[ SECRET POST #3174 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3174 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 084 secrets from Secret Submission Post #454.
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

[fscom]

07. http://i.imgur.com/xS72Ogd.png

[dreemyweird]

serious question: literally what is the difference between "normal fic" and "fic stylized as Victorian lit"? Is it simply the use of outdated words that annoys you? This is weird.

a less serious question: "Dickenson"?? :D

[(Anonymous)]

I think there's a pretty definite, noticeable difference between 19th century prose styles and contemporary prose styles.

I don't share OP's feelings, but I do generally shy away from reading things that are trying to emulate non-contemporary prose styles, just because I find that very few writers are capable of actually pulling it off successfully.

[dreemyweird]

Well, technically speaking, of course there is. For one, there wasn't any systematic fourth-wall breaking going on in the 19th century. And absurdism was pretty much unheard of.

However, I believe that the main difference lies not in styles, but in themes, motifs, and character archetypes, which is not the sort of difference that will be noticeable on the level of your average individual fanfic.

But if you had something other than that in mind, I'd be very curious about the particularities! How do you think 19th-century lit differs from modern stuff?

[annethecatdetective]

I assume they meant 'Dickens'' or 'Dickensian', but... yeah. Eesh.

[(Anonymous)]

I expect they got "Dickens" and "Dickinson" confused.

[(Anonymous)]

a less serious question: "Dickenson"?? :D

For some reason I read this as Angie Dickinson and I suddenly imagined her in a Victorian version of "Police Woman". Now there's a trailer for a wholly non-existent series called "Lady Bobby" running in my head. Damn, I want that series so bad now :-(

[arcadiaego]

Dickensian. Strange and Norrell is not set in Victorian England or written in faux Victorian style, although I suppose it's possible the people writing the fic haven't noticed.

[(Anonymous)]

Strange and Norrell isn't pseudo Dickensian, it is pseudo Austen-esque. Dickens was a whole generation later than Austen. He is Victorian, Strange and Norrell is Napoleonic-Regency. Get it right, sir.

+1

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly, I ought to call you out at dawn for that blunder. Do you have a second, sir?

Re: +1

[dreemyweird]

anons: I love you both

[(Anonymous)]

also OP didn't even say Dickens, they said Dickenson, which is just WILDLY wrong

[(Anonymous)]

I like Dickens' writing more than Regency, Dr. Strange, etc.

[(Anonymous)]

YES. Thank you!

[(Anonymous)]

I love that someone pointed this out and the OP has nothing to say about it. Whoopsie daisy, OP... :)

+1

[litalex]

Thank you!

[(Anonymous)]

JAAAASSS! You know when you're halfway through a book and just want to put it down, but everyone says that it's JUST THAT GOOD and you plough on and on and each page turn is hurting you because the text is just THAT BORING. And sometimes in the end, you realize that all your hard work has paid off!: the book revolutionises your life and everything is now shining in a new light and you are eternally grateful to the author and the reccers and... Jonathan Strange et Mr Norrell is NOT THAT book. It made me want to trash valuable things in rage because every minute spent on that garbage WAS A TOTAL WASTE! AVOID IT AND SAVE SOME TREES!

[(Anonymous)]

HAHAHAHA! I have that book and put it down because I became interested in something else and because the writing style just isn't engaging. It's like pulling teeth. But it's still on my list as one of the those books to slog through because, um, you know, books and stuff. Reminds me of reading Moby Dick because, like, you know, it's Moby Dick, but even then I enjoyed Moby Dick a bit more than Dr. Strange, etc. However, I think I'm still going to slog through it because, well, I have it and I don't like leaving books unfinished.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah. While I didn't hate that book, it wasn't interesting enough to justify its length and it dragged a LOT.

[arcadiaego]

Lol I don't think it was garbage but I kept waiting to have a wonderful revelation and I absolutely did not. I liked the TV adaptation though.

[(Anonymous)]

So... can you clarify, OP, whether or not you're okay with fic wirtten in the style of the original's prose (which itself was a mild pastiche)?

[(Anonymous)]

Hi, OP here.
Partly. Thoughts and dialogue - yes, actions - no.

Can you offer specific examples, OP?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about and I'm curious. Sometimes when authors attempt to emulate an older literary style, it falls flat or doesn't sound right but I can't always put my finger on why it "sounds" wrong to me.

[solticisekf]

That reminds me, I still have to read the book. Loved tv series. And everywhere I go there's Childermass/Segundus fics and I don't ship them. =(

[(Anonymous)]

Is that because that book wasn't in faux-Victorian, it was in faux-Regency?

Are there really so many writers making that mistake? I'd have thought if they were going to the trouble of using historical language, they'd get the time period right.

Or are you just confused yourself, OP, and have made a mistake about the time period? It's not clear from your secret if you really think that book was supposed to be Victorian (it wasn't).