jarabaa

For once and for all, this is not "BL", nor is it "gay". It's about a heterosexual relationship, indeed a marriage, in which one of the partners is seemingly a woman but is in reality a man disguised as a woman (and understood by everyone to be a woman). So maybe terms like transgender, cross-dressing or androgynous apply.

It actually seems to be a lot about the sister, who has nothing to do with the marriage story.

It also attracts a huge amount of really abusive, vituperative comment from fans who do not like people who raise the sort of point I make above. So I'm getting out of here fast.

This has nothing to do with BL. It's about a man disguised as a woman in a heterosexual relationship, as anyone can see. Meanwhile, I am going to follow your very charming invitation (so many violent, downright abusive comments on this page, what's going on??) - and ... as you put it, "F off". So gracious and insightful. Thanks for the advice!

Exactly. It has nothing to do with BL. We have had other Korean series to choose from which are about relationships between 2 males - in most people's eyes, the essence of what a "homosexual" or "gay" relationship is.

What on earth is this "comment" even about?

Well, that was really a very interesting and absorbing "comment". It is rare to find a careful and thorough analysis of a literary device such as dramatic irony in a BL series. But that is the sort of contribution I particularly enjoy. The whole business of talking about m/m romance, love between men, is totally new, and it is fascinating - and important - to note how we go about it: how we create and tell stories, for instance. And BL is all about stories.

My own interest is totally different. I am interested in how Buddhist spirituality informs these Thai m/m love stories. But I won't say anything about that here. Instead - dramatic irony: ... I myself tend to think this is a very general, almost commonplace technique in all kinds of narrative nowadays. It just means communicating material to the viewer or reader which characters in the story itself are depicted as being unaware of. So, yes, it's a good way to characterise things we see in Fish Upon the Sky.

However...! I am not sure I would agree with you that this is one of the "only" BL series to use dramatic irony, or that the way it's used is all that "unique". My impression is that almost all of these series use dramatic irony. We are constantly being offered some sort of special access as viewers to seemingly "secret" information which is not known to the characters we're following. That is the main way, I would suggest, that tension is constructed in these series. (You rightly draw attention to the example of Othello, where that tension is built up to an extreme degree!) And so I am not sure I grasp what your 4 points illustrate - are you saying that these ways of employing dramatic irony are a very distinctive, remarkable feature of Fish Upon the Sky? I lose the thread here. First, are we really being invited to wish that a somehow secret or hidden character is not revealed? Second, how do we know that dramatic irony (where?) is being consistently sustained throughout the story - we've only seen 2 episodes, after all? Third, is using dramatic irony as a "hook" to make us look forward to the next episode really "unique"? Again, so far we've only experienced one transition from one episode to the next. Fourth, hmmmm, the idea of the shadowy masquerade party pointing up the shadowy and secret and disguised nature of text communication didn't really jump out at me, - but I like it! Though I wonder if the writers of this series even intended that effect?? Anyhow, thanks for that particular imaginative insight, which is somehow very evocative: i.e. texting = a game of masquerade (not sure I accept the stuff about shadow-play ... shadow-play is a lovely image, but dramatic irony is not shadow-play). And thanks for very stimulating input which got me thinking!

Well, ... it's good that you feel it's "totally fine" if people dislike you - because it appears that some people on this page, hmmmm ... dislike you. So I'm glad you are able to deal with that! Judging by their "comments", their feelings towards you (and numerous others) are rather hostile.

I'll tell you the dimension that concerns me - a bit. OK? You rightly hold up a mirror to one sector of the entertainment industry, namely "BL". So far, it's a very imaginative and compelling, clever and amusing and rather shocking exposé of what goes on. Or maybe, rather than being about "what goes on" in general, it's about some real things which happened in the past.

Anyhow. My observation is that everything I see depicted here happens throughout the world of the present-day media, throughout the whole of the entertainment industry - in every country. These things are not unique to the world of BL. Not at all. Well, that's my view. Is it your view too? I'm curious.

My concern is that many people appear to be claiming that these phenomena (outright abuse, sexual harassment, invasion of privacy, manipulation, crass exploitation of vulnerable young working people, etc) are not only the true face of BL but unique to BL. Or they say that this is your own directorial intention, what you are trying to say. So my position is that I disagree with those ... suppositions, and to be honest, I am concerned about the homophobic subtext they seem to reflect. And I know that is definitely NOT your directorial intentions. I know instead that you have an admirable and impressive history of dealing with LGBT material and characters.

But there are people who seem to think that the negative phenomena we see in "Call It What You Want" are distinctive problems of the BL milieu - and this view quickly aligns with old homophobic messages that gay men are perverts, manipulative, exploiters of young boys, cruel and dishonest, amoral, etc. Etc! That's what worries me. I do not think that's what you are saying for one moment. And I do not think that the world of m/m romance (or "BL") is somehow more noxious or "toxic" (our number 1 favourite word nowadays) than any other sector. I am no longer young, and I know a lot about the conditions that all sorts of people work in - across a range of industries, in various countries - and I know that abuse, harassment, intrusion, manipulation and exploitation are rather universal, and much worse in many other settings far from the world of Thai BL.

However, we must all try to tell the truth about our own world(s), and that is what you are doing. Keep fighting! As they say. Thanks.

Your original point above is very important. Grazie, Signora. Absolutely right - what we're talking about here is NOT in any way a unique feature of BL. As you and others point out, what we see here is characteristic, well, of just about any area of the present-day "entertainment industry", in just about any country.

BL is very new. Until recently, we simply did not see male/male romance in any form - no films, no series, no advertisements, no music videos, zero, nothing. Niente. Instead we heard day and night that men who love men were perverts, criminals, madmen, etc.

Now we have BL, which is just one segment of a world one might call queer media, or LGBT-focused media. In fact, it strikes me that the BL milieu is rather (laudably) self-critical. BL is only a few years old, yet we have already had a number of BL productions which presumably "lift the lid" on BL, i.e. seek to reveal unhappy truths literally behind the scenes, expose the negative reality. However: this truth, this reality, applies across the present-day worlds of the media and the entertainment industry. It has nothing to do with BL, nothing to do with gay men, nothing to do with homosexuality. Do people really believe that extreme obsessive behaviour by fans, gross invasion of actors' privacy, harsh controls imposed on young trainees, sexual harassment, etc are features which only characterise the world of BL??

Apparently they do believe such things. I've actually seen it argued on this page that sexual harassment is peculiar to the world of BL. I think hundreds of millions of women would argue otherwise! I seem to remember hearing some of those women's voices in the "Me Too" phenomenon ... The danger at the moment is that these facts we see exposed in a brilliant series such as "Call It What You Want" are instantly seized upon as evidence that gay men are uniquely cruel, nasty, manipulative, abusive, exploitative. No they aren't - and it's high time this homophobic trend in the worthy critique of BL was itself exposed to some scrutiny. In fact, the evidence - in literature, journalism, cinema, music,drama etc - suggests to me that gay men are very experienced at engaging in searching, even bitter, self-criticism and indeed self-reproach.

Grazie, Pietro Castellito, parole di buon senso.

They sound totally 100% certifiably utterly unhinged. OMG.

Sadly, whatever LGBT-affirmative message the creators of this series sought to convey was utterly confused (reversed, wiped out?) by episode 7 - which implies that being gay is a condition that can be suppressed and heterosexuality is always superior - and that all young Japanese would (literally) applaud such extreme homophobic idiocy.

Good answer. The best explanation going. Thanks. I can see that "pervert" in this case does not mean "evil homo" but is just a light, sort of jocular way of saying "some kind of sneaky voyeur who gets off on ogling my body when I'm changing my clothes". After all, Kang In Soo does go on to demonstrate pretty clearly that he is not ... opposed to same-sex erotic intimacy". No...

Your point is well-made. I think you're very perceptive. As "Jessica Brown" says, don't apologise for your opinion.

You are right to question things. For instance, what exactly are these BL "tropes" which we all seem to know so well and which are being satirised here? Quite a few may be repetitious themes, plot devices, typical storylines - but they aren't peculiar to, or specifically representative of, BL series. Maybe they are more accurately seen, as you sort of suggest, as "general romance tropes". I think you're on to something there.

Next, though I often read that the BL genre mustn't be protected from criticism and needs to be exposed to the bracing effects of satire and parody etc, it seems to me that for a genre that is so young, it has already undergone rather a lot of quite barbed mockery. Jessica cites 3 shows already that appeared to take aim at BL. I'd add Why R U too, as the Saifah-Zon story was all about getting caught in a BL novel - the theme here.

To my mind, the BL "tropes" are tried and trusted universal comic and dramatic devices used in countless non-BL, straight contexts - and indeed by no less than Shakespeare (repeatedly). Seeing them suddenly deployed in the context of same-sex love stories in the past 5 years has been altogether inspiring and refreshing.

Another thing that occurs to me is that there's really been almost too little BL as yet, and what we have seen (since ... ?2016) has already been so varied - that it's hard to speak of anything being "typical of BL" - a "BL trope", a "BL cliché". For instance, I wouldn't say that the "typical" fictional setting in BL is incongruously packed with gay male couples and that this urgently needs to be made fun of.

Er ... sorry ... I've lost the thread here ... no doubt my fault entirely ... However, retracing a few steps, I gather I'm assuming "everyone is complaining about a lack of sex"? Is that my, hmmmm, failing - error - deficiency: arriving at a "big assumption about people you don't know with no data to back it up"? And this is something of which I and flypsyde alone are guilty?

OK ... well, that's not what I thought I was trying to say. I thought I was trying to say something close to what you're saying, i.e. that there's a conspicuous absence of "overt romance in a genre that is by definition about love between boys". In fact, that's a point which I wholeheartedly endorse. I hope that's clear. I won't say anything more. Thanks for setting me right.

Exactly. Couldn't agree more. I make this point likewise all over the place but till now hadn't encountered anyone else echoing it. Actors are supposed to act. Their job is to be fictitious characters, - not themselves. I don't want to hear about straight actors being lauded for their courage in taking on gay roles, or their "guts" in kissing another man on screen, or their alleged need to get away from BL in favour of ... of what? - straight roles? There are fine heterosexual actors all over the world who are proud of their work as gay characters and grateful to those roles for bringing them fame. Some (e.g. Darren Criss) have even demanded that more gay colleagues be cast in gay roles. Meanwhile, gay actors play straight roles, kiss women, and are grateful for all good work they can get - and no one goes wild praising their courage, guts, imagination etc.

In episode 5, the shirtless Kang In Soo, noticing that Yoon Sang Yi is staring at his body in a way that's both shy and admiring, aggressively asks him: "Are you a pervert?" Could anyone who knows Korean comment on this? Given the circumstances (plus the translation), it sounds ludicrously homphobic and hostile. Out of keeping with his character to this point, and bizarre in view of the likely outcome of this plotline. Perhaps all will be explained... But I'd like to know more about the word used. "Pervert" is a uniquely pejorative, abusive term in English.

Exactly. Just because there is a huge industry producing evidence of endless girlfriends (or accounts of possible hypothetical girlfriends) doesn't mean that all of these guys are as 100% straight as we're exhorted to believe. Additionally, the simple fact that heterosexual actors are repetitiously being commended on showing bravery in playing gay male characters, and/or having the "guts" to kiss another man on screen, proves your point: "plenty of gay actors (singers, athletes) around the world hide their sexuality". As you explain, they don't want to take risks with their careers - risks which exist because homophobia is very real - and they need to be able to feel they live in an open and honest society where they too can be open and honest.

Also, there is a case to be made for a respectful public space in which absolute affirmation of diversity is the policy at all levels - but individuals (actors, singers, athletes) are all treated with a certain degree of reserve and courtesy and enabled to have private lives that remain private. In a way, I don't want to know whether an actor is gay. I sort of dream of a world in which there is no reason for an actor to come out. In which we wouldn't actually need the inspiration which we at present draw from the examples of honest, open young Thai actors publicly indicating that they are gay or bisexual.

But that's not the world as it is now. In this world we do indeed need precisely that sort of inspiration - as many of us do ultimately live with fear. Therefore, I want to celebrate the courage of the handful of actors named above.

Or looking at it a little differently. Perhaps I don't need to know that BL actors are gay - but I also don't need to know that they are straight. If an actor makes a point of telling the world he's heterosexual, it inevitably feels like a major act of distancing - he's deliberately putting a big distance between himself as he really is and the fictional gay character he's playing. It's almost as though he is saying he is nothing like the guy on the screen, who is quite alien to the type of man he really is. In fact, actors generally play characters who are not the same as they are in "real life". That's what acting is all about. Actors are actors. They ... ACT. So why tell us that they are different from any given character in some key way? After all, countless gay and lesbian performers spend almost their whole working lives playing heterosexual characters, singing about them, writing about them, in essence representing their interests in public ... without anyone ever congratulating them on their bravery, imagination, guts, etc.

Unfortunately, though, we do live in an age of ever more intrusive "publicity", and actors are endlessly being quizzed as to what they are like in real life and in what ways they are like/unlike the characters they play. It's really a question that should be set aside. Rather than hearing about the sexual orientation of this or that actor, I would simply want to feel confident that all actors are completely open to the validity and dignity and beauty of same-sex love and totally committed to playing LGBT characters. At present, however, with all the blather about hot-and-cold running girlfriends pouring out of the taps and having "guts" to kiss a male actor and actors' fears of getting "stuck" in the (inferior, low-status?) world of BL roles, I certainly do not feel that confidence. And so I am made uncomfortable by the actors who tell us all about being straight men. And for the same reasons, I am thrilled by the courage and openness of the actors who come out about being gay or bisexual.

There are many things you write that I agree with entirely. And there are some aspects of this episode that I evaluate differently. I am curious as to why you write:

"I don't understand the (too) literal point of views of some here. Too bad. Because a lot of you miss the subtlety this show has."

I understand your point of view and your perspectives; but I can also understand other points of view about this series. They don't strike me as too literal or pointing to a lack of appreciation of subtlety. They aren't "missing" something. They're just different. Some people, for instance, find it incongruous that Gene, a character who has displayed a certain degree of brusqueness, frustration and ennui, over 5-6 episodes, is suddenly overwhelmed with emotion and breaks down in tears when he discovers that Nubsib and he were once acquainted as young children - something which Nubsib has failed to disclose. On the face of it, to some people Nubsib's failure to draw attention to this shared childhood background doesn't seem to be the unforgivable offence that causes Gene such overwhelming distress that he breaks down AND orders Nubsib out of his home AND refuses even to listen to him. Perhaps we are given adequate reasons to understand Gene's response; perhaps we aren't. Perhaps we see Gene's emotions as warranted and compellingly demonstrated by the actor; perhaps we feel a little baffled.

It's not fair to accuse others of being too literal or lacking in subtlety. Although you have been able to glean that Gene is "confused about his sexuality" and "doesn't want his family to know", to some viewers things are not so clear. Some of us do not see Gene as an essentially "confused" character - and we haven't been in any way aware that he's notably anxious to prevent his family from knowing that he's ... confused? In fact, the storyline has more than hinted that he is in fact gay and that he is quite definitely attracted to Nubsib. That would explain some of his emotion, maybe - but not the intensity. If he is instead a "confused" character, and his confusion is the focus of the drama, well, Nubsib loses importance, and can hardly be called a "love interest", and we are left with a somewhat new story about a confused person who has an anxious, fearful relationship with his family.

If on the other hand Gene is a gay man - after all, he's the author of a BL novel and we have yet to be told about any "girlfriends" - then it would make sense to understand that he may have a male "love interest", i.e. Nubsib, - but then it's justified to wonder why he is so overwhelmingly distraught (is the fact that Nubsib failed to tell him explicitly that they once knew each other as children SO impossibly upsetting, so shocking, so unforgivable? - really?) and it's equally justified to question his adamant refusal to listen to Nubsib. People behave in different ways, you know. Some human beings, in precisely the same situation, would be perplexed, uneasy, agitated - yes, but they wouldn't stop the car and dissolve in tears; and rather than instantly kicking the love interest out of the apartment without bothering to listen to him, they might well be keen to put some questions to him instead - and get some answers. So - different viewers interpret the evidence of what they/we see in different ways. It's not about being overly literal or lacking awareness of subtlety.

Oh good grief! WHAT?? An actor in a BL series who is ... GAY? Meaning - homosexual?? How can that be? Extraordinary. Will wonders never cease!

Thanks for bringing this truly rare item of startling news to our attention. It is truly tragic how seldom one hears of an actor in a BL series who is prepared to acknowledge in public life that he himself is gay. Or bisexual. Instead we read that they all have zillions of "girlfriends". Past, present, future, real, fictional, would-be. Some of them probably women who passed them on the street 6 weeks ago. But they are all, you better believe it, "girlfriends".

And then we have the fans. Yes, some want to imagine that their favourite actors are gay men in real life. But at the same time, it's made clear that their fond ideas belong to the world of the imaginary. They are simply wishing that those men could be gay in some other dimension. Instead, we are endlessly told that these actors are all totally, relentlessly, 100% straight. And that they are very brave and resilient and patient to take on the taxing, repulsive work of being intimate on set with other male actors, even kissing this one or that one.

The one and only Thai BL actor I've heard of who is truly willing to be out and proud is Porsch Apiwat Apiwatsayree. So if Bruce Sirikorn Kananurak is the next one that's great. One was already something to rejoice over. Two is much better. I just wish he'd change those glasses for another pair.

I agree 100%. Wealth appears in some series as a given. Just background glitz. But in any story it's a good thing to ... look at, question. Also, the drama is sometimes melodrama, but it's nonetheless true of what "happens to a lot of gay people". Indeed. And the side couples are good. Yep. To be honest, though, I increasingly feel there is no "typical BL", that "most BLs" are in fact ... rather varied. I've spent decades being bombarded with images of and stories about heterosexual relationships - but looking back, it strikes me that most of those images and stories were rather UNvaried, samey, repetitious, belabouring the same old threadbare routines, devices, effects. I am quite happy with the way the tiny genre of BL has expanded and diversified in just a few years. Not arguing with you, just sharing something that's occurred to me lately.

I agree, not a lot happens. But you know? That's not the end of the world. In every form of art, we have miniatures, we have serene creations lacking in conspicuous detail, action or colour.

Anyhow, I am more concerned by the comments from the people who repeatedly write to you to tell you that this series was "not a typical BL" because ... well, because it lacks lots of sex scenes. They then go on to write about the story as though gay men's lives (and most representations of our lives) are full of gross, over-the-top "skinship" (an expression I've never heard any gay man use) and devoid of tenderness, romance, quiet times, lyrical moments,etc. Anyhow, I beg to differ. Gay men's lives are full of romance, tender moments, walks in the park, music and poetry, quiet gestures of intimacy and devotion, and indeed sometimes downright "fluff". The world is full of gay and bisexual men of all ages, I can promise you, who are radiant examples of ... well, modesty, reserve, sweetness, shyness, and other very charming virtues. So please - please - stop writing as though we are animals who are jumping on top of each other every five minutes. (Nothing wrong with some hot animal passion, by the way; it can be another dimension of devotion, tenderness, etc.)

Also, I know of plenty - plenty - of BL series which are absolutely NOT packed with wall-to-wall sex scenes. There is no need to go on and on repeating that this series or that series "only" has a few tender kisses and is therefore "not a typical BL". There is no typical BL. There are innumerable m/m romances from all over the Far East which basically do not go beyond fairly "modest" hand-holding, and maybe some ardent kissing and embracing. That's fine. I have never read a comment on this site from a gay or bisexual man demanding more explicit depiction of hardcore sex. Never. As long as it's clearly about love between men, that's what counts.

Love it, love it, love it. What's the city - where was it filmed?