[ SECRET POST #4383 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4383 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Queer Eye, "Dega Don't"]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Dynamo aka Steven Frayne (magician)]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Trillion: God of Destruction]


__________________________________________________



07.




__________________________________________________











08. [SPOILERS for Tidelands season 1 finale]




__________________________________________________












09. [WARNING for discussion of rape]
https://i.imgur.com/rJDntrN.png
[Goblin Slayer anime, linked for rape]
























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #627.
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)]

If anything, it's unfair to OTHER creators that JKR has gotten mindboggling fame and fortune despite having turned her works into a nonstop trainwreck of wtfery

Is it unfair to other creators that her recent work has garnered the amount of money and attention is has? Sure. But in the same way that 95% of what's popular in most artistic mediums is unfair to the thousands of creators who are creating artistically superior work that isn't getting as much attention.

But that doesn't negate the fame, fortune, and respect her early works garnered, and I don't see why it should.

I respect her as a creator because she created something great. She doesn't have to keep creating great things in order for me to keep respecting her as a creator who created something great.

and people are still defending her for it.

Defending her? Her right to write what she wants? Her past works? Or her more recent work? Because I'm doing the first three, but not the last one. And since the main thing people seem to object to is her more recent works (everything post book 7), I still don't understand why people would take out their dislike of everything post book 7 on, well, anything but the works themselves.

(I do understand why people who find her newer works offensive would take that out on Rowling herself, as an authors works do tend to reflect their values to some extent. But a lot of people are saying they don't find her works offensive, just bad - yet they're still saying they don't respect Rowling anymore.)

In your example, sure you still have the golden eggs. But at some point the thought of eggs, ANY eggs, is going to become repulsive to you, because every new egg your goose lays smells like a fucking sewer.

I guess that's just never happened to me. For instance, I still like the hell out of The X-Files, despite the fact that, IMO, it hasn't been even kind of good since the year 2000. Season 8 was bad. Season 9 was awful. The second movie was atrocious. And the new seasons were somehow even worse. But I still love The X-Files. It gave me Mulder and Scully and five good seasons and a crazy mytharc, and an OTP I'll love forever. The fact that it's been bad since the turn of the century doesn't change that - why should it?

[greghousesgf]

this last part about the X files is why I still love House. It turned into crap and by the end I was just watching because I want to have sex with Hugh Laurie about a million times but the first three seasons were great. I just don't watch the clusterfuck seasons.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I feel like House (the show) has really suffered in so many ways. It's honestly brutal. I mean first, what you said: it got bad. Plus, as an adjunct of the "it got bad" point - it took the character of House to a place where, as viewers, we had to either completely ignore the stunningly psycho thing he'd done, or lose all respect for him (or bend over backwards trying to make excuses for him, I guess, but man I am NOT that stretchy). Which will forever make me wonder what the fuck the writers were thinking.

But in addition to that, I think we (the collective we of the audience) tend to forget how striking and interesting and honestly pretty well-written the character of House was at the time. I mean, he was so striking and interesting that by the end of S1, every other network figured they needed their own SIX versions of House, which they proceeded to pump out for the next decade - each one shittier and more tedious and self-indulgent than the last - until by the end most of us couldn't remember that the "acerbic, equal-opportunity misanthropic genius who's privately sad and lost" had ever been even a little bit good. But I honestly think House was a good character, in the beginning. I remember thinking it then, and I think if I could go back with fresh eyes - forget about all the copies ,and copies of copies, and the things that characters like him came to represent over time - I think I'd still think he was a good character.

[greghousesgf]

well said. bizarrely enough about the only character who I thought captured "acerbic, equal-opportunity misanthropic genius who's privately sad and lost" decently after House is Rick Sanchez!

[(Anonymous)]

I haven't seen Rick and Morty, but I will take your word for it.

Funnily enough, the best example of this character type I've ever seen is also a cartoon - but in my case it's Bojack Horseman. That said, Bojack is this character type but without any of the romanticizing or making excuses for him. So it's not nearly as fun to watch, the narrative isn't generally on his side, and the viewer is unlike to want to fuck him. :P