Bugs and Helldivers and nonsense, oh my! Like usual, I’m late to the party because I don’t dash off up-to-the-minute cultural commentary mainly because I have a life, but I’m also a bit lazy, and doing so doesn’t interest me. But this stupid controversy1 about the 20-plus-year-old Starship Troopers movie and how it should be interpreted is interesting, not for the movie itself, but the concept of authorial intent.
I’ll spoil the point of this post up front: Anyone who selectively espouses “death of the author” type criticism when it suits their personal politics but not when it doesn’t suit their personal politics deserve no quarter and should be made fun of mercilessly and have the same done to them. Hijack their stuff and defend your own. Is that hypocritical? You bet. But they started it so they can kiss my entire backside.
The death of the author is Roland Barthes’ idea that a work means what its readers (or viewers, or listeners, etc.) think it means, and that an author generally “gives up” their work once it is released to the public.2 I’m more of an authorial intent guy, since Barthes’ formulation smacks too much of post-modern malleable truth for my liking, but I can at least understand the idea behind the death of the author even if I think proclaiming the author “dead” is extreme and false. Greatly exaggerated, even.
Things are always going to be interpreted differently by different people. Sometimes that ambiguity is the author’s intent. And sometimes authors are very clear about what their stories are supposed to mean. Sometimes filmmakers from Holland with a penchant for over-the-top satire can’t deal with a certain segment of people they disagree with politically taking something different from their work despite the filmmakers’ clear intent to piss all over their ideals. What do you do?
Do it back because it’s hilarious.
For example,
and recently discussed how, in attempting to make things “fascist-coded,” authors or filmmakers or game designers tend to is make things like patriotism, civic pride, physical attractiveness, clean streets, and low crime look awesome, because these are apparently among the things we can’t have the Our Democracy™️ they’re contrasting their work with, because those things are racist3 or something. I never understood this argument because it’s really stupid.Actually, I do, and it’s one reason why I have tried to move beyond ideology. Ideology keeps you trapped, whether it’s progressive ideology or conservative ideology or whatever. Ideology gives you a checklist to see if you’re supposed to think something is good or bad, and anything not on that checklist is verboten. Anathema, even. Ideology is a mind killer and is why we can’t have nice things anymore.
Things that are awesome and attainable have to be cast as evil because then people might start asking pesky questions, like “Why does my neighborhood have to be a dump?” and “Why does food have to be so expensive?” and “Shouldn’t we do something about all this fentanyl?” and maybe even “Why are we just letting anyone into the country at all times for no reason when we have all these other problems?” People might realize our leaders are, maybe, quite possibly, making things worse on purpose out of sheer malice?
Stories can help highlight these contradictions better than any white paper or derailed statistical analysis. This is is why the culture war matters so much despite all you respectable bow-tie fondling dorks tut-tutting about how it’s so beneath you and embarrassing. This attitude is why you lose, all of the time.
No, culture isn’t the silver bullet to remaking society for the better. But it’s a bullet that can be used in conjunction with other bullets and other weapons. Maybe I’ll use the word “tool” instead to be less violent. But a gun is a tool, right Shane?
What does this have to do with authorial intent? It’s that the opinions of these civilization-ruiners do not deserve to be treated with any amount of respect.
The clowns that interpret beloved classics of western civilization like The Lord of the Rings and want to ship Frodo and Sam, but bristle when those on the right identify with the Joker the humans in Starship Troopers or whatever because of authorial intent (“They’re making fun of you!” they impotently spitter) can suck it. Defend what should be defended and hijack what can be hijacked and point and laugh.
Better yet, make your own stories. But that’s a discussion for another day.
Co-opt everything you can, because the people who are now shouting that authorial intent matters only in certain cases do not deserve any respect whatsoever. You don’t get to do that. You don’t get to forcibly insert your own dumb rules did the old ones, and then dust off an ancient copy of the old rulebook that you discarded to make a point now.
“Media literacy” . . . get the hell out of here. I’ll take “He’s just like me!” mainly because it’s funnier and the people it pisses off people have no honor. Zero. None. They’re not interested in discourse anyway. How do I know? Have you ever tried engaging in good-faith with committed ideologues? It’s worse than talking to a wall, because at least the wall isn’t dying to smash your head in with a bike lock.
- Alexander
Now,
, the writer who kicked off this tiff, is not stupid at all. He’s correct too. And in the interests of full disclosure, he was a mutual when I was still on bird app. Smart guy, that Isaac.I knew nothing about Barthes prior to looking up “death of the author” for this article. I never pretended to be smart.
Because doing things that will improve the lives of all Americans regardless of their identity is racist for, uh, reasons . . .
The same people that scoffed at good and evil in stories then tried to make you believe it was meaningless and all grey, now reassert good and evil exist but are the opposite of what they used to be. That was always the game, and it is why they should be clowned on and dismissed.
Death of the Author is a pernicious idea because it is half right. Stories do take on a life of their own, and an author can write something with the opposite message that he intended. However, where this goes wrong is that the Left uses this an excuse to interpret everything through their frame.