I agree with this to a large extent. But I think when
you write about
a work using only the work itself as a source you necessarily *do* put
forward this sort of synthesis. Otherwise, what is the point of
mentioning the fact?
I have noticed you say this or something like it a few times.
Throughout this thread you seem to be arguing that you cannot use a work
as a source for itself. But, every time someone points out an instance
where you clearly can, you revert to "... write about a work using only
the work itself as a source ....". Which is your position? I agree
that is almost every case, you are right with the modified "only
source". It would not make much of an article if you simply said very
shortly what happened and which characters where there etc. However,
that is quite a different thing from using it as a source for individual
facts--which characters where present in the first episode as compared
to the last, how many seasons the show ran, etc--and using other sources
for the other facts needed to make the article readable.
Dalf