[ 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

[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.