[ SECRET POST #3641 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3641 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 07 secrets from Secret Submission Post #520.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - take it to comments ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

05. https://68.media.tumblr.com/c3167772996235b0617c899baa28d57c/tumblr_oi7qraAoEt1sivacmo1_500.png

[(Anonymous)]

I had a hard time getting through this book. I tried reading this person's chapter-by-chapter review of it, to see if that'd help me get through it? But then the person tried to justify sapiosexuality, and I just lost interest in her writing.

/tangent

I'm glad you liked it! I hope the movie is better too, I'd love to actually understand the book for once!

[(Anonymous)]

What don't you understand about it? Not trying to be snarky here, because while it does contain some complicated concepts, the story itself seems very straightforward.

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly, it's been a while since I tried reading it, so that was how I remember feeling about it? But like, I had a really hard time with the imagery, and stuff like that (turns out I have ADHD, which I don't mean as an excuse, but I don't think it helped, you know?), which ended up meaning that I was reading words, but I couldn't grasp what was actually happening.

Does that make sense?

[(Anonymous)]

I think I understand. A movie adaptation might help with the visuals, then.

[mudousetsuna]

I'm in the same boat as you, as much as I loved this book, I had to read and reread it because I couldn't visualize what I was reading. I also have ADD and aspergers, so both understanding concepts and also holding onto complicated explanations took a lot of extra work for me.

[(Anonymous)]

When has Disney NOT screwed the original all to hell?

[(Anonymous)]

"Holes" is a Disney movie, and about as close as any movie adaptation can get to its source. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is also quite well received, but I believe strays quite a bit from its source. "Beauty and the Beast" (1992) was the first animated film nominated for best picture, but again has changed large parts of its source, and also draws just as heavily from the French movie "La Belle et la Bete" (1946) as from the 18th c Villenueve and Beaumont stories.

Someone on Goodreads has a list of 90 books adapted into Disney movies, though it is five years out of date. Based on the contents of that, I give it a 3% chance of being good. :P

[(Anonymous)]

I'm with you, OP. I watched the not very good tv movie that was made in 2009, which while watchable isn't what it should be. I'm cautiously optimistic!

[hands4healing]

I have that exact copy of this novel.

And I was unaware Disney is turning it into a movie. Live action? Animated? I suppose I should go look, but yeah, Disney and novels.

I remember what Disney did to Escape to Witch Mountain. Both times.