[ SECRET POST #2465 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2465 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Twin Peaks]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Doonesbury, O Human Star]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Two of a Kind]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Cleopatra/Elizabeth Taylor]


__________________________________________________



06.
[The Final Descent by Rick Yancey]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Attack on Titan]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Sleepy Hollow]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Whitechapel]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Outlast]



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 021 secrets from Secret Submission Post #352.
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: Harry Potter

[(Anonymous)]

On the other hand, I'm fucking tired of people going on and on about how they think Harry Potter is shit in so many ways, without ever supporting their claims in any way whatsoever. It just comes off as "hey, look at me, I'm DIFFERENT".

JK Rowling was one hell of a good storyteller. Her books became a sensation in countless countries, in every age group, and with every gender. That's highly unusual, and it says a lot about the storytelling itself. That includes plot, naturally. So, laughable? No.

I also find it strange that you should laugh off the characterization when her characters have so many dimensions to them that over 6 years after the end of the series, and 16 years after the first book's release, people are still arguing over even the bigger details of these character. No one can come to any proper conclusion about characters like Snape or Dumbledore. I'd say that's good evidence that her characterization is pretty damn good.

Re: Harry Potter

[(Anonymous)]

I also find it strange that you should laugh off the characterization when her characters have so many dimensions to them that over 6 years after the end of the series, and 16 years after the first book's release, people are still arguing over even the bigger details of these character. No one can come to any proper conclusion about characters like Snape or Dumbledore. I'd say that's good evidence that her characterization is pretty damn good.

I think some of that stems from fan dissatisfaction. I also think the first two books are deceiving, because they are more obviously for children and a bit more simplistic in characterization. I'm not sure it's until the third book that we really start seeing all of those dimensions, and even then there's characters who aren't written as well as they could be.

Re: Harry Potter

[(Anonymous)]

I really think that's one of the big problems for me in HP:

I read it when I was a kid myself, and even then, I found the very one dimensional "evil=ugly and mean" characters annoying. But that's just the way a lot of children's books are and I loved them very dearly nonetheless. The problem was that it wasn't until book 4 that the characterisation started changing and becoming more subtle. And that was a bit too late, for my taste, to start backtracking with a lot of characters. I always thought the whole "Snape's evil!" - "Now he's good!" - "Now evil again" - "Or maybe good after all?" thing was very inconsistent and silly.

Generally, I thought the series never did the transition from "cute children's book" to "young adult fantasy lit and WIZARD WAR; PEOPLE DYING!" very well.

Re: Harry Potter

[(Anonymous)]

Wow, you're a moron. Everyone's nice and respectful in this thread, and then you come along and it's like you can't even READ (I guess that explains why you like HP though lol).