[ SECRET POST #2419 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2419 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________















Notes:

Way early because taking dog to the vet. :c

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 075 secrets from Secret Submission Post #346.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

But writing reviews, analyses, and speculations are also, by your logic, shitty things to do to an author.

Should we just never write anything about any media? Shit, should we perhaps never talk about it? I mean, if we're discussing a work, then we might get something wrong, which would be unfair to the author.

[(Anonymous)]

Nope, that wasn't what I was saying. Interpreting things a certain way or putting forward evidence for an alternative interpretation is good analysis. Speculation is fine. Shipping pairings which have actually been stated by the author as contrary to their desires - or if there's a lot of evidence it may be - is rather suckish.

Getting things wrong = fine.

Loudly ignoring the author's wishes for something that ultimately belongs to them = not fine.

[blunderbuss]

I disagree. Because there's many times that an author has stated an intent but has not done a good enough job displaying it in their work; they can state what they wanted to say until they're blue in the face but if the work says differently, people can and will refer to the work itself.

Stephanie Meyer may have intended for Twilight to be a great romantic epic, but you'll find plenty of people who can easily construct arguments of abusive relationships. Is that contrary to what she envisioned? Sure. Are they therefore WRONG? Nope.

And it's true that a work belongs to an author - in terms of copyright and intellectual property. But they cannot control people's reactions, and it's unrealistic to say that no one is allowed to disobey an author's vision of their own work. That's the inherit risk of putting your works into public space.

[(Anonymous)]

Lucky me, then. My author has specifically said that adapters can do "whatever you like" to his character.

[(Anonymous)]

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?

[(Anonymous)]

I know I'm late to the party, but I just had to stop by and respectfully disagree with your opinion.

It's the "ultimately belongs to them" that I take issue with. Because yes, works of fiction, works of art, whatever, belong to their original author/artist. Copyright wise.

When you share your story, which is an IDEA...you can't control the way people respond to it. It's not your JOB to police the way people react to or think about your art. You lose all right to having your characters interpreted the way you intended them to be interpreted the moment you put the story out for mass consumption. Because everybody is different, and will be bringing their past experiences and emotional baggage with them upon reading your story, which colors their interpretation.

Essentially, authorial intent means very little in the long run. And since fanfic isn't for profit, fanfic writers aren't actually damaging anything an author has done. Writing a fic where A and B fuck like rabbits doesn't erase the existence of a canon where A and B are platonic life partners who aren't even remotely sexually attracted to one another. So there is no harm done. You can't be the thought police. People are going to think what they want to think, regardless of what YOU think about it.