Weekly Update 11.17.19

Hey, patrons! I hope you're having a lovely Sunday morning. I just want to provide a few general updates with respect to the channel, but prior to that I obviously need to address the elephant in the room. The creator of Petscop has revealed himself. I have to admit, this was highly unexpected at this juncture. If you aren't aware of the situation, check out the Petscop subreddit and read up on these latest occurrences:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Petscop

These are some fairly interesting developments, eh? I, for one, am deeply appreciative of Tony for creating Petscop. I'm so glad I got a chance to tell him directly. Petscop is the emergence of a new form of storytelling, one that reflects on the complexity brought about by the internet. To put it simply, this is storytelling for the 21st century. Part 8 of my Petscop Investigation will discuss the nuances of this topic. 

I think at this point I should just note that any comments the creator might have with respect to his work will very likely not have a major impact on my analysis. Allow me to give you a little insight with respect to my analytical process. If you haven't watched my video about the concept known as "Death of the Author," please take a look:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ZFDD6km68 

In summation, I do not acknowledge the authority of the author/creator/artist to dictate the meaning of the work. Rather, if there is any meaning to be cohered, it will be contained within the work itself, perhaps in addition to real world references, allusions to other works, etc. If the creator does make a good argument for their view of the work--citing evidence from the work--I may be compelled by said argument. It depends on the argument, not the speaker's status as creator.  I'm not really concerned about this with respect to Petscop, because it doesn't seem as though the creator is keen on dictating the meaning of the work.  Nonetheless, it's worth reiterating from time to time.

The takeaway here is, I don't believe the validity of such arguments is contingent upon the creator's "authority," as some might argue. For instance, one might say something along these lines: "Dave, you argued for X. However, the creator asserted Y. Y must be correct because the creator said it!" In my view, this is not an appropriate rationale; rather, it's a vulgar appeal to authority, an authority I simply do not acknowledge.  You're obviously free to think what you want, but this is how I operate.  

In other news, the next episode of my new podcast, Nightmare Tonight, has been recorded. So, that's going to drop fairly soon, likely within the next week or so. I am really excited about this one. It's a good episode, so stay tuned. 

The writing phase of the next Petscop Investigation is in process. I'm at about 8,000 words. Frankly, I still have a ways to go. It's going to be a long one! If you haven't been keeping up, Part 8 of the Petscop Investigation is going to cover the entirety of the series. One helpful tidbit of information the creator relayed is that Petscop is over, with the exception of "one thing." Obviously, I am highly curious as to what that "one thing" entails. There's been a lot of wild speculation about it on the subreddit. Some are hoping that the game itself will be released! However, Tony's more recent comments would seem to suggest that Petscop is indeed a "fake game." I am agnostic on this issue. For the time being, I'm going to keep my head down and continue working. 

The Petscop Comment Response / Q&A vid is also in process. I anticipate that will be finished fairly soon. As a patron, you will get first priority with respect to any questions or comments you might have.  If you'd like for your comment to be featured in that video, be sure to include it here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/petscop-comments-31379992 

That's all for now. Thanks so much for being a patron, and have a great week!