[ 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)]

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this response. I get that you're trying to get across this notion of "writing as dialogue," but I'm not sure why that requires you to cast the notion of storytelling as telling a story to someone else as "shouting" and something you "inflict" on them from a "soapbox." Your word choices here make it seem as though you're trying to cast authorial intent as something that is inherently preachy and/or bad, and I don't see why.

The notion of "writing as dialogue" is sort of an odd one to me; I mean, you can engage with a text, but you can't generally engage with the author, unless you go on their blog or try to debate with them at a book signing or con. Even when you talk about "justifying your opinion" about the meaning of a text with "evidence," that evidence itself is drawn from the words the author "shouted" at you - so I'm not clear on why that "shouting" is a bad thing. Can you clarify?

That isn't to say that readers can't, shouldn't, or won't have their own interpretations and ideas about the text, but the author does (and I think, should) have a greater degree of power over the text and its meaning than any given reader, just by virtue of being able to control what exists within the text in the first place. Any "evidence" for alternate interpretations will have been put there by the author's own pen to begin with, will it not? I guess it seems like you're not just accepting the "death of the author," but actively trying to drown him in a bathtub, to extend the metaphor.