Best way to analyze a work of literature?

[Anonymoose No.2881882]

I've been in heated debates with friends over this, and I figured it may be a fair argument to bring to /lit/...

When analyzing a work of literature, is it best to question the author's purpose/intent, or is it best to ignore the existence of the author entirely?

In one instance, we are inspecting the work through a lense of expectations. We understand the context of the author's life, and we try to interpret their literature on a grounds of authorial intent.

On the other hand, we eliminate the idea of the author entirely (assuming that this is purposed by the author) and allow the story to unfold and come to meaning on a basis of its own reality. We do not look for authorial intent, but rather understand the characters and scenarios as happening without the dependence of an author.

Obviously these are two very differing schools of literary thought, but which equates to a more thorough understanding of the work at hand?

[Anonymous No.2881897]

It's better not to analyze at all, I'd say.

I already feel like a 90 year old man from these discussions...

I choose to conform and resign myself from the debate.

[Anonymous No.2881901]

>>2881882
Understand the work at hand? Include the author. Understand how the work relates to the world? Exclude the author.

[Anonymous No.2881905]

If you think a book is meant to deploy some form of discourse, I think it's productive to treat the author as merely one more interpreter claiming to know what his book means and does. Where there is mismatch between the author's intent and your impression of what the work is trying to do can be interesting.

[Anonymous No.2881906]

Make up whatever you need to make up to justify the point of view you best prefer. The purpose of their being multiple modes of analysis isn't so you can adhere slavishly to one in every circumstance.

[Anonymous No.2881907]

>2012
>authorial intent

Shut the fuck up OP.

[Anonymoose No.2883143]

bump because the majority of threads on /lit/ have nothing to do with literature.

[Anonymous No.2883196]

Authorial intent is obviously very important and should never be dismissed.

Think of a book as an architectural design of a building. If the architect intends designs that a room should be the bathroom, you should interpret it as a bathroom and use it as such. You shouldn't ignore the authorial intent and start shitting in the sink and using the garbage disposal to flush just because you think your ways of "interpreting" things are better.

You got me jack?

Anyone who tries to argue me is an useless dolt.

[Anonymous No.2883201]

>>2883196
This is Jack. Lovely style of argumentation. First you give a useless, though humourous simile, and then you try to inb4 anyone who disagrees. Are you 'trolling' us, sir?

[Anonymous No.2883207]

>>2883201
Quit trying to bask in my reflected glory.

[Anonymous No.2883224]

>>2883196
I also think the intent of the author shouldn't be overlooked, but you're making a pretty shitty argument for it there.