"You only wrote this, I actually read it"

[Cowabungaa]

As Dopo said, this is Death of the Author. Auteur Theory is rightfully dead because, frankly, its kind of foolish. Of course people will have multiple interpretations of stories. Some are so obvious in what the author intends that its absolutely transparent, like Animal Farm, and others more obfuscated, but the author isn't the one sitting down to experience it. I think its important to recognize what the author intends when analyzing a story but your analysis is just as valid. What they intend to write isn't always what is understood, due to various reasons. Cultural changes are a major one - some stories translate poorly to different cultures. Sometimes the artist makes an error, usually involving their own continuity.

The problem with such extreme relativism, true 'author is dead'-ism so to speak, is that any concept of knowledge becomes impossible. You can't know anything any more, all you're left with is opinions.

Of course, it's important to take into account how a text gets interpreted by its audience. Texts are, in that way, living things. And the idea of the 'One True Text' we got from the hermeneutical tradition is a little arrogant or at least extreme. Especially when it comes to literature and cultural influences the context in which a text lives is vital to understand its impact and meaning. The audience helps to form the text which influences the impact a text has. This rift between the audience and the author is to be expected of course, as the audience never has the complete picture of the text, of the context in which it was made. And that's something we'll never completely have until we can read minds.

But take for instance constitutions and similar texts. If any analysis is as valid as the author's true knowledge about them becomes impossible. When "x = everything" you get yourself a meaningless tautology. It'd make a Supreme Court pretty much pointless, or at least completely arbitrary; it means what they say it means because they say so. I doubt that's the kind of legal system we want.

That's just an example of course. But my point is; the author definitely isn't dead. I like to think that we're past that extreme, French post-modernism. Even Foucault didn't go that far.

Case in point, Twilight. I seriously doubt the author meant to write what's effectively an allegory for the Mormon faith, but that is pretty much exactly what she wrote.

Quite a bad example funnily enough, considering how Stephanie Meyer actually is a Mormon and all that.

What you're talking about is Death of the Author.

And it's nonsense. An authors interpretation of a work is concrete.

Yes and no. It exists, most definitely. But the thing is that it's not the only interpretation that matters, especially when literature and similar texts (texts, again, in the very broad sense) are concerned. If only because differentiating interpretations often have such a large cultural impact we have to take them seriously and into account. What happened with Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress is a prime example of that.

Differentiating interpretations are, after all, bound to happen exactly because of that difference in knowledge about the context of the text as you describe it. And that's exactly why they're important.

Of course that doesn't mean the author is dead. It just means that the author has co-writers.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Case in point, Twilight. I seriously doubt the author meant to write what's effectively an allegory for the Mormon faith, but that is pretty much exactly what she wrote.

Quite a bad example funnily enough, considering how Stephanie Meyer actually is a Mormon and all that.

That could be argued to not be a bad example because of that, though, her own viewpoints and upbringing affected her work with or without her being conscious of it all.

A vague comparison would be a LotR fan who can't write anything other than rubbish LotR rip offs, whether or not they realise this is what they are doing. No small number of those people around.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Case in point, Twilight. I seriously doubt the author meant to write what's effectively an allegory for the Mormon faith, but that is pretty much exactly what she wrote.

Quite a bad example funnily enough, considering how Stephanie Meyer actually is a Mormon and all that.

That could be argued to not be a bad example because of that, though, her own viewpoints and upbringing affected her work with or without her being conscious of it all.

A vague comparison would be a LotR fan who can't write anything other than rubbish LotR rip offs, whether or not they realise this is what they are doing. No small number of those people around.

It depends on what you use the example for, yes. In this case though it looked like an example of a work having an interpretation the author didn't intend it to have. That doesn't really seem to hold for Twilight, she definitely knew what she was doing and admits that her faith influenced her work.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It depends on what you use the example for, yes. In this case though it looked like an example of a work having an interpretation the author didn't intend it to have. That doesn't really seem to hold for Twilight, she definitely knew what she was doing and admits that her faith influenced her work.

She did? I hadn't heard that. Ok, in that case that would invalidate it as an example, yeah.

 

[Areloch]

I would say a majority of the time, the author's intent is the correct one, however there are definitely cases where the author utterly failed to convey their intent to the reader, and thus mis-interpretations are inevitable compared to the original intent.

However, whether you ascribe to Death of the Author or not, it feels like a special kind of hubris to be able to look at the author and state "That's not what you meant".

It's easy to make a case for "Well, that's certainly not how you presented it", but "You didn't mean that?", that's just absurd. It becomes all the more absurd with the insane intensity some fandoms generate in internet culture now.

Nothing quite like seeing people go into a frenzy because they imagined a character as gay and then the author came along and was like "Nah, they're straight, actually", or that a character was white and the author goes "Actually, they're black". You see people working up such a huff that their interpretations were "invalidated" that they quit the show or whatnot entirely, or lash back at the author telling them they're wrong. Which just feels silly.

 

[Zen Bard]

Ray Bradbury (The author of Farenheit 451) was told by a class he was giving a lecture to that his interpretation of his book was wrong.

There is a story of some author who was approached by his nephew[footnote]or it might have been grandson or something. I'll just go with nephew[/footnote] to help him with an assignment that was about one of the author's works. So the author helped his nephew, as in, he wrote the entire assignment. And then the assignment was marked with an F and the comment was "That's not what the author thought!".

It's entirely possible this is made up, in fact, I wouldn't claim it's true - it's just a somewhat popular story I've heard. However, there is another thing - it's entirely possible it's correct, since I see no reason why this couldn't happen in the real world.

I believe it was Kurt Vonnegut (though I haven't had a chance to validate this, yet) His nephew asked him for help on a paper about "Slaughterhouse Five". Vonnegut, thinking it would be a slam dunk, wrote the entire paper for him.

A couple of days later, his nephew returned and angrily slammed the graded term paper down in front of his uncle.

The teacher gave him an "F" and had written "You clearly don't understand Kurt Vonnegut."

 

[DrownedAmmet]

The author is dead doesn't mean you can say whatever you want about someone's work.
It means you can interpret it however you want want as long as you can back it up
The author's word is a good place to go for some insight, but if you see something there that really speaks to you, then it's there, even if the author didn't explicitly mean it that way

 

[Politrukk]

As a historian, I've constantly run into a particular phenomenon that resembles what you're talking about. Basically, when someone creates something, a speech or pamphlet for example, once that something has been released to an audience, the author loses control over their creation. The audience is able to interpret that creation however they see fit and further use that interpretation as they desire as well, regardless of the desires or intent of the original creator.

Some how somewhere your post smells of Nietzsche.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It all comes down to common sense, I think, from both parties.

The aurthor is the one who created the work and has detailed knowledge on how it came to be and what the initial intent was. But the audience can bring or see a different meaning to the work, one the author may not have originally been aware of. Neither has full say over the final product.

An author can say whatever he wants about his work, but if I think he's wrong than I think he's wrong. I'm not going to let something I feel has meaning to me be tarnished simply because the author suddenly decided they hate their own work and think it's worthless. Authors can even get their own characters wrong in long running series. *cough Berserk* At the same time an audience can overreact to something in a work of fiction, because it's a sensitive subject or there's nudity, and therefor assume the work is hateful or objectifying. Or they could do worse and decide it's telling them to go on a killing spree.

The great thing about stories and what makes the ones that are timeless timeless, is that they live on and inspire others to tell their own stories. That's not possible if we're only allowed to see the author's point of view and not think about the matter ourselves. It's fun to break stories apart and look at them in a different way. As long as you don't utterly obsese over it.

Moderation, I guess, is the keyword here.

 

[Fappy]

Artistic interpretation is not definitive. Common consensus among the audience vs the intended message of the author is irrelevant. Art affects us in different ways. No one thinks alike and we all look at the art from unique perspectives. Sure, from a historical perspective you can analyze how the message of a popular piece of art impacted a sub-culture, or if significant enough, impacted the greater society. However, in the end no one can be more correct than anyone else.

The author will inevitably have a deeper level of understanding regarding their own work, but it doesn't make it anymore "correct" than a random consumer's interpretation of the art. This doesn't mean analysis and discussion isn't constructive. In fact, it's necessary for evolving an art form. People just need to understand that art is a purely subjective experience.

The only way you can be "wrong" is if you didn't understand fundamental and obvious aspects of the art.

 

[DoPo]

I know they used this joke in...Back to School? That Rodney Dangerfield movie where he went back to school, and had Kurt Vonnegut help him with his book review of one of Kurt's books.

I believe it was Kurt Vonnegut (though I haven't had a chance to validate this, yet) His nephew asked him for help on a paper about "Slaughterhouse Five". Vonnegut, thinking it would be a slam dunk, wrote the entire paper for him.

A couple of days later, his nephew returned and angrily slammed the graded term paper down in front of his uncle.

The teacher gave him an "F" and had written "You clearly don't understand Kurt Vonnegut."

I was thinking of a different author but the story might have been ripped off the Kurt Vonnegut one. Or, dunno, maybe there was a story further in the past that both ripped off.

At any rate, thanks for the input - I hadn't heard of this tale with Kurt Vonnegut

 

[Nielas]

I know they used this joke in...Back to School? That Rodney Dangerfield movie where he went back to school, and had Kurt Vonnegut help him with his book review of one of Kurt's books.

I believe it was Kurt Vonnegut (though I haven't had a chance to validate this, yet) His nephew asked him for help on a paper about "Slaughterhouse Five". Vonnegut, thinking it would be a slam dunk, wrote the entire paper for him.

A couple of days later, his nephew returned and angrily slammed the graded term paper down in front of his uncle.

The teacher gave him an "F" and had written "You clearly don't understand Kurt Vonnegut."

I was thinking of a different author but the story might have been ripped off the Kurt Vonnegut one. Or, dunno, maybe there was a story further in the past that both ripped off.

At any rate, thanks for the input - I hadn't heard of this tale with Kurt Vonnegut

There was a sci-fi story where a university professor invents a time machine and brings Shakespeare to the present. Shakespeare tries to fit in for a while but then asks to be sent back to his own time. Apparently he enrolled in a Shakespearean literature class and the instructor flunked him for not understanding the ideas behind Shakespeare's writing.

 

[Fox12]

What you're talking about is Death of the Author.

And it's nonsense. An authors interpretation of a work is concrete. A mere critic will never be able to understand the work on the level of the creator. This is probably one of the most arrogant theories in academia. It's also incredibly narrow minded. Advocates of Death of the Author like to claim that there's nothing outside the text. That the only thing that matters is the work itself. Unfortunately, this simply isn't true. A work of art is a product of a time, a place, and, yes, a person. How could one hope to fully understand Dante's Divine Comedy without also understanding Dante? The two are inseparable. Art is not created in a vacuum. To claim otherwise is to throw out a large body of very important research.

The idea that authors implicitly understand and intend every idea that shows up in their work is also a form of arrogance. As is generally the case, the truth falls somewhere between the extremes. An author's intent when creating a work is certainly important to understanding the work, but it does not tell the whole story as outside of the most carefully constructed narratives themes and ideas not explicitly intended by the author will worm their way in anyway, through the author's unconscious bias if nothing else.



Case in point, Twilight. I seriously doubt the author meant to write what's effectively an allegory for the Mormon faith, but that is pretty much exactly what she wrote. Google Sparkledammerung for the full explanation.

Ray Bradbury (The author of Farenheit 451) was told by a class he was giving a lecture to that his interpretation of his book was wrong.

The thing about Bradbury's interpretation of his work is that in order to arrive at it, you must first have his paranoia about technology in general and modern entertainment in particular. Without that peccadillo there is NOTHING implicit in what he wrote decrying tv and technology as evil.

The author carefully chooses every word, and every idea in their work. It's a laborious process. The idea that there are themes the author is unaware of is, I think, untrue. Instead what we have is an audience reading too much into things, or misinterpreting information. Which is fine. But when they try to assert their interpretation over the authors, then they are truly arrogant. I see no arrogance in an artist claiming to understand something they themselves created.

I largely agree that most things are relative, but if you take that concept too far then it becomes impossible for any work of art to really mean anything. Art becomes nothing more then a mirror that reflects your own ideas.

 

[Fox12]

snip

Yes. I wrote my first unpublished novel in high school. I hope to finish my current project and get it published within the next few years, while I also get my Masters Degree. This is why I actually know what I'm talking about.

 

[Cowabungaa]

The author carefully chooses every word, and every idea in their work. It's a laborious process. The idea that there are themes the author is unaware of is, I think, untrue. Instead what we have is an audience reading too much into things, or misinterpreting information. Which is fine. But when they try to assert their interpretation over the authors, then they are truly arrogant. I see no arrogance in an artist claiming to understand something they themselves created.

I largely agree that most things are relative, but if you take that concept too far then it becomes impossible for any work of art to really mean anything. Art becomes nothing more then a mirror that reflects your own ideas.

The thing is that this has the hidden premise that people write wholly consciously. They don't, because people aren't wholly conscious beings. A lot happens unconsciously and writing is no exception to that. Paradigms and viewpoints that slip in that the author is often not aware of. It's also why it's so hard to judge the era we live in, or why in science it's pretty much impossible to really see the paradigm they're currently in; they're too close to the facts, as it were.

On top of that, maybe you chose every word and idea carefully in your writing, but this is not the same for every writer. Writing, after all, is an art and not a science. There's more than one way to skin that cat. Neither does careful writing guarantee that nothing unconscious slips through, as it were.

Now of course, as I mentioned in one of my previous posts, I do agree that the extreme idea that the author is dead is foolish, considering what it'd mean for the notions of knowledge and truth. But to say that the author is wholly in control is foolish too when we consider human nature.

 

[Zen Bard]

I know they used this joke in...Back to School? That Rodney Dangerfield movie where he went back to school, and had Kurt Vonnegut help him with his book review of one of Kurt's books.

I believe it was Kurt Vonnegut (though I haven't had a chance to validate this, yet) His nephew asked him for help on a paper about "Slaughterhouse Five". Vonnegut, thinking it would be a slam dunk, wrote the entire paper for him.

A couple of days later, his nephew returned and angrily slammed the graded term paper down in front of his uncle.

The teacher gave him an "F" and had written "You clearly don't understand Kurt Vonnegut."

I was thinking of a different author but the story might have been ripped off the Kurt Vonnegut one. Or, dunno, maybe there was a story further in the past that both ripped off.

At any rate, thanks for the input - I hadn't heard of this tale with Kurt Vonnegut

You're probably right. Most likely, it's an urban legend type-story that, in actuality, happened to NO ONE but is attributed to everyone.

What sticks in my mind in the version I heard is that after Vonnegut read the teacher's comments, he looked up at his nephew and said "Holy shit! He's right!"...which just seems like a very Kurt Vonnegut thing to do.

 

[kekkres]

I know they used this joke in...Back to School? That Rodney Dangerfield movie where he went back to school, and had Kurt Vonnegut help him with his book review of one of Kurt's books.

I believe it was Kurt Vonnegut (though I haven't had a chance to validate this, yet) His nephew asked him for help on a paper about "Slaughterhouse Five". Vonnegut, thinking it would be a slam dunk, wrote the entire paper for him.

A couple of days later, his nephew returned and angrily slammed the graded term paper down in front of his uncle.

The teacher gave him an "F" and had written "You clearly don't understand Kurt Vonnegut."

I was thinking of a different author but the story might have been ripped off the Kurt Vonnegut one. Or, dunno, maybe there was a story further in the past that both ripped off.

At any rate, thanks for the input - I hadn't heard of this tale with Kurt Vonnegut

I know for a fact that a Literature professor told tolkien that LOTR was clearly an allegory for WW2 and he was incorrect in his denial of that.

 

[dyre]

The author is dead doesn't mean you can say whatever you want about someone's work.
It means you can interpret it however you want want as long as you can back it up
The author's word is a good place to go for some insight, but if you see something there that really speaks to you, then it's there, even if the author didn't explicitly mean it that way

As an addendum to your point about needing to back up your interpretations, I think the main reason that reader interpretation has gotten such a bad rep lately is because of prevalence of half-baked, poorly backed "theories" out there, thanks to the "everyone gets to have an opinion" phenomena of the internet.

Stupid internet opinions aside, literary criticism has been a perfectly legitimate field of study. The author doesn't usually spell out what he means (maybe at the thematic level, but certainly not line-by-line). It usually falls on careful readers to dissect his work, using not only the text but also an awareness of historical context, the author's beliefs, etc.

 

[LordLundar]

Ahh the "death of author" fallacy.

Yup, I said fallacy because it's bunk. Pure, unadulterated garbage and people using it as an explanation are deluding themselves.

See, here's the thing, literary works fall in the realm of art for a very good reason. They are subjective and open to interpretation. Despite that your interpretation of a work is different from an author's does not erase their intent and interpretation. Neither you nor the author are wrong. It might be flawed which opens itself to further analysis but which is "right" and "wrong" is trying to apply an objective response to a subjective work. Worse yet when such attempts are done without any real work put into such theories (Read: the author's wrong because I say so")

Death of the Author is a really bad attempt to justify such ludicrous efforts. Worse yet, Academia is trying to teach it as a means to force only one way of thinking.

 

[BytByte]

Ahh the "death of author" fallacy.

Yup, I said fallacy because it's bunk. Pure, unadulterated garbage and people using it as an explanation are deluding themselves.

See, here's the thing, literary works fall in the realm of art for a very good reason. They are subjective and open to interpretation. Despite that your interpretation of a work is different from an author's does not erase their intent and interpretation. Neither you nor the author are wrong. It might be flawed which opens itself to further analysis but which is "right" and "wrong" is trying to apply an objective response to a subjective work. Worse yet when such attempts are done without any real work put into such theories (Read: the author's wrong because I say so")

Death of the Author is a really bad attempt to justify such ludicrous efforts. Worse yet, Academia is trying to teach it as a means to force only one way of thinking.

Is that what dead author means? That only the public decides? I always thought it was the combination, the push and pull of interpretations that revolve around a work.