#1132: "Yay!"

[Fifthfiend]

People can choose to accept different messages than the ones that were intended. Sometimes an author can make a work poorly enough not to send the message they desire. That doesn't mean they're incorrect. It just means they didn't send the message well.

No, it means they're incorrect. If I tell someone to go fuck himself, then turn around later and say oh well what I meant was you're a wonderful person I think highly of, then that doesn't actually make "fuck you" a compliment, I just said something completely different from what I (claim that I) meant to say.

Dumbledore being gay isn't much of an example because it's completely irrelevant to the story, you can believe it or not believe it as you like. A better example would be if JK Rowling said that the meaning of her story was to show a hero succeeding through hard work, perserverance, and skill. In which case it would be like that's super JK except the story you actually wrote is about a hero coasting on a never-ending tide of Deus Exes and plain dumb luck. If an author has a meaning they want to convey then they need to convey it in the actual story when they're writing it, after-the-fact pronouncements don't mean shit.

Originally Posted by russianreversal

It's like (forgive me but I only have food on the mind right now) me creating a lentil soup, and you saying it tastes like beets to you. I can't say you're wrong (though suggesting that your senses might be out of whack is perfectly within reason), but when insinuate that I was actually trying to make borscht and just called it lentil soup I can certainly call you out on being full of it. I know what I put in my goddamn soup thank you very much and it was lentils.

If you continue to insist on that after your guest dips a ladle into it and pulls out a spoonful of beets, then you're gonna look pretty silly. Authorial omniscience is easy to argue if you only use examples where the author is plainly correct but the long history of art and culture is filled with creators who imagined all kinds of shit about their work that wasn't and couldn't hope to be the case. Convince me why I should accept Ayn Rand's view that her body of work represents a philosophical treatise demonstrating the true nature of human beings, and not a ridiculous Mary-Sue wankfest extolling the philosophy of It's Right Cause Ayn Rand Says So, Fuck You. Go exhume D.W. Griffith and get him to tell me how Birth of a Nation was a story of a proud people's noble struggle to uphold morality in the face of corrupt outsiders and degenerate ideas and we'll see if I don't choose to continue viewing it as a pile of crazy racist bullshit.

People always and forever have believed all kinds of shit about themselves and the things they say and do that don't have fuck-all to do with the reality of their interactions with the world around them, picking up a pen and titling yourself An Author doesn't make you somehow exempt.

[Arrekusu]

To be fair, angst was also involved.

[Archbio]

If an author has a meaning they want to convey then they need to convey it in the actual story when they're writing it, after-the-fact pronouncements don't mean shit.

That's the crux of it, really, even beyond the actual gigantic problems with "after-the-fact pronouncements" being considered an infallible key to interpreting a work.

When Ray Bradbury changes his mind about what Fahrenheit 451 means, does what Fahrenheit 451 mean change even if the work itself doesn't? In a sense, considering that authorial statements trump the work itself in interpretation can easily be a bigger betrayal of original authorial intent.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Archbio

That's the crux of it, really, even beyond the actual gigantic problems with "after-the-fact pronouncements" being considered an infallible key to interpreting a work.

When Ray Bradbury changes his mind about what Fahrenheit 451 means, does what Fahrenheit 451 mean change even if the work itself doesn't? In a sense, considering that authorial statements trump the work itself in interpretation can easily be a bigger betrayal of original authorial intent.

No, and that's not what I was trying to imply - as Fifth pointed out the Dumbledore example was a poor one. Sorry, my mistake. I actually agree with you both on this. After The Fact announcements are not necessarrily canon. If they disagree with what was written they're crap. If J.K. Rowling meant to portray a hard-working hero, she failed. The intent was there, but the execution was poor. It still exists as it does because of her intent, but it was poorly conveyed. Dumbledore is a rare instance in that it doesn't actually conflict with anything in the story. The (extremely tenuous and vague) implications can be seen in his "close relationship" with the evil warlock and family history, but it's never really proven he's more than good friends - what the vast majority of people walked away from it with.

As above, I mentioned Lucas. He's now accepting as canon items that disagree with previously established canon. This is when author-error creeps in. Fifth's example was also a poor one. As previously mentioned, if an author lies about they're work - they lie. If they attempt to decieve with their work, than it is itself a lie. What they 'meant' to convey fails because it's a total deception - a sham.

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

If I tell someone to go fuck himself, then turn around later and say oh well what I meant was you're a wonderful person I think highly of, then that doesn't actually make "fuck you" a compliment, I just said something completely different from what I (claim that I) meant to say.

This is a terrible example and a logical fallicy! This is what I meant when I said if the author conveys poorly they failed. If you meant it as a compliment... um, no, you failed. If you didn't mean it as a compliment, than it's a lie. Lies are not valid points in canon. I'm not argueing that authors are infallible. Far from it. Just that they are inherently correct with their original intent and that, when honestly given, the work should be judged based off of its original intent, not in what we read into it.

I could "read" into Plato that any ring that grants invisibility will make men behave evilly because such a ring is evil. This was not his point. The point Plato intended to make with his story of the ring was that men are evil inherently and that it's only the fear of consequences that makes them behave. If I took something other than that from the work, I'm incorrect. If Plato later went back and said, say, that he was trying to show how rings are evil-inducing machines, he is lying, senile, or terrible at conveying his message. I totally agree on that point. If Plato later said that the man to whom he was referring was gay or straight or tall or short... ok. It's irrelevant to the point he was trying to make. I'll take his word for it.

Again, author's aren't always correct because they're authors. After-the-fact changes do happen. People make lousy thesis and write them poorly. Ayn Rand was off. Ok. That doesn't mean that her view should be discounted in the body of her work. In fact that view is integral to understanding what the work is.

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Convince me why I should accept Ayn Rand's view that her body of work represents a philosophical treatise demonstrating the true nature of human beings, and not a ridiculous Mary-Sue wankfest extolling the philosophy of It's Right Cause Ayn Rand Says So, Fuck You.

If she believed it, she believed it. That's what the work means. It's not necessarily true, and I don't think anyone is argueing that her ideas are correct. But inside her written world, what she was saying is automatically true. If she was trying to protray the true nature of human beings... ok. That's what she was trying to portray. She's inherently correct about her attempts. She's not inherently correct about the nature of human beings, mind you, just about what she was trying to portray about them. It may be a very, very poor treatise, but if that's what she meant to make, that's what it is. That's the meaning of the work. You have the right to view it any way you want to, but she has the right to put pen to paper to extol her particular view, whether or not you agree with that view.

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

People always and forever have believed all kinds of shit about themselves and the things they say and do that don't have fuck-all to do with the reality of their interactions with the world around them, picking up a pen and titling yourself An Author doesn't make you somehow exempt.

I'm not claiming that authors are always correct about everything. But they are correct about the intent of the work they're trying to portray. It's inherent because they are the ones writing it. If an author fails to get across what they're attempting to get across that's a failure. If an author is crazy, their work will be crazy. But it represents them.

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

If you continue to insist on that after your guest dips a ladle into it and pulls out a spoonful of beets, then you're gonna look pretty silly.

If this happens and you know you only put in lentils, then something very, very strange happened. Either the person eating or someone else sabatoged the soup, or you put the wrong thing in. If you put the wrong thing in because you didn't look at the can - it's your own fault. If you put the wrong thing in from a can which clearly said 'lentils' than it's the can's fault. If you say 'lentils' and someone else says 'beets' and you're both looking at the same thing - it's a problem with definitions and communication.