"So you've come to the end now alive but dead inside."
It's useful, because a lot of the people who are queer don't want to have confining labels put on them, so it's a way to avoid labels while still being part of a community. The other Q is for questioning, which I always thought is a bit wishy-washy.
If you say so. Any label is a label. By its very nature, a label identifies something even if people believe it is a non-label if they want to be identified by such a term it is thus a label. Take color for example if you are a color you reflect visible light rather than absorb it so you are still part of that group or label (true black absorbs light and thus is not an actual color but rather it is the absence of color and some things do not reflect visible light at all). If labels, however, are too loose they lose any classification application. Take the following - all serpents are snakes but there are many subtypes and even several categories of snakes so simply identifying them all as serpents is of little practical use.
Who knows, maybe this bothers me so much simply because I hate unclear language and especially overly broad terms.
Last edited by Celgress; 06-17-2019 at 05:25 PM.
"So you've come to the end now alive but dead inside."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer
That's how I use the term, and how the term is used in academic contexts. "Queer studies", etcQueer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender.
Last edited by Celgress; 06-17-2019 at 06:27 PM.
"So you've come to the end now alive but dead inside."
My problem with this is that let's say you're a transvestite, but you're heterosexual and you don't identify as a female. Or what if you're into polyamory? Or what if you enjoy BDSM? Or what if you're a furry? It seems like you're being excluded from the LGBTQ community, because you're straight when it comes to one specific function, yet your actions are the sort that would be condemned by extreme conservatives as profane, just like all the other people in the LGBTQ community. So it leaves those people without anyone to stand up for them, just because of this one little thing that is supposedly heterosexual, yet they're not exactly vanilla.
Last edited by Jim Kelly; 06-18-2019 at 05:28 AM.
Allegory is just another literary technique, and can be used just as subtle or as hamfisted as any other literary technique. And depending on the setup of the work and what it is trying to say, allegory can both be a help or a detriment, and sometimes both at the same time.
If that is what you want, then definitely yes. I want the Amazons to be shown on camera with romantic or sexual relations with each other. I don't give much for the Rowling style of diversity (where Dumbledore is declared to be gay in an interview).
But Diana grew up in a society that effectively had no genders, no classes, and no state. To her same-sex relations should be as natural as the air. It didn't really bother me that WW17 didn't go there much, the film had enough of things to do, Diana had enough of a culture shock in any case, and they did make one awesome joke out of it. But in 1984? It is something that needs to be included much more prominently, and given the presence of the "Silence = Death" poster, it seems that the AIDS crisis and the gay movement will have a real place in the movie.
«Speaking generally, it is because of the desire of the tragic poets for the marvellous that so varied and inconsistent an account of Medea has been given out» (Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History [4.56.1])
Almost every Batman comic has the message of "the ultra wealthy and the police can be a force for good in society" but apparently having a queer main character is just too damn political?
I don't disagree that having LGBT or Muslim main characters is political in today's context but that doesn't make other mainstream superhero comics "non-political". And Wonder Woman is no exception.
I have no problem with this as long as it fits smoothly into the narrative. I prefer subtlety, but that's just my view of things.
I hate when people come right out an say something in an interview as well. Let the work speak for itself don't tell people rather show them. I often worry creatives (writers, actors, and directors) just do such to score brownie points rather than for any nobler reasons.
Edit - At the very least Diana should always be portrayed as bisexual. Such a status only makes sense given her cultural upbringing.
Last edited by Celgress; 06-18-2019 at 02:29 PM.
"So you've come to the end now alive but dead inside."
Last edited by Celgress; 06-18-2019 at 02:30 PM.
"So you've come to the end now alive but dead inside."
Those examples don't get nearly the same page time as Batman or Jim Gordon, the two main good guys of almost every Batman story. And that's political, even if it's not aggressive (that's mainly because the politics behind this are considered normal so people don't think it's making a big statement).
Wonder Woman being queer is saying that queer people are normal and can be forces for good in the world. That's political in a homophobic world yes but that's the fault of people for being homophobic, not queer people for wanting representation in superhero comics.
I don't agree with you. Two Face and Black Skull are two examples of powerful people who become corrupt.
I don't think you understand what my problem is. It isn't with WW being "Queer" (I still contend this term is too broad to be of any use) rather it is with what the Director said, her approach. I'm a big fan of show don't tell. Let your work speak for itself. Be subtle and use allegory instead of bluntly hitting people over the head with your message.
Last edited by Celgress; 06-19-2019 at 12:18 PM.
"So you've come to the end now alive but dead inside."
Did Patty Jenkins say something about the movie? What was the quote? Everything I've seen from her, she's been pretty closed-mouth about what happens in the picture. Not that I want to know what happens--I can wait to see the actual movie. But a director has a difficult job these days in managing the social media promotion for their movie, on which the pictures depend for bringing in audiences, without giving away the whole movie. I think Jenkins is a show don't tell director--but she has to say something to drive the campaign for the movie. It would be wrong to single her out for doing that, when it's expected of every director that they push their movie. In fact, if they don't, they're criticized for failing to promote the picture.