[ SECRET POST #2188 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2188 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 102 secrets from Secret Submission Post #313.
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)]

OP specifically says "the relationships portrayed." The books may be sorted into the romance genre, but the relationships written in them are not wonderful and romantic.

[oroburos69]

They are romantic relationships, which read as such to the vast majority of people. There's no "can't be fucked up" clause in the definition of romance.

I'm getting really sick of people trying to prove how enlightened about relationships they are by bashing shitty books. The authors were trying to portray one thing--romance. It didn't come off that way to some people. The fact that other people did see it as romantic does not make them broken or stupid. As a matter of fact, it probably just makes them someone who doesn't cross-examine the literature that they consume.

[(Anonymous)]

You seem to have skipped the word "wonderful." And I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing out when dangerous, controlling, and abusive relationships are being toted as ideal and wonderful. If someone writes a horrific event and tries to portray it as comedic and wonderful are we all supposed to ignore it because the author wants us to?

[oroburos69]

Nope. But you can stop pretending that it makes you somehow better than the people who do see it as the author intended. Presuming that someone's likes in literature reflect their likes in RL is stupid.

Twilight and 50 Shades somehow turned into this stupid as hell dick measuring contest, where the more problematic you found the damn things, the better you are at internet or some shit, and frankly, it's about time we put those stupid books to bed. Lets start bitching about people who find Romeo and Juliet wonderfully romantic, just for a change. Then we can swap it up to people who found the Mal/Dom romance in Inception wonderfully romantic. Oh! Then how about we all go feel superior to anyone who reads and likes romance novels? We'll have so much territory to cover with that one.

[(Anonymous)]

da
Lol, everyone gets to hear me when they start saying stupid shit about Romeo and Juliet. Or Gone with the wind.

[(Anonymous)]

Same. I never thought Romeo and Juliet was a great or supremely romantic story. I guess I can see why people feel that way, and why it has become shorthand for romance, but... at the end of the day, it's a tragedy about two dumb preteens who wreaked a path of death and destruction and killed themselves. No thanks. (Then again, I have never liked the "love each other so much they literally can't live without each other" trope. So I am, quite possibly, just missing the point.)

[(Anonymous)]

Omg, nothing pisses me off more than people trying to hold up Romeo and Juliet as some great romantic ideal. Because, you know, it's not like Romeo was "in love" with Rosaline and waxing poetic about here like two hours before he met Juliet. Plus, the whole dying tragically because people couldn't take the time to fucking talk to one another thing also puts a total damper on things.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

I would also like to put in my agreement to this sentiment.

Also: I hate sad endings.

[maverickz3r0]

Let me love you, cause even the English teachers I had who covered it thought Romeo and Juliet was some great romantic tragedy.

No, they were teenagers in lust. They knew each other for all of what, a week? before they decided to run away together. Ugh.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

Agreed. And Romeo was head over heels for Rosalind approximately 2.1 minutes before he was head over heels for Juliet. So....

[(Anonymous)]

Really? My English teacher taught it to us that they were two infatuated teens.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah seriously.

My OTP is a canon pairing. It's fucked up as hell and they are obviously ruining each other's lives and that they stay together feels like some kind of curse they both have, and I am completely fascinated by how much they love each other.

[(Anonymous)]

But then what you just said indicates you don't find their relationship "wonderful and romantic" or idealized and desirable at all?

I love me some fucked up relationships. I love them even in fic for canon couples that are sweet and fluffy as marshmallows. But that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that their relationships are messed up, and I think that's what the secret writer was getting at?

[stainless]

THIS.

[darkmanifest]

Exactly this. It's the lack of awareness that there's anything wrong with these relationships that's disturbing, not just that people like them, dysfunction and all.

[(Anonymous)]

SA

I think Romeo and Juliet is just as non-romantic as Twilight, so no argument there. I'm not limited to just Twilight/50 Shades, those just happen to be more relevant examples in our time period.

[(Anonymous)]

This. There's a big difference between writing an abusive/controlling relationship and portraying it as such and writing that same relationship and glamorizing it or portraying it as normal. If you do the second one, hell yeah I'm gonna call you out on it.

[(Anonymous)]

I can't tell if this is a semantic thing. Yeah, they are relationships of a romantic or sexual nature, in that they are boyfriend/girlfriend (eventually husband/wife) relationships. No one would argue that, I think. Doesn't mean that they are romantic in the sense of idealized, sweet, or loving. There's a difference. The relationships are both messed up and at least somewhat abusive. So... yeah, lots of people apparently find that awesome, partly because a lot of women are told that's just how men express their emotions and true love. That doesn't mean other people can't find that problematic, when it's held up as an ideal.

I'm not enlightened about relationships and I wouldn't pretend be. I don't think people who enjoyed the books are broken or stupid. I don't think you need to cross-examine what you're reading. I do think that if you see the relationships as perfect and desire a similar relationship in real life, and you do so uncritically, that's a reflection of a problematic conception of gender relations and sexual/romantic relationships. Problematic on a general, but not a specific scale-- if that is the particular kind of relationship you want, and you're totally into people who are controlling, possessive, and angry, then have at it-- your relationship is not mine. But if you fail to see that those relationships are frequently abusive? Sorry, I do find that problematic.

da

[(Anonymous)]

This is a good comment.