Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4tq9x wrote

Reply to comment by Sks44 in The movie “A Nightmare before Christmas” is about cultural appropriation by newtoIT-

I guarantee you interpreted something into a story the author didn't think of themselves or outright disagrees with (Maybe they just didn't express this publicly if you're in the habit of checking). If not, you have no sense of imagination whatsoever.

Plenty of creatives have said once their work is out into the world, it no longer belongs to them. I enjoy writing and if I ever publish anything I'd feel the same. Writers who don't feel this way are selfish control freaks and have no business sharing their art with the world if their own interpretations are so much better and more interesting than the consumer's.

0

Sks44 t1_ja4uiyz wrote

“I guarantee you interpreted something into a story the author didn’t think of themselves or outright disagrees with (“

Sure. And if I read the author say that the interpretation was incorrect, I’d abandon it because that’s what you do when you acquire new knowledge that makes your previous position obsolete.

If the author says nothing, for example Tarantino in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, they want the reader/viewer to speculate.

“Writers who don’t feel this way are selfish control freaks and have no business sharing their art with the world if their own interpretations are so much better and more interesting than the consumer’s.”

You are calling someone a control freak for not allowing others to control their work. Pot/kettle and all that.

So, I assume you are a proponent of things like changing Ronald Dahl’s books, painting leaves on naked people in paintings, etc… because once the artist is done, fuck ‘em right? If you personally like something, it belongs to you. Like Annie Wilkes in Misery, the story belongs to you.

2

Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4vjwp wrote

Ugh. To me this is profoundly limiting and I'd be ashamed if as a creative I hampered people's imaginations and value they derive from my work just because my fragile ego demands it.

> So, I assume you are a proponent of things like changing Ronald Dahl’s books, painting leaves on naked people in paintings, etc… because once the artist is done, fuck ‘em right?

I find it abhorrent thank you very much. Censorship has nothing to do with the theory. You're out of line. I actually like knowing what the author thinks! I just don't take it as gospel.

2

Sks44 t1_ja4wnrk wrote

“To me this is profoundly limiting and I’d be ashamed if as a creative I hampered people’s imaginations and value they derive from my work just because my fragile ego demands it.”

Why does someone else’s imagination have power over another’s work? That work has been produced and established. And you believe, out of some idea of righteous subservience, that the creator should have no say once the statue is struck from the marble? It wasn’t a collaborative effort.

The artist created something. The artist knows what went into the work and why the curves and lines interact the way they do. To say that they have no say once the final stroke is struck is to disenfranchise them. “Death of the Author” is a theory that assets control over the creative by the non-creative. It says the consumer should have more say than the creator because the consumer consumes. I think a big reason so much storytelling sucks these days is because of academia pushing bullshit like “Death of the Author”.

“ Censorship has nothing to do with the theory. “

I don’t know how to break it to you but you are arguing from the censors position. A censor will say that they have the right to change and interpret a work as they see fit because the government/business gives them that power. You are just arguing from the position of a “fan” that wants the same power for different reasons.

2

Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4y3qv wrote

Suffice it to say interpretations/opinions don't impede someone's original vision or tamper with it, they exist independently of it. As art is not an objective field like science there's no "right" answer and thus the harm that's put out into the world when someone takes a Death of the Author stance is nil as I see it. And I don't think the theory does say the consumer has MORE say. Equal say more like. I wouldn't believe in it otherwise.

It's not the same as censorship because it's not altering anything whatsoever.

1

Sks44 t1_ja4zt5y wrote

“It’s not the same as censorship because it’s not altering anything whatsoever.”

Sure it is. Let’s say a person writes a story. The writer dies. Academia and such say the story is about X. People are taught that the story is about X. The author’s papers and such show the story isn’t about X at all. But Academia and people taught the story is about X aren’t going to stop. They will continue pushing that the story is about X. The “meaning” is now that the story is about X.

Tolkien said, multiple times, that he thinks allegory is bullshit. That hasn’t stopped people from reading all sorts of shit into his works and trying to paint him as things like racist because of it.

“Suffice it to say interpretations/opinions don’t impede someone’s original vision or tamper with it, they exist independently of it. “

I have no problem with that position. My issue is when people attempt to assert control over a work and think their position should overrule the position of the creator.

2

Typical_Humanoid t1_ja51kx9 wrote

We're talking about slightly different things is the problem I think.

I don't think academia gets to say what something is about either, that's just as bad if not worse. I believe them encouraging a belief in Death of the Author merely serves the end of people not believing something just because one person said it was the case, even as the creator, if they have evidence there's more to it than what they'd said. And if anything I found my high school classes had wanted you to take the author's word for it more than not, anyway. I'm not convinced this is just how the world of academics universally thinks.

To be 100% clear: I think it's very important to know what the author had actually intended. I don't think it's important to believe them over what your gut says. That's literally it. I know we still disagree fundamentally but I don't think this means what you think I think it means.

1

NoHandBananaNo t1_ja56bzh wrote

Im with you on this but youre not gonna change that guys mind.

People who are attached to authorial intent are usually that way because they crave the idea of access to a central truth.

1

Typical_Humanoid t1_ja5758c wrote

The thing is, I do get the impulse to think so.

I used to think adaptations would invariably be better the more they listened to the author but I realized the more movies I watched the ways movies are different from books A, exist, and B, aren't lesser. And authors don't always know these things and think everything they did can and will translate and will unreasonably hate the movies if they don't. I do still think they should have a say, just not the say, which informs my confidence in Death of the Author as a concept as well.

2