Death of the Author

[Anonymous No.21521404]

How can we apply Death of the Author to writers who spread hate?

[Anonymous No.21521417]

What do you mean by the "death of the author" (different people have different ideas about this).
Give examples of writers who spread hate?

[Anonymous No.21521421]

>>21521417
>What do you mean by the "death of the author" (different people have different ideas about this).
Making our own meaning and removing any intent, making way for an infinite reading.
>Give examples of writers who spread hate?
Those who spread hatred include JK Rowling (TERF), Nazis (Heidegger), and anyone who uses slurs without coming from a place of lived experience (Cormac McCarthy).

[Anonymous No.21521427]

I will never understand why some ciswomen simp so hard for trannies or why trannies get so buttblasted by Rowling. She's not saying they can't take their hormones.

[Anonymous No.21521428]

Ayo how bout that thic bitch spread her cheeks on this dick senpai

[Anonymous No.21521440]

>>21521421
Rowling never included anything about trannies in her books, there's no hateful intent to remove.

[Anonymous No.21521445]

>>21521440
She didn't include any gender nonconforming folx; her silence is violence.

[Anonymous No.21521457]

how miserable have you got to be to post such poor bait. this board never fails in bringing despair to anyone slightly liking literature

[Anonymous No.21521461]

>>21521404
No need and counter intuitive to understanding.
Simply identify the probable mindset of the creator in the process of making their work, then identify what particulars may have caused a disagreement between your take and theirs in whatever other field.

You can respect/enjoy aspects of someone while not agreeing with them in total. simply make that distinction.

[Anonymous No.21521462]

>>21521421
>Making our own meaning and removing any intent, making way for an infinite reading.
Sounds like a tranny idea. Let me guess, you also think there are infinite genders?

[Anonymous No.21521466]

>>21521440
lol didn't she write a book about some crossdressing bathroom invading rapist after her first bout of being called a terf

[Anonymous No.21521478]

>>21521462
It's not my job to educate you.

[Anonymous No.21521488]

>>21521404
Reminder that Lindsey Ellis was canceled by the very troons she champions for calling “Raya and the Last Dragon” an “Avatar Airbending clone”

[Anonymous No.21521507]

>>21521488
Attempted “cancellation”. She just left. Hopefully sides with Rowling now.

Sage, report, ignore Twitter threads.
Death of the OP start with you

[Anonymous No.21521511]

>>21521507
>Twitter threads
It's still discourse. It's still Text. Your reading of books is coloured by the discourse-text-function.

[Anonymous No.21521517]

>>21521488
It was justified

[Anonymous No.21521522]

>>21521462
chuds are so easily triggered
>>21521478
this book is batshit in the best way. kino really

[Anonymous No.21521534]

She, like many others, are just upset consumerists who think morality is found in the material.

Nothing in the books causes trans people to die by merely reading them. Neither does giving Rowling a dollar cause a trans genocide.

I really wish a lot of these idiots would simply kill themselves so we can stop spending time on such nonsense that they monetize.

[Anonymous No.21521536]

>>21521404
I don't know why it's so hard for millennials to separate the art from the artist.
Literally no one thinks of Caravaggio's or Bacon's paintings (to name few) as works made by a possible pederast or an incestuos faggot, nor the Sistine Chapel is seen as a political piece commissioned by the Pope against the Protestant reforms, they are seen as what they are and independently of whoever who made then.

[Anonymous No.21521539]

>>21521534
>She, like many others, are just upset consumerists who think morality is found in the material.
>She, like many others, are just upset consumerists who think morality is found in the material.
So you think their morality can be found in their material?

[Anonymous No.21521540]

>>21521522
>memespeak
You are in the wrong board.

[Anonymous No.21521557]

>>21521404
wyd dollar store Susan Sontag?

[Anonymous No.21521609]

>>21521557

[Anonymous No.21521611]

>>21521466
she didn't.

[Anonymous No.21521618]

>>21521404
Is Lindsay still as insufferable as ever?

[Anonymous No.21521642]

>>21521466
no, she wrote a book about some crossdressing bathroom invading rapist before her first bout of being called a terf

[Anonymous No.21521653]

>>21521421
>Making our own meaning and removing any intent, making way for an infinite reading.
That is not Death of the Author, that is the eternal midwit squandering their few brain cells on /pol/. You should actually read it, it is not very long. Criticism provides better methods for achieving your goal which are not built around just making shit up and can be supported but they require actually reading and comprehending so probably not the best path for you.

[Anonymous No.21521677]

>>21521653
>Here's my own intentionalist reading of a non-intentionalist criticism
Lol.

[Anonymous No.21521693]

I don't understand the desperate scrambling happening where people feel they need to reconcile enjoying the harry potter books with some more recent thing Rowling does.
To those people trying to cope with this: Haven't you already read the books? Haven't you already gotten enjoyment out of them? There was no barrier of negative reputation then; so there was no reason you shouldn't have enjoyed it at the time.
Read another book, and perhaps the author of that one will commit murder-suicide in 20 years time. Nobody knows what the future will bring. Time moves forward and the things that we read and consume are left in the past along with the past versions of ourselves, and only some of each will carry itself through our present self into the future.
If you intend to critique Harry Potter, then the concept of death of the author becomes relevent to that specific critique, however virtually everyone having this conversation about Rowling does not intend to critique Harry Potter at all, but instead use it like a child's comfort blanket, and uncritically decorate their house with Harry Potter merchandise and watch new Harry Potter movies and games, and perhaps - if anything - critique the author alone.
The books are genuinely not worth the time to critique, what people are actually interested in is critiquing the casual usage of Harry Potter as cultural currency, much in the same way people are interested in critiquing the casual use of single-serve plastics.

[Anonymous No.21521695]

What is hate? Is hate a bad thing? Are you sure of your answers?

[Anonymous No.21521703]

>>21521611
>>21521642
im getting mixed signals here

[Anonymous No.21521710]

>>21521488
>1488

[Anonymous No.21521718]

Is Doug Walker large or is Lindsay a midget?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAvSjTiZYkI

[Anonymous No.21521742]

>>21521677
Nowhere did he refer to Barthes' intent, though.

[Anonymous No.21521748]

>>21521742
If he thinks it has formal properties that point towards one single meaning, then he should have said that. But he didn't.
Barthes also didn't invent the intentionalist fallacy either, so it's weird you are bringing him up.

[Anonymous No.21521781]

>>21521748
>it's weird you are bringing him up.
The other anon literally told you to read Death of the Author.
I'm starting to suspect people who are "anti DOA" are just illiterate morons who have to imagine an author judging them all the time, forcing them to read a text properly.

[Anonymous No.21521803]

>>21521781
>buzzword
>appeal to authority
You aren’t convincing anyone.

[Anonymous No.21522028]

>>21521781
The reason they have issues is because they know nothing of criticism and do not understand that DoA works completely within the standard practices of criticism, an analysis must still be supported by the text. The irony is that DoA actually makes it more difficult to force meaning since you can not use the authors life as you see fit, you can not do things like use Freudian analysis on the author to support your interpretation of their work, you can only use the work itself to support your interpretation.

[Anonymous No.21522035]

>>21521478
Did this nigga really paraphrase Mao? LMFAO

[Anonymous No.21522046]

>>21521404
why does this principle apply to rowling but not to evola's writings on yoga or magic?

[Anonymous No.21522050]

>>21521478
Being a "man" in western countries means:
>Trading labour for a regular wage, often in menial blue collar positions that only derive value from the use of your physical body as a disposable tool; a situation that would have been seen as synonymous with slavery and the most morally repugnant forms of servitude for most of human history, but is seen as central to masculinity today
>Wasting your youth trading capital for access to vagina, either by going to bars, buying expensive status symbols, or paying for Tinder Pro. Then in your middle age, marrying a woman who's prime reproductive years are behind her, who is below you in socio-economic station, and PAYING her to EXIST. You must also submit to a complicated legal system whereby she can decide at any time to cuckhold you and you must accordingly give her half of everything you own, and continue to pay her for her existence.
>Submitting to a lifetime of quasi-slavery by taking continuously larger loans from the zionist-world-empire central banking system, and proving that you can obediently pay them back with interest by committing yourself to a lifetime of diligent wage-slavery. Devoting the majority of your youth doing this will allow you to "own a house", which is to say, you will be allowed to live in a house that is owned by the banks.
>Spending the whatever free time you have (and it can't be much, mind you, since idleness is definitely NOT MANLY) in "self improvement", that is, either conditioning yourself to be a better and more efficient slave to your boss and the bankers who own you, or lifting heavy things up and down so that you can articulate parts of your body which women have arbitrary deemed sexy. As a man, your value is directly correlated with whatever value capitalists and women have decided for you, so its very important to make yourself useful to them.
It doesn't matter how much a bunch of shabbos goys and transvestites sit around "debating" this issue, since neither are capable of articulating a coherent alternative that isn't just a variation of dancing around these points.

[Anonymous No.21522077]

>>21521803
>strawman
>ad hominem
>fallacy fallacy
sheesh!

[Anonymous No.21522115]

>>21521404
Is the author spreading it in the work? If not, them just do it. If the work talks explicitly or moralizes in a way to say, convince the readers to kill all Chinese people in their community it can be hard to separate the work from its author intended message, but if a avowed racist writes a song about loving his wife and you like the tune, just don't give the guy money, pirate it and move on.
If we can't like shit from awful people, we can't like nothing from the past because by our standards they were awful. Like those Greek statues, Greek mythology? They were slave owning xenophobes who coined the term barbarian. I could go on, but I think you got the point.

[Anonymous No.21522440]

>>21521421
I sincerely hope you get trapped in a burning vehicle.

[Anonymous No.21522445]

>>21521522
>>21521478
Ywnbaw

[Anonymous No.21522553]

>>21522077
You don’t know what those words mean.
>fallacy fallacy
You just used one then.

[Anonymous No.21522560]

>>21522115
>Like those Greek statues, Greek mythology? They were slave owning xenophobes who coined the term barbarian.
We should ban every and any work of the patriarchy, starting with Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.21522563]

>>21522440
It’s obviously bait. Do you really think a Reddit faggot would be comfortable here?

[Anonymous No.21523274]

>>21521404
Fuck em, they're dead.