[ SECRET POST #1575 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1575 ⌋


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


01.



__________________________________________________

02.


__________________________________________________

TRIGGER WARNING FOR SEXUAL/EMOTIONAL ABUSE

03.


__________________________________________________

04.


__________________________________________________

05.


__________________________________________________

06.


__________________________________________________

07.


__________________________________________________

08.


__________________________________________________

09.


__________________________________________________

10.


__________________________________________________

11.


__________________________________________________

12.


__________________________________________________

13.


__________________________________________________

14.


__________________________________________________

15.


__________________________________________________

16.


__________________________________________________

17.


__________________________________________________

18.


__________________________________________________

19.


__________________________________________________

20.


__________________________________________________

21.


__________________________________________________

22.


__________________________________________________

23.


__________________________________________________

24.


__________________________________________________

25.


__________________________________________________

26.


__________________________________________________

27.


__________________________________________________

28.


__________________________________________________

29.


__________________________________________________

30.


__________________________________________________

31.


__________________________________________________

32.


__________________________________________________

33.


__________________________________________________

34.


__________________________________________________

35.


__________________________________________________

36.


__________________________________________________

37.


__________________________________________________

TRIGGER WARNING FOR INCEST, RAPE

38.


__________________________________________________

39.



Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 132 secrets from Secret Submission Post #225.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeats ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.

Comments

[cephiedvariable.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I feel like a lot of people don't actually read it but just tirelessly repeat the meme of "he writes like a textbook" which is absolutely not true.

The standing stone was cold, and it cast a long pale shadow that stretched eastward over them. The sun, a pale and watery yellow, was gleaming through the mist just above the west wall of the hollow in which they lay; north, south and east beyond the wall the fog was thick and white. I just opened up to a random page and got that. To me his prose is perfect- it manages to be dense and poetic without ever slipping into purple.

I get that a lot of people have a mental block against ugh it's so long and there's so many names to remember and this birthday party is taking forever, but LotR is such a thoroughly modern novel and despite it being about as thick as a human skull, it's actually pretty snappily written. I can't help but think people let the hype about it being "boring" and "sterile" affect their reading experience.

Oh man I am such a snob, who knows. ~(-_-)~

[akuryounoseiki.livejournal.com]

I'll be a snob with you because I agree 100%

[(Anonymous)]

And to me that prose is dry and dull. Different strokes, I guess.

[cephiedvariable.livejournal.com]

Different strokes to be sure, but seriously - and I'm not asking this to be a dick, but because I'm honestly curious and aware of the fact that I am a huge lit snob - could you give me an example of what you think is "good" prose? Like, just a novel or author or whatever?

[(Anonymous)]

Well, you'll probably think I'm part of the unwashed masses (she said jokingly; not trying to start a war here) but I like John Green's writing style a lot (though his stories are eerily and kind of annoyingly similar). One of my favorite books is "From the Corner of His Eye" by Dean Koontz (but I wholly recognize that there's nothing high-brow and amazing about it, it's just really readable, to me. Ditto JK Rowling).

There's a book called "Alas, Babylon" by Pat Frank that I liked. Lamb by Chris Moore (though, not really Moore's other books) was good, and Steven King has a chapter in his memoir "On Writing" that goes into the time he was hit by a van and nearly killed in a very vivid way without being at all gory. Those pages were perhaps the best things I've ever read. If I owned it, I would copy a passage, but it was a library book. (But one day I will buy it and love it forever.)

And I was really surprised to like The Time Traveler's Wife.

So, yeah. I guess I'm kind of a mainstream, easy-reader. I don't really feel like pulling out the books I DO own and retyping right now, but maybe later.

[(Anonymous)]

"But the dreams came on in the Japanese night like livewire voodoo, and he'd cry for it, cry in his sleep, and wake alone in the dark, curled in his capsule in some coffin hotel, his hands clawed into the bedslab, temperfoam bunched between his fingers, trying to reach the console that wasn't there."

From 'Neuromancer,' by William Gibson.

Gibson makes everything come alive for me. The stream-of-consciousness style, the sparse description -- something about it completely immerses me.

[childings.livejournal.com]

I read all three books and I still think his writing reads like the Bible (as in, like reading the encyclopedia in some parts, and really awesome and engaging in other parts). What about the part where he interrupts the action in the battle between Frodo and Shelob to give you Shelob's whole backstory? Like that was really necessary (or the definition of good writing)?

Flowery prose is great and everything, but Tolkein's pacing always seemed off to me. Whatever.

[meadowphoenix]

And to me, his prose is fatally flawed by that same evocative notion. Is it beautiful? Extremely. Does the plot, and therefore the prose narration, suffer for that. Yes, and that's a giant problem for me in prose writing. To me, prose description should be focused on plot movement. You describe so that the audience understands why the characters do what they do. If it doesn't help, then its unnecessary.

If he wanted to exercise the beauty of his language to his full extent, he should have just written an epic poem, completely and not tried to slip poetry in there. Language and its ability to speak to the audience is essential in poetry, and I think the way he wrote belongs there more. His books feel like he missed the true form his writing should have taken.

[cephiedvariable.livejournal.com]

I actually don't understand what you're trying to say here? His prose was good, and that took away from the work? Poetic prose can't move a plot?

What you don't seem to appreciate is that Tolkien was creating a new genre so it's kind of difficult to criticize his form objectively since he was making it up as he went along. I get why people don't like reading it, but if he hadn't written it the way he did there would be no Harry Potter or Final Fantasy or George R. R. Martin and my Thursday D&D game would be bust. You might as well be saying: "Virginia Woolf wrote beautifully, but I think her focus on metaphor and emotion detracted from the coherency of her plots."

[meadowphoenix]

I don't think he created the fantasy genre, and if he hadn't written something, somebody else would have. C. S. Lewis was writing at the same time. It's all derivative of folk tales and myth. He certainly didn't invent the hero cycle.

Which is my point. He follows epic tropes and folk cycles pretty solidly, but epic tropes, for example evocative language that is there for the sake of language, are meant for poetry and he didn't do a good job of communicating that excitingly or accessibly to prose, which is why I don't think the prose is very good. Beautiful, but not effective. I feel like it would have worked better if he had just written an epic poem, where language is more important than plot and descriptive digression are perfectly normal.

[cephiedvariable.livejournal.com]

Uhhhhhhhh, look CS Lewis was heavily influenced by his bro Tolkien (and vice versa in many respects, although I think the pendulum swung much further in one direction than the other tbh). Fantasy is a genre that evolved from myth and fairy tales (very purposefully, actually, on Tolkien's part), yes, but it's kind of an indisputable fact that no one ever who has studied literature (that I've met at least) will argue with that Tolkien popularized and shaped the conception of the modern genre as we know it. There's a reason so many universities tend to offer full year courses on his body of work.

Like, okay it doesn't work for you cool, but how is Lord of the Rings ineffective and inaccessible when it's one of the most popular novels of all time inspiring cult like devotion the world over and is cited by every fantasy author worth their salt from LeGuin to Moorcock to GRRM ect. as both the father of and pinnacle of the genre?

Not to get all histrionic here or anything but I dunno, the form of LotR is part of the reason it remains such an influential work of fiction to this day. The fusion of prose, history, poetry and metaphor (not allegory; Lewis was all allegory) can be clunky at times because I don't think anyone at the time really knew how to edit it because it was so different. But had it not been delivered in that format, it wouldn't have spawned the cultural phenomenon that it did. Saying that someone else would have written something eventually is just saying "If Tolkien hadn't written LotR, someone else would have written LotR."

[meadowphoenix]

You said he was creating a new genre. I said he wasn't and I'm sticking by that. I mentioned C. S. Lewis, because people were already writing in that genre at the same time (although I'll just say that the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was published before LOTR).

I'm not talking about influence, I'm talking about skill. He can be as popular and as influential as he wants, that doesn't mean he was effective at writing an epic novel. I pretty sure that popularity and influence have more to do with world-building and creativity than writing technique. Case in point: I would not deny that LOTR the book is on every must-read list and is the second most best selling novel of all time. However, the entire series is not on the best selling series of all time at all. I would say that's because creativity and a fascinating world cannot resuscitate long detailed bucolics that meander unnecessarily from the plot.

Frankly, you can't say the form is why LOTR's is popular. You simply can't. Especially since the form is often what is criticized and complained about.

[cephiedvariable.livejournal.com]

and is the second most best selling novel of all time. However, the entire series is not on the best selling series of all time at all.

??????????

What entire series?

Like The Hobbit and The Silmarillion? Lord of the Rings is one book. :/

Especially since the form is often what is criticized and complained about.

Also, this is not at all true. Like, in pop culture people whine about the form a lot, but in literary circles where people care about Fantasy as a legitimate genre and additionally in academic circles, the form is certainly not "complained" about. Actually, it's usually praised, heatedly debated, strenuously deconstructed and palely emulated by authors who get teary eyed at the beauty of it all. Like, have you ever heard published authors or Lit Profs talk about LotR? The fact that Tolkien is an insurmountable monolith in the genre is a source of constant angst in the industry.

It's okay that you don't like it, but that doesn't make it badly written. I don't like Jane Austen, but I recognize that she is one of the greats of English Literature and has contributed a lot to the Western canon, especially as a trail-blazing female novelist. So. Yeah.

"Series" issue

[(Anonymous)]

What entire series?

Like The Hobbit and The Silmarillion? Lord of the Rings is one book. :/

Oh, that is fucking rich, I just love that comment. The "series" issue is always thrown around by Tolkien's fans... and to what end? Does it matter? Are their religious feelings hurt somehow? It is most often printed in three volumes, therefore a common, lowly peasant of a reader WILL consider it a series. Arguing that it isn't is, for me, on the same level as being offended about what did Han Solo use for shaving.

tl;dr IT DOESN'T MATTER, IT IS NOT RELEVANT IN ANY WAY TO THE TOPIC

And just to chime in, I consider Tolkien's writing to be boring and bad - too purple, too flowery, you can read the sentiment a thousand times over in this thread. Mind you: I liked the beginning, I liked the scenes in Shire - the opening depiction of rural, simple life was great, as was the return to Shire. The stuff in between? Didn't care for it at all.

And let's not even go into plotting, which was just crude.

Re: "Series" issue

[cephiedvariable.livejournal.com]

woah u mad? Calm down.

I was confused because she said "LotR is one of the best selling books of all time" and then immediately followed it up with "however the entire series is not" and I honestly had no idea what she was talking about. I guess now that I've slept on it, it's possible that she meant as a single volume it's sold a lot of copies, but as three volumes it's sold considerably less which is probably true but I don't really get the point being made?

I'm sorry that people wanting the book to be referred to as a single volume is a pet peeve of yours but that's not actually what I was saying.

[meadowphoenix]

The first book, LOTR, alone is the best seller. The entire series, LOTR, TTT, ROTK doesn't have the title.

You just said it was heatedly debated, which means there is criticism so...
As for Lit. Prof arguing over Tolkien? I find that I don't quite trust Lit. Profs views on popular works since they have reputations to maintain. Academics are an enclave like no other and Tolkien was one of them. Pop culture, though cliquey itself although I think less so, is frankly a better gauge of whether the form was effective. That's the audience. That's who he was writing to. If there is significant angst over form, then it was fairly ineffective. You shouldn't have to have a degree to understand the intricacies of a novel.

You don't have say that Jane Austen is a good writer though. You can say her characters are one note, or that she rehashes the same themes with little variation or that she is derivative of Elizabethan comedy of error plays. That doesn't lessen her impact or her place as a English or overall classic. But classic doesn't mean expert.

Being able to write evocative prose doesn't mean that that very prose didn't flaw his plot significantly, although in other areas it enhanced it. That doesn't mean that he didn't violate the writer's rule of never writing a word more than is needed. Those flaws are significant flaws to me, ones that either suggest that the writer is self-congratulatory or is in the wrong form or lacks the ability to adapt properly. You don't find that there are those flaws at all, and that's fine. I know that I have my opinion and you have yours. I think easy of reading and uninterrupted momentum is of primary importance in prose epic (not poetry) and that not formulating it accordingly is not technically skillful. Wanting to skip over a significant number of portions of the book is a flaw of the writing in my opinion.

[fireez.livejournal.com]

While Tolkien made the genre popular, he did by no means invent it. Just because nowadays people think that "fantasy" is synonymous to "something with elves and dwarves and epic quests" doesn't mean that's true. Most literary historians agree that the genre of modern fantasy came about around half a century before Tolkien wrote LotR.

Also, I agree with meadowphoenix in that flowery prose, when used to excess, can actually slow down a plot. I really don't need the umpteenth description of the swamp bog our heroes were just walking past. But I realize that's something of a personal preference.

[cephiedvariable.livejournal.com]

Just because nowadays people think that "fantasy" is synonymous to "something with elves and dwarves and epic quests" doesn't mean that's true.

Yeah actually it does?

I am well aware of the history of the fantasy genre and exactly who influenced all the early greats including Tolkien himself. It was a mess of medievalists fiddling with myth retelling, children's novels, allegories with only a few scattered works we would consider properly "fantasy". Nothing we'd give its own shelf at the bookstore. The fact is that Tolkien pulled all these disparate elements together in a single work that defined the genre as it exists today. Pretty much every literary genre has authors or works or isolated movements like this- I dunno is what with this reluctance to acknowledge that Tolkien is the one who did it for fantasy?

[fireez.livejournal.com]

...I take it you've never heard of China Mieville, then. What about sword and sorcery? That one had its own bookshelf before epic fantasy came along.

Listen, I'm perfectly fine with Tolkien being one of THE big influences in fantasy. But I'm not OK with defining a genre as diverse as fantasy as "stuff with elves and dwarves and epic quests", because fantasy is so much more. It's epic quests. It's magical realism. It's vampires and romance. It's elder gods and tentacles. It's shapeshifters and talking animals. It's so much more.

[cephiedvariable.livejournal.com]

Paranormal/Supernatural =/= Fantasy

Lovecraftian Horror =/= Fantasy

These elements have certainly been incorporated into fantasy, especially in recent years, however the tenants of the "High Fantasy" genre is self contained, world-building myth and aversion to allegory (which uh, are things that China Mieville himself has pointed out and attributed to Tolkien as the one who caused the paradigm shift).

I dunno, this seems to me like a weird argument to even be having? I was just commiserating and admitted that my gut reactions about Tolkien are irrational. I said later on in the thread that I get why people don't read him and I'm glad the movies exist for that reason because they are fantastic?

I'm just confused about this ~*~genre~*~ that existed pre-Tolkien. Like there was the Worm Oroborous and there was Der Rings Der Nibelugen and there were all these kids books with fairies and MacDonald and a small but passionate movement to translate and modernize Nordic and Anglo-Saxon myth, but none of these things were connected or recognized as a coherent genre. That's kind of the whole point of that famous essay 'On Fairy Stories' and the big reason Lewis and Tolkien argued so much over the validity of allegory in "Fairy Stories" in the first place. ~(-_-)~

[fireez.livejournal.com]

I guess my view is just a bit broader than yours, since I include Low Fantasy under the "fantasy" umbrella, too. And I started the argument without knowing you were talking about High Fantasy only, else I wouldn't have even butted in.

...ok, lie, I would've still butted in on the idea that too elaborate and flowery prose can actually stall a plot, but that's a whole other can of worms that has to do mostly with personal taste :P.

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

My eyes glazed over just reading that quote.

I've read some long and dense stuff. But drivel about pale watery suns gleaming through mist, jesus no. There are millions of books in the world; don't waste your time on one that takes 54 words to say IT WAS COLD AND MISTY, and doesn't even do it in a way that's new.

[(Anonymous)]

don't waste your time on one that takes 54 words to say IT WAS COLD AND MISTY

wow why even bother reading lol

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

You want a wordy book, find a better one.

[fairhearing.livejournal.com]

::raises hand:: I read the entire trilogy, as well as the Hobbit. There is no life or art to Tolkien's prose, in my ~humble~ opinion. if you want fantasy with lyricism and beauty, you should read Le Guin or McKillip, but even among the rest of the Workmanlike Male High Fantasy Writers, Tolkien is guilty of not knowing how to turn a fucking phrase.

Now, George R. R. Martin is a high-fantasy writer who can fucking WRITE.