Anonymous
7/9/2025, 5:42:07 PM No.24534235
AI writing is the logical and natural conclusion to this ideology.
Replies:
Death of the Author - /lit/ (#24534235) [Archived: 405 hours ago]
Anonymous
7/9/2025, 5:56:47 PM No.24534250
>>24534235 (OP)
Death of the Author is midwittery. Anyone who gives even the slightest amount of ground towards the thought that the author does not matter ought to concern themselves with non-cultural issues like the interpersonally stunted retard they are.
Death of the Author is midwittery. Anyone who gives even the slightest amount of ground towards the thought that the author does not matter ought to concern themselves with non-cultural issues like the interpersonally stunted retard they are.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/9/2025, 6:29:34 PM No.24534326
>>24534237
It is what people who do not reject this false teaching deserves.
>>24534248
>The writing is a product of language not the author
>Large language models remove the middleman and create without a "scriptor"
It is what people who do not reject this false teaching deserves.
>>24534248
>The writing is a product of language not the author
>Large language models remove the middleman and create without a "scriptor"
Anonymous
7/9/2025, 6:51:22 PM No.24534369
>>24534235 (OP)
It is the worst thing to happen to fiction writing.
It is the worst thing to happen to fiction writing.
Anonymous
7/10/2025, 12:45:10 AM No.24535592
>>24534250
Death of the author isn't that the authorial intent doesn't matter, it's that the authorial intent doesn't have primacy over the written word in the text.
Death of the author isn't that the authorial intent doesn't matter, it's that the authorial intent doesn't have primacy over the written word in the text.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/10/2025, 12:46:20 AM No.24535596
>>24535592
especially since an author's writing can contain things he didn't intend but still say something about the culture and epoch he was writing
especially since an author's writing can contain things he didn't intend but still say something about the culture and epoch he was writing
Replies:
Anonymous
7/10/2025, 12:48:07 AM No.24535602
foucault's "what is an author?" does it better, barthes is mid
Anonymous
7/10/2025, 12:54:15 AM No.24535620
>>24534235 (OP)
I feel like other mediums are to blame for the push of the death of the author narrative. There was some kind of proliferation of troll authors/creatives saying retarded or outlandish shit about their own works after the fact.
I feel like other mediums are to blame for the push of the death of the author narrative. There was some kind of proliferation of troll authors/creatives saying retarded or outlandish shit about their own works after the fact.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/10/2025, 1:34:06 AM No.24535720
>>24535592
The idea that writing has a metaphysical "will" separate from the author is horseshit.
>>24535596
This theory is based on the pseudoscience of automatic writing, an unproven phenomenon where people can write unconsciously.
>>24535620
Lying has always existed. This essay was written on the late 1960's.
The idea that writing has a metaphysical "will" separate from the author is horseshit.
>>24535596
This theory is based on the pseudoscience of automatic writing, an unproven phenomenon where people can write unconsciously.
>>24535620
Lying has always existed. This essay was written on the late 1960's.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/10/2025, 1:46:51 AM No.24535760
>>24535720
man you are fucking dumb. it's not based on the theory of "automatic writing" wtf is that even. just stay in your low iq occult threads dude. why are you in a literary thread when you clearly out of ur dept.
man you are fucking dumb. it's not based on the theory of "automatic writing" wtf is that even. just stay in your low iq occult threads dude. why are you in a literary thread when you clearly out of ur dept.
Anonymous
7/10/2025, 2:05:12 AM No.24535807
>>24534235 (OP)
>>24535720
The purpose of Art IS the detachment of ideas from individuals by means of aesthetic relatedness (style, color, frame etc.) so as to create a self-sufficient object or object-like experience (a self-contained story for example; begin-middle-end)
Death Author happens whenever someone makes art, because he detaches himself from his ideas. A good author is still useful to create good representation of ideas, it might be useful to understand what he wanted to convey but so many times authors unconsciously instill perceptible themes in their pieces that you can pick up on the same way you can figure out systematic biases or ideology that people don't even recognize in themselves.
The point of Art is for people, consumers, the original author or otherwise, to evaluate ideas *independently* and draw their own conclusions and possibly change independently, this is how art relates to ethics. People want to be as much as possible self-sufficient and self-reliant and change by themselves, not when someone tells them they're wrong but when they themselves feel (through art for instance) that they've been wrong.
>>24535720
The purpose of Art IS the detachment of ideas from individuals by means of aesthetic relatedness (style, color, frame etc.) so as to create a self-sufficient object or object-like experience (a self-contained story for example; begin-middle-end)
Death Author happens whenever someone makes art, because he detaches himself from his ideas. A good author is still useful to create good representation of ideas, it might be useful to understand what he wanted to convey but so many times authors unconsciously instill perceptible themes in their pieces that you can pick up on the same way you can figure out systematic biases or ideology that people don't even recognize in themselves.
The point of Art is for people, consumers, the original author or otherwise, to evaluate ideas *independently* and draw their own conclusions and possibly change independently, this is how art relates to ethics. People want to be as much as possible self-sufficient and self-reliant and change by themselves, not when someone tells them they're wrong but when they themselves feel (through art for instance) that they've been wrong.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/10/2025, 6:01:39 AM No.24536298
>>24535807
>The purpose of Art IS the detachment of ideas from individuals by means of aesthetic relatedness (style, color, frame etc.) so as to create a self-sufficient object or object-like experience (a self-contained story for example; begin-middle-end)
No, it is deliberate human expression.
>Death Author happens whenever someone makes art, because he detaches himself from his ideas.
Art is a product of one's ideas.
>A good author is still useful to create good representation of ideas, it might be useful to understand what he wanted to convey but so many times authors unconsciously instill perceptible themes
People don't write while they are asleep.
>The point of Art is for people, consumers, the original author or otherwise, to evaluate ideas *independently* and draw their own conclusions and possibly change independently, this is how art relates to ethics.
Not really.
>The purpose of Art IS the detachment of ideas from individuals by means of aesthetic relatedness (style, color, frame etc.) so as to create a self-sufficient object or object-like experience (a self-contained story for example; begin-middle-end)
No, it is deliberate human expression.
>Death Author happens whenever someone makes art, because he detaches himself from his ideas.
Art is a product of one's ideas.
>A good author is still useful to create good representation of ideas, it might be useful to understand what he wanted to convey but so many times authors unconsciously instill perceptible themes
People don't write while they are asleep.
>The point of Art is for people, consumers, the original author or otherwise, to evaluate ideas *independently* and draw their own conclusions and possibly change independently, this is how art relates to ethics.
Not really.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/10/2025, 7:57:25 AM No.24536492
>>24535720
Never said that the text has a "metaphysical will separate from the author's intent". Just that what they actually wrote in the text is what matters to the text. E.g for a counterexample, see JK Rowling who's infamous for doing half her world building through tweets years after the fact instead of actually writing them into her novels.
Never said that the text has a "metaphysical will separate from the author's intent". Just that what they actually wrote in the text is what matters to the text. E.g for a counterexample, see JK Rowling who's infamous for doing half her world building through tweets years after the fact instead of actually writing them into her novels.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/10/2025, 8:28:46 AM No.24536570
>>24536492
Death of the Author was written on the 1960's not when Twitter was around.
Death of the Author was written on the 1960's not when Twitter was around.
Anonymous
7/10/2025, 1:36:56 PM No.24537009
>>24535807
>The point of Art is for people, consumers, the original author or otherwise, to evaluate ideas *independently* and draw their own conclusions and possibly change independently, this is how art relates to ethics.
>Art is more about getting a reaction from the audience
>The point of Art is for people, consumers, the original author or otherwise, to evaluate ideas *independently* and draw their own conclusions and possibly change independently, this is how art relates to ethics.
>Art is more about getting a reaction from the audience
Anonymous
7/10/2025, 2:20:22 PM No.24537060
>>24535720
>This theory is based on the pseudoscience of automatic writing
No, it's based on authors having the capacity to lie when asked "what did you mean by this?"
>This theory is based on the pseudoscience of automatic writing
No, it's based on authors having the capacity to lie when asked "what did you mean by this?"
Replies:
Anonymous
7/10/2025, 3:10:20 PM No.24537133
>>24537060
Again, people knew about lying before 1967. That isn't what the essay is about.
Again, people knew about lying before 1967. That isn't what the essay is about.
Anonymous
7/10/2025, 3:14:47 PM No.24537145
>>24534235 (OP)
Wow, this place is sad if this many people are so confused by Death of the Author.
You know how a schizophrenic can watch a kids show and think it's telling him to save the world from demons?
That's all death of the author is about, the fact that people can and will interpret things beyond the authorial intent. It's not about how you do that, that much is obvious. It's about the implications of an ever growing number of interpretations arising.
Wow, this place is sad if this many people are so confused by Death of the Author.
You know how a schizophrenic can watch a kids show and think it's telling him to save the world from demons?
That's all death of the author is about, the fact that people can and will interpret things beyond the authorial intent. It's not about how you do that, that much is obvious. It's about the implications of an ever growing number of interpretations arising.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/10/2025, 3:36:55 PM No.24537202
>>24537145
>That's all death of the author is about, the fact that people can and will interpret things beyond the authorial intent.
How convenient that a 6 page essay is only saying the something everyone already knows and just so happens to be used to justify all of the most blatant literary revisionism. Lord of the Rings was published before this essay.
>That's all death of the author is about, the fact that people can and will interpret things beyond the authorial intent.
How convenient that a 6 page essay is only saying the something everyone already knows and just so happens to be used to justify all of the most blatant literary revisionism. Lord of the Rings was published before this essay.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/10/2025, 4:14:00 PM No.24537269
>>24537202
Is there a reason why you stopped reading my post right before the last fucking sentence which actually finishes the thought?
Is there a reason why you stopped reading my post right before the last fucking sentence which actually finishes the thought?
Replies:
Anonymous
7/10/2025, 7:54:13 PM No.24537696
>>24536298
>No, it is deliberate human expression.
vague
>Art is a product of one's ideas.
yeah, so is everything, again vague
>People don't write while they are asleep.
not what I said; what I said is that people are retarded and more often than not don't comprehend the full scope of the ideology that controls them and the structure behind their
ideas
>No, it is deliberate human expression.
vague
>Art is a product of one's ideas.
yeah, so is everything, again vague
>People don't write while they are asleep.
not what I said; what I said is that people are retarded and more often than not don't comprehend the full scope of the ideology that controls them and the structure behind their
ideas
Replies:
Anonymous
7/11/2025, 3:51:47 AM No.24539055
>>24537269
Why does that matter?
>>24537696
>vague
Yes.
>yeah, so is everything, again vague
I already gave the definition of art. Art being a product of one's ideas doesn't need to a unique defining trait.
>not what I said; what I said is that people are retarded and more often than not don't comprehend the full scope of the ideology that controls them and the structure behind their ideas
Right, that perspective doesn't require replacing the author with a "scriptor".
It similar to the concept of freewill. There is no evidence to prove that freewill exists but there no evidence to prove that freewill doesn't exist. No (functional) society has operated on the idea that freewill doesn't exist and the ones that do do it selectively for their political agenda.
Why does that matter?
>>24537696
>vague
Yes.
>yeah, so is everything, again vague
I already gave the definition of art. Art being a product of one's ideas doesn't need to a unique defining trait.
>not what I said; what I said is that people are retarded and more often than not don't comprehend the full scope of the ideology that controls them and the structure behind their ideas
Right, that perspective doesn't require replacing the author with a "scriptor".
It similar to the concept of freewill. There is no evidence to prove that freewill exists but there no evidence to prove that freewill doesn't exist. No (functional) society has operated on the idea that freewill doesn't exist and the ones that do do it selectively for their political agenda.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/11/2025, 4:03:03 AM No.24539080
>>24539055
Because if you actually finished reading the thought you wouldn't have responded with such an asinine response that seemingly ignores the entire point of what I was saying.
The essay isn't about the fact it's possible to interpret a text differently than the author it's about the implications of that. DUH
Because if you actually finished reading the thought you wouldn't have responded with such an asinine response that seemingly ignores the entire point of what I was saying.
The essay isn't about the fact it's possible to interpret a text differently than the author it's about the implications of that. DUH
Replies:
Anonymous
7/11/2025, 5:13:20 AM No.24539276
>>24539080
>The essay isn't about the fact it's possible to interpret a text differently than the author it's about the implications of that. DUH
>We have to do something about something that was always been the case.
Also, that really isn't what the essay is about. It is very convenient that magically shifts from truism to radical theory whenever it is convenient. You basically contradicted yourself when you said >>24537145
>That's all death of the author is about, the fact that people can and will interpret things beyond the authorial intent. It's not about how you do that, that much is obvious. It's about the implications of an ever growing number of interpretations arising.
What are these implications? That we have *gasp* different opinions and most of them are just fucking wrong? The author can lie and the author can forget? Nobody takes the opposite position.
The point of Death of the Author is metaphysically detach the work from the author in ways that defy common sense using a largely discredited linguistical theory. Take for example two similar statements:
>Orcs are an allegory for Black people.
vs
>Orcs are Black coded.
Worse you usually get
>Orcs are Black.
The first statement implies intent from the author. The second statement appeals to a metaphysical zeitgeist and requires even less evidence. The third statement is just a lower IQ version of the second statement. It isn't that they think Blacks are violent savages but they think other people people think Blacks are violent savages. This just becomes are terribly retarded ouroboros that ends up sanitizing media.
>The essay isn't about the fact it's possible to interpret a text differently than the author it's about the implications of that. DUH
>We have to do something about something that was always been the case.
Also, that really isn't what the essay is about. It is very convenient that magically shifts from truism to radical theory whenever it is convenient. You basically contradicted yourself when you said >>24537145
>That's all death of the author is about, the fact that people can and will interpret things beyond the authorial intent. It's not about how you do that, that much is obvious. It's about the implications of an ever growing number of interpretations arising.
What are these implications? That we have *gasp* different opinions and most of them are just fucking wrong? The author can lie and the author can forget? Nobody takes the opposite position.
The point of Death of the Author is metaphysically detach the work from the author in ways that defy common sense using a largely discredited linguistical theory. Take for example two similar statements:
>Orcs are an allegory for Black people.
vs
>Orcs are Black coded.
Worse you usually get
>Orcs are Black.
The first statement implies intent from the author. The second statement appeals to a metaphysical zeitgeist and requires even less evidence. The third statement is just a lower IQ version of the second statement. It isn't that they think Blacks are violent savages but they think other people people think Blacks are violent savages. This just becomes are terribly retarded ouroboros that ends up sanitizing media.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/11/2025, 6:44:33 AM No.24539510
>>24539276
The implications are massive and inspired countless linguistic studies/analysis
Let's consider just one use of such an idea -
>it can be retroactively applied on ancient texts like the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita to compare and contrast the differences between various religious sects and the oldest understanding/version we have of these texts and then use that create a lineage of these religions stretching back to cultures like the proto-indo-europeans.
>You can examine how exactly the beliefs have morphed and why based on thousands of years of cultural evolution which still managed to hold a strand of data throughout all its iterations over the years, regardless of the author. Like a hauntological entity, clinging onto the stories and myths throughout countless iterations of religion.
That's one thought that comes to mind after considering the "Death of the Author" essay. Would you like another?
The implications are massive and inspired countless linguistic studies/analysis
Let's consider just one use of such an idea -
>it can be retroactively applied on ancient texts like the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita to compare and contrast the differences between various religious sects and the oldest understanding/version we have of these texts and then use that create a lineage of these religions stretching back to cultures like the proto-indo-europeans.
>You can examine how exactly the beliefs have morphed and why based on thousands of years of cultural evolution which still managed to hold a strand of data throughout all its iterations over the years, regardless of the author. Like a hauntological entity, clinging onto the stories and myths throughout countless iterations of religion.
That's one thought that comes to mind after considering the "Death of the Author" essay. Would you like another?
Replies:
Anonymous
7/11/2025, 6:50:24 AM No.24539531
>>24539510
Lol, why do I write like an AI now? I guarantee you couldn't get an AI to spit out anything like that normally.
I think it's because I've come to believe that the way the AI expresses information is very effective and should be emulated. The more organized the information in your post is, the better someone reading it can understand and grasp everything. AI formatting is usually quite effective at organizing data for the best knowledge absorption so it makes sense to emulate it.
Lol, why do I write like an AI now? I guarantee you couldn't get an AI to spit out anything like that normally.
I think it's because I've come to believe that the way the AI expresses information is very effective and should be emulated. The more organized the information in your post is, the better someone reading it can understand and grasp everything. AI formatting is usually quite effective at organizing data for the best knowledge absorption so it makes sense to emulate it.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/11/2025, 7:25:07 AM No.24539619
>>24539510
1) That isn't what the essay is about.
2) That is quite the opposite of the application of the essay.
3) The essay was published on 1967. It didn't say anything new and people were fine before it.
>>24539531
That is a big self-report.
1) That isn't what the essay is about.
2) That is quite the opposite of the application of the essay.
3) The essay was published on 1967. It didn't say anything new and people were fine before it.
>>24539531
That is a big self-report.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/11/2025, 7:30:38 AM No.24539627
>>24534235 (OP)
>I am from 1930.
>Authors assign texts to meanings!
>Another war in Europe is impossible!
Pretending to be 90 years out of date, or entirely unread in the field you've shite from your mouth into, either is equally as stupid.
>I am from 1930.
>Authors assign texts to meanings!
>Another war in Europe is impossible!
Pretending to be 90 years out of date, or entirely unread in the field you've shite from your mouth into, either is equally as stupid.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/11/2025, 8:29:49 AM No.24539703
>>24535720
If the writer means to write one thing but actually writes something with implications that are completely different, the author's intent doesnt magically rewrite reality. To compare to other fields, if a programmer intends to write a program but makes a mistake such that the program does something else, the computer will do what the program actually says rather than what the programmer intended (which is from where bugs originate)
If the writer means to write one thing but actually writes something with implications that are completely different, the author's intent doesnt magically rewrite reality. To compare to other fields, if a programmer intends to write a program but makes a mistake such that the program does something else, the computer will do what the program actually says rather than what the programmer intended (which is from where bugs originate)
Replies:
Anonymous
7/11/2025, 9:54:48 AM No.24539826
>>24539627
>>Another war in Europe is impossible!
Don't knock my candidate of choice for the office of Prime Minister, Mr. Chamberlain. I quite like the way he deals with that nasty Hitler fellow, and feel very confident of Peace in our Time!
>>Another war in Europe is impossible!
Don't knock my candidate of choice for the office of Prime Minister, Mr. Chamberlain. I quite like the way he deals with that nasty Hitler fellow, and feel very confident of Peace in our Time!
Anonymous
7/11/2025, 9:59:36 AM No.24539833
The author is dead, except when chuds like something I don't think they have any business liking. Then the author is more alive than he ever was before.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/11/2025, 1:00:54 PM No.24540061
>>24539703
This. Ray Bradbury didn't intend Fahrenheit 451 to be about the dangers of censorship, he always said it was about how TV is the devil. Yet when you actually read the book, it's clearly about the dangers of censorship. Nearly everyone interprets the story that way except the author.
This. Ray Bradbury didn't intend Fahrenheit 451 to be about the dangers of censorship, he always said it was about how TV is the devil. Yet when you actually read the book, it's clearly about the dangers of censorship. Nearly everyone interprets the story that way except the author.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/11/2025, 2:04:34 PM No.24540177
>>24539619
>1) That isn't what the essay is about.
sorry buddy, death of the author. I interpreted it differently than you!
>1) That isn't what the essay is about.
sorry buddy, death of the author. I interpreted it differently than you!
Anonymous
7/11/2025, 2:46:34 PM No.24540251
>>24539703
>If the writer means to write one thing but actually writes something with implications that are completely different
That is called incompetency.
>the author's intent doesnt magically rewrite reality.
Fiction isn't reality dumbass.
Death of the Author apologists think that people who argue against it think that the author is infallible. Instead, they try to argue that work is infallible. It is like the author is peering into a hole to another realm or he is divinely inspired. We get an army of retards that goes on to find a complicated counterintuitive in-universe explanation for every obvious oversight by the incompetent writers. Storytelling stops being a exercise in narrative and becomes about clarity of message.
>To compare to other fields, if a programmer intends to write a program but makes a mistake such that the program does something else, the computer will do what the program actually says rather than what the programmer intended (which is from where bugs originate)
>patch notes: Fixed a login exploit
>Fuck you Anon! That was a feature! You can't just patch that out!
>>24540061
I'm sure that 4 walls of TV is about censorship. The book burnings were indiscriminate and serve no other purpose but dumbing people down.
>>24539833
The only successful Right-wing capture in recent memory is the Barbie movie. Starship Troopers is still a bastardization that ruined the image of the original novel. Death of the Author is often the justification for all of these terrible adaptations and remakes.
>If the writer means to write one thing but actually writes something with implications that are completely different
That is called incompetency.
>the author's intent doesnt magically rewrite reality.
Fiction isn't reality dumbass.
Death of the Author apologists think that people who argue against it think that the author is infallible. Instead, they try to argue that work is infallible. It is like the author is peering into a hole to another realm or he is divinely inspired. We get an army of retards that goes on to find a complicated counterintuitive in-universe explanation for every obvious oversight by the incompetent writers. Storytelling stops being a exercise in narrative and becomes about clarity of message.
>To compare to other fields, if a programmer intends to write a program but makes a mistake such that the program does something else, the computer will do what the program actually says rather than what the programmer intended (which is from where bugs originate)
>patch notes: Fixed a login exploit
>Fuck you Anon! That was a feature! You can't just patch that out!
>>24540061
I'm sure that 4 walls of TV is about censorship. The book burnings were indiscriminate and serve no other purpose but dumbing people down.
>>24539833
The only successful Right-wing capture in recent memory is the Barbie movie. Starship Troopers is still a bastardization that ruined the image of the original novel. Death of the Author is often the justification for all of these terrible adaptations and remakes.
Anonymous
7/11/2025, 4:22:03 PM No.24540411
>>24539055
>I already gave the definition of art. Art being a product of one's ideas doesn't need to a unique defining trait.
"Definition" Etymology :
dฤ- = "completely"
fฤซnฤซre = "to limit, end, or bound" (from fฤซnis = "boundary, limit")
Definition are meant to bound things *out* of the other concepts and objects, your conception boils to "it's whatever" so far,
I'm sorry to inform you that you are epistemologically retarded
>I already gave the definition of art. Art being a product of one's ideas doesn't need to a unique defining trait.
"Definition" Etymology :
dฤ- = "completely"
fฤซnฤซre = "to limit, end, or bound" (from fฤซnis = "boundary, limit")
Definition are meant to bound things *out* of the other concepts and objects, your conception boils to "it's whatever" so far,
I'm sorry to inform you that you are epistemologically retarded
Replies:
Anonymous
7/11/2025, 4:34:44 PM No.24540430
>>24540061
F451 states very clearly that the government wasn't what started this, it was people deciding that these works are harmful and the country's response was, "you don't want to read? These ideas only cause problems? Fine."
Unless you just didn't read the book, you'll see that it's a criticism of shunning curiosity and intellectualism, not the aftereffect of censorship.
...Did you actually read any of the sections with Beatty in them?
F451 states very clearly that the government wasn't what started this, it was people deciding that these works are harmful and the country's response was, "you don't want to read? These ideas only cause problems? Fine."
Unless you just didn't read the book, you'll see that it's a criticism of shunning curiosity and intellectualism, not the aftereffect of censorship.
...Did you actually read any of the sections with Beatty in them?
Anonymous
7/11/2025, 4:51:35 PM No.24540460
>>24540411
You didn't give a definition of art. You just said empty horseshit. You are thinking about definition of vague concepts and you act surprised that it is vague.
>>24535807
>The purpose of Art IS the detachment of ideas from individuals by means of aesthetic relatedness (style, color, frame etc.) so as to create a self-sufficient object or object-like experience (a self-contained story for example; begin-middle-end)
This is specific or useful. This is just faggy, worthless, and needlessly verbose.
You didn't give a definition of art. You just said empty horseshit. You are thinking about definition of vague concepts and you act surprised that it is vague.
>>24535807
>The purpose of Art IS the detachment of ideas from individuals by means of aesthetic relatedness (style, color, frame etc.) so as to create a self-sufficient object or object-like experience (a self-contained story for example; begin-middle-end)
This is specific or useful. This is just faggy, worthless, and needlessly verbose.