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! :)

The concept you're referring to is "Death of the author"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

"In his essay, the author argues against the method of reading and criticism that relies on aspects of the author's identity to distill meaning from the author's work. In this type of criticism against which he argues, the experiences and biases of the author serve as a definitive "explanation" of the text. For Barthes, however, this method of reading may be apparently tidy and convenient but is actually sloppy and flawed: "To give a text an author" and assign a single, corresponding interpretation to it "is to impose a limit on that text."

Readers must thus, according to Barthes, separate a literary work from its creator in order to liberate the text from interpretive tyranny (a notion similar to Erich Auerbach's discussion of narrative tyranny in biblical  parables).

Each piece of writing contains multiple layers and meanings. In a well-known quotation, Barthes draws an analogy between text and textiles, declaring that a "text is a tissue [or fabric] of quotations," drawn from "innumerable centers of culture," rather than from one, individual experience. The essential meaning of a work depends on the impressions of the reader, rather than the "passions" or "tastes" of the writer; "a text's unity lies not in its origins," or its creator, "but in its destination," or its audience."

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMifgrU4ygI

More generally it's known as "ambivalence" as an aspect of literacity (the definition of what is or isn't literature), meaning that no piece of literature can have one true interpretation. At least that's how I recall it from my early lit science lectures.

I find it regrettable how "death of the author" is often miscostructed, these days. Like, over here on my side of the pond, there was a big discussion about this author who openly approved of a regime that commited genocide and had those views alluded to in his work, and then someone argued that it could be interpreted differently if one ignores the author, so they nominated the author, who is, again, a genocide apologist, for a big award. Which isn't even "seperating art and artist", it's seperating "artist and the artists blatant bigotry".

Which is very stupid. This is the equivalent of approving of an anti-semetic artist just because his paintings were good. It's one thing to like the art, I mean I like the works of HP Lovecraft if you try to separate out Lovecraft's bigotry, but you can't pretend as if he wasn't a massive racist who put that in his books.

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.

Well, it's still important to be aware of the problematic aspects or implications a text has, that's a thing to be considered.

Yes, you can be fond of Lovecrafts horror, but no, you cannot pretend the name of that darn cat is okay, no matter what your personal interpretation is. Or, in a somewhat less extreme example, you can still enjoy Harry Potter, regardless of JKR, but you must be aware that having the banks run by big-nosed creatures with little emotion beyond greed carries unfortunate implications.

Otherwise, again, you would try to seperate art from art, not from artist.

Of course, with Lovecraft, there is the advantage that he is not only dead, but so dead his stuff is mostly public domain, so consuming his works and those he inspired doesn't give money to that racist piece of feces.

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.

That take, I can agree on.