[ 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

[(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.