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

[Scott Christian]

It's not that the author's own interpretation of their work is invalid; it's that the author's interpretation is but one of many, and can be analyzed and debated against like any other interpretation of any given work.

This is true. The author's interpretation is one of many. But it is the authoritative interpretation. People can change it, especially as present drags into history. But if you are going to speak as an authority on a subject, one should be very aware and knowledgeable of the original source. And one should try to use it for their interpretation.
Some moments in history are made by misinterpretation. For good and bad. Popular songs are ripe with this. As are symbols. But that shouldn't stop the person explaining the material, song, or symbol from also explaining its original source and how it changed.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is true. The author's interpretation is one of many. But it is the authoritative interpretation. People can change it, especially as present drags into history. But if you are going to speak as an authority on a subject, one should be very aware and knowledgeable of the original source. And one should try to use it for their interpretation.
Some moments in history are made by misinterpretation. For good and bad. Popular songs are ripe with this. As are symbols. But that shouldn't stop the person explaining the material, song, or symbol from also explaining its original source and how it changed.

What makes the author’s interpretation of a work more legitimate than anyone else’s?

 

[Umbran]

I was reiterating why I do not understand the appeal. Nothing more, nothing less.

I believe my point still stand. Consider the possibility that your beliefs are not a great guidepost to understanding what others like, or are misinformed.

An open mind is the first step in understanding others.

 

[prabe]

What makes the author’s interpretation of a work more legitimate than anyone else’s?

So, I don't disagree that the author can be wrong about the meaning of their work, but I think it's at least worth taking them at their word as to their intentions.

That said, I can see an argument that writing works as an act of communication by correlating the author's mind with the reader's. In most instances this correlation is imperfect, because the reader and the author have different minds; when they are the same, however--when the reader is also the author--the correlation would seem to be as close as humanly possible, if not exactly one-to-one. Please note I am merely describing an argument I can see being made, not making it. (In other words, this is not my position, here.)

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, something I dealt with literally just an hour ago seems applicable here.

I do a live-writing thing that is... sort of half play by post, half novel, half something else. During the latest run they picked a big ability to use for a dramatic finish, butas a price something bad had to happen, and when I put it up for a vote one of the options was the techno-virus they were fighting off from an NPCs mind got rooted in deep and was going to become a more permanent part of that character, though the NPC was going to retain full control of their faculties.

Some people in my chat took exception. One person even called it a betrayal.

See, I, as the author had seen this entire quest line as freeing the NPC from the potential control of this techno-virus. Therefore, with her in control, they had succeeded.

They had seen it as completely curing her of the virus, and so with part of the virus becoming permanent, they felt I was forcing them to fail at the last second.

My intent and their interpretation did not match up. It was close, but about 20 degrees to the left of where they were at. And while I talked to them, and we talked it through, I think this very clearly highlights that the intent of the author does not mean that the story came across in that manner. Subtle things make a difference.



And, moving this along to races, there are some things that we can do, but that are really hard to pull off. For example of a simple thing, I did a little research and it was proposed that humanoid creatures with horns wouldn't really blush. Instead, their horns would darken from increased blood flow. That is amazing, and super cool.... but how do you describe it quickly at the table? It is still a blush, as in I am indicating they are embarrassed or aroused or whatever else you use blushing for, but it is expressed in a different physical manner.

Do I use the short hand? What if I forget to describe it properly?

I'm also playing a character in a game right now who doesn't have a gender. They are a fae spirit of fire and wind, having a gender doesn't even make much sense to them. I keep slipping up and saying he. Is this because I can't possibly comprehend a person without gender? Well, sort of. I know that there are non-binary people whose gender and ideas about gender are very fluid. I'm not one of them though, so it is very difficult for me to express that, even though it is something that is possible for a human mind to express.

But, even if I understood it better, and presented it... would the other people at the table interpret it the way I intended it?



And at the end of the day, how accurate do I have to be for it to count? I have an idea of a character for Eberron, a human Ancestral Barbarian who is from Cyre, the spirits that haunt him being the souls of the other people from his village who didn't escape the Mourning. I can't portray that character accurately. I can't portray someone who has lost every person they ever known, their home, their land, their nationality, and hope for it to be accurate. Sure, it is a thing that has happened to humans, but words are a poor medium, and they can't convey something that devastating with 100% accuracy.

So, how accurate do I need to be? 70%? 50%? 30%?

And, depending on how low that number is, who is to say that I can't capture 50% of an alien mindset? And who is to say that that isn't enough to make it enjoyable or interesting to try and portray that character?

 

[Charlaquin]

So, I don't disagree that the author can be wrong about the meaning of their work, but I think it's at least worth taking them at their word as to their intentions.

Oh, sure. I tend to take authors at their word as to their intentions - that is to say, I don’t assume they’re lying about their intentions, unless given reason to believe otherwise. I just don’t think their intended reading has any greater legitimacy than any other reading.

That said, I can see an argument that writing works as an act of communication by correlating the author's mind with the reader's. In most instances this correlation is imperfect, because the reader and the author have different minds; when they are the same, however--when the reader is also the author--the correlation would seem to be as close as humanly possible, if not exactly one-to-one. Please note I am merely describing an argument I can see being made, not making it. (In other words, this is not my position, here.)

This position would seem to suggest that a writer’s unconscious biases are either not capable of affecting their work, or impossible to detect from their work. Which seems pretty dubious.

 

[prabe]

This position would seem to suggest that a writer’s unconscious biases are either not capable of affecting their work, or impossible to detect from their work. Which seems pretty dubious.

I'd say it pretty much outright states their unconscious biases are impossible (or at least very difficult) for them to detect in their own work. I don't think it says anything about those biases affecting the work or anyone else being able to see them.

My own position is more akin to an iceberg metaphor, fwiw.

 

[Charlaquin]

For example of a simple thing, I did a little research and it was proposed that humanoid creatures with horns wouldn't really blush. Instead, their horns would darken from increased blood flow.

I adore this detail and am absolutely going to use it. This is the best thing to come out of this whole thread.

 

[Bitbrain]

Let me give you a simple example. JK Rowling said she intended for the character of Dumbledore to be gay. However, absolutely nothing in the books she wrote gives any indication of this being the case. One can certainly interpret the character as being gay, but equally they can interpret the character as straight, and nothing in the text will directly affirm or deny either interpretation.

Umm... my maternal grandmother refused to buy me the first Harry Potter book in 1999 after I told her I wanted it for Christmas. Among other things, she claimed that Dumbledore was the gayest name she’d ever heard of, and wasn’t going to get me a book featuring “all that kind of stuff”.

FYI, my maternal grandmother has never lived outside of America, and has never met JK Rowling in her life.

 

[Umbran]

But it is the authoritative interpretation.

When we speak about art, we must remember that there are three works - the work the creator intended, the work that was actually produced, and the work as the audience perceives it.

We tend to speak as if the first work of these three is really paramount. But that's an authoritarian notion - that the artist gets to dictate what the art means. At this point, though, we should note that the audience gets to do what it darned well wants - partaking of the art in no way obligates the audience to the artist's intention. The artist is not entitled to obedience from the audience.

And artists who forget that tend to come across as jerks.