[ SECRET POST #4384 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4384 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Mystery Science Theater 3000/The Flintstones]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Celebrity chef and food critic Andrew Zimmern]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Fantastic Beasts 2]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Jake Lacy]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Romeo + Juliet]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Anna Faris and Chris Evans in "What's Your Number?"]


__________________________________________________



08.
['Into You' by Ariana Grande]








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 49 secrets from Secret Submission Post #628.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - text comment ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Wanting more diversity in the series is not the same as wanting JKR to tweet about random shit from the book series. They're totally divorced things, and it's only OP's framing that puts them in the same picture together. It's a strawman.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, they're related enough to me in that both are examples of really bad worldbuilding done in a haphazard way.

Like, "I want more diversity" is fine and cool and I agree.

"I want more diversity and I demand that JKR herself build that in, now, after the fact, because I trust that JKR will be able to add more of that skillfully and not make it a mess after her cringey track record in the canon books" is a whole other thing.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt - I don't think the people who demanded more diversity and world building were necessarily the same people who thought the canon books were a mess, though.

[(Anonymous)]

Her track record of diversity in the books were a mess, that's why people were demanding more, no? And yet somehow expecting better. I don't really get why they bothered trying after Johnson Johnson Cho Chang, lol. Maybe they forgot?

[(Anonymous)]

I couldn't say. Fan expectations of Rowling were always so much higher than my own. I read the series, didn't really get into it. The story and characters were engaging (if not entirely original) but the actual technical aspects of the writing were all over the place and world building was shaky at best. Rowling doesn't strike me as an author who plans very much or very well and nothing post-HP has shown me any different.

[(Anonymous)]

I kinda think we're giving too little credit for how engaging and charming the original novels and characters actually are. It's a genuine accomplishment not to be sneered at.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

They weren't for me, but I know they were for a lot of people ... when they were 15-20 years younger than they are now.

Later on, after some scrutiny, things don't hold up as well.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

They can be flawed as books, and also have good qualities. It doesn't have to be all nostalgia, and I don't think it is all nostalgia.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

No one is claiming it is all nostalgia, so I don't know who you're arguing against.

You can have a charming and engaging story, have a story that is very popular, have a story where many parts of it don't hold up or make sense on second thought, and be a mediocre writer. None of those things are exclusive traits.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

I took "Later on, after some scrutiny, things don't hold up as well" to mean that the books aren't actually charming or engaging.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

"As well" would imply "aren't as charming or engaging as they seemed to be at first," not "are devoid of merit without nostalgia"...

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but +1.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

That's your interpretation, I think. There are many, many things people loved at a younger age that doesn't charm or engage them at the same levels when they're older. That doesn't mean they were never charming or engaging, only that peoples' tastes change as they age.

[(Anonymous)]

They were very engaging and charming, I agree. That isn't the same as being well written in the sense of plot, world building and continuity and I think that's what some fans pick up on when they reread it as adults. I don't think noting that is the same thing as sneering, though I recognize that many fans equate any criticism of Rowling's work as being more negative and personal than it actually is.

[(Anonymous)]

My point, I guess, is that "charming and engaging" is also a part of being well-written. And I think we overlook that, not just with JKR.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

"Stylish and badass" is part of being well written too, but if it fails at a lot of other things, I'd be hard-pressed to call the overall thing well written. Many a mediocre but cool-looking action movie would attest to this.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

But we don't seem to have the same reserve about calling something with technically good prose, but an unengaging story, "well-written".

It seems snobbish, honestly.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

That's because to be considered generally well-written, a work usually has to be all of those things at once.

So yeah, not being engaging means the work of fiction, assuming its a novel, is missing an important trait. Being engaging but missing some others mean it's missing other important traits.

I don't find it snobbish at all. If all it takes is "I like it" for something to be well-written, the term means nothing.

Not all the things I personally enjoy are well-written. That's okay.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not sure I agree. If a book contains technically good prose but isn't engaging, you can be sure there'll be plenty of critics who say so. They're simply noting a work's strong and weak points, just as the people in this thread are noting Rowling's. I suspect you're taking issue with the fact that you think Rowling deserves more credit and praise than what she's receiving here, but nobody is being particularly snobbish that I can see.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Hand on my heart, I couldn't care less about Rowling's critical reputation. It just feels different to me, the way that people talk about these things - people seem more willing to dismiss something that's "just" charming or "just" stylish or "just" an action movie. Maybe that's a made-up perception, IDK.

[(Anonymous)]

It's one part, yes. There's a lot more to good writing than being charming and engaging, though.

[(Anonymous)]

I kinda think we're giving too little credit for how engaging and charming the original novels and characters actually are. It's a genuine accomplishment not to be sneered at.

Seconding this so hard.

Also, I distinctly remember how much talk there was back in the day about how extensively JK Rowling had mapped out the universe of the books from early on in the series. And I think the original series bears that out. Not that there weren't plotholes galore; I just don't think Rowling ever gave much of a damn about most types of plotholes.

The story was meant to be fun and fantastical, and the universe was meant to be sprawling and engaging and whimsical, and it succeeded wildly in being those things for millions of people.

[(Anonymous)]

mow I wanna go find replace Cho Chang everywhere in the books with 'Johnson Johnson' because as an east asian that's exactly what that name still sounds like to me fuckin lol

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Yeah - I guess my point is just that wanting more diversity is not, in and of itself, the problem. And I think that's the way that OP is framing it, and it's dumb.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

No, yeah, I agree with you if that's what OP meant. I have no problem at all with wanting more diversity, just maybe not more kind of cringey attempts from JKR.