Seeing so many people misinterpret Star Ship Troopers, Disco Elysium and other obvious stuff, makes me think that every piece of media should have the writer, director and all protagonist characters come on screen at the end and say into the camera "The usa and capitalism are the big Satan. Communism is good. This is the actual unironic core meaning of this piece of art." before the credits roll.
Wouldn't do a damn bit of good. People were quoting Verhoeven explicitly saying what this movie was about to these fash, and the fash were just replying "well just because he made it doesn't mean he knows what it means."
I guess "death of the author" pleading has reached them, lmaoo.
That wouldn't work. FYI fash are a bit more self aware then I think most of us realize, when they say shit like this they kinda know they're taking the piss, but they don't care. Fascism is a narcissistic ideology, they literally think reality warps around their mind, so it doesn't matter if God himself descended from the heavens to tell them they're wrong, if they want to be right they will be right.
It don't work. For example Frank Herbert at some point got annoyed by reception of especially "God Emperor" that he basically said straight what the message was and yet, 40 years later chuds are still wanking to the great (literal) gusano despot - which is especially fun in context of the tweet in OP since who is now identifying with a hideous murderous hive insect (Leto II considered himself a hive being - amalgam of all the personalities in him with what was the Leto himself only existing as an equilibrium between them).
Verhoeven also openly said his movie was satire but they still going too.
Frank Herbert has two problems working against him though, one is his own son systematically sabotaging the ideals of his works for a human lifetime, the second is how many of his actually kinda shitty beliefs are in Dune.
He was a lib idealist with zero historical materialism, so his 15000 years of human history are unavoidably carricatural. Also had this iritating manner, especially in last two books of being circular in most thoughts, where nearly no question or problem is ever asked straight and never answered straight, just with more circular non-answers to appear deep.
You know the good narration method of "show, do not tell" which a lot of authors violate by telling and not showing? Herbert neither show nor tell (but was good in that).
You know the good narration method of "show, do not tell" which a lot of authors violate by telling and not showing?
"Show, don't tell" in its correct form is about pacing economy and the use of scenery and practical effects in theater: it's better to literally, physically show a visual detail than to try to have actors take the time to mention it so you know that it's a stormy night or whatever. "Show, don't tell" as it's taught to authors is vapid nonsense about obfuscating and dancing around messaging instead of being blunt. It's this idea that meaning is a special clever good boy treat as a reward for readers educated enough to get the references you're using as allegory, instead of something integral to the purpose of a work which needs to be clear and make its point in an unambiguous fashion.
In fact, I'd almost say a proper interpretation of the original meaning of "show, don't tell" to writing is nearly the opposite of its literal original use: you need to think about pacing economy in what gets a full "showing" treatment vs what's simply "told" about as a passing detail, since strictly speaking everything a novelist is doing is "telling" in prose form and you have to prioritize what gets talked about the most.
his own son systematically sabotaging the ideals of his works
I think that's mixed problem. Sure it's partially true but recent rereading of Heretics, Chapterhouse, Hunters and Sandworms make me believe Brian seemingly ridiculous stories at least somewhat. I would say Heretics and Chapterhouse are more consistent with Brian works than with previous 4 books.
This is why I think people are wrong when they say that "Don't look up" is too heavy handed.
Feel like part of the theme was just how explicit you had to be for people to understand your metaphor. And even then you had a bunch of people saying it was about covid.
You need your main character to spend 2 minutes screaming at the camera about what the movie is saying to reach these people.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you are writing and have a point you need to literally, textually beat the reader over and about the head with it while unambiguously yelling exactly what you mean, or they will miss the point and walk away with the opposite conclusion that you intended. Every work of fiction should be at risk of turning into a polemic. Symbolism, subtlety, and allegory are tasty treats that authors are only allowed to have after they've bluntly made their point.
The real solution is more just being conscious and aware of how things can be misinterpreted and how the expected audience's biases will effect how they interpret it (so Starship Troopers to a leftist audience is funny satire, but to an American audience is just saying what Americans unironically believe but in a silly way). But that's soft, easily forgotten advice compared to an exhortation to always be blunt and hyperbolic, delivered in a blunt and hyperbolic way.
It's not a bad idea but even that doesn't work. Didn't the creator of Parasite say exactly that, followed by article after article explaining why he was wrong?
Seeing so many people misinterpret Star Ship Troopers, Disco Elysium and other obvious stuff, makes me think that every piece of media should have the writer, director and all protagonist characters come on screen at the end and say into the camera "The usa and capitalism are the big Satan. Communism is good. This is the actual unironic core meaning of this piece of art." before the credits roll.
"What did the director mean by this?"
"Here's why this explicitly anti-capitalist media is actually anti-communist"
This is something I'm sure I remember reading about Squid Game
Wouldn't do a damn bit of good. People were quoting Verhoeven explicitly saying what this movie was about to these fash, and the fash were just replying "well just because he made it doesn't mean he knows what it means."
I guess "death of the author" pleading has reached them, lmaoo.
The disco elysium people gave a shout out to marx in their award acceptance speech, it hasn't changed shit.
Capital subsumes all criticism of itself etc etc etc
Yeah, taking a look at the subreddit, some were even saying this meant the Disco Elysium creators were anti-communist.
That wouldn't work. FYI fash are a bit more self aware then I think most of us realize, when they say shit like this they kinda know they're taking the piss, but they don't care. Fascism is a narcissistic ideology, they literally think reality warps around their mind, so it doesn't matter if God himself descended from the heavens to tell them they're wrong, if they want to be right they will be right.
It don't work. For example Frank Herbert at some point got annoyed by reception of especially "God Emperor" that he basically said straight what the message was and yet, 40 years later chuds are still wanking to the great (literal) gusano despot - which is especially fun in context of the tweet in OP since who is now identifying with a hideous murderous hive insect (Leto II considered himself a hive being - amalgam of all the personalities in him with what was the Leto himself only existing as an equilibrium between them).
Verhoeven also openly said his movie was satire but they still going too.
Frank Herbert has two problems working against him though, one is his own son systematically sabotaging the ideals of his works for a human lifetime, the second is how many of his actually kinda shitty beliefs are in Dune.
I only know the bare basics about Dune. What beliefs are those?
He was a lib idealist with zero historical materialism, so his 15000 years of human history are unavoidably carricatural. Also had this iritating manner, especially in last two books of being circular in most thoughts, where nearly no question or problem is ever asked straight and never answered straight, just with more circular non-answers to appear deep.
You know the good narration method of "show, do not tell" which a lot of authors violate by telling and not showing? Herbert neither show nor tell (but was good in that).
"Show, don't tell" in its correct form is about pacing economy and the use of scenery and practical effects in theater: it's better to literally, physically show a visual detail than to try to have actors take the time to mention it so you know that it's a stormy night or whatever. "Show, don't tell" as it's taught to authors is vapid nonsense about obfuscating and dancing around messaging instead of being blunt. It's this idea that meaning is a special clever good boy treat as a reward for readers educated enough to get the references you're using as allegory, instead of something integral to the purpose of a work which needs to be clear and make its point in an unambiguous fashion.
In fact, I'd almost say a proper interpretation of the original meaning of "show, don't tell" to writing is nearly the opposite of its literal original use: you need to think about pacing economy in what gets a full "showing" treatment vs what's simply "told" about as a passing detail, since strictly speaking everything a novelist is doing is "telling" in prose form and you have to prioritize what gets talked about the most.
I think that's mixed problem. Sure it's partially true but recent rereading of Heretics, Chapterhouse, Hunters and Sandworms make me believe Brian seemingly ridiculous stories at least somewhat. I would say Heretics and Chapterhouse are more consistent with Brian works than with previous 4 books.
This is why I think people are wrong when they say that "Don't look up" is too heavy handed.
Feel like part of the theme was just how explicit you had to be for people to understand your metaphor. And even then you had a bunch of people saying it was about covid.
You need your main character to spend 2 minutes screaming at the camera about what the movie is saying to reach these people.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you are writing and have a point you need to literally, textually beat the reader over and about the head with it while unambiguously yelling exactly what you mean, or they will miss the point and walk away with the opposite conclusion that you intended. Every work of fiction should be at risk of turning into a polemic. Symbolism, subtlety, and allegory are tasty treats that authors are only allowed to have after they've bluntly made their point.
Ok but counterpoint, that sounds like a really unfun, boring, and artistically questionable way to write fiction.
Honestly i think the solution is just accepting that morons are not the responsability of the author lol
The real solution is more just being conscious and aware of how things can be misinterpreted and how the expected audience's biases will effect how they interpret it (so Starship Troopers to a leftist audience is funny satire, but to an American audience is just saying what Americans unironically believe but in a silly way). But that's soft, easily forgotten advice compared to an exhortation to always be blunt and hyperbolic, delivered in a blunt and hyperbolic way.
That plus accepting that art follows politics, not vice-versa.
The director of squid game said that it was an allusion to capitalism but people still thought it was about communism
I forgot about Squid Game and thought you were talking about Splatoon and was kinda confused.
Maybe a time for the comeback of greek choruses, where they like explain everything at the beginning of the play.
More and more people are saying this
I wanna read terrible Disco Elysium takes, that'd be so funny.
You sometimes see OPs in the Disco subreddit who are like "I don't why people think this is a commie game, it makes fun of commies all the time!"
They usually get thrashed.
It's not a bad idea but even that doesn't work. Didn't the creator of Parasite say exactly that, followed by article after article explaining why he was wrong?