[ SECRET POST #2737 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2737 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 041 secrets from Secret Submission Post #391.
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: story is king!!1

[(Anonymous)]

All the "great literary talents/classics" were the equivalent of genre trash in their day.

Where does this idea come from? No, they weren't. Most of the classics still relevant and enjoyable today were the subject of serious critical review in their time (assuming their time had something resembling a critical establishment). Certain factions in, say, Jane Austen's England looked down their noses at novels as a whole because they believed all fiction was "mere" escapism, but that was partly due to the fact that the form and artistry of the novel were still developing (and also because so many women picked up pens and took to "scribbling," and the male literary establishments of those periods did their best to throw roadblocks in the way of women writers' success).

Dickens is usually the author people point to when making this claim. So Dickens was paid by the word and that makes him a hack? But whoops—no he wasn't! Another apocryphal rumor. He was paid by the installment, which never varied from month to month. Yes, his style and contrivances were criticized by serious readers and other writers who cared about elegance and artistry, but his talents were celebrated and admired—and not as "genre trash."

Stephen King is not the equal of George Eliot. George R. R. Martin is not comparable to Homer. Sue Grafton is not on a par with Balzac.

We may continue reading King, Martin, and Grafton far in the future, but they're in a different league and doing far more formulaic things with the written word than the authors whose works have survived to be called "classic."

Re: story is king!!1

[allkindsoffur]

Thank you! You've expressed my thoughts exactly. Sometimes fanficcers and pulp fiction aficionados seem to forget that there does exist such a thing as 'high literature', and that the term has merit.

Re: story is king!!1

[crunchysunrises]

a.) I never said anything about Stephen King, George R.R. Martin, or Sue Grafton. That was all you and your assumptions. But, for the record, I don't read any of them. In fact, I've never opened one of their books, and, in the words of William Wordsworth, I have not read a line of their work. They're just not to my tastes.

I'm sorry, but those are your literary associations.


b.) Again, you assumed I was thinking about Austen and Dickens. I wasn't. (And you're the only one to call Dickens a hack in this conversation.) But as long as we're talking about Austen and Dickens, let's discuss a few other misconceptions on your part.

c.) Austen was considered genre trash. That certain, discerning writers of her time liked her work doesn't mean that she was hailed as a genius in her time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_austen#Reception --> In relevant part: Although her novels quickly became fashionable among opinion-makers, such as Princess Charlotte Augusta, daughter of the Prince Regent, they received only a few published reviews. Most of the reviews were short and on balance favourable, although superficial and cautious.

Liking Austen's works in the early nineteenth century was like being a nineteenth century literary hipster. Austen wasn't the subject of critical review until the end of the nineteenth century and not acknowledged as a great English writer until the twentieth century.

d.) Dickens was a bestselling novelist in his own time, (ironically rather like the ones you disdained from our time.) He was noted for his unique writing style, social criticism, and tendency to end his installments on cliffhangers. I am not certain how his payment method is relevant to my previous comment. Regardless, I think the same incentive to drag things out lies in being paid by the line or by the installment as by the word. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_%28literature%29#19th_century)

Also!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens#Reception --> In part:

Dickens was the most popular novelist of his time. [...] Among fellow writers, Dickens has been both lionised and mocked.

Leo Tolstoy, G. K. Chesterton and George Orwell praised his realism, comic voice, prose fluency, and genius for satiric caricature, as well as his passionate advocacy on behalf of children and the poor.

On the other hand, Oscar Wilde generally disparaged his depiction of character, while admiring his gift for caricature; His late contemporary William Wordsworth, by then Poet laureate, thought him a "very talkative, vulgar young person", adding he had not read a line of his work; Dickens in return thought Wordsworth "a dreadful Old Ass". Henry James denied him a premier position, calling him "the greatest of superficial novelists": Dickens failed to endow his characters with psychological depth and the novels, "loose baggy monsters", betrayed a "cavalier organisation". Virginia Woolf had a love-hate relationship with his works, finding his novels "mesmerizing" while reproving him for his sentimentalism and a commonplace style.

There are other comments on his work and places to look for references in the wikipedia articles if you're interested.

Re: story is king!!1

[(Anonymous)]

So, are you going to prove that the majority of literary greats were considered hacks in their time? Or are you just going to bleet at someone for providing examples to buttress their own argument (which is generally what people do)?

Re: story is king!!1

[crunchysunrises]

It's not my fault that they chose not to do research before making their examples. And, since they didn't even considering asking who I might've been thinking about before ranting about their favorites, it's at least twice as important for them to be right.

A few points though:

a.) "majority of literary greats" assumes that we'll all agree who those people are. Or at least that I'll agree with you. That's not going to happen.

b.) They way that your bleating (and yes, that's how you spell it) is phrased, it kind of sounds like you want me to. Even if we could agree on the list of "literary greats", that's way too much effort for a convo with an anon on fandom!secrets.