[ SECRET POST #2619 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2619 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Pushing Daisies]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Dallas Buyers Club]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Bravely Default]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Fake & Kuroko no Basuke]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Warehouse 13]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Willem Dafoe]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Dexter]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Rooster Teeth]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Lost Girl]


__________________________________________________
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 028 secrets from Secret Submission Post #374.
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

[sarillia]

I will never understand the complaints about Tolkien. I've said this several times by now but those complaints had me worried that I had accidentally gotten an abridged edition when I finally read LotR because the descriptions didn't seem to go on very long at all to me. And there weren't nearly as many songs as I'd heard and the descriptions were mostly of things that had to do with the plot and not paragraphs about a random mountain in the distance or something. I just don't get it. He's not exactly Hemingway but he's not on the list of people I'd bring up if asked to give an example of a longwinded writer who spends too much time on description.

[(Anonymous)]

If anything, I've always felt Tolkien doesn't describe things enough.

[(Anonymous)]

And he really skimped on the linguistics.

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe you're just not a very good judge about that kind of thing. It's great that his writing works so well for you and that you don't think he's longwinded, but that doesn't mean he isn't. He's exceptionally longwinded and that works very well for The Hobbit and LotR because those books are about the world he created, not the characters or their story. But in general it's a terrible writing style precisely because it sacrifices the elements of storytelling and belabors insignicfant details.

[sarillia]

I didn't say anything about how much I like his writing. I'm not generally one to mix up subjective reactions to objective observations. I don't conflate "I like this" with "this is good" like a lot of other people do.

But I will admit that I may have different points of reference for what "longwinded" looks like. If that's significantly different than what the majority of other readers think then maybe I'll just have to accept that I'm an outlier and he fits into the usual idea of longwinded.

It's just that I'm not sitting here going "I like the writing so it couldn't possibly be bad!". I'm thinking of all the other books I've read that are so much more longwinded than his books.