A Sapphic-sticated Dinkley

I sometimes wonder if pop culture controversies spring up because the internet’s bored and needs something to get mad about. Take the Scooby-Doo franchise. Despite loving it as a child, I’ve rarely thought about it as an adult save occasionally humming its jingle. It’s not a bad series, it taught me about skepticism and not trusting authorities blindly, but, like many shows of the time, it's struggled to remain relevant since its inception and has constantly remade itself. We’re seeing that, for example, with HBO Max’s Velma, which sees Velma Dinkley reimagined as a detective who drops f-bombs.

While reworking templates is nothing new, what is new is exploring Velma’s sexuality. She’s always been an enigma here, as we know so little about her dating life compared to her friends: Fred and Daphne are hinted to have feelings for one another, while Shaggy’s interested in food and Scooby’s…a dog. But Velma keeps eluding everyone. Surely she’s interested in something, right?

As of a recent movie, yes. In Trick or Treat Scooby-Doo, Velma and friends meet an unusual woman that Velma develops feelings for. This isn’t a big deal: people have different romantic interests, and lesbians exist. Additionally, many children are gay, and it’s important that they feel validated. It’s not even like this is a stretch for Velma, who, like I said, is an enigma.

Sadly, I wish everyone agreed. Ignoring how this is direct-to-video, hence its quality isn’t guaranteed, the nerd of the Mystery Gang being a lesbian has angered many people. It’s almost sacrilegious that a cartoon character is attracted to the same sex, a “political statement” that’s “fulfilling a woke agenda”. Forget that Velma isn’t real, this is “Hollywood selling out again”. And that’s “bad”.

I have to address two issues here: one, people loving other people, assuming they’re capable of consenting, isn’t a “political statement”. I might’ve thought that in 2015, but I’ve since realized how small-minded that is. Being a minority shouldn’t be a political statement either, nor should having a disability. The external attributes of a person aren’t as relevant as their character. I say this to both sides of the political spectrum.

And two, Velma being gay in 2022 isn’t a big deal. Nor is it bold. Besides, I have to wonder why Linda Cardellini, who played Velma in the live-action movies, wearing a bikini in a deleted scene didn’t have the same outcry from the internet as her being a lesbian. Sure, concerned parents might’ve chimed in, but the internet ate it up like hungry dogs! Why is a woman being provocative okay, but not being interested in other women? Especially when the latter is tamer?

I mention these points because I don’t understand why this is an issue. There are plenty of real problems in the world, including, but not limited to, war, sexual assault and climate change. In the world of entertainment, equity and fair pay are hot button topics. Even over at Warner Bros. Discovery, there’ve been layoffs and budget cuts under the current CEO that’ve made working there a nightmare. In the grand scheme, Velma Dinkley being a lesbian isn’t that egregious.

I know that grafting traits onto a blank slate character is tricky, especially when not done properly. I’ve also no doubts that Velma being made a lesbian was a calculated decision. As for the movie in question, it could be trash, I don’t know! But that doesn’t make it bad that Velma likes women. Because some women like other women, that’s a fact!

“Okay,” some of you might be thinking, “why not create a new character altogether?” Firstly, equity’s important. Like how removing someone’s sexuality is wrong because there isn’t a fair share of queer representation yet, making a blank template character a lesbian is totally acceptable for the same reason. And secondly, whenever artists “create new characters”, it fares equally as poorly on the internet. Simply look at Selma and Love, Simon’s scrutiny for being “too political”.

Basically, there’s no winning. It’s like the saying goes, “You give them an inch, and they take a mile”. You can only play the game for so long, especially when the goalposts keep getting moved. Velma being a lesbian in one movie is one example, and it’s time people got over it. Life’s too short to stress over something that trivial.

Besides, this could end up making significant inroads for queer representation. Remember, being gay was taboo for a long time. And when it was discussed, it was usually played up for laughs or as moralistic tragedy. Normalizing queerness for the sake of it is relatively recent, and we have a long way to go. Velma Dinkley’s another step in the grander conversation. It’s messy, sometimes uncomfortable, but it’s inevitable. And if Bros flopping at the box-office is indication, it won’t always land the way its target audience wants.

Essentially, I want bigots to be honest about their bigotry. But if that doesn’t convince them, then perhaps swirlies are in order? Flush!