[ SECRET POST #3067 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3067 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Silicon Valley]


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 012 secrets from Secret Submission Post #438.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[philstar22]

I think it depends. If it fits with the character and the character is fleshed-out and interesting, sure. But if it makes no sense and was clearly just written as wank material then that's on the author.

[(Anonymous)]

But that is still the result of the writer.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

It does, but you say that as though writers themselves can't be incredibly inconsistent, and can end up doing both great and horrendous things within the same narrative framework.

[philstar22]

The thing is, if the characterization is good, then I can immerse myself in the fandom and the character and even if I don't like something, I think of things through the eyes of the character. But if it is bad characterization, then I'm no longer able to immerse myself and I see it as being on the writer.

A good writer who does their job can make me accept something I don't like. If it is not a good writing, then I tend to lay blame for things on the writer.