Fandom and Viewer Issues: "Fan" Is Short for "Fanatic"

[Emma]

Jen got slaughtered on the usual sites from SQ fans because it was said her rep declined the afterellen interview for winning that poll. She came on twitter about an hour ago having no idea about it and said she'd get to the bottom of it. Says it was cleared up but no mention of whether she's doing the interview.

It's some of the worst hate I've seen yet. It's a shame she's once again had to defend herself.

[Souris]

I am beyond pissed off at those "fans" who constantly harass Jen and Adam. It's so ugly and disgusting. And it's always seemingly the same people saying the same things. And Jen always replies and tries to clear things up and placate them, even when they don't deserve placation. I guess it's the squeaky wheel maxim.

[stealinghome]

Given that Emma and Regina aren't a couple and, let's be real, have never been presented/treated as such by the writers (I *do* think the show is guilty of queerbaiting, but for Aurora/Mulan, not Emma/Regina), definitely the best thing she could do would be to very politely continue to decline the interview. I don't even know why afterellen would reach out on that...NO actor is going to give an interview for that kind of poll.

It's ridiculous how much hate JMo takes for Swan Queen-related stuff. Just ridiculous. She's taken less heat for Captain Swan or SwanFire stuff, and they are *actual canon ships* in which Emma's actually been involved!

Edited August 20, 2014 by stealinghome

[KingOfHearts]

 

I am beyond pissed off at those "fans" who constantly harass Jen and Adam.

 

Adam eggs them on. He answers a lot of the trolls and complaints he gets on Twitter, and sometimes even gets involved with the arguments. Jen, on the other hand, has always been very classy and doesn't get involved with the riff-raff. She politely responds in a very classy way that doesn't side with one view or another.

 

I honestly hate when people attack others just to stir up controversy. It's just a show, people! Can't you watch something else instead of going after the cast and crew when you don't like it?

Edited August 20, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Emma]

The last I read is that Lana's reps were on it so it sounds like she might be doing the interview.

Poor Jen though. Selfishly, I hope she stays on twitter because I enjoy the pics she posts and the askJen sessions. But I'd really love it if she deleted her account.

[retrograde]

The thing is, regardless of any LGBT issues, it's entirely reasonable for an actor/their reps to decline an interview based on an online poll bashing their bosses.

 

It's also just kind of hard to for most media organizations to get an interview with big-ish stars like JMo and Lana in the middle of filming, unless it's publicity the show has organized itself, or you're from a big publication. 

[Dani-Ellie]

Oh ffs. I'm so tired of this bullshit, and all I do is read about it. I can't even imagine being on the receiving end of it.

 

Swan Queen is not going to happen. There, I said it. Ship if you want to ship, but there has been no indication inshow whatsoever that Swan Queen is going to happen. In point of fact, I believe everyone involved has said that Swan Queen isn't going to happen. Swan Queen is the very definition of a non-canon ship. And non-canon ships can indeed be fun but the thing to remember is that the ship, by very nature of its non-canon-ness, is not happening on the show. I have no idea how Swan Queen can win any kind of pairing poll about being treated horribly by its writers because it's not being written at all.

 

I was a Casey/Olivia shipper with SVU so talk about squeezing subtext out of pretty much nothing. (And it was even better when years later, Diane Neal got herself a Twitter and was very very amused that there even had been the notion of Casey/Olivia. She was gracious about it but assured us that any and all subtext we saw was purely unintentional on everyone's part.) And it was fun looking for subtext and Casey/Olivia was like fanfic crack, but it wasn't real and we all knew it. These two characters were not being written as being in a romantic relationship, and neither are Emma and Regina.

 

This is so ridiculous, to the point that I wish I could tweet everyone and be all, "We're not all like this, we promise!" Ugh.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[stealinghome]

Although I will say, knowing that JMo and Ellen DeGeneres play poker is somehow kind of awesome.

[Jean]

It boggles the mind that SQ'ers want well SQ. All I've seen from that camp is hate and bashing towards Emma and JMo. Why don't they go find someone they actually like, be it actor or character (since they can't seem to tell the difference) to cheer with Woegina? Honestly I've yet to see a single Emma fan or JMo fan who wants SQ. I really hope Emma spends as little screentime as possible with Woegina.

And JMo needs to take a page out of Sean Maguire's book and basically tell them to go away.

[myril]

To clarify something: The poll on afterellen.com was not about the most mistreated femslash couple. It's an annual thing on afterellen.com. It's about the most liked or favoured femslash pairing of the year, and not about the most mistreated or whatever one. What this year happened is, that the debatable judgement was made by some readers in commentaries, and then picked up by writers of the side, that in the final round were the two by the showrunners most "horribly treated" pairings.  Not discussing Warehouse 13 here, Myka and HG Wells (the show runners did all characters in the last season some disservice, it's not just this ship), but calling SwanQueen "horribly treated" by the show writers is IMO wrong.

 

It's one thing, that the writers don't imagine and never have imagined the two (leading) ladies to be a thing, and this very well could be called conservative and heteronormative story telling, but that is to me not mistreatment, it is "just"  the usual heteronormative ignorance on screen and in the audience. I sure call out the show for a huge lack of diversity in more than one aspect, but I find this ongoing, and more annoying personal bashing of writers and actors/actresses, namely Jennifer Morrison, focusing on one pairing which never has been a thing on the show, is counterproductive. Thankfully there are just a few, though very vocal people. But the showrunners never to my knowledge questioned, that people like and can write fanfiction for their dream pairing and dream of Swanqueen. It will never become canon on the show though, as sad as that might be from the view of some. The way they handled Mulan so far, Mulan and Aurora, that could on my behalf be called mistreatment.

 

What has happened though and still does is disrespect and deprecation of Swanqueen shippers and queer fans but first and foremost by fans. It's a problem of and mostly inside the fandom, including incidents of bullying on multiple sides. Netiquette seems to be in some places something easy to forget. Rule 1: Remember the human. Rule 2: Adhere to the same standards of behavior online that you follow in real life ... (yes, I am that old that I remember something like usenet groups). Although guess some of the people have proven on Cons they behave nearly has badly in real life as they do online. I am grateful that we seem to manage on here so far mostly okay, thanks to everybody and the moderators, I have experienced other things in other places.

 

The positive view: It doesn't go unchallenged, fans do react and call people out for bad behavior. Call them out, do it politely (as hard as that sometimes is in the heat of the moment, then go, make coffee, tea, limo and take a breath before saying or writing something), don't discuss, that has no merits. And let me say that as someone who had to listen to complaints for some years all day as customer representative 1st and 2nd level: Don't give the negative that much space, mostly it's smaller than we think, loud but just a few voices. Those satisfied seldom talk about it. (we're living prove for that on here are we ;-) )

Edited August 21, 2014 by katusch

[KAOS Agent]

 

It's one thing, that the writers don't imagine and never have imagined the two (leading) ladies to be a thing, and this very well could be called conservative and heteronormative story telling, but that is to me not mistreatment, it is "just"  the usual heteronormative ignorance on screen and in the audience.

 

It's not a heteronormative assumption to believe that people would not see a romantic pairing between two characters when in the very first episode one of those characters is literally trying to murder the other as a newborn baby and ends up destroying her entire childhood. It's not about whether these two characters are gay or straight, the story from the very outset puts the two at complete odds with one a psychotic killer and the other her victim. Even if one were male and the other female, does anyone honestly think the person writing the story would write it this way if they had any thoughts towards these two being totally meant for each other, true loves and soulmates for all time? And if it were only about a completely non-canon ship being mistreated then Lana Parilla should get just as much hate and backlash as Jennifer Morrison and that's not the case. Jen is stuck with a bunch of disgruntled Evil Regal Swan Queeners while Lana gets mostly love from them, so there's clearly something else at work here. Ship what you want, amuse yourself finding all the subtext you can and post it on tumblr or fanfic sites, but leave these poor actors alone.

[Dani-Ellie]

It's about the most liked or favoured femslash pairing of the year, and not about the most mistreated or whatever one. What this year happened is, that the debatable judgement was made by some readers in commentaries, and then picked up by writers of the side, that in the final round were the two by the showrunners most "horribly treated" pairings.

 

Okay, that's different, then. I still maintain, however, that the criticism from the readers was misplaced because it's very difficult to be treated horribly by writers when it's not being written, period. I'm all for subtext, man, but as my Casey/Olivia adventure proved, any subtext that can be found could very well in fact be unintentional.

 

 

 

It's not a heteronormative assumption to believe that people would not see a romantic pairing between two characters when in the very first episode one of those characters is literally trying to murder the other as a newborn baby and ends up destroying her entire childhood.

 

Word. The problem I have with a relationship between these two is not that they're both women but that I see no semblance of a romantic relationship between two people when one has tried to kill the other -- multiple times -- simply for existing.

 

 

 

Even if one were male and the other female, does anyone honestly think the person writing the story would write it this way if they had any thoughts towards these two being totally meant for each other, true loves and soulmates for all time?

 

I have a friend who's active in the femslash community (though she's not a OUAT watcher, and let me tell you, I've had to clarify many, many things for her because the story she knows from what she sees is that distorted from canon) and she told me that the argument she sees a lot is that if one of them were male, they would be written as being in love. Of course my response was let's pretend for a hot minute that Regina was Reginald. Is there any way, shape, or form that a man who attempted to poison the leading lady, ended up poisoning their kid instead, and spent literally the entire back half of a season plotting to kill the leading lady and her entire family would be considered leading man material? Because I certainly don't think so. As a matter of fact, the backlash from that kind of story would have been off the freakin' charts. But because Regina is Regina (and it seems to me that a vast majority of the Swan Queen shippers are Regina fans) her actual crimes against Emma are downplayed, whereas the Emma fan in me is going, "No way in hell, please and thank you."

 

 

 

And if it were only about a completely non-canon ship being mistreated then Lana Parilla should get just as much hate and backlash as Jennifer Morrison and that's not the case. Jen is stuck with a bunch of disgruntled Evil Regal Swan Queeners while Lana gets mostly love from them, so there's clearly something else at work here. Ship what you want, amuse yourself finding all the subtext you can and post it on tumblr or fanfic sites, but leave these poor actors alone.

 

Word.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[FurryFury]

I kinda think Swan Queen isn't the "I want these two people together" kinda of shipping and more like "I love this character and want her to be happy in a way I find hot" shipping (which is probably what attracts people to Outlaw Queen, too, because the dynamic there is kinda non-existent, TBH). And the mental picture that gets painted in a shipper's head becomes further and further from canon in order to justify the existence of such a relationship. Thus the outrage when an actor/writer makes in clear this is not what's happening.

I do, however, get SQ shippers because, at least, Emma and Regina had a strong dynamic in the first place and neither had a clear-cut love interest (sometime it's very important for a ship to become the first, many fans never jump ship no matter what). So I get it more that, say, Sterek over on Teen Wolf (some of their fans are probably even crazier than SQ).

 

Is there any way, shape, or form that a man who attempted to poison the leading lady, ended up poisoning their kid instead, and spent literally the entire back half of a season plotting to kill the leading lady and her entire family would be considered leading man material? Because I certainly don't think so.

 

Sadly, there are certain shows that include completely unhealthy relationships in which one person has tried/managed to hurt the other. Like Pretty Little Liars with a teacher knowingly seducing an underaged student after having an affair with her underaged friend, and then stalking her and her friends for a long time. Or almost all relationships on The Vampire Diaries. You could probably include Buffy here, too (as much as I generally love it). So I'm not even sure that were Regina male, the writers would never have her and Emma hook up, because their Regina hard-on is too obvious.

Edited August 21, 2014 by FurryFury

[ShadowFacts]

I just had to educate myself about femslash, and one site listed as factors (in explaining why it is a small minority of fandom) that there are rarely two main female characters in a show, and rarely do they have a relationship that is shippable.  That certainly makes me wonder why anyone thinks Regina and Emma are shippable, as posters have mentioned here (that they aren't).  Only something less than 10% of fanfics are tagged as female/female, so this minority has outsize vocal firepower, it would seem.  However I think A&E probably lovelovelove it, it gives them that much more publicity, for lack of a better word. 

[angelwoody]

I don't understand the idea of creating a ship out of thin air and then deciding to be furious at the writers and actors for not acknowledging/ supporting something that does not exist.  It is just completely baffling to me.  I mean, ship who you want to ship and mine for all of the subtext you want, but at the end of the day the show is only what the writers write into it.  

 

Honestly, I think part of the problem with this show is the time slot and the targeted "family" audience.  I think the show would have been better and richer if it was geared solely towards adults.  It could have explored much darker themes and more mature, complex and diverse types of relationships.  

[Amerilla]

I don't understand the idea of creating a ship out of thin air and then deciding to be furious at the writers and actors for not acknowledging/ supporting something that does not exist.  It is just completely baffling to me.

 

It's not something I would do myself, but I can see why it happens. If people have invested a lot of time in thinking or emotion - expressed themselves by writing or creating their own works - on these characters, it's not all that strange that they end up feeling a sense of "ownership" over the character and the story an get mad at the people they perceive are doing it "wrong." 

 

(Hell, many of us on this forum have said we could do it better than the writers or criticized the actors for this or that shortcoming, and there were plenty of vocal CS shippers on TWOP long before that ship became in any way canon. The space between what we do and what rabid SQ-ers do is not the Grand Canyon. Different flavors of the same basic human nature) 

 

As an aside, anyone interested in fandom culture, fanfiction, or the rise of slash (fem- and otherwise), I highly recommend "Fic: Why Fanfiction Is Taking Over the World"  Once isn't hugely represented in the essays, but it does show how fanfic and other audience-created media shapes the perceptions of a show 

[angelwoody]

It's not something I would do myself, but I can see why it happens. If people have invested a lot of time in thinking or emotion - expressed themselves by writing or creating their own works - on these characters, it's not all that strange that they end up feeling a sense of "ownership" over the character and the story an get mad at the people they perceive are doing it "wrong." 

 

(Hell, many of us on this forum have said we could do it better than the writers or criticized the actors for this or that shortcoming, and there were plenty of vocal CS shippers on TWOP long before that ship became in any way canon. The space between what we do and what rabid SQ-ers do is not the Grand Canyon. Different flavors of the same basic human nature) 

 

As an aside, anyone interested in fandom culture, fanfiction, or the rise of slash (fem- and otherwise), I highly recommend "Fic: Why Fanfiction Is Taking Over the World"  Once isn't hugely represented in the essays, but it does show how fanfic and other audience-created media shapes the perceptions of a show 

I get what you're saying, right up until you say "sense of ownership."  I find that a step too far.  Love, enthusiasm, passion, etc., all fine.  But at the end of the day, you have to acknowledge that you don't have a "right" to these characters or story lines, don't you?  

 

I am not immune to the lure of a pair that seems like "it could be so great if done right" - I'm a SanSan shipper on Game of Thrones for crying out loud!  (with her aged up a bit or else it creeps me out, but I digress)  I just would never get angry at the writers and actors if my imaginary pairing never makes it onto the screen.  It's MY creation using other peoples stuff and I don't have a right to demand anything of anyone.  That's the part I don't understand: the anger and sense of... entitlement?  Like because people are fans of a show they are somehow owed their due to have their wishes catered to, and if not they are owed explanations and apologies from all and sundry involved.  Has this always existed in fandom?  It seems to me like it is made possible largely by social media.  It creates access that would not otherwise exist.

 

Edited to specify that I don't mean YOU, Amerilla!  I refer to "you" as in people in general.  :-)

Edited August 21, 2014 by angelwoody

[Souris]

Once people take their crackship to the point of harassing the writers and actors over it and trying to force them to make it happen, they've crossed a line.

[stealinghome]

I don't understand the idea of creating a ship out of thin air and then deciding to be furious at the writers and actors for not acknowledging/ supporting something that does not exist. It is just completely baffling to me. I mean, ship who you want to ship and mine for all of the subtext you want, but at the end of the day the show is only what the writers write into it.

I don't disagree with you, but I think it's important to note that many Swan Queen shippers *don't* feel like they're just conjuring the pairing out of thin air. I've seen Once get accused a *lot* of queerbaiting where Swan Queen is concerned--many Swan Queen fans feel that the writers deliberately write Emma/Regina subtext in. (I disagree just because, quite frankly, the writers *aren't that good*!--if there is subtext, which I don't see very much of, I feel quite sure it's unintentional.)

The thing is, I actually can kind of understand shipping Swan Queen in S1. And I do think that JMo and Lana Parrilla have more chemistry with each other than either has had with any of their love interests. But I think we need to be very careful about throwing the term "queerbaiting" around, because just because two people have chemistry doesn't mean it's automatically queerbaiting.

I kinda think Swan Queen isn't the "I want these two people together" kinda of shipping and more like "I love this character and want her to be happy in a way I find hot" shipping

Also, this. There is a big reason 90% of Swan Queen is about Regina/Lana P. Edited August 21, 2014 by stealinghome

[Souris]

I never, ever picked up on any romantic or sexual subtext with Emma and Regina. I certainly picked up on it with Aurora/Mulan, and I've certainly picked up on it with other shows, so it's not like it's something I never notice. IMO it's just not deliberately there with Emma/Regina.

[myril]

A lot I would like to answer to, but that would mean leaving the subject of this forum, the show in the media. I disagree with some said in the last postings, but won't get into a deeper discussion about heteronormativity on the show and homophobia in the fandom on this thread.

 

For now let's just agree, people ship what they ship, and for fan fiction and what fans are dreaming about it doesn't matter if a pairing is canon on the show or not, seemingly out of thin air (it never is for the fans in question, let's respect that, it never was the meaning of subtext to be obvious to everybody, and there is intended and unintended subtext) and in the fan creation area never should be. Can we agree on that? Regardless what moral issues one might have with one or the other pairing seeing their behavior on the show, let's put that aside for the moment, because, frankly, then this show has a major problem, Emma and Regina are not any more or less questionable than Robin and Regina or IMO Rumple and Belle.

 

The demands for recognition for whatever favored relationships on the show and/or by showrunners, writers and cast have been blown out of proportion in the fandom, and it's by far not limited to a few SwanQueen shippers. Remember the harsh reactions of a few Neal and Swanfire fans to what Jennifer Morrison said about Neal and Emma? Or the anti-hook hashtag on Twitter? And RumBelle fans probably only can sit back somewhat relaxed, because Milah is no real threat, she has no fans, and the creepiness factor of the pairing itself is mostly ignored due to Beauty and the Beast idealization. But remember the reaction, when Eddy was so careless to use the word "soulmate" for Cora in an interview? A few RumBelle fans showed their claws. Not to mention all the ongoing bickering and sometimes bullying in the shipping fandom, it's plagued by shipping wars.

 

We all should be cautious not to blow out of proportion what a few say and do on social media particularly. There were some emotions and rushed reactions, some needless commentaries and questionable statements on Twitter and other sites, but no need to add more fuel to the fire (and remind myself of that as well).

Edited August 21, 2014 by katusch

[Dani-Ellie]

Once people take their crackship to the point of harassing the writers and actors over it and trying to force them to make it happen, they've crossed a line.

 

Like because people are fans of a show they are somehow owed their due to have their wishes catered to, and if not they are owed explanations and apologies from all and sundry involved.

 

This is my problem. Yes, I have criticisms of the way the show is handling things. I would love more focus on this storyline or that storyline and I've made my angry forums posts and angry blog reactions, but at the end of the day, my issues with the story are my issues with the story. Would I love to ask Adam and Eddy what the hell they're thinking sometimes? Absolutely. Would I ever take to Twitter to berate them into answering me? Hell no. Would I ever take to Twitter to berate the actors for a direction the story is not taking? Hell no.

 

I understand that subtext is completely subjective, so some of the SQ shippers do truly believe the subtext is there, and I get that it's disappointing when something you really, really want to see happen never comes to fruition. But the people who write the story and the people who play out the story are people, too. They're just people just doing their job and they don't owe us anything. Yes, criticism is going to happen, because that's what happens you present yourself and your work for public scrutiny, but there's a big difference between constructive criticism and ... this. I don't so much have a problem with the criticism as the way the criticism is being delivered. It smacks of a sense of entitlement that is vastly out of proportion with what is deserved.

[Jean]

There's a whole world of difference between "you suck and so does your opinion" versus "you're homophobic" which are serious real world accusations that have cost people their jobs, especially in Hollywood. One is sticking to "debate" or hating if you prefer based firmly on fictional grounds, the other is attributing a characteristic to a real person based on some silly little show that has zero logic 99% of the time. Its actually quite offensive that some hide their shipping preferences behind some real world issue and then claiming moral righteousness over it.

 

 

But remember the reaction, when Eddy was so careless to use the word "soulmate" for Cora in an interview? A few RumBelle fans showed their claws.

Ok but the sorta equivalent scenario here would be if Eddy was then accused of being anti-Australian and discriminating against them, by Rumbellers as a result. Did that happen?

[myril]

There's a whole world of difference between "you suck and so does your opinion" versus "you're homophobic" which are serious real world accusations that have cost people their jobs, especially in Hollywood. One is sticking to "debate" or hating if you prefer based firmly on fictional grounds, the other is attributing a characteristic to a real person based on some silly little show that has zero logic 99% of the time. Its actually quite offensive that some hide their shipping preferences behind some real world issue and then claiming moral righteousness over it.

 

Against my very own advice, but this I won't let stand unchallenged.

 

Who are you talking about? Such generalization is not helpful. But whoever you're talking about, even if I am not meant directly, I feel very much offended by this. I am not a SwanQueen shipper, not much of a shipper at all. A lack of diversity and misrepresentation is part of the real world problems of queer people, it is important to be seen and to see. I don't see SwanQueen shippers hiding their shipping preference behind real world issues, not even those who eventually sometimes overdo things. There are homophobic reactions to the ship and to SwanQueen shippers in the fandom, as to other queer ships, but the others are by far not as prominent and seldom attracting attention. I might not always agree with the tone and have seen overly passionate and harsh statements to crew and cast, but the problem of diversity on the show is a real one. Making SwanQueen the flagship example for it is not the best choice in my view, but that is my view.

 

I would say even, the problem is, that a few people hide their real world issue of disapproval of queer relationships and queer people, and a few even their hate of anything queer, behind arguments of something being non-canonical or immoral because of one of the character's evil deeds. Not on here, I don't have seen that yet, but I have experienced it elsewhere. 

 

Concerning scaremongering with real world consequences for cast and crew: Are you referring to Isiah Washington whose dismissal though was not about any fictional character discussion but very real life issues? I am curious, because I don't know of someone having lost their job for being called homophobic without some substance to it, but I might have missed something.

 

Ok but the sorta equivalent scenario here would be if Eddy was then accused of being anti-Australian and discriminating against them, by Rumbellers as a result. Did that happen?

 

Haven't noticed that Australians have a lack of representation on screen or fiction, or that anyone is ever saying, that because a person has never dated Australians so far they can't now date Australians. Besides what do have RumBelle and Australians to do with each other (except Emile de Ravin being one)? If anything it would be something like maybe accusing the writers of age discrimination or being against couples with huge age difference if they wouldn't make Rumple and Belle happening.  The analogy you are trying to make falls short.

Edited August 21, 2014 by katusch

[Jean]

Of course there's an element of shipping preference versus taking up a cause. You know how it's obvious? Because LBGT representation isn't being asked for. It's SQ SPECIFICALLY. It's not how come there's no LBGT representation on the show. It's gives us SQ or you're homophobic.

Aurora/Mulan a real story on the show barely made a blip or created chatter. It was ignored in favor of SQ, SQ, SQ!

Lana has been as much a cheerleader of Outlaw Queen as anyone. She's said over and over OQ are true loves, are soulmates. Yet who gets the hate and bashing? Sean M. I haven't seen any accusations of homophobia towards Lana the way it is constantly directed at JMo and the writers. And JMo is less overt at talking about her pair. So what's the explanation there?

But I'll bow out of the conversation now before it gets heated.

[stealinghome]

I don't see SwanQueen shippers hiding their shipping preference behind real world issues, not even those who eventually sometimes overdo things.

...

I would say even, the problem is, that a few people hide their real world issue of disapproval of queer relationships and queer people, and a few even their hate of anything queer, behind arguments of something being non-canonical or immoral because of one of the character's evil deeds. Not on here, I don't have seen that yet, but I have experienced it elsewhere.

Taking my response to the Relationships thread.

[myril]

Of course there's an element of shipping preference versus taking up a cause. You know how it's obvious? Because LBGT representation isn't being asked for. It's SQ SPECIFICALLY. It's not how come there's no LBGT representation on the show. It's gives us SQ or you're homophobic.

Aurora/Mulan a real story on the show barely made a blip or created chatter. It was ignored in favor of SQ, SQ, SQ!

 

Evil Queen / Regina, and by transfer Lana Parrilla is a fan favorite maybe partially because of SwanQueen? Plus the heart for the (seemingly) misunderstood underdog that many have, but not as much for Emma. Fans of queer characters or hoped to be queer characters are frequently very loyal, and take the chance media nowadays offer to be more vocal and for more people visible.

 

No, people are not generally and automatically called by every SwanQueen shipper homophobic if they are not pro or argue against SwanQueen.

 

And people have asked for LGBTQI, queer representation in general not just concerning SwanQueen. Thanks for ignoring people like me so blatantly. How the show handled Mulan so far created more than a blip and some chatter, but it was not as sensational exploitable as is SwanQueen. Regina and Emma (more or less) are lead characters of the show and not supporting characters, that makes a difference.

 

To give media examples (and please, read as well the commentaries, if you have some strong stomach that is):

 

http://www.wetpaint.com/once-upon-a-time/articles/2013-05-29-needs-gay-romance-heres-why

 

http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/10/14/mulan-gay-once-upon-a-time-aurora-season-3-episode-3/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/mulan-bisexual-once-upon-a-time_n_4101888.html

 

Additionally you can search for SleepingWarrior on Twitter and Tumblr if you like.

Edited August 21, 2014 by katusch

[Souris]

Here's where to talk about fandom controversies, social issues in relation to OUAT and the like.

[angelwoody]

Aha! Good idea to make a thread for this!

[regularlyleaded]

Darn, you beat me to the punch, @Souris! :D

As I'm running out the door to go the airport I thought of a title - ' Fans, Fanatics, and Fanaticism: The Real "Land Without Magic" ' 

(probably too wordy, but I like it ;)

Edited August 22, 2014 by regularlyleaded

[sharky]

The Real Land Without Magic made me laugh. And now if you'll excuse me, I have to start adding content to my new tumblr page. You're welcome. ;)

[Rumsy4]

And now if you'll excuse me, I have to start adding content to my new tumblr page. 

 

Oh..do tell us your tumblrname, sharky! 

[Serena]

I sincerely hope Jen does not do the interview. The AE website dangled the possibility of an interview in order to get the fans to vote (more votes, more hits, more $$ for them) without first clearing it with the actresses. When they couldn't deliver, they basically blamed Jen when what they should have done is admit their fuckup (and I heard they couldn't deliver an interview last year either, with different winners). Jen got viciously attacked and the website came out squeaky clean, with added publicity and lots of hits. Then they also get exclusive interviews and hits from that, too? That's ridiculous!

If Jen wants to thank the SQ fans who were nice and didn't attack her, she can do an #askjen on Twitter and answer a couple of SQ questions. That way the website isn't rewarded for terrible journalism and click-baity behaviour.

[sharky]

OK, wait a minute. Can someone clarify something for me? Is this AfterEllen website related to the Ellen Degeneres Show or is it just some random pop culture website? Because if it's not related to the actual show, there's no wonder Jen didn't even know about it, much less do an interview with them. Holy crap, what babies!

 

So here's my plan: I'm going to create a website. It's going to be called .... AfterMellen or some kind of crap. And then I'm going to make a bunch of polls and you're all going to vote on them and when Colin or Jen or Josh or whoever declines to do an interview with our "very legitimate pop culture blog online poll reporter" we're going to go on a crazy Twitter campaign to shame them until they say YES! Who's with me?!?!?!?!?!?!?! [end sarcasm]

[Serena]

The website is named after Ellen DeGeneres (it's the lesbian equivalent to "AfterElton") but not affiliated with her. She doesn't endorse them. It's like "lesbian pop culture in a world after Ellen came out", or something like that.

[retrograde]

I sincerely hope Jen does not do the interview. The AE website dangled the possibility of an interview in order to get the fans to vote (more votes, more hits, more $$ for them) without first clearing it with the actresses. When they couldn't deliver, they basically blamed Jen when what they should have done is admit their fuckup (and I heard they couldn't deliver an interview last year either, with different winners). Jen got viciously attacked and the website came out squeaky clean, with added publicity and lots of hits. Then they also get exclusive interviews and hits from that, too? That's ridiculous!.

Word. Not to mention, she cannot win with this interview. JMo seems like an intelligent and open minded person -- I'm sure she's aware of OuaT's issues with queer representation and diversity. But she can't shit-talk her bosses. And what can she possibly say about Swan Queen that won't piss some people off? If the site really wants to talk about this stuff, it should approach Adam and Eddy. JMo should cut her losses.

[Serena]

Adam and Eddy can't win with this either, unless they come out and admit "yeah, we suck at representation". It's Year 4 and they should have figured their shit out ages ago. Hopefully, they can get Mulan back and do something good with her.

The most ridiculous thing in this whole business is this, though: Adam? Congratulates fans on winning the poll. Jen? Says she loves SQ fans. Lana? Radio silence. But who gets hated on and who gets called a hero? Yeah.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Serena

[Dani-Ellie]

I fully agree that there needs to be more representation and more inclusion, not just on Once but on television in general.  That said -- and I'm going to try to word this as inoffensively as I possibly can because I know these issues get sticky and I honestly don't mean any offense -- my problem here is that Regina and Emma are not at all written as lesbians or even bi. Their love interests have all been male. There's no hint that either of them is closeted. Should Emma and/or Regina have been written as lesbian or bi to give representation and inclusion and diversity? Perhaps, but that's a different argument. Canonically, these two women are straight.

 

Not only that, but one of the characters, in the very first episode of this show, tried to have the other one killed when she was a minutes-old newborn baby. That's not the basis of any kind of romantic relationship, in my eyes, whether the two people are both women, both men, or a man and a woman.

 

Am I going to fault people for reading subtext into interactions between them? No, of course not. Subtext is subjective and we see what we want to see. Where I have the issue is that some SQ shippers have built a straw man out of an entire imagined relationship for these two characters and then turn around and berate the writers and actors for the straw man they themselves created not coming to fruition. That's not fair. Subtext is not text, and the text has never once even hinted at a romantic relationship between Emma and Regina.

 

Basically, my feelings boil down to: ship what you want to ship, make your graphics and write your stories, but at the end of the day, the text is the text, whether you agree with it or not. I certainly have plenty of things I disagree with and I certainly have ranted about them at length, here and elsewhere, but the things I disagree with, others don't. When the act of disagreeing becomes abuse in an effort to force the straw man into fruition, that's where I have the problem.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[ShadowFacts]

I looked at the website and saw nothing unreasonable.  If fans want more or better representation, going after actors is futile.  And actors trying to respond thoughtfully are probably in a no-good-deed-goes-unpunished situation.

[retrograde]

Adam and Eddy can't win with this either, unless they come out and admit "yeah, we suck at representation".

.

Well yeah but I care less that they can't win because it is actually their fault and they should be answerable. They can't win because they are in the wrong. JMo can't win because she is being held responsible for their problems.

[Rumsy4]

I have a problem with Regina having a romantic relationship with anyone at this point, tbh. But, I'm not going to harass Adam and Lana saying they are pro-rapist. Could the writers change the sexual orientation of Regina and Emma, or both in the future to bi-? Sure. Writers retcon things all the time. I think that's what the rabid SQ-ers want to happen. They think they subtext is there, and SQ can be made to happen if they harass the writers and cast enough. The most A&E would do is throw in some queer-baiting lines, but they won't make SQ endgame. I've never heard of so much harassment happen over a crackship until now. 

 

If they can't get Jamie Chung back, A&E should consider creating a  different LGBT couple for the Show. I dislike the Sleeping Warrior ship anyway, as Mulan can never get Aurora unless Phillip dies, and do we really want Marian 2.0? 

Edited August 22, 2014 by Rumsy4

[stealinghome]

Well yeah but I care less that they can't win because it is actually their fault and they should be answerable. They can't win because they are in the wrong.

SING it. Adam and Eddie are either a) massively, incredibly oblivious to how problematic their show's representation of things like queerness, race, or rape are, or b) they just don't care how problematic the show's representation of these things are. Neither is an acceptable option, and I absolutely support them being called out on it as much as possible. (I just don't think crying "GIVE US SWAN QUEEN OR YOU'RE HOMOPHOBIC!" is the best way to do so. In fact, I think it may actually be the least constructive way possible to try to do so.)

[Serena]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Basically, unless they come out and say "yeah, we fucked up till now and here's how we'll fix it" there's no way they can give an interview that particular audience (the AE one) will like. And even if they do that, there's a huge chance they'll be pissed anyway because another couple is taking SQ's "spot". Which is what is gonna happen if Once ever has a serious queer couple (otherwise people would be making this much fuss over Sleeping Warrior. Honestly, what better representation is there for young queer girls than two beloved Disney Princesses IN LOVE?)

Edited August 22, 2014 by Serena

[sharky]

I agree with alot of you on this issue of gay issues and fans. Needs to be addressed, yes, but not in this way.

I love being a fan of this show but let's be honest: it's camp and fun. This isn't Breaking Bad. And yet there is an element of the fandom that is very small but vocal and making the rest of feel like we have to apologize for being fans. I think that's the biggest part that just sucks. I was a huge fan of Chuck and still follow Zachary Levi on social media. He's talked about making a Chuck movie maybe, but has said it won't be anytime soon and when it happens, the first thing he do is tell the fans. And yet EVERY post of his on Twitter and EVERY Facebook post of his has at least 10 morons asking "When are you making a Chuck movie?" Ugh. I wish there was a way that we as fans could have a How I Met Your Mother style intervention with these people. It makes me so glad I found a home at TWOP and now here because just...yuck.

So perhaps that's the bigger issue: how can you block out the morons especially in this day of digital media? Is it wrong that I want to shame this AE site and its readers for being a bunch of asses?

Edited August 22, 2014 by sharky

[scarynikki12]

if one of them were male, they would be written as being in love

 

 

Like FurryFurry said, if one of them were male they probably would be each other's love interests.  It's been a staple of daytime soaps for decades and has been the core of popular ships on any number of primtime shows.  It's gross no matter what the genders at play are and I certainly don't think it's a reason to support a pairing between Emma and Regina, but I can understand this specific argument.  Pretty Little Liars is the only show that comes to mind where this gross behavior has been applied equally to the lesbian relationships (Emily was bullied by Ali and almost drowned by Paige) and hetero relationships alike (Ezra's a proven pederast twice over and stalked the Liars, and Toby was on the A Team).  I get the argument when we look at the entire televisions landscape but a gross pairing is a gross pairing, no matter who is involved. 

[Jean]

 

Like FurryFurry said, if one of them were male they probably would be each other's love interests.

 

I don't know if I agree with this. If the gender thing was really an issue, then they would've just put Rumple and Emma together. They had chemistry. I'm not saying that Woegina and Rumple are interchangeable (gag me) but that it would give them the same type of trope.

[scarynikki12]

Rumpel fills that trope with Belle.

[Dani-Ellie]

Rumple's never tried to kill Belle, though, at least not that I can recall. My argument basically boils down to Regina's multiple attempts to kill Emma, including her tiny little newborn incarnation. Swan Queen was taken off the table as even a possibility for me from the pilot episode because I don't want to see the heroine of the story find her Happily Ever After with someone who'd tried to have her killed as she was taking her first breath.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[Serena]

I think the "if one of them were male" thing could have gone either way. They didn't put the main male Wonderland villain with the heroine, and when he got Ana to be his love slave it wasn't portrayed as hot and not brushed over. If Regina were male, would "his" abuse of Graham, Henry, Snow be so overlooked? Let's think about a grown ass man targeting a little girl. Let's think about him raping female-Graham with (let's go all the way with this gender swap) little Henrietta in the house.

Nope. I don't care how creepy PLL is (and its premise is "here creepy shit happens" - quite different from OUAT), that shit would not fly on Once.

If Regina remained a woman and Emma were a man.. I guess it would be perceived as less creepy than the alternative, but "hero redeems wicked woman" is a lot less mainstream than the opposite.

Ultimately Once has a lot of bad/good relationships, but their dynamics are all different from SQ. So maybe "if one of them were a man AND their dynamic were written completely differently, they'd be canon".

Like, I can definitely see "curse caster and curse breaker FALL IN LOVE!" as an appealing ship. I may even ship it. If Regina's personality and background were completely different.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Serena

[Rumsy4]

It could have happened in a gender-bent situation, or it happens in other Shows is really irrelevant IMO. Sure--there are all kinds of horrible parings on TV. But, the thing is--SQ is not a canon Ship. Trying to force a crackship to happen by claiming homophobia is not right. That's it. I don't have to jump through hoops of political correctness to say that harassing actors to gain letimacy and recognition for your ship is wrong. Are all SQ fans like that? Of course not! But there is a vocal SQ fanbase that has been harassing and bullying and whining to make SQ happen.