[ 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

[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.