Do you guys care about authorial intent? Is there an author?

Believing there is an author who willfully produced what you think you're reading, is like believing there's an all-knowing psychoanalyst that actually understand the chaos you are. It's exciting bullshit, we need it.

Words are a tool of communications. It's impossible to read something and derive meaning from it without inferring some authorial intent. There's nothing wrong with embracing interpretations that ignore or defy authorial intent (aka headcanons, whether they're literal or thematic) and I don't think determining intent is the end-all be-all of criticism, but to really understand a work you have to understand why it is the way it is, why the author made it that way. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to know all kinds of shit about the author's life, in most works just studying the text and paying attention is enough without such specific context, although it can help. Also it's worth mentioning that often times ambiguity if part of the author's intent.

>Also it's worth mentioning that often times ambiguity if part of the author's intent.
*is part

"Why can't writers be right?" I asked them. "Like, why can't we comment on our own works?"

"John, sit."

"But why?" I asked. "I mean seriously: How did the authorial intent get scrambled in with relativistic postmodernism? You can write on your blog without anyone freaking out. But the moment you drop by a seminar, on your own book, boom, it's a problem."

"John, you're last person to give commentary, not just on yours, but anyones work."

"Oh well then, you read the Death of the Author once then-"

"The Death of the Author?"

"Yeah you know like Roland Barthes."

"Rolling Baths? I am afraid you're not making any sense, John."

"No!" I told him. "It's a punon Le Morte D'Arthur. Yeah, but I bet you knew that. But what you didn't know, was that actually, it was ghostwritten. I mean seriously, how can you write that authors are dead and still write the book!"

"John, just leave."

I never understood the death of the author meme. The author is an inherent part of the text, and suppressing the human element from a narrative (in the context of a critical analysis) means the critic is committed to an alien meta-theory that has yet to show its consistency.

I don't go as far as say it's useless to disregard the author-as-an-entity. It can enrich an analysis to some extent, but that's just a device in literary scholarship. You can't forget you're disregarding the author for a specific purpose and then announce the death of the author.

I'm just babbling and for that I am sorry.

You remind me of DFW, because you apologize for "babbling". Lol

There is a commonality of experience, meaning can be conveyed as intended, intent exists, and those who intend exist. Post-modernist are a plague who have and will continue to set back all the arts for years to come.

>authorial intent
look up new criticism and stop using those words

"Commonality of experience"
Lol. I'm a solipsist, checkmate.

How does anything else matter but authorial intent? If you're not trying to figure that out you're just making shit up.

Most people interpret the book as being about censorship, whereas the author's intent was to write about a future where books become obsolete due to television.

In the book, however, so much attention was focused on minorities, so the this dystopian future was the result of books being banned based on offensive content.

The majority interpretation, in my opinion, is much more interesting, not to mention very relevant to contemporary publishing (ie, publishers are hiring "sensitivity readers" to flag out "potentially offensive" content.

There's nothing wrong with discussing intent as well as your own interpretation.

Authorial intent matters, but I probably just say that to keep control over the interpretations of my wrritigns

>the author's intent was to write about a future where books become obsolete due to television
I thought his intent was to show a future where people didn't want to think or feel anymore, and tv was just one symptom of that. I don't think he fucked up his execution at all.

>solipsist
>not a troll
pick one

The Jungle

Written to show immigrants were being mistreated.

Majority of readers thought the book was about how disgusting the standards were for the meat industry (or lack there of).

Of course the majority of readers were likely not immigrants and probably racist, so they didn't focus on the 90% of the book where the immigrants are abused by people like them and focused on the first 10% where they are told their meat is covered in rat shit and disembodied human parts.

An author's name on the front of a book may be a sign of quality, but other than that, I don't gice a damn about who wrote it or why.

>solipsist
>not a victim of the only troll around

>french philosophy

into le trash

It's a French jew, nonetheless. So it is even more anti-human and anti-Logos than usually.

Did you post the wrong video or something? That has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Yes it does.

Daily reminder that postmodernism was a blatant attempt by French communists to excuse themselves from owning up their support for Stalinist crimes.

>"if the author is dead, you can't accuse me of supporting a regime that killed millions of innocents"

Sure, that was one of his intents. Either way, the "criticism" interpretation spoke more loudly

>Are you asking if there are people who write books?
No, he clearly asked if there is an author.

(((They))) don't have any parent country besides Israel.

I like to acknowledge authorial intent if the author's intended perspective is better than all the other interpretations by critics.

You sound like you're straight out of /v/ or Reddit, go back.

>suppressing the human element
Holy fuck

no u