Forum › Seifuku no Vampiress Lord discussion
Man, we take our vampire comics really seriously around here. ^_^;;
Certainly, there are common and uncommon interpretations of a given work. And authors with talent and skill can usually create a work such that the common interpretations of that work jibe with his/her intentions. But the uncommon interpretations are just as valid (and occasionally more interesting).
I think this is the crux of our disagreement. My viewpoint does not invalidate other interpretations for not being the correct ones. That doesn't devalue them in the least and definitely doesn't mean they're suddenly no longer interesting. It's just arrogant for someone to claim they know what was intended better than the person who wrote it though.
I think this is the crux of our disagreement. My viewpoint does not invalidate other interpretations for not being the correct ones. That doesn't devalue them in the least and definitely doesn't mean they're suddenly no longer interesting. It's just arrogant for someone to claim they know what was intended better than the person who wrote it though.
But that's not (or shouldn't be) the claim.
When I watched Pixar's The Incredibles for the first time, I came away with the belief that I'd just watched a very thorough Objectivist parable. Subsequent viewings and the heated arguments of my friends have not changed my mind in the ensuing years.
Mind you, I'm not saying that The Incredibles was intended to be an Objectivist parable. But that's definitely what I took away from the work. It's not the most common interpretation, but it's also not rare.
Andrew Stanton says that The Incredibles has nothing to do with Objectivism. But Andrew Stanton is a staunch libertarian. It's certainly possible that he unconsciously allowed those views to color the film in various ways.
I'm not saying he did or he didn't. I'm just using that as an example of how an author can truthfully say "I didn't intend this meaning" while nonetheless having that meaning wind up in his/her work.
How can you say no to -that-
How can you say no to -that-
I know, right? I'D be totally convinced!
That moment when you're sitting in the back of a semi in a truck stop in Ohio, discussing literary critical analysis theory on a website dedicated to Japanese lesbian romance comics. They never covered this in truck driving school!
So, when do you guys think Nana will turn into a vampire? Round the middle of the series or at the end? (remember, it's a CHANCE of happening, and obviously getting bitten a lot would massively increase that chance)
My prediction is that, via some comedic twist of fate, Yuu will defy the statistics and turn all of her classmates into vampires.
HAREM. Glad I'm not the only one thinking about this.
I'm just sad there are people who dislike Rin's existence...sobs.
Yeah, no, still ain't that convincing.
shrug
The notion that the author's intent isn't privileged is one of the cornerstones of modern literary critical theory. This ain't just me, some guy on the Internet, making shit up.
I know you are not making it up, but that doesn't make it correct. "Death of the Author" is just a way for critics to pat themselves on the back and act like they know what they are talking about when they are told that they are wrong. It's stripping context away in order to achieve the meaning you want. It's fine to have different interpretations, but when the author says that it's wrong then it's wrong. Analysis and interpretation of a piece of work is not automatically valid, they are not immune to facts.
If I may throw in some formal logic to the discussion, the statement "the author's own interpretation is not the only correct one" (the core of the death of the author concept) is not logically equivalent to "all interpretations of a fictional work are equally valid". While I believe that no author can prescribe how their work should be interpreted, they have a lot of say in how it should not be read. There is a subtle difference there, but one that has a lot of power within the uncountably infinite set of semiotic interpretants.
Man, we take our vampire comics really seriously around here. ^_^;;
No shit, man. Vampires are serious literary biz.
If I may throw in some formal logic to the discussion, the statement "the author's own interpretation is not the only correct one" (the core of the death of the author concept) is not logically equivalent to "all interpretations of a fictional work are equally valid".
Actually, it means exactly that. If the author doesn't have the authority to state an interpretation is wrong then who does? If the author themselves doesn't have the authority then no one does and therefore all interpretations are valid.
The problem is that you can over-analyse anything to mean anything. So when anyone ends up with a different interpretation than the author, who's to say they didn't just analysed it incorrectly?
Certainly, there are common and uncommon interpretations of a given work. And authors with talent and skill can usually create a work such that the common interpretations of that work jibe with his/her intentions. But the uncommon interpretations are just as valid (and occasionally more interesting).
Nah. While this wouldn't be wrong for certain works, and in the case for example, of a David Lynch movie, or a painting, I would totally get on board with that. But you possibly can't apply this for every work, firstly because all works aren't equally open to interpretation, and last but not least because there are wrong interpretations, as simple and evident as it is. If anyone's way of reading or understanding a work was as valid as the author's, it would be dramatic. Anyone would be able to say anything objectively wrong, pulling the "Death of the Author" card. And talking about that theory; in my opinion it's just vain inanity made-up by some arrogant professors, so full of themselves they thought their interpretation would be more exact than the author's themselves. It's not even intellectual onanism, that's just bullshit, at least when it's put on like that.
If I may throw in some formal logic to the discussion, the statement "the author's own interpretation is not the only correct one" (the core of the death of the author concept) is not logically equivalent to "all interpretations of a fictional work are equally valid". While I believe that no author can prescribe how their work should be interpreted, they have a lot of say in how it should not be read. There is a subtle difference there, but one that has a lot of power within the uncountably infinite set of semiotic interpretants.
Thanks for pointing this out. There is a degree of interpretation specific to each work. It doesn't make a wrong interpretation less legitimate nor less interesting, it just means that this is not what the author intended to convey.
last edited at Feb 15, 2017 11:37AM
And talking about that theory; in my opinion it's just vain inanity made-up by some arrogant professors, so full of themselves they thought their interpretation would be more exact than the author's themselves. It's not even intellectual onanism, that's just bullshit, at least when it's put on like that.
This actually reminds me of an anecdote I read a month or two ago. It was about Isaac Asimov attending some lecture or something where the speaker was talking about interpretations of some of Asimov's work. The speaker didn't know what Asimov looked like so they didn't know he was in the audience and afterwards when Asimov talked to him and revealed who he was the guy popped off with something along the lines of "just because you're the author you can't presume to know what was intended" or some garbage like that. It just comes across as completely arrogant.
As I keep saying: Your interpretation doesn't have to be correct to be valid. But just because you've interpreted something one way doesn't mean it's correct. And the author of all people most certainly has the authority to state that that's not the correct interpretation. To try to override the author on something like that is just a matter of someone failing to get over their own ego.
If I may throw in some formal logic to the discussion, the statement "the author's own interpretation is not the only correct one" (the core of the death of the author concept) is not logically equivalent to "all interpretations of a fictional work are equally valid". While I believe that no author can prescribe how their work should be interpreted, they have a lot of say in how it should not be read. There is a subtle difference there, but one that has a lot of power within the uncountably infinite set of semiotic interpretants.
This is pretty much how I view it, too. Sure, you can push interpretation to a certain extent, but not until it breaks. In one of the examples above, Vankomycin sees The Incredibles as an Objectivist parable. That's perfectly valid, even though the creator says it wasn't made to be one. Similarly, I've considered The Last Unicorn to make a dandy trans parable, even though I'm certain Peter S. Beagle didn't even know the concept when he wrote it. That's interpretation within reasonable bounds, the "author didn't plan it that way but it works".
On the other hand, you can't really make a case for The Incredibles saying murdering children is acceptable, or for The Last Unicorn to be about the evils of late-stage capitalism. That's taking "interpretation" way too far past the bounds of credibility. Sure you can make those claims, but nobody's bound to take you seriously.
Going back to the actual topic, this here manga we've been discussing, the idea that vampires are, to some extent, slaves to sexual desire (or at least a direct substitute for same) is valid because the characters say so. Pretty safe to say you're in line with authorial intent on that one. But it's also said that vampires can, and often do, hold that back pretty much indefinitely, although it can be maddening for some. Remember that Rin says outright, "If you look at vampire history you actually won't find many cases of blood sucking", and follows that in the next chapter with "I know some vampires who never suck blood." That's a pretty clear indication that even though it's a powerful craving, vampires can choose not to do it (Asexual metaphor? That could be interesting.).
As to Rin going after Yuu, he's clearly straight so he went after a pretty girl he found good-looking, simple as that. Right from the start, she's not into him and he seems to chalk that up as just fine given his easy-going (if prone to occasional passion when it comes to track suits). Plus, their relationship has changed from predator-prey (or horny man/pretty girl) now that she's become a vampire, and from all indications he's shifted gears entirely from when we first saw him. The story implication, the way things are going, seems to suggest that Rin, as a pretty average vamp by his own admission, will be fine for some time now that he's got his blood fix, Yuu is likely going to have much bigger needs and end up going after a number of girls given she's a big ol' lesbian.
In the end, it's hard to really maintain a serious rape and seduction interpretation here, save for Rin doing his thing in the first couple of pages. Not to say there isn't going to be a sexual metaphor running throughout, but I think even by chapter two the focus is going to be on Yuu's sexuality rather than Rin's. His role in that sense was done by page two, from that point on his purpose is to provide comic relief and "Yoda but funny" as he passes on information on vampire (un)life. He's a support character at most, so for any discussion of sexual metaphor is going to have to centre wholly on Yuu's actions to be at all credible, based on the story we've been given.
They never covered this in truck driving school!
Oh....I see....well, that's disappointing...
** tears up application **
To try to override the author on something like that is just a matter of someone failing to get over their own ego.
"You may have written this thing, but I've got an education, so I know better than you."
The only debatable point is whether the meaning of a work is the meaning any particular person decides it is, or the meaning which a consensus can be reached on.
I'd agree and side with, while you can have theories and fun analyzing work, author's world is final. Like there is a reason why people reading manga take stuff that author says in afterwords, interviews etc. as a irrefutable facts, because they created their works so they are the ones that know the best characters, their motivation, meaning of the story as well as the rules which the world in their story works by. People would usually argue about stuff said by third person, discard everything that wasn't said by person responsible, but as long as it is something confirmed by author, it is non negotiable.
Like good example is when people ask stuff about One Piece. Author is more than eager to answer most of the questions. So if someone has a theory about something and then author stats it doesn't work that way, it means author doesn't know what he is talking about? His "interpretation" of the world isn't any more true than what some guys on forum came up with?
Other example, I watch a channel where 2 brothers come up with different theories about different movies and one of them was about Dumbledore creating his own horcrux. The theory was really solid, it fit perfectly with everything and in fact explained some stuff which without it, didn't really make a whole lot of sense. The author of the book however did saw it and rejected the idea saying Dumbledor never created one. So they did only thing that was reasonable to do at this point. They accepted they were wrong. Sure they might thought it made prefect sense with what was presented in the book, even if everything was laying out perfectly just by pure accident, but that still wasn't something author had in mind when writing the book, hence it make entire theory, while highly interesting, canonically untrue.
last edited at Feb 16, 2017 3:05AM
verson 2 of ch 1 & ch 2
c01v2: https://mega.nz/#!HcByBaDC!hAXLCCMbESD8lvkjJemNxF1-FB9vn3WLQnve2gpRGYg
c02v2: https://mega.nz/#!mVgkyCbB!7b1e9xOtcFV01dqnKJBYCocjotu2iZvxPAZJllpfFdo
Other example, I watch a channel where 2 brothers come up with different theories about different movies and one of them was about Dumbledore creating his own horcrux. The theory was really solid, it fit perfectly with everything and in fact explained some stuff which without it, didn't really make a whole lot of sense. The author of the book however did saw it and rejected the idea saying Dumbledor never created one. So they did only thing that was reasonable to do at this point. They accepted they were wrong. Sure they might thought it made prefect sense with what was presented in the book, even if everything was laying out perfectly just by pure accident, but that still wasn't something author had in mind when writing the book, hence it make entire theory, while highly interesting, canonically untrue.
I think this differs from the "Death of the Author" stuff we've been talking about in that DotA (as opposed to DOTA 2) is about interpretation of the meaning of a work and what metaphors may or may not be present, the two brothers you mention actually created an event that they assumed took place in the work, and the author said "no it didn't". In terms of the facts of the work, the author obviously has final say. The world is a world of their creating after all, and every character is an actor on their payroll. Nothing exists in that world without their say-so. This is different from saying Harry Potter, as a series, reinforces/breaks gender stereotypes or supports/critiques British boarding schools or whether it can or can't be a metaphor for racism, or whatever other meaning you can think of (note I'm not saying any of these necessarily have or do not have support, they're just random possibilities).
Once again, to come back to Seifuku no Vampiress Lord, it is absolutely valid to talk about the implied sexual politics involved, particularly since the author put the sexual aspect of drinking blood out there pretty blatantly. We cannot, by contrast, say that Rin was once part of a noble court in Europe or something, because that's creating a story element rather than interpreting what's on (digital) paper.
Once again, to come back to Seifuku no Vampiress Lord, it is absolutely valid to talk about the implied sexual politics involved, particularly since the author put the sexual aspect of drinking blood out there pretty blatantly. We cannot, by contrast, say that Rin was once part of a noble court in Europe or something, because that's creating a story element rather than interpreting what's on (digital) paper.
I thought we were talking about interpretations to discuss whether the yuri tag is warranted or not. If we're talking about politics then I'm gonna pass, that topic never ends well in online discussions.
I thought we were talking about interpretations to discuss whether the
yuritag is warranted or not. If we're talking about politics then I'm gonna pass, that topic never ends well in online discussions.
Oh no, the yuri tag already won out since anyone who has read the raws knows for a fact that Yuu is as gay as they come. The "politics" in question are about Rin having the hots for Yuu, he wouldn't have bitten her if he didn't, and the implications of the sexual pleasure when bitten. Some want to take his character involvement more seriously while others are saying that he is just a catalyst for the plot who becomes a gag character after his job was done.
last edited at Feb 16, 2017 5:55PM
Well, to be fair, a story that can be described with "He turned her into a vampire and then moved into her house to teach her the ropes" would, in most cases, end up with them moving from sharing a roof to sharing a bed by the end; he wouldn't normally end up as just a plot device. Not that there's a rule saying it has to be that way, of course, but the normal progression of most fiction would create that expectation if you summarized just the first chapter.
Well, to be fair, a story that can be described with "He turned her into a vampire and then moved into her house to teach her the ropes" would, in most cases, end up with them moving from sharing a roof to sharing a bed by the end; he wouldn't normally end up as just a plot device. Not that there's a rule saying it has to be that way, of course, but the normal progression of most fiction would create that expectation if you summarized just the first chapter.
Well, summarize about half of the first chapter and leave out how she then takes a girl she's close with on as a confidante, and showcases some of her other relationships with girls in her school, some of whom consider her attractive.
Yeah in the raws she really hates it when guys flirt with her and even says that she wished it was only girls that flirted with her. Her gayness is obvious to all except her, lol
last edited at Feb 18, 2017 3:02PM by Nezchan