[ SECRET POST #4124 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4124 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Digimon]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Black Lightning]


__________________________________________________



04.
(Rahul Kohli who plays Dr. Ravi Chakrabarti from iZombie)


__________________________________________________



05.
[Ruby Tandoh from The Great British Bake Off series 4]


__________________________________________________



06.
[A Wrinkle in Time]


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 09 secrets from Secret Submission Post #590.
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)]

is... there something intrinsically bad w wanting fiction that is specifically about queerness?

[(Anonymous)]

Nope, and no one in this thread has said there is! Unless you think the only way to write about queerness is badly?

[(Anonymous)]

Is your reading comprehension truly that poor or are you trolling? Literally nobody in this thread has said there's something intrinsically bad about fiction specifically about queerness. Everyone who's objecting is objecting because it's poorly written fiction about queerness.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm specifically replying to this bit, not to the rest of the thread:

her audience (especially for that pen name) has become steadily more and more obnoxious about it not being good enough for characters to be textually queer while having adventures. They must spend an inordinate amount of time ruminating on their queerness, and run into manufactured situations where they have to drop the fucking zombie apocalypse to lecture people about pronouns.

Because this specific bit seems like it's criticizing fiction that has characters spend an inordinate amount of time ruminating on their queerness as such. Which, like, I agree that doing so awkwardly is bad writing, but there's nothing actually wrong with fiction doing that.

Preferring fiction where characters are textually queer while having adventures (as against fiction where characters specifically ruminate on queerness) is an entirely subjective preference. I don't think people preferring one or the other is really about them being obnoxious, just an audience having a different preference.

[(Anonymous)]

Here is why you appear to be shit-stirring for the simple joy of stirring shit: The part of the discussion you're quoting is literally about interrupting the narrative of a story to monologue about queer issues. If the main character is calling time-out on the zombie apocalypse for a pronoun lecture, then that is the bad writing that everyone is complaining about. Either that, or the main character is written intentionally as an idiot, so why am I reading about them in the first place?

[(Anonymous)]

I don't agree. I mean, I don't think that - for instance - a character calling time-out on a zombie apocalypse for a pronoun lecture is necessarily bad. It's only bad if the story expects you to take the zombie apocalypse seriously and literally. And that's the kind of thing that I would refer to as bad, awkward writing - a tonal mismatch. But I disagree that it's intrinsically bad writing. If you want to write a story that's nominally about a zombie apocalypse but actually about queer identity, I think that's a fine thing to do.

I mean this conversation is just so utterly pointless I don't know why I'm even responding but that really is how I feel

[(Anonymous)]

The story does, in fact, expect you to take the zombie apocalypse seriously. The pronoun lecture comes directly after several characters you're supposed to actually give a shit about have just died horribly.

It's not a story that's nominally about a zombie apocalypse but actually about queer identity, it's a story that's marketed and, for the most part, written about a zombie apocalypse that stops dead to shoehorn in awkward 101-level lectures.

(And no, it's not a hypothetical zombie story. It actually exists.)

[(Anonymous)]

I’m glad you have low standards. It must make your life much easier. Just acknowledge that some people expect better of their queer fiction, and go back to reveling in garbage.

[(Anonymous)]

there's nothing wrong with fiction that's specifically about queerness

[(Anonymous)]

DA

This doesn't have much to do with the comment you replied to. Is it a misfire?

[(Anonymous)]

Not at all.

But we're not talking about fiction that is specifically about queerness, we're talking about fiction that is specifically about something else entirely (aliens, mermaids, dragons, whatever) that stops dead mid-story to have characters suddenly explain to the audience how queer they are, instead of...idk, writing a male love interest for your gay hero? Or showing your married heroine is bisexual by having her and her husband work with her ex-girlfriend? Then you kind of suck at writing queer characters, and also at writing in general, because a 101-level lecture sandwiched in the middle of a piece of speculative fiction is shitty writing.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong since I picked the story up after the hilarious thread of male authors describing women badly. There's this thing among LGBTQ fans of resenting the need to do the "coming out" story or define everything in text for straight audiences. Not that there's anything wrong with a good coming out or coming of age story, but it tends to get overemphasized and inserted into stories where it really isn't necessary.

In "Breakwater" (to name the novella) the backstory about the protagonist's sexual history breaks up an action scene to justify the protagonist checking out the other character. And since it's a novella (maybe even a novelette), there just isn't that much space to work with. If a widow describes how her husband designed the submarine base in one scene and checks out another woman in the next, a sufficiently educated audience can connect the dots. If she uses the word "bisexual," even better. We don't need an extended #stillbisexual flashback through the main character's history of serial monogamy.

Stuff I've read lately that do it better: "Ninefox Gambit," "Provenance," "Red Threads of Fortune," and even "The Dispossessed" (which is really interesting if you unpack it, but that's a thread for another time.)

[(Anonymous)]

I think I was responding specifically to anon's language more than to the broader discussion. I totally get that the broader dynamic exists and that there's a lot of writing around sexuality that just comes across as super awkward.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

NP. I also feel the need to clarify that it was "eyeroll awkward" rather than "author is a bad person" level of badness.