/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21944524]

>UHM ackshually my work has no correct interpretation!
why do authors do this?

[Anonymous No.21944527]

>>21944524
To mess with woke trannies and academics

[Anonymous No.21944530]

>>21944524
To insure their immortality.

[Anonymous No.21944534]

Because what immutable law states that the authors own interpretation is correct? Doesn’t that contradict the very concept of interpretation. I stg foos need to read Sontag.

[Anonymous No.21944540]

>>21944524
Because I don't care much about meaning. I just write and have fun. Suck it, academia!

[Anonymous No.21944559]

Because they know there are still midwits out there laboring under the intentional fallacy and would delusionally take the author’s own intention as an incontrevertible statement of fact regarding the interpretation and analysis of the text.

That’s not to say that those symbol hunting are also in the right—any interpretation must be founded on and evidenced by the text itself.

But the text itself is akin to an article of clothing: it doesn’t matter what the weaver/sewer of it intended, or where the threads came from. It matters how it’s worn.

[Anonymous No.21944561]

>>21944524
I know of no author who does this so I can't answer your question.

At most some will play coy about a particular aspect of something they left ambiguous intentionally, or to avoid spoiling something that happens in a later book or project they haven't put out yet.

Never seen a author avoid discussion of their intentions with what the overall meaning or themes being touched on, besides a particularly grumpy answer to a letter where they told the person to actually read their work again and if they couldn't get it then they were basically too stupid to bother with their work since the themes were obvious and the language plain.

[Anonymous No.21944564]

>>21944559
Holy soi

[Anonymous No.21944585]

Never listen to anything an artist (any medium) says about their work after the fact. If it mattered it would have made its way into the work itself

[Anonymous No.21944588]

>>21944564
Not an argument, mr. redditor

[Anonymous No.21944589]

1. I winged this entire book and if I'd stopped to think about it I would have second guessed myself and never finished it
2. My book is about how much I love Doritos but the critics seem to think it's about Hitler, that wasn't intentional but I can pretend that it was
3. This book is all about me but I come across as a raging cunt so maybe it's better that you don't think it's about me
4. I couldn't think of a good ending so you fucking think one up if you're so smart
5. How about you just sit down and think about it for a minute or two instead of asking me for answers you miserable dullards, does your mother still wipe your ass too?

[Anonymous No.21944610]

>>21944585
Pretty bad take.

Often stuff that seemed obvious to the author turned out not to be as obvious as they thought it was.
And sometimes they debunk completely off base critical analysis of their work that just makes shit up rather than be based on what is actually in the text or what was intended to be communicated.

For example JRR Tolkien against the interpretation of his work by actual real deal not hyperbole Nazis. With him telling them straight up his work doesn't support their ideology.

[Anonymous No.21944673]

>>21944610
Just read it and come to your own conclusions anon

[Anonymous No.21944680]

>>21944588
Redditors love the Death of the Author theory like you.

[Anonymous No.21944685]

>>21944585
Smartest board, everyone.

[Anonymous No.21944700]

>>21944680
>no u
keep coping. also, not an argument

[Anonymous No.21944712]

>>21944673
That platitude is just a attempt to sidestep the valid point made in that post.

Also, to add to the discussion I want to make it clear that all interpretations and conclusions related to a work are not equally valid.

[Anonymous No.21944761]

>>21944680
Nah plebbitors and trannies love saying that the creator is the arbiter of the message.

[Anonymous No.21944766]

>>21944524
They shouldn't, it's redundant. You might have cause to let your reader know what the author's intent is, but otherwise authorial intent is presumed to be irrelevant, at least in the context of academia.

[Anonymous No.21945928]

>>21944524
Because they respect the reader enough to not spoon-feed them the interpretation(s)

[Anonymous No.21945956]

>>21944559
But if any interpretation is valid, just read one book over and over again and interpret it differently.
Why read other authors if it all comes from you? Why read the canon? Why read anything other than a takeout menu?
Do you think that the author was trying to intentionally show you that order 66 was a Chow Mein, or is he trying to say that
Asians killed the Jedi?
Doesn’t matter. Neither does my text. Interpret what I am intentionally saying for a purpose as a poem about the working class. Why not?
Oh because it’s obviously not fit for purpose? Yes, well that’s what a proper reading of a book establishes. Stop approaching texts as if they have anything to do with your preconceived PoMo lobotomy, and respect that the author had a mind that he put to work for a reason.

[Anonymous No.21945964]

>>21945956
Just as an addendum, I don’t mean to imply that we can always be 100% accurate or that we have to like their intention, but making it irrelevant is just using their work as a launchpad for your own prejudices.

[Anonymous No.21945971]

Because saying that there is a correct interpretation implies that a work of fiction is just an encoding for some meaning or argument. Which is incredibly autistic.

[Anonymous No.21945978]

>>21944712
>>21944585
Doesn't all of this boil down to whether you accept the death of the author argument or not?

If so you can treat it as if the author is another critic of the work; maybe you want to assign them more authority on it compared to other critics but at the end of the day they are like anyone else critiquing it and if the rationale doesn't pass mustard for you then you can disregard it after considering it on its merits as opposed to retconning what would be your headcannon.

[Anonymous No.21946009]

>>21944766
Yes; if I am understanding your post correctly, it is good for the author to provide their take in their own work (and explain their intentions from a work creation perspective) but as far as the end interpretation goes it shouldn't override the individual's interpretation as much as serve as a guide like they would any other critic.

Having said that to answer OP I think authors that give that response are generally giving a cop-out response where their work has taken on a bigger meaning than they intended and they admit that it was something shallow.

>>21945964
I agree with what you are saying but for there being room for allowances in subjectively in interpretation, and anything outside a scope can be seen as objectively wrong. If your interpretation falls in that scope then it follows that it doesn't have justifiable backing in which case you are then being lead astray by your biases as you say and then you are not approaching it in good faith and it is then your fault as the reader and that is path that we all should be aware of and always cautious not to walk down.

[Anonymous No.21946026]

>>21944524
Because that is literally how art works. "Correct interpretation" jesus fucking christ.
Hermeneutics of suspicion should be renamed to hermeneutics of being a retard.

[Anonymous No.21946034]

>>21944680
> Death of the Author
It's not death of the author, it's a completely basic result of modern western philosophical aesthetic since Kant.

[Anonymous No.21946040]

>>21946009
>Having said that to answer OP I think authors that give that response are generally giving a cop-out response where their work has taken on a bigger meaning than they intended and they admit that it was something shallow.
That's not a cop-out, again, it is literally how art works. It has to take on a meaning greater than what was intended, or it is merely a piece of communication, not different from an email in principle - which I know, many turbo-hyper-plebs unironically believe art is.

[Anonymous No.21946097]

>>21946040
Yes, I understand that, but I am saying it should not dissuade authors from giving their own interpretation of their works notwithstanding that the interpreters should not receive it as word of god and then ignore all other interpretations including their own.

[Anonymous No.21946130]

>>21945978
>Doesn't all of this boil down to whether you accept the death of the author argument or not?
No
It's about all interpretations not being equally valid.
Death of the author is a different thing and different discussion.
This is about jackoffs making up ridiculous interpretations that aren't grounded in the text and insisting there is some sort of hidden intent even to the contrary of the author themselves, then insisting that their brainfart is valid because "everything is subjective man" or some other stupid bullshit.

The fact of the matter is everything isn't equally valid and certain interpretations, especially when supported by the stated intent of the author shortly after creating the work, are a hell of a lot more valid than some random bullshit someone made up, usually to push a unrelated agenda.

[Anonymous No.21946198]

>>21944524
To make people keep debating the book and extend its life span in the market.

[Anonymous No.21946201]

>>21944524
People endlessly theorizing about the meaning of your work is how art stays relevant over large spans of time. Why would you hinder that by putting forward a definitive interpretation of your own work?

[Anonymous No.21946209]

>>21945971
>Uhmm yeah I wrote the book in a complete bubble devoid of context or personal experience, it is completely lacking in meaning and if you try to derive any from it then you are a SNOB!
>Hehe take that literary establishment!

[Anonymous No.21946219]

>>21944524
so they can avoid hurting anybody's' feelings by just saying they are all right and giving everyone a participation trophy for trying to interpret their work.

[Anonymous No.21946292]

>>21944524
cowardice, they're confused by their own work and they don't want to be outed as an idiot. it doesn't matter anyway i interpret every book through a christian or hitlerist lens depending on how long ago i jacked off.

[Anonymous No.21946923]

>>21945956
>But if any interpretation is valid
They’re not. Also the rest of the line and thr next few questions don’t logically follow even if your strawman argument were right (which it’s not).

>Asians killed the Jedi
Why do manchildren always have to think in terms of star wars, marvel, and cideo games?

>Doesn’t matter. Neither does my text. Interpret what I am intentionally saying for a purpose as a poem about the working class. Why not?
Because it would be symbol hunting and not arguable from the text—which anyone with even an introductory college literature class would know.

>Oh because it’s obviously not fit for purpose? Yes, well that’s what a proper reading of a book establishes.
No, see above.

> Stop approaching texts as if they have anything to do with your preconceived PoMo lobotomy, and respect that the author had a mind that he put to work for a reason.
Has nothing to do with pomo, which again, is taught in basic lit classes. It’s foundation is in TS Elliot’s essay “Tradition and Individual Talent,” the intentional fallacy essay, and the entirety of New Criticism.

>making it irrelevant is just using their work as a launchpad for your own prejudices.
So what do we do when the author doesn’t or can’t give an interpretation? If you say get a correct reading from the text, then that’s what you’ve been arguing against.