Villain voting

Most of the time judges do know what they are doing and are able to pick good stuff from the bad. But I know I also picked things which judges didn't care about, and was lukewarm towards stuff they did like.

And after all, judges were not very fond of a certain blink-dog nation which was well received by the voters...

Oh yeah... I've actually included that nation in my sandbox campaign. The party's never gone remotely near there, so I've not had a chance to test it out yet.

I originally found the oath of silence quite hard, too - but now I have made myself consider it a bit differently: If people don't "get" my villain without me holding their hand and explaining, that wouldn't be very superstar at all, right?

In my college Creative Writing class, our prof made us read out poem / story / whatever to the class, and then sit quietly while the class discussed what they thought about it.

Sitting there, listening to them invent all sorts of meanings for what I'd written, fuming silently, was an important lesson. As a writer, particularly in the pre-internet-era, you don't get to explain your work to the reader. Either you communicated your intent clearly the first time, or you failed.

Soooo many times I wanted to scream. Once I even slammed my head down on the desk and groaned. Gosh, I hated that man...

Still, a valuable lesson on writing (or any sort of work, really, if most people don't get your painting or your song or your advertising campaign, it's not fair to blame it all on them).

What this experience ultimately highlights is the role of audience in the production of meaning. The speaker’s construction and delivery of a message is only one half of any act of communication. Communication presumes the presence of an audience receiving the message. And just as we needn’t necessarily mean what we say as authors (we may be mistaken about our work, or be repressed, or be unaware of how our culture writes us), we must be aware that what we intend to say, what we say, and what the audience hears are not always identical. Do not make the mistake of ignoring the role of the audience in constructing meanings from the message as authors in their own right. To do so would be to condemn the audience to a very hierarchical relationship with the artist. Then, their role is simply to passively receive, as perfectly as possible, the artist’s intent.

Advocates of this more active view of the author-text-audience paradigm might agree with Bob Dylan when he wrote, "A song leaves your mouth just as soon as it leaves your hands. You've got to respect other people's right to also have a message themselves."

What this experience ultimately highlights is the role of audience in the production of meaning. The speaker’s construction and delivery of a message is only one half of any act of communication. Communication presumes the presence of an audience receiving the message. And just as we needn’t necessarily mean what we say as authors (we may be mistaken about our work, or be repressed, or be unaware of how our culture writes us), we must be aware that what we intend to say, what we say, and what the audience hears are not always identical. Do not make the mistake of ignoring the role of the audience in constructing meanings from the message as authors in their own right. To do so would be to condemn the audience to a very hierarchical relationship with the artist. Then, their role is simply to passively receive, as perfectly as possible, the artist’s intent.

Advocates of this more active view of the author-text-audience paradigm might agree with Bob Dylan when he wrote, "A song leaves your mouth just as soon as it leaves your hands. You've got to respect other people's right to also have a message themselves."

Either that, or that Set went to school with a bunch of dolts ...

I was sitting in on a grade four class last year where the teacher did the same thing as Set's college writing teacher. It was amazing to watch these children critique each other's writing.

Of course, one of the things that I try to teach as well is that not all interpretations are equal. The text can be about many things, but one of the things it is not about is the redemptive power of peanut butter.

Very insightful post

QFT. It's very hard for anyone who writes to attempt clarity and to structure the message so that it is received in its original form (or as close as possible). Everyone interprets messages through their own filters, and it is the hardest thing for a communicator to fashion a message that stands up to filtering well, especially in a situation where your audience is very opinionated about the information being disseminated.

The problems this website has had several months before with brilliant gamers who didn't believe in constructing a value-neutral mode of communication to discuss their ideas for Pathfinder is a perfect example. You audience will never accept your message at face value. The method and clarity of the message will always be equally important to getting the information out there into the world successfully.

Of course, one of the things that I try to teach as well is that not all interpretations are equal. The text can be about many things, but one of the things it is not about is the redemptive power of peanut butter.

I want to go off on a tangent about the problems of encoding counter-hegemonic meanings in a text given that the readings will likely be guided by dominant discourses and then relate that tangent back to debates over 'giving offense' that we have had earlier ... but that has nothing to do with villain voting so I won't. ;-)

Of course, one of the things that I try to teach as well is that not all interpretations are equal. The text can be about many things, but one of the things it is not about is the redemptive power of peanut butter.

My interpretation of the above quote is that your main goal is to mock the pro-peanut-butter-redemption crowd, and are thus likely to be one of the pro-pyramid-and-magnet-power-redemption crowd.

Am I equal?