fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2825 ]

[ SECRET POST #2825 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2825 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 065 secrets from Secret Submission Post #404.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

But isn't that what they are?

An apologist is "a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial."

If you're defending a controversial character or controversial actions, are you not by definition an apologist?

This.

No.

Ehh yes, reading the replies below, I realized that I was too quick to jump to conclusions about the OP's post. I thought they were objecting to using the term "apologists" as such. I'm sorry.

NAYRT, but I'd argue that there's a difference between being a fan of a character who does bad things and defending them. The fact that I think a villain is a lot of fun to watch doesn't mean that I don't think he's a villain, or even that I don't think that he's a horrible person who does horrible things. He's just fun to watch.

That's a fair point. I'll fully admit there are characters that I LOVE because of how they're such huge assholes -- like Light Yagami. There are characters I will defend though (like Azula or Zuko) although they do objectively terrible things.

I originally thought the OP meant that defending a controversial character didn't necessarily make one an apologist, but that's probably not what they meant.

Right, I wasn't talking just about people who actually defend the characters. What annoys me is when anyone who likes them is assumed to be implicitly defending them and hence, an apologist.

But, I also think it's possible to defend a character without defending all the things they do, and that doesn't make you an apologist. You can admit they did things they shouldn't have done and not excuse them for those things, but still say those things don't make them an indefensible person as a whole.

There's a difference between offering explanations for why a character did something, and saying that they were the right choices. Hell, you can even feel sorry for a horrible character because you know know their motives without agreeing with what they did.

I'd say that's looking at a character like they're human; everyone has their reasons for what they did, and when they're genuinely good, compelling reasons, it can add a lot to the story.

There's also a difference between liking an evil character while acknowledging that they're shitlords, and pretending that what they did was kosher just because you don't want to admit that you like an evil character.

(The most obvious example I can think of is Loki. It's possible to sympathize with his reasons and to even feel sympathy for him while still acknowledging that what he did was a bit of a dick move.)

No, being a fan of a character doesn't mean you endorse or even agree with all their actions. I am a fan of a lot of villain characters, but that doesn't mean that I think they're right or should win, they just happen to fascinate me and I enjoy watching/reading about them. That's it.

This.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2825 ]

Re: Reminded by Secret 6

Re: Reminded by Secret 6

Re: Reminded by Secret 6

Re: Reminded by Secret 6

Re: Reminded by Secret 6

Re: Reminded by Secret 6

OP

SA

Re: Reminded by Secret 6

Re: Reminded by Secret 6

Re: Reminded by Secret 6