fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2691 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2691 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11. [WARNING for sexual assault, rape, bullying]

[Akuma Kyoushi]

__________________________________________________

12. [WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

13. [WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

14. [WARNING for dub-con?]

__________________________________________________

15. [WARNING for rape, pedophilia, etc?]

[X-Men: Days of Future Past]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #384.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The Sue litmus test as it is NOW actually is pretty reasonable especially when you consider that the Desuiefiers take a lot off the score and they all basically boil down to "don't have your character be all knowing, let them be flawed and don't give them disorders without researching and don't cheat and take away the disorder's negative effects. Stuff that you should have in anyway.

But it used to have some really flawed questions like adding points for the character being the same gender as you.

But yeah I remember the Egomobile test just pissed me off because it was like "what so I can't even use names I really really like anymore? FUCK THAT BULLSHIT". (also the names that I chose because I really like them personally and would probably name my children are actually really normal names. Timothy, Elliott, Hazel.) It's a classic case of "correlation does not imply causation". Yes an "egombile" character might choose a name they really like, but so would a lot of other people so it isn't really a bad thing. It's human nature to gravitate towards names you have strong positive feelings for for your characters who you like. That and the creator just really had a huge hate-on for any kind of Meaningful Name.

(Also this is a minor petty thing but some of their language on other parts of the test just bug me. Like on the "wonderbabies" essay which otherwise has good points , it refers to "your character's crotchfruit" and I'm like "Really Springhole? REALLY." Just wow how incredibly unclassy"(and dehumanizing) )

Sounds like they've improved it, then. I didn't see anything about Egomobile, is it still up?
That kind of language just comes off as unprofessional to me, like they're trying to be funny and relatable but they're not pulling it off. Way better sites out there :-/

Nah , it's gone now. and I'm very glad for it. Because the whole test was like "name your characters MY way or you're wrong".

Yeah. It bothers me because personally it seems horribly cruel. Also when I was at the HP board fiction alley I saw way too many people referring to the Epilogue kids as "crotchfruit" and the even worse "crotch droppings". Eugh. (Like I can respect if you don't like the Epilogue and I can understand really really hating a bit of canon (Phantom Planeeeeeeeet) but those words being used to describe human beings is just so gross) Like I know in these cases they're just fictional but it just bothers me. I would hope to God they would never call an actual child "crotchfruit" .

Also they do have some really actually good essays.

Like this one: http://springhole.net/writing/before-declaring-other-characters-mary-sues.htm
and this one

http://springhole.net/writing/write-better-abused-characters.htm

and this
http://springhole.net/writing/better-tragic-and-traumatic-backstories.htm

But, like I said, they're hit or miss. Sometimes they write good stuff and sometimes their stuff is like "ehh"

Those do seem potentially useful. I was going to ask why you were still reading them after all that, but I concede that point :)

I do appreciate that they take the avenue of "do it well if you're going to do it" with traumatic pasts and not "NEVER WRITE ABOUT THIS EVER IT WILL ALWAYS BE BAD". The latter seems to be the reaction a lot of other people have.

They read some bad examples and go "ugh just don't write about this guys it's over done".

I refuse to not write about a subject because some people did it wrong. Because if we're going to do things that way we might as well all put our pens down and stop writing. However I do strongly believe in doing one's research before you write about it.

Ah, I think I found it. This one, right?

http://www.springhole.net/writing/egomobile.htm

I can get what it's going for, don't make the character basically a self-insert and the character shouldn't be "you". But there are some dumb suggestions there, like the name thing.

Yeah, now there are some really GOOD stuff on this actually now that I'm looking

But also I'm unsure about the question about "you shouldn't view your character as this" because well....after all the time spent on my characters, I do see them as something other than tools but at the same time I wouldn't say "friend, myself or child" I see them as a creation of mine with bits of me in them.

I really hate how they say "Don't spend more than fifteen minutes searching." most of all because it's like some writers DO put alot of thought into their characters. Some don't. As long as the character is written well neither of these approaches is any more wrong than the other.

Even the original Mary Sue was making fun of a very specific kind of character... fandom made it pretty much any female character they didn't like.

Yeah. I feel like the worst thing that people have done with the definition is make it so subjective 'everybody has their own ideas of what makes a Sue' and making it all about a set of vague "Common Mary Sue Traits" that are actually including things that can be done well provided they're done CORRECTLY or at the very least, not for the wrong reasons.

The first one because well, IF IT CAN MEAN ANYTHING IT MEANS NOTHING. If you can argue that ANY character is a Mary Sue, and make out any character to be a Sue then it's like "if all characters are Sues than none are" if that makes sense.

and the second just because Mary Sue is ALL about the attitude of the creator and their favoritism of their character. Not traits.

Anyone using Childfree insults anywhere outside CF rant communities is really assholish. In fact it is often assholish even in the CF comms as well.

Yeah

It's just so "ew". Like I get that they don't like children but don't be a big jackass about it about it.

I have spent time reading CF comms, and it has helped me form an opinion that I can easily live without ever having children myself, but sometimes the people on those comms? They get a bit too vehement in their opinions.

[ SECRET POST #2691 ]

Re: Anybody else read springhole's writing stuff?

Re: Anybody else read springhole's writing stuff?

Re: Anybody else read springhole's writing stuff?

Re: Anybody else read springhole's writing stuff?

Re: Anybody else read springhole's writing stuff?

Re: Anybody else read springhole's writing stuff?

Re: Anybody else read springhole's writing stuff?

Re: Anybody else read springhole's writing stuff?

Re: Anybody else read springhole's writing stuff?

Re: Anybody else read springhole's writing stuff?

Re: Anybody else read springhole's writing stuff?

Re: Anybody else read springhole's writing stuff?