what i mean by "the author is boxed"

[pocochina]

The...introduction? disclaimer? part where I walk out slowly with my hands in the air?...to my TVD post for the week got wicked meta, and then off topic, and then just plain out of hand. But it was helpful to work through, I think, so I decided to make it easily linkable. This is what I mean when I say “ the author is boxed.”

Comments

[pocochina]

I think I see what you mean? That's what I was trying to get at with this:

If a narrative is unclear and open to several interpretations, especially if one or several of those are guaranteed to lead to fandom fuckery, that's always on the table to discuss

though possibly not particularly artfully.

it's when I perceive a dissonance between this impression, and what I take from the story itself, that I say that I'm disagreeing with The Author.I do see what you mean, and I've definitely had that frustration. I think, for me, I tend to think of it in terms of "the narrative" - that is, the finished product as a whole is making a particular statement, and I am free to agree or disagree. If it's muddled enough to be distracting, and it doesn't give me the cues of being a story about moral ambiguity, I consider that a technical issue, but I'm more concerned with applying my criticisms to a depersonalized narrative than trying to divine who meant what and when, largely because of how I have the attention span of a fruit fly

[pocochina]

Yeah. It's just easiest for me, I think. Because I accepted a long time ago that most of the world is going to have beliefs that I find objectionable - including myself, though I'm working on it - and mass media, being a consumerist reflection of society, is going to be even worse. But I just can't start with the birth of Christ every time I want to talk about something that interests me. And I think I'm noticing this as the easiest way for me to set stuff aside when possible, and criticize it as coherently and mental-health-protectively as possible when I think that's useful/important to do.

[local_max]

Oh my heart! This is very, very close to where I, ahem, want to be, but can't always manage.

[pocochina]

lol. I think eight years of CCD gave me a leg up on the whole "tuning out alleged textual authorities" business.

[angearia]

I tend to argue hardest for "the author is dead" when I'm up against someone who devoutly believes in the "Word of God" approach.

Mostly, I choose whichever approach (or bits of approaches patched together) make the most coherent sense of the text. And sometimes, that means the meaningful personal approach of reader response. Other times, authorial intent is crucial to critiquing the intended message, especially in deconstructing -isms.

[pocochina]

Yeah, there's definitely an important place for that. I think with so much of the stuff I like, like we were talking about with Supernatural last night, if I have to worry about the author's ~baggage, that is just too much crap for me to sort through in order to talk about a story the way I like. I think you're right that it's a useful tool, though.

[noybusiness]

That's a great quote!

[pocochina]

Isn't it great, though? As much as I doubt it would change my opinion of Whedon's stories if he didn't think that way, I do suspect his being the kind of writer that does is part of what lets him write stories that work so wonderfully for so many of us.

[noybusiness]

I quite agree.

Read any more Ice and Fire since that last post?

[pocochina]

I have, though it's been a while. I started A Dance with Dragons a while back. I do still enjoy it, but I kind of ran out of steam.

[red_satin_doll]

So this is my compromise: the words of the author are there if I’m really curious to pick something apart, but I watch/read something as if they are unavailable. If I do get curious/happen to stumble upon the opinion of a creator, which strikes me as reliable, authoritative, well-thought-out, consistent with canon, and MOST importantly does not contradict MY reading of the text,[2] I take that opinion under consideration as one factor in my analysis.

Every word of this entire post hits me exactly where I live. Do we share the same brain? On this subject we do, but you express it so much better. Had I read this post earlier I could have saved myself so much time lately arguing with other people; I could have linked and said "This" and that would have covered it.

The phrase I go by is "believe the tale and not the teller (when in doubt)"; but "the author is boxed" is pithier.

[pocochina]

Do we share the same brain?

.....MAYBE!

"believe the tale and not the teller (when in doubt)"

I like this! Which, I feel like the creators of my favorite stories would generally agree with this statement as well, because they know *all about* unreliable narrators. The author happens to be an unreliable narrator, even IRL.

[red_satin_doll]

The author happens to be an unreliable narrator, even IRL.

YES! That's exactly what that phrase means to me. But I've had people argue with me to the contrary and - bored, now.