[ SECRET POST #2914 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2914 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Eureka]


__________________________________________________



03.
[The Amazing Spider Man]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Masterchef Season 5]


__________________________________________________



05.
[American Horror Story: Murder House]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 017 secrets from Secret Submission Post #416.
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.

Comments

[fscom]

09. http://oi57.tinypic.com/315e3og.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

There are historical events which have affected people that are also still the subject of massive massive arguments. Think of things like revolutions and ethnic conflicts - to be honest it's very common for people on each side to insist on totally different versions of events, both with absolute certainty. So with all due respect I don't think that your family's involvement in an event proves that you're right. That said I can completely get how it would be frustrating.

[(Anonymous)]

Some people are actually old enough to have lived through significant world events and might have more insight then someone who read about an event on Wikipedia. The internet doesn't make everyone an instant expert.

[(Anonymous)]

This.

[(Anonymous)]

They might have more insight but they also have intense biases both emotional and otherwise. I really hesitate to give examples just because they're intrinsically so controversial. But take the conflict between Israel and Palestine - someone who has lived through that in the Israeli side might have totally different biases than a Palestinian who lived through it. And yet despite their diametrically opposed accounts both could cite the authority of experience. So my point is that first hand accounts are tricky.

[(Anonymous)]

da

They might have more insight but they also have intense biases both emotional and otherwise.

Then so would the person leaving the 'concrit' and that wouldn't automatically mean they were right either.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, I can agree with that.

[(Anonymous)]

But people can feel strongly about something and have emotional bias, and still be correct.

[(Anonymous)]

I accept that. I'm just somewhat skeptical of the value of claims like that, at this point.

[(Anonymous)]

Being dismissive of someone's account because it's one side of a story is a bias in itself.

[(Anonymous)]

That's... fair, I guess? But I'm not sure how useful it is. I would like to think of it as healthy skepticism more than anything.

[(Anonymous)]

I feel you. I hate 'critics' who have the attitude that because they're the critic , you automatically have to listen to them.

The best writing advice givers I've ever seen all said 'don't take me word by itself. Do research'. A 'critic' who insists that you only need listen to him/her is probably being driven by their ego, and usually tends to be full of shit.

[(Anonymous)]

I got a long piece of criticism once that explained in great detail how unrealistic and stupid my premise was -- my fic was an episode tag and the premise they were bitching about was 100% canon. It wasn't the most ridiculous feedback I've ever received, I think that honor probably goes to the one that told me I was going to hell for writing about kissing (fully clothed PG rated het kissing no less) but it was certainly the most ignorant.

[(Anonymous)]

Wow. That's an extra special brand of stupid.

[kallanda_lee]

That's a special level of stupid.

[(Anonymous)]

Both of those examples are just hilarious, although at the time I'm imagining you were just perplexed at how anyone could be that crazy and/or stupid, and it was actually quite disconcerting.

[dinogrrl]

Oh man, I feel you. Most of my fandoms, and my original stories, take place in faux/fantasy versions of historic Earth periods and places. So...yeah. I run into this a lot. Very aggravating.

On the other hand, I've been able to show my sources to some of those people to explain exactly where I got my info. Sometimes they have sources for theirs too. So there's a chance for a good exchange of information.

[(Anonymous)]

The comment about inaccurate crit reminds me of a Star Trek story I wrote once. Part of the premise was that Klingons had an inside man on another planet who was poisoning officials. I got not one but two people who said it was an unrealistic plot, because Klingons were all about honorable deaths and facing their foe and yadda yadda. Problem is? Poisoning people was exactly the plot of Trouble with Tribbles. Poisoning people is a canonical thing that Klingons do.

Basically, people who correct things without doing the research are really annoying.

[(Anonymous)]

That drives me up the wall too. I cheer myself up by reading the TVTropes page about the problem, which is typically sloppily curated, but has a lot of amusing examples: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AluminumChristmasTrees

[(Anonymous)]

Oh man, me too. One time a reviewer took me to task for something she thought was an anachronistic reference from a TV show. Turns out that no, TV showand I were both referencing a much older source that reviewer was completely ignorant about, haha. They were so ready to jump all over me for being such a dumbass writer but after I pointed this out, not a single peep from them ever again. I LOLed and still LOL each and every time I think about them and their oh so high horse.

[(Anonymous)]

I once had a well-meaning person leave concrit on an original story explaining "X doesn't work that way, you need to do Y instead." The plot point was a hobby we shared, and X was perfectly valid. It had to be possible when my coaches taught me that way (and no harm resulted.) I changed the plot point anyway, since I would not be there to explain it to readers who thought like she did.

However, it was a reminder than any time there are two ways to do something, someone will always think there is only one. (Same crit reader used to quibble about my character's slang, on the grounds *she* didn't speak that way. No, but you're not from the same region the character and I are from, are you reader?) She was a pretty good crit reader in some ways, and frustrating in others!

[(Anonymous)]

It doesn't make me rage, but I do feel a little baffled when someone "corrects" me based on recieved pop-culture wisdom on historical settings I've researched extensively. It's happened more than once!

[(Anonymous)]

This happens all the time. (And the more shouty and emphatic the "con-critter" is, the more likely they are to be wrong, IME)

Just because it's crit doesn't mean it inherently deserves to be taken seriously. It needs to be evaluated on its merits just like everything else, and Sturgeon's Law is in effect there as well.