D&D 5E What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

[Scott Christian]

What makes the author’s interpretation of a work more legitimate than anyone else’s?

Is this a real question?

If it is, that is like a stranger asking you about your childhood home. One that you grew up in from birth to 18. Then hearing you recall stories about your childhood home. Then the stranger turns around to another person and starts explaining "what you really meant." Your story of the pipes creaking turns into you being afraid of ghosts. Your stories of a backyard garden become your desire to protect the environment. Your story of mom cooking cinnamon rolls in the morning becomes why you have a sweet tooth.

While some of these may be true, it would be much more genuine for the stranger to say: "He told me this story of creaking pipes keeping him awake. He said it happened in the winter. And that sometimes it was loud. I wonder if he was scared of the noise? I wonder if he thought it was something else?"

See how that doesn't take on an authoritative tone, but rather one of inquisitiveness. The original comment was about a professor dismissing the author's actual interpretation. It's nice to analyze an author's works, especially as a collection. But, as I stated earlier:

But if you are going to speak as an authority on a subject, one should be very aware and knowledgeable of the original source. And one should try to use it for their interpretation.

Your interpretations of your house are the most valid. It is the primary source. Historians even need primary sources to prove a theory. Secondary sources are just that - secondary.

 

[Eltab]

What makes the author’s interpretation of a work more legitimate than anyone else’s?

The fact that the author / artist does not have to guess or estimate or 'read minds' to know "what did the author / artist mean by that?" - (s)he knows with 100% certainty and accuracy what message they wanted to convey - means that the author / artist is the one person at whom the claim "You are wrong about what this work means" cannot be levelled.

Other people may find more meanings or different meanings in the work, they can be wrong about / misinterpret it, they can enjoy it for itself, they can discuss the meaning(s). But since they all have to interpret through their own senses and mental filters, they all are getting somewhat less than 100% of the original meaning, and adding something of their own.
Hopefully what they add will enrich, not diminish, the total information present for folks who encounter the work later.

 

[Hussar]

And, of course, let's not forget that any author will automatically propose an interpretation that paints the author in the most positive light. It's just human nature. Very few authors are going to say, "Yeah, I said that because I'm a colossal douchebag".

People can be very oblivious to the message of their words. Unintentionally using words and phrases that have strong connotations within certain circles that the author may not be aware of, for example.

The author is certainly one interpretation, but, it's been a very long time since it was considered the primary one.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Your interpretations of your house are the most valid. It is the primary source. Historians even need primary sources to prove a theory. Secondary sources are just that - secondary.

Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Historians need to use primary sources, true, but, relying on a single, first person source is probably the worst kind of historical work you can produce.

For example, your claims of nightly pipe creaks might be exaggerated. They might be completely fabricated in your mind as you mis-remember from a later house that you moved to in your 20's. A proper interpretation would be to stay in that house and listen for pipe creaks.

Simply taking people's recollections at face value is very, very poor historical research.

 

[Scott Christian]

When we speak about art, we must remember that there are three works - the work the creator intended, the work that was actually produced, and the work as the audience perceives it.

We tend to speak as if the first work of these three is really paramount. But that's an authoritarian notion - that the artist gets to dictate what the art means. At this point, though, we should note that the audience gets to do what it darned well wants - partaking of the art in no way obligates the audience to the artist's intention. The artist is not entitled to obedience from the audience.

And artists who forget that tend to come across as jerks.

This whole discussion came from someone explaining that their professor refused to acknowledge the writer's interpretations, Tolkien. And when he says he did not intend it as an allegory for industrialization, he is the authority. He wrote it. It may harbor themes that some people see about industrialization. But he is the primary source for his work.
So what a person can say as an authority on his work is: Tolkien stated it is not about industrialization. But given today's modern context, we can see these themes arise more and more in the pages. I wonder if these themes will grow or wane as our society grows? Class, what do you think the themes are given today's context and understanding?
That is the difference.
If we are only going to argue about so and so's feelings about "their" interpretations, then yes, you are correct. Everyone's feelings are as valid about the subject. Their interpretations are secondary to Tolkien's though.

 

[Scott Christian]

Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Historians need to use primary sources, true, but, relying on a single, first person source is probably the worst kind of historical work you can produce.

For example, your claims of nightly pipe creaks might be exaggerated. They might be completely fabricated in your mind as you mis-remember from a later house that you moved to in your 20's. A proper interpretation would be to stay in that house and listen for pipe creaks.

Simply taking people's recollections at face value is very, very poor historical research.

Really?
While all this is true, it is still more valid than the stranger listening to your stories and turning around to interpret them.

 

[Hussar]

Really?
While all this is true, it is still more valid than the stranger listening to your stories and turning around to interpret them.

Yes, really. Look at courts of law and witness testimony. Witnesses are incredibly unreliable and that has been demonstrated over and over again. So, no, it's not any more valid that some stranger listening to your stories and interpreting them.

The death of the author has been pretty solidly accepted in academic circles for decades. The primary source of interpretation is the text itself. What the author "intended" is generally of interest, but, ultimately, irrelevant.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is this a real question?

If it is, that is like a stranger asking you about your childhood home. One that you grew up in from birth to 18. Then hearing you recall stories about your childhood home. Then the stranger turns around to another person and starts explaining "what you really meant." Your story of the pipes creaking turns into you being afraid of ghosts. Your stories of a backyard garden become your desire to protect the environment. Your story of mom cooking cinnamon rolls in the morning becomes why you have a sweet tooth.

While some of these may be true, it would be much more genuine for the stranger to say: "He told me this story of creaking pipes keeping him awake. He said it happened in the winter. And that sometimes it was loud. I wonder if he was scared of the noise? I wonder if he thought it was something else?"

See how that doesn't take on an authoritative tone, but rather one of inquisitiveness. The original comment was about a professor dismissing the author's actual interpretation. It's nice to analyze an author's works, especially as a collection. But, as I stated earlier:

Your interpretations of your house are the most valid. It is the primary source. Historians even need primary sources to prove a theory. Secondary sources are just that - secondary.

Your experiences in your childhood home are not a work of art. If you wrote a memoir about you experiences in your childhood home, you would certainly be the most authoritative source on the content of those experiences (well... except maybe your parents?) but not on how to interpret the story. This relationship only gets fuzzier when we go beyond works recounting or inspired by actual events and into works of pure fiction.

 

[Hussar]

This whole discussion came from someone explaining that their professor refused to acknowledge the writer's interpretations, Tolkien. And when he says he did not intend it as an allegory for industrialization, he is the authority. He wrote it. It may harbor themes that some people see about industrialization. But he is the primary source for his work.

Ok, Tolkien did not intend it as an allegory for industrialization. Does that invalidate interpretations that say the work is an allegory for industrialization? Why? Who cares what he says he intended or not? He obviously failed in his intent since people are interpreting it as an allegory for industrialization. So, his intent is largely irrelevant in light of the fact that you most certainly CAN interpret LotR as an allegory for industrialization.

 

[Charlaquin]

The fact that the author / artist does not have to guess or estimate or 'read minds' to know "what did the author / artist mean by that?" - (s)he knows with 100% certainty and accuracy what message they wanted to convey - means that the author / artist is the one person at whom the claim "You are wrong about what this work means" cannot be levelled.

Ahh, but this describes why the author’s word on what they intended to convey is authoritative, which I do not dispute. I just don’t think what the author intended to convey means much in the face of what they actually conveyed.

Other people may find more meanings or different meanings in the work, they can be wrong about / misinterpret it, they can enjoy it for itself, they can discuss the meaning(s). But since they all have to interpret through their own senses and mental filters, they all are getting somewhat less than 100% of the original meaning, and adding something of their own.

Why does the audience filtering the work through their own experiences and adding something of their own make it a misinterpretation?