[ SECRET POST #2463

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2463 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #352.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 3 4 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Oh for crying out loud

[chardmonster]

Can we stop acting as if Jane Austen is the height of classic literature and that playing with it is a huge travesty? I love Pride and Prejudice as much as anyone but we only act like it's the Greatest Book Ever because it's very old but easy to read.

It's early 19th century chick lit. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't exactly high art.

Re: Oh for crying out loud

[lilacsigil]

I think it is high art (and dismissing it as "chick lit" is sexist and ridiculous) but we should still play with it!

Re: Oh for crying out loud

[chardmonster]

I don't dismiss it as chick lit! I don't think there's anything wrong with chick lit. I just mean that it's a simple story line aimed at a primarily female audience. The guy equivalent isn't somehow better.

I just mean it isn't, say, Mary Shelly or Bronte-level complexity we're dealing with here (see, I like girl authors), that's all. People in fandom communities have no problem doing all sorts of things with Shakespeare but touch Austen and suddenly you're committing treason.

Re: Oh for crying out loud

[rosehiptea]

I think the fact that it's easy to read and a simple story line is actually pretty significant -- I've read a lot of female novelists who came before Austen and she really vastly improved on a lot of what they were doing. They had "complex plots" all right but they often involved improbable coincidences, ridiculous plot points, and huge doses of "Oh for fuck's sake if they would just explain the situation they could work all of this out." At least Elizabeth was angry at Darcy for an actual reason, not some kind of simple misunderstanding.

(I'm not saying male novelists of the period (and all periods) didn't pull the same shit! I just have barely read any to be honest.)

But anyway I'm 100% behind messing with Austen if one feels like it. I didn't realize that there was such a feeling against doing it, since I've seen plenty of Austen fanfiction... though I'll admit it was mostly "respectful" stuff.

Re: Oh for crying out loud

[(Anonymous)]

i thought it had a big male audience when it came out

Re: Oh for crying out loud

[bringreligiontothewamwams]

It could be high art, you know, if you put it on the top shelf.