Death of the Author

[Korenith]

el snip

As you say, as a writer writes different things the story and so his mind changes. But I don't see how that means that the writer isn't in control; it's the writer who influences his own thoughts and creations by reflecting upon them. How can a story make demands of its own? After all, a story is thoughts made flesh. A physical manifestation of what the writer thinks trapped in a moment. It's obvious that that moment in time influences how a writer progresses, but how does that make him less in control? It's his own thoughts influencing himself.

If the story NEEDS a certain ending in order to work harmoniously does the author chose that ending or are they forced into it by what has gone before? The act of putting pen to paper instantly begins to limit options and therefore starts to make demands on the writer for internal consistency. The option to start all over again is of course always there and it is unlikely that there is only one possible resolution to a particular scenario so yes, control does remain in the writer's hands but I think it is markedly less than people often assume.

Then you could also throw in the whole subconscious thing and the debate on whether or not free will even exists but that's a whole other can of worms we probably shouldn't be opening here.

 

[Cowabungaa]

If the story NEEDS a certain ending in order to work harmoniously does the author chose that ending or are they forced into it by what has gone before? The act of putting pen to paper instantly begins to limit options and therefore starts to make demands on the writer for internal consistency. The option to start all over again is of course always there and it is unlikely that there is only one possible resolution to a particular scenario so yes, control does remain in the writer's hands but I think it is markedly less than people often assume.

Need according to whom? Who says an ending has to be harmonious? If that's what you, the writer, believe then fine but there you go; it has to regard those rules because you think it should, your conventions and beliefs force your own hand. How could the story do such a thing?

If avant-garde artists throughout the years have proven it's that such 'needs' are nothing but a self-imposed illusion born out of a need to conform to things like the current reigning fashion or taste, to selling, to anything you might name. Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with that, unlike some of the more douche-y of the aforementioned avant-garde artists, but those rules are purely human and in the end any artist can choose to follow or not follow them. It's the artist who's in control for art is the expression of his own self.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I think the reality is somewhere down the middle. If the author fails to get across what they mean to, then their work may well be taken in different ways. That doesn't mean that they have no say though (especially with the prevalence of social media, it's much easier for the author to comment on their work)- Scrotie McBoogerballs style over-analysis shouldn't go unchallenged, and making a critique without taking the author's life and views into account is always going to be inaccurate.

 

[squeezal]

el snip

As you say, as a writer writes different things the story and so his mind changes. But I don't see how that means that the writer isn't in control; it's the writer who influences his own thoughts and creations by reflecting upon them. How can a story make demands of its own? After all, a story is thoughts made flesh. A physical manifestation of what the writer thinks trapped in a moment. It's obvious that that moment in time influences how a writer progresses, but how does that make him less in control? It's his own thoughts influencing himself.

If the story NEEDS a certain ending in order to work harmoniously does the author chose that ending or are they forced into it by what has gone before? The act of putting pen to paper instantly begins to limit options and therefore starts to make demands on the writer for internal consistency. The option to start all over again is of course always there and it is unlikely that there is only one possible resolution to a particular scenario so yes, control does remain in the writer's hands but I think it is markedly less than people often assume.

Then you could also throw in the whole subconscious thing and the debate on whether or not free will even exists but that's a whole other can of worms we probably shouldn't be opening here.

Well, you can't have your character be a meek sheep in one scene and then a mean bear in another without giving adequate reason for it to happen. You have to set it up ahead of time, or create an internal change in the character over time before that point. It's like directing water down hill, you can put things in it's path to change it's flow, but it will still be heading down hill.

It is my choice whether I go by the rules or not, but I want realistic characters so I have to be realistic in my writing. Otherwise... I may just end up writing the next Twilight.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Writing is a form of creation, which implies some sort of intent (conscious or otherwise), but as life repeatedly demonstrates, intentions are flimsy things in the face of an ever-changing audience.

Death of the Author is useful for analysis and reflection on the audience's part, but it's not very useful for the author that wants to say something (and blunt expression isn't terribly interesting or inspiring, so that's out).

When writing becomes less about the message the author wants to say and more about what the audience wants to hear, well, that's showmanship rather than authorship. (boy is this evident today; especially in Hollywood. Modern culture practically worships the performers while largely ignoring the writers, and that is reflected in the business.)

 

[senordesol]

I suppose I support the 'death of the author' because it has the potential to spawn multiple interpretations of the same work rather than the author's interpretation of his own.

Yes, we could argue that the author's interpretation is the 'correct' one; but if someone stumbles upon an epiphany through a work that even the author himself didn't consider, is that epiphany any less valid?

I don't believe we should be so litigious when in comes to art (indeed, does that not defeat art's purpose?), rather we should realize that there's more value to be found in even an 'incorrect' interpretation as it exercises the mind and fires the imagination...something that can't happen when someone *tells* you what the work means.

The only place I would advise caution is an attempt to ascribe an author's personal beliefs to a subjective interpretation of his work (i.e.: assuming the author is anti-war because of your interpretation of an anti-war work).

 

[Ishal]

I don't think it should swing one way or the other too favorably. Each side should have a say.

In fact, I'm reminded of a case regarding music a while ago.

Spoiler

They accused the man of a very specific intent in that video. They listened to the material, and came out with an opinion. There interpretation isn't wrong. It's valid. However, the accusation of intent they placed upon the person who wrote it is completely wrong.

"You wrote this to be about masochism and bondage!"

"No I didn't"

That's it. Case closed. People can interpret it how they like, but when the author speaks his intent, at least from his own perspective, it's case closed.

 

[rgrekejin]

The problem, I think, is that when people talk about the author deciding what the story is about, and the reader deciding what the story is about via "Death of the author", they are in fact not talking about the same thing.

When we talk about "what the story is about", with respect to the author's intent, then there is indeed only one correct interpretation of the story - the author is effectively a deity, creating their own little world, and unless their work is deliberately some sort of Rashomon, there is a correct way of interpreting events and an incorrect way, or, at least, a limited number of correct ways, even if these ways are not necessarily known to the audience. Even in works heavy with symbolism, symbols symbolize what the author intends them to symbolize, and if you believe them to symbolize something else, you're just wrong. You pretty much have to be able to prove some sort of authorial intent to make a really good argument for symbolism. This is why shows like the aforementioned Neon Genesis Evangelion are infuriating to me. At it's core, the show is nothing more than a whole lot of pretentious twaddle wrapped around a core of some really rather good fight scenes and an interesting visual aesthetic. There's very little actual symbolism in that show, and what there is is pretty ham-handed. Most of what people assume is symbolism is just Anno throwing stuff at the wall and hoping it forms an interesting pattern on impact. It's the reason the phrase "Just because it's confusing doesn't mean it's deep" exists.

When we talk about someone else's interpretation of "what the story is about", what we're really talking about is not what the story is actually about, or what the symbols in it are actually meant to symbolize, but instead what the reader felt or thought about during their reading of the work. And this, of course, is going to change from person to person, and is utterly and completely subjective, as everyone comes to the story bringing their own experiences and baggage to the table. And it can't really be wrong - a story reminds you of what a story reminds you of. When you get into trouble is when you try to claim that what the story reminded you of is what the story *meant* to remind you of, or what the story *should* remind you of, without being able to show any such authorial intent. When that happens, you've confused your experience of the story with the story as a story.

Also, you're probably being insufferable, but that's just my experience.

 

[chikusho]

There's really no difference between judging a book by its contents and its context. In the end, it's all just conjecture.
Because, even if the author says that a work was written with certain intentions, why should we believe it? Especially when talking about authors who are long dead, do their work somehow not matter anymore because we can't pick their brain about every other sentence?

At the same time, it's impossible to completely separate work from the author. Something so simple as knowing the gender of the author will influence your perception of the work.

 

[rorychief]

Death of the author isn't really about the author's intention in communicating ideas being irrelevant, but rather about the ideas they communicated unintentionally being relevant. The authors authority over what they meant to say hasn't died, only their complete control over how what they say will be understood. This control that has died is something no human being has ever had to begin with, or else they would be a flawless telepath and their communications impossible to misconstrue.

If there's basis for an idea in the text, then it's there, people will see it and will argue for its presence. If a work reflects on a concept that the author could not have been aware of at the time of writing, and at a later date a reader finds that concept to be reflected in the text, then the concept is there. The reader has brought it to the text. In this way texts are never finite in their interpretations, this is something most author's embrace, celebrate and exploit.

Of course not all interpretations are equally valid. Cases must be demonstrated and argued based on the text. Everything is a dream or delusion can be claimed, but it must be backed up to have any hope of convincing another reader that it might be true. Why else would we share our fan theories if not to try and have others see events the way we do. If the hidden subtext cannot be found by others then it remains true for only one person. And nobody writes books with only one person in mind.

I enjoy imagining lord of the rings from the point of view of the bad guys. Imagining that the story being told is white washed propaganda written by the victor long after the vanquished has gone. The duality of good and evil presented is too clear cut to be reality, and so bringing my concern for reality to the text leads me to suspect an unreliable narrator never expressly admitted to in the words themselves. Ultimately I know this was never Tolkien's intention, the black and white morality is owed to emulating legends and myths. Still my interpretation is not wrong, simply alternative. And has what I believe to be a solid basis in the text.

 

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

I dislike the concept of the Death of the Author. It's not without its analytical merit, of course, but I think that there is a "correct", for lack of a better term, way to interpret a work of fiction. This is because there is always an intent behind such things; there is always a story or thoughts (or lack-thereof) that the author wishes to convey. Even if the author does not wish to explicitly reveal what was going through their head at the time of writing, they're always, ALWAYS, thinking of something, and that something is the "truth", once again for lack of a better term, of the story. Besides, a work doesn't exist in a vacuum; they're almost always influenced, in one way or another, by the world in which the author lives. That's very important to interpreting the scenes that the author presents.

This does not mean that one cannot ascribe their own meaning to a story, however. Interpretation and meaning are two different things, albeit the distinction may seem somewhat pedantic and nebulous. One's interpretation of a story relies more on what the author is trying to convey, while the meaning is how one feels about it. Additionally, trying to interpret a story on one's own before researching the author's true intent can offer a vastly different and interesting perspective, and coming up with alternate interpretations can be an interesting thought experiment. However, that does not make it "correct".

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Speaking as a published author (I wrote Diablo: Demonsbane way back in the early days of e-books, and I'm right now writing The Eternity Quartet with Ed Greenwood, whose first two stories are now up on Amazon for pre-order), there's a degree to which you do have control over it all, and a degree to which you don't. The thing that I always found insufferable about this sort of literary theory is the degree to which each new theory feels the need to take an all-or-nothing approach, claiming that it is right and everything else therefore must be wrong. It's nonsense, frankly (seriously, any time I read some psychological criticism I learn next to nothing about the author and far too much about the critic).

When you're writing, there are themes you try to explore. You do your best to bring them out without bashing the reader over the head with them, and if you did your job right, the reader picks up on them. If the reader doesn't get it, though, 95% of the time it's because you (the author) didn't do your share properly. But, there's also times where something slips into your prose without you noticing that the reader does pick up on. Most of the time, that's a good sign - it means that you've managed to actually achieve a story with some depth.

And, that's not even accounting for the fact that the assumptions you make about where the reader is coming from - and every author makes those assumptions - may not actually be right, and they get something completely different out of it. Take the opening of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, for example - the evacuation of the children to the country barely registers to us today, but back when it was written, that single line about it would have had tremendous impact.

From a practical standpoint, I wouldn't recommend worrying about it. Just write the best story you can, and people will get out of it what they get out of it. If they get more out of it than you realized was there, more the better.

 

[senordesol]

I dislike the concept of the Death of the Author. It's not without its analytical merit, of course, but I think that there is a "correct", for lack of a better term, way to interpret a work of fiction. This is because there is always an intent behind such things; there is always a story or thoughts (or lack-thereof) that the author wishes to convey. Even if the author does not wish to explicitly reveal what was going through their head at the time of writing, they're always, ALWAYS, thinking of something, and that something is the "truth", once again for lack of a better term, of the story. Besides, a work doesn't exist in a vacuum; they're almost always influenced, in one way or another, by the world in which the author lives. That's very important to interpreting the scenes that the author presents.

This does not mean that one cannot ascribe their own meaning to a story, however. Interpretation and meaning are two different things, albeit the distinction may seem somewhat pedantic and nebulous. One's interpretation of a story relies more on what the author is trying to convey, while the meaning is how one feels about it. Additionally, trying to interpret a story on one's own before researching the author's true intent can offer a vastly different and interesting perspective, and coming up with alternate interpretations can be an interesting thought experiment. However, that does not make it "correct".

But isn't the 'correct' interpretation a needlessly limiting one?

If we were deciphering legal texts, or dead languages; that'd be one thing, but the purview of the artist is to relay aspects of the human condition. If such aspects that the author attempted to convey aren't relevant to the reader, but other's that the author didn't intend are; why is one more 'valid' than the other? In the end, intentional or not, it was the author's work that sparked the epiphany. Isn't it oppressively literal to dictate which epiphanies are and aren't valid?

 

[rorychief]

Another thing I choose to misinterpret in pursuit of enhancing the experience of reading a text. Let the right one in. The character Hakan is a paedophile in service to a vampire trapped forever in the body of a child. He was fired as a teacher for abusing students and became a pathetic alcoholic, the vampire Eli took advantage of his desperation and began trading rare sexual favours for his service in harvesting blood.

I choose to ignore this origin for Hakan. I choose to believe Eli met Hakan when he was a little boy, built a romantic relationship and lured him into running away from home. As Hakan aged and grew, she did not, and so he is someone growing out of sync with their soulmate and ashamed of his failing lustful body whilst she remains eternally idealized and sexless. He harvest blood out of fear she will abandon him, trying hard to make himself useful whilst hating the sexual attraction that arrived affecting only him and is now a burden on them both.
It's just more interesting than what the text actually contains because I can then imagine that this is what Eli is doing to Oskar, the human boy she befriends. Rather than truly caring about him and his problems she is taking advantage of the fact that he is an isolated ostracized young boy because she needs a pliable killer to manipulate. She is grooming him to replace Hakan and Hakan knows it, just as Oskar will be replaced once he grows old and his affection loses its innocence and mutual nature as well. An endless cycle of broken people being given purpose and companionship only to slide tortuously into obsolescence where they will jealously help create their successor before being disposed of as expendable meat.

The paedo thing is dark and shocking, sure, but ignoring it makes the book far more horrific in the many ways as I have described.

 

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

I dislike the concept of the Death of the Author. It's not without its analytical merit, of course, but I think that there is a "correct", for lack of a better term, way to interpret a work of fiction. This is because there is always an intent behind such things; there is always a story or thoughts (or lack-thereof) that the author wishes to convey. Even if the author does not wish to explicitly reveal what was going through their head at the time of writing, they're always, ALWAYS, thinking of something, and that something is the "truth", once again for lack of a better term, of the story. Besides, a work doesn't exist in a vacuum; they're almost always influenced, in one way or another, by the world in which the author lives. That's very important to interpreting the scenes that the author presents.

This does not mean that one cannot ascribe their own meaning to a story, however. Interpretation and meaning are two different things, albeit the distinction may seem somewhat pedantic and nebulous. One's interpretation of a story relies more on what the author is trying to convey, while the meaning is how one feels about it. Additionally, trying to interpret a story on one's own before researching the author's true intent can offer a vastly different and interesting perspective, and coming up with alternate interpretations can be an interesting thought experiment. However, that does not make it "correct".

But isn't the 'correct' interpretation a needlessly limiting one?

If we were deciphering legal texts, or dead languages; that'd be one thing, but the purview of the artist is to relay aspects of the human condition. If such aspects that the author attempted to convey aren't relevant to the reader, but other's that the author didn't intend are; why is one more 'valid' than the other? In the end, intentional or not, it was the author's work that sparked the epiphany. Isn't it oppressively literal to dictate which epiphanies are and aren't valid?

I don't see how it's necessarily limiting. The author obviously had some intention when writing their work, whether it be to say something profound or to simply to earn a paycheck. The reality of the story is what the author intended it to be. This does not mean that the meaning that someone takes away from it is wrong. Regardless of what someone's interpretation is, its validity does not affect any sort of epiphany that they may have. As far as I'm concerned, any meaning and abstract thought derived from a story is only tangentially related to said story.

The distinction between "interpretation" and "meaning" in my mind is difficult for me to describe, so bear with me. If I were to describe in an objective manner what a character is thinking when it is not explicitly stated, I may very well be wrong. If the author had something specific in mind for that while writing the scene, that is what they are really thinking, in a manner of speaking. However, if the character's thoughts and actions make me feel something, or trigger some kind of thoughts, that's different, and is a personal revelation, only tangentially related to the story itself. Now, symbolism is a hazier subject, but I think that the same stuff applies. Essentially, what a thing actually is in the eyes of the author is one thing, but the way it makes someone feel or think is another.

 

[Korenith]

If the story NEEDS a certain ending in order to work harmoniously does the author chose that ending or are they forced into it by what has gone before? The act of putting pen to paper instantly begins to limit options and therefore starts to make demands on the writer for internal consistency. The option to start all over again is of course always there and it is unlikely that there is only one possible resolution to a particular scenario so yes, control does remain in the writer's hands but I think it is markedly less than people often assume.

Need according to whom? Who says an ending has to be harmonious? If that's what you, the writer, believe then fine but there you go; it has to regard those rules because you think it should, your conventions and beliefs force your own hand. How could the story do such a thing?

If avant-garde artists throughout the years have proven it's that such 'needs' are nothing but a self-imposed illusion born out of a need to conform to things like the current reigning fashion or taste, to selling, to anything you might name. Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with that, unlike some of the more douche-y of the aforementioned avant-garde artists, but those rules are purely human and in the end any artist can choose to follow or not follow them. It's the artist who's in control for art is the expression of his own self.

Ah but even those avant-garde artists are writing with a particular logic informing their decisions, even if the logic is "this is the opposite of how everybody else does it and I want to show it can be done differently". There is always a reason for what a writer writes (not always a good one but a reason none-the-less) and as a writer you are always interacting within a set of rules. Heck, language itself is a set of rules which you can bend but you can't break entirely otherwise it ceases to be communication. Even something as insane and rule shattering as "Finnegan's Wake" has it's own brand of logic which restricts where the story can go and how it can be written.

I'm not saying art is not an expression of the artist's imagination. It absolutely is. But that imagination has to be brought forth in a way that can be understood otherwise it's meaningless. That might be fine for something you have no intention of other people seeing but if it is for public consumption then it's purpose is a communication of ideas and without some rules there is no communication.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Ah but even those avant-garde artists are writing with a particular logic informing their decisions, even if the logic is "this is the opposite of how everybody else does it and I want to show it can be done differently". There is always a reason for what a writer writes (not always a good one but a reason none-the-less) and as a writer you are always interacting within a set of rules. Heck, language itself is a set of rules which you can bend but you can't break entirely otherwise it ceases to be communication. Even something as insane and rule shattering as "Finnegan's Wake" has it's own brand of logic which restricts where the story can go and how it can be written.

True, there's always a reason, and true, in a way avant-garde artists are writing with their own particular logic. But that's just it's ; it's their logic. They choose to follow that logic, such as 'regular' artists choose to follow a different one. Hence, they're in control of how they write. Everyone's free to pick or create their own.

I'm not saying art is not an expression of the artist's imagination. It absolutely is. But that imagination has to be brought forth in a way that can be understood otherwise it's meaningless. That might be fine for something you have no intention of other people seeing but if it is for public consumption then it's purpose is a communication of ideas and without some rules there is no communication.

That again makes me wonder; says who? I reckon that's exactly the question some early 20th century poets asked themselves, hence why we ended up with poems like this:

There's no natural law that forces you that anything the imagination brings forth 'has' to be brought forth in a way it can be understood. There's no natural law that says says the communication of ideas must be there. Is it extremely anti-instinctual? Very much so, hence why such movements as futurism stay in the margins of culture. But it does show that the artist is completely free to follow his own logic.

 

[SecondPrize]

There'r more schools of analysis than the critical theory idea that one can apply their own views to study of a work and have the filter they use to analyze be just as important as the work itself. Authorial intent is not dead. Picking your own subjective lens to critique a work will never produce as solid a body of literary criticism as the field has produced with its classical methods over the years. It's poor academics, based on poor reasoning and riddled with confirmation biases and simply does not stand up well when compared to other works of criticism of literature.

 

[Silvanus]

For me, the author/creator is the highest authority on their own work and the characters in it.

They're not quite the sole authority, though-- to some extent, plots and characters can have dimensions the writer isn't aware of/ doesn't agree with. That'll happen whenever art reflects the real world, and almost all art does on some level.

But the writer is certainly the highest authority in my book.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It's interesting that you bring that up, since that's one of my primary gripes about the series. Many of the symbols don't actually mean anything, especially if you know what they are. What does the Jewish sephirot have to do with the story? Nothing, really, it's just there. To say that it means whatever you want it to mean actually robs it of meaning. It's not as carefully constructed as, say, Lord of the Flies, where everything is symbolic.

It was never supposed to mean anything beyond a framing device for the lore of the show. The only reason we feel it should mean something is because they're Christian/Jewish symbols, and that these are powerful cultural influences to us in the west. And so when the creators come out and say the only reason they used it was because they thought it was cool, we automatically jump down their throat claiming their whole show is therefor devoid of meaning.

When it's only there to give a bit of a kick to the lore. Same as Bioshock naming their DNA-altering goop, Adam. It uses a name with some historical/religious/cultural weight to give the item itself some heft. NGE applies it in larger amounts than most others, but it's the same principal.