Comics are awesome.

[andersonh1]

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.

Why?

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?

There are two problems here.

1) Ownership and intent. Without the author/artist and his or her conception and intent, there would be no piece of literature or art for the audience to view. The author had a reason for creating what he did, and it makes no sense for the audience to ignore that reason in favor of whatever meaning they prefer to impose. Not only does it make no sense, it shows enormous disrespect to the author as a person.

If I write a short story, for example, and my reason for writing it was x, and then I say that the story means y, then someone who came along and read it and said it means z would be wrong. Now if I had written it and left it open to interpretation by the reader, then the varying points of view could possibly be valid, because I as the author had no set meaning in mind.

In either case, the author is the person who came up with the idea, sat down to write the story, put thought and reason into it, and did all the work to bring his work of imagination to life on the page. What right does any reader have to disregard all of that and put their own meaning into the story? There's an utter lack of respect for the author inherent in that approach. Creative works don't exist in a vacuum, and they didn't spring independently to life so that anyone can do what they like with them. They were created for a reason, and that reason must be acknowledged and respected.

2) And that leads to point number two. This is a very post-modern idea, that anyone's idea is just as valid as anyone else's, regardless of facts or what the idea is based on. It doesn't just show up in art or literature, it's present everywhere in the culture. But it's just a fact that sometimes someone's interpretation is just wrong. Factually wrong. And it's hardly moral to simply disregard an author's intentions in order to make our own seem valid.

[Shockwave]

I hate to say it, but Dom and Anderson are right. Take Narnia for example. CS Lewis has actually said that Aslan is an allegory for Jesus. Now, when I read the books, I don't see it. I've never been able to make the connection in context of the story (other than the resurrection thing, which if that's the only one then both Optimus Prime and Darth Vader are Jesus). But my inability to see it in context doesn't mean I'm right. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, my view of the Narnia books as a simple adventure epic is wrong. That's not what Lewis had in mind when he wrote it nor what he intended with it.

[Dominic]

I generally agree with Anderson's post above. But, he neglected the most important question.

Besides the questions of honesty and manners, should we be worried that indulgent literary theory impacts our ability to gatehr and sort information for accuracy? Does it impact our ability to recognize, are even search for, truth? Does it impact our ability to communicate and exchange ideas, which is the way we expand what we know?

Truths are not always apparent. (For example, it took a fair amount of research and observation to conclude that the Earth is roughly spheroid, if slightly eliptical.) But, as difficult as it may often be to parse out information for accuracy, it can be damned near impossible when we decide the clearly stated facts are open to debate.

If a writer makes a clear statement about their intent, then it is folly to argue what their intent is. Similarly, if a writer has no intent, arguing otherwise is folly. If a writer is mercurial in their thinking, (such as the guys who retroactively change their intentions to match readers' opinions), then we need to ask if their work is worth reading.

Do we really see what we know, (or simply "go with" for convenience), as being that open to preference? Is knowledge meant to serve us in our endevours, or to validate opinions regardless of evidence?

I hate to say it, but Dom and Anderson are right.

Well thanks...I think.

Your view of the Narnia books is wrong at the beginning of the day as well.


Dom
-okay, gonna be slow for the rest of the afternoon. Time to study....erm...work harder!

[andersonh1]

I generally agree with Anderson's post above. But, he neglected the most important question.

Besides the questions of honesty and manners, should we be worried that indulgent literary theory impacts our ability to gatehr and sort information for accuracy? Does it impact our ability to recognize, are even search for, truth? Does it impact our ability to communicate and exchange ideas, which is the way we expand what we know?

Truths are not always apparent. (For example, it took a fair amount of research and observation to conclude that the Earth is roughly spheroid, if slightly eliptical.) But, as difficult as it may often be to parse out information for accuracy, it can be damned near impossible when we decide the clearly stated facts are open to debate.

Exactly right, and thanks for bringing it up. That's really where I was going with the whole post-modern comments, because that kind of thought creates the very problems you've described here.

[Shockwave]

Part of that comes from the fact that we live in a country with freedom of speech and where it's so revered that it's almost socially offensive to tell anyone that their opinion is wrong. The truth of it is that people aren't wrong for HAVING opinions, but the opinions themselves are wrong for being based on incorrect information. For example, I'm not wrong for having a particular view of the Narnia books, but the view I have is wrong because it's based on information I didn't have when I read it. Now, if I want to have any honesty to my view I have to acknowledge that the author's intent is something other than what I got out of it.

[Sparky Prime]

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.

How can you claim literary theory is an intellectual fraud? That is the most ridiculous thing you've said on this subject matter. At its core, literary theory is the systematic study of the nature of literature and of the methods for analyzing literature. We're all participating in that in just discussing the merits of author intent vs. audience interpretation.

Why?

To what are you referring to specifically? Why is it arrogant to dismiss how an audience might interpret a piece? Because that's like saying the author is above criticism. No one is above criticism. Why is the author's view point the only acceptable one? Sure they crafted the story, perhaps with the intent for the audience to find certain meanings in it but a story is a complex thing. Just because they wrote it with some intent in mind doesn't mean the audience can't or wont find other interpretations, just as people would have varying criticisms of the work. It's absurd to think they wouldn't.

1) Ownership and intent. Without the author/artist and his or her conception and intent, there would be no piece of literature or art for the audience to view. The author had a reason for creating what he did, and it makes no sense for the audience to ignore that reason in favor of whatever meaning they prefer to impose. Not only does it make no sense, it shows enormous disrespect to the author as a person.

Again, you have to keep the audience in mind with a piece. It's something presented by the author for an audience. Who really "owns" the story when it's meant to be read and interpreted by an audience? And interpreting a story doesn't mean they'd be ignoring the reason the author wrote it. The audience would just be finding their own meanings in it. Yes, perhaps not what the author meant for them to find, but how does it disrespect the author to find meanings in the story, regardless of whether or not it was something the author intended?

If I write a short story, for example, and my reason for writing it was x, and then I say that the story means y, then someone who came along and read it and said it means z would be wrong. Now if I had written it and left it open to interpretation by the reader, then the varying points of view could possibly be valid, because I as the author had no set meaning in mind.

I have an example of short story I wrote in one of my classes (and read to the class) that goes against this very idea... The subject matter was something that caused me to be hurt and angry and that's what I wanted to convey with the piece. I know I even read it with anger in my voice. However, that isn't how the class interpreted it. Instead, I was surprised to find they thought it was funny. You see, as the audience, they weren't looking at it from my point of view, they were looking at the situation as an audience would, as the story happened to me. It wasn't until that point, until I actually saw my audiences reaction, that I could see the humor of the situation in my story myself. Does that mean they interpreted it wrong just because they hadn't interpreted it as I intended or even anticipated? No, not all. They just saw something in it that I couldn't until I realized their point of view of it.

In either case, the author is the person who came up with the idea, sat down to write the story, put thought and reason into it, and did all the work to bring his work of imagination to life on the page. What right does any reader have to disregard all of that and put their own meaning into the story? There's an utter lack of respect for the author inherent in that approach. Creative works don't exist in a vacuum, and they didn't spring independently to life so that anyone can do what they like with them. They were created for a reason, and that reason must be acknowledged and respected.

The problem here is that you seem to be under the impression the audience would be putting their own meaning into the story. That's not what interpretation is. Rather, interpreting would be pulling meaning out of the story, it just wouldn't necessarily be what the author intended.

2) And that leads to point number two. This is a very post-modern idea, that anyone's idea is just as valid as anyone else's, regardless of facts or what the idea is based on. It doesn't just show up in art or literature, it's present everywhere in the culture. But it's just a fact that sometimes someone's interpretation is just wrong. Factually wrong. And it's hardly moral to simply disregard an author's intentions in order to make our own seem valid.

I don't see how an interpretation can be wrong at all. Unless of course one is actually changing/ignoring (intentionally or unintentionally) facts from the story itself in order to support their interpretation, but that's a different issue altogether. Otherwise, interpretation is somewhat like an opinion. There is no real right or wrong to it as long as there is evidence in the piece to support that interpretation.

If a writer makes a clear statement about their intent, then it is folly to argue what their intent is.

Even then, I don't see anything wrong with an audience seeing other interpretations in the work. Sure, it may not be what the author intended, but how is it wrong if the piece could be interpreted in other ways? The author cannot anticipate every possible interpretation their audience might have. The author can only say what they intended for the audience to find, but that doesn't mean every other interpretation is inherently wrong.

[Dominic]

It is okay to criticize an author's idea, or their execution of that idea, (I do it all the time). But, one way to accurately critique an idea is to recognize and understand it.

In the case of the class laughing at your story, something clearly went wrong. The only meaning the story has is the one the writer gives it. There is no reason you should allow somebody to tell you the meaning of what you wrote. Now, that does not mean you told the story well, or that you accurately conveyed its meaning. Similarly, the class could have been mean-spirited or simply too dense to catch on to what you were saying.

How can you claim literary theory is an intellectual fraud? It's pretty much just the systematic study of the nature of literature and of the methods for analyzing literature. We're all participating in it just discussing the merits of author intent vs. audience interpretation! And it goes well beyond the 20th Century.

My bad. I meant deconstructionist theory, which has only become popular in the last 4 or 5 decades as far as I know. (See, my meaning was unclear because I screwed up.)

Dom
-gotta catch a bus.

[Sparky Prime]

It is okay to criticize an author's idea, or their execution of that idea, (I do it all the time). But, one way to accurately critique an idea is to recognize and understand it.

That's fine for critiquing the author's work, but that doesn't mean the reader cannot also have a different interpretation of it as well.

In the case of the class laughing at your story, something clearly went wrong. The only meaning the story has is the one the writer gives it. There is no reason you should allow somebody to tell you the meaning of what you wrote. Now, that does not mean you told the story well, or that you accurately conveyed its meaning. Similarly, the class could have been mean-spirited or simply too dense to catch on to what you were saying.

No, you're not getting it. Nothing went wrong at all. It's not that they didn't get the meaning I intended in the story or that they told me my meaning, it's that they interpreted an additional meaning from the story I hadn't even considered myself. They were looking at it from a different perspective than I was, and once I considered where they were coming from, it made sense why they would laugh. Like I've said, you have to consider your audience with a piece. They aren't necessarily going to see it the same way the author does and thus have different interpretations of the work. And this was not a mean-spirited group of people and they most certainly were not dense. Actually I'd say that was one of the best classes I had. It was a lot of fun with the various literary techniques that teacher has us using.

My bad. I meant deconstructionist theory, which has only become popular in the last 4 or 5 decades as far as I know. (See, my meaning was unclear because I screwed up.)

There is more than one theory in which authorial intent is irrelevant to understanding a work of literature, as is there more than one theory of how to look at author intent as well as audience interpretation. I'm sure some of which are older than deconstructionist theory.

[Onslaught Six]

I have an example of short story I wrote in one of my classes (and read to the class) that goes against this very idea... The subject matter was something that caused me to be hurt and angry and that's what I wanted to convey with the piece. I know I even read it with anger in my voice. However, that isn't how the class interpreted it. Instead, I was surprised to find they thought it was funny. You see, as the audience, they weren't looking at it from my point of view, they were looking at the situation as an audience would, as the story happened to me. It wasn't until that point, until I actually saw my audiences reaction, that I could see the humor of the situation in my story myself. Does that mean they interpreted it wrong just because they hadn't interpreted it as I intended or even anticipated? No, not all. They just saw something in it that I couldn't until I realized their point of view of it.

Actually, what you have here is a writer seeing an audience react in an unexpected way, and running with the ball.

Very good example here: Beastie Boys. Fight For Your Right To Party.

That song is a parody of the subjects of the song. Loser highschoolers who only care about partying.

The song, when released, found audience with the very people it was intended to lampoon.

Those people are wrong, and Beastie Boys now refuse to play that song. Ever.

Now, Beastie Boys could've done what you did, and gone, "Oh hey! All these people now love our thing we made. Let's run with that. FUCK YEAH FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT TO PARTY." But they didn't, because those people were wrong.

Another good example, though a lot more personal and obscure. Devin Townsend's song Ih-Ah! from his recent Addicted album. I think it's a legitimate attempt at writing a love song. 86, on the other hand, thinks it's a pisstake on similar types of songs by more mainstream bands. Now, Devy's only comment about the song was that it came to him in a dream, he finished it that night, and then proceeded to think it was the stupidest title for a song ever. He says nothing about either of our opinions. Which of us is right? It doesn't matter, because Devin is vague on purpose. He's got no intent other than to make a good-sounding song. (That's mostly the intent of the entire album, actually. "Play it loud and don't think about it." Because the next one, Deconstruction, that's the one all full of metaphor and deep shit.)

(I've also thrown around the idea that it's about Devin's kid. That's probably more likely considering a couple of the lyrics.)

[Sparky Prime]

Actually, what you have here is a writer seeing an audience react in an unexpected way, and running with the ball.

No, that's not it at all. Again, this had to do with the fundamental difference between how the author/audience perceives the piece. As I've said, the audience saw something in the story I hadn't intended, but never-the-less, it is an element that's there. I just all depends on how you look at and interpret it.

Very good example here: Beastie Boys. Fight For Your Right To Party.

That song is a parody of the subjects of the song. Loser highschoolers who only care about partying.

The song, when released, found audience with the very people it was intended to lampoon.

Those people are wrong, and Beastie Boys now refuse to play that song. Ever.

Now, Beastie Boys could've done what you did, and gone, "Oh hey! All these people now love our thing we made. Let's run with that. FUCK YEAH FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT TO PARTY." But they didn't, because those people were wrong.

Actually, that's a pretty good example of author intent vs. audience interpretation. And the creators not being happy with the result of the interpretation not matching with their intent.

The thing is, how is the audience wrong when that song doesn't really work as a parody? Even Mike D said, "The only thing that upsets me is that we might have reinforced certain values of some people in our audience when our own values were actually totally different." They don't perform it anymore because it just doesn't send the message they intended it to, not because the audience is wrong.