TF Views

Oho, unintentional performance art...about author (un)intent.

Is Grant Morrison reading this forum? He should be.

Dom
-posted a review of FFYRTP

Goddamn, this old argument again. Oh well, here's my 2 cents.

I was in a film studies class once, and we were talking about Alfred Hitchock's "Shadow of a Doubt." There was a scene near the end of the movie where this girl, Charlie, had discovered that her uncle Charlie was a murderer. Uncle Charlie blackmails her into staying quiet. Later she finds a ring that belonged to one of his victims, and during a big party scene, she comes down the stairs wearing the ring. Uncle Charlie sees her wearing the ring, and decides that it's time to leave town quietly.

Watching this scene, and without any knowledge of what the author intended, I viewed it as Charlie girl turning the tables and blackmailing uncle Charlie to leave town. Made sense to me. That's what I got out of it. My teacher, armed with a big book filled with Hitchcock's own words on what his movies meant, told me that I was wrong and that Hitchcock said that Charlie girl was actually identifying herself with the victims. This did not sit well with me. Why willingly place yourself in a position of weakness? To me, she clearly took a position of strength and showed him that she could play his little game as good as and better than him. But no. My teacher was insistent that I was wrong. My interpretation didn't matter, because it's not what Hitchcock had said.

To which I call bullshit. What I originally got out of that scene was just as valid an interpretation as the "official" word. I don't need Hitchcock or anyone else to spoon-feed me all the answers, thank-you very much.

It's like telling a little kid that gets frightened by a movie that's genuinely not trying to be scary. Are you going to tell the kid he's wrong for being scared? Doesn't matter, because the emotion is still real and still valid. The movie didn't intend to be scary, but that's the effect it had anyway.

To the movie thread!

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=468&start=30

Dominic wrote:How much of our actions is determined by free will, and how much by our sub-concious? I would argue that something as deliberative as writing would be more decision based, rather than impulse based. The more we think and deliberate on something, the more aware we should be about what we are doing. This includes writing.

Part of the flaw in your logic here is that something we do subconsciously isn't necessarily something that's impulsed based. Rather, it's more something we do with out really realizing we did it. Even not being aware of it on a conscious level it is still some aspect of ourselves, so I don't see how it goes against free will. And also, I'd disagree that writing anything is always so deliberative as you suggest it is. For example, did you realize you miss-spelled subconscious as "sub-concious" there? Granted, it's only just a minor spelling error, but I doubt it's something you meant to do deliberately.

Uh, the writer produces something because the *intend* to produce something.

A writer produces something because they enjoy writing, because they have a story they want to tell, because it's their job and so on... Intent is something they put into the writing but is not the same thing as producing the work itself.

The person who wrote something, be it a speech, a book, a song, whatever, has every right to call it "good" or "bad" based on how well it does what they wanted it to do.

Indeed, but what you said is that "Anyone who says the song is good is *wrong*". This is a fallacious statement as the audience who'd call it good are objectifying the song for what the song is, that they enjoy it. It has nothing to do with what the band originally intended the message to be. And they, the audience, has every right to say they like it for what it is, just as the band has every right to say it sucks for not sending the message they wanted it to.

The people who are misreading the song, while knowing its original intent, are being self-indulgent pricks.

More likely, they enjoy the song for what it is rather than what it was supposed to be.

I question the legitimacy of most literary theory.

You're not questioning it so much as just out-and-out dismissing much of it altogether which out really providing any real justification for it. Again, these are theories that are legitimately established and recognized by authors, scholars and so on, for the purposes of learning and understanding more about a work/author in how the audience interprets it. People who, frankly, have more experience, respect and more understanding of the subject. Would you really (if it was at all possible) go up to T.S. Eliot and tell him his thoughts on audience interpretation aren't legitimate?

It is the academic equivalent of snake-oil and black helicopter conspiracy theory.

At a basic level, it provides jobs by creating the illusion of productivity for people who have degrees in a subject that has only limited real use. You know what, if I could have stomached it, I would have gotten the Master's. And, yeah, I probably would have taught theory. Of course, that would mean that I would be perpetuating, if not necessarily living, a lie.

Again, where is the justification? How can you make such claims when those legitimate literary theories account for the things that your steadfast beliefs on author intent alone does not and can not account for? Again, it seems to me that you simply are not looking at it objectively as you stubbornly hold on to your own beliefs.

Here is an analogy:

If I am standing in front of the doorway to a pitch black room, I might speculate about what is in that room.

Already I can tell you that analogy is inaccurate. You treat it as though you have no facts and are operating on speculation with no information, at all, to back it up. That's not how literary theory works. You have the authors work, and thus you do have the facts of the piece itself. In other words, the room isn't pitch black. The question is how different people perceive the facts of the room, not blindly guessing what's in the room. For example, say you have a tall person standing next to a short person in the doorway. The tall person isn't going to see the room as big as the short person is, are they? It's the same set of facts, just a different interpretation based on different points of view with each individual who sees it.

We're going to go in circles forever with this, aren't we?

We might as well be talking about abortion or burning the American flag or religion or Beast Wars now.

I'm not. I made the point I was making and everyone understands it to my satisfaction so I'm good. Hey O6 ya wanna kibitz about the BW comic? I happen to agree with what you said about it being this perfect continuity that can't be tampered with. That's what really annoyed me about Ascending/Gathering.

For example, did you realize you miss-spelled subconscious as "sub-concious" there? Granted, it's only just a minor spelling error, but I doubt it's something you meant to do deliberately.

Nothing about author intent rules out mistakes. They happen, as sloppy as many of them (including the one you pointed out) are. But, if intent is clarified after the mistake, or simply not obscured by it, then it is not reasonable to fill in the blanks or to "creatively" add to it.

And they, the audience, has every right to say they like it for what it is, just as the band has every right to say it sucks for not sending the message they wanted it to.

In order to like something for what it is, one has to honestly acknowledge the fact of what the thing is. In this case, it is possible to like FFYRTP as a badly executed parody. (Some people like to enjoy what is scientifically known as "fail".) But, the people responsible for the song have pointed out that it does not convey the message they want. In other words, the song fails at the thing it is supposed to do. It cannot be considered "good" for what it was meant to be. And, the best way to grade the song is against what it was meant to be. Arguing otherwise is simply foolish.

The tall person isn't going to see the room as big as the short person is, are they? It's the same set of facts, just a different interpretation based on different points of view with each individual who sees it.

If the room is xH * Yw *Zd, the the room is Xh * Yw * Zd. The room's dimensions and contents are not relative to the perceptions and experiences of people investigating it. And, ultimately, the only thing that matter are the actual dimensions and contents of the room.

Would you really (if it was at all possible) go up to T.S. Eliot and tell him his thoughts on audience interpretation aren't legitimate?

I am not familiar enough with Eliot to really engage this point. But, (if I am guessing right), here is a sort of answer: If a writer scribbles out a "fill in the blanks" story, that is their right. But, I am not going to say they "meant" for anything to go in the blanks.

So, anyone else read issue 14?

Dom
-

We might as well be talking about abortion or burning the American flag or religion or Beast Wars now

Beest Warz Sux. Trukk Uber Munkey. Beast Wars Unter Alles.

Onslaught Six wrote:We're going to go in circles forever with this, aren't we?

I suggested we just say "agree to disagree" a while ago, but yeah, that hasn't happened...

Dominic wrote:Nothing about author intent rules out mistakes. They happen, as sloppy as many of them (including the one you pointed out) are. But, if intent is clarified after the mistake, or simply not obscured by it, then it is not reasonable to fill in the blanks or to "creatively" add to it.

But this is the point, obviously not everything the author can account for. They are not infallible no matter how deliberative they try to be. They make mistakes and miss things they themselves put into the story that they may not even realize. And again, it's not "filling in the blanks", it's interpreting something that's factually supported in the piece itself.

In order to like something for what it is, one has to honestly acknowledge the fact of what the thing is. In this case, it is possible to like FFYRTP as a badly executed parody. (Some people like to enjoy what is scientifically known as "fail".) But, the people responsible for the song have pointed out that it does not convey the message they want. In other words, the song fails at the thing it is supposed to do. It cannot be considered "good" for what it was meant to be. And, the best way to grade the song is against what it was meant to be. Arguing otherwise is simply foolish.

Arguing that someone can like a song for what it is rather than what it was supposed to be is foolish. You cannot dictate someone's opinion for them Dom, and that's essentially what you're trying to argue here. People like the song for what it turned out to be rather than what the band meant for it to be. Pure and simple. That doesn't make them wrong for liking it that way. It's just their opinion.

If the room is xH * Yw *Zd, the the room is Xh * Yw * Zd. The room's dimensions and contents are not relative to the perceptions and experiences of people investigating it. And, ultimately, the only thing that matter are the actual dimensions and contents of the room.

As I said, the facts of the room are the same regardless of who views it, but again, that doesn't mean people are going to perceive it exactly the same way and that's because of their own unique points of view with the room. This is a significant thing to consider, just as much as the dimensions/contents of the room itself is. The room isn't the only thing that matters. The people who view/use that room is something that needs consideration as well.

I am not familiar enough with Eliot to really engage this point. But, (if I am guessing right), here is a sort of answer: If a writer scribbles out a "fill in the blanks" story, that is their right. But, I am not going to say they "meant" for anything to go in the blanks.

You would be guessing incorrectly. It's not some story Eliot wrote that I'm talking about, rather he wrote several critical essays that detailed his thoughts on the subject, which made significant contributions to literary theory, specifically, influencing the New Criticism school of thought.

Sparky Prime wrote:

Onslaught Six wrote:We're going to go in circles forever with this, aren't we?

I suggested we just say "agree to disagree" a while ago, but yeah, that hasn't happened...

That was my fault. Sorry.

I'm all for the "agree to disagree" myself, since we're just going round and round in circles. I'm ready to give it a rest.