Do orcs in gaming display parallels to colonialist propaganda?

[ParanoydStyle]

*scans thread title*

Wow, I didn't realize I'd accidentally navigated to RPG.net.

(In all seriousness, there's probably some meat to this topic. I'll engage when I have time to be anything but snarky.)

 

[S'mon]

*scans thread title*

Wow, I didn't realize I'd accidentally navigated to RPG.net.

(In all seriousness, there's probably some meat to this topic. I'll engage when I have time to be anything but snarky.)

It's really not a bad thread (so far!).

 

[Hussar]

I resist any attempt to insert your experience of reading my work and use it to supplant my intentions. One of us is failing to communicate in that situation.

Yup. You.

You don't get to dictate how others interpret your work. You are completely and utterly unimportant when it comes to interpreting your work. Your views and what you intended are irrelevant. All that really matters is what you produced and what interpretations can be taken from it.

This authorial intent thing is just so bizarre. This notion that the author's intent was somehow integral to interpreting a work died decades ago. Authors lie, author's change their minds and authors are very often wrong. "Oh, I didn't mean for this to be interpreted like X" is a complete cop out. The fact that the work can be interpreted in some fashion is all that really matters.

Can Black Panther be interpreted that Killmonger is right? Of course it can. That's why it's a decent piece of fiction. It sparks debate. It creates a message that can be used to discuss an issue. It's not preaching from the mountain that "THIS is the one true word and must be interpreted in this and only this way, lest you go astray!"

The fact that your daughter found a different message in the movie is the whole point and should be encouraged. I would quickly condemn any message that purports to be The Truth as Told By ____. That's not what art or creation is ever about.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I wouldn’t say authorial intent is dead. I think it matters. It just isn’t dispositive. Other readings may also valid.

And just like authors, reviewers may bring their own biases to the analysis. They’re equally capable of lying about what they write.

 

[Celebrim]

Yup. You.

You don't get to dictate how others interpret your work.

No I don't, but I do get to laugh at them - or mourn for them - depending on how much they get it wrong. Communication is a two way street, and I am not solely responsible for it occurring.

You are completely and utterly unimportant when it comes to interpreting your work. Your views and what you intended are irrelevant.

No, I am not. You can recite that sort of crap all you like, but it doesn't make it true. At the very least, this is a point which is well recognized as debateable and over which reasonable people can and have disagreed, so presenting it as if it was some sort of incontrivertable objective fact that doesn't need to be supported does not reflect well upon you.

Indeed, I think the whole line of reasoning behind that statement, which was conveyed to you through some means (because I doubt you would have made the leap on your own), in my opinion doesn't reflect well on those that made it.

If you want to put forth that argument, feel free and muster your logic and evidence, but on no account expect me to accept such statements axiomatically.

This authorial intent thing is just so bizarre. This notion that the author's intent was somehow integral to interpreting a work died decades ago.

In the minds of some. You act as if this one small part of the academic community somehow established this as a matter of scientific fact through emphirical observation, instead of basically saying, "Well that's your opinion man.", in some The Dude like fashion. Well, that's their opinion man, and I don't agree.

 

[Hussar]

No I don't, but I do get to laugh at them - or mourn for them - depending on how much they get it wrong. Communication is a two way street, and I am not solely responsible for it occurring.

How do you get to declare them "wrong"? It's a two way street right? Or, is it a one way street - your way?

No, I am not. You can recite that sort of crap all you like, but it doesn't make it true. At the very least, this is a point which is well recognized as debateable and over which reasonable people can and have disagreed, so presenting it as if it was some sort of incontrivertable objective fact that doesn't need to be supported does not reflect well upon you.

Indeed, I think the whole line of reasoning behind that statement, which was conveyed to you through some means (because I doubt you would have made the leap on your own), in my opinion doesn't reflect well on those that made it.

If you want to put forth that argument, feel free and muster your logic and evidence, but on no account expect me to accept such statements axiomatically.

Pretty much any post modern interpretation of any work pretty much says that authorial intent is largely unimportant. I mean, this is English 101 stuff. Any first year university student can tell you the same thing. The notion that the author is a sole or even important element in interpretation died decades ago.

In the minds of some. You act as if this one small part of the academic community somehow established this as a matter of scientific fact through emphirical observation, instead of basically saying, "Well that's your opinion man.", in some The Dude like fashion. Well, that's their opinion man, and I don't agree.

You can disagree all you like. Free country and all that. Doesn't matter. When the author steps up and says, "My work means X", his or her word is no more important than anyone else's. Support your interpretation with the work. If the work supports your interpretation, fair enough. But, even if it does, that's not the only interpretation possible and if someone else can look at the work and support a differing interpretation, your position as the author grants your interpretation absolutely no more value than that other interpretation.

Like I said, it's just so bizarre to see someone try to claim authority here. I'm frankly baffled that anyone, today, would try to claim authorial intent as a thing.

Again, it's a total cop out is the primary reason I reject it. "Oh, I didn't mean that." is the mating cry of the Internet Troll, not someone who actually wants to be taken seriously.

 

[Bedrockgames]

How do you get to declare them "wrong"? It's a two way street right? Or, is it a one way street - your way?




Pretty much any post modern interpretation of any work pretty much says that authorial intent is largely unimportant. I mean, this is English 101 stuff. Any first year university student can tell you the same thing. The notion that the author is a sole or even important element in interpretation died decades ago.



You can disagree all you like. Free country and all that. Doesn't matter. When the author steps up and says, "My work means X", his or her word is no more important than anyone else's. Support your interpretation with the work. If the work supports your interpretation, fair enough. But, even if it does, that's not the only interpretation possible and if someone else can look at the work and support a differing interpretation, your position as the author grants your interpretation absolutely no more value than that other interpretation.

Like I said, it's just so bizarre to see someone try to claim authority here. I'm frankly baffled that anyone, today, would try to claim authorial intent as a thing.

Again, it's a total cop out is the primary reason I reject it. "Oh, I didn't mean that." is the mating cry of the Internet Troll, not someone who actually wants to be taken seriously.

I don't really want to get into this topic. But I think it is fair to point out here that postmodernism isn't quite as influential as it was in say the 90s. I think a lot of people, outside and inside academia, have come to reject a lot of the ideas you are expressing here. Or at least considerably more these days. Postmodernism definitely has its share of critics. I think it is fine to be a postmodernist, but to balk at the idea that a person might not be one? That seems oddly self assured for someone expressing faith in a philosophy premised on questioning the certainty of our knowledge.

 

[Hussar]

Fair 'enough [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION].

However, the issue of authorial intent is extremely problematic. There are 3 basic reasons to reject it:

1. What to do after the author dies. How do we critique a work if we cannot question the author? After all, it's not like we can talk to Shakespeare and ask what he meant in Line 15 Scene 3 of The Tempest. Does that mean we can no longer analyze Shakespeare? Of course not.

2. What do we do when the author changes interpretations. Using Tolkien as the example above, we know that he changed his views on the work more than once over the years. That's very well documented. So, which interpretation is valid? The last one? Only the last one? All of them?

3. By placing the author in this privileged position to tell other people what the "real" interpretation is, we grant the author power that is very troubling. "Oh, you thought that was offensive? Well, I didn't mean it to be offensive, so, you aren't allowed to be offended" is a real problem. Heck, we see it in this thread - people pointing to alternative interpretations of various groups as if this somehow invalidates the offensive interpretation.

I do find it rather hard to believe that people willing grant other people such incredible powers over what they are allowed to think. If a teacher told you, "No, you are wrong, you must think this way" that would be a terrible teacher. If anyone else did it, we'd immediately rebel. But, just because someone created it, we allow them to tell us what to think?

I certainly don't.

 

[Bedrockgames]

1. What to do after the author dies. How do we critique a work if we cannot question the author? After all, it's not like we can talk to Shakespeare and ask what he meant in Line 15 Scene 3 of The Tempest. Does that mean we can no longer analyze Shakespeare? Of course not.

This is why history is a discipline. Obviously we can't ask Shakespeare, but we can be guided by an honest attempt to understand his intent (and hopefully have a debate or dialogue about it). It is like anything else where uncertainty is involved, people will need to make good arguments for why a particular interpretation matches his intent. No one is saying certainty will be achieved, but figuring out the intent and the truth can still serve as a guidepost (i'd argue a better one than just throwing up our hands and saying 'its unknowable so only subjective interpretations are valid now').

2. What do we do when the author changes interpretations. Using Tolkien as the example above, we know that he changed his views on the work more than once over the years. That's very well documented. So, which interpretation is valid? The last one? Only the last one? All of them?

You include that in your analysis. And then make a good argument for your conclusions. Obviously humans are complicated. But that doesn't mean they are not driven by intent. IN the case of an author shifting over time, I'd probably try to figure out what the intent was at the time of writing. If the shift led to revisions later, then I think that means we have a text with conflicting intent by the author. That doesn't strip away intent, that just makes the intent more interesting (and I don't know the particulars of Tolkien's shifting intent, so not making an argument about him specifically here).

3. By placing the author in this privileged position to tell other people what the "real" interpretation is, we grant the author power that is very troubling. "Oh, you thought that was offensive? Well, I didn't mean it to be offensive, so, you aren't allowed to be offended" is a real problem. Heck, we see it in this thread - people pointing to alternative interpretations of various groups as if this somehow invalidates the offensive interpretation.

I don't find this very persuasive at all. Intent does matter. What you are pointing to isn't a lack of intent, but a deceptive rhetorical trick by the author where they intend to be offensive, then claim they were not actually intending to be so after the fact to escape blame. I think a better approach here than death of the author, is to accept that authorial intent matters, but understand that authors can lie or even fail to understand their own intentions. Intent of the author, doesn't mean only the author gets to decide what the author intended. It means what the author intended matters. But we don't have to drop our brains at the gates of the conversation.

I do find it rather hard to believe that people willing grant other people such incredible powers over what they are allowed to think. If a teacher told you, "No, you are wrong, you must think this way" that would be a terrible teacher. If anyone else did it, we'd immediately rebel. But, just because someone created it, we allow them to tell us what to think?

This is a straw man. No one is granting the author power to tell you what to think. I am not even saying other intrpeations of a work can't be of value. I am just saying authorial intent, in my view, exists, can be deciphered to an extent, and is probably one of the more important aspects of a work. But acknowledging all that, doesn't mean the author can tell me what to think. I can still think the author's work is terrible. Acting as if intent doesn't matter though, it ignores the whole reason the person created the thing in the first place. And that matters a lot because it helps explain the historical context. Obviously that isn't the end of the conversation though. There is intent, but there is also impact. And impact is important too.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't really want to get into this topic. But I think it is fair to point out here that postmodernism isn't quite as influential as it was in say the 90s. I think a lot of people, outside and inside academia, have come to reject a lot of the ideas you are expressing here. Or at least considerably more these days. Postmodernism definitely has its share of critics. I think it is fine to be a postmodernist, but to balk at the idea that a person might not be one? That seems oddly self assured for someone expressing faith in a philosophy premised on questioning the certainty of our knowledge.

I would not say that "La mort de l'auteur" is postmodernism. Roland Barthes came largely out of the late Structuralists and influenced Post-Structuralists, but Postmodernism was a different, albeit parallel, movement. Postmodernists =! Structuralists =! Post-Structuralists =! Deconstructionists. (Overlapping? Yes. Identical? No.) I would also argue that the thrust of postmodernism was less about its pop culture sense of "questioning the certainty of our knowledge" or ultimate subjectivity, but, rather, postmodernism is defined by its rejection of meta-narratives. I know Postmodernism commonly gets lumped into "Commie thought," for example, but Communism is a movement within modernism that imposed a meta-narrative (i.e., history is defined as a class struggle) and postmodernists rejected these sort of meta-narratives. The point being is that there is often a lot of misunderstanding of terms around postmodernism, deconstruction, and the death of the author. But Death of the Author is still pretty damn popular in academic circles and even fandom communities (see debates about JK Rowling).