[ SECRET POST #3510 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3510 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Stephen King]


__________________________________________________



03.
[John Green]


__________________________________________________



04.
[American Gods]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Charlie Hunnam in King Arthur: Legend of the Sword]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Penn & Teller: Fool Us]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Steven Universe]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Questionable Content]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Ghostbusters 2016]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 53 secrets from Secret Submission Post #502.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - 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]

02. http://i.imgur.com/sDuhQhm.jpg
[Stephen King]

[(Anonymous)]

What stories in particular? I prefer his short stories, which feel more organized and together than his very long novels.

[(Anonymous)]

OP: I was specifically thinking of the short story "The Lawnmower Man."

[(Anonymous)]

I'm confused. Exactly what is 'LOLRANDOM' about his novels?

[herpymcderp]

I think anon means the plot twists that frequently aren't foreshadowed so as to be more of a "surprise" to the reader.

It's not really a surprise if you mention nothing about aliens in the first 3/4th's of a novel and then it turns out to be aliens, man.

[(Anonymous)]

Ah. See I see that as less of a LOLRANDOM thing and more of a 'everything isn't so heavily foreshadowed/neon glaring signs so that when there's a twist, it's actually a twist' thing. Which I enjoy.

I hate being spoiled on a 'surprise' ending two pages into a book because of crap foreshadowing.

[herpymcderp]

I personally hate both. Lack of it seems lazy, but telegraphing something to fuck and back is just as bad.

It's an art, to be sure.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm reminded of a good friend of mine who read The Shining, and had a problem with it because she vaguely assumed it was a mystery. So all the weird little pieces of history, the snippets of Overlook lore, the ghosts, she was trying to put that together into a single coherent solution. When the solution was "The hotel's just plain evil, all those things were just random examples of that," she felt frustrated and kind of cheated.

Personally, I really like that kind of storytelling, where you don't necessarily get satisfying answers, but I respect that not everyone does.

[(Anonymous)]

I can see why your friend was disappointed if she thought she was reading a mystery novel, but what a weirdly inaccurate expectation to have...

[sarillia]

Reminds me of the common reaction to Lost versus my reaction (I'm like you).

[ninety6tears]

I like it when authors don't just deliver the expected genre conventions on a plate, even if it isn't effective every time. Some actual mystery novels don't explain everything either and it can be a great way to tell the story.

[(Anonymous)]

"When the solution was "The hotel's just plain evil, all those things were just random examples of that," she felt frustrated and kind of cheated."

Me too.

"Because it's evil," is a frustrating explanation to me. Same reason I didn't like that one with the evil hotel room.

[(Anonymous)]

As a Stephen King fan, I was about to defend him, but then I remembered a short story he did about a boy going to the school bathroom and there being a lion in there for no reason

So, a fair point, OP

[(Anonymous)]

(Same anon)

Sorry, it was a tiger, not a lion :P

[lb_lee]

No bears?

[sarillia]

I was going to go for a The Lady or the Tiger reference myself but The Wizard of Oz is good too. :p

[(Anonymous)]

Oh my.

[(Anonymous)]

Some of the stuff he wrote when he was at the lowest point of his addictions spiral was seriously weird, it's true.

[otakugal15]

Hahahaha. No they really aren't.

[(Anonymous)]

The only story I've enjoyed from him was "Carrie". "The Shining"...not so much. Kubrick did a better job adapting it to film, whereas Stephen's original story was a snoozefest, especially the made-for-tv film that he was heavily involved in and had a cameo.

[(Anonymous)]

King is amazing at characterisation, and at using character's emotions to heighten the tension. He is crazy talented as a writer, but his style is understated and written to purpose, so I think a lot of people miss it and dismiss him as a genre hack, albeit ridiculously successful.

He sucks at endings though. And reuses character types all the time. Also, his lates stuff sucks in comparison to his early writing.

Lolrandom is not a phrase I would use to describe his writing though, unless you'd apply that to most of the horror genre too.

[(Anonymous)]

Yep, agreed, OP. And this is coming from someone who managed to enjoy some of his stuff ("some" meaning "definitely not a lot"). The stuff I wound up enjoying is in spite of all the weird stuff he seems to feel he needs to pull.

(As an example, what's up with all the dicks and pee coming out of nowhere? It's like he's a child who just discovered toilet humor.)