How about a Borg series?

[Christopher]

But 99% of the time you don't know the author's intentions, especially for non-contemporary works.

Except that sometimes the text itself makes it pretty clear that intentions have changed. "Q Who" explicitly stated that the Borg are only interested in technology and ignore people. BOBW had the Borg assimilate Picard and explicitly stated that it was a special case. But by VGR, assimilating people was portrayed as their default practice. You don't need to know a thing about underlying intent, it's right there in the text, as explicitly as James R. Kirk versus James T. Kirk. We are, after all, talking about different authors adapting the same concept to suit their needs, so of course the intent changed.

 

[Idran]

That as well, yeah. And of course if intention isn't as clear as in those examples but you still have a multiple-author situation like that, the authors of later works are the audience of the previous, and there's no assurance that the later authors necessarily have insight beyond the text itself of the original author's intentions above that which an average reader would have either.

 

[Christopher]

^Yes, and even if they do know the original author's intent, they may well choose to do their own thing anyway, to put their own mark on it. Or maybe they even have to do something different, because if they based their work on their predecessors' ideas, then maybe the predecessors would be owed story credit/payment. I'm not sure if that's how it works, though.

 

[JD]

But 99% of the time you don't know the author's intentions, especially for non-contemporary works. In a conversation if you say something that's misinterpreted, then you can explain or elaborate, but for an artistic creation what's there is there. It's communication, but from author to audience, not between author to audience. The author puts something out there, and the audience takes it as they will. In most cases all that you know, and all that you can know, is what's in the work itself. You can't expect an audience to research beyond the work to determine what the work means, nor should you.

Besides, while it can be that people read something into the text that isn't there, it can also be that people read something into the text that is there but that the author didn't realize was there or didn't intend to be there. Just because the author didn't purposefully intend to put something into their work, that doesn't mean it's not in their work.

But nowadays if you want to know about an author's intentions with something in their work all you have to do is ask them on Facebook, Twitter, e-mail, or even some message board.

 

[Idran]

But nowadays if you want to know about an author's intentions with something in their work all you have to do is ask them on Facebook, Twitter, e-mail, or even some message board.

For the big names, sure (assuming they answer you), or in specific scenarios like this board. But what about less popular works with authors that don't have as much interest in social media? And again, that's assuming that there's nothing to a work but what the author wanted to put in there.

I mean, let's just try something here, let's grab an example. Christopher (or any other author reading this thread), have you ever heard a reading of one of your works that you didn't intend but that you can in hindsight see as applicable? Or even seen one yourself on revisiting an older work? (I know a friend of mine reads Lucsly as autistic and asked you about it once before on Facebook, but I can't recall if you said it was intentional or not.)

 

[Christopher]

I mean, let's just try something here, let's grab an example. Christopher (or any other author reading this thread), have you ever heard a reading of one of your works that you didn't intend but that you can in hindsight see as applicable? Or even seen one yourself on revisiting an older work?

Offhand, I can't remember an example. I can remember some pretty egregious misreadings and missings of the point, going back to my first published story. But I can't recall if I've ever had the pleasure of hearing a reader suggest a viable alternative reading that hadn't occurred to me. Well, maybe one -- there's the bit in Watching the Clock where Jena Noi recruits Agent Shelan for a mission, and someone read it as a lesbian seduction, and I don't think that's quite what I had in mind, but I'm perfectly fine with it.

 

[Destructor]

My angle of analysis is not "wrong" just because it's different from yours.

Outlining my own form of analysis in no way implies that I find your form of analysis 'wrong'. You yourself said we are talking about completely different things. My opinion is my own, I apologize if it was written in such a way as to make you interpret it as overwriting or undermining your own.

 

[Idran]

Offhand, I can't remember an example. I can remember some pretty egregious misreadings and missings of the point, going back to my first published story. But I can't recall if I've ever had the pleasure of hearing a reader suggest a viable alternative reading that hadn't occurred to me. Well, maybe one -- there's the bit in Watching the Clock where Jena Noi recruits Agent Shelan for a mission, and someone read it as a lesbian seduction, and I don't think that's quite what I had in mind, but I'm perfectly fine with it.

Aha; I was hoping there might be something especially demonstrative for an example for JD here, but I guess sometimes a tack doesn't pay off. (Plus I always like hearing about alternative readings anyway.)

Getting back to your concerns, then, JD, does it help to consider that we're talking specifically about when a reading is demonstrated or presented? Not just making an unsubstantiated claim and never going into detail about where it's coming from, but being willing to substantiate it if necessary by drawing from the text. Showing your work, essentially. Like with Destructor's post that kicked this all off; they showed how their reading corresponded to the text and where they drew their interpretation from, they spelled out their reasoning. In that case, at least to me, it all stands on how strong I take the argument or evidence to be, whether or not it goes along with the author's original intention.

 

[DonIago]

I did a Marxist critique of A Clockwork Orange (book, not film) for a college course once, and of course provided examples to back up my arguments. I have no idea whether Anthony Burgess would have agreed with any of my theories, and the paper was written so long ago that I don't even recall whether I seriously subscribed to any of what I came up with.

Now, while I hope people may have found what I had to say entertaining, and perhaps even informative or educational, as far as validity goes, all I can say is that I looked at the novel through a particular lens. If Burgess meant for his work to be analyzed through such a lens, that's pretty cool (though even that wouldn't mean I got the particulars right). If Burgess had no intention of having his work be any sort of comment on Marxism, then while I've hopefully presented an interesting perspective, that's essentially all it is.

 

[Idran]

If you boil it down, though, isn't that all any interaction with any creative output is?

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Hmm. The current turn of this thread has me thinking about an ordination service I attended, many years ago, in support of a friend who was becoming a United Methodist Elder. Several people (including Bishop Swenson herself, as I recall) gave speeches and sermons, and one of the speakers admonished all to keep in mind the difference between exegesis (drawing out the meaning that's in a text) and eisegesis (drawing in your own agendas instead).

 

[Idran]

That's a difficult line to walk in literary analysis too, yeah. That's why it's so important to be willing to present the details of a reading. You can't really present as good a justification if you're just reading something into it, while if there is something substantial to the reading then the justification should highlight it well.

 

[DonIago]

Which goes back to why I think it's paramount that one's own findings be presented as just that.

Do this: I came up with some fascinating analysis of ACO from a Marxist perspective.
Not this: ACO has a lot of Marxist subtext.

 

[Idran]

Which goes back to why I think it's paramount that one's own findings be presented as just that.

Do this: I came up with some fascinating analysis of ACO from a Marxist perspective.
Not this: ACO has a lot of Marxist subtext.

Like I said earlier, though, the defense of the claim is presenting the findings as one's own. Otherwise why would the defense be there?

 

[JD]

Aha; I was hoping there might be something especially demonstrative for an example for JD here, but I guess sometimes a tack doesn't pay off. (Plus I always like hearing about alternative readings anyway.)

Getting back to your concerns, then, JD, does it help to consider that we're talking specifically about when a reading is demonstrated or presented? Not just making an unsubstantiated claim and never going into detail about where it's coming from, but being willing to substantiate it if necessary by drawing from the text. Showing your work, essentially. Like with Destructor's post that kicked this all off; they showed how their reading corresponded to the text and where they drew their interpretation from, they spelled out their reasoning. In that case, at least to me, it all stands on how strong I take the argument or evidence to be, whether or not it goes along with the author's original intention.

That's fine if you can defend your alternate interpretation, but I think it's still an alternate interpretation.

 

[Idran]

Agree to disagree at this point, I guess.