Creative Intent v. What We See...one of these things in not like the other

One thing that annoys me about the internet and geeks on a particular topic who are "in the know" is how they often take information outside a creative work and judge a work on it.

I'm not talking about not buying Orson Scott Card because he's a bigot and you don't want to give him money. No, I'm talking about using outside knowledge to color your view and acting like that's the view.

For example, it was recently revealed by NBC that on the show Heroes the character of Zach, who seemed to be to many a confused gay teenager is in fact not gay. This is a bit of a surprise when you consider the writer of the show originally planned for him to be gay and that the show has dropped a few hints here and there. This is a bit troubling when you consider that it seems NBC came in and said "change this."

However...

If you just watch the show, if you just consume the media as it was created to be cosnumed, even if you read the webcomics and fictional Myspace pages, then it's not all that shocking.

Why? Because the creative work itself has given no proof of Zach's sexuality. Sure there are hints, but these hints can be false.

For example, at one point a nasty ultra popular kid mocks Zach for being gay. Does she know something we don't? Or is she just a bitch? Zach on his Myspace page says he likes Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. Gay-dar alert or freaky high school movie buff? These things can go either way.

In fact, with regard to the movie choices and the like I kinda dig that apparently Zach's not gay...it's nice to see gay not automatically = like's "gay" stuff. Now that doesn't mean I'll be a bit annoyed at NBC if it comes out (no pun intended) that they changed the character's sexuality for some silly "we don't want more gays tuning into our shows" reason. But seeing as how the reason could be that they want to hook Claire and Zach up to avoid the possible high school aged Claire and mid to late twenties Peter relationship that seems at least plausible after the first half of the season I'm willing to be a bit patient about the whole decision.

Course that comes to my larger point, what a creative work intends is not what we see. And in the case of TV and film, what even one creator intends is not what gets made. Actors, cinematographers, executives, costumers, etc... get in the way of a a "pure vision" and the end product. Even comic writers have their work altered by the artist, editors, and in the case of books with continuity, the writers and artists who came before.

And because of this I tend to approach arguments about creative works based on what someone said on a blog or interview with a mix of "huh interesting" and "who gives a fuck?" Because even when I care about such comments I realize I'm not getting the whole story there either. A speaker's words are being filtered through a journalist, or being stripped of context and inflection before I see them. And like most people, I tend to think my way is best.

So I caution creative types and consumers of creative media and ask them to realize two things:

One: you will never get the "pure" version of something.

Other people's work, words, etc... will always get in the way. And not always for the worse, I might add. Lawrence Kasdan in my opinion helped George Lucas make better Star Wars films in episodes 4 through 6 by throwing in his own views and style into the screenplays. Jack Kirby wouldn't have been such a force in comics without Stan Lee and vice versa. In fact, you could argue "pure" versions of things are sometimes fairly boring. Look at most "one guy and a camera" projects you see on IFC and Sundance. Some are cool, but most are boring, dense, and with a "message" that's utterly muddled because the guy making this "pure" form of expression already knows whatever he's trying to convey and so he doesn't try to hard to show anyone else.

Two: Things outside the work influence you and not the work

If you read a novel by a guy and then find out he's a Neo-nazi, you have been changed by this knowledge. The work is still the way it was before. Sure, that might explain some things about the plot choices and the like in the work and you might decide not to read this guy's stuff any more, but your knowledge doesn't somehow alter the work like a literary philosopher's stone. Likewise, you read a web page that makes you think that the guy might be a neo-Nazi, you should not be calling everyone who likes the book a "Nazi lover" because a) they might not know what you know b) you might be wrong* c) it's a self-righteous jerk-ass thing to do.

Really, if outside knowledge changes your view of something, accept it, act accordingly and move on. Yelling about how everyone who doesn't agree with you based on these outside views is racist, homophobic, sexist, too liberal, too conservative, a religious zealot, hates god, too weak, a bully, a coward, a war-wonger, a peacenik, a fascist, a communist, a cultist, brainwashed, a tool of the Man, overly idealistic, too cynical, misanthropic, fat, lazy, crazy, or just plain smelly doesn't win you any points with anyone. Well, except a bunch of other folks who think that reading something from some literary historian's blog actually changes the works of Melville or whatever.

But those motherfuckers is crazy. Don't be like them.

* Heck, you might be crazy and wrong. Never discount that when you start to think lots of other folks are loathesome things. This might, to quote Boogie Nights, be a YP and not an MP.