OotS 599 is up

[roguerouge]

Well, first off, I don't privilege the author's view of his own work. . . And while I agree that that kind of gag would make it explicit, that does not mean that the reference to game rules make the idea of there being players implicit. It is for this reason I used the term "slippage" - the level of awareness slides up and down a continuum, and so far has never seemed to get to the point of awareness of players - but in "immersive" D&D games (as opposed to those with a playing style more on the end of character as playing-piece) there is an assumption of assuming the persona of the character, so it is not so crazy to think that the OotS folks could be aware of game rules without being aware of being "controlled by a player".

Seconded. You'd be amazed at the number of times that an author has been flat out wrong about his own work, or changed his mind after publication. Examples: DW Griffith evidently sincerely believed that Birth of a Nation was an anti-war film. (The book author he was adapting was quite clear on the ultimate goal of the material, however.) Another example: Hitchcock was famous for lying and misleading audiences, critics, and interviewers about his films.

You'd be less amazed at the huge numbers of authors that fudge the truth and say they had whatever intent makes them look good to critics and hot girls/boys.

So, the question you have to ask yourself is: why would you believe the author? If you do believe the author it's because your experience of the text confirms their interpretation. The text, not the author's intent, is the primary factor.

In addition, you don't have to mean what you say. Consider that people can unintentionally create many important meanings. Example: you unintentionally imply that that dress does make her look fat, which means that you think she is fat, which means that you're not attracted to her any more, which means that the relationship is doomed, you big meanie! I hate you!

Now, that's a comic example of a fairly common principle.

 

[roguerouge]

If multiple people can look at a single piece of art, is anyone's opinion more or less valid? Why assume that the artist's interpretation of their own work is more valid than your own?

Yes. The textual evidence makes one person's opinion more or less valid. OotS is about many things, but one thing it is NOT about is the redemptive power of peanut butter. All interpretations are NOT created equal.

 

[roguerouge]

I think V failed his wisdom check. He's going to need Durkon to resurrect Roy once he finds the body.

 

[Darkwolf71]

What is your excuse, Darwolf71?

I have none, sir.

I am a loser.

In my defense, however. I do own Start of Darkness and Origin of PCs.
That's something, right?

 

[el-remmen]

If you wrote that paper I would be tempted to write another in order to refute it.

That's be cool!

Two things:

There is simply no real justification for thinking that there are players behind the scenes based on the information you get from the strip itself.

Again, I disagree, I think the meta-knowledge of game rules implies players. How can there be a game without players?

Every decision made by the PCs is rooted entirely in their own motivations, goals, and histories. The characters completely lack any kind of metagame awareness beyond the game's ruleset.

I would not be able to use my personal experience as evidence if I wrote about this as an academic paper, but luckily this is just a D&D messageboard. . . - The games I play in/run are exactly like that - We have our characters make decisions rooted "in their own motivations, goals, and histories" even if they are less than ideal decisions because to us that is what good gaming is about (obviously, not everyone feels this way). At the same time, our characters are vaguely aware of things like spell levels and the danger of someone with "experience", even if when talk in-character we avoid the meta-game language as much as possible.


However, I think your point about the scenes that do not involve the PCs is a good one and definitely problematizes my reading - but again, the idea of slippage I put forth covers this - the narrative moves up and down along a continuum of awareness and centrality of the PCs - the inconsistancy is part of my point, and part of what I like about the comic (as I wrote in my statement of purpose for my PhD program applications, it is the problematic aspects of texts that often give us an avenue of entry to them).

I wasn't reading OotS much during the party's first run-in with Miko, when they were arrested, but I remember long debates on here about whether the party was being "railroaded" and there being an eruption of disagreement because being "railroaded" implies that there is a DM. I want to go back and read those strips and search for those threads.

P.S. This is a great conversation. I am really enjoying it. It makes me wish I were writing my thesis on meta-narrative in comic books like I considered at one point instead of what I am writing it on (Urban space and its shaping of identity in Contemporary American Literature of Brooklyn).

 

[Darkwolf71]

Seconded. You'd be amazed at the number of times that an author has been flat out wrong about his own work, or changed his mind after publication. Examples: DW Griffith evidently sincerely believed that Birth of a Nation was an anti-war film. (The book author he was adapting was quite clear on the ultimate goal of the material, however.)

I am unfamiliar with this particular film and the books it is based on, but by your statment it seems more a matter of a directer/film writer not understanding the source material, rather than not understanding his own work. Not that same thing at all.

Another example: Hitchcock was famous for lying and misleading audiences, critics, and interviewers about his films.

Misdirection became Hitchcock's trademark in style, quite intentional and not at all the same as what is being discussed here.

 

[Darkwolf71]

That's be cool!

Indeed. I would enjoy reading both papers.

Nudge, nudge.

 

[billd91]

If multiple people can look at a single piece of art, is anyone's opinion more or less valid? Why assume that the artist's interpretation of their own work is more valid than your own?

Yes, to a certain extent (and I'm not just talking about what OOTS means about peanut butter).
There are 2 fundamental interpretations of a work of art as I see it: what the artist meant by it and what it means to me/the world around us. And yes, the artist's interpretation of their own work is more important for the former, assuming they are being candid. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't really matter when you ask the artist or if his opinion changes. As long as he's being candid each time, I don't think he's being wrong, rather various ideas he was getting at with the work may not have matured or been as fully developed as at later stages or for later reflections. Quite frankly, I don't care if an artist is self-deluded about his work, as long as he's talking about his feelings without hiding or lying about them, his interpretation is the standard for what he means or meant about a work.
If he lies about it in order to hide his motivation or keep up the buzz and mystique, then you kick him in the junk and move on. The only way you can really figure out what the artist means is by inference and that has dubious reliability.

As far as what a work means to me or to the world around us, then I think the gates are wide open for a work's interpretation. It's at this point that we may find that the artist is, in fact, deluded about what his work really is, even if his declaration of intent is sincere.

 

[greatamericanfolkher]

...

Anyone else missing the days of where the plot was simple and the jokes easy?

He does seem to prefer to really decompress his storytelling.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I have none, sir.

I am a loser.

In my defense, however. I do own Start of Darkness and Origin of PCs.
That's something, right?

I'll let in count in your favor...