[ 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)]

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.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

You've been, thus far, been insisting that nobody is going to care about what JK said.

Yes, and I amended that statement, please follow along with the discussion if you're going to continue to respond to irrelevancies that have nothing to do with literary analysis.

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.

It's not just social media when it's made the New York Times. I think there's a serious risk in letting the tail wag the dog if we use social media to drive interpretations. Last year, I read a great anthology that got bad ratings because a bunch of people on Goodreads had a political axe to grind.

[(Anonymous)]

Just as a new reader of HP is not obligated to read up on the history of the author's statements, I'm not beholden to having to track down every comment you've made today. I need only to respond to comments you've made to me, specifically, and the last thing you said on the subject was about people nowadays not caring about Beatles and Star Wars trivia, which I refuted. You did not revisit the point in your follow-up comment, and frankly, trying to bully me into acquiescing by insisting this has all along been a discussion solely about literary analysis is frankly pathetic, when it's pretty obvious that the bone of contention between us is over whether or not JK's revelation about Dumbledore is significant. I will continue to argue that it is, both as part of pop culture history and for the purpose of literary analysis, even if it isn't going to be the only approach to interpreting the text.

And that is an opinion you are entitled to. But social media is just the current form in which technology changes the way we receive information, and that certainly affects the way we interpret what we read. Even having the Internet has made the reading experience so vastly different from how it was back when you had to track down every physical copy of a book to find a reference to some subject. There are downsides to that, but to tell people that they have to disregard what an author says because she used social media to spread the message isn't going to work. Social media is how a lot of people receive information now, and their reading experience will reflect that.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I need only to respond to comments you've made to me, specifically, and the last thing you said on the subject was about people nowadays not caring about Beatles and Star Wars trivia, which I refuted.

Except, oh, I didn't write that. What I wrote was, "How much Beatles trivia and gossip about production and authorial intent gets packaged with their songs? None." So if you're going to write about things I specifically wrote to you, please try to actually read them.

And it is a discussion about literary analysis. Do you actually have anything to say about literary analysis? Do you actually have anything to say about how J.K. Rowling trivia changes the meaning of the Harry Potter novels? Or are you going to continue to argue the historical relevance of trivia instead?

[(Anonymous)]

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?

Note the word "discuss." When it came to the Beatles, you specifically said "packaged with the material," but with these items, you asked simply how often they are discussed. I don't think that anon's interpretation of that paragraph is therefore all that unreasonable.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Note the words "not much" and "studying the film academically." So yes, the anon's interpretation is patently unreasonable.

[(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)