|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 18:42:46 GMT -5
This is a discussion that came up a lot on the meme. Is the author dead? Have the writings of Derrida (among others) rendered the traditional role of an author as pointless? Or were the deconstructionists just a bunch French radicals with too much time on their hands? Does the author have the final say on what their work means? Or can a single work of literature not only support several different interpretations, but support an infinite number of contradicting interpretations?
You don't have to answer all these questions, but they should help get the discussion going. Personally, I believe the author is dead. If you pay attention to language, you see that the entire system is completely arbitrary, and therefore, anything written down is open to an infinite amount of interpretations.
What do all the other Armadillos think?
|
|
|
|
Post by embonpoint on Jun 7, 2011 18:50:26 GMT -5
I think that the author does have almost final say on what their work means. From a scholarly analysis point of view, if the author says that 'X means Y', then you have to go with that as your basis and analyse their work using what they've said and whatever implications that may have. You could explore other meanings that the work might have, if they are relevant to whatever it is you're writing about, but I think that has to be in a more 'If you looked at it this way' or 'It could also be interpreted as...', sort of as an aside, rather than a more definite statement like 'This portrayal of [something] IS...'. Does that make sense?
HOWEVER, if you're 'just' a reader, then I don't think it has to matter what the author says; if it means one thing to you, then that's perfectly fine. I think any work can mean almost anything you want it to, and if the author is not around to comment/hasn't commented, then it doesn't matter anyway because no one can ever know for sure.
That sounds like a really contradictory "Yes and no" answer, but uh yeah.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 18:54:36 GMT -5
I think that the author does have almost final say on what their work means. From a scholarly analysis point of view, if the author says that 'X means Y', then you have to go with that as your basis and analyse their work using what they've said and whatever implications that may have. You could explore other meanings that the work might have, if they are relevant to whatever it is you're writing about, but I think that has to be in a more 'If you looked at it this way' or 'It could also be interpreted as...', sort of as an aside, rather than a more definite statement like 'This portrayal of [something] IS...'. Does that make sense? HOWEVER, if you're 'just' a reader, then I don't think it has to matter what the author says; if it means one thing to you, then that's perfectly fine. I think any work can mean almost anything you want it to, and if the author is not around to comment/hasn't commented, then it doesn't matter anyway because no one can ever know for sure. That sounds like a really contradictory "Yes and no" answer, but uh yeah. That would depend on which method of scholarly analysis you're using. There are quite a few schools of criticism that don't find the author's intepretation to be the final say on "meaning." A few of the more radical schools even reject the author completely (thus, the notion that the author is dead). |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 19:01:37 GMT -5
I think that the author does have almost final say on what their work means. I refuse to accept that. The author is the same as the artist: they merely create the work. The reader/viewer interprets the meaning. An author or artist can have an intent, and I believe they all do, but they do not get final say because, eventually, we all die. Part of art is the fact that it can adapt with the times, which is why you get so many modernized versions of things like Shakespeare's plays, Sherlock, and other works. The fact that it stands the test of time is a part of why art is Art. That sounds like a really contradictory "Yes and no" answer, but uh yeah. Welcome to the world of the English major. |
|
|
|
Post by embonpoint on Jun 7, 2011 19:02:40 GMT -5
That would depend on which method of scholarly analysis you're using. There are quite a few schools of criticism that don't find the author's intepretation to be the final say on "meaning." A few of the more radical schools even reject the author completely (thus, the notion that the author is dead). Yes, you're totally right; I'm not even sure why I said that now. I guess I just assume anything 'scholarly' to be right, and I feel like 'right' is what the author meant? I don't even know.  |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 7, 2011 19:13:13 GMT -5
Well, I feel dumb, so I'll sit back and let you educate me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 19:15:09 GMT -5
Well, I feel dumb, so I'll sit back and let you educate me. Your opinion, knowledge, experience, and viewpoint is just as valid as everyone else's, dammit. ENGAGE! |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 19:23:58 GMT -5
Well, I feel dumb, so I'll sit back and let you educate me. Psh. We're English majors. None of us are any more intelligent than anyone else haha. Suppose you read a work by an author with which you're not familiar. You develop an interpretation of that work. For instance, you say the book is an allegory for how elephants are the best animal on the planet (they are), but then, you come across an interview with the author. He says that that he wrote the book as an attack on elephants, and that he actually hates them. What does the work actually mean at that point? Is such a scenario even possible? |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 19:26:09 GMT -5
For instance, you say the book is an allegory for how elephants are the best animal on the planet (they are), First of all, otters are so much better. Second of all, you raise an interesting point. I'll have to consider it and get back to you. *writes Post-It note to think on it* |
|
|
|
Post by embonpoint on Jun 7, 2011 19:29:45 GMT -5
PANDAS.
And horses.
I think that scenario is possible. I think that when discussing the book, you'd have to acknowledge what the author intended in writing it, and admit that that is what the book is about generally, or that would be 'the blurb' of the book, as it were, but you wouldn't be wrong in saying "but actually, I read it to mean that elephants are really fucking rad and that's always what it's going to mean to me, whatever the author intended". That was garbled, but I hope you get what I mean.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 7, 2011 19:33:57 GMT -5
Well, I feel dumb, so I'll sit back and let you educate me. Psh. We're English majors. None of us are any more intelligent than anyone else haha. Suppose you read a work by an author with which you're not familiar. You develop an interpretation of that work. For instance, you say the book is an allegory for how elephants are the best animal on the planet (they are), but then, you come across an interview with the author. He says that that he wrote the book as an attack on elephants, and that he actually hates them. What does the work actually mean at that point? Is such a scenario even possible? Oh, I see, I see. See, I haven't studied literary theory yet, which is why I hesitate to engage. But if the author wrote a book attacking elephants and I read it and interpreted it as completely the opposite, then the author either failed in his intent, or I'm an idiot. If there are other people who agree with me, then I'd again say that the author failed in his intent. If then there are two groups of people with differing opinions, one believing that the he's defending and the other attacking elephants; then I think the author can be dead, because from that point on it's up to the reader to decide what the hell the guy meant. But then again, if the guy says that it's what he meant... how can his opinion not count? This is the 'chicken or the egg' argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 19:37:39 GMT -5
And you claimed you felt dumb. Pshaw.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 7, 2011 19:38:22 GMT -5
And you claimed you felt dumb. Pshaw.  Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 19:38:23 GMT -5
PANDAS. And horses. I think that scenario is possible. I think that when discussing the book, you'd have to acknowledge what the author intended in writing it, and admit that that is what the book is about generally, or that would be 'the blurb' of the book, as it were, but you wouldn't be wrong in saying "but actually, I read it to mean that elephants are really fucking rad and that's always what it's going to mean to me, whatever the author intended". That was garbled, but I hope you get what I mean. In that sense, isn't the author dead? If it's possible that the work supports two completely contradictory points, and it's reasonable to cast off the author's intended meaning, can't that same logic be stretched to every other author and every other work? |
|
|
|
Post by embonpoint on Jun 7, 2011 19:42:11 GMT -5
In that sense, isn't the author dead? If it's possible that the work supports two completely contradictory points, and it's reasonable to cast off the author's intended meaning, can't that same logic be stretched to every other author and every other work? I suppose, but I definitely wouldn't 'feel ok' about saying that the author is dead. I think you'd have to discuss the author's intended meaning first and perhaps accept that your interpretation is secondary. I don't know; I think maybe I agree with that Marina said. It's a tricky one. |
|
Thank you.