[ SECRET POSTS #2128 & 2129 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Posts #2128 & 2129 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Time Lincoln]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Avatar: the Last Airbender]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Once Upon a Time]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Repo the Genetic Opera]


__________________________________________________



06.
[The Avengers]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Homestuck/Touhou]


__________________________________________________



08.
[ElfQuest/Wendy Pini]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Reservoir Dogs + HBO's Oz]


__________________________________________________



10.
[The Walking Dead]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Covert Affairs]


__________________________________________________



12.
[Ouran Host Club]


__________________________________________________



13.
[Jae Joong from DBSK and JYJ]


__________________________________________________



14.
[Elementary]


__________________________________________________



15.
[The Girls Next Door]


__________________________________________________



16.
[Steven Moffat]


__________________________________________________



17.
[Star Trek: The Next Generation]


__________________________________________________



18.
[Alan Cumming/Son of the Mask]


__________________________________________________



19.
[The New Normal]


__________________________________________________



20.
[Mass Effect]


__________________________________________________



21.
[Tsubasa Reservoir Chronicle/xxxHolic]


__________________________________________________



22.
[Resident Evil 6]


__________________________________________________



23.
[Revenge/The Social Network]


__________________________________________________



24.
[Cardcaptor Sakura]


__________________________________________________



25.
[Glee]


__________________________________________________



26.
[Khimeros]


__________________________________________________



27.
[Once Upon a Time]


__________________________________________________



28.
[Gregory House/Lady Gaga]


__________________________________________________



29.
[Glee]


__________________________________________________



30.
[The Walking Dead]


__________________________________________________



31.
[Madonna "Die Another Day" MV, BEG "Sixth Sense" MV]


__________________________________________________



32.
[Doctor Who]


__________________________________________________



33.


__________________________________________________



34.


__________________________________________________



35.


__________________________________________________



36.


__________________________________________________



37.


__________________________________________________



38.


__________________________________________________



39.


__________________________________________________



40.


__________________________________________________








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 046 secrets from Secret Submission Post #304.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I think I'm in the small group of people who actually like his writing. That said, there's nothing wrong with wanting people to be invested in your story, actually that's what I always aim for.

And I don't even get why people hate him or his writing, emulating his style got me my highest grade yet at degree level.

[(Anonymous)]

I really don't mean to be insulting, but how long past getting that degree are you? Because there is much, MUCH better out there, trust me. More than that, WHAT are they teaching you?

If you really really want to exercise your mind and read good writing, start with the classics! Start with the inspiration for the TARDIS, Wells' Time Machine. The loosely-based '80s movie adaptation "Time After Time" actually wasn't half-bad either. Anything written by Nicholas Meyer is a safe bet; I also recommend The Seven Percent Solution (book AND the movie) and Star Trek IV for exactly that reason; if you want characters that are NOT two-dimensional, start reading anywhere before 1984. (OK, that's not fair, you've got to read Neuromancer. Though those aren't exactly the most 3D characters, at times, it is a 2D world-building exercise, so.) A Clockwork Orange! (OK maybe not if you squick easily and/or don't like/read violence.) Dhalgren! (OK maybe not Dhalgren, that's a bit hard to get into, and to be fair, I still haven't read it myself. Terrible person I am, I know, I know.) Definitely READ "1984" and any and everything Orwell (witness our own society laid out before you, a hundred years previously.) Ignore any and everything your teachers have ever told you about Orwell and his books, by the way.

Read the original Arthur Conan Doyle Canon. The plasticky gimmicky BBC Sherlock will never look the same again, trust me. (And watch the Granada adaptation, if you can, that was the most faithful.)

READ TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. If there is one book on this list I insist you read (if you're even reading this screeching screed of mine at all LOL), READ TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Flowers for Algernon too, you are missing something in your life if you have never read that book. Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld books! (Trust me. The TV series did NOT do PJF justice. In any way, shape, form, or fashion, whatsoever. At all.)

Ursula LeGuin! You want three-dimensional characters you REALLY will be emotionally invested in? Read LeGuin! (The Hainish aren't even human, but believe you me, if you don't get emotionally invested, you are made out of SOLID ROCK!) Her world-building will make you drool, anon. Also find a copy of "The Word For World is Forest" if you can find it. The Dispossessed, The Left Hand of Darkness, The Lathe of Heaven. (Especially The Lathe of Heaven. Do NOT, I implore you, watch ANY of the adaptations.)

TL;DR: You like Moffat's writing? START READING ANON. Read anything. Start anywhere. START READING. You won't be singing that tune for very much longer, I guarantee you. And I seriously question what that degree program of yours had you reading.....

[(Anonymous)]

There was a good point in there, but you conveyed it in such a dickish way.

[(Anonymous)]

Read the original Arthur Conan Doyle Canon. The plasticky gimmicky BBC Sherlock will never look the same again, trust me.
My god, do you actually believe Arthur Conan Doyle is a literary great?

I admire what he did for the crime genre, I admire that he was able to create such an iconic figure in Holmes, but a "great writer" he is not. I wouldn't even call him a good writer.

[dirac]

+1

way to lose credibility

[(Anonymous)]

do you actually think moffat's sherlock is better? at least the original had a psychologically consistent main character. the same can in no way be said for bbc sherlock's titular character, who is all over the map without regard for psychology or sense. (nayrt and i dont think acd is a masterpiece but i think bbc's sherlock is worse. certain elements of the show work, but the psychological bits - sherlock's actions and the motivations of the criminal - are so absolutely nonsensical and inconsistent and inadequate that the show barely qualifies as a classic detective story, which rely primarily on psychology

[dirac]

Anon, I never compared the two.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt, and ia the comment you are responding to is pretentious as hell

but while i dont consider arthur conan doyle a literary great, i consider the original sherlock holmes (and several television adaptations) to be substantially better than the BBC version, so i think that was one of the few relevant (though obvious and probably unnecessary) recommendations

acd's sherlock is so much better than moffat's, i'm not even sure it's arguable. the original is realistic, it matches real people, real psychological profiles. moffat's sherlock, like many of his characters, is just a set of stereotypes and supposedly desirable "antisocial intellectual television badass" traits thrown haphazardly together IMO. it's way too inconsistent. that by default makes the original stories much better than the television series to me

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

I think it's worthwhile reading the original books, yeah, but I don't think reading them will automatically make people love them or see their superiority to Moffat et al's adaptation. Such things come down to taste and opinion. Personally, my opinion is the reverse of yours: neither of them are "greats", but I like Sherlock way more than I like Conan Doyle. It's very subjective and, yes, it is arguable because when it comes down to it, it's my likes and dislikes against your likes and dislikes.

I find it strange, though, that your argument is based on Sherlock being inconsistent when Conan Doyle famously couldn't remember Watson's first name or the location of his war wound.

[(Anonymous)]

eh, fair enough, not that youll necessarily agree but i was talking about the titular character, not the overall plots. thats why i spoke of psychology. i think moffat writes good plots, i think his psychology/understanding of people is whats lacking. sherlock bbc may have more consistent plots than conan doyle. i dont doubt it. but i think sherlock himself in sherlock bbc is fundamentally inconsistent and trying to be too much at once. sherlocks sexual encounters alone strike me as as OOC and fan servicey as when dexter started having sex on that show (if youre familiar with it.) and no, im not a sherlock-is-an-asexual type or a sherlock-is-gay type. i dont care about that but the nature of the encounters were not consistent with his character. there are plenty of other things but i just dont think he works the way the original does. there are plenty of people like the RL sherlock. moffats, not so much imo.

i also think the psychology of moffats criminals is less convincing than acd's. bbc's sherlock may be more consistent about tiny details. which would matter immensely if we were real life cops or forensic experts looking at a police report. but because we're not, most mysteries rely heavily on psychology for clues and convincing (to the audience) evidence. imo, sherlock bbc falls flat on this, whereas conan doyle did a solid enough job.just wanted to clarify my complaints with the show

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, then.

My opinions are basically the reverse of yours, but then, that's why it's called an opinion. :D

[cbrachyrhynchos]

This strikes me as comparing apples and oranges. A television series constrained by production to one or two-part episodes is a radically different form from a novel. I think that form poses some serious problems for character development. Character relationships need to be quickly comprehensible to people watching out of sequence, but still develop over time for repeat viewers. BBC fares better than most at this by having much shorter "series."

Something that puts me off mainstream American television production is that the standard way of dealing with this is to introduce a conflict early in the season, have the characters act like fools ignoring the conflict for 20 episodes, and offer to resolve it with a bang in a series finale that usually leaves the conflict unresolved as a cliffhanger for the next season.

[i_paint_the_sky]

I have read a lot, have a degree in English Literature, and I still love Moffat's writing. So you may want to rethink that guarantee of yours as the dick move it actually is.

[intrigueing]

Are you fucking serious? That is SO NOT how emotional investment works. At all. Actual human beings don't coldly, calculatingly make a rational decision to care about X character from X work because it's objectively better-written or less flawed than Y character from Y work. Things grab you against your will and don't let you go and make you care whether you want to or not. You obviously know nothing about fiction or human emotion. You sound like a computer program, and a soulless, highly limited one at that.

I love To Kill a Mockingbird, and Catcher in the Rye, and Lord of the Flies, and Huckleberry Finn and Catch 22 and Charles Dickens and frickin' Shakespeare and I've loved them all and cared about them all. Does the fact that I care about them in ANY way make me magically, mysteriously stop caring about...geez, Futurama? The Simpsons? How I Met Your Mother? Marvel and DC comics and comic-book movies? Harry Potter? South Park? Star Trek? And, yes, Doctor Who? Not even a tiny little bit. And I read that ~great literature and LOVED it long before I ever started getting into the vast majority of the far-less sophisticated and high-quality stuff I also love now.

I don't know what kind of horrifically stunted mind and soul you have that reading high-quality stuff somehow destroys your enjoyment of low-quality stuff, and I sure as fuck hope I never know. High-quality works have hightened my appreciation of low-quality stuff, because I can pick out little glimmers of awesomeness, the little moments where they hit on something great, the little subtle connections that give them so much more meaning. I honestly can't imagine what it's like having a mind like yours.

[dirac]

seriously, anon? you think that the best way to get someone interested in books you like is to pull assumptions out of your ass and be generally condescending?

did you think this through at all, or are you just genuinely oblivious?

the fact that they like moffat's writing doesn't indicate what their tastes are in general. they could have very well read and enjoyed all, or none of the books you listed. YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING.