/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1050765]

ITT: Texts can't speak for themselves because they have no intentional mind states. Discuss.

[Anonymous No.1050771]

[Anonymous No.1050790]

>>1050771

Good point.

[Anonymous No.1050797]

Texts are recordings of what humans thought with their intentional mind states.

[Anonymous No.1050805]

>>1050797

Right, so the author's interpretation is the most valid. All I'm saying.

/thread

[Anonymous No.1050824]

ITT: Your silence is assent.

[Anonymous No.1050838]

>>1050765
You need to click the blue button in the middle, next to the captcha. Then it will speak.

[Anonymous No.1050840]

Since this is a still image it has no intentional mind state. To me it looks like he is trying to put the constitution back together.
Captcha: Burning Tarrantino

[regicide !uMRFid.bpQ No.1050848]

texts interact with a culture. we'll never know what Shakespeare really meant about tons of issues, but we can still interact with the text of his works in a meaningful way.

texts speak for themselves in the mind states of the interpreters throughout the ages.

[Anonymous No.1050843]

>>1050838

[Anonymous No.1050858]

The authors interpretation is the text itself.

[Anonymous No.1050860]

>>1050840

That doesn't make any sense because that's not how paper works, therefore your interpretation is invalid.

>>1050848

By analyzing the author and his culture, you can make more valid guesses than others.

[Anonymous No.1050862]

>>1050840
haha that's trippy dude

[regicide !uMRFid.bpQ No.1050867]

>>1050860
but now you're interpreting the texts of histories, which are mostly based on firsthand accounts. All human knowledge is based on texts, and different texts inform our interpretations of others, etc. and so forth.

[Anonymous No.1050904]

>>1050858

The text itself can't be an interpretation of the text.

Consider the peace sign. Really, it's just a circle and a few lines. That's not anything. You can't just *look* at it and think "peace" the way you could at an emoticon and think "face." It was designed to represent the semaphoric hand positions for N and D, standing for "nuclear disarmament." I've heard an Evangelical troll argue that it stands for Satanism because it's a broken, upside-down cross.

Who should you believe?

[Anonymous No.1050912]

>>1050867

Right, and some of them are more rigorously accurate than others.

[Anonymous No.1050922]

>>1050858

But you have no access to the author's interpretation. By this logic, you can't read anything you didn't write.

Since we CAN read, it implies that the text exists in and of itself, and is reinterpreted separatly by every reader, including the author.

And then BAM reader response was born.

[Anonymous No.1050923]

>>1050860
Im not sure what your implying are you saying paper cant be taped?

[Anonymous No.1050928]

>>1050923

There's no tape there. I guess you could right a fanfic or something, but according to what the artist chose to put there, that can't be the case. Or if it is, it's just a shitty communication.

[Anonymous No.1050959]

>>1050922

>But you have no access to the author's interpretation.

Sometimes you do. Sometimes—horror of horrors—they discuss their own work.

>By this logic, you can't read anything you didn't write.

Of course you can. You can see the peace sign, you can learn about nuclear disarmament, you can learn about World Wars I & II, you can learn about hippies, and so on. You can think about what the author was trying to say and whether they're saying it well or whether they make a good point, but you can't say they don't originate the meaning.

>Since we CAN read, it implies that the text exists in and of itself, and is reinterpreted separatly by every reader, including the author.

You can generally reinterpret it only by ignoring elements which exist or assuming elements which aren't presented. I recently read somebody's queer interpretation of Death Note. You could say, "I think the author was trying to say _____," but you can't say "The text says _____," because the text only says what the author wanted it to say.

And you could say, "I don't care what the author was trying to say, I just want to make up my own Mad Libs bullshit on the fly because I think that's fun," but at least have the intellectual fucking honesty to admit it if that's the case.

http://lynkemma.livejournal.com/169874.html

[Anonymous No.1050988]

>>1050959

>You could say, "I think the author was trying to say _____," but you can't say "The text says _____," because the text only says what the author wanted it to say.

No, even the author can only say "I think I was trying to say this" and has to argue his point.

If someone takes a white canva and tells you it's a deep and dramatic commentary on the embargo on Cuba, you'll ask him "how so?" or just call him an idiot.

If an author tells you his text is about something and means this and reffers to that while authors disagree, he also has to offer arguments, or he's an idiot.

[Anonymous No.1050985]

>>1050928
right instead of write
talk about shitty communication.
Im a write guys or what.

[Anonymous No.1050992]

>>1050928
>>1050928
right instead of write
talk about shitty communication.
Am I write guys or what?

[Anonymous No.1051034]

>>1050992
Could someone please explain this post to me? I would ask whoever posted it, but I don't think they are capable.

[Anonymous No.1051315]

>>1051034

>>1050928 contained a typographical error lol