[ SECRET POST #5470 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5470 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 33 secrets from Secret Submission Post #783.
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]

So, having one negative person can really be a drag. But wild speculation is fun on its own without having to back it up with interviews. I would let that part go.

[(Anonymous)]

This. I don't keep up with what the creators are up to. And a lot of fandom hinges on the idea of death of the author in whatever form one interprets that. It's exhausting keeping up with panels and interviews and following all the social media accounts. I don't know how many times people have brought stuff up someone has said on Twitter as if I should know...I don't even use Twitter FFS. I believe works should stand on their own as well. If there are details missing from it that could've been included and are important to understanding the work but weren't well, sorry, you missed the boat I'm not reading your Reddit posts or keeping track of which magazines you've done interviews with. I'm just not.

But I agree her behavior isn't good, especially if it's obvious everyone is bothered by it. I'm sure she could find other like minded fans to circle jerk with. I'd err on the side of judging whether or not she's a misogynist based on how she treats other real life women though? Like, they're fictional characters and people say whack shit just to support their ships. It's not super okay but it's also not often as serious as anon makes it out to be. IME it's just bog standard ship wank that makes them like that.

[(Anonymous)]

“If there are details missing from it that could've been included and are important to understanding the work but weren't well, sorry, you missed the boat I'm not reading your Reddit posts or keeping track of which magazines you've done interviews with. I’m just not.”

This. That’s bad storytelling if the creator has to make supplementary material after the fact just to make the work understandable or coherent. Supplementary material is fine in and of itself, and can be a nice bonus. But if a work hinges on it because the creator couldn’t make the actual story work on it’s own, that’s really not good.

[(Anonymous)]

To quote SfDebris, "you don't get credit for stuff you didn't put in the movie, because, and try to follow me here, you didn't put it in the movie!". I one hundred percent agree on that. If it isn't in the canon, it isn't canon.

If an author or a movie maker wants to add additional stuff into their canon, looking at you Terfling, then they better write another story or make another movie so as to put it in there. It doesn't need to be a big production, a short story or an animated short will do, just it has to have at least a bit of narrative to support it. The late, great, Sir Pterry handled this brilliantly with his "Discworld Compendium", because the recap bits of the characters were just that, but when he added on to the canon the add-ons all had a little fragment of story, a tiny drabble, to add them into narrative canon.

[(Anonymous)]

I get where OP is coming from in regards to this person seeming to think they know exactly what the creators think and intend without ever looking up interviews or quotes by the creators. That sounds frustrating that someone thinks they just know the creators thought process and inner workings without basis, or that they know better than the creators about their own characters and stories. And it seems like they’re the type to assume that what they think and want is what the creators must want too, because everything they want and think is automatically correct or “for the best” for the work.

However, even if all of what I just said is true or not, death of the author is indeed still in affect here as it always is. And this person doesn’t have to treat the creators thoughts on the work as the only correct way to think, or consider anything in an interview as gospel. It still seems presumptuous of them if they think they know everything the creators intend without looking up interviews, but that’s only if they’re claiming the creator actually said something they didn’t. Besides that very specific scenario, this person never has to look up a single interview to have thoughts on how they feel about the work and how they think it should go. Because the creator has no bearing on that.

So that was a long and rambly way of saying I understand OP’s point of view while also agreeing with you and the anon above me.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, late, but re: this person's thoughts on creator intentions, it was like TJLC type shit. They were basically saying "the creators have this long narrative masterplan" when they clearly didn't. It exasperates me as someone who doesn't want to me like those conspiracy-minded losers.