loupgaros

Introduction:

One of the things I used to do on cohost was to ramble about things that interested me. And this topic, inspired by a more contemplative video by Jessie Gender, regarding trans metaphors.

Not the first video of this type. I find alternative readins of media interesting as it presents a different view, even if some things in media present themselves a little awkwardly to fit various readings. Hey, it's fun. Its always interesting, even if I sometimes don't agree.

What it's about

This video was about comments received where she had talked about various media from her viewpoint as a trans woman. These were largely from her passing reviews of Agatha All Along (not seen yet, no spoilers!) but also brief reminders of things like I Saw The TV Glow. And in summary, it was essentially that she saw trans metaphors in these, moreso in the latter. It could be because representation is sparse (more common but still a little sparse) and you want to see yourself in someone onscreen. It could be that you feel this is familiar or it echoes your experience.

The key takeaway is that her reading of something in media is not the be all and end all. She sees trans-ness in presentation but someone else could see it completely differently. all are valid in these cases and it does not take anything away from that person. So it got me thinking a little.

Thoughts on what I have observed

So I no longer use Twitter. I used to. What I have observed from there, various forums, discussions among friends etc is that there are many interpretations of media and there'll be a few camps everyone falls into.

My camp is the inquisitive and curious one. I like hearing other interpretations, from trans, queer, to even socialist and conservative readings. As to whether I agree with them is another matter entirely. Even with queer or trans analysis I will be one trans person. That phrase of 'if you've spoken to one (x) person, you've spoken to everyone' doesn't apply. My trans experience will not echo another's. So one trans reading may not gel with me but another could say 'Oh, that's kind of like mine!' And that I am happy with.

I also will add that conservative or right wing readings can also be interesting to hear. The main reason is that you can see they pick up points, sometimes the same point as others, but it is filtered through a lens of conservative sensibilities (yes I did choose that word) and thus is interpreted wildly different.

Good example is The Matrix where the trans allegory was kind of in your face but still they interpret it as reading beyond what was presented and being The One, being tough etc. They're the sort who'd scoff if you presented them with just how trans it really is. Are they wrong in their interpretation? Well, honestly yes. But they're entitled to it. I'm entitled to disagree.

There's the camp of open and vocal disagreement. These are very loose by the way, I am not saying there's definitive camps! But this is kinda what I noticed. In any case, this was something I heard second hand or had the misfortune to sometimes witness.

Pick a character, any. Now assign them a reading. Say they are, for example, a gay allegory. Or they are just gay. One side will automatically agree and vehemently argue it. Then there's the other side that will argue and maintain, just as strongly, that no, this character is not gay. How are you reading that into them? What's the proof?

I did not see many of these. But I did witness the fallout. It's a common thing with a loud minority who argue for or against ships. The fallout was usually callout posts, sometimes said person leaving the internet, or ifthey were a friend, a sudden going very quiet at their thoughts on that media. Or giving it up entirely.

The area where I did sadly witness it was Fallout mostly. I largely curated my own experience so I only just avoided the splash damage from the New Vegas supremacists or major arguments. Still it did bleed through and it was painful. I just wanted to enjoy my games in peace.

Then there's a third section Jessie gave a mention to. It was related to Agatha All Along and about one of the characters Billy. No spoilers but their journey had echoes of a trans one to her. A comment in one review was almost upset by this, as they were a gay man who looked feminine and and felt for this character. It was them, in a way. The wording suggested they felt that something was being taken away and it was distressing.

I don't know what to call this one. It is more an emotional response but one that could lead to other camps mentioned. Maybe it wouldn't. I don't recall seeing too many of these in my time online, nothing that lead anywhere really, other than a reluctance on the part of the person to say more or to even want to partake publically if they felt their personal canon was under threat.

It's an interesting one and i admit I do feel for these people as to have such a strong emotional connection to a character is at once good and allows them to not feel so alone.

But also not entirely good as it can be difficult to (even if you are obscenely gentle) tell them that their view is just as valid, but not everyone will share it and others who like this character/property will likely feel different but their reading is not a threat to one person's very personal take on it.

The Internet Lacks Nuance

The last thing I'll belabour in this jumble of thoughts is to say that while people are entitled to their thoughts and speech, agreement is unlikely. We are a naturally argumentative species and it's usually through socialisation that we learn to cope and bear with people, even forgiving disagreements or views.

There are exceptions though; I would never be friends with someone who subscribed to the idea I sholdn't exist, even if they were a Fallout fan or a Discworld fan (I don't think they exist but how the living hell can you be conservative and like Sir Terry?!)

The main problem in media analysis these days is that you have one thought about a property or character and you can risk being dogpiled. Creators get this on their social media, on their videos. It's the old thing on Twitter 'I like pancakes.' 'You like pancakes? Fuck you, that's (x) against waffles!' where as demonstrated, you say one thing but people construe something that was never said or intended and construct a strawman to make you out to be so much worse than one statement.

When you add personal interpretations, or different readings of a media property into the mix, then it ties into something I noticed for a while and others too. A distinct lack of media literacy is very clear and so there is often little to no nuance in how such things are approached.

This is why I do like the approach of being curious, even if a reading is disagreeable. I blame the fact my history degree gave me a lot of room for curiosity and you had to balance one view with another, se where they were coming from in order to understand. Not agree, just to understand. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that you don't have to agree but you can understand.

That's about the extent of my attention so have at my rambling and I'll maybe do more as and when a spark of inspiration occurs.