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

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.

[ SECRET POST #4384 ]

no subject

DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

no subject