[ SECRET POST #2724 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2724 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 035 secrets from Secret Submission Post #389.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[rubbertea]

don't care much for doctor who, but i love how the whole block of text is a set-up for the last line. well played, op.

[(Anonymous)]

I love how many people completely missed it.

[case]

Is it some fandom in-joke? To an outsider it just looks like someone not making very much sense.

Oh, I see what OP was trying to do! Maybe. I'm actually still not sure.

... I still don't get part of it though, what's bad about romance? (Also I'd hardly call Doctor Who hard SF.)

[rubbertea]

there's nothing objectively bad about romance, but i think what op's saying is that he's not used to seeing that much of it in his sci-fi, and that in his opinion steven moffat is so obsessed with it that he focuses on it more than on the sci-fi aspect of the show, hence the comparison with a stereotypical fangirl.

[case]

I've pretty much never heard of anyone referring to Doctor Who as hard SF. Was he expecting something else? I'm so confused by this secret!

[(Anonymous)]

Doctor Who has never been anywhere remotely near hard SF, no. It's a poorly-constructed secret.

[(Anonymous)]

Doctor Who is adventure fantasy with a thin veneer of sci-fi over the top, and has never been otherwise.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

But the storyline on the left was Davies and the one on the right was Gaiman. What does Moffat have to do with them?

Not to mention that all three of them are fairly tame compared to Heinlein, who would have given us both in-frame sexuality and a lecture about how polyamory was the only relationship structure that made sense for immortal Time Lords.

[51stcenturyfox]

Everything you said.

Also, WTF comparing Niven, Heinlein, and Moffat?

Also, plenty of us do read "hard" sci-fi. I believe quite a bit of it has been published since the 70s. How much does the OP expect "girls" to beard-stroke about all the SF we've consumed since the age of 14? Does the internet have a shortage of words about this?

*goes back to reblogging gifs of Jack Harkness' ass*

[cbrachyrhynchos]

It seems to be a thing these days to quiz female authors on their understanding of Zombie Heinlein according to Nalo Hopkinson.

[51stcenturyfox]

Well, I'm writing a book but it's not sci-fi. However, I will take a Heinlein test if offered. Do we get a choice of group marriage husbands if we pass?

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Unfortunately, no. I suspect the reward for meeting that goalpost will be having the goalpost moved.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

My point was that there's a certain really shallow way of engaging with stories, and there's a nasty stereotype that women are only capable of engaging with them on that level. Stephen Moffat, however, appears to embody that level of engagement far more than most actual fangirls do. (15-year-olds excepted. We're all idiots when we're 15, you can't hold that against people.)

Re: OP

[case]

What's so inherently wrong with engaging with stories in a shallow way or encouraging that kind of shallow enjoyment, though? It's entertainment, can't you like stories however you like them? Why does that make people "idiots"? Why is it forgivable when you're 15 and not when you're 25, 35, 45?

You're sending this weird confusing message because it sounds like you focus more on "shallowness being inherently bad (and ha look it's not just girls)" than the "sexist stereotypes are bad."

Re: OP

[tcex28]

Okay but, ignoring that you threw in Ten/Rose (that image is from New Earth I think?) which Moffat had shit all to do with, I think the lack of people 'getting' your point is primarily down to the fact that they don't really see how it applies.

I mean, this is someone who for years has been routinely criticised for including too elaborate plotting and not having the heartfelt emotional appeal of Davies...The idea that 'Moffat only cares about shipping' has never been a popular consensus, considering his most famous piece of DW writing is the paradox puzzle box thriller of Blink. (Well, I say most famous, DOTD [zero shipping!] might have overtaken it now - most well regarded, maybe?)

Also the two Moffat-written kisses in this image are possibly the most meaningless examples. No Amy/Rory? 11/River?

Re: OP

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I think he struggles when it comes to building credible romantic relationships myself. Even Amy/Rory was burdened by too much tell rather than show.

Re: OP

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I think a good chunk of "hard" science fiction fandom wouldn't understand a literary technique if you printed the wikipedia article describing it onto a 2x4 of synthetic diamond and beat them over the head with it. We're talking about a group that reads and writes novels like high school textbooks, and wades into them for the purpose of coming out with an topic for giving high-school science lectures.

Not that I think that Moffat is a Dick, Lem, Vonnegut, Butler, or Le Guin. Just that the part of the community that's reactionary and priggish when it comes to actually writing science fiction consistently produces shallow narratives loaded with shit to stroke the perceived ego of the perceived audience.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

OP here again.

Frankly, I agree. There's a reason that Heinlein and Niven got swear words as their middle names. The sense of superiority among the old-school fanboys was wholly unearned, for a variety of reasons, including the ones you cite. (There are other reasons. Plenty of others.)

Which doesn't mean that it's okay to make Doctor Who into a show about how handsome and important the Doctor is and how everyone, including the TARDIS, wants to kiss him. That's bad in fanfic and it's much worse in canon.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Then RTD should also be in your secret, because Everyone Is In Love With The Doctor was his schtick every fucking series.

[rubbertea]

yup. this thread is hilarious.

[(Anonymous)]

I think I get it.. the OP is criticizing the fans that blame the influx of female fans for "feminizing" shows like Dr. Who, when it's really writers like Moffat, or something? The secret is a bit too much on the subtle side to make its meaning as effective as it could have been, I think.

[(Anonymous)]

It was a wonderfully composed secret. And then half the thread's like "but Moffat isn't a fangirl". What a waste, I say.

[(Anonymous)]

Yep.