Gonk

I have 2c-3a hair, meaning it doesn’t fit neatly into either category. It sits in that confusing in-between area where it’s slightly too curly to be considered simply wavy but slightly too wavy to fully appear curly. Depending on styling, it can present as either 2c or 3a.

The reason curl charts become a grey area for looser textures is because they were largely developed around curlier categories, particularly 3a-4c textures. Historically, most mainstream hair products, advice and beauty standards were already centred around straighter hair types, which were treated as the “conventional” standard. There was less need to distinguish heavily between types like 1a and 1c because they were generally viewed as straight hair and required relatively little specialised care or styling knowledge.

To address the elephant in the room, the majority of people with 3a-4c hair are people of colour. For a long time, mainstream beauty standards and hair products catered primarily to white women and Eurocentric ideals. In schools and wider society, people with curlier hair were often bullied or made to feel their natural texture was messy, unprofessional or undesirable. In response, curly-haired people created communities focused specifically on learning how to care for and embrace their hair. A lot of the stigma surrounding curly hair is deeply rooted in racism and prejudice.

However, I think what often gets overlooked is that many people with wavy or wavy-curly hair textures also felt pressure to alter their natural hair in order to fit beauty standards. While the reasons behind this were not always rooted in racism, many people with looser textures still grow up feeling ashamed of their natural hair. Their hair often didn’t fit neatly into either category: it wasn’t straight enough to behave like straight hair, but it also wasn’t considered “curly enough” by some curly-haired communities.

Many people with 2a-3a hair can’t simply wash and brush their hair without it becoming frizzy, undefined or inconsistent. At the same time, when they try curl routines or embrace their natural texture, they’re often met with comments claiming their hair is “not really curly". That leaves a lot of people feeling stuck in an awkward middle ground.

In recent years, there’s been a growing community of people with wavy and wavy-curly hair embracing their natural texture instead of constantly trying to straighten, curl or otherwise “fix” it to fit into a particular standard. Among white people especially, 2a-2c hair is extremely common, and it's also very common for hair to fall between categories rather than fitting perfectly into one type. 2c-3a is probably one of the most debated examples of this.

I think trying to apply a chart designed primarily around curlier textures to looser, in-between textures is always going to create disagreement. A lot of the online discourse between wavy and curly hair seems rooted in defensiveness and a lingering superiority/inferiority dynamic created by years of stigma surrounding curly hair.

Accusing the Duffer Brothers of queerbaiting because Byler wasn’t canon isn’t just inaccurate, it reinforces damaging stereotypes about queer people, straight-queer friendships, and what representation is supposed to look like. In the process, it ends up doing more harm to the LGBTQ+ community than anything the show itself portrayed.

To talk about this honestly, we need to be clear about what queerbaiting actually means. It doesn’t mean “a queer relationship didn’t happen.” It doesn’t mean “my ship wasn’t endgame.” Queerbaiting refers to creators deliberately hinting at queer relationships for marketing or profit, without any intention of ever portraying them in the story.

Feeling disappointed isn’t the same thing as being exploited, and collapsing the two erases the seriousness of actual queerbaiting in media.

But the pattern that’s emerged online goes far beyond disappointment. Posts accusing the show of homophobia or queerbaiting are praised and spread widely. Claims that a straight character must reciprocate a queer character’s feelings, or else the narrative is discriminatory, get treated as fact. Close emotional intimacy between straight and queer characters gets flattened into romantic subtext only. And underneath all of this is a growing sense of creative entitlement, where some fans genuinely believe that disagreeing with the writers’ choices means the writers have done something morally wrong.

It’s not hard to see why this pattern appears. Platforms like TikTok rewards outrage and quick, confident accusations. Fandom spaces value interpretive creativity, so subtextual spectualation can feel more “intelligent” or “progressive” than engaging with the text as written. Emotional investment makes ship disappointment feel like injustice. And after a decade of ship wars, political language become ammunition, “queerbaiting,” “homophobia,” “misogyny”, even when it’s misapplied.

But when you zoom out from the noise, the accusations become deeply troubling.

Turning a straight boy not returning a gay boy’s romantic feelings into “queerbaiting” reinforces the exact stereotypes queer people have spent decades fighting. It suggests straight and queer people can’t have close friends without it being suspect. It imagines straightness as something fragile and easily “contaminated”. It frames queer desire as something that must always be reciprocated, and if it isn’t, the story is oppressive.

This is the same logic that fuels toxic masculinity.

It’s the same logic homophobic parents use.

It’s simply dressed in fandom activism.

And it creates real world consequences. It makes straight boys afraid of showing affection to queer friends because “people might think things.” It reinforces the idea that queer people can only exist in stories through their relationship to straight people’s romantic arcs. It makes representation feel transactional, as if creators “owe” a queer romance to audiences or else they’re bigoted.

That mindset is the actual harm here, not the finale.

This isn’t about shutting down queer interpretations or telling people they can’t be upset. It’s about recognising that misusing the term “queerbaiting” cheapens it. it’s about acknowledging that being disappointed in a ship doesn’t entitle anyone to reframe a narrative decision as a political injustice. If we actually care about queer representation, then we also have to care about not undermining it with arguments that accidentally reinforce the stereotypes queer people are fighting every day.

A lot of the discourse around Byler vs Mileven isn’t actually about the ships themselves, but about the repeated claim that Mileven fans “lack media literacy.”

By media literacy, I don’t mean simply spotting subtext or producing alternative readings. Media literacy is the ability to understand a text’s intended meaning, themes, politics, and purpose, while accounting for narrative structure, explicit and implicit information, historical and writer context, and reader response. Skilled analysis can absolutely include feminist, queer, or other critical lenses, but it still requires engaging with what the text is explicitly doing before reinterpreting it.

What stood out to me after posting my previous essay was how often people remarked they don’t see much serious or long form analysis coming from the Mileven community. On platforms like TikTok especially, Mileven readings are frequently dismissed as obvious, shallow, or uncritical, while subtext heavy interpretations are praised as smarter or more insightful. “Media literacy” often becomes shorthand for a specific style of reading rather than an actual measure of analytical skill.

I don’t think this perception exists because Mileven fans are less capable of analysis. I think it exists because different communities reward different outputs. Byler spaces tend to rely on implicit information and collaborative subtextual expansion, which encourages intensive close reading and creative theorising. Mileven spaces, by contrast, rely more on explicit narrative commitment and long term structure, which doesn’t require the same kind of speculative labour to sustain discussion. That difference in interpretive method affects visibility, not literacy.

In other words, the accusation that Mileven fans lack media literacy often stems less from poor analysis and more from the assumption that canon supported readings are less imaginative. What’s really being conflated here are two distinct skills: analytical comprehension and creative expansion. One prioritises understanding what the story is doing; the other prioritises imagining what else it could be doing.

Intro

The ongoing divide between Mileven and Byler fans has become one of the most polarising aspects of Stranger Things Discourse, particularly since season 3. While shipping debates are not new to fandom culture, the intensity of this one often obscures a more interesting discussion about narrative structure, character arcs and thematic intent.

This essay is not an argument against queer interpretations of the show, nor against Will Byers as a character. Rather, it is an analysis of why Byler, as an endgame concept, conflicts with the long-form storytelling Stranger Things has consistently committed to, particularly in relation to Will’s development and Eleven’s role as the series’ central protagonist. While Byler is an understandable and valid headcanon, Mileven functions as a deliberately constructed narrative anchor and Will’s arc is ultimately about self-discovery rather than romantic resolution.

Will, Sexuality, and Narrative Intent

The most prominent rise in Byler discourse can be traced back to season 3, particularly the scene in which Will becomes frustrated with Mike and Lucas for prioritising girlfriends over D&D. Finn Wolfhard’s line, “It’s not my fault you don’t like girls,” is often cited as the moment that solidified Will’s queer coding for many viewers.

Regardless of when the Duffers decided to make Will’s sexuality explicit, it is clear that has been thoughtfully integrated into the narrative. Set against the backdrop of the 80s, a time marked by moral panic, religious hysteria, homophobia and the AIDS crisis, Will’s struggle with identity fits squarely within the show’s larger themes of otherness and alienation. Stranger Things has always been a story about outcasts finding community, and Will’s queerness is a natural extension of that.

The show’s inclusion of Robin as an openly lesbian character provides an interesting contrast between adult self knowledge and adolescent confusion. Robin functions not as a romantic guide for Will, but as a mentor figure, someone who understands the fear and isolation that comes with self realisation in an unaccepting environment. Will’s storyline is framed not as a rush toward romance, but as a slow, careful exploration of identity.

Mileven and Narrative Function

One of the reasons I am such a committed Mileven fan is because Eleven is one of the most compelling protagonists in recent television. And as I watched the show as a child and grew up with the actors, the character made me love Millie Bobby Brown and how she has transitioned into adulthood after experiencing such intense public scrutiny throughout her childhood. Eleven’s character arc, recovering from extreme trauma while learning how to exist in the world, is the emotional backbone of the series.

Across all four seasons, Eleven is positioned as the narrative solution to the Upside Down. This is made explicit in season 4, when Owens and Brenner repeatedly emphasise that Eleven is key to stopping Vecna. Crucially, the show also establishes that her power is tied to emotional grounding and connection. The Nina project does not simply restore her abilities; it reframes them around memory, belonging and love.

Mike and Eleven’s relationship functions as one of those emotional anchors. This does not diminish Eleven’s autonomy; rather, it complements her growth. In season 1, Mike serves as her guide because she has just escaped the lab and has no understanding of the outside world. At this point the most ideal person for her to meet as her guide is a child, someone with a wild and vivid imagination who lacks adult reason and responsibility. He will not doubt whatever unfathomable fact she tells him, and he will not risk compromising her position by informing the authorities. In season 2, Hopper becomes her parental figure, allowing Mike and Eleven to transition from a survival based bond into a more conventional childhood relationship. By season 3, Eleven asserts independence, forms meaningful female relationships outside of Mike, understands making decisions for herself and actively chooses the relationship on her own terms.

This progression allows Eleven in season 4 to advocate herself fully. She asks Mike for reassurance and emotional openness, not because she is dependent on him, but because she now understands what she needs from a healthy relationship. Their temporary separation forces Mike to confront his own emotional limitations, culminating his monologue during the Vecna fight.

The Van Scene and Unrequited Love

The van scene in season 4 has become a focal point for Byler interpretations, but its narrative purpose is often misunderstood. The scene serves two clear functions: it confirms that Will has romantic feelings for Mike, and it articulates Mike’s long standing insecurity about being needed.

Mike’s fear, that Eleven will no longer want him if she no longer needs him, has been part of his arc since season 2. It reflects his struggle with emotional expression and his tendency to equate love with usefulness. Will’s response in the van is not a declaration of mutual feeling, but a selfless act. He gives Mike the language to express love to Eleven, even though doing so hurts him.

The show frames Will’s feelings as unrequited intentionally. This is what gives the scene its emotional weight. Will chooses Mike’s happiness over his own, reinforcing his arc is not about romantic fulfilment, but about emotional maturity and self awareness.

When Mike delivers his monologue, it functions as the emotional trigger that pulls Eleven back from giving up. She is then anchored by what she is fighting for, especially Max. This sequence follows the emotional logic established earlier in the season. It is not subtext; it is textual canon.

Growing Hostility Toward Eleven and Millie Bobby Brown

As Millie Bobby Brown has grown older, hostility towards both her and Eleven has increased noticeably within fandom spaces. This reflects a broader cultural pattern in which young female stars are celebrated when they are perceived as harmless or malleable, and criticised once they age, gain agency or assert independence.

Eleven’s transition from a child figure into a young woman with autonomy has coincided with increased efforts to downplay her narrative importance. Criticism of Eleven frequently overlaps with criticism of Millie herself, suggesting that the discomfort is not purely about storytelling preferences, but about who is allowed to remain central, powerful and desired within a narrative.

This shift parallels the rise in polarisation between Mileven and Byler fans, particularly as Eleven remains the show’s protagonist rather than stepping aside for another character.

Will’s Role in Season Five

Speculation surrounding season 5 has often framed Will as the “new” protagonist who will replace Eleven as the key to defeating Vecna. While Will’s growing importance is undeniable, this reading misunderstands the show’s structural logic. I think this interpretation has more misogynistic undertones than people would like to admit. They would rather jeopardise the integrity and narrative arc of the show than have a female protagonist. And they are more comfortable perceiving a male character as the main central protagonist and the former as his rival.

Stranger Things has consistently operated through dualities: mind and body, control and force, trauma and recovery. Eleven’s power addresses Vecna’s physical and dimensional control, whilst Will’s connection to the hive mind positions him as a counter to Vecna’s psychological manipulation. These roles are complementary, not competitive. The emphasis of worm holes through Mr Clarke’s lesson is a key aspect to the resolution of the show. It is only when Will is able to remove Henry’s consciousness from the upside down, is Eleven finally able to close the worm hole once and for all.

Will’s arc has always centred on helplessness, fear, and being left behind. His newfound ability to access the hive mind represents not a takeover of the narrative, but his first real opportunity to reclaim agency. This development aligns with the idea that Will’s story is about reclaiming the childhood and identity stolen from him by the Upside Down. Vecna has taken his mind, body, life and innocence and Will is finally taking control.

Why Byler Undermines Will’s Arc

Will’s love for Mike makes sense because Mike represents safety, familiarity, and a time before everything went wrong. However, allowing that love to culminate in a relationship would half Will’s development rather than advance it.

When Eleven met Mike, she was also stunted, isolated, afraid and disconnected from the world. Their relationship supported her growth because it existed alongside her increasing independence. Will, by contrast, has not yet had the opportunity to develop outside of fear and trauma. His arc requires separation from what feels safe in order to move forward.

Robin’s speech to Will reinforces this. It is not an encouragement to pursue Mike, but a call to self determination. Will’s growth comes from choosing himself, not from attaching himself to someone who symbolises the past

Queer Readings, Canon, and Burden of Proof

Queer interpretations of Stranger Things are Valid and important, particularly given the 80s setting and the show’s focus on marginalised identities. However, interpretation still operates within boundaries of what the text ultimately commits to.

Mileven is not a last minute decision or a narrative placeholder. It has been built, challenged and reaffirmed across 4 seasons, culminating in Mike’s explicit declaration of love in season 4. Enjoying Mike and Will’s dynamic or imagining alternative outcomes is entirely legitimate, but denying Mileven’s existence in order to argue Byler conflates headcanon with canon.

Importantly, the burden of proof does not lie with Mileven fans to justify a relationship that already exists within the text, nor to disprove Byler. One cannot prove a negative. Headcanon and canon can coexist, but they do not carry equal narrative weight.

Shipping Wars and Audience Influence

Shipping communities often form around popular teen shows because of the thrill of speculation and the freedom that ambiguity allows. Non-canon ships invite imagination precisely because nothing is fixed. Once a relationship becomes canon, much of that speculative appeal disappears. People enjoy the gamble of the possibly of being right, and the ability to project whatever they want onto those characters and their perceived relationship.

Take a show like Outer banks, a huge portion of the topic of discussion surrounding the show and what would drive outsiders to watch it is the Jiara community. If you are a obx fan you most likely would have noticed that as soon as Jiara became canon, the hype surrounding them died down and suddenly everyones a Riara fan. This is the mistake the creators of obx made, and one the Duffer Brothers were careful not to do too.

Shows that attempt to appease shipping communities too directly often lose narrative coherence, as seen in other teen dramas where audience reaction begins to dictate storytelling choices. As it is the writers job to show the audience what they think they want to see, and not the other way round. Stranger Things has largely avoided this pitfall by committing to its long-term arcs rather than chasing fan consensus. And I think that this is what makes it still one of Netflix’s most, if not the most successful show to date.

At this stage in the story, it would be narratively incoherent to dismantle Mileven while simultaneously resolving Vecna, the Upside Down and the military threat. Will’s exploration of his sexuality is far more meaningful as a journey toward self understanding than as a late stage romantic twist.

Conclusion

Byler, as an interpretation, is understandable. Byler, as endgame, undermines both Will’s character development and the thematic structure of Stranger Things. Will’s story is about reclaiming agency, identity and a stolen childhood, not about romantic resolution. Mileven, by contrast, has been carefully constructed as an emotional anchor that supports Eleven’s growth without limiting it.

If you were around during 2018 and early 2020 on YouTube, you have seen the edits and potentially had been equally obsessed as I was with the Spanish Netflix show Elite. Which centres around Spain’s most wealthy high schoolers who experience murder as 3 scholarship students enter their school Las Encinas. A lot of the character arcs and plots directly mirror Shakespeare. While I’m unsure whether or not this is intentional I wanted to point out some solid comparisons between the show and Shakespeare’s body of work. Additionally, I’m vaguely aware of the ideology that almost all modern literature and media throughout the ages follow classics like Shakespeare because we as humans can’t help but draw inspiration from everything and anything we see, read and listen to. However, I find it interesting that each season (the later ones not as much) follows a similar structure and loosely follows a Shakespearean tragic storyline. I would also like to point out that I will only be covering seasons 1-3 because after that the show essentially recycles the same storylines. Therefore I will only be covering the original characters’ story arcs throughout those seasons, characters like Patrick, Ari, Mencía and more will not be covered.

The iconic structure of Elite

The structure of Elite follows a similar one to that of Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller. While being a tenuous connection, both flash between the present and the past through the perspective of the central characters. That comparison has no relevance except for pointing out the show structure which I’m aware isn’t unique just to Elite and Death of a Salesman. The season starts with, of course, a crime needing solving. In season one it was Marina’s murder, then in the second Samuel’s fake abduction and finally in the third Polo’s death. As I stated before, each episode delves into the outlooks of different characters, the first ever episode being from the standpoint of the new scholarship students- Samuel, Nadia and Christian. Each is interviewed by ‘Inspectora’ or the inspector in the present and flashing back to the leading up events. What makes this structure so intriguing is the fact that the different perspectives make the entire suspect list unreliable narrators as they all have different versions of their own stories. While the facts are laid out, a lot of the information is withheld from the viewer. Again, I’m aware this is a common trait for all murder mysteries but it’s the combination of tragic features and murder mystery features that is interesting to me. My favourite season, the third, makes a direct reference to this by naming each episode with the character that it is in the perspective of. Allowing every character to become the protagonist of their story, even if they are the killer like Polo. This is because Polo wasn’t the villain, he was just unlucky enough to be another wealthy and entitled Las Encinas student who was never questioned by the adults around him for his violent or malevolent behaviour and lashed out towards Marina. Like how Guzman almost killed the scholarship student who gave Marina HIV. Polo became a victim of his environment and that led to his tragic fall. The point I’m trying to make is that through the structure, each character can play out their Shakespearean tragedies. Some even recreate multiple.

Tragedy and Elite

The most tragic part of Elite is watching the protagonist Samuel Garcia, a naive, loyal and noble character turn into the person he most resents. Marina’s killer. Samuel the show's tragic hero, becomes corrupt with power. As he falls deeper and deeper into high society Spain he takes on Polo’s role as Carla’s boyfriend. In that way, Samuel becomes Macbeth and therefore Marina’s killer. Carla is both a tragic victim and a villain in the same way Polo is a villain. She committed the crime and is therefore a villain yet she still appears as a victim. Though Polo appears to be Macbeth and Carla Lady Macbeth at the surface level, the show structure allows viewers to humanise them in a way that we wouldn’t usually. We’ve grown such a close relationship with everyone that it is hard to see one character as evil and the other as good. This is because we’ve seen every character’s point of humanity and point of inhumanity. Marina is through and through a tragic victim, she is an admirable woman and character, uncorrupt even though she is surrounded by power and she is resilient despite all her misfortunes. Despite all this, she dies from it. Dying from the competitive circumstances wealthy parents put their children in. Regardless, she was two-timing and drove a wedge between two brothers. Now I’m not saying she deserved to die, but in tragedy typically the tragic victim is an entirely innocent woman or character who is collateral damage of the hero’s tragic fall. The fact that Marina is presented as separated from that corrupted part of society she’s so closely connected with but still is in some ways equally evil makes it in my opinion even more tragic. However, perhaps Marina is the modern-day tragic victim who is the manic pixie dream girl. We get to know these characters so intimately that knowing the factual events right at the end makes us question our morals. Learning Marina dies halfway through season 1 begs the question of whether her death makes her past actions excusable. Does that make it right that Samuel later dates Carla? Does that make her a tragic hero if she is flawed? Having every character be flawed takes away from Elite’s classical and traditional aspects of tragedy but in that way creates a modern and personal tragedy that the public can relate to. Arthur Miller wrote on the topic of tragedy in his essay called ‘Tragedy and the Common Man’, “That the tragic mode is archaic, fit only for the very highly placed, kings or the kingly… I believe that the common man is apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were”. So to combine that idea with the supposed elites of Spain, humanising them further contributes to this idea. Making tragedy relatable, is the modern version of Shakespearean and Greek tragedy. Additionally, the protagonist of the tragedy Samuel, is a common man who is noble but corrupted by power leading to his tragic demise later on in the series when he dies. Just like Macbeth. However, Polo is the one who follows Macbeth’s arc scripturally and mentally.

Elite and Romeo and Juliet

It is given that multiple characters in a show about the working class meeting the disgustingly rich in their cushy private school will follow the Romeo and Juliet tale. The ones that come to mind first are Samuel and Marina, Guzman acting as Marina’s overbearing bitter father- Capulet. The two struggle through forbidden love, Marina a child of wealthy and influential parents and Samuel a poor scholarship student. Their love is similarly kept secret like Romeo and Juliet when they get married in secret and their love causes their tragic demise. Marina dies in part because of their love- or more her love for his brother as she steals Carla’s father’s watch to run away with Nano. When Marina dies, a part of Samuel dies. That part of him that is oblivious to the black hole that is wealth and the consequences that come from it and being surrounded by it. By season two, Samuel is a far more angry and vengeful person, rid of the passive and kind person he once was. Evident in his later relationship with Carla. You could also argue that Nano is Marina’s Romeo too in a similar way to Samuel but represents a darker and more complicated love that further escalates Samuel’s transformation. He loses not only a part of himself but also a section of his support system- his brother Nano.

Another example is Ander and Omar who share more of a similar conflicting worlds to Romeo and Juliet. Omar’s religious parents cannot accept his sexuality and Ander’s father cannot accept that through his love for Omar, he mustered up the courage to tell him he doesn’t like tennis and additionally does not fit the hyper-masculine jock perspective that his father has of him. What’s interesting about their relationship is that Ander isn’t from a wealthy family like the other Las Encinas kids- his mother is just the principal. That being said he is certainly meant to be wealthier than the scholarship kids however this makes it so that the conflict within Omar and Ander’s relationship is not about wider social status disparities but because of conflicting families. Mirroring Romeo and Juliet’s tragic circumstances. Through Omar’s parents, a more nuanced and complex version of Romeo and Juliet is explored through homosexuality and what that factor means to people like sportsmen and the elite.

Being Omar’s sister, Nadia shares an equal problem with him. Except Nadia and Guzman are truly two conflicting families and two conflicting worlds. They are emblematic of the Romeo and Juliet story in Elite. Guzman is immediately not accepted by Nadia’s father as a white and entitled man and Nadia is immediately not accepted by Guzman’s world as she is forced to conform to it to be with him as a Muslim woman. Though the show rather ignorantly presents her transformation of losing her faith as being rather liberating I see it more as her being sucked into the vacuum of wealth just like Samuel. Losing the true, good and noble aspects of themselves. In letting go of her religion, she lets go of herself and her identity and morphs into the one expected of Guzman’s white and cutthroat world. Guzman however does not die metaphorically or literally at the hands of their love, perhaps he loses a part of himself through his sister's death. The only thing their love does for him is humble him, and make him more of a likeable and grounded person. Possibly in this way, the arrogant and entitled element of him dies for his benefit.

Elite and Othello

The writers of 'Elite' exhibit a disturbing and almost perverse obsession with threesomes and throuples as a continuous plot point. It is unsurprising, then, that the homoerotic trio of Othello is mirrored in multiple characters. That trio is Desdemona, Othello and Iago. The most obvious being Carla, Polo and Christian. Polo early on in season 1 takes on the role of Iago, controlling and almost obsessing over this pornographic image of the fair lady being dominated by the rougher and more oppressed male ‘soldier’. Though Polo and Carla start as the initial relationship, Carla and Christian form a far more emotional and true relationship within their trio. Whereas Polo seems more sexually obsessed with the two, in a similarly confused homosocial way Iago had towards Othello and an equal obsession with the Madonna being adulterated into the whore like Desdemona. Both Christian and Carla are brought to their tragic falls by Polo’s corruption, Carla being made accomplice albeit by her own choice and Christian again losing that same part Samuel lost when he joined Las Encinas. Additionally falling further by trying to speak up and gain his lost self back but is hospitalised by Carla’s father and bribed into silence by offering to pay for his surgery in Switzerland. Further succumbing to the power of wealth which he can no longer escape. Additionally both of them through their tragic blindness fall because of Polo’s corruption just as Othello and Desdemona fall because of Iago’s Machiavellianism.

To take Iago out of the equation, the Garcia brothers and Marina share a similar story to Cassio, Desdemona and Othello. Marina and Samuel act as Othello and Desdemona, both infatuated with each other or rather the stereotype they represent. Samuel represents the opposite of Elite society Marina is trying to escape and Marina represents the world Samuel is trying to enter and be accepted by. Therefore their relationship shares the same superficiality as Desdemona and Othello’s relationship as Othello values Desdemona as a prize of being a desirable and pure white woman and she values Othello as a masculine and dominating black general. This equal fetishisation is reflected in Marina and Samuel. Nano comes in as Cassio almost, another working-class man infatuated by Marina’s wild spirit and wealth just as Cassio is another nobleman mesmerised by Desdemona’s beauty and purity. However, he differs from Cassio’s character as he genuinely did have an affair with the other guy’s woman. Either way, they all cause each other's tragic demise: Marina’s death, Samuel’s metamorphosis and Nano’s banishment (being accused of killing Marina and then fleeing the country).

Lu takes control of her ‘play’ in a similar way to Iago. Manipulating Guzman into trying to seduce Nadia and take her virginity- she does this out of pure jealousy and maliciousness just like Iago. What’s more, as I stated before Iago has a perverse obsession with the virtuous woman becoming ‘tainted’ and Lu finding intrigue in the Muslim woman going against her faith and acting out of pure lust echoes this. Perhaps she even shares the same homoerotic obsession with Iago. She therefore exploits those around her to try and cause Nadia’s demise, in this way Nadia is Othello and Guzman Desdemona. She is an outsider because of her race and religion and Lu’s obsession with that fact is reminiscent of Iago’s fixation with Othello’s race. She also discards her Muslim values to fit in with the predominantly white environment of Las Encinas. Just as Othello denounces his Ottoman heritage and religion and takes on the image of a model Christian man.

Elite and Macbeth

Perhaps the writers were aiming for more of a Bonnie and Clyde feel for Polo and Carla but what I see more is Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. This parallel is drawn because Polo kills Marina, and Carla helps cover it up for him before she is consumed by guilt and edges towards letting herself become an accessory to murder and telling the police the truth. When Christian’s pre- Las Encinas self is consumed by the corruption of the wealthy he is similar to Banquo’s ghost haunting the school hallways and Carla and Polo. As they watch him become a shell of the enthusiastic and lively person he once was. This is the main drive for Carla to want to confess, she wants to be free of her guilt towards Christian. Not because she killed him directly but because they formed such a personal relationship within their three-man couple she feels a responsibility for Christian’s corruption of becoming an accessory to their crime. This feeling is solidified further when Carla’s father hospitalises and bribes Christian and directly hobbles him both mentally and physically permanently. The guilt Polo feels towards Marina is also a similar personal responsibility to Duncan and Macbeth as Marina is his best friend's sister. Therefore Polo is Macbeth, Carla Lady Macbeth and Marina Duncan.