(x)
Castiel’s romantic love for Dean and Dean’s romantic love for Castiel, Castiel’s queerness and Dean’s queerness, are definitively part of Supernatural’s canon. I am at a loss to describe the particular insidiousness of singling out these specific aspects of the story, in a way markedly different than what's done for any others, to insert doubt and ambiguity where there is none.
Art IS open for interpretation. What's left out is that interpretation is open for doubt. That interpretations need bases; that some interpretations have little while others have such substantial and clear textual support that they become the soundest read beyond reasonable doubt. By refusing to acknowledge the difference and continuing to manipulate language— holding all reads equal under the vast umbrella of "interpretation”— the doors are opened to invalidate any read based on the lowest common denominator of doubt from least likely scenario to most. It's a sense of media nihilism which often does little more than clear the slate for the assumptions and biases that already hold power in the sociocultural consciousness— which are validated not by truth, but by privilege—to continue to exercise it.
It’s transparent what gets ordained “open” or not. What we see is rarely a good faith attempt to validate diverse, personal reactions to media but rather an effective tool (whether used with intent or not!) to protect a status quo that denies and bestows power through clarity.
The words we use and do not use matter. Their accuracy matters. There is power in being named— in being able to say who you are, to use clarity to claim space— or to remain unnamed for the same reason. But too often, the privilege of ambiguity is just a placeholder for the default. You don’t need to say your name when it’s on the building.
But, “there are no words to describe it!” I can think of a few to start. “You changed me, Dean.” “I cared about the whole world because of you.” “The one thing I want, it’s something I know I can’t have.” “I love you.” “I need you.”
There’s only 10+ years of queer romantic text to provide the words to describe it.
And let’s be clear, the virtuous nondescription used plenty of words. “Junkless”, “incest”, “It’s not about that.” Queerness devalues connection; sex sullies love; queer love is only comprehensible through an alien lens and queer sex [gasp] is only palatable through its reduction and omission. We must avoid our own culpability in refusing to empathize with a human experience by removing it from humanity itself. Love who you want but don’t do it here. Open indeed.
At the end of the day, those words are irrelevant to the story’s validation. We have the text. The text says it’s queer. The text says it’s romantic. The text says that angel-human sexy times are on the table (with all possible entendres intended).
But man. We have years ahead of us. Your voices impact people. Whether warranted or not they shape conversations and perceptions. Instead of talking over marginalized experiences and stories, maybe silence would be better left open for interpretation.
