Whether it's Bradbury saying something cranky or Rowling saying something saucy, the author's interpretation of their own story or characters is worth no more than any other reader's take-away
( Read more... )
Yeah, as CW replied, I'm talking about interpretive statements the authors make during interviews, or otherwise outside of their body of work.
There's a vast chasm between (oh, I don't know,) "The author says that she wrote this character as gay" and "This character is gay", if nowhere in the actual text is this particular character attribute explicitly revealed.
It occurs to me now that I should have said "The director says that he treated this character as a replicant" etc. for more geek points, but I can barely shut my closet door on the ones I already have, so OK.
I don't really understand what the big deal is. So an author says off-handedly that she wrote a fictional male character as though he were gay? How on earth is that remotely newsworthy? It's not like she actually wrote a chapter where he starts spontaneously nibbling on Harry's earlobe or something, I mean, I can see how that might ruffle a few feathers what with it being a children's book 'n all.
i am going to go back and re-read them. i bet he exhibits undue influence and pushes a subversive gay agenda on the kids, turning them gay and i missed it the first time around.
I mostly agree with you, but I think declarations of the author's intent can be useful for discussion. I also think it's entirely reasonable to decide that the author doesn't know what they're talking about. I'd go so far as the conclusion that a sequel by the original author is wrong and is therefore not canon in some cases.
Things get trickier when authors revise their works. If, for example, in the theatrical release of a movie it's unclear whether a character is a replicant, but in the director's cut it is clear that the character is, I don't think the director's claim that the character was always a replicant in the theatrical release necessarily carries weight. But any discussion of the issue then requires at least some justification of why one version of the work is preferred over the other. "Because the director is a moron" may well be sufficient justification.
this is where it gets fuzzy for me. because at a certain point, the story should end, and authors should write their own, original work otherwise it's kind of cheating. maybe it's the money to be made by continuing the adventures of beloved characters, maybe it's a public demand issue, maybe it's both, but there are a lot of sequels or continuations that shouldn't happen, authorized or not
( ... )
Comments 22
Reply
Reply
There's a vast chasm between (oh, I don't know,) "The author says that she wrote this character as gay" and "This character is gay", if nowhere in the actual text is this particular character attribute explicitly revealed.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Things get trickier when authors revise their works. If, for example, in the theatrical release of a movie it's unclear whether a character is a replicant, but in the director's cut it is clear that the character is, I don't think the director's claim that the character was always a replicant in the theatrical release necessarily carries weight. But any discussion of the issue then requires at least some justification of why one version of the work is preferred over the other. "Because the director is a moron" may well be sufficient justification.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment