[ SECRET POST #3050 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3050 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Michael Keaton, Eddie Redmayne]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Touken Ranbu (DMM)]


__________________________________________________



04.
(Watership Down)


__________________________________________________



05.
[Republique]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Cardcaptor Sakura]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Donkey Kong Country (TV series)]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Türkisch für Anfänger]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Tom Waits (left), Mark Lanegan (right)]















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 038 secrets from Secret Submission Post #436.
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

[(Anonymous)]

That's really pushing it. By that reasoning anything in any book is inherently a political statement, if we're reaching for things like "killing is bad", or "be nice to people" and shrieking agenda.

I have no idea if the Hunger Games had an intended political message but as a reader I can confidently say I didn't get it. I don't think "the less fortunate are oppressed" is a political concept, it's an ethical one at best. Nor is "the privileged having everything" inherently a political statement unless the author is knowingly connecting it to a real life political situation.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I'm not trying to shriek anything, I don't think having an agenda is intrinsically bad unless you get explicitly didactic about it.

I see your concern about the distinction between ethical and political statements, but I think when an ethical statement crosses over into the actions, the policy, or the form of government and the state, it's hard for me to see that as other than political. So, from what I understand of The Hunger Games, it's clearly political, in that the gladiatorial games are something that are organized by the state for political ends. Similarly, "it is bad for the less fortunate to be oppressed" is an ethical statement, but it becomes a political one when that oppression is seen as the fault of the government, or the responsibility of the government to redress.

I can't comment on whether the political concepts came across in The Hunger Games successfully. But I think those concepts are political, whether or not they're connected to specific real-world things.

[(Anonymous)]

Sounds like a matter of definition then, since it seems you would call a story that is about politics/government as a political statement.

I see political statement as inherently having to be commentary on existing and contemporary political policy and government, or at very least social issue. If the author genuinely intended the gladitorial fights of Hunger Games to be commentary of society's desensitization to violence, that might be a message (though social, not really political). If her "privileged have all" setup directly invoked imagery from the 1% and Wallstreet controversies, then I'd say that's a political message, for example. But if the concept doesn't allude to a contemporary political issue which the author is intending to comment on, I wouldn't call it a political message.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that it's a definitional. But I would also say that I think something can be political in nature without necessarily being a political statement or a political message, and I think it can be political without having to do with specific political parties or ideologies. It can, for instance, be concerned with basic political principles and things of that nature; I would be very comfortable calling something that has to do with whether democracy is basically good or bad political, for instance, even if it doesn't come down on either side at all.

[chardmonster]

So let me get this straight. If Katniss doesn't stride into the arena wearing a Guy Fawkes mask this isn't a political message

Would it help make this more relevant if Peta worked at Panera, a modern bread establishment

[(Anonymous)]

We found toast in a breadless place...

[chardmonster]

but as a reader I can confidently say I didn't get it. I don't think "the less fortunate are oppressed" is a political concept

Okay but that's getting so pedantic you end up making yourself look like a simpleton. When is the ethical not political? When do people agree on ethics?

Nor is "the privileged having everything" inherently a political statement unless the author is knowingly connecting it to a real life political situation.

I want to know what rock you live under where "the privileged having everything" isn't a political statement inherently connected to real life political situations both past and present because it sounds like a very pleasant rock and I'd love to move there.