John And Paul Details In Art By Klaus Voormann

Thoughts on "Escape from Camazotz"

Oppressive Suburbia, Conformity, and Season 5 Themes

I've long thought that a major focus of Season 5 will be the contrast between the families of The Wheelers and The Byers, and exploring how non-traditional family environments can be freeing vs the oppressive structure of the nuclear family.

In a Wrinkle In Time, Camazotz is a planet controlled by the big bad of the book, the "IT", who forces the citizens into a conformity that resembles American suburbia. All of the houses the same, the citizens the same, doing the same things at the same time without individual identity. Without anything different. Different means a lot of things, but with Stranger Things dropping different in reference to Will's identity and the presumable themes of this season, it will heavily codify as queerness and how it threatens the cisheterosexual family model.

Henry was raised in the 1950s, a decade still revered by conservatives for it's traditional family dynamics that supposedly were the peak of culture and happiness for all. That was all a lie, of course, and Henry knew so as he shows to Nancy and Eleven during his monologue. The second most conservative decade aside from the 1950s in American society is widely considered to be the 1980s.

The Creels will serve in parallel to The Wheelers; the worst example of what they could become and the damage that this type of family could do to a child that is different in any way. Notice how Vecna selectively shows Nancy visions of The Wheelers dying, but not anyone else she may consider family or friends (like Jonathan).

That is; unless they change their ways and come together as a healthy functioning family facing their traumas, The Wheelers will be toast.

Karen has been moved up to a main character role this season. Ted's actor says the father starts to show up more for Holly (hold that) and realizes he wants to act differently. Holly has been recast. Finn has said Mike goes on a much more personal journey this season, and steps up as a leader.

Oh, also: the catalyst for all of this is that Holly goes missing. The contrast will help show how the Byers (including El and Hopper here) were able to pull together and help solve Will's disappearance, versus how the Wheelers as a closed off nuclear family grapple with Holly's vanishing.

Each of the Byers is in some kind of a non-1950s conformist relationship, but particularly Will (not in one now but we all know he will be). I think El might represent, after she breaks up with Mike, the fear of the unmarried woman being satisfied without a husband. The above shot really emphasizes my point.

I predict that Will will end up coming out to his family rather early on, and we will see all of them immediately accept him with little surprise or push-back. Will is a visible gay man who comes from an open minded non traditional family (divorced, non-married, adoptive) that is willing to have honest conversations.

But this theme will place the most focus on the Wheelers. Mike is the main character of said family and this will particularly focus on his arc, and his acceptance of his queerness in the midst of suburban conformity.

He is not visible, he comes from a Reagan-supporting family who don't communicate with each other. He is not particularly close with his family like Will is. He pushes his feelings down and tries his damn hardest to be normal despite it all. His trauma hasn't really been addressed at all. He is falling back into his usual habits - the one thing he dared to do different (grow his hair long) has gone back to how it was.

It's not all doom and gloom though. This season above all will be a redemption arc of the American nuclear family, how they choose to escape their conformity and learn to be there for each other, thus overpowering Vecna. Not that the Wheelers are going to end this personally.

"Great, more hysteria. Just what we need". "It's the news, now indistinguishable from the tabloids".

this caption is sending me omfg 😭 he really said HERE DAMN

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

"unambiguous true love" and you want me to believe byler isn't endgame? yeah right

i know it's a leitmotif in "being different" that plays in the scene, but just the fact that it's there. the fact that they've made a choice to include it. even if it only relates to will's feelings here as he's the one who's speaking, they still framed them as unambiguous true love.

the depth of will's feelings for mike is one of the biggest reasons why i'm confident byler is endgame. i would've had a way harder time believing in it if it was just a crush, dustin/max style, because then i'd see the argument of it being included to show will's queerness or have drama, a gateway to will moving on and finding someone new. but no, they've made a point, several times, to showcase us that mike is it for will, his love for him is "for the rest of their lives".

i'm sorry, but you do not describe a queer character's love as "true" and "forever" to have it bear no significance outside of 1) using it to fix a straight relationship and 2) breaking his heart. that is just cruel, full stop.

(the whole thread: https://x.com/esheenaspeaks/status/1894938950462013839?t=yV0vDVk3-DrmsmBCF3BP2g&s=19)

going to r/strangerthings to read their comments on byler just to feel something

satisfying payoff of the milkvan s3 finale scene:

mike processes the kiss after standing still for a few seconds, recollects himself, follows after el, spins her around and kisses her the way he should’ve kissed her back moments ago. maybe they pull away and smile adoringly and hold each other or something. a goodbye that doesn’t wanna feel like one.

but instead we got:

…and that’s it.

@love-byers and i have been discussing the many layers to this scene and it’s just impossible that this scene is pro milkvan in the slightest i’m sorry but if this was meant to be romantic i’m just not feeling it. i remember watching this for the first time— thinking this’ll be the moment that finally makes me ship them, but all i felt was utterly confused as to why mike reacted the way he did… and the lack of action he took when he apparently “realized the girl he loves loves him back after all”. i’m not buying that shit for a second.

now i am 100% convinced that there is NO WAY mike really only called “a couple times”

he was gripping that phone like his life depended on it.

theyre talking on the phone

"but, tumblr user willielli, does this post of yours mean you believe any ship will be endgame as long as one of the characters is in love?" absolutely not, my lovely imaginary opponent! just being in love doesn't save a character from ending up on a losing side of a love triangle, au contraire, stranger things has a character exactly like that. and, as you might've guessed, it is no one other than steve harrington himself!

so buckle up, ladies and germs, we're doing an impromptu will&steve comparison/analysis! hopeless loverboys, fear me, i've come to dig in your guts-

just to preface, please note that i'm perfectly neutral on steve, which means i have not spent too much time thinking about his character, so i might be wayyyyy off here, but: i firmly believe that steve's endgame is going to be staying single & better for it, maybe finding someone in the epilogue. so, in other words... steve's endgame is exactly what some people on reddit envision for will, lmfao.

yeah, both steve and will are in love with their respective wheelers, both have dreams of happily ever after, but this is about where the similarities end. they are opposites when it comes to narrative ideas and character arcs, which is why their outcomes will be different.

first off, this point has been beaten half to death, but i'll repeat it anyway: stancy goes against the main message of stranger things, while byler supports it. in the jancy vs stancy love triangle, steve represents conformity: nancy choosing steve means leading a life terrifyingly similar to one of her parents, safe, but also miserable. this theme was first introduced in s1 with the jancy gun shooting practice scene, then amplified by murray in s2, and in s4 they repeated it via steve and his six nuggets talk. it's enticing, this image of happy and peaceful life, and while nancy is interested, she isn't won over by it in the end. steve represents an easy way out, but it also goes against what nancy, a very ambitious and driven woman, actually wants in life.

byler, on the other hand, is a queer relationship in the 80s, meaning it's the definition of non-conformity. the other, conforming option for mike (the center of this love triangle) is mil*ven, a relationship that was explicitly shown to be ridden with lies and play pretend. both of them are unable to be their true selves when with each other, both of them act like they are enjoying things they actually don't and are ignoring things they actually love. the biggest evidence here is mike's relationship with d&d in s3 and s4: he acts like he's too grown to be interested in the game while el is in the picture, then doing an 180 and joining the hellfire club the moment she's out. being with el is an obstacle to doing what he actually wants, just like it was for nancy with steve. will, on the other hand, shares mike's interests and encourages him to partake in them, be unashamedly himself.

the second aspect to this is how steve and will's character arcs (the romance parts of them, anyway) are actually total opposites. their starting points are mirrored: steve starts off in an established romantic relationship with nancy, confident and secure that nancy wants him; will is convinced that he will never fall in love — a romantic relationship is simply not an option for a gay kid like him. steve is proven to be incorrect, of course, when nancy doesn't get what she needs from him and breaks up with him, giving his head the biggest thump of his life and kickstarting his arc/development/redemption. the purpose of steve's love for nancy is for it to end up rejected, serving as an inciting incident that changed the trajectory of where steve's character was headed, allowing him to escape bad influence and grow from a douchey jock to the compassionate and open-minded person he is now. his arc is still not over, though, as steve is yet to find his worth, purpose and confidence, the lack of which manifests in his romantic failures, but i have a feeling he's not going to find that through nancy. just as for nancy this relationship means going against who she is, for steve it would mean a regression.

when it comes to will, his conviction is going to be challenged as well, since it's very obviously the Lie — stranger things is not a show that will reinforce a queer kid's belief that he will never be loved romantically. will's love for mike isn't tied to negative aspects of his character (unlike steve's, as his jealousy for nancy turned him into into a jerk and a bigot), as will was shown to be self-sacrificing, loving and supportive of both mike and el, unwilling to hurt them despite all the pain he's going through. moreover, the van scene is him giving up his love, conceding defeat without fighting, which comes as both an outcome and a reinforcement of the wrongful belief that romantic love is an impossibility for him. him ending up rejected would not be the cause of some character growth — there is no lesson to be drawn from a heartbreak for him. it's not giving a thump on his head to make him go in the right direction, it's headshotting a corpse.

now, will's position going into s5 was set up by the writers 100% intentionally. they chose to write themselves into this corner in which mike reciprocating is the only logical outcome, because it's a combination of several deliberate writing decisions. they didn't have to write will expressing that he will never fall in love, his struggle with his queerness could've come in a different form. they didn't have to write him have feelings for mike and mike only, it could've been anyone, existing character or new. they didn't have to write him in love, it could've been an infatuation or a childhood crush. they didn't have to write mil*ven lie to each other about who they truly are, they could've had a strong connection and understanding. they didn't have to write will giving up his love for mike and el's (dubious) benefit, he could've fought and gotten mean with it.

they could've written him being worse for loving mike, but they chose not to.

the writers gave both will and steve love triangles, and both of them are in the position of hopelessly in love third party as of s4, but their arcs are not parallels. both characters are in love, but love serves opposite purposes for them — for steve it's something to overcome and grow from, for will it's something to embrace and allow himself to have.

my fear is that one day i'm gonna say will bylers instead of byers and not notice and people will point and laugh at me