I made exactly the same mistake @ZakPhoenixMcKracken did, I haven’t learnt nothing! Ahah… I’m starting to think that @PiecesOfKate only liked my post 'cause it was one of the few without mistakes 
Hey, I liked your japanese man! @Guga and @Ema are the bad cops!
I really think she makes herself out to be worse than she actually is, I´m sure she liked what you wrote! 
Okay then, you´re the super cop!
No. The author had one interpretation in mind. He gets different interpretations if he hasn’t made the story in these points clear. That doesn’t mean that he has to explain everything, but the story has to be “consistent”. For example if there is a story with a murder then there has to be a murderer, a suicide or an accident. If the author says: “I don’t tell you who did it, find the murderer yourself” then the story is bad because the author let the readers do his work. But of course it’s completely legitimate to just give hints to the murderer. But these hints have to be constructed in a way that the majority of the readers are able to solve the right murder (and be able to “reconstruct” the author’s vision).
This is a very simple example (It’s late in Germany and my brain won’t come up with a good one. ). Of course there could be stories with different “levels”. For example the murder could be just a allegory or a metaphor. But it must be clear to the reader which allegory or metaphor is meant.
But obviously not enough. 
Ron has a specific solution about the secret in his mind. So we just can do wild guesses. Thinking about the secret doesn’t evoke anything in me, but only the insight that we haven’t enough hints.
Same here. (Where are the grammar nazis when you need them…?)
I´m sooooo glad this is an english speaking forum for the fact they´re not here!
What about Bob @PiecesOfKate?
Bob?
Bob!
I know, but you have no idea how accidentally well my reference fits! (look it up if you need to!)
Yes, but I wanted to explain where my “Bob” came from.
When I posted that picture I actually didn´t remember that the real name of the “Bob” in it was actually Kate! What a coinkydink! 
I genuinely liked that post, and not for that reason
But yes clearly I’m missing a chance to purge all my pent-up grammar aggression in this thread. I should really start reading all these posts properly.
Especially since I have some leeway, apparently.
I don’t think so.
Anyway, I’d actually say “punctilious”, to be more precise.
The Secret of Monkey Island can be found in the Mansion Library.
The “Real” secret of Monkey Island, moreover!
eheh, not all of us, I can assure you!
I know! And that book even has a picture of the author on the back of the dustjacket:
Bob has a cunning plan!
Not necessarily in a book called “the secret of Monkey Island” or something to that effect!
Rather in the most unrelated title, most likely.
So, who’s a good OCD completionist?
Would’ve been more fun to hide the secret in the Voodoo shop though (more books)
Sure…
I read someone say that “the secret of Monkey Island” is just the fact that you can enter Hell from the giant monkey head, that’s it. In fact the sequel is called “Monkey Island 2 - LeChuck’s Revenge”. No secret whatsoever. Asking what the secret is is like asking what the revenge is.
I mean, even if it were as suspected (“it was all a child’s play”), that wouldn’t be the secret of Monkey Island, that would be the plot twist of the story arc, but has nothing to do with the actual island. At least, that’s my opinion. Stop asking “what’s the secret” and start asking “what the hell was supposed to happen in part 3”.
But we went, guess what?, off topic.
Wait a minute…I think you´re right!
