#Textual Interpretation

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Reading

Reading is more than just decoding symbols on a page; it is an immersive, transformative experience that shapes our understanding of the world and ourselves. The philosophy of reading delves into the multifaceted nature of this activity, exploring its cognitive, emotional, and ethical dimensions. Here’s an exploration of key aspects of the philosophy of reading:

1. Cognitive Engagement

Reading engages the mind in complex ways, involving both comprehension and critical thinking. The act of reading stimulates mental faculties, enhancing vocabulary, analytical skills, and the ability to synthesize information. Philosophers of reading study how texts influence our cognitive processes and contribute to our intellectual growth.

2. Empathy and Emotional Connection

Reading, especially narrative fiction, fosters empathy by allowing readers to experience the lives and emotions of characters. This emotional engagement can lead to a deeper understanding of others’ experiences and perspectives. The philosophy of reading examines how literature can cultivate emotional intelligence and moral sensitivity.

3. Interpretation and Meaning

One of the central concerns in the philosophy of reading is the interpretation of texts. This includes the debate between authorial intent and reader response, as well as the role of context in shaping meaning. Hermeneutics, the theory and methodology of interpretation, plays a crucial role in understanding how readers derive meaning from texts.

4. Ethical Implications

Reading is not a morally neutral activity. The content we choose to read and the way we engage with it can have ethical implications. Philosophers of reading explore how texts can challenge or reinforce ethical norms and how readers have a responsibility to approach texts critically and thoughtfully.

5. Transformative Power

Reading has the power to transform individuals and societies. It can inspire change, challenge the status quo, and promote social justice. The philosophy of reading investigates how texts influence our beliefs, values, and actions, and how they can be used as tools for personal and collective transformation.

6. Aesthetic Appreciation

The aesthetic dimension of reading involves the appreciation of literary beauty, style, and artistry. This aspect of reading goes beyond the utilitarian function of texts, focusing on the enjoyment and enrichment that come from engaging with well-crafted literature. Philosophers of reading study how aesthetic appreciation contributes to the overall reading experience.

7. The Role of Silence and Solitude

Reading often requires solitude and silence, creating a space for introspection and contemplation. The philosophy of reading considers the importance of these quiet moments in fostering deep, reflective engagement with texts. This solitude can be a counterbalance to the noise and distractions of modern life.

The philosophy of reading encompasses a rich tapestry of ideas that highlight the profound impact of reading on the human experience. From cognitive development and emotional engagement to ethical considerations and transformative potential, reading is a multifaceted activity that shapes who we are and how we understand the world. By exploring these dimensions, the philosophy of reading deepens our appreciation of this timeless and essential practice.

[autisticandroids]

FAMINE: That's one deep, dark nothing you've got there, Dean.

[youtube with closed captions]

dean and his father. dean and his family. dean and how bad it is.

(via @closetoyou1970)

[lord-squiggletits]

With all due respect IDW Megatron is the kind of dad that would go out to get cigarettes and then never see his kids again considering that's what he did to all of the Decepticons leaving on the Lost Light + he groomed Tarn into worshipping him as a mentor/authority figure and then basically stopped caring about him.

[queermania]

I'm just wondering why you get mad when people make up things about Dean but it's okay for you to say Sam is a serial killer

ron swanson i have a permit dot gif

[quixoticanarchy]

Maglor saying "the oath says not that we may not bide our time" is very interesting (not, unfortunately, conducive to conciseness). bear with me.

a) if they can bide their time, that kind of undermines the idea that they are driven by the oath into atrocity; rather, they can choose the moment to obey it (to some degree). the truth of this statement is unclear because it does seem that they spend a lot of the First Age biding their time, but also when they try to bide their time before the third kinslaying, it was said that they were tormented by the oath. was that false? what is it that pushes them into action, if not the pressure of the oath? or, is it the knowledge and shame of the unfulfilled oath combined with events that enable them to strike out for the jewels, but not actually any metaphysical pressure forcing their hand?

b) Maglor is also saying here, let's go back to Valinor and just see what happens. maybe eventually we can get the silmarils peacefully and be forgiven (I have to agree with Maedhros that that seems.. unlikely). probably correctly, Maedhros envisions the difficulty of trying to get the silmarils in Valinor while unforgiven, and what it would entail and cost to do violence there again. Maglor imagines peace; Maedhros definitely anticipates violence

c) I think Maglor also just wants to go home. he wants to stop. he would probably like to fulfill the oath (or be freed from it), but also would be fine with kicking the can down the road, presuming the oath will allow that. but once Maedhros talks him out of the likelihood of success if they wait til Valinor, he's also willing to break it entirely. his contention that Manwë and Varda making the oath impossible to fulfill would also make it void could be interpreted as a hope that both these things would happen

Maedhros makes the points that they can't be released bc they swore also to Ilúvatar, and therefore they're still facing the Everlasting Darkness if they fail. to which Maglor makes the fair point that if they can't be released, then either they hold themselves bound by the oath and keep trying for the silmarils (and if they fail, face Everlasting Darkness), or try to give up the oath, find they are still bound by it and, having auto-failed their task by breaking the oath, face Everlasting Darkness anyway. therefore yes, they would do less evil in the breaking, but the result is the same to them - as long as in neither case do they actually anticipate fulfilling the oath. Maglor therefore is maybe ready to give it up as impossible; possibly, Maedhros is arguing that it remains achievable for now, but "its fulfilment be byeond all hope" only once back in Aman, lending urgency to the final attempt to get the silmarils now.

a follow-up question: do they at this point believe that success is still possible? what is success? if they have to get all 3 silmarils to satisfy the oath, they're up against Earendil, but they never mention that. what does fulfilling the oath mean - that they evade the consequence of failure? is the force that 'drives' them to stick to the oath not so much (or not only) a metaphysical pain or burden that torments them, but the fear of the failure condition itself - the Everlasting Darkness?

this would explain Maglor's interest in wanting to stop pursuing the oath, but also wanting it somehow neutralized - whether by biding time or having the oath declared void. and Maedhros is arguing that a) they can't be released, b) they can only keep the darkness at bay by continuing to actually try for fulfilment, and c) they should take this one last shot while arguably they still have a chance (or at least it's easier than it would be in Aman). it may not matter whether success is ultimately possible (i.e. if Earendil does come into the picture, or the crosshairs), but it matters that they are trying.

but then, what to make of them reportedly realizing Eönwë was right and they've lost their right to the silmarils? what does that matter to the oath? the oath declares they'll do anything to get them back, and they do. as much as it sucks to get burned, getting them back (ignore the 3rd silmaril) should mean their deed has not failed so they should not face Everlasting Darkness.

I see a couple of possibilities here: a) they ceased being bound by the oath when they lost their right to the silmarils, which would make it vain and mean none of the atrocities had to happen. but is that how the oath operates? did they stop being bound by it long ago and just not realize? or, alternately, b) does their losing their right to the silmarils mean they auto-fail the oath bc they’ll never truly “reclaim” them? and therefore, rather than their never being at risk of Everlasting Darkness, are they consigned to it now no matter what? (but Maglor at least seems to evade that, unless it’s very metaphorical…) or, c) were they indeed bound by the oath all along and indeed fulfilled it, it just doesn't really matter bc the victory is hollow, and they themselves can’t hold the very things they killed others for holding? could be harsh enough on its own, whether or not the oath responds to the status of their “right” to the silmarils.

there is also the matter of we don’t know what the Everlasting Darkness is. lol. but I’m not touching that now beyond I think it’s a thing the SoF are genuinely afraid of

[cuddlytogas]

there was some Twitter madness recently where someone left a comment on someone's art to the effect of, "Ed shouldn't wear a dress, he's a man!" which I do disagree with on principle, but unfortunately, it brought out one of my least favourite trends in the fandom

so, naturally, I had to write a twitter essay about it. and I already largely argued this in a post here, but the thread is clearer and better structured, so I thought I'd cross-post for those not on the Hellsite (derogatory). edited for formatting/structure's sake, since I no longer have to keep to tweet lengths, and incorporating a couple of points other people brought up in the replies

so

I want to point out that the wedding cake toppers in OFMD s2 aren't evidence that Ed wants to wear dresses. Gender is fake, men can wear skirts, play with these dolls how you like, but it's not canon, and that scene especially Doesn't Mean That.

People cite it often: 'He put himself in a dress by painting the bride as himself! It's what he wants!' But that fundamentally misunderstands the scene, and the series' framing of weddings as a whole. I'd argue that Ed paints the figure not from desire, but from self-hatred; it's not what he wants, but what he thinks he should, and has failed to, be.

(Yes, I am slightly biased by my rampant anti-marriage opinions, but bear with me here, because it is relevant to the interpretation of the scene, and season two as a whole.)

The show is not subtle. It keeps telling us that the institution of marriage is a prison that suffocates everyone involved. Ed's parents' cycle of abuse is passed to their son in both the violence he witnesses then enacts on his father, and the self-repression his mother teaches, despite her good intentions ("It's not up to us, is it? It's up to God. ... We're just not those kind of people. We never will be."). Stede and Mary are both oppressed by their arranged marriage, with 1x04 blunty titled Discomfort in a Married State. The Barbados widows revel in their freedom ("We're alive. They're dead. Now is your time").

But even without this context, the particular wedding crashed in 2x01 is COMICALLY evil. The scene is introduced with this speech from the priest:

"The natural condition of humanity is base and vile. It is the obligation of people of standing ... to elevate the common human rabble through the sacred transaction of matrimony."

It's upper class, all-white, and religiously sanctioned. "Vile natural conditions" include queerness, sexual freedom, and family structures outside the cisheteropatriarchal capitalist unit. "The obligation of people of standing" invokes ideas like the white man's burden, innate class hierarchy, religious missions, and conversion therapy. Matrimony is presented as both "sacred" (endorsed by the ruling religious body), and a "transaction" (business performed to transfer property and people-as-property, regardless of their desires), a tool of the oppressive society that pirates escape and destroy. That is where the figurines come from.

When Ed, in a drunk, depressive spiral, paints himself onto the bride, he's not yearning for a pretty dress. He's sort of yearning for a wedding, but that's not framed as positive. What he's doing is projecting himself into an 'ideal' image of marriage because he believes that: a) that's what Stede (and everyone) wants; b) he can never live up to that ideal because he's unlovable and broken (brown, queer, lower-class, violent, abused, etc); c) that's why Stede left. He tries to make himself fit into the social ideal by painting himself onto the closest match - long-haired, partner to Stede/groom, but a demure, white woman, a frozen, porcelain miniature - because, if he could just shrink himself down and squeeze into that box, maybe Stede would love him and he'd live happily ever after. But he can't. So he won't.

The fantasy fails: Ed is morose, turns away from the figurines, then tips them into the sea, a lost cause. He knows he won't ever fulfil that bride's role, but he sees that as a failure in himself, not the role. It's not just that "Stede left, so Ed will never have a dream wedding and might as well die." Stede left when Ed was honest and vulnerable, "proving" what his trauma and depression tell him: there's one image of love (of personhood), and he'll never live up to it because he's fundamentally deficient. So he might as well die.

This hit me from my very first viewing. The scene is devastating, because Ed is wrong, and we know it! He doesn't need to change or reduce himself to fit an image and be accepted (as, eg, Izzy demanded). Stede knows and loves him exactly as he is; it's the main thread and theme of season two!

(@/everyonegetcake suggested that Ed's yearning in these scenes includes his broader desire for the vulnerability and safety Stede offered, literalised through unattainable "fine" things like the status of gentleman in s1, or the figurine's blue dress. I'd argue, though, that these scenes don't incorporate this beyond a general knowledge of Ed's character. Ed is always pining for both literal and emotional softness, but the significance of the figurines specifically, to both Ed and the audience, is poisoned by their origin and context: there is no positive fantasy in the bride figure, only Ed's perceived deficiency.

Further, assuming that a desire for vulnerability necessarily corresponds with an explicit desire for femininity, dresses, etc, kind of contradicts the major themes of the show. OFMD asserts that there is nothing wrong with men assuming femininity (through drag, self-care, nurturing, emotional vulnerability, etc), but also that many of these traits are, in fact, genderless, and should be available to men without affecting their perceived or actual masculinity. It thematically invokes the potential for cross-gender expression in Ed's desires, especially through the transgender echoes in his relieved disposal, then comfortable reincorporation, of the Blackbeard leathers/identity. It's a rich, valuable area of analysis and exploration. But it remains a suggestion, not a canon or on-screen trait.)

Importantly, the groom figure doesn't fit Stede, either. Not just in dress: it's stiff and formal, and marriage nearly killed him. He's shabbier now, yes, but also shedding his privilege and property, embracing his queerness, and trying to take responsibility for his community. In a s1 flashback, Stede hesitantly says, "I thought that, when I did marry, it could be for love," but he would never find love in marriage. Not just because he's gay, but because marriage in OFMD is an oppressive, transactional institution that precludes love altogether. All formal marriages in OFMD are loveless.

So, he becomes a pirate, where they reject society altogether and have matelotages instead. Lucius and Pete's "mateys" ceremony is shot and framed not like a wedding, but as an honest, personal bond, willingly conducted in community (in a circle; no presiding authority, procession, or transaction).

That is how Stede and Ed can find love, companionship, and happiness: by rejecting those figurines and their oppressive exchange of property, overseen by a church that enables colonialism and abuse. Ed is loved, and deserves happiness, as he is, no paint or projection required.

ALL OF THIS IS TO SAY: draw Ed in dresses! Write him getting gender euphoria in skirts! Write trans/nb Ed, draw men being feminine! Gender is fake, the show invites exploration, that's what 'transformative works' means! But please, stop citing the cake toppers as evidence it's canon. Stop citing a scene where a depressed Māori man gets drunk and projects himself onto a rich, white, silent bride because he thinks he's innately unlovable and only people like her can find happiness, shortly before deciding to kill himself, as canon evidence it's what he wants.

(Also, please don't come in here with "lmao we're just having fun," I know, I get it. Unfortunately, I'm an academiapilled researchmaxxer, and some of youse need to remember that the word "canon" has meaning. NOW GO HAVE FUN PUTTING THAT MAN IN A PRETTY DRESS!! 💖💖)

[theodysseyofhomer]

y'all are so weird about paris of troy. it is not 3000 bce, why should i give a fuck if he has no aristeia

[angelsdean]

is it easier to understand why jensen gives neutral / vague statements re: dean's feelings / destiel reunion if it's framed like this:

imagine a work-in-progress series. the first part of the series is over but it left off with some things open-ended to be addressed in the sequel. some character arcs not complete. one of those arcs is dean's reciprocation and future reunion with cas. would you discuss the future plot points to your highly anticipated continuation and potentially spoil things for your audience or ruin a Big Reveal? or would you keep things as vague as possible and instead stick to discussing what already happened (like the confession scene). to discuss their reunion or dean's feelings in definitive statements would be to potentially spoil or word-of-god confirm things that are still to be explored in the future text of the show. misha can make definitive statements about cas's feelings and queerness because cas got that textual moment already. the kind of statements misha gets to make re: destiel are always going to be different from what jensen can say until we see these moments (dean reciprocation / destiel reunion / pale coconuts colliding) in the text. it's just like how when actors are asked abt what will happen in a new season they stay vague. don't spoil your WIP !!

[rosinkreutz]

How do you think Asuka's and Aria's friendship was like when she was alive?

This is a really hard question. I keep sitting down to write this and deleting everything because I'm not satisfied with the answer I can provide. The problem is me because I've realized I'm not sure how to describe any friendship, let alone one so vaguely developed in the source material... However. I will try. This is all kind of speculation based on what I've interpreted from the characters. - First, I think when you analyze Asuka's actions it seems that he feels a certain sense of ownership toward the world. Not in an entitled sense, but moreso a guardian. Which makes sense, really, as a disciple of the Original, savior of humanity. Especially considering the other disciples were explicitly uninterested in humanity's advancement, so he's the only one interesting in following in their teacher's footsteps. The problem is that he completely defines himself by it (which is kinda why I think Asuka was very young when he was taken in to be a disciple, because it's like it's all he knows). - So with that in mind, and knowing that before Aria met the other two, she was extremely isolated from her family and other people in general, I think the power dynamic in the relationship would end up being rather skewed. Literally, yes, since he's a sorcerer, but also psychologically. Aria's someone whose not used to having any support, and that's all Asuka wants to do. He never thinks of himself first, and the only sense of self he has is this self-appointed guardian role. He would go so far out of the way to make her happy, because he loves her very much. But he also thinks that he knows what's right for her and may have been controlling at times- which I think is why Frederick works so well in this dynamic because he's so anti-authority and free-thinking. His influence and just overall presence would keep the two of them from being too overly dependent on each other. After all, they love him as much as they love each other, as best friend, boyfriend, whatever. Obviously there's more to him in the dynamic but this is about the other two. - (As kind of a side-note, keeping Aria happy is one of the few ways he himself can feel fulfilled in his role as a guardian. The Original kind of had it easy, as world-saving goes, because he knew exactly what was going to burst (black tech) and had the exact solution to the problem (magic). The world Asuka's "inherited" has a million different facets and problems all piled together in one big powderkeg with an invisible fuse. He really can't just go out and fix everything alone as a socially inept 20-something, good at magic as he is. Which he understands, as an objective thinker, but given that guardianship is the only thing he defines himself with as a person, he's inevitably going to feel worthless and hate himself for not being able to do anything. Hence, why when the Gear Project gets picked up by the military, he goes crazy trying to fix it because just imagine what it would feel like that the whole world could be destroyed by something you made while trying to fix it.... But... If he could get what people need for advancement (gear cells) safe and unweaponized and if he could have someone else powerful to help and support him (Justice, maybe Sol?), he could use that to REALLY save the world AND Aria in the process. Win-win, right?)

[mai-komagata]

re: sexy stabbings

im writing this very long meta on how galadriel x sauron and silvergifting dynamics help an audience recognize different forms of seduction in a relatable way (including queer forms of seduction, which audiences are normally blind to), and how recognizing these ships isn't about "crack shipping" but about the text using the language of sexuality/eroticism/seduction to convey concepts that would otherwise be vague and not-understandable like temptation to a metal object or wounds that cannot heal or possession by an alien being as well as concept of "men in a fantasy/magical/superhero setting are not just power levels" -- ie. the strongest man should always win. Galadriel is *integral* to this because most characters in tolkien are male and audiences are pre-disposed to ignoring emotional dynamics in men other than anger and violence -- the contrast with a female romance lets an audience be like "these people, adar, galadriel, celebrimbor are more alike than distinct". (wow maybe i don't need to write it, anymore!). But since that is taking me very long to write and i keep running into queer-erasure every day i'll just say this: the reason we don't see Sauron torture Galadriel in the same way she tortures Celebrimbor is not because his relationship with them is cosmically different (obviously its different bc they are different people). Galadriel is not more "pure" or "loved" than Celebrimbor. Neither is blameless (i.e. both were ambitious) and neither is deserving of torture (nobody deserves that, even Sauron). It's because there is different symbolism to the way they are being hurt. Arrows being used as martyrdom is a millennia old way of showing homosexuality. Stabbing is metaphorical of penetration. He intended to kill both of them for denying them the Nine. Because Sauron is bad at impulse control, he takes and believes he is wiser than he is. If he wants something he will take it and then regret that he broke his favorite thing. (note he doesn't regret killing other people he doesn't twistedly love, like mirdania, or the orcs).

Galadriel had Nenya (i.e. Celebrimbor's magic, untouched by sauron) and Elrond was able to save her (love and light win the day). Celebrimbor died as symbolic for what happened to Eregion (he was alone and eregion fell).

This doesn't mean BOTH scenes aren't meant to be erotic. The stabbing is hot and the caressing of the arrows are hot. But they are hot in a BDSM/noncon way. "Do you understand what it's like to be tortured by a god?" sorta way.

Pragmatically, though, the reason we don't see more graphic galadriel is because it would make audiences uncomfortable. You can be way more graphic with gay shit and people won't be squicked than if you are graphic with m/f abuse. As i said, a good 50-70% of the audience won't even NOTICE the gay shit and think its just standard fantasy violence. The closer you make it to outright rape, the less compelling it is, because Sauron needs to both be APPEALING and EVIL in order to understand why people are drawn to the rings of power and why it is essential to oppose it.

[disclaimer: this is not anti galadriel x sauron, it is just in favor of seeing the ship in a dark way as part of the larger narrative. When I talk about shipping them in a dark way i don't mean simply its my kink, i mean this is a dark seduction story at heart. The actors are very hot, their acting is very sexy, but the function in the larger story is to display the different ways sauron tempts and corrupts people, including galadriel, celebrimbor, adar, and how sauron himself was corrupted by melkor].

[ultimateinsomniac]

hopping up on my special interest soap box to say: i think we as a fandom should discuss the satire in danganronpa V3 more.

idk if it is just me but i have always viewed this game as a satire, if only just because of the ending. it exagerrates the formula set up by the previous games to criticize the current state of media and media consumption. i know a lot of people in the fandom don't like V3, and i think that is by design. it is ridiculous, it is over the top, the ending is a punch to the face, but it's all on purpose. you're supposed to be uncomfortable because it is a satire. (of course you don't have to like the game, i just think it is intentionally like that)

the whole theme of fiction vs reality is put in there intentionally to make fun of the fandomization of danganronpa, as well as to poke at game studios and companies that put out media in general. tsumugi, in my interpretation, is representative of danganronpa fans (hence why she's the ultimate cosplayer). she is the mastermind. you aren't supposed to like her. her insistence on the idea that "fiction doesn't affect reality" is a direct criticism of that exact idea in real life fandom. the idea that this is the "53rd" danganronpa is directly making fun of other pieces of media "jumping the shark" because fans insist upon it. this is not to say you can't like tsumugi, i think you absolutely can, i just think her character represents some key ideas relating to the satire of the game.

this is why everything in the game is SO over the top. kirumi being the prime minister, korekiyo both having DID AND being a serial killer in a reference to the first game, EVERYONE'S over the top backstories (gonta and keebo come to mind), it's all acting as an exaggeration of common tropes (albeit highly problematic in several areas, not trying to excuse those aspects by any means).

and then there's kaede. they set her up as a strong female protagonist, only to kill her chapter 1 to be replaced by a male protag. on paper this is very misogynistic, but in the context of satire it is an exaggeration of the danganronpa formula. of course we couldn't have a female protag in a main line game, of course it would have to be a man. shuichi having a secret ahoge only adds to this; it's making fun of the trope. the best part is that i truly do love both of these characters, and their role in the satire doesn't diminish the excellent writing that went into them and the story.

this entirely shapes how i view this game. it manages to tell an incredibly compelling story with very complex characters while making fun of itself at the same time (as a good satire should). i know a lot of people have said they feel like the writers of v3 must have hated danganronpa, and while i see exactly what they mean i don't think that's necessarily true. i think it was an intentional choice as a work of satire.

i can see an intense love behind the writing of this game. the characters are rich and the story is compelling. the ending just serves to send home the point they wanted to make. i think it adds a really beautiful perspective to the danganronpa series as a whole.

[bizlybebo]

not a mockingjay shipper but i support their beliefs cause everyone is so weird about them

[apuff]

i kinda love how dungeon meshi takes place in this generic middle ages-esque fantasy world but the main character is STILL an autistic aroace furry

[arlathen]

"did lavellan and solas fuck" idk dude it's almost like it was left intentionally ambiguous. 🫶

[orphiclovers]

yoo mia side story is insane actually because wdym the first real bit of dialogue we get besides Yoo Joonghyuk talking to his baby sister is his manager telling him he has ana face. not even a HELLO FIRST???? totally uncalled for😭

[rubyvroom]

imo the worst legacy of the MCU is the dogged insistence on imposing a strict continuity on everything. Every film that can remotely be tied to another film - if it's a series, what's the timeline and what are the little inconsistencies we can nitpick? Is this a remake or is this remake actually a sequel that's a little over to the left and in either case how can we make this fit alongside the original so that they're all "canon"? What's in canon and what is "erased from canon"? How many references to other films can this baby hold? Etc

Whereas some films are really following a more or less mythological figure (example: Mad Max) in various unconnected adventures and trying to place them all on a timeline with consistent factual details is to me the opposite of fun.

It's like taking all the appearances of James Bond and smushing them together into a continuity where all the movies are the same canon and everything happened - with a lot of fudging and perhaps amnesia you could do that, but why would you? It's a little weird actually? Stop? Turn around, go home and think about what you did?