[ SECRET POST #4274 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4274 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 33 secrets from Secret Submission Post #612.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 2 - 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

[anarchicq]

Here, watch Lindsay Ellis' 35 minute take down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpUx9DnQUkA

[(Anonymous)]

Okay I tried, but five minutes in she's still bitching about how dare Disney want to make money.

[anarchicq]

Ok, so basically the feminist stuff is ill fitting, like, there were many female writers so women reading wasn't a thing.

The Beast never rises up to Belle's level, he was always just there. He's also a literary snob, so they don't bond over that, he just poopoo's her taste in books, then goes "Fuck it, here's better books in my library." instead of "I want to something nice for her, here's a gift"

The servants feel guilty that they didn't raise that boy right and so they deserve to be punished, too.

There's a magical book that takes them to anywhere IN SPACE OR TIME!

[(Anonymous)]

I guess? But to me it wasn't a bad movie, because the feminist 'stuff' was like, one line/scene that didn't seem jarring in the context of it being a remake wherein the original Gaston does make fun of her for reading.

It was a little different to me from the original, but to be honest I liked it more because it DID seem weird to me that an 11 year old boy who was probably raised to be a snob gets cursed for... being a snob. This wasn't an adult that should have known better like in the remake.

And I liked the book, tbh. It was a cute addition to me and also kind of cruel to the beast that he could go to these places and stuff, but he'd still never fit in so it didn't matter that he could, he could never get away from his present/situation.

[(Anonymous)]

It was a big thing in small, rural areas, tho...... Like. That's why Belle loved the city--it wasn't frowned on. (Hi, I have researched this extensively for roleplay and my own writing! Women writers were often from city or higher-class families, not girls on farms or in small towns where everyone had to work to make things run.)

[(Anonymous)]

But is that a gender thing, or a social class and wealth thing? How many male writers from poor, rural families were there? I don't think it was a lot.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, but women weren't supposed to be reading. That was a Man's Thing in rural towns, women were too busy doing their work around town and caring for the kids. If she was reading, then clearly she wasn't doing enough whereas a man had to read because of multiple reasons, including he would be the one in charge of family finances.

[(Anonymous)]

Wasn't France in particular good about literacy in that time? Like, even for peasants and women?

[(Anonymous)]

da

The data is kind of mixed on this. France was middle of the pack, I'd say. Literacy during the Pre-Revolution years was strong in Northwest of Europe, which included Northern France, but the South had dismal literacy rates. The Church did encourage education for everyone, but if you were a sharecropper's daughter you were pretty much destined to be illiterate. The daughter of a provincial tinkerer? It would depend on his wealth and how much he valued the education of his daughter. She would most likely know enough to help her future husband (who would likely be a tradesman), but maybe not enough to enjoy a sonnet.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not sold on the notion that men in rural towns were doing enough reading such that Belle reading would be shocking because she's a woman rather than shocking because she is a person of any gender reading in a rural town.

[(Anonymous)]

you know, i checked the video out because that didn't sound right and it's not. it's just factually incorrect.

so i kind of suspect you've got some form of bias?

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe I do? I dunno, I glazed over when she started talking about CEOs and direct to VHS, and making money.

If you're going to make a video about what you think is wrong with a movie (which is fine, opinions are cool), what on earth does a company's stance on making entertainment have to do with that individual movie, imo.

[(Anonymous)]

well you can't not watch the video and then say "well it didn't make any sense!". because she literally explains why she talks about those things.

[(Anonymous)]

Disney's financial incentives -> choices about how to make movies

therefore, understanding the financial strategy will help to illuminate what is going on in those movies

[(Anonymous)]

It’s laying out background and establishing context in order to better buttress arguments made later in the work. It’s a pretty standard rhetorical technique in academic criticism to lay out the foundation of your position and the background of a work through your particular critical lens before getting into the individual arguments you’re presenting. It gives those individual arguments a stronger base and shores up the overall criticism you’re presenting as compared to waiting to bring that foundation up until after presenting the arguments; people who would reject your basis would reject it regardless of when it was presented, and people who wouldn’t may reject the arguments before hearing their underpinning due to disagreement with the conclusion.