User:RD/9k/Q60,63: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Latest revision as of 06:46, 20 March 2026

Main entry

Fictional events happen because the author said so
/ Fictional events only happen because the author said so / Details in fiction only exist because the author said so / pronounced nickel: Carol caller theory -> no. if this were true Media Representation would be impossible. say there's a fictional book meant to teach people about the United States Reconstruction era, or slaves escaping to the North. can somebody just go around saying that every single thing that happens in that book is the author's opinionated agenda peculiar to their own individual tastes and not inherently shared with any other person like them for reasons they did not choose? or are some of the things in that book in there because they are representational art of things that regularly happen in the real world or have happened? if historical fiction can be based on particular unique historical events, then events in books can also be based on general patterns seen in history. and they can be based on scientific models. and they can be based on any number of internally-coherent things which make sense in and of themselves without asking what the author's desires or agenda are. (ontologies.) many well-written stories don't look intentionally designed although they in fact are, and you keep this in mind if you want to solve them.

Arguments for

The purpose of fictional narratives is to insert predetermined emotions into our heads rather than for people to react to with different emotions and analyses depending on their own experiences -> this is a dangerous thing to think because, again, if authors were allowed to decide what the correct emotions to feel about a work of fiction were they could decide that it's "correct" to see Black people suffer in a narrative and not care about them or demonize them, turning fictional media into a Milgram test. some might also argue Disney writers have boxed gay villains into that position.
Nobody can predict Sans Deltarune
/ Because a lot of the events in Deltarune are psychological in nature, players can't predict what the events of the next chapters will be using the early chapters because they can't predict what the characters are going to be thinking ->

this has to be false because if it were true it would be impossible to write stories and have readers be able to tell whether something is broadly in character. fan fiction would be impossible. it would be impossible for people to say "this fan fiction has mischaracterized Sans". but people say that all the time.
appears in: MDem pronounced 5.2r: 11-21 who-is-sans.

Arguments against

Treating authors as gods is reductive to art
-> if all art is is just waiting for authors to say things, then why would anyone pay for it? can't we all just imagine stories on our own, regardless of how good they are? when you realize that, you realize it's vitally important to treat art as an internally coherent system in order to get anyone to appreciate authors. when fan theories are framed as an alternate form of humanities study which is more scientifically-minded — this focus being an arbitrary flavor choice, not an objectively better way of doing things — they act as a form of art appreciation because they are predicting things and looking for sound structure and solid craftsmanship within the fictional world. it's something like the systematic "music theory" of narratives. sometimes people do it wrong and fail to correctly analyze departures from reality as legitimate rules within the system rather than "unrealistic". this doesn't mean that the entire analytic approach is bad, or doesn't understand what art is. I think there's at least some amount of an argument, maybe not rock-solid exactly, that it understands art on a higher level. the level where art has already succeeded and transported us to the new reality it has fabricated. shouldn't it be the highest praise of art having succeeded when people are actually living in that reality for a moment?
There is no right way to engage with art -> correct but very Existentialist.
Opinions about art are wrong when they contain implications of arrogance or approach-chauvinism, because the arts must judge things by Communicative Rationality and also the tolerance of absolutely everything -> normal people's arguments are so bad. I feel like I just read a YouTube comment by Jürgen Habermas

media analysis as Milgram test / fictional media as Milgram test -> the motif of people treating a fictional work as if it offers approximately one predetermined set of emotions for people to feel and it says something negative about you if you don't see it in exactly the way you're supposed to, especially but not necessarily if you fail to look at a piece of media that is evidently prejudiced and people are mad you aren't condoning the prejudices.
media analysis as Milgram test -> honestly? on the topic of fiction, or Deltarune AUs, I think it's wonderful people can read a story and have different perspectives. even if I create a story where not-Stalin is seen as more good than bad and people look at it and get upset. that just means I can study those people's reactions and start drilling into where exactly they got those opinions. I study people misinterpreting the actual accounts of Soviet history endlessly and find it fascinating, so do you think something that already happens the majority of the time would bother me? people interpreting stories "badly" is a gift, not a problem.

Wavebuilder combinations

pronounced P: pronounced Wave-builder: forms result [Item]

Ideologies or fields

HAS / literary analysis
Fy / fiction
ES
MX / meta-ontology
MX onto ES

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 {{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">
-{{li|start=y|I=F2/Fy|tradition=HAS, Fy|Q=60,62|Q2=6062|h4 = Fictional events happen because the author said so }} / [[E:BecauseAuthorSaidSo|Fictional events only happen because the author said so]] / Details in fiction only exist because the author said so  ->  no. if this were true Media Representation would be impossible. say there's a fictional book meant to teach people about the United States Reconstruction era, or slaves escaping to the North. can somebody just go around saying that every single thing that happens in that book is the author's opinionated agenda peculiar to their own individual tastes and not inherently shared with any other person like them for reasons they did not choose? or are some of the things in that book in there because they are representational art of things that regularly happen in the real world or have happened? if historical fiction can be based on particular unique historical events, then events in books can also be based on general patterns seen in history. and they can be based on scientific models. and they can be based on any number of internally-coherent things which make sense in and of themselves without asking what the author's desires or agenda are. (ontologies.) many well-written stories don't look intentionally designed although they in fact are, and you keep this in mind if you want to solve them.
+{{li|start=y|I=F2/Fy|tradition=HAS, Fy|Q=60,62|Q2=6062|h4 = Fictional events happen because the author said so }} / [[E:BecauseAuthorSaidSo|Fictional events only happen because the author said so]] / Details in fiction only exist because the author said so / {{nickel|YT/CarolCallerTheory|Carol caller theory}}  ->  no. if this were true Media Representation would be impossible. say there's a fictional book meant to teach people about the United States Reconstruction era, or slaves escaping to the North. can somebody just go around saying that every single thing that happens in that book is the author's opinionated agenda peculiar to their own individual tastes and not inherently shared with any other person like them for reasons they did not choose? or are some of the things in that book in there because they are representational art of things that regularly happen in the real world or have happened? if historical fiction can be based on particular unique historical events, then events in books can also be based on general patterns seen in history. and they can be based on scientific models. and they can be based on any number of internally-coherent things which make sense in and of themselves without asking what the author's desires or agenda are. (ontologies.) many well-written stories don't look intentionally designed although they in fact are, and you keep this in mind if you want to solve them.
 </li></ol>
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 <ol class="hue clean">
-{{li|start=y|I=F2/ES|Q=618|h4 = Nobody can predict Sans Deltarune }} / Because a lot of the events in Deltarune are psychological in nature, players can't predict what the events of the next chapters will be using the early chapters because they can't predict what the characters are going to be thinking  ->  this has to be false because if it were true it would be impossible to write stories and have readers be able to tell whether something is broadly in character. fan fiction would be impossible. it would be impossible for people to say "this fan fiction has mischaracterized Sans". but people say that all the time.<br/>
+{{li|start=y|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}The purpose of fictional narratives is to insert predetermined emotions into our heads rather than for people to react to with different emotions and analyses depending on their own experiences  ->  this is a dangerous thing to think because, again, if authors were allowed to decide what the correct emotions to feel about a work of fiction were they could decide that it's "correct" to see Black people suffer in a narrative and not care about them or demonize them, turning fictional media into a Milgram test. some might also argue Disney writers have boxed gay villains into that position.
-appears in: MDem {{TTS|tts=5.2r: 11-21|5.2r/1121}} who-is-sans.<br/>
-You can't predict The Subject + ?? = this.
+{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618|h4 = Nobody can predict Sans Deltarune }} / Because a lot of the events in Deltarune are psychological in nature, players can't predict what the events of the next chapters will be using the early chapters because they can't predict what the characters are going to be thinking  -><br/>
+this has to be false because if it were true it would be impossible to write stories and have readers be able to tell whether something is broadly in character. fan fiction would be impossible. it would be impossible for people to say "this fan fiction has mischaracterized Sans". but people say that all the time.<br/>
+appears in: MDem {{TTS|tts=5.2r: 11-21|5.2r/1121}} who-is-sans.
 </li></ol>
@@ Line 20: / Line 22: @@
 {{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=60,63|Q2=6063|h4 = Treating authors as gods is reductive to art }}  ->  if all art is is just waiting for authors to say things, then why would anyone pay for it? can't we all just imagine stories on our own, regardless of how good they are? when you realize that, you realize it's vitally important to treat art as an internally coherent system in order to get anyone to appreciate authors. when fan theories are framed as an alternate form of humanities study which is more scientifically-minded — this focus being an arbitrary flavor choice, not an objectively better way of doing things — they act as a form of art appreciation {{em|because}} they are predicting things and looking for sound structure and solid craftsmanship within the fictional world. it's something like the systematic "music theory" of narratives. sometimes people do it wrong and fail to correctly analyze departures from reality as legitimate rules within the system rather than "unrealistic". this doesn't mean that the entire analytic approach is bad, or doesn't understand what art is. I think there's at least some amount of an argument, maybe not rock-solid exactly, that it understands art on a higher level. the level where art has already succeeded and transported us to the new reality it has fabricated. shouldn't it be the highest praise of art having succeeded when people are actually living in that reality for a moment?
+{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=HAS, ES|Q=618}}There is no right way to engage with art  ->  correct but very [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialist]].
+{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES, HM|Q=618}}Opinions about art are wrong when they contain implications of arrogance or approach-chauvinism, because the arts must judge things by Communicative Rationality and also the tolerance of absolutely everything  ->  normal people's arguments are so bad. I feel like I just read a YouTube comment by Jürgen Habermas
+</li></ol>
+== Related ==
+<ol class="hue clean">
+{{li|start=y|I=S1/PT|Q=618|Q2=618}}media analysis as Milgram test / fictional media as Milgram test  ->  the motif of people treating a fictional work as if it offers approximately one predetermined set of emotions for people to feel and it says something negative about you if you don't see it in exactly the way you're supposed to, especially but not necessarily if you fail to look at a piece of media that is evidently prejudiced and people are mad you aren't condoning the prejudices.
+{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}media analysis as Milgram test  ->  honestly? on the topic of fiction, or Deltarune AUs, I think it's wonderful people can read a story and have different perspectives. even if I create a story where not-Stalin is seen as more good than bad and people look at it and get upset. that just means I can study those people's reactions and start drilling into where exactly they got those opinions. I study people misinterpreting the actual accounts of Soviet history endlessly and find it fascinating, so do you think something that already happens the majority of the time would bother me? people interpreting stories "badly" is a gift, not a problem.
 </li></ol>
+== Wavebuilder combinations ==
+<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three">
+{{WaveBuild| {{E:Q618/ES|You can't predict The Subject}} | ?? | {{E:Q618/ES|Nobody can predict Sans Deltarune}} }}
+{{WaveBuild| {{E:Q618/ES|There is no right way to engage with art}} | ?? | {{E:Q618/ES|Opinions about art ... must use Communicative Rationality}} }}
+</dl>
 == Ideologies or fields ==