Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

There are 2 competing schools of thought for how to read subtext in the media you consume. Death of the Author states that once released into the world any meaning that the audience derives from it is valid regardless of the author's feeling on the matter. Authorial Intent meanwhile states that an author's intended meaning is the only true meaning.

Example: I am thirsty.

You can read that as a traditional thirst for water, or as the newer slang term for being horny. Does it behoove us to try to parse which the speaker intends? Only if you intend to act as if you live in the same world as them.

But what if you find Harry Potter inspiring or thought provoking in ways that JK Rowling didn't intend? If you derive joy from it, does it matter?

Those are 2 ends of a spectrum, and it's ok to find yourself somewhere in the middle, or to have areas that are more or less exceptions.

I lean toward Authorial Intent. I think it's socially responsible to understand what people are saying rather than just making crap up. But darn if the muggle world of Harry Potter doesn't make me think of Genera Dissonance.

Tangent: What do I mean by Genera Dissonance? Think of a romantic comedy show or movie (RomCom) and how the characters act, how the scenes are filmed and generally how everything is portrayed. Now think of a horror movie. Imagine that those RomCom characters were doing their goofball antics while the horror movie is going on, the creepy atmosphere and ominous music undercut by Sinfield's jokes and the way he seems to pause for a laugh track (or even worse, imagine the laugh track was there too). They would seem so out of place that you couldn't help but hate them, or maybe be bizarrely amused.

When things are out of place they create a sort of Uncanny Valley. Sometimes to good effect, the TV show Drawn Together had it's moments, but sometimes not. (end explanatory tangent)

The opening chapters of Harry Potter focuses on the Dursleys, they live their ordinary lives and they act as if they are in a rather boring slice of life drama. Maybe a documentary about horrible people. Everything in their world reinforces that, and the world is NOT magical, and yet Harry Potter acts as if he's in a magical school adventure. He basically acts as if he's already in the wizarding world, and it makes him stand out like a sore thumb. Just being in the book causes problems as he refuses to fit into the genera of the opening chapters and it makes him almost as dislikable as the Dursleys. To be clear, the Dursleys are horrible, but after a few chapters of this I almost want to hide Harry away too, he just does not belong. And making me empathize with the Dursleys? Almost as if the book's trying to say 'this is you'. I almost gave up reading Harry Potter because of the first portion of the book.

But that's just me. I am, perhaps, too genera savvy. I'm sure that Rowling wasn't trying to make people hate Harry and feel like the Dursleys. But I got that out of the book and recognizing the Genera Dissonance has lead me consider how characters behave in movies and books in a new light. She may not have meant it, but she can't take that away. That's a classic Death of the Author argument.

But that's a work of fiction. If I misinterpret her words what does she care?

In America by Heart, Sarah Palin states 'Nobody owes anybody a living'. She's a political figure (or was, once long ago) and so what she means is somewhat more important.

Does she mean that literally? That NOBODY owes you a living? What about the people you work for? Legally they only owe you what they agreed to pay, sure, and some people would argue that they are right to pay people as low a wage as they can get away with, even if it's not enough for their employees to survive on. (but don't worry, if your employer doesn't pay you enough we tend to subsidize you with food stamps and cheaper housing, courtesy of the US Taxpayer.)

Does she mean that we should stop helping people then? Or does she just mean that we can't guarantee everyone gets a great job and that it's everyone's individual responsibility to make their life for themself? Whether you agree with her positions or not, understanding what they actually are is an important step.

Sadly, politicians often try to obscure what those actually are, because as long as you remain vague people can read into it whatever they want, and they will read things they like if they like you. So that means all you have to do is focus on being likable!

That makes me grate my teeth. It's just so... true. I wish it weren't, but a lot of people agree with people based largely on if they could see themselves getting a beer with that person.

So a democrat might be inclined to read Sarah Palin's declaration that nobody owes you a living as almost the extreme of 'You don't deserve to live' or 'You're a cog in the machine, and if you get worn out? You're easily replaced and nobody owes the cog anything.' and not coincidentally also think she's just a horrible stupid person.

Republicans make the same arguments about Alexandria Occasia Cortez and her Green New Deal plan.

It's been demonstrated that adding seaweed to cattle feed cuts down methane buy 98% (Methane is a greenhouse gas), and thus it's suggested that we start adding that type of seaweed to cattle feed. Which Trump immediately turned around and said 'You're not allowed to own cows anymore'.

I think we all need to endeavor to understand what people are saying rather than making s**t up. People who misrepresent what others say are ether liars or stupid... or comedians. Because lets face it, hilarious misunderstandings are a foundation of comedy.

“Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples - while judging ourselves by our best intentions. " - George W Bush.

It's also important to continually put the shoe on the other foot. Somebody says something you dislike (or like)? Ask yourself, what if [person you like/dislike] had said it? The 2018 State of the Union address was advertised on official documents with the misspelling 'state of the uniom'. That's... that's stupid, I mean honestly it's pretty funny, and it doesn't say anything good about anyone involved with it, it indicates a lack of discipline and staff, but it's a mistake. We all make mistakes. How would you feel if Obama, GW Bush, Clinton, Bush, or hypothetically Bernie's administration had made that mistake? I'm gonna guess that if you're honest your gut reaction to some of those administrations making that blunder would have been kinder than others. And there's no shame in that, but we think with our brains not our guts. Anything your gut has to say needs to be double checked.

I make this point so you understand: I do have my biases but I do my best to check them. I try to understand what people do mean, and not what would serve me best to understand their meaning as. I try to judge everyone the same, I find fault with myself and people I otherwise agree with when we screw up as well as people I dislike or disagree with. I try to judge people in the most generous light. Even to the point that I sometimes think I over correct for my gut check. So when I say something negative, do not believe that I speak out of some partisan loyalty or deep rooted disdain.

While liars aren't new, and nobody is without bias, never before has the lack of scruples and shame been such a valuable commodity. There has been a concerted effort of late to lie and deceive people, to rewrite what is true and false. As in Orwell's novel 1984, controlling and destroying truth is their goal, because truth itself is their enemy. We live in a dangerous time and I hope that we can maintain and restore our institutions of truth and law.