[ SECRET POST #3104 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3104 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 071 secrets from Secret Submission Post #444.
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)]

Well, I feel like the problem is that the only reason you don't see why people regard it as character hate is because you're coming from a perspective that's pretty markedly negative about Sharon to start with.

It's kind of like you're saying, "It's not character hate! She's just a really awful character, and this would fix those issues!" But people who like Sharon Carter probably like Sharon Carter as she is, and don't want her shoved out of the way to preserve Steve's relationship with Peggy, or for whatever other reason. And they also don't want her made evil.

I don't think that's impossible to comprehend.

[(Anonymous)]

I could see it as character hate if I wanted her killed off, written out, or her story minimized.

But I don't see how wanting to see Sharon in a complex villain role is character bashing?

Like, I've frequently spoken about how excited I am that Tony Stark could play an antagonist role in Civil War because I DO think, even though he might not be a straight up good guy, that it would make for a very interesting development (and deepening) of his character. Taking Tony's flaws and forcing him to be accountable for them and facing long-term negative consequences.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, I think there's probably a way to talk about that where it's not bashing. But it's a really thin line to walk - because wanting to transition the character into a totally different role, where they're evil, it's hard to justify that without being basically critical of the character.

And you are doing it yourself. I mean, all the stuff about how she doesn't have a role in the universe as it stands, and the stuff about how she's a Peggy clone - that's kinda bashy, man.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't mean that she's LITERALLY a clone of Peggy. She has a different personality than Peggy, but making her a badass Agent Carter who fights alongside Steve Rogers and then they fall in love would be treading old ground.

Like, if Pepper died and then a new female CEO of Stark Industries (Pepper's sister) was introduced and Tony romanced her...well, it'd be quite a similar storyline, regardless of how dissimilar Pepper and her theoretical sister are personality-wise.

[(Anonymous)]

anon from below: Not necessarily. Pepper and Tony's entire relationship is based heavily on the fact that Pepper has stood by him for years and years, through all of his bad behaviour previously, through both of his collapses, etc, etc. She's integrated into the rest of his life - close to Rhodey, long acquainted with Happy - and she also wields a significant amount of influence over him.

Someone coming in from outside, who doesn't know any of that shit, starting any kind of romance with Tony? Is going to be a WHOLE different and new realm of fireworks. Even if he's attracted to her he has no reason to trust her (and I dunno if you've noticed, but Tony Stark's kiiinda paranoid), SHE has no experience translating his bullshit that's actually bullshit from his bullshit that's trauma, terror, emotional incompetence or screaming self-loathing coming to the fore, and when she puts her foot down he has NO reason to fall in line - while at the same time SHE has no particular reason to put up with him being an asshole.

And that's all without even touching her personality.

These things are only necessarily similar if you consider their roles to be the most important things about them. Not everyone does.

[(Anonymous)]

"These things are only necessarily similar if you consider their roles to be the most important things about them. Not everyone does."

That's fair enough. But why is it that those of us who would like to see more novel/original roles/storylines are presumed to be bashing characters?

To give an example, in fiction, men wanting to follow in their dead, noble father's footsteps is a VERY common role. And even though a story might be EXCELLENTLY done in this regard (as, indeed, many are) aren't those of us who want to see something new still entitled to feel that way and express it without necessarily being bashers?

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT: See below: because a) you're honing in on a specific character who already has hints of character arc in definite other directions and whose inspiration is EMPHATICALLY something else and specifically saying that THAT storyline is bad/boring/stupid/the same as every other storyline, and b) you're doing it in a way that associates her with something many people consider totally moral-event-horizon reprehensible.

You're also doing it in an environment and context where there is a shit-ton of just outright character hate, both for her and other characters, much of it based on how someone MUST or SHOULD be a HYDRA agent (cf: all the shit that got tossed at Sam for quite a while). So people are not really going to be enthused about giving you the slim benefit of the doubt.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not so much that her original canon comics storyline is BAD. Just that I think the way the MCU has gone and the changes its made have made it such that it's ALREADY been explored.

Peggy had a MUCH smaller role in the comics. And her presence is STILL felt in the MCU. She was one of the most popular characters -- there's a reason she appears in Steve's sequence in AOU.

And then there's Agent Carter (getting a second season!) which I love and already IS about the work of an Agent Carter in a US government intelligence agency.

In that context, I'm not saying that Sharon's storyline is bad/boring/stupid, just that the MCU has been constructed in such a way that it's ALREADY been done, and done very well at that while there are definite holes that haven't been filled yet (female villain) that haven't been explored.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT: I actually super disagree that their storylines have been done.

Peggy has a storyline of being an isolated woman in a man's field, under appreciated and constantly dealing with shit like Hodge while being the best agent there, who finally finds someone who appreciates and values her, while they both save the world in one of the ugliest and furthest ranging conflicts the world has up to that point seen, and then loses him.

Sharon has a storyline of being a legacy member of a family, the (great)-niece of the person who BUILT the org she works for, of being acknowledged and adjudged among the best (she's SHIELD Special Services, she reports DIRECTLY to Fury) of her field but still carrying her family baggage, who is presented with a hero who also knew her aunt, whom she was undoubtedly brought up to respect and revere but whom she spends her first several months knowing lying to at the instruction of her boss.

Literally the only things these share to me are "females involved in espionage".

You are really, really focused on two specific aspects of Sharon: "good" and "maybe Steve's love interest". Most of her fans really, really wouldn't be.

[(Anonymous)]

The trouble is, with SHIELD gone, I feel like A LOT of what you mentioned isn't viable to explore ANYMORE. I think they could have done a lot of that in The Winter Soldier (showing us Sharon's difficulties at being an Agent in the organization her aunt started) but at this point SHIELD's collapsed. And even with AoU, it's been gutted and they've "started over." Meanwhile, we saw that Sharon ended up joining the CIA.

I suppose that's a bit where my issue lies with this (potentially good) storyline -- is that it would have had to have been built up a LOT more in The Winter Soldier. Because with SHIELD imploding the way it did, I don't think it's as viable anymore.

And that's not a fault on Sharon in any way. I just think it reflects the reality of how time-constrained these movies are.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT: Mmm as a writer I seriously disagree - I think there's still a lot to do even with SHIELD-itself gone, because SHIELD's (long historical and even "gutted" future) impact and influence is still potentially at play, Peggy's status in the intelligence community is still at play, Sharon and Steve's PERSONAL history is still at play, and even WITHOUT all of that, Sharon's still coming up from a totally different history with regards to sexism within the field (not that it's gone, it just expresses differently and has different effects), she'd still have to deal with her aunt's shadow in terms of any kind of relationship - working or romantic - with Steve, etc.

I think there's tons to do. I'm not saying MCU will DO it (my feelings about AoU are unprintable, etc), I'm just saying there's nothing inherently retread, or locked into Peggy-Clone territory, or anything else, about the story as stands. (And I wouldn't trust MCU to actually do the arc you've suggested well anyway, so it's all one on that score.)

I entirely agree with the time-constraints/etc. Just, again: coming from a very different set of assumptions, "Sharon's boring/her storyline's been done, she should be a HYDRA double-agent" can feel pretty hateful.

[diet_poison]

I don't really think it's fair to say that wanting to see a character be "evil" or an antagonist = hating or bashing in any way. Lots of people really enjoy villains, even sometimes find them relatable (they're not all pure evil). Some characters make better villains than protags. Liking a character has nothing to do with approving of those character's actions IRL.

[(Anonymous)]

I think that is true theoretically, but it depends how you go about saying it. OP seems to be saying that Sharon is boring and redundant as she is and needs to be made a villain to be interesting and useful to plot. I can understand why someone who likes Sharon as she is could get upset by that and consider it character bashing.

[diet_poison]

Now I'm interested in how you define character bashing. Is saying you dislike a character bashing? Saying why you dislike them?