fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3440 ]

[ SECRET POST #3440 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3440 ⌋

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: 04 pages, 79 secrets from Secret Submission Post #491.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Maybe that was her intent. In which case she utterly failed at it in my opinion. Because the entire book felt to me like a tract on why Morgaine is so perfect and awesome compared to the gross incompetence and abuse she's surrounded by.

How long as it been since you read it? Because... and I'm trying to be diplomatic here, but I think if you missed how flawed Morgaine was, you missed a great deal. It was sort of a Breaking Bad scenario, where the protagonist engineers their own (and their loved ones') downward spiral.

I admit it's been a few years. I read it for an Arthurian lit class in college, but even then I couldn't stand it.

I don't think it's necessarily held up well over time, and I don't think I'll reread it because of the new revelations about the author. But I think that for the time it was published, it was a surprisingly rich and woman-centric take on the Arthurian legend and a lot more nuanced than simply "Morgaine is perfect". I can see why people might come away with a skewed perception of the protagonist, though. If you take Morgaine's POV at face value, then yes, she's always right and always justified in her actions.

But I don't think we're supposed to take her POV at face value. Go a little deeper and you realize that she's an example of the type of person who has strong convictions... but those convictions aren't always right.

Perhaps. I'll concede that might've been what the author intended, but neither I nor the professors who taught the class I read it for seemed to pick up on that angle.

Because... and I'm trying to be diplomatic here, but I think if you missed how flawed Morgaine was, you missed a great deal.

What you're being is a condescending douche. Fine, you like it. Other people are allowed to not like it and that doesn't mean they "missed the point" or whatever. They don't agree with you. Deal with it.

Of course other people are allowed to dislike it. And note-- I didn't say I'm a fan of the book. I'm not, actually. It was an interesting approach to the Arthurian legend in its day, but it hasn't held up well over time and the prickly unlikeability of the main character is a big reason why not everyone likes it.

But yes, if someone thinks Morgaine was mean to to be a perfect character, then they have missed the point. It's entirely possible to miss the point of a book, and it's not a personal attack on anyone to suggest that they might have done so. You're the only one making personal attacks here. The conversation with lady_dragoon has been perfectly civil.

Do you know the author personally? No? Good, then quit pretending what you think is fact. It's just your fucking opinion.

Wow, you seem angry. I haven't presented my opinion as fact, but you seem very threatened by the fact that my opinion differs from yours. Why is that? I'm just fine with you not agreeing with me.

But yes, if someone thinks Morgaine was mean to to be a perfect character, then they have missed the point.

Yes, you fucking have. If you're "just fine" with disagreement, then there's no need to tell people they're too dumb to get the point if they have a different view than you do.

Except that I haven't told anyone they're dumb. That was you. You know, it's possible to be a smart person and miss parts of a book, or fail to recall them. It happens all the time.

No. You did not actually use the word "dumb" but you implied the fuck out of it, and now you're playing the victim because someone decided to call you on it. That's manipulative and shitty. Knock it off.

Your reasoning doesn't seem at all logical to me. Being diplomatic is a useful approach in any discussion where there's disagreement is a good thing. It doesn't imply that anyone is dumb.

But perhaps *I* am the dumb one here because I'm beginning to think you've been trolling me all along. Let me guess... anon who pretends to be an outraged SJW? You're very persistent, I'll grant you that.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-06-05 13:37 (UTC) - Expand

and it's not a personal attack on anyone to suggest that they might have done so.

Then why the "trying to be diplomatic" bullshit? If it's not a personal attack, you shouldn't need that kind of language as a cabeat. That just smacks of "well I know I shouldn't call you stupid, but I really think you're stupid so here's a nicer way of saying it."

Well, no. All that means is that I'm aware that disagreeing with someone's opinion (particularly on interpretation of a work) is a touchy subject, and I'm acknowledging that. You're reading a great deal of aggression into this and I'm not really sure why. As I said before, I haven't called anyone stupid or insulted anyone in this discussion, least of all lady_dragoon. We all carry baggage into our interactions with other people, and I'm wondering if that's the case here.

All that means is that I'm aware that disagreeing with someone's opinion (particularly on interpretation of a work) is a touchy subject, and I'm acknowledging that.

Again, what does "being diplomatic" have to do with that? If it's not a personal attack, it's not a personal attack. By using that language, you ARE, in fact, acknowledging it's a personal attack.

Well, no. Acknowledging that the subject in question is a hot button topic and that I'm trying to be careful isn't an attack. Going by your contributions to this thread, it seems you have a rather curious definition of what an "attack" is, though.

Again, that has jack fucking shit to do with "diplomacy." The way you phrased it is essentially saying "well I know you're stupid, but I'm trying to be nice about it."

The fact that your answer to this is "oh, well you're just reading too much into it" rather than "okay, that might've come out wrong, sorry about that" is very, VERY telling.

DA

The problem is that "I'm trying to be diplomatic, here" carries the implication that you are holding back and choosing your words carefully in order to maintain civility, when what you really want to say isn't civil at all.

That may not be how you meant it, but that's how it sounds.

nayrt, they expressed a different opinion. Take a tiny bit of your own advice: chill, and deal.

They expressed a different opinion in a way that stealthily insulted other people for disagreeing. That's shitty behavior.

Really they seemed to be falling over themselves to be polite. And you are determined to be furious. I'm not going to imply so you can't miss this: you're being an over the top cunt.

I don't fucking care. They're "politely" implying they're right and anyone who doesn't think so is too dumb too understand their genius. I know the type.

nayrt but ayrt is completely right. There's not liking a book - which is fine - and there is completely misremembering what was going on. As ayrt said, that's like saying Breaking Bad's Walter White was supposed to be a perfect character. Uh, no. Sorry, but you've missed out on basically the second half of the story, not to mention all of Morgaine's flaws as pointed out by the other female characters when they narrate. Morgaine herself is basically the one who fucked over any chance at a pagan revival, that was sort of VERY important to the story.

Hi, sock of manipulative, shitty anon!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only