1656 réponses à ce sujet

[BlueMagitek]

Haha, wonderful, another argument on what the author meant vs. what the novel/story/work was interpreted as. I think I'll stay out of this one, as it now bores me.

Though I do believe that the author's word is law when it comes down to it.

[Silfren]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Haha, wonderful, another argument on what the author meant vs. what the novel/story/work was interpreted as. I think I'll stay out of this one, as it now bores me.

Though I do believe that the author's word is law when it comes down to it.

Authors don't have to like the ways that others interpret their work, but that's kind of the extent of it.

The first example I can come up with is Gaider's insistence that mages aren't slaves.  I've read his statement on that, and I stand by my belief that his remark was drawn from his having a personal objection to an interpretation he didn't expect to be made, because he personally didn't see the slave interpretation as correct based on his understanding of slavery. 

He can tell us definitively what the legalistic definition of slavery is according to Thedas, and he can tell us that no organizational body in the fictitious world recognizes Circles as slavery, but he does not get to say that people's interpretations of mage incarceration as a type of slavery is incorrect.  In this, his authorial intent carries no weight whatsoever.

[BlueMagitek]

I just said I wasn't getting into this argument. But when the creator of a world says that X works in his world, you cannot assert that X is Y.

[Silfren]

BlueMagitek wrote...

I just said I wasn't getting into this argument. But when the creator of a world says that X works in his world, you cannot assert that X is Y.

I covered that in my last post.  You should probably re-read it.

[BlueMagitek]

Silfren wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

I just said I wasn't getting into this argument. But when the creator of a world says that X works in his world, you cannot assert that X is Y.

I covered that in my last post.  You should probably re-read it.

Except that he does.  Perhaps you should reread mine.

[Ieldra]

Relevant link to this particular topic excursion:

http://tvtropes.org/...eathOfTheAuthor

How much an author's intention should matter is an ongoing debate in literary criticism. I think a point can be made that the reception and interpretation of a work is valid independently from the author's intention, and that if dissonant interpretations abound, it's often because a lack of communicating the intention clearly enough.

Having said that, for any work, there can be a continuum of dissonant reactions between Misaimed Fandom and Fan Dumb, where there are typically passionate disagreements about where one ends and the other begins.

In the case of Ser Alrik, I say that a link between Ser Alrik and the Holocaust was clearly communicated by the use of certain terms, and there is no intellectually honest way to deny that. I would hold to that even if the writer came here and denied that this was his intention, but I think an author would have to be vastly ignorant and/or incompetent to create such a clear connection unintentionally. I think the conclusion that it was intentional is very plausible.

However, a link between the templars and the na*is in general was *not* communicated, rather than the message that a system like the Circles, where people are interned by an organization with an institutional bias against them, is especially vulnerable to developing abuses like Ser Alrik's, regardless of whether it's generally seen as justified or not. In matters like these, I think it is very important to refrain from overgeneralizing and thinking only in black and white.

So the Ser Alrik episode does not necessarily nullify all justification of the Circle system as it would if it was omnipresent or an institutional policy (and it's communicated equally clearly that this is not the case), but that the system has a special vulnerability to such abuses is a factor that weighs into the evaluation of its justification.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 juin 2013 - 06:48 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Plaintiff wrote...

You apparently support authorial intent as the only valid basis for interpretation of texts, because you are demanding that interpretations that oppose yours bolster their argument with supporting quotes direct from the creator/s of the text (in this case, David Gaider and co).

I personally consider the authors intent to be THE most important way one can look at a work of art.
Because if that ins't true, then a ink blob test is the most creative and greatest work of art.

People are projecting. PEoepl are reading things. People are interpreting things as they want and see things that aren't there. They are makign connection the author never intended. Sometiems even impossible connections.

The idea that the viewers interpretation is the most important is a product off the self-absorbed, ego-centric view that is so tempting precisely because it strikes the readers ego. No wonder so many accept it so gladly (and blindly).
It's basicly a blanket "you are right" stamp.

[Xilizhra]

If this is about the slavery issue, I think the explanation is "DG was using a different definition of the word, or at least looking at different distinguishing characteristics than we are." No one's really wrong, it's just a different way of looking at things.

Of course, he did write the templars as out-and-out villains in Asunder, so there's that. No that they've ever been much different, of course.

[Ieldra]

Yeah, it's rather telling that the only moderate templar comes to ally with the mages. I hope, though, that things won't be quite as one-sided in DAI. That would be boring.

[MisterJB]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I hope, though, that things won't be quite as one-sided in DAI. That would be boring.

While I agree, DG didn't write templars as villains in Asunder. Most of the main characters just happened to be mages which meant we were given a more mage-friendly perspective but at many points in the book, various characters end up reflecting how the templars are just as right as the mages and one of Rhys' last thoughts is if both sides are just doomed to kill each other in the name of righteousness which not only places mages and templars on the same moral ground but strongly suggests DAI will be about finding an end to the cycle of hatred and not about picking a side and going about destroying the other.

If anything, Adrian was written as much more of a villain than Lambert. While Lambert is given a sad backstory meant to justify his actions and was in fact right about Cole, Adrian ends up being described as a blind, narrow-minded, opportunistic, cowardly traitor who Rhys would gladly kill.

[MWImexico]

Maybe the training of the Templars puts more emphasis on blind obedience than thinking. Maybe they are led to believe that mages are less human than dangerous.

Ieldra2 wrote...
I can't but imagine that a surviving mage Warden is hugely influential. The list of possible influences:
(1) Gave the Circle of Ferelden autonomy.
(2) Chose the king of Orzammar.
(3) Was involved in the etablishment of a Circle at Orzammar
(4) Ruled an arling of Ferelden (against the Chantry's stricture)
I wrote my manifesto assuming that mages would use him for inspiration anyway, whether he wanted it or not, and if that's how things are, it's better to state his stance on things openly than to be used as an inspiration by people he wouldn't support. There is little more annoying than having served as an inspiration for the wrong sort of people.

About that, of course, my Warden too would not like her name to be used for the wrong reasons. She is against bullies and power abuses yet I don't think it will prevent some bullies to use her name in a way or another if it fits their agenda.

Modifié par MWImexico, 30 juin 2013 - 01:53 .

[Ieldra]

MisterJB wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I hope, though, that things won't be quite as one-sided in DAI. That would be boring.

While I agree, DG didn't write templars as villains in Asunder. Most of the main characters just happened to be mages which meant we were given a more mage-friendly perspective but at many points in the book, various characters end up reflecting how the templars are just as right as the mages and one of Rhys' last thoughts is if both sides are just doomed to kill each other in the name of righteousness which not only places mages and templars on the same moral ground but strongly suggests DAI will be about finding an end to the cycle of hatred and not about picking a side and going about destroying the other.

"Asunder" didn't make the point about templars as such - after all, Evangeline is a templar and I don't think she'd support unlimited freedom for mages rather than trying to find new solutions - but certainly about Lambert's faction which appears to be the dominant one. I agree though, that this is not the complete picture, given that we're going to play an Inquisitor, almost certainly Chantry-appointed. The role of "Asunder" may be to make it plausible for the Divine to appoint a mage Inquisitor as well as a templar one.

If anything, Adrian was written as much more of a villain than Lambert. While Lambert is given a sad backstory meant to justify his actions and was in fact right about Cole, Adrian ends up being described as a blind, narrow-minded, opportunistic, cowardly traitor who Rhys would gladly kill.

I don't think she was written as a villain, but certainly as an irresponsible fool with no political acumen and a passion that blinded her to different sides of the picture; definitely not a person I'd want leading the mages, except perhaps in a battle.  

[MisterJB]

Ieldra2 wrote...
"Asunder" didn't make the point about templars as such - after all, Evangeline is a templar and I don't think she'd support unlimited freedom for mages rather than trying to find new solutions - but certainly about Lambert's faction which appears to be the dominant one. I agree though, that this is not the complete picture, given that we're going to play an Inquisitor, almost certainly Chantry-appointed. The role of "Asunder" may be to make it plausible for the Divine to appoint a mage Inquisitor as well as a templar one.

It is worth noting that while Mr.Gaider could have easily had Lambert just kill Pharamond and frame Rhys to justify putting down what he perceived as a rebellion, he instead had a mage provoke the entire incident.

[vpacheco1984]

Modifié par vpacheco1984, 30 juin 2013 - 09:00 .

[Ieldra]

I'm thinking of creating another in-world document based on an idea by IceHawk-181: a sort of legal document declaring the rights and obligations of mages within a larger society. Working title is "The Compact". Does anyone know if there is a tradition of written law on Thedas? I guess Tevinter has it, but what about Orlais?

[Plaintiff]

MisterJB wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
"Asunder" didn't make the point about templars as such - after all, Evangeline is a templar and I don't think she'd support unlimited freedom for mages rather than trying to find new solutions - but certainly about Lambert's faction which appears to be the dominant one. I agree though, that this is not the complete picture, given that we're going to play an Inquisitor, almost certainly Chantry-appointed. The role of "Asunder" may be to make it plausible for the Divine to appoint a mage Inquisitor as well as a templar one.

It is worth noting that while Mr.Gaider could have easily had Lambert just kill Pharamond and frame Rhys to justify putting down what he perceived as a rebellion, he instead had a mage provoke the entire incident.

Lambert wanted to make Pharamond Tranquil, which is arguably worse.

[Eveangaline]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Relevant link to this particular topic excursion:

http://tvtropes.org/...eathOfTheAuthor

I htae to say it but death of the author gets over-used. Too many people use it as a way to explain why their fanfic version of events is true.

The way I see it, deth of the author means the author still decides all the events that happened (so if they say "this character felt this emotion", then yes that character felt that emotion) but they don't get to decide how the reader interprets those events.

For instance, a racist person may write a story with a kkk member as the hero. Obviously the writer gets to decide the events, but everyone reading it would interpret the characters as a villain because of those events.

Geeze, I think I'm babbling.

[Fredward]

Plaintiff wrote...
Lambert wanted to make Pharamond Tranquil, which is arguably worse.

There's no arguably about it. Pharamond begged to be killed instead. I wonder how many people realize how bad a situation has to be that death actually seems like the better alternative. Tranquility is like depression on crack. Also if a Tranquil really, really couldn't feel anything they wouldn't rather die than return to it. They'd just be like "meh."

[Eveangaline]

Ieldra2 wrote...
"Asunder" didn't make the point about templars as such - after
all, Evangeline is a templar and I don't think she'd support unlimited
freedom for mages rather than trying to find new solutions - but
certainly about Lambert's faction which appears to be the dominant one. I
agree though, that this is not the complete picture, given that we're
going to play an Inquisitor, almost certainly Chantry-appointed. The
role of "Asunder" may be to make it plausible for the Divine to appoint a
mage Inquisitor as well as a templar one.

I hope not.

[Ieldra]

Eveangaline wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
"Asunder" didn't make the point about templars as such - after all, Evangeline is a templar and I don't think she'd support unlimited freedom for mages rather than trying to find new solutions - but certainly about Lambert's faction which appears to be the dominant one. I agree though, that this is not the complete picture, given that we're going to play an Inquisitor, almost certainly Chantry-appointed. The role of "Asunder" may be to make it plausible for the Divine to appoint a mage Inquisitor as well as a templar one.

I hope not.

Who else could appoint an Inquisitor? I'm not saying I like it, but there appear to be no alternatives. I just hope the setup - whatever it is - gives es enough freedom for roleplaying. At least the changes under the new Divine gives us the possibility to support radically changed policies.

[Ieldra]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Lambert wanted to make Pharamond Tranquil, which is arguably worse.

There's no arguably about it. Pharamond begged to be killed instead. I wonder how many people realize how bad a situation has to be that death actually seems like the better alternative. Tranquility is like depression on crack. Also if a Tranquil really, really couldn't feel anything they wouldn't rather die than return to it. They'd just be like "meh."

Depression is a very good analogy. It's a commonly overlooked fact that depression isn't about "feeling down". It's about feeling nothing, and since you feel nothing you aren't motivated to do anything. Also, while you're in it you often don't really notice that something is very wrong, or rather, you only notice it because you remember the time when there was something, but you don't really feel it. Only when you get out of it, *then* you feel how bad it has been.

There's another real-world analogy which works: medication you get after a manic episode dulls your emotions. I can personally attest that this can drastically change your personality. It's outright creepy to see an exuberant, curious and engaging person (It's almost always those).....lessened so much.

To inflict such things on a permanent basis is an atrocity. For some - as the only two cases in DA can attest where someone comes back from Tranquility - it is a fate worse than death. Knowing this, I wonder if the Chantry only keeps them around for a steady supply of magical artifacts.

[Xilizhra]

While I agree, DG didn't write templars as villains in Asunder. Most of the main characters just happened to be mages which meant we were given a more mage-friendly perspective but at many points in the book, various characters end up reflecting how the templars are just as right as the mages and one of Rhys' last thoughts is if both sides are just doomed to kill each other in the name of righteousness which not only places mages and templars on the same moral ground but strongly suggests DAI will be about finding an end to the cycle of hatred and not about picking a side and going about destroying the other.

For story reasons, the templars can't possibly win. And the only way to end the cycle in any case is to stop them for good, by whatever means are necessary; if there are other ways to keep the peace between mages and the rest of society, fine, but the templars must fall.

I don't think she was written as a villain, but certainly as an irresponsible fool with no political acumen and a passion that blinded her to different sides of the picture; definitely not a person I'd want leading the mages, except perhaps in a battle.

She needs to be tempered by other people on the same side, but she's still a useful comrade. We still need her.

[MWImexico]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Lambert wanted to make Pharamond Tranquil, which is arguably worse.

There's no arguably about it. Pharamond begged to be killed instead. I wonder how many people realize how bad a situation has to be that death actually seems like the better alternative. Tranquility is like depression on crack. Also if a Tranquil really, really couldn't feel anything they wouldn't rather die than return to it. They'd just be like "meh."

Ironically, despite his despair, Pharamond did not become an abomination (after that). Was he really psychologically weak, as it was claimed?

Modifié par MWImexico, 01 juillet 2013 - 11:02 .

[LobselVith8]

Eveangaline wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

"Asunder" didn't make the point about templars as such - after all, Evangeline is a templar and I don't think she'd support unlimited freedom for mages rather than trying to find new solutions - but certainly about Lambert's faction which appears to be the dominant one. Iagree though, that this is not the complete picture, given that we're going to play an Inquisitor, almost certainly Chantry-appointed. The role of "Asunder" may be to make it plausible for the Divine to appoint a mage Inquisitor as well as a templar one. 

I hope not. 

I agree. I have no interest in working for the Divine or the Andrastian Chantry. And all Asunder demonstrated is that the current Divine is willing to give the mages a few more privileges to keep the Circles under Chantry control. Justina can find someone else to corral the mages under the Chantry's boot. A thousand years of Chantry instituted slavery has shown me that the Chantry of Andraste should come to an end.

[Xilizhra]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

"Asunder" didn't make the point about templars as such - after all, Evangeline is a templar and I don't think she'd support unlimited freedom for mages rather than trying to find new solutions - but certainly about Lambert's faction which appears to be the dominant one. Iagree though, that this is not the complete picture, given that we're going to play an Inquisitor, almost certainly Chantry-appointed. The role of "Asunder" may be to make it plausible for the Divine to appoint a mage Inquisitor as well as a templar one. 

I hope not. 

I agree. I have no interest in working for the Divine or the Andrastian Chantry. And all Asunder demonstrated is that the current Divine is willing to give the mages a few more privileges to keep the Circles under Chantry control. Justina can find someone else to corral the mages under the Chantry's boot. A thousand years of Chantry instituted slavery has shown me that the Chantry of Andraste should come to an end.

The Inquisition definitely seems to be a separate organization.