i feel like 'you're not supposed to like this character' is usually put forward as a defence against people trying to condemn the work on moral grounds due to the presence of a flawed character
nevertheless yea there's no reason you can't like a character you're 'not supposed to like'
personally i do find sometimes i like a character as a concept, or like them in the context of a work of fiction, even if i wouldn't approve of their actions in real life
The writer is the one that creates the narrative, which usually frames character actions in a specific light. So yes, while independent interpretations can arise and are also valid, the writer's insight is still important.
I feel like the author's word should be given considerable weight at least. I mean when your English teacher starts telling you every character is symbolic of Jesus, and the author comes in and says "no, that wasn't intended at all and you might be a bit crazy", I'm more inclined to believe the author.
That said, sometimes the author is an idiot shilling a character so hard they legitimately forgot he's actually kind of a horrible person and we'd call any other character doing those things a psychopath.
I feel like the author's word should be given considerable weight at least. I mean when your English teacher starts telling you every character is symbolic of Jesus, and the author comes in and says "no, that wasn't intended at all and you might be a bit crazy", I'm more inclined to believe the author.
That said, sometimes the author is an idiot shilling a character so hard they legitimately forgot he's actually kind of a horrible person and we'd call any other character doing those things a psychopath.
I feel like the author's word should be given considerable weight at least. I mean when your English teacher starts telling you every character is symbolic of Jesus, and the author comes in and says "no, that wasn't intended at all and you might be a bit crazy", I'm more inclined to believe the author.
This makes sense only if you think the text has an objective meaning, a stance which pretty much breaks down under close scrutiny.
Not to say, i hasten to add, that the author's view counts for nothing. But if a (competent) English teacher is telling you all the characters are symbolic of Jesus, and the author says "that wasn't intended", those are not mutually exclusive statements, and to accuse the teacher of being crazy is to misunderstand how literature studies generally works.
i mean the point is, it's usually assumed within the field, to study the text. Lit is not biography, or history. Those can be applied to lit, of course, and can yield insights, but there's no reason they should get priority over other interpretations of the text. If the characters really do seem a lot like Jesus, and interpreting them in this way is more interesting than what the author intended, then there's no rule that says you can't study the text with that perspective in mind. It won't tell you what the author thought, but that's not necessarily your objective.
The usual stock example here is Fahrenheit 451. Having written a book about censorship, and practically everyone who read it thought was a very good book about censorship, Bradbury later started claiming that it was actually about how TV is bad and will lead to the downfall of society. Even having heard the author's professed intentions, most people are in agreement that the censorship interpretation is the stronger and more interesting one.
yeah i was thinking that, iirc he came from a pretty comfortably well-off family with no particular issues at home, went to a good school and had good grades
Comments
nevertheless yea there's no reason you can't like a character you're 'not supposed to like'
personally i do find sometimes i like a character as a concept, or like them in the context of a work of fiction, even if i wouldn't approve of their actions in real life
After all, I like Shinji Ikari and Holden Caulfield despite not being supposed to like them.
Not to say, i hasten to add, that the author's view counts for nothing. But if a (competent) English teacher is telling you all the characters are symbolic of Jesus, and the author says "that wasn't intended", those are not mutually exclusive statements, and to accuse the teacher of being crazy is to misunderstand how literature studies generally works.
i mean the point is, it's usually assumed within the field, to study the text. Lit is not biography, or history. Those can be applied to lit, of course, and can yield insights, but there's no reason they should get priority over other interpretations of the text. If the characters really do seem a lot like Jesus, and interpreting them in this way is more interesting than what the author intended, then there's no rule that says you can't study the text with that perspective in mind. It won't tell you what the author thought, but that's not necessarily your objective.
The usual stock example here is Fahrenheit 451. Having written a book about censorship, and practically everyone who read it thought was a very good book about censorship, Bradbury later started claiming that it was actually about how TV is bad and will lead to the downfall of society. Even having heard the author's professed intentions, most people are in agreement that the censorship interpretation is the stronger and more interesting one.
None of the Eva pilots are good people, but that has a lot to do with the fact that their lives were shittier than one could even begin to imagine.
i don't know my mangaka