[ SECRET POST #2250 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2250 ⌋

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

01.
[Stan Lee]


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Pusher II]


__________________________________________________



04.
[nigahiga]


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.
[code lyoko evolution]


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________
















[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]
















10. [SPOILERS for Homestuck]



__________________________________________________



11. [SPOILERS for Kuroko no Basket]



__________________________________________________

















[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

















12. [WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



13. [WARNING for abuse]



__________________________________________________



14. [WARNING for rape]

[SNSD/Girls' Generation]


__________________________________________________



15. [WARNING for dub-con]



__________________________________________________



16. [WARNING for sexual assault]

[One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest]


__________________________________________________

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #321.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think you did read the book. Or you read it looking for something you found.

Cliff notes aren't gospel. Agree or disagree, that's proof of jack shit.

this

using cliff notes to justify some bullshit agenda is pretty lame. if the ayrt wants to show is specifically in the text and discuss it from a literary perspective, I'd enjoy the break down of it.

but throwing quotes from cliff notes (used by people who are too fucking lazy to read the book) just shows they are yanking what they want to support their half-assed theory and still try to look smart.

here's a clue. for those of us who have read the book? we can tell you're going by the cliff notes. just sayin'...

[insanenoodlyguy]

Obviously there's been critiques/reviews of books I agreed with, but I don't interpret them as fact. The only time I accept that sort of thing is when the author actually says "this is what I wanted to do with this." then, irregardless of if he did or didn't pull off that goal, I feel we have a legit context with which to interpret the work.

And I'm invoking my own little godwin's law esque thing right now: anybody who responds to this with some death of the author bullshit will not get a response because you aren't worth talking to. Barthes was saying we don't always know what the Author's intention was, but sometimes we do. And while you might pull something different from the work, then saying "this is what the author intended" is not what that was about at all.

Edit: on a meta level, saying anything about what death of the author intended is, I suppose, a bit against the documents spirit.