[ SECRET POST #3537 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3537 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Art by: http://slashpalooza.tumblr.com/post/149564769513/thank-you-for-all-the-comments-havent-had-time]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Twin Peaks]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
[Stephen King, BTK murderer and The Good Marriage]


__________________________________________________



06. [WARNING for pedophilia, incest]

(Rick and Morty)


__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for rl death]


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #505.
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

[(Anonymous)]

Yet he did not check in with the family or victims at all before writing about them. That is my focus of where I am disgusted.

Profit is obviously going to happen, it is Stephen King.

[(Anonymous)]

He didn't write about them, dude. He created fictional characters that had nothing to do with real people other than using the idea of someone unknowingly living with a serial killer as inspiration.

[luxshine]

This. Is like hating Hitchcock or Bloch for Psycho, which was pretty much based on rummors about Ed Guin even before Ed Guin was sentenced formally.

the book is not about the BTK family. You can read the book and have no idea about BTK and how the case went, and it is still the same, powerful story.

(Not to mention, it's not the only story vaguely inspired by BTK, nor the only not to ask "permission")

Also, the woman is pretty much a big damn hero in the book, so I don't see how that is "disrespectful".

[(Anonymous)]

Why should he? He's not writing about them, he's writing a story that loosely ties into the media's reaction to the wife not knowing about her husband being a killer.

[(Anonymous)]

I could see doing that if King was writing a biography or some other form of non-fiction, but fiction that's only inspired by real life events? Yeah, no. You don't have to "check in" with anyone to do that.

As for profit, you don't think it's a bit peculiar that out of all the non-fiction books written about BTK that are far more graphic and detailed, all the TV shows and movies she manages to lash out at a famous millionaire?

[(Anonymous)]

By this logic we could also argue that, since he's Stephen King, he didn't need to cash in and therefore must have written the story purely "for the art".