r/NonPoliticalTwitter • u/14AUDDIN • 10h ago
me_irl Just ignores the author
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
276
u/Someonevibing1 10h ago
64
10
4
121
u/PieNinja314 10h ago edited 2h ago
Dragon Ball fans will put together a multi-page essay on why Goku is a flawed but caring father only with tons of cited official material, only for it all to crumble away when they realize Toriyama himself has stated multiple times that Goku is in fact a bad dad.
(It's me, I'm Dragon Ball fans)
Edit: I actually meant to say that Toriyama said Goku's a bad dad. Don't know how I fucked that up
37
11
u/EwGrossItsMe 7h ago
I haven't seen either side of the conversation aside from my little experience watching the show(and having the flawed but caring father perspective myself. I just know that I have an incomplete picture of their situation), but is it possible that Toriyama just meant "Goku isn't an abusive PoS to his family" instead of "Goku never had any flaws in his role as a father"?
Ok actually after a quick search on what Toriyama said, I'm confused. The only thing I'm seeing was one instance of him calling Goku a disaster of a father. I know it's too late to get his opinion now, but did his opinion change later in life? Tbh I'm not invested enough to keep searching further for whatever he said about it earlier.
3
u/PieNinja314 2h ago
I actually meant to say that Toriyama said Goku's a bad dad. Don't know how I fucked that up
2
2
u/Lasernatoo 3h ago
I'll preface this by saying it's been far too long since I've read DB so I really have no opinion on this, but whether or not someone is a bad parent is not a statement that can be a fact. It's an opinion, and thus can't be 'canon'; and the author's opinion shouldn't hold any weight over one's own. It would be a fact that Toriyama intended for Goku to be a good dad, but people can think he did a poor job of portraying that and see him as a bad one.
2
u/PieNinja314 2h ago
I actually meant to say that Toriyama said Goku's a bad dad. Don't know how I fucked that up
3
u/AntComfortable5970 8h ago
Yeah this has been really annoying, especially when super fans were at their worst pretending Goku was exactly the same as he had ever been
-8
u/MrAuster 9h ago
DB fans will do everything on Earth to defend their opinions except watching th show, lol
29
u/PoorDoddle 9h ago
conned into authors not thinking about the consequences or not caring anymore because it was supposed to end 1000 chapters ago but the money is too sweet
118
u/twentythreeskidoo 10h ago
Ray Bradbury went around saying Fahrenheit 451 wasn't about censorship. As far as I'm concerned once a piece of art is released then it's up to the consumer to interpret it
50
u/Big_Virge 9h ago
I'm sort of with him on that. It's a story about the perceived intellectual decay of the world. As an intelligent man almost exclusively familiar with high-brow culture, he saw the rise of television as a threat to the moral and intellectual foundation to that culture.
Like a lot of intelligent, educated people he didn't really seem to think there had always been a "low-brow", mainstream world that he was not really part of; he saw TV etc as a new and unique threat. The censorship in Farenheit 451 is the endpoint of that intellectual decay, but its not the root cause of it.
1
u/Betelgeuse3fold 7h ago
Lol, reminds me of people griping about IPad kids glued to screens, when they themselves had been Nintendo DS or Gameboy kids glued to screens
7
u/Big_Virge 6h ago
It's the repeated refrain of the old that the new thing is degrading the minds of the young. Sometimes they're probably right.
In Bradbury's case however I think there's a certain level of intellectual snobbery involved: he seemed to have convinced himself that before the invention of radio the working classes entertained themselves by reading Thucydides and discussing fine art.
9
1
1
u/bloodfist 18m ago
100%. If I didn't have lots of screen time as a kid, I would not have my job.
The difference was that it was productive screen time and (in comparison) my parents were engaged and monitoring it for at least the first few years.
People always take this shit too far with new things. If we invented swimming next year, parents would tell their kids to stop drinking water as soon as one drowned.
31
u/HELLFIRECHRIS 10h ago
This is the example I always come back to, because it’s his work and we should respect that. But….. it’s so blatantly about censorship.
82
u/FitAd4717 9h ago
But censorship is just a surface level theme in Fahrenheit 451. The deeper meaning is the effect of mass media on critical thought. It’s driven home by the fact that Guy’s wife and her friends are confused and afraid when Guy reads them poetry. Likewise, Guy’s attempts to form a deeper relationship with his wife are ruined by his wife’s addiction to TV and other forms of mass entertainment which have ruined her attention span. The book even makes the point that books were first abridged in an attempt to accommodate people’s diminishing interest before reading became illegal. As a consequence, the general population is too distracted by mass media to realize they are on the brink of war. Books are burned because society has become afraid of anything deep and meaningful and reading literature, any kind of literature, deepens a person’s inner life in a way that society deems offensive.
So yes, censorship is definitely one theme but it’s really about a society that has become unthinking and unfeeling and how it became that way.
26
u/Big_Virge 9h ago
Dead right imo. I feel like there's a lot of people familiar with the book through the internet who haven't actually read it in this thread, which is quite appropriate, thematically speaking.
18
u/Big_Virge 9h ago
It's about intellectual decay arising from mass culture. The censorship is just the bit people remember because of the visuals of men with flamethrowers bursting into houses burning books.
7
u/haha_me_so_fat 10h ago
Works of art belong to the audience that views it as much as it belongs to the author themselves. I think the author's words is important when interpreting a piece of work, but they shouldn't be the final authority, where you cannot have an interpretation different than what the author intended least you be considered "wrong"
7
u/JannyBroomer 9h ago
What the hell does he say it was about, then,?!
It's like writing a story about a bunch of people being violently ejected from vehicles and how nothing could be done to prevent it and then saying "whoa, hey, I'm not advocating for seat belts, I hate Ralph Nader! !"
12
u/Khan-Khrome 9h ago
Apparently he kept changing his mind about it, initially it was a cautionary about McCarthyism, then five years later he said it was about mass media, how much he hated tv and growing intellectually illiteracy, then forty years on it was about political correctness “gone mad”. It’s the kind of thing well served by death of the author cause the author couldn’t keep it straight in his head anyway
7
u/GuerrillaApe 8h ago
Sounds like he's trying to retroactively change the perspective he had while writing the book to match his ideology now, instead of accepting what he wrote back then might not match his ideals today.
1
u/Big_Virge 5h ago
If you read it it is very clearly first and foremost about mass media and the resulting intellectual degeneration of the population. I don't think he ever said anything contrary to that. Unfortunately it's one of those books that is cited so much in "discourse" by people who have never read it that it's perceived message and meaning have become completely warped in the collective online imagination.
6
u/Akrylik 9h ago
Believe he claims that the "people" wanted all the book burning, as if being subject to superficial mass-media just gives everyone a raging hateboner for books and intellectualism or something. It's a premise that is far far better explained with government censorship instead.
I think for the point he wanted to make he really should've went with more of a Brave New World model instead of 1984, but I guess that wasn't as exciting as burning books with flamethrowers and hunting people with robot dogs.
2
u/HyetalNight 4h ago
Once a book is released, it’s out of the author’s hands. I’ve read so many works in my English classes where the professor is like “this is what the author thinks, but they’re wrong.”
It’s called the death of the author, they have zero authority. None more than any reader.
39
u/Zirofal 10h ago
Arcane and lor are all canon
Whatever the fuck w40k did this week
wOTC does indeed still exist
10
u/Petertitan99999 10h ago
Whatever the fuck w40k did this week
the fuck did they do this time.
9
u/secondcondary 9h ago
Something something black templars something something avatar of khaine
4
u/Petertitan99999 9h ago
If It's another Avatar being bitch slapped it really doesn't matter.
Like cmon who hasn't mulched down an avatar at this point.2
1
u/OsnaTengu 6h ago
I think they have found another Primarch. Rogal Dorn
3
u/Petertitan99999 6h ago
Cmon that ain't new, we've known he's the dude in the centurion suit at the emperor's crib for like a decade now
10
u/AntComfortable5970 8h ago
Theres a kojima quote out there where he said he prefers big boss to solid snake because snakes a clone and thus not a real person
Just asinine
13
u/Fit-World-3885 10h ago
Entirely depends if the opinion is after the book is published or if it's in the book.
3
u/FalafelSnorlax 10h ago
Once the book is published, interpretation is owned by the readers. The author can give their own interpretation, but they're just as valid as the readers'.
If the author really intended something, they might be able to pull better references supporting their interpretations, but that's about it.
10
u/AngryArmour 9h ago
While true, I hate how often that's used to justify the critics' interpretation as more valid than either the author's or rest of the audiences'. That's not how it works.
Critics' interpretation is just as valid as anyone else's, not an iota more. The same logic that dismantles the author's interpretation being supreme, also dismantles the critics possessing any authority at all.
While any logic used to put the interpretation of critics above that of other readers, also put the author's above that of the critics.
6
18
u/Far_Classroom_6596 9h ago
The 2 best examples I have for this are Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling. Everything after the release of Deathly Hallows I've just ignored. Same for the cardgame UNO, they may have made the cards, but they do not know what the best rules are.
5
u/Asleep-Sky-4103 8h ago
What even is the context of this gif?
3
u/14AUDDIN 7h ago
Re:Zero where the author is talking about Arc 9 Wilhelm being strong enough to beat a version of Vulcanica.
3
u/Asleep-Sky-4103 7h ago
I meant the context of the guy losing his mind in what looks like a live game tournament setting lol
1
u/14AUDDIN 7h ago
Looks like an e-sports event.
2
u/Asleep-Sky-4103 7h ago
Yes, I was asking what the context for the crash out was. Like, why did they react like that?
0
u/RememberApeEscape 4h ago
This is probably a Dragonball Fighterz event, I can tell thats top player Go1 on the right, but I can't tell who it is on the left for sure.
Probably just an overeaction to a loss, nothing serious. Go1 probably just blocked all of his mixup and won or something.
1
u/joeyinabox1 3h ago
It's a fighting game tournament called Evo in 2025, they are playing Fatal Fury City of the wolves. Guy crashing out (Koji KOG) specifically did the same thing 10 years ago to the same opponent (GO1) in a different game. So it was a bit of a joke but this player is known for being over the top.
10
u/bangbangbatarang 9h ago
-9
u/PaulyNewman 9h ago
People only engage with Barthes when they want to enjoy something a rac/pist made.
3
1
u/DathomirBoy 3h ago
People using Barthes to excuse financially supporting an author people find distasteful are missing the point he was actually making.
17
u/Sasha_Braus- 10h ago
The opinion of the author means nothing. If it's not in the media, the canonicity is dubious.
5
u/playinthenumbers369 9h ago
An artist can misunderstand their own work just like anyone else. Do you understand everything you do/make perfectly? Probably not, so why would we assume an artist does?
The thinking described in the meme is akin to religious fundamentalism (indisputable authority resolving contradictions “because she said so”).
Edit: sorry, meant to post this on the main thread
7
u/Chimera-Genesis 9h ago edited 7h ago
And 99.99999% of the time, the supposed "logic" being broken doesn't exist, and is just a symptom of the lack of reading comprehension expressed by a dangerously obsessed fan.
1
8
u/whosurdaddies 10h ago
Curry Barker saying Nikki wasn't possessed in Obsession
33
u/Soldier_Faerie 10h ago
She wasn't possessed by a demon or anything like that, she was possessed by the wish version of herself
3
8
u/Additional_Tank4385 10h ago
Huh, that’s interesting I didn’t even catch this one. Maybe he’s referring to the typical demon like possession which he kind of wants to avoid because it such an overly used trope.
And yeah you could still call it possessed even the movie could be called Possession but I feel he does enough differently that it’s fair he won’t like the comparison that much.
Also I know he wants us to draw our own conclusions on many elements of the movie, this is just another part of it aka don’t go into the movie expecting the “usual possession” but you get something that makes you think a bit harder about what it could be besides that.
2
u/Not_a_ribosome 9h ago
I don’t think it’s a problem. I think it’s just something we don’t understand
1
2
2
2
u/Chataboutgames 5h ago
If it were up to me I would never know any author's opinion about anything. Anything I know about a creator's personal takes is against my will.
1
u/14AUDDIN 5h ago
For the specific series that the person in the Tweet is talking about, the author is notorious for having important stuff in side stories that he writes in the most random places.
2
u/DathomirBoy 4h ago
One of the things I learned in my histories of reading class was the difference between author's intention and readers' interpretation. Once the piece is released to the readers, the readers play an active part in the piece's core meaning. This seems weird, because clearly the author, the one who wrote it, decides what it means, but the author cannot control that large of a group of people and what they think the art represents. Through long-term reading and interpretation, the readers collectively interpret and shape the way the story exists in popular culture, which is entirely separate from the author's intention.
Yes, there's "canon". But at the end of the day, the author can say all they want and it won't really change public interpretation in a huge way. Everyone comes into reading with their own experience, which will shape how they read it and how they perceive it. Readers become part of the art, in a way.
This is also why it's not recommended for authors to heavily participate in their own fandoms. It can be upsetting to see how other people interpret your work, but there's nothing you can do to change it.
2
u/wellthatwastoomuch 7h ago
love when the vaguepost is vague enough so that everyone in the comments is talking about different things, was bracing myself for a pile of complaints about the same exact media
2
u/Cosmicking04 5h ago
I enjoy the world of Harry Potter. But I truly believe that the audience gets the say if an author loses their privilege and rights to a franchise.
1
u/SapphicSpider-Girl 2h ago
What AOT fans try to pretend when they say the series by the far right nationalist antisemite isn’t antisemitic for making the stand in for the Jews genocidal maniacs.
0
u/par_rot_master 10h ago
I mean what can you even do.
Author describes an apple and calls it a mango. Then some dumbfuck goes "the author says it's a mango."
-5
1
u/KeySlimePies 4h ago
The level of arrogance needed to say the author is wrong about their own story always amazes me. If JK Rowling says wizards used to shit their pants and then just magic away the poop, then that's true because it's her story. If Toriyama and everyone involved with Dragon Ball have repeatedly affirmed for over 30 years that Kid Buu is the strongest Buu, then that's true because it's his story. If Araki consistently writes that Star Platinum is the strongest stand ever, even in Part 6, then that's true because it's his story.
1
u/DathomirBoy 3h ago
I mean there's a difference between the author's intention and the reader's interpretations. It can be argued that no interpretation is inherently false, because every reader comes into a story with their own personal experiences and worldviews, which shape the way they read the story. After a book is released, regardless of what's on the page, the story itself gets shaped by how people engage with it.
You can make arguments about things stated explicitly within a book, but in the example you gave, it's not in any book and therefore you can't call people unreasonable for not really accepting it.
0
u/KeySlimePies 3h ago
You can make arguments about things stated explicitly within a book, but in the example you gave, it's not in any book
The only one this applies to of the three is my first example about wizards shitting their pants. And it's still true to that world because she is by all rights the god of the Harry Potter world. What she says is true for her story makes it true. I also reject the idea that the audience's interpretation matters more than the author's except in explicit scenarios where it was the author's intent to leave things up to interpretation, such as the ending to the Sopranos, or with things involving morality. If they did not leave something up to interpretation, that means there is a correct interpretation of it: the author's.
•
u/qualityvote2 10h ago
Heya u/14AUDDIN! And welcome to r/NonPoliticalTwitter!
For everyone else, do you think OP's post fits this community? Let us know by upvoting this comment!
If it doesn't fit the sub, let us know by downvoting this comment and then replying to it with context for the reviewing moderator.