fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #269 ]

[ SECRET POST #269 ]

⌈ Secret Post #269 ⌋

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

1.

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 ~~BUTTMUNCHERS FTW~~

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I said I'm done and I'm done. I'm not arguing with someone who says that it's okay to patronize people just because "I'M RIGHT AND THEY'RE WRONG!!!1"

And I don't do that, 99% of the time. If something is genuinely up for interpretation, then sure, go for it.

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.

This has nothing to do with Adrian Andrews, which is why I dropped it after the first comment, as it was kind of a rude thing for me to say and - you were correct - completely unrelated.

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.

Right, the Adrian thing has nothing to do with the argument at hand, I just brought it up as an example of times where I think we can both agree an interpretation is incorrect. Adrian ISN'T an example of a "do-it-yourself woman who can make it on her own in a man's world."

...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.

Anyway, I guess it comes down to the fact that I see the lines we've been arguing over as that "solid, explicit, canon" evidence. As far as the text goes, it's right there--and since there's no voice acting or whatever, there's no indication that they're meant to be sarcastic or ironic, or anything other than simply true. Looking for another meaning into her calling him "brother" is 'reading between the lines,' as you accused me of.

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #269 ]

Re: 21 OP here...

Re: 21 OP here...

Re: 21 OP here...

Re: 21 OP here...

Re: 21 OP here...