New Testingstan

don't give a fuck bout canon in this sense

Count Chocula wrote:i'll go with that unless the author retconned in later works.

i have The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The Hobbit, and LOTR on my bookshelves. I'm still not seeing the manlove, maybe there's something in A Guide to Middle-Earth that I'm missing.

why is this so threatening to you?

tell me about your mother

i'm not threatened

who are you, Freud's ghost?

Count Chocula wrote:i'm not threatened

who are you, Freud's ghost?

denial stopped being cute around the days of sargon ii

Jose Arcadio Bakendia wrote:don't give a fuck bout canon in this sense

Count Chocula wrote:i'll go with that unless the author retconned in later works.

i have The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The Hobbit, and LOTR on my bookshelves. I'm still not seeing the manlove, maybe there's something in A Guide to Middle-Earth that I'm missing.

why is this so threatening to you?

tell me about your mother

no seriously, tell us about your mother

is she hot?

fuck you, asshole

EDIT hey how about that you just hit the "I'm a dick" threshold.

Jose Arcadio Bakendia wrote:Allegory is a one-to-one correspondence where the entirety of the story has a specific, symbolic meaning. Tolkien can say that LOTR is not allegorical, and this is within his power as author, but (as Tolkien himself noted with "applicability") interpretations of the story can be multitudinous without necessarily conflicting with one another. So for example LOTR is, to many readers, very much about war, but also about spirituality, (and for a large subset of readers, hot mansex) and contains various things that we can interpret and read into, some of them odder than others. All are valid for a certain level of validity, and thankfully Tolkien has left everything besides "allegory" open. Anyways, I was considering putting together a thread on Tolkien over at SomethingAwful, thanks for giving me the opportunity to talk about this!

Ahh, OK. I do have a certain ...allergy... to the kind of non-contextual analysis that I've seen some do, as long as you're talking about meaning applied after the fact, and not trying to pigeonhole Tolkien himself into having intended meanings, theres a lot of good discussion to be had, especially around the themes of the work.

Where I start to get annoyed is when people start applying and introducing themes and meanings from without and expecting others to agree with them. I think it cheapens literary analysis and makes the process a joke. It's like some of the people who attempt to find deep, deep meaning in superhero sequel movies. While there's a certain amount of literary/cinematic art going on, you can't lose sight of the fact that it was made because the producers expected it to bring in massive amounts of money, and that a lot of decisions are going to be made "in the room" on creating a movie that will sell well. Some of Shakespeare's comedies actually fall into that same area of discussion. I'm a huge Shakespeare fan when it comes to the Histories and the Tragedies, but when reading (or studying) the Comedies, I can't help but be struck with some of the similarities with modern cash-in rom-coms (which is probably why so many modern rom-coms are just Shakespeare with a new coat of paint applied). I just get frustrated with trying to find the literary depth and social/political commentary of, for example, MacBeth or Julius Caesar, in The Taming of the Shrew. It's got literary value, but at a certain point, even Shakespeare had to eat, too.

So, the stuff I was talking about earlier- initially, Aragorn and Eowyn were to shack up, but this was rejected almost as conceived for the same reasons given in TT. Then Aragorn (going on memory here, as I haven't been able to find vols. 8 or 9 for love of money) ends up going all the way to his coronation single. At this point, Tolkien realized that this was an unsatisfying ending, and quickly conceived of Arwen Elrond's daughter, giving her appearances within the story as reasonable during his final rewriting to reconcile FOTR and TT with ROTK.

I actually really regret that I never bought those books when they came out, the sets are going for $650-$700 on amazon.

But living in a university town's got it's uses. UCI has all of the volumes, and so does the Orange County Public Library. Have you checked your local library?

Questor wrote: Where I start to get annoyed is when people start applying and introducing themes and meanings from without and expecting others to agree with them. I think it cheapens literary analysis and makes the process a joke. It's like some of the people who attempt to find deep, deep meaning in superhero sequel movies.

Wait, I thought that's how literary analysis worked? Are you telling me the internet is wrong?!

Count Chocula wrote:fuck you, asshole

EDIT hey how about that you just hit the "I'm a dick" threshold.

Otherwise known as "The Chockles Line"?

Zod wrote:

Questor wrote: Where I start to get annoyed is when people start applying and introducing themes and meanings from without and expecting others to agree with them. I think it cheapens literary analysis and makes the process a joke. It's like some of the people who attempt to find deep, deep meaning in superhero sequel movies.

Wait, I thought that's how literary analysis worked? Are you telling me the internet is wrong?!

Did you know that George Lucas also didn't sit down with a mechanical engineer and an astrophysicist to make sure that his movies were 100% consistent with current science and depicted a universe with technological superiority to the one Gene Roddenberry created? I know, it is completely unreasonable of him not to have built up a David Weber style technology guide for himself, and calculated everything down to the individual economics of certain towns on his planets. He's SUCH A HACK!

Where I start to get annoyed is when people start applying and introducing themes and meanings from without and expecting others to agree with them

I'm unsure what you mean here.

It's an experience I've had (mostly with junior faculty at community colleges in an academic setting, it's ridiculously common on the internet) where literary analysis is done backwards. The offendor finds some sort of parallel, albeit a surface one, and justifies it with some insanely twisted logic. In a class, the professor assumes his interpretation as fact, and forces students to write essays on it. This is usually accompanied by an instruction reading "using only evidence in the text or supplied in the class." My favorite being that "A Midsummer Night's Dream" was about the experience of homosexuals in the nightclubs of London. This is obviously an extreme example, though.

The professor obviously had zero concept of the historical context of the work, and may not have been able to describe the differences between Shakespeare's time and ours.

This type of behavior has led to the urban legend of an english teacher arguing with an author about what the author meant with his book, usually the "author" will admit that the book was a cash-in and the teacher will attempt to give it some deeper meaning.

Questor wrote:It's an experience I've had (mostly with junior faculty at community colleges in an academic setting, it's ridiculously common on the internet) where literary analysis is done backwards. The offendor finds some sort of parallel, albeit a surface one, and justifies it with some insanely twisted logic. In a class, the professor assumes his interpretation as fact, and forces students to write essays on it. This is usually accompanied by an instruction reading "using only evidence in the text or supplied in the class." My favorite being that "A Midsummer Night's Dream" was about the experience of homosexuals in the nightclubs of London. This is obviously an extreme example, though.

The professor obviously had zero concept of the historical context of the work, and may not have been able to describe the differences between Shakespeare's time and ours.

This type of behavior has led to the urban legend of an english teacher arguing with an author about what the author meant with his book, usually the "author" will admit that the book was a cash-in and the teacher will attempt to give it some deeper meaning.

But, but, author's intent doesn't matter!!1!!!

It sounds to me that Questor had some bad classes in literature. And Zod, I don't know if you're being cute or whatever, but author's intent doesn't matter at all.

I'm not going to argue with you about that guy at all. But I'm thinking of how common the backwards stuff is on the internet (TEO is full of it, reading analysis of ST and SW on there is particularly cringe-inducing, see Karen "She's deliberately making the Clone Army too small" Travis). That's part of the reason I avoid the fiction sections entirely, they manage to destroy my enjoyment of anything discussed, sometimes permanently. I'm trying really hard to read A Song of Ice and Fire right now (slower going than I'd like because of how busy I am), and avoiding amateur analysis is pretty darn hard, and I know if I run into some idiot with an essay on how its an allegory for the triumph of Bush-style authoritarian politics over the good and right liberals, I'll lose a lot of motivation.

Author's intent may not matter when discussing meaning to a person, or the effect of a work of literature (As an aside, is everyone here OK with using the expanded definition of literature here, so I don't have to type literature/cinema/music/interactive media?), but I would have to think that both intent and content are very important in analyzing a work as a whole, simply because they're relevant to the effect the author is trying to create . I'm open to being wrong though.

The intent is not important because outside of an interview or foreword written by the author himself, author's intent is virtually unknowable. It's one of the biggest misconceptions of literary analysis there is out there - see Wong's reasons for why lit analysis is flawed vs his own special brand of willing suspension of disbelief.

Now I'm sure there are exceptions to this, and since we've been talking about it I'd guess something like Tolkien saying that 'lotr isn't an allegory guys, just FYI' might count if you're analysing LotR for what the author intended. On the other hand, as an example I don't know if Tolkien intended for Frodo and Sam's relationship to be so gay, yet many interpret it that way (either for a laugh or for serious examination). If Tolkien did intend that then great, but if he didn't, it's no less valid so long as the text supports it.

Plus, as someone who likes to read and watch films and shows and storytelling in general, I think there's something vaguely conceited about wondering what the author intended about something. There's something about it that seems fallacious, almost like making an appeal to authority. 'SW is a kids show because Lucas said so' etc. I think it violates the compact an author has with the reader and the audience and depowers the reader and turns him into a passive participant rather than someone who can be active in the story. There is something to be said for how storytelling is a two-way street and what the author intended is not nearly as important as how the reader responds to it and uses his or her imagination to make the story come alive. Like picturing how a character looks in a novel when the description is vague or not complete. Stuff like that invites the reader to fill in the blanks. Same goes for film, we don't have to see everything to infer something happened off-screen. Otherwise you get into this ridiculous situation like the current SW fandom where the word canon gets thrown around a lot and people argue about what Lucas must have intended by certain lines (and you brought up a great example with Karen 'No Numbers' Traviss. Arguably the number of clonetroopers being low is something that comes from AotC anyway and thus ought to have the highest canon authority but Traviss is the one who must be wrong; see what I mean?), and if you don't see it onscreen It Didn't Happen.

So stuff like Lucas wanting ships to be like taking the car to A&W or whatever has no bearing, even though it's the reason why space flight is so common and fast in SW?

Aaron wrote:So stuff like Lucas wanting ships to be like taking the car to A&W or whatever has no bearing, even though it's the reason why space flight is so common and fast in SW?

I guess so. It gives an out of context perspective on something in the text, when you could just as easily say spaceflight is so common because that's what a massive galactic society would largely resemble given that kind of technology. Another example might be the whole Sith lightning thing, which Lucas explicitly said was a dark side power in a commentary but is that supported by what we see in the films? Yoda throws back the lightning Dooky threw at him in AotC; did Yoda get like a Dark Side point out of that? What about using the Force to choke someone? That was shown to be a power only Vader employed, to torture or kill people. Luke uses it the first time we see him in RotJ. (Which I think is cool because I interpret RotJ as Luke struggling with and ultimately rejecting the Dark Side, something Anakin couldn't do which is why he fell, but which his son's example redeems him to turn against the Emperor)

Stofsk wrote:Now I'm sure there are exceptions to this, and since we've been talking about it I'd guess something like Tolkien saying that 'lotr isn't an allegory guys, just FYI' might count if you're analysing LotR for what the author intended. On the other hand, as an example I don't know if Tolkien intended for Frodo and Sam's relationship to be so gay, yet many interpret it that way (either for a laugh or for serious examination). If Tolkien did intend that then great, but if he didn't, it's no less valid so long as the text supports it.

This I have no problem with. My problem is when someone starts saying "this represents the..." and passing it off as fact. The only way I know of to make that statement and not begin it with "to me" is to use author intent. I'll admit that I tend to be very literal, and that that's a rather serious handicap when it comes to literary analysis, but I really do think that while "intent" may not be the best word for what I'm thinking of, you cannot divorce a story from its context and setting, and in fact I think those things really enhance a story.

Plus, as someone who likes to read and watch films and shows and storytelling in general, I think there's something vaguely conceited about wondering what the author intended about something. There's something about it that seems fallacious, almost like making an appeal to authority. 'SW is a kids show because Lucas said so' etc. I think it violates the compact an author has with the reader and the audience and depowers the reader and turns him into a passive participant rather than someone who can be active in the story. There is something to be said for how storytelling is a two-way street and what the author intended is not nearly as important as how the reader responds to it and uses his or her imagination to make the story come alive. Like picturing how a character looks in a novel when the description is vague or not complete. Stuff like that invites the reader to fill in the blanks. Same goes for film, we don't have to see everything to infer something happened off-screen. Otherwise you get into this ridiculous situation like the current SW fandom where the word canon gets thrown around a lot and people argue about what Lucas must have intended by certain lines (and you brought up a great example with Karen 'No Numbers' Traviss. Arguably the number of clonetroopers being low is something that comes from AotC anyway and thus ought to have the highest canon authority but Traviss is the one who must be wrong; see what I mean?), and if you don't see it onscreen It Didn't Happen.

No arguments there, although I will point out that "SW is a kids show" does provide important context to a number of issues, particularly when trying to understand production decisions, such as pacing. Another example where intent is relevant is how a particular media is consumed. While I enjoy watching TV shows on DVD, I really think that some of the experience gets lost that way. For highly episodic series, you lose the separation between episodes and they start feeling disjointed. For a highly plotted series or miniseries. I get the same feeling when reading novels that were originally serialized, or short story collections that were not originally published together. Those, along with the cases where intent IS knowable, are what I was thinking of as intent.

I guess, in my view, intent is something that can either be known or unknown, but if it IS known, I don't think it can really be ignored while still respecting the work as a whole.

Literary analysis as a concept leaves me wondering, "what makes my interpretation of this more or less valid than another person's interpretation," but that's the way my brain works. It really doesn't like questions that can't be answered. Heck, the reason I'm awake right now is that I had some sort of panic attack after a dream. I can remember what started it, too. I started literally thinking about nothing and trying to define it, and couldn't do it. I need bounds on my world.

I don't take author intent too much into account, unless they come right out and say "I wrote this part to represent this other thing" because they do not write in a vacuum. Tolkien explicitly said that he wasn't writing allegory, and I can believe he wasn't doing it consciously, but his experiences during World War I, for example, did influence his personality and worldview, which in turn influenced his writing even if he didn't realize it.

And since The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings were so successful, pretty much any modern fantasy work you can get your hands on will be influenced by them. Whether it's influencing the language used, the types of characters, recurring themes, or the inclusion or exclusion of elves, dwarves, orcs, and halflings and how they interact with the world around them.

Stofsk wrote:The intent is not important because outside of an interview or foreword written by the author himself, author's intent is virtually unknowable. It's one of the biggest misconceptions of literary analysis there is out there - see Wong's reasons for why lit analysis is flawed vs his own special brand of willing suspension of disbelief.

Would you happen to have a link to this?

Edit: I found it.

Questor wrote:This I have no problem with. My problem is when someone starts saying "this represents the..." and passing it off as fact.

I wonder why this is a problem for you when you know yourself that it's subjective.

Questor wrote:Literary analysis as a concept leaves me wondering, "what makes my interpretation of this more or less valid than another person's interpretation," but that's the way my brain works. It really doesn't like questions that can't be answered. Heck, the reason I'm awake right now is that I had some sort of panic attack after a dream. I can remember what started it, too. I started literally thinking about nothing and trying to define it, and couldn't do it. I need bounds on my world.

Um... if your analysis includes textual evidence to back it up, it's more valid than someone who doesn't?

What are you on, knubbs? My issue is with people who analyse the text in isolation. More evidence = better, but when there are multiple valid interpretations, all supported by evidence, that's where subjectivity comes in.

why should a work only contain one message that is 'right'?

It shouldn't, it should contain as many as people choose to give it. That doesn't prevent my brain from trying to find the "Best Answer" for me, though.

EDIT: To Clarify:

I have two completely separate points:

1} Literary analysis that only draws on the content of the work, and ignores the original context of the work is, at BEST, limited.

2) I, personally, because I tend to have a very literal interpretation of things, try to find a "BEST FIT" meaning for something, and so when people overanalyze a book before I finish reading it (and I run into those analysis), it will result in ME overanalyzing it, and thus limiting my enjoyment.

To address the OP:

I seem to remember Bakustra way back saying that the real 'strength' of the fattynerd is memorization, I wonder if this has something to do with that. They don't really engage with stuff they like, they just memorize/record tons of shit so they can be 'informed' about it. It's all about having read all the 'material' however shitty and obscure so you can be 'well-informed' about the 'universe' and being able to drop quotes and references and shit. This doesn't require any deep thought, just a willingness to read/watch a bunch of shit and memorize/take notes, so it's easy in terms of everything but willingness to do the simple but time consuming work.

Looking at boards like SB and SDN it's pretty easy for me to imagine how this style of appreciation might develop, because really, what do discussions tend to look like there? A bunch of nerds dropping references and quotes, with willingness to read a bunch of Engorged Universe shit rewarded by being able to drop all those references and quotes and contest other nerds when they drop a line about how XYZ happens in some obscure comic nobody has ever heard of.

I wonder if another factor is that applying critical thought to stuff tends to result in coming up with either the work itself saying something the fattynerd doesn't like or the work being questionable which the fattynerd doesn't want to hear about because it interferes with their ability to think it's the greatest thing ever. I remember one time somebody on SB wrote about how a book I liked had some problematic messages and, thinking about it from the vantage of hindsight, I think he might have had a decent point, but at the time I was pretty defensive of the book.

Coupled with, I bet, a lot of "literature = boring shit I didn't care about my teacher made me read in high school" and "humanities and arts majors are just useless university hobbyist parasites technical majors are the only ones worth a damn" mindset, and you have a recipe for fatties obsessed with superficial detail while not bothering to engage in any deep reading and often being actively hostile to it. Sounds like what the OP is talking about to me.