yukishiido

HEY UMC

So, I’m running for Treasurer for my ballroom club and we have to have a 2-3 minute speech to present. All I’ve come up with so far is something like:

“Hello, my name is Erica (removed). I’ll be a junior this next year and I would really like to be Ballroom Club’s Treasurer for this next year. I am a very responsible person and I’m good with money. You can rely on me for the budget and any other work needed. Also, I’m good at calculus! :D”

(the calculus part is very unnecessary but whatever.) So, any ideas?

I completely disagree. I view authors’ interpretations as canon because they are the creator of the work. I also take umbrage with saying that Dumbledore’s homosexuality is not in the story at all, because the entire debacle with Grindelwald was because of Dumbledore’s homosexuality: he fell in love with Grindelwald and thus let himself be blinded to his bigoted views.

That being said, while I heavily disagree with “no Dumbledore isn’t gay” from some people, there’s a difference between “no, Dumbledore is NOT gay, end of story” and “I did not read him as gay but I accept that he has been stated to be”.

What sparked that initial post was something aboutSilent Hill, actually. Pyramid Head—that is, a hulking monster wearing a pyramid-shaped helmet—inSilent Hill 2is first seen abusing a monster. The monster—a “Mannequin—is comprised of two pairs of legs; instead of a torso, it has a second set of legs. Pyramid Head in his first scene is shown pulling the Mannequin’s legs apart while standing between them, and arguably gyrating/thrusting, evoking a feel of sexual violence.

There are a small, vocal number of fans that protest calling it rape or even sexual abuse, and even when the translator that helped clarify the script from the Japanese developers stated quite clearly that the scene was supposed to be sexual, people continue to insist it is not.

I do, in some rare instances, agree with Death of the Author. For instance, Ray Bradbury has said that Fahrenheit 451 is about how technology is evil, if I remember correctly… when that is not only incredibly not clear in the novel, but he has also stated multiple times in the past it is about the censorship of books. That is one rare case where I refuse to accept that.

The remaining few of your posts will be deleted in my inbox, though I did read them.

They are the creator of the work, but I’m saying that if it wasn’t put into the work, then we can’t take it as canon-fact, if it’s not in the canon. I agree with you, that the Grindlewald thing was because he was gay, but because it wasn’t explicitly stated, it is neither true or false in the story. The point that I’m trying to make with that example is that Dumbledore loved Grindlewald, but he could have loved him in a friendly way. They were friends, regardless of any secret (to the readers at least) romantic interest. If someone interpreted Dumbledore’s love as purely platonic, friend-love, they wouldn’t be wrong. Yes, JK Rowling stated that SHE saw Dumbledore as gay, but as each person reads, they are understanding a story in their mind. My story could be completely different from your story, even though we could be reading the exact same text. Just because JK Rowling stated that in her understanding of the story, Dumbledore is gay, that doesn’t change the text, it doesn’t change the experience of hundreds of thousands of readers who interpreted Dumbledore’s actions to be purely plantonic.

Just to clarify, I’m not saying you’re completely wrong, and I’m really not mad at you and I’m most certainly not gonna hate you forever. It’s perfectly fine that you disagree with me on this; I’m just trying to explain my point of view.

But I’m just saying that ‘Word of God’ is not really relevant. In the case of Dumbledore’s sexuality, it really doesn’t fucking matter what his sexuality was, is, or will be. The fact is, he loved him, platonically or otherwise, and that love skewed his opinion and crippled his rise to action against the Obviously Evil Grindlewald. The author will include (or exclude) anything that is or is not relevant to the story as a whole, so my argument is that if it wasn’t important enough to put in the story, it’s not important. There are things that might improve the story to some people, or make the story worse to others, or just plain confuse even others. But that’s sort of my arguement: If it’s not important enough to be in the text, it’s not important. I’ll listen to the 'Word of God’, but I won’t take it as gospel. (lol extended religion analogy)

In cases like the Silent Hill thing, if the action or intent is that debatable, then it’s okay if you want to listen to the intent of the creator. But another big thing for me is that all opinions are equally correct, if it is not explicit and blatant in the original creation. Those 'no-way-jose’ people are wrong, not because they interpreted it in a way that the author did not intend, but because they are saying the people who say it IS rape-like are wrong. If it is that ambiguous, then no one is right. In this case, I would probably say that the people who say it is rape are right. I just looked up the video of that scene, and yeah, what the hell else is he doing, after forcibly holding the monster in place, spreading its legs and forcing himself between those legs? I mean, come on. It’s Silent Hill. It’s supposed to be horrible, and that’s why you kill all the things. Duh.

In that case, with Fahrenheit 451, that seems to be a huge case of the author contradicting his story. If he changed his story, then obviously he’s either forgotten what the story’s about, trying to make it about something else because he changed his mind after writing the story, or was under pressure to say that it was about something it’s not (the pressure-giver is I have no idea, but you know). So I think that one’s obvious, but yeah. I’m saying people aren’t WRONG for disregarding the 'Word of God’, because it’s not actually a part of the story. They also aren’t WRONG for taking the 'Word of God’ as absolute truth, because it really has no more relevance to the story than anyone else’s commentary on what they think.