[002]
JBK405
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
My argument boils down to the fact that, throughout the series, Aral is only involved in one single romantic relationship (Cordelia, obviously). ButNotTooBi is when a character claims to be bi, but their relationships present in the work are predisposed towards one gender or the other and is almost a case of InformedAbility, \'\'talking\'\' about it but never showing it. I agree that Aral was never shown in a relationship with a man, which is almost the textbook definition of InformedAbility (Talk about it, but it never happens), except that\'s going to be \'\'automatic\'\' for any story where a character only has one relationship. If Cordelia had been male then it\'d be same situation, Aral would still be ButNotTooBi in the other direction. The trope can\'t apply when you haven\'t seen multiple relationships since then we can\'t trace it, we can\'t look at numbers, at writing style, at matching the authors words with actions, etc. The trope can\'t fit without more relationships; with only one relationship it\'s not an aversion, subverion, inversion or anything, it\'s just a non-connection.
to:
My argument boils down to the fact that, throughout the series, Aral is only involved in one single romantic relationship (Cordelia, obviously). ButNotTooBi is when a character claims to be bi, but their relationships present in the work are predisposed towards one gender or the other and is almost a case of InformedAbility, \\\'\\\'talking\\\'\\\' about it but never showing it. I agree that Aral was never shown in a relationship with a man, which is almost the textbook definition of InformedAbility (Talk about it, but it never happens), except that\\\'s going to be \\\'\\\'automatic\\\'\\\' for any story where a character only has one relationship. If Cordelia had been male then it\\\'d be same situation, Aral would still be ButNotTooBi in the other direction. The trope can\\\'t apply when you haven\\\'t seen multiple relationships since then we can\\\'t trace it, we can\\\'t look at numbers, at writing style, at matching the authors words with actions, etc. The trope can\\\'t fit without more relationships; with only one relationship it\\\'s just a non-connection.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
My argument boils down to the fact that, throughout the series, Aral is only involved in one single romantic relationship (Cordelia, obviously). ButNotTooBi is when a character claims to be bi, but their relationships present in the word are predisposed towards one gender or the other and is almost a case of InformedAbility, \'\'talking\'\' about it but never showing it. I agree that Aral was never shown in a relationship with a man, which is almost the textbook definition of InformedAbility (Talk about it, but it never happens), except that\'s going to be \'\'automatic\'\' for any story where a character only has one relationship. If Cordelia had been male then it\'d be same situation, Aral would still be ButNotTooBi in the other direction. The trope can\'t apply when you haven\'t seen multiple relationships since then we can\'t trace it, we can\'t look at numbers, at writing style, at matching the authors words with actions, etc. The trope can\'t fit without more relationships; with only one relationship it\'s not an aversion, subverion, inversion or anything, it\'s just a non-connection.
to:
My argument boils down to the fact that, throughout the series, Aral is only involved in one single romantic relationship (Cordelia, obviously). ButNotTooBi is when a character claims to be bi, but their relationships present in the work are predisposed towards one gender or the other and is almost a case of InformedAbility, \\\'\\\'talking\\\'\\\' about it but never showing it. I agree that Aral was never shown in a relationship with a man, which is almost the textbook definition of InformedAbility (Talk about it, but it never happens), except that\\\'s going to be \\\'\\\'automatic\\\'\\\' for any story where a character only has one relationship. If Cordelia had been male then it\\\'d be same situation, Aral would still be ButNotTooBi in the other direction. The trope can\\\'t apply when you haven\\\'t seen multiple relationships since then we can\\\'t trace it, we can\\\'t look at numbers, at writing style, at matching the authors words with actions, etc. The trope can\\\'t fit without more relationships; with only one relationship it\\\'s not an aversion, subverion, inversion or anything, it\\\'s just a non-connection.
