Sks44 t1_ja4wnrk wrote
Reply to comment by Typical_Humanoid in The movie “A Nightmare before Christmas” is about cultural appropriation by newtoIT-
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments