authorial intent vs fannish interpretation, especially if said intent is fairly vague
This is more meta than I usually get but ... does authorial intent matter?
As many of you know, Eric Kripke recently clarified something that happened in Supernatural's 'Yellow Fever'. I mentioned it in this entry & it brought some interesting comments.
I was appreciative of the gesture at first; I thought it was cool that he was taking the time to prevent viewers from going off on unfortunate tangents. Now that I think about it though, was it really his place? Once the episode's finished, the episode's finished. If he didn't make something absolutely clear before it aired, does it matter afterwards? He may own the sandbox, but we're building the sandcastles.
There are two fans. One fan who assumed that the episode played one way & another who took it to mean something entirely different. If Kripke says, after the fact, that the first fan is right & the second is wrong -- does that make the second viewer's conclusion any less valid than the first's? It's like the advice given by a thousand betas -- show, don't tell.
On the same tangent, I rarely watch DVD commentaries because of the implications of authorial intent. I was burned by one show in particular, when I watched the series with the commentary on and discovered that the actress/writer often did things without thinking & even disliked certain aspects of her work. If she thought the episode was poorly done, what does that say about the fact that I quite enjoyed it?
I don't keep up with fannish meta as well as I should, so I might be beating a dead horse by talking about this. While I'm against cruelty to animals, more meta the merrier, right?
I'd love to know your thoughts. Do you care what the creator/writer intended, especially if they failed to show it? Do you let it affect your interpretation &/or enjoyment?
As many of you know, Eric Kripke recently clarified something that happened in Supernatural's 'Yellow Fever'. I mentioned it in this entry & it brought some interesting comments.
I was appreciative of the gesture at first; I thought it was cool that he was taking the time to prevent viewers from going off on unfortunate tangents. Now that I think about it though, was it really his place? Once the episode's finished, the episode's finished. If he didn't make something absolutely clear before it aired, does it matter afterwards? He may own the sandbox, but we're building the sandcastles.
There are two fans. One fan who assumed that the episode played one way & another who took it to mean something entirely different. If Kripke says, after the fact, that the first fan is right & the second is wrong -- does that make the second viewer's conclusion any less valid than the first's? It's like the advice given by a thousand betas -- show, don't tell.
On the same tangent, I rarely watch DVD commentaries because of the implications of authorial intent. I was burned by one show in particular, when I watched the series with the commentary on and discovered that the actress/writer often did things without thinking & even disliked certain aspects of her work. If she thought the episode was poorly done, what does that say about the fact that I quite enjoyed it?
I don't keep up with fannish meta as well as I should, so I might be beating a dead horse by talking about this. While I'm against cruelty to animals, more meta the merrier, right?
I'd love to know your thoughts. Do you care what the creator/writer intended, especially if they failed to show it? Do you let it affect your interpretation &/or enjoyment?