An interesting thing happened in my living room a week ago. My husband and I were watching the latest Supernatural, and Dean was being overtly flirted with by a guy. As expected, Dean rejected him with a bevy of stammers, excuses, and tripping over himself to get away -- and my husband blurted out, "God, he's so homophobic!"
I couldn't believe my ears. Dean hadn't insisted he was straight, and he hadn't said anything rude. He'd been flustered, sure, but to me he would have had the same reaction had a girl he wasn't attracted to. I saw a guy being made goo-goo eyes at by a stranger, and gender notwithstanding, that can get pretty awkward. But my husband saw Dean as being so deeply disturbed at the very concept of a guy coming onto him that he lost his cool. Two interpretations, both fo them fair, and it was a good, brief discussion that we had about it.
And then I went online and saw everyone talking about Dean's big bisexual moment.
I actually had to ask my friends if I had missed something while I was chatting with my husband. Sure, there was a bit of a joke there, but if Dean had actually shown some interest in the guy, I'd missed it entirely.
It turned out to be a long-game sort of analysis, a subtle shift in the way Dean had reacted compared to previous situations in the show's history, as well as a reading of one of Dean's expressions later that could have meant he wasn't that averse to the flirt. It certainly wasn't clear from the text whether my husband's, or my, or my friends' interpretation had been the right one. What is clear is that the show left it open for us to decide.
Supernatural has been making "gay jokes" about its main characters since the second season. But as the seasons have progressed, the jokes have become more prominent, and less obviously jokey -- instead of a one-liner that's shot down or played for laughs, it's a suggestive line paired with a beat of silence, as though to allow the audience to decide just how much of a joke it really is. In a way, it's a very clever way of opening up the story to all comers. Let non-shippers dismiss it as a joke, let shippers read all the subtext they'd like into it, and never do the showrunners need to show their hand or even make a decision themselves or state anything they couldn't take back.
It's not just happening in Supernatural, either, though that genre- and audience-savvy show has certainly done the lion's share of it. There's been a gradual change in the way creative teams are reacting to shipping, acknowledging the hunger of some fans for subtext -- and, much like shipping itself, it seems to be too far along to stop now. But there are elements of this that are problematic, and, I imagine, that's true of shippers and non-shippers alike.
I am assuming, and I invite your comments to tell me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that these moments must stick in the craw of non-shippers quite a bit. It's hard enough to feel like shipping is now an inescapable part of fandom, especially if it's something you don't personally care for. Now the shows themselves are acknowledging and encouraging it, and no matter which way you look, you're seeing an element thrown into something you would prefer to enjoy for a totally different reason.
And for shippers, these winks to the audience can be amusing, and at their best they can provide those clues that give us hope we may not be so wrong in how we've interpreted subtext. But at their worst, they're a strong step in the wrong direction. They're a sign that our wishes and concerns with regard to our favorite characters are fodder for jokes, or they're what is often referred to as "queerbaiting" -- providing hints in lieu of real representation for alternative sexualities, essentially conditioning viewers to accept what scraps they can get without shows having to take responsibility for actually portraying such complex and important things as the sexuality of a traditionally masculine character, or populating a world with GLBT people outside of comic relief and day players, or saying that yes, a gay person can be a hero or heroine without losing their heroism.
These are big problems, and they're happening just as the world is trying to shake off decades, if not centuries, of intolerance. Considering how huge and everpresent the media has become, not having a show -- or multiple shows! -- with highlighted, respected portrayals of characters whose inclinations don't fit stereotypical gender/sexuality roles is an increasingly big problem. And I personally think it's doubly a problem with genre TV, which pushes boundaries so well in other aspects but seems to be holding back from really making this happen. Which isn't to say that one ship or other should become canon in order to solve this problem -- that would come with its own set of difficulties. But this sideways nod to the thirst for representation isn't so helpful, either. At least, not in my view.
I talked about these past few columns as being a "canon," in the musical sense, on canon. And at the end of this penultimate column on the topic, I want to invoke the musical metaphor one more time. When you have a melody layered on top of itself multiple times over -- a single song from different points of view -- you're inevitably going to have moments of dissonance. Unresolved suspensions, augmented or diminished chords, or two sounds that just plain don't fit. But that's part of the line of the canon, and I think this friction is part of what moves the melody forward. Right now, creators are trying to give fans what they want, and fans are asking for something different. That includes shippers and non-shippers, and the friction there adds to the tension of the chord, so there's nothing the canon can do right now that's going to keep everyone happy. So what do we do? We keep playing, no matter where we fall along the line, whether we're trumpets or tubas or professionals or fans, and we keep seeking out that resolution. I'm afraid that right now, we have a bit of dissonance, but I'm hoping that as the song goes on, we find our way back to harmony again.
What's your opinion of the way shows acknowledge shipping and the desire for subtext? How should show creative teams acknowledge the sometimes-at-odds sectors of their fandom? What's the best way to respond to these types of nod-and-wink moments? Keeping in mind that some people want the opposite of what you do, what's the best way to work together and find resolution?
Exactly. He was uncomfortable. I see no way to read anything other that "uncomfortable". Tiptoe states that the jokes have become less jokey and more suggestive but I've never seen any of them as anything other than comedic 'joke' moments. "Hey, let's get the alpha male guy uncomfortable -- it'll be funny" kind of thing. Tiptoe even admitted to not seeing it until she went online and read other takes on it leading me to ask if people are getting these ideas from what they see or from what they read from other posters they frequently discuss with? Her husband had no ideas or preconceived notions. He saw what was there. So we could discuss the topic to death but until people can watch without preconceived notions read into it they cannot see what is truly there.
ReplyDeleteI don't see canon at all in Dean & Cas and I won't even call them
ReplyDeleteDestiel. How many times does he have to tell Cas to back up and give
personal space. People seem to feel that same sex people can't just be
friends, but have to finally jump into a sexual relationship. If that
is what you want go watch Glee.
It's true that we all bring our particular lenses to a piece of art, literature, or media but that doesn't mean that we should be dismissive of other points of view. Respectful debate is fun and informative. Preconceived notions make themselves known by how we choose to deal with alternative perceptions and what we choose not to see, as much as what we may be inclined to see.
ReplyDeleteIt says a lot about people when two people of the same gender can't love each other without sexual connotations. Now THAT is 'homophobia' (I do hate that word). There was nothing to it. Just some sad overly sensitive wet blouses wanting to see a twisted fantasy come to life. I say 'grow up' to them
ReplyDeletePeople say Dean was uncomfortable. I say he was not. Simple as that. And showrunners are playing with games, especially if it's intended as a joke. That's nothing but games. But subtext still needs to be discussed. It's interpretation and a shipper's interpretation is not less valid than non-shippers interpretations. But in terms of GSM characters and the interpretation of them we have a right to voice our interpretations and not be dismissed as "just shippers who read too much into things"
ReplyDeleteAlso nods, winks and so called "hat tipping" is deeply offensive to real people.
ReplyDeleteI will explain the various reasons why this comment is offensive.
ReplyDelete1) By saying two people of the same gender without sexual connotations" you presume that shippers are interpreting the characters in relationships that consist of nothing but sex. This is incredibly rude, because shipping actually means you love their relationship including the romantic connotations, where sex is included, but not limited to it. Also homosexuality or bisexuality is not perverted, it is not a fetish or kink. I despise the term bromance and how the belief exists that guys should be close friends, but not romantically involved (including sexually). Our society doesn't need more bromance. It needs romance. Just like it needs more friendship between male and female characters. Because fem/m is always read as romantic on TV shows, but people like to limit m/m as nothing more than friendship, thereby coming from a place of priviledge.Bromances are the standard on TV. M/M romances not. Simple as that. Also I won't address the rest of your comment (wet blouses, twisted fantasy). Please rethink your statement and respect real people.
There's nothing wrong with two people of the same gender loving each other without any romantic/sexual interest, but there's also nothing wrong with two people of the same gender loving each other with romantic/sexual interest. Believing two characters of the same gender can be interpreted as being in love is in no way homophobic, saying that believing two characters of the same gender can be interpreted as being in love is a twisted fantasy definitely has homophobic connotations though.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with people who don't see Dean and Cas's feelings for each other as romantic in nature. Even though I disagree with it, it's a valid interpretation of their relationship. I do have a problem when people feel the need to defend them from the people who see it as romantic though. Because there's nothing to be defended. Saying they're in love shouldn't be taken as a offense, because it's not.
beautifully said :)
ReplyDeleteI respect your right to interpret Dean and Castiel's relationship as platonic. However, as I explained earlier, m/m relationships are underrepresented romantically. They are not just consisting of sex and nothing more. Bromances aren't needed. We have so many "bromances" on television, so trying to subvert the argument by claiming m/m need to be friends and nothing more, while dismissing peoples rights to want more, because we barely have m/m relationships... well it's very sad. Especially for GSM representation that is apparently dismissed.
ReplyDeleteIt's extremely amusing how much rude some people turn when the idea of an homosexual pairing being canon is mentioned. Just look at some comments here for illustration.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's amusing as well when they suggest "it's just porn" WHEN, basically, IT IS NOT. Let me educate you: It's ABOUT LOVE. Why when you ship a F/M it's allright to think about them in love AND having sex (because you know, having sex is part of the romantic relationship two persons share) and when you ship a pairing that includes two dudes it is not??? Don't you think it's hypocritical???
I ship Dean and Castiel because I consider they are in love and I firmly believe there is a strong foundation to support my point of view. This is my origin, this is why I invest my free time in them, this is why I feel about them. Sex or not sex is in the natural process of consider them in love, as much as sex or not sex was in the natural process of the romantic relationship between, for instance, Jack and Kate, or Maggie and Glenn (just to name 2 f/m ships I ship).
And, I will say this in caps: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN CONSIDERING TWO PERSONS IN LOVE. If you suggests there is something wrong, I suggest you back to control your priorities in life. John Lennon and Yoko Ono, Elton John and his husband, Ellen deGeneris and her wife.... what's the difference? It's all love. Just project that into characters, because fiction is a projection of real life, and you will see.
You're welcome.
Queerbaiting, as you pointed out, is fanservice to shipping. How could Dean and Aaron fit this? Fanservice to a ship (and character) that never existed before this scene? Hm. Neither Destiel or Wincest would benefit directly of Dean/Other. It isn't even necessary to Dean to be bisexual for Destiel, 'cause Cas is an angel, therefore a genderless being, which would favor the trope "If It's You, It's Okay" (my personal feelings of dislike for this trope aside).
ReplyDeleteBesides, queerbaiting is joke + "no homo" moment.
I do read the scene as a big one for Dean's possibly bisexuality. That's the only way I personally could understand it. But I know my brother thought it was a joke. Yet none reading is less valid than the other or yours is better than mine (I don't know if you intended to imply it is, but that's what I got from this article).
Though I agree it's a dangerous game if SPN give more subtext and never afford the pay-off of Dean 'coming out'. It's not fair to make LGBT believe they will have a great representation like Dean Winchester is, and never actually acknowledge it on show.
Good post. Just adding that there are relationships that where people don't have sex at all.
ReplyDeleteRelationships including sex is awesome
Relationships without ever having sex is awesome too :)
There is literally no one correct way of interpreting art, any kind of art. Its not a science but a humanity thus up for debate. Its what makes it interesting. I can state that a sequence of events happened in the show and people will agree because that is fact. Dean was propositioned by a guy in a bar who was using it as a front for tailing him. Canon facts. But trying to figure out what Deans' reactions to those events are, and what that means for the character that's much more complex?
ReplyDeleteI've sat many a show with friends/family and gone 'what do you think about the character reaction' and we often come to differing conclusions. None of them are wrong, just different and its never based on imagination, like I said we're all seeing the same sequence of events played out but its our character interpretation is different. These differences can come for a couple of reasons; It could be based on what we know already of the characters, and our own feelings on them. I might for example know more about the show and the character to draw a different conclusion to my friends because I 'know' the character better. Like tiptoe found when they went online and read stuff about Dean's previous reactions and how this one is different, or I'd simply have a different life experience that allows me to empathise better with what the character has happen to them. These leads to different reasons behind our conclusions.
Basically on Dean. Say we agree he he was 'uncomfortable'; I could say he's 'uncomfortable' because it was unexpected, and it caught him off guard but not because he was flatly against the idea. Tiptoes husband thought he was 'uncomfortable' because Deans bang-out homophobic.
See how I put two interpretations on the same word! Bloody English and its complications. Can't anything just mean one thing? No and it never does, your meaning behind calling Dean uncomfortable is vastly different to mine because I do read Dean as Bi, and you clearly don't. There is nothing wrong with that I just bring my life experiences and see the stuff in the show that leads me to believe that he could be/is. Now I could be wrong and he's not, and I am reading too much into stuff, doesn't mean I am imagining anything or the stuff isn't there! After all that's just my interpretation of the agreed reading of an 'uncomfortable' reaction and I highly doubt he's homophobic either, regardless if he is straight as a pole and that was Tiptoes husbands reading of it.
You simply cannot state that there is only one interpretation and that it must be YOURs that is the correct one. Your not the writer or the production team or the actors. You're just a fan watching a show, putting what everyone else does and that is your own interpenetration of a character into the screen. We all do it, stop playacting that you don't.
The scene was far more complex than mere discomfort. So was the story. Dean actually paused and looked conflicted when Aaron said he was "interesting." It was Aaron who stopped the flirting. Not Dean. Dean was flustered. He then reassured himself, to Sam, of his interest in women. Later, when Aaron revealed that he was tailing Dean for other reasons, Dean seemed slightly disappointed. Throughout the episode, after this, Dean was protective of Aaron.
ReplyDelete"Discomfort" is what I would call his scene with Ellie last week.
Thank you very much. I did not see this as a ship moment. As cute and likeable as Aaron was, there were no hints of "Daron", or whatever they may be called, being more than a one-shot character. The scene was about Dean's sexuality.
ReplyDelete"If that is what you want go watch Glee"
ReplyDeleteWow. That attitude is exactly the problem. People thinking that you can't have queer protagonists on a show unless their storyline is about them being queer. Unless they fit some stereotype of how queer people are supposed to look and behave. People thinking that there's no place in genre TV for queer characters.
Talk about rude and heterosexist.
I hate queerbaiting on TV shows. I used to see queerbaiting as characters who are in what someone sees as a queer moment, and then mocked. Over time I've realized the issue is more complicated.
ReplyDeleteWhere I disagree with this article is in the assumption that the moment between Dean and Aaron was queerbaiting. I think this does a disservice to the episode's writer, Ben Edlund, who has never, as far as I can remember, had any queerbaiting moments in his episodes. It is actually Ben Edlund who took the Dean and Castiel relationship out of the basement of baiting and made it a deeply relevant core of the show. He wrote at least two episodes which were heavily about Dean and Castiel and the complexity of their relationship. For years people have written about those episodes and what they meant.
Is that queerbaiting? That's in the eye of the beholder, but I sense an implication in the article that, instead of discussing Dean's possible bisexuality, we should just ask for other representation. I don't see this as an either/or situation. I want representation. I also want, and see the possibilities for, Dean being bisexual. I think it's been something the show has hinted at for years now, and I don't believe these hints are jokes, or teases. Not anymore. Not after this season in particular. That doesn't mean it's going to happen, but that doesn't mean they are simply teases. They are left for us to interpret.
I never felt like Dean's reaction to Aaron was queerbaiting. I thought we were given the chance to interpret Dean's reactions in a very positive way, we were allowed to believe, if we wanted to do so, that Dean was perfectly right to respond to Aaron's flirting, and even after he realized Aaron wasn't genuinely flirting, the only moment Dean questioned himself was when he overcompensated with Sam about the hot women he interviewed. Dean never said he was straight. Aaron never said he was straight. Dean never showed any homophobic behavior and never stopped feeling protective of Aaron even after he knew this had been a ruse.
I also do not believe reaction to this scene is about shipping. Bisexuality is not a ship. Dean's reactions were not simply about who we want him to be with. They are about who we want him to be. I wish that more people realized even if some of us ship a pairing, we don't see a character's sexual orientation as being solely about that ship. This was about Dean and Dean alone.
While everyone can have a different interpretation, not all are valid. You could say Dean was thrilled, but you'd have nothing to substantiate that. "Caught off guard" looks different than "uncomfortable." Caught off guard has a open, but unsure vibe. Dean had no openness, wasn't curious, wasn't back and forth unsure how to handle his pleasant but unexpected feelings. He was uncomfortable. He didn't like that his investigation was being misconstrued. I think Dean has shown a personal dislike to anything he considers homoerotic, including guys hitting on him, throughout the show. You *could* go so far as to call that homophobic or just Dean has an I'm a guy personal line. I lean towards the latter. That interpretation has been reinforced throughout the show. Dean being bicurious but unwilling to examine it, has not. Dean is a sexually forthright guy when it comes to women. He is dominant, confident, cocky even. He is comfortable with his sexuality. To label him as bi, but in the closet runs counter to all the action and acting we see on the show. It makes Dean into a different character. He would become secretive, not self-aware, dishonest with himself and the people he interacts with in a forthright manner. You have to reread all of his interactions. And that's not fair to the show or the other fans you are talking to.
ReplyDeleteIMO it isn't valid to read into a situation what one wishes was there. Then, a viewer comes to an analysis with a preformed opinion because he/she is only seeing what they want to see and disregarding story elements that don't fit. It skews both the analysis and the show, and makes it difficult to discuss potential motivations and themes.
This is fair, as is the other comment that drew the distinction between this particular moment and queerbaiting moments. I suppose what I wanted to do with today's column was to use this example as an introduction to how shows are starting to give us ambiguous moments, and point out that these moments, in general, can be OK at their best and problematic/queerbaiting at their worst. I wasn't intending to refer to this particular scene as an example of what not to do, and to the extent I wasn't clear about that in the article, I apologize.
ReplyDeleteThanks for keeping me clear and on target. I appreciate it.
So because he didn't want to let an innocent person die, he was sexually attracted to them? Dean saves people all the time. I think reducing all interactions to questions of sexual attraction is very reductive.
ReplyDeleteSure there was more in the story than a one-word description. But that doesn't mean that the more is Dean liking guys. There is context and history and patterns of behavior that have to be taken into account. Dean was uncomfortable, unhappy that a guy was saying that he'd come onto him when Dean thought he was investigating in a normal manner, he was confused when Aaron told him he'd lied, maybe he was upset that he got played off the scent of something he was right about so easily. There's nuance and there's writing in a personal agenda.
"Bad writing" is what I'd call the scene with Ellie last week. Her dialogue and acting were painful.
Thanks for replying, and so politely. I agreed with most of your article and the points you raise. I know queerbaiting is up to the person who is watching. I see queerbaiting as "He was your boyfriend first," or, "I told you to stay out of my ass," or a wink and a nod to a certain ship, without doing anything to actually invest in that ship. I know others have a different view.
ReplyDeleteI mostly responded because I think there are several schools of thought here. There are people who see nothing in these scenes other than a laugh. There are others who don't want to hear about a "gay moment" (as Dean called it) at all. There are others who ship. There are others who are interesting in the sexual orientation of the character, before any ship.
I think this was one of the first scenes to explicitly invite viewers to explore Dean's sexuality in a way which can't be dismissed. I am not optimistic enough to believe this will lead to more, but, based on the past work of this writer, I think it is part of a conscious effort to make people question their idea of what Dean is supposed to be, and why is it wrong for him to possibly have an attraction to or a relationship with another man.
I agree completely with your general point about queerbaiting.
I don't think labeling Dean as bisexual runs counter to what we've seen on the show. Dean has had crushes on men (Dr. Sexy), and while this was sometimes passed off as humor, it's telling that no other male character has been given that type of moment. Last season, there was a moment where Dean admired the view of a soldier who was walking by, while ignoring two attractive women who were walking the other way. Could this just have been patriotism? Possibly. But nothing was definitive.
ReplyDeleteDean hasn't been sexually forthright with women in several seasons. He had to work himself up to going out with a woman last season. This season, just last week, he was fine with flirting with a woman, but as soon as she wanted more, he recoiled. He claimed he just wanted a rain check, but even she didn't believe him. He showed no attraction or desire or confidence toward her as soon as she went beyond the safest stage.
I'm not saying this means Dean is no longer interested in women, but I think it does mean he's no longer entirely sure of who he is. I think he is bisexual. I think this season has done more to invite fans to interpret Dean this way than many ever would have guessed. I am not expecting any big coming out episode, but I think the groundwork might be there.
Dean's character and his views on relationships have changed quite a bit in the last few years.
This isn't about Dean being sexually attracted to everyone he saves, it's about this particular character. If this were a simple queerbait moment, then I believe Dean would have had a different reaction. Brusque, angry. Instead, when he learned Aaron had been lying, he just somewhat awkwardly said well, you got me, that was a good one. He pushed Aaron out of the way of danger when the Nazis came in. He just seemed to be friendly toward Aaron, making sure that any anger he might have had was kept hidden. I thought it was a notable reaction because it was not the reaction I would have expected from a Dean of some earlier seasons.
ReplyDeleteThere's also other moments, like Dean never saying, "I don't play for your team." Like Dean's reaction when Aaron said "is that supposed to make you less interesting?" which apparently panicked Aaron enough that he was the one who officially stopped any flirting.
Of course this could all just be a sign of how Dean is maturing, not about Dean being bi. But I think there's room for interpretation, because they didn't just limit his scenes with Aaron to a gay joke and no more. There was a wide range of scenes with the character, and in how Dean reacted to him.
I thought the Ellie and Dean scenes were interesting for other reasons (and also because some people jumped all over those to prove how Dean wanted her so much, which I think is more of leap than some of the reactions to Dean and Aaron), but agree they weren't well acted.
I can only hope and pray that what the writers are doing with Dean's character isn't queerbaiting. Because I see some real progression, huge leaps and bounds actually, and I want that to continue. I don't think it can be called an accident that Dean responded the way he did to a male hitting on him in 8x13, and then in the very NEXT episode, he responded quite differently to a female hitting on him. He seemed genuinely intrigued if not flustered and shy over the 8x13 encounter, but amazingly, in my opinion, seemed rather annoyed by the gestures in 8x14. And I obviously don't think this means that Dean now prefers men over women...absolutely not. But there was a big difference in the two encounters: One of them spoke of a "connection," while the other just wanted sex, plain and simple. I don't think Dean is interested in casual sex anymore. I think that if Dean were to hook up these days, he'd want it to be with someone he has a real connection with. Dean's grown up. And I think that these days, he's realizing that whether that connection is with a man or a woman, he might be open to it. Please keep going with this, writers!!
ReplyDeleteWell said. I am interested in how lines such as 'I don't play for your team' and 'i don't swing that way' both said to men could be taken as ambiguous. They seem pretty straightforward denials to me.
ReplyDeleteI realize this is a column specifically geared toward shipping, however, I would like to reiterate that the impetus for discussion here has NOTHING to do with shipping. The amazing points that have been raised in this article, I believe, are best served when we remain true to the context. The scene highlighted, and the implications described, spoke volumes of potential about *character development* and not about relationship developments for that character. In a way, bringing it back around to shipping cheapens what I saw as a meaningful exploration into a characters sexuality that, if further fleshed-out, could become a pivotal example of positive LGBTQ representation that is worlds apart from what we currently see in television. It is that reason that the interpretations for this scene and the future intentions of the writers are so important to me.
ReplyDeleteDean did act very differently than he has in the past. Not just because he didn't immediately say "I don't swing that way" but also because he has never been that nervous before (not even with women he wasn't interested in). Also, let me mention his reaction when Aaron called him interesting - yeah. These are the major things that were written into that scene that made me raise eyebrows and believe the writers were alluding to Dean's bisexuality. It would be such a wasteful shame if it turned out that Dean's potentially fluid sexuality was something deemed *interesting enough* to include in the subtext but *not important enough* to explore more seriously in the future. When that message is sent repeatedly via jokes and subtext it becomes a painful reminder that LGBTQ stories just aren't palatable enough to be taken seriously and realistically as part of a main character's development.
Good point. I've seen that double standard a lot--a perception that slash is sexier/dirtier than het. A lot of people won't blink at shipping m/f--and m/f is after all often a big part of most TV series at one point or another--but then treat same-sex pairings like it's just overheated delusional sex-crazed shippers. Likewise, "the show is about romance" as a reason not to have a canon same-sex pairing when the show has had a number of canon het pairings doesn't hold up.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to reply and tell you that I take this comment very, very seriously and thank you for pointing it out. You are right that there is a very big difference between shipping and explorations of sexuality, and I appreciate the existing tension between shipping and wanting to see character explorations of sexuality that are not tied to a ship. I do, however, think that in some ways shipping can be an expression of those desires, and the fact that shipping is so many things to so many people muddies the waters a bit when it comes to separating out all the different, complex facets of seeking LGBTQQA representation in the media.
ReplyDeleteIt seems my major fault in this column was drawing too much attention to an example I meant to serve only as an introduction; I should have included many other examples, some of which would have been more tied to existing ships. I'm very glad to have insightful readers who point out exactly what I left out, and what needs to be said. Thanks so much for speaking up.
I personally think that the writers of stories should stick to the pairings that they originally planned, or the pairings that they ultimately decide to go with, and not worry too much about what the vocal fans are saying. It is first and foremost their story, and they should do what they want. I would want that even if I didn't like what pairing they went with, or the direction that they went in the story. I want the story that the writers are trying to tell, and not the story where they tell some of what they wanted to tell and some that they added just because some of the fans wanted them to, unless they thought that what those fans wanted would actually make the story better.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with your understanding of what canon means (I think it means something very different to me); however, I'd like to understand better. You talk about the subtext being enough that now you can now justifiably refer to Destiel as canon. So what about the people who don't see that particular subtext, and read Dean as 100% straight. Is that canon too? Or the people who think that the Wincest subtext is enough to call the ship canon--is that canon?
ReplyDeleteI guess I just wonder if in your understanding of canon, can there be contradicting ideas that are all still canon?
Thank you for writing such a poignant article and bringing so many important issues to the table. Shipping culture is obviously enmeshed with the question of sexuality in the media even if the converse is not true and I thought you did a great a job of highlighting the most salient points from the overall perspective. I hope that articles like this are viewed by TPTB and that these conversations we are having now can happen with them because they need to understand the impact that their stories have for so many.
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing that gets me.
ReplyDeleteScript writing for television is a very tricky beast. In a one hour time slot, you really only get 43ish minutes of actual screen time. It's difficult to tell a cohesive story in that amount of time. Therefore, every single minute is precious and cannot be wasted. Camera shots are planned out way ahead of time, to maximize efficiency on set as well. Bearing this in mind, if Edlund's and the director's only point of the scene was to introduce Aaron and supposedly reestablish Dean as not being attracted to men, then most of that scene was a colossal waste of valuable screen time. They could have easily had Dean say that he "doesn't swing that way," as he has in the past and moved along.
But instead Dean hesitated, stumbled both figuratively for words and literally on his way out the door. There was a painfully long, lingering shot of him closing his badge, as well as one of his face when he reacted to being called "interesting." Then, he brings up "the gay thing" TWICE more in the episode. If the point of the scene was to reaffirm his heterosexuality, all of these things were completely pointless and literal wastes of time. Ben Edlund is a much more careful writer than that, and Phil Sgriccia has been with Supernatural for years; he's not some guest director who's unfamiliar with the tone and pacing of the show.
While in the past, nods at Dean's possible bisexuality have been buried deep in the subtext and proponents in favor of a queer Dean could be called reaching, I can't help but feel this scene was written and shot with the express purpose of turning subtext into outright text in order to establish to the casual viewer that Dean might not be as straight as he has claimed in the past. The fact that it is such a divisive topic in the fandom, now two weeks later, to me, only confirms that Edlund was successful in calling Dean's sexuality into question. I haven't seen people leap to defend Dean's supposed heterosexuality so fervently before, and that suggests to me a shaken faith in it.
We're discussing it because the column brought it up as an example. And because there has been influx of Destiel shippers to SpoilerTV, which prompted this series of columns. I've never previously discussed Dean's sexuality. I've always thought it was pretty clear. I also think it is running joke of Dean being uncomfortable with homoerotic situations. So yes, the writers and director would spend time making a joke. They do it all the time. You are looking for something and adding up camera angles and how long Dean held badge open for to try and find it.
ReplyDeleteIf, as you believe, writers are meticulous in crafting a concise story, why would they hide something important to the understanding of the scene in a lingering camera shot or an "ambiguous" discomfort" instead of writing into the script?
This has been on my mind a lot lately (lots of other people's too). Interesting summation of how things are changing! The thing is, that to me, ships are an element of a story, just like plot twists, decisions about characters, anything that some viewers may like and others may not like. I've watched shows where a ship became canon that I didn't want, I've watched shows where a ship I wanted did. There's been plot twists I've hated and favorite characters killed off. The compartmentalization of ships sometimes makes me uncomfortable. I think it's great to watch something uninterested in the romance aspect at all--I've done that. Some only are interested in canon ships, and I respect that as well. When it comes to same-sex pairings, one problem is that m/f is still the default, and I think that needs to change and TV needs better representation. The increasing seriousness and volume on the subtextual moments--is it only queer-baiting and headed backwards? Or is it a slide towards a TV landscape where same-sex pairings will be a lot more present? I think it's hurtful to say those winks and nods are as good as actual overt representation, because they aren't. Maybe it's headed towards better representation. I think the popularity of same-sex pairings in polls and in the media, the rising visibility of those pairings at fan conventions, is part of positive change and increasing awareness--it's still not as good as actual better representation of same sex pairings on tv. I also feel bad at how much shaming there is towards fans who a) enjoy having their ship lens encouraged and/or b) examine the nods in the context of the possibility of it becoming canon.
ReplyDeleteI've seen harm done by showrunners who fan-bait too much. So I think the creatives have to be careful to be respectful about it and understand it's meaningful to fans. I'd like to see in fandom more acknowledgment that shippers are a valid part of the fanbase, who analyze and appreciate and support shows just as fans less invested in ships do, and of course no one should have to feel like they have to like a ship or watch for that--people should watch in a way that's satisfying for them.