fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3107 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3107 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Fire Emblem: Fates]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Ocean's 11]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Little Nicky]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Devil Survivor 2]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Sens8]

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

[Mariqueen Reznor]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Battle Creek]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Lucifer (TV)]

__________________________________________________

11.

[Neil Gaiman]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 037 secrets from Secret Submission Post #444.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Anything Jane Austen but more because of the way they're treated than the books themselves

They're glorified romcoms. Fun but ultimately lacking depth regardless of how desperately your high school english teacher digs

I feel the same about lots of Shakespeare too


I feel like you're being unfair to romcoms, here. I think, yeah, it's true, Austen's works are basically romantic comedies, but also they're still really good b/c of, you know, quality of prose and depth of social observation. If you had a romcom today with those qualities, it'd also be similarly good.

On the broadest possible level who cares if it's a genre work

I have no problem with romcoms I have a problem with romcoms treated like deep and meaningful classics when even the author did not intend them to be taken and read that way

They are good romcoms but they arent the material educators make them out to be

I like When Harry Met Sally but I am not going to put it in the same category as The Godfather or Casablanca

Similarly I think Clueless is a seriously entertaining and well made film that was based on Austen's Emma that has held up over literally decades

I would not call it a classic and would hate to walk into a future film class analyzing it and drawing conclusions about the 90s

Well, my point is that anything, regardless of genre, can be taken seriously or treated as a deep and meaningful classic, if it's good enough. And I think Austen's work has those qualities, in addition to being a romcom. In the same way that The Godfather has those qualities, in addition to being a gangster movie. It doesn't matter a damn what anyone intended about it or what genre it is.

I agree, though I didn't enjoy any of her novels. Ditto on Shakespeare.

I always thought Jane Austen was poking fun at romance novels of her time. But then again, I read P&P when I was 13 and was blown away by "waitaminute DARCY'S A GOOD GUY?" so I may be biased.

What I like about her novels is the social commentary from a woman's perspective (re: money and social standing) and I love the characters. If those equal glorified romcoms I'll take it. (And tbf there wasn't much writing material to choose from without getting into trouble due to her gender.)

Jane Austen romcoms > Brontë dramas

ayrt

Agreed, I like the romcoms better than the soaps. I just don't think either qualifies as meaningful or representative in the classic sense. Neither were trying on purpose to say something

I think they're significant wrt what you said, social commentary from a woman's perspective. But likewise I think Queer as Folk is significant for being a mainstream LGBT soap but I wouldn't call it a classic or representative of the time

[ SECRET POST #3107 ]

Re: "Classics" that you hate?

Re: "Classics" that you hate?

Re: "Classics" that you hate?

Re: "Classics" that you hate?

Re: "Classics" that you hate?

Re: "Classics" that you hate?

Re: "Classics" that you hate?

Re: "Classics" that you hate?

Re: "Classics" that you hate?