![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaObviously I don't know when to give up & go to sleep, 'cause I skimmed yet -more- essays/arguments in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
mannazone ('The Administration' comm) & I don't want to go into specifics, but it made me think about authorial intent in a slightly different way.
The thing is, really, that it's a double-edged sword, isn't it? What I mean is, it is both necessary to understanding (illuminating?) some basic plot-points or developments when utilized in key/minimum amounts and completely poisonous when used to explain away a reader's genuine reactions to what actually did happen. Like, you can use a known case of 'intent' to debunk what I'd call a 'transformative theory'-- one that takes canon and makes it a metaphor for something else, some external symbology. A good example of this is the things Harry/Hermione shippers found in book 3 to support canon H/Hr: those things were just contrary to the point of the given scenes, and you can call upon authorial intent as support of this argument. However, you can only use it to disprove actual conclusions from specific incidents: you can't disprove subtext or ambiguous cues (whether used for H/Hr, Sirius/Remus or even Harry/Draco subtext).
In other words, you can't say 'seeing' Sirius/Remus isn't a valid emotional response to canon cues; you -can- say it's not actually canon. Does that make sense?
Somehow this seems even more important when the author is actually there to argue with you; when they get involved and interact with fandom.
There's a limit there-- you can say what you intended (as the writer), but you can't dictate beyond what the writing itself shows. If, in fact, the writing didn't follow your precise outlined ideas (the meta!story in the writer's head), then it may be bad writing, or it may be the nature of writing itself, but it's not like the meta!story therefore overwrites the actual story experienced by a given reader.
A big part of this is simply a game of definitions; when it comes to talking about a character's emotions especially, we're walking on extremely shaky ground. One person's 'love' isn't another person's 'love'; what the writer may see as 'unacceptable' and 'indicative of moral failure' (or a diagnosable psychiatric disorder), the reader may see as 'tragic' and indicative of a wounded heart that needs healing. Also, what's 'obviously just a sexual thing' for the writer -and- a reader must necessarily be overridden if it's not for the characters as they perceive themselves. Is the reader wrong & the writer right? Vice versa?
The answer has to be "neither", of course: regarding their own emotions, the character is right (and sometimes, if it's ambiguous and/or the character's confused, there is simply no answer). You cannot dictate meta-questions of a story's reality-- the sort of stuff that in actual reality, people would argue about because it's subjective. (Ie, 'did he really love her?'-- what possible consensus could there be in any situation like this? He did if he thinks he did, period; he did if he acts like he did also, to a large extent, yes, but then this is in the realm of 'reader's perception of subtext'.)
I'm especially impatient with any attempt by the author to project into a future they hadn't actually written; I won't accept 'he feels like X' or 'X is likely to happen' if this hasn't been shown yet. This is simply ridiculous-- the writer doesn't own every possible permutation of the future for the characters in their universe! I'm sure this is actually why some writers hate fanfic, because they think if they stop people from writing it, they'll actually stop them from thinking it. Uh-uh, no go. People perceive half-formed futures as soon as they have their idiosyncratic reactions to a given character's actions/emotions/etc; in terms of unstated consequences, a given reader will believe what makes sense to them based on life experience-- and this is a necessary part of reading, of bonding with fiction. It is that bit of self-projection that draws one into the world & the characters, that tugs them ever so slightly out of the author's head and into the reader's!
My issue, really, is that I'm perfectly happy with ambiguity. I love it that I can't really -know- that Brian's in love with Justin in QaF (though I think he is, in his own way) or whether Toreth 'more than just needs' Warrick (though I think he does, in his own way). Both of these are self-centered bastards with long-suffering caring boyfriends, and I admit there may be -some- wish-fulfillment in my wanting to look at the bright side as a reader-- but in both cases the romance becomes flat and utterly boring if you categorically answer 'no' (as the writers have in both instances, though the circumstances aren't the same).
What I'm trying to say is, 'Authorial Intent' is useful for understanding, but it cannot-- should not-- attempt to penetrate a reader's heart. In theory, I can accept 'this isn't love'-- objectively, things remain ambiguous. In terms of my own reaction, though, there is no ambiguity-- the bells ring, the numbers add up, my alarms go off-- bingo! I can shout it from the rooftops! I embrace subjectivity, since as a reader, it's become my story and in a very real sense these are my characters 'cause they also live in my head, so. This doesn't mean 'in my head', Draco Malfoy 'really' turns into this svelte angel who wears leather pants (or someone who's about to whisper sweet nothings anytime soon)-- y'know, because he's just... not like that. However, yes, my Draco Malfoy can be obsessed and in denial; my Toreth can be also. Yes. Oh yes. I can make this work with canon, okay.
So bite it. HE'S IN LOVE. :P
mannazone ('The Administration' comm) & I don't want to go into specifics, but it made me think about authorial intent in a slightly different way. The thing is, really, that it's a double-edged sword, isn't it? What I mean is, it is both necessary to understanding (illuminating?) some basic plot-points or developments when utilized in key/minimum amounts and completely poisonous when used to explain away a reader's genuine reactions to what actually did happen. Like, you can use a known case of 'intent' to debunk what I'd call a 'transformative theory'-- one that takes canon and makes it a metaphor for something else, some external symbology. A good example of this is the things Harry/Hermione shippers found in book 3 to support canon H/Hr: those things were just contrary to the point of the given scenes, and you can call upon authorial intent as support of this argument. However, you can only use it to disprove actual conclusions from specific incidents: you can't disprove subtext or ambiguous cues (whether used for H/Hr, Sirius/Remus or even Harry/Draco subtext).
In other words, you can't say 'seeing' Sirius/Remus isn't a valid emotional response to canon cues; you -can- say it's not actually canon. Does that make sense?
Somehow this seems even more important when the author is actually there to argue with you; when they get involved and interact with fandom.
There's a limit there-- you can say what you intended (as the writer), but you can't dictate beyond what the writing itself shows. If, in fact, the writing didn't follow your precise outlined ideas (the meta!story in the writer's head), then it may be bad writing, or it may be the nature of writing itself, but it's not like the meta!story therefore overwrites the actual story experienced by a given reader.
A big part of this is simply a game of definitions; when it comes to talking about a character's emotions especially, we're walking on extremely shaky ground. One person's 'love' isn't another person's 'love'; what the writer may see as 'unacceptable' and 'indicative of moral failure' (or a diagnosable psychiatric disorder), the reader may see as 'tragic' and indicative of a wounded heart that needs healing. Also, what's 'obviously just a sexual thing' for the writer -and- a reader must necessarily be overridden if it's not for the characters as they perceive themselves. Is the reader wrong & the writer right? Vice versa?
The answer has to be "neither", of course: regarding their own emotions, the character is right (and sometimes, if it's ambiguous and/or the character's confused, there is simply no answer). You cannot dictate meta-questions of a story's reality-- the sort of stuff that in actual reality, people would argue about because it's subjective. (Ie, 'did he really love her?'-- what possible consensus could there be in any situation like this? He did if he thinks he did, period; he did if he acts like he did also, to a large extent, yes, but then this is in the realm of 'reader's perception of subtext'.)
I'm especially impatient with any attempt by the author to project into a future they hadn't actually written; I won't accept 'he feels like X' or 'X is likely to happen' if this hasn't been shown yet. This is simply ridiculous-- the writer doesn't own every possible permutation of the future for the characters in their universe! I'm sure this is actually why some writers hate fanfic, because they think if they stop people from writing it, they'll actually stop them from thinking it. Uh-uh, no go. People perceive half-formed futures as soon as they have their idiosyncratic reactions to a given character's actions/emotions/etc; in terms of unstated consequences, a given reader will believe what makes sense to them based on life experience-- and this is a necessary part of reading, of bonding with fiction. It is that bit of self-projection that draws one into the world & the characters, that tugs them ever so slightly out of the author's head and into the reader's!
My issue, really, is that I'm perfectly happy with ambiguity. I love it that I can't really -know- that Brian's in love with Justin in QaF (though I think he is, in his own way) or whether Toreth 'more than just needs' Warrick (though I think he does, in his own way). Both of these are self-centered bastards with long-suffering caring boyfriends, and I admit there may be -some- wish-fulfillment in my wanting to look at the bright side as a reader-- but in both cases the romance becomes flat and utterly boring if you categorically answer 'no' (as the writers have in both instances, though the circumstances aren't the same).
What I'm trying to say is, 'Authorial Intent' is useful for understanding, but it cannot-- should not-- attempt to penetrate a reader's heart. In theory, I can accept 'this isn't love'-- objectively, things remain ambiguous. In terms of my own reaction, though, there is no ambiguity-- the bells ring, the numbers add up, my alarms go off-- bingo! I can shout it from the rooftops! I embrace subjectivity, since as a reader, it's become my story and in a very real sense these are my characters 'cause they also live in my head, so. This doesn't mean 'in my head', Draco Malfoy 'really' turns into this svelte angel who wears leather pants (or someone who's about to whisper sweet nothings anytime soon)-- y'know, because he's just... not like that. However, yes, my Draco Malfoy can be obsessed and in denial; my Toreth can be also. Yes. Oh yes. I can make this work with canon, okay.
So bite it. HE'S IN LOVE. :P
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.
Date: 2006-12-04 04:51 am (UTC)I just wanted to jump in and say that I think I am not so sure that it isn't a semantic argument. It's just that love is more loaded than snowcats, and that when someone says 'empty of snowcats' it is not something that is as meaningful as 'empty of love.' In any event, discussion is impossible w/o agreement on terms.
heh!
Date: 2006-12-04 07:20 am (UTC)I agree that love is more loaded than snowcats, which is why I'd be more careful with how one talks about it (...the contrast was sort of the point? to show why sometimes 'semantics' carry more weight than others). And yeah, discussion is impossible without agreement on terms, which is why I actually found it frustrating, partly. On the other hand, I felt the terms were imposed (as opposed to drawn from the story/characters' behavior), which was especially frustrating even if it's the author doing it. It felt/read like a somewhat unusual but not -that- different of a 'selfish/romantic' love-story, not uncommon for shoujo manga. The mangaka don't say -that's- not love in those contexts, y'know? It would be confusing/weird/wrong if they did, to me.
I don't dispute that deeper meanings can be entrenched in a story, just that the only people who can resolve them would then be the characters (that's why I was talking about the characters deciding if they're in love).
The reason I was perceiving 'selfish love' as valid was because it worked in that story, full stop. I wasn't imposing this dynamic, it was actually there; I wouldn't say it's valid otherwise. I still wouldn't argue it's the 'correct' interpretation if I wasn't seeing the opposite view given authority that is basically transformative in this context. It's probably hard to convince anyone if they didn't read this fic, so all I can say is take my word for it, haha. I'm not saying that either of the characters believe the psychopathic one is 'in love'; he just exhibits all the symptoms [of 'selfish/unhealthy love'] and is in heavy denial. That's why I said things like 'ambiguous' and 'non-standard' and so on.
If one says there is -no- love of -any- sort, this skews the story being discussed, as far as I'm concerned, so that's where it goes beyond semantics. It doesn't -have- to in every case, but because the behavior in question starts out being ambiguous and the character is so twisted/in denial/mildly unusual for the [romantic] role he's given, you wind up having conversations that are irrelevant and make no sense to me with that assumption. Like, 'why is Toreth acting the way he is, given he's not in love'. That whole conversation is impossible if one doesn't agree he's not in -some- kind of love even if he's not in some Greek ideal of love that's being imposed on the narrative. Ummm. Gods, now I feel even more muddled, sorry...
Re: heh!
Date: 2006-12-04 07:41 am (UTC)Okay, yeah, I haven't read it, so I shall cease to discuss specifics. But, saying "there is no love of any sort" to me is more of a commentary on the person's definition of love, so it is a semantic problem that renders discussion impossible.
Re: heh!
Date: 2006-12-04 07:52 am (UTC)Ahh... perhaps you are correct, and saying that -is- a commentary on their definition; because they seem to claim authority (or being more in touch with Authorial Intent), that's why I feel at all compelled to comment. Otherwise it'd be easier to dismiss the possibility of discussion; this way, I have this urge to say 'but I read the same story! I'm seeing what's there!' and so on. People had fruitless discussions like this about Draco in the HP books before HBP, and there were people who saw HBP!Draco coming, so to speak, but there were all these others who pointed to interviews and said 'look, look, she said he's a jerk! he'll never have any more depth than a simple bully!' and so on. So discussion may very well be impossible, but it's still frustrating, which is why I posted here and not on the
Re: heh!
Date: 2006-12-04 07:56 am (UTC)They may be claiming that the author is promoting a definition of love in the story? I don't know, I wasn't able to follow this. But, since the true debate is not over what is there, but what it should be called, it's not really a text issue.
Re: heh!
Date: 2006-12-04 08:03 am (UTC)If in fact the author -was- promoting a definition of love (judging from the central relationship and how it works), it would be the unhealthy/selfish love type, haha, that's the most silly part of it.
Re: Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.
Date: 2006-12-04 07:27 am (UTC)Re: Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.
Date: 2006-12-04 07:46 am (UTC)I guess I would say it's not that it's not about that so much as it's not -just- about that, but this may be difficult to tell if you haven't read the story in question.
Re: Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.
Date: 2006-12-04 07:48 am (UTC)Re: Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.
Date: 2006-12-04 07:54 am (UTC)Re: Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.
Date: 2006-12-04 08:04 am (UTC)Re: Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.
Date: 2006-12-04 08:12 am (UTC)Re: Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.
Date: 2006-12-04 08:24 am (UTC)And honestly because that part is a little confusing? Because on one hand you're saying the semantics don't matter and on the other hand saying that if you don't use this semantic term it fucks up the story in your head, so it's just like... can we clarify that, because it's apparently a rather major inconsistency?
And for the record, I REALLY do not have an all fluff-and-rainbows view of what love is. o_O
Re: Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.
Date: 2006-12-04 08:32 am (UTC)And of course I know you don't, ahaha. Well, neither do I -.- But if a story is fluff-and-rainbows!love, I don't dispute it! I don't go 'this isn't really love' (or something)! Conversely, if a story is dark/unhealthy/selfish!love, I accept -that- as the terms because it's what's... there. I would still accept another person saying 'okay, but that's not love', as long as it's a) not the author, since this gives the meta weight I feel is basically unsupported; b) not leading to a whole slew of unsupported transformations of other aspects of the story......
HOPEFULLY THAT MAKES SENSE :( Although I agree that uh, it's hard to discuss things like 'overwriting emotional reactions'-- I mean, I say that pretty easily but have a hard time narrowing down what I mean logically. Generally people either... 'get it' or... I have a hard time :D