[ SECRET POST #2470 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2470 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Homestuck, Teen Wolf, Supernatural and Sherlock]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Supernatural]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Watashi ga motenai no wa dou kangaetemo omaera ga warui]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Agents of SHIELD]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Sleepy Hollow]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Fullmetal Alchemist]


__________________________________________________



08.
[World of Warcraft]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Pacific Rim]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Richard III in "The White Queen"]


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 044 secrets from Secret Submission Post #353.
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

[dragonimp]

Which other aspects do you mean? (honest question)

[iggy]

Um there's tons of other slapstick moments in the story? Slapstick hitting, slapstick... dying (are we going to pretend these are actual deaths now?), the list goes on? Arakawa does a lot of very physical humor, and while it might not be up your alley, to act is if one person engaging in it is a problem while ignoring the rest if fairly standard flanderization and die for our ship behavior especially when it's toward a woman and used as a gateway to pair up a favorite other ship. I don't have time to pull up the manga, and if we're talking about 2003, I definitely don't remember, but if you give me some time, I can provide specific examples. And heck, Arakawa actually drops the wrench gag for the most part fairly early on in the series.

[dragonimp]

Fair enough. I have written in the past about why the wrenches bother me when other slapstick doesn't (me; I can't speak for the author, only guess that her reasons might be somewhat similar, I know she finds the wrenches disturbing), but it's far too long to copy-paste here. But even if you take out the over-the-top, a-wrench-would-kill-someone aspect, it's still a pattern of violence. Most other moments of slapstick violence in the series are one-offs or instances where we're not meant to see it as anything but violent (Izumi tossing Ed and Al around, Knox hitting Mei over the head with the pan), but with Winry it's made a defining character trait. Treating that character trait with the same seriousness that the characters are generally given in canon is not automatically bashing. It could easily be, but this fic doesn't make Winry out to be evil or the villain. It explores her character and treats her pretty sympathetically.

[iggy]

but with Winry it's made a defining character trait.

but with Winry it's made a defining character trait.

Wow okay I'm done. A defining trait? That is plainly incorrect. If you seriously think that the wrench gag, which happens a few times in the series, is a defining character trait of hers, then you are pretty clearly paying no mind to her character.

[dragonimp]

It stood out for me. It's not her only defining trait; far from it. And I love her character. But with a wrench fling being her introduction to the story, it being her default reaction when Ed angers her by damaging the automail, her reaction to Ling when he embarrasses her, her reaction to Al when she's pissed at him after the Lab 5 incident - yes, I would call it a defining character trait.

But that's kinda beside the point. The author treats the violence seriously, but she didn't invent any of it. But she doesn't paint Winry as evil or the bad guy. Treating the violence seriously doesn't automatically make it bashing.

[iggy]

It pretty much does when you don't treat any of the other slapstick in the series with equal weight. Unless both Ed and Ling are ghosts in the fic because they've both 'died' comedically and god knows what other ridiculous things have happened are also treated as seriously as Winry's wrench, then yes, I think it's at the very least a huge double standard (and very typical of fandom misogyny and die for our ship behavior).

[dragonimp]

I went into how I view the slapstick and why some bothers me and others don't in that tumblr post I linked to; again, it's too long to copy-paste here. I can't really speak for the author. But even if all the slapstick is viewed as real events that have been greatly exaggerated for comedic effect - which I think is what the author is doing for this fic - it's still a pattern of violence. I'm not saying it has to be viewed this way - but I'm saying it's not a wrong interpretation.

[(Anonymous)]

But even if you take out the over-the-top, a-wrench-would-kill-someone aspect, it's still a pattern of violence.

If you take the slapstick humor out of it, there wouldn't BE a wrench, and there goes the straw you and the author are grasping at. But from the way you've gone on in this thread, you're probably going to say that Winry would have just punched people in the face because violence (which, what, was only really present during the slapstick moments) is apparently one of her defining traits.

[dragonimp]

It sounds like you're saying I'm supposed to assume the slapstick moments have no impact on the story at all and should be cut out entirely. I don't think the narrative supports that. They seem to me to be actual events that happen in the story that are depicted in an exaggerated way for comedic effect.

But the point isn't which of us is "right," the point is that there are multiple ways to interpret those scenes. Interpreting them as nothing more than comedic moments is valid. Interpreting them as moments of violence depicted comedically is also valid. The fact that this author took canon events and interpreted them differently than you do does not make either interpretation wrong or unsupported.

I'm not trying to argue that you have to see the events or Winry's character a certain way, only that there is more than one way to see them, and that this author did not invent anything to support her story. She merely took canon events and interpreted them differently than you do.

da

[(Anonymous)]

She merely took canon events and interpreted them differently than you do.

Oh come on, the author SELECTIVELY took canon events and USED them to support her pairing. Why not selectively take Ed's aggressively violent CANON nature and draw him to be an abusive asshole who chases away the people he loves most or ruins relationships because he's immune to kindness or reason? Because fandom would rise up and say it's BASHING.

You can try to rationalize all you want but the story is character bashing. Just because the author is sweetly saying Winry is an abusive asshole doesn't change that the author is saying Winry is an abusive asshole. Roy isn't held to the same level of accountability as Winry, and neither is Ed (or anyone else for that matter) for their MORE violent canonical actions and history. The author has specifically chosen an event from one character and *highlights* it as THE defining character trait, trying to completely hang her story on it, and then paints Winry in a repeated negative light because of it. You don't get to pick and choose canon and then villainize a character over a biased characterization without fandom being smart enough to catch on that it's bashing.

My problem (I'm not the OP, btw) with this fic is only partially about interpreting canon. It's about seeing past the author trying to feed me selective canon as whole canon, and trying to get me to fall for a characterization that the REAL author never intended. Character bashing is easy to see, except to the people who appreciate and approve of the bashing.

Re: da

[dragonimp]

...very well. You're determined to see it that way. I've said my piece.