[ SECRET POST #2518 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2518 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 060 secrets from Secret Submission Post #360.
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)]

Says you. I didn't think it was "pretty clear" at all. Please don't presume that your impression is the only interpretation people are allowed to have.

[(Anonymous)]

na

for some reason I'm getting loki-stan vibes from you. not sure why

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

LOL fuck no. I think Loki is a villain and Loki-stans piss me the fuck off.

But it's very nice and mature that you automatically equate "villains are humans with emotions and therefore should be held responsible for their evil actions because they are not just inhuman Evilbots who couldn't choose otherwise" with "villains are justified in whatever evil shit they do as long as they have feels about it." That's a very adult and reasonable way of thinking.

[bringreligiontothewamwams]

That whole "lol a stan" meme is just lazy dismissal where you absolve yourself of the need to argue your position. Accusing people of being a stan (unless their name is Stan of course) is just an admission you don't have an argument but want feel as if you are right somehow.

[(Anonymous)]

Lokistan sounds like a country

[(Anonymous)]

hang in there, at this rate it might actually happen

[(Anonymous)]

It seemed like the writers went out of their way to show that she didn't care about Rapunzel. You can interpret it however you want, personally, I found it more interesting to think of her developing a twisted motherly affection, but that's just not how it was intended.

[(Anonymous)]

but that's just not how it was intended.

So, I presume that this means you asked the writers about this, right?

[(Anonymous)]

I don't have to ask the writers, I just paid attention. But if you want to hear it from them, there's this:

http://hellyeahtangled.tumblr.com/post/18215731517

I guess some people might consider that to be love, but he seems to expect the audience, presumably the target auduience of children, to realize that it's not something to seek out.

[(Anonymous)]

That answers that question.

[brooms]

ouch. k.o.

whenever ppl ask about authorial intent, the receipts are rarely this brutal.

[(Anonymous)]

http://img-cache.cdn.gaiaonline.com/b7627b81916a75294105abb938f0c6d3/http://th964.photobucket.com/albums/ae127/adaam_wwe/th_smackdown.gif

[(Anonymous)]

What a magical thread this is

[bringreligiontothewamwams]

Intent, its fucking magical innit.

[lotesse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you. Honestly this "it is/it's not what the writers meant waaaaah" thing is super annoying. Embrace critical theory already, damn it, fandom!

[(Anonymous)]

"It doesn't matter what the writers thoughth waaaaaah" thing is super annoying. Embrace logical intent derived from creators with absolute authority over the universe they created in their head already, damn it, fandom!

Yeah, I can do that too. Death of the Author has it's merits, but I think it's vastly more obnoxious for people to stamp their feet and cry out that their interpretation is just as valid or important. It's not.

[(Anonymous)]

"Barthes notes that the traditional critical approach to literature raises a thorny problem: how can we detect precisely what the writer intended? His answer is that we cannot."

Except here we can, because the author is still alive and clear on his intent. Insisting that your interpretation is more correct than the author's is like telling someone that a character they just made up in their head as a male dog named Max is actually a female squirrel named Amy.

[lotesse]

nb that authors are not gods - they may intend to do one thing but actually end up doing another, of which they may be totally unaware. reader response theory dealt with this back in the 1970s and 80s - the text is cocreated by author and reader, is inherently fluid, multitudinous, and unstable, and contains multitudes. "correct" is simply not a useful term/frame for working with text, for these reasons. "available" is better - what interpretations are available, what interpretations are a stretch? and also nb that stretchy interpretations are not necessarily less interesting or valid, merely different in kind.

[(Anonymous)]

Did I say that? Or was the implied "to me" unclear?

It does no one any good to speak tentatively for fear of disagreeing with someone, and it's something I endeavor never to do. I have to put up with enough of that from the papers I read.

If you have an opinion to state, state it simply. And if you disagree, disagree. I will do the same. I have stated my opinion, and it is up to you to disagree. Though keep in mind if you have nothing substantive to support your views, you're not likely to convince anyone.