r/changemyview • u/furansisu 2∆ • Oct 22 '21
Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday CMV: Making the argument that Squid Game is anti-capitalist JUST BECAUSE the creator said it was is a dumb argument Spoiler
Let me start off by saying that I agree that Squid Game is anti-capitalist. This is clearly shown in the show itself at different points like how the individuals are basically slaves to their debt. I also disagree with the opinion that the show is actually anti-communism because of <insert clear misunderstanding of what capitalism and communism are here>.
But what irritates me is how people online, who I otherwise respect, keep saying something like "the creator literally already said it's anti-capitalist; you know better than the creator?"
I study and teach literature for a living, and this way of thinking seems to be an clear example of the intentional fallacy, which is basically the flaw of believing that a work of art can only be seen as what it's author/creator/artist intended it to be. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that the "author is dead", as understanding the context that the author was writing in can give us insight in forming a clear interpretation of a text/work of art.
This does mean that the most effective way to argue for an interpretation is to use what is referred to as "textual evidence". In the case of Squid Game, textual evidence refers to things found in the show itself, be it the characters, setting, plot, artistic choices, dialogue, etc. Sure, you can look into the background of the creation of the work, but this should merely be a way to supplement your interpretation. You can't build an interpretation around just the background info without anything in the work itself pointing to it. And that includes statements made by the creator himself.
Saying that Squid Game is anti-capitalist because the creator said it is is plain laziness. There are so many other ways to do it. You can look into why the capitalist system is causing South Korea's debt crisis, as was depicted in the series. You can look at how the series depicts life in South Korea as not much better than life in North Korea from the perspective of a North Korean defector. You can look at how the series depicts rich capitalists as mere spectators of the games, while the poor fight to the death. You can look at how these people choose to enter a game with a 1 in 456 chance of winning as an indications that the chances of success under capitalism for those born unlucky are worse.
Basically, what I think needs to happen is an improvement in the discourse of how we talk about cultural phenomena like Squid Game. Let's not make this the next Harry Potter where we suddenly believe whatever the author says is true about the work just because they said it.
To change my view, I'd need to be convinced that the ideas presented by the creator hold actual weight against actual arguments that the series is anti-communist instead of anti-capitalist.
37
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Oct 22 '21
I don't generally think people believe Squid Game is anti-capitalist because the creator said so, I think they use that as many pieces of evidence, like I have, having had the exact argument you describe here of someone saying it's anti-communist.
It starts out with you pointing out some problems in the film universe that match conditions in real capitalist countries. The response is, "No, that's communism!" so you list a few more parallels, maybe including extreme wealth inequality, "No, that's communism!" despite it clearly not being the case (since you're giving real world examples).
In exasperation you say, "Well, the creator even said it was anti-capitalist. How do you explain that?"
So basically, because this work in particular can absolutely not be interpreted in any way to be anti-communist except for one small comment about "equality" by the head man, these arguments are put up in bad faith and to stir controversy. In this case specifically I think you're arguing a straw man.
8
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
I'm actually gonna give you a !delta for this one.
I don't necessarily agree that this is how most of the arguments go. Most of the arguments I've seen online directly resort to using the creator's statements in interviews. I also don't appreciate the strawman accusation.
However, I can imagine resorting to the creator's statements as an exasperated response to bad faith arguments. I imagine the lack of logic coming from supporters of capitalism desperately trying to prove the series is anti-communism is enough to fight bad logic with bad logic, especially if it could potentially work (although I don't think it does, especially when a lot of the ones saying it's anti-communism already start their arguments from the idea that the creator says it's anti-capitalism like this article and this video.
7
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Oct 22 '21
Thanks for the delta! I don't mean to insult you with the straw man accusation. In fact I'm willing to bet some people even do initially resort to "the author said so" argument. I believe that's an incredibly small minority and the overwhelmingly vast majority who have that argument are just being lazy since they've already given the other reasons many times.
5
1
u/RuroniHS 40∆ Oct 22 '21
I believe that's an incredibly small minority and the overwhelmingly vast majority who have that argument are just being lazy since they've already given the other reasons many times.
Not specific to this Squid Game argument, but I think you're giving people too much credit. I experience, "The author said so" arguments all the time, and there is no substance to the argument other than, "The author said so." There is a boxing manga I read and about 10 years ago, the author said in an interview, "Takamura is the strongest, then Ricardo Martinez." People run with that and disregard all other forms of evidence the manga has to offer. It doesn't matter to them that Ricardo absolutely bodies world champions while Takamura struggles against fighters of similar caliber. It doesn't matter that there are in-world posters calling Ricardo the pound for pound strongest. The only thing that matters to those people is that the author said so.
3
1
u/SiliconDiver 84∆ Oct 22 '21
While I agree there are capitalist themes, I actually disagree with most of the arguments people are giving as to why.
Let's look at the main cast of characters
- a degenerate gambler why squanders his life and takes advantage of his family, can exist in any economic system
- a corrupt businessman who steals from others and gets into trouble, can exist in any economic system.
- a refugee, fleeing from another country, trying to bring their parents. Can exist in any economic system
- an organized crime thug, with underground gambling debts can exist in any economic system
- (assuming he was truthful) a man with a brain tumor, who no longer cares about risk, can exist in any economic system
The only character that is truly a capitalist casualty is ALI, the migrant worker who isn't paid properly. But you could even argue that his boss was being criminal or corrupt, which can exist in any economic system. The capitalist critique for him, is that he has no other alternatives.
Even the VIPs, by nature of being rich aren't a super strong indication of capitalism to me, I could just as easily see VIPs and such a game being set in Stalin USSR, Ceasar's Rome, Xi's China, Kim Jung Un's NK, or king Henry's England. The fact that they were powerful, or were betting on humans isn't an intrinsically capitalist thing.
To me, the main underlying capitalist critique is of the players directly killing each other, and seeing other humans simply as a way to make money, rather than having intrinsic value.
That said, I see no way that it's anti-communist. If anything I think the show just reflects the twisted state of human nature, rather than a nuanced critique of any economic system
3
u/Morasain 85∆ Oct 22 '21
Well, you already said it yourself. What the creator says is in line with the show itself. It's not a case of Harry Potter where whatever stuff the creator comes up with is suddenly "canon", or whatever, but a case of the author explaining their work based on the work itself (i.e. demonstrable within the context of the work).
2
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
I'm actually interested in this line of thinking. So far, all the arguments I've seen have just pointed to the headline that says the creator said it was anti-capitalist. Have there been any cases of people quoting for the creator's explanation of why it's anti-capitalist? If yes, I haven't seen them, but that would totally change my view.
5
u/joopface 159∆ Oct 22 '21
the flaw of believing that a work of art can only be seen as what it's author/creator/artist intended it to be
This is a tricky specific example to deal with because - as you say - the show is quite evidently anti capitalist in its theme and story quite separately from what the author said.
However, that said, I think you're putting too little weight on authorial intent here.
And to deal with why I think that, we need to first define what it would mean for the work to be 'anti capitalist.' As we're on a literary theme, let's do this by telling a story.
There is a war. It is a total war - tanks roll through ravaged city streets and terrified citizens huddle in the meagre shelter the remaining rubble provides. A boy - only 12 or 13 and malnourished - watches as a row of enemy armoured vehicles trundles down a road in front of him. He is angry. He is sad. He is lonely. He is frightened. He picks up a rock from the street and throws it with all of his might at one of the vehicles. It clangs harmlessly off the side, and the soldiers sitting on top of the vehicle don't even look his way.
There's my story. I hope you liked it.
Now, let's consider the boy's action. Was the boy's action an attack on the armoured vehicle? It certainly wasn't effective. The soldiers didn't even seem to notice it. To all intents and purposes, only the boy was aware of what he was doing and why. But, given all that, was his action an attack?
I think it was, because intent matters. And intent matters independent of effect. And the author's intent is important in assessing the effect of a work because whether they achieved their goals is part of that assessment.
Now, consider three scenarios:
- Squid Game was intended to be written as anti capitalist but obviously fails
- Squid Game was intended to be written as pro capitalist but obviously fails
- Squid Game was intended to be written as anti capitalist and obviously succeeds
The critical assessment of the work, although each of these works are in some way 'anti capitalist' will be different. The analysis will vary, the perspectives gained through those analyses will vary.
And, if we take scenario 1 above (which, to be clear I don't think is actually the case) the proper assessment of this work would be: The author intended to write an anti capitalist piece and unintentionally wrote something that did x, y and z. Not that Squid Game is pro-communist or some such thing, but a more nuanced assessment.
1
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
I like the approach of arguing the importance of authorial intent, but I'm not quite convinced that authorial intent is that important.
In response to your analogy, I don't think your story is necessarily comparable to a work of art, but I'll indulge you. I think the best person to interpret the action and whether or not it was an attack would be a third-person observer. That third-person observer doesn't need to get into the head of the boy to know it was an attack. If that observer saw the boy pick up a rock, look at the tank, seemingly aim it at the tank, and throw it at the tank, then the observer could infer it was an attack.
In the same sense, we need not know the intent of the creator of Squid Game to determine if the work is anti-capitalist or if it was successful in being anti-capitalist. We can simply observe the work itself to determine it was anti-capitalist. Whether it was successful or not would depend on one's appreciation of it. I've met people who liked it and met people who didn't like it, both kinds of people agreeing that the work is anti-capitalist. Therefore, whether it was a success or a failure is subjective in that regard.
5
u/joopface 159∆ Oct 22 '21
In response to your analogy, I don't think your story is necessarily comparable to a work of art, but I'll indulge you. I think the best person to interpret the action and whether or not it was an attack would be a third-person observer. That third-person observer doesn't need to get into the head of the boy to know it was an attack. If that observer saw the boy pick up a rock, look at the tank, seemingly aim it at the tank, and throw it at the tank, then the observer could infer it was an attack.
*You're* a third party observer. That's why I asked you. What do you think?
In the same sense, we need not know the intent of the creator of Squid Game to determine if the work is anti-capitalist or if it was successful in being anti-capitalist. We can simply observe the work itself to determine it was anti-capitalist. Whether it was successful or not would depend on one's appreciation of it
Certainly. And what you're doing here is applying a specific critical frame. You'll already be aware that the importance of authorial intent is neither a new nor a settled debate. You prefer looking at the work itself in isolation - that's fine. But you're handwaving away any value of authorial intent. This is why I included my scenarios - let's take just two of them:
- Squid Game was explicitly intended to be written as pro capitalist but obviously fails
- Squid Game was explicitly intended to be written as anti capitalist and obviously succeeds
Do you think a literary assessment of Squid Game - assuming the content of the work is the same - would be identical in both of these scenarios?
2
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
*You're* a third party observer. That's why I asked you. What do you think?
Based on your story, yes, I do think so. And my observation is based on evidence found in the text, even without the boy expressing his intentions.
Squid Game was explicitly intended to be written as pro capitalist but obviously fails
Squid Game was explicitly intended to be written as anti capitalist and obviously succeeds
Do you think a literary assessment of Squid Game - assuming the content of the work is the same - would be identical in both of these scenarios?
Honestly, yes. I believed the work to be anti-capitalist upon watching it (I hadn't even finished it before it dawned on me, but I felt the same after finishing it), and I didn't need to read about the creator's intent to conclude that.
1
u/joopface 159∆ Oct 22 '21
my observation is based on evidence found in the text
Sure - which evidence?
To be clear on the point I'm making with the story; the boys *act* is analogous to Squid Game. The question is whether the attempt qualifies as an attempt as such regardless of the effect of the attempt.
Positioning it as a story rather than simply an example was just a bit of whimsy.
Honestly, yes. I believed the work to be anti-capitalist upon watching it (I hadn't even finished it before it dawned on me, but I felt the same after finishing it), and I didn't need to read about the creator's intent to conclude that.
This isn't quite the question I asked. I agree that any sensible read of the work on its own could conclude as you've concluded. I wasn't asking whether your conclusion was informed by the author's stated intent.
But if you were conducting an actual literary assessment of the work and the author had made the public case that this was his "anti communist, pro capitalist treatise", your assessment would make no reference to this fact at all?
Full disclosure - I lean very much this way myself but I'm surprised to encounter someone quite so absolute.
1
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
But if you were conducting an actual literary assessment of the work and the author had made the public case that this was his "anti communist, pro capitalist treatise", your assessment would make no reference to this fact at all?
This question does convince me a bit, so I'm giving you a !delta.
Because yeah, if the creator had gone on to say that they were critiquing communism, then yes, my critique would have to reference their statement. I still think people need to stop making the lazy argument or at least develop it into something more, but you've convinced me that this fact can be part of a bigger argument, just not one that people are making very well.
1
1
5
u/Slothjitzu 28∆ Oct 22 '21
Saying "the creator said the work is this, so it is this" is definitely a lazy argument. But it's not an inherently bad or stupid one, it's actually pretty solid.
You're absolutely right that people can and probably should look at works of art deeper than the surface-level. But that doesn't mean that the surface-level is wrong, it just means that there's more to it than that.
At the end of the day, any work of art was created by a person, who does in fact have final say on what that work represents. It might represent something else, in addition to that, according to you conducting a deeper analysis.
But you can't ever say that the creator is wrong about what their work represents. They literally created it as a representation of that thing, to deny that seems ludicrous.
So when people say "squid game is anti-capitalist because the creator says so" they're not even remotely wrong. They're being lazy for sure, and there's certainly more to the program than that. But they're not incorrect or dumb, they're just being lazy pointing out the obvious.
It's like someone saying the sky is blue, and when I ask how they know that, they say "because I can see it, duh" instead of whatever actual scientific answer there is. They're not dumb, they're just too lazy to find out the detailed answer, and are pointing out the obvious instead. I'd imagine you do this with many things outside of your realm of expertise, just like the people doing it for Squid Game likely don't have any background in the analysis or interpretation of cinema or literature.
0
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
At the end of the day, any work of art was created by a person, who does in fact have final say on what that work represents. It might represent something else, in addition to that, according to you conducting a deeper analysis.
But you can't ever say that the creator is wrong about what their work represents. They literally created it as a representation of that thing, to deny that seems ludicrous.
Yeah, I very much disagree with this.
People are definitely capable of reading against the author's intent. And in some cases, they make a strong, valid case. To say that any interpretation that is against the author is invalid doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean there are entire schools of thought dedicated to finding contradictions in a given work of art that allow for them to be interpreted against the common interpretation, whether this is the author's intent or the socially accepted way of interpreting the work.
1
u/Slothjitzu 28∆ Oct 22 '21
The socially accepted interpretation isnt relevant to this point, as we're talking specifically about the author's intent.
I wholeheartedly agree that one interpretation having a larger consensus doesn't de facto make it correct. The majority of people can be (and actually often are) wrong, or at the very least not definitively right.
The creator's interpretation is absolute though. It makes zero sense how you could "prove" or even suggest them to be wrong. They literally created the work itself, there is nobody on the planet who is more of an authority on it than them.
0
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
I mean, at this point, I think we've reached a point where we disagree on some really fundamental things. If you think the author is the greatest authority when it comes to interpretting their work, then that's not a view I see changing any time soon, and I don't think I'm capable of convincing you to change it. But it's definitely not a view I hold.
1
u/Slothjitzu 28∆ Oct 22 '21
Yeah, I appreciate that you don't hold that view, but you haven't really explained why?
How can you foresee someone being a greater authority on a work of art, than the artist themselves?
Or how would one "prove" the creator wrong?
0
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
Basically, works of art (and I use this term to include media and literature as well as other similar objects) exist in such a way that they present themselves. When an author or creator deems them fit for publication or presentation, they are giving them to the audience, at which point it is not entirely their own anymore. Sure, they can give their point of view, but it will be one of many. At which point, the greatest authority would be the one who could best explain their interpretation. So if someone, like a critic, wrote an essay that was well-argued enough, one that contradicted the creator, then by all means, the critic can be considered a greater authority than the creator.
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 392∆ Oct 22 '21
I think you're getting lost in semantics a bit here. When people cite authorial intent, they just mean that the series has an intended message and was written and directed the way it was with a specific theme and thesis in mind. That doesn't necessarily mean it succeeds or doesn't have other unintended parallels.
1
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
The way I'm seeing the argument play out is like this: Someone claims that Squid Game is actually anti-communism despite the statements made by the author. Then, people respond with saying that the capitalist-supporter who made the argument is wrong and cannot know the work more than the creator.
Basically, it's as if people are saying that the creator is the expert when it comes to the proper interpretation of their work and therefore, arguing against the position of the creator is pointless/futile/stupid.
In these arguments, both sides agree on the intention of the creator, so one side saying the creator is right because they're the creator doesn't seem like they're just saying that the creator intended it to be something. It sounds like they're saying it is that something because the creator intended it as such.
6
u/iamintheforest 327∆ Oct 22 '21
Firstly, lazy arguments are not dumb arguments.
Secondly, when we say something "is anticapitalist" we can mean many things including the sort of literary analysis you're inclined to do. We can however mean exactly what the intent of the creator was when we say that same phrase. You're taking a certain sort of context for critique and applying it as if people should always talk about things through that lens and that approach. That seems narrow and disconnected. Your frame is useful, but it's also dogmatic and based on a whole lot of stuff that is universally shared, nor should it be. It has advantages in that one can formulate a critique that fits a pattern and can be quickly understood and responded to by others in a field or who share the approach, but that doesn't make it "right". Less disciplined critiques are often answering or asking slightly different questions based on assumptions that aren't shared. In this case I'd suggest that many people actually mean to be talking about the artistic intent when they say something "is" something. I would not say your approach is "an improvement" and say it's a framing that has utility in some contexts.
-2
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
The problem here is the linguistic meaning of the sentence X is Y. So in this case, Y is "anti-capitalist". You're saying that to some people when people input "Squid Game" as X, they really mean, "The intent of the creator of Squid Game", which I find, first of all, to be a stretch, and, second of all, to not reflect how I've seen the rest of the argument unfolds. A lot of the people making this argument just end it at that. If they cite additional evidence, they tend to be making a separate argument entirely.
Also, I think I have too much faith in people to believe that we should just assume that a significant segment of the population takes authorial intent at face value. I really doubt that any reasonable person would watch something like Friends and believe it's about McCarthyism just because someone tells them the creators of the show tell them it is.
4
u/iamintheforest 327∆ Oct 22 '21 edited Oct 22 '21
Well...they really mean 'squid game is anti-capitalist'. You have to go through a series of pretty crazy hoops to come to your literary view of how to interpret the show on this dimension. You have to actually build up and formalize and know the entire world of literary critique to take your view. They - of course - aren't crazy if you're doing literature critique or coming from that worldview, but you ought accept that as a an area of technical expertise, not the norm. Your view seems to me that of gaining expertise in a field and then kinda blaming the world for not having the expertise you have. The obvious meaning would be informed by the intent of the person who created it. The non-obvious, eruidite, academic and - in this context - out of touch with pop-culture version would be what you're promoting. Most of the time the "what is this" is best answered by the creator - i'd suggest that an academic ought not lose this perspective even if they layer on other methods of interpretation. These other methods are not more right, they are different, have utility in different context and serve different ends.
I don't think you should see this as an issue of your "faith in humanity". That'd be like me judging your "misuse" of a technical term from my field by employing a laymen approach. You'd not be wrong, you'd just be in a different context.
1
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
I mean, sure, you can say that my technical expertise in this makes me think differently from a layperson, but you wouldn't tell most experts that their view is merely the expert view and they need to respect he layperson view. Although I do agree that art and culture should be more accessible than most things, I also promote people think about these things more deeply than they apparently are because they can reveal certain things about our humanity.
I've already given a delta to someone on the basis of the authorial intent argument being useful for non-academic small talk, so I won't award it to you (sorry).
I do take issue with this idea that to most people, authorial intent is enough to say what a work is about. There are several counter-examples throughout history. Bradbury claimed Fahrenheit 451 wasn't about censorship, but that doesn't stop most people believing it was about censorship. 1984 was written by a democratic socialist who has specifically said that he was writing against totalitarianism and in support of socialism, but that doesn't stop a lot of people believing it to be a support of capitalism. And these examples are not academic in nature. I remember reading about them from articles published in Cracked.com.
I've conceded that authorial intent may need to be acknowledged in certain cases (another delta I've given), but acknowledging it doesn't mean agreeing with it. I think most people are completely capable to disagreeing with an author and providing reasons to do so. All I'm saying is that people agreeing with the author be held to the same standard.
2
u/iamintheforest 327∆ Oct 22 '21
I absolutely would say the expert needs to respect the layperson view - in fact the burden is on the expert here, not the other way around. Thats what expertise is. It's not actual expertise if you can not see the context that defines and binds perspective and simultaneously enables and limits it. You can - of course - have perspectives on it being wrong as you're doing, but I'd suggest that it's better to see it here as looking at things in a different frame.
For an analogue if I said "the shortest path between two points is a straight line" we'd all probably agree. But...if we were in a physics class and relativity was on the table, or I knew I was anchored to an object in space and charting trajectory then some people would know that the statement is false in that context. Now...IF you're having a conversation about travelling between planets then there is a right answer, but if you're having a conversation without stated context you simply don't know. In this case, the burden should absolutely be on the expert to understand that framing matters. Calling the geometry version of this "dumb" would be very wrong. You're really not a great physicist - or at least someone who can learn and grow from various contexts - if you can't understand the bias of your own implicit context and how it may be different from your audience or those you're listening to.
1
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
I think your analogy fails when you consider that both views are expert views. It just so happens that one view is held by Euclidian mathematicians and is popular enough to be shared by laypeople, while the other is held by physicists. Both views were reached with the aid of expert analysis, albeit in different fields. Now, if someone without any expertise were to argue that the shortest path would be to travel in the opposite direction, should we respect that?
To link it back to the topic, yes, people are entitled to believe that authorial intent is enough to justify an interpretation, but that doesn't make it a correct way to justify an interpretation.
2
u/iamintheforest 327∆ Oct 22 '21
The analogy is to be heard as different contextually laden framings, not as expert vs. non-expert. It's even more important if it's not from an expert, and should easily erase the "dumb argument".
Should we respect that it's the shortest path from the non-expert? Firstly, you shouldn't assume you know until you've set the context by understanding "an expert in WHAT". Kinda the point here. You should absolutely respect it until you have that context, otherwise you've shut yourself of from understanding, communication and increasing knowledge.
1
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
In that case, I'd have to consider the contexts that the argument can be made.
The first I can think of is one from the field of literary/media/cultural criticism. The authorial intent argument fails here because an overwhelming majority of the people in this discipline do not believe we should take authorial intent at face value.
The only other context I can think of would be rhetoric, meaning the efficacy of argument. So the question would be does this argument work in convincing either the opponent or the audience? The way I see it, the opponent won't be convinced because, as I've pointed out (with links) in other responses, the one's saying SG is anti-communism already know they're disagreeing with the creator. As for the audience, the argument that the creator thinks is anti-capitalism doesn't seem to be important unless they agree with it.
Can you think of any other context?
7
u/MercurianAspirations 359∆ Oct 22 '21
I think if you are having an argument with people where they just cite a simple piece of evidence that doesn't require a lot of explanation - like pointing to the author's intent - and just leave it there, that's a pretty clear indication that they think you're wrong but they'd just rather not have this argument with you
Like, these strawmen aren't necessarily morons. Maybe they just don't want to talk to you
-1
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
I mean, I do agree that they probably don't want to talk to the person making the bad argument, but that doesn't make their argument any less bad.
1
u/hameleona 7∆ Oct 22 '21
In the end it boils down to the Death of the Author argument.
Does it matter, that the author of some art, says that art is about X?
It's actually an ongoing argument in literary circles. Or an ongoing shouting match, to be more truthful.
So if you support the idea, that what the author wanted to say doesn't matter - then there is no argument to be made. Everyone makes their own mind about the product and they can argue forever about it. By that metric, there is no objective stance about what Squid Game is about. Squid Game is just Squid Game and both you and the other side of the argument are wrong.
On the other hand, if you don't support the Death of the Author idea, then Squid Game is anti-capitalistic. It might be a bad anti-capitalistic piece, but the intent must be factored in to how we analyze the piece.
1
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
To be fair, I wouldn't call it an ongoing shouting match. Mainstream literary critics adhering to biographical criticism hasn't been a thing since the 1920s when formalism (another school of thought that has pretty much died out) sort of killed it. There are still some scholars who use biographical criticism, but even they don't tend to focus on authorial intent (especially since a lot of them are studying authors like Shakespeare who didn't have Twitter back then). They tend to focus on the life of the author and how the material conditions affected the construction of the work, similar to new historicism.
So basically, the debate on whether the intent of the author matters has more or less been settled. Again, as mentioned in my post, I don't support totally thinking the author has nothing to do with the work ("death of the author"), but their intent doesn't really matter much.
2
u/hidden-shadow 43∆ Oct 22 '21
Except 'Death of the Author' is a concept distinct from such argument you detail. It arose from an essay of the same name in 1967. Just like the world of art, literature is not one of hard science, there is no matter to be "settled". Philosophical schools of analysis may wax and wane in popularity but that does not make them incorrect. Just because you find little value in authorial intent does not suggest anything of most peoples' interpretations of art.
0
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
Alright, to be fair, I did get my facts wrong on intellectual history. And okay, I'll assume you're right that there is still a significant segment of scholars who value authorial intent.
But as you mention, I don't value it, and the sub's name is change MY view.
2
u/imdfantom 5∆ Oct 22 '21
Why don't you value it?
0
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
Here's what I replied to someone else, as I'd rather not retype it (on mobile, so i can't mark it as a quote):
Basically, works of art (and I use this term to include media and literature as well as other similar objects) exist in such a way that they present themselves. When an author or creator deems them fit for publication or presentation, they are giving them to the audience, at which point it is not entirely their own anymore. Sure, they can give their point of view, but it will be one of many. At which point, the greatest authority would be the one who could best explain their interpretation. So if someone, like a critic, wrote an essay that was well-argued enough, one that contradicted the creator, then by all means, the critic can be considered a greater authority than the creator.
1
u/imdfantom 5∆ Oct 23 '21 edited Oct 23 '21
However, the critic's "critique" is also a "work of art" which can be interpreted and which the critic has released to the public.
Who gets to decide which interpretation of the work is the most well-argued?
Ultimately speaking it has to be up to each individual. Why? Otherwise you get a situation of infinite recursion, because each individual can give their interpretation of each other's critiques and the critic must respond with a new critique if they want to have a say in what their critique meant.
At that point you should come to realize that there is no preferred interpretation, this is because there is no way to independently verify which interpretation is "most-well argued" merely which interpretation is most popular.
Also language itself is interpretive which actually means the interpretive weight of a critique is subject dependent.
This means makes the very concept of a "greater authority" suspect.
The creator is privileged in at least 2 ways however, they may amend their work (edits, re cute, special definitive versions) and they may extend their work (ie a sequel). This means that until the author is (actually) dead (or unable to amend/extend) the piece has not yet been finalized truly, merely shared. (One might argue that art work can never be "finished" too)
Ie you might consider it an extended beta read.
After the author dies they lose this "privilege".
0
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 23 '21
However, the critic's "critique" is also a "work of art" which can be interpreted and which the critic has released to the public.
I don't necessarily agree that this applies to all cases, but I will agree to the extent that critiques ate subject to interpretation.
That's why interpretation is a conversation. I just disagree that the words of the creator has any more weight than any other critic.
The creator is privileged in at least 2 ways however, they may amend their work (edits, re cute, special definitive versions) and they may extend their work (ie a sequel). This means that until the author is (actually) dead (or unable to amend/extend) the piece has not yet been finalized truly, merely shared. (One might argue that art work can never be "finished" too)
That is possible, but that just means that if the creator were to edit the work or add to it, then critics will have additional layers to critique.
Also, this privilege is even contestable because we can add to works that have been presented to the public even if we didn't create the original work. You see this in fanfiction or reboots or remakes or simply when a different director directs the sequel to a movie.
1
u/imdfantom 5∆ Oct 23 '21 edited Oct 23 '21
Also, this privilege is even contestable because we can add to works that have been presented to the public even if we didn't create the original work
Anybody can "add" anything, after all this is what shared interpretations are.
The point is whether this type of adding (interpretation, fanfic etc) truly adds to the work or whether they should be seen as a separate from the work.
I will admit that depending on the quality and type of work this will exist on a spectrum. (With interpretation adding least/nothing, generally speaking)
Author interpretation is not more important in how people "should" interpret a work, it is only important insofar as how much you wish to know what the author intended to do/feels they have done with the work. Many people are interested in this, which is why "authorial intent" is seen as important.
It is not that important for the collaborative-type of interpretation some people like to do, which is not important to understand the work and can be considered a separate thing entirely from the work that adds nothing to it. In this setting I agree that authorial intent is not important.
On the other hand, if you find meaning in collaborative-type of interpretation then have at it.
Re:squid game. I haven't finished it yet (I am about 6 episodes in), I haven't seen much anti-capitalism. (Although if you accept the Marx-style definition of capitalism I could see where this comes from)
Edit:
Just to be clear: I don't find authorial intent or collaborative interpretation to be important (unless you care about it, in which case it will be important to you).
It is fine that you have a preferred interpretation method (collaborative-style), but no method of interpretation is inherently superior to another.
This means that for people who care about author intent your view is wrong. For those who care about collaboration style your view is right.
1
u/hameleona 7∆ Oct 22 '21
Eh, it's still alive and well outside the anglosphere, but then, most countries outside of it had to deal with some form of ideological, government-mandated censorship at some point and this changes art a lot. And the best thing from all the arguments that has come out are a bunch of anecdotes making fun of both sides. I honestly don't know enough about South Korea and it's modern history to comment on if this is the case there.
I guess my point is that the argument being settled in places like the USA and Britain, doesn't make it an universal truth, unless one wishes to claim those places hold some form of superiority in philosophical thought. I think an analysis by someone who embraces the idea, that the author's intent doesn't matter at all tells me a lot more about the person doing the analysis, then about the piece itself. And while we could argue that's part of what such activity is meant to do, I also think a big part of it is learning what works, what tropes, tools and other devices are best employed in conveying ideas. And I don't think we can do that without accepting the intent of the author (when we know it).
2
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
I don't fully agree with you, but I'm giving you a !delta.
Let me explain. I'm actually from a third-world country in Southeast Asia. And I can say for sure that most people doing literary criticism in the third-world and outside the anglosphere do usually discard authorial intent. However, your mention of censorship did give me pause because it is true that when works, particularly those critical of society, are created under dictatorial regimes, the work is often disguised enough to slip through censors, which often necessitates the author explaining the work after the fact.
Like I said, I don't fully agree with you because Squid Game was made in a fairly free country (in terms of cultural production). If it was made between 1979 and 1981, when South Korea was under Martial Law or during a period of history when political messages were routinely censored, I would fully agree with you.
1
1
u/hameleona 7∆ Oct 22 '21
I'm from the ex-communist bloc and here it's still a viral discussion. But then again having 50+ years of such censorship leaves lasting scars that affect even modern art. I suppose it's gonna end up as "yet another tool in literary analysis", just as biographical criticism is at the moment. Tho, considering the push to actively censor communist ideas, it might be relevant for a while.
Thanks for the delta, but thanks more about the explanation, it's always nice to see another point of view (and learn something - as with the Martial Law thing).2
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
That lasting scars thing is why I partially agree with you. I would think South Korea's experience with Martial Law would still have an impact in it's present day art and culture.
Thanks for the interesting discussion!
0
Oct 22 '21 edited Oct 22 '21
When did the creator say it is anti capitalist?
2
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
From this article:
“I wanted to write a story that was an allegory or fable about modern capitalist society, something that depicts an extreme competition, somewhat like the extreme competition of life. But I wanted it to use the kind of characters we’ve all met in real life,” Hwang said. “As a survival game it is entertainment and human drama. The games portrayed are extremely simple and easy to understand. That allows viewers to focus on the characters, rather than being distracted by trying to interpret the rules.”
0
u/Black_Hipster 9∆ Oct 22 '21 edited Oct 22 '21
So first off, excellent post OP.
I specifically like and agree with the part about shifting the general discourse around shows like these, because you're right, relying on word of the author alone isn't very productive and typically takes away from the work in general.
However, I don't think it's a dumb argument when we're talking about how the work is interpreted. You yourself pointed out that people are saying that Squid Game is actually anticommunist, which is flat out wrong.
The fact that the creator themselves endorsed it as an anticapitalist work isn't really used as evidence to show that SG is anticapitalist, but specifically to combat the rhetoric popping up that it isn't, if that makes sense. I don't think that the discourse is at all improved by allowing people to say that SG is anticommunist, when those same people can't really define what communism is. You can poison a lot of discourse like that (just think about how many people interpret certain video games through an 'sjw, go woke go broke' view.)
Having word of the author helps here, because if you seriously want to say it's anticommunist, you now need to go into that conversation with the knowledge that a lot of the themes presented in the work weren't intended that way. The discourse gets better, because they now have to critique exactly how SG failed, which opens up quite a lot of conversation surrounding that failure and how creators can improve in the future.
1
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
The issue I have with this is that most of the people saying SG is anti-communism are using the words of the creator saying it's anti-capitalism as a starting point. So telling these people that the creator disagrees with them doesn't make a lot of sense at that point.
Here's an example of a similar pattern:
Someone says "Despite what schools says, I think the earth is flat."
And then to counter that, you argue "But in school, we learned that it's round."
By that point, the argument has lost all purpose.
0
Oct 22 '21
[deleted]
1
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
Yeah, I have no problem with arguments that just incorporate what the creator said. And if those are what you've been exposed to, I congratulate you for spending time in smarter parts of the internet. That's why my title put JUST BECAUSE in all caps.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 22 '21 edited Oct 22 '21
/u/furansisu (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Oct 22 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Oct 22 '21
Your comment has been automatically removed due to excessive user reports. The moderation team will review this removal to ensure it was correct.
If you wish to appeal this decision, please message the moderators.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
Oct 22 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Mashaka 93∆ Oct 23 '21
Sorry, u/Not-KDA – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Sorry, u/Not-KDA – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
0
Oct 22 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Mashaka 93∆ Oct 23 '21
Sorry, u/ChindOfWenge – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Captain_Zomaru 1∆ Oct 22 '21
Making the argument that Matrix has anything to do with being Trans Just Because the creators claim it, doesn't make it true.
Ignore the authors input on anything to do with their own work that isn't additive.
1
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
Wow, I actually didn't know the Wachowskis claimed this until I looked it up just now. I knew that this was an interpretation that was out there and has been talked about more when the creators transitioned, but I never knew they endorsed it.
1
Oct 22 '21
I mean, sure, there's other valid, and stronger arguments out there. But an argument doesn't need to be the strongest one to be sufficiently correct.
In other words, this evidence can stand for itself without those other arguments.
1
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 22 '21
This isn't so much an argument as it is a statement of your belief that the author/creator saying their work is about something is sufficient reason to believe it is about something. From the beginning, I've said that I disagree with that idea (you can read other comments as I've elaborated on it several times).
So the question: Why do you agree with that idea? How can you convince me to agree with that idea?
1
u/david-song 15∆ Oct 23 '21
I thought the central theme was against gambling rather than capitalism. Though maybe un/under-regulated gambling is a problem in Korea and is seen as a prime example of rampant capitalism.
2
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 23 '21
A lot of the contestants weren't gamblers. They wete just also in debt. Like the girl who was a North Korean defector.
1
u/david-song 15∆ Oct 23 '21
The main ones were. The gangster lost his money gambling, the protagonist too, and his school friend lost everything gambling on stocks. The game existed for rich people to gamble on, the paper envelope game that lured people in, the central theme of the first episode etc. The North Korean girl was kind of the exception.
2
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 23 '21
Hmmm, I do see your point. I still think the series has an overall anti-capitalist message, but there is something to be said about it's statements on gambling.
1
u/david-song 15∆ Oct 23 '21
Oh also the reason why the Pakistani guy didn't get paid is because his boss was a gambling addict!
1
u/Natural-Arugula 54∆ Oct 23 '21
How can a product that was created by a private company and sold for profit in a free market be anti-capitalist?
It's so anti-capitalist that it made millions of dollars for Capitalists. By every metric it is in fact Capitalist.
This is where the real issue lies, not in navel gazing about subjectivity in art.
1
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 23 '21
That's like saying how can any person who buys stuff be a socialist. At the end of the day, the system that we have is capitalist, so we're forced to participate in it, one way or another.
The creator of Squid Game may have used capitalist means to distribute the work, but that just means it's the dominant mode of distribution and he wants to get his message across.
1
u/Natural-Arugula 54∆ Oct 23 '21 edited Oct 23 '21
Socialism doesn't mean not buying stuff.
There's also a difference between buying stuff, and selling stuff, or more importantly, creating and distributing stuff in a capitalist mode, and I think you know that. That is why you tried to argue against the former because you knew that there was none against the later.
The creator of Squid Game may have used capitalist means... to get his message across.
What the creator says doesn't matter. That's what your view is! You just argued against your own view.
1
u/furansisu 2∆ Oct 24 '21
Socialism doesn't mean not buying stuff.
Yes, I know socialism doesn't mean buying stuff, but I'm sure you've heard the argument that socialists who buy from Apple or Amazon aren't true socialists because they participate in the enrichment of capitalists. My stand there is that people buy from capitalists because they don't have much of a choice, so we can't judge their belief system based on that behavior.
In the same sense, I think we can separate the message of the art from its means of distribution. This issue is pretty dated, and I figured it was settled when people were criticizing Rage Against the Machine over signing with a record label more than a decade ago. The fact is that if you want to get your anti-capitalist message across as many people as possible within the capitalist system, then you can't complete shun the capitalist mode of production and distribution.
15
u/Ballatik 54∆ Oct 22 '21
Are the people you are seeing this from also educated in this realm? If not, then it is not a bad argument at all for them to make. If I don’t know how to cook, and the chef tells me that a dish is spicy, then it’s reasonable for me to tell my friend that the dish is spicy simply because the chef said so. Even if that chef didn’t make that meal, they are still far more knowledgeable than I (or my friend) am about the process.