[ 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]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

And I think that DoftA, while a valid method that seeks to keep the analysis pure, can also strive too intently to eliminate non-control variables to the point that it actually makes the analysis poorer for it. It drives us into tunnel vision style reading wherein we seek to interpret the text with only our own biases. A text has sociological and historical context, which authorial intent is certainly a part of, and we shouldn't disregard all that in our analysis. If the information is available, we should take it into account -- but that is not to say that we should take it as creed. While the text is the primary source, the secondary information can serve to enrich the analysis, not restrict it.

Furthermore, I don't agree that disregarding authorial intent is the only way to fairly compare literary works. Even when more information is available for certain works than others, control factors exist to make comparison possible without having to utterly eliminate context. Literary analysis is a business of assumption; we make claims, and then search for evidence to back them up. Using authorial intent works the same way, and no contradicting claim can supersede it unless it provides sufficient textual evidence to show otherwise. When an author's words aren't available, we still try to contextualize a text by studying its time period, the cultural milieu surrounding its birth, etc. -- why then do we decide not to do the same for the authors' words when they are available?

[waterfall8484]

I like you, anon. :~D Here, have a bound and printed Internet.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

The first problem is that you build the theory of the text from the text. You don't go cherrypicking the text to support your claims. Discussion of the text that does the latter and not the former is usually obvious to spot. Note that Death of the Author doesn't exclude context, but the relevance of that context needs to be weighed against the text itself. It's reasonable to say that Tolkien applied the same ideas to Lord of the Rings that he expressed in "Beowulf: The Monster and the Critics." It's less reasonable to say that because Tolkien was a WWI veteran that Lord of the Rings is about WWI.

The second problem is that secondary sources about a text are often biased. Take a look at the role of German nationalism in the creation of Mozart and Salieri or Schindler's romantic views of Beethoven ("fate knocking at the door") as examples. News media comes with its own set of biases. So does blogging. If we're going to use those sources to dissect the novel, we should be able to use the novel to discuss the accuracy and relevance of those sources.

Which we do when we're talking about why we accept Rowling's claims about Dumbledore (they're plausible given ambiguities in the text) but not Card's claims about early gay-positive novels (the character is tormented by his sexuality).

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with this post but my monomania requires me to point out that there is very good textual evidence for saying that there are strong connections between LotR and WWI; it's not just founded on the biographical fact that he was a veteran.

[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.

[(Anonymous)]

I think that much is clear, and I've said my piece in the comment above. Death of the Author isn't my favorite method because I actually think it makes analysis too limited. We can use authorial intent without being beholden to it... but again, that's just the way my beliefs fall.

There is the sociological factor to consider, in this particular example, however. JK's revelation about Dumbledore came about at the height of LGBT rights movement. You could say she did it for political brownie points, and you could criticize her decision to reveal it only after the fact, but nevertheless, it struck a chord with a sizeable part of the population simply because it hit upon an issue that people currently get emotionally involved with, and this is also the reason this fact and not others is going to have a historical impact. It's not as if she revealed his favorite band or choice of afternoon tea. How important it is to the story... that varies from reader to reader, and I'm not just speaking from the perspective of gay readers who find resonation. This is how supplementary information works: some people will allow it to inform their reading, and some won't.

[caecilia]

Harry Potter is pretty groundbreaking for a lot of reasons and the timing is a huge part of it, because this is the digital age, because fandom is a thing and I think had an influence on Rowling, and because of all the discourse on LGBT rights. I personally take issue with the way it was handled, but that's just me. And for what it's worth, I'm also a gay reader.

I would say more but I have had very little sleep, and it's 5 am for me.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

This is my other gripe with Death of the Author: a lot of people just use it as a precursor to saying that their pet headcanon is more real than any other. And just - no. It's not just authors that try to control or play weird power games with their stories.

[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?

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Well, hopefully the average reader gets a story. That usually isn't a biography or a dissertation on the process of creating literature in the 21st century.

[(Anonymous)]

They'll get the story, but I think the average reader or viewer's interpretation is rather shallow, which is why I pose the question. For example, most people that I've encountered do not see Star Wars as the pastiche that you've described, either because they lack sufficient knowledge of its influences or they just haven't made the connection.

It seems to me that analysis requires a deeper level of engagement with a text, and that to a certain extent, it goes beyond the story. I don't agree with others than the author's word should drive interpretation, but I'm not certain that what your great-niece is apt to take from a story should necessarily drive it, either.

[(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.