#eeriespeaks

Of course, he speaks from the perspective of allyship, because that is his perspective. Fair enough. Interestingly, in that same interview, Caleb said there were "hints" of Will being queer.

Hints.

Okay… We know that by the time this interview came out, Will had already been expressly confirmed as gay. So, what's with the sudden vagueness and secrecy?

I think the cast (well, some...) are capable of handling this topic with sensitivity, and have done so before, but I also think they have somewhat of a figurative noose around their necks. The tone between season 4 press and season 5 press has shifted considerably.

Also, reminder that the Duffer brothers are not the only writers for this show (there's an entire writer's room) and I'm almost certain the writing staff includes queer people. For example, mystery pride mask man who held a sign saying "Byler won't write itself" at the SAG-AFTRA strike.

I don't think the writers (who created this queer stoyline) are holding the cast members at gunpoint; I think this has a lot more to do with public relations and approved talking points from higher ups, that have been poorly communicated and handled. I also think these issues become exacerbated if the cast member is not queer themselves, and left to interpret what these talking points mean with their limited worldview. Yes, this often turns into, "Well, sometimes it's just realistic for a young gay kid to suffer!" because what do they know beyond allyship? (Hence why I think it's appropriate for interviews to focus on allyship if a cast member is not openly queer themselves and comfortable speaking from that experience).

To clarify, I'm not defending Gaten's words so much as I am wanting to point out that it's possible they have been condensed, simplified, and miscontstrued, and this is exacerbated by the fact that he likely does not know how to handle the topic of Mike and Will this late in the game with the instructions he's been given.

Yes, it's entirely possible that Gaten called Byler funny. But it's also possible he referred to certain Byler theories and fan content as funny (including fanfiction), and his words were misconstrued because the article was edited and condensed for "clarity", and Elite Daily has a history of being biased against Byler, and linking biased fan content as "sources."

I mean, the conversation actually started about Stonathan theories and fanfiction, so it was expressly about fun, non-canon fan content. And then it suddenly pivots to Byler, which actually contains a real, canon queer character, with real, canon romantic feelings?

Hmmm. I'm not so sure.

Additonally, the quote: "I see them as just very good friends," is equally suspicious. It doesn't really matter how Gaten "sees" them, because the script is finalised, and he's read it. The show is finished, and he knows how it ends. Why comment on how you "see" them, rather than what they actually are?

Either Mike and Will are "just friends" (not true on Will's behalf but whatever), or they are not. There isn't really room for how Gaten sees it anymore. Once the show is out, the canon text will speak for itself. We know this. So if it's not a spoiler, then speak on the canon text. Provide certainty and clarity.

Caveat that in a separate article, Elite Daily also refer to Robin as the only "openly" queer character which I find odd. Robin explicitly asked Will to never mention what he saw in the hospital; she is not openly lesbian. Just because she has a secret girlfriend and Steve knows of her preference, does not mean she is "out." If Robin is openly queer because Steve and Will know, then logically Will is openly queer too, because Robin knows. So which is it?

If Byler is not happening, I don't want an off-handed comment about what a straight cast member "thinks" or finds "funny" in a quippy online article that isn't even about Mike and Will's relationship.

I want it from the source, and I wanted it years ago, directly after they canonized Will's feelings for Mike and set it up as an ongoing storyline. Mike rejecting Will is not a "spoiler" and should not be treated as such, because it's already the default outcome according to the vast majority of the audience.

This is Finn Wolfhard's clearly AI generated and miscontrued Attitude Magazine article all over again I fear, which was also released just a day ahead of Volume 1.

You know, the Volume that established the snowball and avalanche metaphor, and the not-so-subtle "How Obvious?" authorial intrusion which pointed to "shared looks" as a sign of queer attraction.