Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2014-06-21 04:20 pm
[ SECRET POST #2727 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2727 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04.

__________________________________________________
05.

__________________________________________________
06.

__________________________________________________
07.

__________________________________________________
08.

__________________________________________________
09.

__________________________________________________
10.

__________________________________________________
11.

__________________________________________________
12.

Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 082 secrets from Secret Submission Post #390.
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.

no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-06-22 01:05 am (UTC)(link)And I disagree with most people here. Encountering the idiosyncrasies of other people's writing, even the annoying ones, helps expand our understanding of language and potential range for future constructions. "Fixing" everything you read is just going to keep you in a bland comfort bubble.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-06-22 01:25 am (UTC)(link)Any fandom that has a character who is an Army Ranger offering fellatio and in which the author uses epithets. E.g., Jim Ellison from the Sentinel was an Army Ranger before he was a cop. So then you'd have the added ridiculousness of it being an ex-Army Ranger who is giving a blowjob.
How does it expand my understanding to be reading a sex scene and see "The ex-Army Ranger took a breath and then deep-throated Sandburg's cock." (I have read sentences exactly like this, just not this pairing.) All it does is make the reader wonder where in the Army Ranger handbook it outlines cocksucking technique.
Also, in order to add these items to the list, I've already seen these idiosyncrasies at least once. Once is enough to expand my understanding, as it were.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-06-22 03:53 am (UTC)(link)And though the particular examples you give are indeed silly, there are better applications of this technique. Is it better to always refer to a character by name, no exceptions? It's not just knowing that something exists, it's seeing it employed in different contexts in different ways. You're not just correcting typos and grammar, you're making stylistic choices for others writers and where does that sort of thing end? I mean I get it, you think you're just doing this to stuff that's already awful, but it creates bad habits. It makes you less likely to give something not already suited to your tastes a chance when you may discover it's actually something quite interesting. Of course, you're free to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own browser; I'm just giving the reasons I wouldn't.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-06-22 09:39 am (UTC)(link)As far as typos go, there's no end to typos. :) I fix those willy-nilly with no regrets, especially when it comes to beloved character names.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-06-22 03:56 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-06-22 07:41 am (UTC)(link)Fictional Army Rangers
(Anonymous) 2014-06-22 01:32 am (UTC)(link)Jo Lupo (Eureka)
Fin Tutuola (Law & Order: SVU)
And there are a few Marvel characters, a couple of Sons of Anarchy characters, and some G.I. Joe characters.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-06-22 12:25 pm (UTC)(link)