystery, Loki’s male appearance is feminised. Black nail varnish, a fur lined coat and V-necked tunic all hint at his feminine nature while scaled armour and greaves are typically more masculine. (Fig. 4) The fact that both male and female aspects exist in one costume demonstrates how Loki is consistently both genders, especially because the costume does not change when Loki’ changes from male to female, or even a fox. (Fig. 5) Terrence R. Wandtke notes how a superhero’s costume is ‘a marker of self’, thus Loki’s androgynous costume represents his genderfluid self. [100] This also reflects Loki’s queerness in terms of his sexual attraction to both genders which is not particularly explored in depth in the comic. Aaron Blashill and Kimberly Powlishta refer to ‘cross-gendered characteristics’ in homosexual people which Loki’s costume captures, demonstrating not only is genderfluidity but his homosexual orientation as well. [101] It is also notable that Loki’s physical female appearance is very similar to his male. In the example of ‘Trixie’ in #2, the only difference between the male and female Loki is make-up and hair length. This accurately reflects how potential genderfluid readers use cosmetics to reflect their own transitions between genders thus proving how Loki becomes a representative for genderfluidity in literature.

Where Mischief Lies also relies on appearance to demonstrate Loki’s lack of gender boundaries. This is because, unlike Agent of Asgard Lee’s Loki never becomes completely female meaning clothing is often used to symbolise his innate femininity. Loki’s femininity is introduced when the novel opens with Loki worrying about his appearance. These concerns focus on aspects typically associated with feminine appearance, such as his love of ‘a bit of sparkle’[102] and his boots which ‘made him feel like doing a strut down the middle of the hall …(and had) heels as long and thin as the knives he kept up his sleeves’.[103] This evokes a feminine image of Loki with ‘strut’ in particular conjuring the queer image of a drag queen. The simile of knives as heels is particularly demonstrative of Loki’s gender fluidity, combining the feminine heel and weapons with their connection to masculinity within the hypermasculine Asgardian gender system. The use of clothes further validates the performative aspect of gender. Although Loki is biologically male, his choice of clothes demonstrates the feminine image he wishes to portray to the world. Lisa Walker expresses how the whole concept of performative gender relies on an individual performing the gender they think they are; Loki’s performance suggests he views himself as both male and female. [104]

A further way to examine Loki’s queer nature is to explore how it exists in contrast to the gender system in which it is found. Although the performative system in Agent of Asgard is in theory accepting of genderfluidity, there are still queerphobic elements that demonstrate that strict binary views of gender still exist. Loki is referred to as a ‘precious little girl-child’[105] and a ‘preening half-a-man’.[106] These both use Loki’s feminine gender as an insult, suggesting either the idea of femininity being a weakness, or that queerness is ‘viewed negatively due to a presumption … (of) cross-gendered characteristics’.[107] However, these are the only two queerphobic instances in a comic that is overall thoroughly embracing of Loki’s genderfluid identity. While some commentators on comics, such as Norma Pecora[108] and Carol Stabile[109], criticise the innate sexism in the comics of the 1990s, Marvel has made a substantial effort to improve female and queer representation in recent years, including recently featuring a pride parade consisting entirely of their LGBTQ+ characters, including Loki.[110] McAllister notes the power the comic book has ‘to both legitimate dominant social values and provide an avenue for cultural criticism’, therefore highlighting the importance of representation in comics and providing an accepting society to legitimise their presence both on and off the page. [111]A comic being void of any criticism of queer people would not accurately represent the prejudices LGBTQ+ people face, justifying the use of limited queerphobic remarks. Therefore, even in a fictional society that recognises the performativity of gender and provides a system Loki should exist easily within, the lingering prejudices of gender binaries means Loki is still seen as transgressive and, like the Edda, his queerness is used to insult him.

Despite Where Mischief Lies featuring two distinct binary systems, one sentiment combines how Loki transgresses both: ‘Be the witch’.[112] This sentence, which is not only repeated throughout the novel, but concludes it, brings together the idea of transgressing the gender binary of Victorian London as well as the sorcerer/warrior binary of Asgard. By being transgressive, Loki is a threat to both systems and the social hierarchies they uphold. In term of gender binaries, Hirschmann suggests that ‘those boundaries may be established by cultural practices as a way to protect social hierarchies’.[113] Victorian London has this system to defend the patriarchy from threats of female power. This can be seen from the character of Mrs Sharp whose masculine trousers brings her into conflict with the male authority, ‘“Why do you try so hard to look like a man, Mrs Sharp?”’,[114] and the use of ‘witch’[115] to insult Loki due to its association with powerful women. Loki’s presence as someone who openly embraces multiple genders threatens the rigid binary that protects the patriarchal system, resulting in his femininity being ridiculed due to the anxiety created from its threat to male power.

Within terms of the hierarchy system of Lee’s Asgard, in which magic is seen as inferior to warrior prowess, Loki transgresses through his magical ability rather than his genderfluidity. While Thor’s expression of physical power is praised, Loki’s magical power is punished or regarded with fear: ‘His father was afraid of him. Afraid of his power’.[116] Magic users who remain subservient, ‘Karnilla… Odin’s royal sorceress, stood like a soldier’[117] and Frigga, Odin’s wife ‘who supported him’,[118] are accepted in Asgardian society, while those who transgress, like Amora who is ‘too powerful to control’, are banished. [119] There is an obvious gendered narrative reflecting a woman’s place in society; her power must be subservient to the masculine ruler or she will be rejected. The concept of the witch, being a feminine magic wielder who exists outside of society, accurately reflects how Loki does not fit within either binary of the two systems found in Lee’s novel. For much of the novel, Loki struggles to be the subservient sorcerer Asgardian society desires him to be, but ultimately decides to embrace his transgressive nature and ‘be the witch’.[120]

Existing as Queer

In both texts, Loki exists as an outsider to the societies he seeks acceptance within. Although his queer identity and orientation are never directly cited as the reasons for this ostracization, they are emblematic of why he is never accepted. In Agent of Asgard, Loki’s genderfluidity translates into to a wider desire to resist being categorized as either a villain or hero, while shame over his magical abilities in Where Mischief Lies reflects a struggle to accept homosexual attraction. Loki’s othering as a queer character will be explored by examining how it is reflected through other aspects of his characterisation.

Categorization is expressed in Agent of Asgard through the repeated metaphor of boxes and cages. They symbolise a conformity with conflicts with Loki’s fluid and transgressive nature. Loki connects this idea of identity and boxes, ‘I am my own and will not sit long in any box built for me’, demonstrating how being his own means being innately transgressive. [121] Throughout the narrative Loki is trying to prove he is no longer the archetypal villain he had been for most of Marvel’s history. He will no longer fit neatly into that category nor the one of hero, instead existing between the two as an antihero. Like with gender, Loki does not fit in either binary meaning the threat of literal imprisonment is used to symbolise conformity as either a villain or as a single gender. At the climax of the novel when Asgard goes to war with Hel, Loki does not choose either of the binaries presented to him, stating ‘I don’t do sides’ in a panel that heavily shades half his face. [122] (Fig. 6) The combination of both dark and light colouring creates the impression that Loki is neither entirely good nor evil, instead he is both and neither; he has found a way to exist outside the binary of good and evil, reflective of his ability to exist outside a gender binary. Binary gender as being restive and box-like is something explored by Jennifer Nye: ‘the range of human possibilities extends far beyond that recognized by the gender box.’[123] Loki’s resistance to imprisonments represents a desire to break free of restrictive gender categories.

The concept of the gender box goes beyond just gender identity to include sexual orientation. Nye definition of the masculine gender box relies on the assumption that ‘if your sex is male, your gender is masculine, and you are sexually attracted to women’.[124] Of course this excludes anyone who is not a cisgender heterosexual, but it does demonstrate the traditional expectations of gender and sexual orientation, therefore making anyone who exists outside the gender box automatically an outsider. In Where Mischief Lies Loki and Theo’s homosexual feelings for each other mark them as outsiders in Victorian London where Theo has been previously imprisoned for being ‘a boy who likes boys’.[125] This is something Loki instantly relates to as ‘he knew what it was to be cast out and unwanted and taunted for the fabric you were stitched from.[126] While Asgard, according to Loki, is accepting of homosexuality, it is possible to map the clichés of closeted homosexuality onto Loki’s struggle to hide his magical abilities: ‘wriggling with a shame he didn’t understand, before his mother finally came and explained that it would be best if he did not use the magic’.[127] Unintentionally paralleling the Edda, magic becomes an othering force like seiðr in Norse literature. Like Theo, there is also a threat of punishment for this othering, which Amora experiences in her banishment. This connection between Theo and Loki being forced to hide who they really are leads to the shared sentiment: ‘I wish I could make your world want you’.[128] Existing as queer means embracing what makes you other. Something both Theo and Loki accept by the end of the novel with Theo kissing Loki[129] and Loki using his magic to save Asgard.[130]

No matter how accepting the society of Asgard is in Agent of Asgard or Where Mischief Lie’s, there is always the tendency to cast anyone who transgresses traditional views of gender and sexuality as a villain. Mark LaPointe and Meredith Li-Vollmer argue that ‘gender transgression may also cast doubt on a person’s competence, social acceptability, and morality’ in cultures that still hold on to ideas of ‘naturalized constructions of gender’. [131] Consequently, if Loki is to stay true to his own identity, he must exist outside of society, often causing conflict with it that presents him as antagonistic.

Identity

Loki’s exploration of his identity is a key theme not just in these two texts, but in the wider Marvel universe as well, with rumours an upcoming television series will also delve into this.[132] A fundamental aspect of Loki’s identity is of course his gender but this is just one aspect of many that result in Loki finding conflict between his own identity and the societies he longs to belong to. The way Loki is othered from society, how he exists as an othered being and his acceptance of his othered position will be examined in this section.

In Agent of Asgard Loki becomes increasingly othered throughout the comic. His position in this society has always been precarious; like in the Edda, Loki is racially other to the Asgardians[133] which is used to test his loyalties: ‘your race and mine are old allies’.[134] Although this is unsuccessful ‘We gave you a family’, ‘Yes, but I already have one of those’, Loki’s heritage is other enough for this to pose a threat, at least in the eyes of those within Asgardian society. [135] Loki begins the comic desperately trying to earn a place in this society by atoning for his crimes of the past, trading ‘new legends for old’,[136] but by issue #10 Loki’s secret of killing his child self, ‘the crime that will not be forgiven’,[137] is revealed leading to ostracization from Asgardian society. Loki consequently loses a key element of his identity: ‘I’m no longer an Asgardian’.[138] This concept of losable racial identity is not unlike the concept of losable masculinity in the Edda because Loki must meet the heroic requirements of Asgard or be cast out. Adam Green also argues that ‘identity as an ongoing social process marked by multiplicity, instability, and flux’ therefore can be lost or gained. [139] Loki’s exile ultimately frees him from the constraints of a society he was constantly in conflict with. Exile came because of Loki’s inability to live up to the expectation of Asgardian identity, with ideals of heroism that did not coincide with the trickster elements of Loki’s identity. While genderfluidity does not directly violate the concept of Asgardian identity, it is an expression of Loki’s malleable character that contrasts with the traditional image of the heroes of Asgard. Now he is separated from this society, Loki is finally free to explore his identity without restraints.

In Where Mischief Lies, Loki’s othering comes from his inability to find his place in a society that only values qualities such as physical strength and a warrior prowess. Like Ewing’s Loki, Lee’s is also desperate to find acceptance in society, ‘working to be a better soldier, a better sorcerer, a better prince’, with little success. Loki is aware of his otherness. [140] He is worried that magic will ‘make (him) unnatural’, and Amora’s banishment demonstrates how dangerous otherness is in Asgardian society. [141] Alexander argues that ‘our identities are shaped and communicated through a variety of interesting social processes’, therefore this othering would have significantly impacted Loki’s identity, particularly his gender. [142] Asgard is supposedly accepting of Loki’s genderfluidity, yet he is the only genderfluid character found in Asgard and his femininity associates him with the otherness of magic as the only male user. The concept of otherness in this society consequently forces conformity on Loki in his desperation to be accepted. Paradoxically, it is when Loki enters the more oppressive society of Victorian London that he realises his identity cannot be suppressed; to be true to himself, he must exist as other in Asgardian society.

Loki’s acceptance of his place as an outsider to Asgardian society is central to the development of his identity as a transgressive character. By being ostracised from his society, Loki no longer needs to fulfil any expectations apart from his own. This allegiance to nobody but himself if something that has been part of Loki throughout his history in Marvel comics. Ewing turns the idea of Loki’s selfishness into an idea of self-preservation of an identity othered by Asgardian society. In Agent of Asgard’s introduction Ewing cites the iconic panel from Thor #353, which Odin’s battle cry is ‘For Asgard!’, Thor’s is ‘For Midgard!’, while Loki’s is ‘For Myself!’. [143] (Fig. 7) While humorous, Ewing argues that ‘when your self is a thing you have to fight the very cosmos to decide… it’s almost kind of… heroic?’, demonstrating how Loki’s perceived selfishness is evidence of him fighting to preserve his own identity. [144] To be true his identity, Loki must exist outside the society he had been trying to appease: ‘I probably shouldn’t care what they think, then, should I?’.[145] Agent of Asgard is ‘a comic about being For Yourself’, about existing without apologising. [146] Loki’s genderfluidity is just one aspect of his identity that causes him to transgress against the society he tries to exist within. Rather than sacrifice his identity to be accepted by others, Loki choses to exist as an outsider.

Loki in Where Mischief Lies also accepts his place as being an outsider. He tries to find his identity through his position in society, by trying to prove that he is a worthy contender for the throne. However, throughout the novel Loki is forced to question his own sense of identity due to the way others perceive him: ‘He did not know who he was. Everyone knew but him’.[147] It is only at the very end of the novel once Loki finds out he will never be king that he accepts that he will always exist as other to his society, choosing to ‘serve no man but himself, no heart but his own’.[148] Forming an identity othered from society, Loki gives in to fulfilling the expectations of others, becoming ‘the self-serving God of Chaos’, but is also free to be true to himself. [149] This impacts Loki’s gender identity because he no longer needs to worry about what others think of him, leaving him free to explore his gender to its full extent.

The final, and most important, aspect of identity both texts explore is self-acceptance. After revealing that the antagonist of the narrative was really himself, Loki embraces him and tells him ‘it’s all right’, meaning Loki finally accepts himself and no longer strives to conform to become something he is not. [150] Lee’s Loki also accepts himself. While on Earth he meets other people othered by their societies, such as Mrs Sharp and Theo, and it is through their friendship that Loki learns to accept his otherness. Theo and Loki are both othered in their own societies, so instead find acceptance in each other, sharing a ‘soft kiss’.[151] Through this action, Theo accepts his sexual orientation and Loki accepts that he can receive affection without having to meet the impossible standards society expects of him. Self-acceptance is key to embracing one’s own identity, especially transgressive gender identities such as genderfluidity. McAllister highlights the importance of comic books and ‘the degree of cultural argument they permit or encourage’ meaning that Loki becomes a figure representative of genderfluid identities and validates their presence not just in literature, but in the world of the reader as well. [152] Therefore, it is critical that Loki in both texts learns to accept himself and his entire self. Not just as a genderfluid individual, but all aspects of his identity that makes him a fully fleshed character and not just a symbol of deviance as Loki in the Edda is.

Conclusion

The two texts explore Loki, not as simply a figure representative of transgressive gender, but as a character with a genderfluid identity that brings both internal and external conflict. Although Loki’s genderfluidity is an essential part of his identity, these texts prove that he is more than just his gender and that gender is more than just one aspect of his identity; it is a foundation in his otherness and symbolic of the malleability of his personality. The comic book industry was once notoriously slow to adapt to changes in the treatment of gender, with stories revolving around a hypermasculine hero protecting the delicate female, is now significantly more embracing of social progress. Loki is just one of a growing number of characters from LGBTQ+ backgrounds, yet he is one of the oldest to exist in Marvel comics. This is testament to the gender ambiguous legacy that the original mythological Loki left behind. The mythological Loki’s transgressive approach to gender reverberated across centuries, until it reached this modern medium where it could be expressed fully.

(Fig.1) Stan Lee et al, Journey into Mystery (New York: Marvel Comics, 1952). #85

(Fig.3) Loki: Agent of Asgard #14

(Fig.2) Al Ewing et al, Loki: Agent of Asgard (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020), #2

(Fig.4) Loki: Agent of Asgard #2 Jamie McKelvie Cover Variant

(Fig.5) Loki: Agent of Asgard #5

(Fig.6) Loki: Agent of Asgard #16

(Fig.7) Walter Simonson, Thor (New York: Marvel Comics, 1966). #353

Conclusion

‘Loki makes the world more interesting but less safe.’[153]

When Neil Gaiman wrote this in Norse Mythology, he was referring to the threat Loki poses to the gods of Asgard as the bringer of their downfall. However, I think that there is another way to interpret this. A world made ‘less safe’ does not necessarily mean a world of danger, but a world less conservative, less static, where diversity makes the world more interesting. To help this world come into being, it first must be accepted. This means not only in wider society but in popular culture too, by finding its way onto our screens and pages.

While this dissertation has praised Marvel’s efforts to increase diversity in its comic books, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is far behind its comic counterpart, especially in queer representation. At the forefront of this fight for LGBTQ+ depiction is the Thor franchise, with Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie being the first, although unconfirmed, LGBTQ+ character originating in Thor Ragnarok.[154] Thor: Love and Thunder is also rumoured to introduce a transgender character and, while Loki’s place in this film is yet to be confirmed, there are again rumours he may be genderfluid in his upcoming TV series. There has always been controversy surrounding Marvel’s queer diversity, such as Brazil recently banning a Young Avengers comic due to a same-sex kiss being featured in it, which is the reason why Marvel’s mainstream movies have been so slow to increase representation in comparison to its comics. [155] However, the fact that it raises such controversy only heightens the need for greater representation.

Rick Roidan, during his acceptance speech at the 2016 Stonewall Awards, expressed the how important it is for ‘LGBTQ kids see themselves reflected and valued in the larger world of mass media’.[156] He too identified the connection between genderfluidity and Loki with his genderfluid character Alex Fierro being the child of Loki in Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard. Another example of mythology being repurposed for a modern audience, it furthers Abram’s argument that mythology will change to meet what is required of it. It also conveys the importance of representation that goes deeper than appearing in mass media, with these LGBTQ+ kids being connected to something even more engrained in culture.

The target audience of the modern texts explored in this dissertation are mainly young adults, many of whom will be beginning to explore their sexual identities and orientations. By queer reading mythology then using this as a basis for representation, queer identity is established as something validated by its presence in the past and position in popular culture.

Bibliography

Abram, Christopher, Myths of the Pagan North: the Gods of the Norsemen (London: Continuum, 2011)

Adams, Anthony, ''He Took a Stone Away’: Castration and Cruelty in the Old Norse Sturlunga Saga', in Castration and Culture in the Middle Ages, ed. by Larissa Tracy (Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer, 2013).

Adams, Tim, Thor: Ragnarok's Valkyrie Is Bisexual, Tessa Thompson Confirms (2017) <https://www.cbr.com/thor-ragnarok-valkyrie-bisexual/> [accessed 5 May 2020]

Alexander, Jonathan, 'Transgender Rhetorics: (Re)Composing Narratives of the Gendered Body.', College Composition and Communication, 57.1, (2005), 45-82 (p. 50), in ProQuest <https://search-proquest-com.ezproxye.bham.ac.uk/docview/220712396/fulltextPDF/BDE4C525A8C64762PQ/1?accountid=8630> [accessed 11 March 2020]

Bem, Sandra, 'The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny ', Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42.2, (1974), 155-162, <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.472.525&rep=rep1&type=pdf> [accessed 11 March 2020].

Bendis, Brian Michael et al, Dark Reign (New York: Marvel Comics, 2008)

Blashill, Aaron, Powlishta, Kimberly, '“Gay Stereotypes: The Use of Sexual Orientation as a Cue for Gender-Related Attributes.” ', Sex Role, 61.1, (2009), 783-793

Butler, Judith, Gender Trouble, 4 edn (Suffolk: Routledge, 2007)

“ ” Bodies That Matter: On the discursive limits of "sex", 2nd edn (New York: Routledge, 2011)

Ciacoya, Bea, Brazilian Mayor Orders Armed Police Seize LGBTQIA+ Books, Leads to Protest (2019) <https://www.cbr.com/brazilian-mayor-orders-armed-police-seize-protest/> [accessed 5 May 2020].

Clover, Carol J., 'Regardless of Sex: Men, Women, and Power in Early Northern Europe', Representations, 1.44, (1993), 1-28

Ewing, Al et al, Loki: Agent of Asgard The Complete Edition, ed. by Mark D. Beazley (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020)

Foss, Sonja K., Karen A., and Domenico, Mary E., Gender Stories: Negotiating Identity in a Binary World (Illinois: Waveland, 2013)

Gaiman, Neil, Norse Mythology (London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2017)

Gillen, Kieron et al, Young Avengers Vol.2 (New York: Marvel Comics, 2014)

Gíslason, Jόnas, 'Acceptance of Christianity in Iceland in the year 1000 (999)', Old Norse and Finnish Religions and Cultic Place-Names, 13.1, (1990), 223-255, <https://doi.org/10.30674/scripta.67178> [accessed 6 May 2020]

Green, Adam, 'Queer Theory and Sociology: Locating the Subject and the Self in Sexuality Studies', Sociological Theory, 25.1, (2007), 26-45

Hardman, George L., The Saga of Bosi and Herraud (2007) <http://jillian.rootaction.net/~jillian/world_faiths/www.northvegr.org/lore/oldheathen/071.html> [accessed 6 May 2020]

Hayward, Eva, Weinstein, Jami, ' Introduction: Tranimalities in the Age of Trans* Life', TSQ, 2.2, (2015), 195-208, in Duke Press < https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-2867446> [accessed 30 October 2019]

Hirschmann, Nancy, '“Queer/Fear: Disability, Sexuality, and The Other.” ', Journal of Medical Humanities, 34.2, (2013), 139-147 (p. 140), in Springer Science Business Media <https://link-springer-com.ezproxyd.bham.ac.uk/content/pdf/10.1007/s10912-013-9208-x.pdf> [accessed 11 March 2020]

Hume, Kathryn, ' Loki and Odin: Old Gods Repurposed by Neil Gaiman', Studies in the Novel, 51.2, (2019), 297-310

Kellogg, Robert, 'Introduction', in The Sagas of Icelanders, ed. by Örnólfur Thorsson (New York: Penguin Group, 2001)

LaPointe, Mark E and Li-Vollmer, Meredith, '"Gender Transgression and Villainy in Animated Film." ', Popular Communication: The International Journal of Media and Culture, 1.2, (2009), 89-109

Laqueur, Thomas, Making Sex: Body and gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992)

Lee, Mackenzi, Loki: Where Mischief Lies (New York: Marvel Press, 2019)

Lee, Stan et al, Journey into Mystery (New York: Marvel Comics, 1952)

McAllister, Matthew, 'Cultural Argument and Organizational Constraint in the Comic Book Industry', Journal of Communication, 40.1, (1990)

McCloud, Scott, Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art (New York: Harper Perennial, 1960).

McKinnell, John, Essays on Eddic Poetry, ed. by Donata Kick and John D. Shafer (Toronto: University of Toronto Press)

Melrose, Kevin, Loki will be bisexual, occasionally a woman in 'Agent of Asgard' (2013) <https://www.cbr.com/loki-will-be-bisexual-occasionally-a-woman-in-agent-of-asgard/> [accessed 11 March 2020]

Nye, Jennifer, '"The Gender Box."', Berkeley Women's Law Journal, 13.1, (1998), 22-256

Pecora, Norma, '“Superman/Superboys/Supermen: The Comic Book Hero as a Socializing Agent.”', in Men, Masculinity, and the Media, ed. by Steve Craig (Newbury Park: Sage, 1992)

Riodan, Rick, The Stonewall Award (2017) <https://rickriordan.com/2017/06/the-stonewall-award/> [accessed 5 May 2020]

Rooth, Anna Birgitta, Loki in Scandinavian Mythology (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1961).

Ross, Margaret Clunies, Prolonged Echoes: Old Norse myths in Medieval Northern society Volume 1: The myths (Odense: Odense University Press, 1994).

Schaefer, Sandy, Loki Will Struggle With Identity & Control in Marvel Disney+ Show (2020) <https://screenrant.com/loki-marvel-disney-plus-show-plot-identity-control/> [accessed 2 May 2020]

Self, Kathleen, 'Straightening Out the Gods’ Gender', in Irreverence and the Sacred: Critical Studies in the History of Religions, ed. by Hugh Urban and Greg Johnson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018)

Simonson, Walter et al, Thor (New York: Marvel Comics, 1966)

Solli, Brit, 'Queering the Cosmology of the Vikings: A Queer Analysis of the Cult of Odin and “Holy White Stones”', Journal of Homosexuality, 54.1, (2008), 192-2008 (p. 195), <https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360801952085> [accessed 4 February 2020]

Sørensen, Preben Meulengracht, The Unmanly Man: Concepts of sexual defamation in early Northern society, trans. by Joan Turville-Petre (Odense: Odense University Press, 1983)

Stabile, Carol, '“'Sweetheart, This Ain’t Gender Studies” Sexism and Superheroes.' Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6.1, (2009)

Ström, Floke, Nið, ergi and Old Norse Moral Attitudes (Edinburgh: University College London, 1974).

Sturluson, Snorri, Edda, trans. by Anthony Faulkes, 3rd edn (London: Everyman, 1995)

Trosterud, Trond, 'Gender assignment in Old Norse', Lingua, 116.9, (2006), 1441-1463, in Science Direct <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.06.015> [accessed 20 November 2019]

Vecchio, Luciano et al, Marvel Voices #1 (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020)

von Schnurbein, Stefanie, 'The Function of Loki in Snorri Sturluson's ‘Edda.’ ', History of Religions, 40.2, (2000), 109-24, in JSTOR <www.jstor.org/stable/3176617> [accessed 20 January 2020]

Walker, Lisa, Looking Like What You Are: Sexual Style, Race, and Lesbian Identity (New York: New York University Press, 2001)

Wandtke, Terrence R., The Amazing Transforming Superhero!: Essays on the Revision of Characters in Comic Books, Film, and Television, ed. by Terrence R. Wandtke (Jefferson: McFarland, 2007)

Williams, Bronwyn T., 'Action Heroes and Literate Sidekicks: Literacy and Identity in Popular Culture', Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50.8, (2007), 680-85

The Poetic Edda, trans. by Carolyne Larrington (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014)

[1] Christopher Abram, Myths of the Pagan North: the Gods of the Norsemen (London: Continuum, 2011), p. 231.

[2] Ibid

[3] The Poetic Edda, trans. by Carolyne Larrington (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 93.

[4] Ibid, p.80

[5] See Anna Brigitta Rooth in Chapter One

[6] Jόnas Gíslason, 'Acceptance of Christianity in Iceland in the year 1000 (999)', Old Norse and Finnish Religions and Cultic Place-Names, 13.1, (1990), 223-255, <https://doi.org/10.30674/scripta.67178> [accessed 6 May 2020].

[7] Robert Kellogg, 'Introduction', in The Sagas of Icelanders, ed. by Örnólfur Thorsson (New York: Penguin Group, 2001), p. xxiv

[8] Anna Birgitta Rooth, Loki in Scandinavian Mythology (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1961), P.4

[9] Snorri Sturluson, Edda, trans. by Anthony Faulkes, 3rd edn (London: Everyman, 1995), p.26

[10] Rooth, p.10

[11] Snorri, p.26

[12] Ibid

[13] Ibid

[14] For this dissertation, sexual deviance means a deviation from the perceived heterosexual norm.

[15] Rooth, p.149

[16] Thomas Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), p. 8.

[17] Carol J. Clover, 'Regardless of Sex: Men, Women, and Power in Early Northern Europe', Representations, 1.44, (1993), 1-28 (p. 13).

[18] Judith Butler, Gender Trouble, 4 edn (Suffolk: Routledge, 2007), p. 34.

[19] Clover, p.14

[20] Snorri, p.61

[21] Ibid

[22] Stefanie von Schnurbein, 'The Function of Loki in Snorri Sturluson's ‘Edda.’ ', History of Religions, 40.2, (2000), 109-24 (p. 119), in JSTOR <www.jstor.org/stable/3176617> [accessed 20 January 2020].

[23] Clover, p.13

[24] Other Old Norse texts featuring this include The Saga of Bosi and Herraud ‘the peasant girl was sometimes on top.’

George L. Hardman, The Saga of Bosi and Herraud (2007) <http://jillian.rootaction.net/~jillian/world_faiths/www.northvegr.org/lore/oldheathen/071.html> [accessed 6 May 2020].

[25] In the Lokasenna, p.89, Loki claims he and Skadi were intimate, meaning this may not be entirely pseudo.

[26] Clover, p.13

[27] Ibid

[28] Preben Meulengracht Sørensen, The Unmanly Man: Concepts of sexual defamation in early Northern society, trans. by Joan Turville-Petre (Odense: Odense University Press, 1983). P.21

[29] Clover, p.19

[30] Ibid, p.12

[31] In Njal's saga Njal has his manhood insulted due to his lack of beard.

[32] Margaret Clunies Ross, Prolonged Echoes: Old Norse myths in Medieval Northern society Volume 1: The myths (Odense: Odense University Press, 1994), p.123

[33] von Schnurbein, p.116

[34] Rooth, p.187

[35] Snorri, p.48-51

[36] Ibid, p.35-6

[37] Clover, p.19

[38] Ibid, p.12

[39] Floke Ström, Nið, ergi and Old Norse Moral Attitudes (Edinburgh: University College London, 1974), p. 6.

[40] Ibid, p.7

[41] Ibid, p.36

[42] Ross, p.208

[43] Kathleen Self, 'Straightening Out the Gods’ Gender', in Irreverence and the Sacred: Critical Studies in the History of Religions, ed. by Hugh Urban and Greg Johnson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), p. 229

[44] Poetic Edda, p.85

[45] Ström, p.8

[46] von Schnurbein, p.122

[47] Ström, p.4

[48] Ibid, p.7

[49] Sørensen, p.79

[50] Ström, p.7

[51] Brit Solli, 'Queering the Cosmology of the Vikings: A Queer Analysis of the Cult of Odin and “Holy White Stones”', Journal of Homosexuality, 54.1, (2008), 192-2008 (p. 195), <https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360801952085> [accessed 4 February 2020].

[52] Clover, p.6

[53] Snorri, p.36

[54] Sørensen, p.20

[55] Snorri, p.35

[56] Anthony Adams, ''He Took a Stone Away’: Castration and Cruelty in the Old Norse Sturlunga Saga', in Castration and Culture in the Middle Ages, ed. by Larissa Tracy (Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer, 2013), p. 206

[57] Solli, p.200

[58] Ross, p.70

[59] Ström, p.8

[60] Snorri, p.26

[61] Ross, p. 64

[62] Despite being racially different to the Æsir gods, the casting of a non-white actor to play Loke in the film Valhalla (2019) sparked online criticism.

[63] Ibid, p.263

[64] Snorri, p.27

[65] Ibid

[66] Ibid

[67] Ibid, p.42-44

[68] Ross, p.64

[69] Ibid, p.220

[70] Clover, p.13

[71] Ross, p. 165

[72] Self, p.332

[73]Ross, p.101

[74] Rooth, p.173

[75] John McKinnell, Essays on Eddic Poetry, ed. by Donata Kick and John D. Shafer (Toronto: University of Toronto Press), p. 195.

[76] Ibid

[77] Kathryn Hume, ' Loki and Odin: Old Gods Repurposed by Neil Gaiman', Studies in the Novel, 51.2, (2019), 297-310 (p. 298).

[78] Snorri, p.54

[79] Kevin Melrose, Loki will be bisexual, occasionally a woman in 'Agent of Asgard' (2013) <https://www.cbr.com/loki-will-be-bisexual-occasionally-a-woman-in-agent-of-asgard/> [accessed 11 March 2020].

[80] Kieron Gillen et al, Young Avengers Vol.2 (New York: Marvel Comics, 2014). #15

[81] Brian Michael Bendis et al, Dark Reign (New York: Marvel Comics, 2008).

[82] Stan Lee et al, Journey into Mystery (New York: Marvel Comics, 1952). #85

[83] Matthew McAllister, 'Cultural Argument and Organizational Constraint in the Comic Book Industry', Journal of Communication, 40.1, (1990), 55-71 (p. 55).

[84] Mackenzi Lee, Loki: Where Mischief Lies (New York: Marvel Press, 2019), p.218

[85] Ibid, p. 205

[86] Ibid, p.265

[87] Ibid, p.9

[88] Ibid, p.5

[89] Nancy Hirschmann, '“Queer/Fear: Disability, Sexuality, and The Other.” ', Journal of Medical Humanities, 34.2, (2013), 139-147 (p. 140), in Springer Science Business Media <https://link-springer-com.ezproxyd.bham.ac.uk/content/pdf/10.1007/s10912-013-9208-x.pdf> [accessed 11 March 2020].

[90] Rooth, p.187

[91] Al Ewing et al, Loki: Agent of Asgard The Complete Edition, ed. by Mark D. Beazley (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020), #2

[92] Sandra Bem, 'The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny ', Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42.2, (1974), 155-162, <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.472.525&rep=rep1&type=pdf> [accessed 11 March 2020].

[93] Lee, p.265

[94] Ibid

[95] Jonathan Alexander, 'Transgender Rhetorics: (Re)Composing Narratives of the Gendered Body.', College Composition and Communication, 57.1, (2005), 45-82 (p. 50), in ProQuest <https://search-proquest-com.ezproxye.bham.ac.uk/docview/220712396/fulltextPDF/BDE4C525A8C64762PQ/1?accountid=8630> [accessed 11 March 2020].

[96] Lee, p.362

[97] Ibid, p.223

[98]Sonja K. Foss, Mary E. Domenico, and Karen A. Foss, Gender Stories: Negotiating Identity in a Binary World (Illinois: Waveland, 2013). P.40

[99] Lee, 264

[100] Terrence R. Wandtke, The Amazing Transforming Superhero!: Essays on the Revision of Characters in Comic Books, Film, and Television, ed. by Terrence R. Wandtke (Jefferson: McFarland, 2007), p. 7.

[101] Aaron Blashill, Kimberly Powlishta, '“Gay Stereotypes: The Use of Sexual Orientation as a Cue for Gender-Related Attributes.” ', Sex Role, 61.1, (2009), 783-793 (p. 784).

[102] Lee, p.4

[103] Ibid, p.5

[104] Lisa Walker, Looking Like What You Are: Sexual Style, Race, and Lesbian Identity (New York: New York University Press, 2001).

[105] Ewing, #3

[106] Ibid, #9

[107] Blashill, Powlishta, p.984

[108] Norma Pecora, '“Superman/Superboys/Supermen: The Comic Book Hero as a Socializing Agent.”', in Men, Masculinity, and the Media, ed. by Steve Craig(Newbury Park: Sage, 1992), p. 61-77

[109] Carol Stabile, '“'Sweetheart, This Ain’t Gender Studies” Sexism and Superheroes. ', Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6.1, (2009), 86-92.

[110] Luciano Vecchio et al, Marvel Voices #1 (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020).

[111] McAllister, p.55

[112] Lee, p.408

[113] Hirschmann, p.143

[114] Lee, p.205

[115] Ibid, p.230

[116] Ibid, p.70

[117] Ibid, p.5

[118] Lee, p.80-1

[119] Lee, p.81

[120] Ibid, p.408

[121] Ewing, #13

[122] Ewing, # 16

[123] Jennifer Nye, '"The Gender Box."', Berkeley Women's Law Journal, 13.1, (1998), 22-256 (p. 229).

[124] Ibid, p.228

[125] Lee, p.218

[126] Ibid

[127] Ibid, p.9

[128] Ibid, p.387

[129] Ibid

[130] Ibid, p.401

[131] Mark E LaPointe and Meredith Li-Vollmer, '"Gender Transgression and Villainy in Animated Film." ', Popular Communication: The International Journal of Media and Culture, 1.2, (2009), 89-109 (p. 90).

[132] Sandy Schaefer, Loki Will Struggle With Identity & Control in Marvel Disney+ Show (2020) <https://screenrant.com/loki-marvel-disney-plus-show-plot-identity-control/> [accessed 2 May 2020].

[133] In Marvel Loki is the child of frost giant king, Laufey, adopted by Odin.

[134] Ewing, #5.3

[135] Ibid #5.4

[136] Ibid #1

[137] Ibid #10

[138] Ibid, #8

[139] Adam Green, 'Queer Theory and Sociology: Locating the Subject and the Self in Sexuality Studies', Sociological Theory, 25.1, (2007), 26-45 (p. 32).

[140] Lee, p.95

[141] Ibid, p.44

[142] Alexander, p.52

[143] Walter Simonson et al, Thor (New York: Marvel Comics, 1966). #353

[144] Ewing, # 1

[145] Ibid, #16

[146] Ibid, #1

[147] Lee, p.359

[148] Ibid, p. 408

[149] Ibid, p.407

[150] Ewing, # 17

[151] Ibid

[152] McAllister, p.46

[153] Neil Gaiman, Norse Mythology (London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2017), p. 8.

[154] Tim Adams, Thor: Ragnarok's Valkyrie Is Bisexual, Tessa Thompson Confirms (2017) <https://www.cbr.com/thor-ragnarok-valkyrie-bisexual/> [accessed 5 May 2020].

[155] Bea Ciacoya, Brazilian Mayor Orders Armed Police Seize LGBTQIA+ Books, Leads to Protest (2019) <https://www.cbr.com/brazilian-mayor-orders-armed-police-seize-protest/> [accessed 5 May 2020].

[156] Rick Riodan, The Stonewall Award (2017) <https://rickriordan.com/2017/06/the-stonewall-award/> [accessed 5 May 2020].

#loki #loki show #loki series #norse mythology #norse loki #prose edda #poetic edda #essay #genderfluid #genderfluid loki #queer loki

57 notes · View notes

song-of-oots · 3 years

Text

Fuchsia Groan: my (un)exceptional fave

A while ago a friend of mine was asking for people to name their favourite examples of strong female characters, and my mind immediately leapt to Gormenghast’s Fuchsia Groan because it always does whenever the words “favourite” and “female character” come up in the same sentence. In fact scratch that, if I had to pick only one character to be my official favourite (female or otherwise) it would probably be Fuchsia. There are not sufficient words in the English language to accurately describe how much I love this character.

The issue was that I’m not sure Fuchsia Groan can accurately be described as “strong”, and until my friend asked the question, it hadn’t even occurred to me to analyse her in those terms…

Actually this isn’t completely true; Mervyn Peake does describe Fuchsia as strong in terms of her physical strength on multiple occasions. But in terms of her mental strength things are less clear cut. She’s certainly not a total pushover, and anyone would probably find it tough-going to cope with the neglect, tragedy and misuse she suffers through. In fact, this is something Mervyn Peake mentions himself – whilst also pointing out that Fuchsia is not the most resilient of people:

“There were many causes [to her depression], any one of which might have been alone sufficient to undermine the will of tougher natures than Fuchsia’s.”

Anyway, this has gotten me thinking about Fuchsia’s other traits and my reasons for loving her, going through a typical sort of list of reasons people often give for holding up a character as someone to admire:

So, is Fuchsia particularly talented?

No.

Is she clever, witty?

She’s definitely not completely stupid, and her insights occasionally take other characters by surprise, but she’s not really that smart either.

Does she have any significant achievements? Overcome great adversity?

Not really, no.

Is she kind?

Yes. Fuchsia is a very loving person and sometimes displays an incredible sensitivity and compassion for others. But… she can also be self-absorbed, highly strung, and does occasionally lash out at other people (especially in her younger years).

So why do I love Fuchsia so much?

Well, I’ll start be reiterating that I don’t really have the vocabulary to adequately put it into words, but I will try to get the gist across. So:

“What Fuchsia wanted from a picture was something unexpected. It was as though she enjoyed the artist telling her something quite fresh and new. Something she had never thought of before.”

This statement summarises not only Fuchsia but also the way I feel about her (and for that matter the Gormenghast novels in general). Fuchsia is something I’ve never really seen before. On the surface, she fits the model of the somewhat spoiled but neglected princess, and yet at the same time she cannot be so neatly pigeon-holed. It’s not just that her situation and the themes of the story make things more complex (though that is a factor); Fuchsia herself is so unique and vividly detailed that she manages to be more than her archetype. She feels like a real person and, like all real people, she is not so easy to label.

Fuchsia is also delightfully strange in a way that feels very authentic to her and the setting in general (which is particularly refreshing because it can all too often feel as though female characters are only allowed to be strange in a kooky, sexy way - yet Fuchsia defies this trend).

She’s a Lady, but she’s not ladylike. She’s messy. She slouches, mooches, stomps and stands in awkward positions. Her drawing technique is “vicious” and “uncompromising”. She chews grass. She removes her shoes “without untying the laces by treading on the heels and then working her foot loose”. She’s multi-faceted and psychologically complex. Intense and self-absorbed, sometimes irrational and ruled by her emotions more than is wise, but also capable of insight and good sense that takes others by surprise. She is extremely loving and affectionate, and yet so tragically lonely. Simultaneously very feminine and also not. Her character development from immature teenager to adult woman is both subtle and believable. She has integrity and decency – she doesn’t need to be super clever or articulate to know how to care for others or stand up for herself.

Fuchsia is honest. She knows her own flaws, but you never catch her trying to put on airs or make herself out to be anything other than what she is. She always expresses her feelings honestly.

She’s not sexualised at all. I don’t mean by this that she has no sexuality – though that’s something Peake only vaguely touches on – but I don’t really feel like I’m looking at a character who was written to pander to the male gaze (though her creator is male, I get the vibe he views her more as a beloved daughter than a sexual object).

Finally, I find her highly relatable. I am different to Fuchsia in many ways, but we do have several things in common that I have never seen so vividly expressed in any other character. This was incredibly important to me when I was a teenager struggling through the worst period of depression I ever experienced – because she was someone who I could relate to and love in a way I was incapable of loving myself. Her ability to be herself meant a lot to me as someone struggling with my own identity and sense of inadequacy. It didn’t cure my depression, but it helped me survive it.

What am I trying to say with all this?

I love Fuchsia on multiple levels. I love her as a person and also as a character and a remarkable piece of writing. I mention some of the mundane details Peake uses to flesh out her character firstly because I enjoy them, but also because it’s part of the point. Her story amazes me because it treats a female character and her psychological and emotional life with an intense amount of interest regardless of any special talents or achievements she happens to exhibit. She doesn’t fit the model of a modern heroine but neither does she need to – she’s still worth spending time with and caring about.* To me the most important things about Fuchsia are how different and interesting and relatable she is – and how real she feels.

* To be honest, this is part of the point of the Gormenghast novels in general. The story is meant to illustrate the damage that society – and in particular rigid social structures and customs – can do to individuals with its callous indifference to genuine human need. Fuchsia is one of many examples of this throughout the novels. These characters don’t need to be exceptionally heroic in order to matter – they just need to exist as believable people. And despite how strange they all are, they often do manage to be fundamentally relatable.

Why am I talking about female characters in particular here?

The focus on “strong” female characters and the critique against that is pretty widely acknowledged. Growing up, I definitely noticed the lack of female characters in popular media and the ensuing pressure this then places on the ones that do exist to be positive representations of womankind – someone girls can look up to. It’s very understandable that we want to see more examples of admirable female protagonists, given that women were traditionally left to play support roles and tired stereotypes. The problem is that the appetite for more proactive female heroines can sometimes lead to characters who are role models first and realistic human beings second (characters who I mentally refer to as Tick-All-The-Boxes Heroines). It’s not a problem with “strong” proactive heroines per se, but rather lack of variation and genuine psychological depth (not to mention a sometimes too-narrow concept of what it even means to be strong).

Male characters tend not to have this particular problem because they are much better represented across the whole range of roles within a story. You get your fair share of boring worn out archetypes. You get characters who are meant to represent a positive version of heroic masculinity (and now that I come to think of it, having a very narrow and unvarying presentation of what positive masculinity looks like is its own separate problem, but outside the scope of this particular ramble). We don’t usually spend time obsessing over whether a piece of fiction has enough examples of “strong” male characters though, because we’re generally so used to seeing it that we automatically move on into analysing the work and the characters on other terms. And because there are often more male characters than female, they don’t all bear the burden of having to be a positive representative of all men everywhere. They exist to fulfill their roles, and often exhibit more variety, nuance and psychological depth. They are also often allowed to be weird, flawed and unattractive in ways that women usually aren’t (which is a damn shame because I’ve spent my whole life feeling like a weird outsider and yet this perspective is so often told primarily through a male lens).

Tl:dr; Fuchsia Groan is a character who feels like an answer to so many of those frustrations that I felt growing up without even truly understanding why. A large part of why I love her is simply because of how much I relate to her on a personal level. I admire her emotional honesty and her loving nature… But there’s also a part of me that was just so relieved to find a female character who exists outside of the usual formulae we seem to cram women into. She is unique, weird and wonderful (but non-sexualised). Psychologically nuanced and vividly written. She isn’t exceptionally heroic or talented or a high achiever – but she does feel like a real person.

Female characters don’t need to tick all the right boxes in order to be interesting or worth our time any more than the male ones do.

#fuchsia groan #gormenghast #mervyn peake #female characters #mental health #depression #long

29 notes · View notes

ginazmemeoir · 3 years

Note

okay so i know you're super interested and knowledgeable about mythology, so i thought that there's no harm in asking for help, right?

i kinda have to do a 60+ page project on the Mahabharata and the role of women in Mahabharata. do you have any fun facts or anything? all of it will be greatly appreciated

ok the reason this has taken me a significant time to respond is because i was thinking - what best way to answer this. so i have chosen the analysis of different aspects of their lives, rather than do a full character-by-character analysis cause that would end up being a full fledged book. also this is still gonna be like 6 pages. so here we go.

1. BIRTH :

Most of the women in the Mahabharata have an unusual birth, all predestined to do something. Ganga is said to be born from Vishnu’s feet and descended form the heavens. Urvashi and Menaka were the Queens of the Apsaras, born from Brahma’s thighs. Devayani and Sharmishtha were the daughters of Shukracharya and the asura king Virupaksha respectively. Shakuntala was Menaka and Vishwamitra’s daughter, who was found abandoned beneath some flying cranes. Satyavati was born out of a fish which ingested a king’s sperm and was then adopted by the chief of fishermen. Gandhari was born to bear a hundred sons, which she requested from Shiva in her previous birth (some also say her present birth). Amba was reborn as a transman after she burnt herself alive to have revenge on Bhishma. Draupadi was born out of literal fire, cursed to bring the destruction of a thousand clans, and gifted to marry five husbands, each with a quality she wanted. Subhadra was born as an incarnation of Yogamaya, while Kripi (Drona’s wife) was born from a deer.

2. LOVE AND MARRIAGE :

There is a pretty contrasting change in the way women choose their partners, and got married in the Mahabharata. This reflects their declining status in society.

Urvashi and Menaka have had several affairs and marriages. Urvashi left Pururavas when he failed to fulfill her conditions, and later asked her descendant Arjun to have sex with her. When he refused, she cursed him to become a transwoman for a year, which he could choose.

Devayani and Sharmishtha ended up getting married to the same man. Devayani’s husband Yayati, whom she married out of love, cheated on her with Sharmishtha. Devayani, however, had Yayati cursed with sterility and old age as revenge. So technically, women also had a right to a divorce i guess? not officially, but they could definitely leave their husband’s house or humiliate him.

Shakuntala marries Dushyant through the gandharva rites, with the forest as her witness. Their conflicting accounts about the end of her story - Vyasa states that mortified by her indignation at Dushyant’s hands, she leaves him with her son and returns to the forest. Kalidasa states Dushyant ends up remembering her and bringing her back as his lawfully wedded wife.

Ganga is the first wife of Shantanu, and she married him only on the condition that he would never question her. Finally, when he stops her from drowning their eighth son, she breaks her marriage and goes away with the child who grows up to be Devavrata.

Satyavati actually has two meaningful encounters - once with Parashara (son of Vashishtha) and the other with Shantanu. With Parashara, she was ferrying him across the Yamuna when he professed he wanted to have sex with her. Satyavati agreed on two conditions - if she gets pregnant, she would deliver within a day and the child wouldn’t be her responsibility and secondly, Parashara would grant her any boon she wanted. Thus, she gave birth to Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa (the dark skinned boy born on an island) who was brought up by Parashara, and plus got blessed by an intoxicating smell. With Shantanu, even though she was young enough to be his daughter, she holds up a condition that only her children would inherit the Kuru throne, to fulfill which Devavrata takes his terrible oath and becomes Bhishma. Only then does she marry Shantanu. She literally forged her own destiny and had control over her decisions, something which she herself denies later to other women.

Satyavati orders Bhishma to abduct the three princesses of Kashi - Amba, Ambika and Ambalika, as brides for her drunkard son Vichitravirya. Thus, she snatches away the same freedom of marriage she had enjoyed. Amba resists her abduction, however ends up being rejected from her boyfriend King Shalva, for she was now “another man’s property”. She demands Bhishma marry her to salvage her honor, which he denies due to his oath of celibacy. Satyavati could’ve made him break the vow, which she doesn’t. Amba goes to all the kings in the world, seeking one who would salvage her honor. None do, for all are afraid of Bhishma, so she curses all that their lineages would go extinct in a war fought to salvage another woman’s honour in another time. Finally she approaches Parashuram, Bhishma’s teacher. Enraged, Parashuram fights Bhishma but realizes that their fight could end the world. That is one Amba burns herself alive, and curses Bhishma that she would be reborn, and reclaim her revenge. Later, Satyavati forces Ambika and Ambalika to undergo niyog with Vyas after Virya’s death (niyog was practiced when a man died without an heir, so another male member of the family was called to produce an heir with the widow). Thus she also snatches the same sexual freedom which she enjoyed from her daughter in laws. Some say this was also a part of Satyavati’s plan to ensure that only her lineage sits on the throne, because biologically Vyasa is Satyavati’s son, and not Shantanu’s, thus making the children he fathered Satyavati’s blood, and not Kuru blood as they legally claim.

Kunti was forced to have a child with Surya, just because of a childish boon she wanted to try out. Later, she choses Pandu, Ambalika’s son, from a select swayamvara of princes. She couldn’t have chosen another man as others before her had.

Satyavati yet again snatches the same freedom she took for herself. Bhishma is ordered to march to Gandhara and get it’s princess, Gandhari, as a bride for the blind prince Dhritarashtra. When her father Subala resists, Satyavati has him destroy the entire kingdom and kill all of Gandhari’s family, sparing her and her youngest brother Shakuni. Thus Gandhari has no say in her own marriage, for the first time in the Kuru dynasty. Even her act of remaining blindfolded in solidarity with her husband is often pedestalized, the pain behind it overlooked. This is also what gives birth to Shakuni’s burning thirst for revenge and the destruction of the entire Kuru dynasty, just like his family was killed in front of his eyes. One has to understsand that the Mahabharata was simply the sum of past sins and curses and boons and births. Pinning it on Draupadi, who was the last character in this play of power, reduces this epic’s magnificence.

Duryodhana’s marriage with Bhanumati is like the typical fairy tale we hear - she specifically tells him to abduct her and marry her so she doesn’t end up marrying some random dick she doesn’t even know. Again, the woman is in control of her marriage, however the fact that a marriage is being forced on her comes to the fore now.

Hidimbaa, Bhima’s first wife, was a rakshas princess and she marries Bhima by having him kill her brother who wanted to eat him instead. Hidimbaa never goes with Bhima, and instead raises her son Ghatotkacha single handedly and looks after her queendom. This shows a major shift in the status of a woman - the so called “civilized” society keeps reducing the freedom and space given to them, while tribal customs continue to uphold individuality.

Draupadi’s marriage symbolises the status of women perfectly at the time. She’s not a woman with a say in her marriage - instead she’s reduced to a prize, a political alliance to be won in an archery competition. Had Arjun not won, Draupadi would’ve had to keep her head down and just marry the other person because she has no choice.

Subhadra’s marriage is in stark contrast. Arjun is her second cousin (barf) and she abducts him from her own wedding (which was happening to Duryodhana) and marries Arjun with Krishna’s blessings. Subhadra takes the same freedom that Draupadi was never offered. Also, Draupadi and Subhadra would become Arjuna’s only wives - none of his other “companions” would get the same title or status.

Dushala is married to Jayadrath, king of Sindh. The marriage was an unhappy one.

Balarama’s daughter Sulakshana runs away with Ghatotkacha’s help and marries her first cousin Abhimanyu, while Uttara is offered as a political alliance. Again there’s a stark contrast between the two, and it holds a mirror to society - how once the same freedom offered to women had now become a thing of legends.

3. POLITICS AND AMBITIONS

Devayani had wanted to snub Sharmishtha her whole life because of the one major fight they had which she lost. Being the daughter of Shukracharya, Devayani had more resources at her disposal, and she makes good use of them by transforming Sharmishtha, a princess, into her slave. Later, she also makes sure Yayati is punished for his adultery.

Shakuntala played kingmaker - according to the Mahabharata she went back to the forest only after securing her son’s right to the throne. According to Kalidasa, she has no ambitions whatsoever.

Satyavati’s political ambitions have already been discussed above - her rise to power, her way of ensuring that only her blood claims the throne, and the fact that she was willing to do anything for what she wanted. Another factor into this is caste - Satyavati is often ridiculed as Daseyi (daughter of a slave) and is discriminated against because of her caste as a fisherwoman.

Amba’s ambitions have also been discussed above - her burning desire for revenge. When she is reborn as Shikhandi, she deliberately has her gender changed before her marriage so that she transforms into a man.

The tussle between Kunti and Gandhari for power is an actual stuff of legends. While Kunti is mostly projected as a hapless widow raising five boys, most people forget that she’s a powerful princess, and was originally the Empress of Hastinapur, later turned widow. She knows the deadly game of politics and it's nuances, and the same goes for Gandhari. According to the epics, the game played between these two queens was subtle, and not open. For example, Gandhari had took over Kunti’s quarters and had her sleep close to the servant’s quarters. Kunti too secures her own future by convincing Bhishma to back her and her son’s claim to the throne. One famous tale recounts that during a particular festival, Gandhari calls in a hundred elephants covered in gold for the worship. Since Kunti has no resources of her own and instead has to use toy elephants made of clay, she asks Arjuna to do something, who promptly goes to the heavens and brings back Airavata, the king of all elephants and Indra’s vahana, for Kunti. This rivalry comes to the open when the kingdom is divided and the wastelands and forests, Khandavaprastha, is handed to the Pandavas. Kunti accuses Gandhari of deliberately giving the useless part to her sons, while Gandhari accuses her of nurturing the wish for the throne in her sons’ hearts. This rivalry, however, comes to an end with the war, and both reconcile.

Kunti is also shown to be heartless/overprotective when it comes to her kids, which is understandable given the circumstances in which they were brought up. However, that doesn’t justify the fact that she made Bhima leave Hidimbaa in the forest. It also doesn’t justify the fact that originally, when she got to know that she and her sons were to be burnt alive in the Varnavata Summer Palace, she burnt alive another mother and all her children who had come there from the forest as guests, along with the caretaker Purochana who was in on the plan, as a cover so they could escape. It also doesn’t justify her making Draupadi marry all five brothers so there could never be “a fight over a woman”. Her masterstroke, however, comes during the War. What I believe is, she should have told Karna the entire truth and accepted him the moment she saw him. However, she waited, and then finally when the War arrives, she tells him the truth and emotionally manipulates him. Softening Karna’s heart, she protects four of her sons, and she had enough faith in Krishna to protect the fifth. It could also be genuine affection, but I refuse to believe that.

Draupadi has to face a much tougher life though. Kunti had already tied her to all five brothers as their “mutual” wife. One can only imagine the pain and endurance she goes through, battling her in-laws and her own family. She later has the Pandavas promise that no other wife of their could get the title of wife or the status, and couldn’t enter the Kuru household or Indraprastha. Even Subhadra was never allowed inside Hastinapur and Indraprastha, and instead spent her entire life in Dwarka. Her “laugh” at Duryondhana’s stumble in Indraprastha could be genuine fun, and also her own way of getting back at him for all those years of injustice. In the forest during exile, she has to keep all her wits about her, as she encounters wrathful sages, vengeful spirits, and kings with ill intents. As a hairdresser, she had virtually no power and so could do nothing herself when the queen’s brother, Kichak, tries to rape her. However, she invites Bhima over (who’s living as a cook) and he easily kills Kichak. What’s really infuriating is the way people pin the entire carnage that follows on her head - essentially victim shaming. People say “so what if she was disrobed publicly? does that mean she would destroy that entire clan, who stood mum and watched?” Yes. Yes it does. And you can’t give the excuse “she is fire’s daughter” and all. NO. Then, she wasn’t the weapon summoned to destroy a thousand clans, daughter of fire, Empress of Indraprastha or Princess of Panchala. At that moment, she was a woman being disrobed publicly. A woman lost in a wager like cattle. Nobody rose to defend her, except Vikarna, a Kaurava and Krishna, the man she regards as her own brother. This is what makes a bold statement about women - she’s no longer a person, but a commodity to be owned by someone. It reflects the rot and decay of our society, which increases day by day. What I believe is, Draupadi’s demand for retribution is perfectly justified - her wish to bathe in the blood of the one who disrobed her, dragged her by her hair all the way to the Imperial Coury, perfectly justified. Her wish to see the corpse of all those who stood silent as she was being disrobed, or those who mocked, pile up in the great blood soaked field of Kurukshetra. Her heart however melts the instant she sees the “great army of widows and orphans” who arrive at Kurukshetra.

4. CHILDREN

A recurring, patriarchal theme in all Hindu epics is the fact that a woman’s happiness was linked to her children, most of all sons.

All of Devayani’s five sons were banished and cursed when they refused to take up their father’s old age and sterility while in their youth. The same fate awaited Sharmishtha’s sons. Only the youngest, Puru, agrees and is then pronounced king after a thousand years, when Yayati returns him back his youth. Moreover, Devayani has to give her daughter Madhavi to a priest on Yayati’s order, who is later raped by four kings as a teenager and gives birth to four great sons. These sons are later asked to give up a quarter each of their merit earned on earth to Yayati, who was denied passage to heaven for all of his sins. This shows the fact that Indian/South Asian society continues to be dominated by those before us – our parents and their parents – and we have to comply. This is in contrast with Western philosophy, which makes way for the younger generation. In South Asian society, both have to co-exist, with the older often domineering.

Ganga’s sons were actually the eight Vasus who were cursed to live terrible lives as humans. By drowning seven of them the moment they are born, Ganga ensures that they spend minimum time in the mortal realm and return back to the heavens. The eldest, Prabhas, was cursed to live the most terrible life of them all, which ends up happening - Devavrata, later Bhishma, couldn’t be killed after birth. He lives a terrible life - a prince reduced to a slave of the throne, innocent blood on his hands, no family of his own, and he couldn’t even decide whom he wanted to fight for. This shows the theme of overlapping stories, something which keeps recurring in Hinduism in general.

Satyavati’s elder son Chitrangada was killed in a war with the gandharva king, Chitrangada. Her other son, Vichitravirya, gave himself up to wine and intoxication and died young. Her son with Parashara, though, outlives till the time of Janmajeya, Arjuna’s great grandson. Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa ends up compiling all the Vedas and writing the famous Mahabharata. He also keeps coming here and there in the epic, for example Satyavati inviting him to perfrom niyog forcefully with her daughter in laws and produce heirs.

Ambika had her eyes shut the entire time during her rape/niyog, and so the child born - Dhritarashtra, was blind. Ambalika was shaking and fearful the whole time, so her son Pandu was born weak. Vyasa had consentful sex with a palace maid, and the son born to her, Vidura, would’ve been the perfect heir. However, Dhritarashtra was denied kingship by virtued of his blindness, while Vidura was denied the throne by virtue of his mother’s caste. Pandu later retires following a curse, and so Dhritarashtra takes up the kingship. He is shown to be a spiteful character initially, frustrated that despite being the elder one and perfect, he was denied the throne because he was blind. He passes on the same frustration and poison to his children.

Gandhari’s pregnancy was special. She was pregnant for two full years, in which time Dhritarashtra had another son, Yuyutsu, through a palace maid. Gandhari’s gestation period was equal to that of an elephant, and had she had just a little more patience, she would’ve given birth to a literal god. however, frustrated with the fact that her husband had cheated on her, she kept beating her womb each night with a red-hot iron rod, until she gave birth to an undeveloped foetus. Vyasa intervenes by cutting it up into 101 pieces and “hatching” them in vats of ghee in an incubation chamber (historians and scientists say this could be the earliest documented evidence of IVF or incubation chambers), resulting in the 100 Kauravas and their only sister, Dushala. Some say that evil omens were there during their birth. This also demonstrates that a woman’s social holding was also related to the no. of children she had, especially sons.

Kunti had received a boon from Durvasa that she could have a child with any god she wanted. Her experimentation with the boon leads to her unwanted and forced pregnancy of Karna. Historians suspect this could be a teen pregnancy, logically, and ill equipped emotionally and physically handle a baby at that stage in her life, she cast him away in the river (still unjustified i think). This baby grew up to be Karna, filled with resentment over his fate. Later, when Pandu is cursed with sterility and the fact that if he dares touch a woman out of love he would die, Kunti uses this boon again to have three sons from three gods – Yama, the god of death and law; Vayu, the god of wind and Indra, the king of the gods and god of rain and thunder. Historians speculate this could be a cover for niyog (mentioned above). Later, Kunti begrudgingly bestows this boon upon Pandu’s favorite wife, Madri, who begets twins from the twin gods the Ashwin Kumaras.

Draupadi has five sons with her husbands - Prativindhya (from Yudhishthira), Sutasoma (from Bhima), Shrutakarman (from Arjun), Satanaka (from Nakul) and Shrutasena (from Sahadev). None of them have children of their of their own and die a gruesome death, killed by Ashwatthama in his murderous frenzy.

Subhadra’s son Abhimanyu features more prominently in the epic. Legends say he knew how to enter into a chakravyuh from the moment he was born, but not how to exit. During the war, he enters a chakravyuh formed by the Kauravas, where he is unfairly killed - surrounded by ten men, and defenseless. He dies trying to defend himself by using a chariot wheel.

The other wives of the Pandavas suffer for a war that they weren’t even a part of. Hidimba’s son Ghatotkacha helps the Pandavas and turns the tide towards them. He grows into a strong Asura and uses his magic, and is eventually killed by Karna using Shakti, the weapon he received from Indra. Uloopi’s (Arjuna’s Naga wife, daughter of the Naga king Vasuki) son Iravan is killed before the war itself as a sacrifice to appease Chamundi, and his head is mounted on a hill so he can survey the war. The same fate awaited Ghatotkacha’s son Barbareek. Since he was the strongest warrior any side and could finish the war in a second, Krishna demanded his head as a sacrifice so that he couldn’t participate in the war, in return promising him eternal worship (Barbareek is worshipped as Khatushyam in Rajasthan). Chitrangada (Arjuna’s androgynous warrior wife, Queen of Manipur) strategically protects herself and her kingdom from harm. However, owing to a curse Ganga gives to Arjuna, Chitrangada’s son Babruvahan ends up killing his own father Arjuna and then later commits suicide. They’re both revived by Uloopi using the Nagamani.

Duryodhana’s wife, Bhanumati, also suffers. Her son Lakshmana, who was originally a poet, was killef by Abhimanyu when he was defenseless, while her daughter Lakshmanaa was raped by Krishna’s son Samba and then later married to him to save face.

Karna’s first wife Vishakha loses all her sons and commits suicide. His other wife Uruvi’s only son, Vrishaketu, is spared because he was only 9 at the time of the War and thus, lived.

Dushala’s sons die defending Sindh from the Pandavas, and only Dushala and her grandson are spared. Another account says she forced her sons to enter the war, and they all died there.

Uttara’s son Pareekshit was killed within the womb by Ashwatthama, when he fired the most powerful missile in the world, the Brahmastra, at her womb. Krishna revives the child through his powers, and then curses Ashwatthama to remain immortal, yet suffer through a thousand diseases every second for the sin of trying to murder an unborn.

Vyasa’s son Sukadev, blessed with “the memory of a parrot” memorises the entire Mahabharata.

Pareekshit is later killed by the Naga king Takshak, as revenge for the murder of his family through Arjuna’s (Pareekshit’s grandfather) hands when he burnt the Khandava forest. In revenge, his son Janmajeya conducts a powerful Sarpa Satra where all the nagas of the world are killed. The genocide is stopped by Asita, a Naga sage, who along with Sukadeva and Jaimini recited the entire Mahabharata to him and made him revive the snakes killed.

5. DEATH

Satyavati dies along with Ambika and Ambalika in the forest after taking retirement. She drowns in the very same Yamuna which turned her life around.

Amba, reborn as Shikhandi, dies in the war.

Gandhari dies heartbroken, while Kunti dies in a fire.

Draupadi dies while trying to reach heaven via the Himalayas. None of her husbands so much as even look at her as she falls to her death.

Subhadra dies with the tsunami sent by Varuna (god of the seas) which destroyed Dwarka.

The deaths of all of these women are ironic, but also demonstrate the rule of Karma .

Not much is known of the death of the other women in this magnificent epic.

I hope this serves as a good and honest reminder about the women of the Mahabharata, and helps with your project.

86 notes · View notes

cherry-valentine · 3 years

Text

How Black Clover Gets Lady Characters Right

*Spoilers for most of the Black Clover anime (mostly character related stuff, not much in the way of major plot stuff)*

Black Clover is right up there with Gintama in terms of shows that reward viewers for sticking with them through some mediocre early episodes and arcs. When Black Clover began airing, I was excited. Manga readers had been hyping the series up, and it sounded like the next big shounen fighting anime that would take anime fandom by storm. Then I started watching it, and I was immensely disappointed. I found Asta’s constant screaming almost unbearable (to the point that I started muting the tv when it looked like he was about to open his mouth). The early episodes were totally predictable and cliche. The animation was, at times, embarrassingly bad. But I stuck with it because there were a few elements that kept me interested. One was the absolute bangers of opening and ending themes (at one point the thought crossed my mind that they were entirely too good for this show). Another was Yuno, whom I liked from the start. Then there’s the fact that Asta’s magic, or lack of magic, was the one element I didn’t predict a mile away. I honestly expected him to awaken to some super powerful magic early on. Almost 200 episodes later, he is still magic-free. I really did not see that coming. Still yet, I came close to dropping the series several times during those first thirteen episodes or so.

Somewhere around the time they went to the undersea village (I don’t remember the name of the arc), I began to notice that I was actually looking forward to each new episode. It was a gradual change from being at the bottom of my watch list to being near the top. So gradual it took me a while to realize it. The show still had some problems, sure, but it stopped being predictable. Asta talked more and screamed less. More interesting characters were introduced. The fight scenes were exciting. By the time this arc was over, Black Clover had become a favorite. So, if you tried the series and found it boring and annoying, consider giving it another shot. Like I said, it rewards you for sticking with it.

One of the best things about Black Clover, for me, is how it treats its female characters, especially when compared to other popular shounen fighting anime. It is by no means perfect, and I’ll talk about the show’s minor failings in regards to its ladies a little further down. But overall, it does a phenomenal job.

The first thing that struck me about Black Clover’s women is just how varied they are. There’s a surprising range in their appearances, personalities, and skills. And there are lots of them. Far more than a lot of other shounen fighting anime allow. There are five women in the main squad, the Black Bulls, alone. And we see that each squad has several women as well. Then there’s the all-women squad the Blue Roses. This extends to the villains, as well as the non-combatant supporting cast as well.

Speaking of skills, the women of Black Clover are unusually powerful. The two male leads, Asta and Yuno, eventually get “power-ups”, some kind of new form or transformation or whatever. This is super common in shounen fighting anime. What’s not so common, however, is the female lead getting her own cool power-up/transformation. This is what happens for Noelle, and it was such a great surprise. A little side note here: I’ve been watching the series on a streaming site that allows comments, and I was so amazed by the comments on the episode in which Noelle gets her power-up. The (mostly male, judging by their names) commenters were genuinely happy for her! They were proud of her for getting stronger and cheering her on! I didn’t spot a single comment about her looks or how great of a waifu she is (at the time anyway).

But it wasn’t just Noelle that got stronger. Another Black Bulls member, Vanessa, got an interesting power-up of her own, in the form a cat familiar that basically makes her and her teammates completely impervious to harm for as long as her mana holds out (which has saved their lives countless times). Another lady, Grey, has recently (in the anime) demonstrated some shockingly powerful magic that none of her teammates, or even she herself, realized she was capable of. Then there’s Charmy, who was already quite powerful but gained her own powered up transformation that made her strong enough to defeat an elf-possessed Magic Knight captain. If anything, the ladies have received MORE power-ups than the men.

And while we’re talking about powerful women, I have to talk about Mereoleona. If you’ve watched the show, you know exactly what I mean. If you haven’t, just imagine a character who can curb-stomp a powerful villain who is on a higher level than villains that the main characters were struggling to team up against just a few episodes before, who can then take on a whole group of these powered up villains and remain standing, even after losing consciousness, because they’re just that badass. Now imagine that character is a woman. And she’s so terrifying that one of the elf-possessed enemies (her comrades who had their bodies taken over by elves) remarks that his body froze up because, even though he’s controlling it, the BODY ITSELF was afraid of her. Mereoleona is an absolute beast, the kind of character that is almost always male in these types of shows. And the best part? The icing on this badass cake? The only person who was stronger than her, who could defeat her one-on-one, was ANOTHER WOMAN. Noelle’s mother. And a huge part of Noelle’s motivation as a character is becoming strong like her mother.

On the subject of Noelle’s motivation, I really appreciate that it has nothing to do with her crush on Asta. Sure, she likes him, but it’s not a motivating factor in her life and it’s not even really that important to her story arc. Her arc has always been about HER, about becoming stronger, living up to her powerful family’s expectations, discovering the truth about her mother’s death and then about avenging her, about becoming more empathetic to the common people despite being royalty. Noelle’s story is ABOUT HER. And it’s really sad that this is something remarkable, but we’ve all seen the “heroines” with no real arcs of their own, or worse, their arcs revolve almost entirely around their love for a male character (Sakura from Naruto is the most obvious example here but anyone who watches a lot of shounen can no doubt name many more). And Noelle isn’t an exception in Black Clover. Almost all of the women have interesting back stories and character arcs that have little to do with men (or if men are involved, they’re in supporting roles to these stories and very rarely the main subject).

An exception to this is possibly Charlotte, who is in love with Yami and this plays a big role in her story. However, even this is framed in a way that puts the emphasis on her own growth. It’s really about her learning to be honest with her feelings and getting over her own awkwardness around Yami. A big moment for her is when she admits to her squad that she’s in love with Yami, and they’re all eager and excited to help and support her, like the wonderful ladies they are.

Now, as I said before, Black Clover’s depictions of women are not perfect. There are a few issues I consider minor that I need to address. The first is the tendency the show has of making almost all the ladies be in love with someone. A large portion of the women are sporting crushes, though some of them are quite subtle or mainly used for comic relief, it’s still a little annoying that so many of them are in love. Of course, many of the male characters are in love with someone too (including the protagonist, Asta) and there are several female characters who are totally disinterested in romance, so I can overlook this. Another small issue is that, even though there’s more variety than usual in the body types (one female character is fat and another, Charmy, often gets quite pudgy for extended periods of time, plus a few ladies have more muscular builds), a significant portion of them have very large breasts, including two teenage characters (Noelle and Mimosa). It feels a little unnecessary, to be honest. Though to be fair, it’s rare that any of these characters are used for fan service and the camera never really seems to linger on their bodies. Most of them dress fairly modestly and among those who don’t, the more sexy clothes fit their characters and make sense for their personalities.

The last minor issue I have is that we often get the “designated girl fights”. If there’s a female villain, it’s likely that a female hero will be the one to fight her. This isn’t a rule set in stone, because there are plenty of male/female battles, but it happens enough to be very noticeable. Of course, these lady villains are demonstrated to be just as powerful and dangerous as the villainous men, but it’s still mildly irritating.

Those little nitpicks aside, Black Clover is still a shining example of a shounen fighting anime getting its ladies right. The women in the series are well-written, interesting characters with compelling stories. They’re powerful, have wildly varying personalities and motivations, and never feel like window dressing. They’re not just there to be pretty romantic interests. The show does all this very well, and I think it deserves a lot of praise and credit for it.

#Black Clover #Female characters #noelle silva #mereoleona vermillion #text #long post

22 notes · View notes

dwellordream · 3 years

Text

“If any character in English popular culture stands for the sheep, it is Griselda. Her chief detractor is, not surprisingly, the shrew. In Robert Snawsel's A Looking Glass for Married Folks, Eulalie preaches the Griselda gospel to Xanthippe and Margery, urging them to bear their husbands' blows and drunkenness with meek loving kindness. This is too much for Margery: "Are you a woman, and make them such dish-clouts and slaves to their husbands? Came you of a woman, that you should give them no prerogative, but make them altogether underlings?" Margery's scornful reference to slavery goes to the dark heart of the Griselda myth. Folklorists have argued about the ancestry of the famous tale for more than a century.

William Edwin Bettridge and Francis Lee Utley have made a strong case that Griselda owes her features to a folktale from medieval Smyrna called "the Patience of the Princess." A prince buys a poor girl from her father and lays a wager with her that she will not be able to submit to all his demands with utter composure. The prince shuts her in a tower alone and tests her for twenty years, repeatedly impregnating her and then taking away her newborn infants, telling her that he is going to kill them. She builds a mother doll out of clay to talk to and cry to but never loses her patience, and in this way she wins the bet.

The tale, which matches the European narrative more closely than any other yet found, throws into stark relief the specter of female sexual slavery that haunts Griselda's story. The most striking variance between them is that the girl from Smyrna is sold into involuntary servitude by her father, whereas Griselda has a choice and agrees to voluntary and total obedience. Passing into European culture, the story came to Boccaccio. In reworking it for the Decameron he reclothed it in local garb, fashioning his novella partly in terms of Italian wedding and dowry customs that were sharply weighted against brides and wives. Boccaccio thought Griselda's story significant enough to give it pride of place as the last tale on the book's final day of storytelling.

Petrarch read the novella and converted it to an exemplum in Latin for male scholars. Griselda entered English culture through Chaucer's "Clerk's Tale," which is largely based on Petrarch's version. Plays, ballads, and pamphlets on Griselda issued forth on the continent and in England throughout the early modern period, with a cluster of publications and performances in the mid- to late sixteenth century. Arguably the most radical change between versions occurred when Petrarch reworked Boccaccio. The Decameron's final tale is told by the satirist Dioneo, a crucial choice by Boccaccio. Refusing to let the happy ending stay happy, Dioneo spells out the political import of the story and caps it off with a horn joke against the marquis:

Everyone was very happy with the way everything had turned out ....Gualtieri was judged to be the wisest of men (although the tests to which he had subjected his wife were regarded as harsh and intolerable), and Griselda the wisest of them all ....What more can be said here, except that godlike spirits do sometimes rain down from heaven into poor homes, just as those more suited to governing pigs than to ruling over men make their appearances in royal palaces?

Who besides Griselda could have endured the severe and unheard-of trials that Gualtieri imposed upon her and remained with a not only tearless but happy face? It might have served Gualtieri right if he had run into the kind of woman who, once driven out of her home in nothing but a shift, would have allowed another man to shake her fur to the point of getting herself a nice-looking dress out of the affair.

Scholars often downplay Dioneo's bitter words about pig-tending and his final putdown of Gualtieri, attributing it to his cynicism; but their labors to match the tale's disturbing sadism with an uplifting exemplary meaning are less than persuasive. The passage is much more than a glib throwaway, as Edward Fechter points out: "the climax angrily repudiates theological allegory and exemplum." Certainly, it seems fitting that the last lines of the last tale in the Decameron should recapitulate the Boccaccian theme of cuckoldry as female revenge. Dioneo's parting shot about "the shaking of the fur" is also an invitation to his listeners and the book's readers to come up with better interpretations than do the silly sheeplike courtiers of the tale, who judge "Walter wise and Griselda the wisest of all."

Furthermore, it is a jest that asks for scornful laughter, especially from listeners who have grutched throughout the tale at Walter's arrogance, egotism, and sadism. Petrarch told Boccaccio that the story so fascinated him that he decided to spread the tale to scholars abroad. So "snatching up my pen, I attacked this story of yours." The angle of Petrarch's attack on the novella (which he termed "a little too free at times") becomes manifest at the cuckoldry-free conclusion of "A Fable of Wifely Obedience and Devotion," in which he erases Boccaccio's satire and his bawdy call for female revenge:

This story it has seemed good to me to weave anew, in another tongue, not so much that it might stir the matrons of our times to imitate the patience of this wife-who seems to me scarcely imitable-as that it might stir all those who read it to imitate the woman's steadfastness, at least; so that they may have the resolution to perform for God what this woman performed for her husband ...Therefore I would assuredly enter on the list of steadfast men the name of anyone who endured for his God, without a murmur, what this obscure peasant woman endured for her mortal husband.

Petrarch's straight-faced version has none of Dioneo's political satire or irony. He is writing in Latin to male scholars, not in vernacular Italian to women and men, as Boccaccio had done. Nonetheless, it is Petrarch that Chaucer credits by name in the vernacular, mixed-audience "Clerk's Tale," although he departs from Petrarch in crucial ways. The Clerk does follow his source in insisting that his moral applies not to wives but to all humankind: This storie is seyd, nat for that wyves sholde Folwen Grisilde as in humilytee, For it were inportable, though they wolde; But for every wight, in his degree, Should be constant in adversitee As was Grisilde .... (I 142-47)

Chaucer actually intensifies Petrarch's warning that wives should not try to imitate Griselda, calling her example "inportable," or unbearable. (The Merchant, whose turn comes next, blatantly ignores this caveat, complaining "Ther is a long and large difference I Bitwix Grisildis grete pacience I And my wyf the passyng crueltee.") Still, scholarly attempts to align Chaucer's Walter with God do not work because Walter is described as "tempting" his wife, a word almost always associated with sin and vice. In another departure from Petrarch, Chaucer's Clerk breaks in several times to condemn the marquis. After Walter first decides to try his wife, the Clerk interjects hotly what neded it Hir for to tempte, and alwey moore and moore, Thogh som men preyse it for a subtill wit? But as for me, I seye that yvele it sit T'assaye a wyf whan that it is no nede, And putten hire in angwysshe and in drede. (45?-62)

Chaucer's version subtly calls Grisildis's ovine quality into question. The lamb of God is Christ, of course, and Grisildis' meekness when her daughter is taken away resembles his suffering: "Grisildis moot al suffre and al consente, I And as a lambe she sitteth meke and stille" But "moot" she? Within English popular culture, sheep and lambs do sometimes stand for the positive values of resignation and endurance-for example, in emblems on patience. But there is no doubt that sheep generally connote passivity, cowardice, and stupidity. In terms of sheer frequency, the negative secular connotation overwhelms the positive religious one.

A related complicating effect is the criticism leveled at "the unsad" (that is, fickle and sheeplike) people of the realm, who at first deplore Walter's acts but change their minds when they see the pretty new queen (actually his daughter), leading "sadde folk" to exclaim: "0 stormy people! unsad and evere untrewe!" As the Clerk finishes his tale, he shows that he is fully aware that not all his listeners will appreciate Griselda's virtues. With teasing wit he acknowledges the Wife of Bath, who has been called the tale's motivating force and dialogic counterpart. Just before the comic envoy he promises "for the Wyves love of Bathe" to gladden her "and al hire secte" with a song urging them to ignore Grisildis and revel in shrewdam (rr69-74).

By shifting the Clerk's role from that of the preacher of a pious exemplum to a merry jester-singer, Chaucer undercuts his clerkly authority and blurs the moral legibility of his tale, already obscured by Griselda's lack of moral agency and her husband's viciousness. Nonetheless, Griselda quickly proved alluring to husbands, and she retained that allure despite proving highly problematic as a pattern for wives. Like the new husband in the jest about the pottage, men who wanted very much to promote Griselda as a model found her too hot to handle.

In the training manual he prepared for his young wife in the 1390s, the Menagier de Paris offers a confused and troubled account of why he wants her to learn about Griselda. He rushes to assure his wife that he'll never torment her "beyond reason" as the "foolish, arrogant" Walter does Griselda, nor does he expect such obedience: I have set down this story here only in order to instruct you, not to apply it directly to you, and not because I wish such obedience from you. I am in no way worthy of it. I am not a marquis, nor have I taken in you a shepherdess as my wife. Nor am I so foolish, arrogant, or immature in judgment as not to know that I may not properly assault or assay you thus, nor in any such fashion.

God keep me from testing you in this way or any other, under color of lies or dissimulations …I apologize if this story deals with too great cruelty-cruelty, in my view, beyond reason. Do not credit it as having really happened; but the story has it so, and I ought not to change it nor invent another, since someone wiser than I composed it and set it down. Because other people have seen it, I want you to see it too, so that you may be able to talk about everything just as they do.

What he really wants, it seems, is for his wife to be au courant. Griselda had "much currency off the page as a talking point in the late fourteenth century" and was "a subject about which wives might be expected to have an opinion." Codified as a way to get women talking (instead of shutting them up), the narrative about testing is itself a means of testing a woman's opinions and conduct. Is Griselda sick or stoic? Enslaved or free? Is hers a saint's tale, with Walter an abstract tool in the central mystery of her endurance, or is it as much a story about Walter and his court? Is he a cruel tyrant or a stern but loving husband with every right to test his wife? Is Walter God and Griselda a female Christ or Abraham or Job? All these positions have been argued during the six centuries of the debate.

Some recent readers still find Griselda admirable and even question whether she should be regarded as a passive victim. Harriet Hawkins has argued that Chaucer's tale should be read as a criticism of unquestioning obedience to authority, even divine authority, while Lars Engle hears "an implicit voice of sane moral protest" in Grisildis's mild objections to her husband. Such strained attempts at recuperation show that Griselda disturbs more than she edifies, raising but failing to answer questions about the limits of obedience in the face of tyranny and the conflict between Christian duty and wifely subjection.”

- Pamela Allen Brown, “Griselda the Fool.” in Better a Shrew than a Sheep: Women, Drama, and the Culture of Jest in Early Modern England

#pamela allen brown #renaissance #history #medieval #late middle ages #better a shrew than a sheep

4 notes · View notes

buggy-d-hoe · 4 years

Note

three love interest? youre character is a slut much?

HI! THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR THOUGHTS. However, I beg to differ entirely, and so let me crack my knuckles and really speak up about this.

Slut: a woman who has many casual sexual partners, aka sexually promiscuous.

Before I get to the part where it involves Adella, let me sit you down real quick.

Do you even know what term you’re using? The definition clearly states that it involves sex and since I’m Adella’s creator and have a good understanding of her character (Duh), where in the world would multiple love interests = being a slut? If she slept with all three one after the other-rinse and repeat-then yeah, I can agree with you there. But her three love interests are not at the same time and not even at all sexual except the last person, therefore your definition has no footing? Like I’m all sorts of confusion?!

Adella has three love interests because she learns about love in that sense, just like all of us have. We have to start somewhere! The first boy ends up being a friend after they decide that they are better off like that from Year 1 to half of Year 3. NO SEX INVOLVED. The second boy, a Durmstrang student, is almost like her first boyfriend in Year 4, but it ends up with them breaking up on semi-bad terms. NO SEX INVOLVED. The third boy is where she is tested. They push and pull each other with their feelings and they are tested from their 5th year all the way to the Battle of Hogwarts. They’ve gone through stuff since their initial meeting in the 1st year. They go through a transformation in their character and they grow and learn from each other. Maybe something implied between them, but that’s the only person Adella is ever intimate with. Since he is the only one, that technically means she isn’t a slut.

Why is it okay for a male to have multiple love interests, bags almost all of them and everyone applauds on him being a “stud” and not being the manwhore that he is, but the minute you flip the roles and a woman is involved, she’s a slut. Get that misogynistic behavior out of here because I don’t stan for that bullshit. What the hell are you thinking about guys hitting and quitting it, applauding that shit, but when the woman does it, shame on her?

Love interest always never means SEX SEX SEX. Just that people are interested in that individual for the qualities they possessed, their looks, etc. There is more to a person and a character than thinking about their sexual life.

You mean to tell me that you yourself have only been with one person? Not pertaining to just sexually but also romantically as in dating? You never liked more than one individual growing up and you managed to snag that ONE person as your significant other/partner?

I have had four total boyfriends my entire life. The first three were toxic assholes and made me realize what I DON’T want in a partner. I even had numerous crushes when I was younger but I didn’t understand the concept of what a relationship was and just thought the individuals were appealing and/or liked their personality. Did I jump at any chance to bed them? FFS, I was a child then! I did have several people express their interest in me growing up, but I never went as far as to indulge in all of them sexually. By definition, that’s what a slut is. So what is the problem? I’m not sleeping with every living being that breathes because according to the definition, that is what a slut is. So I ask again, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

You need to get rid of that shitty mindset. This isn’t fiction, this is reality. It’s people like you that keep the toxic mindset that having previous partners or having several people like you at once = slut flowing to everyone. What it is is spreading misleading information that could be damaging to someone. You are promoting this and instead of taking the time to learn about it, you help contribute to this misconception. Please educate yourself

KThanxBye.

#do NOT fuck with me on this #stuff like this is what causes so much problems #this needs to stop #get off anon and speak to me coward

11 notes · View notes

iridescentides · 3 years

Note

hi again dia! happy first day of december ❤️💚 i wanted to ask you what, in your opinion, are the 5 most underrated dcoms? i remember you saying before that you've watched all of them so i'd love to hear your opinions 😊 - 🎅🎁🎄

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH secret santa you are so good! asking me all the best questions 💜

okay so i literally had to make a list of all the dcoms i consider underrated and then narrow down a top 5. theres lots of dcoms that i love, but that i think got the right amount of attention and care (like lemonade mouth and the teen beach movies, for example), so this list just focuses on ones that deserved more hype for their quality level.

5. The Cheetah Girls: One World (2008)

okay so even as i type this i feel like a hypocrite. i have only watched this movie one time. BUT i can acknowledge that its one of the most criminally underrated dcoms ever, tons of people didnt watch it simply because raven wasnt in it. thats why i avoided it as a child, and i didnt get around to watching it until i did my big dcom binge in 2016. and it was so good. theres a really long post floating somewhere around tumblr full of specifics on why its actually the best cheetah girls movie (my favorite is the second one purely out of nostalgia), so to paraphrase some points from that post:

its a solid example of cultural appreciation, rather than appropriation, as the girls go and learn about bollywood and indian culture together

the indian characters arent treated like props or unimportant sides, they get their own agency and storylines that are important

the songs are good!!!

basically this movie was overlooked and slept on even though in terms of role modeling and social value, and just like the first two cheetah girls movies it was important and impactful.

4. Sharpay’s Fabulous Adventure (2011)

okay so as someone whos very neutral and occasionally negative-leaning towards the hsm franchise (mostly bc its overhyped and not really representative of all dcoms), i was pleasantly surprised by sharpays fabulous adventure. this is another one that i know lots of people skipped right over and dont hold with as much esteem as the main hsm franchise, and that doesnt sit right with me.

i do not agree with the “uwu sharpay was the real victim in hsm” arguments bc in their efforts to look galaxy brained the people who say that overlook the fact that she was a rich white woman who used her power and status to exercise control over opportunities that should have been fairly and freely available for all; they were not “making a mockery of her theater” in the first movie, they were literally just kids who wanted to try out a new school activity that everyone was supposed to be allowed to participate in; and despite allegedly learning her lesson and singing we’re all in this together with everyone at the end of the first movie, she literally showed no growth in the second movie as she fostered an openly hostile environment and favored troy so heavily that it literally cost him his friends, all as part of yet another jealous plan to take things away from people who already have less than her. she was NOT the victim in the main franchise, and she did not seem to exhibit any growth or introspection either.

and that!!! is why sharpays fabulous adventure was so important. in focusing on sharpay as the main character, they finally had to make her likeable. they did this by showing actual real growth and putting her outside of her sphere of influence and control. we saw true vulnerability from her, instead of the basic ass “mean girl is sad bc shes actually just super insecure” trope (cough cough radio rebel), and this opened us up to finally learn about and care about her character. throughout the movie we see her learn, from her love interests example, how to care for others and be considerate. she faces actual adversity and works through it, asking herself what she truly wants and what shes capable of. and in the end, when she finally has her big moment, we’re happy for her bc she worked hard to get there. she becomes a star through her own merit and determination, rather than through money and connections. this movie is not perfect by any means, but it is severely underrated for the amount of substance it adds to sharpays character.

3. The Swap (2016)

okay i know im gonna get shit for this but thats why its on this list!!! just like sharpays fabulous adventure, its not perfect and definitely misses the mark sometimes, but it deserves more attention and love for all the things it did get right!

the swap follows two kids who accidentally switch bodies because of their emotional attachment to their dead/absent parents’ phones. and while i normally HATE the tv/movie trope of a dead parent being the only thing that builds quick sympathy for a young character, they definitely expanded well enough to where we could root for these kids even without the tragedy aspect. we see them go through their daily struggles and get a feel for their motivations as characters pretty well. as a body switching movie, we expect it to be all goofy and wacky and lighthearted, but it moves beyond that in unexpected ways.

the reason the swap is on this list is for its surprisingly thoughtful commentary on gender roles. its by no means a feminist masterpiece, and its not going to radicalize kids who watch it, but it conveys a subtle, heartfelt message that deserves more appreciation. the characters struggle with the concept of gender in a very accurate way for their age, making off-base comments and feeling trapped by the weight of expectations they cant quite put their finger on. we watch them feel both at odds with and relieved by the gender roles they are expected and allowed to perform in each others bodies, and one of the most interesting parts of the movie to me is their interactions with the other kids around them. as a result of their feeling out of place in each others environments, the kids inadvertently change each others friendships for the better by introducing new communication styles and brave authenticity.

the value of this movie is the subtle, but genuine way it shows the characters growing through being given the space to act in conflicting ways to their expected norms. ellie realizes that relationships dont have to be complex, confusing, and painful, and that its okay to not live up to appearances and images. jack learns that emotional expression is good, healthy, and especially essential to the grieving process. one of the most powerful scenes in the movie comes at the end where, after ellie confronts jacks dad in his body, jack returns as himself to a very heartfelt apology from his father for being too hard on him; the explicit message (”boys can cry”) is paired with an open expression of love and appreciation for his kids that he didnt feel comfortable displaying until his son set an example through honest communication. this is such an empowering scene and overall an empowering movie for kids who may feel stuck in their expected roles, as it sets a positive example for having the courage to break the restrictive societal mold. for its overall message of the importance of introspection and emotional intelligence, the swap is extremely underrated.

2. Freaky Friday (2018)

this is my favorite dcom, and probably my favorite movie at this point. ive always assigned a lot of personal value to this movie (and i love every freaky friday in general), for the message of selfless familial love and understanding. i know i can get carried away talking about this topic; i got an anon ask MONTHS ago asking me about the freaky friday movies and i wrote a super super long detailed response that i never posted bc i didnt quite finish talking about the 2018 movie. and thats bc on a personal level, i cant adequately convey all the love i have for this movie. so i will try to keep this short.

first lets state the obvious: the reason people dont like this movie is bc its not the lindsay lohan version. and i get that, to an extent, bc i also love the 2003 version and its one of my ultimate comfort movies, and grew up watching it and ive seen it a billion times. i even watched it a couple days ago. but the nostalgia goggles that people have on from the early 2000s severely clouds their judgement of the wonderful 2018 remake.

yes, the 2018 version is dorky, overly simplistic plot wise, a bit stiff at times, and super cheesy like any dcom. the writing isnt 100% all the time. the narrative takes a couple confusing turns. the song biology probably shouldnt have been included. i understand this. but at the heart of it all, this movies value is love. and its edge over all the other freaky friday movies is the songs.

on a personal level, the movie speaks heavily to me. i cried very early into my first viewing of the movie bc i got to see dara renee, a dark-skinned, non-skinny actress, playing the mean popular girl on disney channel. that has never happened before. growing up, i saw the sharpays and all the other super thin white women get to be the “popular” girls on tv, and ultimately they were taken down in the end for being mean, but that doesnt change the fact that they were given power and status in the first place for being conventionally beautiful. so, watching dara renee strut around confidently and sing about being the queen bee at this high school got to me immediately. and in general, the supporting cast members of color really mean a lot to me in this movie. we get to see adam, an asian male love interest for the main character. we have a second interracial relationship in the movie with katherines marriage to mike. ellies best friend karl is hispanic. and we see these characters have depth and plot significance, we see them show love, care, and passion for the things they value. the brown faces in this movie are comforting to me personally. additionally, the loving, blended family dynamic is important to me as someone in a close-knit, affectionate step-family.

but on a more general level, this movie is underrated for its skillful musical storytelling and the way it conveys all kinds of love and appreciation. in true freaky friday fashion, we watch ellie and katherine stumble and misstep in their attempts to act like each other. its goofy and fun. but through it all, the music always captures the characters’ intimate thoughts and feelings. the opening song gives us a meaningful view into ellie and katherines relationship and the fundamental misunderstandings that play a role in straining their connection. ellie sings about how she thinks her mom wants her to be perfect, and her katherine sings about all the wonderful traits she sees in her daughter and how she wants her to be more open and self assured. this is meaningful bc even as theyre mad at each other, the love comes through. the songs continue to bring on the emotional weight of the story, as ellie sings to her little brother about her feelings of hurt and abandonment in her fathers absence. the song “go” and its accompanying hunt scene always make me cry bc of the childlike wonder and sense of adventure that it brings. for the kids, its a coming of age, introspective song. for katherine who gets to participate in ellies body, its a reminder of youth and the rich, full life her daughter has ahead of her. she is overcome with excitement, both from getting to be a teenager again for a day, and from the realization that her daughter has a support network and passions that are all her own. today and ev’ry day, the second to last song, is the culmination of the lessons learned throughout the movie, a mother and daughters tearful commitment to each other to love, protect, and understand one another. the line “if today is every day, i will hold you and protect you, i wont let this thing affect you” gets to me every time. even when things are hard and dont go according to plan, they still agree, in this moment, to be there for each other. and thats what all freaky friday stories are ultimately about.

freaky friday 2018 is a beautiful, inclusive, subversive display of familial love, sacrifice, and selflessness, and it is underrated and overlooked because of its more popular predecessor.

1. Let It Shine (2012)

this is another one of my favorite dcoms and movies in the whole world. unlike the other movies on this list, it is not the viewers themselves that contribute to the underrated-ness of this movie. disney severely under-promoted and under-hyped this movie in comparison to its other big musical franchises, and i will give you five guesses as to why, but youll only need one!

let it shine is the most beautifully, unapologetically black dcom in the whole collection. (i would put jump in! at a notable second in this category, but that one wasnt underrated). this movie was clearly crafted with care and consideration. little black kids got to see an entire dcom cast that represented them. the vernacular used in the script is still tailored mostly to white-favoring audiences, but with some relevant slang thrown in there. in short, the writers got away with the most blackness they were allowed to inject into a disney channel project.

the story centers on rap music and its underground community in atlanta, georgia. it portrays misconceptions surrounding rap, using a church setting as a catalyst for a very real debate surrounding a generational, mutlicultural conflict. this was not a “safe” movie for disney, given its emphasis on religious clashes with contemporary values. it lightly touches on issues of image policing within the black community (cyrus’s father talking about how “our boys” are running around with sagging pants and “our girls” are straying away from god), which is a very real and pressing problem for black kids who feel the pressure (from all sides) of representing their whole race with their actions. its a fun, adorable story about being yourself and staying true to your art, but also a skillful representation of struggles unique to black and brown kids and children from religious backgrounds.

on top of crafting a fun, wholesome, thoughtful narrative and likeable protagonists, let it shine brought us what is in my opinion the BEST dcom soundtrack of all time. every single song is a bop. theyre fast, fun, and lyrically engaging. “me and you” is my favorite disney channel song of all time due to its narrative significance; i will never forget my first time watching the movie and seeing that big reveal unfold onstage, as a conversation and a plot summary all wrapped into a song. the amount of thought and care that went into the music of this movie should have been rewarded with a level of attention on par with that of other musical dcoms.

if disney channel had simply cared about let it shine more, it couldve spanned franchises and sold songs the way that other musical dcoms have drawn in success. i would have loved for a sequel that explored and fleshed out cyrus’s neighborhood a little bit more, and maybe dipped into that underground scene they caught a glimpse of. i wanted a follow up on the changed church community once cyrus’s father started supporting his sons vision. i want so much more for these characters and this world than disney gave them in just one movie.

for its bold, unabashed representation of blackness and religion, subtle, nuanced presentation of race-specific issues, strong, likeable characters, and complex, thoughtful songs, let it shine is the most underrated dcom.

and because i made a full list before i started writing this post, here are some honorable mentions:

going to the mat (2004)

gotta kick it up! (2002)

tru confessions (2002)

dont look under the bed (1999)

invisible sister (2015)

#this took me embarassingly long to write #i cant help myself i literally think about this all the time #youre doing a great job with these questions secret santa!#dcoms #disney channel #answered asks #anons #gcwca secret santa #Anonymous

8 notes · View notes

anikoku · 5 years

Text

Mini-essay: How the narrative of KH3 was damaged by the compulsory heterosexuality and gender norms of Japanese society

Major spoilers of Kingdom Hearts 3 are below. Please don’t look unless you’ve finished the game!

One more disclaimer: this is coming from a Japanese perspective, and it’s not meant as a xenophobic attack on the culture I was raised in.

Light-and-darkness logic, time travel, and bosses who are giant ships, I’ll ignore. That’s just part of the Kingdom Hearts package, and despite the headache they might give me, I’ve come to accept these wild ideas and take pride in my ability to handle them. But when we stray from the fantasy, it becomes difficult confronting the cultural context that the Kingdom Hearts series is birthed from, and how these ideas have affected key plot points and the characterization of our beloved heroes. Despite its stunning popularity overseas, the Kingdom Hearts series is still conceived in Japan (by middle-aged Japanese men, no less) for Japanese audiences. I’ve always felt that Square Enix as a company remains disconnected from the input of its non-Japanese audience. Whatever catering is done towards overseas players is limited to game mechanics, not plot. I expect there’s something of a よそはよそ、うちはうち (“That’s fine for them but not for us”) mentality when it comes to structuring the story in a way that may appeal to overseas (specifically Western) fans. The writers do not know how to do this, and they do not wish to. I don’t believe that any culture should have to adjust its creative output to make it more palatable to the outside world, but considering the sheer size of the Kingdom Hearts fanbase, such a blatant refusal to consider modern storytelling trends in the gaming world will—and has—damaged its enduring legacy. Let’s not forget the fact that Japanese society itself is not suspended in time; its younger generation has different ideas about gender, sexuality, and romance. I’d like to discuss three examples in KH3 where the writers leaned heavily on traditional gender norms and heterosexual romance to the detriment of the plot and the integrity of previous characterization. First, there’s the matter of Subject X, the amnesiac girl who became the reason why Ansem the Wise shut down his experiments. We learn late in the game that she was Lea and Isa’s missing friend, and the reason why they chose to infiltrate the castle and join Organization XIII. Before this piece of knowledge was revealed, Lea and Isa remained the only (human) pair whose friendship existed outside of the boy-girl-boy dynamic that Nomura is so fond of. Like Axel and Roxas prior to Xion’s introduction in 358/2 Days, Subject X was retconned into their friendship, altering their dynamics and diluting the significance of the homosocial relationship. Putting aside shipping perspectives, it is important to be able to portray two men (nevermind the prospect of two women, that’s too much to hope for in this franchise) sharing a strong emotional bond. Falling back on the trio concept not only feels like lazy and tired writing, but seems to speak to a fear that without a female presence, the love and connection between two male characters is simply too homoerotic. In an interview, Nomura remarked he was surprised by Aqua’s popularity since she did not resemble previous Kingdom Heartes heroines. He and other writers (Masaru Oka and perhaps others) have a clear idea of what femininity means and what role female characters should play, and that was never clearer than the portrayal of Kairi and Aqua in the final half of the game. After being chosen as a Guardian of Light and spending the entirety of the story training with Merlin, after promising Sora that she would be the one to protect him, Kairi’s helplessness in the final battle was appalling to witness. She is depicted as weaponless when Terra-Xehanort charges at her. Sora and the others throw themselves in front of her to protect her, and this leads directly to Donald’s self-sacrifice. Later, she is easily kidnapped by Xemnas and killed by Master Xehanort to fuel Sora’s anger. This act of textbook ‘fridging’ absolutely disregards Kairi’s agency and her wish to fight alongside her friends. She represents the worst depiction of the traditional female role in storytelling: she is an object of desire to be rescued, damaged, and won over. In other words, it’s bullshit. Likewise, although she is one of the three Keyblade Masters present in the story, Aqua is constrained to a passive role. She is first rescued by Sora, then by Ventus, then assisted by Sora once more against two opponents (Terra-Xehanort and Vanitas) she had previously beaten. When confronted by the Demon Tide in the Keyblade Graveyard, Aqua whispers “no” and lets her Keyblade slip out of her hands, defeated. This is not the same Aqua who survived over a decade in the realm of darkness, defined by her bravery and strength of will. In an era with an increasing number of female-led titles and queer, non-traditional characterization, the female characters of Kingdom Hearts are still relegated to the role of nurturer and caretaker. In a game released in 2019, that hurts. Finally, I’d like to argue that the narrative focus on Sora and Kairi’s romance came at the expense of the friendship between Sora, Riku, and Kairi, something I believed so thematically important to the franchise. The other trios (Axel, Roxas, Xion and Terra, Aqua, Ventus) are depicted as being equally close and connected, yet KH3 does nothing to showcase Riku and Kairi’s bond. Riku is about as affected as Mickey when Kairi is threatened. The two of them never have a private conversation, not even the day before their final confrontation with Master Xehanort. Riku doesn’t volunteer to help Sora search for Kairi at the end of the game, despite him being aware of what damage it could cause Sora. And that is the other piece of the puzzle: Sora and Riku’s relationship has also been severely downplayed. During the events of KH3D, Riku becomes a Dream Eater out of his strong desire to protect Sora. His character arc has always been about “protecting the people who matter most”. Why, then, is he willing to let Sora abuse the Power of Wakening on his own? Why doesn’t he get to have a conversation with Sora before the final battle? Why is he shown racing against Terra and Roxas in the epilogue, while Kairi sits by herself and mourns? The lack of bond isn’t just present on Riku’s side. When Kairi and the others are swallowed by the Demon Tide, Sora falls to his knees and laments that he has no power now that he’s alone. His grief would have been more convincing, had Riku not been right there by his side. With such a strong bond remaining, there’s no reason Sora should have given up there; it was a deliberate narrative decision to highlight Sora and Kairi’s relationship while downplaying Sora and Riku’s. It seems that Riku was forced to take a step back to make room for the game’s heterosexual romance, and I believe the integrity of Sora, Riku, and Kairi as characters suffered because of this. Many of the reunions in the final portion of the game were an emotional catharsis for me, and I did enjoy aspects of the story. That being said, the storytelling in KH3 makes me fear that Square Enix is either unwilling or unable to adapt to the gaming frontier now led by the West. For now, I’ll submit to the fact that the most satisfying conclusion to the series I’ve followed so long lies in the hands of the fans who are willing to do it justice.

#kh3 #kingdom hearts 3 #kingdom hearts spoilers #critique

3K notes · View notes

incarnateirony · 4 years

Note

as an emerging lgbtq+ (i'm 'BT') guy i am so glad you're making the point you made in your last post. I've always gravitated towards Dean because he is so 'imperfect' in his queerness, like me. but he's not a uwu soft queer so apparently that bothers a lot of ppl on here? Especially younger queer women, I've noticed. But a lot of guys, cis and trans, struggle with being attracted to men so much in a way that is simply different (not better or worse) than (1/2)

being wlw, especially depending on one’s generation and region, etc. basically what i’m saying is a lot of the few queer men that there are in the fandom stay quieter as it is almost completely queer women dictating what is and what isnt, and not quite empathizing with the unique struggle many queer men have with internalized homophobia/being Unmanly for being attracted to men. hope this wasn’t too all over the place, ive had this on my mind for a Long time and i’m glad you brought it up. (2/2)

ps: I’m not trying to put down queer women for being a significant part of the fandom. I just really wish the environment of the fandom felt more like somewhere queer men’s voices can be heard better, considering the largest pairing is, needless to say, mlm

Well, first of all, welcome Nonnie. I take it you’re addressing this untitled post addressing intersectionality, representation vs tokenization, represented demographics and just general motivations of those in discussion, yes? (x)

You’ll find this is a longstanding topic of my blog, be it excavating creator commentary people have buried for their own motivations and talked down and around, or dual faceted issues.

(If you haven’t read the crosslinks on the post you’re addressing, you may want to read The Problem With Dreamhunter (x) It discusses exactly this issue, even if it was written over a year ago at that point, showing just how cyclic this issue is. It talks about MLM/WLW intersectional issues, migrating goalposts, a bunch of show stuff and some of Bobo’s sociopolitical commentary from 2003 about advancing LGBT representation through moderate incremental methods being proven effective at expanding the media presence/platform exponentially above liberal, or more severe/extreme styles)

But when it comes down to it, basically: Yeah, you right.

I didn’t just arbitrarily develop this opinion. I didn’t… just magically tune in to what the LGBT men that literally dodge fandom, for exactly the reasons you say, and know it’s because of the reasons you say – like that didn’t manifest. It came from leaving fandom (un)”safe” spaces. It came from engaging a great variety of LGBT males in real life, many of which engage the content. From observing how they spoke of the content in multifandom servers, or even *why* they chose to avoid speaking up.

And no, I personally didn’t get a read of you, like, insulting LGBT women for their part in fandom. Women engage social media for primetime TV fandoms at an exponential rate above men, so it’s almost unavoidable and it’s nobody’s fault really, but that says nothing for the perpetual habit of drowning out their voices to the fact that– well, they literally abandon engaging.

I’ve seen it enough times it *hurts* me. I shouldn’t *have* to pull my gay writing buddy out of holes to face this, and him still hide silently. I shouldn’t *have* to be the vein of news and information on the show to the bi male friend I have that refuses to touch this fandom. I shouldn’t *have* to even speak up about this. I really do want *you all* to speak up about this, because I can only speak so far, because you’re right: OUR JOURNEYS ARE DIFFERENT.

Hell, even a cis lgbt male vs a trans lgb(t obvious) male have entirely different journeys even though they’re both validly men. These battles are not the same. One community can speak up to defend another, and help hold them up and amplify them if there’s just not enough of them to project the way they need to, and this is something *greatly under respected* in this fandom. Nobody’s holding up the LGBT male voices when actually talking about representation. And you’re right, it’s mostly women, and you’re right, our path is different and our struggles and needs and wants and lives are different. But unless you take a considerable amount of time talking and sharing and learning personally the perspective of the LGBT male community, you’re not… really… helping them speak.

And let it be said, “holding up LGBT male voices” does not and should never equate to “despite having multiple LGBT men saying one thing, I found the one LGBT male saying the thing that matches what I want, who may or may not even actually be in the targeted demographic set of the character we’re discussing representation about, because it’s more than just being bi, it’s entire lives, paths and challenges– but you know, I found the ONE, so fuck the others.” That’s using your friends as tokens and cards. If you want to genuinely add to the conversation, what you do is you introduce your male LGBT friend to the other male LGBT friends and let them have a long conversation to talk out the sources of their disagreements before engaging in conversation.

But drawing a pretty base line collective from all people in the represented demographic, respectfully learning the majority wants and needs and struggles, and helping voice those is pretty key.

Women can sit here all day, and pass around things they’ve been told by other women are woke points, or things that sound progressive and good, and often sort of decontextualized from their purpose (be that the dresswear mentioned shortly hereafter, or what LGBT want/expect/SHOULD want or expect – but in the end, if you’re not sitting down and having dialogues – not just with one, or two, or even three LGBT men – but large handfuls and subsets, able to actually critically examine the differences in LGBT males of gen X, Y, or Z and their lives and stories – if you’re not doing that… If *that* isn’t the core of your discussion values, rather than pass-along buzz vibes– then you’re really not talking representation. You think you are. But you’re not.

There’s the uh. Thing. You noticed. About how women expect the men to engage.

When it comes to young queer women, I’m going to risk pissing some people off, but the long and short of it is (I could probably dig up the link but it’s been an eternity) a while ago they ran a psychological study to figure out why young women were attracted to yaoi, and gay porn, especially what is essentially stereotypical force-role type gay porn. It has to do with blooming attraction, primal fear, and trying to make the men more appealing in a way that does not intimidate them.

This later manifests into feminizing them, setting twink/bear roles that go beyond into top/bottom, and conflating it with penetration, position, power, dom/sub, fork/spoon, sometimes served with a dose of internalized misogyny being projected into the vessel of whatever twink/sub is positioned, and generally— like, kink culture. Often this is passed with narrowly progressive-masked arguments of “Men should be allowed to be feminine if they want!” rather than a genuine answer to, “Why do you perpetually heterosexually resize, or reframe, and enforce heterosexual structure onto characters that do not meet this mold, and why is that a personal gain to you?” because in the end– it’s a personal gain. And again, at that point it’s not about representation.

Now again, I’m not… shaming anyone for having a kink. But kink/fetish needs/wants have blurred themselves in as if to hedge on equal territory to discussing canon content. Or sprinkling the quite literal fetishized art (power to you if that’s your thing, I guess, even if I do bear discomfort over fetishization of any LGBT demographic, even by another LGBT demographic) and reasoning with dialogue that implies it as being representative, and inserting that into the representation discussion, which *literally* just makes the entire bog muddier, makes the LGBT men trying to speak more easily dismissed in a vat of “just women/fetishists”, it just– it’s Not a Good. I’m… personally not a fan of it. Like at all. A lot of it makes me angry tbh. So I don’t engage. I don’t browse fanfiction. I look at very little art.

Hell most of the people around here don’t even realize it’s actually a *minority* of LGBT men that choose to engage in penetrative sex, but it’s become a topic of outright obsession around here. There is so much simple… lack of awareness and discussion of the lives LGBT men lead, even by LGBT women because again – we don’t have your path. We can only listen to you. (And BOY have I gotten earfuls from my LGBT male friends absolutely going apeshit banana bonkers over fandom’s obsession with penetration culture, gender role enforcement while feigning it as liberation, and all kinds of other stuff. And that’s what I base most of my talking points on.)

Because if I’m going to talk representation, I’m going to talk about representing the demographic the character is supposed to represent, not molding him into a tokenized wash-over of every single person’s wants. If you’re an LGBT woman that can resonate with Dean Winchester, that’s great. Sometimes representation can be shared. But a character’s origin determines what demo he represents and not all of any given representative’s character’s attributes, methods, functions, anything – not all of it is going to meet any one person’s goals collectively, but the target demographic is inevitably closer to it.

Another point to raise is that it feels like people have lost track of *what* the representation battle is about. It isn’t just about any one person attaching to any one character. It’s about developing a TVscape that looks more representative of the real world, with a fair presence of PoC, of women, of LGBT people of all types, of the disabled community, of people that are even more than one of these, of people with different stories: people. About, well, normalizing it, because it should be normal. About saturating television enough that one day, and that day will not just be tomorrow per convenience, that people won’t be desperate for representation even vaguely in their wheelhouse, that they can turn on and see people of any intersectional type and go– wow, the world finally realizes we’re real. And that in that wide, realistic menu, yes, being able to turn a channel and eventually see someone *just like you*. A day when any show turned on has at least *someone* in your wheelhouse because every show eventually should have some sort of realistic spread, but if you find the *right* show, *there you are.*

That’s how it’s built. We don’t start by footstomping and tokenizing everyone to be vaguely representative of everyone or it doesn’t count because it didn’t work for *them*. We start by sharing truly diverse narratives, each unique to their own, just as diverse as straight stories are, maybe even more. That’s the only way you’re actually going to end up with a TVscape full of The Gays, and full enough to find *explicitly yourself* in there.

Deleting normalized, non-sensationalist text for lacking either visibility or flavor, even if you weren’t the intended demographic for it to speak to, is quite literally contrary to the entire fight.

and tbh?

This shit is why I hate shipping culture.

And I say that as someone who presumably “ships” Dean and Cas, if it’s shipping to address canon bullshit happening in front of you and just watch the show as it folds out without going into denial for *whatever* personal reason.

There’s a lot of well intended people, most shipping fandom is full of good beans, but as a collective group – skewed by sociopathically manipulated dialogues we can literally track the origins of – have been driven into much of the above while genuinely believing they were doing the right thing, in a long chain of being told this was what and how to fight for, without really stopping and critically examining the nuance of the conversation. Because why would you? Seems to be the popular gay thing to do – while a lot of bisexual people currently hide their commentary via reblog hashtags or hedge awkwardly into an anon box sideways.

That all said, it continues to be my focus. It will never change on this blog. I will never surrender to being pressured, be it by antis or bitters or people just wanting to argue, into pretending things that were text are subtext. I will not move that goalpost. You are real, and you are valid, and you are welcome in my inbox any time, Nonnie, confidentiality guaranteed. Like, DM too.

but lmao like shit, dawg. There’s a reason the LGBT guys I’ve had as writing partners as Dean literally refuse to play with another Cas. That’s not just because I’m a *super aweSOME auTHOr*, it’s because they recognize I do not come from the wing lost to fanfiction, to troll wars, or even to shipping culture, love of a ship be damned. I don’t try to force gender roles on them. I listen when they speak, and often, surprise many with the angle I ever enter discussion or listening from to begin with, because of spending so many years listening to begin with. It’s an intrinsic understanding of why they resonate with the content, not what I can pull some transformative art stuff on or wanting to *make* it into anything else to fit *my* molds. It’s because of being someone engaged to the male perspective, without the need to twist or change a character to be content with it, and being WILLING to hold those challenging conversations.

Listen first. Talk later. But never in front of or over the people you claim to be talking for.

33 notes · View notes

possiblyimbiassed · 4 years

Text

What happened to Sherlock? Part VIII - The Sign of the Hetero Norm (2)

This is the second installment of my meta about the significance of Mary in BBC Sherlock and hypothesis #8 in this meta series; that John is not the father of Mary’s baby. It follows directly on the first installment, which you can read here.

(For the record, I’ll also repeat the disclaimer: My suspicion here only concerns John’s biological offspring. It would still be possible that John, and perhaps also Sherlock, might father the child - if it exists - by adoption. It does not exclude a metaphorical reading where the baby represents, for example, Sherlock’s and John’s relationship. i also want to stress that this hypothesis is an attempt at logical reasoning based on observations in the show and in ACD canon; it’s not meant to be ‘gossipy’ and has nothing to do with whether I would actually like to see this happen or not - that’s a whole other story. ;) )

Mary’s background and canon similarities

The first time Sherlock meets Mary in TEH, he deduces a series of things about her, most of which we haven’t seen explained this far. But there’s one thing in particular that seems to stand out to him: that she’s a liar.

In HLV we learn that Mary has lied about her background to John, and she keeps lying and deceiving in S4. But even if HLV and S4 aren’t ‘real’, and Assassin!Mary only exists in Sherlock’s imagination, this doesn’t mean that his first deduction was wrong; the fact that Mary’s lying trait is repeated later seems to indicate that it’s important. Mary might be lying about other things instead. Like, for example, about who’s the father of her baby. (Continued under the cut)

Some other deductions in this scene might also be significant; that Mary ‘bakes her own bread’ might refer to the idiom ‘a bun in the oven’, slang for being pregnant. A hint that John will not be responsible for her later pregnancy?

Another ‘feature of interest’ about Mary is her possible US connection. America is definitely a recurring theme in BBC Sherlock; the US or ‘America’ is referred to over 20 times throughout the show. These references occur on a plethora of different occasions, and in three specific circumstances the CIA is mentioned. In one of them (HLV) we learn from Magnussen that Mary has been doing “wet jobs for the CIA”. Sherlock also suspects that while Mary’s accent is English, Mary herself is not. So, Mary might have some kind of connection to America - at least in Sherlock’s mind. The idea is hinted at, but never developed.

Mary Morstan’s British background may be described in canon, but ACD’s original stories contain even more US references than BBC Sherlock. Big parts of the novels A Study in Scarlet (STUD) and The Valley of Fear (VALL) take place in America, and many characters have connections to the US - the most prominent of them perhaps Irene Adler in A Scandal in Bohemia (SCAN), who was born in New Jersey.

The Noble Bachelor (NOBL) is particularly interesting in this context. In the beginning of the story, Watson points out that it happened “a few weeks before my own marriage, during the days when I was still sharing rooms with Holmes in Baker Street”. I believe this talk of Watson’s marriage might be significant mirror-wise. The case in NOBL is about a bride - an American woman - who disappears directly after marrying the British nobleman Robert St. Simon, because she learns during the wedding ceremony that her beloved former husband, who she thought was dead, is still alive.

(X) The bride doesn’t reveal this during the wedding, but an hour later she is gone. So legally she was still married, and the new marriage to the nobleman would therefor be nullified - hence the story title of ‘bachelor’, I believe. On Lestrade’s questions about the case, Holmes answers:

“Just one hint to you, Lestrade,” drawled Holmes before his rival vanished; “I will tell you the true solution of the matter. Lady St. Simon is a myth. There is not, and there never has been, any such person.”

This is, more or less, the role I think Mary Watson plays in canon after SIGN; she’s a myth, a heteronormative façade (see reasoning in the first installment of this meta). In fact, I don’t think she ever appears in canon under the name Mary Watson (please correct me if I’m wrong). Now, if Sherlock’s deductions about Mary’s background in HLV would be true (in spite of all the other things about this episode that might be his mere imagination), that Mary Morstan is a false name and she has lied about her background, this would technically also nullify her marriage to John, wouldn’t it? You can hardly marry someone who doesn’t exist. ;)

There’s also a literal hint in TAB that Mary might soon be on the run, just like the bride in NOBL:

In this scene, in the midst of Sherlock’s Victorian Mind Palace dream, Watson is suddenly dressed as the modern John and seems more angry than worried about Mary’s disappearance. So I can’t help wondering: Does Sherlock foresee this outcome from his subconscious deductions about Mary and the baby?

A possibly vengeful bride

In TSoT we learn more about Martha Hudson’s late husband Frank, when Martha talks to both Sherlock and John separately about how “marriage changes you as a person”. Her marriage was like a “whirlwind” at first, which Martha felt “swept away” by. Her best friend Margaret seemed to have been devastated and left the wedding early. But we also learn that Frank Hudson ran a drug cartel, was sentenced for murder and had several other women, that Martha found out about after they had moved to Florida, USA. Martha was actually relieved when he was arrested for “blowing someone’s head off”. From ASiP we also know that Sherlock was the one who made sure Frank was executed (by lethal injection according to TSoT).

There seems to be something still missing from the plot narrative here, though; in what way was Frank’s death beneficial to Martha? And I can’t help wondering why the Frank Hudson case is even brought to our attention? Why give us these details that don’t quite make logical sense, and then nothing more? And why are we being told, again and again, that “marriage changes you as a person”?

In ACD canon there’s nothing about Mrs Hudson’s husband, as far as I know. There is, however, a sailor named Hudson in The Gloria Scott (GLOR), who comes to blackmail Holmes’ friend Victor Trevor’s father and threaten him with exposing him to public shame and dishonour by revealing his criminal past. Hudson manages to literally frighten Mr Trevor to death. In The Five Orange Pips (FIVE) there’s also a mentioning of someone named Hudson, who is associated with the KKK. So even if Mrs Hudson’s criminal husband in BBC Sherlock is non-canonical, the existence of at least two criminals named Hudson is clearly canon.

Anyway, what has all this to do with Mary? Well, this is very much speculation of course (and not originally my idea; I'm pretty sure someone has posted a theory about it - I just can’t find the reference at the moment. Please alert me if you know who, so I can give proper credits!): What if Mary is Frank Hudson’s daughter and her mother is one of those “other women”? And what if she’s out for some kind of revenge against Sherlock, who made sure her father was killed? After all, the whole Victorian part of TAB - which we know happens in Sherlock’s Mind Palace, where he goes back to solve a case by first solving an older one - is focused on vengeful brides (’Un-Dead’, as it seems - I see you there, Dracula! ;) ). The Emelia Ricoletti case also has clear connections to America.

Could Mary have hired a ‘consulting criminal’ (Jim) and got the advise that burning Sherlock’s heart out by marrying John would be the best way to take revenge on him? Or could she even be paid by Jim to fake a marriage?

Just speculating, as I said… :)

The revelation at the wedding

One of the strongest arguments for the baby not being John’s is, I think, the scene at the wedding reception in TSoT, where Sherlock deduces Mary’s pregnancy. At the revelation, both John and Mary look terrified, like they’ve seen a ghost or something:

Seeing as these guys had lived together at least for a year, their panic reaction doesn’t quite make sense to me - especially since they’re both trained in medicine! If Mary wasn’t even medically tested yet, why panic? Why would Sherlock’s ‘deduction’ seem more reliable to her than her own knowledge of the matter? After all, she had morning sickness. How many women in this world need a male detective (rather than a doctor) to tell them that they’re pregnant? I think Mary rather looks like someone being caught lying, with dire consequences to expect. John doesn’t expect this and seems totally shocked. Neither of them appears happy about the revelation. I think the sum of the couple’s reactions fits better into a scenario where Mary has been cheating on John, and is therefore not protesting at John’s negative behaviour regarding the pregnancy. But she knows she is (or might be) pregnant and has perhaps tried to hide it to John.

Mary is a smart person, and must definitely know what Sherlock actually means to John. She has seen his grieving for a long time and also witnessed his violent reaction once Sherlock returns. She even teases both John and Sherlock about their obsession with each other. Why isn’t she jealous? How can she go on and marry someone who is clearly in love with someone else, and who actually pays her very little attention in comparison? There’s something fishy there...

And what about John himself? There’s an entry on the blog where John Watson’s deductive reasoning skills seem to reach a new low mark (which is a bit strange, seeing as he has been working together with Sherlock Holmes for years at this point):

In short: Sherlock helps a same-sex couple to get together by showing one of them a path out of her arranged marriage. This woman has been threatened with exposure; an abusive person who is out for her money has literally blackmailed her to marry a man and choose a heteronormative life. But John’s conclusion is still this: “I swear that my forthcoming wedding has softened Sherlock.” “Naturally, I assumed it was because he saw me and Mary together and just wanted to make someone else happy.” So John is utterly convinced that his own, heterosexual marriage plans are what inspired Sherlock to help this gay couple out of an arranged, heteronormative marriage? Sherlock, who has been against all John’s girlfriends so far and also clearly stated from the beginning that girlfriends are “not really my area”? Good thinking, John -- not! :)))

And still John seems utterly surprised and terrified when his good, happily married heterosexual wife turns out to be pregnant, after living together with him for a year? Hmm...

Why the “why” is more important than the “how”

I’m going to go out on another tangent of speculation here, just to illustrate the extent to which I think heteronormativity increasingly rules this show, but also how I believe Sherlock’s and John’s emotions play into it. Even if Sherlock seems to have no prejudices regarding gay couples (as demonstrated by the blog case above), when it comes to John and him, I believe Sherlock has bought the hetero norm hook, sink and line. And ‘Mary’ is a metaphor for this, becoming more and more blatantly obvious as the show goes on. To Sherlock, she symbolises exactly “what John needs”: an ‘ordinary’ life and marriage with an interesting but ‘ordinary’ woman. But Sherlock’s subconscious is telling him something different about her, which I think he fails to fully recognise, no matter how much psychological evidence his mind collects.

And the main problem is Sherlock’s repression of emotions; this problem is at the same time cause and effect. His unwillingness to show or talk about his emotions towards John makes him appear as a cold-hearted person, mostly called a ‘sociopath’ or ‘psychopath’. Which makes John not want to risk the stigma of coming out, or even recognise his own feelings to himself. Adhering to the hetero norm is much safer, and it allows John to escape from his emotional dilemma in an unsatisfactory and hypocritical way: to marry a woman whom he hardly even knows. Which in turn makes Sherlock believe that John living with a woman is the only reasonable option. And so on and so forth, until eternity. The example below is from TEH, John’s reaction to Sherlock’s return.

JOHN: Now, you let me grieve, hmm? How could you do that?

Sherlock doesn’t respond to this, but tries to avert the question by talking about John’s moustache. What could John, in his highly emotional state, possibly make of this? This is where he becomes violent, and Sherlock doesn’t defend himself. John grabs Sherlock and punches him (which is confirmed by his blogpost about this: “He genuinely thought it would be funny to surprise me. I think he was more surprised when I nutted him.”). And it goes on and on:

JOHN: You know, for a genius you can be remarkably thick. SHERLOCK: What? JOHN: I don’t care how you faked it, Sherlock. I wanna know why.

I think John makes it very clear in TEH that - unlike Watson in canon’s EMPT - he is not interested to know how Sherlock survived the Fall. John doesn’t give a rat’s fart about the method he used to fake his own death, neither is he interested in knowing why Sherlock found it necessary to fake his death to Moriarty and his henchmen. But Sherlock doesn’t get this because the question is entirely emotional; John could just as well have asked ”Why did you force me to live without you for two years; why did you abandon me? Don’t you care about me, didn’t you even miss me?”. But he doesn’t ask this out loud, since neither of these guys are honest about their feelings - not even to themselves, as it seems. And apparently it totally escapes John’s conscious mind that Sherlock might have had an emotional reason to come back precisely to interrupt his proposal to someone else.

I suspect (speculation again) that the ‘why’ of John going on to marry Mary after Sherlock’s return was not only about convincing himself that he needed a “normal” life and submitting to the hetero norm because John is closeted. It was at least just as much about punishing Sherlock on an emotional level, letting this ‘sociopath’ know exactly how it feels to be abandoned, not knowing if the other even missed him. It was revenge and punishment in their eternal, on-going game with emotions, where neither of them is letting his guard down to show vulnerability towards the other. But this was probably subconscious and nothing John would freely admit to. Consciously, this arrangement allowed John to simply register that Sherlock apparently was fairly OK with things, since he even went on to organize John’s wedding. Thus, John could reason, his feelings for Sherlock couldn’t be requited anyway.

I also suspect, however, that the concept of ’Mary’, as we see this character from HLV and onwards, is Sherlock’s way of punishing himself for abandoning John. The wedding planning and the ‘vow’ in TSoT, in my view, was a very special sort of self-harm, where Sherlock tried to sacrifice himself to pay off his emotional debt for having hurt John, by doing his utmost for John to be happy with his choice.

But apparently this wasn’t enough, so when ‘Mary’ shoots Sherlock in HLV, even this is (supposedly) Sherlock’s own fault. I think ‘Mary’s shooting Sherlock symbolises the blow to the heart that Sherlock received on the wedding. But why was this a ‘blow’, one might ask, if Sherlock himself was prepared for the marriage and even helped planning the wedding? Well, there was a second blow on the wedding reception, wasn’t it? (Just as there were two murder attempts depicted in TSoT; one before the wedding and another during the wedding reception). The second blow was when Sherlock deduced Mary’s pregnancy. Because a child would most probably cement John’s relationship with Mary forever. Not only would the baby’s presence be an obstacle for John spending any time with Sherlock; it would also erase any attempt from Sherlock to confess his feelings to John in the future, since it would make him guilty of disrupting a family involving a third, innocent little person.

Mary definitely works as an internalised hetero norm. In his own view, Sherlock has no value, and he doesn’t deserve John. Thus, ’Mary’ is needed to keep John happy, and comes back to haunt Sherlock’s mind, even after she’s (supposedly) dead. No matter what atrocities she commits, ’Mary’ is always excused by Sherlock. In many ways, she’s the new ’Sherlock’: solving crimes, being passionate, leading John into adventures, using disguises, speaking (supposed) words of wisdom and even dressing like Sherlock. She fills in an empty space that Sherlock refuses to fill in himself, because a) he doesn’t consider himself worthy and b) he wants to avoid ‘Sentiment’. Instead of facing reality and try to do something about it, Sherlock tries to have a place in John’s life through ‘Mary’ and other invented avatars.

I think John makes it clear on his blog that he does not intend to forgive Sherlock any time soon: “Turns out he’d faked his death because Moriarty had threatened those close to him. Including me. He’d gone into hiding, happy to leave me and everyone else thinking he was dead. He’d done it to save us but he hadn’t trusted us enough to tell us what was really going on. Not sure I’ll ever truly forgive him for that but as the saying goes, life goes on.”

But then he’s back to talking about the cases and his own motivation to keep his friend after all: “So I ignored him and got on with my life. But God, it was dull. I knew he was back. I knew that he was out there having the time of his life and I was… working”. The image John gives is actually that he keeps hanging out with this ’sociopath’ for the sole reason that he can’t resist the danger, the ’thrill of the chase’. In other words; Sherlock seems to be right in HLV when he claims John to be a sort of adrenaline junkie who craves danger and therefore needs a dangerous wife (to replace Sherlock, who is not good for him because he’s a real junkie and a man to boot, but he doesn’t say this).

John’s ’deeper’ question of why rather than how in TEH (which doesn’t apply to Sherlock’s supposedly ’scientific’ world view where emotions always are a problem risking to bias his conclusions) has its complete repetition in TLD. Once again Sherlock tries to convince John that he can predict the future. Sherlock expects to impress John with the explanation of how:

JOHN: How did you know?

In fact, I think a great deal of what we see in TLD is Sherlock’s mental repetitions of what happened between him and John after his ‘return from the dead’ in TEH. However, in TLD (as in all the episodes from S3 and onwards) John is not impressed by Sherlock’s intellectual shenanigans; he hasn’t seemed to be for a long time, but especially not after the treason Fall. In TLD John may have started by asking “how”, but in the end he just wants to know why Sherlock has lured him to come to his rescue when he’s in trouble.

JOHN: Never mind how. He’s dying to tell us that. I want to know why.

Sherlock tries to explain that he needs John’s help with a case because he ‘can’t do it alone’. But John doesn’t buy it this time either; his disbelief and judgment of Sherlock is even harder and more emphasised than in TEH. And this is, i believe, the key question; to answer it honestly Sherlock has to talk about his feelings, show his emotional vulnerability. Which he still isn’t ready for. So this is why ‘Mary’ and 'Rosie’ keep popping up until the end of TFP; they stand for Sherlock’s heteronormative alibi to avoid talking about feelings. Even if Sherlock comes a long way with hugging John in TLD and hugging Eurus in TFP - basically to comfort them - he still hasn’t told anybody about his own feelings, has he?

Sherlock ’had chips’ with ’Faith’. (Dinner!) But we never see him eat anything, he just goes on impressing Faith by telling her about how his deductions about her private life work. It’s the scientific ”how” rather than the more emotional ”why”.

I’ve also been wondering about Mary’s traveling around the world in TST, ’on the role of a dice’ when she learns that Ajay is after her. This is the cold assassin who tried to kill Sherlock and lied to her husband about her background, and yet she is suddenly ”moving the target away” from John - why? In HLV Mary claimed that the truth would break John and therefore he could never know that she lied to him. What’s actually going on here? To me this seems more like Sherlock trying to justify to himself his own fake suicide and his following absence for two years in order to ’protect John’ from Moriarty’s network. The whole ‘Mary-the-hero’ plot line is an indulgence in Sentiment, complete with self-sacrifice and a tearful self-absolving note. But this over-romanticized scenario gives Sherlock no satisfaction, since it ends with John’s grief and sorrow and alienation. Conclusive discovery: escape is no solution; it just postpones the problem.

OK, this has been a looong meta, and a bit speculative. For the finish, I’d just like to summarise a bit about Hypothesis #8 and why I suspect that John is not the father of Mary’s baby. Here’s my TL;DR:

John wasn’t even aware on the wedding that Mary might be pregnant - and he’s a ‘bloody doctor’!

None of them seems happy when Sherlock deduces Mary’s pregnancy; Mary appears shocked that he noticed it and John seems shocked before the unexpected task of fathering a child

Their relationship doesn’t strike me as honest and genuine on either side; they’re not really into each other

Mary is a liar who conceals her background to John

It’s suspicious (but also canon consistent) that Mary encourages John to spend a lot of time with someone she should know that he’s in love with; why would she want to start a family with such a guy?

David seems to remain too close to Mary for being an ordinary ‘ex’; he might actually be the father of the baby!

The Watsons have no children in canon

Rosie in S4 doesn’t strike me as a real character (Mary’s pregnancy in S3 might still be ‘real’, though)

The whole concept of John’s wife is a heteronormative façade (which goes for canon as well); why then would John’s fatherhood be real?

And, finally, just one more thing that occurs to me:

The baby is a perfect plot device to keep John and Mary together in a modern time when divorce is common, and also to keep Sherlock guilt-ridden about confessing his feelings. A revelation that John is not the father would likely mean a breakup of the couple, with the possibilities that this would open for the ‘Johnlock’ option. ;)

Thanks for bearing with me in meta-marathon, and Happy New Decade! :)

Tagging some people who might be interested: @raggedyblue @ebaeschnbliah @sarahthecoat @gosherlocked @loveismyrevolution @sagestreet @thepersianslipper @tjlcisthenewsexy @elldotsee @88thparallel @sherlock-overflow-error @yeah-oh-shit

#mary=heteronormativity #mary=facade

25 notes · View notes