fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2558 ]

[ SECRET POST #2558 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2558 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

[Frozen]

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

[Cabin in the Woods]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Trailer Park Boys]

__________________________________________________

07. [posted twice]

__________________________________________________

[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

08. [SPOILERS for Elementary]

__________________________________________________

09. [SPOILERS for Zelda comic]

__________________________________________________

10. [SPOILERS for Breaking Bad]

[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

11. [SPOILERS for Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures]
[WARNING for suicide]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #364.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ], [ 1 - take it to comments ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm a little confused. I can understand, if not agree, with the OP's arguments about Joan and Moriarty but I don't get how this is homophobic.

I think this is the same OP as the similar secret about Sherlock from a couple days ago, and egregious overuse of the word "homophobic" and an almost absurd willing to dismiss things as "homophobic trash" is just their thing, man. It's just their bag.

It's homophobic because Sherlock/whoever isn't canon, don'tcha know? /s

You can make the argument that it's homophobic if you reason that the reason they made the Watson and Moriarty characters female was so that they could have Holmes/Moriarty and Watson/Mycroft relationships without having homosexual relationships.

But... you would have to be crazy to argue that.

How so?

DA Well, reaching, certainly.

Honestly, how is that crazy? I'm confused on how it's so absurd to realize that these relationships would almost definitely have never happened if they hadn't made the decision to genderswap.

There's a difference between saying these relationships wouldn't have happened if they hadn't genderswapped, and saying that they made the decision to genderswap so that they could have the relationships without them being gay. It's a question of intent.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-01-04 15:38 (UTC) - Expand

is there any real evidence for that though

I mean, if nothing else, it seems fairly insulting to Lucy Liu to imply that they'd only want to cast her because they were frantically afraid of gaysex

Don't you know? Hollywood will do anything--ANYTHING--to prevent the gay. Even casting disgusting women! Who likes hot women? EW! Not men, at any rate.

Or there were too many dicks on the dancefloor in the original source material, so they made those character female to be more inclusive of women.

ayrt

That does seem a more likely explanation.

It does amuse me that the argument for this being homophobic is essentially a de facto argument against having female characters.

But that's not at all? I hardly think any rational person would make that argument. But to be annoyed that sexual relationships between characters are only apparently allowed to happen if some of the characters are genderswapped is hardly crazy. I'm kind of disturbed by these comments of "you just hate women, you sexist!" instead of discussion on how LGBT representation gets screwed over.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-01-05 02:43 (UTC) - Expand

LMAO I love the phrase "dicks on the dancefloor." May I steal it? :D

(no subject)

fauxkaren - 2014-01-04 03:48 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

intrigueing - 2014-01-04 03:51 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

fauxkaren - 2014-01-04 03:54 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

intrigueing - 2014-01-04 04:03 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

lunabee34 - 2014-01-04 04:26 (UTC) - Expand

Of course, the only reason those ships are slash pairings to begin with is because ACD's stories had no prominent female characters with the exceptions of Irene and Mrs. Hudson. So its less "erase the queerness that was never really there to begin with and only kind of existed because EVERYONE was dudes" and more "hey when you genderswap some dudes it for a more gender equal cast you lose some of the slash ships".

Also Holmes/Moriarty is really Holmes/Moriarty-Adler, so I guess that makes it only a half "erasure"? IDK.

ACD had lots of female characters, excuse me. Many much more prominent than Mrs Hudson, and no less than Irene, who appeared, as they did, in exactly one story.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-01-04 03:23 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-01-04 03:57 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-01-04 03:58 (UTC) - Expand

DA

(Anonymous) - 2014-01-04 06:38 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DA

(Anonymous) - 2014-01-04 16:20 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-01-04 08:39 (UTC) - Expand

Well, ACD did have a lot of female characters with just as much prominence (one story) as Irene (actually, way more prominence than Irene -- Irene had only one onscreen scene and almost no dialogue, just a letter. Her popularity is due to how big a personal impact she had, rather like Moriarty being TEH VILLAIN because he was such a big deal, not because actually had a single actual scene in canon that wasn't hearsay). There were plenty of female characters with a lot of involvement in the one story they appeared in -- Violet Hunter, Violet Smith, Mary Sutherland, Lady Brackenstall, Helen Stoner, Mrs. Hope, Mrs. St. Clair...a bunch more.

What ACD didn't have is any recurring major female characters, but then again he had only one major recurring character of any gender -- Lestrade. Mycroft only had two appearances (three, if you count The Final Problem), Mary had three with dialogue (one major, two minor), Mrs. Hudson had several appearances, but all of them minor. Hopkins had...three, I think? So technically, the fans or producers, if they wanted het pairings, could have just expanded the roles of those one-shot female characters the way they expanded Irene's, Mycroft's, and Moriarty's.

I think the main difference is that there's a difference between clients and personal associates when it comes to shipping -- people like to ship characters who have a lot of potential exposure to each other so the assumption of the pairing can be slipped in between canon scenes or behind the scenes, and/or stories can be written about the subtext or about the slooowww buuurrrnnn, because there's not as much fun in shipping a pairing where the only reason the characters would stay in contact is if one said "hey, I liked you, want to go out sometime?" ;)

But then you'll have to wonder why they didn't just go for the most famous ship instead.

Famous amongst shippers. The general public have no idea it exists, including most writers (see above re. ST) No, you don't "have to wonder". It's this sort of "poor us, we/LGBTs are so persecuted and oppressed because our ship isn't pandered to" that pisses people off and makes slashers sound loony and entitled.

It's not. The Holmes/Watson slashers just think that anything that spoils their sacred ship is homophobic.

/eyeroll

Holmes/Watson slasher here who thinks no such thing, thank you. Because nothing spoils it, because all can be incorporated. Yep, even Watson's marriage(s). It's why they invented fanon.

I get offended when people think that just because two men are super close friends that it must necessarily gravitate towards love. I like a lot of my close female friends, but I am not going to start wanting to love them in that way.

I think that's actually quite homophobic, to assume that OMG TEH GAY for every single close male friendship, because it ruins the reality and the sacredness of what is actually there.

my two cents!

I...sorta understand where you're coming from with this sentiment, because that's how I used to think, but tbqh, that's just not really how a lot of the most prominent and influential thinking and motivation behind slashing works.

Most slashers aren't seriously going "omg they're close friends so they obviously have to be gay!" they're going "omg how cool would it be if these close friends were gay? And since gay characters and gay romantic arcs are so underrepresented in official fiction, I'm going to fix that imbalance by writing about it in fanfic."

Because you see, while there are five bazillion books and movies and TV shows featuring male-female epic romances or storylines about male-female friends falling in love, almost all gay characters in mainstream fiction are a) largely defined by their sexuality, b) safely quarantined away in shows/books/movies whose main plot is about gayness, or c) a supporting character who doesn't do much. And unlike male-female romances, what few gay romances do exist almost never have that slow-burn subtexty will-they-or-won't-they arcs. So slash fanfic, like all fanfic, is an attempt to explore the things that canon didn't explore. In the case of slash fanfic, it's the possibilities surrounding the characters' sexuality.

Of course, this is about the 10% of good fanfic spared by Sturgeon's Law (that 90% of all fanfic is crap). The other 90% IS mostly "omg two pretty white boys" and "omg obviously romantic love is this magical heavenly thing that I know nothing about because I'm 15, and must be a gazillion times better than friendship!" Which is probably enhanced in no small part by the fact that girls (who make up most shippers) are continually bombarded by society with the idea that romance is the only kind of relationship that matters for them, and friendship is just frivolous stuff that comes before you find yourself a MAN.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only