"You only wrote this, I actually read it"

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch#.C3.9Cbermensch_and_Nazis

I think the wikipedia page is close to accurate in this case.

The Nazi's took Nietzsche's ?bermensch idea and both contaminated and expanded upon it.
They created the untermensch idea from his philosophy but the point about Nietzsches philosophy was to look up and not down to progress and attain better understanding and become better humans.

But then again Hitler isn't the only person who took Nietzches ideas and rolled with them, Superman (the hero) is a similar way of how the idea has been interpreted.

Ah, I completely missed that angle. That must have been what that whooshing sound going over my head was.

Yeah, on the American side of things (my turf as a historian) the original leadership of the 13 British colonies made a lot of statements about the rights and responsibilities of citizens and how England wasn't living up to their end of the deal. The next generation went and took those speeches/pamphlets and used the to promote general democracy. This was something the older generation was NOT happy about.

 

[chikusho]

No, it's not "created as its consumed." Only someone who doesn't understand the process of making art can think that way. This is because the consumer is ignorant of future events the first time they read a book. However, those future events are determined, and can't be altered, regardless of how the consumer feels. It already exists as a certainty. It's more accurate to say that it all exists simultaneously. Past and future events exist simultaneously within the work, informing each other. You have to look at the entire work as a whole to appreciate it. This is because all points of time within the work exist simultaneously, even if you are unaware of it. As an example, go research eternalism.

I'm not saying that the work is created as it's being consumed, I'm sayig that the art is created as it's being consumed. The entire work exists simultaneously, but but a book is just ink-stained paper until someone actually reads it.

As for discounting authorial intent, you can't do that when the entire story is built around the author, like in Dante's Inferno. They don't exist as separate entities, and to study the Divine Comedy without studying Dante is an exercise in futility. Your whole argument falls apart around this single example. How do you expect to understand a work of art, if that art is heavily tied to the actual writer? In that case the writer and the art essentially the same. It's essentially an autobiography mixed with a work of high fiction. Even in less extreme examples, many great works of art are a form of expression by the author. The themes are tied to the experiences of the creator. If a piece of art exists as a form of self exploration, how can you separate it from the creator? The lines are far to blurry to claim that the author and work are separate distinct entities. For someone who likes subjectivity, that's a very objective statement to make. Sometimes a work can exist as a separate entity. Sometimes the two are so closely linked that it's essentially impossible.

You can easily discount authorial intent when the entire story is built around the author. I'm doing it right now! And even if you decide to approach art as a historical research assignment, what you end up with is still just an interpretation based on incomplete and possibly false information. Besides, a work is just that: a work - and if it cannot stand on its own it's incomplete by definition. Any other theory than the death of the author would literally require each work to come with a lifetimes worth of documentation and relevant information (which still might be incomplete or false), and at that point you're not reading a book anymore, you're reading a library.

 

[Fox12]

No, it's not "created as its consumed." Only someone who doesn't understand the process of making art can think that way. This is because the consumer is ignorant of future events the first time they read a book. However, those future events are determined, and can't be altered, regardless of how the consumer feels. It already exists as a certainty. It's more accurate to say that it all exists simultaneously. Past and future events exist simultaneously within the work, informing each other. You have to look at the entire work as a whole to appreciate it. This is because all points of time within the work exist simultaneously, even if you are unaware of it. As an example, go research eternalism.

I'm not saying that the work is created as it's being consumed, I'm sayig that the art is created as it's being consumed. The entire work exists simultaneously, but but a book is just ink-stained paper until someone actually reads it.

As for discounting authorial intent, you can't do that when the entire story is built around the author, like in Dante's Inferno. They don't exist as separate entities, and to study the Divine Comedy without studying Dante is an exercise in futility. Your whole argument falls apart around this single example. How do you expect to understand a work of art, if that art is heavily tied to the actual writer? In that case the writer and the art essentially the same. It's essentially an autobiography mixed with a work of high fiction. Even in less extreme examples, many great works of art are a form of expression by the author. The themes are tied to the experiences of the creator. If a piece of art exists as a form of self exploration, how can you separate it from the creator? The lines are far to blurry to claim that the author and work are separate distinct entities. For someone who likes subjectivity, that's a very objective statement to make. Sometimes a work can exist as a separate entity. Sometimes the two are so closely linked that it's essentially impossible.

You can easily discount authorial intent when the entire story is built around the author. I'm doing it right now! And even if you decide to approach art as a historical research assignment, what you end up with is still just an interpretation based on incomplete and possibly false information. Besides, a work is just that: a work - and if it cannot stand on its own it's incomplete by definition. Any other theory than the death of the author would literally require each work to come with a lifetimes worth of documentation and relevant information (which still might be incomplete or false), and at that point you're not reading a book anymore, you're reading a library.

It doesn't matter, a work can't be understood until you look at the whole picture.

As for ignoring authorial intent, sure you can, but you'll never hope to understand it. With that logic, I can read the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, and decide that it's a metaphor for western imperialism. Never mind that it's an autobiography, which is entirely about authorial intent. That doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the text itself, and my personal interpretation.

If you told someone this, they'd think you were being ludicrous. You have to take authorial intent into consideration for an autobiography. Further more, while you can appreciate the work on its own, you'll be able to appreciate it more if you understand the time period it was written in. It's not necessary for getting the gist of the story, but it's important supplementary material. And yet, a work like Dante's Inferno is just as autobiographical as Benjamin Franklin's book, despite having allegorical fantasy elements in it. Dante is, himself, the main character. It's about his life, and it's about the people he's met. The book can' exist separate from the author. So where do we draw the line? Some stories are about audience interpretation, but the whole point of allegory is authorial intent. I wonder if you've actually read anything by Dante. It's fine if you haven't, but you can't really argue the point if not. You can say that you don't care about a writers intent, even if the book is literally about them, and is about their perspective, but you're going to need to provide a much stronger argument then you have thus far.

 

[chikusho]

It doesn't matter, a work can't be understood until you look at the whole picture.

And since that is literally impossible, you're basically saying that no work can ever be understood.

As for ignoring authorial intent, sure you can, but you'll never hope to understand it. With that logic, I can read the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, and decide that it's a metaphor for western imperialism. Never mind that it's an autobiography, which is entirely about authorial intent. That doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the text itself, and my personal interpretation.

I haven't read the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, but if it contains parallells to western imperialism as a subject then of course you can have that interpretation. Even stories based on true events needs to be organized, formulated and be told from a chosen perspective. And if an autobiographical story is laid out in such a way that it resembles or seems to be about another thing, it's still in there for readers to find. And it will be in there whether or not the author intended for it or not.

 

[COMaestro]

No, it's not "created as its consumed." Only someone who doesn't understand the process of making art can think that way. This is because the consumer is ignorant of future events the first time they read a book. However, those future events are determined, and can't be altered, regardless of how the consumer feels. It already exists as a certainty. It's more accurate to say that it all exists simultaneously. Past and future events exist simultaneously within the work, informing each other. You have to look at the entire work as a whole to appreciate it. This is because all points of time within the work exist simultaneously, even if you are unaware of it. As an example, go research eternalism.

I'm not saying that the work is created as it's being consumed, I'm sayig that the art is created as it's being consumed. The entire work exists simultaneously, but but a book is just ink-stained paper until someone actually reads it.

As for discounting authorial intent, you can't do that when the entire story is built around the author, like in Dante's Inferno. They don't exist as separate entities, and to study the Divine Comedy without studying Dante is an exercise in futility. Your whole argument falls apart around this single example. How do you expect to understand a work of art, if that art is heavily tied to the actual writer? In that case the writer and the art essentially the same. It's essentially an autobiography mixed with a work of high fiction. Even in less extreme examples, many great works of art are a form of expression by the author. The themes are tied to the experiences of the creator. If a piece of art exists as a form of self exploration, how can you separate it from the creator? The lines are far to blurry to claim that the author and work are separate distinct entities. For someone who likes subjectivity, that's a very objective statement to make. Sometimes a work can exist as a separate entity. Sometimes the two are so closely linked that it's essentially impossible.

You can easily discount authorial intent when the entire story is built around the author. I'm doing it right now! And even if you decide to approach art as a historical research assignment, what you end up with is still just an interpretation based on incomplete and possibly false information. Besides, a work is just that: a work - and if it cannot stand on its own it's incomplete by definition. Any other theory than the death of the author would literally require each work to come with a lifetimes worth of documentation and relevant information (which still might be incomplete or false), and at that point you're not reading a book anymore, you're reading a library.

It doesn't matter, a work can't be understood until you look at the whole picture.

As for ignoring authorial intent, sure you can, but you'll never hope to understand it. With that logic, I can read the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, and decide that it's a metaphor for western imperialism. Never mind that it's an autobiography, which is entirely about authorial intent. That doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the text itself, and my personal interpretation.

If you told someone this, they'd think you were being ludicrous. You have to take authorial intent into consideration for an autobiography. Further more, while you can appreciate the work on its own, you'll be able to appreciate it more if you understand the time period it was written in. It's not necessary for getting the gist of the story, but it's important supplementary material. And yet, a work like Dante's Inferno is just as autobiographical as Benjamin Franklin's book, despite having allegorical fantasy elements in it. Dante is, himself, the main character. It's about his life, and it's about the people he's met. The book can' exist separate from the author. So where do we draw the line? Some stories are about audience interpretation, but the whole point of allegory is authorial intent. I wonder if you've actually read anything by Dante. It's fine if you haven't, but you can't really argue the point if not. You can say that you don't care about a writers intent, even if the book is literally about them, and is about their perspective, but you're going to need to provide a much stronger argument then you have thus far.

The problem with this is that the work has to exist separate from its author. Once a piece of art is created and released out into the world for other people to experience, then those people are going to have their own interpretations of it. They cannot be expected to be experts on the creators life or even time period. I will agree with you that knowledge of the time period can help one understand what they are reading, but it cannot be expected for the reader to know everything about the author in order to have some understanding of the authors work. That idea is ludicrous. Otherwise every single work of art would need to be accompanied by a complete biography of the creator, which is just a ridiculous notion.

In your example of Dante, sure, knowledge of his life and the society he lived in would certainly help the reader to understand what Dante was consciously trying to express in his writing. However, that does not mean that the same or other interpretations of the work cannot be made by a reader ignorant of these details.

 

[Fox12]

snip

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. You can read Dante's Inferno, and get the gist of it on its own merits. It's pretty clear in its purpose. That said, research will allow for a much greater understanding of the work.

Unfortunately, if someone chooses to voice their opinion without doing research, they are speaking from ignorance. Just because they are allowed to voice their opinion doesn't mean that their opinion is valid. This is something we seem to get wrong in the information age. There are people who have devoted their entire career, and life, to studying one author, or one genre. An uninformed opinion is not as valid as an expert opinion, and it's certainly not as valid as the author's. Let's stop pretending that all opinions are created equal.