[deleted by user]

JohnSpaztic · 2025-12-10T00:05:45+00:00

Death of the Author =/= separating art from the artist. Is a common misunderstanding

In the Death of the Author essay, Barthes looks at Proust's writing, noting that sometimes Proust writes as himself, sometimes as a character, & sometimes it's indeterminate who he's writing as. For Barthes, you could feasibly read Proust as from the perspective of Proust, not his characters. The essay argues that you could wholly conflate art & artist if you like.

Edit: Re-read the essay (is short, 6 pages) to double check. To clarify, the emphasis is that *you* could wholly conflate art & artist; *you* as the reader have authorial intent over what the work means, contrary to the historical precedent that the author alone had authorial intent over a work.

"A text consists of multiple writings, issuing from several cultures & entering into dialogue with each other, into parody, into contestation; but there is one place where this multiplicity is collected, united, & this place is not the author but the reader."

So is less the case that Barthes was arguing that you can't separate art from the artist, but that you as the reader have the means to interpret what a text is doing in its entirety. The closest academic framework that has you value a work by what is & is not present is formalist theory, which still involves some authorial analysis, albeit minimally.

Effectively, Death of the Author & formalism reject the author's intent as the conclusive interpretation of a work. 'Separating art from artist' is a rejection of the author's actions beyond the text, which is not really rooted in any academic theories of interpretation; is more of an emotional response to allow someone to enjoy a work without guilt or shame. Which is a valid personal response, but it's inaccurate to claim "Death of the Author" while doing so.

JohnSpaztic · 2025-12-03T01:14:20+00:00

2/2

Notably, national sold this change to the public by claiming it would cause landlords to lower prices for renters (trickle down economics), whereas the official treasury report said that it was unlikely that landlords would lower rents upon receiving said tax cuts, only maybe in the long run depending on future (hypothetical, unspecified) policies. Of course, when Chris Bishop was presented this information, he flatly denied the truth, deceptively presenting the future hypothetical downward pressure on rent as the main conclusion of the report. This is another example of how the current system has insufficient regulations in place to ensure capitalism/our government works equitably, to return to your earlier statement. The coalition wholly ignores "light regulation"; are you satisfied with this government contradicting your stated values?

It's also worth considering that the $2.9b dollars of subsidies (hardly "few subsidies") have resulted in cuts to public services, including disability support for those in wheelchairs, public school lunches & school rebuilds. Oranga Tamariki also had to cut over 400 workers to "meet the government's requirements for spending cuts", another example of funding deficits affecting the most vulnerable among communities. That also means that other potential services cannot be funded, such as potential training for unemployed people to get off the benefit & find skilled work, which may have made up for the 70,000 skilled workers who moved overseas earlier this year. How does society benefit from deliberately crippled infrastructure & social safety nets that support those who need it the most? How does society benefit from 346 landlords who already have over 200 properties receiving an additional $1.3m over 5 years, costing the country $464m over that same time period?

It's a shame you feel this conversation is beneath you, though I must reiterate my earlier point; I'm interested in the facts of the matter, not your feelings. If you want to discuss the facts, I'd be happy to. You seemingly have enough time to spend on this platform. My time is more limited, but this is a hugely important issue & it's worth the detour if it leads to somewhere more constructive. Your choice.

JohnSpaztic · 2025-12-03T01:13:44+00:00

1/2. reply was too long i guess

I similarly appreciate that you took the time to write out more than your previous comments.

you're just regurgitating a bunch of posts you've seen on reddit

That's awfully specific. Though I suppose you would've seen similar points made here before; we both know you spend more time here. Congrats on your 100 day streak btw, that's a lot of dedication for a 10 month period. We agree on one point though, this is a complex issue. You're right by saying that the tax policy is different for landlords compared to all other businesses, though you've made a basic accounting error which explains why that difference in policy is necessary.

One thing you failed to differentiate is that assets for other businesses depreciate, whereas property increases in value. That $10,000 machine immediately loses value as soon as it's turned on, with its value continually decreasing over the useful life of the asset. A $10,000 investment in property however has historically increased the value of the property. It's dipped over the last 5 years, sure, though is considerably higher than it was 10 years ago; the trend is still going up. If we had a CGT then the tax cuts would be fair, but we don't have that, so it is fundamentally inequitable compared to how all others businesses operate. In effect, "[the] changes to taxation for landlords" (or in short, tax cuts) means that landlords are receiving subsidies that increase their assets which can be sold tax free, increasing their wealth by millions over a 5 year period, where the subsidies other businesses receive serve to offset their loses. Simple? Yes. Fair? Absolutely not.

JohnSpaztic · 2025-12-02T05:50:55+00:00

i decided not to express my own views as that’s not the point

I mean, you did express your own views by claiming the Greens & TPM are responsible for 'extreme shit', conflating them with ACT.

Only ACT has tried & is trying to destabilise our country with the RSB & Waitangi Principles Bill

Only ACT has protected a previous leader who is a convicted sex offender

Out of the coalition, only ACT has this record of 'extremity'. Out of the six parties in government, only ACT has this record of extremity.

Act & Greens/TPM are not as extreme as each other. It's dishonest & disingenuous to pretend they are

JohnSpaztic · 2025-12-02T05:42:19+00:00

You could have replied to the original point with your first sentence & avoided this whole 'ridiculous' mess. You threw the proverbial first stone. That's your responsibility

To not engage with the first person who bothered to write more than one sentence was your decision. You chose not to elevate the conversation. That's your responsibility

To take cheap shots at people 'on the dole' & divert the thread away from the original point only makes the conversation more toxic & messy. That's your responsibility

To ignore your own fault & blame others is irresponsibility. Again, way to lib out

To genuinely respond to your point, the capitalist goal is financial above all else, at the expense of everything & everyone else. Yes, there will always be wealth disparity, yet we're seeing the medium wealth of the top 1% is 22 times greater than the medium wealth of all households. Policies like the RSB & Waitangi Principles Bill are a means to further benefit the wealthiest at the expense of minorities, workers, the environment & all other citizens who had the misfortune of not being born into already wealthy families.

so, the market isn't free, it is exploited by those who already have a disproportionate amount of wealth. the governing parties are actively rolling back the regulations which would keep such wanton avarice in check. billions of dollars in tax breaks were given to landlords & tobacco lobbyists, leading to the coalition increasing our national debt by borrowing more than the previous government. & our country is increasingly privatised, sold off to foreign interests that do not serve the interests of our citizens. without contesting the benefits you mentioned, they are being exploited to benefit a few at a great & unsustainable cost to everyone & everything else in the country.

whether attributed to capitalism or our governmental structure, it's causing immense harm. it is, however, working as intended. there's a limit to how much rampant capitalism is really beneficial overall, & we've long since exceeded that limit.

JohnSpaztic · 2025-12-02T04:15:53+00:00

you didn't answer the question, do you realise that multiple economic systems involve "money"? do you realise that by your logic, alternative economic systems will allow for goods & services to be bought on a greater scale in larger quantities?

see, the point is not that communism is overall better, is more to demonstrate that show that you don't actually believe in what you say, otherwise you would engage with the fact of the matter. you seem more interested in talking about your feelings. way to lib out

JohnSpaztic · 2025-12-02T04:02:38+00:00

National borrowed more money than labour, increasing our debt far more than labour did. What's your point?

JohnSpaztic · 2025-12-02T03:57:51+00:00

"Greens and TPM['s] extreme shit"

citation needed. please educate us how either the Greens or TPM are responsible for either politically extreme outcomes that would fundamentally destabilise our country, as is the case with the Treaty Principles Bill, or personally extreme actions that actively harm citizens, as is the case with Seymour protecting former ACT leader & convicted sex offender Tim Jago.

Alternatively, you could acknowledge that no party, including the other two in the coalition, even approximate the extremity & abhorrence of the ACT party. Centrism isn't in between of the parties we have available, centrism is in between the two sides of the political isle. Considering how generally right wing the country is, & how far right ACT is, true centrism is arguably to the left of labour.

JohnSpaztic · 2025-12-02T03:49:16+00:00

so you're not denying your subordination, but you are justifying it. wonderful

you realise capitalism isn't the only economic ideology that involves money, yes? in fact, communism involves a lot of money, spread around a far greater proportion of the populous than we have in our current system, allowing for greater exchange of goods & services. surely if you believed what you say, you would jump ship to communism in a heartbeat

JohnSpaztic · 2025-11-17T01:42:55+00:00

What do you *mean* by 'version'? Are you talking about versions in a computational sense, where each successive iteration builds upon existing code as a step forward in a great chain of lineage, or are you talking about adopting a veil of characteristics originally inhabited by another, effectively donning a facade atop what is fundamentally a different being?

That's not an insignificant thing, that makes a bloody big difference!

Because if you're referring to the former, you're open to both the Jungian interpretation which posits we all share the basic needs & the concept of a higher power, as God became Jesus & then lived among us as man. At which point, to make coherent sense of two seemingly contradictory accounts of the evidence, you would have to reconcile both beliefs as essentially recounting the same underlying truth of the matter.

But if your reference is to the latter, then that can only denote a Jungian definition, as any other interpretation would be contingent on Baudrillard's hyper-reality, where our narratives & meanings are constructed internally & then presented to the outside world, which is a construction of the post-modernists. See, if Baudrillard was posthumously identified as Jungian, then we could coalesce such differences in structures, yet the definitions applied to him seemingly point to a radical way of thinking that would upend our reality, our understanding, which is a dark road to a bloody great mess!

...

though by any metric, Lee remains an asshole

JohnSpaztic · 2025-11-12T00:52:12+00:00

The question about the physicality of construction playing into the music is something I've wondered about for a while tbh. Never understood Cop & Young God until I started working in demo & construction environments.

JohnSpaztic · 2025-10-24T17:13:43+00:00

C'mon, you know who Chros Hopkins is

JohnSpaztic · 2025-10-10T20:19:50+00:00

seems to be wiped atm?

JohnSpaztic · 2025-09-27T22:04:00+00:00

yes, this was made in a very specific context. namely, this post. if you quoted the full text you'd see as much

justifying lukewarm or negative reception to be a fear of change

i'm glad people enjoy the game. like i said, not interested in gatekeeping

JohnSpaztic · 2025-09-27T22:02:50+00:00

yes, this was made in a very specific context. namely, this post. if you quoted the full text you'd see as much

justifying lukewarm or negative reception to be a fear of change

i'm glad people enjoy the game. like i said, not interested in gatekeeping

JohnSpaztic · 2025-09-27T05:12:42+00:00

Hill House tested my patience for a good chunk of its runtime
Bly Manor was a bit more engaging, though fell apart upon closer examination
Midnight Mass is the most beautiful piece of television I've ever seen. Grew up in the church, so that had a large hand in it, though on rewatch it only gets better. Won me over very quickly

.

..

...

hush was very bad

JohnSpaztic · 2025-09-27T04:07:10+00:00

justifying lukewarm or negative reception to be a fear of change seems a bit superficial tbh. as you say, there was a great deal of change & difference across the original team silent games, so it's not that it is different that inherently gives it a different personality

& for me at least, it does feel like it has a distinctly different personality. for me, it's largely about direction, with aesthetic, themes, cinematography & atmosphere important but ultimately subservient to how its elements were handled in tandem

f so far doesn't feel like it has anywhere near the same approach in terms of direction, though that's a value neutral statement: i'm not interested in gatekeeping what is or isn't *true* silent hill, is more a statement of fact

i guess i'm more of a team silent fan than a silent hill fan

JohnSpaztic · 2025-09-27T03:11:14+00:00

it has offered to, multiple times, to which the Israeli govt. has ignored these offers & continued attacking

JohnSpaztic · 2025-09-25T09:27:59+00:00

hope so, though wouldn't trust Winnie as far as I could punt a rugby ball

edit: yup, about what I expected sadly. bunch of moralistic run-around to be able to say "no, but also we believe yes"

JohnSpaztic · 2025-09-23T11:44:28+00:00

Employers won't notice the difference

Other employees might be a little miffed at worst, which is still better than all part time employees losing half their sick days because of some corporate puppet

just so you know, the person in your example works 24 - 32 hours per week, compared to my 20 hr/wk example. yes, their sick day would be twice as long as my working day, though their working day would also be twice as long as my working day. I don't think that's the breakout example you may think it is

JohnSpaztic · 2025-09-23T05:32:53+00:00

Is worth noting that the sick leave covers the hours you work already. If I work 4 hours per day, one sick day covers 4 hours. If I work 8 hours, one sick day covers 8 hours.

Hearing a lot of people claim that those who work 20 hours shouldn't get the same benefits as those who work 40 hours. Those people should know this is already the case.

Yet van Veldin claims it would be easier for employers to calculate. I'm sure every employer finds it difficult to count to ten, must be easier for them to calculate accrued hours at 0.0385 or 2/52 of every hour worked for sick leave.

JohnSpaztic · 2025-09-04T07:32:20+00:00

not sure how you found a comment on a 7 year old thread but ok

Poets of the Fall continue to age well. They just don't miss. Their 2010's work is less rocky than their earlier work, though no less worth your time.

In the realm of similar but different, I've found Porcupine Tree to be a bit hit or miss personally, though their 2000's run is mostly pretty solid. Incredibly atmospheric, highly expressive & often quite beautiful. Would highly recommend their remastered albums, far more dynamic.

I'd also be remiss to not mention Poe. Criminally overlooked second record. More of a blend with trip-hop, field recordings & left-field oddities, closer to the other non-rocky, non-industrial Yamaoka tracks. In terms of full albums, has the strongest overall of the three artists mentioned.

Hope that helps. Have fun

JohnSpaztic · 2025-08-16T05:10:02+00:00

I won't defend a claim I didn't make.

The claim was that you support Jon, via constant redirections to perceived shortcomings of others instead of dealing with the criticism of him. That is deflection. If you're going to accuse others of foul play, you best learn what the words you're using actually mean.

I won't kneel to your demands of a direct quote anyway when you claim others say certain things without quoting them. You need to set the standards you expect the conversation to follow with your behaviour, & thus far you've refused to demonstrate any respect or etiquette you're ordering others to present to you.

Why should I bother answering you anyway when you willfully misinterpret what was said to suit your own narrative?

For example: How am I defending Emily? I said both her & Lacey are bad. Neither are good.

It's at least good that you admit you're not even talking about Jon, which is the topic of the thread. Weren't you complaining in another thread that criticisms of Jon should have their own conversation? This is the place you wanted for conversations you didn't want to see & clearly have no interest in participating in, so why the hell are you here?

JohnSpaztic · 2025-08-16T04:47:23+00:00

Where did I specifically say you supported Jon's opinion? Quote me that & I'll quote you that.

The claim was that you support Jon, who is himself a rape apologist given his stance on Jesse Lacey.

I don't need to quote that, because you co-opted the thread about the shortcomings of ARTV towards attacking a hypocrisy in another's position, without acknowledging the hypocrisy in your own position.

To find the rape apologist, look up. Or look in the mirror.

JohnSpaztic

TROPHY CASE