Poll: Poll: Death of the Author

[Emperor Nat]

So recently I've been thinking about this as a concept and have had a couple of discussions on the subject with friends of mine.

For those not familiar with the term, "Death of the Author" is a way of discussing literature that assumes that the original intent and meaning of the author is no more valid than the person who is reading it.

(This is a somewhat simplified version of the term, a better explanation is here... http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor)


In my opinion, the concept is silly as it denies that someone can write with any real intent. For example I write fiction in my spare time, and as part of that I try to put in references to certain materials and put in place certain themes. It would be odd to then tell me that I was referencing completely different material and that I didn't properly understand what that whole 'motherhood and personal growth' thing was about, and that it in fact represented the economy.

I'm aware I'm using an extreme example, but still

EDIT: For whatever reason the post cut off the first two lines of the poll, and I don't know how to fix that. :S
They originally said "Yes, the creator's opinion is no more valid than anyone else's" and "No, the creator's opinion is the most valid". Probably a bit too long for the forums. :X

So, escapists; your opinions? Do you think an author's intention/message takes presedence, or is it always up for debate?

 

[o_O]

I answer your question with another one. If "Death of the Author" is supposed to be a thing people take seriously, why do fans fawn over <a href=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod>Word of God?

People look to the captain. We're all on board the vessel, going for a ride. But it's the captain steering the ship. We can launch our own lifeboats and be our own captains, but we sure as shit aren't in control of the main ship anymore.

And frankly, anyone that says otherwise is an arrogant asshat. You'd basically be saying that the author doesn't have control over his IP/thoughts/ideas, but you do. That they're not the captain. YOU are. Doesn't help how it usually ends up putting words in the author's mouth. Sorry, I don't care if you somehow managed to read something disparaging into my work, that doesn't mean I support it or want my story to reflect said thing. If the work is up for editing, editing will usually be done to clarify.

Hell, it's almost like arguing that fanon should take precedence over canon. After all, what is fanon, but alternate interpretations?

 

[FalloutJack]

Well, let's ask dear old Lewis Carol, who wrote a story that was essentially meant to bash the intelligence of his peers...and turned out to be a raging success and loved by millions, much to his chagrin.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

For those not familiar with the term, "Death of the Author" is a way of discussing literature that assumes that the original intent and meaning of the author is no more valid than the person who is reading it.

Well ... actually it's an essay by Roland Barthes, but that is the definition of it, so I'll play.

While your argument is fairly sound, you're missing the point: it's not that your intention is invalid or that you "[don't] properly understand what that whole ... thing was about" -- it's that your understanding of your own work is no more valid than my own. It comes down to the slipperiness of language, and how meaning escapes everyone, even, and sometimes especially, the author -- no-one has full command of the language they use. Concurrent to this is the way in which meaning is ultimately formed during the act of reading, and therefore by the reader -- this is the gist of "Reception Theory".

... I spent the first year of an English degree having debates just like this hah.

 

[Euryalus]

The idea has to to do with the philosophical idea that art derives its power through some kind of "truth" and the author is just a dude with a camara. The author is able to take the picture but he's no more qualified to say what's truly in the picture than anyone else (by virtue of him being the author at least). I'd say more but it'd take a lot of work and research to explain the position and I'm fucking lazy. If you're interested read book 10 of Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Poetics, and Kant's Critique of Judgement. The idea has merit, but its usually turned into a bullshit way of claiming that there's no such thing as a good or bad interpretation. *cough* there is *cough*

 

[Euryalus]

So, escapists; your opinions? Do you think an author's intention/message takes presedence, or is it always up for debate?

Both

The author is the one is obviously most "exposed" to what he's talking about, but there's always room for debate.

 

[ClockworkPenguin]

I can sort of see the argument

When I read fiction, it is a very visual process, I can 'see' the characters almost as if I am playing a film inside my head. In that sense, the world, the story i visit is different to the world anyone else gets. He is in charge of the scripts, but the casting, lighting and direction are all down to me. Its almost impossible for what I experience not to differ from the authors original plan.

However, I do think the authors interpretation is more valid than mine. I may have missed the point, failed to spot what was meant to be irony and if this is pointed out to me, then it makes sense to take account of that.

It is of course still up for debate whether the error was poor analysis on my part or poor communication on the authors part, or a mixture of both, but its still dumb not to correct it if i can.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

It depends. If the author knows exactly what they were aiming for, somebody can't really say to them "actually YOU meant this", when they know they didn't, but in situations where they leave things open ended I guess that's up to you. You could decide on what you think even if the author comes out with a different idea when asked. I'm tired so I really can't be bothered to expand, I hope somebody understands what I'm trying to say.

 

[Jonluw]

I think it is reasonable to take into consideration the author's original intent, but whatever the reader gets out of the book is still a valid interpretation.

 

[NegaWiki]

Unless the author says or implies that something is up for debate, the author is the only interpretation that should be taken into consideration. There can still fan theories but they're just theories. Like this one:
<spoiler= My theory on the end of The Dark Knight Rises> At the very end of the Dark Knight Rises, there's this tiny speck on the screen that's supposed Superman. Superman saves Bruce and the guy in the last scene next to Bruce is Clark.
It's bullshit, right? No one should even entertain me for this theory. Yet under the Death of the Author, my interpretation is just as valid as anyone.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

For those not familiar with the term, "Death of the Author" is a way of discussing literature that assumes that the original intent and meaning of the author is no more valid than the person who is reading it.

Well ... actually it's an essay by Roland Barthes, but that is the definition of it, so I'll play.

While your argument is fairly sound, you're missing the point: it's not that your intention is invalid or that you "[don't] properly understand what that whole ... thing was about" -- it's that your understanding of your own work is no more valid than my own. It comes down to the slipperiness of language, and how meaning escapes everyone, even, and sometimes especially, the author -- no-one has full command of the language they use. Concurrent to this is the way in which meaning is ultimately formed during the act of reading, and therefore by the reader -- this is the gist of "Reception Theory".

... I spent the first year of an English degree having debates just like this hah.

You're right. I suppose the best example would be Shakespeare: His plays were written to appeal to the lowest common denominator of humour in his day, filled to the brim with toilet humour and sex jokes, yet today those references are lost on us due to the change of language, and we treat them as philosophical and literary masterpieces. Adults have no problem letting their kids watch these plays littered with phallic references because the language has changed and they no longer mean what the author intended.
It's like going 500 years in the future to find the Austin Powers movies being studied as high art and culture by intellectuals and lauded to children as wholesome and educational.

"Yeah baby yeah!"

So there is some truth in the idea that the authors original intention is not infallible. This can also happen when bad or sloppy writing gives the reader the wrong impression, like the actions of Edward from Twilight being dangerously stalker like and creepy, especially considering he's over 100 years old. Meyer never intended for that to be the case, but it comes across in the text because she didn't bother to fully consider the implications of her characters' actions.

I would however argue that there is a limit, and it depends heavily on the type of medium and intention of the author. It comes with the territory of post-modernism: the idea that "there are no absolute truths", which is unfortunately usually followed with the assumption "therefore everything I do is right and I cannot be critiqued" Which in the art world leads to a load of wankers, proudly wanking over the wank they threw together in 3 minutes with whatever junk was nearest them, and you cannot dispute that it is art, because its purpose is to 'promote discussion', and by telling them how crap it is you are in fact just discussing its merits, thus proving how great a piece of art it is.

As you've probably guessed, I don't like post-modernism. It's ugly, talentless, purposefully pointless and often crudely disgusting.