[ SECRET POST #3961 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

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

[(Anonymous)]

In a series with mostly inhuman characters

You're gonna have an inhuman agender character

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

[(Anonymous)]

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

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.

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

[(Anonymous)]

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."

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.