Talk:Seddie/@comment-4257094-20150410203047/@comment-14284535-20150410231113

I have several biases that keep me from altering my point of view. Literally, Dan Schneider could come to me and deny my theory to my face and I wouldn't believe him. As you might imagine, I give NO CREDENCE WHATSOEVER to his blog - his stories speak more loudly than his blogs.

To begin, my opinion is in part based on my knowledge of how TV shows, movies, etc. are written, produced, directed, etc. Thus, if  an issue like Carly manipulating Freddie is not dealt with, I assume that is deliberate. There was more than enough time to deal with any real issues like that. Similarly, if Seddie received no set-up, then it was just grafted in to throw a bone to its fans.

Also, because of my background, I believe that consistent, intelligent characteristation and development trumps everything else in a book, movie, etc. Thus, any undermining of a character reflects very poorly to me, such as Freddie bad-mouthing Sam at work to her boss. I also believe that the Creddie nudges are blatantly obvious: in every story after The Arc, there is at least one scene which explicitly separates Sam from Freddie on behaviour, values, etc. and/or a scene which bring Carly closer to Freddie.

Moreover, I assume everything presented to me in the primary medium is to be taken 100% at face value, which is only enhanced or retconned when you dissect it and try to make everything fit. As you might recall from my Canonicity blog, I do not consider anything that does not appear in the primary current medium of broadcast as canonical. Therefore, from my point of view, "Is it too late for you to love me" is not laugh track fodder to my mind, but is a straight-forward assertion that Seddie was Deaddie and Creddie Is Canon.

Also, as I said, Freddie is as obviously a Gary Stu as Wesley Crusher. Similarly, Cat-Robbie is DS hiding the same thing in Victorious. I could be wrong, but, as you can see, I am absolutely certain I am right about this.