A very annoying thing I've seen alot of people do is comment the Stan Lee quote on who wins in a fight is decided by the author But the point is that there is no author to decide who wins in powerscaling debates so we use feats and statements to decide cuz it's the best way to
Yeah what's written in text is what ultimately matters. It's like murdering a child despite intending to be good without knowing that murdering is wrong. It doesn't matter what one says what's done is done.
But I think if people's main argument for something Is "the author said so" or "the authors intent is" they just don't have any actual reasoning for there claims in the series itself
I think people often bring up author intent in power scaling becuase they can never quite understand feats or scaling chains. "The author could have never possibly considered all this powerscaling stuff when writing this!" Which hardly matters becuase its not like those characters didnt performs those feats to begin with, it still occured within the text. I think most people are generally okay with people coming to thier own conclusions about the meanings of stories anyways, making a coherent interpretation of a character's power should fall within that.
general rule of thumb for me atleast is that if the author states something that aligns with his art then its ok but the moment the creator/author says anything that goes against the art, becoming art vs author then the art always wins. because like you hinted at before . Art is for the interpretation of the consumer . the pov of the consumer not for the author to create a warped lense to view it in
Nice thanks for clarifying. I thought that if an authors statements/intent doesn't contradict the story that you should at least consoder it when forming arguments but i guess it all comes down to death of the author at the end of the day.
Author intent in this context is less about claiming omniscient knowledge of their intent, and more about using the implied flow of a story to rule out stuff that isn't really presented as an intended part of it.
People will take things as feats that the story doesn't imply are literal. The question is whether that is valid. I.E. in avatar people taking zuko dodging lightning literally and saying he moves outrageously inhuman speeds. Author intent is one way to make sense of why to dismiss this, because everything else we know about the narrative suggests that it's not supposed to be read that way.
This connects to "death of the author" as well. Not sure if you made a short on that
Good video , explanation makes sense and your voice is calming , overall , 10/10
Edel is shaking
Do u agree with infinite speed Gojo arguments?
A very annoying thing I've seen alot of people do is comment the Stan Lee quote on who wins in a fight is decided by the author
But the point is that there is no author to decide who wins in powerscaling debates so we use feats and statements to decide cuz it's the best way to
Good video bro.
Yeah what's written in text is what ultimately matters. It's like murdering a child despite intending to be good without knowing that murdering is wrong. It doesn't matter what one says what's done is done.
Bro avoided question like people in Dubai taxes.
This is off topic
But I think if people's main argument for something Is "the author said so" or "the authors intent is" they just don't have any actual reasoning for there claims in the series itself
I think people often bring up author intent in power scaling becuase they can never quite understand feats or scaling chains. "The author could have never possibly considered all this powerscaling stuff when writing this!" Which hardly matters becuase its not like those characters didnt performs those feats to begin with, it still occured within the text. I think most people are generally okay with people coming to thier own conclusions about the meanings of stories anyways, making a coherent interpretation of a character's power should fall within that.
Feels like the one with the Shallow Vernal and the Yogiri Takatou ones
Sounds about right, Im sure we can think of a few authors who changed their minds about stuff in interviews that might've altered more than intended.
Or some of the releases of older media.
Does teleportation count as speed ?
In A Future Longer Video Do You Think You'd Go Into How Death Of The Author Kinda Supports The Conclusion You Come To In This Short?
general rule of thumb for me atleast is that if the author states something that aligns with his art then its ok but the moment the creator/author says anything that goes against the art, becoming art vs author then the art always wins. because like you hinted at before . Art is for the interpretation of the consumer . the pov of the consumer not for the author to create a warped lense to view it in
Soβ¦β¦you can use author's intent if he or she is consistent about it?π€
Nice thanks for clarifying. I thought that if an authors statements/intent doesn't contradict the story that you should at least consoder it when forming arguments but i guess it all comes down to death of the author at the end of the day.
ello
Author intent in this context is less about claiming omniscient knowledge of their intent, and more about using the implied flow of a story to rule out stuff that isn't really presented as an intended part of it.
People will take things as feats that the story doesn't imply are literal. The question is whether that is valid. I.E. in avatar people taking zuko dodging lightning literally and saying he moves outrageously inhuman speeds. Author intent is one way to make sense of why to dismiss this, because everything else we know about the narrative suggests that it's not supposed to be read that way.