#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]

[0w0tsuki]

I think it's important to note Death of the Author and Authorial Intent when discussing the transness of Chihiro from daganronpa. I've talked about it in reblogs but I wanted my own post. A lot of people confuse the two and in the case of old school Chihiro transmisoginists purposely create a new definition.

People seem to be under the impression that death of the impression a lot of the time that Death of The Author means "If I don't like what the author has to say I can just ignore it and say it didn't happen or Miku wrote it or something" which is a true statement but it's not the definition. And people who still comment "him*" on any fan post that uses she/her for Chihiro in 2024 define Authorial Intent as "The creator of every work writes with a specific intent and if you disagree with anything the author says you are WRONG and NOT a TRUE fan!" which not only isn't true but doesn't account for if the author's vision is even worth defending.

This is why there was such a nuclear meltdown over Bridget's trans confirmation and why it took them so long to get out of the translation conspiracy retcon bad ending phase before they moved on to trying to co-opt leftist language to make it about "femboy representation". Because it was the first time the author of one of their darling femboys didn't agree with them and they couldn't use "facts don't care about your feelings" to harass trans positive people.

But actually Authorial Intent is just a term to refer to "what did the author mean when they wrote this?" and is actually a part of Death of the Author which means "No matter what the Author says they approach every work with their own biases and that affects the work. So in order to understand the work you must understand the author so you can understand how their worldview bleeds into the work."

When people talk about Death of the Author in reference to H.P. Lovecrafts racism they don't mean "Well HP was a racist so you can just ignore him and write Cuthulu however you want." they mean "HP's racism is very prevalent in his works and viewing how he describes the monsters in his world gives insight to the times prejudices.". HP's works are actually a very effective tool in learning how bigotry affects horror.

Now to see where I'm going here is that Kodaka is a massive transmisogynist. Not only is there everything that is going on in DR1 chapter 2, but there's also his newest work which depicts a male character who dresses up as a girl for the explicit purpose of tricking girls to and sexually take advantage of them, there's Sakura who's in the same game as Chihiro whose character design the Spikechunsoft team initially didn't approve of but Kodaka got through under the guise of "body positivity" only to turn around and make her the butt of "woman who is ugly because she looks like a man" jokes for the entirety of her screentime, hell the only character who ever displays any positivity for trans women (which is transmed at best) is Tenko Cabashira who herself is a standin for Kodaka's misogynistic/lesbiphobic idea of "Man Hating feminazi Dyke".

Chihiro is a trans woman not because the work literally says she is which is what the criteria is for transmisogynists. She's a trans woman because she represents what trans women are to Kodaka. To Kodaka they are at best confused boys who just don't know that they are "allowed to be feminine", at neutral they are good jokes to get a quick laugh, at worst they are predators who prey on young girls, and anyone who supports them is a raging feminazi who probably grew up in a cave.

It's why after we had the incredible uncomfortable corpse investigation every student automatically switched to he/him without so much as a discussion to how Chihiro would want to be referred is because to the author there is no discussion. To the author your genitals are your gender (See also the "transmed at best" Tenko final FTE where will be cool with Suichi as long as he becomes a girl which of course involves getting The Surgery™) and Chihiro's genital reveal is instead this harsh truth of reality that the characters are supposed to feel exposed and lied to about, even the character who is the target of Kodaka's transmisogynistic humor.

This is why it requires a real stretch of the imagination to pull Transmasc Chihiro out of this story because Chihiro is not barred from masculinity in any way, shape, or form. Masculinity is actually expected of her and she is punished with bullying for not performing it. Chihiro does not feel pressure to present feminine, Chihiro is pressured to perform masculinity and her feminine presentation is written as an easy escape from that expectation. Because to Kodaka, Chihiro represents the trans women he views as failed men whose motivation for transitioning is a convenient escape from having to meet the rigorous standards of toxic masculinity. When the secrets are threatened to be revealed, Chihiro does not pursue masculine presentation out of some desire to finally be seen as a man, but out of desperation to not be seen as weak and exploitable when her secret is exposed.

I don't know how to segway from that into this so I'm just going to say. The next time some femboy fascist tries to butt their heads in to "Um Akctually" about a trans woman's existence do not attempt to argue "well actually she IS a trans woman in canon" because unless the character in question is specifically Bridget Guilty Gear, chances are the author is going to be on their side. And even in the case of Bridget, the ones that are still arguing for "canon femboy" Bridget are the ones who never moved on from the mistranslation conspiracy stage of denialism. No amount of pointed official interviews, dialogue, or official wikis is going to convince them because in their mind Daiuske is a turbocuck who is either capitulating or has been brainwashed by the woke West and has forcefully taken the reins to retcon the true author's authentic vision.

If you're going to engage with them which by the way I don't recommend you doing. But let's just pretend you have to. Let's just pretend you're a popular YouTuber which never presented that you have progressive views who unknowingly drew in these people into your fanbase who had a very vocal transmisogynistic reaction to a transfem headcannon. So in this completely imaginary scenario you need to challenge them on their transmisogyny. Ask them why the "correct" interpretation of the work is worth defending and harassing people over.

As the Bridget denialism has shown, these people are VERY dependent on the work agreeing with them because it allows for them to argue correctness without having to deal with such silly little complications as "morals" or "values". They are completely unequipped to defend their transmisogyny because they are so used to using their idea of "Authorial Intent" as a rhetorical crutch and most of the time DO NOT WANT their transmisogyny to be called out as such. It's why when left with no convincing way to deny Bridget's trams existence the ones that DID pivot decided to pivot to taking leftist arguments and swapping some of the words out to make their arguments SOUND progressive. Because they felt that if they couched themselves in leftist sounding language then that would be enough to convince people that they weren't violent reactionaries but were instead GNC men who were expressing loss over valuable representation. Which is just bullshit considering it's just the transfem version of "we're losing our tomboys!" transphobic arguments that people are pretty quick to pick up on but since targets of these arguments were trans women we had genuine queers who were sympathizers and parroting talking points of "While you can't be mad over new Transfem representation you can't fault them for expressing sadness over losing a positive role model for GNC cis men"

Just don't play the "well actually" game with fascists if you can avoid it

[comikadraws]

Hello. I really like your analysis of the political stuff in naruto, and I just read your latest one in regard to Hashirama's odd neutrality towards 'the curse of hatred™'. But I kind of want to know now: could you say the same about Kishimoto himself? Does he agree with the 'curse' in a simular vein as H.? Or is H. a deliberately flawed character rather than something that the narrative primarily sides with? (because that's the impression I've got but it's been a while, so idk, I didn't really get the nuance of the plot in the way that you explore when I first watched it)

Authorial Intent and the Curse of Hatred

Okay, so I've got like ten other Naruto asks in my inbox but I will prioritize this one real quick because it is actually very central to a lot of my posts. I already went a little bit into this mess when I analyzed the "Curse of Hatred", but I feel like this topic deserves a post of its own.

This particular part of the discussion leaves the confines of Naruto as a fictional universe entirely and instead delves into the realms of authorial intent analysis and criticism.

My TL;DR is Kishimoto very much intended for the "Curse of Hatred" to be real and the narrative sides with Hashirama and Tobirama (and that is problematic). In the longer version, I am particularly focusing on Tobirama as he is the founder of the Uchiha Clan Genetic Theories™.

I also apologize in advance because pointing out Kishimoto's shortsighted writing is something I have gotten harassed over in the past. Hence I believe some theoretic knowledge is needed.

<Analysis under the cut>

Note: As always, blue links are external links or other people's posts. Red links are my own posts that add context to my thought process.

The problem with Kishimoto's intent is that the guy almost never explains the intention of his writing. This is why discussions like "Was Itachi retconned" or "Does Kishimoto hate Sakura" persist to this day. The only thing we are left with is to instead infer the meaning from other sources (such as the manga itself or minor remarks from interviews).

My conclusion is influenced mainly by four things: The social and political context behind Naruto, Kishimoto's usual treatment of sensitive topics, the narrative of the manga itself, and fantasy genre conventions.

But before all that, here's a little info dump.

Death of the Author

In opposition to the idea that the "Curse of Hatred" is real in canon stands the idea that it was just Tobirama's racist propaganda piece - and this is actually a fairly widespread thought. Not necessarily a misconception, however, as it depends on your school of thought when it comes to engaging with fictional text - Extreme intentionalism (full submission to the author's intent), Anti-intentionalism (complete disregard of the author's intent), or anything in between. While extreme intentionalism can probably be considered the "truest to canon" (as opposed to anti-intentionalism, which is more like a subjective interpretation or "headcanon") it is also incredibly limiting to our fandom experience.

Before I continue this, I need people to understand that both approaches are valid. Especially in instances in which the author's intent translates very poorly into our contemporary understanding of the world, as is the case with the "Curse of Hatred". Both authorial intent and the audience's interpretation are vital puzzle pieces when engaging with a piece of media critically.

To clarify, I do not support Kishimoto's writing decisions in this. I am not pushing an anti-Uchiha clan agenda. What I am going for is analyzing Kishimoto's intended canon. As I have already pointed out, it is a canon that is problematic and nobody should be forced to submit to.

With that out of the way, back to the main topic.

Social and Political Context of Naruto

Personally, I believe it is possible that Kishimoto intended to portray themes of prejudice in his story. Mostly in the sense in which people get defined for their worst character traits (as we can see when comparing Tobirama's and Hashirama's characterization of the Uchiha Clan) or for their affiliations (as is also the case with Jinchuriki). I do not believe, however, that he was aiming for racism specifically - and definitely not for scientific racism, let alone eugenic ideologies. And this has a lot to do with Japan's lack of sensitivity when it comes to racism.

For starters, Japan has a very ethnically homogenous society with about 98% of its population being ethnically Japanese and therefore having one of the lowest diversity scores in the world. On top of that, Japan has no national human rights institutions or laws against racial discrimination. The Japanese population is rather unsensitized to themes of racism.

To not turn this into a fallacy of composition, a different user pointed out that Naruto (as a story) was possibly influenced by Japan's reactionary right-wing movement (possibly revealing Kishimoto's own political standing). The movement responded to an increase in anti-Japanese sentiment across Asia. Said sentiment was sparked by a controversy in which Japan omitted its war crimes (which is a well-known pattern in Japanese politics).

At the very least, it is correct that Naruto is very pro-state in its way of protecting the state's reputation by hiding its crimes from the public consciousness. Kishimoto himself demonstrates an incomplete understanding of Japan's war history by unintentionally paralleling WW2 crimes in his story or claiming that the war was the result of mere grudges when, in reality, it was racism and imperialist ideologies.

While this is just my hypothesis, Kishimoto's lack of political and social awareness could easily influence his perception of social injustices, such as racism. Insensitivity, meanwhile, might reduce any motivation to engage with such themes.

Inadequate Realization of Sensitive Storylines

So about insensitivity... This might actually be less of a hypothesis when we look at Kishimoto's repeated failure to address sensitive topics in his writing with dignity and/or a critical lens. I've also ranted about this in an older post.

We are talking about child soldiers and death matches between children (Chunin Exams), slavery (Hyuga Clan), human experimentation (Orochimaru), human trafficking (Kushina and maybe Mito) genocide (Uchiha Massacre), and the invasion of neutral territory (Amegakure). In all of these cases, crimes are not further acknowledged than a brief admittance of "damage was done" before the plot forgets about them entirely.

Chunin exams? Never talked about again.

Slavery? Naruto promised to change the Hyuga clan but never mentions it again.

Human experimentation? Orochimaru is welcomed back after his exile.

Human trafficking? The Jinchurikis got stockholmed, so everything's good!

Genocide? Addressing that might tarnish the Uchiha Clan's reputation. So we don't.

Invasion of neutral territory? We never see Amegakure again after Konan's passing.

It is a larger pattern in which social injustice is primarily introduced to add flavor in the form of "tragic backstories" but not actually to resolve it. We are supposed to condemn those tragedies, to feel sympathetic - but we are not supposed to criticize Konoha as a main perpetrator, enabler, or apologist.

To me, it doesn't seem like Kishimoto ever truly cared about those social issues. He knows they are bad, yes, but they were never the focus of the story and Kishimoto barely even stops to consider the implications.

The Manga's Narrative

The story does not engage critically with itself. And frankly, it also does not demand such critical thinking from its readers either.

In the manga, we are often presented with incorrect or incomplete exposition from unreliable narrators. Obito lies all the time, Madara gets the wrong story from Zetsu, Itachi gets the wrong story from who-knows-where, and Sasuke doesn't know what's going on half the time. The interesting part is how the truth behind those lies is usually uncovered.

Usually, we do not know that any of them are perpetuating a lie until said lie gets corrected by another character. Said character is usually a "source" in the sense that they have personally experienced the (until then) falsified events.

It is very rare that the audience gets to pick up on little clues to realize that a character is lying. One such instance is when Obito directly contradicts Itachi in his rendition of the story. But even then, the conflict between their two renditions gets resolved by a "source" character in the form of Kushina retelling the events from sixteen years ago.

Now, let's compare this to the "Curse of Hatred".

I have already mentioned this in another post (where I analyzed the curse and its contents), but the "Curse of Hatred" is first officially introduced by Obito. He focuses on the Uchiha's war-torn history and how that influenced its members. Tobirama more or less builds on that, adding his hypothesis about the Uchiha Clan's Sharingan and its effect on the user. Then Hagoromo adds some things about the reincarnation cycle that might play into this. In the end, Zetsu wraps it all up by revealing that he manipulated the Uchiha Clan for centuries.

The problem is that not one of these puzzle pieces directly contradicts the other and instead, they appear to complement each other. Therefore, no lie gets officially "disproven" in the story itself. Tobirama's Theories are treated as though they were perfectly fine fact that does not require revision.

We can further infer Tobirama's credibility on the matter by judging the present characters' reactions.

Hashirama, as explained in my previous post, tolerates if not accepts Tobirama's ideas. Orochimaru shows himself hostile toward Tobirama but does not take the chance to contradict him. Sasuke, who is an Uchiha and has personal experience with the Sharingan, shows no signs of protest. Skepticism, yes, but it slowly fades away until he seemingly accepts Tobirama's words as truth. He does not even attempt to argue against it.

Add to that that Tobirama is generally presented as a truthful character, described as "rational" and "principled" in the databook. He regularly criticizes or insults other characters without the bat of an eye, seemingly having no problem with tarnishing his own reputation, unconcerned with keeping up false appearances. He is not the type of character to lie.

Yes, Tobirama comes off as a bigot regardless, but that's because he's essentially an asshole and not because he is actually intended to be racist. Even in the event that what he says is non-factual, he fully believes it is. But also, the possibility that Tobirama is talking nonsense is not even hinted at (again, he is described as "rational" and no character seems to disapprove of the Uchiha Clan Genetic Theory TM).

Fantasy Fiction Conventions

In fantasy writing, none of what Tobirama says is actually uncommon. In fact, if anything, his theories concerning the Sharingan resemble popular fantasy tropes.

In Anime, many powers are awakened through trauma. This is called "Traumatic Superpower Awakening". The Sharingan is just one of many offenders, even in the story of Naruto. This reflects Tobirama's idea that the Sharingan is triggered through great emotional pain.

It is also a common trope that characters who gain too much power eventually go insane. This is called the "With Great Power Comes Great Insanity" trope and reflects the Uchihas' to essentially take away psychic damage alongside each newly awakened Sharingan power. Kishimoto just specifically linked that insanity or pain to the Sharingan (which represents the power of the Uchiha).

Yet another trope is the "Personality Powers" trope. This one can be seen in the Uchiha Clan's tendency to feel deep love and hate - at least one of which is essential for the awakening of a Mangekyo Sharingan (and, depending on the circumstances, a regular Sharingan). Hence Tobirama calls it "the eyes that reflect the heart". In other words, the personality facilitates the power.

Last but not least, we've got the fantasy races trope. The author invents a race and then assigns it distinct characteristics (both physiology and behavior-wise).

In its most extreme cases, this can be used to create an "enemy race" (such as orcs, vampires, demons, etc.) for the good guys to fight. It usually removes complexity from the story by dumbing down the enemy to simply just being "born evil".

Now, notice how the Uchiha Clan's Hatred could be considered a personification of Kishimoto's idea that wars are caused by grudges? Furthermore, Kishimoto makes that comment at a point in time (February 2012) when all three main antagonists of the story are Uchihas (Madara is revived in chapter 559, which was released October 2011), and then releases Tobirama's theory a year later (February 2013).

This one, unlike the other three, is particularly controversial as fantasy races often get conflated with real-life ethnicities. This is not always the intention of the author, however, as they often never intended to portray racial stereotypes. For two particularly popular examples, take a look at Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" or Itagaki's "Beastars".

On one hand of this debate, you have that fantasy races are unlike human ethnicities and do not necessarily reflect reality, simply because the author decides what is real in canon or not and because fantasy is always a lie from a real-world perspective. Hence the Curse of Hatred, or rather, Tobirama's Theory is canon.

On the other, fiction does not exist in a vacuum and it is impossible not to apply our contemporary understanding of racism and ignore what are otherwise screaming red flags of racist ideology. Hence we recognize Tobirama's explanation as racism and wish to reject the Curse of Hatred as a concept.

But these two ideas can coexist.

The problem is just that Kishimoto likely only accounted for one thing and not the other. His intention translated very poorly into our contemporary understanding of the world, making Tobirama (and therefore, Hashirama as well) the victims of short-sighted writing.

Who cares anyway?

In the beginning, I explained that regardless of what Kishimoto intended for his story, any interpretation is valid. So why should we care about what the author thinks?

In my analyses (which are separate from my headcanons), I will usually take an "Extreme Intentionalism" approach in which I prioritize the author's intent over the reader's interpretation. Not because I am opposed to the idea that the reader's interpretation is relevant to the meaning of a text but because readers' interpretations are unique to the individual. Focusing on such an individual interpretation can easily alienate those who don't share it. Hence I like to focus on something that is more informative, almost objective in nature, such as the author's likely intended canon - which people can then mould into whatever suits their headcanon best.

I have also noticed that, sometimes, anti-intentionalist takes will devolve into full-blown lies (sometimes with the purposeful intention of omitting canon). This lie can then be upheld in an attempt to condemn or rather bully those with intentionalist interpretations. This unwittingly protects the writer (as well as problematic writing conventions) from criticism.

This is why I think even Anti-Intentionalists should inform themselves of an author's intention. This is, more or less, an aspect of media literacy as it allows us to identify biased or manipulative narratives and take purposeful action. In our case, this involves questioning and criticizing Kishimoto as an individual, raising awareness about his writing's shortcomings, and learning from his mistakes.

[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"

[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.

[i-am-trans-gwender]

"Problematic media doesn't reflect the morality of the author" "Problematic media does not have real world consequences"

I disagree

I'm NOT talking about stuff that is depicted as bad in-universe. Also you're not a bad person if you like problematic media unless it's Fu Manchu levels of bad.

Authors' biases are reflected in their work. Mel Gibson's antisemitic remark "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world. Are you a Jew?" during his 2006 DUI arrest wasn't surprising given the critiques of antisemitism in his film Passion of the Christ, the movie depicts the Jewish people as being bloodthirsty and ugly people who are to blame for the Crucifixion

As for the real word consequences, The Tailhook Scandal where Military officers committed assault and harassment in the U.S Navy's Tailhook Symposium. Investigators found that they were influenced by Top Gun which made them see the military as being like a party. It's worth noting there's a scene in the movie where Maverick follows Blackwood into the bathroom even after she's rejected him.

It's important to consider the impact that media can have on people as well as how they reflect the author's viewpoint.

[bayesiandragon]

Whenever I come across debate about the meaning of written works being defined by authorial intent vs reader interpretation, I think about Fahrenheit 451. Specifically, about Ray Bradbury getting into heated argument with literature students on the meaning of his book, where the near universal takeaway was (and still is to this day) that it was a commentary of government control via censorship and destruction of knowledge, but his intended meaning was more limited to how mass media consumption was making people dumb. 

From which my own takeaway is that, sometimes things are written in a way that accidentally confer a meaning - or at least create additional parallels/allegories - that were not intended, but do latently exist there to come alive in the minds of readers.

[thebellaedit]

[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

[inkwell-intermission]

experimenting with csp layer masks ft a reboot of my heir of lightsona and author-insert, who i want to probably call Authorial Intent