There needs to be more than 24 hours in a day...

[sub_textual]

The discussion going on right now on my epic post is pretty fascinating, but I just do not have time to properly respond to everyone right now. Which kind of makes me feel a little bad, because -- why start a discussion if I don't have time to participate, right? But right now, I just have way too much reading I need to be doing and things that I

Comments

[jaquiel]

I come from the perspective that 1.) the author does not exist in a text, nor does his intent, as only reader intent is at play here; 2.) gender is only a construct and a performance; 3.) words, language, discourse, images are performative; 4.) power hierarchies exist; where there is a power hierarchy, there is a subject that valorizes, and a subject that is valorized; the valorized subject is always subjugated and oppressed; 5.) agency does not exist ; 6.) even if one does collapse the gender hierarchy, the female subject is still oppressed because language itself is inherently oppressive; 7.) even if gender is deconstructed, as long as the signifiers exist that signify it, the female signifier is still not liberated; 8.) it is impossible to discursively liberate the gendered, oppressed subject.
Oof. I think I actually got all that, but it made my head ache a little

[sub_textual]

Well! If you are interested in theory, a very good start is picking up The History of Sexuality by Michel Foucault. If you are interested in a very accessible book on feminism, check out Full Frontal Feminism by Jessica Valenti.

[jaquiel]

Thank you. I'll be sure to look those up.

[helicopini]

The majority of the audience that I end up talking to, however, probably doesn't even know about any of these things,

My impression is that the majority of your audience in that post are university-educated women. You're not exactly talking to people who are going to run away in terror if they see a big word. We seem to be heavily weighted towards the humanities as a group (obviously... hence the concentration of fanfiction writers in a medium like LJ). While I am not an academic and only have higher education in science and art, I tend to be able to look up the words and theories referenced (wikipedia, for all it's patchy accuracy, is a wonderful thing) and more or less understand a complex academic line of reasoning.

I suspect this is true for most people here.

My only thought is one that you've touched upon yourself. Is an academic reading of the text really appropriate for fandom? We all seem to really love to overanalyze as fans, particularly as female fans with a literary bent. I don't think there's anything wrong

[sub_textual]

It is 7:34AM and I have not slept. This has been an insane 48 hours and I totally didn't expect the past two days to end up the way they did following my posting of my, well, post.

But I just want to address one issue here cuz I really cannot, just cannot, get away from this:

My impression is that the majority of your audience in that post are university-educated women.

While this may be the case, there is a difference between being a university-educated woman and a university-educated woman with a specialization in postmodern critical literary and gender theory. Which is very, very different. Looking up all theories referenced on Wiki or Google won't do a good job explaining them at all cuz some of the stuff (like Derrida) is just so convoluted and complicated that it's impossible to just look at a basic explanation and actually understand how the theory works. It's one thing to know what it is; to understand how it is performed is very different, which requires actually reading the work itself, and understanding what the author

[helike]

When you start a discussion in fandom, be sure that something unexpected will come up. But seriously... didn't it turn into some discussion about interpretation of Saukra's character? >.>;

*reads the comments* and where exactly is Kishi trying to break away from a typical shounen story? >.>