Comments | inverarity: Authorial Intent, the Word of God, and Why All Comic Books Are Fan Fiction

inverarity

Authorial Intent, the Word of God, and Why All Comic Books Are Fan Fiction

Feb 20, 2010 11:04

So I'm taking a wee bit of a breather, now that the rough draft of AQATDR is done. Which means I'm only skimming it now and then and revising a paragraph or two... I'll get back to serious revision once I get my next batch of comments back from my betas ( Read more... )

fandom, alexandra quick, writing

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

anonymous February 20 2010, 22:25:06 UTC

Interesting topic.

Re: "Word of God"

I think I'm quite opportunistic in this regard. I argue my position with it when it suits me, and against it when it doesn't. For example, I like to consider DH non Canon, because I don't like many of the technical aspects of magic introduced or explained there, whereas I'll readily pull quotes from Rowling's website as proof for a few theories of mine regarding the books prior.

That may not be very consistent, but I'm not particularly fussed by it.

In general though, I think I'm quite on the site of "it's what the author says it is." If you read something and have a different opinion that's alright and fine, but it's also wrong.

I'm in the school of thought that says authorial intent is irrelevant when it comes to interpreting the text. It may be interesting to know what the author's intent was, but if the message I get from Deathly Hallows is not as uplifting and heroic as what Rowling says it is, I'm not "wrong" in any objective sense. Harry isn't a hero just because Rowling says he is -- ( ... )

madderbrad February 20 2010, 22:56:57 UTC

Harry is a hero if Rowling says he is. Period. She's the only one who really knows her books, as she's the author.

Well, you're wrong there, for a start. I'm quite sure she's been shown up, multiple times, as not knowing her own books, forgetting details and so forth. She's on record as saying that she's never re-read any of her books after they were published (I *think* she might have said that she re-read DH?).

If an author has forgotten her own books to some extent then this belies your faith that she's the only one who really knows her books. And so the grounds for accepting her private thoughts as canon.

Now as for the last sentence -- it might be quite possible that Harry *appears* not to be a hero. But if that's the case, it simply means Rowling fails as a writer, because she failed to correctly convey what she thought; Harry is still a hero.But only in her own mind; not in her books ( ... )

anonymous February 20 2010, 23:17:32 UTC

Maybe you have your own personal definition of 'canon', but in any debate like this with others we've got to use the accepted meaning of the word, right?

Well, you were the one who brought up the word "Canon"? I only said I like to consider DH non-Canon. I omitted that word in all later parts, because I wanted to avoid exactly this, having it become an argument on definitions.

I said Harry is a hero when Rowling says he is. Whether you want to call that "Canon" or not is up to you, but I stand to the meaning of that statement.

If an author has forgotten her own books to some extent then this belies your faith that she's the only one who really knows her books.If you're asking for my opinion, I'd say that this is quite irrelevant. If Rowling says on a Monday "Harry is a hero", and on the Tuesday after "Harry is a villain", then he is a hero on Monday, and a villain on Tuesday. Again, whether or not that constitutes as Canon wasn't my point (so I've no real opinion on the rest of what you wrote): just that the author's word is the ( ... )

inverarity February 21 2010, 01:58:53 UTC

Well, I do think it substantially weakens your position that the Word of God is canon, period, when you freely admit to ignoring actual written, unambiguous canon when it suits you. :)

So, if C.S. Lewis had said, "Hey, the Chronicles of Narnia isn't a Christian allegory at all, it's just a fantasy series. You guys totally read a bunch of stuff I didn't intend into that whole Aslan/sacrifice thing!" then, to you, that would mean the Chronicles of Narnia aren't and shouldn't be read as a Christian allegory, period, even if you think you see parallels ( ... )

anonymous February 21 2010, 02:53:16 UTC

Well, I do think it substantially weakens your position that the Word of God is canon, period, when you freely admit to ignoring actual written, unambiguous canon when it suits you. :)

Well, I said "like to consider" ;) DH is Canon; on that much, I think, we can agree; just a part I don't particularly like (as opposed to HBP, for example), and wish it were otherwise. If I ignore it, it means in truth that I write AU stories. I take what I like, and leave out what I don't, that's the great thing of FF. But I label it as such - AU, or at least semi-AU, since it's not entirely different ( ... )

But what if it's Stephanie Meyer? (...he says with tongue only partially in cheek...) inverarity February 21 2010, 03:07:47 UTC

Well, the C.S. Lewis example is obviously silly, but there certainly are cases of authors whose work has been widely interpreted in ways they didn't intend. Ray Bradbury, for example, originally claimed that Fahrenheit 451 was not about censorship at all, but about mass media and the way television was killing literature.

According to you, then, it's been being taught "wrong" in high school and college lit classes for decades. Indeed, no one should ever propose novel themes in a work or interpret it in a way the author did not intend. Which would make it impossible to do any serious literary criticism at all.

I mean, if Stephanie Meyer says, "Edward and Bella's relationship in Twilight is totally healthy and wholesome and every girl should aspire to have a boyfriend like Edward! He's not a creepy stalker at all!" then that's the Word of God, and any analysis to the contrary is wrong, right? Is that really what you're saying?

Re: But what if it's Stephanie Meyer? (...he says with tongue only partially in cheek...) anonymous February 21 2010, 04:44:50 UTC

Oh, her ... remember what I wrote about thinking an author's lost it? :P

Well, but in all seriousness. Regarding Bradbury, I hadn't known about that particular case, but that is what I'm talking about. If the author says his work is about X, you can't walk up to him and say, "Hey, your work really is about Y". It's telling the author he's wrong about his own story. I find that a little pretentious, tbh.

According to you, then, it's been being taught "wrong" in high school and college lit classes for decades. Indeed, no one should ever propose novel themes in a work or interpret it in a way the author did not intend. Which would make it impossible to do any serious literary criticism at all.Yes ... And now I don't think it will come as a surprise to you if I tell you that I have quite a low opinion of all self-declared "experts" and their analysis and literary criticisms, and that whole business in general. I could do without it just as well. It's like this -- you have 10 experts and 20 opinions, right? Or well, to not exaggerate, ( ... )

Re: But what if it's Stephanie Meyer? (...he says with tongue only partially in cheek...) inverarity February 21 2010, 05:32:02 UTC

So, you'd put all literature off-limits to any criticism beyond "This was a good book" or "This was a bad book." And consequently, abolish literature as a field of study. Or limit all analysis to discussing what the author intended in writing it -- all other analyses would be "wrong" and invalid. Which would make it impossible to really evaluate anything critically. How can you even discuss whether the relationships in Twilight are healthy or not if Meyer has already said they are?

Re: But what if it's Stephanie Meyer? (...he says with tongue only partially in cheek...) anonymous February 21 2010, 12:55:21 UTC

And that's the problem, isn't it? As I said above - you can't. The moment someone pulls out the author-card "But she said so!", any discussion is effectively over. You just can't argue against it. So in the interest of discussing things, everyone agrees implicitly to not go there. And I have no problem with that - as long as everyone knows that this is the basis of the discussion, and takes a step back every once in a while to see how it is their opinion, which may be more or less justified, depending on the evidence to back it up ( ... )

Re: But what if it's Stephanie Meyer? (...he says with tongue only partially in cheek...) inverarity February 21 2010, 17:55:47 UTC

No, I wasn't an English Lit major, and I do think a lot of literary analysis is just wankery. However, I just can't agree that the Word of God trumps all other critique. How can you even have an interesting discussion about a book if the author's intent is taken as the be-all and end-all of what it's about? In the case of someone like Rowling, who talks a lot about what she's written, all you're left discussing is what she said in such-and-such interview.

Re: But what if it's Stephanie Meyer? (...he says with tongue only partially in cheek...) anonymous February 21 2010, 14:20:51 UTC

Eh, incidentally, I just found an example where I kinda break my own rules, so feel free to assume my position is inconsequent; as I said, I'm not particularly fussed by it. It's just how I feel, not some strictly logical argument with which I want to convince people.

Here's the thing:

Rowling came up with her theory of how there's a magic gene, and I deny this with a passion. And the fact that it's from her, so it ought to be true, annoys me even more. In this case, I'd have no problem at all in walking up to her and telling her that magic in her HP books is not caused by a gene. Granted, I'd deliberately want to be offensive, too. It's just that stupid.

It doesn't even work, scientifically, and you'd need magic to explain it, which makes the theory obsolete, because you could just as well explain magic with magic in the first place (instead of explaining magic with a genetic theory and that with magic.)

I'd really like to know what she was thinking when she let that one out. Most likely, she wasn't thinking at all :|

- Sesc

avsno26rocks February 20 2010, 23:32:58 UTC

Well, you're wrong there, for a start. I'm quite sure she's been shown up, multiple times, as not knowing her own books, forgetting details and so forth. She's on record as saying that she's never re-read any of her books after they were published (I *think* she might have said that she re-read DH?).

I re-read my own work all the time, because every time I do, I find something that I don't like or want to tweak a bit. Even after the fact, if I can't be bothered to read what I write, why would someone else be bothered to read it?

But only in her own mind; not in her books.

And that makes the "Harry is a hero" non-canon. Because if you refer to the definition of canon - here's some relevant definitions from dictionary.com:I guess that's a decent argument, even though I, personally, have never considered Harry a 'hero' in the sense of the word that most of us have. He's an ordinary fellow with an extraordinary destiny, and along the way, he's done many things that would normally land anyone else in prison, but as he was the 'Chosen ( ... )

Back to all threads