moriarty for example

5 Reason’s Why Supernatural is the Gayest Show on Television (That’s Still Stuck in the Closet)

To start with, I’m not delusional.  I’m fully aware that the studio and execs have settled into a comfortable pattern with Supernatural, and especially considering it’s heavily mixed demographic (interestingly, it was ranked a favorite among republicans and democrats in 2016) they’re unlikely to rock the ship with a canonically queer relationship between two of it’s main characters.  

However, it’s important to understand exactly how much queerness is bubbling beneath the thick surface layer of “no homo:”  from the orgies of male-on-male eyesex to the inspiration for most of its main characters, Supernatural is queer to its very core. 

Here are five (blaring but stubbornly unacknowledged) reasons why:

1.  Dean’s gratuitously bisexual inspiration. 

Whenever someone claims a queer interpretation of Dean is baseless, I’m always happy to direct them straight to his flamingly bisexual source:  Dean Moriarty, his namesake and direct inspiration, a la the novel On the Road.  

Admittedly, I read On the Road and didn’t particularly enjoy it, as I found it to be a somewhat masturbatory reassertion of masculinity for its narrator, Sal Paradise.  Sal idolizes and fixates the charismatic Dean and his promiscuous lifestyle, openly having sex with and impregnating multiple women, and is all around a heterosexual power figure…right up until the point at which Dean propositions a male prostitute.  

Though he’s never shown doing anything gratuitous with male characters (since the book was published in the 1960s, it wouldn’t have been legal to) it’s clear that Dean is very much bisexual, not ashamed of it, and in terms of personality, very similar to Dean.  There are a few key differences (Dean Moriarty, for example, legitimately gives zero fucks about anything, whereas Dean Winchester is secretly a little ball of anxiety with the weight of the world on his shoulders) but it’s clear where Eric Kripke got his inspiration from.

Moreover, Dean Moriarty was in turn based off of the real life bisexual counterculturist Neal Cassady, who among other things had a twenty-year sexual relationship with a male poet.  Here, he is pictured in a Denver mugshot: 

So next time someone tells you the homoerotic subtext of Supernatural exists only in the imagination of rabid fangirls, remember that Dean is the direct descendant of two ragingly bisexual icons.

2.  Castiel (or at least his wardrobe) was also based off of a bisexual character.

For a show so aggressively devoted to a “no homo” interpretation, it has a real propensity to drawing inspiration from queer characters:  everyone’s favorite baby in a trench coat, for example, was modeled after the demon-busting John Constantine from the Hellblazer comics.  Yup, another bisexual.   

Though in true assbutt fashion, his love of men is censored in movie and TV adaptions, Constantine unabashedly swings both ways in paper form – a.k.a. where Kripke found inspiration for Castiel’s look.  Here, we see him platonically receiving a man-hug from one of his bros:

So I’m not saying the fact that two out of three main characters are modeled after canonically queer figures could have anything to do with Supernatural’s gratuitous queer subtext, but y’know.  It might.

3.  Cas himself is sexually complex (and literally cannot be straight.) 

Dean has made reference to the fact that he “doesn’t swing that way” (ironically, both of which times he was literally in the midst of blatantly flirting with men.)  

Cas, however, has no such reservations:  he’s never indicated, vocally or otherwise, a preference towards either gender, so much as outright declaring that he doesn’t give a damn.  

He reacts to male and female flirtation much the same way:  just try and tell me his suspicious glower and Mick wasn’t similar to Mandy the waitress (and try and tell me they both weren’t acting like they’d like to eat him for dinner.)

Moreover, the only time we’ve seen him ever achieve some kind of intimacy with female characters is when they’re literally throwing themselves at him.  Hey, he’s an aesthetically pleasing fellow – or rather, an aesthetically pleasing something.  

Which brings me to my next point that he isn’t really a fellow at all:  Cas not only gives zero fucks about sexual orientation, he also gives zero fucks about gender.  Sure, he’ll spend seven years in the same ill-fitting trench coat, but he’ll also rock a petticoat like nobody’s business.

I’ve discovered that the writer for “Lily Sunder Has Some Regrets,” Steve Yockey, is a gay man, which honestly makes it all the more perfect:  not only does it establish the Orlando-esque flexibility (or nonexistence) of Cas’s gender, but it eliminates the possibility of his straightness.  

And I want Destiel to be canon as much as anybody, but am I opposed to Cas being a genderfluid lesbian?  No.  No, I am not.    

4.  Dean can textually be interpreted as bisexual (and probably should be.)

For anyone who questions whether Dean not being straight as an arrow, I’m happy to point out some very canon things that happened on the show:

(Examples courtesy of @some-people-call-it-tragic!)

And yes, when feeling threatened, he’s professed not to swing that way.  But you know how many queer people I know who have at one point felt compelled to lie about our sexual orientation?  Every single one.  And I live in the bluest of blue states – Dean was raised in Bible Belt America and spends most of his time in the Southwest.  Not to mention the fact that he was raised during the heat of the AIDS academic.

In other words, he has every logical reason to be wary at the prospect of coming out of the closet, or even acknowledging same sex attraction at all.

Moreover it’s been canonically established that Dean has a habit of lying about himself to protect his image of masculinity:  according to Dean, he doesn’t do shorts, chick flicks, cucumber water, skinny jeans and sunglasses, and Taylor Swift music.  You know how many of those things he loves?  All of them

Finally, not every member of the cast or crew might agree (though I know for a fact that some of them do) but their interpretations do not effect textuality.  And Dean can textually be interpreted as bisexual.  

5.  Dean and Cas make a better couple than any of their love interests.

I’m going to state something I feel is obvious:  Cas and Dean have more buildup, tension, chemistry, emotional connection, and romantic history than literally any of their other interests.  

Take Lisa, for example:  she’s Dean’s longest lasting introduced as female partner, and she’s introduced as the “bendiest weekend of his life.”  

Furthermore, I’d argue that sexual attraction notwithstanding, Dean was never romantically in love with Lisa.  To him, she epitomizes his desire for a mother figure, a home, and his lost childhood, as is best demonstrated in his fantasy from “Dream a Little Dream of Me:”  Lisa isn’t a seductive or romantic figure here – she’s a maternal one. 

Though since Dean has never had a long lasting relationship (or, to my belief, been completely in love with a girl) it’s easy to see how he’d misinterpret these feelings as romantic love. 

Then we have Cas, who’s introduced by pulling Dean from the depths of hell, who makes most one-on-one scenes with Dean look like a soft core porno, and who recently (canonically!) declared his love for Dean.  

I don’t dislike Lisa, but it’s easy to see which of the two relationships is more three-dimensional, more original, and more worthy of screentime.

Imagine a Sherlock AU where all the characters have their opposite personalities (kinda like 2p in hetalia hah hah), for example: Moriarty is the nicest angel in the world, looks like a cinnamon roll and is actually a cinnamon roll. John is the psycopath villain. Sherlock is John’s shy sidekick. Mycroft is working in a fastfood place. This idea just popped into my mind what do you think?

Originally posted by xngleterre

Personally, I think the key to a good villain is the calmness. Take Jim Moriarty for example. He is portrayed so perfectly, the way Andrew Scott had the perfect balance of calm and creepy, no emotions shown in his face to psychopathic facial expressions, movements and speech. Speech is also a key part, you’ve got to talk the part. Like Dylan O'Brien did when stiles was possessed by the Nogistune, the slow speech and the slowness of his actual movements, it’s perfect. The calmness though, back to that, see, when they’re calm and collected, talking slow and showing how much they truly don’t care for others, it shows how bad they are. You know from the second you see Jim Moriarty on your screen, nothing good is going to happen, he strikes you as bad because the way Andrew Scott portrays his body language, carelessness, calmness. And moving slow, that’s another thing. We’re going to -again- use Moriarty, (he’s my favourite villain of all time though for real) he does everything slowly, the walks slowly, his hands in his pockets, his movements are slow, you’re on the edge of your seat awaiting his next move. He wasn’t predictable. And he’s scary. He’s scary because all of those things, because even when he’s threatening Sherlock, he is calm and cool and it’s terrifying. In conclusion, if anyone even wants to portray a bad guy, go to Andrew Scott, he knows how to do this thing, be s l o w.

Originally posted by prettiestcaptain

Why Mary Did Not Intend to Kill Sherlock and Why Sherlock Forgave Her So Readily

As  follow on from my previous article: Why Mary shot Sherlock.

I explain in more detail:

1. How we know that Mary did not intend to kill Sherlock from the position of the bullet wound. She shot him in the liver not the heart or the lungs. 

2. Why she chose that particular spot above all other organs, she was not trying to kill him slowly. 

3. Why Mary is a morally interesting character, and much more than just another villain

4. Why Sherlock forgave Mary

5. Why Mary was unhappy when she heard Sherlock had lived

Thank you to everyone who sent in questions, submission etc. My inbox is now overflowing. I aim to answer all you questions in one post. 

The Anatomy of a Killing

Keep reading

cinnamonandpears asked stfu-moffat:

I personally like Moriarty a lot, although he flirts with the “villainous homosexual” trope. There’s nothing wrong with gay/effeminate villains, so long as the only gays are not villains. Moffat has a history of queerbaiting and disregarding queer identities. His other problematic portrayals of queer sexuality make me uncomfortable with the characterization of Moriarty as ambiguously gay. I would feel better about it if he had a better track record. What do you think?

I agree. If Moffat had multiple well-rounded gay characters (who weren’t sexually assaulted by their “friends”), then Moriarty would be one example of a gay character, with lots of other examples of non-villainous gay characters. But instead one of the only gay men Moffat has written is a villain, which is pretty offensive.

I feel this is valuable writing advice though. The fewer characters of an oppressed group you want to write (especially a group you aren’t part of), the more likely it is that their portrayal will be offensive, because that one character is representing that group. Whereas if you have multiple characters in that group (e.g. multiple gay characters), they represent themselves more than the group, so each individual portrayal is less likely to be offensive. Don’t be a Moffat, everyone!

- C