Here's an idea: Neon Genesis Evangelion demonstrates the Death of the Author.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVm65tlhqw8
>American tax dollars are funding this
Death of the Author is a fancy way of saying 'I don't like what X actually is, so I'm going to pretend it's really Y and neener neener neener'.
I have no idea how this became a legitimate literary thing.
>>13878561
>Death of the Author
Why are you capitalizing this like you're on tvtropes?
>>13878561
I hate this guy's face
Here's an idea: ur a faget
>>13878616
t. Kaworu
>>13878571
>what you want to say isn't important, only what I want to hear
It's the goddamn death of literature. All of that because critics want to feel smarter than they actually are.
>>13878561
If someone didn't mean anything by it, it doesn't matter what sort of symbolism you can create by stringing things together. It's kind of fun to discuss in a what if brainstorming session, but don't pass it off as "It means ____" because even by your own admission, what it means to one person isn't the same as what it means to another. If there is a death of the author, there's a death of your criticism too.
>>13878571
Second, it is a meaningless concept in every regard.
>>13878627
>>13878571
>>13878637
People who take this too far and say what a media's primary intent (or lack thereof) is secondary to what obsessive fans can cook up by "reading between the lines" are idiots, but sometimes it applies. Sometimes an author or artist makes something that can be very easily misinterpreted as being something else.
Example: did the creators of Top Gun intend on making on of the gayest blockbusters of all time? No. Did they manage to do so anyway? Absolutely.
>>13878561
No.
>>13878629
>>13878571
Agreed. It's amongst Modern Art in today's stupidities.
>>13878670
Are you sure they weren't aiming for it to be gay as fuck? Cause goddamn. You can only accidentally gay so hard.
>>13878681
What counts as Modern Art, anyway?
>>13878561
Who is this faggot? I think I saw him somewhere before.
>>13878703
He's the guy from the PBS Idea Channel. You saw him in other PBS Idea Channel videos.
>>13878727
Could be. Maybe in "recommended/related". He puts his stupid mug on all previews,
>>13878730
He has a pretty smug hipster face so he probably does it specifically to annoy people.
>>13878727
I wish PBS would get a less retarded guy to try and get younger people into their stuff.
>>13878695
A blank canvas apparently
I thought death of the author wasn't a term that was in the hands of the viewer.
I thought it was a term used to describe situations where the author lost control of his or her IP, one way or another. Like countless Jack Kirby comic characters for example.
>>13878681
It's actually a post-modern concept
>>13878695
Modern Art is about "muh progress" and creating new things and concepts.
Post-modernism is about fucking around with culture.
>>13878768
actually more of a post-modern thing, again.
Modernism doesn't really concern itself with showcasing formats and creation supports for their own sake, post-modernists, however, love doing that.
>>13878773
Nah. The Death of the Author was an old essay by a french guy who was arguing a book's real life context (such as the author's intentions when writing it) should not matter when studying it.
>>13878569
bravo murrica
>>13878670
But is Eva intended to be gay or Top Gun gay though?
>>13878791
Top Gay.
>>13878670
Another example could have been A Nightmare On Elm Street 2, for the exact same reasons
>>13878670
>>13878944
I'd chalk those up to more some sort of subconscious thing the creator's put in intentionally without realizing it yet than some totally different meaning a kid in college pulled out their ass.
>>13878561
Will this debate ever end and people actually ge the point that don't be a dick to that shy,introvert guy who if american may end up causing a shootout?
I mean comeone, look at any "adult " entertainment (GoT or example) full of backstabbing and lust.
Now look at Japanese Corporate Culture that forms a big part of social life in big cities.
Too brutally competitive where childhood dream go and die.
No wonder there are hikkiomoris and otakus don't want to growing up-they are too scared of that shit. And add to that that you are pretty lonely at the end.
I had this discovery that the best place to cry alone where no one will bother you is the prep/coaching classes where you can cry silently in the class and no one will look at you.
And now you have to deal with the fact that social media make feel one more like a shit than in past,when you see some getting too much friends and people always talk to them and regularly interact with them even if their taste is shit while you are left behind,just like school.
And see what happened with NGE.
Anno wanted to show those things,that's why he never gave a damm about the backstory and symbolism yet you have got Evageeks who establish connection between Christianity,The whole act of ancient civ sending pods to earth and brain's contruction with one's mental illness to shopw how deep this shot despite the fact that message was much simple.
No wonder Anno is fucking with the fandom with EoE and Rebuild Movies
also creators aren't under some legal obligation to answer truthfully
sometimes people lie or mislead others even without an internet to do it on
>>13879156
This is true, Tomino was like "Yeah whatever, G-Reco is bad, if you say so" even though it's actually very good, because he just wants people to shut up and stop bothering him.
>>13879156
>>also creators aren't under some legal obligation to answer truthfully
As someone who wants to be a writer someday, I'll say this: Answering truthfully should be for this very reason: It's the right thing to do.
Is it "death of the author" if you believe it is very possible for the creator of a work to imprint certain aspects of themselves onto their work at a subconscious level, resulting in them admitting to no conscious intent to convey a given message if asked in something like an interview?
>>13879184
Not always. Leaving room for interpretation is always good. Not in an artsy-fartsy meaning, but, like, telling a story that represents some basic thing in human culture or nature. Something that tells a story, on a surface level, but also just repeats again what humans keep doing over and over throughout history. Kinda like what Kubrick did.
>1min
>dropped
>>13878670
Death of the author is an interesting idea. As initially presented by Roland Barthes, it's actually pretty simple: When studying a text, what's most important is what is understood rather what was meant. Because nobody has fucking time to pore over the author's history to divine his intentions unless you're an academic with too much time.
It places primacy on the reader. More importantly, it places primacy on the reader's gut. So according to this framework, it is perfectly valid to say "Evangelion is confusing as hell" and leave it at that as a critique of its message.
And while that has been extended to mean "anything I can come up with goes", that was never really the point of Barthes' essay. The point has always been that when you're studying the effects of a book, or a TV show, or a piece of advertising, the most important thing is not what's in the author's head but how people react to it.
Every time shit like this pops up, I remeber Beginner's Guide and 'Maybe he really just liked making prisons.'
Not everything good (and Eva isn't even that good) has some super deep meaning.
>>13878561
>PBS
Fuck everything, I'm so glad I don't watch TV anymore.
>>13879243
Here's some actual quality Eva content.
>it's not mecha 'cos its dark.
What?! How?!
>>13879184
You do that and you end up getting retarded answers like Dumbledore being totes gay.
>>13879284
That's not a retarded answer though.
>>13879312
I don't like thinking about whether he's a top or bottom which happens constantly.
>>13879315
I know the feeling.
>>13879312
Did it matter to the plot? Did it matter at all?
Who gave a shit if Dumbledore was gay other than tumblr?
>>13878569
I don't think that's how it works.
>>13879326
That's exactly why it's not a retarded answer. It's just some supplementary information that's not a big deal in the least. People asked, and she explained what she had in mind.
Here's an idea: That faggot can fuck off.
>>13878569
>>American tax dollars are funding this
No. PBS online studios are not funded by tax dollars. They are only promoted by PBS. Idea Channel in particular has its own sponsorship.
>>13879377
So attention whoriing for clicks? Good to know.
>>13879448
>>13878561
My main problem with this video isn't that it's shilling one of the worst literary bastardizations since the term "deconstruction," it's his complete and utter lack of understanding when it comes to fucking everything. There's no way he's seen Evangelion or even interviews concerning Evangelion.
>>13879326
I care about Hogwarts having literal circlejerks.
>>13878561
I lost all respect for this autistic faggot when he called egalitarianism a MRA project he's a fucking spastic fuck
>>13879552
>having any respect for a youtube fag to begin with
uwatm8
>>13878755
He's literally hmnnnnnnnnn
>>13879560
Shit sorry only said that in the moment as I couldn't collect a better phrasing atm never had respect for the channel in the first place
>>13879326
>Did it matter to the plot?
Yes. I caught wind of it while reading the final book, long before J. K. Rowling said it directly, but I brushed it off until the confirmation years later.
Grindlewald was more than a friend to Dumbledore. That adds another layer of tragedy to Dumbledore's backstory. And I think Rita Skeeter implied Dumbledore and Harry had some sort of pederasty thing going on, in her defamatory tabloids.
>>13879448
>What is: Monetization on the internet?
>>13879222
Postmodernism in a nutshell: a bunch of pretty basic critical ideas that fucking retards took and blew way out of proportion until they lost all meaning and became bullshit you spout in critique to sound intelligent.
This is what happens when you create a circlejerk of critics critiquing the critiques of other critics, like some academic level game of Telephone.
>>13880102
To be fair, she put a lot of thought into her world and only a shade of it made it into the books. As stupid as some of her post-book reveals are, I appreciate how much effort she put into things.
The video though reminds me of one of the lit courses I took in college. We were reading a Heinlein story and talking about it. And someone asks "What if we're just picking up on the wrong things or coming to the wrong conclusions?"
So the professor says "If the author says we're wrong, we're wrong. We could be spouting bullshit unless proven otherwise".
I'm all for coming to your own conclusions, but EVA is something that Anno has talked about again and again and again, to the point where he's made all his intent and thoughts more than abundantly clear.
It's like trying to find deeper meanings hidden in your Cheerios.
>>13880162
>implying Cheerios aren't a post modern masterpiece about the dangers of conformity
>>13878561
>posting an almost 3 year old video
>>13879343
It actually is. Its PBS
>>13881407
>>13879377
Reading sure is hard, huh?
Maybe you should watch some Reading Rainbow.
>>13881426
Maybe you should shut the fuck up before you get pwned ya lil biznitch.
>>13880186
Post-modernism is over, man. Go eat Erasure, that's the book that killed it.
>>13880162
Some people may see them as stupid but it does seem clear that she intended them to begin with.
>>13880186
it's actually the world's longest Macho Man impression
Oh hey, its that beta hipster. He can go fuck himself.
>>13878561
I'll tell you what though, the new Eva movies make me WISH for the death of it's author.
>>13884609
ayyyyyyyyy
At the very least, isn't it sort of bs for the director to put in all these pseudo deep references, without explanation, only to years later say it was all without meaning, and fans are stupid for trying to find such in it?
>>13884616
what the fuck does he care, he already got your money
>>13884616
No. The audience have only themselves to blame for falling for it.
>>13878787
Which is kind of an interesting idea to a point.
Keyword, to a point.
The awkward racist elements of Lovecraft's fiction, for example, are pretty heavily informed by the fact he was a Puritan in the early 20th century.
Not to say it couldn't happen any other time, but it does help put that element more into its frame of mind than, say, reading his work like he was a member of Stormfront.
>>13884643
Lovecraft was super racist even by 1920's standards, though.
>>13878944
Depending who in production you ask, that was deliberate (as the stories go, the writer and lead actor were in on it, the director was completely blind to it at the time.)
>>13878561
>"Youtube Geek Week"
I hate everything.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with invoking death of the author. That doesn't automatically mean that your own bullshit interpretation is correct, but I do think the actually contents of the work are more important than whatever the author believes he was trying to convey.
>>13884675
I hate how adding the word "geek" as a prefix to anything has made it more annoying than it is.
>>13879125
>Rebuild Movies
With a halfhearted effort.
Fucker thinks he can pander and say fuck you all at the same time and it isn't working.
>>13884837
Last I checked it was working well enough to break box office records.
>>13878571
Insecure literature professors have to justify their salaries somehow.
>>13879377
>They are only promoted by PBS.
The government shouldn't be in the business of promoting youtube channels. Either way you look at it the situation is completely asinine.
>>13878561
>watching pseudo-intellectual garbage made by a goony beardman San-Francisco hipster
Kill yourself OP
>>13884578
>beta
In what sense? This guy exudes an alpha aura.
>>13885006
PBS isn't the government. It's partially funded by the government (a pretty small slice, in fact), not owned by it.
>>13885006
PBS isn't the government, dummy.
>>13884616
He didn't though. It's just reflection on his depression tied to a story about the bible really being a bunch of ayy lmaos. Not his fault people tried to find the depth of an ocean inside a puddle.
Death of the Author is absolute garbage.
If I put something in there, and externally told you what it was. But you interpreted it as something else. You're simply wrong.
I'm the creator of the media, I intended it to be that way. Yes, you're free to interpret the work however you want but that makes you or a group no matter how big collectively wrong.
>>13885887
Sorry but you're wrong and my interpretation of your posts shows you're wrong because you're really making fun of people who are against Death of the Author but on a subconscious level. You're not aware your post is satire but it truly is.
>>13885901
If I was having this conversation with ginger-hipster in the video this is the exact kind of argument I bet he'd make too.
Just to further iterate as this posts example shows. Every argument for Death of the Author simply relies on deflection of any valid points.
>>13885887
Or maybe you're just a shitty author and failed to convey your message properly, so everyone else got something different from you.
Look, the advent of social media is a new phenomena. Most of the time the only way people could judge a work was by the work itself filtered through the lens of their own life experiences. Nobody's got fucking time to ask the author what every little detail means.
Furthermore, even in the modern era of Twitter and emails, critical reception and analysis of any given work takes place long before anyone asks the author anything. Maybe everyone else got it "wrong" but that doesn't matter for the purposes of messaging, because that initial understanding is the most important for any piece of media's effectiveness.
Barthes' essay on the Death of the Author isn't assigned for literature courses, it's used in communication courses. There's a reason for that.
And let me give you an example relevant to /m/: The Transformers movies. So what if Micheal Bay himself comes and explains every frame of action to you? When you're actually watching the damn movie, it still looks like a mess of ugly metal and cuts. Are you then "wrong" for saying it's shit?
>>13885887
>>13885901
>>13885935
You're both wrong, Death of the Author isn't about the reader being "more correct" than the author, it's about the writer not holding the privileged position. What holds the privileged position is the work itself. Unless the work explicitly explains itself, it falls to others to provide an explanation and deeper meaning. That can be the writer, but just because they say something doesn't mean it's truer than what I say. Post-modernism didn't go full circle to Reader Response, because everybody knows Reader Response is a shitty method of studying literature.
>>13878571
On one level it's tag-not-it-Forever.
On a deeper level, it lets the viewer hardwire whatever meaning they want into a story, since they can justify it that if it can *interpreted* as X, it's X.
Even when the author's not making a social-political statement, they're making a social-political statement.
>>13878571
When applied softly, it's a neat tool. You can broaden the application of a work or explore concepts that were nonexistent at the time.
A favorite of mine is the rather sappy connection between the green dock light in "The Great Gatsby" and an online indicator in modern social media. Fitzgerald was never contemporary for even modest forms of instant-communication, so clearly the death of the author must be invoked to use that analogy to contextualize the scene to modern readers.
It's a very indelicate tool however; A conceptual sledgehammer, and nearly impossible to use for the modern critic or professor. The best way to describe the problem is that you cannot contradict the author without catalysing the collapse of the narrative itself. Instead of the safe "The Author's message can be applied to X", the typical form is "The author actually meant this."; A logic bomb that always boils back to "If he meant this, why didn't he fucking write it?"
To put it succinctly, DOTA can only be used in the synthesis stage of analysis. If you attempt to apply it earlier, you've committed the ultimate hubris of assuming you know the writer better than he does.
And if that's the case, get your fucking pulitzer.
>>13886070
Maybe the reason why everyone hates Death of the Author is because of how it's abused by troglodytes to interpret a piece of work as how they see fit and use their interpretation to attack the authour for it.
Doozy Bots is actually a brillant deconstruction of Gundam, and mecha anime in general. While I've spoken with someone who worked on the Doozy Bots pilots, and he said "It's just a cartoon" and "Please stop calling my house", I know the truth. Doozy Bots is a modern classic and the only mecha anime of interest to true intellectuals.
>>13886070
opinions of good or bad have is not the same as interpretation of the message dingus
>>13886380
i fucked up this sentence but you know what i meant
>>13886271
The soft sciences are unfortunately filled with all kinds of troglodytes. It doesn't make the toolkit worthless.
>>13886380
"Bad" is an extreme form of the death of the author. The concept is fundamentally about the disconnect between what's in the author's head, what's on the page, and what's in the reader's head.
The example I always go back to that's not necessarily /m/ is Mark Twain. Huck Finn begins with "PERSONS attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot." Does that mean somebody who sees an anti-racist message in the story is wrong despite it having been declared to be messageless by author fiat?
>>13886235
>When applied softly
Sadly not a thing the internet is ever good at.
>>13886380
>>13886383
I have trouble understanding someone who types in lowercase with no punctuation. It's like watching a caveman try to explain quantum physics.
>>13886070
Yes, but you're still deflecting. There is no substance to your argument other than 'we're free to interpret it however we like'
Doesn't make you any less wrong. To tackle your example. Micheal Bay is still right. Yes, you don't agree with it but that's your problem. You can't alter a work to suit your needs that's retarded.
I miss the days when /m/ was /m/ and not a cesspool for /lit/ autists and escapees.
>>13886876
More like TVTshitters, /v/ermin, and /k/unts.
>>13886853
Nobody's altering the work. If the author says one thing and the work says another, the author is wrong.
If I write a book, unambiguously indicate in the text that the sky is blue, and then announce at a press conference that the sky in that book is red, I'm talking shit and should be disregarded.
>>13886876
>actual good discussion is taking place instead of banal Gundam shitposting
>"UGH I HATE THIS! I'LL CALL THEM AUTISTS!"
>>13887041
I agree on that point. The argument I'm trying to make is that when people take subtext and try to alter that, that it's bullshit.
If people have gone to the author and have asked about it and he's said "Oh, it's never directly said, but the sky in the universe is green." People can't then turn around and say "Nah, it's fucking red. Here's a list of hints and a small essay saying otherwise."
>>13887111
>People can't then turn around and say "Nah, it's fucking red. Here's a list of hints and a small essay saying otherwise."
Why not? If those hints are valid and essay makes a good argument as to why the sky is red, I'd be inclined to believe them over the author. Why draw the line?
>>13887121
I'm not saying what you should and should not believe. I'm not some crazy fascist asshole. All I'm saying is that the author has creative control. The book is his vision. He created it therefore he knows more about it than you ever will. You can believe what ever you want but that doesn't make you right.
>>13887163
No, the author HAD creative control. As soon as they released the book, they stopped being God and just became the creator. The work stands alone, because the text doesn't change no matter how much the author says. If the color of the sky isn't mentioned directly, but you can provide evidence from the book to support the sky being red, then no amount of authorial speech can override that.
Of course, they can always just release a V2 or a sequel that says says the sky is green.
>>13886853
You're not understanding what I'm saying. The Death of the Author was not written as a tool of literary analysis. It's primarily used in communication theory.
It states that the objective "truth" of the author's head is irrelevant. The thing that matters most is what is on the page, and how people react to it. It privileges the reader's understanding, because frankly the author's understanding doesn't fucking matter. Nobody's got time to ask for clarification.
The book's already published, the speech's already been given, the ad's already been printed. The moment it interacts with an audience, a piece of media has taken on a life of its own that you can't take back, no matter how many times you write angrily on your blog.
I'll even agree with you that invoking the death of the author to refute word of god about canon is a dumb endeavour, but that's not what it was proposed for.
Another example, because I've been giving a lot of them: I read the Twilight Saga and laughed my ass off. "But it's not a comedy," insists Meyer and hordes of fangirls. Fuck off, it's hilarious, I laughed at it. Does that make me wrong? Because that's what a complete refusal to consider the death of the author means.
>>13887009
Same difference, really.
>>13887044
>this
>good discussion
Tipped fedora, etc., etc.
>>13878561
>Here's an idea: Neon Genesis Evangelion demonstrates the Death of the Author.
It's called deconstruction, moron.
>>13887344
>>13887344
We just had a whole thread about how it wasn't any good at that, either.
>>13888244
Are you fucking retarded?
>Death of the Author
>It's called deconstruction, moron.
love this meme
>>13887329
Oh yeah, you really showed us with the "tips fedora" meme. Take your bitterness somewhere else, nobody gives a fuck.
>>13878561
If I were in Anno's position after the TV show ending got the reception it originally did, I would have the exact same attitude that he did.
Honestly, otakus and most anime fans in general are some of the most uncultured and idiotic people on the planet.
>>13886285
10/10
>>13890300
I'd give it a 5/7 - a perfect score.
>>13890402
who gives a shit
>>13878561
All his videos are him inhaling the internet and shitting out random strings of words that sound intelligent because of the way he engages his audiences but are completely retarded once you think about them or know what he's talking about more than he does.
Egalitarianism is an Nerv project.
>>13890441
Your mother. *kicks you in the nuts*
>>13878561
Here's an idea: ZZ Gundam is not anime.
>>13878561
I thought it just demonstrated the psychological breakdown of the author? I know the guy was depressed but I'm pretty sure he didn't kill himself.
>>13890517
nice response
>>13879222
>And while that has been extended to mean "anything I can come up with goes", that was never really the point of Barthes' essay. The point has always been that when you're studying the effects of a book, or a TV show, or a piece of advertising, the most important thing is not what's in the author's head but how people react to it.
That's reasonable to a degree, or rather it seems more like an observation of what readers tend to do when they read without constant commentary. But people nowadays just use it to justify their retarded headcanon as if they're intellectuals for creating nonsense and purposefully disregarding what the author has explicitly stated.
>>13878571
death of the author is pretty much what you're demonstrating with your post - you taking a text and interpreting it according to what you believe in, using whatever is present in the text (the video, your knowledge of the concept) and interpreting it through your own personal lens
It's a "legitimate literary thing" because the real revolutionary concept here is not that "you can interpret anything in any way!" but that the reader has agency in absorbing whatever text he consumes, and that the author is not the sole source of however you're supposed to read a text (mostly because the author himself is simply a collection of various belief-systems, ideologies, and whatever that coalesce into the text). In terms of anime production, Anno is not the sole source of Evangelion's quirks, but the entirety of the Gainax staff working on it. Hell, the initial Barthes essay is pretty much entitled the way it is because it's a pun on le morte d'arthur and points out how the source text is composed of multiple authors, so trying to attribute any kind of authorial intent there is silly as there are multiple factors at work that contribute to that text.
It has NEVER advocated for "the author ACTUALLY meant for the text to be this" and any attempts by shitty students to do so is sorely missing the point of the concept. It's more a tool of critiquing institutional bias towards authoritative figures determining everything for an unresponsive consumer (for example, a criticism of how priests have the authority to interpret the Bible for people instead of allowing themselves to figure it out). At best it can be used to say "the text can be seen as demonstrative of x", basically saying that any kind of text/media/whatever you're willing to call it can stand for multiple kinds of things because ultimately words are just signifiers and stand for multiple things depending on the context in which it is deployed blah blah insert linguistic studies/derridean bullshit here
>>13892196
Evangelion was a series about how big of a loser the creator was. This isn't a badge of honor or ire criticism from the fans, this is something Anno consistently talked about during his interviews. He doesn't hide the fact Shinji is a self-insert for him, possibly more of the other characters but goes that goes into interpretation. He was displaying to the world how much of a fuckup he was in his youth, the plot is just there to keep Shinji around for the next fuck-up.
Now what the audience will draw from that is a different story altogether. Evangelion is a pretty bad mecha and I'd vote to revoke it's status but alas, a lot of people today watched the show in the mid 90s and nostalgia so hard because it was the first "deep" show.
Evangelion wouldn't be so bad if the fanbase was self-contained. They gotta stick their gay shit, daddy issues, and suicide tendency anime as the deepest shit this side of Chinese cartoons. Fuck off.
>>13892222
Okay, don't let retarded people ruin good things for you. Did you know some dumbasses also practice such radical things as "breathing" and "eating"?
>>13888249
The whole deconstruction thread we had not two days before this thread spawned. Are you retarded?
>>13878569
Est3UNs-LIk
>>13878571
Because too many fans hate the prequels.
>>13892441
How is it an interpretation if that is literally, precisely, all I ever see people do with the concept? I'm sure actual examples like what >>13886235 talks about happens somewhere, in some dusty and less retarded corner of the internet, but never in my experience.
But hey, assume away.
>>13894050
So yes, you're fucking retarded. "Death of the author" is the ignorant way of saying deconstruction. You morons think deconstruction is "playing with genre tropes" because you get you literary information from fucking TVTropes. But deconstruction, for people with an actual brain, is a literary view that asserts that the meaning of a work is entirely up to interpretation and not even the author can change that.
Kill yourself, you fucking retard.
>>13894444
Talk about wasted quads.
>But deconstruction, for people with an actual brain, is a literary view that asserts that the meaning of a work is entirely up to interpretation and not even the author can change that.
No, anon, a deconstruction is an analyzation of a written work regardless of whether or not the author thinks you suck cocks or not. Drath of thr author permits one to see the author asserting that you do, in fact, suck cocks, but what you think he means is that cocks are a metaphor for media and that you're actually just consuming information.
>>13894731
Actually, a post with quads that are the number four pertaining to death is very appropriate, in a Japanese sense.
