Comics are awesome.

[Shockwave]

Scale is irrelevant.

With so many people interpreting it as something other than how the band intended, to the point the band itself refuses to preform it anymore because it isn't sending the message they meant it to, then clearly scale is a factor here. Like I've been saying in this whole debate, how the audience may interpret a piece is just as (if not more) important than how the writer/artist intended and this goes to show why.

The audience is still wrong because the Beastie Boys have specifically said that the way the audience has interpreted it is in direct contradiction to the intent of the song. Now, I will agree that how an audience interprets a work should be an important consideration when an author creates said work.

[Dominic]

Yes, I agree. Only looking at the authors intent I believe restricts the creativity process. It might as well be an essay or an instruction manual if you're going to adhere so rigidly to only what the author intends with no room for the audience to make their own interpretations.

How does respecting the author's intent hinder the creative process? The author is free to write/paint/scribble whatever they damned well please. The audience is not part of the creative process. They do not create anything. They are the consumer, not the producer, of the goods in question. The work in question is not all about them and what they feel. Nor should most audiences, (consisting of mature adults), have a childish need for the kind of ego-stroking that comes with being told they are part of the process when they really have not contributed anything.

'm curious, what authors do you like Dom?

Mind you, I do not hate Shakespear. I just think he is way the hell over-rated.

Okay, author's wot I like:
-Abnett
-Bacevich
-Baer
-Diamond
-Foley
-Guderian
-Kurtzweiller (sp?)
-Peters
-Sun Tzu (granted, this is more an editor's pen-name)

Just because you may not intend to leave something else doesn't mean there is nothing else to be found. It's entirely possible for something to have more than one meaning, whether by design/intention or not.

Multiple meanings are fine only if each of the meanings is intended by the author.

A work *only* exists because somebody produced it. This goes for books, paintings, songs, whatever. They made it. They know what they put in. Things are not going to accidentally "fall in" to the brew. If a writer does not intend for something to be in a piece they wrote, it is simply not possible for it to be there unless the writer is given to serious intellectual incontinence. (And, at that point, are they or their work even worth considering?)

If the reader is finding anything beyond what the author intended, the reader is mistaken, (possibly with sound reason), or self-indulgently dishonest.

And again, those literary theories aren't dishonest Dom just because you happen to personally disagree with them.

Teaching *about* theory is one thing. I actually wish more teachers, (including may of the professors I have studied under), would do that. But, teaching deconstruction theory as if it were intellectually honest is another thing entirely. Facts are not relative. An author's intent is what it is. There is no sound basis to say an author's intent is more or less than what ever it may be. Do mistakes happen in reading? Of course they do. However, an honest mistake is still wrong. There is no reason for students to be making up their minds about what an author is saying. If there is question about the author's intent, the goal should be to come up with an answer that is as accurate as possible, (not necessarily an easy task), rather than an answer that fits what a student or reader happens to want.

Arguably a writer could have no idea why he actually wrote [x] individual thing in a story.

And, in that case, there is no intent to discuss. (Of course, one could argue about the writer's attention to their craft.)

e could actually have a very nice example with TFTM if we were to assume that Star Wars was not a very significant factor in its storytelling. (One way or another, the larger arc of TFTM is very much based on ANH. Darth Vader (Megatron) kills Obi-Wan (Prime) as Luke Skywalker (Hot Rod) watches. After some adventures, Skywalker (Hot Rod) uses The Force (The Matrix) to destroy the Death Star (Unicron). It's entirely possible that those correlations *weren't* intentional (They were, but let's assume they weren't for the moment) and Flint Dille or someone could go, "Oh hey, it totally *is* a Star Wars parallel."

It is more likely that TFTM and SW4 were both drawing on any number of common elements in narrative. The idea of the naive/arrogant/shallow youth becoming a heroic adult, (often while losing a mentor/father and killing a monster or two), is hardly new. Boys books have drawn on the same source material for years. Hell, SW itself is highly derivative of several inter-related genres.

Prior to January 1st, 2000, a *lot* of people were terribly misinformed about this mysterious "Y2K bug."

I was going to mention the once common belief in the world being flat. But, your example also works.

[Shockwave]

As Sparky has said many times already, audiences are always going to draw their own interpretations from a work of fiction. Many of those interpretations are going to be different from what the author intended. Whether or not they're correct depends solely on if the author says so. It's ultimately up to the author to decide if an additional meaning is valid or not.

[Dominic]

True to a point

The author, (or owner), has the right to determine what counts and what does not. Similarly, they are allowed to revise their statements, (as Orson Scott Card did with "Ender's Game"), either to clarify their intent or to refelct a change in their thinking over time. (I am unsure which was the case with Card, but he did meaningfully change "Ender's Game" after the first edition was released.)

But, it should never be considered the audience's place to assign meaning unless the author demonstrates express intent that the audience do so, as is the case with Lowry's "The Giver". (For the record, my estimation of that book bottomed out when I found out what Lowry's intent at the end was, as much as I agree with much of what she said otherwise.)


And, as pointed out above, people doing something, (such as assign meanings to a story that may well not be there), does not make it right no matter how many people actually do it.


Dom
-admits one has to fill in the blanks sometimes...but that is nothing to cheer about.

[Shockwave]

People are going to get different meanings from a work. It's the author/owner's place to determine if those interpretations are correct. And the author/owner is perfectly justified in validating a viewpoint that he/she hadn't originally considered.

[Dominic]

That strikes me as a bit dishonest on the author's part though. Can they honestly amend their intent retroactively? ("Of course that is what I really meant....") Granted, they may change their minds and retract statements. Similarly, they may need to clarify a previous statement. But, if they intended a specific thing while writing, then the work was produced with that intent.

For example, Moore put his all into "Watchmen". He has later come to regret writing that story for a number of reasons. However, his intent in 1985 was what it was. He cannot retro-actively say he intended something else, even if his current intentions are much different.

Along similar lines, Moore *never* intended for Kovaks to be viewed as a hero. As far as I know, he is still troubled by the fact that people do view Kovaks as a hero. Regardless of what one thinks of Rorshach, he is *not* a hero because Moore said as much. Moore wrote "Watchmen". Everything Kovaks was depicted doing, saying and thinking was because Moore wrote it that way. The reader is there to observe the character, not to appropriate said character.

One might disagree with Moore about what makes somebody good or bad. (I am not even a huge fan of Moore, in part because of his stated reasons for writing "V for Vendetta".) But, the story does not, not can it, exist without the writer's intent. Kovaks =/= good guy, as per Moore. I can disagree with what Moore was saying *with* the character. But, I would be a morally and intellectually bankrupt ass if I (purposefully) disputed or added to what his stated intentions were.

[Dominic]

Of course, "Watchmen" is pretty cut and dried. While Moore is now reluctant to discuss the series, (apparently having little more to say that he has not already said), he and Gibbons have given enough interviews on the subject that readers can pretty well sort things out.

Unclear author intent is a whole new ball of wax. This is where "honest misreading" comes into play. It is possible to misread a story, (say, F-451 mentioned above), without being dishonest. Mistakes and confusion are part of life. But, in the end, the more the audience's interpretation of something deviates from the author's intent, the less correct that interpretation is. The deviance might be wholly the author's fault. But, the audience is still holding an incorrect view. (One might blame the Beasty Boys for "Fight for Your Right to Party" being commonly misread. But, that does not validate the misreading as accurate.)


And, as noted in the Q and A thread, there are examples of contrary author intent, as we see with the PCC line. There is legitimate basis for fans to count PCC at least 3 different ways. (And, I am pretty sure there are credible arguements for more than 3.) Hasbro has issued a number of outright contrary statements at conventions, in printed interviews and in correspondence with forums, as well as the toy packages themselves. Parts of these statements can be reconciled. But, some simply cannot be unless fans are going to do Hasbro's job.

Sometimes, an official explanation is retro-actively applied. These late fixes become the real explanation. But, even then, the earlier content cannot completely ignored any more than the earlier intention can be. For example, in the original TF movie, there are nearly countless mistakes, even if one just looks at the movie and ignores contradictions with the cartoon or comics. As far as I know, every official source that has weighed in on the question of "who became Cyclonus", has come down firmly in favor of Bombshell being Cyclonus. That is now the right answer. But, it does not retroactively assign intent to a sloppily animated scene in the movie.


Dom
-back to writing a paper.

[Sparky Prime]

Prior to January 1st, 2000, a *lot* of people were terribly misinformed about this mysterious "Y2K bug."

People thought all the computers in the world were going to explode. That all the power plants would die off. That planes would fall out of the fucking sky.

They were wrong.

Scale means nothing.

Right... because a legitimate, albeit over-exaggerated, computer glitch somehow compares to how people interpret something like a song? No. Scale, in this case, certainly does mean something. It determines how the audiences sees the song, despite what the artist intended with it.

I was going to mention the once common belief in the world being flat. But, your example also works.

Can the world factually be proven to be flat? No, obviously that idea is proven false. But what about, for example, someone's interpretation of a story, that is supported by the facts of said story, but cannot be confirmed or denied as part of the intent of it's author for whatever reason (such a if they died)? Is their interpretation right or wrong? There is no way to factually prove or disprove then it is there? Or when the audience largely interprets something despite the author's intent but is still supported by the story? Of if the author changes their mind on something, with or with out input from audiences interpretations? It's not so black and white as you make it seem here Dom. Not everything can be accounted for by an authors intent alone. There is a reason why there is more than one theory in literary theory.

The audience is still wrong because the Beastie Boys have specifically said that the way the audience has interpreted it is in direct contradiction to the intent of the song. Now, I will agree that how an audience interprets a work should be an important consideration when an author creates said work.

I get that, but obviously it's not going to change the audience's interpretation just because the band says that isn't what they meant.

How does respecting the author's intent hinder the creative process? The author is free to write/paint/scribble whatever they damned well please. The audience is not part of the creative process. They do not create anything. They are the consumer, not the producer, of the goods in question. The work in question is not all about them and what they feel. Nor should most audiences, (consisting of mature adults), have a childish need for the kind of ego-stroking that comes with being told they are part of the process when they really have not contributed anything.

Reading is very much a creative activity. The author can only describe a scene, it's the audience that must interpret and create it with their own imaginations based on those descriptions. Like, say with how J.K. Rowling describes Qidditch. I'm sure a lot of people had somewhat different pictures in their mind what that must have looked like before the movies came along. Are they wrong just because they may have imagined something a little bit differently than perhaps Rowling intended it to look like in her own mind? No, of course not. They are respecting her work but that doesn't mean everyone is going to envision it exactly the same, no matter how well the scene may be described. Or paintings... They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Is everyone going to come up with the exact same words with the same painting? It would be highly unlikely. It's not disrespectful or dishonest to have different interpretations on the same material. It's just natural that not everyone would interpret things exactly as the author intends.

Multiple meanings are fine only if each of the meanings is intended by the author.

A work *only* exists because somebody produced it. This goes for books, paintings, songs, whatever. They made it. They know what they put in. Things are not going to accidentally "fall in" to the brew. If a writer does not intend for something to be in a piece they wrote, it is simply not possible for it to be there unless the writer is given to serious intellectual incontinence. (And, at that point, are they or their work even worth considering?)

If the reader is finding anything beyond what the author intended, the reader is mistaken, (possibly with sound reason), or self-indulgently dishonest.

No, again, an author cannot account for every single possibility that can be interpreted from a piece. And the author (even by your own admittance) is not an infallible source of the intent of their work. As I've said before, just because you may not intend to leave something else doesn't mean there is nothing else to be found. Things can and do "fall in" whether they intend it or not. As an example, do you think Stan Lee intended the X-Men as an allegory for people who identify as homosexual when he originally created them? Well Brian Singer interpreted that idea, which was largely the inspiration with Iceman's "coming out" to his parents about being a mutant in the second X-Men film. Is Singer mistaken for his interpretation? No, of course not. If anything, that kind of interpretation adds to the intellectual value of the property.

Teaching *about* theory is one thing. I actually wish more teachers, (including may of the professors I have studied under), would do that. But, teaching deconstruction theory as if it were intellectually honest is another thing entirely. Facts are not relative. An author's intent is what it is. There is no sound basis to say an author's intent is more or less than what ever it may be. Do mistakes happen in reading? Of course they do. However, an honest mistake is still wrong. There is no reason for students to be making up their minds about what an author is saying. If there is question about the author's intent, the goal should be to come up with an answer that is as accurate as possible, (not necessarily an easy task), rather than an answer that fits what a student or reader happens to want.

Again, deconstruction theory isn't the only theory for audience interpretation. And interpretation doesn't mean it makes the facts relative. It's about looking at what meanings you can get from the facts of the piece, with or without the authors intent. Opens up more possibilities than a narrow view of only the author intent. Looking at the bigger picture/perspective and judging accordingly. It's not a mistake. It's not dishonest. It's not misreading.

[Dominic]

They were wrong.

Scale means nothing.

What O6 and I are saying is that the commonality of a belief does not make it more or less accurate. This applies to misreadings as much as anything else. If a large number of people knowingly adhere to a wrong view, (as is the case with the Beasty Boys), they are not changing the author's intent so much as they are proving their own feeble-mindedness.

There is no way to factually prove or disprove then it is there? Or when the audience largely interprets something despite the author's intent but is still supported by the story?

At times, proof may be difficult or impossible to acquire. But, that does not nullify the fact of the author's intent any more than it nullifies the fact of the author's existence or the fact of the author having written the story. Interpretations that are contrary to the author's intent are wrong. They are factually impossible because the "thing" that the audience is using to justify their interpretatino is *not* in the story because the author did not put it there.

Not everything can be accounted for by an authors intent alone. There is a reason why there is more than one theory in literary theory.

The idea *should* be how to determine meaning and intent when proof is difficult or impossible to find. In that case, interested parties can use what sources they have available, (be it the work they are considering, biographical information about the author, or some other source), to arrive at a "best reasonable guess". But, when the author makes their intent clear, it is absurd to interperet the story any other way than how the author meant it to be read. (Again, one can critque the author's execution of their plan, or even the worthiness of the plan. But, one cannot argue what the author's plan was.)


Dom
-damn skip effect.

[Dominic]

No, again, an author cannot account for every single possibility that can be interpreted from a piece. And the author (even by your own admittance) is not an infallible source of the intent of their work.

It is the author's job to account for the relevant points. The precise way the wind hits Harry's robs during a tedious game of aerial rugby is not important. How I picture it is not an issue. However, other details are important.

I would say that clarity and error rates are pretty good metrics to judge a work (and arguably an author) by. "Transformers" Exodus" is fucking horrible for this reason. In at least one case, it has mutually a exclusive contradiction within a page-length. And, frankly, I am not going to worry over it. He should have been more clear, and I have no evidence to support any possible view. Nobody does, therefor nobody should take a stand on it. As stated on the page, two utterly contrary things happen...more or less at the same time. If Hasbro, or somebody licensed by Hasbro, wants to give us an answer, great. But, it is not the audience's right or responsibility to provide any answer.

Is Singer mistaken for his interpretation? No, of course not. If anything, that kind of interpretation adds to the intellectual value of the property.

In cases like this, where the work is owned by a corporation, editorial fiat trumps author intent. Lee does not own any of the characters in any iteration of "X-Men". Marvel does. Marvel can give somebody, (Singer in this case), the right to interperet and define characters.

It's about looking at what meanings you can get from the facts of the piece, with or without the authors intent.

But, it is impossible to honestly derive meaning that is not there to be found. And, the only meaning that a work of fiction can have is what the author put in. Like any other product, fiction only exists as it is made, nat as how its consumer may otherwise desire it to be.