Hey my guy, random (new) subscriber from the Carolinas. Your videos floored me with how thought out they were. Editing, comedic timing, humor while providing actual substance, the general script, presentation, all the way to the thumbnail. Can't wait to see this channel blow up and brag I was here for the first 160.
I think there is a more nuanced discussion to be had on the subject of spending your money on things that are produced in any number of unethical ways, (not that I would personally buy a game from, let's say for instance, Activision Blizzard,) as an argument could be made that there is no such thing as ethical consumption under Capitalism, regardless of whether or not you know it to be the case for specifically what you're buying. A startling high number products are made in unsustainable or morally dubious way and you'd never know it (unless you went digging (don't buy M&Ms, y'all)) All that being said, for devoting not even a minute to the subject, and it not even being the subject of the video, like even a little bit, I think you covered the topic quite well. To be perfectly honest, I'm just finding something to say as an excuse to comment for engagement. I hope your channel grows exponentially, and you continue to put out fantastic work like this and your KH video.
Thanks! I hope you like the next stuff I'm working on. But I agree, there's always more nuance than a joke-heavy summary can deliver, but this was more about using the death of the author as a defense against criticism. I'd argue that it's fine to buy things that are not ethically sourced if you morally, personally, don't have any qualms with it. But on sites like Twitter, you'll see people actively preach about some event or topic that they seem to care strongly about, but then they still just buy the stuff anyway because they want it. Like, hey, if you want to play Overwatch that's your prerogative, but if you are simultaneously taking a stance against the game it makes you a hypocrite. The death of the author can't pull you out of that one. Since it's all personal morals I don't really stress about it, but selling your morals tends to be a destructive thing to your own mentality, since you may start to hate yourself for not standing up for what you care about.
@@feedjompo You did a pretty good job of getting your point across given the short video length. I agree with the original commenter that there is generally no ethical consumption under capitalism, but in my opinion there is unethical consumption of luxuries like the wide array of media (books, games, television/film) we have access to. I don't know your political affiliations, but you're right about it being hypocritical for people to preach about the unethical aspects of whatever media property while simultaneously supporting it monetarily.
Great video. You are a very good writer, your scripts sound intelligent and to the point. You don't indulge too much on jokes and you use a similar editing style to internet historian that I like. Hope to see you grow as a creator. Subscribed
i watched both of your videos, and subbed. disappointed not to see more. but then again, I just realized you only have 130 subs. strange... feels like there should be more.
Thanks, my channel is just a little baby, but I'm working on other stuff. My next video is about 80% done in terms of editing, so you should see it soon.
I really appreciate the raising high-pitch tone you put under your rising-action - existential-rant about consumerism and commodities. As an also (death'dof) creator it spoke to me
504th subscriber, i love your conversational tone, reminds me alot of thorhighheels and grimbeard. you are now added to the list of youtubers i search monthly cuz the bell never really works and i just get pushed tiktoks by the shit algorithm!
Apparently, the only way I can communicate is through essays now. Anyhow, this turned into a lot of rambling as I walked through my thoughts on my own schooling. Lovely video by the way. If I’m being honest, my thoughts are mostly just tangential to the statements of the video, but I’m dumping this here anyway. _Cheers~_ *What’s the author think?* At least in my experience, asking for the author's opinion was more often a response to the way the material was pushed than it was about what the author thought. I imagine I'd have taken a shine to _the death of the author_ were I aware of it at the time. Anyhow, it's not that I didn't want to form my own ideas or properly understand it, but rather that I disagreed with the way that the teacher would present the ideas. Perhaps red is the color of innocence, but I'm still stuck on the way the characters behaved, working through the seemingly questionable motivations and goals behind their actions. Of course, we were tasked with finding evidence to support the "intended" interpretation we were handed. To this end, it didn’t usually matter what students thought about the subject. Evidence can be fabricated for any interpretation after all. Asking for the author’s take was a way to more credibly disagree with what the teacher presented. If your voice as a student didn’t matter, then you’d fantasize about taking it to a higher authority. Now, _death of the author_ asserts that authority doesn’t matter and that your own interpretation has value in itself. It’s not to say I’d always disagree with the presented interpretation so much as I’d want to explore different ideas. *My reaction to School* My brain’s much too smooth to handle the abstract symbols and themes, but I can understand actions and motivations. Constructs like doublethink and newspeak interest me a lot more than colors referencing more abstract. Since my outlook was always wrong, I came to avoid engaging with the media presented in school. Regarding symbolism as an unintelligible concept with arbitrary value was my way of accepting rock bottom scores in English and helped me move along to other things I believed I was capable of learning. Of course, this comes from my (very biased) records of school many years ago. Perhaps I merely interpreted the assignments incorrectly, or was looking for reasons to avoid work. It is, however, what I and a number of my peers (but not all) perceived at the time. It bears mentioning that I don’t want to blame the teachers either. I had some really great teachers across my education, and I’d wager it was more than just the ones I credited at the time. Perhaps it’s a disconnect in the way that individual teachers and students interact, or a more systematic problem in the way the material is conveyed. Regardless, there seems to be something along the way that causes many students to reject, ignore, or misunderstand the ideas. *Critical Thinking* It just reminds me about how I'd come to the realization a few months ago (as a recent college graduate) that _critical thinking_ was more than just some education buzzword. You _think_ about the ideas _critically_ by challenging them from different angles to see if they hold any truth. It’s more than the portion of the test that has the short answer questions. It’s a whole process with an actual goal and some real value to it. It’s actually quite fun to engage in, and we all do it to varying degrees. “Huh” I brought it up to a friend and we both hummed and hawed about it for a while. I wonder if the concept itself was never explained in school, or if it was just something everyone collectively ignored and forgot. *On **_Death of the Author_* Spot on there. As an author, it’s not really good to dictate the exact things the reader should be thinking in more creative works. The audience isn’t exactly something the writer can or should control. Of course, it comes back to trying to take away ideas that can be supported by the creative works we consume. Crucially, this flexible interpretation allows us as readers/consumers to identify elements that can be meaningfully applied to our own lives even if the story isn’t trying to convey some timeless lesson or moral. Even then, you need a solid base to meaningfully argue most points in art and writing. Like the readers/consumers, it’s up to the artists and writers to put together their arguments with the strongest points and examples they can come up with. I can tell anyone that any work of art means anything, but I won’t convince them without some good arguments to back up the assertion. Different arguments speak to different people in a variety of ways. There are interesting ideas to find in the work itself and everyone’s interpretations, and it’s always fun to hear about what everyone has to think about these sorts of things. *Closing Thoughts* Perhaps asking for the author’s opinion is a way of avoiding work and seemingly unnecessary interpretation, but I think there might be a little more to it than that. In my experience, it’s sometimes a shot in the dark at getting a new interpretation in there where the individual otherwise cannot. Critical thinking and interpretation are both really interesting because they allow us to identify parts of a work that transcend the page and apply to elements of our lives, ultimately helping us to learn a little more about the world around us.
I'm down with essays. I like reading this kind of stuff since it makes me reflect on my own past experiences. Your thoughts on school and critical thinking are pretty similar to my own. I only really started "thinking critically" after I tried to prove someone wrong by looking up more info on a topic, and after looking I found my sources to be fabricated and my opinion to be based off of nothing. I was like 20 at the time, and like you said, "critical thinking" is usually just the short writing portion on a test. Which brings me to why I think school is failing people when it comes to actually becoming a critical thinker. Standardized testing and the requirements to follow a specific curriculum can strongarm teachers into teaching not what they think is right, but teaching what the governing body tells them is going to be on the test. Maybe a teacher wants to teach subjectivity, but that isn't how they grade the AP Test at the end of the year, so instead you prep your students to succeed in this predefined way. Regulation stops the truly bad teachers from teaching nonsense, but also forces really good teachers to have to equalize their lessons. There's a reason I referred to all this as a "global discussion" rather than a more "just believe whatever, man" kind of thing. Like you said, anyone can believe anything, but it may not hold up to scrutiny. Finding personal meaning can be great, but if you want to dive deeper you need to engage with others, whether it's the author or someone else. This makes reading pretty cool, and carries a lot of depth to whatever work you're looking at. It's like telling a joke, right? If someone says an awful, offensive joke that doesn't land, then very few good comedians will say "No, it's funny. You guys are all wrong." The audience reaction is key. And though writing a book isn't the same as live entertainment, I don't see why this is necessarily all that different. Thanks for watching, though! I'm glad you liked it.
Also ther is no poop Dimension ther magict it to. It was vanished into the grounds of hogwarts untill ther decided plumbing doesnt Sound do bad afterall
That's a slippery slope. If I was being actively malicious, I could twist your words to mean any number of things and back it up. Death of the author is, at best, a flawed concept. Art - in all forms - is just communication. Communication is the exchange of information between two or more parties for the purposes of understanding. Death of the author is deliberately misunderstanding what an author is trying to say. In the case of Zootopia, it *is* about racism. It was just poorly done. You understood the author perfectly. It was just the author's message is... very flawed. That doesn't mean the message means anything else because the reading is flawed. It just means it is flawed. It would be like receiving a note from a dead family member regarding his will and then being obtuse about who he wanted his inheritance to go to because you want something out of it. It is a very selfish and self serving concept.
Yeah literature stuff is wacky, that's for sure. All art is communication, sure. But communication is a two way street. If I make a joke about, say, someone's weight, and they take it as an insult even though I believed it to be light hearted banter, should they immediately suck up the emotions they're feeling and start laughing because it was a joke? No, I think it's somewhere in the middle. The author in this case can clarify his meaning to ensure his intent of humor is known, but the consumer still has validity to his interpretation and can understand the intent while still disliking the joke. It would be selfish of the author to say "get over it, it was just a joke so you can't be upset," but also would be selfish of the consumer to say "fat jokes are always insults, no exceptions, you were being mean on purpose." I would say your interpretation just moves the selfishness into the author's favor. The statement may end up still being a joke, just a bad one. But the unintended meaning of it being an insult is absolutely a valid way of interpreting it as well. And in media where the meaning is not directly stated, turning your brain off until the author speaks seems like a bizarre way of consuming it. It's why I made points about the author "contributing to the global discussion." The Death of the author doesn't have to actually be a flagrant disregard for the author, but could instead be the death of his rule over the interpretation, making it equally as valid as anyone else's. At least that's how I tend to use the concept, regardless of whether it matches with what Barthes' beliefs were. Ultimately, I do value an author's intended meaning quite a lot. I just also value my own interpretation. And other people's if they make good enough points.
@@feedjompo Anyone can tell the *intent* of the joke - the question of if someone is offended by the message communicated is an entirely different question to the intent. You can know their intent and still think they are wrong - just like I think your comparison to perceived offense to be incompatible with the current discussion. I know what you're getting at - but I believe your logic is flawed. That doesn't mean you communicated something different. An author doesn't get to dictate the reader's reaction to information - which is what I said before, so I'm glad we are in agreement. Just because you make a joke, doesn't mean people have to find it funny. Likewise, the reader's reaction doesn't change the fact that it was a joke. The intended message doesn't change because you project different meaning on the words than the communicator does. Does it have the intended effect? No. Does the message change? Definitely not. As for the claim that you have to wait for clarification from the author... do you need clarification every time you hold a discussion? Surely you can hazzard a guess as to 90% of the meaning if you know the basics of human interaction. Further clarification may be needed for unique or rarely discussed concepts, but that's true of a day to day conversation just as much as any art. If someone came up and spouted esoteric perspectives i'd ask for clarification, not run to my friends and proclaim a valid meaning extracted from words I barely understood. The author has sole ownership of the *intended message* - how the audience reacts to the content of the message and its intentions is beyond his control. As it should be. Be that reception offense, elation, condemnation, or thinking that the curtains symbolize depression. But your reaction to information still doesn't change the meaning of the message. For goodness sake, if you don't own your own intentions you own nothing. I'm fine with saying "this is my best guess" but if the author steps in and says "no" they are the only authority on their intentions. Unless you care to call them a liar, which seems arrogant to the extreme.
Uh, so I think we agree, but theres a critical misunderstanding here. The death of the author doesnt state that an authors intended message is wrong, but rather the intended message isnt relevant when consuming media. In the same way that someone can intend to make something enjoyable, and we can understand that, but certain subjective and objective qualities can point someone to a conclusion that is different from the author's intention. And, yeah, you would have to wait for clarification from the author when it comes to deriving meaning. Art by an anonymous source, surrealist art, abstract art, art with an obtuse story but the author intentionally doesnt elaborate or dies, a piece of work that delivers its meaning so poorly it implies that the opposite meaning is true... in what way would these not trap you into waiting for clarification? And if they dont or cant clarify, then do you just say "it's a mystery" and never think about it again? There may be a true answer, but its lost, and so we would have to rely on the work itself to provide the meaning. To repeat myself, the death of the author wasnt to rob the author of intention, but was a critique of critics and consumers overrelying on the authors intention and life when forming their own opinions. Basically, like you said that we agree on deriving subjective meaning being fine and valid, this was to encourage people to stop telling themselves that they were wrong in their interpretation unless it aligned with the author. If the author writes left and meant right, then theres no issue believing he meant left. The author still owns his intention. We can understand that separately from his work. But his intention does not force others to agree that his text shares the intended meaning. Not because the author is a liar, but because he lacks the skill to properly convey his thoughts, or he just doesnt feel like making it clear, or the work has an unintended but well supported second meaning, or one of many other reasons. Maybe that's pompous? But it is similarly pompous to demand that everyone buy into intention over what can be derived solely from the work in isolation. So again, I think we agree? Intention cant be taken away from the author, but the interpretations can vary wildly? Maybe we would disagree on whether the subjective interpretations could be supported to the extent that it be considered “provably true” based on the art in isolation. I think that to be the case, but your take is understandable as intended meaning being the only truly provably correct interpretation, though I think that limits the text considerably. If someone was to ask I'd say your answer is more literally correct, but I would prefer to separate the two to keep the text “pure” if that makes sense. And that was the intention behind the concept as well. Curious about your thoughts, lemme know.
As a person who plays star craft I throw my piece of the sand where an ocean used to be since even though I don't agree with the actions of who made it, I'm unwilling to make my life worse because people want to preach morality boycotts instead of making actual changes. Every company starts to have unmoral choices once they get to a big enough system so pinpointing only one thing seems hypocritical in itself. Also Insanely good video will definitely look forwards for more from you as it is very well put together and clever glad the algorithm sent me this way and hope it does it to more people.
Hopefully I just need more eyes on my content. RUclips seems to pass around videos really slowly when it has very few views, but as it performs better, it gets recommended more. I am a relatively new channel, after all. It's actually pretty interesting. I appreciate the sentiment though!
Was depicting the bad/disinterested English teacher as a black woman and the prolific/inspiring one as a white man a coincidence? Or did you just have the exact same public school experience as me?
It's just a coincidence, though the good teacher I had in real life was actually a white guy. Finding usable stock photos makes you just take what you can get.
When you said I WANT OUT, I (not an author) felt that.
You make videos though, which means you are an author. I hope you still feel it though.
Hey my guy, random (new) subscriber from the Carolinas. Your videos floored me with how thought out they were. Editing, comedic timing, humor while providing actual substance, the general script, presentation, all the way to the thumbnail. Can't wait to see this channel blow up and brag I was here for the first 160.
Blessed Carolinian, your presence humbles me. I'm glad you like my content.
I'm a Carolinian too! Are you from the good Carolina or South Carolina?
This video is about how I'm right and you are wrong.
2:50 As a Bulgarian I appreciate this
Jompo, you’re fucking genius.
Perfect summary, hilarious editing. Very fun :)
Thanks!
I think there is a more nuanced discussion to be had on the subject of spending your money on things that are produced in any number of unethical ways, (not that I would personally buy a game from, let's say for instance, Activision Blizzard,) as an argument could be made that there is no such thing as ethical consumption under Capitalism, regardless of whether or not you know it to be the case for specifically what you're buying.
A startling high number products are made in unsustainable or morally dubious way and you'd never know it (unless you went digging (don't buy M&Ms, y'all))
All that being said, for devoting not even a minute to the subject, and it not even being the subject of the video, like even a little bit, I think you covered the topic quite well.
To be perfectly honest, I'm just finding something to say as an excuse to comment for engagement.
I hope your channel grows exponentially, and you continue to put out fantastic work like this and your KH video.
Thanks! I hope you like the next stuff I'm working on.
But I agree, there's always more nuance than a joke-heavy summary can deliver, but this was more about using the death of the author as a defense against criticism. I'd argue that it's fine to buy things that are not ethically sourced if you morally, personally, don't have any qualms with it. But on sites like Twitter, you'll see people actively preach about some event or topic that they seem to care strongly about, but then they still just buy the stuff anyway because they want it. Like, hey, if you want to play Overwatch that's your prerogative, but if you are simultaneously taking a stance against the game it makes you a hypocrite. The death of the author can't pull you out of that one. Since it's all personal morals I don't really stress about it, but selling your morals tends to be a destructive thing to your own mentality, since you may start to hate yourself for not standing up for what you care about.
@@feedjompo You did a pretty good job of getting your point across given the short video length. I agree with the original commenter that there is generally no ethical consumption under capitalism, but in my opinion there is unethical consumption of luxuries like the wide array of media (books, games, television/film) we have access to. I don't know your political affiliations, but you're right about it being hypocritical for people to preach about the unethical aspects of whatever media property while simultaneously supporting it monetarily.
Great video. You are a very good writer, your scripts sound intelligent and to the point. You don't indulge too much on jokes and you use a similar editing style to internet historian that I like. Hope to see you grow as a creator. Subscribed
Thanks! I'm glad you liked it.
Nichijou ost is a nice touch.
i watched both of your videos, and subbed.
disappointed not to see more.
but then again, I just realized you only have 130 subs.
strange...
feels like there should be more.
Thanks, my channel is just a little baby, but I'm working on other stuff. My next video is about 80% done in terms of editing, so you should see it soon.
@Feed Jompo
Hell yeah, brother.
I really appreciate the raising high-pitch tone you put under your rising-action - existential-rant about consumerism and commodities. As an also (death'dof) creator it spoke to me
504th subscriber, i love your conversational tone, reminds me alot of thorhighheels and grimbeard. you are now added to the list of youtubers i search monthly cuz the bell never really works and i just get pushed tiktoks by the shit algorithm!
Thanks, I don't know who those people are but I'll take a look at them.
@@feedjompo awesome! Glad I could shed some light on some other great creators on the platform
Apparently, the only way I can communicate is through essays now. Anyhow, this turned into a lot of rambling as I walked through my thoughts on my own schooling. Lovely video by the way. If I’m being honest, my thoughts are mostly just tangential to the statements of the video, but I’m dumping this here anyway. _Cheers~_
*What’s the author think?*
At least in my experience, asking for the author's opinion was more often a response to the way the material was pushed than it was about what the author thought. I imagine I'd have taken a shine to _the death of the author_ were I aware of it at the time. Anyhow, it's not that I didn't want to form my own ideas or properly understand it, but rather that I disagreed with the way that the teacher would present the ideas. Perhaps red is the color of innocence, but I'm still stuck on the way the characters behaved, working through the seemingly questionable motivations and goals behind their actions. Of course, we were tasked with finding evidence to support the "intended" interpretation we were handed. To this end, it didn’t usually matter what students thought about the subject. Evidence can be fabricated for any interpretation after all.
Asking for the author’s take was a way to more credibly disagree with what the teacher presented. If your voice as a student didn’t matter, then you’d fantasize about taking it to a higher authority. Now, _death of the author_ asserts that authority doesn’t matter and that your own interpretation has value in itself. It’s not to say I’d always disagree with the presented interpretation so much as I’d want to explore different ideas.
*My reaction to School*
My brain’s much too smooth to handle the abstract symbols and themes, but I can understand actions and motivations. Constructs like doublethink and newspeak interest me a lot more than colors referencing more abstract. Since my outlook was always wrong, I came to avoid engaging with the media presented in school. Regarding symbolism as an unintelligible concept with arbitrary value was my way of accepting rock bottom scores in English and helped me move along to other things I believed I was capable of learning.
Of course, this comes from my (very biased) records of school many years ago. Perhaps I merely interpreted the assignments incorrectly, or was looking for reasons to avoid work. It is, however, what I and a number of my peers (but not all) perceived at the time. It bears mentioning that I don’t want to blame the teachers either. I had some really great teachers across my education, and I’d wager it was more than just the ones I credited at the time. Perhaps it’s a disconnect in the way that individual teachers and students interact, or a more systematic problem in the way the material is conveyed. Regardless, there seems to be something along the way that causes many students to reject, ignore, or misunderstand the ideas.
*Critical Thinking*
It just reminds me about how I'd come to the realization a few months ago (as a recent college graduate) that _critical thinking_ was more than just some education buzzword. You _think_ about the ideas _critically_ by challenging them from different angles to see if they hold any truth. It’s more than the portion of the test that has the short answer questions. It’s a whole process with an actual goal and some real value to it. It’s actually quite fun to engage in, and we all do it to varying degrees.
“Huh”
I brought it up to a friend and we both hummed and hawed about it for a while. I wonder if the concept itself was never explained in school, or if it was just something everyone collectively ignored and forgot.
*On **_Death of the Author_*
Spot on there. As an author, it’s not really good to dictate the exact things the reader should be thinking in more creative works. The audience isn’t exactly something the writer can or should control. Of course, it comes back to trying to take away ideas that can be supported by the creative works we consume. Crucially, this flexible interpretation allows us as readers/consumers to identify elements that can be meaningfully applied to our own lives even if the story isn’t trying to convey some timeless lesson or moral. Even then, you need a solid base to meaningfully argue most points in art and writing. Like the readers/consumers, it’s up to the artists and writers to put together their arguments with the strongest points and examples they can come up with. I can tell anyone that any work of art means anything, but I won’t convince them without some good arguments to back up the assertion. Different arguments speak to different people in a variety of ways. There are interesting ideas to find in the work itself and everyone’s interpretations, and it’s always fun to hear about what everyone has to think about these sorts of things.
*Closing Thoughts*
Perhaps asking for the author’s opinion is a way of avoiding work and seemingly unnecessary interpretation, but I think there might be a little more to it than that. In my experience, it’s sometimes a shot in the dark at getting a new interpretation in there where the individual otherwise cannot. Critical thinking and interpretation are both really interesting because they allow us to identify parts of a work that transcend the page and apply to elements of our lives, ultimately helping us to learn a little more about the world around us.
I'm down with essays. I like reading this kind of stuff since it makes me reflect on my own past experiences.
Your thoughts on school and critical thinking are pretty similar to my own. I only really started "thinking critically" after I tried to prove someone wrong by looking up more info on a topic, and after looking I found my sources to be fabricated and my opinion to be based off of nothing. I was like 20 at the time, and like you said, "critical thinking" is usually just the short writing portion on a test. Which brings me to why I think school is failing people when it comes to actually becoming a critical thinker. Standardized testing and the requirements to follow a specific curriculum can strongarm teachers into teaching not what they think is right, but teaching what the governing body tells them is going to be on the test. Maybe a teacher wants to teach subjectivity, but that isn't how they grade the AP Test at the end of the year, so instead you prep your students to succeed in this predefined way. Regulation stops the truly bad teachers from teaching nonsense, but also forces really good teachers to have to equalize their lessons.
There's a reason I referred to all this as a "global discussion" rather than a more "just believe whatever, man" kind of thing. Like you said, anyone can believe anything, but it may not hold up to scrutiny. Finding personal meaning can be great, but if you want to dive deeper you need to engage with others, whether it's the author or someone else. This makes reading pretty cool, and carries a lot of depth to whatever work you're looking at. It's like telling a joke, right? If someone says an awful, offensive joke that doesn't land, then very few good comedians will say "No, it's funny. You guys are all wrong." The audience reaction is key. And though writing a book isn't the same as live entertainment, I don't see why this is necessarily all that different.
Thanks for watching, though! I'm glad you liked it.
For a RUclips comment, 10 out of 10! I wish more people would write comments of this length and scope.
Dang fam you killing it!
Thank you, mi familia.
Another banger video
Bless, seeing you on both videos gives me hope to not be a one-hit wonder.
im a simple man, nichi music is best music
1:32 my stupid ass actually looked it up to see if it was real.
Also ther is no poop Dimension ther magict it to. It was vanished into the grounds of hogwarts untill ther decided plumbing doesnt Sound do bad afterall
That's a slippery slope. If I was being actively malicious, I could twist your words to mean any number of things and back it up.
Death of the author is, at best, a flawed concept. Art - in all forms - is just communication. Communication is the exchange of information between two or more parties for the purposes of understanding. Death of the author is deliberately misunderstanding what an author is trying to say.
In the case of Zootopia, it *is* about racism. It was just poorly done. You understood the author perfectly. It was just the author's message is... very flawed. That doesn't mean the message means anything else because the reading is flawed. It just means it is flawed.
It would be like receiving a note from a dead family member regarding his will and then being obtuse about who he wanted his inheritance to go to because you want something out of it.
It is a very selfish and self serving concept.
Yeah literature stuff is wacky, that's for sure.
All art is communication, sure. But communication is a two way street. If I make a joke about, say, someone's weight, and they take it as an insult even though I believed it to be light hearted banter, should they immediately suck up the emotions they're feeling and start laughing because it was a joke? No, I think it's somewhere in the middle. The author in this case can clarify his meaning to ensure his intent of humor is known, but the consumer still has validity to his interpretation and can understand the intent while still disliking the joke. It would be selfish of the author to say "get over it, it was just a joke so you can't be upset," but also would be selfish of the consumer to say "fat jokes are always insults, no exceptions, you were being mean on purpose." I would say your interpretation just moves the selfishness into the author's favor. The statement may end up still being a joke, just a bad one. But the unintended meaning of it being an insult is absolutely a valid way of interpreting it as well. And in media where the meaning is not directly stated, turning your brain off until the author speaks seems like a bizarre way of consuming it.
It's why I made points about the author "contributing to the global discussion." The Death of the author doesn't have to actually be a flagrant disregard for the author, but could instead be the death of his rule over the interpretation, making it equally as valid as anyone else's. At least that's how I tend to use the concept, regardless of whether it matches with what Barthes' beliefs were.
Ultimately, I do value an author's intended meaning quite a lot. I just also value my own interpretation. And other people's if they make good enough points.
@@feedjompo Anyone can tell the *intent* of the joke - the question of if someone is offended by the message communicated is an entirely different question to the intent. You can know their intent and still think they are wrong - just like I think your comparison to perceived offense to be incompatible with the current discussion. I know what you're getting at - but I believe your logic is flawed. That doesn't mean you communicated something different.
An author doesn't get to dictate the reader's reaction to information - which is what I said before, so I'm glad we are in agreement. Just because you make a joke, doesn't mean people have to find it funny. Likewise, the reader's reaction doesn't change the fact that it was a joke. The intended message doesn't change because you project different meaning on the words than the communicator does. Does it have the intended effect? No. Does the message change? Definitely not.
As for the claim that you have to wait for clarification from the author... do you need clarification every time you hold a discussion? Surely you can hazzard a guess as to 90% of the meaning if you know the basics of human interaction. Further clarification may be needed for unique or rarely discussed concepts, but that's true of a day to day conversation just as much as any art. If someone came up and spouted esoteric perspectives i'd ask for clarification, not run to my friends and proclaim a valid meaning extracted from words I barely understood.
The author has sole ownership of the *intended message* - how the audience reacts to the content of the message and its intentions is beyond his control. As it should be. Be that reception offense, elation, condemnation, or thinking that the curtains symbolize depression. But your reaction to information still doesn't change the meaning of the message.
For goodness sake, if you don't own your own intentions you own nothing. I'm fine with saying "this is my best guess" but if the author steps in and says "no" they are the only authority on their intentions. Unless you care to call them a liar, which seems arrogant to the extreme.
Uh, so I think we agree, but theres a critical misunderstanding here. The death of the author doesnt state that an authors intended message is wrong, but rather the intended message isnt relevant when consuming media. In the same way that someone can intend to make something enjoyable, and we can understand that, but certain subjective and objective qualities can point someone to a conclusion that is different from the author's intention.
And, yeah, you would have to wait for clarification from the author when it comes to deriving meaning. Art by an anonymous source, surrealist art, abstract art, art with an obtuse story but the author intentionally doesnt elaborate or dies, a piece of work that delivers its meaning so poorly it implies that the opposite meaning is true... in what way would these not trap you into waiting for clarification? And if they dont or cant clarify, then do you just say "it's a mystery" and never think about it again? There may be a true answer, but its lost, and so we would have to rely on the work itself to provide the meaning.
To repeat myself, the death of the author wasnt to rob the author of intention, but was a critique of critics and consumers overrelying on the authors intention and life when forming their own opinions. Basically, like you said that we agree on deriving subjective meaning being fine and valid, this was to encourage people to stop telling themselves that they were wrong in their interpretation unless it aligned with the author. If the author writes left and meant right, then theres no issue believing he meant left.
The author still owns his intention. We can understand that separately from his work. But his intention does not force others to agree that his text shares the intended meaning. Not because the author is a liar, but because he lacks the skill to properly convey his thoughts, or he just doesnt feel like making it clear, or the work has an unintended but well supported second meaning, or one of many other reasons. Maybe that's pompous? But it is similarly pompous to demand that everyone buy into intention over what can be derived solely from the work in isolation.
So again, I think we agree? Intention cant be taken away from the author, but the interpretations can vary wildly? Maybe we would disagree on whether the subjective interpretations could be supported to the extent that it be considered “provably true” based on the art in isolation. I think that to be the case, but your take is understandable as intended meaning being the only truly provably correct interpretation, though I think that limits the text considerably. If someone was to ask I'd say your answer is more literally correct, but I would prefer to separate the two to keep the text “pure” if that makes sense. And that was the intention behind the concept as well.
Curious about your thoughts, lemme know.
For a second I thought this was gonna be pro JK Rowling. Im glad its not though.
As a person who plays star craft I throw my piece of the sand where an ocean used to be since even though I don't agree with the actions of who made it, I'm unwilling to make my life worse because people want to preach morality boycotts instead of making actual changes. Every company starts to have unmoral choices once they get to a big enough system so pinpointing only one thing seems hypocritical in itself. Also Insanely good video will definitely look forwards for more from you as it is very well put together and clever glad the algorithm sent me this way and hope it does it to more people.
Thanks! I'm glad you liked it.
How do you have so few subscribers?
Hopefully I just need more eyes on my content. RUclips seems to pass around videos really slowly when it has very few views, but as it performs better, it gets recommended more. I am a relatively new channel, after all. It's actually pretty interesting. I appreciate the sentiment though!
@@feedjompo I discovered your channel thanks to the KH3 video, keep up the good work!
@@abildamil I'll do my best!
He has 2 videos.
hmm I see and noted massive way to cope.
The copium is highly contagious.
Embrace the cope.
Was depicting the bad/disinterested English teacher as a black woman and the prolific/inspiring one as a white man a coincidence? Or did you just have the exact same public school experience as me?
It's just a coincidence, though the good teacher I had in real life was actually a white guy. Finding usable stock photos makes you just take what you can get.
Bro thinks he is Internet Historian
I've been found out
Disliking for the thumbnail. Jk gets too much hate. I bet you don’t understand what her position even was .
Thanks, but it's more of a clickbait thing. I'm talking about the Death of the Author, not why she's good or bad.
She sucks.
It's impossible for JK to get too much hate, in fact it's never enough.