[ SECRET POST #6971 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6971 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.
























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 06 secrets from Secret Submission Post #995.
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

Fandom Pet Peeves

[(Anonymous)]

What are some of yours (something a bit less dark than the above).

Ignoring a characters looks

[(Anonymous)]

I get annoyed when people describe a character in their fic and it's not the reality of that character. It seems to coincide with the worst offenders of "one is waifish and short and needs rescuing, and the other is tall and strong and rescues" scenarios.

For some reason people love to make their bottom characters blonde and curly haired when they are neither in the source material.

Re: Fandom Pet Peeves

[kaijinscendre]

Stupid, ALL CAPS Thor. Steve Rogers being a goody two shoes. Thank Josh. :/

First person POV. When someone tags something (especially a kink or trope) and it barely shows up. When you put improper use of devil fruit powers, I WANT A TON OF IT!

Exaggerated height/size difference

[(Anonymous)]

When two characters canonically have a *minimal* height difference and shippers exaggerate it to the extreme.

Epithets, as always. "He looked down at the shorter man..."

Re: Exaggerated height/size difference

[(Anonymous)]

I don't mind epithets as long as they don't get out of hand.

But I will never not laugh at "bluenette."

Re: Exaggerated height/size difference

[(Anonymous)]

If I never see a "raven haired man" again it'll still be too early.

Re: Fandom Pet Peeves

[(Anonymous)]

I hate spoiler culture. If you think accurately tagging your fic will "spoil" it, then it deserves to be spoiled. Tag your damn fic.

Re: Fandom Pet Peeves

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like this is really a YMMV thing because I can definitely think of fics I've read where having everything tagged WOULD have spoiled a significant part of the fic.

Re: Fandom Pet Peeves

[(Anonymous)]

Nah. I just pick 'choose not to warn' and let people make their own choices if I feel like tagging will spoil something.

Re: Fandom Pet Peeves

[(Anonymous)]

“It deserves to be spoiled” is quite the take. Do you feel the same way about entertainment you pay for or are you only an entitled ass about free works?

Re: Fandom Pet Peeves

[(Anonymous)]

Are you an ass to your family, or just randos on the internet?

Re: Fandom Pet Peeves

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt's family isn't relevant to this discussion. Why are you bringing them up?

Re: Fandom Pet Peeves

[(Anonymous)]

Because I'm very doubtful you have friends. If you have no one, that would explain your shitty socialization.

Re: Fandom Pet Peeves

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT I don’t know why you think I wouldn’t call out my family (or friends) for being an entitled ass. Of course I would! I just don’t happen to have to since none of them are.
Now that I’ve answered your question hopefully you’ll answer mine.

Re: Fandom Pet Peeves

[(Anonymous)]

No, this is what "choose not to warn" is for. If you want to be spoiled, or to check if [thing you don't want to read] is in it, just ask the author.

Re: Fandom Pet Peeves

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not revealing the twist. Deal with it.

Kinks... okay, sure, that's fair.

Re: Fandom Pet Peeves

[nocowardsoul]

When a character makes a joke and people take it literally - that's fine in a fic or headcanon, the annoying thing is acting like the literal interpretation is canon.

Re: Fandom Pet Peeves

[(Anonymous)]

Calling every character who's written as weird or who's interested in any one thing autistic coded. And it's worse if they call the writers ableist if anything slightly bad happens to the character. This is kind of brought on by someone needing to leave any -ism unaccounted for with JK Rowling; apparently she's now also bad for "abusing" Luna Lovegood and Charlie Weasley, who are autistic because "weird" and "likes dragons." Because the average middle class Brit totally had "autistic" in their vocabulary when those characters were invented.