/lit/ - Literature

bump. I have a serious problem.

You can't try to determine the author's intent. The best you can do is work with what is in the text and literary precedents. Your criticism has to stand on its own.

>>1647767
If you can't determine the author's intent, then what's the point? How can your interpretation stand on its own if it isn't based on actual evidence? Wouldn't this mean that all interpretations are equally valid, seeing as there's no actual standard to compare the results to?

>>1647769
you seem not to understand what is meant by 'author's intent'

you can still interpret meaning by looking at the content of the text

author's intent is when you say the author meant something when the author did not write it

there are simply certain "cues" for certain symbols or whatever


>>1647767
>>1647769

blatantly samefag in order to start an "author's intent" argument

>>1647774
who defines what the proper meaning of the text is? isn't it the author when he writes it? how can you know what the author thinks? if the author wants to convey a message, why doesn't he just tell you as a supplement to the book?

>>1647775

not a samefag. What aspect of "author's intent" would one argue about?

>>1647776
you're not trying to figure out what the author meant

you're trying to figure out what the text is saying

you're missing the point completely

>>1647779
Wait, what?

But...

The author wrote the text. doesn't he know what it's saying?

>>1647782
he knows what he's saying

which is why you don't argue about his intent


you have to assume he wrote exactly what he intended to write because, after all, that's the point of writing

hence, look at the god damn text

>>1647782

It seems like the only way to find the meaning of the text is to know what the author meant the meaning to be, as he wrote it, and only he knows its meaning. The quest for the message the author is trying to convey and the quest for the meaning of the text are identical, right?

If not, then who determines the meaning? what standards are used?

>>1647785
I know the author knows what he's saying. But how do we find out? and if we don't, then what standards are used to determine the meaning of text if not the meaning put there by the author?

>>1647790
ok at this point two possibilities
>decent troll at first but now blatant low brow trolling
or
>big retard

Here's where you're wrong:
>author's intent

This is not a part of literary theory. Concerns about the author can come up in a broader sense of literary studies, but in theory the text is its own thing separate from the author.

You interpret a text using textual evidence, sound logical reasoning, and existing theoretical frameworks. There is no absolute correct interpretation of a text. Logic is key though, you still have to make sense.

>>1647794
Are you referring to me, the OP? I'm afraid it's going to have to be a lowbrow retard on this. I just don't understand how anything other than the author can set the meaning of the text. What other objective standard can be used?

>>1647796
>there is no correct interpretation of the text

Then, excuse my ignorance, why bother? Anything you come up with is correct. If you say a random thing, it will be equally valid, by your logic, to anything gathered via evidence. If I say that the message of The Hobbit is that haste makes waste, then can nobody say otherwise?

>>1647800
To rephrase: if you're not trying to determine truth, what are you trying to determine? what is the goal of literary interpretation?

I suppose you all understand now why I got about a C- on every Lit & Comp essay written then

>>1647800
No, people can say otherwise, and critics will argue extensively. You cannot simply say that is the meaning of The Hobbit, you need to show why that is so. Certain arguments are more valid than others, based on matters of reason, evidence, etc.

It is also not a matter of "a, b, and c passages seem to suggest meaning Y, therefore the text is abut Y." You're omitting stuff. Passages d and e might suggest meaning not-Y, and passages f, g, h, i, j, and k might suggest meaning Z.

>>1647802
It's a certain kind of truth, perhaps, just not truth in the sense of the one true 'intent' of the text. There's a wide variety of goals in literary interpretation, depending on who is doing it and what sort of interpretation they're doing.

>>1647810
Truth: conformity to reality or actuality

what are the other kinds of truths?

Also, how can a book have Y and !Y? That's contradicting itself, so can't you then discard the whole thing because the author's an idiot?

>>1647811
Reality, just not that of the author's particular mind.

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

From the wikipedia article

>Deconstruction denotes the pursuing the meaning of a text to the point of exposing the supposed contradictions and internal oppositions upon which it is founded—supposedly showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible

so, there's an entire field or concept dedicated to proving the author idiotic?

>>1647812
What other kind of reality is there? Who determines the meaning of the text? Seeing as there's no correct interpretation, why interpret at all? Anything you say is valid, all you have to do is find and twist facts to support it. It seems like an exercise in logical fallacies and assumptions based on incomplete evidence.

>>1647817

It's not about the author being an idiot, it's about how meaning is created and the nature of a text itself.

>>1647825
But the nature is self-contradictory. If the author didn't realize this, isn't he an idiot?

>>1647827

Yes, all authors are idiots forever, literature is is all pure idiocy. Let's all migrate to /sci/.

>>1647830
Notice how it was phrased as a question. this means that I expect an explanation, possibly even a contradiction to my assumption there. Please explain :/

Is the author's intended meaning the only meaning that can be found in a text? No.
Is it the only correct interpretation? You could argue both ways, I'd say no.
A reading is an interpretation of a text.
Frequently you support it with scholarship and scholarly texts, etc.

>>1647837
So, how does one define whether an interpretation is valid or not? What criteria does it have to meet?

its stupid to try. everyone thought farenhiet 451 was about censorship, but bradbury has said it's about the affects of mass media on literature.

so unless the author tells us, it's almost impossible to interpret it 100% correctly.

>>1647848
If you can't do it right, why do it? You'll just end up incorrect, and there's no point in getting something wrong without the ability to correct it.

bumpie wumpie

>>1647850
if you want to think like this then go ahead and throw out all information you ever knew except mathematics since nothing else is certain or distinctly clear from the other

>>1647850

what

everything is open to interpretation not sure what ur getting at

>>1647747

you just need logic and well argued evidence/citations from the text...that's it

make an interpretation and support it with reasons,

>>1647887
everything?

um...
DNA is made up of base pairs.

a(b + c) = ab + ac

what use is there in an incorrect interpretation?

>>1647891
How do you know the the interpretation is a proper one though? What criteria must a proper interpretation meet?

>>1647893

obviously i was talking about literature

>>1647895
consideration for academic rigor and what has been established in literary, cultural, and historical context

>>1647899
not entirely obviously as a person recently mentioned math.

If everything is up for interpretation then what value is there in anything? Nothing, then, is the truth. It's only an opinion. I see no value in dedicating time to opinons.

>>1647900
this seems insufficient. Hasn't this produced interpretations that are contradictory to each other?

>>1647895
>How do you know the the interpretation is a proper one though?

by proper do you mean true? cause there isn't such a thing

proper simply means reasonable, the criteria = logic

you don't commit any fallacies, and you support your arguments with citations from the book

thats it, it isn't science, it isn't hard.

>>1647904
But if interpretations are contradictory, one must be fallacious under the basic principle that A != !A

contradictory, or even non-agreeing interpretations are a logical impossibility

>>1647902
all interpretation of ideas require that we create and abstract even more ideas

even if you have contradictory interpretations, as long as they both come from sound argumentation with consideration for academic rigor and literary/cultural/historical context, then they are good interpretations

interpretation is nothing but the creation of related ideas from the original text

>>1647910
interpretations cannot be contradictory and each sound. That is a logical impossibility. you can't have A AND !A

>>1647914
this has nothing to do with logic.

in logic each term and value are clearly defined and clearly distinct from the other. you will find that in everything outside of mathematics nothing is clearly defined and distinct from the other and the line is blurred. this does not mean nothing outside of mathematics makes sense, it just means that things outside of mathematics are probabilistic and conditional but yet it is still useful to appropriate approximations

>>1647919
Everything has to do with logic because everything is in the universe, which is governed by logic. An interpretation cannot be true and not true. I can be possible but unsubstantiated, but then what's the point? What value is there in discussing mere opinion?

And I recognize that even in science things are probabilistic, but for a theory to be accepted it must transcend all reasonable doubt, making it effectively true. Notice, however, that there are no contradictory accepted scientific theories.

You're supposed to make up whatever bullshit you feel like. The only difference between a "good" analysis and a "bad" one is if you're able to sell it. It's a bullshitting contest, really, don't overthink it.

>>1647927
read up on philosophical pragmatism and you will see your entire world of certainty and absolute truth dissolve

>>1647927
Troll.

I'll just leave now.

>>1647927 there are no contradictory accepted scientific theories.
Science major here... The fuck? Try telling a theoretical physicist that.

it's all bullshit.

you make it up, and the more convincing your architecture of thought, the more accepted it is by the critical community.

i've actually published on precisely this issue. lookie.

blogspot

>>1647957

oop. won't let me post the link.

>>1647964
>>1647964
>>1647964

google "ga ga glossolalia" and it should come up. it's on gaga stigmata.

I've always seen it as a quite simple matter. The best interpretation is the one most similar to what we can ascertain was the authors intent.

If you have a well-known femenist writer who writes a novel about a strong female character you can fairly safely say what said inentions are.

In some cases we have little information about the author, of course, and in these cases it is then safe to interpret solely based upon the text.

tl;dr If you have context and information on author you should not ignore it in interpretation.

>>1648170
>>1647907
>>1647895
>>1647914
>>1647895
>>1647850
>>1647800
>>1647790
>>1647776
>>1647769
The author's intnet is irrelevant. The things he wrote without realizing are possibly the most important. They are the things that really teach you stuff about the author and humanity. Humans are irrational beings, it's not strangethat that they're whole being should be full of cantradiction

(Y)
(>','<)
(")(")
Fear The Bunny

>>1648199
what the dick

░░░( Y )░░░
░░░(>','<)░░░
░░░(") (")░░░
Fear The Bunny

>>1648186
>they're
>intnet
>cantradiction

Credibility Lost.

>>1648186
>The author's intnet is irrelevant.

Not sure if lobotomized chimpanzee...

authorial intent got done away with in criticism a long time ago.

You can't determine the author's intent, unless you have the author around to ask and even then they could be lying (I'm looking at you Nabokov).