Comics are awesome.

[Shockwave]

Dude, that is a terrible, albeit hilarious, example. You're describing someone directly contradicting ORIGINAL intent. That's incorrect pure and simple and I'm not arguing that.

... Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view

Going with your bird example, you might agree with the ornithologist that it was an eagle owl but may have also noticed something about it's behavior that the ornithologist didn't. He can either then say, "Wow that's interesting, I didn't know they did that" or "That's impossible. They never do that because X." It isn't wrong to observe the behavior of an animal that had been previously unobserved. Again, this really isn't a great example because animal behavior, once observed is scientific fact whereas works of fiction are often left open to interpretation without any comment on the original intent of a writer. The Bible is probably the best example of this which is probably at least half of why so many wars have been fought over it. In any case, it is still possible to get additional meanings over and above what the original intent of the piece is. It is then up to the author to decide whether or not that additional meaning is valid or not. Remember, there's still no dispute about the original intended meaning.

[Dominic]

Fair point on the analogy really not being much good at all. (I am on an Owlman kick of late.)


My arguement is that assigning additional meaning (beyond that of the author's intent) is as bad as outright assigning meaning in spite of the author's intent. In both cases, the reader is "finding" something that simply is not there.

It would be very strange indeed for an author to put all sorts of time and effort into writing something only miss some important detail that a reader would notice.

For example, a reasonable person might read this thread and think "Wow, Dom sure likes the Owlman." That would be a completely fair, (and understated), interpretation. But, if they interpreted that as me seeking to disclose having bizarre fantasies about Owlman and public restrooms, that would be completely out of order.

I would never intentionally disclose such a thing. And, it would be crazy to think that I would do so accidently in my writing. (I have no such fantasies to dislose in my writing.)

Dom
-actually has bigger worries when in a public restroom.

[Dominic]

Okay, here is another one.

People who have exchanged phone numbers with me of course know that I like to send rude messages on occasion. Now, it is possible, depending on the kind of phone one has, to completely misinterpret my intent in sending that message.

If somebody has a phone that gets pictures, one of my "thinking of you" messages will (correctly) convey a much ruder intent on my part than if somebody has a ophone that cannot get pictures. In the first case, the message will likely provoke shameful laughter, perhaps even a bit of fear. In the latter, it might even be seen, (however incorrectly), as heart-warming.


Dom
-going to edit the above post actually.

[Shockwave]

Yes, but you liking Owlman is not the point of your posts. Granted, someone reading this thread can get that, and it is accurate, but that's not the original intent of your examples. Ipso facto the additional meaning that the reader got was not incorrect, it was supplemental.

[Sparky Prime]

Sparky the point we're all trying to make here is that the audience interpretation should start with the author's intent and should not contradict it. If someone's interpretation of a work of literature directly contradict's the author's intent, then they are wrong and kind of an arrogant and possibly ignorant jerk on top of that. I see nothing wrong with drawing ADDITIONAL meanings from something, so long as the original intent is acknowledged as the starting point and the ultimate purpose of the piece.

Actually, as I'm understanding it, Dom and andersonh1 are suggesting that there is no room for audience interpretation, that an audience should only look what the author intended. Clearly, you don't fully agree on that given you do support the idea of audience interpretation as well, albeit with the acknowledgment of the author's intent. Now, I'm not not saying the audience shouldn't acknowledge whatever the author indented (if what the author indented is even known). In fact, I've said as much several times already, but that seems to keep getting over looked. But the point I'm making is that the audience shouldn't be so restricted either, limited by the authors intent. They should be able to come up with their own interpretations of the piece, as long as it doesn't contradict the facts of the piece itself, regardless of the authors intent.

But the audience isn't allowed to ignore your intent and make up their own mind...?

Makes the whole "creative" process a little perfunctory, if you ask me. Next time I'm gonna write a story, I'll just make it an essay instead. =3

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.

The audience is wrong because they are misreading the song.

And yet the song is widely accepted as a party song, despite the Beastie Boys intention with it. Honestly, I don't see how the audience can be wrong here when its their interpretation that is they widely accepted one, not the Beastie Boys original intent.

(Not a fan of Bradbury for the record.)

I've seen you say you don't like authors before... like Shakespeare and Orson Scott Card. Some pretty big, highly respected authors for the works they've done. I'm curious, what authors do you like Dom?

It is a logical and factual impossibility to find something that is NOT THERE TO BE FOUND.

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.

Truth: Most English teachers are hucksters.

And, the most of the honest English teachers out there will not even teach students about theory, meaning few people actually honestly discuss it as being dis-honest.

Well that's an extremely presumptions claim isn't it? I couldn't disagree with you more on this Dom. The "honest" teachers don't teach about theory? Forgive me, but that makes those so call "honest" teachers dishonest. They aren't giving their students all the tools available to analyze literature if they only subscribe to one method and only teach that one method themselves. It's fine to have a personal favorite, but someone in a teaching position needs to have a more open minded view and let the students make up their own minds accordingly. And again, those literary theories aren't dishonest Dom just because you happen to personally disagree with them.

[Shockwave]

The audience is wrong because they are misreading the song.

And yet the song is widely accepted as a party song, despite the Beastie Boys intention with it. Honestly, I don't see how the audience can be wrong here when its their interpretation that is they widely accepted one, not the Beastie Boys original intent.

I'm going to have to agree with Dom on this one for only one reason: Scale is irrelevant. The audience interpretation of the song does directly contradict the original intent, therefore they are wrong. Although I think this is one case of misinterpretation on a scale that is seldom seen.

Otherwise, you're right, you and I are on the same page.

[Sparky Prime]

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.

[Onslaught Six]

The same idea applies to author intent. The only thing in a story is what the author intends to put in.

This is *rough* middle ground, though, Dom. Arguably a writer could have no idea why he actually wrote [x] individual thing in a story. But the fact that it was left in and not edited out or rewritten is usually a sign of the writer's compliance with the idea. In fact, half the art of writing a decent story is really just finding believable reasons and motives to tie set pieces together.

We 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."

On the other hand, we have stuff like the extra bridge in AHM.

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 interprets a piece is just as (if not more) important than how the writer/artist intended and this goes to show why, as the two may not always match up.

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.

[138 Scourge]

I love the Star Wars/ TF:TM analogues. Cracks me right up. So, with Arcee's being pretty obvious, and Springer being Han Solo, I'm guessing Grimlock=Chewbacca and Wheelie as Yoda. Kind of at a loss for Kup and Wreck-Gar, though.

[Onslaught Six]

It only works in analogue to Episode IV, though--trying to push too much else and it gets messy. And they're only vague parallels in and of that sense. (Go look at the Wiki page--all the captions are from Star Wars.)

Kup is Chewbacca. The Dinobots are the droids.