Comics are awesome.

[Dominic]

I want to wait before posting this, as I really wanted to compose my thoughts. This is, to the best of my understanding, the truth. It transcends "Transformers", comics, literature (if one views that as being strictly exclusive from comics), art and science.

There is a reason why there is more than one theory in literary theory.

The reason that there is more than one theory in literary theory is that "Literature" as an academic field is a boondoggle.

There. I. Said. It.

At some point, it became less about discovery and understanding, less about honest attempts at creativity and innovation, and more about making those things more difficult. The fact that Literary theory artificially creates jobs for people with no apparently marketable skill probably also plays a role here. Departments focused on hawking the intellectual snake-oil that is "literary theory" as a whole provide jobs for people who would otherwise by shelving books at Barnes and Noble. (Hell, most English majors do a stint or two there, or maybe serving coffee alongside "performance artists" at Starbucks.)

There are multiple theories and schools of thought in other fields as well. But, those theories are focused on discovering/determing the truth or developing something new. In some cases, those theories are focused on understanding and improving on a process. In Literature, the focus is often on creating a process by which one can obfuscate the truth and elevate one's own interpretation. Obviously, focusing on anything solid or logical would undermine the whole excercise, and send a great many theorists to the other side of the counter at the local Barnes and Noble or Starbucks.

I am not writing this as a Law Student, nor as an MBA candidate, nor as an Engineer. I am writing this as someone who majored in English because I had the (frankly bizarre) misfortune to have met mostly honest professors early in my academic career. Later, when I was fully exposed to Literary Theory, and realized just how prevalent it is, I realized just how dishonest the field was, and why it is held in such contempt by other fields. The fact that so many theorists find a niche in teaching, (at more than one level), ensures that what should be obvious lies will be continually perpetuated.

[Shockwave]

That's all well and fine, but what I'm saying is that it is possible for a writer to write something that has meaning on more levels than what they may have originally intended. BUT, that only works if, once said levels are pointed out to the writer, the writer validates said viewpoint WITHOUT contradicting the original intent. Example: Let's say I write an adventure story. At the time I only intend it to be a fun adventure story. Later, someone reads it and says "In addition to being a fun adventure story it also works as an allegory for the struggle of coming of age". Now if I say "Wow, I hadn't considered that but you're right" then I as the writer have validated that additional meaning from the work. In other words, readers are going to get meanings from a literary work that the author may not have intended and it's ultimately up to the author to decide which meanings are valid and which are contradictory. This is why the Beastie Boys fans are wrong and that the scale is irrelevant. The fans said "Awesome! THis is our anthem!" The Beastie Boys then said "No it isn't, we're making fun of you. Stop it." The fans then said "PARTY! WOO!" and the Beastie Boys promptly stopped playing it. Now if the Beastie Boys had said "We meant this to make fun of you, but you're right it works as an anthem as well." THEN the unwashed masses would be correct. They didn't, so the audience, even after 20 years or so is still wrong.

Shockwave
-Thinks "Fight For Your Right" also could work as an allegory for the struggles of growing up, but doubts that the Beastie Boys would agree with that interpretation.

[Dominic]

That's all well and fine, but what I'm saying is that it is possible for a writer to write something that has meaning on more levels than what they may have originally intended.

How can the story, (a product of the writer's efforts and intents), have meaning that the writer did not assign to it?

Dom
-compentent writers tend to know what they are doing.

[andersonh1]

How can the story, (a product of the writer's efforts and intents), have meaning that the writer did not assign to it?

Exactly.

Here's a prime example of what we've been talking about:

Narnia fans' fury after Liam Neeson claims Aslan - the symbol of Christ - could also be Mohammed
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... l?ITO=1490

The allegorical meaning of the Narnia books was clearly explained by C.S. Lewis. So when Liam Neeson makes the claim that they could mean something else entirely, he's wrong. Because he's going against what the author and creator of the books plainly intended and said.

Ahead of the release of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader next Thursday, Neeson said: ‘Aslan symbolises a Christ-like figure but he also symbolises for me Mohammed, Buddha and all the great spiritual leaders and prophets over the centuries.

‘That’s who Aslan stands for as well as a mentor figure for kids – that’s what he means for me.’

But Neeson is wrong.

Walter Hooper, Lewis’s former secretary and a trustee of his estate, said the author would have been outraged.

‘It is nothing whatever to do with Islam,’ he said.

‘Lewis would have simply denied that. He wrote that the “whole Narnian story is about Christ”. Lewis could not have been clearer.’

He attributed Neeson’s remarks to political correctness and a desire to be ‘very multicultural’, adding: ‘I don’t know Liam Neeson or what he is thinking about… but it was not Lewis’s intention.’

William Oddie, a fomer editor of The Catholic Herald and a lifelong fan of the Chronicles of Narnia, accused Neeson of ‘a betrayal of Lewis’s intention and a shameful distortion’.

He said: ‘Aslan is clearly established from the very beginning of the whole cannon as being a Christ figure. I can’t believe that Liam Neeson is so stupid as not to know.’

[138 Scourge]

Sigh. You just reminded me that I'm likely to have to sit through this damn Dawn Treader movie. Thanks, anderson.

[Dominic]

Neeson could claim legitimate ignorance when he intially made the comment. (Let us assume he was not familiar with Lewis' intentions.) Like Shockwave and I, Neeson may be unfamiliar with the Bible, meaning that some fo the more obvious parallels would be lost on him.

But, if he continues spouting off about Alsan being a proxy for a general spiritual leader, or another specific leader other than JC, then he is being an egocentric twit (for warping Lewis' intentions to suit himself), and as Anderson put it, wrong.


Dom
-and this is why literature is held in such low regard by the *real* disciplines.

[Sparky Prime]

What O6 and I are saying is that the commonality of a belief does not make it more or less accurate.

Clearly, but neither of you are making a good argument for it with these completely unrelated examples. And again, the wider held audience interpretation is the more widely accepted meaning for the song. Even the band seems to agree given their refusal to perform it with it not expressing the meaning they intended showing how the audience interprets a piece does indeed have merit.

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.

Again, where have I ever said that the author's intent should be nullified? Of course nothing will change that the author wrote it and what their own intent was in writing it was. That's not the point. The point is, a story is not so direct as you make it seem. Interpretation is not something that is "factually" impossible just because the author may not have intended for it. All that means is the author didn't indent for it, but that doesn't mean another interpretation cannot be present within the story at the same time.

The idea *should* be how to determine meaning and intent when proof is difficult or impossible to find.

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. If it's impossible to find the author's own intent, then all your going to get is the audiences interpretation of what the author's intent might be, but that's still just the audiences interpretation, no matter how you look at it.

(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.)

Again, I'm not arguing that you can argue the author's plan. I'm arguing that you can have a different interpretation of the author's story than the author intended.

It is the author's job to account for the relevant points.

It's the author's job to write a good story. And they are not infallible. They cannot account for every single possibility that can be interpreted in a piece.

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.

You're missing the point of the example, which remains regardless of who owns the X-Men franchise. And it wasn't the characters Singer was defining, rather, he making an allegory for the situation Iceman was in over the course of the story of the movie, which can be applied to the X-Men as a whole. But this isn't an interpretation that everyone would come to.

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.

Once again, just because you may not intend to leave something else doesn't mean there is nothing else to be found. It's not impossible to find meaning just because the author may not have intended it, nor is the authors intent the only meaning that can be interpreted.

The reason that there is more than one theory in literary theory is that "Literature" as an academic field is a boondoggle.

So you think the study of literature is a waste of time and that all those people are just doing it to look busy? So now you're belittling an entire academic field rather than admit that there is merit to literary theories that you do not personally agree with? I'm sorry to say Dom, but that sounds incredibly arrogant.

At some point, it became less about discovery and understanding, less about honest attempts at creativity and innovation, and more about making those things more difficult. The fact that Literary theory artificially creates jobs for people with no apparently marketable skill probably also plays a role here.

How is interpreting meaning from a story besides only a narrow look at the authors intent "less about discovery and understanding"? If anything that's about looking at more to discover and understand about the piece, and potentially the author as well. Honestly looking at the creativity, complexity and innovations of the craft. Literary theory isn't an artificial way to create jobs. It's all a legitimate study of the complexities of literature. Whether or not you agree with that is a whole other issue.

I am not writing this as a Law Student, nor as an MBA candidate, nor as an Engineer. I am writing this as someone who majored in English because I had the (frankly bizarre) misfortune to have met mostly honest professors early in my academic career. Later, when I was fully exposed to Literary Theory, and realized just how prevalent it is, I realized just how dishonest the field was, and why it is held in such contempt by other fields. The fact that so many theorists find a niche in teaching, (at more than one level), ensures that what should be obvious lies will be continually perpetuated.

I'm sorry to say Dom, but as an English major myself, it sounds to me like you have a skewed outlook on the field as a whole. It's not dishonest as you claim it is. Really, the dishonest thing here appears, to me, that you were not fully exposed to the full range of Literary Theory and now regard part of it as distasteful when it's simply just another way at looking at literature than you personally prefer.

[Sparky Prime]

That's all well and fine, but what I'm saying is that it is possible for a writer to write something that has meaning on more levels than what they may have originally intended.

Exactly.

How can the story, (a product of the writer's efforts and intents), have meaning that the writer did not assign to it?

Who says the author has to assign something in the story meaning for the reader to get a meaning out of it? We don't all look at something the same exact way Dom.

[Onslaught Six]

Sparky is/was an English major?

Okay, that explains a lot, given what-all Dom's said about the status of the field, and how widely the audience-interpretation-is-law thing goes around in it.

I shall now bow out of this argument. Can we talk about comics again?

How 'bout that there Batman, eh?

[Sparky Prime]

Okay, that explains a lot, given what-all Dom's said about the status of the field, and how widely the audience-interpretation-is-law thing goes around in it

How Dom portrays it is hardly a fair or accurate view of the debate surrounding author intent vs audience interpretation. And it's not a "law thing". It's a part of literary theory.

I shall now bow out of this argument. Can we talk about comics again?

With how the argument has just been going around and around in circles, perhaps we should just say "agree to disagree".