[ 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]

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?