| Welcome to Shejidan. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Is the Compact In The Alliance/Union Universe? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 2 2015, 10:07 AM (2,312 Views) | |
| Kokipy | Feb 9 2015, 12:59 AM Post #46 |
![]()
|
I do feel strongly that we should never restrict the meaning of a work to what the author explicitly says it is about. As readers we draw on many sources for our understanding of a work. What the author says is relevant and important but as Star has said so eloquently in other words, even the author is not aware of her own imagery sometimes. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar, but sometimes it is best understood by the reader as a baguette :) even if the author had no such conscious intent. We all bring our whole life experience to bear when we read and sometimes we see patterns and ideas that truly belong but were not consciously intended. And sometimes authors are mischievous and attempt to mislead or deceive the reader. Having said that, the question of what universe these books take place in is not a matter of imagery, it is a matter of fact. (So I guess there I disagree with Star :) ) And furthermore, it makes perfect sense that Tully's Earth would look for assets away from Union and Alliance. They had a great need, and it is after all Earth:) infinitely courageous, inventive, imaginative, very much to boldly go where no man has gone before. So I don't see this as reader wish fulfillment and fanfic. It is fact :) |
![]() |
|
| BGrandrath | Feb 9 2015, 02:10 AM Post #47 |
![]()
|
Star, this reminded me of the preface to Huck Finn: Notice PERSONS attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot. BY ORDER OF THE AUTHOR, Per G.G., Chief of Ordnance. I think Twain disagrees with you |
![]() |
|
| BGrandrath | Feb 9 2015, 02:31 AM Post #48 |
![]()
|
I have always felt that all of Cherry's books were in the same Future History. As her books were published I read them first for the story then again looking for connections. For me that is the fun of reading Cherryh, we (the readers) have to pay attention to see what is in her mind. |
![]() |
|
| starexplorer | Feb 9 2015, 02:37 AM Post #49 |
|
First Contact Assassin
![]()
|
I'm not sure where we disagree on that Koki-ji. My last post said:
But beyond that, I never thought the answer to that would rest on imagery. It was always about what was in the texts. Where there seemed to be disagreement was on whether one can turn to the author for the answer. No need to recapitulate that conversation. But, silly as it may seem to have to say it, I do identify myself broadly with what might be called the Western Rationalist Tradition, not that I do not reserve the right to deviate from it if I feel strongly enough about it. By this I mean that I don't pray at the altar of postmodern thinking. I suspect there is an external reality separate from human minds; language refers to actual objects in the world and not just to meanings; and statements actually are true or false depending on how well they correspond to realities in the world. |
![]() |
|
| starexplorer | Feb 9 2015, 02:42 AM Post #50 |
|
First Contact Assassin
![]()
|
He sure does. An author claiming authority over his work directly conflicts with my position. On the other hand, he is a humorist. I can well be accused of being far too serious about a few things! :atwink |
![]() |
|
| starexplorer | Feb 9 2015, 02:50 AM Post #51 |
|
First Contact Assassin
![]()
|
I'll take it. If you will argue over my phraseology, perhaps I've somewhat persuaded you of my underlying idea. :smile2 |
![]() |
|
| BlueCatShip | Feb 9 2015, 02:57 AM Post #52 |
|
Unlabelled Browncoat Scaper
![]()
|
:nods: Agreeing with Kokipy. I am not sure whether it constitutes a stepping aside from my position in this, or if it's an expansion on my view, or some third thing altogether, but--. An author has his/her own interpretation, what the book (story, etc.) means to him/her. There are explicit denotations in there, facts and other associations of a more tangible nature. There are connotations the author intended to be there; whatever those are to the author. And yes, the author may put in misdirections to delay the audience from discovering the plot sooner, or to mix things up, or because the author wanted to overturn, invert, reverse what would usually be taken another way. But then the audience, the readers come in. Each reader brings in his/her interpretation based on experience, personality, understanding of the world or subject matters. An audience member cannot help but bring his/her own perspective to a story (or any artwork). That perspective is from a given time and place, cultural and language background. The audience as a whole, if they can come to any consensus, will have a collective understanding of the work. Or more accurately, a range of interpretations on it. In that sense, the author is a single member of that collective understanding. Does the author have a privileged status among the group? Well, at least during the author's lifetime, I'd say we have to take into account what the author says it was about, because that's what the author understands his/her work to be. (Aside: That statement about a poem is not what it means, but what it is, to be instead of to mean, I'd agree with, especially about poetry.) But yes, the author may not have consciously realized he/she had things in the work that the audience can see in there. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar, a table is just a table. The cigar is not likely a baguette, or vice versa. But there can be an association there, a connotation, a referent. Ah, whether the cigar is a phallic symbol as such is perhaps stretching things too much, unless one is Dr. Freud. Then again, sometimes, perhaps the association does bear. However, a thing (or a set of actions) may have allusions, connotations, be representative of something else (or more likely, of an idea or a way of being). Things in fiction are often symbols or...collections of associations...a web of ideas about other things. An author has a conscious and an unconscious state, in how he/she creates and tells a story. An artist has these two states when creating and presenting an artwork. The author will be mostly aware of the conscious state, of what he/she put into the work on a conscious level, and perhaps a partial awareness of what went into the work on an unconscious level, but even the author may not be aware of all of it. The audience may see things in there that the author/artist did indeed put in there, consciously or unconsciously. -- But the audience brings their range of life experience, their cultural interpretation (filter!) into the process. The audience may...over-associate and introduce things which are not necessarily in the work. This is where the consensus of the group comes into play, in weeding out what is over-associated, not relevant. It's also possible to over-analyze (which I suppose is another way of over-associating) and again, this is where a collective understanding comes into play for accuracy or relevancy. Hmm, then, I suppose, there are the cases where a minority opinion (such as the author's?) may be the more correct, but the majority of the audience do not understand it as such. ...I submit this at the risk of having equivocated, having taken both sides of my own viewpoint...or, ah, multiple sides...a range of sides? ... Oh dear, perhaps it's a circumferential circumlocution of sides...? Ahem, well, I've said it, whatever it is. :big-grin: I still will maintain that the author's comments and opinions about what his/her own work means do bear some weight on the ultimate consensus of interpretation, at least while we can have a dialogue with the author, or read/see/hear what the author thought directly, about his/her work. But yes, the audience's interpretation does matter, and each audience member has a unique and differing interpretation of a given work. It would not be my intention to claim otherwise on either assertion, because that would be demonstrably, patently, untrue. Is each person's interpretation equally valid? I suppose that's ultimately what StarExplorer is getting at. Well, my interpretation is as valid or more valid for myself, of a given work, even if it may differ from the author's. Ultimately, I cannot fully know what the author meant to be in his/her work, since I lack the chance to mind-meld or have some collective neural interface. Heheh. So in my own frame of reference, my opinion holds more weight for me. While each other person's interpretation holds the most weight for him or her. And the author has, hmm, a copyright on his/her understanding of what he/she meant to say, meant to denote, meant to connote, in presenting a work to the audience. ...I don't expect that is really very far, if at all, from what StarExplorer was really trying to say, or from the generally accepted understanding of criticism/analysis of a work of art. I'll say I prefer an "interpretation" to a critique or analysis, since the latter tends to pick apart rather than to see a work as a whole. I'll still maintain it's an essential bonus (that is, a good thing) to have the chance to find out what an author/artist meant by a given work (or a body of work) by what the author/artist says about it, either in public comments or private correspondence. But I'll also agree that I can't help but have my own personal interpretation of a given work of art, even if how I understand it differs from the author/artist's own views. ... And so does every other member of the audience. So...possibly that clears up my view. I would hope so. |
![]() |
|
| BlueCatShip | Feb 9 2015, 03:26 AM Post #53 |
|
Unlabelled Browncoat Scaper
![]()
|
Oh, Twain must have had fun when he wrote that bit in his preface. Though he was kidding on the square, too, I suspect. The man was, from everything I've ever seen about him, irascible but keen-witted and with a sense of humor, despite his cynicism. I understand his "curmudgeon" attitude more as I get older than I did as a young man first reading him (or reading about him). Near as I can tell, he would've enjoyed a debate, even if he (likely) strongly disagreed (or agreed) on the topics up for discussion. I think he would've been really something, to know personally. I also suspect he could be a royal pain in the backside. But then, well, I presume I'm not immune from that either. ;) I admire Twain more than I used to. ----- StarExplorer, heheh, surely you should know by now, I'd fuss over phraseology as though it was like breathing. You've noticed I have a weakness for words. ;) But I think I understood what you meant by that Cultural Interpretation Machine, and I don't doubt we all use one, a, hmm, a software-like process inside our minds (and emotions). As for persuading me? Hah, I think we don't disagree too greatly. :D The discussion's enlightening, and making me think through my opinion, so that's of benefit. Notez Bien: -- As I still have not gotten a reply from CJC to my email, which is unusual for her, I conclude that either she didn't get it, or it escaped her notice among the avalanche of other mail she gets, or else she didn't feel obliged to give an answer, which is entirely her prerogative, especially if she felt the answer was obvious, or if she felt stepping into anything would be counter-productive. One notes that she surely has her own opinions on the importance of an author/artist's interpretation versus her audience members' individual or collective interpretations; and one suspects she prefers to give her audience plenty of elbow room for their own views as important and separate from her own. She's trained in languages and literature and history, both modern French and at least Latin and Greek and the ancient (Greco-Roman) world. So she likely has an opinion somewhat (or greatly) differing from mine. Heh. And that suits me fine. I'm puzzled. I'm not sure I ever discussed the points directly with my mom, who was a professional artist, mostly in oil painting. I'm very sure she had an opinion on everything. ;D lol. I suspect she'd have had one opinion regarding her place as artist of her works. I suspect she had another opinion regarding her audience's interpretations of her works. While for herself, I'd expect she felt her own interpretation of her works was the most valid, I'd expect she also appreciated that each person in her audience would have his/her own interpretation that differed from hers. For the most part, I'd expect she was fine with that. With possible reservations on exceptions if someone's interpretation disagreed sharply with hers, about her works. Heheh. She was not one, generally, to have two mutually exclusive views on one topic, but on this, I suspect she understood it as a necessity of putting one's work out there for public enjoyment, that people would have a different view than she did about her own work. Possibly, that answers more directly my own take on StarExplorer's point, regarding how important (or not) an author's/artist's views of his/her own work are. I think I see where you're coming from, why you take your view, Star, but I think I still differ a bit on it, perhaps out of principle. (Or my own contrariness?) ;) At any rate, I'm content to agree to disagree on that, and possibly, I've explained well enough my stance. Still finding the discussions productive, too. |
![]() |
|
| BlueCatShip | Feb 9 2015, 03:43 AM Post #54 |
|
Unlabelled Browncoat Scaper
![]()
|
On a single future history versus several separate ones...versus a multiverse approach: Hah, I think I'd go for the multiverse approach. Just to be different! :D For CJC's works, I think she has written things in a few separate story-universes. For example, I think the Foreigner series is a separate story-universe from the Alliance-Union books, even though they're similar. That's where a multiverse approach would come in. The two are different, alternate realities. Her fantasy books are another one or more realities. She's had other books/series that are likely separate. But does she tend to write or reuse concepts, an overall single multiverse? Quite probably, yes. (I see similarities between Foreigner and the Chanur/Compact books, and perhaps Hunter of Worlds or Brothers of Earth, for instance.) Some things recur; she'll reuse a concept if it suits her, though it is likely to get a different spin the next time. Other writers tend to write in a single future history (or single overall story-universe) with rare exceptions. Still other writers tend to write more in separate story-universes per novel or series. It suits each writer. (As a beginning, wannabe writer, I've been trying to figure out what goes where, which things might belong in one story-universe, or whether they're connected or separate, and if so, how separate versus how connected in some higher multiverse way. It's not so easy, when you have many ideas and story-pieces running around in your brain and on paper or disc. It's very strange to me, still, how this goes from inspiration to synthesis, and how things morph, sometimes drastically, as you go along.) I've notice in my latest rereads how my own changed/changing life experience and further readings have affected my present understanding of what I've read before, or what I'm reading for the first time. My experience when rereading Merchanter's Luck was different recently than when I first read it as a college student, nearly 30 years ago. My experience rereading Pride of Chanur has also been different, and I'd first read it before Merchanter's Luck, again at college age, almost 30 years ago. I saw the copyright date on Pride was 1983, when I was a high school junior, 11th grade, all wide-eyed and naive and thought I had the world by the tail. Hah. The world, like the tiger, knew differently. Pride...lions...tigers...I suppose Gordon R. Dickson has the bears.... Oh, my! (Hmm, I wonder if his two "bears" books have made it into ebook form yet. Loved those.) ....I should be writing. Fiction. :D I shall go do that.... |
![]() |
|
| starexplorer | Feb 10 2015, 04:09 AM Post #55 |
|
First Contact Assassin
![]()
|
I thought this might be an interesting place to take this conversation at this point. Lest you think I am a Star Wars geek, this came out of my discussion of the significance of authorial intent with my 17 year old son starkid. He told me he was an adherent of the principle of the authority of the creator until he came upon the following controversy: Some of you may be aware of the conflict known as Han Shot First. Here is a visual presentation of the matter. Roughly, the situation is this. The first time we meet Han Solo in the 1977 Star Wars is in the Mos Eisley cantina on the planet Tatooine when he is confronted by the alien Greedo to whom Han apparently owes a debt. After a tense discussion in which Han feels threatened, he pulls a blaster under the table and kills Greedo. Viewers formed ideas about Han's character based on his willingness to shoot first. George Lucas was unhappy enough about this that in the 1999 Special Edition re-release, (Wikipedia) Many fans were outraged on two grounds. First, it seemed preposterous that Greedo would miss from point blank range. Second, (Wikipedia again for ease of use)
Further (italics mine) Embedded in the angry reaction was another unstated objection: Lucas had the power to alter the scene in the re-release despite the fact that over twenty years had gone by in which viewers absorbed the facts presented in the original movie. Power, or abuse of power? |
![]() |
|
| BlueCatShip | Feb 10 2015, 05:42 AM Post #56 |
|
Unlabelled Browncoat Scaper
![]()
|
Heheheh. We're science fiction fans here, right? I think a little Star Wars geekery is allowed. I saw that first Star Wars film when it came out in theaters the first time. I was around 11 or 12. IIRC, it came out in the summer of 1977, so I would've been 11. Han shot first. I saw it in the movie. I fully agree, that story-wise, it makes him morally ambiguous, a rogue, a pirate, an anti-hero. He later becomes a hero, but reluctantly. I also agree that George Lucas, going back in, mucking about with effects shots, adding and deleting to a movie then twenty years old...was messing with his original, beloved masterpiece. To me, the flaws in that movie as presented in theaters, are as much of what makes the movie great as any of its strongest points. It was groundbreaking effects work, editing, and different from nearly anything seen in video SF to that point. (With some noted exceptions, such as 2001, CE3K, Alien, and a few others.) It affected nearly all other video SF afterwards. I think George Lucas did himself and his team and his fans a disservice, by going in and redoing the film...and by claiming the original was no more, no longer exists anywhere. Harrumph. Because the original as shown was a great piece of movie history, its good points and its weaknesses alike. I always took it that Greedo was supposed to be a bounty hunter, besides wanting Han to pay him on a debt owed to Jabba the Hutt. Greedo was supposed to be a villain. ...Or at least, a bigger villain than our morally ambiguous, roguish anti-hero, tramp freighter starship captain, possibly piratical, one Han Solo. So, within the bounds of the story, Han could arguably have reasons for why he shot first, aside from simply to save his own skin (and Chewbacca's very shaggy skin). ... And never mind how morally right or wrong he was to do it, Han was a story character, and that's what we were shown. That it harkens back to Westerns or pirate films or maybe Robin Hood or film noir policier / detective movies, or maybe old WWII movies (Casablanca, for example) -- only adds to Han as this guy whom we see might be a good guy or might be a bad guy, but is probably some mix of both. Oddly, as a kid, talking with my parents excitedly about the film, or their adult excited comments about the film, and later on in life, I don't recall much discussion of Han's rightness or wrongness for shooting Greedo -- or Luke, for using his lightsaber on that bar alien's arm -- it was just accepted that they did these things, they had to survive, they were the heroes, it was a story, a fantasy, a fairy tale in a sci-fi setting. -- But there was not question that Han did should Greedo. First. And killed him dead. Very much so. (However, yes, we all laughed at Han for that bit about making the Kessel Run in less than five parsecs. Ahem. Even I knew that wasn't right, back then, as a kid who loved science fiction. ... I don't think I knew exactly what a parsec was, but I knew it was distance, not speed or acceleration.) I would say that Mr. Lucas overstepped his authorial / creative contract with his audience, in insisting he could go back in and retcon his work. Does he have the right to edit it? Well, OK, perhaps, but (1) He also has the responsibility, the obligation, to leave the original intact, as it's a classic and, er, the originally published document, for comparison and collectors and future historical and filmographic research, and, ah, oh, heck, it seems to me it ought to be self-apparent he should have left the original and made a copy on which to do his editing, since he insisted on doing that; and (2) Mr. Lucas was the creator of Star Wars, but a great many other people participated in the creation of that film, and without their work, it would not have ever been what it was. Mr. Lucas' edits ignored that, in favor of his own hubris. To me, that goes too far in his obligation to and with them as a creative team, in bringing that film into being. And yes, as a fan who grew up with those films, it shocked me to see him do that, as though the movies I grew up with were not the classics they were, great films he ought to be very proud of and satisfied with. He's welcome to wish he'd done better with them at the time. He's welcome to go back and edit a ~copy~ and create a ~revised~ edition to suit his creative wishes. Sure, call it a Director's Cut or what-not. But the original ought to stand on its own, a classic of filmmaking history, a classic of storytelling, a classic of the craftsmanship and artistry at its height in the time in which it was made, too. His, I think, is the most extreme of that fad of going back and re-editing a film. (I happen to feel much the same about the changes to the original Star Trek series. But at least they kept the original, untouched versions around in old DVD's. Still, those are classics of what was possible in weekly televised science fiction of their times. Again, I'd say their flaws were part of them, as much as their strengths, and again, I'd say I value them as they were when I grew up seeing them, either the first time (I was only 0 to 3 years old when they first aired) and in reruns since.) ----- That said, Ms. Cherryh has re-edited the Rusalka series novels. But again, she left the originals as is, and put the revisions out as revised Author's Editions. She didn't interfere with fans' copies of the books already in print. A novel is, unless co-authored or a shared world, the work of a single author, so she has more right to insist it was not edited or finished as she wanted it originally. So in other words, I'd say that a movie is a different animal than a novel, and so the comparison doesn't quite hold the same between the two. Am I playing favorites in preferring Ms. Cherryh's revised edition as the one she says is the best, most true to her vision of that series, while not preferring Mr. Lucas' revised editions of the first three Star Wars films, in the order they were made? Oh, I'll admit to that, fine. I think there is a line where author/creator hubris can exceed the author/artist-audience contract. Exactly where that line is, I don't know. But I think there is one. I'd also defend Ms. Cherryh's right to revise her books to suit herself, since she's presenting those later editions and the previous editions are still available, for comparison, collection, or research, say. Heck, I'd defend Mr. Lucas' right to do so, except that I do feel he overstepped the creator-audience contract and the creator-creative team contract, as I said above, and that I think he ought to have made sure the original remains available, as an obligation to his audience, to the team of which he was both head and member, and to himself, to show his history and growth...and to the integrity of the work, to show its development and history. And because, darn it, I'm not the only one who grew up seeing that film, its brillance and any weak spots, including that, ahem, Han shot first. I will acknowledge that my reply is as much or more an argument to emotion appeal as it is to any rational points (or irrational points) made. Heh. Was Han "right" to shoot Greedo? Was Luke "right" to use his lightsaber on that alien's arm? Hmm. How come Luke gets a free pass on his mistake (he maims a bar patron, after all, regardless of the alien's good or bad actions and intentions) while ol' Han's actions get revised so that, golly, he's not such a bad man after all, 'cause ol' Greedo there, uh...missed at point blank range. (Bsntha pudu, I couldn't miss from that distance, dude....) -- If Luke gets a free pass, then Han also must remain morally ambiguous for shooting Greedo before Greedo could shoot him. Or whatever Greedo intended to do. Whether Han or Luke or Greedo or that bar patron, now missing an arm, were "right" or "wrong" to do what they did is another discussion entirely, IMHO. But the story presents it as it was in the film as originally aired. And OK, it's different in the revised edition, but that doesn't change (or rather, it should not change) that the original edition exists and was the final word on it for some 20 years. Mr. Lucas can prefer his revlsed edition. I'll prefer the original. :D I'll be fine with both editions of Ms. Cherryh's work. I'd argue she's more creatively honest about it than is Mr. Lucas. (Sorry, George, but I think that's so.) Is that also playing favorites? Yes. And. No. But that's my opinion as an audience member. Anything I have written or will write, any artwork I've produced or will produce, however, I do reserve the right to do as I see fit with. ... But I would much rather let a first published edition stand for itself, for what I did then or will do, and let any revised work also stand for whatever I thought should be revised later. (Typos, if any, most likely.) I can recognize, as an author or an editor, that both the author and the editor want a work to be error-free and to be of the best quality producible. But I come from that background where a printed work retains a historical record of any editions published. From graphics, such as paintings, drawings, photos, I also come from the old-school perspective that there is an original work, and then there are further editions (prints, at least). In the case of paintings and drawings, another original is created, and prints may be made from that, or new prints may be made of either one. But those are each separately published editions. In the digital / computer realm, I would also prefer that there remains a historical archive of editions of any artwork or creative writing or non-fictional works. However, I recognize that, unfortunately in practice, this does not always occur. In my own work, I do try to keep an archive, but not always online. When working for clients, this option is not always given; the client's wishes may clash with the web content creator's or artist's or author's opinions on their own created content. This is, I have learned, a sign that one should be working for someone else. :: discrete cough :: Possibly my second portion is more rational and less an emotional appeal than the first portion. But I've stated an opinion, and others are as likely to agree as to disagree. ;) :p So yeah, Han Shot First. Darn right, he did! :D (Didn't anybody ever ask Chewbacca?) (Hmm, never mind, Chewbacca was not present to witness it. Hearsay, then. Even if arguing with a Wookiee is, ah, hazardous. ... Surely Wookiees have a sense of humor about arguing, though.... One would hope. Or it could get rough, staying out of reach on board a small freighter.... Anyway, I'm sure Chewbacca has his own opinion.) |
![]() |
|
| starexplorer | Feb 10 2015, 06:41 AM Post #57 |
|
First Contact Assassin
![]()
|
It does offer a different perpspective on the question of "What really happened in that book/movie/poem/painting?" "I dunno -- go ask the author." |
![]() |
|
| BGrandrath | Feb 10 2015, 06:44 AM Post #58 |
![]()
|
Another example....true to the artists vision or money grab? https://litreactor.com/columns/scandalous-i...e-uncut-edition |
![]() |
|
| Xheralt | Feb 10 2015, 07:28 AM Post #59 |
![]()
|
One of the webcomics I read (but may not have listed in my sampler in the Webcomic thread) cites that very quote. Carry On (an anthropomorphic webcomic about hyenas. Really!) |
![]() |
|
| starexplorer | Feb 10 2015, 07:29 AM Post #60 |
|
First Contact Assassin
![]()
|
Another layer of authority: the publisher's vision |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Cherryh Grove · Next Topic » |














2:33 PM Jul 11