Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2007-10-01 04:59 pm
[ SECRET POST #269 ]
⌈ Secret Post #269 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
1.

2.
3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.
20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

Notes:
1. The F!S Friending Meme! Go do it! I am totally open to friending. (:
2. Have some emopuppy in a fish tank!
3. BECAUSE I CAN: TAKE THIS POLL
Secrets Left to Post: 07 pages, 168 secrets from Secret Submission Post #039.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 ] broken link, 0 not!secrets, [ 1 2 ] not!fandom, [ 1 ] repeat.
Next Secret Post: Tomorrow, Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007.
Current Secret Submission Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Re: 21 OP here...
But basically, are you finally admitting that the only solid evidence you actually have is Franziska's already-heavily-ironic "little brother"? And shall I remind you that I agree with you, that I also personally see them as siblings, and thus am not "clinging" to anything? Honestly, what bothers me isn't your view of canon, it's the the fact that you won't acknowledge it as such, and the patronizing way you treat other people because of it.
Re: 21 OP here...
(Anonymous) 2007-10-02 05:57 pm (UTC)(link)The evidence is that she calls him brother (and I don't get where the fuck you're pulling "heavily ironic" from) not once, but on two separate and unrelated occasions in front of Phoenix Wright. While not outright saying "brother," she considers him a Von Karma and says as much in 2-4. That is the solid and concrete evidence that would be pretty conclusive on its own if you suddenly decided to ignore EVERYTHING ELSE about it, like the way they interact, the fact that they were raised together, et cetera.
There are MANY things in this series that I will leave up to interpretation regarding character relationships. My views in these cases are not canon, I will not patronize anybody else over these interpretations.
This. Is not. One of them.
Re: 21 OP here...
As a writer? I think. Yes.
Re: 21 OP here...
(Anonymous) 2007-10-02 06:33 pm (UTC)(link)Re: 21 OP here...
Re: 21 OP here...
(Anonymous) 2007-10-02 06:50 pm (UTC)(link)Re: 21 OP here...
Re: 21 OP here...
(Anonymous) 2007-10-02 06:57 pm (UTC)(link)Re: 21 OP here...
Here's a hint: no one actually cares about your secret beyond "iawtc" or "idawtc." The only reason you're getting backlash is because a)you phrased it in a way that is guaranteed that no one here will take you seriously, b)you insisted on arguing with anyone who dares disagree with your oh-so-extensive "canon" knowledge, and c) then made a comment calling attention to the fact that you obviously think you are on a higher plane of fandom than everyone else.
In short, you're the reason people are being jerks to you.
Re: 21 OP here...
(Anonymous) 2007-10-02 07:38 pm (UTC)(link)And I hardly see what's wrong with arguing with something I strongly disagree with.
As to the third comment? Uh... that's... very, very incorrect. I certainly don't think that by any stretch of the matter.
Re: 21 OP here...
Re: 21 OP here...
(Anonymous) 2007-10-02 07:45 pm (UTC)(link)Everything else you've said is wrong, and just as patronizing and elitist as you're accusing me of being.
Re: 21 OP here...
So do you get it now?
Re: 21 OP here...
(Anonymous) 2007-10-02 08:59 pm (UTC)(link)...my sincerest apologies if that last sentence made no sense, I believe my flu medicine just kicked in X_x
Re: 21 OP here...
Re: 21 OP here...
Calling someone "little brother" is by definition ironic, under the circumstances that she is clearly younger than and also not actually related to him. Whether she considers him to be her brother or not, it is still an ironic phrase.
But you know what? We're at a total impasse here, and I'm done arguing with you.
Re: 21 OP here...
(Anonymous) 2007-10-02 06:24 pm (UTC)(link)I honestly can't see what more you want to have it be canon. They were raised together. She calls him brother, and sees him as a Von Karma. These are facts that we know. Taken into conjunction with how they ACT, I can honestly not see how it's anything BUT canon.
This is one of the few things I'm this adamant over; and I almost always make at least an effort to see things from another point of view. I can truthfully not see another viable "interpretation" here--it's crystalline to me that Takumi wrote them as siblings.
And for the record, I thought of them as defined canon siblings in 2-4 before I ever thought of shipping Adrian/Franziska. I wasn't even IN fandom at the moment >_>
Re: 21 OP here...
Re: 21 OP here...
(Anonymous) 2007-10-02 06:43 pm (UTC)(link)But there are times when I don't things ARE up for interpretation. Like if someone said that Adrian Andrews' character was all about being a "do-it-yourself female who can make it on her own in a man's world." That's... wrong, that's NOT her character (and I've actually seen people argue this).
The only thing is, I haven't actually seen any EVIDENCE against what I'm arguing. I've said "This is right, because of A and B evidence which are supported by C and D in the text." And yet, through all of this, the counter argument seems to just be "No, you're wrong," without any evidence to the contrary.
I've asked multiple times and haven't yet gotten an answer; this is actually something I really would like to know the answer to--what MORE do you want? To me, everything I've laid out and ennumerated gives a crystal-clear picture in my mind that this is canon. There is very little in this series I feel so strongly about (despite my support for, say, A/F, I recognize that it's completely nowhere near canon, that IS just my interpretation of it). What more would there have to be to solidify it in canon in your eyes? Please, don't take this as being patronizing, I genuinely want to know.
Re: 21 OP here...
Okay. Because you've asked multiple times, I will clarify. What I'd wanted was solid, explicit, canon evidence, in which their sibling relationship is openly referred to as such. All you've given me is the "little brother" thing, and because the little brother thing is somewhat dubious, I can't accept it as solid canon. You have been unable to provide anything but interpretation and extrapolation. Thus, I accept it as a valid theory, and I enjoy it as a relationship, but I do not consider it canon, because frankly... it isn't. Similarly, I don't feel the need to solidly prove to you that they aren't siblings, because that's not canon, either.
This is my stance, and - as someone who has played the same games that you have - I don't think you're going to pull out some miraculous new fact that'll change it. Likewise, I'm getting weary of banging my head into the wall. We're done here.
Re: 21 OP here...
(Anonymous) 2007-10-02 07:43 pm (UTC)(link)...but they DO openly refer to their relationship as a sibling relationship. Not ONLY with the "brother" comments but also Franziska SAYING she sees him as a Von Karma. How is that NOT solid, explicit, and canon evidence? :/
Ugh, time for class.
Re: 21 OP here...
(Anonymous) 2007-10-02 09:06 pm (UTC)(link)How they act and behave towards one another... yes, you're right, this is up for interpretation and if THIS was all there were, it certainly wouldn't be canon. But the fact remains that she DOES refer to him as a brother in plain and simple terms, and everything about their interaction (and the fact that they were raised together) corroborates this.
If that's not good enough for you, then you're right--there's nothing else I can say to convince you. However... explicit and canon textual reference combined with what we can infer (yes, infer, it IS up for interpretation) about their relationship and how they act... is certainly good enough for me to see it as cemented iron canon. And I don't think we're going to budge from these positions.
Re: 21 OP here...
Re: 21 OP here...