They are still claiming they won
Also Jim sterling is no longer Jim sterling, he changed his name to a female one
But the YouTube channel is still called Jim sterling, don't want to risk loosing even more subscribers lol
>the game sold a shit ton, like actually sold a HUGE 15 million sales and grossed $1 billion. >got no nominations for GOTY >jim sterling makes a video gloating about how he "won"
Being fair they did somehow strangle it's modding scene in the crib, get Nexus and LL to knuckle under, and are definitely the reason for the shitty VA deepthroating their headset mic for the trans witch in English and only English as well as why the team mysteriously decided to not do any DLC to patch up it's bare bones ass content puddle after scrubbing anything potentially controversial they could think of from development and just go straight to making HL2
6 months ago
Anonymous
I'm pretty sure the studio selling 15 million copies cares not for the modding scene
>sold a HUGE 15 million sales and grossed $1 billion.
It sold far more than 15 million, that was just within the first two weeks of launch. That number is likely far higher after a whole year out on the market, constantly topping the charts until TOTK and Spider-Man 2 came out. Even then, it outsold both of them in lifetime sales.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Brand zombies are one hell of a lucrative demographic. I regularly run into one due to work. I estimate her to be mid/late twenties and she looks like your stereotypical tumblr goblina, sans problemglasses/hair and the perpetual frown. She's always wearing at least one piece of Slytherin merch so I assume she's a Draco shipping fujo.
I ponder how the numbers for the game would look if it was the exact same game, but didn't have the Potter brand to lean on.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Speaking of Harry Potter and Death of the Author...
6 months ago
Anonymous
Lawl he's opening himself to a lawsuit
6 months ago
Anonymous
I wonder if he'd be mad if someone bought those copies and put Rowling's name back into them.
6 months ago
Anonymous
I hope he sold them them for more than he bought them for, so he opened himself to a lawsuit by profiteering on the work of others without giving them credit.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Rowling is a bigot. She'd lose. Pressure Groups would make sure of it.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Counterpoint: Rowling is a billionaire, and the american "justice" system isn't about who's right, it's about who can afford to spend the most money on winning.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Counter-Counterpoint: Technically it's transformative, and Rowling is a bigot. Every industry agrees. That's incentive enough to have any potential lawsuit either dismissed with prejudice (heh) or ruled in favor of the defendant. A (left) judge looking to make a name for xirself would jump at the opportunity.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Anon you're moronic. You've spent way too much time absorbing bullshit from Cinemaphile.
No, it's not transformative and no judge is going to rule that way. That you think they would because of an irrational fear of "the left" is concerning.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Technically it's transformative
You are the dumbest mother fricker in a thread full of dumb mother frickers.
I'm honestly convinced there's no group that hates women more than trans activists because they're doing their best to replace all women in every facet of society.
I couldn't think of any other insidious and more effective method of eliminating women's influence in society than by pretending to identify as one and using that excuse to take the roles and places of real women in all areas.
It's pure evil, something I would read in works of fiction, where some evil, secretive group of monsters, demons or aliens infiltrate humanity by taking the identities people and leveraging this perception against the society they intend to hamper.
>It's the price of aligning with Satan
The women or the trans? Because women will complain about transwoman, but most of them will won't actually deny their chosen sex, which is odd, because that's only thing they have to do to refute their movement.
I think it's pretty funny how you keep using Harry Potter as an example but keep failing to spell the authors name correct, suggesting you've never actually read the books or at most flicked through a book or two without caring for them. You're just using the "controversy" as a means of attentionwhoring by keeping the arguing going for no other reason than (You)s.
If it was some literally-who slav author with a tonguetwister lastname you kept referring to it'd be excusable, but not one who's as well known as JK. I'm deliberately not typing her last name, because frick you. Update your (You)farming cheatsheet.
That post was two hours ago. He probably isn't even browsing this thread anymore. He stopped talking to last guy an hour ago. So you're talking to someone who isn't even there anymore and probably isn't going to read your post.
>transgenders hate women
You're close >women have influence, power, control over society
You're almost there >It's pure evil! I hate transgenders! Protect our women!
Anon... why do you not hear about transmen?
THINK anon. You're being asked to fight in a war where no matter who wins, as a man, you still lose.
Both sides are by and for females.
You don't even care that men are being indoctrinated, injected and cut up. Your first concern is women. I might as well call you a woman trying to infiltrate this place of manchildren and leverage us against a society only YOU hate.
>I'm honestly convinced there's no group that hates women more than trans activists because they're doing their best to replace all women in every facet of society.
No you fricking stupid
It's kind of interesting how Death of the Author used to be for "theories" bordering on fan fiction, while nowadays it's usually homosexuals trying to claim straight characters are "gay coded" or whatever
It's a useful critical tool, but not the be all and end all of interpretation. J. K. Rowling insisting that there were tons of gay/black/what have you characters in her books doesn't change their absence from the text, for example, but knowing that G.R.R.M. intended Littlefinger to be a charming and fun guy is useful context for how he's treated in the books.
DotA wasn't written in response to Twitter attention prostitutes retconning their books.
You don't need DotA to accept that people can lie or people have a subconsciousness. Authorial intent can be unknowable but it still exists like a hypothetical stoneaged ancestor. It didn't spring from the aether.
This. People only feel the need to bring it up when others point out their moronic theories are obviously contradicted. Well thought out interpretations stand on their own without needing to invoke some dumbass essay. Its use is the perfect litmus test for whether or not someone should he listened to.
Death of the Author is based around Foucault's earlier writing.
At the time of writing, the trend among writers was realism and the most highly regarded works were modernist tellings of the contemporary world.
Foucault and Barthes had good points in this context because the 'author' was not creating a setting, they were simply inserting characters into an existing setting (reality). The logic was that the reader, or any other person who existed in the same setting as the story, was as knowledgeable about the world the story took place in as the author and as such were able to comment on the details or interpretations of the story with some semblance of authority.
The argument falls apart when you get into fantasy because in those situations the author does have orders of magnitude more information and authority on the subject of the world and setting. All the psuedointellectuals who preach Death of the Author have taken it out of its original context and turned it into something that Foucault would likely disagree with. I don't know about Barthes he was kind of a twat.
>Foucault and Barthes had good points in this context because the 'author' was not creating a setting, they were simply inserting characters into an existing setting (reality). The logic was that the reader, or any other person who existed in the same setting as the story, was as knowledgeable about the world the story took place in as the author and as such were able to comment on the details or interpretations of the story with some semblance of authority.
Still moronic; most people don't agree on reality. Fiction just has no obligation to reality or itself. I feel that the main contention is difference between analysis and critique. >Analysis >Author is pushing X message.
>Critique >X message isn't a logic conclusion to the events of the story.
wait are you saying death of the author is good, bad, or are you just grumbling over people goofing around on tumblr
Death of the Author is false. I don't know the tumblr post was making fun of DotA or trying to humorously expand it (most people take an openly contradictory stance on the essay).
>Death of the Author is based around Foucault's earlier writing.
original DOTA essay: written in 1967
Foucault's first and only essay on the subject of the authorial intent: written in 1969
The argument falls apart when you get into real world settings too because the realist settings are still a fantasy version of the real world that the author has complete control over. Death of the author is immensely moronic because it's always just been about headcanoning things into an author's work either so you can attack them based on shit that doesn't actually exist or claim their work as your own for the same reason.
>I'm not the one defending death of the author and getting mad that people think it's dumb. Who's the real pseud?
It's him. I don't if you've read Death of the Author or not but it's the most pseud thing of all time.
Fundamentally your position is that anyone today reads Shakespeare and gets all the jokes and rhymes, so you are automatically totally incorrect and nothing you say can change that fact.
I mean that Death of the Author is false. Why does it matter if you call it an observation? It is like saying that the "Earth is flat" is an observation not a proscription.
Well, what is it called when an author was based 20 years ago when he made his masterpiece but now is ashamed of it?
>Well, what is it called when an author was based 20 years ago when he made his masterpiece but now is ashamed of it?
It is called who fricking cares.
>taxidermy
that's... just enforcing your opinion onto the work and then looking for retroactive evidence to support your point? wtf thats some shady shit
>It is OK. I'm a post-structuralist.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Y-you didn't read-
Anon you're moronic.
6 months ago
Anonymous
It is 6 pages long. If you couldn't read that, it is your own damn fault.
>taxidermy
that's... just enforcing your opinion onto the work and then looking for retroactive evidence to support your point? wtf thats some shady shit
>this homie unironically saying "death of the author is false" when it's an opinion and a (natural) style of analysis
It's like saying algebra is false
You're embarrassing yourself
Tumblr post had the same value as the diatribes of your average anon that post in Cinemaphile.
Also that is not death of the author.
It say you can "interpret" a text without need to take on account the author's intent, like for example if a say that the kryptonian pods in MoS look superphalic and gay even if Snyder intent was to make them a reference to egyptian sarcophagus.
One is my interpretation of the scene, another is the authorial intent. Both live in different planes and don't need to overlap or one being more true.
>It say you can "interpret" a text without need to take on account the author's intent, like for example if a say that the kryptonian pods in MoS look superphalic and gay even if Snyder intent was to make them a reference to egyptian sarcophagus.
Oh? Did I need permission to to do that before?
But isn't the authorial intent intrinsically more valid than any one else's since thier intent is the one that actualized an creation?
The beleif that your interpretation you made while jacking off to hentai is as valid as the author/creative force your critiquing is the peak of hubris. The only reason you have anything to critique IS the original text.This is why Foucault is a fricking loser; that and the pedophilic necrophilia.
>But isn't the authorial intent intrinsically more valid than any one else's since thier intent is the one that actualized an creation?
That's a completely subjective judgement. If you really want to establish one view as "more valid" then give me an objective measure. Give me a metric. Give me units.
What are the units of validity?
>You already have the original text
Jesus christ are you thick
Interpretation does not alter the text. It is how the reader consumes and processes the text. It is not about headcanon, it is not about altering the text or adding to it, it is about what the viewer reads between the lines which is necessarily different from what the author purely intended because they are not the same person.
At the end of Watchmen Job says to Ozy "nothing ever ends."
Some take this to mean that Ozy failed and the world is going to blow up. Some take it to be a warning about Rorschach's journal. The author likely intended it to mean that the peace won't last indefinitely despite Ozy's plan working.
All of these are valid interpretations of the text.
>That's a completely subjective judgement. If you really want to establish one view as "more valid" then give me an objective measure. Give me a metric. Give me units. >What are the units of validity?
The Author's intent is the only reason any work of fiction exists. The logical conclusion to Death of the Author is AI writing.
>I cannot give you units of validity or justify treating it as objective
Then you utterly fail to make the argument that one interpretation is more valid than another. You lose. Good day, sir.
The levels of conflation and misunderstanding needed to make a statement this mind-bogglingly stupid are unfathomable
You are possibly the biggest pseud on the planet
It depends on whenever he's talking about the process of writing the story or the contents of the story itself.
If Rowling said: " Dumbledore's character was inspired by my father and this book about Merlin that I read as I kid," she would be talking about the process of creating Dumbledore as a character, on a meta level. It's not a part of the story, just behind the scenes trivia. In that case, the author's intent is relevant. We are talking about the process of building the world, not what's in the world.
If she says "Dumbledore is gay" during an interview, she's adding to the world in a way that isn't being directly written into the story. She's not releasing official material that makes that canon. It's stated. In that case, the author's word shouldn't be taken as canon, because it's merely their own interpretation. An unused idea that popped in her mind mid or post production that was never put in there. If it was supposed to be part of the world, it would have been added to the story. If it's something that's required for the story to work, it's just plain bad writing.
>Picrel
Unfortunately we’re starting to see a trend of creators saying that all interpretations are equally valid, even if some are nonsense or contradict one another, as well as creators retroactively changing the meaning of movies/cartoons/comics to fit current culture, like the Matrix creators saying it was a trans allegory all along, and the creator of Bring It On saying it was always about intersectionality and queer safe spaces.
I can't take it seriously when it comes to fantasy or sci-fi settings that are driven heavily by lore. A lot Tolkien's lore was revealed in letters, interviews or messages to friends, fans etc. Backstories, histories ,important details, languages, terms and meanings of those word, character motivations and so on weren't extrapolated upon or revealed if you claim only his books count and ignore the author who actually wrote it. Tolkien is literally the one one who can say for certain how it went all down in Middle-earth.
Same deal with GW's 40k. Their codices, Black library and other media is intentionally bias and coded in eyes of Imperial sources. GW is the only reliable source that will outright tell audiences in their articles mostly an honest account of certain events and characters.
Star Trek is another example. The tone, themes, and how the Federation is seen were direct orders given by its creator, Gene Roddenberry, but the franchise rarely or ever directly states that in their shows.
Frankenstein.
Everyone for the last 170 years says the book is about either playing god or about taking responsibility of your actions and about how society made the creature into a monster. The reality is; Shelly probably wrote the story under the mindset of " Victor is sad and tragic and he's hot and monsters are bad and they should treated as bad". She probably had no idea that people would see the story as the monster is tragic and that Victor is just as much the villain.
Again you are bringing authorial intent and don't understanding what DotA refers.
There is not overlapping, you don't need to know the lore behind Matrix, LoTR, Frankenstein to interpret those works. Because that is not what you are trying to analyze.
Armond White for example is a critic that relies inDotA when he wrote his critics.
The work means what it means. You can interpret it any number of ways but so can I. For example, I interpret your post as being moronic. You might not have intended or it to be moronic and in fact you probably thought it was smart and reasonable but thanks to death of the author my interpretation of your post as being moronic is just as valid. Perhaps moreso.
It's part of this overall thing where you can't ust tell people that they and their opinions are wrong and stupid. When someone tries to tell you that Star Wars is some Marxist critique on capitalist bourgeois imperialism and Darth Vader is meant to represent its corrosive effect on its victims like a conservative black man who criticizes black culture or whatever, you can't just look at them and go "wow, that's moronic and so are you." You have nod sagely and go "I see, yes I hadn't thought of that before but it's certainly an interesting interpretation."
Basically it all goes back to treating the word "moronic" like it's a dirty word. It was a nice, simple word that you could use when morons were being moronic to stop their moronic shit from spreading.
>It's part of this overall thing where you can't ust tell people that they and their opinions are wrong and stupid. When someone tries to tell you that Star Wars is some Marxist critique on capitalist bourgeois imperialism and Darth Vader is meant to represent its corrosive effect on its victims like a conservative black man who criticizes black culture or whatever, you can't just look at them and go "wow, that's moronic and so are you." You have nod sagely and go "I see, yes I hadn't thought of that before but it's certainly an interesting interpretation." > >Basically it all goes back to treating the word "moronic" like it's a dirty word. It was a nice, simple word that you could use when morons were being moronic to stop their moronic shit from spreading.
I mean you can if take Death of the Author seriously, that's exactly what it argues.
Frankenstein.
Everyone for the last 170 years says the book is about either playing god or about taking responsibility of your actions and about how society made the creature into a monster. The reality is; Shelly probably wrote the story under the mindset of " Victor is sad and tragic and he's hot and monsters are bad and they should treated as bad". She probably had no idea that people would see the story as the monster is tragic and that Victor is just as much the villain.
Eh, Shelly probably intended both in some way attractive. Based on her husband and the kinds of guys she was friends with she came off like one of those weirdo chicks who fantasize about brooding incels.
Honestly IIRC it's actually less about playing God and more men not taking responsibility for their actions if I recall considering she was sitting with Lord Byron, a man so infamous for not taking responsibility for his actions until they bit him in the ass that he became a literary archetype just because of his edgy himbo levels being off the chart, at the time.
>Honestly IIRC it's actually less about playing God and more men not taking responsibility for their actions if I recall considering she was sitting with Lord Byron, a man so infamous for not taking responsibility for his actions until they bit him in the ass that he became a literary archetype just because of his edgy himbo levels being off the chart, at the time.
Well it mirrors god and his irresponsibility. For a supposedly omniscient being he sure left adam and eve alone in a garden with his greatest enemy to seduce. Comes down to the usual "it could be both". Though in the general feeling you get from stories of that era it's likelier that the monster and it's grudge are meant more to be a comeuppance for arrogance.
>For a supposedly omniscient being he sure left adam and eve alone in a garden with his greatest enemy to seduce. >he doesn't understand the purpose of free will
cope christcuck either he's omniscient and omnipotent or he ain't.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Letting humanity choose to eat the fruit disproves neither of those things. >be omnipotent, can force humans to obey but know that doing so is hollow >decide that I won't use my power and let humans make their own decisions >be omniscient and know that humans will frick up on their own >still let them do it
6 months ago
Anonymous
Why set up a test when you know the outcome?
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Why set up a test when you know the outcome?
Don't bother you're never gonna get through to a christcuck.
I always see this example, but it never really made sense. For one, you're effectively relying on the premise that the author is fully aware of what they're doing. Often, this isn't true. A follow up question to the author's response here is - "why did you make the curtains blue? why not another color?" If they want to say that it didn't matter, then why did they bother describing the curtains in the first place? Similar question if they chose it arbitrarily. The subconscious plays a role in both writing and reading.
Of course, this is somewhat dependent on the type of work. Works that are more strictly commercial (ie most comics) are more likely to be meaningless, but of course they get less attention.
>For one, you're effectively relying on the premise that the author is fully aware of what they're doing. Often, this isn't true
FUUUUUUUUUUCK
YOOOOUUUUUUU
This is the fricking issue with death of the author. You morons have your own view and own ideas and if what you're trying to critique and analyze doesn't work then the author, somehow, doesn't know what the the frick they're doing but you sure as shit do because by god you can read all the subtext that you made up in your head and then twist everything around to fit BUT IT'S REALLY THERE and so you know better.
>if what you're trying to critique and analyze doesn't work
Define doesn't work. There can be multiple readings and not all are equal in merit. Reading is the second half of the work. It varies by person, a good interpretation often has less "twisting." >the author, somehow, doesn't know what the the frick they're doing
Yeah that can easily be the case. Plenty of authors are clueless about their work or they did something completely unintended/subconsciously. Again, see the issue with the curtains hypothetical. Secondly, if you are actively trying to communicate an idea and it turns out that a large portion of people reading the work managed to get a completely different idea out of it, you fricked up. Another part of it is that you are actively influenced by the world around you, yet often your understanding of that world is incomplete until years later when we can retroactively dissect the circumstances of the book.
>There can be multiple readings and not all are equal in merit.
And you expect that the masses would judge it fairly instead of it being corrupted by organized minority interests pushing an agenda? >Plenty of authors are clueless about their work or they did something completely unintended/subconsciously.
The government couldn't even define what is a woman.
>what is the collective unconscious
but seriously, the subconscious is heavily influenced by the world around it. people born at similar times in similar places will have a lot of overlapping ideas. and then there are other ideas that have a tendency to stick in popular culture.
>what is the collective unconscious
Pseudo-science. The past is a very different place.
>And you expect that the masses would judge it fairly instead of it being corrupted by organized minority interests pushing an agenda?
The same criticism can be applied to almost anything. Likewise, an author can be pushed to come out against/attempt to redefine their work due to outside influence. Over time, people will interpret the interpretations of others and using the context and contents of a book.
6 months ago
Anonymous
1 person vs institutions with power and influence who are known for abusing their powers. At the very least, it nullifies your original claim.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>At the very least, it nullifies your original claim.
Explain how
6 months ago
Anonymous
>The author can not be trusted >Academia is less trustworthy
Unless you honestly think a committee can actually produce fair results, the author is the highest authority by default.
6 months ago
Anonymous
1. I didn't say the author can't be trusted, that almost implies the author is actively lying.
2. Why wouldn't academia use it's power and influence to influence the author? Ie tell the author to come out in favor of their interpretation.
3. What fricking committee are you talking about? What exactly are fair results in terms of interpretations of art/literature?
6 months ago
Anonymous
>1. I didn't say the author can't be trusted, that almost implies the author is actively lying.
That is the implication. >2. Why wouldn't academia use it's power and influence to influence the author? Ie tell the author to come out in favor of their interpretation.
The past doesn't align with the present. The dead do not speak. Not all power and influence works in the same way. A Rook can't move a single square diagonally. >3. What fricking committee are you talking about? What exactly are fair results in terms of interpretations of art/literature?
The hypothetical one implied whenever the defense of "not all interpretations are equally valid" while arbitrarily lowering legitimacy of author's view.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>That is the implication.
No not really. The author's interpretation of their work is usually a strong one, however, they might be too close to the source to fully appreciate some aspects of the work. If the author is thought to be lying, there's usually some historical evidence of that. >The past doesn't align with the present. The dead do not speak. Not all power and influence works in the same way. A Rook can't move a single square diagonally.
moron. >be french writer during WWII >germans invade after I release my short story >start asking me what it's about >btw if you say it's against us we will kill you >The hypothetical one implied whenever the defense of "not all interpretations are equally valid" while arbitrarily lowering legitimacy of author's view.
That doesn't imply any committee, if anything it implies interpretation is a decentralized process. A moron can interpret a story and come away with a moronic conclusion.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>btw if you say it's against us we will kill you >thinks that the essay introduced the possibility of people lying
You aren't going to bully Shakespeare or Charlies Dickens or anyone people actually cared about into your cult. Corrupting pillars of culture is more worthwhile than bullying a single person in the present. Besides, most people cave to incentive structures.
You didn't read the essay. >That doesn't imply any committee, if anything it implies interpretation is a decentralized process. A moron can interpret a story and come away with a moronic conclusion.
You could already do that before the essay. It is just that the essay is making some meta-physical cope to justify your headcanon.
6 months ago
Anonymous
This homie is actually angry that someone gave a name to the undeniable fact that a viewer's interpretation of a text is necessarily different from pure authorial intent
What a pathetic autist
Everyone point and laugh
6 months ago
Anonymous
>This homie
6 months ago
Anonymous
[...]
This is a US board.
6 months ago
Anonymous
6 months ago
Anonymous
Cool, I'm so glad Shakespeare wrote out in fine detail exactly what each and every one of his play mean.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Your dad left you before you were born so I could say this piece of shit on the floor is your father.
6 months ago
Anonymous
That you think that's anything to do with death of the author is pretty telling
Also very sad considering how many people have already corrected you that altering the text itself is not interpretation
6 months ago
Anonymous
>No not really. The author's interpretation of their work is usually a strong one, however, they might be too close to the source to fully appreciate some aspects of the work. If the author is thought to be lying, there's usually some historical evidence of that.
Quints wasted on this moronery.
Why even bother having anyone write anything? If everyone's interpretation of the author's work is equally as valid as the author's then the author serves no purpose which means there's no reason for him to write anything which means there's no work for you to interpret in the first place.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>I don't understand what we're talking about
We know
You've been floundering from the very first post
6 months ago
Anonymous
you're assuming there's a much more solid foundation to how people interpret communication than there really is. it's all a game of chance, not just when you write a book but when you write a post, or indeed when you say "hello" to someone in person. in theory they could interpret it any way they like, in practice most people are going to interpret it fairly similarly.
the point of communication is to try to get something across and it's inevitable that whoever sees it is going to apply an interpretation to what you've communicated. the fact that it's not foolproof doesn't suddenly render all communication pointless.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>you're assuming there's a much more solid foundation to how people interpret communication than there really is. it's all a game of chance, not just when you write a book but when you write a post, or indeed when you say "hello" to someone in person. in theory they could interpret it any way they like, in practice most people are going to interpret it fairly similarly.
This doesn't disprove authorial intent. >the point of communication is to try to get something across and it's inevitable that whoever sees it is going to apply an interpretation to what you've communicated. the fact that it's not foolproof doesn't suddenly render all communication pointless.
DotA is the reason why subtlety is dead. If clarity is the goal, then there is no better writing than the characters just telling the audience how to think.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>If clarity is the goal
If.
6 months ago
Anonymous
literal textbook autism
6 months ago
Anonymous
>DotA is the reason why subtlety is dead. If clarity is the goal, then there is no better writing than the characters just telling the audience how to think.
Doesn't even matter because death of the author means that your very explicit text can have implicit hidden meanings that, the author, aren't even aware of but that Critic Mchomosexualson is somehow able to divine.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Doesn't even matter because death of the author means that your very explicit text can have implicit hidden meanings that, the author, aren't even aware of but that Critic Mchomosexualson is somehow able to divine.
For the record, someone ITT unironically used the collective unconscious as an argument.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Psychoanalysis is basically just scientific mysticism.
6 months ago
Anonymous
We all share human nature due to our shared DNA but that doesn't make us a hivemind that turns to Tang.
>being corrupted by an agenda >anon is so up his own ass with invented boogeymen he thinks death of the author somehow means random third parties can also become the author
>Yeah that can easily be the case.
No it can't you narcissistic moron. The work means what it means. The author meant what he or she inserted onto the page. Anything else is headcanon.
Isn't that the point of the death of the author theory? That the only thing that matters is what is written?
6 months ago
Anonymous
No it's quite explicitly the exact opposite in that when analyzing a work that what the author intended isn't important and that the individuals own feelings and interpretations are equally valid in regards to what a work means.
6 months ago
Anonymous
themoreyouknow.jpg
Well shit. The name always had me assuming it meant nothing except the written word was relevant, and it was a simple way to tell morons to frick off when they say [book x] is shit simply because [author they don't like for non-writing related reasons] wrote it.
Garth Ennis could be the head of nambla for all I care, he'll still be one my all time favorite writers because the fricker is funny and that's all that matters.
I interpret this thread as shitposting, regardless of the original intent.
I interpret a certain other thread with an OP that's basically nothing but a kickstarter link as Advertising Or Begging. Not that our jannies are competent enough to do anything about it.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>The name always had me assuming it meant nothing except the written word was relevant
No, the point is that Barthes was your typical mid-century European Marxist who wanted to teardown the established order (in his case, in regards to literary theory) and thus argued that a writer's intention or details of the writer's life hold no importance on their work and so are no important than the views of anyone who reads it. This is, of course, moronic because the works of writers are influenced heavily by their own personal views and their lives and to remove the writer from the the equation is complete nonsense.
6 months ago
Anonymous
You're still wrong no matter how many times you repost this
Go back to your containment
6 months ago
Anonymous
>This is, of course, moronic because the works of writers are influenced heavily by their own personal views and their lives and to remove the writer from the the equation is complete nonsense.
The same is true of readers, and in the case of literary theory, the ones writing it are those same readers!
6 months ago
Anonymous
The difference is that the readers are not the ones writing the work so their views and interpretations are not, in fact, as equally valid as, or more valid than, the author's. This isn't a hard concept to grasp. The author wrote it, their interpretation is thus correct and authoritative. Readers can have their own interpretations but they're invalid headcanon.
6 months ago
Anonymous
A literary critic writes a work - say, his interpretation of another text. His interpretation of that text as a reader is going to be shaped by his life experiences, knowledge, etc. the same is true of his written interpretation of the text.
His interpretation, the author's interpretation, your interpretation and indeed my interpretation are all equally irrelevant. If we want to be slightly absurd, all you can establish is that your interpretation of the author's interpretation is what you will accept to be valid. Unless you're the author, you can't actually know the author's intent.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Shouting in the wind, anon
He's been told repeatedly what DOTA actually entails but he insists it's all about fanfic authors altering the explicit text.
You can explain to him all you want that saying Frodo died in the Shire and Sam held the ring the whole time has nothing to do with death of the author but it will fall on deaf ears
Considering he thinks someone saying "homie that's moronic" means they were literally calling him black he's likely a foreigner with limited english.
Just laugh at the angry moron
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Still won't admit to reading a 6 page essay
Really relying on TV Tropes here?
6 months ago
Anonymous
commit
the word you were looking for was commit
it's time to go.
6 months ago
Anonymous
You are not denying the claim that you didn't actual read the damn thing.
6 months ago
Anonymous
actually
the word is actually >you're not saying you read it!
I read it.
You have autism.
It's time to stop posting.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>I read it.
Prove it. You are just parroting fake definitions from other sources.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>f-fake definitions!
You just don't understand the concept my guy
Because you're a stupid foreign autist
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Only admit to reading it when back into a corner >Still can't provide proof
6 months ago
Anonymous
A screenshot isn't proof you read it
Prove you read it
You can't because you didn't
6 months ago
Anonymous
You didn't read (it) at all
I'm beginning to suspect you can't read
You are a very sad small individual
Cry about it samegay.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Refuses to provide proof
You didn't read the essay :^)
6 months ago
Anonymous
You are that "this homie" gay, aren't you?
6 months ago
Anonymous
I accept your concession
6 months ago
Anonymous
You didn't read the essay
6 months ago
Anonymous
I didn't read from fricking TV Tropes.
6 months ago
Anonymous
You didn't read (it) at all
I'm beginning to suspect you can't read
You are a very sad small individual
6 months ago
Anonymous
>he thinks someone saying "homie that's moronic" means they were literally calling him black he's likely a foreigner with limited english.
Or quite new here. Or to the world.
6 months ago
Anonymous
What kind of bullshit are you spouting? The point of death of the author is that the author is not the authoritative voice on a work's meaning and themes and that everyone else's interpretations are equally valid. The entire fricking point is that what the author intended and their own biography should not be bothered with when interpreting, analyzing, and critiquing a work even though those are core elements to the work's very existence.
This is the problem with Marxists. They constantly have to shift the meaning of terms as part of half-baked attempts to gaslight you so they're always right by the definitions that they just made up.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>should not be bothered with
need not be bothered with. you can still do it if you want.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>The point of death of the author is that the author is not the authoritative voice on a work's meaning and themes and that everyone else's interpretations are equally valid.
You just agreed with the post you quoted, moron. >what the author intended and their own biography should not be bothered with
No, you've already veered off into being wrong and moronic. So close!
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Isn't that the point of the death of the author theory? That the only thing that matters is what is written?
No actually go read the essay.
>Plenty of authors are clueless about their work or they did something completely unintended/subconsciously
this is the most condescending shit i've ever read. Imagine, if you will, someone making a painting celebrating an art movement that they're very fond of. He puts it up in a gallery and stands next to it, and somebody else walks up to it and talks about how it's clearly a criticism of the artistic movement it's meant to celebrate. The artist tries to correct him, only for this narcissistic homosexual to talk down at him about how he clearly doesn't understand the very thing he painted. How fricking full of yourself do you have to be to act like this? "I, some random ass homie, know more about the intent behind the painting you made then you do." No you fricking don't, dumbass, you're not in their fricking head you moron. At best you can say that it doesn't communicate it's point very well, but that would be a condemnation of the artist's skills, something very well within the authority of a critic, not a determination of it's true meaning, a right exclusive to the artist.
tl;dr: stop fellating yourself homosexual, you don't know half of the shit you think you do.
>Dumb gay makes a painting of a guy he loves >It accidentally looks like the guy sucking wiener
People saying it's a painting of the guy sucking wiener aren't wrong just because the intent was different
What started this autism? Did a fic with a pairing you hate do well on AO3? Why are you so incredibly butthurt?
6 months ago
Anonymous
>People saying it's a painting of the guy sucking wiener aren't wrong just because the intent was different
yes they are, if it wasn't meant to resemble that, it wasn't meant to resemble that. That's not to say it can't be considered shit for looking like a picture of a guy sucking a dick, but that's besides the point. >Did a fic with a pairing you hate do well on AO3?
No, the only thing that set off my autism there is the fact that i consider death of the author to be an insufferably arrogant and homosexualy concept, endorsed by pretentious buttholes of all stripes.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Nothing set me off!
Horseshit, no one goes this schizo over such a boilerplate concept without it being personal
6 months ago
Anonymous
set me off!
that's not what i said, moron, i said i fricking hate this concept, and that's what set me off.
6 months ago
Anonymous
I'm sorry the hamtaro/Bijou fic got more views than your boss/bijou fic but shitposting on Cinemaphile won't change anything
>what is the collective unconscious
but seriously, the subconscious is heavily influenced by the world around it. people born at similar times in similar places will have a lot of overlapping ideas. and then there are other ideas that have a tendency to stick in popular culture.
>Responding to "the author and viewer are different people that bring different biases to the table that necessarily alters the interpretation" with "MUH COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS"
Sometimes it feels like you people treat these arguments like mad libs or word association
Subconscious/unconscious, at least in the way these morons think, doesn't exist. They treat it as some kind of magic extradimensional mind force that's controlling all of your actions so even that you can't disprove them when they read a comic as actually, for example, being about lesbians or whatever because their dumb brains are so consumed by shipping that they start seeing things that aren't there. Of course this is all the author unconsciously inserting themes so that when he says "no that's not what it's about" he can't disprove you because he doesn't know what goes on in his own mind but you, the moronic critic, are special and can spot these things that totally exist and aren't just you projecting your own wants and views onto a work.
>why did they bother describing the curtains in the first place?
Because desription helps worldbuilding? I shouldn't even have to mention this.
You could cut like a third of the first Dune book by removing descriptions, and it would be a worse book for it.
>Often, this isn't true. A follow up question to the author's response here is - "why did you make the curtains blue? why not another color?" If they want to say that it didn't matter, then why did they bother describing the curtains in the first place? Similar question if they chose it arbitrarily
What you're trying to sell does not logically follow. An author describes a room because otherwise you have to write "and so they entered a room, it had chairs and a table, there were curtains.". Giving detail isn't a subconsious thing the choices are generally down to a preference for whatever color the author enjoy in life unless they're trying to set a specific type of stage. We wouldn't try to pick apart a prop when a stage play drags it out for whatever deeper meaning it has "perhaps the cardboard signifies the incredible flexibility of the human spirit.". It's scene setting, stop being a pseud.
If you're writing like that, you're either being paid by the word or you're trying to meet a page requirement. There's no need to set a scene that doesn't matter, >We wouldn't try to pick apart a prop
Different medium, and in many cases props matter. If you put a gun prominently over the fireplace, it better matter.
>If you put a gun prominently over the fireplace, it better matter.
Hello zoomzoom. Plaques with rifles/sabres used to be considered decoration just like hunting trophies.
And if you're just throwing it around without purpose you're wasting space on the page or you're throwing trash around the stage.
6 months ago
Anonymous
But it does have a purpose, not just as a prop to be used like (You) think it should.
The purpose is worldbuilding. By mentioning something like that and other parts of decor, your himbo catburlglar MC is now aware he just broke into a (presumably former) big game hunters house and ought to be careful, lest he might end up on the wrong end of an elephant gun.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Unless it really was just flavor text meant to fill out the page and keep the right pace and flow - hey. a reasonable interpretation of the text that differs from authorial intent.
I wonder if there's a name for that?
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Unless it really was just flavor text meant to fill out the page and keep the right pace and flow - hey. a reasonable interpretation of the text that differs from authorial intent.
Seriously you pseudointellectual actually read death of the author read the fricking essay. You are a complete moron.
6 months ago
Anonymous
You didn't read the essay :^)
6 months ago
Anonymous
>You didn't read the essay :^)
Yes I fricking did. He argues that nothing the author did was ever did with intent, that nothing the author says matters at all, his entire screed is just a cope to allow anyone to interpret everything to themselves since meaning doesn't exist when it clearly fricking does. It's an unhinged bullshit fest by a pseud like you.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Prove you read it :^)
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Prove you read it :^)
I think this post was written with the sub-text that the author himself is a homosexual pedophile who enjoys raping babies.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>resorting to insults when backed in a corner >won't prove they read the essay
Read the essay :^)
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Read the essay :^)
It's not an insult, it's my interpretation of your sub-text. It's equally true because there is no meaning in your intent pedophile.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>It's equally true
In the sense that interpretations are not truth-apt that is correct
You continue to prove that you have not read the essay
6 months ago
Anonymous
>In the sense that interpretations are not truth-apt that is correct >You continue to prove that you have not read the essay
The sub-text of this passage is that anon has never read a book in his life and is only just now discovering the written language. He infuses ever word with a sense of his internal seething anger that he cannot rape more children. His curtains are blue representing the internal depression at his lack of underage victims.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Read the essay :^)
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Read the essay :^)
At this point in the narrative the protagonist's inability to gain new victims to take out his internal turmoil upon causes him to lose the ability to speak. He can no longer convey ideas gripped by the insatiable lust for children's innoncence. His keyboard soiled with orange dust represents the traumatic memories he leaves his victims with.
6 months ago
Anonymous
I never stated the gun has to be used, I just said it has to matter. In the example you gave, it matters because it informs the actions of the protagonist and provides a source of tension.
When you write a story, you'll subconsciously put pieces of yourself in there, in one way or another. Sometimes, the curtains being blue may mean a metaphor that the writer didn't even caught on while writing; sometimes, they may mean that the author wanted to show and not tell, describing the environment to paint a mental image.
In any case, it's best to be careful with reading between the lines because our own biased interpretations may lead to the english teacher scenario. It leads to armchair psychology shit where people ignore the author's intent to validate their own headcanons.
>When you write a story, you'll subconsciously put pieces of yourself in there, in one way or another. Sometimes, the curtains being blue may mean a metaphor that the writer didn't even caught on while writing; sometimes, they may mean that the author wanted to show and not tell, describing the environment to paint a mental image.
Who cares? That isn't what DotA is about.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I just mean if the author would've meant something deeper that they would've specified the shade and not used just "blue".
Even then, he could have specified and really not meant much. I can't imagine a lot of places using light blue curtains, but like, dark blue can make for some seriously classy room.
Like I said I agree with you. old people in my area mostly use light blue-white curtains for their living rooms. it can create a nice contrast[/spoilers]
>if the author would've meant something deeper that they would've specified the shade and not used just "blue".
They really don't have to, there is absolutely no issue with associating a colour in general with a story or thematic point. In fact the writer could purposefully only be exact sometimes, to make you wonder if you are meant to draw a link or not. Also being overly exact all the time usually reads pretty poorly and can make it seems very repetitive.
I can't take it seriously when it comes to fantasy or sci-fi settings that are driven heavily by lore. A lot Tolkien's lore was revealed in letters, interviews or messages to friends, fans etc. Backstories, histories ,important details, languages, terms and meanings of those word, character motivations and so on weren't extrapolated upon or revealed if you claim only his books count and ignore the author who actually wrote it. Tolkien is literally the one one who can say for certain how it went all down in Middle-earth.
Same deal with GW's 40k. Their codices, Black library and other media is intentionally bias and coded in eyes of Imperial sources. GW is the only reliable source that will outright tell audiences in their articles mostly an honest account of certain events and characters.
Star Trek is another example. The tone, themes, and how the Federation is seen were direct orders given by its creator, Gene Roddenberry, but the franchise rarely or ever directly states that in their shows.
>Tolkien is literally the one one who can say for certain how it went all down in Middle-earth.
Anon there is no Middle-earth
The events of the book didn't happen
Get a grip
Yeah, I know, anon. That applies to all works of fiction, including the cartoons and comics we read or watch. But it baffles how anyone can subscribe to Death of the Author when the Author's interpretation and thoughts of a certain work they create, even if it's not directly revealed in their works, clearly have precedence over anyone else and should be treated as actual canon to the universe they created.
I didn't like how Rowland just stated in a random book reading that Dumbledore is gay when that wasn't directly shown in the books, but I'm not going to deny it because Rowland is the author of the series and her interpretation is clearly the one that's going to be true over any opposition, because it's her work and her universe.
>I know
Do you?
You don't act as though you do. >It baffles me how individuals have personal interpretations of the work they consume
Then you're an idiot. >Canon!
Has literally nothing to do with Death of the Author you sperg.
>Their interpretation is TRUE
It's not an objective falsifiable thing. It can't be true or false because none of the events fricking happened.
It sounds to me like you're just mad that headcanon exists, which has dick to do with what we're talking about
>You don't act as though you do.
That's an meaningless accusation. And I'm not going to play this game with you. I don't care if you think I have lost touch with reality anymore than I if I told you were you're completely pathetic for using insults when I never insulted in the first place. >Then you're an idiot.
Such as this. Seriously, WTH is your problem? We may disagree, but I never would insult you simply because of this petty dispute.
Also, the example I just provided was confirmed later on. Dumbledore is gay whether fans like it or not. Rowland's interpretation is more valid any of ours, because it's her work. Why are you offended by this? >It's not an objective falsifiable thing. It can't be true or false because none of the events fricking happened.
Okay? So what? It doesn't matter if didn't happen. It's fiction, but it's Rowland's fiction and none of us can deny it because it's her universe that she created and the readers all agreed to subscribe to her interpretation the moment they all decided to support and read her works. >headcanon
It's not headcanon when the author who wrote it determines the canon. I just can't say Female Primarchs existed in 40k, no matter how much I want to because fans of 40k agreed that GW determine it the rules and nature of the setting, and the GW said there are no Female Primarchs.
>Dumbledore is gay whether fans like it or not.
Dumbledore doesn't exist and that has nothing to do with Death of the Author. >Ok? So I'm wrong and have totally misclassified something as falsifiable, so what?
That's a pretty big error and understanding that you've made it will lead to a more proper understanding of the topic. >It's her universe!
It. Doesn't. Exist. >It's not headcanon when...
Ok yes, so you are a moron confusing headcanon with DotA being an inherent part of individual interpretations of a text.
I'm sorry, anon, but you don't have the slightest fricking clue what we're talking about here.
I think it's pretty funny how you keep using Harry Potter as an example but keep failing to spell the authors name correct, suggesting you've never actually read the books or at most flicked through a book or two without caring for them. You're just using the "controversy" as a means of attentionwhoring by keeping the arguing going for no other reason than (You)s.
If it was some literally-who slav author with a tonguetwister lastname you kept referring to it'd be excusable, but not one who's as well known as JK. I'm deliberately not typing her last name, because frick you. Update your (You)farming cheatsheet.
>It's not an objective falsifiable thing. It can't be true or false because none of the events fricking happened.
How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?
what's fake is fake. sonichu is no more fake than sonic the hedgehog. the fact sonichu didn't happen in the sonic canon doesn't make it "less real" than sonic. both are 100% not real.
plus authors regularly screw up: the fact the author intends a character to be charming, interesting, sympathetic, etc, counts for nothing if people who read the book see a tedious, boring, unsympathetic dick. an author who tries to paper over that with "but i decide canon!" is unlikely to fool even themselves.
>Tolkien is literally the one one who can say for certain how it went all down in Middle-earth.
Anon there is no Middle-earth
The events of the book didn't happen
Get a grip
None of what he wrote implies he believes any of that fictional stuff is real. Are you for real, guy? Do you accuse this to Atheists who talk about how unjust and cruel God is in the Bible when we both know atheists actually don't believe God exists, as if God was an actual real person?
>You don't act as though you do.
That's an meaningless accusation. And I'm not going to play this game with you. I don't care if you think I have lost touch with reality anymore than I if I told you were you're completely pathetic for using insults when I never insulted in the first place. >Then you're an idiot.
Such as this. Seriously, WTH is your problem? We may disagree, but I never would insult you simply because of this petty dispute.
Also, the example I just provided was confirmed later on. Dumbledore is gay whether fans like it or not. Rowland's interpretation is more valid any of ours, because it's her work. Why are you offended by this? >It's not an objective falsifiable thing. It can't be true or false because none of the events fricking happened.
Okay? So what? It doesn't matter if didn't happen. It's fiction, but it's Rowland's fiction and none of us can deny it because it's her universe that she created and the readers all agreed to subscribe to her interpretation the moment they all decided to support and read her works. >headcanon
It's not headcanon when the author who wrote it determines the canon. I just can't say Female Primarchs existed in 40k, no matter how much I want to because fans of 40k agreed that GW determine it the rules and nature of the setting, and the GW said there are no Female Primarchs.
Don't respond to people who randomly insult you when you never held malice towards them and were conversing with them in honest faith, anon. That anon maybe a troll, or maybe he does want to insult you personally. Either way, it's just not worth it.
>None of what he wrote implies he believes any of that fictional stuff is real
Except yes, saying that one version of events is "true" implies that the events happened. They didn't.
Saying "Dumbledore is gay" as a point of fact without any qualifiers is implying that Dumbledore exists. He doesn't.
There is no version of fiction that is more or less real than any other version. They are all equally non-existent.
All of this of course besides the fact that the literal textual events of a work have frick-all to do with death of the author
>Except yes, saying that one version of events is "true" implies that the events happened. They didn't.
No, it doesn't. I can claim the God of the Old Testament is cruel, evil, and genocidal, which is he is. but it doesn't at all entail I believe the Old Testament actually happened. I don't believe it's true, but I will use those sources that israelites claim is true as a agreed upon foundation to refute the claim they were chosen by God, when their text is just another religious text that can't be proven. In fact, I don't believe any of it happened. I don't believe the ancient history of israelites being enslaved by Egyptians, let alone being chosen by God, happened. Because there's no historical evidence for any of it.
But I can still bring forth a conclusion based on the examples given to me, such as the bible that israelites and Christians believe is true, even if I don't personally believe it. And all of us can judge God's character based on that agreed foundation, even if I don't see it as "true." People can entertain a thought without accepting it.
>Shut up homosexual
This will be last post to you, because I'm going to follow my own advice. Don't bother responding, because I'm not going to read it.
>>I can make positive falsifiable claims about things that don't exist!
That's literally the career of movie critics and video game reviewers, anon. It's all fiction, but they still make claims about it, despite being imaginary, idiot. Go have a nice day because you're honestly moronic. I honestly wish I could meet in IRL so I punch your teeth in.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>That's literally the career of movie critics and video game reviewers, anon
No. No it isn't.
Movie critics and game reviewers provide their subjective opinions in media.
The funniest part of all this is that you're so shit with english you don't understand the necessary qualifiers to make a statement about fiction falsifiable. "Dumbledore is gay" is not a falsifiable statement, Dumbledore does not exist. "JK Rowling says the Dumbledore in her stories is gay" is falsifiable and true, it's non-fiction. It happened.
But again, this has nothing to do with death of the author. You keep talking as though it has anything to do with canon and textual events when it's nothing at all to do with those. Death of the Author is entirely about subtextual interpretation being inherently personal. You are not the author. You don't carry the same biases and beliefs. Your interpretation of their text is necessarily different from their original intention.
No it doesn't you moronic autistic. The sentence merely implies that because Tolkien created the ideas and was fully responsible for everything that ever happened in his story that he is the only person who can ever say how it was to be interpreted. That is completely factually correct, thankfully the man was also prolific about answering questions as he was nearly as autistic as you are to make certain sure no one could say he didn't explain something. Frick off you stupid b***h.
>The sentence merely implies that because Tolkien created the ideas and was fully responsible for everything that ever happened in his story that he is the only person who can ever say how it was to be interpreted
1 - No, it doesn't imply that at all. You may have attempted that implication, but you failed due to improper use of language.
You might say the viewer's interpretation of your text doesn't line up with your authorial intent. Hmm. Curious. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the topic.
2 - "Only Tolkien is allowed to say how the work can be interpreted" is an opinion and is not falsifiable. Here, this game should help you learn the difference between facts and opinions
And, yet again, none of this has fricking ANYTHING to do with death of the author. Not a god damned thing. If you are using the word canon in this discussion at all you need to be kicked in the dick.
Dancing around the point so that you can say that your interpretation matters doesn't make anything you say worth a damn you know.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>I have no response
neat
6 months ago
Anonymous
You're not trying this shit on Cinemaphile because they would rip your bussy apart.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Cinemaphile doesn't know the difference between objective/subjective and thinks death of the author is about fanfiction being canon
cool story
>Anon you seem to not have a strong grasp of English.
You don't even use commas. Frick off, you hypocritical moron.
[...] >Muh Russian
You guys really are moronic. Also, capitalize, moron.
>you don't even use commas! >proceeds to use commas incorrectly
Fricking amazing >I-I'm not Russian!
There's literally no other reason to bring up RT
Well, unless you think that stands for Rotten Tomatoes, in which case you're far dumber than I could have possibly anticipated.
6 months ago
Anonymous
As expected and egotistical moron that doesn't know what he's fricking talking about. What a fricking surprise.
6 months ago
Anonymous
I accept your concession
6 months ago
Anonymous
>I accept your concession
I concede nothing. Tell me then what is the death of the author of the Death of the Author?
I always thought that death of the author meant examining the work for what was in it, not for the personal bias of the author vis a vis not shooting the messenger and reading the message.
Except it's not for the most part. People just use it to ignore the author, no matter what he/she states over some text that some people believe is open to interpretation.
Like this
It always has been the case.
I have never seen an example of Death of Author where the person proposing it wasn't as bias if not worse than the writers/authors. They simply want to impose their interpretation as equally valid, which is absurd.
See Paradise of Lost. I roll my eyes every time I see someone say Satan was the good guy all along when the story itself depicts him as a hypocritical asshat who was way worse than God and hated humans. Which was pointed out by angels on both sides.
>That's literally the career of movie critics and video game reviewers, anon
No. No it isn't.
Movie critics and game reviewers provide their subjective opinions in media.
The funniest part of all this is that you're so shit with english you don't understand the necessary qualifiers to make a statement about fiction falsifiable. "Dumbledore is gay" is not a falsifiable statement, Dumbledore does not exist. "JK Rowling says the Dumbledore in her stories is gay" is falsifiable and true, it's non-fiction. It happened.
But again, this has nothing to do with death of the author. You keep talking as though it has anything to do with canon and textual events when it's nothing at all to do with those. Death of the Author is entirely about subtextual interpretation being inherently personal. You are not the author. You don't carry the same biases and beliefs. Your interpretation of their text is necessarily different from their original intention.
>Movie critics and game reviewers provide their subjective opinions in media.
You obviously never met an "esteemed" film critic at RT. They don't see their opinions of film as subjective. Quite the contrary.
>Anon you seem to not have a strong grasp of English.
You don't even use commas. Frick off, you hypocritical moron.
>it's a butthurt Russian that doesn't actually know what Death of the Author is and thinks critics give "objective" opinions
and now the thread makes sense
>Muh Russian
You guys really are moronic. Also, capitalize, moron.
to use commas incorrectly
Done to troll you, moran. Or is subtlety something your autistic mind cannot grasp?
Also, you didn't put periods at the end of your sentence. Your opinion is invalid and you have no right to judge anyone for grammar mistakes. You don't follow your rules, moron. Why should I adhere to a standard you don't follow? >There's literally no other reason to bring up RT
The fact that you assumed it was anything other Rotten Tomatoes when it was about films makes you far more moronic. I honestly wish I punch your face in. People like you shouldn't exist.
>it's a butthurt Russian that doesn't actually know what Death of the Author is and thinks critics give "objective" opinions
and now the thread makes sense
Can anyone explain to me why people ITT think Death of the Author has literally anything to do with fanfiction or headcanon?
Do people just not know the difference between text and subtext?
A lot of people (morons) think you cannot write a What If story where Hitler won without being a literal super nazi yourself, and DotA is the simplest way to tell said morons to frick off.
At least that's my take ¯_(ツ)_/¯
>Can anyone explain to me why people ITT think Death of the Author has literally anything to do with fanfiction or headcanon?
No, you have actually write something for there to be fanfiction. >Do people just not know the difference between text and subtext?
There is no objective hardline metric to distinguish the two.
A lot of people (morons) think you cannot write a What If story where Hitler won without being a literal super nazi yourself, and DotA is the simplest way to tell said morons to frick off.
At least that's my take ¯_(ツ)_/¯
That has nothing to do Death of the Author.
There really needs to be a word for something that yet to be proven true but can only be proven universally true or false. Like "there are no wienerroaches in the house".
Immediately you can invoke Godwin to underline the cognitive dissonance. >I have this book called Mein Kampf >And I think you should really try to separate the artist from the art >Maybe the author's own stated interpretation and the general consensus is just like an opinion >It could mean like a lot of different things to a lot of different people and who are you or anyone else to tell them that the way they see it is wrong?
So you're saying Hitler transferred his own self-hatred to the israelites and it had nothing with the looting, pillaging, and overall use of usury to take over germany?
an essay declaring that Mein Kampf was actually a liberal-humanist work and a precursor to the principles set out in the UN declaration of human rights has the potential to be an interesting piece of writing. the fact that it's obviously comically untrue is an opportunity, not a fatal wound.
>It's all the same COMMIE bullshit.
Exactly, dipshit in the thread rambling about sub-text when he probably uses it to mean his own interpretation of text and not what it actually is.
>I'm smart Marxist educated >I believe I can retroactively make characters gay >No you don't get to reboot Ren and stimpy the creator was a pedophile >No, you don't get to watch the Dilbert Cartoon because the creator of Dilbert becane a maga supporter 30 years after the cartoon aired
This shit only matters in fan-community power struggles when you’re mad that someone else is enjoying something wrong
Let it go
Be satisfied with the work itself and not its fandom
One thing I hate about death of the author is when the author says the curtains are greyish-blue but the audience interprets the curtains as azure, cyan, or blue always those colors when the greyish-blue made the story unique compared to the constant azure since it's the blue they know and is the most marketable.
I read the entire thread, and even though I may come across as rude, I must say that most people who don't grasp the concepts behind the death of the author lack the necessary tools to comprehend the ideas it entails.
Like if I start to explain counterintuitive examples in Physics, such as the momentum of a ball in a moving vehicle, to people who lack a basic understanding of Physics, I would get the same reaction
Death of the author is the most arrogant form of critique ever. Imagine being so self-absorbed that you read or watch something and decide to criticize not the thing you just read or watch but the version of it that you made up and it's this version which, for you, supercedes and is more credible than the actual version because it fits the ideas you have better. The absolute fricking narcissism.
I literally have no trouble with death of the author so long as the interpretation can be proven valid with Internal logic for its existence.
The sad fact is many great works of art were created by mere chance and luck. Many author's intents are either extremely obtuse or Blatantly stupid. Not to mention the fact fictional media is already a subjective artform that requires the reader's engagement anyways.
OP is just an autistic homosexual that needs word of god to lay everything out for him like a Wikipedia article.
>I literally have no trouble with death of the author so long as the interpretation can be proven valid with Internal logic for its existence. >X is in a coma theory
>X is in a coma theory
But that's a good example of what sets a bad theory apart from a good one. These tend to be based on wouldn't it be sad and not anything in the work itself. No hints that is the case or any thematic importance if it did some how turn out to be true. Plus its more about redefining canon than finding a different meaning.
Compare it to say Wish, which right now has many questioning if the villain was really all that bad. Using the internal logic of the wishing rules and the overt danger it can cause. His aversion to dangerous, ambiguous or stupid wishes is completely fair. Characters around him tend to act greedy, idiotic or strangely uncaring. It simply makes a lot more sense to see him as a tragic villain or maybe even mislead hero. Rather than the overt villain the film wants. This is all without changing the plot just how it is seen.
>But that's a good example of what sets a bad theory apart from a good one. These tend to be based on wouldn't it be sad and not anything in the work itself. No hints that is the case or any thematic importance if it did some how turn out to be true. Plus its more about redefining canon than finding a different meaning.
special pleading
>Compare it to say Wish, which right now has many questioning if the villain was really all that bad.
He is. >Using the internal logic of the wishing rules and the overt danger it can cause.
Magic isn't real. >His aversion to dangerous, ambiguous or stupid wishes is completely fair.
Then why did he lash out? >Characters around him tend to act greedy, idiotic or strangely uncaring. It simply makes a lot more sense to see him as a tragic villain or maybe even mislead hero. Rather than the overt villain the film wants. This is all without changing the plot just how it is seen.
It is called writing a shitty story.
That's not what special pleading is, but why should I expect you to know that when you can't grasp what Death of the Author is?
In b4 another schizo rant about Marxists
>no argument
>This is, of course, moronic because the works of writers are influenced heavily by their own personal views and their lives and to remove the writer from the the equation is complete nonsense.
The same is true of readers, and in the case of literary theory, the ones writing it are those same readers!
>The same is true of readers, and in the case of literary theory, the ones writing it are those same readers!
There is no shared consciousness or any SMT: Persona JRPG plot bullshit.
>Wow how condescending. Claiming the author did not attain their intended goal.
Intent ≠ execution
Interpretation ≠ intent
Keep digging yourself into a hole instead of reading the fricking essay.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Intent ≠ execution
Oh so the author could fail at making their point, in doing so making other ones that are just as well justified by the text.
6 months ago
Anonymous
You don't even understand cause and effect.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>he can't separate interpretation from evaluation
i shiggy diggy
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Intent ≠ execution
You're so fricking close you absolute dipshit
those theories suck, because they are trying to set a fantasy/cartoon setting into the real world. Top of that they also claim that the side characters are the manifestation of hiden desires of the MC that are never present in the original work.
Imagine a future society with no knowledge whatsoever of our history finds a copy of A Modest Proposal. They have no context with which to understand that it is meant as satire and it becomes the basis for people arguing for eating babies. An entire political movement springs from this interpretation, spreading it further and using it as gospel and justification.
>If it's not in the work, it's not canon, even if it's the author saying it >let's ignore Zeitgeist >Let's read to deep into one detail to validate our fanfic >Cancel culture >Shared canon >Author's grandchildren retroactively ruining his work
Only the first one has any usefulness. Authors should be free to explore ideas for the benefit of the story, regardless of how they feel about them. There's value to someone from a culture or time doing their own take on something, seeing their ideals influence the way they handle that work. The time and place should also be considered when reading a work because moral standards may not be compatible with contemporary ideas and it avoids the mindset that we are immune to becoming dated ourselves.
This thread reminds me of a discussion I had once about cultural literacy. Death of the Author can be literal as well as figurative. Imagine not getting a reference as an allusion to some other concept because both the author and the thing being referred to no longer exist
This thread is dog shit, but I'm absolutely fascinated by the alt-right sperg that keeps screaming about his own made up version of Death of the Author and marxists. What is his damage? Why does he care about this very basic literary concept at all? Why does he insist this mild observation of how people naturally consume literature is "false"?
Because he was probably 12 when he first learned of the concept and it's around the same time he read
It always has been the case.
basically reactionaries rather than argue on the playing field of SJWs who say moronic shit, just want to destroy the field all together.
Frankenstein.
Everyone for the last 170 years says the book is about either playing god or about taking responsibility of your actions and about how society made the creature into a monster. The reality is; Shelly probably wrote the story under the mindset of " Victor is sad and tragic and he's hot and monsters are bad and they should treated as bad". She probably had no idea that people would see the story as the monster is tragic and that Victor is just as much the villain.
I mean it was a literal campfire story between her swinger pod that she worked into a more formal story.
Eh, Shelly probably intended both in some way attractive. Based on her husband and the kinds of guys she was friends with she came off like one of those weirdo chicks who fantasize about brooding incels.
No one's into brooding incels, they're into flightly manbawds who will occasionally deny you the dick because they're just so full of emotion....then they give it to someone else!
I don't expect modern Cinemaphile to engage in serious discussions about this type of media analysis, but the ESL idiot who keeps seething in this thread is a new low of idiocy.
>I don't expect modern Cinemaphile to engage in serious discussions about this type of media analysis, but the ESL idiot who keeps seething in this thread is a new low of idiocy.
It would've been nice if you could get the wieners out of your mouth so that anyone could understand a word you said.
Death of the Author only applies when you feel it's convenient.
It always has been the case.
>men taking away female heroes to be THEIR heroes instead
Ha! Fricking misogynists.
>Brianna Wu
Of fricking course. That brainlet and Jim Sterling were behind the Hogwarts Legacy controversy too.
>Controversy
I mean, there's an unskippable prologue level where you Avada Kedava trannies as JK Rowling.
It was way overblown
They are still claiming they won
Also Jim sterling is no longer Jim sterling, he changed his name to a female one
But the YouTube channel is still called Jim sterling, don't want to risk loosing even more subscribers lol
>They are still claiming they won
>the game sold a shit ton, like actually sold a HUGE 15 million sales and grossed $1 billion.
>got no nominations for GOTY
>jim sterling makes a video gloating about how he "won"
Being fair they did somehow strangle it's modding scene in the crib, get Nexus and LL to knuckle under, and are definitely the reason for the shitty VA deepthroating their headset mic for the trans witch in English and only English as well as why the team mysteriously decided to not do any DLC to patch up it's bare bones ass content puddle after scrubbing anything potentially controversial they could think of from development and just go straight to making HL2
I'm pretty sure the studio selling 15 million copies cares not for the modding scene
>sold a HUGE 15 million sales and grossed $1 billion.
It sold far more than 15 million, that was just within the first two weeks of launch. That number is likely far higher after a whole year out on the market, constantly topping the charts until TOTK and Spider-Man 2 came out. Even then, it outsold both of them in lifetime sales.
Brand zombies are one hell of a lucrative demographic. I regularly run into one due to work. I estimate her to be mid/late twenties and she looks like your stereotypical tumblr goblina, sans problemglasses/hair and the perpetual frown. She's always wearing at least one piece of Slytherin merch so I assume she's a Draco shipping fujo.
I ponder how the numbers for the game would look if it was the exact same game, but didn't have the Potter brand to lean on.
Speaking of Harry Potter and Death of the Author...
Lawl he's opening himself to a lawsuit
I wonder if he'd be mad if someone bought those copies and put Rowling's name back into them.
I hope he sold them them for more than he bought them for, so he opened himself to a lawsuit by profiteering on the work of others without giving them credit.
Rowling is a bigot. She'd lose. Pressure Groups would make sure of it.
Counterpoint: Rowling is a billionaire, and the american "justice" system isn't about who's right, it's about who can afford to spend the most money on winning.
Counter-Counterpoint: Technically it's transformative, and Rowling is a bigot. Every industry agrees. That's incentive enough to have any potential lawsuit either dismissed with prejudice (heh) or ruled in favor of the defendant. A (left) judge looking to make a name for xirself would jump at the opportunity.
Anon you're moronic. You've spent way too much time absorbing bullshit from Cinemaphile.
No, it's not transformative and no judge is going to rule that way. That you think they would because of an irrational fear of "the left" is concerning.
>Technically it's transformative
You are the dumbest mother fricker in a thread full of dumb mother frickers.
>first ever female protagonist in a video game
>"errmmm actually she was a man, lol!"
Doesn't this ruin the whole point of samus as a character
Doesn't critical gender theory ruin feminism as a whole? It does and that's why I support transwomen athletes/sorority members.
No because gender has almost nothing to do with Samus' character outside of her being a maternal mess in Other M.
Trannies are so funny. Notice they want to shut down discussion in the title before the article even begins. Typical trans agenda.
I'm honestly convinced there's no group that hates women more than trans activists because they're doing their best to replace all women in every facet of society.
I couldn't think of any other insidious and more effective method of eliminating women's influence in society than by pretending to identify as one and using that excuse to take the roles and places of real women in all areas.
It's pure evil, something I would read in works of fiction, where some evil, secretive group of monsters, demons or aliens infiltrate humanity by taking the identities people and leveraging this perception against the society they intend to hamper.
Most trannies you see online are incels.
It's the price of aligning with Satan. Once you outlive your usefulness, you're gleefully thrown from the horse.
>It's the price of aligning with Satan
The women or the trans? Because women will complain about transwoman, but most of them will won't actually deny their chosen sex, which is odd, because that's only thing they have to do to refute their movement.
That post was two hours ago. He probably isn't even browsing this thread anymore. He stopped talking to last guy an hour ago. So you're talking to someone who isn't even there anymore and probably isn't going to read your post.
>transgenders hate women
You're close
>women have influence, power, control over society
You're almost there
>It's pure evil! I hate transgenders! Protect our women!
Anon... why do you not hear about transmen?
THINK anon. You're being asked to fight in a war where no matter who wins, as a man, you still lose.
Both sides are by and for females.
You don't even care that men are being indoctrinated, injected and cut up. Your first concern is women. I might as well call you a woman trying to infiltrate this place of manchildren and leverage us against a society only YOU hate.
>I'm honestly convinced there's no group that hates women more than trans activists because they're doing their best to replace all women in every facet of society.
No you fricking stupid
This comic is stupid, men are the ones who always work and the only reason why women work is because of feminism.
Poor little mtf that didn't do muffin wrong
Also I'm trans btw
It's kind of interesting how Death of the Author used to be for "theories" bordering on fan fiction, while nowadays it's usually homosexuals trying to claim straight characters are "gay coded" or whatever
Well they aren't entirely wrong, she had bird DNA in her. So she's has transitioned from full human to a type of human-chozo hybrid
It's a useful critical tool, but not the be all and end all of interpretation. J. K. Rowling insisting that there were tons of gay/black/what have you characters in her books doesn't change their absence from the text, for example, but knowing that G.R.R.M. intended Littlefinger to be a charming and fun guy is useful context for how he's treated in the books.
DotA wasn't written in response to Twitter attention prostitutes retconning their books.
You don't need DotA to accept that people can lie or people have a subconsciousness. Authorial intent can be unknowable but it still exists like a hypothetical stoneaged ancestor. It didn't spring from the aether.
Weird example because knowing Dumbledore was gay makes his entire relationship with Grindelwald make far more sense.
Knowing that wizards used to magically teleport the shit from their pants improves the series
It never applies.
This. People only feel the need to bring it up when others point out their moronic theories are obviously contradicted. Well thought out interpretations stand on their own without needing to invoke some dumbass essay. Its use is the perfect litmus test for whether or not someone should he listened to.
>making up a bunch of terms no one has ever used
I hate teenage girls so much
It's making fun of people misusing death of the author
the person who wrote that tumblr post is an adult man
>this thread again
why did he drop his JP1 look, it was so good
Even funnier cuz its confirmed in the sequel
Death of the Author is based around Foucault's earlier writing.
At the time of writing, the trend among writers was realism and the most highly regarded works were modernist tellings of the contemporary world.
Foucault and Barthes had good points in this context because the 'author' was not creating a setting, they were simply inserting characters into an existing setting (reality). The logic was that the reader, or any other person who existed in the same setting as the story, was as knowledgeable about the world the story took place in as the author and as such were able to comment on the details or interpretations of the story with some semblance of authority.
The argument falls apart when you get into fantasy because in those situations the author does have orders of magnitude more information and authority on the subject of the world and setting. All the psuedointellectuals who preach Death of the Author have taken it out of its original context and turned it into something that Foucault would likely disagree with. I don't know about Barthes he was kind of a twat.
>I don't know about Barthes he was kind of a twat.
Course he was, he was French.
>Foucault and Barthes had good points in this context because the 'author' was not creating a setting, they were simply inserting characters into an existing setting (reality). The logic was that the reader, or any other person who existed in the same setting as the story, was as knowledgeable about the world the story took place in as the author and as such were able to comment on the details or interpretations of the story with some semblance of authority.
Still moronic; most people don't agree on reality. Fiction just has no obligation to reality or itself. I feel that the main contention is difference between analysis and critique.
>Analysis
>Author is pushing X message.
>Critique
>X message isn't a logic conclusion to the events of the story.
Death of the Author is false. I don't know the tumblr post was making fun of DotA or trying to humorously expand it (most people take an openly contradictory stance on the essay).
>Death of the Author is based around Foucault's earlier writing.
original DOTA essay: written in 1967
Foucault's first and only essay on the subject of the authorial intent: written in 1969
The argument falls apart when you get into real world settings too because the realist settings are still a fantasy version of the real world that the author has complete control over. Death of the author is immensely moronic because it's always just been about headcanoning things into an author's work either so you can attack them based on shit that doesn't actually exist or claim their work as your own for the same reason.
>it's about canon
shove your dick in a pencil sharpener you massive pseud
I'm not the one defending death of the author and getting mad that people think it's dumb. Who's the real pseud?
>I'm not the one defending death of the author and getting mad that people think it's dumb. Who's the real pseud?
It's him. I don't if you've read Death of the Author or not but it's the most pseud thing of all time.
Fundamentally your position is that anyone today reads Shakespeare and gets all the jokes and rhymes, so you are automatically totally incorrect and nothing you say can change that fact.
wait are you saying death of the author is good, bad, or are you just grumbling over people goofing around on tumblr
I don't even know what you people are arguing about
Death of the author is an observation not a proscription
>Death of the author is an observation not a proscription
What the Hell is that supposed to mean? It is just false.
Observation: a remark, statement, or comment based on something one has seen, heard, or noticed.
Proscription: the action of forbidding something; banning.
In dumber words: Death of the Author is a name for something that happens, not a demand that you discount the author's opinion/intention.
I mean that Death of the Author is false. Why does it matter if you call it an observation? It is like saying that the "Earth is flat" is an observation not a proscription.
>Well, what is it called when an author was based 20 years ago when he made his masterpiece but now is ashamed of it?
It is called who fricking cares.
>No one has ever discounted or just not known the author's outside opinion
You're moronic.
You didn't read the essay.
>It is OK. I'm a post-structuralist.
>Y-you didn't read-
Anon you're moronic.
It is 6 pages long. If you couldn't read that, it is your own damn fault.
Well, what is it called when an author was based 20 years ago when he made his masterpiece but now is ashamed of it?
Suicide of the author?
>Suicide of the author?
Onanism of the Critic.
It's called "frick I was so damaged and stoned out of my gourd at the time". See: Stephen King with Rage and It.
Cucking of an author.
>taxidermy
that's... just enforcing your opinion onto the work and then looking for retroactive evidence to support your point? wtf thats some shady shit
>wtf thats some shady shit
Often known as "a gay reading" of a work of fiction.
>Death of the Author
pointless in terms of how the brand is manipulated
>Weekend at Bernie's of the author
I laughed.
>this homie unironically saying "death of the author is false" when it's an opinion and a (natural) style of analysis
It's like saying algebra is false
You're embarrassing yourself
>It's like saying algebra is false
>You're embarrassing yourself
>Anon is a masochist that gets off on being called moronic
That makes a lot of sense.
>this homie
>this homie
There is a lot of projection here.
Tumblr post had the same value as the diatribes of your average anon that post in Cinemaphile.
Also that is not death of the author.
It say you can "interpret" a text without need to take on account the author's intent, like for example if a say that the kryptonian pods in MoS look superphalic and gay even if Snyder intent was to make them a reference to egyptian sarcophagus.
One is my interpretation of the scene, another is the authorial intent. Both live in different planes and don't need to overlap or one being more true.
>It say you can "interpret" a text without need to take on account the author's intent, like for example if a say that the kryptonian pods in MoS look superphalic and gay even if Snyder intent was to make them a reference to egyptian sarcophagus.
Oh? Did I need permission to to do that before?
No, but it is a departure of the method that the structuralist use to interpret a text.
But isn't the authorial intent intrinsically more valid than any one else's since thier intent is the one that actualized an creation?
The beleif that your interpretation you made while jacking off to hentai is as valid as the author/creative force your critiquing is the peak of hubris. The only reason you have anything to critique IS the original text.This is why Foucault is a fricking loser; that and the pedophilic necrophilia.
>But isn't the authorial intent intrinsically more valid than any one else's since thier intent is the one that actualized an creation?
That's a completely subjective judgement. If you really want to establish one view as "more valid" then give me an objective measure. Give me a metric. Give me units.
What are the units of validity?
>You already have the original text
Jesus christ are you thick
Interpretation does not alter the text. It is how the reader consumes and processes the text. It is not about headcanon, it is not about altering the text or adding to it, it is about what the viewer reads between the lines which is necessarily different from what the author purely intended because they are not the same person.
At the end of Watchmen Job says to Ozy "nothing ever ends."
Some take this to mean that Ozy failed and the world is going to blow up. Some take it to be a warning about Rorschach's journal. The author likely intended it to mean that the peace won't last indefinitely despite Ozy's plan working.
All of these are valid interpretations of the text.
>That's a completely subjective judgement. If you really want to establish one view as "more valid" then give me an objective measure. Give me a metric. Give me units.
>What are the units of validity?
The Author's intent is the only reason any work of fiction exists. The logical conclusion to Death of the Author is AI writing.
>I cannot give you units of validity or justify treating it as objective
Then you utterly fail to make the argument that one interpretation is more valid than another. You lose. Good day, sir.
The levels of conflation and misunderstanding needed to make a statement this mind-bogglingly stupid are unfathomable
You are possibly the biggest pseud on the planet
>Calling someone criticizing post-structuralism a pseud
This is like calling someone a gay for not wanting to suck a dick.
In order to criticize it you'd have to understand it first
Trying to do so when you don't is exactly what makes you a pseud
You didn't read the essay.
>The logical conclusion to Death of the Author is AI writing.
Christ that's a fricking dark conclusion.
It depends on whenever he's talking about the process of writing the story or the contents of the story itself.
If Rowling said: " Dumbledore's character was inspired by my father and this book about Merlin that I read as I kid," she would be talking about the process of creating Dumbledore as a character, on a meta level. It's not a part of the story, just behind the scenes trivia. In that case, the author's intent is relevant. We are talking about the process of building the world, not what's in the world.
If she says "Dumbledore is gay" during an interview, she's adding to the world in a way that isn't being directly written into the story. She's not releasing official material that makes that canon. It's stated. In that case, the author's word shouldn't be taken as canon, because it's merely their own interpretation. An unused idea that popped in her mind mid or post production that was never put in there. If it was supposed to be part of the world, it would have been added to the story. If it's something that's required for the story to work, it's just plain bad writing.
Thomas Flight released a video on this exact topic very recently, you may be interested in it!
>Picrel
Unfortunately we’re starting to see a trend of creators saying that all interpretations are equally valid, even if some are nonsense or contradict one another, as well as creators retroactively changing the meaning of movies/cartoons/comics to fit current culture, like the Matrix creators saying it was a trans allegory all along, and the creator of Bring It On saying it was always about intersectionality and queer safe spaces.
Again you are bringing authorial intent and don't understanding what DotA refers.
There is not overlapping, you don't need to know the lore behind Matrix, LoTR, Frankenstein to interpret those works. Because that is not what you are trying to analyze.
Armond White for example is a critic that relies inDotA when he wrote his critics.
>interpret
Headcanon
The work means what it means. You can interpret it any number of ways but so can I. For example, I interpret your post as being moronic. You might not have intended or it to be moronic and in fact you probably thought it was smart and reasonable but thanks to death of the author my interpretation of your post as being moronic is just as valid. Perhaps moreso.
It's part of this overall thing where you can't ust tell people that they and their opinions are wrong and stupid. When someone tries to tell you that Star Wars is some Marxist critique on capitalist bourgeois imperialism and Darth Vader is meant to represent its corrosive effect on its victims like a conservative black man who criticizes black culture or whatever, you can't just look at them and go "wow, that's moronic and so are you." You have nod sagely and go "I see, yes I hadn't thought of that before but it's certainly an interesting interpretation."
Basically it all goes back to treating the word "moronic" like it's a dirty word. It was a nice, simple word that you could use when morons were being moronic to stop their moronic shit from spreading.
>It's part of this overall thing where you can't ust tell people that they and their opinions are wrong and stupid. When someone tries to tell you that Star Wars is some Marxist critique on capitalist bourgeois imperialism and Darth Vader is meant to represent its corrosive effect on its victims like a conservative black man who criticizes black culture or whatever, you can't just look at them and go "wow, that's moronic and so are you." You have nod sagely and go "I see, yes I hadn't thought of that before but it's certainly an interesting interpretation."
>
>Basically it all goes back to treating the word "moronic" like it's a dirty word. It was a nice, simple word that you could use when morons were being moronic to stop their moronic shit from spreading.
I mean you can if take Death of the Author seriously, that's exactly what it argues.
Frankenstein.
Everyone for the last 170 years says the book is about either playing god or about taking responsibility of your actions and about how society made the creature into a monster. The reality is; Shelly probably wrote the story under the mindset of " Victor is sad and tragic and he's hot and monsters are bad and they should treated as bad". She probably had no idea that people would see the story as the monster is tragic and that Victor is just as much the villain.
Victor Frankenstein was a himbo with a science degree.
Eh, Shelly probably intended both in some way attractive. Based on her husband and the kinds of guys she was friends with she came off like one of those weirdo chicks who fantasize about brooding incels.
Honestly IIRC it's actually less about playing God and more men not taking responsibility for their actions if I recall considering she was sitting with Lord Byron, a man so infamous for not taking responsibility for his actions until they bit him in the ass that he became a literary archetype just because of his edgy himbo levels being off the chart, at the time.
>Honestly IIRC it's actually less about playing God and more men not taking responsibility for their actions if I recall considering she was sitting with Lord Byron, a man so infamous for not taking responsibility for his actions until they bit him in the ass that he became a literary archetype just because of his edgy himbo levels being off the chart, at the time.
Well it mirrors god and his irresponsibility. For a supposedly omniscient being he sure left adam and eve alone in a garden with his greatest enemy to seduce. Comes down to the usual "it could be both". Though in the general feeling you get from stories of that era it's likelier that the monster and it's grudge are meant more to be a comeuppance for arrogance.
>For a supposedly omniscient being he sure left adam and eve alone in a garden with his greatest enemy to seduce.
>he doesn't understand the purpose of free will
cope christcuck either he's omniscient and omnipotent or he ain't.
Letting humanity choose to eat the fruit disproves neither of those things.
>be omnipotent, can force humans to obey but know that doing so is hollow
>decide that I won't use my power and let humans make their own decisions
>be omniscient and know that humans will frick up on their own
>still let them do it
Why set up a test when you know the outcome?
>Why set up a test when you know the outcome?
Don't bother you're never gonna get through to a christcuck.
For the benefit of the people taking the test.
If you're omniscient you already know everything that will happen. This means everything is predestined to happen and free will doesn't exist.
No it was because her husband electrocuted her cat.
No, this is not death of the author. This is authorial intent and a way to justify intellectual laziness.
I always see this example, but it never really made sense. For one, you're effectively relying on the premise that the author is fully aware of what they're doing. Often, this isn't true. A follow up question to the author's response here is - "why did you make the curtains blue? why not another color?" If they want to say that it didn't matter, then why did they bother describing the curtains in the first place? Similar question if they chose it arbitrarily. The subconscious plays a role in both writing and reading.
Of course, this is somewhat dependent on the type of work. Works that are more strictly commercial (ie most comics) are more likely to be meaningless, but of course they get less attention.
>For one, you're effectively relying on the premise that the author is fully aware of what they're doing. Often, this isn't true
FUUUUUUUUUUCK
YOOOOUUUUUUU
This is the fricking issue with death of the author. You morons have your own view and own ideas and if what you're trying to critique and analyze doesn't work then the author, somehow, doesn't know what the the frick they're doing but you sure as shit do because by god you can read all the subtext that you made up in your head and then twist everything around to fit BUT IT'S REALLY THERE and so you know better.
>if what you're trying to critique and analyze doesn't work
Define doesn't work. There can be multiple readings and not all are equal in merit. Reading is the second half of the work. It varies by person, a good interpretation often has less "twisting."
>the author, somehow, doesn't know what the the frick they're doing
Yeah that can easily be the case. Plenty of authors are clueless about their work or they did something completely unintended/subconsciously. Again, see the issue with the curtains hypothetical. Secondly, if you are actively trying to communicate an idea and it turns out that a large portion of people reading the work managed to get a completely different idea out of it, you fricked up. Another part of it is that you are actively influenced by the world around you, yet often your understanding of that world is incomplete until years later when we can retroactively dissect the circumstances of the book.
>There can be multiple readings and not all are equal in merit.
And you expect that the masses would judge it fairly instead of it being corrupted by organized minority interests pushing an agenda?
>Plenty of authors are clueless about their work or they did something completely unintended/subconsciously.
The government couldn't even define what is a woman.
>what is the collective unconscious
Pseudo-science. The past is a very different place.
>And you expect that the masses would judge it fairly instead of it being corrupted by organized minority interests pushing an agenda?
The same criticism can be applied to almost anything. Likewise, an author can be pushed to come out against/attempt to redefine their work due to outside influence. Over time, people will interpret the interpretations of others and using the context and contents of a book.
1 person vs institutions with power and influence who are known for abusing their powers. At the very least, it nullifies your original claim.
>At the very least, it nullifies your original claim.
Explain how
>The author can not be trusted
>Academia is less trustworthy
Unless you honestly think a committee can actually produce fair results, the author is the highest authority by default.
1. I didn't say the author can't be trusted, that almost implies the author is actively lying.
2. Why wouldn't academia use it's power and influence to influence the author? Ie tell the author to come out in favor of their interpretation.
3. What fricking committee are you talking about? What exactly are fair results in terms of interpretations of art/literature?
>1. I didn't say the author can't be trusted, that almost implies the author is actively lying.
That is the implication.
>2. Why wouldn't academia use it's power and influence to influence the author? Ie tell the author to come out in favor of their interpretation.
The past doesn't align with the present. The dead do not speak. Not all power and influence works in the same way. A Rook can't move a single square diagonally.
>3. What fricking committee are you talking about? What exactly are fair results in terms of interpretations of art/literature?
The hypothetical one implied whenever the defense of "not all interpretations are equally valid" while arbitrarily lowering legitimacy of author's view.
>That is the implication.
No not really. The author's interpretation of their work is usually a strong one, however, they might be too close to the source to fully appreciate some aspects of the work. If the author is thought to be lying, there's usually some historical evidence of that.
>The past doesn't align with the present. The dead do not speak. Not all power and influence works in the same way. A Rook can't move a single square diagonally.
moron.
>be french writer during WWII
>germans invade after I release my short story
>start asking me what it's about
>btw if you say it's against us we will kill you
>The hypothetical one implied whenever the defense of "not all interpretations are equally valid" while arbitrarily lowering legitimacy of author's view.
That doesn't imply any committee, if anything it implies interpretation is a decentralized process. A moron can interpret a story and come away with a moronic conclusion.
>btw if you say it's against us we will kill you
>thinks that the essay introduced the possibility of people lying
You aren't going to bully Shakespeare or Charlies Dickens or anyone people actually cared about into your cult. Corrupting pillars of culture is more worthwhile than bullying a single person in the present. Besides, most people cave to incentive structures.
You didn't read the essay.
>That doesn't imply any committee, if anything it implies interpretation is a decentralized process. A moron can interpret a story and come away with a moronic conclusion.
You could already do that before the essay. It is just that the essay is making some meta-physical cope to justify your headcanon.
This homie is actually angry that someone gave a name to the undeniable fact that a viewer's interpretation of a text is necessarily different from pure authorial intent
What a pathetic autist
Everyone point and laugh
>This homie
This is a US board.
Cool, I'm so glad Shakespeare wrote out in fine detail exactly what each and every one of his play mean.
>Your dad left you before you were born so I could say this piece of shit on the floor is your father.
That you think that's anything to do with death of the author is pretty telling
Also very sad considering how many people have already corrected you that altering the text itself is not interpretation
>No not really. The author's interpretation of their work is usually a strong one, however, they might be too close to the source to fully appreciate some aspects of the work. If the author is thought to be lying, there's usually some historical evidence of that.
Quints wasted on this moronery.
Why even bother having anyone write anything? If everyone's interpretation of the author's work is equally as valid as the author's then the author serves no purpose which means there's no reason for him to write anything which means there's no work for you to interpret in the first place.
>I don't understand what we're talking about
We know
You've been floundering from the very first post
you're assuming there's a much more solid foundation to how people interpret communication than there really is. it's all a game of chance, not just when you write a book but when you write a post, or indeed when you say "hello" to someone in person. in theory they could interpret it any way they like, in practice most people are going to interpret it fairly similarly.
the point of communication is to try to get something across and it's inevitable that whoever sees it is going to apply an interpretation to what you've communicated. the fact that it's not foolproof doesn't suddenly render all communication pointless.
>you're assuming there's a much more solid foundation to how people interpret communication than there really is. it's all a game of chance, not just when you write a book but when you write a post, or indeed when you say "hello" to someone in person. in theory they could interpret it any way they like, in practice most people are going to interpret it fairly similarly.
This doesn't disprove authorial intent.
>the point of communication is to try to get something across and it's inevitable that whoever sees it is going to apply an interpretation to what you've communicated. the fact that it's not foolproof doesn't suddenly render all communication pointless.
DotA is the reason why subtlety is dead. If clarity is the goal, then there is no better writing than the characters just telling the audience how to think.
>If clarity is the goal
If.
literal textbook autism
>DotA is the reason why subtlety is dead. If clarity is the goal, then there is no better writing than the characters just telling the audience how to think.
Doesn't even matter because death of the author means that your very explicit text can have implicit hidden meanings that, the author, aren't even aware of but that Critic Mchomosexualson is somehow able to divine.
>Doesn't even matter because death of the author means that your very explicit text can have implicit hidden meanings that, the author, aren't even aware of but that Critic Mchomosexualson is somehow able to divine.
For the record, someone ITT unironically used the collective unconscious as an argument.
Psychoanalysis is basically just scientific mysticism.
We all share human nature due to our shared DNA but that doesn't make us a hivemind that turns to Tang.
>being corrupted by an agenda
>anon is so up his own ass with invented boogeymen he thinks death of the author somehow means random third parties can also become the author
https://www.tolkiensociety.org/events/tolkien-society-summer-seminar/
>Yeah that can easily be the case.
No it can't you narcissistic moron. The work means what it means. The author meant what he or she inserted onto the page. Anything else is headcanon.
Isn't that the point of the death of the author theory? That the only thing that matters is what is written?
No it's quite explicitly the exact opposite in that when analyzing a work that what the author intended isn't important and that the individuals own feelings and interpretations are equally valid in regards to what a work means.
themoreyouknow.jpg
Well shit. The name always had me assuming it meant nothing except the written word was relevant, and it was a simple way to tell morons to frick off when they say [book x] is shit simply because [author they don't like for non-writing related reasons] wrote it.
Garth Ennis could be the head of nambla for all I care, he'll still be one my all time favorite writers because the fricker is funny and that's all that matters.
I interpret a certain other thread with an OP that's basically nothing but a kickstarter link as Advertising Or Begging. Not that our jannies are competent enough to do anything about it.
>The name always had me assuming it meant nothing except the written word was relevant
No, the point is that Barthes was your typical mid-century European Marxist who wanted to teardown the established order (in his case, in regards to literary theory) and thus argued that a writer's intention or details of the writer's life hold no importance on their work and so are no important than the views of anyone who reads it. This is, of course, moronic because the works of writers are influenced heavily by their own personal views and their lives and to remove the writer from the the equation is complete nonsense.
You're still wrong no matter how many times you repost this
Go back to your containment
>This is, of course, moronic because the works of writers are influenced heavily by their own personal views and their lives and to remove the writer from the the equation is complete nonsense.
The same is true of readers, and in the case of literary theory, the ones writing it are those same readers!
The difference is that the readers are not the ones writing the work so their views and interpretations are not, in fact, as equally valid as, or more valid than, the author's. This isn't a hard concept to grasp. The author wrote it, their interpretation is thus correct and authoritative. Readers can have their own interpretations but they're invalid headcanon.
A literary critic writes a work - say, his interpretation of another text. His interpretation of that text as a reader is going to be shaped by his life experiences, knowledge, etc. the same is true of his written interpretation of the text.
His interpretation, the author's interpretation, your interpretation and indeed my interpretation are all equally irrelevant. If we want to be slightly absurd, all you can establish is that your interpretation of the author's interpretation is what you will accept to be valid. Unless you're the author, you can't actually know the author's intent.
Shouting in the wind, anon
He's been told repeatedly what DOTA actually entails but he insists it's all about fanfic authors altering the explicit text.
You can explain to him all you want that saying Frodo died in the Shire and Sam held the ring the whole time has nothing to do with death of the author but it will fall on deaf ears
Considering he thinks someone saying "homie that's moronic" means they were literally calling him black he's likely a foreigner with limited english.
Just laugh at the angry moron
>Still won't admit to reading a 6 page essay
Really relying on TV Tropes here?
commit
the word you were looking for was commit
it's time to go.
You are not denying the claim that you didn't actual read the damn thing.
actually
the word is actually
>you're not saying you read it!
I read it.
You have autism.
It's time to stop posting.
>I read it.
Prove it. You are just parroting fake definitions from other sources.
>f-fake definitions!
You just don't understand the concept my guy
Because you're a stupid foreign autist
>Only admit to reading it when back into a corner
>Still can't provide proof
A screenshot isn't proof you read it
Prove you read it
You can't because you didn't
Cry about it samegay.
>Refuses to provide proof
You didn't read the essay :^)
You are that "this homie" gay, aren't you?
I accept your concession
You didn't read the essay
I didn't read from fricking TV Tropes.
You didn't read (it) at all
I'm beginning to suspect you can't read
You are a very sad small individual
>he thinks someone saying "homie that's moronic" means they were literally calling him black he's likely a foreigner with limited english.
Or quite new here. Or to the world.
What kind of bullshit are you spouting? The point of death of the author is that the author is not the authoritative voice on a work's meaning and themes and that everyone else's interpretations are equally valid. The entire fricking point is that what the author intended and their own biography should not be bothered with when interpreting, analyzing, and critiquing a work even though those are core elements to the work's very existence.
This is the problem with Marxists. They constantly have to shift the meaning of terms as part of half-baked attempts to gaslight you so they're always right by the definitions that they just made up.
>should not be bothered with
need not be bothered with. you can still do it if you want.
>The point of death of the author is that the author is not the authoritative voice on a work's meaning and themes and that everyone else's interpretations are equally valid.
You just agreed with the post you quoted, moron.
>what the author intended and their own biography should not be bothered with
No, you've already veered off into being wrong and moronic. So close!
>Isn't that the point of the death of the author theory? That the only thing that matters is what is written?
No actually go read the essay.
>Plenty of authors are clueless about their work or they did something completely unintended/subconsciously
this is the most condescending shit i've ever read. Imagine, if you will, someone making a painting celebrating an art movement that they're very fond of. He puts it up in a gallery and stands next to it, and somebody else walks up to it and talks about how it's clearly a criticism of the artistic movement it's meant to celebrate. The artist tries to correct him, only for this narcissistic homosexual to talk down at him about how he clearly doesn't understand the very thing he painted. How fricking full of yourself do you have to be to act like this? "I, some random ass homie, know more about the intent behind the painting you made then you do." No you fricking don't, dumbass, you're not in their fricking head you moron. At best you can say that it doesn't communicate it's point very well, but that would be a condemnation of the artist's skills, something very well within the authority of a critic, not a determination of it's true meaning, a right exclusive to the artist.
tl;dr: stop fellating yourself homosexual, you don't know half of the shit you think you do.
>Dumb gay makes a painting of a guy he loves
>It accidentally looks like the guy sucking wiener
People saying it's a painting of the guy sucking wiener aren't wrong just because the intent was different
What started this autism? Did a fic with a pairing you hate do well on AO3? Why are you so incredibly butthurt?
>People saying it's a painting of the guy sucking wiener aren't wrong just because the intent was different
yes they are, if it wasn't meant to resemble that, it wasn't meant to resemble that. That's not to say it can't be considered shit for looking like a picture of a guy sucking a dick, but that's besides the point.
>Did a fic with a pairing you hate do well on AO3?
No, the only thing that set off my autism there is the fact that i consider death of the author to be an insufferably arrogant and homosexualy concept, endorsed by pretentious buttholes of all stripes.
>Nothing set me off!
Horseshit, no one goes this schizo over such a boilerplate concept without it being personal
set me off!
that's not what i said, moron, i said i fricking hate this concept, and that's what set me off.
I'm sorry the hamtaro/Bijou fic got more views than your boss/bijou fic but shitposting on Cinemaphile won't change anything
>The subconscious plays a role in both writing and reading.
And subconscious isn't shared. The Fujoshi sees boy love everywhere.
>what is the collective unconscious
but seriously, the subconscious is heavily influenced by the world around it. people born at similar times in similar places will have a lot of overlapping ideas. and then there are other ideas that have a tendency to stick in popular culture.
>Responding to "the author and viewer are different people that bring different biases to the table that necessarily alters the interpretation" with "MUH COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS"
Sometimes it feels like you people treat these arguments like mad libs or word association
Subconscious/unconscious, at least in the way these morons think, doesn't exist. They treat it as some kind of magic extradimensional mind force that's controlling all of your actions so even that you can't disprove them when they read a comic as actually, for example, being about lesbians or whatever because their dumb brains are so consumed by shipping that they start seeing things that aren't there. Of course this is all the author unconsciously inserting themes so that when he says "no that's not what it's about" he can't disprove you because he doesn't know what goes on in his own mind but you, the moronic critic, are special and can spot these things that totally exist and aren't just you projecting your own wants and views onto a work.
>why did they bother describing the curtains in the first place?
Because desription helps worldbuilding? I shouldn't even have to mention this.
You could cut like a third of the first Dune book by removing descriptions, and it would be a worse book for it.
>Often, this isn't true. A follow up question to the author's response here is - "why did you make the curtains blue? why not another color?" If they want to say that it didn't matter, then why did they bother describing the curtains in the first place? Similar question if they chose it arbitrarily
What you're trying to sell does not logically follow. An author describes a room because otherwise you have to write "and so they entered a room, it had chairs and a table, there were curtains.". Giving detail isn't a subconsious thing the choices are generally down to a preference for whatever color the author enjoy in life unless they're trying to set a specific type of stage. We wouldn't try to pick apart a prop when a stage play drags it out for whatever deeper meaning it has "perhaps the cardboard signifies the incredible flexibility of the human spirit.". It's scene setting, stop being a pseud.
If you're writing like that, you're either being paid by the word or you're trying to meet a page requirement. There's no need to set a scene that doesn't matter,
>We wouldn't try to pick apart a prop
Different medium, and in many cases props matter. If you put a gun prominently over the fireplace, it better matter.
>If you put a gun prominently over the fireplace, it better matter.
Hello zoomzoom. Plaques with rifles/sabres used to be considered decoration just like hunting trophies.
And if you're just throwing it around without purpose you're wasting space on the page or you're throwing trash around the stage.
But it does have a purpose, not just as a prop to be used like (You) think it should.
The purpose is worldbuilding. By mentioning something like that and other parts of decor, your himbo catburlglar MC is now aware he just broke into a (presumably former) big game hunters house and ought to be careful, lest he might end up on the wrong end of an elephant gun.
Unless it really was just flavor text meant to fill out the page and keep the right pace and flow - hey. a reasonable interpretation of the text that differs from authorial intent.
I wonder if there's a name for that?
>Unless it really was just flavor text meant to fill out the page and keep the right pace and flow - hey. a reasonable interpretation of the text that differs from authorial intent.
Seriously you pseudointellectual actually read death of the author read the fricking essay. You are a complete moron.
You didn't read the essay :^)
>You didn't read the essay :^)
Yes I fricking did. He argues that nothing the author did was ever did with intent, that nothing the author says matters at all, his entire screed is just a cope to allow anyone to interpret everything to themselves since meaning doesn't exist when it clearly fricking does. It's an unhinged bullshit fest by a pseud like you.
Prove you read it :^)
>Prove you read it :^)
I think this post was written with the sub-text that the author himself is a homosexual pedophile who enjoys raping babies.
>resorting to insults when backed in a corner
>won't prove they read the essay
Read the essay :^)
>Read the essay :^)
It's not an insult, it's my interpretation of your sub-text. It's equally true because there is no meaning in your intent pedophile.
>It's equally true
In the sense that interpretations are not truth-apt that is correct
You continue to prove that you have not read the essay
>In the sense that interpretations are not truth-apt that is correct
>You continue to prove that you have not read the essay
The sub-text of this passage is that anon has never read a book in his life and is only just now discovering the written language. He infuses ever word with a sense of his internal seething anger that he cannot rape more children. His curtains are blue representing the internal depression at his lack of underage victims.
Read the essay :^)
>Read the essay :^)
At this point in the narrative the protagonist's inability to gain new victims to take out his internal turmoil upon causes him to lose the ability to speak. He can no longer convey ideas gripped by the insatiable lust for children's innoncence. His keyboard soiled with orange dust represents the traumatic memories he leaves his victims with.
I never stated the gun has to be used, I just said it has to matter. In the example you gave, it matters because it informs the actions of the protagonist and provides a source of tension.
When you write a story, you'll subconsciously put pieces of yourself in there, in one way or another. Sometimes, the curtains being blue may mean a metaphor that the writer didn't even caught on while writing; sometimes, they may mean that the author wanted to show and not tell, describing the environment to paint a mental image.
In any case, it's best to be careful with reading between the lines because our own biased interpretations may lead to the english teacher scenario. It leads to armchair psychology shit where people ignore the author's intent to validate their own headcanons.
>When you write a story, you'll subconsciously put pieces of yourself in there, in one way or another. Sometimes, the curtains being blue may mean a metaphor that the writer didn't even caught on while writing; sometimes, they may mean that the author wanted to show and not tell, describing the environment to paint a mental image.
Who cares? That isn't what DotA is about.
I care. That's why I replied, dummy.
This picrel remind me some thread on Cinemaphile
Ohh Frieren....
This meme always gets me, because the shade of blue is never stated.
Shit I dunno man, they're just fricking blue.
It's like the author is a man and the teacher is a woman.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I just mean if the author would've meant something deeper that they would've specified the shade and not used just "blue".
Even then, he could have specified and really not meant much. I can't imagine a lot of places using light blue curtains, but like, dark blue can make for some seriously classy room.
Like I said I agree with you. old people in my area mostly use light blue-white curtains for their living rooms. it can create a nice contrast[/spoilers]
>if the author would've meant something deeper that they would've specified the shade and not used just "blue".
They really don't have to, there is absolutely no issue with associating a colour in general with a story or thematic point. In fact the writer could purposefully only be exact sometimes, to make you wonder if you are meant to draw a link or not. Also being overly exact all the time usually reads pretty poorly and can make it seems very repetitive.
literally everyone said the first quote, only braindead morons liked the castlevania show
I can't take it seriously when it comes to fantasy or sci-fi settings that are driven heavily by lore. A lot Tolkien's lore was revealed in letters, interviews or messages to friends, fans etc. Backstories, histories ,important details, languages, terms and meanings of those word, character motivations and so on weren't extrapolated upon or revealed if you claim only his books count and ignore the author who actually wrote it. Tolkien is literally the one one who can say for certain how it went all down in Middle-earth.
Same deal with GW's 40k. Their codices, Black library and other media is intentionally bias and coded in eyes of Imperial sources. GW is the only reliable source that will outright tell audiences in their articles mostly an honest account of certain events and characters.
Star Trek is another example. The tone, themes, and how the Federation is seen were direct orders given by its creator, Gene Roddenberry, but the franchise rarely or ever directly states that in their shows.
>Tolkien is literally the one one who can say for certain how it went all down in Middle-earth.
Anon there is no Middle-earth
The events of the book didn't happen
Get a grip
Yeah, I know, anon. That applies to all works of fiction, including the cartoons and comics we read or watch. But it baffles how anyone can subscribe to Death of the Author when the Author's interpretation and thoughts of a certain work they create, even if it's not directly revealed in their works, clearly have precedence over anyone else and should be treated as actual canon to the universe they created.
I didn't like how Rowland just stated in a random book reading that Dumbledore is gay when that wasn't directly shown in the books, but I'm not going to deny it because Rowland is the author of the series and her interpretation is clearly the one that's going to be true over any opposition, because it's her work and her universe.
>I know
Do you?
You don't act as though you do.
>It baffles me how individuals have personal interpretations of the work they consume
Then you're an idiot.
>Canon!
Has literally nothing to do with Death of the Author you sperg.
>Their interpretation is TRUE
It's not an objective falsifiable thing. It can't be true or false because none of the events fricking happened.
It sounds to me like you're just mad that headcanon exists, which has dick to do with what we're talking about
>You don't act as though you do.
That's an meaningless accusation. And I'm not going to play this game with you. I don't care if you think I have lost touch with reality anymore than I if I told you were you're completely pathetic for using insults when I never insulted in the first place.
>Then you're an idiot.
Such as this. Seriously, WTH is your problem? We may disagree, but I never would insult you simply because of this petty dispute.
Also, the example I just provided was confirmed later on. Dumbledore is gay whether fans like it or not. Rowland's interpretation is more valid any of ours, because it's her work. Why are you offended by this?
>It's not an objective falsifiable thing. It can't be true or false because none of the events fricking happened.
Okay? So what? It doesn't matter if didn't happen. It's fiction, but it's Rowland's fiction and none of us can deny it because it's her universe that she created and the readers all agreed to subscribe to her interpretation the moment they all decided to support and read her works.
>headcanon
It's not headcanon when the author who wrote it determines the canon. I just can't say Female Primarchs existed in 40k, no matter how much I want to because fans of 40k agreed that GW determine it the rules and nature of the setting, and the GW said there are no Female Primarchs.
>Dumbledore is gay whether fans like it or not.
Dumbledore doesn't exist and that has nothing to do with Death of the Author.
>Ok? So I'm wrong and have totally misclassified something as falsifiable, so what?
That's a pretty big error and understanding that you've made it will lead to a more proper understanding of the topic.
>It's her universe!
It. Doesn't. Exist.
>It's not headcanon when...
Ok yes, so you are a moron confusing headcanon with DotA being an inherent part of individual interpretations of a text.
I'm sorry, anon, but you don't have the slightest fricking clue what we're talking about here.
I think it's pretty funny how you keep using Harry Potter as an example but keep failing to spell the authors name correct, suggesting you've never actually read the books or at most flicked through a book or two without caring for them. You're just using the "controversy" as a means of attentionwhoring by keeping the arguing going for no other reason than (You)s.
If it was some literally-who slav author with a tonguetwister lastname you kept referring to it'd be excusable, but not one who's as well known as JK. I'm deliberately not typing her last name, because frick you. Update your (You)farming cheatsheet.
>It's not an objective falsifiable thing. It can't be true or false because none of the events fricking happened.
How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?
what's fake is fake. sonichu is no more fake than sonic the hedgehog. the fact sonichu didn't happen in the sonic canon doesn't make it "less real" than sonic. both are 100% not real.
plus authors regularly screw up: the fact the author intends a character to be charming, interesting, sympathetic, etc, counts for nothing if people who read the book see a tedious, boring, unsympathetic dick. an author who tries to paper over that with "but i decide canon!" is unlikely to fool even themselves.
p.s. canonically this post is true.
Whatever happened to just calling it headcanon?
>tumblr screenshot thread
Worst than twitter screenshot threads.
This. Jesus Christ.
None of what he wrote implies he believes any of that fictional stuff is real. Are you for real, guy? Do you accuse this to Atheists who talk about how unjust and cruel God is in the Bible when we both know atheists actually don't believe God exists, as if God was an actual real person?
Don't respond to people who randomly insult you when you never held malice towards them and were conversing with them in honest faith, anon. That anon maybe a troll, or maybe he does want to insult you personally. Either way, it's just not worth it.
>None of what he wrote implies he believes any of that fictional stuff is real
Except yes, saying that one version of events is "true" implies that the events happened. They didn't.
Saying "Dumbledore is gay" as a point of fact without any qualifiers is implying that Dumbledore exists. He doesn't.
There is no version of fiction that is more or less real than any other version. They are all equally non-existent.
All of this of course besides the fact that the literal textual events of a work have frick-all to do with death of the author
>Stop being mean to me!
Shut up homosexual
>Except yes, saying that one version of events is "true" implies that the events happened. They didn't.
No, it doesn't. I can claim the God of the Old Testament is cruel, evil, and genocidal, which is he is. but it doesn't at all entail I believe the Old Testament actually happened. I don't believe it's true, but I will use those sources that israelites claim is true as a agreed upon foundation to refute the claim they were chosen by God, when their text is just another religious text that can't be proven. In fact, I don't believe any of it happened. I don't believe the ancient history of israelites being enslaved by Egyptians, let alone being chosen by God, happened. Because there's no historical evidence for any of it.
But I can still bring forth a conclusion based on the examples given to me, such as the bible that israelites and Christians believe is true, even if I don't personally believe it. And all of us can judge God's character based on that agreed foundation, even if I don't see it as "true." People can entertain a thought without accepting it.
>Shut up homosexual
This will be last post to you, because I'm going to follow my own advice. Don't bother responding, because I'm not going to read it.
>I can make positive falsifiable claims about things that don't exist!
No you can't, dipshit
>>I can make positive falsifiable claims about things that don't exist!
That's literally the career of movie critics and video game reviewers, anon. It's all fiction, but they still make claims about it, despite being imaginary, idiot. Go have a nice day because you're honestly moronic. I honestly wish I could meet in IRL so I punch your teeth in.
>That's literally the career of movie critics and video game reviewers, anon
No. No it isn't.
Movie critics and game reviewers provide their subjective opinions in media.
The funniest part of all this is that you're so shit with english you don't understand the necessary qualifiers to make a statement about fiction falsifiable. "Dumbledore is gay" is not a falsifiable statement, Dumbledore does not exist. "JK Rowling says the Dumbledore in her stories is gay" is falsifiable and true, it's non-fiction. It happened.
But again, this has nothing to do with death of the author. You keep talking as though it has anything to do with canon and textual events when it's nothing at all to do with those. Death of the Author is entirely about subtextual interpretation being inherently personal. You are not the author. You don't carry the same biases and beliefs. Your interpretation of their text is necessarily different from their original intention.
No it doesn't you moronic autistic. The sentence merely implies that because Tolkien created the ideas and was fully responsible for everything that ever happened in his story that he is the only person who can ever say how it was to be interpreted. That is completely factually correct, thankfully the man was also prolific about answering questions as he was nearly as autistic as you are to make certain sure no one could say he didn't explain something. Frick off you stupid b***h.
>The sentence merely implies that because Tolkien created the ideas and was fully responsible for everything that ever happened in his story that he is the only person who can ever say how it was to be interpreted
1 - No, it doesn't imply that at all. You may have attempted that implication, but you failed due to improper use of language.
You might say the viewer's interpretation of your text doesn't line up with your authorial intent. Hmm. Curious. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the topic.
2 - "Only Tolkien is allowed to say how the work can be interpreted" is an opinion and is not falsifiable. Here, this game should help you learn the difference between facts and opinions
And, yet again, none of this has fricking ANYTHING to do with death of the author. Not a god damned thing. If you are using the word canon in this discussion at all you need to be kicked in the dick.
Dancing around the point so that you can say that your interpretation matters doesn't make anything you say worth a damn you know.
>I have no response
neat
You're not trying this shit on Cinemaphile because they would rip your bussy apart.
>Cinemaphile doesn't know the difference between objective/subjective and thinks death of the author is about fanfiction being canon
cool story
>you don't even use commas!
>proceeds to use commas incorrectly
Fricking amazing
>I-I'm not Russian!
There's literally no other reason to bring up RT
Well, unless you think that stands for Rotten Tomatoes, in which case you're far dumber than I could have possibly anticipated.
As expected and egotistical moron that doesn't know what he's fricking talking about. What a fricking surprise.
I accept your concession
>I accept your concession
I concede nothing. Tell me then what is the death of the author of the Death of the Author?
Weekend At Bernie's sure gets used a lot these days, huh?
I always thought that death of the author meant examining the work for what was in it, not for the personal bias of the author vis a vis not shooting the messenger and reading the message.
You were correct
The anon's crying about canon are complete idiots.
Supposedly, but it became an excuse for some readers' personal biases.
Except it's not for the most part. People just use it to ignore the author, no matter what he/she states over some text that some people believe is open to interpretation.
Like this
I have never seen an example of Death of Author where the person proposing it wasn't as bias if not worse than the writers/authors. They simply want to impose their interpretation as equally valid, which is absurd.
See Paradise of Lost. I roll my eyes every time I see someone say Satan was the good guy all along when the story itself depicts him as a hypocritical asshat who was way worse than God and hated humans. Which was pointed out by angels on both sides.
>Movie critics and game reviewers provide their subjective opinions in media.
You obviously never met an "esteemed" film critic at RT. They don't see their opinions of film as subjective. Quite the contrary.
Anon you seem to not have a strong grasp of English.
Maybe you shouldn't be attempting literary philosophy given this state of affairs.
>Anon you seem to not have a strong grasp of English.
You don't even use commas. Frick off, you hypocritical moron.
>Muh Russian
You guys really are moronic. Also, capitalize, moron.
to use commas incorrectly
Done to troll you, moran. Or is subtlety something your autistic mind cannot grasp?
Also, you didn't put periods at the end of your sentence. Your opinion is invalid and you have no right to judge anyone for grammar mistakes. You don't follow your rules, moron. Why should I adhere to a standard you don't follow?
>There's literally no other reason to bring up RT
The fact that you assumed it was anything other Rotten Tomatoes when it was about films makes you far more moronic. I honestly wish I punch your face in. People like you shouldn't exist.
Didn't read lol
Cope and seethe
I accept your concession.
>it's a butthurt Russian that doesn't actually know what Death of the Author is and thinks critics give "objective" opinions
and now the thread makes sense
original, authorial intent is the only way to interpret anything, and everything else is fanfiction
also, this thread belongs on
Sometimes the author fricks their own story so bad its better to pretend its just an opinion within the story.
I feel death of the author kicks in when the creator has just done a horrible job of presenting their interpretation of their work.
If they sculpt a sphere and say it's a cube as a moronic extreme example.
Death of the author is the most autistic shit ever.
No, your head canon is not as valid as what the author’s words.
Did the author write it in the book? No? Then it's post-release virtuesignaling or fanfic revisionism.
"validity" is a completely meaningless concept.
Can anyone explain to me why people ITT think Death of the Author has literally anything to do with fanfiction or headcanon?
Do people just not know the difference between text and subtext?
A lot of people (morons) think you cannot write a What If story where Hitler won without being a literal super nazi yourself, and DotA is the simplest way to tell said morons to frick off.
At least that's my take ¯_(ツ)_/¯
>Can anyone explain to me why people ITT think Death of the Author has literally anything to do with fanfiction or headcanon?
No, you have actually write something for there to be fanfiction.
>Do people just not know the difference between text and subtext?
There is no objective hardline metric to distinguish the two.
That has nothing to do Death of the Author.
There really needs to be a word for something that yet to be proven true but can only be proven universally true or false. Like "there are no wienerroaches in the house".
That's what we call a Known Unknown.
There is no objective hardline metric to distinguish text from subtext
Is this homie for real
Is this some subtle joke I'm not getting
Immediately you can invoke Godwin to underline the cognitive dissonance.
>I have this book called Mein Kampf
>And I think you should really try to separate the artist from the art
>Maybe the author's own stated interpretation and the general consensus is just like an opinion
>It could mean like a lot of different things to a lot of different people and who are you or anyone else to tell them that the way they see it is wrong?
That's a terrible example
The anti-semitism of Mein Kampf is not subtext. It's text.
I'm beginning to think you people genuinely do not understand the difference, which is incredibly sad.
So you're saying Hitler transferred his own self-hatred to the israelites and it had nothing with the looting, pillaging, and overall use of usury to take over germany?
an essay declaring that Mein Kampf was actually a liberal-humanist work and a precursor to the principles set out in the UN declaration of human rights has the potential to be an interesting piece of writing. the fact that it's obviously comically untrue is an opportunity, not a fatal wound.
It's all the same COMMIE bullshit.
>It's all the same COMMIE bullshit.
Exactly, dipshit in the thread rambling about sub-text when he probably uses it to mean his own interpretation of text and not what it actually is.
You remain a moron, what a shock.
Sure anon. Sure.
Frankenstein's Monster of the Author is any kind of interpretation of folklore and fairy tales
Was this thread made by the same moron run out of Cinemaphile that kept pushing "destructionism" or whatever the frick
>I'm smart Marxist educated
>I believe I can retroactively make characters gay
>No you don't get to reboot Ren and stimpy the creator was a pedophile
>No, you don't get to watch the Dilbert Cartoon because the creator of Dilbert becane a maga supporter 30 years after the cartoon aired
>thread is now just OP baiting himself
fascinating
This shit only matters in fan-community power struggles when you’re mad that someone else is enjoying something wrong
Let it go
Be satisfied with the work itself and not its fandom
One thing I hate about death of the author is when the author says the curtains are greyish-blue but the audience interprets the curtains as azure, cyan, or blue always those colors when the greyish-blue made the story unique compared to the constant azure since it's the blue they know and is the most marketable.
I read the entire thread, and even though I may come across as rude, I must say that most people who don't grasp the concepts behind the death of the author lack the necessary tools to comprehend the ideas it entails.
Like if I start to explain counterintuitive examples in Physics, such as the momentum of a ball in a moving vehicle, to people who lack a basic understanding of Physics, I would get the same reaction
Death of the author is the most arrogant form of critique ever. Imagine being so self-absorbed that you read or watch something and decide to criticize not the thing you just read or watch but the version of it that you made up and it's this version which, for you, supercedes and is more credible than the actual version because it fits the ideas you have better. The absolute fricking narcissism.
It is incredible that people can understand Death of the Author when there a very common examples with things like Watchmen and Evangelion.
I interpret this thread as shitposting, regardless of the original intent.
I literally have no trouble with death of the author so long as the interpretation can be proven valid with Internal logic for its existence.
The sad fact is many great works of art were created by mere chance and luck. Many author's intents are either extremely obtuse or Blatantly stupid. Not to mention the fact fictional media is already a subjective artform that requires the reader's engagement anyways.
OP is just an autistic homosexual that needs word of god to lay everything out for him like a Wikipedia article.
>I literally have no trouble with death of the author so long as the interpretation can be proven valid with Internal logic for its existence.
>X is in a coma theory
>X is in a coma theory
But that's a good example of what sets a bad theory apart from a good one. These tend to be based on wouldn't it be sad and not anything in the work itself. No hints that is the case or any thematic importance if it did some how turn out to be true. Plus its more about redefining canon than finding a different meaning.
Compare it to say Wish, which right now has many questioning if the villain was really all that bad. Using the internal logic of the wishing rules and the overt danger it can cause. His aversion to dangerous, ambiguous or stupid wishes is completely fair. Characters around him tend to act greedy, idiotic or strangely uncaring. It simply makes a lot more sense to see him as a tragic villain or maybe even mislead hero. Rather than the overt villain the film wants. This is all without changing the plot just how it is seen.
>But that's a good example of what sets a bad theory apart from a good one. These tend to be based on wouldn't it be sad and not anything in the work itself. No hints that is the case or any thematic importance if it did some how turn out to be true. Plus its more about redefining canon than finding a different meaning.
special pleading
That's not what special pleading is, but why should I expect you to know that when you can't grasp what Death of the Author is?
In b4 another schizo rant about Marxists
>Compare it to say Wish, which right now has many questioning if the villain was really all that bad.
He is.
>Using the internal logic of the wishing rules and the overt danger it can cause.
Magic isn't real.
>His aversion to dangerous, ambiguous or stupid wishes is completely fair.
Then why did he lash out?
>Characters around him tend to act greedy, idiotic or strangely uncaring. It simply makes a lot more sense to see him as a tragic villain or maybe even mislead hero. Rather than the overt villain the film wants. This is all without changing the plot just how it is seen.
It is called writing a shitty story.
>no argument
>The same is true of readers, and in the case of literary theory, the ones writing it are those same readers!
There is no shared consciousness or any SMT: Persona JRPG plot bullshit.
>writing a shitty story.
Wow how condescending. Claiming the author did not attain their intended goal. Fricking Stalinist.
>Wow how condescending. Claiming the author did not attain their intended goal.
Intent ≠ execution
Interpretation ≠ intent
Keep digging yourself into a hole instead of reading the fricking essay.
>Intent ≠ execution
Oh so the author could fail at making their point, in doing so making other ones that are just as well justified by the text.
You don't even understand cause and effect.
>he can't separate interpretation from evaluation
i shiggy diggy
>Intent ≠ execution
You're so fricking close you absolute dipshit
You didn't read the essay.
those theories suck, because they are trying to set a fantasy/cartoon setting into the real world. Top of that they also claim that the side characters are the manifestation of hiden desires of the MC that are never present in the original work.
>those theories suck
Yes.
Imagine a future society with no knowledge whatsoever of our history finds a copy of A Modest Proposal. They have no context with which to understand that it is meant as satire and it becomes the basis for people arguing for eating babies. An entire political movement springs from this interpretation, spreading it further and using it as gospel and justification.
Is it still satire?
>Is it still satire?
yes, they're just morons who took it too seriously.
>If it's not in the work, it's not canon, even if it's the author saying it
>let's ignore Zeitgeist
>Let's read to deep into one detail to validate our fanfic
>Cancel culture
>Shared canon
>Author's grandchildren retroactively ruining his work
Only the first one has any usefulness. Authors should be free to explore ideas for the benefit of the story, regardless of how they feel about them. There's value to someone from a culture or time doing their own take on something, seeing their ideals influence the way they handle that work. The time and place should also be considered when reading a work because moral standards may not be compatible with contemporary ideas and it avoids the mindset that we are immune to becoming dated ourselves.
This thread reminds me of a discussion I had once about cultural literacy. Death of the Author can be literal as well as figurative. Imagine not getting a reference as an allusion to some other concept because both the author and the thing being referred to no longer exist
This thread is dog shit, but I'm absolutely fascinated by the alt-right sperg that keeps screaming about his own made up version of Death of the Author and marxists. What is his damage? Why does he care about this very basic literary concept at all? Why does he insist this mild observation of how people naturally consume literature is "false"?
Because he was probably 12 when he first learned of the concept and it's around the same time he read
basically reactionaries rather than argue on the playing field of SJWs who say moronic shit, just want to destroy the field all together.
I mean it was a literal campfire story between her swinger pod that she worked into a more formal story.
No one's into brooding incels, they're into flightly manbawds who will occasionally deny you the dick because they're just so full of emotion....then they give it to someone else!
What a meme
I don't expect modern Cinemaphile to engage in serious discussions about this type of media analysis, but the ESL idiot who keeps seething in this thread is a new low of idiocy.
>I don't expect modern Cinemaphile to engage in serious discussions about this type of media analysis, but the ESL idiot who keeps seething in this thread is a new low of idiocy.
It would've been nice if you could get the wieners out of your mouth so that anyone could understand a word you said.
It really is a remarkable degree of homosexualry
samegay.
>He doesn't even know how to accuse someone of samegayging much less actually detect them
It really is time to go back where you came from
also samegay.