There are many instances in television where a fictional pairing displays harmful behaviors towards one another and the showrunners “rectify” these flaws by encoding a message to make the toxicity a part of their development throughout the series. Somehow, the dominant-hegemonic decoders in favor of the pairing will reframe the message and interpret it as a positive reading of the text. Examples of this include: Even though these characters did horrible things in the past, we can overlook it because they have changed for the better, or the actors have good chemistry meaning that I can ignore the relationship’s issues, etc. Granted, these are fictitious characters that technically have no bearing on the viewer’s livelihood when they do not consume the medium, so it may not matter how a relationship is portrayed to some decoders because it is still fiction. However, it is alarming how easily an encoded message can convince decoders to interpret the toxic relationship as romantic through a dominant reading.
I recently came across an example of this in my first time watching Game of Thrones in their first season between Danaerys Targaryen and Khal Drogo. I found their relationship broadly resembling aspects of Beauty and the Beast. A “beastly” man holds a young girl captive as she sacrifices her freedom to protect the will of a family member. Their initial tumultuous relationship eventually blossoms into one of true love and mutual respect. These recognizable tropes are part of the message encoded by the storytelling to humanize Khal Drogo, empower Daenerys, and depict an endearing connection between an unlikely pairing. The message is supported by the actors’ electrifying on-screen chemistry and performance, which leads to a dominant reading of the material. Therefore, any disturbing scenes, implications, or issues present at the beginning of the relationship do not carry as much weight as the pairing’s “development” beyond those moments. When Danaerys puts Khal Drogo out of his misery at the end of the season, dominant-reading decoders are not only convinced that these two were in love but also feel robbed of more content between these characters on the show.
Instead of crying over the death of an “epic” couple, I spent the season debating on whether it was wrong to diagnose Danaerys with Stockholm Syndrome by falling in love with Khal Drogo despite his abuse of her. I understood the encoder’s message in terms of intention, the direction the relationship was heading, the actors’ work, and their story arc. However, I was not charmed by the relationship because of the horrific foundation it was built on. Through my negotiated reading, I could not overlook the influence of the fictional world’s social norms and how they played a significant role in the relationship. Their society dictates that women must be docile and subservient to their husbands and are exchanged with neighboring kingdoms in exchange for establishing alliances, building a family legacy, or, in this case, procuring an army. Part of this social dynamic is that the women have no choice but to make the best of their situations regardless of their initial displeasure or lack of consent for said exchange.
At the start of the season, Danaerys did not want to marry Khal Drogo but forced to do so because it was the only way for her brother to get an army to reclaim the iron throne. After the trade-off, Khal Drogo raped her on multiple occasions. These scenes of sexual assault communicated an image of helplessness through the acting choices, dialogue, and explicit, negatively charged visuals. To convince him not to rape her again, Danaerys had to use her body to appease Khal Drogo’s sexual desires and present her willingness to lie with him moving forward. That scene marked the beginning of their so-called “development” they receive for the rest of the season. These scenes between them make it impossible for me to take a dominant-hegemonic position on their relationship because of how torturous it was for Danaerys and how one-sided it started.
Perhaps various readings of this relationship are dependent on what the decoders are most attentive to and viewing preferences that they tend to gravitate to. Maybe the actors’ performances were alluring and appealed to a collective of the dominant readings decoders. Or they enjoy an unlikely pairing turned power couple midway through the season. An oppositional reader may find the power dynamic socially unacceptable and misogynistic. As the negotiated reader, I can acknowledge the triumphs of the storytelling and the performances and disliking the foundation for their love based on the roles of the social norms and pressures that could have influenced her development. Each decoder’s viewing experience will be unique to them in some regard, which will influence their reading of the text. I cannot fathom how people could like pairings that share similar distasteful attributes(I know they’re out there), but thinking about each groupings perspective through encoding and decoding is an interesting mode of interpretation to consider when watching any television.
3 replies on “Encoding That Depicts Toxic Relationships as “Romantic””
Kira, this is a really thoughtful and multi-faceted post. I have noticed this trope in many shows I have watched, and I think it was really interesting how you touched on how presenting toxic relationships in a positive light is also wrapped up in sexism, and how many television shows normalize gender roles that support the idea that women should be soft, subservient, and willing to deal with men that often treat them badly. As you mentioned, different viewers will interpret different things from the show, but it is clear in many cases that the audience is encouraged to support a couple that exhibits these toxic behaviors because “they’ve changed” or “the chemistry is too good”. Although some audiences might be able to leave with a more negotiated viewing, younger viewers, particularly young girls, might be less adept at noticing those toxic patterns and find a toxic couple romantic, and leave thinking that the behaviors exhibited are normal and to be expected. I believe that television shows that present toxic and abusive relationships as romantic need to be put under more scrutiny, as they could have harmful effects for younger or more naive viewers.
I agree that it is strange how the unhealthy facts of the relationship presented on screen are spun into a narrative of a romantic power couple. This… feat? definitley relies on a history of the expected genderoles in romantic relationships, misogyny, and wild logic escusing gross violence. I think another aspect of the relationship between Danaerys and Khal Drogo is how it draws on exhisting racial narratives to fuel the romantic direction. Its not exactly sublte that the Dothraki in the Game of Thrones Universe are a kind of stand in for ‘savage brown people’, and Danaerys is just about the whitest character in the whole show (her special blood line is a really important part of her). The trajectory of her marriage is reminiscent of the civilizing powers ascribed to white feminity and sexuality in many historic narratives.
I agree that heterosexual couples within fantasy worlds are “shipped” together, but the two individuals in that relationship are tough to identify with on their own. I recently started watching Outlander, and after reading your post I realize that that show requires a similar negotiated reading. You immediately want Claire and Jamie to wind up together because they are two strong protagonists, but their journey to each other primarily involves men telling Claire what to do until she submits to “what is best for her”. Yes, at the time this meant her survival, but does it warrant her being beaten and raped? It is tough to decode Claire’s personal development, as it is heavily entangled with the actions forced upon her, like Danaerys. I think it is interesting to note that both women had to marry for survival, but one series is written by a man and the other by a woman. I believe that both relationships are severely toxic, but I do think that Outlander establishes more of an emotional bridge while Danaerys seems to fall into the war mindset of the men around her.