[ SECRET POST #3294 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3294 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 072 secrets from Secret Submission Post #471.
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

Re: Epiphanies?

[(Anonymous)]

No, I'm sorry, but with all respect, that's complete horseshit. I agree that the dichotomy that you're describing exists more or less as you describe it. But the way that you're characterizing it is incorrect because it presupposes that both views have the same validity and standing. And that's just not true. I'm sorry, but it's not.

I mean, both of them are valid ways of liking a work, but when we're talking about criticism & trying to understand a work, the Doylist mode is just better. Because at the end of the day, fictional works are actually created works of fiction which were made and exist in our world. They are not actually descriptions of places that exist. None of the in-universe justifications are actually justifications.

To use your example, it's fun to pretend that Doyle was merely a literary agent, or whatever - but at the end of the day, Doyle did actually write the stories, and Watson and Holmes were actually just fictional characters.

Re: Epiphanies?

[feotakahari]

But Doyle did write the stories as if Watson wrote the stories. In that sense, a Watsonian approach mimics how Doyle himself attempted to frame the content of the stories. Just as a pure Watsonian approach misunderstands things that were done to pass on an idea or set up an emotion, a pure Doylist approach misunderstands things that were done to confirm internal consistency and create a "real"-feeling world. (Besides, any writer who doesn't want a Watsonian aspect to their work can just write an essay.)

Re: Epiphanies?

[(Anonymous)]

Actually, I just realized that I was assuming you were saying this as a problem w feminist critiques, and looking back you just said it was a thing that happened, so never mind my bad

(although I would point out that even in the example you've framed, the point you raise is an entirely Doylist one! those are rhetorical literary techniques - they are things that the author does)