[ SECRET POST #6269 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6269 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.


































Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 19 secrets from Secret Submission Post #896.
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)]

For me it's "snuck," especially in historical fiction. I do understand it's a word that dates to the 19th century, but it still feels modern and North American to me. I recently encountered it in a novel about Agatha Christie's disappearance, in a chapter that was supposed to be her diary. The word does not appear in any work by Christie, where she would say someone "slipped out," not "snuck out." It was one of a number of issues that reminded me the author was North American, and made me feel like she hadn't actually read much Christie before writing a bovl about her.

[(Anonymous)]

I would rather "snuck" than "sneaked." I haaaaate "sneaked."

[(Anonymous)]

And yet sneaked is historically correct. Funny old world.

[(Anonymous)]

What can I say? I love irregular verbs.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT-- my issue isn't so much which word I prefer, it's which word fits into the place and time in the story. I have never seen snuck used in a British mystery written in WWII or before, or in anything by Agatha Christie. So if it's used in a book from that period, or in a passage supposedly written by Christie, is jars me.