Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2018-09-15 03:25 pm
[ SECRET POST #4273 ]
⌈ Secret Post #4273 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04.

__________________________________________________
05.

__________________________________________________
06.

__________________________________________________
07.

Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 42 secrets from Secret Submission Post #612.
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.

no subject
no subject
no subject
Given that Tolkien liberally retconned key facts of his story between his two published works, I don't know that you can call him "internally consistent," and that would miss the point of his body of work anyway.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2018-09-16 09:13 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2018-09-16 03:15 pm (UTC)(link)I get the impression from you, that you mean the author has to focus on creating a world to the point that everything is thought out- even the stuff most people don't care about, like the economy and tax returns. At least, that's what I'm getting from the "anthropology" references (like, they are mainly just creating a fictional society and writing stories about it like an anthropologist writes about the societies they study?)
I don't think other people (philstar and maybe others) only consider a story to have worldbuilding if the author went that far with it. LoTR has places, languages, different cultures, and "history" in the sense that events in one book affect events in books set in later times. I think that counts as "worldbuilding" to most people, even if it isn't perfect.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2018-09-16 03:35 pm (UTC)(link)- the main character kept mishearing words from his own native language as English words which always had some meaning (ex. Führer as "fury"). Why would a German speaking kid mishear an unfamiliar German word as an English word.
- the kid was able to sit around outside of a concentration camp and interact with one of the prisoners for long periods of time without being caught. I thought those camps were heavily guarded?
- the kid GOT INSIDE the camp through a hole in the fence. If there was a hole in the fence and he could get in, and no one was ever watching this place, wouldn't people have used it to escape?
- the kid was like 9/10 years old and didn't know what Jews were. He had a teacher, and his older sister knew... but no one bothered to teach him. Obviously he'd have been taught a twisted, biased version (like his sister was)... but in this book, just, no one ever told him at all.
The author apparently acknowledged this and claimed it was deliberate because the story was meant to be more like a fable. Or a metaphor, or rhetoric, like a comment above said about some fantasy stories.
I'm not sure it worked for me. In a fantasy story I can ignore stuff that doesn't make sense, especially if it's the kind of story that's more of a fable. And if it's not, I can usually come up with some explanation (a wizard did it...) so it doesn't bug me. But in actual historical fiction, it just seems like someone didn't do their research.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2018-09-16 05:08 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2019-06-23 06:57 am (UTC)(link)