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

[Maxperson]

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.

So if the author says, "I wasn't being a douche bag, because it really means X." and some scholar who isn't the author says, "The author was a douche bag," you're going to go with the person who can't possibly know for sure and is in fact just guessing?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You do realize that there is a rather big difference between seeing something traumatic briefly and trying to remember it later, and spending hours an hours planning and coming up with a story, right? It's why criminals who plan a story get caught. They are all remembering the story exactly the same way.

 

[dave2008]

Like I said, I play in games where it is just overlooked. But people act like people in our game. With the same characteristics of regular people. Greed, pettiness, love, and desire. Fantasy societies are also sculpted after real world societies. Why? Because that is all we know. So we combine what we know, a touch of ancient Egyptian with a smidgeon of rural European Renaissance, and a healthy dose of Voodoo. But those all come with preconceived notions. And one notion is that when people see something they have never seen before they have a visceral reaction: worship, adoration, envy, fear, hatred. To pretend that they are not petty is to pretend that they are not people.

Ok, just don't extrapolate your experience to everyone else's. That is the only issue I see here. You seem to assuming your experience or viewpoint or imagination is universal. It is not.

 

[Charlaquin]

So if the author says, "I wasn't being a douche bag, because it really means X." and some scholar who isn't the author says, "The author was a douche bag," you're going to go with the person who can't possibly know for sure and is in fact just guessing?

Here’s the thing: whether the author is a douche bag at heart doesn’t matter. If someone interprets something in their work a douche-y... That’s a valid opinion, whether the author is “actually” a douche bag or not.

 

[prabe]

Here’s the thing: whether the author is a douche bag at heart doesn’t matter. If someone interprets something in their work a douche-y... That’s a valid opinion, whether the author is “actually” a douche bag or not.

I'd say it's a valid thing to look at--the interpretation might be entirely unsupported by the text.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'd say it's a valid thing to look at--the interpretation might be entirely unsupported by the text.

Sure, that’s fair.

 

[Maxperson]

Here’s the thing: whether the author is a douche bag at heart doesn’t matter. If someone interprets something in their work a douche-y... That’s a valid opinion, whether the author is “actually” a douche bag or not.

Sure, but if the author wasn't being douchey, it will a wrong valid opinion. Opinions can be wrong.

 

[Scott Christian]

Ok, just don't extrapolate your experience to everyone else's. That is the only issue I see here. You seem to assuming your experience or viewpoint or imagination is universal. It is not.

Dave, I apologize if that is how it came across. That was not the intent. I was just trying to show how it broke my immersion, not everyone else's.

 

[dave2008]

Dave, I apologize if that is how it came across. That was not the intent. I was just trying to show how it broke my immersion, not everyone else's.

Got it - thanks!

 

[Scott Christian]

This relationship only gets fuzzier when we go beyond works recounting or inspired by actual events and into works of pure fiction.

They do get fuzzier. Because author's choose words carefully. It is their trade. It is what they think, eat, breathe and sleep. Words. So to claim a greater interpretation than the author's is silly. Again, if you are discussing feelings, like this book gave me the feeling it was about industrialization. Go for it. Travel down the road. Just acknowledge and understand that you are seeking that viewpoint out. And if you claim you are correct, even when the author says no, you are wrong.
If someone says, "I find sexual innuendo and human lust all through the work of Bob Ross." And Bob Ross says, "These are about nature and how scenic nature can be." That someone is wrong. It does not in any way invalidate their feelings. It shows a lack of understanding of the original source material. Again, their feelings are valid. Them explaining a Bob Ross painting to others should be stated as conjecture, not authoritative fact. Which, for the second time, was the spark of this conversation.