or Death of the Author Becomes Death to the Authors
Index  Comments

I tried and was unable to properly collect my thoughts for this article. However, being oh so close and dear to me that I must write it, consider this a living document, even moreso than those others. I can only continue adding to this article, as I think ever more of this topic, and I do this often.

As mentioned in my thoughts on the preceding decade, there's a major concern with all entertainment, particularly impacting that which enables escapism. A particular piece of fiction which I love, and hold so dear, also fell victim to this, but misery loves company, and the spectre of this phenomenon is omnipresent in society; I refuse to accept what happened, as it's unnecessary that anyone accepts such; this article also forms advice to help others cope with those effects of this sick subversion.

One solution is to avoid any attachment with something not already finished, the traditional method, lest it be tainted before one in this way, but, for those already attached to such, that solution is to simply ignore what is disliked; the easiest way to avoid being harmed so is to never love at all.

A primary example of this subversion is homosexuality being injected into cartoons, ofttimes in that final episode; homosexuals, so-called ``shippers'', don't tend to care about the verisimilitude of a fictional world, but propagate certain pairings. Restless homosexuals don't care whether characters are canonically like them or not, but be it inserted even in the final episode, by a team completely different at that point, or even by employees who weren't told to do it, they will cheer this, using it to mock others. That primary purpose of any such subversion is as a blunt instrument, with which to harm those who care; the homosexuals perhaps never cared about that show, and will clearly create their own homosexual scenarios regardless of any canon, but now they do so with a whiff of authority and gleefully cheering yet another show infiltrated with faggotry, before continuing on to the next.

People who twist stories, into unrecognizable shapes, holding disdain for their audiences, are evil.

Mankind has told stories for all of its history, by definition, and it's obvious stories are changed over time. There's no reason to believe the modern versions of great stories as we know of them are canonical, in the sense that no one ever modified or adjusted them to suit himself, for any reasons. Copyright unjustly attempts to destroy this beautiful mechanism of mankind; no one owns culture, and one seeking to prevent others from telling alternative stories or other expressions thereof is vile.

It's least reasonable to dispute a canon when the creator is an individual, and the work is released everything at once; if I grow to enjoy a character and, in the span of the atom of the holding work, observe that which I can't bear, that may be worth accepting. That creator held total dominion, and there was no long period of time for things to change, such as in response to observers. It's clear the work was intended to be that way. Still, this is no reason to not split the atom, if one wants.

Were I to enjoy the initial version of a story, for it to be continued by others in a way I dislike, must I accept this; if a story told over years were to slowly morph beyond recognition, and I'm told that's how it be, must I recognize this; I'd rather die. As that creator becomes creators, and that atom of work becomes composite, it also becomes more reasonable to disagree with it, if one desires.

It's easiest to restrict a canon to a contiguous range of time, but there's no reason one can't pick and choose and generally be more selective with what's chosen; there are no restrictions whatsoever.

When something is so central to a story, such as a character's most innate personality trait, and it be removed, it be perfectly right and just to recognize that the verisimilitude of the work has been exsanguinated, and to decry it as illegitimate. When a story becomes explicitly self-contradictory, that be another perfectly legitimate reason for rejecting it. It simply ceases to remain canonical. This only becomes easier to claim as creators are added and the time the story is told grows longer.

Imagine a couple be married throughout a story, and then another be contracted to later continue it, and he has them divorce, for that either or both may turn to homosexuality. Anyone who would accept this, and tell those upset by it to accept it, is misguided, and this is so clear I needn't explain.

Why should a business have total dominion over the legitimacy of a story it has paid others to make? It's not uncommon for there to be remakes or ``retcons'', which can cast away decades of canonicity. Were a corporation to reject parts of a canon, should observers cease with it; were that corporation to later decide to reinstate all or some of it, should observers continue? It's wholly unacceptable to tie such a thing to a business; it's an affront to humanity for storytelling to be restricted so.

Be a story good, to later rot, the rot will eventually eat itself, and the good will again be alone.

This phenomenon isn't new, as many new stories are continuations of old, taken in new directions and given new life. It's in no way unreasonable to do this with modern stories. If no one ever even be compelled to do so with a modern story, then I'd argue this alone is evidence it's not a good story.

It's become common for those paid to tell stories, generally not their own of course, to not put any effort into writing them, and to openly express disdain for their work, and for those who truly love the stories to provide the effort; common retorts are ``It's just a cartoon.'' or ``It's fiction.'', as if such excuses could justify shattering verisimilitude. These people not only harm stories, but mock the people who truly care, and this makes them evil. They forget they're unnecessary; noblesse oblige exists in part to control the crowd, but they've forgotten even their meagre obligations, and actively antagonize the passionate. Corporate cocksuckers and others will try to bludgeon those who reject this, but it's likely they will move on to help destroy something else, finally leaving them.

Of course, for most stories, none of this is a concern. Plenty of stories don't enrapture so. They strut upon the stage for a short time, and exeunt without fanfare. However, for some men, there's a story which can hold and inspire them for a lifetime, and it's that story which should be protected. It doesn't make any difference, whether the story is taken in a new direction, amongst however many; I know, however, when there be several, beautiful friendships can result, magical in their own ways.

I'm perfectly fine with that idea humans hold souls, so long as it be acknowledged others lack them.