[ 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]

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.