I love how this season weâve had a theme of characters having to take a moment alone to confront difficult things about themselves in order to access something they need to move forward in the story.
All these characters have had to be honest about something that has been sitting on their chest for some time that makes them angry, scared, disappointed in themselves. All had to find some way to, at least, start reconciling that. All grew because of it in the direction of further happiness.
To me the way this played out reflects something about the nature of the show, as well. Thereâs a core message that life is far from a perfect little fairytale, in fact it can be unfair as hell, for no reason. But everything is not bleak and meaningless because of it. Big cosmic actions taken in good faith tend to backfire, but the narrative in not merciless. When the charactersâ heroism lies in their kindness, nobility, or honesty - that seems to be the type of bravery the show is interested in rewarding, and it almost invariably does.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Things I Wonât Let The Writers Take Away From Me, Damn It.
Eliotâs âBecoming Me has been my greatest life projectâ hit HARD. I have always felt like guilty? for the fact that Iâm not the person I used to be and Iâm not the person my family wants me to be. Instead, I have become the person I WANT to be, not whatâs expected of me and his whole character makes me feel secure in that. Made me feel secure in me.
Eliot Waugh gave me permission to not hold back. In personality and embracing who I am but also, Iâve always been nervous about being affectionate with other people, and he showed me that (as long as I have their consent) Thereâs really nothing weird about casual touches or being open about my love for people. I should be more open with my love.
Margo gave me permission to put some feral in my life. For too long, Iâve been quiet and apologetic and hiding my anger under a guide of politeness and Margo Hanson gave me permission to be angry. To not hide that anger, to not hide my emotions to make someone else comfortable. She gave me permission to be strong and independent and confident in a way that I didnât know I had in me.
Quentin gave me permission to not be ashamed about being nerdy or awkward or knowing lots of things and wanting to share my info. Thatâs like a small thing, but it powers me a lot.Â
I donât even know that I can fully describe everything that 3x05 gave me.Â
The gay fantasia of running away with your love to live out the rest of your days in the middle of the fucking woods. Thereâs a whole queer history behind it, itâs my number one escapist fantasy, and seeing it played out on screen was very fucking emotional.
The idea of queer parenthood. It was something I had rejected for so long and now im weirdly open to the idea of having kids with a partner? This is a big fucking deal to me, as someone who has always rejected the idea of parenthood. Like, a big BIG deal to me. Like kind of an earth shattering type big deal to me.Â
Growing old/living your life with your same sex partner. I genuinely cannot name another piece of media that portrays this seriously. Iâve never seen it in a fantasy/drama/serious show. Iâve never seen it! Iâve never seen a queer couple grow old together. Not even in real life! Iâm literally tearing up just thinking about it. For a community that is so often killed while weâre young for existing as ourselves, to see two men grow old (like OLD) side by side, struck me like nothing else. THAT is my biggest take away from that episode. That I have the RIGHT to grow old with the love of my life. And it is a real option I have. That it can be done.
The key from 3x05 will always be a symbol of all of that for me and I want to get it tattooed one day. Even after that fucking finale.
Also peaches have always been gay culture but now even more
Quentin facing his Depression Monster is another thing that hit HARD. His whole little speech about how âIâve come up against you before, asshole, and I wonâ or something like that was suUuper inspiring and exactly what I needed to hear in my life when I watched that episode and I think about it every time i deal with my depression.
Also honestly season three was just great storytelling and I loved all of it.
Goddess!Julia is a woman reclaiming her lifeÂ
High. King. Margo.Â
Escape from the Happy Place. sigh.
An in depth analysis of a queer personâs mind, trauma, and past. That episode wasnât just eliot centric, it felt like it was giving an acknowledgment to queer people in general. (i wish it had been)
I like canât even formulate properly what the throne room/park scene did for me. âProof of Conceptâ and âPeaches and Plumsâ was a life changing thing to watch, not just cause like âyay my ship!â If youâre LGBTQ, you know what Iâm sayin. The validation. The hope. The promise. The narrative weight. the truth. The look in Eliotâs eyes. Sometimes i feel like my whole life was waiting for that moment, as dumb as that sounds.
I canât fully speak about the queliot in season four and how it affected me to think I was getting queer narrative weight and to get to see one man fight like hell to get another man back to him in this context of âThe writers canât take it from me!â because they kind of did but Iâm working on reclaiming that. I just need more time.
4x10. All that hard, glossy, armor, babey.
Margoâs tent speech changed my life. Full stop. I am a different person after that episode, in a good way. (not in like the finale way) I literally wrote part of that speech on my bathroom mirror so i could look at it every morning. That speech ignited something in me.
âIâm a king. Not a goddamned princess. A king.â
Women being allowed to show rage on screen affects me deeply.
âThey do whatever it takes to help women.â
The entirety of âStorm Comingâ affected me almost as deeply as the tent speech did. There are no words to describe what it did for me! I literally wrote âIâm the storm coming!â on a post it note and stuck it to my front door so itâs the last thing I see before I leave in the morning. Itâs my hype up song and I still listen to it when I need a confidence boost or to get hyped up. 4x10 is like, in the top three of their best episodes.
Wow so weird that the season ended after 4x10
I am hurting so so so much from the finale, still, even after two weeks. But I canât and wonât deny what the show has done for me in the past (and the ways itâs saved my life.)Â And I wonât let them take that away from me. So Iâm reclaiming what they tried to take from me. The show and its characters donât belong to the writers anymore, they belong to us. Damn it.
So, this was a comment I received in response to this post of mine and I had a lot of words to say about it.
Hi, my name is Key and I have a theatre background with an emphasis in costuming. So I have a lot to say about Eliot Waugh on any given day in general, seriously, I think about Eliot and the way he dresses a lot. But presently the subject is his look at the end of 4 x 13.
Eliot puts a lot of himself into how he dresses. Anything that Eliot is wearing is carefully chosen. Picked out first in style, dandy, or Fillorian, and then in colour.
Magali said so herself that Eliot's outfits becoming darker over the course of season 1 was on purpose. It was a reflection of his mental state getting darker. I don't think that care has left Magali's thought process with Eliot at all. If anything, she is the only one I would trust in the crew of the show. She hand made lots of Eliot's Fillorian wear, one was just "based on a painting." [One of his chiffon based outfits I'm not positive which one, Hale brought it up in an interview.]
Now I will say that the comparison between him in 4Ă13 and the images of him from 3Ă05 are very, very different and there are several reasons behind that and I kind of went over some of them in my one post about his outfit in 3Ă05 here.
Basically Eliot's outfit in 3Ă05 is a very specific look that is different than anything Eliot wore up until then. The closest comparison being what he wears in 3Ă13/4Ă05/(4Ă09?). Because he lives in those outfits. He wears those two outfits far longer than anything else he wears and therefore those costumes become important. Therefore comparing the outfits from my post are a little bit unfair.
However, let's get into it.
Eliot has always looked tired. His makeup always has his eyes like purple all around them. Like nearly bruised with how exhausted this man is. Because Eliot is exhausted. I highly doubt he sleeps more than 5 hours a night. It nearly looks like he is wearing eyeshadow-- he's not. The only time Eliot does wear eyeshadow is Lizard!Eliot. Every other time, it's just this sleep deprivation manifesting around his eyes.
This look is no different. He is exhausted, you can just see it around him like an aura. The love of his life just died. I'm not about to beat around the bush here he probably hasn't even been getting that generous 5 hours I mentioned earlier.
Plus, he nearly died himself. His stomach was ripped open. He had to go through surgery nearly hysteric on the pain. This man has been through a lot leading into this scene.
Also, note: he has not been aged. The rest of his makeup is just basic. Foundation, maybe brows, if I squint hard enough there might be mascara. But he has not been aged. This is just what Hale/Eliot looks like at 31/28. That's just this man's face.
As for the hair I just disagree with the commenter. His hair isn't bad, but it's not meant to look good either. But I will be comparing it to 3Ă05 for this. Eliot up until season 3 has been a mostly closed off character. He doesn't talk to very many people besides Margo and Quentin. And he almost exclusively does not open up.
From what I have seen his hair sort of reflects that. In all of season 1 his hair is always in that style where they have pulled all of his hair to the top and back of his head. In season 2 he is almost always wearing his crown so his hair has to be out of his face. And then in season 3 he is still wearing the crown at the start of the season but whenever he's not wearing his crown his hair is still pulled back out of his face.
His hair in 4Ă13 is no different. It is very reminiscent of his hair in season 1 actually. There is a lot of styling at the top but the rest is pulled to the back of his head. His hair is longer now however so we get the little curls at the base of his neck that poke out. This is the hairstyle that Eliot is comfortable wearing.
Now, in 3Ă05, Eliot's hair is different. He's disheveled, he's raw, he's unkempt. And his hair reflects that. His hair is falling into his face, he's not pushing it away and out of his face. He is being vulnerable with Quentin, and he's not not caring about how he looks, but he is allowing it to be looser.
Eliot is like the opposite of Quentin. Quentin hides behind his hair. His hair is like an anxiety shield for him. Eliot does the opposite. He pulls his hair out of his face and keeps himself mostly clean-shaven to protect himself. Eliot, to me, seems to feel like if looks well kept, than he is. No matter how untrue it may be. If he looks good, than everything will be alright. If others think that he is okay, no one will ask questions.
Because we jest that Quentin is a high strung super nerd. So is Eliot.
Eliot probably spends an hour or more getting ready every morning. Picking out his clothing, by style, by colour, by feeling. Styling his hair. Choosing his cologne. He does it to meticulous detail. He always has we just don't see it. We see him after that, pretending that it required no effort, that he woke up like that.
His outfit we can't fully see because of his coat but he is wearing mostly black, his shoes, his pants, his coat, his cane, his shirt and tie are a dark purple: the shirt has a pattern that reveals filigree amidst the darkness. His vest is hard to see but it's dark whatever colour it may be grey/purple/black.
Anyway Eliot is going through a lot. Mostly mourning, and he is dressed accordingly.
People have made the observation that Q getting back with Alice would prove Eliot right when he said Q wouldnât choose him and, like, fucking ouch.
But my optimistic ass is over here thinking that might be why theyâre doing this in the first place: to set up Q with a choice and show Eliot that Q would choose him, proving his stupid theory deadass wrong so they can ride into the mosaic sunset like god fucking intended. Â
Defining Queer: An Ontological and Epistemological Discussion of Queerness
To start with, Iâm not a philosopher and Iâm not a sociologist. Iâm just a linguist who likes to talk about stories and use jargon-y words. Iâve been in fandom (in some form or another) since the late 90s, and Iâm a bisexual/queer ciswoman married to a man. I say all of this so you understand where Iâm coming from (my positionality, if youâre nasty).
Iâm writing this piece because I see a lot of people in fandom spaces using terms like âqueerâ, âcishetâ, âqueerbaitingâ, and others. I find use of these terms to generally be vague, misleading, or just downright wrong. There seems to be consensus in fandom that these are Important Things to talk about, but there doesnât seem to be a consensus on what they mean. So, as a queer woman who has engaged in fandom for 20 years, I want to talk about the idea of queerness and what it means to be queer. Â
So, in this essay, Iâm going to address three major questions:
What does it mean for an individual to be queer?
What does it mean for a relationship to be queer?
What does it mean for a piece of media to be queer?
Iâm going to argue that for an individual to be queer is an ontological and epistemological issue, for a relationship to be queer is just epistemology, and for a piece of media to be queer is an epistemology plus diegesis. Iâll explain what these words mean (and how Iâm going to use them), and Iâll have some sources sprinkled throughout. Itâs generally Bad Academic Practice to source Wikipedia, but for the sake of accessibility and ease of explanation, Wikipedia is a good source for this essay.
Ok, so letâs define some terms. Iâm going to start with the most obvious, but also perhaps the hardest to pin down: queer.
Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or cisgender. Originally meaning "strange" or "peculiar", queer came to be used pejoratively against those with same-sex desires or relationships in the late 19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, queer activists, such as the members of Queer Nation, began to reclaim the word as a deliberately provocative and politically radical alternative to the more assimilationist branches of the LGBT community. (x)
So there are a few major takeaways for the word queer. The first one is that queer is inclusive--itâs an umbrella term. The second one is that it describes people who are not heterosexual and/or cisgender. A definition by saying âwe are not xâ is actually not a great definition, so weâll come back to this point later. The third one is that queer is political, and it always has been; crucially, queer does not equal LGBT.
Now on to the jargon: ontology and epistemology both come from the field of philosophy, and diegesis has its origins in Greek theater, but I hear it mostly used now to talk about film.
Ontology is the study of being. Ontology asks questions like what is a thing? what exists? What categories of things are there? So, for my purposes, when I talk about ontology, Iâm talking about categorization and identity. What are the labels we give ourselves? What categories do we sort ourselves into? How do we identify ourselves?
Epistemology is the related study of knowing. Epistemology asks questions like how do we know something is true? how do we define truth? how do we make justifications? For my purposes, epistemology has a lot to do with how we define social truths and norms. What is true about human gender/sexuality/etc.? How does queerness affect oneâs beliefs? I use worldview as a kind of short hand for epistemology in this essay, though epistemology is really only one part of a personâs worldview. But, for my purposes, worldview works just fine.
Diegesis refers to anything within a narrative text--characters, plot, setting, etc. are all diegetic (or intradiegetic). Things outside the text, like the score of a movie or the UI of a videogame, are extradiegetic.
Ok now that we have all the jargon down, letâs tackle the first question: What does it mean for an individual to be queer?
As I previewed above, I define queerness for an individual to be a matter of both ontology and epistemology. I want to come back to the definition of queer here, specifically the part that defines queerness as ânot cisgender and heterosexualâ. This is a bad category ontologically speaking, because the definition doesnât point to all the things that make up this category, but rather the things that donât. Queerness, in this definition, is a catch-all; Iâm not sure thatâs really an accurate way to think of queerness. At least in linguistics, the catch-all category is for the default, unmarked cases, and queerness is not that at all.
So Iâm going to switch things up a little and change this part of the definition. Instead of defining queer by what itâs not, Iâm going to define queer epistemologically. Queerness is not just not being heterosexual/cisgender, but a rejection of the heteronormativity (âthe belief that heterosexuality, predicated on the gender binary, is the norm or default sexual orientationâ). This rejection may derive from social ostracization and condemnation from same-gender attraction/behavior and/or gender non-conforming, but ultimately is not quite the same thing as LGBT.
Queerness and Queer Theory seek to deconstruct notions and norms of gender, sexuality, and all of the social baggage that comes along with them. Therefore, being asexual and/or aromantic is inherently queer as these identities are a rejection of social expectations for behavior. This deconstructionist impulse may even be at odds with people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender. For example, Natalie Wynn, in her video about Pronouns, discusses that her desire to be perceived as a woman is inherently counter to someone who seeks to eradicate or seriously challenge the gender binary (as with non-binary individuals).
None of this is to say that an individual person canât identify as both L, G, B or T and also queer, but this is where we come back to ontology. Ontology has to do with how we identify and how we make categories. For example, I use both bisexual and queer to identify myself. I use bisexual because I experience sexual and romantic attraction to more than one gender, and I use queer because it includes this idea of challenging gender and sexual norms (and also it doesnât necessitate explanation of all the details of my gender/sexuality).
Therefore, one personâs use of queer to describe themselves is both ontological, because they are defining and categorizing themself, and epistemological, because being queer is essentially a lens through which to know the world.
So, if an individualâs queerness is a mix of identity and worldview, what about a relationship?
A relationship canât have an identity the same way that an individual human can, i.e. a relationship canât pick a category for it to belong to because itâs not a sentient entity. Americans can categorize relationships by the genders of the people in that relationship--heterosexual for man+woman, homosexual for man+man or woman+woman. These categorizations, of course, exclude relationships that have more than two people, and people whose genders are not âmanâ or âwomanâ. But this still isnât really the same thing as me, an individual person, choosing to use bisexual to label myself.
Therefore, a queer relationship isnât really the same thing as a homosexual relationship, though they may overlap. Queerness, in a relationship, is entirely epistemological. How does the relationship operate?
Traditional heterosexual relationships (at least in 20th/21st century USA) privilege the man, and the woman is subservient. Men work outside the home and women raise children/do domestic work. Men and women in a traditional heterosexual relationship are supposed to have all of their emotional, physical, etc. needs met by their partner. Traditional heterosexual relationships are monogamous, both sexually and emotionally.
But a queer relationship questions accepted social norms. A queer relationship may not be monogamous, it may reject the traditional gender dynamic, and so on. What Iâm ultimately saying is that a heterosexual relationship, that is a man and a woman in a relationship, can be queer. This is because queer relationship does not equal homosexual. Iâll give two examples.
Iâll start with the easier example: a heterosexual relationship only requires one man and one woman, but makes no stipulation that the man and woman have to be cisgender. There are plenty of transmen exclusively attracted to women and transwomen exclusively attracted to men. Just because the make up of their relationship is man+woman, doesnât mean that their relationship isnât queer. The queerness is baked in because they themself may be queer.
The second example seems to be more emblematic of a sticking point for some people. I am married to a heterosexual man, but we are in a queer relationship. Because I am queer, and it affects how I respond to social norms, I also reject heteronormativity in my romantic relationship. My husband and I have been together for almost 13 years and married for 3; for the longest time, I did not want to get married because the idea of marriage, specifically the traditional idea of marriage, disgusted me. To me, marriage is the realm of religion and the state, neither of which I wanted to be particularly involved in my relationship. The reasons we ended up getting married were practical (I now have health insurance!), but also because my husband is a big olâ romantic and we compromised (we get married and I keep my name). This is just one example of how my notions of gender/sexual expectations have been a part of my relationship, but there are plenty of others. Also I am visibly queer and waiters often think we need two checks when we eat out together. ÂŻ\_(ă)_/ÂŻ
(If you want to see someone else talk about this, I recommend looking into Erika Moenâs autobiographical work. This tweet thread is just one example of her discussing being queer and being married to a man.)
Therefore, queer relationships are not about identity, but rather how the epistemology of one or both or all people in a relationship affects the operation and function of that relationship. A queer relationship is one that rejects heteronormativity, not one that exclusively consists of people of the same gender. This makes it sound like if a cisgender heterosexual man and cisgender heterosexual woman are in a relationship, it could potentially be queer, which I think is the fear of anyone who pushes back on the possibility of a man and a woman being in a queer relationship together. However, if the two individuals in a relationship are both cisgender and heterosexual, neither of them has rejected heteronormativity in one way or another (even if they have non-traditional gender roles in the relationship). Therefore, if at least one person in a relationship is queer (whether they be asexual, gender non-conforming, homo/bisexual, etc.) the whole relationship is queer.
Finally, I get to stories: What makes a particular piece of media queer?
As discussed for individual identity and relationships, a piece of media is queer because it has a queer epistemology. There is a way of constructing truth in a narrative that rejects heteronormativity, but it is important to discuss whether this rejection happens in the text of the work (diegetic) or the rejection is in social context in which the work was created (extradiegetic).
One interesting example is the Imperial Radch books by Ann Leckie. In these books, the main political force in the story doesnât distinguish gender in its pronouns. Therefore, everyone the main character encounters is âsheâ regardless of their biology or gender identity. Within the story (diegetically), this is not queer. This is the established norm of a very large and powerful people, and just a function of their language. Now, outside the story (extradiegetically), the use of âsheâ is queer af. This is a deliberate choice by the author to question our assumptions about what is ânormalâ and âdefaultâ.
Steven Universe does something similar by having a race of sentient space rocks who only use âsheâ as their pronouns. Extradiegetically, this again challenges ideas about how the gender binary is âsupposedâ to work, plus the space rocks demonstrate a wide range of expressions of femininity. Within the story (diegetically), we see metaphorical of rejection of heteronormativity, specifically through Garnet and her story. Therefore, Steven Universe is both epistemologically and diegetically queer.
Does this make Steven Universe more queer than the Imperial Radch books? Maybe it does.
For me, Steven Universe âfeelsâ queer, while the Imperial Radch books donât. I really love the Imperial Radch books and the way they make you actively think about how âsheâ is generally not considered the default pronoun. But this is all outside the text. I engage with the text as a person in a particular social context where women are lower on the social hierarchy than men, but the characters in the Imperial Radch books donât share this social context. The construction of social order for the gems in Steven Universe, to contrast, is similar to my social context, so both within the text and outside the text, Steven Universe is queer. This doesnât mean that there isnât a certain amount of subjectivity here, but for me, a queer show is one that is both diegetically and extradiegetically queer.
This brings me to queerbaiting, a word that seems to mean almost anything in fandom. Iâve discussed what queerbaiting is and how to define it here and here, but I wanted to come back to the definition from @rainbofiction:
âQueerbaiting is clinging to the heteronormative interpretation on the surface of things, and refusing to invalidate it, but still trying to present a queer reading in the background; metaphorically selling the hetero story from the front door, and the queer story out back.â
Queerbaiting is not necessarily ship tease, though there seems to be some conflation of the two. Iâve seen it used to discuss Sherlock, Supernatural, Teen Wolf, Voltron, Once Upon a Time, and other shows. I think queerbaiting as an idea can really only exist in an episodic format, since (save for streaming shows) you donât get the story all at once. By being presented the story and characters bit by bit, you as a viewer donât engage with the story as something full and complete, but instead the story as itâs being built. Because you donât have the full story, your understanding and interpretation of the work can be affected by the text itself of course (diegetic material), but also all the extradiegetic and paratextual stuff that exists alongside the work.
Letâs think about books for a moment, specifically self-contained, standalone novels. Letâs pretend that Pride & Prejudice were not a complete story presented all at once, but rather released chapter by chapter with weeks or months passing between each chapter. If you started reading from the beginning of the work, you might make up your mind from the beginning that Darcy is the worst, and you and your friends talk about how Darcy is just awful and that Wickham fellow is soooo much better for Elizabeth. You might expect the work to continue to justify your position (coming back to epistemology), but it purposefully does not do that. Elizabeth and Darcy grow and change over the course of the novel, and end in a place of love and mutual respect.
But imagine Pride & Prejudice were released in the internet age, and youâve spent a year (or two! Or five!) waiting for the end of the book to come, and then ⌠this? After youâve spent all this time engaging with people, creating fanworks, speculating about this idea of Elizabeth and Wickham, and in the end you are not rewarded by canon for your investment.
This is what queerbaiting feels like. But does that mean this is what queerbaiting is?
When Iâve discussed queerbaiting before, Iâve argued that queerbaiting is so difficult to identify because it requires two elements: 1) legitimate queer subtext, and 2) intent by the author(s) to mislead or swindle the audience. Queerbaiting is also tricky to talk about because if the work is incomplete (i.e. released episode by episode over time), you just cannot know if youâre being queerbaited.
I personally donât want to conflate queerbaiting with shipping, because I do think they are two discrete issues, but this conflation seems to be the only way fandom talks about queerbaiting. To demonstrate, Iâll talk about The Magicians (the TV show).
To start with, The Magicians is a queer show. The show frequently challenges assumptions about heteronormativity--specifically the idea of soulmates/destiny in love, and that one person + another person = happiness and fulfillment. We even have an analog of queerness as a social taboo, with human/animal relationships in Fillory. Therefore, epistemologically, The Magicians is queer.
The Magicians also has multiple LGBT characters, at least three of which are main characters. No one on the show has told us the audience how they identify, but we have seen Margo, Eliot and Quentin express same gender attraction in one form or another. Diegetically, The Magicians is queer.
So, now that Iâve show that The Magicians is both epistemologically and diegetically queer, letâs talk about why the q-baiting word is used in discussions of this show.
This season had a landmark episode (4x05) that essentially sets up romantic feelings between two men (Quentin and Eliot) as a pillar of the narrative of this season. The boys didnât get together (for lots of reasons) in that episode, but that episode made it clear that they both love each other, and that love is driving both of them the rest of the season. But in recent episodes, one of the boys, who has already been established to be bisexual, gets back together with his ex-girlfriend.
To summarize: The Magicians set up the expectation that Quentin and Eliot will be together in some capacity (though the show overall seems less concerned with ideas like âsoulmatesâ and âendgameâ but thatâs another essay for another time), but at this point, it has not followed through. Like with my P&P example, I understand why this feels like queerbaiting, but is it?
Iâm going to start with the ontological perspective: Quentin is bisexual regardless of the gender of his romantic and/or sexual partner. However, Quentin isnât a real person, and as Iâve talked about already, ontology doesnât really work for entities that arenât living, breathing people. Quentin hasnât told us the viewers that heâs bi, so all we have to go on is her behavior (something that should never ever ever be used to talk about a real life personâs sexual/gender identity)--his actions as a fictional character in a narrative.
So looking at his behavior, at this one time slice in an ongoing story, it can appear like the expectations for a romantic relationship between Quentin and Eliot will not be met. But this comes back to the problem of episodic storytelling. It is impossible at this point to say âwell I guess Quentin and Eliot arenât endgame, hence queerbaitingâ because the story isnât over. We have one more episode to go in this season and (at least) another season on the horizon. Who knows what will happen between now and then.
Additionally, as discussed before, The Magicians is epistemologically queer. The Magicians is not giving us a heteronormative story with queer subtext--the queerness is inherent to the text (and not just because there are LGBT characters). So taking shipping out of the equation for a moment, The Magicians is not queer by subtext or interpretation; The Magicians is queer because it overtly rejects heteronormativity.
Hereâs some ways it does this:
Eliot (a mostly gay man) and Fen (a woman) come to care for each other despite having an arranged marriage. They have a romantic, sexual, and familial relationship.
Penny40 and Kady were in love, but Penny23 loves Julia. Relationships arenât set in stone, there is not one person âmeantâ for another.
Whenever expectations of straightness and man-ness are mentioned in text (see Hyman and Pennyâs supervisor in the Underworld branch)
This is a non-exhaustive list, but it demonstrates how heterosexuality and all the other social expectations that come with it are explicitly deconstructed by the show. Therefore, The Magicians cannot queerbait because it is diegetically and epistemologically queer.
Ok, so Iâve covered a lot of ground, but here are my major points:
Queer =/= Â LGBT, though the two do overlap. Queerness is a rejection of heteronormativity; it is radical, deconstructionist and political.
An individual being queer is different from a relationship being queer or a show being queer.
An individualâs queerness is a matter of identity (ontology) and worldview (epistemology).
A relationship is queer through the way it operates, the way it rejects heteronormative assumptions about how relationships should operate (epistemology).
A piece of media is queer through worldview (epistemology) but how much of that is baked into the text (diegesis) is important too
Queerbaiting is often conflated with shipping (specifically shipping on non-canon m/m and f/f pairings), but they are two separate issues.
It is impossible to know if expectations about a m/m or f/f ship will be met while the story is still in progress.
A piece of media cannot queerbait if it is epistemologically queer.
The reason I sat down and wrote this was to work through my feelings about what it means to be queer, and why I have always felt a little uncomfortable with the word âqueerbaitingâ. Queerness is something that is constructed in many ways, and I havenât even really discussed much of the political or community issues. Ultimately itâs up to each of us as individuals to critically engage with both fiction as it portrays queerness, and how we police each other and reinforce categories. I think this essay can provide some framework for that engagement.
This was not written to invalidate anyoneâs feelings; if you personally feel let down by a piece of media, you are entitled to those feelings. However, fandom can very quickly become an echo chamber, and rather than reinforce feelings, good or bad, I offer this framework as an alternative. It can helps us answer questions like : How does media construct queerness? Is it epistemological? Is it diegetic? Does it replicate expectations of heterosexual relationships but with people of the same gender? Does it stereotype? And by answering these questions, we can get to the heart of queerbaiting, both as a feeling and as something that exists in the world.
------
This essay comes out of many many long talks about gender and sexuality and queerness with @messier51. Her perspective helped me get my thoughts in order!!!
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
A week ago, Quentin Coldwater killed himself. A week ago, it felt like I lost another friend to their own hand. A week ago, I was sobbing so violently I couldnât breathe. A week ago, something in me shattered a little bit. Something I didnât even realize was there. A week ago, an attachment to the character and storyline, seeing myself validated in that character and storyline, and watching myself get killed off.... broke me.Â
A week ago, I was reminded of the dark places my own brain has taken me. A week ago, I was told that there is no escaping it. That the only way my story ends is the thing Iâve been desperately trying to avoid. A week ago, I was reminded of every suicidal queer friend I have, and I have quite a lot. A week ago, I was reminded of every suicidal queer person that I donât know, and thereâs quite a lot. A week ago, I was reminded of a year ago, when my friend committed suicide. And it broke me.
A week ago, I seemed to develop a permanent hole in my chest and a difficulty breathing whenever I thought about broken mirrors and burned peaches. A week ago, I couldnât speak my thoughts aloud without dissolving into tears. A week ago, a rage rage rage within my chest was ignited. Rage against the writers. Rage against the media which refuses to show queer people as alive and happy. Rage against a society that doesnât let queer people or people with mental illnesses live or be happy. And it broke me.
A week ago, a week ago, a week ago, a week ago, a week ago, a week ago, a week ago, I found out that I was not alone. I found out that others were also hurt, that I was not imagining my pain. I found a group of individuals who validated me and lifted me up. Who lifted each other up. Who stood on top of their tables and beat their chests and said âNO. This is NOT how our story goes.â People spoke at length about their own traumas and their own brokenness and how they had survived. And it healed me.Â
I think I will feel broken for a little while. The death of a loved one tends to do that, and despite the fictionality of Quentin Coldwaterâs existence, he was real. And I loved him like he was myself. Because he was me. And this is going to take time to heal from. But I will give it that time. And I will put myself back together. The death of Quentin Coldwater broke me, but his speciality was minor mendings, and he knew what it was like to face his monster and say âCome at me, asshole.â This is the Quentin I chose to remember. The Quentin who saved his own life time and time again, and so saved mine.Â