Weymythical

by this i mean the problem with straight fiction is often that it doesn't consider itself straight, it simply is. by contrast queer is a choice (the old classic "straight, white, able-bodied, cis, peri, man" is a universal story, whereas anything else is specific to That Demographic).

it's important to read heterosexuality, because it's saying something specific about society. deconstructing universality (again, similar to any other of those above-mentioned so-called "universal" traits) makes heterosexuality and heteronormativity (not the same thing) a thematic choice that interacts with queerness more authentically than if one simply slots man a into man b (as it were).

it's also interesting because a lot of analysis that decouples from heterosexuality on this here webbed site, does so in a way that -- as many have said before and will again -- handily also tends to remove women and people of colour and queer people who aren't gay cis men. it's not really interrogating text, it's merely substituting one form of universality with another without changing the core biases of said text (substituting heteronormativity with homonormativity).

when i read characters and/or themes as heterosexual, it's because those themes have relevance to the text and i want to highlight them (even if said text thinks that they're universal). yes, sometimes a text isn't aware that it's making things queer, but sometimes fans have a tendency to make things gay (not necessarily queer) that aren't doing the text justice.

examples include: an angry straight man isn't necessarily or lbr primarily angry because he's secretly queer, but because straight men are socially raised to make anger a dominant emotion, burying other more healthy expressions and feelings. a storyline about that experience is interesting because he's straight.

a man and a woman being in a relationship isn't necessarily less interesting than two men in a relationship, and in fact the canon version may have way more substance than the one in which he leaves her (and she's angry but then accepts it every time) for a man. a storyline about this relationship is interesting because it may be challenging or modelling or deconstructing or playing with or simply presenting.

a man and a woman who have broken up isn't necessarily more interesting to read from the perspective of him having buried queer feelings that lead to [being a bad partner/being incompatible/outside forces making it the wrong time/etc], but can uncover a lot about heteronormative (AND amatonormative) cultural ideas about what a relationship "should be like" and how one can be more healthy in decoupling (ha) from those norms.

and also, these are interesting because of women. the angry straight man and his inability to emotionally connect with his partner leads them to break up says a lot about her role (and no, the narrative in question may not always be interested in her, but i can be) and how she exists in society and maybe also her flaws (is she someone who always wants to "fix" men? is she also holding onto toxic ideas about what a real man "should be"? does she not believe in better for herself? is she also angry all the time? does she want the relationship to fail? etcetc).

im not immune to "this makes no sense, gay be upon ye (regardless of gender jean harlow and myrna loy in libeled lady pls i believe you can do better)" but sometimes it does actually make sense and it's not sentencing a character to the straight salt mines of disinterest

also also, im always interested in how this interacts with queerness. are there queer characters in the thing? if not, where would they be? are there parts of the story that do read as queerer than intended and how do these clash with heterosexuality and heteronormativity in the text?

david and caspar in the diner!!!

And as I was contemplating all that I realized… not only can Gloria not bear the thought of losing the diner, and all that that means, she can’t go through losing someone again. Her parents died when she was young and she carries that around every time she cooks because that’s her history. And on Earth, at a certain point, she was so lonely even with friends that The Diner scooped her up. It gave her a family of crazy people to love and take care of — to cook for and learn from and with. But you can see between her brave faces and swearing she’ll be fine when the diner goes dark that she’s just so tired of losing. Which, of course, made me cry.

BUT.

Then I was thinking about the conversation Kazi has with Gloria about guilt for not being able to save them all, the way Caspar tries to protect Gloria from bearing the weight of a truly unbearable burden, and specifically what happens this current season.

Kazi asks what kind of person she would be if she didn’t take advantage of Gloria being able to steer the diner. But even before Team Sisters and Team MB get split up after the meeting with Krok, Kazi almost backs down from that approach in a way. Because Gloria says, in the freezer after she’s stolen/liberated some snow leopards, she can’t “leave any of them behind.” And Kazi doesn’t egg her on, really. She just talks about a blessing denied (the diner and all it can do), is just another burden. Even when Gloria asks how they COULD save everyone, Kazi tells her that’s for later and to celebrate their most recent victory, symbolic though it may be.

Cut to this season where Kazi is not just gaining control of the colonies her father has made, but freeing people. Freeing them to the point of leading fleets through warp gates at just the right time to escape retaliatory volleys from Krok. To the point of almost DYING because she was doing that! Kazi! Not fucking Tita, KAZIIIII. What kind of general does THAT Kazi?