[ SECRET POST #6442 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6442 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 36 secrets from Secret Submission Post #921.
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)]

Yeah I know what you're talking about, hell even without having actual canon queer characters in a show fandom has been misusing the term queerbait for years.

The word shippy needs to come back in place of 'subtext' because the latter implies some form of intent from the writers, while the former is strictly putting the onus on fandom for finding a dynamic fun enough to ship, which is what happens 9/10. But because a bizarre number of fandom folk treat shipping like sports teams they like to use subtext because it makes their personal ship-vibing seem more legit instead of the personal preference it is.

[erinptah]

Hear hear.

Just getting fandom-at-large to accept "shipping is not a contest, and your fic is not more- or less-valid based on how closely it follows canon" would solve so many problems.

[(Anonymous)]

This is an uphill battle that isn't getting any better unfortunately. I've shipped plenty of non-canon ships and the fandoms go from chill to utter hellscapes if they ever get popular enough for the 'this is totally intended' lot turn up. I know when I'm shipping something that isn't meant to be canon and I'm perfectly happy with that, but so many other fans aren't and it sucks the fun out of things.

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, people need to learn that subtext doesn't need to be intentional. That's not an intended implication of that word and used to not be taken as one. People would talk about subtext where it was understood that it wasn't intentional. I remember when people talked about subtext between Roy and Ed in Fullmetal Alchemist. None of us thought it was meant to be there, nonshippers disagreed that it even existed, and that was okay!

[(Anonymous)]

Lets be real though: most people are using it as the 'it's totes there and I am so smart for picking up on it' kind and that's my issue, people are not coming from a subtext argument in good faith to begin with, which I why I want shippy to come back because that is honest.

[(Anonymous)]

[(Anonymous)]

I disagree... in all of my fandoms I've always seen "subtext" used to refer to stuff that was very clearly intentional on the part of the writers.

Like, in one of my fandoms there are some really intense shippy vibes between the MC and his male best friend but that's more a result of the author not knowing how to write romance so the canon romance was totally lacking in chemistry and as a result the friendship between the MC and his best friend had stronger chemistry than the actual canon romance. Is this subtext? No, because it wasn't intentional, and we all agreed on that front. The shippy vibes absolutely existed but they were clearly not what the author intended, so we didn't call them "subtext" because they weren't. They were just "this author sucks at writing ships."

[(Anonymous)]

Nope, no one in fandom is using it like this and you know that. Which is why I want to take it away from fandom because they are trying to claim intent that isn't there.