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

[Kairi Yajuu]

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.

[DBZAOTA482]

I thought the thread was about if Toriyama died but then you started rambling about Goku and Chi-Chi. WTF is going on?!!

[Kairi Yajuu]

Haha. It's not really rambling, well, I rambled about a specific section of the fanbase and its harassment towards GoChi fans, but if you read the whole essay, you'll find that "Death of the Author" is a real concept.

[Cure Dragon 255]

"The Death of the Author" (French: La mort de l'auteur) is a 1967 essay by the French literary critic and theorist Roland Barthes. Barthes' essay argues against traditional literary criticism's practice of incorporating the intentions and biographical context of an author in an interpretation of a text, and instead argues that writing and creator are unrelated. The title is a pun[citation needed] on Le Morte d'Arthur, a 15th-century compilation of smaller Arthurian legend stories, written by Sir Thomas Malory.


Though most use it to mean. "I DONT CARE ABOUT(In this case) TORIYAMA! MY HEAD CANON IS CANON!" But I dont think the Topic Creator is one of those.

[Kairi Yajuu]

"The Death of the Author" (French: La mort de l'auteur) is a 1967 essay by the French literary critic and theorist Roland Barthes. Barthes' essay argues against traditional literary criticism's practice of incorporating the intentions and biographical context of an author in an interpretation of a text, and instead argues that writing and creator are unrelated. The title is a pun[citation needed] on Le Morte d'Arthur, a 15th-century compilation of smaller Arthurian legend stories, written by Sir Thomas Malory.


Though most use it to mean. "I DONT CARE ABOUT(In this case) TORIYAMA! MY HEAD CANON IS CANON!" But I dont think the Topic Creator is one of those.

Anyone who uses it that way is wrong. Like I say in my essay, I'm well aware of the difference between thoughtful analysis and headcanons. The whole point of having a headcanon is having something that you can reasonably believe but that you recognize you can't prove as canon. It's being accused of being one of those annoying fans that prompted me to write this essay. I'm not in the business of stopping discussion. I only want people to respect that there's no reason to force me to agree with their ideas of the characters and especially not when the only argument they have that I can't use canon-evidence to argue against is "this Toriyama interview says". I'll be completely honest, though, I've only run into one person who was trying to force their headcanon to be accepted as canon and they did not try and use "Death of the Author" to prove that point.

It's people saying "I DON'T CARE WHAT'S IN THE MANGA! TORIYAMA SAID THIS THEREFORE MY HEAD CANON IS CANON!" that I'm sick of.

[Cipher]

This thread gets my MFA-holding-ass stamp of approval. As does bringing the good conversations seen on Tumblr (which I've never been very adept at navigating) over to message boards, which I still feel are the best platform for in-depth discussion. Though, of course, they depend on people actually contributing to the community with knowledge that what they write may occasionally get lost in the shuffle.

Dragon Ball is something of an odd beast to apply this to, as it's relatively thematically straight-forward and so much discussion around it focuses on pedantic, in-universe aspects, but yes, the argument is that if you're discussing thematic interpretations, or characters, or, I suppose, even minute in-universe details, you aren't obligated to address any statements of authorial intent or in-universe details presented outside the context of the original work. What's on the page is on the page. Moreover, the experience that readers walk away with is what determines the weight and impact of the art. Why do we continue to look at certain stories? It's not because the author attempted to communicate X, Y and Z. It's because readers or viewers walk away with certain experiences. Critique and analysis ought to continue to focus on that experience, and what contributes to it, rather than emphasizing authorial intent, which is trivial in comparison.

I do struggle with how to apply this to Dragon Ball, though, as far as a reaction to how things usually work. I suppose my stance is that, in terms of things like Boo being a creation of Bobbidi or being a creature he discovers, who really gives a fuck to begin with? You want to talk about characters or messages, that gets a little more interesting. But I don't often see people stepping outside the confines of the work itself in those conversations. Perhaps if some in-universe tidbit like the Boo thing factored into a thematic discussion, death of the author would feel worth invoking and educating other participants on?

I guess I like that this is being brought up, because literary criticism is super boss, but I'm not sure to what actionable end.

[jjgp1112]

My only thing is, DBZ's a rather straightforward series and, to its benefit, is a bit more simplistic with how it presents its characters and situations. Particularly in regards to familial and romantic relationships, which in the former's case never really dealt with the more deeply rooted aspects that would be a major issue in real families, and in the case of the latter, is pretty much worthless to the show and only even exists as a means for Toriyama to pop out a new character

[Cure Dragon 255]

"The Death of the Author" (French: La mort de l'auteur) is a 1967 essay by the French literary critic and theorist Roland Barthes. Barthes' essay argues against traditional literary criticism's practice of incorporating the intentions and biographical context of an author in an interpretation of a text, and instead argues that writing and creator are unrelated. The title is a pun[citation needed] on Le Morte d'Arthur, a 15th-century compilation of smaller Arthurian legend stories, written by Sir Thomas Malory.


Though most use it to mean. "I DONT CARE ABOUT(In this case) TORIYAMA! MY HEAD CANON IS CANON!" But I dont think the Topic Creator is one of those.

Anyone who uses it that way is wrong. Like I say in my essay, I'm well aware of the difference between thoughtful analysis and headcanons. The whole point of having a headcanon is having something that you can reasonably believe but that you recognize you can't prove as canon. It's being accused of being one of those annoying fans that prompted me to write this essay. I'm not in the business of stopping discussion. I only want people to respect that there's no reason to force me to agree with their ideas of the characters and especially not when the only argument they have that I can't use canon-evidence to argue against is "this Toriyama interview says". I'll be completely honest, though, I've only run into one person who was trying to force their headcanon to be accepted as canon and they did not try and use "Death of the Author" to prove that point.

It's people saying "I DON'T CARE WHAT'S IN THE MANGA! TORIYAMA SAID THIS THEREFORE MY HEAD CANON IS CANON!" that I'm sick of.

I love the way you think. And I love your posts...which is strange because normally I hate long posts.

[PelicanDynasty]

Very interesting stuff. I've got a few things I'd like to say:

1) Agree completely with the Marine example, the Chi-Chi and Goku dynamic exists in real life and many people are perfectly okay with it.

2)

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"?

This I also agree with. What he intended does not equal what he wrote.

3) I don't see the connection between the Trunks/Goten tail issue and the kissing scene? Toriyama said two things about the tails, so one must be false. Toriyama only said one thing about the kissing, though, and that was basically that Goku doesn't know what a kiss is. If you could explain the correlation here, I would appreciate it.

Welcome to the forums by the way These kinds of posts are always good to see.

[Kairi Yajuu]

Very interesting stuff. I've got a few things I'd like to say:

1) Agree completely with the Marine example, the Chi-Chi and Goku dynamic exists in real life and many people are perfectly okay with it.

2)

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"?

This I also agree with. What he intended does not equal what he wrote.

3) I don't see the connection between the Trunks/Goten tail issue and the kissing scene? Toriyama said two things about the tails, so one must be false. Toriyama only said one thing about the kissing, though, and that was basically that Goku doesn't know what a kiss is. If you could explain the correlation here, I would appreciate it.

Welcome to the forums by the way These kinds of posts are always good to see.

On point 3. It's about confirmation bias. Yes, one point of the tails must be false but deciding which one is up to the person reading. If we were to treat the authors word as the word of god, then both MUST be correct because the author said both of them. My point of the kissing issue was that how the fandom has reacted to it seems to be heavily influenced by confirmation bias. Toriyama hasn't said that Goku doesn't know what a kiss is (unless there's an interview I haven't seen which is totally possible), there was a conversation between Vegeta and Goku that could be read as Goku not knowing what kissing is in DBS but could also be read as a typical Japanese joke of misunderstanding each other (see also, the fake-out love confession in Monthly Girls' Nozaki-kun) or even as how I read it, being Goku just giving Vegeta attitude for asking "haven't you kissed before." "... no. I haven't. Obviously." "aren't you married" "gee I wonder if that has anything to do with it." How the viewer reads this scene is entirely dependent on the reader. Which means an underlying bias could have something to do with it. The fact that I read it as Goku giving Vegeta sass could very easily have to do with how I've been missing Goku's sass from the original manga and was happy to see it, even if it means getting stupid hate because others chose to see it differently. Not to mention, I don't even see DBS as canon anyways so it doesn't really matter to me how people view the scene, so long as they recognize that it doesn't necessarily "prove any dark secrets about Goku and Chichi's relationship." as fact.

[Pickle_Jar]

A very enlightening post!

I don't have much to say to add to it that hasn't already been said. I have my headcanons and I have fun mentioning them, but I've taught myself to never try and tout them as "this is real, everyone else is wrong" because that's silly. (But ooooooh man did I do it a lot around 10 years ago and it didn't go very well! XD)

Marilyn Manson said "art is a question mark, and if someone asks you want it means... *points to art* there's your answer." I always thought that was a cool quote.

Now the shipping wars-- geez. People need to go outside more often because sending death threats and suicide bait to somebody via anon over fictional characters is pathetic. The doubly pathetic thing is this happens in a lot of fandoms, not just DB.

[Dbzfan94]

Fantastic post kairi. I saw this before and I completely agree. This one rivals Kunzait's wuxia post. (dbzebra btw)

[PelicanDynasty]

[spoiler]

Very interesting stuff. I've got a few things I'd like to say:

1) Agree completely with the Marine example, the Chi-Chi and Goku dynamic exists in real life and many people are perfectly okay with it.

2)

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"?

This I also agree with. What he intended does not equal what he wrote.

3) I don't see the connection between the Trunks/Goten tail issue and the kissing scene? Toriyama said two things about the tails, so one must be false. Toriyama only said one thing about the kissing, though, and that was basically that Goku doesn't know what a kiss is. If you could explain the correlation here, I would appreciate it.

Welcome to the forums by the way These kinds of posts are always good to see.

On point 3. It's about confirmation bias. Yes, one point of the tails must be false but deciding which one is up to the person reading. If we were to treat the authors word as the word of god, then both MUST be correct because the author said both of them. My point of the kissing issue was that how the fandom has reacted to it seems to be heavily influenced by confirmation bias. Toriyama hasn't said that Goku doesn't know what a kiss is (unless there's an interview I haven't seen which is totally possible), there was a conversation between Vegeta and Goku that could be read as Goku not knowing what kissing is in DBS but could also be read as a typical Japanese joke of misunderstanding each other (see also, the fake-out love confession in Monthly Girls' Nozaki-kun) or even as how I read it, being Goku just giving Vegeta attitude for asking "haven't you kissed before." "... no. I haven't. Obviously." "aren't you married" "gee I wonder if that has anything to do with it." How the viewer reads this scene is entirely dependent on the reader. Which means an underlying bias could have something to do with it. The fact that I read it as Goku giving Vegeta sass could very easily have to do with how I've been missing Goku's sass from the original manga and was happy to see it, even if it means getting stupid hate because others chose to see it differently. Not to mention, I don't even see DBS as canon anyways so it doesn't really matter to me how people view the scene, so long as they recognize that it doesn't necessarily "prove any dark secrets about Goku and Chichi's relationship." as fact.

[/spoiler]

Ah, gotcha. Gracias.

[Cipher]

I don't see the connection between the Trunks/Goten tail issue and the kissing scene? Toriyama said two things about the tails, so one must be false.

I think, on this point, it would be more fair to say either is true, or both -- or neither, as the only thing the series itself gives us is that they don't have tails, which is the salient development over any potential explanation; commentary could even be made of the lack of explanation in-series. Any of those would be fair takes in discussion.

Though if you were to bring up one interview-only explanation, I do feel you'd be somewhat obligated to address the other, in terms of any kind of comprehensive hypothetical "Wartorn and Warmongering: What the Development of Akira Toriyama's Saiyans Teaches us about Freedom" situation.

Yes, one point of the tails must be false but deciding which one is up to the person reading.

I don't think either even has to be false. There are plenty of interesting points to be made around the elements the explanations share, or don't, or even the fact that two explanations were offered at all.

Or, you know, potentially interesting. I don't know how much there actually is to say about Saiyan tails or the lack of them.

People get so worked up on matters of truth (see: the community's fixation with canon) in a work that is both fluid and completely locked into the way it was originally told, depending on how you want to come at it. Even the reader's awareness of, and the story's reflection of, the fluid creative process of long-published material can be grounds for analysis and discussion. Which is to say, it's possible to produce two valid readings of the same early material on the grounds that Goku either is a Saiyan at the time, or is not and will not be until Volume 16. Serialized fiction is a strange beast, especially when you know it is, or if it reads as, something produced through continuous discovery.

[precita]

What if Toriyama doesn't really exist? What if...Toriyama is just a dream?

[Kairi Yajuu]

What if Toriyama doesn't really exist? What if...Toriyama is just a dream?

Asking the real questions, here.

[dbgtFO]

My stance is that Toriyama is just the middle man, the story is "God" and Toriyama is the guy, selected to pass on what "God" told him, like a prophet.

He has no idea of this and so instead tries to justify what he thinks were his thoughts, when in fact they never were. Unfortunately some times the message gets corrupted, when being processed through his mind and that's why there are some massive inconsistencies, plot holes and incredibly poor logic like the dumbass time travel mechanics from the Future Trunks arc.
But he is only human, so I'll forgive him. Still it's unfortunate that the general public will take this flawed version of events as the truth, when the real truth can only be correctly interpreted by one person on this planet...
[spoiler]ME[/spoiler]

[mabalia]

Kairi Yajuu, I so agree with you. tHIS makes sense to me because I already say that original DB manga comes before Toriyama's interviews. I thank you for talking about such an interesting topic of discussion.

[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.

[ABED]

The facts that the author puts forth in the story are the story, but the interpretation is up to each person.