tedizsneeker said: i should ask, what's your opinion on an exclusively lesbian miss pauling? :-o
Objectively, I think that’d be fine, in fact one of the writers offhandedly mentioned he liked the idea when we were talking about fanworks and stuff. Nothing is canon though!
My completely personal preference is that she’s straight, maybe bi? And that’s really only because she’s a woman who works with a bunch of men that she is genuine friends with (more or less) and mutually respected. I feel like I don’t see enough straight women who aren’t in an official pairing with someone in a heavily male cast. I just don’t want it to be one of those “Well, the reason she’s not in to aaany of these men is because she’s not into men!” things. Like (sigh ashamed I am even referencing this) Supernatural or something, where they can’t even have reoccurring straight human women on the show because it would mean having to tease a romance with the main guys. It’s hardly applicable as a comparison but it just REMINDS me of that and ugh.
I just want to see a woman working with a bunch of guys and not hooked up with any of them just because she just happens to not be head over heels for any of those particular guys. They’re just her friends and coworkers. (Obviously speaking in terms of overall storyline. I think episodic romance like the 15 minute short is fine. I really dislike the idea of a super stubborn Pauling who won’t go on a date with someone who is otherwise friendly with her. She could even find scout or any other merc attractive and be curious about dating them, but the main thing is is that there is no -definitive romance-, continuing plot lines that revolve around that. If she did “end up” with scout or anyone else from the mercs, I would prefer that it was after any canonically explored timeline.)
BUT again that is totally my personal preference, much more heavily influenced by what I personally want to see than by any sense of overall representation or w/e. But I’m definitely not wholly against a canon lesbian Pauling! I’d prob bitch a little bit, as I just did, but I’m willing to be persuaded.
Anything is better than endgame scout/pauling tbh I AM SORRY
The mistake people make when they talk about not being able to trust Wikipedia is in the implicit assumption that we could trust encyclopedias as infallible sources before Wikipedia.
I like Wikipedia because I know it could be wrong. Regular encyclopedias can be wrong, too, but my guard was never up in the same way with them as it is with Wikipedia. I like Internet media specifically for the reason that Aaron Sorkin doesn’t like it: because it makes it that much more difficult for me to have any illusions about the fact that the burden of critical thought is on me.
I don’t automatically trust bloggers because a group of people I’ve never met decided to give them a badge that says “reporter” on it. I don’t turn off my critical thinking because they’ve gotten to be some sort of “professional”. I have to judge them on the merits of their writing and history of thoughtfulness or thoughtlessness alone. That is a feature, not a bug, because we should never trust any news media outlet implicitly.
Don’t mistake my kindness for weakness. I am kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember.