Hmmm, I'm just going to be controversial, but a lot of the anti-Stancy analysis or rhetoric is just... Incomplete. It's founded on bias because, usually, there is a ship they prefer (Jancy or an MLM ship) and they don't want to acknowledge the pivot.
Because there was a pivot. Season 4 was a setup.
There's no attempt to see this as a story with symbolism (literally she dived into lover's lake... Yes, would she dive in for anyone? Yeah, but this is a fictional story, not real people, and symbolism does matter, Jesus Christ.)
Or deflecting from how Robin and Eddie are used as mouthpieces, yet again, trying to treat them as actual people instead of the authors' tools to explain to the audience what they want them to know. (But it's acceptable when Murray does it...)
No acknowledgment of setting Jonathan and Steve up as foils. (As one talks about their future as a nightmare with Nancy, and another their dream.)
Also, I know about the kid argument, holy shit, that was supposed to be a meta joke about the fucking party, but what the fuck ever about that. The boy literally says Nancy is the most important part.
Okay, really though! So many Anti-Stancy arguments leave out Jonathan. And this right here, is so telling where the priorities lie. (It's not Nancy...) And why I can't take any analysis seriously.
Because, like it or not, Jonathan matters in why they brought back Stancy. Just because he is the most forgettable character in all of Stranger Things doesn't mean he wasn't a factor. (This isn't my Jonathan hater boner talking, if Jancy was fine, Steve wouldn't be an option!)
Like, Jonathan is legit bad for Nancy! Their relationship stunted her growth. It brought her down to his level (the drinking?), and Nancy never got to learn to heal from her guilt and move on.
And it's never talked about by Anti-Stancies! Just ignored, Steve represents forced conformity for Nancy, so obviously, he's bad for her. But Jonathan's whatever, drowning in isolation is fine. At least Nancy can be a badass gun-toting girl....(Also, crazy how often Steve and Nancy's character development, is just, not discussed in these analysis, and how their characters can shift in meaning, and in Steve's case, going from the symbolism of conformity to a symbol of hope. BUT LET'S IGNORE THAT! )
So, yeah, it's hard for me to see anti-Stancies actually care about Nancy. It's either about Jonathan or Jonathan-neutral, in which case it's more about Nancy not getting together with Steve and less about Nancy. And the analysis usually doesn't get to the core of her issues and treats her guilt as an afterthought that, I guess, should've been addressed, but her trying to figure out her life is a good enough substitute. (It's not in my opinion.)
I feel like I'm Stancy neutral these days. Like, I get that season 5 can recontextualize the text. But I get so peeved at how people just don't acknowledge the pivot. (And also ignore Jonathan's role, because ignoring that just screams to me that you aren't analyzing the text in its entirety and don't care about Nancy.)
And it's like, bruh, season 4 brought up the possibility that they could've got back together. Season 5 does a disservice to both Nancy and Steve by not at the very least bringing it up and giving them a proper resolution. Like, look at Nancy's character journey in season 5. It's nothing. It's garbage. It was clearly tied to be more than just Jonathan...
But she doesn't get that. And I feel Anti-Stancy analysis disregards that. And like, I don't know man, you should look at the complete text, or worry about your own ships, and let people ship what they want to ship.
