[ SECRET POST #5042 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5042 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 47 secrets from Secret Submission Post #722.
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)]

if someone is criticizing you based on identity and not content (which tbqf I think she was hurt about content criticisms too sooooooooo)

The critic being wrong about the author's identity also casts doubt on the validity of the content criticism. It still might not be wrong - but it's a lot more likely to be in the face of an egregious factual error. Even in terms of content, the criticism is by no means guaranteed to be correct, and the idea that criticism of content can't itself be subject to criticism is weird. Not that I'm saying you said that, but there's this perception that pushback against criticism is whining or denial or derailing. No. Sometimes critics are just plain wrong, and their track record isn't necessarily any better than authors.'

[meadowphoenix]

The critic being wrong about the author's identity also casts doubt on the validity of the content criticism
I don't agree. it casts doubt on the motivation for the criticism, not its validity. "this sounds like a straight person wrote it" is going to be valid criticism regardless of whether a straight person wrote it or not.

[(Anonymous)]

How, though? Since LGBTQ people's experiences vary so much - and for that matter, the way straight people write LGBTQ people varies so much - we don't even know what "sounds like a straight person wrote it" really means. That's not very substantial without specific concrete examples. Regardless, learning the fact that a straight person didn't write it should require some self-examination on the part of the critic about their own stereotypes and pre-conceptions about "authenticity" might be.

[(Anonymous)]

Do they mean "this doesn't ring true in my experience?" Well that might mean the critic needs to think a little bit more deeply about the true hugeness of the breadth and variety of experiences, and how those experiences are written by people within the community.

[meadowphoenix]

one way oppression operates is to control the social narrative regarding some social construction. everyone within the culture learns the narrative, regardless of where in the construction you fall. it's just easier for those who fall in the negatives of that narrative to understand that it's bullshit. even when that control of the common narrative slips, the changes allowed are still noticable as common with the people with some social power within the construction.

"this sounds like a straight person wrote it" is identifying that social consensus of narrative.

[(Anonymous)]

"this sounds like a straight person wrote it" is identifying that social consensus of narrative.

That sounds like you think there is only ONE social consensus of narrative that everyone understands alike. There is not just one. There are many. They are regional, racial, gender-specific, and class-based. The allowable signifiers of queerness in one particular high school might be very different from those just 10 miles away, or just 10 years ago, or between different culture groups sitting 10 feet apart.

I do totally get your point about dominant cultural narratives. But judging every queer story against those narratives does nothing but give those bullshit narratives more power than they deserve.

[meadowphoenix]

sure, and if that's the case then that's a response, (that again doesn't actually require you to identity yourself to refute). but a) while this is changing rapidly, what is published does not tend to be that varied and does tend toward one social consensus of narrative and b) most critical theory with lenses that consider social construction understands a).

[(Anonymous)]

it casts doubt on the motivation for the criticism, not its validity

Criticism for suspect motives by definition should carry some doubts about its validity. If it's done in bad faith and/or based on a mistake, then of course its validity should be questioned. Criticism needs to hold up to some minimal level of scrutiny.

[meadowphoenix]

validity of criticism can be independently determined, since at its heart it is a determination of the logic of application of theory to text. bad faith criticism which is valid is going to be valid regardless of faith, and the same with good faith invalid criticism. validity doesn't require such external context. it's "does the text support the reading, and prove it with the logic of your theory and its application to the text" that's it.

[(Anonymous)]

Let's be real though, most of what passes for "criticism" on social media has no logic or theory. It's mostly emotional gut reactions that are mined to get hits and interactions, which will boost the user's visibility because of algorithms.

Theories that take the perceived identity of the author into account as a basis require a factual premise to build on. If that factual premise is proven wrong, then the whole theory has to be scrapped and re-thought. If I were to write a theory-based essay about "The Old Man and the Sea" based on a fallacious belief that Hemingway was Black and the fish was a metaphor for the racism he'd experienced, it would obviously fall completely apart upon the revelation that Hemingway was not, in fact, Black.

Any criticism based on "this is how straight people write gay people" that started out with an assumption that the author is straight - well, if it turns out the author is NOT, in fact, straight, that needs to go to the compost heap to hopefully grow some criticism that's more insightful at some time in the future.

[meadowphoenix]

well i don't disagree with your first paragraph at all, and honestly, that's true of some legit reviewers too. and while I think feelings are fine for reviews (i think you can get good information ), i dislike when people pretend their thoughts are grounded in some understanding.

I also don't disagree with the understanding that where the theory requires certain identities, not having that identity blows the theory. but i don't think "this sounds straight" does.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think "this sounds straight" is a valid criticism once you know the author isn't, unless you grew up in an incredibly open and accepting place where it was safe to be out from a very early age (which is itself a marker of privilege)

There are still valid life-or-death reasons right here in the US to stay closeted for safety, in some circumstances.

[(Anonymous)]

And the markers of passing-as-straight when you're scared are, again, like I said, very different depending on where you are, when you are, and who you are.

[meadowphoenix]

well like I said, I don't think "that sounds straight" actually depends on the straightness of the author. like I said, it's very much a comment on social narrative that people can put into their book regardless of sexuality. and like I said, it doesn't force anyone to come out since it can be refuted like any other criticism on content, by coming at it from it's application to the text.