[ SECRET POST #3328 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3328 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 069 secrets from Secret Submission Post #476.
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

[loracarol]

According to wikipedia, "She is blonde-haired with brown eyes, full-figured, has acne, and is considered unattractive, though she is described as having been very pretty as a little girl."

I know that she does have breasts, because that's where the whole "dirty pillows" thing comes in, but I'm not actually what "full-figured" entails (like, hourglass shaped?)

Though, stress can stop periods, and supposedly her powers put her under stress/living with her mom could stress her out, quite a bit, so it's possible that she just doesn't have her period because of those reasons.

[nonnymouscawitz]

I looked it up and according to the book the description includes 'She was a slightly chunky girl with pimples on her neck and back and buttocks, '

It's odd that she would have breasts and no period, but it is just now ocurring to me that Stephen King was a grown man writing in the seventies and may not have been all that informed on the glory of menstruation.

I suspect it's probably stress and metaphor.

[loracarol]

Huh. I guess the movie version of her must have made more of an impression on my than I though. >_>;;

Even though I still haven't seen it.

[nonnymouscawitz]

Yeah but given the way the original movie has flooded public memory and the viral marketing campaign for the remake, that's understandable.

Have you seen either of them? The original is fairly good, if a bit dated. The remake was SIGNIFICANTLY better than one would expect from a remake, I enjoyed it quite a bit.

And of course the book is always gold.

[loracarol]

I haven't - I read the book back in high school, but other than occasionally rereading parts of it (I find it a bit too heavy to read all at once.) |D I haven't reread it in it's entirety since.

I'll keep that in mind re: the remake, though. I don't think the library here has a copy of the old one. :O

[nonnymouscawitz]

Stephen King is like that. He writes goddamn masterpieces but they could all be about 200 pages shorter. My mom used to joke that he'd spend three pages describing a doorknob just so a character could open the door.

Chloe Grace Moretz is a really good actress, especially considering her age. I'd watch it if you get a chance, but the original really is quite good.

[loracarol]

I'll take your word for it! Carrie is the only one I've actually read. |D


I'll definitely keep that in mind, thank you!

[nonnymouscawitz]

Needful Things was really good, but it was twice the length it needed to be. And I will always recommend Pet Sematary, which was NOT overly lengthy. Actually I think the earlier you go in his career, the shorter his books get. I could actively murder people with my hardcover copy of Under The Dome.

[loracarol]

I'm a little afraid to read Pet Sematary, given what I know about it - I love my own cat too much. |D

Re: Hardcover, I get you. I don't own any copies of that, but I have a copy of Les Miserables, and... Yikes.

[nonnymouscawitz]

Yeah there's quite a bit of death in that one. And the main character hates that cat to begin with.

Oh god, the Brick. My mother claims I read it at age 7. I certainly had a copy then, but I don't remember this. I made it about a third of the way through a few years ago, but it took a year. The problem there is that Victor Hugo is a very good story teller and a very bad writer. WHY DID YOU SPEND 90 PAGES INTRODUCING THE PRIEST HE HAS LIKE FIVE MINUTES WORTH OF THINGS TO DO. STOP THAT. NO ONE CARES ABOUT WATERLOO. BRING BACK THE HOOKERS.

[eyeshine72]

The old movie is good, but in the beginning there's this montage of the high school girls in the locker room that always creeped me out.

[nonnymouscawitz]

I'm more creeped out in the remake. In the old movie they all looked 30. In the remake, we have the exact same ~long lingering shots of legs and thighs and wet~ but Chloe Grace Moretz was actually underage at the time. Significantly so, I believe she was 15.

[eyeshine72]

I haven't seen it, but that's really creepy. O.o

[nonnymouscawitz]

Yeah.... It's slightly less blatant than the original because at some point she wears a towel and I think we don't get as high up on her thighs (I have not seen it since it was in theaters), but it's still kinda sexual and this is why Dawson Casting is so popular and half the cast of Glee was like, 30.

[loracarol]

Considering what happens, I'm not surprised by that. >_>;;

[eyeshine72]

Eh, the breasts and periods don't always go together. I know quite a few girls where they didn't match up. But yeah, it's probably from environmental stress and metaphor. :)

[nonnymouscawitz]

This is true! I'm not good with biology... :) But yeah, metaphor. Didn't the entire story have roots in Stephen King wanting to write a girl getting her first period and the ensuing trauma?

[eyeshine72]

Yeah, I think so. Or something to do with burgeoning sexuality. Oh Stephen.

[nonnymouscawitz]

Stephen King is the only adult male who could write about teenage girl's emerging sexuality and 10 year olds having orgies (thank you, IT) without being crucified by the public.

[ceebeegee]

Disgusting scene (the Beverly train in what I not-so-affectionately refer to as Shit). The beginnings of King's descent into just really terrible writing (bloated manuscripts, overt misogyny, oh too many issues to list. His stuff in the '70s and early '80s was so good, it's frustrating).

[nonnymouscawitz]

I tried to read IT but it's just so damn long, and that's the biggest problem with all his later books. He's a great writer, but he gets so caught up in tiny details and giving everyone a backstory and I just want to shake him and scream 'GET TO THE POINT ALREADY.' I really did like Needful Things, but that has a lot of the same problems.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm pretty sure that Stephen King has admitted that he barely remembers anything about writing Carrie because he was high as a kite at the time....

[nonnymouscawitz]

Yeah I saw that about several of his earlier books.

[bookish_dragon]

He has written books while high as a kite, but those came later. Carrie was one of the first books he sold, and he remembers writing it quite clearly. It came way before his addictions.

[(Anonymous)]

full figured is a polite way of saying overweight.