[ SECRET POST #5116 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5116 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 10 secrets from Secret Submission Post #732.
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

[meadowphoenix]

it depends on the type of book to me. i liked redwall and other books with feasts' depiction of food, because I really want the associated cookbook. but if it's a romance, there's really no reason to care because everyone eats the same thing (or rather the only reason to care is because you've made it a part of the characters' oeuvre, which is nice for distinction but not necessary). but yeah, i like character studies wherein food plays a nice part

[(Anonymous)]

"it's a romance, there's really no reason to care because everyone eats the same thing"

I'm confused. Why would everyone eat the same thing because it's a romance?

[meadowphoenix]

I'm being simplistic, but I mean people eat what's "normal" for whatever environment they're in. historical, western, sheik, i.e. western --> meat and cornbread, regency -----> english breakfast, billionaire falls for middle class or lower -----> high end restaurant. the food is there for the environment not the characters, and so everyone always eats according to tropes.

[(Anonymous)]

But not everyone eats the food they were born to? Characters who travel will pick up other favorite dishes they never had as a kid. Characters who are picky eaters with very limited tastes are very different kind of characters from those who are adventurous and will try anything. Characters born poor/working class will have a very different relationship to rich people food than people born to it. Rich people exposed to working class food will have a very different relationship on exposure to someone born to it.

Food is a REALLY interesting way of depicting how characters relate to the world they were born in, and either accept it or don't.

[meadowphoenix]

Yes, that IS a way food matters which i appreciate in the genres where it's important, but in (western) romance (and this is where my last phrase in my last comment is pertinent) the genre convention is going to be about tropes, and tropey characteristics and not how each character is "real". You could give a romance character a description like "female, loud and short" and I could tell you how the character eats in most romance. So actual depiction is either irrelevant or about going against the trope, neither of which is relevant character work.

[(Anonymous)]

Which romances are you referring to? Examples of specific titles, please.

[(Anonymous)]

SA

I also strongly disagree that going against the trope is inherently "not significant character work."

[meadowphoenix]

why? if the only thing that is changed in a trope is one thing, but everything else remains the same, including plot, and relationships dynamics, what is significant about it?

[meadowphoenix]

also you never answered this so?

[meadowphoenix]

romance in general. pick a harlequin

[(Anonymous)]

So you can't actually give any specific examples of books you've actually read. That's what I thought.

[meadowphoenix]

no it's just a stupid question to ask about a specific book when I'm talking about a genre's understanding of tropes. but I gave you a better answer than you deserved, since I am telling you that even without reading it a harlequin will fulfill this purpose. so pick one. if you want relevant specificity, pick anyone with a billionaire lmao.

[(Anonymous)]

I brought this up because I don't think you're very well-read in the genre. I think you're repeating overgeneralizing criticism that you read from someone else, with no original thought of your own. If you weren't just repeating someone else's work, you would be able to name a few titles of specific books that supported your argument.

Have you actually read any specific Harlequins romance book published in the last decade? Or any indie-published billionaire romance book? It's a yes or no question. If you can't name a single title, I'm going to assume the answer is no.

It matters because criticism is only valuable if it's coming out of real knowledge of the subject.

[meadowphoenix]

If you weren't just repeating someone else's work, you would be able to name a few titles of specific books that supported your argument.
And if you were able to counter my argument with any heft, you'd be able to pick a recent book or author or series that countered it, yes? If you weren't just arguing out of your ass? You could pick a harlequin billionaire book and say "see the food in this is quite quixotic" as easily as I presumably could say, "see the food descriptions do nothing" and yet you haven't? are you unaware of the genre? and if you are, and I don't understand why I should believe you aren't anymore than you believe me, why should I care what you're asking of me more than you're willing do what I'm asking of you? [But I will say that I don't think picking sonali dev would count as much of her novels are about either restaurant romances or cooking show romances, not that they aren't tropey including the arc of food incidences]

for record, all my reads are recent (and less recent), because I tend to read authors in chunks.

[(Anonymous)]

That's oversimplifying things, though. Even in a given historical time period, there are wide ranges in what people eat. A medieval peasant and a medieval duke do not eat the same types of foods. A sheik will not be having the same dinner as the guy whose job it is to herd the camels. A picky billionaire who grew up in the South will generally not gravitate to the same types of foods as a picky billionaire who grew up in New York City. If the food is only there to serve tropes, that's not because food description is pointless and homogeneous, it's because writers are not being terribly imaginative or versatile with it.

Also, "english breakfast" as in a fry-up with eggs, bacon, mushrooms, beans, toast, tomatoes, etc. was not the typical breakfast in the Regency period. You might be thinking of the Victorian period. In the Regency, breakfasts tended to be more carb-heavy for the upper class with several types of bread, coffee/tea/hot chocolate, perhaps featuring leftover cold meats from yesterday's meals. A fruit seller during the Regency period will be eating something much, much different and a lot less of it. You've chosen a particularly bad example because what people ate, and just as importantly when they ate held a lot of meaning in Regency times because it was related to class. But honestly, that could apply to many time periods and settings.

[meadowphoenix]

You've chosen a particularly bad example because what people ate, and just as importantly when they ate held a lot of meaning in Regency times because it was related to class.
No I haven’t. What I described were food tropes of romance novels. How you got a comment on historical accuracy from that I can’t imagine. But just so you know, tropes quite often ignore accuracy for the sake of the trope.

Regardless, as per my comment above, none of it is usually a comment on character and if it is, it’s to distinguish the character as against type, not to bring nuance to character.

[(Anonymous)]

I repeat, when a tool is used poorly, it's not logical to blame the tool.

[meadowphoenix]

....do you understand the discussion? First, quote me where any literary device is "blamed." I'd like to see where I said anything like that. Second, the tool isn't necessary to this genre. It could be deployed, it may be in singular outputs, but it doesn't need to be to get a satisfying romance (for me is implied, but you know, I think you just want to argue. which is fine, but it helps when you comment with relevance). Third, you don't seem to understand the tools being used, so you'll excuse me if I don't think you understand what is being used poorly. Tropes are a perfectly good literary tool.