[ SECRET POST #3833 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3833 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #549.
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)]

I also want to know why when the subject of liking reading comes up, people love to assume you hate TV. There's nothing stopping people from enjoying both?

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe people have trouble understanding that other people can enjoy media in completely different formats? If they strongly prefer books or strongly prefer TV, it's tough to understand liking both?

[fishnchips]

I think it comes from the same place mentioned in the secret: There are quite a few pseudo-intelectuals who like to emphasise how much they love~reading~ and ~book~ and that's clearly so much superior than watching TV because TV is trash for plebs.

[(Anonymous)]

And then there's my favourite: "Oh no, I only watch documentaries."

[(Anonymous)]

DA

...said no one ever truthfully...

[nyxelestia]

Pretty much.

What's ironic is that the overwhelming majority of literature - and non-textual literary traditions - in human history were never meant to be one-on-one experiences, and most media in history was never meant to be "consumed" the way books are.

Almost all classical lit were intended to be performances - a song, a play, whathaveyou. Preferring movies and TV over books is, in many ways, humanity going back to its storytelling roots. For most of human history, we didn't write stories intended them to be read - we intended them to be seen, heard, and shared.

[fishnchips]

Yep. And just look at Shakespeare's comedies. They were never meant to be some sort of high brow literature, they were pure entertainment for the common people.

[(Anonymous)]

I think characterizing it that way is probably oversimplistic and buys into the underlying idea of a division between high and low art too much.

One of the functions of Shakespeare's plays was mass entertainment. That's both true, and a good argument against the false dichotomy of high versus low art. Characterizing it as nothing more than entertainment and talking in terms of Shakespeare's intent is kinda unnecessary IMO.

[fishnchips]

It's not if we're talking about people acting all high and mighty because they ~love to read~ and scoff at another form of mass entertainment like TV as something "lesser" when in reality, a lot of the works people primarily read nowadays weren't actually meant to be read but instead to be performed as entertainment in a way not unlike movies or TV today.
As for Shakespeare's intent - we don't know a whole lot about it and it's one of the huge debates in historical and literary circles around the world. But one thing is fairly certain: His plays were not intended to be read, but to be performed.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not if we're talking about people acting all high and mighty because they ~love to read~ and scoff at another form of mass entertainment like TV as something "lesser" when in reality, a lot of the works people primarily read nowadays weren't actually meant to be read but instead to be performed as entertainment in a way not unlike movies or TV today.

Sure. I have no objection to calling those people dickbags, cause they are dickbags. I just think it gives a little too much credence to the underlying framework of high and low art as essential categories, even if it's reversing their values.

[fishnchips]

Fair enough.