[ SECRET POST #3066 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3066 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Christopher Walken]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
[Harry Potter/Parvati Patil]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[The Mummy]


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
[tokyo ghoul]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Ioan Gruffudd/Alexander Siddig/Dominic Keating/Max Pirkis]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 023 secrets from Secret Submission Post #438.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

04. http://i.imgur.com/uA5mCrR.jpg

Transcript by OP

[fscom]

I think well of fandom as a whole, but judge a lot of commonly-judged fandom phenomena that I consider harmful, etc.

But what gets on my nerves most is the prevalence in certain corners of misconceptions based on bad reading comprehension. not difficulty of access to canon. They should be easy to clear up, but no. People eat up second-hand interpretations and leave them at that.

S!B I start a lot of semantic arguments IRL, sometimes just out of habit. Maybe I’m misinterpreting them, too.

[(Anonymous)]

This phenomena extends to fanfic too. So many authors of long-term, decent fanfiction have had to put in little notes to explain to readers something that should be terribly obvious. In the case most memorable, the author had to put in a note that they were using unreliable narrators. Some people are just silly.

[(Anonymous)]

Ugh, yeah. Some people can only read text, never subtext. My favorite Avatar story had multiple comments from people saying "But why do the characters say things are like THIS in the Fire Nation, when even in this story they're more like THAT instead?" BECAUSE FASCIST GOVERNMENTS LIE YOU PISS-IGNORANT LITTLE FUCKERS. I WEEP FOR A FUTURE IN WHICH PEOPLE WHO DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT CAN VOTE.

[(Anonymous)]

I've seen the notes having to warn for unreliable narrators in some fics. The level of reading comprehension can be so low it's scary.

When I was 12 I was aware of the concept that people sometimes lie when telling stories, even if they're the main character. Isn't that normal? Even 8 year olds get this, surely?

I worry for these people that take everything so literally. They must be a goldmine for advertisers.

[othellia]

Well, nowadays (and I use "nowadays" loosely because I'm sure it's always been a thing to various degrees), you have fans who blatantly admit they've never read the source material but have headcanons/meta regardless.

I've seen it the most in Homestuck fandom. You have people who "love" the characters, but don't like the comic itself/don't want to/don't have time to read all 7000 pages? Sure it happens in other fandoms too.

[(Anonymous)]

"you have fans who blatantly admit they've never read the source material but have headcanons/meta regardless."

This is completely incomprehensible to me. I just... why? How does that even work? What's the point?

It definitely happens in other fandoms; there was a spate of RPers in one of my fandoms who did this too, which made even less sense to me than usual. If you're choosing to RP a character you don't actually know a single thing about beyond your second and third hand interpretations via fanfics, you might as well be RPing an OC.

[(Anonymous)]

Homestuck fandom can drive me nuts in that way, because there are a hell of a lot of character arguments that could be settled if people either read the comic or had enough reading comprehension to read between the lines.

I don't mind headcanons, but don't get involved in canon discussions about a comic if you don't actually read.

(And I know Homestuck is a long comic but I actually find it a really easy read since it's so addicting, but that's me.)

[(Anonymous)]

Oh yeah, there's a lot of people in fandoms who don't participate in the source material. Kind of weird if you ask me.

[(Anonymous)]

This is what gets me most frustrated about fandom too.

I've seen so many glaring mistakes perpetuated throughout fandoms as though it's irrefutable fact just because "Oh well, a BNF said it so it must be true!" that I've given up expecting people to give a fuck about accuracy. No one stops to question whether that BNF might be wrong, they just turn into a mob of sheep who attack the people who question the BNF instead.

I don't mind headcanons, provided people recognize them as such, but in the same vein so many people take on certain headcanons as though they're true canon and suddenly all this bullshit is showing up in fics - or worse, meta, and it's most definitely not presented as interpretation - as though it's concretely part of canon.

I suspect its a combination of relying too heavily on individuals as sources, and that most people seem too lazy to check out the facts for themselves (and that, lbr, is a wider problem than just fandom's).

[solticisekf]

Who cares about canon, fanon is where it is.

It means that fans prefer their incorrect interpretation which is ok. I like my SH to be a poor gent who sees too much evil around him so he represses his emotions. It's a fanon that can be argued with.

Also 'read wrong' -> a book fandom, right?

[praetorian_guard]

I agree.

Then again, you have people who just don't care and base all their material (fic, art, whatever) off commonly-accepted fanon rather than canon. And people who get into fandoms only because they want to read, say, the mass of fics.

So. To each their own.

[(Anonymous)]

I say this all the time. "Fandom doesn't know how to reeeeeead"

Slight Avengers - AOU spoiler:

[making_excuses]

I will say one thing: Natasha did not call herself a monster because she can't have children she called herself a monster because she has killed people, innocent people at that. How on earth did you not understand that when you saw the film? How did so many people just go with it? I am still baffled by this...

Re: Slight Avengers - AOU spoiler:

[(Anonymous)]

I get that that was the intended meaning, but it was executed so clumsily that the 'I'm a monster' comment feels like a non sequitor. And even if Natasha wasn't saying that being infertile made her a monster, the idea that being infertile makes killing easier or that there (it's debatable whether and to which degree Natasha agreed with the red room people) is fucked up by itself.

Re: Slight Avengers - AOU spoiler:

[(Anonymous)]

Because it was clumsily written.

If that many people get the wrong message from something you've written, then you've written it badly. There's a difference between some people in the audience simply "not getting it", and presenting it so poorly that a significant amount of people pick up on something you didn't intend. Whether that was the intent or not, sterility=monster is as valid an interpretation of that scene as any. And that's not the audience's fault.

Re: Slight Avengers - AOU spoiler:

[kaijinscendre]

Truth. I thought it was pretty clear why she said she was a monster. Also, that the only reason she mentioned being sterilized was because Bruce was depressed because HE couldn't have kids. She was trying to empathize with him.

Re: Slight Avengers - AOU spoiler:

[philstar22]

I saw when watching it that it could be read multiple ways and most likely was intended in the non-offensive way. But the fact that this comment came exactly after her mentioning that she was made infertile was clumsy writing.

Re: Slight Avengers - AOU spoiler:

[babydraco]

Thank you. I'm even coming off anon to agree. I feel surrounded by people who seem to be deliberately misinterpreting it, because they decided to before they lined up to see the movie. She thinks she's a bad person because she gave up the chance to be a mother in order to become a more effective murderer. She didn't do it so she could finish her PhD or win an Olympic gold or just because she didn't want kids. ANd she may not yet fully understand how a bunch of adults coerced her into doing it.

*her* problematic outlook on her own situation doesn't mean Whedon actually believes that or that the audience is meant to agree with her.

Re: Slight Avengers - AOU spoiler:

[(Anonymous)]

I can't believe all the people whining that graduation was supposed to be about killing a man, why didn't she kill someone?

Because apparently showing her aiming a gun and a target filling with holes, then the target being replaced by a person with a bag over their head and her taking aim was TOO SUBTLE.

And honestly about half the infertility rants I've seen are prefaced with "I didn't see it, BUT..." And also "Me shipping Clintasha has nothing to do with why I'm so angry..."

Re: Slight Avengers - AOU spoiler:

[elephantinegrace]

Because I did see that as Natasha calling herself a monster because she can't have children, and because she's killed people. How on earth is my interpretation any less valid than yours?

[quantumreality]

This is pretty bad in the Harry Potter fandom, with fanon elements becoming near-canon with the force of repetition. "Wards" is a not too egregious example, but one which Snapefen love hammering on is how "ZOMG Harry calls dear Severus a greasy git all the time" when actually he never once says "greasy git" in the books themselves, though Snape does get called a git occasionally by Harry and others.

[logicbutton]

is this about Snape

pros do it too

[(Anonymous)]

Oh good lord. that's like, half of comic-book fandom and comic-book editors and writers RIGHT THERE.

I remember print comic-book fandom zines from a generation ago, where fan-critics would concoct silly theories about, "Why Spider-Man works," etc. And then those ideas sometimes influenced how the books were written years later (like the hatred of Spider-Man's wife).

Eventually we got an Avengers writer describing Vizh as a toaster, and the same dude resetting Spidey to a teenager in his own published AU.

And even outside that, the sheer level of characterisation stupidity in comics is awesomely stupid. Bill Mantlo writing the Punisher as someone who guns down jaywalkers? Keith Giffen--actually a pretty skilled cartoonist--changing the characters' personalities out of indifferent ignorance, or something? Pretty much anything done with Cass Cain since her series ended?

Argh!

[(Anonymous)]

I have this problem with the Marauder's Map in Harry Potter.

It's the Marauder's Map. The map for the marauder, your friendly neighbourhood marauder, marauding around where he shouldn't be marauding. It's not the Marauders' Map, those four didn't originally call themselves "the Marauders" and so many people just decided that they did, you can't convince them that they've misunderstood it.

I know that's a bit of a nitpicky one but it really irritates me.