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.
angearia wrote a really amazing meta: if authorial intent dies in a fire, does anyone even notice? that is a much better explanation than mine because she's much more savvy with words than I (and I'm posting this quickly before crashing). Seriously - this meta is more like poetry and should be in everyone's rotations.
Seriously. My deepest apologies for not being more clear on my definitions.
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.
But I really feel I have to fight against the idea of other readers using 'authorial intent' as The Authority on meaning in fiction. I guess I just view all meaning as relative in fiction, best captured by the best crafted and most persuasive argument that best fits the text. So, in reading two interpretations, one could be right, but then the next one could be more right because it was more eloquent and more holistic in its approach of the text.
You know, though, I guess it is a strange game to play, trying to play 'know the author' when reading the text. But I feel like that's the only true source of authorial intent one can read -- that which one finds in the text. As opposed to what the author actually says or what other readers might say which erases all other readings.
This is just taking me back to how much I love playing 'Know Tolstoy' in reading Anna Karenina, though, where his ideas on gender and such (and messed up conceptions of a man and woman's place, respectively) are somehow overthrown by the process of being true in writing fiction. Which is a glorious testament to the power of writing, as well as Tolstoy's skill.
Ok wow rambling. I ramble a lot on this subject because it is MY FAVORITE.
Somewhat relatedly, I had a reader play that game of 'know the author' in an indirect way by simply identifying one of the themes in my fic, Thought You Should Know. And that felt like an unexpected probing of me psychologically. Not that the reader was doing it intentionally, rather just identifying a common theme. Only it was one I hadn't consciously intended, yet it was still going strong. So I'm not sure there's really a way to respect the author and protect them from invasiveness -- because fiction is self-revealing, and good fiction comes from deep inside you. I don't think there's a way to talk about fiction intelligently and not barge into the author's psyche, since fiction is the author's psyche thrown on the page in the shape of characters, themes, and plot.
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 going to write about this today," and 99% of the time, writers don't know all the minuscule things that detail how and why they write the way they write.
If we did - no writing would ever get done. I mean just imagine.
I had a reader play that game of 'know the author' in an indirect way by simply identifying one of the themes in my fic, Thought You Should Know. And that felt like an unexpected probing of me psychologically. Not that the reader was doing it intentionally, rather just identifying a common theme. Only it was one I hadn't consciously intended, yet it was still going strong. This is something that I would genuinely approve of from a reader.
If someone commented on a fic that I ... idk - really like water imagery or something - I'd be like: yes, cool.
But if someone (who doesn't know me) commented and said: "Yes, I can see that you have a lot of daddy issues and are struggling with your sexuality as you write [....] here." I'd be very perturbed.
Or... I know that I've commented a few times on fic that I genuinely appreciate the construction of gender or sexuality or how relationships are defined, etc. But I don't know if I would go so far as to say: "And this proves to me that you MUST be asexual polyamorous and that's why you write this way." Ever.
So... Does Joss really get a kick out of discussing agency and created identities and multiple identities? Yes. Is that a theme that I see through his work? Yes. Is it totally rad? Yes. Is it maybe on purpose? Probably. Maybe. I don't know. Can I claim that he is intensely interested in agency because a child MUST have bullied him in elementary school? No. Not even if he said that in an interview. (Made up example is made up.)
Because we can hazard a guess - like you say:
I don't think there's a way to talk about fiction intelligently and not barge into the author's psyche, since fiction is the author's psyche thrown on the page in the shape of characters, themes, and plot.
But I don't feel like anyone has an authority on the exact, direct, and intentional ways this can occur.
I take the "intent" part in authorial intent very seriously :)
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 fiction coming from the author, these insights can hit the author deeply. But I think it's an important point to consider about the sensitivity of speculating on the author to the point of dissecting the author -- where do we draw the line? It's much easier to understand within a fandom context because respecting fandom authors is highly valued and protected by the culture. I can be a bit cavalier in respecting the actual author, especially when that author is far removed from me. Though I think it's okay as long as one maintains the text as the primary lens through which one makes interpretations. So yeah, cleave to the text, even when it comes to interpretation of the author.
Because... I can't dig up Poe and ask him.
Even if we could, we couldn't necessarily trust his answer. But I don't think that means the door has to be shut on making connections between the text and the author, though that doesn't give license to make sweeping conclusions that define the author's core identity. Like what I said above about Tolstoy, how characters in Anna Karenina and his crafting of the text, in addition to his preface, demonstrate something about his thoughts on gender.
So... Does Joss really get a kick out of discussing agency and created identities and multiple identities? Yes. Is that a theme that I see through his work? Yes. Is it totally rad? Yes. Is it maybe on purpose? Probably. Maybe. I don't know.
See, I think the answer to the last question is definitely yes. He does it in all his works, finally reaching the point that he created an entire show centered on the question: Dollhouse. If anything, his desire to continue exploring this question kept getting stronger. We could see this as unintentional, his id spilling over to a driving need, but I think his interviews in addition to the pattern of increasing frequency and strength demonstrate the pattern to be conscious and intended.
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.
So where you may say 'probably' to the question of authorial intent regarding Joss on about 'discussing agency and created identities and multiple identities', I'd just say yes.
Though maybe this just boils down to a difference in how specific we are in expressing what constitutes truth? I feel okay in saying 'yes' strongly because my default assumption is that I'm speaking my opinion, which is by nature only part of a greater truth, as opposed to assuming an authority over determining truth.
For me, since absolute certainty of authorial intent cannot exist, my making a judgment on authorial intent carries with it the inherent understanding that it's subjectively based.
(Apologies if this is confusing! I feel like our brains are running around each other. Wow, I'm tired, too.)
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.
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 amazing meta: if authorial intent dies in a fire, does anyone even notice? that is a much better explanation than mine because she's much more savvy with words than I (and I'm posting this quickly before crashing). Seriously - this meta is more like poetry and should be in everyone's rotations.
Seriously. My deepest apologies for not being more clear on my definitions.
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.
But I really feel I have to fight against the idea of other readers using 'authorial intent' as The Authority on meaning in fiction. I guess I just view all meaning as relative in fiction, best captured by the best crafted and most persuasive argument that best fits the text. So, in reading two interpretations, one could be right, but then the next one could be more right because it was more eloquent and more holistic in its approach of the text.
You know, though, I guess it is a strange game to play, trying to play 'know the author' when reading the text. But I feel like that's the only true source of authorial intent one can read -- that which one finds in the text. As opposed to what the author actually says or what other readers might say which erases all other readings.
This is just taking me back to how much I love playing 'Know Tolstoy' in reading Anna Karenina, though, where his ideas on gender and such (and messed up conceptions of a man and woman's place, respectively) are somehow overthrown by the process of being true in writing fiction. Which is a glorious testament to the power of writing, as well as Tolstoy's skill.
Ok wow rambling. I ramble a lot on this subject because it is MY FAVORITE.
Somewhat relatedly, I had a reader play that game of 'know the author' in an indirect way by simply identifying one of the themes in my fic, Thought You Should Know. And that felt like an unexpected probing of me psychologically. Not that the reader was doing it intentionally, rather just identifying a common theme. Only it was one I hadn't consciously intended, yet it was still going strong. So I'm not sure there's really a way to respect the author and protect them from invasiveness -- because fiction is self-revealing, and good fiction comes from deep inside you. I don't think there's a way to talk about fiction intelligently and not barge into the author's psyche, since fiction is the author's psyche thrown on the page in the shape of characters, themes, and plot.
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 going to write about this today," and 99% of the time, writers don't know all the minuscule things that detail how and why they write the way they write.
If we did - no writing would ever get done. I mean just imagine.
I had a reader play that game of 'know the author' in an indirect way by simply identifying one of the themes in my fic, Thought You Should Know. And that felt like an unexpected probing of me psychologically. Not that the reader was doing it intentionally, rather just identifying a common theme. Only it was one I hadn't consciously intended, yet it was still going strong.
This is something that I would genuinely approve of from a reader.
If someone commented on a fic that I ... idk - really like water imagery or something - I'd be like: yes, cool.
But if someone (who doesn't know me) commented and said: "Yes, I can see that you have a lot of daddy issues and are struggling with your sexuality as you write [....] here." I'd be very perturbed.
Or... I know that I've commented a few times on fic that I genuinely appreciate the construction of gender or sexuality or how relationships are defined, etc. But I don't know if I would go so far as to say: "And this proves to me that you MUST be asexual polyamorous and that's why you write this way." Ever.
So... Does Joss really get a kick out of discussing agency and created identities and multiple identities? Yes. Is that a theme that I see through his work? Yes. Is it totally rad? Yes. Is it maybe on purpose? Probably. Maybe. I don't know. Can I claim that he is intensely interested in agency because a child MUST have bullied him in elementary school? No. Not even if he said that in an interview. (Made up example is made up.)
Because we can hazard a guess - like you say:
I don't think there's a way to talk about fiction intelligently and not barge into the author's psyche, since fiction is the author's psyche thrown on the page in the shape of characters, themes, and plot.
But I don't feel like anyone has an authority on the exact, direct, and intentional ways this can occur.
I take the "intent" part in authorial intent very seriously :)
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 fiction coming from the author, these insights can hit the author deeply. But I think it's an important point to consider about the sensitivity of speculating on the author to the point of dissecting the author -- where do we draw the line? It's much easier to understand within a fandom context because respecting fandom authors is highly valued and protected by the culture. I can be a bit cavalier in respecting the actual author, especially when that author is far removed from me. Though I think it's okay as long as one maintains the text as the primary lens through which one makes interpretations. So yeah, cleave to the text, even when it comes to interpretation of the author.
Because... I can't dig up Poe and ask him.
Even if we could, we couldn't necessarily trust his answer. But I don't think that means the door has to be shut on making connections between the text and the author, though that doesn't give license to make sweeping conclusions that define the author's core identity. Like what I said above about Tolstoy, how characters in Anna Karenina and his crafting of the text, in addition to his preface, demonstrate something about his thoughts on gender.
So... Does Joss really get a kick out of discussing agency and created identities and multiple identities? Yes. Is that a theme that I see through his work? Yes. Is it totally rad? Yes. Is it maybe on purpose? Probably. Maybe. I don't know.
See, I think the answer to the last question is definitely yes. He does it in all his works, finally reaching the point that he created an entire show centered on the question: Dollhouse. If anything, his desire to continue exploring this question kept getting stronger. We could see this as unintentional, his id spilling over to a driving need, but I think his interviews in addition to the pattern of increasing frequency and strength demonstrate the pattern to be conscious and intended.
Reply
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.
So where you may say 'probably' to the question of authorial intent regarding Joss on about 'discussing agency and created identities and multiple identities', I'd just say yes.
Though maybe this just boils down to a difference in how specific we are in expressing what constitutes truth? I feel okay in saying 'yes' strongly because my default assumption is that I'm speaking my opinion, which is by nature only part of a greater truth, as opposed to assuming an authority over determining truth.
For me, since absolute certainty of authorial intent cannot exist, my making a judgment on authorial intent carries with it the inherent understanding that it's subjectively based.
(Apologies if this is confusing! I feel like our brains are running around each other. Wow, I'm tired, too.)
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
Leave a comment