(no subject)

[princeofdoom]

I could probably write an entire book about Homestuck and the meaning behind a visual media that also has text having the actual visuals and text disagree. For example, in Hivestuck Friendsim with Mallek (who is so far best boy and I adore), it is mentioned in the text itself e has "bright blue eyes". In his sprites? Black, just like most of the other trolls. Was that done to stylistically show that while he might be physically mature (or maturing) - since trolls with their eyes filled in with their color is considered an "adult" trait - he is still not considered an adult or going off world yet. It would be the equivalent of making a character who is described as looking "mature for their age" look a little more childish in a visual representation for whatever reason (not that tha's common).

Or maybe the artist forgot and they decided to leave it for folks like me who want to read into everything.

But I've noticed a lot of little details like that, and I remember reading a quote from Hussie that went like "This is a work of visual media, whatever you need to know about the character's appearances is in the art itself." Which is pretty ridiculous both from the variability of the art and Hussie's own statements about characters both outside AND IN THE TEXT ITSELF.

Comments

[cassini]

[i've been so forgiving towards my own fanart because i've been able to gesture vaguely at hs and say, 'alright, you, definitively, tell me what they look like because idc'. the friendsim has been a whole other thing, because there are some consistencies, and another set of inconsistencies. thus i'm reminded of a principle from basic eng lit, that we can argue for whatever we want so long as we can find some in-text evidence. in this case, in-visual also. it's kinda hard to judge what to lend most weight to, personally ]

[princeofdoom]

Yeah, like I don't know if I'd ever make it big as a writer or even get a cult following as an author or other kind of artist. But if I do, I don't even imagine every detail of my characters' appearances and only really describe "major details" as I see them, unless I'm asked specific questions about other stuff. So my standing rule is that whatever interpretations people have of my characters outside of those details are 10,000% fair game.

[cassini]

[mm, i do my best to err on the side of optimism, that it's flattering, to have people have differing visions or interpretations of what i've made. certainly as in my case, i probably didn't know what i was doing from the get-go. gaps and variables are fine, they don't have to be flaws, you know? i'd wager that the emphasis on 'correct interpretations' really kills fandom, when it goes beyond a fun exchange of different ideas and turns into something competitive and nasty ]

[princeofdoom]

I don't think we're disagreeing necessarily, I just think there are some traits of a character that let you know This Is X Character and other traits that don't really matter in the scheme of things. And I really don't care how anyone interprets characters outside the traits that define them. And even the traits that "define" a character are kind of up to consensus, that can be guided by the author or original artist but still aren't completely up to their control.

[cassini]

[ah, tone is so awkward - yeah, i assumed we were mostly in agreement, and i tend to get vague as i roll, apologies if i came off negative ]

[yes, there has got to be some concrete ground in terms of a character's history and actions. past a certain point, the 'whys' can be shaped as much by the audience as the creator (and i have some thoughts on how this generation of internet interaction may affect the creation & release process). i give myself a lot more freedom because i don't, as a rule, consider word-of-god relevant to canon, f'ex, whereas it's become seemingly much more significant when creators have twitter and AMAs ]