2497 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

Note, I'm catching up on a lot of the intent based discussion at this moment.... (I'm not sure what started it)

[AresKeith]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Note, I'm catching up on a lot of the intent based discussion at this moment.... (I'm not sure what started it)

No one knows how it started, it's an unsolved mystery

[BlueMagitek]

This topic is still going on? ~_~

Right, intent, death of the author, whatnot.

[Maria Caliban]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someones interpretation is irrelevant.
Why should I care if Bob interpreted the passage differently? Why should anyone care about Bobs oppinion? Who is Bob anyway? Bobs oppinion doesn't matter to anyone other than Bob.

Author >>>> Random Joe.
More poeple care about authors oppinion than yours.

It depends on who 'you' are and who the author is. Baby, it's Cold Outside is often jokingly referred to as a Christmas song about date rape. Frank Loesser wrote it, and while I doubt that was his intended meaning, the opinions of a dead songwriter that few people know the name of probably doesn't amount to much.

I'd bet money that the average person who played Dragon Age has no idea who David Giader is, let alone Mike Laidlaw or Mark Darrah. Even on this forum, I've had to explain who Mark Darrah is, and this forum is filled with some of the most hardcore fans Dragon Age has.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Medhia Nox wrote...

I know what you believe it to be.

No, you don't.  That's my point.  You know only that you heard me say "It's cold outside."

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'll take this a bit further and suggest that what you think isn't even entirely under your own control

Entirely true.

[leaguer of one]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someones interpretation is irrelevant.
Why should I care if Bob interpreted the passage differently? Why should anyone care about Bobs oppinion? Who is Bob anyway? Bobs oppinion doesn't matter to anyone other than Bob.

Author >>>> Random Joe.
More poeple care about authors oppinion than yours.

You cna interpreate a sentance of character A to mean he hates character B all you want.
If the wirter sez that character A doesn't hate character B, then you are categoricly wrong.

Interpretation does not exist wihout personal bias.

Evne something simple as watching a man giving 100$ to a beggar can be seen in different ways by different people.
One person cna think "wow, how generous"
The other might think "what a showoff"
A third one might think "he insane to give away that much"

And yet they all saw the exact same thing.
It's not a matter or wording or meaning - words and sentaces can have multiple meaning away - it's a matter of projection.

Any media that 100% ignores what the reader will think is just self satifying masterbation. You need to consider what people think of the work. That also means you can't 100% bend to evenything said. You go to what is stated, find the relivent and helpful comments you can find and build of that. You can make your peice better with a view outside of your own. Nothing is worse that doing evenything with blinders.

[Medhia Nox]

@Sylvius the Mad: Yes, of course, you're very clever.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't see the intent.  How do you see the intent?

How do you see sound? You're using the wrong sense perception to get at the idea. 

We both agree that intent exists, correct? And we both agree that, from the subjective perspective of an individual, intent captures (at least in part) the idea that an individual is an agent who makes choices based on motive, correct?

Well, the idea of intent is essentially the inference based on a variety of contextual indicators, including what you can see, hear, read, etc. about that internal state and the plans, goals, aims, etc. that sorrounding a particular action. 

And, as I was attempting to illustrate in the discussion with Taleroth, intent can operate at different levels in regards to different things, because it's in a sense a catch-all for our agency.

Yes.  Just as the idea of perceiving the intent is.

No, what I mean is that your example is actually just an assumption. What do you define as "seeing"? Because if we define seeing to mean the detection of features based on light emanating from an object, then we "see" the apple. 

I want to understand what you mean by see - what you intend to get at, so to speak, in using the word. 

Wulfram wrote...

How does authorial intent handle there being 8 (or so) writers? Plus producers and whoever else who can overrule them? And the long writing period of Origins meaning that there are places where it seems like intent has probably shifted during the process. And how about the actor's intent?

(Not really intended as an argument, just interested)

I think the analogy here is to legislation. An entire chamber of people drafts laws. Totally different policy concerns are involved. Sometimes different people insert different provisions. 

It's an art, and it depends on the question, but I would say that what really happens is a kind of hierachical analysis, starting with things like the theme of the work, the most logical inference from the written words in their full grammatical and social context, the common sense interpretation of characters, etc. 

Interpretation involves a lot of individual choices, a lot of discretion in how to resolve any one particular ambiguity. That's why we can get two answers on the same piece of writing. 

Modifié par In Exile, 05 octobre 2013 - 02:34 .

[Thomas Andresen]

Perceived intent isn't necessarily the same as true intent. Nor is the distinction at all important in this context. Authorial intent is indeed important, so long as you are not talking about fiction. In fiction, all that matters is the intent that you, by yourself, perceives, and how it influences your opinion of said fiction.

You can make an educated guess, or you can think you can make an educated guess, but you can never be a hundred percent sure that your interpretation, because that's what it is, is the right one. The only thing that should matter to you is how your interpretation influences your enjoyment of the piece, not whether your interpretation matches the writer(s)'.

It doesn't matter whether Gaider supports the mages, the templars, or more cheese for both sides(though, granted, Kirby is the more likely to be in that camp). What matters is that it's an interesting enough conflict, in your opinion, that you want to take a side. That you feel that one of the sides is more in the right than the others.

[Lotion Soronarr]

leaguer of one wrote...
Any media that 100% ignores what the reader will think is just self satifying masterbation.

You cannot control what the reader will think. Humantiy is too chaotic and different in views, so you will NEVER achieve absoluite clarity.

If a sentance or a character can be interpreted in different ways (and it can), then how do you know your interpretation is the correct one?
Only a writer clarrifying it can shed some light on it.

You need to consider what people think of the work. That also means you can't 100% bend to evenything said. You go to what is stated, find the relivent and helpful comments you can find and build of that. You can make your peice better with a view outside of your own. Nothing is worse that doing evenything with blinders.

Blinders? It has nothing to do with blinders.
It has to do with twisted perceptions.A writer is the the god of the setting. What he sez goes. Like I siad earlier, if he sez that character A doesn't hate character B, then he doesn't. All of your interpretation is meaningless, since his intent and his interpretation is canon. Yours or mine isn't.

[Thomas Andresen]

It has to do with twisted perceptions.A writer is the the god of the setting. What he sez goes. Like I siad earlier, if he sez that character A doesn't hate character B, then he doesn't. All of your interpretation is meaningless, since his intent and his interpretation is canon. Yours or mine isn't.

Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, your interpretation influence your enjoyment of the piece, and in that sense, your interpretation does have relevance for you, but for you alone, as mine is for me alone.

You cannot control what the reader will think. Humantiy is too chaotic and different in views, so you will NEVER achieve absoluite clarity.

This is absolutely true.

Only a writer clarrifying it can shed some light on it.

Many writers, indeed, I'd go even so far as to say most writers, doesn't want to do this, because they want the audience to apply their own interpretation on the work. What most writers don't like however, is when people start enforcing said interpretations on the rest of the audience.

[Bleachrude]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Bionuts wrote...

Morrigan can sense how powerful a mage is.

I'm sure mages like Irving and Wynne can.

Morrigan was trained by Flemeth, so it's not really fair to use her as an example for Mages everywhere.

That's always been the pro-templar peoples' viewpoint in regards to why Mages can't live outside the Circle in the past. Just because Morrigan is smart enough to not go abomination can't be applied to other Mages, because she was trained by Flemeth.

Even if you were dressed in normal clothes, Ser Bryan in Lothering can tell that the warden is a mage and if you ask him how he knows, he mentions "I'd be a poor templar i I couldn't figure that out..."

[In Exile]

Bleachrude wrote...

Even if you were dressed in normal clothes, Ser Bryan in Lothering can tell that the warden is a mage and if you ask him how he knows, he mentions "I'd be a poor templar i I couldn't figure that out..."

If Kirkwall had one of him in Act I, apparently everyone's troubles would have been over. 

[leaguer of one]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
Any media that 100% ignores what the reader will think is just self satifying masterbation.

You cannot control what the reader will think. Humantiy is too chaotic and different in views, so you will NEVER achieve absoluite clarity.

If a sentance or a character can be interpreted in different ways (and it can), then how do you know your interpretation is the correct one?
Only a writer clarrifying it can shed some light on it.

You need to consider what people think of the work. That also means you can't 100% bend to evenything said. You go to what is stated, find the relivent and helpful comments you can find and build of that. You can make your peice better with a view outside of your own. Nothing is worse that doing evenything with blinders.

Blinders? It has nothing to do with blinders.
It has to do with twisted perceptions.A writer is the the god of the setting. What he sez goes. Like I siad earlier, if he sez that character A doesn't hate character B, then he doesn't. All of your interpretation is meaningless, since his intent and his interpretation is canon. Yours or mine isn't.

It matter not if you can't control what people thing. Media is never the point of that except with ads and poppagranda. The meaning is to present a point and consider how one comprhendes and understand it. They don't have to aspet it nor beleieve it. Having that in mind improves how you argue. Yes, there are people who's thinking is like a brick wall but it never about convincing everyone on your point.

And Yes, it does have to do with blinders. The writer can also be at fault with how things are presented and does not know that or ignorse that for the point doing anything they want reguarles to how they set thing up.

[dragonflight288]

leaguer of one wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
Any media that 100% ignores what the reader will think is just self satifying masterbation.

You cannot control what the reader will think. Humantiy is too chaotic and different in views, so you will NEVER achieve absoluite clarity.

If a sentance or a character can be interpreted in different ways (and it can), then how do you know your interpretation is the correct one?
Only a writer clarrifying it can shed some light on it.

You need to consider what people think of the work. That also means you can't 100% bend to evenything said. You go to what is stated, find the relivent and helpful comments you can find and build of that. You can make your peice better with a view outside of your own. Nothing is worse that doing evenything with blinders.

Blinders? It has nothing to do with blinders.
It has to do with twisted perceptions.A writer is the the god of the setting. What he sez goes. Like I siad earlier, if he sez that character A doesn't hate character B, then he doesn't. All of your interpretation is meaningless, since his intent and his interpretation is canon. Yours or mine isn't.

It matter not if you can't control what people thing. Media is never the point of that except with ads and poppagranda. The meaning is to present a point and consider how one comprhendes and understand it. They don't have to aspet it nor beleieve it. Having that in mind improves how you argue. Yes, there are people who's thinking is like a brick wall but it never about convincing everyone on your point.

And Yes, it does have to do with blinders. The writer can also be at fault with how things are presented and does not know that or ignorse that for the point doing anything they want reguarles to how they set thing up.

Case in point, an actual headline we discussed in my Structure of English class in college.

The Headline said "British left waffles on Falkner Islands."

There are actually two ways to take that sentence without changing any of the words, based entirely on which word acts as the verb and which acts as the adjective.

When I first read it, I took it as "The British left a good breakfast behind."

What the writer actually intended was "The British left-wing political party is waffling on the issue in the Falkner Islands."

This is a case where author intent is more important than how we interpret it ourselves, as that's based entirely on the tone of the story.

But not every story, tale, or novel has to have the author's intent be the gospel truth.

[Xilizhra]

In Exile wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

Even if you were dressed in normal clothes, Ser Bryan in Lothering can tell that the warden is a mage and if you ask him how he knows, he mentions "I'd be a poor templar i I couldn't figure that out..."

If Kirkwall had one of him in Act I, apparently everyone's troubles would have been over. 

Well... assuming you're using the same gear 99.X% of people are using as a mage at that point in the game, you're wearing a robe and carrying a staff. It's not that hard. The Hawke mages are wearing ordinary clothes and using staves that look like polearms instead of blatantly magical ones.

[DPSSOC]

In Exile wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...
Even if you were dressed in normal clothes, Ser Bryan in Lothering can tell that the warden is a mage and if you ask him how he knows, he mentions "I'd be a poor templar i I couldn't figure that out..."

If Kirkwall had one of him in Act I, apparently everyone's troubles would have been over. 

If Kirkwall had one Templar with 20/20 vision and half a brain cell everyone's troubles would have been over.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

How do you see sound? You're using the wrong sense perception to get at the idea. 

We both agree that intent exists, correct? And we both agree that, from the subjective perspective of an individual, intent captures (at least in part) the idea that an individual is an agent who makes choices based on motive, correct?

Well, the idea of intent is essentially the inference based on a variety of contextual indicators, including what you can see, hear, read, etc. about that internal state and the plans, goals, aims, etc. that sorrounding a particular action.

Then we should talk about those indicators, rather than the intent.  If the indicators change, then our perception of the intent changes.  This is the fundamental point I'm trying to make, here.  What you perceive as intent is arrived at indirectly.

As such, the actual intent doesn't matter.  It can't.  Only those indicators matter.

No, what I mean is that your example is actually just an assumption. What do you define as "seeing"? Because if we define seeing to mean the detection of features based on light emanating from an object, then we "see" the apple.

Except the apple isn't there.  The apple isn't the source of the light.  You're seeing an image of an apple.  And I'm saying that the image is all you ever see - you can't necessarily distinguish between light that comes from an apple and light that merely looks like it comes from an apple.

I want to understand what you mean by see - what you intend to get at, so to speak, in using the word.

I hope you find the above sections illuminating.

I think the analogy here is to legislation. An entire chamber of people drafts laws. Totally different policy concerns are involved. Sometimes different people insert different provisions. 

It's an art, and it depends on the question, but I would say that what really happens is a kind of hierachical analysis, starting with things like the theme of the work, the most logical inference from the written words in their full grammatical and social context, the common sense interpretation of characters, etc. 

Interpretation involves a lot of individual choices, a lot of discretion in how to resolve any one particular ambiguity. That's why we can get two answers on the same piece of writing.

This is why I dislike this approach to legal interpretation.  The legislators might not all intend the same result.

If I might be permitted to quote myself from earlier in this thread:

"How can the law be at all useful to people if they aren't allowed to know what it means without reading the minds of the people who wrote it?  What the law means should be what the law says.  Full stop."

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 06 octobre 2013 - 12:27 .

[HiroVoid]

Xilizhra wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

Even if you were dressed in normal clothes, Ser Bryan in Lothering can tell that the warden is a mage and if you ask him how he knows, he mentions "I'd be a poor templar i I couldn't figure that out..."

If Kirkwall had one of him in Act I, apparently everyone's troubles would have been over. 

Well... assuming you're using the same gear 99.X% of people are using as a mage at that point in the game, you're wearing a robe and carrying a staff. It's not that hard. The Hawke mages are wearing ordinary clothes and using staves that look like polearms instead of blatantly magical ones.

Except they explicitly stated he still recognizes a mage even if you aren't equipped with any weapon and are wearing peasent clothes.....really, Dragon Age II was basically just the game I think Bioware wanted to get done, so they no longer had to explain why templars don't know you're a mage after using magic in front of everyone.

[Xilizhra]

Except they explicitly stated he still recognizes a mage even if you aren't equipped with any weapon and are wearing peasent clothes.....really, Dragon Age II was basically just the game I think Bioware wanted to get done, so they no longer had to explain why templars don't know you're a mage after using magic in front of everyone.

And no one will comment on you going around naked, either. The game sort of assumes you're dressed in a not-gimped way.

[TEWR]

Bleachrude wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Bionuts wrote...

Morrigan can sense how powerful a mage is.

I'm sure mages like Irving and Wynne can.

Morrigan was trained by Flemeth, so it's not really fair to use her as an example for Mages everywhere.

That's always been the pro-templar peoples' viewpoint in regards to why Mages can't live outside the Circle in the past. Just because Morrigan is smart enough to not go abomination can't be applied to other Mages, because she was trained by Flemeth.

Even if you were dressed in normal clothes, Ser Bryan in Lothering can tell that the warden is a mage and if you ask him how he knows, he mentions "I'd be a poor templar i I couldn't figure that out..."

But that has no bearing on the idea of being able to sense how powerful a mage is, and that bit you quoted me on was trying to assess the legitimacy and sense of the new "weak mages live outside the Tower because the Chantry allows it" bit of lore.

How does the Chantry determine this? They can't determine the relative strength of a Mage until they go to the Circle, where they'll either take their Harrowing -- and if they pass, they're strong. If they fail, they're weak. -- or they're made Tranquil because they're deemed too weak to even have a chance.

That Ser Bryant can call you out on being a Mage does not suggest he knows how strong you are. It just means he knows you're a mage, period.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 06 octobre 2013 - 03:13 .

[DPSSOC]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
How does the Chantry determine this? They can't determine the relative strength of a Mage until they go to the Circle, where they'll either take their Harrowing -- and if they pass, they're strong. If they fail, they're weak. -- or they're made Tranquil because they're deemed too weak to even have a chance.

Ok you're undermining your own argument here.  If it's possible to gauge a mage as too weak to face the Harrowing then clearly it is something that can be measured, even if only through observation of their abilities at work.

It probably goes; child shows signs of magic at around age 6, is sent to the Circle, receives training under one or more mentors for at least 10 years let's say, and then, when the time comes to say yay or nay to the Harrowing, the mentor makes a case that not only is a student too weak to face the Harrowing, but is in fact weak enough that they could be allowed to live among normal people.

If I'm not mistaken there is a character in one of the books or the comics who is a Harrowed mage who can only cast one spell, so it's probably limited to those who show signs of magic but can never master even one spell.  Although it should be noted that whether or not you're strong enough to face the Harrowing is as much a matter of strength of will as it is strength in magic.

[Bleachrude]

DPSSOC wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...
Even if you were dressed in normal clothes, Ser Bryan in Lothering can tell that the warden is a mage and if you ask him how he knows, he mentions "I'd be a poor templar i I couldn't figure that out..."

If Kirkwall had one of him in Act I, apparently everyone's troubles would have been over. 

If Kirkwall had one Templar with 20/20 vision and half a brain cell everyone's troubles would have been over.

Who needs 20/20 vision?

If kirkwall had the blind templar from DA:O, I'd wager half the problems wouldn't exist...a tag-team combination of him and Ser Bryant would have done more for kirkwall than the entire current templar population...

EDIT: As an aside, the OP statement by Gaider is also partly I think why so many look down upon the templars because of the broken circle quest.

A party consisting of non-mage warden, sten, leliana and wynne even on nightmare can beat that questline  so it looks bad when you hear the emplars ran away and threw away the key especially given that they are designed to fight magic and demons explicitly yet 3 "normal" warriors and a single mage were able to handle it.

Modifié par Bleachrude, 06 octobre 2013 - 06:00 .

[TEWR]

DPSSOC wrote...

Ok you're undermining your own argument here.  If it's possible to gauge a mage as too weak to face the Harrowing then clearly it is something that can be measured, even if only through observation of their abilities at work.

Observing a Mage's abilities and potential strength is logical. But the point is that when the Mages have done that in the past, they've followed a very certain ruleset: Harrowing or Tranquility. Nothing else.

Yet we've never even heard of the Circle of Magi and Chantry once allowing a Mage to live outside of the Circle, save through accomplishments done in the past (Wilhelm, Hawke, Wynne).

We've never even seen a Mage attempt to leave the Circle by pretending to be too weak and trying to convince people of that. The Templar in Origins guarding the door in the Magi Origin said that Mages don't ever get to just be outside the , as well. Duncan says the Templars watch over all Mages.

The codex on Abominations not only says that Demons always attempt to possess a Mage when they encounter one, but that the Circle weeds out those who are too at risk. Frankly, if you're a weak mage you are at too much risk (hence the RoT).

Furthermore... Meredith's sister was possessed by a Demon and went Abomination, and she was only a commoner (ignoring right now how I've argued in the past a credibility issue on her sister story cuz of the idol). So yeah... if weak mages are safe because Demons won't pester them, explain that one. Her sister, an untrained peasant mage (and thus no power like Connor, the Arl's son), went Abomination despite this new lore saying weak mages are not targeted by Demons?

Mages were the targets because of their magic and awareness in the Fade, regardless of strength. Weak or strong, if you were a Mage you'd be bothered by Demons all the time. Hell, that's always been the Chantry's point! And Abominations happened during the time when magic was outlawed (100 years of Mages that lived in Chantry lands and couldn't hone their magic).

I would think that if this were a thing that happened, many Mages would have actually brought it up in DAO, whether for the unfairness or just as simple "Hey, some Mages do live outside the halls and are connected to the Circle/Chantry, so it's not all bad". Plus, when Mages were deemed too weak to even have a shot at the Harrowing they were chosen for Tranquility.

There was never any sort of middle ground. There was never a "so weak, it's probably safe" scenario. By its very nature, the Harrowing and the RoT are the things that separates the stronger mages from the weaker.

It probably goes; child shows signs of magic at around age 6, is sent to the Circle, receives training under one or more mentors for at least 10 years let's say, and then, when the time comes to say yay or nay to the Harrowing, the mentor makes a case that not only is a student too weak to face the Harrowing, but is in fact weak enough that they could be allowed to live among normal people.

Yet in the past, if you were deemed really weak, you were chosen for Tranquility. The Chantry wasn't willing to take the chance. If you were deemed capable and had a shot, you went through the trial by fire.

Now they are willing to take the chance?

If I'm not mistaken there is a character in one of the books or the comics who is a Harrowed mage who can only cast one spell, so it's probably limited to those who show signs of magic but can never master even one spell.  Although it should be noted that whether or not you're strong enough to face the Harrowing is as much a matter of strength of will as it is strength in magic.

I have not heard of any such character. But then, I don't have the comics.

And I know will is important too. But that's part of determining the Mage's strength and going the Harrowing or Tranquility route. There wasn't a third option before. Gregoir says the only other option is Tranquility and Irving says that every mage goes through the "trial by fire". So again, it's one way or the other, and there was never a middle option.

My main problem with this is that, with what we do know from previous games, it runs counter to all of that. I wouldn't have had a problem with this if it was introduced from the start of the series.

Sometimes I think Bioware's just winging it and making **** up as they go along. And it makes me agree with something Fast Jimmy told me, which I'll paraphrase: Get your bigger details set up from the get-go. And this is a big detail here, because it changes the dynamic of the entire Mage-Templar issue.

It doesn't seem consistent with the lore we've been previously given. If it had been presented in DAO in a way that was consistent (like a Templar simply saying, "Yeah, sometimes exceptions are made, but you ain't one of 'em pallie."

I dislike this new bit because of its inconsistency. Inconsistent writing bugs me a lot, and it seems like a poor attempt to try and make the Chantry not seem so bad (when there are other ways to do that).

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 06 octobre 2013 - 06:17 .