[ SECRET POST #6975 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6975 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.
[Hazbin Hotel]



__________________________________________________



06.
[Star Wars Special: C-3PO (2016)]























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 25 secrets from Secret Submission Post #996.
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)]

Nope. The characterization can be different.

This isn't real life, where it would be absolutely absurd to say that I can tell someone's bedroom habits just by meeting them. Fiction, if it's any good, has to abide by certain rules of narrative structure, continuous thematic elements, and characterization that we get to delve in deeper than any actual person we will ever meet. All of those things means that we do get insight into what their character is/will be like in the bedroom and if it doesn't flow with the narrative and the thematic elements, it's bad characterization.

[feotakahari]

As a writer, “rules of narrative structure” are invited to kiss my ass. A story runs on its own internal logic, and just because a particular logic has proven reliable for many stories doesn’t mean it’s the only way to do things. After all, it’s pretty unusual story logic for the hero to have a personality like mine, and I like to see myself in heroes once in a while.

(The proven role for my personality is “the guy in a comedy who bad things keep happening to.”)

[(Anonymous)]

Tell me you don't understand the difference between narrative structure and characterization without saying you don't understand the difference between narrative structure and characterization.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, cut it out. If you aren't capable of having an actual discussion with people, then go find some toys to play with, as that's far more in line with your maturity level.

[(Anonymous)]

Seriously? They said fuck narrative structure, no one makes people with my characteristics. As if a character and a narrative structure were the same thing. That's quite literally mixing the two of them up.

[(Anonymous)]

I completely disagree. Fiction, if it's any good, will capture the complexities of being human, including the fact that people behave differently in different settings and contexts, and may at times do contradictory things. Good writing establishes personality traits, predilections, and dynamics that remain consistent even when characters have those divergent behaviors -- including in the bedroom.

+1

[(Anonymous)]

and it's really not that deep. using literary terms and insisting that you're somehow devaluing the very heart of characterization by writing "...and likes to take it up the ass" versus " and likes to top" is laughable. A good writer can make bedroom preferences work regardless of the character's personality, sometimes even in spite of them.

it's fine to have pairing prefs! just don't dress it up like you're god's gift to literature if you do it one way and a travesty to the very soul of art if you do it the other. just fucking admit you have preferences.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think that outside-the-bedroom characterization and sexual roles HAVE to be written in a way that feels like it correlates or "agrees" or whatever, but I very much agree that, in fiction, it is 100% fine and not weird at all to enjoy or even prefer characterization and sexual roles that are written in a way where one feels (to the writer and/or readers) like it informs the other, or where it feels like there's some kind of coherence between the two.

Obviously topping and bottoming don't have inherent values unto themselves, and can be written in any way that suits the writer. But that means any way that suits the writer, including ways that cater to the kinds of binary dom!top and sub!bottom depictions that some people want to insist are problematic.

[(Anonymous)]

CAN be. Does not HAVE to be. To assume it will be based solely on who tops and bottoms is still absurd if you don't know how a specific writer portrays them. With art, all you need is a visual preference, though.