[ SECRET POST #4384 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4384 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Mystery Science Theater 3000/The Flintstones]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Celebrity chef and food critic Andrew Zimmern]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Fantastic Beasts 2]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Jake Lacy]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Romeo + Juliet]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Anna Faris and Chris Evans in "What's Your Number?"]


__________________________________________________



08.
['Into You' by Ariana Grande]








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 49 secrets from Secret Submission Post #628.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - text comment ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

DA

[(Anonymous)]

They weren't for me, but I know they were for a lot of people ... when they were 15-20 years younger than they are now.

Later on, after some scrutiny, things don't hold up as well.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

They can be flawed as books, and also have good qualities. It doesn't have to be all nostalgia, and I don't think it is all nostalgia.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

No one is claiming it is all nostalgia, so I don't know who you're arguing against.

You can have a charming and engaging story, have a story that is very popular, have a story where many parts of it don't hold up or make sense on second thought, and be a mediocre writer. None of those things are exclusive traits.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

I took "Later on, after some scrutiny, things don't hold up as well" to mean that the books aren't actually charming or engaging.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

"As well" would imply "aren't as charming or engaging as they seemed to be at first," not "are devoid of merit without nostalgia"...

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but +1.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

That's your interpretation, I think. There are many, many things people loved at a younger age that doesn't charm or engage them at the same levels when they're older. That doesn't mean they were never charming or engaging, only that peoples' tastes change as they age.