Death of the Author and What It Has To Do With Dragon Ball

[Lunaar]

I apologize; I can't really add anything to the discussion outside of agreeing wholeheartedly on interpretation beyond fact. I really just want to express how much I appreciate the work put into your topic. Thanks for raising the bar around here and welcome to the forums!

[Pickle_Jar]

Another thought related to the OP:

Sometimes, it seems like people want there to be one true interpretation and anything else must be disregarded as wrong. The problem is, there may be many...and they might all be right!

But nope, nope, some people can't stand sharing the "rightness" of their interpretation. They want that pedestal all to themselves, and they try to become the most salient "right" interpreter of the material. They may even go so far as shouting down anyone who tries to speak up. "No, THIS is the One True Interpretation, yours is wrong!"

[spoiler]That's why I've gotten into the habit of mentioning a fic contains headcanons and / or is an AU, because, unlike 10 years ago, people will get their underwear in a wad about "this is not canon!" if I don't. It gets tiring to see that in reviews every single time. Mentioning "headcanon" or "AU" seems to head that off before it happens.[/spoiler]

[Kairi Yajuu]

Toriyama, in particular, is an author that makes "death of the author" easy because he forgets things and he isn't all that given to keeping all the details consistent.

However, imo, a "death of the author" mechanism is something that should only used as a last resort. Whenever possible, the author's intentions and statements should be used to interpret the work. It's only when such intentions and statements are indefensible, like, for example, when the author states something that is just, plainly, wrong, about their work, that such mechanism should be used and the author should not be considered.

The problem with that way of thinking comes back to the idea of confirmation bias. Sure, my Fem!Goku example is an "that's obviously wrong" idea but the reason it's obviously wrong is because of in-series evidence. Like I said, we've seen it for ourselves in canon therefore it can't be true. But something that one person thinks is obvious, Goku being selfish, I argue isn't. I've been told "the creator said so himself, he's obviously a selfish character and you have to accept that!" but for every in-series related argument they have for me, I have a rebuttal.

Something one might consider obvious, for me the fact that Yamcha is not a playboy, has been stated otherwise by Toriyama. Sure, there are arguments in-series for this point, but Toriyama's word doesn't combat the points I make against it. Like how Bulma was shown from the beginning to always be "shopping" so to speak and to jump the gun on accusations against characters so her word on the matter isn't definite proof to me. Toriyama, I believe, has even stated that he reason he believes Yamcha wasn't faithful is because Bulma said so.

Basically, what it comes down to is that when you only accept the words of the author some of the time, you're setting yourself up for bias. How do you discern what you consider as infallible proof? It'd be like if I didn't accept Super as canon but used episode 75 as evidence towards my idea that Goku and Chichi have a great relationship built on compromise and communication. It wouldn't be fair because I also don't want to accept Goku leaving his family for long periods of time to train without an immediate threat looming overhead because we haven't seen him do that before Super. I have arguments to support both of these points in the canon of the series but DBS is something I can't use because I don't consider it canon.

Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to respect someone else's words on a character or series. I respect Doug Walker because, well, he obviously knows his stuff. When he speaks, I listen but that doesn't mean I have to agree with every little thing he says and neither should I use the fact that he said it is as my evidence. Rather, I just take what he says into consideration when trying to form my own arguments. There are times where I still disagree with him and that's okay. That's sort of the idea of Death of the Author, you can agree with them sometimes without feeling like you have to worship every word they say as the word of God.

[Kairi Yajuu]

Another thought related to the OP:

Sometimes, it seems like people want there to be one true interpretation and anything else must be disregarded as wrong. The problem is, there may be many...and they might all be right!

But nope, nope, some people can't stand sharing the "rightness" of their interpretation. They want that pedestal all to themselves, and they try to become the most salient "right" interpreter of the material. They may even go so far as shouting down anyone who tries to speak up. "No, THIS is the One True Interpretation, yours is wrong!"

[spoiler]That's why I've gotten into the habit of mentioning a fic contains headcanons and / or is an AU, because, unlike 10 years ago, people will get their underwear in a wad about "this is not canon!" if I don't. It gets tiring to see that in reviews every single time. Mentioning "headcanon" or "AU" seems to head that off before it happens.[/spoiler]

Exactly! This attitude is the reason I became so disillusioned with this fandom. There's nothing wrong with thinking you're right and there's nothing wrong with sticking to your guns and saying "Sorry, I just can't understand your logic" or "I really can't agree with what you say at all." but to resort to talking down on someone and treating them like they're completely stupid simply for disagreeing with you is just eye-roll worthy, honestly. I love debates, I LIVE for debates, it's what I'm good at and it's what I have fun doing, but this idea that we're searching for a right answer is just...ugh. Why do people have to disrespect Dragon Ball so much by thinking that thinking deeper is impossible?

Again - of course I think I'm right. I wouldn't believe what I say otherwise, but the reason I want to debate with people who think I'm wrong is because I want to learn from them. I've had my opinions on the series and on the characters change because a new way of viewing it has come to light and made more sense to me than what I was currently thinking. Is it so wrong to expect that sort of respect from others? I'm not saying everyone has to say "I can see where you're coming from" because sometimes people really do have faulty logic, like what I said about how the reason fanfictions insist on making Chichi bitter is because "I would be" but wanting to get to the core of why someone believes what they think is part of the fun of debates. Where does the real disagreement lie?

The question shouldn't be "Is Goku selfish?" the question should be "Why do you think Goku isn't selfish?"

[Pickle_Jar]

^ Yup!

I'll admit that my debate skills aren't strong. I like to read debates going on between others rather than to participate. If I have a fact or two, I toss 'em in. Otherwise I sit here with my popcorn and watch the back and forth.

But sometimes headcanons can be fun and really add something to a character. I guess headcanons that get popular end up turning into fanon, like the whole "Saiyajin bite" thing where their mate gets "marked" as "theirs" and stuff like that even though no evidence of that is mentioned in the source material.

I suppose this topic could progress to things like "established" fanon and how fun it is. Headcanons and fanon are fun, too, as long as somebody doesn't go around demanding everybody follow 'their' idea as if it's canon. THEN AGAIN, "strict canon" can be a messy subject if the material itself is consistently inconsistent.

[rereboy]

Toriyama, in particular, is an author that makes "death of the author" easy because he forgets things and he isn't all that given to keeping all the details consistent.

However, imo, a "death of the author" mechanism is something that should only used as a last resort. Whenever possible, the author's intentions and statements should be used to interpret the work. It's only when such intentions and statements are indefensible, like, for example, when the author states something that is just, plainly, wrong, about their work, that such mechanism should be used and the author should not be considered.

The problem with that way of thinking comes back to the idea of confirmation bias. Sure, my Fem!Goku example is an "that's obviously wrong" idea but the reason it's obviously wrong is because of in-series evidence. Like I said, we've seen it for ourselves in canon therefore it can't be true. But something that one person thinks is obvious, Goku being selfish, I argue isn't. I've been told "the creator said so himself, he's obviously a selfish character and you have to accept that!" but for every in-series related argument they have for me, I have a rebuttal.

Something one might consider obvious, for me the fact that Yamcha is not a playboy, has been stated otherwise by Toriyama. Sure, there are arguments in-series for this point, but Toriyama's word doesn't combat the points I make against it. Like how Bulma was shown from the beginning to always be "shopping" so to speak and to jump the gun on accusations against characters so her word on the matter isn't definite proof to me. Toriyama, I believe, has even stated that he reason he believes Yamcha wasn't faithful is because Bulma said so.

Basically, what it comes down to is that when you only accept the words of the author some of the time, you're setting yourself up for bias. How do you discern what you consider as infallible proof? It'd be like if I didn't accept Super as canon but used episode 75 as evidence towards my idea that Goku and Chichi have a great relationship built on compromise and communication. It wouldn't be fair because I also don't want to accept Goku leaving his family for long periods of time to train without an immediate threat looming overhead because we haven't seen him do that before Super. I have arguments to support both of these points in the canon of the series but DBS is something I can't use because I don't consider it canon.

Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to respect someone else's words on a character or series. I respect Doug Walker because, well, he obviously knows his stuff. When he speaks, I listen but that doesn't mean I have to agree with every little thing he says and neither should I use the fact that he said it is as my evidence. Rather, I just take what he says into consideration when trying to form my own arguments. There are times where I still disagree with him and that's okay. That's sort of the idea of Death of the Author, you can agree with them sometimes without feeling like you have to worship every word they say as the word of God.

My point is that, in my opinion, as long as there is some indication of the author's intent, it should be taken as a main factor in our interpretation. If there is no actual indication of the author's intent, fans should interpret accordingly, aka without that information (since it doesn't exist). And if there's an indication of the author's intent, but it's something that simply can't be defended, then we should apply "death of the author" and ignore it, meaning that we should interpret it without taking into consideration that information.

None of this stops fans from having multiple interpretations. Two fans can take the author's intent as a main factor and still not reach the same exact interpretation regarding every single thing. And there's also nothing stopping fans from having a different opinion from mine on how the author's intent should be taken. This is, after all, a subjective exercise, and the limits and applications of "death of the author" also depend greatly on our subjective view on the issue, not to mention that it's hard for anyone to be completely, 100%, coherent and consistent, which means that any given normal person will eventually want to apply "death of the author" in certain things even though he didn't apply it in another comparable situation simply due a different taste regarding certain details. There are no hard rules and it's hard to be 100% precise and consistent.

[Cipher]

My point is that, in my opinion, as long as there is some indication of the author's intent, it should be taken as a main factor in our interpretation. If there is no actual indication of the author's intent, fans should interpret accordingly, aka without that information (since it doesn't exist). And if there's an indication of the author's intent, but it's something that simply can't be defended, then we should apply "death of the author" and ignore it, meaning that we should interpret it without taking into consideration that information.

That hasn't held true in critical circles for a long, long time. And it's pretty easy to see why we don't privilege authorial intent when discussing art. If I write a story and give an interview about how it's supposed to be a nuanced examination of gender roles, but it turns out to be weakly imagined and sexist, it doesn't matter what my intent was -- that's what the art wound up being. That's why in discussion, authorial intent tends to be downplayed if not outright ignored. There are, of course, interesting things to be said about the gaps between on-record intent and how the final work operates, but that's kind of a conversation that takes place aside from discussing the impact of the work itself.

There's also the fact that authors add subconscious elements to their work. Did Bram Stoker intend for Dracula to act as a kind of time capsule for fears of reverse colonization? Maybe not. Is that worth talking about? Oh, hell yeah.

Intent just doesn't need to enter the standard critical picture.

In something like Dragon Ball, where most discussion is along the lines of, "What is actually supposed to be happening here, in-universe?", eh, I wouldn't hold it against anyone for bringing in outside sources and statements of intent. But it's always just as fair to ignore them and take what the work gives you on its own.

We're in somewhat new territory in terms of high-profile author addendums, too, which is maybe what this thread wants to focus on, in part? I'd say the same thing about them; they're trivia that can certainly be brought into discussions, but it's just as fair to ignore them, as they have no bearing on the original work.

J.K. Rowling famously went on record after the Harry Potter series had been completed saying she always envisioned Dumbledore as being gay. That's cool. Does it mean the books now operate as affirmation for the abilities and normalcy of gay characters? Not really? No more so than they would have before that statement; you'd have to find elements to support that reading in the text to argue that's something the work itself offers as a message.

Toriyama tells us Boo has existed since time immemorial, rather than being created by Bobbidi. Is the final arc of the manga now about a creature who was discovered somewhere in the universe, rather than being created by a mage? I can't imagine it possibly mattering either way, but no?

Once a work reaches its audience, the author's intent is trivial.

[rereboy]

That hasn't held true in critical circles for a long, long time.

I have to say that I've never cared much for what critics think. Movies, animes, shows, books, etc, are all basically evaluated by the individual on subjective grounds. That includes our own scales or hierarchies and what we think of certain concepts and how should use them. How exactly is someone, no matter how intelligent and knowledgeable he is about the subject, going to tell a particular individual how he should think regarding something that is a subjective exercise? The critic can argue, yes, and a particular person might be persuaded by those arguments if those arguments are something that the individual hadn't considered but upon reflection he realizes that he actually agrees with them and thus his stance becomes different, but the critic isn't going to simply change the person's mind if the individual simply doesn't agree. And does the critic's stance hold intrinsically more validity? No, because it's a subjective exercise, aka it's not factual, and thus by nature, it depends on the person, or in other words it doesn't exist outside of the person and it is molded uniquely by each single person. No matter how intelligent and knowledgeable a critic is, that doesn't mean anything for any particular individual who happens to not agree on that subjective exercise.

At most, on matters such as these, we can somewhat objectively determine if a certain work or author has a great deal of complexity, a great use of language, knowledge, original thought and so on... but none of that automatically translates into the work being good, nor there exists an universal, objective scaling of importance of those factors and all the other factors in play... The importance of all factors at play will depend on the person and how much some factors make up for other factors will also depend on the person.

Critics, on matters such as these, have relevance to give some indication of whether a certain work is good or not before we actually get to experience for ourselves (and then we either agree with them or not), and they have relevance on the academic level, where intelligent and knowledgeable men try to reach an agreement about what most of them think, but that ultimately doesn't really matter or shouldn't really matter for anyone but them.

[Cipher]

Not reviewers. Maybe I should have specified. I meant in the realm of literary criticism.

(Though if the review is good enough, they're not completely distinct practices.)

[rereboy]

Not reviewers. Maybe I should have specified. I meant in the realm of literary criticism.

I understood that, hence why I mentioned its relevance on the academic level. What I said doesn't really change depending on wether we are talking about a simple reviewer or someone on the academic level. No matter how intelligent and knowledgeable the person is, it doesn't change the fact that it's a subjective exercise, not a factual one. Not even the most respected professor can prove factually to any particular person that a particular work is good.

[Zephyr]

Intent just doesn't need to enter the standard critical picture.

I think where intent would be highly relevant is when asking the question, "does the work succeed at what it was supposed to do?" If the author attempted to tell a certain kind of story, but the story that was told was most commonly interpreted as something wholly different, then I think you could make a compelling case for the work being of a shoddier craft. Or at the very least, the author is not a good storyteller, in that they are not very good at conveying what they intend to others.

In the Harry Potter example: what if J.K. Rowling did intend it as an affirmation for the abilities and normalcy of gay characters? The work on its own doesn't show that, therefore the author did a poor job of illustrating her story to the audience.

Although I'm not sure if that sort of thing would be included in the 'standard critical picture'.

[Cipher]

I think where intent would be highly relevant is when asking the question, "does the work succeed at what it was supposed to do?"

Absolutely. But "Does the work succeed at what it was supposed to do (from a statement of on-the-record intent/author biography)?" is a question that stands aside from the default supposition that critical discussion is going to focus on what the work actually does. It absolutely has a place, but it's a topic that needs to be clarified.

Even in terms of, say, a review, where the disconnect between intent and execution might be critical in justifying whether the piece works or not, discussion is still usually grounded in things the piece itself does that would be distracting to an audience, rather than how it lines up with external statements of intent. Ex. "You can tell the movie wants to be a character piece focused on the burdens of motherhood, because of its focus on ______ as she ______ in the first half-hour, but as the film enters its second half, this focus is dropped in favor of bland action that fails to follow through on the questions raised by its earlier scenes."

A slight distinction from, "This movie wanted to be a character piece focused on motherhood because the director said so," because who cares if it is or isn't if it still coheres and is interesting in unintentional ways.

That, I think, is where a disconnect in intent and execution exists as a craft issue that becomes worth noting in any kind of analysis or critique: when it's obvious the work itself is uncontrolled and in conflict with itself.

Or, for a Dragon Ball example, a lot of fans recently took aim at the ending of the Trunks arc for seeming to want to present a sad or bittersweet outcome in a triumphant, upbeat light (I think that's a debatable reading, but I can see where they're coming from). That would be an intent vs. execution disconnect, but it's really immaterial whether someone from Toei ever states an interview, "Yes; we intended for that to be a happy resolution." What viewers are picking up on are tonal elements of the episode itself that seem at odds with the plot.

I'm writing all this really quickly, so I hope it comes out coherently. That's my statement of intent.

[Zephyr]

Yeah, that makes sense. I see the distinction more clearly now.

[Faustus]

But, rereboy, it is precisely because consuming art is such an eminently subjective activity that intention has long been excluded as a standard in assessing the success of works of art. Authorial designs have simply no part in conditioning the subjective experience of a work in and of itself if they are not part of the work already.

An artist may set out to create X and succeed and you may think X a work of the first order. Or an artist may set out to do X and again perfectly succeed at doing X and you may think X merely second-rate in experiencing it. Or an artist may set out to do X and produce Y instead and you may think Y unassailable genius. Or again an artist may set out to do X and produce Y and you may think Y rubbish.

As Zephyr noted, consideration of intention obviously plays a role in answering the question “Did the author succeed in doing what they set out to do?”. In light of the above, however, I can see no reason why said question should have any role to play in discussion or critique of the work itself (as opposed to a discussion about creative process). If an author’s succeeded in realizing their intentions, then they are already there in the work and there is no need to consult outside statements of intention. If they’ve failed, then whatever they’d intended is yet unrealized and thus irrelevant to the work itself as a completed artistic product.

It only makes sense too that your subjective experience of a work of art should be able to be explained exclusively in terms of the internal mechanisms and operations responsible for producing such and such effect upon you in the first place, without recourse to evidence external to it -- of which the intention of the author of course is part.

I recommend Wimsatt and Beardsley’s seminal article “The Intentional Fallacy,” which is good reading on the topic.

[rereboy]

But, rereboy, it is precisely because consuming art is such an eminently subjective activity that intention has long been excluded as a standard in assessing the success of works of art. Authorial designs have simply no part in conditioning the subjective experience of a work in and of itself if they are not part of the work already.

That's nothing more than critics and scholars deciding for other people what factors should matter and shouldn't matter (in this case deciding for other people wether or not the author's intent should matter) in those people's subjective experiences. A person, no matter how intelligent and knowledge, can't tell another person what factors matter and don't matter in that person's subjective experience.

The truth is that a particular person might consider the author's intent a prime factor in how they they view their work because what that particular person values most and really wants to experience is the original vision behind the work (aka the author's intent). Thus, such a person, as long as he knows for sure the actual intent of the author, will prefer to interpret the work following that original vision, that intent. And yet, despite this being what that particular person wants and despite this being how he thinks, he shouldn't do it because critics and scholars think otherwise? Ridiculous... If it's a subjective experience, that particular person is the one that knows which factors matter and how he interprets things in his own subjective experience. Period.

[ChronoTwigger]

You had to feel lucky to be out of JoJo fandom, it's even more messier. Beside people that give interpretations, there are a lot that even don't understand what they're seeing.
At least in DB a punch is a punch.

Anyway I think a number of people assume a subconscious policy, that sound like "I don't need to debate a thing to enjoy that thing". That approach get stronger by years, till finally like me they doesn't even approach Tumblr, YouTube or similar JUNk (as a consequence, if you roam that wastes, you obviously get a false positive on the fandom).
That comment fields over the internet created a meta-fruition that go over the simple product, and Dragon Ball will always offer meat to chew to discuss about nothing, for the sole sake of writing and get a reply.

[Kamiccolo9]

For some reason, I'm getting an error whenever I try to open the first page of this topic, so I haven't been able to read the OP.

I just wanted to point out as food for thought, in case this hasn't already been addressed, that "Death of the Author" does not mean that authorial intent is valueless. It's a belief that the author is not the "only right," not that he is "wrong."

While I'm not saying that's happening here (as I said, I haven't been able to read the OP), I see all too often people dismissing the author's stated intent out of hand, when Death of the Author should be used as a means of literary critique, a way of deciding for one's self if the author successfully transcribed his ideas on the page in a way that would come through when reading. Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is one of the best examples of this.

Especially considering this forum base, I'm a bit concerned that people will just link to this thread to shut down a discussion that arises whenever Toriyama says something that someone doesn't like.

[Zephyr]

But, rereboy, it is precisely because consuming art is such an eminently subjective activity that intention has long been excluded as a standard in assessing the success of works of art. Authorial designs have simply no part in conditioning the subjective experience of a work in and of itself if they are not part of the work already.

That's nothing more than critics and scholars deciding for other people what factors should matter and shouldn't matter (in this case deciding for other people wether or not the author's intent should matter) in those people's subjective experiences. A person, no matter how intelligent and knowledge, can't tell another person what factors matter and don't matter in that person's subjective experience.

The truth is that a particular person might consider the author's intent a prime factor in how they they view their work because what that particular person values most and really wants to experience is the original vision behind the work (aka the author's intent). Thus, such a person, as long as he knows for sure the actual intent of the author, will prefer to interpret the work following that original vision, that intent. And yet, despite this being what that particular person wants and despite this being how he thinks, he shouldn't do it because critics and scholars think otherwise? Ridiculous... If it's a subjective experience, that particular person is the one that knows which factors matter and how he interprets things in his own subjective experience. Period.

I think what he's getting at is that, if you want to look at a piece of art with authorial intent in mind, you must both experience the work itself, and learn what the author's explicit intent was. Those are two distinct things that you need. When you are looking only at the work itself, explicit and external authorial intent doesn't factor in yet, since you've yet to look at things beyond the work itself on which to base your subjective evaluation of it.

That isn't to say that either one is the right way, but rather that authorial intent isn't inherent to the work itself. And if you're only looking at the work itself, as it is, then authorial intent doesn't matter.

[rereboy]

I think what he's getting at is that, if you want to look at a piece of art with authorial intent in mind, you must both experience the work itself, and learn what the author's explicit intent was. Those are two distinct things that you need. When you are looking only at the work itself, explicit and external authorial intent doesn't factor in yet, since you've yet to look at things beyond the work itself on which to base your subjective evaluation of it.

That isn't to say that either one is the right way, but rather that authorial intent isn't inherent to the work itself. And if you're only looking at the work itself, as it is, then authorial intent doesn't matter.

Of course, but that's nothing more than interpreting at different moments in time with the existing available factors and knowledge at that time.

For example, a person might interpret something in a certain way when he is 15 years old, and then interpret it differently when he is 35. Why? Because things changed. The view of the person has evolved, his knowledge has increased and that has caused his interpretation to change, to evolve.

In similar fashion, a person that prefers to interpret according to the original intent but has no way to know what the original intent was other than guessing and interpreting from the work itself, will interpret without that knowledge. However, if in the future that person learns what the original intent is, things will change, his knowledge will increase and the next time he analyzes and interprets the work, since he prefers to interpret according to the original intent and he now has access to it, his interpretation will perhaps change, evolve, compared to the last time he did it.

As for the intent being inherent to the work or not, a person that values the original intent would say something like: the original intent is always inherent to the work itself because it is born out of that intent even when it's not clearly apparent, and when it does become apparent then it should be a prime factor in the interpretation. Being possible to interpret without that knowledge doesn't mean that the work is not a reflection of that intent and, thus, the intent must be part of it.

In other words, not even wether the intent is part of the work or not is something that can be objectively defined. It's just a factor that people will consider important or not in their interpretation.

[RisanF]

I've been trying to find a place for quality discussion regarding deeper analysis of Dragon Ball's world, writing, characters and all that fun stuff but have so far been... disappointed to say the least. I've recently been encouraged by friends and followers to give these forums a real chance as opposed to my previous unfair judgments that were based on a few people. (I really do regret the way I over-generalized people over what website they use. I use Tumblr because the format feels much more open to stating your true feelings on a point and a blog system feels better to me personally than a forum one for some unknown reason. I should be more sensitive to the idea of judging an entire website like that.) So here I am. From what I have seen from these forums, I'm actually excited and thinking "yes! Real discussions that take every argument into consideration! I can get this outside of Tumblr, finally, and get out of an echo-chamber."

One of the things I've noticed when trying to discuss my thoughts in this fandom is the lack of understanding of or simple misrepresentation regarding what "Death of the Author" refers too and why I use the term so often. Especially in regards to how I view characters in Dragon Ball.

I'm still new to this site and how it works so forgive me if when I try to link to a source, the entire post freaks out.

Now, "Death of the Author" is much more than just some term that is thrown around to shut up discussion. In actuality, it is a term meant to strengthen discussion and meant to keep discussion alive. When I make a point on a character and the only arguments against said point are "but the Author said", my refusal to accept it on the grounds of "Death of the Author" is not meant to say that I will not accept arguments but rather that those specific types of arguments will not convince me. If I were to, say, have a belief that Goku was born female or something crazy like that, what arguments would I have? I can't think of any and any that I could possibly say (I literally just made up that example just now) are far too much of a stretch to actually prove anything as even remotely possible of being canon. Same with my personal choice to believe Krillin could have Trichotillomania. I have nothing to base that on beyond personal feelings and experiences that hold no relevance in analysis. These things are nothing but headcanon. A belief that possibly has canon basis but who's strongest arguments have very little to do with the source material. (A phrase I've found myself telling someone lately being "I know the differences between deductive reasoning, analysis and headcanon. Do you?" after being accused of trying to force headcanons on people.)

I've seen arguments that say that "Death of the Author" can not be a valid form of analysis because it opens the door to forcing people to believe outlandish theories like our lovely transgender/gender-bent Goku example. This is the farthest from the truth.

It is actually meant to stop allowing an authors words to be taken as absolute fact. What if Toriyama were the one to come up with our Fem!Goku example? Would we be forced to accept it as canon? I'm certain a big chunk of the fanbase would throw a fit about that one. After all, nothing in canon actually supports that sort of plot-point. I would be the one selling pitchforks at the door if something like that were to come to pass. We've seen it from the beginning with our own eyes, Goku was most certainly born male. See, "Death of the Author" is meant to stop this idea that somehow out-of-universe arguments can hold more weight than in-universe ones when discussing topics that are centered within the universe.

Not related to the Author but an example of out-of-universe explanations being used incorrectly to explain in-universe related theories is this (rather strange imo) idea that Chichi is without a doubt bitter towards Goku for being away often regardless of understanding the circumstances behind his absences. In my honest opinion this idea is not only virtually unsupported by any canon-to-the-series evidence but is also insulting to those who are in relationships to members of the military. The common argument to support this idea that Chichi is without a doubt bitter is either "I would be" or "any woman would be". Yes, not every person can handle being in a relationship - let alone married with kids - with a Marine, but there are people who can. I know, I'm friends with them. Those out-of-universe explanations hold no value to me because it does not change that I see no bitterness in Chichi nor do I see signs of Gohan or Goten being around a bitter parent. Believe it if you want, I have yet to be convinced of it.

Now, I've also been accused of somehow disrespecting Toriyama due to the language behind the term. After all "Death" is not a very endearing and happy word. So let's go into where the term originated. This will also put to rest this idea that it was some crazy line posted by some crazy girl on some crazy website.

"Death of the Author" is named after an Essay written by Roland Barthes which you can read for yourself here: http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/Gustaf ... .death.pdf

This essay was in response to the start of the movement that ushered in “New Criticism” (or “Russian Formalism” according to Wikipedia but this school website just calls it “Formalist Criticism” http://home.olemiss.edu/~egjbp/spring97/litcrit.html ) which is the literary criticism that states that, to quote Roland Barthes, “the birth of the reader must come at the cost of the author.”

Roland’s essay is wonderful for the reason of bringing up the ideas that, as any author I’ve ever heard from and spoken to will tell you, yes it’s their story, but they are interpreting what is in their head just as much as those of us who attempt to interpret what was written.

Yes, an authors biographical information (race, sex, age, social status, etc.) will effect their interpretation and the meaning they found in their work, but why must we accept their biographical information as more important than our own? Why does their social status change the meaning of the text while mine doesn’t? Why does the fact that Toriyama supposedly (I have no source for this) states “I intended for young Goku to be a little selfish” have more merit than my detailed analysis explaining why I don’t see Goku as a selfish character at all but rather feel the word people mean to use is "reckless"?

Now, an example of using an outside source correctly would be my own answer to a question on whether or not I would consider Chichi a "Tiger Mom" and what my thoughts on the stereotype were. I did some research and found an essay that goes into the psychology behind Chinese-parenting and how it's related to the American stereotype. I used this information to paint the idea that this misunderstanding of Chichi's parenting style and the desire to slap a label like that on it to call it bad comes from the same place as when American citizens try to fit their own culture onto the idea of Chinese parenting instead of looking from the inside and noting that a full understanding and respect of the culture behind said parenting style is needed. I've used what little information the series gave us to find the parallels between Chichi's parenting and Chinese parenting. I then decided that she wouldn't really fit the "Tiger Mom" stereotype but that she really fits the ideas of Chinese parenting from what information I could fine. Is this a definite concrete answer? No. But it's an answer based on researching human psychology and based on the characters as we see them in the series.

To believe that there is one-right-answer to what a piece of art means by way of looking at the creator and studying them instead of the work itself is to be an arrogant critic who puts their understanding of the work above all others. Critics are free to use the author to understand a work better, but it is not true analysis. Such is the nature of being a critic, as Roland states. To me, the author is nothing more than the first person who got to read their work. They are not some God of the art they created. Which, admittedly, is seen as some huge controversial comment around these parts it seems but, to me, the fact that this is some huge controversy to believe in this form of analysis simply paints just how behind the times the general Dragon Ball "analysis" (I prefer to call them a Book Club) community is.

Roland uses language that paints how serious a concept this is to accept as a society very well in stating that we, as readers, have been freed from the tyrannical ruling of critics and authors. We have moved past this. Things have changed. We can not continue to hold the hand of the author and expect them to tell us how we’re supposed to think anymore. And, truthfully, artists don’t want to hold our hands. That’s why they’re usually hesitant to answer questions, why the phrase “you tell me what you thought” is common in interviews with them. They don’t want to be given anymore power than telling a story deserves.

Many writers and artists will tell you that they will often go into their work with one intention but some outside force (be it a recent event, a memory from childhood or some subconscious idea they can't pin down correctly) will force something entirely different to take place. I've talked with MANY artists in my days (my family is very creative focused on every side) and have come to the conclusion that anyone who says there is no way a creator could POSSIBLY have missed their intention when creating something is most likely not an active artist of any kind. However, I am aware that some outliers may exist though this is my own experience.

This is where we get to what this all has to do with Dragon Ball and why it's especially bizzare to me that this particular fandom doesn't seem to respect this very real, very valid and very much so accepted form of analysis.

Toriyama is a Discovery Writer. He wrote by Discovery. You can learn more about that from this lecture by Brandon Sanderson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glPLTNuhfxA

So everything thing he did, every minor detail, was him making it up as he went and learning what his story actually was as he went. The fandom will often make fun of his decision to write this way but that is both unfair as it is a valid approach to writing and contradictory to the way the fandom worships his interviews. Toriyama’s intention was ‘I was discovering this world and story as I went along with my readers.’ as supported by his comments on the first page of the first manga. “This way, I can draw anything I want to and enjoy the tension and excitement of figuring out what I’ll draw next.”

It truly baffles me that a majority of the Dragon Ball fanbase thinks this is all hog-wash and that Toriyama’s beliefs trumps ALL ELSE at ALL TIMES because it’s such and old old way of thinking. We as a society have moved past that. It's especially baffling because we know that he is forgetful. He wrote his story and was done. He told the tale he wanted to tell and is obviously not interested in analyzing it further. So why do we treat the analysis of someone who forgets facts of the series often who was just asked a random question on the spot as more valid than someone who is constantly re-watching and re-reading the series, desperately searching for discussion because they wish to see and understand all forms of the series and all thought-processes of differing interpretations?

My theory: Confirmation Bias. I remember reading once that Toriyama had given two answers for why Trunks and Goten don't have their tails. One being that they simply weren't born with them and the other being that they were cut off at birth.

Those answers can't BOTH be true. That's not physically possible. So which one do we accept? Whichever one YOU believe makes the most sense to YOU. Which is all well and good but if you're trying to write up a full analysis of the series and expecting everyone to take your arguments fully seriously, you should be honest about what all the information you had to back yourself up was. You shouldn't be saying "Toriyama definitely said that Goten and Trunks weren't born with their tails so it's an absolute fact." You should be saying "Toriyama said two things. Now, it doesn't make sense to me to say that they weren't born with them for -insert genetic scientific reasoning here- so I believe they were cut off." See the difference in these two examples? One is open to discussion and one is not. I leave you to decide which is which.

I've noticed a perfect example of confirmation bias in play with the infamous kiss-joke scene from DBS. (Ah yes, the thing that people assumed the GoChi fanbase was upset about because it "sank their ship" when in reality we were upset because we knew it would bring in a whole new wave of unnecessary hate and harassment which - surprise surprise it did so our fears were justified in their realization. It's become an inside joke that it's a contest to see who can give the sassiest answer to these messages it happens so often).

While I just believe it was Goku giving Vegeta a dose of his usual sass that is missing in the anime (the manga expressions supporting this) with the idea of "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" I have to say that I found the OBSESSION with people who clearly don't like to see the couple in a positive light constantly bringing it up is unnerving at best and shallow and gross at worse. Why? Because not only do they use it to say that Goku and Chichi have most certainly NEVER kissed when other interpretations of the scene have been brought up (like how the Japanese GoChi artists we follow didn't freak out about the manga the way they did about the Anime) but, and this is the shallow part, they also use the idea that a couple never kissing equates to no romantic attraction being possible to justify any sort of anti-Goku/Chichi ideas.

I could rant about how that thought-process is shallow all day long but let's attempt to stay on topic, shall we?

Twisting the scene into just the right meaning for the job can confirm that anyone who chooses to believe that Goku and Chichi have absolutely zero romantic attraction is absolutely right and that anyone who says otherwise is just "one of those crazy GoChi Tumblr fans" (seriously? We're not the part of the fanbase attacking voice-actors as a group). It's confirmation bias.

Everyone is allowed to think what they want of the series, but the constant harassment and forcing your own ideas of it down peoples throats is not very open to discussion and should not be considered valid analysis. If you wish to accept Toriyama's words because they make sense to you, that's perfectly fine. I accept other peoples thoughts on a series all the time. I wouldn't be so demanding of a better environment for open discussion in this fandom if I didn't want to take other's ideas into account to help form my own.

In conclusion, "Death of the Author" is not some made-up term I throw around to prove that my points and ideas are absolutely correct and canon but rather a way to avoid any form of confirmation bias believing in "only some of the interviews but not others" could lead one to have. Which is a very possible trap one can fall down accidentally because, well, of course you're going to have the interviews that prove your points at the front of your mind regardless of whether the language of said interview is vague or not. Saying "I don't accept the authors words as an argument" simply means that if you cannot support your theory with canon evidence, then I have no reason to believe it. It's also out of respect to the technique of writing known as "Discovery Writing" that Toriyama obviously used whether he's aware of the title or not. I worked with my sister to create a character with a split-personality but it wasn't until chapters in to the story that we realized the character was showing all of the signs to the letter after researching what said signs were even though we never intended for that. The canon of our story screamed "Dissociative Identity Disorder" even though we did not intend it starting out.

Choosing to not be convinced by certain arguments because of "Death of the Author" is not about arguing my headcanons. It's about opening up discussion so that an argument can be had and that both parties can leave with respect of the other's interpretation.

But I mean, if you want to believe Goku wasn't actually a Saiyan before Raditz landed on Earth because Toriyama didn't intend for him to be when he first started writing the story, that's none of my business.

I've been wanting to discuss this very subject for some time. I am generally a firm believer in the "Death of the Author" argument and have been for years. On the one hand, I think Toriyama's interviews are a good indicator for where he is trying to go when working on Dragon Ball. However, I don't believe that authors are meant to just sit there and tell us how to interpret their work. No matter what Toriyama says or doesn't say, the body of work remains the same, unless Toriyama actively goes back and retcons the material. Even then, the original, un-retconed material still remains as a standalone story in its own right (just talk to the Star Wars fans who insist that Han shot Greedo first)

"Death of the Author" is something that I've often thought about since the seventh Harry Potter book was released and the main series was finished. Instead of calling it quits or writing more books, JKR opened up Pottermore, a site where she would tell the readership all these tidbits about the character's lives post-canon, when she could've either written more books, or just let the audience speculate for themselves what happened next. This kind of approach squashes interpretation, and makes the fandom all about the author as a person rather than the story itself. Nowadays, JKR is working on Cursed Child and Fantastic Beasts, which does counts canon in my book, since they are actual stories rather than JKR just talking, but it took a while for us to get to that point.

I've seen so many different approaches in trying to explain Goku's actions from one story arc to the next, from appeals to authorial intent ("Toriyama says this and that about Goku's personality"), to explanations drawn from outside the text ("Goku doesn't kill anymore because Kami taught him mercy") My current opinion on this is that Goku simply isn't written all that consistently, with traits and motivations dropping in and out depending on how Toriyama and his editors feel like portraying him at any given point. People can go through each interview and find at least one thing in the manga that contradicts them ("If Goku doesn't understand family, why does he say this and that to Gohan here?"). I personally don't even think Goku CAN be the uber-selfish fighter Toriyama talks about in his interviews and still work throughout the entirety of Dragon Ball. True, Toriyama's comments might accurately describe what Goku eventually became in Dragon Ball Super, but Super!Goku has been continually criticized for being more shallow than DBZ!Goku, which still points to a discrepancy between the Goku in Dragon Ball and the Goku in the interviews.

Dragon Ball in general was never lauded for being a tightly written, cohesive narrative, but for how outrageous and creative the material is. And of course authors in general can be flaky, change their mind about what they think of their work, or not even understand what made their work resonate to begin with. Kamiccolo9 mentions Ray Bradbury and Fahrenheit 451, a good example, and of course everyone is aware of how controversial any additional Star War material Lucas created. We don't need to justify every inconsistency within Dragon Ball's narrative; we can just discuss the work as a fictional story and the end result of what they set out to do.