Loved It? Hated It? What did you think of "Haunted?"

[Dagenspear]

No, I said that Sara was ashamed of her actions- she wasn't worried about if her family condemned her, she condemned herself, she just thought since they already thought she was dead, them thinking that would be kinder to them than telling them well your daughter is technically alive but the girl you know is dead replaced by an assassin.

Laurel might have reasoned too that she was being kinder about not telling her father about Sara but I also argued that Sara had the right to keep her secrets about herself but Laurel was keeping a secret that wasn't hers to keep, that knowing about Sara's death was equally as much Quentin's right as it was Laurel's or Dinah's or Wildcat's. Anyone can disagree with what I think, but no, I don't see Sara's secret keeping about herself and Laurel's secret keeping about Sara being dead as the same thing or for the same reasons.

Except that's not true. It wasn't Sara's secret to keep because it put her family in danger, making it their secret. My point still stands.

Well you are miss combing about three separate posts and arguments. I said about Laurel that she didn't suffer the consequence of her specific action of not leaving CNRI after everyone told her to as much as Tommy suffered for it. Agree or disagree, but quote me right please. I'd agree that Moira suffered more from the fallout of Oliver's friendship falling apart with Slade but then I don't see how anything Oliver could have done would have stopped Slade from going mirikuru mad and unjustly blaming Oliver for Shado's death. So while Oliver having history with Slade led to Moira's death, it's only a byproduct of a convoluted plot hatched by Slade, not a direct consequence for a choice Oliver made.

I have no doubt that Laurel suffered over Tommy's death, but that was never the issue.

I've also said that Laurel doesn't pay for her bad choices the same way that Oliver does, that he suffers more losses and has had to give up more and yeah, I think that is true and the closest parallel between Oliver and Laurel is use of the pit but Oliver was only allowed to use it since he was handing over his life to Ra's not to mention that Thea was only stabbed because Ra's was trying to force him to give in. So more suffering, more consequences. Sara was not dead because of anything Laurel did nor did Laurel have to sacrifice anything to bring Sara back. Their may be emotional wear but she was not risking anything in her life or being faced with a price she was going to have to pay personally. And even if the only solution to solving a soulless Sara had been to put her down, the only thing Laurel would have lost was the dream of a dead sister being brought back to life, thus bringing everything back to status quo.

Laurel not only did not have to pay a personal price for bringing back Sara, she was gifted the bonus of Oliver now deciding to be a better friend. Laurel gained from using the pit without there ever being a condition placed on her to use it.

Now it makes sense to me for the writers to spend more time and attention fleshing out Oliver's journey, it's his show so I'm sure that has a lot to do with why the show skates of the consequences so often for Laurel.

The fact of the matter is if Laurel not suffering for her actions is an issue, then Oliver not suffering for his actions in the same way should be too. Oliver has always gotten off scot free without facing any repercussions himself. Like Laurel. The people they love suffer. Even Laurel suffered more because of the events of Tommy's death than Oliver did for Moira's, which doesn't make much sense, but whatever. Oliver himself also hasn't suffered any repercussions for using the pit on Thea. Thea has suffered. Oliver had to pay for kidnapping Lyla and abandoning Diggle's child for about a couple episodes until he demanded to be given a chance. His murder of what was for all intents and purposes an innocent man hasn't been paid for. His murders haven't been paid for, especially the murders of people who were for all intents and purposes were innocent guards. Roy paid for those. Oliver was even let off fully without an ounce of anything for giving the league of assassins to a terrorist and murderer of Tommy, Sara and 500 other people. We didn't even see anyone find out. They just knew and no one found reacted to it. The only thing Oliver has ever paid for is getting on that boat with his dad, an arguably not awful offense. Everyone else has suffered for Oliver's actions. He didn't pay for keeping the secret of Slade from his family. His mother did. If Laurel hasn't suffered enough, then neither has Oliver.

God bless you! God bless your family and everyone else in your life!

[evaba]

Well it is one sided in that no, being that Laurel is not a real person, she is not likely ever to have a chance to criticize me, lol but given that I am just about the ONLY voice that EVER criticizes Laurel on this entire forum, then no, I don't feel like I am being unfair to her at all. There is a much more evenly handed criticism of Oliver or Malcolm or even Ray or Roy or Thea here than of Laurel. So I talk about Laurel's problems since that is where there is a need and again, instead of refuting or just plain disagreeing with my criticism, the subject it changed to why don't I complain about someone else. THat's not answering or defending Laurel or even saying I'm wrong. It's trying to shift focus and change the subject. Also a common practice is to start taking pot shots right at me and try to make comments about a fictional show somehow personal. Yeah, I'm not the one doing that.

So does that mean an admittal that the pretty much universal condemnation of nearly everything Felicity does on this sight is unfair and one-sides? I fill the vacuum of criticism against Laurel on this site. There is not a vacuum with the other characters and in the cases where there is an assertion of their actions being the same, I have been happy to explain where I see the differences.

I interpret your response the following way: your major incentive for focusing all your character criticism on Laurel is that hardly anyone on this forum criticizes her, so you have to fill the vacuum of Laurel criticism. On the other hand, you avoid criticizing Felicity because there is pretty much universal condemnation of everything she does by other posters here, which means that you have to defend her (while you might have criticized her if the atmosphere had been different). So, according to you, you don't criticize Laurel because you have a pretty intense personal dislike for her OR because you feel that her character portrayal is SO faulty that you have to put her every action/storyline under harsh scrutiny. You're merely providing a different POV on the "Arrow" character than the POV that prevails on this forum.

Now, I'm going to make a comparison that you may find unfair, but which I actually think is quite to the point. We have in an earlier convo talked about how you are a frequent poster on the previously.tv "Arrow" forum. Now, anyone who has ever visited or participated on that forum knows that 90% of the posters are VERY positive towards both Felicity and Olicity (to put it mildly!), and hardly ever finds any serious faults with her character portrayal or the Olicity romance, as it is presented on the show. In fact, the great majority of the previously.tv. regulars consider Felicity, Olicity and OTA as the heart and core of the show. On the other hand, both Laurel and Katie Cassidy have been subjected to so harsh and borderline slanderous critique by so many previously.tv. posters that the moderators had to intervene and tell people to tone down the ridicule and the "hate". We've discussed this before, so you know what I mean.

Now, considering your description of Ksite as one-sided and biased toward certain characters, I would expect you to be as upset about the one-sidedness of the previously.tv discussions, as well as the almost the complete lack of TRUE and democratic exchange of opinion concerning the "Arrow" characters, their personalities and actions. You see, as a Laurel fan, I find the general discussion climate on previously.tv much more stifling than the atmosphere on Ksite. In fact, I would say that most Ksite posters are actually quite neutral when it comes to the characters and their actions, and less partisan and prone to character/actor criticism than the core posters on previously.tv.

I imagine that IF someone posted a series of critiques concerning FELICITY that resembled your critiques of Laurel, s/he would be considered more or less a "persona non grata" by the majority of the previously.tv posters. Posters on previously.tv are polite (or the forum rules require them to be polite), but I have seen enough dissenting voices being silenced on that site to know that the members have ways of making anyone who deviates from the Felicity/Olicity majority "party line" pretty uncomfortable. In that respect I think you have been treated in a fairly friendly manner on Ksite, especially if one adopts your view that this is a haven for Laurel/Lauriver fans.

Finally, I have been a member of the Ksite “Arrow” forum almost since the beginning, and I think that it is one of the most friendly and non-partisan forums in the “Arrow” fandom. For example, during season three, when Felicity and the Olicity romance was more or less universally slammed on many large discussion forums (e.g. reddit), the criticism here was pretty mild.

Of course, there are quite a few fans here who like and admire Laurel, which you seem to regard as “bias” , or at least as a lamentable oddity. TBH, I don’t see how these sentiments are any different from your own very positive sentiments towards Felicity, unless you believe that there is some objective golden standard which dictates that everything Felicity is or does is by definition admirable and good, while everything Laurel is or does is by definition rash, selfish and reprehensible. I’d say that ANY character assessment is subjective and personal, even if it is cloaked in a supposedly “neutral” and factual mode of discourse.

So, to return to the actual characters and their actions, I think they can be interpreted in quite different ways, according to individual preferences, likes and dislikes. That is also why I submitted a list of occasions and scenes where various "Arrow" characters apart from Laurel (Felicity, Oliver) COULD (according to the viewer's biases) have been accused of behaving in a "selfish" manner.

You seem to believe that YOUR judgments of various characters and their actions are somehow more valid than @Dagenspear's or any other Laurel fans', maybe because you provide a more detailed analysis of various scenes and plot points. However, your analyses are just as "tainted" by bias as @ShelbyKent's critique of Felicity or @Dagenspear's critique of Oliver, and it doesn't really matter that this particular discussion forum is more positively skewed towards Laurel (or more negatively skewed towards Felicity) than the other forums where you participate.

[BkWurm1]

I interpret your response the following way: your major incentive for focusing all your character criticism on Laurel is that hardly anyone on this forum criticizes her, so you have to fill the vacuum of Laurel criticism. On the other hand, you avoid criticizing Felicity because there is pretty much universal condemnation of everything she does by other posters here, which means that you have to defend her (while you might have criticized her if the atmosphere had been different). So, according to you, you don't criticize Laurel because you have a pretty intense personal dislike for her OR because you feel that her character portrayal is SO faulty that you have to put her every action/storyline under harsh scrutiny. You're merely providing a different POV on the "Arrow" character than the POV that prevails on this forum.

It was asserted that it is unfair for me to criticize Laurel without also listing the faults of all the other characters. I don't worry about pointing out issues with all the other characters because typically someone else covers that. I don't do that anywhere I post. If someone else has already well covered a topic and I have nothing to add, I don't post about it. If I disagree about if someone deserves such a criticism sometime I speak up, sometimes I don't.

At Previously.tv, Laurel is not a main focus of my posts. She's covered. Oliver is well covered as well. Felicity was constantly discussed and analyzed last season. (Just not for the same things complained about here, or at least not in the same way) I spent plenty of time explaining there how I saw her actions as well. I think I was Ray's only defender for most of last season. I've always defended Thea from charges of being a brat which Willa still levels at her character. I don't defend Malcolm but I don't critisize him much. He's covered.

On this site, like I said, a lto of the other characters are more evenly handled, but Laurel no one else seems to be willing to criticize Laurel. So from that standpoint, I am filling the silence, but I also think she deserves the criticism. And while I have found myself defending Felicity, I've never defended her over anything I didn't think was worthy of being defended.

I imagine that IF someone posted a series of critiques concerning FELICITY that resembled your critiques of Laurel, s/he would be considered more or less a "persona non grata" by the majority of the previously.tv posters. Posters on previously.tv are polite (or the forum rules require them to be polite), but I have seen enough dissenting voices being silenced on that site to know that the members have ways of making anyone who deviates from the Felicity/Olicity majority "party line" pretty uncomfortable.

Do you know that the most visited character page on that sight is Laurel Lance? Do you also know that most of the discussion is about ways to fix her character so that the complaints go away because it seriously puts a damper on the enjoyment of the show to have a character that constantly maddens you? If anything, it is the constant disappointment of having mapped out dozens of ways to accomplish what the show needs and wants to with Laurel only to watch them take the route that puts her in the worst light that spurs the most vitriol.

Half my posts about Laurel here and her actions with Sara and the pit have been me begging the show to dress up her actions in a way that makes them palatable and sympathetic. I get into the detailed scene by scene stuff mostly in response to when I'm told I am wrong in thinking something. Then I'm only too happy to explain why I feel or think the way I do.

In that respect I think you have been treated in a fairly friendly manner on Ksite, especially if one adopts your view that this is a haven for Laurel/Lauriver fans.

. I don't include everyone in this comment but Ksite is the only place I've ever been personally attacked or discussed in the third person or called a bitter Oliciter that needs to shut up and go away or informed I am some loser with no life, who is heartless, who has never experienced love or loss, is without a proper sense of morality, that can't tell fiction from real life and thus is in a petty feud with a tv character. Discuss the show, not me. It's weird and getting to be a bad habit in general on this site.

So, to return to the actual characters and their actions, I think they can be interpreted in quite different ways, according to individual preferences, likes and dislikes.

.

Sure which is why I've always tried to be clear that this is how I see it and if I am making reference to specific scenes, how I interpret it. I like to discuss and hash out all the where's and whys if challenged but I don't expect to change minds, just explain why I'm not changing mine. Do I think I'm right? Well, yes, why else would I have an opinion? Do I think me explaining my positions in more detail in response to comments will convince others they are wrong? I don't think like that, I'm only explaining why I think the way I do and defending what I think. I have zero expectations of changing minds, but chances are I won't be the one to change the subject.

I tend to keep going on a topic as long as there is a discussion. Surprise surprise, I enjoy that detailed back and forth. And likely, that can seem repetitive to some and I'll own that as a fault and that I don't see or get that any frustration is building until suddenly I am the target rather than what I was saying, but be that as it may, I'm still going to post complaints I have about Laurel when I have them.

[Carmine-Infantino]

Off topic, but I just saw a clip where Felicity is fighting with Oliver over his ongoing texting with her mother. This is why I can no longer take this show seriously. Yes laurel is the worst character on the show, but Oliver and Felicity are giving her a run for her money.

[Maxx126]

Seriously?! Sounds like a bad sitcom.

[Haggard01]

Seriously?! Sounds like a bad sitcom.

Well that's what Arrow is these days

[Shelby Kent]

Off topic, but I just saw a clip where Felicity is fighting with Oliver over his ongoing texting with her mother. This is why I can no longer take this show seriously. Yes laurel is the worst character on the show, but Oliver and Felicity are giving her a run for her money.

Continuing to stay off topic:

Okay, well at least he's not sexting with her mom!

[Carmine-Infantino]

Continuing to stay off topic:

Okay, well at least he's not sexting with her mom!

Ok, I'm going to pretend that I don't know what sexting is, but if I did know I wouldn't put it past Oliver. Someone should warn Ollie that the future Mrs Lance's soon to be new boyfriend has a gun and shoots people for a living. Also, I've heard Felicity knows how to use a machine gun, sort of.

[Shelby Kent]

Ok, I'm going to pretend that I don't know what sexting is, but if I did know I wouldn't put it past Oliver. Someone should warn Ollie that the future Mrs Lance's soon to be new boyfriend has a gun and shoots people for a living. Also, I've heard Felicity knows how to use a machine gun, sort of.

Well, when there's a scene or storyline that seems silly, irrelevant or whatever, sometimes it just helps to think how it could be even worse. But anyway I think as long as Felicity doesn't have a sister she can relax a bit

[Halberdier17]

Well, when there's a scene or storyline that seems silly, irrelevant or whatever, sometimes it just helps to think how it could be even worse. But anyway I think as long as Felicity doesn't have a sister she can relax a bit

She is suppose to have a step-son Ronnie Raymond.

[Carmine-Infantino]

Well, when there's a scene or storyline that seems silly, irrelevant or whatever, sometimes it just helps to think how it could be even worse. But anyway I think as long as Felicity doesn't have a sister she can relax a bit

You must have missed the episode where they introduced Felicity's evil twin sister, Cinder Smoak. Cinder was raised by they're father Black Smoak, the infamous eco terrorist.

[dreamsofnever]

Continuing to stay off topic:

Okay, well at least he's not sexting with her mom!

How do you know he's not? Maybe that's why Felicity is angry. Lol.

[Shelby Kent]

She is suppose to have a step-son Ronnie Raymond.

Hmmm... now that could present a problem for poor ole' Felicity with regard to feelings of insecurity when it comes to Ollie's history of a roving eye, since this means that Felicity's step-daughter-in-law (ex?) must be the very attractive and newly widowed Dr. Caitlyn Snow. Better not have her over for dinner. Tho' I guess Ollie has already been around her some. But if Wendy and company limit cross-overs as they have promised that should cut down on Ollie's chances of acting up....

You must have missed the episode where they introduced Felicity's evil twin sister, Cinder Smoak. Cinder was raised by they're father Black Smoak, the infamous eco terrorist.

Well, yes, that's certainly how it could be even worse ... except I must say I would kind of like to see an evil version of Felicity. I know they've done away with the LP, but I've been trying to imagine: if something did happen to Felicity and she died, then she was put in the LP and came back, what would that look like? Especially if she roamed around the city with blood-lust? What would an adorkable tech nerd with blood-lust look like?

[Shelby Kent]

How do you know he's not? Maybe that's why Felicity is angry. Lol.

Ouch!

[evaba]

It was asserted that it is unfair for me to criticize Laurel without also listing the faults of all the other characters. I don't worry about pointing out issues with all the other characters because typically someone else covers that. I don't do that anywhere I post. If someone else has already well covered a topic and I have nothing to add, I don't post about it. If I disagree about if someone deserves such a criticism sometime I speak up, sometimes I don't.

First of all, I don't think that the character criticism on the Ksite forum is as one-sided or biased as you make it out to be. As you can see I have been on this forum since the first season (I joined February 2013), and I can assure you that Laurel has been the subject of some pretty harsh criticism by members other than you. Especially in season two, with her substance abuse storyline, there were MANY forum regulars who complained about her actions and behavior, and even claimed that she was a superfluous character.

Felicity, on the other hand, was a forum favourite, and quite a few posters who are now critical of the Olicity romance thought they had a nice chemistry in seasons one and two. The same applies to the GATV reviewers, who often took a critical stand against Laurel, while praising Felicity and the levity she brought to the show. So, the idea that the GATV or this forum has some kind of inherent negative bias towards Felicity, or a positive bias towards Laurel, is actually incorrect and misguided, at least if you include all seasons.

IF posters here have become more critical towards Felicity or the O/F romance, the fault lies with the writing, and what some fans perceive as an exaggerated focus on a character and a romance that many do not feel should dominate the narrative or the producers' attention as much as it does (e.g Guggenheim answering 90% Felicity/Olicity questions on his tumblr ask).

Season three Felicity was criticized because she was frankly not written very well (even though the writers may have had the best intentions, just like they did with Laurel's season two storyline), and because the O/F "will they, won't they" was not interesting enough to many non-shippers. So, just as you have obvious problems with the way Laurel is written, there were many fans here and elsewhere who thought that both Felicity's S3 storyline and Olicity weighed down the show, along with all the other poor storytelling choices.

On this site, like I said, a lot of the other characters are more evenly handled, but Laurel no one else seems to be willing to criticize Laurel. So from that standpoint, I am filling the silence, but I also think she deserves the criticism. And while I have found myself defending Felicity, I've never defended her over anything I didn't think was worthy of being defended.

We probably perceive things differently, but I don't think that most posters here or on other forums feel that participating on a discussion forum is a question of "covering" problematic aspects of the various characters' storylines/actions/behavior, in the sense that THEY have to take on the task of offering a rather harsh criticism of a character if nobody else does. I think that most fans just want to convey their own feelings about characters and story developments...so if they don't have particular problems with one character (or if they are indifferent towards certain characters), they won't spill much ink on them.

On the other hand, if a character's actions/behavior bother them, they will express their criticism. What I mean is that they will let their own feelings and likes/dislikes decide what they post about. TBH, I think you function in the same manner....you focus on Laurel because SHE is the character that you have problems with, while you seldom criticize Felicity, because she is a character who is obviously very dear to you. I highly doubt that you would embark on a long series of harsh Felicity or Olicity critiques EVEN if Felicity and her relationship with Oliver had been universally praised on this forum. The same goes for Sara, Oliver and all the other characters that you genuinely like. I'm saying this because I frankly don't believe that you are any less biased or personally involved with some characters than any other poster on this site. I honestly don't think that your main aim is to provide some kind of balance in forum discussions, but to express your own likes and dislikes, just like the rest of us.

At Previously.tv, Laurel is not a main focus of my posts. She's covered. Oliver is well covered as well. Felicity was constantly discussed and analyzed last season. (Just not for the same things complained about here, or at least not in the same way) I spent plenty of time explaining there how I saw her actions as well. I think I was Ray's only defender for most of last season. I've always defended Thea from charges of being a brat which Willa still levels at her character. I don't defend Malcolm but I don't critisize him much. He's covered.

Do you know that the most visited character page on that sight is Laurel Lance? Do you also know that most of the discussion is about ways to fix her character so that the complaints go away because it seriously puts a damper on the enjoyment of the show to have a character that constantly maddens you? If anything, it is the constant disappointment of having mapped out dozens of ways to accomplish what the show needs and wants to with Laurel only to watch them take the route that puts her in the worst light that spurs the most vitriol.

Half my posts about Laurel here and her actions with Sara and the pit have been me begging the show to dress up her actions in a way that makes them palatable and sympathetic. I get into the detailed scene by scene stuff mostly in response to when I'm told I am wrong in thinking something. Then I'm only too happy to explain why I feel or think the way I do.

I think your comments in this section is a good illustration of your general stance or attitude when it comes to Laurel. You constantly seem to take for granted that it is an undisputable FACT that Laurel is the most problematic character in the cast, while the character portrayal of Oliver or Sara, or Felicity is much less problematic, and hence in much less need of "fixing". However, that is just YOUR perception, and the perception/opinion of those who agree with you about Laurel (and I imagine that the majority of the posters on previously.tv share your view of Laurel). Furthermore, I frankly haven't seen you criticize Felicity on any occasion. In fact, you seem to go to rather great lengths in order to defend even dubious storytelling choices, like having Felicity fly the ATOM suit, or letting Ray just sign over a billion-dollar company to her in the manner he did.

Also, as you have probably noticed in your exchanges with @Dagenspear and other Ksite posters, your opinion about Laurel is not a universally shared opinion. There are fans/posters here and elsewhere who don't view Laurel as a faulty, failed and problematic character, at least not more problematic than any other "Arrow" character. Many fans liked her season three Black Canary arc, and unlike you they are NOT constantly disappointed with the writers storytelling choices for her. I know it is tempting to generalize your own feelings, and even treat them as actual story facts rather than perceptions, but the truth is that there are many fans who don't view Laurel as problematic as you and other previously.tv. posters do.

So, if there are posters here who are not willing to criticize Laurel, it might actually be because they LIKE her as she is, or because they don't have any major problems with her storylines. It might even be that they find OTHER characters more problematic…for example, @ShelbyKent obviously has more problems with season three and season four Felicity than she has with Laurel, and @dreamsofnever thinks that OLIVER’s character portrayal has suffered in a major way in later seasons.

I would say that the quality of the writing has deteriorated in later seasons, and that is visible both in the plotting and in the character portrayal. Laurel is not the only one who has suffered from this drop in quality...in fact, there are fans who think that she has been better and more consistently written than Felicity or Oliver lately. For example, Oliver often comes off as a hypocrite...sometimes this is undoubtedly intentional, but sometimes it seems as though the writers have a different conception of what makes a hero than some fans.

As you say, you have as much right to express your opinions about characters and plot developments as any other poster on this forum. I think it's the almost exclusive focus on Laurel's problematic choices and character traits (and the downplaying or ignoring of the OTHER characters' equally problematic choices or character traits) that has made some posters question your arguments. I would also like to point out that the fact that a poster provides a detailed discussion of specific scenes and situations doesn't necessarily mean that this poster is presenting an objective or neutral POV. If the interpretation of these scenes and situations seems biased or skewed in the eyes of other posters, they will automatically detect a negative bias, especially if similar scenes/situations are interpreted in a much more lenient manner when they concern other characters.