Archive for ‘Theory’

August 13, 2011

animekritik on fascism and the postmodern

Original Post: On The Interpretation of Anime (or How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bog)

animekritik says:

August 13, 2011 at 10:32 am

Bad idea rewatching Utena in the middle of Penguindrum, unless you’re thinking of dropping Penguindrum :D

As to this fascism and post-modernism issue, it seems to me that to the extent that the Nazis tried desperately to hold onto a myth of German superiority, they were the antithesis of post-modernism and superflat worldviews etc. However, yes, I think the desperation you saw in some of these Germans betrayed a creeping awareness that not even the Germans escaped from this annihilation of absolute values (especially not the Germans). So that in a twisted sense post-modernism can be said to descend from the fascist project even though it opposes it. Put another way, if a German wakes up one day in 1945 and realizes all of a sudden that his race has no absolute claim to anything, then the only thing that’s left to him/her is to accept that no other race has any absolute claim to anything. And of course, we might dislike the way this realization plays out, but that doesn’t affect in any way its truth value.

Reply

Tags:
February 10, 2011

ghostlightning on The Death of the Author (and The Intentional Fallacy)

Original Post: Cyborg Soldiers: Child-Machine Weaponry

ghostlightning

February 9th, 2011 at 9:56 am

I have a very clear stance on the “Death of the Author” thing (as well as intentional fallacy — which is a distinct but related thing).

I think it is wrongheaded to dismiss the author’s statements, or any writing approaching the work using the creators as starting points or as dominant subjects.

What I rather think, is that the creators’ statements is part of their own readings of their work. I give them no further privilege beyond the novelty of their proximity to the work itself.

But it doesn’t mean that theirs aren’t interesting. Theirs undoubtedly are, and will continue to be as they prove to be interesting individuals.

What I object to is to treat the authorial reading of the subject work as definitive, sacrosanct, and as intellectual forcefields marking the borders of what are acceptable readings of the texts.

REPLY