Board Thread:Spoilers!/@comment-4877635-20130614170253/@comment-22525977-20131003010447

Re: "Just fiction": But let's assume you're right and fiction has no impact on anything, at all, ever. If that's the case, why bother? Why devote hours of our time and thought to something that doesn't matter and is only a way to fill up time? Why bother making something that couldn't make an impact? It's a really sad way to look at fiction, don't you think?

And, regarding analysis/overanalysis: It comes down to personal preference, but enjoy subjecting my fiction to intense scrutiny. Two of my favorite musicals ever (I use musicals because I'm a theatre student with a special interest in musicals, so that's what I know best) are the ones I can watch and read and listen to over and over again, think about, analyze, discuss, argue about, and continually find new facets that I didn't notice before (they are, if you're curious, Anyone Can Whistle and Wildhorn's Wonderland). Yeah, they both have fantastic music and snappy dialogue, but the really good stuff is what you can find if you dig.

On trans* people: Fish isn't a slang term or anything like that (that I know of, at least), it's the (unintentional but unfortunate) implication that fish (i.e., an animal) are equivalent to trans* people. (Now, if Choc had said "she's already a mermaid, for goodness sake!" that would have been still a little uncomfortable for me—it works on the idea that people only ever have One Big Issue—but less problematic because mermaids, unlike fish, are sapient and therefore people. Does that make sense?)

I don't think the writers—or anyone else, for that matter—should put in LGBTQIA characters for the sake of putting in LGBTQIA characters. What I do think is that OUaT has a really great opportunity to explore nonheteronormativity and, so far, they haven't taken it, although I hope they do in the future.