It's hard to argue that the writing isn't on a downward spiral. It's also hard not to see the point of those who feel betrayed by a show that started with at least a basic nod to diverse casting and has written itself back into tokenism. People defending the show have argued that the increasing homoerotic nature of Lecter and Graham's relationship is itself a progressive space for fans to find an expanded range of identities given more screen-time.
Here is where I have feelings, and this is where I want to hear from y'all. Is it really progressive to spend two seasons developing a homoerotic relationship between two men who will become (SPOILERS HERE) cooperative cannibalistic serial killers?
I don't want to fully commit to position implied in my question. I know, obviously, that fandoms exist in a realm of genres, including very violent ones (exhibit me), and seek out a wide range of role models whose behavior often embraces violent anti-social* extremes in what might be seen as a commentary on the kind of social environment that marginalizes people for things like sexual behavior, regularly subjecting them to violence as one component of that marginalization.
Still. It doesn't sit well with me to put our stakes in a show that favors the homoerotic violent over the homoexplicit pro-social.* Here I speak just as a viewer, not as someone who has any claim to these public identities. I think, though, that everyone has need of better narratives for the full range of human identities. We all need role models we can relate to in the media we consume. The reverse is also true. I'm white, for example, and I think precisely because of this I need more people of color in my media diet. Why, then, should I feel good about a show that gives me homoerotic undertones to its heteroexplicit plot?
[Photo: I guess what I'm saying is, at this point I'm pretty much in it for Mads Mikkelsen and his creepy murder suit.]
*I use pro- and anti-social really hesitantly here, as the terms themselves are used to pathologize harmless behavior. I mean them differently, and lack the right vocabulary because, I suspect, our history hasn't yet produced it.
