Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2014-10-13 07:03 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
[ SECRET POST #2841 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2841 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04.

__________________________________________________
05.

__________________________________________________
06.

__________________________________________________
07.

__________________________________________________
08.

__________________________________________________
09.

Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 039 secrets from Secret Submission Post #406.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - 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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-10-13 11:16 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-10-13 11:20 pm (UTC)(link)OP clearly recognizes that these female characters suck because the writers can't develop them, yet OP insists on bashing the characters themselves? Instead of going on about "THIS CHARACTER IS TERRIBLE AND I HATE HER" go on about "THIS CHARACTER IS BADLY WRITTEN AND SHAME ON THE WRITER[S]" - there's a huge difference.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-10-13 11:24 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-10-13 11:29 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-10-13 11:31 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-10-13 11:42 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-10-13 11:52 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-10-14 02:47 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-10-14 07:28 am (UTC)(link)I don't really get your point other than semantics?
I might be overestimating the secret maker's intelligence idk. =/ I just like to think that they would understand it and were expressing distaste at the alienating aspects but who knows.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-10-13 11:21 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-10-13 11:30 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-10-14 12:31 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-10-14 01:14 am (UTC)(link)no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-10-13 11:45 pm (UTC)(link)A character isn't real -- doesn't have any feelings to hurt.
OP above
(Anonymous) 2014-10-13 11:45 pm (UTC)(link)Re: OP above
(Anonymous) 2014-10-13 11:49 pm (UTC)(link)To expand on this a bit:
It always makes me really uncomfortable to see George Lucas called racist because of Jar Jar Binks. I get WHY people don't like Jar Jar. I really do. But I feel like Lucas tried to reach out to black actors and that his mistakes were probably borne of his love of old serials more than out of any desire to mock black people.
So I honestly prefer it when people say, "I hate Jar Jar Binks because he's so annoying and he reminds me of racist caricatures" rather than "George Lucas is racist for how he wrote Jar Jar Binks."
Do you get what I mean?
Re: OP above
(Anonymous) 2014-10-14 02:03 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-10-13 11:49 pm (UTC)(link)OP
(Anonymous) 2014-10-13 11:56 pm (UTC)(link)"I don't like X -- she's a flat character that's in it purely for the token romance aspect without any development."
vs.
"I wish the writers wouldn't use the token romance trope so much and would flesh out the female characters more."
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-10-14 12:09 am (UTC)(link)Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-10-14 06:16 am (UTC)(link)If you say, 'I don't like character X, she's a vapid romantic stereotype,' I'd expect you to marginalize character X, putting her aside in favor of the characters you like more. Depending on the circumstances, that might entail killing them off or otherwise causing bad things to them in your fanwork, or it might just entail ignoring them entirely.
If you say, 'I don't like what the writers have done with character X, they're treating her like a vapid romantic stereotype,' that implies there could be something salvageable about her. From someone taking this tack, I'd expect to see fanwork that might attempt to redeem her. The damsel in distress gets her own adventures and gets to save herself. The background love interest is seen at her own job, which it turns out is a dramatic one she's surprisingly good at. The faux action girl gets to actually save the day and show off her skills without getting taken hostage by the villain. Even if she doesn't end up the focus of your stories, she might show up in a supporting role without the flaws she's subjected to by her canon treatment.
Fandom is very frequently transformative. People often feel they can do better than the writers, and sometimes they're right. Not blaming the characters for the failings of the author is one of the key steps in transforming them sometimes.
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-10-14 10:26 am (UTC)(link)Re: OP
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-10-14 12:07 am (UTC)(link)