Media Literacy is Dead and You Did It
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июл 2024
- Media literacy is extremely dead. We did it. lets talk about it
Here is the banned build: • Annoying BARD 5e build...
How to Use the Most POWERFUL SPELL in Dungeons and Dragons 5e
• How to Use the Most PO...
SORCERER CLERIC: • This CLERIC/SORCERER B...
MONK: • This Monk Build is INS...
Join this channel to get access to perks!:
/ @offbeatoutlaw
Check out the Forever DM Playlist, my original skit series:
• When your Forever DM m...
JOIN THE PATREON: Patreon: / offbeatoutlaw
Support me!
Merch: offbeatoutlaw.com/
Patreon: / offbeatoutlaw
Twitch: / offbeatoutlaw
BECOME A MEMBER
Discord: / discord
WATCH ME DM
Twitch: / offbeatoutlaw
WATCH ME PLAY
Twitch: / sirfeffers_
RUclips: / jake111791
Songs Provided by Arcane Anthems, Epidemic Sound, and Super Smash Bros
Outro Song, Swear to My Bones: • Persona 5 OST 106 - Sw...
Other music: / glitchxcity
• [Twitch safe] Animal C... |
• Rahh - kawhi leonard -...
As a university lecturer I've also noticed the lowered media literacy.
This was absolutely not what I expected from your channel, but this was amazing and I'd love to see more. We'll done!
The hatred of "The curtains were blue" in my experience by the lack of author death.
My family called it 'guess what te teacher is thinking'. Where the teacher will be fishing for a specific answer.
They'll go "why are the curtains blue?" And you will go: "well, the story uses divers and deep sea fish a lot, while the character is being metaphorically squished by his responsibilities. The curtains are 'deep blue' to represent 'the deep ocean ' like its crushing him"
And the teacher goes 'no, its because hes sad.' making you as wrong for your analytical approach as the slacker that said "because they're fucking blue."
If a lot of effort and no effort is published the same, why try?
Precisely why English class is killing media literacy
The worst part is that this is essentially the same result, making this like the teacher punishing the students for finding a more thorough and reliable strategy than the teacher originally wanted to give
I don't think I've ever seen a person use the term "Death of the Author" in any discussion about Authors who are dead. I have seen it used in two ways, the way you described in the video, and in the way of "I don't care about the author let me enjoy the thing." which is wrong for an entirely different reason.
yeah, when people talk about Authors who are dead like that, it has nothing to do with media literacy, its more being able to publicly enjoy a work with out feeling like their supporting a problematic creator.
like I legit hav no Idea why he thought people were talking about "Death of the Author" with this stuff, its honestly extremely baffling?
@@HighPriestPlays because people have been saying it. On twitter. A lot.
You anecdotal experience does not beat my anecdotal experience
@@OffbeatOutlaw Whatever yoy say, Don Quixote.
@@OffbeatOutlaw can confirm.
People that think that there's no further meaning to the text they read have never tried to do some creative work. You have to choose EVERY word you use and they have to make sense to you. Artists have to deliberatly create EVERY line that they draw and if they are trying to tell a story, there is literally 0 reason not to try and add some extra meaning. Media litteracy shouldn't be exclusively taught in university, it should be an important part of the school curriculum.
Especially in modern literature. If it's on the page, it has meaning and is important for some reason. One of my favorite things to point this out is weather. If you aren't told it's raining, you don't take any notice but if the author says "thunder boomed overhead" it changes literally the entire setting of the scene
As a former "gifted" kid, I never knew why college classes were so much better taught than high school classes of the same genre, but this makes a lot of sense. People learn to learn, not memorize. I appreciate the perspective shift, and from honestly one of the last places I initially expected. Keep it up, hopefully it catches on.
I originally subscribed for your dnd content. But this ... this quelled a hunger for thought provoking topics that I didn't even know I had. This was amazing! I hope that more people click on this video because it's easily your best work. Thank you.
funny thing is even if it is Alastors last name then it still fits the interpretation but adds this second layer of irony to it with his rejection of his literal last name being altruist. so even then the interpretation doesn't actually challenge the scenes meaning even though undoubtedly people would use it to do so.
I would LOVE to see you do more videos like this. Like, I really enjoy your usual stuff, but this is definitely one of my favorite videos of yours.
Liking, commenting, already subscribed, and sharing. This is a great breakdown of a subject that is close to my heart, and I hope it gets good reach.
Wonderful video offbeat, definitely a different vibe than usual but your commentary was wonderful and intriguing. I hope you and all who read this have a great rest of their day!
More video essays would be awesome. Keep it up bro
I hadn’t even heard of the term “media literacy” until recently; I loved creative writing and read basically everything in front of me but I still don’t conceptually understand some of the ideas behind media literacy, maybe it’s just my brain being weird, like insure I can create an explanation, but is it correct? Am I just making stuff up? This is coming from a conservatory violinist who constantly wanted to do my own expressive interpretations of music, but those are notes, not words and such. I also work as an IT engineer and write really pretty documentation so I might just be odd lol.
In media especially writing and television and movies there is no “correct”interpretation. Macbeth is at its most basic about a succession crisis where the king gets killed in his sleep. But you can also set it in hell to bring out the themes of deception and the slow descent into madness all the characters experience. All interpretations within media are valid as long as they are supported by the text itself
Phenomenal video 👏🏾😌 it makes me sad for the obvious reasons. But it also makes me hopeful, due to the fact that you are at least making note of and aiming to share these functions of our relationships to media. As well as the fact that you doing so implies that others are probable to do the same. Which may not counteract or for that matter impact the decrease in media literacy what so ever ..but the concepts you are speaking about being more widely know could be one way to perhaps make a difference. At least in the thinking and lives of those who see it or know others who have. Anyway thanks for the awesome vid. I truly appreciate the work you do Noble Sir 😌🤌🏾
I really enjoyed the video and glad to see another video by my fav dnd creator
Great video, this was a really fun way to talk about such a depressing topic! lol
low key give us mroe of this offbeat i loved this video
Oh baby, talk nerdy to me. 💜 (Yes, this is somehow nerdier than your D&D content and I still love it.)
Loved this video. Definitely a fan of stuff like this.
I thought I was pretty good at media literacy, until you said the thing about metaphors. Yeah I really don’t know what the intended use for a metaphor is. It’s like its guess good when trying to explain a point but other than that I have no clue.
I think the main reason reading comprehension is down is because technology has replaced reading as entertainment for a lot of people. And as reading comprehension decreases, the general media quality decreases to match the reading comprehension (your stuff is awesome btw, I think this was a great video with very interesting points that I hadn’t thought about) and the reading comprehension drops and the medial quality decreases and on and on in a downward spiral. Also, very entertaining, I would love to see more of this style of content!
nah i think active defunding of public education is a bigger issue.
just want to give some props to your editor. that man deserves a biscuit while down in that basement, he does great work
I agree! He does excellent work making sense of the rambling
Best of luck on the LSAT. I’m sure you’ll do well. When you get into law school, be sure to make outlines to summarize all your notes from each of your classes and update them weekly. I just finished up law school recently myself and this was the key to my success.
Onto the topic at hand though, a couple of notes.
1. The death of the author as an absolute is a tad shortsighted in one respect. It is often used to interpret writings to mean something different than what it originally could have meant. I don’t mean in the manner that a different set of eyes from a different background would interpret it differently. I mean in the sense that language changes over time. (You’ll find this pretty regularly as you read old legal cases). Language is merely a means of communication. If language goes through a substantial change, such as the change that occurred to the word “awful,” it would be nonsensical to apply the modern definition of the word to a text. You need to translate it accurately to modern language before analysis, just as you have to translate from different languages entirely. Scrutiny ought to be applied on modern interpretations of words with meanings that have shifted over time just as it is with translations from other languages. Otherwise you are not actually examining the true body of the text. From that point onward the death of the author is appropriate. But before hand, you are not actually examining the text itself, but something else which was effectively written at a later time when the meaning of words changed.
2. (More of a tangent/preaching to the choir but I’m curious on your thoughts on this matter) How do you think we might be able to resolve the problem of anti-intellectualism? I’d say the roots of it make it difficult to stop. Anti-intellectualism is a growing problem that is hard to effectively counter because people have been exposed to reasons to distrust experts through the information Revolution. Intellectuals are interwoven with experts in the public consciousness. I’ve encountered the idea many times that you have to have some fancy degree certifying your expertise in order to be taken seriously in various intellectual discussions. Intellectualism is thus seen as something for the trained and educated expert, not the common person. This is worsened by the obsession academics have with using obfuscating jargon to make engagement or challenging of their ideas not feasible for the disenfranchised. Experts, the ones held out as having a monopoly on intellectual thought, have commonly been held out as infallible. As information has become increasingly accessible to the layman through the internet, many have learned of instances where experts were categorically wrong. (Some instances of the experts being wrong are controversial, but I doubt you would challenge my assertion that phrenology was baseless. Though I may substantiate this or provide alternative examples if you so wish). My hypothesis is that the common man sees the failure of experts, and thus deduces that nothing they have to say has worth. As such, the area of intellectualism that experts are said to have domain over is seen as worthless. Breaking down the barriers to intellectualism appears impracticable with our current academic culture. Do you have ideas on how intellectual discourse might be made more approachable to the layperson?
Best of luck in your legal education.
Honestly I’ve never learned so much about media before this video and I definitely think if you enjoyed making it offbeat then you should make more
Please do more videos like this.
Something interesting I've noticed, since I'm in high school, is the difference of how my teacher runs the classes vs all the other english teachers. When we do our assigned reading, we're not told to write about what the book says, like most of the other classes, but instead, what the book is truly about. To Live is a great example of this, and so is White Tiger.
As someone who enjoys hearing theories on fictional characters based in logic, I loved this video. Personally I wouldn’t mind seeing more. Thank you
honestly grate vid I like the topic and it was very interesting.
“He enjoys being an asshole” where have I heard that one before 🤔🤔
I started paying attention during the forever dm series... I'm glad I didn't unsub after it appeared like it ended, also... I feel like death of the author has become default for people who analyze this stuff and people who enjoy passively
I liked this so much it made me activate the notifications!
I would enjoy it immensly to see more of that kind of content.
But for the sake of argument I'd like to bring up some points.
1. Hate MEG as much as you want, but it made you do research, which I think more people should do, which validates its existance in my unqualified opinion.
2. Whoever edited this and put the 8bit theme in the background after you hating on that abomination of a Storry written by JKR. I love what you do, please never stop
I've always found Death of the Author (Hello fellow Arts Bachelor) to be too binary for my tastes.
As I found it lead to anachronistic readings & very simple surface level takes from those looking at works with no consideration for intent. This is not always the case but way too often I encountered Intent of the Author being replaced by bias of the audience uncritically; a lack of self awareness slipping into the vacuum left behind.
Its why I started advocating for the "Zombie Author" as a joke.
The Author is dead but the total ignorance of intent leads to brainless analysis.
(Edited for grammar because don't try to type out arguments in the time directly after waking up)
When people say "it's not that deep" I usually respond with "it is that deep you are just that shallow".
Disclaimer:
french is my first language so pardon me if my i'm not talking about macbeth or the fact that school want the majority to stay dumb so it can still have some working individuals that won't be able to perceived that they are exploited.
Now that that's clear for everyone. *clear his throat* a big THANK YOU that i'm not the only one that knew about "Altruist" not being the last name of Alastor. Also, a little thanks, for all the efforts you put in that video so people of your comunity may try to elevate themselves to a new level of comprehension.
And that's something you can maybe enjoy to analyze to see what you think of all that text and it's under meaning.
I think the issue is, a lot of people think the author's vision is the objective truth of the piece of media. Yeah, maybe the author just wrote the curtains to be blue and didn't think too hard about it, but does that matter? If we can find meaning in something mundane, why shouldn't we? Writers aren't perfect, I know this for a fact because I am one and I suck!
I just had a thought: Death of the Author sounds like how a few centuries / couple millennia ago or whatever religious scholars weren't literalists, they believed that scriptures only had value when new meaning could be derived from them.
Once got into an argument with someone about death of the author.
He took it to such an extreme that each individual book in the series must be judged as individual, separate stories that are only linked by authorial or publisher intent. Death of intent means, for him, that an unsolved question in book 1 of a trilogy cannot be answered in book 3.
Even if there are clues sprinkled throughout the first two books, the intent of the author about what those clues mean in each individual book do not matter. An unexplained moment in book 1 could have any number of explanations, and that you can freely reject the author's later answer in Book 3 as "canon" to that first book.
Rejecting the entire premise of sequel stories affecting the impact of prior stories because of death of the author is wild to me.
Sounds like your friend doesn’t understand books. They should try again
I think Death of the Author (as the final arbiter) is a key factor causing a decline in media literacy. It excuses dismissing the deep and interesting explorations with "It's blue" level responses.
Have you ever considered becoming a teacher? This really helped me understand and want to learn more about media literacy
okay. they seriously thought that was Al's last name?
*just, flat faces*
"how am I smarter than 95% of the internet?"
7:46 _IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT THE ROCK THINKS!_
Well now I know that you read stuff, I have a few questions.
1. What’s your favorite genre?
2. What’s your favorite series?
3. Have you ever read the Inheritance Cycle?
1. Lots of favourite genres, big fan of fantasy novels, comedy plays but I like lots of things
2 favourite series currently is the storm light archives
3 no but I have heard of it!
@@OffbeatOutlawI HIGHLY recommend it. With how much you’ve probably read, it probably won’t be the best, but it’s my favorite book series
@@thecyberrabbit1440That's the one That's "Star Wars with Dragons" right?
@@myself2noone I would not describe it as that at all
I LOVE RRR! Watched it for the 5th time last night it's so good. The Hindi dub on Netflix isn't bad as it's still the same actors for the voices dubbing themselves, such a scam that Netflix didn't get the rights to the original Telegu version.
Dormitabis enters the chat:
You are firing shots like when you were saying what your preferred dnd class says about you as a person.
He's Clark Kent with this video. Then he becomes Superman in D&D 5e videos.
Get validated son!
The reason reading comprehension is down is because middle grade and YA novels are being sterilized of "sexual" and "problematic" content.
Dear Offbeat Outlaw,
First, I want to apologize, Mr. Outlaw. This is rather short for an essay, but I understand that this still makes it quite long for a comment on one of your videos. Needless to say, I quite liked this video and I hope you create more videos like it in the future. The topic of media literacy is so important. Even as someone who is getting his degree in Math and Physics, I am constantly disappointed by the media analysis skills of my peers. This both serves as a way of saying I liked your video and a way of saying that this may not be particularly well written. That being said, the purpose of this essay is to respond to your statement about inception. I will start by explaining why I disagree with your interpretation of Inception and, after that, I will give an alternative view of Inception as it is a film that means a great deal to me. Your statement on Inception is as follows
“I don’t care what Christopher Nolan means by his stupid fucking movies that make no sense. I don’t need to care. If I think they're dumb I get to think that freely and it’s a valid opinion. I don’t need him to clarify “oh, Inception’s ending was supposed…”. I don’t actually care what Inception’s ending was supposed to mean. Inception’s ending was bad because it doesn’t deal with the major themes of the entire movie. The movie isn’t actually caring about “what if reality isn’t real”; it’s more about how ideas are made and the conception of ideas and the battling of ideas. That’s my interpretation and I don’t care what Christopher Nolan thinks and I don’t care what you really think either, but that’s related to the comment section. Although please do debate me in the comments section. I love those long threads”.
As a personal example about the function of “death of the author”, this works great. However, as an interpretation of Inception, I find this wanting. In fact, based on your statements later in the video, I think you should find this wanting too. Many of these statements about Inception are guilty of many of the things you subsequently point out as the causes of media illiteracy. This actually happened frequently enough in the video that I found myself wondering if it was intentional. If this was intentional, then I am far too irony-poisoned to tell. If it was, you got me.
We’ll begin by analyzing your thesis, you claim “it’s more about how ideas are made and the conception of ideas and the battling of ideas.” Unfortunately I have nothing to go off of in terms of how you justify this claim, but I am already comfortable saying that you seem rather guilty of something you would later point out as a flaw in the way we teach people to analyze media at the highschool level. Three minutes later, you tell the audience that “to what extent is Shakespeare’s Macbeth about revenge” is a shitty prompt. I wholeheartedly agree with you that asking someone to write about how Macbeth is about revenge is pretty stupid. This is why it is so disappointing to me that your hot take about Inception is that it is “about how ideas are made and the conception of ideas and the battling of ideas”. That’s such a novel opinion. You mean to tell me that the movie, Inception, just might be about inception. This has to be at least as trivial as saying Shakespeare’s Macbeth is about revenge. You made abundantly clear in your video that everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of any given piece of media. But, even you go on to say in your video that “even if there is a simpler explanation, expect a more interesting one. Come to your own more interesting conclusion”. So you’re right that you are entitled to your own interpretation, but, as you also made clear, it is not the fault of the movie that your interpretation of it barely made it past the title. Suffice to say, I can see why you may not have enjoyed this movie if this is all that you were able to glean from it.
Just before you stated what you think the movie is about, you stated that you don’t think it’s about “what if reality isn’t real”. I agree with you to an extent, but this is also why I find your actual interpretation so disappointing. I am all too aware of the countless essays written about why people think that it’s all a dream in the end or why it isn’t all a dream in the end and the many ways the movie makes it seem like it may be one or the other, but we both know that isn’t the point. While those people did miss the ultimate point, you also missed the point as well. Your claim that Inception’s ending is bad because it doesn’t deal with the major themes of the movie is atleast as contrived as saying “the curtains are just fucking blue”. You make clear in your essay that it is up to us as an audience to “come to your own more interesting conclusion.” This is why it’s so disappointing that you failed to see the many interesting things there are to see in Inception’s ending.
I think, for me to say anymore about your interpretation, I would have to start making assumptions about how you’ve chosen to justify it and I don’t think that would be particularly fair to you. From this point forward, I’ll present my view of Inception because I think it’s only fair that if I am to be critical of your view that I should present mine.
While I think you were right in saying it’s about a battle of ideas, I think this interpretation is too vague to capture the message of Inception. Inception asks a simple question. Is it morally wrong to believe in something knowing it isn’t true? This is where the key conflict in this movie comes about. It’s a conflict between faith and doubt. Tons of people came away from this movie with the “what if reality isn’t real?” interpretation and I can understand why they came away with this interpretation. The “what if reality isn’t real?” interpretation is, in a lot of ways, a surface level view of the one I’m about to present. I call this view surface level because it leaves out almost all analysis of the characters themselves and assumes that the ambiguity of the ending meant that Inception was agnostic on this overall question. However, I think Inception takes a rather bold stance on the issue and that this stance can be seen through the development of its characters.
My analysis will mainly look at the character development of three characters. I’ll be primarily analyzing Cobb (played by Leonardo Dicaprio), Mal (played by Marion Cotillard), and Fischer (played by Cillian Murphy). The movie begins with Cobb washing up on shore. There’s a cut to a memory of Cobb’s children before he’s taken in front of a very old Saito. He says that Cobb’s top reminds him of someone he once knew who believed in certain “radical notions”. We cut to the past with Cobb talking about “what is the most resilient parasite?”. The presentation clearly implies that these were the radical ideas that Saito mentioned. The most resilient parasite, as Cobb says, is an idea. Once you’ve had an idea, you can believe it or you can deny it, but you can’t get rid of it, at least not completely. This is the starting point presented to the audience and the rest of the film will play with this.
In this story, Cobb and Fischer arc as characters in parallel with one another and the one constant of the film is Mal. Mal becomes the embodiment of doubt itself. She comes around in Cobb’s dreams whenever he’s starting to see through the illusion. Once he can see past the facade, that’s when she arrives. Mal doubted so much that she didn’t believe anything was real and that resulted in her committing suicide. Cobb feels tremendous guilt for this since this doubt was something he placed inside Mal’s mind through inception. The tragedy of Mal’s character is that the doubt that Cobb placed inside her mind killed her and now, in death, she is the representation of the doubt in Cobb’s mind. Cobb still doubts if the world he is in is real to the point where he carries his top around just to be sure for himself. He wants to salvage what’s left of his family by doing this one last big job. However, doing this means being confronted with what he did to Mal as he has to perform that same procedure on someone else.
This is where Fischer’s arc as a character becomes rather interesting. Cobb has the job of planting a seed of doubt in Fischer’s mind over the course of a set of dreams. Fischer starts the film as the head of a large company that had just been given to him by his father. His father died with his last word to Fischer being “disappointed”. This gives us a pretty good sense of the kind of upbringing Fischer probably had and the kind of resentment Fischer has for his father. Fischer is expected to run his father’s company meaning he lives in the shadow of his father forever and yet he doesn’t even like the guy. In the first dream, Fischer is presented with the idea that his father may have kept a safe for him. In that safe was a will that broke the company into components. This doesn’t make sense. The father that Fischer knew wanted more than anything for Fischer to be the man to carry his company forward into the future. This is the seed of doubt that first has to take hold. Maybe, Fischer didn’t know his father as well as he thought he did. But, the next layer down is where Fischer is presented with a new way to view his father. Inside the deepest vault in his mind is his father laying on his deathbed choking out the word “disappointed”. Fischer says to his father “I know dad. I know you were disappointed I couldn’t be you”. But his father says, “no, I was disappointed that you tried.” In that moment, Fischer’s life is placed in a whole other context. He’s felt this lack of identity his whole life and maybe his father wasn’t trying to force his own identity onto him, but he just wanted Fischer to find it for himself. Is this actually true? We, as the audience just like Fischer, can’t possibly know for sure, but it’s implied that this idea is something Fischer chooses to believe in regardless. He seems so much happier for believing that his father maybe just wanted him to be his own man that he chooses to believe that even though we can never know if it’s true. The morality of this is fascinating. Cobb’s team is psychologically manipulating a man into torching his fortune and that man comes away from the experience with a better outlook on his father, his identity as a person, and his life going forward. The questions one can pose about this circumstance alone are boundless. Is it better for Fischer to live in the shadow of his father or is it better for him to build an identity for himself but have that identity be fundamentally built on what is likely a lie?
As I mentioned, this arc parallels Cobb’s arc as a character. He wants to get back to his children, but doing this forces him to confront his doubts about whether this is all real or not. This conflict has clearly eaten him up inside. He’s stuck between worlds such that he never gets to fully live in any of them. To convince Fischer, he has to enter the dreams without doubt or Mal will threaten to ruin the whole operation. The ending of Inception may be ambiguous, but it is a conclusive end for Cobb as a character. He’s taken back to his home in the US to meet his kids. When he’s finally there, he’s tempted by a moment of doubt and spins his top to be sure that all of this is real. But as the top is spinning, he sees his kids after years without them and, in that moment, he no longer cares whether or not any of this is real. Whatever reality this happens to be, Cobb chooses to live in the world where he gets to be with his children. He’s happy for, arguably, the very first time in this movie outside of memories. Much like Fischer’s arc, the ambiguity of the ending is a question to the audience. It’s easy to think the movie is asking us if it was all real or all just a dream, but once you analyze its characters it’s clear that this film is asking a far more interesting question. Whether it was all real or all just a dream, why does that matter to us?
Sincerely,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Door
P.S. I forgot to include this, but your statement about Meg 2 genuinely made me wonder your statement about inception was ironic. I totally agree with your statement about how Meg 2 is obsessed with convincing you that it’s realistic somehow. Marvel movies do this too. Trust me, as a physics major, nothing takes me out of a movie more than quantum voodoo science explanation for why the incomprehensible fantasy bullshit I’m seeing on screen is somehow possible. The reason I laughed out loud when I heard this though was because, in the same video where you said Inception’s ending didn’t deal with the themes of the rest of the film, you, unknowingly, summarized exactly how it deals with the themes of the rest of the film. The entire point of the ending and of the rest of the movie is to ask us why it matters to us whether or not it was all real. Even the characters in the film no longer care by the end, but we care so much as an audience. In fact, I another interesting interpretation of Inception is as a critique of people who analyze movies exclusively through the lens of realism but end up missing what the movie was about and the beauty of what was right in front of them because they never bought in. This interpretation is incredibly ironic considering just how many people would subsequently interpret the film as being about whether it was all real or not.
7:11 *sigh* ... ight, bet. Fuck it pseudo essay time.
To start, I think your arguments are a little bit self-conflicting, in that you both argue people need to read deeper into things (start of anti-intelligence - curtains are blue) but then against creating personal interpretations in media that go beyond taking the media at face value (rugrats, adventure time, and the whole concept of death of the author).
But now to my bigger debate with this video. I think that you present media literacy as a very one note prescribed thing, especially in the context of death of the author. You do this in nearly the exact way you presented your issue with english classes and how they constrain media literacy. You presented death of the author as a hard and true fact that the author's intent does not matter and that only the reader's intent does as the correct form of analyzing a piece of media. You argue that the meaning of death of the author has been lost in modern cultural understanding. You state that it has one definition and only one true interpretation. You present we shouldn't strip meaning of things in media, but also argue that shouldn't read deeper than the base context of the media. You yourself are creating a very narrow context to define "good" media analysis. This may not have been your intent, but that was how it came across to me. Also ironically, people interpreting death of the author differently than Roland Barthes intended is literally an example of death of the author and arguing against it is a paradox.
Death of the Author is just the argument of an essay critical of traditional literary interpretation that gained widespread notoriety. Arguing for or against it has raged on and on and ultimately, its an opinion or philosophy of literary analysis. Its not a problem that it exists, the issue is people using it on its own as a way to invalidate the analysis of others, becoming almost a logical fallacy in its own right. And it's not only the death of the author stans who do this, many circles of academics view it as such a bad argument that they consider it satire and will refer to it as validation to dismiss the personal interpretations of audiences. So I think presenting it as fact as opposed to an opinion is a really bad representation of it. Are there people who have so little understanding of it that they use it where it makes no sense in any context? Absolutely, but idiots are idiots, and the internet is full of them. It fits up there with "Jack of All Trades" and "Blood is Thicker than Water" in terms of idioms that the layman has unintentionally butchered worse than Lennie with a puppy.
Since it'd be a bad debate to just argue against your point without presenting an alternative, here's my take. Death of the Author shouldn't be a hammer to destroy the forms of analysis of media from its creator's perspective. It also shouldn't be a squeaky toy balloon mallet of satire to mock audience perspective analysis. Instead, it should be a second bucket that goes next to the bucket of author-centric literary analysis, basically a framing device for analysis. Both forms of analysis are valid and have interesting discussions within them, but neither bucket discredits the other. Valid discussions/debates can be held so long as we recognize the context of which bucket of analysis we're working within and we respect that we're working within that viewpoint. Its fine that those two forms of thinking might come to conflicting interpretations, but those interpretations are allowed to agree to disagree without discrediting or dismissing the others outright.
Ugh, I was supposed to be working on my ACTUAL thesis instead of this.
I think my point was more to argue a point about media literacy and less to talk about death of the author per say, DOA was more my entry point.
As far as the mocking of the rugrats theories and whatnot, it was aiming to more make a point about how this theory does nothing to enhance the media as it is and purely is there as an interesting thought experiment. If all the rugrats are dead babies it doesn’t really add anything to the discourse other than that.
Maybe I didn’t articulate my point the best but I was less trying to argue DOA is the be all end all media tool, but more that it’s a lost tool that’s absence is being felt in current day
@@OffbeatOutlawYeah, knowing your personality from interacting in your streams, I never actually believed that you considered it the be all end all. I just think that how you presented it made it out that way, especially when many of your points in other sections tied back towards death of the author in varying amounts of roundabout ways. Hence, it was open target for debate... and you know... ya called out the comments to debate and Nimbus gonna Nimbus.
Also does this count as a rare win for chat?
@@NimbusEntry no, but nice try 😎
Bruh you wrote a mini novel. Lol, do you need a hug?
So English isn’t my first language but watching hazbin I heard Alastor say altruist but I thought it was his like name, but it seemed odd for him to mention his character so I turned on the subtitles and I’m like oh, yeah no he’s being a shit saying he’s an “altruist” it’s not that hard, simply looking at his character you can see it’s not in his character to suddenly mention his last name, it’s not the vibe of the character or the scene whatsoever
I genuinely think Hazbin Hotel grabbed audiences cause it allowed for deep interpretation and Viv has tried to encourage that. Every prop in every movie is placed by a person for a reason, The whole room is repainted, and yet people say "cause it just is" and it DRIVES ME MAD! Just try and tell a fabricator who spent one-month making magazines for a background in a period drama scene in a newsagent or conner to shop that their work didn't enrich or inform the world the director was building! oooft!
Not the video I was expecting, but great nontheless
I know this isnt what you asked but although i feel like you made some good points I do not watch this channel for this type of content. (Also, I am not a native English speaker so that might play a role)
Okay but what is old Bill Shakespeare’s WORST play?
Symbilline
I found it interesting
Dude, I don't have normal literacy. How do you expect me to have media literacy?
You brought up Harry Potter so just a reminder. Harry Potter is a slave owner canonically.
So on the topic of reading comprehension, I've had a lot of people in my life, Tell me that extensive vocabulary, especially in regard to spoken word, Will lose me friends. So, I dumbed it down habitually, because normies would find it graining to hear big words.
And I've heard the same done to others. That's probably why altruist is a hard word to identify for the Everyman.
I don’t trust this media
I want to see some more of this maybe going more in depth with how companies like Disney are stretching out storys that should have ended a long time ago like the mcu and fast and furious (dont get me started on fast and furious)
Don't get me started on teaching English. We know the science, we just can't get a curriculum past admin and politicially active busybody parents intent on making their kids stupider.
The again... there are quite a few people who went to the school of 'hard knocks' and I don't think they got knocked hard enough.
I feel that the struggle for media literacy parallels (among other things) the lack of professionalism and ownership in the workforce. We have too many people who do the bare minimum, know that something will fall apart because of it, and shrug it off saying "I did my job". Education has been getting worse for a long time . Thanks for your informative and entertaining rant! :D
It's really interesting to me that a generation that grew up watching game/film theory, which are channels based on the idea of "the blue curtains mean something" still struggle with media analysis so much
I think the message here was: People are dumb can we be smart again?
(Me wanting to trigger Offbeat with this)
I think the argument about interpretation of McBeth being about descent to hell, while valid from psychological standpoint of the character it comes off a little snobbish. Like you don't care about other interpretations at all, because your interpretation is the best and if the author actually wrote about revenge then he would be wrong
There's no issue with finding more than one interpretation. That doesn't mean you're negating any other interpretation.
I’m not saying I don’t care about other interpretations, I just don’t care about Shakespeares intent behind his own writing
@@OffbeatOutlaw That attitude is what I disagree with
@@ogurasyn2354 why do you disagree with the tenants of death of the author
@@OffbeatOutlaw I disagree with fully disregarding author's intent, some semblance of it should stay. Also not caring about the intent in someone's work might be hypocritical, as it follows the same "It's not that deep" notion you don't like
The truth is that media literacy has always been "dead" before your father and your father's father and your father's father's father, there has always been people who think and people who act
Ain't this just philosophy?
Also I can'T take my eye off the righ light in the glasses, it's a weird effect and makes me think "Hey it's not centered" and start not listening... What's the subject? Right Media Literacy, it's in the tittle!
Welp overall, nice rant about your subject that raise curiosity. Many well done new gender tengent and editing.
RRR is better than 90% of all marvel movies after endgame
Alright, that's it.
NONE of you know what "The curtains were actually blue." really means. And I say this both to the people who think that it's anti-intellectualism, and to the actual anti-intellectuals who think this is their holy goddamn grail. You have missed. The point.
The point of the curtains were fucking blue was Anti-PRETENTIOUSNESS, or Anti-FALSE intellectualism.
The reason that whole post has the teacher speaking in such flowery language about CURTAINS of all things was to show that the teacher was, in fact, NOT very intelligent, was NOT, in fact analyzing the story. Instead, they were trying to PRETEND to analyze the story by waxing lyrical over what were essentially a random background detail that offers no real insight. The teacher tries to hide the fact that they are not actually saying anything meaningful by drowning it in fancy words. It is polished bullshit served on a silver platter
The whole point of the curtains were blue is that the teacher doesn't know what they're talking about. That the teacher PRETENDS they are being deep and insightful, but they are saying NOTHING.
There is a difference, and this is an important thing because not understanding this is just an anti-intellectualism and thinking that any time someone looks deeper into a story they are making a fool of themselves, there is a difference between ACTUALLY analyzing something and TALKING OUT YOUR ASS.
EDIT: Or, in other words, the Teacher in "The Curtains were Blue" is the guy saying "What if the Rugrats was a coma hallucination." They aren't analysing the story as it exists, they're making up BS to stroke their own ego.
I find it really funny that so many people fail to see the deeper meaning in that phrase.
This is why "Death of the Author" is a double edged sword. Because if you don't reference back to Author at all, you get pretentious pretenders who say a whole lot of Nothing that they don't have to make plausible or justify. "Rugrats is a hallucination" literally cannot be falsified because Word of God doesn't exist in that paradigm.