[ 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]

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.