Pol Pots Pooter
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
Can you look at the recent censorship of the blackface episodes of It's Always Sunny, and the D&D episode of Community, and come to any conclusion other than "it doesn't matter"? Or more to the point, what other than Mel Brooks' jewishness spares his body of work from the long knives? Not for lack of trying from all corners, bear in mind.Namely, if you remove the author's intent of a work, can you ever determine if a work is satire or not? Or can you make anything satire then? (The Godfather as satire of Italian American culture...)
That's the entire point of weaponizing death of the author, and not limited at all to satire or parody. Use of genre, form, or style, is second-order to whether or not taking a given position on a work is politically expedient. The entire point is to recontextualize work in the matter most politically-expedient for use as propaganda, not critical analysis. And indeed, to this end it serves a dual purpose: to excuse problematic elements of politically expedient work and by politically expedient persons, and to problematize politically inconvenient work and by politically inconvenient persons.
Case in point, J.K. Rowling. The idpol left had been taking aim at her for at least two or three years, over the various "retcon X character as gay for good PR" instances as well as perceived lack of racial diversity and ethnic stereotyping. Up until recently there was concerted pushback even among the idpol left because her politics made her convenient to defend, and consistently fell in the "it's okay to like problematic things" camp. But since the Mara Forstater shit, she became politically inconvenient to defend; thus, the same reasoning inverts to problematize her work and validate criticisms, levied by people who until that point defended her.
"Death of the author" is just another vehicle for the Orwellian politics of the idpol left. Questions such as what relevance it bears to satire, are simply irrelevant.