Death of the Author

[Fox12]

As someone who wants to be both a writer and historian, this is an interesting issue that's been plaguing me lately. For those of you who don't know, the "Death of the Author" theory is the idea that a writer doesn't get to decide what his/her story is about. A story is "divorced" or "separate" from the person who wrote it. Their intentions and history don't matter, all that matters is the work itself. Therefore, a critic can argue with an author about the book the writer wrote, and both of them can be right.

For a long time this annoyed me. How dare someone else tell me what my story is about. I felt like there was a danger here. While books should stand alone on their own merits, if you ignore their author and their time period then you lose your frame of reference, and you lose a wealth of important information. Dante's Inferno, a literary masterpiece, is intimately tied to the authors life experience. If you ignore his presence and his intent, then you've gutted all of the meaning out of the book.

Alternatively you have something like Silent Hill 2, which had multiple creators, and which is open to many interpretations, or superhero stories, which belong to many writers. This got me thinking, why does one theory have to win out over the other? There is no one size fits all measure. Why can't some stories, which are meant to have multiple meanings, be judged by one standard, while something like Dante's Inferno be judged by another? I think some people forget how important history can be to a work of art, since it can add a huge wealth of meaning to it. To simply discard it seams like a waste.

Long post short, do you think artists should have complete control over the things they make, or do you think critics should have equal say? Or, alternatively, do you think that there's a middle ground, and that both opinions are wrong?

 

[Queen Michael]

I like the idea of Death of the Author. I judge a work by what's in it, not by what the author wanted to have in it. A good writer will make her intentions clear. A bad writer needs to explain everything.

An extreme example is self-published novelist Norman Boutin. He's got a website advertising his novel Empress Theresa. The website includes a study guide to the book. A study guide that Norman wrote himself.

 

[tippy2k2]

To me, the artist is the de facto opinion on the work. Sometimes the author WANTS ambiguity as to what exactly happened (see "Inception"). Other times, the author knows exactly the story that they want to tell and any other opinions on it are bunk (see Dr. Seuss versus Pro-Lifers with "Horton Hears a Who").

People can have their own interpretations of works and their own ideas to the table but (assuming the author isn't lying for some reason) I am going to listen to the artist about what a work is and isn't before I'm going to listen to anyone else.

 

[Tiger King]

I always thought that people can interpret things differently, regardless of what the author intended to depict.
I also think that an author can subconsciously create themes in their books without them knowing it.

 

[NihilSinLulz]

I think it gives the reader options and doesn't necessarily need be taken as gospel.

A good example of this is with Neon Genesis Evangaleon. Its creator is on record saying that it was basically a paycheck and any deeper meaning is is nonexistent. Yet for many fans, the work is full of symbolism and other things.

There's certain movies I feel the way about. The original intention of the work is either dumb, or shallow, but my experience of it was so much more nuanced and rich. By what objective is one experience of the work more 'legitimate' or 'real' than another?

 

[Fox12]

I think it gives the reader options and doesn't necessarily need be taken as gospel.

A good example of this is with Neon Genesis Evangaleon. Its creator is on record saying that it was basically a paycheck and any deeper meaning is is nonexistent. Yet for many fans, the work is full of symbolism and other things.

There's certain movies I feel the way about. The original intention of the work is either dumb, or shallow, but my experience of it was so much more nuanced and rich. By what objective is one experience of the work more 'legitimate' or 'real' than another?

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.

And yet there is clearly a lot that NGE got right, and did better than anyone. The doll was clearly a symbol of Asukes trauma, and encapsulated why her and Rei didn't get along. She's Rei's antithesis. Asuke calls Rei a doll before slapping her, and there are numerous visual motifs that make Rei look doll like throughout the series. The two characters are foils of one another, and the doll motif symbolizes the divide between them. This symbol was clearly intentional throughout the series, and provided some of the most powerful moments in the series. Another powerful aspect of the show was its exploration of depression and psychology, issues that the writer was exploring at the time. This aspect of the show was closely tied to the writer, and was very personal. The best parts of the story were the ones that had a definite meaning, and told us something about human nature. Knowing about the author also increased out understanding of the show. Anno even involves himself in the plot by inserting live action footage into the film. The worst, and often time clumsiest parts of the story are the ones that are left up to the audiences imagination. The mixture of real and fake symbolism just makes it confusing.

Like Roger Ebert said, if you have to ask what it means then it doesn't.

 

[Korenith]

Interestingly "Death of the Author" as a concept has now faded into the background somewhat in terms of literary criticism but I do think that in general what a reader sees in a work will often not match up entirely to the author's intentions simply because they are drawing from different frames of reference. Interpretation will vary massively according to what each reader brings to the text through experience, cultural symbolism etc.

That's not to say a writer can't guide their audience down a particular path, suggesting particular meanings, but ultimately once it leaves the writer's hands they can only sit back and watch.

On a side note even if you take out all knowledge of Dante and his lifestory I still believe an awful lot of meaning can be take from the Divine Comedy.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

As a piece of literary criticism, I don't really have much to say about the concept within "Death of the Author", but from a historical perspective there is an important point here.

Once someone releases their words for others to consume or use, they lose control over those words. Throughout history, there have been countless moments where the author's intent is simply swept aside by what the audience wanted the words to mean. The author's intent and meaning simply ceased to be a concern in the discussion that followed.

So, on the one hand an author can desire their work to be about something specific. However, the audience will always be taking those words in through the filter of their own experiences and perceptions and may thus see something completely different. And there isn't a damn thing the author can do about it.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Prime example of the author's intention being completely missed: The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. Wrote is to show how hard life was for immigrants and how things could be better if people switched to Socialism.

Instead, people clung to the disgusting descriptions of the beef packing industry and the book went on to be the rallying cry for better working conditions all around. As he said about his book, "I aimed for America's heart but hit them in the stomach instead."


As an author, of course you are allowed to have your work make your point. It can say whatever you want it to say, but if you put it out for public consumption, be prepared for opinions and takes on your work that don't match what you wanted to say. Sometimes you and your audience will agree that your story says the same thing. Other times though, the audience will miss your point so badly that the point becomes something else.

Neither theory is right per say. Everyone is allowed to say whatever they want about a piece of work. Of course, some takes are going to get more points than others.

 

[happyninja42]

Long post short, do you think artists should have complete control over the things they make, or do you think critics should have equal say? Or, alternatively, do you think that there's a middle ground, and that both opinions are wrong?

If by "control over the things they make", you mean they have the final say on what "it means", then no I wouldn't say they should. What someone creates means something different to each person who experiences it. The artist can say that the work is an expression of *insert thing*, and that is 100% right, because that is what inspired them to make the thing. But, as a viewer of said art, I'm going to take from it whatever I take from it, even if that is opposite to what the artist intended.

Both of us are right in this. I have no right to tell the artist "your work is *insert opinion* and there it means this", but neither does the artist have the right to say "this is what the art should mean to you *insert opinion*" But, we equally have no right to criticize the other's take on the work. We both should just say "This is what I took from the art, or this is what it means to me" and leave it at that.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well...according to Stephenie Meyer, Edward is the sexiest and smartest and most romantic man/vampire ever. According to many, many people who have read Twilight, he's a horrible creepy and abusive person who is rather thick.

I think we have to lean towards "Death of the Author", because that sort of thing is very common, I don't think anyone would always agree with the authors interpretations of characters.

 

[Olas]

I never really liked the idea of art as a mirror for the audience or whatever you wanna call it. Without an inherent message, idea, or emotion the art loses what makes it distinct from something randomly generated. Suddenly the greatest painting ever has no more true merit than the random formations of clouds. This dadaist view of art, if it doesn't deprive it of value entirely, seems to at least place it all at the same level. Who can say Citizen Kane is a better story than Jackass?

From a Media Theory perspective it's also just not very useful. The point of constructing a message is to introduce the audience to a new idea or insight they would not have discovered on their own. If the art is merely the audience projecting their own preconceived views then nothing new is gained and the old is just reinforced.

This isn't to say that I don't see value in people re-reading art in a new context and taking something different out of it, but merely that this should be built on an understanding of what the original message was and why it has changed with time.

 

[Ferisar]

Context-based. If the author's life is in directly correlation with the work, to separate them would be a disservice to some extent, although that itself is based on what the criticism is: An author might be writing from a life experience, but that doesn't mean that the experience makes for a good story, for instance, regardless of how intimate it is. Then again, it should also be their goal to connect the audience and clue them into the intimacy through, y'know, literary ability.

On the other hand, pure works of fiction are almost always better without injecting the author's opinion: and a lot of good authors are well-aware of this. Writing a story has to involve at least some self-awareness and understanding that your readers may never connect certain things to your characters the way you do, or will just simply disagree on the intent. This is not a bad thing. This is what creates questions and lets people accumulate interest over the course of the work. I think the hardest part is recognizing where these patterns begin and not showing too much or too little. [Personal quirk]: I'm also not a big fan of being too nosy with my own characters, because I don't have the clinical precision to avoid indulging them if I know too much. The second they become devices instead of people is when the story starts gasping for air.

I'm going to have to straddle the fence, essentially.

I'll leave out my opinions on Dante's Inferno and its authors very... Interesting views on who should suffer I need to finish it first, too. Granted, Paradisio sounds like a colossal snooze-fest.

 

[happyninja42]

Well...according to Stephenie Meyer, Edward is the sexiest and smartest and most romantic man/vampire ever. According to many, many people who have read Twilight, he's a horrible creepy and abusive person who is rather thick.

I think we have to lean towards "Death of the Author", because that sort of thing is very common, I don't think anyone would always agree with the authors interpretations of characters.

Funny you say that, because I heard the book she never finished, from Edward's point of view, has his internal dialogue that of a monsterous bastard. Which sort of contradicts the previous description of him by the Doctor Cullen guy as being "the most gentle soul he's ever met"

 

[CrystalShadow]

In some ways this is reflective of issues that we have communicating with one another in general.
No matter what you actually meant, the listenervor reader can interpret it completely differently.
I find that incredibly irritating, but short of direct thouthought transfer, it's just the way things are.
Not much that can be done about it.

With regards to writing, I guess the really annoying situariin is when the audience's interpretation of a work is something highly controverscontroversial.
Especially if it's ssomething the author disagrees with or dislikes.
I'd find it incredibly frustrating if my work was coopted by a bunch of people with a controversial point of view which I really don't agree with, and claiming my work somehow had something positive to say about it.
Especially if people then tell me my own opinion of my own work has no weight to it...

Eh. Annoying

 

[Pyrian]

I'm okay with Death of the Author, I'm okay with analyzing where a piece came from, I'm even okay with Word of God. What I'm not okay with, and see all the time, is people claiming that their words on a page means precisely what they now want it to mean, and not what the words actually are, nor reflective of the attitudes they clearly originated from.

Author can weigh in on what they meant all they like, but it's too late for them to dictate it.

 

[FalloutJack]

If they can both be right, I'd call it the maiming of the author. Still, my thinking is that people can take what they want from something if they like, and it doesn't have to be what the author intended, but it doesn't mean that they're right. Alice in Wonderland was a deconstruction of society, but it was loved for how ridiculous it was, much to Lewis Carol's shragrin. Doesn't mean it didn't mean what it meant. It was just received differently.

 

[Haerthan]

As someone who wants to be both a writer and historian, this is an interesting issue that's been plaguing me lately. For those of you who don't know, the "Death of the Author" theory is the idea that a writer doesn't get to decide what his/her story is about. A story is "divorced" or "separate" from the person who wrote it. Their intentions and history don't matter, all that matters is the work itself. Therefore, a critic can argue with an author about the book the writer wrote, and both of them can be right.

For a long time this annoyed me. How dare someone else tell me what my story is about. I felt like there was a danger here. While books should stand alone on their own merits, if you ignore their author and their time period then you lose your frame of reference, and you lose a wealth of important information. Dante's Inferno, a literary masterpiece, is intimately tied to the authors life experience. If you ignore his presence and his intent, then you've gutted all of the meaning out of the book.

Alternatively you have something like Silent Hill 2, which had multiple creators, and which is open to many interpretations, or superhero stories, which belong to many writers. This got me thinking, why does one theory have to win out over the other? There is no one size fits all measure. Why can't some stories, which are meant to have multiple meanings, be judged by one standard, while something like Dante's Inferno be judged by another? I think some people forget how important history can be to a work of art, since it can add a huge wealth of meaning to it. To simply discard it seams like a waste.

Long post short, do you think artists should have complete control over the things they make, or do you think critics should have equal say? Or, alternatively, do you think that there's a middle ground, and that both opinions are wrong?

Ok here we go. The idea of "Death of the Author" isn't about the story itself per say. It is about the meaning of said story. Sure the author puts in the meaning of the story and fleshes it out, but critics and readers get their own meanings out of said work. Meanings the author never intended. Once the artist finishes his/her/own work, that work gets disseminated to the wider public. Once the public and critics have their hands on it, they read and extrapolate their own meanings, which are just as valid. The whole idea of one meaning to a piece of art is a reactionary idea to an idyllic time that never existed.

Let us take Harry Potter for example: it is a standard good vs evil story, yada yada yada. But there are people out there that think it spreads witchcraft. Another meaning one could extrapolate is that of nature vs nurture. I am quite certain J.K Rowling didn't have the idea of nature vs nurture when she wrote Harry Potter. So the idea of "Death of the Author" is just another way of saying that art has more than one meaning.

 

[Haerthan]

Well...according to Stephenie Meyer, Edward is the sexiest and smartest and most romantic man/vampire ever. According to many, many people who have read Twilight, he's a horrible creepy and abusive person who is rather thick.

I think we have to lean towards "Death of the Author", because that sort of thing is very common, I don't think anyone would always agree with the authors interpretations of characters.

Funny you say that, because I heard the book she never finished, from Edward's point of view, has his internal dialogue that of a monsterous bastard. Which sort of contradicts the previous description of him by the Doctor Cullen guy as being "the most gentle soul he's ever met"

Link to that please. I don't mean it in an aggressive way. What I am saying is that if it is true, the idea of a book where Edward is a monstrous bastard, than it would raise my respect (not that I respect her ability to write or anything) for her skills.