Babbbling about Authorial intent
I don't, generally, watch Doctor Who Confidentials or Torchwood Declassifieds. I do enjoy them when I do watch them- seeing John Barrowman enthuse about Billis Manger as "an evil gay" was one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. I don't read actors' or writers' interviews. I try ( again generally) to avoid spoilers. I do this for a very specific reason.
I avoid authorial intent like the plague. The plague.
At some point the phrase 'authorial intent' has become dirty to me. I am firmly, firmly of the opinion that the minute a text (text in this usage meaning source material) becomes available to me in it's finished form then the author's opinions are no more valid than the average internet Joe's. (The author, of course, has the ability to add to the source material in future installments which Joe does not.) If an author has failed to convince me of or inform me of something within his/her storytelling, then I do not have to accept it. If author poorly conveys their intended subtext it is not my responsibility to assume it's there. If an author intends to do something in an as-of-yet unavailable addition to the source material and shares this fact in an interview? I am not obligated to change my perspective until it becomes standard source material and my perceptions are jossed. In addition to that- just because an author states an intent to include something does not mean it will make it to the source material. Until something makes it to the source material, the main canon, I am not obligated to accept it. In some cases, and I'm thinking comics here, even then, it probably behooves everyone not to accept even source material as canon- it will undoubtedly be retconned.
In discussions and arguments over interpretation of source material, nothing, and I repeat nothing frustrates me more than seeing someone cite an author's interview or statement before evidence in the source material. Especially when the citing is done with an air of winning the argument. Interpretations are always just that- just because the author, at the moment, says that this interpretation is 'correct' does not make it more correct than Internet Joe's. You can't have a correct interpretation.
I avoid authorial intent like the plague. The plague.
At some point the phrase 'authorial intent' has become dirty to me. I am firmly, firmly of the opinion that the minute a text (text in this usage meaning source material) becomes available to me in it's finished form then the author's opinions are no more valid than the average internet Joe's. (The author, of course, has the ability to add to the source material in future installments which Joe does not.) If an author has failed to convince me of or inform me of something within his/her storytelling, then I do not have to accept it. If author poorly conveys their intended subtext it is not my responsibility to assume it's there. If an author intends to do something in an as-of-yet unavailable addition to the source material and shares this fact in an interview? I am not obligated to change my perspective until it becomes standard source material and my perceptions are jossed. In addition to that- just because an author states an intent to include something does not mean it will make it to the source material. Until something makes it to the source material, the main canon, I am not obligated to accept it. In some cases, and I'm thinking comics here, even then, it probably behooves everyone not to accept even source material as canon- it will undoubtedly be retconned.
In discussions and arguments over interpretation of source material, nothing, and I repeat nothing frustrates me more than seeing someone cite an author's interview or statement before evidence in the source material. Especially when the citing is done with an air of winning the argument. Interpretations are always just that- just because the author, at the moment, says that this interpretation is 'correct' does not make it more correct than Internet Joe's. You can't have a correct interpretation.