The relationship b/w Antimony and Kat

[Necropaxx]

Jun 9, 2010 7:18:17 GMT avurai said:

After reading through these 4 pages of debate, I have come up with two things to say.

It’s just a comic.

How about we wait for the comic to be over, see what’ll happen, then we can all call it a day? There might even be a definitive answer to all our questions involving this issue, by then. Sound like a nice plan, everyone?

But we loooove to argue! Would you take away our joy and doom us to eternal sorrow?!

[Aris Katsaris]

OK I follow that, but what I'm saying is that saying "heterosexual" you're talking about someone's sexual orientation,

The confusion stems from the fact that when I'm speaking about sexual orientation, I'm not speaking just about *sexual* attraction, I'm also speaking about *romantic* attraction. That's a problem with the word you use in English really. The corresponding word in Greece for homosexuality "homophylophilia" is a compound of three stems homo-phylo-philia (literally: same-gender-love), without referring explicitly to sex.

Would it make things better if I used the terms "gayness" and "straightness" rather than "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality"?

whereas even little kids have "girlfriends" and "boyfriends" without a thought towards actual procreation.

I don't really consider the mimicking of adult relationships that we sometimes see in little kids as relevant: playing at being "girlfriend" and "boyfriend" without real comprehension of what the term mean, just because they heard and misconstrued the words, is like playing at being cowboys and indians -- without making such games relevant at the understanding of the relationship between native Americans and European-descended cow-herders in the real world.

At the age of Janet & Willie on the other hand, people have already moved beyond such games -- even if they don't feel the desire to sex each other up immediately, they understand the concept of such desires, and they understand the concept of romantic relationships.

[Casey]

Jun 9, 2010 8:43:28 GMT Aris Katsaris said:

I don't really consider the mimicking of adult relationships that we sometimes see in little kids as relevant: playing at being "girlfriend" and "boyfriend" without real comprehension of what the term mean, just because they heard and misconstrued the words, is like playing at being cowboys and indians -- without making such games relevant at the understanding of the relationship between native Americans and European-descended cow-herders in the real world.

At the age of Janet & Willie on the other hand, people have already moved beyond such games -- even if they don't feel the desire to sex each other up immediately, they understand the concept of such desires, and they understand the concept of romantic relationships.

I'm not sure that I totally agree with that. I think that pre-sexual kids are completely capable of forming emotional bonds, even if their emotions aren't as refined as older people (and really, our emotions aren't truly done developing until our mid-20s) and those emotional bonds are certainly very real to them.

As for Janet and Willie, I... I just have to think that they don't have sex on the brain. I find it a hard concept that physical attraction of that level can even develop before the physical attributes have developed for someone to be attracted to, if you know what I mean. In other words it makes sense to me that someone Andrew's age could describe someone Parley's age as being "hot", but... I just can't imagine someone William's age describing someone Janet's age as being "hot" because, well, there's nothing there to get hot about! This line of thinking is making me uncomfortable...

[Aris Katsaris]

Again: I'm saying Janet/Willie is a romantic NON-sexual (yet) relationship. A romantic non-sexual heterosexual relationship. If the word heterosexual bothers you, because it includes the syllables "sexual", you can use the word "straight" in its place, which doesn't include them.

"I just can't imagine someone William's age describing someone Janet's age as being "hot" because, well, there's nothing there to get hot about"

I don't know what I said that made you think I can imagine him saying it either. I didn't say or argue that. I CAN however imagine them thinking of each other as beautiful/handsome, and I can imagine William and Janet kissing and making out, which is a manifestation of the desire for physical closeness, and thus the beginnings of sexual feelings.

That's what I mean when I say "they understand the concept of such desires." even if they don't experience them fully.

[Casey]

Jun 9, 2010 13:21:54 GMT Aris Katsaris said:

Again: I'm saying Janet/Willie is a romantic NON-sexual (yet) relationship. A romantic non-sexual heterosexual relationship. If the word heterosexual bothers you, because it includes the syllables "sexual", you can use the word "straight" in its place, which doesn't include them.

"I just can't imagine someone William's age describing someone Janet's age as being "hot" because, well, there's nothing there to get hot about"

I don't know what I said that made you think I can imagine him saying it either. I didn't say or argue that. I CAN however imagine them thinking of each other as beautiful/handsome, and I can imagine William and Janet kissing and making out, which is a manifestation of the desire for physical closeness, and thus the beginnings of sexual feelings.

That's what I mean when I say "they understand the concept of such desires." even if they don't experience them fully.

Allright, I read what you said, but then when I referenced it again for quotes, I came away only with "Janet and Willie have moved beyond such games" which was inaccurate on my part.

Question: Is the desire for closeness, even physical closeness, necessarily the beginnings of sexual feelings? Zimmy and Gamma are extremely close. In fact Tom has very recently said on Formspring that they are more than just best friends. But I don't see it as them having sexual feelings for each other. Obviously I could be wrong and they could have those feelings and there's nothing wrong with that (Hi Violet!), but in the course of the narration, I don't think it is necessary to assume that they feel that in order for one to comprehend their incredible closeness. Again... I think Sam and Frodo were much closer than best friends. I think that you can feel that another person is inseparable from you, that your very lives are intertwined, and yet still not have sexual attraction even be a part of the equation.

I think the majority of average, everyday people are more accepting of the idea of same-sex love and relationships than they are accepting of the idea of extremely close but nonsexual relationships, like that shared between Sam and Frodo or Zimmy and Gamma.

[warrl]

Jun 9, 2010 3:13:58 GMT Necropaxx said:

What about the Ysengrin shippers? Don't they get any love?

I first read that as "slippers".

They certainly would keep your feet warm.

[Mishmash]

Man I read that as slippers too! I would definitely buy them, have my toes snarling at everyone while I drink my morning tea.

[the bandit]

Quick, Robin, to the merchandise thread!

[violet]

Jun 9, 2010 13:46:51 GMT Casey said:

Question: Is the desire for closeness, even physical closeness, necessarily the beginnings of sexual feelings?

No, of course not. That's not even true for adults.

But, query: are you actually putting forward the notion that Janet and Willie aren't exploring, developing, and refining (apparently straight) romantic identities by dating? That we aren't supposed to see them as, essentially, a straight couple, albeit an immature one?

That notion is fascinatingly at odds with both how I read them, and my own experience as a kid. I mean, I had a “girlfriend” in the first grade. We wanted to have sex, tho I don't think we really had any idea what that entailed. Later, but even just in the time before I was a teenager, I had all variety of crushes and romantic interests, with varying degrees of complexity and sexual involvement. It was continuous exploration and evolution. It didn't really go like innocent cherub — puberty! — lesbian slut, though that would make a good album title. Talking to other people, I don't get the impression that this experience was terribly odd.

Zimmy and Gamma are extremely close. In fact Tom has very recently said on Formspring that they are more than just best friends. But I don't see it as them having sexual feelings for each other. Obviously I could be wrong and they could have those feelings and there's nothing wrong with that (Hi Violet!),

…erm, hi?

but in the course of the narration, I don't think it is necessary to assume that they feel that in order for one to comprehend their incredible closeness.

But neither is it precluded, right? I mean, their relationship certainly evokes very intense childhood relationships that, for a lot of women, were romantic and at least proto-sexual. I'm going out on a limb and guessing that you didn't have experiences like that, and so don't think of it as a natural reading. That doesn't mean it isn't, or that there's something off about finding it so.

(Broadly: heteronormative assumptions require extraordinary textual substantiation for possible gay relationships, and extraordinary textual refutation for possible straight ones.)

I think the majority of average, everyday people are more accepting of the idea of same-sex love and relationships than they are accepting of the idea of extremely close but nonsexual relationships, like that shared between Sam and Frodo or Zimmy and Gamma.

Tho in the end, I suspect most people actually do read Sam and Frodo as straight. But, you're correct to say, a bit more grudgingly nowadays. The greater visibility of gay people has led to a greater visibility of homophobia, producing tighter constraints on acceptably platonic homosocial relationships—for everyone, but especially men. (I think they're now more in line with the restrictions on acceptably platonic heterosocial relationships, but it would be interesting to look at that more closely.)

[whosit]

Honestly, now... Antimony is all of what... 14 years old, if that? I realize that most everyone wants main characters to enjoy romance (heck, so do I), but the kid's barely into her teens. Not all teenage girls are boy-crazy, and what with her having to help her mother pass on, and with a man-bot like Anthony Carver as her father, her emotional issues--including her apathy towards romance--should be no surprise.
As to her fondness for Kat, have you ever paid attention to how girls sometimes behave around each other? Physical and emotional closeness between girls is not the equivalent of a lesbian-label.
Besides, Tom Siddell has made it quite clear that Annie and Kat are very close friends, and that's all.

[cheddarius]

I don't think we're even arguing about that anymore. It's become a debate about whether Gunnerkrigg Court readers are homophobic or something, I think.

[Aris Katsaris]

It's become a debate about whether Gunnerkrigg Court readers are homophobic or something, I think.

From page 1 of this thread already, it was partly a debate about whether the shippers were perverts. e.g. see bluemotion slowly backing away with his "I just...I just don't understand... " and his ellipses of pseudo-horror.

So, yeah, if people gonna imply that shipping a gay young relationship makes people perverts (while shipping straight ones never does), I'm gonna exply that they're being homophobic.

(Note -- exply:imply::explicit:implicit)

[Casey]

Jun 11, 2010 8:45:56 GMT Aris Katsaris said:

and his ellipses of pseudo-horror

Quote of the Day for me! And I just woke up, too.

[cheddarius]

Aris, as I have stated, it is generally good to assume good faith. I do not dislike, say, Hagrid/Dumbledore slash (does that exist?) because it is homosexual. I dislike it because it is incredibly stupid. If I were to read a thread about Hagrid/Dumbledore slash and talk about how it is unrealistic, it would be, I think, wrong to assume that I am homophobic.

[violet]

Jun 11, 2010 15:29:11 GMT cheddarius said:

If I were to read a thread about Hagrid/Dumbledore slash and talk about how it is unrealistic…

That's not the sort of reaction that Aris is talking about.

[Casey]

Wait... isn't there a difference between finding a shipper perverted for imagining a relationship between two characters a) specifically because they are same-sex, and b) specifically because they're underage?

Aris claims that shipping straight young relationships never makes people perverts, and I think that that isn't really true. It really depends on what exactly you're imagining happening. I don't think there's anything wrong with imagining the blossoming of young puppy love between any two young characters, but... if someone wanted to write fan fiction about Willie and Janet's first sexual encounter, I would have a real serious problem with that. They're only 13. Not only is that developmentally borderline abnormal, but the content of such a fan fiction would, like it or not, legally qualify as child pornography.

My issue is much more about the age of the participants than the orientation of the participants.

Furthermore of course is the overarching issue with "shipping", which I don't think should be overlooked in the midst of all this "You're a pervert, no you're a bigot" talk, which is: I have somewhat of a problem with any shipping, because in my own personal view of things, it's almost akin to saying that the intricate and delicate balance of interpersonal relations that the -author- has created isn't good enough for some people, so they're going to mash together some contrived, flimsy, and usually atrociously-written reason why the author is "wrong" and that relationships should be this other way. Yeah, sure, fan fiction is largely self-congratulatory by nature, but fan fiction that respects and holds high the standards set by the creator of that universe is a different creature altogether from the majority of 'ship fiction that some 14-year-old somewhere is incredibly proud of.

[Aris Katsaris]

Wait... isn't there a difference between finding a shipper perverted for imagining a relationship between two characters a) specifically because they are same-sex, and b) specifically because they're underage?

Aris claims that shipping straight young relationships never makes people perverts, and I think that that isn't really true

No, I'm claiming that several of the people who objected to gay shipping (or young gay relationship in the comic) never seemed to object to straight shipping (or young straight relationships we've seen in the comic). This inconsistency indicates that it's not the youth of the characters (or atleast not their youth ALONE) that's their real reason.

I NEVER accused of homophobia people who've consistently been against *specific* relationships as unrealistic or unlikely (e.g. Todd who I believe doesn't anticipate Annie specifically as pairing up with any other boy OR girl for the comic's duration), or who've disliked both varieties of non-canonical shipping (like Tom Siddell himself seems to dislike).

[legion]

It's because no non-canonical unrealistic/squicky heterosexual shipping has been made for this comic so far. Nobody has complained about Kat/Eglamore shipping because nobody has proposed said shipping (yet).

There has been some Jack/Annie proposal attempts, and they *have* been defused as quite unlikely.

[Aris Katsaris]

"It's because no non-canonical unrealistic/squicky heterosexual shipping has been made for this comic so far."

That may be a true explanation for some people. But in regards to other people, and because of a number of reasons and contradictions that I've explained already several times, I don't find it remotely believable.

[legion]

So you're determined to see hordes of homophobes lurking in the darkness, ready to backstab you, the true defendor by procuration of the homosexual cause, as soon as you show a sign of weakness~

[violet]

Jun 11, 2010 16:12:44 GMT Casey said:

Aris claims that shipping straight young relationships never makes people perverts, and I think that that isn't really true.

I think he's more saying that, broadly, straight 'ships aren't assumed to be pervy, but gay 'ships and slash, broadly, are. Contrast the reaction to this thread with the reaction to this fanart.

I have somewhat of a problem with any shipping, because in my own personal view of things, it's almost akin to saying that the intricate and delicate balance of interpersonal relations that the -author- has created isn't good enough for some people, so they're going to mash together some contrived, flimsy, and usually atrociously-written reason why the author is "wrong" and that relationships should be this other way.

I think slash is different from 'shipping.

'Shipping is saying: Bella and Jacob are so perfect for each other! I like their relationship in these three ways: one, two, three. I think they should be together. Perhaps I will write some especially catastrophic fanfic in which they are together and I will send it to Stephanie Myers and she will make it happen for reals.

Slash is saying: There's an awful lot of sexual tension between Buffy and Faith happening. I think you can connect that to this and that. Oh! And there's absolutely subtext in how they interact with this thematic anchor, and as an aside, some of the Faith-hating going on from Willow's end might be because she's kinda gay (as we can see here and here).

Slash is about reading the relationships in the (sub)text. I don't think it does violence to the text. I think, actually, it's a celebration of it. It's rooted in it. It needs it to live. Slash is very much about examining and exploring those relationships as they exist in the text, and as they resonate with the (typically queer) reader. 'Shipping is more of a position of preference and advocacy. Slash can lead to 'shipping, of course, but they're different phenomena. (And neither necessitates fic, though both can beget fic.)

Slash is almost always centred on gay relationships, largely due to the historic (and continuing) marginalization of gay relationships. For a long time, not only were the only gay relationships in any kind of mainstream media subtextual, actual gay relationships had to remain, essentially, subtext in the vast majority of social situations.

[Casey]

Jun 11, 2010 19:41:45 GMT violet said:

I think he's more saying that, broadly, straight 'ships aren't assumed to be pervy, but gay 'ships and slash, broadly, are. Contrast the reaction to this thread with the reaction to this fanart.

My dear Violet, Methinks your argument undoes itself:

Take a look at the reaction to the very next piece of art in the thread that you linked.

[Casey]

Jun 11, 2010 19:41:45 GMT violet said:

Slash is saying: There's an awful lot of sexual tension between Buffy and Faith happening. I think you can connect that to this and that. Oh! And there's absolutely subtext in how they interact with this thematic anchor, and as an aside, some of the Faith-hating going on from Willow's end might be because she's kinda gay (as we can see here and here).

Slash is about reading the relationships in the (sub)text.

The relationships that ARE in the subtext? Or the relationships that ARE READ INTO the subtext? Because that's very different, and goes right to the heart of what I was saying: The degree to which the author explicitly goes into the subtext is good enough. If you extrapolate from there, you are bringing your own perceptions into the equation, and thereby (more or less) perturbing the canon of what the author has written. If for example Tom has only hinted at the nature of the relationship between Zimmy and Gamma, then it is not for us to decide what Tom means by what he said; we can draw our own conclusions, but we can't offer those conclusions as genuine subtext. It's self-promotional and prone to error.

Slash is almost always centred on gay relationships, largely due to the historic (and continuing) marginalization of gay relationships.

Now, see, here you've just lost me. If I decided I wanted to write a script for a new thriller movie, let's say, and I don't include a gay couple as the main characters, is that "marginalizing" gay relationships? If Tom wants to write a comic that he has said over and over is not focused on relationships, then is he marginalizing the gay community too? In reading your words, is it not apparent how some people could construe your statement to be an expression of hypersensitivity to the perception of being marginalized?

[violet]

Jun 11, 2010 20:11:57 GMT Casey said:

Take a look at the reaction to the very next piece of art in the thread that you linked.

Fair point. Tho it's not really equivalent; people will still say Gamma and Zimmy might be touching, sweet, and veryvery close, but it's not like they're like that, y'know?

[Casey]

Jun 11, 2010 20:26:06 GMT violet said:

Jun 11, 2010 20:11:57 GMT Casey said:

Take a look at the reaction to the very next piece of art in the thread that you linked.

Fair point. Tho it's not really equivalent; people will still say Gamma and Zimmy might be touching, sweet, and veryvery close, but it's not like they're like that, y'know?

Again... you make it sound like an author has done something WRONG by portraying a loving relationship between two girls and NOT explicitly saying "These two are gay".

I don't know you, and I don't claim to, outside of what I read on these boards, and I hope you don't take any offense when I objectively point out that some people, average people, might construe some statements like this on your part as you being very sensitive to what you perceive as being marginalized, when that isn't the case at all.

[violet]

Jun 11, 2010 20:25:21 GMT Casey said:

The relationships that ARE in the subtext? Or the relationships that ARE READ INTO the subtext? Because that's very different, and goes right to the heart of what I was saying: The degree to which the author explicitly goes into the subtext is good enough. If you extrapolate from there, you are bringing your own perceptions into the equation, and thereby (more or less) perturbing the canon of what the author has written.

Is there some way you can read a text without bringing your perceptions into the equation?

And how, for that matter, does an author write something explicitly in to the subtext? That doesn't seem possible, by definition.

If for example Tom has only hinted at the nature of the relationship between Zimmy and Gamma, then it is not for us to decide what Tom means by what he said; we can draw our own conclusions, but we can't offer those conclusions as genuine subtext. It's self-promotional and prone to error.

As is our reading of Janet and Willie, right? I mean, since we're being extremely careful to avoid drawing our own conclusions, and all.

Now, see, here you've just lost me. If I decided I wanted to write a script for a new thriller movie, let's say, and I don't include a gay couple as the main characters, is that "marginalizing" gay relationships?

Touchy, much? That was a historical note, not an indictment. It's not about you. (It's not about Tom, either).

You can't marginalize anyone. Marginalization is a systemic thing. It's the name of the phenomena wherein non-straight (and non-white, non-western, etc.) viewpoints are minimized or erased.

The thing I was saying is that slash tends to be queer because people in the queer community have, historically, needed to look to subtext to see representations of their experiences, and have typically had to have more closeted experiences, anyway. And it's not like the closet has gone away, though it's definitely more porous.

(I mean, really, the thing I was saying was: The Celluloid Closet is nifty and should be watched (though someone really has to make a contemporary documentary on the same subject, at some point (and I kinda hope it's me)).)

[violet]

Jun 11, 2010 20:28:48 GMT Casey said:

Again... you make it sound like an author has done something WRONG by portraying a loving relationship between two girls and NOT explicitly saying "These two are gay".

You misunderstand. I'm not critiquing the text for not being more explicit; I'm critiquing the stance of dismissing slash on account of that ambiguity.

(That's actually a pretty limited claim. For example, it accedes that a purely gay reading of Sam and Frodo clashes with the text and is thus contraindicated.)

[Casey]

I really get the sense that you're not grasping what I'm saying, and maybe it's that I'm not saying it in a way that translates well for you... but I think I'd rather drop it at this point than risk getting you further riled up, as you appear to me to be.

[violet]

Jun 11, 2010 21:24:45 GMT Casey said:

I really get the sense that you're not grasping what I'm saying, and maybe it's that I'm not saying it in a way that translates well for you... but I think I'd rather drop it at this point than risk getting you further riled up, as you appear to me to be.

Funnily enough, I'm getting the same feeling :-p Though I feel like it's an illusion on both ends. Feminist media analysis, particularly on the Internet, doesn't really get me worked up, anymore. (I mean, have you seen the Internet, recently?)

[Casey]

Yeah I'm not riled up in the least. But it's a hard topic to talk about over the Internet since the subject matter lends itself to emotional responses rather easily, being so personal in nature.