Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2020-01-10 06:48 pm
[ SECRET POST #4753 ]
⌈ Secret Post #4753 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04. [SPOILERS for Sanditon]

[Lord Babington/Esther Denham]
__________________________________________________
05. [SPOILERS for Legion]

__________________________________________________
06. [SPOILERS for Doctor Who, Life Is Strange]

__________________________________________________
07. [SPOILERS for Doctor Who]

__________________________________________________
08. [WARNING for discussion of abuse]

__________________________________________________
09. [WARNING for discussion of sexual abuse of a minor]

Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 07 secrets from Secret Submission Post #680.
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.

no subject
https://i.imgur.com/qVrLco9.png
[Lord Babington/Esther Denham]
no subject
(Anonymous) 2020-01-11 12:20 am (UTC)(link)*****SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING******
(Anonymous) 2020-01-11 12:42 am (UTC)(link)If you're looking for something that's more purist Austen, no. Many of the elements are there, but it's a little spiced up - though not that much, IMO. Just by Austen standards and IIRC there's more male nudity (back, topless) than female nudity. And there's incest, which wouldn't have turned up in an Austen novel, either.
But honestly, none of that bothered me nearly as much as the bit where the heroine rushes off to London to search for her friend - all on her own, having never been there before in her life, without an escort. And people don't go apeshit over it. I mean, they get a little upset, but they don't act like this is something that young ladies of good breeding absolutely did NOT do, which was more likely the case.
Re: *****SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING******
(Anonymous) 2020-01-11 01:11 am (UTC)(link)Re: *****SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING******
(Anonymous) 2020-01-11 01:23 am (UTC)(link)Re: *****SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING******
(Anonymous) 2020-01-11 05:17 am (UTC)(link)Re: *****SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING******
(Anonymous) 2020-01-11 06:36 pm (UTC)(link)