Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2826-2830 (03 - 07 November 2014) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Akima:
--- Quote from: Dalillama on 07 Nov 2014, 15:23 ---'I respect your right to believe that' means 'I don't think you should suffer legal consequences for that belief'
--- End quote ---
So "respect" means no more than "I don't think you should be flung in jail", but any insult, expression of contempt, or social ostracism short of that is just fine?
--- Quote from: hedgie on 07 Nov 2014, 15:28 ---There is the matter of whether or not someone wants to create a "faithful" adaptation of a particular work, or make a re-interpretation based on their own culture and time.
--- End quote ---
And where does authorial intent fit into that? Who is the author of "Throne Of Blood"; Kurosawa or Shakespeare or both?
FunkyTuba:
--- Quote from: Akima on 07 Nov 2014, 15:05 ---...ultimately crowned by her submission to her proper role as a wife and mother.
--- End quote ---
I see a similarity in the ending state of this and Taming of the Shrew (though not many other similarities)... I am not well-studied in such things, but I seem to remember that notwithstanding the speech's content, the fact that Katherine even gets a speech at the end to speak of such things was sufficiently scandalous as to give a feminist-in-its-time quality to the play.
The significance being that what starts as a farce leads up to a backdoor discussion of Weighty Matters and the audacity of it coming from a female character.
GarandMarine:
--- Quote from: Akima on 07 Nov 2014, 15:05 ---
--- Quote from: AprilArcus on 06 Nov 2014, 22:21 ---And Mulan has an overtly trans masculine text.
--- End quote ---
Pretty much every modern adaption the Hua Mulan legend has transgender text and homoerotic subtext. The Disney version has strong female self-expression and broadly feminist themes. None of this is present in the original poem, where the main themes are patriotism and filial piety. So, referring back to that idiotic Venn-diagram quoted above, who is the "author" of the story, and what did they "mean" when they wrote it? Does the original story change in meaning because it is being read with 21st century eyes, rather than those of the 6th century when it was probably written? If it does, how decisive can the author's intent be?
As Disney's adaption shows, we tend to see a feminist theme in the story, which the original writer certainly did not "mean" when he placed Hua's service firmly in a Confucian context of filial respect for her father and the king, ultimately crowned by her submission to her proper role as a wife and mother. Does that mean that a feminist reading is invalid? Does it mean that a "Western" non-Confucian reading, or even adaption, of the story is invalid because it does not conform to what the original author "meant"? If the answer to those questions is no, as I believe it is, what the author meant cannot be regarded as the last word. I believe one test for the worth of a work of literature, or art generally, is whether it continues to speak to people who live in a very different world from that in which it was created, but this inevitably means that its meaning will be created, at least in part, by the audience, rather than the author.
Friday's comic/poster is awwwsome.
--- End quote ---
I think it's a sign I'm getting old when I see chain of conversation I want to engage on (especially the original story of Hua Mulan) and just say to myself "Nah. Akima will get it."
Half Empty Coffee Cup:
--- Quote from: Akima on 07 Nov 2014, 15:48 ---
--- Quote from: hedgie on 07 Nov 2014, 15:28 ---There is the matter of whether or not someone wants to create a "faithful" adaptation of a particular work, or make a re-interpretation based on their own culture and time.
--- End quote ---
And where does authorial intent fit into that? Who is the author of "Throne Of Blood"; Kurosawa or Shakespeare or both?
--- End quote ---
Doesn't matter to me. The author is dead either way.
hedgie:
--- Quote from: Akima on 07 Nov 2014, 15:48 ---
--- Quote from: Dalillama on 07 Nov 2014, 15:23 ---'I respect your right to believe that' means 'I don't think you should suffer legal consequences for that belief'
--- End quote ---
So "respect" means no more than "I don't think you should be flung in jail", but any insult, expression of contempt, or social ostracism short of that is just fine?
--- End quote ---
Good question. And I'm not sure how to answer. Shunning/isolation is a useful extra-legal tool for dealing with totally horrible people without resorting to violence. Then again, it can also be used against innocent people, for say just being to "x" for their gender/race/class/culture/religion, etc. Which raises the question of if || when it's okay to do so. I know personally, I have no problem shunning and insulting racists/homophobes/sexists, and the like.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: hedgie on 07 Nov 2014, 15:28 ---There is the matter of whether or not someone wants to create a "faithful" adaptation of a particular work, or make a re-interpretation based on their own culture and time.
--- End quote ---
And where does authorial intent fit into that? Who is the author of "Throne Of Blood"; Kurosawa or Shakespeare or both?
--- End quote ---
I'd say Kurosawa, but inspired by Shakespeare. It's not like Joss' "Much Ado About Nothing", or the '90s "Romeo and Juliet" where they just changed the setting, but kept the same dialogue, or various opera or theatre productions that just re-arrange what was already there. It's more about taking certain ideas and themes and then reimagining them into a different context. I don't think that I'm in a position to say whether or not "Mulan" was cultural appropriation, especially since I'm not familiar enough with the original source, or its cultural/historical context.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version