[ SECRET POST #3547 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3547 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 32 secrets from Secret Submission Post #507.
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)]

Why on Earth should that ever be the case? You are not endorsing any viewpoint merely by taking in and enjoying a work.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't really think works can be evaluated in purely aesthetic terms? I mean, a work always has content and context, doesn't it? It is not just one thing. It still doesn't mean that you're endorsing the work, of course. But say you have something where, for instance, the aesthetic experience of the work is being used to promote the values of fascism. I think that the way that you react to the work is going to be different on that account. I think that you would be incorrect in reacting to it in the same way that you would react to it if it weren't promoting fascism. You would be viewing the work in a way that was incomplete.

Now obviously, again, that doesn't mean that you have to splatter paint all over it and loudly proclaim that you despise everything about it. But one of the things about Triumph Of The Will is that it's Nazi propaganda, you know? That is part of the work.

[(Anonymous)]

No. I read books all the time with zero knowledge of the authors. I read a book recently and I don't even know if the author is male or female.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure. Everyone comes at something with different knowledge and a different context. You're never going to have perfect information even if you do a ton of research. But if you DO know something about the authors, there's a good chance that it might affect the way you read the book, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. In fact I think it's both inevitable and good.

[(Anonymous)]

This is the crux where we'll disagree, unfortunately. I do think works can be evaluated in purely aesthetic terms, and in fact I think they should be in many cases. In an example, I don't think there's any harm at all in loving Mists of Avalon, regardless of MZB's crimes-- and, in fact, I don't think you really need to bother knowing about it in the first place. They're separate things.

[(Anonymous)]

First, regarding Mists of Avalon: if you do know about it, I think it ought to have a bearing on how you think about it. That doesn't mean that you can't love it. But, you know, you kind of have to ask yourself, "How will I feel about loving something that was created by this awful, awful person?" And if the answer is that you're fine with it, go to it. But it's a serious possibility either way.

Regarding the broader aesthetic question: I think that works can be evaluated in purely aesthetic terms but I think that the aesthetic is just one element of a work, and evaluating something on a purely aesthetic basis is necessarily a partial evaluation. To evaluate something on a purely aesthetic basis is to tear it away from its broader context. It's a distortion and an incomplete view of the work. That's how I feel about it anyway, and I doubt we're going to agree, but god bless.

[feotakahari]

There's a disconnect I often run into with this argument, in that it seems like the people who're making it don't consume a lot of media where the author directly lectures the reader about what to believe. As a reader of science fiction and fantasy novels, I get directly lectured all the time, often about things that are morally repulsive, so I can't really set aside the "problematic" stuff unless I set aside actual parts of the text. If what's "problematic" is the creator's personal life, but that isn't a part of their fiction, it's much easier to just enjoy the fiction.

Maybe this is the difference between writers and actors. If an actor beats his wife, that doesn't mean his character will endorse wife-beating, because the actor doesn't write the script. A writer might come out with something about how you have to beat the broads to keep them in line.

[tabaqui]

I find this interesting. I have read a lot of sci-fi (and not quite as much fantasy), but don't recall being lectured about anything in any of them.

What sci-fi are you reading?

[(Anonymous)]

I give you this:

http://www.starshipsofa.com/blog/2016/05/24/starshipsofa-no-437-jeffrey-ford/

[tabaqui]

Is this a podfic of a short story? I can't actually listen to that. What is it lecturing about?

[(Anonymous)]

A lot of older sci-fi works do this. Heinlein in particular stands out in my memory, but I can think of Zahn and even Asimov examples off the top of my head. A lot of authors wringing hard sci-fi wrote this was during the golden age.

Can't speak to fantasy, I generally avoid it like the plague so I don't know if this is science fiction specific.