Keeping Loki

Since submitting my master’s thesis, I have found myself at a little bit of a loose end. Maybe not a loose end, that sounds as though I’m kicking my heels and blowing spit bubbles. I have been going through the process of rehabilitation from academia; applying for jobs, going to the gym, deep cleaning the flat and so on. I’m sorry to say I’ve relapsed, I thought myself free of this need for research, investigation, and the writing of long-winded extrapolation of the former two. So, what I’m about to write has been on my mind since about July as it proved to be a very good example of the fandom gatekeeping I was researching.

So? Let’s jump into it:

Loki. LOKI. The God of Mischief. Frost Giant. Jotun. Trickster. Shapeshifter. Magical Badass. Bi-sexual. Gender-Fluid. One of the most streamed online TV series on Disney+, but also the series that caused a massive amount of fandom infighting over authenticity, representation, and comic book canon. Seriously, my dudes, it was brutal.

I’m not ashamed in confessing I’m a massive Loki fangirl; I’ve been rooting for him and his redemption arc since 2011 - then Infinity War happened. Guys, I nearly walked out of the cinema I was so mad – for those of you who don't know SPOILERS: Loki died within the first few minutes. My partner at the time kept asking why I was sucking my teeth and picking my nails all through the film. Watching his wee face turn blue and then the life leave his eyes (good job Tom, great acting *Italian hand*). This was my character, and you killed him, Marvel!

Ok, so what has this got to do with gatekeeping, you ask? Well, for any of this to make sense you must keep in mind the para-social relationships many fans have with fictional characters. Characters such as Loki are ‘fan objects’, a transitional object that provides fans with a sense of security and familiarity. Fandom characters are consistent in their depictions and somewhat predictable in their characterisation and interpersonal relations, creating a sense of stability for fans through ritualised viewing/reading. It is also argued that fans use characters in their identity contraction by identifying with specific characters’ traits, values, or trauma which also influences their self-narratives in the real world (Williams, 2016). From this perspective it wouldn’t be too big a leap to suggest that fandom characters can hold great meaning and personal importance to some fans, specifically for minority groups, I would even be so bold as to suggest these minority-mediated characters hold more personal and cultural admiration or love than other characters. Due to a lack of minority representation in film and television (which I will note is changing) characters that are canonically and unashamedly Queer or are authentic portrayals of marginalised groups become beloved regardless of their face or heel personas. Representation in media is fundamental in understanding, combatting, and preventing racism, homophobia, transphobia, and all those other bigotries’, as well as showing those from minority groups they are valid and accepted. Traditional media is an influencing power on cultural values as it serves as an amplification device for ideas, trends, and opinions circulating within societal discourses; newspapers, television, films etc all reflect predominate cultural narratives (Hodkinson, 2011). So, the exclusion or side-lining of particular demographics within film and television narratives only reflects a culture's reluctance to accept its diversity, while also normalising minority erasure. The media shapes society, and in turn, society stimulates the media, and so the cycle continues, but that's not all. I'll come back to this - stick a pin in it for later.

So, getting back to the subject of Disney+ Loki, from the beginning was rumoured to be very LGBTQA+ positive, in recent years Disney has begun to include some, but not many Queer characters within their films and shows. Most notably LaFou from the live-action Beauty and the Beast remake, and Luz and Amity from the Owl House Cartoon. One reason for this shift away from conservative ideas of romance is due to Disney’s near monopolisation of TV and film production. The acquisition of FOX means Deadpool, the overtly pan-sexual mercenary with a love of unicorns and vengeance can now join Marvel's Official Cinematic Universe (MCU). Deadpool actor Ryan Reynolds who largely funded and produced the franchise has stated on a few occasions that the Deadpool movies will always strive for cast diversity and will continue to include LGBTQA+ characters (Desta, 2018), Deadpool writer Gerry Duggan is also quoted as confirming that he writes Wade (Deadpool) as a feminist (Dickens, 2016) [and I would bet he’s an intersectional one at that]. It can be argued that Deadpool’s success at the box office is in part due to this attention to diversity and inclusion, but honestly, it was possibly due to Reynolds's believable and nuanced characterisation of Wade which was able to incorporate progressive ideas of attraction without alienating an already existing Marvel fanbase. This is where I begin to expand on what fandom gatekeeping is…

The common understanding of media gatekeeping is from the perspective that those who hold the media power can pick and choose what is worthy of broadcast and report, therefor viewers only see stories that reflect that media intuitions values or interests to the exclusion of all others (Hodkinson, 2011). Retail gatekeeping is similar but instead of media institutions it's shops and private store owners, and in the place of stories/entertainment there are purchasable items; the retailer chooses what is of worth or meaning to whatever cultural/subcultural demographic and in this way influences what is popular and accepted (Hodkinson, 2002). I know, I know, I hear you: “What about Amazon and online shops? I’m not being restricted in what I buy!” Well, the answer: online item reviews and retail gatekeeping still apply to online stores, it’s just easier to find what you want elsewhere these days. The importance of online reviews here is that nearly everything online can be and is reviewed, from holiday venues to YouTube videos – even social media influencers in the form of likes are evaluated, rated and reviewed to help others form a prospective opinion.

Generally, having other people’s estimation of a product is a helpful feature of digital life, however, this feature is readily abused in the world of cinematic entertainment, an excellent example of this is the new Marvel addition Eternals which on its first reviews from rotten tomatoes was given a 53% rotten rating (Fuge, 2021). Eternals is the first Marvel film to get a rotten rating, and you must ask the question: why? Well, the film has a huge amount of LGBTQ+ representation, showing a same-sex relationship and kiss, the film includes Marvel's first deaf character, and Marvel's first sex scene (retroactively excluding Deadpool) and has an exceptionally diverse cast regarding ethnicity and gender (Collington, 2021). It can be reasoned that the low rating from a very white, very straight and very male board of critics was due to a rejection of the progressive representation, because now that the film has been released that rotten rating has lowered to 47% and the audience score is a positive 80% (Rotton Tomatoes, 2021). Again, we must keep in mind how online review systems can be manipulated by a large group of people with a single objective, whether it be positive or negative – remember that next time you’re booking a holiday online.

Right, take that pin out now, I’m going to explain the media a little more: the media/society cycle if you will, is a generalised and simplistic take, specifically in this hyper-mediated age, with social media being the dominant form of interaction with wider society, companies, and the 4th estate. It may maybe better to understand the media linearly, as now we must factor in other people's interpretations due to the democratisation of news, research, information, and reviews. It may maybe better to explain the impact of social media as background noise capable of distorting source information and media between the stages of transmission and reception before and sometimes during individual audience consumption. The large amount of analytical interference caused by people on social media has led to an age of misinformation and conspiracy theories due to some people's misinterpretation of the source information (Hodkinson, 2011), not to mention the hostile complications caused by semantic misunderstandings and increasing political tribalism between users. So, to boil all that down; social media platforms are scary places filled with judgmental people who are willing to deliberately misrepresent things to fit their narrative.

In 2016 actress Leslie Jones was targeted in a hate-filled racist campaign across various platforms, but predominantly on Twitter because of her inclusion in the Ghostbusters reboot (Madden, et al., 2018) in which all protagonist characters were women. The film was slated on rotten tomatoes by audience hate reviewing which still sits at 49%, this was bolstered by the ongoing Twitter hate movement against Jones at the time. Confusingly enough, the film was ‘certified fresh’ by top critics, gained 80+ great reviews and still sits at 74% on the Tomatometer (Rotten Tomatoes, 2016), unfortunately, the Ghostbusters reboot is still considered a box office flop, even though it made 85 million more than its budget (Box Office Mojo, 2016). Blodgett and Salter (2018) report that in 2017 the Ghostbusters trailer on YouTube had just over 1 million dislikes in contrast to nearly 300k upvotes, they stated that the downvotes for the trailer always continue to increase even though the film is no longer pertinent to the current subcultural zeitgeist. They are correct because as of today (11/11/21) the dislikes on this upload have increased by nearly 140k, while the likes only grew by nearly 113k. They also analysed the vitriolic comments and reported that they focus on an open loathing of feminism and ‘SJWs (social justice warriors), cite MAGA rhetoric, and take delight in watching the downvotes rise. Other than ‘owning the libs’, these predominately CIS, white males were also passing incredibly racist comments on Jones' appearance, which I won't repeat here because I can't bring myself to type it, just awful stuff. So, as you can see social media and online reviewing is a double-edged sword, in one way very helpful but, they can also be used to manipulate statistics, influence public opinion, and suppress creative expression. Fandom gatekeeping is not so widely researched (and therefore that’s why I did), and it is also unlike the previous two forms as it lacks an institution or place of authority, it is the policing of fan activity by other fans based on fandom values, personal opinion and alliances. Fandom gatekeeping can manifest in both legitimate and illegitimate forms based on specific fandom cultures, but alas I cannot explain this part of my master's research any further as it might impact my upcoming viva voce, you just have to take my word for it right now. The negative side of fandom gatekeeping is essentially online harassment, but what makes this horrible interaction a form of gatekeeping is the intent behind the victimisation – the suppression of thought/art/participation which deviates from canon lore or fan demographic to maintain the subcultural habitus.

As we can all probably agree, a difference in opinion over something so trivial as fandom texts could be resolved by agreeing to disagree, and at best stimulate conversation, however, as I mentioned earlier some people use fandom in their identity construction and will become hostile in defending it from those they deem as undeserving of it, and those reasons can be fickle and bigoted.

“But, Rebecca, what on earth has any of this got to do with Loki?” Well, I’m just about to get into it. Strap in (thanks for sticking about). As I mentioned before, the Loki Series attempted to make great strides in LGBTQ+ film and TV representation, despite having all the best intentions the Loki series was accused of awkwardly ‘dropping the ball’ on this as the writers unconsciously blundered into some obscure but problematic Genderfluid/Trans offensive stereotypes, I’ll explain more in a bit. You see, Loki has become a Queer icon in both the Marvel and MCU fandoms over the years – he is now canonically Bi-Sexual and Genderfluid in both spheres – fight me.

However, they weren’t always (see the use of pronouns, isn’t it). It wasn’t until 2014 in ‘Original Sin Vol.1 #2’ that Lokis's Genderfluid identity was fully canonised as they shapeshifted into female form for a large part of the arc and were referred to by ‘she/her’ pronouns (Johnston, 2021). Before this Loki only used their shapeshifting powers for guile and subterfuge and it was never used as an expression of their gender identity, now, in terms of Loki's bisexuality they have never had a canon MLM romance but, Al Ewing, writer of ‘Agent of Asgard’ has already confirmed that they are back in 2017. He stated he wanted to take influence from Lokis Queer Nordic history (Burlingame, 2017) which to be fair is maybe a little bit of a problematic take if you squint at it long enough. I mean the contemporary notion of Homosexuality or Queerness is not the same as what Viking cultures would have understood it to be; we are imposing new sexual and gender definitions on very old interpretations of a Pagan God. Lar Romsdal (2018) states that pre-Christian Norse cultures understood gender and sexuality to be fluid and adaptable and, in some regard, similar to what we see now in contemporary society. So, the idea of being Non-Binary may not have been understood quite in the same way that we understand it due to the already existing gender fluidity within the culture, and the recognised gender binary not being so rigidly enforced (Baker-Whitelaw, 2021). Which to you and me would maybe mean Tran identities are valid, quite right too, it’s just that with the lack of modern medical transitional assistance and marginalising Christian values, arguments of gender/sex authenticity could not exist. The problem with Lokis Historical Bi-sexuality. Well, as I mentioned before they have never had a male romantic partner, although having a few female consorts… and a male horse. To suggest bi-sexuality based purely on an equine dalliance while as a mare would be an insult to all gay and bisexual people, nonetheless, Loki is considered Bi. I would hazard the guess that it is because he is a predominant shapeshifter within a pre-Christian Nordic narrative, and the texts in which he appears were translated in a later Christian era which means that Loki would reflect the romantic heterosexual binaries associated with his chosen gender at that moment.

Here, I am going to make the distinction that mythological Loki is not the same as Marvel Loki, the latter is just largely influenced by the former, I mean, Heathenistic and Asatru religions still exist so to suggest Marvel Loki is one of their deities is disrespectful as all hell, however, the idea of fandom resembling polytheism is a whole other topic for another day. I’ll get around to writing about it at some point, I promise. Getting back to the matter at hand, 'the queer representation ball was dropped, and the problem was with the offensive trope of ‘selfcest’. You see, within the series, Loki gets into a romantic entanglement with an alternative female-presenting version of himself (Pronouns to reflect gender projection) – Sylvie and their creation and existence within this series have thrown up many debates over representation, canon and fandom authenticity. The fandom definition of selfcest is the sexual or romantic coupling of either the same character, or a gender-switched version of them, for example, clones, alternate universe variants, or long-lost twins (Fanlore, 2021), unfortunately, this fictional - and I stress; impossible – trope has leaked into real-world discussions about real people, for a start 'selfcest' is a fetish for some individuals, which is fine if everyone is a consenting adult – I googled it so you don't have to. But my point is: is that really what the Loki Team was going for? Perhaps not. The second and most problematic issue here regarding selfcest is its impact on the Queer and Trans community; the community the show professes to be trying to represent with Loki's Genderfluid identity. The recognised internet meme regarding this is the opinion that Non-Binary or Gender-fluid people are confused about who they are, and do not know if they want to date someone of the opposite gender (assigned at birth) or look like them (gender envy), it’s a cruel and reductionistic understanding of gender dysphoria as Narcissism (Haasch, 2021). Ahh, I hear you say:” but this can't apply to this situation because Loki doesn't look like Sylvie, she’s a girl!” Loki and their variants are all Gender-fluid; applying heteronormative CIS standard to this makes no difference, it just demonstrates that this was the perspective taken when creating the show – “its straight-passing, so it’s OK”.

Not everyone in the Loki fandom disliked the character pairing and actively ‘shipped’ (relation-’shipped’) them, as you can imagine this caused a lot of tension within an otherwise peaceful fandom, ‘Sylki’ (Sylvie+Loki=) shippers began to call all those who opposed or even critiqued the pairing as: ‘antis’ and questioned their love of the character and authenticity as a Loki/MCU fan. This disagreement which started over Queer representation resulted in an instant reactionary fandom tribalisation, and the infighting continued over other issues concerning comic-book canon and Marvels studio's fan authenticity. Having covered why the “Sylkie” ship might not be as sea-worthy as Marvel Studios first thought we can move on to the issues surrounding Sylvies’ Marvel comic-book cannon – and I must admit I’m relatively new to this topic as well, so bear with me.

The Sylvie we witness within the series is a hodgepodge of two other canon Marvel characters and a new imagining of a female Loki. Now, this Sylvie is rumoured to become the character of Enchantress, who first appeared in Marvel comics in 1963 (DeFalco, et al., 2019), however, this first incarnation of her was the Asgardian Amora (Marvel Database, N/A). She was not a variant of Loki, regardless of her friendly relationship with them, she was a fully realised character who went toe to toe with the likes of Thor and Wanda (Scarlet Witch). In 2009, mortal girl Sylvie Lushton took on the mantle of Enchantress when Loki secretly gifted her with magical powers (Marvel Database, N/A), again not a variant of Loki, just another fully established female character. We also must consider each of the female embodiments of Loki, such as Lady Loki, which even to me is a considerably complex list of fandom lore, but the bottom line is Sylvie Laufeydottir portrayed (wonderfully, I may add, by Sophia Di Martino) within the series is an amalgamation of various original, well written, fully-formed female characters which are now reduced to (for simplicity I suspect) a version of Loki. But then again, it can be argued (and has been at length on Twitter) that the Loki series isn't even Loki-centric but focused on Sylvie and her impact on the multi-verse, much to the annoyance of some fans who saw Loki being used as a plot device, yet again - "and in his show no less! The shame!”

The existence of this Sylvie within comic-book canon doesn’t exist, nevertheless, here they are in the MCU; existing, and her presence is just another addition to the ever-expanding Marvel Universe. So the argument of what is canon can be reduced to "what has been in comics" vs "what was made for the MCU". It does feel like the issue drawn with Sylvie's origin or creation is somewhat in bad faith, as many Loki Loyalists began to believe that Sylvie's introduction into the Loki narrative was because the MCU is planning on replacing Tom Hiddleston with Sophia Di Martino in the future. The issues with the character of Sylvie does seem to surround gender-fluid representation and the demolition of original female characters to create her, as well as many fans feeling as though Lokis's character development was overlooked in favour of Sylvie’s. For example, and coming back to the selfcest problem (*groan*); the Loki fandom was ready and waiting for a plotline which allowed Loki to shed their defensive narcissism – caused by their insecurity regarding his legitimacy and heritage, much of which manifested in a destructive sibling rivalry (Not to get too personal, but I think this is why I and many others love this character, they're relatable) … But instead, the writers doubled down on egotism by having them fall in love with themself (remember what I said before about the reductionistic narcissism of selfcest) which ultimately (in terms of story) was their downfall (and in terms of trans representation, was ill-thought-out). OK, OK, I’m being harsh, I understand what the writers were trying to go for: “If you can’t love yourself, how the hell are you goin’ love someone else – RuPaul”, but come on now, Loki is super romantically traumatised by it all, I doubt they’re bouncing back and trusting anyone again anytime soon (again, super-duper relatable, but iffy context); ‘if you can’t love yourself… Try speed dating, maybe?’

So, the notion of what is and what isn't cannon is an incredibly important factor in how fandom gatekeeping operates, do not work under the assumption that cannon is negative, without it there would be no continuity within a cinematic universe (insert rant about various film studios and marvel rights here: e.g., Spiderman/X-Men) and the bastardisation of fandom text resulting in the alienation and ire of original comic book fans. This, kind of happened here with Loki, after the wave of Sylkie and Sylvie-based fury - which to be fair is a predictable reaction if anyone just took the time to look around the fandomsphere and at current trans discourses. Some fans aimed for Loki's authenticity as a character within the series and insisted that Loki is not Loki but instead a totally different character cosplaying Loki… because… allegedly… the series wasn't written for Loki, and the writers just switched out the protagonists' name for Lokis'.

I know that's a hell of an accusation to make and I have no proof, either way, it's what I read in online discussions and I'm just reporting it - remember what I said about background noise. Don’t shoot the messenger. But my point is, once again, cannon and authenticity motivate fandom gatekeeping practices, every time, without question, however, the legitimacy or acceptability of that gatekeeping is fundamentally dependent on how much the interpretation of the cannon text has been manipulated – I can’t cite it yet, I still have my defence to do *smug*.

We’re not done yet! Bums on seats. It can be argued that the series deliberately chose to have Loki come out of the closet after he died in Infinity War to side-step the gay-coded villain stereotype and give them somewhat of a fresh start by casting off the shackles of cannon villainy and adorning the pretty bangles of the chaotic neutral anti-hero – the metaphor is that Loki isn’t restricted to a two-dimensional black hat baddie anymore and can now live their best life (if they can just get out of their way). This choice is also used to justify why Lokis’ character is not the same, their character is closer to the adult version of 'kid Loki' who was part of the Young Avengers and doesn’t harbour the same insecurities (Patches & Polo, 2021). So, this Loki, to a degree has had the slate wiped clean and is free to be who he wants to be without any canon character restrictions, and however brief the confirmation (and it was) of Lokis’ bisexuality and gender-fluidity within the series, it has made any attempt to retcon (retroactive continuity) their sexuality or gender increasingly harder for some ‘haters’ (did I say that right?).

Now we move on to fleetingly consider Mr Tom Hiddleston. He bore the brunt of this gatekeeping backlash because he is the face of Loki; a predominant producer of the series, and was allegedly part of the writing process – I must add that he’s also a massive nerd, but that internet hearsay – I have no evidence of this past his convention appearances and interview titbits about comics. He might be, he might not. I’m not going to gatekeep, the more the merrier, say I… and yet, some people still tried. Poor Tom. Once more I am going to reference random Twitter shenanigans as a source because that's where all this goes on (background noise – shush). When the challenge to Lokis authenticity wasn’t going anywhere, a few rabid 'enthusiasts' decided to next target Hiddleston and challenge his authenticity as a true fan – I mean how dare he bastardise the cannon in such an awful way?! Let’s fill his shoes with custard and have him wear a badge emblazoned with “phoney” and we can all point and laugh! I am being very silly right now, apologies.

But honestly, I wish it was that silly in reality because the actual occurrences are incredibly unsettling as these very upset and a little disturbed ‘fans’ have doxed (maliciously revealing someone's address online) Tom on a couple of occasions due to his involvement as an executive producer of the show and many of these dissatisfied Loki 'devotees' if you will still blame him for the selfcest mishap along with a slew of other issues they perceive, and took it upon themselves to send death threats to the cast – how friendly and not entitled, or sociopathic. Custard shoes are a much better punishment, in my honest opinion. I think in recent months, since the tragic event which happened on the set of Rust, the concept of what an ‘actor turned producer’ role has been better explained, and in some cases, the title comes with the investment of funds to essentially 'make and star in' said piece, so it's just a vanity tag (Olsen, 2021), however, some might be a bit more hands-on. No one else, other than cast & crew et al will know the full extent of Hiddleston’s involvement in the creation of the show, and even if he wrote the entirety of the series himself, death threats and doxing are not justified responses.

Once again, I am directing you to look at the intense fandom gatekeeping spurred on by feelings of authenticity, whether it be from a place of fandom and cannon, or allyship and representation, the results are the same; gatekeeping, and some methods and justifications are unethical, unacceptable, and illegitimate as these actions are not condoned by the wider fandom, even ‘antis’ would agree that hate mail to the actors is a deplorable action.

To quickly summarise, because I've dragged this out a bit, the Loki series is one of the most-watched shows on internet television, even though it had to deal with all the criticism from fans regarding LGBTQ+ representation. The show is still a remarkable success, personally, I don't like the 'Sylkie' entanglement, but I love the series. It was well done, and the actors were all fabulous and I'm obsessed with it. If you haven't noticed I have my own opinions on certain aspects as most fans do, but it doesn't diminish my enjoyment in the slightest, but unfortunately a small amount of very disruptive “fans” used canon rhetoric and accusations of fake fandom to target specific people and attempt to gatekeep and silence them in most aggressive ways. This whole online fandom scenario or event, even, is so interesting to me because it showcases all the insidious and dangerous aspects of policing fandom participation and fan authenticity. I hope this was a least a little interesting for anyone reading… I think I might crochet something now.

Works Cited

Baker-Whitelaw, G., 2021. How Loki became a genderfluid icon in Marvel fandom. [Online] Available at: https://www.dailydot.com/uncli... 14 November 2021].

Blodgett, B. & Salter, A., 2018. Ghostbusters is For Boys: Understanding Geek Maculinity's Role in the Alt-right. Communication Culture & Critique, 11(11), pp. 133-146.

Box Office Mojo, 2016. Ghostbusters. [Online] Available at: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/... 13 November 2021].

Burlingame, R., 2017. Loki Is Bisexual, Will Shift Between Genders, Says Loki: Agent of Asgard Writer. [Online] Available at: https://comicbook.com/news/lok... 14 November 2021].

Collington, F., 2021. Eternals Review Bomb Proves Marvel Is On The Right Track. [Online] Available at: https://screenrant.com/eternal... 11 November 2021].

Davis, E. & Arougheti, I., 2021. Podculture: Why All Your Favorite Villains Are Gay…ish. [Online] Available at: https://dailynorthwestern.com/... 23 November 2021].

DeFalco, T. et al., 2019. The Marvel Encyclopedia.. s.l.:DK Publishing.

Desta, Y., 2018. Ryan Reynolds Is Open to Exploring Deadpool’s Pansexuality. [Online] Available at: https://www.vanityfair.com/hol... 10 November 2021].

Dickens, D., 2016. Deadpool is totally a feminist, according to DEADPOOL writer Gerry Duggan. [Online] Available at: https://uproxx.com/hitfix/dead... 10 November 2021].

Does, M., 2013. Loki is Bisexual?!. [Online] Available at: http://www.marlenedoes.com/lok... 14 November 2021].

Fanlore, 2021. Clonecest. [Online] Available at: https://fanlore.org/wiki/Clone... 18 November 2021].

Fuge, J., 2021. Eternals Scores the MCU's First-Ever Rotten Rating. [Online] Available at: https://movieweb.com/eternals-... 11 November 2021].

Haasch, P., 2021. 'Loki' reignited the internet's debate about 'selfcest,' or falling in love with a version of yourself, with its main relationship. [Online]

Available at: https://www.insider.com/loki-s... 18 November 2021].

Hodkinson, P., 2002. GOTH: Identity, style and subculture. Oxford: Berg.

Hodkinson, P., 2011. Media, Culture and Society. An Introduction. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Johnston, D., 2021. IS LOKI GENDERFLUID? "IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE," TOM HIDDLESTON TELLS INVERSE. [Online] Available at: https://www.inverse.com/entert... 14 November 2021].

Madden, S., Janoske, M. B. W. R. & Nell Edgar, A., 2018. Mediated Misogynoir: Intersecting Race and Gender in Online Harassment. In: J. R. Vickery & T. Everbach, eds. Mediating Misogyny: Gender, Technology, and Harassment. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 71-90.

Marvel Database, N/A. Amora (Earth-616). [Online] Available at: https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki... 22 November 2021].

Marvel Database, N/A. Sylvie Lushton (Earth-616). [Online] Available at: https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki... 22 November 2021].

Olsen, M., 2021. Alec Baldwin is credited as a producer on ‘Rust.’ What does that really mean?. [Online] Available at: https://www.latimes.com/entert... 23 November 2021].

Patches, M. & Polo, S., 2021. Loki brings the trickster’s bisexual legacy to the MCU. [Online] Available at: https://www.polygon.com/tv/225... 14 November 2021].

Romsdal, L., 2018. Loki: Thoughts on the Nature of the God, a Queer Reading, New Zealand: University of Auckland.

Rotten Tomatoes, 2016. Ghostbusters 2016. [Online] Available at: https://www.rottentomatoes.com... 11 November 2021].

Rotten Tomatoes, 2021. Eternals. [Online] Available at: https://www.rottentomatoes.com... 11 November 2021].

Williams, R., 2016. Post-Object Fandom. Television, Identity and Self-Narrative. London: Bloomsbury Academic.