It's called "media literacy". It means the author meant my interpretation.

>>152371829
>>152372135
this really is the lowest IQ board

>>152371829
"Death of the author" by itself is nonsensical. If the author does not have a handle on their own work, then it's not a worthwhile work as originally intended. It transforms into something else, and it's up to the reader to discard it or dissect it for analysis or for parts. A reader opting to take the work with their own interpretation while keeping its intended form is committing intellectual suicide. If "death of the author" is to be christened a legitimate concept, then so should "death of the reader".
Example: a narrative that misapplies its themes becomes a document for analysis, an insight into the writer's follies, or can be used for its functional parts, while losing its status as a whole narrative. If a reader wishes to then interpret it as a narrative with other themes or workings, then the reader is as foolish as the writer, if not more.
If the work has multiple meanings, as intended, then "death of the author" doesn't apply either.

>>152372464
shut up bitch

>>152372464
Death of the Author is an exercise in ALTERNATIVE readings and as long as it is used as such there isn't much problem with it. When DotA is used to REPLACE reading with authorial intent, then it ceases to be useful. Authorial intent is exceptionally valuable, but feigning ignorance of that intent for the sake of seeing new aspects of a familiar work can be its own fun.

The concept is fine when applied to independent psychology if you get something crazy out of a book or whatever then it's on you being nuts but that doesn't mean we should accept it as an alternative view point because your ass missed the point. While it's true the author's job is to make his point clearly it's not his job to make sure you're literate.

>>152372184
>he doesn’t know
Look up any thread on the Starship Troopers film and you will see tons of people claiming that it’s anti fascist because the director said it was

>>152372464
Finally, some one who can put my thoughts into words.

File: why muslims take over.jpg (160.5 KB)

160.5 KB JPG

>>152371829
Roland Barthes is the logical conclusion of expressionism

>>152373118
This is one use of DotA that is useful AND funny. Paul Verhoven famously was too lazy to actually read the source material and just tacked on an anti fascist message. The funny part is not only is humanity unambiguously the heros, The earth government isnt even close to a fascist one.

File: starship troopers nph.jpg (54.8 KB)

54.8 KB JPG

>>152373193
>>152373118
What I find funny about Starship Troopers, is that if it really IS supposed to be an ANTI facist movie, Paul Verhoven accidentally made a PRO FASCIST anti fascist movie. Because outside of Doogie Howser wearing a Nazi uniform the world they live in is, outside of the war, a goddamn utopia. Military service is completely voluntary. Yeah there's a lot of people with injuries and wounds but they all were happy. Nobody's poor, there's no massive authoritarian making people go away. There's no actual fascism is the anti fascist movie. Being militant doesn't make you fascist.

>>152373269
Its not facist because government is never actually portrayed as facist. Just a hollow straw man that came to Verhoven in a fever dream. The government is more transparent than any other in human history.

>>152372464
ok george lucas

>>152373084
My main concern is where the line is between death of the author and straight up revisionism. At the risk of derailing the thread into /pol/ territory, when I think of death of the author I think about adaptations casting characters as a different race. Take, for example, Snape from Harry Potter. Intended as a white character, the HBO series cast a black man to play him, despite the narrative and the author herself stating Snape is white. This is meant to be a straight adaptation of the books, so does this count as death of the author, or is it revisionism? I've seen people say that this is a non-issue since a character's race shouldn't matter for the story, but how far can that argument go? What details of a story can be changed before the story itself is considered a complete reimagination of its original incarnation? It's classic slippery slope, but I do feel it's a valid one.

>>152373269
Verhoeven was chained to the core of a book that was not antifascist and he decided to try to live inside of those chains, to disastrous result.
The bugs started the war, the bugs committed the first atrocities of the war, the bugs won the early blitzkrieg forcing the mobile infantry to retreat across dunkirk, the bugs are not the allies nor the soviets.
The evil plot of the evil space nazis to find a way to communicate and negotiate with the bugs is not transformed into a fascist plot just by the civilians and citizen soldiers frothing at the mouth for vengeance. Civilians are always frothing at the mouth for vengeance. That is why when civilians become the center of paramilitarized conflict you get the 40 year long central african war. Get the brain bug so we can figure out how to communicate if only to negotiate their surrender is still the big evil negotiation plot that finishes the movie out. This was an error.

When somebody makes a work of art, their spirit is imbued with that art.
It didn't come from nothing.
End of story.

>But what if someone who's good at storytelling is also a racist? How do I cope with liking the work then?
Then you just have to accept the fact that racists can be good storytellers and be a fucking adult about it.

>>152373431
George Orwell, a socialist, wrote 1984 as a response to the christian idealism of C. S. Lewis' "That Hideous Strength," as shown in his scathing review of same.
If Orwell is not dead then why did his book do an antisocialism?

>>152373431
What I wonder is at what point does the authors comments about the work start to stop mattering, like with JK’s tweets about characters races and sexuality. Also, /co/mics and cartoons?

>>152373461
>Also, /co/mics and cartoons?
Dave Sim.

I'm all about understanding a work based on who wrote it and under what circumstances/environment, but I am also sick of current writers who just flat out add shit through seperate commentary instead of actually bothering to put it in the material. If it isn't important enough to put it in the text, I don't need to hear about it from your stupid twitter ramblings. Fuck off you lazy cunt.

File: 1__4sHX8ABlsUy8TqsLaxAQw.jpg (447.5 KB)

447.5 KB JPG

>refuses to elaborate
What now?

>>152373458
Because he was an English socialist critiqueing Soviet totalitarianism.

File: patrick-durr.gif (729.3 KB)

729.3 KB GIF

>>152371829
>umm ackshully I know more about these characters than the very person who conceptualized them

>>152373573
The delusion of smartasses who think they are more than the author never ceases to amaze me.

>>152371829
Millenial Writing is a problem, but it's also just a symptom of the larger issue of the breakdown in symbiosis between author and audience.

It's true audiences are more interested in trying to predict a creator's thought process at best or usurp their authorship at worst. On the flip side, modern creators seem more interested in lecturing their readership or outwitting them via subverting their expectations. You can't even necessarily blame the shift on social media exposing both sides to each other, since it's an issue that goes back to antiquity. It's all just become more blatant with general changes in media and culture.

File: 1769578268005324.jpg (169.9 KB)

169.9 KB JPG

>>152371829
The real reason why writing is bad today is because there are more people than ever writing.

That's the real reason.

If you want good storytelling again you need to bottleneck the acessibility that currently exists. Make writing a learned artform so by the time someone can write a draft for a novel they already have an indepth understanding of their own language on a detailed articulated level, with anything less never reaching parchment beyond verbal folk storytelling which will eventually be improved after a few generations of chinese whisper style alterations before being transcribed by someone who is learned in writing into collection of local legends. But that will never happen because text processors exist and we are all using one right now to shitpost. A child can write fanfiction before they even graduate from school and publish it on the internet while dozens of writers who graduate less qualified than professional writers of old are taken on by companies or publications not on merit of their writing ability or understanding of storytelling, but because they have a pitch which seems marketable, with half of them hired because they tangetally worked on a story someone else came up with for a half successfull IP.

File: ef63eb96-8b8b-4fcd-84ca-9a63e0b4460e_1024x1524 (1).jpg (153.5 KB)

153.5 KB JPG

>>152371829

>acting like Frenchmen in the 20th century invented the concept of writing fanfic that undermines the point of the original story
Pretty sure they already did it a long time before that.
>>152373390
If it contradicts the text itself that's a level above contradicting what the author says outside of the text. Not according to Barthes or something, it's just intuitively obvious.

>>152372464
Death of the author is a way for people to feel better about themselves for reading "problematic material" Oh this was really about for how jews are inferior better pretend it's not because I don't want to deal with the implications of this book that I otherwise like.

>>152373390
This is such a good example of death of the author because it makes the entire context of snape's backstory about 1000x worse. Suddenly all of his bullying has a racial component to it despite it not existing before when it was a pasty white guy getting bullied by a white jock.

>>152373269
That you see a critique of fascism as pro fascism kind of shows the problem with parody in that people who are too dumb to get it, will agree with it being good.

Gen X writing is the problem.

>>152372464
What is nonsensical about it? Death of the author just means that meaning of a piece of work comes from the reader's interpretation not author's intent. The audience also control if a work is successful, remembered, influential etc, not the author, an author can't just demand it, once you birth a piece of work you don't control how it is seen. An author might want me to feel sorry for an abusive character, but I might read it and think the character is a cunt. Now you would say, the author failed in his intent, but the simple fact is that different people will approach something differently, that's just how humans are. Some people will agree with the authorial intent, some won't. People will take different values out of things just as they will enjoy one thing and not another. The problem is you just apply absolutist statements onto things. It just feels like the classic, "Everything is objective," type of shit. Usually this is a result of, "Academia is bullshit sometimes so I think interpretation, subjectivity and all these liberal arts are bullshit, post modernist etc." I mean how the fuck can you approach works where we don't fully know the author's intent? Do you have an existential breakdown? Trying to control how people interpret something is like trying to control speech or culture.

I think more millennials getting a chance to write would actually be a good thing. I feel like most popular media's still being written by wealthy Gen X ivy league graduates who never had to apply for a job, search for a flat or worry about whether they can afford their groceries. I think it's where that whole things where every character talks like some snarky manchild who can't take anything seriously comes from. Because they're written by people who hardly ever had to take anything seriously.

Maybe I'm just biased, being a millenial, but I think we're a bit more cerebral and a bit more grounded than that. Particularly if you hire outside the usual suspects of wealthy dumbasses whose parents have a background in the industry.

>>152374252
The movie doesn't critique fascism. It doesn't engage with the politics of fascism at all. It just says military=fascism.

File: rnmevil.jpg (52.3 KB)

52.3 KB JPG

>>152373995
People keep saying that sincerity is the cure to "Millennial Writing" which actual fucking bullshit. The problem is the core not the presentation. Dispatch has Millennial Writing but it fits because it's a workplace comedy with superheroes. This rant by Rick isn't "Millennial Writing" and it isn't insincere. It is true to Rick's character at the time before the show decided to introduce Rick Prime as the truest evil.

>>152374152
I seen the meme. The joke is that they are all the same fucking thing. The essay is actually closer to the "Disappearance of the author".

>>152374116
>Amazon hires a bunch of nobodies to write their most expensive show ever
Death of the Author creates a type of writing that is a result of hundreds of opinionated retards. We can't have anything implies that creatures are predispositioned to being evil. We can't have anything can be interpreted as being "Black-coded" in a negative light. It isn't just the Leftist retards' perception but what the Leftist retards think that Right wing people think is "Black-coded".

>>152373269

It's a movie about the way a military dictatorship portrays itself. The "joke" is that the audience is supposed to know how dangerous and austere the life in real military dictatorships is and therefore find the idealized version they see portrayed in the movie funny.

The problem, I guess, is that most viewers nowadays are so unfamiliar with actual military dictatorships that they just take it at face value.

File: starship troopers.jpg (159.7 KB)

159.7 KB JPG

>>152374252
>That you see a critique of fascism as pro fascism kind of shows the problem with parody in that people who are too dumb to get it, will agree with it being good.
Wrong. The problem with the Starship Troopers film is that the Federation is genuinely good and the Bugs genuinely evil. The Federation makes an attempt to keep colonists out of Bug territory, this fails due to dumb colonists. When the Bugs launch the asteroid, the Federation does not know about it despite what some people claim (anyone who says it was a false flag is ignoring the part where the asteroid strikes the federation ship in the middle of nowhere). When the Klandathu drop fails, the Sky Marshal takes responsibility and resigns; and the military doctrine changes to try to achieve victory rather than a meatgrinder forever war. And the structure of the Federation is not fascistic. Militarisitic, yes, but not fascistic. Fascism involves tight collaberation between the state and corporations, creating an "organic" (like organs in a body) economy. Nationalism and militarism were common in fascist governments of the early 20th century, but they are not required per se any more than a communist government "requires" you to be a Soviet army cosplayer. The Federation is more like an Athenian democracy with some elements of Sparta. Paleoconservatism, basically.

An example of the exact same concept but done in a satirical way is Helldivers. Super Earth is the Federation with the serial numbers filed off, but unlike the Federation Super Earth causes all of its own problems and is never treated seriously - it's always a joke at either the playerbase's expense or the citizenry of Super Earth. The only "Super Earth is the good guy this time" is when the playerbase decided to save an orphanage.
It's the difference between "the Bugs attack colonists, Earth defends itself" and "we tried to genetically engineer the Bugs so they'd produce more oil and now a quarter of the galaxy is overrun".

>>152374252
>That you see a critique of fascism as pro fascism kind of shows the problem with parody in that people who are too dumb to get it, will agree with it being good.

See I get the idea that the most effective fascism is one were the citizens don't even realize it. I've read 1984, Animal Farm, Strange new World, Clifford at the circus. But the problem is the movie doesn't make it's critic clear. It doesn't acknowledge that they don't know ya dig. it's an ineffective critique.

>>152374334
Did you miss the part where they nuked Buenos Aires to blame the bugs? Let me guess, it was your ADHD.

>>152373269
The whole debate over the Starship Troopers film, reignited by the Helldivers 2 video game having some similarities, was just an exercise in Redditors wanting to push the idea that they are intellectually/morally superior to you. But it is PURE hypocrisy.
>"You didn't interpret Starship Troopers properly, authorial intent MATTERS, it is fascism!"
Two seconds later:
>"My head canon ship is that Frodo and Sam are homosexual as I interpret queer undertones to their relationship, authorial intent doesn't matter because of death of the author."
Media literacy and whether or not authorial intent matters is just an excuse for people to feel superior to others.

>>152374355
>(anyone who says it was a false flag is ignoring the part where the asteroid strikes the federation ship in the middle of nowhere)

>>152374355
In the movie the bugs send an asteroid to Buenos Aires. The director has said this happened. The director never intended for people to assume that it was a false flag. It's just a theory people made.

>>152374324
>in real
That's just it though. Movies aren't real life. We don't live in the world of starship troopers. we can't say what works in their world is applicable to our world because we're not being menaced by giant murder insects. Further using the meta context to push your point is just lazy script writing because it's not our job to do homework. The film creator ares the one who's obligated to make their point. This isn't the audience just being dumb either this is the creator expecting them to make their argument for them.

>>152374355
That didn't happen. At least not in the movie.

>>152374338
It shows everyone physically and mentally scared by a society that needs to constantly continue to fight regardless of whether its good for their society or not. The only people who are considered citizens are people who join the army. Which is explicit in the notion that they are second class citizens who are put though literal meat grinders.

>>152374370
He literally never said that and it makes no sense because if the bugs had that kind of technology, they wouldn't have been invaded by humans. Earth is literally in a fucking different star system.

>>152374372

Oh, don't take it as a defense of the movie, I was never a big fan. I always felt it's much weaker than Robocop both as a comedy and as an action flick.

>>152373399
He didn't even read the book. He had a friend give him some pointers and he massacred the the shit out of it to replace the message (society would be better if only the people who give a shit have a say) with his own (le fascism bad!)
Part of the problem with his message is that he is portraying any country in a time of war.

At this point I think that people are so retarded they don't even know what "satire" actually means. They think it is "I don't like [political concept], so when there is this popular thing with [political concept] I dislike, it's a satire because it if it was serious it wouldn't be popular."

>>152374379
>It shows everyone physically and mentally scared by a society that needs to constantly continue to fight regardless of whether its good for their society or not.

Except for the part where enlistment is optional and there's a clear function society outside of it. We mostly see things in the military because it's a war movie but there is a world outside of it and the film ends with three friends holding hands and skipping into the sunset.

>>152374385
It's worse than that. It was originally an original script called 'Bug Hunt', the studio realized they owned the rights to Starship Troopers, and rewrote the script to fit.

>>152374379
>He literally never said that and it makes no sense because if the bugs had that kind of technology
Did you watch the movie? The film mentions that the asteroid went through subspace, which the bugs could apparently do. Anon:
>The bugs colonised multiple systems by firing spores.
>They had brain bugs.
>They had artillery bugs that could hit space ships.
The bugs didn't have technology but they could do a lot of shit.

>>152374389
>At this point I think that people are so retarded they don't even know what "satire" actually means

>noun
>the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
>in a movie where the creator never actual makes his point, the cast is treated like heroes and it's a sci fi wonderland.

yeah real scathing.

>>152374379
>He literally never said that
He literally DID say that:
https://x.com/memeticsisyphus/status/1759624216259785177
Even Verhoeven says the bugs sent the meteor in retaliation for the Mormon settlers. So you're wrong.

>>152374417
This is what I'm saying.
Verhoeven insists that it is a satire, so people get it in their heads that the asteroid MUST have been a false flag despite every single piece of information in the film telling you the Bugs are retaliating over the colonists. It "is a satire", and in satires the asteroid WOULD be a false flag, but it isn't in ST because it's one of the worst "satires" ever made.
It's the same with the propaganda.
>oh it must be satirical, right?
No, it's a greek chorus.

>>152374428
To add:
The entire purpose of the propaganda is not to tell you that propaganda is bad, but rather to inform the audience about either events or how other people in the story feel outside of the narrative.
There is probably not a single moment of "satire" in the propaganda with the lone exception of the public execution, which is ambiguous because we have no information on whether it is justified - it is just something the Federation does.

>>152374385
>He didn't even read the book
How much of culture is this:
>Frankenstein films are all based on Universal movie tropes and not the book.
>Practically every modern classic book is skewed in general understanding because people didn't read the book.
>Jodorowsky almost directed Dune and said openly he didn't read it but his friend said it was good. His almost adaptation did influence sci-fi films massively, e.g. Alien.
>Pretty much every modern franchise or adaptation is made by people who didn't read the book, comic or play the game.
We live in cliff notes culture.

>>152374428
I'm confused because before in the replies you or someone else said:
>Did you miss the part where they nuked Buenos Aires to blame the bugs?
But now your point has changed.

>>152374439
But Jodorowsky did read Dune (after he had the idea to make an adaptation) he just openly said he intended to rape it.

>>152374473
>But Jodorowsky did read Dune
Eventually he did yes. But for a good amount of time into it, he hadn't. He picked that film to do without having read it.
>he just openly said he intended to rape it.
And some of his changes are stuff like:
>Jessica and the Duke never fucked, he used a pin prick of blood to impregnate her.
Which became an idea he used in Metabarons. A lot of changes for his own artistic sense of things rather than for the actual themes or text.

>>152374252
>Suddenly all of his bullying has a racial component to it despite it not existing before when it was a pasty white guy getting bullied by a white jock
The whole point on that was that the three of them(James, Sirius and Snake) were bullies but only James mature.
Snape has zero growth till the last books; he was trapped in the school doing the same, but instead being with dark wizard doing shit things to fellow student and having a prank war with James, he bully children like how he forced a 12 years old to poison his pet.

>>152374449
I am not that person.

>>152374449
Okay, I can see how you're confused. What I meant by "this is what I am saying" refers to a post I made earlier, not the post you replied to. My bad.

>>152371829
No one who hates the this idea has ever actually read this

>>152372464
You're looking at a hospital. The architect designed the hospital to evoke a feeling of peace and cleanliness, but both your parents died here, so you feel dread and grief instead. Are you wrong to feel that because it isn't what the architect of the building intended you to feel?

>>152374642
Retarded analogy.

>>152374608
This is the inverse of reality.

>>152374683
Seconded it.

All this talk of Starship Troopers is retarded.
>guy writes book
>frankoid makes a movie based on book
>makes it about Fascism
>doesn't understand Fascism
>other people who don't understand Fascism say it is a critic of Fascism
>book isn't about Fascism
>elements from the book that made it to the movie isn't Fascist
>people think that it is proof of Death of the Author
This is like saying David Reimer proves Gender Theory (people actually say this).

>>152371829
The author doesn't matter. Also the reader doesn't matter. Yeah your subjective opinion doesn't matter, you've hard that

Only what's fucking written and nothing else had a saying on the matter.
If the book(movie/whatever says "X happens" then X happens, and anything contradicting that, even if it comes from the author, it's just wrong.

Also this >>152373051
>Death of the Author is an exercise in ALTERNATIVE readings and as long as it is used as such there isn't much problem with it.

>>152373390
>adaptations casting characters as a different race
which is objectively a problem, racist and political
anyone normal hates that. It's not le pol

>>152374283
>it's not bad in these new products I liked
it's still bad

>>152374254
Millennial writing

>>152374262
It IS objective tho

>>152371829
I killed the author of death of the author. See he was actually just joking. There problem solved.

>>152374830
No

>>152374886
Keep crying millennial

>>152374939
Seethe

>>152374818
The issue isn't dialogue or being insincere. People are just mistaking the writer's completely warrant insecurity as the main problem when the actual problem is the writer's lack of worthwhile ability & vision. My point is they shouldn't believe in themselves because they already know that they suck and they should just give up.

>>152374944
you started seething when called out for being millennial, emotional faggot

>>152374789
>"I didn't read the essay but continue to defend it" award
This is why the author keeps explicitly saying things nowadays only they do with author surrogate.
Whether Marta was good person or not irrelevant in case in Knives Out yet it hammered down constantly since we can't make our own opinion whether a nurse who doesn't read labels on bottles is a good nurse.

>>152375149
>not irrelevant
irrelevant

>>152375149
Are you implying that I'm defending death of the author?
Because I didn't
>>152375149
>Knives Out
Didn't watch that shit, sorry

>>152374264
>Particularly if you hire outside the usual suspects of wealthy dumbasses whose parents have a background in the industry.
Anon, has the last decade worth of media helmed by Millennials from California taught you nothing?

>The problem is the core not the presentation.
I could halfway agree, but unfortunately the presentation is a part of the core in so many cases.

>Dispatch has Millennial Writing but it fits because it's a workplace comedy with superheroes.
Case in point, and it's a terrible example to use since the writing is so focused on being "witty" and irreverent the bog standard "jerk with a heart of gold gets second chance via quirky band of misfits" falls flat.

>>152374283
>Dispatch has Millennial Writing but it fits because it's a workplace comedy with superheroes
The romance arc binary (you can only get revenge and kill your father's murderer if you do everything in your power to romance the stupid and highly annoying woman that helped destroy your suit) is perhaps the single worst VN pathing I've ever seen.

>>152375322
>I could halfway agree, but unfortunately the presentation is a part of the core in so many cases.
That is like saying that the outside is part of the inside.

>Case in point, and it's a terrible example to use since the writing is so focused on being "witty" and irreverent the bog standard "jerk with a heart of gold gets second chance via quirky band of misfits" falls flat.
Can you actually tell me what is inherently wrong with "being witty and irreverent"? People aren't praising Castlevania for the dick jokes. People are in fact deludedly praising Isaac for being a "serious character". People were praising it for its cringe "sad" moments. The problem with Castlevania is its dogshit evil message. Would you call Steven Universe "witty or irreverent"? It was shit because of its dogshit message of "positive masculinity".

>>152375391
>is perhaps the single worst VN pathing I've ever seen.
The Walking Dead.
Also, it has waifus. One is superior to the other but that is always the case.

>>152375189
>Are you implying that I'm defending death of the author?
>Because I didn't
You are giving the layman's (wrong) understanding of Death of the Author. The simple fact is none of what happens in the story is real. There isn't always an in-universe explanation for things. Sometimes the writer is an incompetent lazy fuck. Contradictions, retcons, plot holes. All of these involve accepting that it is fiction and faggots writing retarded headcanon isn't "Media Literacy".

File: 1756571492200626.png (338 KB)

338 KB PNG

Zibber zarslaps have made their entire generational identity being "not millennial" while simultaneously claiming all the cool stuff millennials had in our youth, like Halo or -any cartoon that was good- because they have perma little brother syndrome. Millennial writing, the term itself, is another facet of this seething by 00s kids about the time their older brother banned them from using his xbox while he was away at college.

>>152372464
By this retarded logic you wpuld have to accept any nonsensical thing an Artist said about their work at face value. If I wrote a book about a boy named Billy learning to share his toys with his brother but said it was actually about the Cambrian Explosion and its impact on evolution then you'd have to say anyone interpreting the book to be about learning the concept of sharing to be wrong.

File: Scriptormatic.jpg (366.7 KB)

366.7 KB JPG

>>152375768
>the layman's (wrong) understanding of Death of the Author.
Help, my Gemini is broken.

Is there a term for when an author intends their work to have a specific message, but either basically no one picks up on it, or even comes to the direct opposite conclusion, because the message was extremely poorly delivered?

>>152373458
In all fairness. Orwell's critique of Lewis's approach to dystopia is as follows
>Particularly, Orwell objected to the ending in which N.I.C.E. is overthrown by divine intervention: "[Lewis] is entitled to his beliefs, but they weaken his story, not only because they offend the average reader's sense of probability but because in effect they decide the issue in advance. When one is told that God and the Devil are in conflict, one always knows which side is going to win. The whole drama of the struggle against evil lies in the fact that one does not have supernatural aid." However, Orwell still maintained that the book was "worth reading".[13]

File: yupykmanznq61.png (246.4 KB)

246.4 KB PNG

>>152375903
>asking an AI to summarize a 6-8 page long essay
>ideology doesn't advocate for its logical conclusion despite never making a case why it doesn't
>expecting an AI to debunk what is basically dogma since the late 1960s

>>152375967
It is called sucking.

>>152375895
For all of the talk of the author ruining their work by saying crazy shit after, there is ten thousand times more faggots crying about their gay ship.

Look at how retarded the word "coded" is.
If you say "Orcs are an allegory for Black people", people would expect some evidence that the author thinks that. If you say that Orcs are Black (coded), you don't need any evidence just a bunch of opinionated retards to agree with you.

>>152371829
i think the easiest way to understand death of the author is through gay dumbledore. none of the books and none of the movies come close to making dumbledore gay. the closest we get is his friendship with grindlewald in the last book. the only reason dumbledore is canonically gay is because jk rowling said he was in some random q&a in 2007.
death of the author simply holds that if you read the books and never came to the conclusion dumbledore is gay, that’s perfectly valid. if jk Rowling came to the opposite conclusion, that is equally valid. but just because she’s the author doesn’t mean she can force her interpretation on you. frankly, it’s on her for not making it clearer.

>>152376065
It's just a fun fact. You hear that Rowling envisioned Dumbledore as gay, you read about the stuff between him and Grindelwald and you're like "Oh, so that was the deal between them."

It's plausible, but it's not important enough to the story to actively come up. Plus, it's easy to imagine Dumbledore as one of those old, gay british men like Ian McKellen or Stephen Fry.

>>152375808
>millennials had experienced something in their youth
>that means they own it
Those things were made by older generations
Millennials have only produced garbage

File: 1767215783829677.png (545.4 KB)

545.4 KB PNG

>>152376156
>videogame comes out when zoomer is in diapers
>millennial older brother plays the shit out of it
>zoomer, 20 years later, says "actually this is mine because reasons, fuck millennials"
>literally then posts your dumb post, unaware of the irony
Truly little bros gonna little bro but I don't care what mom says you can't use my xbox.

>>152376025
Now is the dogma that the text matters or that the text doesn't matter? I can never tell.

>>152376065
>i think the easiest way to understand death of the author is through gay dumbledore
>The easiest way to understand Death of the Author is the incorrect one.
Death of the Author is published on 1967 not even whenever Twitter was created.

>>152376183
The dogma is only the opinions of Leftists matters.

File: mqdefault.jpg (5 KB)

5 KB JPG

>>152371829
>it's not millennial writing
Yeah bro i love when someone wakes up from a mind transfer and instead of visualizing the disbelief and shock they start talking about how shocked and incredulous they are because that's crazy dude.

They can't into cinematography, they aldo use these shitty tricks to save money on the already poor animation. And the sea of Goyim claps their hands.

>>152375768
>You are giving the layman's (wrong) understanding of Death of the Author.
No, retard. I just explained why DotA is retarded and wrong, despite other subjective interpretation not being valid either.
>Contradictions, retcons, plot holes. All of these involve accepting that it is fiction
No that's bad fiction that invalidates further addition to what previously written, because what previously is king.

>>152376209
>The dogma is only the opinions of Leftists matters.
Leftists employ a type of censorship when rightists use DOTA themselves. What's confusing is you don't really want to call it that in that case, seems like.

>>152374495
>Which became an idea he used in Metabarons. A lot of changes for his own artistic sense of things rather than for the actual themes or text.
I don't know how familiar you are with him, but he literally just recycles the same shit in every single thing he's ever done (based on pseudoEuropean aristocracy and stupid alchemical books and Jung). And people still give him money and work for him because he's obviously connected. I used to like him before I started reading him and realized what it was.

It's actually Gen X irreverence tainting popular culture beyond repair but they don't want to admit it

>made a PRO FASCIST anti fascist movie.
The only people that would think those hilarious space retards acting like total morons meant the movie was actually pro fascist are fascists themselves and are just self inserting.

The Star Wars prequels being hailed as average movies when they were utter slop is proof that the only thing that matters now is that "good thing is good because I said so" with no other criteria at all
Only nostalgia and self inserting matters. Nothing else.

>>152374977
>typing a two letter word is seething now
projecting

>>152376918
Ah, the great millennial George Lucas.

>>152374254
This. Most of these shows are written by Gen X, not millenials.

>>152376933
Reading comprehension is also plummeting, as exemplified by posts like yours.

>>152376944
This thread is all about millennials. You're off-topic.

>>152376955
Yes, and millenians love the prequels, which was the point of my post. Maybe get some sleep? It was REALLY easy to understand.

>>152373269
The book was better, though borderline unfilmable

>>152376823
>>152376930
>>152376934
>millennial is deflecting to avoid taking responsibility for millennial writing
>>152376975
>millenians love the prequels
only a small bubble of nostalgiatards do, and only because meme and that other cartoon

>>152376993
>>only a small bubble of nostalgiatards do
I wish it was small.

>>152377003
It is. It's just loud
these retards think that their feeling about movies they could only like because they were 6 matter in any way

Truly a retarded generation. You don't see genxers getting irrationally mad becasue nobody liked Mac&Me or some shit like that

>>152373269
Don’t they execute a bunch of peaceful protestors in the second film for pretty much zero reason outside their dissent?

>>152375970
I mean, evil does win in 1984 so I guess you can give him points for consistency.
Without any kind of divine guidance who is to say what qualifies as good or evil, anyway? Maybe Big Brother is a kind of ultimate good from a certain point of view?

>>152377036
Well, I really wish it's like you say it is.

>>152377038
No one's seen the sequels.

>>152375808
>>152376180
i don't think any of this happened. i think you made it up.

>>152376975
Prequel haters made and love the sequel trilogy thoughever

>>152377179
Nobody loves the ST.

>>152377194
Many did the first two.

>>152376025
There are authors that use that coded bullshit too anon and you have to accept it as the absolute intent if you go by your thought process that the author is the end all be all. Also it's funny youre complaining about Dogma while actively supporting it.

>>152377230
Observe how anon sneaked in the word "Trilogy" in there.

>>152376025
Orcs are Turks.

>haters (the well known prequel haters JJ Abrams and Johnson) did a bad thing which means the prequels were good
Nnnno.

>>152377067
All their arguments are "I watched it at 6 and I liked it" or they quote some shitty meme.
Chance are that they even haven't rewatched them in 20 years

>>152377179
Noone ever liked prequelshit. Doubt so many demanded for sequelshit

>>152377179
I hate the sequels and the prequels
The sequels being bad doesn't magically absolve the prequels you dense fucker.

>>152371829
the most pretentious, thieving, and "I made this" mindset I've ever seen, modern day has made non-creatives into nasty fucking goblins who need an endless conveyor belt of content to suck up, but hate and resent the actual creators for not custom tailoring their endless meals to be the EXACT flavor their degraded sense of 'morals' demands

>>152377268
anon probably thinks Plinkett made the sequels or whatever

>>152377309
It is absolutely sad how the prequel defenders still seethe over the plinkett reviewsn.

>>152372184
1. IQ isn't a measure of intelligence.
2. Just because /v/ and /pol/ go unmoderated 99% of the time doesn't mean they're more intelligent.

>>152373390
>Take, for example, Snape from Harry Potter. Intended as a white character
JK herself welcomed the change you dumb fucker. That isn't death of the author. Just proof the author can be retarded and should be considered dead in certain circumstances.

>>152377230
>Many did the first two.
No they didn't. They rode the hype of the first one and anyone who claims to like the second is just fishing for good boy points. They don't actually LOVE the movies for the movies. The action figure sales suck.

>>152377445
>JK herself welcomed the change you dumb fucker.
JK welcomed the change when the directors of that retarded stage play made Hermione black, not caring that she wrote Hermione as an antislavery activist which constantly gets made fun for wanting to liberate enslaved creatures.

>>152377458
>The action figure sales suck
Look I hate the sequels but toy sales doesn't in anyway indicate quality. Pixar Cars sells a shit ton of merch but I doubt you'd call it Pixar's best film series.

Xoomers and Millennials are both disappointing. Face it, the last great generation of writers were boomers.

>>152377638
Inflammatory AI bot, you need to put more effort into your inflammations. Shame on you!

File: dotascriptor.png (126.7 KB)

126.7 KB PNG

>>152376755
>Leftists employ a type of censorship when rightists use DOTA themselves.
Nobody takes those seriously. It is just a way to make fun of the way Leftists pervert stories using retarded theorycrafting.

>>152377246
>There are authors that use that coded bullshit too anon and you have to accept it as the absolute intent if you go by your thought process that the author is the end all be all. Also it's funny youre complaining about Dogma while actively supporting it.
You entirely missed the point. You are holding on to the lie people told you about Death of the Author.
Death of the Author didn't invent
>the concept of having an opinion
>the concept that the author is capable of lying or forgetting things
The idea that the only alternative to DotA is believing the author on everything is retarded.
Death of the Author just believes in a different kind of infallibility. Metaphysically, it thinks of the story as taking place in separate dimension which the author peers into and transcribes the events. Instead of just accepting that plot holes are a result of the writer being a retard, we have pretend that there is a secret in-universe explanation everyone but enlighten media literate Leftists is blind to.

Demons are Arabs in DMC because Adi Shankar is stuck in the Bush era not for any complicated reason.

>>152377638
Guess what essay written to fuck those guys over.

>>152377487
No, he is right. Virtually nobody gave a shit about the ST compared to the PT.

>>152375903
AI is the logical conclusion to Death of the Author.

>>152378012
>Demons are Arabs
That has been a Christian trope since the very first Muslim conquests.

File: in-netflix-dmc-usa-invades-hell-and-kills-demons-with-v0-bqgcrauhtlue1.jpg (31.3 KB)

31.3 KB JPG

>>152378087
I am sure that it is part of folklore that demons are dindu with rags on their heads.

>>152377445
>>152377465
The only thing JK cares about is which option is gonna get another wing on her mansion.

>>152378404
yeah Death of the Author doesn't much apply in the cases where Death of the Soul has already long destroyed whatever person was there

>>152378142
They were characterized as worse than Demons because at least Demons were afraid of the cross, the holy host, and the scriptures.
Muslims frequently destroyed all three.

>>152378012
You're literally picking and choosing what you think is correct about the interpretation of the work. You can't say that a Author's intent is absolute and in the same breath say that the Author can be wrong about their own work. You are literally arguing for the death of the author at that point. It should be pretty evident that the Author's intent doesn't matter if another theme or message can easily be deduced using evidence from the media they created.

>>152378448
>I'll jusr pick and choose when I subscribe to the Author's intent
So you're essentially killing the author?

File: this-joker.gif (500.4 KB)

500.4 KB GIF

>>152374334

>>152378576
nah, you only believe in rigid extremism, I have sense to know when there's rare outlier cases of "the author has gone fucking mad, who cares about their works anymore in light of that"

File: Sneedtoday.jpg (173.6 KB)

173.6 KB JPG

>off topic bullshit
Check
>bumped by the same two spergs
Check
>too many posts to just jump into the convo
Check

>>152378606
Nah, it's not that anymore. They all got laid off and outsourced; AI does the job of keeping people outraged and useless now. It's the perfect agitator; it can post anywhere, at any time, in response to any keyword, with no way to tell other than paying attention to the patterns of "this post exists only to feed outrage addictions"

>>152378602
Aren't you just pushing the same extremism when someone provides an alternate take that has plenty of evidence provided in the text?

>>152374152
Why is the Left opposed to Death of the Author now?

>>152378012
>Nobody takes those seriously
They do in Italy interestingly.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/03/the-lord-of-the-rings-italy-giorgia-meloni-tolkien
Not sure what the American equivalent might be. Maybe this?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-hosted-great-gatsby-halloween-party-hours-snap/story?id=127091016
Hard to say that's not the definition of a troll move though.

>>152378927
Sorry robot, 'Left' and 'Right' stop meaning anything after decades of cult abuse of the terms into meaninglessness, it turns out 'humans', 'people', something that robots and cultists are not, can determine for themselves if something is bullshit without a unifying color or direction assuring them it's truth.

>>152378606
>>too many posts to just jump into the convo
get here faster next time

>>152371829
More people then ever are getting to write while barely reading anything themselves.

>>152379123
True

>>152378561
>You can't say that a Author's intent is absolute and in the same breath say that the Author can be wrong about their own work.
I literally never said that. I was saying that Death of the Author is a lot more retarded than people say it is.
>You are literally arguing for the death of the author at that point.
The typical argument from someone who never actual read the essay.
>It should be pretty evident that the Author's intent doesn't matter if another theme or message can easily be deduced using evidence from the media they created.
That is retarded.

Death of the Author isn't "Death of the author's involvement" ; it is the Death of the concept of Authorship. He wanted to use the word "Scriptor" as if the writer is conduit for some kind of external force or part of the human collective consciousness.

Hypothetically, anyone could understand that a book written before 2001 wouldn't have an event in the story which is supposed to be allegory for 9/11 but with DotA it doesn't matter.

>>152378927
It would imply that they had principles. DotA is used to corrupt or destroy. It is always intended to be applied arbitrarily and opportunistically.

>>152374355
The bugs there the meteor, we saw it hit a ship in the middle of no where and we saw it hit Bueno Aries.
You swallowsling PV's post hoc excuses to try and cover his mistake isn't our problem buddy boy.

File: 548924_bentusi-paladin_dota2-leech.png (883.8 KB)

883.8 KB PNG

>>152379213
DotA you say?

>>152379213
>DotA is used to corrupt or destroy. It is always intended to be applied arbitrarily and opportunistically.
Either to corrupt the message to fit their commie beliefs, to assert that a story is promoting evil ideologies to ruin the author, to gaslight people into not seeing their evil ideas hidden in plain sight.

>>152379364
I don't think it's some imaginary indisious plot like that. It's just a social consequence of vastly expanded access to reading and writing, and the system to promote your own writing. It doesn't matter what your culture or history, everyone is susceptible to this flawed thinking because we're still pretty fresh to global access of such ideas. We've seen a mass expansion and occupation of every meta-nook pertaining to reading and writing, which has sparked new ideas. Some are responsible and good, some, like Death of the Author, are not responsible and dig way too far into the meta to justify a kind of ownership that is not real or acceptable. You can read the work, you can see whatever patterns you want in the words, but you will never have the power of God to say the writer's intentions were not what they intended. That really frustrates and angers some people for a whole lot of different reasons, but it ends the same with a struggle between Those Who Make, and Those Who Consume.

Those Who Consume, in this era, think with their stomachs, and equate digestion and metabolism of something to ownership of it.

>>152379213
>I literally never said that.
>>152378012
>believing the author on everything is retarded.

>>152379213
>Hypothetically, anyone could understand that a book written before 2001 wouldn't have an event in the story which is supposed to be allegory for 9/11 but with DotA it doesn't matter.
You can still say a work of fiction has applicability to events that occurred after its authorship. When a work actively brings up terrorism via religious radicalism it has applicability to evens both past and present because the concept is broad enough to make general statements about multiple events. Fiction doesn't need to be entirely allegorical to single event that occurred prior to its publishing.

Good thread.

>>152371829
>"Actually, the book means whatever i feel like"

>>152372135
no, it's "death of the author" when the author disagrees with me, and "media literacy" when they do

>>152381092
that's the unspoken part yes

>>152374837
It isn't. Look when you make a piece of media, you can't control how people will think of it. The audience decide on that. And the audience's opinion or interpretation is valid. Trying to stamp any kind of "objective reality" on a piece of work is the equivalent to demanding everyone likes it because you the author like it.

An author is not the word of God, an author is more like a parent, they birth a child, develop it, then release it out into the world. Parents can have a million different relationships with children, strong ones or fractious ones, but when that child is grown and out in the world, no matter how much they raised them or influenced them, that child will impact people in different ways regardless on what you specifically had in mind.

>>152381370
I see what you're saying but you need to understand that many people when they write, myself included, are trying to articulate THEIR experience, THEIR truth, THEIR perception and thoughts. That is always there, that intent is always inherent to the very reason why they put words to the paper. To say that is mutable and belongs to anyone who consumes it is a really fucked up way of saying that person's ideas are not their own, they can be any shape or color or size *I* want it to be.

>>152381427
Not him, but ultimately works are going to affect different readers in different ways. If they end up with a "wrong" interpretation, it doesn't really matter because the work still spoke to them. The writer is entitled to their interpretation of their work, and the readers are entitled to feel the way the work made them feel.

That's always been my interpretation of Death of the Author. Art is in the eye of the beholder and whatnot.

I still don't understand what The Death of The Author has to do with it.

>>152381427
>but you need to understand
Anon I do understand that, but you don't seem to understand what I'm getting at. When you read something you interpret it. Interpretation is not a fixed objective point. People come at things from different angles, experiences and culture in addressing something. Police know how mutable witnesses can be. Historians know how mutable records can be. How culture and ideas and how we view things change overtime. I know people like to view things as all objective, and there are objective things in the world, but applying a pure objectivity to this is retarded.

You hold authorial intent in the very highest point in a hierarchal structure without really challenging all the points. You think that things are a fixed point of specific intent but nothing exists in a vacuum, it's constantly looked at, assessed, reassessed.

If an author intends a character to be sympathetic but it comes across as unsympathetic to me there is literally an endless myriad of different reasons why:
>Maybe the writing was just bad.
>Or maybe the author was specific to a culture.
>Or maybe the readers perceptions created that.
>Or maybe this or maybe that.
But when you hold authorial intent as the *most important thing*, it's like saying, regardless of any of those factors, you MUST take the intent as truth and ignore all else. I mean how far do you take that attitude? If I demand you must enjoy my work and you say you didn't like it, well that's too bad but my authorial intent is for you to worship my work.

>*I* want it to be
You're confusing understanding with justification. I understand people have different views, I believe in freedom of speech, it doesn't mean that I agree with, or justify, everyone's viewpoint. I just accept that people will see things differently.

Like my analogy of parenthood, you make something, you shape it, but you cannot control how people see it, no matter how much you try.

>>152373573
Most authors don't even have stories or characters, they have ideas.
The point of The Death Of The Author is to pay attention to the writing, not what the author says. If the writing is leading you to one natural interpretation that can't be misunderstood, but the author makes a statement changing completely the subject, it doesn't matter.
For example, a story between two guys who are best friends and treat each other like brothers. Everyone is going to believe they are just friends.
If the author randomly five years later tells you "actually they were gay and your interpretation is wrong", no it's not wrong at all.

This doesn't mean all stories are meaningless and every meaning counts and the authors don't know shit, of course, people like to abuse this with their headcanons. But not everything is black and white, it's not that hard to understand.

>>152381427
>THEIR experience, THEIR truth, THEIR perception and thoughts
The moment someone stands up and shares something in the public forum, people are going to have opinions on it, people are going to dissect it. If I say I'm a victim and you should give me money, are you gonna do it? Or question me? Well too bad you can't question me, better respect my experiences and thoughts as paramount. And that's the point: death of the author is not saying "the author doesn't matter" it is saying that we have a public forum and shouldn't wholly take that authors statement as absolute in all factors. If an author says they are the victim, should they instantly be believed when the audience takes something else away from it? Considering you seem to think their truth is the only thing that matters opens things up to a lot of abuse.

>>152371829
This is pure wank.

>>152374837
>It IS objective tho
>>152381427
>THEIR perception
Huh? How is their subjective opinion objective? You went from one extreme to another.

Death of the author was about literary criticism, not writing or writing technique. And death of the author literary criticism won out especially in the internet "comment on everything" age.

>>152381427
Is this why you make these threads? You're scared someone is gonna misinterpret you?

>>152372135
Authors not write for your media literacy. They only write books, movies, series,etc, for get money.

>>152383057
>for get money
And you don't write at all.

File: media.jpg (69.7 KB)

69.7 KB JPG

>>152373269
The entire shit of that movies why Humans are in war with Space Bugs

>>152382627
You don't get it.

>>152379768
>You can still say a work of fiction has applicability to events that occurred after its authorship.
That is just your experience. You had no hand in writing it.
It is very easy to corrupt using that chain of logic.
>terrorist attack that is similar to 9/11
>have a twist that there government splinter group pulling the strings to make a false flag
>cancel the author for it
Nobody applies Death of the Author when it doesn't benefit them.

>>152379721
1) I never said that Author's intent is absolute. The author's intent is always important to the story because nobody can write unconsciously.
2) I just said that the author can lie.
You are hang up on your retarded TV tropes understanding of Death of the Author.

>>152379488
>I don't think it's some imaginary indisious plot like that.
There is no need for a conspiracy just perverse incentives. Leftists' whole ideology is built on fiction thus they are more invested into it like >>152378494
>It's just a social consequence of vastly expanded access to reading and writing, and the system to promote your own writing.
No, there is no special condition for people adopting and ideology that gives them authority to do or say whatever they want while being in the moral right. Ideas like Marxism persist; not because there is some kernel of truth but because, it appeals to immoral dysgenic freaks.

>>152381092
No, "Media Literacy" is whenever anyone agrees with me (not the author).

>>152382885
>reading doesn't affect writing

File: 1765520824150592.png (306.7 KB)

306.7 KB PNG

>>152385025
>This retard is arguing that art cannot have applicability.
I can't imagine being such a stupid fucker to believe that a work of art can't have applicability to future events especially when multiple genres utilize speculative fiction.

File: Honeyview_Donald_Trump_(Earth-65)_from_Spider-Gwen_Annual_Vol_1_1_0003.jpg (301.5 KB)

301.5 KB JPG

>>152385189
>I can't imagine being such a stupid fucker to believe that a work of art can't have applicability to future events especially when multiple genres utilize speculative fiction.
It has applicability. What do you think propaganda is?

>>152385025
>I just said that the author can lie.
If the author can lie than that implies that their intent can be dubious and therefore be ignored. If the author can be unreliable then you have to admit that it's up to the reader to find meaning in the work instead. You recognize this is sometimes the case but still hate on DOTA as if it can't provide valid interpretantions or at the very least have outlying cases where it can be applied.

>>152385225
>bringing propoganda out of the blue
Don't segue into a different topic. You made the case that a work of fiction cannot be interpreted to discuss future possible scenarios now explain how a work of speculative fiction isn't discussing possible future scenarios.

>>152385227
>If the author can lie than that implies that their intent can be dubious and therefore be ignored.
Intent isn't something can be changed retroactively. You can't kill someone for revenge and decide that it was for self-defense based on future information.

>If the author can be unreliable then you have to admit that it's up to the reader to find meaning in the work instead.
Again you are defaulting to the retarded layman's (wrong) version of Death of the Author.

>>152385248
>Make unfounded claims about my statement
>Gets angry that when I give an example disproving it
Fiction is very applicable. People keep making Star Wars or Harry Potter references when they talk about their political opposition.

>>152385025
>reading doesn't affect writing
I never said that and you didn't understand my point.

Literary criticism made a hierarchy of analysis where heavy weight was given to authorial intent over any other form of analysis or interpretation. The Death of the Author was more challenging this orthodox approach.

In some ways it reminds me of art; how the art world became more dominated by name, brand and prestige rather than actual expression and artistic merit, so some artists rebelled against that. Marcel Duchamp's the fountain was a urinal with the name R Mutt scrawled on it. It was intended to satirise the art worlds obsession with the name and the signature of a painting, more than the merit of the painting itself. Because here was a literal urinal, how could that be art.

You see, institutions become dead set on singular narratives in how to look at things. The literary world became obsessed with the authorial intent, rather than other discussions on approaching a book, in the same way that the artistic world became focused on name rather than artistic expression.

In terms of what has influenced modern writers I would say there is a very long list of things that come before the influence of this e.g. what media people consume, how they consume it etc. You and others in this thread really haven't made a case otherwise.

So when are we going to just cut the bullshit and just confess that some people just want to larp as nazis without judgement? Like at some point watching people play coy about it is just frustrating.

>>152372464
truth.
>>152374262
>Death of the author just means that meaning of a piece of work comes from the reader's interpretation not author's intent
that's fucking retarded. If I yell in a loud voice "water!", how someone takes it has no bearing on it's meaning. If I intended it as a demand, it's a demand, if i intended it as an exclamation, it's an exclamation. I might be faulted for not using the shared language in a way that's clear, but I am the one who is making the words, not the person who listens to them. Meaning can only derive from original authorial intent, and if someone's interpretation differs from that, then it's simply wrong.
>>152375895
The "original" part of original authorial intent is crucial. It's always possible for somebody to just lie about the shit they write.

>>152385896
>how someone takes it has no bearing on it's meaning
How someone takes your shouting influences the world no matter your intent, if someone takes offense to you shouting, "Water!" in a crowded restaurant, your intent doesn't mean that their annoyance isn't justified. You may not have meant to be annoying, but in a circumstance it may be so, regardless of your desired intent.

Put yourself in the shoes of the annoyed man, someone keeps shouting "Water!" they intend it as a simple demand or an exclamation, but how do you know that? What about all the factors and variables surrounding that? What about the cultural norms of respecting other people in a restaurant? You politely tell them to be quiet, they get mad because how dare you misinterpret them, you MUST take their intent as 100% fact regardless of your interpretation or circumstance.

You exist in an autistic world where you think media, language and art is to be looked at by some objective lense. But what about subtle intent? Unknown intent? Simple bad writing? Meaning isn't only derived from what is intended, meaning is derived from context, culture, other layers of understanding. People aren't autistic robots.

>>152385455
You know star wars is an excellent example for us to explore Death of the Author anon. Let me ask you this when Lucas went back and changed the original films by adding and changing scenes what are we to make of that? Lucas states the changes are ones he would have had made had the technology allowed him to at the time so does that mean anyone who enjoys the original films are killing the author? Now before you go saying that was not Lucas's original intent he went out of his way to make the original cuts of his films unavailable so that means any perspective on the original films can't be made without ignoring the author's intent. Hell this example goes for any alternate cut of a film. How can we interpret the stories of these films if multiple edits of the films exist. Hell books have multiple edits and editions with corrections and changes. How can we possibly argue that author intent matters when whole new editions exist that can contradict the previous iterations? How can you argue against the reader/viewer's interpretation when these alternate versions exist and have sometime completely replaced the original texts/films?

>>152385537
The sounds like some made up bullshit.

Nowadays the only value of writing is clarity. Nothing is left to interpretation since it might be "interpreted wrong" and people might decide that you are pushing the wrong message. We can't have a fictional race of violent brutes because Leftists would think that you are talking about Blacks.

>>152386019
The more you look at Lucas the more you see an unreliable narrator, but in many ways, when people tell you the story of their life they build a narrative and mythology, we are all unreliable somewhat. Fans of Lucas created this idea, particularly after the reassessment of the prequels, of a master planner. But Lucas has changed concepts vastly, sometimes emotionally or reactively, he is not a master planner. The simple truth is, people think TV shows and franchises and stuff should be planned out, but most of fiction was never fully planned out, it was developed and that created gaps and mess. At times Lucas' concepts are even at war with themselves as time went on.

>>152386019
If you disagree with it, just say it is shit and move on.

>>152386047
>The sounds like some made up bullshit
It isn't. Look it up.
>Nowadays the only value of writing is clarity.
So you hate work that's subtle, open to interpretation, subtext, exploring various themes, all because you think fiction should fit into a narrow box? Plenty of shit is still left to interpretation. Trying to force a singular interpretation of something is anti freedom of speech and doesn't accept simple human subjectivity or perception. That doesn't mean that every interpretation should be see as good or interesting, far from it. People should be able to explore stuff differently and sometimes narratives trap us in ways of thinking which contribute to our problems and stop us solving them.