[ SECRET POST #4322 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4322 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 37 secrets from Secret Submission Post #619.
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)]

I see no reason to limit this criticism to these 2 men. A lot of people (men and women included) equate strong female character with "kickass" female character and not "well-written" female character. It's one of my biggest pet peeves.

Of course, a lot of people (men and women included) also throw around the term Mary Sue too much.

And a lot of people (men and women included) dismiss actually well-written characters as the wrong kind of Strong Female Character or Mary Sue for reasons such as internalized misogyny, hatred of particular writers/directors, or dislike of the actress.

[(Anonymous)]

1. Citing two examples is not the same thing as limiting criticism to two examples. The secret is not suggesting in any way that only two people in the whole wide world are guilty of writing poor quality female characters.

2. Literally nobody in this thread has mentioned Mary Sues.

3. Is the defamation of Mary Sues your personal hobbyhorse? Because that explains your weird insistence on trying to shoehorn it into a discussion where again, literally no one else but you has mentioned them.

[(Anonymous)]

Hmmm...I wasn't trying to accuse the OP of limiting it to only two people, just merely pointing out it was a widespread problem. Rather than respond in a restricted way to the narrow content of the secret itself, I used my comment as an attempt to expand the conversation, as many people often do. I am interested in general in the writing and perception of female characters in media, and am sharing some of my thoughts on it, in order to engage in the discussion provoked by this secret. Apparently I gave users of this site too much credit as usual. Frankly, your "struck nerve" reaction reflects much more about you than me.

[(Anonymous)]

"I see no reason to limit this criticism to these 2 men" implies that this is what you believe OP is doing. You're not giving people quite enough credit for reading what you actually wrote.

[(Anonymous)]

No, you interpreted it as reflecting my opinions or beliefs about the OP's mindset instead of a general observation. You are arguing there's only one obvious, literal way to read something (and something written online, a notoriously bad way to communicate). Rather than recognizing that people sometimes use particular turns of phrases in rhetorical ways, you immediately turned antagonistic and nitpicked (and continue to nitpick) an ultimately minor observation - one I'm not alone in making on this secret. I, for one, have better things to do, so I won't be replying to you any more.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

It is extremely, extremely easy to read your post as a critique of, or argument against, OP's secret.

As a general rule, if you're going to change the topic (even slightly), it's a good idea to like... say so

[(Anonymous)]

I don't consider my comment a change, so as much as an expansion, of the topic, as often happens within discussion. I also would hope that most people don't need a flashing sign indicating that a comment might say something not 110% related to the secret's content.

And this thread is now completely off-topic, which IMO, is far more offensive to the OP, who no doubt wants actual discussion of the secret, than anything I wrote that was misinterpreted as some unfair critique.

[(Anonymous)]

Strong Female Characters (and female characters who are strong) often get labelled Mary Sues. They're literary concepts that are frequently linked in conversation. So I really don't think OP is unreasonable to bring up Mary Sues here.

You seem very defensive very quickly.

[(Anonymous)]

Previous anon - thank you! I've seen most/all of the characters discussed in association with this secret called Mary Sues as, if not more, often than "Strong Female Characters". It seemed perfectly reasonable and obvious to talk about both concepts with regards to this topic.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, no. You're mistaking irritation for defensiveness, but they're not the same thing. I get irritated when people chime into a discussion about X with an argument about all the people (who aren't in this thread at all) who are talking about Y.

[(Anonymous)]

JFC. PSA, commenters on FandomSecrets: you can never and should never talk about anything that's not explicitly mentioned in the secret itself, not even a closely related topic, or else the Irritation Brigade will come along to police you.

[(Anonymous)]

MTE

[(Anonymous)]

lol +1

[(Anonymous)]

People are always doing that on FS. Oh, you're talking about the price of apples in Michigan? LET ME RANT ABOUT THE ONGOING CITRUS FUNGAL ISSUE AFFECTING ORANGES IN FLORIDA!!!! THEY'RE BOTH FRUIT SO IT'S RELATED AND YOU'RE A MEANIE POO POO HEAD FOR NOT ENGAGING WITH ME ABOUT THE SUBJECT I FEEL IS ON TOPIC!!!!

They're not really interested in the main topic, they're interested in the tangent and they're trying to steer the conversation in that direction even if it means arguing with the op as if the op is talking about oranges instead of apples. It's weird, but really common in internet discussion where people feel entitled to voice their opinions even if they're not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

[(Anonymous)]

Except, in this case, it's more like "Let me also talk about the price of green apples instead of red apples in Michigan." Again, I honestly don't see how belaboring the point that "OMG! A comment included closely-related ideas that weren't just repeating what the OP said!" is somehow less tangential than the original comment to begin with. How exactly is your comment relevant to the discussion of the secret? And yet you felt entitled to voice your opinion. Hmmm...

Also, unless the OP identifies themselves as the OP, there's no way of knowing who an anon commenter is arguing with. And, yes, sometimes even if the OP DOES identify themselves, the discussion goes in directions they might not care about. That's kind of the point of community-based discussion.