4.1 Article

Coming out in a 'faux-lesbian comedy': authenticity and queer identity in MTV's faking it

期刊

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10304312.2021.1988903

关键词

Teen television; sexuality; lgbtiq representation; queer media studies; faking it

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through LGBTIQ+ coming out stories, teen texts negotiate authenticity, queer identity, and challenge traditional notions of the coming out narrative, while also showcasing the diversity of teenage sexualities.
In a special report for Entertainment Weekly in January 2011, Jennifer Armstrong noted that 'gay characters have gone from one time guest stars, whispered tragedies, and silly sidekicks to not just an accepted but an expected part of teen-centric television' (36, original emphasis). Within this genre, the coming out narrative has gained prominence as the dominant means of articulating and representing LGBTIQ+ identities and experience. This article traces a lineage of teen texts that negotiate authenticity and queer identity through LGBTIQ+ coming out stories where queer-coded characters attempt to pass as heterosexual, performing 'fakery' for personal safety and as a means of fitting in to the teen social milieu. MTV's Faking It (2014-2016) flips the script on this queer teen narrative, following two unpopular best friends, Karma (Katie Stevens) and Amy (Rita Volk), who pretend to be lesbians to climb the high school hierarchy. While controversial upon its release, Faking It has since been credited with 'changing the nature of queer representation on TV' through its novel representations of gender and sexual diversity. This article examines how teen sexualities are articulated and understood in the series. Through close textual analysis, this article demonstrates how Faking It engages the theme of fakery to undermine classical notions of the coming out narrative as an expression of authenticity, which have long been central to LGBTIQ+ youth narratives in film and television.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据