Interesting, really interesting! I love your observations of Dawn.
I haven't still decided if I truly believe that the auctor is dead. I'm thinking about it. I still feel that every author has a different touch and a kind of immortality through his works. For example, you can still recognize Dante's works between 1000 different kind of similar works, because he was obsessed with politics, because of his beliefs on God and love, because he wrote like no other ... I feel like he's very alive, even if he's long time dead. I don't know if this makes sense.
I haven't still decided if I truly believe that the author is dead.
As I said: "I’m not going to claim authorial intent."
I know Joss' hand was in Dawn and Echo and River Tam - just as sure as I am that a comparison between these three will reveal something about the Whedonverse that is not necessarily a revelation that can extend past that.
The author is there.
I just CANNOT claim to know their intention.
Does Joss know that Dawn is the predecessor to Echo?
No way to know that in the universe.
Even if I interviewed him personally and asked him if he planned/knew the implications of Dawn and he gave me a straight answer.
I wouldn't believe him.
That's what I mean when I say "the author is dead" ;)
I believe my ramblings are the standard definition for "the author is dead" - basically too many lit-researchers got heavy-handed with attributing everything in, fiction to merely be a reflection of the author. biographers, etc, looking for connections between the author's mind and the text.
Roland Barthes coined the term in this essay back in 1967 and it has been pretty standard in literature studies since. I should have introduced it better and I apologize. It's one of those things I shouldn't presume everyone has heard of :)
It's a school of thought I firmly follow. (Especially after reading TOO many undergraduate classmate's essay on how "this symbolism in the text PROVES THAT POE/HEMINGWAY/SHAKESPEARE IS GAY" ...)
I can't claim to know what is in a writer's mind.
I can see things in my own fic that are about my mind - but it would be EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE if someone else tried to tell me how my fiction relates to my own psychological profile.
So I respect other authors enough not to do that either.
I can see things in my own fic that are about my mind - but it would be EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE if someone else tried to tell me how my fiction relates to my own psychological profile.
So I respect other authors enough not to do that either.This is interesting! I approach this a bit differently because part of what I ~love thinking about is how the author's background/experience/life has influenced the story. So I do speculate on authorial intent, trying to figure out the psychological, socioeconomic, and historical influences that -- through the filter of the author's mind creative output -- have shaped the book
( ... )
this is so excitingkwrittenJanuary 5 2014, 18:43:52 UTC
HELLO THERE YOU!
This is interesting! I approach this a bit differently because part of what I ~love thinking about is how the author's background/experience/life has influenced the story. See... I guess I don't read that as authorial intent?
I only see authorial intent as either:
"POE IS GAY BECAUSE OF THIS QUOTE IN ONE TEXT"
or
"Poe was obviously writing about homosexuality because he wanted to and you see it here and here and here..."
Because... I can't dig up Poe and ask him.
But on the other hand - I completely and totally agree with you that "trying to figure out the psychological, socioeconomic, and historical influences that -- through the filter of the author's mind creative output -- have shaped the book." is one of the most stimulating analytical exercises that there is in the universe.
But I feel that's more on the path of cultural-analysis?
I mean - I totally get why someone would put that on the path of "authorial intent" ...
But I only use that term to mean something that the author consciously said: "I'm
( ... )
Re: this is so excitingangeariaJanuary 5 2014, 19:26:11 UTC
Right, I guess there's many definitions. One is Authorial Intent as literary theory, where only the author's intentions are what determine meaning in fiction. Next is authorial intent which is, yanno, actually what the author consciously intended to express in the text. (I guess I was also partially referencing... let's call it 'authorial unintent' in my comment above -- where readers can divine things that the author unconsciously included in the text.)
But I feel that's more on the path of cultural-analysis?
Hmm, splainy? I'd love to hear more on this :)
If someone commented on a fic that I ... idk - really like water imagery or something - I'd be like: yes, cool.Well, for instance, a reader commented on how one of the major themes of my story was 'self-disgust'. And that was totally true, but also wow a gutpunch to read. I think there's ways for readers to punch the authors guts with their insight, without actually directly saying 'the author felt this way' or 'the author was this way' but simply by the nature of the
( ... )
Re: this is so excitingangeariaJanuary 5 2014, 19:26:23 UTC
But I don't feel like anyone has an authority on the exact, direct, and intentional ways this can occur.I dunno. See, I feel like this approach of authorial intent demands absolute certainty (Descartes!), whereby having the expectation of absolute certainty of authorial intent means that one can never know authorial intent (unrelenting skepticism!). But going on from there, I just take that to mean that there can be no absolute authority on authorial intent, not even from the author him or herself, but that doesn't mean that asking the question and coming up with ~best answers is no longer worthwhile. That absolute certainty isn't the right standard to apply to authorial intent
( ... )
Seriously. My deepest apologies for not being more clear on my definitions.
Don't apologize! Thanks for the explanation. I'm learning new things here. It's an interesting concept since I do this too:
because part of what I ~love thinking about is how the author's background/experience/life has influenced the story. So I do speculate on authorial intent, trying to figure out the psychological, socioeconomic, and historical influences that -- through the filter of the author's mind creative output -- have shaped the book.
I commented again (above) to kikimay with links and more background on the term "the author is dead" ...
Unfortunately, I neglected to fully define and explain the term - which is a popular one in literary studies - and one that I haven't had to define explicitly in writing in a long while.
My sincerest and deepest apologies for being so neglectful. It was sloppy writing on my part.
And I hope that the links prove more helpful than my shoddy explanation. If anything, angearia's meta is a pure delight to read and is well worth the five minutes. She writes poetry and passes it off as meta and everyone should read this one in particular.
Seconding kikimay's love for this explanation, thank you! That's exactly what I mean when I say "Believe the tale and not the teller." (Or believe the tale BEFORE believing the teller. Whatyouwill
( ... )
I haven't still decided if I truly believe that the auctor is dead. I'm thinking about it. I still feel that every author has a different touch and a kind of immortality through his works. For example, you can still recognize Dante's works between 1000 different kind of similar works, because he was obsessed with politics, because of his beliefs on God and love, because he wrote like no other ... I feel like he's very alive, even if he's long time dead. I don't know if this makes sense.
Reply
I haven't still decided if I truly believe that the author is dead.
As I said: "I’m not going to claim authorial intent."
I know Joss' hand was in Dawn and Echo and River Tam - just as sure as I am that a comparison between these three will reveal something about the Whedonverse that is not necessarily a revelation that can extend past that.
The author is there.
I just CANNOT claim to know their intention.
Does Joss know that Dawn is the predecessor to Echo?
No way to know that in the universe.
Even if I interviewed him personally and asked him if he planned/knew the implications of Dawn and he gave me a straight answer.
I wouldn't believe him.
That's what I mean when I say "the author is dead" ;)
Reply
Reply
Roland Barthes coined the term in this essay back in 1967 and it has been pretty standard in literature studies since. I should have introduced it better and I apologize. It's one of those things I shouldn't presume everyone has heard of :)
It's a school of thought I firmly follow. (Especially after reading TOO many undergraduate classmate's essay on how "this symbolism in the text PROVES THAT POE/HEMINGWAY/SHAKESPEARE IS GAY" ...)
I can't claim to know what is in a writer's mind.
I can see things in my own fic that are about my mind - but it would be EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE if someone else tried to tell me how my fiction relates to my own psychological profile.
So I respect other authors enough not to do that either.
angearia wrote a really ( ... )
Reply
I can see things in my own fic that are about my mind - but it would be EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE if someone else tried to tell me how my fiction relates to my own psychological profile.
So I respect other authors enough not to do that either.This is interesting! I approach this a bit differently because part of what I ~love thinking about is how the author's background/experience/life has influenced the story. So I do speculate on authorial intent, trying to figure out the psychological, socioeconomic, and historical influences that -- through the filter of the author's mind creative output -- have shaped the book ( ... )
Reply
This is interesting! I approach this a bit differently because part of what I ~love thinking about is how the author's background/experience/life has influenced the story.
See... I guess I don't read that as authorial intent?
I only see authorial intent as either:
"POE IS GAY BECAUSE OF THIS QUOTE IN ONE TEXT"
or
"Poe was obviously writing about homosexuality because he wanted to and you see it here and here and here..."
Because... I can't dig up Poe and ask him.
But on the other hand - I completely and totally agree with you that "trying to figure out the psychological, socioeconomic, and historical influences that -- through the filter of the author's mind creative output -- have shaped the book." is one of the most stimulating analytical exercises that there is in the universe.
But I feel that's more on the path of cultural-analysis?
I mean - I totally get why someone would put that on the path of "authorial intent" ...
But I only use that term to mean something that the author consciously said: "I'm ( ... )
Reply
But I feel that's more on the path of cultural-analysis?
Hmm, splainy? I'd love to hear more on this :)
If someone commented on a fic that I ... idk - really like water imagery or something - I'd be like: yes, cool.Well, for instance, a reader commented on how one of the major themes of my story was 'self-disgust'. And that was totally true, but also wow a gutpunch to read. I think there's ways for readers to punch the authors guts with their insight, without actually directly saying 'the author felt this way' or 'the author was this way' but simply by the nature of the ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Don't apologize! Thanks for the explanation. I'm learning new things here. It's an interesting concept since I do this too:
because part of what I ~love thinking about is how the author's background/experience/life has influenced the story. So I do speculate on authorial intent, trying to figure out the psychological, socioeconomic, and historical influences that -- through the filter of the author's mind creative output -- have shaped the book.
*w*
Reply
Reply
Reply
IT IS THE ALPHA AND OMEGA
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Unfortunately, I neglected to fully define and explain the term - which is a popular one in literary studies - and one that I haven't had to define explicitly in writing in a long while.
My sincerest and deepest apologies for being so neglectful. It was sloppy writing on my part.
And I hope that the links prove more helpful than my shoddy explanation. If anything, angearia's meta is a pure delight to read and is well worth the five minutes. She writes poetry and passes it off as meta and everyone should read this one in particular.
Also Roland Barthes was a pretty cool dude.
Reply
I just CANNOT claim to know their intention.
Seconding kikimay's love for this explanation, thank you! That's exactly what I mean when I say "Believe the tale and not the teller." (Or believe the tale BEFORE believing the teller. Whatyouwill ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment