fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2686 ]

[ SECRET POST #2686 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2686 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 059 secrets from Secret Submission Post #384.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I. I wish to God all the Communists and Socialists who never lived in Socialist countries stopped because they have no fucking idea what they are talking about.

II. Everyone knows this one, but still: authorial intent is a big deal and no, you can't just say "death of the author and screw it", because these aRE DIFFERENT APPROACHES USED FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES.

Can you be more detailed about your second point? For those of us who are not well versed in literature etc.

Sure! Some people may not agree with me, though (what with this being an unpopular opinion and all).

So basically we have two possible perspectives (which are, in fact, more or less two ends of a spectrum of understandings): the Death of the Author and the authorial intent.

When people use the former (e.g. in academic textual analyses), they see the text as being completely independent from the authorial judgement as well as the creator's needs and feelings. All the interpretations are based solely on the literary features of the text+various cultural/personal perspectives the reader might wish to bring into the equation.

Understandably, this approach produces a kajillion interpretations, most of which have equal validity and can be neither proven nor disproven. This, I think, must be one of the most unpopular parts of this unpopular opinion of mine - I see astonishing numbers of people trying to prove or disprove valid interpretations based on the Death of the Author.

Now, using authorial intent gives way fewer possible interpretations; besides, they usually do not have equal validity and can be supported or undermined by additional pieces of evidence. The catch, of course, is that using this approach is much trickier and that it involves analysing the psyche and the cultural background of an actual living person (which produces a lot of drama and controversy).

What I think is that while the Death of the Author is a great tool when we are talking literary/fandom speculations (i.e. the "what this universe could be like if it were real" type of discussions), using authorial intent is what actually helps to understand the mechanics of a particular text (in the broadest sense of the word). If, say, somebody were trying to predict what will happen in the future of a particular currently-created universe, turning to the authorial intent would make way more sense than using a formalistic approach. If somebody were trying to understand why something is written this way and not the other, it is the creator's approach to the text they should be analysing; etc.

Hope this makes sense.

It did make sense. :) It is also really, really interesting, thanks!

From your description I agree with your POV.

Understandably, this approach produces a kajillion interpretations, most of which have equal validity and can be neither proven nor disproven.

That's not the case because any interpretation must be compatible with the text itself. Shakespeare's Hamlet is not The Long, Long Trailer. One can argue that some interpretations are plausible and other interpretations implausible given analysis of the text.

Chaining interpretation to "the creator's needs and feelings?" Hopefully the author isn't engaged in the self-indulgent creation of a Mary Sue work. Central to the craft of creating art is the willingness to take your precious little darlings out to the backyard, put a bullet in their brain, and bury them in a shallow grave for the sake of a better story.

The catch, of course, is that using this approach is much trickier and that it involves analysing the psyche and the cultural background of an actual living person (which produces a lot of drama and controversy).

But that's psychology or biography, not literature. (Never mind that there's no clear way to apply authorial intent for works that are inherently collaborative.)

If, say, somebody were trying to predict what will happen in the future of a particular currently-created universe, turning to the authorial intent would make way more sense than using a formalistic approach.

Then you're in the business of making shit up, in which case, neither the text nor the authorial intent make much of a difference.

omg a reference to The Long, Long Trailer!

I have nothing productive to add.

None of which has anything to do with my point?? I feel like there is a major misunderstanding here.

Yes, I meant text-compatible interpretations. Otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned their validity.

By "using authorial intent" I did not mean agreeing with the author, nor basing the analysis on their opinion re:their text. This opinion is only a part of authorial intent, often minor. When somebody writes Mary Sues it is, in fact, a perfect case for this approach precisely because it is so obvious what the author wanted, what the author felt, and how the contradiction between the former and the latter led to a spectacular fail the size of Alaska.

As to collaborative works, it really does depend on the particular case. Also, I do not claim that this kind of analysis is universal or that it always yields desirable results.

Same can be said of the last point. It is always a speculation, true, but depending on circumstances, a good logical analysis of the text and the context may significantly narrow down the number of solutions. Discussion of narrative development is not "making shit up".

What are your thoughts on democratic socialists?

I'm chill with them. As long as they don't start advocating unrealistic social and political changes, I think their ideology is as valid as anyone's and actually makes more sense than many others.

Well, I think this is a tricky one.

My grandparents were refugees from communism, and I now live in a country where there is also a strong socialist influence. It's...not really always comparable.

I think socialism is good for some things - it's just can't fling too far left, just as things shouldn't swing too much right. Being in a multi-party system, it's interesting to have several voices to balance things out. I've never voted communist/socialist before, but I might this time, because I feel we're veering too much right.

I would never want to live under the communism regime my grandparents lived under - but even they would have told you that not ALL of the ideology was bad.

RE: point 1, care to go more in-depth? That could go so many ways.

I don't mind moderate economic/political Socialism as long as it stays realistic. When I start frothing at the mouth a bit is when people behave as if a viable alternative to Western capitalist democracy is a Socialist/Communist society that sounds helluva lot like one of those people already tried to create.

Ah yes, the old "Well all of those communist states that turned out to be terrible dictatorships with ruined economies that people became desperate to escape from, those totes don't count because they weren't REAL communism like what I would implement!" line. So fucking tired of that.

Reminds me of the people who argue that just because steep import taxes to allow the growth of local industry tend to lead to corruption doesn't mean it can't work if the corruption is somehow prevented*. Or the people who argue that a country can get away with printing more and more money as it pleases, and the countries that saw hyperinflation just did it wrong. Economics is a very good field for claiming your theory works even if it hasn't in the past.

* My economics teacher used the analogy of a four-year-old challenged to fight Chuck Norris. Her father tells Chuck Norris to wait twenty years, then arranges for her to get strength training and protein shakes and so on. She decides she likes not having to fight Chuck Norris, and gets him to keep her in training indefinitely. In the same way, international competitors tend to crush local high-tech industries like software, but tech industries that are government-supported refuse to get off that support and function on their own.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2686 ]

Re: Controversial opinions

Re: Controversial opinions

Re: Controversial opinions

Re: Controversial opinions

Re: Controversial opinions

Re: Controversial opinions

Re: Controversial opinions

Re: Controversial opinions

Re: Controversial opinions

Re: Controversial opinions

Re: Controversial opinions

Re: Controversial opinions

Re: Controversial opinions

Re: Controversial opinions