[ SECRET POST #5561 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5561 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 32 secrets from Secret Submission Post #797.
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)]

Ah yes, fuck those widows and children and also all those people who worked closely with your favorite author and are probably deeply saddened by their loss.

[(Anonymous)]

Not the OP, but when I encounter works by authors who have passed away... they more often than not died quite some time ago. This wouldn't really apply.

[(Anonymous)]

If an author wrote a book in 1970 and then died soon after, their children are over 50.

My dad died when I was a kid and I don't get royalties from the people who walk on all the sidewalks he poured.

[dantesspirit]

Apples and Oranges. Pretty sure the *city* or *town* or *what have you* would have owned the sidewalks he poured, not him. Also pretty sure he would have been *paid for doing his job of pouring sidewalks.*

[(Anonymous)]

This!

[(Anonymous)]

And the author already got paid for their book -- royalties comes after the advance and initial investment in publishing the work have been made up for. Without royalties, it's not like the author got paid nothing (and of course, many authors never see actual royalties realized from their works).

[dantesspirit]

The difference is that *the author still owns the rights to the books*. The guy who poured the sidewalks? Doesn't own them, never owned them, is not entitled to anything in regards to monetary compensation from them, *after he finished the job he was paid to do*.

[(Anonymous)]

The other two commenters above are using such a bad faith reading of your comment. Of course it’s different if it’s almost old enough to enter the public domain, you didn’t say anything to indicate anything against that. But just because some books have had authors pass away decades ago, and all the children are grown adults, doesn’t mean that’s every case. Some authors have died recently, and have young children. OP doesn’t even consider that scenario, and that’s all you were pointing out.

This should be obvious to anyone not looking to willfully misinterpret you in order to spout their bad take of “what about authors that died a long time ago with adult children?”. What about them? They aren’t the ones being directly talked about in your comment. But that doesn’t mean they’re being ignored in by it either. And OP already seems to think every author who’s deceased while not being in the public domain is an author that died decades ago, so what’s the point in bringing that scenario up as if it’s a new take that will blow anyone’s mind in response to you? I swear, this place sometimes...

[(Anonymous)]

It's not a bad faith reading to point out that it just isn't something that happens very often in my experience. I read a lot. I have never experienced an author whose works I love dying where they weren't of advanced age.

OP probably didn't mention dead authors with young children in their secret because it's also rare in their experience. You know, to give OP the benefit of the doubt too before jumping to, "Oh the humanity of this place, I can't believe people sometimes~"

[(Anonymous)]

I do give OP the benefit of the doubt in other ways, because I don’t really care of other people pirate things. It’s 100% not my business. I don’t pirate anything unless it’s something that isn’t likely to ever be legally available where I live. And I don’t celebrate people who proudly pirate everything. But I don’t actually care about the actual act of them pirating. So OP choosing to pirate whatever books they want isn’t an issue, whether I agree or disagree with the actual reasoning they give or not. And as for the other part, I can at least believe that they legitimately didn’t consider the possibility of recently deceased authors with young children, because their secret wasn’t inherently dismissive and snide like the comments I was talking about.

People die all the time, and there’s plenty of authors in this world, so how is it so rare for an author’s death to be recent as to not even consider the possibility? That’s where I don’t get you and the other commenters, and OP to a degree. Something being allegedly rare doesn’t mean it’s not worth considering.

And for the record, I read a lot too, and have been an avid bookworm for as long as you likely have. Saying that as some kind of mark of credibility doesn’t really work when you’re assuming without basis that the person you’re talking to isn’t the same. Maybe you weren’t assuming that, but I don’t see the reasoning behind “I read a lot, so I’d know about more authors being dead for a long time” if it wasn’t an implication. Maybe that’s a failing of mine, and I’m off base. I’m not going to pretend it would be the first time that I was.

And I wasn’t actually talking about OP and when I mentioned this place, just the two commenters above me. And it wasn’t “oh the humanity”, it was “yeah, this place definitely earns it’s reputation for having a good amount of people willfully misinterpreting everything in order to be cross, and make bad faith takes”. You haven’t really disproven that the two commenters above me(maybe one is you) weren’t doing just that by acting like the first anon was wrong or had no point just because a lot of deceased authors have been that way for decades. Again, something being less common doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter, and reacting to someone pointing out the outlier like it’s automatically irrelevant just because it’s not as common isn’t a great take. There point was still relevant, but I don’t see what actual relevance the whataboutism of the two commenters was.

[(Anonymous)]

I am the first commenter. The anon who started this thread came in aggressive af and basically accused OP of daring to not think of the children, the poor orphaned children! So I just wanted to point out that, y'know, oftentimes there aren't any poor widdle children at hand to consider. Not saying there can never be, but again, not common. Hence: "wouldn't really apply."

And you... hoo! You're definitely looking for something to get mad about. It's pretty funny to me that you consider the two comments here to be sooo dismissive in tone that it's gotten you in this much of a huff, yet fail to take into account that we're just responding in kind to the tone set by the original comment, which started out with an obscenity ffs. You, that commenter, all part of the problem you seem to be taking so much offense to.

[(Anonymous)]

I never said the tone of the original commenter wasn’t aggressive, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t still have a point that you two proceeded to ignore. Tone isn’t the be all end all of a discussion. If you think they phrased it badly, that’s fair enough. But ignoring the entire point with a whataboutism is exactly what I meant when I called your comment bad faith. Bad faith comments can be unintentional, by the by. And the passive aggressive dismissiveness you and the other commenter displayed was still completely based in ignoring arguments that you don’t like. So you weren’t fighting fire with fire, it was an entirely different kind of nastiness. And it was transparently disingenuous. I don’t exactly love giving in to nastiness, I don’t like conflict at all. But like you said, I’m just responding in kind to the tone you set.

And “No U” and “lol u mad” is really the only arguments you choose to offer? That’s what you’re actually going with? Okay bud, whatever makes you happy.

[(Anonymous)]

"I don’t exactly love giving in to nastiness, I don’t like conflict at all. But like you said, I’m just responding in kind to the tone you set."

i hope one day you will realise how obnoxious people are who think they're such peaceful and reasonable people ~unless provoked~. if the above comments are all it takes for you to "give in to nastiness" you do in fact love it, you just prefer to think you don't.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh no no, it has nothing to do with being peaceful and reasonable. It has to with my anxiety making me want to end conflict by any means necessary most of the time. Even if it means completely buckling. It’s honestly kind of cowardly, admittedly. And I’m the one who still puts myself out there, even if it’s not always directly responding, so I have nobody else to blame for being part of the conflict.

[dantesspirit]

"I have never experienced an author whose works I love dying where they weren't of advanced age. "

I have. Her works are still copyrighted for decades more. She was only 54. (Australian author Sara Douglass (Sara Warneke) for those curious.)

So it does happen, more often than you'd think. We just don't really think about it.

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly!