Comics are awesome.

[Dominic]

A reader is not going to always know what a writers exact intents may or may not have had while writing a story. As Gomess said, unless the author literally stated their intents about a story somewhere, the readers interpretations might as well be more 'real' than anything else. It most certainly doesn't mean the reader "mis-read" the piece or is "dishonest".

An author's intent is presumably clear. If not, then it is possible to honestly misread something. But, an honest misreading/mistake is still a misreading/mistake. Define "real" in this case. If you mean "commonly agreed to", you could be right. But, that does not make a misreading, even one based on an honest mistake, more correct.

Deliberately or knowingly misreading a piece is dishonest.

I've seen writers say they left it up to the reader to interpret or changed their minds about their own intentions based on how others interpreted the piece. Ultimately, it's up to the reader to get something out of a story. That's the important thing.

Those writers are hucksters, plain and simple, at best or pretentious asses at worst. If they do not have intent, they do not have intent.

Dom
-damn skip effect......

[Dominic]

I still don't really see how you got that from what I said there... I mean, the reasons why something happens in a story is a part of the events that make up that story. That response was actually to disagree with Dom that a story is really about some underlying idea the author may or may not have had in telling the story. It's sorta part of this author intent vs reader interpretation argument.

Lets pick up the Matrix debate in the AHM thread...

I will agree that a writer should cover the basics. (One of my pet peeves about the old TF movie is that it is damned near impossible to be sure who "actually" died in the movie. Prime, Megatron and Starscream are the only unambiguous deaths in the movie. Prowl, Ironhide, Ratchet and Thundercracker are slightly less clear, with both animation and dialogue supporting theirs deaths. But, animation (and dialogue in some cases) provide support for all of them surviving at least one of their respective deaths. Every other character death in the movie is contradicted, often by the movie itself.

But, I am willing to assume that some things can happen off panel/screen if it expedites the tedious "and this is how we changed the setting to make it work fo the concept".

[Dominic]

Dom, do you believe that worthwhile fiction is always concept-, rather than character-based? As in, the plot is a predominantly a means of transmitting an idea, above and being the simple telling of a sequence of made-up events?

Short answer, yes. What is the value of reading about fictional characters and events? I have enough difficulty keeping track of real people and events that might actually be important. (Something happening in Korea or something? Wikileaks about what now?)

If I am going to add something to my already backed-up reading list, especially fiction, I am not going to put any real value on it unless the writer actually has something to say.

That's what Seinfeld is about. Seinfeld is expressing the idea that society is a bunch of whiny fucks who will never be happy with anything, no matter what it is. We will find flaws in anything because, really, we all hate ourselves.

Now, Friends? That show just sucks.

But, "Seinfeld" was billed as being "a show about nothing". Joking aside, the two are not mutually exclusive. One could even make the case that "Friends" was a more benign take on the concept. But, yeah, it sucked.

[Dominic]

Shockwave, have you ever really read the Bible? Bible references tend to elude me as well, as I was raised as an atheist. But, once you train yourself to recognize the more common imagery, it becomes very apparent. (The fact that much of the imagey is used in mythology and other faiths also helps.)

Justice Society of America #45

by Marc Guggenheim and Scott Kolins

You are talking about what in this thread now?


Dom
-3 posts...in a row.

[Sparky Prime]

Despite how many times it was said--by the writers themselves, no less--Seinfeld is not about nothing.

Jerry Seinfeld himself, who was one of the shows creators, called it a show "about nothing". They even did an episode where the fictional Seinfeld pitched the idea of the show itself, calling it a show "about nothing". It's well known as the show "about nothing". I don't see how you can deny this fact.

And whatever you get out of the show is exactly my point.

Now, Friends? That show just sucks.

No it doesn't. Friends was a great show. The spin-off, Joey, that sucked.

To a degree. But any good writer will have intentions anyway and, if they're half decent, you'll be able to walk away knowing what their intent was.

I don't agree. A writer need not have some underlying intent with the story. A good writer just needs to be able to tell a good story. The whole thing with Morph getting killed by Sentinels? That's just good story telling. Establishing the villains as a real threat. That's not the same thing as the writer having some sort of "idea" as Dom refers to it.

[andersonh1]

You are talking about what in this thread now?


Dom
-3 posts...in a row.

I'm not quite sure...

[Sparky Prime]

An author's intent is presumably clear. If not, then it is possible to honestly misread something. But, an honest misreading/mistake is still a misreading/mistake. Define "real" in this case. If you mean "commonly agreed to", you could be right. But, that does not make a misreading, even one based on an honest mistake, more correct.

People have different ways at looking at the same things. Pure and simple. It isn't a "misreading" at all if the reader finds a different interpretation. Heck, in literary studies there are theories that the author cannot be reconstructed from a writing. The text itself becomes the only source of meaning, and thus even the authors intent is only their own interpretation of their work, being no different from any other reader's interpretation of it.

Those writers are hucksters, plain and simple, at best or pretentious asses at worst. If they do not have intent, they do not have intent.

Not in the least. If the author wrote something with one intent in mind, but later found out someone read it finding a different interpretation that the author likes more, why wouldn't the author be able to change their mind on the meaning in their own story? And what's stopping a writer for leaving it up to their audience to interpret on their own? Nothing. The writer is perfectly free to leave it open like that if they wish.

[andersonh1]

People have different ways at looking at the same things. Pure and simple. It isn't a "misreading" at all if the reader finds a different interpretation. Heck, in literary studies there are theories that the author cannot be reconstructed from a writing. The text itself becomes the only source of meaning, and thus even the authors intent is only their own interpretation of their work, being no different from any other reader's interpretation of it.

And I've always found that point of view to be absurd, bordering on arrogant (and that's not an attack on you, by any means. Just a critique of that school of thought). I used to hear the same argument about art while in art history class, and I would take the point of view that whatever the artist intended the work to mean was what it meant. If he wanted to leave it open to interpretation, then fine. All points of view are relevant and possibly valid. But if the artist/author assigns a meaning, then that's what the work means. Any readers who chose to disregard that intent in favor of their own are wrong. It's that simple. And yet, others would argue with me that their interpretation of the work was just as valid as the artist's. And as I said, I found that very arrogant, to claim equal authority over the work and by extension, the very thoughts and intentions inside the mind of the artist.

[Sparky Prime]

And I've always found that point of view to be absurd, bordering on arrogant (and that's not an attack on you, by any means. Just a critique of that school of thought). I used to hear the same argument about art while in art history class, and I would take the point of view that whatever the artist intended the work to mean was what it meant. If he wanted to leave it open to interpretation, then fine. All points of view are relevant and possibly valid. But if the artist/author assigns a meaning, then that's what the work means. Any readers who chose to disregard that intent in favor of their own are wrong. It's that simple. And yet, others would argue with me that their interpretation of the work was just as valid as the artist's. And as I said, I found that very arrogant, to claim equal authority over the work and by extension, the very thoughts and intentions inside the mind of the artist.

See now, I think it's arrogant (likewise, just a critique) to dismiss how ever the audience might interpret a piece as wrong. Even if the artist/writer had a specific intent in mind. Not to say the author's intent isn't important, but I think how the audience views it is just as important, if not more so. One of the things my instructors always told us when we'd start on a new piece is to "keep your audience in mind". After all, they are the ones that will be viewing it. They are the ones that will be criticizing it and interpreting how they personally see it (and possibly against the author's intent as well). How is that audience's interpretation any less relevant? Why wouldn't you consider how they might interpret it differently? I see nothing absurd in it at all. The author may have created the piece, and thus says what it means to them and what they'd like others to take away from it, but ultimately it's up to the audience to find what it means to themselves. Whatever that is may or may not be what the author intended, but even if their view differs from the authors intent, that doesn't make the audience arrogant or wrong. They just don't interpret it the same way.

[Dominic]

I've always found that point of view to be absurd, bordering on arrogant

Agreed.

The work is a product of the author, and the author's plan/intent. Nothing written exists independently of its writer. The writer may be the owner. (The writer may be working for the ownder of a property, in which case they are executing intent on behalf of the owner or editor.)

It isn't a "misreading" at all if the reader finds a different interpretation. Heck, in literary studies there are theories that the author cannot be reconstructed from a writing.

Well, I wanted to avoid saying it is self-indulgent prickery. Literary Theory is arguably the greatest intellectual fraud of the late 20th Century. It draws from, and feeds into, a tremendous sense of unwarranted vanity from readers who want to feel they are important or creative and that the story in question is all about them and/or their agenda.

If the author has no intent, that is one thing. But, even then, if a readers assigns meaning to a story knowing that the author had no intent, they are still effectively saying their reading of the story is more valid than the author's intent, (even if the intent is a null).

why wouldn't the author be able to change their mind on the meaning in their own story?

Because it is fundamentally dishonest. And, yes, authors, like anyone else, have a practical ability, (and objectively, the right), to be dishonest. But, it is still hucksterism.