Death of the Author

[Fox12]

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.

I don't disagree with this, but it begs the question. Is this good writing? Is it good writing to throw symbols into a work with no regard for what they mean? Especially if they make your work more confusing by clashing with the real symbolism in the story? The christian and Jewish symbols actually take away from some aspects of the story, and I think it's fair to criticize Anno for including something in his work just because it "looks cool." It's frankly irresponsible story telling, since it creates miscommunication. He also has a tendency to include weird imagery and let the audience sort things out, which makes me question whether parts of it mean anything at all.

The trouble is that the show clearly IS trying to say something. Depression, Jungian Psychology, and questions of the human mind are at work. NGE is an immensely complex work with heavy ideas at its core, which makes lazier aspects of the narrative frustrating.

 

[thoughtwrangler]

I believe that an author has the final say on his or her *intended* meaning for a work. However, to believe they have the final say on what a work can or cannot mean is to overstate the value of Authorial intention.

First off, just because an author did not intend for a certain meaning to the work doesn't mean it wasn't present in the author's mind or didn't subconsciously shape the work in some way. Intention is important, yes, but many times what we call intention is really just the window dressing on decisions already made by the author's subconscious. Intention is rarely the sole cause for action, and even intention itself is shaped by past experience and a host of cognitive biases over which the author has little or no direct control.

This doesn't mean that every time someone comes up with a symbolic explanation or proposes a meaning for something that it was the author's subconscious desire. However, it *does* mean that we can very rarely say with certainty that it did not play some role in the author's creative process. And therefore one's (reasonably explained) interpretation thereof is not necessarily any less valid than the author's "final say."

And anyway, once a work is released to the general public, it's kind of its own thing. The Author has a greater "share" in it, but shares it still with all those who have partaken in it.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I don't disagree with this, but it begs the question. Is this good writing? Is it good writing to throw symbols into a work with no regard for what they mean? Especially if they make your work more confusing by clashing with the real symbolism in the story? The christian and Jewish symbols actually take away from some aspects of the story, and I think it's fair to criticize Anno for including something in his work just because it "looks cool." It's frankly irresponsible story telling, since it creates miscommunication. He also has a tendency to include weird imagery and let the audience sort things out, which makes me question whether parts of it mean anything at all.

The trouble is that the show clearly IS trying to say something. Depression, Jungian Psychology, and questions of the human mind are at work. NGE is an immensely complex work with heavy ideas at its core, which makes lazier aspects of the narrative frustrating.

Well, there's not no regard. There is a certain sense to calling the EVA's 'EVa's', and the Magi 'Magi'. And the people in charge of everything within the story are basically on a quest for religious redefinement, so it's not too strange for them to infuse their tools properly loaded titles. People in real life do this, too.

Is it good writing? Not particularly. But again, the only reason it gets in the way of the story for us is because it means something to us as Westerners. There's also a lot of religious symbolism in Berserk, but there it's not at all recognizable since it uses way more unknown terms like 'Behelit' and 'Qliphoth'.

 

[Fox12]

I don't disagree with this, but it begs the question. Is this good writing? Is it good writing to throw symbols into a work with no regard for what they mean? Especially if they make your work more confusing by clashing with the real symbolism in the story? The christian and Jewish symbols actually take away from some aspects of the story, and I think it's fair to criticize Anno for including something in his work just because it "looks cool." It's frankly irresponsible story telling, since it creates miscommunication. He also has a tendency to include weird imagery and let the audience sort things out, which makes me question whether parts of it mean anything at all.

The trouble is that the show clearly IS trying to say something. Depression, Jungian Psychology, and questions of the human mind are at work. NGE is an immensely complex work with heavy ideas at its core, which makes lazier aspects of the narrative frustrating.

Well, there's not no regard. There is a certain sense to calling the EVA's 'EVa's', and the Magi 'Magi'. And the people in charge of everything within the story are basically on a quest for religious redefinement, so it's not too strange for them to infuse their tools properly loaded titles. People in real life do this, too.

Is it good writing? Not particularly. But again, the only reason it gets in the way of the story for us is because it means something to us as Westerners. There's also a lot of religious symbolism in Berserk, but there it's not at all recognizable since it uses way more unknown terms like 'Behelit' and 'Qliphoth'.

I get naming 3 computers after the 3 wisemen. It's clearly just a naming convention, and it works. Playing Handel's Hallelujah during Aske's mind attack? Demented, but extremely effective. Having a crimson rainbow appear after the world ends with water? I can dig that. This is where things get weird though. Angels (that are actually aliens) shooting lasers that then turn into crosses? Having giant monster things crucified at the End of Eva? Referring to Eve, and Lilith, and Adam, but making them into something totally new, and then failing to adequately exlain what they're supposed to be? It's somewhat disorienting, especially when it's mixed with real symbols. Especially when you have to go in an sort out what is and is not an intentional symbol from the creators.

To be fair to Berserk, when Miura uses a symbol, he tends to use it correctly. Berserk and EVA are two of my favorite anime/manga but Berserk has to take the crown. Miura knows his shit, the guys knowledge is staggering.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

The author is always right about their book in my opinion.
You don't have to agree with what the author is saying, but you have to agree that they are saying it. Its non negotiable.

A critic shouldn't be able to come up and condemn this post for its underlying message of "Kill all elderly people" because that is his interpretation of my post. He has to accept that this post is about the authors intention being more important than a readers interpretation. He doesn't have to agree but he can't interpret my words as he pleases.
Obviously my example is way over the top, but the authors intention is always the correct or canon interpretation of the text.

If you understood a word of this I need you to sort out my mind.

 

[wizzy555]

I don't mind death of the author as long as the interpretations are taken as what they are. A reflection of the individual watching it, i.e. subjective.

Too often "death of the author" is used as an "objective" argument to make smears of artists or push social policing of art.

 

[beastro]

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.

And this is that heart of what I loath and why I despise works like the last Ring Bearer.

Tolkien deliberately made his work emulate a work of history having it being open to many views in the details, but the ultimate contest between good and evil was never one of them and is insulting to the core themes of his work.

Too often "death of the author" is used as an "objective" argument to make smears of artists or push social policing of art.

I find it very narcissistic where people try to force their own view of things on something that is someone else's creation.

 

[Kyrian007]

Don't get me wrong, people are free to interpret a work of fiction in any way they want to. But their opinions... are their opinions and its my freedom to validate their opinions or write them off as simply stupid.

However, an author. I consider their writing and statements about their writing the final word on the matter. Is "all that matters is the work itself?" Sort of? But is some random dude's take on a work of fiction MORE of a part of that fiction than the input of its creator? No, it isn't. No matter how well thought out or articulated, no one person's opinion on a work of fiction is more important to me than either A: MINE or B: The Author's.

 

[Biran53]

I don't see why 'death of the author' and looking for 'authorial intent' need to work in opposition.

Both are very useful forms of critique. More open ended or abstract works of art benefit greatly from what an audience member personally projects into said piece. It's even possible for more straightforward stories to be enriched by interpretations of characters and potential symbols.
Aliens (1986) is as straightforward as action films come, but it contains themes of motherhood and the loss of a child (Ripley's primary adversary being an Alien Queen makes this seem very deliberate). Does this change how Aliens is, regardless, still one of the greatest sci-fi/action films ever directed? Not really. But it adds greater substance, and emotional attachment to Ripley's character. (This is a pretty obvious example, I know).

That being said, I do believe that the "Word of God" can be an overruling factor in analysis. Once the intent of the artist is laid out officially, it becomes somewhat pointless to try and object to that as the audience.
And yes, it is possible for audience members to cook up strange or obtrusive interpretations that seemingly have nothing to do with the work in question, but it's probably best to deal with this on a case by case basis.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I get naming 3 computers after the 3 wisemen. It's clearly just a naming convention, and it works. Playing Handel's Hallelujah during Aske's mind attack? Demented, but extremely effective. Having a crimson rainbow appear after the world ends with water? I can dig that. This is where things get weird though. Angels (that are actually aliens) shooting lasers that then turn into crosses? Having giant monster things crucified at the End of Eva? Referring to Eve, and Lilith, and Adam, but making them into something totally new, and then failing to adequately exlain what they're supposed to be? It's somewhat disorienting, especially when it's mixed with real symbols. Especially when you have to go in an sort out what is and is not an intentional symbol from the creators.

To be fair to Berserk, when Miura uses a symbol, he tends to use it correctly. Berserk and EVA are two of my favorite anime/manga but Berserk has to take the crown. Miura knows his shit, the guys knowledge is staggering.

It's ultimately just to fill certain moments with some religious reverence, which you could argue isn't that necessary since the show is perfectly able to visually express itself without that extra bit of veneer. I get that it's strange to put so many references from the same source into a story and not have them add up to anything in particular, but it never bothered me since that's not really why I watched it anyway.

And yes, Berserk is obviously better than NGE, but that's because it's probably the best damn thing in the whole world.

 

[thoughtwrangler]

I don't see why 'death of the author' and looking for 'authorial intent' need to work in opposition.

Both are very useful forms of critique. More open ended or abstract works of art benefit greatly from what an audience member personally projects into said piece. It's even possible for more straightforward stories to be enriched by interpretations of characters and potential symbols.

Aliens (1986) is as straightforward as action films come, but it contains themes of motherhood and the loss of a child (Ripley's primary adversary being an Alien Queen makes this seem very deliberate). Does this change how Aliens is, regardless, still one of the greatest sci-fi/action films ever directed? Not really. But it adds greater substance, and emotional attachment to Ripley's character. (This is a pretty obvious example, I know).

I agree. Another good example of this is Lord of the Flies. William Golding said many times that the symbolism people found in it was never his intent, but The Beast, the scene with the sow in the woods, and juxtaposing the boys' societal collapse as a microcosm of the myriad problems in modern politics, all of those add a layer of subtext to it that elevates above the author just telling a story about boys on an island.

That being said, I do believe that the "Word of God" can be an overruling factor in analysis. Once the intent of the artist is laid out officially, it becomes somewhat pointless to try and object to that as the audience.
And yes, it is possible for audience members to cook up strange or obtrusive interpretations that seemingly have nothing to do with the work in question, but it's probably best to deal with this on a case by case basis.

I agree in the sense that it's pointless to tell an author what he or she intended in their work, because even in the somewhat rare case of an author being dishonest (which is entirely possible), they're the only person who knows for sure. We also can't discount that an author may have subconsciously meant one thing, but decided to whitewash it later by convincing themselves they had another intention all along. Humans do this all the time, every day. Artists, Writers, Designers and creators in general are not exempt from this.

But I also think we're conflating "intention" with "meaning." This is understandable because of the way "mean" is sometimes used. We often use the word to describe our intentions. "I didn't mean to do that", "And by that I mean...", etc.

But "meaning" also has the alternate, uh... meaning of significance or definition. These are most commonly assigned or modified well after something has achieved its original intended purpose. We see this all the time in the realm of linguistics. For example, the word "fuck" originally came from an old germanic word (reconstructed as roughly analogous to "frichen") which originally meant to strike or to push. At some point, quite a few people decided it would make a handy euphemism for a different type of striking and pushing if-you-know-what-I-mean-nudge-nudge. Fast forward to the last few centuries and now the word's descendant ("fuck") is considered rude enough to need its own euphemisms.

(side note: This is also the case for other euphemisms that experienced a degradation in perceived politeness as their use became more common. Words such as "retarded", "handicapped", "imbecile", "insane", etc. were all used in a polite sense before the public at large made them rude once again.)

So, we can see that intention and meaning are not entirely synonymous. If we consider art, literature, etc. as the expanded fractal patterns of their core components (words, images, signs and symbols) then we are not "wrong" in interpreting a work beyond its author's intent inasmuch as we can derive a reasonable explanation for *why* it means that from its constituent parts.

Also, let us never forget, narrators are human. We are all unreliable and don't always give accurate explanations for our actions. Our intentions don't always coincide with what is *really* going on in our heads. Like any unreliable human, an author can always give the "final say" on their intentions, but never on what their work *means* for those with whom they have voluntarily shared it.

 

[rorychief]

And this is that heart of what I loath and why I despise works like the last Ring Bearer.

Tolkien deliberately made his work emulate a work of history having it being open to many views in the details, but the ultimate contest between good and evil was never one of them and is insulting to the core themes of his work.

I don't understand what's loathsome about the suggestion that the protagonists are misinformed or fallible or that the antagonists might have legitimate grievances or motivations outside of chaotic evil. It adds complexity by adding dimensions to characters not at all disallowed by the text.
Could you explain what core themes are insulted. Not being snarky, I just don't follow how the suggestion of this could be so enfuriating. It's a mind exercise with a familiar story and characters. Never claimed it was right or true, just interesting. Sometimes interesting ideas hold my attention more vividly than accurate ideas. Like pretending the cracks in the floor will kill me.

Also, wasn't aware the last ringbearer was a thing. But ya, reading its wiki that's pretty much what I was taking about.

 

[Kittyhawk]

Hadn't heard of this until now, but its no less interesting. Ideally, there is no right answer. The individual reader reads the work and decides what they see (just as they do what they think). The thing is a reader can easily read and miss things and many people only read a work once.

Overall, though, and as someone who writes a bit too, I think that the main interpretation lies with the creator. Its the creators who conceives, molds and crafts their works. If a message lies within the work, the creator leaves it up to the reader to discover and understand what such nuggets in a work is saying and where its creator is coming from. Some works have a message and other don't. Its up to the reader to solve each works puzzles and thus gain the big picture.

Critique and opinion are fine things, but a creator, like a parent, ultimately knows their own mind and their own works better than anyone else.