[ SECRET POST #6002 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6002 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.
[Identity V]



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.
























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 31 secrets from Secret Submission Post #858.
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)]

Ah, there you are. I knew you or someone like you would show up. People went really hard on the "You go too fast for me" being SUPER OBVIOUS ROMANTIC GAYSPEAK and I was like... okay, if you say so. Crowley wanting to run away with Aziraphale is closer. I'd say both are still very safe in the subtext zone, though.

Like I said, people get upset and accuse me of homophobia because I didn't find Good Omens quite as conspicuously gay as they did. I picked up on it just fine, and enjoyed seeing that play out between the two characters. But having heard fandom buzz about it before seeing the show itself, I expected more than that and was a bit disappointed. I should've known better, probably.

[(Anonymous)]

Ah yes, one of those "only making out counts" kinda people.

Like, I'm sorry, but it's really not THAT subtle. There's no context in which those AREN'T gay. You don't wanna run away and damn the rest of LITERAL EXISTENCE with someone you're just kinda friends with. You never describe someone going "too fast" for you outside of romance unless you're talking about their literal driving.

[(Anonymous)]

Ah yes, one of those "only making out counts" kinda people.

If you can only debate by putting words in my mouth, then your argument isn't terribly strong. But I suppose it's difficult to argue my claims about my own perception and expectations of a piece of media that I watched.

"You don't wanna run away and damn the rest of LITERAL EXISTENCE with someone you're just kinda friends with."

Did I say Crowley and Aziraphale were "just kinda friends" or are you trying to put words in my mouth again? And did I not just say that I found this specific example to be more obvious than the "too fast" scene? Spoilers: I did say that.

"You never describe someone going "too fast" for you outside of romance unless you're talking about their literal driving."

Your argument would be a lot stronger if the exchange in question didn't literally 1) take place in a car and 2) come directly after Crowley offers Aziraphale a lift. In the car they're both sitting in.

Look, I'm not saying that there's zero romantic meaning in both those examples. I said I picked up on it, after all. I'm saying that IMO, it's still very plausibly subtextual in the sense that not everyone is going to pick up on it. I'm not sure why fandom is 100% convinced that it's blindingly obvious, but I suspect it's got to do with fandom being an echo chamber that doesn't realize that the majority of people watching any given piece of popular media are going to be casual viewers and not hardcore fans.

Here's another example: there were people who watched The Untamed and were convinced that Wei Wuxian was pining for and would end up with Jiang Yanli, his adopted sister. That's the kind of viewership I'm talking about right there. Fandom sees the subtext as 3 foot high neon signs. Casual viewers don't necessarily do that.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

OK, I get where you're coming from on this, but on the other hand, show runners are not obligated to aim for the dumbest possible audience. I know a lot of casual viewers who picked up on the subtext just fine, because it's not particularly subtle, especially since the actors have said they played it that way and the composer intentionally put romantic motifs into the score (particularly in the scene where Crowley saves Aziraphale's books in the WWII bit). There is no shortage of viewers who are NOT in fic-reading fandom circles who saw it.

Does everything need to be aimed at the viewers who need their hands held constantly?

[(Anonymous)]

"Does everything need to be aimed at the viewers who need their hands held constantly?"

No. And I never once said that such hand-holding was necessary. I said absolutely nothing about showrunners or writers being obligated to do anything, much less be much more explicit about m/m romance. I also did not say that no casual viewers picked up on the subtext.

You seem to be rebutting a whole lot of things I didn't actually say. Are you talking to someone else, maybe?

[(Anonymous)]

They're sitting in a car, but they're not driving anywhere. How is "in an unmoving car" literally obscuring anything???

The only people not picking up on it are deep in denial and even kissing or declarations of love wouldn't get through to them. You holding them as the bar is disingenuous and makes you very much the "only making out on screen counts" kinda person.

[(Anonymous)]

"They're sitting in a car, but they're not driving anywhere. How is "in an unmoving car" literally obscuring anything???"

I imagine this sounds like a really powerful argument to you that nobody in their right mind could ever interpret it as being about driving (in the car they're both sitting in) after Crowley offers Aziraphale a lift (as in, a ride in the car they're both sitting in) but... I'm not really sure it's as convincing as you seem to think. The point of plausible deniability isn't to obscure (this is your word, not mine, a recurring pattern with you), it's to offer a plausible degree of deniability. Which is what that scene is. It means that to some viewers, it's obviously about more than a ride in a car, it's about the speed/intimacy of Crowley and Aziraphale's relationship. Which is how I and many others saw it. To other viewers, it could very plausibly be just what it seems at face value - a man offering a ride in a car to another man, and the second man declining and getting out of the car in question. So even if it's not about a casual offer of carpooling, it could be, because the context is there and available to be interpreted that way. Not everyone picks up on undercurrents and metaphors, even if they're heavy handed ones, and I wouldn't call that scene heavy handed at all. I think it was poignant and wonderfully done.

"The only people not picking up on it are deep in denial and even kissing or declarations of love wouldn't get through to them. You holding them as the bar is disingenuous and makes you very much the "only making out on screen counts" kinda person."

Nope, it doesn't. Like I said several times, I picked up on it very easily. But to say that it's so obvious that everyone would do the same unless they're in denial is a bit silly. Lots of people watch media and fail to pick up on plot points and character relationships of every kind, romantic or platonic. It's because people are human, and quite frequently they will not "get" everything there is to get about a piece of media even if it seems very obvious.

I mentioned The Untamed as an earlier example. It, too, is fairly obvious to me and many others that it's a romance between two men, Wei Wuxian and Lan Wanji. But because it was made in China, where censors dictate that m/m romances are NOT to be portrayed in media, the people who made the show had to be somewhat discreet. There is no kissing, or sex. There are no declarations of love. There is, not unlike Good Omens, a lot of meaningful glances, playful banter, declarations of deep friendship and undying loyalty, there's romantic music and a lot of things that strongly signal what the show cannot come out and say - that two men are in deeply in love, will fight side by side with one another, defy authority for one another and even suffer and die for one another if necessary. And yet... not everyone got it. Because that's life, and human beings miss the point of things all the time.

And you're still trying very, very hard to put words into my mouth that I never said. And it seems to be upsetting you greatly that I'm not making those arguments you want me to make, which is peculiar. Remember - I am not the one saying that Good Omens isn't gay. I've never claimed that. I said that fandom's buzz and enthusiasm rather inflated my expectations of how gay it would be, and I found it to be less so than anticipated. I'm not saying it was a bad show. I said I enjoyed it, particularly Crowley and Aziraphale's parts. But I think fandom oversold it to me a little and for some reason, that really offends some people.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

You know you're arguing with at least two different people here, right? I'm the anon who made the comment about aiming stuff at the dumbest possible audience member one or two comments up.

But I'm not the person who made the comment you're ranting about here, that's someone else who made related but different points entirely. This is just starting to sound like you can't handle people disagreeing with you, and you're doing as much putting words in other peoples' mouths as you think others are doing to you. Calm down.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm afraid I don't have the ability to differentiate anons without them stating upfront they're not the same person. I apologize if you're a different anon and retract my remark about a recurring pattern of you putting words into my mouth. I guess the recurring pattern is that two different anons seem to be structuring their arguments around things they believe I said, but that I didn't actually say. Which is very strange.

It's also strange you're reading my words as a rant. It's just a response to a comment that was addressed to me, and it's quite civil and calm.

SA

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, and I forgot - in the The Untamed, the director, writer and actors all knew they were playing a gay love story. That's how it was filmed, that's how the actors were instructed to approach the relationship because the story is based on a novel where the m/m is explicit. The TV show could not be explicit, due to government censorship, otherwise the show would not be made or aired. But they tried very, very hard to get their point across anyway, and IMO they succeeded as best as they could under those difficult circumstances.

And yet... not everyone picked up on it. For some people, it was too subtle, maybe. But for whatever reason, the romance that was obvious to many was not obvious to all.

[(Anonymous)]

Just gonna say, you come across as a whiny bitch who feels above everyone with all of this. Like the most blatant caricature of how people view autistic people in media. Shut down your superiority complex and maybe take a few edibles to relax about what the homophobes might think of the gay angels.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

This is an incredibly harsh and unnecessarily rude response to a post that's pretty reasonable in how it discusses the issue even if I don't agree with the conclusions

[(Anonymous)]

Are you the same anon who advised me to calm down? It'd be funny if you were, but even if you weren't, it's not bad advice if you feel so moved by discussion as to call people names just because they said something you disagreed with.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh. My. God.
Good Omens fandom is the most annoying fucking fandom I have ever witnessed.
Yes, this is all subtext. And I would be ok with that, some people and some characters do not need big declarations of love to be compelling in their relationships, but we have got some dubious ha ha gaaaay jokes and fandom being unhinged like you.
Also I don't know about you, but I love my friends and I would run with them. Yes, damming the world, because I am selfish.

[(Anonymous)]

Good Omens fandom is the most annoying fucking fandom I have ever witnessed.

Lucky you. It's not even in my top five!

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT
I liked the book so it probably colors my perception, but I served my time in Supernatural fandom and even them weren't that annoying imo.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Well, I was in Sherlock, Harry Potter, Homestuck, and Voltron at various times over the years so nah, GO can't compete with those!

I'm also a book fan from way back and shipped A/C before there was ever a chance of a TV show happening and was pleasantly surprised that the show leaned way more into the A/C (b)romance than the book did. I did do my best to avoid the whole queerbaiting wankfest and just enjoyed the huge surge of new fic and art though, as much as I could.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh. I never was in Voltron, I guess it can take the cake - I heard it's dumpster fire. But dunno, it's all subjective. I find GO fans the most annoying.
(also I really don't like Tennant in this role. So no nice fics and art for me. It's all annoying garbage in my eyes *sighs*)

[(Anonymous)]

It's as though some people think "subtext" is some kind of insult and they get bizarrely defensive about it. It's not a huge offense to say that the Crowley/Aziraphale interactions in Good Omens were largely subtextual and maintained a degree of plausible deniability.

Do people not remember that Xena/Gabrielle in Xena Warrior Princess was a classic example of subtext, very much beloved and celebrated in that fandom? Or maybe I'm just old.

[(Anonymous)]

I think Xena/Gabrielle was completely text, though, censorship of the times taken into account.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it began as subtext, and ended up being more explicit, yes. But I don't think it was explicit from the beginning of their relationship.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I would second that, they were barely censored in the end. Even though I agree with sentiment that there is nothing wrong about subtext.

[(Anonymous)]

People went really hard on the "You go too fast for me" being SUPER OBVIOUS ROMANTIC GAYSPEAK and I was like... okay, if you say so. Crowley wanting to run away with Aziraphale is closer. I'd say both are still very safe in the subtext zone, though.

You're right and you should say it. It was obviously meant to evoke comparison with a romantic statement, but it was deliberately ambiguous whether it was actually meant to actually be a romantic statement.

Not that I mind that particular bit of ambiguity, personally.

[(Anonymous)]

I didn't mind it, either. I liked that it could be interpreted in more than one way, on more than one level, and I think that's how it was meant to be. That's what made the scene so moving, IMO.

[(Anonymous)]

Get the into the gutter, homophobe-lover