[ 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]

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.