#author intent

[natureboy96]

SJM, ACOTAR, Authorial Intent and what's "fair" to criticize/validate

So, the title of this post is, while accurate, a bit vague. I decided to put my two cents out on this because, since I joined the ACOTAR fandom a few months ago, I've found a lot of very harsh words being flung one way or another, largely based around the characters of the book or the direction people believe SJM has taken/will take the narrative. There's also been a lot of rather nasty attacks on people for their takes, their ships, and their criticism. I'm not an expert on writing, but I thought it worth having a proper, fleshed out discussion on these topics.

Author's Intent vs Reader's Interpretation

When it comes to understanding a text and gaining meaning from it, Author's Intent and Reader's Interpretation are generally the two fields which are subscribed to. Authorial Intent argues that the meaning of a text should be derived by what the author wanted the reader to take from it, and that a text is inherently connected to the intent of the author; for example, because SJM doesn't put as much emphasis on certain side characters, the reader shouldn't consider them important. Or, that SJM and the narrative intend and clearly state that the IC and Rhysand are the good guys, it only makes sense to view them as such. Reader's Interpretation posits that texts are meant to be interacted with, and that the meaning people can derive from them is subjective, because individuals have different life experiences and perspectives which can lead them to understand a text in different ways; A reader can see Rhysand's actions as hypocritical based on their interpretations of what he did and how in ACOSF. Or, coming at the text with a different understanding on trauma or sexuality, a reader can come away from a text finding Tamlin to be a more sympathetic character than hateful one. Both of these arguments have existed for decades, if not longer. And the thing is...

Neither of these are wrong or right ways to read a text

There is no "one right way" to engage with or criticize a text! If you believe that SJM is a bad writer because she uses characters as plot points rather than giving them actual growth/retcons things as needed for her narrative, or that Tam’s actions have earned him his redemption, that is a valid assessment based on what you read in a text. If you think Lucien and Elain have no chance because Elain has on multiple times been shown being friendly, even intimate (not romantic intimate, just close) with Azriel and that the author seems to hint towards a rejected mating bond, that is a valid assessment too. Anything in a text, written, implied or intended, is a valid avenue of criticism.

At the same time, people are fully allowed to have their own head cannons and fanfics about characters outside the written narrative. Just because SJM wants you to ship Feysand, doesn’t mean you can’t write or ship TamlinxRhysand, or Gwynriel or Rhysta. Art, including text, is open to interpretation and you are allowed to make it your own too, even if the text itself makes it clear it’ll never happen. Hell, shipping Elain and Tamlin because they both like flowers is entirely valid! Fan fiction and ships don’t have to be defended by the text/author’s intent, they are your own creation and can be based on whatever you want! Have fun, go crazy with em.

What isn’t ok for criticism

You can criticize the actions and choices and motivations of a book character all you want, using whichever method of critique you want. If you want to call Rhysand a pedo because he came to a pic of his child, you can make that take. If you call Tamlin a serial abuser who brought everything on himself, you can make that take.

What isn’t ok, is using your takes to criticize the people who disagree with you.

(These are just a few examples I’ve seen in the last few days, but I’m pretty sure everyone in this fandom has seen personal attacks along these lines, some far worse than the ones I grabbed. It’s also not a matter of degrees of bad faith criticism, all of these are of the same vein and one isn’t more ‘valid’ than others because it wasn’t as harsh.) Believing Rhysand is a pedo doesn’t make it ok to call people who like him the same. Believing Lucien is a terrible person doesn’t make someone who likes him a person of questionable morals. Having a different method of criticizing a text doesn’t make someone else’s different way of approaching the text wrong.

At the end of the day, these characters, this world, this narrative are all constructs, not people. You are not Feyre, you are not Tamlin, you are not Rhysand or a Valkyrie or Elain or Cassian. You do not deserve to be judged for the actions of fictional characters, and you should not be judged for your opinions on these characters either. And you need to let others have differing opinions on characters, even ones you dislike intensely.

Let people like the characters they want to like, let people criticize the characters they don’t like (or the ones they do) and for fuck’s sake, don’t take it or make it personal.

[imsosocold]

I hate it when people take the most shallow version of a myth, develop a surface level interpretation of it, and then insist they know the authors “true intent.”  Especially when they refuse to view the tales within the specific time frame they were developed.

[jackalpants]

Discussion of the film No One Will Save You, including spoilers, under the cut.

Okay so. First things first this is a good movie! It is well acted, well written, a good watch, and I think it tells the story the writer/director wanted to tell.

It didn't land for me.

One of the key points of this movie is near the end, when our lead gets pulled into the alien spaceship and we discover that the reason she's shunned by the town, the reason she keeps writing apology letters to her friend, is that she killed said friend when she was a child in an argument, by deliberately hitting her in the head with a rock (this scene echoes her much more accidental killing of one of the aliens early in the film).

The aliens then seem to decide not to possess her with one of their little alien parasites, and instead in the end of the movie she's living her best life in a village of alien-infested people, dancing and accepted by a town that had fully rejected and excluded her. This is where the writer/director and ai parted ways!

His intent was that she'd already paid for her crime with a life of isolation and the aliens basically did her a favour by not infecting her and giving her a fresh start among a newly infested town of people. He wanted to leave her better off than how we'd found her.

For me, the difference was that she deliberately hit her best friend in the head with a rock? When she was, what, 11 or 12, in the flashback? And viewing THAT memory is what made the aliens decide not to parasitize her. I felt like their thought process was "okay, so she's killed a couple of us during the invasion, regrettable but this happens- it IS an invasion- so let's just double check and OH MY. She is a killer by nature. Let's not include her."

And so in the end, I saw it very much as a case of incorporating those parts of humanity that the aliens found acceptable, and playing along with the remainder - giving those humans too dangerous to include little controlled environments in which they can live out their lives and die.

A big part of this I think is that all movie long we were going "Oh no what did she do why does everyone hate her I bet there was some awful accident she feels responsible for and everyone blamed her" and nope, you find out it wasn't an accident- her friend pushed her down so she killed her with a rock. I don't think she intended to kill her friend, that's not clear, but it was a big rock. It didn't land "wow she's been beating herself up for years;" it landed "oh yeah if she'd killed my kid and still lived in my town I'd spit in her face too."

Hence the uncomfortableness with the ending; I did not want her to get a happy ending. I felt she'd never actually dealt with the fact she killed her friend; she hadn't even moved away. I felt like she didn't grasp the consequences of her actions, and since the movie is taking place during an invasion she doesn't understand, I felt like that was on theme- right up to the end, where she gets a little play village that accepts her, just like the one she had in her house at the beginning.

So yes, good movie! Worth a watch! Confused in themes!

[chittychittyyangyang]

Listen, you should never film strangers in public without their consent, but I swear there need to be fines or something for people who do that shit in some spaces. For example: I had to go to the ER last night, and some jerk filmed a woman who just came in and was clearly having an asthma attack. She immediately got to go back, and he was unhappy about that. Believe me, I get that it sucks having to wait when you're in pain, but you don't get to pick who deserves care when. The medical system in the US is a nightmare, and the ER could be the worst moment of someone's life. No one deserves to be recorded because some jack ass believes someone doesn't look like they need care.

This is fine to reblog. People who film strangers should be shamed if nothing else.

[fictionadventurer]

I love libraries.

I'm browsing the WWI shelves (as you do) and notice a very old book about the war. I glance at the first pages that talk about how one day the war will be over and we'll look at this place and not see any signs of the battlefield.

Then it hits me. And I check the publishing date.

This book was printed before the war's end. Not written. Printed. The physical object was created in 1918, while the war in question was raging and the end was as yet uncertain.

Now I'm standing on the other side of the apocalypse, with this physical link to that era in my hands. I'm living proof that the war did end and life did go on and we can all look at the end of the world as a long-ago memory.

Reading old books is cool enough, connecting our minds and hearts through the ideas of people who lived long ago, but there's something extra profound about holding a copy of the book that comes from the time that it was written. It's a physical link between the past and the present connecting me to those long-ago people. A piece of the past come into the future that gives me the chance to almost take the hand of some long-ago reader, to hold something they could have held, connecting not just mentally but physically to their era, a moment of connection across more than a century.

Excuse me while I go weep.

[decarbry]

heroes always stop

[livums]

there's no way to say this without sounding like i can't take criticism (i can, it's something i had to work on like everybody else), but some people are like. really bad at giving constructive criticism and i think if you're receiving crit from someone that's not a bad thing to keep in mind for ur own sanity lol

[coldemergency]

Harry: Why does this potion smell like sociopath

Hermione: Harry… that’s Amortentia

Ron: Wtf does ‘sociopath’ even smell like??

Harry: It sort of smells like Voldemort

Hermione:

Ron:

Harry: OH

[corsairspade]

every time i interact with the silmarillion i get weirdly excited about the fact that the authorial intent is that it's a translation of historical accounts. it's a tertiary source! none of it is first hand. it makes it so much more interesting. was the legendarium a mannish tradition? what parts of these were written by pengolodh? by rumil? what loremaster has recorded this? would there be bias in the accounting? can i trust what i'm reading, from this viewpoint, this many years after it would have been written?

what has been mythologised, what has been sanitised, what is third-hand written on rumour? it's such an interesting thing to consider.

[khaire-traveler]

Digital Temples are really lovely, and I adore the fact that all these temples are suddenly popping up (I actually have been thinking of dedicating one to two deities as well), but the usage of the words "priests" and "priestesses" is genuinely concerning to me. It makes me feel a bit wary.

Why, might you ask, would that even be a problem? Let me explain.

These words carry a lot of power with them. With these words comes the implication of religious authority. If I went around saying that I was a Priest of Hermes himself, it asserts a sense of power and authority in a religious space. There are a lot of people who would love to use that power negatively; I have been directly impacted by this many times over. I am always wary of people who use this title as a result of what I've seen and experienced.

Those titles also carry the implication of having an established religious knowledge that others do not. It's not just a title used to identify people who are in charge of a Temple; it is a title that explicitly identifies someone as a researched, trustworthy, religious figure who is extremely experienced. This ties into how these words carry power. A lot of people I've seen stake claim to this title have also claimed to speak for the gods directly. Either that, or it is often assumed of them, and that bothers me a lot. I have yet to meet someone who genuinely speaks for the gods in every situation.

On the inverse, I'm sure some who use these titles mean it in a harmless and genuine way (I've met one before), and that's fine, but if you are one of such people, realize that these words seriously do carry immense implications along with them, and do not fall into the trap of moral superiority or dictating rules in a religion you do not own. The most genuine people I've met who identify with these titles are the ones who don't advertise them publicly. I'm not saying the use of these titles are wrong, but I am saying that people seem to be inclined to abuse them. Horrifically abuse them.

Instead, I suggest using a title such as "Cleric". I've seen another temple do this, and personally, I feel it is less intimidating and claims less power of authority. Or maybe not using a title at all. Why use one if you don't need it? Hell, you could call yourself literally anything else.

So, please, those who run digital Temples, I ask you to be aware of the power the words "priest" and "priestess" have before applying them to yourselves and ask yourselves why it is that you're choosing to identify with these titles in the first place.

[hallasammal]

>"You're... a ghost?"

"... I am, aren't I...? Sure. Kind of. And this tree is my grave. Let's say that."

(So, then...)

>"Whose ghost are you?"

Isatmonth entry 5. Ghost

I thought about drawing the actual ghosts or MDP, but this line has been living rent free in my head since my first playthrough. Though, i think the direction i ended up going is pretty vague...

[emkini]

He looks trustworthy

~

Inspired by In the Hall of the King Underhill by @hellenite, whose fics have consumed my brain.

Also this is my first colored pencil illustration in 5 years and I did the whole thing in as many hours, it sure as hell ain't no masterpiece but I had fun and that's what matters

[tinseltina]

trying to make fanart of leona from @kiame-sama's humans are extinct twst au (warning it is a yandere au and 18+ so minors DNI)

[guardianspirits13]

➖♦️➖♦️➖♦️➖♦️➖♦️➖♦️➖♦️➖

dear lord y'all should learn to tell the difference between a gag in writing and an actual instance of harmful behavior... news flash but kids find mild violence funny and- shocker- can tell the difference between something that was the in-universe equivalent of roughhousing and actual physical assault with the intent of harm.

so much of the younger generation is caught up in the lack of nuance perpetuated by the internet that in trying to analyze a piece of text they read so far into it that they miss the point entirely.

this person also cites that because Percy (who is KNOWN for his sarcastic and often exaggerated narration) says that he's "scared" of Annabeth at times that means he is in an abusive relationship. Have you considered that in the context of the way the narration and the surrounding universe is constructed, this is a compliment?? Of her ability to kill monsters and survive?? or in some of the context they cite he's intimidated by her because he's a TEENAGER WITH A CRUSH.

For the love of the greek gods stop taking everything so literally!!!!!!

And I want to clarify, this is not about shipping. I couldn't care less if you like Percabeth or not. Heck- if you want to interpret the text in the way that makes you personally believe that they're toxic or whatever I'm not gonna stop you, but I draw the line at using your warped perception of the narrative to lash out against people who enjoy it, let alone calling them "abuse apologists".

no reading comprehension-ass website for real 😩

[spop-romanticizes-abuse]

it's really weird that the main villain of spop is black-coded when he's a fucking colonizer.

[cookie-nom-nom]

Reading Barrayar I felt trapped in Cordelia’s head. It’s incredibly effective for the dread of war as a civilian. Plans and machinations happening beyond you, with no input. Hearing of things happening that seem far off and like yeah that’s awful but then suddenly it dominoes in a way that destroy your life and it’s not your fault and you could've done nothing at all to prevent it. Especially the tension of being hunted in the Dendarii mountains with no idea how the war is going, if they’ve already lost, if it is already too late. Cordelia is doing actively important things in service of the war by sheltering Gregor, yet there's this pervasive feeling of helpless lack of control. She spends most of the book with this dread of not knowing when the next threat to their family will come, and I don’t think it could’ve been done so effectively if we had access to the information Aral had. I found it frustrating at times, since it felt like Cordelia was swept up in events with little agency (at first; obviously our dear captain didn’t remain there). I wanted so badly to be with Aral seeing and knowing and making the decisions.

But that’s the point! Most people have absolutely zero agency in those situations and little information and it’s terrifying. Barrayar captures the feeling of being a civilian in war where so many narratives narrow in upon the heroes and 'men of history' that control conflicts. That's what readers expect. I think that’s why I loved the ending so much. After so long trapped with Cordelia, just trying to survive the larger machinations of Barrayar’s bloody politics, it felt so, so good to finally be on the offensive, to have information the opponents don’t, to finally have power and the means to control what happens. It's a relief to the constant tension of having no agency in a giant conflict that frankly Cordelia had no business being affect by, yet was swept up in because of her love of Aral.

Which is the second thing I deeply enjoyed in Barrayar. I love how the war is made so human. A messy tangle of human relationships control it. I can’t stop thinking about the hostages. There are just so many children being used because the war holds the future hostage. Tiny precious Miles utterly incapable of comprehending how large a pawn he is. Young grieving Gregor vital to the plans of both sides whether dead or alive. Elena, who should be of no importance but she is because that's the kid of an unimportant soldier, just like every other hostage is another piece in the web of the war. I keep thinking about the relatives of Aral’s men caught in the capital. The hostages that Aral refuses to take. Everyone just trying to take care of those they love, and the points where they must put other priorities over their relationships are heart wrenching.

Barrayar looks dead on at how little people try to survive a civil war. From the mountains where the fighting seems so far, and information is slowed to a trickle of the singular mailman. The invasion of forces that disrupts people who may not even know there’s a war yet. The scientists and the genius lost in a single blast that goes unnoticed. The urban populations trying to sneak in food and people and keep their heads down. Random citizens debating who to sell out, weighing risks and bounties, if it will get them the favor with the occupiers that will help them survive. All so small in the grand scheme of things, and yet they are who Barrayar concerns itself with.

Cordelia’s uncertainty and fear would’ve been undermined if we were allowed to see in the heads of people driving the conflict, because Barrayar isn’t about those people. It is the desperation of two mothers, powerless and kept in the dark, that topples the regime.

Addendum: Cordelia’s relationship to Aral firmly places her in an upper class position that is important to note when discussing the role of civilians/‘little people’ within this analysis. But as a woman on Barrayar she is extremely limited in the power she is allocated, especially compared to someone like Aral, which would be the military leadership POV that novels more focused on the grander scope of war would utilize. Again not to say Cordelia has no agency or power, but it is not to the degree of the people in charge. Thus I place her alongside the average people swept up in a war outside their control. Still, her position as a Vor Lady gives her some access knowledge and connections that she turns into power, which while limited are far more than the average citizen. Her significance to Vordarrian is exclusively viewed as yet another hostage, an underestimation that Cordelia readily exploits, but still afforded only due to her status. Cordelia occupies a position of importance but not power beyond the scope of the people she’s formed direct relationships with, which only further ties into the essay's thesis.