[ SECRET POST #4566 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4566 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.







Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 45 secrets from Secret Submission Post #654.
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)]

It's entirely consistent to be frustrated with ambiguous subtext--given how much mass media has been using abusing ambiguity and "word of god" lately--and read ourselves into it anyway.

If you have to go on the interview circuit and twitter to explain what you really meant to say in your great artistic work of the last few years, perhaps that work doesn't actually say what you mean as clearly as you thought it did during countless hours of editing?

[(Anonymous)]

Uh, he's not though.

Can Neil win at all? He has deliberately refrained from indulging in any headcanons or saying anything at all about the show that isn't in the canon, and people complain because he wont validate their opinions.

But if he were to say that he intended on depicting an asexual agender relationship, everyone would dogpile him like they dogpiled Rowling.

He said exactly what was presented in the show. That theirs is a love story. That's all. And it clearly is. How you define it is up to you, as he's said many many times now.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT: Oh yes, unlike the post I replied to, Gaiman has been pretty good on the "word of god" front. And by all accounts, he did win. He told the story he wanted to tell and took home the checks. That his work is worthy of criticism is a feather in his cap.

But it's not about Gaiman as a person, which is why "word of god" is bullshit here. It's about the variety of ways in which Good Omens the teleplay can be interpreted. If I say that I like it as a queer love story but am frustrated with the genre's use of extended metaphor to talk about queer people, that's an entirely reasonable criticism of the work in relationship to other works, not the person.

[(Anonymous)]

SA: And I strongly suspect that trying to gatekeep allosexual queer people from discussing our relationships to works like Good Omens is a huge MISSING THE FUCKING POINT.