A meta-analysis on Robin and Will's conversation about queer "signals"
Okay, I love this scene, and not just because it features Will and Robin discreetly discussing the nuances of queer romance.
I love this scene as a writer specifically, due to it's clever and subtle use of authorial intrusion disguised as character dialogue.
Through authorial intrusion, the author/s can address the audience intimately, even under the guise of an existing character.
It allows the author/s to communicate directly to the audience; commenting on the narrative, stating an opinion, or posing a question. It doesn't require a breaking of the fourth wall.
It's similar to author or audience surrogacy. For example, Steve often acts as an audience surrogate in the series — the "simple" voice who asks questions which prompt exposition (usually from Dustin or Nancy), clarifying the plot.
Will and Robin’s scene is certainly seeking clarity, but it isn’t about exposition. It’s about introspection.
So, what is the alleged moment of authorial intrusion in question? It's this simple (and incredibly meta) line from Will, who is this season's lead protagonist: "How obvious?"
Of course, what Will is referring to here is Robin's notion of signals, aka subtle flirtation or signs of mutual attraction — particularly through the lens of queerness, which can be more difficult to navigate and discern.
To provide a succinct summary, the scene plays out like this:
-> Will asks Robin how she knew Vicki wanted to date her.
-> Robin says Vicki sent her subtle "signals" such as a brush of the knee, a bump of the elbow, or a shared look.
-> These little things (compared to a snowball) accrued and eventually became "obvious."
-> Will, acting as a stand-in for the authors, poses the ultimate question: "How obvious?"
This is an extremely "meta" line, because it's as if the authors are completing an exercise in writing a queer romance in real-time. Through this question, the writers are examining their own craft, and gently prompting us to join them.
The writers are pondering their own approach to Mike and Will's storyline; How obvious can we make it, or rather, how obvious should we make it? What is even considered "obvious" in this case? Is a shared look or lingering touch obvious, or not?
It's not a condescending question either — they're not saying you should find it obvious, and if not, you're an idiot.
It's not, "How obvious do we have to make it for you to get it, dammit?!"
It's more like, "We've tried to lay down the foundation, but we're unsure if it will land. How can we make this work?"
And this is why it's a question worth asking — there's no clear, universal answer. The writers don't have a lot of material to draw upon. They've probably been pondering this question in the writer's room for awhile.
So, they want to know if their signals have been received, and if so, were those signals obvious or obscure? How obvious should they make it to land the plane?
The funny thing is, although they're curious to know what the auidence thinks, it's not intended for us to answer — because they've already finished the script.
They've made up their minds concerning "how obvious" they wish to go, and what that looks like to them.
They declared their answer through Robin:
It will become an avalanche.
They've even provided us with a visual metaphor for their chosen technique:
-> The subtle, "little things" like shared looks are like snowballs.
-> The snowball accrues and builds over time, gaining mass.
-> Eventually, it becomes an avalanche; massive and sudden.
The visual metaphor here emphasizes mass and timing — if they do this, then they want it to feel crushingly heavy, and abrupt.
And although they want to make it as obvious as an avalanche, they don't want it to be obvious all the time, and they don't want to make it too predictable — because avalanches cannot be predicted, it's only possible to assess the risk or likelihood.
Will foreshadowed as the "receiver"
So, this question deserves a thematic answer, because it's been introduced as a story element which Will is keenly invested in — it's Chekhov's gun.
There was no point to including this scene unless we can expect to see a snowball turn into an avalanche. Otherwise, they've taught Will how to examine his love life only to... not give him a love life.
You don't tell a character to look for signals if you're not going to give them signals to pick up on. And curiously (yet not so curious, because it was intentional), Will has already been referred to as a receiver of signals.
Like, quite literally in the episode before this conversation took place, by the same exact person.
So according to Robin, Will is a receiver, because he has an antenna.
Antennae convert electric currents into radio waves, or vice versa. In that way, the role of Will's metaphorical antenna isn't just to pick up signals, it's to convert them into something meaningful.
Why does that sound familiar?
Ah! Because Robin is already an expert in decoding — she solved the Russian code in s3, after all.
She even explicitly states that the point of code is to communicate something sensitive.
This is a commentary on the queer experience: you have to be careful, subtle, and possibly even use another language (or "cant") if you want your message to be safely received. For example, gay men and women in the UK used to speak in a form of cant called Polari to identify each other when homosexuality was criminalized. (x).
Will and Mike seem to agree with Robin — some things are very hard to say outright, and out loud.
The signals are "queer code"
And yes, that is a play on words.
The queer signals must be decoded and therefore, they are a form of queer code. Furthermore, Robin makes a direct reference to the Enigma machine — a cipher device used by Nazi Germany during World War II.
Robin states that the Enigma machine "won the war" which is simplified phrasing. Perhaps what she means to say is that the Enigma code won the war — because cracking the code played a crucial role in the Allied victory.
In fact, Alan Turing's contributions to cracking the Enigma code as cryptanalyst were so instrumental that he was awarded an OBE (Officer of the Order of the British Empire).
Alan Turing was famously gay (and later persecuted for it), and also happens to be the historical figure Will chose as his "hero" for his history assignment in s4.
While shared looks, subtle lip glances, and the brushing of hands are all signals intended for Will to decode, these small "easter eggs" are signals for the audience.
Subtext and text which hints at Will's queerness — because as of Season 5 Volume I, he is still yet to claim his sexuality (even if it seems obvious to us).
This is queer-coding in practice. And yes, Mike receives his own fair share of coding too — just look at his ridiculous bedroom.
It's leading to gay romance, obviously.
Will receiving no signals simply isn’t narratively coherent. The story has already established him as the receiver and decoder of queer signals.
What I'm personally getting from this, dear reader, is that we have two possible outcomes before us:
Will experiences a fully developed on-screen romance with a new love interest, complete with subtle signs which eventually become obvious over a period of time.
Will continues to recieve signals from Mike, which culminate into an "avalanche" scene — the writers' attempt at making it "obvious."
It's not a question of, "will he receive signals?" It's a question of, "who is he going to receive signals from?"
I now pose the question to you: which of the two options feels more likely, considering the way the story has been written thus far, and the screentime we have left?
I think the answer seems obvious, but I guess I could be wrong. After all, the entire point of the question is that "obvious" is not so easy to define.
At least we know Will is going to get some use out of that "antenna" of his.
