[ SECRET POST #4030 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4030 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 24 secrets from Secret Submission Post #577.
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)]

AYRT

Honestly, in this case wouldn't the fans have a point? If critics are lambasting a character's whininess, that is an implicit criticism of the writing and not an expression of preference (i.e. likeability). If the text is aiming for realism, wouldn't defenders be within their right to point that out? Is the character even meant to likeable, textually speaking?

Now, if one were not taking the position of critic and instead simply a fan expressing dislike for a character, then I think dismissing the realism argument is totally fair. That was my original point, since I think that's what OP is getting at.

[(Anonymous)]

True, but these arguments don't only take place in canons that are clearly aiming for realism. People who don't like "whiny" characters (aka characters who react realistically to hardship) aren't usually inclined to consume canons where every trauma is treated with the gravity it would be treated in real life. Unless you're arguing against someone who hates a specific Grey's Anatomy character for being whiny, the critics might be the ones who have a point insofar as how the canon was meant to be read.

Though I suppose this is an exercise in futility until/unless OP deigns to elaborate.

[(Anonymous)]

Even professional critics don't always agree. Professional critics have their real bread-and-butter in debate with other critics. Unanimous agreement is death to the arts-journalism field. Ever been in a room with multiple movie critics? I have. There is no universality there.

And if you had (hypothetical, almost non-existent) agreement of all critics lambasting a character's (for example) whininess, this isn't even a given for unlikability. Young Luke Skywalker was whiny as fuck at first. People love him anyway. Well, SOME people. Others don't. He was definitely meant to be likable even with his flaws, but that doesn't work on everyone.

What I'm getting at is that no one will ever like even the most-perfectly-written character, and there will always be people who love the characters others don't. That is exactly the way it should be. No two people approach a story with the same tastes and expectations. But the best characters are the ones who are the most realistic - which is to say, the ones complex enough that some will love them, some will hate them, some won't care, and it will all be based on what the reader/viewer brings to it.