InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Machine gun jumblies!"

xie_xie_xie (xie_xie_xie) wrote in qaf_coffeeclub,
@ 2008-04-04 12:24:00

BFF: The Michael/Brian friendship and why hating Michael is hating Brian
This is dedicated to foreverbm.

I freely admit I fell into all sorts of fanon/meta toxicity about Season Five, CowLip, and a few other topics that I now blush and wriggle in shame over.

But never, not once, did I feel or understand the Mikey hate.

This is not to say that from time to time I didn't want to stuff a dirty jock strap in Michael's mouth. I did. Thinking before he spoke was not Michael's strongest characteristic. But to hate him for that would be like hating Brian for refusing to tell Justin he loved him for four years, or for sneering "You were the innocent victim of a love bashing."

It's been said that CowLip believed Michael would be the heart of Queer as Folk, a sort of gay everyman, boy next door, the one everyone would identify with. And I would say that among gay men, they were correct. Michael won at least one poll in the gay media as the favorite character on QAF, and while I'm sure there are individual viewers outside of fandom, including gay men, who didn't care for him, there is no widespread Michael-hate like we see in fandom.

In fandom, it was Brian who became the most compelling and popular character. And in the early days, some fans believed Brian and Michael were OTP. Their equivalents in QAF-UK were sort of presented that way, and in the beginning of Season One, there were some scenes that seemed to play with that possibility. I wasn't around, thankfully, for the "shipper wars," but I think that the period when those wars were intense made it easy for many Brian fans and Justin fans to somewhat hate Michael, not because of Michael, but because of their issues with the fans who wanted him to end up with Brian -- which would have been wrong and totally unhealthy and, you know... wrong.

So, since this is Brian Kinney week, here are my feelings on the Brian and Michael friendship.

Michael loved Brian. Brian loved Michael. Michael in many ways shoved his foot in the door of Brian's heart and refused, through a uniquely Michael-ish combination of tenacity, obtuseness, hero-worship, and instinct, to let it close all the way. Just as Brian told Joan in Season Four that Michael survived his upbringing because his mother loved him, so did Brian survive his adolescence because Michael loved him.

A lot of Michael-hate seems to be predicated on the idea that Michael doesn't love or understand Brian enough, or that he's somehow bad for Brian. I agree that they'd have been unbelievably toxic for each other as lovers, but as brothers and best friends, Michael has been not just helpful but essential for Brian.

Others dislike Michael for spurting things out without thinking, often hurtful things, and again, this is often because they feel that Brian deserves better, that Michael was "mean" to Brian in some way. But that's a two way street. Brian and Michael had a very typical brotherly relationship, and didn't throw their friendship out the window just because one or the other said something thoughtless or unkind. (Because hello, have you MET Brian Kinney?)

I would argue that the fact that Michael was oblivious to a lot of the nuances of Brian's psyche is the very thing that enabled him to stay connected to Brian throughout the pre-series and early seasons. But while that loving obtuseness made it possible for Michael to stay close to Brian, it also meant that Michael demonstrated a strange mixture of "getting" Brian and some whopping big misconceptions about who Brian was and why he did things. I actually find that really interesting, and seeing the two of them work that out over the years is extremely rewarding to me, even if they don't do it in the direct linear fashion I'd have liked to see, LOL. But when did Brian ever take the shortest route between two points?

I also don't have any more problem with Michael's faults than I do with Brian's or Justin's or anyone else's. Imperfections are the heart and soul of drama. How boring QAF would have been if people hadn't had human flaws and failings! Is anyone on that show perfect? Is anyone on earth perfect? The darkness, the contradictions, the cracks and fissures, are what make characterizations live and breathe.

It was in fact Michael's imperfections that enabled him to be there for Brian so often, although as they matured, clearly, both of them had to grow past that and find new ways of relating. I've never bought the meta that Michael wanted Brian never to change or grow up; I think that comes from keeping Season One, when NEITHER OF THEM wanted to grow up, in your mind and ignoring the growth their relationship, and they as individuals, experienced as the show progressed. For example, Michael calls Brian on his shit over throwing Justin out when Brian had cancer, on his Season Five meltdown that leads to Justin's leaving him, on his support of Stockwell, on a lot of things.

And Brian often really listens to Michael, even though he still ultimately always goes his own way. Take the scene of them in Moosey's in Toronto, when Brian tells Michael that they're queer and don't need the blessing of pederast priests or spineless politicians, and Michael responds yes, but we also deserve to have everything straight people have. Did you see the look on Brian's face? Michael really reached him, and he responded by telling Michael to go for it... and then being MIchael's best man and putting on a wedding reception for Ben and Michael.

Michael also often really listens to Brian. My favorite of the Brian and Michael friendship arcs has to be the Liberty Ride. When Brian tells Michael why he's doing it, Michael listens, understands, stops interfering, and then supports him. It's like a diagram of the perfect friendship.

Something else to consider when examining the phenomenon of Mikey-hate that's based on a sort of protectiveness of Brian is that Brian didn't like it much when people hated Michael. I think that his intervention in the Michael and Justin split in early S3 was partly for Justin, but it was for Michael, too.... "What about Mikey's big dream?" And who can ever forget the scene where he tells Emmett off for being angry at Michael for staying friends with Ted when he gets out of rehab? "Michael is my business."

But the fact that Brian wouldn't like the Mikey hate is not the only reason that I say hating Michael is hating Brian, although it's big part of it. To reject the hard lessons Brian and Michael learned as friends is to ultimately reject and become blind to Brian's personal growth, and I think contributes to much of the poisonous meta about the series' end.

I'm referring to the idea that Michael wanted to freeze Brian in a persona he'd grown beyond, an idea that I think originates in fandom/fanon/meta, and not in the text. It is inconsistent with everything we see between Brian and Michael in late Season Four and the rest of Season Five. From the opening scene of 501, when the confetti is frozen and they talk about the ever-changing kaleidoscope of life and how some things change and some don't, the examination of what is important and what's not, of what should be preserved and what should be changed, is the core message of their relationship and personal growth in that season. Again, they don't move through it linearly; both of them fuck up and backslide and cover old ground. But in the end, they get where they needed to get.

If you listen to Michael's incredible speech in Season Five, after the bombing of Babylon, it's spelled out in terms that simply cannot be misunderstood: That the queer community -- family -- is everyone. Eli and Monty, as well as Brian Kinney. Michael's family, and Brian's. Queer as Folk is based on that message, the triumph of love and connection over not only external evil (Prop 14, Stockwell, the bashing, the bombing of Babylon) but your own flaws (boys to men).

The Brian and Michael friendship is a beautiful and important part of that kaleidoscope of life, that big queer family, and one I love.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

irish_cream
2008-04-07 06:39 pm UTC (link)

I respect your personal dislike of Michael, but I just as respectfully believe your analysis of their friendship is extra-textual.

You have me at a loss here. I'm not sure I get what you mean. (The crux of not being a native speaker.)
I could guess though, and maybe the answer "If they wanted B/M to be a great friendship in the show they didn't make a very good job of it in my opinion" makes a bit of sense?

I really do think they didn't think that whole family/friends situation through. The Novotnys as a replacement family for Brian may work for some people, but I simply cannot see them that way. Even if they are/were intended to fill that role. I cannot see them as "saviours" to Brian, I rather perceive them as some kind of "lesser evil" for lack of better words.

Also, my relatively short comment cannot really count as an analysis. It lacks too much concerning arguments, points, reasons for my opinion. And I admit that I have a hard time getting my thoughts together - this is something I perceive on an entirely emotional level, not a rational one.

And those emotions scream something like *pain, wrong, stop* whenever I see Brian interacting with Michael or Debbie. Again, not rational.

I'm rambling again, sorry. And I didn't really make it clear what I meant, did I? *sigh* I'm not even sure I could make it clear in German.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

xie_xie_xie
2008-04-07 07:59 pm UTC (link)

Oh, wow, I didn't realize you weren't a native speaker! I'm sorry!

Yeah, I get kind of overly-academic sometimes. I apologize.

My approach to analyzing the show is to focus solely on the episodes. I don't consider what any of the creators meant, human nature, human psychology, my life, what I'd like to have happened, my opinions on how relationships should be, what would have worked better for me, etc.

I only look at what's on the screen, period. That is what I mean by "the text." When I say something is "extra-textual," what it means is that it originates from outside the text. That's not the only way to analyze a dramatic work, of course, but it's a recognized and accepted one, and it's mine. :)

In this approach, the creators' intent (and by "creators" I mean everyone -- writers, actors, camerapeople, directors, producers, music directors, etc.) is almost entirely irrelevant, and becomes more so the further in time we move from the moment of their creative decision. (Some argue that it's always entirely irrelevant, and they may be right.)

Then there is what I, again confusingly, called an "analysis." I didn't mean that your short comment was itself an analysis. In this case, the "analysis" is the underlying conceptual structure of your remarks, not the remarks themselves. I just used that term to point out that my underlying analytic structure was "the text is all," and yours relied on things from outside the text.

For example, fandom over the years constructed its own analyses, many of them, and these are what people call "fanon." There are many fanon analyses; it's not a single thing. A fanon analysis is any approach to looking at the show using a framework that originates not in the text but in fanon -- fan discussions of the show, rumors, gossip, wishful thinking, an interview with one of the creators, an opinion based on something one of the actors said at a signing, meta done about the show while it was still airing and canon wasn't closed yet and people were still speculating about where the storylines would all go, etc.

"Meta by human nature" is where people look at the series as if the characters were not characters but human beings. This one always fails spectacularly for me, and it's probably one of my biggest gripes in both meta and in fiction.

Fictional characters are not, shouldn't be, "human beings." They are bigger than human beings. They are told in broader strokes than human beings. They emerge from the human storytelling tradition and collective imagination.

I don't care or want to know what someone would do if their father died; I only care what BRIAN did when his father died. In writing fiction, I never ask, "What would I do, or would someone I know do, if a loved one got bacterial meningitis?" but rather, "What would BRIAN KINNEY DO if Justin got bacterial meningitis?" That's the only question that matters to me.

CONTINUED NEXT COMMENT...

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

xie_xie_xie
2008-04-07 07:59 pm UTC (link)

To reduce fictional characters to real people, to apply the rules of human nature to them, cuts out their heart and soul and makes them as boring as, well, our daily lives would be if someone followed us around with a camera. What they do and say is more significant than it would be if you or I did it or said it. After all, we do and say things all the time that end up not meaning anything, but every detail in a creative work is important. Every word choice, the darkness and lightness of a scene, clothing and hairstyles, everything, is meaningful. Life is nothing like that.

Someone might say, "If they were real people the Michael and Brian friendship would be really destructive," and they might be correct. Several of the people on QAF would be insufferable to me if they were real people, for instance, Brian, because Brian hid many things about himself from the people in his life that are only visible to us as viewers. We see him when he's alone, which no one else does. We see his emotions when no one else does. If we were his actual friends or family in real life, we, like them, would not see those things. We wouldn't know Brian as we, the viewers, know him.

Do you see what I mean? We feel tender and protective of Brian based on things we wouldn't know about him if he were a real life human instead of a fictional character.

It's very inconsistent to analyze the show using information you could only ever have about a fictional character, but using concepts that only apply to real people. It might "feel" right, it might account for why we like and dislike certain characters on a TV show, but when you're actually analyzing the text itself, it just ends up being confusing.

I hope this somewhat cleared up what I meant by "extra-textual," and I apologize for the miscommunication! I truly did not know you're not a native speaker of English. I try to avoid doing that, but sometimes the fluency people have in slang, internet slang in particular, confuses me. :)

Xie

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

irish_cream
2008-04-08 10:03 am UTC (link)

I think I understand better now what you meant, but I don't really agree with that.

To reduce fictional characters to real people, to apply the rules of human nature to them, cuts out their heart and soul and makes them as boring as, well, our daily lives would be if someone followed us around with a camera. What they do and say is more significant than it would be if you or I did it or said it. After all, we do and say things all the time that end up not meaning anything, but every detail in a creative work is important. Every word choice, the darkness and lightness of a scene, clothing and hairstyles, everything, is meaningful. Life is nothing like that.
To you it may be a reduction of the fictional character, for me it's the very thing that actually gives them life. Only in comparison to life and my own experiences the story becomes meaningful...otherwise it's just some black scratches on paper or some colourful pictures flittering in front of my eyes.

You see, we have an entirely different way of connecting to a book or a TV show. I don't feel tender and protective of Brian only because of things we see when no one else does, but even more because my own mother is pretty much a mix of Jack and Joan combined in one person. That's one major reason why I connected to Brian after I fell in lust with him first.

Damn! I wish we could talk about this in RL, sitting somewhere together drinking tea or something. Having to write this down can be a hindrance sometimes, because my thoughts are faster than my fingers. It becomes confusing for me.

Also, just reading it takes so much away. Facial expression and timbre of voice is so important in discussions like this. I don't want to come across as being anti just for the sake of it and yet I fear that is exactly the impression I'm giving you.

No need to apologize for the miscommunication, by the way. It happens with all of us writing/reading in English on the internet. And I'm always ready and willing to ask if I'm not sure about something.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

xie_xie_xie
2008-04-08 06:26 pm UTC (link)

You see, we have an entirely different way of connecting to a book or a TV show.

Ah, perhaps another confusion. :)

We're not talking about the same thing at all. This isn't about how we connect to the show or a book. It's not about our experiences as viewers. I'm talking about critical analysis -- meta, as we call it in fandom.

From Wikipedia:

Any subject can be said to have a meta-theory, which is the theoretical consideration of such its meta-properties as: foundations, methods, form and utility.

Of course what moves, reaches, touches us as viewers is all about who we are as people and what our own experiences have been and how the themes, characters etc resonate for us personally.

But if you're going to analyze the text and examine those themes and characterizations as literature or drama, if you're going to look at the structure of the show, you need to have a framework through which you are viewing it, or it's just a random assortment of impressions.

In this post in particular, in which I'm specifically looking at why people have problems with a character, if you don't consciously seperate out the structure of your analysis and choose a framework, you'll just end up going round and round endlessly.

For example, I can say, there are people who dislike Michael. These are some conceptual reasons that might lie behind that feeling, based on an analysis of the text.

Someone else might respond, I just don't like him.

I'll ask, why?

Someone can say, because I had a friend like that in high school and she really fucked me up.

Well, I can't answer that, because their experience with their friend in high school has nothing to do with the text. It's outside the text.

Of COURSE it's why that person doesn't like Michael, I mean, absolutely! But that's not meta, that's not a theoretical or analytical look at the text. It's just a personal gut reaction and didn't arise from the work, but from the life of the viewer.

Now, someone -- I think it might have been rebeccama? -- suggested that "everyman" characters often stir up negative reaction from fans because by their very nature they have a high likelihood of reminding us of universal human experiences, either our own negative character traits or those of people we've known in our own lives. She said that might be why a lot of people in fandom don't like Michael.

Whether someone agrees with her or not, THAT is meta.

Just saying you don't like Michael because you think he was bad for Brian is only meta to me if you can base it on the text, which brings us back to my first comment that started me off on this insane philisophical ramble that I'm sure is of interest to no one but me. ;)

Just to recap, though, I don't do this when I'm absorbing something as a viewer, but I would never and could never sustain the level of interest and involvement in this particular show if I couldn't then go on and seperate out all the threads and follow them all over the place -- very formal criticism, silly playful discussion, mindless squeeage, and creative works like fic.

To just sit and watch the show and enjoy it and react to it without some big mental analysis is absolutely valid and what I do with nearly everything I read or watch. But something like this, that fanscinates and transforms me? Then I deconstruct and look at it, and write about it, and do things with what I find. Two totally different processes and experiences.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

irish_cream
2008-04-10 06:23 am UTC (link)

*G* Yes, another confusion. Maybe because I think that doing meta for a TV show or a movie is more complicated than meta to a book, where you indeed only have the text as a reference and don't get distracted by mimic, gestic and voice. Distracted, because those things always connect to your personal experiences, no matter how hard you try to detach yourself from them. At least that's my opinion.

Concerning Michael that means for me several things. The most important part is that my dislike for him is only loosely connected to my opinion that Brian and Michael aren't really great friends. That my opinion is influenced by that dislike is true, and telling otherwise would be a lie. But it's not the reason why I think they aren't BFF.

And them being BFF was a huge part of your post, including the headline.

Please, this is not intended to offend you (or anyone else). It's just how I analyse the their relationship. And yeah, I mean analyse this time. *G* That's why I took a bit of time with my reply.

I can see the facts as depicted in the show. They hung around together for a long time, watched out for each other, helped each other. (With a short sidetrack to my own experiences , seeing that I should have around 50 to 100 BFFs from my days with the police force. Only we can't really stand each other. Well.)
In their school days it was a partnership of convenience. Brian got a safe haven from Jack and Joanie and Michael got someone who watched his back and helped him with learning. Worked fine.

Brian and Michael keep saying they are best friends. I'm sure that after all this time part of them even believes it. They grew apart and they don't need each other like they did in school, and most of the time end up hurting each other more than anything else.
But they are both people who have difficulities separating themselves from emotional ballast, so they keep hanging around each other - out of habit and emotional dependence.

That's how I view their relationship. It sounds a bit sad, at least for me. And you will have noticed that I don't put blame on one of them here. No "Michael is bad for Brian" or "Brian is bad for Michael". Only my opinion why I can't really see them as BFF.

Maybe that opinion is warped by the German synchro. I recently noticed that they translated some things pretty loosely. Maybe even my dislike for Michael is influenced by that - yeah, I have to come back to him at this point - maybe he comes across less offensive in the English original. His German version makes me go WTF all the time.

*sigh* Again I wish we could discuss this in person. There are so many layers in this discussion now.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

xie_xie_xie
2008-04-10 06:30 am UTC (link)

I understand, and the language issue makes it so very complicated too!

I don't see the facts the same as you do. I think we were both told and shown that Brian and Michael loved each other, and I absolutely don't think what Brian got from Debbie and Michael was a place to hide out.

It was love.

I believe that they expressly confronted the "habit" of their frienship and worked through and beyond it at least two times, explicitly and in so many words.

But I also feel that you and I have two different texts, since you viewed the show in German. Hopefully one day we can sit down and have that in person conversation and perhaps examine the effect of the translation. :)

Take care,

Xie

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -