Death of the Author V2

[Kairi Yajuu]

Once upon a time, I wrote an essay on here about Death of the Author and what it meant for the Dragon Ball franchise and the art of analysis. I have since looked at that essay and cringed. Really hard. It was a bad and unorganized mess. I discovery wrote my way through it without any thought of organizing it properly the way an actual English Teacher would enjoy. I also sent it to my grandmother who was an English Teacher and while she politely talked about how it was a great concept and I represented it well enough, she didn't say anything about the quality of writing itself. Which is grandmother speak for "It was awful".

So here I am to try again. I noticed the previous time that a majority of the readers were confused by my arguments and while at the time I chalked it up to poor reading comprehension I now know that that was my bad.

So! Here's a link to Roland Barthes' original essay for reference. http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-con ... arthes.pdf

The point I really want to send home is the idea that the authors' comments after the fact are no more meaningful than that of the readers.

Which I know to a majority of the fandom is the equivalent of saying "Screw Toriyama! I know better!" which is quite frankly not the case.

It's not about thinking Toriyama's words mean NOTHING, it's about thinking his thoughts are on equal ground as the rest of us.

I know the phrase "Death of the Author" isn't a very positive phrasing but hey, I didn't come up with it.

As an aside, I would like to point out that other fandoms are well-aware of Death of the Author so that's where my original "salt" came from in the original post.

Death of the Author is important to art because it puts the power of interpretation and resonance back into the hands of the viewer. Both of which are very understood in these days to be important. Nothing can take away what your yourself gained from reading a story. So why should we allow authors comments to do such?

Let's talk about the other reason we have this literary concept. Interpretation goes beyond art and includes that of interviews.

For example, a popular quoted interview of Toriyama's states that the anime of the series forgot "some of the poison" in Goku's character. The way I interpreted this is that Goku HAS flaws but I didn't interpret said flaws as being selfish. I also know that Toriyama stated that Goku is not really a good person, but while people interpreted that to say Goku is a BAD person of sorts, I interpreted it as Goku being a sort of Neutral Good. He does have a good sense of right and wrong but not one of law and chaos. Toriyama never once, to my understanding, used the word itself "selfish" but because that is the popular interpretation of said interview, it is considered the "right way" to view the character.

Once again, no one can take away the personal interpretation of art and so there is no real "right way" to view the characters. Something I somewhat forgot for a while. So believe me, I understand and do not judge those who also forget or do not know this fact.

So with all that in mind, why do we all fight over the interpretation of an interview when we should be calmly discussing interpretations of the actual series?

But enough about how I feel about the fandom.

The other thing about Death of the Author is the understanding that taking this stance should be a stubborn one. Once we start trying to say who or which interviews to listen to, we start to show bias. "Oh, I listen to everything Toriyama says to my grave but forget JK Rowling."

See, JK Rowling is that perfect example of why we have Death of the Author. I often joke that Roland Barthes saw visions of her interviews and decided "Oh hell no."

But JK Rowling is simply an obvious example that everyone follows. Toriyama is not quite so obvious though he has some flaws to his views of the series as well.

Enter the pitchforks.

As I'm sure we all know, Toriyama forgets things and he admits to not re-reading the series or even watching the anime in full. Unlike a lot of hard-core fans who re-read and/or re-watch religiously. For that reason, I promise you that it IS possible for fans to know more about the series than the original creators. I'm sorry to say.

Example: Toriyama talked about in an interview how Kaioshins were born of some mystical mumbo jumbo tree then later, as he is overseeing Dragon Ball Super, it's revealed that Zamasu is training to become a Kaioshin himself after being promoted from a Kaio. Q: "But how can one become Kaioshin?" A: "No one can. Kaioshin are born Kaioshin. There are three of them and they work in shifts. Though there are two of them on duty now if one of the Kaioshin were to die in an accident then the currently inactive Kaioshin would grow in the Kaioshin realm like a plant. If there aren't any accidents then it's said that their lifespans are 75,000."

Which do we believe? According to Death of the Author, and even fans who are unaware of said literary concept, the actual series itself takes precedence. And that seems obvious.

To play devil's advocate, Roland Barthes essay was written at a time when NO ONE accepted ANY form of personal interpretation. If the author said the sky was blue when it wasn't colored blue, then so be it. However, I feel there's a similar issue with the DB community as believing everything Toriyama says regardless of what was written in the pages.

If JK Rowling came out as saying Hermoine was a shy girl who didn't like conflict, would everyone instantly agree?

If Toriyama came out and said "Goku was born a girl but is trans" would everyone believe it? I know that's an extreme but extremes are typically how we fully understand where each side is coming from.

It was stated to me once that "If someone tried to argue that a dog in a story was actually a gay lamp, would that be valid?" and the answer is simple: "What's their argument for that point? How or why would they feel that way?" If something isn't written in the pages, then it's not written in the pages, simple as that.

I'm not here to force others to follow me down this Death of the Author concept as it's up to you whether you put your personal interpretation above the personal interpretation of the creator of an art form, I am merely here to raise awareness that it IS a respected viewpoint on analysis and it DOES have logic behind it.

[Hugo Boss]

I respect the theory, but I personally don’t follow it. My life experience as a lawyer makes me believe there can’t be a single way to interpret laws or art. I believe this stuff is about discovering the authorial intent and the reader’s feelings and trying to create a dialogue where both learn something. It doesn’t need to have a consensus.

[Kairi Yajuu]

I respect the theory, but I personally don’t follow it. My life experience as a lawyer makes me believe there can’t be a single way to interpret laws or art. I believe this stuff is about discovering the authorial intent and the reader’s feelings and trying to create a dialogue where both learn something. It doesn’t need to have a consensus.

I think there's been some confusion.

Death of the Author is all about there being multiple interpretations. So what you're saying falls under Death of the Author.

[Hugo Boss]

Death of the Author is all about there being multiple interpretations. So what you're saying falls under Death of the Author.

Multiple interpretations when the author is being presented to them, but for the reader there is only one interpretation. His.

[ABED]

Does death of the author apply when bits of lore and backstory are given in an interview, but not actually in the series proper only to be contradicted later by the actual story? As far as I'm concerned, there's no interpretation, nor is there a contradiction because those ideas weren't in the story to begin with.

[sintzu]

Does death of the author apply when bits of lore and backstory are given in an interview, but not actually in the series proper only to be contradicted later by the actual story?

The way I understand it is that anything not written in the original source material has no weight, regardless of it being from the original author or someone related. For example, Toriyama saying Buu was actually around for millions of years instead of being created by Bibidi holds as much weight as if I said that.

[ABED]

Does death of the author apply when bits of lore and backstory are given in an interview, but not actually in the series proper only to be contradicted later by the actual story?

The way I understand it is that anything not written in the original source material has no weight, regardless of it being from the original author or someone related. For example, Toriyama saying Buu was actually around for millions of years instead of being created by Bibidi holds as much weight as if I said that.

I understand that point, but what I'm asking is whether the concept applies to this situation. It is my understanding that it has to do with interpretation belonging to the reader, not just the author; that the concept has nothing to do with lore and world building added via avenues such as interviews and posts on social media.

[sintzu]

The concept has nothing to do with lore and world building added via avenues such as interviews and posts on social media.

I think all of that would be considered secondary to the original source material. Buu's origin in the manga in this case would take priority over Toriyama's new one he gave in the interview.

[Luso Saiyan]

Death of the Author is important to art because it puts the power of interpretation and resonance back into the hands of the viewer. Both of which are very understood in these days to be important. Nothing can take away what your yourself gained from reading a story. So why should we allow authors comments to do such?

That's a false dilemma. Nothing is being taken away by rightfully valuing the interpretation, intention, and views of the author (even if said views change from when the work was made, there's inherent value in both, and in knowing the difference).

Everyone can have their own interpretation of a given work, but to pretend that the author is on an equal footing as the audience is ludicrous. It's denying the fact that the author is, well, the author. The work comes from him, it doesn't exist without him, it's his expression as an individual. Not ours. That reality doesn't cease to exist just because some decide to ignore it and pretend he's in the same position as the audience. Our experience of his work, the journey that we take from his work, is not denied or taken away by acknowledging that. All art has intention and personal expression behind it. And it's not the audience's, by default.

Now, people are free to ignore the author. It's their prerogative and an entirely separate issue.

[Neo-Makaiōshin]

As I understand it Death of the Author only applies to "interpretative" elements (character' development & traits, allegory and simbolism, themes, and other similar stuff) but not to, for lack of a better word, "non-interprative" elements (in-universe trivia).

[KBABZ]

I think Death of the Author has merit in certain situations, typically unfortunate implication ones. For example, Mr. Popo's appearance and basic speech patterns aren't interpreted to be racist by Toriyama, but that doesn't mean that we the audience should therefore throw that interpretation out the window (there's a similar situation regarding how acceptable Roshi's behaviour towards women may or may not be).

I think one aspect about Death of the Author that is important to note is that it works best when the story is "finished" and the author isn't contributing to it anymore, and thus cannot add any material or ideas that contradict audience interpretations. It's generally pretty easy for example to use Death of the Author approaches to The Lord of the Rings because that work has ended for a while now. Dragon Ball fell under this category too until Toriyama got back into it with the Kanzenban ending, further interviews, DB Minus and especially now with the Battle of Gods/Super revival. This makes it difficult to apply Death of the Author ideals because the author is still working on the continuing storyline, and thus audience ideas could be contradicted later down the line.

[ABED]

Not sure what lack of completion has to do with this issue. It's more about how the author views the work versus how the audience does. Say Toriyama views a character to not be a good person and writes them with that intention in mind, but you do. Whose opinion is correct?

[KBABZ]

Not sure what lack of completion has to do with this issue. It's more about how the author views the work versus how the audience does. Say Toriyama views a character to not be a good person and writes them with that intention in mind, but you do. Whose opinion is correct?

I mean none, this isn't a competition or anything. The author's opinion holds some weight, but IMO if I interpret a character to be a bad person when the author didn't intend them to be, IMO that's on the author for not conveying their intention correctly.

For example, in Uncharted 4...

Spoiler:

Sam is depicted as a positive character at the end because he's Nate's brother. But IMO this is a big fat fail because Sam basically put Nate's life and marriage in jeopardy all based on a complete and total lie (he said his life was in danger thanks to a criminal gang leader, but in actuality he was covertly working with the bad guys). Even Nate's wife is okay with the guy at the end where IMO he should be all but cast out by Nate and his friends and family, it's really fucked up.

[ABED]

Not sure what lack of completion has to do with this issue. It's more about how the author views the work versus how the audience does. Say Toriyama views a character to not be a good person and writes them with that intention in mind, but you do. Whose opinion is correct?

I mean none, this isn't a competition or anything. The author's opinion holds some weight, but IMO if I interpret a character to be a bad person when the author didn't intend them to be, IMO that's on the author for not conveying their intention correctly.

For example, in Uncharted 4...

Spoiler:

Sam is depicted as a positive character at the end because he's Nate's brother. But IMO this is a big fat fail because Sam basically put Nate's life and marriage in jeopardy all based on a complete and total lie (he said his life was in danger thanks to a criminal gang leader, but in actuality he was covertly working with the bad guys). Even Nate's wife is okay with the guy at the end where IMO he should be all but cast out by Nate and his friends and family, it's really fucked up.

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but the question wasn't aimed at anyone specifically. The question is more rhetorical.

Also, sorry, but I have zero familiarity with Uncharted so your example falls flat to me.

I'll give you an example of something where the author and my interpretation of events are different, but using a far more seen property - The Dark Knight. The end has Batman taking the fall for Harvey's murders. It's seen as an act of heroic self sacrifice. I however, see it as unheroic. It may be well meaning on Batman's part, but it's a sacrifice built on a lie and won't end well for anyone. Also, I think the idea that Gotham's spirit breaking because a lawyer proved himself to be a hypocrite, is absurd. Nolan thinks it's a heroic ending, I think Batman's dangerously naive.

[KBABZ]

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but the question wasn't aimed at anyone specifically. The question is more rhetorical.

In that case, I honestly think that if the work is meant to be for an audience rather than the author themselves (as most works these days are if they're meant to make money) then it's the audience's interpretation that takes precedent, since the work is written "for" them.

I'll give you an example of something where the author and my interpretation of events are different, but using a far more seen property - The Dark Knight. The end has Batman taking the fall for Harvey's murders. It's seen as an act of heroic self sacrifice. I however, see it as unheroic. It may be well meaning on Batman's part, but it's a sacrifice built on a lie and won't end well for anyone. Also, I think the idea that Gotham's spirit breaking because a lawyer proved himself to be a hypocrite, is absurd. Nolan thinks it's a heroic ending, I think Batman's dangerously naive.

I would consider that a Death of the Author example: Nolan intended one thing through the ending, but you interpreted something very different, which means the author's intent wasn't conveyed for you.

[ABED]

Every work is meant for an audience, otherwise why publish? Even works that are supposedly more "artistic" are still for an audience. Even if the author isn't writing with the idea they will make money, they are still intending to entertain and communicate to an audience.

I got Nolan's intent. I simply don't agree with his view of heroism at least as it pertains to that action. And yes, that is a textbook case of Death of the Author. And while I'm on the subject, Nolan may not believe it's a cliffhanger ending or intended it to be such, it's a cliffhanger ending.

[KBABZ]

Every work is meant for an audience, otherwise why publish? Even works that are supposedly more "artistic" are still for an audience. Even if the author isn't writing with the idea they will make money, they are still intending to entertain and communicate to an audience.

I disagree, I've written plenty of stories that aren't meant for anyone other than myself.

And while I'm on the subject, Nolan may not believe it's a cliffhanger ending or intended it to be such, it's a cliffhanger ending.

I would consider it a "And the story continues..." like Empire Strikes Back or the first Back to the Future. A cliffhanger would be Batman surrounded by police inside the tunnel, or the ending of the second Hobbit movie, or the ending of Back to the Future Part II where the storyline is cut short before it's resolved.

[Neo-Makaiōshin]

I disagree, I've written plenty of stories that aren't meant for anyone other than myself.

In this case even the stories made for yourself have an audience, they would be anyone that shares your same values.

[ABED]

Every work is meant for an audience, otherwise why publish? Even works that are supposedly more "artistic" are still for an audience. Even if the author isn't writing with the idea they will make money, they are still intending to entertain and communicate to an audience.

I disagree, I've written plenty of stories that aren't meant for anyone other than myself.

And while I'm on the subject, Nolan may not believe it's a cliffhanger ending or intended it to be such, it's a cliffhanger ending.

I would consider it a "And the story continues..." like Empire Strikes Back or the first Back to the Future. A cliffhanger would be Batman surrounded by police inside the tunnel, or the ending of the second Hobbit movie, or the ending of Back to the Future Part II where the storyline is cut short before it's resolved.

Not sure what the difference is in the two concepts as you've stated them, but that's neither here nor there.

Neo-Makaioshin's reply was better than anything I could've written. All I have to say is bingo!