Misrepresentation of LGBTQ+ Characters on American Television Shows

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Bc. Hana Halenárová

Misrepresentation of LGBTQ+ Characters on American Television Shows. Master’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Jeffrey A. Vanderziel, B.A.

2018

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………………………….. Author’s signature

Acknowledgement I would like to thank to my supervisor Jeff Vanderziel, for his patience and support throughout the process of writing this thesis. Secondly, I would like to express my infinite gratitude to Veronika Bosáková for her enormous support and help with editing. Then I would like to thank to my family for their unconditional love and support. And last but not least, to Martin who had to endure my creative meltdowns, who stood by me all this time and who never doubted I would not finish this.

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 5

Television and Its Influence ...... 8

Identification of an Individual on Television ...... 12

Identification of Groups on Television ...... 13

Representation of the LGBTQ+ Minority on Television ...... 14

History of LGBTQ+ Characters in Mass Media ...... 19

Movies ...... 19

Television ...... 27

Stereotypes and Tropes Surrounding LGBTQ+ Characters ...... 31

Stereotypes ...... 31

Tropes ...... 39

Contemporary Representation of LGBTQ+ Characters on Television ...... 44

Contemporary Representation of Gay Men ...... 51

Contemporary Representation of Lesbians ...... 52

Contemporary Representation of Bisexuals ...... 54

Contemporary Representation of Transgender Characters ...... 57

Impacts of Misrepresentations on the Real Life ...... 62

Discussion ...... 71

Conclusion ...... 87

Bibliography ...... 91

English Resume ...... 101

České resumé ...... 102

Introduction

Entertaining media has been a big part of our lives in the recent decades. Interest of audience in this kind of entertainment is reflected in statistics focused on viewer ratings of programs. High ratings then lead to increasing production of these programs.

The audience thus unconsciously shows what genres and what sort of shows they prefer.

According to cultural critics, people watch television or movies because they want to see themselves reflected on the screen. Not only does television reflect how the society looks, or how it could look, but it also shows what the audience may want the society to look like. However, in many cases, the reflection is neither flattering nor true and it can also be harmful. Part of an audience might not even notice that, but the members of

LGBTQ+ group of viewers that is affected may find these reflections stereotypical, offensive and unfair.

The goal of this thesis is to observe visibility and depiction of LGBTQ+ characters on the screen. We will follow the development of portrayal of queer characters throughout decades and we will focus on the stereotypical and harmful representations of these characters and their impact on the members of queer audience.

The first chapter discusses an influence of television on its consumers in general and how various television outlets operate. Since television is widely available in the

U.S. it has a great chance to spread ideas to vast majority of people. The chapter also studies how this medium influence people’s perception of the world, their opinions and how it shapes society as such. It shows how important it is for people to identify with often fictional content on television in order to shape people’s opinions. Television can shape the way people see themselves, but also the way they see other people or groups of people, thus it is important for television to strive to deliver as plausible portrayal of characters as possible. However, the way characters are portrayed on television often

5 depends on other factors that move the television industry forward. The writers and producers are often bound by financial issues; those mostly affect broadcasting television. This type of television is regulated by their advertisers who affect their revenue, thus the broadcast television needs good viewing ratings in order to keep their sponsors satisfied. This power relationship has an impact on the content that is broadcasted. On the other hand, paid cable television is more benevolent when dealing with controversial topic. And the most liberal of them all is the streaming or Internet television, which has been gaining popularity in recent years.

Second chapter offers an overview of the history of representation of queer characters in movies and in television. It follows the earliest depictions of LGBTQ+ characters in movies, the way they were portrayed and how the television followed in a very similar fashion. This chapter shows that the representation of queer characters on both big and small screen was quite problematic in the past. These characters were mostly presented in a negative way as if to suggest that they are representations of something wrong or sinful. However, there is an element of continuity and this trend of negative portrayal of queer characters can be observed even in contemporary television shows.

In the third chapter we discuss the terms stereotype and trope and how these relate to the portrayal of LGBTQ+ characters. The oversimplifying and often derogatory way of depiction of queer characters is still appearing on our screens. The characters portrayed in very similar way, lacking diversity and depth are often cases of representatives of queer minority on television. We observe the most popular stereotypes and tropes and we discuss their occurrence and possible impact on the viewers of television. Negative tropes and stereotypes employed in the portrayal of

6 fictional characters on television can evoke a powerful response in the real-world audience.

The presence of queer characters on television is analyzed in the fourth chapter.

This chapter studies the visibility of LGBTQ+ characters in current television broadcasting. With help of data collected by Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against

Defamation (GLAAD) there is compiled an analytical part of the chapter where the statistics about visibility of queer characters are accompanied by a graphic evidence.

The fifth chapter is focused on the impact of representation of queer characters on viewers of television. It discusses opinions of various experts on how the fictional reality can influence reality of the television consumers. It also shows the way the audience can react to negative or unfavorable depictions of their social minority group.

There are specific examples of consequences to negative portrayals.

The sixth chapter is dedicated to analysis of representations of several queer characters in three contemporary television shows. Broadcast television is represented by The CW’s The 100, cable television represents BBC America’s Orphan Black and streaming television is represented by Netflix’s original series Orange is the New Black.

Each of these series contains a number of queer characters and their representations on these shows are discussed in detail.

The last chapter offers a comprehensive conclusion to the analysis of stereotypical representations of queer character on television, their history, occurrence and their impact on the consumers of popular television shows in the U.S.

Television and Its Influence

Many scholars agree that self-identification is an important part of people’s life.

The world around us offers an immense amount of external influences that help us construct our identities. The things we see, hear or experience, gradually contribute to creation of self that we often unintentionally build. Nowadays, a lot of external stimuli comes from the mass media.

Since people in the U.S. spent on average almost five hours a day in front of television, this kind of media has considerable impact on its consumers (“Average Daily

Television Viewing...”). As Tobiasz in his dissertation claims: “Television influences how we view the world, how we view others and how we view ourselves” (37). Since television is present in almost every U.S. household, its content transmitted directly into people’s living rooms, it provides them with accessible source of popular culture

(Searcy 15). Due to the place of the media consumption, Grant terms this “domestic medium” (61). For most of the consumption takes place in viewers’ households.

Even though people do not watch television with a primary intention of educating themselves, the medium, nonetheless, provides them with information.

“Transcending historic barriers of literacy and mobility, television has become the primary common source of socialization and everyday information (mostly in the form of entertainment) of otherwise heterogeneous populations” (Gerbner 177). Frequent watching exposes viewers to phenomena that they would not be able to encounter or notice in their real lives. Gray in his book Television Entertainment presumes that televisual depictions influences their judgements of other people, for they possibly base their assumptions on information acquired from sitcoms and dramas (103). These words point out to the fact that the opinions of media consumers are shaped by the content

8 they consume. This fact can have far-reaching consequences for these people in real life. As Gray further proposes:

Television entertainment, we have been told, has made us more fearful and

has caused eating disorders, ensured the continuance of patriarchy, made us

more liberal and more conservative, dulled us to the gravity of war and

violence, made us mindless consumers, and shortened our attention spans …

to list but a few of its alleged crimes. Meanwhile, television entertainment is

often at the center of plans or at least hopes to create other effects, such as

increased literacy, tolerance, and/or education. (47)

From this statement it is quite obvious that Gray considers television entertainment to be an important driving force for its consumers, influencing their lives on many levels.

Merrifield agrees, saying that: “Mass media, particularly television, is one of the core institutions in the social construction of reality” (20). Elias, in her dissertation adds that

“The Cultural Indicators research found that the more television you watch, the more your views are influenced by television. ... people derive their ideas about gays and lesbians from television” (18). So, television actually helps the viewers to create their own realities with the help of creative input of this medium.

As Metz proposes – a film works as a mirror, however the only thing that is never reflected in it is the spectator’s body and this reality gives the spectator an

“opportunity to identify with the character of the fiction” (785-6). It is quite a fair statement to make and to say that this conception is applicable to television. Although, that does not automatically mean that the movies and television are same in all aspects of their composition. For as McDaniel suggests: “Television is a unique medium, particularly with regard to the study of narrative. Unlike movies, which are similar in presentation but severely limited due to time constraints, television series have the

9 potential to span multiple seasons and, consequently, have a much larger capacity for character and narrative development” (16).

In this statement, McDaniel proposes that television has even more capacity in the matter of portrayal and development of characters. This has an impact on viewing patterns of the audience, which is subsequently tied to economic situation of the producers. The fact is that television offers its viewers series, influences the viewing habits and creates a constant demand for this sort of entertainment. This also has an impact on the relationship that the audience builds with the characters that keep appearing on the small screen sometimes for longer periods of time. This longtime span allows the writers of the show to create well-developed characters. This, however, does not mean that the characters in television series are always fully-blossomed genuine representations or reflections of the real world. These portrayals are often distorted and no matter of the time-span of the show, they can still come out as inaccurate.

For some reason, many critics, however, do not want to admit an importance of televisual media. They also disprove of television as a matter of academic interest. As

Lucy Mazdon in her essay states:

... the academic silence to which much television programming, including

drama, was long subjected was perhaps instrumental in conveying the

impression that this work was somehow not worthy of serious analysis.

Unlike its cinematic counterparts, the audiovisual output if the small screen

was considered too transitory, too light, too small for the type of critical

attention which the cinematic movie had finally been accorded. (6)

Mazdon thus defends television as a medium worthy of an academic analysis and

Farrell agrees with this statement, claiming that television is an important institution of

American culture that needs an examination (16). Hence, the importance of this medium

10 should neither be underestimated nor ignored. Vaughn claims that television plays an important role in “shaping people’s worldview and opinions”, the television shows them that there are unfamiliar places and people and it teaches the viewers to accept these new phenomena (1). On one hand, this is a useful method of educating people about issues they would not be perhaps interested in. On the other hand, “since beliefs and attitudes derived from television accumulate over time, the fantasy world of television can covertly start to become one's view of the real world” (Houseman 10). So, even if television provides the viewers with new topics and subjects, there is a danger that these people would take the images the television offers for credible information about the real world, which does not have to be necessarily true. Producers of television shows can take real phenomena and combine them with fiction to make them more appealing to the audience – to sell, but these representations should not be Regarded as entirely real. Even though, not everything on television is believable, there are also bits and pieces of representations that in fact mirror the real world.

The theory behind the representation on television will help us understand the importance of accurate representation of LGBTQ+ characters “For many Americans today, television viewing is an important leisure time activity - it is often used as an escape from the stress of daily life and a relaxing pastime endeavor - but researchers interested in television and society have shown the important role this seemingly trivial hobby plays in social life” (Farrell 17). People watching television in their leisure time are constantly exposed to various unfamiliar stimuli, and this way they unintentionally acquire new information that helps them build a different worldviews and opinions.

Thus, this seemingly harmless hobby can have a significant impact on the way the viewer perceives world.

Identification of an Individual on Television

Some critics focused on the study of visual culture suggest, that viewers watch the television because they want to see themselves reflected on the screen. Whether it is themselves per se or a better version of them, the mirroring effect can be the reason why they turn on the television and watch their favorite show. As previously mentioned, “... the cinema has structures of fascination strong enough to allow temporary loss of ego while simultaneously reinforcing the ego” (Mulvey 836). This is also applicable to television series when the viewers can get so engrossed into the narrative and they can feel so connected to the character that they would lose themselves to the story and to the reflection portrayed on television.

... the fact that it is an image that constitutes the matrix of the imaginary, of

recognition/misrecognition and identification and hence of the first

articulation of the “I,” of subjectivity. This is a moment when an older

fascination with looking ... collides with the initial inklings of self-

awareness. Hence it is the birth of the long love affair/despair between

image and self-image which has found such intensity of expression in film

and such joyous recognition in the cinema audience (Mulvey 836).

The act of seeing oneself reflected on the screen further encourages the viewers to continue watching and exploring the possible evolution of the reflection. It is important to note, as Houseman states, not only does television affect the way other people perceive us, it also affects the way we see ourselves (10). Cohen is in accord with this statement and he adds that: “Through identification with characters in books, films, and television, we extend our emotional horizons and social perspectives” and the viewers can observe similarity, feel the affinity and friendship towards the characters (249).

These aspects help the audience to establish a relationship with the characters and it

12 often has emotional and social ramifications. Cohen continues saying that

“identification is an imaginative process through which an audience member assumes the identity, goals, and perspective of a character” (261). This sort of identification plays into hands of producers of these shows, for “... identification is likely to increase enjoyment, involvement, and intense emotional responses, but it is less likely to produce critical stances toward texts” (Cohen 260). And this leads to higher consumption of these shows, thus, it encourages the producers to create this sort of likeable and relatable characters in order to sell. Tobiasz implies, that individuals like to identify with characters that share similar value systems, ideals and beliefs (29). These characters that are presented on small screen could actually be representations of these individuals and sometimes even representations of groups that are marginalized in the real world. Thus, the television, in fact, educates its consumers about the diversity of the population of the real world. The way “an individual or a group is presented in the newspaper, on television, or in a film can have ramifications on the way they are treated by other members of society” (Tobiasz 30). Television and other media as well, have thus great opportunity to shape opinions of people who follow these media.

Identification of Groups on Television

Just as an individual can see himself or herself reflected on the small screen, different groups within society can see themselves represented in this medium. This sort of visibility is especially important for marginalized groups. Naturally, it is different when looking at representation of an individual as opposed to a representation of a social group. The outcomes of these sorts of representations have, of course, various impacts on the audience. As Hart states, “[t]he phrase ‘media representation’ refers to the ways that members of various social groups are differentially presented in mass

13 media offerings, which in turn influence the ways audience members” (60). So, television shows’ producers bear the responsibility to present plausible depictions of the minority groups. Because, as Tobiasz claims, the representation of a certain community on television influences the perception and response to this community by the audience.

He also proposes that those who are visible on television are somehow worthy of attention and those who are ignored by television are rendered invisible (Tobiasz 36).

According to Tobiasz and Clark, the process of becoming visible on television is very gradual. The first stage of representation of a marginalized social group is “non- recognition”, i.e. when the group does not appear on the screen at all. It is followed by the second stage of “ridicule”, which allows the group to be represented on the screen, however, the group only serves as object of mockery. This stage is also characterized by its use of stereotypes and depictions of the group in a negative way. In the third stage, titled “regulation”, the group is represented as “protectors of the existing social order”.

The final stage of representation is known as a stage of “respect”, when members of the group are presented in range of roles that may be both positive and negative (30-1). This process of gradual inclusion of marginalized social groups and their representation on the screen is related to more than one minority group. Since this thesis is focused on representation and misrepresentation of LGBTQ+ characters in contemporary television series, it is important to direct our attention on the theory that surrounds representation of this minority on television.

Representation of the LGBTQ+ Minority on Television

Representation of minority groups is still a topic of many controversies, even in the twenty-first century. Whether they are gender minorities, racial minorities or sexual minorities, all of these groups continue to be misrepresented in various mass media

14 outlets. And this misrepresentation influences the opinions of the audience members who do not belong to any of these groups. For as we discussed above, the television and the information that we are receiving via this medium, shapes the way we perceive the real world around us. And thus, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between information that is based on reality and information that is fiction. Television can often be the reason for creation inaccurate pictures of minority groups, which can later result in misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the behavioral patterns and lifestyles of the members of the group. Halloran confirms this claim by stating that “... people see what they want to see. They often use the information provided by the media not so much to learn new things but to reinforce existing attitudes and elaborate old experiences” (30). He expands the theory and claims that people learn from what they see on the screen, but they also solidify their opinions that they have built during their lifetime.

In order to properly analyze the representation of LGBTQ+ minority on television, we need to establish who could be considered a member of the LGBTQ+ minority. It is perhaps oversimplifying the diversity of the group to encapsulate all its members under the term “queer”, however, this umbrella term is deemed practical for in its simple definition it includes “... various ‘deviant’ sexualities and genders” and it is “a term that seeks to describe a very specific political and theoretical positionality with respect to dominant culture” (Moore 5). Moore continues, quoting Halperin, that the term “queer” should not be used only when referring to homosexuals, but it should include everything that is at odds with the dominant, normal or legitimate (5). Focusing on properly defining the term queer allows us to narrow down the issues we want to focus on. “Identities are constructed socially and that means in relation to concrete effects on the way people are treated. Socially constructed categories like gender and

15 race have legal, political, and social ramifications” (Murphy 13). Since the television contributes to constructions of its consumers’ realities, it is quite natural to align these two phenomena. “Due to its powers to represent reality, and due to its mass viewership, television entertainment often holds the power to dictate – to represent – which people, ideas, and behaviors are ‘normal,’ and which are decidedly abnormal” (Gray 157). A great number of critics agree that television is a medium that is most predominantly consumed in the U.S. and that the often imaginary content that is portrayed on the small screen has a considerable impact on the construction of the realities of the consumers.

It has been well documented that mainstream media has the potential to

facilitate attitude change toward individuals or groups of people with whom

we are less familiar, including those in the LGBTQ+ population. While this

idea has been examined in a variety of contexts, the television series is one

that is especially significant in the exploration of how narratives have an

impact on social change. (McDaniel 4)

In order to make social change, it is important to be visible. And Carlino agrees, saying, that “‘visibility matters’ has become a mantra among LGBTQ+ media writers ...” (39).

The LGBTQ+ characters have been appearing on the screen for a few decades already, although their depiction was not always accurate. These characters were often portrayed in a negative light. In this state of affairs, it may be appropriate to ask whether the visibility, even though it may be negative, is helping to raise awareness of existence and issues of LGBTQ+ minority. “Television’s power to change public opinion is slow, increasing support steadily over a period of many years. It uses its presentations of

LGBTQ+ characters to increase both LGBTQ+ visibility and normalize behavior to the general public” (Searcy 74). Freymiller also adds that increased visibility of homosexual characters is caused by increased acceptance of homosexuality by the

16 society (6). This situation, however, is quite recent. The positive representation of these characters started appearing as late as 1990’s, and the process was gradual. Still, in the present, it is important to offer plausible representations of LGBTQ+ characters, for as

Freymiller states, identities of members of LGBTQ+ community are actually shaped by the portrayals of LGBTQ+ identities in media (153). Thus, media have the responsibility to show these characters in all of the possible ranges of representation.

“Television has the power and ability to recognize marginalized groups through positive exposure both in on-screen positions of power and shared equality of major characters”

(Corfield 65). It is vital to portray these characters in the same life situations as their non-queer counterparts. For this sort of mirroring of reality on the screen helps the

LGBTQ+ community to get accepted by society. Gray, in his book, suggests that

[t]elevision entertainment is not just about engaging with a plot or

characters and reveling in the different worlds presented to us; it is also, and

sometimes instead, a massive cultural database and vocabulary we can

access to discuss society – what it is, what it could be, what we wish it was

not. (63)

It makes sense that television shows the audience situations and people that they may not encounter in their regular lives. It thus educates them and provides them with new perspective, new concepts and also new lexicon that enables them to discuss these phenomena within the society that have been previously unknown to them.

Positive representation of LGBTQ+ characters has also a great meaning for young audiences. It is even more sensitive for the younger members of the queer community than for the adults. Since they are in the delicate stage of life when their identity is being constructed, it is important for them to see that they are not alone and that they are not abnormal. Carlino agrees that it is vitally important to depict young

LGBTQ+ characters in media and especially with a happy ending. Because for too long queer viewers of shows were let down. And she also asserts that happy endings for young queer characters are possible and there should be storylines that offer hope for acceptance by society and that depict healthy and “normal” relationships (42). It was proposed by Bandura that “as individuals see more of a behavior on television, they will in turn replicate this behavior in their own lives” (qtd. in Tobiasz 37). Thus, seeing positive representation and hope for a happy ending on television can give hope for real-life happy endings. Tobiazs continues claiming that the media portrayals have sort of educational role and that “[b]alanced programs can also help children to understand and appreciate differences between people related to gender, age, religion, social class, ableness, and sexual orientation” (35). Televisual media, hence, broadens horizons regardless of the age of its consumers.

Not always can plausible or even positive representations of queer minority be found on television. However, as Campisi claims, in order to analyze contemporary portrayals of queer characters, it is inevitable to understand how LGBTQ+ characters have been represented traditionally (32). After seeing the manifold history of representation of queer characters on popular television it is possible to compare and contrast these portrayal with the contemporary ones and to evaluate how the representation changed in the course of time. Importance of seeing positive depictions on the screen will be discussed in the following chapters.

History of LGBTQ+ Characters in Mass Media

It is important for us to look at the representation of LGBTQ+ characters in movies since many of the trends and patterns were later transferred into television series characters. Carlino agrees that “lesbian representation in film certainly goes back farther than television. Unfortunately, the same tired tropes we’ve seen regarding lesbian characters on television may have taken their cue from the movie industry” (17). Even though Carlino’s work is focused on representation of lesbians on television, her claim is applicable for LGBTQ+ characters in general. This sort of statement brings us to realization that it is necessary to understand the history of depiction of LGBTQ+ characters on the screen before we move to exploration of history of their appearance on television shows.

Movies

In his book The Celluloid Closet, Vito Russo was one of the first researchers to analyze the occurrence of homosexual characters on the screen. He created a thorough overview of movies that contain homosexual characters and he meticulously sets them in their respective decades. In this book Russo provides us with a social and cultural background which is necessary for understanding decisions of screenwriters and directors and hence for understanding the representation of LGBTQ+ characters on screen.

According to Vito Russo, the first gay-themed movie is The Dickson

Experimental Sound Film also known as The Gay Brothers which was filmed in 1895

(6). However, there has been a lot of controversy about the label of the first gay movie, for what was preserved from the movie is only 18 seconds of two men dancing waltz and it is quite a bold statement to make about such a short scene. Also, we are not

19 provided with any context to the story and there is only the sound of music, thus it is difficult to say with certainty that the movie deals with a homosexual couple. It was followed by Richard Oswald’s Anders als die Andere (Different from the Others) filmed in 1919 in Germany, which is the first movie to openly discuss homosexuality and the first movie that “openly pleaded tolerance for the ‘Third sex1’” (Russo 19). This is also the first movie that presents a gay character that is driven to suicide, which “would mark the fate of screen gays for years to come” (Russo 23). A few more movies followed in the next several years. The first one to portray a lesbian character was

Pandora’s Box from 1929. However, in 1927 Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America felt that Hollywood threatened the moral values of American movies industry and they started to create set of rules that established what was appropriate for the silver screen. In 1930, these rules were introduced to the movie industry. Although,

Production of Code Administration started to enforce the rules that were known as Hays

Code or “the Code” four years later, in June 1934 (Doherty). This intervention into freedom of expression in the movies was possible due to earlier ruling from 1915, when the Supreme Court decided that movies are not included in the First Amendment to the

Constitution that guarantees freedom of press. This decision helped the Production of

Code Administration to get an upper hand over the movie producers. After July 1934, every movie had to meet the criteria imposed by “the Code” in order to be approved by the Administration, so it could be produced. “The Code” included a clause that forbade any depiction of sexual perversion. This fact rendered homosexuals invisible in motion pictures for more than thirty years.

1 In a letter of September 22, 1862 addressed to his sister, German scholar Karl Heinrich Ulrichs

(1825-1895) used the term "third sex" to refer to homosexuals (GLBT Archive 2).

In the years before “the Code”, homosexual characters were relatively visible, although their depiction on the screen was less than favorable. The most popular way of representing a gay character in a movie was a stereotypical and alienating manner. As

Russo asserts they were “set apart from the real world in which they clearly cannot live.

... They are archetypes, they are meant to be alienated from normal American family- oriented lifestyle” (42). Especially gay male characters could be seen as effeminate, limp-wristed “sissies” or “pansies” with high-pitched voices. This sort of characters was there for comical relief or just to draw attention to the character of the “real man”. A character of sissy later became an outlaw, a monster-like character lurking in the shadows, posing as a threat to a straight character. However, it was slightly easier for women to be portrayed in a mannish manner or to drop more hints of lesbianism (Russo

13, 42). Russo offers an example of a movie Morocco, starring Marlene Dietrich, who is wearing a tuxedo and kissing another woman, although, this scene is there only for making Dietrich’s character look more exotic (14). Even a few decades later, Tipton claims that “while gay male expressions of sexual desire seemed to remain firmly in the closet, lesbian kisses were appearing more frequently and with less fanfare” (“American

Television, Drama” 5). Still in the 1930’s, the lesbian characters in Nazimova’s

Pandora’s Box are according to then critics depicted in a too sensual and artful way.

This sort of representation that did not condemn the characters caused the audience to find this movie “visually and thematically offensive” (Russo 30). It was more acceptable for the audience to see homosexual characters drawn as “murderous, mentally ill, criminal, or just plain evil” (Carlino 17). So, even in the pre-Code era, positive representation of homosexual characters was a rarity to be condemned.

During the years that “the Code” was enforced or followed by the movie industry, which meant that meant invisibility for LGBTQ+ characters, it was slightly

21 more difficult to spot a homosexual character on the screen and if he or she were there, it could be only presumed. The Production of Code Administration was very strict about the rules and many films were banned during this era due to their incorporation of a character whose homosexuality was not that subtly hinted. Although there are few cases of movies from that era that have characters who are homosexuals, however, there were not so many of these and the characters are heavily stereotyped.

The genres of movies that contained homosexual characters were mostly comedies, science-fiction movies, horrors or crime movies. As Russo explains in The

Celluloid Closet, it was simpler for people to see homosexual characters in comedies, for it was easier for them dismiss the existence of this sort of phenomena (74).

Additionally, Hopkinson agrees that for many writers, genre of science fiction allows them to deal with otherwise sensitive issues without causing that much of upheaval from the audience (105). It is caused by the fact that science fiction is opened to alien entities and unfortunately a homosexual character can represent such an alien entity for an ignorant audience, who can also dismiss it as a creation of fantasy (Russo 42).

Movies that deal with criminal activities are popular choice of producers, for they can present a homosexual character in a role of the villain. This sort of presentation was something widely accepted by the producers as well as by the audience. Russo reasons that the gay characters were “relegated to a fantasy world of an underworld life” for

“they are result of transferring with the natural order” (44). The last but not least, horror movies also represented a perfect environment for homosexual characters because in this sort of movies, they could be represented as “predatory, twilight creatures” and the parallels between “sins of flesh” and horror genre are reflected in “monster movies of the period” (Russo 48). Following Russo’s analysis of the movie industry, it is almost

22 impossible to find a representation of homosexual characters that would not contain this stereotypical method of depiction.

“The Code” was revised in October 1961 and homosexuality became more visible. However, this only resulted in higher numbers of homosexual characters dying

– either by killing themselves or dying violently. The number of gay characters dying in this manner in the years between 1962 to 1978 was quite high. From twenty-six movies that portrayed gay characters in twenty-two of them these characters died (Russo 52).

Motion Picture Association of America agreed that “homosexuality and other sexual aberrations may be treated with care, discretion and restraint”, though they later clarified that “sexual aberration could be suggested but not actually spelled out” (Russo

121-2, 129). However, these “suggestions” of this kind of “aberration” were quite easy to be spotted. As Russo claims “in the 1960s lesbians and gay men were pathological, predatory and dangerous; villains and fools, but never heroes” (122). And he continues by saying that “for most people homosexuality was bound to the idea of men acting like women – and that was bad, even dangerous for heroes” and that it was “not possible for heroism and homosexuality occurring within the same person” (Russo 132-3). Tobiasz in his thesis asserts that “in the late 1960’s, television programming began presenting a more explicit and serious, but still negative, version of homosexuality” (46). Even though gay characters were allowed to appear on the screen, this visibility did not mean that they were properly represented. This hero-villain question followed the characters throughout the 60’s and even well into the 70’s when they were still victimized by the notion that their sexuality is a flaw that always destroys them (Russo 136). It was usually self-hatred and repression that led to a suicide – a popular way of killing off a homosexual character. But there were also rare cases of gay characters that could be

“cured” by “sufficient attention from the opposite sex”, which could lead the audience

23 to erroneous conclusion that homosexuality is something that can be treated and fixed

(Russo 156).

In the 1970’s, gay characters were not depicted any better than their predecessors. Hart in his article on “Representing Gay Men on American TV” states:

“They remained primarily as objects of ridicule for several years, until the impact of the gay liberation movement increased the visibility of gay men in various social positions nationwide and produced increased levels of social tolerance” (63). Even though, they were visible, the LGBTQ+ audience considered their portrayal was still very stereotypical and generally unfavorable. The movie The Boys in the Band from 1970 directed by William Friedkin is one of the most prominent movies that presented gay characters. This movie could be considered a milestone in queer movies production for it depicted gay male characters as human beings and not some deviant, psychotic villains. Although, Russo calls it “perfunctory compendium of easily acceptable stereotypes” (175). This movie made gay characters more visible, but their portrayal still did not do justice to gay community. The movie sent a message that all gays are unhappy, depressed and self-hating. It obliquely says that homosexuality is the reason of unhappiness of these characters. And even if the movie possibly aimed to gain some sympathy from straight audience, Russo claims that “most viewers would accept all images of gays on film as true representations” (189).

As mentioned in previous chapter, this sort of representation on television can be very misleading for the straight audience, that does not have access to other sources that would represent this minority and it can lead to different misconceptions about homosexuals in real life. As Russo proposes, the characters that were portrayed on screen lacked depth, the only thing that was usually known about them was their sexual orientation (217). Hart in his article agrees, pointing out that “Television history in the

United States contains countless examples of heterosexuals making derogatory jokes and hurtful remarks about gay men in ways that, hegemonically speaking, have contributed to social constructions of gay men as inferior beings to straight men and women” (“We Are Here, We Are Queer...” 251). Nevertheless, in the 1970’s,

Hollywood did not abandon the stereotypes, it actually moved towards their reinforcement.

In 1980’s, gay activist organized meetings with representatives from television and film industry in order to discuss the way homosexual characters were treated on screen. They protested that there are “ways to put the pros and cons of the gay lifestyle on film with no loss of audience appeal or consequent revenue” (Russo 220). Even though the Gay Activist Alliance proposed positive portrayals of homosexual characters, they seldom appeared on the screen.

Generally, homosexual characters were always seen “only in sexual terms, because that was what always been sold” but “it is an old stereotype that homosexuality has to do only with sex, while heterosexuality is multifaceted and embraces love and romance” (Russo 132, 143). For Hollywood homosexual characters were not considered to be people, they were often used only as a “dramatic device used to shock and sell”

(Russo 248). Himberg states that “While some applaud the rise in lesbian representation on television, others decry it as a limited and homonormative visibility, privileging lesbian women with cultural and economic capital” and that “images of white, wealthy, glamorous, and stereotypically feminine lesbian women are constructed for the pleasure of straight male viewers rather than for lesbian audiences” (2-3). It was not important for the producers to offer realistic depiction of homosexual characters, they preferred depictions that would help increase the numbers of the viewers and revenue. This fact just reflects the sentiment of the movie industry which accepted visibility but preferred

25 processing material in the way that it would sell rather than working with material that would mirror the real world.

This way of thinking also became a cause of controversy with a production of

Basic Instinct in 1992. The movie represented “offensive portrayals of women--and lesbians in particular” (Fox and Rosenthal). Fiedkin’s Cruising from 1980, caused similar upheaval among LGBTQ+ community for the homophobic message it sent and also for stereotypical and negative portrayal of a gay character. In 1982, the LGBTQ+ audience was partly appeased by Making Love where the first bisexual character appeared and represented queer characters in a more favorable light than its predecessors. It was the first commercial movie that allowed a gay couple to have a happy ending (Russo 272). Basic Instinct, on the other hand, meant a backward step for representation of LGBTQ+ characters. In this movie, homosexual characters were victimized again. Moreover, a typical homosexual villain was present in this motion picture. This movie actually led to “open violence against gay people” which was so explicitly promoted in the movie (Russo 249). And Russo continues with the statement that the same audience that appreciates the most extreme sort of violence is appalled and shocked seeing two men kissing on the screen (295). This only confirms the sentiment that society echoes: “... it is definitely not okay to be different. Difference is, in fact, the enemy” (Russo 298). The movie industry is thus only a mirror of the society’s feelings towards homosexuals. As Russo concludes in his book, it is not that gay people were invisible in movies, but it is more about the way they appeared on the screen. The offensiveness of their depiction that lingered on for more than century is a cause of his concern.

Television

The small screen – as television is referred to in comparison to its bigger sibling - started to incorporate LGBTQ+ characters into its production a little bit later in comparison to the movie industry. It can reflect the fact that it is more demanding to faithfully create such a character and to keep him or her recurring on a weekly basis.

Suzanna Danuta Walters explains that film dealt with subject of homosexuality for longer span of time than the television, for television had more family-centered format, which made it more difficult for producers to incorporate these characters into this sort of environment (qtd. in Tipton 1). This family-centrism was very clearly displayed in programs of “five broadcast television networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, The CW, and Fox”, because they did not dare to tackle the issue of homosexuality, so they left it to the cable networks (Tipton 1). However, in the 1970’s homosexuals on television started to be relatively recognizable.

Since there was and still is relatively diverse array of shows that portray LGBTQ+ characters, it is crucial to acknowledge the pioneers in various categories related to representation of this phenomena. Sources vary when they talk about the first character to represent LGBTQ+ minority on the small screen. Many of these characters who were appearing on the screen were not openly gay and their homosexuality was presented in a very subtle manner.

According to Tipton, the first open acknowledgement of gay lifestyle was represented in show Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In in 1970. The character of Bruce, though was depicted in a typically stereotypical manner – effeminate man who was a regular target of anti-gay jokes (2). It could be also argued that the first gay character on a television show appeared as early as 1967 in the NYPD. Already in the first episode of the show, they deal with an issue of a gay man being blackmailed, which leads to few

27 cases of suicide. (Tropiano 58). Another possible character that can be considered the first LGBTQ+ character on primetime television is a character of Steve that was presented in 1971 in the show All in the Family (Mitchell). However, Steve appears on this show only for one episode. A different show that is considered to contain the first recurring gay character in 1972 is The Corner Bar with Peter Panama. However, this character was a cause of a controversy among gay community, for he was depicted in very stereotypical and negative way.

A more widely known and recognized LGBTQ+ character is Jodie Dallas, who appears in a soap opera called Soap (Mitchell). Jodie appeared on this show in 1977 and he is also begrudgingly considered to be the first bisexual character to be present on television show. Tipton argues that the first recurring openly bisexual character that appeared in a dramatic television series is actually Steven Carrington in 1981 on ABC’s show Dynasty (3). But Bernard in her article claims that the first bisexual character appeared on the show L.A. Law in 1991. So, it is very subjective and obscure to decisively pinpoint the very first, the most accurate representative of LGBTQ+ minority on television shows.

First lesbian occurring on a television show, according to Tipton’s reflection on history of American television drama, was on NBC’s A Question of Love in 1978 (1).

The first recurring lesbian couple on television was portrayed, according to Bernard’s article, on a show HeartBeat in 1988. And the most famous first lesbian lead character to come out on television was character of Ellen on the eponymous show in 1997 played by Ellen DeGeneres, who came out as lesbian at the same time as her character did.

Bernard claims that the first same-sex kiss took place on the show 21 Jump Street in 1990. But also, the kiss on NBC’s series L.A. Law is considered to be the first kiss on network television (Tipton 4). And this kiss can be actually regarded as one of the many

28 examples of “queerbaiting” – a popular trope among producers of television series.

“Queerbaiting” means when there is a hint of potential same-sex romantic relationship between characters on a show. In the L.A. Law, however, one of the characters later got involved with a straight character, so the audience never witnessed fulfilment of the promising lesbian relationship. It is also interesting to look at the portrayal of same-sex kisses on television shows, for the ratio of gay-male kisses and lesbian kisses is quite unbalanced. Tipton claims that in 2005 a brief make-out session between two male characters “marked only the sixth male-male kiss in network television history, compared with over thirty network television shows airing kisses between women”

(10). This may be caused by the fact that the kiss between two woman serves “to satisfy the heterosexual male gaze” (Houseman 8).

Another category of the firsts, was the first same-sex marriage on television show.

Even though, this did not reflect the real-world possibilities, but it appeared in popular sitcom Friends in 1996 between characters of Susan and Carol (Mitchell).

The first time a transgender character appeared on television was in 1977 on the show The Jeffersons, Eddie or later Edie (Mitchell). This character appeared on the show for only one episode. The first trans main character is according to Campisi is

Adam Torres from Degrassi (35). From the more contemporary shows The L Word is the one to portray transmasculinity in characters (Campisi 35). Also, the female-prison themed series Orange is the New Black represents a transgender character of color played by a transgender woman Laverne Cox (Chavez 4). This character brings attention to issues that transgender women have to face in a correctional facility.

However, Elias claims that the first transgender character on primetime television played by a transgender woman was Carmelita Rainer on Dirty Sexy Money in 2007.

Just as Ellen is recognized to be the first lead lesbian character on television, the first gay male lead character to appear on television was Will Truman from Will &

Grace in 1998. As a result, Hart states, this sort of representation on television endorsed more recognition and tolerance in U.S. society in that decade (244). Chavez claims that

“representation had increased significantly from the 1990s to 2005-2006 but there was still very little representation of LGBTQ+ characters” (13). However, ever since numbers of these characters are slowly but steadily growing.

Just as the queer characters appeared only in minor roles in movies, they also appeared in these rather unimportant roles on television. Since the television shows were offered to consumers of mass media later than movies, television took a lot of inspiration from the movies and the trends accompanying portrayal of queer characters thus got transferred into televisual industry as well. It is also observable in the fact that the queer characters were almost invisible on television, always given minor roles, until the late 1990’s. Also, the way of portrayal of LGBTQ+ characters in movies influenced the portrayals of queer characters on television, thus we can still observe some tropes and stereotypes that were often employed in the movies, appearing on television. So, when we talk about representation of queer characters on television, it is important to look at the movies industry, which served as a springboard for television shows.

In the following chapter I will discuss more recent representations of LGBTQ+ characters on the screen, regarding the numbers of these characters and the ways they are presented to the audience.

Stereotypes and Tropes Surrounding LGBTQ+ Characters

Stereotypes

When discussing LGBTQ+ characters, it is inevitable to mention and discuss stereotypes of those characters. According to Oxford Dictionary a stereotype is: “A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing” (“Stereotype”). This notion has already been mentioned in the previous chapter, however it was not explained what exactly it is and how it influences the way LGBTQ+ characters are portrayed on television. The dictionary definition is almost perfectly accurate for the definition of representation of LGBTQ+ characters on the screen.

Evans’ definition of a stereotype corresponds with the dictionary’s definition of a stereotype: “a fixed, reductionary image of a particular type of person ...” and that these stereotypical characters are often adapted from other shows and they become –

“archetypes” – “stock characters of the storyworld, used to save a writer a time in establishing motivation and psychology ...” and when these “archetypes take on stereotypical overtones, the storyworld becomes invaded by prejudicial and demeaning images” (106). As it was discussed in the previous chapter, in the past, characters that represented marginalized social groups on television or in movies were either invisible or they were subjects to stereotypical portrayal. “Historically, characters that occupy

LGBTQ+ identities or are represented as having a disability have either been tokenized, stereotyped, demonized or removed from the screen altogether” (Murphy 2). Stonewall riots prompted a change and LGBTQ+ community started to be more vocal and visible.

“Visibility is not the only aspect that matters, the ways in which the character is being portrayed on television are also important. In addition, stereotypes have become a way in which LGBTQ+ characters as well as characters of a racial minority are visually

31 represented” (Chavez 14). The visibility, though, did not ensure the plausibility of the portrayal of these characters.

In the past, the society was ignorant of the people of this community. The only way of portraying them was through ridicule and stereotyping, which represents

“othering” of these characters. Evans suggests that stereotyping humans actually creates boundaries between “insiders” and “outsiders” (6). They were displayed as sort of aliens and this way they were more acceptable for the audience. This may be the reason that genre of science fiction was the friendliest for the LGBTQ+ characters. As Bérard states in her contribution that she presented at SFS Symposium: “Perhaps science fiction, because it exposes readers to a set of possible worlds and possible identities, is a great tell-tale about their ultimate limits - and the closer ones are not always the easiest to cross” (386). These possibilities and the fact that science fiction deals with matters that are often not from this world and with matters that may not even be real. This fact gave the genre an opportunity to become a breeding ground for inclusion of queer characters.

Nevertheless, this genre was not completely able to avoid stereotypical depictions of these characters.

Campisi claims that “Negative representations are presumed to be stereotypical representations, and the perpetuation of these inevitably unrealistic stereotypes harms marginalized identities...” (26). There are various reasons for the stereotypical portrayals of queer characters. In the past (in the 60’s and the 70’s) it was mostly the question of visibility of LGBTQ+ characters, and the only way to be visible was to be depicted in a negative way. Evans in his dissertation explains that it is because of controversial political and religious views that surround homosexuality, stereotypes are more accepted for this minority group and it also takes more time to disappear from television (8). And even after that, these characters were still underrepresented. “But

32 underrepresentation in the world of television means a relatively narrow (and thus more stereotyped) range of roles and activities” (Gerbner 185-6). Hence, it creates a vicious circle. And so, in the past LGBTQ+ characters could be either invisible or portrayed very scarcely and always in a negative way. For example, in 1967 CBS aired an hour- long episode in their documentary series CBS Reports called “The Homosexuals” in which Hart says: “a wide range of harmful stereotypes about gay men were communicated” (242). Since this was one of the first representation of gay men on the screen, it introduced the way of representation of gay men on television.

Another reason for stereotyping of LGBTQ+ characters on television is the fact that the producers of the shows incorporate these characters for comical relief. Queer characters were often on the screen only to be mocked. Very often there were, and still are, characters depicted through various stereotypes in order to make them look abnormal and funny in comparison to the characters that are straight. This sort of representation created a very popular stereotype of an effeminate gay man – often called derogatively – “sissy”. Tipton in his article on LGBTQ+ representation on dramatic television shows describes “... their routine representation as limp-wristed, effeminate drag queens who walked with a swish and talked in high-pitched voices. (American

Television, Drama 1). There is a plethora of characters that are represented this way. As

Grant states in his thesis, it is not difficult to identify a gay character via this stereotype, for there are plenty of stereotypes for writers to choose from (70). Though, this one is one of the oldest and most popular of them. Another popular stereotype that causes outbursts of laughter from the audience is “a flamboyant gay”. This is a character that is overtly gay, and it is, too, very easy to be spotted on the screen. He talks with lisp, he often places one hand on his hip and moves the other hand around. The flamboyant and effeminate gay stereotypes appear very often together.

The concept of promiscuous and irresponsible queer characters is also a recurring issue. Tobiasz in his thesis observes that the television often portrays queer characters as “shallow, at times deviant, and irresponsible both personally and professionally. They are unable to find love or do not have the capacity to sustain healthy or long-term relationships” (105). Houseman in her clinical dissertation similarly claims that this sort of stereotype implies that the heterosexual love is more significant and lasting, while queer love is neither significant nor lasting (20), and sometimes not even possible. For example, in the show Xena: The Warrior Princess, even though, they never actually ended up together as a proper couple, Tipton claims that the “loyalty, devotion and commitment” of the relationship between Xena and

Gabrielle is probably an exception to the stereotype (American Television, Drama 4).

Nevertheless, they only ended up as very good friends. Hart in his article claims that portrayals like these only confirm the perception that queer characters and people are never capable of finding happiness in their lives (243). Portrayals like this and their perceptions continue to permeate the current television programming.

There are many popular stereotypes that are related to queer characters and their portrayal on television. In the past, the most frequent stereotype was that of a violent homosexual. They were depicted as “murderous, mentally ill or just plain evil” (Carlino

17). Usually, queer characters were the victimizers – murderers, criminals, psychopaths, but sometimes they were in a position of a victim. However, victimization can have a negative impact on the viewers, for it can insinuate weakness of a character and it could also support an occurrence of hate crimes in real life – because consumers of televisual culture could assume that it is normal to behave violently towards members of queer minority. As Tobiasz explains “... when individuals discuss a topic with which are unfamiliar, they may draw definitions, examples, and answers from a popular cultural

34 convention, such as television” (51). And this may point out to the situation of a viewer that may be influenced by the content he or she consumes. Use of the stereotype which suggests that a queer character is somehow mentally ill, could be rooted in the fact that homosexuality was considered to be a mental illness by American Psychiatric

Association in the years 1952-1972. A stereotype which is probably based on real events is the threat of being exposed (Tipton “American Television, Sitcoms” 4). It is a situation in which a queer character is afraid and often blackmailed by someone to be exposed to his or her employees and subsequently fired. This stereotype is referring to

“Lavender Scare” of 1950’s when there was a real witch hunt in the U.S. for gay employees in government. These were considered to be security risks, so when they were exposed as homosexuals they were instantly laid off. Another quite popular stereotype that producers of television shows employ, is substance abuse. Queer characters on television are often portrayed in a positive relationship with different kinds of addictive substances. Whether it is an alcohol or drugs, they are unfortunately often accompanying a life journey of queer characters on the screen. Carlino in her critical analysis of lesbian coming out narratives agrees that “substance abuse is a recurring theme. This is troubling not only because these characters are potential role models, but also because this is an accurate portrayal of a lesbian youth’s coping mechanisms while discovery her sexuality” (34-5). This mechanism is, however, applicable to queer minority characters in general. The topic of chemsex is, too, related to this sort of stereotype. As David Stuart, an expert from ChemSex Support Clinic, explains on their website “ChemSex actually refers to the use of any combination of drugs that includes crystal methamphetamine, mephedrone and/or GHB/GBL by Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) before or during sex”. The characters that use some substance before getting involved with another character, or before revealing their

35 sexuality, or after dealing with the aftermath of their coming-out are unfortunately regular occurrence on the screen. It is as if the drugs or alcohol give them courage to reveal their true self, an excuse or an approval to act the way they feel.

A stereotype that concerns lesbians is a negative depiction of a jealous masculine woman. These masculine lesbians are usually referred to as “butch” lesbians as a counterpart to more feminine “femme” lesbians. Firstly, as Chavez mentions in his thesis, butch lesbians were very rarely, if at all, represented on the screen (51).

Secondly, if there is a butch character, she is quite often depicted as dominant, masculine and aggressive and thus she poses a threat to both heterosexual men and women (Carlino 19). Carlino then continues, suggesting that the femme lesbian is on the screen mostly for the visual pleasure of male viewers, so she is portrayed/serving as a sexual object for straight male audience. And ideal ending for lesbian relationship is the one where the lesbian character ends up with a man – hence the heterosexual norm is eventually reinforced (19). A reinforcement for the use of stereotypes comes from the background politics of television channels’ executives and their pursuit of higher revenues. This phenomenon is called a “sweep week” and it is closely connected to broadcast television, for they are financed by advertising companies. During the sweep weeks viewing habits of the U.S. households are monitored in order for a television show to be approved for further broadcasting; the sponsors need to be convinced about its popularity. Thus, the producers always try to come with something shocking during this time of a year so that they will attract as many viewers as possible. This creates an opportunity for certain portrayals and stereotypes that often include queer characters.

Carlino agrees that there is a stereotype used that involves a “lesbian kiss during sweeps week. By turning a main character ‘gay’ to boost ratings during sweep weeks, networks keep their characters from being truly gay…just experimenting. It was okay to try it out,

36 as long as in the end the girl concluded that she still liked boys” (10). This stereotype can be also considered to be a parallel to “queerbaiting trope”, which will be discussed later in this chapter.

Bisexuals and transsexuals are, too, regular subjects of stereotyping.

Morgenstern claims “that bisexual individuals are promiscuous, in transition from one sexual orientation to another, outcasts from society, and either confused or indecisive and consequently incapable of being satisfied with their decisions” (qtd. in McDaniels

28). This sort of representation only fuels the biphobia that is sometimes more prevalent in society than homophobia and it appears even among members of LGBTQ+ community, from which are bisexuals often excluded. Representation of bisexual characters as unable to choose or in a phase of life when they are only experimenting is still apparent on television and it sends a negative message to the viewers. A similar stereotype is plaguing transgender characters. These are often considered to be only faking their femininity or masculinity. There is a considerably higher number of transwoman characters on the screen. This topic in particular will be discussed and analyzed in the next chapter. According to Chavez stereotypical portrayal of a transwomen on television depicts them as “something artificial or something not entirely ‘real’” (44). These characters are often seen in situations where they have to prove to others that they are real persons. Since the difficulties related to queer identity are often the source of a character’s mistreatment we can quite frequently see these characters depressed and miserable. This can further lead to a suicide, which is yet another trope that regularly occurs in relation to a LGBTQ+ character. The weight of coming-out, fear of disclosing their identity, or stress of being bullied for one’s sexuality or gender identity can result in a depression followed by a suicide. This is especially dangerous for queer youth that

... feel alienated by society just because they are homosexual, so if this

negativity is reinforced by their only seeing gay stereotypes on television,

thus further instilling them with a negative perception of the community and

of themselves, it can lead to depression, alcohol abuse, and in some cases --

suicide, which validates why gay and lesbian teens have higher suicide

attempt rates. (Evans 93).

Which, again, sends a dangerously toxic message – especially for young members of queer audience.

In her dissertation Vaughn suggests that there is another reason for using stereotypes of queer characters. She claims that the stereotypes may not always be plausible, although they can help the audience to understand people and places that would be otherwise unfamiliar for them (33). However, stereotypes portray the traits of queer characters in very exaggerated and often negative way, so it offers a distorted representation, that could be taken for a legitimate representation by the audience. For if the members of the audience have never seen a queer person or character before, they may be susceptible to taking what television offers to them for granted. Tobiasz agrees that the imprecise and stereotyped portrayals of queer characters do not improve society’s opinion about this population (105). They could believe that members of

LGBTQ+ community are the way that television portrays them to be.

It may be true that a stereotype is based on something from real life. Vaughn claims that stereotypes can be accurate sometimes (7) and Campisi in her critical analysis also agrees that: “Stereotypes can be (at least partially) based on real-life identities, and a denial of their authenticity is a denial of the existence of these identities” (26). But she points out that these stereotypes have harmful impact on the members of the group that is stereotyped. The process of stereotyping sends a message

38 that the group of people that are stereotyped are somehow less dominant within the society and that they are ruled by the more dominant group (Vaughn 7). Even if the stereotyping could be a way to an increased visibility, or it could help the straight audience to explain that queer people do exist it is important not to forget that this sort of visibility and “education” does more harm than good. The message that the stereotyping sends to LGBTQ+ community is that they are not real – that they are on the screen for fun or for showing the dark side of lives of non-heterosexual people.

Stereotypes are not the only misconception that accompany portrayals of queer characters on the screen. The voices of various critics and members of LGBTQ+ audience point out to the fact that there are also harmful themes and tropes that are quite recurrent on television.

Tropes

A trope, which is another phenomenon closely related to representation of

LGBTQ+ characters is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “a common or overused theme or device” (“Trope”). Trope is similar to archetype and it is usually recurring within a certain genre of literature or it can occur on television as well. In contrast to a stereotype, a trope is not oversimplified conception, it is only a recurring conception. However, harmless as it sounds, tropes can also be a factor that is contributing to a negative depiction of queer characters. As Carlino claims, the tropes that we may now observe on television, are possibly inspired by the ones that were employed in the movie industry in the past (17). The fact that a trope is recurring, hence reinforces the message it sends and - makes the trope in many ways as important and harmful as a stereotype can be. There are not many critics that deal with this matter on academic level. So, mostly it is a subject of discussions among the fans of various shows, comics, movies, books, who observe these tropes to be occurring in their

39 favorite pieces. There is whole website, called TVTopes.org, similar to Wikipedia that tries to encompass and explain all the possible tropes that occur on television. It started with the tropes that the fans noticed on the show Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, but the website shortly afterwards expanded its field of range, covering all of the genres and media. As Gemignani explains in his article: “TVTropes.org is a website dedicated to identifying, defining and explaining the various elements and categories in entertainment products”. This website was created by the fans of Buffy, the Vampire

Slayer and they wanted to create community that could communicate their observations about the recurring patterns within the show. Hence, the website is edited by the fans, who provide examples to the tropes they discover, or to already existing tropes in order to support their credibility. However, various critics consider this to be a collaborative work of pseudo-academics. Regardless of what critics say and approve there are many tropes that are generally known, though mostly among members of the communities that are impacted by these, and a few of them are mentioned in magazine articles or newspapers. These are, however, quite rare and the regular viewers often do not have an idea that they are exposed to tropes while watching their favorite show.

In some ways, tropes are similar to stereotypes as far as the theme is concerned.

As Campisi mentions in her analysis, tropes involving LGBTQ+ characters that are recurring are mostly about villains, psychotic and jealous lesbians, or experimenting queers – only to name few of them (31-2). These tropes can later be related to

“Depraved Queers” which according to TVTropes.org points out to psychopathically violent queer characters. Then there is the well-known, and quite often used by the producers, trope “Sweeps Week Lesbian Kiss” which was already mentioned above.

This trope exists to boost the ratings of the show during the week when the viewing habits of the audience is monitored. However, this trope is according to TVTropes.org

40 slowly disappearing for it does not cause that much of a shock as it used to in the past.

The trope of “Queerbaiting” can be related to the previous trope. Queerbaiting, as

Urban Dictionary defines it, is “When an author/director/etc. gives hints, and clever twists to paint a character as possibly being queer, to satisfy queer audiences, but never outright says they are so they can keep their heterosexual audience.” It is noticeably similar to sweeps week kisses, for it helps the showrunners to increase numbers of their viewers by luring in the queer audience with promises of a queer relationship portrayed on the screen. And simultaneously, they are able to keep number of conservative viewers, for they never allow the queer characters to end up together.

“Bait-and-Switch” trope could be also integrated to this group of tropes, because it represents usually a lesbian character that is supposed to get involved with her female friend, however, later their prospects for a relationship are usually destroyed by a male character with whom one of the girls ends up (TVTropes.org). Thus, the heterosexual norm is reinforced, and lesbian relationship is rendered as less important and less valuable. This, again, sends a negative message that can heavily influence young

LGBTQ+ viewers. Lately, “Girls Behind the Bars” trope, that was popular in the movies in the 1980’s, is experiencing its revival. “... Bad Girls, Orange is the New

Black, and The L Word, among other mainstream television shows, featured lesbian prison storylines. Numerous studies have been done on the existence of homosexual activity in women’s prisons, and so it seems a natural setting to include lesbian plotlines” (Carlino 12). Though, this trope is mostly focused on the male perception of women in the prison, which suggests that a women’s prison is a great environment for portrayal of lesbian sex. But we will discuss the actual depiction of women’s prison in

Orange is the New Black in the following chapter as well as how various tropes work in this show.

Probably the most visible and well-known trope is “Bury Your Gays” trope. This trope deprives queer characters of a happy ending. If there is a queer couple on the screen they are unlikely to make it to a happy ending. Bury Your Gays ensures that at least one of these characters will die by the end. In the past, when the stereotype about queer characters asserted that these characters were murderers, psychopaths and generally aberrations it seemed to be inevitable for them to end up dead, hence the heterosexual world order was restored. The violent death of a queer character could be also perceived as a punishment for their deviance. In her article for a popular magazine

Vox, Framke observes that “For decades, gay and bisexual characters have met a series of unfortunate ends, usually in service of moving the plot forward, crushing the spirits of the partners they leave behind, or just making a straight person feel bad”. The deaths that queer characters meet are often stray bullets, contraction of a serious illness, or they are murdered by a jealous heterosexual character (Framke). The reasons behind the use of this harmful trope are for example furthering the narrative of a heterosexual cisgender character, or that the actor or actress has other obligations – so, their characters are then often written off in this manner. Many critics argue that the death is a natural occurrence and that it is a final destination for all of the characters regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identification. Each death reinforces the trope and maintains the status quo of the inadequate representation of LGBTQ+ characters, for they are still underrepresented on the screen and even the small number of queer representatives is reduced through the use of this trope. These deaths have a stronger impact on the audience when the trope affects a character that is fully fleshed-out and not another stereotype. Bury Your Gays trope sends an especially toxic message about the worth of a life of queer characters, which can impact the way that members of

LGBTQ+ community perceive themselves on the screen and even in their real lives.

Bury Your Gays reappeared quite recently to a considerable extent; this will be addressed in the following chapters.

Stereotypes and tropes started to make their appearance on the screen as early as the first queer characters were introduced. Even though they are slowly dissipating, some of them still continue to appear on television. As Evans claims, there may be economic reasons behind the presence of stereotypes on television. They “speak to the motives of those who have the power and control to define them as well as the economic profit they serve” (7). All in all, they are often source of misrepresentation of members of LGBTQ+ community and they send negative message to the audience. The fictional characters presented in fictional worlds, though, have real effect on the real people who watch television and perceive these representations as reflections of the real world.

Contemporary Representation of LGBTQ+ Characters on Television

Scholars agree upon the fact that visibility of LGBTQ+ characters on the small screen has been on the rise over the past decade. However, many of them also claim that even though the quantity of these characters is increasing, the quality of their portrayal is still not achieving the ideal quality. The most pressing issue is the lack of diversity of the LGBTQ+ characters on television and the fact that they are often victims of stereotyping.

In this part of the thesis we will deal with more contemporary portrayals of queer characters on the screen. The focus of this chapter will lie with presentation of queer characters on television within years 2013-2017. Figures used for the presentation of the reality of numbers of LGBTQ+ characters on screen are from statistics that are produced by meticulous collecting of data by GLAAD. GLAAD follows the rates of inclusion of characters of color, LGBTQ+ characters and characters with disabilities on broadcast, cable and streaming televisions. Not only they collect data about the representation of these characters, GLAAD also writes reports on the way the characters are portrayed. They also produce proposals for the writers and producers of television shows, in order to suggest them the way they should depict these characters.

Evans claims that “Despite the fact that there is now a larger number of gay and lesbian characters on television, the depictions have not changed. Many of the shows on the big three networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) continue to use stereotypical characters” (2).

Farrell agrees that “there has been a dramatic increase in the quantity of these representations, their quality has long been a concern for analysts” (23-4). Gay and

Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has been following the fates of queer characters on the screen for a few decades and keeping the statistics about their presence on television. According to their reports from the last five years, the representation of

LGBTQ+ characters is steadily growing. The growth of their numbers may be caused either by channels’ attempts to attract more viewers that would in turn boost their revenues. Or it could be a result of more open-minded, liberal and inclusive society whose sentiment gets to be reflected on the screen. As GLAAD observes in their reports, the visibility of LGBTQ+ community on the screen is no longer a matter of concern, nevertheless, the way these characters are depicted on the screen is still a topic for discussion among critics, viewers and queer fans of television shows. Despite their relative multiplicity, there is a number of LGBTQ+ characters that are not depicting lives of queer people the way they should. Evans claims that this is mostly occurs in the case of broadcast television, where producers and showrunners need to tread the water very carefully, so that they would not offend the advertisers, because that would mean loss of revenue for the channel (10). However, it is fair to say that even characters on cable television or streaming media are sometimes victims of misrepresentation.

Use of stereotypes and tropes is the most common way of inauthentic portrayal of queer characters. Additionally, shock-value of queer characters adds to the inauthentic representation of queer characters. As Grant asserts, by the end of the

1990’s, writers were presented with a new challenge – to present the gay characters and they storylines in a way other than just shocking the audience with their coming-out and then disappearing from the show (31). The demand for more accurate representations and more of regular and recurring queer characters is reflected in the rising numbers of queer characters on the screen. However, the quality of the presentation is still lacking.

Corfield admits though, that “while characters on current Netflix original shows have been molded in the likeness of today’s society, several long-running prime-time shows have been created with characters reflecting society’s image from five or even ten years ago” (58-9).

This statement is backed by Evans’ claim that “... network television fails to show sexuality among gay characters due to the risk of losing profits. So, it falls on the pay-cable networks to show authentic displays of affection among the gay characters in its programming” (78). We will look into this issue in more detail in the next subchapter.

Hart in his article states that “… including gay male characters as recurring, regular, and lead characters in American television programs is a crucial first step toward enhancing the overall representation of gay men on American television. What the producers and writers of such programs opt to do with those characters once they exist, however, is equally important” (“Representing Gay Men” 77). Thus, reinforcing the sentiment of the last decade, that the visibility is good, but it is not enough. Tobiasz believes, that members of queer audience are convinced that “real issues” are dealt with on television, though, it is quite observable that these issues are more prevalent on cable networks. Since, cable television has higher premium costs, it results in smaller number of people who consume the programming of cable television. “This means that the average primetime television viewer does not have access to these “real” portrayals, but instead is fed a consistent diet of inaccuracy and misrepresentation” (Tobiasz 107). This statement implies that one has to pay for more accurate portrayal of queer character.

In her thesis Murphy explains that “GLAAD believes that television writers and producers have a responsibility to its viewers to portray holistic and empathetic depictions of LBGT+ characters, characters of color, and characters with disabilities”

(19). Freymiller aptly points out that “television programmers can and should experiment with more and more varied representation of non-heterosexual characters”

(155). This means that not only white, male gay characters should be represented on the screen, but there should be also more lesbians, bisexuals and transgender characters

46 portrayed on television. Visibility and variety are important aspect when we deal with queer characters. Another position that is important for queer characters to occupy is the position of regular and recurring characters. In the past, it was common that a queer character would appear for only one or a few episodes, as a guest character, and then leave (usually after the shocking revelation of his or her sexuality). As Smith claims in his article, queer guest characters appear on shows to create more drama, to raise an issue about tolerance, to sort of educate the main characters about something that the main character would not be able to experience by himself or herself. And then, the guest character disappears (104-7, 119). This was usually the fate of queer characters – to provide the show with refreshing drama, adding bit of tension and then disappearing.

Sometimes this occurrence of queer guest character ended with abrupt leaving of the guest character, but sometimes, as Smith claims, it was a part of narrative strategy to kill the deviant character”, which is another example of Bury Your Gays trope that was analyzed in the previous chapter (105). Since most of the LGBTQ+ characters were put into position of guest characters it is important to mention the breakthrough moment, which changed the way LGBTQ+ characters were made more visible on television. On

April 30th, 1997 viewers of the show Ellen that was broadcasted on ABC witnessed coming out of show’s regular character Ellen Morgan played by Ellen DeGeneres. This helped to create a pathway for more shows that would include LGBTQ+ characters as their regulars.

Portrayals of queer characters nowadays are different from the ones in the past.

Even though, there are often influences from the past that persevere; they are still apparent in some traits of characters, generally, the visibility of LGBTQ+ characters is gradually improving. Walter, though, claims that this rising visibility in fact gives a rise to new sorts of homophobia that ensures ‘the acceptance of the ‘good,’ assimilated,

47 marriage-loving sexless gay versus the ‘bad,’ liberationist, promiscuous gay” (qtd. in

Farrell 32). This higher visibility also leads to normalized portrayals of LGBTQ+ characters on the screen, which is not necessarily a bad thing, however, Wolfe and

Roripaugh disagree. They claim that it is “a sort of compromise of authenticity, where the diversity of queer identities is sanitized for consumption by mainstream audiences”

(qtd. in Campisi 25). This again does not present queer characters in the natural light, for it creates characters that are more easily acceptable by the straight audience. This means that in order to be more likeable by the straight audience, queer characters need to be portrayed very similar to straight characters, hence, the diversity of the queer characters is reduced. Merrifield in his thesis agrees that, “Historically, representations placed greater focus on the differences between gay and straight men, in an attempt to distance gay men from heteronormative culture. Contemporary representations (since the late 1990s) have focused more of presenting their similarities as a way to increase perceptions of social citizenship (16). All in all, the normalization of the queer characters for sake of better understanding and acceptance by the straight audience, can have a negative impact on the portrayal of diversity of members of LGBTQ+ minority.

However, Campisi states that some members of queer audience actually appreciate this notion that queer characters are just like the straight ones, with an exception of their sexuality. Also, Farrell and the respondents of her research questionnaire, agree that the portrayal of queer characters in the same life situation as straight characters are portrayed, and the reduction of the bedroom scenes could, in fact, show the straight audience that members of LGBTQ+ minority are not that much different from them and that they can also lead mediocre and boring lives in suburbs (137). So, the critics agree that the positive trend of rising visibility is observable in television media, but they vary opinion of the normalized representation that can have a negative impact on diversity.

While some claim that it is necessary to portray queer characters just the way the straight characters are portrayed, others disagree, claiming that the normalization of these characters, impacts their diversity, which does not reflect the real life and it leaves representations of these characters only two-dimensional.

Nowadays, writers and producers try to present more realistic portrayals of queer characters and sometimes they are even successful. For this part of thesis, I used the statistics that are made by GLAAD. I compared representation of LGBTQ+ characters on broadcast, cable and streaming media in last five years. Then, I compared representation of gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender characters throughout the last five years 2013-2017.

Comparing occurrence of regular straight characters to regular LGBTQ+ characters shows that throughout the years the occurrence of LGBTQ+ characters is growing slowly but steadily (see figure 1).

Figure 1 – GLAAD. “Where Are We on TV 2012-2018.” GLAAD.org.

https://www.glaad.org/tags/where-we-are-tv. Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

Numbers of queer characters increased more significantly in the past couple of years, and this could be a result of GLAAD’s inclusion of streaming television into their data

49 collection since 2013. When we compare the percentage of queer characters in the years

2013-2016, the numbers are very close if not slightly higher as the percentage of people who identified themselves as queer in the U.S. in these years (“Americans Who

Identify as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual ...”). According to Statista in 2013 3,6% of

American population classified themselves as queer and on the television, there were

3,0% of queer characters in the roles of regulars.

Figure 2 - “Americans Who Identify as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transgender

in 2012-2016.” Statista.com, 2018. Accessed 18 Mar. 2018.

In 2014, however, the numbers are reversed, indicating that the televisual industry provides higher percentage of queer characters (4,0%), than the percentage of people identifying as queer (3,7%). Same situation occurred in 2015 when percentage of queer characters on the screen was 4,0% and the percentage of queer-identifying people in the

U.S. was 3,9%. The year 2016 presents the most significant difference in percentages of televisual queer representation (4,8%) and percentage of members of queer community in the U.S, (4,1%). One can claim that these differences are not very impressive, but in the light of the past underrepresentation of members of queer minority on the screen we can now observe and appreciate more inclusive approach from the televisual industry.

When we will be looking at specific categories of queer characters on television throughout these years it is important to keep in mind that 3,0%; 4,0%; 4,8% and 6,4% stands for 100% of queer characters presented as regular characters on television in each year. Thus, in following charts we will observe how are these 100% distributed among the broadcast, cable and streaming television.

Contemporary Representation of Gay Men

When we look at the GLAAD’s statistics from the point of view of visibility, representation of gay characters is improving. As for quality, Merrifield claims “... where earlier representations tended to portray gay men as exaggeratedly flamboyant, promiscuous, and generally irresponsible and carefree, contemporary depictions present gay men as responsible and productive members of society, with families, relationships, and complex lives” (2). And even though quality cannot be measured, the quantity can, and we can observe the patterns of occurrence of queer characters in following figures.

Figure 3 – GLAAD. “Where Are We on TV 2012-2018.” GLAAD.org.

https://www.glaad.org/tags/where-we-are-tv. Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

Looking at the numbers of cable and broadcast representation we can observe that the gay characters are more prominently present on these kinds of media. However, we can also observe that the numbers of characters are slightly fluctuating and not showing clear growth. During these years there is higher number of portrayal of gay characters on broadcast television in comparison to cable television or streaming television. In the years 2013 and 2014 gay male characters comprise half of the amount of total of the queer characters on both broadcast and cable televisions.

Contemporary Representation of Lesbians

In contrast to previous presentation of numbers of representation of gay male characters on television, numbers of lesbian characters on the screen are significantly lower. As Freymiller states “... television portrayals of gay characters largely place males in the privileged position and females in the subordinate role. The general lack of lesbian characters reinforces a degree of invisibility for the lesbian population” (156).

Carlino agrees, stating that lesbian characters were underrepresented on television for a long time and they only recently started to be casted in lead roles (5). The stereotype which depicted lesbians as a masculine, aggressive, and not very attractive females wearing flannel shirts is slowly disappearing from the screen. Images of lipstick lesbians are appearing on the screen. Even though it confronts the butch stereotype and promotes diversity of lesbian portrayals on the screen, it incidentally clears the path for perfect, skinny and beautiful lipstick lesbians which reduce the representation of lesbians on the screen. Houseman agrees that the diversity of lesbian portrayals is still not at its best, for the representation on television only rarely resembles daily lives of real lesbians. They are mostly represented in three popular storylines: “lesbians as perpetrators of violent acts, as victims of violence, and most prominent, as objects of

52 heterosexual male fantasies” (7). And unfortunately, even according to GLAAD’s report for years 2016-17 lesbian characters are still victims of harmful tropes and unreasonable elimination from the shows.

Since the beginning of 2016, more than 25 queer female characters

have died on scripted television and streaming series. Most of these

deaths served no other purpose than to further the narrative of a more

central (and often straight, cisgender) character. When there are so

few lesbian and bisexual women on television, the decision to kill

these characters in droves sends a toxic message about the worth of

queer female stories (GLAAD 2016-17 3).

This forceful removal from the network and cable broadcasted shows is reflected on the figure below (fig. 4)

Figure 4 – GLAAD. “Where Are We on TV 2012-2018.” GLAAD.org.

https://www.glaad.org/tags/where-we-are-tv. Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

When we compare the representation of lesbian characters on individual televisual platforms, we can clearly observe that these characters have the most profound representation on streaming television. Even when we compare representation of lesbian

53 characters to representation of gay male characters on streaming television, it is clear that the number of lesbian characters on this media has been considerably higher in the last two years than the number of gay male characters. In 2016 it is 23% of gay male characters in contrast to 43% of lesbian characters. And in 2017 it is 24% of gay male characters to 36% of lesbian characters. However, on the broadcasting and cable television are these numbers reversed. Gay male characters are on these platforms are twofold in comparison to their lesbian colleagues. Though, for example year 2015 offered relatively balanced presentation of gay (39%) and lesbian (36%) characters on the streaming television. And year 2017 offered similar numbers of lesbian and bisexual characters on all the broadcasting platforms of television.

Contemporary Representation of Bisexuals

When talking about the proportion of quantity and quality, the former being more dominant, the same issue of imbalance between these two phenomena plagues bisexual characters as well. Practically, McDaniel claims the same thing as the other critics say about representation of other members of queer community. She claims that

It is also significant to note here that the same GLAAD television

report for the current season (2015-16) cautions that while the

technical qualifications to classify a character as bisexual may be met,

many of them still fall prey to the stereotypical myths associated with

bisexuality while still others present little more than a flirtation with

bisexuality as a plot device before reverting back to business as usual

(17-8).

While the quantity of the LGBTQ+ characters on television is increasing, the quality is a factor of representation that is more often neglected by the producers of shows. When

54 we look at the figure representing the general portrayal of bisexuals on the screen (see fig.5) we can see that the numbers of portrayal of bisexual characters are close to the numbers of lesbian characters discussed above (fig.4). Although, in 2016 was the percentage of bisexual characters on broadcast and cable television almost twice as high as percentage of lesbian characters on these platforms. This difference is caused by a deadly beginning of the year for lesbian characters mentioned above.

Figure 5 – GLAAD. “Where Are We on TV 2012-2018.” GLAAD.org.

https://www.glaad.org/tags/where-we-are-tv. Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

Even though, the numbers of bisexual characters on broadcasting and cable televisions are oscillating, the steady increase of bisexual representation on streaming television is clearly visible.

When we take a closer look at the individual representations of male bisexual characters and female bisexual characters we can observe abysmal difference between these two

(see figures 6 and 7).

Figure 6 – GLAAD. “Where Are We on TV 2012-2018.” GLAAD.org.

https://www.glaad.org/tags/where-we-are-tv. Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

From all the platforms, broadcasting television offered the lowest percentage of male bisexual character throughout the years 2013-2015. In 2013 out of 22% of bisexual characters on broadcast television only 2% of these bisexual characters were male.

When we compare these 2% to 7% in 2016-17 we can claim that there is clearly a rising tendency. On the cable television there were presented only 6% of male bisexual characters out of 21% of bisexual characters on this platform. And in 2017 there was

28% of bisexual characters present on the cable television, however only 6% of these characters were male bisexuals. Only year 2015 was relatively favorable for male bisexual characters on cable television, when out of 36% of bisexual characters 13% were male bisexual characters. In the case of male bisexual characters even the streaming television does not offer high numbers throughout the years.

Figure 7 – GLAAD. “Where Are We on TV 2012-2018.” GLAAD.org.

https://www.glaad.org/tags/where-we-are-tv. Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

When we look at the figure 7 we can observe that broadcast television offers smaller number of female bisexual characters than cable television, with an exception of year

2013. When we put figures of female bisexual characters and male bisexual characters in opposition, we can clearly notice the considerable difference in the numbers.

Regardless of the platform of broadcasting, male bisexual characters are in evident disadvantage in comparison to their female counterparts.

Contemporary Representation of Transgender Characters

As Campisi claims “Historically, trans* representations on television have been largely nonexistent, with the exception of thrillers and crime shows, and occasional appearances in sitcoms and medical dramas” (34). The first transgender character on television show could be considered Carmelita Rainer in 2007 in show called Dirty Sexy

Money, played by transgender actress Candis Cayne. Elias claims that the transgender characters are considered to be outsiders from LGBTQ+ community, even more than bisexuals. The trans* characters are now going through the same ordeal as the gay and

57 lesbian characters had to go through when they first became visible on television (13).

Even though, the other queer characters are now relatively regular on television,

Campisi asserts that there is a difference in qualitative portrayal of adult trans* characters and portrayal of trans* youth, the former being portrayed as perverted and freakish and the latter mostly in positive light (51). Although, in case of transgender characters it is almost impossible to talk about quantity (see fig.8) let alone the quality of their representation.

Figure 8 – GLAAD. “Where Are We on TV 2012-2018.” GLAAD.org.

https://www.glaad.org/tags/where-we-are-tv. Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

Numbers of representation of transgender characters on the contemporary television series are quite infinitesimal in comparison to lesbian, gay and bisexual characters. The streaming television is again in the leading position with the highest numbers of transgender characters, they comprise one tenth of all queer characters presented on this platform. However, in past two years broadcasting and cable televisions have been making an effort to incorporate transgender characters into their narratives. Although, their numbers are still only half as low as the numbers of transgender characters presented on streaming television. For example, in 2015 there were only 2% of

58 transgender characters on cable television and 7% on streaming television. In 2016 cable television offered 4% of transgender characters out of all the queer characters on this platform, but streaming television outnumbered them with their 11% of transgender characters. Year 2017 presented us with 4% of transgender characters on cable television and 9% of transgender characters on streaming television. Even though the numbers on the cable television are lower than on the streaming television, in years

2014 and 2015 broadcast television did not offer any transgender character on a primetime show, which was criticised by GLAAD.

In their report from the last year, GLAAD point out that “The number of Americans who personally know someone who is transgender has gone up, but an overwhelming majority (84 percent) of Americans still only learn about trans people through the images they see in the media” (GLAAD 2016-17, 26). Thus, it is vital for the writers and producers to approach the depiction of transgender characters with adequateness in order not to present misleading and harmful stereotypes.

There is higher visibility of LGBTQ+ characters, although the quality is still not perfect.

Some television shows are including queer characters into their storylines, to be more inclusive and accepting. However, some shows include these characters only to boost their reputation of inclusive television show and to increase their popularity and ratings.

It is still echoing shock value that has accompanied them since the 90’s.

Thinking of representation of LGBTQ+ characters on various platforms of televisual broadcasting, we need to take into consideration that there are more television series broadcasted on broadcast and cable television than it is on streaming television.

“Differences exist among the portrayals of gay characters across broadcast and cable networks” (Tobiasz 89). Tipton agrees, stating that the cable and subscriber networks have been in recent years more daring in their portrayals of queer content in contrast to

59 the broadcast television (5). Corfield also concurs with these statements saying that

“The advancement of streaming services such as Netflix presents new opportunities for LGBTQ+ characters to fight for and establish equality alongside the other marginalized groups” (65). He suggests that this relatively new platform helps to heighten visibility of queer character, hence, it can contribute to acceptance of queer individuals in real life. Although, Evans points out that “... one cannot forget that due to the commercial nature of television, sometimes the addition of gay and/or minority characters is actually not for realism, but instead for commercialism”

(13). This means that the queer characters appear on a show only to increase the audience and thus help to raise the revenue of the television channel. This practice of the television industry often causes, as Berrige states, that “The queer character also often disappears from the narrative after coming out, whether by being completely written off the show, or relegated to a more marginalized or secondary role” (qtd. in

Campisi 45). As soon as the characters lose their shock-value or they tell their coming out story, they stop being an interesting character worth of following. Even though, this practice was more employed in the past, it does not mean that it does not occur in contemporary television series too. However, Shugart assumes that it is important to remember that the sympathetic gay characters are not a rarity in our contemporary pop culture anymore, nevertheless their representations are still problematic (70). As it was stated at the beginning of this chapter, the presence of queer characters on the screen and their rising numbers is a positive progress in comparison to the past representation of LGBTQ+ characters. The quality of these portrayals is something that worries the critics as well as the queer audience. Vaughn asserts in her thesis on representation of same-sex couples on television, that according to a study conducted by Bond in 2014, it

60 is vital for queer youth to see members of their community represented in positive fashion in media (2). Likewise, Evans believes that thanks to significantly higher representation of queer characters, young people now come out at earlier age, for they do not feel as lonely and invisible as the generation before them (5). In this statement

Evans slightly contradicts most of the critics, claiming that the higher visibility is sometimes good enough for the queer young audience.

Throughout this chapter, we observed the differences between representations of queer characters on various media platforms. All in all, the numbers of queer characters on television are rising steadily, although, the critics are now more concerned about the way these characters are portrayed. There is general consent among the critics that television industry should focus more on the accuracy of the portrayal of queer characters than on the quantity.

Impacts of Misrepresentations on the Real Life

Critics, scholars and viewers of television all agree that the projections that we perceive on the screen have real impact on our lives. The stories that we follow, characters we love or hate or with whom we identify may be fictional, however, the way they are portrayed and the way they live their lives on the screen affect the real lives of their audience.

This effect of fictional reality stems from the viewer’s identification with a character. As Cohen claims, “Identification requires that we forget ourselves and become the other - that we assume for ourselves the identity of the target of our identification” (247). In this process of identifying with a character a viewer often loses awareness of his social role as a member of the audience and he often “adopts the perspective of the character with whom her or she identifies” (Cohen 250-1). This gives a way for creation of a relationship between the viewer and the character. Hart in his article agrees that “Media representation also matters because representation is a form of social action, involving the production of meanings that ultimately have real effects”

(“Representing Gay Men...” 61). Interesting characters audience can relate to are often there to attract the viewers and also to make the process of watching more enjoyable, which encourages the viewers to tune in every week, to keep watching the show. Cohen continues that the identification with characters from television is carefully constructed situation, different from our identification with our parents or other role-models (251).

However, the viewers are often unaware of this artificial construction of likeable characters, and sometimes even the writers and producers are not fully aware of the power of the impact their characters might have on the audience and consequently on the show.

As Tobiasz claims in his thesis: “Television provides a range of values and ideas about the world. ... If the same values and views appear on multiple episodes of the same program, those values and views will have a lasting impact on the individual who watches those programs” (33-4). Since, as it was discussed in previous chapters, a great number of population in the U.S. spends a considerable amount of time in front of the screen, it is important to be cautious about the content that is being broadcasted. This should mostly concern the writers and producers of the shows, for the content that they create is often unintentionally shaping the opinions of the consumers of media.

Cardwell states, that, even though, Generation X is created by media, they also shaped the television back (126). She continues saying that “The voice of youth is also expressive, readily conveying thoughtfulness and passion, and high level of self- awareness and reflectiveness” (130). Young viewers show their ability to react to the content that is offered to them in media. The relationship between the television and its young consumers is nowadays more reciprocal. They can show their discontent or their approval, share it and thus model the television back. Driver agrees, stating that “Recent youth studies research will point out that youth do not simply passively consume media, instead, they actively engage in the creation, consumption and analysis of cultural texts, through for example, writing fan fiction about their favorite television characters or analyzing television storylines on online discussion forums” (qtd in Campisi 40). This is possible thanks to the Internet and social media, that are available to viewers as well as the producers that creates a space for an interaction.

Representation of queer characters on television “is a relatively risk-free method of exposing ourselves to types of people whom we might not otherwise encounter, and it can result in actual positive attitude change. ... Stereotypical, simplistic character portrayals can do just as much to reinforce negative attitudes as the positive portrayals

63 do to encourage attitude change” (McDaniel 17). Thus, the importance of positive and plausible portrayals should not be underestimated. These characters often represent an educational aspect within the story for heterosexual viewers and they can also represent hope for members of queer audience, especially for the young viewers. Campisi asserts that portrayal of queer characters on television can have various effects on the queer young audience. “Through emulation of aspects as seemingly trivial as their clothing style or as important as their self-confidence, through the writing of romantic queer fan fiction or through crushes on characters leading to a realization of queerness, these characters and storylines can positively affect the lives of queer youth” (48). Hence, in an ideal case, when the characters are portrayed positively and plausibly the effect on the audience can be in fact positive,

Unfortunately, negative and stereotypical portrayals of queer characters have impact on the viewers of television, too. Hart in his article hypothesizes that in case of straight viewers, it can lead to “decreased levels of social tolerance for homosexuality in

American society as well as increased levels of homophobia” (“Representing Gay

Men...” 76). And in case of queer viewers the results may be in extreme cases life threatening. For as Houseman in her psychological critical analysis claims, the television representation or lack of it has actual psychological consequences for members of queer audience (20). As it was already mentioned in previous chapters, the negative portrayal of queer characters can be one of the reasons of the higher rate of suicides among the young queers. According to statistics published on The Trevor

Project, a website for young members of queer community “contemplate suicide at almost three times the rate of heterosexual youth” (“Preventing Suicide: Facts About

Suicide”). Nevertheless, it would not be fair to lie the blame solely on the misrepresentation of queer community on television. As Gray in his book states, that the

64 producers could produce something with an intention on their minds, although, the audience could misinterpret it or see something different in it and it can come across as a misrepresentation (54). Though, it still can be considered a harmful aspect that cannot be ignored. As Tobiasz suggests that “because of the combined increase in number of gay characters on television and the inaccurate portrayal of gay lives, gay men continue to struggle with stereotypes, forming their gay identity, and learning how to fit in with both the gay and heterosexual community” (110). This is, however, applicable to all members of LGBTQ+ community, not only gay men. Tobiasz’s statement points to the struggle that is caused by misrepresentation of queer characters. Members of queer audience then have problems to fit into the world for the portrayals that are presented to them are not showing them the real, authentic image of the world. This can develop into lack of sense of belonging, lack or low self-esteem, or shame and loneliness that can eventually lead to depression or to suicidal tendencies. Other negative outcomes of misrepresentation of queer characters can result in lack of recognition by mainstream straight society and also in misunderstanding and ignorance about queer community.

And the negative portrayals actually help to maintain homophobic attitudes (Tobiasz 42,

104). On the other hand, Carlino suggests that when the heterosexual viewers are constantly exposed to realistic and likable queer characters, they can reach the state of acceptance of real queer individuals in their real lives (41). Though, Farrell remains skeptical saying that “Whatever value may be found in television representations of gays and lesbians, Gay TV images have not led to the end of oppression and unequal rights for the LGBTQ+ community” (32).

However, thanks to higher visibility and slowly rising numbers of positive portrayed queer characters the queer community is becoming more and more recognized. Also, it serves to spread awareness about issues that members of queer

65 community have to face in their lives, thus it can evoke sympathy and subsequent acceptance by the straight society. Houseman explains that the increased visibility of these characters on various television shows provided a reason for queer individuals to get together, share a common language, common interest and common experiences.

This helps to reduce isolation and to build real-life relationships (39). Nowadays, thanks to the availability of internet and social networks, it is even easier. The Internet is a helpful instrument when it comes to getting people together, and it serves as a great tool when creating a community for the disenchanted queer fans. One of the outlets for these disappointed fans is a fandom, a place that unites people with shared interest in a particular book, a movie, or a show.

Fandoms are important companions to popular works or people. They increase the visibility of these works. Fandoms are basically communities of people who feel strong connection to a certain piece of work and they create communities in which they share their enthusiasm for this work. The use of term “fandom” goes back to 1903, when it was according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary used for the first time. One of the first and most visible fandoms of television show that was comprised of members of

LGBTQ+ community was the one of Xena, Warrior Princess. Gianoulis observes that many lesbians followed the series “cultishly, creating web sites and attending gatherings of fans” (2). From the point of psychological well-being, McCallum and McLaren in their study came to conclusion that “... belonging to the general community and belonging to a GLB2 specific community are both beneficial for the mental health of

GLB adolescents” (McCalum and McLaren 93). This sort of belonging helps to reduce the possibility of depression and suicides, for the people who are part of a fandom belong to this fictional family created by people similar to them. Gray claims that

2 GLB - gay, lesbian, bisexual - is an older version of LGBTQIA2S acronym

“Fandom, though, is not just about community, nor just about gender. Instead, it is also about specific meanings, and thus fan groups are rarely interchangeable” (50). It is not just a general group of people who admire something, each of the fandoms is specific.

And sometimes happens that the fans do not focus on the series but specifically on a single character or relationship. In the case of relationship this phenomenon is called

“shipping” – derived from the word relationship (Romano), and it represents the desire of the fans for two fictional characters of the show to be in relationship. Although, when we look at the enthusiasm of some fans, we could suggest that the word actually comes from the word worship. “Shipping” is an important phenomenon for queer audience for the relationship that they “ship” does not have to be based on a relationship that is necessarily portrayed on the show, thus, it gives the fans an opportunity to put together characters that they deem to have some chemistry between them. Sometimes happens that the “ship” becomes a “canon” – that the pairing officially happens on the show, thus, the involvement of the “shippers” with the show is only strengthened. A “ship” is not bound by conventional notions of relationships and it can support relationship between characters of different sex (het ship), but “shipping” is also immensely popular among the queer audience, because one can “ship” relationship between characters of same sex (“slash ship” or “femslash ship”). The popularity of “shipping” is caused by the fact that there is no limit as for who with whom can be object of “shipping”. And fandom appreciates and takes advantage of this freedom to express their opinions.

Not only is fandom an important barometer for the producers of the shows, anti- fandom has its place in the world too. The anti-fandom is there to show the producers what is not desired (at least by some communities). According to Gray, anti-fandoms have the power to dictate how the television should look like (62). However, the message could be similar, and even fandoms can disagree with the content of their

67 favorite show. As it was already mentioned above “... fans, … are becoming more important to producers, and at the same time, Internet fan discussion sites are allowing a more direct form of communication between the programs’ creators and their consumers” (Gray 178). Thus, the power of the audience should not be underestimated by the producers. If the content of the show is not satisfactory for its fans they take to the various creative outlets that enable them to create their own preferred storylines.

The discontent of the fans over the development (or its lack) of their favorite story can be channeled into stories that they create by themselves. The phenomenon we are talking about is called a “fan fiction”. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary a fan fiction is “stories involving popular fictional characters that are written by fans and often posted on the Internet - called also fanfic”. Gray states that since the content of programing is consumed by the audience, it is rightfully theirs and that they are allowed to handle it however they want to (62). There are various situations that lead fans to writing their own fictions. One of them could be caused by the fact that their favorite

“ship” is not happening on the original show. Then they resort to “... creating canon. A canon is the official version of story that actually happened in the original fictional universe, it is the source of the narrative. A phenomenon found within the lesbian viewership over time, particularly when explicit lesbian relationships were not shown on television, was that of viewers creating their own canon through “fanfiction”

(fictional stories written by fans of the show, featuring the show’s characters) and art”

(Carlino 14). Other reasons for writing fan fiction is for example when the story does not develop the way the fans would like it to see developed. This could be case of character being killed, or characters being portrayed differently than the fans want them to be portrayed, or it can be caused by the fact that the original story had potential to expand some aspect of it and it did not. Or the show is concluded, and the fans are not

68 able to give up on their favorite characters, so they create their own sequels. Or sometimes the show does not satisfactorily explain what happened in the past, so the fans write prequels to the story. Nowadays it is very simple for the fans to find or share their own fan fiction. The Internet is full of opportunities and places designed with the intention to share these works. The most popular portals for fan fictions are Archive of

Our Own also known as AO3, then there is Fanfiction.net, Tumblr, and Wattpad.

In the past, the fans were dependent on conventions, where they could buy or sell the works of other fans. These conventions are reflection of dedication of the fans of various works. Fans of particular film, series, comic book, actor or entire genre get together at a designated place at a designated time to meet with writers, producers, actors or other fans of their favorite book, film or show. At these events, the fans have opportunity to interact with the producers of the shows, to attend various presentations and panels dedicated to their matter of interest. The idea of a convention of fans of a particular comic book, movie or series originally came from fans. The first Comic Con was organized by a group of fans of science fiction in 1970 in San Diego. Now it is organized by the official organization for Comic-Con, Wondercon, Pro Book Expo and few others (“About Comic-Con International”). Although, there are still new conventions every year and these are results of efforts of many dedicated fans. These conventions help to strengthen the sense of belonging to a community that shares similar interests and it could prove helpful for members of queer community who, through fandoms and conventions, have an opportunity to meet people with similar life experiences.

Fictional realities and the characters that live there can have a real impact on the lives of their audience. Thus, it is important for the creators of TV shows to keep in mind that they have power to impact the lives of their consumers. If they create

69 something unsatisfactory, fandoms are here to show them their discontent or provide alternatives that offer more satisfactory representations of people who are vulnerable to television representation.

Discussion

For a demonstrative presentation of the situation of LGBTQ+ characters on the screen nowadays, the television series The 100, Orphan Black and Orange is the New

Black will be analyzed. All of these are representatives of different sorts of broadcasting

(broadcast, cable and streaming) and each of these television series was broadcasted in the 2013-2017 timespan. Each of these series contain a number of queer characters, who offer different portrayals of members of queer community on the screen.

The 100 is an example of a show from broadcasting media; it is broadcasted on

The CW. The 100 is a dystopian, post-apocalyptic, sci-fi series that presents world almost hundred years after a nuclear apocalypse. The series is loosely based on Kass

Morgan’s book series published in 2013. The show’s premiere was in the 2014 and they are being renewed for a new season every year. Even though the series is broadcasted on a network channel, The 100 provides a liberal and refreshing view at such issues as gender, race or sexuality. An interesting mattering to note about this series is that there is a considerable number of women in powerful positions. The fact that the series takes part in the world where the people from “The Ark” think they are the only survivors of the apocalypse, reduces everything within the story to simple survival. Nobody is questioning the choice of a woman for a Chancellor – that is a leading position among the ones who survived and who have been living for some decades in space in a complex of connected space stations called “The Ark”. Here the survivors from various nations cohabit in the confines of the former national space stations. Throughout the series it is quite obvious that the gender, race or sexuality are not the aspects that define the characters. It is their life decisions that make them who they are, not the aspects of their personalities that they cannot control.

Since its beginnings this series presents us with a tolerance of characters of color or characters of female gender in leading positions. Later, in the second series we were introduced to queer characters. And the way they are introduced is very casual, there is no big coming out scene. In this matter, the show can be viewed as revolutionary, especially for a broadcast channel. Additionally, there is a relative high number of female characters in leading roles which adds to the special and liberal theme of the show.

The coming out of one of the main characters on this show was so subtle and unobtrusive that a viewer could easily fail to notice it. If anyone had a feeling that Lexa

(Alycia Debnam-Carey), the commander of “the Grounders” (the ones who survived on the Earth), seems to be interested in Clarke Griffin (Eliza Taylor), the leader of the hundred delinquents sent from the space to the Earth, they were right. This interest is revealed in a scene that portrays a funeral of Clarke’s former lover Finn. Lexa then admits that she has already buried someone special for her, and that the special person in her life was a girl. However, this was not the morale of the story, the morale was that

“love is weakness” (“Remember Me”) which put focus on the outcome of the murder of

Lexa’s girlfriend rather than on the fact that the person Lexa loved was a girl. As the producers of the show claimed, in the post-apocalyptic world “love is love” regardless of sexual orientation.

Since beginning of the show, Clarke Griffin is presented as a strong and capable leader of the group of teenagers. In her encounters with other delinquents and the grounders, she is very resolute, and it gains her recognition among both groups. This sort of representation of a strong and leading female character caught attention of several magazines; for this sort of representation is unusual for a network channel. After the scene when Clarke kisses Lexa the audience gets an official confirmation on

Twitter, from the producer Jason Rothenberg that Clarke is a bisexual “Clarke is a bisexual character. Remember that in this society, no one’s worried about it. They’re worried about spears to the chest. #The100” (@JRothenbergTV). This earns her a title of the first bisexual lead character on The CW. Rothenberg also stated that “In #The100, they don’t label themselves. If Clarke’s attracted to someone, gender isn’t a factor.

Some things improve post-apocalypse” (@JRothenbergTV). And that is true.

Clarke and Lexa are not the only representatives of queer community on this show. There are also characters of Nathan and Bryan, both from the Ark. These two characters form a gay couple. They were separated for a while by Nathan’s forced expedition to the ground. But they are later reunited and represent a gay interracial couple on the show, which is, in general, quite unusual. For, as Merrifield claims “racial minorities have become underrepresented, particularly within the gay community, as it is presented on television” (22) and these two are a bright exception to this statement.

However, later in the series, the character of Bryan is rather abruptly written off. It seems that Nathan and Bryan broke up because of their disagreement about saving some people or technology necessary for survival. After this scene we do not get to see more of the Bryan’s character, who’s actor got the role of a regular character on a different show. So, Bryan’s character is replaced by Jackson – a doctor of color, thus, the representation of possible gay couple of color is preserved,

Then there is a character of Nyilah (Jessica Harmon), a “grounder” girl living alone in the forest, who seems to be in the series only to reinforce the fact that Clarke really is bisexual. Their first encounter takes a part in the first episode of the third season. Clarke is bereft after Lexa’s betrayal, that eventually led to Clarke’s murdering the community of survivors within a military bunker in favor of her people. Clarke then runs away from her people, her responsibilities and her guilt, and lives in a forest by

73 herself and occasionally sleeps with Niylah, as if to ensure the viewers that Clarke is still indeed bisexual.

The few episodes in which characters of Lexa and Clarke appear offer a well- developed build-up, which was maintaining considerable quality in the matter of depiction of dynamics between these characters, which leads to the characters consummating their love. However, only a few minutes after the consummation of their relationship, Lexa is accidentally killed by a stray bullet that was meant for Clarke who was hated by Lexa’s close advisor, who claimed that love would distract Lexa from the politics (“Thirteen”). Even though, there was a practical reason behind killing off Lexa -

Alycia Debnam-Carey became a regular on Fear the Walking Dead. The killing of a strong female character in a leading role who was openly gay in a show with a promising positive approach and portrayal of LGBTQ+ characters was condemned by their queer audience.

In the first half of 2016, the number of queer characters killed off in their shows was relatively high. The most prominent ones, except for Lexa’s departure from The

100, was also death of Denise from The Walking Dead (shot by a stray arrow) and Root from Person of Interest. All of these characters were shot by stray bullets or an arrow that was not meant for them. However, only Lexa’s death was a source of enormous backlash from the fans of the show. There are various reasons why the character of

Lexa was the only one to cause such an upheaval from the upset fans. One of them could be the fact that the character of Lexa was written well. Lexa was fully-blown, powerful, resilient character who happened to be a lesbian. This gave hope to many queer fans of the show that there is possibility of this sort of positive representation on television. Additionally, the acting of Debnam-Carey made it even more believable and enjoyable for the fans. These things combined made Lexa sort of a rarity among other

74 lesbian characters. Another reason for the outrage of the fans could be the queerbaiting of the producer Jason Rothenberg. His constant assuring of fans that Lexa would survive the series was probably one of the triggers that set the fans reeling after her death. Moreover, the way of killing Lexa off supports the Bury Your gays trope; a strong female warrior becoming a victim of a stray bullet is not the heroic death she deserved, Additionally, she was killed off just before a promise of a fulfilling relationship with Clarke. The relationship, or ship “Clexa” that is worshipped by queer female fans around the world was a good reason for such strong backlash.

This pairing of these strong female characters and their popularity reflects the reality that Cohen describes in his article on identification of the audience with media characters that: “Identification is a process that culminates in a cognitive and emotional state in which the audience member is aware not of him- or herself as an audience member, but rather imagines being one of the characters in the text. ... The audience member then empathizes with the character and adopts the character’s identity” (252).

People identify with these two characters and that is the reason why the forceful removal of Lexa affected very profoundly. The fans after the infamous 307 (as they call the seventh episode of third season, where Lexa died) took off to social media to express their displeasure. The fans of The 100 united over the death of their beloved character and they trended on Twitter with hashtags “#Lexadeservedbetter” or

“#LGBTQ+fansdeservebetter” and together they boycotted the episode following

Lexa’s death. This blackout caused the show worst rating in their history of broadcasting and the producer Jason Rothberg lost a few thousands of followers on

Twitter for his queerbaiting of the fans via this social media platform. Moreover, he invited fans (via Twitter) living in Vancouver to the shoot of the final scene where the fans spotted Debnam-Carey, so they spread the word on the social networks and they

75 wrongly thought that Lexa was going to make it to the season’s finale. The bigger was their outrage when they found out in mid-season that they were “queerbaited” again.

The outrage of the fans was, however, channeled in a positive direction when they organized a fundraiser in Lexa’s name for The Trevor Project, a toll-free hotline that offers counseling for young suicidal queers. In short time they raised more than they expected to. And the fundraise is still opened collecting so far 174, 000 dollars, making the “Leskru” fundraise the “Top Fundraiser” of the project. Apart from the blackout of the following episode the fans also got together in various polls and competitions to show their support for the Clexa couple. Various media outlets noticed the engagement of angered LGBTQ+ fans and they also become invested in this issue, spreading the message of angered fans. Lexa’s death triggered an avalanche of articles that informed the readers of contemporary use of Bury Your Gay trope by the producers of various shows and also about its toxic message to their audience. The fans also took to writing fanfiction in order to provide their favorite couple with the ending they deserve. Some of them organized a convention for female LGBTQ+ fans and their allies. ClexaCon took place for the first time in March 2017, only a year after Lexa’s death, featuring considerable number of writers, producers and actresses that are involved in production or depiction of queer characters on television. This event is supposed to connect producers, filmmakers and actors with their fans. The aim of this event is also to empower the writers and producers in their creation of better, more accurate and more positive portrayals of queer characters. The event was successful and popular among the fans and it took part again in April of this year. These instances show that fans are able to channel their negative experiences of inadequate LGBTQ+ representation on television into something positive and helpful for the whole

76 community. Although, the stain of Lexa’s untimely death in this show will probably never fade.

Some of the other shows that feature queer characters seem to learn from The

100’s mistake. For example, on Wynnona Earp – a show broadcasted on cable channel

SyFy - they also had a character of a lesbian police officer Nicole Haught (Katherine

Barrell) shot by accident, but eventually, she survived. The character of Sara Lance

(Caity Lotz) on the show The Arrow, broadcasted by The CW shared the same fate of being shot by arrows. She was, however, later resurrected. In the case of The 100, broadcast television offered their audience an unconventional show for the broadcasting platform of television. The major representation of powerful female characters as well as variety of queer characters on this show are something uncharacteristic for broadcasting television and it indicates a positive progress in portrayal of marginalized groups on this medium. Although, there is still space for improvement of these portrayals in the matter of quality and it is visible that the producers still need to be more careful with avoiding some harmful tropes and stereotypes.

The second show that will be analyzed here is Orphan Black – a science-fiction show broadcasted on a cable television channel BBC America. Orphan Black is a

Canadian show that found its way to American audience via the cable television station

BBC America. This series premiered in 2013 on Canadian Space and American BBC

America. The story mostly deals with human cloning, its morality and consequences, as well as with issues of personal identity. This show presents a few queer characters in their five-seasons-long storyline. One of them is Felix (Jordan Gavaris), a foster brother of the main clone character – Sarah (Tatiana Maslany). Even though, Felix is depicted as a flamboyant gay character, deep inside he is more responsible and stable character than his straight, possibly bisexual sister. Felix’s homosexuality is treated with great

77 nonchalance, it is not something he hides, he seems to be a proud member of gay community and none of the other characters ever question that. There is almost palpable feeling of acceptance that surrounds Felix, which makes this show popular among members of queer audience. Another popular queer character who is a regular on this show is Sarah’s clone Cosima Niehaus (Tatiana Maslany), who is an extremely smart evolutionary biologist, and one of the most laid-back and witty characters of the show.

In the second episode of the second season she responds to some other clone’s question if she is gay with “My sexuality is not the most interesting thing about me” (“Governed by a Sound Reason and True Religion”). And throughout the series we can observe that this statement is true, sexuality is not the thing that defines Cosima’s smartness, compassion and capability to love. She is just one of the clones who happens to be a lesbian. And that is something that resonates well with the show’s fans. Cosima’s bisexual girlfriend dr. Delphine Cormier (Evelyne Brochu) who at the beginning of the show seems to be Cosima’s straight monitor, later admits that “... I’ve never thought about bisexuality, I mean, for myself, you know... But as a scientist I know that sexuality is a spectrum, but social biases codify sexual attraction, contrary to the biological facts...” (“Entangled Bank”). Thus, she gives her emotions free course and let herself fall in love with Cosima, showing us again that sexuality is not something that fundamentally defines the characters of this show. Although, later in the final episode of the season two, Delphine is killed although, in the end the producers seemed to be intimidated by a very negative reaction of their audience and the actress eventually had time to continue portraying the character, so they brought the character back. This may be caused by the fact that Farrell implies in her thesis on “Social Change and Gay TV

Industry,” “These days, programmers willing to take on gay themes that might be offensive to more conservative viewers are unlikely to wish to also alienate more liberal

78 viewers by depicting gay people in a manner that will raise the ire of the gay and gay- friendly population (8). And this seems to be an example of both of these series, when the producers thought twice before making the same mistake as the producers of The

100 made.

Although, the show decides to dispose of another lesbian character who was

Cosima’s girlfriend during the time Cosima and Delphine were broken up. Shay,

Cosima’s girlfriend at the time, appears only in the second half of the third season. And as soon as Delphine reappears in the last episode of the season, Shay disappears from the narrative completely and we never see her in season four or five. Although, we do not even see the character of Delphine in the season four either, in the last episode of the fourth season she is miraculously resurrected. and the character of Shay can be forgotten. Even though, Shay was written off the show, which displeased some of the fans, Delphine made an appearance and thus did not fall victim to the Bury Your Gays

Trope. This fact shows that the producers were able to reflect on the reaction of their fans and were able to keep the bisexual character on the show.

There is also Anthony, or Tony (Tatiana Maslany), a transgender clone character who is a matter of another controversy. Tony appeared on the show only in the eighth episode of the second season and the fans of the show did not quite appreciate the portrayal of Tony. As Kyle said in his article on Hypable the character of Tony looks fake, sloppy, over-sexualized and not quite accurate. This only supports the anti-trans* opinions and the trans* phobia of straight audience. So, this particular portrayal was not one of the show’s best.

All in all, the Orphan Black presents an interesting story that deals with human cloning, but it also deals with an issue of sexuality and representation of queer characters in a very liberal way. The LGBTQ+ representation on television is a slow

79 process and thus it is clear that sometimes the producers fail to recognize that they are exposing the characters to stereotypes or harmful tropes. As an outlet for possible dissatisfaction or to share their opinion of the show, there is a fandom called “Clone

Club.” It is a uniting platform on social networks that helps its members to gain some feeling of belonging.

The last show that will be analyzed in this chapter is Orange is the New Black which represents the streaming media. Orange is the New Black (OITNB) is comedy- drama series based on a memoir of Piper Kerman Orange is the New Black: My Year in a Woman’s Prison published in 2010. The series has premiered in 2013 on Netflix. As it was stated above, the streaming media are the most liberal with their depiction of queer characters and that is a case of Netflix and its original show. As McDaniel implies

“Orange is the New Black, as a whole, is a series that contains a lot of progressive elements. It unabashedly addresses issues of race, gender, and even sexuality to some degree, all in a manner that encourages us to laugh, to cry, and most importantly to identify with people who are different than we are” (61). Throughout series we meet with a great number of female characters since the series takes a part in female prison, however these characters are fully-fleshed and each of them is portrayed as a unique individual. This series offers space for all sorts of marginalized communities such as women, people of color, members of queer community and members of various religious groups. There is an impressive number of regular characters from these groups.

The most prominent character of this series is probably Piper Chapman (Taylor

Schilling), a white woman in her thirties sentenced to fifteen months in minimum- security woman’s prison for cooperation with a drug smuggler, her ex-girlfriend Alex

Vause (Laura Prepon). Much of the series is focused on these two characters and the

80 dynamic between them, although there is also a character of Piper’s fiancé Larry, which creates a love triangle. At the beginning when the fact that Piper had a girlfriend in the past emerges, she dismisses it as a “lost soul, post-college adventure phase”, an explanation that should appease Larry (“I Wasn’t Ready”). In many scenes of the series it is clearly difficult for Piper to admit to herself and to people around her that she is a bisexual. As McDaniel in her thesis states, Orange is the New Black does not stereotype

Piper’s bisexuality, it simply fails to recognize it as a legitimate orientation (44).

McDaniel also suggests that this does not only concern Piper’s parents who are the most resistant towards Piper’s fluid sexual orientation (52), but also her girlfriend Alex who calls her a “straight girl” in episode “Tall Men with Feelings”, saying: “Rule number one: don’t ever fall in love with a straight girl,” after Piper breaks up with her again.

Thus, implying that Piper is actually straight and only experimenting with women, which sends a negative message about bisexual people; it denies bisexuality the status of legitimate sexual orientation. McDaniel, also claims that “In many cases, bi-erasure and related biphobia can have severe negative consequences for individuals who identify as bisexual (48). Alex is not the only character on the show that has a problem to accept the fact that Piper is neither straight nor homosexual. Piper’s parents blame

Alex for turning their daughter gay and getting her into trouble with the law. Moreover,

McDaniel notes that throughout the series there is a recurring pattern that suggests that every time Piper does something related to her (bi)sexuality she is immediately punished (55). This sort of narrative can send a negative message to bisexual members of the audience.

There is a considerable number of queer characters, apart from Piper and Alex.

There is a lesbian character of Nicky (Natasha Lyonne), former drug addict, that has a hopeless and unrequited crush on her straight friend, which can remind us of the

81 stereotype of a sad lesbian. Nicky is depicted as an over-sexualized character, full of innuendos and other sex-related comments, mostly aimed at her crush. In Nicky’s story we can again observe the trope of sad lesbian, whose love remains unrequited and for whom a happy ending seems not realistic.

Then there is a Patricia (Madeline Brewer), or Tricia as her friends call her, an addict who is dating another inmate. Though, character of Tricia becomes a victim of a

Bury Your Gays trope, for she dies of overdose in the tenth episode of the first season.

Carrie “Big Boo” Black (Lea DeLaria) is a representative of a butch lesbian in

Litchfield Penitentiary. Big Boo is also presented as over-sexualized lesbian character, with violent tendencies. We can observe, her violent attitude in a few situations. The most prominent of them is her disproportionate attack against a young guy who offended her (“Finger in the Dyke”).

There is also a transgender character of color, Sophia Burset, portrayed by a transgender female of color (Laverne Cox). Which makes her according to some critics the first transgender character of color on the screen. Through Sophia’s character, the audience learns about transphobia, the conditions in federal prisons which are unbearable for transgendered persons that need their hormonal medication. However,

Orange is the New Black does justice to a portrayal of a transgender character, for they present Sophia without any sort of stereotype attached to her character. Sophia is depicted as a very upbeat and peaceful character, maybe the only slightly stereotypical aspect of her character could be considered the fact that she is a hairdresser in the prison’s hairdressing salon.

Poussey Washington (Samira Wiley) is the most famous lesbian character of color on the series. However, her fame was achieved through her violent death in the end of the fourth season, when she was accidentally suffocated by a correctional officer

82 in a cafeteria riot. Poussey’s death sparked the outrage not only among her fellow inmates, but also among the fans of OITNB. Her death is yet another case of Bury Your

Gays trope. Her death was accidental, not called for and it followed a positive scene, in which Poussey dreamed about her future with her new girlfriend outside of the prison.

Poussey’s death was a trigger that started the riot that was depicted throughout all of the next season, which is based on the issue of improvement of treatment of women in this correctional facility.

Another character is Brook Soso (Kimiko Glenn), part Scottish and part

Japanese. She is in Litchfield for a crime related to her political activism. She is not liked by anyone, everyone considers her to be too annoying. Except later, Poussey and

Brook get involved. Poussey was the only one to stood up for Brook. Even when they were dating, Brook refused to label herself as bisexual, which is the same case as Piper.

Brook only claims that she is “attracted to people, not genders” (“Power Suit”). This inability of the series producers to acknowledge the existence of bisexuality is something that many critics disapprove. Moreover, after Poussey’s death Brook falls into severe depression, that may put her into the category of unhappy bisexual, unable to find her love and happy ending.

A character of Stella Carlin (Ruby Rose) appears on the series only for a few episodes. Stella is a representation of a slightly over-sexualized lesbian, which gets to be written off after she ceases to be Piper’s temporary person of interest.

Sylvia (Ashleigh Sumner) is another character that appears only shortly in one episode of the first season. She is Alex’s girlfriend at the time and when she discovers

Alex cheating on her with Piper, she starts planning a revenge. There are only two or three scenes with Sylvia, and the only impression of her we get is the one of jealous and vengeful lesbian.

As McDaniel observes, “Orange is the New Black presents nearly wholesale acceptance of the sexual orientation of most of the characters, provided they are clearly labeled as either homosexual or heterosexual” (50). She is mostly referring to the mishandling of bisexual characters on this show. Although, Chavez objects that “The representation of women in Orange Is the New Black reflects the values and ideologies of the culture in which the television series was created. Race, gender, and sexuality are each represented within the series in different ways” (58). Nevertheless, he continues implying that even though women of minority groups receive visibility on this show, their portrayal is not always positive (58). In her statement McDaniel says that

“Presence, however, is not enough. It is also necessary to strive for accurate representation, or we merely encounter stereotypical portrayals with the potential to do more harm than good. Narratives have power and are clearly influential over time, particularly when given the visibility provided by the medium of mainstream television”

(20). This notion of visibility at the expense of quality of the portrayal is apparent in many of contemporary television series.

In this chapter I analyzed three television shows that are representatives of each form of broadcasting – broadcast, cable and streaming television. Each of these series are or were broadcasted in the 2013-2017 timespan, offering us examples of very contemporary contents. As far as visibility of queer characters is concerned the broadcast and cable television shows offer a similar amount of LGBTQ+ characters in their narratives, making the streaming television a medium with biggest number of queer representation of them all.

Portrayals of members of minority groups are on The 100 handled surprisingly well when we take in to consideration that broadcasting television is the least inclusive

84 and the least liberal in the matter of portrayal of characters from marginalized groups.

The show is based on the strong female characters that are in positions of power, and on their liberal politics toward portrayal of sexual orientation, which is treated as something that is not the only defining trait of a character. The number of queer characters on this show is relatively high and their depiction is relatively plausible, however, The 100 was not able to avoid some tropes and stereotypes. One of the stereotypes was writing off a queer character, who was, however, later replaced by another queer character. But more disturbing was the use of Bury Your Gays trope, which in the case of the character of Lexa had enormous impact on the members of the queer fandom of this show.

In the Orphan Black, a show representing the cable television, there is also number of LGBTQ+ characters whose queerness does not seem to occur to only increase the view ratings of the show. Besides the fact that this show presents a cast with majority of female characters, the queerness on Orphan Black is presented as something that is not the only defining aspect of a character. The queer characters on this show just happen to be queer, it is one of the attributes that complete the personality of that character. Although, even this show was unable to avoid writing off a queer character and the writers also employed some stereotypical notions when they depicted a transgender character on the show. And the most dangerous for the show was the moment when they almost employed the trope Bury Your Gays, however, the backlash from the audience eventually prevented the character from dying.

Netflix’s original show Orange is the New Black, is a representative of streaming television’s show, and employs the biggest and the most diverse group of

LGBTQ+ characters of them all. The fact that this series broadcasted by streaming, gave the writers freedom with their portrayals of queer characters. Although, the quantity of

85 queer characters does not automatically guarantee the quality of their portrayal, and despite the fact that most of the characters on this show is portrayed very realistically, some of them fall victims to stereotyping or to tropes. These are present on this show as well, and probably the most problematic of them was an example of Bury Your Gays trope in the case of Poussey – a lesbian character of color. Similarly as Lexa, in the case of The 100, Poussey’s death caused an uproar among the fans of the show as well as producers and it reflected the sentiment that this way of treatment of a queer character is not appropriate for this age.

Nevertheless, each of these three series present relationships between their queer characters as having great dynamic, not only in the matter of romantic involvement but also in the matter of intellectual and general human interactions. So, we can claim that the portrayals of LGBTQ+ characters here are fully blown and plausible, which represents a positive trend in portrayals of queer characters. Although, even this contemporary and relatively good portrayals of LGBTQ+ characters can sometimes become victims of stereotyping or tropes. Each of these series has their own experience with use of stereotypes and tropes, especially Bury Your Gays trope. In two of these series queer characters died, affirming the trope’s existence even in this decade.

However, talking generally about television shows that contain dead queer character, in many cases it is possible to argue that the characters are not killed off only because of their orientation. Nevertheless, the members of queer audience feel each of the queer characters’ death very profoundly, no matter of writer’s intentions behind the death of their favorite character. The actions that the enraged fans undertake after such a major mishandling of their favorite character point out to the writers and producers of these shows and they remind them of their power and responsibility towards their fans/consumers.

Conclusion

This thesis presents an analysis of negative portrayal and misrepresentation of

LGBTQ+ characters on television. The tropes and stereotypes employed to depict queer characters have plagued the depiction of members of queer minority for decades.

We observed the importance of identification of the members of the audience with characters that are portrayed on the screen. Television is the sort of media that is widespread in the U.S. and there is a considerable number of people that are exposed to this medium on a daily basis. Thus, television has influence on shaping people’s attitudes, perception of the world and their lives as well. Negative way of portrayal of queer characters in fictional world can have an impact on actual lives of members of the queer community. The way that characters are portrayed on television often depends on the type of broadcasting of a particular television channel. Channels that broadcast via broadcast television are noticeably more conservative about the portrayal of queer characters. The reason for this attitude towards controversial issues is mostly the fact that this sort of television is financed by advertising groups and they are dependent on the viewing ratings. Thus, they cannot afford to offend the more conservative audience and lose the ratings and their sponsors. The cable television, which is paid by their consumers can afford to offer a more liberal depiction of marginalized groups. The streaming television is the most liberal of them all. Internet television is also paid directly by their viewers and they can offer the most liberal, shocking and controversial content, because it only attracts their consumers. They are able to portray very realistic depiction of various minority groups. Even though, the streaming television increases visibility of queer minority, there are still some stereotypes, tropes and misconceptions about this minority presented in this visual medium.

Throughout the history of representation of queer characters in movies or on television, negative portrayals and stereotypes have accompanied queer characters on television. The use of stereotypes when depicting a queer character appeared together with the first queer character on the screen. It was a common way of portrayal of

LGBTQ+ characters in movies, and later when television and television series were introduced, the trend of negative portrayal of queer characters continued. Stereotypes oversimplify and generalize issues that queer characters face in their lives. These stereotypes practically obliterate diversity within this minority group. Stereotyping of

LGBTQ+ characters shows them often in a negative light, thus the straight audience’s opinion towards the members of this marginalized group is negatively influenced and they get wrong and generalized ideas about members of LGBTQ+ community. The use of tropes and stereotypes in the process of portraying a queer character continues to be visible on television.

As we observed in the fourth chapter, the visibility of queer character on television is much higher in comparison to their visibility in the past. Gay and Lesbian

Alliance Against Defamation follows the television industry and the way they portray the members of marginalized groups on television. Based on their statistics, figures that reflect on the visibility of LGBTQ+ characters on television were created and offer a visual aspect to the analysis of the visibility of representation. GLAAD also writes annual reports on representation of characters from marginalized social groups.

According to GLAAD and various scholars, higher visibility does not automatically mean more plausible portrayal. Although, in this chapter we can observe that producers and writers are nowadays more careful with presentation of queer characters on the screen, there are still instances when the harmful trope or negative stereotype appears.

The consequences of negative portrayals of queer characters can have serious ramifications for the members of queer audience. Not only these misrepresentations support the homophobic attitudes of straight audience, they can also suggest to their queer audience that they are evil, less worthy and they do not deserve happy ending.

However, nowadays the audience is not only a passive consumer. Thanks to the

Internet, the viewers of television were given space and voice to express their discontent. Social media help the fans of particular shows to get together, to discuss and share their ideas about their favorite shows and characters. They are also able to interact with the writers and producers who are responsible for creation of the characters. Thus, in present, the audience has an opportunity to offer their feedback to the people who are in charge of creation of queer characters and these creators can reflect up on these reactions of the fans.

In the sixth chapter we discussed the representations of queer characters on three contemporary television shows. The broadcast television is represented by The CW’s

The 100, cable television is represented by BBC America’s Orphan Black and the streaming television is represented by Netflix’s Orange is the New Black. All of these series portray a number of queer characters whom we discussed in detail. Each of these shows is in fact very liberal and actual in their depiction of these characters. However, even these very contemporary and tolerant shows employ some stereotypes, misrepresentation and harmful tropes. The most prominent example of use of a harmful trope was Lexa’s accidental death by a stray bullet, which caused enormous uproar among the fans of The 100. Her death triggered a formation of fan-based movement that started to raise awareness of Bury Your Gays trope. These people later organized fundraising campaign on The Trevor Project’s website in Lexa’s name and money collected by fans were used for the suicide prevention for young queers. Fans also

89 organized ClexaCon, a convention dedicated to queer characters on various television shows. And there is also considerable collection of fan fiction on the Internet. So, the fans found their ways to cope with their rage, however, it could be all avoided have the producers think of the possible consequences before employing this harmful trope.

All in all, in this thesis we observed historical development of visibility and the way of portrayal of queer characters on the screen. In contrast to the past, visibility of

LGBTQ+ characters is on rise, however, the quality of these depictions still need some improvement in order to present more accurate depictions of these characters.

Bibliography

@JRothenbergTV “Clarke is a bisexual character. Remember that in this society, no

one’s worried about it. They’re worried about spears to the chest. #The100.”

Twitter, 3:40 a.m. - 26 Feb 2015,

https://twitter.com/JRothenbergTV/status/570775409643532288.

@JRothenbergTV. “In #The100, they don’t label themselves. If Clarke’s attracted to

someone, gender isn’t a factor. Some things improve post-apocalypse.” Twitter,

3:40 a.m. - 26 Feb 2015,

https://twitter.com/JRothenbergTV/status/570775337463738368

“About Comic-Con International.” Comic-Con.org, 2018, https://www.comic-

con.org/about. Accessed 11 Apr.2018.

“Americans Who Identify as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transgender in 2012-2016.”

Statista.com, 2018. https://www.statista.com/statistics/719674/american-adults-

who-identify-as-homosexual-bisexual-or-transgender/. Accessed 18 Mar. 2018.

“Average Daily TV Viewing Time Per Person in Selected Countries World Wide in

2016.” Statista.com, 2018. https://www.statista.com/statistics/276748/average-

daily-tv-viewing-time-per-person-in-selected-countries/. Accessed 18 Mar.

2018.

Bauer, Edgar J. “Third Sex.” glbtq, Inc. 2004.

http://www.glbtqarchive.com/ssh/third_sex_S.pdf. Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

Bernard, Marie Lyn. “Lesbian Kisses On American TV: The Definitive History of

Everybody Freaking Out Over Nothing.” Autostraddle. 26 Oct. 2015.

https://www.autostraddle.com/lesbian-kisses-on-american-television-the-

definitive-history-198308/. Accessed 3 Mar. 2018

Bynum, Sarah Shun-Lien. “Tell Me My Name.” Ploughshares, vol. 39, no. 2, 2013, pp.

8-21. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23646002. Accessed 20 Jan. 2017.

Campisi, Caitlin. Homonationalism on TV?: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Queer and

Trans* Youth Representation on Mainstream Teen Television Shows. 2013. U of

Ottawa, MA Thesis. Library and Archives Canada,

https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/24263. Accessed 13 Feb. 2018.

Cardwell, Sarah. “The Representation of Youth and the Twenty-Something Serial”, The

Contemporary Television Series, edited by Michael Hammond and Lucy

Mazdon, Edinburgh UP, 2005, pp. 123-138.

Carlino, Amanda M. A Different Sort of Normal: Critical Analysis of Five Lesbian

Characters’ Coming-out Narratives on Contemporary Television Shows. 2014.

The Rochester Institute of Technology. MSc Thesis. ProQuest, 1554294.

Accessed 13 Feb. 2018.

Chavez, Michael. Representing Us All? Race, Gender, and Sexuality in ‘Orange Is the

New Black’. 2015. Minnesota State U. Master Thesis. ProQuest, 1594489.

Accessed 13 Feb. 2018.

Cohen, Johnatan. “Defining Identification: A Theoretical Look at the Identification of

Audiences With Media Characters.” Mass Communication & Society, vol. 4, no.

3, 2001, pp. 245-264. Taylor & Francis Online,

https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01. Accessed 27 Feb. 2018.

Corfield, James. Network vs. Netflix: A Comparative Content Analysis of Demographics

Across Prime-Time Television and Netflix Original Programming. 2017. U of

South Carolina. MA Thesis. ProQuest, 10259826. Accessed 13 Feb. 2018.

Dhaenens, Frederik, Sofie Van Bauwel and Daniel Biltereyst. “Slashing the Fiction of

Queer Theory: Slash Fiction, Queer Reading, and Transgressing the Boundaries

of Screen Studies, Representations, and Audiences”. Journal of Communication

Inquiry, vol. 32 no. 4, 2008, pp. 335-47. SAGE Journals online,

https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859908321508. Accessed 23 Mar. 2017.

Doherty, Thomas. “Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in

American Cinema, 1930-1934”. The New York Times. 1999. Columbia UP.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/doherty-hollywood.html. Accessed 3

Mar. 2018.

Elias, Liora P. Post-Gay Television: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Marriage, and Bullying

On and Off Screen. 2015. U of Minnesota. Dissertation. ProQuest,

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1724671200?accountid=16531. Accessed

13 Feb. 2018.

“Entangled Bank.” Orphan Black. Written by Karen Walton, directed by Ken Girotti.

18 May 2013.

Evans, Victor. Curved TV: The Impact of Televisual Images on Gay Youth. 2006. Union

Institute & U Cincinnati. Dissertation. ProQuest, 3244184. Accessed 13 Feb.

2018.

“Fandom.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Mar. 2018. Merriam-Webster.com

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fandom. Accessed 10 Apr. 2018

“Fan Fiction.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Apr. 2018. Merriam-Webster.com

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fan%20fiction. Accessed 10 Apr.

2018

Farrell, Kathleen P. Backstage Politics: Social Change and the “Gay TV” Industry.

2008. Syracuse U. Dissertation. ProQuest,

https://search.proquest.com/docview/304381546?accountid=16531. Accessed 13

Feb. 2018.

Finch, Mark. “Film.” glbtq, Inc. 2002. http://www.glbtqarchive.com/arts/film_A.pdf.

Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

“Finger in the Dyke.” Orange is the New Black. Written by Lauren Morelli, directed by

Constantine Markis. Netflix. 11 June 2015.

Framke, Caroline. “Queer Women Have Been Killed on Television for Decades. Now

The 100’s Fans Are Fighting Back.” Vox. 25 Mar. 2016.

https://www.vox.com/2016/3/25/11302564/lesbian-deaths-television-trope.

Accessed 1 Apr. 2018.

Freymiller, Lyn J. “They Tell Us Who We Are, They Tell Us Who We Aren’t”: Gay

Identity on Television and Off. 2006. The Pennsylvania U. Dissertation.

ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/docview/305261995?accountid=16531.

Accessed 13 Feb. 2018.

Fox, David J., and Donna Rosenthal. “Gays Bashing ‘Basic Instinct’.” Los Angeles

Times, 29 Apr. 1991.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060727164513/http://www.toobeautiful.org/lat04

29.html. Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

Gabler, Neal. “Cable vs. Broadcast: TV’s Different Mindsets.” Los Angeles Times, 4

Apr. 2010. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/04/entertainment/la-ca-cable-

cosmology4-2010apr04. Accessed 21 Mar. 2018.

Gemignani, Ben. “TVTropes.org: Harnessing the might of the people to analyze

fiction.” The Current Online. 23 Feb.2009.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090802130143/http://media.www.thecurrentonlin

e.com/media/storage/paper304/news/2009/02/23/ArtsAndEntertainment/Tvtrope

s.org.Harnessing.The.Might.Of.The.People.To.Analyze.Fiction-3643420.shtml.

Accessed 31 Mar. 2018.

Gianoulis, Tina. “American TV, Soap Operas.” glbtq, Inc. 2002.

http://www.glbtqarchive.com/arts/am_tv_soaps_A.pdf

GLAAD. Media Reference Guide. 8th ed., Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation,

Inc. 2010. Accessed 10 Mar. 2017.

GLAAD. “Where We Are On TV 2012-2013”. Glaad.org. 5 Oct 2012. Accessed 3 Mar.

2018.

GLAAD. “Where We Are On TV 2014-2015”. Glaad.org. 1 Oct. 2014. Accessed 3

Mar. 2018.

GLAAD. “Where We Are On TV 2015-2016”. Glaad.org. 27 Oct. 2015. Accessed 3

Mar. 2018.

GLAAD. “Where We Are On TV 2016-2017”. Glaad.org. 3 Nov. 2016. Accessed 23

Mar. 2017.

GLAAD. “Where We Are On TV 2017-2018”. Glaad.org. 9 Nov. 2017. Accessed 3

Mar. 2018.

“Governed by a Sound Reason and True Religion.” Orphan Black. Written by Karen

Walton and Graeme Manson, directed by John Fawcett. BBC America. 26 Apr.

2014.

Grant, M. Shane. Under the Rainbow: Post-Closet Gay Male Representation in

American Theatre and Television. 2010, The Florida State U. Dissertation.

ProQuest,

https://search.proquest.com/openview/141dd42d36f6eed00a61c063883a782e/1?

pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y. Accessed 13 Feb. 2018.

Gray, Johnatan. Television Entertainment, Routledge, 2008.

Hammack, Phillip L., and Bertram J. Cohler. The Story of Sexual Identity: Narrative

Perspectives on the Gay and Lesbian Life Course. Oxford UP, 2009.

Hammond, Michael. “Introduction: The Series / Serial Form”, The Contemporary

Television Series, edited by Michael Hammond and Lucy Mazdon, Edinburgh

UP, 2005, pp.75-82.

Hart, Kylo-Patrick R. “Representing Gay Men on American Television.” The Journal of

Men’s Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, 2000, pp. 59-79. SAGE Journals,

https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.0901.59. Accessed 27 Feb. 2018.

Hart, Kylo-Patrick R. “We're Here, We're Queer—and We're Better Than You: The

Representational Superiority of Gay Men to Heterosexuals on ‘Queer Eye for the

Straight Guy’.” The Journal of Men’s Studies, vol. 12, no. 3, 2004, pp. 241-253.

SAGE Journals, https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1203.241. Accessed 27 Feb. 2018.

Himberg, Julia B. Producing Lesbianism: Television, Niche Marketing, and Sexuality in

21st Century. 2010. U of Southern California. Dissertation. ProQuest, 3418062.

Accessed 13 Feb. 2018.

Hopkinson, Nalo. “Maybe They're Phasing Us In: Re-mapping Fantasy Tropes in the

Face of Gender, Race, and Sexuality.” Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, vol.

18, no. 1, 2007, pp. 99-107. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24351029.

Accessed 13 Feb. 2018.

Houseman, Jennifer C. The Psychosocial Impact of Television on Queer Women. 2010.

Alliant International U. Clinical Dissertation. ProQuest, 3417162. Accessed 13

Feb. 2018.

“Internet Usage in the United States – Statistics & Facts.” Statista.com, 2018.

https://www.statista.com/topics/2237/internet-usage-in-the-united-states/.

Accessed 3 Apr. 2018.

“I Wasn’t Ready.” Orange is the New Black. Written by Liz Friedman and Jenji Kohan,

directed by Michael Trim. Netflix. 11 July 2013.

Kachgal, Tara Marie. Gay Male and Lesbian Youth in the American (TV) Family:

Understanding Their Representation on U.S. Television in the Early 2000s.

2008. U of North Carolina. Dissertation. ProQuest, 3315646. Accessed 13 Feb.

2018.

Kohan, Jenji, creator. Orange is the New Black. Lionsgate Television, 2013.

Kyle, Tariq. “Orphan Black and Trans Representation: Can They Fix Tony Sawicki?”

Hypable, 3 May 2016, https://www.hypable.com/orphan-black-trans-

representation/. Accessed 3 Apr. 2018.

Tass, Gina. “Leskru.” The Trevor Project. 2016.

https://give.thetrevorproject.org/fundraiser/625415. Accessed 10 Apr. 2018.

Manson, Graeme and John Fawcett, creators. Orphan Black. Temple Street Production,

2013.

McCallum, Claire and Suzanne McLaren. “Sense of Belonging and Depressive

Symptoms Among GLB Adolescents.” Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 58, no. 1,

Jan. 2011, pp. 83-96. Taylor and Francis Online.

DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2011.533629. Accessed 9 Apr. 2018.

McDaniel, Ashley N. In Search of an AliBi: Narratives of Bisexuality in Contemporary

American Television. 2016. Wake Forest U. Master Thesis. ProQuest,

10116386.

https://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/bitstream/handle/10339/59289/McDaniel_wfu_02

48M_10879.pdf. Accessed 13 Feb. 2018.

Merrifield, Ryan Lewis. Developing the Harmless Homo: Representations of Gay Men

on U.S. Television. 2016. U of Colorado. Thesis. ProQuest, 10250197. Accessed

13 Feb. 2018.

Metz, Christian. “From The Imaginary Signifier.” Film Theory and Criticism:

Introductory Readings, 3rd ed., Eds. Gerald Mast and Marshall Cohen. Oxford

UP. 1985, pp. 782-802.

Mitchel, Bea. “Who Was the First Openly Gay Character on TV?” PinkNews. 28 July

2017. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/07/28/first-gay-LGBTQ+-character-tv-

show/. Accessed 14 Feb. 2018.

Moore, Candace Irene. LWords: TV’s New Queer Lexicon. 2010. U of California.

Dissertation. ProQuest, 3462857. Accessed 13 Feb. 2018.

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Film Theory and Criticism :

Introductory Readings. Eds. Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen. Oxford UP, 1999,

pp. 833-44.

Murphy, Brittany. Critical Media Literacy: Televisual Representation of

Underrepresented Groups. 2017. Dartmouth College. Thesis. ProQuest,

10283373. Accessed 13 Feb. 2018.

Pearson, Roberta. “The Writer / Producer in American Television”, The Contemporary

Television Series, edited by Michael Hammond and Lucy Mazdon, Edinburgh

UP, 2005, pp. 11-26.

“Power Suit.” Orange is the New Black. Written by Sara Hess, directed by Constantine

Makris. Netflix. 17 June 2016.

“Preventing Suicide: Facts About Suicide.” TheTrevorProject.org, 2017.

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/preventing-suicide/facts-about-

suicide/#sm.0002g1g1kkmrd00118i2hd3d82r7j. Accessed 8 Apr. 2018.

“Queerbaiting.” Urban Dictionary, 2016. UrbanDictionary.com

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=queer%20baiting. Accessed

31 Mar. 2018.

“Remember Me.” The 100. Written by Dorothy Fortenberry, directed by Omar Madha.

The CW. 21 Jan. 2015.

Romano, Aja. “Canon, fanon, shipping and more: a glossary of the tricky terminology

that makes up fan culture.” Vox. 7 Jun 2016.

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/7/11858680/fandom-glossary-fanfiction-explained.

Accessed 30 Mar. 2018.

Rothenberg, Jason, creator. The 100. Alloy Entertainment and Warner Bros. Television,

2014.

Russo, Vito. Celluloid Closet. 2nd ed., Harper and Row Publishers, 1987.

Searcy, David. Does Visibility Actually Help? : Televised Popular Culture and Support

for LGBTQ+ Rights. 2011. Oklahoma State U. Thesis. ProQuest, 1495099.

Accessed 13 Feb. 2018.

“SFS Symposium: Sexuality in Science Fiction”. Science Fiction Studies, vol. 36, no. 3,

2009, pp. 385-403. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40649545. Accessed 20

Jan. 2017.

Shugart, Helene A., “Reinventing Privilege: The New (Gay) Man in Contemporary

Popular Media”. Critical Studies in Media Communication. vol. 20, no. 1, 2003,

pp. 67–91. ResearchGate. DOI: 10.1080/0739318032000067056. Accessed 23

Mar. 2017.

Smith, Greg. “Serial Narrative and Guest Stars: Ally McBeal’s Eccentrics. The

Contemporary Television Series, edited by Michael Hammond and Lucy

Mazdon, Edinburgh UP, 2005, pp. 103-122.

“Stereotype.” English Oxford Living Dictionaries, 2018, Oxford.Dictionaries.com.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stereotype. Accessed 25 Mar. 2018.

Stuart, David. “Chemsex Support Definition”, ChemsexSupport.com.

http://www.chemsexsupport.com/chemsex-definition. Accessed Mar. 30 2018.

“Tall Men with Feelings.” Orange is the New Black. Written by Lauren Morelli,

directed by Constantine Markis. 11 July 2013.

“Thirteen.” The 100. Written by Javier Grillo-Marxuach, directed by Dean White. The

CW. 03 Mar. 2016.

Tipton, Nathan. “American Television, Drama.” glbtq, Inc. 2002.

http://www.glbtqarchive.com/arts/am_tv_drama_A.pdf. Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

Tipton, Nathan. “American Television, Sitcoms.” glbtq, Inc. 2002.

http://www.glbtqarchive.com/arts/am_tv_sitcoms_A.pdf. Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

Tobiasz, Ryan M. Gay Male Perceptions of Gay Male Portrayals on Primetime

Television. 2006. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. Dissertation.

ProQuest, 3259778. Accessed 13 Feb. 2018.

“Trope.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2018, Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/trope. Accessed 25 Mar. 2018.

Tropiano, Stephen. The Prime Time Closet: A History of Gays and Lesbians on TV.

Applause Theatre & Cinema Books, 2002.

Tulloch, John and Henry Jenkins. Science Fiction Audiences. Routledge, 1995.

Vaughn, Suzi. The Fosters: Same-sex Couple Representation on Television. 2017.

Middle Tennessee State U. Thesis. ProQuest, 10603871. Accessed 13 Feb.

2018.

Whitford, Leslie. "TV Tropes." Reference Reviews, vol. 29, no. 1, 2015, pp. 35-36.

ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/docview/1661322519?accountid=16531.

Accessed 13 Feb. 2018.

100

English Resume

The aim of this thesis is to observe depiction of LGBTQ+ characters on the screen throughout the history and compare these portrayal with the contemporary ones.

Negative representation of queer characters used to be the most popular way of portraying them in movies or on television. In the thesis we study the influence of television on its audience, and how the negative portrayal impacts the perception of members of queer minority. Stereotypes and harmful tropes were and still are accompanying depictions of queer characters and television industry only follows the negative trend that movie industry set up in the past. Explaining what tropes and stereotypes are, and which of these are the most popular, helps us to notice that the stereotypes and tropes are still employed in contemporary portrayal of queer characters.

The thesis is also looking at visibility of LGBTQ+ characters in the years of 2013 –

2017, noticing the steady rise in the numbers of queer portrayals in broadcast, cable and streaming television. In the discussion we analyze three contemporary television series and their portrayal of LGBTQ+ characters, coming to a conclusion that the present situation on television is more favorable towards the LGBTQ+ characters. However, the high visibility is not enough and the writers and producers of television shows should strive more to depict these characters in more realistic and plausible way.

101

České resumé

Cílem této práce je sledovat zobrazování LGBTQ+ postav na obrazovce v průběhu historie filmu a televize a porovnat tyto portréty s moderními. Negativní reprezentace LGBTQ+ postav byla nejpopulárnějším způsobem, jak je zobrazovat ve filmech nebo v televizi. V diplomové práci studujeme vliv televize na její publikum a jak negativní zobrazení LGBTQ+ ovlivňuje vnímání členů LGBTQ+ menšiny.

Stereotypy a škodlivé tropy doprovázeli a stále doprovázejí zobrazování LGBTQ+ postav a televizní průmysl pouze následuje negativní trend, který filmařský průmysl zavedl v minulosti. Vysvětlení, jaké jsou tropy a stereotypy a které z nich jsou nejpopulárnější, nám pomáhá pozorovat, že stereotypy a tropy jsou stále používány v současném zobrazování LGBTQ+ postav. Práce také zkoumá viditelnost LGBTQ+ postav v letech 2013-2017, přičemž si všímá stálého nárůstu počtu LGBTQ+ postav v televizích vysílaných, kabelových a streamovaných. V diskusi analyzujeme tři soudobé televizní seriály a jejich zobrazení LGBTQ+ postav a dospíváme k závěru, že současná situace v televizi je pro LGBTQ+ značně příznivější. Nicméně vysoká viditelnost nestačí a scénáristé a producenti televizních pořadů by se měli více snažit zobrazovat tyto postavy realističtěji a věrohodněji.

102