[ 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

[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 Is it simply the use of outdated words that annoys you?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?

[(Anonymous)]

Well, on the most obvious level, writers are much more prolix and much less restrained. The vocabulary is wider, but also the sentence structure is much more varied - there is a greater variety of constructions and sentences tend to be longer and much more complex. There's also generally a more formal tone than is common in contemporary writing.

[dreemyweird]

That's only true for a certain kind of modern books. The richness of vocabulary and syntactic structures is absolutely not a feature that is more or less common in some one literary era. Likewise, every epoch has books with narrative tones that range from very formal to very informal. It may be more acceptable nowadays to use informal language in literature, but it has not become less acceptable to use formal language.

So, no, I'm going to respectfully disagree.

[(Anonymous)]

Well sure it's not an absolute tendency, but as generalizations go, it's one I'm fairly comfortable with. And I do think that range of vocabulary and structure is something that varies from literary era to literary era - not that it ever disappears completely, but that the normal modes of usage change. I don't think that means that any style is superior, of course, but there are these shifts.

I mean, the fact that informal language is more common kind of indicates that formal language is comparatively less common. Which is all that I'm saying when I say that literature is generally less formal. It is a question of the relative frequency and acceptability, not a cast-iron line that is always followd.

[dreemyweird]

Changes in vocabulary range? I think this is a pretty bold claim to make. I would want some academic research to back that up; it has pretty far-reaching implications.

Again, I think one should remember that informal narration was not acceptable during the Victorian era. Are you sure the perceived "shift" is not just a result of the fact that more informally narrated books can now - unlike in the 19th century - be actually published?

I'll readily allow that the average modern literary language mode is much less formal than the Victorian one; but literature doesn't happen only within these borders. The idea that the literature that sticks to the approximate linguistic average is somehow more valid or more representative of some one literary era is strange.

All this aside, my original point was that one does not need to stray beyond the borders of "modern literary styles" to write a Victorian pastiche. Your statement that "literature is generally less formal [...] but it's not a cast-iron line that is always followed" actually supports that.

[(Anonymous)]

Again, I think one should remember that informal narration was not acceptable during the Victorian era. Are you sure the perceived "shift" is not just a result of the fact that more informally narrated books can now - unlike in the 19th century - be actually published?

I kind of feel like this goes to my point - the fact that narration can be more informal now is sort of one of the major changes that I'd point to as a marker of how literary styles have changed.

So I'm genuinely not sure whether I'm missing your point here, or whether you think I'm arguing something different than I am.

I'll readily allow that the average modern literary language mode is much less formal than the Victorian one; but literature doesn't happen only within these borders. The idea that the literature that sticks to the approximate linguistic average is somehow more valid or more representative of some one literary era is strange.

I don't think any style is more or less valid. I certainly don't think that someone trying to write in a more formal style today is somehow less worthy as a writer.

But I do think, first, that the fact that the average literary language mode is less formal in the contemporary period and more formal in the Victorian era means that we can make a general characterization of those eras. Right? Like... that is a general characterization of just the kind that I want to make. Second, I think contemporary writers tend to be much better at writing the kind of prose that is common and widely accepted in contemporary culture, and less good at writing the kind of prose that is less common. It's just less comfortable. That's, again, not an iron rule, but it is in general true. The norms shift and behavior shifts with it.

All this aside, my original point was that one does not need to stray beyond the borders of "modern literary styles" to write a Victorian pastiche. Your statement that "literature is generally less formal [...] but it's not a cast-iron line that is always followed" actually supports that.

I would argue first that by the very nature of pastiche, if it's within the borders of modern literary style, it's not going to be a very good pastiche. In fact I would argue that the whole concept of pastiche relies on the fact that there are styles of writing in the Victorian period that are identifiably distinct from contemporary writing.

I certainly don't think that means that someone writing a pastiche is therefore writing something bad. But I do think they're writing in a manner that differs from the customary style of contemporary literature.

[dreemyweird]

I, on the other hand, think that a writer who relies largely on style to create a pastiche is a bad writer and will produce a shitty, OTT work. Unless they're mimicking some very specific Victorian lit genre, they need to first and foremost pay attention to what motifs and themes they use; and to how they characterize their heroes.

Style is secondary precisely because if it's noticeably Victorian, it's likely OTT.

>But I do think, first, that the fact that the average literary language mode is less formal in the contemporary period and more formal in the Victorian era means that we can make a general characterization of those eras. Right? Like... that is a general characterization of just the kind that I want to make.

Well, yes, but it's worth remembering just how rough and approximate such a general characterization is. The fact that an average book is narrated relatively informally does not mean that there isn't a sizeable body of formally narrated modern literature.

And if there is such a body, the idea of a modern writer mimicking Victorian literature by employing a formal tone just becomes meaningless?

>I kind of feel like this goes to my point - the fact that narration can be more informal now is sort of one of the major changes that I'd point to as a marker of how literary styles have changed.

What I meant to say was that this is about a new literary niche emerging, but it's not about an older one vanishing. So, yes, it was a change, but it wasn't one that's "shifted" printed literature - rather, expanded it?

Like, I just don't think that it's useful to refer to the customary style of modern literature as proof that there is a distinct and noticeable difference between Victorian lit and modern lit that will necessarily reflect in a pastiche or a stylized fanfic. A difference between the average Victorian literary language norm and the modern language norm, okay. But why does a stylized fic have to be linguistically average by the Victorian standards? Why can't it be a bit on the terser side, closer to modern lit norms? And why must we compare this fic to the modern average - can't we, since it's a work of literature, compare it to more formal modern works?

[(Anonymous)]

If I may, dialogue tags are a good example. 19th century writing makes wide use of different dialogue tags and synonyms for "said," "asked," etc. Now, people are taught *not* to use synonyms for "said" and "asked," and that doing so is a mark of poor writing.

In addition, people are taught not to use adjectives. Wide and varied use of adjectives are, again, considered to be a mark of poor writing. This was not the case for 19th century works.

[dreemyweird]

Yeah, this applies as a general rule, but, as I said, I think there is such a sizeable body of exceptions that this cannot be considered a "definite difference" between Victorian lit and modern lit that should necessarily be applied to any pastiche or stylization. It's not difficult to do a pastiche that would not adhere to this rule while still sounding suitably Victorian.

What I'm trying to argue here is not that there literally isn't any stylistic difference between an average Victorian work and an average modern work, or that one should not modify one's style in any way when writing a pastiche. My point is simply that a Victorian pastiche can easily have the sort of tone and syntax that could belong to a modern work instead. There's no need to go all Dickens when writing something Victorian-esque.

[(Anonymous)]

I remember an argument here a while back that started when someone mentioned encountering really atrocious views in the Bible belt. Someone from Texas piped up and said "BUT WE'RE NOT ALL LIKE THAT YOU FUCKER." And then someone showed up and was like, "yeah, I agree! California is considered liberal but I know some really conservative people from there!"

Neither of them seemed to understand trends or demographics. Like, sure, not everyone in the Bible belt is Christian, but the majority are. And sure, not everyone in California is liberal, but it's a blue state for a reason.

Your arguments remind me of that. "TRENDS DON'T MATTER BECAUSE IT WASN'T ALL LIKE THAT."

[dreemyweird]

Whether trends matter depends entirely on the problem at hand. Continuing the parallel you've offered, this discussion is someone saying that they dislike it when British people behave like they're from California and me countering this statement with "but there ISN'T a single way to behave like you're from California, California is a very diverse place?"

"I dislike it when fic is stylized as stereotypical wordy and flowery Victorian lit" is a sentiment I would have zero problems with. What I do have a problem with is that the OP seems to be under the impression that there is some one way to do a Victorian pastiche and that this pastiche must necessarily be strikingly stylistically different from a modern work of fiction.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

Language. Victorian prose is, to varying degrees, more florid florid and wordy that contemporary prose tends to be. It also has a touch more formality in how phrases are structured, and "fancier" words (including now-antiquated words) are more likely to be used. At worse, it can sounded stilted and pompous to modern "ears."

Which I guess is what you mean by "style," but there are definite stylistic differences, and these would definitely be noticeable in a fanfic.

[dreemyweird]

I've already kind of answered this post when talking to the anon above, but also:

this, as that same anon has pointed out, a generalization, NOT a statement of a "definite difference" between modern and Victorian lit. There is not a distinct line between the two, which is what I was saying in the beginning.

[(Anonymous)]

da

I think the point is that when your average person thinks about Victorian lit, they associate it with stereotypes like florid prose, formal language, etc. So although there's no distinct line between normal and Victorian lit, authors who write "fic stylised as Victorian lit" are usually writing based on those stereotypes, rather than attempting to write a thoughtful or well-researched pastiche. Those fics are thusly full of clumsily executed florid prose and crude attempts at making the dialogue sound formal and old, which is likely part of why OP doesn't find them to be readable.

[dreemyweird]

Yes, I agree with this. I mean, I'm not even going to deny that there's a reason these stereotypes exist, and that there's some truth to them. But they do not accurately reflect reality or make a good basis for pastiches.

You're probably right about the OP's issues with Victorian-esque fandom stuff, too. I just flared up a little because I dislike the idea the stuffing of different literary eras into neat separate boxes. Plus, I really like good pastiches.

[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.