[ SECRET POST #3328 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3328 ⌋

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, 069 secrets from Secret Submission Post #476.
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)]

"why bring it up in such a particular discussion if it's not supposed to serve as some kind of justification for the behaviour being criticized?"

Because talking about the character's motivation is relevant to the discussion and it's not the same thing as justifying anything?
And the "I'm just sympathizing" is just a subjective opinion, not asking everyone else to do the same.

But if villain's detractors want to vent instead of discuss something, then the best thing they can do is do it on their own space, instead of doing it on a public space like FS.

[(Anonymous)]

Because talking about the character's motivation is relevant to the discussion and it's not the same thing as justifying anything?

By the same token, reminders that the character committed evil acts are also relevant to most positive discussions about them (i.e., if someone's going to argue that Loki could've turned out alright if Odin had been a better father, it seems relevant to add that Loki planned and nearly carried out two genocides, which isn't the typical response to shitty fathers, in order to estimate how much Odin actually influenced his behaviour).

But you see how it can get annoying when people constantly pop into the discussion to remind you to do that. It cuts both ways.

I would disagree that there isn't a demand for detractors to sympathize with the villain. I see this all the time, in all but one of my fandoms: complaints that people "talk too much" about all the bad stuff the character did and demands that they stop doing that, insistence that if you can't sympathize with X villain, you don't understand the character and you've missed the whole point of the story being told, etc, etc.

[(Anonymous)]

Though on Loki wanting to commit genocide, it's worth mentioning that Thor originally wanted the same thing and it was his time on Earth that convinced him otherwise.

It may or may not have been Odin's influence, but the fact both brothers were convinced that genocide of the Jotunn was a good thing means there was some common factor.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

Late response is late, sorry -- I may be misremembering, but wasn't the whole reason Odin exiled Thor to Earth in the first place because he tried to carry out that genocide of Jotunn?

I mean I don't disagree that the idea came from somewhere in Thor and Loki's society, but Odin seemed fairly consistent in maintaining that genocide was a bad idea, and it's not necessarily his fault if his kids refuse to listen to him, that doesn't make him a bad father in and of itself.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt/
Except a reminder is unnecessary when people are talking about why they did that exact thing in the first place and that's the context where most of those "friendly reminders" happen.

OTOH most of those "let's talk about their motivations" (which is what I mentioned) are mostly an attempt of nuanced discussion instead of just bashing a character.

Those "if you can't sympathize with X villain, you don't understand the character " are something completely different.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

Late response is late, but this whole thread started out of a post that people are tired of having to qualify that they know a character is "bad" every time they want to discuss him/her in a positive way. I can understand that in a self-started positive discussion about the character, but when someone's injecting themselves into a non-positive discussion about the character's actions, where it's kind of a given that most people involved are aware of the character's motivations but don't feel those motives are enough of a mitigating factor to outweigh the bad deeds themselves -- and that someone is presenting those motives as if they ARE, or should be enough of a mitigating factor...you don't see why the qualifier might be necessary?

Maybe it's unfair, but that sort of thing doesn't happen in a vacuum. You might feel it's unnecessary to remind people in a positive discussion about the character's motives that the character has committed terrible acts, but I've seen enough of those positive discussions go on and on about the mitigating and/or woobie (sorry, I don't know how else to put it) factors involved that the acts themselves are either all but forgotten or treated as a "quirky" side-effect of the character's pain.

They certainly don't carry nearly the weight they do in negative discussions about those acts. There's not a whole lot more nuance than there is in negative discussion. Which is cool, that's the point of positive discussions - you know the character's not perfect, but you're not there to dwell on the things you disapprove of in them, you're there for the positivity. Great. But surely you can appreciate that those who aren't nearly as sympathetic to the character are going to wonder if that's the contextual outlook you're bringing into the negative discussion, and be suspicious.