[ 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)]

wait wait wait

this

this is a thing?

[(Anonymous)]

well...yeah, it's a pretty well known literary theory and it's taught or at least mentioned in most introduction to literary analysis classes. It's also similar to the New Critical concept of Intentional Fallacy

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Yes it's a thing.

Here's the history of the term. Once upon a time, in the dark ages of the mid-20th century, it was fashionable to treat texts as a coded message from the author to the reader. Interpreting a text involved deciphering the specific intended message. When they couldn't figure out from the text, they became fetishists for the contents of writer's wastebaskets. Literary analysis became an exercise of harassing archivists for coffee stained napkins that proved things like "Marylin Monroe was a metaphor for the bomb!"

Never mind the fact that almost everyone agreed that having one and only one "message" was a sign of literary hackery.

Around the mid-1960s, common sense finally took hold. Most authors are dead, many are unknown, and archival ephemera is generally rare. Perhaps we should be in the business of looking at stories, and their acts, beats, chapters, scenes, paragraphs, and sentences. Maybe we should take it as understood that a novel isn't a secret message, and it says what it says.

Hence, "Death of the Author." Analyze the novel, not the person writing the novel.

[(Anonymous)]

And instead insist that the text says what we want it to say, especially if it supports fashionable-theory-of-the-moment, and twist it until it snaps to make it fit that theory.

Yeah. Such an improvement.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

"Theory of the moment" has been around longer than I have. Likely older than you as well.

And no, Death of the Author does not permit such twisting because the interpretation must be reasonably supported by the source. "The One Ring is a Metaphor for the Bomb" is still wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

So is calling rape what rape is not. BL fandom, I'm looking at you.