Fic Title: The Exs
Fic Authors:
Type: digital cover
Media: MS Publisher
Art Rating: G
Characters/Pairings: Griff/Pete, OCs
Art Warnings: none
Ahh, sorry I'm late! It's Small Fandom Bang time again, and this year I got
( The Exs )
CW: pregnancy, homophobia, heterosexism, transphobia, alcohol, fat-shaming, food
Starting out as a joke about Jeff’s softball team whose absence requires Audrey to join temporarily, by the end of s5 Brenda has become a pivotal person in Jeff and Audrey’s lives. She’s not the first openly queer recurring character but she is the longest lasting (not including leads). Brenda agrees to be Audrey and Jeff’s surrogate, which deploys queer reproductive technologies in service of heterosexuality and also serves to contrast her relationships with Audrey and Jeff’s. Brenda injects a queer sensibility into the show that frankly makes it more watchable as a queer fan. Welcome to my Brenda appreciation post.
( Read more... )
CW: queerbaiting, arranged marriage, toxic relationship, workplace abuse, cultural imperialism, amatonormativity, implied pedophilia, implied incest, fatphobia, misogyny, Orientalism, racism, codependency, BDSM
As we saw, structurally Timmy’s introduction puts him forward as a love interest for Russell, albeit as a queerbaiting joke. That said, an appeal to romantic structures is really the only plausible justification for why their relationship is so all over the place given how infrequently Timmy appears in s3, and s4 only expands the bierotic space their relationship occupies. We’ll return to how their story troubles the amatonormativity of romantic plots, but currently I want to focus on how s4 builds up their relationship as a complicated interpersonal connection instead of simply a plot device, a connection that troubles the idea that becoming the love interest is a good thing.
( Read more... )
CW homophobia, biphobia, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, racism
As originally conceived, Rules was intended to be a show about heterosexuals doing straight people stuff. And while there are references to queerness in the first two seasons, there are few explicitly queer characters. Because the first two seasons were establishing the characters’ relationships to each other, their relationships to others outside their group weren’t really explored. But with s3, we start to see them interact more with the world around them, and given they live in NYC, their social context is a lot queerer than they might have expected. The queer characters in Rules are often props to showcase the characters’ tolerance for difference (or lack thereof) instead of complex subjects in their own right, but this does change somewhat as the show progresses, especially if you consider some of the mains to be queer.
( Read more... )
CW: heteronormativity, biphobia, bi erasure, sexism, toxic masculinity, transphobia
The main point of contrast in Rules is between Jeff and Audrey’s relationship and Jennifer and Adam’s. Jeff and Audrey’s lengthy experience with heterosexual marriage gives them strong opinions on how to make a marriage work, whereas Jennifer and Adam’s relative inexperience means that they encounter many obstacles for the first time. The two couples help each other become better partners, though usually not without getting worse first. There are several axes on which the two couples are foils, such as income level and age, which shapes the difference in their responses to issues. But I also argue that part of the reason is that Jennifer and Adam have more fluid conceptions of sexuality and gender roles that make the hyperheterosexuality of Jeff and Audrey’s relationship unrealistic and uncomfortable for them.
( Read more... )
CW: heteronormativity, compulsory heterosexuality, sexism, reproduction and infertility
Rules of Engagement is a guilty pleasure of mine because it’s so problematic and also just so very straight. Its humour skews a lot more conservative than most of the other shows in this study and it’s definitely not as thematically dense either. Usually this is the kind of show my parents would have on in the background at home, it wasn’t necessarily something we would drop everything to watch. Like most non-soaps of the 2000s and earlier, Rules is designed to be watched in such a way that you can miss a week and not be totally lost, and in fact you aren’t expected to have seen every episode, certainly not right before the next one. Episodic appointment television, especially a laugh-track sitcom, works better with conservative themes because the story is expected to regress to the mean at the end of the episode, meaning character and audience growth have little expectation of permanence. The audience needs to be able to understand the relationships and storyworld at a glance, which rewards stories that conform to stereotypes and well-worn tropes and that maintain a status quo as long as possible. That lack of persistence of memory affects the type of fandom that emerges around traditional sitcoms compared to soaps or sci-fi; cult fandom tends to be less drawn to these types of shows because there’s little payoff for such systematic devotion. Thus, applying a cult fandom approach to watching this is tedious in some ways and illuminating in others. The main takeaway doing so for Rules has given me is this: the straights are Not OkayTM.
( Read more... )
CW: unreality, paranoia, schizophrenia, psychosis, suicide, graphic depictions of violence, mind control, delusions, gaslighting, experimentation, child abuse, medication
( Delusions and Moral Entanglement )
CW: ableism, body horror, gaslighting, emotional and financial abuse, euthanasia, drugging, overdose, genocide
( Cookie Rights Are Disability Rights )
CW: infidelity, heteronormativity and compulsory heterosexuality, problem with no name, suicidal ideation, sexualized violence, assimilation
“Striking Vipers” is clearly a love story, but what’s less clear is whose love story it is: Theo and Danny? Danny and Karl? Roxette and Lance? All five together? The episode neatly wraps up the immediate question—how do the five of them move forward—without addressing the larger issues at play both before and after their lives collide. Most reviewers have noted how the scenario presented in the ep raises several provocative questions about digital sexuality (Mellor; Shaw-Williams), virtual gender (Handlen), Black masculinity (Grant, Young, and McKenzie; Paul), queer fantasy (Griffiths and Jeffery), and bromance (Lodge), among others, none of which are definitively resolved. But I think that’s actually one of the strengths of this episode: an understated approach allows for all these themes to remain complicated and holds space for the messiness of adult relationships. Furthermore, the indeterminacy is part of the point in the queer aesthetic permeating the show, however much it ostensibly is about heterosexuality. Because of the inescapable backdrop of straight suburbia, the contingent, playful approach they take towards navigating it together is satisfying and retains a resistant queerness.
( Read more... )
CW: racism, blackface, torture, incarceration, racialized violence, Nazis, body horror, sexual assault, ableism, euthanasia, death, white supremacism, self-harm
( Racial Politics of Audiencing )
CW: amatonormativity, surveillance, manipulation, compulsory heterosexuality, dissociation, kink
( All Real Love Is Queer )
CW: death, spirituality, toxicity, ableism, euthanasia, homophobia, bury your gays, unreality
( Queer Afterlives )
CW: compulsory heterosexuality, bullying, ableism, commodification, femmephobia
my meow meow beanz!
Okay, unpopular opinion time: I think Family Shatters is better than Zero, and I actually kinda like it. It’s still not the best spin-off miniseries, but I get what they were going for. I think to understand and appreciate Family Shatters, you have to be familiar with and enjoy fluff as a genre. In one sense, I think it knows what their audience wants, but because we don’t really care about the characters beforehand and crucially we don’t create the fluff ourselves, it falls short of its intentions. But I think Family Shatters points out an important tension between what fans want a show to do and what they want to do to a show.
( Read more... )