11 minutes ago, Oberon_Command said:I interpreted what OandO said as meaning more or less what my previous post explained. Perhaps I should paraphrase more closely to their wording: "if the audience can infer something from a work, it is because the artist made that work in such a way that the audience could make that inference." Which really seems to be a statement of fact - if I make a game that involves cows in a major way, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to infer that the game is about cows.
That isn't what we are talking about it, but also isn't entirely correct. If you associate cows with the devil, and I make a game about cows, it is a huge stretch for you to conclude that I made a game about the devil.
But it isn't the concluding. I'm taking about subjectivity, interpretation and inference. I joined the debate to highlight the point that interpretation is subjective. The point is that interpretation is distinct from intent or implication, and earlier posts seemed not to understand that.
14 minutes ago, Oberon_Command said:You appear to be interpreting what he said in a way that I don't believe he intended, but he worded his post in such a way that you could interpret it the way you did. Thereby you have proven his point (and mine).
You are suggesting that my interpretation is his fault. You've also given your interpretation of my interpretation. I interpreted his post to mean that he hates fish. If I made that interpretation, it must be because he put something in that post that made it possible for me to get that interpretation - even if he didn't. So, again, my interpretation is his fault.
17 minutes ago, Oberon_Command said:I wouldn't make it about fault so much as that this is reality and narrowing the interpretation space in your favour is in your best interests as an artist. If you strongly feel that your work should be interpreted in a particular way, it is in your interests to write your work in such a way that it is difficult or impossible to interpret it in other ways.
Unless you don't consider that aspect, or you didn't consider that aspect... Then what?
There is a strong theme running through here that to be 'an artist' means complete and total awareness of every facet of your work, and to include every possible detail as a result of measured deliberation.
17 minutes ago, OandO said:I'm assuming that the audience is artistically literate and knows how to approach and "read" the work, otherwise the whole thing goes out the window. In that case, if the artist chooses to ignore, or fails to take in to account the context in which their work will be viewed, or the methods by which it will be understood and as a result their intentions are distorted or lost, that is of course the fault of the artist. This applies to the work as a whole, but also to its individual components. In light of this, my original point that there is a potential metaphorical link between the war and the romance may allow for an interpretation contrary to what was intended, and it could be drawn entirely from the contents of the game.
As long as there are other possible interpretations, then the morality could be ambiguous, and as I said earlier intentional ambiguity is perfectly valid. My real concern is that the writer be aware of possible approaches and how his work may be viewed.
"I hate my yellow t-shirt". This means three things. I have a t-shirt, I hate my t-shirt, my t-shirt is yellow.
IF my hating my t-shirt, and its being yellow are unrelated, then I am making a statement that, and my t-shirt being yellow is an incidental detail.
IF my hating my t-shirt, and its being yellow are related, then I am making a statement about, and my t-shirt being yellow is a subject I am engaging in.
Similarly, "I hate my gay friend". This means three things. I have a friend. I hate my friend. My friend is gay.
IF my hating my friend, and his being gay are unrelated, then I am making a statement that, and my friend being gay is an incidental detail.
IF my hating my friend, and his being gay are related, then I am making a statement about, and my friend being gay is a subject I am engaging in.
Finally, the original poster is writing a story that features two themes, the love between two children, and the love between two soldiers. The lovers being soldiers is relevant. The lovers being children is relevant. The children being soldiers is incidental - you cannot write a story about two lovers who are children, and two lovers who are soldiers, and have them be the same lovers without featuring child-soldiers.
The fact that the story contains child-soldiers is a statement that, it is incidental, they are children who happen to be soldiers in one context, and soldiers who happen to be children in another.
If you play the game and interpret the inclusion of child-soldiers as a statement about child soldiers, you will have interpreted incorrectly. Of course, you have to think something after playing the game (and no one has suggested that you shouldn't), and, of course, you are free to interpret whatever you like - in fact, you are potentially one of 7.8 billion players, with one of 7.8 billion individual or unique interpretations. HOWEVER, your interpretation does not put words in the writers mouth, or thoughts in his or her head.
It is at the writer's discretion whether he takes steps to minimise (or maximise) the potential for incorrect interpretation, but since there are 7.8 billion possibilities, he cannot sensibly be held to be responsible for any one of them. There may be consequences based on these interpretations, some of which he could have foreseen and stopped, many of which he could not - again, you cannot transfer responsibility to him.
Your arguments that an interpretation may be possible, and thereby confers responsibility to the artist, is equally matched by the argument that an intention may be possible, and thereby confers responsibility to the audience. It is no more the artists responsibility to consider his audience's potential interpretation, than it is the audience's responsibility to consider the artist's potential intentions.
Ultimately, the problem is not having interpretations or intentions, the problem is in insistence that one trumps the other, when it does not. The artist is responsible for himself (and no one else), the audience is responsible for himself (and no one else).
The artist can freely feature whatever aspects or details of reality he wants. The artist can engage or not engage in whatever debates he wants. It is the artist's choice, and no one else's.