fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3180 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3180 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09. [WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

10. [WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

11. [WARNING for domestic violence/abuse]

[The Musketeers]

__________________________________________________

12. [WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

13. [WARNING for rape]

[Babylon 5]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #454.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - 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

Nope. It wants mad libs of generic smut where you could easily replace characters a and b with characters x and y of [insert popular fandom]. Decades of research has lead me to this conclusion.

DA

I don't think so. I would say mad libs of generic smut where you can replace characters a and b with x and y are always welcomed and accepted, but when you ask fandom what the want more of, it's never "more of exactly the same!!"

It's always "more of something similar but with unique twists or takes." Which doesn't stray too far from the basic fanon.

The numbers don't lie. Fans saying "I wish there was more of x!" go out and read the same old thing everyone else is reading. Along with OP, my most viewed works are a) PWP smut that (if you erased a few key details) you could slap any other names on and it would switch out perfectly

b) Fluff that is the exact same thing as above.

My experimental pieces only get attention if I shove in a bit of a or b to literally trick people into reading them.

This situation is the exact same for every single author I have ever spoken to. We are a culture of people claiming to want art games and where Call of Duty is the best selling series of all time.

ayrt

Nah. You can't determine that from sheer number because of a lot of factors. Rec lists. Staple fanon fics. If your fic ends up one of the basics of the fandom's fanon, all the newbies are going to be recced to that fic, boosting its numbers. Of course all the staples get read the most, because they're the staples that everyone reads. What fandom wants would be everything beyond that "primer to X fandom" rec list.

There's a difference between smut as such and generic smut. You can write porn in an imaginative, unique manner and give your heroes subtle and ingenious characterizations through their respective behaviours. You can do the same with fluff.

Yes. I realize that. That is what I usually do, because fic writing isn't about kudos or comments or whatnot for me, it's about improving technique until I feel like I have the chops to work on original material.

Still doesn't get as much notice as the less interesting crap I write for requests and whatnot.

To be fair, not everyone wants mad libs of generic smut.
Some sickos want mad libs of generic fetish smut.

Touche. I like to think I cater to the needs of those sickos.

AYRT

I would like to see this research of yours. Do you have any empirical data? Has your research been peer-reviewed?

:P

What are you doing stop it. Stop making me want to publish something on this.

I bet you there's some dumb little niche journal out there that would absolutely eat this up.

AYRT

I know I would eat it up! Academic studies of fandom things are so much fun.

[ SECRET POST #3180 ]

Re: Does fandom as a whole actually WANT variety in its fic?

Re: Does fandom as a whole actually WANT variety in its fic?

Re: Does fandom as a whole actually WANT variety in its fic?

Re: Does fandom as a whole actually WANT variety in its fic?

Re: Does fandom as a whole actually WANT variety in its fic?

Re: Does fandom as a whole actually WANT variety in its fic?

Re: Does fandom as a whole actually WANT variety in its fic?

Re: Does fandom as a whole actually WANT variety in its fic?

Re: Does fandom as a whole actually WANT variety in its fic?

Re: Does fandom as a whole actually WANT variety in its fic?

Re: Does fandom as a whole actually WANT variety in its fic?