[ SECRET POST #2624 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2624 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Outlander]


__________________________________________________



03.
[The Walking Dead]


__________________________________________________



04.
[How I Met Your Mother]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Twitch Plays Pokemon]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Batman, Kill La Kill, Borderlands]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Overlord]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Red Dwarf]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Paranatural]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Pitch Perfect]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Insidious: Chapter 2]


__________________________________________________
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 053 secrets from Secret Submission Post #375.
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)]

What? Just because something can be interpreted a certain way doesn't mean that a story IS that. And interpretation is an interpretation, not a magic spell that changes everything (and I mean everything) that went into a story.

[(Anonymous)]

You're assuming that the author made their intent universally crystal clear and frankly, that's just not reality. Look at Harry Potter: JKR says Dumbledore was gay. But she didn't include that in the HP books. The twist is that she thinks she wrote that into canon but the vast majority of readers can only see it if they squint really hard, read between the lines, and know what her intent was. Simply put, she got it wrong and what was published was not what she intended.

There's nothing wrong with HP fans choosing to include WoG in their headcanon/meta/fanworks. But they're not required to because, by definition, canon stands alone. They can ignore all the things she's said after the fact that she didn't include in the canon. It's the ones who insist WoG is canon and try to impose it on others that are a problem.

[(Anonymous)]

But we were talking about interpretations, not what counts as canon or not. A more apt example would be people who interpret Harry Potter as a queer narrative ("boy comes out of the closet") and insist that's as valid as it being a story about good vs. evil. Or, going on with the original example, a werewolf story doesn't become a story about racism just because someone interpreted it that way.

Death of the Author is used in analyzing the text, yes. But it's only one literary tool, no more or less valid. People taking into consideration JKR's words isn't a "problem", at least not on an analytic level. But on a fandom level... sorry, both sides have ground to stand on. You'll claim DotA all you want, because your interpretation is valid to you, while for others the author being alive is equally valid.

[illiadandoddity]

Um, speaking as a reader of Harry Potter, I read the seventh book and took away the interpretation that Dumbledore was gay long before Rowling's interview where she confirmed it. It was there in the text, maybe not as obvious as people would have liked, but it was there.

[tree_and_leaf]

Yeah, me too, partly from the way he talked about Grindelwald, but just as much because of the way Skeeter writes about him in her hatchet biography - it very much reminded me of the way unfriendly journalists used to hint at closeted gays' sexuality.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, but. I got the same exact impression of "these characters are queer; this subtext is intentional" about Sirius and Remus in the third, fourth, and fifth books as I did about Dumbledore in the seventh book, and apparently Rowling hadn't intended the former reading at all.