case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2014-08-24 03:10 pm

[ SECRET POST #2791 ]


⌈ Secret Post #2791 ⌋

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: 03 pages, 058 secrets from Secret Submission Post #399.
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.

(Anonymous) 2014-08-25 02:42 am (UTC)(link)
I don't know if I entirely agree because "death of the author" and analysis of text divorced from the intentions of the author has been around for so long, disagreeing with the way a piece of media goes out objecting to it being in or out of character is not really a new way of engaging with texts. So I think that for at least that long, people haven't just taken word of creator as word of God.

[personal profile] anonymous4 2014-08-25 06:57 am (UTC)(link)
Death of the author's a different thing, though. Saying that a story has meanings an author never consciously intended is not the same as saying that a story should do X, Y and Z, and basing your criticism on showing whether it does or doesn't.

(Anonymous) 2014-08-25 12:13 pm (UTC)(link)
But they're not talking about "death of the author." They're talking about there being a single valid template for telling stories.

[personal profile] anonymous4 2014-08-25 06:50 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes! Glad it was intelligible!

And a lot of criticism seems to assume that this template is universally known and accepted, and that if a writer -- like, ahem, Steven Moffat -- doesn't conform to it, it's either because he doesn't know it, and so isn't qualified to write, or because he's deliberately ignoring it, to arrogantly piss off the fans.