Subject: However:
Author:
Posted on: 2014-03-20 19:20:00 UTC

I find that it is perfectly fine to create alternate interpretations of ships, even canonically sexual or romantic ships, as long as the characterisations are preserved. For instance, in J. Anon's "Observations" Kirk and Spock are sexually involved, but Spock maintains a deep emotional and platonic bond with Uhura (they call each other brother and sister). Does this overturn the canonical definition of the Spuhura ship? Yes. But it's written well and plausibly, so I am fine with it.

(I know a girl here at school who doesn't like Spuhura because she thinks it's just Hollywood trying to pair off one of the few female leads of the film with some guy. I understand her perspective, but I also understand the perspective in favour of Spuhura because Uhura being with Spock is positive representation for WOC, as it shows that women of colour can be love interests, too.)

Conversely, I find myself frequently expressing a wish for characters like John and Sherlock from BBC Sherlock and Dorian and John from Almost Human to become romantically or sexually involved in the canon, because. Let's go to the point of representation there.

Canonically, these two pairings are obviously deeply platonic to some degree. They all care about each other. It's not that hard a stretch to make it a romantic relationship from there. Sex can be added if needed. I understand that platonic bonds are important, but I feel like as it is, the mainstream media likes to imply that what could be strong platonic bonds between male and female characters are in fact romantic, and that what could be strong romantic bonds between characters of the same gender are in fact platonic. By making Johnlock and Jorian canon, we go against the prevailing "no homo" attitude in mainstream media.

(This is why I love platonic Joan and Sherlock in Elementary. The two care about each other and respect each other, but the writers consciously attempt not to get them romantically involved. It goes against the media's prevailing "will they or won't they" attitude towards female-male friendships.)

It's not necessary to be a certain sexuality in order to fall in love with someone. I know straight people who fall in love with people of their gender. People have exceptions all the time; they're people, not labels. No one's going to conform 100% to the sexuality they choose for themselves, and heck, they may even change that sexuality several times throughout their lives.

So, to tie it all together, I personally find that in some cases, if certain ships were canon it would help progress the show's social representation. And in others, different interpretations of canonical relationships to allow for a wider range of relationship representation is also good. Of course, all of this is assuming the writer does their research into sexual orientations, romantic orientations, etc, and don't just play by stereotypes in their writing (I am sick and tired of seeing asexuals as boring or overly scientific and neurotic WE'RE PEOPLE TOO, DANGIT).

...Did that even make sense, or...

Reply Return to messages