[ SECRET POST #3199 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3199 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Midnight Syndicate]


__________________________________________________



03.
(Jim Gaffigan)


__________________________________________________



04.
[X-Files]


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 018 secrets from Secret Submission Post #457.
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

Re: Just because it's a classic doesn't mean it's any good

[(Anonymous)]

Ugh, Moby Dick.

Endless, difficult-to-visualize, text book explanations about the technical processes involved in whaling. Interspersed with a monomaniacal dude being utterly bonkers and nobody doing anything about it, also described at great length.

The thing about Moby Dick is that I feel you could have told the entire story in about a hundred pages, without cutting anything genuinely important. I have some issues with something like Heart of Darkness, but props to Conrad for knowing how much story there actually was to tell, and not padding it out endlessly with prose so dry and dated I could practically cough on the dust coming off of it, like Melville did.

Just my opinion, but I'm pretty set on this. I've read a fuckton of classic lit, and Moby Dick was probably my least favorite. Even The Brothers Karamazov was more palatable, and I'm a diehard atheist.

Re: Just because it's a classic doesn't mean it's any good

[diet_poison]

I felt similarly about Les Miserables, though I did enjoy the story (and I adore the musical). But the book was about five times longer than it needed to be. Sooooo much filler.

Re: Just because it's a classic doesn't mean it's any good

[(Anonymous)]

Lol, I read Les Mis, and only after I finished it did I realize that I'd read the heavily expurgated version. I think like three or four hundred pages had been cut out.

I was so mad. I felt like I'd read the whole 550 page book for nothing, since I can't really claim to have gotten the true reading experience of Les Mis. So I kind of love your comment. It makes me feel better that I read the expurgated version. Maybe I didn't miss all that much.

Re: Just because it's a classic doesn't mean it's any good

[diet_poison]

I don't really think you did miss much, but I read it in 8th grade, so my memory is fuzzy. I just remember thinking there was a crapton of filler.

Re: Just because it's a classic doesn't mean it's any good

[(Anonymous)]

I had a professor who absolutely adored Moby Dick. He was a pretty awesome professor and was so enthusiastic about the book, but I just couldn't get into it. So much useless info about whales and whaling. I ended up writing Queequeg/Ishmael drabbles alongside my notes to keep from falling asleep in lectures.