[002]
69.172.221.2
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Okay. Check LoveTropes and see how many you can apply to their relationship (hint: most of them apply rather better to the Luteces). If you want, you can check ImmaturityTropes and see how many apply to Elizabeth (hint: several. Check TropesOfInnocence too). She was kept in a tower with barely any social interaction; she is going to act a little younger than her age. And Disney stories are in point of fact mostly ComingOfAgeStories (which, funnily enough, are described on that page as \
to:
Okay. Check LoveTropes and see how many you can apply to their relationship (hint: most of them apply rather better to the Luteces). If you want, you can check ImmaturityTropes and see how many apply to Elizabeth (hint: several. Check TropesOfInnocence too). She was kept in a tower with barely any social interaction; you keep saying that like it somehow \\\'\\\'disproves\\\'\\\' she\\\'s childish, but keeping people away from any interaction from the world or other people stops kids growing up, no how much their bodies mature. Experience and the unfamiliar makes maturity. And Disney stories are in point of fact mostly ComingOfAgeStories (which, funnily enough, are described on that page as \\\"[tending] to happen to a character anywhere from 13 to 20 years of age\\\"); the romantic bits are always \\\'\\\'very very clear\\\'\\\'.
Your girlfriend is a real person, not a character. Elizabeth doesn\\\'t do one or two of those things I listed. She does \\\'\\\'all of them\\\'\\\', because she was written to, because she is a character.
\\\'\\\'Shipping Goggles is when a viewer interprets the smallest, most ambiguous canonical evidence in favor of their ship of choice.\\\'\\\'
Here you are saying their interactions are clearly, canonically \\\"neutral\\\", but interpreted them as foreshadowing romance. Huh.
\\\'\\\'The ship in question can range from one that seems entirely plausible but doesn\\\'t yet have clear canon evidence, right up to a CrackPairing between characters who are bitter enemies, or live in different universes, or whose sexuality or circumstances makes any relationship between them extremely unlikely.\\\'\\\'
A man and a woman have a close relationship. They\\\'re going to hook up. (And when they don\\\'t I will claim vehemently it\\\'s because the writers fumbled the relationship.) Huh.
\\\'\\\'Note that as with everything TropesAreTools ... Many shippers would admit to doing this to some extent; in fact, having your own interpretation of Canon is part of the fun of Shipping.\\\'\\\'
And it\\\'s not fundamentally a bad thing, or some sort of blindness on the part of shippers. Huh.
On the other hand, RelationshipWritingFumble is right there under \\\"BadWriting\\\", and explicitly described as adding \\\"too much\\\" to a relationship that would otherwise be read as platonic. I can pick a hell of a lot of flaws with \\\'\\\'Infinite\\\'s\\\'\\\' story related to its confused development - but Booker and Elizabeth\\\'s relationship progression was there from the start, was always platonic, and didn\\\'t change. That you say otherwise isn\\\'t a prejudice of all people. It\\\'s not an inalienable fact I\\\'m denying because I don\\\'t like it. It\\\'s not \\\"simply a reality\\\", like suffering or love of any description. It\\\'s you, and anyone who thought the same thing, and no one else, and \\\'\\\'you are biased\\\'\\\'. Clear enough?
Your girlfriend is a real person, not a character. Elizabeth doesn\\\'t do one or two of those things I listed. She does \\\'\\\'all of them\\\'\\\', because she was written to, because she is a character.
\\\'\\\'Shipping Goggles is when a viewer interprets the smallest, most ambiguous canonical evidence in favor of their ship of choice.\\\'\\\'
Here you are saying their interactions are clearly, canonically \\\"neutral\\\", but interpreted them as foreshadowing romance. Huh.
\\\'\\\'The ship in question can range from one that seems entirely plausible but doesn\\\'t yet have clear canon evidence, right up to a CrackPairing between characters who are bitter enemies, or live in different universes, or whose sexuality or circumstances makes any relationship between them extremely unlikely.\\\'\\\'
A man and a woman have a close relationship. They\\\'re going to hook up. (And when they don\\\'t I will claim vehemently it\\\'s because the writers fumbled the relationship.) Huh.
\\\'\\\'Note that as with everything TropesAreTools ... Many shippers would admit to doing this to some extent; in fact, having your own interpretation of Canon is part of the fun of Shipping.\\\'\\\'
And it\\\'s not fundamentally a bad thing, or some sort of blindness on the part of shippers. Huh.
On the other hand, RelationshipWritingFumble is right there under \\\"BadWriting\\\", and explicitly described as adding \\\"too much\\\" to a relationship that would otherwise be read as platonic. I can pick a hell of a lot of flaws with \\\'\\\'Infinite\\\'s\\\'\\\' story related to its confused development - but Booker and Elizabeth\\\'s relationship progression was there from the start, was always platonic, and didn\\\'t change. That you say otherwise isn\\\'t a prejudice of all people. It\\\'s not an inalienable fact I\\\'m denying because I don\\\'t like it. It\\\'s not \\\"simply a reality\\\", like suffering or love of any description. It\\\'s you, and anyone who thought the same thing, and no one else, and \\\'\\\'you are biased\\\'\\\'. Clear enough?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Okay. Check LoveTropes and see how many you can apply to their relationship (hint: most of them apply rather better to the Luteces). If you want, you can check ImmaturityTropes and see how many apply to Elizabeth (hint: several. Check TropesOfInnocence too). And Disney stories are in point of fact mostly ComingOfAgeStories (which, funnily enough, are described on that page as \
to:
Okay. Check LoveTropes and see how many you can apply to their relationship (hint: most of them apply rather better to the Luteces). If you want, you can check ImmaturityTropes and see how many apply to Elizabeth (hint: several. Check TropesOfInnocence too). She was kept in a tower with barely any social interaction; she is going to act a little younger than her age. And Disney stories are in point of fact mostly ComingOfAgeStories (which, funnily enough, are described on that page as \\\"[tending] to happen to a character anywhere from 13 to 20 years of age\\\"); the romantic bits are always \\\'\\\'very very clear\\\'\\\'.
Your girlfriend is a real person, not a character. Elizabeth doesn\\\'t do one or two of those things I listed. She does \\\'\\\'all of them\\\'\\\', because she was written to, because she is a character.
\\\'\\\'Shipping Goggles is when a viewer interprets the smallest, most ambiguous canonical evidence in favor of their ship of choice.\\\'\\\'
Here you are saying their interactions are clearly, canonically \\\"neutral\\\", but interpreted them as foreshadowing romance. Huh.
\\\'\\\'The ship in question can range from one that seems entirely plausible but doesn\\\'t yet have clear canon evidence, right up to a CrackPairing between characters who are bitter enemies, or live in different universes, or whose sexuality or circumstances makes any relationship between them extremely unlikely.\\\'\\\'
A man and a woman have a close relationship. They\\\'re going to hook up. (And when they don\\\'t I will claim vehemently it\\\'s because the writers fumbled the relationship.) Huh.
\\\'\\\'Note that as with everything TropesAreTools ... Many shippers would admit to doing this to some extent; in fact, having your own interpretation of Canon is part of the fun of Shipping.\\\'\\\'
And it\\\'s not fundamentally a bad thing, or some sort of blindness on the part of shippers. Huh.
On the other hand, RelationshipWritingFumble is right there under \\\"BadWriting\\\", and explicitly described as adding \\\"too much\\\" to a relationship that would otherwise be read as platonic. I can pick a hell of a lot of flaws with \\\'\\\'Infinite\\\'s\\\'\\\' story related to its confused development - but Booker and Elizabeth\\\'s relationship progression was there from the start, was always platonic, and didn\\\'t change. That you say otherwise isn\\\'t a prejudice of all people. It\\\'s not an inalienable fact I\\\'m denying because I don\\\'t like it. It\\\'s not \\\"simply a reality\\\", like suffering or love of any description. It\\\'s you, and anyone who thought the same thing, and no one else, and \\\'\\\'you are biased\\\'\\\'. Clear enough?
Your girlfriend is a real person, not a character. Elizabeth doesn\\\'t do one or two of those things I listed. She does \\\'\\\'all of them\\\'\\\', because she was written to, because she is a character.
\\\'\\\'Shipping Goggles is when a viewer interprets the smallest, most ambiguous canonical evidence in favor of their ship of choice.\\\'\\\'
Here you are saying their interactions are clearly, canonically \\\"neutral\\\", but interpreted them as foreshadowing romance. Huh.
\\\'\\\'The ship in question can range from one that seems entirely plausible but doesn\\\'t yet have clear canon evidence, right up to a CrackPairing between characters who are bitter enemies, or live in different universes, or whose sexuality or circumstances makes any relationship between them extremely unlikely.\\\'\\\'
A man and a woman have a close relationship. They\\\'re going to hook up. (And when they don\\\'t I will claim vehemently it\\\'s because the writers fumbled the relationship.) Huh.
\\\'\\\'Note that as with everything TropesAreTools ... Many shippers would admit to doing this to some extent; in fact, having your own interpretation of Canon is part of the fun of Shipping.\\\'\\\'
And it\\\'s not fundamentally a bad thing, or some sort of blindness on the part of shippers. Huh.
On the other hand, RelationshipWritingFumble is right there under \\\"BadWriting\\\", and explicitly described as adding \\\"too much\\\" to a relationship that would otherwise be read as platonic. I can pick a hell of a lot of flaws with \\\'\\\'Infinite\\\'s\\\'\\\' story related to its confused development - but Booker and Elizabeth\\\'s relationship progression was there from the start, was always platonic, and didn\\\'t change. That you say otherwise isn\\\'t a prejudice of all people. It\\\'s not an inalienable fact I\\\'m denying because I don\\\'t like it. It\\\'s not \\\"simply a reality\\\", like suffering or love of any description. It\\\'s you, and anyone who thought the same thing, and no one else, and \\\'\\\'you are biased\\\'\\\'. Clear enough?
