[ SECRET POST #5828 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5828 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 25 secrets from Secret Submission Post #834.
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]

07. https://i.imgur.com/T49KhSk.png

[(Anonymous)]

k

[(Anonymous)]

Ikr

[(Anonymous)]

"Of course people see themselves in the characters they like!"

Uh, no? Seeing any of myself in a character has zero bearing on whether I like them or not. I like a lot of characters I don't see any of myself in. I hate a lot of characters I do see aspects of myself in.

[(Anonymous)]

That's good for you. For a lot of people, how much they see themselves in a character is definitely related to how much they interest them. Why shouldn't it be? I'd say you're an exception. Not every character has to be exactly like me for me to like them, but if I can see something of myself in a character who otherwise has nothing going for them, it pushes me past indifference into affection.

[(Anonymous)]

Why shouldn't it be?

... because the character isn't me? I like characters based on how they're written in the narrative. If a character is interesting to watch in action and is written in a way that makes them understandable and believable, then I'll like them regardless of what traits they have. Conversely, if a character is flat and shallow writing-wise then I don't care if they're exactly like me, they won't interest me one bit.

[(Anonymous)]

They’re definitely not an exception. You’re overestimating how much people think and feel like you. I’m not saying people like AYRT are actually the majority, but you’re most certainly not in the majority either. And it’s a bit arrogant and solipsistic to assume you are just because you know some other people for whom relating to characters or not is what makes or breaks a character for them.

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly AYRT's line of thinking sure explains why so many people get so absolutely unhinged about characters and act like you ran over their puppy if you dare to say you dislike their fave. They take it as a personal attack.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, but when people complain about that they don't usually mean "why do people like some characters more than others?", they mean "why are people hassling the showrunners/author/actors to make a particular pairing canon and calling them homophobic when they don't do it, even though other characters are gay and there's no evidence of homophobia".

[(Anonymous)]

THIS. 99.9% of the time it really all boils down to "I'm mad that MY ship isn't canon."

[(Anonymous)]

No, that's something different and is not at all what the secret is about. First of all, there is no clearly cut line between "I make this character gay because I'm gay and I like and relate to them" and "I make this character gay because muh ship" and never the twain shall meet. People tend to gravitate towards shipping characters they also like and relate to.

But you think nobody ever gets told not to make characters gay and not put them in gay ships by people who just don't want their fave to even be headcanoned gay ever? And nobody ever masks that homophobia by saying "Look, I don't hate gay people, I'm just conceeeeeerrrrned that you're ignoring canon gay characters! You should write about them (and keep your gay cooties with them and away from the characters *I* project onto)". Like damn I wish I knew what rock you live under so I could join you lmao

[(Anonymous)]

It's a valid complaint. If people want more queer media and more queer ships in media, they need to support the queer media that exists to show that there's a demand for it. Supporting a fanon gay pairing does absolutely nothing for that cause because the gay pairing isn't a part of the actual canon.

[(Anonymous)]

Ugh, THIS! There aren't enough gay or asexual characters in existence for it to be a guarantee that we find one we like enough to write about. They can even be good characters, but not the type of character who appeals to you, or not in genres that appeal to you. Straight people don't have to scour the selection of obscure indie works to find a character like them in a story that interests them, so why should we have to do that work?

I know of two asexual characters I love enough to write about, one is from something with no fandom, and I still consider myself lucky.

[(Anonymous)]

"I know of two asexual characters I love enough to write about, one is from something with no fandom, and I still consider myself lucky."

Are they from books? The only asexual characters I know of are from books. I wish there were current TV shows with asexual characters, but the only ones I've heard of are from shows that aren't on anymore.

[(Anonymous)]

The one with no fandom is from a book. The other is Lilith from The Owl House (it was confirmed with an in-character letter the show creator wrote from her POV, so not even on the show proper).

I've read a few other books with ace characters, some better than others but none that stuck with me enough to devote fandom time to.

[(Anonymous)]

Todd from Bojack Horseman is ace.

[(Anonymous)]

Not to mention that a LOT of the time straight white male hollywood writers write gay characters JUST as well as they write women....

[(Anonymous)]

You can't say women are badly-written here. Didn't you know nobody writes bad female characters unless all the characters they write are bad? You're just making misogynist excuses for why you prefer m/m. That girl Dean fucked one time and then she died was a FASCINATING character and it was canon, so why would you bother with Destiel instead unless you hate women?

[(Anonymous)]

Sounds like you need a nap.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

LOL
Castielexactly.gif

[(Anonymous)]

I can relate. I have little patience for arguments that claim that because the author wrote in that some character has a marginalized identity in common with me, that's the one I have to identify with and focus on. Particularly when those characters are poorly made - which they often are. It seems like a fairly transparent attempt to contain slash, like "here, we magnanimously gave you these designated gays, now leave the rest of the cast alone for their very important heterosexual makeouts." And then, you know ... scolding us if that doesn't work as planned. Especially when it's like everyone in fandom shared a look and unanimously went "nah. We want THAT GUY."

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with what the ace person postulated. I think it probably is true for a lot of people, though of course not everyone. It seems like a bit of a jump from what they said to "People obviously see themselves in their faves," though that can also be true.

Overall I agree with this secret, in the sense that I say let people favor their own home-made rep if they want to. Or hell, even if a person is cis and het, let them play with fiction how they want to.

I do wonder why the word representation is in air quotes, though.

[(Anonymous)]

Not air quotes, they're written quotes.

[(Anonymous)]

Mmm.

Sometimes when I'm writing a character with a particular sexuality, it's a very conscious AU - I want to explore what they'd be like that way, or, well, rule of horny.

Sometimes I really do see... vibes, or character quirks or whatever, that make me think this character could be X Thing I Identify With, it just hasn't been explicity stated by the author.

And honestly, a lot of maybe-ace characters are like that. Having someone exist in an ambiguous bracket of: have they just not met the right person/are they attached to someone off-screen/are they closeted gay/well yes they had sex that one time but they really didn't look like they enjoyed it/are they no-libido-depressed/are they ace? Oh yes, and, the author just wasn't interested in including romance in their story. There's, ah, room.

[(Anonymous)]

This tracks with me. Folks are like "This one side character from a movie/episode you clearly don't care about is cannonically gay! Why do you have to ship the two main characters together!"

And it's like, duh, because I like them.

There's this mismatch, wanting "representation" has been used to ''''legitimize'''' shipping for so long that now that we've gotten a bunch of representation and we're still shipping some folks just don't get it. The battle is won, there are queer folks on the CW and in Marvel movies and in Oscar Bait and on podcasts What More Can We Want?!?!?!

(I want to think about my favs smooching, duh.)