[ SECRET POST #4527 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4527 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[The Umbrella Academy]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Brooklyn Nine-Nine]


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 13 secrets from Secret Submission Post #648.
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

[fscom]

03. https://i.imgur.com/Zotoqw1.png
[The Umbrella Academy]

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, I get being annoyed with bad writing, but when it comes to characters all you have is the text. It isn't very fruitful to have a conversation based on the hypothetical "well-written" versions that only exist in your imagination.

[(Anonymous)]

I do it all the time, lol

[(Anonymous)]

Former English major here, giggling a bit about "all you have is the text". FWIW, I don't see that OP was advocating for hypothetical well written versions, but suggesting that people might take poor writing into account when discussing characterization, which isn't the same thing and which seems sensible to me.

[(Anonymous)]

For me, the issue is when someone's reason for not liking a character is "They did X bad thing/neglected to do X decent thing and that was unforgivable, they're a bad person" when the reason they did or didn't do X thing was obviously bad writing. It's all right to not like a character for being badly written, but it should be acknowledged that it's because they're badly WRITTEN, instead of that they're a bad PERSON.

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed. But I have a feeling this is too nuanced a distinction for a lot of people.

[(Anonymous)]

SA with something of an example. There's a character I like very much in an extremely long and dense canon. At one point, she makes an offensive remark to another character that, if she were real, would reveal her as holding an ignorant prejudice and I would need her to reevaluate them before I could like her again.

But she's not real, and her comment was treated as fair, which definitely says it's the writers belief. And it was basically a throwaway comment. It's a non issue for her in the rest of the story. In a case like that, I don't feel it's fair to have to judge her the way you'd judge a real person who said what she did. If it bothers you that much, go ahead and don't like her, but know it's the writing and not her, the "person" who's to blame.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, different people have different lines for when something like that is the result of bad writing versus the possibility of it being in character.

[feotakahari]

Found on Fanlore: https://fanlore.org/wiki/Watsonian_vs._Doylist

“And sometimes, a Doylist perspective is necessary simply as a fannish coping mechanism. For myself and only for myself, the only way I can reconcile the characters of Critical Mass with the characters I love -- particularly Elizabeth and John -- is to say "ok, the writers were smoking crack this week and there must have been a hell of a lot going on off screen that we weren't privy to." Because if I try a Watsonian explanation I end up with characters I really don't like, and I'm not ready to reach that conclusion on the basis of this one ep.”

[(Anonymous)]

For me, the part that makes it shitty writing isn't the character doing X bad thing/not doing X decent thing, it's the fact that the writer continues to pretend the character did nothing wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

It depends. Sometimes characters aren't as likeable as you might want them to be and they do bad things, perhaps repeatedly, perhaps annoyingly never learning form their mistakes or having a redemption arc or experiencing growth. There's a point where you have to just accept that a character is a bad person, or at least a deeply flawed person who isn't always going to be in a position to make the best decisions, or even rational, clear-headed decisions.

The occasional screw-up can be more easily attributed to bad writing. It helps if you can tell that the writers didn't think of this as a bad action on the part of a character, or if they admit having written themselves into a corner. If the issue is people calling a character trash because they did one bad thing with no good Watsonion explanation, then taking a Doyalist perspective and refusing to hate the character forever and getting frustrated at people calling the character trash is a completely valid place to be.

My point is, I don't believe Character Does Bad Thing automatically means Bad Writing. It might just mean the writers are intentionally taking the character in a direction you don't like and good writing is not just about getting what you want.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it's always bad writing for characters to repeat mistakes or never learn but it's also not necessarily good writing or even the point of the writing for character growth that lasts. While we as the audience can get frustrated by the repetition or lack of resolution even if it might not be the point.

Think of sitcoms, children's shows, some longrunning dramas, soap dramas, and more, where character learns a lesson at the end of the day or experience growth, only to apparently get amnesia the next day (or story arc).

[(Anonymous)]

My friend, this is fandom. People regularly construct entire novel length fics based on versions of canon that go well beyond just the text and only exists in a fan's imagination, LOL.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, yes, but when I encounter a canon, usually I need that initial ... I guess I'll call it "Watsonian immersion" the first time through to connect on an emotional level.

Doyalist approach is great for second and subsequent, or for looking at something purely on an intellectual Trainwreck Appreciation™ level.

[(Anonymous)]

This was a very charming and fun show. Taking it too seriously is a waste of time.

[(Anonymous)]

Wow... a second person who's new to the idea of fandom?