There is no interpretation more important or more correct than the author's intentions.
If you did not understand what they were saying, the fault is on the public, not the author.
Personal interpretation is just that, personal, and is meant to stay personal. You do not get to define what a book says past the words on the pages.
I'm so fucking sick and tired of taking literature courses and having narcissistic millennial retards project their unhealthy need for attention by believing they somehow, as undergrads, as non-writers, as overall blank slates and smooth brains try and say that the author is wrong in what they were writing and the purpose of it.
I fucking hate everyone in my literature courses.
Liam Adams
But if the text doesn't tally with the author's stated intentions, what then?
Nolan Cooper
How do you know what the author intended?
Charles Ward
The words are the tally marks. And if you THINK they are saying something else that they do not use specific literary devices to convey, then you're a fraud like the United States education system, and millennial's and their made up problems.
Samuel Smith
Because I read the book and actually paid attention instead of projecting my own bias on it and complaining about it for fifteen fucking minutes in lecture.
Any conjecture passed the actual words on the page is false, and deserves to be crushed out of society along with the people who are conjecturing.
Benjamin Anderson
Books should have a separate section where the author explains their intention in writing it. This would be especially useful for poetry.
Christian Anderson
More that they are bad writers for failing to get their point across
Jacob Green
ITT: Brainlets
Jayden Cook
>Because I read the book You realise you're actually saying that the meaning resides in the text and not in the author's intentions, right? You're contradicting yourself.
That worked well for Eliot's notes to The Waste Land. So well that Eliot regretted the colossal clusterfuck he caused by including them.
Charles James
Their not failing to get their point across. They wrote precisely as they intended. It's the readers fault for not picking up on it.
Nathaniel Anderson
Wimp wormp wimp wormp blagga blagga blim blam.
Give me the correct, authorial interpretation of this sentence right now or you're a bad reader.
Owen James
>You realise you're actually saying that the meaning resides in the text and not in the author's intentions, right? You're contradicting yourself.
Wrong, retard.
The authors intentions ARE the text. For fucks sake, are you this stupid? If so, do you have to try or is it a natural gift?
Kayden White
The author is expressing his sorrow and disappointment at this thread. Quite poignant, really.
Daniel Lopez
What if he made a typo?
>Bien connaître l’amour il faut sortir de soi ("to know love it is necessary to get out of oneself") >Bien connaître l’amour il faut sortir de soir ("to know love it is necessary to go out in the evening")
Colton Barnes
Loving your circular logic. I wonder how long it will take for you to realize you're actually arguing in favor of literary critique all along.
Henry Thomas
Close, but I was actually complaining about how my black neighbors kept me up all night with their screaming.
John Brooks
If originalism were widely accepted then thousands of useless professors would lose their jobs.
Chase Walker
I would hate to be in a literature course with you. I'm willing to bet your real course hates you too.
If you wanted to, you could have gone and read some Barthes and tried to understand the value of the ideas you're moaning about. Instead you're here, insipidly throwing your cerebral faeces against the wall like the stupid fucking pseud you are.
Are you honestly so thick you can't think of even one reason why looking beyond authorial intent would be a good thing? Not one? Either you're an brain-dead hack who has no idea how to think critically about concepts, or you're the intellectual companion of an inanimate object.
You're a fucking pseud, off yourself.
Julian Lewis
The only psued's are those who think they can grab random ideas out of the air and attribute them to an author, you fucking hack.
I'll circle around you and punch you in the fucking face from 360 degress, rank cunt. I"m obviously not in favor of literary THEOLOGY aka make up bullshit just cuz.
Zachary Davis
Obviously the conjugation of a made up language of two different words.
Probably from some reddit tier YA or SCI-FI.
Adrian Jones
This is true, though the greatest art is made with the least intentions and with the greatest clarity.
Chase Roberts
Something is being eaten
Grayson Young
What if the author isn't trying to SAY anything, but rather give a clear eyed view of a human experience? What if he presents more questions than answers? Like
Jacob Ward
>Any conjecture passed the actual words >passed Illiterate, go home
Carter Butler
t. undergrad who's never read any literary theory
>If you wanted to, you could have gone and read some Barthes and tried to understand the value of the ideas you're moaning about. This.
>The only psued's are those who think they can grab random ideas out of the air and attribute them to an author, you fucking hack. Nobody is "attributing them to the author". You are using the "author's intent" as a way to control and delimit acceptable readings of a text. Just stop.
David Williams
You're exaggerating a bit. If what you say seems to you as true, it would be of everyone's best interest to simply separate interpretive lit from direct lit.
Logan Roberts
Aaaaah can you just go away. You're an idiot and your opinion is an idiot
Adam Reed
Give up lit for the medium far superior, aka music
Aaron Turner
AUTHORS DONT STATE THEIR INTENTIONS THE AUTHOR OF GILGAMESH NEVER STATED HIS INTENTIONS THEREFORE ANY INTERPRETATION OF GILGAMESH MUST BE DERIVED FROM TEXTUAL INTERPRETATION THE AUTHOR AS A PERSON IS A TANGENTIAL ELEMENT TO THE TEXT ITSELF ANY CLAIM MUST BE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IN THE TEXT HOW IS THIS NEW TO YOU?
Ryder Hughes
I usually indentify a theme or a certain dimension and it's attributes from a text, and then view it with irony, flip the precieved meaning and then arrange it arbitrarily. I believe this to be as accurate as any other system of critique, and it sure does entertain me.
Samuel Bailey
Sometimes authors do state their intentions
Dominic Brooks
So you're looking for some form of literary materialism where only rational interpretation subsists to focus on pure meaning. That would work in scientific approaches, but emotion also plays part in esthetic and art. The writer carries meaning but doesn't inherently give meaning because that's on the readers end.
Liam Sanchez
superior gradfag here
ultimately i think most of the fault lies in the instructional/educational structure of how a textual engagement takes place in a modern classroom in comparison to one fifty years ago. in a classical old-timey college the only lesson by way of lecture to be learned stayed closer to authorial intent i.e. what ever social commentary or passive aggressive opinion the author is trying to get off their chest and this was considered gospel. a more modern classroom moves away from that classical approach and is considered more elitist so now the fad is to try and take a piece of literature and cubby hole it into the present by way of allowing students to manipulate it and in a lot of ways pervert it to fit their shallow pleeb point of view. im sure in another fifty years the style will swing back but until then shut the fuck up and deal with it like everyone else.
Lincoln Hughes
>There is no interpretation more important or more correct than the author's intentions. I see your course hasn't covered Modernism yet. Or maybe you just weren't paying attention.
Literature can (and should) be a true art form, like music or painting, with which the observer interacts and draws their own conclusions.
Add Ulysses to your reading list and STFU. You're a student, not a teacher.
Matthew Baker
Your gross inability to spell ITT somehow makes me doubt you're a writer, or read much at all.
Liam Young
>Books should have a separate section where the author explains their intention in writing it. This would be especially useful for poetry. Then why even write the book when you can convey what you want to say in a small text alongside?
Thomas Scott
>Either you're an brain-dead hack who has no idea how to think critically about concepts, or you're the intellectual companion of an inanimate object. kek
Jace Butler
>falling for it this hard
Anthony Cruz
As if you could even get into Uni you incest fuck.
William Adams
The intentions are the words in the story, dumb fuck.
Aiden Carter
You know how tricky that is then? There can be a fuckton of different interpretations, all based on and consistent with one text. Kafka's The Trial can be interpreted as a story about isolation and misunderstanding or a totalitarian regime or an expression of Kafka's problems with the authority or even a Christian parable. What was Kafka's intention? Considering his dislike of explaining his own writing, he'd probably be okay with all of them. You might be pissed at the people who truly just project their own ideas onto a work and I agree that that is a bad habit, but the whole picture is more complicated, even if you just analyze the text you can come to different conclusions and interpretations.
Jose Flores
IT'S NOT TRICKY AT ALL
THEY PUBLISH THE FUCKING SHIT
IT'S RIGHT GODDAMN THERE AS YOU READ.
Ayden Butler
So you're saying that when Kafka describes a man who turned into a bug that is literally everything? The man just turned into a bug? There's no meaning or message whatsoever behind the words "he found himself turned into a bug"?
Ethan Garcia
THAT'S WHY NOBODY IN ACADEMIA IS EVER JUST MAKING THINGS UP EVERY CLAIM MUST HAVE EVIDENCE IN THE TEXT TO BACK IT UP SUSSING OUT THE AUTHOR'S "INTENTIONS" IS BESIDE THE POINT BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS THERE IN THE TEXT
Leo Nguyen
I don't get the point of this. Why would the author need to color-code his story to tell you what's going on? Shouldn't it suffice to show you that the character is depressed through his actions/dialogue?
Jordan Taylor
the example in the pic is stupid and reductive, but using imagery to evoke moods and ideas is a basic literary device that you can find examples of in 3000 year old chinese poetry. It has existed for as long as literature has existed. The people that complain about this are the people who read absolutely no literature.
Luke King
This makes no sense. It seems as if you're saying there's one objective meaning to every text since the author's intention is behind every word and only you can decipher this intention and no one else's interpretation is valid.
We're all confused. We're all half-chuckling and half-pitying you, user. I've called over my entire family and several of my friends to read your posts and they're all shaking their heads in similar confusion and puzzlement.
What made you like this, user? Who hurt you? Are you confused? Have you been drinking again? How old are you? Is it your bedtime yet? Are you allowed to be on this board? and so on.
We're all worried about you, user. It's time to relax.
Brayden Reyes
Reading a text is a personal exchange between the author a reader.
Some writers communicate more clearly to some readers.
Some readers are more impacted by some literary cues than others.
The are bad authors, and there are people who have no business pretending they can understand what they read.
Nolan Murphy
>there is no such thing as a bad writer with good ideas You, sir, are a fucking moron.
Colton Perez
kek
Thomas Williams
Personally, in my opinion, I thin you're wrong.
Parker Wright
user, you are a right, and your quest is holy, but you lack the vocabulary the properly demonstrate your viewpoint. Read more, and starting with the people you hate the most.
I would heavily recommend you to read 'The Death and Return of the Author: Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida' by Sean Burke.
Jose Campbell
right*
Noah Gray
ok, but if Kafka say that he want to talk about her depression in this story,( for example). he is the supreme authoritative figure in the text or you still talking about the infinite perspectives?
Charles Reed
t. Derrida
Charles Rogers
I feel you. Deconstructionism is cancer upon a once great liberal arts education system.
Jace Williams
Yes, instead of teaching people how to think creatively we should just teach them to passively accept one person's idea like a braindead retard.
Parker Miller
There is more than one book.
You fucking millennial cunts and your narcissism. You honestly fucking think you have a right to say that Faulkner was wrong in what he was saying in his books.
Luke Morgan
Yes, I do think anyone has the right to say whatever the fuck they want, true. That's pretty much why I like this website.
Jackson Jones
This is the point. A little reading between the lines is fine, but modern college education takes 'the curtains were blue' and writes a 20 pages MOP on it, btw, no one reads MOPs, but other people planning to write thier own MOP on the subject. It's a huge fucking circle jerk. Intellectual wankfests are the worst. Modern art is bad and you should feel bad. If you have to explain the meaning behind your art piece it's bad. I think the public is finally waking up from thier brainwashing of being told what to like. The major art museum in my city, people spend hours in the europen floors and walk through the 'modern' floor in 10 mintues, and the museum has some super famous 'modern' art peaces
Brayden Wood
>think creatively How does making up wrong interpretations of a book encourage creative thinking? You didn't learn anything about the Great book author , you only learned about the average teachers brain. You go to learn about great writing not the teachers writings
Elijah Peterson
This is the problem
>make the theme blatant so idiots can get it >make the theme obscure so only 1/5th of your readers get it and people need to use sparknotes to understand what the fuck you're talking about
no middle ground
Austin Russell
2deep4u
Lincoln Sullivan
You are a bad writer and not worth interpreting Simple 3deep5me
Jeremiah Collins
>everyone is stupid except me
You must be 18 to post on this site.
Alexander Reed
>if everyone does it then it's smart
You setting a very low bar for those on the really wavy lengths of the autistic spectrum.
James Bell
You are the one that sounds underage. Have you ever had to hear a lecture go on for 20 minutes about one page in a 100+ page book?, and you realize they just made something up, and you realize no one would ever objectively independently come to the same interpretation ever again? Not op btw
Nathan Diaz
It's not about the teachers interpretation, it's about YOUR interpretation.
Sebastian Rogers
I don't follow. What about that?
Nolan Jackson
But can't your interpretation be incorrect?
Adrian Ward
For pointing out OP's infantile rant? Your interpretation is brilliant, m8.
Ethan Ward
...
Benjamin Morris
>everyone itt thread disagreeing with op gets btfo with a comic strip
Charles Howard
Yes, of course. Then comes the discussion. Otherwise what we actually do here on this site? (apart from shitpost, of course). One interpretation is pretty fucking boring if you ask me.
Owen Smith
But there's only one *correct* interpretation?
Evan Turner
I really want to turn in a easy about dick and Jane and gender
Juan Rogers
There are zero correct interpretations.
Cameron Walker
Then why can I understand what you just wrote?
Brayden Wilson
You can create your closest approximation based on the evidence you have, but it is impossible to know with certainty whether or not you are correct.
John Long
I love you. That fag got blow the fuck out hard
Gavin Wood
Not really, that kid is a douchebag.
Ask yourself why you would want that to be the case. I mean, it's like if you piss someone off you can't just tell that person their anger is not there. You'd be arguing against reality, that's insanity. Same as interpretations, ideas. You can say, "well the author didn't intend that," but unless you can offer their intention or your own, pretty boring conversation. If you can offer (what you think) was their intention, them it's still pretty interesting until you're done talking. Then you might as well say what it means to you etc.
I mean, if you're sick of people talking about what they think of the books they read at a literature class, how about you go study history or go the fuck home.
Joseph Cruz
Pathetic. You're equating your own shitty Veeky Forums sentence to a work or literature? No wonder you feel intimidated by other opinions...
Ayden Lee
Fuck off you retarded deconstruct. You people are like the Monty python augment skit where the other guy just game says whatever the other person says. You can do that with /anything/. It's a complete demorailism strategy and is complete cancer to building useful thoughts. God dam I hate deconstructists so much.
Isaiah Smith
>You can do that with /anything/ Yes. Recognizing this makes every idea more useful, not less.
Colton Russell
>can't handle uncertainty Just go back to the bible and take it all literally, redneck
Dylan Rogers
>No wonder you feel intimidated by other opinions... Literally the 2deep4you aurgument
Matthew Davis
There are still other legitimate perspectives, in my opinion.
Thomas Evans
Just because you Gamesay something doesn't make it useful, making everything mean less is a cancer upon this world. Strawman, go back to logic 101 You are 100 years too early to win an aurgument with me
Justin Cook
Why the defensive hostility?
Jonathan Flores
See? A nice, valid interpretation. Not what I had intended, though.
Owen Price
>that kid >not knowing Calving and Hobbes I honestly pity you
Xavier Collins
rekt
Aiden Cooper
Way to ignore the main points of the post. Basically >look, didn't say the name! *runs*
Asher Williams
>A E S T H E T I C S
Landon Campbell
Not knowing nor being able to reach the objective truth makes everything mean more, as any idea might be closer to the truth than your own. When there is objective truth, everything means less, as any idea will either be correct or incorrect.
Daniel Cruz
>Deconstruction doesn't actually mean "demolition;" instead it means "breaking down" >or analyzing something (especially the words in a work of fiction or nonfiction) > to discover its true significance, which is supposedly almost never exactly what the author intended. >which is supposedly almost never exactly what the author intended. >never what the author intended Deconstruction is intellectual cancer. Deal with it. op is right, the author's intentions is the only thing that matters.
Xavier Perry
That's what they want, a mummy and daddy to say flat out right or wrong. Anything else is scawy.
Benjamin Gray
You should recommend everyone read "How to Read a Book" by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doran(1972 revised).
Ryder Walker
No it doesn't, it makes everything meaningless, because you can counter ANY idea with 'but what if...." Strawman. The author intentions matter
Kevin Collins
>omiting the "supposedly almost" which changes the meaning of the sentence so that it fits your ideology