[ SECRET POST #2686 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

Re: Controversial opinions

[cbrachyrhynchos]

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.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

omg a reference to The Long, Long Trailer!

I have nothing productive to add.

Re: Controversial opinions

[dreemyweird]

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".