[ SECRET POST #4852 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4852 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 61 secrets from Secret Submission Post #694.
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

[fscom]

04. https://i.imgur.com/gH7ZCdm.png

[(Anonymous)]

Is this something about making dragons biologically accurate, i.e. what they would have to be like if they actually existed? Or is this some kind of narrative device, like "Oh, you think you know the story? Well let me tell you the REAL story..."

[(Anonymous)]

OP of original comment. He has firm ideas about what would actually happen if dragons existed (they would be universally evil, conquer everything, take over the world, be unstoppable) and thinks that every other dragon author has gotten them wrong. He went about writing his series to correct how wrong other fantasy has gotten how the interactions between dragons and humans would go if dragons actually existed.

[(Anonymous)]

Ugh, thanks for the heads up! There's so many ways that this could be argued against!

[tabaqui]

I remember seeing this in comments and yeah - how friggin' insufferable. Won't be touching those books with a ten-foot pole.

[(Anonymous)]

Why, for some reason, do I have a sneaking suspicion that the rest of the biosphere in the book was "ravaged modern" rather that "evolved alongside"?

[(Anonymous)]

How dare they get these fictional creatures that can be whatever the author wants them to be wrong!

[(Anonymous)]

What's so funny about this is how completely boring, traditional and backwards that opinion is. Centuries upon centuries if art, literature and legend have depicted dragons that way - it's really nothing revolutionary or new.

[(Anonymous)]

But... If it wasn't for the shitty personality would you still like the basis of the story? Technically you might still like everything with dragons in it, you just aren't willing to tolerate someone who gives dragons a bad name. I mean, totally makes sense, I swear.

[(Anonymous)]

I"m the OP of the comment, and I couldn't make it through the first of his books. The author's arrogance and belief that only he writes dragons correctly comes across in his writing. And the writing just isn't that good.