fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3961 ]

[ SECRET POST #3961 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3961 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

(fandom: My Brother, My Brother and Me)

__________________________________________________

03.

[Neil Gaiman's "Good Omens"]

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

(Minami, YoI)

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #567.
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

I'm not sure what it is you're seeing that I'm not, but to me it looks like someone who is trying very hard not to be obnoxious and still articulate what their issues are with making a particular character agender.

I can sort of get OP's point because to me it comes off as slightly "I'm all for nonbinary representation in media BUT OMG NOT IF THEY'RE A BAD GUY!!"

but the point they're making seems to be about non-human characters, not just that Pollution is one of the Four Horsemen

I mean. It's Good Omens. Half the characters are non human, so if you have a NB character, the odds are high they're going to be non human.

But, again, their concern doesn't seem to be just with Good Omens, it's that this is a general trend that Good Omens fits into

I'm not saying that you have to care about it but it just seems like a pretty reasonable concern to have, all things considered

But Gaiman can't do anything about the general trend of NB characters. I doubt he's got the final say over casting Good Omens,either. So basically you've still got someone asking him about why there's a NB non human character in a cast that's hakf non human or trying to hold one person responsible for what other shows and movies they're not involved in? Nah, that doesn't seem reasonable even though the general concern is.

but the question isn't asking him to do anything, is it? The question is laying out the reason that the poster has concerned, and then it's asking for information - an explanation of what was going on in Gaiman's head and why he made a specific creative choice - which I think is a pretty reasonable question to ask of a creator on their tumblr ask. The poster goes out of their way to try to make sure that they're being polite and not accusatory. And Gaiman answers the question in a way that's interesting, and not unsatisfactory, and reasonable and polite, and quickly outlines some of the ways in which he has a different perspective than the question-asker does.

It just... seems like a pretty reasonable interaction, not something where anyone is outraged or being a special snowflake or anything of the kind.

In a series with mostly inhuman characters

You're gonna have an inhuman agender character

But that's still not OMG POLLUTION IS A BAD GUY, is it?

The person makes a point of citing the specific situation: "the literal embodiment of some of the worst parts of humanity /the world", so actually yes, I'd say that's one of their concerns.

Part of their concern is that Pollution is not just inhuman but an embodiment of humanity's worst excesses, yes.

But I don't think characterizing the question as "I'm all for nonbinary representation in media BUT OMG NOT IF THEY'RE A BAD GUY" is accurate. It's just... not accurate. It's one point in a larger trend they're concerned with.

Were you the person who asked the question? Because you sure are going out of your way to try to interpret said question as saying something "meaningful," when what it is actually saying is "Hey, why are you making a bad guy nonbinary? That's bad representation." Or, in meme-ier terms, "I'm all for nonbinary representation in media BUT OMG NOT IF THEY'RE A BAD GUY."

no. I am not the person who asked the question.

It's just that the actual question is right there in black and white. You can go and look at the actual text of the question. And from looking at the text of the question, it seems like people are very clearly interpreting it in ways that just don't really match up with what the question actually says. And I don't really understand why. The question is polite, the response is polite, it seems like a reasonable conversation where a reasonable concern is met with a reasonable reply. And yet people in the comments are acting like it says things that it just clearly does not say. It's very strange to me.

This. I can read the Ask in the post and it's very clearly asking why the nonbinary character is Pollution, i.e. a bad guy who is "the literal embodiment of some of the worst parts of humanity/the world" and saying they believe this says "awful things about NB people". The tumblr user is definitely implying this is bad representation, because in their view Pollution is a bad guy.

But it's not what they're saying.

What they said is "when the only NB characters we get are non-human - or in this case, the literal embodiment of some of the worst part of humanity/the world - it kind of says some awful things about NB people".

That's not saying that their problem is specifically with Pollution being a bad guy. That's part of it, but the broader concern of it is that Pollution is non-human. And it seems pretty straightforward why someone might have issues with non-binary characters also being non-human, and why they might feel that general trend says "awful things about NB people".

Moreover, the broader context is not about "why is this such bad representation". I mean, you make this point yourself. The broader frame of the post, and the actual question asked, is "why did you make this creative choice." Which is a totally different question, and a fundamentally valid one in my mind, and it's also one that Gaiman offers a completely valid answer to. So I just don't see who really is hurt in this interaction, or who is being unfair. A person asked a question about a creative choice and the author answered it.

It's, frankly, just you people are reading all these levels of anger and disdain and accusation into the ask which just do not seem to be there to me. You're misquoting the tumblr ask to make it seem worse than it is, despite the fact that the literal text of the Tumblr post is in the post. It is so confusing to me.

ayrt

The thing is, when there's enough representation of gender (or race/ethnicity or sexuality), it's fine for the character to be whatever, but when you only have a very few, any negative characteristics or othering stand out and are sometimes associated with that gender (or race/ethnicity or sexuality).

nayrt - I agree, but on the other hand I think it's a real problem to nitpick the rare occasions when a non binary character comes up as being literally not good enough to count.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3961 ]

It does seem earnest, but not special snowflake to me.

Re: It does seem earnest, but not special snowflake to me.

Re: It does seem earnest, but not special snowflake to me.

Re: It does seem earnest, but not special snowflake to me.

Re: It does seem earnest, but not special snowflake to me.

Re: It does seem earnest, but not special snowflake to me.

Re: It does seem earnest, but not special snowflake to me.

Re: It does seem earnest, but not special snowflake to me.

Re: It does seem earnest, but not special snowflake to me.

Re: It does seem earnest, but not special snowflake to me.

Re: It does seem earnest, but not special snowflake to me.

Re: It does seem earnest, but not special snowflake to me.

Re: It does seem earnest, but not special snowflake to me.

Re: It does seem earnest, but not special snowflake to me.

Re: It does seem earnest, but not special snowflake to me.

Re: It does seem earnest, but not special snowflake to me.

Re: It does seem earnest, but not special snowflake to me.