Is death of an author the greatest lie of literary academia?
Is death of an author the greatest lie of literary academia?
Cooper Wood
Other urls found in this thread:
Blake Ramirez
Well it makes sense to me
Jayden Jones
Only if you fall for the pleb misconception of what it means.
Idiots on reddit seem to believe it means analyzing the authors intentions and intellectual mission is now to be avoided which it does not. Rather simply that the author isn't the final authority on the meaning of a text
Matthew Hernandez
>being cucked by the author
Angel Peterson
yes. Authorial intent is literally the only thing that matters. I don't want to hear some ecofeminist's interpretation of Ulysses or TBK and pretend it's on par with what was actually meant
Lucas Peterson
This, desu.
It's become cancerous in its misunderstandings (people think they can interpret literature however they want (especially poetry) and that what the author intended to do is of no consequence).
Death of the author should be a freeing concept, one that says you don't have to just take into account what the author says or thinks about their work, but that there can be more to it than that.
Gabriel Evans
Everything literary academia has put out since postmodernism has become cancer. Honestly, I don't know anymore. Maybe academia was a mistake.
It's all so tiresome.
Sebastian Gonzalez
So how much weight is given to what the author says about their work? What if they say their work means one thing, but the text itself implies otherwise? Shouldn't the author always have the final say regardless?
Oliver Gray
I mean, I'm not saying that authorial intent is the only way to interpret a text, but if there's zero analysis or discussion of authorial intent, like, what the fuck is the point?
Even if an author intended his work to be strictly for entertainment purposes and that there's zero reason other than the they want to make as much money as possible telling that particular story, that's a vital thing to know. And that's acknowledging it's authorial intent, in itself.
What I'm saying is, disregarding authorial intent is impossible. Is it not?
Evan Scott
yes and no. it is true that you can ignore the author and enjoy the story in your way, it is possible that author himself has no idea what he was talking about so he could not really give you the true interpretation beyond "I was not thinking about it that much". you can enjoy the story without the author but it is your head canon and not a legit interpretation. you can have a head canon accepted by a large group but it has less of a chance of becoming the one truth than linguistic changes being forced by shift in meaning