An Idea for a test
I've been thinking for a while about how people discussing queer media have a common frustration. For a lot of media that me and many people I know like (Wicked, Nana, Puella Magi Madoka Magica, Ace Attorney, etc.) have characters and plot points that, if those characters were in a hetero-presenting relationship, it wouldn't even really be a question over whether the characters were in love or not because the implications are so strong, and it could just be used when analyzing the piece. I'm going to talk about why this test is necessary from here, but if you just want to get to the test itself, just scroll down to the ***TEST EXPLINATION*** mark.
In academic and analysis of works of art, there is a degree to which, when things are so heavily implied that if you take that interpretation out of the story the story ceases to make as much sense or have as great of an emotional impact, you treat that inference as text so that you can continue to analyze the story. For example, if two characters are shown with matching wedding rings, live together, sleep in the same bed, and share a last name, you assume they are married. It's not that people who have the same name and wear matching wedding rings don't exist, but the majority do so it is fine to assume this.
This is used all the time, to great effect in both academic analysis and those shared on this website. But I've seen for a while people not extend this branch for story tellers to queer people and queer relationships, which vastly hurts the logic of the text, the characters' arcs, and appreciation for the story as a whole.
I will admit, this is an older phenomenon. Now, people are more kind with their readings of queer characters and acknowledging when a piece of media is, in technical terms, gay as fuck. But in a lot of analysis still, people are afraid to mention the queerness inherit to a work that would make their analysis better because of fears that someone in the replies or comments will go "WeLl ThAt'S nOt ThE tExT!1! ThAt's JuSt YoUr OpInIoN! YoU cAn'T aNaLyZe ThAT!" When analyzing that piece of the text would increase the analysis, make more sense or all of the above.
I think the best examples of this I've seen recently are of Madoka Magica and Nana, both of which I've recently gotten into recently that really made me think about this. Starting with Nana, I got into the show via youtube videos like the incredible 'The Queerness of Nana Kokamatsu' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyMMdgKpUkw) and 'The Queerness of Nana Osaki' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ_hVxije-k) by Little Miss Crabby, which are both amazing and you should definitely watch, and posts on Tumblr and Tiktok, which either have disclaimers ahead of them about how you're allowed to have you're own opinion just to quell the reaction Little Miss Crabby expected on her videos or either call Nana 'queerbaiting' or in some other way saying it was 'subtext' or 'not canon'. When I actually read Nana, I found that it is almost impossible to talk about Nana without talking the queerness of both Nana Kokamatsu and Nana Osaki. It's mentioned several times in the manga, Hatchi (Nana Kokamatsu) literally says how Nana (Osaki) would be her ideal boyfriend, Hatchi literally has a sex fantasy about Nana in Volume 4 and then chastises herself for it, the Nanas' friends are both very weirded out by their inability to say they are queer and comment about that on multiple separate occasions, etc. I feel like @sfaghetti said it best when they said "to be honest it amazes me how many people think that nanahachi isn't canon or that it's queerbait or that Ai Yazawa didn't realize she was making them gay. like right before Nana she wrote a manga with a bi character and a trans one who ALSO appear in the Nana extras. and also if they were a man and a woman people wouldn't see these scenes and assume they're meant to be taken in a platonic way. they'll explicitly say they're in love with each other and for some reason the fandom will insist it's entirely platonic, or go 'I wish they were gay!' as if they already aren't" (https://www.tumblr.com/sfaghetti/735159827955875840/to-be-honest-it-amazes-me-how-many-people-think)
This is true to a lesser extent with the Madoka Magica fandom when it comes to analysis. While a lot more people are willing to admit this story is Gay As Hell™, there's still a lot of ideas that because Gen Urubuchi described Madoka or Homura's relationship as being romantic rather than sexual (https://wiki.puella-magi.net/Nitro%2B_Q%26A_Panels_at_Animagic_2013), he is saying Madoka and Homura aren't gay and thus not in love with each other which is not what he said and earlier in 2011 said "For me, perhaps there is part in my thought that said whatever relationship that could exist between male and female it should also exist between couples of same sex. Inside me, I could not imagine a model in which there is something that absolutely could only exist between male and female. Notwithstanding the extra element of [PtV] sex, I do not believe male-female relationship is such a special thing among all the different inter-human relationships." This, to me, comes across as very acephobic, implying that the only way that two girls can have a romance is if they are sexually attracted to each other, which, as a lesbian on the ace spectrum, is incredibly insulting to me. Homura and Madoka being canonically asexual is incredible representation as queerness and asexuality doesn't really tend to get included together as people believe it's just another way to say that something's not queer, they're just "pure friends with a relationship greater than love", because many see queerness as something that pollutes a person. But through Madoka Magica, I can say for certain that was not the cast or crew's intention. Madoka and Homura aren't ace and therefore "purer" than everyone, they're gay and also ace. They pretty much say as much in multiple sources (the Madoka Magica wiki has SO many sources on this if you want to see for yourself at https://wiki.puella-magi.net/Community:Yuri_undertones#Homura_and_Madoka). Also, as Katy from @silvermoon424 said in her tags "I'm normally all for platonic interpretations as an aroace person myself, but Homura's character simply does not work if she's not in love with Madoka." (https://silvermoon424.tumblr.com/post/780670134878650368/not-to-downplay-homura-and-madokas-relationship), which I absolutly agree with because the conceit of Madoka is that Homura would go back in time over and over and over again to save Homura at any cost, which is something you don't do for someone who doesn't mean a TON to you. Little Miss Crabby explained this frustration yet again in her video 'The Queerness of Homura Akemi' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLob9DKitOI) because Homura and Madoka use almost every romantic trope in the book and still get treated like they're a 'non-canon, queerbaity' relationship which, as someone who has watched and analyzed this show multiple times, they are not!
Overall, I feel like the analysis community has a problem with talking about queerness in media that is 'shown not told' and how queerness is often measured by how many characters explicitly say they're queer, not how many queer stories are actually told. I feel like this especially hurts young queer people already scared about being 'queer enough' and limits the discussions about queer media and stops our analysis of it.
*********** TEST EXPLINATION *********************
So to resolve these issues, I've devised a test much like the Bechdal, Mako Mori, or Vito Russo tests, but this time covering whether or not people can be sure their queer ship has enough legs to stand on when analyzing a piece of fiction. To be clear, this doesn't mean that ships that fail this test cannot be discussed or analyzed, but it does mean that those ships are genuinely up for interpretation and cannot be considered 'fact' in fan discourse and discussion. You can also not like a ship or wish it wasn't in the work or just personally not like to interpret it that way if it passes the test. All art is subjective and sometimes you just want to be a little delulu and ignore canon, and that's great! My point with this test is not to harass people with it or make them think their individual opinions are wrong because they're not. But just like people shouldn't be harassed because they don't like a ship, people shouldn't be harassed, told their very logical interpretation of a work doesn't make sense, and pushed out of further media analysis because they do. Respect is a two way street. And thus, with that disclaimer, I now present you with
The Akemi test:
Something passes the Akemi test if all of the following are in a ship
The two characters have several emotionally charged scenes together that use generally agreed upon romantic tropes (I.E. staring into each other’s eyes for prolonged periods, a decent amount of physical affection, challenging their perspective, etc.) with romantic tension connecting such scenes together to create a picture typical of romantic subplots in other explicitly romantic media.
These scenes and/or the romantic tension of these scenes are not played for laughs in the work itself
It would be assumed the characters involved were going to have a romantic subplot/it would be assumed the characters were in love with each other if either of them were of the opposite gender (I.E. if you would suddenly believe the characters would get together/were in love if one of them were suddenly of the opposite gender, it checks this box).
And that's it! Feel free to share the Akemi test whenever you think it is appropriate (but again guys, please be respectful)! You don't have to credit me, but you can if you want. I just want to thank my sister and my best friend with helping me with this, you were instrumental in the creation of this. Happy analyzing of queer media and I hope you all have a great day!
