[ 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

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Authors/directors are occasionally wrong. After all, no one other than Ed Wood considered Plan 9 From Outer Space the great spiritual drama of the 20th century, and he might have been trolling.

[insanenoodlyguy]

To clarify, I feel it's wrong to state what the author's intent was when he or she has specifically said otherwise.

it doesn't mean they can't be wrong, but an obvious example is JK Rowling saying Dumbledore was gay.

It's fine to say "He didn't read like that to me" but as scrubber said, you get people going "NOT CANON: DEATH OF THE AUTHOR" and it's really not meant to be used like that at all.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Authors don't get to use the mass media to take mulligans over weak writing and editing. Twenty, thirty years from now, no one's going to give a shit about what Rowling said about a character idea that was important enough to write down in a note to her screenwriter but not important enough to make it through hours of writing, rewriting, and comments by her editor. Unless she chooses to put out a new edition (a time-honored practice) Dumbledore will still be a weak and ambiguous character in text, written more ambiguously than Eugenie Danglars who came 160 years before Harry Potter.

I don't generally care about authorial intent. When I review a work, I review what's on the page or on the screen. What the author really intended is unknown to me, because I'm not Professor Fucking Xavier.

[(Anonymous)]

"Twenty, thirty years from now, no one's going to give a shit about what Rowling said about a character"

Yes they will. Considering that was a pop-cultural bomb, any Harry Potter annotation or analysis that sees the series as a phenomenon is going to take the situation into account. Also, many, many people take it as canon, so not only the people who disregard it are going to pass on their opinions.

Some obscure facts in Pottermore are probably not going to make it, though.

[insanenoodlyguy]

Yeah I gotta agree with anon on this one. Harry Potter has been huge. It will be considered a classic and It'd not shock me if our grandchildren's children might see it discussed in acadamia or have to do a book report or something.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Sure, it's going to be a classic. But how many readers go into Charlie and the Chocolate Factory knowing about the dirt on the Oompa Loopmas or Uncle Oswald? How many people know Seuss but don't know about his war propaganda? How many people know about the controversies over Maurice Sendak's work? How many people get introduced to Lewis's philosophical work after reading Narnia?

[cbrachyrhynchos]

No they won't. It will be a trivial pursuit question along the lines of "What was 'Whip It' about?" (Answer: Reagan Republicans) or "What was Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds based on?" (Answer: A drawing by Julian Lennon.)

And let me break something to you. People who read novels are a minority. People who read fantasy novels are a minority. People who read juvenile fantasy novels are a minority of that set.

And people who ship characters beyond what's printed on the page are a minority of the minority who read juvenile fantasy of the minority who read fantasy of the minority of the people who read novels at all.

We are historically and culturally irrelevant.

[(Anonymous)]

Harry Potter is not your everyday ordinary juvenile fantasy book series, and I think you know that.

In any case, this discussion is no longer about shipping. It's about whether, years down the line, when people are discussing Harry Potter, they will note that JK Rowling declared Dumbledore to be gay. And regardless of the fact that shippers are irrelevant, they probably will note said fact.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Harry Potter is not your everyday ordinary juvenile fantasy book series, and I think you know that.

Then it's not a good test case for talking about literary interpretation.

In any case, this discussion is no longer about shipping. It's about whether, years down the line, when people are discussing Harry Potter, they will note that JK Rowling declared Dumbledore to be gay. And regardless of the fact that shippers are irrelevant, they probably will note said fact.

Except that's not discussing Harry Potter. Harry Potter is a multi-volume text. What Rowling said about the text to her movie people is Hollywood and literary gossip. Which makes for juicy trivia, but doesn't really do much for the text.

[(Anonymous)]

So, because you personally don't think that it's relevant to a discussion of Harry Potter, you have determined, using your magic Professor X powers that you previously claimed not to have, that no one from any future generation is going to bring it up. This, despite the fact that some people right here think it is relevant, which would indicate that, you know, not everyone is you.

Look, maybe they won't talk about it in 50 years. But maybe they fucking will, in the same way that, for some reason, they like to bring up the fact that Dickens was paid by the word, despite it having no bearing on the stories themselves. You don't get to decide that, because as you've already established, you are culturally and historically irrelevant.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

So, because you personally don't think that it's relevant to a discussion of Harry Potter, you have determined, using your magic Professor X powers that you previously claimed not to have, that no one from any future generation is going to bring it up. This, despite the fact that some people right here think it is relevant, which would indicate that, you know, not everyone is you.

No. I've determined, using fairly well-established standards of how to read texts, including the historical fact that Rowling is abusing a privilege of celebrity that very few texts have, that AUTHORIAL STATEMENTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY FROM THE TEXT ITSELF.

Let's use another example of a big-name author producing spin about his work. Am I really obligated to trust Orson Scott Card when he says that some of his early work was progressively pro-gay, when the text itself involves a fair amount of abuse and torture?

Authors say a lot of things about their work that need to be taken with a grain of salt. Lucas claims big mythic ideas in the production of Star Wars. Marice Sendak died thinking he was a failure as an artist. Bioware claimed that they produced a science fiction epic. At what point can we say, "Wait a minute. Star Wars was a pastiche of serials, samurai, and WWII aviation movies. Sendak's work transcends illustration. And you should skip Mass Effect 3 to read Reynolds instead."

Never mind that you're taking "no one" a bit too literally. Sure, some people will care, the trivia buffs showing up for bar games might.

But will my future great-niece care when she gets a big box of the collection on her 10th birthday? Probably not, unless they're new revised editions that reflect Rowling's perpetual mass-media-mulligans. Hopefully she'll just dive right in. Hopefully she will read Sendak not knowing, or at least able to put into the background, his sexuality, atheism, and depression. Just as she'll hopefully read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory early and Uncle Oswald later, and Dickens without worrying about the price of a word. Because all of those things are ultimately about the story, and not about her ability to get a free beer through a trivia game.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

You've fallen into a pitfall, in which you are not only insisting that authorial intent doesn't matter (fine, up to you) but that your interpretation of a text is more valid than that of other readers. Some readers take authors' statements into account not as Word of God, but as a reference point that informs their repeated readings of the text. Some readers change their interpretations using information revealed by the authors, not blindly but with arbitration. You do not get to scream in all caps that we MUST take these statements separately from the texts, if you're also going to be arguing for the validity of your interpretation. Other people are entitled to theirs as well, and how they use authors' statements are not up to you to dictate.

Besides, I think you give your future great-niece way too little credit. Maybe she will read the HP books free of spoilers, but later in life stumble upon the information about Dumbledore in some other source. Maybe it will kindle in her an interest to uncover more on the matter. Maybe she will grow into a scholar who studies and publishes on the subject. Maybe the discovery will reshape her interpretation of the text, and maybe that won't be such a horrible thing. It certainly wasn't for those of us who managed to do so when the revelation was made in the first place. Finding out about the ugly aspects of our favorite authors' lives doesn't diminish our initial love for their works, nor is redefining our understanding to take into account a new perspective some kind of evil.

[caecilia]

I didn't know Sendak thought he was a failure.

That's

:(

[(Anonymous)]

I think you are the one living in a fantasy world. One in which HP is some kind of niche series that didn't succeed the mainstream in a way not even books written for the mainstream managed to do. Books have already been written about the phenomenon that was HP even while the series was still being published; they will be written years from now if people decide to study pop culture of the early 2000's. And if JK's idea for Dumbledore wasn't important, it would never have made major news in the first place. As such, it's already become part of the character's history. It's weird as hell that you're mentioning shipping because... when was this ever about shipping? Most people found out about this via a magazine cover or something like that, not the fandom grapevine.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, apparently, the fact that Harry Potter succeeded in the mainstream means that we can't use it in a conversation about literary interpretation! :D :D

In other words, I think this poster is just a pretentious dick who really, really likes to be right.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Well, apparently, the fact that Harry Potter succeeded in the mainstream means that we can't use it in a conversation about literary interpretation! :D :D

Well, if you're going to say that Rowling's comments in 2006 should completely dictate my interpretation of a text, pray tell, how do I get word of god from the Bronte sisters? Can you recommend a good medium or a seance?

What about the hundreds of mainstream authors who don't get every interview broadcast across the mass media? What about the authors who don't play the word of god game?

In other words, I think this poster is just a pretentious dick who really, really likes to be right.

Well, yes, I'm a pretentious dick. In this case, I'm also right in that I don't think that "OMG Dumbledore is totally gay" is why people read the books now, much less in 2046.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, yes, I'm a pretentious dick. In this case, I'm also right in that I don't think that "OMG Dumbledore is totally gay" is why people read the books now, much less in 2046.

No one has said that that's why they read the books. I certainly don't think that's the motivation for anyone reading them. It's something added on that some people might pay attention to, while others might not. Neither group is wrong.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

One in which HP is some kind of niche series that didn't succeed the mainstream in a way not even books written for the mainstream managed to do.

Never said that. You know what else was big? The Beatles. How much Beatles trivia and gossip about production and authorial intent gets packaged with their songs? None. Star Wars was big. How often does the fact that Episode IV was saved by careful editing by Marcia Lucas get discussed not much? Snow White was big. How often do we discuss the Betty Boop Snow White in contrast? Not at all unless you're studying film academically.

There are lots of books about things that were sizzling hot 30 years ago, but less so today. They seem pretty lonely collecting dust in the library I work.

And if JK's idea for Dumbledore wasn't important, it would never have made major news in the first place.

It's not important. As I've repeatedly been told, it's not important that a minor subplot for a secondary character wasn't explicitly described in the text. It's not important compared to other gay and lesbian characters written for the same age group. It's primarily important because it involved a celebrity author successfully making demands of her Hollywood producers.

If Rowling wants for readers to unambiguously understand this going into the text, she can always revise the text to make that relationship more explicit (not sexually explicit) or include a forward to the text. But expecting readers in 2046 to search for articles about something said in 2006 before diving into that wonderful text doesn't make a lot of sense.

[(Anonymous)]

But there are books written to dissect the meaning of Beatles songs. Documentaries written about their productions. Marcia Lucas is mentioned in literature written about Star Wars. Betty Boop is discussed in film classes, Disney's Snow White even more so... and that is the point being discussed here. That people who care to study these things will still bring up "trivial" facts surrounding the phenomena, will discuss them at length and pore over the little details even. You know, the kind of people to whom authorial intent would matter. The point isn't that decades from now these pop culture icons will still be everyday subjects of discussion, but what academic discourses surrounding them will concern.

Really, for all that you're so longwinded, your points are even less relevant than the fantasy readers you scoffed at. It doesn't matter that Dumbledore's sexuality wasn't explicit in the text: his status matters. HP is important, therefore he is important, therefore he will continued to be brought up as an example of a LGBT fantasy character, even if only as an example of how things are done badly. How JK did it, why she did it, none of that matters. It's already historically significant, and will be noted as such. Not every reader in 2046 is going to care, but those who will care can easily find out, and they will. Much like how Tolkien enthusiasts these days know all sorts of "trivia" about the lengendarium even though much of it is scattered in various supplementary materials and isn't at all explicit in the text of his major works.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

The point being discussed here is a theory of literary analysis. What does the text say, and how does it say it?

Death of the Author says that the Harry Potter novels can be understood just by reading the Harry Potter novels. And I think this is quite reasonable given that most of the novels were already published when the Dumbledore Letter hit the news.

Whether Dumbldore is historically significant is more a question for LGBT history. That significance doesn't change the history.

[insanenoodlyguy]

In my opinion, Word of God is MORE canon then the books.

Now, you can say it's a shit interpretation. You can say it was a bad decision, or that the book was bad. You can say Dumbledore was a weak and ambiguous character. I'll disagree on some of those points, but all of that isn't what we re talking about.

It's the person who disregards what she said WHEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT SHE WAS TRYING TO DO. We know what she was trying to do BECAUSE SHE TOLD US. It doesn't matter if she failed at it when we talk about her motivations and intent. And people have forgotten that when they talk about what she was trying to do. And in other situations, this one isn't even my pet peeve, that harkens back to a very idiotic conversation I once had were death of the author was cited for fucking Zutarra in Avatar.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

In my opinion, Word of God is MORE canon then the books.

The difference between a novel or screenplay and a diary (unless you're Anais Nin or Anne Frank)is that the novel and screenplay are EDITED. The author engages in the careful selection of exactly which ideas appear in the completed work, tries to take a step back and look at the work as a whole, and revises it again, usually cutting EVEN MORE STUFF that didn't quite work. In most cases, those edits make the final cuts better.

THOSE DECISIONS ARE PART OF AUTHORIAL INTENT. Saying that a napkin scribble is MORE authoritative than a final completed work is rather like saying we should only listen to rehearsals of performances, all mashed together, including all the tracks the producer recorded before he gave up in despair and called in Kenny Aronoff to fix the damn thing.

It's the person who disregards what she said WHEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT SHE WAS TRYING TO DO.

Why do I care what she was trying to do, or her motivations? I'm not her biographer. I'm her reader. I'm not a journalist writing "The Making of Harry Potter." I'm a reader. I'm not writing an article about Harry Potter as a cultural phenomenon. I'm a reader. As a reader, it's my job to understand, interpret, and appreciate the CAREFULLY EDITED craft on the printed page.

It's the language on the page that lives or dies. It's the structure of the narrative that's my home when I open the story. The story is the alpha and omega of my criticism. Most of the time, the story is all I have from the author, so even if I was to jump down the rabbit-hole of intent, those questions would need to be asked of the story.

[(Anonymous)]

And you really, honestly don't believe that authors are often either encouraged or outright told to change certain aspects of their writing in order to make it publishable, whether they actually want to or not?

[cbrachyrhynchos]

That's just the sausage factory of modern publishing. But you're an idiot if you believe that published interviews magically less of a sales pitch, and more honest about what the text actually says.

[waterfall8484]

I can sort of understand the 'not canon' part of that argument, because some fans may consider only the published works to be canon and not what information the author might give outside of that. (I favour a pick-and-choose approach, myself, it's more fun that way.) However, this is a very different thing from 'death of the author', and people who conflate the two are doing it wrong.