[ SECRET POST #2457 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2457 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 038 secrets from Secret Submission Post #351.
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

Re: OP here

[(Anonymous)]

With all possible respect, I think you are riding this train well past the point where the stations end.

Lovecraft was a batshit-loony racist asshole who never wrote a single line of dialogue for a female character, which is a relief since the very few lines of dialogue he wrote for his interchangeable male characters were, uniformly, fucking awful.

He created the genre of cosmic horror largely out of his own crippling mental and emotional disorders, and those who have come after him have done some extraordinarily good work in that genre, mostly because literally all of them are more talented writers than he was.

So if you want to say that some of those followup writers are not meeting the standards of gender-progressivism that you'd like them to, that is totally a legitimate critique, and fair enough.

But if you're saying that they're less progressive than Howard Phillips Motherfucking Lovecraft, there are two problems with your theory. First, the author is dead and your theory is irrelevant, and second, even if the author weren't dead, your theory would be insupportably ridiculous.

So, y'know, there's that.

Re: OP here

[(Anonymous)]

"So if you want to say that some of those followup writers are not meeting the standards of gender-progressivism that you'd like them to, that is totally a legitimate critique, and fair enough."

That's what I'm saying.