Tumblr

You mean there are people on the internet with weird opinions?

Shocker.

That doesn't automatically mean Word of God is the end all be all. The writer tends to be few, the viewers tend to be many. They are going to notice something the writer didn't no matter what.

Except it is, because they created it and it's their creation. I agree Ascended Fanon is cool but it's still the creator's final choice and say in the matter. If they don't view it that way then it's merely fanon for us to play around with in fanfic and such.

edited 8th Nov '14 5:46:01 PM by shoboni

Writers are not infallible. Everyone agrees Twilight is abusive, even if the writer herself disagrees, or do you think that's also not true?

As I said, there's extremes like Twilight or Blackface and there's Insane Troll Logic like the one I described(this character is Evil Gay and thus offensive because he wears purple and I consider purple a stereotypical gay color)

edited 8th Nov '14 5:51:41 PM by shoboni

But Twilight isn't even an extreme. Especially since there are DOZEN of writers that do the same thing.

Relationship Writing Fumble and Strangled by the Red String are its own tropes for pete's sake. I'd say it's s typical situation for writers to fail at what they say they're doing.

edited 8th Nov '14 5:53:33 PM by MrAHR

By extreme I mean obvious problem you don't have squint and pick at Unfortunate Implications to find, not extreme as in rare.

I also criticizing a fumble is fine as long you keep the author's intent somewhat in mind and address it.

edited 8th Nov '14 6:07:50 PM by shoboni

Intent isn't magic.

Someone can write a story and see nothing wrong with it, but when a bunch, or even a few people do notice something wrong with it, the author saying "No, I didn't mean it that way" doesn't make it any better.

So is Bastard Boyfriend. And Romanticized Abuse for that matter. I've read just enough creepy shoujo manga to know Twilight is not a single exception in the whole world.

Give me a valid reason it doesn't. because I don't see any logic behind that "rule".

Death of the Author?

edited 9th Nov '14 12:56:35 PM by Nettacki

...and you don't see that concept problematic and hostile to the concept of artistic integrity at all?

For one thing, people can lie. For another (and much more importantly) Innocent Bigot is a real thing that exist. And they still hurt people despite being unaware of that. So, yeah, intent is not magical. Intent is relevant when the author apologies and try to change, though. People are not instantaneously bad just because they did or even thought something bad.

A story can have unfortunate implications despite the author being completely innocent about this. The story will never stop having such implications, but the author can avoid to commit mistakes in the future.

edited 9th Nov '14 1:06:13 PM by Heatth

Nope.

Neither do any people that are actually professionals in literary criticism.

Then I have nothing to add because it looks we're never going to agree on this. My stance is that interpreting a work anyway you please is fine, but you have to keep some level of respect for the creator's will.

edited 9th Nov '14 1:58:41 PM by shoboni

My stance is less that and more "sometimes a cigar is just a freaking cigar and not a social justice issue."

I think over-analysis is fine as long your aware it's just an opinion and one way of looking at it instead of god-given fact that's not to be challenged or debated.

As is Innocently Insensitive.

My question is, to what extent can/ should we hold authors responsible for the unintentionally problematic things they say?

Let me use an example from Tumblr I once saw. This Tumblr artist posted a pretty harmless comic about... I don't know, dick jokes in video games or something like that. But in the comic, one of her characters referred to penises as "male genitalia", which (from what I understand) is insensitive to trans women. So, naturally, someone decided to reblog it with a comment along the lines of, "This artist is human trash and she needs to fuck off and die."

Now isn't that a little excessive? Sure, intent doesn't magically absolve you of all blame, but you're not an awful person just because you might have said something that offends someone.

That's a good point as well(and that WOULD be physically male bits so they weren't exactly wrong, unless they're post-op someone that's Mt F would still be of male biological sex and female gender)

That's kind of what I was getting at.

That's fine, but not every creator's will is going to be respectful. H.P. Lovecraft, for example, was horrendously racist, and a great deal of his work makes that very apparent. Really, unless you're a Nazi, invoking Death of the Author is the only way to enjoy the good stuff.

I'll agree that's going overboard. What good does telling someone to die accomplish? Wouldn't it be better simply to explain what the writer/artist is doing wrong, and give them a chance to get better? I realize that I can't really speak for anybody here, but I still feel like this sort of thing could be handled better.

I mean, whether someone was acting out of ignorance or malice doesn't change the fact that their comments can be hurtful, but surely it ought to affect the response.

Thoughts?

edited 9th Nov '14 2:45:44 PM by KarkatTheDalek

These are good points and the example is overboard. This is actually a big issue I have with some social justice types I've seem. Many are completely unable to separate things. Innocently Insensitive/Bigot works as much in defense to authors as it does against their work. Yes, "intent" doesn't mean the work is not potentially hurtful. It does, however, means the author is not actually an asshole. People can be good overall despite doing something bad.

Also, as a rule, asking someone to die is pretty bad. That is something that sign you as the asshole.

edited 9th Nov '14 4:44:35 PM by Heatth

..and thus he was racist. I'm referring to when the creator ISN'T racist/sexist/bigoted and is being branded as so. HP was very openly a asshole and him being racist as shit is no secret.

Now that I'm more on board with.

edited 9th Nov '14 3:18:47 PM by shoboni

Well, the thing is that bigotry is more subtle than that - it can be so subtle that a person might not even realize it was there in the first place. This is another place where Death of the Author isn't important - what the author intended isn't necessarily ignored, but there is still room for other interpretations. And there can be more than one alternative interpretation as well.

I never said there shouldn't, but people need to realize their's is just one way of looking at it and not the universal right.

edited 9th Nov '14 4:03:56 PM by shoboni

Naturally.