Introduction
Hello readers! This article is a sort of spiritual sequel to my previous article, so I highly recommend reading that one first before proceeding. As there may be a few references and more background information in that article that helps build the groundwork in this one. This article will focus on the wider effects of the “bury your gays” trope, so a general familiarity with the term and its origins may be necessary for full understanding.
The “bury your gays” trope is fairly well known in the queer community, due to its effect on queer media and representation. Almost anyone you ask about this trope will tell you that it’s bad, that it’s negative. And that they hate when it’s used. It’s often used as a marker for poor writing and has become representative of lazy writing, creating a divide between what representation is “good” and “bad.” But has this always been the case? Was the “bury your gays” created with that idea in mind? Was it always intended to be a weapon? Or an easy way out? These questions and more are to be explored within this article.
Implications
The implications of the “bury your gays” trope cannot be ignored. Especially as it’s used time and time again. In the modern era, there’s no reason for queer characters to be needlessly killed off. Now, it’s simply an easy way to remove queer characters for the screen. Without the need for them to evolve as characters, become more complicated, and fully fleshed. All while the writers/creators can gleefully gloat about how “inclusive” they are.
It takes away the hard work needed for proper character building. As any writer would admit, making likeable and complex characters is a challenge. How do we endear our readers to certain characters without making them caricatures of humanity? And how do we signal which characters aren’t to liked/trusted without tripping over cliches? The balance between fantasy and reality is a difficult thing to find. And it takes practice before most writer’s can gain a decent grasp on the concept.
This is before even keeping representation in mind. How do we do justice to the struggles of marginalized groups of people? Especially if they aren’t our struggles? Do we have the right to write about those struggles if we haven’t experienced them first hand? With all these debates bouncing around the writer’s world, it’s easy to see how some creators choose to follow the crooked path. To them, it seems like you can have your cake and eat it too. Include diverse characters for the fans to love, without all the needed hassle of exploring them further. But as we’ve discussed, this isn’t proper or beneficial representation.
But this wasn’t always the case. There was actually another reason, seen in the earliest examples of this trope. It wasn’t always a tool of the ignorant and/or lazy. Instead, it was one the only ways that queer characters could be seen in the media. While queer rights have been on a steady increase all over the world, we must forget that it wasn’t too long ago that being queer was a crime. And, in fact, still is in various places. In an environment like this, the only way to put queer characters on the forefront was to ensure that they would be killed off.
Oftentimes, the killing off of these queer characters was representative. It meant to show that being actively queer was something worth punishment. That there were negative consequences to engaging in such a lifestyle. And that the universe or God would cosmically punish you for it. The only time it was appropriate to show characters like this was to demonstrate this concept.
Therefore queer writers used this expectation to their advantage, using it so that queer characters could be shown at all. Oscar Wilde was thought to engage in this, especially with pieces like The Picture of Dorian Gray. His sexuality was already being speculated at the time and so to protect himself, he had to kill off queer characters to follow this narrative. And to get suspicion off his own back.
There was a time where this trope wasn’t something to be hated. Instead, there was a resignation with it. The feeling of, “well, it’s better than nothing.” But in the modern world, this is no longer the case. We can strive to do better, to be better. Hence why the trope has the reputation it has today.
The Gray Areas
With the creation and evolution of the “bury your gays” trope, many gray areas have grown in the spaces in between. What exactly qualifies as “bury your gays?” If any queer character is killed off, does this count for the trope? No? Then does it depend on how tragic they die? How relevant the character is? Can it be excused if the queer character killed is a side character vs a main character? Or if they simply pass away in their sleep, rather than experiencing gratuitous violence?
Questions like these mark where the gray areas start and end. And are often still the subject of debate to this day. Look at almost any show, movie, book, etc where a queer character is killed off and there will be a discussion on a forum somewhere, where people debate day and night on whether it’s “bury your gays.” One example of this would be the movie Brokeback Mountain.
Brokeback Mountain is infamous, often cited as the one of the first queer movies to reach popularity. Whether this was due to the shock factor, the genuinely touching story, the writing that draws viewers in, or any other factor, it surely has cemented its place in film history. So much so that it’s still being referred to and discussed to this day. And one debate this still rises to the surface is whether the movie falls into “bury your gays.”
For those of you who haven’t seen the movie, Brokeback Mountain follows two ranchers, both men, who bond out in the wild while watching over their herd. They eventually grow closer and have sex only to go their separate ways when the job is finished. They live their separate lives; getting new jobs, starting families, and moving. However, they always end up coming back to one another, returning to Brokeback Mountain to engage in their growing relationship. But their story ends in tragedy when one is brutally murdered, presumably for being openly gay. The other man is forced to continue on with his own life, broken hearted and never forgetting what they had at Brokeback Mountain.
To this day, viewers will debate whether this movie is an example of the “bury your gays” trope. On the surface, it fulfils all the requirements. A queer character dies tragically, leaving potential and a broken heart behind. And who knows if this movie would’ve been greenlit if any other ending had occurred. Do we think if they’d been able to run off together and live happily ever after the movie would have been accepted? Especially considering the time it was released?
But on the other hand, this character’s death was thematically expected and fits in well with the overall plot. A scene before this character’s death was an explosive argument between the two main characters. One denying that they couldn’t have more than they had, for their own wellbeing and safety. While the other pushed for more, saying that he didn’t just want Brokeback Mountain, instead he wanted the world outside it. Only to die, flying too close to the sun. His death was reflective of the views and reality of the time.
There are great points on both sides of the debate and I doubt a proper agreement will ever be reached. Which only highlights how the “bury your gays” trope has created various gray areas inside and outside its shadow.
Associated Tropes
Nothing exists in the bubble. The creation and life of “bury your gays” has influenced other stereotypes and tropes. Afterall, misery loves company. There are various tropes that benefit from the continuation of the use of “bury your gays.”
One being tokenism. Tokenism is when a marginalized character is included for the sole sake of being included. Rather than reflecting the lives and realities of the community they represent, they’re a blank slate. It gives the illusion of diversity and equality. But does none of the work or benefits the communities they supposedly represent. The “bury your gays” trope often serves as the ending of this trope, fully removing these characters from the screen. This can also be seen similarly towards other marginalized groups, such as the “Black guy dies first” trope often seen in horror movies. Where the only black character, often male, is the first to die, removing him from the screen early on.
The “bury your gays” trope also has roots with “queerbaiting,” which is when creators/writers hint at a queer character/relationship but doesn’t fulfil it. Instead, leading queer viewers on, giving the false promise of representation to gain viewer/reader loyalty. They are used in twain when a queer-coded character is killed, removing the very possibility of queerness. Another similar trope to these two would be, “out of the closet, into the fire” where a queer character comes out and is swiftly killed/harmed.
As you can see from these various examples, the continuation of one trope creates a grounds for many more. Hence why it’s so important to call these tropes out when we see them. They are all interconnected, impacting not only one but all marginalized communities. Meaning that we all suffer from poor representation in the end.
Conclusion
The ramifications of the “bury your gays” trope can no longer be ignored. It lived much longer than it ever should have, outliving its own usefulness. Its continued use only creates more gray area and confusion and encourages the spread of other similar tropes. Impacting the quality of work and representation on a larger scale. So be aware, educate yourself, and call it out when you see it. Maybe one day we can finally pull all the roots of this weed from the ground and start anew. With better, more realistic, representation. Making room for more interesting and complex stories.
Leave a Reply