[ SECRET POST #2632 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2632 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Game of Thrones]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Patrick Stump / Fall Out Boy]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Men in Black, Agent Coulson]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Twin Peaks]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Defenders of Berk/How To Train Your Dragon 2]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Lily Allen]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Attack on Titan]


__________________________________________________



09.
[The Brittas Empire]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Panic! at the Disco]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Frozen]













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 037 secrets from Secret Submission Post #376.
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

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah but I think there's also a certain "Star Trek sucks because it's not REAL SCIENCE" hard science fiction exceptionalism point of view in SF fandom sometimes. And that point of view is dumb (as is pretty much all hard science fiction exceptionalism). Star Trek science is definitely silly and it's full of technobabble.

[(Anonymous)]

Do Star Wars fans say that ["Star Trek sucks because it's not REAL SCIENCE"]? Because that would be really silly.

[(Anonymous)]

No that would definitely be super silly, haha.

I think it's more something you get from sci-fi books fandom. "Star Trek is not as rigorous as my favorite hard sci fi book, therefore it is solely intended for dumb idiot babbies."

[(Anonymous)]

If the people at stardestroyer.net don't feel that way, they sure act like they do.

[(Anonymous)]

The impression I've gotten from seeing SW fans diss Trek science is more backlash against Trekkers who shit on SW for the same thing, in the "WELL IT'S NOT LIKE YOUR FAVE IS ANY BETTER" sense.

Despite SW being my lifelong love, however, I have never ventured terribly deep into the dedicated fandom spaces for it, so I doubt I have been exposed to the depths of real batshit we SW folk are capable of coming up with.

(But I have Trek friends who diss SW's (lack of) science and man have I felt the urge to be like UH GUUUUUUYS at them over this, so I don't doubt this is where at least some of it is coming from.)

[feotakahari]

I mostly see that towards Star Wars. (Case in point: David Brin's whole rant about how true science fiction like Star Trek is populist and Star Wars is monarchist, or whatever the hell he was saying.)

[(Anonymous)]

Wait, what? If anything SW is anti-monarchist--the most extreme example of monarchism, the Emperor, is a Bad Thing and it's seen as a victory when he's eventually overthrown. Amidala is a queen but not a hereditary one, and I believe Naboo is basically democratic.

[feotakahari]

Make of it what you will. http://www.salon.com/1999/06/15/brin_main/

[ceebeegee]

Remember the final scene in “Return of the Jedi,” when Luke gazes into a fire to see Obi-Wan, Yoda and Vader, smiling in the flames? I found myself hoping it was Jedi Hell, for the amount of pain those three unleashed on their galaxy, and for all the damned lies they told. But that’s me. I’m a rebel against Homer and Achilles and that whole tradition. At heart, some of you are, too.

Oh my Lord. *shaking my head* Overwrought much?

[(Anonymous)]

...please explain to me how "the Force" is REAL SCIENCE...

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Yeah, well, hard science fiction fans are the pretentious dick-cheese of the genre, who would happily write Dick, Lem, Le Guin, and Vonnegut out of the picture for the sake of their Gernsback fetish.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

True fact, Einstein's theory of relativity started as a science fiction story about an impossible guy on an impossible train.

[(Anonymous)]

...except, I am a hard science fiction fan, and I have read and enjoyed every one of the authors you have mentioned. Additionaly, the only Gernsback I prefer is in The Gernsback Continuum.

Fairly difficult to write off Stanislaw Lem as "not hard SF" also, since most of his books are set IIIIINNN SPAAAAAAAACE btw.

Otherwise 1/10, you got me. :P

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Solaris is impossible. Which is the entire point. The alien intelligence is impossible and inexplicable except on an emotive level. Set in space doesn't make it hard SF.

So is the recursive narrative of Memoirs Found in a Bathtub.

So are the NAFAL and ansible of the Hain cycle, and Lathe? Talk about missing the fucking point.

[(Anonymous)]

You and the nonny you replied to need to get a room.

[(Anonymous)]

I reeeaaaally don't think they meant "every hard sci-fi fan evar!"

[(Anonymous)]

If being set in space was sufficient to make something hard SF, we wouldn't be having this whole conversation in the first place, because both Star Trek and Star Wars are set in space.

Anyway it's good that you're cool and like good books. Cool.

[(Anonymous)]

When you say "IIIIINNN SPAAAAAAAACE" that way, it makes me think of SPAAAACE GHOOOOOSSSTTTT, which is also categorized as sci fi, because it uses the world "space" in the title.

:P

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT - you don't have to tell me twice! I am right there with you on this one.

[skippydelicious]

Ah the "Hard Science Fiction" fans are snobs with everything. Which is amusing since most of their so-called "Hard SF" is actually just space guns with idealized armies, and the remainder is science that will get proven wrong in five years time. Remember all the "Hard SF" from the 40s and 50s with a lush jungle Venus, and everyone being taught to use a slide rule from age 5? The stuff since has got no less ridiculous.