Author Intent is valid

[Rolo]

Recently, Ten and I had a debate about the place of author intent in literary criticism.

In the rules here, one of the rules here is such:

“ 'Meaning is not Author Intent: First of all, getting published does not make a writer infallible. Even diehard fans must admit that the authors have made some mistakes. Second of all, Erin Hunter and the publisher may own the copyrights to the Warriors series, but that does not make it "theirs" in that no one else has any say about what it means. Our interpretations are not made invalid simply by conflicting with those of an author. In other words, you can disagree with Erin Hunter without necessarily being wrong. ”

This, I can understand and agree with as a basic point. However, as a result of this rule, discussing author intent has, in some cases, been seen as something negative and not a valid part of discussion. I'm here to refute this point.

Author Intent is an integral part of literary discussion. In my English Literature discussions in academic settings, the entire discussion was usually centred around 'interpreting' what the author intended the prose/character/plotpoint to mean. For example, you might talk about how a certain character acts as a 'voice piece' for the author's opinions, or that a character's death/existence symbolises something that supports a theme in the text, or that the book holds a message for society. In fact, in the marking scheme for our essays, we had an ENTIRE set of marks dedicated to deriving author intent when it came to said essay topic. In academia, it is far from a null point to discuss, it's actually the basis for most discussion.

AN UNWARRIORS EXAMPLE:
For example, previously I've suggested that Leroux' Phantom of the Opera has a setting that mirrors the Phantom's own psyche. The mask and image he portrays like the decadent theatre he haunts, and the dark bowels of the Opera house are the dark, monstrous parts of his personality (which are not visable to those he deals with, but are as much a base to his personality as the bowels of the Opera House are to the auditorium above it). This, (in a way I explained very well in the original essay but can't remember the point now) was a comment on the general human condition, particularly how we all have social selves and hidden selves (or something to that effect). This point, although subjectively interpreted, was what my interpretation of the author's intent was.

Discussing Author Intent /=/ a way of defending the author. Discussing Author intent is not shouting 'But you're reading too much into things, it's not a fair criticism' or 'The Erins didn't intend to do that'. That's just author defence, and a weak one. Author intention discussion simply points out that, actually, there may be reasons why this was written a certain way or in a certain style. It does not discredit the criticisms of the writing (or suggest that a person's interpretation of the text is wrong), for the fact that the sentence/character/theme is interpreted differently from how the author intends is itself a point for discussion (AND CRITICISM!). In this way, discussing author intent creates further intelligent discussion. However, when you ignore an authors intent, you ignore the fact that creating any kind of written work is CRAFT and that an author will deliberately try and have their writing impose an effect (selected and sculpted by them) on the reader.

This opens up the discussion to entirely new interpretations of the work and helps ensure that the context within and AROUND the book is studied in full, and it's not just a case of you misunderstanding a work (bare with me here). Within the book, this might be how the world has shaped a character to have certain traits (for example, Warriors are socialised to be hostile to enemy clans from a young age) or how a situation has generated a certain response (e.g. A cat not responding to murder because it's a war situation and they have been desensitised). Outside the book, this means the context of the author who has written it (how their views may be reflected by the book ﾖ How a disabled cat was treated a certain way because the Erins met someone disabled in a similar manner), the audience the book was intended for (e.g the lack of gory descriptions in the Warriors series is due to it's young audience) and situational events (Ivypaw was made a hero as Victoria Holmes' friend named her child Ivy).

IN PRACTICE

Into the Wild, p. 193:

Then he saw a white ShadowClan cat with jet-black paws dragging a ThunderClan elder away from the nursery. Firepaw remembered those unusual dark paws from the Gathering. Blackfoot! The ShadowClan deputy made quick work of killing the elder, who had been guarding the kits, and began to reach into the bramble nest with one massive paw.

Ten pointed out that Firepaw had a lack of emotional response to violence, quoting this paragraph summarises it. This is a semantic, reading-between-the-lines interpretation of the text. It takes everything as given.

However, as some suggested on the thread, there are situational reasons which, in realistic situations, could mean he has a lack of emotional response. He's in a war situation, the writing style might mirror the mindset. The Erins have kept the prose quick and detail-less to convey speed in the proceedings. The idea that the deputy has made 'quick' work of the elder suggests there wasn't time to prevent or react the event, and since the elder was dead, Firepaw's focus switched to the kits (a more pressing, ongoing issue). There are many, all based on Author Intent. All valid interpretations that go against the original one, not because the Author is being defended but because the reader believes there is enough evidence in the book to read it a different way. In other words, they find the evidence (maybe argument) that Firepaw is emotionless unconvincing based on the evidence and points made so far.

Given this, the thread might just dissolve into 'Well, that was poor writing and could have been executed better, since it's being misunderstood (so the writer hasn't achieved what they set out)'. That might be what has to happen, for there's nowhere left to go. However, instead a person may bring in new evidence (appropriate quotes and situations) to support their argument (in this case, Firepaw is apathetic), in order to keep the thread going and see whether this interpretation is shared by others and discuss just how bad the writing flaws are.

So, to summarise:
Author Intent is an integral part of discussion and it is valid to discuss. It doesn't take away from discussion, it adds to it, meaning people have to adapt their argument and defend their viewpoint. It is IMPOSSIBLE to separate audience response from author intent completely. Think of it this way:

Authors are puppet masters. Not only do they make the world and pull the strings of their puppets to make things move how they desire, they're also the ones pulling /your/ strings. Everything is carefully crafted to make you feel a certain way by manipulating your interpretations and emotions through careful writing, pacing and emotional content, because that way people will enjoy and become invested in their work. And this is not something we can escape. But it is our job as critical readers to notice when the lines get crossed and the strings get tangled, or if the movement is simply off, because it happens all the time.

[Lady Ten]

Sept 13, 2012 19:34:38 GMT -6 Rolo said:

Author Intent is an integral part of literary discussion. In my English Literature discussions in academic settings, the entire discussion was usually centred around 'interpreting' what the author intended the prose/character/plotpoint to mean. For example, you might talk about how a certain character acts as a 'voice piece' for the author's opinions, or that a character's death/existence symbolises something that supports a theme in the text, or that the book holds a message for society. In fact, in the marking scheme for our essays, we had an ENTIRE set of marks dedicated to deriving author intent when it came to said essay topic. In academia, it is far from a null point to discuss, it's actually the basis for most discussion.

That's interesting, because in my English class last year, I remember being penalized for focusing one of my essays on the author's intent. We were constantly being reminded that authorial intent was not a point of interest in the field.

This point, although subjectively interpreted, was what my interpretation of the author's intent was.

That sounds like an interpretation that could work independent of what the author thought, though.

This opens up the discussion to entirely new interpretations of the work and helps ensure that the context within and AROUND the book is studied in full, and it's not just a case of you misunderstanding a work (bare with me here). Within the book, this might be how the world has shaped a character to have certain traits (for example, Warriors are socialised to be hostile to enemy clans from a young age) or how a situation has generated a certain response (e.g. A cat not responding to murder because it's a war situation and they have been desensitised).

All valid interpretations that go against the original one, not because the Author is being defended but because the reader believes there is enough evidence in the book to read it a different way. In other words, they find the evidence (maybe argument) that Firepaw is emotionless unconvincing based on the evidence and points made so far.

Given this, the thread might just dissolve into 'Well, that was poor writing and could have been executed better, since it's being misunderstood (so the writer hasn't achieved what they set out)'. That might be what has to happen, for there's nowhere left to go. However, instead a person may bring in new evidence (appropriate quotes and situations) to support their argument (in this case, Firepaw is apathetic), in order to keep the thread going and see whether this interpretation is shared by others and discuss just how bad the writing flaws are.

Okay, I'm kind of tired and out of it right now, so you'll have to help me here. I don't see how these examples hinge on what the authors meant to say.

[Rolo]

First off, I'm going to refrain from quoting selective bits of your quote. Doing that means we're likely to derail the conversation into trivialities and that's the last thing I want to do. I'm going to try and keep my central point, explaining what Author Intent is and it's place on the forum.

First off, I am extremely puzzled that a teacher would tell you off for talking about Author intent. However, I can think of a few explanations. First, you may have been doing a branch of english language or linguistics, and were being asked to analyse language in terms of linguistics, grammar or syntax and not to look at meaning. Second, that you were given a question asking your impression of something. Unless you're in a field I am unfamiliar with. What field are you working within?

After this, I can try and tailor my argument more. My perspective comes from being a literature analysist at A-level, doing English Literature. In this, we always had to keep in mind how the author had constructed a certain element (character, mood, theme etc). This meant we had to keep in mind that writing is craft, and that the overall work had been formed with a certain intent to give off themes or a message. It meant we had to look at the whole work, with context (including genre), to construct an essay.

[Lady Ten]

First off, I am extremely puzzled that a teacher would tell you off for talking about Author intent.

It's very de-emphasized as an aspect of literary analysis here. There's some consideration of it in New Historicism, where the historical context is examined, but across the board, effect is considered more worthwhile.

It's not that the author as creator is not acknowledged; still, regardless of what we pull from the work, we can't know exactly what the author meant to say. We can't call them up and ask, in most cases, so we can't ever know for sure. That was something heavily pressed upon us. It wasn't our job to make guesses at that or assess whether the author hit or missed the mark (as much as I'd have loved to), but to interpret what the text ended up saying in effect. The way English has been taught to me, a book isn't a puzzle to be put together or a knot to be unraveled so much as it is a ball of yarn that you can make something of. By manipulating the text, you can weave together your own interpretation that may not be what the author intended or what someone else saw, but still has enough evidence to make an argument stand up on its own right. It took me a long time to wrap my head around this, so I have trouble explaining it myself.

First, you may have been doing a branch of english language or linguistics, and were being asked to analyse language in terms of linguistics, grammar or syntax and not to look at meaning.

ahahaha. Nope. Themes and such are still a big part of the thesis.

Maybe this is more of an American paradigm, I don't know. I'd never heard anything about literature being taught differently in the UK. It's really strange trying to explain this.

Basically, though, for our purposes on this forum, authorial intent as a point of interest is entirely valid on a thread asking what the authors intended, whereas a thread looking at what happened in the actual text doesn't necessarily have to bring that up because it doesn't change the effect had on the reader. I feel like I'm just making more spaghetti of a mess by trying to sort this out. Did that make any sense?

[Grey]

I still study English Literatures, and my studies definitely lean towards Rolo's experiences. Context, authorial intent and my own interpretation are all significant factors. That said, I think I can understand what Ten is saying. I don't think it's a particularly useful framework, though. Not for me, anyway.

I'd rather assess the effectiveness of techniques and themes within the text than just improvise a meaning through manipulation. Don't get me wrong, all texts require you to derive meaning and intention your own way - as Ten said, you can't exactly ask the author what they meant - but that doesn't mean you should assume that, because you can read a meaning into a text, it's the 'truth'.

There's no real truth in it, after all. Only assumptions based on evidence within context.

[Lady Ten]

Sept 17, 2012 6:29:22 GMT -6 Grey said:

but that doesn't mean you should assume that, because you can read a meaning into a text, it's the 'truth'.

There is no truth.

There's no real truth in it, after all.

oh well there you go.

Only assumptions based on evidence within context.

What more could you ask for?

[Rolo]

I've been reading up on all of this, and it seems that our differences in analysis types have come down to being from different literary theories. As in, this isn't a case of different ways of analysing things being right or wrong, but our respective ways of thinking being different based in different philosophies.

I understand your philosophy, mostly because sometimes it was uncomfortable having to 'assume' the author's intent without knowing it when doing English Literature. However, we were always taught to look very heavily at the author, genre contexts around and within the book, so we could at least make an educated guess. From my research, it sounds as if you, Ten, are in the camp of New Criticism, which disregards the author and his intents and focuses on the effect of the text. It's not a philosophy I disagree with completely, but I find my way of analysing things much more pleasing (and comprehensive).

Looking up stuff, it sounds a lot like the british GCSE's and A-level run off a blend of several literary theories, with Structuralism (looking at the structure of the text in terms of genre, reoccuring motifs and patterns) and Formalism (objective analysis of the motifs, devices, techniques, and other “functions” that comprise the literary work) making up a part of it. We were also asked to analyse things in terms of Gender or Marxist studies, looking at an entirely different camp. I'm beginning to think the course was designed to get us to analyse in both social and philosophical ways, considering that we had to write about the social impact of the texts at the time and on modern audiences. So, we didn't follow one literary theory, but tried out all of them. As a result, I try to make my analyses as comprehensive and multi-faceted as possible, in an attempt to analyse things fully.

Anyway, the point I was going to suggest now is that this has all just bought up the fact that we don't all analyse things in the same way. Ten, your way of analysing things is new to me, and while I can try and adapt to it when it's appropriate, it's not the way I've learnt to analyse things. I think this is the case with a lot of others. Most people who join here will not be literature majors or will be taught in differing ways, so I think it would be better to embrace all styles of analysis and take each discussion point on content, rather than ignore it if it doesn't fit an academic paradigm.

This also has the benefit in that it means people will always have different points to bring to the table. New Criticism is a good way of analysing literature, and a lot of academics still use it, but on a discussion forum, people will want to discuss the context around, author intent, social impact, marketing strategies and other aspects of the literature rather than just sticking to pure text interpretation. Plus, a lot of people will analyse intuitively, rather than in a certain academic way, so it would be fairer to them.

Now, on the topic of your thread and the keeping to 'what happened in the actual text', I can understand your point. However, if we can only state what our impression was according to one quote, I find the only real way of replying to it is 'I agree with your impression' or 'I don't agree', with perhaps a small paragraph on 'This is how I see it'. This is because we all know we can't change how others have read things, as you said. In which case, the first post of discussions wanting only 'New Criticism' analysis needs to have a clear line of debate, with lots of evidence, for the thread to become an actual discussion (rather than a swapping of 'I see things this way' with a few 'that's interesting'.).

If you could reply to the proposition as well as the philosophical debate, I'd appreciate that.

[Lady Ten]

Sept 19, 2012 10:11:32 GMT -6 Rolo said:

I've been reading up on all of this, and it seems that our differences in analysis types have come down to being from different literary theories. As in, this isn't a case of different ways of analysing things being right or wrong, but our respective ways of thinking being different based in different philosophies.

Yes.

Did I forget to say this?

Because it's what I've been thinking.

It's two windows for looking at the same thing. Serves different purposes, etc.

I understand your philosophy, mostly because sometimes it was uncomfortable having to 'assume' the author's intent without knowing it when doing English Literature. However, we were always taught to look very heavily at the author, genre contexts around and within the book, so we could at least make an educated guess.

Yeah. It was really annoying that when I wrote an essay about Hawthorne's intentions, I was told I was doing it wrong. It's Hawthorne. You can tell what he means with everything because he beats you over the head with it. But what it came down to was that I had written my essay about how Hawthorne had tried for one thing and failed at it, aka Hawthorne is a crappy writer, and our essays weren't supposed to be about evaluating an author's abilities like that.

So, when it comes to assessing whether an author missed the mark or achieved something well, comparing intention to result is a good method. I like to do that with Erin Hunter sometimes.

I'm beginning to think the course was designed to get us to analyse in both social and philosophical ways, considering that we had to write about the social impact of the texts at the time and on modern audiences.

Really? A kind of New Historicist/Reader Response blend? That's interesting; we never wrote essays like that.

This also has the benefit in that it means people will always have different points to bring to the table. New Criticism is a good way of analysing literature, and a lot of academics still use it, but on a discussion forum, people will want to discuss the context around, author intent, social impact, marketing strategies and other aspects of the literature rather than just sticking to pure text interpretation.

Yeah.

Now, on the topic of your thread and the keeping to 'what happened in the actual text', I can understand your point. However, if we can only state what our impression was according to one quote, I find the only real way of replying to it is 'I agree with your impression' or 'I don't agree', with perhaps a small paragraph on 'This is how I see it'. This is because we all know we can't change how others have read things, as you said.

What? No. It's not just about impressions and feelings. That's not what I was saying at all.

If you could reply to the proposition as well as the philosophical debate, I'd appreciate that.

Okay but I think I missed the part where we're disagreeing on something. If a thread explicitly states its focus as in-world, intradiegetic explanation of the text, then that's what you talk about there. If a thread is asking, "What was Erin thinking here?" then that's what you talk about there. I switch out between both hats depending on the situation. Talking about what the Erins meant to say isn't outlawed or anything -- it's just not a valid rebuttal on a thread that isn't approaching the text from that angle.

[Grey]

If a thread explicitly states its focus as in-world, intradiegetic explanation of the text,

It didn't, if you're talking about your Firepaw one.

In any case, I think splitting the two is pretty silly. I can't imagine why both perspectives couldn't be housed by the same thread. It's not as though they're going to be swamped by posts or that the discussion it going to derail. It's all relevant, after all.

Two sides of the same coin, equally as valid and valuable. I could understand suggesting one perspective over another on certain topics, but to discourage the other one entirely isn't something I ever plan on doing. I like to see with both eyes open regardless of what hat I'm wearing, ehehehe.

[Lady Ten]

Sept 26, 2012 6:38:43 GMT -6 Grey said:

If a thread explicitly states its focus as in-world, intradiegetic explanation of the text,

It didn't, if you're talking about your Firepaw one.

I don't follow.

I can't imagine why both perspectives couldn't be housed by the same thread.

Two sides of the same coin, equally as valid and valuable. I could understand suggesting one perspective over another on certain topics, but to discourage the other one entirely isn't something I ever plan on doing.

There are some threads where both methods of explanation might be sought after. My reincarnation thread, for example, is pretty broad. So this is a thing I am fine with.

Now the example I would give for an instance where "both perspectives couldn't be housed by the same thread" would be on a question that, say, looked into the reasons for a character's disappearance from a narrative. If one poster says, "This character stopped fighting crime to retire and spend more time with the family," it would not be an effective way to refute that argument by saying, "No, the character was written out because of budget constraints." Both may be true, but it doesn't make sense to pit them against each other or use one to suggest why the other is invalid.

[Rolo]

I'm inclined to agree with Grey. Mostly because this is a discussion forum, not a place where people are constructing literary essays. People are going to discuss things in different ways naturally, you cannot try and make people to use one method in a thread. Mixtures of methods will happen, because it happens in ordinary arguments and debates. Pretty much the only way to overcome this is to take each point on it's own merit first (mainly, whether it has merit as an idea) and then taking how it fits in with current debate. There is absolutely nothing wrong with replying to, say, your comment on budget restraint as a point in itself (discussing the context, maybe suggesting that may be a reason) before saying, 'But I'd be interested in your thoughts about how those budget restraints manifested themselves. Why do you think the character disappeared in the manner they did, motivation and personality wise?'. Because that way, you are discussing. You're countering, and you're fostering further discussion in the direction you would like. Because ignoring points outright because they aren't working in the method you want is essentially the best way of killing a discussion. Because, like me in the Firepaw thread, they'll have spent a long time coming up with detailed points and writing them up in as constructive a manner as possible, and will be getting no discussion or thought on their points, making it feel like it was essentially useless sharing them at all. Which, in turn, means they have nothing to say to subsequent replies and they stop talking. Engage people, pick them up on points/methods you disagree on and they will be involved actively in discussion, rather than just sharing opinions with little further comment.

Basically, my point is, rather that going 'NOPE, that isn't what I wanted" and ignoring the post, instead people should guide discussion where they wanted. Because, without this, there won't be a proper discussion, because it'll be derailed with analysing method or side points in the post.

[Grey]

Both may be true, but it doesn't make sense to pit them against each other or use one to suggest why the other is invalid.

This is what I don't understand. I'm not sure whether this idea of invalidating things came from, because I honestly don't think like that. Neither of them are invalid? They're two explanations for the same event and they're both correct, so what is there to invalidate in your example?

I think the problem I am having with your example is this:

"No,

Why 'no'? Shouldn't it be "yes, and also because that coincided with budget constraints"?

[Rolo]

faculty.sunydutchess.edu/oneill/failbetter.htm

An interesting article I found, which speaks a little bit on the matter of separating the author from the work.