There's subtext and then there's subtext
I was supposed to be ranting about Christine/Erik shipping in the Phantom of the Opera fandom, but had this to get off my chest first.
Why do people insist on seeing homoerotic subtext in everything and insisting upon it as canon? I am fine with the first part - reading unintended (or even intended) subtext is part of the fun of reading or watching TV or movies. But subtext is subtext and until authorial intent reveals otherwise, it's neither proven or disproven. The fun is in the speculation and extrapolation because it's not proven or disproven. Insisting on subtext as gospel truth actually removes the fun element from the whole exercise!
First off, I am not homophobic. Heck, I have been reading homoerotic subtext in to Smallville since Ep 1 of Season 1. Michael Rosenberg is a one man charisma generator and playing Lex Luthor, he manages to have chemistry with Tom Welling's rather wussy Clark Kent. Of course it's pretty much dead upon arrival in terms of canonical probability; Clark Kent dated Lana Lang and goes on to fall in love with Lois Lane. It's not just subtext, it's disproven subtext! Maybe the fact that it is disproven made it enjoyable. It was never going to be happen "for real", so fans could just have fun with the phallic symbolisms and heavy-lidded exchanges of looks. I understand the Smallville fandom and its obsession with subtext seeking; it is an entertaining diversion in a show that has gone seriously downhill.
In the fandom that I am having trouble understanding, the homoerotic subtext is more or less disproven, although not definitively. But before it was disproven, fans were claiming it as canon with rather frightening intensity and certainty. The latest revelations throwing a spanner into these convictions have been greeted with much gnashing of teeth and bitterness of spirit (it should go without saying that not all the subtext-seekers have reacted like this, just a sizeable and vocal segment). Yes, the fandom is Harry Potter and yes, the relationship in question is Sirius Black/ Remus Lupin. Now that Rowling has written N.Tonks as a (seemingly requited, but that is another whole kettle of fish) romantic interest for Lupin, it is that little bit harder to insist that Lupin is gay in canon.
I have previously confessed a fondness for the Lupin character (if I was to fangirl fictional characters, he would be on the list - together with Mr Darcy, Kester Woodseaves from Precious Bane, Sir Percy Blakeney and Atticus Finch, among others - Note to self: must post on this one day). But my fondness for the character has nothing to do with my failing to see the how the gay subtext could be read as being intended. The evidence for it has not been all that convincing. And I can see alternate interpretations that just made so much more sense within the textual intent and theme of the HP series.
Some of the subtextual evidence for Gay!Lupin being in a relationship with Gay!Sirius:
"... embraced him like a brother." (POA)
Using 'brother' to mean homosexual, as in "City of Brotherly Love", isn't totally off the wall. If this was not children's literature, that is. Since we are seeing everything through Harry's eyes, I think it safe to say that what Harry saw was precisely two men who embraced like siblings. I suppose Rowling could have made it clearer by saying "embraced him like a long lost dear friend whom he had wrongly thought to be a murderer". No danger of mistaken subtext there, if she didn't intend to them to be gay! I guess she was just trying the word-economy route.
Lupin lives in 12 Grimmauld Place with Sirius. (OotP)
Many fanfic writers who don't subscribe to the RL/SB dynamic have explained this as Lupin being tasked to watch over a dangerously unbalanced Sirius. I agree; the textual evidence points to it - Sirius was falling apart with frustration from his imposed imprisonment within his ancestral home. It was only human kindness to have an old friend stay with him, especially one who is himself impoverished and perhaps in need of free board.
Lupin and Sirius give a joint Christmas present to Harry (OotP)
This has been taken as some sign of a domestic arrangement akin to marriage. If you squinted really hard, you could see it that way. But is it not more convenient (or obvious) to say that Lupin is dirt poor and probably could not afford a present himself? Since the gift was books on Defence against the Dark Arts, it made sense that Lupin would have a hand in buying the gift, even if he didn't exactly pay for it.
Wolf (Lupin) and Dog (Sirius in Animagus form)
This is by far my favourite of the misinterpreted subtexts. It is compelling, for sure, and a powerful symbolism; dog and wolf, different yet alike. But there are practical reasons for Sirius being a dog. Only as a dog could he have prowled around as he did in PoA and GoF. Imagine if Sirius was a stag, like James Potter. Imagine a stag wandering around the grounds of Hogwarts, in Hogsmeade or accompanying Harry to King's Cross station. JKR would have had to resort to unnecessarily complicated plots to avoid this incongruence. Having Sirius as a dog was a convenient contrivance and made the most sense for her story. He could be seen in human company and be relatively unsuspicious.
Not to say that these aren't valid gay subtexts, because they most definitely are. Until Rowling put out Book 6, these could be read as suggesting a non-platonic relationship between Lupin and Black. But they do not PROVE that such a relationship existed, only that it was plausible.
It would probably save a lot of people a lot of angst if they just continue exploring the Lupin/Black relationship without the unfounded conviction that it was intended by the author. Why the devastation that "practically canon" has become "not likely ever to be canon"? It was NEVER canon, nor "practically" canon. Rowling was not making a comment about lycanthropy = homosexuality and did not intentionally introduce gay subtext as a subliminal message to her readers. It is fine for fans to read it any way they choose to, and in fact analysis of extra-authorial intent is part of enjoying literature. Let's just stop trying to put words in the author's mouth.
As for the belief that Rowling put Lupin and Tonks together to stop the Lupin/Black slashing, I don't buy it. Mainly because I don't think the slash community is much on her radar, and also because slashers, while so prominent in online fandom, are a very small proportion of her readership. Why stick in a (otherwise irrelevant) romantic sub-plot just to shut up a relatively insignificant minority? But it was the case, would that not be further proof that she never intended a Lupin/Black non-platonic relationship? The counter argument is that the gay subtext was intended but she got frightened by how her subtle symbolisms have taken on a life of their own, and have become not so much "subtle" as "explicit". I don't buy this either; it is giving the online fandom too much credit, and giving Rowling too litte.
Upshot: seek out the subtext, have fun doing it, be imaginative interpreting it, believe what you want from it. But don't claim that the author intended you to believe what you want to believe. And don't get mad at the her if she didn't.
Why do people insist on seeing homoerotic subtext in everything and insisting upon it as canon? I am fine with the first part - reading unintended (or even intended) subtext is part of the fun of reading or watching TV or movies. But subtext is subtext and until authorial intent reveals otherwise, it's neither proven or disproven. The fun is in the speculation and extrapolation because it's not proven or disproven. Insisting on subtext as gospel truth actually removes the fun element from the whole exercise!
First off, I am not homophobic. Heck, I have been reading homoerotic subtext in to Smallville since Ep 1 of Season 1. Michael Rosenberg is a one man charisma generator and playing Lex Luthor, he manages to have chemistry with Tom Welling's rather wussy Clark Kent. Of course it's pretty much dead upon arrival in terms of canonical probability; Clark Kent dated Lana Lang and goes on to fall in love with Lois Lane. It's not just subtext, it's disproven subtext! Maybe the fact that it is disproven made it enjoyable. It was never going to be happen "for real", so fans could just have fun with the phallic symbolisms and heavy-lidded exchanges of looks. I understand the Smallville fandom and its obsession with subtext seeking; it is an entertaining diversion in a show that has gone seriously downhill.
In the fandom that I am having trouble understanding, the homoerotic subtext is more or less disproven, although not definitively. But before it was disproven, fans were claiming it as canon with rather frightening intensity and certainty. The latest revelations throwing a spanner into these convictions have been greeted with much gnashing of teeth and bitterness of spirit (it should go without saying that not all the subtext-seekers have reacted like this, just a sizeable and vocal segment). Yes, the fandom is Harry Potter and yes, the relationship in question is Sirius Black/ Remus Lupin. Now that Rowling has written N.Tonks as a (seemingly requited, but that is another whole kettle of fish) romantic interest for Lupin, it is that little bit harder to insist that Lupin is gay in canon.
I have previously confessed a fondness for the Lupin character (if I was to fangirl fictional characters, he would be on the list - together with Mr Darcy, Kester Woodseaves from Precious Bane, Sir Percy Blakeney and Atticus Finch, among others - Note to self: must post on this one day). But my fondness for the character has nothing to do with my failing to see the how the gay subtext could be read as being intended. The evidence for it has not been all that convincing. And I can see alternate interpretations that just made so much more sense within the textual intent and theme of the HP series.
Some of the subtextual evidence for Gay!Lupin being in a relationship with Gay!Sirius:
"... embraced him like a brother." (POA)
Using 'brother' to mean homosexual, as in "City of Brotherly Love", isn't totally off the wall. If this was not children's literature, that is. Since we are seeing everything through Harry's eyes, I think it safe to say that what Harry saw was precisely two men who embraced like siblings. I suppose Rowling could have made it clearer by saying "embraced him like a long lost dear friend whom he had wrongly thought to be a murderer". No danger of mistaken subtext there, if she didn't intend to them to be gay! I guess she was just trying the word-economy route.
Lupin lives in 12 Grimmauld Place with Sirius. (OotP)
Many fanfic writers who don't subscribe to the RL/SB dynamic have explained this as Lupin being tasked to watch over a dangerously unbalanced Sirius. I agree; the textual evidence points to it - Sirius was falling apart with frustration from his imposed imprisonment within his ancestral home. It was only human kindness to have an old friend stay with him, especially one who is himself impoverished and perhaps in need of free board.
Lupin and Sirius give a joint Christmas present to Harry (OotP)
This has been taken as some sign of a domestic arrangement akin to marriage. If you squinted really hard, you could see it that way. But is it not more convenient (or obvious) to say that Lupin is dirt poor and probably could not afford a present himself? Since the gift was books on Defence against the Dark Arts, it made sense that Lupin would have a hand in buying the gift, even if he didn't exactly pay for it.
Wolf (Lupin) and Dog (Sirius in Animagus form)
This is by far my favourite of the misinterpreted subtexts. It is compelling, for sure, and a powerful symbolism; dog and wolf, different yet alike. But there are practical reasons for Sirius being a dog. Only as a dog could he have prowled around as he did in PoA and GoF. Imagine if Sirius was a stag, like James Potter. Imagine a stag wandering around the grounds of Hogwarts, in Hogsmeade or accompanying Harry to King's Cross station. JKR would have had to resort to unnecessarily complicated plots to avoid this incongruence. Having Sirius as a dog was a convenient contrivance and made the most sense for her story. He could be seen in human company and be relatively unsuspicious.
Not to say that these aren't valid gay subtexts, because they most definitely are. Until Rowling put out Book 6, these could be read as suggesting a non-platonic relationship between Lupin and Black. But they do not PROVE that such a relationship existed, only that it was plausible.
It would probably save a lot of people a lot of angst if they just continue exploring the Lupin/Black relationship without the unfounded conviction that it was intended by the author. Why the devastation that "practically canon" has become "not likely ever to be canon"? It was NEVER canon, nor "practically" canon. Rowling was not making a comment about lycanthropy = homosexuality and did not intentionally introduce gay subtext as a subliminal message to her readers. It is fine for fans to read it any way they choose to, and in fact analysis of extra-authorial intent is part of enjoying literature. Let's just stop trying to put words in the author's mouth.
As for the belief that Rowling put Lupin and Tonks together to stop the Lupin/Black slashing, I don't buy it. Mainly because I don't think the slash community is much on her radar, and also because slashers, while so prominent in online fandom, are a very small proportion of her readership. Why stick in a (otherwise irrelevant) romantic sub-plot just to shut up a relatively insignificant minority? But it was the case, would that not be further proof that she never intended a Lupin/Black non-platonic relationship? The counter argument is that the gay subtext was intended but she got frightened by how her subtle symbolisms have taken on a life of their own, and have become not so much "subtle" as "explicit". I don't buy this either; it is giving the online fandom too much credit, and giving Rowling too litte.
Upshot: seek out the subtext, have fun doing it, be imaginative interpreting it, believe what you want from it. But don't claim that the author intended you to believe what you want to believe. And don't get mad at the her if she didn't.
Labels: Fiction and Fandom
posted by gentleice the deptfordian at 11:22 PM
<< Home