I heard that someone, after being told by their English teacher that It had some deep meaning, asked Steven King himself why he wrote it, and he basically said "clown scary"
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Post your searing hot takes
- Thread starter Yung Dramps
- Start date
Terastallize means everything has a different defensive type and everything also has a Steelworker clone.
I am not to familiar with It but King admitted that he has no memory of writing It as he was coked out to the gills. He read it himself, admitted it was a good book and felt it was unfortunate that he had no memory of writing it. Apparently it was also written in a couple of nights?
I also wrote my bachelor's thesis in the span of a few days. I wasn't on any substance, just sleep deprivation and hunger, and I also have no memory of having ever written my thesis
The virgin sleep depravation vs the chad coked out to the gills
both seem bad though?
google death of the author
Who said this was a "Virgin bad, Chad good" meme?
ah, so like how the angry birds movie perfectly explains how birds on islands often lose the ability to fly and do not experience predators, and as such are extremely vulnerable to invasive species, like pigs
because 99.99% of good works DO have at least 1 fairly obvious meaning or moral- to the extent that no logical human being would reasonably put that the work has no meaning. Even in the rare cases that you genuinely believe a work has no meaning/was written for enjoyment only though, you can still explain the thought process that led you to that point. Putting "none" in these instances is a sign that you were probably just being lazy or contrary.
Gonna be honest, I found this to be pretty offensive. As someone with Autsim, I have a lot of problems with "obvious" cues, and I take issue with the fact that different thinking patterns means I'm no longer a logical human being. I'll admit I get contrarian about this, because it was the only way I felt I could express my own thoughts during English class when everything else was about conformity.
as someone else with autism, who also is frequently contrarian during English class for the same reason, i feel like you need to calm down a bit. I can understand being frustrated by this, but how are you offended by it? they obviously meant nothing by it.
Make that three autistic people here, though I feel like conformity is a necessary evil at times.
the most eventful day in the hot takes thread:
that is a very good question that has me wondering for quite some time
I overall think that death of the author is a wonderful concept. One of the examples of it is Kubrick's The Shining. There are as many interpretations of the Shining as there are viewers of it. I have heard of many, many interpretations of this movie and said mostly "yeah, from this viewpoint, this makes sense", even with some absolute insane interpretations. Like there's a guy on YouTube who made a Formula 1 documentary that released a few years before The Shining as a pillar of his arguments for his interpretation, and honestly, he had some very legitimate points
However, there are limitations to it. There's this documentary on Shining theories from 12 years ago, where there were a lot of interpretations that needed massive amounts of mental gymnastics to make sense. Like one lady on the doc based her interpretation on her son coming into her room when she watched it or something, idk, it was really weird. This is a video that covers a certain, very questionable theory very well that made some good arguments on limitations of the death of the author:
To be fair, I usually hang around Smogoff nowadays and the searing hot takes thread.
dialectics
It's just really lame. Regardless of author intention, it's possible to extract meaning from any text with some effort, and doing so almost always leads to more fulfilling and enriching experiences. You're free to engage with media however you want, of course, but strolling into a discussion about the potential meaning of a work and insisting that it's actually not that deep is always going to irritate people.
also it's not just "pulling meaning from your ass", at least in more professional circles. If you paid attention in the classes where they try to teach you this stuff, you'd know that there are different lenses to read over works that have different goals, and often go beyond the text itself, such as using historical or cultural context from the time of the work.
For analysis to become consensus there has to be actual evidence. Still, classes also encourage you yourself to analyze work without the need of some other approval, because it will enrich your life and how you read media. There is a problem nowadays where people miss obvious allegory and it is wild.
Also I think some people are just outright disrespectful with shit like "Oh well it's not that deep", while some products are just made for commercialization, sure, the majority are not treated lightly by the author at all. Hell, a lot of commercialized art still gets meaning with the artists pouring that frustration into it.
Even accidentally, authors put a lot of themselves into their stories. Be it characters, belief systems, worldview, etc. If anything, it'd actually be way harder and 4D chess to avoid that. Just by having a police officer in a story, how you write that police officer has some worldview behind it, for instance. Everything is shaped by everything.
I think its dumb that the four pillars of education are:
math (fair to an extent, basic math is important, but anything beyond basic algebra will not come up very often in the average persons life. should still be an option, but the phrase "you wont have a calculator with you at all times" could not have aged worse.)
science(I will never need to use this)
English(Id say I'd never need to use this, but the mere existence of grammar forces everyone else to use it. we truly live in a society.)
social studies(except for current events and geography, I will never need to use this. I probobly wont need to use those subjects either)
we live in an age where at any point, we can look up the answers to practically everything. we have the sum of all human knowledge in our pocket. our education should be around how to use it, as internet literacy is a skill far more important than chemistry.
math (fair to an extent, basic math is important, but anything beyond basic algebra will not come up very often in the average persons life. should still be an option, but the phrase "you wont have a calculator with you at all times" could not have aged worse.)
science(I will never need to use this)
English(Id say I'd never need to use this, but the mere existence of grammar forces everyone else to use it. we truly live in a society.)
social studies(except for current events and geography, I will never need to use this. I probobly wont need to use those subjects either)
we live in an age where at any point, we can look up the answers to practically everything. we have the sum of all human knowledge in our pocket. our education should be around how to use it, as internet literacy is a skill far more important than chemistry.
school isn't just about teaching practicality bruh
it's about how to enrich your life
learning things in of itself is a virtue, and that is the real failure of school: Failing to teach people like you that fact.
CAP should redo Aurumoth from scratch.
Reading back my original post, I misinterpreted the question and I'd like to apologize. Because of the assertion of a "meaning box" and the underlying assumption that a work can't have no meaning, I interpreted the question with the assumption that it was in the context of a graded setting where you marked "none" in a "meaning" box and it was marked wrong. Because I assumed that, I posted my response from within that context: I said that it may not be about the answer per se as much as it is about seeming lazy because (I assumed) you put a single-word response that didn't require even a cursory reading of the text.
In a nongraded setting, I'd think an answer to your question would have more to do with literary philosophy, which I didn't consider. I didn't mean to call you stupid or say that you aren't a logical person, and I apologize to have sounded that way.