/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12395473]

Death of the author - yay or nay?

[Anonymous No.12395484]

gay

[Anonymous No.12395498]

>>12395473
Bullshit. Name five authors who are dead

[Anonymous No.12395510]

>>12395473
Why does it have to be one or the other?
Why can't I examine a book from both the perspective and intention of the author and as a work unrelated to the person who wrote it? Oftentimes a book means nothing without context; others, context might ruin the experience. Literature isn't black and white, the world isn't black and white. A good reader would examine a piece of fiction through all lenses they could in order to get the most out of it possible. Why would you not just consider both the intention of the author and the fiction itself and come to a conclusion based on the combined rationale?

[Anonymous No.12395511]

>>12395498
Met Palahniuk once, he smells like he's dead.

[Anonymous No.12395520]

>>12395510
Do you have magic powers that allow you to examine from the perspective/intention of the author? Or is it some sort of machine?

[Anonymous No.12395521]

>>12395473
Horay!
>>12395484
Say...

[Anonymous No.12395526]

>>12395520
It's called critical thinking, something they'll teach you when you finish 8th grade, sport.

[Anonymous No.12395530]

>>12395526
Are you a bat?

[Anonymous No.12395532]

>>12395526
Why did you say 'sport' instead of 'chap' 'buddy' 'pal' 'chief' 'retard' 'faggot' 'nigger' 'skippy' etc? Do you even know your own intentions?

[Anonymous No.12395539]

>>12395532
Where's the difference anyway?

[Anonymous No.12395541]

>>12395530
No, you've got me confused for your mother. She's the one who handles the baseballs.
>>12395532
You'll figure it out one day, chief. Think about it some more. Critically this time.

[Anonymous No.12395552]

>>12395541
Maybe you should critically read the actual death of the author theory so you have a better handle of it

[Anonymous No.12395558]

>>12395532
he implicitly meant to say nigger, as he is one himself

[Anonymous No.12395579]

>>12395558
How do you know since he's only the author of that post?

[Anonymous No.12395585]

[Anonymous No.12395602]

>>12395585
I'd kill her if you know what I mean

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.12395622]

>>12395473
Depends on the intent of the author.
Generally nay. Most authors intend to be taken at face value, unless its some kind of unreliable narrator or mystery or something.

Does this "death of the author" mean more? I intend to publish (if ever) anonymously. A free story, for whoever, with a specific meaning, signed with a pseudonym. Death of the celebrity of the author, if you like.

[Anonymous No.12395637]

>>12395622
Is that you, Butterfly ?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.12395649]

>>12395637
Yuh.

[Anonymous No.12395662]

>>12393200
Yes but it's not so black on white. Generally speaking the author's reading will be a good one particularly if he's a good writer.

[Anonymous No.12395692]

>>12395649
Why did you decide to come back?

[Anonymous No.12395753]

You cannot kill the author.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1343194

[Anonymous No.12395761]

>>12395692
Now that the board is shit she feels more comfortable.

[Anonymous No.12395788]

Everything exists within context. Removing context from something does not render it pure, but makes it something else.

[Anonymous No.12395805]

>>12395761
I thought we agreed that Gutterfly is a tranny.

[Anonymous No.12395900]

>>12395473
Yay. Ultimately if you are unable to source your evidence from the text and the text alone, then you cannot make any claims about the intentionality of its author. DOTA is really just making sure the focus of your critique is explicitly literary. That’s not to say discussion of the author is off the table however, as there’s a difference between misinterpreting intentionality and understanding the author as the product of social and historical forces.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.12395947]

>>12395692
See gif

[Anonymous No.12395957]

>>12395900
>Ultimately if you are unable to source your evidence from the text and the text alone, then you cannot make any claims about the intentionality of its author.

An interpretation of a text is always a claim about the intentionality of its author.

https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/law-theory-workshop/files/Intention%20Fish2.pdf

[Anonymous No.12396309]

>>12395473
Technically, neither. But, if forced to pick yay or nay, i have to say yay.

A book will always be able to stand with the author removed, meaning the author themselves was not needed. But at the same time that does not mean the authors intent isn't present. To therefore say that a work can only be judged as authorial intent or not is too limiting since there are at minimum 2 parties involved in the act of reading; the author and the reader. The intent of the reader also matters, leading at least a third and fourth way to interpret a work.
1. Authors intent + Passive reader = Auteur
2. Passive author + Readers intent = Death of the author
3. Authors intent + Readers intent = Critical analysis
4. Passive author + Passive reader = a neutral reading

[Anonymous No.12396450]

>>12395947
I don’t get it tho...

[Anonymous No.12396503]

>>12395473
The fear of death is such an anglo protestant thing. You can see it in this, and you can see it in american/british horror movie tropes. Cemetaries and skeletons and such. Death is an absolute horror for anglos, it terrifies them to the core of what may be considered by some a "soul", really an oxymoron since to be an anglo implies the lack of such. And it is precisely the lack of soul in the protestant anglo that is the cause of the terror of death, for it is truly and definitevely the end for them.

[Anonymous No.12396590]

It's spelled "yea".

[Anonymous No.12396657]

>>12395957
>explicitly literary
Interpretation of law and literary studies are very different fields. Death of the author is not a question of statement against text- it’s the acknowledgement that literary texts produce meaning that is not simply a pathology or diagnosis chart of the author. The idea of “death” suggests we treat bodies of text like corpses- representative or indicative of a particular individual, but emptied of their vital essence or subjectivity. There is no “intention” because texts are not alive.

[Anonymous No.12397853]

>>12396590
Nay