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.
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
Leave a comment