[ SECRET POST #3438 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3438 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.

__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 11 secrets from Secret Submission Post #491.
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]

08. http://i63.tinypic.com/fx5nxy.jpg

[sarillia]

I don't mind people pointing out things that don't make sense to them but I do wish people would stop exaggerating by talking about how some little detail is a giant plot hole.

[(Anonymous)]

A little ambiguity is fine, but when characters don't act in ways that are logical for the universe they're in or seems OOC... then yeah, that does kind of seem like poor writing.

[(Anonymous)]

There's a difference between behaving logically and behaving in character. A character's behavior has to make sense in the context of who they are. A character that isn't known for being logical doesn't have to act logically.

In real life people sometimes do things out of character but it's very hard to write about it without it seeing fake or forced. It's part of why it's so easy to write a Mary Sue who never does anything wrong - because making a stupid mistake is hard to justify even if it's realistic.

[(Anonymous)]

This. It's not that everything has to be logical, but it should make sense within the context of the story. So for example, if you have a character who's scrupulously honest and all of a sudden they do something really dishonest, there needs to be a reason why, and the story needs to address that in some way. If it doesn't, then it reads as being OOC.

[(Anonymous)]

Thiiiiiis. I've seen people try to blow that off as 'character development' which makes me roll my eyes. OOC is OOC.

[(Anonymous)]

I kind of agree. I would posit the argument that perhaps it's because there's so much bad or lazy writing out there, so people are conditioned to assume bad writing first.

And a lot of people have been burned. Take a show like Lost where people thought everything was some grand thing but a lot of people seemed disappointed (initially) by the ending. I think the constraints and restrictions of TV often make it impossible to tie things together in an artful way. Sometimes that's true of big tent-pole movies too, especially if they're going to have to tie into other properties, and when they're being run by a lot of different people. They intend to go one way but then have to backtrack and things get lost.

I personally think it's fun to try to imagine how it could work because I have to figure out how to deal with what I've been given. But, it's also fun to pick things apart. Depending on the mood, I can see how one or the other could be irritating.

[(Anonymous)]

People have definitely been conditioned to expect lazy writing. That's why you have so much distrust of OCs in fandom. Everyone who hates OCs will point out how badly done they are, but it's obvious they aren't very open to the possibility of well done OCs because they've been burned so many times.

With Lost... well, maybe I'm cynical, but I knew the "explanation" for everything would be crap. How could it be otherwise? It quickly became clear there was no careful planning done, the writers were just throwing in one weird mystery after another to keep peoples' interest from week to week. Resolving it in a satisfactory manner was impossible.

[(Anonymous)]

There are quotation at the end of the secret and not at the beginning. Which looks funny, though I'm guessing it was a typo, because I don't think anything in the secret was a quote.

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe they were trying to quote the "shitty hacks who don't know how to write" part?

[(Anonymous)]

As a writer (admittedly of fanfic) this drives me up a wall. I do everything I can to flesh a character's motivations out in my head (fueled by the blueprint canon gives), so characters act accordingly, and if something seems "off", it's usually for a good reason that is later explained (whether it be history, a relationship, Something Bad Happened, etc.).

So I keep having to take a deep breath. Fortunately, those tend to die off by the time I have the fic completely posted because NOW they can see that wasn't a plothole, it was a plot thread.

(Conversely, stories that spell everything out like I'm a dumbass piss me off. No, I don't end up reading much fanfic. :p )

[ninety6tears]

This is frustrating as hell when it comes to fanfic, both as a writer and a reader. Cause even though inconsistent characterization happens a lot in canon, you know that it at least got read and critiqued by other people; in fanfic there's more of a temptation to back-button when things seem OOC.

[(Anonymous)]

I've found that it kind of helps to acknowledge those moments that seem "off" within the fic itself in some manner. A little foreshadowing. That signals to the reader that yes, there is something weird going on, but it's a deliberate plot point rather than a mistake in characterization.

[kallanda_lee]

I think this is a very American/Hollywood media thing, tbh. I feel European media is more lenient with this - and from what little I've seen of Asian film, seems to be true there, too.

[feotakahari]

As fantasy and science fiction become more accepted among the mainstream, different writers with different styles try their hand at fantastical fiction. A lot of sci-fi fans who're used to meticulous world-building still haven't adjusted to writers who care more about style and don't sweat the small details. (Though honestly, I'm surprised they never got used to that from all the times George Lucas neglected the details.)

[crossy_woad]

IDK, sometimes I read a meta and just...I so feel it, you know? It's such a relief to see someone criticize George Lucas's creative decisions. Obviously I don't think you should have a hate boner about it, but let's be real, he's not the god of writing, and I'm much happier when I see people acknowledge that fact and stop pretending all his creative decisions were perfect, even in the original trilogy.

Now obviously it can ruin someone's enjoyment, but I haven't been involved in meta enough that is has for me, it's more like a breath of fresh air when someone posts rational, thoughtful critiques of something that sat wrong with me, but I struggled to find words for why. I'd rather see thoughtful crits, even intense ones, than everyone just lovingly accepting everything creative people do.

Sometimes it goes too far. Goodreads can be shitty about this, mocking creators instead of just analyzing things. Politicizing everything can get old. But give me a good, thoughtful meta discussion and I will be a happy camper.

Show me the plot holes, the unexpected consequences, the moral failings of the plot. I want to get it. I want to understand how it could've been better, even if I'll still like it anyway.

Critiques and pointing out plot holes doesn't have to be about proving how stupid the author/director/etc., is, although sometimes they're used that way, just to make the person criticizing feel like a bigger person (and look like a jerk).

[(Anonymous)]

This is about woobie Kylo, isn't it? Because zero backstory or justification for murdering your father is...TO BE CONTINUED.

That's called crap writing no matter what the series is.

[(Anonymous)]

I really get annoyed at the "this character didn't behave 100% logical" thing. PEOPLE don't behave 100% logically. To me, a character who does would be a Sue/Stu.

[quantumreality]

Oh god, I hear you, anon. People in The 100 fandom lost their fucking shit over something that could've been thought through and explained in literally less than 30 seconds on their own time.

People really do seem to need to be practically spoon-fed why an author writes or doesn't write something or why a TV show or movie shows or doesn't show something, rather than being able to engage their brains for a few moments after reading/watching a scene.

[(Anonymous)]

Which ridiculous thing from The 100 are we talking about? So many to choose from.

[(Anonymous)]

This is such a case by case basis for me. I'm someone who really likes to theorize about why things are happening and where they're headed. I love an intricately woven plot. So I'm willing to wait and see how things play out.... but I guess this also leaves me feeling disappointed a lot? Usually because things end up being too predicable? (If they're holding out on some kind of mystery.) Kind of feels like the author didn't put as much thought into it as I was hoping they would. Maybe I have unreasonably high expectations.

[(Anonymous)]

This drives me crazy. I think a lot of people are used to having things explained to them like they're five year olds, so when there's anything left to interpretation, they flip out. But I'd much rather have "plot holes" than writers who treat their audience like they're morons.

Generally I tend to give things the benefit of the doubt, and assume if something doesn't make sense RIGHT NOW, it will eventually, and usually it does (especially since I read/watch a lot of mysteries, so not revealing everything right away is kind of the point).

And sort of OT, but kind of related, I guess: a lot of times people obviously just don't even pay attention, which also bugs me. I lurk (and sometimes post) on PTV pretty often, and there are constantly people asking why X happened and saying how obviously the writers are shitty, when that exact thing was actually explained in the episode itself, which they'd have realized if they'd paid attention.

[(Anonymous)]

The two biggest ones that make me facepalm.

"It's a plothole that we don't know who Rey's parents are!"
Ok, first of all, even if we never find out, no. It's not a plothole. We don't know 98%ish of the family lines in the Star Wars movies themselves because in general it's not plot relevant who did the the horizontal tango 20+ years ago, we only care about the current character and what they're doing in the movie. If we don't find out it means it's Not Important.

Honestly the only reason people are screaming over this is in the EU Luke has kids so maybe in the new canon he had kids too! And it might be Rey! Plus we want it Exactly Like The OT where Luke gets to do the "Rey... I am your father." and she'll scream "No, that's impossible!" and then he'll cut off her hand or something, instead of a story about forging your own destiny without relying on your lineage.

But even more so... IT'S THE FIRST MOVIE.

Second - "They never say why Rey was abandoned on Jakku! Plot hole!"

IT'S THE FIRST MOVIE. That probably will be explained, so just calm yer tits.

[(Anonymous)]

Wow, that's sad. I'm barely a casual SW fan and I could tell the whole "who are Rey's parents/who is Rey" question was being set up for a possible reveal later in the series. It wasn't that subtle even.

Now it'd be great if they never answered the question and it did become a theme about "forging your own destiny without relying on your lineage", but it's a big franchise and I honestly don't believe they'll leave that open to interpretation.

[arcadiaego]

Or coming up with ridiculous convoluted 'theories' that ignore the point of the actual canon.