escritoireazul (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
escritoireazul) wrote2007-03-02 01:45 pm
escritoireazul) wrote2007-03-02 01:45 pm
Entry tags:
[fandom] Supernatural wank and authorial intent
So there's wank in Supernatural fandom, in which I participate very little, but enjoy the hell out of the show. I'm not going to link to the wank for a couple of reasons. One is that I think it's gotten enough attention, and I have no desire to add to it. Another is that I'm not actually here to talk about the wank, exactly, but a tangent.
I read the original post (hereafter P1) and though I didn't agree with the tone or the structure, I liked quite a few points brought up by the original poster (hereafter OP). OP said some interesting things (it's good to find and rec new or relatively unknown authors, different characterizations can be fun, it's good to seek out new experiences). I could roll with that, though I can see why people are responding to negatively to the P1.
Then, when someone told the OP that those very good points were being lost in the vitriol, the OP said that wasn't what zie meant at all.
This is why I don't believe that authorial intent is all that important to the interpretation of a piece of writing. The actual words used are much more important than what the author did or did not try to do. Also, this is why I would rather not know and draw my own conclusions because any sort of respect I had for the OP's ideas has been lost, especially because P1 is full of subtle, nasty comments about both specific people and general groups of fans. Without those points, it's more an attack than anything else.
I don't see anything wrong with venting about your fandom frustrations (or frandations, as I just typoed), and I am certainly not one to ask why can't we just all get along, but the OP directed it at Supernatural fandom in what looked like an attempt, however flawed, at opening a dialogue. That would benefit fandom. This? Just starts a wank.
I read the original post (hereafter P1) and though I didn't agree with the tone or the structure, I liked quite a few points brought up by the original poster (hereafter OP). OP said some interesting things (it's good to find and rec new or relatively unknown authors, different characterizations can be fun, it's good to seek out new experiences). I could roll with that, though I can see why people are responding to negatively to the P1.
Then, when someone told the OP that those very good points were being lost in the vitriol, the OP said that wasn't what zie meant at all.
This is why I don't believe that authorial intent is all that important to the interpretation of a piece of writing. The actual words used are much more important than what the author did or did not try to do. Also, this is why I would rather not know and draw my own conclusions because any sort of respect I had for the OP's ideas has been lost, especially because P1 is full of subtle, nasty comments about both specific people and general groups of fans. Without those points, it's more an attack than anything else.
I don't see anything wrong with venting about your fandom frustrations (or frandations, as I just typoed), and I am certainly not one to ask why can't we just all get along, but the OP directed it at Supernatural fandom in what looked like an attempt, however flawed, at opening a dialogue. That would benefit fandom. This? Just starts a wank.
Here via metafandom
Re: Here via metafandom