fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4972 ]

So, I just finished a book (The Bedlam Stacks by Natasha Pulley, minor spoilers below) and was looking for discussion online. I knew before reading it that there was some disagreement about whether the main (m/m) relationship is romantic or not, and because of that I expected it to be pretty ambiguous, but it just...really wasn't to me. There's one side that says "oh, they're just friends" because there's nothing explicit*, and then the other side (which I'm on) that thinks it's obviously romantic (there's a part where one character wakes up in the other's arms and muses about how he wishes it could be like that all the time, another where he acknowledges that the other is more important to him than his friends or his job or anything else in his life, not to mention that he rejects the possibility of marrying someone else and waits over 20 years to be able to be with the other guy again, plus just the way they interact in general).

I know there's a similar debate with The Untamed** (I haven't seen it, but I've seen plenty of discussion about it) so I'm just wondering about different opinions here...what has to happen in the text for you to consider a m/m or f/f relationship a canon romance and not just queerbaiting or whatever?

*I mean "explicitly stated that the relationship is romantic", not explicit/sex scenes, although I've seen plenty of people complain about a lack of those, too.

**To be fair, I know The Untamed had to deal with censorship laws and (at least as far as I understand) did what they could to portray the relationship as romantic within them, and TBS was written by a British author and didn't have those restrictions, so you could make the argument that for that reason, there should be a higher bar before it should count, but I feel like even without explicitly saying it, it was pretty obvious (and I don't necessarily think it has to be explicitly stated to count if it's made clear in other ways).

Anyway, I'm curious. Does the book/show/movie/etc. have to come out and actually say "they're in love/a couple/whatever", or can it be shown other ways? Do there have to be kissing/sex scenes like I've seen some people say? Does it depend on the culture/possible censorship laws, or are the standards the same regardless?

What do you guys think?

Depends on the culture for me. Authorial intent does matter, but what is on the page is most important. But in a culture where they aren't allowed to put such things on a page, I will put more weight on the author's intent that the characters are a couple. In that case for me scenes like in Untamed along with the author's clear intent that those are meant to be taken as romantic would be enough.

But on the other hand, in a western country where it is perfectly okay to put in a LGBT couple, I'm going to want more. An author saying they are a couple will have some weight, but without more on the page or screen, I won't view that as particularly strong evidence. After all, an author could just say something else in another interview. They can change their mind. If it isn't on the page or screen, it isn't quite as official.

ayrt

I definitely agree that in situations like The Untamed, you can only do so much so the criteria's slightly different.

If it isn't on the page or screen, it isn't quite as official.

Yeah, I agree. I generally am not going to go just by what an author says in an interview or whatever, either, there has to be something on the page/screen, I'm just wondering what specific things have to be on the page/screen? Like, does there need to be a sex scene? Or a big, dramatic confession of love? Or do other, more subtle things count? (For me personally, sleeping cuddled with someone, and wishing you could wake up with them every day, and saying they're more important than anyone or anything else in the world to you comes across as pretty clearly romantic, but obviously different people will see things differently.)

Al of those things would work for me. The Legend of Korra ending where they look at each other in a clear loving look and they are clearly going to go to the spirit world together as a couple works for me. It doesn't have to be a sex scene or dramatic. Subtle does work for me. But then again, I didn't notice until she made the statement or think it was enough with Dumbledore and Grindewald in Harry Potter in the books.

Edited 2020-08-16 21:03 (UTC)

ayrt

Yeah. And even though it's never said (it takes place in another time period/fantasy world, so it's understandable) there are some things that make me see where the argument could be made that one or both characters are some variation of asexual, so it would make sense that it would be handled a little differently. (And although I haven't read it yet, apparently in one of the author's other books, the m/m relationship IS made explicit, so she's clearly not against writing same sex relationships. Which I guess could point to this one NOT being romantic because if it was, why wouldn't it just say so on the page, but IDK, there are enough things that when added together, make me feel like it is, even though it doesn't come out and say it. IDK if i'm even making any sense here.)

But then again, I didn't notice until she made the statement or think it was enough with Dumbledore and Grindewald in Harry Potter in the books.

I thought the ONLY proof of that even being a thing was that she mentioned it in an interview? Or is there supposed to be evidence from the books, and people just didn't catch it or something?

We have dramatic conventions for showing relationships that have been around since Shakespeare. When they're applied equally, I think the results are pretty unambiguous. SpinTossa bicker about chores and frequently use terms of endearment like a married couple. Therefore, they are, for all intents and purposes, a married couple.

Definitely! When you have the same sex pair acting the same as the straight couples do, I think it becomes pretty clear that it means they're a couple, too, even if they don't come out and say it.

As far as i'm concerned, there is no basis for The Untamed to be considered not a canon relationship for one very clear reason which is the note from the producers at the very end.

'Thanks to (the author) for creating these characters. May their wishes come true ever after.'

The wishes of the characters were to get married and have sex every day. So pretty sure that's as clear as they could make it.

+1

Frankly, I've yet to hear an argument for The Untamed not being gay enough that comes from a reasonable person. It's usually someone who's mad about the lack of explicit sexual content and/or upset that nobody is willing to break the law and go to jail in order to provide them with m/m content.

I agree.

Publishing endgame, I want for same-sex relationships to be treated with the same level of honesty and depth as mixed-sex relationships. Now I recognize that due to varying forms of censorship, that frequently doesn't happen. Still though, The Count of Monte Cristo used lesbian coding and subtext in 1844, so I give the side-eye to people who call coding and subtext super-progressive in 2020.

For mass media, I think LGBTQ relationships should be worthy of the same level of production dollars as Thor3 gave to Tony Stark's Pants. That joke about Tony Stark's Pants (a character who doesn't appear in the movie) cost thousands of dollars and involved hundreds of labor-hours. So for TV and movie production, I don't count claimed LGBTQ content if food service wasn't on set to make it happen. Otherwise we're giving Disney, Warner, and Sony a free pass on self-censorship if their talent is contrite about it through channels that cost them very little.

Also I agree with the recent Stevenson/Sugar interview that LGBTQ perspectives go way beyond just "is this couple canon or not." And that shows when LGBTQ people are in the writer's room and editorial.

https://www.papermag.com/rebecca-sugar-noelle-stevenson-2646446747.html?rebelltitem=67#rebelltitem67

I think you can look at a same-sex relationship and say it's canon, and still reject multinational entertainment corporations attempting to use that for advertising

Two separate questions

First of all, I dislike the whole construct of "canon" and "headcanon" etc. I think it should be thrown out. I think it's only marginally useful if you're working on a shared universe property where brand management and lore are important, and even then, I would personally prefer to ignore it. I think it would be much better and more straightforward, more practical, and more useful to generally talk in terms of textuality and subtext, and readings and interpretations of the text.

So in that light, I think this basically is like any other conversation about whether or not something is present (or at least implied) in the text or whether it's drawn out from the text by the reader's interpretation of the text (albeit it's made somewhat more complicated because the boundaries between romantic relationships, sexual attraction, and non-romantic non-sexual affection can often be ambiguous and blurry in ways we're generally poorly equipped to deal with).

How explicitly is it signaled in the text? How does the relationship align with the rest of what's going on in the text, with the broader thematic ideas? And how easy or plausible is it to read the relationship in different ways? I think there are some relationships - including het relationships - where you can, without explicitly saying it's a romantic relationship, depict it in a way where the most plausible interpretation is that it's romantic, for example. So those are the kinds of things I would take into account.

Ohh, hard agree on the canon issue, but it's unfortunately a lost cause.

First of all, I dislike the whole construct of "canon" and "headcanon" etc. I think it should be thrown out.
...
I think it would be much better and more straightforward, more practical, and more useful to generally talk in terms of textuality and subtext, and readings and interpretations of the text.

I personally have always seen "canon" and "headcanon" as just another way of saying "text" and "my interpretation of the text" and "is this canon?" to be essentially asking "is this interpretation supported by the text?" but obviously mileage varies.

it's made somewhat more complicated because the boundaries between romantic relationships, sexual attraction, and non-romantic non-sexual affection can often be ambiguous and blurry in ways we're generally poorly equipped to deal with

I think that's definitely a consideration, too. I remember reading a book from a rec here a few years ago about two asexual characters who are specifically said to be in a relationship (and even get engaged at the end), kiss, sleep in the same bed, etc., and there were still people in reviews saying they were disappointed because they expected a romance and these characters were clearly just friends because there weren't any sex scenes. So it's going to be even more difficult to portray things if the relationships themselves don't quite fit into the traditional boxes that most people are familiar with.

I personally have always seen "canon" and "headcanon" as just another way of saying "text" and "my interpretation of the text" and "is this canon?" to be essentially asking "is this interpretation supported by the text?" but obviously mileage varies.

my feeling is that it leads people to think about it in a very binary way. one place you see this, IME, is in arguments about canon versus headcanon, which I think often operate on the assumption that there can only be 1 "official" "correct" interpretation or reading of the text, and that all other interpretations are just made up. I think that's a bad approach!

So it's going to be even more difficult to portray things if the relationships themselves don't quite fit into the traditional boxes that most people are familiar with.

totally agree!

ayrt

my feeling is that it leads people to think about it in a very binary way. one place you see this, IME, is in arguments about canon versus headcanon, which I think often operate on the assumption that there can only be 1 "official" "correct" interpretation or reading of the text, and that all other interpretations are just made up. I think that's a bad approach!

That's a really good point! I don't know if you're familiar with it or not, but this makes me think of the show Blindspot, which ended recently, and the last episode isn't at all clear-cut about how things actually end. The creator said that he did have a specific interpretation in mind, so I guess you could say that's the "correct" one but he hasn't said what it is, and he's said that he wants people to be able to decide for themselves and that either interpretation is valid and even the actors disagree on which ending was "right". (There are two main ones that have textual evidence both for and against, but I've also read at least one other interpretation that I think could make sense as well...trying to be vague here in case you haven't seen it and want to.) So obviously canon vs. not is not quite an adequate way to describe things in that case, and I've hesitated to describe anything as canon when talking about the finale because it's just not really accurate.

Honestly, I think it just comes down to people wanting the validation of being able to say that their interpretation is the "right" one, and saying "well, my interpretation is one of several that are equally valid" just isn't quite as satisfying.

I do think that in some instances things ARE binary, where the answer to "has this interpretation been confirmed by the text?" is a fairly easy yes/no (and saying "it is/isn't canon" is shorthand for that), but yeah, a lot of the time, it's not quite that simple.

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

(Anonymous) - 2020-08-17 02:10 (UTC) - Expand

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

(Anonymous) - 2020-08-17 15:59 (UTC) - Expand

IMO, MDZS/The Untamed is without a doubt canon romance. The novel was more explicit, but the TV adaptation did as much as it could (to the point of adding MORE clues than the novel) to get that across and still maintain plausible deniability for the censors. Anyone who calls it queer baiting doesn't understand what that term actually means.

One of the things I tend to apply is the question "would a m/f relationship be considered canon/a romantic relationship with what we are given". If yes, I don't see why a same sex relationship should be held to such a much higher standard.

I think that's a good rule! There have been so many times where m/m or f/f characters have acted in a way that would ABSOLUTELY be considered romantic if it was between m/f characters, but people insisted they were "just friends" because it was same sex, and I've always found that so frustrating.

However, there are tons of m/f relationships that I didn't think were canon, only to then look at the fandom and official statements from writers that acted as if they were unambiguously canon and it was just a fact that anyone could tell clear as day from the text. So I have no idea what this "if it were m/f would it be obvious as canon" test is supposed to entail.

This is how I feel about things like... Phoenix and Edgeworth. If their arcs were written about a man and a woman, no one would question it. That's just an example.

Well see, I think the fact that nobody would question it if it were a man and a woman is a problem with how we see m/f. I would absolutely not consider Phoenix/Edgeworth canon if one of them were a woman. I'd consider it heavily and deliberately teased at... which is exactly the same as I consider it in the actual canon... but I would not consider it a canon ship. I think people need to stop thinking every relationship between a man and woman is a canon romance just because it has the potential to be. And to most of fandom, that potential is anything from them making eye contact once to them having a relationship like Phoenix and Edgeworth. Shit's annoying.

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

(Anonymous) - 2020-08-17 15:36 (UTC) - Expand

Well, I'm really keen on queerplatonic relationships, so for me it's not, "they display hints of sexual interest in each other so it's love," it's, "they look like they're in love".

Hm. I watched The Untamed recently, and I watched Guardian recently, both of which are based on M/M novels and were filmed with similar censorship restrictions. So... talking about whether I thought it was a sexual relationship being depicted/implied...

Both stories had a love between two male characters that transcended death with oodles and oodles of hurt/comfort and non-sexual intimacy. The Untamed had a lot of little side-bits? LWJ getting drunk and giving WWX two fat cocks and asking him if they're good? Responding to a comment about no cultivator girls wanting to hang out with him with a "Good?" I'm not entirely sure WWX understands what t3h Sex is beyond flirting with everything on legs, but I absolutely believe that LWJ wanted to Tap That from very early on.

In Guardian... while I would love and support anyone who read that as "sex going on behind the scenes" - it felt quite platonic to me? Shen Wei and ZYL were clearly fascinated with each other, invested in each other, crawled into each other's spaces with persistence and alacrity. But I dunno, they just didn't give me a "Would rather be kissing you right now" vibe.

OP

Realized after typing this that there's some kind of spoilery bits about Elementary below, wanted to mention that just in case

for me it's not, "they display hints of sexual interest in each other so it's love," it's, "they look like they're in love".

Oh, definitely. Whether I think the relationship is romantic is a completely different thing than whether I think they're banging behind the scenes, and thinking they're having sex offscreen/page is not at all necessary to think they're in love (didn't mean to imply that I thought that if I did; just that I've come across people who seem to have that standard, a "well, if there aren't sex scenes then I don't consider it canon" kind of thing).

Like, in the book I mentioned in the original post, there's zero sexual content, and I could even see the case being made that one or both characters could be asexual to some degree, but for me there's no doubt that they're in love based on how they act. There's disagreement online about whether or not the relationship is romantic, and maybe for some people, the lack of sex is the reason for that disagreement, I don't know, but for me personally, it's not required for me to consider it a romantic relationship.

I mean, obviously people define things differently, and for a lot of people, it seems like romance is this formula of friendship+sex, and if you subtract the sex, then it ceases being romance and goes back to being friendship. Whereas for me, romance and friendship are two separate things, and sex isn't the deciding factor (I feel like you can add sex to friendship and it doesn't automatically become romance; friends with benefits is a thing). I think for me, commitment is the defining thing. Like, if you decide someone is the most important person to you, and you make a commitment to them, that's what makes it romantic to me, regardless of whether sex is a factor.

It's a het example, but there's Elementary. They were very clear about the characters not having sex, but by the end, you had another character comparing their relationship to their own marriage, lots of "love" discussion, and there was this commitment to just having a life together (and, it was implied, raising a kid together). So because of all of that (plus a bunch of other things throughout the show), I couldn't help but see it as romantic, even if not in the "traditional" sense.

Sorry, I've gotten way off topic here, but I find the relationships that don't quite easily fit into any sort of conventional boxes to be the most interesting ones to read about/watch.

[ SECRET POST #4972 ]

To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

+2

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?