![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bookhobbit So the Good Omens TV show is out. This isn't a Good Omens post. Good Omens is an illustrative example. The Good Omens show is out and competing people on my tumblr dash are saying "it's really hurtful to me how explicitly queerbait-y Aziraphale and Crowley are in the show" and "stop asking Neil Gaiman to confirm that Aziraphale and Crowley have an explicitly romantic/sexual relationship, because things that aren't those two but are still intimate and deep are also important."
It's stressing me out because I...think they're both right. I mean I haven't watched the show yet, but I've seen enough gifs to get the drift of both arguments and also obviously I've read the book many times and if the relationship is portrayed similarly (and I've been told it is) then yes, I understand.
It's like....one of my friends was talking about all the "is it or isn't it gay? watch them push each other up against the wall but never kiss!" relationships that made him desexualize himself and be unable to realize what he even wanted. And there's absolutely no shortage of those out there. I think probably only some of them are deliberately queerbaiting (and one cannot accidentally queerbait), some are just Straight People Are Oblivious To Queer Subtext. All of them separately and together outnumber actual queer romances by a vast degree. So, there are ENDLESS shows where two (usually white men) people of the same gender have a deeply intimate friendship partly forced upon them by circumstances and grow to care for each other and it's so TEDIOUS to watch creators go "ohoho look I have created A Het" in the face of this.
I'm not really saying that's what's happening in Good Omens. Good Omens, as I said, is an illustrative example. What I mean to say is that the people who are upset about Good Omens are probably - quite understandably - tired of that same thing. And it's hard to want real representation and have to deal with crumbs all the time.
My shameful secret is that I usually like the not-confirmed-romantic tender and intimate friendships that no one wants to canonize better than I like actual queer romances.
This is because queer romances are still usually romances. And I feel extremely alienated by most romance. I am queer, but I have never and will never have a queer romance, and it frustrates me that queerness=romance, for most writers. What I do have is intimate friendships. And thus I prefer to see intimate friendships in things I'm watching because I relate to them better.
BUT it's not ACTUALLY a win, because these intimate friendships aren't actually like mine, because almost always, the assumption is going to be that the people in them are straight. Quite often they will have love interests that take precedence over their friendships, or compete with them. Which I hate, because for me my intimate friendships (or queerplatonic relationships, which is what I actually call them) are the thing. I neither have nor want any other thing.
So regardless of which way I go, the assumption that romance is still the top dog is gonna be there anyway, usually, so I'm not ACTUALLY being represented. What I would be represented by would be explicitly queer characters in an intimate friendship who don't engage in romance. But that's not going to happen, so these queerbaity tv intimate friendships are the best I'm going to get.
But it makes me feel guilty to enjoy them so much because I know they're hurting, like the Real People. The ones who have been in the acronym the whole time. I mean partly because I don't want to see people get hurt, that's important, but also because I feel guilty for not being normal enough to fit into the Normal Gay model and be represented by it.
The reason I chose Good Omens as the case study is because Good Omens is very dear to me as an intimate friendship that is not expressly romantic or sexual and yet where the participants have no straight attachments*, but it's also so absurdly gay that I completely understand the hurt in this kind of halfway-confirmation. I think people on both sides - those who want more canon confirmation and those who say "it doesn't have to be canon confirmed to be meaningful" are right, and I...feel weird about it. And I hate having more weird feelings because I already have very mixed emotions about the adaption.
But really this is about the fact that I never feel like I'm the right kind of queer. Like I'm making the whole community a worse place with my inability to fit into the narratives I'm supposed to, like "love is love". Not gay, but weird, and therefore not real. Or something.
--
*"angels are sexless unless they really want to make an effort" describes both my gender and sexuality with perfect accuracy, actually.
It's stressing me out because I...think they're both right. I mean I haven't watched the show yet, but I've seen enough gifs to get the drift of both arguments and also obviously I've read the book many times and if the relationship is portrayed similarly (and I've been told it is) then yes, I understand.
It's like....one of my friends was talking about all the "is it or isn't it gay? watch them push each other up against the wall but never kiss!" relationships that made him desexualize himself and be unable to realize what he even wanted. And there's absolutely no shortage of those out there. I think probably only some of them are deliberately queerbaiting (and one cannot accidentally queerbait), some are just Straight People Are Oblivious To Queer Subtext. All of them separately and together outnumber actual queer romances by a vast degree. So, there are ENDLESS shows where two (usually white men) people of the same gender have a deeply intimate friendship partly forced upon them by circumstances and grow to care for each other and it's so TEDIOUS to watch creators go "ohoho look I have created A Het" in the face of this.
I'm not really saying that's what's happening in Good Omens. Good Omens, as I said, is an illustrative example. What I mean to say is that the people who are upset about Good Omens are probably - quite understandably - tired of that same thing. And it's hard to want real representation and have to deal with crumbs all the time.
My shameful secret is that I usually like the not-confirmed-romantic tender and intimate friendships that no one wants to canonize better than I like actual queer romances.
This is because queer romances are still usually romances. And I feel extremely alienated by most romance. I am queer, but I have never and will never have a queer romance, and it frustrates me that queerness=romance, for most writers. What I do have is intimate friendships. And thus I prefer to see intimate friendships in things I'm watching because I relate to them better.
BUT it's not ACTUALLY a win, because these intimate friendships aren't actually like mine, because almost always, the assumption is going to be that the people in them are straight. Quite often they will have love interests that take precedence over their friendships, or compete with them. Which I hate, because for me my intimate friendships (or queerplatonic relationships, which is what I actually call them) are the thing. I neither have nor want any other thing.
So regardless of which way I go, the assumption that romance is still the top dog is gonna be there anyway, usually, so I'm not ACTUALLY being represented. What I would be represented by would be explicitly queer characters in an intimate friendship who don't engage in romance. But that's not going to happen, so these queerbaity tv intimate friendships are the best I'm going to get.
But it makes me feel guilty to enjoy them so much because I know they're hurting, like the Real People. The ones who have been in the acronym the whole time. I mean partly because I don't want to see people get hurt, that's important, but also because I feel guilty for not being normal enough to fit into the Normal Gay model and be represented by it.
The reason I chose Good Omens as the case study is because Good Omens is very dear to me as an intimate friendship that is not expressly romantic or sexual and yet where the participants have no straight attachments*, but it's also so absurdly gay that I completely understand the hurt in this kind of halfway-confirmation. I think people on both sides - those who want more canon confirmation and those who say "it doesn't have to be canon confirmed to be meaningful" are right, and I...feel weird about it. And I hate having more weird feelings because I already have very mixed emotions about the adaption.
But really this is about the fact that I never feel like I'm the right kind of queer. Like I'm making the whole community a worse place with my inability to fit into the narratives I'm supposed to, like "love is love". Not gay, but weird, and therefore not real. Or something.
--
*"angels are sexless unless they really want to make an effort" describes both my gender and sexuality with perfect accuracy, actually.
no subject
Date: 2019-06-08 10:08 pm (UTC)