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

[Scott Christian]

Yes, and I agree that was a silly claim, and I supported your side of the argument at the time that it was made. But the conversation has long since moved on from that point. Now people are making other silly claims, such as “an interpretation of a work that isn’t consistent with authorial intent is valid but incorrect.”

That's not what I said. You know it. I even said another's interpretation is valid. What I disagree with you, and I keep going back to, is you stating another's interpretation is EQUALLY valid. It is not. To say it is equal is incorrect.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Good thing I don’t dismiss Tolkien’s interpretation of his work or claim he wrote it as an allegory, then?

Yes, and I agree that was a silly claim, and I supported your side of the argument at the time that it was made. But the conversation has long since moved on from that point. Now people are making other silly claims, such as “an interpretation of a work that isn’t consistent with authorial intent is valid but incorrect.”

Certainly a claim that Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings as an allegory is neither valid nor correct, but it’s also not an interpretation of Lord of the Rings. It’s just a demonstrably false claim about Tolkien’s intent in writing. An allegorical interpretation of Lord of the Rings would be valid, and calling it “correct” or “incorrect” is kind of meaningless.

An allegorical reading of LOTR is silly, and pointless, at best. It’s on par with reading Animal Farm as non-allegorical.

It might technically be valid, by some purely academic standard, but it’s not correct by any reasonable measure.

 

[Charlaquin]

No offense, and be reticent all you want, but this is what happens when you give equal standing to someone over the original author. You can say zari misunderstood or say he had a poor lit professor. But, having been in the business, including the English textbook business, for awhile, I don't doubt it at all.

K.

Correct.

Correct.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

I found this response amusing - and I mean that in the most respectful way possible. Thought about replying with a “laugh” emoji, but thought that might come off as more flippant than I would have intended.

Look, I get it. You are part of the crew that if someone has a doctorate, and they study Poe, and they start espousing Poe's The Raven was really about the loss of bird habitat in the 1800's, and they can back it up by citing pieces of the poem, we ought to give them their due claim. Their interpretation is now equally as valid as Poe's.

I am most certainly not. I’m part of the crew that is skeptical of the very notion that a work can be said to be “really about” anything. If someone presented me with an interpretation of Poe’s The Raven as read through a lens of 1800s avian habitat conservation, I would find that to be a very interesting, if unexpected, take. But if they said that was what it was “really about,” I would roll my eyes at them and laugh.

I am not part of that crew. I look at the author's complete works. I read about their life. And take it as a whole. And if it doesn't add up, then it is incorrect.If we have the author on record saying the opposite, then it is absolutely incorrect. Because the author is the primary source.

I agree with you that looking at an author’s complete works and life is an important, perhaps even necessary component of analyzing an individual work of theirs. I merely disagree that any interpretation can be said to be “correct” or “incorrect.” They’re just interpretations.

Everyone insists The Life of Pi is an allegory. The author states it is not. Who is correct? You can side with the creator of the content. The person who penned the words. The person who spent months plotting the story out. The person who spent months editing. The person who has read the work three hundred times.
Or you can side with someone who teaches the book. Because they are just as valid.

I haven’t read The Life of Pi, but I reject the dichotomy you set up here between siding with the author and siding with the people who teach the work. If the author says they did not write The Life of Pi as an allegory, then I take that at face value, and agree they did not write it as an allegory. If someone can make a case for an allegorical reading of The Life of Pi, then I agree that the allegory is present, in contrast to the author’s intent. Sides don’t need to be chosen. There doesn’t need to be one correct version. The work can have been written without allegorical intent, and still contain allegorical elements.

We will not agree on this. I am sorry. I understand your view. (That another's interpretation is equally valid.) Agreeing with it means agreeing to the possibility of the author's premise being more easily erased. Or worse, to stand for something they didn't want it to stand for.

That’s fine, you don’t need to agree with me. But I do take issue with the assertion that my view means the author’s premise can be dismissed. The author’s premise is important to me, and dismissing it would do the work and the author a disservice. I also don’t subscribe to the view that reading a work through a different lens than the author’s premise constitutes a claim that the work stands for that reading.

It is easy when it is Tolkien and we care about the environment. So we directly relate the smart author we love to the cause we care about. But much more insidious things have happened with other works. And I don't think that is right.

I’m not trying to relate works to causes. I’m just in favor of thinking about stuff in lots of different ways.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's not what I said. You know it. I even said another's interpretation is valid.

So did I, if you read my post a bit more carefully. I said, “an interpretation that is contrary to authorial intent is valid but incorrect.” I can go back and pull quotes of yours that I got this impression from I’d you insist.

What I disagree with you, and I keep going back to, is you stating another's interpretation is EQUALLY valid. It is not. To say it is equal is incorrect.

Yes, that does seem to be the key point of our disagreement.

 

[Charlaquin]

An allegorical reading of LOTR is silly, and pointless, at best. It’s on par with reading Animal Farm as non-allegorical.

I disagree. There is value to be gained from reading Tolkien allegorically, so long as we do so in light of his statements that it was not his intent.

It might technically be valid, by some purely academic standard, but it’s not correct by any reasonable measure.

I don’t believe it can be said to be correct or incorrect by any reasonable measure. It’s just a lens through which to examine the work.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I disagree. There is value to be gained from reading Tolkien allegorically, so long as we do so in light of his statements that it was not his intent.

I don’t believe it can be said to be correct or incorrect by any reasonable measure. It’s just a lens through which to examine the work.

Allegory is purposeful. LoTR objectively is not trying to tell the reader an underlying lesson via the medium of a story.

You might as well be reading allegory into a story you improvise to put a kid to bed while half asleep yourself. You might get something out of it as the reader, but it’s not of any value to a discussion about what the story is actually about.

 

[Charlaquin]

Allegory is purposeful.

Not by any definition of the word I’m familiar with.

LoTR objectively is not trying to tell the reader an underlying lesson via the medium of a story.

Indeed. But lessons can be learned through the medium of the story nonetheless.

You might as well be reading allegory into a story you improvise to put a kid to bed while half asleep yourself. You might get something out of it as the reader, but it’s not of any value to a discussion about what the story is actually about.

That’s fine, because I don’t see any value in discussing what a story is “actually about,” nor do I believe a story can meaningfully be said to be “actually about” anything.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not by any definition of the word I’m familiar with.

Indeed. But lessons can be learned through the medium of the story nonetheless.

That’s fine, because I don’t see any value in discussing what a story is “actually about,” nor do I believe a story can meaningfully be said to be “actually about” anything.

Lol okay. We are into territory that I’d rather not dive deeper into outside of in person conversations with people I know, bc IME this sort of thing turns into annoying arguments that go nowhere when done online.

I respect your point of view generally, and disagree vociferously with you entire stance on this subject. We will have to leave it at that, I suppose.

 

[Scott Christian]

I found this response amusing - and I mean that in the most respectful way possible. Thought about replying with a “laugh” emoji, but thought that might come off as more flippant than I would have intended.

No. I would have understood. I think...

I am most certainly not. I’m part of the crew that is skeptical of the very notion that a work can be said to be “really about” anything. If someone presented me with an interpretation of Poe’s The Raven as read through a lens of 1800s avian habitat conservation, I would find that to be a very interesting, if unexpected, take. But if they said that was what it was “really about,” I would roll my eyes at them and laugh.

I agree with you that looking at an author’s complete works and life is an important, perhaps even necessary component of analyzing an individual work of theirs. I merely disagree that any interpretation can be said to be “correct” or “incorrect.” They’re just interpretations.

Fair enough. I would take out the word "perhaps." And please, just hear me on this. (And I am sure some o fit is my fault. I'm tired. So sorry for the confusion.) But interpretations can be incorrect. You just said you would roll your eyes and laugh at someone for it. If the only disclaimer for you is they don't say that it is "really about" something, then that is where our lines differ I guess.

I haven’t read The Life of Pictures, but I reject the dichotomy you set up here between siding with the author and siding with the people who teach the work. If the author says they did not write The Life of Pi as an allegory, then I take that at face value, and agree they did not write it as an allegory. If someone can make a case for an allegorical reading of The Life of Pi, then I agree that the allegory is present, in contrast to the author’s intent. Sides don’t need to be chosen. There doesn’t need to be one correct version. The work can have been written without allegorical intent, and still contain allegorical elements.

Agree. But here again, if the author says: "Do not read this as an allegory." They say that because they do not want their work misinterpreted. Yet, if a few people insist on stating the opposite, guess what happens? Their work gets misinterpreted. That is not only unfair to the author, but also sets a bad example for comprehension and understanding.

That’s fine, you don’t need to agree with me. But I do take issue with the assertion that my view means the author’s premise can be dismissed. The author’s premise is important to me, and dismissing it would do the work and the author a disservice. I also don’t subscribe to the view that reading a work through a different lens than the author’s premise constitutes a claim that the work stands for that reading.

Fair enough. I guess that is where we actually disagree. I believe that if the author says their work is about one thing or is not about this other thing, and then we give equal credibility (legitimacy) to the people who did not write the book for their interpretation, then that more easily erases the author's original claim. You believe that other's can have their interpretation, and it does not lead to an erasing of the author's interpretation.
"What makes the author’s interpretation of a work more legitimate than anyone else’s?"

I’m not trying to relate works to causes. I’m just in favor of thinking about stuff in lots of different ways.

Understood and admired.

 

[Charlaquin]

Lol okay. We are into territory that I’d rather not dive deeper into outside of in person conversations with people I know, bc IME this sort of thing turns into annoying arguments that go nowhere when done online.

I respect your point of view generally, and disagree vociferously with you entire stance on this subject. We will have to leave it at that, I suppose.

The feeling is mutual. Thanks for the discussion and the respecful disagreement!