@Count:
I need to ask you one simple question. Why does this distinction matter all? I understand what you're saying. That the story isn't actually writing Naruto as a bad parent/moron, but Naruto looking like a bad parent/moron is a consequence of the story's flawed writing. But still. Why does this distinction matter at all in the scope of this discussion other than understanding how the story was created to know how to write a good/bad story?
Well that depends on how we're defining the scope of the discussion. Given I'm involved in the discussion I feel like I would have a hand in defining that, so… Also, I didn't make any reference to how this related to how to write a good or bad story. But anyway. The reason the distinction matters to me is that the people here are trying to answer a question: why does Naruto not use his clones to do his hokage work? And they were trying to answer that question by looking within the story. I was simply trying to point out that, if they're actually interested in the answer to that question, then they might want to consider the fact that the question of why Naruto behaves as he does also includes consideration of the intention of the author who wrote him behaving as such. Fairly straightforward.
@Count:
The author's intentions don't matter in the slightest after he publishes his work because it is for us to interpret. Art only belongs to the author before it's shown to others, because once it is publicly shown, the whole world owns it. Not that everyone's opinions are valid since logical debates exist for a reason, but it is still open to legitimate interpretation by everyone. The author's intentions/words about stuff we don't know about off-screen/off-panel don't have to be taken as gospel if they aren't written into the story, or at least in a continuation too. If anything, they hardly matter more than fan fiction does since it's not relevant to the story without at least some kind of inference towards their existence.
Well no. That's not how that works. That is your personal (and I really want to emphasise that) way of evaluating and interpreting produced work. It isn't objective. Because how could it be? To what feasible, universal standard would this statement possibly apply to? It would fall apart at the first step of any sort of rudimentary evaluation of its empirical accuracy, when you run across people that change their interpretations of a work based on what the author says they intended.
And you might think that means you aren't actually wrong, you just have a different preference. But no. You actually are wrong. Because whether or not the author's intention matter depends on the question that is being asked. And that is a statement that is true (in the more abstract) in all possible cases. The relevant factors to any question are those that are built in to the assumptions and constraints of it. So again, the obvious counterexample to your blanket statement that author intent doesn't matter is the question: "what did the author intend for a given scene, character etc. to mean?". It also matters to people whose interpretation of a work is something along the lines of, "I aim to interpret the work in accordance with the authors intent which I hope to glean through the text", wherein obviously if the author makes their intent more clear the person updates their beliefs.
The rest of what you've written is in response to a point I didn't make. You are free to interpret art however you wish. Necessarily. Because in the most fundamentally absolute sense…how the hell could you not be? You read a piece of work, it creates a particular meaning in you and…there you are. You've already done it. There is no absolute authority that dictates that you cannot interpret the work however you do. So your statements are almost trivially true. So trivially true I don't know why they need stating. And any external imposition of a s__ocietal standard that attempts to override your interpretation, 1) can't because it exists inside your head and they'd need to crack your skull open to change that shit, and 2) wouldn't actually have any relation to your interpretation given that it would, necessarily, proceed from some fundamental axiom you don't need to accept. Every argument must proceed from a fundamental axiom that itself does not have any arguments to support it. Of course, because how could it be otherwise? But if you don't accept the axiom then it has no bearing on what you believe.
Consider the following really stupid example:
A piece of art is good if it is released exactly on the day of a full moon.
Twilight was released on the day of a full moon.
Therefore, Twilight is good art.
Is that all true? You would probably say no. You would be incorrect. Of course it's true within the constraints of the defined standards of the evaluation. You don't have to accept them. You don't have to accept any standards you don't want to. But if you accept the axiom the statement is true.
So no. The answer to the question, "does the author's intent matter?" is not a resounding NO followed by an essay about "the death of the author" (one possible theory of artistic interpretation within the field of art theory btw, or at least it was when last I looked into it). The answer is, as it always is, "it depends on the question you are asking."
@Count:
So Naruto comes across as a bad parent/incompetent moron by accident rather than on-purpose. Again, why should anybody care about that distinction? He's still a bad parent/incompetent moron either way lol. It's very possible for a father and son to be made up of both a bad parent and a brat, it doesn't have to only be one or the other. Flawed writing shouldn't excuse a character's portrayal just because the author keeps whispering in our ears "Hey, you're reading my story in a way that you're not supposed to!" Their thoughts don't matter anymore. Quality fiction is supposed to appeal to our emotions and sense of morality, even if people's views on those things can differ as subjective perspectives. If the author failed to get across the specific way he wanted for his character to be portrayed, then the character fails too. That's all there is to it. Which is ironic because that's technically another dysfunctional father-and-son relationship in its own figurative way lol.
No he isn't still a bad parent in all possible cases, because the evaluation of bad parenthood must be made to a particular standard (we're back to axioms again). He is a bad parent provided he meets the standard of "bad parenthood" that you have agreed to set as your fundamental principle. How this works is obvious:
Person A: A bad parent is a parent who beats their children (the axiom -for simplicity's sake-). Therefore Naruto, who does not beat his children, is not a bad parent.
Simple as.
What you are saying depends on a fundamental axiom that you have proceeded from but don't seem to acknowledge you've made. I****f you base your evaluation of Naruto's parenting entirely on the effect it produces on his child (the unspoken axiom), then regardless of why he doesn't use his clones he is a bad parent. I am simply trying to point out that there are other axioms to consider if you are willing to be open to the idea that the artwork you consume is a process that involves contributions from real world, fallible people. It really is that simple.
@Count:
Naruto's a bad parent, the end. The how and why doesn't matter if that was an accident that is not intended to be something learned from as part of the story's moral message. We could move on to plenty of more valid discussion than this, because it feels like nothing more than a trivial semantical argument at this point.
…again in the most absolute sense this is obviously incorrect. If it didn't matter I wouldn't be arguing about it, therefore it matters deep breath
provided you define "mattering" as that which a person is willing to invest time and effort. You obviously define what matters differently. That's fine. It also has no relationship to what matters to me.