[ SECRET POST #3015 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3015 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Puzzle & Dragons (Japanese Mobile Phone game)]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Thunderbirds]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Avenged Sevenfold]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Umineko no Naku Koro ni]


__________________________________________________



06.
(Donald Tusk, President Of The European Council)


__________________________________________________



07.
[The Hobbit]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Nicholas Lea]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Vocaloid]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Grimm/Angel]


__________________________________________________



11.
(the Tale of the Princess Kaguya)


__________________________________________________



12.
[Jimmy Carr and Sarah Millican]


__________________________________________________



13.
[The Phantom of the Opera]


__________________________________________________



14.
[How to get away with murder/Liza Weil]


__________________________________________________



15.
[Once Upon a Time]


__________________________________________________



16.
[Inazuma Eleven]


__________________________________________________



17.
(Aiden Turner in Poldark)


__________________________________________________



18.
[Star Trek: Into Darkness]


__________________________________________________



19.
[Nathan Fillion]


__________________________________________________



20.
[Harry Potter]


__________________________________________________



21.
[Sherlock]


__________________________________________________



22.
[MCU/The Avengers (film series)]


__________________________________________________



23.
[Gillian Anderson]









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 106 secrets from Secret Submission Post #431.
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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, for God's sake, they're being perfectly reasonable here.

[(Anonymous)]

No. They are not.

[(Anonymous)]

Pff, no they aren't. Claiming that an author isn't well educated enough to know their own character's sexuality is a shit argument.

[(Anonymous)]

They might be wrong but that's not the same as being a dick

[(Anonymous)]

Going through every excuse imaginable to claim Moffat doesn't know his character's sexuality or behaviors, from lack of knowledge to understanding, is pretty dickish if you ask me.

[blitzwing]

Going through every excuse imaginable to claim Moffat doesn't know his character's sexuality or behaviors, from lack of knowledge to understanding, is pretty dickish if you ask me.

Anon, you're fighting straw claims. I've said Moffat is not well-informed about asexuality. The other claim I've made is that if a writer doesn't know about X, they can write a character who is X, and not realize it, because they do not know about X. For instance, you can write about a character who thinks they are fat and deliberately starves themselves, without knowing that anorexia is a thing.

The author would certainly know their character's behavior, but if someone asked "Does Kyla have an eating disorder?" the author might answer no, because they don't really know what that is.

You have yet to offer a rebuttal of that argument.

[(Anonymous)]

And you haven't explained how you simply know beyond any doubt that Moffat just doesn't know a thing about asexuality.

[blitzwing]

I haven't argued that Moffat doesn't know anything about asexuality. I've argued that he's poorly informed about asexuality. And I have explained upthread how those who are familiar with asexuality can tell that Moffat is poorly informed on asexuality.

There are several things Moffat has said that shows his lack of knowledge, but I've mentioned one here: http://fandomsecrets.dreamwidth.org/1192716.html?thread=827642636#cmt827642636

[(Anonymous)]

No, those things show that your decree of how asexuality should be depicted doesn't match his.

It's not the same thing.

And you're really not speaking for all asexuals either, so don't even try.

[blitzwing]

And you're really not speaking for all asexuals either, so don't even try.

Of course I'm not.

However, I have literally never seen an asexual argue that asexuals cannot marry. If you have any links or evidence you could share that suggest that some asexuals believe that asexuals are incapable of marriage, I would be grateful if you shared them.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you genuinely taking that marriage comment out of the "There's no guarantee that he'll stay that way in the end – maybe he marries Mrs Hudson. I don't know!" line?

Oh, honey... was that sense of humor bypass you had painful?

[(Anonymous)]

From your earlier comment- "If he was asexual..."

If he was asexual.
IF he was asexual.

Implying that he is not, as 'if' is most often used as a word of speculation in this kind of structure.

He's not asexual and Moffat said that. You're the one fighting straw claims. It sounds like you're just nitpicking because Moffat didn't say "OKAY GAIZ HE'S TOTES NOT ASEXUAL THERE I SAID IT BOLD AS BRASS!".

[(Anonymous)]

With her she tends to be a dick either way and is PROUD of it.

[(Anonymous)]

Then she must be a very lonely person.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, of course. Because telling a creator who's repeatedly stated their intentions that they're wrong purely because you've got a different interpretation (and apparently psychic powers because you just KNOW this shit and KNOW exactly what the creator knows/thinks/intends) and feel that it's more important than anything else is totally reasonable.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, you might disagree, but it's not a completely uncommon position, so I'm not sure acting like it's unheard of is justified

[(Anonymous)]

Just because a crackpot position isn't "completely uncommon", doesn't mean it's not actually a crackpot position.

[blitzwing]

So, if you're well-versed in say, mechanics, and you talk about a ball-joint on a truck that has gone bad, and I say to you "No, it can't be a ball-joint--it's not a canoe, after all." and other similar statements, you're saying it would take psychic powers on your part to realize that I don't know much about mechanics?

[(Anonymous)]

You're still applying your highly flawed logic in equally flawed ways.

Sherlock's asexuality or otherwise is an interpretation. It isn't fact. It may well be a popular interpretation and there may well be things you can point out to support it. But when the person who set out that character tells you that "No, they're not," you can still have your interpretation but you do not get to tell the creator that they've just written it wrong and aren't educated enough to know what they've done. It doesn't MATTER what they've done. If he's not asexual then he's not asexual. Anything to the contrary is interpretation.

[blitzwing]

But when the person who set out that character tells you that "No, they're not," you can still have your interpretation

I do not have an interpretation as to Sherlock's sexual orientation.

you do not get to tell the creator that they've just written it wrong

No where have I stated that Moffat has written Sherlock wrong.

and aren't educated enough to know what they've done.

Moffat's statements show his lack of knowledge of asexuality.

I think you think I'm arguing something that I'm not.

[(Anonymous)]

"I do not have an interpretation as to Sherlock's sexual orientation."

Then how do you know Moffat's in-your-opinion lack of knowledge of asexuality even exists?

[blitzwing]

Then how do you know Moffat's in-your-opinion lack of knowledge of asexuality even exists?

Because I read the interview and saw where he had come to incorrect conclusions about asexuals.

[(Anonymous)]

Please point those out to me then.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not sure about that. To go back to the 50 Shades example, is that not an abusive relationship because E.L. James says it's not, despite it containing every single marker of an abusive relationship?

I mean, I can see both sides of this argument. But the big thing for me is that authors can fail when they try to portray something. They can intend to write one thing, and have it come across in the completely opposite way. In that sense, what's on the page or screen really does matter more than what's in the author's head.

[(Anonymous)]

The failure does not negate the intent though.

It's a terrible portrayal of a healthy BDSM relationship, but the only reason we see that is because it wasn't meant to be. We see the flaws precisely because the intent was not to portray an abusive relationship.

That the author failed abysmally in the execution doesn't change their intent. You can criticize the execution all you want, but you can't use that to change the canon to suit your argument.