Re: Yes, But...

Cupcakes--Legendary Badfic? by WarriorJoe on 2011-09-18 20:48:00 UTC Reply

Hello, all, I'm WarriorJoe, you might not remember me and that's okay! I've been away for a loooong time.

But now, I'm back, and for my first performance I'd like to do something I don't think has been done since I LEFT--I'd like to nominate a fic for Legendary Badfic status.

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING FIC IS ONLY TO BE READ BY THE EXTREMELY STOUT OF HEART; IT'S PRETTY GRIM MATE

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qTTzMqlRTHeHIarZZhwQhADc-1aff9fkHKWx-kn0wMk/edit?hl=enUS

DEAR GOD CLICKING THAT LINK WOULD BE A MISTAKE

How bad is it? BEHOLD BELOW

<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y22auaarOcpQWOiMG2bLBWIFgrbcDDXchi6n-27a0/edit?hl=enUS">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y22auaarOcpQWOiMG2bLBWIFgrbcDDXchi6n-27a0/edit?hl=en_US

OR DON'T, THAT'S ALSO ALRIGHT

This thing is torture for torture's sake, there's no story to it, no exploration of the characters, no anything involving the setting--just pure, unadulterated torture porn. There's cannibalism, killing of minor, supporting, AND unnamed background characters for no good reason, the complete and UTTER replacement of Pinkie Pie, and on top of all that there's an uncensored version I CAN'T find which, according to reliable hearsay, had sexual torture in it as well. AND, it uses "anybody". The in-canon term is "anypony".

It reminds me, honestly, of Agony in Pink. And when that's the FIRST story that springs to mind as a comparison...

Anyway. I'd like to nominate this thing for Legendary Badfic status. It is utterly notorious in the MLP:FiM community, at least, and beyond that has spawned a long sequence of copycat and imitator fics which have continued to be bad and gruesome for gruesome's sake. Failing that, would at least like to reserve it for a teamup mission with a partner yet-to-be-announced. I could probably handle it on my own but Lord knows I don't wanna.

Re: Cupcakes--Legendary Badfic? by Astral Void on 2011-09-19 11:39:00 UTC Reply

I also believe it's Legendary Badfic. If you do end up sporking it, I'd love to co-write it with you.

I'm also up for the sporking by OpinionedAngel on 2011-09-19 13:21:00 UTC Reply

Who actually thinks this is a good fic?! Who, I ask you!?

...But then, this is coming from someone who highly dislikes the "Saw" franchise and pretty much any form of horror movie, so...

Re: I'm also up for the sporking by Astral Void on 2011-09-19 13:58:00 UTC Reply

I can't watch horror movies. Never could. I have this weird aversion to being scared, which everyone else I know seems to revel in.

Me too. (nm) by Sergio Turbo on 2011-09-20 19:42:00 UTC Reply
Re: I'm also up for the sporking by OpinionedAngel on 2011-09-19 15:35:00 UTC Reply

Me too. I just don't like being scared, is all...

Why compare to C*l*br**n? by Calista on 2011-09-19 01:57:00 UTC Reply

Comparing a new Legendary Badfic to arguably the worst Legendary Badfic of them all (or at least tied for the worst) is probably too high a standard. What about comparing it to legolas by laura or My Immortal? By that standard, it fits into the Legendary category very easily.

C*l*br**n? by WarriorJoe on 2011-09-19 02:25:00 UTC Reply

I, uh... I didn't compare it to C*l*br**n. I compared it to Agony in Pink.

Which is certainly no better, mind. The reason my mind went to Agony in Pink was mostly the same sort of content and torture for the sake of torture.

Whoops by Calista on 2011-09-19 04:46:00 UTC Reply

Sorry about that; I think I was trying to reply to the people who were.

Anyway, yeah, Agony in Pink is probably a better comparison (and should also be a Legendary Badfic, but that's another topic).

It is (nm) by Data Junkie on 2011-09-19 07:25:00 UTC Reply

Hmmm... by Aster Corbett on 2011-09-19 00:48:00 UTC Reply

Cupcakes is uncanon and squick, but it's not all-round unacceptable in the way that My Immortal and C*l*br**n are...

Re: Hmmm... by WarriorJoe on 2011-09-19 01:48:00 UTC Reply

Bear in mind, this version has gone through a number of spelling and grammar checks by people not the author--it has a VERY long history I'm still unraveling. I've dug up an older original which looks... less clean.

STILL VERY UNCOOL AND UNSAFE FOR SMALL KIDS

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14lgUY7yfbooT5IT6miNNbPqSY_qLA9aiVMjsEpszePk/edit?hl=en#

DEAR GOD

This is an older draft? by PoorCynic on 2011-09-19 02:20:00 UTC Reply

Digging up an earlier unedited version of the story seems a little... dishonest of us. Of course earlier drafts aren't going to be as good! If we're really going to look at this story, we should be looking at the most recent version.

Yes, But... by WarriorJoe on 2011-09-19 02:22:00 UTC Reply

The newer drafts have all been edited by other people. This is the newest draft of the ORIGINAL Gdoc belonging to the ORIGINAL author.

It'd be like if I posted a fic full of spelling errors, and then you picked it up and edited them all out and submitted it (and edited out the last two paragraphs, notably). The story would be the same (aside from the last two paragraphs), but could I take credit for fixing the errors?

Re: Yes, But... by PoorCynic on 2011-09-19 02:26:00 UTC Reply

Almost all of my final drafts were edited by other people. That's part of peer editing.

Re: Yes, But... by WarriorJoe on 2011-09-19 02:31:00 UTC Reply

Yes, but you released them yourself and credited them for the editing. These are the editors releasing it themselves and crediting the original author, which implies (and I would be willing to bet money on it) that the original author was not involved in the editing.

Re: Yes, But... by PoorCynic on 2011-09-19 02:38:00 UTC Reply

How can you be sure that really is the case? That might be the most likely assumption, but there could be a chance that the original author did indeed authorize those editors through emails or whatever.

Even discounting that, we should be focusing on the version that has been read the most. If we pick a version that the majority of the community is unfamiliar with, we might get called on the carpet by them if a Cupcakes-centered mission gets published. They might perceive our picking a lousier but less read version as something of a d*ck move.

A Fair Point, but... by WarriorJoe on 2011-09-19 02:52:00 UTC Reply

Also one impossible to determine. As of RIGHT NOW, the older Gdoc has 50 viewers, the newer one 46. That could change at any time, of course. I can't read views on either one, as I don't own either one.

Additionally, as the story has so many variant endings--the edited version lops off the ending in the older document, and the source I obtained the older one contains fifteen variant endings besides--I'm inclined to default to the older one when the most familiar one cannot be ascertained. I remain fairly confident the story will be the same in the majority, aside from those endings which make it out to be "all a dream" or such.

Oooh.... I remember that fic... by OpinionedAngel on 2011-09-18 22:04:00 UTC Reply

First off, welcome back!

As for "Cupcakes", I read it... and how I wish I hadn't. Sweet Holy Celestia is it ever disturbing!

It's infamous enough t get sequels/spinoffs/alternate endings, too. Some of them aren't too bad... and others continue the horror. (Especially the one where Pinkie Pie looses her remaining marbles. *shudder*)
Oh God, I remember this fic... by HerrWozzeck on 2011-09-18 20:59:00 UTC Reply

I saw the FanFic Critic's episode on Cupcakes. All I remember was sitting there whimpering for half the review at all the stuff that was being done out there. It's certainly reprihensible enough, and it's certainly famous enough that I think it does warrant Legendary Badfic status.

In other words, hi there! I don't know who you are, but that's fine, so yeah. Welcome back to the PPC! =D

Here, have some three-part Paul Dukas for the road:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXJxHXe9FeQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnt0Va5DLKg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjL0hhx_TU4&feature=related

I don't know. . . by Flyndragon on 2011-09-19 01:32:00 UTC Reply

Well, Cupcakes is pretty bad, but it never seemed like it was really legendarily bad. Sure, it's pretty infamous, but I don't think it quite reaches the same levels of squick and wrong that, say, C*l*br**n does.
Actually, scary as this sounds, I've mostly seen it portrayed in a positive light.

I don't think so. by HerrWozzeck on 2011-09-19 02:03:00 UTC Reply

"I don't think it quite reaches the same levels of squick and wrong that, say, C*l*br**n does."

It's a plotless, sick little excuse to portray ridiculous amounts of gore that has really bad biology and exists soley for the sake of torturing a character in a way that completely clashes against the tone of MLP-- not just FiM, but EVERY GENERATION OF MLP as well.

This fanfic is also way, way, way too sick to be real.

And I've seen every iteration of the Saw franchise. That says a lot right there.
Re: I don't know. . . by WarriorJoe on 2011-09-19 01:40:00 UTC Reply

For my part, I've never seen it portrayed positively until I came back here and asked around about running it for a mission. I got people who were actually telling me it was classed as GOODFIC, that it was in-character for Pinkie. And I've seen that argument made in past discussions about this.

That Cupcakes has come up for discussion as Legendary FOUR separate times, independently all of them, is to me only reinforcement to the argument.