#death of the author | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

0pin0n-custard · 2 years

Text

The Unpopular Truth About the Batfam and DC as a Whole.

*TW brief mention of CSA*

(Edited for clarifications)

DC is inconsistent on its best days. There are infinite universes, and literally every timeline and AU that DC creates is technically canon, no matter how terrible it is.

For example, when I was a kid watching Teen Titans, I thought Slade was awesome! He was my favorite villain for a long while. Low and behold, I get older, read more comics, and realize that he’s a pedo. While I still think he’s a fantastic villain, that certainly took him down a few pegs in my brain.

(Edit: this is just a me thing. You are still allowed to like a morally bad character so long as you recognize that what they do is bad.)

If someone says their favorite villain is Heath Ledger’s Joker, I don’t bat an eye. If someone says that Alan Moore’s Joker is their favorite, I get concerned.

(Edit: this is in reference to the dudebros who relate to the Joker a little too much. You know the type.)

Same thing goes for the Batfam.

The characterization of the Batfam members is so inconsistent that it’s honestly hard to keep track of sometimes. You read one version of Damian Wayne and he’s talking about blood purity. You read a different version, and he’s using “chickens” as a curse word. It is a problem. No one has consistent character writing.

(Edit: Damian didn’t use “chickens as a cuss word. Many people, myself included, misread it as such. But my point still stands that Damian’s characterization is hella inconsistent.)

I could say “Batman is an implied pedo,” and every single Batman fan would want to argue. I want to argue!! But it’s true! In Frank Miller’s All Star Batman & Robin, Bruce, he kidnaps Dick Grayson and abuses him severely. It’s heavily implied that Bruce is attracted to Dick, it’s straight up shown that he grooms him, and it’s implied that he abuses him in that way. I absolutely loathe Frank Miller’s Batman for many reasons, but this is at the top of the list.

(Edit: Frank Miller probably didn’t intend for Batman to come off as predatory, but the actual content still heavily implies it regardless.)

Batman isn’t the only one.

There are versions of every Batfam member that I dislike for one reason or another. I have to live with the knowledge that Devin Grayson’s Nightwing exists, and there’s nothing I can do about it.

DC canon is a nightmare amalgamation of inconsistency, unsatisfactory storylines, unaddressed and mishandled trauma, and terrible behaviors from our “heroes.”

Don’t get me wrong; I love DC. I wouldn’t have read thousands of their comics, sat through all of their movies, and I wouldn’t be writing this post if I didn’t. But they are very very far from perfect.

All this to say, I don’t agree with a lot of comic fans who shame others for preferring fanon character depictions over canon ones. If you prefer fanon over canon, good for you! So do I! A lot of the time, the fanon comes from combining the best aspects of a character from different canons.

So don’t shame fans who haven’t read the comics, or who prefer fanon over canon. Because when it comes to DC, what is canon anyways?

(Edit: Yes, I’m aware that poor-taste fanon interpretations exist. Just like canon, fanon isn’t always going to be good. Don’t go harass people over it.)

TLDR: Death of the Author FTW

5K notes · View notes

hayateart · 1 month

Text

There are 300 days left until I start uploading 'Death of the Author' Moshang fancomic here, and I just finished working on page 50!

To celebrate, here are some of my favourite panels so far:

Airplane doing finger guns at Cucumer. You know, just bro stuff.

Mobei just towering over Qinghua. This is a recurring theme, btw.

This face ^

And this one! ^ :D

Qinghua fantasizing about his future. I spent over an hour drawing the flowers for this panel.

Mobei smiling upon seeing his hamster. Pure love.

And to end with - Qinghua threatening the demons! They fing him all so hot for this!

Most of the background characters are borrowed from different works, both other danmei and Japanese/European/American origin. However, there will be some OCs as well:

Ling Shumei from 'God's Tears' makes a re-appearance and this time two of my oldest OCs are joining her. Alex, as a moth demon and court healer, and Loki, as a European devil/vampire and another one of Qinghua's assistants.

I'm working on chapter 3 now, and there is so much more left to be done! The comic was planned for 17 chapters - it's 16 now since I will be merging chapters 4 and 5 into one.

I know it will be a long wait but I hope it will be worth it. I am having so much fun working on this project! I hope you will enjoy it as much as I do.

Early access to comic is available to my supporters on Ko-fi. Comic will come to Tumblr and AO3 with weekly updates, starting 1st January 2025.

#svsss #moshang #mobei jun #shang qinghua #mxtx #fan comic #death of the author #update #my art #shen qingqiu #luo binghe #bingqiu #oc loki #oc alex #ocs #oc ling shumei #alexander ambrose #loki ambrose

123 notes · View notes

the-meghan-m · 7 months

Text

You know what’s cool about having a favorite show and rewatching it throughout your life? You never see the same show twice. As you change, so does the show. For instance, once I could get through the abduction arc no problem, and now it makes me weep into my pillow! I used to think “3” was bad and turns out it’s not (entirely)! Feelings, opinions, perceptions, interpretations, they all shift over time. It’s one of the reasons I’m (for the most part) a proponent of Death of the Author. Art is a prism and our readings are the fractals of light, etc etc

#that being said some of my opinions have not changed #but I’ll leave those for another day lol #the x files #x files #mulder #fox mulder #msr #scully #dana scully #mulder and scully #txf #txf s2 #death of the author

157 notes · View notes

januscorner · 2 months

Text

WATCH THIS ESPECIALLY IF YOU’RE ALLO

youtube

79 notes · View notes

amorphousbl0b · 3 months

Text

Watched Nimona last night and a thought occurred to me.

The knights’ armor doesn’t seem to be very protective against their swords. Bal’s arm is easily severed and we are led to believe that a stab through the stomach would not only be possible but would kill Ambrosius.

And yet. Characters wearing the armor survive a LOT. Ballister is beaten to hell and back by several incidents, random guards are tossed around without raising worries about their health (which Bal definitely would do if they were in real danger), and Todd survives his serious crash in the finale with major but recoverable injuries. It seems to be effective. It seems that it is protective, that it can shrug off damage that would be more dangerous to an unarmored person. But it’s utterly useless against their own swords.

The kingdom’s police force is wearing equipment that is clearly not meant for combat with an equal but protects against any weaponry a common citizen could wield. The knights are designed for oppression right down to their gear.

#nimona #unintentional detail?#maybe #death of the author #this movie is so good #nimona said acab

100 notes · View notes

thepixelblender · 5 months

Text

looove that they get drafted into the daidoji, by the way. not only thematically fitting (climb to power and enjoy the view from the top guys forced back at the bottom of the ladder in a system where you're little more than a nameless agent and the most you can hope for is a pat on the head) but the funniest possible ending

#also puts them in the overwhelming minority of ykz antags who live which is a win for me !#rgg #yakuza #like a dragon #gaiden #rgg gaiden #yakuza gaiden #like a dragon gaiden #gaiden spoilers #kosei shishido #shishido kosei #homare nishitani III #nishitani homare III #yoshimura #ghozt art #doodle #shitpost #death of the author

99 notes · View notes

writerbuddha · 5 months

Text

When “Death to the Author!” poses as “Death of the Author”

The literary theory called "Death of the Author" was developed by French philosopher Roland Barthes in his essay “The Death of the Author” in 1967. The theory declares that the author's intention and biography are not relevant to the interpretation of the text, rather, its meaning is determined by the interpretation of the given reader. This is understood as meaning that an author’s view about their own work is no more or less valid than the interpretations of any given reader.

However, most often than doesn't, what some calls "Death of the Author" is, in truth, “Death to the Author!” which we shall define as a given reader or viewer's, a fan's desire to legitimately re-imagine and retell the story told by the author. The “Death to the Author!” theory argues that the author has no more or less say in what is part of their story than readers or viewers, that the elements they invented and inserted into the story are must be treated just as integral parts of it as the work of the author. What message and lesson, philosophy and set of values the author intended to communicate through their work of fiction is treated as relevant only to the author, since these things are changing depending on which story element is replaced, altered or "completed" by any given reader or viewer, based on their own ideas, beliefs, views, opinions and values. In its most extreme, the events, characters, arcs and fictional universe of the story are all treated as a reality existing independently from the author, and it's asserted that the author's narrative is only one take on that reality.

"Death to the Author!" is rarely articulated and in most cases, it's not even conscious, but it's relatively easy to spot it in a fan's toolkit. The most prominent sign of “Death to the Author!” is the fan asserting information about characters’ background, motivations, wants, likes and dislikes, mental and emotional processes, organizations’ history and activity and so on that are simply cannot be derived from, in its most extreme, outright in conflict with the source material itself. And sometimes, when the fact that these alleged informations cannot be located in the source material is revealed, the fan might try to assert that fans have a moral, ethical responsibility to “complete” and to "correct" the work of fiction with said fan-invented content, so it will be authentic, since its absence from the story is simply the result of the author’s moral and ethical failure and ignorance.

Proponents of “Death to the Author!” often seek to legitimize their theory by claiming, it's deconstructionism. Deconstructionism was created by French philosopher Jacques Derrida. As a literary theory, deconstruction is the close, detailed analysis of texts, so one can find underlying presuppositions that structures of meaning rely on, trying to find clues that give away alternate or contradictory meanings. For example, if a reader or viewer can see how a literary text or a movie intentionally correlates light with "goodness" and darkness with "evil", a reader might begin to question the truth of these correlations. If darkness represents evil in Star Wars, how come that the storm troopers are all white, just like Princess Leia? How come that Luke Skywalker wears black? A deconstructionist recognizes how the text or movie plays with the assumptions readers and viewers make based on connotations of the words and the images they create, enhancing the tension in the story, and undermining the possibility of the text or movie creating only one meaning. Fan "deconstruction" is related to deconstruction, but it's different: it means, fans are looking at tropes and asking, "how this trope would play out in the real life?" However, proponents of “Death to the Author!” are not deconstructionists, they only use the word as a cop-out.

For them, “deconstruction” is to take parts of the story out of context, filling them up with any meaning that the given reader or viewer wishes them to mean, based on their beliefs, ideas, views and opinions, e.g. "X is a politician. I am convinced that politicians are corrupt. Therefore, X is corrupt, even though the story doesn't explicitly shows it," then putting the modified elements back into the story and referring to them as evidence that would support the “deconstructionist’s” claim, "X is a corrupt character who should be in jail." The “deconstructionist” would argue, all they did was asking the question, “how this story element would play out in the real life” or they were just "reading between the lines" or "found the subtext." It shouldn’t be hard to see that this wasn’t what happened. The only thing that "deconstructionists" and deconstructionists may have in common is the conviction that it's not possible for a movie or a text to create only one meaning with the set of semantic signs they operate with, however, “Death to the Author!” tries to use this notion to escape the burden of proof: if there is no one absolute meaning of a text or a movie, then one can assign to them any meaning they want. This is, however, not what deconstruction means, and those who say “Death to the Author!” are eventually starting to talk about their right to believe and say what they wish to believe and say and can end up decrying the author's position as "privileged" or "elitist" "oppressive" and so on and call for the "democratization" of the fandom or the work of fiction itself - this, however, a call to erase the work of fiction and to metaphorically kill - and rob - the author.

Although "Death of the Author" wishes to make authors' intentions and biography irrelevant when it comes to interpretations of their works, there is nothing in "Death of the Author" that would prevent the respectful preservation of informations about authors' intentions and biography and acknowledgment of the meaning they hoped to convey to their readers or audiences. This is the preservation of the knowledge and history of the past, communicated through arts, and it's necessary for the normal functioning of any culture and society. By contrast, "Death to the Author!" is an assault on the author and an assault on their works. In truth, it's the unwillingness to engage in the exchange of views, opinions and ideas, and to allow our own views, opinions and ideas to be challenged by others. This makes "Death to the Author!" a symptom of a dangerous attitude becoming more and more common in communities and this makes it a version of book burning: it's an attempt to erase artistic content that is not in line with a given fan’s system of likes and dislikes, ideology, views, opinions, beliefs, values, and it's the demand for the freedom to first spread and eventually to impose an "interpretation" of the content that does. This time, the erasure is not physical, since the loathed works are still there, physically, but they are robbed from their voice, and it's no longer able to reach its audience.

#death of the author #death to the author #fandom problems #censorship #literature #George lucas #star wars #fandom #fandom culture

106 notes · View notes

houlebubo · 1 year

Text

One day I'll probably do a 40-minute video essay on this topic, but the internet's misinterpretation of "Death of the Author" is just a real shame.

I frequently see the concept brought up in relation to a certain terf author. People attempt to 'separate the work and the author', but that is frankly not how it is intended to be used.

"Death of the Author" is supposed to be a tool for literary analysis. That's all it is. It is not a theory by itself, nor a political stance or a way to judge morality.

It is a tool to encourage readers to interpret the content of a text authentically, but you should use it critically, and be aware of why, how and when it is relevant. It is not an excuse to ignore context or paratext, as both of those should also be considered in a proper analysis.

The tool was developed during a time when the discourse was more favourable towards an author's intention rather than a reader's interpretation. People used intention to dismiss other readers' analysis of texts, using diary entries or letters by dead authors to counter less mainstream takes of canon texts. It was a period where the 'goal' of literary analysis was to uncover a text's true meaning. The original essay was a short controversial counterargument but the conversations it sparked over the following decades have led to the scale tipping more in favour of interpretation. It has also led to a 180 of the original problem.

Killing the author has the potential of empowering readers and encouraging deeper. Maybe even uncovering biases the author wasn't even aware of! However, (mostly outside of academic circles but not always) people are misusing the concept and use it to dismiss context and racist dog-whistles as well as discourage readings that rely more on subtext.

In simple terms we have gone from a mentality saying "AHA, I have evidence and it said you are wrong" to "AHA, it doesn't matter and therefore you are wrong". Neither is constructive in a conversation about art.

If you use the death of the author effectively while acknowledging intention and context you actually add a lot of nuance to your analysis, and doing so can demonstrate your analytical abilities. You will be able to distinguish what the text is saying plainly, what is said between the lines, and if the narrative effectively handles what it originally claimed. It is an effective 1-2 punch. Let me give you an ultra-short example:

On the surface level, '50 Shades of Grey' tells you that it is a sexy BDSM story. Throughout interviews and promotional material, E. L. James frames her story as a female-empowering book. But by critically examining how the books handle themes of consent, privacy, agency etc. we can argue that the narrative doesn't live up to proper BDSM conduct and that the protagonist is not empowered, and is instead displaying an unhealthy relationship. If we take the analysis further we could make an argument about what this says about society at large. Does it normalise boundary-breaking behaviour? Could it make someone romanticise stalking? The thesis statement is all up to you. (disclaimer I have not actually read these books, don't come for me, this is an example)

Here is what we just did: I presented a surface reading of a text. I presented the most likely intention of the author. I then argued for my interpretation by looking at literary themes and context. I used the conflict between Jame's intention, and my interpretation to illustrate a conflict. 1-2 punch. I am not killing James, I consider her opinion and intention to strengthen my argument, but I don't let her word of god determine or dismiss my reading. In just 3 simple sentences I use a variety of resources from my toolbox.

When people weaponise the author's intention it can look like this:

"Well, E. L. James said it is a female power fantasy, you're just reading too much into it" <- dismissing context and subtext by using 'word of god'. Weighing intention above interpretation.

"Does it really matter that E. L. James didn't research BDSM before publishing, can't it just be a sexy book?" <- dismissing context, subtext as well as author intention and accountability. Weighing their own interpretation and subtly killing the author

Simply exclaiming "I believe in death of the author" (which I have heard in Lit classes) means nothing. It's nothing. Except that you want to ignore context and only indulge in the parts of the text that you find enjoyable.

In the plainest way I can put it, the death of the author is supposed to make you say: "the author probably meant A, but the text and the context is saying B, therefore I conclude C". Don't just repeat what the author says. Don't just ignore context. And allow the feelings the text invokes in you to be there and let them be something you reflect on. The details you pick up on will be completely unique to you, the meaning you get will be just your own. You can do all of these things at once, I promise it doesn't have to be one or the other.

There has to be a balance. Intention matters. Interpretation matter. Watch out and pay attention. Are you only claiming the author is dead or alive when it serves your own narrative?

When you want to ignore an author ask why

When you don't want to read a book because you don't condone the actions of the author ask why

Examine how you dismiss arguments and how you further conversations.

#literature #lit #uni #death of the author #i don't write long tumblr posts what the fuck is this #i take constructive criticism but be nice about it #English is not my first language there are probably a ton of mistakes and weird things in this #analysis #i'll probably delete this thing #but i'll post it for now i guess because I have been writing on it for too long

644 notes · View notes

weemstar · 1 year

Text

With the current news about the antisemitic fuckhead known as Kanye West trending, I have been seeing people say "death of the author" in response to if it's alright to continue listening to his music

Let me be brutally clear: death of the author does not mean what you think it means

"Death Of The Author" specifically is in reference to the theory that a creator can not put meaning behind work, but instead only create something through THEIR EXPERIENCES AND BIASES (this is important) and let the audience put meaning onto it themselves, because art is subjective.

So when you create something, you are putting pieces of yourself into the work you create, since humans are silly creatures who tend to think within the scope of their own life and experiences. He has put pieces of his rotten way of thinking into everything he has touched, and unfortunately he makes money off every single click or stream of his music. When you support his music, even the old stuff, you are literally giving money to the things he's saying. Past and present.

Death Of The Author is NOT

Enjoying things regardless of who made them

Ignoring the implications within a creative work simply because you like it and do not want to feel bad about liking it

Completely disregarding entire communities of people who's very existences are at risk just so you don't have to acknowledge your own inner problems such as racism, ableism, homophobia, etc

"But Weems," I hear you cry, "Kanye wasn't saying these things when he made this music!"

No you're right, he wasn't always mentally unstable and quite literally spewing Nazi rhetoric openly, but for the past decade, he's been getting to this point and he ABSOLUTELY has been showing signs of megalomaniac tendencies ("I told you who I am! A God!").

Again, if you're giving him any attention right now through his music, you're literally paying him to continue to act like this. Even if you pirate it or have had it for awhile, that includes you types before you say "but what about-"

Honestly I don't think his music is even worth potentially labeling yourself a Nazi-sympathizer.

And now you know what "Death Of The Author" means and why it does not apply.

So start correcting people and shutting down the idea that we can still consume products or creative works made by people who want to commit genocide when their bigotry is literally engraved into the work they've put out.

Support your local Jewish and Romani creators.

Have a nice day

#kanye west #death of the author #fuck kanye #support your local jewish and romani creators #current events

432 notes · View notes

catgirl-catboy · 11 days

Text

What death of the author doesn't mean: Author, what author? I can enjoy this without thinking of the implications and you can't stop me! (I can't, but don't use 'death of the author' for that please?)

What death of the author DOES mean: The author's intent doesn't matter with how I read the work. It doesn't matter if this sexist work was written by a man or a woman, there are still a ton of internal biases in it. When discussing the thing in question, I'm not looking to what the author thinks they meant, just what was written down.

#fandomless post #death of the author #media literacy #reading comprehension #media criticism

39 notes · View notes

pinnapop · 19 days

Text

death of an author, reclamation, and you

"We never are what we intend, or invent 'Cause I make little lies and then I pull them apart Think something dark's living down in my heart And if I wanted to die before I got old I should've started some years ago digging that hole"

Brand New. "At the Bottom." Daisy, 2009.

Brand New was among one of my favorite bands in high school, and I still listen to them today. Their music is important to me and shaped a big part of who I am. Their lyrics about being tortured, burnt-out, and choking on the weight of your own self-perceived flaws are relatable! Their compositions ooze with a level of self-hatred that can only be genuine. It's utterly depressing, and I adore it!

That's not not the full story, though. Jesse Lacey, the vocalist of Brand New, is a sexual predator. This informs everything about how the music of Brand New is. It's self-loathing for a very good reason. I love Brand New. I condemn Jesse Lacey. These two statements coexist. I used to be a part of the /r/brandnew subreddit, and when the allegations against Jesse Lacey came out in 2017, many redditors of that sub were quick to claim "death of the author." After all, the band had broken up immediately after the news broke, and they had also cancelled their tours. Currently, the people using that subreddit mostly talk about buying old BN merchandise and discuss what their favorite concert memories were. Jesse Lacey himself confirmed that the allegations against him were true, so there isn't much debate to be had. The subreddit serves as a monument for fans who still enjoy the music, and as a platform to speak about it with like-minded fans.

In my opinion, claiming "death of an author" is a slippery slope. We can't always claim that Miku is the creator of Minecraft. But often, we see that that is the response people have when a creator is outed to be problematic; "I still like the thing So-and-So made, so I will ignore that the creator exists!" The reason that this worked for Miku Minecraft is because, by the time that Notch was publicly making transphobic comments, he did not own Minecraft anymore. The joke is quite literally that he does not own the thing that people like. He sold it to Microsoft, so he doesn't get royalties from it anymore. You can play Minecraft devoid of supporting its original creator. This joke works so well because it is an actual case of the death of an author! That's great and all for Minecraft, but what about other instances? What happens when we claim "death of the creator" erroneously? And why are we so obsessed with this concept anyway?

So like, back to Brand New... they released their last album, Science Fiction, back in August 2017. The allegations came out later that same year. I own all of Brand New's discography physically, including their last release. I bought most of it off eBay when I was 15. I was not supporting them post-allegations. But that leaves me with a lingering question- what do I do with all these CDs that I still very much enjoy the music of? From how I see it, there are two firm camps on this topic:

Camp 1: You know about Lacey's crimes now and his music cannot be separated from his actions. Solution: Throw your CDs away.

Camp 2: It's something you bought without knowledge of Lacey's crimes, so you should enjoy it anyway. Death of an author! Solution: Continue as usual.

I'm not fond of either of these answers. They come off as too polarized for a situation that is the entire Pantone swatch library of grays. "But, how are there any shades of gray when its clear that Jesse Lacey is in the wrong?" I want to provide some counter questions for you to think about:

What about the other people in the band? You might not be directly supporting the sexual predator anymore, but there are other victims here too- effectively his band mates lost their jobs overnight. (Another example would be LOSTPROPHETS)

Is it feasible to destroy each object you own because it was created under problematic circumstances? When or when isn't this the case? Does it apply to your cup of coffee? Does it apply to the clothes you wear? What about any product with palm oil in it? What about the hardware in your computer? If you look into any company, you're going to find some horrific things you don't like about it. The takeaway here is that it isn't beneficial to treat situations like these as black or white. I don't think that destroying my CDs is going to do anything to take away the abuse that Jesse Lacey caused. Nor do I think ignoring the context of his music will do anyone any favors. The music he made is a product of his crimes. To ignore that fact would be disingenuous to why people enjoy his music and why the music exists in the first place. There's another element here, though. I, and many others, are no longer monetarily supporting Jesse Lacey. You can't even officially support the release of Brand New's music anymore as their record label (Procrastinate! Music Traitors) doesn't even seem to have a functioning website anymore? Regardless, I wouldn't want to support his music in a way that supports him, anyway. Yes, I enjoy the music and the themes of it, but I do not want to be directly supporting abuse that happened BECAUSE he was a vocalist in a band. And I can safely do this with CDs that I bought secondhand, right? This is death of the author. So what's the issue?

I believe there is an issue when people claim “death of the author” far too quickly and scramble to reclaim the media for themselves. It’s an increasingly popular trend these days to pluck characters/concepts from an author deemed to be problematic. "I'll save [Character I like] from this shitty piece of media!", they claim. I don't think people realize how multifaceted in effect that is, though. For instance, if the author is actively making money from their creation, you can't truly "reclaim" a character from them. It's more like you're paying homage to them with fanart.

My best on-going example of this would be Floraverse. There are a multitude of reasons why people do not like the author/s of Floraverse, which I will not go into here. To put it simply, though, since its inception in 2013, many artists and writers involved with Flora either left or were kicked out. These artists either directly contributed to the art and worldbuilding of the webcomic, or were heavily influenced by it. To this day, there are many times someone links me to art on Discord and I’ll say “oh I remember that person, they used to be a Flora fanartist!” and the other person is absolutely floored that that artist was ever linked to Floraverse. Anyway… There have been multiple attempts at people trying to reclaim Floraverse from the author, and this never works out. Like, it really doesn’t work out. Any time that someone tries to reclaim Floraverse characters for themselves whilst condemning the author, that person is dogpiled by the Floraverse community. Which is a weird behavior for a CC BY-SA webcomic, but I digress. Here are some highlights:

In 2019, there was a thread dedicated to Redesigning Floraverse that immediately got taken over by Floraverse itself a month later.

An artist got harassed for multiple years (I think it was 2020-2023) for having an oc based on Beleth, a character in Floraverse.

Just 2 months ago, an artist got harassed for drawing fanart of the characters

Historically, reclaiming Floraverse characters from the author hasn't worked out. And I mean.. why would it? It's an actively running "webcomic" (I'll be charitable) and with an active community that supports the author's current works and views with their wallets. It's one thing to enjoy a piece of media with a problematic author and want to reclaim that media for yourself. It is another for this reclamation to actually be effective. Attempts of "reclaiming" Floraverse get written off as fanworks that the community dislikes. You cannot reclaim Floraverse characters as they do not exist in a vacuum. Listening to secondhand Brand New CDs does work in a vacuum; Jesse Lacey's career is dead in the water. The same cannot be said for reclaiming the art of Glitchedpuppet and co. Floraverse characters and stories are not divorced from the abuses they cause. Characters will be used as strawmen to abuse community members, past or present. Or entire works will be up dedicated to making light of your childhood trauma! These characters were made by an abuser, and will be used to abuse. That is a simple fact about Floraverse. Except... in that statement, I'm not even talking about Glitchedpuppet, the current author of Floraverse. I'm talking about Marlcabinet, the previous author of Floraverse. This statement does however, apply to both of them. Hey, wait a minute, that's weird! I've been talking about "death of the author" for this entire post, and I just said that reclaiming Floraverse characters can't work because the way the characters were used to abuse real people doesn't exist in a vacuum. So like, why does this work within the Floraverse webcomic itself? Marl is the abuser of Glip, but Marl is also the author of the majority of early Floraverse. Isn't the story itself, as it currently stands, an act of reclaiming characters used to abuse community members, minors, and any detractors? Then who is to say that those who contributed to Floraverse and were similarly abused are not also allowed this same privilege? Their real-world suffering is what fuels the comic. When I was 13-16, I adored a Floraverse character named Cayenne. His whole deal was that he was an autistic child slave and was horribly abused by everyone around him. Weird character to connect to, but he’s the character that made me figure out I had autism! I drew a LOT of fanart of this character and I even own a (gifted) life-size plush of him. The authors only ever treated him as a joke and it was a joke even within the Floraverse community that I was the only person who actually liked/cared about him. Sometimes I think about reclaiming him for myself. But I also don’t want to get harassed, and I know I could design much better things, and write better things. Conversely, I also think about how this is the exact character that made me get into contact with Marl when I was 16. It’s a heavy weight to carry knowing that this exact character was the reason I was almost in the clutches of a child predator. Glip personally deferred me to him. Reclaiming Cayenne would hold emotional value for me as a reminder of my triumph over a predator. Would it be wrong for me to reclaim an abused child character from a comic that abused me and many others as children? I've no clue. And I don't think anyone can answer that. I've waffled on it for ~2 years now. Reclaiming Cayenne would give attention to an individual that profits off abusing others, myself included. I'd say that reclaiming Floraverse characters wouldn't be a case of "death of the author", but the original creator of them was a child predator that's no longer on the internet. Floraverse is already practicing death of an author, and it is a shell of its former self. That being said, it is not a story that only has one author. Its other authors are still active, and these authors include every person that it has abused in its wake. After all, it's a comic that relies on you to know about its dramas with and traumas of real people. Tell me: Does a death of the author matter when its being written about you?

#text #brand new #floraverse #death of the author #abuse #grooming

44 notes · View notes