LTD, round 3: This time, we settle it with Jello Wrestling

[Raquelborn]

Speaking of Tifa, there’s an event where she talked to Cloud after beating Sephiroth.
In Nojima-san’s scenario, it explained Cloud and Tifa’s connection more in-depth but I deleted it away. I thought it would be more interesting to let the gamers think about it.

So, I'm sure we've mused over this before but... What do you all reckon Nojima dreamed up? Do you reckon it included riqsueness and a fade to black?

 

[Vendel]

their stories aren't produced without the collaborative effort of the audience.

Um....yes, they are.

Because of this kind of storytelling, there are inevitably things that authors have included that are either going to indicate ideas they didn't intend or that will elicit different -- but no less valid -- interpretations in different people. Especially when the author chooses to say nothing on the matter.

Or (stay with me here) they just assume people can follow basic storytelling without being spoon fed. And yes some ideas are less valid than others. And others still have no validity.

In fact I would say most creative works are not David Lynch type things. Peopel just want an excuse to look smart by making up some BS "alternative interpretation".

 

[Raquelborn]

To be fair, I - and I'm sure you all were too - was taught in English and History that provided you back your argument any interpretation of a piece of writing/media can win you marks.

That doesn't mean to say the interpretation you think of is correct of course, but I think that's really what Tres was trying to say anyway.

 

[Ryushikaze]

While all of your points in the latter half of the post are valid, Tres, they are all irrelevant to the question of the validity of the claims of new criticism, which maintains that a text and the text alone counts, when such is absolute nonsense.
Also, again, while there is wiggle room for interpretation, and then there's Just Plain Wrong.
I've seen literary analysis derive meaning from a work it couldn't possibly have, given that it said the work was speaking about something that couldn't possibly HAVE spoken on, as such had not happened yet.
The problem with new criticism is that it takes a good idea- evaluate the story on its strengths and merits, not on what someone was TRYING to do with it, though the latter can be used as an example of how well an author succeeded or failed- and takes it to an absurd extreme- the story, alone, is all that matters, that outside context doesn't matter. At all.
In the extreme, you get people saying things like Null's trolling claims, that sequels and information books 'don't count' because ... reason.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Um....yes, they are.

No, dude, they're really not. I've already explained why and saying "yes" is not a refutation.

You don't really think the Hypodermic Needle Theory is true, do you? Even in its heyday it wasn't universally accepted. Today it's considered completely absurd, if not laughable.

Or (stay with me here) they just assume people can follow basic storytelling without being spoon fed.

Which is exactly what I said. Thanks for the rebuttal.

In fact I would say most creative works are not David Lynch type things. Peopel just want an excuse to look smart by making up some BS "alternative interpretation".

And you really think that there was typically established official -- what we call "canon" -- interpretations to come up with alternatives to when such literary analysis began?

While all of your points in the latter half of the post are valid, Tres, they are all irrelevant to the question of the validity of the claims of new criticism, which maintains that a text and the text alone counts, when such is absolute nonsense.

I haven't made the assertion, however, that the text alone counts.

It depends on the context, really. If an author argues that a text says something it couldn't possibly have been saying -- e.g. Last Order was just Tseng's interpretation of what happened in Nibelheim lololololololololololololol -- then they can go fuck themselves.

If an audience member has formed an interpretation of a text based on the material within it, while that interpretation doesn't necessarily have any bearing on canon (if an author cares to establish it), if there's a discrepancy between a flawed claim by the author and the perfect-fitting audience interpretation, no one has a leg to stand on to say that the audience interpretation isn't a viable "alternative."

But, hey, if people want to say that Soulcalibur Legends totally fits the established Soulcalibur continuity just because Namco made it and somebody said so, more power to them. They're no less wrong.

Also, again, while there is wiggle room for interpretation, and then there's Just Plain Wrong.
I've seen literary analysis derive meaning from a work it couldn't possibly have, given that it said the work was speaking about something that couldn't possibly HAVE spoken on, as such had not happened yet.

That's not literary analysis, then. That's fabrication.

 

[Dashell]

So, I'm sure we've mused over this before but... What do you all reckon Nojima dreamed up? Do you reckon it included riqsueness and a fade to black?

uh okay I'll look at this:
But it doesn't say WHAT happened. They could have been deciding to stay friends or Cloud could have rejected her. Plus it says it's up to the gamers to decide which means the LT is still up to interpretation.

Hozzat?

 

[Vendel]

No, dude, they're really not. I've already explained why and saying "yes" is not a refutation.

The audience is the consumer of someones efforts. They create, we enjoy (or not). We have zero input. To say it is a collaboration is just silly IMO.

 

[Dashell]

But if Cloti became canon it'd be because the fans wanted it

 

[Makoeyes987]

It's a collaboration in terms of the story actually being portrayed properly to the audience.

I think what Tres is trying to say, is that the audience is not removed entirely from the creative process. We have zero input in what they create, but we have input in how their story is conveyed and understood by said audience. The viewer's input is in the sense of them understanding, and taking the pieces of what is the story, and assembling them into the correct structures of what the author is trying to convey.

It's a two way street. The creator creates the work, and the audience takes the work, digests it, and reachs the authorial intent behind said creation. If it were solely just a process of the author, then that would mean that the author is literally just putting the shit inside your head. There would be no need for cognition, interpretation, or actually viewing the work at all. It'd just be understood in an instant. The viewer has to actually sit through the work, internalize it, and actually reach the conclusion of what the author was trying to tell.

I don't think New Criticism has any place in discussing what's obvious and canon, but it has its place in dissecting and analyzing other works scholarly. So yeah.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

The audience is the consumer of someones efforts. They create, we enjoy (or not). We have zero input. To say it is a collaboration is just silly IMO.

So the author determines exactly how something enters your head? Exactly what sense you make of it?

Did Tolkien determine how the Council of Elrond looked to you? Did the Nolan brothers have to explain to you the order of scenes in "Memento," or did you really think we were watching a chronological progression? Did Kitase knock on your door when you got to Kalm and said "A flashback is about to begin! Just letting ya know! Now I've got to get to Australia with the quickness of Santa Clause to let somebody else know"?

What's silly is to suggest that any story that is anything other than a single, continuous scene is put together by the author(s) alone. And even in the event of a single, continuous scene, you've still got the audience's own internal and external noise.

Again, there's no Hypodermic Needle for Communication. There's no Magic Bullet -- at least not other than the one that took out Kennedy.

It's a collaboration in terms of the story actually being portrayed properly to the audience.

I think what Tres is trying to say, is that the audience is not removed entirely from the creative process. Their input is in the sense of them understanding, and taking the pieces of what is the story, and then assembling them into the correct parts of what the author is trying to convey.

It's a two way street. The creator creates the work, and the audience takes the work, digests it, and reachs the authorial intent behind said creation. If it were solely just a process of the author, then that would mean that the author is literally just putting the shit inside your head. There would be no need for cognition, interpretation, or actually viewing the work at all. It'd just be understood in an instant. The viewer has to actually sit through the work, internalize it, and actually reach the conclusion of what the author was trying to tell.

I don't think New Criticism has any place in discussing what's obvious and canon, but it has its place in dissecting and analyzing other works scholarly. So yeah.

Mako hits the nail on its head.

 

[Vendel]

But if Cloti became canon it'd be because the fans wanted it

I thought most fans were Celrtih? In Japan at least.

 

[Isabella]

You guys are sexy when you're talking literary analysis.

 

[Dashell]

Did Kitase knock on your door when you got to Kalm and said "A flashback is about to begin! Just letting ya know! Now I've got to get to Australia with the quickness of Santa Clause to let somebody else know

Uhm... yes?

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

You guys are sexy when you're talking literary analysis.

Visit me sometime and I'll talk Auteur Theory and Postmodernism to you all night, baby.

 

[Ryushikaze]

That's not literary analysis, then. That's fabrication.

That's my point. It is fabrication- yet by 'New Criticism' standards taken literally, it's just as 'valid' as any other 'analysis.'

As for Postmodernism, again, that's another one of those things where folks have taken a reasonable idea way to far.

 

[Madame Mayor]

And new criticism is an excuse for making wrong/bad conclusions and then inserting reader opinion/interpretation over authorial intent. It's bullshit.

I think what was trying to be said is that whenever the new criticism card is played it always seems to be because someone's butthurt that their 'interpretation' is not considered valid by other standards.

It's not the only time it's used, certainly not, however on the internet new criticism commonly means "I don't have to listen I'm right because I thought it".

 

[null]

In the extreme, you get people saying things like Null's trolling claims, that sequels and information books 'don't count' because ... reason.

I don't troll, I provoke conversation. The point was to get someone to debate without having their hands held by RF or Ultimanias. Instead everyone wants to argue their right to use external sources.

 

[Fairheartstrife]

I don't think anyone is saying that audience interpretation isn't important to a work--or a contribution to the work--but having said that, if I read a piece that reads like two people are dancing in the kitchen and it turns out that the author wrote a story about a drunk father beating the fuck out of his kid--and yes, there really is a poem that uses lovely metaphors to do this--does the fact that someone else reads "dancing" as literally that and NOT what the author intended make their 'interpretation' as valid or as legitimate as what was, in fact, the intended metaphor? No. Authorial intent cannot be erased by broad sweeping.

In Wall Market there is a gym full of transvestite body builders and I think that's SE's way of promoting the transvetite lifestyle and I can give you an analysis of the events leading UP TO and including the end result of the HERO of the story actually accomplishing his goal (his mission) by BECOMING just that. I can do it it with a pretty fucking solid argument. Will I even be CLOSE to right or what the narrative intended?...

Again, New Criticism=bullshit.

And you aren't changing my mind on that, Tres.

Also, running on around 2.5 hours of sleep, so if I'm not coherent feel free to ignore and/or mock.

 

[null]

I'd have to read the poem tbh. Title?

 

[Tennyo]

Oh Captain My Captain was written by a sailor who watched the captain of his ship die. The captain also happened to be his father.

If it was really about Abraham Lincoln it would have said so in the poem.

I took it literally and as such I am right because it is my own interpretation.

Screw you English Lit. teachers of the world!!!

 

[null]

So the boy wanted the father's attention. Sounds like a metaphor for the Stockholm's Syndrome-like hold that abusive/negligent parents have over their children.

 

[Tennyo]

Oh Captain My Captain? Really?

It isn't about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln at the end of the Civil War at all? With the ship being a metaphor for the US as a whole or just the North or possibly the abolition of slavery?

 

[null]

You sound so dejected.

Mine was @ FHS's poem. (Come to think of it, she didn't even post it in here. Fuck.)

 

[Tennyo]

Oh, nevermind, then.

 

[Ryushikaze]

I don't troll, I provoke conversation. The point was to get someone to debate without having their hands held by RF or Ultimanias. Instead everyone wants to argue their right to use external sources.

You want us to play by a certain set of rules, ask us to play by them. Simple as that. Don't bitch and scream that your set of rules are the only ones that count without offering justification.

There are valid points in a textual only criticism, but never as the be all end all of the discussion.
As a major example, read Salman Rushdie novels without knowing a damn thing about the man or the politics of the time.
You'll get a picture, but you'll never get the whole picture.