- This topic has 296 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
See, I read a ton of classics where people kiss all the time and it’s not sexual. So just kissing doesn’t make it a romance for me :p
If they were male and female then it would be taken to be romantic. Because it’s female/female people make excuses and assume otherwise. That’s heteronormativity and it sucks. People are more open about Polyamory in Maguire’s Oz too which makes things more complicated.
[adrotate group="5"]I don't cause commotions, I am one.
Not always–historically and in other cultures, kissing people you’re close to was perfectly normal and non-sexual. It’s true that for an unrelated male/female it would be more likely read as romantic, but that’s because those cultures often had a big divide between unrelated people of opposite sexes.
In this day and age almost all physical contact is read as potentially sexual in western culture. That’s not true for all cultures and times…and the characters in the original Oz books kiss one another quite innocently as a result. So I was reading Wicked through that lens–since I grew upon Baum’s oz books, which are a century old (and have very, very little romance in them at all).
Keeper of Belle's Gold magic, sand dollar, cloaks, purple FTL outfit, spell scroll, library key, copy of Romeo and Juliet, and cry-muffling pillow, Rumple's doll, overcoat, and strength, and The Timeline. My spreadsheet: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6r8CySCCWd9R0RUNm4xR3RhMEU/view?usp=sharing
As for the other stuff: I have ZERO problem with them bringing in a non-hetero romance; however I don’t think the first reciprocal relationship (not counting SleepingWarrior) should be the wicked witch who is stealing babies and killing people. Sorta sends the wrong message. Just like I didn’t want Felix to be in love with Pan and for them to be involved because they were being called demons and evil on screen. So from that perspective, I hope not.
Yeah, that! Considering that some people will unfortunately automatically demonise ANY same sex relationship, it wouldn’t exactly be a positive thing to portray anything about that relationship or the people involved as being dark or twisted or untrustworthy. It would give those people more ammo to not like it and talk smack about it. If they’re gonna do a same sex couple, they should be two noble people who are just perfect for each other and have an epic romance. A portrayal like that might actually have a shot at changing some homophobic attitudes, rather than adding fuel to the fire.
*sits in corner and laments her old headcanon of Archie and Eric that never came to be*
*rides in behind Phee and whispers “Hookriel”*
Keeper of Rumplestiltskin's and Neal's spears and war paint and crystal ball.
As for the other stuff: I have ZERO problem with them bringing in a non-hetero romance; however I don’t think the first reciprocal relationship (not counting SleepingWarrior) should be the wicked witch who is stealing babies and killing people. Sorta sends the wrong message. Just like I didn’t want Felix to be in love with Pan and for them to be involved because they were being called demons and evil on screen. So from that perspective, I hope not.
I don’t think Felix or Pan were romantically involved and there’s evidence in the show to prove it. When they were at the well and needed the heart of the thing Pan loved most, Felix immediately thought Pan meant Rumple rather than himself which in my opinion proves that Felix and Pan were not in a romantic relationship. Also Pan’s dialogue “Love doesn’t have to be family or romance” disproves Panix being romantically involved. Pan even stated that “love can be friendship and loyalty”.
Despite being villainous characters, Pan and Felix had one of the strongest friendships presented on the show.
Yeah, that! Considering that some people will unfortunately automatically demonise ANY same sex relationship, it wouldn’t exactly be a positive thing to portray anything about that relationship or the people involved as being dark or twisted or untrustworthy. It would give those people more ammo to not like it and talk smack about it. If they’re gonna do a same sex couple, they should be two noble people who are just perfect for each other and have an epic romance. A portrayal like that might actually have a shot at changing some homophobic attitudes, rather than adding fuel to the fire.
*sits in corner and laments her old headcanon of Archie and Eric that never came to be*
I think when they do present a same-sex couple on the show, they shouldn’t make a song and dance about the couple being the same gender as that makes it seem like the couple is the token gay characters and their only defining characteristic is their sexuality. They should treat the couple as a normal occurrence rather than a “oh look everyone, here’s our gay characters!” event.
Having a villain in a same-sex relationship wouldn’t necessary be a bad thing, but if they go that route, it shouldn’t come across as “they’re gay so they’re evil” but more as “they’re in a same-sex relationship, so what?”
Buffy the Vampire Slayer presented a same-sex relationship on the show (at a time when same-sex relationships in the media weren’t a common thing) and it has turned out to be one of the “big 3” relationships on the show (alongside Spuffy and Buffy/Angel). People got invested in that relationship between Willow and Tara unlike the season 7 attempt at a same-sex relationship between Willow an Kennedy because Tara died in season 6. Willow even had a brief villainous phase because of the death of her loved one where she tried to destroy the world because the pain hurt too much. What defeated Willow was not magic or superpower but the platonic love of her friend from childhood Xander. The Willow/Tara relationship was not treated as any thing special, it was just presented as a normal relationship that included fights, arguments, breaking up, making up, getting back together, good times, bad times just like any “normal” relationship.
I think Archie should be the first male gay character, we’ve not seen him show an interest in any of the female characters on the show and he’s also not the stereotypical, flamboyant, camp version of a homosexual person. Maybe they’ll twist the 101 Dalmatians story so that Perdita’s owner is Roger instead of Anita since Archie has Pongo and his name begins with A.
As for Zelena/Glinda, I think there’s too much working against that pairing now. Had Zelena used Glinda’s heart to cast the curse, then they could’ve set up the relationship that way but there’s not enough time to set up that relationship realistically now and Zelena’s unrequited crush on Rumple kind of suggests that Zelena doesn’t swing that way.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixPersonally, I have nothing against Glinda and Zelena having been together. I like the idea of Glinda refusing to help them directly because she loved Z. But I just think making the character in love with anyone would be a bad move. Zelena seems more reckless to me if she doesn’t have some sob love story behind her. Its not that I don’t wish to see her in a female/female relationship. I just want to see her alone, envious, and wicked.
As for the novel, I never really saw romance in Galinda’s and Elphie’s interaction. I can see how others can see it but I’ve read that book a million times and to this day I just…. Don’t. Some people see attraction between Boq/Elphie and I dont. Even if Elphie kissed Boq I dont think id have read it romantically. The only person in that book who I see romance for Elphaba was fiyero and even that came years after they met. If Gregory Maguire intended from the start to be implying Glinda/Elphie had a thing I guess it just flies over my head.
"I could have the giant duck as my steed!" --Daniel Radcliffe
Keeper Of Tamara's Taser , Jafar's Staff, Kitsis’s Glasses , Ariel’s Tail, Dopey's Hat , Peter Pan’s Shadow, Outfit, & Pied Cloak,Red Queen's Castle, White Rabbit's Power To World Hop, Zelena's BroomStick, & ALL MAGICAnd you know what? It’s okay that each of us got a slightly different thing out of the story–just as it’s okay that we don’t all see exactly the same things in Once. We’re all bringing our own life experiences, knowledge, and personalities to the stories we imbibe; the act of reading or viewing is not passive transmission of ideas from one person to another, but an active creation in our minds of the story we’re encountering. With reading the effect is heightened, as we’re transforming words into images and action in our heads.
If it weren’t for the fact that stories ARE open for interpretation, there would be no such thing as literary criticism (which is about interpreting the text, not pointing out its flaws, for those who aren’t so into English studies).
So what we each found in the story can be equally valid even if it’s different, opposed, or reflects our privileged biases. (And that means that RG and I can both be right about the curtains…in a quantum kinda way.)
Keeper of Belle's Gold magic, sand dollar, cloaks, purple FTL outfit, spell scroll, library key, copy of Romeo and Juliet, and cry-muffling pillow, Rumple's doll, overcoat, and strength, and The Timeline. My spreadsheet: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6r8CySCCWd9R0RUNm4xR3RhMEU/view?usp=sharing
I don’t think Felix or Pan were romantically involved and there’s evidence in the show to prove it
I know. But it was a theory that floated around for awhile
I think Archie should be the first male gay character, we’ve not seen him show an interest in any of the female characters on the show and he’s also not the stereotypical, flamboyant, camp version of a homosexual person. Maybe they’ll twist the 101 Dalmatians story so that Perdita’s owner is Roger instead of Anita since Archie has Pongo and his name begins with A.
He’s not token in that way, but he would be token. He would the be closeted, sweet, guy who everyone turns to but just “never knew about.” I think when OUAT does bring this up in show it should be something bold and not something everyone would suspect. Like, I want Hercules to be gay and dating his trainer Phil (who is not half goat…) because it’s a deviation from the stereotypical depictions.
And you know what? It’s okay that each of us got a slightly different thing out of the story–just as it’s okay that we don’t all see exactly the same things in Once. We’re all bringing our own life experiences, knowledge, and personalities to the stories we imbibe; the act of reading or viewing is not passive transmission of ideas from one person to another, but an active creation in our minds of the story we’re encountering. With reading the effect is heightened, as we’re transforming words into images and action in our heads.
Everything is text and the author is dead. 😉
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"
The topic ‘Out in Storybrooke: Who should have a Queery Tale romance?’ is closed to new replies.