[ SECRET POST #2619 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2619 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Pushing Daisies]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Dallas Buyers Club]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Bravely Default]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Fake & Kuroko no Basuke]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Warehouse 13]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Willem Dafoe]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Dexter]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Rooster Teeth]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Lost Girl]


__________________________________________________
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 028 secrets from Secret Submission Post #374.
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

[making_excuses]

Kinda off topic, but I am sick of tired of this line of thinking:

To make it as clear as I can: I've read since I was 5 years old, in English from 5th grade, I am in my 4th year of higher education I am not too stupid or uneducated to understand ACD's style, nor JRR Tolkiens* for that matter. I just don't enjoy it. So for fucks sake can't people just stop using those excuses when talking about it, not everyone enjoys all styles of writing and it is not a character flaw. And as with everything else in life not everyone likes the same things as you do and that is okay.

*I do enjoy some of the classical Norwegian literature, but most of it is similar to Tolkien/ACD/Shakespeare and so on and I don't connect to that in the same way as modern literature.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you agreeing with or arguing against the secret? Because I think the point of the secret was that saying you just don't like it is preferable to blaming the writing for being too impenetrable or whatever.

Although their adding the 'nothing wrong with not being a big reader' part does sort of imply that if you are a big reader, naturally you should be reading ACD, so maybe not? Now I'm confused.

[making_excuses]

I am ranting. That was and still is the only purpose of this comment, I should probably have made that clearer? If you blame the writing you get called too stupid to get it in my experience, so saying you don't understand it is probably preferable for some people to state as a reason to why they didn't like ACD.

I didn't like the way the secret was worded, but I wasn't really arguing for or against it. Tho that is the part that made me want to rant...

[inevitableentresol]

It's good to rant sometimes.

I find ACD's style clear and enjoyable and his flow of words excellent, but I keep being pulled out of his stories by his racist ideas like 'criminal types' and Sherlock's smug reliance on fake sciences like phrenology.

Just because I don't like the stories doesn't mean I have difficulty understanding them. Even though that wasn't the exact point of the secret, it annoys me too.

I felt like having a good old rant on this subject, then I came here and saw you'd been ahead of me and done it, although at a slightly different angle. All the satisfaction with minimal effort. Excellent.

[making_excuses]

It is one of my hobbies...

I don't really know, I've read a bit here and there and it just can't hold my interest, I can't exactly comment on how his writing style is except I am pretty sure the style wasn't the only reason to why it didn't hold my interest.

It might not have been the exact point of the secret, but I felt like it was a step away from saying it, and I just don't get this attitude.

You are more than welcome to write your own rant, I would be interested in reading it!

[(Anonymous)]

More classist than racist, but yes, the ideas often grate to modern ears. I can elide over them or see them in the historical context whilst enjoying the story, and sometimes ACD surprises one.

As you say, you weren't actually addressing OP's actual point.

[(Anonymous)]

They're not really doing either one, they're seizing the comment thread as an opportunity to rant about their personal hobbyhorse that's only tangentially related to the secret.

[making_excuses]

That is what I generally do...

When we get more secrets on topics we haven't discussed to death and I care about I will start commenting on the secrets again...

[(Anonymous)]

But you're not obligated to comment, period. If a secret doesn't interest you and you don't want to talk about it, you have the choice of not commenting at all. Hijacking a comment thread so you can discuss a topic you like better is pretty douchey. Why not do start a thread in General Comments and leave the boring topic to the people who actually do want to discuss it?

[making_excuses]

Which would be true if I didn't talk about anything near the topic, nor did I actually intend to make an huge discussion out of it. When did I say it was boring? I said we have discussed basically this exact same topic a couple of weeks ago and my original comment was a mix of a reaction to this exact secret and the one(s) we had earlier...

So yes I didn't stay completely on topic, and I clearly marked my original comment as such, and as far as I know Case is okay with us discussing stuff in the secret threads as long as we don't go completely off topic or deliberately trolled so I didn't break any community rules. Nor did I force anyone to comment, heck I could have saved myself some grief and commented Anon.

I am baffled by how my comment stopped anyone from discussing the secret?

[(Anonymous)]

Do you like Beowulf? (Not exactly Norwegian, I know.)

[making_excuses]

I don't think I've ever read it... Maybe some paragraphs during High School, so I have no opinion of it at all...

[(Anonymous)]

So, are you thinking more in terms of books like Kristin Lavransdatter?

[making_excuses]

In lines of Ibsen, Bjørnson, Kjelland and Lie and of course the females that wrote at the same time.

Oh and Snorre...

[(Anonymous)]

Except the secret maker was specifically addressing people who claim that Doyle's style is too difficult. Since, as you say, you understand it just fine--you just don't like it--you're taking this awfully personally for something that isn't addressed to you.

[making_excuses]

That is also a perfectly valid claim, I find it amusing that people on the internet will be all up in arms if anyone says they don't get how people can't read subtitles, but finding classic literature difficult is something you can make fun of?

I am not really taking anything personally, I felt like ranting, so I did. I even added the slightly off topic at the start to show that it was just an in general thing...

[sarillia]

I'm pretty sure the people who defend not reading subtitles aren't the same ones who make fun of people who claim classic literature is difficult. And in my experience, it's a pretty even split among people who will defend subtitle haters and people who will attack them. I haven't seen the internet be up in arms over that.

[making_excuses]

Not that discussion, the discussion that some people have issues reading subtitles because they can't read fast enough... Not the sub vs dub thing...

[sarillia]

That's what I'm talking about too. I haven't seen significantly more people defending those who have trouble reading subtitles than attacking them. Sadly.

[making_excuses]

Hm, then sorry for that. And now I am wondering which side you are on as apparently I can't read things and understanding them today... Which side are you on?

[sarillia]

I think that there are intelligent people who can't read very fast and that's fine and I also think there are not so intelligent people who can't read very fast and there's nothing wrong with that either. People are mean.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't get it...what does reading slowly have to do with claiming ACD is difficult? I have no problem with people who have difficulty with subs, but I will raise an eyebrow at people who whinge about how ACD's prose is incomprehensible.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

People who say that have clearly never read ACD.

[sarillia]

This is a tangent about arguments over people who can't read subtitles well because making_excuses was reminded of that. It doesn't have much to do with ACD.

I also disagree with people who say that ACD's writing is difficult to read but sometimes that's what the fans will assume they mean when they say they don't like it. It's another one of those cases where people aren't allowed to just dislike something, there has to be some justification. And some people rely on the reputation of Victorian literature for their justification.