maccakgae

Latest Posts by maccakgae

Was the Vanishing of Will Byers REALLY the inciting incident of Stranger Things?

a character analysis feat. your boy Mike Wheeler

I’m reading Story by Robert McKee, a book about screenwriting. The author describes Inciting Incidents - events that set a story in motion. Isn’t this something byler v. mileven fans always argue about? Was it Will’s disappearance, or El sending Henry into another dimension, that is the Inciting Incident of Stranger Things?

Seems pretty obvious, but let’s break it down for fun.

The screenwriting book lists the prerequisites for an Inciting Incident. It is the first in a series of story events, followed by Progressive Complications (ooh!) Crisis (ah!), Climax (OMG!), and Resolution (phew). 

Sorry, I'm afraid I won't be taking questions on the genuine academic theory that classical story structure resembles the male orgasm at this time.

According to my man Robert McKee...

1. The inciting incident radically upsets the balance of forces in the protagonist’s life. It must happen to the protagonist, or be caused by them. 

So I suppose for many who think El is the main character, then her sending Henry packing into another dimension could technically work on this point. She actively changes the narrative.  

2. The main prerogative of the protagonist is, as a result, to restore balance to how things were before the Inciting Incident happened (they may or may not achieve this). 

Well, what would this mean for El? Would she want to resurrect Henry, then? Bring him back into the Rightside Up? What has been her aim, her quest, throughout the course of the show?

3. The inciting incident must happen on screen for the audience to see.

Well, we do see it, but only in flashback, many seasons after the story has begun. It seems like El yeeting VH1 to hell is instead what's known as Backstory.

Backstory describes events prior to the main narrative which influence future events, and is often shown in flashback.

4. The Inciting Incident must occur within the first 25% of your story. To find their Inciting Incident, a writer should ask themselves: how do I set my story into action? 

Ah.

El sending Henry into the Upside Down cannot be the Inciting Incident, because it does not do what all Inciting Incidents must do: make the audience ask that million dollar question:

‘How the fuck is this gonna turn out, then?’

This is known as the Major Dramatic Question. It is the hook that makes the audience want to watch, planting in their mind what is known as the Obligatory Scene (or Crisis), an event the audience knows it must see before the story can be done. 

It’s important to note that stories are about the extremity of the human condition. They push characters to the very limits of their possible experience, on the axis of a value, reaching the highest highs and the lowest lows. What might the value of Stranger Things be? All stories have one overarching main value, even if they have many smaller values. I think it might be Freedom/Slavery, or Truth/Lies. More on this later. 

Now, if your story is a happy ending (called Idealist), the Inciting Incident might be the worst possible thing that could happen to your protagonist, a negative on the value axis, with the following story then being why it turns out to in fact be the best thing for them. Tragedy is the opposite - a great turn of events turns out to be their downfall - and an Ironic ending is bittersweet, stretching the protagonist many times between joy and tragedy, over and over, until the ending rests at a place of both happiness and sadness. 

Was El sending Henry into another dimension the best or worst thing that ever happened to her? Was it THE original incident that upset the balance of her life and set her story in motion? And what would be the Obligatory Scene that results, the thing the audience just NEEDS to see before the story is done?

Many argue it’s seeing El defeat Henry for good. Sure, this is an intriguing idea, and we do need to see El's plot tied up.

But is this the greatest mystery of Stranger Things that we need answered? Really? I don’t think so. It was not the event we saw at the start of the story that set things in motion, because this particular cast of characters would not necessarily have even met El if one thing hadn’t happened. 

What is the thing the audience has always been dying to know about Stranger Things? What is the Obligatory Scene the story must provide us before it can end? The thing that never quite made sense?

How, and why, Will Byers went missing. 

"But El has so much screen time! She’s so bold and active! A true protagonist!" the people shout.

Well, of course we don’t have the missing puzzle piece yet. If ST is treated as one large story, then s1 would be the Inciting Incident and Progressive Complications...

... s2-s3 Progressive Complications...

... s4 Progressive Complications and Crisis...

...s5 ongoing Crisis and Resolution. 

It’s also an ensemble show, with many subplots that expand off of one Inciting Incident. Will going missing is, for example, also the Inciting Incident for another beloved character.

Guess who.

Hi Mike :)

Will going missing is an event that happens to Mike. It upsets the balance of his life and his quest becomes about restoring that balance by saving his best friend.

But by the end of s4, Will is still not safe.

Mike still has not saved him - not really. A huge part of Mike’s quest is incomplete. 

So where does Mike lie on the value spectrum of Freedom/Slavery at this point in the story? (Note that the concept of slavery is contextually appropriate, meaning 'trapped or controlled' here).

Mike's early narrative values were mostly external: having fun playing DnD with friends = positive freedom. His mom cuts their game short = negative, controlled. He isn't allowed to search for Will = double negative. Then later, Mike’s story becomes more internal and complex, with Freedom/Slavery coming to represent his place in society and inner battles in a subtle subplot. He breaks free by playing DnD, but is then trapped by his idea of being a good boyfriend, and so forth as we progress into s4. 

But the very best stories push to the limits of human experience. They go beyond the positive and negative, and reach a double negative, what McKee in his book calls the Negation of the Negation. What could this be for Mike on the value of Freedom/Slavery or Truth/Lies?

Slavery masquerading as freedom, and denial - lying not only to others, but to oneself.

Mike comes from a seemingly perfect middle class suburban conservative family. It's the definition of white picket fence America. Everyone should, technically, be happy - but they aren't. If Mike continues down this road of normality, he could end up in a life where he tricks himself into thinking he has everything, but is actually in denial.

And what about Will? What’s his quest? Was being taken - his Inciting Incident - the worst thing that ever happened to him? Surely it wasn’t the best. On the value axis of Freedom/Slavery, he was captured - a negative value. If Will’s story is not to be a tragedy, his quest must be about how his vanishing will turn out to be something good in the end. And as Stranger Things will be a bittersweet (Ironic) ending, this Inciting Incident will turn out to bring both happiness and pain for Will.

So in what way could going missing have been a blessing in disguise for Will, allowing him opportunity for growth? What positive values could come about on the potential axes of Freedom/Slavery and Truth/Lies?

Will is enslaved by his secret - his sexuality - as well as by the shameful trauma inflicted on him by the creatures of the Upside Down, a possible metaphor for abuse. He experiences brief moments of freedom - positive value - when he is rescued, when he plays with his friends, and when he escapes the supernatural in California, but his sexuality secret remains - negative value.

But what is the Negation of the Negation for Will?

It's remarkably connected to what Vecna's ultimate goal is. Vecna wants to control the world, forcing people to live under a tyranny that he deems ideal, even if no one else wants it. He apparently wants to free people, but all he would be doing is enslaving them.

For Will, slavery masquerading as freedom could take the shape of Vecna trying to manipulate him into joining him, forcing Will to live in a form of denial where he accepts he can never have the freedom he craves.

Now, it’s important to note that while Will is a seemingly passive protagonist, he is in fact not passive at all, because his actions and choices have profound effects on the narrative (such as the painting lie, his choice to fight back against the Mindflayer in s2, etc), making him an active character.

And this is when I came across something very interesting in my screenwriting craft book.

A film called Ordinary People was mentioned. It’s a social drama about a family with a dark secret. The son has psychiatric problems and is freshly home from hospital. His mother is cold and resentful towards him, and his father is the passive, kindly man who wants everything to be right. There are two plots: the central plot, and the subplot. But the two are often mistaken.

People think the main plot is about the mentally unwell son, who has been despairing ever since the death of his brother in a boating accident.

His story is action-driven and draws the audience's eye with big emotion, a plotline given more screen time and more emphasis, leading people to think it is the crux of the story. 

But the main plot, the central plot, actually belongs to the father - quiet and seemingly passive, he is the spine of the story. And because he is so quiet, the writer chose to do something highly unusual: to build the main dynamic of the film around the subplot, foregrounding the young son’s despair at the loss of his brother and how this rends the family apart, while subtly increasing the momentum of the main central plot in the background; that of the father figuring out what actually caused his family to fall apart. 

I won’t spoil Ordinary People for you. But I found it very interesting when my hunch was confirmed and I found that this movie, this simple domestic social drama, was included on the Duffers brothers’ s4 film inspiration whiteboard. 

So, in Stranger Things, what could be the hidden central plot? Who could the main character be, even if they are quiet and seemingly passive? What was the true Inciting Incident of this story, the thing that set everything in motion, sparking a burning question that the audience needs answered? 

And is Will capable of restoring the balance? Is this his quest - to reclaim his childhood? Is this what he truly wants? 

Or is he in fact on a journey towards an 'Ironic' ending, both happy and sad, where he learns that his unconscious desire - what he actually needs - is something else entirely?

And how could the Inciting Incident - being taken - actually turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to him? 

Could it, somehow, give him the courage to finally grow and reclaim power over his own life? To turn the Freedom/Slavery axis back to positive? Could Will not only gain the courage to live truthfully, but gain a double positive, and receive the thing he's too hopeless to actually want for himself?

Will thought he wanted to have his childhood back, but perhaps what he secretly wants is to grow up. To grow up into his true actualised self, a gay man, free and able to love and be loved in return. 

And Mike? If his Inciting Incident was losing Will, then could that also turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to him? Mike says befriending Will was the best thing he's ever done - but that might not have been enough to make him confess his feelings had they both lived relatively normal, untroubled childhoods. 

But losing Will? And potentially losing him again in s5?

That might do it.

Mike’s quest, his conscious desire, his want, has been to save Will. Maybe it's also to be saved, from his humdrum life.

But perhaps what Mike needs is not just someone to save (Will), or to be saved by (El).

Perhaps, deep down, his unconscious desire is to find the courage to be able to save himself. To be his own superhero, the paladin from his fantasy games. To live a life unchained by the expectations of society - a life of freedom and truth.

Byler has a beautiful symmetry to it not because it’s the restoration of original balance before the Inciting Incident - not because it’s what the characters have spent the entire show thinking they want - but because it has the potential to be the perfect Resolution; the unexpected outcome that neither Mike nor Will consciously let themselves need.

Of course, they would both have to weather terrible losses as well - this will be a bittersweet 'Ironic' ending, after all, and the Obligatory Scene might well be a showdown between Will and Vecna, but Mike and Will coming together romantically would certainly be an event of irrevocable change, something that upheaves the characters’ worlds and not only restores, but renews them, ending their quests and rearranging their lives in a way that the audience knows can never be undone. 

In other words, the end of a story. 

i’m still thinking about this

Why Will is Going to 'Win' The Love Triangle

So I watched this Youtube video entitled 'How to Always Know Who'll Win the Love Triangle' which inspired this whole post, and I thought it would be interesting to apply her points to the love triangle with WillElMike.

Keep in mind the video focuses solely on heterosexual romances, with the creator not discussing any queer pairings, but regardless I still found it intriguing. (Also if you watch this video a warning that it spoils the outcomes of love triangles for many shows/movies. I think though that most will know the love triangle outcomes as most are mainstream shows/movies)

Specifically I want to talk about the "Winning Conditions" section of her video. She asks 4 questions to determine who will be the "winner" of the love triangle.

Who is our protagonist most changed by?

She delves into this further by saying it's about who the protagonist experiences the greatest emotional journey with, the person who will force them out of their comfort zone, and who will make them grow.

In this case Mike is the "protagonist" since he's the center of the love triangle.

For WillElMike: I think this is well-demonstrated in S4. Will helps Mike grow, both in his confidence, and in his self-expression. Mike opens up to Will about his feelings of inadequacy regarding his relationship with El. And it's because of Will that Mike is reminded that he's the "heart" of the Party, and leads him to take up more of his leader role again. The two of them are constantly having heart-to-heart conversations throughout the show, and especially in S4.

Contrast this to Mike and El who haven't really ever had a proper heart-to-heart conversation. Instead their conversations are largely relegated to either a) discussing the greater supernatural threats at play or b) talking about their crumbling relationship.

Winner for Question #1: Will

2. Who requires the most sacrifice?

Whichever love interest is the "easy" option doesn't make for a good story. Whichever love interest will require the most sacrifice is typically the one the protagonist will end up with.

For WillElMike: El is the safe, easy choice. Mike being with Will would require sacrifice. Staying in a heterosexual relationship with El would allow Mike to hide his queerness. If Mike is with Will he would eventually have to come out to his family and friends. He likely would worry about his queerness fundamentally changing his life. Keep in mind Mike's parents are conservatives who voted for Reagan. Mike may worry about being disowned or kicked out of his house.

Being with Will would certainly require more sacrifice.

Winner for Question #2: Will

3) Who does the protagonist most emotionally impact?

So which of the love interests is most emotionally impacted (in a positive way) by the protagonist?

For WillElMike: El is definitely positively emotionally impacted by Mike in the Season 1. He provides her comfort and stability and gives her a home. But by S3/S4 she's instead negatively emotionally impacted by Mike. Will, however, despite suffering from his (believed) unrequited affections, has throughout the show displayed what a positive influence Mike has made in his life.

In Season 2 when Will talks to Mike in his basement about his visions he tells Mike not to tell the others because they won't understand (like Mike does). He also tells Jonathan everyone treats him like a baby, naming all his friends except for Mike. Mike is the exception, because Mike, while caring for Will, doesn't infantilize him.

And in Season 4 Will expresses that Mike makes him feel like he's not a mistake, like he's better for being different, that Mike is the one that gives him the courage to fight on. Compare this to Mike making El feel like a monster – oof.

Winner of Question #3: Will

4) Who's there for the meat of the plot?

Basically this boils down to where is the narrative framed. Who helps the protagonist (Mike) through the main plot of the story?

For WillElMike: Now Season 1 Mike is of course around El more than Will, as Will is missing. And El does help Mike throughout the main plot of Season 1.

But go to Season 2, now Mike and Will are basically attached at the hip. Throughout Season 2, Mike and Will are consistently together.

Season 3 is a bit more tricky because it's more of a group-centered season. I'll tentatively call this a draw.

And then in Season 4 we barely get any Mike/El content. Instead Mike and Will are together throughout the season (they're basically the whole California plot).

And then we have Season 5 which is confirmed to have Mike and Will again as a team. They will be together the majority of the season.

So which love interest is there for the majority of Mike's narrative? Will.

Winner of Question #4: Will

I would encourage any Byler doubters to reflect on other love triangles you've seen in media and apply this same framework to them.

little doodle for their anniversary <3

60s Lesbyler wip

I saw a girl on Twitter saying that the scene in season 4 where Mike and El fight in the bedroom actually indicates a maturation of their relationship, that despite everything they are having more mature dialogues. Honestly, what do you think about that?

It... really doesn't. I'm working on a analyzation post about this exact scene in more details (which I was trying to get posted before I answered this so I could like back to it... but alas.)

But let's specifically look at the maturity of this argument. I'm going to be using a method that I use with my toddlers (I'm a teacher) when I'm analyzing where they are in their brain when using conscious discipline.

Now obviously my background and the context of this poster is obviously geared towards children and parenting/disciplining, but it applies to everybody, of all ages, all the time.

So, brief overview:

Brain Stem - Survival State: You don't feel safe - whether that is physical danger or you're afraid your needs won't be met. In this state, you're basically shut down. You're not listening to what others have to say, you're not using problem solving skills, you are acting on instinct. Not always necessarily an actual safety concern, but any perceived threat.

Limbic System - Emotional State: You feel physically safe, but emotionally raw. You're trying to protect your emotions, and are therefore acting emotionally (not logically).

Frontal Lobe - Executive State: Your physical and emotional needs are being met, and you are able to use logic and problem solving skills to learn and understand.

So when using this with small children we understand that if a child is screaming, crying, throwing a tantrum, trying to teach them a lesson isn't going to work because they're not in the right place in their brain to learn.

When looking at this from a more adult, or even teen perspective, to have a mature conversation both participants should be in their Frontal Lobe (Executive State) to be able to accept criticisms and acknowledge each other's emotions. (I would even argue that a mature conversation can happen if one is in their executive state and one is in their emotional state, because the one in the executive state can recognize the one in the emotional state and help them reach the executive state.)

Quick Note: "Mature" is a nebulous term. If you're not able to do this, or don't do it perfectly, this doesn't mean you're immature. People are more than just a brain diagram and parts of the brain. I'm just using this as a metric to talk about this argument as far as "maturity" goes. It's also not all that cut and dry, as we'll see. I don't blame either character for being ruled by their emotions.

Let's get into it:

I would argue that Mike enters this conversation in the executive state. He's had the night to cool down and think things over. He's the one who broaches the conversation by offering El some breakfast. However, he's bordering on an emotional state, and we'll see that more in a little bit.

El, however, has had the whole night (and a lack of practice self-soothing/getting back to an executive state) and is in the survival state. She is hiding from everyone else in her room. She fears herself, and she fears the other's opinion of her. I would say she's on the edge of the emotional state, given how her safety concerns are tied to her emotions.

Mike: So are we just not gonna talk about it?

El: About what?

Mike: I dunno, just maybe about like yesterday or everything.

El: there's nothing to say.

So right out the gates Mike starts with a statement that is a little bit leading. He assumes that they're not gonna talk about it. He doesn't enter the conversation with an open mind. If anything, he's pushing El further into her survival state because he's attacking her. Not very mature of him.

El shuts down any conversation. Not very mature of her. This evidently triggers Mike further into an emotional state.

Mike: yeah I guess um... I guess I'm just a little, uh... guess I just don't really understand. Why didn't you tell me what's going on here? I mean, you know I'm not exactly Mr. Popularity back at home. I mean you've seen it. I've been bullied my entire life. I mean, I know what it's like.

El: no you don't

Mike is definitely fighting to stay in his executive state and is failing, slipping into his emotional state because he feels betrayed that El wouldn't tell him something like this. I would say that is fairly mature of him.

El is further shutting down Mike's feelings as well as his ability to help her. She's also denying that his bullying was "as bad" as hers, in a way. She's devaluing his experience. She is still in the survival state and is trying to make sure she isn't further harmed. Not very mature of her. She pushes Mike further into his emotional state.

Mike: okay...? What don't I understand?

El: I am different. I do not belong.

Mike: you mean in Lenora?

El: anywhere.

Again Mike attempts to remain in the executive state, even as I'm fairly certain he's firmly in the emotional state. I would judge this as an attempt to remain mature, but he's slipping further into immaturity as the conversation starts to hurt his feelings.

El pushes herself further into her survival state by hiking up her emotions again, allowing her emotions to get the better of her. I'm gonna say not mature - but I don't blame her. Honestly whenever I say "not mature" I'm not blaming them for their responses.

Mike: Come on, you... you can't actually believe that.

El: Everyone looks at me like... like I'm a monster.

Mike: They just don't know you

El: You think I'm a monster too. Mike: What? El: Yesterday. The way you looked at me. You were scared of me. Mike: No. No. No, that's not...that's not true. I was surprised. Maybe I was a little upset in the moment, but I mean...I'm sorry, I just... I didn't know what to do. I mean, it was just so crazy, it happened so fast. But it doesn't change anything. It doesn't matter.

Mike is now denying El's experience, pushing her further into her survival state, and is being triggered by the accusation, whether it's true or not, that he was scared of El, pushing him further into his emotional state. He's growing more defensive and isn't taking accountability for his actions or how they made El feel. Instead he's justifying his feelings because of how "crazy" and "surprising" El was. Not very mature of him.

Mike: I care for you... so much. El: Care... but you don't, you don't love me anymore? Mike: What... who... who said that I didn't? El: You never say it. Mike: I say it. El: You can't even write it Mike.

El here is making an emotionally charged jump. Obviously she's been thinking about this for a long time, and emotionally stewing with this idea that Mike doesn't love her because he never says it. I'm not saying that's not a valid worry here, but she's making an emotionally charged statement and stating it as a fact. Not very mature of her.

Mike feels under attack, and is triggered further into his emotional state, and if you were to take a byler read on this (which we do, of course) you could even argue that he's bordering on the survival state, because he could be feeling that he is in danger.

El: From Mike, From Mike, From, from, from - Mike: Okay, okay, Eleven you're being ridiculous. What like... what is this? You know what I think of you. You're the most incredible person in the world. And you can't let these mouth breathers ruin you. Ruin us. I mean, they're nobodies. They're nobodies. And you're a superhero. El: Not anymore.

Mike is lashing out trying to defend himself and is once again denying El's expirience and is even deflecting his part of the blame on to the kids bullying her. He's not acknowledging his part in the hurt he's caused here and is instead insisting that she is letting others ruin them.

I'll give Mike his flowers for making An Attempt to make El feel better, but given that he's calling her delusional for thinking he doesn't love her and shoving the blame on someone else, while still NOT SAYING the one thing she wants to hear - it's not an effective attempt at cheering her up.

So TL;DR - during this argument Mike and El both make "immature" choices that push each other into a more emotional space. Neither of them are able to accept criticisms or learn or grow from this conversation, so it's not productive. Original Twitter poster may have confused mature conversation topics with a mature conversation.

mmmm cleradin my beloved

happy pride

stranger things finale is releasing on new year's eve and it's a tradition to share a kiss at midnight on new year's eve and you know who else is gonna kiss? byler. therefore byler kiss in episode 8 i've connected the dots

oh my god stranger things and the beatles i think were meant to be best friends ur so cool

omg hello hi i have two things to say 1) i love you 2) which beatle do you think is will's favorite

paul: if we put the songs in a certain order we can weave a narrative thread

john, literally twirling his hair: haha and it's like we're lovers and in love and the songs are all about us and our love

peace and love

bald mike before the st5 teaser i can't do this anymore

John and Paul details in art by Klaus Voormann

so uh

part 2

“She shows us the drainpipe which, late at night, Paul would shin up to climb through the inside toilet window and let John in at the front door without waking his father. This must be the only National Trust property where the drainpipe is pointed out as being of historical interest.”

Paul Mccartney: The Life by Philip Norman

reread this post and maybe this is an unpopular mclennon opinion? but i think they both didn't actually understand each other as well as they thought they did. i think both of them believed the other could read their mind and then filtered their subsequent actions as a conscious slight. like. john should know that paul is someone who keeps his feelings very closely guarded, who will always choose to keep the peace and to put on a good face when he's upset. but throughout the breakup, when paul seemingly stays as productive as ever, staying distantly polite to yoko while urging john to keep writing, keep beatling, everything's fine, time to put on a show, john takes it that paul doesn't care one way or another about their partnership dissolving, he's a perfectly capable one-man band hit machine anyway. this is seemingly confirmed by paul announcing the breakup to "sell a record," effectively ending all hope of quietly reconciling and supporting john's theory that paul was done with the beatles (john) anyway and had been on his way out once he learned he could write a #1 song without anyone's (john's) help. all he cares about is hits and money and his new perfect family and farm.

meanwhile. paul should know that john wasn't handling the pressures of the beatles well. he should know that he needed more support. but paul seems to be someone who gets stuck in his ways of thinking about people (see also: george), and doesn't seem to have ever shaken the image of john as the older, cooler teddy boy on the bus who he'd do anything to impress. he thinks the world of john and spends the 60s thinking they're in a friendly competition, not realizing john has started falling into the paranoia that he's losing. you can see it in get back. paul is waiting for john to write his next great song, to set a new bar for paul to push himself to reach. paul got john by impressing him with his music and when he's losing john he doubles down on it because he thinks that's the only valuable thing he has to offer. he might have offered the support john needed instead if he knew what that was, but he didn't. but mid-60s john, who still thinks paul understands him, thinks paul knows he needs him but chooses to spend his time flitting around swinging london instead, which deeply hurts him. john clings to yoko because she's a breath of fresh air from the constant race he's been running for a decade. a creative partner he doesn't have to chase down. someone who needs him as much as he needs her. a woman he can marry, can have a real commitment to. he can be everything to the person who is everything to him. but paul sees this as john finally outgrowing him and finding someone better.

paul also should know that john often speaks first and decides whether he believes what he said later. but it seems he only ever takes john at his word. when john leaves the beatles that's it, no negotiation, because if paul has lost john to someone more interesting, more artistic, then that's that. when john starts to talk publicly about paul's muzak and granny shit that must be true too, it's why john left after all. and granted john just wont stop shit talking him and it's not like he just fell on a keyboard and how do you sleep came out. but this is how you get a paul who starts to see himself as a villain and questions whether john did love him. he doesn't think too many people was that nasty compared to what john was saying about him in interviews because he doesn't realize that one of john's biggest fears is that he's incapable of being a great songwriter without paul. so to john, the lucky break line is paul admitting he agrees with that assessment and twisting the knife. but paul wouldn't see it that way because he's only ever had john on a pedestal.

so by the 70s, on their worst days, john thinks paul is cold marble statue who knows he's better than him and delights in it and paul thinks john is entirely out of love or use for him, if he ever had it in the first place. and of course, they could never talk about any of this openly because neither of them were willing to face the pain of confirming that their love really was one-sided.

i know a romance main lead when i see one

bashing my head into a wall

okay not to be corny but i feel like byler is the shows portrayal of that large scale “movie love”. here’s what i mean,

lumax is a great portrayal of real love. it’s grounded. even when they encounter obstacles, max and lucas don’t give up on each other. they don’t rely on grand gestures to prove their love.

jancy/stancy is a typical (not a bad thing) television love triangle. nancy goes back and forth between steve and jonathan throughout the show. it generates discussion in the audience.

jopper is a classic portrayal of two characters who you basically know will end up together in the end. you see it all the time in movies. they dance around each other until they finally realize and accept their feelings for one another. even when joyce was either bob, the audience was hoping that she would end up with hopper.

dustin and suzy are a juvenile and lighthearted portrayal of young love. they aren’t a major focus.

mileven is a teenage relationship that just doesn’t work. it’s a train wreck. sometimes it’s supposed to be comical and sometimes it’s supposed to be frustrating but more than that, it’s unserious. and it directly contrasts,

byler. the relationship that has been building since season one that will tie the entire show together. it is the culmination of the shows core themes and message. it’s the logical conclusion of a story that has been anti-conformity since day one. mike and will have been put through through so many classic romance tropes. they’ve fought, they’ve risked their lives to save each other, and their relationship has been treated as “different” and “special” since the beginning of the show. every season has an intimate byler storyline that separates the two of them from other characters. byler is the stranger things love story and i do believe that it will play a key role in defeating vecna.

for all its similarities and parallels to the other romantic couples on the show, it is also inherently different. no other couple encapsulates the heart of the show quite like byler does and there’s a reason they left the “reveal” for the finale. byler has always been the show stopping love story of the show, not mileven.

SO THIS MEANS MIL*VEN BONES IKTR

a very important question. like the most important question in our lives. i'm not kidding this is very serious

Something Mike would say, probably. To support Will.

Do you see any potential in theories about el being Will’s twin or personality?

They seem like really interesting theories, like 012-gate or whatever seems cool but I really don't believe in them. I think there has to be some kind of connection between them, however. Like- we still have no idea why El knew what Will looked like in S1 or why she pointed to his picture, because Will went missing after El left the lab. There are also several other glaring similarities between them that are likely not just to showcase how Mike places both El and Will in the same categories in his mind.

As for Will being a part of the lab or El's biological brother, I don't believe in that at all, though I think it would be interesting. If the show did that in the end, I'm not sure I would even like it.

🌼.

it might be not a bad combo but i'm afraid i'm not ready for that yet 💔 so the threat of tuna yogurt and hot sauce for lunch is enough to get me to reblog :D

(sorry i feel awfully awkward about tagging anyone 😭 but moots feel free to reblog if you want lettergate to be canon)

 A friend threatened me to repost so I will!

Basically, there r tons of fake asses on tumblr who just want comments and followers, so someone started this to see who's actually a good friend. Everyone I tag better repost (and tag other people and preferably threaten them in a creative way as well) bc I'm high on caffeine and newfound lesbianism and will resort to violence.

@ey-theys-was-coronas

@fangirlhehe

I would tag more people but they're the only ones I've really interacted with-

buff byers this, buff byers that, blah blah blah... ENOUGH! what is YOUR slightly ooc will byers headcanon you refuse to let go of?

i'll start: i really enjoy goth and horror fan will (there is some evidence to that in the canon, but it's not as important to him as it is in my head 😭 i'm talking "tries to get everyone to watch a slasher on a movie night" and, subsequently, "is banned from picking movies for a movie night for several months" kinda horror fan)

"Without heart, we'd all fall apart."

i call it heartgate

stranger things textposts [1]