~~ on authorial intent & puppy dogs

[reenka]

I just read an interesting post by nicolae about authorial intent, basically saying the text is all that matters, screw the Author. And actually, i agree that the text is what matters, I just don't agree this means any old interpretation is valid, or that you cannot see the gestalt of the conscious and unconscious intent (meta-intent?) through a thorough, clearheaded reading.

I don't think it's fair to equate 'authorial intent' with what the author -thinks- is her intent; I myself know I often write stories with depths I'm unaware of, and that contain things the readers find which surprise & delight me & I'd never thought I meant, but when said to me, I realize it did kinda work out that way, didn't it. So there's that.

But.

I think there is such a concept as 'interrogating the text reasonably', if not correctly. Following the clues; extrapolating with the least possible amount of bias or pre-existing agenda. If you -look- for something in particular in a text, in other words, you will most likely find it. However, if you allow the text to speak for itself, you-the-reader are more likely to approach something like 'consensual reality' or possibly something one might cautiously call objectivity. Something which has to do with facts rather than only opinions and emotional projections ('this is what I -want- to be there') onto the text.


Now, to bring it down to H/Hr-ers and anything I'd ever read in defense of that reading of the books-- it seems that they're only ever talking about looking for clues to support that pairing specifically and on purpose. Whoever's hit by H/Hr and only H/Hr in the text and cannot see the R/Hr clues no matter how how hard they look--? I'd like to see their argument look anything remotely as well-constructed and reasonable as this-- that is to say, backed up by quotes, reasonably unbiased, clearly made and admitting and rebutting the opposing viewpoints. I've... never seen this. I've only seen H/Hr-ers saying they -want- to see the vision of True Love from friendship that their pairing represents, and therefore JKR has secretly written it even if there's all the supposed R/Hr stuff as a red herring.

I think in my mind, the simplest interpretation-- Occam's Razor, if you will-- is the one most likely to be what I consider 'authorial intent'. And while other theories are -fun- and not purely wrong so much as... er, supplementary(??)-- if they indeed consider all, not just some canon facts-- that simplest explanation is the one that most represents the nature of any given text to me.

This is my personal take on it, based more on my intuition rather than the bunch of courses I've taken for my English major, most of which convince me I don't think of stories in a way that current lit-crit circles find... uh, trendy. Or correct. Or whatever. But yeah-- I think the 'atomic' explanation of the LoTR books is just silly, regardless of what JRRT thought. I mean... because it is so... out of left field & elaborate and... inelegant in regards to the text, really, way moreso than some decree from 'above'.

In other words: the only thing that matters is the text, yes, but it helps if you interpret it without an obvious and extraneous agenda.
~~

Also, I've seen a bit of Ron-bashing around about how he's a stupid boy and Hermione doesn't deserve him 'cause she's too intelligent, etc.... And it makes me want to write paeans to boyish stupidity, dorkiness and the awkward-yet-mostly-well-meaning idiocy that is one of the defining features of the adolescent male.

Man, I couldn't stand them when I was their age, but now I can't get enough of them. Possibly I'm just overly sentimental. Okay, I know I am. But. They're just... too harmless and foolish to take seriously, and yet are so full of... flaws & growing pains & pure instinct & emotion & aggression & hormones & foggy-yet-desperate reasoning that... I just feel so protective and adoring I can't take it. Awww, snakes and snails and puppy dog tails <3<3<3




...See, silly, silly boys. I just want to giggle fondly and clasp them pervily to my chest. Awww.

PS. So much love to Aspen, the queen of fumbly imperfectly perfect boys and their cocks <3<3<3<3<3 (Among other things!!)

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

Thanks again.
I only skimmed but this was the argument I had with a number of intellectual girls these years.
I just don't agree this means any old interpretation is valid, or that you cannot see the gestalt of the conscious and unconscious intent (meta-intent?) through a thorough, clearheaded reading.
It drives me mad and makes me suspect them of a) huge egos and b) lazyness and c) lack of ability to comprehend authorial intent as well as empathy.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Possibly it's that same old case of thinking too hard and coming up with elaborate things because they're more interesting to think about. Or something. Hmm. And overestimating writers a lot; possibly I just don't do much estimating or like, pre-analysing anyway.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

Hm? I don't think you are, I think they are trying hard to come up what they prefer to what's actually there. I remember I once sighed reading an article about an influential book, saying "Damn, I wish I hadn't been right about (insert authorial intent here) which ended in an argument about me being wrong despite me being unhappy that I had been "right" in the eyes of the author *shrugs*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Right, I meant them, not me :>
I think too easily in terms of 'obvious' sometimes, but the truth is, I usually don't think plot-points are obvious (my mind doesn't work like that) unless it's in retrospect-- I only tend to think characterization questions are obvious (not that I necessarily can articulate them logically but that's an unrelated problem of expression).

It's like, well, I've seen plenty of people who saw H/Hr in old canon say the Half-blood Prince's identity was always clear. And I'm like... uh... well, I thought it was pretty up-in-the-air till halfway through or more. But that's because I'm lazy & didn't bother to analyze and just read for pleasure, I realize that :D

mode

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

I've also had this discussion with my other sort of friends and can only sadly repeat that it's not on purpose, if I could switch of the seeing-underlying-intent I would, but I cannot watch films or series or read like that anymore. I can't remember when that switch came but yeah, treasure the ability to read for pleasure.

Re: mode

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I suspect that 'read for pleasure' is really just my way of saying mindlessness is my default state; I can become more analytical with effort and acquire a switch, but I can't change who I basically am (a mindless squeeing fangirl who overanalyses in her spare time not taken over by squeeing and gurgling).

I can see how the overanalysis inherent in H/Hr-is-canonness would lend itself to being useful for plot discernment, I guess.

Re: mode

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

You come across as extremely analytical in your posts of course, which might be just a trick to make the H/D squee seem more rational ;P but whatever you call it, this kind of mindlessness is a good thing, especially if you can later analyse it.

I'm not sure that overanalysis and H/Hr are connected *shrugs*

[ceares.livejournal.com]

Just wanted to say very nice post. This whole thing has been disturbing me lately, primarily because I feel sorry for JKR. Fandom can be a quite, quite scary thing, and it seems to be reaching Misery proportions. Being primarily a slasher I think I take a somewhat middle ground on the importance of authorial intent(and in that I mean in direct relation to my enjoyment of the work, not in relation to a critical analysis of it), but I certainly think that the situation changes somewhat when the author is alive, and actively participating in discussions about the work, if nothing else out of respect for them and what is after all-their creation.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

It's kinda funny 'cause I don't really care what JKR says directly-- to me it's just about the text, and seeing the gestalt of what's in the text with as little bias as possible, and that sort of adds up to authorial intent in my head. I take the interviews as interesting supplements, but that's about it.

I don't really respect the -author-, necessarily, either; I just think some version of consensual objectivity is vaguely possible. Or something. It all made more sense at one point, in my head :>

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

However, if you allow the text to speak for itself, you-the-reader are more likely to approach something like 'consensual reality' or possibly something one might cautiously call objectivity.

What is objectively the message that comes across clashes with what the author says is the intent and supposed message? Isn't this just when you say "You (the Author) suck, and therefore cannot complain"?

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I'd say what the author says doesn't even matter unless you're doing a study of 'the author and their work', as biographers and some obsessive academics like to do. If it's just 'the work', then it's just... the work. The author's opinion is a 'haha' footnote. I'm usually curious what the author thought, but it's not like I'd go 'ohhh, I am now enlightened'. It's... interesting, is all.

So yeah, that's an interesting question, mostly to do with bad writing. I mean, what 'supposed' message-- if you're getting that from the text, then it's there after all. If the text is contradictory in major meta aspects, that's bad writing. Hmm. Sometimes there's debris of sorts, but usually the overall direction is clear enough, to me at least, even in bad writing. It can be like, 'oh, that's what they were trying to do, too bad they failed', or something. So that'd be like an editor's job, to say 'I can see what you were trying to do here, and yeah, that's fine, it's just you weren't going about it very well', and so on.

Er... so yeah, that's when you say the author sucks~:))

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I think 'interrogating the text reasonably' only works for prediction of future canon!

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

That's all I was talking about, though perhaps I didn't make that clear. I do think if one reads between the lines of my journal lately (...haha), one could see I was basically trying to say H/HR-ERS WHO BELIEVED IT WAS CANON ARE ON CRACK, WOHOHO, or something like that.