Audio coming soon!
1) Article – How pop culture embraced sexuality ‘without labels’
2) Fan podcast – Alohomora: LGBTQIA+ In Potter – Beauty In Difference
3) Fan podcast – Woke Doctor Who: Captain Jack Sex Jesus
5) Essay – The Sexual Ethics of Doctor Who
6) Article – Queerbaiting – exploitation or a sign of progress?
8) Essay – Representation in acefic
9) Article – Queer Azaadi Mumbai 2020: For whose pride?
10) Fan podcast – Our Opinions Are Correct: Can We Survive Capitalism?
12) Essay – Celebrating the Minimum Wage Warriors of SFF
13) Wiki list – Fantastic Caste System
16) YouTube video – Pass The Mic – Suraj Yengde On Why Caste Matters
18) Article – Lockdown has laid bare Britain’s class divide
This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity. If you would prefer the original, unedited version, please let me know!
Welcome to Marginally Fannish, a show where we aim an intersectional lens at some of our favourite media and their fandoms.
My name is Parinita Shetty and you’re listening to the twenty-second episode of Marginally Fannish. In this episode, Sanjana, Aparna and I chat about how sexual diversity and social class are represented in media and society.
Mainstream media representations influence many people’s understanding of diverse identities. A limited range of diversity among media creators results in a limited diversity of stories. The stories which do exist reflect dominant culture priorities and prejudices. Compulsory heterosexuality as a structural narrative force presents limited ways of existing in the world. The overall absence of working-class narratives means that countless stories remain unheard. When it comes to representations of intersectional identities in media, the situation is even grimmer. These limited stories build an incomplete and inaccurate canon of our imagination.
However, first-person accounts about the politics of representation can help people identify and unlearn different biases and blind-spots. Other people’s perspectives in online and fandom spaces can draw attention to intersectional nuances. By highlighting these default structures, fans can help people analyse favourite media with fresh insight. Multiple interpretations of fictional characters can make canon more inclusive of diverse identities. It can also help people imagine alternative ways of living in the real world. This sort of critical education that fills in knowledge-gaps requires active effort. But once embarked upon, it can kickstart a lifelong questioning of received information and a quest for more complex stories about different people.
Find our conversation about all this and more in today’s episode.
Sanjana: Hello! I’m Sanjana
Aparna: I’m Aparna.
Parinita: And I’m Parinita. In this episode, we’re going to be focusing on two separate topics. In the first half, we’ll talk about sexual diversity and then explore class – both in media representations and what they reflect and influence in the real world. In both instances, the three of us belong to the dominant group so we’re still in the process of expanding our understanding and unlearning things that we’ve internalised. To kick things off, I thought we could talk about our understanding of gender identity versus sexuality because I think these terms are often lumped together. That’s certainly been true in my own case especially before this last year when I’ve been reading about this more and hearing other people’s perspectives about this more. Now I know the difference properly. But before that, because gender identity and sexuality are often spoken about in the same breath so to speak, if someone would have quizzed me, I wouldn’t have been able to explain what the difference is. Only now do I understand that they are two separate things. So, for example, you can be nonbinary and you can be heterosexual, homosexual, pansexual whatever. Or you can be a trans woman or a trans man and you can be heterosexual. So gender identity and sexuality are two different things. What about the both of you? Have you had this confusion as well?
Sanjana: Yeah. For actually quite the longest time. I think the journey is similar. My understanding came from wanting to educate myself and to understand it better. And so now I’m beginning to get a better sense of the difference between the two. It’s more reading and more people talking around me and meeting newer people that helped me understand this.
Aparna: Even for me. And I think because we’re so far removed from – at least I was – from encountering many of these identities in our daily lives as well. I didn’t end up even trying to find out for a long time. So there was a lot of unlearning that I had to do before I started educating myself because, like you said, all these identities are clubbed together so often. Now it seems so obvious to me that gender identity and sexuality are so completely different. Since we just hear it as one term and always mentioned in the same breath, unless you start looking at more nuanced experiences and read up a little more in detail, it’s hard to be able to figure these things out initially. But when you start to educate yourself, it’s actually all there and it’s quite easy too. I feel like one of the things that I’ve learned is that the more you read and the more you see these identities represented in media, what matters the most is understanding that these are not categories, that these are individuals. Especially when I was reading up and when I read first-person accounts or heard someone who identifies with a particular group speaking critically about representation in media is when I realised how personal these things are. Because we come from a point of privilege of not having encountered any of these oppressions from these angles, I was completely blind to so many of the nuances in media. I want to talk about two terms now – queerbaiting and queer-coding. So initially I feel like because there was obviously a lot of dismissal of these portrayals of media and there was a lot of taboo around it, people who were making media had to do it very subtly. And that was the origin of queercoding. So where it comes from there is a lot of positive to be gleaned from it. Like in Xena The Warrior Princess, Parinita, I think you watch that show so you’ll be able to tell better – that the characters were queercoded.
Parinita: Yeah. Very, very much so!
Aparna: Yeah. [laughs] So a lot of those representations were very positive and gave voice to a large community that was otherwise being completely neglected from being portrayed. But there are also negative aspects to that. For example, I read this article which was exploring how all of the Disney villains were queercoded.
Parinita: Yeah oh my god.
Aparna: Like Scar from Lion King was portrayed as having effeminate characteristics whereas Ursula from The Little Mermaid had more male characteristics. And it had gone into a deeper research of that. So there is a negative aspect of it and the positive aspect of it. And queerbaiting is when a queer relationship is hinted at or teased but never fully realised. Can you guys think of any examples where that might have happened?
Sanjana: Yes! Albus and Scorpius! Yes I had the exact same example. I was reading up about it and I was just generally trying to understand the terms better. And I was like oh my god. And they speak quite extensively on the podcast episode um … which podcast episode was it?
Parinita: The Alohomara one?
Sanjana: Yes, yes! Thank you. Yeah, they speak quite extensively on it. And I love the way they explained it that if you read a scene and you don’t reveal the genders of the two characters and you just read the scene without any mention of the genders, would you read the scene as between two people who are in love?
Parinita: I mean not just reading. So I went and watched the play in March in the Before Times [laughs] when you could still go and watch plays. When I first read the playscript as well, it was very obvious to me – even though I don’t usually queer characters.
Sanjana: Yeah! Same.
Parinita: But it was just very obvious to me like you were saying. But when they act it out on stage, it’s like a love story! I mean I’m all for showing intimate male friendships as well, like really close male friendships. Because I think that one of the arguments against this ship is that oh they’re just really good friends and you need examples of those as well. But I think you can have both. You can have all kinds of relationships. So this is something that we’ve spoken about in a previous episode where both of them are very, very queerbaity. Another thing that we’ve spoken about is BBC Sherlock. Watson and Sherlock in that – the producers have actually hinted at or even said more explicitly that they are queerbaiting the audience. They’re doing it quite purposefully. And they think of it as fun. But they don’t understand the kinds of psychological and emotional violence that it perpetuates always having your readings being made the butt of jokes essentially.
Sanjana and Aparna: Yeah.
Aparna: It also has been swinging a little bit in another direction where people are being called out for queerbaiting where it’s not. I want to give an example of Steven Universe which is one of the most diverse shows I have ever encountered. One of the storyboard artists, Lauren Zuke – I’m not sure if that’s how you pronounce her name – but she posted art about two characters who are shipped in fan circles. And that upset fans of another ship with one of those characters. And she was accused of queerbaiting and was trolled on the internet, so she had to leave Twitter.
Parinita: Oh god.
Aparna: So it also goes in the other direction.
Parinita: Yeah. We speak a lot about the positive aspects of fandom but yeah fandom can be pretty brutal as well. This reminds me of my teenage years where these ships in Harry Potter fandom used to be so intense – these shipping wars. So Harry and Hermione versus – not Harry and Ron, I don’t think that was ever a ship – but Hermione and Ron. And Harry and Ginny or Harry and Draco, and Hermione and Draco. Because all the books hadn’t come out yet at that point so people were still really wanting their ships to come true. I don’t think that it went to this extent, but I think that’s happening more and more over the last decade or so. I think there’s a line between fans being really emotional about these characters and these themes – which we are as well – and on the other side, bullying the creators into going off Twitter and things. Which has happened in the Star Trek fandom for race-related, gender-related reasons. Not Star Trek, Star Wars.
Aparna: Yeah. Star Wars.
Sanjana: Since we were talking about Harry Potter just now, I wanted to discuss the whole need for compulsory heterosexuality. And I wanted to talk about this more through the example of Lupin. I didn’t read Lupin like that but as I was hearing more and more podcasts, I was like yeah, that makes complete sense. The whole point of Lupin made to settle down and marry someone and he seems more included in the entire scheme of things once he’s married and has a baby on the way and those kind of things. I just thought he was an excellent example of this compulsory need to have everybody conform to society in Harry Potter. And this is something that even happens in mythology, for example. And there is a lot of mention of men and men together in mythology.
Parinita: In Indian mythology, right?
Sanjana: Yes, in Indian mythology, yes. Sorry. Like Shiva and Vishnu, if they get together, it is always with one turning into another gender; one switching gender. And this I’ve mentioned in the last episode, that I think Vishnu is genderfluid.
Parinita and Aparna: [laugh] Yes!
Sanjana: The more I read, the more and more I get convinced about the fact that I think he slips in and out – he uses it as a superpower though at this point. [laughs]
Sanjana: But yeah. That need again to conform to society basically. There’s this other deity that I don’t know if you’ll are familiar with called Ila who’s a genderfluid deity. And basically is the father and mother of the entire Suryavanshi race which is I think the Kauravas and the Pandavas? No they are the Chandravanshi – sorry. I just get confused which come from the sun and which come from the moon. The Ramayana is from the moon and one is from the sun.
Parinita: Oh I had no idea. What?
Sanjana: Yeah. We were recently researching the story for something and in that, there’s a king who wants a child. Prays, prays, gets a girl. Does not want a girl – like most stories go. And so somebody changes the gender saying that, okay go ahead, you have a boy. So he raises her as a boy. And one day when this prince is out roaming the gardens and the forests, he enters Shiva and Parvati’s garden. And if you enter Shiva and Parvati’s garden, you automatically get turned into a woman. So this prince gets turned into a woman. And he doesn’t know what to do. To get back his gender, Shiva blesses him saying that you will change your gender every six months. But when you change your gender, you will forget – and this was what was the most interesting because it is in our scriptures – that when you change your gender after six months, you will forget everything from your previous gender so that you don’t have to live with the shame.
Aparna and Parinita: Oh!
Sanjana: Yeah! And when we were retelling the story, I was like, we are not going to do that.
Sanjana: We are not going to do that. Then she eventually falls in love, has children and that’s how this whole race gets born.
Parinita: Hindu mythology is wild!
Sanjana: I tell you! Yeah absolutely. [laughs]
Parinita: So what you said about the compulsory heterosexuality in Harry Potter, honestly, it’s not something that I had noticed when I’d first read it.
Parinita: Because of our positions in society, right? And also the script that society gives you especially in India – you have to study, then you can work for some time, then you get married obviously to a nice boy of the same religion and of the same caste. And then you have a baby. And then that is your life. You buy a house, I guess, if you can in this economy. In Harry Potter, that is totally how it goes. And also the fact that they all marry the people that they were dating in what is essentially secondary school.
Sanjana and Aparna: Yeah!
Parinita: [laughs] I am such a different person from who I was when I was 17 that I can’t even imagine being with the same person that I was.
Parinita: [laughs] Yeah! Because James and Lily … their children’s names are also his parent’s because obviously Ginny doesn’t get to decide their children should be named. But even in the Yule Ball where they’re all looking for people of the opposite gender to go to the ball with. There’s no mention at all of any same-sex or same-gender couples going together. Not even as friends. Everyone is going there as – well I guess Ginny and Neville went as friends because reasons. But it’s very, very heteronormative in terms of how everyone ends up together. And that’s so limited. Especially because if you just read the books, sure Dumbledore is queercoded. And I know that some people think that Rowling said Dumbledore is gay for attention. I don’t think that’s true. I just think that like with all her other attempts at diversity, it’s very superficial diversity and wasn’t researched enough. It was just there for the sake of one token gay character that we want. But if you just read the books without knowing any of the other conversations that are happening around, you wouldn’t even know that Dumbledore is gay.
Aparna: Yeah. I didn’t notice it. In one of the podcasts, they discuss this at length. And I agree that since we’re seeing it from Harry’s perspective, maybe it wouldn’t have been easy – maybe it’s okay that we don’t know. But the point is if there are other representations, then it’s okay for a silent representation to happen. But if there are no other representations … and initially maybe she did not want to put in an openly gay character for fear of attracting controversy. But, as they mentioned, by book three, she pretty much knew before publishing that all her books are going to sell well. So it’s not like that could have been what was holding her back. So yeah. It’s a bit of a copout.
Parinita: [laughs] Which is why I think like what you were saying earlier in terms of fan interpretations and how they shape how you engage with these characters and books now are so important. Like you were saying Sana, with Lupin or with Dumbledore or whoever. For me, fan interpretations have gone such a long way in identifying and negotiating with these identities. Where fans use fictional characters to explore their real-world experiences which might not mirror mine. I have the most experience with Harry Potter fandom but this is true of other online fan communities as well where fans read characters as queer. And different kinds of queerness as well – so gay or bisexual or even asexual. So now when I read the books, when I was re-reading the series, I couldn’t unsee Harry and Draco. [laughs]
Sanjana and Aparna: [laugh]
Parinita: Like Draco’s obsession with Harry and in Half-Blood Prince, Harry’s obsession with Draco. I thought it was amazing. The book became so much more for me. I’m not a huge shipper generally but it’s just such a more fun book. And this is something that fans have taken and play around with these identities in these online spaces. Then if they become writers themselves, or if they are writers themselves, they put that more explicitly into their books. So one of the examples that I read more recently is Carry On by Rainbow Rowell. Do you guys know the book?
Sanjana: No. I have read Fangirl. I haven’t read Carry On.
Parinita: So Carry On was a fanfic in Fangirl. One of the characters in Fangirl was writing Carry On. And Rainbow Rowell decided to make that into a book by itself. And it’s very loosely inspired from the Harry Potter world. And if you know Harry Potter very well and if you read Carry On, you can totally tell who’s supposed to be who.
Sanjana: Yeah. [laughs]
Parinita: And the difference is that it is so much more explicitly queer. And it also engages with these issues that we’ve been talking about throughout this podcast. Things like different cultures within the magical community, diversity in terms of race; also conversations about class in terms of who has more power in the magical community and who has less power. And the person who’s inspired by Draco and the person who’s inspired by Harry – spoiler alert – they do end up together. [laughs] I love that fans take this text that they love that might not be as inclusive as they want it to be, and inspired from this world, they make these texts so much more inclusive.
Aparna: And also just creators leaving space for interpretations. Even if they don’t end up happily married, even if they don’t end up in a relationship, even if they’re not openly declared as a certain sexuality, even if it’s left open-ended. For example Lord of the Rings, I never read any of the characters in Lord of the Rings as asexual. But I read an article in which Frodo and Bilbo are often identified as asexual. And that makes a lot of sense now when I read what exactly asexuality is and also I remember the characters. It’s completely a valid interpretation of their characters. And just leaving room for these interpretations is super important. Of course, they have to exist alongside specific representation as well. And not just for people to see themselves represented, but imagine if we had more diversity in the media that we consumed growing up; we wouldn’t take till our 30s to learn some of these things.
Parinita: Absolutely. Just because you brought up asexuality, in the fan podcast episode, they brought up some of the theories of asexuality in Harry Potter fandom. They read Dumbledore as asexual and his attraction to Grindelwald or his relationship – whatever it was – fitting into that because asexuality is a spectrum and you could be attracted to the mind and you could also have a relationship with someone. And Luna as well as well as Charlie Weasley was read as asexual. Which I thought was fantastic.
Sanjana: Yeah. And talking about asexuality, the other thing that doesn’t get talked about enough is bisexuality and pansexuality. I mean bisexuality to an extent I’ve still been familiar with in some places, most recently with Rosa from Brooklyn Nine Nine. And that was done really well. Even within this, there is a lot of gay and lesbian representation; but asexuality, pansexuality, bisexuality doesn’t get talked about that much. Specifically pansexuality because that is something I have learned very recently. We recently started watching Schitt’s Creek. And David in that – my god I am in love!
Sanjana: But David explained it that, “I’m into the wine, not the label.” And that whole scene plus him after that subsequently in every episode … I just I’m in love.
Parinita: I also loved in Schitt’s Creek how they disrupted the narrative. I also started recently watching it. I’m a bit behind you guys so no spoilers please.
Aparna: We’ll try.
Parinita: So in the first season, just because of the sort of tropes that we have of gay men, something which the character Stevie within the show also shared – where I think everyone assumed he was gay.
Parinita: And then it was towards the end when we realised that no, he doesn’t believe in labels, he just likes anybody irrespective of gender.
Sanjana: And I think the way Stevie reacted the next day to it was like a viewer reacting.
Parinita and Aparna: Yeah.
Sanjana: That’s why it was such a well-done thing because it felt like the creators knew what they were doing. When that scene happened, and she also says, “Um I thought you were into red wine.” And he’s like, “Sure. Red, rosé, or white – whatever. [laughs] I’m into the wine, not the label.” I thought that was just excellent.
Parinita: Yeah for sure.
Sanjana: And so educational!
Aparna: Yeah. And also, I was listening to an interview with the co-creator Daniel Levy and he was talking about how there is this impression that in small towns, they’ll be more close-minded. And it was very intentional for him that the best way to introduce this concept to whomever was experiencing it for the first time was to just show it as completely normal. And completely accepted and celebrated. Just completely as part of the narrative as any other relationship would be. And that was a really smart decision.
Sanjana: As you watch more episodes, you’ll realise how effortlessly it’s done.
Parinita: I finished the second season yesterday and it’s been pretty good so far. But I don’t want to know – I mean I will know, but I don’t want to know from you two what’s going to happen next. Because we’ve spoken so much about Harry Potter, a similar person in Doctor Who is Captain Jack. I didn’t even realise until we listened to the Woke Doctor Who episode that yeah, he is pansexual. I mean I did realise but I forgot because it is not a big deal at all, he’s just there. Sana, since you’re not familiar with Doctor Who, he is from the 51st century and he’s a time-traveller. He comes back from the 51st century to the Doctor’s time, so our time. And his attitude is that in the future, there is no label for gender and sexuality, the ones that limit us today. So for him, it’s not a big deal. And for the Doctor also, it’s not a big deal because they’ve lived for such a long time and seen everything. So it’s all more fluid and flexible. And Jack just basically flirts with everybody. It doesn’t matter what gender, what species, which planet you come from – he’s just a really flirty person.
Parinita: I haven’t watched Torchwood which is the spin-off, but I thought he’s a great representation as well.
Aparna: Yes. And Sana, you’d shared this really nice article by the BBC about how it’s being treated like a new trend whenever it’s talked about in the media. Like pansexuality, “Everyone is a pansexual now. This is the new trend. You might be pansexual!” type of articles. But the truth is that the labelling of sexuality is much more recent than the concept of pansexuality. And how people are trying to just rid themselves of those labels more and more now. I’m going to switch to talking about children’s media and how sexuality is represented there because if done well, it should just be a part of our daily lives. And a sure-fire way of doing that is to include various sexualities in children’s media. While everyone is always tiptoeing around it, the success of shows like Adventure Time and She-Ra and Steven Universe which is just completely open and embraces all sorts of diversity, is proof that children are completely open-minded and they don’t see differences, they rather see similarities. So you give them any character or any relationship and they’ll find something to identify with. And that we’ve seen so much in children’s literature as well. They won’t look at something and think it’s inappropriate … until they inherit it from their parents or the people around them. So I want to talk about some good examples of how sexuality and gender has been represented in children’s media. One is Julian Is A Mermaid by Jessica Love.
Aparna: Which is a beautiful picture book. That’s fun. And another is Legend of Korra.
Parinita: Um hmm.
Aparna: There was a little flak that it was not very obviously spelt out but I want to read a quote by the writer, Mike DiMartino saying, “The message sent is that queer people are no less wholesome, no less natural, no more implicitly or explicitly sexual and no more dangerous for kids to see than straight people.” This was when Korra and Asami seemingly got together at the end which was confirmed by the creators of the show later. And just effortless and very natural representations like that. In Indian kid lit, there have been a few representations – far from as many as we would like – but it’s always so far been very issue-based. Whenever these representations occur – I’m not talking just about Indian kid lit but overall – they’re either dealt with metaphorically somehow or they’re issue-based or it’s something that’s only vaguely hinted at. And just normalising these depictions is what I think we still have a way to go especially in Indian kid lit.
Parinita: Yeah. Because having issue-based stories is not a problem. Issue-based stories are great because they serve one need. But if those are the only books that there are, then that is the problem. Because then it’s always like your sexuality is a point of conflict is the message that you’re giving both kids and adults. So in terms of children’s media, Doctor Who has a huge amount of adult fans but it is primarily a children’s TV show. So that’s why having Captain Jack in the show is important. The first showrunner, Russell T. Davies, he’s gay as well so I think he obviously made a point to include more in terms of sexual diversity. I think it’s really important in children’s media and I hope that in Indian children’s literature especially there’s more room for different kinds of sexual diversity.
Sanjana: Yeah. And this brings us to …
Sanjana: [commentator voice] What if? What if?
Aparna: [makes sound effect]
Parinita: [laughs] What’s the what if today?
Sanjana: And this episode’s what if is what and who we would like to ship across universes. So I’m going to start you all off somewhere.
Sanjana: And start you’ll off on … hmm … Serenity.
Parinita and Aparna: Oh.
Aparna: I thought you were starting us off with a ship
Sanjana: No, no I was –
Aparna: Serenity is a ship anyway.
Parinita: Okay. Um …
Aparna: [mutters grumpily] She did not laugh at my joke.
Sanjana: You missed Aparna’s very excellent joke.
Parinita: Oh! I did, yes.
Parinita: What did she say?
Sanjana: She said Serenity is a ship.
Aparna: Thank you, thank you.
Parinita: I would ship Serenity with the TARDIS.
Sanjana: Oh my god. That is excellent. I would ship the TARDIS with the Gundeldorfer
Aparna: The Gundeldorfer is just a hot air balloon.
Sanjana: I know but I –
Aparna: The hot air balloon from Fortunately, The Milk.
Parinita: Oh! [laughs]
Aparna: This has got to be the most absurd ship ever. Well, there is a connection. Neil Gaiman is a Doctor Who person and Fortunately, The Milk connection.
Sanjana and Parinita: Yeah.
Aparna: It’s not that absurd.
Parinita: That’s true. Um …
Sanjana: What about people you guys?
Parinita: [laughs] People schmeople.
Aparna and Sanjana: [laugh]
Parinita: I feel like the Doctor – even though fans do interpret them as asexual which I totally buy into – I think the Doctor and Dumbledore would be really interesting together.
Sanjana: Wow that is an excellent one.
Sanjana: I think Dumbledore would keep up with different lifetimes and stuff.
Parinita: Yeah and they’d both make obscure comments at each other and be all like, “Yeah, yeah!” “Yeah, yeah!” [says it in hoity-toity voice]
Sanjana: [laughs] Oh that is excellent.
Parinita: What about somebody from Avatar?
Parinita: What about Zuko? Who would you ship Zuko with?
Aparna: Sana does not want to ship Zuko with anybody.
Parinita: Neither do I.
Parinita: But for the sake of this podcast, we shall forget that Zuko is forever shipped only with us.
Sanjana: Zuko … I want to … I feel he needs someone mad.
Sanjana: Little loony.
Parinita: Oh! [laughs] Oh my god that would be so funny. Can you imagine his grumpy, angsty emoness versus Luna?
Sanjana: I think Luna would burr a hole through that somehow.
Parinita and Aparna: [laugh]
Parinita: Yeah, they’d be quite happy living their own lives as well and just wandering into each other once in a while.
Sanjana: Roasting turnips.
Aparna and Parinita: [laugh]
Sanjana: “I’ll grow the turnips, you roast them with your firebending.”
Parinita: That should be their ship name – Roasting Turnips.
Aparna: [laughs] Roasting turnips is a great ship name.
Sanjana: I think that way Zuko and Neville also would do well. They would be …
Aparna: Troubled past.
Sanjana: Yeah troubled pasts. And then they would sit in this little cottage far away and one would grow stuff and one would like …
Aparna: Make a fire.
Parinita: [laughs] You seem to have some pyromaniac tendencies.
Sanjana: Zuko only has one thing to do – make fires.
Parinita: [laughs] Not that he has any other abilities except firebending. I don’t know, I guess he becomes a good king and all.
Parinita: Yeah. [laughs]
Aparna: His ability is brooding.
Parinita: Feeling guilty, fighting for his honour, reclaiming his honour.
Aparna: [laughs] I’m suddenly going to switch to a slightly more serious topic. The second half of our podcast is about class and caste. And I want to talk about intersectional solidarity across marginalised groups. So I attended a queer Pride march/gathering in Mumbai I think last year. It seems so long ago it might have been ten years. It was a really nice positive, beautiful event to witness. It was great. It was the first time I’d attended something like that and it was really nice. Now the next day I read articles about the march and then I started realising all these nuanced factions within the organisers of the Pride march and how a lot of them were detained by the police because they were also doing anti-CAA protests at that time. Which is our Citizenship Amendment Act which the whole country – a lot of the people were protesting. There was no solidarity within the group. The organisers were all upper-caste and there was a section which did not give enough time for the trans community to speak. And there was this other section that did not allow anti-CAA protests. I want to connect it to one of the podcasts we heard which was the Witch, Please podcast on class. How the oppressor-class – and I’m not calling them upper-class and lower-class because of one link that Sana had sent us to a Faye D’Souza episode – but now I’m just referencing too many things. But basically, the oppressor-class wants to maintain the status quo. So they give the impression that there is only so much rights to be had. And if you get it then you are taking it away from someone else. There is only so much, so if you want your rights, take them, don’t just try to get everyone else along with you. And the fact is that revolutions are built on community and solidarity. And playing into these notions of dividing ourselves into smaller groups within the marginalised sections – we shouldn’t fall into that trap.
Parinita: I mean this is what the British did, right? Divide and rule? And we’re still doing it now, so many years later. Because it worked so well for them. Where they divided Indians – and I can only speak about Indian history because I don’t know about what they did in the different African countries, for example. Or wherever else … half the world that they ruled. But they divided us along Hindu and Muslim lines so thoroughly that we are still feeling the impacts of that now. And the government, which is now the ruling-class in India, is using both religion as well as caste to divide and to make sure that we don’t work together and topple them. It’s not just within queer communities, it’s within socialist circles in the UK as well. Where you only view oppression through one lens. So in queer communities, it would be just their queer identity – where there’s a hierarchy of marginalisation there as well, right? Upper-caste gay men or upper-caste lesbians in India would have more power than say a Dalit gay person or a Dalit nonbinary/trans person. And there’s people who only view things through the lens of class and don’t take any other identities into consideration. Even though obviously you can’t separate these identities from yourself like race or gender identity or sexuality – all these come to the fore. So you can’t just fight for abolishing class hierarchies by saying that oh if we abolish capitalism, racism is going to go away. That’s totally not true.
Sanjana: Yeah. This is just reminding me of this recent Instagram post that I saw. It was this trans woman who was talking about her identity through her passport pictures. The passport-size pictures that we go to take through school and through adulthood which society demands we have on every document. And how you are told to sit in a certain way and dress in a certain way and comb your hair in a certain way. She’s studying now to be a doctor; she’s a medical student.
Parinita: Oh I follow her as well!
Sanjana: Yeah. She talked about how it has taken so long for her to get a passport-size photograph that feels like herself. And she shared some of the old passport photographs too now. And it’s something as simple as that that society puts that much importance on.
Aparna: And I was upset when I was a child and I was getting a passport-size photograph taken and the photographer told me not to show my teeth while smiling. I was upset about that! Even now when I look at that close-lipped smile of mine, I’m like but that photographer told me … my problems are very small is what I’m saying.
Aparna: But a lot of these factions and these tinier divisions are reinforced by media. This is the complete lack of intersectional identities. Because whenever diversity is explored in sexuality, it’s always upper-caste people or upper-class people who are represented. As you keep going into intersectional identities, there is lesser and lesser representation to be found. And this is linked to many, many misnomers. Like I was reading this article about how there was a judge in the US Supreme Court who thought that all gay people come from affluent backgrounds and live in urban areas. But the truth is that a lot of them are not from a higher-class and a lot of them don’t have very good jobs. Because of their identities, they are discriminated against. And they have to take lower paying jobs, or they are kicked out of their homes and they are homeless because of their identity. So the very thing that people think is true about them, it’s the opposite.
Parinita: Yeah. What you’re saying in terms of media, with India, this is both with sexuality and with class … just unpacking the damage done by Bollywood and unlearning all the things that we learned just through Bollywood representations. Because homosexuality or just anything that’s not heterosexual is always mocked; is always presented not seriously; is always … well now I think it’s changing a bit. I recently watched this movie Ek Ladki Ko Dekha To Aisa Laga. Which had Sonam Kapoor in it. And that looks at sexuality in a small town and away from these urban discourses where everyone is apparently assumed to be comfortable with being gay even though that’s not true. So it was done interestingly and having Sonam Kapoor who’s pretty mainstream herself. I read both celebrations as well critiques of the movie. Celebrations because oh mainstream Bollywood is showing this in a sensitive way. But also critiques in terms of the class and the location and everything. We want nuance and complexity but we talk about these things in terms of Western media because they have representations. In Indian media we still don’t have them in terms of sexuality and in terms of class.
Sanjana: No, absolutely. The damage that Bollywood has done for a lot of things is just taking a long time to wind down and drown it out because the wrong things are just reinforced again and again. It’s just very hard. Which is why I think generationally speaking within families from generation to generation, it is becoming harder to have conversations because they have not moved past those things that Bollywood has shown them to be. Whereas we have. And this goes to questioning our own role in the existing class disparity. Because there is. I’m going to talk about how we’ve grown up. We’ve always grown up with people working in our houses. Someone will come to clean your house, to wash your clothes. Now washing machines are there but to the extent of even washing your clothes and stuff there’s always been someone. And we moved every two and three years. And that is how we grew up. And the fact that there was always one plate that was separate and there was always one glass that was separate. And they are given the same food but they’ll always eat on a stool in the kitchen. We never questioned it as growing up. We never thought it was weird because we had not seen anything else.
Sanjana: And so we don’t end up questioning our role in this class disparity at all. And it was very evident even when we went to schools – because Dad got posted to a lot of these remote places, in far east and stuff – the only schools around were the Air Force schools. And we would be there and we would be the only kids who were kids of officers. And everybody else was kids of like the airmen or … anybody, because the fee structure would be the same. So everybody from all stratas would be in the same class which would be great. You would have friends from everywhere. But the point was that even for a parent-teacher meeting, you would get treated much better.
Sanjana: The respect that our parents got compared to some of our classmates is now that I look back at it, is very …
Sanjana: Absurd! It is absurd. And we never question it. And neither did our parents tell us or educate us enough to question it. Because neither did they. And it’s just this non-stop cycle. It is when I got married and had my own home and stuff that when the first time somebody said, “Can I drink water? I’m very thirsty.” And I said, “Yes, please drink.” And I picked up the glass from the glasses that were all together and gave. They were shocked as well and I just stopped to think, why don’t we do this? What is the big deal? It takes a long time to start to question our role in letting this go on.
Parinita: Yeah. Because there’s this idea that classism – or well casteism but in India that’s very much tied to classism as well – only happens in the villages. In the cities, “Oh we’re all educated, we know these things so we don’t do this.” And then you’ll have separate elevators for maids and delivery people and be like, “You use that and we, the people who live in this building and have earned the right to use this good elevator, use this elevator.”
Parinita: But for me I’m the same. Growing up in Mumbai with my mum, I didn’t grow up with a lot of wealth. So I wouldn’t consider myself privileged in terms of money; I don’t have access to generational wealth, for example. But just growing up in the city and growing up speaking English, growing up being able to navigate all these spaces through the internet or whatever – that is a huge privilege in itself.
Sanjana: Yeah absolutely.
Parinita: Being able to travel without thinking about these things. So I know so little – well in cities I know a little more because in Mumbai, like in any city, you have to interact with people of different backgrounds. But in terms of the rural areas of India and small towns, I know so little. And P. Sainath’s book Everybody Loves A Good Drought and his online project the People’s Archive of Rural India, they have really gone a long way in making me learn about this other part of India and the various kinds of stories that it holds; stories and people which disrupt our notion of what it means to be poor or rural or Dalit or Adivasi in our country. Because we have such singular narratives of what it means to belong to these identities. It’s really opened up my eyes to first of all the sheer levels of privilege that I have. But also that just because you live in a village or just because you’re Dalit or Adivasi, this is not the only story that you have.
Sanjana and Aparna: Yeah.
Aparna: There’s just so much to be unpacked and with all of the oppressed people, it just goes so deep. I am currently in the process of writing a paper which touches upon book access. And I was doing some research and I was reading the AESR (Annual Status of Education) report that’s the educational statistics of India, a report that comes out every year. You know how we keep talking about reading and education is what will get us out of this; will teach us how to question the world around us and will teach us how to rise from our circumstances? And the fact is that so many people just aren’t able to get that education. Because the free and compulsory education – forget about the quality, but the age at which it starts is six. So you already need to have learnt some amount of reading before you join school to be able to read. But a lot of these kids go to anganwadis where they are just meant to take care of nutrition and health and education and everything. So teaching them how to read and write becomes very low on their priority given that they have so many kids that they have to take care of. And they have to prioritise health and food over education in those meagre funds that they have. One by one it’s just such a vicious circle and you have to dismantle or build so many structures to be able to get proper equity for opportunities for everybody to be able to start to get over this. To start to even identify and start to work our way out of the problem. It’s insane how many things need to change for these structures to be completely dismantled and built properly again.
Parinita: I know. It’s been really depressing reading Everybody Loves A Good Drought. He speaks about some of these things. And it’s pretty old, the book; I think it’s about thirty years old now. But some of the problems still exist in terms of access to education, resources, everything. We are so far behind of what we want to be that sometimes it’s difficult to imagine how you get beyond that as well. Especially looking at the country as it is right now. It’s really depressing.
Sanjana: Yeah. And this also ties into the fact that while all this is happening, even the people in the cities are reading literature or looking at media about the elite and the ruling class. Even history is told mostly only through the people who ruled and the people who were the ministers and the poets and the close-knit circle of the emperors and kings. And nobody ever tells the stories of the working-class. Recently Devika Rangachari was talking about her new book Queen of Earth. And she was talking about how she always makes it a point to put someone who would be closer to the masses in her books. And how it’s important to see how they were feeling about what was happening in history and how it was changing in history. I just want to read a little bit from this article which is specifically about Indian literature because I think representation in the West is slightly a tad bit better for these more unheard voices. This was an article about Siddhartha Sharma’s book. And the article is by Samina Mishra. “One of the biggest challenges for English children’s literature in India is the representation of realities from the non-English speaking parts of our society. And it has been a struggle unique to the writers of English in India. And the struggle is to find a self-confident voice that writes in a language given to us by colonialism. Today that extends to the struggle of using that voice to bring stories other than post-colonial inequities. From villages, working class, urban settlements, from forests, tribal lands, how can these mediated stories reflect realities that are so different from that of the readers of those books?”
Parinita: Yeah. Because this unequal representation in terms of how the stories of the oppressed-class of people are told in media reflects the unequal distribution of power which exists, right? Because a small group of wealthy, upper-caste people control and create media which means that the stories that you see in Bollywood or children’s literature or even news reflects the priorities and biases of these creators – which includes the three of us. Because the three of us write children’s books and we write what we know and we write a little bit of what we’re interested in and we’re trying to diversify in terms of the kind of topics that we write about. But it’s still a pretty limited thing. You can’t just have the urban, upper-caste, wealthy, privileged people writing all kinds of stories. You need to create space for people to write their own stories in a way which make sense to them. If we write about poverty, we’ve not experienced the kind of poverty that people in India go through.
Sanjana: Yeah. Exactly.
Aparna: Yeah. But just being able to write, it’s a privileged choice. It’s a career of someone who has a certain amount of privilege. It becomes the role of creators and editors to support or to find and encourage diversity in your list. This is something that we’ve been very conscious of. But even publishing houses need to hire people who will bring a certain amount of diversity. And it has to start there because that is the best way for people to be able to get meaningful change into the stories. But even in terms of people representing things that are not their lived experiences or giving voice to characters that they might not identify with is it’s a bit of a tricky thing. But it needs to happen in a more meaningful way. So some quote – that I don’t know where it’s from because it’s been passed down to me through so many people – is that and I’m paraphrasing: if you want to write about an identity that is not your own, then you need to surround yourself and if you want to write diverse characters, you need to live in a diverse world. And we all live in a diverse world, but we don’t necessarily have interactions that are with a diverse group of people. So change needs to start there. You need to look inward before you look outward as creators.
Parinita: Yeah and in news as well, the way that news media portrays poor people or rural people, Dalit people, Adivasi people … like if I tell you just come up with some of the stereotypes that you’ve inherited through media, it’s very singular. I’m sure that all three of us would come up with very similar stereotypes that we have because it’s the same kind of people writing similar kinds of stories which builds the canon of our imagination about people that we don’t perhaps interact with in our day-to-day lives.
Aparna: Yeah. So let’s talk about some representations of working class, poor, homeless people in the media that we’ve consumed. I will start with Caitlin Moran’s How To Build A Girl. I was recently listening to an interview of hers in which she was talking about how people who are talking about her books are so caught up in the sex and the booze and the music industry and the glamour of it all that they forget – they haven’t noticed that it’s a story about a working-class girl from Wolverhampton, which is a small town, and her journey and how she has dealt with the world. And I thought that was pretty cool because it’s just a deeply enjoyable story but it doesn’t shy away from anything. It’s talking about living on benefits and not having enough to eat and being afraid of losing benefits. And I learned so much about the social structures of that area which is completely alien to me while not even noticing, while being completely removed from that. But also the story just did it so naturally. So that is one of my favourite examples.
Parinita: Yeah because we have this idea of the UK as being all rich, right? No corruption in the UK, everyone is like well-off – not rich but everyone is taken care of by the society and the government. Because that’s the kind of narrative that we get of the UK. Whereas they get like, India poor people, religious problems, casteism. It’s so limited the kinds of stories we tell each other about ourselves.
Parinita: So for me just because I’ve been immersed in Harry Potter currently re-reading the series – I know the Weasleys are supposed to be working-class which hmm! I didn’t want to focus so much among the class differences within the magical community between the humans but think about how the Other Magical People – which is a term that The Gayly Prophet gave me which is basically encompassing merpeople, house-elves, goblins etc. Rather than calling them creatures, it’s Other Magical People – they’re just not humans. They are the oppressed-class in the magical community. Because they don’t have access to … well first of all education. They’re not allowed to go to Hogwarts. They don’t have access to even the wands so the things that have the most power. They don’t have access to the knowledge. And the people – the oppressor-class which is the witches and wizards, they don’t really learn about these other classes within their school or within even the community. There are so many stereotypes about all these other classes including about Muggles and Muggle-born witches and wizards. I feel like if you look at it through a class lens, it makes a lot of sense as well. So rather than the wealth, it’s magic as a metaphor for wealth where they don’t have access to so many things that the witches and wizards take for granted.
Sanjana: Yeah. Another example – one toh I think an episode is not complete if we don’t mention some Rick Riordan book and character – is Magnus Chase who’s homeless. Even his friends subsequently are. That never gets done. I’ve never met the main character of the story being homeless. I’ve never encountered that. That was done nicely.
Parinita: But you know saying that, when I was thinking about this some more, because even Percy Jackson – he comes from a single mother household and not too much money.
Sanjana and Aparna: Yeah.
Parinita: I know she has a partner/husband – Gabe. But they come from not too much money. But within the books themselves, that’s very brief, both Magnus and Percy’s lack of money. Because after that, once they discover their magical heritage, the lack of money doesn’t really act as a problem. It’s similar to Luke and Rey in Star Wars where they start off as these poor people and they come from impoverished backgrounds but when they come into their heritage, they realise that oh they have all this power. They have all this access – both family and otherwise. I feel like even when people try to represent working-class or poor people, it’s still in a very limited way. Like we want it, but we want it to be better.
Sanjana: Yeah. It’s in a very quick way.
Parinita: So the post that we looked at about Fantastic Castes spoke about Avatar: The Last Airbender which is a show that all three of us love and we’ve spoken about really positive examples of it. But they spoke about something that I hadn’t remembered at all that the city of Ba Sing Se in the Earth Kingdom is divided into classes even just architecturally.
Parinita: So the war refugees and the poor are cramped into a certain ring and the merchants and middle-class in another. That’s so like ancient Indian society.
Aparna: [laughs] Yeah.
Parinita: I’m saying ancient – contemporary also. We read about all these things in history and even in fantasy worlds like in Game of Thrones for example where the poor have their own neighbourhoods and the rich have their own neighbourhoods and they don’t mingle. Even Zuko, he was a better king than his father and he heralds some more progress and stuff but still. At the end of the day, the Fire Nation doesn’t really change in terms of a revolution. It’s still a monarchy which comes with its own attendant privileges. Harry Potter as well, he saves the world, but he saves the world for the witches and wizards. He doesn’t save them for any of the Other Magical People in the world.
Sanjana: Yeah. Another example is someone who didn’t start out as poor but Buffy post her mother dying.
Aparna: Spoiler alert.
Sanjana: Yeah. Sorry.
Parinita and Aparna: [laugh]
Sanjana: I mean Buffy has been –
Aparna: I know I know I was joking.
Sanjana: Okay. [laughs] But I was like oh no who have I ruined this for?
Sanjana: What was interesting was the way in which fans reacted.
Sanjana: To Buffy having to work and waitress and make ends meet.
Aparna: Yeah. So people are very dismissive of that season.
Parinita: Oh really?
Aparna: In that oh we have to see her personal problems. Like teenage angst is okay but seeing her have to deal with daily problems that we are dealing with.
Parinita: Which everybody – which most of the people in the world go through.
Sanjana and Aparna: Yeah!
Aparna: But we don’t want to hear.
Parinita: I find it so fascinating and frustrating that amongst middle-class people especially, both in the UK and in India, there is this idea that you are closer to being a billionaire than you are to being homeless. Whereas for most people now in the pandemic, you see this so much more starkly, if you miss a few payments from your employer, you are more likely to be at the complete bottom end of the class hierarchy than you ever to the top. It’s not like you’re going to get so much money that you’re ever, ever going to be Jeff Bezos. I think Jeff Bezos level of wealth shouldn’t exist anyway.
Aparna: [laughs] Yeah.
Parinita: Redistribute wealth, topple the societal structure! But I’ve called for revolution in a previous episode also.
Aparna: [laughs] But also there’s this thing that – again I’m going to mention Caitlin Moran because a lot of people say, oh you used to be working-class. And she was like, the problem is that whenever people from a working-class background make something of their lives or change their circumstances, they’re no longer referred to as the working-class. As a result, all depictions of working-class families are this – these sad … And she’s like I still am working-class according to me because that’s the experience that I’ve had. It’s this thing of as soon as you get a certain amount of distance from it, you’re no longer called working-class. So all of the working-class representations are of these tragic, very disadvantaged circumstances.
Parinita: In the UK there’s this whole narrative of them being benefits frauds. So you know they’re actually just lazy and they just want the money from the government for free. They don’t want to work and it’s really toxic. The kind of things that just moving to the UK, I’m learning so much more about both the UK and India. First of all the things the UK takes for granted in terms of class and looking after its people. And the sort of things that in India we’re still so far behind. In the West, they talk about things like Universal Basic Income and making housing available to everybody and I’m like we are so, so far behind. But on the other hand, just most recently, the most recent scandal in the UK which happened over the last week was the Tory MPs – so the ruling government MPs – voted against feeding vulnerable children over the Christmas holidays.
Parinita: A lot more people have lost their jobs and things. And they voted against it. To justify this ridiculous vote, they have come up with bizarre arguments like oh you know these food vouchers are used for drugs and prostitution. Or oh these parents of working-class families should just go to a class to learn how to cook or they should not eat, they should feed their children. Or in the most recent thing that I read today, why don’t they just sell their phone or their pearls – their pearls! – to feed their children?
Sanjana and Aparna: [laugh]
Parinita: And this is at a time when the MPs voted to give themselves a pay rise. And during this Covid pandemic, they developed an app which people are encouraged to download like a track and trace app. And basically it tells you when you’ve come into contact with somebody who has Covid so they recommend that you isolate and things. And it was such a flop because of some Excel document disaster. But they paid so much money for the app, they paid so much money for the consultants. The consultants are earning an absurd amount of money per day. And they can’t feed children! It’s such a disconnect. When we think of corruption or when the West tells us about corruption, they are like, oh India is corrupt; African countries are corrupt; this developing nation is corrupt. But the kind of corruption that happens in the US and the UK is so entrenched as well in the power structures.
Parinita: There’s so much more decolonisation to happen there as well.
Aparna: Yeah. So there are migrant workers who are suffering disproportionately here, there are homeless people who are suffering disproportionately there. And closing public parks and how it’s affecting families that live in really tiny apartments or really tiny homes with a lot of people. And just not considering all of these identities and the problems associated with them is what is so deeply problematic. It’s this trope of the homeless being invisible which is depicted really well in Neverhwere by Neil Gaiman. And also I realised yesterday in Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes has this network of Baker Street Irregulars who are able to gather information because essentially they’re invisible. And nobody notices them. And while good for Sherlock to have a team of spies but –
Sanjana: Varys also has a similar team of spies.
Parinita: Yeah that’s true.
Aparna: Yeah, he recruits children. And the fact that this is an identity that is ignored is just so deeply problematic.
Sanjana: All right! And now this brings us to the tail end of our episode and that means another What If!
Aparna: What if? What if? What if? [singsong voice and makes sound effects]
Sanjana: The What If? that we’re going to be discussing is … as we’ve established that the stories get told by all the heads and the rulers and the rulers’ children who’ve run away and the rich people. And so what if you had to flip their profession or their societal status?
Parinita: You mean what if they had to find a new job?
Sanjana: Yeah. What if they had to find a new job? For example, what if Harry had not …
Aparna: Inherited a great amount of wealth from his parents?
Parinita: No. But I think they have some sort of scholarship, no? Because Tom Riddle has to buy everything secondhand but I think there is some sort of fund for deprived children.
Sanjana: Plus as we know from Half-Blood Prince, there’s a cupboard full of old and tattered books that if you can’t get our books, you can use.
Aparna: Oh yeah!
Parinita: Oh, that’s true. I think if Harry was around in 2020, in this economy, I think he would have been on benefits. If there is a magical community benefits because who’s hiring now? The universities are cutting funding, they’re cutting departments in the UK. I don’t know what kind of cash crunch Hogwarts is going through – the Galleon-pound economy. But I’m sure they are also a part of the pandemic victims. So I don’t know
Sanjana: Yeah but as we’ve established before, regular diseases don’t seem to affect them. They have magical remedies.
Aparna: Which they won’t share.
Sanjana: Which they won’t share with us.
Parinita: No. Because why should they? [laughs]
Sanjana: This What If? has taken a dark turn, you guys.
Aparna and Parinita: [laugh]
Sanjana: I’m going to switch our lens to The Last Airbender and say what if Toph was not from the rich Beifong family? Would she have still made it to the team?
Parinita: I think Toph would have made a great security guard.
Sanjana: Oh my god yeah.
Parinita: Because she loves beating people up. I think that would have been a good job for her.
Aparna: Maybe in construction.
Parinita: [laughs] That’s true.
Sanjana: Oh my god.
Aparna: No, no, no what’s the opposite? Where you have to knock down?
Aparna: Yeah demolition.
Parinita: That’s a part of it. You can’t construct if you don’t demolish first, right?
Sanjana: She’s the wrecking ball essentially.
Parinita: [laughs] Yeah.
Sanjana: Hmm. All right all right.
Parinita: What do you think Zuko would have done?
Sanjana: We’ve clearly established that he’s good at fires.
Aparna: I think actually he’ll make really fine jewellery. It still needs fire and smelting and whatnot. But he’ll do something fine.
Parinita: But he’s not been taught any skills! What has he been taught except protecting his honour and firebending? I don’t know that he could make jewellery.
Sanjana: He would be a good weapons-maker.
Parinita: I mean sure if he goes through some sort of apprenticeship, if someone is willing to teach him. But what are kings taught?
Sanjana: But I don’t know – he seems to know his way around a sword, no?
Sanjana: So I thought he could make one.
Parinita: Maybe he could take classes. Be a sword-fighting teacher.
Sanjana: Teacher would be nice, yeah. I could see Zuko as a teacher. What about Aang? What do you think Aang did? We know what he did; he had a lot of Avatar business. But what if he wasn’t the Avatar? What would he be?
Parinita: Religious cult leader.
Aparna and Sanjana: [laugh]
Parinita: I think he would go to a cave, achieve nirvana, and just come back. It would be quite a benign cult, no shady stuff happening. Maybe it would be a nice cult to escape to in these times.
Sanjana: All right I’m going to switch over to what would Aragorn be doing?
Aparna: We only talk about kings and stuff.
Parinita: Yeah that’s true.
Sanjana: For the longest time, Aragorn was Freeriding along. So what would he be?
Aparna: Yeah. I feel like he would just be a travel writer.
Parinita: [laughs] That’s true! He gets these really poetic outbursts sometimes.
Parinita: Yeah, he would be a really good; he would mix genres. It would be quite angsty.
Aparna: Like a Lord of the Rings version of Robert Macfarlane.
Parinita and Aparna: [laugh]
Sanjana: I think he would also be a reviewer of these inns and stuff. And they would be like, “Oh the Black Rider is coming today.”
Aparna: Strider Recommends!
Parinita: [laughs] What about Sam? Since we only talk about the ruling class and that’s enough. Let’s talk about the people who do the actual work.
Parinita: I think he’d open a nice restaurant. The theme would be potatoes. Not to box him in.
Parinita: But he’d do lots of potato experiments.
Sanjana: All kinds of potatoes! That would be nice. Potato soup. I think he would perfect the potato cheese soup.
Parinita: What about the cabbage seller in Avatar: The Last Airbender?
Sanjana: Oh wow.
Aparna: He would invent a new form of bending called salad-bending.
Parinita: [laughs] That would be so much more helpful in today’s world than firebending and all.
Aparna: Bend all the salad away from me.
Parinita: [laughs] What about Dobby?
Sanjana: I think Dobby would make an excellent teacher.
Sanjana: I think he would do a better job of History of Magic. The way he would narrate history and the way things went down.
Parinita: Plus he could come to class in costume. He’d dress up in extravagantly silly outfits and the people would be so much more into the class than with this ghost putting them to sleep.
Sanjana: Yeah, he’d be better than Professor Binns.
Parinita: Oh I would love to have a class by Dobby.
Sanjana: Yeah, right? Dobby for teacher.
Parinita: So, unfortunately, this is very tragic, this is going to be the last episode of Season 1. Hopefully there will be a Season 2 in early 2021 which is the goal. But for now, this is going to be the last episode. And I’m so happy that I got to do so many episodes with two of my favourite people in the world. Thank you so much for being a part of this.
Aparna: Thank you for asking us to!
Aparna: This has been so much fun!
Sanjana: And not just fun, I have never enjoyed studying so much.
Sanjana: I have learned so much over the last couple of months.
Aparna: And it’s sad that it happened in the last episode but I got so fully into the preparation this time that when I was drifting off to sleep, I thought of the Baker Street Irregulars and I got up to make a note on my phone so that I don’t forget. That is a sign of things truly getting into my system. It happened after all these episodes and it’s now truly part of my life. So we must continue this.
Parinita: Yes. For sure. Hopefully we’re going to have more episodes and more conversations and more What Ifs. [laughs]
Aparna: Better prepared What Ifs.
Parinita: [laughs] But yes, thank you so much and we’ll see you hopefully soon!
I’d love to hear from you and talk to you – so any feedback, comments or critiques are very welcome! Get in touch with me on social media, leave a comment on my blog, or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. If you’d like to follow the podcast or the PhD project, visit my website marginallyfannish.org. Here you’ll find the podcast episodes, transcripts, episode resources and links, and my research blog. You can also receive updates on Facebook or Instagram at Marginally Fannish or on Twitter where I’m @MarginalFannish. I share episode resources on social media so you can find a bunch of excellent fan podcasts and essays to look up. If you enjoyed this podcast, please share it with anyone you think will enjoy it too.
Thanks for listening! Tune in again next time for all things fannish and intersectional!