[ 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

[(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?