[ 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)]

"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.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I've not offered my interpretation. I think it's clear that Death of the Author as a method is superior to authorial intent because:

1. It allows us to compare literary works to other literary works. It's an even playing field where factors like celebrity and archival obsessions don't determine the analysis.

2. It takes into account the fact that many authors are, in fact, dead, with minimal biographical details and documentation.

3. "Intent" is a matter of psychology. Understanding authorial intent requires too many assumptions about what the author was thinking.

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.

Except that I didn't write MUST, I wrote SHOULD. I've also not stated much of an interpretation, nor is my use in all caps (in the face of a discussion with someone repeatedly missing the point) have anything to do with the validity of the method.

Which is valid because in the vast majority of cases, the text is the only thing we legally have from the author. We must treat the author as dead because the author is dead, obscure, or not able to explain their novel. The novel should stand on its own anyway. But I'm an old fart that way who demands that something advertised as a novel actually be a novel.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Oh and:

4. "Word of God" is used or dismissed as a matter of convenience. See for example Rowling's Dumbledore letter vs. Orson Scot Card's gay positive (for the decade) novel.

[caecilia]

The point is though, hypothetical niece would have to go looking for those things. They're not included in the text, so if she's doing a reading of just the text, they won't be relevant. IMO, you and cbrachyrhynchos are both correct, you're just talking about different schools of literary theory. Which, by the way, are ever-evolving and constantly fought over.

Personally I think if she wanted people to know something, she should have put it in the text. Authors know all sorts of fascinating things about their characters that didn't make it into the final draft (usually because they weren't important to the story), and it's cool that JKR is able to share them and fans can talk directly to her and have discussions about it. It's cool if Dumbledore gives some people courage to come out. But yeah, the fact that it's not in the books does kind of say a lot about how important it actually was to the story. And if you try telling homophobic readers "Dumbledore is gay, the author said so." they're going to counter with "Well, it wasn't in the book series that I read!" and they'd be right.

[caecilia]

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

That's

:(

+1

[(Anonymous)]

this, damn

[(Anonymous)]

Is and should literary analysis be about what the average reader will take from a text?

[(Anonymous)]

Except you're spouting bullshit about Lucas. The later films might not get the same credit, but plenty of critics bring up the monomyth while discussing the original trilogy. You might not trust it, but it's part of the culture.

[(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.

[(Anonymous)]

You've been, thus far, been insisting that nobody is going to care about what JK said. But people care today: some care because they agree, some care because they don't, and some do because they are like you and don't like the way she went about it. And because HP is an important piece of pop culture, this dialogue will persist in the future, perhaps with less fervency, but much in the same vein nonetheless.

See, I'm not saying that in the future, everyone is going to think Dumbledore is gay just because JK said so several decades ago, nor that this information will be required knowledge for anyone intending to read the series. But the information is already out there, and is historically significant, and so to say that nobody will care is simply incorrect, unless we've gotten to a point so far in the future that all record of the statement is long lost. So people will care, but they will have different interpretations regardless, just as we do. That is the difference between saying authorial intent matters, and saying that authorial intent is the only correct interpretation.

You also keep bringing up social media and your distaste for the way JK manipulated it to suit her purpose... and maybe you're right to feel that way. But social media is a powerful tool in this day and age, and if it manages to reshape the way textual interpretation works, then that's how it's going to be. The social media angle will be taken into consideration when this subject is studied in the future, because it played a role, and a significant one. We don't have to like it, but we can't pretend that it isn't happening.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I'll tell you what. As a queer person, I had already inferred that Dumbledore was gay from the text. JKR only confirmed that interpretation for me.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but there exists material in the text to draw this conclusion even without 'word of god' so it doesn't matter one bit if you think no one will remember that she said it (which, by the way, you're wrong)