#He'd have thrown that stupid sword in the nearest river and been completely right

[moreleafedclovers]

Actually OP I think that this argument unjustly conflates message and experience, and propose that the cause of the issue lies less with the act of summarization than with omission/falsification. I do agree that it is mostly only the speed and conformity demanded by various isms of modern society that make this truly problematic (chiefly capitalism and authoritarianism). Ultimately, if someone is pressuring you to do something, it doesn’t matter what works of media they are citing to try to convince you. You still have to be the one who decides if you like what they’re saying, and whether or not saying it makes them sound uncomfortably authoritarian (remember that while correlation does not equal causation, the two have a very intimate relationship).

Like a strong opinion essay, you can stop reading here without missing any of my message if you don’t want to find out that this post is also about Lord of the Rings and Goncharov, momentarily, Harry Potter :)

Look I don’t need a lot of words to say that I think one of the saddest moments in Lord of the Rings is when Gandalf pressures Frodo (whom he just watched accept death and then almost die several times) into wearing his sword at the after party when literally all he wants is to be Rid of the whole war now that it is supposedly over. Obviously me griping here doesn’t have the same impact as reading it on page 1190 of like 1300, but I promise the message is no less clear in the text.

Of course if someone else comes along and says “Frodo disrespects the people who fought in the War of the Ring by not wanting to wear a sword after it’s over,” you might have to go back and read it to see for yourself. OR you can look at it and figure that if Tolkien wrote 1300 pages about all the pain and anguish this one guy went through while fighting in the war, that one guy can wear whatever the fuck he wants when the war is over. If you go that second route, you might never know for sure if that’s what Tolkien was trying to say, but I honestly think that that is okay. For better or for worse, several things are true: first, that Tolkien is no longer around to verify, second, that even if he were around to verify his Point, sometimes the Point that an author is trying to make is Wrong (intentionally or otherwise), and third, that at some point, you will still have to make your own decision about the most important question here, which is what you believe. Do you think it’s more disrespectful for a tired hero to put down a sword, or to force them to pick it back up? The only person who can answer that for you is you. Or don’t, if you don’t feel like it.

Conversely, spreading a summary that does not accurately describe the work it purports to summarize is not necessarily damaging. To illustrate this point, see the numerous essays, fics, and memes about Goncharov (1973), a movie that does not exist, and which therefore cannot be accurately summarized. If anything, Goncharov has provided strong evidence in favor of people’s ability to meet a writer on their terms, and say “that’s not how I thought that went, but I am willing to imagine the story as you understood it, and understand how you drew these conclusions.” I think that’s wildly powerful, even if it can lead to confusion (the only difference between analyzing the “if you really loved me you would have shot me” scenes from Goncharov and Harry Potter is that it didn’t happen in either).

The two things I hope OP is actually trying to talk about is folks with a lot of influence who inaccurately summarizes a piece of media in ways that cause people to make bad-faith assumptions about that piece’s creator and people who act on those assumptions without question. Both of those things are bad and should be stopped. If someone is asking you to change your opinion about something in ways that materially worsen your behavior towards others, stop and consider if what they’re asking you to do is something that a) is something a kind person will do, or b) will actually help the cause they are alleging to support. Someone who will never see your bookshelf shouldn’t have to care what’s on it.

The only other thing I can think to add is that if someone is saying negative things about works you like and that’s putting people off, write your own reviews. It’s okay if they’re only a sentence or two! You also have the power to spread the works you like and say nice things to authors and artists. There may not always be more of you who do, but folks who love something tend to stick around longer than those who don’t.

Also, as an aside, why would you just tell them to go when you could say “I can read it read it for you, if you want!” instead, Xylo? Reading a book together can be a really fun experience!

at some point you have to realize that you actually have to read to understand the nuance of anything. we as a society are obsessed with summarization, likely as a result of the speed demanded by capital. from headlines to social media (twitter being especially egregious with the character limit), people take in fragments of knowledge and run with them, twisting their meaning into a kaleidoscope that dilutes the message into nothing. yes, brevity is good, but sometimes the message, even when communicated with utmost brevity, requires a 300 page book. sorry.