[ SECRET POST #6471 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6471 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #925.
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]

01. https://i.imgur.com/QCaRefN.jpeg

[feotakahari]

You can see the learning process across the different books of Twilight, e.g. later villains had better setup than in the first book. People loved book 1 anyway.

[philstar22]

Same with the Eragon books. TBH I do like the first a little. Dragons make me happy. But the last two books are a massive leap in quality.

[(Anonymous)]

see: Harry Potter, Twilight

[(Anonymous)]

Harry Potter was not acclaimed by literature experts as the best modern children's book series by being bad. Hindsight about JK Rowling is 20/20, but the books on their own have lots of merit. They just have flaws, like every good book.

[(Anonymous)]

Both can be true.

On one hand, you gain more experience as a writer the more you work on the craft, especially if it is for a living.

On the other, entertainment is an industry that also heavily depends on Who Do You Know, and the more money there is, the more nepotism, and thus opportunities.

[(Anonymous)]

Or if you just happen to release a book or book series at the perfect time. I'm pretty sure this is why Harry Potter became so popular. (And no, not because of the movies, something I see thrown around a lot. The books were popular before the movies.)

[(Anonymous)]

The movies got made because the books were wildly popular.

[(Anonymous)]

It seems to me that you should basically just judge by the strength of the argument being made.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, that only holds if you assume that "it is possible to criticize this work" is the same thing as "this work is absolute, unredeemable garbage that nobody could possibly like". Which, spoilers, it is not.

[(Anonymous)]

There's a couple things going on here.
One is that a lot of professionally-made, widely-distributed stuff is in fact just bad. (So is a lot of non-professional stuff, but that stuff is less likely to get constantly shoved in your face and widely criticized by smart people.)

Another one is that it's a lot easier to criticize something, and even come up with ideas for how it could be better, than it is to actually make the better thing (which most good critics will readily acknowledge!) The creators can very often criticize their work just as accurately as Random Blog, but they're the ones who have to deal with the realities of following through.

And another one is that one person with a social media account is one person. They might be a really smart person! (they might be a terrible person who is wrong about everything, but if so, you hopefully wouldn't be reading their blog.) Anything mass-published is made by more than one person; even a book by a single author is going to have editors, publishers, and agents poking at it, and a movie or TV show will have hundreds. Your odds of getting dozens of people working together to average out as good as that Outlier Smart Critical Blog are pretty low! (They probably average out better than a couple dozen randomly selected critical blogs, though. there's a lot of bad media criticism out there.)

[meadowphoenix]

i think the assumption that the criticism is coming from "normal" person when almost everyone with a professional career, including those with careers in storytelling, has a social media account, and the assumption that criticism has an objective standard that can be overcome with experience, are both a little off.

[(Anonymous)]

Meh, can’t quite agree. In general humans are drawn to what's familiar more than what's new/different. Not all pieces of art are able to have the same levels of exposure. You can't account for all individual tastes merely based upon what everyone agrees is good/bad.

Sometimes, dumb shit is regarded as "good". Sometimes, I will pour my heart out about a piece of art/media that moved me and be met with blank stares and, "I didn't get it therefore I didn't like it."
Does it mean I have better taste than other people?
Fuck no.
I often think this means I have shit taste, and that's why I can't enjoy things seemingly everyone else likes a lot.

Sometimes, you just have to accept that crap is popular and quality stuff is misunderstood.
Sometimes, we get it right too though and the popular thing is worth the hype (and the shitty thing is flung into the dumpster by the general population and we never speak of it again).