Thinking About Author Intent
Find a comment war on the internet about whether or not something is offensive, and you'll probably find a heated argument about what the author/artist/poster/speaker intended. Often, this is a variation of 'no offense'; someone defending something problematic instead of apologising or genuinely exploring the issue.
However, when looking at literature, or a primary source, I find it very helpful to think about what the author intended and if that's different from your reading. (This certainly applies to TV and movies, but it's a bit messier, given the more collaborative nature of the medium). Even if you think the author was totally off-base, thinking about what they intended to convey and why they failed allows for a more nuanced understanding.
First, look for satire. Because different authors and cultures convey this in different ways, it's not always obvious, and there are numerous famous examples of works that have been read as totally serious when they're in fact satirical.
Second, it's a good idea to look at cultural context. A lot of critical stuff can get lost in translation and completely change the meaning of the story. For example, I was discussing a relatively mediocre Japanese movie (the name of which I've totally forgotten) with my mom, and she was confused about one scene in which someone received a business card, and it was treated as a pivotal moment. Actually, business cards are, well, serious business in Japanese culture. Viewers in Japan would be expected to know this, while for American viewers, the scene was weird and pointless.
There can also be cross-cultural misunderstandings on a larger scale, based on a difference in core values. For example, there's a German fairy tale from the middle ages about a poor orphaned boy who shows his devotion to God by offering his food to the crucifix at his church. The pious boy then dies mid church service. This comes off as some combination of tragic and creepy to modern readers, but it was honestly intended to have a happy ending, since its audience (in a culture with lots of emphasis on the afterlife) saw the story as 'boy doesn't have to suffer anymore-- he got whisked off to Heaven! Yay!'.
Whether you're doing research by reading primary sources, scouring for ideas, or just enjoying yourself, it's a good idea to go beyond the face value of a story-- particularly if it comes off as offensive or troubling-- and look for the complexities that make it fail or work.
However, when looking at literature, or a primary source, I find it very helpful to think about what the author intended and if that's different from your reading. (This certainly applies to TV and movies, but it's a bit messier, given the more collaborative nature of the medium). Even if you think the author was totally off-base, thinking about what they intended to convey and why they failed allows for a more nuanced understanding.
First, look for satire. Because different authors and cultures convey this in different ways, it's not always obvious, and there are numerous famous examples of works that have been read as totally serious when they're in fact satirical.
Second, it's a good idea to look at cultural context. A lot of critical stuff can get lost in translation and completely change the meaning of the story. For example, I was discussing a relatively mediocre Japanese movie (the name of which I've totally forgotten) with my mom, and she was confused about one scene in which someone received a business card, and it was treated as a pivotal moment. Actually, business cards are, well, serious business in Japanese culture. Viewers in Japan would be expected to know this, while for American viewers, the scene was weird and pointless.
There can also be cross-cultural misunderstandings on a larger scale, based on a difference in core values. For example, there's a German fairy tale from the middle ages about a poor orphaned boy who shows his devotion to God by offering his food to the crucifix at his church. The pious boy then dies mid church service. This comes off as some combination of tragic and creepy to modern readers, but it was honestly intended to have a happy ending, since its audience (in a culture with lots of emphasis on the afterlife) saw the story as 'boy doesn't have to suffer anymore-- he got whisked off to Heaven! Yay!'.
Whether you're doing research by reading primary sources, scouring for ideas, or just enjoying yourself, it's a good idea to go beyond the face value of a story-- particularly if it comes off as offensive or troubling-- and look for the complexities that make it fail or work.
No comments have been added yet.
