Minisode - How Much Power Does "The Author" Have?

Written and performed by Dan Olson

[@OninRuns]

The part with the hat was the best part.

[@changingyoutubeusernameisn7302]

Early Hat Dan cameo

[@Tanuki-cl7qi]

@@changingyoutubeusernameisn7302 The Dan with a Hat!

[@highr4nksteel636]

@@Tanuki-cl7qi The recurring character!

[@Packbat]

I'm reminded of the times that people try to defend something within the story by saying, "But such-and-such demanded it!" - e.g. the deal with Quiet's costume design in MGS-V. Edit: Oh, that's the Thermian Argument. Cool. :)

[@Necromancer1230]

HEll even if you're someone like me who was fine with the costume the fact that the plot does backflips to justify the costume and the fact that the camera work is super-heavy on the male gaze in the cutscenes really just sours my taste on the whole experience. At least with Eva it was clear that she was trying to seduce Big Boss and was actively using her sexuality of her own accord, it wasn't given some cheap justification in the plot to try and deflect the criticism.

[@lancekings3206]

Haha these are like half a decade old

[@TheAzulon]

I think "The gardener" approach comes from the fact that some authors don't ask themselves where their influences come from. When you imagine a warrior, you create it based on your own subjective ideas of what a warrior is and how they behave, mostly based on figures that fill the simbolic warrior role that you have seen through your life. As some authors don't actually ask themselves where did this image come from, they perceive the warrior as an independent being within the story and see it's reactions as impredictible, even though logical.

[@alaraplatt8104]

and a lot of the time that ends up regurgitating internalized stereotypes when the shorthand comes from a culture rife with racist or similarly bad assumptions and ideas. namely, our culture.

[@changingyoutubeusernameisn7302]

The warrior arises from the human collective unconscious, it is thus universal in its truest form. One must simply strip away one's own limitations and biases to see the true warrior archetype.

[@jemvee3830]

@@changingyoutubeusernameisn7302 Shutup, Peterson.

[@leaffinite2001]

@@changingyoutubeusernameisn7302 surely you are joking

[@kylaaaTV]

The origin of Hat Dan

[@cheezemonkeyeater]

Oh, wow. I just realized, the guy who wrote Death of the Author talked about Arthurian legends in that paper. Death of the author and Death of Arthur are pronounced identically in French, so the entire theory name is a pun in its original language.

[@peterg1664]

Not identical, Le Morte d'Arthur and La mort de l'auteur are obviously different but similar. Sadly, Barthes’ wordplay muddied his point to a ridiculous degree so that now so many people misunderstand death of the author, calling it “The External Author” or “The independence of text” would be better, but less catchy.

[@cheezemonkeyeater]

​@@peterg1664 Ooooh! So close.

[@Mighty_Atheismo]

You are my kind of nerd. Wherever you are I wish you the best.

[@IGameChangerI]

I am sure you would enjoy the game "The Beginner's Guide". It's pretty short, but it hit me like a ton of bricks. Makes a good case for the points in this video too.

[@Zennistrad1]

What I like about this video is that it single-handedly dismantles nearly every counterargument to your video on the Thermian Argument.

[@TheNerdCloset]

Can we turn "the hoodie is red" into a Portal like chant that we yell at each other from now on? Something about that phrase is just really awesome. :)

[@FoldingIdeas]

+TheNerdCloset Yes plz

[@ExcludedLayman]

+TheNerdCloset It sounds like a cryptic resistance slogan from a world languishing under the reign of The Wolf. Hope seems lost until a young girl is saved from certain death by a woodsman... "Who is The One Free Man?"

[@TheNerdCloset]

Excluded Layman All of the yes. *high five*

[@TooFatTooFurious]

But what is it going to mean? How do we properly use it? Cause I am a writer and I really want to try and make this one stick.

[@TheNerdCloset]

That's a good question. It could probably mean anything you want it to mean but maybe it's best if it gets tied to the idea of the level of power the author has vs. the level of power the audience has? I'm just spit-balling now. :P

[@nimulosmaltibos9662]

I tend to lean towards that "logical conclusion" process myself, but I've thought a lot about the influence of the "world outside" (the writer's mind) on the "world inside". Recently, I've been tempted to work that into one of my settings*, meaning that I've considered writing some (in-universe) creation myth for the world that includes not just a Demiurge (i.e. an entity that is responsible for shaping the fictional universe), but also other entities that help shape the world by guiding the Demiurge in its work. Both the Demiurge and these guiding entities are essentially a part of me. The Demiurge is basically my act of actually writing something, the material it fashions the universe out of is my imagination, and the guiding entities are all the other stories, worlds, ideas and such that I have consumed and - intentionally or not - end up drawing inspiration from. This video hits that exact nail. The Demiurge is the illusory gardener, subject not just to what I think makes sense, but also to the influences I couldn't ignore if I tried. And, of course, it is also subject to my editorial decision. I have to decide what to do with that power, or whether to use it at all. *It works without a specific setting too, but I'd love to work it into what I already have.

[@dougthedonkey1805]

Oh my god, it’s long-running character hat Dan!

[@TongueHead]

A meme got me thinking about this topic the other day. to sum it up there was an author complaining that his characters where melodramatic but he couldn't change that because of the points explained in the video. at first I laughed because I agreed but then i realized that none of my characters ever felt melodramatic (unless desired) and I think the reason is that the writer of the meme isn't very good at seeing ahead. I like writing for the same reason i like chess. in both you have to examine all your materials and constantly think all your possibilities and their consequence through before you make a decision. You might have a great idea for your story but when the result becomes undesired melodrama its time to make a different decision.

[@ededdynedd]

And I'm on a horse.

[@xboxgamer474246]

I think about this episode quite often. Thank you for the video~

[@kiloalphahotel5354]

Thanks for the vid. Always great.

[@Flatscores]

The other nice semiotician to take a look at when discussing author and reader and their roles in the text (not surrounding the text - in the text) is Umberto Eco, mainly Theory of Semiotics (1979) or more accessible and short: Six Walks in Fictional Woods (1994).

[@HarryS77]

How much power does the author have? A lot, until they have none.

[@noferq]

One interesting idea that you don't really touch on here is existing or serialized material, essentially where a work is meant to be interpreted as a whole but because of that is constrained by existing published material. While "the author" may choose to change things retroactively, and many do, there's a trust built with the audience that is weakened whenever an artist says essentially "whoops, I didn't mean to say that, please pretend I didn't". There's also the softer version of this, which you touch on a bit in your fifty shades videos, where seemingly important plotlines get set up in early entries, but never followed through on. While the author is able to change their mind, or disagree with a previous author whose story they are continuing, you can't take back what the audience has already seen. I think that it's worth considering how these limitations, which as you point out are self-imposed, become somewhat reinforced by the audience and preexisting works. (this goes beyond literally connected works too, you'll see artists with well known styles and idiosyncrasies have new works judged and understood through that context - imagine the critical and audience response if Wes Anderson directed and released a fairly standard looking Hollywood film) I know, commenting on a video from 2015. Sorry.

[@HeyNonyNonymous]

Interesting. But - there are constrictions that are imposed by reality on the writer. The language you write in, for example. a few years back I wrote a short story in which the gender of the protagonist remains unspecified and is subjected to the reader's interpretation. I wrote that story in English, despite being a native Hebrew speaker. It is virtually impossible to write such a story in Hebrew. The concept of gender neutrality simply doesn't exist in Hebrew. The basic structure of the language makes gender neutrality impossible in most cases.

[@frankshort8713]

Language barriers are a logistical constraint. Of course writers can only write what they know; this is exactly Dan's point. He's trying to say that whatever is written comes solely from the writer and not the text itself. That doesn't mean the writer is omnipotent, it just means that the text has no power over the writer. Fiction cannot create itself because it doesn't exist.

[@buffypython]

But HeyNony's constraint literally is the text itself. If they only knew Hebrew, they wouldn't have a way of writing the story they wanted to write; namely, a story in which the protagonist's gender isn't given. If they had to write that story in Hebrew, they would necessarily need to change the plot and characterization since they couldn't write a story in Hebrew without stating the character's gender. I guess you could argue that if they chose to change the story due to that restriction, that would still be their choice as an author, so the author still has the power, but really it's not much of a choice. The available choices are 1) change the story or characterization to make the protagonist's gender known, 2) learn to read & write in a language that allows for gender neutrality & write the story in that language, or 3) don't write the story. Still, it is a choice I guess. My point is the author doesn't have absolute power over what stories can & can't be told. There are necessarily limits on what ideas & words can & can't be communicated, especially within certain languages. The author doesn't have the ability to change a language so they can tell a story.

[@jinxed7915]

Stating that language is a constriction imposed by reality is weird, as it implies that language is something the universe itself created rather than it just a human construct. Language absolutely can be a limitation when writing but it is one that simply arises naturally as opposed to it being imposed by any given thing.

[@fernandomoras9160]

​@@buffypythoneven so, language is only a constraint in as much as you let it. There is a fourth option the hypothetical monolingual Hebrew speaking author would have, make additions to the Hebrew language that allow for gender neutrality. Shakespeare famously came up against the "boundaries" of the English language and instead of throwing his hands up he coined an absurd amount of words, concepts and idioms.

[@elixorvideos]

I need a feature film about the woman and her hat.

[@WannabeMarysue]

Every similar video recommendation next to this is an episode of She-Ra. thagk god

[@Punchcado]

+WannabeMarysue I got She-Ra plus the Railways of Britain, go figure

[@tonycampbell1424]

Is this the emergence of HAT DAN?!

[@catiseith]

How much power? *Unlimited power!!!*

[@ian7341]

Pretty good argument, though one must remember a story is bound by the limitations of language, medium, readability (which includes pacing, verisimilitude, complexity, and more), real world context/trappings...

[@CasLee]

I like how slowly you blink

[@Kaiwala]

Necro!

[@EmperorSmith]

Tell us more about the hat!

[@diablominero]

I program computers using the garden approach. I wish I could write using the garden approach, but I can't write unless I force the process along.

[@Punchcado]

Interesting and thought-provoking as usual -- thanks. I take it that this minisode is intended to be considered in the context of the earlier ones on the Thermian argument: you refer to that one but you don't explicitly say "I'm following on from that." In the context of your previous explanation that stories showcasing rape, misogyny and brutality aren't just the inevitable result of impersonal forces but are inextricably the result of decisions by the people who made them, this current lecture makes sense to me -- it's just emphasizing the point that any version of the Thermian argument is pretty much nothing but an attempt to escape the responsibility of moral agency by denying the obvious fact of moral agency -- a bit like the disordered guy I once saw in a store who brought in an air horn, blasted it several times, then set it down on a display case, put his hands on his hips and said to no one, "Who's doing that? Who's making all that racket?" as if this concealed the fact that he had just done it himself. So far so good, but seen in isolation from that earlier argument, this discourse seems to tacitly posit that the lone human being who is writing something is, inherently, a single unified self with full ontological power to put down any possible combination of words on a page, and that any restriction on that power must be knowingly self-imposed. I don't think that's what you intended, and as a writer I don't feel that I experience that. I don't experience the gardener metaphor either but I think you dismiss it a bit too easily. I expect some viewers might not be in a position to see where this fits into the larger argument.

[@AnotherPanther]

the hoodie its red

[@notmadeofpeople4935]

Scriptor sounds like someone who cosplays as a middle aged markup text based game designer. Scriptor sounds awesome.

[@arcanamanana3951]

I'll throw this out here as well, though I submitted it in a shorter form to your ask.fm today Is biographical data on the author really just trivia? I think of the issues surrounding Michael Derrick Hudson, the white poet who assumed an Asian-sounding name to get a "better shot" at having his work published. If the details of the author are just trivia, then shouldn't there be no issue with an author producing a work which portrays something that they have no lived experience of? I'm not necessarily looking for an answer to this, I just want to bring it up as an impetus to conversation about some of the problematic aspects of the "death of the author" concept, especially in regards to the way it can erase cultural identities. If we erase the identity or experience of an author from their work, wouldn't the work only become another artifact produced by the status quo?

[@arcanamanana3951]

+Folding Ideas Happy to hear that you'll address it more in a longer form. Keep up the good work, I love the channel and use it in my 101 classes from time to time.

[@BR1NSOP]

+Alex Lockwood (sorry, not Dan but may I have a go?). In answer to your initial question, my thinking is: biographical data is, ultimately just trivia - fun, intriguing, mindblowing, horrifying, and sometimes inspiring, but still trivia. That fact does not invalidate the response you have to either the work or these trivia points, but they can't be smushed together into some mega-construct of too-neat psychological cause and effect. I don't think this point on academic-Critical approach has much to do with the erasure of the author's cultural identity per se (IMO that happens acutely, by means of economic and political actors around the work, like editors, publishers, censors, and media). Ultimately, on a long enough timeline all works are rendered "another artefact produced by the status quo" by historical distance. If by that you're referring to the larger 'monolith' of the culture, as it exists now, right this second, then it sounds like a bad outcome. Visualise it like tectonics, with sudden, infrequent, violent eruptions, and much, much more, quietly imperceptible movement going on all the time. The status quo is simply a congealed moment in the ongoing process of cultural production, seemingly trapped for a second by those two words. To re-iterate, not saying there is no such thing as cultural erasure, just that it seems like it is the result of other factors and people, not in a critical assessment of the work with Death of the Author as the theoretical starting point --- For yourself Alex: Do you think, cultural identities are diminished in a meaningful way when the author and/or their time-slice of culture passes beyond biographical memory yet the work remains? (I'm thinking particularly of Epic of Gilgamesh, the Biblical myths, The Odyssey/Illiad, Bhagavad Gita and other pre-recorded-history works) Best!

[@arcanamanana3951]

+BR1NSOP By all means I want to hear anyone that can offer up a point talk about this. I'm having a hard time thinking of an instance in which something like the Epic of Gilgamesh is talked about in any way that fails to mention its historical context. If there were an analysis that failed to discuss any parts of the culture that produced and was reflected in some ways by the Epic, then I think yes, cultural erasure/diminishing still occurs. The impact of that erasure is substantially different, of course, as there is no longer a Sumerian culture, but there still is erasure present in this hypothetical analysis of the work, albeit perhaps less to any extant group of people and more to the memory of a group. To that, also, it should be noted that there are certain peoples around, even some cultures, which still hold some of these ancient texts as some part of religious or cultural identity. So, to sum up, are the cultural identities diminished when the culture that produced a work has ceased to be? Yes. Is it meaningful? To varying extents, depending upon how closely the descendants of that culture hold those old stories as a part of their own identity past the expiration of the author group. ----------------------- I totally agree that cultural erasure happens in many ways, and that while I may have issues with the 'death of the author' lens, it's just that, a lens. I actually think some aspects of the theory are quite valuable. I'm just a bit of a malcontent when it comes to pretty much any theory, and always try to think of counterarguments to see if those have weight, (oftentimes I find they don't, and I end up agreeing with a particular idea or framework). For instance, I agree that in the long run, all artifacts are re-purposed as their cultures die out and they become artifacts of the status quo. However, I don't think that precludes our discussion of that type of identity erasure (and as I stated above, I do think it's identity erasure of some kind), and more particularly, the fact that eventually an author-being will die out does not mean that we should not consider that author's identity in the time that the work and the author are still alive and there is still impact felt by their work, and by analysis of that work. I hope I've conveyed the idea well enough. thank you for the conversation so far, it's given me a lot to chew on.

[@zagobelim]

[@boiicashthehizzle]

wait is the very first instance of the character hat dan seen in this video? a female iteration nonetheless??

[@boiicashthehizzle]

first and second instance my god

[@quintonchurch4064]

3:26 rule 63 Hat Dan!

[@EggBastion]

Oww

[@Paralellex]

I can't believe Dan Olson has been a woman this entire time

[@scrappydrake4683]

There are two counterarguments to advance here: 1: The question of identity. If you change the narrative of a story enough, it could be said that, rather than telling the story in a different way, the author is telling a different story. Thus, it could be said that an author cannot tell the story however they want, as doing so would cause them to cease to be telling the same story. 2: The less philosophical, but more pragmatic, importance of verisimilitude. While an author is free to tell a story in a way that destroys its internal consistency, doing so can ruin the verisimilitude and hurt the quality of the work. You started this whole line of inquiry as a response to the argument that aspects of text which are problematic, or even necessary in the real world, are made justified or even necessary by internal consistency. I think that instead of taking this disingenuous argument at face value, you should address what is really at hand. The orc dismemberment scene that you used as an example in your Thermian argument video probably wasn't written because the author felt that the narrative couldn't be internally consistent without it, but rather because they either got a kick out of it, or thought a paying audience would. When Skullavatar Gamesmasher uses internal narrative consistency as a human shield to protect himself from criticism, you don't solve anything by pumping his hostage full of lead.

[@thenewniccage2283]

I don't like your first counterargument, given that I don't think such a judgement could really claim to be rigorous. The point at which one story turns into a different story is so nebulous and so purely defined by the observer that I don't think it can really be called upon as a metric. You sort of argue the second argument out of existence. The author is free to tell a story in a way that violates a sense of verisimilitude - that they don't indicates that they value building up verisimilitude. It's still very much an authorial choice, of the restrictive sort that gets discussed in the video.

[@scrappydrake4683]

On the first argument: Even if you can't find the exact point at which it occurs, you must admit that a story can cease to be the same story. Imagine if breaking bad had been changed to remove the meth and the cancer: it would be a story about teaching high school. On the second: yes, maintaining verisimilitude is a matter of "authorial choice", but breaking it almost universally makes the story terrible. Examples of broken verisimilitude, such as plot holes and inconsistent characters, can destroy the audience's suspension of disbelief and ruin the whole story.

[@thenewniccage2283]

As to the first argument: True, but I feel like this is still something you can only apply in retrospect to a finished product. If Breaking Bad had been written like that, then we wouldn't have the version with drugs in it and we would be none the wiser. I don't believe a given story can have an 'identity' of the kind you're talking about while it is still being formed, which is the period being discussed. You can perhaps make this argument about sequels, since the audience has an 'identity' they have given to the story. As to the second: There's quite a lot of storytelling that doesn't make verisimilitude a priority it's just not necessarily the sort of thing that becomes super popular. There's all sorts of successful writing which doesn't give much of a damn about assuring the audience of its verisimilitude: experimental pieces, surreal works, intentionally confusing works, works where tone is placed before plot, fables or allegories, prose poems, anything which is attempting Brechtian alienation of the audience, things with really stylised settings, and certain genres of comedy which string themselves along on contrivance and coincidence to a degree that would beggar belief if the audience really cared about verisimilitude. I also think the desire for verisimilitude is by no means a culturally universal one - to be honest, I'm not sure it was that much of a concern in the West prior to the 18th/19th centuries. Hell, King Lear, one of the most popular and famous plays of all time, famously has a gaping plot hole where one of the characters disappears without explanation. The 'but the story will suck otherwise' argument is still, ultimately, an argument about reader response. You can choose verisimilitude as something to convey for its own sake, of course, but choosing to convey verisimilitude in order to avoid turning off readers is still a choice (if you're talented enough to not just break it accidentally). And choosing not to do so is something that can be done, and several of my favourite works stem from such decisions.

[@scrappydrake4683]

I think you're reading "verisimilitude" as "realism". It's possible to include contrivances and inconsistencies while maintaining audience suspension of disbelief, but breaking verisimilitude is, BY DEFINITION, the point at which suspension of disbelief falls apart.

[@BlueRoseFaery]

Eh, no. You're confusing verisimilitude with suspension of disbelief. Verisimilitude (when talking about film & other works of narrative) is quite simply maintaining an established internal logic. If the setting of the story is at a space station & you establish that there is micro-gravity & suddenly later something "falls down" in the story, you've broken verisimilitude. That either will or won't break suspension of disbelief, for most people watching "Gravity" it didn't, (the thing that fell was tears), but the two are in no way dependent on each other as you suggest. There are great works that never bother to try to have suspension of disbelief like constantly drawing attention to the fact that there is an audience (breaking the fourth wall and such) but that still have internal logic, verisimilitude.

[@BadHorse43]

"In most cases, like television, movies, and video games..." -- each year, there are about 400 original-content television shows in the US, about 7000 movies (ones that people actually see) produced around the world, less than a thousand video games worldwide (not counting cell phones and web games), and about a million books.

[@ScaryMason]

dang, I assumed this video was about BERSERK.

[@xgonne]

That one has the power to change anything in a story, doesn't speak to whether or not those changes should happen. Specifically, whether or not they should happen within the world/structure/relationships/logic/rules/systems which has been built by the author. One way that many stories fall down is when the author goes against their own established logic. Looper is a fantastic example of this as the rules as simple as how a gun works to as complicated as how the time travel mechanics specified inside the movie work. Sure, the author has absolute power, but the restrains which were mentioned should also include their own work in that particular narrative.

[@extremelyhappysimmer]

honestly, thinking about the writer can ruin a book for me. when i thought about authorial intent i wasnt able to enjoy dracula as much anymore. whenever i read parts from the perspective of the women in the story, all i could think about was how they werent women, but what a man in a rather sexist society thought a woman should be like. the first time i read it i just accepted that they were a product of the times and that its possible for a woman to agree with society's ideas even if they restrain her. but now... ik there were women who agreed with the patriarchy and didnt want more freedom but now it really irks me that mina just accepts the guys not including her in their plans of how to kill dracula cus shes a woman.

[@DavidMacDowellBlue]

The problem is, your argument makes it seem as if the nature of story-telling has entirely arbitrary restraints. But because no art form and no context for that art form can avoid having a nature, as does the audience and artist, can this really be so?

[@zennim125]

if the writer write "he split the table with the noodle" so it happens there is absolutely nothing that restrain the author power that not himself, yes certain media have an more easy to shape "nature", but they are not exclusive to that media for example cinematic, the atribute of being cinema's nature, literary, poetical, musical and so on and so forth, the "nature" of the media can be played with, you can make a movie completely void of any cinematic aspect(really easy to digest and understand, or at leat much easier if i talk about ludonarrative), a movie that doesn't rely on visual to tell a story

[@davidsh752]

Dan, I think that you have to split the author into two parts. You have to split him into the literal creator, whose role you discuss in the video, and into the authority on interpretation. I find the discussion of the literal creator boring, because it's, as you say, a fact (unless you're Shakespeare, I guess). I am a big believer in that the author, on the other hand, has no, or little, power over the interpretation of his or her own text, though, because otherwise the author could just say that the text they have created is good and you can't disagree with it. The only thing that matters is the text and what the text is saying or trying to say and failing. You make a point of saying that the author has the power to decide what a character wears, but that's the type of shit that's not at all important to the point of a work. That's why continuity mistakes are annoying when the text sucks but doesn't matter when it doesn't. For the purposes of us, the readers of text, the power of the author as literal creator is useless. The text is what it is and you can't change that, you can only react to it and without power as a reader even the act of reading becomes useless. I don't think you're wrong, though I do think you're discussing the wrong thing.

[@davidsh752]

+David SH Feeling silly replying to myself, but whatever...... I need to clarify, I think, because I didn't actually comment on the content of the video. I think it CAN be interesting to discuss the creative process, even openly. But that's more to do with demystifying it, take it down from this high priest pedistal. Which is a good thing. In the end the creative process is very simple: creators comes up with stuff and they, so to speak, write it down. Any mental gymnastics a creator does to create is self mythologizing, because it makes the person the point of interest instead of the text. This is a circus, I think, that depends on a lot of things, though, including the creator and the media and how the media looks at different creators at the time. ...I don't really have a good final point for this post.

[@r3d3y3UK]

+David SH This is how universities portray Bathes argument: the split between the interpretation of the reader and the author's of his own text and the conflict this creates, and initially it jarred with me when Dan interpreted it differently... but then I thought about it, and i think this is another legit interpretation of those ideas... It's the stretch from creation being one voice of someone to it being the multiple voices of culture and popular thinking. Also I might argue the 'literal' author isn't necessarily fact... since big swathes of that often come from Floyd and the idea that author biography can justify what you find in the text... being that you would get ten different interpretations from ten different people makes it stimulating to me at least :)

[@FoldingIdeas]

+Mathew Collier I'll probably do a video specifically about Death of the Author, similar to the Medium is the Message one, that'll address this nuance more directly. Basically Barthes gave several reasons for "the death of the author", one being the example from the video (what if there's more than one writer?), the other big one being this disagreement of interpretation and the unknowability of intent.

[@davidsh752]

+Mathew Collier I think that what I can say is that my main problem isn't with Dan's interpretation of Barthes but rather that the video isn't actually about the Death of the Author, which is what sprung to my mind when I saw the title of the episode. Which is kind of a non-problem since he explained what he meant in the video. What I meant by a "literal" author is that texts must be created. By a single person or by a corporate person, that doesn't really matter. Shakespeare, the person, is not important but it is important that he existed because otherwise we wouldn't have his work. I feel kind of out of my depths here, honestly. Sorry if I didn't really respond to your points!

[@quiroz923]

+David SH I prefer Wanye Booth's highly contested concept of "implied author", which is similar to other interpretations of an authoral figure in fiction. The idea is that the text itself will convey the idea of A person behind it, their ideas, their morals, their aesthetic style, etc. But mostly their morals. Booth cared a lot about whether you could find ideologies within books. Like, when Dan says in previous videos "pretend the text is a person, what does this person believe in?", this theory would say "the implied author seems to exhibit these beliefs." The point is you can completely ignore the real life writer, without forgetting that this was a man-made text created by an author. You find an image of AN author WITHIN the text, instead of looking for data about the real life writer. The problem is, as Booth defined it, he was kinda talking about three different things when he defined it. One from the point of view of the real writer, another from the poinf of view of the reader, and a third one as something that is part of the text. To some novelists it has seemed, indeed, that they were discovering or creating themselves as they wrote. As Jessamyn West says, it is sometimes ‘only by writing the story that the novelist can discover -not his story- but its writer, the official scribe, so to speak, for that narrative’. Whether we call this implied author an ‘official scribe’ or adopt the term recently revived by Kathleen Tillotson -the author’s second self - [the implied author from the pov of the real life writer], it is clear that the picture the reader gets of this presence is one of the author’s most important effects [the implied author as a pressence or as a literary effect within the text itself]. However impersonal he may try to be, his reader will inevitably construct a picture of the official scribe who writers in this manner… [the implied author as a reader constructed entity] The term has been re-elaborated since and there's a lot of different definitions. There are also a ton of similar concepts from other theorists. There are also a lot of people who think it's an useless term, either because it's too broad to really do anything with it, or because it's unclear what it really means. And also for other reasons. Me, I think of it as an entity that exists within the text, that appears as responsible for the text, that organizes and structures the text, and can set the rules for it, be it ideological rules or aesthetic rules. Think of it as the grand puppet master pulling all the strings.

[@Ninjax2000]

Can an author write anything he wants? Sure. Can a chef cook anything he wants and call it "gourmet"? Sure. Does that make it good? Not necessarily. Where I would disagree with you is that while, yes, an author can write anything he wants, that doesn't necessarily that it'll be good. Good writing requires an internal logic and a sense of consistency. While it does not need to follow reality here, and that there are acceptable breaks from reality, if the writing breaks from the established rules and is inconsistent throughout, then it's not good writing. At the risk of committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy here, while it may be true that the author can write anything he wants, he does need to follow a certain set of guidelines, lest he write a story which no one will want to read, and communicate a message no one will hear. The author is free to write what he wants, but there are consequences to his story.

[@shiekko]

Your point is 100% accurate. Dan's purpose for making this video, however, is simply to point out that the author is capable of writing whatever they wish. He made no arguments of quality or what is acceptable, just that authors are capable of doing as they please in a story. Not that they should, but simply that they can.

[@Junieper]

shiekko Agreed. Dan’s point is that the power of the author is indeed infinite, not that his infinite power should be used recklessly.

[@NelsonStJames]

That is however what he seems to be alluding to, because he makes the argument that people use "internal consistency" as an invalid excuse to defend story points someone might question being a part of a work of fiction . Whether something is objectionable or not is a subjective opinion, which is totally outside the scope of should the work exist as it is, or even is the work "good". You don't necessarily have to like a good story, but I daresay that a story that doesn't follow it's own rules because the author determines something in a story that is logical might offend someone, and then using his infinite power has the story do something else is probably writing a bad story.

[@schitzie]

@@NelsonStJames The contention is that if there is a sort of consistency in a work that logically leads to some offensive action/state of affairs within that work, the author still chose to create a work which has the context that creates that logical conclusion. Internal consistency may indeed explain why the tribe of murder orcs or whatever exists to do awful things, but that fictional state of affairs was itself created by an author who had the ability to create something else in its stead. The issue is not that internal consistency isn't important, it only means that an appeal to the internal consistency of that story is not an adequate defense.

[@oldvlognewtricks]

@@NelsonStJames Given the infinite power of the author, the rules of the story may be changed. Internal consistency is independent of the rules of the fiction. The rules are created by the author. If the author faces a problem as a result of the rules that have been set up within the fiction, they have the power to alter or remove the rules. Whether they choose to is their own affair, but it is no argument to invoke the rules of the fiction or the implications of those rules to justify a problematic outcome, since the rules are within the control of the author. If you want to attack this problem from the opposite end, the author has the power to provide an extrinsic justification to the problematic outcome by adjusting the fiction. Your all-white TV show can introduce a black character, and address those issues within the fiction. Your romanticised blood-lusting rapist can become a villain, or an uncomfortable antihero. Or not. The author's power is infinite within the fiction. It is an additional and unrelated constraint to make something 'good'. Internal consistency might form a part of 'good', but the chosen rules of the fiction are independent of 'good'... Give or take. Arguably, if someone is raising a critique and the best response is 'but it's necessary for internal consistency' then 'good' might be moot-adjacent.

[@CrashSable]

The problem with this approach is that the idea of the author having "all the power" is not the same thing as the author having "infinite power" as suggested (but not outright stated) here. Once a writer starts making decisions about how a story will play out, the possibilities for future decisions become limited. With enough of an imagination, those possibilities may be vast, but they are still finite. And while it may be true that the writer still has the power to go back and change a previous decision they made, that is still not the same as having infinite power over a text as the new decision they make locks them into a new set of finite decisions. The further you get into a project (i.e. the more decisions you have made that you are probably unwilling to change as doing so will likely lead to contradictions with other decisions you made afterwards) the more limited your choices can be for the remainder of the project - until you make the final decision that the work is complete and can change nothing else. The sculptor approach isn't a defence of the idea that a work can only be guided to completion. It's a process that aides the creator to the completion of a project. A better writer may be able to go back and change stuff and make a better story from it, but not all creators are equal at all times. It's also important to point out that a writer HAS to make decisions for the work to exist at all. Claiming some of these decisions are "intentional restrictions for the purpose of challenge and to escape the pressure of possibility overload" is simply false. If a writer makes none of these decisions, then the work remains "in the ether" for want of a better term, which is the same thing as it not being written at all. That's not to say that the examples Dan gave are required decisions. A work could be "genre defying" or "setting-neutral", but other decisions would need to be made along the development process, limiting the possibilities of where the story could go (not to mention that creating a work with the intention of it being genre defying or setting-neutral would still provide limitations).

[@apollion888]

First video I have seen that I greatly disagree with, as a (sometime) writer I have experienced the clear difference between text I was creating and text I was effectively channeling. Since you have not experienced this personally, you definitively declare this experience an illusion. Your certainty is a defense against knowledge that assaults your world view, my advice is pause and reflect. Still, the channel rocks.

[@FoldingIdeas]

You're not actually channeling the text. It's a psychological phenomenon of peak effectiveness, casually known as "the zone." It's still all you.

[@apollion888]

I adore the certainty with which you speak and can match it. I was a scientific rationalist until my 3rd prophetic dream caused me to abandon the philosophy. The One Mind hypothesis is correct, the reason science has no explanation for consciousness is it's looking in the wrong place. Yes, in the broadest sense "it's still all Me" but I do not believe the information is casually available, so "effectively" it's channeled.

[@FoldingIdeas]

Let's throw another wrench into the mix. Do you edit your work? Because if you edit it when you're not in that head space you've effectively made a second decision about the content and structure of the story, even if that decision is "leave it all alone." No matter how you think the ideas get into your head and on to the page, it doesn't negate the simple fact that you can, at any time, simply decide to change it. You may feel like you shouldn't, that it's fine, whatever, but you *can*. This video, it must be stressed, is not about the *quality* of a creative decision, but rather the *capacity* to make decisions.

[@apollion888]

Yes, the text can always be edited by me but only sometimes can it be written by Me. You treat your opinion that a hyper-functioning brain is the source of genius as a fact rather than as opinion, and this belief, in my opinion, may limit your potential as an artist.

[@Adamantium9001]

It is true that the facts that build the logic of a fictional world are whatever the writer wants them to be, but it's still bad writing to first create some facts that build a certain logic, and then later in the work, reveal new facts that violate that logic. Again, the problem with your hypothetical orc slaughter is not that this event _occurs_ in the fictional world, but rather that the event is depicted in a way that revels in it instead of condemning it. This is the same as your criticism of Rent: the problem isn't that Mimi is trying to get Roger to do something incredibly irresponsible; the problem is that the film itself thinks--and wants you the viewer to think--that Mimi is on the right side of their argument.

[@mawbts530]

There's a trivial level where all of this is true, but a deeper level where it's not. Trivially, Bethesda had freedom to include aliens and flying saucers in Skyrim. But they're absolutely constrained against that, for a ton of reasons (it wouldn't have made sense in Skyrim's setting, etc). "It's fictional, you can make it whatever you want!"...in practice, that just isn't how it works.

[@cassidymea]

+MawBTS That's exactly the point. Bethesda has given themselves the restriction of "high fantasy setting" for Skyrim, in addition to the restriction of all the existing lore built up throughout the previous Elder Scrolls games. As stated in the video, most authors adhere to these restrictions in order avoid "possibility overload" (such as "WHAT IF ALIENS IN SKYRIM!?" and the huge can of worms that question opens). But then, some authors deliberately mess with the commonly accepted restrictions of genre and form as part of their process, and then we get surreal worlds like Adventure Time and Samurai Jack... which of course start to develop their own internal logic as a matter of course.

[@Necromancer1230]

Marianne Cassidy And even Bethesda has been willing to ignore continuity in the past or tried to fiddle with it in such a way as to handwave their own deviations fron canon (Just look at the warp in the west and the state of cryodill in the games vs the Pocket Guide for examples.)

[@TimeTravelerJessica]

(Sorry to respond to a two year old comment, but I do think this is a good point and I just want to offer my counter-argument.) I don't really think that's what he's saying. Yes once you have the decision to write a medieval fantasy, you can't have flying saucers unless you want it to be weird and not in a good way. But this limitation is the result of an earlier decision, e.g. the decision to make the story a medieval fantasy. Put another way, once I am sure my story is a tragedy I can't give it a happy ending. But this restriction is a result of my decision (or the story taking shape that way from a channeling point-of-view) to make a tragedy. I could change it if I really want to, but it will involve shifting earlier elements too to make it a cohesive whole. Arguably at that point it's an entirely different story, but that's an argument for another day.

[@sanjurosama]

I think it's pretty unrealistic to expect that every piece of fiction would be like Monty Python's Flying Circus. It's a great show but even the Pythons didn't try to recreate its style in their later works.

[@tarvoc746]

"We can't actually ever talk about logical conclusions to a story because the facts that build the logic aren't facts." I understand what you were aiming for, but that's actually not how logic works. Logic isn't built from facts at all, it's built from deduction rules, and it doesn't even work with facts, it works with accepted premises. Your actual point seems to be that in case of fiction, nothing stops us (or rather the writer) from rejecting or altering the premises. And yeah, that's fine, I only wish you had said that more clearly, because as soon as you _do_ treat the premises as accepted, you _can_ logically deduce from them, even in case of fiction.

[@captain959]

then you can say that about about Warhammer 40 having no female Space Marines "The Author" say so.

[@TooFatTooFurious]

Yep, Thermian argument at its finest

[@ravenfrancis1476]

He's not saying this is a shield against criticism. That's still a problem.

[@whade62000]

This was just clever nonsense without a point

[@mnm1273]

The point is quite simple. Writing is a choice. When a choice is being criticized "it's what the characters would do" isn't a counter arguments

[@cavanaughh1490]

You seem to forget the triet-and-true statement that writers use lies to tell the truth. I think your opinions on the matter could use some maturing in Jung's views on the collective unconscious. It is easy to tell a physicist that you know how his process works better than he, it is another to actually accomplish his accomplishments with your claimed superior method. There comes a magical moment when a character Exists. And once that happens, the author may be true to that character, or false to them. These are not two paths only. In that you are correct. But to suggest a story may exist without restraints is to go beyond Dadaism and support that sentences are unnecessary for coherent thought. Instead of undermining the most depraved things art has to offer, it is better not to find a way to undermine it, and thereby debase the art itself. It is better to understand that all things may be glorified or corrupted. The way to bring an art form out of a dark place, where the orcs are glorified, is not to undermine the legitimacy of the orc author. It is to create something which draws on our better natures and brings us out of the darkness. Hearts and minds are not changed by the sword, but by the light.