[ SECRET POST #5654 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5654 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 16 secrets from Secret Submission Post #809.
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)]

That wouldn't do shit for real life... but actually, I want to see something in fiction that takes into the account the now-prevalent audience expectation that a villain will be redeemed. We serve the hottest, saddest baddie, only instead of a redemption arc we show how someone like that uses their appeal to manipulate those around them for their own gain.

Mostly I just want to see how many fans still bite the woobie bait regardless of what the narrative is telling them.

[(Anonymous)]

Of course people will bite the bait. They'll bite any woobie bait, and if there isn't, they'll make some themselves with a random background character in love with the villain. And since when has fandom cared at all about what the intended narrative of a piece of media is? Have you been in fandom?

[(Anonymous)]

DA

This is only a problem if you think that's a bad thing. Reading against the text is one of the things fandom does well, IMO.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, speak for yourself ig because I find that when I'm in a fandom for something that has good writing, people generally care about where a creator is taking the story. Fans may disagree on interpretations but they're not blatantly substituting their own realities (except in fanfic, which is an imaginative exercise anyway). Then I've also been in fandoms where canon is disowned and fanon reigns, but there's usually a reason for that...

[(Anonymous)]

Things have attempted that, and never in a way that wasn't written badly. There needs to be some clues in the narrative and characterization that the character isn't going to want to choose redemption, and have a good reason why. Otherwise it's just like any other asspull twist. So yep, I definitely did not give the writers what they wanted, and woobified those villains even harder. That's what happens when you care more about subverting tropes to trick your audience and gloat about your cleverness than telling a convincing character arc.

[(Anonymous)]

^ This

[(Anonymous)]

If these things are written so badly, why are you still invested in their characters? I'd only expend the energy to woobify characters from things I already like otherwise. Sounds like you already gave the writers what they wanted: your time and possibly money.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

You can still like badly written characters and media. News at 11.

And they seem like they did it out of spite more than actual investment in the characters, so I don’t know where you’re getting some genuine love out of their comment. Obviously most creators do want money and time spent on their work. But AYRT already plainly said that these authors wanted to subvert tropes to trick the audience and gloat about their supposed cleverness. So not giving into that and woobifying the characters even harder is not giving the author’s what they really want in that way. AYRT is telling you this to communicate why your idea has already been done, and why it’s likely not as great of an idea as you think it is. Your response, as well as your first comment, comes off as pretty ridiculous and lacking in self-awareness. Not to mention a little arrogant, to be honest.

Woobifying characters is part of the fun of fandom to some people. It’s not an inherently bad thing. So trying to get one over on people that do it, and making works just to do so in order to make fun of them doesn’t actually make the person doing so look superior. Quite the opposite. And is in itself expending energy on something they don’t like, just to spite people who like woobifying characters. And you said you only

[(Anonymous)]

(Sorry, but send too early)

-you only expended energy on characters you already like. But you want to make an entire work just to secretly mock people who woobify characters, and as an experiment to see if they’ll do it here too?

I personally don’t really enjoy woobifying characters. If a character is written as sympathetic while being an antagonist, and is well-written in that regard, I’ll engage with that character the way they’re written. And if a villainous character isn’t written as sympathetic, I won’t imagine them as if they are. I make no excuses for the villainous characters I like if they’re unsympathetic. But at the same time, there’s nothing wrong with people who engage with characters differently than me and woobify characters. Fiction and reality aren’t 1:1, so the majority of people who woobify characters would never do the same for real horrible people. No matter what OP thinks.

So I don’t get the amount of energy you spend caring about people who woobify characters when you said you don’t expend unnecessary energy on things you don’t like.

[(Anonymous)]

lmao someone struck a nerve. yeah, nothing "wrong" here.

[(Anonymous)]

Nayrt


Nope. It’s pretty clear to everyone reading that nobody is actually bothered by any of the drivel you’ve spouting.

You’re so full of shit lmao

Like do you know even realize how ludicrous you sound? How much of a Twitter edgelord you come off as?

Apparently not since you keep digging yourself deeper.

People are easily able to tell you don’t know what you’re talking about. But you think if you keep playing it off with “you’re just mad” it somehow makes you look better.

You’ll read whatever tone you want in people’s replies to make yourself feel better.

[(Anonymous)]

Hey there, I'm the anon who had the question of why I got invested in "badly written" characters posed to them. The answer is (depending on the story) either: because they WEREN'T badly written when I got invested. They were written like sympathetic antagonists being set up for a good redemption arc. The writers were capable of creating a great character I loved, then they chose to fuck up their story. Or: because it was a mediocre but fun story with tropey characters that I still liked well enough, and I choose my favorites even when others have done it better. Not everything enjoyable needs to be a masterpiece.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, my bad for assuming!

That’s understandable, and I agree with you.

[(Anonymous)]

SA

(I’m not the anon who asked the question, just the one who gave possible answers btw)

[(Anonymous)]

Well that is, frankly, unhinged. You've gone way beyond letting creations from "bad" writers live rent-free in your head out of spite and have made the idea that you're judged for what you like some kind of cross to feel martyred over. Why is it always those claiming to do things for "simple fun that shouldn't be scrutinized" who go off the rail the moment they're even slightly challenged? You can't have it both be not that deep and also... this.

[(Anonymous)]

Nothing is unhinged about any of this. You have no actual arguments so you’re painting everyone with an opposing view as “crazy” and “caring too much”.

You’re being hilariously disingenuous and everyone can see right through your bullshit. Notice how not one person has agreed with you. That should tell you something if you had the capability for self-awareness.

[(Anonymous)]

Sa

Also ayrt clearly stated that they were a different anon than the one who said they woobify villains harder.

So why are you responding to them like they’re the same? The lack of reading comprehension you’ve displayed makes your response even more asinine than it already was.

Someone is very much unhinged here in this thread. And it’s only you.

Not ayrt. Not the anon who woobifyed villains harder in response to bad authors. Not people who woobify villains at all. Just you. Not even OP is as unhinged in their black and white childishness.

[(Anonymous)]

You calling anyone else unhinged is hilarious after all the nonsense you’ve put out. Your inability to distinguish fiction from reality isn’t anyone else’s problem. Take your anti-lite bs out of here.

[(Anonymous)]

I strongly disagree that there's a prevalent audience expectation that a villain will be redeemed. Redemption arcs are still very much in the minority. Most villains are still punished or killed.

Unless you're confusing people calling the ending of very specific types of story (or entries in very specific canons that are famous for, among other things, redeeming their most iconic villain) with there being an overall expectation?

[(Anonymous)]

Like, compared to the days of fairy tales and literal monsters emblematic of humanity's most primal fears, I'd say there's an uptick.

[(Anonymous)]

Nayrt

More than there was before and slight upticks are not automatically an over-saturation. This is just sad at this point.