Oh, geez, the cat's name is never, ever ok. Nor are the bankers in Harry Potter (nor Rowling's transphobic comments - but don't get me started on that...)
Let me elaborate on the process of cutting the cord, since I could have done a better job of explaining it above.
For me, the difference comes from the source of interpretation. If the ultimate meaning of the story is determined by Lovecraft, then the cat's name is just a trope of racism because his was a racist worldview. But "death of the author" implies that meaning comes to rest with the reader (or, as I would probably argue, some combination of the author and reader). As a reader, I can recognize the awful name and ask myself what the name tells me about the time of the narrative, the place of the narrative, the metaphors employed in the narrative, the mistakes revealed in the narrative, etc. (including what the name tells me about the author - whether or not he was conscious of it or wanted to be seen in that light, because sometimes our creative work shows hidden aspects of our personalities). In this sense, I can view the story as interesting and worthy of analysis even if the author was a royal sphincter - not because he was a racist, but because I'm not (and, therefore, I get to make my own meaning of that cat's name, that it's horrible and tells us about a horrible time and place that we must transcend). If the (my) meaning of "The Rats in the Walls" overpowers Lovecraft's, then the story has been redeemed in the sense that I recognize it contains something that is (to me, anyway) irredeemable. The story has become an extension of my worldview, wrested (at least in part) from Lovecraft's - and that's a worldview that admonishes the cat's name instead of celebrating it.
And, yes, we have to consider who profits off of certain works - and do the responsible thing in making sure we don't pay to consume them.
Implord and Fobarimperius, excellent points! I feel the "death of the author" concept could actually redeem the work of a prejudicial writer like Lovecraft (definitely wanting to review some of his stories for my channel in the future). If we cut the umbilical cord from work to author, we don't have to see the work as expressing the author's wishes. We could even interpret prejudicial works (Lovecraft's, Kipling's, Conrad's, etc.) as cautionary tales that help us nullify hatred and foster compassion.
Hi! Thanks for the awesome reply! :) I'd rather not comment at length here because my response ranges away from the topic of Slenderman, so I'll refer you to the video I've posted at YouTube:
While it's no secret that I'm anti-capitalist (especially laissez-faire capitalism), I also believe in multiple interpretations of works of the arts. I think the best works of art, mythology, etc. allow us to interpret them in many ways. I do think Slenderman can be seen as a personification of fears of capitalism, but other interpretations are also valid... including Slenderman as a personification of the unknown (similar, in ways, to how Lovecraft achieves this), of neglegent and/or abusive parenting or leadership, of the shadow self, and others. So I think your point is totally legit. Thanks! :)
Ooo, love your thoughts about Slenderman as a personification of other oppressive systems, which definitely makes sense to me. Thanks for the insight! Will link this response to the video on YT.
Hi, all!
I recently posted a video about how Slenderman personifies our fears of capitalism and its sinister effects. I've linked this forum in the description on YouTube. Please consider watching the video if you are interested in this topic.Slenderman Personifies Our Fears of Capitalism
