This is admittedly partly due to self-interest, but I'm broadening the topic for wider discussion.
So, there's various works in fiction that have a theme/point to them, or if they don't, certain levels of interpretation towards them. There's so many works that it would be redundant to list them all, and I'm sure that if any of you did English/literature/insert equivalent here in school, you were given assigned texts to read/watch and analyze. Thing is though, at some point, whether it be you or someone else, someone probably got the theme "wrong," so to speak. There's actually a story I recall about a writer coming in to a school to discuss his book, and as the students spoke, he realized that they had come to the 'wrong' conclusions from the work. Or another story, where a child got into an argument with a teacher over the meaning of a book, before pointing out he was the author's son, so yes, he WAS in a position to say what the "correct" meaning was.
This partly touches on the concept of death of the author, but I'm focusing more on the question at hand. Not whether there's a "correct" way to interpret a piece of fiction, but rather if an author/director/whoever should ever spell out the true intent of their work. There's examples of them refusing to do so (e.g. Kubrick with 2001), and examples of them being eager to do so (e.g. Cameron with Avatar, who made my interpretation of the work 'wrong' for instance). Like, I imagine that Aldous Huxley would be distressed if someone saw Brave New World as an endorsement of the World State rather than a criticism of it, but if someone did see it that way, can they be looking at it wrong, or is their interpretation valid?
Which does admittedly bring me to the personal issue, in that I've just got through a series of reviews for stuff I've written, and in regards to the intended 'theme' behind one of them, comments in the review made it clear that the reviewer had come to a different conclusion from what I'd intended. And that isn't the first time that's happened. I admittedly said in the response (paraphrased) "you're wrong, but it's up to you how to interpret it," but is that having my cake and eating it?
So, TL, DR, look at the tile, and give your answers. Again, this isn't so much discussing the concepts of authoratorial intent vs. death of the author, it's the concept of whether a living author should ever spell out a "true meaning" for a work.
So, there's various works in fiction that have a theme/point to them, or if they don't, certain levels of interpretation towards them. There's so many works that it would be redundant to list them all, and I'm sure that if any of you did English/literature/insert equivalent here in school, you were given assigned texts to read/watch and analyze. Thing is though, at some point, whether it be you or someone else, someone probably got the theme "wrong," so to speak. There's actually a story I recall about a writer coming in to a school to discuss his book, and as the students spoke, he realized that they had come to the 'wrong' conclusions from the work. Or another story, where a child got into an argument with a teacher over the meaning of a book, before pointing out he was the author's son, so yes, he WAS in a position to say what the "correct" meaning was.
This partly touches on the concept of death of the author, but I'm focusing more on the question at hand. Not whether there's a "correct" way to interpret a piece of fiction, but rather if an author/director/whoever should ever spell out the true intent of their work. There's examples of them refusing to do so (e.g. Kubrick with 2001), and examples of them being eager to do so (e.g. Cameron with Avatar, who made my interpretation of the work 'wrong' for instance). Like, I imagine that Aldous Huxley would be distressed if someone saw Brave New World as an endorsement of the World State rather than a criticism of it, but if someone did see it that way, can they be looking at it wrong, or is their interpretation valid?
Which does admittedly bring me to the personal issue, in that I've just got through a series of reviews for stuff I've written, and in regards to the intended 'theme' behind one of them, comments in the review made it clear that the reviewer had come to a different conclusion from what I'd intended. And that isn't the first time that's happened. I admittedly said in the response (paraphrased) "you're wrong, but it's up to you how to interpret it," but is that having my cake and eating it?
So, TL, DR, look at the tile, and give your answers. Again, this isn't so much discussing the concepts of authoratorial intent vs. death of the author, it's the concept of whether a living author should ever spell out a "true meaning" for a work.
