Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram Find&Fuck Waifus ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

DRAFT - Death of the Author (Patreon)

Published:
2018-12-31 02:50:59
Imported:
2020-05

Content

Almost the final version - still has some errors (and needs certain approvals).

Files

DRAFT - Death of the Author

Comments

Anonymous

First off, your makeup looks incredible. Okay. Sorry. V superficial. But it’s true. Now I will watch the video.

Anonymous

Is "Struturialism" @ 7:09 one of the errors mentioned?

Anonymous

There's a good chance that a gif of the wink could very well replace the hot dog gif in popularity! (Spoiler Alert: It won't!)

Anonymous

“Le Morte d’Author”

Anonymous

This is a great companion to your older video on Orson Scott Card/Chickfila that I adore!

Anonymous

This was really good! Nice job landing John Green!

Anonymous

I love seeing all the ways that Lindsay's hate for doing the adversitment part always leads to very amusing ad reads. It kind of reminds me of Lemony Snicket trying to convince the reader not to read his books and making it all more interesting to read A Series of Unfortunate Events, which is a series that is totally impossible to read without considering the author, even tough the author doesn't even exist. I realise I'm rambling.

Anonymous

This was amazing. I never expected a video on DotA to be so expressive and emotionally impactful. I cant wait to share the final draft with my friends.

Anonymous

I love the either Warcraft 3 or WoW guidebook right by Persona 4 guidebooks and two copies of Starcraft 2 (or Starcraft 2 plus DLC of Starcraft 2). Reinforcing your point more and more.

Anonymous

I love it!! My one critique is that the audio processing in the 90s PSA segments is a bit hard to understand for me as hard of hearing; there's a lot of high-end cut out, so it gets a bit fuzzy and hard to parse!

Adam

I fucking loved this. My mind is on fire thinking about this.

Anonymous

Just a heads up that I'm noticing as soon as it comes up; it's Rowling like bowling, not Rowling like howling.

Anonymous

I like the closeup at the end. All we really get is a clearer understanding, not a pinpoint answer.

Anonymous

(pre-comment disclaimer: I'm totally one of the nerds who goes on twitter and tweets Rowling asking about Dobby's birthday or Petunia Dursley's college major). I think it's a bit unfair to characterize Rowling as someone who's going back into her work and inserting diversity and then trying to claim credit for it. Unless I'm missing a specific instance, I don't believe she's ever gone out of her way to ask for credit for any of these things. It's always "a fan asked me, so here's the information." I know the text has very little, if anything, that supports Dumbledore being gay, but it never seemed to me that Rowling was acting like the fact that she said he was in response to a question means she deserves to be grand marshall of the pride parade.

Anonymous

slouched down giving a thumbs up is a *mood*. loved it, need to watch it a few more times to digest and think about it more, preferably drinking a Butterbeer(tm) at Universal Studios before riding Escape from Gringotts(tm)

Anonymous

I Fucking LOVE that Lindsay is expanding her subject matter. Film, YouTube itself, and now literature? YES! I love It’s Lit, and this is like a long form, adult version of that. Bring it on.

Anonymous

Love the video, Lindsay. Especially the little "yikes" moment you borrowed from Dan. I hope to see that become a meme in the rest of your circle of video essay friends. The DotA theory has weighed heavily on my mind since I studied literature in undergrad years and years ago. It was mindblowing when I was 18 but by the time I was in grad school, I found serious problems with it. Barthes was 100% correct in intuiting that intention shouldn't override the actual text in the majority of cases and was extremely helpful in moving criticism away from a model dominated largely by trying to divine intent but going so far as to say that intent never matters is a limited perspective that just isn't always true. There are even some types of literature (notably propaganda) that readers can never engage with honestly if they don't correctly identify the intent (in the case of propaganda, that intent being to deceive which makes the whole text suspect). I really felt like you and John got into that more synthesized understanding that intent can still matter in a unique and interesting way with your interview. Green's little bit about how he would have loved to live in a world where people don't need intent but that he understands that humans are just wired to seek it out and it will always be there opened my eyes to a new perspective I hadn't even considered despite thinking about this for so long. Anyway, enough rambling. This is one of my favorite video essays you've put together and you do great work.

Anonymous
>>18462672

The scene with the chicken sandwich with the googly eyes is one of my all-time favorites!

Curt Clark

"Please log in to comment" -- I AM LOGGED IN PATRICIA ISTG Aaaaaaaaanyway, this was a wonderful surprise. Seeing you and one of my other favorite people in the world discuss this concept is an absolute treat. And he even helped you with the plug! Whattaguy. This is a surprisingly fraught concept, but as you said, it's not really new. Ask any fan of the works of Michael Jackson who was alive in the mid-90s and they will be all too familiar with Death of the Author (and resurrection of the author as well, after his passing and eventual exoneration). The music industry and Hollywood at large is rife with this, and the challenge of deciding whether to abandon a work you previously enjoyed because you disagree with one of the big names behind it, or whether you divorce the views and actions of the creators and focus on the work itself. (In my case, the dilemma comes in the form of Bryan Singer's X-Men movies, and I don't really have a satisfactory answer)

Anonymous

Was that comment about derrida a contrapoints reference?

Curt Clark
>>18462989

I noticed that too. I wonder if there'sa way to enhance the audio ithot losing that old-timey effect.

Anonymous

Fantastic episode! I love poststructuralism. You may already have noted this, but there's a typo in one of the title cards: STRUTURALISM

Anonymous

I think Foucault’s positions are pretty sympathetic to the concerns you voice here re: authors as authorities and totalizing forces that determine the range of discussion and possible understandings of texts. He’s not as naive or lazy as he’s sometimes made out to be, but is and should be a useful tool for others that provides only the labor they need. He was also totally cranking hog to contemporary mimeographed fan fiction where Spock doms Kirk, or would have if he knew about it (which he probably did). You’ve got a tight-ass argument here that covers a lot of ground in a clever way and doesn’t overstay its welcome. I don’t know enough about video production to know where errors might be, but probably most people who choose to focus on them over the form and content are probably doing so in bad faith because they’re afraid of having to think and/or women. It’s an achievement and worth it even if it pushes you further into some version of the same weird space John Green has to navigate. PS if anyone out there in patreon comments land wants a fuller discussion of how postmodern ideas intersect with and have been consumed by capitalism, David Harvey’s book The Condition of Postmodernity is from that era and explains things pretty well and pretty clearly. Basically it couldn’t free anyone and didn’t really work, and is dead now.

Anonymous

I have only one exceptionally nerdy critique. At the end of the video, the final EQ sweep/VHS visual effect feel just a little out of sync, the VHS EQ effect is gone long before the VHS Visual effect is, so I ended up a little distracted by it. The content was lovely and well-paced.

Anonymous

The pull in at the end speech as the audio and video becomes clearer was such a poignant and clever choice. And the rest was okay, I guess (I'm kidding, it was great).

Anonymous

The increasing clarity of the audio in the last bit is a nice touch! Also, you may already know this but I won’t let bystander effect stop me: in one of the title cards “structuralist” is misspelled.

Anonymous

I loved this video! Ever since I learned that death of the author was a thing, I've always gone back and forth on it. One of the discussion points that I've never really seen connected to death of the author but might be an interesting point to bring up in the future connects back to the "Whole Plate" episode where you discussed the way media doesn't effect actions but it does effect worldview, especially when it goes unexamined. It also loops me back to another video you did years ago about Orson Scott Card. It reminds me how much his mormon views on children seems to have really influenced his later book, its not explicit but all the characters who don't have children tended to end up sad and alone, like Colonel Graff. And by being unaware of that bias it becomes harder to pick that out and that viewpoint, then unexamined, would have a greater influence on the worldview of the reader. Or at least that's the way it seems to me at times. I'm not sure if there's been any studies done on that aspect of media. Also really enjoyed the John Green interview, I was kinda wondering if he would show up since you did that other video with Hank Green. Happy New Year! And look forward to your future videos.

Anonymous
>>18465057

Ironically a pretty good case of the death of the author is right there in how mad Card gets at the notion that there could be anything weird or uncomfortable about a bunch of naked kids hanging out in space together talking about their dicks, which only makes sense under a rubric he assumes is universal but which is weird as hell to almost anyone else.

Anonymous

I've been hoping you would cover Rowling via Fantastic Beasts franchise but love this approach so much. Especially enjoyed John Green's interview and being able to see how his views have evolved. The 90's VHS was so on point and your ad plugs are the only ones I never fast forward through.

Anonymous
>>18464263

This was killing me. KILLING ME. Hmmm... Is there a "Death of the Audience" videoessay in there? Hmmm... That could really play into the fracturing of cultural diffusion as channels for cultural production proliferate...

Mister Joshua

Grand video that taught me a thing or three, I only wish I could discuss this with folk I know in person. But a highlight was surely watching Lindsay melt into the couch during the promo for Audible.

Anonymous

I found it very interesting and well constructed but perhaps I'm missing a bit of focus on art as a catalyst or channel as opposed to a piece of content whose boundaries have to be defined (although it's already a 30 min video so... can't really complain!). Also maybe it's me but the retro style was great for the intro but a bit distracting the following times, mainly the slightly muffled audio.

Anonymous

This was damn incredible. I kinda hoped you would ask John Green about his feelings on JK Rowling, but that you got him to participate at all is more than enough for me.

lindsayellis
>>18465858

i did not choose the vanity url and john keyed in really keenly with the fact that it made me want to die

Anonymous

"Yeah, this is a pretty good episode, but it's missing something, maybe a published author should show up or-" *sees John Green* "...oh." Seriously, epic video. I've personally always tried to separate "who the character is" from "what happens to the character" in the "death of the author" space, but still, this is just a fantastic exploration of the subject.</sees>

Alex Wright

Great video. I watched the Fault in Our Stars film without knowing anything about John Green - knew nothing about him til this video - so I guess the story worked. Ordered the book now (second hand though, sorry John).

Anonymous
>>18463198

On the other hand she gets thousands of comments and questions, easily fueling revisionism that's not far from merely filling gaps. It's a natural reaction to want to reshape one's work to make it more consistent or profound than originally intended, be it consciously or unconsciously. She's already been open about her regret regarding some of her narrative choices, and almost no author is fully satisfied with the "final" version of their work, so anything not directly backed by the original art should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Anonymous

Draft comment: I think your voice is just a little out of sync at the very beginning of the Green interview, about 20:25. The effects shift at the end is spectacular, and makes the whole thing a commentary on the very idea of authority. Yowza. Thanks for giving me something to think about today.

Jasmijn Wellner

Great as always! I was reminded of Sarah Z's recent video about JKR and authorial intent: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6qJXLNL8Ik" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6qJXLNL8Ik</a> (great minds and all)

Matthew Maddock

Hi Lindsay. Others may have mentioned, but the bit about Rice and Rowling felt very similar to another video essay by Sarah Z <a href="https://youtu.be/A6qJXLNL8Ik" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://youtu.be/A6qJXLNL8Ik</a> Dunno if you saw this, but I know you mentioned adding citations.

Anonymous

Every video you make is the best thing I see that week. This was wonderful. Thank you.

Anonymous

I find the pause after "but that's just my interpretation" a little long and awkward; when you blinked, I was expecting some sort of subversive punchline. (Is that weird?) That said, the Audible ad at the end is ABSOLUTELY ADORABLE. I was enchanted by the self-consciousness.

Anonymous

This is so interesting! I use John Green's refusal to answer questions about his books when refuting all the talking JK does about the paratext of HP - it's interesting to see how he's evolved on his "death of the author" stance - thanks so much for making this!

Anonymous

I may not be an experienced enough reader to be certain to have everything understood from your video (but of course it was very educational to me!). Still I am not exactly sure, if "the author's brand" does apply exactly to someone like Rowling. You are certainly right, that her explanations and later additions do have great impact on how the Harry Potter universe is understood by the readership. And I would be not so foolish to claim, that this voice isn't strong. On the other hand I would argue, that for many fans of the HP universe, Rowling is not a flawless goddess in regards to every interpretation of her work. There are many errors and inconsistencies in her texts and fans do take the liberty to find their own truths. This is especially true for (yeah, not really written by Rowling) The Cursed Child that many fans do refuse to accept as canon. So, what does it mean in the end, that Rowling revealed Dumbledore being gay? For me it means: It has not been relevant enough to have been put in the story. This is why she choose not to do it. And therefore, it is of course not part of the story itself. But she was asked by her fans about Dumbledore. And this interaction made it relevant for her enough, to release this information into the Paratext. I don't think, this needs to be critized. In the end, the reader is the highest authority for her understanding of the story. How relevant the auther's idea of a sidenote to a character is, is on her to decide. Just as I have happily decided that Cursed Child has nothing to do with my version of the canonical Harry Potter universe. It is just fanfiction approved by the original author. Still I think Dumbledore's gayness is an important aspect of his character and I hope that it will become official in Fantastic Beasts 3. Those, who don't like it, don't need to accept this as their canon. Is the author dead? Probably yes. But she has the most educated ideas for my own fantasy. Thank you Jo. And thank you Lindsay as you have taught me again a lot in your video!

Anonymous

Enlightening, entertaining, and densely packed! Thank you! If you are looking for comment, I would ask that you tone down the VHS audio effect a bit—it made it slightly too hard-to-hear at times.

Anonymous
>>18473978

I personally think the way Rowling answers questions would be part of her author brand because it’s insinuating that she has answers for all those questions instead of attempting to let the readers come to their own conclusions. &amp; it is a problem at least for a person like me that she post publishing made this character gay &amp; then seemed to actively go out of her way to not represent him as so on screen in the Fantastic Beasts movies when it would have added to &amp; made their character arc make more sense. &amp; that is probably on her as sole screen writer as Lindsey points out &amp; with as vocal Rowling is on Twitter, I think that if the studio told her no we’d all hear about it. But that’s just my opinion on the matter.

Anonymous

Great video. But I came to a realization about myself, especially while listening to John Green. I know almost nothing about the creators of content I consume. I'm not sure if that was on purpose or not, but I don't know, nor do I really care to know, about those people who create what I consume, and I think it enhances my enjoyment of the material because I don't insert the writer into their prose. What Mr. Green was saying about Salinger, I didn't put him in the text, because I didn't know anything about him. All I want to do is consume the work they create. And after watching this, I'm glad I don't care to find out about the creators who make what I consume. It lets me ignorantly take each piece as it is. Granted, somethings are hard to avoid, such as Bryan Singer or Kevin Spacey, as was pointed out at the beginning of the video, but even then I have been able to generally separate the creator from their work, although I skipped watching the Ref this year for Christmas, as was my tradition for the past several years. Kevin Spacey may be the bridge too far. I want to thank you, Ms. Ellis, for this video and the thoughts it has provoked in me. I'm going to stick to my ignorance bubble I think, it seems I may enjoy the work more if I don't get the creator all tangled up in it.

Anonymous

I just started watching and totally flipped out when I saw you got John Green on here. Not that I didn't think you couldn't, mind you, but I was like OMG THERE HE IS GO LINDSAY and yeah. I'm going to keep watching now. *finishes watching* LINDSAY SINKING INTO THE SEAT. &lt;3

JM

I can't believe you made a famous author hawk your sponsor's product. You're a total puppet-master. Awesome piece, I wouldn't change a thing. I agree that the universe is amoral, but the creator isn't.

Anonymous

I kept thinking about two authors during this episode. Agatha Christie - who went ahead and wrote herself into her books as a character, responding hilariously and grumpily to the types of letters she gets as a murder mystery author. The other is Diane Duane - who used the names of two friends for characters in the first book of her Young Wizards series back when it was first published in the 80s and then felt unable to openly admit the characters' relationship as the series continued for fear that it would be assumed to be fully biographical about real people whose privacy she didn't want to violate. Actually, Rowling got some of that, too - she made an offhand remark about basing an unnamed character on her ex-husband and then the Internet happened with all the attendant rampant speculation. Oof.

Robert Gendron

I enjoyed the content of the video, but had a little issue with the presentation. I had to increase the volume of the video to compensate for the intentionally muted/muddled "VHS" audio, which made the normal sections louder and then led into the even louder "Bullshit" quote being a near yell. Even the interview seemed like the clips shown and the discussion had very inconsistent volumes. Didn't ruin the video, but was a bit jarring.

Shawn Ravenfire

I wonder how this applies to fans who reject the canon of the author, such as George Lucas. When I was a kid, I saw Han shoot first. If George Lucas, speaking from a place of authority, says that Greedo shot first, I reject this canon. For me, the canon is whatever I saw on the screen in its original form. However, there are some adaptations of previous works that I've accepted as canon, and some which I have not. Mary Shelly may not have included Igor in the novel, but for me, Frankenstein will always have an assistant named Igor. The Wicked Witch of the West, while I accept her having an eyepatch, is just as canonical to me without the patch and having green skin. Batman and Superman may not have been written by their respective authors as coexisting in the same universe, but I accept as canon that they do. However, I do not accept Hades have blue fire for hair or Hercules riding Pegasus. I think the difference is whether we're adapting an original work or adapting an adaptation, and how connected the new adaptation is to the original source material. For example, I accept Adam West's Batman as one interpretation of Batman, and I accept Tim Burton/Michael Keaton as another interpretation of Batman, but I do not accept Joel Shumacher's interpretation, because it was created as a continuation of Tim Burton's interpretation, but drew from the Adam West version, even though Tim Burton's version existed separately from the Adam West version. Likewise, Disney's Hercules is a bad adaptation, and when Once Upon a Time included elements of Hercules, it was almost an insult to include a blue-fire-haired Hades, because it promised a new interpretation of an old story, but instead, gave a new interpretation of a previous bad interpretation. I mean, which Highlander movies are canon? Any besides the first one? All of them, including the ones that contradict each other? Only the ones the franchise owners say are canon? The way I see it, an author has the final say in their own work UNTIL the work is published in its final form (although I will allow for a later inclusion of a studio-deleted scene), UNLESS there is an existing promise of a sequel or some other form of continuation. Personally, I hate it when people write fan fiction of a franchise still in production. It's like when a guy in the audience of a comedy club shouts out his own punch lines to jokes. Let the creator of the work finish what they started. You can start making your own interpretations after the original work is complete. Anything that isn't in the text or on the screen, even if it's from an interview by the author, isn't canon, and exists in a kind of quantum superposition. If I don't observe Dumbledore being gay, then he is both gay and not gay, just as if I don't observe Schrodinger's Cat being alive, then it is both alive and not alive. You can write your own fan fiction to fill in gaps, but it's not canon. You can choose to believe that having two creation stories in the Bible is explained by the inclusion of Lilith, but it's only canonical within the context of its own adaptation, which means that an adaptation of an adaptation becomes a problem, such as Lilith being a character in the Jack Black movie Year One, and not following the canon of the secondary interpretation of the original non-canonical version of the biblical stories on which Year One is supposedly based. Including Lilith as a daughter of Adam instead of an ex-wife is, well, it would be like doing a direct adaptation of Norse mythology, but then including a scene halfway through where Thor joins the Avengers, and then getting Avengers details wrong. Is it canon? We may not know who the original authors of Norse myths would be, but would they have any more or less power than the audience to point out what is right or wrong about the latest version? Okay, now I'm rambling.

Anonymous

I found the topic very interesting. looking back, I think I actually lived the Death of the Author way of consuming the written word in my youth. I was a voracious reader, and never put in the time to learn even the most rudimentary things about the authors, not even from the blurbs. To be fair, I didn't do a lot of reflecting on things back then either, I was chasing the plot to satisfy my curiosity and the drama for the emotional highs. The one element of paratext I was not able to avoid, though, was previous work of the author, and especially in my Steven King phase, that informed my readings quite a bit. If I might offer a bit of hopefully polite criticism: The educational VHS gimmick doesn't really work for me. I think the problem is that I feel no kind of nostalgia for it, and without that it's just a stretch of the video looks and sounds a bit worse. What really works for me, aside from the essay part of this video essay, is the stinger that was you presenting your reading of "The Fault in our Stars" that seems designed to kick the viewer's brain from consumption mode into thinking mode, similarly to the one in the video about YouTube and Authenticity. Those are tiny diamonds of script writing to me, and I always reference them when I recommend your channel.

Anonymous

I learnt a ton from this video. I'd heard the term death of the author but I didn't know much about it until I watched this video. So interesting, lots to think about. And I weird coincidence, only yesterday I was having a discussion with a friend about human beings needing narrative to make sense of our lives, similar to what you mentioned in your comments about your reading of the Fault In Our Stars. Cool!