case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2014-07-20 04:06 pm

[ SECRET POST #2756 ]


⌈ Secret Post #2756 ⌋

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, 076 secrets from Secret Submission Post #394.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 2 3 - broken links ], [ 1 2 3 - not!secrets (random images from what appears to be one spammy anon) ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

(Anonymous) 2014-07-20 10:36 pm (UTC)(link)
As one of the words evolve anons, I agree.

The thing is, OP and the other people are refusing to accept that 'potentially has plot' 'potentially long' 'potentially full of characterization' are now also parts of the word fluff. Fluff has been redefined to a broader term, one that means stories that are predominantly filled with happy scenes and with a happy ending, which are not necessarily short or simple or devoid of plot.

The happy part, the fixed core, remained. The empty part evolved. I see a bunch of people in this thread with their fingers in their ears that refuse to accept that, which is really weird.
inkdust: (Default)

[personal profile] inkdust 2014-07-20 10:43 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, the only reason I can see getting upset is if someone wants an easy search term for fluff devoid of plot and now such a term no longer exists. But in that case I think that's a legitimate annoyance.

(Anonymous) 2014-07-20 10:48 pm (UTC)(link)
I could understand that too. But "that's not what fluff meaaaans, you're using the word wrong" sounds like they're objecting to the principle of the term meaning anything else at all, which is just. What? @_@