Aftermath (Worm AU)

[Ack]

*Mutters darkly about communicating being so bloody complicated and confusing* My bluntness is what I normally do in essentially all situations; I don't really know how to do otherwise and still convey any degree of useful information. And demanding? That... is very much unintentional. Can you give an example?

Important, esotericist, but not particularly useful as I don't really have the background to figure that out and how to avoid it other than "don't communicate anything involving a potential difference of opinion".

Click to shrink...

The post was meant to be a little mocking, yes. Your posts on the matter have been very direct and oppositional, pointing out potential bad events as if they were virtually certain to occur, with the subtext that if I actually contradicted any of the things you predicted, I would be totally breaking SoD of everyone concerned. In short, "The way you wrote it is going to turn out badly, no matter what."

I just found it amusing that you took a (fallacious) assumption that Dana made, and ran with it for one of your bad end scenarios.

 

[Ack]

Also, you know what they call someone who immediately jumps to Master/Stranger suppositions when a cop shows up with evidence that a cape has committed a crime?

A moron.

 

[RoninSword]

I would like to point out that if Shadow Stalker attempts to attack Danny, he could order her to stop, and if he sees her trying to hide something, he could order her to hand over the items to him.
As has been pointed out, if a police officer comes up to a PRT officer and says that she has information that pertains to the operational security of an op that Armsmaster is running, I highly doubt that he wouldn't act on it for the sake of keeping out any possible problems. Armsmaster is socially inept, but he is smart, and I believe he would rather apologise to SS over a misunderstanding than have evidence vanish under his nose.

 

[Navrin]

The post was meant to be a little mocking, yes. Your posts on the matter have been very direct and oppositional, pointing out potential bad events as if they were virtually certain to occur, with the subtext that if I actually contradicted any of the things you predicted, I would be totally breaking SoD of everyone concerned. In short, "The way you wrote it is going to turn out badly, no matter what."

I just found it amusing that you took a (fallacious) assumption that Dana made, and ran with it for one of your bad end scenarios.

Click to shrink...

The intent was more "The situation is so heavily stacked against it working out well with the plan Dana has that it would require an extreme amount of luck to work out, and as such I'm predicting her presence to make things worse because it seems to be the most likely result". That's it. Not "it's wrong if it doesn't go this way".

What do you think would be a reasonable response to "We think (with very little evidence we can give you) that Sophia Hess is a murderer and Shadowstalker is going to try and remove or destroy the evidence, please stop her"? Attacking her is obviously right out as a reasonable course of action. Pulling her back from her scouting operation and relying on less intelligence could be an acceptable result, but it does mean (as far as Armsmaster is aware) decreasing the odds of this very delicate operation actually working out well, especially if he needs to keep Shadowstalker under guard (personally) and thus significantly decrease his ability to defend everyone else if needed.

And the operation at hand is "communicate with a potentially hostile parahuman and try to establish a positive relationship without anybody ending up dead, with the sole possible exception of the parahuman if she turns out to be hostile and we don't have a better choice". What Dana has in mind is a completely different operation (investigate these murders and bring the perpetrators to justice); these are, in fact, more in opposition to each other than anything else.

When somebody comes in and accuses somebody, especially somebody on your team, of something the burden of proof is their responsibility to provide. And when they're doing it at essentially the worst possible time with very very little evidence, there is little reason to do more than tell them to stop breaking procedure and they'll talk with them later, possibly in court. All of those "it could be X" aren't "it is X, act on it"; they're "we have insufficient reason to accept this at face value".

If Team PRT was so eager to believe the police's accusations against their subordinates in the middle of hostile actions I'd expect most of the gang members to have been taking blatant advantage of it with their police officers accusing key personnel before major actions to either delay them significantly or render the remaining forces much easier to crush. It would be an extremely easy way to stack the deck against them even more.

Anyway, Danny's Master capabilities only matter if he uses them before he's attacked; if the intent is to kill and the person is even semi-competent they won't be in any position to talk after being hit, and getting a lethal blow in on somebody that trusts you to be on their side isn't particularly difficult.

 

[Ack]

The intent was more "The situation is so heavily stacked against it working out well with the plan Dana has that it would require an extreme amount of luck to work out, and as such I'm predicting her presence to make things worse because it seems to be the most likely result". That's it. Not "it's wrong if it doesn't go this way".

What do you think would be a reasonable response to "We think (with very little evidence we can give you) that Sophia Hess is a murderer and Shadowstalker is going to try and remove or destroy the evidence, please stop her"? Attacking her is obviously right out as a reasonable course of action. Pulling her back from her scouting operation and relying on less intelligence could be an acceptable result, but it does mean (as far as Armsmaster is aware) decreasing the odds of this very delicate operation actually working out well, especially if he needs to keep Shadowstalker under guard (personally) and thus significantly decrease his ability to defend everyone else if needed.

And the operation at hand is "communicate with a potentially hostile parahuman and try to establish a positive relationship without anybody ending up dead, with the sole possible exception of the parahuman if she turns out to be hostile and we don't have a better choice". What Dana has in mind is a completely different operation (investigate these murders and bring the perpetrators to justice); these are, in fact, more in opposition to each other than anything else.

When somebody comes in and accuses somebody, especially somebody on your team, of something the burden of proof is their responsibility to provide. And when they're doing it at essentially the worst possible time with very very little evidence, there is little reason to do more than tell them to stop breaking procedure and they'll talk with them later, possibly in court. All of those "it could be X" aren't "it is X, act on it"; they're "we have insufficient reason to accept this at face value".

If Team PRT was so eager to believe the police's accusations against their subordinates in the middle of hostile actions I'd expect most of the gang members to have been taking blatant advantage of it with their police officers accusing key personnel before major actions to either delay them significantly or render the remaining forces much easier to crush. It would be an extremely easy way to stack the deck against them even more.

Anyway, Danny's Master capabilities only matter if he uses them before he's attacked; if the intent is to kill and the person is even semi-competent they won't be in any position to talk after being hit, and getting a lethal blow in on somebody that trusts you to be on their side isn't particularly difficult.

Click to shrink...

Okay, you've pointed this out. Multiple times.

And I've said 'wait and see'. Multiple times.

Because I'm not going to give you an advance screening of the next chapter.

Okay?

 

[esotericist]

Important, esotericist, but not particularly useful as I don't really have the background to figure that out and how to avoid it other than "don't communicate anything involving a potential difference of opinion".

Click to shrink...

As Ack notes, you have a tendency to take an interpretation, and treat it as hard fact. I'm not in any kind of position to go through each of your posts and break it down, particularly since your reaction to that has consistently been hostile in response. You said earlier that you feel other people are nitpicking on things you say, even though all I've really seen is people responding to claims you make. It's hard to have a constructive discussion when you appear (again, I don't think you are, hence my entry into the discussion above) to be attacking people for their writing, then appear to be attacking people for trying to counter your assertions.

To generalize:

Try not to make hard statements of truth about things that are not yet written in the story. Implied by current available text does not mean guaranteed by current available text.

Especially do not try to argue about conclusions based on multiple steps of assumption which are not actually given by the current available text.

Try not to assume that any in-story perspective is actually correct. Ack is fairly good at presenting unreliable narrators, and it's a facet of narrative he leans on heavily. Given that this is Worm and basically EVERYTHING unwise about Taylor's choices are due to misconceptions about other people's motivations, this is quite in keeping with source material.


Outside of the context of writing discussion, a friend some time back gave me a notion that I've found helpful for certain types of communication issues:

If someone says something that doesn't seem to make sense, first try to imagine a world in which what they say is right. If you can't, try to find out if there's something you're missing, rather than assume fault.

Sure, it's possible the other person is wrong, but if you argue starting from that perspective, it's much, much, much harder to find out if they're right.

 

[Ack]

As Ack notes, you have a tendency to take an interpretation, and treat it as hard fact. I'm not in any kind of position to go through each of your posts and break it down, particularly since your reaction to that has consistently been hostile in response. You said earlier that you feel other people are nitpicking on things you say, even though all I've really seen is people responding to claims you make. It's hard to have a constructive discussion when you appear (again, I don't think you are, hence my entry into the discussion above) to be attacking people for their writing, then appear to be attacking people for trying to counter your assertions.

To generalize:

Try not to make hard statements of truth about things that are not yet written in the story. Implied by current available text does not mean guaranteed by current available text.

Especially do not try to argue about conclusions based on multiple steps of assumption which are not actually given by the current available text.

Try not to assume that any in-story perspective is actually correct. Ack is fairly good at presenting unreliable narrators, and it's a facet of narrative he leans on heavily. Given that this is Worm and basically EVERYTHING unwise about Taylor's choices are due to misconceptions about other people's motivations, this is quite in keeping with source material.


Outside of the context of writing discussion, a friend some time back gave me a notion that I've found helpful for certain types of communication issues:

If someone says something that doesn't seem to make sense, first try to imagine a world in which what they say is right. If you can't, try to find out if there's something you're missing, rather than assume fault.

Sure, it's possible the other person is wrong, but if you argue starting from that perspective, it's much, much, much harder to find out if they're right.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, you don't want to argue from the POV of (say) Sophia, or any of the E88 characters from Slippery Slope ..

 

[Navrin]

As Ack notes, you have a tendency to take an interpretation, and treat it as hard fact. I'm not in any kind of position to go through each of your posts and break it down, particularly since your reaction to that has consistently been hostile in response. You said earlier that you feel other people are nitpicking on things you say, even though all I've really seen is people responding to claims you make. It's hard to have a constructive discussion when you appear (again, I don't think you are, hence my entry into the discussion above) to be attacking people for their writing, then appear to be attacking people for trying to counter your assertions.

Click to shrink...

I'm spotting a cultural difference here... it's a prediction of the future, of course it's not guaranteed to be true. Also, all observations are inherently limited and fallible. As such, even a direct statement still admits to uncertainty and should, and will, be changed in the future as further evidence is provided.

Whether there is objective truth or not (I have faith that there is, but that's a completely different matter) I believe that humans are fundamentally incapable of knowing objective truth. All truth known to humans is subjective and fundamentally flawed in various ways. As such, it is my viewpoint that where one draws the line of "blatantly admitting to uncertainty" seems very arbitrary and I'm really unclear on where people draw the line. (Especially since every culture seems to put it somewhere else, and telling which culture(s) somebody is drawing from is rather difficult)

If one wanted to actually be accurate, there would need to be a lot of qualifiers used. "I remember perceiving that this instrument indicated that there was an event indicative of an earthquake; the maps I recall observing seem to indicate that the probable location for the possible earthquake was what I would call a small city commonly known as "New Brunswick", if my memory is accurate." Probably still asserts too much truth in the face of uncertainty.


Also... what do you mean by "consistently hostile"? I won't deny that my word choices have probably been poor a fair amount of the time, but hostility has not been an actual motivation except when people, especially Ack, ascribe negative motivations for what I have said; I freely admit that I do tend to become hostile when people hurt me and having people assume I'm trying to be a jerk or whatever is very unpleasant.

To generalize:

Try not to make hard statements of truth about things that are not yet written in the story. Implied by current available text does not mean guaranteed by current available text.

Click to shrink...

So, massive change in wording suggested to deal with different cultural assumptions; a daunting task, but definitely worthy of contemplation.

Especially do not try to argue about conclusions based on multiple steps of assumption which are not actually given by the current available text.

Click to shrink...

Do you mean "don't post extrapolations from canon" or "don't argue that your extrapolations from canon are correct"? The first would be rather disheartening; doing so is one of the greatest pleasures of exploring a fictional universe for me. The second is one that I at least think I'm mostly following; to the best of my knowledge, I have tried to explain why I believe that my extrapolations are correct, or reasonable, when people discuss them instead of trying to convince people that other possibilities are wrong.

Try not to assume that any in-story perspective is actually correct. Ack is fairly good at presenting unreliable narrators, and it's a facet of narrative he leans on heavily. Given that this is Worm and basically EVERYTHING unwise about Taylor's choices are due to misconceptions about other people's motivations, this is quite in keeping with source material.

Click to shrink...

Good advice in general, though I expand this to "any perspective from anyone". Even the author's perspective only encompasses what they intend, not some kind of objective truth.

Outside of the context of writing discussion, a friend some time back gave me a notion that I've found helpful for certain types of communication issues:

If someone says something that doesn't seem to make sense, first try to imagine a world in which what they say is right. If you can't, try to find out if there's something you're missing, rather than assume fault.

Sure, it's possible the other person is wrong, but if you argue starting from that perspective, it's much, much, much harder to find out if they're right.

Click to shrink...

Interesting, though difficult; most of the time when I try to acquire an explanation people don't have an answer they're willing to give.

Thank you, esotericist; you have been one of the most pleasant and reasonable people to converse with on this board that I can recall and I appreciate your assistance.

 

[Ack]

Also... what do you mean by "consistently hostile"? I won't deny that my word choices have probably been poor a fair amount of the time, but hostility has not been an actual motivation except when people, especially Ack, ascribe negative motivations for what I have said; I freely admit that I do tend to become hostile when people hurt me and having people assume I'm trying to be a jerk or whatever is very unpleasant.

Click to shrink...

Unfortunately, the tone of your wording is easy to see as hostile, especially when you will not let go of a particular aspect, even when asked to do so.

Do you mean "don't post extrapolations from canon" or "don't argue that your extrapolations from canon are correct"? The first would be rather disheartening; doing so is one of the greatest pleasures of exploring a fictional universe for me. The second is one that I at least think I'm mostly following; to the best of my knowledge, I have tried to explain why I believe that my extrapolations are correct, or reasonable, when people discuss them instead of trying to convince people that other possibilities are wrong.

Click to shrink...

The latter. You are guilty of it. Especially when I (as the author) tell you that your extrapolations are wrong, and you continue to insist that they are not.

Good advice in general, though I expand this to "any perspective from anyone". Even the author's perspective only encompasses what they intend, not some kind of objective truth.

Click to shrink...

Given that the author's PoV is the objective truth of what's happening within the story...

Interesting, though difficult; most of the time when I try to acquire an explanation people don't have an answer they're willing to give.

Click to shrink...

All too often, it seems as though you are unwilling to accept the answers that I have been giving.

 

[pepperjack]

Also... what do you mean by "consistently hostile"? I won't deny that my word choices have probably been poor a fair amount of the time, but hostility has not been an actual motivation

Click to shrink...

Making statements without any kind of softener or equivocation or conditional makes it sound like you believe the statement to be hard fact, and when it contradicts what someone else has said with less conviction, it can come across like you're flat-out telling them they're wrong. When the entire post is written that way, that's what seems hostile.

"I think that," "assuming that [premise] is true," "unless I'm mistaken," "in my experience," "I suspect" - all these kinds of phrases and qualifiers can make it more apparent that you're willing to consider other people's perspectives without you having to withhold your opinions or speculations.

Another strategy would be, when something confuses you about the chapter or if something doesn't seem right, rather than make statements about what you think was wrong, ask questions. And not "why is character X doing this obviously silly thing," but more like "is there something that I didn't catch that makes character X's actions more reasonable than they seem to me?"

 

[Navrin]

Unfortunately, the tone of your wording is easy to see as hostile, especially when you will not let go of a particular aspect, even when asked to do so.


The latter. You are guilty of it. Especially when I (as the author) tell you that your extrapolations are wrong, and you continue to insist that they are not.


Given that the author's PoV is the objective truth of what's happening within the story...


All too often, it seems as though you are unwilling to accept the answers that I have been giving.

Click to shrink...

Not fond of "death of the author" I take it? There are a great many people who would strongly disagree that your intentions as an author lead to objective truth within the story. And unless you've been running multiple accounts, I was not talking to you there, and answering for esotericist seems rather rude.

Why is it that somebody disagreeing with you about something in your stories annoys you so much that you insist on "proving them wrong"? Something that is, in my mind, an inherently hostile act.

 

[Ack]

Not fond of "death of the author" I take it? There are a great many people who would strongly disagree that your intentions as an author lead to objective truth within the story. And unless you've been running multiple accounts, I was not talking to you there, and answering for esotericist seems rather rude.

Why is it that somebody disagreeing with you about something in your stories annoys you so much that you insist on "proving them wrong"? Something that is, in my mind, an inherently hostile act.

Click to shrink...

I disagree with 'death of the author'. If I write something to mean something, then I don't care for people saying, "Oh, you didn't really mean that." I know what I meant, dammit.

Other people are free to see their own meanings in it, but if someone wants to state what it 'really' means, then my opinion, as the author, trumps theirs.

http://www.superbitchcomic.com/comic/the-walking-trend-part-1/
http://www.superbitchcomic.com/comic/the-walking-trend-part-2/

And if you want to have a private conversation with esotericist, then by all means, PM him/her. I started this thread, the current discussion is about a story I'm writing, and esotericist was commenting (and you were replying) about something that I said. So yes, I felt justified in putting my comment in there. It's what a comment thread is all about, after all.

 

[Ack]

Here's the basic flaw in 'death of the author'.

Suppose I write a chapter in an ongoing story where I have one of the characters express an opinion which is deliberately fallacious. Someone espousing DOTA takes that opinion and runs with it, building an entire chain of logic which is, in itself, fallacious, given that the original opinion was untrue. The DOTA fan states, "No, my opinion is just as valid as that of the author, and I say it is true."

The author (me) then writes the next chapter, where the opinion is shown up to be utterly fallacious, in keeping with what I've been saying all this time. Points from the story previous to the chapter are shown to support the fact that the original opinion was fallacious. The DOTA fan is then faced with three options: to ignore the latest chapter, to argue that "that's not how it should go", or to admit that they were, in fact, wrong.

Just as a hint? Telling me 'that's not how it should go' doesn't actually get much attention from me. Especially if most of the people reading the story like the way it's going.

TL; DR: Death of the author only really works when the author is dead.

 

[Starfox5]

TL; DR: Death of the author only really works when the author is dead.

Click to shrink...

Wouldn't that also work when the story is finished or dead?

I know at least one story where I know what the author meant to convey (or have a pretty good idea), but the story actually leaves a lot of interpretations, especially with regards to one of the main characters. Author seems to go for "evil cad of a noble, seducing a peasant maiden and getting her pregnant and then not marrying her, but wanting to arrange a marriage for her to a ranger so he can keep having an affair with her. Poor girl suicides.". But the "Noble got a girl pregnant, does all he needs to to make sure she and the kid are fine - respectable marriage, no money worries, and their love can continue. Stupid girl suicides because she can't accept a less than prefect solution and is stuck in the bourgeois morals she was raised in." interpretation is also valid.

 

[Lantalia]

Not fond of "death of the author" I take it? There are a great many people who would strongly disagree that your intentions as an author lead to objective truth within the story. And unless you've been running multiple accounts, I was not talking to you there, and answering for esotericist seems rather rude.

Why is it that somebody disagreeing with you about something in your stories annoys you so much that you insist on "proving them wrong"? Something that is, in my mind, an inherently hostile act.

Click to shrink...

"It's important to note that this does not mean "there's no such thing as canon for a work's events", which is a common misinterpretation of this used to justify Canon Defilement. We're completely aware of the irony in telling you how not to interpret it, but putting it in practice this way is just generally a bad idea."

You seem to be mistaking cannon (or future cannon) for interpretation.

 

[Navrin]

... or, you know, just accept that the author is not objectively correct about their story; their intentions when writing are just that: their intentions. Whether people agree that the opinions and morals expressed are correct or the results that occur within the story are reasonable (or any other aspect of the story) exist independently of that intention. An author's interpretation of their story can even change dramatically from their intention while writing it, and both are valid. "I am the author and how I regard it is the only thing that matters" is both impossible to enforce and, I think, rather ridiculous.

 

[Ack]

... or, you know, just accept that the author is not objectively correct about their story; their intentions when writing are just that: their intentions. Whether people agree that the opinions and morals expressed are correct or the results that occur within the story are reasonable (or any other aspect of the story) exist independently of that intention. An author's interpretation of their story can even change dramatically from their intention while writing it, and both are valid. "I am the author and how I regard it is the only thing that matters" is both impossible to enforce and, I think, rather ridiculous.

Click to shrink...

But when something that the author specifically says is false is taken as true, who is correct? The author, or the person making the other interpretation?

 

[Navrin]

But when something that the author specifically says is false is taken as true, who is correct? The author, or the person making the other interpretation?

Click to shrink...

Mu; the question is inherently flawed. Neither is objectively right.

If a person states "the author intended this" and the author did not, then they're objectively wrong. If they state something along the lines of "these words did not happen in this sequence" they can also be objectively wrong. However, in essentially every other case, it is up for interpretation. Even things that one person feels "obviously" are true could be taken as metaphor for something entirely different or whatever. How many people think these interpretations are reasonable may vary, but they're merely interpretations.

 

[Dreadis]

You seem to be mistaking cannon (or future cannon) for interpretation.

Click to shrink...

 

[ArnaudB]

There are a few problems with your attempt at 'debating' Navrin.

Mu; the question is inherently flawed. Neither is objectively right.

Click to shrink...

You don't have a third option, or the possibility to disregard another opinion, when you've consistently denied other people words (including the others) in this thread.

Also I am quoting this :

There are a great many people who would strongly disagree that your intentions as an author lead to objective truth within the story.

Click to shrink...

You didn't cite who were those 'great many people', you didn't cite others stories or articles to argue your points. For any point of the story you didn't cite indirectly or directly the story.

This is a person whose study involves literary criticism who is speaking here, and your argument would get you dismissed in no time at all.

I will use this remarkable comment that you just posted above :

If a person states "the author intended this" and the author did not, then they're objectively wrong. If they state something along the lines of "these words did not happen in this sequence" they can also be objectively wrong. However, in essentially every other case, it is up for interpretation. Even things that one person feels "obviously" are true could be taken as metaphor for something entirely different or whatever. How many people think these interpretations are reasonable may vary, but they're merely interpretations.

Click to shrink...

In which you just said that your words are up for interpretation, and things said as truth can mean something entirely different.

I am applying your argument to your own argument, and saying that it's impossible for you to say that's it's true... since "truth can mean something entirely different."
So there is nothing at all to comment or argue on all you said.


And I am saying this, I am being what I feel is offensive, because you've been arguing with the author for pages at length without any sign of constructive criticism or accepted any answer of the author. This is annoying.

 

[Ack]

Mu; the question is inherently flawed. Neither is objectively right.

Click to shrink...

How is it flawed? Point out the flaws. It's a very simple question which you're evading by giving us textwalls.

 

[pepperjack]

How is it flawed? Point out the flaws. It's a very simple question which you're evading by giving us textwalls.

Click to shrink...

He's saying it depends on what the authors is making a statement about; he goes on to explain this. Whatever else Narvin has done or continues to do, I can't see a case for claiming he evaded this question. I thought his answer was pretty clear, regardless of whether one agrees with it.

 

[Ack]

He's saying it depends on what the authors is making a statement about; he goes on to explain this. Whatever else Narvin has done or continues to do, I can't see a case for claiming he evaded this question. I thought his answer was pretty clear, regardless of whether one agrees with it.

Click to shrink...

I ... don't get it.

Maybe I'm not being clear enough. I'm not talking about inherent meanings in the text, or about the overarching meta-symbolism of the whatever. I'm talking about stuff that actually happens in the actual story, that a fifth-grader will be able to find and point out.

Again - where are the flaws in my question? (Repeated here for clarity).

But when something that the author specifically says is false is taken as true, who is correct? The author, or the person making the other interpretation?

Click to shrink...

All I want is a straight fucking answer.

 

[ArnaudB]

He's saying it depends on what the authors is making a statement about; he goes on to explain this. Whatever else Narvin has done or continues to do, I can't see a case for claiming he evaded this question. I thought his answer was pretty clear, regardless of whether one agrees with it.

Click to shrink...

He did evade the question :

But when something that the author specifically says is false is taken as true, who is correct? The author, or the person making the other interpretation?

Click to shrink...

If a person states "the author intended this" and the author did not, then they're objectively wrong. If they state something along the lines of "these words did not happen in this sequence" they can also be objectively wrong

Click to shrink...

Ack was asking how to take the authors words about his own story, Navrin twisted it by saying 'if a person state' which isn't necessarily the author... but that isn't the question that Ack asked. Navrin further destroyed his argument by using an "and" condition followed by "The author did not" [intend to say X], but in this case it's the author (Ack) who is saying what he intended.

The question that Ack asked wasn't answered because whatever Navrin said didn't address any term of the question.

Edit : ninja-ed by Ack

 

[Navrin]

Ack, the fundamental flaw is this: There is no objective truth involved in interpreting text, even in "straightforward" analysis. As such, neither "yes" nor "no" are actual answers to the question because the question is inherently incorrect. "There can only be one" is not a condition that is true about interpreting a story. People disagreeing about it does not require anyone to be "wrong".

There is objective truth about the literal words involved and other characteristics that can be observed (presumably, at least) and you'll get general agreement about that through what people observe. (Though there will definitely be some dissension) There is objective truth about any one person's intentions. (Though good luck getting people to agree on that given a lack of mind-reading capabilities, the fallibility of memory, the capacity to lie, and that people don't tend to know themselves all that well).

If person A says "this is the moral of the story" while person B says "this is the moral of the story" neither is objectively right or wrong. And if one of them is the author, they're still neither objectively right or wrong.

If somebody says "Jack and Jill were performing chores", somebody else says "Jack and Jill were having sex", and a third says that "it's about King Charles I manipulating liquid measures to increase taxes without technically raising taxes" "right" and "wrong" don't enter the picture. They're all ways of interpreting the text.


Not directly related to this: I believe I have already said that I have not been trying to argue that I am right and other people are wrong. I have merely been attempting to explain what my position is and why I believe it when people decide they have to question it, or whatever, after first attempting to gather more information.

And I have already apologized for unintentionally conveying hostility and offending people which seems to have been taken as a sign to continue attacking.

I have also already indicated interest in ways of properly conveying what I actually intend for the cultures here.

Now then, unless somebody is actually interested in learning about what I believe or why I believe it or they have some advice on how to improve my conveyance of information, would you all please drop it already?

 

[DieKatzchen]

For a moment I thought Navrin was about to have a breakthrough about how he comes off as hostile unintentionally, but then he went off on a tangent about death of the author. I am sad now.

 

[Ack]

Ack, the fundamental flaw is this: There is no objective truth involved in interpreting text, even in "straightforward" analysis. As such, neither "yes" nor "no" are actual answers to the question because the question is inherently incorrect. "There can only be one" is not a condition that is true about interpreting a story. People disagreeing about it does not require anyone to be "wrong".

There is objective truth about the literal words involved and other characteristics that can be observed (presumably, at least) and you'll get general agreement about that through what people observe. (Though there will definitely be some dissension) There is objective truth about any one person's intentions. (Though good luck getting people to agree on that given a lack of mind-reading capabilities, the fallibility of memory, the capacity to lie, and that people don't tend to know themselves all that well).

If person A says "this is the moral of the story" while person B says "this is the moral of the story" neither is objectively right or wrong. And if one of them is the author, they're still neither objectively right or wrong.

If somebody says "Jack and Jill were performing chores", somebody else says "Jack and Jill were having sex", and a third says that "it's about King Charles I manipulating liquid measures to increase taxes without technically raising taxes" "right" and "wrong" don't enter the picture. They're all ways of interpreting the text.

Click to shrink...

I've already stated, several times, that I'm not talking about interpreting vague aspects of the text.

I'm talking about concrete things that are said and done in the text. (See, I'm not much into allegory or simile. I tend to write as I see stuff).

One more time, before I give you up as an unintentional troll.



Author (ME) writes character as making a definitive comment, in the text. That comment does not match the truth of canon in the story. This is deliberate on the part of the author (ME).

Other person (not me) makes a statement about the story, presuming the comment to be true. The author (ME) indicates that the comment is actually untrue, and that any conclusions regarding the story that might be drawn from presuming the comment to be true will, in fact, be false. The other person continues in his assertion that the comment was true, despite being told otherwise.

Who is correct in this matter? The author, or the other person?


Note that if I do not get a simple, straight answer, lacking the phrase 'objective truth', 'interpretation' or other bullshit, then I will henceforth consider that you are incapable of same, and ignore any and all criticisms you put forth toward my fics.

Because I've asked the same damn question three times, and three times, I have failed to get a straight answer. I don't want complications. I don't want explanations. I want a straight answer.

 

[Navrin]

Three times you've asked and three times I've answered: NEITHER. One of them might be considered more or less reasonable than the other by most people, and maybe one will change their perspective with time and/or information, but that's it. And if you're going to insist on making anything about your stories you disagree with into a matter of "right" and "wrong" where you're the tyrant king of your stories and all must bow to your intentions, then I'm not inclined to post in them and end up in yet another pointless discussion where neither of us accepts the other's core premises.

The question you insist on an answer from the two options you've provided is right up there with "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" and not accepting anything other than "yes" or "no".

 

[tEN]

If the author has two scenes seeming to take place simultaneously, and the characters in one scene travel for eight hours and arrive while the other scene which is one hour long is still going, there's a problem. If the author says "actually, the clock in scene one was wrong and that scene really happened hours earlier," then a reader saying "they used time magic" is very clearly wrong, even if time magic is actually available, and they should certainly not assume that this MEANS time magic is available and make assumptions about how the future plot will use time magic, if the author is still saying "there is no time magic, just a stopped clock."

 

[Navrin]

I would be inclined to say that the author's viewpoint there is a reasonable one.. I would be inclined to say that using that as proof that useful time manipulation exists would be a much less reasonable explanation and not one I would personally be inclined to play with. I would not say that either interpretation is correct, though.