#i think the intent of the author and the audience interpretation are just as important as eachother when talking about art

[allgremlinart]

I kind of sort atla episodes into "liberal fuckery" "neutral" and "decisively NOT liberal" and I feel like its kinda slept on how the Wan Shi Tong episode fits into that last category....

[artist-issues]

Some Things I Believe About Stories

Stories should not be PRIMARILY created to entertain. They should be created to teach, or encourage, or inspire, USING entertaining qualities. The Romans used entertainment to distract the populace from corruption. J. R. R. Tolkien, on the other hand, described "escapism" as "a prisoner of war escaping from enemy camp to go back home." You're not running from reality to fantasy when a story does it's job. You're running from the dark, twisted side of the world to something that reminds you of the good, the true, the beautiful, the correct. You've been imprisoned by bad ideas and confusion and dark perspectives, and the story shows you how to escape and get back to true and beautiful reality. It's got a point, it's not just for diversion.

Stories should be made to serve others and leave the world better than they found it. Storytellers should not only tell a story to exorcize their personal demons or point to how clever and artistic they are. That can be a nice bonus. But the point should be to serve the audience. Think about it. When it's made, it's timeless; it will be read or watched or listened to by the next generation, or the next. What are the storytellers letting fall into the hands of the people who come after they're not around to explain or gain a profit?

The storyteller should be passionate about the story while they make it. This could look like a sense of duty, or fun, or just excitement. But those outward emotions usually signal an inward understanding of how important the story is, and therefore, a level of compassion and care for the eventual audience.

You can like a story or dislike a story. You can interpret a story or misinterpret a story. Those things are subjective. But whether or not a story is good is objective: it can be measured. Does the story say what it is trying to say in the clearest, most compelling way possible? If yes, it's a good story. If no, it might be great entertainment. It might be funny. It might be cool. It might be quotable or franchise-able or profitable or even memorable. But it's not a good story if it does not say something in the clearest, most compelling way possible.

A story's main point, or theme, is the most important thing about it. The characters, the set design, the pacing, the soundtrack, the language, the use of color or lighting or blocking etc.; all of those pieces work best when they are unified in the goal of communicating that main point or theme.

Death of the author = death of the story. It's point is to say something. If you claim the speaker's intent is meaningless, so are the words spoken. If you claim it can mean anything, your words are meaningless too. We all might as well tell no stories and blabber gibberish instead. It’s one thing to say you understand what the author intended, and you like to think of it in/wish it were another way. But it’s quite another to say that what the author intended is unknowable or doesn’t matter. You’re either calling the author a bad storyteller or, again, recommending we all speak gibberish.

Both form (the quality of the story and it's elements) and content (the main point or lessons) matter. Without one you have a lecture, not a story. Without the other you have entertainment, but no valuable, timeless, beautiful truth to make it a “story.”

[bakuhatsufallinlove]

I love your translation posts, they give great context to some moments! I’ve seen chapter 348 translated with Toga’s confession as almost being narrated by Bakugou but I’ve also seen it translated as a more generic voice. Is there a correct version?

This is a complicated question, so let me put it this way: while there is less uncertainty in Japanese about who is narrating 348, that doesn't mean there is no uncertainty. In general, I think English audiences are responding with much more scrutiny to something that is not particularly notable in Japanese manga.

We don't have a lot of information about the narrator that refers to Izuku in the third-person. "Midoriya Izuku" is not how Izuku narrated the story when his internal voice was dominant, he always used first-person pronouns to tell "the story of how I became the greatest hero."

In the series, there are inner monologues that convey what the characters are thinking in the moment, and then there is "framing narration." Framing narration positions the story in the past tense, implying a future person is relaying this event with more knowledge about its conclusion than the audience has.

Inner monologues have distinct clarity both in visual cues (who is on-screen) and how they speak.

Ochako's inner monologue during 321 is indisputably Ochako; the opening words are placed over her image, and the Japanese audience is already familiar with the fact that Ochako calls Izuku "Deku-kun" and uses the personal pronoun watashi (私), so when she says "we," it's watashitachi (私たち), pluralizing her own pronoun. If this were Shouto's monologue, we would have had Midoriya and orera (俺ら) or oretachi (俺たち) instead. The audience would have understood the distinction, although the visual cue centering Ochako would feel a little odd, like Shouto is looking to her while thinking this.

Framing narration, of course, has little-to-no visual cuing, so we have to rely on speech patterns, and thus end up with subjective interpretation and predictions.

348's framing narrator uses kare (彼) to refer to Izuku as he. This is not a pronoun we have ever seen Katsuki use for him. Katsuki exclusively refers to Izuku in the third-person with aitsu or soitsu (あいつ or そいつ), both of which mean "that guy" in a rude way consistent with his typical speech pattern.

There is the possibility that the audience is supposed to be surprised by the use of "shitty nerd" following the pronoun kare, because the two contradict each other, and "shitty nerd" is put at the end of the sentence like a zinger. This might imply that, sometime in the future, Katsuki starts using kare for Izuku, and that really would be a shocking change, because it is extremely polite and non-confrontational compared to how he normally talks. I don't think that is what is going on, though, for the following reasons:

In manga, framing devices are not always explained or particularly thought of as noteworthy. Some series use a framing device at the beginning, and then completely abandon it by the end. Some series have very inconsistent framing devices, sometimes due to the intense workload of weekly chapter output and sometimes because the author just wants it that way, and they use the inconsistency as a way to be poetic, develop story themes, or conveniently convey information.

English language media, especially in recent years, has much more strict rules and expectations about framing devices. I don't think Japanese audiences are as concerned about who this narrator is because the expectations are different.

That said, from both a writing standpoint and the experience of the audience, Katsuki's words being brought up in the middle of a love confession is not meaningless. The literal identity of the narrator may not be that important in the end, but what the narrator conveys is absolutely still important.

There are a lot of ways you can interpret Katsuki's words being brought up here, but it is undeniably intentional. If he wanted the "nerd" meaning without connecting it to Katsuki, Horikoshi could have just called Izuku an otaku, since that term carries an implication of "indifferent or ignorant to human relationships" in Japan. If this were just about how oblivious Izuku is, he could have said that Izuku 空気を読めない (kuuki wo yomenai, can't read the room).

But he chose the words Katsuki alone uses for Izuku--words that were historically derogatory but, as their relationship has improved, could almost be read as friendly or affectionate.

I personally feel like it is foreshadowing, but we'll have to see how it shakes out!

[merp-blerp]

Honestly, it's bothering and saddening me to see how pretentious some people in the DPS fandom are being because of an album title. The Tortured Poets Department isn't even out yet, calm down. It might not even be that inspired by DPS, the titles might just sound similar. There are already swifties here. Exhibit a: me. A good majority of DPS edits I see are to/inspired by a Taylor Swift song (or a song by The Smiths). Let's be happy some new people will potentially join us (I haven't even seen swifties enter the DPS fandom in mass droves like some of you are acting has happened) and possibly be introduced to some queer themes DPS has to offer (some of those are in Tay's music too btw, on purpose or not). [Edit: I initially left this fact out of this post, but in hindsight, I think it's important to remember that DPS is not textually queer and all its subtext very well might be accidental. That doesn't mean that it's not there or doesn't matter. I totally believe it does; author's intent matters, but so does interpretation. As long as you have textual evidence that some kind of subtext is present, you can't/shouldn't be told you're wrong. But it's not purely a queer movie. Therefore, DPS is not a "queers only" thing; not even a lot of textually queer movies are "queer only". The movie was made for all kinds of audiences, including straight people.] And I'm not always super knowledgeable on these things… but everyone being worried about “straight white girls in my fandom😩” feels somewhat misogynistic. As in, it reminds me of James Somerton making up white women in his comments section to be mad at. Some of you are making up stupid white girl swifties to be mad at. We already enjoy things like looking into poetry, just like you all. Let's not act like Folklore and Evermore don't exist, which are also poetry-inspired albums. There's honestly already some commonality with the fandoms, which is probably why both appeal to me. But even if there weren't, that shouldn't be why people can't like a movie and enter online spaces where people talk about said movie. And not all swifties are straight white girls. Once again, exhibit a: me. I'm not straight or white, but I am a girl. It just really sucks to see, especially since this movie is all about not being so stuck up and stuffy like the teachers at Welton or Neil's father. This movie's against the toxic academia some of you are seemingly pushing.

[horde-princess]

Nimona's origin story - or lack of one - is so important to me. like first she lies to you, then there's a weird metaphor that may or may not have anything to do with her, then finally at the very end there's a real flashback which clarifies. almost nothing?? EXCEPT perhaps it leads you away from the possibility that she's being possessed. personally my thinking is that she was born as a "regular" shapeshifter and became this colossal monster after she was "lab-modified." but i can't say that with any confidence, maybe the monster was part of her all along and the trauma just brought it out. maybe nimona herself doesn't know.

as frustrating as it felt to read at times, the ambiguity is the whole point. it's a commentary on how society (specifically christianity) will look at something it doesn't understand and try to stuff it into boxes it just doesn't fit in.

the whole "gloreth's beast" metaphor is so insane to me because it confuses you as the reader and makes you wonder if maybe nimona IS actually this satanic creature, or possessed by him. despite all your good intentions and your fondness for nimona as a character, there's a part of you which wonders if it might be true, because the author himself is implying it to you. it's only at the end that nate hints otherwise but still he leaves it up to the audience to wrestle with their own interpretation of what they've just read. i don't think i figured it out until the part where it says nimona's parents believed a monster had taken the place of their daughter.. i was like oohhhh i see what you did there

i've heard it said that nimona is a commentary on how society views lgbt+ people as a threat and i do think that sums it up nicely but. it's a story about how religion views queer people as a threat, how conservative christians stay in power by labeling us as the enemy, and how they get us to internalize this queerphobia so that we lose the will to rebel against them. it's about how oppressors have no say in how people take their stolen freedom back.

ITS ABOUT bipolar disorder and mental illness!!!! and the prejudice & discrimination & outcasting this community endures, which intersects uniquely with queerphobia and is still used today to characterize being gay and trans as mental disorders, as if that somehow justifies the hatred in their minds.

it's about addressing the fear & confusion surrounding the existence of queer people - "are they born this way? are they possessed by satan? are they mentally ill? are they a product of childhood trauma?" and Nimona is essentially like, sure. all of the above. or none of them. who cares? i'm here and i'm a human being - you don't have to understand me to treat me like one.

idk how/if the nimona movie plans to handle the ambiguity of her origin but its so so important i hope they're able to honor the spirit of it 😭🙏

[frogs-and-books]

My frustration has very little to do with what's canon and a lot more to do with the way fandom shippers feel like the lack of explicit confirmation can be used as a bludgeon against people expressing discomfort with the ship when fandom is a media space rampant with romance-centrism and when the coding is as explicit as it is. And then try to throw out "I accept he's "canon" ace" as a way of shielding themselves from criticism despite that not actually being anymore canon than anything else. Also, frankly, I think people would be entitled to get mad if they walked back from this coding. You talk about fighting for representation, part of doing that is voicing criticism when representation falls flat. (And walking back the coding would be falling flat even if that wasn't the intention.) I don't actually think Riz is canon ace or canon aro. Because I do believe in death of the author and that the ability of the audience to interpret art is very important. And I agree that heavy coding alone isn't enough to make something inarguably canon. The problem I have is the way that so many fans go out of the way to dodge Riz's potential as representation and refuse to support aro fans who see themselves in Riz. Mostly, as far as I can see, for the sake of continuing to ship a pretty bland ship. And a little bit to protect the creators from some potentially deserved criticism. (Also, having not watched Voltron, I can't speak to the accuracy of the Klance comparison. But generally ship happy fandom exaggerates queer coding on everything except ace and aro coding. So I'm inclined to suspect it's not entirely apt)

There's is no problem with aro people relating to Riz and seeing him as Aromantic, but if you don't like when people ship Riz with people, just block them. Other people shouldn't have to stop having different interpretations because they make you uncomfortable.

Maybe people are dodging representation for the sake of a ship! But if that's your issue, I think you're talking to the wrong person. I'm not saying he isn't, and I'm not trying to ignore the coding. I'm simply saying that it isn't canon. That doesn't mean that the characteristics that make people believe he's aromantic aren't there. He still has those traits no matter what his sexuality is.

I have said over and over that there is a lot of coding, and it's obvious why some people believe that he's aromantic, but stating that he isn't canonically Aromantic isn't an attack on anyone, it's a fact.

Also, please don't get mad at Murph if he doesn't make Riz canonly Aromantic. Coding doesn't equal representation, and it's his character.

[neolxzr]

imo there’s a difference between “queer coding” and very specifically playing to both sides whether or not the writers/artists/directors intended to make a character queer or not. I think that for enstars specifically, with the new valkyrie event, while people are happy that some characters such as shu and mika in the new event are being shown expressing their love for each other and their views on their sexuality and expression, people are frustrated that it is not explicitly said because of the company’s need to not confirm a character as queer in order to not alienate (homophobic!) fans. Because at the end of the day in happyele’s eyes, if that homophobic fan spends a lot of money on the game then they’re worth pandering to (shrug emoji) And I mean some people also just don’t like shumika

anon i understand where you're coming from but i think you are wildly missing the point in my original post

my point is EXACTLY that if you need the characters to walk up to the screen and say "i'm gay" or "i'm [insert some 21st century-friendly label]" or "this is my boyfriend" for it to count as queer media in your eyes than i think you need to do some reexamining about what exactly your views on queer media as a whole are

plus, they DO do this. they explicitly talk about queer themes out loud many many times in enstars. shu says to mika that they should, together, create the happiness that his grandfather was never allowed to have, after they spent the entire story detailing shu's grandfather's queer romance story. they probably kissed in hermitage, and the lyrics to acanthe talk about them kissing. rinne proposes to niki in every other story they appear in together. he told him to do a striptease during nightclub. tori has very explicitly gay feelings for eichi. arashi narukami exists. eichi, while talking to arashi in pretty mission, says "people like us," confirming himself to also be some form of queer. kuro calls keito an old word for spouse or husband. and SO many more examples. this is not "queer coding" or subtext, its just text.

in any case, authorial intent is generally of no interest when it comes to examining media. the conversation of what the author could have meant by something is wildly less interesting than the conversation about the ways in which the audience can interpret it. what the writers intended should have little to no place in the discussion. what we should be talking about is what the thing itself is saying, both implicitly and explicitly.

expanding your view on what exactly can be seen as "queer media" can only do you good. and it would do so much good to not give a shit about the possibility that homophobic people will also like the thing and interpret it as not queer. that is literally not my problem whatsoever, and it shouldn't be yours either.

what it seems like to me is that no matter what pieces of queer media will always be criticized in some capacity. if they're not explicitly queer enough, they're just bait and have no merit. if they are explicit, then they're promoting stereotypes, or its rainbow capitalism, or it's fetishization. there is no winning. the standards for queer media are absolutely absurd, but they don't HAVE to be. you don't have to look at a piece of media through this kind of silly cynical lens if you don't want to.

the discussion about a work loses so much interesting and important nuance when you try to shove it into a box of "good representation" or "bad evil queerbait." thats just really really boring way to view stories

[i-heart-hxh]

I see people posting things like, "Why are some people obsessed with proving your ship is canon? Who even wants their ships to be canon, it's more fun when it's not?"

I get where people are coming from with this sentiment--it is fun to have your own headcanons, your own control of how you're interpreting the characters, not being reliant on what canon gives you, etc. I'm very much in favor of people doing whatever they want in fanworks, canon be damned! Ship what you want, go wild, ignore canon altogether if you want!

But with HxH and especially Gon and Killua, it IS important to me how essentially canon it is for a number of reasons. One of these is that the bond between them is one of the main emotional cores of the series, and to reduce it down to "Haha no homo! They're just bros! If you see it in ways other than that you're delusional!" is a disservice to what Togashi is writing--and it's essentially willfully misreading the source material.

Obviously, no one is obligated to ship it themselves, no one is obligated to like seeing it in a romantic light, but it irks me when people pick apart all the incredible nuance and beautiful details in HxH, all the rich subtext and meaning, and then pretend that the very present subtext and romantic framing between Gon and Killua isn't there at all. Especially as throughout the years I continue to learn more about Togashi and look even more deeply into HxH and it becomes increasingly more and more crystal clear how intentional it seems, how much of this is thoughtfully put in there for people to pick up on.

There's so much shounen out there that puts on a veneer of gayness--essentially giving the audience just enough vaguely gay things for the female audience (as well as gay audience, etc.) to latch on to for marketing/merchandise reasons, while mostly pushing het ships in the canon material officially. (And I'm not saying in all cases it's like that, but I do think that's the trend specifically with shounen series.) With Togashi, it very much seems like he creates it out of his own genuine personal interest and because that's the story he wants to tell--the kind of story he's wanted to tell for a long time and can get away with now because of changing social norms and the fact that he's already incredibly popular and he owns HxH outright.

And as someone who loves Togashi's storytelling--all of it, not just the gay parts, of course--I care about what he's trying to create and intending to convey and it bothers me to see people outright denying it out of their own biases. I feel like people who deny it's there or refuse to see it in that way at all are missing a big chunk of the series, an important and intentional part of the series. (And this extends to other parts of the series that are queer, too, like Alluka for instance. There's so much in HxH that is queer in some way! Denying it all is there is ridiculous!)

And again, it doesn't mean people have to ship it, everyone is allowed to see what's there and ultimately choose to see it in a platonic way if they want, it's more when I see outright denial that this is the author's intent when all signs point to it being so that bothers me.

I think part of this is people just being casual viewers/readers of the series (though some of it is pretty blatant IMHO) and not being aware of all the Deep Lore that points to it being way more than in your average shounen, but a LOT of it is simply homophobia. It's frustrating being in a fandom for years where there are a bunch of people who go about picking apart all the nen powers and the beauty of Chimera Ant Arc in exhaustive detail and then utterly and completely deny that there are sound, well-documented reasons why a large part of the fandom sees it as a gay/queer work.

So hopefully this explains some of why I bother to argue the canon aspect at all, and why I think it matters to a lot of people specifically in HxH fandom.

[ironwoodprotectionsquad]

Okay I 'm that one anon who prefaced that I wasn't attacking and I mention that because I didn't know how to re-identify myself

Anyway I agree without you on how poorly they handled Ironwood's downfall but what else you said continues to baffle me as a writer and as one whose trying to grow and trying to incorporate more characters how would you suggest going about topics of emotionally "throwing away ones humanity" if said character has prosthetics?

Like...and understand I'm trying to figure out how to word this. If you were to take...let's keep rolling with James. As he was before the absolutely asinine commentary on what him sacrificing his arm meant. If his prosthetics are just that and not meant to symbolize anything. Can you talk about him or any character or original creation under the idea of what they could be doing to themselves emotionally or mentally?

I'm really trying to find where to go cause it just seems that with disabled characters writing certain things for them is heavily limited as to what can be done because certain attempts at things could be labeled as ableism when that wasn't the intention either in an a stumble at the execution of an idea or because the audience (and I'm not saying this is Rooster Teeth cause holy shit is it not them) took something about what was being done and applied it to an aspect of the character that the creator wasn't even looking at.

On that note what they did in general with Penny and whatnot was odd but what would you do about a character that if they had the choice didn't want a disability? This is a more of an out of somewhere questions cause typing this I always think of the Spirit Fairer discourse where there was apparently a character who had a wheelchair and I guess at someone point didn't have it anymore and was happy about that. But people got so mad that the developers rewrote the story so the character remaind wheelchaired bound, but that just makes me ask is it wrong for a character to want to be able to not have a wheelchair? Like is it wrong to write a story where a character wants to be able to walk? Like how would you go about having a character having a disability and not wanting their disability anymore?

Honestly anon as I said before I just….wouldn’t. To put it another way, what does having someone throw away their humanity add to the story? Why do you feel like you need it? And why does it need to be the disabled person? All people have humanity because they’re human. Trying to have someone throw away their humanity is…dangerous territory because more often then not those stories tend to rely heavily on either disabilities or mental illness to “justify” that and for obvious reasons that is extremely ableist. And even without using either of those things it still can be interpreted by audiences to be the disability or mental illness’s fault and what made them lose their humanity. It’s…far too tricky a subject for me to think ever is worth it to be in a story.

If you’re asking how to make a disabled character evil that’s entirely different because evil people can still have their humanity because they’re human. They just happen to be an evil person who does bad things. Making Ironwood evil isn’t inherently a bad thing, but CR/WBY saying that losing his arm is a symbol of his lost humanity is. Then repeatedly having the villains be disabled is a problem. It’s important to ask “why does the disabled character have to be evil” when making them a villain because so often disabilities are used a short hand for villainous traits which is ableist and harmful and tells disabled audiences that their disabilities are seen as villainous.

It is generally the job of the author to really think about these things and the tropes that they are relying on for their story. As a society so many people view more metal = less human which just isn’t true and is actively harmful towards disabled people. Do you remember at all the Mars Rover Opportunity? How emotional people got when her last words came out “My battery is low and it's getting dark”. My friend from my discord group put it perfectly: Oppy is all metal but she’s human. She wasn’t born, she was created but she was alive. We loved her to humanity. People mourned when she passed. NASA played a love song for her. Her being metal didn’t matter, just as James being half metal shouldn’t matter, just as anyone having prosthetics shouldn’t matter. They are still humans with humanity, and I just don’t see any reason to write a story about someone willingly throwing away their humanity.

So Ironwood "wanting" to throw away his humanity and becoming more monstrous is ableist. Doing this to any disabled character is ableist because their disability will inherently be used as a shorthand for said monstrousness either by the author or audience.

Here are a few good videos that discuss the topic further and really discuss the issues with disabled villains:

Some great points the video discusses:

A lot of villains motivation is being "cured" of their disability which stems from this idea that disabled people are miserable and hate being disabled and can only be whole and happy if they are cured. Yes some people would like to have a curse for their disabilities, not everyone wants that and having most villains want that is a problem as it stems from the idea that being disabled is inherently tied to misery and suffering which just isn't true.

It also makes the point about how oftentimes disabilities are used as a visual shorthand for inhumanity in their villains and them merely being disabled and looking "other" is a clue to the audience that said person is evil and even inhuman in far too many cases. We repeatedly see this in RW/BY with Tyrians tail, Cinders Grimm arm, Salem, and James's new prosthetic. All are framed as evil and monstrous to show us how evil they are.

At the end of the day, I think it is crucial to talk to someone who has the disability you want to represent in your work about how you are portraying them. I cannot and do not speak for all disabled people in this discussion and can only really discuss my feelings/the feelings of those I have talked with. When writing disabled characters it is critical to include people with those disabilities in the discussion of how the characters story should go.

[ancientcity]

One of the first things asked in survey #2 was “What makes a fanwork not RPF?”.

Now, there isn’t one concrete answer to this. In fact, the majority of people’s responses to this question fell into one of three categories:

Having aspects of being a “character”

Not being “out of character”

Author/Artist intent

(There were also a few instances of people thinking RPF stood for Roleplay Fiction)

To expand upon the first two, Joel (Smallishbeans) states in a QnA:

“When you see me in these videos, this is not what I’m like in real life most of the time. When I’m acting all crazy and stuff that is me just messing around, having fun, and sort of like playing a character where the character is myself. But I guess for me to actually do that, I guess part of it has to be me, as I do come up with these ideas all by myself and they are a bit weird sometimes.”

And in E. T. Hetzler's "Actor Self vs. Character Self: An Empirical Exploration", they paraphrase a chapter from A Dictionary of Theatre Anthropology by Franco Ruffini.

“The actor does not have the luxury of distance. The actor must create the illusion for the audience. But for this to be the case, the actor must surely see a distinct separation between the character and his/her personal self. This is not always an easy distinction to make.”

They go on to poll actors about their relationship with their role. Nearly 75% of respondents answered "It depends on the role and production. I can be detached or immersed." to the question of "How important is it to become your character?"

A few responses caught my eye in the survey I did as well:

But regarding Author/Artist intent?

Alright alright… what does this have to do with anything?

Once the essay I’m writing on this subject is out there, I will no longer have control of how it’s interpreted. Nor this slideshow. The same goes for any form of art, fanwork or otherwise. Even with the responses to the survey, I probably didn’t get exactly what was intended out of them!

Being both an author and someone who enjoys analysis, on top of someone who enjoys reading, I’m in a bit of a tricky spot. Do I subscribe to Roland Barthes’s proposal that “the birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the Author”? That the author must “die” in order to give space for the reader?

Or do I follow the whims of the statistician in me? To say, for certain, what is true or false about the data given?

Do I follow the wants of the author in me? To say, for certain, what is right or wrong about a piece of canon?

An author should be given space to share what they believe about their story.

A statistician should be given space to explain their reasoning.

But as viewer of the work provided, you should be able to come to your own conclusions and interpretations about a piece of media. Author intent be damned.

After reading the answers to this survey, I think it’s safe to say that I am in the minority that believes intent doesn’t matter. That as the reader, you are able to interpret other’s work however you see fit.

So I invite you to criticize my analysis of the data. I’m not perfect, and I’m still learning. But I can and will try to see different interpretations of the data.

[drugstore-love]

The Smallest Man Who Ever Lived

so many people, including those who say they are fans dislike TTPD and refer to it as lazy but I find it to be some of Taylor's best work. I appreciate the metaphors and how vulnerable she is with the narrative. She's not hiding; it's poetry. It's about emotion and the musicality really does come second.

Here's my song by song break down of things that I enjoy (and don't like) about the album for my own future reference so that I do not cave into peer pressure and start to hate the album on principle. Here are my personal interpretations and what the songs mean for me.

In no particular order The Smallest Man Who Ever Lived:

I think people keep calling this album lazy because it's really about the ending of relationships and the changes that you go through personally when a relationship end. They may be different relationships but I think people wanted a narrative change and that's not really what most albums are about?? Like unless they are complete capitalist ploys (which.......I digress) and Taylor now has the fanbase and the freedom to write whatever she wants, so this album, to me, was therapy.

Anyway, this song is when you see a completely different perspective of a person and your relationship once said relationship is over. I hate the production on this song and I'm usually an Aaron girly but the drums and strings feel forced and while I appreciate them for production value within the Eras tour they felt jarring and misplaced during the album listen. I think that they were went to convey emotion and raise the listeners blood pressure so they also felt agitated with the subject but the way they fade out with the song leaves a lot to be desired and kind of feels like the author is fizzling out during what, lyrically, can be argued as the most empowering part of the song. They succeed in capturing the audience's attention after the lullaby nature of the rest of the song but honestly are a distraction from the lyrics. However, I love the piano, especially at the beginning where it's almost a staccato, until the notes are played rhythmically together, it truly feels like poetry set to music. Lyrically, I find this song to be one of the most honest and telling. It feels like a letter one would write to their former partner with no intention of ever actually giving to them.

Was any of it true?

Gazing at me starry-eyed

In your Jehovah's Witness suit

Who the fuck was that guy?

You tried to buy some pills

From a friend of friends of mine

They just ghosted you

Now you know what it feels like

It feels like you were playing me this whole time. All the shit you said, the way you looked at me, fuck even the way you dressed. I thought that I got to see the real you, I trusted you, I believed you and the way you left reinforced what everyone else told me about you that I wrote off as untrue. (Insert vampire by Olivia Rodrigo)

Also appreciate the dig about this person being addicted to drugs because I interpret that line as "Oh you got ignored when it came to something important that you love? Karma, because I loved you and you ignored me"

And I don't even want you back, I just want to know

If rusting my sparkling summer was the goal

And I don't miss what we had, but could someone give

A message to the smallest man who ever lived?

All the effort that was put into wooing the author and winning them over and learning them and "loving" them. It feels like everything was a game, a joke, a plot in a rom-com that the protagonist was too dumb to figure out at the time.

I could never go back to what we were and if I thought you'd listen openly and respond honestly I'd ask questions, but mostly I'd ask why

You hung me on your wall

Stabbed me with your push pins

In public, showed me off

Then sank in stoned oblivion

'Cause once your queen had come

You treat her like an also-ran

You didn't measure up

In any measure of a man

You made me feel like the prize but once you had me you treated me like shit behind closed doors. You made me feel like your insecurities were my fault but it was your choice to stop considering me once you had me. You promised me better than my ex and then didn't fulfill that promise and made it my fault.

And I don't even want you back, I just want to know

If rusting my sparkling summer was the goal

And I don't miss what we had, but could someone give

A message to the smallest man who ever lived?

This bridge is pure poetry.

Were you sent by someone who wanted me dead?

Did you sleep with a gun underneath our bed?

What was real? Were you just waiting for me to let my guard down?

Were you writing a book? Were you a sleeper cell spy?

What were your motivations? This is almost begging for clarification

In fifty years, will all this be declassified?

And you'll confess why you did it

And I'll say, "Good riddance"

'Cause it wasn't sexy once it wasn't forbidden

The only rationale I can think of is you got bored and I know I'll be better off without this but even 50 years from now, even when I don't care anymore I'll still read your reasons. Once again reiterating that I only wanted what you promised before we were actually together and once I was yours, it wasn't worth it to you

I would've died for your sins

Instead, I just died inside

I would've done anything for you, and you're the one who stabbed me

And you deserve prison, but you won't get time

You'll slide into inboxes and slip through the bars

The way you made me feel should be illegal but instead you'll continue on as you did before

(really driving in the feeling of inadequacy one can make you feel, especially when you're a person who people idolize and then are disappointed in when they meet the real you. this is exactly what happened here, taking out speculation what's discussed in the song is: before we got together you praised and complimented and lusted after me and once I gave my actual self to you and opened up it wasn't what you wanted and that is detrimental to one's self esteem)

You crashed my party and your rental car

Never having to take accountability for your actions, you ruined good things for both of us

You said normal girls were boring

But you were gone by the morning

You said I was what you wanted, that I was different and as soon as I gave in, you left (giving into the discord:this is exactly how H describes Matty so..)

You kicked out the stage lights

But you're still performing

You ended this, you wrecked us and yet you're still lying you're still placating and manipulating me trying to save your own skin

And in plain sight you hid

But you are what you did

You never disagreed with the rumors but you really had me fooled about who you were. However, at the end of the day actions speak louder and when a person shows you who they are you should believe them. I always should have known who you are

And I'll forget you, but I'll never forgive

The smallest man who ever lived

I'm gonna move on, I'm gonna grow, I'm going to be happy but it's for me and I'll never forget the way you treated me.

[babbelswoofominides]

I was playing around with chatgpt just to see what's all the rage, and it's a fun little online encyclopedia, but it gets hysterical when you try and ask it some existential questions like "tell me why shipping Aziraphale and Crowley is considered problematic". Here's what I got:

"Canon Ambiguity: The relationship between Aziraphale and Crowley in both the novel and TV series is open to interpretation, with their dynamic being primarily portrayed as a deep friendship rather than explicitly romantic. Shipping them as a romantic couple may be seen as disregarding the intentions of the original creators and imposing fan fantasies onto the characters." Uhm, okay? Thanks but that is literally the point of fanfiction lmao. I understand this is just reporting what people might feel towards fanfiction, but the argument is as silly as if a human said it. Also, I think chatGPT remained way behind because the creators are literally the ones who gave us a romantic plot, we literally had the author slap-fighting people on twitter who said it was not a love story, so...

"Imbalance of Power: Aziraphale and Crowley occupy distinct positions within the celestial hierarchy, with Aziraphale being an angel and Crowley a demon. This power imbalance, coupled with their inherently opposing natures, raises questions about the ethics and dynamics of a romantic relationship between them, especially considering the potential for manipulation or coercion."

Uh??? I mean it has been stated that Aziraphale and Crowley are on equal footing (despite some fans thinking Aziraphale is stronger!Daddy or whatever), they quite literally cancel each other out.

"Normalization of Unhealthy Behavior: Both Aziraphale and Crowley exhibit morally ambiguous traits and engage in ethically questionable actions throughout the story. Romanticizing their relationship may inadvertently romanticize toxic behaviors such as manipulation, deception, and disregard for boundaries, sending a harmful message to fans, particularly younger or impressionable audiences."

This can... Be said of literally any show out there. No show is morally sound and pure??? I'm confused.

"Ignoring Diversity and Representation: Focusing exclusively on the relationship between Aziraphale and Crowley may overshadow other diverse representations of relationships within the story, including friendships, familial bonds, and platonic connections. This narrow focus may contribute to erasing or marginalizing LGBTQ+ characters and narratives that offer alternative perspectives on love and intimacy."

Sorry does chatgpt not know that Air Conditioning is an agender/nonbinary couple and male presenting, so how is it marginalizing lgbtq+ characters???

"Dismissal of Canon Relationships: Both Aziraphale and Crowley have meaningful interactions with other characters in the story, including Anathema Device, Shadwell, and Beelzebub. Shipping Aziraphale and Crowley to the exclusion of these other relationships may diminish the importance of those connections and overlook the value of diverse storytelling and character dynamics."

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuh....... What??? (why are all gifs so gigantic) Surely you mean the other COUPLES in the show, not that fans are missing the splendid opportunity of shipping Aziraphale with Anathema or Crowley with Shadwell... Right? RIGHT???

"Conflict with Personal Beliefs: For some fans, shipping Aziraphale and Crowley may conflict with their personal beliefs, religious convictions, or cultural backgrounds. The portrayal of an angel and a demon engaging in a romantic relationship may be seen as blasphemous or disrespectful, leading to discomfort or moral objections."

No I've actually seen this and it's valid. As long as these people admit it's not for them and don't harass other fans that might not even have their same religious beliefs, it's all good.

"Community Discord: The prominence of Aziraphale/Crowley shipping within the fandom can sometimes lead to tensions or conflicts between fans who hold different views on the relationship. Debates over the validity or appropriateness of shipping may create divisions within the community and detract from the enjoyment of other aspects of the story." Why are the only 2 valid points at the end lmao? In a word, shipping-wars. Are bad. And take the fun out of shipping. I concur. I was just maybe expecting... More from an app that is lauded left and right for being truly incredible, but what I've found is essays that are middle-grader level and facebook takes on fandoms.

[lurkingshan]

Shan! One of the things that I’ve loved learning during my Old GMMTV Challenge project is discovering filmmakers and watching through their project lists. Do you follow specific directors or screenwriters for Asian dramas? If so, who are they, and why? And which dramas of their do you recommend?

A fun one, and an area where I know we actually differ in our approach. In short, my answer to your first question is yes, but also no. :)

By which I mean, I generally do pay attention to who creates the shows I watch, because when I am impressed or infuriated by a drama I like to know who is behind it so I can look into their other work, either to pursue or avoid it. Sometimes I have to go looking for that information, but there are some creators who have such an obvious style that it sets them apart and makes it near impossible to miss the connections between their shows (Kim Eun Sook in kdrama, Aof Noppharnach and Jojo Tichakorn in tbl, Hwang Da Seul in kbl, Lin Pei Yu in twbl, etc). With those I might start something unknowingly and then be like wait a minute is this X’s work? I do maintain awareness and keep creators’ other works in mind when I watch something new because it's fun to look for themes across a body of work, and frankly, to know where the pitfalls are likely to come in.

That said, I do not feel any need to be a completist about any one auteur's resume, I don’t intentionally sit down to watch a creator's work in an organized way, and I actually prefer not to know that much about their personal lives, because I like to focus on the fictional stories without too much real world gunk getting in the way and clouding my reads. I am a "let the art speak for itself" girlie; I'm less interested in authorial intent than in allowing stories breathing room to be interpreted by the audience. I do believe in the Death of the Author school of thought and I don't think it's great when creators try to do too much to control how their work is perceived. One of my current beefs with the Only Friends watch experience is that there is so much real world gunk (branded pairs, shipping and actor stanning, creators posting on social media with context that is not included in the actual canon) getting in the way and messing with interpretations of the show.

Once you get into a fandom at all you will inevitably be exposed to a ton of this kind of thing whether you like it or not. And it comes up a lot in bl because so many shows are adapted from pre-existing source material and rely on known actor pairs, which inevitably affects discourse because people come to these shows with a lot of baggage even before they begin. But I am always interested in story first. I dove into I Feel You Linger in the Air and Absolute Zero with zero hesitation because timey wimey soulmate shit is my jam, not because these shows were made by Tee Bundit and New Siwaj (in fact that would be more of a deterrent than anything if I let it dictate my viewing choices).

So while I am interested in the undercurrent of melancholy across Aof's works, and Jojo's devotion to messy ensemble pieces where everyone is a little bit of an asshole, and Kim Eun Sook's uncanny ability to tap into the zeitgeist and create banger after banger across a range of genres, I don't need to know too much about why their areas of focus are important to them or how it relates to their personal experiences. I prefer not to use fiction as a means to psychoanalyze the real people who create it; instead I just try to engage with and appreciate their art as art and afford them respect as creative geniuses without making assumptions about how each work is meant to reflect their real experiences. Understanding some basic demographics about creators (as in, do they have the appropriate lived experiences to be telling the stories they choose) is about as far as my curiosity goes.

Question 1 TL;DR: I do like to pay attention to who creates the shows I watch so that I can follow the themes in their work, but I am not interested in following the creators themselves closely.

Question 2: who are the creators I recommend following? I have mentioned a lot of them above, and my overall recommendation is that if you are invested in a show, you should look to see who writes and directs it, not just who stars in it. Actors are of course important but usually it's the creative team behind them that really makes or breaks a drama, because they are the ones ultimately in control of the story. Having that grounding can be really helpful for setting expectations and in interpreting and processing what you watch, and also just for helping you find more of the kind of thing you will probably like. I’m extremely glad, for instance, that I watched Gay OK Bangkok before Only Friends, because it gave me a framework for understanding the themes they were likely to dig into. I also just finished watching Rainless Love in a Godless Land, which I was interested in due in large part to it sharing the same screenwriter as my all time favorite Taiwanese drama, Someday or One Day, and being able to pull out the similar themes and ideas across the two projects made it all the more interesting for me.

[archangelmacaron]

more Noe analysis has been requested but I'm thinking on what I want to go feral about. 🤔

Like honestly what I MOST want to yell about is Fanbox, BUT

1) it is definitely not meant to be shared, which I will respect by being vague about specific things I am referring to.

2) you cannot fucking paywall things so most fans will never encounter them and it can't be publicly discussed without violating those terms, and expect it to be treated as canon (which maybe he doesn't, idk). While obviously people respect Word of God, to me if it's not specifically stated in the game as a canon fact, rather than one interpretation of events, I will treat it like any other person's opinion. I don't want to talk about my take on events like what the ending means or potential post canon and get interrupted with "but behind a paywall, he said—" I literally do not care and you should not either ESPECIALLY when their take directly contradicts some things that were expressly canon, like how a certain character who gave up everything for another wouldn't dare commit a crime they had already commited once before like dude seriously. SERIOUSLY?

"Death of the Author" is pretty important and I want to talk about what was actually in the work and how people interpret that, not feel stuck by paywalled opinions expressed after the fact. (I mean if the literal majority of your audience has one read on something, and you have to say 'actually I wanted this to mean x' maybe you really sucked at expressing that? Idk!)

3) frankly getting extremely obvious he is so fucking over Noe and IMO, has been kinda mean spirited about it in an effort to get people to shut up and stop asking because he only cares about working on his new game. Which he basically said directly in the latest that he considers it "shelved."

Which I am sympathetic to to a point! It's clear he worked on this game for a near full decade, and I think scope creep meant it really started to get away from him towards the end and in some areas, it really shows. I know how it feels to tackle a project that gets so overwhelming, but also how frustrating it is where you already released half so you can't go back and "correct' anything you realize now is plot breaking. That can really drag your enthusiasm to an absolute halt!

What I am NOT ok with is acting surprised that people are giving you money because they enjoyed your most popular project and thus want to know more about it, rather than your new COMPLETELY DIFFERENT project that's had like concept art and a few screenshots released. Like sorry dude but the crossover between people who like story and character driven adventure games and those that like daughter waifu sims is extremely small and maybe you should be nicer to the people who will support ALL your projects.

4) The big one. This all combined has made my friends sad. I am not ok with that. I don't see how you can answer a fan's hopeful question about a character's future with a "ok so like I know it's canonically possible but actually here's (my opinion) on why it isn't, so consider that canon-compliant avenue CLOSED :)" I just feel like he is annoyed by how much these characters mean to people. And to me it is heartbreaking to see the wind just pushed out of someone's sails! It would have been so easy to say "it's up to you, I'm done with this story!" you know?

5) I am starting to feel like he "accidentally'd" into all the best parts rather than wrote them with intention, which isn't a fair take. He's probably just ready to move on and happens to be being kind of a dick about it.

And in closing:

6) the lack of enthusiasm is apparent not just in fanbox, but in the total silence in terms of the complete pack or promotions beyond occasionally rting a sale post. This concerns me and I HOPE I am completely wrong, and there are more things behind the scenes going on like fanbook vol 2, the light novel continuation, etc. but I feel like there isn't despite a worldwide release being prime time to push things like merch. The manga hiatus isn't on him, but the fact that even the most hardcore fans didn't even know a chapter was released in Feb says something!!!

Ok i am done lol. Hopefully no one is offended (not like he'll ever see this!) but it was just a good time to vent.

[jakeperalta]

I’m not in the “you need to know everything about Taylor’s life to understand her music” because I think that gets out of hand with all the speculation and makes me uncomfortable, but in answer to your question, I absolutely do look up other artists when I get into their music to learn more about their lives and how their experiences may have affected their music. I studied literature in college, and understanding an author’s background/beliefs/history is important to understanding their art contextually. You as the audience don’t have to agree with the author’s intent or interpret their work in the way they meant it, but knowing the things that led them to producing it can help put it in context. So I try to do that with the artists I listen to to as well, and I do think it’s important — for instance, a lot of Bleachers’ music makes much more sense with the knowledge that Jack Antonoff’s little sister died when he was a teenager. I don’t think it’s necessary for enjoyment by any means (and again, the rampant speculation about Taylor’s dating life makes me uncomfortable) but I do really enjoy analyzing the music I listen to, so it’s something I take into account.

oh this is so wild to me (in no way in a bad way to you, just one of those things where you realise your own experience is not universal lol). I actually also studied literature but funnily enough I feel like if anything that only made me place less emphasis on the artist/writer (it often wasn't something I looked into and was almost never mentioned or relevant to my arguments in essays). I guess for me I just get more like satisfaction/enjoyment from making connections and parallels between songs, drawing out themes within albums etc based only on the work itself — although I'm not like entirely opposed to learning pieces of information as additional context (Bleachers was an example I was also thinking of, where for me learning about Jack losing his sister was a case of "oh so that's what happened specifically" that was just sort of extra detail to backup the themes of grief and loss that were already evident). of course it's all just personal preference and there's no right or wrong way to enjoy music!

[bloomeng]

I know it’s probably too much to ask considering half the internet seems to barely grasp common reading comprehension but I wish the analysis community had a better grasp on author’s intent. Because how a text is interpreted and how the author meant for it to be read are separate and things can totally be inferred that they might not have meant and that’s normal. Great example: Merlin (as in the show) reads as a gay allegory but it was def not supposed to, but obviously that doesn’t take away from the cultural significance of reading as an allegory. However unless it’s explicitly stated it’s hard to claim author’s intent for sure otherwise we’re putting words in their mouth. That isn’t to say we can’t speculate. Something might feel obvious in hindsight— like a character foil— but we the audience have no idea if that was actually the author’s point.

Famous example: JK Rowling having no idea she was making a…. ummm well N@zi allusion, until enough people made the natural assumption.

Personal example: I watched Bodies Bodies Bodies recently and I assumed the film was a commentary on wealth and mob mentality but after looking it up apparently the director was commenting on social media and what would happen if gen z was suddenly stripped of it. Which personally I find stupid as fuck; disregarding that all generations are just as attached to their corners of the internet, that reading of the film makes everything seem childish, rather than psychological. I enjoyed the film nonetheless and I think it’s still an interesting read on class even if that wasn’t the intention.

And that’s the difference between analysis of the text and author’s intent.

The other half is I wish people would understand that author’s intent is not a more correct reading of any given text. It’s just a factor. It’s there to help us understand the tone, the bias, purpose, and intended audience, but it’s a tool. These are more important when considering the context of a piece outside of the narrative itself.