Dear Lily,
All of the anons who say mean things to your friend make me sad about the world in ways that I don’t especially like (and, if my dash is any indication, she’s not the only one facing a barrage of nastiness right now). So, if you’ll indulge me, this is my small, quiet way of trying to convince everyone in our little corner of the internet that it is in each and every one of our best interests to support and encourage the good work we see, to add our own voice to the mix when no one else seems to be telling the story we most need to hear, and to refrain from tearing one another down when we find that something isn’t quite to our taste. I promise this isn’t a touchy-feely, “let’s all be friends” kind of comment: I genuinely believe that writing fan fiction, queering dominant discourse, and appropriating mainstream media in order to dismantle the harmful structures upon which it rests is a useful act of resistance and one that I have a personal stake in encouraging.
To unpack that statement just a little: as queer women, we don’t have the luxury of consuming mass media uncritically. Even when we “just want to escape” into some mindless narrative, we’re denied the opportunity to identify with most mainstream cultural production because it, by definition, negates the existence of minorities. This problem isn’t unique to women, or queers, or people of color, etc. The intersecting matrices of oppression can politicize the gaze of anyone who isn’t male, white, straight, cis, able bodied, affluent, etc. all at the same time because other stories mostly don’t exist in the dominant discourse.
To that end, appropriating narratives that erase us in order to tell the stories that reflect our experience and our identity is an act of resistance, and it’s hard. Often our perception has been so profoundly colonized by the heteronormative, patriarchal structures that we grow up with, we don’t even notice the violence inflicted upon us by mass media. To say that we’ve carved out a little bit of space for ourselves here, to say that our stories matter and that if no one else will tell them, then we’ll tell them ourselves, is a revelation and something worth celebrating. We’re a community of amateurs creating art for art’s sake. We’re a part of a larger struggle to democratize the machinery of cultural production. How awesome is that?
But back to my original concern: I think that’s why it’s so heartbreaking to see some of the viciousness that our own community tosses at these fan fiction writers. It’s not useful, and it undermines the little bit of good we might be able to do. To be clear, I am not against criticism. We’re built for it, after all—we wouldn’t have this community if we weren’t constantly turning a critical eye upon the narratives handed to us by mainstream media. We’re really good at pointing out problematic depictions of our community and our varying identities. However, correct me if I’m wrong, but that doesn’t seem to be what these anons are calling out the fan fiction writers for. Instead, they’re whining at them for complexity, for ambition, for trying to create something that might be just a little bit bigger than this tiny corner we’ve carved out for ourselves.
Don’t get me wrong, we’ve fought hard for this space. This space where warm, fuzzy, wish-fulfillment narratives can feature queer women simply *being*. But, for the moment, this space is well-defended. And no one has to leave it. Or read things that pull them outside of it. It’s totally okay. We all need that safe space sometimes. But to rail against the mere fact that something might exist outside of it (or to rail against a writer whose fiction suggests something might exist outside of it) is short-sighted and often results in thoughtless (needless) cruelty.
So here is my humble suggestion (modest proposal?) to everyone hurling anon hate: write a new story. Contribute to the community. Use your own interpretation of these characters you love so much to push the discussion in the direction you’d like to see it go. No one is forcing you to read stories you aren’t interested in, follow writers you don’t like, etc. If you believe something is truly problematic, write a review and sign your name to it. Articulate your concerns. Open a discussion. And remember two things: first, that even if a story doesn’t work for you, it may be exactly what someone else desperately needed to read; second: reviews really aren’t for the authors, they’re for other readers. My guess is that most of the authors publishing fan fiction are writing the story they most need to tell. I think we can all respect that.
All best,
Samantha
Bringing this back for 100% relevance.
Okay, so can I address this whole ‘You’re being too sensitive’ response that seems to crop up whenever people get overly defensive of fictional characters?
Because the implication of the ‘You’re being too sensitive’ argument is that reality basically exists in a separate sphere to fiction. Which is completely untrue. Sure, reality and fiction exist in different spheres but they’re very intertwined, incestuous ones. There’s often a special snowflake vibe lurking around tumblr that we’re the only people who get overly invested in fictional worlds which excuse me, is a crock of shit. Whether you realise it or not, we’re all shaped by the stories around us, we learn from them and internalise them. After all, what is the purpose of fairytales but for parents to dispense very fundamental life lessons to children which we then carry into adulthood (example A: Goldilocks and the Three Bears: don’t go uninvited into other people’s houses).
And the huge impact fiction can have on our lives is the very reason people get invested in imaginary worlds. And it’s the reason why it’s dangerous to dismiss people complaining about the neglect or abuse of fictional characters as ‘being too sensitive’. Because actually the representation of diverse groups in fiction (and congruently the media) - whether its people of colour or queer people or fat people or women - is one of the easiest and most insidious forms of oppression available in the modern world. What’s the easiest way to invalidate the existence of any of the above mentioned groups of people? Ignore their existence. Don’t tell their stories. Or when you do tell their stories, make sure they’re riddled with such hackneyed cliches, that people will inevitably start treating them like second-hand citizens, handed down from the way they’re treated in fiction. (This is particularly pertinent to stories of other cultures which are often our only avenues into places and countries we’ve never visited).
So yeah, the next time you’re compelled to say ‘You’re being too sensitive’, just stop and re-evaluate. Ask yourself Am I being too obtuse? Am I not picking up on the inherent unfairness that is being articulated through the mistreatment or disregard of this character? Because in more cases than one, the answer is probably going to be yes.
(via baroquemirrors)
Irene Adler: a sapiosexual twist on the trope of turning gay women straight.
Look! Lady Lovin’ Ladies just got its first submission! By the wonderful sometimescoherent!
—
So I finally saw the latest episode of BBC Sherlock, and one word I can sum up the episode with is: gay. Gay gay gay gay gay. Did I mention gay? Clearly Steven Moffat has been paying attention to the fandom. John really is such a good boyfriend and Sherlock is really a lucky guy. But wait! There’s more! *audible gasp* Besides our (un)ambiguously gay duo, we have Irene Adler. Madam Adler (rolls off the tongue doesn’t it?) is first introduced in full on Lesbian Dominatrix mode (tm) or, as Mycroft delecatly puts it: she performs professional scoldings for those who are into that sort-of-thing. How British.
However, there is clearly more to this character and her sexuality than at first blush. Clearly, she is a complex character and that complexity extends to her sexuality. So to what extent is her lesbian identity actually respected by the writers? Is she caught in the trope of a lesbian who has “found the right man?” Or can her character’s sexual development positively represent sexual fluidity and non-gender based sexualities?
The big L-word is only implied until most way through the episode when, while confronting Irene about hurting his boo (Yeah, totally not gay), John asks if anyone cares that he is not gay (no we don’t, John). Irene Adler’s response is: you may be in denial totally not gay, but guess what? I am! Gaaaaa (*cough* sorry). So up until this point her sexuality is speculative: is she bisexual, is she straight for pay, or is she gay and just fine with kinky D/s play with men? Could be a lot of things, but it seems that with this scene she is identifying to the audience that she sexually prefers women and does kink play professionally with anyone.* Her relationship with her live-in (assistant? secretary? lover?) is unclear, but we can imagine (get on that fandom!). In any case, she is portrayed as a savvy and ambitions woman who uses her position (insert low brow humor here) to gain an advantage. Something she is competently unapologetic about. After all she is gleeful at the idea of being a powerful enough woman to bring Britain to her knees. Ow Ow!
However, even with all this John may be onto something. There is something between Irene and Sherlock. Perhaps it is something she is not herself willing to admit to herself, or perhaps something she does not quite understand herself.
I was worried while watching that this was going to build to her admitting to herself that she had just “found the right man” and that all her lady lovin’ was just a phase. Sadly this is a trope that is far too often used to erase lesbian sexuality and by extension any sexuality for women that does not center around a man. It seems lesbians are only acceptable (i.e. not a stereotype ripe for ridicule) in most media when 1) conventionally attractive 2) traditionally feminine and 3) secretly love the cock. Sure we might not be busting out of the first two anytime soon (though Brittana is also promising), but I don’t think Irene plays the third one. I think there is another aspect to Adler’s character that is just as important as her lesbian identity and her role as a powerful independent woman. Irene Adler is a lesbian, but a lesbian with a Sapiosexual twist! Like a orange wedge in my nice cool pint of Blue Moon. Mmmm.
Anyways, Irene Adler is, in my mind, a character conflicted about a burgeoning aspect of her own sexuality and coming to terms with her attraction to Sherlock (not to men in general). Rather than seeing this as an erasure of her sexuality one can see this as recognition that sexuality is complicated. One is rarely X and only X. Sexuality really is wibbly wobbly after all! Her attraction to Sherlock is fraught with internal strife. It’s not the fact that Shurlock is a man that attracts Adler but it’s because smart really is the new sexy. None of this means Irene Adler can no longer identify as a lesbian. Quite to the contrary, BBC Sherlock demonstrates that sexuality is complex: one can have multiple identities, can have exceptions to who they are attracted to, and that attraction can come in many forms. I’d like to take this time to state for the record that I am cuddlesexual!
I’ll admit I’m still conflicted, but I’m willing to give Moffat the benefit of the doubt here and see where he takes Irene Adler’s character (I very much hope that she will actually be back). There of course have been improvements over the years around the representation of sexualities in the media, but we still have a ways to go. I’ve very much appreciated the way that sexuality is depicted in BBC Sherlock. Sherlock himself is being continuously played up as asexual in a pretty damn positive light. Adding other forms of Asexuality, Demisexuality, or Pansexuality is promising. Let’s just hope this is not just one big cock tease for sexual inclusiveness… to use an inappropriate metaphor.
—
*I’m in no way saying that kink cannot be an expression of sexuality and love. It just seems Irene Adler has a professional detachment with her male clients.
I was just thinking on my way to the other side of town with a three ton bag on my back and Steve Conte playing in my ears - does canon really change anything? (Because obviously, that’s what you all secretly think about on the train.)
I agree with this. Speaking of…
See, I just don’t have the imagination you guys have… I NEED canon. I can’t think up perfect little scenarios in my head, therefore, I fully expect paid writers to do all that shit for me.
Swan Queen is not canon. Characters can eye shag for an entire episode but if there is no explicit confirmation of romantic intent, then I don’t consider it canon. Simply because until something is expressly stated, people will always consider it open to interpretation. This may sound trivial, pedantic or ridiculous but even today, there are still people who vehemently deny there is a single romantic feeling between Myka & HG. I probably shouldn’t care about that but for some reason I do. I want the world to know, unequivocally that my ship is genuine & real. I don’t want it to be a figment of my sad little imagination. I need it to be real. Canon makes things real. Too much of my life is make believe already…
& we should have reached a stage by now, where making these ships real is not really that much trouble or that big of a deal. We shouldn’t have to worry about adverse audience reactions & homophobia. Gay relationships on tv should be able to be real & viable. As fans, we shouldn’t have to do so much work & write this shit for them. It’s their fucking jobs. Let them get paid big bucks for, you know, actually trying to be creative.
Plus, there is huge mileage in gay relationships. You not only have all the usual relationship drama, you have all the added angst & complexity of the whole gay dynamic. Oodles of story-telling avenues to explore. & no, not the lesbian getting pregnant or sleeping with men avenues! Gay ships are not destined to fail. Crappy & lazy writing simply allows this to happen. But it doesn’t have to be that way. We just need something ground breaking…
I definitely agree with this. At the end of the day, I want canon too. Absolutely what I want. But having been burned so many times before, I don’t trust this current generation of TV writers to handle it too well (ahem, Glee). Those tweets from the Glee writers just show how marginalized queer lady fanbases, just like the queer lady characters that barely exist, are. And this is on a show that people consider the gayest show on TV! Same with some of Jack Kenny’s comments on Bering and Wells on WH13. I don’t think it would’ve blown anyone’s mind to see either Brittana or Bering and Wells kiss. And not to please straight fanboys or queer fangirls for lascivious reasons (as I often see people state as why ladies in love *can’t* or *shouldn’t* kiss on TV in some weird attempt at concern-trolling). BUT BECAUSE THEIR CHARACTERS *ARE* IN LOVE AND THAT’S WHAT YOU DO WITH THE PERSON WHO KNOWS YOU BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE. There is a huge difference between sweeps week and showing intimacy between two characters who have a close relationship and the fact that so many ‘fans’ and writers can’t see the difference just dumbfounds me. Do they really just not get it? Or do they really not care? I think it’s a bit of both.
Exactly exactly exactly. I wish I had the energy to add my two cents, but alas. Everything said here is perfect.
(via anursingdegreeinfeelings)
I have a lot of feelings about this. Um. In a word, yes, subtext still matters, in American film and television, at least. Most mainstream US ‘lesbian’ media STILL sucks balls, literally…The Kids Are Alright, anyone? The Real L Word? Please. We have not come that far. The thing is, when we get told (and we do get told) we are getting ‘lesbian’ (bisexuality clearly can not be named either) representation on film or TV, we usually really are not and it’s treated as something so alien and noticeably different from anything else that it completely takes you out of the story they are trying, and failing, to tell. I WANT GOOD STORIES AND STORYTELLING FIRST AND ALSO KISSING. YOU DON’T NEED TO HIRE FUCKING GLAAD REPRESENTATIVES TO WRITE GOOD GAY/BI CHARACTER(S) OR A LOVE STORY BETWEEN TWO WOMEN.
So we go for subtext, then, or what we are told is just subtext, because, right now, it’s so much more organic and natural than these fucking gay storylines of the week. The thing I go back to and I’ve seen other people mention it, is if one of these characters were a man (in Xena, Faberry, Rizzles, Swan Queen, Bering and Wells-which they managed to subvert the Moonlighting trope with Pete and Myka so well, why did they have box-block HG and Myka?) and everything else stayed the same, there would be no doubt in anyone’s mind as to the nature and direction of their relationship. But because it’s two women it’s automatically put in the friends zone until someone (hey there, Joanne and Jaime) has to drop a fucking anvil on peoples’ heads to make them see that maybe, possibly, just maybe there is something else going on there. You can’t fake chemistry like that.
SO, IN CONCLUSION…WE WRITE ALL THE STORIES NOW. Except when Jane Espenson writes them and she should write everything.TAKE HEED, TAMARO, MURPHY, KENNY, RIMES, etc.
I have more thoughts about this article that I shall revisit later. In the meantime, crispay22 says things and I like them.
(Source: anursingdegreeinfeelings)
Should this show be brave enough to take the leap into that direction and have Jane and Maura romantically fall for each other - they could and would be getting praise for a long, long time ahead. It’s a bold move, but a well needed move and this show has all the elements and all the potential to create something truly groundbreaking.
Two strong, confident, beautiful women that discover that their love is not “a lesbian thing”, it’s a personality thing. So what if up until this point in their lives they have only been interested in men; is it so terrible to let them realize they have a beautiful person right in front of their eyes?
Being gay is not easy when you are denied rights, when you are poorly represented in media, when presidential campaign runners think there is something wrong with you serving your country - risking your life for your country - all because you think people of the same sex as yourself are beautiful and you just want to love someone and be happy.More than one teenager has ended their life too early because they were bullied, harassed and abused for being gay, and the first child lost was a loss too much. No one should have to suffer abuse for being someone that in no way is hurting anyone else, for being themselves. But how are children and teenagers supposed to react and think when gay people are denied rights to marry the person they love? It’s important that the media, which claims endlessly to be so liberal yet shies away from any serious implication of homosexuality, represent all people— and Jane and Maura’s relationship would be a perfect opportunity for this to happen.
Please read. Please sign if you want. Please reblog. Please spread the word.
This is and could be so much more than just how they are perfect for each other, wonderful together. It’s about how sexuality is not to be joked about and teased with to get ratings. It’s about rights and being respectful.
sign it, bitchez.
(via jaimemurraysboobs)
“As America moves into the 2012 presidential election season, there are fewer gay, lesbian, or bisexual characters on TV, no black gay characters, and no transgender representation at all in the 2011 – 2012 TV season.”
tired-of-arbitrary-rules asked: I left the apples at home. They aren’t needed here. Y U SO AWESOME???
omg *blushes* i swear i’m really not…? thanks, though!! that actually came to me a few seconds after i posted, and i HAD TO edit to include it. sometimes i am hit with strokes of genius. this must be one of about three. :p
zenithofdork asked: Hey, I'm loving all the writing you're doing about Warehouse 13 & Myka/HG, but just letting you know that Jane Espenson, as wonderful as she is, wasn't actually involved in the show beyond writing the pilot. And to be an even further buzzkill, Jack Kenny insists on referring to Myka & HG as 'friends' & denying the lady love whenever it's brought up - including 2011 SDCC, the online commentary for 2x07, and I think also a couple of interviews. I'm not getting my hopes up.
Oh no! Thanks for telling me this. I actually didn’t find ANYTHING that Espenson, Greengberg, or Kenny actually said directly regarding Myka/HG and Warehouse 13. And I really should have checked the writing credits for Espenson— I just didn’t think about it, for some reason. :/ But really, thanks for sharing this.
Could it be? Myka and Helena have a good chance of becoming canon.
I come bearing twizzlers and grapplers and rainbows. (I left the apples at home. They aren’t needed here.)
While doing research to prepare for this post, I found the faith and hope that I had lost in the potential of Myka and Helena finally becoming canon in the 4th season of Warehouse 13, and it comes in the form of Drew Z. Greenberg, Jack Kenny, Jane Espenson, Joanne Kelly, and Jaime Murray.
A few days ago, I wrote that the possibilities of a canon romantic relationship between Helena and Myka were slim, mostly because of SyFy and what I perceived to be their erasure of the gay between Helena and Myka in their article, A Gift Guide for America’s Attic. I still think that their choice of words to describe the two was wrong; these two women are much more than “friends and enemies, and sometimes both at once.” But after doing more extensive research, I have completely changed my mind about their canon prospects. And I am so, so glad, because after writing about the sadly sinking ship that is Rizzoli & Isles, I really needed something to restore my faith in television. And this is it.
But before we go there, I’d like to say a little bit about the characters.
Rizzoli & Isles: Will they ever become canon? (Probably not.)
I originally wrote one really large post that combined my commentary on the possibility of the relationships between Jane Rizzoli and Maura Isles on Rizzoli & Isles and Myka Bering and Helena Wells on Warehouse 13 becoming canon. I spent a really long time on that post. At the outset I felt that it would be appropriate to talk about them both in the same post, because I felt they were similar in the issues surrounding them. However, as I wrote, I realized they are not as similar as I first thought, so I am posting them here as two separate posts, edited and expanded into standalone pieces.
Sometimes I think about Rizzoli & Isles outside of the flaily, subtexty bubble of fandom, and I realize two things. One, how cynical I am about lesbian relationships being portrayed on television in positive and respectful ways, and two, that we will probably never see our favorite lady-lovin’ pairings become canon.
This thought actually pops up in my mind a lot, but I usually just sigh and then quell it with pretty graphics and fanfiction and undeniable subtext.
Before I launch into my sad analysis of canon possibilities for these lovely ladies, let me pause to share some of my ~feelings~ about these characters.
The most obviously gay-for-each-other award goes to the Rizzles girls. I have terrible gaydar. It’s just atrocious. But if you only showed me scenes of Jane Rizzoli (complete with that disgusted face she makes at the mere mention of dating men in any capacity), my gaydar would STILL ping loudly and insistently. Obviously, I am not denying the fact that a woman can absolutely be strong, “butchy,” badass, confident, wear big watches, and carry a badge and a gun without being into the ladies. BUT COME ON. Jane Rizzoli is the gayest character I’ve ever seen on cable television. (And I watch a lot of television.)
Maura pings my (admittedly terrible) gaydar in more subtle ways, and I personally read her as pansexual. She believes that the genuine expression of one’s sexuality is never wrong, and should not be limited to society’s expectations and values about said sexuality (I’m specifically thinking of all those times that Maura told Jane how great orgasms are for your health, and how she should just get some already). And Maura’s a scientist. I believe she knows that sexuality is not fixed in place, nor is it determined by gender, and there has been nothing in canon that speaks against this reading of her character. Even Sasha Alexander agrees with me; she told told AfterEllen.com, “Maura has, which is what I love about her, a very open, curious sort of sensibility in terms of what she’s attracted to. Even the men that are coming through are kind of all over the map. So I think that would be the same thing with women. It would be a personality. It would be a connection.”
These two ladies are the gayest of the gay for each other. The show’s party line is that Jane and Maura are simply best friends. I personally have never experienced a platonic, non-sexual friendship anywhere akin to Maura and Jane’s, and while this is no reason to say that they don’t exist, from what I’ve read from other fans, many of them believe that Jane and Maura’s behavior towards each other does not characterize simple friendship behavior. From Jane extensively checking out Maura’s cleavage in “I Kissed a Girl” (1.06), to Maura’s impassioned confession in the latest episode, “He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Brother” (2.12), that, “I like Tommy. A lot. But I love you,” complete with eyebrow emphasis and an expensive (if disgusting) bottle of wine, the lesbian subtext has become a little too overt to be so easily dismissed. I’m not the only one who thinks this, as Dorothy Snarker, the author of the popular “Rizzoli & Isles Subtext Recaps” on AfterEllen.com, said in her latest recap, “[…] tonight, Rizzles lovers, the line between subtext and maintext became so irreversibly blurred that it’s almost just a straight-up recap.”
But that doesn’t stop anyone connected to the show from trying to deny it. We’re now going to talk about the possibility that Rizzles will ever be made canon. Oh Rizzles. I have been trying to avoid my sense of impending doom about you for a long time. Every time there is a new episode, my hopes are momentarily renewed that one day, Jane and Maura will realize, on screen, their undeniable sexual attraction to and deep romantic love for each other and everything will be Rizzles and rainbows. But, alas, I fear it is not to be. Honestly, in my opinion, at this point the sexual tension between Maura and Jane, and the fact that they’re secretly married, has gone on for so long and has been so intense that part of me wants to believe that they can’t possibly back out of this now. But I know they can. And I believe they will.
There are two main sources that have contributed to my belief that Rizzles will never be canon. The first one, as I’m sure many of you have guessed, is Angie Harmon, the actress who stars in the series as Detective Jane Rizzoli. Angie Harmon, who said, in an interview with the LA Times, “I hate to disappoint, but these characters are straight!” Another thing she said that really bothered me is, “I think that a lot of people are going to project on it what they want but I’m not saying we didn’t help. We knew it was there in the first [episode] and it was absolutely no surprise to me. I think it’s fantastic and fun and awesome as long as everyone is good-natured about it. There are some people that got angry that we weren’t [gay] and we found ourselves on the defensive, like ‘I’m sorry! We didn’t create these characters. We’re just acting what’s on the page.’ It’s not our fault. If anyone wants to take issue with this, call Tess [Gerritsen], author of the book series that Rizzoli & Isles is based on].” I have multiple issues with this statement. First, you know what, Angie Harmon? I’m so glad that you find playing into the subtext with no real intention of ever making it maintext “fantastic and fun and awesome as long as everyone is good-natured about it.” Personally, I’m a little tired of being good-natured. Second, the fact that Angie Harmon admits that she and Sasha Alexander purposefully played into the subtext. I find that disrespectful and exploitive if they have already decided not to make the relationship canon. Third, “We’re just acting what’s on the page.” Okay, Angie Harmon. You can’t say you played into the sexual and romantic subtext between Jane and Maura and THEN, in the next BREATH, say you are just acting what’s in the script. That’s completely contradictory, and makes me feel like you think the fans who see the subtext and want it to be made maintext are a little crazy. I really don’t think we’re all just operating under some collective delusion, Angie Harmon. Fourth, “If anyone wants to take issue with this, call Tess.” I’m sorry Angie, but I don’t think you realize just how different the television show, Rizzoli & Isles, and the book series by Tess Gerritsen actually are. I have personally only read one of Tess Gerritsen’s books, but from what I have read about them, there have been many, many changes in the characterization and plot while taking the story from the page to the screen. Tess Gerritsen herself said, in a video interview with TNT, “When my readers watch the tv show, they’re going to have to readjust their own mental images of who these characters are.” The television show has become an entirely separate entity from the book series, and using the books to defend the characters’ sexuality is a pretty thin argument when the show has already changed so much about the characters already. So, the simple fact that Jane Rizzoli and Maura Isles are heterosexual in the source novels does not serve as a legitimate reason why the writers shouldn’t or couldn’t allow Jane and Maura to fall in love on camera.
I think the reason that I have such a huge problem with everything that’s been said about the whole gay thing is Angie Harmon. (I swear I didn’t mean for this to be a rant about her. I swear.) Some of the things she has said about the possibility that Maura and Jane might be gay for each other just rub me the wrong way, and, honestly, sound completely condescending. You know what, Angie Harmon? I’m glad that you find playing into the subtext with no real intention of ever making it maintext “fantastic and fun and awesome as long as everyone is good-natured about it.” It’s great that my wish to be respectfully represented in the media is funny to you. Personally, I’m a little tired of being good-natured. She even went on the record with Chelsea Handler to “come out” as loving “the gays.” I think it’s great that she says that, but if she loves them so much, she should really put her money where her mouth is in terms of politics (which is another rant for another day and another blog). Her interview with Handler smacked a bit as if she wanted to be congratulated for being so progressive despite her conservativeness, and, I’m sorry, but I will not say, “Oh Angie! How great of you to love the gays!” Saying you love gay people and believing that all people deserve the same rights are two different things, and I’m going to stop now because this is not a post about Angie Harmon’s politics. However, I do believe her attitudes severely hurt the possibility that Jane and Maura will ever become romantically involved with each other.
All of the hype around the whole Rizzoli & Isles gay subtext situation— all the cast members and Janet Tamaro yelling about how straight these women are— has, in my view, at least, shot this ship in the foot. After saying so loudly, and for so long, that these characters are completely straight and love men, actually making good on their endless taunting and introducing a canon romantic relationship between Jane and Maura would make them look like complete idiots.
While writing this post, I’ve read a lot of what Janet Tamaro and Tess Gerritsen have said about their writing processes and where their work comes from, and I honestly really like a lot of what they have to say. Tamaro, in an interview with AfterEllen.com, talks pretty extensively over her wish to write a show that depicts two strong, intelligent women in a very close, uncompetitive relationship. It’s important to her that women like Rizzoli and Isles are represented in television, an area where there aren’t many tough female leads. She also said, “This is as important and I am not slumming by writing a show that appeals to women – all women. […] It sincerely, makes me happy, because I love women and I write for women. I don’t give a crap if they are straight or gay. I just like that they like this show and see pieces of themselves in it.” I really appreciate the sentiment. I really do. And I believe her, just like I believe her when she says that none of her writing is her attempt at pandering to the GLBT audience, and I believe her when she says, in the interview linked above, that she only found out about the gay fanbase and speculations over the characters’ sexuality after “I Kissed a Girl” was written. But, regardless of anyone’s statement that they aren’t trying to pander to us, it sure does feel like pandering. And I believe that people involved in media have a responsibility to think critically about what they produce and the implications it has. Good for you, Janet Tamaro, that you are trying to write strong female leads. It’s worked. Regardless of Jane and Maura’s sexual identities, I admire them for who they are. But gay people have even more of a need than women, I think, to be positively represented in the media, and Rizzoli & Isles is the perfect show for the job. From a point purely focused on storytelling, having Jane and Maura’s relationship develop into a romance would provide a lot of interesting things to write about, which is something that is important to Janet Tamaro, who says, “I have to write for myself. I have to be interested and I have to really love the characters and if I don’t it shows. So it wasn’t a question of, how do I put these two together and get people to watch? It was, what’s interesting about the two of them? And what makes you like them? What is unexpected?” Well, I can’t say that making Jane and Maura gay would be the most unexpected thing that you could do, but I certainly think it would be the most interesting. A gay, Catholic Boston homicide detective? Dating the Chief Medical Examiner? Just think of all the intense, wonderful story possibilities.
I’ve been reading through the coverage of Rizzoli & Isles over at AfterEllen while writing this post, and I’ve seen a lot of comments from people who really don’t care if Jane and Maura end up together, romantically, on the show. They just watch for the subtext, which I completely respect and obviously enjoy, if you’ve taken a look around my personal blog. So, why does this matter? you may be wondering. My biggest annoyance, especially with Rizzoli & Isles, is that I feel like everyone involved in the entire show is constantly dangling this really sexy lesbian carrot above my face. And when I say really sexy lesbian carrot, I want everyone to insert every little subtexty moment that just screamed GAY. I would especially like to draw everyone’s attention to the newest episode and the, “I like Tommy. A lot. But I love you,” moment and everything before and after it. And I want that damn sexy lesbian carrot. But I’m never going to get it. Because they’re straight. Because “We’re just acting what’s on the page.” Because “Rizzoli and Isles have been heterosexual from the first episode.”
I’m just tired of the lady-lovin’-lady subtext being treated as a funny way to snag viewers and generate hype. I almost feel like they’re making fun of the lady lovin’. “Ha ha, you THINK you see two women who are in love with each other, but really, that’s just ridiculous! That could never happen! Not on our SUPER STRAIGHT TOTALLY HETEROSEXUAL SHOW!” I want a show on cable tv that respectfully and creatively portrays two intelligent, strong, complex woman who happen to fall in love with each other. My first impulse is to apologize for this, but I refuse to apologize, because I, along with all lady-lovin’ ladies everywhere, deserve to be represented in mainstream television with dignity and respect. And we’re just not.
