[ SECRET POST #6021 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6021 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.
























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 44 secrets from Secret Submission Post #861.
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)]

No offense meant, but so does J.K. Rowling.

Don't get me wrong I think she's a good storyteller, but a great writer? No. She's barely passible in that regard.

[(Anonymous)]

She's a not a great writer, but she's a good one. Or at least a serviceable one. Anyone who thinks she's a bad writer is an elitist.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Anyone who thinks she's a bad writer is an elitist.

Not remotely true.

[(Anonymous)]

No offense meant, but no. Just no. She has a decent grasp on grammar and basic story structure, but as far as world building goes, the real bones of a story that requires deep thought and detailed construction, J.K. is lazy, at best, negligent at worst.

[(Anonymous)]

DA - What happened is that she pulled a genre switch halfway through the series and the world-building that she'd set up initially, which was fine for a Dahl-esque boarding school adventure with wizards, suddenly either had Unfortunate Implications or just didn't make any damn sense in the more complex world she was now trying to write. Rowling doesn't really have the writing chops to reconcile the tone shift, but she also didn't try that hard to do so. And that seems to be more down to intellectual laziness on her part? She either doesn't understand or doesn't care that there's a difference between dropping an anvil on Wile E. Coyote in a Bugs Bunny cartoon and dropping an anvil on Oz on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. You can see this in the main stories, but it's really obvious in the "world building" she's done since the series ended.

[greghousesgf]

Her writing is elitist.

[(Anonymous)]

I'll grant you serviceable. As long as you turn your brain off and don't think about anything too hard, and you're not part of any of the groups that she openly mocks (e.g., too fat, too thin, gay, overly feminine, not feminine enough, not English, not the right kind of English, etc.) you can read her books and have a good time. They're like Asylum films with a higher budget. Good is a hell of a stretch though.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, you do have a point there.

I dunno, a couple of years ago I read a series of essays about the character archetypes in Twilight and how they were terrible, and the versions that people should be writing. (And ngl, I thought they were terrible, too.)

But I can't call them unsuccessful, either. They engaged their target audience like whoah.

So how do we define 'good', exactly?