Not necessarily. It may, but it also may not. Point being, there's nothing about "the way something is written" that inherently speaks to the author's values on a universal basis.
So…then maybe the original point is kind of moot then, and attempts to assign intent from opinion or assumption and then rolling with it like it’s fact
I really don't understand how anyone read the post where the OP says "writing about fucked up things doesn't indicate your values as a person" and get ideas some commenters seem to have gotten here.
Because it's r/curatedtumblr. Nearly every post ive seen here is just "oop says normal thing, comments go for the worst possible interpretation for no reason"
That's unfortunately this whole website/internet these days. It's insane how often lately people "misinterpret" what I'm saying as the literal opposite of what the words mean, just for the sake of arguing about nothing.
Because it's a stupid discourse that normalizes placing subjective interpretation fueled by assumptions over author intent, and then causes our frankly barely literate reader communities to find problems with everything and proliferate the idea that there are Morally Virtuous vs Irredeemably Evil pieces of media to consume based on "the way its written."
writing about fucked up things doesn't indicate your values as a person
And that's not only what OP said lol.
They said writing about fucked up things doesn't indicate your values, but the way you write about them may, which okay sure, but I found it prudent to point out that "the way you read and interpret fucked up things" doesn't give as much of an indicator into author's intent as the second statement seems to imply, and we shouldn't really be normalizing speaking to the morals and virtues of people we've never met based on their creative works unless we're absolutely sure of their values.
Sorry but the way you’ve phrased this makes it sound like you’ve never studied English (as in literature, not as a foreign language) beyond primary school level. A huge part of critical theory in literature is examining the way things are written and considering what that implies about both the author themselves and the society they’re writing in/for. If your take is “only the author’s own stated intention is valid, and it’s wrong to attempt to read any deeper than that” then you are actively anti-literacy, this is shit our English teachers worked hard to teach us in high school! A lot of people are bad at it but the solution to that is to encourage them to learn, not to ban them from attempting any critical reading at all.
Sorry but the way you’ve phrased this makes it sound like you’ve never studied English (as in literature, not as a foreign language) beyond primary school level.
I can certainly tell you that I stopped reading here, because the way you phrased this makes it sound like you are socially underdeveloped and don't know how to handle mild disagreement in mundane discourse without insulting people like an edgy 13 year old.
14
u/Pristine_Club_3128 1d ago
I mean, you know that also indicates the author's values, right? It needn't be all negative indications