#authorial intent

[screenshotsonpinterest]

I wanna hear everything you keep and cut from cannon and where the specific lines are so pls comment or reblog :)

(E.g. I sort of ignore everything after house of hades but include Jason’s death and Leo and calypso breaking up)

[rynnthefangirl]

Is it character assassination for Aemond to try to kill his brother? Lots of TGs seem to think so, arguing that Aemond loved his brother and was fiercely loyal to him in the book.

So let’s look at the evidence TG has for Aegon and Aemond having a close loving loyal brotherly bond:

1. Aemond fighting and killing Aegon’s enemies — which are also his enemies. If Nyra takes the throne Aemond’s head is the first on the chopping block, so he has a vested interest in fighting for Aegon to keep the throne and maintain a united front against Team Black.

2. Aemond not styling himself as King and only as Prince Regent when Aegon is incapacitated— he literally cannot be the king while the king still lives. By law he can only be Prince regent.

3. Aemond not murdering his brother and usurping the throne— the bar is in Hell. Maybe he didn’t do that bc Aegon was guarded, and he could’nt kill him undetected. Maybe he came very close to, but decided not to at the last minute. You know who also never murdered their brother? Aegon IV and Aemon. Who canonically despised each other.

4. Aegon building a statue of Aemond— which is something that could be argued towards Aegon loving his brother, but not the other way around. And even then, the statues could also be interpreted as Aegon emphasizing his victory and rightful kingship by celebrating those who died for TG as war heroes.

None of these are explicit evidence of love. You can certainly headcanon that dynamic between them, but it’s just that— a headcanon. If GRRM wanted to write them as close and loving, he could have and would have. Don’t believe me? Look at how he writes Aegon III and Viserys II:

[Upon Viserys’ return to Kings Landing] “King Aegon III began to weep, throwing himself upon the boy in a fierce embrace”

“The return of his brother from the dead worked a wondrous change in Aegon III. His Grace had never truly forgiven himself for leaving Viserys to his fate… deep down, the Broken King felt himself unworthy to sit the Iron Throne. He had not been able to save his little brother…”

“As a boy, Aegon had worshipped his three elder half brothers, but it was Viserys who shared his bedchamber, his lessons, and his games. ‘Some part of the King had died with his brother in the Gullet… it is plain to see that Aegon’s affection for Gaemon Palehair was born of his desire to replace the little brother he had lost, but only when Viserys was restored to him did Aegon seem once more alive and whole.’”

“Prince Viserys once again became King Aegon’s constant companion… whilst Gaemon Palehair was cast aside and forgotten, and even Queen Daenaera was ignored.”

“Viserys [after Gaemon’s death] broke his stubborn silence to comfort His Grace in his grief, and sat with him by the Queens bedside.”

“For the rest of his days, [Viserys] was the only person Aegon ever fully trusted.”

George paints an explicit and undeniable dynamic between Aegon and Viserys— one of love, trust, and joy. George could have written such a dynamic between Aegon and Aemond. There was ample opportunity. He could have spoke of a close shared childhood, had Aegon comfort Aemond when he lost an eye, had Aemond display distress/guilt/grief when he nearly killed Aegon. But George doesn’t. Instead, what is Aemond’s only recorded response to nearly killing his own brother? “[The Crown] looks better on me than it ever did him.” Could you imagine either Aegon III or Viserys II ever responding that way to the other nearly dying. Nope.

You can certainly headcanon Aegon and Aemond as having a deep and loving brotherly bond, but George does not explicitly write them as having that dynamic. Their book dynamic is under explored and ambiguous. Comparing them to Aegon III and Viserys II, a brotherly bond that IS explicitly written to be loving, makes that apparent. GRRM had ample opportunity to add moments/quotes like the ones I showed for Aegon and Viserys, but he chose not to. The show interpreting Aemond as hateful towards his brother is not a wild deviation from his book counterpart, and is clearly based upon his recorded response to Aegon’s near death.

TLDR: Aegon and Aemond do not have a canonically loving relationship. You can interpret it that way, but looking at the text, considering authorial intent, and comparing them to an explicitly written close brother duo shows the ambiguity of their dynamic and the openness for interpretation that HOTD has fairly capitalized on.

[wordsandrobots]

Since you’re THE biggest IBO understander, I’ve wanted to get your input on something that’s been circulating in my mind for a while.

What do you think was Tekkadan’s biggest flaw that led to their downfall?

Heh, well, first off, I can't claim the definite article. Prolific output does not equal authority. But I can certainly try to give you both my understanding of what the text is aiming for and my opinions about the final result.

I have seen Orga Itsuka's biggest flaw termed a 'lack of conviction', although I would argue it's fairer to call it confusion over how to enact his convictions. Because Orga absolutely believes from the bottom of his heart that the most important thing in the world is to create a future for his friends. He just doesn't know how to do that, long-term. He's a tactical thinker, reacting to what's in front of him rather than taking a bigger-picture view. And he's willing to risk everything, including the lives he's trying to protect, to get immediate results. This works well for short-term victories but tends towards blind recklessness. Moreover, since Orga has not actually established for himself what a good future for everyone should look like, he latches on to other people's versions of it. First the CGS, then Naze, and finally, fatally, McGillis. For all his own intense charisma, he falls hard for that of others, and misjudges badly as a result.

This would be bad enough in isolation, but it's combined with Tekkadan's generalised 'all or nothing' attitude to truly terrible effect. I touched on this in the context of Mika and Orga's relationship in a previous essay: the rest of Tekkadan are behind Orga 110% and that creates its own inexorable momentum. We see multiple characters express dismay at looming problems-- Eugene, Biscuit, Merribit, even Shino -- only to set their doubts aside for what they perceive as the greater good. They believe in Tekkadan, more than anything else, this dream Orga has sold them on, and protecting it and advancing its fortunes becomes an all-encompassing goal for which they will gladly lay down their lives.

[As an aside, Shino's conversation with Eugene right before the 'final battle' is a great example of this problem playing out. As much as I rag on him, Shino isn't stupid. He shows repeatedly that despite his gung-ho attitude, he can recognise a losing fight. But he's quick to mask or go back on his doubts and act like Tekkadan is going to pull through regardless, because Orga has gotten them this far, right? Set alongside Eugene's failure to replace Biscuit as the voice of reason, it serves to underline how deeply enmeshed the boys are by this point. They've bet everything on Orga, and can't bring themselves to break with him. Not unrelatedly, it's Shino himself who talks Orga into the gamble that costs him his life.]

This combination -- the boy who doesn't know where he's going and the people willing to follow him anywhere he leads -- is what the show positions as Tekkadan's key flaw and the results of it steadily ramp up as the story progresses. They scrape through Season 1, making a big name for themselves, and reach their zenith by taking down the Dawn Horizon Corps with minimal losses. But then the 'Silent War' hits, dragging them more directly into political power-plays. It goes appallingly badly: they are betrayed from within, their legitimate connections to the Arbrau bloc are severed, and they lose their presence on Earth.

Next they uncover the mobile armour, and while they mange a victory over it, Mika definitively proves that he won't let Orga stop under any circumstances, McGillis is inspired to throw caution to the wind, and Tekkadan's tenuous position inside Teiwaz implodes. They just about got away with jumping on board with McGillis' coup plans, but once they've taken out the 'armour and embarrassed Iok Kujan into the bargain? A lot of chickens come home to roost.

Naze -- the one person Orga respects, listens to, and who actually has the potential to reign him in -- dies as a result of Tekkadan's display of power. Afterwards, Orga knows killing Jasley in return will mean breaking with Teiwaz. He hesitates, visibly, over going through with it -- only for the pressure of everyone wanting vengeance on behalf of Naze, Amida, Lafter and the rest to tip him over the edge. From there, the only possible route to achieving what he wants is the alliance with McGillis, who turns out not to be able to deliver on his promises. Everything falls apart.

Now. The way this is presented carries judgement. Orga is repeatedly castigated for his decisions, including the loss of one of his closest friends. Likewise, the Arbrau/SAU war arc serves as a microcosm of Tekkadan's failings, with Aston's death stemming from Takaki blindly acting according to their ethos. Crucially, Takaki chooses to change for the better, taking one of the other options available to him (with Kudelia's help) -- notably in the same moment Orga is doubling-down on his existing path.

Tragedies are built from characters making the wrong choices and this juxtaposition serves to underline that they are wrong, and could be approached differently. Takaki is correct to hold on to what he has instead of risking it for the sake of an imagined 'better place'. He recognises something Orga does not until after Shino is killed (and lots of other people, of course, but it's framed around Shino's death).

There follow several scenes of Ogra being directly called out. 'He died for you!' Eugene snarls, taking charge of getting everyone to safety. 'You're whining?' Yamagi demands, when Orga reaches his lowest ebb and comes close to abandoning Tekkadan's cause. 'I was under the impression you had a spine,' sneers Rustal Elion, assuming moral authority and refusing to blunt the consequences of Orga's actions.

[When @prezaki asked me to explain my stance on Rustal Elion's intentions, I talked about his gestured-to positive traits. That's not what I mean here: Rustal takes control over the setting and imposes his morals upon it. The tenor of his exchange with Orga is of someone in the right looking down on someone pleading for unearned leniency. Whatever you think about that -- and I view it as a great demonstration of Rustal's inherent contempt for 'little people' who don't meet his standards -- this is functionally what's happening, and Orga is powerless against it.]

In light of this, the manner of Orga's death -- finally taking up a gun and sacrificing his life for his comrades after two seasons of doing the opposite -- is both fitting and a form of redemption. Given the director's original conception of the show being one that ended with every named protagonist dead, a thread of 'just desserts' is undeniably present. Tekkadan are not placed in a positive light for their determination, which comes with a bloody cost, both on their side and on their enemies'. They are fools and upstarts in a world that violently rejects change.

However, like many of the show's components, its authorship is a two-part affair. Mari Okada and other writers argued against the kill 'em all direction, and the end result is far more ambiguous than clean-cut condemnation. To be clear, it is absolutely still saying that Orga and Tekkadan as a whole make terrible decisions. But the more-hopeful-than-it-might-have-been ending allows space for greater nuance. (Which is good - I doubt I would be as enamoured with IBO if it had concluded by thoroughly punishing a group of child-soldiers for being what they are and committed to their never being anything else.)

In light of the actual ending, we can look seriously at the ways the show demonstrates why its characters behave as they do. Mika and Orga's ingrained behaviour is responsible for a lot of what goes wrong, but we are shown quite blatantly that they would not have survived into adolescence if they hadn't developed it. The ever-present threat of what would happen if Tekkadan *didn't* strive to grow stronger and resist the harmful forces surrounding them frames every decision. Even the individuals who mean them ill are the products of the systems that created this whole miserable situation. Nobliss, Ein, Gaelio, Carta, Iok, Jasley, Galan, Rustal -- they each have major personal failings but are equally shaped by their positions in society, just as the boys are shaped by theirs. By being so thorough in constructing an exploitative world, the writers and director hew against reducing the characters down to simply being flawed people.

They are instead flawed people doing their best with limited resources in oft-times impossible circumstances. The story at once highlights the brutality of its protagonists and that they are children, abused by those who see them only as tools, within systems that encourage that perspective. Tekkadan is itself a microcosm of larger patterns, of might making right and human life being exchanged for money. Throughout, lines are blurred between 'proper' soldiers and teenage mercenaries, between businesses and the mafia, between pirates and police. The whole is rotten and while struggling may not be a path to survival, it is at least clearly a path, if you can stick to it.

Thus, any discussion of Tekkadan's flaws must account for the show's refusal to place them in a vacuum. I don't know to what extent Iron-Blooded Orphans is the result of a push and pull between competing ideas about how the tale should go. Yet what was put on screen frequently refuses easy categorisation into straightforward condemnation or sympathy. It's just not the kind of story that allows us to neatly assign blame to zealousness, recklessness or a murderous attitude. All these have too demonstrable a cause and within that context, it's hard to argue they are incorrect as responses. They are, at the very least, eminently understandable.

Errors of judgement on Orga's part and the failure of those around him to moderate his haste play a role in what happens, without question. But to a large degree, no one involved is allowed to be otherwise. Takaki's path is contingent on too many factors to be a widely-viable alternative. Likewise, for all that the eventual escape of the survivors is facilitated by wiser and cooler heads prevailing, it is nonetheless paid for in blood, past as well as present. Heck, Kudelia's character development is about learning the cost of improvement and accepting that cost as necessary -- the same calculation performed by every boy who steps on to the series' battlefields.

In the end, perhaps the most honest answer to 'what caused Tekkadan's downfall' is simply that they existed as part and parcel of the world they were born into. Their 'mistake' was responding to it on its own terms, meeting violence with violence and oppressive hopelessness with desperate hope. They tried to win a rigged game, not because it was the only one in town, but because it looked better than the alternatives and once committed, there was no easy way to turn back.

I think that's a startlingly mature approach to a subject too often reduced to power-fantasies or personal horror. The existence of child-soldiers is a flaw in the real world. Through the way it fleshes out its tragic structure, Iron-Blooded Orphans manages to capture some of what that entails.

-------------------

Thank you for the ask! I don't know to what extent this is the answer you were after. I tend to view Tekkadan's naiveté as a significant single contributing factor, but it's really only a facet of their being stuck where they are, socially speaking. And I wanted to discuss the narrative treatment of Orga's flaws because it's something that could be a lot more clear-cut than it actually is.

[Index of other writing]

[omegaphilosophia]

The Ontology of Text

The ontology of text refers to the study of the nature, structure, and being of text, focusing on what text is at its most fundamental level. This exploration can span several philosophical and theoretical perspectives, often addressing questions about the existence, identity, and categorization of text as an entity. Here’s a breakdown of key aspects:

1. Text as an Ontological Entity:

Material vs. Abstract: Text can be considered both as a material object (e.g., a book or a written document) and as an abstract entity (e.g., the content or meaning conveyed by the text). The ontology of text thus involves understanding how these two aspects coexist and relate to each other.

Text as a Work vs. Text as a Document: The distinction between a text as a work (the conceptual or intellectual creation) and as a document (the physical or digital manifestation) is crucial in ontology. For instance, different editions of a book may be considered different documents but the same work.

2. Identity and Persistence:

Sameness and Variation: The ontology of text deals with the question of what makes a text the same across different instances or versions. What remains consistent between different editions or translations of a text? How much can a text change before it is considered a different text?

Temporal Aspects: How does the identity of a text persist over time? This includes considerations of how historical context, authorial intent, and reader interpretation might affect the identity of a text.

3. Structure of Text:

Hierarchical vs. Network Structures: Text can be seen as having a hierarchical structure (e.g., chapters, paragraphs, sentences) or a network-like structure (e.g., hypertext or intertextuality). The ontology of text examines how these structures are constituted and how they affect the nature of text.

Units of Text: What are the basic units of text? Words, sentences, paragraphs, or perhaps even smaller or larger units? The ontological inquiry involves defining and categorizing these units.

4. Function and Intent:

Authorial Intent: The role of the author's intention in the ontology of text is a major consideration. Is the meaning of a text tied to what the author intended, or does it exist independently?

Reader Interpretation: The ontology of text also considers the role of the reader or audience in constituting the text. Is the meaning of a text something inherent, or is it something that comes into being through interpretation?

5. Intertextuality and Contextuality:

Intertextual Relations: Texts often reference or build upon other texts. The ontology of text considers how texts are related to one another and how these relationships affect their existence and identity.

Contextual Dependency: The meaning and existence of a text can be dependent on its context, including cultural, historical, and situational factors. The ontology of text examines how context shapes what a text is.

6. Digital and Hypertext Ontology:

Digital Texts: The advent of digital texts introduces new ontological questions. How do digital formats affect the nature of text? How does hypertext, with its non-linear structure, change our understanding of text?

Versioning and Fluidity: Digital texts can be easily modified, leading to questions about the stability and identity of texts in a digital environment. What does it mean for a text to have a version, and how does this affect its ontology?

7. Philosophical Perspectives:

Structuralism and Post-Structuralism: These schools of thought provide frameworks for understanding the ontology of text, focusing on the underlying structures of language (structuralism) and the fluidity and instability of meaning (post-structuralism).

Phenomenology: This approach might consider the experience of the text, focusing on how it appears to consciousness and the role of the reader in bringing the text to life.

The ontology of text is a rich and complex field that intersects with many areas of philosophy, literary theory, linguistics, and digital humanities. It seeks to answer fundamental questions about what text is, how it exists, how it maintains identity, and how it relates to both its material form and its interpretation by readers.

[hopeymchope]

Something is bothering me about what you just said. You talked in that Meta post about how authorial intent is important and that's a bit confusing to me, like, do you think that your take on DRV3 and Kokichi fully aligns with the author's intent? How do you know that, when even the developers don't fully know what Kodaka intended? Because from where I'm standing, there's enough evidence that Kokichi does things behind the scenes with others (like Kaito for one) and the extent of that can change depending on your interpretation of the situation, meaning that 'he doesn't let anyone in on his plans' is kind of a subjective statement

You're correct in that any time anyone examines authorial intent and underlying messging/theming in a work, it's basically a series of inferences. Nothing is really certain; you just try to draw the logical conclusions from what is repeatedly seen across the work. There definitely aren't many English/Lit classes that do this kind of thing that also can just ask the actual author if they're right, y'know?

But the only time Kokichi really gives anyone the full scope of ANY of his plans is when he's already dying, as a means to see his plans through post-death, when he hands the reins over to Kaito. So I think it's safe to say he doesn't let anyone in... he only does it when it serves his needs and there's literally no other choice if he wants his plans to be seen through.

I mean, I guess you could say "Well he manuevered Miu into making the electrohammers" or whatever, but it's not like she had any idea what his goals and plans were. Or at the very least, it's extremely hard to believe he'd tell her any of that. I'd find that downright out of character.

[mysticdragon3md3]

"Silence, canon! AO3 is talking"

[yurimikhaaa]

Wallpaper Fiona Apple 🍎

by @yurimikhaaa

[cryptid-called-ash]

Fellow writers I have have a question:

[send-me-letters]

Found in the preamble of an old copy of the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Apply as needed.

[magnificentposting-fabrizioart]

I made graphs about (a part of) media criticism.

Please discuss

[theniftycat]

Maybe killing the author should be the next mainstream praxis. It's not a perfect concept, there are things like accountability that are trickier to fit into it, but tricky doesn't mean impossible.

Only recently "fuck the authorial intent" was a very common sentiment, now it's not mainstream anymore.

Yeah, it's cool to have a chance to ask the author "What was the character X doing between 02:00 and 08:00 on that one Saturday night in May 2002?", especially if the author is nice enough to answer, but it's not an author's job.

Author's job is to create stories, mystify, make your imagination work.

It peeves me seeing the author say "Hahaha, guys, kill me already, set yourself free!" only to be met with an avalanche of questions about the colour of the socks of the vicar's wife.

Author's opinion doesn't really matter. You aren't required to know it. You're presented with a text, not with a chat bot.

Taking the word of god as the law puts you into very narrow borders. You have your own mind.

[thebellaedit]

[sigritandtheelves]

i just got what was probably the most hurtful "final reflection" paper i've had in 10 years of teaching, telling me that everything in the class was entirely useless. there was a nice little note to say "but it's not personal, you're a great person and professor" at the end, but... i'm just dumbfounded, especially after our last discussion in class had people gushing about how it was their favorite class ever. imagine being offended at being asked to consider things from multiple perspectives...

[weird-tea]

Big mood. However, as an adult I now think the issue isn't the analysis it's the way teacher's frame the discussion. It's too author focused. The question isn't what the authorial intent was, it's what about the text is resonating and meaningful to those you read it - to the point of it being widely considered important/good art.

The author may not have intended anything by making the curtains red. They may have just picked a colour at random, or picked the colour from their own curtains in an act of private association (consciously or unconsciously) that's true meaning as intended by the author is entirely inaccessible to anyone else. It may be red in reference to a cultural idea of the time that has now lost relevance or been forgotten. But what the authors intention for making the curtains red was doesn't really matter.

What matters is what those curtains being red meant/symbolised to the people who read the work. What meaning they derived from it that made it seem important enough to share and talk about.

Analysing art can make you better at creating it yes but that's not really the point of doing it. We analyse art because it meant something to us (or in the case of the poem you are made to study at school and couldn't care less about, it meant something to a great deal of people) and you are trying to figure out the why.

We aren't studying the author's intent, we are studying the audience's reaction.

[mysticdragon3md3]

The Legacy of Ranma 1/2 by  Red Panda Productions