OotS 599 is up

[Staffan]

I think the "shadow player" is most apparent in Belkar, because his appeal is as an id character – both as a psychotic little halfling who gets to act out all the time, and as a little bastard player behind the character, who also gets to act out all the time.

It's kind of seen with V as well, though in a different fashion. V is just that player who didn't fill in the "Gender" box on his character sheet.

 

[Asmor]

V is just that player who didn't fill in the "Gender" box on his character sheet.

Wait, what? Is this really so common for you that it's become an archetype? o_0

 

[Starbuck_II]

If I ever get a chance to write a paper on this aspect of the comic strip for one of my graduate symposiums I will be sure to send you a copy, because I am fairly certain that if I sat down with the entire run (or even a sizable arc), I could come up with lots of things that indicate just that. . .

Personally, I think to say that "PC" and "NPC" just happen to mean something different here when every other game term is used basically correctly (even if the exact rules aren't always followed - heck, most tables have some house-rules or hand-waving ) is just a matter of convenience to avoid the double narrative suggested by any role-playing game. Heck, there may even be a triple narrative because the characters seem to also be aware of the fact that they are "in a comic strip".

If ever do please me a copy too.

Come again? Now I avoided taking as many English classes as possible, so bear with me here, but how can one fail to take the author's word on the matter, when theirs is the only truly authoritative view? Isn't that akin to saying "Well, the creator doesn't really know what he's talking about", when they are the only ones who truly know 100% of what they're talking about?

Depends on who you talk to.

It was either Fish, Rorty, or whats his face that said: tthat the author is no more clear than your own interpretation.

After he writes it down he might have had a Fruedian slip, etc: meaning he clearly might say more or less than he meant to.

 

[Darkwolf71]

After he writes it down he might have had a Fruedian slip, etc: meaning he clearly might say more or less than he meant to.

Or, someone might come along behind him and read more or less into it than he wrote.

 

[el-remmen]

Or, someone might come along behind him and read more or less into it than he wrote.

But who decides what is more and less?

 

[That One Guy]

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.

Hahaha... okay, I would say that such an example is not an actual interpretation of the text, because it is not based in anything that is there. I am assuming (bad call, I know) that the interpretations being discussed come from something in the text.

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.

Umm... The film alluded to is widely considered one of the most racist films ever created. It is based on a book called "The Klansman".

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... [Snip] 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.

So... are you arguing for the author's interpretation possibly being deluded (and maybe less valid)? Or that the author's opinion is an interpretation that is valid, but removed from all other interpretations - and thus should be analyzed separate?

 

[Darkwolf71]

But who decides what is more and less?

In most cases, I would say the author is the most qualified to make that call.

Umm... The film alluded to is widely considered one of the most racist films ever created. It is based on a book called "The Klansman".

Yeah, so? Racism has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. The film makers alleged misinterpretation of the books, however... If he honestly did think he was making an 'anti-war' film it was due to his incorrect understanding of the source novels, not an incorrect understanding of his own film. Thus, the argument actually makes the opposite point than what roguerouge was trying to make.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Actually, that's a terrible example. The debate about V's gender is by design. It is in fact one of Rich's recurring plot points throughout the strips history.

So? It's still a perfect example of reader interpretation arising from what they see in the text, not necessarily what the author intended to write - doubly so, since there's a deliberate ambiguity which makes it even easier to support mutually-contradictory readings.

In most cases, I would say the author is the most qualified to make that call.

The point is that no-one is "most qualified" to tell you what a work is about. An author can tell you what she intended to put into a work, but what a reader sees in the work is absolutely just as much "there". The text exists; when you read it, you create your own interpretation of it.

Humour is actually a good example - how often have you laughed at a joke because it reminded you of a situation or a person from your own life? The fact that the person who wrote the joke may (or may not) have written it because of a similar situation or person in their life is interesting, but it's not why you laugh. You laugh because it reminds you of something in your memories.

It's the same with absolutely everything; it's just not always as obvious. To use an oft-discussed example from fantasy literature, I believe J. R. R. Tolkien when he says that he didn't intend any kind of allegory or comparison to Hitler in The Lord of the Rings, but I think it's also ludicrous to say that you can't get something meaningful out of the text when you, as a reader, make that comparison yourself - and we're talking about something the authorial Word of God outright denied was intended.

It's still there, dude.

 

[Darkwolf71]

It's the same with absolutely everything; it's just not always as obvious. To use an oft-discussed example from fantasy literature, I believe J. R. R. Tolkien when he says that he didn't intend any kind of allegory or comparison to Hitler in The Lord of the Rings, but I think it's also ludicrous to say that you can't get something meaningful out of the text when you, as a reader, make that comparison yourself - and we're talking about something the authorial Word of God outright denied was intended.

If I, as a Christian, listen to a secular artists song that happens to be about, let's say forgiveness and reconciliation between two lovers, I could most likely find a lot of Christian imagery in the lyrics. That does not make it a Christian song. I don't think so.

What about 'suicide' songs? Megadeth's A Tout Le Monde comes to mind, as does the Judas Priest Stained Class lawsuit. These are not at all about suicide by the artist's statements, you're saying that because others disagree and go through contorted efforts to find such things, they legitimately exist?

It's still there, dude.

No, it's not. Dude.

 

[Merkuri]

Gee, I hated English class when I was in school, but now that I'm an adult I find myself voluntarily discussing books and movies like we were forced to do in English class.

The way I see it, after the author creates a work and lets it loose into the world (publishes it, puts it in a museum, posts it on a website, etc) he's lost control of it. He can say what he wanted it to mean, but what it means to the audience doesn't necessarily correlate to the author's intention. Once the work is "loose" the author doesn't have control anymore. It's like blowing soap bubbles. You can control how big they get, or how many of them you make, but once you've made them it's the wind that decides where they go and when they pop.

I think it's valid to consider the author's intentions or things in their lives that may have affected their works, but at the same time the work has to live on its own. An author worth his pen shouldn't need to say, "this work means X" in order for you to understand it. You should be able to get that meaning out of the work itself. If you don't get that meaning (and nobody else does either) then the author is wrong. Authors are wrong about their own work all the time. How many authors/artists have you heard of that hate their own work while the world thinks it's spectacular?

And to get back to OoTS itself... I don't think there are any players. Just because there are rules doesn't mean it's a game. These are characters that live in a world where the rules of the universe happen to correspond to rules we use in a game - that doesn't mean that it's a game to the characters. "Rules" do not necessarily equal "game". There are rules in our own world as well, like physics, and that doesn't mean we live in a game.