Ikkin's Law of Charitable Interpretation
If there's one thing that bugs me about theorizing in fandoms, it's the fact that some people insist on believing in theories that require the author to be a complete and utter idiot.
Here's an example. The story starts off using the viewpoint of a character who's not quite human, but acts like a normal kid. He's treated sympathetically by the camera and the soundtrack, and his enemies are demonized in appearance, voice, and actions. He's treated as something less than human and sadly unable to escape his fate in the end - and it's all put in a negative light. Then, just as he loses what remains of his autonomy, the viewpoint switches over to the real hero, who's immediately told that people like the first viewpoint character have no feelings, are dangerous, and can be killed without any regret.
...and some people insist that the statement made to the real hero is proof that the viewpoint character really had no feelings or right to live, despite the fact that such an interpretation is so uncomfortable that it would require an almost supernatural ineptitude* on the part of the writer.
Which leads to my own little rule, which I call Ikkin's Law of Charitable Interpretation.
The rule goes as such: assuming that the author has not yet proven himself undeserving of such considerations, all interpretations that require the writer to be supernaturally inept should be ruled out in favor of any interpretation which does not require this. (If no interpretation exists that can meet this requirement, the writer can be assumed to be supernaturally inept)
It's just common sense, really. If your interpretation requires the author to have made bizarre leaps in logic that he shows no sign of having made, and another interpretation exists, it's more likely that the problem is with your interpretation rather than the author.
* Supernatural ineptitude goes far beyond normal ineptitude. Supernatural ineptitude requires not only that the author not know what he's doing as an author, but also that he thinks in a way that it's hard to imagine any human being ever thinking. Expecting that other people will accept that the sympathetic and tragic first viewpoint character was, by his very nature, perfectly acceptable to kill isn't just stupid, it's practically inhuman.
Here's an example. The story starts off using the viewpoint of a character who's not quite human, but acts like a normal kid. He's treated sympathetically by the camera and the soundtrack, and his enemies are demonized in appearance, voice, and actions. He's treated as something less than human and sadly unable to escape his fate in the end - and it's all put in a negative light. Then, just as he loses what remains of his autonomy, the viewpoint switches over to the real hero, who's immediately told that people like the first viewpoint character have no feelings, are dangerous, and can be killed without any regret.
...and some people insist that the statement made to the real hero is proof that the viewpoint character really had no feelings or right to live, despite the fact that such an interpretation is so uncomfortable that it would require an almost supernatural ineptitude* on the part of the writer.
Which leads to my own little rule, which I call Ikkin's Law of Charitable Interpretation.
The rule goes as such: assuming that the author has not yet proven himself undeserving of such considerations, all interpretations that require the writer to be supernaturally inept should be ruled out in favor of any interpretation which does not require this. (If no interpretation exists that can meet this requirement, the writer can be assumed to be supernaturally inept)
It's just common sense, really. If your interpretation requires the author to have made bizarre leaps in logic that he shows no sign of having made, and another interpretation exists, it's more likely that the problem is with your interpretation rather than the author.
* Supernatural ineptitude goes far beyond normal ineptitude. Supernatural ineptitude requires not only that the author not know what he's doing as an author, but also that he thinks in a way that it's hard to imagine any human being ever thinking. Expecting that other people will accept that the sympathetic and tragic first viewpoint character was, by his very nature, perfectly acceptable to kill isn't just stupid, it's practically inhuman.