[ SECRET POST #5038 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5038 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 18 secrets from Secret Submission Post #721.
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

[meadowphoenix]

Death of the Author as a tool of literary criticism, in which it is a GREAT and NOT REQUIRED tool, or Death of the Author as a license for fanwork, in which it is a CONFUSING and UNNECESSARY defense of the type of engagement you have with a work?

You don't have to use death of an author in criticism, but everyone who understands communication as a inherently limited tool for conveying intent or meaning understands that context shifts meaning and intent and that a work does not exist in only one context and you will NEVER have access to the full breadth of intent or meaning or even be able to reconcile contradictory statements of intent and meaning because that's not how humans or communication works. It's freeing to assess a book without deep-diving an author, and recognize context that author may not have been aware of (you are not aware of the full context in which you communicate).

But it's use as a defense of just changing shit in fanworks is so fucking weird. Look at me: YOU are the author now!