[ SECRET POST #4701 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4701 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 22 secrets from Secret Submission Post #673.
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

I got carried away a bit

[(Anonymous)]

I think that's a very interesting idea.

First of all, terminology. I wonder what constitutes literary quality in narrative fiction. I have to admit I don't have a clear definition for that. It's not the same as financial success or popularity.

I have a clearer understanding of worldbuilding. To me, it's making the reader understand and feel at home in surroundings foreign to them. The goal is to be consistent, leave no giant holes, and make the world feel lived in. It hinges on which concepts and details the author thinks of, researches, and puts in. It is not so much about the creativity behind it (because let's face it, most worlds aren't that creative), and it is not about how good the descriptions are or how elegantly the author can convey the rules of the world (infodumps, show don't tell etc.).

If we had the story of Fifty Shades, a bad story with no worldbuilding, set in Tolkien's Middle Earth, arguably the greatest world ever built, I don't think that book would deserve to be called of high literary quality. (Though I wonder how popular it would be.) In that sense I agree with you.

So amazing worldbuilding alone does not make a quality story, but then, neither would good characters alone, or interesting thematic work alone. Quality to me means it's all at least decent and works well together. And that means I couldn't just dismiss the worldbuilding, because in a good story, the worldbuilding is part of the narrative (which, in Fifty Shades of Gandalf, is probably not the case).

So: I don't think an aspect as integral to a story as worldbuilding should be so radically excluded. If worldbuilding doesn't count, what else doesn't count? And what does?

What about historical novels? I think it's fair to compare that kind of worldbuilding to fantasy or SciFi worlds. It fits my understanding of worldbuilding, anyway.
Would we consider that kind of worldbuilding when judging a historical book on its literary quality? "The plot was okay and the characters likable but what elevates this book from others is the author's depiction of ancient Rome." Is that a thing? I don't think it is. And if it isn't, why should then fantasy and SciFi worlds be different?

I guess I don't entirely disagree you, OP. Worldbuilding definitely should not be the defining criteria for literary quality, but I don't think it's fair to completely exclude it, either. In any book that wants to claim high literary quality, the worldbuilding has to be too much part of the story to be easily excluded from analysis, discussion and judgment.