fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3890 ]

[ SECRET POST #3890 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3890 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Harry Potter and Pretty Little Liars]

__________________________________________________

03.

[The Crown]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Me Before You (novel)]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Little Women, Jo/Laurie, Jo/Professor Bhaer]

__________________________________________________

06.

(Supergirl, Wynonna Earp)

__________________________________________________

07.

[The Defenders]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #557.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

How obligated do gou think writers should be to eliminate unintended implications of their stories? I've seen people say writers "didn't realize" the implications (ie were bad writers) but we don't know them. For all we know, they did relize that was one way a story *could* be taken but not the only way and decided their way we just a valid ad the other.

Who's more right? Does it matter of we're talking pro writing or fanfic, books, movies or tv shows?

S.A.
Ugggghhh fucking phone typos.

they have no obligation

+1. It's up to the writer whether or not they wish to make changes, but they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.

I had an example of something I thought came off as racist (possibly unintentionally) in a comic book deleted off of TV Tropes with the excuse that they couldn't find an example of anybody else interpreting it that way.

gosh dang it eguehguehgeuhgeuhgeuhgeh this is such a fucking stupid and complicated and loaded argument.

Writers don't control how their stories are interpreted (not in a final sense anyway). At the same time, they are responsible for what their stories say. And in a case where they were aware, or should reasonably have been aware, that a story could be interpreted in a certain way, it's their responsibility to either accept that possibility or change the story. You can't just say that you were aware that a specific interpretation exists but that you disavow it - that's a failure of writing.

No obligation and I have a pretty broad benefit of the doubt gauge when judging implications. Sometimes it takes a lot of reaching and ignoring of common sense to latch onto an unfortunate implication. But that's not always the case, and when it comes to books and movies I definitely think better of the writers who address and clarify ambiguities that lead to those implications.

I give tv writers more leeway, just because their time constraints are so precise. Can't expect them to address every possible interpretation and still tell a good story.

Needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. There's a difference between first-edition Ooompa Loompas and Snape is a trans woman.

> Snape is a trans woman

is this a thing that people are seriously trying to claim, because if so lolwut

"When Snape tells the class that she doesn't "expect you will really understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins," she invokes classically feminine witchcraft symbolism."

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/bjx8xm/the-shockingly-convincing-argument-that-severus-snape-is-transgender

I remember someone (probably you) mentioning that Snape thing before and I'm really curious about it. I've never seen it, probably because on my corner of tumblr no one says anything that could remotely be considered as positive about Snape.

But mostly I'm commenting to confess my own shame at not realizing how horrible the Oompa Loompas were until way after the fact.

In the first edition, the Oompa Loompas were clearly African Pygmies who couldn't look after themselves. Dahl fixed that in the second edition.

No, I did know that. I had the first edition I guess - it was over forty years ago. But it didn't really hit me how horrible it was until more like thirty years ago. I didn't even know there was a second edition.

(Truth be told I don't even like Roald Dahl.)

I think they are obligated to consider implications, and I'm not going to excuse people based on "well, gee, I had no idea" but there can definitely be cases where I feel the author made a good-faith effort and people are coming out of left field.

Also I generally draw the line at shipping. An author isn't obligated to put two characters together or make excuses for why they didn't put them together just because people thought they may have intended it. (There may be exceptions to this - I don't want to say "queer-baiting" never happens, for instance. But shippers can jump on things the author never intended and then get very bitter.)

I think there needs to at least be a good faith effort to consider audience reactions? I mean, at the heart of it that's what good storytelling is, reaching an audience, and if the author or artist is getting an unintended reaction then it's noteworthy.

At the same time if ten thousand people stare at the Mona Lisa and see a woman's portrait and then one person swears up and down it looks more like a bowl of fruit to them, then there's not really much you can do, is there?

So it's not a clear cut topic at all, and there's no hard and fast line for how many people interpret something the 'wrong' way before it needs to be taken seriously. And then you get into herd behavior and how easy it can be to influence people if enough people start saying the Mona Lisa is a painting of a bowl of fruit then others will agree no matter how little canon basis there may be. (I'm sure everyone here can think of one piece of fanon that makes them go WTF)

It's a complex question. On the one hand, it's impossible for a writer to eliminate ALL unintended implications of a story, because there will be as many interpretations as there are readers and you have no control over how someone interprets your work. Some people make mountains out of molehills. Some people see stuff that plain isn't there because they've got shaky reading comprehension or mental baggage. No author can anticipate all those possibilities.

On the other hand, there IS such a thing as sloppy writing. I'd say that if an author's intent is badly misinterpreted by the majority of readers, that's a sign their writing is not up to snuff, i.e. it's not doing the job it was intended to do. If I write what I believe is a story about a happy little apple going to market but nearly everybody sees it as a story about a homicidal orange on a metaphorical killing spree and I didn't intend that... well, from my POV, that's quite a screw up.

I side-eye pretty hard people who turn a controversial topic on the its head just to get attention and then act shocked when (gasp) some people are OFFENDED that you (for instance) created a world where BLACK PEOPLE ARE EVIL and WHITE PEOPLE ARE POOR WIDDLE OPPRESSED INNOCENTS. Um. Yeah. :/ You knew that had some implications. You just didn't want to think about it or you didn't care...or maybe you genuinely thought your book would solve racism, IDK. But either way, I'm gonna side-eye.

The possible implications of an author's work have to be pretty overt or seem pretty darn deliberate for me to take issue with it. Like, if the author saying they didn't intend it that way doesn't provoke a strong "suuuuuure" from me, then I'm not going to place any fault with them.

And I'm someone who tends to (and wants to) give people the benefit of the doubt.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3890 ]

"Implications"

Re: "Implications"

Re: "Implications"

Re: "Implications"

Re: "Implications"

Re: "Implications"

Re: "Implications"

Re: "Implications"

Re: "Implications"

Re: "Implications"

Re: "Implications"

Re: "Implications"

Re: "Implications"

Re: "Implications"

Re: "Implications"

Re: "Implications"

Re: "Implications"

Re: "Implications"