Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2014-05-11 03:46 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2014-05-11 03:46 pm
[ SECRET POST #2686 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2686 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
__________________________________________________
10.
__________________________________________________
11.
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 059 secrets from Secret Submission Post #384.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
Re: Controversial opinions
So basically we have two possible perspectives (which are, in fact, more or less two ends of a spectrum of understandings): the Death of the Author and the authorial intent.
When people use the former (e.g. in academic textual analyses), they see the text as being completely independent from the authorial judgement as well as the creator's needs and feelings. All the interpretations are based solely on the literary features of the text+various cultural/personal perspectives the reader might wish to bring into the equation.
Understandably, this approach produces a kajillion interpretations, most of which have equal validity and can be neither proven nor disproven. This, I think, must be one of the most unpopular parts of this unpopular opinion of mine - I see astonishing numbers of people trying to prove or disprove valid interpretations based on the Death of the Author.
Now, using authorial intent gives way fewer possible interpretations; besides, they usually do not have equal validity and can be supported or undermined by additional pieces of evidence. The catch, of course, is that using this approach is much trickier and that it involves analysing the psyche and the cultural background of an actual living person (which produces a lot of drama and controversy).
What I think is that while the Death of the Author is a great tool when we are talking literary/fandom speculations (i.e. the "what this universe could be like if it were real" type of discussions), using authorial intent is what actually helps to understand the mechanics of a particular text (in the broadest sense of the word). If, say, somebody were trying to predict what will happen in the future of a particular currently-created universe, turning to the authorial intent would make way more sense than using a formalistic approach. If somebody were trying to understand why something is written this way and not the other, it is the creator's approach to the text they should be analysing; etc.
Hope this makes sense.
Re: Controversial opinions
(Anonymous) 2014-05-11 10:28 pm (UTC)(link)From your description I agree with your POV.
Re: Controversial opinions
That's not the case because any interpretation must be compatible with the text itself. Shakespeare's Hamlet is not The Long, Long Trailer. One can argue that some interpretations are plausible and other interpretations implausible given analysis of the text.
Chaining interpretation to "the creator's needs and feelings?" Hopefully the author isn't engaged in the self-indulgent creation of a Mary Sue work. Central to the craft of creating art is the willingness to take your precious little darlings out to the backyard, put a bullet in their brain, and bury them in a shallow grave for the sake of a better story.
The catch, of course, is that using this approach is much trickier and that it involves analysing the psyche and the cultural background of an actual living person (which produces a lot of drama and controversy).
But that's psychology or biography, not literature. (Never mind that there's no clear way to apply authorial intent for works that are inherently collaborative.)
If, say, somebody were trying to predict what will happen in the future of a particular currently-created universe, turning to the authorial intent would make way more sense than using a formalistic approach.
Then you're in the business of making shit up, in which case, neither the text nor the authorial intent make much of a difference.
Re: Controversial opinions
(Anonymous) 2014-05-12 12:49 am (UTC)(link)I have nothing productive to add.
Re: Controversial opinions
Yes, I meant text-compatible interpretations. Otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned their validity.
By "using authorial intent" I did not mean agreeing with the author, nor basing the analysis on their opinion re:their text. This opinion is only a part of authorial intent, often minor. When somebody writes Mary Sues it is, in fact, a perfect case for this approach precisely because it is so obvious what the author wanted, what the author felt, and how the contradiction between the former and the latter led to a spectacular fail the size of Alaska.
As to collaborative works, it really does depend on the particular case. Also, I do not claim that this kind of analysis is universal or that it always yields desirable results.
Same can be said of the last point. It is always a speculation, true, but depending on circumstances, a good logical analysis of the text and the context may significantly narrow down the number of solutions. Discussion of narrative development is not "making shit up".