fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4384 ]

⌈ 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

nayrt but +1.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Seconding this, and the majority of what I read is literary fiction and classical fiction. I've read a fuckton of litfic and classics, and while some of those novels are the best novels I've ever read, a great many of them are either just so-so or downright tedious and completely without literary flare. Yet they're all still celebrated as being admirable literary works.

That's probably being the standards of measurement are quite different for literary fiction than genre fiction.

I think it's possibly skewed by what media you consume and what critical responses you see. Popular media is likely to be charming and engaging, otherwise it wouldn't be popular. What's not guaranteed is that it will also be technically skilled. Think of it as a meal made by your loving grandmother - she may not be the world's best chef and she might not have a single Michelin star, but it's still a delicious dish that you love.

More on point, I also don't see people dismissing Rowling or her work. (Acknowledging her flaws isn't the same thing.) I think that's also your interpretation.

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

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.

[ SECRET POST #4384 ]

no subject

DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

no subject

no subject

DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

no subject

no subject