What do you think?
Rate this book
Queerbaiting and Fandom: Teasing Fans through Homoerotic Possibilities
In this first-ever comprehensive examination of queerbaiting, fan studies scholar Joseph Brennan and his contributors examine cases that shed light on the sometimes exploitative industry practice of teasing homoerotic possibilities that, while hinted at, never materialize in the program narratives. Through a nuanced approach that accounts for both the history of queer representation and older fan traditions, these essayists examine the phenomenon of queerbaiting across popular TV, video games, children’s programs, and more.
Contributors: Evangeline Aguas, Christoffer Bagger, Bridget Blodgett, Cassie Brummitt, Leyre Carcas, Jessica Carniel, Jennifer Duggan, Monique Franklin, Divya Garg, Danielle S. Girard, Mary Ingram-Waters, Hannah McCann, Michael McDermott, E. J. Nielsen, Emma Nordin, Holly Eva Katherine Randell-Moon, Emily E. Roach, Anastasia Salter, Elisabeth Schneider, Kieran Sellars, Isabela Silva, Guillaume Sirois, Clare Southerton
Contributors: Evangeline Aguas, Christoffer Bagger, Bridget Blodgett, Cassie Brummitt, Leyre Carcas, Jessica Carniel, Jennifer Duggan, Monique Franklin, Divya Garg, Danielle S. Girard, Mary Ingram-Waters, Hannah McCann, Michael McDermott, E. J. Nielsen, Emma Nordin, Holly Eva Katherine Randell-Moon, Emily E. Roach, Anastasia Salter, Elisabeth Schneider, Kieran Sellars, Isabela Silva, Guillaume Sirois, Clare Southerton
296 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 2019
8 people are currently reading
376 people want to read
About the author
Joseph Brennan
3 books4 followersJoseph Brennan, PhD is an authority on gay pornography published by Oxford University Press. His debut novel Loose Lips: A Gay Sea Odyssey is a Finalist for the 2023 Lambda Literary Award for LGBTQ+ Romance and Erotica.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
August 18, 2022
Apparently I really love reading academic books about fandom and fan studies. As the title suggests this is all about queerbaiting and the different ways it has shown up in media over the years. The essays in the collection cover Supernatural, Sherlock, Harry Potter, Supergirl, real life celebrities, and more.
It was interesting to see the different forms of queerbaiting being discussed. I think people normally think about queerbaiting as having homoerotic tension in the show but then denying that it exists or never having the characters actually be queer. But the authors also write about when creators state that a character is queer outside of canon but never actually put it into the show. Or having a big announcement in the press that “The Green Lantern is gay!” but it’s actually an alternate universe version of the character who can easily be removed or forgotten about because it’s not the main version of the character.
Something to note is that this book was published in 2019. So there’s a lot of discussion about Supernatural without having the context of what happened in the final season of the show. Also, when discussing Harry Potter JK Rowling is talked about as someone who promotes LGBTQ+ rights because this was written before she became openly transphobic online. So it does make those essays feel a bit incomplete when you read them from a 2022 perspective.
Overall this was really interesting. While it is scholarly nonfiction I think it’s easy enough to read if you’re interested in the topics. I definitely plan on reading more books from the Fandom & Culture series from the University of Iowa Press.
It was interesting to see the different forms of queerbaiting being discussed. I think people normally think about queerbaiting as having homoerotic tension in the show but then denying that it exists or never having the characters actually be queer. But the authors also write about when creators state that a character is queer outside of canon but never actually put it into the show. Or having a big announcement in the press that “The Green Lantern is gay!” but it’s actually an alternate universe version of the character who can easily be removed or forgotten about because it’s not the main version of the character.
Something to note is that this book was published in 2019. So there’s a lot of discussion about Supernatural without having the context of what happened in the final season of the show. Also, when discussing Harry Potter JK Rowling is talked about as someone who promotes LGBTQ+ rights because this was written before she became openly transphobic online. So it does make those essays feel a bit incomplete when you read them from a 2022 perspective.
Overall this was really interesting. While it is scholarly nonfiction I think it’s easy enough to read if you’re interested in the topics. I definitely plan on reading more books from the Fandom & Culture series from the University of Iowa Press.
December 21, 2019
This collection of essays explores the theme of queerbaiting (enticing queer representation without delivering) in media.
The text was overall comprehensible, but at times too academic, with entire sentences composed of unattainable words to the lay man. I could see it being valuable to people in social or media studies, and to a lesser extent to people like me, fans who are interested in diving deeper into these topics.
Overall, I enjoyed the information presented and the way in which it was argued. However, as someone who was present in tumblr/fandom forums while the conversations of queerbaiting become more and more prevalent, not a lot was new information. But i did get a lot of new great information (e.g. assimilationist vs radical reading practices).
Some topics (Nick Jonas, shipping of real people) and particularly their presentation as queerbaiting was slightly weird - i do see where the author(s) was coming from but it seemed " a reach", for lack of a better term. The equalization of queerbaiting relating to Wincest and then to Destiel seemed... off.
There was some repetition with the same contextualization being made over and over, which is comprehensible since it is an anthology, but could've been edited better. upside: you can put this down and then pick it up whenever you wish. downside: you start skimming fast when you read it in one go.
Thank you to NetGalley and the publisher for providing me with the ARC.
PS. There's one essay arguing how the previous roles of the actors influence how their characters are read and the effects that has on the show/movie and consequent societal repercussions of it. The Sherlock movies and the role of Stephen Fry in them are mentioned. Within the referenced argument, they mention his role as Wilde, and his defense of LGBTQ rights,, but not the fact that he is a gay man?? and very out for many years?? anyways that seemed ridiculous to exclude from that narrative.
The text was overall comprehensible, but at times too academic, with entire sentences composed of unattainable words to the lay man. I could see it being valuable to people in social or media studies, and to a lesser extent to people like me, fans who are interested in diving deeper into these topics.
Overall, I enjoyed the information presented and the way in which it was argued. However, as someone who was present in tumblr/fandom forums while the conversations of queerbaiting become more and more prevalent, not a lot was new information. But i did get a lot of new great information (e.g. assimilationist vs radical reading practices).
Some topics (Nick Jonas, shipping of real people) and particularly their presentation as queerbaiting was slightly weird - i do see where the author(s) was coming from but it seemed " a reach", for lack of a better term. The equalization of queerbaiting relating to Wincest and then to Destiel seemed... off.
There was some repetition with the same contextualization being made over and over, which is comprehensible since it is an anthology, but could've been edited better. upside: you can put this down and then pick it up whenever you wish. downside: you start skimming fast when you read it in one go.
Thank you to NetGalley and the publisher for providing me with the ARC.
PS. There's one essay arguing how the previous roles of the actors influence how their characters are read and the effects that has on the show/movie and consequent societal repercussions of it. The Sherlock movies and the role of Stephen Fry in them are mentioned. Within the referenced argument, they mention his role as Wilde, and his defense of LGBTQ rights,, but not the fact that he is a gay man?? and very out for many years?? anyways that seemed ridiculous to exclude from that narrative.
August 18, 2019
I knew I had to read this book as soon as I saw it on Netgalley. I’m a bisexual black woman active on social media sites like Twitter and I see and hear about queer baiting quite often.
There are several shows that do this kind of thing and when you’re looking for representation of who you identity with as a person it can be frustrating if not downright insufferable to see these occurrences.
I loved that this book went deep into this exact problem in society and discussed several recent instances of it. Although we are growing and learning everyday as people it is important that we realize the harm that can come from these practices.
This was a great, quick, and to the point read which highlighted these issues and hopefully as a society we can grow from it.
Thanks very much to Netgalley and the publisher for my copy of this ARC.
There are several shows that do this kind of thing and when you’re looking for representation of who you identity with as a person it can be frustrating if not downright insufferable to see these occurrences.
I loved that this book went deep into this exact problem in society and discussed several recent instances of it. Although we are growing and learning everyday as people it is important that we realize the harm that can come from these practices.
This was a great, quick, and to the point read which highlighted these issues and hopefully as a society we can grow from it.
Thanks very much to Netgalley and the publisher for my copy of this ARC.
February 29, 2024
it’s hard to take a book on queerbaiting seriously when it doesn’t seem to understand what queerbaiting actually is, is really about queer subtext and readings, argues an incestuous relationship between two men is more groundbreaking and subversive and queer than a non-incestuous relationship between two men, seemingly forgets that not all queerbaiting is about men, hinges almost entirely on amatonormativity, and wants us to believe that queerbaiting is something real people do.
i don’t think anyone reading this book will come away with a clear understanding of queerbaiting, because the focus is on queer interpretations/subtext and there isn’t a distinct defining and differentiating between queerbaiting, subtext, and interpretation. the editor of the book says they are “not interested in delineating between accurate and inaccurate usages” of the term, so let me. queerbaiting is when producers (anyone who has a say in the content) of media hint and tease the possibility or outright promise the presence of queer rep, either in the media itself (text) or in marketing and promotional material (paratext, such teasers, interviews, social media posts, etc.), in order to gain or maintain a queer audience, but never follow through on actually, canonically representing queerness. it’s an intentional writing/marketing tactic in fiction. subtext is subtle or underlining (as opposed to outright expressed) meaning within a text. queer subtext is often added because the queerness cannot be overtly expressed in the text due to network or legal restrictions. subtext is not, as one author states, “a way of reading against the dominant or intended meaning.” that is an interpretation; a reading of a text, whether or not it aligns with the intended meaning of the text. queer interpretations of a text can be because of queer subtext, but also simply viewing media through the lens of queerness.
despite some of these authors arguing so, queerbaiting is not an “unstable” term with a meaning that can continuously be “extended” to account for any issue with queer rep. here are the things these authors describe in and of themselves as queerbaiting that aren’t actually queerbaiting: canon queer rep that is unexpected, unsatisfying, nonsexual, fluid/vague, only indicated through a producer’s word, or treated differently than nonqueer characters (it being canon means it is not queerbaiting); the bury your gays trope, when queer characters are killed disproportionately, typically after a same gender romantic/sexual encounter (this being an issue doesn’t mean it’s queerbaiting); queer coding or subtext, especially in the circumstance of network or legal censorship (including when canon queerness is removed or rewritten heterosexually in different places); producers supporting/encouraging queer readings and/or saying their text is open to all interpretations (with how often queer interpretations are met with scorn and disgust, not shutting them down is a good thing); personal interpretations not becoming canon; two characters of the same gender being mistaken for or compared to a couple (genuinely or jokingly); intense, loving platonic relationships, especially ones that mirror romantic relationships and/or are central to a story (amatonormativity is bad, kids).
some examples of actual queerbaiting discussed in this book are sherlock, supernatural, supergirl, pitch perfect, rizzoli & isles, and teen wolf. in all of these cases, they are same gender relationships that are blatantly and intentionally teased as romantic by producers, both in text (often through gratuitous portrayal of them as a couple) and paratext (often through playing up the relationships in promotional material and telling fans to “wait and see” if they become canon). for specific details on each of these examples, my article on queerbaiting goes into it. there are more examples that aren’t queerbaiting mentioned in this book: harry potter, overwatch, alan scott, beauty and the beast, the 100, wonder woman, thor: ragnorok, the cursed child, young americans, once upon a time, xena: warrior princess, legend of korra, adventure time, and steven universe. these are all examples of being disappointed with canon rep, thinking personal interpretations alone are enough to prove queerbaiting, and queer coding due to restrictions placed on producers. and then of course, there are the real people who are accused of queerbaiting, which i’ll get into in a bit.
i find it bothersome how little attention is given to paratext. so much of queerbaiting happens out of the text, from producers on social media, in interviews, and other public forums or interactions with fans. whether it’s playing up the queer relationships that have cultivated a following in order to get that following excited and engaging with the show, or playing coy (“you’ll just have to wait and see!” and “we don’t want to spoil anything!”) when directly asked if the relationships are going to become canon in order keep those queer fans hopeful and invested, tuning in, and drumming up hype and attention. they don’t want to lose that audience by honestly saying “no, that relationship is not going to happen” from the jump, but they will however, bluntly dismiss queer readings as crazy, illogical fantasies of fans who read too much into things or are just seeing things that aren’t there after they’ve strung those fans along for years with those coy responses and nods to the relationship in text.
one of the authors says that defining queerbaiting as intentional has been “very rightly” criticized as “problematically” requiring proof of intention, but i don’t agree. queerbaiting is blatant and intentional. an example is rizzoli & isles. in the season one trailer, the women are speed dating and not having any luck, until they’re paired on a date with each other. they agree they “should do this again some time” and the voiceover narrator says, “rizzoli and isles, a perfect match.” the intention is very clear without needing a producer to confirm it. if we remove intent from queerbaiting, anything would be queerbaiting as long as a queer person so much as feels a vibe from it. a tv trailer that was also accused of queerbaiting and even directly compared to rizzoli & isles, but isn’t queerbaiting is dead to me. it revolves around the intense relationship between the women, but nothing is ever removed from context or placed misleadingly into a false romantic narrative in order to trick viewers into thinking they are or will be a couple. of course people can and do have romantic readings, but absent is the intent to mislead viewers into that interpretation. given the intentionality of queerbaiting, the nature of this book is frustrating as it focuses almost entirely on queer readings and interpretations. given that there are many different, valid ways to interpret a text, arguing your interpretation alone is enough proof of queerbaiting is falsely arguing that your interpretation is the obvious and correct one.
which brings me to amatonormativity. it’s said once that conversations around queerbaiting have developed an “uncompromising language” that has a “very rigid rhetoric,” and while the author wasn’t referencing amatonormativity, it applies. for the sake of brevity here, a very watered down definition of amatonormativity is the normalized, societal assumption of romance. when it comes to queerbaiting, a lot of the times people argue a same gender relationship is obviously queerbaiting because “friends don’t act like that.” rigid lines are drawn between what platonic relationships are allowed to look like and how friends are allowed to behave and feel, and even how actual queer people supposedly universally interpret media. it’s ignorantly argued that because queer people understand queer history and are aware of media tropes, they have correct and “refined” queer readings instead of wrong and “obvious” platonic readings. it’s one thing to have a queer interpretation of media and discuss queerbaiting in a wider context, it’s another to say two friends smiling at or hugging each other for an extended moment, sharing a bed, making a grand gesture or speech, being heartbroken over a falling out, being codependent, expressing intense emotion for one another, having any kind of emotionally meaningful moment, or their bond being central to or the driving force of the story has “no platonic explanation.” a scene between friends mirroring a scene between a couple (or using a trope/framing that is often used in a romantic context) could be queerbaiting, could be queer coding because they’re restricted from making it explicit, or it could just be showing the depth of platonic love by paralleling it with the one relationship society upholds as the most important in order to put it into perspective. the response to heteronormativity shouldn’t be amatonormativity; the response to the dismissal of romantic queer interpretations (“obviously they’re just friends, you’re reading too much into it”) shouldn’t be the dismissal of platonic interpretations (“obviously they’re not just friends, you’re not reading enough into it”).
reading a certain friendship as romantic is said to “make both narrative and contextual sense” because it is a “serious and engaged commitment that will last until death” but why that can’t apply to platonic relationships? when you expand your view of what relationships can look like, this kind of argument feels foolish. there are many long term, serious, engaged commitments between people who are not in a romantic relationship. many platonic relationships involve an agreed commitment of varying degrees, with some including cohabitating, raising children, sharing finances, etc. one author argues same gender relationships are queer kids’ only “point of reference to help shape their own development toward adulthood” which assumes every queer child will grow up into an adult who desires and engages in romantic/sexual relationships. if queer rep is necessary for queer people to form, realize, and understand their identity and envision a future for themselves, why must that rep be romance? why not a queer character saying they’re queer? wearing a pride pin? waving a pride flag? going to a pride parade? being involved in a queer community? experiencing all kinds of love? being happy and healthy and living into old age? why is the ultimate, ideal rep for all queer people romantic (and eventually sexual) relationships? why is amatonormativity never factored into these conversations? why is it never considered that some people do not want romance? or do but don’t center their entire life around it? why is it never considered that aspec people who don’t experience sexual or romantic attraction, and therefor maybe don’t want or center those kinds of relationships, exist?
there’s the assumption that anytime men express affection for one another it’s in a joking manner and “won’t be interpreted seriously,” which one) ignores the reality of how toxic masculinity and homophobia affect how men express their feelings for one another. given that it still isn’t normalized for men to do so without their masculinity or heterosexuality being questioned, it makes sense that in media oftentimes the only socially acceptable way for men to express affection for one another is lightheartedly. and two) positions romantic readings of men expressing affection as the only way to take said affection “seriously.” that platonic readings are serious is not considered. one author acknowledges the importance of writing men whose masculinities aren’t hegemonic and who have physical and emotional connections with one another to help mitigate stereotypes, and that we should applaud portrayals of deep, emotional friendships between men in popular culture. however, the author swiftly pivots into arguing why that doesn’t apply to the deep, emotional fictional male friendship they personally interpret as romantic. their argument is that the text has other deep, emotional male friendships that don’t have queer subtext, thus their romantic reading is justified (and the friendship is clearly queerbaited). problem? the comparison of friendships does not check out; to compare a friendship that is not only deep, emotional, and codependent, but the actual sole driving force of the story, to a friendship that is important but not to the degree of the former is disingenuous. when it comes to the matter of queer subtext, who gets to decide that? is this author the arbiter of queer subtext? this is in line with prioritizing and positioning queer romantic readings over platonic readings and arguing whose readings are considered more correct or logical.
lastly, the author brings up traditions/tropes of romance that are present in the friendship which lead people to expect a romance, but honestly? despite the argument that the intense codependent quality of this friendship being a common romance trope justifying a romantic reading and accusation of queerbaiting, it’s not really that common a romance trope, especially nowadays. when romances have that super consuming, codependent quality, they tend to be received negatively and considered unhealthy or juvenile, whereas friendships in media get to be a little obsessive and intense. i’m not arguing there aren’t any romances like that, but in my experience, they’re exception, not the rule. i’d say this is more a platonic trope than a romantic trope, which disrupts this author’s entire premise. and generally, drawing on romantic tropes isn’t always to add a romantic subtext to a friendship, but to showcase the importance of the friendship through our cultural understanding of romance being the most important relationship. for example, in criminal minds, when morgan and garcia tell each other they love each other, it is framed the same way romantic “i love you” scenes are; the story stops to make room for it, the music highlights the importance of the moment, it’s drawn out, etc. that mirroring or paralleling of romantic framing/tropes does not indicate romance, it signifies the gravity of platonic bond. therefore, mirroring or paralleling romance in a same gender friendship is not in and of itself an indication of queerbaiting. arguing so is arguing that the only relationship that can be a big, important, life-changing relationship is a romantic one.
finally...the accusations of real people queerbaiting. if the article about a supernatural incest ship wasn’t bizarre and questionable enough, there are three chapters about real people queerbaiting. there are articles about the harry styles and larry tomlinson ship, eurovision stage kisses, and nick jonas. the idea is that “celebrities who are not openly lgbtq+ but hint at sexual experimentation through language, action, or the use of symbols (such as rainbows) open themselves to allegations of marketing to queer audiences” but when we remember that real people do not owe anyone anything about their sexuality, how they express it, and how they interact with people, this idea falls apart. accusing real people of queerbaiting boils down to equating certain self-expression to queerness, mspec erasure, entitlement, devaluing closeted people, and policing how friends of the same gender are allowed to interact. no one is owed anything about anyone’s sexuality, nor is it anyone’s place to police who can express themselves in what way or what they can explore in their work. your interpretation of someone’s expression or sexuality does not necessitate explanation. this mindset is not only invasive and restrictive, but it pressures people into coming out.
the articles about harry and louis and eurovision are very short and all i have to say is no, it’s not queerbaiting. the longer article about nick jonas genuinely angered me. there are many unnecessary graphic/violent sexual quotes about nick taken from a gay forum that are truly disturbing. and not because “ew gay sex” but because it’s so invasive and uncomfortable to read comments like that about any celebrities. it’s always given me the ick and the level of crudity is truly something else. now let’s get into the accusations. the authors say that nick jonas is “hurting the goals of the gay rights movement” with his queerbaiting, such as half naked photoshoots and selfies, playing gay characters, not saying if he’s had sexual experience with men, and giving a speech at a pulse shooting vigil. they even claim he pandered to gay men by not using “female pronouns” for the love interest in a song, despite the fact that he does refer to the love interest as “girl.”
him not sharing personal details of his sex life is described as “the ultimate act of queerbaiting” illustrating his “intention to incite questions of his sexuality, enticing audiences and fans to uncover a truth.” to seriously argue he wants invasive questions/speculation about his sexuality from strangers en masse is something i can’t wrap my head around. they state multiple times that nick admitted to “intentionally courting queer followings, which confirms his intention to queerbait” but never actually provide such a quote. all nick said was that he made intentional career choices while navigating transitioning from a child star to an adult. that his choices attract queer people does not mean he intentionally courted them. they argue we should view celebrity as a “performative practice,” which is a common argument: celebrities aren’t people, they’re brands to be marketed/sold and can use duplicitous means to garner a queer audience. but just because they choose how to present themselves doesn’t mean they’re playing a character and should be viewed as fictional characters.
other: extremely repetitive; unnecessarily academic; dated; stephen fry’s sexuality is erased; sherlock is discussed in terms of being gay, with only a single sentence acknowledging that he can and is read as aspec; one author wonders why lucy lawless said xena is gay when she had relationships with men, but lucy’s full quote that the author didn’t include acknowledges xena’s bisexuality; i don’t agree with the “primary concern and aim” of calling out queerbaiting being “advocating for greater visibility of queer people.” my aim is better treatment of and sensitivity toward queer fans, both in how media is marketed/promoted and the reactions to queer readings.
content/trigger warnings; queerphobia, amatonormativity, hate crimes (pulse shooting), sexual harassment,
i don’t think anyone reading this book will come away with a clear understanding of queerbaiting, because the focus is on queer interpretations/subtext and there isn’t a distinct defining and differentiating between queerbaiting, subtext, and interpretation. the editor of the book says they are “not interested in delineating between accurate and inaccurate usages” of the term, so let me. queerbaiting is when producers (anyone who has a say in the content) of media hint and tease the possibility or outright promise the presence of queer rep, either in the media itself (text) or in marketing and promotional material (paratext, such teasers, interviews, social media posts, etc.), in order to gain or maintain a queer audience, but never follow through on actually, canonically representing queerness. it’s an intentional writing/marketing tactic in fiction. subtext is subtle or underlining (as opposed to outright expressed) meaning within a text. queer subtext is often added because the queerness cannot be overtly expressed in the text due to network or legal restrictions. subtext is not, as one author states, “a way of reading against the dominant or intended meaning.” that is an interpretation; a reading of a text, whether or not it aligns with the intended meaning of the text. queer interpretations of a text can be because of queer subtext, but also simply viewing media through the lens of queerness.
despite some of these authors arguing so, queerbaiting is not an “unstable” term with a meaning that can continuously be “extended” to account for any issue with queer rep. here are the things these authors describe in and of themselves as queerbaiting that aren’t actually queerbaiting: canon queer rep that is unexpected, unsatisfying, nonsexual, fluid/vague, only indicated through a producer’s word, or treated differently than nonqueer characters (it being canon means it is not queerbaiting); the bury your gays trope, when queer characters are killed disproportionately, typically after a same gender romantic/sexual encounter (this being an issue doesn’t mean it’s queerbaiting); queer coding or subtext, especially in the circumstance of network or legal censorship (including when canon queerness is removed or rewritten heterosexually in different places); producers supporting/encouraging queer readings and/or saying their text is open to all interpretations (with how often queer interpretations are met with scorn and disgust, not shutting them down is a good thing); personal interpretations not becoming canon; two characters of the same gender being mistaken for or compared to a couple (genuinely or jokingly); intense, loving platonic relationships, especially ones that mirror romantic relationships and/or are central to a story (amatonormativity is bad, kids).
some examples of actual queerbaiting discussed in this book are sherlock, supernatural, supergirl, pitch perfect, rizzoli & isles, and teen wolf. in all of these cases, they are same gender relationships that are blatantly and intentionally teased as romantic by producers, both in text (often through gratuitous portrayal of them as a couple) and paratext (often through playing up the relationships in promotional material and telling fans to “wait and see” if they become canon). for specific details on each of these examples, my article on queerbaiting goes into it. there are more examples that aren’t queerbaiting mentioned in this book: harry potter, overwatch, alan scott, beauty and the beast, the 100, wonder woman, thor: ragnorok, the cursed child, young americans, once upon a time, xena: warrior princess, legend of korra, adventure time, and steven universe. these are all examples of being disappointed with canon rep, thinking personal interpretations alone are enough to prove queerbaiting, and queer coding due to restrictions placed on producers. and then of course, there are the real people who are accused of queerbaiting, which i’ll get into in a bit.
i find it bothersome how little attention is given to paratext. so much of queerbaiting happens out of the text, from producers on social media, in interviews, and other public forums or interactions with fans. whether it’s playing up the queer relationships that have cultivated a following in order to get that following excited and engaging with the show, or playing coy (“you’ll just have to wait and see!” and “we don’t want to spoil anything!”) when directly asked if the relationships are going to become canon in order keep those queer fans hopeful and invested, tuning in, and drumming up hype and attention. they don’t want to lose that audience by honestly saying “no, that relationship is not going to happen” from the jump, but they will however, bluntly dismiss queer readings as crazy, illogical fantasies of fans who read too much into things or are just seeing things that aren’t there after they’ve strung those fans along for years with those coy responses and nods to the relationship in text.
one of the authors says that defining queerbaiting as intentional has been “very rightly” criticized as “problematically” requiring proof of intention, but i don’t agree. queerbaiting is blatant and intentional. an example is rizzoli & isles. in the season one trailer, the women are speed dating and not having any luck, until they’re paired on a date with each other. they agree they “should do this again some time” and the voiceover narrator says, “rizzoli and isles, a perfect match.” the intention is very clear without needing a producer to confirm it. if we remove intent from queerbaiting, anything would be queerbaiting as long as a queer person so much as feels a vibe from it. a tv trailer that was also accused of queerbaiting and even directly compared to rizzoli & isles, but isn’t queerbaiting is dead to me. it revolves around the intense relationship between the women, but nothing is ever removed from context or placed misleadingly into a false romantic narrative in order to trick viewers into thinking they are or will be a couple. of course people can and do have romantic readings, but absent is the intent to mislead viewers into that interpretation. given the intentionality of queerbaiting, the nature of this book is frustrating as it focuses almost entirely on queer readings and interpretations. given that there are many different, valid ways to interpret a text, arguing your interpretation alone is enough proof of queerbaiting is falsely arguing that your interpretation is the obvious and correct one.
which brings me to amatonormativity. it’s said once that conversations around queerbaiting have developed an “uncompromising language” that has a “very rigid rhetoric,” and while the author wasn’t referencing amatonormativity, it applies. for the sake of brevity here, a very watered down definition of amatonormativity is the normalized, societal assumption of romance. when it comes to queerbaiting, a lot of the times people argue a same gender relationship is obviously queerbaiting because “friends don’t act like that.” rigid lines are drawn between what platonic relationships are allowed to look like and how friends are allowed to behave and feel, and even how actual queer people supposedly universally interpret media. it’s ignorantly argued that because queer people understand queer history and are aware of media tropes, they have correct and “refined” queer readings instead of wrong and “obvious” platonic readings. it’s one thing to have a queer interpretation of media and discuss queerbaiting in a wider context, it’s another to say two friends smiling at or hugging each other for an extended moment, sharing a bed, making a grand gesture or speech, being heartbroken over a falling out, being codependent, expressing intense emotion for one another, having any kind of emotionally meaningful moment, or their bond being central to or the driving force of the story has “no platonic explanation.” a scene between friends mirroring a scene between a couple (or using a trope/framing that is often used in a romantic context) could be queerbaiting, could be queer coding because they’re restricted from making it explicit, or it could just be showing the depth of platonic love by paralleling it with the one relationship society upholds as the most important in order to put it into perspective. the response to heteronormativity shouldn’t be amatonormativity; the response to the dismissal of romantic queer interpretations (“obviously they’re just friends, you’re reading too much into it”) shouldn’t be the dismissal of platonic interpretations (“obviously they’re not just friends, you’re not reading enough into it”).
reading a certain friendship as romantic is said to “make both narrative and contextual sense” because it is a “serious and engaged commitment that will last until death” but why that can’t apply to platonic relationships? when you expand your view of what relationships can look like, this kind of argument feels foolish. there are many long term, serious, engaged commitments between people who are not in a romantic relationship. many platonic relationships involve an agreed commitment of varying degrees, with some including cohabitating, raising children, sharing finances, etc. one author argues same gender relationships are queer kids’ only “point of reference to help shape their own development toward adulthood” which assumes every queer child will grow up into an adult who desires and engages in romantic/sexual relationships. if queer rep is necessary for queer people to form, realize, and understand their identity and envision a future for themselves, why must that rep be romance? why not a queer character saying they’re queer? wearing a pride pin? waving a pride flag? going to a pride parade? being involved in a queer community? experiencing all kinds of love? being happy and healthy and living into old age? why is the ultimate, ideal rep for all queer people romantic (and eventually sexual) relationships? why is amatonormativity never factored into these conversations? why is it never considered that some people do not want romance? or do but don’t center their entire life around it? why is it never considered that aspec people who don’t experience sexual or romantic attraction, and therefor maybe don’t want or center those kinds of relationships, exist?
there’s the assumption that anytime men express affection for one another it’s in a joking manner and “won’t be interpreted seriously,” which one) ignores the reality of how toxic masculinity and homophobia affect how men express their feelings for one another. given that it still isn’t normalized for men to do so without their masculinity or heterosexuality being questioned, it makes sense that in media oftentimes the only socially acceptable way for men to express affection for one another is lightheartedly. and two) positions romantic readings of men expressing affection as the only way to take said affection “seriously.” that platonic readings are serious is not considered. one author acknowledges the importance of writing men whose masculinities aren’t hegemonic and who have physical and emotional connections with one another to help mitigate stereotypes, and that we should applaud portrayals of deep, emotional friendships between men in popular culture. however, the author swiftly pivots into arguing why that doesn’t apply to the deep, emotional fictional male friendship they personally interpret as romantic. their argument is that the text has other deep, emotional male friendships that don’t have queer subtext, thus their romantic reading is justified (and the friendship is clearly queerbaited). problem? the comparison of friendships does not check out; to compare a friendship that is not only deep, emotional, and codependent, but the actual sole driving force of the story, to a friendship that is important but not to the degree of the former is disingenuous. when it comes to the matter of queer subtext, who gets to decide that? is this author the arbiter of queer subtext? this is in line with prioritizing and positioning queer romantic readings over platonic readings and arguing whose readings are considered more correct or logical.
lastly, the author brings up traditions/tropes of romance that are present in the friendship which lead people to expect a romance, but honestly? despite the argument that the intense codependent quality of this friendship being a common romance trope justifying a romantic reading and accusation of queerbaiting, it’s not really that common a romance trope, especially nowadays. when romances have that super consuming, codependent quality, they tend to be received negatively and considered unhealthy or juvenile, whereas friendships in media get to be a little obsessive and intense. i’m not arguing there aren’t any romances like that, but in my experience, they’re exception, not the rule. i’d say this is more a platonic trope than a romantic trope, which disrupts this author’s entire premise. and generally, drawing on romantic tropes isn’t always to add a romantic subtext to a friendship, but to showcase the importance of the friendship through our cultural understanding of romance being the most important relationship. for example, in criminal minds, when morgan and garcia tell each other they love each other, it is framed the same way romantic “i love you” scenes are; the story stops to make room for it, the music highlights the importance of the moment, it’s drawn out, etc. that mirroring or paralleling of romantic framing/tropes does not indicate romance, it signifies the gravity of platonic bond. therefore, mirroring or paralleling romance in a same gender friendship is not in and of itself an indication of queerbaiting. arguing so is arguing that the only relationship that can be a big, important, life-changing relationship is a romantic one.
finally...the accusations of real people queerbaiting. if the article about a supernatural incest ship wasn’t bizarre and questionable enough, there are three chapters about real people queerbaiting. there are articles about the harry styles and larry tomlinson ship, eurovision stage kisses, and nick jonas. the idea is that “celebrities who are not openly lgbtq+ but hint at sexual experimentation through language, action, or the use of symbols (such as rainbows) open themselves to allegations of marketing to queer audiences” but when we remember that real people do not owe anyone anything about their sexuality, how they express it, and how they interact with people, this idea falls apart. accusing real people of queerbaiting boils down to equating certain self-expression to queerness, mspec erasure, entitlement, devaluing closeted people, and policing how friends of the same gender are allowed to interact. no one is owed anything about anyone’s sexuality, nor is it anyone’s place to police who can express themselves in what way or what they can explore in their work. your interpretation of someone’s expression or sexuality does not necessitate explanation. this mindset is not only invasive and restrictive, but it pressures people into coming out.
the articles about harry and louis and eurovision are very short and all i have to say is no, it’s not queerbaiting. the longer article about nick jonas genuinely angered me. there are many unnecessary graphic/violent sexual quotes about nick taken from a gay forum that are truly disturbing. and not because “ew gay sex” but because it’s so invasive and uncomfortable to read comments like that about any celebrities. it’s always given me the ick and the level of crudity is truly something else. now let’s get into the accusations. the authors say that nick jonas is “hurting the goals of the gay rights movement” with his queerbaiting, such as half naked photoshoots and selfies, playing gay characters, not saying if he’s had sexual experience with men, and giving a speech at a pulse shooting vigil. they even claim he pandered to gay men by not using “female pronouns” for the love interest in a song, despite the fact that he does refer to the love interest as “girl.”
him not sharing personal details of his sex life is described as “the ultimate act of queerbaiting” illustrating his “intention to incite questions of his sexuality, enticing audiences and fans to uncover a truth.” to seriously argue he wants invasive questions/speculation about his sexuality from strangers en masse is something i can’t wrap my head around. they state multiple times that nick admitted to “intentionally courting queer followings, which confirms his intention to queerbait” but never actually provide such a quote. all nick said was that he made intentional career choices while navigating transitioning from a child star to an adult. that his choices attract queer people does not mean he intentionally courted them. they argue we should view celebrity as a “performative practice,” which is a common argument: celebrities aren’t people, they’re brands to be marketed/sold and can use duplicitous means to garner a queer audience. but just because they choose how to present themselves doesn’t mean they’re playing a character and should be viewed as fictional characters.
other: extremely repetitive; unnecessarily academic; dated; stephen fry’s sexuality is erased; sherlock is discussed in terms of being gay, with only a single sentence acknowledging that he can and is read as aspec; one author wonders why lucy lawless said xena is gay when she had relationships with men, but lucy’s full quote that the author didn’t include acknowledges xena’s bisexuality; i don’t agree with the “primary concern and aim” of calling out queerbaiting being “advocating for greater visibility of queer people.” my aim is better treatment of and sensitivity toward queer fans, both in how media is marketed/promoted and the reactions to queer readings.
content/trigger warnings; queerphobia, amatonormativity, hate crimes (pulse shooting), sexual harassment,
December 3, 2022
CASTIEL
(realizing) Wait, there is... There's one thing she's afraid of. There's one thing strong enough to stop her. When Jack was dying, I made a deal to save him.
DEAN
You what?
CASTIEL
The price was my life. When I experienced a moment of true happiness, The Empty would be summoned, and it would take me forever.
DEAN
Why are you telling me this now?
CASTIEL
(tearfully) I always wondered, ever since I took that burden, that curse, I wondered what it could be? What my true happiness could even look like. I never found an answer because the one thing I want... It's something I know I can't have. But I think I know... I think I know now. Happiness isn't in the having, it's in just being. It's in just saying it.
DEAN
What are you talking about, man?
CASTIEL
I know. I know how you see yourself, Dean. You see yourself the same way our enemies see you. You're destructive, and you're angry, and you're broken. You're "daddy's blunt instrument." And you think that hate and anger, that's... That's what drives you, that's who you are. It's not. And everyone who knows you see it. Everything you have ever done, the good and the bad, you have done for love. You raised your little brother for love. You fought for this whole world for love. That is who you are. You're the most caring man on Earth. You are the most selfless, loving human being I will ever know. (he smiles, crying now) You know, ever since we met, ever since I pulled you out of Hell... Knowing you has changed me. Because you cared, I cared. I cared about you. I cared about Sam, I cared about Jack... I cared about the whole world because of you. (sad laugh as a tear rolls down his cheek) You changed me, Dean.
DEAN
(quiet, resigned) Why does this sound like a goodbye?
CASTIEL
Because it is.
Dean inhales, ready to argue, but Castiel confesses before he can.
CASTIEL
I love you. (he smiles)
DEAN
Don't do this, Cas.
There's a wet noise from behind Dean and he turns to see black goo from The Empty squeezing through the bricks in the bunker's wall as a portal begins to open. They both know what this means. There are tears in Dean's eyes as he turns back to Castiel. Castiel is still smiling tearfully. The warded door busts open. Billie stands behind it with her scythe. There's no more time.
DEAN
Cas...
Castiel puts his hand, bloodied from when he'd cut it for the warding, on Dean's shoulder.
CASTIEL
Goodbye, Dean.
DEAN
What?
Castiel shoves Dean aside. He hits the floor beneath the portal. A handprint of Castiel's blood remains on the shoulder of his jacket. Billie enters the room. Castiel looks at Dean one last time, smiling, and inhales as the black liquid tendrils of The Empty wrap around him. The Empty crashes against Billie, pulling her in along with them. Dean watches in shock as the portal to The Empty closes, and he's left alone, panting, stunned.
(realizing) Wait, there is... There's one thing she's afraid of. There's one thing strong enough to stop her. When Jack was dying, I made a deal to save him.
DEAN
You what?
CASTIEL
The price was my life. When I experienced a moment of true happiness, The Empty would be summoned, and it would take me forever.
DEAN
Why are you telling me this now?
CASTIEL
(tearfully) I always wondered, ever since I took that burden, that curse, I wondered what it could be? What my true happiness could even look like. I never found an answer because the one thing I want... It's something I know I can't have. But I think I know... I think I know now. Happiness isn't in the having, it's in just being. It's in just saying it.
DEAN
What are you talking about, man?
CASTIEL
I know. I know how you see yourself, Dean. You see yourself the same way our enemies see you. You're destructive, and you're angry, and you're broken. You're "daddy's blunt instrument." And you think that hate and anger, that's... That's what drives you, that's who you are. It's not. And everyone who knows you see it. Everything you have ever done, the good and the bad, you have done for love. You raised your little brother for love. You fought for this whole world for love. That is who you are. You're the most caring man on Earth. You are the most selfless, loving human being I will ever know. (he smiles, crying now) You know, ever since we met, ever since I pulled you out of Hell... Knowing you has changed me. Because you cared, I cared. I cared about you. I cared about Sam, I cared about Jack... I cared about the whole world because of you. (sad laugh as a tear rolls down his cheek) You changed me, Dean.
DEAN
(quiet, resigned) Why does this sound like a goodbye?
CASTIEL
Because it is.
Dean inhales, ready to argue, but Castiel confesses before he can.
CASTIEL
I love you. (he smiles)
DEAN
Don't do this, Cas.
There's a wet noise from behind Dean and he turns to see black goo from The Empty squeezing through the bricks in the bunker's wall as a portal begins to open. They both know what this means. There are tears in Dean's eyes as he turns back to Castiel. Castiel is still smiling tearfully. The warded door busts open. Billie stands behind it with her scythe. There's no more time.
DEAN
Cas...
Castiel puts his hand, bloodied from when he'd cut it for the warding, on Dean's shoulder.
CASTIEL
Goodbye, Dean.
DEAN
What?
Castiel shoves Dean aside. He hits the floor beneath the portal. A handprint of Castiel's blood remains on the shoulder of his jacket. Billie enters the room. Castiel looks at Dean one last time, smiling, and inhales as the black liquid tendrils of The Empty wrap around him. The Empty crashes against Billie, pulling her in along with them. Dean watches in shock as the portal to The Empty closes, and he's left alone, panting, stunned.
June 16, 2022
An actually interesting overview, even though it almost feels outdated in this post-Destielgate, pre-TJLC comeback world.
September 22, 2019
Very enlightening and takes some getting used to, but honestly a really solid, educational read. I really liked it. 5/5 stars
December 5, 2019
I very much enjoyed this, though at times (due to the nature of the subject) it was a tad painful to read. Being the first academic book to consider queerbaiting in depth, care was taken to discuss the relevant terminology, its definitions and its history. Academic essays are interspersed with shorter, slightly more casual Thought Pieces each considering a particular example or genre.
Queerbaiting is definitely a concern at present, and it has been for some years. However, I very much hope that it's the result of a transition that will be of relatively short duration. I think the show "Xena: Warrior Princess" (1995-2001) is a good marker of "before". As discussed in Holly Eva Katherine Randell-Moon's Thought Piece in this book, the cast and creatives made the Xena/Gabrielle relationship as queer as they could, given the refusal of The Powers That Be (TPTB) to allow anything explicitly queer. I strongly feel that "Good Omens" (2019) is a terrific indication of "after" or at least the way forward. I assume it was produced too late to be considered in this book, but I vividly remember watching it for the first time and suddenly realising, "This is actually queer, not queerbaiting." The show includes queerness in sexuality, romance and gender identity, particularly in but not limited to the two main characters, Crowley and Aziraphale. As soon as I realised that I was in such safe hands, I relaxed, and was so much better able to enjoy watching the rest of the show play out.
In between "Xena" and "Good Omens", there are a number of shows which tease the viewers and fans with queer subtext, or promises of queer characters, but never follow through with actual queer content. And the fans are no longer willing to give the producers a pass, as was done in the past with "Xena", because times are changing, our culture is evolving, and queer characters are far more welcome (or at least allowable) now.
There is a cautionary tale told by Leyre Carcas in the Thought Piece "Heterobaiting" on the show "Black Sails" (2014-17). As you would guess from the piece's title, "Black Sails" turned the whole notion of queerbaiting on its head. They teased us with the supportive, sexual, secretive relationship between the pirate Flint and the widow Miranda - before surprising us with a 2nd season episode that explicitly presented us with Flint's "true love", Miranda's husband Thomas. While many welcomed this, there was a harsh backlash, and it is reported that the inclusion of Thomas in future storylines was curtailed. I can only hope that TPTB decide to batten down the hatches and weather such backlashs in the future.
Meanwhile, the three shows that come in for the most criticism in this book are "Supernatural" (2005-?), Sherlock (2010-17?), and the "Harry Potter" universe (1997-?). My own fandom, BBC Merlin (2008-12), earns itself a few dishonourable mentions. Some of this is not comfortable reading; for example, the "Sherlock" showrunners and the fans who ardently insist on The Johnlock Conspiracy all seem to have their moments of behaving badly. And it hurts to see the beyond-fan-friendly actor Misha Collins ("Supernatural") quoted in the top and tail of the book's Introduction as an example of getting it wrong in his remarks. But no matter my discomfort, I couldn't really disagree with the main arguments presented.
While the main examples of queerbaiting came from TV shows and films, there was also discussion of finding it in celebrity culture, children's TV, Real Person Slash fan fiction, Japanese popular culture, talk show practices (i.e. the "fan art segment"), superhero comics and their alternate universes, video games, and the Eurovision Song Contest. So while some of this was dealt with fairly briefly in the Thought Pieces, I was pleased to feel that the notion of queerbaiting had been thoroughly aired!
Reality TV shows weren't considered - and it's interesting to me that some reality shows are ahead of the curve. For example, Australia's renovation show "The Block" (2003-?) included a gay couple in their first and their most recent seasons - and probably in some seasons in between, as well, though I haven't watched them all. Surely such "non-fictional" examples help pave the way for change in fictional shows.
And maybe it would have been nice for this book to include a few examples of TV shows and such which got it right, or are on the right path...? Or is such an approach not suitable in an academic tome?
I did very much appreciate Monique Franklin's essay "Queerbaiting, Queer Readings, and Heteronormative Viewing Practices". Franklin makes a good case for not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as it were. There is value in keeping and enjoying queer subtext for its own sake, as well as increasing actual, visible queer representation. I might be showing my age, but I'm happy with queer subtext, as long as the text remains open and doesn't close off the queer possibilities that can be found there. One of the joys of the first season of "Merlin" was that the text was very open. We were free to ship anyone with anyone, without any contradiction from the text. It was only later that the creators began to pin down certain relationships. Though of course it cannot be denied that proper queer representation is vitally important, and "Merlin" is such a wasted opportunity in that regard, given that it so beautifully set up both the Merlin/Arthur and Guinevere/Lancelot relationships before insisting on canonical Arthur/Guinevere. TPTB could have taken it that way if they chose... Ah, well!
Here's to hoping that the need for considering queerbaiting is short-lived. Let's have queer subtext and queer text and just the whole queer shebang! It's time.
### A copy of this book was kindly provided to me by the publisher via NetGalley.
Queerbaiting is definitely a concern at present, and it has been for some years. However, I very much hope that it's the result of a transition that will be of relatively short duration. I think the show "Xena: Warrior Princess" (1995-2001) is a good marker of "before". As discussed in Holly Eva Katherine Randell-Moon's Thought Piece in this book, the cast and creatives made the Xena/Gabrielle relationship as queer as they could, given the refusal of The Powers That Be (TPTB) to allow anything explicitly queer. I strongly feel that "Good Omens" (2019) is a terrific indication of "after" or at least the way forward. I assume it was produced too late to be considered in this book, but I vividly remember watching it for the first time and suddenly realising, "This is actually queer, not queerbaiting." The show includes queerness in sexuality, romance and gender identity, particularly in but not limited to the two main characters, Crowley and Aziraphale. As soon as I realised that I was in such safe hands, I relaxed, and was so much better able to enjoy watching the rest of the show play out.
In between "Xena" and "Good Omens", there are a number of shows which tease the viewers and fans with queer subtext, or promises of queer characters, but never follow through with actual queer content. And the fans are no longer willing to give the producers a pass, as was done in the past with "Xena", because times are changing, our culture is evolving, and queer characters are far more welcome (or at least allowable) now.
There is a cautionary tale told by Leyre Carcas in the Thought Piece "Heterobaiting" on the show "Black Sails" (2014-17). As you would guess from the piece's title, "Black Sails" turned the whole notion of queerbaiting on its head. They teased us with the supportive, sexual, secretive relationship between the pirate Flint and the widow Miranda - before surprising us with a 2nd season episode that explicitly presented us with Flint's "true love", Miranda's husband Thomas. While many welcomed this, there was a harsh backlash, and it is reported that the inclusion of Thomas in future storylines was curtailed. I can only hope that TPTB decide to batten down the hatches and weather such backlashs in the future.
Meanwhile, the three shows that come in for the most criticism in this book are "Supernatural" (2005-?), Sherlock (2010-17?), and the "Harry Potter" universe (1997-?). My own fandom, BBC Merlin (2008-12), earns itself a few dishonourable mentions. Some of this is not comfortable reading; for example, the "Sherlock" showrunners and the fans who ardently insist on The Johnlock Conspiracy all seem to have their moments of behaving badly. And it hurts to see the beyond-fan-friendly actor Misha Collins ("Supernatural") quoted in the top and tail of the book's Introduction as an example of getting it wrong in his remarks. But no matter my discomfort, I couldn't really disagree with the main arguments presented.
While the main examples of queerbaiting came from TV shows and films, there was also discussion of finding it in celebrity culture, children's TV, Real Person Slash fan fiction, Japanese popular culture, talk show practices (i.e. the "fan art segment"), superhero comics and their alternate universes, video games, and the Eurovision Song Contest. So while some of this was dealt with fairly briefly in the Thought Pieces, I was pleased to feel that the notion of queerbaiting had been thoroughly aired!
Reality TV shows weren't considered - and it's interesting to me that some reality shows are ahead of the curve. For example, Australia's renovation show "The Block" (2003-?) included a gay couple in their first and their most recent seasons - and probably in some seasons in between, as well, though I haven't watched them all. Surely such "non-fictional" examples help pave the way for change in fictional shows.
And maybe it would have been nice for this book to include a few examples of TV shows and such which got it right, or are on the right path...? Or is such an approach not suitable in an academic tome?
I did very much appreciate Monique Franklin's essay "Queerbaiting, Queer Readings, and Heteronormative Viewing Practices". Franklin makes a good case for not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as it were. There is value in keeping and enjoying queer subtext for its own sake, as well as increasing actual, visible queer representation. I might be showing my age, but I'm happy with queer subtext, as long as the text remains open and doesn't close off the queer possibilities that can be found there. One of the joys of the first season of "Merlin" was that the text was very open. We were free to ship anyone with anyone, without any contradiction from the text. It was only later that the creators began to pin down certain relationships. Though of course it cannot be denied that proper queer representation is vitally important, and "Merlin" is such a wasted opportunity in that regard, given that it so beautifully set up both the Merlin/Arthur and Guinevere/Lancelot relationships before insisting on canonical Arthur/Guinevere. TPTB could have taken it that way if they chose... Ah, well!
Here's to hoping that the need for considering queerbaiting is short-lived. Let's have queer subtext and queer text and just the whole queer shebang! It's time.
### A copy of this book was kindly provided to me by the publisher via NetGalley.
December 3, 2019
***I was granted an ARC of this via Netgalley from the publisher.***
Queerbaiting is a term that many outside of particular fandoms probably have not heard of but it is a term that is gaining more recognition from academics. In this book, Queerbaiting and Fandom edited by Joseph Brennan, the reader is provided with a number of essays and thought pieces on the subject. Queerbaiting, while still a term with fluid meaning, is generally when a promise of a homosexual relationship between to characters in a entertainment medium is hinted at through subtext but is never actually fulfilled in a way that is unambiguous, allowing those in charge of the medium to laugh it off or say it isn't intentional. This is usually done to lure in a queer audience but not offend its heterosexual audience. The essays in this book explore the history of the term queerbaiting, its effects on the fandom, and also look at queerbaiting in anime, cartoons and even of real life celebrities. The authors of the essays do a good job in explaining queerbaiting's appeal to the entertainment industry and why fandoms are fed up with it and speaking out about it. The essays providing historical context to the term were the best in my opinion and also the in-depth looks of queerbaiting in the popular TV shows Sherlock and Supernatural and in the persona of Nick Jonas. Being one of the first books on the topic, I think that is has set a good standard following analyses on the subject of queerbaiting.
Rating: 4 stars. Would recommend to a friend.
Queerbaiting is a term that many outside of particular fandoms probably have not heard of but it is a term that is gaining more recognition from academics. In this book, Queerbaiting and Fandom edited by Joseph Brennan, the reader is provided with a number of essays and thought pieces on the subject. Queerbaiting, while still a term with fluid meaning, is generally when a promise of a homosexual relationship between to characters in a entertainment medium is hinted at through subtext but is never actually fulfilled in a way that is unambiguous, allowing those in charge of the medium to laugh it off or say it isn't intentional. This is usually done to lure in a queer audience but not offend its heterosexual audience. The essays in this book explore the history of the term queerbaiting, its effects on the fandom, and also look at queerbaiting in anime, cartoons and even of real life celebrities. The authors of the essays do a good job in explaining queerbaiting's appeal to the entertainment industry and why fandoms are fed up with it and speaking out about it. The essays providing historical context to the term were the best in my opinion and also the in-depth looks of queerbaiting in the popular TV shows Sherlock and Supernatural and in the persona of Nick Jonas. Being one of the first books on the topic, I think that is has set a good standard following analyses on the subject of queerbaiting.
Rating: 4 stars. Would recommend to a friend.
November 25, 2019
As someone who reads and writes her share of fan fiction, I'm well aware of the powers of subtext and the palaces that fans can build upon their unsubstantial sands. However, I hadn't heard the term queer baiting which emerged in the 2010s and is used to describe "an industry tactic where 'those officially associated with a media text court viewers interested in LGBT narratives... without the text ever definitely confirming the nonheterosexuality of the relevant characters'" (6). In Queer Baiting and Fandom editor Joseph Brennan and contributors investigate this exploitative practice, distinguish it from both homoeroticism and subtext, and engage with the queer activism undertaken by fans.
The most valuable material for scholars can be found in the opening chapters, which investigate how the LGBT community has traditionally been marketed to, the frustration faced when authors/creators insist on a single meaning for a text, and the way queer baiting refuses to entirely reject queer readings in order to gain an audience. The tactics described in these chapters demonstrate how media creators keep (questionably) queer content palatable to so-called “mainstream” audiences, how imposing certain readings may be the only way for an audience to experience LGBT content, and how a transnational context may limit queer possibilities. For example, queerbaiting may allow studios to “get credit for having a queer character, without putting the studio or the film at risk” with markets that prohibit queer content (71). Most striking is the comment that queerbaiting expects “an LGBTQ audience to be satisfied with the bare minimum” of onscreen representation (29). The politics of representation, marginalization, and stereotypes are discussed at length.
Chapters in the book are dedicated to a wide range of subjects including the way that the creators of Supernatural welcome queer content as long as they can joke it away, “the Dumbledore controversy” that offers “blink-and-you’ll-miss-it” fragments rather than much-needed representation, heterobaiting in Black Sails, Law and Order SVU, Sherlock, Xena: Warrior Princess and Supergirl. Later chapters turn to the “real world” queer baiting engaged in by celebrities and queer baiting in video games. As with all collections, the usefulness of each chapter will depend on the reader or scholar’s particular interests. However, this is an excellent start to a much-needed conversation, and one hopes other anthologies and monographs will follow its lead.
The most valuable material for scholars can be found in the opening chapters, which investigate how the LGBT community has traditionally been marketed to, the frustration faced when authors/creators insist on a single meaning for a text, and the way queer baiting refuses to entirely reject queer readings in order to gain an audience. The tactics described in these chapters demonstrate how media creators keep (questionably) queer content palatable to so-called “mainstream” audiences, how imposing certain readings may be the only way for an audience to experience LGBT content, and how a transnational context may limit queer possibilities. For example, queerbaiting may allow studios to “get credit for having a queer character, without putting the studio or the film at risk” with markets that prohibit queer content (71). Most striking is the comment that queerbaiting expects “an LGBTQ audience to be satisfied with the bare minimum” of onscreen representation (29). The politics of representation, marginalization, and stereotypes are discussed at length.
Chapters in the book are dedicated to a wide range of subjects including the way that the creators of Supernatural welcome queer content as long as they can joke it away, “the Dumbledore controversy” that offers “blink-and-you’ll-miss-it” fragments rather than much-needed representation, heterobaiting in Black Sails, Law and Order SVU, Sherlock, Xena: Warrior Princess and Supergirl. Later chapters turn to the “real world” queer baiting engaged in by celebrities and queer baiting in video games. As with all collections, the usefulness of each chapter will depend on the reader or scholar’s particular interests. However, this is an excellent start to a much-needed conversation, and one hopes other anthologies and monographs will follow its lead.
November 28, 2019
I'd requested this book ages ago, and was highly gratified to see both the email of acceptance from NetGalley as well as the book drop into my NetGalley "Start Reading" section.
Imagine my surprise when I saw BBC Merlin touched upon in it------KIDDING LMAO I fully expected the show to make an appearance in the introduction itself (it's why I desperately wanted this book) and I was NOT disappointed. BBC Merlin (and Sherlock, but I digress) is the main reason that I was so very, very keen to read this set of essays. When I say not disappointed -- I mean it. I was NOT DISAPPOINTED.
I have always struggled with academic English so this reading was no different (made me feel utterly stupid by the end, but what else is new). However, it is so very gratifying to see academic papers on a subject that has been long discussed in fandom spaces.
I am still struggling to decipher some sentences but I don't mind, really. These essays were enlightening and thought-provoking and I do hope that one day I'll be able to articulate myself on the level of the authors in this book.
Imagine my surprise when I saw BBC Merlin touched upon in it------KIDDING LMAO I fully expected the show to make an appearance in the introduction itself (it's why I desperately wanted this book) and I was NOT disappointed. BBC Merlin (and Sherlock, but I digress) is the main reason that I was so very, very keen to read this set of essays. When I say not disappointed -- I mean it. I was NOT DISAPPOINTED.
I have always struggled with academic English so this reading was no different (made me feel utterly stupid by the end, but what else is new). However, it is so very gratifying to see academic papers on a subject that has been long discussed in fandom spaces.
I am still struggling to decipher some sentences but I don't mind, really. These essays were enlightening and thought-provoking and I do hope that one day I'll be able to articulate myself on the level of the authors in this book.
Read
August 6, 2020Maybe not the most helpful book for my own research, but a lot of interesting topics on interpreting "queerbaiting" on a particular spectrum than a binary that I, admittedly, just assumed. Also fascinating historical overview of the term.
April 22, 2020
Very affirming! The book made a lot of great points and pulled from areas I hadn't previously studied. I look forward to referencing it throughout the rest of my own related research.
Read
April 2, 2024I read this for a project, and if possible I’d recommend anyone interested in fandom and queer culture intersecting, to read this. Using thought pieces, case studies, to reflect on the concepts discussed in an academic format. Overall really enjoyable for an academic piece.
October 19, 2019
The content of this book was truly great. Comprised of 7 essays and multiple "thought pieces", it really covers all topics and areas of queerbaiting in media, from Supernatural, Sherlock, Nick Jonas, Harry Potter, Adventure Time, Xena, etc. It was massively helpful in explaining the problems, and putting words to what so many of us have been trying to vocalize all along.
The only thing disappointing here is that this is the first book on queerbaiting, I can only hope this inspires more like it because we need it. This was a really great read despite it taking longer to read than an average non-fiction because of the writing style.
The only thing disappointing here is that this is the first book on queerbaiting, I can only hope this inspires more like it because we need it. This was a really great read despite it taking longer to read than an average non-fiction because of the writing style.
August 13, 2022
I'm not gonna lie, I struggled a bit when I started it. I only ever read papers about biology, and sparingly, so I had trouble with the language at first. This is of course in part because I am no native speaker but I also don't think this rather dry style is for everybody.
So it's not the easiest thing to read but that's not what I expected considering the subject matter.
As a fan of many tv shows and other media and a queer person myself, queerbaiting is nothing new to me. I've read my fair share of posts and articles online but never any actual data or studies. This book filled this gap in my knowledge very well. It examines many points arguing for both sides, shows the effects it has on society and explains how producers are abusing such methods for money.
One detriment was definitely that every new essay redefines queerbaiting and the more you get into, the more repetitive it gets. I'd wished they's simply cut those parts out since they offered nothing new.
It just feels very nice to be validated and for "proper" scholars to tell you that you haven't been imagining this and this is not something to be ignored or forgotten like so many other problems.
I received an advanced reading copy from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
So it's not the easiest thing to read but that's not what I expected considering the subject matter.
As a fan of many tv shows and other media and a queer person myself, queerbaiting is nothing new to me. I've read my fair share of posts and articles online but never any actual data or studies. This book filled this gap in my knowledge very well. It examines many points arguing for both sides, shows the effects it has on society and explains how producers are abusing such methods for money.
One detriment was definitely that every new essay redefines queerbaiting and the more you get into, the more repetitive it gets. I'd wished they's simply cut those parts out since they offered nothing new.
It just feels very nice to be validated and for "proper" scholars to tell you that you haven't been imagining this and this is not something to be ignored or forgotten like so many other problems.
I received an advanced reading copy from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
October 5, 2019
Queerbaiting and Fandom is a collection of essays that explore queerbaiting in media. This was an interesting collection to read as queerbaiting has turned into a sort-of marketing technique in popular media. It explores the different ways in which viewers are promises representation or alluded to, representation but ultimately never getting it. Characters that sit just on the fence, friendships that allude to more but will always just be friendships. It's a cheap marketing technique but it works. Either in outrage or anticipation.
Although I found most of these essays interesting some of them felt a little shallow to them such as equating taking shirtless pictures with queerbaiting. Not the same thing tbh. And skating the line between real people versus characters. I found it unsettling that "Larry Stylinson" was included as I don't believe they are queerbaiting. It's a fandom that ran away with the idea and ruined a friendship between two real people, not queerbaiting,
Although I found most of these essays interesting some of them felt a little shallow to them such as equating taking shirtless pictures with queerbaiting. Not the same thing tbh. And skating the line between real people versus characters. I found it unsettling that "Larry Stylinson" was included as I don't believe they are queerbaiting. It's a fandom that ran away with the idea and ruined a friendship between two real people, not queerbaiting,
January 10, 2022
To see more reviews check out MI Book Reviews.
I got an ARC of this book.
I have been hearing the term queerbaiting for a while, but no one ever explained it. I did a single google search which was enough for a definition to understand what others were saying. That was all of my knowledge of the subject before reading this book. Even then, this book made almost complete sense. The times it didn’t make sense was some of the authors used a lot of vocab words I didn’t know, which was exciting. I got to learn a lot of new words. It was also annoying. A lot of this book was accessible, it was so close to being a book that wasn’t academic to the point it alienated the people who wanted to read it. I’m mostly happy about new words, since it wasn’t every single piece, but a few paragraphs here or there.
I knew all but two of the focuses of the pieces included. Despite not knowing Sherlock or Overwatch, I was able to follow the ideas. Enough details were given to keep me in the loop without bogging down the piece with overly fluffy back story. Supernatural had a lot more backstory to it, but it tended to stay in the realm of important information for the piece. I was impressed with how quickly the authors were able to describe a show that has been on the air for so long and make it easier to digest.
There was a heavy focus on Supernatural and Sherlock, which makes sense considering how strong the evidence is for queerbaiting in those shows, but I wish there was more outside of those shows highlighted in longer pieces. Most of my favorite pieces were thought pieces. There was so much that got left out of the piece on Steven Universe for example. That could have easily been given the space of a chapter. Having the Steven Universe piece in particular piece did not allow the room for discussion of one character that is very obviously in love with another (there are multiple scenes where she displays jealousy over other relationships, admits to living her life for this other female character, and more). I would have loved to see how the author fit that into the puzzle. Then the books published around the series where one was even dedicated to trans and gender nonconforming youth. There were so many possibilities for the Steven Universe piece. I could have done with one less Sherlock or Supernatural piece to discuss a show that is incredibly queer in so many ways.
So most of my issues with this book was focus on shows I don’t enjoy (though I do have language for one reason I don’t like one of the shows now) and being forced to learn new words. Not bad for an anthology. Clearly the issues are on me with this one. I loved how much the authors got me to care and just how many citations there were. The only real issue I had with the book was the piece on Jonas. There were multiple graphically sexual comments made that were cited, but didn’t seem to actually further the discussion or really serve any purpose. Without those sexual comments, the point would have been just as strong. There is a reason I stopped following media sites of gay cis men, the graphic and often violent sexual comments about everyone no matter the subject. I could have dealt without that in an academic piece that was not about graphic and/or violent sexual comments.
I got an ARC of this book.
I have been hearing the term queerbaiting for a while, but no one ever explained it. I did a single google search which was enough for a definition to understand what others were saying. That was all of my knowledge of the subject before reading this book. Even then, this book made almost complete sense. The times it didn’t make sense was some of the authors used a lot of vocab words I didn’t know, which was exciting. I got to learn a lot of new words. It was also annoying. A lot of this book was accessible, it was so close to being a book that wasn’t academic to the point it alienated the people who wanted to read it. I’m mostly happy about new words, since it wasn’t every single piece, but a few paragraphs here or there.
I knew all but two of the focuses of the pieces included. Despite not knowing Sherlock or Overwatch, I was able to follow the ideas. Enough details were given to keep me in the loop without bogging down the piece with overly fluffy back story. Supernatural had a lot more backstory to it, but it tended to stay in the realm of important information for the piece. I was impressed with how quickly the authors were able to describe a show that has been on the air for so long and make it easier to digest.
There was a heavy focus on Supernatural and Sherlock, which makes sense considering how strong the evidence is for queerbaiting in those shows, but I wish there was more outside of those shows highlighted in longer pieces. Most of my favorite pieces were thought pieces. There was so much that got left out of the piece on Steven Universe for example. That could have easily been given the space of a chapter. Having the Steven Universe piece in particular piece did not allow the room for discussion of one character that is very obviously in love with another (there are multiple scenes where she displays jealousy over other relationships, admits to living her life for this other female character, and more). I would have loved to see how the author fit that into the puzzle. Then the books published around the series where one was even dedicated to trans and gender nonconforming youth. There were so many possibilities for the Steven Universe piece. I could have done with one less Sherlock or Supernatural piece to discuss a show that is incredibly queer in so many ways.
So most of my issues with this book was focus on shows I don’t enjoy (though I do have language for one reason I don’t like one of the shows now) and being forced to learn new words. Not bad for an anthology. Clearly the issues are on me with this one. I loved how much the authors got me to care and just how many citations there were. The only real issue I had with the book was the piece on Jonas. There were multiple graphically sexual comments made that were cited, but didn’t seem to actually further the discussion or really serve any purpose. Without those sexual comments, the point would have been just as strong. There is a reason I stopped following media sites of gay cis men, the graphic and often violent sexual comments about everyone no matter the subject. I could have dealt without that in an academic piece that was not about graphic and/or violent sexual comments.
September 22, 2019
This book, comprised of articles and shorter 'think pieces' is a fascinating read for anyone, LGBTQ or not, who wants to learn more about the phenomenom of queerbaiting.
The text is academic, but it is simple enough for someone not an academic within that particular field to understand it, and the reference list is extensive if you're interested in wider reading.
I thought the book overall gave a relatively unbiased look at the topic of queerbaiting, the issues within the media industry today, and the difference between queerbaiting and homoerotic subtext that can be 'read queerly'.
I found the Sherlock and Supernatural discussions particularly interesting, as a queer fan but not a Johnlock or Destiel shipper. It gave me insight into something I previously hadn't understood, and had therefore avoided. There are detailed analysises of particular scenes and fan reactions, as well as discussion around the intention of the producers. Other fandoms discussed included Harry Potter, Xena, and the topic of real person slash and celebrity queerbaiting.
Well worth a read, even if you only dip into the chapters you have a particular interest in.
The text is academic, but it is simple enough for someone not an academic within that particular field to understand it, and the reference list is extensive if you're interested in wider reading.
I thought the book overall gave a relatively unbiased look at the topic of queerbaiting, the issues within the media industry today, and the difference between queerbaiting and homoerotic subtext that can be 'read queerly'.
I found the Sherlock and Supernatural discussions particularly interesting, as a queer fan but not a Johnlock or Destiel shipper. It gave me insight into something I previously hadn't understood, and had therefore avoided. There are detailed analysises of particular scenes and fan reactions, as well as discussion around the intention of the producers. Other fandoms discussed included Harry Potter, Xena, and the topic of real person slash and celebrity queerbaiting.
Well worth a read, even if you only dip into the chapters you have a particular interest in.
October 10, 2019
I received an ARC via Netgalley.
This is a really though-provoking collection of essay and thought pieces on 'queerbaiting' and queer reading practices highlighting a variety of recent media. Most of the pieces are quite academic, particularly at the start of the book and if the reader doesn't have a media/cultural studies background I think it could be a challenging read in the more theoretical parts. This collection actually really changed my position on queerbaiting and sparked discussions in my household about the value of LGBTQ representation, identity politics, the death and resurrection of the author and assimilationist vs radical reading practices, so I got a lot from it but then I'm also a fandom nerd with academic experience in fandom studies so your mileage might vary. I especially enjoyed Emma Nordin and Monique Franklin's essays, and loved that a piece on Black Sails' 'straightbaiting' was included which I'd love to read a whole book on.
This is a really though-provoking collection of essay and thought pieces on 'queerbaiting' and queer reading practices highlighting a variety of recent media. Most of the pieces are quite academic, particularly at the start of the book and if the reader doesn't have a media/cultural studies background I think it could be a challenging read in the more theoretical parts. This collection actually really changed my position on queerbaiting and sparked discussions in my household about the value of LGBTQ representation, identity politics, the death and resurrection of the author and assimilationist vs radical reading practices, so I got a lot from it but then I'm also a fandom nerd with academic experience in fandom studies so your mileage might vary. I especially enjoyed Emma Nordin and Monique Franklin's essays, and loved that a piece on Black Sails' 'straightbaiting' was included which I'd love to read a whole book on.
August 31, 2019
This book is book important and interesting.
The format of the book is 7 longer essays interspersed with shorter "thought pieces". Each essay or thought piece explores a different aspect of what queerbaiting is or where it has been argued to have been employed. There are a wide variety of topics covered in this book including Sherlock Holmes, Nick Jonas, and the Eurovision Song Contest.
The book did take me a little while to read as it is written in an academic style but it is well worth the effort and I would strongly recommend others read it too.
Thank you to Netgalley for providing me an ARC in exchange for an honest review
The format of the book is 7 longer essays interspersed with shorter "thought pieces". Each essay or thought piece explores a different aspect of what queerbaiting is or where it has been argued to have been employed. There are a wide variety of topics covered in this book including Sherlock Holmes, Nick Jonas, and the Eurovision Song Contest.
The book did take me a little while to read as it is written in an academic style but it is well worth the effort and I would strongly recommend others read it too.
Thank you to Netgalley for providing me an ARC in exchange for an honest review
September 15, 2019
The topic of queerbaiting has come up repeatedly in various fandoms I've been part of. At various times, I've been more or less understanding about the issue. I expected to be irritated by this book, but the explorations made the issue clearer for me. Some of the topics were less interesting because I'm not part of those fandoms, but the chapters on Supernatural and Sherlock were especially engaging. I liked that the "thought pieces" were presented to give additional views on each topic. Overall, this was a balanced and nuanced look at this sometimes contraversial topic.
November 19, 2019
Was ok with the concept of the book and the content in it until I hit certain chapters who identified the smallest actions as queer baiting instead of actual legit random ass things. I do believe that companies are taking advantage of queer viewers because we make bank, but some of this content seems really focused on perspectives I do not understand but am willing to learn more about. Unfortunately it's not with this book. Especially because it dived into Wincest, which I never thought I would read in a serious collection of essays.
February 9, 2020
Queerbaiting and Fandom was a fascinating and accessible study of how fandom reacts to queerbaiting, perceived and real. The format of the book was great - each academic chapter was followed by thought pieces that further explore the major topics of each chapter.
I enjoyed the various perspectives presented and have a much broader understanding of the relationship between creators and fans and the responsibility for representation that all creators should feel.
Many thanks to Netgalley and the University of Iowa Press for the opportunity to read and review this book.
I enjoyed the various perspectives presented and have a much broader understanding of the relationship between creators and fans and the responsibility for representation that all creators should feel.
Many thanks to Netgalley and the University of Iowa Press for the opportunity to read and review this book.
November 24, 2019
An excellent academic look at something that has been discussed by various levels of people through out. While any collection of essays about a particular topic will be a bit repetitive as each essay has to define the topic for themselves especially with a collection where people may not read it all the way through.
I thought the authors picked up on some certain areas that do need further reflection and study and is certainly a good read for anyone interested in culture or media.
I thought the authors picked up on some certain areas that do need further reflection and study and is certainly a good read for anyone interested in culture or media.
February 19, 2025
I think this is my first time ever reading something academic about fandom. It was well written and had plenty of interesting observations, but I was far too chronically online as a teenager for much of it to feel new to me.
I skipped the portions about supernatural because I somehow managed to do dodge that whole fandom so far and I don't wanna ruin my streak.
I skipped the portions about supernatural because I somehow managed to do dodge that whole fandom so far and I don't wanna ruin my streak.
August 29, 2019
The first book of its kind and it doesn't let you down. Extremely comprehensive and thought-provoking. Different perspectives all clearly detailed covering a range of examples from now and across time.
January 14, 2022
Solid addition to my media- and fan-studies library.
April 12, 2025
Tumblr has better essays about queerbaiting
December 26, 2019
I received an ARC of this book thanks to Net Galley and publisher University of Iowa Press in exchange for an honest review.
This book was everything I could have wanted and more. I was extremely excited when I got an ARC of this as the subject matter is right up my street and I was really intrigued to learn more about it in general. Part of me was concerned though because I have requested similar books before and been disappointed by how dry they are. Thankfully this was not the case with this book.
Queerbaiting and Fandom is an incredibly comprehensive, insightful and all-round entertaining read. It is a collection of academic essays so be aware that it is written in that style rather than written for the purposes of entertaining the general public. However, I was very impressed by how readable and easy to follow all of the essays were. The essays themselves cover a wide range of fandoms and topic areas, some of which I wasn't expecting and ended up being a pleasant surprise. The obvious offenders are here-Supernatural, Sherlock and Harry Potter all have chapters to themselves. But there are also essays about Nick Jonas deliberately marketing himself to gay fans, the One Direction fandom shipping real-life celebrities and the Eurovision song contest encouraging queer flirting with its hosts. These were all surprising to me and I found them the most insightful essays in terms of introducing me to new knowledge and making me think about things I hadn't considered before.
The only minor niggle I had was a completely understandable one. Every essay must take the time to define queerbaiting and other terms that it refers to, but this was very repetitive when reading the whole collection. The first two chapters were dedicated to defining the term anyway so I feel that the essays could have been edited to remove the definitions for the purposes of this collection, especially since every author used the term in the same way.
Overall, I really recommend this book for anyone interested in the topic. I genuinely wish it was more widely available as I found it very entertaining and I have several friends I know would love to read it. If you can get your hands on a copy, then definitely take the opportunity to do so. I feel this is a book I will revisit several times in the future again.
Overall Rating: 5/5
This book was everything I could have wanted and more. I was extremely excited when I got an ARC of this as the subject matter is right up my street and I was really intrigued to learn more about it in general. Part of me was concerned though because I have requested similar books before and been disappointed by how dry they are. Thankfully this was not the case with this book.
Queerbaiting and Fandom is an incredibly comprehensive, insightful and all-round entertaining read. It is a collection of academic essays so be aware that it is written in that style rather than written for the purposes of entertaining the general public. However, I was very impressed by how readable and easy to follow all of the essays were. The essays themselves cover a wide range of fandoms and topic areas, some of which I wasn't expecting and ended up being a pleasant surprise. The obvious offenders are here-Supernatural, Sherlock and Harry Potter all have chapters to themselves. But there are also essays about Nick Jonas deliberately marketing himself to gay fans, the One Direction fandom shipping real-life celebrities and the Eurovision song contest encouraging queer flirting with its hosts. These were all surprising to me and I found them the most insightful essays in terms of introducing me to new knowledge and making me think about things I hadn't considered before.
The only minor niggle I had was a completely understandable one. Every essay must take the time to define queerbaiting and other terms that it refers to, but this was very repetitive when reading the whole collection. The first two chapters were dedicated to defining the term anyway so I feel that the essays could have been edited to remove the definitions for the purposes of this collection, especially since every author used the term in the same way.
Overall, I really recommend this book for anyone interested in the topic. I genuinely wish it was more widely available as I found it very entertaining and I have several friends I know would love to read it. If you can get your hands on a copy, then definitely take the opportunity to do so. I feel this is a book I will revisit several times in the future again.
Overall Rating: 5/5
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews